How ScriptShadow hurts screenwriters, cont’d
The comment thread on my earlier post has mostly focussed on intellectual property and “fairness,” with one good Nabisco analogy rising above the rest.
Lost in the discussion is that I never insisted ScriptShadow be shut down, but rather pushed it to stay true to its stated mission. ScriptShadow’s many defenders see the site as an invaluable resource for aspiring writers.
So far, few of them have addressed my two proposed changes:
- Review screenplays of movies once they’ve come out.
- Ask the writers before posting reviews of unproduced scripts.
“Carson” doesn’t review scripts after the movie has come out. Why not? If the purpose of his site is to celebrate writers and acquaint newbies with the craft, isn’t that in fact a more valuable exercise, showing how the words on the page translate to the screen?
I think we all know why he doesn’t want to review existing movies: he’d lose the buzz that comes with having the first opinion. It’s part of the reason we want to go to movies on opening weekend, or stand for hours in the Sundance snow to see a movie we wouldn’t walk across the street to see in March.
I’m not faulting him for human nature, but rather disingenuousness. It’s cool to be first. But don’t claim that being first on reviewing an old draft of Supermax is somehow improving the world for screenwriters.
The second point, asking writers before posting reviews, is an acknowledgement that some unproduced/unsold writers benefit from exposure.
Would they benefit less if Carson asked first? No.
There are many great scripts that never get produced, just as there are many great books that never get published. If Carson truly wants to shine a spotlight on these unheralded gems, he should have the courtesy to ask the writer first, rather than review whatever random draft he comes across. For all he knows, he’s reading the version written for the executive who insisted on heavy voiceover, “Y’know, so the audience will know what he’s thinking.”
On the point that ScriptShadow is letting readers outside Hollywood read screenplays: Google “title of the movie” screenplay. If the first page doesn’t have a direct link, another minute of searching will find huge libraries. Reading these scripts to actual films that got made will serve any aspiring writer much better than the second draft of a vampire dog thriller in development at Lionsgate.
Carson Reeves emailed this afternoon, asking that I remove his real name from the comments. I did so with the hope that he’ll address some of the concerns raised.
Articles
December 8th, 2009 at 6:04 pm
the post was made on the DoneDeal websight. http://messageboard.donedealpro.com/boards/showthread.php?t=52023&page=14. if its true what a horror:
[Text removed -- if the author wants it here, he or she can do it.]
December 8th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
After reading Working Writer’s comment, I must admit, the idea that ScriptShadow hurts even one writer is a BAD thing. No amount of ‘good’ from SS can fix what’s happened to the Working Writer. None.
I used the site to be buds, talk writing, and get excited about properties I wouldn’t have otherwise cared about… never to take my dick out and piss on anything.
I’m Canadian, lived in LA — whoo, the parties — but want to make a professional life for myself in Montreal or Toronto. ScriptShadow was a place to plug-in to the Hollywood scene… never thought it would hurt anyone. Sorry for your troubles Working Writer. Stay tuff.
December 8th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
You’re completely right that a lot of the reason people read these scripts is to feel like they were the first to know about it. Gone are those days with the internet around, though. Also, there’s little merit in reviewing an unfinished draft of a screenplay. It’s like reviewing a draft of a book, or the first cut of a film. The review exists solely to that one draft. I believe that Carson sees it that way, but most people reading the site aren’t thinking about it as a single draft, they’re thinking about it as The Product.
John, one problem is that there’s no way to keep this under control. As you said, Google a screenplay, you’ll find it. Studio execs will have to learn to accept, because it’s not changing. If the people want it, the internet produces it. They can cease and desist the hell out of these websites, but new ones will pop up. But to be honest, it doesn’t change anything on the movie-watchers end. Most people who want to watch movies don’t want to read the screenplay. And the kind of people who aren’t screenwriters who will spend the time reading the screenplay are more than likely the type of people to watch the movie in theaters, over and over and over.
I think screenwriters are in for a rough time, as you were saying, no matter what. That is, until studio execs realize that this doesn’t affect anything. That they’re the only ones causing the problem.
December 8th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
I think your changes are smart and would actually help the site be better.
Point #1 makes more sense as you (hopefully) get the best draft possible and can compare to how the movie came out.
I don’t understand the point of someone reading a script that may be in its second or third draft on a movie that may not actually get made. It could be great but if you are learning there are many many great scripts from the past to learn from that have been vouched by professionals.
Point #2 makes sense. Having a “email me if you’re unhappy” link is reactive, putting the onus on a screenwriter that might not even know about ScriptShadow. Asking permission is the polite thing to do (and I suspect legal one).
Thanks for the post and discussion. Sorry some of the other commenters pooped on your carpet.
December 8th, 2009 at 6:25 pm
I don’t think Carson’s motives are quite as mercenary as you suggest; but I agree with much else of what you’ve said in this second post.
There’s nothing wrong with at least notifying writers he’s going to review their scripts. And I’m glad the emphasis is on notifying the writer, not the damn studio or production company or development execs or whatever.
I also agree that the site should review scripts after films are released, which would be in keeping with the value of treating scripts as standalone works deserving of respect and analysis. I’ve written in to him myself suggesting that the scope of the reviews broaden to include more fabled, unproduced scripts, scripts from the Studio era (i.e. the 1930s to the 1960s), early alternate drafts of produced and released films, ect.
But honestly, if the writer has to worry about, to use John’s example, the “idiot exec / heavy VO” draft, and getting blamed for it–doesn’t that just reflect how screwed up the development process really is? And that maybe we should be exposing that? I mean, what is this? Why have we gotten to the point where executives are allowed to be basically uncredited collaboraters? If they’re gonna suggest creative or technical changes, they should have to put their names on the scripts and be held in account as co-creaters, not have some writer do it and then make them take all the blame (or get away with all the praise, I guess).
December 8th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
Both valid, worthwhile points, John. And certainly “Carson” has a responsibility, with the readership he’s accrued, to choose the projects he reviews carefully — seeking out the latest draft of that project whenever possible, for instance. Although asking every writer’s permission to review their script isn’t really feasible, at the very least he should consider posting the titles of the scripts he intends to review 48 hours or so before he does it, and if any participating party objects to the review then he should refrain from posting it.
However, that doesn’t change the fact that we writers also have a responsibility here, which is to understand that the increased availability of screenplays potentially means an increased audience for screenplays — and that doesn’t necessarily have to be a bad thing.
December 8th, 2009 at 6:33 pm
@ Grimace
I was friends with Carson before he was SS and he encouraged me to start MSP so I’m not sure if it is a “knock off.” I’m definitely a lot more informal and conversational like. I love my fans too, chat with some of them everyday.
I never said it was okay to steal. I guess we could just take down all the links to all the unproduced stuff and let you guys sift through movies already made.
So would the legal thing to do be: Read and review the scripts ourselves with only our thoughts on the script and we leave out a plot synopsis and then don’t post the link. Would that then be just considered freedom of speech? I’d be up for it I mean I’m not here to upstage anyone.
I realize you can’t please everyone but I’d like to try if I can.
December 8th, 2009 at 6:40 pm
There’s two things I’ve been thinking about, John, that bother me about this Script Shadow debacle:
A) I thought you’d highlight that this isn’t even coverage he’s doing. Or even very decent story analysis. It’s this super idiosyncratic form of review that totally misses the point of a lot of the scripts. So it’s nowhere near empirical (as much as reviews can be) but is more like a hyper biased rant about something that’s still in an embryonic state.
B) It’s good that you’re “calling him out” (wc? Clarifying his objective?) But this is going to have the adverse affect of just attracting more people.
December 8th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
What does MSP stand for? I’m not kidding, I want to check the site out. If it’s half as good as ScriptShadow, then two good things I’ve learned today.
December 8th, 2009 at 6:46 pm
This is really getting out of hand on some of the other forums. Who are these guys at Done Deal Pro. Are they all MODS? Where do they find time to write some much replies. I bet some of the MODS have a least five other names they go by. Is this a promotion gimmick for Done Deal Pro Corporation?
The process of filmmaking is so labour-intensive and is based on taking risks. We don’t have time to waste reading Script Reviews. You expect a director or producer to read a Script Reviews! Why? For what reason? They know what they want and how to get and make it.
Listen up. Filmmakers and producers are not reading Script Shadow.
From my experience once a director or a producer attaches emotionally and financially to a script, it doesn’t matter what the Script Reviewers or others say….
These script reviews – so forgettable and really, with due respect, irrelevant to the film business.
December 8th, 2009 at 6:49 pm
I really hope John stays on this. “Reeves” needs to respond but based off his Twitter he isn’t going to. He clearly knows what he is doing is wrong and self-serving.
John’s suggestions are great but don’t advance “Reeve’s” stated goal of getting “more readers”, not helping writers. John is giving this guy too much credit. I hope to be proven wrong though.
Also, it’s pointless to keep hiding this guy’s real name. It’s been cached on Google and to be honest he shouldn’t be able to hide behind a pseudonym if he thinks what he is doing isn’t shameful.
December 8th, 2009 at 6:58 pm
Wait. Hold on. Carson claimed right of privacy while just ignoring copyright? Nice when you can pick and choose the laws to observe.
December 8th, 2009 at 6:58 pm
@Veronica - Harsh! Did Carson back over your cat or something? I’m sure he didn’t mean to (and in all fairness it was a pretty ugly cat).
December 8th, 2009 at 6:59 pm
If you Google “‘title of the movie’ screenplay,” the IMDB for Spy Game is the first hit.
JohnAugust.com is fourth. And I’m the first commenter to make that joke. Sigh. My life.
December 8th, 2009 at 7:02 pm
@ Kristy at MSP,
That’s very kind of you. :) You have my thanks even if I’m alone on that.
December 8th, 2009 at 7:09 pm
@bn I’m pretty sure he backed over my cat intentionally just to further his cat murder website. But seriously. I wasn’t that harsh and his reaction to John’s post is pretty telling as to his actual intentions with ScriptShadow.
December 8th, 2009 at 7:12 pm
Okay, I’ve read the incredible number of posts on the various websites and I’ve gotta say that this is getting out of hand.
One guy on the Done Deal board says that Carson ruined a deal for him because Carson posted the writer’s script on Scriptshadow. The producers got skittish because of the negative reaction to the script and abandoned the project.
If that’s the case, THANK YOU “CARSON!” Why? Because there are too many movies today that totally and absolutely suck and should have never even gotten past the readers and put into development.
If the script (and project) was so easily torpedoed by some dude on the internet with a blog, then it DESERVES to fade into obscurity.
Look at Rotten Tomatoes. The site is a literal GRAVEYARD of horrible movies that have come out this year. I read that upwards 77% of movies released this year failed to reach their target audience. Obviously the old method of buying screenplays based upon premise/high concept (alone) and then trying to fix those screenplays, ain’t working.
Everyone in Hollywood already does what Carson is doing. The only difference is that Carson is letting the unwashed masses view some of the very nasty mess that goes on behind the scenes.
Look at what happened to “Wolverine” earlier this year. The script was leaked a long time ago and got very negative reviews all up and down on the internet. Did the producers rewrite the script and make it better? Did they fix things while they were at the easiest stage to fix the problems? No. They just went with it and slightly tweaked the ending because it tested so poorly (and was leaked on the internet as well.)
There are numerous PAY tracking sites out there that are doing the same thing as Carson is doing, and making good money at it.
The only problem I would see is if Carson posted a script that has not been put “on the market” yet, and posted it without the author’s permission. OR if the script is a sequel to an existing property. Otherwise it is meaningless; it’s just words on paper. (Well most likely just PDF files on a flash drive)
The few scripts that are actually WORTH something, the really good scripts, you never see usually until much, much later in the process. I read that even Michael Caine was given only his lines for “Batman” on the day of the shoot. Sir Michael Caine only got his lines! That’s just crazy.
December 8th, 2009 at 7:21 pm
@ Jamie Linden,
Yeah. True enough. – I’m pretty dramatic. – He’ll from 50 feet away I’m pretty dramatic. But no. I don’t expose my screenplays to Hollywood at large for evaluation. – That’s not really a good method for me. – But more power to the ones who do, ya know.? – Them are some turbulent seas.
December 8th, 2009 at 7:25 pm
All other copyright/morality/development/writers’ existences issues aside, the problem with the proposal to only ‘Review screenplays of movies once they’ve come out’ is that ignores the attraction of finding out exactly what people are excited about and in some cases buying – not what’s been proven through brilliant execution of a screenplay, well-written or otherwise.
Reading any screenplay has merit, but this proposal perhaps has more for directors to see how words translate to screen than aspiring writers, who want to see what people who get them there are aroused by.
And for what it’s worth, I’m with Racicot.
December 8th, 2009 at 7:25 pm
errr…’with Racicot’ meaning, ‘of the same opinion’.
December 8th, 2009 at 7:28 pm
John, would you care to comment how this differs from your comments about illegal downloading of movies? It seems like you’re willing to wax prolific on both sides of the argument when there might be some benefit to you. And indeed, your comments about downloading pointed out some of the benefits and detriments to the existence of torrents.
But here, when it doesn’t seem like there’s much benefit to John August, your comments narrow towards arguments… that benefit John August.
You write: I think we all know why [Carson] doesn’t want to review existing movies: he’d lose the buzz that comes with having the first opinion… I’m not faulting him for human nature, but rather disingenuousness. It’s cool to be first. But don’t claim that being first on reviewing an old draft of Supermax is somehow improving the world for screenwriters.
Well, I think if it’s okay to claim we know Carson’s motivations, then I’d say your motivations when you publicized your movie being on BitTorrent were similarly disingenuous. I think you wanted people to see your movie which not many people paid to do. And when it served you to say it’s not hard to find The Nines online. And won’t think less of you. Probably. then you did so.
I don’t think we should be calling you or Carson disingenuous quite so fast. Clearly there is a lot of interest in Carson’s site. Maybe some people want to read Supermax first. Maybe some people are interested in the craft. But I think you should give the same care to balance your arguments as you did when you thought walking a fine line might be in your best interest.
December 8th, 2009 at 7:30 pm
I agree with John. Carson’s reasoning and justification for his review-blog is to “allow outsiders and access to Hollywood scripts” – but outsiders are not meant to have access. This goes against how the industry works. Scripts for major franchises and tent-poles are exclusive to industry people for a very good reason.
I have it on good authority that ScriptShadow is now only reviewing older, released movie scripts because the studios hammered him with C&D notices on all the development specs he was criticizing.
The quicker this site get’s taken down, the better.
December 8th, 2009 at 7:33 pm
“Look at Rotten Tomatoes. The site is a literal GRAVEYARD of horrible movies that have come out this year. I read that upwards 77% of movies released this year failed to reach their target audience. Obviously the old method of buying screenplays based upon premise/high concept (alone) and then trying to fix those screenplays, ain’t working.”
Huh? It’s a record year at the box office. Most movies fail to make money every year – the winners more than make up for the losers. It’s the business model – and it’s the business model with every industry that introduces all new products every year.
December 8th, 2009 at 7:35 pm
Jaime:
“Although asking every writer’s permission to review their script isn’t really feasible…”
Huh? In what way could it possibly be not feasible? Because it might result in the world being deprived of a few more script reviews by “Carson Reeves”? The horror. If he really truly is trying to help writers, it seems to me that getting their permission is very least he can do. Otherwise, just drop the pretense and get on with it.
December 8th, 2009 at 7:35 pm
Has it really been 10 years since your movie GO came out? Damn, it doesn’t seem like that long.
There are two reasons I would have for not wanting one of my scripts to end up on ScriptShadow. Several years ago, a big name in Hollywood told me that he was mad at me. First thing that ran through my head was that any hope I had for a career in Hollywood was gone. It turns out he was funning me, because a scene in my script made his daughter cry. He then went on to tell me that one scene was “magical”, but the rest of the script needed some real work.
Guess what happens if that script ends up on Scriptshadow? My “magical” scene ends up being copied 800 times by every writer trying to write a “magical” scene. Then that scene gets put into some piece of crap that makes it into production on television or the big screen before my script. Then my “magical” scene is nothing but a repeat of what was already done in some piece of crap and also has been incorporated into a dozen scripts that are floating about.
The second reason is because the screenplay is MINE. I own the thing and spent many months or years writing it. How does Carson Reeves, a pseudonym, even know that I want something I own posted upon the internet? Would he even tell me his real name after posting my script, so I could come visit him to show my appreciation? Probably not. So if one of my scripts does end up on “Carson’s” little website, I’ll look him up and take care of business in a more personal manner. “Carson” can do whatever he wants with someone else’s property, but not mine…never.
December 8th, 2009 at 7:44 pm
@Neil John Brimelow
How would you feel if undated drafts of your hard work (VAGUELAND and WAVELAND) were publically reviewed, potentially killing your chances of landing rep or development deals with them?
Would you be okay with other writers lowballing you like that?
December 8th, 2009 at 7:45 pm
Oh, goody. Death threats.
December 8th, 2009 at 7:47 pm
To continue my first point. Aspiring and amateur screenwriters copy way too much. I’ve read way too many scripts with scenes lifted directly from popular films. What the heck do I want with the same aspiring screenwriters to lift, consciously or ’subconsciously’, scenes, storyline or plot from MY script? No thanks, Carson.
December 8th, 2009 at 7:53 pm
Why are we saying Carson should get permission from the writer? Which writer? The one who did the latest revisions, or the one who did the version before, or the one who wrote the original spec? They all have a legitimate claim on authorship. What about the actual copyright holder?
I think the only ethical and legal option for providing copyrighted screenplays for download is if Carson has permission from the copyright owner. In the case of an unsold spec, that would be the writer. In the case of a project at a studio, that would be the studio.
December 8th, 2009 at 7:55 pm
@ S,
John wrote and directed The Nines… then tolerated its distribution after it was complete. – I.E. He had the writer’s permission. – So actually, they’re completely dissimilar, and John met both of his own criteria. – He both obtained permission, and waited until it was done.
So not only was it not hypocritical, but totally kosher, and with the announcement that he wanted to allow use of the rest of his footage for the rest of us (including class at USC) to use as a tool for creating alternate versions… it became the very definition of Educational as well. – So really, I’m not finding even a glimmer of a common factor in this.
December 8th, 2009 at 7:59 pm
I don’t understand how the idea that Scriptshadow could prevent a “bad script” from being made is a pro, because at the end of the day I don’t know who Carson is and why he deserves that authority.
Aside from the fact that people have different tastes, scripts and movies are very complicated beasts. A review of a script should focus more on the writer’s ability and execution than on the plot points. Tanking a script because of a horrible plot (which many many online reviewers do) can damage the value of the material as an example of the writer’s ability. Too often these reviews become disagreements over the plot itself because that’s what the person doesn’t like and that’s fine.
But in our new culture, it’s very easy for these people to become empowered and when we’re letting “nameless” people’s single opinion become yet another barrier of entry in an already enclosed system…
Harry Knowles became Harry Knowles because people lifted the site up and when you have enough people in your echo chamber others take notice.
It’s the same thing here. But, at least, Knowles never represented himself as doing what he was doing for educational reasons and then leaving out most of the education.
December 8th, 2009 at 8:04 pm
I completely understand and sympathize with the argument that leaking unproduced studio scripts online help young writers. While I don’t agree with it, I do understand the logic. However, I fail to see ANY altruistic reason someone under a pseudonym needs to “review” these scripts on his site. His reviews aren’t helping anyone, not the neophytes, wannabes or the pros.
December 8th, 2009 at 8:05 pm
I am an aspiring screenwriter. I also am a screenplay reader.
I can say, after several months subscribing to Script Shadow on an RSS feed, that I have gotten absolutely nothing out of the experience. I unsubscribed from it today, after reading this and reflecting that I rarely even read anything on it because it just frankly wasn’t helping, even a little.
I subscribe to a few other screenplay blogs that offer the screenplays to currently released films, or older ones. But always produced screenplays that have been released and are easily available. I have found absolutely no trouble, whatsoever, when it comes to finding quality screenplays to learn from.
And between all those sources for screenplays that I have, I read more than enough bad scripts so I don’t particularly need another source for those.
The reviews are not really informative, or easy for me to read. I find them rather dry and uninteresting, and usually skim them if anything.
So the only benefit that this site could have to me would be if it brought attention to my screenplay and magically got me a deal in Hollywood. But considering that my current screenplay is in a rough stage and I am not ready to show it to anyone until another rewrite is completed, it would be like showing someone a half finished painting and hanging all of your hopes and dreams on them being able to figure out what you meant to do with the rest of it. I want my words to speak for me, not a dream of what my words could be.
I feel that these concessions you ask for are reasonable, and could only serve to improve the site. I think that even if he only reviewed screenplays submitted to him and released to him without seeking out new ones, he would have more than enough material. But the site does seem concerned with finding “the next big thing” or older scripts by hot names, rather than creating buzz for undiscovered writers. I’ve not seen the site really fulfill that promise.
Which is a shame, it’s not a half bad idea. But if the site is causing the harm you described in your previous post, then that’s a very bad thing. It’s a simple fix, he should do it.
December 8th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
If anyone out there thinks that you or I am paranoid about theft of intellectual property, I’ll paraphrase what a big name in Hollywood told me. “There’s a Starbucks right down the street full of people who would do it.”
December 8th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
Besides your recent problems with executives, Michael Gilvary’s comment was also disturbing. It seems that a professional’s attitude may be at odds with an aspirant’s. Gilvary’s comment suggests to me that a ScriptShadow review adds another unwanted layer of doubt (or two) about his work. A bad review might actually hurt his and other professionals’ chances of getting their screenplays made into movies, and it is also bad for his own morale. Also, I know there’s something wrong when even you start to get flak from executives regarding the security of a script.
However, as an aspirant, I would want as many people as possible to read and comment on my script. Besides getting some helpful comments, I would get noticed! I pretty much believe that most people reading ScriptShadow think their opinions (if they do anything at all) are supposed to help, not hurt, since they are aspirants.
I cannot buy the argument that leaking a script and giving away its plot details would jeopardize its potential box office. If you look at the comments sections on ScriptShadow, you will see many familiar names; most are aspirant screenwriters. As an aspirant screenwriter, what I want to see regarding the craft is exactly those scripts that generate interest, the best of the best. I don’t think I’m entitled to them, but I’m glad there’s an opportunity to read some of the latest work.
I’ve downloaded screenplay’s from the scriptorama site, but every one of them was one that I had seen before, and my favorite among them is filled with dated conventions. I’d rather read something new that would hook me and not let me off the hook until it was finished. And since I’m lazy, the review helps me pick something I like. Carson’s reviews are more representative about the content than Amazon.com reviews.
Even so, I avoided downloading any of Sriptshadow’s scripts until a few weeks ago. I read some and was extremely impressed. One was great! If they are a good reflection of the quality of scripts that ScriptShadow has reviewed, I can only hope that more of them get made into movies.
It also seems that the readers of the blog have had a positive effect of their own. One of the scripts was apparently greenlit after readers picked it as being one of the best. What is clear about that script is that it lived in the shadows of movies that had already got made. So even though it was much better than the most recent movie like it, that likeness was working against it; a sequel is in the works. So dare I say that the readers’ collective thumbs up was just what was needed to get this excellent story made into a movie?
People talk of there being a studio system in Hollywood. A studio system that caters to franchises, action figures, and the lowest common denominator of adolescent bad taste, a studio system that caters to a mostly foreign audience who want for their yen or yuan relentless action, explosions, and actors screaming their lines in simple English (sure they want smart movies too, but they can get those in their own language). As an adult these days, going to the movies for me is more like teaching a class of unruly middle school students than an enjoyment: I look at the screen and wish I could yell cut and do another take.
One thing for sure is that the studio system is incredibly bad at making good movies (although they do from time to time). The business oriented mindset is proven wrong, wrong, wrong! A viral mindset of people with a common goal other than profit and who that can exploit various public and private information might make better choices. For what it’s worth, I thought ScriptShadow might be the beginning of something like that.
December 8th, 2009 at 8:18 pm
“Huh? It’s a record year at the box office. Most movies fail to make money every year – the winners more than make up for the losers. It’s the business model – and it’s the business model with every industry that introduces all new products every year.”
Yes, in spite of piracy and competition from every possible angle, the industry did have a record year. This does not mean that even the breakout hits were any good. Transformers 2 was an utter failure as a film, yet raked in close to a Billion BO.
Why does the business model have to include making really crappy movies? Why does the ratio have to be 90% crappy to 10% good? I understand that most movies are simply popcorn entertainment, I’m not talking about those, I’m talking about the majority of BAD movies that came out this year; movies whose half life is measured in weeks.
December 8th, 2009 at 8:22 pm
Synthian,
You’re just giving John’s arguments back to me. I know John’s arguments.
What you’re not seeing is:
You: Using John’s stated reasons to explain why he promoted the existence of his movie on BitTorent.
John: Calling Carson disingenuous and ignoring his stated reasons for operating ScriptShadow and saying here are Carson’s real motivations.
Me: Saying wait a second, John. I think your motivation for promoting your movie on BitTorrent was very few people saw it. And when it benefited you, suddenly illegal downloading was an argument with two sides.
Me: Saying this is an argument with two sides.
Me: Saying let’s not get into people’s motivations because we don’t know that. I don’t know why John wrote about his movie on BitTorrent. And we don’t know why Carson runs his site. And that’s an error in John’s argument to mix his stated reasons (call them apples) with what he thinks Carson’s motivations are (call them oranges).
As beneficial as Carson’s site is, I don’t think he is on firm legal footing. In fact, he’s in quicksand. Further, as much as John owns his movie The Nines, he also made agreements with distributors and his willingness to look the other way at downloading… also not on good legal footing.
I think my argument is that some of John and Carson’s arguments are self-serving. And I’d like to see John, who can out argue any of us, give a more sincere effort to pointing out the benefits of Carson’s site, in the same way he found some benefits to illegal downloading.
December 8th, 2009 at 8:28 pm
“Why does the business model have to include making really crappy movies? Why does the ratio have to be 90% crappy to 10% good?”
That’s easy. Nobody knows anything.
December 8th, 2009 at 8:47 pm
wait, let’s be clear here.
SCRIPTSHADOW has every right to write and review scripts, no matter how he obtained them.
PERIOD.
If he obtained them illegally, or even stole them from Steven Spielberg’s beach house, that doesn’t keep him from WRITING A REVIEW.
HE DOES NOT have the right to post copyrighted PDF files, and apparently, he takes them down when asked.
so you cannot kill his site_you can only kill his pdf downloads.
And because he’s a relative neophyte, it would seem that the pdf downloads are a big part of his site.
Lost in all this is the BLACKMARKET OF SCRIPT TRADING that is rampant at sites like Done Deal. The ‘leaders’ of this are glorified as deities, and they upload to some third-party site. I don’t see them taking any heat. But they’ll upload fresh scripts, just like scriptshadow.
THAT SAID, i think this guy has a moral obligation not to hurt the screenwriters that he seeks to help.
And as suggested, he should work with the professional screenwriters and not against them.
He can do this by asking permission FOR SCRIPTS THAT ARE IN PRODUCTION, OR PRE-PRODUCTION.
If a movie has come out, then he wouldn’t ask for permission. Ebert doesn’t ask for permission to review a movie.
FINALLY,
I bet dollars to donuts that the story of the production gone haywire from Done Deal is a planted story.
If you believe that account_that an infant site, Scriptshadow, torpedoed a production_then you’re smokin’ some good stuff.
On the tiny chance it’s real it’s embellished.
December 8th, 2009 at 8:53 pm
Just got in from work and see this. John originally has a valid point, as far as the lock down mentality goes. Past that though I can’t go along.
Specifically on the two points John wishes addressed; with him on the latter not on the former. There is literally no point in being just another movie review blog. SS has a legitimate angle on a very specific corner of the industry. By the logic used Deadline should be barred from mentioning rumors of executive shake-ups because it might hamper a disassociated exec’s contract negotiations. The stated goal is to review and discuss unreleased projects. A large majority are in development or in production, which means they’ve already sold. I want to agree on the permission, but as soon as there is the slightest request Carson pulls down scripts or reviews. The legality of the linked script is not in question, obviously there are copyright issues. But to say the validity of the review can be called into question makes no sense. A director has a problem with Ebert’s review that’s the director’s deal not Roger’s. Carson (or anyone) can have an opinion on a work in front of him (early draft shooting script it doesn’t matter), and that’s all it is.
I’ve tried to read all the comments, granted I skimmed a few. A couple points stick out to me.
There is a lot of crowing about the copyright issue, and as I said it’s valid. Now being valid, everyone up in arms about SS on this point have to wholly disagree with John in the original post in regards to the notion that interns and the lower rungs in Hollywood be allowed free access to these materials. Running logic out here if I work for Appian Way I get to look at the Akira script (since I’m part of the company), but it would be illegal to check out Summit’s slate of scripts. If SS is wrong then it is equally wrong that Joel Silver’s aspiring writer assistant gets to read everything in town. I say this as someone who doesn’t live in Hollywood or CA. And with the economy as it is doesn’t plan to leave my current job that allows me time to work on my writing. Without SS and the few others like it I’d be on the outside reading The Dark Knight (or John’s scripts hosted here) over and over. Saying ‘the interns get to, but not you buddy’ can’t be a reasonable response to the issue.
A second point is more of a question for Working Writer. In the one post you say that you sold your script and are hamstrung because it’s on lock down. I’m sorry, I can’t imagine the frustration. Later though you say that SS reviewed your script and that it was an early draft. My question then; is the draft he reviewed earlier than the draft that sold? If not then I’m going to call the review legit. If he reviewed the one that sold and now your four more down the line I don’t care, I want to know the quality that is selling.
Working Writer also makes the point about chasing trends, and I agree it’s a bad idea. But I, like a lot of us, was on script-o-rama years ago reading everything in txt files. It was a great tool. But I want to know what is current with style, pacing, and just the general feel of scripts on the market today. I don’t want to rip them off I just want to know what is going on now. And having that information I can tailor my script to what I think the trends going forward are.
Regardless I’ll continue to read every new post from both John here and ScriptShadow, as I’ve done since I found both blogs.
December 8th, 2009 at 8:54 pm
There are two very separate issues here, and many people seem to be conflating them.
First is the issue of copyright violation. Okay, yes, Carson is guilty as sin of this. So is every site that’s ever published a screenplay without express written consent of the studio that owns it — not the writer, since the writer doesn’t own the copyright once the script is sold. Consulting the writer has nothing to do with copyright.
Second — and much more central to John’s original argument — is that Carson’s opinion is really what’s tainting the whole process here. He reviews a script in development, and suddenly the producers are scared of the exposure and what people are saying. Since he’s the only one who does this — at least, the only one who does it exclusively — the attention is all focused on him. I understand the apprehension over this situation. Why should the entire fate of an upcoming movie rest with the opinion of one guy who’s seen the script?
Maybe the solution is that more people need to be doing this. What if there weren’t one blog that reviewed scripts in development, but a dozen? A hundred? A thousand? At what point would discussion of in-development scripts become mere background noise, rather than a single dangerously loud voice?
December 8th, 2009 at 8:56 pm
Hmm. I was unaware of this site until Mr. August’s posts, but as a newbie in LA, I’d like to mention that this outsider attitude of “well, I don’t live in LA but I want the benefits of doing so” is just another entitlement issue. I moved all the way across the country and barely scrape by in LA just to have the access to scripts, people, and festivals. If moving to LA is not an option for you you need to work outside the system– even if you track what Hollywood is buying today they won’t buy it from you. Move to LA or move towards indies.
December 8th, 2009 at 9:04 pm
Carson’s opinion means zero to me and to many other screenwriters and people in the industry. Since Carson Reeves is a pseudonym or pen name, his opinion means less than zero.
@ Jamie Linden. You missed The Phyrst, whippersnapper.
December 8th, 2009 at 9:10 pm
John –
Kind of you to remove Carson’s real name. (I know it, too, but will follow your lead.) But, a question: why does Carson, or anyone like Carson, get to be anonymous? If he’s posting people’s private work, then why help him hide his identity? (Yes, I myself am posting anon, but I’m not linking to anyone’s work.)
December 8th, 2009 at 9:12 pm
@LadyUranus
Entitlement issue. That’s exactly what you just described. I do not mean to sound snarky or mean in this, seriously, I want to move out there, but it ain’t in the cards at the moment. But you say that you moved out to LA and scrape by to get access. You took the risk so you’re entitled to it and I’m not?
December 8th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
That story floating on Done Deal about a writer whose script was torpedoed is certainly horrible if true.
However, that same thing has been happening every day in Hollywood for the last fifteen years — as soon as the town went wired. If writers want to talk about copyright infringement and illegal distribution of intellectual property, then all they need to do is look at their personal agent’s assistant. And the assistants at the studio where they have a deal or set up a project. Because anyone who works in this town knows that for more than a decade now, assistants have traded scripts across the internets and “tracked” them in private rooms.
Many, many, many scripts have seen their hopes of sale die due to this insider trading. It is no different at all then what’s happening on sites like ScriptShadow. This guy’s opinion is just that — one opinion.
Every script that passes an assistant’s desk at any production company, studio, or agency becomes fodder for their own private collectives. And the beatings or praise they take there can absolutely determine a project’s fate.
I mean, hell, when a script is really “important” we all know they get numbered, or stamped, or secret code words are used on certain pages — whatever method to keep track of who has what copy… This town and the system in place does way more damage to a potential script than a site like ScriptShadow ever will.
I don’t meant this as an endorsement of ScriptShadow per se… Just pointing out that it’s the least of a writer’s worries. And if a writer really did lose a deal cuz Carson trashed his script, than that’s an unfortunate anomaly — and how does the agent know that his client wasn’t ripped elsewhere in addition or more viciously — i.e. these private tracking boards the assistants rule?
December 8th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
Mr. August,
With the utmost respect and due regard, you forget the obvious cliche. “If it’s not on the page, it’s not on the stage”. Yes, Carson’s “coverage” is biased and somewhat premature as so many other elements go into the filmmaking process, but he’s often dead on the money when it comes to beats and character arcs. I couldn’t care less what he thinks of a script and his taste differs from mine quite a lot, but he knows what he’s talking about.
It’s really difficult to screw up a script with good beats and good arcs. Rather easy to eff up one that has crappy ones.
Carson knows what he’s talking about and he is helping the community, no matter what you say. And no, I don’t know him nor do I have any idea who he is.
December 8th, 2009 at 9:38 pm
Carson’s opinion means zero to me and to many other screenwriters and people in the industry. Since Carson Reeves is a pseudonym or pen name, his opinion means less than zero.
Then why all this uproar over his site? Why are you still posting comments about this? If it means so little, why are you wasting your time here?
All this from some dude named TinyElvis.
Give me a break.
December 8th, 2009 at 9:42 pm
fifedom,
No… libel and willful defamation are crimes as well.
Go steal developed works from Speilberg’s house and publish them in part as part of a “review” and then let me know how legal it was when you’re done. :) – I’ll wait here.
December 8th, 2009 at 9:47 pm
Leaked scripts and online script reviews is fact of life in today’s world. In fact, script reviews been around since the inception of the internet with Darwin Mayflower doing reviews years ago over at Screenwriter’s Utopia.
A few thoughts:
One of those bad spoiler-filled diatribes in the guise of a script review saved JJ Abrams’ ass (and the studios) when fanboys voiced their displeasure over Abrams’ abominable SUPERMAN script. There is no question that film would have been one of the biggest disasters in cinema history.
Criticism in a script review is good for the writer whether that writer wants to hear it or not.
One actually learns by writing script reviews and Carson always ends his review by talking about what he’s learned. I found some of his insights good and worth tweeting about.
I can’t say this for sure, but I suspect that most of his reviews are about unproduced specs, which is really the way it should be, because I think you learn more from scripts that fail than you do scripts that succeed.
HW should concern itself more with piracy than script reviews on little blog sites.
-MM
December 8th, 2009 at 9:50 pm
I have personal experience of how Scriptshadow helps writers. I read Salt and Law Abiding Citizen on the site before I knew anything about their productions. I experienced them without trailers or casting information. That’s an amazing learning experience that John’s side of the argument is completely missing. Once you’ve been exposed to the actual movie, your ability to imagine your own version of the movie is compromised. You can’t have the experience with the script that was the lightning in the bottle that turned into a sale BEFORE Gerard Butler added his star power.
I love Scriptshadow for showing writers how to write scripts that BECOME movies.
I also love johnaugust.com. Don’t make me choose. Because I’ll choose Ken Levine. I will.
December 8th, 2009 at 9:55 pm
@ S,
Yeah… I don’t see it at all.
I see John making his stated purpose, and then following through with actions only befitting that statement, and then I see SS making his statements, and then following through with only actions that run completely 180 degrees contrary to those statements… ergo… no connection. – I hear you. – There’s just nothing there. – John even said part of ambiguity toward the torrent maelstrom is because, “A filmmaker wants his film to be seen”. – That was part of his stated purpose. – So how is that sneaky? How is that even fathomably disingenuous?
December 8th, 2009 at 10:12 pm
@ Joel Thomas,
Yes, and you would be served just as well in that way if the owner of the material had been asked before stealing it. – Or by reading one of the thousand other produced scripts to movies you had not yet seen. (And if you’d rather have the script and don’t care that its creator/owner didn’t grant his/her permission either way, then there’s a vacuum of respect and a culture of entitlement which makes this discussion a dead exercise in your case anyway.)
December 8th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
I used to think this site was quite cool, but not anymore. For quite some time now John’s posts have become too self-righteous for my liking. I guess I just bought into the “a ton of useful information about screenwriting”. I should have known better: if I don’t like any of the films John’s written, it is rather unlikely that I am going to appreciate his advice. Especially when his views are always so narrow, so industry-pleasing. I don’t mean to disrespect, but he’s a textbook definition of a “hack”, and he’s yet to write something that will entitle him to give advice on writing. Maybe that’s why all his advice goes to networking, rule following, a*s kissing and so on.
The comments posted are even worse: screenwriters and janitors mixed, so you can’t tell who’s who. Take this guy today, Synthian, who is nearly monopolizing the discussion about ScriptShadow and just repeats himself and his moronic reasonings. Do you all really want to know who can hurt screenwriters more than any blog? Other screenwriters, or aspiring screenwriters. I have seen nowwhere another comunity where its members are so ready to jump at each other’s throats. Schmucks with Final Draft, that guy was right.
So I’m getting out of here. This thread was the last drop I needed. You all keep up the good work, folks!
December 8th, 2009 at 10:24 pm
@Mystery Man, the Superman example is a good example of why ScriptShadow is bad. J.J. Abram’s Superman died because of the negative review of the unfinished script, but how can you be so sure the finished product, after script rewrites and filming, would have been bad? Would an extremely early review of Star Trek faired better? (Keep in mind Star Trek’s plot is exactly the same as Star Trek Nemesis’s, so you could frame a review of Star Trek as a copy of Nemesis with time travel). Imagine what we would have missed out on if Star Trek was cockblocked the way Superman was.
What I find so strange about the comments in support of ScriptShadow is that a lot of them are appear to be coming from writers. As a writer you should want control of your material, not control to be in someone else’s hands. I will decide who reads what I write, not anyone else. I’ve written things which some people were given access to that I’m not comfortable EVERYONE reading or getting a point-by-point review of. As the writer I should have the power to assert that control over my own work.
John’s second proposed change goes directly to the point of putting power back into the hands of authors. Let writers decide if their material is publicized.
December 8th, 2009 at 10:29 pm
I feel more domineering than I actually am.. but that’s just because I was born in a puddle of Awesomness. :)
Haha, he’s right. – Enough of my ridiculousness. :)
December 8th, 2009 at 10:50 pm
I’ve weighed in over at DoneDeal, where the messageboard format makes it a bit easier to post, but after I read this: “[John August's] views are always so narrow, so industry-pleasing…Maybe that’s why all his advice goes to networking, rule following, a*s kissing and so on.” I had to answer.
Industry pleasing is exactly how you get jobs. Screenwriting is a business first and foremost; the minute you forget that, you’re done. John August does a great job of pleasing his bosses (which is exactly what every other job in the world requires) and the faster a writer learns to work with execs instead of against them, the better off they’ll be. Networking is the second most important talent. Following rules and a** kissing is third and fourth. Number one on the talent list? It isn’t writing — it’s marketing yourself. There are thousands of great writers. There are very few good writers who are also good at selling themselves.
December 8th, 2009 at 10:54 pm
Synthian,
You again skip my point. Reading a produced script doesn’t help as much as an unproduced one, even if I haven’t seen the movie, because I’ve seen the trailer and the poster. The cast is famous people, rather than characters. The tone is instant, rather than discovered. I’m a better writer for having read the scripts on Scriptshadow. I’m curious: are you a screenwriter? Or a movie-lover?
I never had any comment about the legality of posting the scripts. I don’t know what the future of scripts online will be. I only know that I’m grateful for the opportunity to read the scripts I’ve read. I just got a manager, so I can still get the scripts by requesting he track down a pdf. And somehow, that’s okay, because it’s in the biz? The line is a lot more grey than you portray.
December 8th, 2009 at 10:55 pm
“If the purpose of his site is to celebrate writers and acquaint newbies with the craft, isn’t that in fact a more valuable exercise, showing how the words on the page translate to the screen?”
I don’t know why I am getting into this, because I have no dog in this fight (is that the correct phrase? Seems weird). But I am going to go ahead and say no, that is not more valuable. Firstly, as you point out in the bottom of your post, there are thousands of scripts out there for anyone to Google. What would be the point of a blog that reviews scripts for movies that are already out? The reader can just print out their own copy, watch the movie and learn how it translates rather than have someone explain it to them.
Secondly, it is not just about acquainting newbies with the craft. It also shows whats selling right now, why a particular script may have been bought but never produced, or why a script is so heavily buzzed. I am not saying these are good or bad reasons, I am just saying the blog has more than one purpose.
December 8th, 2009 at 10:56 pm
What a preposterous quagmire this all is. I’m blown away by the self-righteousness and over-indulging sanctimoniousness of the pro-writers in the room (I’m afraid I must include you in this finger waving as well, Mr. August) and I’m equally perturbed by the flip attitude by the amateurs who thumb their nose at copyright law.
John, in this follow up post, you seem to want to paint Carson as some sort of ego-driven media whore who wishes to revel in a blogospheric limelight. I’ve read Scriptshadow from day one and not once did I ever get that impression. Carson has always adopted a very friendly, accessible tone in his posts, always respectful to his commentors, and smacks of genuine affability.
Even if he’s faking it and he’s exactly what you portend him to be, he’s faking it quite well.
See, this whole thing is just strange. Your blog has always been such a helpful and valuable resource, you were the last one I would have guessed to come down on someone who seemingly puts the writer (best of all, the SPEC writer) on such a pedestal.
Where’s Rod Serling? Alan Funt? Andy Kaufman??? This is all some sort of gag… I know it.
December 8th, 2009 at 11:05 pm
oh, god, can’t possibly go through all the comments, but here’s my two cents. we’re confusing educational purposes with something else. the reason? looking at the profession from the point of view of what sells, etc. (thus we have to check what’s hot recently, right?) has little to do with learning how to write. everything to do with obsessing, tabloid-gossip style, on the latest ‘thing’, which is the purview of fans. now, it’s clear calling it that doesn’t give so much cachet, and conversely, that attitudes need, perhaps will change with the studios re: the inevitability of these leaks, that I don’t see diminishing anytime soon, but right now, they hurt working people. is that too much for a fan to understand? reverence is one thing, smothering, destructive scrutiny is quite another. nothing more annoying that having someone peering over your shoulder, which is what this is, at minimum.
December 8th, 2009 at 11:09 pm
@fifedom – Actually, my understanding is that a synopsis of a script or story is considered a derivative work and therefore subject to the same copyright protections as any other work. For example, distribution contracts commonly included giving the distributor the right to synopsize the story. The SS reviews I’ve read seem to exhaustive to claim fair use. (One test of which is how much of the work is used.)
@Nick – true, the studio will own the copyright, but it’s my understanding that WGA writers commonly retain the right of publication as a separated right under the current MBA.
SS seems to be indefensible on the grounds of copyright.
But is this really any different than the tracking boards and Hollywood assistant-network that have existed, been tolerated, and sometimes exploited by the studios for years? I don’t think so.
December 8th, 2009 at 11:11 pm
(Man, I hate it when I dash off a post only to discover my own poor grammar. Especially on a screenwriting blog!)
December 8th, 2009 at 11:14 pm
It would seem a fairly straightforward legal and moral position that it is completely appropriate for copyright holders to protect the value of their intellectual property.
What’s somewhat puzzling to me is that aspiring screenwriters, who almost universally hope to make money from their own efforts, would be so quick to trample on the rights of the owners of intellectual property.
John’s suggestion to get permission beforehand seems eminently reasonable, and I’m sure there’s a certain percentage of copyright holders wouldn’t mind.
To address a slightly different angle on this debate, I also fail to see how reading a random draft taken out of context of the development process, with or without Carson’s review, really furthers anyone’s education as a screenwriter.
What would be of value (at least to me) would be to take a movie, and then start at the beginning of the process with the spec or 1st draft, and then step through the various stages until the final shooting draft form.
It might betray ignorance on my part about a valid objection against doing so, but I don’t necessarily see where making all the drafts available after the film hits theaters would be harmful to the interests of the copyright holders.
And, there clearly is a (niche) demand.
December 8th, 2009 at 11:18 pm
Hey John, out of curiosity, did you know you’d be kicking a hornet’s nest when you posted this morning, or did this ruckus take you by surprise?
December 8th, 2009 at 11:28 pm
Great posts, this is something that definitely needs to be addressed…..
My experience with ScriptShadow leads me to believe that Carson is not trying to further the career of anybody but himself. He’s in this to get hits, to get a blurb about his site on a larger site, to get press…..
Reviewing a script after the film is released/after permission has been secured won’t ruin his site, I hope he decides that this is the best course of action….
December 8th, 2009 at 11:28 pm
The analogies that I have read on some of the comments don’t hold any water. One cannot compare film scripts to novels or music or movies or even Nabisco cookies because film scripts are not mass produced to be sold to the public like novels or music or Nabisco cookies. Why? Because there is not much money to be made from selling film scripts. What are mass produced to be sold are the movies themselves. It would be more like stealing Picasso’s paint brush, or the Elves vat of sugar.
December 8th, 2009 at 11:37 pm
I had a script high up on the Black List last year — the goal of most of Carson’s readers. Well guys, when you get to where I am I promise you all your BS posturing will slam you right back in the face: his site is simply the worst thing I can remember happening to working writers.
Why? Because we can’t handle the criticism? Because he’s exposing us as the hack frauds we are? No. Because my agent can’t pass around an assignment I just completed. Which means I can’t get work off of it. Which means I’m almost back to Square One.
And John — you are twice the man “Carson” is for removing his name. I frankly don’t see how you can crow about having the balls to review copyrighted material without permission and not have the sack to reveal your own name. (Oh wait — I know why. Because no agent in town would sign him.)
December 8th, 2009 at 11:47 pm
There seems to be a lot of skepticism of those people who have first hand negative experiences with Scriptshadow. I don’t really get it. Assuming it’s just a theoretical, it’s still a pretty disheartening and plausible theoretical.
@ Joel Thomas OK, let’s say that is helpful to you. Is it more helpful than it is damaging to writers? Also, I am willing to bet there are movies that have been produced that you haven’t seen a poster or trailer for.
@ Scott As for the argument of seeing what’s selling: #1. See what’s selling this week, start writing your script today, and by the time you finish it everyone will be on to something else. #2. A logline and a genre would be just as telling, in most cases. There are rarely going to be cases where a film executives ask for scripts with ‘naive characters who deal with third act plot holes’. Most scripts that have positive buzz have buzz because they are well written, not in a ‘of the moment’ kind of way, but in a ‘good characters and a great plot’ sort of way. Reading these scripts aren’t going to help any more than reading older produced scripts that had buzz.
@ DouglasHorn I’d argue that there is a difference between this and assistant’s desks or professional tracking boards. For one, these are people that will actually be able to help me. Not in a roundabout, great advice and publicity sort of way, but in the ‘we would like to give you money to write things’ sort of way. Secondly, even if I’m not 100% aware of who my scripts are going to, I am aware of the types of people they are going to. They are people that largely have an idea of what the development process is like and where these scripts are coming from. That’s different than sending out a script on a blog open to anyone, to be read and criticized by the anonymous masses.
December 8th, 2009 at 11:48 pm
NICK writes: “Maybe the solution is that more people need to be doing this. What if there weren’t one blog that reviewed scripts in development, but a dozen? A hundred? A thousand? At what point would discussion of in-development scripts become mere background noise, rather than a single dangerously loud voice?”
Nick, as a working screenwriter, I believe you just described the nightmare scenario.
Not sure if this scenario has been posted, but what would Script Shadow’s defenders think if a blog site got their hands on an early manuscript of the new, unreleased John Irving novel and published a review of it along with a link to the manuscript in pdf? Everyone would LIKE to read it? Why shouldn’t we be allowed to? Well, hopefully, you’d all cry bullshit. And guess what, there is literally no difference between that scenario and what “Carson” is doing.
Here’s a scenario from my own career. My first feature gig was a one step assignment – a broad comedy. I suggested a certain high profile radio personality for the lead role. He was interested, but hadn’t read anything yet as I was still in the middle of producer re-writes. AICN was tipped off and not only went public with the radio personality’s interest but published a scathing review of the very first draft of the script. Never mind that this was a draft that hadn’t even been shown to the studio yet, much less the potential attachment. Big surprise, the radio personality walked away and the project was dead before it even had a chance.
If you’re outside the business, you don’t realize that these windows of opportunity are very slim. They open briefly, and everything has to be just right for the stars to align and your script to get greenlit. Once the window closes, it may be years before that project gets another opportunity, if at all. And people’s careers rise and fall on those windows. Like it or not, people’s careers can rise and fall on whatever bullshit little “Carson” decides to spew into the blogosphere about scripts he doesn’t have permission to publish. There’s no equivocating it. What he’s doing is wrong. If he had any balls, he’d answer John’s question – why not ASK writers for their permission before reviewing and posting their scripts?
But I think we all know the answer to that question, right? All the smart writers would say no.
December 8th, 2009 at 11:57 pm
@Grimace: I think it’s a typical online thing. So many people on the internet have developed the attitude that they have the RIGHT to get everything for free and as soon as possible, it’s ugly. Same thing happens on many message boards when another torrent site goes down: Of course, nobody’s an evil pirate — but if they shut down my favorite torrent site, I go berserk!!!!
As for ScriptShadow, I don’t believe the guy’s / girl’s intention are as noble as John seemed to think in his first post. He obviously wants to be the first one out there reviewing a movie (script), even if his review is based on a draft that is a few years old and might have almost nothing in common with the eventual final product. If he / she really wants to help aspiring writers, why doesn’t he / she let them contact him / her?
December 9th, 2009 at 12:00 am
I’m confused. So you don’t like what Carson’s doing and have nothing against him personally, so you choose to resolve this issue by bashing him publicly on your blog rather than simply emailing him to discuss your grievances? I’m sorry Mr. August but you’re smarter than that and I think you knew damn well what you’d be kicking up here which makes me question your motivation for doing it.
Here’s an analogy. You’re sitting in a movie theater. A man walks in and sits in front of you, obstructing your view of the screen. Do you A) ask him politely to move, or B) kick him in the back of the head? I suppose if you wanted to start a fight you’d kick him in the back of the head. Or maybe shout “socialist” at the top of your lungs. Maybe that’s more befitting.
Either way, what you choose to do speaks volumes about what you are trying to accomplish. So I’m not buying any of this crap.
December 9th, 2009 at 12:25 am
@Zeb — Yes.
But that doesn’t mean that those outside of major film hubs can’t make their own thing work. It just means you can’t make tentpole screenplays– this is not my ruling, this is just the way things work.
December 9th, 2009 at 12:47 am
It is mighty presumptuous for aka Carson Reeves to believe that screenwriters and the entertainment industry will monitor his blog for the misuse of copyrighted materials. ScriptShadow seems to have a legitimate purpose for the screenwriting community on the web, with and only with the permission of the owner(s) of the copyright. It is up to the owner(s) of the copyright to determine if the risk of any unintended consequences from the use of the script by aka Carson Reeves merits its use by Scriptshadow. aka Carson Reeves needs to learn how to utilize the magic words “Please” and “Thank You”.
December 9th, 2009 at 1:27 am
Gotta say I’m really startled to read so many posts defending a blogger’s right to review work-in-progress drafts of unproduced screenplays without permission and against the authors’ wishes.
That’s the issue, right? John isn’t saying ScriptShadow should shut down his site, or that he should stop reviewing scripts. Just that if he wants to review an unproduced script, he should get the writer’s permission first.
If the writer doesn’t give that permission, ScriptShadow should respect that. The circumstances of every project are unique. For an outsider to grab a draft out of context and make it public, against the writer’s wishes, could most definitely hurt the project and the writer. And, incidentally, mislead the public, if they want to get an idea of where the project actually stands.
Thus far in my writing career, I’ve never had a script of mine leaked, but one site did review another writer’s rewrite of my script. It was frustrating, because this particular draft was one I hadn’t even read; the producers didn’t like what that writer had done, so they tactfully never gave it to me. By the time it leaked, that writer was gone, and another writer had been brought on, who took the script in a different direction. So the script review was not representative of where the project actually stood at that point. The blogger had no way of knowing that.
In my case, the brouhaha was minimal and didn’t hurt the project. It could have been worse. But as an example, it hints at why it would be both ethical and responsible journalism for a blogger such as ScriptShadow to check with writers and/or producers before posting reviews of unproduced scripts.
Every writer, anyone who works in a creative field, counts on being able to work with a reasonable level of trust and security.
When I’m writing a script, I trust that no one’s hacking into my computer and reading my crappy early drafts.
I don’t bother to shred my printed-out, scribbled-on pages, because I trust that the guy who rummages through my recycling bin on Thursday mornings is only looking for cans and bottles.
When I get to the point where I’m ready to email the script to my brother in New York and ask for his feedback, I trust that no one will steal it off his laptop while he’s getting coffee.
When I send it to the producer for notes before we formally turn it in to the studio, I trust that no one in his office will make a clandestine photocopy for their own use without telling him.
Anyone who stole the script at any one of those stages would certainly have the power to do damage to the project — by posting it or reviewing it online, or by passing it on to someone else who might.
But that would be wrong.
That’s not to say that I don’t enjoy reading purloined scripts myself — I do. Especially when I was starting out, I read everything I could get my hands on, and that included reading drafts that the writer/owner almost certainly never intended to make public.
But posting a review or a draft of a movie that hasn’t been released yet is different. That can actually do damage. Please, ScriptShadow, and all online journalists who are interested in reviewing unproduced screenplays, follow John’s two very reasonable guidelines.
December 9th, 2009 at 1:48 am
I’ve been reading all sides of this debate. Here is my two cents.
I run a script download site myself and post the script of almost every week’s new releases when I can. Yes, I don’t own copyright to those screenplays and by definition it makes this ‘copyright infringement’. But when the intent here is uploading for educational purposes for the craft of screenwriting, it can be nowhere as severe as say movie piracy for example. I don’t post unreleased film screenplays, but that’s mostly because of the legal troubles I’ve seen Blogspot accounts face (Scriptshadow itself faced it with ‘Book of Eli’) and it’s not worth the risk.
As far as damaging screenwriters is concerned, I’d disagree that a script already sold and in-production would be affected in any way by a script review on a blog. And if it does, then the executives at the company should look at themselves for being so naive and go back to thinking about the reason they purchased the script in the first place. And use this for their advantage to get feedback from the comments section as well as the review to address the negative points most readers agree on and fix them while they have a chance. This way, a script review is much more effective to the studio itself as they have the power to change things before money has been spent and the movie has been released, unlike movie reviews which are only beneficial to the audience. And the fact that a bad buzz may be generated about a film due to a negative review on an early draft is no fault of Carson but a fault of the readers and audiences themselves who fail to realize that it’s a work in progress and the end result can wildly differ. If everyone would change their outlook about this and look at it in a beneficial manner to compare and track changes in subsequent drafts and see how writers tackled different aspects of the script rather than blasting the unreleased end product itself just based on the script, the debate we are having wouldn’t have been such a big issue in the first place.
And everybody is shortchanging the fact that Carson himself is running a logline contest for thousands of aspiring screenwriters for no cost AT ALL. Does sifting through thousands of loglines, scripts and treatments for no gain at all look like the work of someone with the intent of damaging screenwriters? I would like to see the haters talk about this point and try to give an explanation of why he would run it, rather than just skip any mention if it in their points whatseoever.
That said, I agree with one point here that says that work that hasn’t been sold yet could be affected by a negative review. But it could also be noticed and boosted from a positive one (the Black List does the same). What Carson could do about this is post the review for an unsold script only he is recommending it so it ends up helping the sale since a negative review wouldn’t really impact a script which hasn’t sold anyway but might possibly damage a chance for sale.
I really appreciate Carson’s efforts and everyone should realize the fact that he is not going for fame here (he doesn’t use his real name) and all his efforts to date have been to help the screenwriting community itself and we as aspiring screenwriters should thank him for that rather than whine about it. We’ve all been introduced to a number of spec scripts we would have otherwise missed if not for his reviews (Kristy, Dogs of Babel, Source Code) and even upcoming films (I went for LAW ABIDING CITIZEN solely after reading his rave review). I guess it’s true about not knowing a good thing till it’s gone.
December 9th, 2009 at 1:52 am
Setting aside for a moment whether Carson’s site is good or bad or whatever, there’s a number of remarks directed towards how Carson’s has self-serving, disingenuousness, etc (which I imagine have root in the post itself). I don’t know the guy personally and I don’t know what his motivations are and I don’t really care. What does it really change about the site and the discussion about the effects of it on writers? Jumping to the conclusion that he is somehow dishonest in his intentions is just a personal attack on his character and doesn’t further the discussion at all. It just ends up sounding petty.
December 9th, 2009 at 2:16 am
@bn
Petty? “Jumping to the conclusion that he is somehow dishonest in his intentions is just a personal attack on his character…” ???
Dude, work minimum wage jobs until you sell a script for a million dollars, take the road to possible Oscar nomination and meet enough high-powered individuals through all industries, to the point where your children’s lives will be forever altered in the world…Hell, make a critically acclaimed film that gives you a legacy of art via the realization of a dream, and then maybe you’ll have some clue as to what you’re talking about.
Better yet, buy a house, and then have someone sell it on-line for 20K, then use the logic that a really deserving and sweet family got a great deal on a house. Yes, I have a bleeding heart, but you don’t seem to grasp the fact that these people who post links to scripts are trading an owned property.
December 9th, 2009 at 2:39 am
SS days are numbered. He’s violating copyright law. Period. Judges see black and white. Sorry there isn’t grey area when you are posting someone else’s work to generate traffic to your site. The excuse of someone else popping up when he gets shut down (which he will) is akin to not taking copyrighted material off youtube because someone else will post it. You keep taking off the illegal material until all the thieves are are done robbing the content.
I’d love to find an audio engineer that posts mp3 files of work-in-progress songs of professional bands, then I can trash it with a link to said song so i can generate traffic to my site, in hopes that some music executive will stumble upon my blog, think i have taste, then hire me as a creative exec.
December 9th, 2009 at 2:53 am
Copyright issues aside, I think if anything, guys like Carson are keeping those studio execs accountable, and keeping the bastards honest.
And it’s perfectly legal to comment on a screenplay – aslong as he doesn’t post the PDF link. So John August (who by the way, hasn’t had a hit movie in years – or a produced one)need to chill, shut the fuck up, and have another line of blow.
December 9th, 2009 at 2:58 am
I love how ridiculous this has all become. Stop using big words. No one cares. Arc.
December 9th, 2009 at 4:36 am
I wish Carson would review one of my scripts, only because I’m unknown. If I’m ever produced then my attitude may suddenly change.
Posting someone’s unfinished, copyrighted work in progress is simply not legal.
I respect the fact that Carson pulls scripts immediately when requested to do so, but that is after the fact. One should obtain permission before electronically reproducing any work.
We also have to consider that a blog is a blog, just that. Blogs typically do not dictate prodco’s opinions of their projects. If a screenwriter has a good working relationship with executives, I believe they have nothing to fear if a draft is posted.
December 9th, 2009 at 6:01 am
All this is reminding me of an interview John Milius did a couple of years ago: (edited slightly for length)
Q: “What kind of shakeup could hit the industry?”
Milius: “I think the Internet. I think there’s wonderful things in the Internet–life has a wonderful way of paying these people back, you know. On of the things that’s fascinating with this Napster thing, where people can take music right off the Internet, you know, and they don’t pay for it. The record business is outraged, and the reaction from the people on the Internet is….You’re going to just have to do it for the love of it now. …They can have the new whatever group it is CD–well, that’s going to happen with movies or something. There’s going to be ways to either make the movies, or steal the movies or something like that. Some of these people–I’m hoping that something like that happens…somehow the Internet will do this and it will destroy all these studios, these dens of evil.”
Q: “What reaction, what self-preservation reaction, do you think they’ll have initially?”
Milius: “The studios? They’ll call the police. They’ll say, “This is illegal. We must go into people’s houses and find if they have these things, and then incarcerate them! How dare they do this! How dare they threaten our elite lifestyle!”
Q: “Do you think it’s far too evasive for them to ever control?”
Milius: “Oh yeah. I think one of the things that’s really good about the Internet is that it allows the voice of the masses. It allows what Lenin really wanted, you know. It could probably bring about other kinds of dictatorships, but it makes certain kinds of dictatorships obsolete.”
Q: “It goes back to the industry wanting to put that control on information–”
Milius: “I remember reading that Hollywood HATES movie web sites–you can ruin movies when they come out and stuff. I think they deserve what they get.”
Q: “Well, if it’s a bad film, it ruins itself.”
Milius: “They couldn’t stand that these people that they had not anointed suddenly had power over their destinies.”
Q: “We’re actually having more of an impact, in some cases, then they’re high priced marketing firms.”
Milius: “They just could not fathom that, that there are uncontrollable forces out there that are going to affect their destinies.”
December 9th, 2009 at 6:07 am
It totally boggles the mind how people can condone what Carson does. Maybe it’s because all his supporters are amateur writers that aren’t in a position where their work is circulated around town and they’re on the edge of a development deal. They don’t realize the harm it has on a writer when a script loses its “exclusivity” to interested parties.
Bad review or not, the fact that important plot points are released could make execs pull back on them or kill a project.
It amazes me how some have the attitude that it’s okay to sabotage someone else’s paycheck that is supposed to put food on the table for the family. Carson is breaking the unwritten rule amongst the fraternity of struggling writers.
And it’s the reason why professionals like John don’t publically release and review the amateur crapterpieces they’ve been subjected to in the past. It’s just not ethical.
But now perhaps they should, seeing as how writers these days seem so ready to cannibalize one another.
December 9th, 2009 at 6:11 am
@Jeff Lowell,
You wrote– “Huh? It’s a record year at the box office. Most movies fail to make money every year – the winners more than make up for the losers. It’s the business model – and it’s the business model with every industry that introduces all new products every year.”
Shareholders of the parent company, should be disappointed that a studio would distribute 17 films and moviegoers not like 13 of them. Think about it. We go into business to make money, not lose it. What kind of business model is this? Audiences need better films or they’ll be more wary of hitting theaters. Most of the winners you’re talking about are franchises and sequels. The current business model is flawed; the studios know this and are working to fix it.
There are different variables that fueled an increase in box office this year– people are still in recession mode, increase in movie tickets prices, and yes, several properties did well. And ditto to the original breakouts that did extremely well: THE HANGOVER, DISTRICT 9, PARANORMAL ACTIVITY, THE BLINDSIDE. We need more of these like we experienced in the 80’s.
December 9th, 2009 at 7:20 am
John’s suggestion #1: The value of ScriptShadow for me, as others have mentioned, is that I get to see the script that sold. That is immensely helpful. Shooting scripts or drafts that have been through development don’t show me what the first draft shows me. When you’re on the outside looking in, as I am, that is what interests you: what it takes to get in.
I’m also excited to see pretty much all of the top 25 scripts, should they ever see their way to end the of process and become films. Same as Friday’s Blacklist.
John’s suggestion #2: I’m fine with this. I don’t usually read the reviews on ScriptShadow anyway. One problem: once the script has sold, the studios own the copyright, not the writer. Even if they’re unproduced.
It doesn’t escape me that John’s blog must be enjoying a huge spike in traffic over this, so let’s not get too sanctimonious over Carson Reeves’ intentions. People self-promote. I don’t need a statement of purpose to figure that out.
It also doesn’t escape me that unsold writers are being accused of “entitlement” in this discussion while the self-proclaimed “pro” writers are saying they’re entitled to maintain control of screenplays where they have been paid to abdicate control. Nowhere in 180+ comments have I read someone say “it’s my right to download and read these screenplays.” No, we’re saying ScriptShadow provides a valuable service. So who’s acting entitled?
December 9th, 2009 at 8:13 am
I’m aware of ScriptShadow, and I appreciate the time, effort and energy he puts in to educate non-pro screenwriters, but in my opinion, this discussion isn’t about copyright law vs. Fair Use law for educational purposes, or about Hollywood’s worry that revealing plot and character will hurt box office sales and hurt licensing sales to publish the script.
I believe the heart/importance of this argument is respect/courtesy toward the author of the material. To think otherwise is just selfish.
I understand the curiosity and educational valve of wanting to read a review of an unproduced script by a non-pro that was optioned or sold to the industry. To SEE the art and craft that caught their attention.
I understand the curiosity and educational value to read a review of an unproduced script that was considered bad or good with either or all of the following elements, such as: dialogue, character development, structure, comedy, action, pace, etc. in order to learn and apply that craft towards your own writing.
I understand all of this but we can’t be selfish. We must respect the author of the material, which I’m sure we hope others would have respect/courtesy toward our own material and us.
The right thing to do for any script that hasn’t been shown publicly with the author’s permission is to ask first for permission before posting publicly.
It’s irreverent if a public site has only two members or hundreds. Industry people browse through screenwriting sites and members do talk about scripts on other sites too, where exposure becomes even greater.
Some say ScriptShadow’s review will help the development process by pointing out the script’s flaws and weaknesses.
I have no doubt. Feedback is the number one tool for a non-pro screenwriter to use in order to make sure his script is as strong as it could be for whenever that one industry person out of hundreds you’ve contacted requested the script.
I would love to get all the feedback I could, but not publicly unless it was at my time and choosing of which draft, site, etc.
Think of the writers, not yourself.
Some early drafts of writers are experimental. Just trying things out. It could be real embarrassing, especially toward the value of them as writers, if those were made public. The unfinished works would give people who came across those publicly posted scripts the wrong impression about them as writers.
Also, it’s possible a non-pro or even a pro could see a cool concept, character, dialogue, comedy or action set piece, etc. and use that particular element as their own, which would hurt the value of the origanl writer’s script.
There is case law where writers have won lawsuits that prove theft does happen.
There are ways to educate without posting an unproduced script publicly without the author’s permission.
I ask for ALL us not to be selfish. Respect the author of the unproduced material and ask first.
December 9th, 2009 at 8:21 am
This is the original JJ, by the way, who posted yesterday at 6:25. There seem to be two JJs, just wanted to keep it straight.
Anyway, two thoughts:
–I sincerely feel it’s a good thing to have this kind of democratic dialouge between artists and audiences, where audiences can compare an early draft of a huge-budget summer blockbuster or star vehicle with the final film, and say, “Well, this is better in the final film, there’s more action and the dialouge is funnier and the ending is much improved. But the script I read, had better characters and the plot made more sense overall.” I mean, isn’t that better then just shoving mass-market product at passive consumers?
–Second: A lot of people are complaining about “works in progress” or “early drafts”. It strikes me that there’s a fairly simple solution (that doesn’t involve hysterical paranoia and career obstructing overreactions). We already have the idea of “shooting scripts”: why not just start labeling things “development draft” or “early draft” or “producer’s draft” or something? Right on the title page? So if it does leak, or get reviewed, or something, everybody knows this is not the final, shooting draft, and is indeed a work in progress and should be regarded like a work print, or an out of town tryout?
(But that also raises the question that others have brought up: if these spec or development drafts are considered ready to be seen by execs, agents, producers, actors, ect, shouldn’t that imply that they are at least in some form finished and worthy of review? If they have such massive, overt problems that need to be fixed and improved throughout a “development” process, why are they being submitted in the first place?)
I suspect that a lot of people’s reactions to the above suggestions are just gonna be outrage at someone daring to suggest there might be options besides the current system. This whole thing has brought to mind some lines of dialouge once written by Walon Green and Sam Peckinpah, in 1968, as another kind of studio filmmaking grappled with a changing world:
DUTCH: You must have hurt that railroad real bad.
PIKE: There was a man named Harrigan — He had a certain way of doing things — I made him change his ways. And when you do that narrow man, he can’t live with it. From then on he’s got to change you–break you–just to prove he’s right. There’s a hell of a lot of people, Dutch, that just can’t stand to be wrong.
December 9th, 2009 at 8:39 am
Something similar about revealing plot before a film’s theatrical release…might be worth a look… http://passionforcinema.com/debate-so-the-reviewer-revealed-your-movies-plot-huh/
December 9th, 2009 at 9:12 am
Reviewing Scripts:
Produced Screenplays = GOOD.
Unproduced Screenplays = BAD.
Example:
I read THE NEW NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET. I dislike (Michael Bay Produced) horror remakes. But after reading the script I became excited about the film – William Strick is cool – and will prolly go see it at the movies.
Ruining a writer’s career and your own in the process of what? Having a HUGE subscriber rating? Daft.
P.S. I read The New Nightmare is in the process of re-shoots based on Public Screenings; scenes to add to character development, no less… so something is working.
December 9th, 2009 at 9:46 am
@A. Nerd
Thank you for seeing my point, which is that Scriptshadow provides value to writers, not mere titillations, as John August (love him don’t get me wrong) suggests. As for the legalities and improprieties, I never trivialized them. If Scriptshadow adopts John’s permission policy, I think that might work. The downside would be if NO ONE gives permission, thus making the rule a trojan horse.
I’m being honest with myself here, defending the benefit to writers as non-trivial: I’ll be shopping a script next year. I may not (probably won’t?) want it on Scriptshadow. But I used Scriptshadow to write that script. Once I’m on the other side of the fence, and can get any script in town with a phone call, should I deny outsiders the same privilege to read vital industry material?
In a few days, everyone in the biz will be passing Blacklist scripts around like herpes. But if a soccer-mom in Camden, NJ, with a story and a dream, gets those same scripts off Scriptshadow, it’s copyright infringement?
December 9th, 2009 at 9:47 am
I didn’t say his review of SUPERMAX helped all screenwriters, it just saved me a bunch of time. It’s time that also could have been saved if I had spotted the SUPERMAX sale in the trades, and I’m not defending ScriptShadow by any means. In point of fact I totally agree with John and the others who have made the case against him. Although this does demonstrate that John really does read EVERY comment (mine would have been easily missed if he were just skimming).
I think he should hold on to the early drafts and review them when the film comes out. Instead of talking about how this or that probably won’t work, he could be talking about how this element was taken out of the finished project, and whether it should’ve stayed or gone.
But what about scripts on the Black List? Or Nicholl scripts? Should those be considered fair game for review?
December 9th, 2009 at 9:48 am
Morning! :)
@ Jordan Mechner There it is! – Comment #75. – Jordan Mechner is the actual spirit of articulacy.
@ Script Collector #75: “I’d disagree that a script already sold and in-production would be affected in any way by a script review on a blog.”
Which is just plain baby ignorance. – It doesn’t matter that you’re current theory is that it can’t harm them, because its not your place to decide or invade. – The only way that it matters that you have a theory about another man’s life, is of course, if you intend to invade it, and alter his well being based upon your beliefs. – You have 3 solid stories of writers on here telling you how their lives have been obstructed… and I’m not sure what makes you dismiss them. – Producers are effected by blogs every day. Whether we feel that they should be or not, its the way of them. – So if you want to say, “I don’t believe that producers should be effected by small-time blog defamation! And therefore I will both post my own writings as I complete them up for review while they’re in production! And REFUSE to work with any producer so weak minded as to be effected by the outcome of that review!” – GO AHEAD! – That’s AWESOME! – But please don’t say, “I don’t believe that producers should be effected by small-time blog defamation! And therefore I will reach into the chances and works of another writer, and put them up for review while they’re in production! Because HE should refuse to work with any producer so weak minded as to be effected by the outcome!” – Because that’s just horrifying.
“if it does, then the executives at the company should look at themselves for being so naive and go back to thinking about the reason they purchased the script in the first place.”
Ok, good. But still, that’s your call to make on your own work. – You have every right to give that producer the finger on your project. – Please don’t give him it on mine. – The one full-length screenplay I’ve sold went to a major director who purchases about 12 properties a year and he doesn’t want anyone outside of his choosing to be in speculation about them. – Once they get out, he considers them tainted. – So yeah, I could say, he’s a hard-line over-the-top eccentric… but that wouldn’t get me anywhere, cause he’s one of the biggest, and I’ve worked very hard for two years to get here. – So it would really be damaging for me to be moved down from position number one, to say, position number 12 in his mind emotionally because somebody with a skateboard decided they had the knowledge of the industry necessary to make a judgement call about my life. – And my family would suffer. – That is not an exaggeration. – I do fear you.
“And use this for their advantage to get feedback from the comments section as well as the review to address the negative points most readers agree on and fix them while they have a chance.”
I understand this logic in full. – And its commendable. – But what it leaves out is this: (A) My producer/director is very particular about the slim knit group of people he’s willing to accept ideas from, because he’s an artist, and very few people have been able to do it better. And (B) as soon as he sees his script posted and/or reviewed, a can pretty well assure you, he’ll have a lot of looks on his face, not one of which will be the look of, “Hmmm, lets see if we can get any good sales helpful feedback from these people. – After all! They are the fans right!?”
“I agree with one point here that says that work that hasn’t been sold yet could be affected by a negative review. But it could also be noticed and boosted from a positive one (the Black List does the same).”
Ok, good. – So its a nice “plus” that you have that decision to make with your work! – All you have to do to make that legitimate, is limit the playing field to people who would very much like, and can benefit from having an additional buzz! – That’s AWESOME! – Give them that power! – Anyone who wants that chance should be given that chance free of charge! – How cool is that?! – Please don’t include me in that group!
@ Allie 78: Nice job…. Don’t ever apologize for your passion.
December 9th, 2009 at 9:51 am
Never mind my last question. I thought about it and I think the answer is clearly “no” in those cases, too. Produced and/or with the permission of the writer only. There’s no “fair game” otherwise.
December 9th, 2009 at 10:15 am
There’s a cognitive dissonance at work here that’s very reminiscent of the kind that springs up whenever studios decry movie piracy. People are excoriating Carson for the work he does with PDFs of unproduced screenplays but conveniently leaving out any discussion of how those screenplays get to him. It’s no mystery; he’s not hacking into the Warner Brothers mainframe or sticking a flash drive into a writer’s laptop when he’s getting another cup of coffee.
No, he gets these copies as a result of the same unchecked script trading and distribution process that has been going on for decades. Producers and agents give their assistants scripts to read or copy, those assistants scan them and send them to other assistants in exchange for the latest Disney tentpole or whatever, the scanned copies circulate around town until they’re old news. Would the Black List exist if it weren’t for this process — if the only people reading in-development screenplays where the people who had been specifically authorized to do so? Of course not. The point of the Black List is that all kinds of people in Hollywood have read the scripts on that list. And as far as I know, none of them are getting the writer’s permission.
Was it not inevitable that this system would lead to scripts being leaked to the outside, non-Hollywood public? Yes, but 2009 is not the year that it happened. Twelve years ago, when I was in college, I was routinely buying copies of in-development scripts from a movie memorabilia store three thousand miles from Los Angeles. Was there any difference between that and getting scripts on ScriptShadow? Yes — a huge difference: someone was profiting from the transaction. (Plenty of poster stores, copy shops, etc. around Los Angeles do this now and they’re really not hard to find.)
So, to this massive decades-long flurry of script distribution of all kinds, we’ve added one guy with a blog who decided to make the discussion public. Why is he the tipping point? What’s so special about him? And most importantly, why is he the whipping boy for an entire culture predicated on doing the very thing that’s been going on for eons but people are pretending has just started?
December 9th, 2009 at 10:46 am
Due to the studio’s business practices, writers are often obligated to deliver material to the studio before the writer considers it finished. In fact, most writers’ contracts give the studio the right to “inspect” the material at any point in the writing process. And, of course, producers start nagging to “see pages” from the first day the writer is commenced. This means, others often have access to writers’ material that the writers would prefer not be accessible to anyone.
Every writer I know has spent at least a little time trying to figure out how to prohibit or inhibit the ability of people to disseminate copies of their work without their approval or knowledge. Schemes like password-protected .pdfs and hard copies on non-photo paper have been discussed but, ultimately, all of these can be defeated. Once the material is out of the writer’s personal control, the writers’ wishes or intent can be ignored.
It’s telling that, by and large, Scriptshadow does not get copies of writers’ work from the writers themselves. It’s also telling that, by and large, writers whose work has been or may be published on Scriptshadow without their permission object to Scriptshadow’s practices. And its also telling that, by and large, those people who defend Scriptshadow are dismissive, if not contemptuous, of those writers’ opinions.
What’s clear from this discussion is that, all lip service to the notion of celebrating writers and providing insight into the craft of screenwriting aside, Scriptshadow, its sources, and its defenders have no more regard or respect for the screenwriters or their craft than the studios.
Wait. Make that, they have less regard or respect. At least the studios pay writers. They pay late, and they pay as little as they can, but they do have grudging acknowledgement of the value of authorship.
-
December 9th, 2009 at 10:49 am
I’ve posted a couple of times (there are several Jeffs posting comments) and I’ve been convinced: ScriptShadow is crossing a line and I benefitted from it.
I will no longer defend the site, but it should be possible for Carson Reeves to offer a useful, respectful service.
While he would continue to infringe on the letter of copyright law (since everyone else does), he can still better respect the industry and maintain a higher level of ethics.
I want to see the draft that sold. I don’t want to see the final polished version. I want to see what studios see when they buy a project.
My suggestions:
1) Eliminate reviews.
2) Release scripts at a time where it’s reasonable to assume that you will not affect the writer’s chances of sales.
3) Practice what you preach in terms of providing help for writers, new and established. Show us how you’re respecting writers.
4) Only post successes. The readers lose some educational opportunities with this suggestion, but it vastly reduces the potential for real monetary harm coming from the site. My definition of success is the script which is in production.
5) Get permission from the writer instead of putting the onus on the writer to take it down.
December 9th, 2009 at 10:50 am
I feel the need to throw my two cents in here. I completely agree with you Mr. August. I don’t really follow how people can disagree with you about the points you have made concerning ScriptShadow. It seems that everyone in the Film industry (well everyone everywhere actually) only cares about being popular, or getting their name or their picture in the papers. (Hello High School all over again).
As an aspiring screenwriter I pay a lot of attention to things in Hollywood and in the film business. Too many supposed “Breakthroughs” or ideas that will change the world, have almost no value whatsoever. Scriptshadow is one of those ideas. I do not see the value in what they offer. Not a bit. I want to read screenplays that are representative of what movie I see in the theater. I have read many screenplays on TriggerStreet and other portals, and have to say, it is brutal to get through them. The last thing I want is another place to read a supposedly in production script, by an unknown writer, featuring an unknown draft, somewhere in the unknown finished process. There is enough garbage to contend with as it is.
I am still confused on how this will change the industry, or even help and promote writers. If your writing is interesting to execs, if you have a script in production or purchased, I imagine you are already in the known pipeline in Hollywood. How exactly does ScriptShadow add anything to this system?
I have very strong feelings about movies and the system, however, I look to people like yourself to shine a light on the intricacies of the business. There are too many people who are just on the outskirts of Hollywood, or aren’t part of it at all and yet, somehow find a way to muscle their opinions on the public at large. A prime example is The CoWrite Screenplay Competition. One person somehow got BenderSpink to back his screenplay competition. The idea behind the competition seemed interesting (I entered), but it was not. The competition was not well orchestrated. It seemed no one knew how to read a screenplay, or what a good story entailed. The final product was a mess and the winners were not the best writers with the best stories (not even close). In the end it seemed like Todd (the creator) just gave the prize money to some buddies who were trying to get a name in Hollywood.
You Mr. August have class, and I wish I could come across more of it in Tinseltown. I love reading your blog. Thank you for your words and insight.
December 9th, 2009 at 11:00 am
“Ask the writers before posting reviews of unproduced scripts.”
Now this is WHAT naïve is!!!!
You actually think people should ask someone else if they can think and feel something for someone else or review things in life in general, and only they can “think” if they get permission! That’s too funny. You really don’t think people don’t “review” scripts, talk about a writer, how good he is, without the writer’s permission? Sure they don’t “write it down”, have a blog, but this goes on all the time. Seriously. Wake up.
The best thing I see about this blog. And why it is great.
All the “buzz” that used to make a script go, is gone: thankfully! Why not make a movie because you mean what you say, and you believe in the script in what you write? Then none of this “bad buzz” would matter. It’s totally showing how people simply don’t care about what they write, or the people that buy the scripts actually care about the script, what it stands for.
As for “Nabisco”.
As a book author, book manuscripts are emailed all the time in NY, same thing, just not a blog yet.
December 9th, 2009 at 11:01 am
@ Jeff,
See now, THAT’S a brilliant idea.
SeriouslyWorthARead.com – Only posting “recommend” scripts, with the comments off.
The draft the company actually bought, with permission to share, and a thumbs up next to it.
THAT would be an extension of the Hollywood intern network, extended to the rest of the world.
December 9th, 2009 at 11:41 am
Reading an unfinished screenplay is like asking a magician to show you how a trick is done. Yeah, you’ve got the inside knowledge — but it ruins the trick for you. And if you then tell everyone how the trick is done, you’ve ruined it for everyone else.
If you tell other people how the trick is done, you show the utmost in disrespect for the magician. And you shouldn’t be surprised if he’s loath to show you more of his tricks.
Seeing a great movie is watching magic in action. Reading a great screenplay can provide a sliver of that magic. I’d rather be the guy who provides the magic than the one who ruins it for everyone else.
December 9th, 2009 at 11:56 am
This is a non-issue. Fox is preparing a major lawsuit against this guy that is now collecting producers to turn it into a class action. He’ll be owing tens of thousands of dollars in fines and hundreds of hours of community service faster than you can say “Michael Gerhard.”
December 9th, 2009 at 11:59 am
Hi everyone here. As a self-taught screenwriter, allow me to say my opinion in the matter.
I had a tough time learning the craft. It took me 8 years of hard work to write something like True Romance and Reservoir Dogs. My mind would burn when I know that a Scorcese’s film is in production and I can’t get a hand on the script. If I had the resources that are available now I’d probably made my career when I was 23 years old and even beaten John Singleton as youngest screenwriter and director ever nominated for an Oscar!
If there’s any thing that scriptreviewing blogs or sites do, it’s gonna be raising the standards of Hollywood.
We’re the worst when it comes to story now unfortunately. Just look at the foreign films, especially Asian Cinema. They have movies with original ideas or thoughts while we have only sequels, remakes and reboots bullshit.
Thing is Hollywood makes living from making shitty films. Look at metacritic and rottentomatoes. There’s a pile of garbage out there. Tons of money are spent on bullshit.
These sites and blogs aim to raise the standards so that the studios stop producing lame movies.
My script of Inglourious Basterds was leaked and I was pissed about it for a while. But when I read the positive reviews about the script, I thought “That could be a good free publicity for my movie.”
The Bottom line is:
These sites hurt lame screenwriters and support the good ones.
I think Executives should focus on the movie piracy rather than script piracy. Cuz I think that the audiences that’re watching movies are much wider than the ones reading scripts.
QT
December 9th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
Ted Elliot:
Thanks so much for coming by and contributing to the conversation. You and Terry have also been really generous with advise and wisdom for aspiring writers via the Internet and it’s great to hear your insights on this.
I was really surprised to hear what you said about writers contracts actually having it written in that the studio is allowed to see the script at any time. That, honestly, sounds like a pretty bad contract. Shouldn’t the issue be then that writers need to negotiate better contracts that take into fuller account both the gradual process of writing and revising, and respect for creator’s rights?
December 9th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
I’d like to point something else out I don’t think the pro-scriptshadow crowd understands. Just because a script already sold DOESN’T mean Carson’s reviews can’t destroy the project. Nearly ALL deals in Hollywood these days for non A-listers only includes an upfront option fee. The actual purchase price is ONLY paid once the movie is greenlit. During the option period there’s development done on the material…then it has to sell AGAIN to stars…to directors…to the studio heads. Each of these individuals most likely have their own development people who can easily sour on a project if there’s bad buzz on the internet because a popular blog wrote a negative review on an old, obsolete draft.
December 9th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
I’m with Kenny (#19): I want to see the scripts which are getting traction now; and in their original form, not after they’ve been buffed and botoxed in development. Because as a wannabe screenwriter, that’s what I’m competing with.
And I like to read the script before the movie comes out, guess how popular it will be, and see my guess confirmed or not. This sharpens my commercial judgment.
Living 10,000 miles from L.A. (literally), I don’t get much chance to see the scripts floating around. So ScriptShadow has been a boon for me.
I don’t want other writers to get hurt. And I accept that posting scripts without permission is wrong. But I think the industry ultimately benefits from aspirants knowing how high the bar is. How are you going to do this without providing access to current scripts?
December 9th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
@ Ted Elliott,
I second JJ. – Its an honor to have your opinion available.
December 9th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
I’ve got an idea for all those wishing to read a film’s script before seeing the movie. When the movie comes out, don’t see it until you’ve read the script. Your education will be exactly the same as if you had read the script before the release of the movie. And forget that lame idea that you’re learning about what’s selling (rather than writing well for yourself).
@Working Writer makes a nice point. The screenwriter will pay dearly for any number of unintended consequences of his/her script’s use by aka Carson Reeves and ScriptShadow.
December 9th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
@JB
Your magician analogy supposes Scriptshadow readers are an audience when in fact they are fellow magicians. OF COURSE the audience should stay away from spoilers. But fellow magicians have to peek behind the scenes to learn their craft.
@Working Writer
I for one am well aware of how bad buzz can kill a deal. Scriptshadow CAN make or break a script. But so can the tracking boards. So can Jerry Bruckheimer’s iphone. So can AICN. Is your point to outlaw kingmakers, or to complain that Scriptshadow just shouldn’t be one?
@Ted Elliot
Huge fan, and I feel your pain: I’m all for the larger argument that script sharing should NEVER have existed for the sake of respect to the writer. But since Hollywood DOES share scripts with each other, how can we blame Scriptshadow for democratizing that perk to those writers outside the industry?
I really don’t mean to defend Scriptshadow so much. I totally see how problematic this gets. But I can’t lose sight of the essential truth that reading these scripts makes writers better at writing scripts that can BECOME MOVIES. Scriptshadow made me better. As long as script sharing exists IN the industry, I can’t wrap my head around denying those outside the industry the privilege. Let the working writer with no blacklist scripts on his/her hard-drive cast the first stone.
December 9th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
@JB
But I want to be the magician. I don’t want to do that guy’s trick, but seeing how he constructed it and developed it may help me in the creation of my own. And saying that the trick is ruined for me isn’t valid cause I can still enjoy the final flourish. Coming out of the analogy, whenever SS posts a script and a review I usually read the script before I check out his review. I come to my own conclusion and then see Carson’s thoughts on the work. Maybe there are some folks who just want to be in on the early stuff, but I (and I think the majority of SS backers) do look at it as a learning tool. The points about producers going sour are valid, but the readership here I believe wholly understands the process. By that I mean the average SS reader knows that these are works in progress. Its a draft and not the final shooting script, that is the point of the blog.
There is another site much like SS, and there they don’t write their articles as reviews, rather more like coverage. Would that be an issue?
December 9th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
@JJ (of comment 88 fame) The reason that drafts will not be submitted with ‘early draft’ or any other phrase is the implication. Even if the writer and the executives know that there will be more drafts, no one wants to imply that it’s impossible to greenlight the current draft until it’s actually read. There is always a chance that an early draft could become the final draft.
Many scripts are perfectly fine when ’submitted’, but things change for many reasons. Some scripts are overnoted to make those giving notes important. Less cynically, a lot of writers are asked to try different things for very good reasons. Particularly, scripts are often changed to suit potential actors, budget, or to seperate them from similar projects in development. A lot of times, these changes don’t work or become unnecessary.
@Martin B No, you aren’t competing with these scripts. If your script is written, then you are competing with yourself and the issue of access. If it hasn’t been written yet, you are competing with other people writing their scripts at the same moment. Whenever you read a story about a zombie script selling in the aftermath of a zombie movie doing well at the box office, for instance, you can’t think that this new sale was crafted to chase the zombie trend. More likely, it was written months or years ago and was sitting on a shelf, waiting for someone to prove the viability of the zombie movie. I guarantee you that chasing trends or buzz will keep you amateur for the forseeable future. There is not a markable difference in quality between a script that is already out in theaters and a script that sold today.
@Joel Thomas The problem is that, not knowing you, I am still willing to gamble that you are underselling yourself. If you are legitimately shopping a script that has a chance to sell, that is because you are a good writer. The chances of you reaching this level of success without having read in progress scripts, I’m willing to gamble, was nil. And even with a slight increase in your chance of success, the risks to those who wrote the scripts are much higher. It just isn’t worth it to anyone.
As for the different between tracking boards and Scriptshadow, as previously discussed, there are differences. For one, tracking boards are largely comprised of people who understand the development process first hand and know where the scripts are coming from. Not to sound elitist, but these people are in fact a lot closer to ‘magicians’ than most of the people reading a public blog and working on scripts on the weekends. Secondly, as to the damage factor: most tracking boards are private or somehow limited. Even if the sense of privacy is a joke, there is a sense. Studio executives can tolerate their existence knowing that the general public is probably not trolling them. Furthermore, most studio executives would lose interest in checking out tracking boards at the sign in page. But a public blog, open to anyone, is fundamentally different.
In regards to the differences with the Blacklist. The list itself is fine. Read the loglines, see the names. If you want to check out a script or give me a job based on the list, call my agent. Otherwise, you are best suited to see any number of scripts from previous blacklists which have already been produced.
December 9th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
@Martin B:
Thanks, and in your agreement you better expressed what I was trying to say.
Somebody, somewhere else in these posts mentioned that SS is nothing new, just an new incarnation of a decades-old practice that continues in many otherwise seemingly sanctioned forms like The Black List.
Ironically, I stumbled across proof of sorts of this in an interview with John Raffo, writer of ‘Renko Vega and The jennifer Nine’ on SS, where he says:
“I wanted to be the storyteller. Screenwriting seemed like the place to start. I had an actress girlfriend at the time and I read all the scripts that she got, and I solicited them from other people I knew. Of course there was no Internet, no digital medium at all. Scripts weren’t published; you couldn’t buy them in a store. It wasn’t easy to get your hands on them at all.”
But he did get his hands on them, presumably for the same reasons we SS sympathisers do. The fact that Mr. Raffo obviously willingly collaborates with SS in an interview would also disprove the theory that every working screenwriter despises the site’s existence.
December 9th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
@Kenny The key is “Of course, there was no Internet…”. That drastically changes things. Yes, before the internet, getting ANY script would be difficult. It would be difficult to even find scripts at a library or book store. If anyone here is an aspiring screenwriter from 1979 writing on a magical LAKE HOUSE style computer that only gets Scriptshadow and JohnAugust #1. Save John Lennon! #2. By all means, do what you must to get a hold of scripts to read. If you, however, are around today, reading unproduced screenplays will not help you any more than reading produced scripts.
December 9th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
NEGATIVE, PUBLIC CHATTER ABOUT A WRITER’S WORK IN PROGRESS IS POTENTIALLY DAMAGING TO THEIR CAREER.
Period. End of story. Hurting writers when you say you’re supporting them is b.s.
SS may not INTEND that, but now that he knows, he should accept responsibility. It also hurts all the amateur writers who are rooting him on too, contributing to a blame-the-writer atmosphere, which makes it easier and easier to get fired (ESPECIALLY when you’re new).
He’s certainly not reviewing the producer’s work, the exec’s work, the actor’s mother/ manager work — just a short list of the potential minefield scenarios a writer may be dealing with on a bad draft. SS just makes it easier to get the writer fired/ kill the project.
And there are tons of other TEACHING TOOLS:
Produced scripts online.
The BLACKLIST – showcasing a 100+ unproduced/ but sold scripts in a POSITIVE light annually (and people LOVE Franklin Leonard, btw, who started the blacklist b/c he didn’t hurt people).
And Done Deal does a nice job of filtering the trades and letting you know what ideas are selling.
Not everyone is entitled to read every scripts. Not even as a working writers. There are a TON of scripts I don’t get to read b/c they are on lockdown/ not ready yet. A little bit of secrecy is the nature of the business.
SS should get permission from writers and take down negative reviews of drafts whose movies aren’t out yet. Because until it’s in production, a script is a work in progress.
Just be classy.
December 9th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
@Joel Thomas #107:
I don’t think “democratizing” is the correct word for what’s happening. “Exploiting” is a more accurate term.
December 9th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
There is a push toward ‘Produced’ scripts as a worthwhile tool from the SS detractors (I don’t disagree, if I see a scene in a film that I dug and want to see how it looks on the page I seek out that script). A lot of you seem to draw equally from detriment to the writer and legality of copyright infringement. I see the issue with a script getting locked down, as it were. But produced scripts are still legally under copyright. That John hosts his here is great and legal. I’ll call out Synthian here because in two posts you fall on two sides of this. In your ‘Nabisco’ comment you linked directly to script-o-rama and scriptpimp as viable options, but I’d wager nearly all those scripts are currently under copyright. Then in your ‘rape’ comment you make the point that we can’t start looking at this in degrees of legality. From a legal standpoint if SS is wrong then script-o-rama is equally wrong. Essentially I just want to wholly put the legal issue aside in the debate. If scriptpimp and the intern network is just as illegal you can’t use copyright against SS.
December 9th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
JJ:
“I was really surprised to hear what you said about writers contracts actually having it written in that the studio is allowed to see the script at any time. That, honestly, sounds like a pretty bad contract.”
Its a clause in the Writers Guild MBA. But you’re looking at it through the wrong end of the telescope: as onerous as the “inspection” clause may be, it actually a limitation of the studio’s ability to impose even worse terms (like, say, the writer must deliver X number of a pages a day, with penalties for failing to do so — something that was standard practice in the studio era).
My point was that, the only reason Scriptshadow has the ability to review a writer’s work without the explicit permission of the writer is because of conditions the studios impose on the development process. Pretending to the moral high ground and arguing that this in someway celebrates writers or serves the interests of writers doesn’t change the fact that Scriptshadow rides remora-like on the back of a corporate creature that inherently and explicitly denies the authorial rights of screenwriters … and, so, likewise denies those rights to screenwriters.
John’s mild suggestion that Scriptshadow seek the permission of the writer before reviewing an unproduced screenplay was met with some derision; after all, goes the refrain, reviewers don’t need permission to review a work of authorship. But, in fact, they do — and the author grants them that permission by choosing to make his/her work public. The studio development system denies screenwriters that authority — but Scriptshadow could nonetheless accord them that authority, in regards to its own use of their work.
In other words, Scriptshadow can recognize the fact that screenwriters are the authors of their work, in defiance of the studios and the peculiar institution of the U.S. work-made-for-hire law — or it can continue to treat writers no differently than the studios.
-
December 9th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Man this is good.
December 9th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
@TinyElvis, who said,
“And forget that lame idea that you’re learning about what’s selling (rather than writing well for yourself).”
I’m not sure how you believe yourself privvy to what I’m learning from scripts or any other material. And by definition, if a new, unproduced script, entitled THE BLOG THAT GREW AND GREW, for example, is sold, and I read about it through SS, then I am by definition “learning about what’s selling”. And it helps me write well for myself. It may not for you. It does for me.
@A.Nerd (113) Of course, I completely concede it would’ve been harder to locate scripts pre-internet. The process, and point, remains.
@Working Writer I completely agree with your proposal that there be no negative reviews – more a celebration of scripts that excite and impress Mr. Reeves, much like The Black List as you point out. I genuinely believe that has been his intention, but perhaps he needs to push the positivity a notch higher. Negativity and its consequences, unintended or otherwise, suck.
December 9th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
I suspect that most, if not all, of the people who don’t understand why ScriptShadow hurts writers are amateurs/wannabes who don’t understand how Hollywood works at all. Either that or they resent pros, thinking those so-called “hacks” all broke in undeservedly and should be “taken down a peg.” There’s an ignorant viciousness to quite a few of the comments people leave on that site.
Coming from the perspective of a minor-league professional screenwriter, I would be appalled if one of my scripts were reviewed on that site. Most of us (pros) have had the experience of “bad tracking” at one time or another. That’s when you have a project go out wide and one or two initial readers don’t like it, and at that point it’s essentially dead in the water because later readers are influenced by the other readers’ opinions. Hollywood has a sheep mentality, and if someone reads a negative review on ScriptShadow for a script that’s on the market, it very likely will damage the script’s chance of selling. Since a great deal of Carson’s reviews are quite negative (and personally I feel that he has terrible taste), he has probably cost a number of writers a sale already. I am not being overly dramatic, here. Outsiders do not have the slightest concept of how carefully orchestrated a sale is.
I agree that there is merit in the idea of reading and discussing scripts, but I ABSOLUTELY agree with John that this should only be done AFTER THE MOVIE COMES OUT and no harm can be done to the writer.
I think Carson better find himself a good lawyer, because I have no doubt he will be sued eventually — if not by studios, then by some of the writers whose livelihood he’s threatening.
December 9th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
Earlier this year a script of mine appeared on the recent UK Black List and was subsequently reviewed on ScriptShadow. A script called GRABBERS. Being aware of the site for a while I expected this to happen, especially considering Carson and his fellow script fans were actively gathering the “Brit List” to read and review online. I was resigned to the fact this was the nature of the beast and there was nothing I could do to stop it. Many, if not all, of the Brit List scripts were being traded on countless message boards across the net, not just on ScriptShadow, but on blogs and forums of such writer friendly sites as Empire magazine and Done Deal. ScriptShadow was and is just one of many ways scripts spread and you can be sure that if your script appears on ScriptShadow it’s been out there for a while.
Thankfully, my script was positively reviewed. However, as is standard on the site, attached to the review was the script. So, I contacted Carson to kindly take it down. Carson did so immediately, and he was polite, sincere and grateful for my e-mail. But the review remains as is still up there. Since that review I have received many, many e-mails from strangers who’ve read the script via the site and have written to tell me how much they enjoyed it. This includes aspirants, interns, assistants and fellow writers in the business. BAFTA nominated writers in some cases, no less.
I am sure my feelings to the site would be very different if Carson and his readership attacked my work, but that’s not the case and I can only speak as someone who has had direct contact with the site. Carson Reeves is not the scumbag people make him out to be and nor is a mob witch-hunt necessary. I can also say that GRABBERS has not suffered because of the site, and nor have I. In fact the review has generated extra interest in the planned film from those who’ve read it. For that I can only be grateful.
Yet, considering all this, I still agree with John’s original concerns. Sometimes ScriptShadow has dropped the ball, but this is not a reason to destroy it. Mistakes are made by us all, many times and ScriptShadow can evolve from this. I believe a fair compromise may be to focus only on scripts that impress (whilst of course seeking the permission of those responsible for the work before publishing reviews). ScriptShadow recently went to great pains to get the permission to read and review a script entitled RENKO AND THE JENNIFER NINE. This review included a lovely Q&A with John Raffo, the writer. I could see ScriptShadow and its passionate, intelligent reviewers doing more of this work and transforming ScriptShadow from a site that highlights writers, rather than shadows their work. And I would have no problem with that.
December 9th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
I’m glad that people are working towards a compromise. It might be purely academic, since no one can control what Carson does (except by involving the courts), but it’s a step in the right direction. More than anything, it heartens me that even people who disagree with the site are trying to suggest ways that it could continue.
I do want to point out a couple of caveats with the “positive reviews only” approach.
A site that gives only positive reviews may not be taken all that seriously. (What if Roger Ebert or A.O. Scott only reviewed movies they loved?) Yes, the Black List is taken seriously, but it’s the result of a large-scale voting process, not one guy’s opinion. It’s more like Rotten Tomatoes with the bottom 90% removed.
What about all the hot in-development scripts that don’t get reviewed as a result? Wouldn’t not getting covered by ScriptShadow have the potential to be damaging? At least by giving negative reviews he’s being transparent about his likes and dislikes — enabling people to understand what his tastes are based on. Personally, I think Carson’s been wrong about almost every script he’s reviewed, but I’ve only been able to make that assessment by reading all his reviews.
December 9th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
Zeb…
The facts are all facts.
And the only remaining argument on the table for ambiguity is: “Bucause I likes doin it.”
There’s not a leg left to stand on, and if you’re still out there fighting, to claim that its okay to do this… in light of the TIDAL WAVE that’s been provided you… then you (if there’s ANY logic present at all) must admit now, that either: (1) You don’t believe what your industry’s leaders/the super-pros, and those with more experience than you say… or, (B) that you yourself have both an immovable agenda, and a sense of entitlement, which presents us (the actual debaters) with your only possible remaining philosophy. – And there’s, (lets be honest) only one way to say it:
“Really, what do I care about The Screenwriters.”
December 9th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
@Synthian
At least two professional screenwriters have also spoken in defense of ScriptShadow. Let’s not make it into a “professionals who understand vs. amateurs who are clueless” argument. I think there are good points to be made on both sides and I’m glad they’re continuing to be made.
December 9th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Please stop I need to get back to writing:)
December 9th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
I sure am hungry!
December 9th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
You could substitute “studio coverage” for “ScriptShadow review” anywhere above with identical meaning.
How many potential deals has a bad bit of coverage or tracking board opinion destroyed–often on an early draft not intended for production? Yet writers rarely get to see those reviews and certainly can’t ask to have their scripts removed from being passed across industry desks.
I believe sharing these scripts without permission is indefensible on copyright grounds. However, the ScriptShadow process is no different than what happens daily in the industry, making the studio outrage seem disingenuous.
STUDIO EXEC Oh my God, people are passing around our scripts and commenting on them!
PRODUCER Big deal. We’ve been doing that for years.
STUDIO EXEC But now it’s regular people!
Perhaps the studios should look at their own practices before they start casting stones. Any argument for why the existing system is acceptable should be just as valid for ScriptShadow. Any reason why ScriptShadow should be torn asunder goes double for tracking boards, coverage, and script trading. You can’t have it both ways.
It’s funny that a primary way that ScriptShadow supposedly hurts screenwriters is that, due to studio backlash against SS disseminating screenplays, these writers are now prevented from disseminating their screenplays.
Maybe these writers should hope SS puts their scripts on the site. At least that way they could point prospective employers to these verboten drafts.
December 9th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
@ Nick,
It IS. It has been.
And once we established harm, what was needed on the PRO side wasn’t a Point, it was a justification for the harm. – There hasn’t been one. – There hasn’t even been an attempt at one.
And the difference between a Pro, (Hell, I’m a Pro, & so are several others on my side that I wasn’t referring to when I mentioned the massive LEGENDS that chimed in) and a legend, is one hell of a lot of experience and credibility. – Sorry. But nobody with any credibility chimed in to say, “Yes, take their scripts without permission.” – It didn’t happen. It was a pros who understand vs public naivete debate. And its over. Nobody justified the harm & infringement. – I’ll listen if you’d like to try.
December 9th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
No agenda and no entitlement. We, as in everyone of us, are not entitled to anything in this world or in this argument. I’m not entitled to Source Code or The Dark Knight or Big Fish; the last being the only one I’ve actually read legally.
My point being virtually every script online, whether it be on scriptpimp or elsewhere, is illegally offered. Those are the facts, you are correct.
That bit of ambiguity you derisively point out is the only argument I see as well. You and your ‘tidal wave’ though give literally no credence to the notion that I may be legitimate in my view that I can learn and better myself from these scripts. Not from Carson, I want to make that distinction. I am in no way entitled to them and were they not available I would still write and better my skills as best I see fit. They are merely a welcomed tool in that pursuit.
Working Writer’s situation is horrible. And having followed SS for some time am certain it is an unforeseen result. There are many suggestions being made here towards augmenting what SS is and most are valuable ideas Carson should weigh. I do respect the authors, as much as I do John while reading one of his scripts. Nearly all of what is found on SS is from either produced or repped writers. How could I not respect them, they’re farther along than I am. To say that it is bad form for me to try and learn from them paints me as something I won’t cop to. Surely its been mentioned, but why does John have his Spec for Go up and not just the final shooting draft?
December 9th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
I think there’s an important delineation that’s getting lost in all the noise here.
If Ted Elliott writes a third draft producers pass for Pirates Of The Caribbean 4 that is meant for the eyes of the creative team only, but which somehow gets leaked out on the internet — would it be wrong of Carson to post a review of that draft along with a link to the PDF? Guys. Of course that would be wrong. OF COURSE! Is it a violation of copyright? Of course. Anybody who would defend something like that is out of their mind.
But.
If Michael Gilvary busts his ass for ten years and writes a great spec, and that great spec goes out wide to a number of potential buyers, and one of those buyers actually agrees to buy this great spec, and the trades report the sale of this great spec to the public, and because of that an anonymous fellow on the internet is sent this great spec in electronic form and he posts it for others to read as well, in addition to posting his thoughts on whether or not he thought this spec really was great or not — well is that a violation of copyright? Yes. Is it ethically wrong? That’s arguable, I guess. Is it a reality of the current state of professional screenwriting? Absolutely.
As writers, when we send a script out on spec, or when we use a previous work as a writing sample — we are, in todays day and age, essentially publishing that script. We are subjecting ourselves to the opinions of those who read it, just like we always have. We have always been reviewed on our work — at first completely privately, then with coverage that was faxed around to others within the community, then on private tracking message boards within the community, and now occasionally on public blogs. You can complain about it until you’re blue in the face, but it’s the reality of the business.
Michael Gilvary, you wrote a great spec and it sold. Congrats! But then that great spec got a bad review on a website read by, what, 5-10 thousand people. That blows. I’ve been there. I’ve had bad reviews of finished work in the New York Times, and I’ve had bad reviews of unfinished work on websites that post audience reactions from test screenings. So has John, so has Ted, so has every produced writer in the world. Never easy, never fun. But for better or for worse, it’s part of the deal. When a movie is released, it will be reviewed; when a movie goes through the test screening process, the possibility exists of it being reviewed; and now when a spec is sold or used as a WS the possibility exists that it could be reviewed as well.
I’ve heard so many writers, including myself, complain about bad reviews of our finished movies — “they trashed the screenplay, but how would they know? They didn’t read the screenplay, they saw the shitty movie the director made out of the screenplay.” Now there’s a very small but very devoted segment of the population willing and interested in reviewing the screenplay on its own merits, and people are rejecting the very idea out of hand. John’s two proposals are trying to bridge the ethical gap between the two sides. Personally I think they’re fairly unrealistic, but hey, at least it’s a start. Regardless, the gap does need to be bridged, because anybody who thinks this is a clear cut issue where one side is right and one side is wrong just isn’t seeing the forest through the trees.
December 9th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
Oh I don’t argue that you couldn’t/didn’t learn from them. – I’m sure you did. I give that credence. – It just doesn’t matter in a context of right or wrong for him to just take them without asking… which is what we’re debating here. – I can’t argue your education… nor would I. – I’m sure you gathered one in the same way I did as a reader. – So here’s a new question:
Are you saying, that the fact that you learned from it means that I’m wrong and he should be allowed to take and display them?
Or are you just saying: He shouldn’t have stolen them. He shouldn’t put writers at risk. But now that he has, I feel a need to use them.
(Which is an entirely different ball of wax altogether from this debate of, “Should he have to ask?” and “Should he wait until the release date?”)
December 9th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
@ Zeb,
And (B) Is it your claim that: The education you get from these “up-for-sale/entering-production” scripts is different or better than the education you can get from first reading a produced script from Drews Script-O-Rama, and then viewing the film afterward? (Lets just do away with the middle part part of the conversation and assume you haven’t already watched all ten billion of the good ones.)
December 9th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
Damn. Being dead a long time makes you forget how to spell.
December 9th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
@Synthian (and if I may, Zeb)
Better? No. Different? Of course: because it’s about what’s being bought as close to ‘now’ as possible. And no that doesn’t mean I say, ‘Hey, they’re buying ‘contained thrillers’ so I’ll go and write one’ – because in the weeks or months that takes, as somebody pointed out, the market will most likely have moved on.
Copyright issues aside, it’s one of many means of gauging trends, in the same way as box office figures are – with the added bonus of actually reading another script!
December 9th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
I exist somewhere between the pro and the spec monkey–I’ve been paid enough to write to pay the rent for a couple of months, but it isn’t my career (yet). There are some false assumptions underlying the defenses of ScriptShadow that I feel need to be addressed. First, studios don’t look for reasons to say yes. They look for reasons to say no. Second, sometimes intelligent studio execs will buy things that aren’t yet ready to be made, but are good enough to develop. Works in progress, in other words. But you may need to get the approval of three other studio execs before getting a greenlit. A negative review of a work in progress could be the difference between a movie getting made and not getting made.
I have several completed, produced plays that I’ve posted on my website. Anyone can download them and read them. I have not posted any of my works in progress–either my novel or the three screenplays–because they are not yet ready for public consumption. Period. They’re not good enough. And it is possible for a script to sell, but still be not good enough for public consumption.
I am now terrified that what happened to Working Writer or the poor guy mentioned in the link @1 will happen to me–that either I will have a really great script but not be able to use it to get work, or that a good script will get a bad review before it sells, thus killing a really good chance I could have had to pay my rent.
This isn’t about you & your “right” to read private works in progress. This is about people’s livelihoods.
December 9th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
JAMIE LINDEN -
Dude! Gilvary should have a say on whether HE wants people to see his work before it’s been greenlit. Not you.
It hurts writers to have their work negatively talked about on the internet (which is a WAY broader audience than tracking boards, btw). So, yes, it’s totally different. It’s WORSE, in fact.
Saying it happens anyway is just a lame excuse to do something bad.
You can’t say you celebrate an industry/ craft while you’re pointedly taking shots at specific individuals who make their living at it.
Carson is doing a bad thing to writers, pro and amateur alike.
Do you see wannabe director’s websites posting feature director’s dailies and tearing them apart? Do you see wannabe actor’s dissecting working actor’s rehearsals?
All in the name of “learning.” When someone else’s career has to suffer for you to “learn,” then the only thing you’re learning is how to be a douche.
And how to make it OK for others to do the same to you.
Sad.
December 9th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
Ok, now that you’ve gauged the trend- how does that benefit you?
What does seeing what just give you? Aside from entertainment? – (Accepting that almost all of the screenplays selling now were written in different times past, and that you’re NOT going to be a freshman rush and try to “write one real quick” nor are you going to wait ten years for “the cycle”, and knowing that you can see what just sold on Variety – and knowing that: The next trend is what you make it.) – What is the honest benefit? – Really. Its Ok to say that its just entertainment if its just entertainment, because that would make all this make sense. Because I’m all over it, but I don’t see one.
December 9th, 2009 at 6:44 pm
(I meant “what just sold”)
December 9th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
Yeah, entertainment and rubbernecking is the majority of it for me. Guilty.
But how else do I benefit? For want of a better description, by gauging broad trends of the (current) era. Page length. Use of scene headers vs. shot descriptions, ‘asides’ to the reader, breaking of other conventions considered to be established for the most part to dramatic effect.
In effect, what can I get away with that in the past, according to many texts and other sources would have had my script thrown out, and will now improve it?
December 9th, 2009 at 7:19 pm
@ Synthian
Second part first: No I would not say better, but different yes. Kenny’s on it in that I’m not chasing trends, which Working Writer acutely said was a bad idea in a post yesterday. If I’m reading shooting scripts for movies that are just being released today those honed to a fine edge scripts are maybe two years old or more. I can get an idea of (for specifics let’s say) action lines as being punchy, and high on verb count. Now scripts on the market today maybe more sparse, direct, with less flowery description. And from that extrapolation I can make a guess at what readers may be looking for in say six months when I have such and such spec ready. Maybe some people don’t think about it in such a way, but I do. I read old scripts, new scripts everything I can. Which John tacitly says needs to happen, although he confines it to the struggling Hollywood crowd.
For me the difference between script-o-rama and SS is that with SS I’m seeing the hot spec that got everyone’s attention. I don’t care about reading the next Pirates script. If there’s something in the film that really grabs me I’ll look back in the script to see how the writer did it. Example: Legolas taking down the Elephant in Lord of the Rings. One sentence in the script, essentially ‘Legolas climbs on and kills the elephant’. But I saw that scene and said how did they write that action.
The hot spec that has people talking, with it everything has to be on the page, and I want to see how the writer was able to grab people with the words on the page.
Should Carson ask for permission? I can get behind that. Should he wait for release? That just makes him another movie reviewer. Yea he could still review that third draft that’s been sitting on his and everyone else’s hard drive for two years. How does that help me based on my previous statements (we’re talking me personally here and why I use SS). Getting rid of Carson’s blog only means one extra step for me, going on the message boards. Please don’t make me go there.
Again it isn’t a need to use them, its a tool I have access to. John wants me to run coffee to get that access, I get that mentality (I’m trying to get my ducks in a row so I can move out to LA, and most likely run coffee).
No Carson doesn’t have the right to take them, or display them, but I’ll say if it was the same exact thing without the script links he’s free and clear. I mentioned this earlier, but a similar site writes their articles like coverage rather than reviews. What they see as problems and ideas on fixes it is more constructive then straight opinion. I actually like that idea better.
December 9th, 2009 at 7:27 pm
@Zeb
Yep.
December 9th, 2009 at 7:32 pm
Kenny,
Yes! – (I’m glad we have an honest one.) New ways to break rules are happening all the time. – In fact, one of the items on my “Am I Done? Checklist” is: Did you break a convention in a way no one’s ever seen before? – And you do have to read to see them, & that’s the fun part… but you know where you’re REALLY going to see those zebras? – Memento, which was released years ago… The Fall. Requiem for a Dream. THE BIRDS! – ANYTHING KAUFMAN. – Hell, even The 5th Element has some crazy interchanges. – Have you read em? – Even Pirates of the Caribbean screenplays are available within like a week of the release and if that’s not modern I don’t know what is. (The damn thing’s author was just up there on this blog telling you he didn’t like the Script Shadow thing.) – My point is, there is no Intelligence Era. – Its a timeless skill. And you don’t need permission from someone breaking a barrier before you to break it. – Its your job to break the conventions. (Intelligently.) – There’s nothing that says you cant print people’s thoughts in subtitles while their talking and use different colored text for each character’s thoughts, or have conversations only in thoughts, so long as you can make it look bad-ass on the page.
I’m glad you stepped up man.
December 9th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
Entertainment is a small part of it for me. It’s there sure, but I’m studying craft here and I want cutting edge. Ford isn’t designing cars to compete with ‘07 car of the year. They’re designing cars to compete with what Honda is cooking up. Please don’t take that as the cannibalistic writers mentality, I’m just talking knowing whats out there on peoples’ desks.
@ Girl Writer
You are right it is a lame excuse. The only option then is to lock it all down so as to keep the assistants’ grubby little hands off them. Then it’s an even playing field. It means agents and development execs have to work a ton harder (As I think I’ve mentioned I’m not in LA, so the validity of my argument here is in question I guess. I’m aspiring from too far away). The ire has to be more at his reviews and Carson’s opinion then the scripts getting out.
December 9th, 2009 at 7:56 pm
Zeb,
Ok! – That’s a compromise! – If you can get behind all that “asking permission” stuff… That makes it all worth it for me. – I just wanted to know the reason/benefit I’d been asking for as to why these particular scripts were seen as so abnormally educational. – And now that you’re saying, just, “If they’re there I’m gonna use um.” – Any edge… I can respect that.
But… John just wants you to be the best you can be without making things harder on the universe of writers. – I’m the one that wants you to run coffee for it. :) – (I have scruples.)
December 9th, 2009 at 7:58 pm
Come on Syth I’m trying to be as honest as possible here.
Check read ‘em, save The Fall. I thought they improvised most of the movie, which I loved. Have to hunt that down now.
It is a timeless skill, but as a bunch have pointed out those making the decisions are fickle. Provided I have the skills I also have to give a little thought to what the guys who write ‘recommend’ and ‘consider’ are looking for.
December 9th, 2009 at 8:06 pm
Where can a guy get a drink around here?
December 9th, 2009 at 8:09 pm
@ Synthian
Compromise. God I love that word.
That’s all it is, a tool. The crazies (on my side not yours) automatically bring about the thought of malicious intent, they’re crazy what are gonna say. I would hope though that SS’s general readership is closer to me than the gimme gimme gimme crowd.
And I work a menial job already, just so I have time to write. I’m halfway there, it’s just not washing Joel Silver’s car.
December 9th, 2009 at 8:18 pm
@Nima
“As a writer you should want control of your material, not control to be in someone else’s hands.”
As a screenwriter? Seriously? As a screenwriter, the only time you have control of your material is when it has no chance of being made. A site like ScriptShadow is about the only place where anyone will see or enjoy your material before you’re sidelined and a few dozen other people get their hands on it.
December 9th, 2009 at 8:26 pm
Zeb,
Hey I was mostly kidding. – I don’t think you should have to push coffee, – but I do believe it helps. – And I know you can succeed on a feature from a far away land. – Provided you’re brilliant. (See Nina Jacobson’s article @ Wordplay) – But honestly, between those scripts… what’s in John’s library… Minority Report, 12 Monkeys, and ummm… everything Brian Helgeland ever wrote, you’re pretty much attuned to be the golden boy. – The rest is just your scalpel hand and crazy heavy lifting :)
December 9th, 2009 at 8:46 pm
I think we might have ran the crazies off, they don’t like reasoned discourse. Or their attention went elsewhere, shiny objects and all.
The legit outlets I’m all for. I love award season because the studios will host their scripts for consideration. I devour it all.
The heavy lifting is why I’m not in LA. I’ve been doing it for years, but six, seven years ago I was only able to wield a machete. The scalpel hand, as you say, is where I’ve been working to and feel I’m about at a level to make the trip west worth it.
Speaking of The Crazies, I saw that trailer the other day. Anyone got the script? —– I had to it was right there in front of me.
December 9th, 2009 at 8:50 pm
@Zeb I can fundamentally say that there has not been a singularity in screenwriting. I guarantee you, other than the occasional reference to a rotary phone, that Billy Wilder scripts are remarkably similar, format wise, to Judd Apatow scripts. I really think if you are worried about verb count or sparseness as compared to other scripts, you are worried about the wrong thing and WAAAAAY over thinking it. If your scripts aren’t being picked up, it isn’t because of verb count. Frankly, you aren’t Ford (but maybe someday!). You just need to make the script good in the annoying basic way everyone says makes a good script: good characters, solid plot, fresh dialogue, etc. That stuff will never, ever stale. Scripts do not sell because they come up with a really fun and exciting way to format a telephone conversation.
The only problem I have with coverage over opinion is that it still doesn’t take into account where the script is in the development process. Also, when coverage is written by professional studio readers, it still might piss people off, but every writer understands where these readers are coming from. It isn’t easy to get a professional reading job. It takes years of free work to build up experience and usually an education. I can guarantee you, no matter what excuses a lot of bitter attempted screenwriters may try to sell you, readers will not pass on your script if you accidentally misspell a word or you use an antiquated transition. They will pass if it sucks. Also, there is an accountability to readers that actually work in accountability. You can also get fired with little to no warning the first time you mess up. That isn’t true of a blog.
December 9th, 2009 at 9:38 pm
@ A.Nerd
On the coverage idea, that was simply an honest question. Just to see what people’s thoughts were. The accountability issue I didn’t think about. That’s not present in a review, which is just an opinion. The coverage notion just seemed more legitimate, but with such legitimacy there should be accountability. Test Balloon… FAIL.
I read parts of Some Like It Hot a couple months ago. There are still action lines and slugs and dialog. But he writes 12 13 line action lines, that read like prose sometimes. Another of my favorite scripts is The Man Who Would Be King, same thing. Sometimes it’s like prose with chopped out dialog. If I write like that, even if the sentences are beautiful, I get nowhere today. Then you have something like Chinatown, which is nearly as old, but for the most part very modern with quick action and scenes that have a drive to them.
I worry that I am over thinking it sometimes, but alas its worked for me so far as what I wrote today (literally) is light-years from what I wrote five years ago.
Correct those thing will never go stale. And that is what comes first. And fine I’ll agree I ain’t Ford, can I at least be whatever is a step down the rung from Kia. And being that unnamed brand no one knows or cares to drive at the moment I still have to compete with Ford and Honda and even BMW in the marketplace. Being able to look at what others are about to or have just put on the market (almost always the latter) has to help me make my product better. I have no legal footing, which I’ve said. But Synthian condensed my argument down to two words for me, Any Edge.
December 9th, 2009 at 10:45 pm
‘Any Edge’ works for me too – as does the ‘reasoned discourse’ which preceded it.
Cheers all.
December 9th, 2009 at 11:28 pm
Great work on this, John. As always, you are the statesman.
And as always, I’m the emotional crank. :)
Here’s my take.
http://artfulwriter.com/?p=1018
December 10th, 2009 at 12:34 am
Jaime Linden:
Just to be clear — I’m not whining about a bad review. And I hardly care about the opinion of some anonymous guy with a blog who can’t even be bothered to correctly spell the names of the main characters in the script he just read.
My point is merely that he should stop trying to sell himself as a champion of screenwriters when so many of those writers have made it clear that they are bothered by what he’s doing; when he continues to illegally post other people’s hard work and only takes it down when asked; when he boasts that his blog has influenced the development of projects in which he serves no official role and to which he has no responsibility.
What he’s doing may be appreciated by aspiring writers who don’t otherwise have access to this kind of material, but it comes at a cost to many formerly aspiring writers who have to deal with the ramifications of his blithely executed reviews. “Carson Reeves” may be an unavoidable sign of the times, but so is global warming and swine flu, and I’m not going to pretend to be thankful for any of them.
December 10th, 2009 at 12:36 am
I’ve downloaded four scripts from SS, mostly because I liked the ideas behind them and wanted to see if the writers could pull off that idea. waves at Ken Lehane Grabbers was the only of the four that I enjoyed. I rarely read scripts. (the other three were Burst, Renko Vega and Wichita)
Being a professional writer myself, hm, would I like the scripts to my manga books being put on a site somewhere? Dear god, no! They were written in a quite casual, conversational manner, only to be read by the artist and the publisher. On their own, they are not made for public consumption. That’s what books are for.
And even though for example I could have read Tarantino’s Inglourious Basterds scripts way iin advance, I chose to simply ignore it, waiting for the movie. Only when I watched that did I look at the script to see what changes, if any were made.
I agree with Ken’s comments here. It would be easy to ask for permission, if you like to have a script link on it, and it wouldn’t hurt anybody. If you do want to learn the craft… there are enough scripts readily available, so that isn’t really the main thrust of the site.
To see what sells? Hm. If it has already sold, then there is no learning there, to be honest, because then you look at the past, it is by no means an indication of what will sell in the future.
One could argue that it can beneficial to have others comment on scripts that are not yet shot (I know I did comment a few times, mainly at Burst, because that script left me really annoyed at the end, and if it had been a movie already, I would have asked, no, demanded to get my money back, the same with Wichita, nay, Knight & Day, which I looked at since it had a plot somewhat similar to one of the books I had published this year, and I wanted to compare what this writer had done to what I had done, but then again, my script had been finished and handed in months before I even knew about Wichita, and the book had already been published), but I see the problem that John August and a few others here point out.
I do disagree with John about the whole “you must be in L.A.” argument. I recently did a rewrite for a little B-movie, and I sit in Germany, the conversations with the producer were all done over Skype. The internet as a working tool is slowly changing the way of the L.A. meet’N'greet. And that ain’t a bad thing.
December 10th, 2009 at 1:34 am
“he continues to illegally post other people’s hard work and only takes it down when asked”
If it’s true that posting drafts is illegal it is just as true of posting any screenplay of any produced movie online (My comment isn’t meant to be a direct response to M. Gilvary’s post; his post just happened to be the last one I read that mentioned this ongoing theme). Any person complaining that posting drafts is illegal and has himself at any point downloaded a script for any produced movie from a site like scriptpimp or drew’s is being hypocritical.
I’m not saying that there isn’t a difference between posting drafts and produced works; I’m just saying that there isn’t a legal/illegal difference (unless it is the owner posting or giving permission for the work to be posted — but that’s a different discussion).
December 10th, 2009 at 6:19 am
I love the point Craig made with his analogy about going to a restaurant and eating a raw chicken before it’s cooked (DONE) and then give a review on it.
Also, nice zing at the end of his post.
December 10th, 2009 at 6:28 am
Name your favorite movie. Chances are very high that not just one studio passed on the script, but many.
Raiders of the Lost Ark, Star Wars, E.T. to name a few.
None of these films needed the “help” of 18 year old know-it-all experts, whose real career title should be secretary, but they have granted assistant to make them feel like they have more of a role than they actually do… They didn’t need this type of help to get PASSED.
You aren’t doing anyone a favor.
You are doing a disservice to the writer(s). As well as future writers. Not to mention blatantly shitting on copyright.
Here’s the thing about “review” sites — I don’t give a rat’s ass about your opinion. I don’t even know who “you” are. If there were no content whatsoever other than a direct link to the screenplays, you’d have the exact same traffic on your site.
The only reason these sites exist is as a portal to “what’s in development” for the average outsider. It is more akin to bragging rights, “Look and see how many scripts I have that haven’t been made yet,” than it is to a learning tool.
It has the same attraction as a midnight screening opening night.
Let’s not play games citing some altruistic reason. It’s no different than piracy. Redistributing copyrighted material without acquiring the rights to do so is illegal.
December 10th, 2009 at 7:11 am
A recent post over on Artful Writer makes a good point, that screenwriters may be ignoring the real problem.
I mean, I keep thinking of this whole situation like Prohibition or something. It’s like ScriptShadow is the speakeasy, and everybody is blaming the speakeasy for organized crime and alcohol poisoning and bootlegging, and ignoring the federal government’s policies that creates the opportunity for speakeasies, bootlegging, and crime in the first place.
Furthermore, two more questions. Maybe Ted or Jamie or somebody has an opinion on this. One, why don’t studios, writers, prod. companies, ect, see that they can use ScriptShadow in particular and similiar websites in general TO THEIR ADVANTAGE? If you can’t beat ‘em, BUY ‘EM. Hire ‘em to your side. They should be contacting the sites going, “Okay, let’s make a deal. You hold off reviewing draft W of this project, and we’ll give you an exclusive first look at draft Y, then we’ll provide you with this recently bought spec plus this draft of a competing project at another company, write a compare and contrast review, we think you’ll like our project more, ect ect….” And then they could turn around and use the review and all the feedback as basically free feedback and notes which might actually HELP THE QUALITY OF THE SCRIPT.
And the second question is, if the objection to script reviews is that they don’t want people knowing the story and plot details in advance…..well, in an industry that seems obsessed with remaking EVERYTHING, with remaking ten or fifteen year old movies that everybody has seen, and if they haven’t seen them, they can rent them as soon as the show is announced as being in production; that is trying to remake Romancing The Stone, RoboCop, Straw Dogs, that remade Halloween, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Hitcher, Nightmare On Elm Street, is that really such a big deal? I mean, yes, not EVERY film’s entire plot should be revealed a year and a half before it gets made or released, but at the same time, knowing the story sure didn’t keep people away from JAWS or THE GODFATHER or GONE WITH THE WIND….
Just random thoughts. I could be totally wrong here, and probably am.
December 10th, 2009 at 7:21 am
A.Nerd @ 111:
“The implication”?!? “No one wants to imply that it’s impossible to greenlight the current draft”? Are you serious?
Everyone is on here yelling about how drafts and even specs are works in progress and unfinished and should never be looked at or discussed because they’re so raw and unpolished, but we can’t label them as such because that would be implying that they’re NOT perfect? What?
What kind of fantasy world are writers and execs and producers living in? Oh, wait, the film industry. Yeah, that’s it.
I don’t know, man. Doesn’t make much sense to me. A.Nerd, I’m not attacking you, please don’t take it that way. I’m just really, really surprised to hear that, in general, from anybody….
December 10th, 2009 at 8:03 am
Why does Julie Grey run contests on her site? Promoting a business. Hes a script consultant, just like her. John August and Scott Meyers and guys like that are running sites to help. This guy is running a site to make money off. Period. You think anyone paid him a penny for his opinion before he started posting scripts?
December 10th, 2009 at 8:15 am
Leave it to the writer of Scary Movie 3 to make the most sense.
I’ve been a pretty loud supporter of Scriptshadow here and haven’t held back in my displeasure at the elitist subtext of a few “pro” writers around here…
…but Craig Mazin makes the most sense. (It helps that he does so without being completely insulting to his audience, of course)
I enjoy the Scriptshadow site for no other reason than I’m a fan of movies and screenwriting and he’s shown me something new, something different, something fun. I’m sorry if his blog makes you feel your career is being assassinated but, y’know, conform with the times or get out the classifieds, okay?
My father sells cars for a living. Has done so for 40 years. In a GM store. Think he’s had to change up his game plan a bit in the past year or two? If the apparently unfettered access that Carson and his site freely dole out is changing your business plan, I’m so sorry. If his site is the SOLE reason you can’t work in this industry anymore, perhaps you need to reassess what it is you are out to achieve?
The professionals are always quick to inform us little people that y’all don’t owe us anything. Fair enough. Conversely, though, why do we peons owe YOU anything? You keep mentioning that Carson should stop because it’s “the right thing to do.” Again, since you guys are so fond of reminding us how cutthroat this business is, well… backatcha’!
And let’s face it, the legality issue is bullshit, only because it IS so gray. Fine, if Scriptshadow has to be stopped, then take ‘em all down because they’re ALL in violation… see ya’ Drew and your script-o-rama, bye bye Simplyscripts dot com, adios Daily Script. If one were to be completely in compliance then everything must go.
Oh and that whole “entitlement” charge was old when it began. I don’t feel any sense of entitlement when it comes to unproduced drafts of scripts, I merely enjoy them for what they are. As a guy who enjoys the craft, seeing works at this stage HAS proven educational for me, sorry to say. Does that make me the naive rube that you all have painted the Scriptshadow supporters to be? Maybe so.
Still, Craig Mazin’s point is totally solid. I would be pretty sheepish about a public forum that reviews my early drafts. I can now SEE that. That makes complete sense to me. Sadly, I don’t see a very clear solution. And I would submit that with Scriptshadow, he’s at least relatively respectful and thorough about his reviews and more than once I’ve seen him offer the caveat, “this review may not be particularly valid because it IS an early draft.”
I do hope this all can sort itself out. A widening gulf between established writers and hopefuls is the last thing the industry needs.
“Donald, don’t say ‘industry.’” – Charlie Kaufman
December 10th, 2009 at 8:55 am
right……but who actually reads his reviews? His mom? I mean, c’mon. We go there. Scroll through his blah blah blah silliness, and then………yes, download the script.
what i’m really wondering is if people have actually gone to the site, and willed themselves from reading/downloading a script or review b/c it wasn’t “the ethical thing to do” ?
December 10th, 2009 at 8:59 am
John, Ted, Craig, or anyone else: how difficult would it be to set up an official screenplay library that posts script WITH PERMISSION, collecting MANY scripts all in one place? Right now the there are sites out there where you can download scripts, but they are usually posting scripts without permission, and scripts often times get yanked down or disappear. Having an official repository would go a long way to making it easier for people to get access to these screenplays (made or unmade, whatever) in an ethical, copyright supportive way. It would also give cover to come down HARD on ScriptShadow.
December 10th, 2009 at 9:18 am
Nima,
That’s interesting. – I’d be more than willing to write the database and buy the domain name… but the website would need its own Groundskeeper Willie, presumably someone who can make more than 3 thousand dollars a month at it. And I’m afraid that these people, who believe in the justifications of ScriptShadow might not be so much willing, to put their money where their mouth is amidst the decision of inexpensive legitimacy vs free and damaging illegitimacy.
December 10th, 2009 at 9:38 am
Synthian,
I’m not sure I know where the $3k number is coming from, but assuming the cost of hosting couldn’t be off-set by advertising, there could be other means of funding the project. I have ideas to that end, but that’s not really important at this point. The real issue is that something like this would live and die based on how willing working writers would be to license their work to this library. Someone with a rolodex of working scribes and an uncanny ability to convince their peers of the value of making their work available in this way is needed first and foremost, with technological considerations being secondary. I’m just not sure how likely it is that writers would commit to something like this. Any ideas?
December 10th, 2009 at 9:48 am
This is meant kindly and I hope it will be received as such. One of the things that baffles me always is the way that people who actually know nothing about how something works insists on proffering opinions as if the mere fact that they think something makes it true, valid, etc. One of the great things about this particular post is that it has drawn feedback from people who work in Hollywood. I promise you that they information they’re sharing is correct (first hand experience speaking here). It doesn’t matter that you think it shouldn’t be that way (I think, for example, that there shouldn’t be poverty and yet it persists). Much of the way things are is the result of what the Guilds have been able to negotiate over time, and just the way Hollywood culture has naturally evolved. For all its flaws also has some things to recommend it, one of them being that writers can get exposure without knowing it and that exposure can benefit their careers. I was once at a party and I met a studio exec whom I did not know. Upon finding out I was a writer, he asked my last name and then said, “Oh, yeah, you wrote such and such. You’re a great writer.”
If I were just starting out, I would be soaking up information from people who know instead of arguing with them about something about which I actually have no knowledge? Why? Because understanding how Hollywood works will make all the difference in whether you succeed or not. You may want for it to be different, but if you try to buck the system, you will fail. The only route for people who want Hollywood to be different is for them to fund their own movies instead of asking an industry to fund it and then criticizing the way it does things. That’s not to say that working writers are thrilled with everything that happens. Of course not. But one of the things you learn when you work is that it is a privilege that can easily be taken away, especially if you’re not on the A-List, and perhaps even if you are (though I wouldn’t know about that). It’s worth remember that this is a job and we are employees, which means we do not call the shots. The MBA, and our own reputations, provide us with all the bargaining power we have, which is why protecting one’s reputation is so essential.
Re: JJ 88. It might be valuable for audience members to be able to read an early draft of a movie against the finish film. Fine if the film is out. Then even I might work my way to being amused that the whole world has seen my rough fumblings. But regarding your question of why are you turning work in in the first place that has problems, I would say something beyond what Ted Elliot offer, which is that part of the nature of the creative process is that work evolves, and it’s not always picture perfect along the way. Because we write on deadlines, we don’t have the luxury of making a process take 10 years and only delivering the draft that we think is perfect. The job when you’re working on assignment is to keep the process moving forward by delivering a draft that address the notes and hopefully elevates a script. No one thinks that a writer can deliver a draft that is brilliant and makes everyone happy (which can be different than it being brilliant), which is why the better contracts provide for more than one draft. Yes, the drafts you deliver should not represent one pass on your part. It should be the best draft you can deliver in the time allotted. While I will stand behind any draft I’ve ever delivered, I would not want them released to the public. I would only want my finished work released. Anything called a “draft” (unless it’s a final draft) is not finished work. It’s work in progress, and in this collaborative process, the work progresses with the input of the people you deliver your drafts to. It’s meant for their eyes only, not for the eyes of the world. It’s not different, for example, than an early draft of a speech written for the President. We aren’t meant to see the early drafts; only the finished speech. That many eyes have seen it internally does not change the fact that it’s a work in progress. We turn our work in to those eyes because that’s the process. Their input matters too, not just ours, and so they get to see our work along the way at every point that a delivery of a non-final draft is called for.
December 10th, 2009 at 9:57 am
Also, Jeff 162, I’m puzzled by the hostility. When someone shares the benefit of their experience, they’re not talking down to the little guy; they’re sharing the benefit of their experience and expertise. I think we can all agree that a working screenwriter knows more about the business than an aspiring one, just as a working surgeon knows more about surgery than an aspiring surgeon.
December 10th, 2009 at 10:20 am
Paula 167, the hostility I projected is only directed at a perceived (and I certainly could be wrong…perception is funny that way) patronizing of those who supported Scriptshadow’s efforts. Not directed at anyone specifically.
As I stated, people like August, Mazin, anyone who takes the time to share their experience via a blog or whatever, are certainly already giving of themselves over and above what they need to do and they owe us, the aspiring, nothing.
December 10th, 2009 at 10:38 am
Two things I’ve learned from the ScriptShadow debate:
1) People are self-righteous about their opinions online in a way that would seem boorish and embarrassing in real life.
2) If the energy devoted to commenting on blog posts was instead diverted to actual writing, the screenplays that end up on ScriptShadow would be markedly better.
December 10th, 2009 at 11:14 am
I want to announce that I’m starting a new blog to review novel outlines and notes, architectural blueprints, fashion designers’ sketches, and – maybe if I have time – the coaches’ game plans for sporting events that haven’t happened yet. If this site’s successful, I hope to expand it completely into reviewing and passing judgement on nearly all kind of INTENTIONS and efforts-in-progress, because – after all – what could help the artist/architect/athlete more than to have judgement passed on something that’s barely begun? Thank god that this narcissistic age of bloggers has allowed us to completely disregard the PROCESS of anything. Would anyone care to come see my award-winning garden of recently planted seeds? None of them have germinated yet, of course; but I’m sure a review of my INTENTIONS may actually be more helpful than watering them.
December 10th, 2009 at 11:17 am
@ Nima,
You’re right, I was thinking of the wrong end of the candle. – While I’m absolutely sure that the screenwriters of Just-Sold scripts would be far more giving to a With-Permission-Only, Recommends-Only, Education-Only, No-Comments site… (with a small box for the author of the script to place his or her one-sided-interview or forward…) I’m honestly not so sure how many of those type scripts there are. – I could find you a couple a year, so could people like Craig if he noticed somebody and had the time. – With the site’s (fictional) peak potential being about 145 posts a year, based on how many sales there were in terms of annual rainfall, – I’d say it would be safe to set the sites target at 12 posts a year. – If we could all have a fairly graceful way to receive 12 new, laudable scripts a year, I would feel like that was not only the complete education, but that that site could almost instantaneously become the “Inside The Actor’s Studio” of educational screenwriting. I just don’t know if there are enough safe-to-the-public & exemplary screenplays to support those numbers.
(Full disclosure: I am the only, by definition, unsuccessful reader I know: The job is simply to look in the slush-pile, and find a “Recommend”. – In 2 years, I never found one.)
December 10th, 2009 at 11:31 am
Jeff,
Thanks for the clarification.
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I don’t think patronizing is where people are coming from (at least not from my reading of those comments that I’ve reach). I think impatience is more like it. Such strong opinions have been voiced here by people who have nothing to base those opinions on, so when a person with actual knowledge, experience and insight decides to speak, he/she might be a bit frustrated and may be less gentle than someone might prefer. Still, as you say, they are generously offering to share information they could just as easily keep to themselves, so if they seem patronizing, I’d urge you to look past that and glean whatever information you can. When I was starting out, I would have given my left kidney for the kind of information people have imparted here — all of which I have found to be true in my own experience in Hollywood. So maybe my message to the aspiring is to listen more and take offense less. You just might learn something that will make a difference in your career.
December 10th, 2009 at 11:32 am
I meant “comments that i’ve read”
December 10th, 2009 at 11:36 am
@ Nima,
I’m just not sure.
& whoa. – Nice job Paula!
December 10th, 2009 at 11:37 am
I went over and read Craig’s post on this topic. It was an interesting and enlightening argument, to be sure. I think there’s a lot of debating we could do over when (or if) a script is ever “done.” These days it seems that few movies are filmed with any kind of “final draft” script, and in fact many are shot before the first draft is even done.
But that’s not the point I want to make. The point I want to make is, I don’t really blame Carson for not making this distinction up to now. He’s reviewing the scripts that have made their way to him. How did they make their way to him? Managers and agents and studio executives made copies (or had their assistants do it), and those scripts were circulated around town until someone decided to send a copy to Carson.
None of the people involved in that chain of custody decided not to distribute the script due to its lack of “done-ness.” Should Carson have been expected to be the one to make that judgment, after supposedly better-informed folks in the industry didn’t?
December 10th, 2009 at 11:40 am
What you schmucks should do is re-read Some Like It Hot.
Now that was a screenplay.
What, a dead man can’t have opinions?!
December 10th, 2009 at 11:42 am
Thanks to John A. for bringing this to a lot of folks attention. While perhaps not a legal issue per se, it is, at least for me, a moral one. It’s simply not fair to expose and evaluate anything before a final shooting draft.
December 10th, 2009 at 11:43 am
Hey Paula
Thanks so much for the response and clarifications. I understand about writing on assignment with deadlines, and I agree with the Remember The Titans guy that it’s wrong to publicly expose pre-production drafts only meant to be shared among a small circle of people at the uppermost levels of the production. (at least, before the film is released. Afterwards, that stuff has an obvious historical and scholarly value.)
But I’m deeply puzzled by a lot of people’s attitudes about spec scripts. Specs are written on a writer’s own time, presumably out of passion for the story and subject matter. I thought the whole point of writing spec scripts was that you could devote all the time and energy to them that they needed, that they WERE’NT being written on assignment or deadline. I’m amazed so many folks seem to consider them just, rough drafts, almost….
Well, thanks again, Paula, and a pleasure to engage in this discussion.
December 10th, 2009 at 11:47 am
PAULA’S POST IS SPOT ON!
There is often a perception among aspirants that once you’re paid to write, once you have a movie made, YOU’VE MADE IT. You’re set.
I know I had that thought from the outside.
But in fact, the opposite is true. Your REPUTATION is everything and WRITERS ARE NOT VERY POWERFUL, so you work harder than you did as an amateur and you are protective of your name and work.
When ONE UNAUTHORIZED, UN CREDENTIALED PERSON starts posting negative things about your name and work in a really unfair context (on the net for all to see and sometimes repeat and link to on other sites, which has happened many times via SS), it is not always, but can be damaging. Very damaging. And unfair.
It’s anonymous sniper fire on something you’ve usually spent close to a decade or more building.
I cannot stress enough to aspiring writers (who I root for and am happy to share with, btw), this job is SO MUCH MORE than just writing. It’s a minefield of egos and politics just to do your job – AT EVERY LEVEL. Even Oscar winners.
As writers you are OFTEN CAUGHT BETWEEN COMPETING AGENDAS while trying to do your work. The last thing you need is someone tearing you apart online for some crappy draft with a subplot that a MISGUIDED PRODUCER made you do. Because – guess what…
That MISGUIDED PRODUCER doesn’t get called out for shoe-horning a stupid subplot in, he turns around, covers his ass and says the writer did it on her own (after all her name’s on the script). And the WRITER GETS FIRED. Not the Misguided producer.
This really hurts writers. And it hurts new writers even more, the writers who aspirants hope to be, because until you have time to build up a consistent body of work (not just one sold spec), people will constantly look to replace you with someone who does have that body of work.
This is not a patronizing elitist point of view, this is me from inside the asylum telling you first-hand what it’s like.
Many pro writers have discussed the SS thing for months, but now enough is enough. This is why we are communicating and trying to educate that what seems innocent is, in fact, nefarious.
It hurts all writers in the long run.
And if John and Craig and others were so elitist, trust me, they wouldn’t spend the time they do trying to share with others (it’s a lot of work to blog). They are doing it b/c, like most pros, we start working, find our footing in a trial by fire kind of way, and go “shit. man, if I only knew such and such coming up.”
Most pros like to HELP other writers b/c we remember that hunger so acutely. And most of us were helped up by others ahead of us, so there is an understanding that you pass that on.
It’s not elitist to ask that you don’t help help take away my ability to feed my family. And I really hope you get here one day too.
December 10th, 2009 at 11:48 am
@JJ
Well said. I like your point a lot better than mine, actually.
December 10th, 2009 at 11:56 am
@Michael Gilvary
Fair enough. And I completely agree with you. I’m not saying you have to be thankful you live in a world where Carson Reeves, global warming, and swine flu exists, I’m just saying that we as writers have to understand that we do live in that world and we’re not going to be able to change it.
So many other pro writers (all of whom I like, respect, picketed with, etc) have come on here and essentially said “But swine flu is bad! It hurts writers! It should ask its permission before it infects us!” Well, agreed. It should but it won’t. And at the end of the day, this isn’t about Carson Reeves and Scriptshadow — this is about the desire of a subset of the moviegoing population to consume our unproduced work and trade opinions on it, some of which are traded in private and some of which are now traded in public. We have to accept that this desire exists and we have to adapt to it.
Craig Mazin is over there on his blog beating his fists against the wall and saying he doesn’t want anybody to ever review his unfinished work, no matter what stage of the process it’s in, because it is unfinished and so will never be an accurate representation of the finished product. Again, fair enough, but come on man — 1998 called, it wants its controversy back. Harry Knowles has been reviewing unfinished work for years. The studios recognized the threat to the way they do business, and when they realized they couldn’t eliminate that threat they adapted to it. They either opened there arms up to Harry and his crew and said “hey, here’s the process! You’re gonna weigh in anyway so come on in and do it under our terms!” — or they went to great lengths to protect the creative process and prevent Harry and his crew from interfering with it.
And that’s all I’m saying. At the end of the day it doesn’t matter what Craig Mazin WANTS to happen to his screenplay. He is a smart and talented writer, so I am assuming he also wouldn’t WANT to be fired off a project and replaced by another hack writer, and I am assuming he also wouldn’t WANT one of his excellent screenplays ruined by a hack director. But these are all the risks and realities of the business. It’s time to accept that and move on.
PS — Michael, hopefully I didn’t come across as flippant earlier — honestly, congrats on the spec sale, in this market that’s a terrific achievement.
December 10th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
JJ -
Yes it applies to specs. Because negative chatter by one self-annointed ass hurts the writer/ project.
If you would like to try this theory, give him one of your specs, let him review and see if helps your career.
OK, that’s flip, but that’s the short answer for often very long, very complicated journey it takes to get a script sold/ movie made.
ESPECIALLY A SPEC. Original scripts (not a remake, comic book, adaptation, based off a toy, etc) are THE SINGLE HARDEST MOVIES TO GET MADE.
They do not have a built-in audience, brand awareness, etc. Even if a spec is awesome, usually the first internal meeting is “OK, how do we market this?” Ans when someone is posting online negative comments about the product that is already a tough sell, it can tip things.
A spec doesn’t already have an established brand identity of a bunch of people liking it to drown out one negative voice like. The one negative voice becomes the only voice.
December 10th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Girl Writer makes a super-valid point I hadn’t thought about up to now (re: the producer or executive’s name not being on the draft even if it was their input that made it the way it was).
Like I said, both camps have made compelling arguments in this debate. It’s gotten heated but not out of control, and I think it’s something that probably needed to happen. I, for one, know that I see things differently than I did before the discussion started.
Here’s what I would propose to Carson, then: Only cover spec scripts. It’s what the writer considered his or her finished effort, it wasn’t coerced by any producer or studio exec, and there can be no disputing that it’s the most valuable kind of script for aspiring writers to read. And yes, get the writer’s permission before writing (not posting) the review. If the writer decides he or she wants the benefit of publicity on ScriptShadow, he or she should make that decision knowing that the review could be either positive or negative.
December 10th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
NICK-
If he wants to champion specs in a positive way – what the Black List does – he can.
And you can read them and learn all about what sells.
But why the need for negativity from one lone voice who’s only powerful b/c he has made a decision to compromise the ethics of the business (script sharing on the dl) to serve his own self interest?
OK, seriously, I have to go write now…
December 10th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
@ Nick,
Welcome. :) – Here’s your lightsaber.
December 10th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
Girl Writer:
“Screenwriters aren’t very powerful…”
Why?
“The misguided producer doesn’t get called out…”
Why not? Shouldn’t they?
“And the writer gets fired…”
Why?
Is it just me, or doesn’t this system seem deeply in need of correction, and not blind acceptance?
Maybe instead of reviewing scripts, somebody should start an anonymous blog crediting producers and production execs for misguided or just plain stupid input into projects. Why not put their name on the title page, so to speak? Call it “Credit Where Credit Is Due.com”, or something.
Why not actually take action instead of just complaining, and suffering, in silence?
I’d happily–I’d PROUDLY–allow one of my specs to be reviewed online. Why not? If it gets a bad review, hey, c’est la vie. Y’know? You’re an artist. It’s gonna happen.
Imagine a world, okay, where spec scripts DO have a viable, seperate, built in audience, where screenwriters have fans the way novelists and playwrights do, where their work is recognized, where people can say, “Hmmm, well, this script got great reviews on whatever, these five websites….maybe we should take a look at it…”
And Jamie (aka remember the titans guy): great post and a great point. Somebody else all ready suggested this, but ScriptShadow is a great resource for studios just waiting to be used. They could start using it in the advertising: “Best script I’ve read all year!”, “Scriptshadow”….Appeal to the literati who judge stuff on actual merit, not ad campaigns….
December 10th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
Okay, lets break it down once again, sigh…
There are sites on the internet that post scripts for movies still in production.
There are sites that review scripts that are in production.
There are sites that both post AND review scripts that are in production.
There are PAID tracking boards where users pass around scripts to one another and post their reviews.
Then there are the internal studio trackers who do the same EXACT THING.
What in the hell makes Scriptshadow so damn important? Do the people on the internal trackers talk amongst themselves, “Wow, did you see that review that Carson gave that new horror movie? They’ll be lucky to make it into production now that Scriptshadow gave them a bad review.”
Has Hollywood become so insular that its opinions can be swayed by a ONE LOW LEVEL PRODUCTION ASSISTANT/READER WITH A BLOG?
GET FARKING REAL.
We’re not talking about Harry Knowles here, were talking about a dude who’s pretty much at the lowest level in Hollywood. It’s absurd.
The truth is that everyone that’s complaining about Scriptshadow is simply angry that what used to be internal and visible to only a “select” few, is now visible to all of the general public, of which only .0000000000001% care, and those people are wanna be writers. It’s absurd.
December 10th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
Nick -
Ahhh. You are adorable.
Why is the sky blue? I dunno, it is. And all the the red dye I shoot out of my water gun aimed at the heavens ain’t gonna change things.
Trying to change Hollywood is like trying to change politics. Start with 20 bil and maybe you make a dent, Even then, not much.
It’s the imperfect system we live in. But we writers don’t have to make it worse for each other by taking on another down when we supposedly “respect the craft.”
December 10th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
“Maybe instead of reviewing scripts, somebody should start an anonymous blog crediting producers and production execs for misguided or just plain stupid input into projects. Why not put their name on the title page, so to speak? Call it “Credit Where Credit Is Due.com”, or something.”
It’s call Deadline Hollywood. And while Nikki Finke isn’t anonymous, most of the vitriol is. And motivations behind those posts aren’t really made public.
“Why not actually take action instead of just complaining, and suffering, in silence?
I’d happily–I’d PROUDLY–allow one of my specs to be reviewed online. Why not? If it gets a bad review, hey, c’est la vie. Y’know? You’re an artist. It’s gonna happen.
Imagine a world, okay, where spec scripts DO have a viable, seperate, built in audience, where screenwriters have fans the way novelists and playwrights do, where their work is recognized, where people can say, “Hmmm, well, this script got great reviews on whatever, these five websites….maybe we should take a look at it…”
It’s called Triggerstreet. Or Project Greenlight. And there are enough self-serving reviewers on sites like that, who will rip a script that they rightfully or wrongfully view as competition, that it doesn’t really work in the altruistic manner it was intended.
Public consensus in the formative stages doesn’t always produce good art, and can dilute the original artist’s intention. Artists have the right to develop their work in private until they present the finished work, which in the case of a screenplay, is a movie.
If you choose to give up that right, okay by me. But you aren’t allowed to make that decision for me.
December 10th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
It’s interesting to see how the arguments have changed to writers being scared to get bad reviews by some outsider on unfinished works. I guess that’s what really was underneath all those complaints about copyright and confidenciality violation. The best way to avoid a bad review is to write well, and not hide your scripts from the world. And also: if there isn’t something special about your script already in the first draft, then you are just deluding yourself about the possibilities of your story. Writing is rewriting? Well, yes, to some extent, but you can’t rewrite anything into a good story. You need some good material to start with, and I belive that a reviewer will notice that no matter how faulty an early draft can be.
December 10th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
Nick and JJ, you’re both working to a sort of plateau that is SS’s only defined option. There are other things he could do, like the Sea Kings post from last month, or his logline contest and unrepped writers week.
The Spec scripts are the main thing I’m there for, as I’ve mentioned before. But after Craig’s post last night the points involved with specs become troublesome. I’m with you that if a writer sends a spec out to the market they ought to be proud of and willing to stand behind the words on the page. And I’m sure every writer is, but once they send it out art takes a backseat to business. You fulfilled your own artistic goals with it, but for a screenwriter what’s it matter until it’s on celluloid (or a Red Drive). Choices about publicity matter and those are business decisions. That leads us to the notion of of what you envision SS or a future similar site to be. Is it an aid for artistic endeavors or a publicity tool? Carson’s promotion of unrepped writers and the contests he envisions for the site are valid, if he took it in more of that direction along with the Black List type positivity, no one would have a problem. And that compromise, for him, wouldn’t alter the site or its stated goals in the slightest.
Again I love using the site, for my own selfish desires. I learn from it, as I learn from John here and GITS and Effing and all the writers who have contributed to these comments with their stories and opinions.
And with that I’m out alongside Girl Writer to get a few hours of writing in.
December 10th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Nima asked:
The only issue I can see is the copyright concerns that studios have. In order to post a screenplay to a site like you describe, we’d need permission from the copyright owner (the studio, in cases of sold specs and assignments and adaptations). Would they grant it? Sometimes it seems like studios just act like jerks because they can, so it’s quite possible they would not.
But I would strongly lobby for something like you’re describing, not only to help writers who wish to read lots and lots of examples of scripts-that-sold, but also to help set the record straight on who-wrote-what when we’re staring at the questionable WGA credits.
So count me in.
December 10th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
Two additional things quickly.
Girl Writer there you go bringing malice back into this. I will defend that Carson never once purposefully tried to “take another writer down”. He reads a script and gives it a review (read opinion), the argument here should remain whether he needs to take into account what went into the drafts he is reading, hack notes and such. Its a working in good faith argument, which I’ve conceded he hasn’t been doing.
And the pipe-dream of a viable outlet for screenwriters and their work is just that. There isn’t a sustainable mass audience to monetarily support scripts as a separate medium. My opinion is that’s a notion that doesn’t have legs for this discussion.
And I’m in the aspiring caste, but, Nelson, I see your view as oversimplifying. Rewrites matter, notes matter. There’s polishes and Page ones and everything in between.
December 10th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
I love how people assume that a negative review on ScriptShadow means that the script is actually “bad” and therefore ScriptShadow is justified in trashing it. Just because some aspiring screenwriter blathers his opinion, that doesn’t make him objectively correct.
It also amuses me greatly that the SS fanboys have now resorted to sucking up to to wannabe-writer SS, while disparaging “that bad writer” John August. This, to me, underscores the whole issue. ScriptShadow is not “for writers.” The ScriptShadow site is “for” jealous aspiring writers, and “against” successful pro writers. They even have nothing but contempt for pro writers who’ve spent countless hours patiently trying to give advice and guidance to aspirants.
December 10th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
@ Zeb: now, you know what’s oversimplifying? Your interpretation of what I’ve said. Rewriting is not magic: of course you can polish and fix things, a little or a lot, but unless you start out with something compelling you can only aspire to a mediocre story well told. And as someone who reviews films for a magazine, let me tell you this: if the story, the situation or the characters are interesting, I’m more than willing to forgive a lot of sloppiness. A compelling story, even if it’s poorly told, is much MUCH better than most of the things that land week after week on the screens.
December 10th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
Hey JJ (comment 180),
Good point about a spec. Yes, absolutely, with a spec a person has generally worked without the constraints with which you work on assignment, but there are a few things to note:
Your agent/manager generally is expecting new material within a 6 month window. This is noteworthy because work often gets stronger the more time you put into reworking it. For example, Tony Gilroy spent five years developing Michael Clayton (not sure how much of that was writing time, but at the very least, he was able to let it breathe and then come back to it multiple times during the five year window – which is probably what he did since he wrote other things for hire during that time). At a panel at the Guild a few years ago of Academy Award nominees, the moderator asked the writers how much time they spent on the scripts for which they’d been nominated. The answers ranged from 1 1/2 years to 6 years. But often, people do need to turn specs around in a shorter time frame, to satisfy their agents, but more importantly (and it’s the same thing really), so they can have the new material that they need to continue to forward their career.
A final note on specs. Even when a spec sells, it will often be developed further, just as with an assignment. The process is not unlike working with a literary editor, where a novelist submits his best work only to discover, with the benefit of a good editor, that it can be made even better (of course, it could also be made — too many cooks can spoil the soup — but that’s another topic). As a writer, your work gets better as a result of feedback. If a spec sells or is widely circulated because people think it’s good, that doesn’t mean it couldn’t be improved with the benefit of some external feedback. This reflects a truth about writing, which is that, at a certain point, we lose perspective on our work. Fresh eyes can make a difference. I prefer that those fresh eyes belong to the producers and execs who respond to my work enough to want to forward it, and not to self-appointed Carson, who’s probably a lovely chap, but still. There’s also this (a point made earlier and better by others) — a spec that hasn’t been made yet could be harmed by this early exposure. I for one would be more than glad to have an early draft reviewed after a movie is released. I would want to approve the draft as a fair representation of my early work – an important note since sometimes other writers have been hired to do drafts such that your subsequent work includes some of your work as well as some of theirs — but if that criteria were met, I could certainly grow thick enough skin to handle such a review. I just don’t want that review coming out at a time when it can harm a project’s prospects. For better or worse, a lot in this town rests on opinions, so delaying outside opinions until a project is complete serves the interest of writers, studios, etc and of the public who may wish to see a film whose progress may be hampered by a negative, early review of a script. I do think we can balance educational interests with commercial interests by considering everything in its proper time.
December 10th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
JJ,
Forgot to respond to your questions about why the system is as it is and whether we shouldn’t try to change it. It’s such a nice idea but so hard to do in reality. The last writer’s strike was an attempt to do just that, though in my opinion, it was not likely to yield the kind of results that were sought and it did not. It all comes down to bargaining power. As a writer, you are an employee (unless you fund your own films, which most of us don’t do). If someone doesn’t like your work, they can fire you because they want to. In the law it’s known as “at-will” employment. All employment in the United States is at-will. So that’s the easy answer.
As a practical matter, it’s also pretty impossible to assign blame to a producer when it’s the writer who executed the note, however misguided that note might have been. Part of the job of being a Hollywood screenwriter is being able to give the exec/producer what they want while also giving them what serves the project. There are lots of ways to finesse this (getting them to buy into a better idea, addressing the problem they pointed out while not employing the specific example they used, etc). That finesse is one of the skills required for the job. Is it fair? Eh, who knows. But realistically, if someone is not happy with your work, it’s hard to make them keep you around beyond the time that they are contractually obligated to do so. (e.g. a contract may have a certain number of steps that the writer is guaranteed and after that there are optional steps that the studio/production company may exercise if they want to. Once you get into optional steps, they aren’t technically firing you. They’re just declining to bring you back for an optional step. This serves the process (assuming we’re not talking about a one-step deal where the writer only gets one time at bat). If a writer can’t deliver, for whatever reason (and lets admit it, we can’t all do everything), the studio/production company needs to bring in another writer who can or the project will die. Does this happen more often than is truly necessary. I’d say yes (though, really, how would I know since I’m not on that side of the fence). I will say that I’ve heard opinions from friends on the other side of the fence and I do believe that everyone is trying to make the best movie they can and doing the best they can to achieve the goal. It can be disempowering for writers, especially those of us who are not A-list, but I’ve found that if you try to genuinely understand what they need and why, and then to give it to them with all the talent and skill that you can, you’re much more likely to be retained on a project or to be replaced and then asked back. I worked on a project where another writer was brought in to punch of the comedy (something that wasn’t a strong suit of mine at the time). They brought me back afterwards for all of my optional steps to do the work for which I was hired, with which they were apparently happy. They still needed that comedy writer, though, and had to “fire” me for a moment while they brought him on board. Not tragic, though the power clearly was not in my hands. I don’t think that’s something to be up in arms over, since its rare that an employee is in the power position at any job. I think accepting that is part of being an adult. If you cannot accept that, then you really might be the entrepreneurial type. That type of person has more power but they also carry more risk. It’s risk that I’m content to let the studios and production companies carry as often as not.
But enough of that. I should get back to my writing :-)
December 10th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
Everyone on these message boards just got pwned by the Hollywood Roaster.
http://hollywoodroaster.wordpress.com/2009/12/09/top-10-reasons-you-love-andor-hate-scriptshadow/
December 10th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
@Joel Thomas
“I’m all for the larger argument that script sharing should NEVER have existed for the sake of respect to the writer. But since Hollywood DOES share scripts with each other, how can we blame Scriptshadow for democratizing that perk to those writers outside the industry?”
The fact that people who work in the industry have greater access to scripts isn’t a perk of their jobs — its because their jobs require them to either read scripts, or to simply handle scripts in some way. The majority of people whose jobs give them access to scripts don’t abuse that access, either — particularly where whoever grants them access makes it clear that the script is not to be shared.
Bu that doesn’t prevent some people from acting unprofessionally and distributing material with which they’ve been entrusted to whomever they please.
“But I can’t lose sight of the essential truth that reading these scripts makes writers better at writing scripts that can BECOME MOVIES.”
You learn nothing from a draft of a screenplay that’s just been turned into the studio that you can’t learn by reading that same draft after the development process has been concluded (with the production of a movie) or abandoned. Or, rather, the only thing you’ll learn by reading the second draft of SPIDER-MAN 4 while the third draft of SPIDER-MAN 4 is being written are the specifics of the second draft of SPIDER-MAN 4 — which really will not help you much when you sit down to write your own screenplay. And you’ll learn even less than that from a review of the second draft of SPIDER-MAN 4.
John has posted multiple drafts of his work here on his site. Terry and I have posted on our site drafts and treatments of various projects (both produced and unproduced), from various stages of development. So I think I can that, at least for John and for me, the issue is not, whether this kind of material should be made available; the issue is when should it be made available. There’s a lot of politics involved in the filmmaking process, and a lot of those politics revolve around, who should see a script, when should they see a script, and how should the script be presented to them. Those are considerations that likely would not occur to someone outside the industry — in all honesty, I did not really begin to understand them until after I’d been in the business for a while — but they are nonetheless of paramount importance when it comes to actually making movies.
-
December 10th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
“You learn nothing from a draft of a screenplay that’s just been turned into the studio that you can’t learn by reading that same draft after the development process has been concluded”
Game – Set – and… Match.
P.S. — Screenwriting Panel with Terry Rossio tonight if anyone wants to go! :
http://www.brownpapertickets.com/event/91709
As usual, I’ll ask him if I can video for those abroad.
December 10th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
@JJ I think you misunderstood. The reason they don’t put ‘early draft’ or ‘final draft’ on a script is that no one knows if it’s an ‘early draft’ or ‘final draft’ until AFTER they actually read it. This script labeling idea would mean that writers would have to decide how to label their script as they finish it. After they read and decide where to go next, there is no need to go back and label a draft on the chance that draft is released to the public. I am talking about the very specific point of how scripts are labeled, not larger issues of how complete a script is. I’m not a fan of some of the notes given to me but I work my ass off to make them work. I’m not going to start labeling drafts “Final draft, unless of course you realize how wrong you were”. Those arguments are made in the room with the executive or producer, not on the script’s cover for the benefit of anyone who may have picked up the script through unofficial channels.
@PurpleTrex Agreed on the general appeal of Scriptshadow, and that is why none of this was talked about in the open until… Wired. If he’s going to start pushing it, there will be push back before it gets out of control.
December 10th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Wow, I don’t click onto the site in a few days and come back to discover all hell has broken loose. I’d never even heard of ScriptShadow before this post and now I’m completely horrified that anyone would think this was a good idea.
Paula, WRITER GIRL, and Ted Elliot have already summed up my feelings nicely, so I won’t repeat them.
Drafts are just that, DRAFTS. They are messy and in some instances awful. You know, DRAFTS, before you go in and fix that character arc or refine that third act. So this quote really makes me roll my eyes:
QUOTE FROM NELSON @92: “… The best way to avoid a bad review is to write well, and not hide your scripts from the world. And also: if there isn’t something special about your script already in the first draft, then you are just deluding yourself about the possibilities of your story…”
–This comment leads me to believe you’ve never written anything. No one is hiding a “script” from the world, they are aghast that their incomplete, unfinished drafts are fodder for negative comments by an unskilled “reviewer,” thereby hurting (in some instances) their chances of getting ahead in their carreer.
December 10th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
One thing occurs to me about Ted Elliot’s idea (2:54 PM yesterday) that Carson should get the permission of the writers before posting reviews as a way of affirming their authorship, copyright and studios be damned. If he decided to do this, he could never tell anyone about it. Because if he announced that the only reviews at ScriptShadow from now on would be 100% approved and okayed by the actual writers, whose head do you think would roll the next time he reviewed a script that has sold?
I don’t know the guy, but he reviewed a script my writing partner and I wrote during Repped Week, and I will say that he was unfailingly nice throughout that process. As for the review, he didn’t love it, he didn’t hate it, and I think the long term effect has been exactly zero. Not something I regret, probably not a risk I’d take again. But it was a script that was gathering dust in a drawer, not at a delicate stage in the development process, and he had our permission, so this isn’t the situation other writers are describing.
So maybe there’s a way to run the site with covert approval from writers; I imagine many writers have stalled-out projects they’ve always secretly loved. (I imagine this, and maybe I’m wrong). Lem Dobbs doesn’t seem to mind people writing about EDWARD FORD.
This paragraph from Scott Brown’s Wired article makes my stomach churn:
If the side effect is feeding the entitlement culture of fandom, then do something to mitigate it (e.g., review dead or already-produced scripts with the author’s permission, not Robert Pattinson’s next movie). If the goal is to attract readers by making “Tinsel-trolls” happy, then count me the hell out. An “increasingly impatient attitude toward the delivery of entertainment” isn’t something to cheer about.
December 10th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
Oh, and I should make clear, the main reason to run ScriptShadow differently is the awful effect it is having on real live working writers (and those writers right to control dissemination of their work), not whatever it’s doing to fandom.
December 10th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
@Thomas R. Hart #156
Waves back at “Tony” R. Hart! ;)
December 10th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
@Nima:
They is a site like that:
http://www.mypdfscripts.com/category/unproduced
Unprodcued screenplays, from Kubricks’s Napoleon to various drafts of Indiana Jones. Probably isnt comprehensive, but a good place.
December 10th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
@carol: no need to roll your eyes. Your answer to my comment “leads me to believe that” you haven’t read much: that’s a hyperbole, not a statement to be taken literally; it is meant to emphasize my point of view on the subject, as well as to insinuate a certain degree of cowardice in those writers afraid of that early exposure or their works. But maybe it is my fault; you see, English is not my mother tongue and I do struggle a bit to express myself properly. I also find it difficult to make clear when I’m being sarcastical or patronizing.
I’ve got a question for you: since you acknowledge Carson influence enough to hurt a screenwriter’s career with a bad review, do you also think he can help with a good one? Oh, another question: why do you assume he is “an unskilled ‘reviewer’”? Because you disagree with his opinions? Or just because he is not part of the ‘industry’? Well, I guess I had more than one question…
December 10th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
OK, got some writing in and hit the gym. Now whats happening.
@Ted Elliott, and Synthian since you quoted him.
You are exactly correct, I also don’t feel I’ll get much out of that 2nd draft of Spidey 4. I don’t intent to download it. (one second while I check) OK, I just looked in my downloaded scripts folder and I have two types of scripts in there. shooting scripts for movies that have released and Specs yet to be made. Of dozens there is one that falls into the category of studio work for hire and that is the Predators draft which is circulating (I figured it was heavy action and that is what I’m working on at the moment on my own thing, wanted to see what a guy like Rodriguez dug on). The ones for released films I picked up after seeing the films and wanted to check out the writing. The specs are so I can see what people dig in terms of wholly new material.
There it is Dessem hit it. SS is over since there is no way he can legitimately get permission as John wants. Heads will roll correct. Fun while it lasted, now it looks like I’ll have to hit the boards. If you want to good stuff I guess you have to float among the dregs (Just having some fun, the boards aren’t that bad). Wonder if John knew this concept when he proposed the permission idea. A lot of us have been arguing all around it. It is a road block though. Sure you could get permission on specs, but say it sells. Surely a studio would want it yanked.
TV tonight, might not be back for a bit.
December 10th, 2009 at 6:36 pm
@Scott, but are these kosher? That is, has the writer signed off on the distribution of each of these? If not, this falls firmly in the same category as ScriptShadow. If these are approved by the writers, then why don’t more of us know about this?!
December 10th, 2009 at 6:54 pm
@Nima
Has the writer been contacted for all of them? Probably not, but I would argue that alot of the scripts there are quite old and not recently sold screenplays, so they are unlikely to be made. It isnt quite what you are looking for, but it is a good start.
Anything like you suggest would need the support of writers. I dont see them having the time thought to do that work.
December 10th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
A. Nerd, Paula: Thanks so much for the responses and all the info.
I hear what you guys are saying, but, I still…The overriding feeling I get from this whole thing the past few days is that, people are legitimatly (sp. I know, I know) angry, but they’re directing that anger in the wrong directions, at the wrong people.
Anyway, thanks again, and hope to continue communicating in the future.
December 10th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
@Ted Elliott
First of all, can I just geek out a little that you responded? Snort! Okay, back now.
The more comments I read, the more I’m getting a handle on what’s REALLY at issue for people. And not everyone has the same issue. For example, to me, your discussion of Spiderman 4 drafts seems disconnected from Scriptshadow. Scriptshadow doesn’t post drafts of Spiderman 4. I don’t read drafts of Spiderman 4. That’s fan-boy stuff. I’m a screenwriter. I want to read Blacklist scripts: original specs that sparked bidding wars. But if I were you, writing high-profile movies with massive fan-boy appeal, fan-boy intrusion would be the part of script sharing that would vex me. I was horrified by the leak of a possible twist-ending for Terminator 4, for example: bad, bad internet!
Other commenters over time have switched their focus from script-sharing legalities to the reviews, which I agree can have ugly consequences. I think Michael Gilvary’s experience with Scriptshadow is particularly egregious. “Carson” should be ashamed not to have recused himself from reviewing a script with the same logline as his own script. But you must agree, that’s a sideshow, fueled in part by the fact that at last, writers who have been anonymously torpedoed in Hollywood by malicious or incompetent coverage now have an actual target to hit back. Please, can we all agree that the reviews are a separate issue, which I for one have been completely convinced needs to be addressed on Scriptshadow?
That leaves us with the issue I’ve been trying to focus on, and I’ll try to put it in its most focused context: Is it wrong that all of Hollywood will be reading the Blacklist scripts tomorrow? Every repped writer will have their pick of good reads. Is that bad? Mazin implies it is, since the scripts are by his definition unfinished. I never thought it was bad, but I’m willing to act on the knowledge that it is, and not read them. I really am.
But if it’s okay for me to read them, then wouldn’t it be great if there was a website that posted them to writers outside of Hollywood?
December 10th, 2009 at 8:23 pm
August has some noble intentions in terms of protecting his beloved writers, but there’s no escaping the fact that what he advocates is a form of censorship. The fact that studio execs can routinely mistreat writers, impose a “chilling effect” on free and vigorous discussion of a PUBLISHED draft of a script, hold writers at bay, cancel films, or impose harsh confidentiality terms in a contract, does not make the proposed censorship of ScriptShadow any more defensible.
At some point, all the armchair lawyers so angry and indignant about discussions of an earlier PUBLISHED draft of a script need to get a grip and pick up a book on communications law. The writers PUBLISHED their scripts when they sent them out into the cruel world, earlier draft or not. The reasons ScriptShadow can’t and shouldn’t be censored are no less important for a trade blog than they are for a traditional news outlet.
December 10th, 2009 at 10:34 pm
@Gaffigan
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
December 10th, 2009 at 10:41 pm
Gaffigan, Gaffigan,
Are you a lawyer? Just curious because it doesn’t sound like it.
December 11th, 2009 at 12:43 am
I know what Carson should do to avoid all this trouble: post only reviews of screenplays that he liked. Only good reviews. Got your hand on a bad one? Just don’t review it. Because it seems to me that what people around here are most concerned of is getting a bad review, and all this copyright violation complaints are just b-s. Then you all would probably hail him like a hero or something. Pfff, writers.
December 11th, 2009 at 1:48 am
In Copyright law, publication is making a book or other written material available to anyone interested by distributing or offering it for sale.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/publication
A copyright is a legal device that gives the creator of a literary, artistic, musical, or other creative work the sole right to publish and sell that work. Copyright owners have the right to control the reproduction of their work, including the right to receive payment for that reproduction. An author may grant or sell those rights to others, including publishers or recording companies. Violation of a copyright is called infringement.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Copyright
Unauthorized distribution and/or reproduction is still a violation copyright.
December 11th, 2009 at 2:13 am
From the same legal dictionary:
Fair use is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as use for scholarship or review.
December 11th, 2009 at 3:38 am
In the end, what this is all about is writers not wanting to get bad reviews. Period. If Carson wrote only appraisals, then nobody would care whether it is legal or not.
December 11th, 2009 at 6:24 am
@Nelson[219], as Douglas Horn[62] pointed out fair use would probably not protect ScriptShadow because of (1) the amount of infringing material used and (2) the fact that fair use takes into account the monetary damage of the infringement. Since Eads is posting material before it’s been released to theaters there is a very strong argument to be made that an advantage is being conferred on that scripts competitors, who would then know not only the details of the script, but also it’s strengths and weaknesses.
And since I know someone will try to raise the fact that the scripts were already being passed around as a defense, copyright law doesn’t care. Each act of infringement stands on its own.
BTW, if anyone wants to know what Fair Use actually says the statute is 17 U.S.C. § 107.
December 11th, 2009 at 6:47 am
So what WAS Carson’s real name anyway? I always love to google people who charge to review a script. I like to see just how “professional” they are to think their opinion matters, especially for a pricey fee. Usually “professional reviewers” are people who never quite made it themselves as a writer, or only ever made two unheard of straight to video flicks back in 1987 and now love off of doing the rounds aylt one of a billion “writing workshops” around town and charging people hundred to read and give their “professional” review, lol. At least people like Kristy @ MSP don’t claim to be professional, don’t charge for reviews, and don’t hide behind fake names to protect their own selves while they scre over others. And I agree that most of his supporters are never have been and never will be’s most of whom are profusely arrogant for a bunch of nobody’s. They’ve all got 1,000 poop scripts in their closet and not a credit to their name but they all think they know what makes for a good writer. That site cracks me up.
December 11th, 2009 at 7:25 am
@Nima[221], I just quoted that to question this online legal dictionary as a source of enlightenment in the argument. Law is far more complicated than that, and also open to interpretation. But I think that if there was a fair chance of success, ScriptShadow would already have been sued and closed down for good.
If somebody wants to take down Scriptshadow, all you have to do is get Carson to sell you advertising space in his blog. Then you can argue that he makes a profit from screenplays without the copyright holder’s consent. That’s the way they are closing some bittorrent sites around here: not because of the films downloaded through them, or music or software, but because they get money from advertising.
So far, ScriptShadow doesn’t have advertising. And I’d say Carson is clever enough not to change that. Probably he’s got some legal advise. I certainly would.
December 11th, 2009 at 7:31 am
Fair Use would definitely not protect ScriptShadow due to the reasons cited. However, for the most part, the studio lawyers probably won’t bother with ScriptShadow. They might send some cease & desist orders. If he gets enough notoriety, they’ll probably send a cease & desist to ScriptShadow’s ISP. At that point, the ISP will shut down the site rather than put themselves at risk. If, however, Script Shadow is using the scripts to make money through advertising or by selling products or services directly based on or related to the scripts, he might actually have a criminal case problem on his hands. It all depends on whether or not the studio lawyers deem ScriptShadow a big enough threat to the intellectual property of their clients. Before you laugh and say it could never happen, remember that Lucasfilm sent an employee to jail a couple years ago for stealing intellectual property. It could happen.
December 11th, 2009 at 8:04 am
I find it hard to believe that anyone will seriously try to assert that what “Carson” is doing by linking to complete scripts is acceptable under copyright law, or reasonably qualifies for a “fair use” exception.
I would bet my mortgage that the overwhelming majority of us commenting here have a vested interest in the concept of being paid for what we write, whether a reality or an aspiration.
ScriptShadow resonates with those “on the outside looking in” because it purports to provide access to what’s being bought on spec, and why.
There’s quite a bit of subtext to what’s being written in the comments here, and in other forums. Many of the issues raised, such as what “paying your dues” actually means, deserve their own separate conversations, but a clear delineation between working writers and those who aren’t over ScriptShadow is fundamentally about the perceived value of the “access” (or “insight”) it purports to provide into the acquisition process.
Those on the outside hope that the fruits of such access will help improve the odds of successfully getting noticed by their own efforts. I don’t think anyone can assert that timing isn’t an important factor in the process, or that what is “hot” at a given moment doesn’t influence what gets purchased.
Maybe such thinking is actually horseshit, but that’s the perception. At the same time, if Carson is in fact having the effect of derailing projects as claimed by some, then it’s not reasonable to claim he’s a “nobody” with zero influence. And, the attention being given to him by singling him out is having the effect of validating what he does.
December 11th, 2009 at 8:20 am
@Nima[221]: I’ve just checked that link. Did I understand it wrong, or does it say that there can be fair use of not published works too? Because if that’s so, then half of the coments here have just been put to sleep.
I’m not saying that this makes Carson’s activities legal, that’s not for me or anybody here to decide, a judge should do it; what I’m saying is that people have to stop trying to win the argument wielding that fact that those works haven’t been published or officialy released.
Now, let’s consider the four factors that determine fair use:
1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
So far, people don’t need to pay to access the screenplays or the reviews, and there are no advertisements in the site, so it would seem we can check this one.
2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
I don’t know what to make of this one. We need more information here. Apparently some works can’t be subject to fair use and some can. I’d like to see the difference.
3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole;
Here things seem clear, since he provides full screenplays. But, does he host them or only links to them? Now that’s a difference. I’d say he hosts them, or at least some of them, because he has a list of wanted screenplays and asks people to send them to him. I don’t know anything about how the different laws apply to Internet stuff, but it’s safe to assume that different countries have different laws. It seems that, in some countries, hosting unlicensed content is not ilegal; maybe that’s why all those sites that stream movies link to chinese sites that are the ones hosting the files. Well, if he is not doing it already, he should move those files somewhere safe… for him -are you still reading, Carson? Go do it!-.
4)the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
Even if we believe that one story about how somebody’s client lost a deal because of one of Carson’s reviews, I don’t know if that cause-efect relationship is unquestionable enough to take to court. I hope not, because otherwise: why wouldn’t you sue some studio reader that gave bad coverage to your script? It was because of him you didn’t get the job, wasn’t it? You sure as hell didn’t give him permission to read you screenplay, you just gave it to your agent, to some producer, to a secretary, whatever, but certainly not to that nasty studio reader that has wrecked your promising career. Why couldn’t we sue every film critic that gives a bad review to a film, resulting in less people going to watch it? Studios should start looking into that; it would be a beautifully ironical way to turn profitable a movie that has just flunked.
I rest my case. (And I was the one that didn’t care this was illegal, sheesh).
December 11th, 2009 at 9:00 am
@Nelson:
1) If ScriptShadow profits from the notoriety of posting links to scripts and reviewing them, there is an argument to be made. For example, if SS is driving traffic to his site — with those scripts and reviews — so that he can sell something like script notes or analysis.
2) These works are unreleased by the copyright holder. He has no legal footing in fair use.
3) There might be an issue with the content that he is reproducing in his reviews.
4) Effect on value would have extensively legally argued. One simple argument is the effect that making a script available online could have on the publishing rights to a screenplay — whether as a legal digital download or a bound copy sold in bookstores.
Also, a writer doesn’t have much of a case in suing a studio reader for bad coverage. The writer (through their reps) sends the script to the studio to evaluate for purchase. There really isn’t any case to be made of they say ‘no.’
No case against critics either. Critics review officially released works.
December 11th, 2009 at 9:17 am
@IndyVox: the fact that the work is officially released or not seems to mean LESS THAN NOTHING when it comes to fair use, as you can read in the link that Nima has kindly shared. Profit from notoriety? Pfff, case to be made there? Not sure about that, mate, but good luck with it. What would be the issue with the content reproduced in his reviews, and how are they different from any other review? You are right about the publishing rights, but if he doesn’t host the files and only links to them, I think there isn’t a case there either.
December 11th, 2009 at 9:28 am
@Nelson, you’re reading it backwards. First you ask, has infringement occurred? Then you ask, does fair use apply defensively to protect against a finding of infringement?
On the first, as Douglas Horn noted, infringement is taking place not only in the distribution of the screenplays, but also in the creation of a synopsis, which is a derivative work.
In doing a Fair Use analysis, you have to balance those factors.
Without ads ScriptShadow passes factor (1).
Factor (2) refers to what is being infringed, namely a COMMERCIAL screenplay in DEVELOPMENT. That is very bad for ScriptShadow.
Factor (3) not only refers to the distribution of full scripts, but also the creation of a synopsis that is a summary of the entire script. The breadth and depth of his reviews amounts to a great deal of infringement.
Factor (4) is going to be weighed the most heavily, and it’s the most damning against ScriptShadow. As I mentioned, he’s not only damaging the development process, he’s giving an advantage to competitors who might have competing projects, or might decide to initiate a competing project in response to the release of this information.
You asked, “why wouldn’t you sue some studio reader that gave bad coverage to your script?” Because the studio reader isn’t infringing on your copyright if (a) you’ve released them from liability, (b) they’re not actually creating a derivative work, or (c) you have no way of accessing the infringing material because it’s not being made “public” by any reasonable definition.
You further asked, “Why couldn’t we sue every film critic that gives a bad review to a film, resulting in less people going to watch it?” You could try, but the Fair Use balancing test then needs to be employed. Look at factor (2): you’re talking about something that has been released for public consumption. Again, John’s comment about the timing of the release of these reviews matters. You could continue through the others, but in terms of a regular review to a film the second factor weights to heavily in favor of the infringement that it probably doesn’t matter.
Another point, in general, is that there are a lot fewer law suits then there could be. Law suits are a hassle and for large companies there’s a good will problem. So just because there hasn’t been a law suit, does not mean there couldn’t be one.
December 11th, 2009 at 9:29 am
Publication in entirety isn’t covered by Fair Use. Excerpts, yes. Complete works, no.
http://www.umuc.edu/library/copy.shtml
The amount and substantiality of the portion used: * The more you use, the less likely it will be considered fair use. * Does the amount you use exceed a reasonable expectation? If it approaches 50 percent of the entire work, it is likely to be considered an unfair use of the copyrighted work. * Is the particular portion used likely to adversely affect the author’s economic gain? If you use the “heart” or “essence” of a work, it is less likely your use will be considered fair.
When is Permission Required? * When you intend to use the materials for commercial purposes. * When you want to use the materials repeatedly. * When you want to use a work in its entirety and it is longer than 2,500 words.
Incidentally, there’s no guarantee that legal action is not already in the works. It’s small potatoes to a big corp’s legal staff, but if they’re irritated enough to pay attention, they’ll take action.
December 11th, 2009 at 9:31 am
@Nelson, it also looks like you’re misreading what the statute says about unpublished vs published works. It’s not saying publication status has nothing to do with the analysis, it merely says that something not being published is not an absolute bar against doing a fair use analysis. You still have to do the analysis.
December 11th, 2009 at 9:51 am
@Nima: where do you get that factor 2 (the nature of the copyrighted work) implies that a commercial screenplay in develpment can’t be subject of fair use? I’m not questioning your information, I just want to know where you got that information. Would you be so kind as to post another link? Also, why would a synopsis be a derivative work that infringed copyright before the film is released, and stop being so afterwards? I can’t extrapolate that out of the information in your link.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors. It says nowhere “absolute bar”, you make it sound way more relevant than it is stated. What I’m getting out of this line is that you can’t validate an infraction on any of the four requirements using the fact that the work is not published.
December 11th, 2009 at 9:56 am
From John’s previous post on Scriptshadow — “The more often sites like ScriptShadow poke that hornet’s nest, the bigger the reaction is going to be. The revised terms — I couldn’t even send the draft to my agent — may become the norm. Assistants will get fired for sharing scripts. In the long run, it will be crippling for the industry, and screenwriters will suffer most.”
This paragraph was positively Palinesque. To suggest that one man’s blog could bring down a whole industry is pretty hard to take. And I write this as a fan of John’s blog.
It seems to me that it’s the studios that are losing their s**t here. I mean really, who’s interested in spec scripts beyond the screenwriting community and a few die-hard movie fans?
But it’s easier to name and blame a blogger than point the finger at anyone who has actual power.
John also complains when the studios’ manifest paranoia results in more restrictions. But how else is the industry supposed to combat leaks – or piracy, for that matter?
December 11th, 2009 at 10:06 am
@Matt
I also had a particular problem with the “Assistants will get fired for sharing scripts,” part too. It’s basically another way of saying, “This guy breaking the law is going to prevent other people from breaking the law.” And I’ve yet to hear an explanation for how illegal, copyright-violating script sharing among assistants (and their bosses) benefits writers.
December 11th, 2009 at 10:23 am
“@IndyVox: the fact that the work is officially released or not seems to mean LESS THAN NOTHING when it comes to fair use, as you can read in the link that Nima has kindly shared.”
It is a violation of copyright to release a work in its entirety. An officially released work is subject to review. An unofficially released work is not subject to review — because it is a violation of copyright to make available that work.
“Profit from notoriety? Pfff, case to be made there? Not sure about that, mate, but good luck with it.”
If he’s violating copyright — or enabling copyright to be violated — to sell something, yes, there’s a legal argument to be made.
“What would be the issue with the content reproduced in his reviews, and how are they different from any other review?”
The issue would be that he is releasing copyrighted material that has not been authorized for release by the copyright holder. The difference from any other review is that the material had never been distributed to the public by the copyright holder. That is clearly different than a situation where a work has been distributed to the public by the copyright holder,
“You are right about the publishing rights, but if he doesn’t host the files and only links to them, I think there isn’t a case there either.”
Yes, there is. The outcome would be for the courts to decide.
December 11th, 2009 at 10:28 am
Uh, lawyer here.
A synopsis is not a derivative work.
Fair use is a very complex concept.
Whether this is fair use can only be determined in a court of law, everyone’s theories notwithstanding. What is clear is that cease and desist orders can (and apparently have) been issued and that “Carson” has complied with the same, recognizing that until this question of law is decided, it’s not worth the risk. (Incidentally, I’m not up on recent copyright case law, so perhaps these matters have been decided, but what you cannot do is determine the answer by reference to the statute. American Jurisprudence is about both the law, i.e. the statutes, and the facts and it’s where the two come together and are then interpreted, based on precedent and legal reasoning, that the real answers emerge. And even then, those answers will change and evolve over time. The classic example is the issue of slavery, which the Supreme Court decided in two remarkably different ways at different points in our history. Similarly (though obviously a less important arena), our copyright laws will be interpreted anew and possibly even revised in the face of “new” technologies and all they have wrought, good and bad. The issue at stake will be how to balance the interests of copyright holders against the interests of the public. Copyright law was intended to give rights of exclusivity to those who took the risk of investing in intellectual property. By giving copyright holders a return on their investment, it was intended to spur innovation. At the same time, these rights were not granted in perpetuity. They were granted for a period of time deemed sufficient to enable the copyright owner to profit from his investment (whether that was an investment of time and creativity in the case of the actual author, or an investment of money in the case of the “legal” author who may have funded or purchased the work). It’s the effort to balance these competing interests that resulted in works passing into the public domain after a lengthy period of time (e.g. life of the author+ 70 years, etc — their are different rules depending on the particulars). How those interests will be balanced in the modern era remain to be seen.
That said, this SS issue probably isn’t really a copyright issue, except with regard to those scripts that he’s linking to in their entirety (because, coming full circle, merely synopsizing something isn’t an infringement nor is it a derivative work — if it were, no one would be able to review anything, and the fact that he has advertisers is also beside the point, since the NY Times has advertisers as well, after all). I’m not sure what the strongest legal argument would be (I don’t practice and was never an intellectual property lawyer, though I did dabble a bit as a summer associate years ago), but if I were trying this case (hahaha), I’d take a fairly innovative approach though I have no idea what it would be. I don’t think the “officially released works” distinction would make much of a difference in a copyright context (hard to argue that a review is a copyright infringement, though stranger things have happened), but it might be a meaningful distinction in another context. Such as what? I have no idea. Maybe some kind of Tort argument (a Tort addresses civil wrongs that arise outside of a contractual arrangement — e.g. if I hit you with my car and you’re injured. My favorite Tort case from law school was one involving the egg shell skull defense, where a person attempted to minimize liability because the injured party was unusually fragile. The court decided that ‘you take your victim as you find him,’ in other words, eggshell skull or not, if you injured him, you’re responsible for all of his injuries no matter how fragile he was. Writers are pretty fragile, so maybe we’ve got a case! (That was meant as humor, by the way, not an actual argument).
December 11th, 2009 at 10:31 am
375 posts about ScriptShadow? Goodness gracious.
It’s getting increasingly difficult to see where the fault lines are in this matter.
Anyway, only one comment.
JA: “Reading these scripts to actual films that got made will serve any aspiring writer much better than the second draft of a vampire dog thriller in development at Lionsgate.”
This paternalistic view, which Ted Elliot shares, doesn’t take the psychological factor into consideration.
It’s actually much more intriguing to read an unproduced spec script that’s under consideration now, or in development, or has recently been rejected and stands no chance of being produced, than it is to read produced scripts.
Why?
For one thing, you get a sense of what’s going on NOW.
And unproduced scripts represent potential.
(whereas produced scripts are a bit like the skin the snake left behind)
The spec writers in question are relative unknowns (in most cases, I think) so it’s easier for aspirants to identify with them than with people who have been turning out slick, professional scripts for years.
And it’s blatantly untrue that you learn more by reading produced scripts than (flawed) unproduced ones.
It’s very good for aspiring writers to have an added incentive to read scripts. I’m pretty sure most of them think they ought to read more scripts than they do.
December 11th, 2009 at 10:40 am
@Paula: thanks for explaining us that a synopsis is not a derivative work. Good to have a lawyer around there to help us get the facts straight. I’ve got the following question for you: if Carson reproduced fragments of unlicensed screenplays in his site -so far, educational use, isn’t it?- but he also made a profit from advertisement by third parties in hiw blog because of the attention those screenplays attract, wouldn’t this invalidate the claim of educational use and pave the way towards copyright infringement because he used those protected works to make a profit himself? Thank you again.
December 11th, 2009 at 11:01 am
@Paula, if you go to Westlaw (or Lexis) and search for : “derivative work” & (synopsis treatment) : you end up with a number of cases that actually do say that a treatment and synopsis is a copyrightable work, and could be a derivate work of something else.
@Nelson, I don’t have a case on point in front of me to this, and if I did I couldn’t post it because it would be copyrighted, but what I’m doing is taking the meaning of “nature of the work” and then analyzing it in context. I don’t mean to be dismissive, but you aren’t analyzing the fact here in the kind of depth you need to come to a conclusion. That’s fine, because you’re not claiming to be a lawyer or anything, but you do have to drill down into what the facts are.
You asked, “Also, why would a synopsis be a derivative work that infringed copyright before the film is released, and stop being so afterwards?” Because the fair use analysis changes as the facts change. The law is fact driven. As I mentioned, when you apply the new facts to factor (2) the position of the person doing the review becomes MUCH stronger, because the film was released to the public for public consumption, for which “review” is entirely reasonable. Factor (4) also changes, in that there’s no longer a worry about a competitor getting an advantage from the release of that information. However, this is not to say a copyright violation isn’t taking place. Obviously, a “review” that basically copy and pastes 90% of the original script is going to have a very difficult time arguing fair use applies. It’s really up in the air.
Finally, you said, “What I’m getting out of this line is that you can’t validate an infraction on any of the four requirements using the fact that the work is not published.” Then you read it wrong. For example, “The fact that you got an F on your homework doesn’t bar you from getting an A on the exam.” Does this mean the F on your homework is can still be factored into whether or not you get an A on the exam? Of course. But can you still get an A on the exam even with an F on the homework? Yes.
The fact that a work is unpublished still factors into the analysis, but it does not, prima facie, mean you make a fair use claim. It isn’t ignored, its just not a bar to fair use.
December 11th, 2009 at 11:14 am
Hi Nelson,
General caveat that it’s impossible to say what the answer would be without hearing all of the facts as they’d be presented in court by the specific parties to the case. But in general, there is an educational use argument that he could make, whether or not it would be successful. I’m not sure how the advertising issue would factor in other than to say that it would not be determinative. Basically, you can’t take one aspect of the law and isolate it from the other elements and say, aha, he violated this, we win! It’s going to depend upon all of the facts as argued by the particular lawyers and analyzed by the particular judge. Precedent is made on great arguments and great fact patterns and a single-pronged analysis that hinged on his using advertisers on his site would not be enough. I also want to mention again the newspaper context. Newspaper reviews sometimes pull excerpts (quotes, etc) from the movies they review and the fact that the newspaper receives advertising dollars does not prevent this from being a fair use. The educational value to the public stands, even though the paper is a for-profit enterprise.
Also, as a general matter, an excerpt is not likely to rise to the level of infringement (barring some unusual facts), so the fact that he used excerpts alone would likely not support an infringement case being heard in the first place. Other facts would have to be part of the equation, with this factor being used, perhaps, to supplement the fact pattern and buttress the other, stronger arguments. Again, not sure what those arguments would be, though one argument might hinge on the economic harm created by his actions, assuming the particular facts made a strong enough case.
Major Caveat: I am not an expert in this area of law, nor do I practice any area of law (though as recently as last year I did some legal consulting), so I’m not up to speed on the kinds of innovative arguments that might be made if a case with the right facts presented itself. E.g. I was half-joking about a tort argument, but a lawyer thinking outside the box might come up with such an argument or some argument I can’t imagine.
December 11th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
Hi Nima,
I haven’t read those cases, but I assume they refer to a Treatment or Synopsis written by the writer (e.g. the kind of treatment referred to in a writing contract)? Is that what you were talking about? I thought you meant if Carson synopsized the story in a review (the way newspaper reviewers do, for example — true confession, I’ve not spent much time on Carson’s site, so I may be misunderstanding the full scope of what he’s done). If a synopsis in a review is considered to be a derivative work, I’d be curious to see the argument and would appreciate your posting it here. If you’re talking about a synopsis or treatment in which an author is detailing his or her story, I get it, though why it’s a derivative work rather than an original work of authorship is unclear. Did these cases involve people synopsizing someone else’s original work of authorship, the author taking, say, a book, and creating a synopsis for a play (which would be a derivative work)?
Thanks in advance.
December 11th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
@Nima: don’t worry about sounding dismissive, I do it all the time. Although I still don’t agree with how you interpret some of these things, I see what you’re saying about the published/not published issue. But then who is to decide whether it plays against fair use or not, a judge? On case to case basis? Or maybe it is detailed somewhere in what range of situations it does or doesn’t violate copyright? Anyway, other than this, lets agree to disagree.
@Paula: thank you for your answer. It served to show that we have been oversimplifying the legal aspect of this discussion. Honestly, it is kind of too big and complicated for me -the whole issue, not your kind answer-. In case he gets sued or something like that, we’ll see what’s the outcome.
Finally, I just want to say that, while I’m not capable to judge Carson’s activities from a legal point of view, I don’t see anything that’s moraly wrong about them, and I hope he manages to carry on with his blog as it is. I still think that the best way to avoid a bad review -if it’s a fair one- is to write well.
December 11th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
@Paula, you’re right, I was wrong. I did a very cursory search at first, but I decided to change the search to include “book review” and found a case on point that states that a book review would not be considered a derivative work. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. v. RDR Books, 575 F.Supp.2d 513, 538 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). So forget EVERYTHING I said about derivative works and fair use. (emphasis added for anyone just skimming at this point). Well, the stuff about how to do a fair use analysis is right, but it just doesn’t apply here.
Props to Paula’s mad legal skillz.
December 11th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
Christ, you’ll have to forgive me, I’m about 30 hours away from a final and I haven’t even started outlining yet, so I’m all kinds of screwed up in the head right now. The case I cited is NOT on point, but the court discussing book reviews in its reasoning on a derivative work claim. Just ignore me.
December 11th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
I want to be on next year’s Black List. Just thought I’d put it out there.
December 11th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
For all he [Carson] knows, he’s reading the version written for the executive who insisted on heavy voiceover, “Y’know, so the audience will know what he’s thinking.”
This is in fact exactly why such a site ’should’ exist…
If the novice would be writer is even thinking of ‘getting into the business’, that person should be fully aware of how ‘their darling’ will be mangled, how some set of people will ‘encourage’, or failing that, ‘extort’ changes in the work, until what the writer first handed in is almost unrecognizable on the screen… which bring one to the next point…
Some ‘developments’ have taken decades, and the visibility into that process by such sites as Script Shadow, provide a valuable service to show the progress of even the aborted developments.
What is even more interesting, is that back in the ancient days, when one had to travel to places like Larry Edmunds to even find ‘real live scripts’, I don’t recall ever hearing of some sort of ‘release’ or ‘writer’s permission’. Those official 3 brad and all scripts where put out there, and had some price which presumably the store did not ’share’ with either The Official Owner of Record, or the writer… because once The Writer sells their script, its not theirs anymore…
As for ruffling an exec’s feathers… this is the same group of people who don’t mind ‘writers’ going to hell in a handbasket, if they could get away with it. The last ’strike’ pretty much was a no show for significant ‘writer’s rights’.
So, back to the ‘draft for the benefit of the Exec’… since most writers to sell their work probably have some sort of NDA clause, they can’t publicly say what was done by them, or others, to their script for the benefit of The Studio no matter how ridiculous, and so, such sites as Script Shadow again provide a service, a ‘voice’, to illustrate such monkeying around with The Script.
December 11th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
Nima, LOL. I’m so not up to date on recent cases that I thought you might have been on to something there! Good luck with the final!
Kenny, me too, man.
December 11th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
And it’s blatantly untrue that you learn more by reading produced scripts than (flawed) unproduced ones.
What specifically do you learn from new specs that you can’t learn from the scripts of films that became hits and/or cult classics?
December 11th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
John Clark said:
“If the novice would be writer is even thinking of ‘getting into the business’, that person should be fully aware of how ‘their darling’ will be mangled”
This would only be correct under ONE circumstance: if the draft was clearly labeled as “The draft the executive producer insisted on adding a voiceover to.”
As it isn’t, and as the writer is very obviously being judged as the sole person responsible for said draft, and they don’t have any recourse to come out and say “don’t judge that draft, X insisted…” because if they did it would be a one way ticket to unemployment, then it absolutely is not fulfilling the goal that you are setting for it.
The writer gets the blame for the problems in the script, even when those problems are not their fault, and with something on the visibility scale of Script Shadow, that reputation for that problem will go with them, and they won’t be able to shake it even after they write the draft, show that it doesn’t work, and prove to the producers to go back to the original idea or do something better.
This hurts writers. And it certainly isn’t teaching me about the differences and changes made because of one note or another. The only way to do that would be to present a series of drafts along with the series of notes that inspired the changes in each draft. I’d be fascinated to see that, but Script Shadow certainly doesn’t fill that niche.
December 11th, 2009 at 7:45 pm
Elizabeth,
I made a similar point earlier. It seems like the sensible thing to do would be too label such drafts “pre-production scripts” or “development drafts” to distinguish them from final “shooting scripts”. And the writer would list themselves as “current writer: Joe Smith”, or whatever, which would be in keeping with the highly transitory nature of writers on the kind of projects most commentors seem to be focusing on. Then at least the writer would have a certain degree of plausible deniability: “Well, I was just the current writer, just working for hire, and it was a development draft. It wasn’t my vision, it was the producer / talent / director’s vision.” Again, I don’t quite understand why many writers appear to be so vehemently defending a current system that almost seems to be designed to aggressively victimize them.
At the very least, you’d think they’d just email Carson or similar people online to clarify that the script being written about is an in development unfinished spec draft work in progress that got screwed up by execs, or whatever, and could he please include that information via anonymous sources in the review.
Then again, I understand the near-outrage many seem to be expressing over reviewing what they honestly consider to be works in progress, which makes sense in terms of development drafts. (I still don’t quite buy extending that argument to spec scripts that have gone to market, frankly.) But, work in progress or not, unfinished or not, in development or not, if an outsider with no bias or agenda takes an objective look at something, and they think it’s terrible, then regardless of who’s responsible for that lack of quality, shouldn’t that be met with some kind of analysis, at least?
If someone reads, I don’t know, this guy’s rewrite of that girl’s rewrite of this guy’s rewrite of almost-forgotten-author-of-the-original-spec-draft of Untitled Russell Crowe–Keira Knightley Action Comedy, and says, “This bites, they’ve already had three really good writers work on it and it’s only gotten worse, this is just a bad script”, then shouldn’t that objective reaction count for something? Isn’t attacking the reviewer or reader an instance of killing the messenger?
I guess people could say, “Well, it’s in development! It may be bad now but they’re trying to make it better!” Well, yeah, but…why was the original script purchased if it needed so much work? If the answer to that is, “All it had was an interesting idea or intriguing premise, and otherwise was deeply flawed”, then why did the original writer submit it too begin with? And if the spec draft WAS a good script, who’s responsible for introducing the elements that have made it worse? These are all hypotheticals, I know, but seem to bear some relation to the issues raised by many people over the last couple of days.
I’m really not trying to attack or provoke anyone, these are just genuinely the questions that have come to mind in light of what’s been said.
December 11th, 2009 at 8:05 pm
Honestly, as a “newbie” screenwriter who may not ever sell a single script, what I feel would be MORE educational than ScriptShadow would be for somebody to publish a script from a recently-produced movie AND all its prior permutations in one textbook. So if the movie was written by an original screenwriter, then revised as part of a contract once it was sold, then re-written by a new writer, then re-written by another new writer, etc. etc. all the way through the process until it’s made into a shooting script and shot, I would like to see ALL THOSE VERSIONS IN ONE PLACE, so I could read them all and see how the thing evolved from start to finish. I think if somebody could make a textbook like this and include any notes from the different assistants, writers, producers, actors, etc. who handled the script as it evolved from spec to movie, it would be a really valuable educational tool. One thing I know from taking screenwriting classes is, a lot of the textbooks out there kind of suck. And not because they lack clever insights about the structure of movies… But because they lack any real-world discussion of the writing-to-movie process. It seems to me that it’s possible (and probable) that most newbies will fail because most are poor writers (unoriginal, lack understanding of movie structure, or are not prolific enough) before they even get to the business end. But I think there is also a percentage that will fail not because they are bad writers, but because they lack knowledge of current business practices, which is a real shame. Anything that can be done to (legally) help with this issue would undoubtedly be appreciated by a lot of aspiring newbies.
December 11th, 2009 at 10:00 pm
Hmmm… Lots to ponder. Not a lawyer here, but I wonder… If this thing had to be mediated tomorrow it sounds like the Right to Privacy being argued by critics of ScriptShadow would have to be weighed against all of us Public’s Right to Know stalwarts, with a few side arguments for and against copyright infringement.
In another life as a government PR flak I had to fend off of a few Freedom of Information requests that were, frankly, off base. We always relied on the argument that the document being demanded was “work product” and not final product and therefore not subject to disclosure. Similarly, I have to admit that writers are entitled to work product, and more importantly, rights to privacy. It’s just not clear to me yet where those rights end and the right to public review and criticism begins. It sounds like there are dozens of answers to that question, depending on the stage of the deal.
And because it’s not clear, John August suggests that SS ask the writer, and/or wait till the movie comes out. But as an ex journalist I get a little hyperbolic when I smell censorship. I would prefer a less onerous middle ground.
December 11th, 2009 at 10:11 pm
How does the public have a right to know about the development of a product, in this case a screenplay? No public funds go into the writing and selling of these screenplays. They are business transactions between writer and buyers. The owner of the copyright controls the property. Some of these scripts have only been optioned by the buyer, and are still the properties of the writers. The public doesn’t have a right to private property.
December 11th, 2009 at 11:27 pm
I think all you people should stop arguing and get back to writing your fucking scripts.
December 12th, 2009 at 12:37 am
@ 207 KEVIN Lehane!
bashes heads against wall
D’oh!
Sorry, I was brainfarting with your name. Shame on me. Shame! (tell me, though, that the movie’s going to be made. I have an empty slot next to my Shaun of the Dead DVD that’s been waiting to be filled!)
December 12th, 2009 at 12:56 am
Censorship is what happens to journalists. – Interdiction is what happens to misinformation campaigns.
If someone is lying to your public by telling them a costly untruth… like say, “Durka-Durkistan is pointing big fat thermo-nuclear-heat-seeking-cluster-fucking-ballistic-warheads at you right now and they’re going to kill your whole family if you don’t invade them!” —> Stopping their lie isn’t censorship. – Its excision: The removal of a tumor. — So lets not pretend that freedom of speech presupposes a right to caustically misinform. — Or are we still in Third Grade?
Fuck the middle ground.
A central symposium that makes the assailants as comfortable as their victims is not the promised land. – Leaving the writers intact, with their work and their rights un-Wilkes Boothed is the promised land.
And anyone who says otherwise can come gargle a portion.
December 12th, 2009 at 1:01 am
@ 250 Elizabeth
And it certainly isn’t teaching me about the differences and changes made because of one note or another. The only way to do that would be to present a series of drafts along with the series of notes that inspired the changes in each draft. I’d be fascinated to see that, but Script Shadow certainly doesn’t fill that niche.
Now THAT is something I would love to see as well! And you’re right, of course. Unless a full timeline of such development is provided, it’s the writer who has to face the public firing squad. How could he/she have been this retarded? I’d say most of the time when things go south in a development script, it ain’t the writer’s fault. When Terminator: We Are Fucking Done, Professionally came out, Christian Bale gave an interview to a German magazine, rather gleefully claiming that he had done much of the major lifting on the script, because – as he said rather dismissively – the original script had not focused on John Connor, and obviously that’s what the movie had to be about. Himself.
So I went out and looked for the original draft to compare, and while I thought that it had some flaws here and there (and if any writer comes out and says his stuff is flawless, then he/she ain’t a writer. We all screw up here and there, the good and the bad writers differ in how anal they are in trying to fix the flaws), but here’s the thing… it would have been a better movie than the one that was finally made. It wouldn’t have been a star vehicle, to be sure, but a better story.
So somebody somewhere along the line went, “What? We can get Batman? Ka-Ching! Do whatever is necessary to make Bale happy, you hear me? No, no…no arguing, DO IT!”
And make no mistake, boys and girls listening in… we have ALL done it. Even the great screenplay writers like William Goldmann… have done it (see his story about Ghost And The Darkness and what led to one hell of a cringeworthy scene in that movie)
I’s why I personally prefer the glorious mess that was Inglourious Basterds to any of the big tentpole movies I have seen this year. It’s uneven, it’s messy in parts, but it presents a unique vision by Tarantino. Now, if only Quentin will pay compensation to Chris Columbus for the “monsters-in-a-movie house” scene and not run around and state that nobody has ever done this before, when all that was… was a remake of the classic scene in Gremlins . I’m serious. You can smash up the final act of Basterds with the “Hi-ho!” pisstake in Gremlins, even down to the audience’s reaction. Now, Hitler was the white-striped Gremlin, Goebbels the Goofy one… :D
December 12th, 2009 at 2:09 am
JJ (if anyone is still reading this thread. I’m assuming most of you are ill and bed bound, too) Let me go a little further. Here is more as to why your suggestion (putting ‘development’, ‘production’, ‘final’ etc. on a draft). Scripts, for all practical purposes, are always in development until the film is locked. An example: A studio has been developing a draft with a writer. One question every script has is ‘will this appeal to an actor that would get asses in the seat and will make the movie work’? The studio will send the script to the actor and his/her people. If the actor picks up that script and it says ‘in development’ he or she will rightfully put it down and say ‘come back to me when you’re done’. The studio will not want to develop a script that no actor will touch, and no actor wants to sign onto a script that is going to undergo massive changes. Furthermore, if a script says ‘final draft’, that implies an unwillingness on the part of the writer and his people to make changes. The amount of info needed to explain the thoughts of the writer, producers, studio executives, actors, etc. would certainly not fit on the script’s cover. However, most of that info is expressed to the interested parties through the phone calls/letters/emails that go out with the script. Literally, the only reason to try to establish an elaborate code to label the scripts would be for the benefit of people you are sneaking peaks at the scripts.
Going once more back to the spec issue: I can say that a spec that goes out is not an unnoted, undeveloped script based solely on my vision. The first voice on most scripts (other than the writers) are that of the their agents and/or managers, especially for new writers. Starting out, I can’t just send out a script to studios, I need my agent/manager to do that for me (they do different very different things, but I’m just going to lump them together for now). And they don’t want to send out something without giving their input, usually based upon their understanding on what everyone wants. I could, of course, tell them to piss off, but as a fresh writer they could, of course, tell me to piss off as well. But at any rate, in most cases I don’t want them to (totally) piss off. Since I am writing a script, as opposed to a novel, I need to get literally hundreds of people on board with it, from producers, studios, directors, etc. Self publishing the script will not get the desired effect, I need to get it made into a movie. A lot of these interested parties are self-interested parties. I may need to spend an inordinate amount of time in a script writing flashy, actory elements that will do little for the overall script but will get the actors on board, which will ease the minds of the producers and studio, which will get the movie rolling. The studio or producers can read a spec script and say ‘this script is close to appeasing the many parties needed to get a movie made’, where as a disinterested third party might say ‘but, but, why is there all of this self-indulgent monologuing or elaborately staged scenes?!’. As the script is developed, I can hopefully convince everyone involved to fall in love with that perfect version in my head, but I am dealing with any number of artists who take their crafts seriously. Listen, I know this doesn’t sound ideal. There is always room for improvement to the system. Do I wish I had more control? Sure. Every couple of years we strike or cut our own deals or turn to alternate venues, and I think things have probably improved in many areas. But a world where writer’s had absolute control over the film would be a terrible world, too. I’m glad actors want to have a lot to work with, and directors want a lot of room for themselves. A spec isn’t a perfect script that can be read out of context, it’s the perfect script to become a movie based upon hundreds of factors that don’t fit on a script cover.
December 12th, 2009 at 3:46 am
@ Thomas R. Hart (254)
Nothing is ever guarranteed, but the script is with good people who are doing amazing work. And every effort is going towards a summer shoot next year. :)
Back on topic … I’ve discovered some fantastic writers thanks to ScriptShadow, writers I’m now massive fans of. I’m glad ScriptShadow brought them to my attention and I’d bet I’m not the only one who feels the same. It’s not ALL bad, guys.
December 12th, 2009 at 8:19 am
A. Nerd:
Thanks again, man. I’ve barely dipped my toes into the waters of the world of professional screenwriting (I can proudly say I had a spec read and turned down by three major companies!) but it sounds like it’s even crazier then I imagined. : )
December 12th, 2009 at 8:48 am
A private party requesting someone from refraining from an activity is not censorship. A private party forcing someone else to stop from an activity using legal means is also not censorship. The only thing that is censorship is the government telling someone not to say or do something that does not infringe on someone else’s right.
The common usage of “censorship” to apply to anyone not being given a lollipop for saying or doing whatever they want is a pet peeve of mine. See former Miss California.
December 12th, 2009 at 9:03 am
I say, let’s get our torches, our pitchforks, and go after Mystery Man on Film.
mysterious name [x]
reviews leaked drafts [x]
doesn’t reveal his real name [x]
rips writers to shreds [x]
reviews material still in progress [x]
failed screenwriter [x]
Oh wait, let’s wait until John August does it first, that will be so much cooler…and safer.
Whatever we do, let’s get this guys REAL NAME published. That is the epitome of Classy right Craig Mazin!!!!
For those of you who missed it, Craig Mazin, the genius behind Scary Movie 4, is holding hostage the name of ScriptShadow. He’ll take it down as soon as ScriptShadow takes down his reviews.
Stay classy Craig Mazin!
Who can we witchhunt tomorrow?
December 12th, 2009 at 9:34 am
And it certainly isn’t teaching me about the differences and changes made because of one note or another. The only way to do that would be to present a series of drafts along with the series of notes that inspired the changes in each draft. I’d be fascinated to see that, but Script Shadow certainly doesn’t fill that niche.
That’s almost exactly what one reads when doing a credits arbitration for the WGA. I’m here to tell you it just isn’t as revelatory as one might wish. You really want to learn the craft of screenwriting? Reading 18 drafts of one screenplay by many different writers isn’t the best use of your time.
I learn more about screenwriting from watching movies than I ever have from reading scripts. Maybe that’s because I don’t think my job is to write scripts; it’s to write movies.
So it’s a bit disingenuous to claim one needs to see unproduced, unfinished, otherwise unavailable scripts to learn to write. Really, one just “needs” to see those scripts to prove that one is cool and in the inner circle and has access to something other people can’t get. And that has nothing to do with writing.
December 12th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
@Indyvox It’s not so much that the public has a right to know, it’s that at some point, I believe, the script went from being protected by rights of privacy to not being protected by rights of privacy. The screenplay, which was never intended to be a private product, but intended for public sale and consumption, got published, albeit in development, albeit in a small circle.
But the horse is out of the barn. Relying on the nabisco cookie analogy to end run the fair use doctrine by saying the script is still private and the cookie isn’t done, even though electronic and hard copies are being reviewed and discussed all over town by insiders, seems a stretch. The courts may well disagree.
@Synthian Thanks for your color commentary. When you’re done with ScriptShadow, I think you should go after the misinformation campaigns at Fox News.
Ultimately, some Fair Use Guidelines for Scripts (FUGS, in honor of the great old rock band) need to be developed by the WGA or somebody.
December 12th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
@Gaffigan
The screenplays never stopped being being protected works. They are copyrighted. Only the copyright holder has the right to distribute them. Additionally, they are not necessarily intended for public sale and consumption. They are intended to be made into films, and there is a distinction there.
The writer generally sells the copyright to the studio, but keeps the publishing rights. Should the writer decide to publish the script to sell at Barnes & Nobles — it is their right to do so. It makes it a little harder to do so if the work is already all over the internet. That’s just one problem. Not even saying it’s that big of a problem, because the audience for it isn’t that large.
Furthermore, a script in development is akin to a novel in development. Neither has yet been published. The word publish comes from the same root word for public — publish means, literally, to make public. When a novel is being edited, it has not yet been made public — or published. Same thing for a script-in-development.
December 12th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Gaffigan,
copyright law is what applies here. A fictional screenplay is not news, a government document, or information that is essential to the public good. Withholding a screenplay from the public doesn’t do any demonstrable harm.
The doctrines you’re attempting to use may apply, in some cases, to documentary films and news programs, the scripts, outlines, and research work used to produce these films. The screenplays we’re talking about here are fictional. The doctrines you draw from don’t apply.
December 12th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
@IndyVox, Agreed on most points, but “not necessarily intended for public sale and consumption”? Okay, then certainly it was intended for sale and consumption by the studio, producer or whoever buys it. I’m not talking barnes and noble reprints, but the initial sale.
I agree it’s protected and copyrighted and all that, but the question really is when and whether the fair use doctrine is triggered, a doctrine specifically developed and embraced in part so that people (forget SS), would not have to ask permission of authors when reviewing or discussing protected and copyrighted works, or certain “drafts” thereof that are otherwise subject to fair use.
This issue is a lot bigger than ScriptShadow, and the litigation, if it comes, could have the unintended consequence of restricting the discussions and buzz that occur among the very people we want to freely discuss and promote the work when we’re trying to sell it.
December 12th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
Forgive me if someone has already mentioned it, but isn’t it a great thing that we can read Darabont’s version of Indian Jones so that we can know when a good draft is going down in flames because of politics?
Maybe that will happen now before millions of dollars are spent and a franchise is destroyed.
John, you are now so “establishment.” Carson is part of a revolution that is helping writers retain their copyrights. You are part of the inside game with so much to lose, but other than having a complicated e-mail scheme to lock down your plans, I didn’t really buy it.
I am a musician and have had to deal with this before. Guess what happens? The good stuff outs…
Writers are going to be recognized by their work and not their quotes. It is not a surprise that The Artful Writer will decry this. Of course…
Long live the original draft of “Source Code.” Can you believe someone is rewriting that script?
People are idiots. But the the times, they are a changin’…
James
December 13th, 2009 at 12:00 am
I would just like to point out that the James who just joined and did not read the story thus far is NOT the same as Reader James, who has been here, & speaking intelligently the whole time.
December 13th, 2009 at 7:42 am
Now, Synthian , what’s the need for your last comment? Some subtle trolling? If you were, at least, a working screenwriter then I would understand -to some degree- your need to demonize ScriptShadow and to convince everyone who doesn’t agree with you. But you are not. And you also haven’t spoken all that intelligently yourself, so how about some respect for those who don’t thik the same way you do? Or do you expect that coming online to do some butt kissing will get you connections and open doors? Well, good luck with that. But please, stop trying to win the argument and accept that not everyone thinks like you or your buddies. Will you do that?
December 13th, 2009 at 9:48 am
Gaffigan says, “It’s just not clear to me yet where those rights end and the right to public review and criticism begins. … And because it’s not clear, John August suggests that SS ask the writer, and/or wait till the movie comes out. But as an ex journalist I get a little hyperbolic when I smell censorship.”
– Gaffigan, are you a serious writer? I assume you’re not because if you were… If you’ve spent months, years of hard work on developing your story idea into a compelling and entertaining screenplay, John’s message of ask first before you make a particular writer’s draft of an unproduced script (spec or sold) public would be very clear to you.
In my opinion, I believe giving a review of an unproduced script with excerpts of said script is not a violation of copyright infringement.
As far as giving access to the unproduced script for educational purposes, I’m a big believer in educating. I have a big thirst for knowledge. (Whether or not providing access to a script in any given context and situation would be a violation of copyright infringement or fair use for educational purposes would be up to the courts to decide.)
But… I feel the whole point, as per my message back with post 87, is that we shouldn’t be selfish.
Consider the author and his situation. All the situations that were expressed in this thread about hurting the writer when posting reviews (good or bad) or drafts of writers’ unproduced material are real.
It’s just a sign of respect to another fellow writer to ask first before you post a review or provide a link to one of his unproduced drafts of his script (spec or sold).
Think of it this way:
When a spec script gets sold to a studio or Production Company and goes into development and a reader from this company or a reader from anther company from when the script went out wide copies it and leaks it out to the public, some say, “This is okay, because I’m curious,” “It’s breaking down the barriers,” “It’s fair, because it’s educational,” etc.
Now take the circumstance where you sent out a draft of your spec script to a group of people who agreed to give you feedback and one of them has a popular public web site where he anonymously gives reviews of unproduced and produced scripts and may sometimes provide access to the script for educational purposes. He decides to use this particular draft of your script, without your permission, to review and post on his web sit in order to help educate non-pros.
It’s a bad review, pointing out all the flaws and weaknesses to the public.
You can post to the site and ask them to take it down. If they will isn’t guaranteed. Fair Use law for educational purposes, right? You can take a chance on looking like a douche in order to save your reputation as a writer by posting and explaining publicly that it’s just an early draft that it’s a work in progress, but deep down you know the damage is done. It’s there in black and white for the world to see.
Even if it’s a good review of a spec or sold unprouced script, yes, there are some writers who wouldn’t mind the exposure, but there are others who would mind for whatever reasons. It’s a matter of courtesy to your fellow writers to respect their reasons.
In my opinion, for those arguing against an author’s wishes to have some control over is own unproduced material that he worked hard on for months or years with an attitude of: “Hey, tough crap, buddy, it’s allowed under the Fair Use law,” or saying, “Others do it, so I might as well,” reveals character you shouldn’t be very proud of.
December 13th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
@ Nelson,
Dude… My next industry premier is on January 28th on the Paramount lot, at 7pm in the main theater. – & I’ll GLADLY put you on the guest list if you’re in ANY position to show up. Just so you can watch the film… see how the audience reacts, and then walk across the floor and tell me I don’t write.
You’ve obviously done the digging to decide that what I do isn’t real writing… Which is fine. People agree with you. –– The reason I went out to the strike in the first place was that Activist Film/Documentary isn’t covered by the WGA. (And it SHOULD be.) – Is it professional writing? – OF FUCKING COURSE IT IS! –– Its my profession.
I make movies that are guaranteed not to make any money… And I’m proud of that. – And so is everyone who knows me.
So what if my movies end up in Walmart instead of theaters…?! – They’re respected…. Because they change lives.
And I show the writers who raised me as much respect as my narcissistic personality will physically allow… because I ALREADY owe them. – And if you think kissing anybody’s ass in this city is going to get you ANYTHING if you haven’t got great white chops, you’re absolutely insane.
I earned my doors.
So, ya… I put my information up, and that way people can see what I’m about… and see me absolutely dump my heart out on the stage without a shield… – I don’t know who you are… but the Dalai Lama thinks I’m a great screenwriter… and that’s good enough for me.
December 13th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
@ Sythian: I take my hat off! If you can fool the Dalai Lama, you must be one hell of a storyteller. Stay well!
December 14th, 2009 at 1:05 am
@Nima[165] re: “an official screenplay library” – Not in cyberspace, but in the “real world” there was The Script Publishing Project. Although, I don’t think they’re still in business. And there still is the WGA library which looks to me like they get around the copyright issues by not distributing copies. Which brings me to…
@Craig Mazin[194] re: “we’d need permission from the copyright owner (the studio” – While I’m nowhere near as well versed on the MBA as you (and Ted) are, my reading of Article 16 leads me to believe that the publication of the screenplay is one of the Separated Rights that are licensed back to the writer.
(Granted, it seems as though the writer must wait until three years after his/her contract has expired or until six months after the movie has been released. But since one of the knocks against Scriptshadow is that they don’t wait, I’m guessing that this holdback period could actually be viewed as a good thing.)
It seems to me like the catch would be that Separated Rights are tied to “the questionable WGA credits”, so I don’t know how much help it would be in determining who wrote what.
e.g. I believe our host has mentioned how odd it is that, outside the industry, he’s known for writing Charlie’s Angels when there’s less of his writing present in that movie than there is on some other projects on which he was not credited. But if my reading of the MBA is correct, he would have Separated Rights to the Charlie’s Angels screenplay, but not to another screenplay on which he is not credited.
So that’s one benefit of Scriptshadow. Not that that one small benefit outweighs the many cons.
Mark
December 14th, 2009 at 10:32 pm
The only reason that Scriptshadow is getting panned so much is not because he is bad boy infringing on copyrights — he is. People are upset because so many industry people read Carson and take his blog seriously. And because Carson is usually right.
This makes his reviews — whether good or bad — a bit… dare I say… powerful. Carson is a champion about taking down script links or rigorously explaining that a draft may not be a final one, and in most cases, his scripts are in production (and not subject to deal breaking). The exceptions are the movies Carson believes in… often contributed by his readers.
Carson isn’t sneaking into someone’s laptop and taking someone’s unfinished draft. Please… And does anyone believe that Carson causing John August to have to write on a Disney typewriter? That sounds like an old man telling me to turn down “The Beatles.” John is usually so tech-savvy.
The subtext behind his argument is not about copyright or locking-down a computer. It is really about democritizing screenwriting. To use Thomas Friedman’s Flat World analogy, Carson is the inevitable result of a world that is more competitive and connected.
What is Carson excited about now? The Black List — scripts that are making the rounds and can be readily found anywhere.
If I had to choose between John August’s blog and Carson’s, I guess I would choose Carson’s. It’s the future. John August has amazing things to say to aspiring screenwriters, but it often feels like John is talking down to people. At least lately.
That might be disrespectful to say in this forum. But it is more upsetting that John took the stand he did. Carson sent so many people to John’s blog and I actually went to John’s blog through Carson’s site more often than not. Look how many people are posting on this…
People care about this argument. Maybe I’m reaching, but I feel this is about the new generation versus the old guard. That is how it feels to me. I think Scriptshadow is one of the greatest things to happen to screenwriting. It didn’t seem hurt to Aaron Sorkin, who incidentally caused the blog to reach such infamy.
Carson celebrates good writing. If someone is scared about his site, it is merely someone protecting their quote and their mortgage, someone worried about the next young hip kid that is going to replace him.
Just callin’ it as I see it.
December 15th, 2009 at 6:04 am
If ScriptShadow hurts actual writers, as it apparently has done, isn’t that reason enough to revise its practices?
It doesn’t matter if it only hurts bad writers or bad projects (as some people have said), even assuming that’s true. And it doesn’t matter how many terrible movies Hollywood makes.
In reviewing and offering drafts, without the author’s permission, we are intruding on their working process and making their job more difficult – even if this were completely legal and even if it happened all the time within the industry already.
“Entitlement” hit the nail on the head.
December 16th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
This thread is long since spent so I’m probably talking to myself by now. But I’m all right with that.
@ James #276: I agree with you on most important points. Cheers!
December 16th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
@Anna: you are not alone -both in the literal and the figurative sense of the word-. :P
December 18th, 2009 at 8:26 am
John I actually know a guy who just wrote a vampire dog script. It’s actually pretty good. We’re in the same writer’s group and after reading many many pro scripts and writing many specs I think we can tell good from lousy.
Would you like to read it?
January 3rd, 2010 at 7:04 am
HOLLYWOOD is leaking and it`s theyre fault.
January 3rd, 2010 at 6:16 pm
very simular to CIA training terrorists. Hollywood had leadership opening up to giving information to people not to be trusted.
-scriptshadow is, or relates to a guy on the top who gets fired. -movies are better protected from the moment it gets released.
this is so far out from reality, because it don`t actually work that way.
Hollywood is loosing money, and in the end, the wrong people gets it. I lost my camera last year. But i put it outside and forgot about reality. So i blame me.
January 10th, 2010 at 1:17 am
You are forgetting one thing there, and that is the medium being used: the internet. If ScriptShadow focused on published scripts only, it never had the same power (=traffic) it has now. You, John, would never mention it. I must agree then only with your second “fix” to the site – he should ask the writers before. I love his site. And I also think there is much to be learned from reading various drafts of the same script. Scrip-O-Rama and DailyScript publish sometimes early drafts as well. The power of the internet is in full just as an underdog.
January 13th, 2010 at 11:32 pm
hey john, i read the posts about this here and the artful writer and i dont see how anyone can expect a blogger, a fan, an outsider to protect property. the complete onus is on the studios.
in the tech world, there is FAR more to gain by leaking info than a little attention and a few attaboys. you could get rich. it rarely happens because tech fosters an atmosphere of community and loyalty to a company by the way it acts and treats employees. (in some cases, the motivation to be a team player is pride and identity and financial incentive, in other cases, its threatening and punitive. both work).
it is because of the completely non loyal atmosphere of hollywood that people like assistants grab a break anywhere they can. they see their bosses sell people out to the highest bidder, they know thats the way this industry works. hollywood could have a culture where the employees are invested and want to protect a project. it doesnt. thats hollywoods bad, not some pathetic wanna be bloggers.
January 14th, 2010 at 7:42 pm
All those panting wannabe screenwriters would FLIP OUT if he trashed a script of theirs in its early stages.
I’m the writer — I own my work. No one, especially not some ——- with a blog, has the right to PUBLISH my work without my permission.
The gall to then for “Carson” to ask that you don’t use his real name? Yeah that’s right — go live in the “shadows” doing something that you know is wrong, totally and completely wrong. Talk about hypocrisy.