Notes on the state of the industry
My assistant Matt went to the WGA panel last night, and took notes for readers who couldn’t make it.
All panelists agree that the business is shrinking. Development slates are being cut in half. According to J.C. Spink, that means half the (400m?) dollars usually being paid out to writers and a much tougher market for selling. Studios walk away from deals much more easily than they used to.
Yes, but movies are doing well, right? Box office receipts are on the up and up.
True, but the motherships (Time Warner/GE etc.) suck out that revenue and use it to prop up other flagging sectors. So that money doesn’t go back into development or the pockets of writers. Also, Navid McIlhargey notes that while theatrical has made a comeback, DVD sales have dropped by roughly 30%. That means four things:
The financial models studios look at before greenlighting a picture are skewed. (Depending on various factors, DVD revenue used to be equal to or greater than domestic theatrical revenue.) The projections for break-even are falling short on movies that might have been easily greenlit a few years ago. One way to counter that is by exploiting the international marketplace, which translates to more big action, (male) star-driven movies.
Development gets shafted. David Beaubaire warns that you only get one shot at getting a movie through the system. If a script is passed up for greenlight that isn’t ready or doesn’t have a crystal clear idea for the marketing department to sell, that’s the end of the line. No going back into the development cycle for reworking.
Pre-branded material still rules the game. Amusement park rides, board games (CLUE), comic books will continue to win out over original material. Spink joked that they’re working up a treatment for STAIRMASTER, just because it’s a known entity. Hensleigh relayed (venomously) having to option a graphic novel similar to an idea he developed separately because, “The fucking idiots need a pre-branded thing to look at.” Spink doesn’t see an end to this until the financial system breaks down. It’s working too well.
Marketing is getting more involved in development. This fact sets writer Jonathan Hensleigh (THE ROCK, ARMAGGEDON) on fire. “Scripts can die a death of a thousand cuts when marketing starts giving notes,” Hensleigh warns, noting that it’s bad enough to deal with notes from ten young development execs at a time.
McIlhargy has run scripts by his marketing department for notes or approval before passing it up to his bosses because their input is so critical.
What does this all mean to the writer with hopes of getting a studio movie made?
Concept is king. Write Big Ideas, well executed.
The executives were eager to argue that Hollywood’s not entirely a dehumanized assembly line, regurgitating and repackaging ideas.
Beaubaire believes that just because you’re reworking ideas from the past doesn’t mean it can’t be fresh, good and entertaining. In order for a movie to go forward, “I have to love the script,” Beaubaire says, adding that it must contain a “universally relatable idea” with better-than-stock characters.
Derek Dauchy requires a connection with the material before he tries to make a movie of it. He needs to feel there’s a good reason to make that movie, to put it out into the world.
McIlhargey cautions that with so many other options, there has to be a sense of immediacy behind making that movie at that time. There’s plenty of good material. Immediacy is, “The number one thing we look at before we pass it up.”
Advice for aspiring writers
J.C. Spink: Writers have to be talented, collaborative and better at one thing. “Do one thing that distinguishes you.” Sadly, you’re “better off being the mediocre writer who’s good in a room” than the great writer who has a tough time coming out of their shell. Because of the Hollywood information “matrix,” if your script is good and marketable it will find the light of day. Competitions, the Nicholl excepted, are useless. There’s too many to keep track of. Successful people fail more than they succeed.
David Beaubaire: As good as a script is, decision makers aren’t reading scripts. His job is to make sure they understand it and want to make it. His name isn’t on the movies, he does this because he loves movies and wants to make the best, most successful ones he possible can. In that process, no one is out to get the writer. Don’t worry about studio politics or what’s hot. Worry about delivering what you would want to see. Making movies is a game, but it’s golf not tennis.
Navid McIlhargey: Before you write, ask yourself if this is a movie you would pay good money to see. Will it hold a release date? Then write with conviction.
Derek Dauchy: If you can pitch and understand it as a title, it’s gigantic. If you can sell it with a logline, great. If you need a paragraph, you’re in trouble.
Jonathan Hensleigh: You are the most important person in the process. Creation of fictional worlds is the engine room of this industry. Of course, no one will treat you like you’re the most important person. Once you’ve given all your blood to a project and they show you the door to bring on another writer, walk away without bitterness. (He was bitter about other writers coming onto THE ROCK but admits now that Aaron Sorkin and the rest improved a bunch of scenes).
Q&A
Should writers do unpaid rewrites and polishes before handing in a script to the studio? Across the board, yes. Every panelist, especially Hensleigh, noted that writers have to ignore WGA rules and do as much work as needed to get the script in shape.
Does the success of SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE change anyone’s viewpoint about what audiences want to see? Across the board, no. Every year Fox Searchlight does a great job marketing a small movie. It’s what they do; we’re in a different business.
Is making a short and putting it on Youtube a waste of time? Across the board, yes. Don’t do it. Write something good instead.
Biggest turnoffs when reading new material? Across the board: lack of original concept.
Keep in mind this is an all-male panel of big Hollywood studio filmmakers. Consider other viewpoints before dumping all ideas that aren’t as commercial as THE B TEAM.
Articles
February 27th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Lack of original material would piss me off too, and I’m a Nonfamous Female.
February 27th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
Wow, good re-cap.
I’m in a lot of trouble with many of my scripts!
It’s interesting, on the one hand the panel seemed annoyed by the lack of respect that writers get but on the other hand, when asked, they seemed to suggest that writers do the things that bring them this lack of respect.
February 27th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
I’m a nonfamous male and I’m wondering about the jab at putting shorts on youtube. What do they have against short films? It’s its own medium, and the internet is a great way to distribute shorts. I recently shot a short and I’m submitting it to a local festival, but I’ll probably put it online after. It’s a good learning experience for me, and might help get my name out there. Though of course I’m still working on my feature screenplay all the while…
February 27th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
This is really the key line to me:
“If a script … doesn’t have a crystal clear idea for the marketing department to sell, that’s the end of the line.”
Sad but true…my friend, who’s VP for an oscar winning (re: Best Picture) company, always says the marketing departments get first crack at most new scripts. Business is the bottom line. No real surprise, since the studios are really huge, world wide conglomerates, that sell everything from magazine to microwaves.
February 27th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
That disclaimer at the end is important. These are speaking from a big picture Hollywood perspective. If you want to make an indie film, make an indie film. If you want to write Indian Jones 5 or get to pitch on the best literary material, then this is good advice.
February 27th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
Please, no one tell Craig Mazin about the responses to that “free rewrite” question.
http://artfulwriter.com/?p=730
Then again, there were no agents on the panel.
February 27th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
De-press-ing.
February 27th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
There was one big, huge gaping question I wanted to ask the execs (but which I would have had a hard time scribbling on a notecard fast enough).
They say things are the way they are right now because they can’t afford to take risks.
I say: Please, please, PLEASE, tell me what ISN’T risky about picking up a “hot” property (comic book or whatever), immediately setting a release date 18 months out, and handing it over (along with a $175 million budget) to a 25-year old director with a few commercials and music videos under his belt to shoot without a finished script.
Because it seems to me, that’s how things are generally done. And saying that this is the definition of “not taking risks” sounds so far beyond asinine, I can’t even begin to comprehend it.
February 27th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Great notes! Thank you, Matt!
February 27th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
With very little ORIGINAL material being made by Hollywood these days and nothing but more remakes, adaptations of books, comics, and even lame ass board games on the horizon, I’m thinking of giving up writing scripts. I’ve already got plans to do my next one as a novel instead and see if I have any luck that way.
February 27th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
So what’s the bad news?
February 27th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
@Ethan Gentzsch:
One of the big points that was made by J.C. Spink and others on the panel was that the preponderance of non-original material does NOT imply that there’s no place for spec writers. It just means that more often, instead of buying your spec, a producer will read it as a writing sample and then hire you on to an existing project.
February 27th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
How many brilliant screenplays are sitting in a filing cabinet, long forgotten, because the boys in marketing couldn’t figure out the Burger King tie-in?
February 27th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
Thanks for sharing this, John and Matt. Real cool. I’m stoked!
February 27th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
You say DVD sales are down 30%, but what does that mean, exactly? Studios have run out of old movies and TV series to re-release. The question is, are sales for new movies on DVD slowing?
February 27th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
Yes, I missed it. Great notes, Matt. Appreciated. Did you mention who was the surprise guest speaker?
February 27th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
Mr. August — I feel a little starved for your thoughts on what was said.
February 27th, 2009 at 6:36 pm
“Derek Dauchy: If you can pitch and understand it as a title, it’s gigantic. If you can sell it with a logline, great. If you need a paragraph, you’re in trouble.”
So true.
February 27th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
PS. Well done, Matt. Assistants rule! (I used to be one)
February 27th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
2 Questions for Nick:
How many 25-year old directors get $175 million dollar budgets? How many 25-year old directors are working on big budget movies right now?????
February 27th, 2009 at 8:17 pm
My thanks to Matt for going and taking the notes and to John for posting them.
February 27th, 2009 at 10:30 pm
Excellent lightsaber work Matt. Thx.
February 27th, 2009 at 11:11 pm
Since shorts on YouTube are bad, what about shorts at a festival? I wonder how an aspiring writer-director demonstrates his director skills.
February 27th, 2009 at 11:58 pm
This is a VERY good piece of industry advice.
I’m gonna bookmark this page. Dayum, thanks John!
February 28th, 2009 at 1:12 am
Chris,
Very good point.
February 28th, 2009 at 6:40 am
Cheers for posting this John.
I think every aspiring writer, or if you aspire to any career or anything in life there is a simple thing to know:
If your the best – you’ll get there.
So, write the best damn script you can: tear it up, write one 100 times better! And if you don’t think you can do it, well… then you don’t have the confidence to be in the business.
February 28th, 2009 at 8:09 am
I think Nick was referring to the guy who made Watchmen. Before Watchmen (perhaps the most coveted comic book gig) he made 300. But he got the assignment while they were just doing dailies of 300– before that all he’d done were some commercials. It was in EW. How does someone with that kind of experience get something like that? It’s all because 300 was going to get the audience Watchmen wanted and they’d be able to say “from the visionary director of 300″ (which is bs, btw)
February 28th, 2009 at 9:18 am
Chris Mcquarrie says there’s a point doing free rewrites when it starts costing you money (meaning you start to burn through your pay check trying to get a script somewhere, odds are, it will never go – to the screen). This is a business. There’s a point when free work is just stupid. We, as writers, have to be in control of our business and not let others control it. If they threaten you, you have to leave. If it’s a respectable business friendship, do them the favor. But don’t let them take advantage of your friendship (they will). You have to remember the people you work with, the people begging you to work for free, are getting paid.
Hensleigh, I’m sorry to say, is old school. I agree with him, don’t listen to all the WGA rules. Don’t listen to Hensleigh either. Hear him, but don’t listen to him. If you’re a real writer, a talented hard working writer, you will find work whether you bend or not (whether you do it for free or not).
Just be in control of yourself. You are a God in Hollywood. A creator. Don’t forget that when others blaspheme against you. And they will blaspheme!
February 28th, 2009 at 9:42 am
Cool! John August University enrollees got their foot in the door. Thanks Matt.
February 28th, 2009 at 10:27 am
Matt -
I’ve been to many of these types of panels and the execs/development folks always have the stock answer of “looking for an original voice/idea, etc.” I would have liked to have asked the execs on the panel how often they have personally jumped on board a script because it was marketable or a comic book or it was just plain old, good business? BUT they really didn’t like the script/project/story. Not to point fingers or blame. I’d just once like to hear a more honest account of studio development practices. Their job is to find projects that will make the studio money. Not make art. I’m sure they hope to now and again. But that’s not their job. Too often big studio execs get ridiculed for being big studio execs. It’s like blaming a soldier for killing the enemy.
February 28th, 2009 at 10:30 am
John, would you mind sharing your thoughts on the “free rewrites” aspect?
February 28th, 2009 at 10:48 am
@ME
Zach Synder also did the “Dawn of the Dead” re-make, which I thought was pretty successful. And he got the “Watchman” gig AFTER “300″ did gonzo biz (but he had been lobbying for a while). Getting a directing gig is probably 95% about knowing how to tell a story, telling it on time and on budget, both of which he did with his first 2 films.
February 28th, 2009 at 10:55 am
as someone who wanted to attend
but couldn’t
a big THANKS to Matt for going/noting
and John for posting
February 28th, 2009 at 11:26 am
I think you guys should check your info re: 300.
From imdb:
Director: Zack Snyder Watchmen (2009) 300 (2006) Dawn of the Dead (2004)
Before Dawn of the Dead he has some video credits, I don’t know if there shorts or features or what.
His production budget on Dawn of the Dead was $26 million, and given that he was a first time director, that doesn’t seem out of the question.
Both Dawn of the Dead and 300 made money — in the case of 300 it pulled in nearly half-a-billion dollars in the box-office (worldwide). It cost 65 million to make. Sure, he got the assignment for Watchmen while he was making 300, but if 300 had tanked, he would’ve been thrown off.
Zack Snyder wasn’t much of a risk. He proved he could direct, made money on his first major film, than smashed it out of the park on his second. That’s not much of a risk.
You have to discover new talent somewhere, and $26 million isn’t an inconceivable risk on a first-time director (who’d already done music videos and commercials).
February 28th, 2009 at 11:27 am
Typo: there = they’re
February 28th, 2009 at 11:38 am
I attended the panel, and we should say thanks to Michael Tabb and the Education committee for organizing it (right?).
I appreciate the wrap-up, Matt, but since I just watched a screener of “Gran Torino” then I’ve got some “Get off my Lawn” critique for you…
-Can you add a list of the panel members with their title and a few credits so people know who the heck they are?
-How could you (and John, AND the WGA before you in the program!) misspell ARMAGEDDON?!! How many editors looked at that and allowed the typo?!
-I believe when the panel shot down the idea of making a short film they meant TO PROMOTE YOUR SCREENPLAY. E.g., filming a scene from your script or a trailer and putting it on the web to market your script submission. Not shooting a film for your director’s reel.
-On the positive tip, I love your term “motherships” for the corporations!
Nice job, young man. But harumph. And stuff. And thanks!
February 28th, 2009 at 11:49 am
Oh, and one more correction, sorry. When Hensleigh talked about his graphic novel, he said he was adapting his OWN spec and shopping it to comic book publishers to then get heat on the spec to sell it to the studios. He wasn’t optioning someone else’s work.
And isn’t it amazing (and sad) that a screenwriter with BILLIONS in box-office is forced to go this route to get his work taken seriously?
And yes, he was really pissed off about it! (at one point he said he really needed a drink, and he invited everyone to meet him at his bar to commiserate) ;-)
February 28th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
So you’re supposed to have an original concept, or write original material, but all studios want to do is something that is already known?
How is that supposed to work?
February 28th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
To the aspiring newbie spec-writers out there, I would add these couple bits of advice:
1) In the current spec market, I think comedies have a huge advantage. If you’re not going to get people’s attention with your name and credits, make them laugh. An empirically funny spec is more likely to get momentum in the marketplace. Granted — if you’re not cut out to write comedy, don’t force yourself. There’s nothing worse that a bad comedy spec.
2) Regarding free rewrites, I’ll give you my advice as a 10-year WGA member:
a) I have walked away from a free rewrite with a company that had hired me multiple times, and they have never hired me again. So consider that you may be cutting yourself off from future earnings. Do what you gotta do, but it’s something to think about.
b) There is a value to a continued presence with the project. For instance — you might be doing your free rewrite, and suddenly a hot director becomes interested in the project because of a previous draft. If you are still involved, there’s a chance for the two of you to meet, hit it off, and then you have a lot more leverage going forward to be contracted for additional work at a higher price. If you’re already off the project it’s a lot harder for that to happen.
February 28th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
McScruples,
Your b) option plays into 1) fear and 2) hope. What if, what if, what if… sure someone hot may come along, sure you may get paid bucket loads, but it’s a what if… play the odds and be smart, pull out before you get lost or you’ll end up eating your own tail ad infinitum. As John said, on this site somewhere, you’re not only one script. Move on, generate more material, and make those assholes who’ll never hire you again regret it. And they are assholes McScruples, unprofessional assholes and even if they come begging you should – YOU should – never work with them again (of course seven figures may make up for their bad behavior). We are responsible for the industry and culture we create. Writers doing free work (and it’s work!) is immoral and hurts their fellow writers.
February 28th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
@Max:
I don’t think they have anything against short films or YouTube, but in answering the question about whether it helps a screenwriting career, I would agree with them.
@Anonymous Production Asst:
You make a good point; I haven’t seen DVD sales figures comparing just new releases. But my hunch based on limited data (residuals and profit statements) is that they’re down as well.
@Carol:
“Free rewrites” is a loaded term, obviously. And I agree with Craig Mazin that agencies need to play a strong role in keeping their clients safe from forced labor on behalf of studios and producers.
At the same time, screenwriters need to get their movies made, and need to maintain strong relationships with filmmakers. So it behooves them to work their asses off, sometimes making changes without another official step.
(And I agree with McScruples’ last two points.)
February 28th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
John,
I think that’s a great clarification. A short film works in your favor if you want to be a writer/director and not just a writer.
February 28th, 2009 at 11:42 pm
So perhaps a single short film won’t help a screenwriter. But what about an online media series? I just started one called HIGH-MAINTENANCE IMAGINARY GIRLFRIEND. My goal with it isn’t entirely for my screenwriting career: I pay my bills with advertising copywriting. But I do envision a larger story playing out as the series progresses, which could eventually become a screenplay. Thoughts? Are the guys at askaninja.com able to parlay that success into Hollywood?
March 1st, 2009 at 2:15 am
This is such a nice thing to do, especially for us WGA members who live in places like Omaha. Thanks, John (and Matt).
March 1st, 2009 at 4:43 am
And here I was doubting myself. Worrying. On the brink of shutting down. And I come here and read this Q&A…and I’m back on fire. I’m reminded of watching Army of Darkness as a young kid. Of watching Demon Knight, Starman, Baron Munchausen, and remember why I love to write and watch movies. I remember that I should write what I love. Shove all those other voices out. Scream with my soul to the sky that I was born to do this, I can do this.
I feel it again. I almost want to cry. I feel it again.
Thank you.
March 1st, 2009 at 8:07 am
From John: “At the same time, screenwriters need to get their movies made, and need to maintain strong relationships with filmmakers. So it behooves them to work their asses off, sometimes making changes without another official step.”
I agree with this in principal. Writers need to maintain relationships with filmmakers that have the ability to get their films made not execs spinning their wheels. I know John didn’t mean it this way, but you need to be aware of who you’re working your ass off for. David Fincher, okay. Sam the CE, well, that’s fucked. I did a bunch of free steps for a studio for 6-8 months, I burned through all the money I made, which wasn’t much, and then they fired me. Now, I can understand why they fired me. I wasn’t giving them what they wanted. Fair enough. But as I faithfully worked for them, they were hiring another screenwriter behind my back. They will not always honor your faith. This is not the rule, but this does happen and we all need to be aware of it. Two months after that, I wrote and sold another script. And two months after that I was hired on another (although both negotiations almost lasted a year). So using that logic, while I was pumping a dry well I could’ve written 4 other potentially valuable projects (financially, mentally, and creatively). If you do free rewrites they have all the power. You have none. Sure you can work on the other scripts while you do the work for them, but if you’re like me you give 100%. But sometimes your 100% isn’t what they want or what you can give. They’re holding on because they’re cheap, you’re holding on because you’re scared. We need to vacate fear.
March 1st, 2009 at 9:08 am
Newbie, Nobody, Nowhere (me) wonders:
Cannot writers working for free get “stock options”. That is a percentage of the back-end of viable production brought to profitibility?
March 1st, 2009 at 11:39 pm
What’s the market like for black writers? Just curious as one.
March 2nd, 2009 at 2:03 am
Craig, it’s tough for everyone but for black film writers? Don’t even think about the statistics or you will just give up.
March 2nd, 2009 at 9:15 am
Of course the studios aren’t financing movies – they’re not film companies anymore, they’re congloms. Film may be doing well, but the theme parks and other entertainments, not to mention the scores of other industries they’re wrapped up in, are sinking. Box office money is leaking into all those other industries.
As much as The Nines proved a challenging business proposition, this is the age of the entrepreneur. As producers, the key is to go into a project with a viable exit strategy – and a theatrical exit can work. The trick is to use the production and some viral marketing to build an audience as we build the film. Tools like petitions and mailing lists can connect exhibitors and audiences directly.
Of course, that’s a different business model than we’ve been working with for the last twenty years. For the 80 years prior to that, however, this industry thrived on the backs of entrepreneurs. I think film is going back to it’s roots.
March 2nd, 2009 at 9:43 am
I’ve got a question about the reference to writing contests. A writing teacher once told me that this was the way to go, being a newbie from Canada, and unable to just pack up and move to L.A. He said that if I had a few contests under my belt, and a few good scripts, this would be a good way to approach an agent, etc., and possibly get some work. Is this not the way to go? Are contests not respected? What would you recommend?
March 2nd, 2009 at 11:10 am
@ Joel Thomas, Anything’s possible — someone could see your web series and be interested in you as a writer, but it’s not the normal process, so I’d only do the web series if it’s something you want to do for you. If your goal is to have a screenwriting career, best to go the usual route since that’s what usually works. I don’t know a single working feature or TV writer who didn’t just use their connection to get an agent and go from there. (When I was starting out, I didn’t know this. By the time I figured it out, I had gotten myself some connections whom I asked for referrals. I had an agent inside of two weeks, moved to LA from New York at my agents urging a few months later, and a year after that had my first writing assignments).
@ Craig, I’m black too. I have to both agree and disagree with my friend NYC/carribean ragazza (who actually is a friend off-line). She’s right — don’t think about the numbers. But I actually don’t think looking at the numbers is depressing. I just think it’s irrelevant. In my career such as it is, I’ve been judged by what’s on the page, for better or for worse. I haven’t been pigeon-holed based on race. Granted I’m not where I want to be, but that has little to do with race and much to do with the challenges of mastering the business. It is worth noting that if you write “black” projects, your opportunities will reflect that. Why? Because this industry pigeon-holes everyone by what they’ve done and if you present yourself as someone who only writes about the “black” experience that’s what people will assume you do. I put that in quotes because there’s no such thing as “the” black experience. By now, many many black people’s experience has been in mainstream society so that our lives resemble the black characters on Grey’s Anatomy (who, as far as I know were not written black). In other words they’re people. If these are the kinds of characters you write, it would be a career advantage to write them race-neutral. In TV, if you create a show, you can cast it how you want (with network weigh-in, of course). In features, it’ll generally be out of your hands, but unless your characters need to be black for story reasons (e.g. it’s a story in which race plays a role), writing them black in hopes of influencing casting would be naive anyway. If it’s not a vehicle for a bankable black movie star (e.g. Will Smith), they’ll either pass on the project or, if they want to think that hard, they may cast it with a bankable movie star that isn’t black. Of course, if you are committed to stories about the black experience, then you should study the budgets and box office returns of films that are similar to what you have in mind so that you can see what the realities are. If you’re interested in things like Tyler Perry’s work or Stomp the Yard, those make money. If you’re interested in things like The Great Debaters or The Secret Life of Bees, not so much. I personally had a chance to pitch for the latter project on the strength of a “mainstream” character-driven screenplay that I’d written, so I’d argue that you can still do projects like that while building a mainstream career. I do believe that, in time, as more black writers opt to build mainstream careers, there will prove to be more opportunity than presently seems to be the case.
@ Erin, I’d encourage you to go to events in NYC where established producers are going to be. Introduce yourself. Ask them to read you (my experience a few years back is that they almost always would). If someone really responds to your work, ask them for an agent referral. And then move to L.A. No one cares about writing contests (though at the panel, they did say that there was one and only one exception — Nicholls, however that’s spelled). At the end of the day, it all comes down to referrals. Connections do matter.
March 2nd, 2009 at 11:22 am
Erin – You noticed what your teacher was doing for a living right?
J/K – Yeah. Go win the Nicholl. :) But here’s the thing… do you really think that if you’re standing there holding a script good enough to win the Nicholls, that that’s where you should be? — There are a bunch of writers who simply didn’t win the Nicholls… because they were really good writers. Sure, they worked and prepared as hard as they could, but when it came down to it… they didn’t even make it to the Nicholl. The secret of their Baddness got out. (Agents can smell a single drop of gangsterity a mile away.) So they didn’t go to competition… they went to work.
March 2nd, 2009 at 12:15 pm
What Maria said (@#38).
Plus, really, is the hot-property, high-commercial-value adaptation really doing that well for them? I was under the impression that most recent big-money productions have not in fact busted the blocks, but have lost considerably.
March 2nd, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Matt & John,
Thanks so much for the recap; a really good reality-check for those who couldn’t make it (or wouldn’t have been allowed in anyway).
The one good thing I will say about making a short is not the attention it may bring to you as a writer (I had a studio express some interest in buying the feature rights on a short I did, so it is theoretically possible), but what you learn from it. You don’t want it to divert you from your feature writing, but if you haven’t spent a lot of time on sets or you don’t have that experience working collaboratively, you will write better scripts in the future by seeing how somebody translates your work and what it takes to get there.
March 2nd, 2009 at 2:28 pm
Thanks for taking these notes – very helpful, very insightful, even if it makes the prospect of being a screenwriter slightly more daunting than it was this morning.
March 2nd, 2009 at 7:26 pm
It is all about selling the vacuum cleaner. That may sound crass, but I love vacuum cleaners almost as much as I love good stories. So you better love your vacuum cleaner and make sure it is the best around. So don’t write in a genre that you don’t really believe in just because you think it will sell, you’ll only end up building a cheap vacuum cleaner.
When you get in the room, let the best things about your story speak for themselves. Visuals help these days when you are pitching. People don’t read anymore. They have to see it to believe in it.
March 2nd, 2009 at 8:48 pm
Paula & Ragazza:
In a moment of weakness, I thought about the odds of a black writer suceeding after what John wrote about the industry. I am happy that I came back to read your advice about ignoring the odds. This seems to make the most sense, or, I will drive my self insane.
Paula- my writing, at least so far, is 1 black lead and 3 white leads. One is a comedy, one is a violent satire, one is a thriller and one is a comic tragedy. I wrote other things. But, these are the first 4 that I am willing to admit to have written.
March 3rd, 2009 at 8:19 am
Thank you, Matt!
End of line.
March 3rd, 2009 at 10:12 am
In my years here as a screenwriter and film journalist, the line I’ve heard most often from agents, producers and development folks is “Have an original voice.” Well, that might be true for 10 percent. But it’s a lie told to make execs feel better about the crap they pump out. You can’t have an original voice when studios are demanding CANDYLAND THE GAME.
Marketing folks have brought this industry down with their stats and desperate pathological need to “brand” everything. It’s time to stop.
And as for free rewrites, I just walked from a project because the producer tried to break our contract and get a free unpaid draft. It hurt, but you have to put your foot down. Like somebody else pointed else here, we are the creators. Time to act like that. Viva la revolucion!
March 3rd, 2009 at 11:47 am
Craig,
You should be fine. It’s a tough business for anyone, so adding anything else to your list of worries will only psyche you out and make you less effective. I think of it the way I thought of it when my high school guidance counselor told me not to apply to Harvard, Brown and Duke out of fear that I would be disappointed (despite a high GPA, and being student body president and a National Merit Scholar). I ignored him, and when I got in, he was thrilled. Will some people be like my guidance counselor and fixate on your race? Maybe. But there are plenty of people who won’t, and all you need in this business are a few allies.
March 3rd, 2009 at 11:51 am
CAD,
An original voice still gets people interested in you as a writer, even if they then ask you to write Candyland the Movie (that was funny). Also, you can even do something original with a franchise, I’d argue. I think the Nolans have done it with Batman, though admittedly it’s a very commercial kind of originality. I’m betting they wouldn’t have been given the latitude if they hadn’t done movies like The Prestige, Memento, etc.
I agree, by the way, that the marketing-driven approach is out of control. I’m still heartened, however, by the movies that continue to get made that aren’t formulaic — though after the demise of so many major-indies last year, it’ll be interesting to see what happens. I suspect that the handful that did it well — Focus, Sony Pictures Classics, etc. — will keep at it.
March 3rd, 2009 at 8:55 pm
Thank you so much for covering our WGA Wrier’s Education Committee’s panel. I am so glad it sparked such conversation.
Sadly, the things not mentioned in the summation was the people who created the event, and specifically the WGA writer who brought in all the panelists, put together all the questions, moderated, and made an entire panel of evasive Hollywood types to stand up there and admit their own system was broken. Too many cooks in the kitchen… And they copped to it.
Then, coming from a place of understanding that the system is busted, he got many panelists also to actually admit their own studio practices of focusing on brand titles has badly affected the quality of modern cinema (doh!). It was so refreshing to hear them say it… It almost made it okay. As if, hey, as long as they know it…
Then they dug into the economy and how it is cutting the lines further. He then ventured to find out straight answers on how to get through the system. They always say a great piece of material, but we got them to break down the kinds of budgets they’d approve. This should be said here for everyone’s benefit, how the $40-70M USD features are not getting the studio support. It’s around $25/35M or $100M+ films – small and large. Alas, the middle class is always the first to shrink.
It was one of the more frank panels I have ever seen or heard, whether we like the facts or not. And it made me fans of the panelists because of their candor, openness and honesty, which is the total opposite of my normal reaction – to leave a panel thinking, “Oh what a politically correct waste of time.” I actually leanred a thing or two from this one. The panelists were awesome, but there is also talent in selecting those big shots and getting them to be honest up there. His name was Michael Tabb.
Thank you, Michael Tabb and the Writer’s Education Committee of the WGA.
Thought this info should be covered. If it was, and I missed it… I appologize.
Matt, you took better notes than I did. I just wanted to fill in the blanks I remembered.
Best, Just another WGA Guy.
March 3rd, 2009 at 9:01 pm
David:
Directing shorts has been my film school. Dealing with actors, DPs, producers, editors, etc. taught me how filmmaking works. Even addressing issues of location and blocking on set forced me to think about the writing. But, the editing, especially, taught me a lot about writing.
Paula:
Thank you again for the words of encouragement.
March 4th, 2009 at 8:20 am
WGA guy,
Execs are pretty savvy. But the fact that we all know we produce crap is even more tragic. It means what we are doing isn’t making dreams come true, it means we’re just living life. There’s nothing wrong with living life, but I think a little piece of all of us wants to inspire and to dream. I think Hollywood needs more dreamers and less worker bees (drones who do what they’re told until they die). If we stop dreaming, I’m afraid, Hollywood will go the way of the auto industry. This is the land where dreams come true after all, we just have to start dreaming again.
March 4th, 2009 at 7:56 pm
Craig,
Exactly. Seeing what lines don’t translate without the right actor, what scenes or bits end up being cut, and what parts feel off-pace or fall flat on their face can teach so, so much. It may not directly help you get a writing deal, but if it’s truly strengthening your writing skills, it’s a help.
March 10th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
Mac-Man & David Dittell,
I agree. And at the panel, so did the panel of execs. They openly admitted there were too many cooks in the studio development system, but I felt clear that none of them felt they could individually change how its done. People leave things broken if they don’t need it to move forward (just look at our cars), and the studio people admitted it will stay broken until the audience stops coming. Only audiences and shareholders make them change their practices, and the shareholers had a very good morning in Hollwyood today. Deep down, I am hoping nobody has to fail for us all to succeed and create a better (and most importantly, a more productive) work environment in which all of us can work and function better.
WGA Guy