Kurtzman and Orci on Trek and writing together
My assistant Matt went to the Writers Guild Foundation event in Beverly Hills last night featuring Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman, and took notes for readers who couldn’t make it.
Take it, Matt.
The Writers Guild Foundation hosted and coordinated the ticketed event, which was ably moderated by Paul Attanasio.
Working first as assistants for Sam Raimi on his Xena and Hercules series, the then twenty-three year old Orci and Kurtzman broke in early but struggled to get past the stigma of the fantasy genre until they met J.J. Abrams. Abrams appreciated their ability to give “A treatment to B material” and brought them onto Alias. The success of that relationship lead to work on Abrams’s Mission Impossible 3, Fringe (which they co-created), and Star Trek.
Collaborations with Michael Bay include The Island, Transformers and its upcoming sequel. They produced Eagle Eye (with Steven Spielberg) and the Sandra Bullock/Ryan Reynolds comedy The Proposal.
The ninety-minute talk to a theater nearly full of writers and a sprinkling of suits, notably Stacey Snider and her posse from Dreamworks, covered collaboration, craft and the creative process.
The partners also defined a new-to-me screenwriting term: the structurefuck.
But most in attendance were there to ask (and gush) about the duo’s latest hit, which elicited some story lessons worth sharing.
Nero
Nero’s storyline in Star Trek was much longer in both the script and the shoot. Much was left on the edit room floor. Nero was tortured by Klingons, had to wait out twenty-five years somewhere and spit out bitter monologues, etc. All but one shot was cut from the final version. They found in post that anytime they took the story away from the heroes it sagged. Nero served only as a force to bring everyone together. The more screentime spent away from Kirk and Spock, the more defocused the movie became so they reeled him in significantly in post.
Lesson: Sequels are for villains; origin stories are for heroes. Heroes determine structure. In further support, Alex Kurtzman offered the example of Iron Man, which he said was all about Robert Downey Jr. and the suit he forges. As for what Jeff Bridges was up to? No idea. Didn’t matter. Good as he may be on screen, we’re really just waiting to see Downey in the suit again. (Not much Vader in Star Wars Episode IV compared to The Empire Strikes Back come to think of it.)
Kirk n’ Spock
Kurtzman and Orci researched heavily, studying partnerships – Lennon and McCartney, Billy Wilder and I.A. Diamond, for example — to explore why the core relationship of Kirk and Spock worked so well creatively for the series. Like Lennon and McCartney, both Spock and Kirk lose a parent. It’s something fundamental and shared that allows for a connection even with the contention and heated power struggle. Halfway through writing the first draft, Kurtzman and Orci discovered their own relationship as friends and writing partners had infused itself into the Kirk and Spock dynamic.
Destroying Vulcan
The writers felt they had to tie in the current climate and break from the past in a visually and emotionally dramatic way. Destroying Vulcan felt to Orci like seeing 9/11 and the Holocaust all at once. While that was said in jest, I think, the sentiment and desire to break this movie out from the era of the series was genuine. Something radical needed to happen.
Why does Spock get the girl?
It was a visual way to show Spock’s choice: his human/mother’s side had won out over his Vulcan side. It compressed Spock’s arc and made the writers love Uhura more for making the unexpected choice while messing with audience expectations.
Finally, for those interested in process, it took five months to break the story and two-and-a-half more for them to write it.
Advice for the aspiring
Mop floors, do anything you can to get inside and “reveal a surprise.” At age 23, the partners fetched coffee for the producers of Xena and Hercules. They wrote a spec episode and had it ready when the time was right. Wasn’t quite good enough but they were given an episode to play with and when the showrunner left, they were given the helm. They were twenty-four.
Kurtzman noted that P.T. Anderson was a PA smoking outside a set and started chatting with Philip Baker Hall. They hit it off, which lead to Hard Eight. In short, move to Hollywood, look for your moment and be ready when luck strikes.
Once you’re working, see studios as clients not villains out to ruin your art. Learn to love the process of rewriting. Be married to the sprit of words but not the words themselves. Often the studios have forced them to get beyond the “kernel” of the story in the first draft to explore new avenues and ultimately improve the story. (Notably, there were no horror exec stories typical of writers’ panels.)
How does their partnership work?
They’d met in high school but it wasn’t until after college when they began editing each other’s love letters that their partnership began. Neither had any idea how to write, but they were able to expose embarrassing parts of themselves without worrying about being judged or “thrown in a locker.” Each has their strength – Kurtzman at creating moments and Orci on the macro story elements.
They’ve been writing partners for 17 years. They credit that success to treating their relationship with the care of a marriage and applying some of the same addages: Don’t go to bed angry. Make sure one side doesn’t feel like they’re doing all the heavy lifting. Respect strengths and weaknesses.
UPDATE
To structurefuck is to disrupt a linear narrative by playing a scene twice in order to achieve a surprise reveal upon second viewing of that scene. The idea being to plant information in the audience’s heads early, when they’re likely to accept it as truth. When the scene plays again later, you alter (or “fuck with”) the perception of fact and force the audience to reevaluate the story by ripping off a mask or showing that the gun shot a blank or that the heroine actually dodged the bullet and didn’t fall to her death but was hanging naked by a bed sheet caught on a piece of glass.
Filed under: Adaptation, Film Industry, Story and Plot, Writing Process
Articles
May 27th, 2009 at 11:44 am
They defined structurefuck to you, but you didn’t define it for us. Guess it’s pretty self-explanatory, but I’m curious as to what problem they were wrestling with when the term occurred to them, and how they got out of it. Or I could have gone to the event myself, I guess…
May 27th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
Thanks for this. Wanted to make it out but then life got in the way. Again.
Who needs newspapers when you have JohnAugust.com?
May 27th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
I’d love to see them include those deleted scenes into a extended version of the movie on DVD.
May 27th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Cool, thanks for the notes! I especially enjoyed the insight to their working relationship, and their reasons behind their choices for Star Trek.
May 27th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
This is awesome. Thanks John and John’s assistant Matt!
May 27th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Count me in among the folks wanting to know more about the structurefuck. It’s easy to guess at a meaning, but even the most educated guesses aren’t always right.
On top of that, with John’s existing pagerank and the repetition of “structurefuck” in the article and comments, this page could become a top result in Google for the word, so you’d be helping everyone who finds their way here looking for more info.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Ditto. As a writer just completing his second “partnered” screenplay, it’s great to see how teams work together.
Ditto on “structurefuck” as well. Just Googled it. This post is the first result. Whatsitmean?
May 27th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
“Notably, there were no horror exec stories typical of writers’ panels.”
Not a big surprise, seeing as these guys (“The Island,” “Transformers 1 and 2″) aren’t exactly fighting to get “Raging Bull” made. Orci and Kurtzman are highly skilled studio guys who deliver at the B.O., but they’re playing a different game than writers who are trying to do something a little more intelligent than franchise genre tentpoles.
May 27th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
Wanted to hit this up, but had other obligations. So thanks to Matt for being a great stenographer…
May 27th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
those guys and michael bay were sued by the writers of this B movie called clonus horror. it’s a crummy movie but if you watch it, there is no denying that they ripped off clonus horror to make the island.
May 27th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
Let me join in The Chorus of Thanks to Matt for taking notes on this and making it available to all of us. Lot of good info here — especially the changes made to ST.
Thank you!
May 27th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
A structurefuck is when Old Spock and Scotty can be found on the same deserted ice planet that Kirk crash lands on. All within walking distance.
May 27th, 2009 at 7:24 pm
That was interesting, I continue the chorus thanks! I believe that some of the best episodes of “Alias” were theirs, if anyone else is a big fan of that series like myself.
May 27th, 2009 at 7:27 pm
Very insightful. As consumers we only get to see the finished product and it was clear Nero and his 2 decade wait got the short end. Looking forward to “Star Trek 2B”.
May 27th, 2009 at 8:03 pm
Here’s the thing, John….we all really admire your web site and the information it provides us about the industry. But when I read about these two guys, I mean, these guys are part of the problem. And before I came across your web site, I would have said that you too are part of the problem. These ‘tent pole’ movies, these Bret Ratner-style projects – do you ever get sick of doing the same big studio garbage? You seem like a nice guy. But without this web site, I would throw you into the same genre as Orci and his sidekick – creators of unmemorable tent pole movies – you’re Company Guys. I often wonder if there is any degree of self-loathing that comes with being a ’successful’ screenwriter. You’ve made boatloads of money. Your name is out there. But the movies are completely forgettable. You know this. You grew up watching crap movies and making fun of those movies, and now you write these same movies. But people still watch them. They give them a 6.3 on imdb, but the movies made $200M (Dana Fox’s What Happens In Vegas is another disgusting example), so let’s make another one. Here’s to hoping the Internet and a new distribution structure completely revamps the system. I suspect that deep down you hope for the same thing. We’re sick of the system. Friggin sick of it.
May 27th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
@Zack:
That’s what I’ve come to call “the ice cave problem” though the “M-class planet problem” is another good choice. I asked Matt, and apparently no one at the Q&A brought it up. I really enjoyed the movie, and have said so repeatedly to the filmmakers. But that beat got a WTF? from me as well.
@Kevin:
Here is my list of feature credits. So I can learn, please indicate which ones are completely forgettable Brett Ratner-style studio garbage.
The Nines
Corpse Bride
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
Big Fish
Charlie’s Angels: Full Throttle
Charlie’s Angels
Titan A.E.
Go
(Full Throttle is gimme.)
Also, it would be helpful if you could indicate which screenwriter I should attempt to emulate. There has to be at least one good one, right?
Extra bonus points if you could explain the film industry to me. Specially, I’m curious how screenwriters decide which movies get made, and how.
Thanks.
May 27th, 2009 at 9:14 pm
@ Kevin (#15).
Respectfully, I couldn’t disagree more. Putting this year and “Star Trek” aside (which I quite enjoyed), when I peruse last year’s Top 20 box office performers, I see “The Dark Knight (#1),” “Iron Man (#2),” “Wall-E (5),” “Quantum of Solace (#9),” “Gran Torino (#12)” and “Slumdog Millionaire (#16).” I really liked all of those movies, loved a couple (DK and Wall-E), and would call none of them “… big studio garbage.”
Look, I hated “The Island” as much as anybody, and I stayed away from “What Happens in Vegas,” but you can pull up anyone’s IMDB and find clunkers. To say that Orci and Kurtzman are “part of the problem” because they write large scale movies about spaceships or fighting robots instead of, say, black & white art films about orchid thieves, or whatever exactly it is that you’re asking for… that just seems childish. Particularly the “self-loathing” comment, which was just rude, unhelpful to the discussion you’re starting, and probably completely untrue. I’m not trying to start a flame war (particularly on one of John’s boards, which I’ve found to be an oasis of civility in the vast Internet landscape). I’m simply saying that a movie isn’t automatically terrible just because it’s a tent-pole (nor is a movie great just because it cost less than $5 million to make).
If the Internet opens new viable channels of distribution for indie filmmakers, great. That means more people get to play.
But I would argue that any system that can give us fantastic stories like “The Dark Knight” or “Wall-E” is not a system in dire need of revolution.
May 27th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
I wouldn’t go as far as Kevin there, but I agree that Kurtzman and Orci are part of the problem. I like most of the films John has written (Big Fish in particular, though I don’t care for either of the Charlie’s Angels, ugh) and I wouldn’t say he’s writing Hollywood garbage (except again, maybe Charlie’s Angels). Go and The Nines are not big films at all, both very interesting, and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and Corpse Bride have real personality for major studio releases. My problem with this post is that it features Kurtzman and Orci, two guys who may be successful, but certainly can’t be called “good” writers. Using Star Trek as an example was pretty bad. That script made complete nonsense. I thought the finished film was pretty okay for it’s enthusiastic direction and a good cast, but the script is not really part of that fun. I want to know if there is a rule that says a blockbuster movie can’t also be intelligent and original (the similarities between Star Trek and A New Hope are too numerous to be a coincidence) and have some internal logic. Recently I’ve seen Trek and the new Terminator and I’ve decided to call it quits on the big tent pole pictures unless I really have faith in one. I used to go see them in theaters because I figured they’re meant to be seen on a big screen and they’ll at least have some thrills, but that’s not enough for me anymore. From now on I’m demanding real quality. It’s called “voting with your dollars”. I’m voting for some intelligence and I wish others would too. I get that writers have to write what the studios will pay them to do, but that does not preclude quality. Star Trek could have been marketable and intelligent and have big explosions and pretty colours and action and everything if they had just hired writers who weren’t content to spew out garbage. So I suppose if you want to learn how to be successful in Hollywood, there you go, read up on Kurtzman and Orci. Just don’t listen to them if you want to actually be a good writer.
May 27th, 2009 at 9:53 pm
@ Zack (#12) & John:
I was lucky enough to run across a great Creative Screenwriting podcast about Star Trek wherein the moderator asked Kurtzman and Orci about that very thing (at about 1:02:32).
They said that they gave Spock a line of dialogue about how finding Scotty in so unlikely a place might be the timestream’s way of mending itself. That it’s some sort of cosmic kismet. It was an interesting concept (kind of similar to the way time works on Lost, particularly during season 3 when Desmond kept trying to save Charlie, and the Island/Fate/Destiny kept trying to kill him). In other words, the universe could somehow sense the damage Nero and his crew inflicted with their time incursion, and was subtly moving pieces (like Scotty) around the universe to compensate and restore things to the way they should be.
Convienient? Sure, but it would have been better than not addressing it at all. Unfortunately, it was obviously cut from the final version.
Anyway, thanks for the notes on their talk. Really enjoy the site.
May 27th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
“the similarities between Star Trek and A New Hope are too numerous to be a coincidence”
The Hero’s Journey. It’s not a coincidence, it’s a formula. One you could argue should be cast aside from overuse, but unarguably a successful one.
May 27th, 2009 at 10:15 pm
@Kevin, if you want to go after someone, go after Akiva Goldsman. He nearly killed off the Batman franchise, prevented “Lost in Space” from becoming a franchise, and as a producer he made dreck like “Deep Blue Sea” (L.L. Cool J vs. a genius shark!). But the guy’s got a fair hand with adaptations (like “A Time to Kill”), so he does “A Beautiful Mind” and gets a fucking Oscar.
Would you suggest John emulate him? He’s got an Oscar?
Anyone who uses the phrase “part of the problem” needs to be avoided.
May 27th, 2009 at 10:26 pm
@ Mike and John
The M-Class Planet Problem was the most glaring of many tenuous links and narrative shortcuts, and yet I sat there with a big grin on my face, not minding at all. Who needs logic when you have real old-timey adventure. And Spock was there the whole time as if to remind us that being overly logical can make you an unlikeable spaz. It felt like one more pass would have ironed out the kinks, but it’s hard to complain about something so fun.
May 27th, 2009 at 10:36 pm
@Thomas – It’s not just “the hero’s journey” it’s the details: At the beginning, a huge ship shooting up a smaller one, pods are jettisoned. A farm boy is encouraged to go into space and fight evil by an old mentor who knew his dead father. The bad guys destroy an entire planet with their advanced technology. One character has a sword with an extendable blade. Also, the bit with the monsters on the ice planet was not only completely pointless, it was also reminiscent of the trip through the core in Phantom Menace. “There’s always a bigger fish”. It’s a gag that wasn’t particularly clever to begin with and they stole it. That’s not to mention the bumpy Ewok Scotty befriends. Then again, almost everything in the script depends on coincidence, so maybe these are all coincidences as well. There are more direct similarities to details in A New Hope in particular, but I can’t remember them now. Anyway, they’re the least of the script’s problems.
May 27th, 2009 at 11:35 pm
John really isn’t part of the problem but I do understand a certain level of frustration with the film industrie and its audience. I’ve been to the movies last week and before the film started, I saw FOUR trailers in a row that looked EXACTLY THE SAME. I think it was Transformers, GI Joe, Terminator, and Harry Potter. Sadly, those are probably the movies that will make the most money this summer, too. (Plus Night at the Museum 2.)
May 28th, 2009 at 12:21 am
I was very there! Woulda said hi! if I’d known which one you were. – Cool idea bringin back provisions for the troops. – Bravo.
May 28th, 2009 at 1:41 am
@Farley – “My problem with this post is that it features Kurtzman and Orci, two guys who may be successful, but certainly can’t be called “good” writers.”
Really? – Reeeally? — Wow. You know… I’ve seen some heavy hitters fall to pieces when they were faced with writing a children’s book to format. And seen Orci and Kurtzman turn in (not just shootable, but blockbuster worthy) work, on deadlines you’d have to be absolutely inhuman to even scribble a reprehensible draft in. Repeatedly. And love their jobs. And have time to volunteer to help out little punks like me. – Not the first time I’ve said it… Different writers for different attacks. – So yeah… you might do well at what you do. But please… you’re looking at a couple of guys past the finish line of a race you didn’t qualify for. Not even one in 13,000,000 people can complete a lap and these guys got a room full of trophies. They do 2 full drafts BEFORE handing their work to Michael Bay. And they’re ready for it every time. Could you do it? Could you get the job? If you did, could you keep it? – They were 24 when they became showrunners off their own spec. – Good? – You might imagine you know what the other dudes job is… but Kobe doesn’t tell Jack how to act.
@Mike – “black & white art films about orchid thieves, or whatever” — Flawless execution. :)
@Greg – You know why I liked Deep Blue Sea??? – Because its — wait for it…….. — L.L. Cool J vs a genius shark! – That shit is friggin poetry.
May 28th, 2009 at 2:04 am
The Orci and Kurtzman Star Trek Q&A podcast that Mike mentioned is available from creativescreenwritingmagazine.blogspot.com/
There’s also a podcast for their film The Island — even if you’re not a fan of the films, the Q&A’s are still fascinating.
John, have you ever have the opportunity to take part in a Creative Screenwriting Magazine screening? It seems like every major writer does it sooner or later.
May 28th, 2009 at 4:27 am
I don’t know who you should emulate. If you enjoy being a writer-for-hire, great. But there is nothing that is distinctly “you” in anything you’ve had produced. You’ve converted books to movies. You wrote “Go.” – but honestly, until I found your web site, I had always viewed Go as a cheap rip-off of the Pulp Fiction story structure. But you contend you’d written it before Pulp Fiction was produced. Fair enough. As far as “The Nines” goes, I guess what made me sad in watching that was that here we have a man who’s found some success as a writer-for-hire, he’s worked his way up in the system, he’s found some money to make a movie of his own, his baby, and it’s essentially a movie about being a Hollywood writer. I couldn’t finish it. It’s not that I thought it was bad, it’s just that I didn’t really care how it ended, I didn’t care about what you were trying to say. Here’s a guy who has spent most of his adult life insulated by a system that has paid him well, and now he’s made a movie about it…
I know how the system works. I guess I always wonder why being just a screenwriter, or a writer-for-hire, is enough for most screenwriters. The general consensus of people outside the system, ie the rest of us in the world, is that Hollywood writers are hacks. I think hack is defined subjectively, the way “sellout” is, but I think you know why most people view Hollywood writers in this way. Maybe you think you’re different. Maybe you are. I certainly don’t think all Hollywood writers are hacks. I guess I just wonder if you ever aspire to do more and break out of the writer-for-hire mold.
All of your movies listed above are forgettable, in my opinion. The Charlie’s Angles movies are garbage, but the rest are forgettable. But, of course, “garbage” and “forgettable” are also defined subjectively.
I suspect others will comment in your defense, but I think most of these folks are the ones who would do and say anything to live a day in your shoes.
May 28th, 2009 at 5:32 am
Look – I shouldn’t have written anything. This all comes down to opinions. This web site is probably one of the top 10 things to come out of Hollywood in the last decade. Personal opinion. Maybe I’m just sick of movies. I’ll give a John a break and stop typing.
May 28th, 2009 at 5:39 am
Kevin:
So, basically, you have a day job in another field, yet believe you have that One Perfect and Pure Script that is such a genius work of art that it won’t be interfered with in any manner during the collaborative process that is movie-making?
Please tell me it doesn’t involve whiny 20-somethings sitting around discussing their trite interpersonal relationships, which is just a big a cliche for Indie Filmmakers as the Tentpole Action pics are for the Studios. I’ve seen enough films in my life by now to know how repetitive and cliched Art Films can be, and how scenes will be approached and how the cinematography will be presented. There’s little originality at either end of the spectrum.
Meanwhile: John August, working screenwriter. As in someone whose main source of income is screenwriting.
If you’re that precious about writing to never consider Adaptation, stick to books, but even then an Editor will ask you to make some concessions for the sake of publication.
You should have paid closer attention to The Nines in terms of Structure and Dialogue, and how a viewing audience that is reasonably aware of common filmmaking and story tropes can have their accumulated expectations manipulated in the writer’s favour. It’s a curious, clever, layered little film.
May 28th, 2009 at 6:32 am
Thanks John and Matt for doing the necessary to share this piece with us all.
I had my problems with Star Trek (most notably Old Spock telling Young Spock how he should feel about Kirk rather than having to work out that realisation, etc) but it was still an entertaining night out at the movies for me and a few friends. Not all movies have to be works of art to be worthwhile.
As writers (at whatever level) we’re all in the business of telling stories and Kurtzman & Orci had some really useful advice that I will definitely take on board. The script I’m working on right now is a million miles away from Star Trek but a story is a story and I’ll take whatever help I can get. This blog is a godsend for me, so thanks again John.
May 28th, 2009 at 6:45 am
Structurefuck-ing – is not a process. Its a Rob term for: The situation a screenplay gets itself into when the Two charge forth into writing without a complete vision for turning points pre-visioned in outline.
@Kevin – Commenting in John’s defense??? – Naaa! Keep goin man! You’re doin great! – Here’s a video of drowning lemmings I found! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWuiGWkd7mM
May 28th, 2009 at 6:56 am
The ego on some people just blows my mind. You don’t like a specificstyle of movie or writing so it’s garbage and anyone who does like it is simple minded and doesn’t know better.
Who made any of you better judges than the masses? At the end of the day studio movies are about making money something that these two seem to being doing right.
It doesn’t make them crap writers anymore than a children’s book author may seem like crap to a novelist.
To come on a site and blast the host (a guy who has given a wealth of knowledge to those starting out in this industry, for free) as some sort of sellout is pathetic and childish.
You don’t like his work, fine but, why does every ignorant opinion need to be said simply because it can be anonymous?
You think he’s some sort of a sellout, what the hell does that even mean? I’m sure it helps you sleep at night to rant out on how you’re “fighting the man” and are a “true to his craft writer” just keeping crapping on the world hoping it’ll conform to you instead of conforming to it. I’m sure that’ll get you far in life.
May 28th, 2009 at 7:10 am
I guess I always wonder why being just a screenwriter, or a writer-for-hire, is enough for most screenwriters.
Unless you’re financing the movie yourself wouldn’t you be a writer for hire regardless of how high up on the food chain you are? You may have quite a bit of say in a film, but when it comes down to it the person writing the checks has the ultimate say.
By that argument, all the surfboard artists at Trader Joe’s should stop painting on surfboards within company guidelines and just paint how they want to, fuck everybody else. But maybe they just want to paint, and are happy painting for a living, even if it isn’t exactly how they want to paint. That’s why they also paint on the side. Or, you know, write short stories.
May 28th, 2009 at 7:39 am
Storm knocked out my connection…
My point was this as a writer I’d like to see more artsy or more thought provoking movies get made but until they start attracting a larger audience and making more money it’s just not going to happen on a large scale.
When I first started pursuing a career as a writer I had an idea that I couldn’t shake but even then I knew that this movie will never get made unitl I’ve either established myself as a writer or come up with the money myself. As hard as it is to get anything made ultimately your best shot is to give them what they want.
You wouldn’t open up a skate sharpening shop beside a golf course and like any job your job is to cater to the customer.
Studio’s hire you to write movies that will make them money and if you can produce this you are fitting the exact definition of professional writer.
As an aside to your appeasing the masses you can find other ways to express your artistic desires like writing short stories, running a blog etc.
There is nothing “selling out” about perfoming your job as a professional.
May 28th, 2009 at 7:45 am
John, I think if you work really hard and devote yourself to it…you can def. become the next Troy Duffy.
On a more serious side…I saw T4 and there was no character development, no story, it was just cool looking action sequences. That is fine for Transformers but even Charlie’s Angels had distinct characters and a fun if hokey/silly storyline.
Who is typically to blame/fault for this crash and burn? McG def. has a record of not exactly deliving quality films that hold up beyond the box office receipts. Chris Nolan’s brother reportedly did a page 1 re-write and by all accounts he is a very talented screenwriter, and Bale typically does not go for mindless summer junk.
So is it simply not having a good director to push for a solid screenplay before production begins? Is it the studio execs thinking lots of explosions and cool stuff is enough to get by? Or is it just a complete clusterfuck aka…the hollywood development system?
I only ask because McG begged all the fanboys to give him a chance and not judge him based off all his past films because this was going to be different and his big re-launch. He seems to have failed pretty miserably…he managed to somehow make T3 actually look good in hindsight.
I’ll give him a pass for CA1, for what it is trying to be I think it is fairly successful in terms of script, directing, acting etc. But the majority of McG’s other films seem to follow a theme…looks professional and nice…but nothing more.
Despite the presence of Bale I assumed McG would be the same McG of past films and T4 would turn out the way it did… I mean are there a lot of examples of somewhat crappy directors(in terms of overall film quality) suddenly turning into solid filmmakers?
May 28th, 2009 at 7:48 am
@ Kevin
Just for your edification, for, as you say, the terms “garbage” and “forgettable” are completely personal, I would like you to note that one of John’s movies that you term “forgettable”, Big Fish, changed my sister’s life.
She adores that movie. It spoke to something deep in her and set her on her present course to study drama (she also writes). To her it is unforgettable.
As for myself, I’m writing specs and working on projects of my own. Sadly, in your eyes, I’m already a sell-out. My scripts are based mainly in the horror and thriller genres (though I really would like to try a musical and a great children’s adventure before I’m through) There must, however, be something wrong with me, because I don’t feel any sense of self-loathing. You see I want to make movies that entertain people. If I can entertain them and also touch them emotionally in some way, that will be the double score, and hope I do that by writing good, honest, real moments for my characters, even if they are in the midst of a multi-million dollar plot at the time. If you think that’s not possible, I feel sorry for you. If you think it’s abhorrent to want to write movies like that, I pity you.
I was inspired by so many moments in films growing up, and almost all the ones I can recall with the most affection and clarity are ones in movies you would undoubtably hate. I could reel out how my favourite filmmaker is Michael Powell (in conjunction with Emeric Pressburger, naturally), whose films I hope you would approve of, but in the next breath I would tell you how great I find the work of Brian De Palma, or Michael Bay and you would naturally recoil in horror. But I won’t care because they make movies with wonderful things in. I could tell you how great I think the moment in The Island is when Scarlett Johannsson catches her alter ego in a TV advert, and sees her kissing someone. In the one moment, Jordan has to latch on to the concept that there is someone else who looks like her, and not only that, but that that person is, what is this?, kissing someone…is displaying affection to someone? Can display affection.
If you don’t think there’s great drama and beauty in the moment when a clone discovers that not only is she a clone, but there are ways of relating to someone that she never knew about before, and you don’t think it’s a great, big, beautiful, small, intimate moment of character in a summer tent-pole movie, than I honestly don’t know why you bother watching films at all.
You said above to John, “But there is nothing that is distinctly “you” in anything you’ve had produced.”. It’s quite beyond me how you arrogantly assume that. I would bet anything in the world there are moments so personal to John in his movies that we can’t even begin to guess about, because they are personal to him. Being a low-budget, non-studio film does not make a film more personal. I can spot you the personal moments in nearly any blockbuster you care to name. You just can’t see them there.
But, as you say, it’s all subjective, isn’t it?
May 28th, 2009 at 8:08 am
To all the “part of the problem” people, please be quiet. Some of us like movies that just aim to entertain. If you don’t like them, buy a ticket for something else. I sure as hell wouldn’t mind being a Kurtzman or Orci, writing fun movies that make a lot of money.
As for Star Trek and the structurefuck problem, I remember reading an article where JJ Abrams said that he couldn’t really change the script because they were shooting during the writer’s strike. Even if they wanted to fix the M-class planet problem, they couldn’t. Sure you roll your eyes at the coincidence, but it worked. I really enjoyed the movie. Thanks to Matt for the notes.
May 28th, 2009 at 8:20 am
“The general consensus of people outside the system, ie the rest of us in the world, is that Hollywood writers are hacks. I think hack is defined subjectively, the way “sellout” is, but I think you know why most people view Hollywood writers in this way. Maybe you think you’re different”
So.
A bunch of people who don’t know how to write, don’t know how the system works, will never make a movie — and likely will never do anything artistic of any kind — don’t like the way one person writes within a system that they don’t understand?
And we’re supposed to worry about that?
If I’m Peyton Manning, I’m not going to worry about the guy going around the message board saying I don’t know how to throw a football or how to make decisions. Bottom line — I made it to the NFL, he didn’t.
I suspect John’s focus is where it rightfully should be — on trying to make movies he would enjoy. Sometimes it’s more difficult (see: Full Throttle).
You can’t play the game if you’re worried about what the fans think of you. If there’s ever been anyway to guarantee a movie will be bad, it’s to write it worrying about trying to please the audience.
The average audience enjoyed Star Trek. Immensely. It got fantastic reviews and made a bazillion dollars.
I only wish I could “fail” like that.
May 28th, 2009 at 9:12 am
In defence (I think) of Kevin, and hopefully not offending John… I get what Kevin is saying. Hollywood is dumbing down the artform in deference to the lowest common denominator. On a film by film basis, it’s easy to defend or condemn certain writers and certain directors (and certain producers) but it’s a trend – more like a downward spiral. However, it’s not the fault of the screenwriters. The writers are hired by the studios – on the understanding that they can “communicate” with the young, the stupid, the old, and the wise… or failing that, just get the young and the stupid on-side. What sells now is “surprising, vivid, imaginative, loud”. Theme – whatever. If you want to blame anyone or anything – blame television. It constantly bombards children with quality-over-quantity, lowest-common-denominator hysterics. Plastic toys. It’s what the human race is skidding downwards into. It’s not the screenwriters – it’s not the directors (as much as I’d love to blame Michael Bay) – it’s not anyone. It’s the prevailing media climate. You can point fingers at institutions, but not individuals. We’re all trying to make our way through this mess. As John said, screenwriters do not control which films get made – or how. You can’t choose which world you live (or write) in. “They” make the rules. You either try or you fail.
May 28th, 2009 at 9:13 am
(meant “quantity over quality” – but too late now…)
May 28th, 2009 at 9:25 am
I think the goal for most of us is to make the best possible movie we can within the system. Kurtzman and Orci will always have their detractors because they are so successful at this very task.
If you want to knock a specific beat of theirs — the M Class Planet issue, for instance — go right ahead. But it seems inappropriate to equate them with Big Brother, and assume they are singlehandedly responsible for mediocrity in movies.
Quite the contrary, they are indeed giving B material the A treatment. I can say that because I am seeing a larger picture. No one has more beef with this new Star Trek than me (see my time travel post) but I am nevertheless impressed with their sincere approach and their professional craft.
We are all so blessed to have any creative job.
And regarding John’s movies. I can say here that Big Fish is one of my favorite movies of all time. And not in the Raging Bull-film school way. But in a personal way. It’s the type of movie I would give to my son (when I have one).
May we all be the best we can possibly be.
You don’t have to give Kurtzman and Orci an Oscar, but you can give them a pat on the back for excellent work, and for paving a way for you. Trust me, you want more writers to get the director-level attention they are getting right now. You want screenwriting to have more status and name recognition. You want to know that you can have a career like theirs. You want to have a drink with them in a bar so you can blast holes in their time travel narrative.
But you know what? Over a laugh and self -deprecating smile, they would be the first to agree with you on every critical point you bring up. And YOU would be the first one to switch jobs with them, given the chance.
May we all be the best we can be.
May 28th, 2009 at 10:02 am
I would just like to point out that there has ALWAYS been bad movies. It’s not like this is new. And there has always been great movies.
In the past decade or so we’ve had Iron Man, The Dark Knight, Star Trek, Wall-E, Up, The Wrestler, Batman Begins, the Lord of the Rings trilogy, Gladiator, Finding Nemo, The Incredibles etc etc.
There’s been some fantastic movies made over the past ten years. Several of which could not have been made over 20 years ago.
It’s not like there aren’t good movies being made anymore.
It’s just that there’s a lot more bad movies being made too.
But you know what?
Those bad movies that make a bazillion dollars are responsible for paying for the good movies that don’t make any money.
The big movies and the little movies can’t exist without the other.
The big movies pay for the little movies.
The little movies provide talent for the big movies.
If it wasn’t for little movies like The Following and Memento, we’d never have Batman Begins or The Dark Knight. If it wasn’t for a little horror movie called Nightmare on Elm Street we’d never have one of the greatest actors of all time (Johnny Depp).
If it wasn’t for big movies like Indiana Jones, a lot of little movies would never have been financed by studios. People who enjoyed Pirates of the Caribbean were more inclined to find other, smaller Johnny Depp movies.
You can’t pick one or the other, you need both. That’s not to say the big movies need to be bad — as Iron Man, The Dark Knight, Star Trek and any Pixar movie have shown, they don’t need to be.
But the reason why movies suck isn’t because writers/directors/producers are trying to make crappy movies. It’s because making a good movie is incredibly difficult and requires a lot of talented people.
It’s not rare because people aren’t trying. It’s rare because it’s so effing difficult.
May 28th, 2009 at 10:49 am
How do we know what was left on the cutting room floor of any of these movies? The scripts that these guys wrote could easily have had those small connections or logic pieces (as stated above about the M-Planet issue), but they get cut to service time, pacing, SFX, etc.
Michael Bay is purely a visual director, he doesn’t really give two shits about character or story, he wants big robots fighting. Look at the first Transformers…to put it simply, ppl saw that movie for one reason – to see cool robots transforming – and instead of teasing us, creating suspense ala Jaws, Bay blows his load in the first 2 minutes by showing us big robots fighting. Writers of tentpoles get my respect because they have to juggle so much – tell a decent story amongst enormous set pieces while also trying to take into account what the director, producers, and fanboys want…it’s really a thankless job (except for the paycheck)
May 28th, 2009 at 11:07 am
What hath this post wrought? I thought I’d check back to see a few more posts thanking John’s assistant, Matt, but it has become a full-blown debate about…something. Commercialism vs. art? Collaboration vs. independence? Good writing vs. stuff that passes for good writing, like the crap in The Wrestler?
Oh snap.
And sorry, David Shepherd, but Johnny Depp is good, but NOT, I repeat, NOT “one of the greatest actors of all time.”
Or is he?
The debate rages on…
May 28th, 2009 at 11:20 am
personal opinions aside, this forum should not be used to malign the work and efforts of a person electing to host a charitable website; it is simply in poor taste…
May 28th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
@David Shepherd
You beat me to it, and said it so much more eloquently too.
May 28th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
Have to rant about this but this quote:
“It was a visual way to show Spock’s choice: his human/mother’s side had won out over his Vulcan side.”
is why Spock fails at being what he should be in the new film.
The team of Kirk and Spock (note: the team, not the friendship) works as well as it does because they’re opposites. Kirk is rash, instinctive, works off his emotions never mind how many rules he may be breaking. Spock, due to him being half human half Vulcan and raised on the latter planet, is logical, methodical, percieved to be cold at times. They balance each other out.
And it’s part of the genius of the show that neither is seen as being right all the time. Sometimes you need Kirks approach, sometimes Spocks. Generally, it’s a mixture of the two that wins the day.
Does Spock have emotions? Yes. It works like this: if Kirk gets emotional about something it’s par for the course. If Spock does, you know they’re in deep trouble.
By having Spock reject his Vulcan side, by making him choose his emotions, the balance doesn’t work.
Incidentally, having read the description of structurefuck, it occurs to me that you can sum it up in three little words. Run Lola, Run.
May 28th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
I might be incredibly naive, but at the studio level (i.e. not independent, straight-to-video, or very low-budget films) isn’t every writer a writer-for-hire?
Even if you sell a spec, someone, somewhere is going to give you notes. You’ll have to choose different locations/delete a character/give the third act more action/add whatever here.
Unless you own your own movie studio and can green-light your own films, at the studio level, aren’t you always going to have to answer to/do rewrites for, directors, producers, or cast members whose skills will get butts in seats?
I clearly don’t understand the uproar.
May 28th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
I agree with David; the 80-20 rule nowadays should be called the 95-5 rule.
And I see where all the frustration is coming from. I read the news every day and every day there’s talk about remaking this, rebooting that, making a sequel to this, rebooting the sequel to the remake of that. I know, we’re in a recession, but remaking ‘Alien’ and keep financing Wayans Bros. pics is just depressing.
May 28th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
Thanks for the notes from the Kurtzman & Orci panel Matt!
And for what it’s worth – I love all entertaining movies, be they blockbusters or art films. If you think something is garbage, don’t just complain on the web, go make a better movie.
And yes, Johnny Depp is one of the greatest actors of all time in my opinion, but everyone is free to have their own preferences and ideas.
May 28th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
I have great respect for the work that John does, but it’s abundantly clear that these two are studio jockeys who can churn out scripts so fast because they plug things into formula and let it roll. They’re as hack as they come, ruining otherwise interesting ideas when they’re not remaking or adapting someone else’s work.
That said, do not fret, fellow screenwriters! Why? Because, quite frankly, I doubt the crossover appeal for the audience of your personal, intelligent drama and that of “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen.” (Note: What a title!)
So yes, they are part of the problem, assuming the problem is hacky studio remakes, adaptations, and comic book flicks. But, really, if the coveted “Ooh, shiny” demographic isn’t going to see “Star Trek: The Reboot, Now With Lens Flare,” they’re probably going to the bar, not going to an arthouse theater. And speaking of which, how many of YOU went to see an art film this weekend?
May 28th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
I’d say these two guys are still giving the A-treatment to B-material. I’m always stunned at how much like a TV movie their material seems (even on the big screen). It’s clear that’s sort of the ceiling of the writing strengths. But yet, housed in big budgets and capable directors — it actually sorta works.
They’re never gonna break any new character ground — Kirk is simply a watered down Rebel w/o a cause, etc. Their set pieces are never gonna be great (they never build and they always let the protag out of danger too easily) and their humor is never going to be laugh out-loud (but will give you a consistent mild chuckle).
I think these guys have talent, but w/o J.J., I think they’d be running some small show on the sci-fi network. It’s amazing what being in the right place at the right time — and having the right mentor — will do for you. These guys literally owe their lives to J.J. But, given that — they seem like pretty decent guys.
If someone is gonna get lucky — you at least want them to be decent people. And these guys fit the bill.
May 28th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
Kurtzman & Orci redeemed themselves for me with Star Trek. I liked the work they did on Alias but was repulsed by most of the stuff in between. I detested, detested, detested Eagle Eye, which they produced and presumably had creative input on; it boggled me that even a few major critics gave it a free pass for being “fun.”
Yes, they have a tendency to be facile when they don’t care. I think they really cared with Star Trek and it showed. That was a well-made, fun movie with a real heart that didn’t insult anyone (including a good majority of loyal ST fans, it seems). More broadly, it was proof positive that you can make a big spectacle of a summer movie designed to appeal to a mass audience without short-changing things in the story department (the one area that routinely gets the shaft on those projects, bafflingly enough).
As for those who say that Kurtzman & Orci, or even John August, are “part of the problem,” I’d argue that the entire current studio system is the problem. You could count the number of screenwriters who can simply write a movie and get it greenlit by a studio on one finger, and that finger would represent Steven Spielberg, and he doesn’t do a lot of writing these days. Even writers as talented and successful as William Goldman, David Mamet, and Robert Towne have stacks of great scripts sitting in their offices that they couldn’t get produced by a studio if their lives depended on it. Studios make the movies they want to make, and the writers brought in to work on them do the job to the best of their abilities.
Should writers be accountable for the quality of scripts they produce under those conditions? Absolutely, I think. It’s only fair if they want credit for the films that turn out well. But to lump all screenwriters who work on big studio films together and call them “part of the problem” is to misunderstand the entire situation.
May 28th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
I don’t know how anyone involved with Star Trek or Go could be part of the problem. I also will never, ever, ever, ever understand the complaints about Transformers. It’s the best movie anyone could ever make about giant robots that transform into photogenic vehicles.
May 28th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
I believe the example around structurefucking was in MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE 3 where it started out at the midpoint with regards to Ethan and his wife. They wanted the audience to catch up, (and gave them the benefit of the doubt they could) but still wanted to pull the wool over their eyes. Meanwhile, the core issue for them to resolve was, “Can this marriage survive?” Structure vs. Plot, as they put it. The structure isn’t linear, but still clear. Hope that helps.
@John Thanks very much for all of your posts and and the continuous education they provide
May 28th, 2009 at 7:20 pm
@Kevin
It seems you don’t know as much about the entertainment business as much as you think you do. Clearly, Kurtzman and Orci have developed their own zeitgeist the way Joe Eztheras did with Basic Instinct. They are the ‘Go to’ guys right now. You have to respect that. The fact that you talk about it being ’sell out’ or ‘hack’ says more about your view on being a screenwriter than their success as screenwriters. Their time has come and it is now. Someone else will have their time but with an attitude like yours you may spend more time watching the boat go by rather than getting on it.
If you are a writer, respect success and learn from it. As far as I can tell, Orci and Kurtzmn started where you have. They didn’t start with Transformers. Something about their work is what draws producers to choose them for their projects. They understand commercial material and they know how to deliver. Don’t call them sellouts for having their own brand within the industry. I’ll use a great metallica quote: “Yeah, they sold out, every seat in the house.”
Nothing is perfect but I’m sure you have more to learn from Orci and Kurtzman than what you say is wrong about their forgettable movies. If you don’t have anything to learn than you should’ve been produced 10 times over in Hollywood already.
I’m also not saying you have to praise everything every writer does but your tone carried the weight of a person who has figured it out, yet you’re on this site for advice like the rest of us.
I’m not the best writer out there nor the worst. I may not like a movie 100% but I can always find something to learn from it. Orci and Kurtzman are writers I dig because their scripts seem to be made into well made movies that a director can interpret.
Don’t forget: Your screenplay is a blueprint at most, not the bible.
May 28th, 2009 at 7:52 pm
I need a clarification for the term structurefuck.
Does it always have a negative connotation?
Is this an example of a structurefuck?
SPOILER FOR THE RING: In The Ring, a doctor asks the girl “You don’t want to hurt people, do you?” and she says “but I do”. It was set-up to make me think she meant “but I do hurt people despite not wanting to” and then, when those lines replayed at the end, and I realized “but I do” meant “but I do want to hurt people” and that she was evil in the same moment, I loved it. My mind went racing back through the movie to reassess every scene with this new info.
I liked having my head messed with like that and want more.
You might be at the crux of laying down the subtleties of this term. Embrace it.
I ask out of selfishness. I don’t want authors to hesitate to do what The Ring did if it turns out I’m not a simpleton who is too easily impressed. I also purposely structured a story around the idea that a replayed scene would be seen in a different light once the audience knows more (in this case, putting the crisis moment in a teaser and replaying it where it belongs later).
May 28th, 2009 at 8:01 pm
I think what pisses other writers off is rewarding LESSOR talent. These guys aren’t the go-to guys because they are great writers.
No one would ever have heard of these guys if not for J.J.
They literally would be running some crappy show on the Sci-Fi channel.
Xena princess warrior is pretty much where they belong. But, take those writers and put them in ideal situations with an A-list producer, A-list talent, and an A-list director….and yeah, you can start to build some heat.
These guys didn’t scrap their way up the mountain top on based soley on their writing talent. These guys are the proverbial — right place, right time — who you know, not what you know.
It’s not to say that they don’t have talent. They actually have a very coveted talent — the ability to hit a double every time. They don’t strike out and they never hit a home run. They hit a nice shot between 1st and 2nd base.
May 28th, 2009 at 9:11 pm
Matt’s right. — Kurtzman did first use structurefuck in ref to the Mission Impossible “Unmasking The Hostage Wife” scene. To mess with the audience via earlier, misleading/implied information. – (Interesting note – He also said that in normal circumstances they wouldn’t have done it, the Scooby-Doo masks that is, but for the fact that it came as an established/pre-built device in the series.) – So… My bad, & Brownie Points Matt.
May 28th, 2009 at 9:13 pm
@POW:
If you’ve read John’s blog much, you know that being successful as a writer doesn’t have as much to do with being “great” as it does with being good, consistent, and easy to work with.
David Milch may be the greatest television writer that ever lived. But just try getting the guy to write one word that he doesn’t want to. Or getting him to deliver a script on time or a show within budget. He’s as successful as he is because of his phenomenal talent, but the other stuff holds him back.
Meanwhile, David Koepp may be nowhere near the greatest screenwriter that ever lived, but he’s fast, reliable, and can consistently deliver screenplays that are filmable and make money. I’m guessing Kurtzman & Orci are of a similar caliber in those respects, and it’s getting them far. Maybe they WOULD be nobody without J.J. But J.J. is no slouch himself, and he obviously sees something in them.
May 28th, 2009 at 11:16 pm
1. @David Shepherd (#43) – I wholeheartedly agree. “It’s not rare because people aren’t trying. It’s rare because it’s so effing difficult.”
2. @Matt – Thanks for taking notes! I think the key phrase in your summary, “In short, move to Hollywood, look for your moment and be ready when luck strikes,” is…
BE READY!
Be ready to do work-for-hire. Be ready to pitch. Be ready. And, as we’ve learned from the (mostly civil) debate on this post, be ready with an entertaining and intelligent script when you reach a place that you can pitch it to someone who will buy! Good advice for the aspiring.
3. Also, someone made a comment about how they couldn’t do rewrites to fix the M-class planet problem because of the writer’s strike? Really? Is that true?
4. Now. Onto the question of what the audiences want… Here’s my $0.02.
Some audiences want low-budget art films or intelligent dramas. Some audiences want blockbuster entertainment that is sometimes accused of being full of logic holes and shallow characters. Sometimes these filmgoers overlap in their preferences, but for the most part, I will consider them to be considered mutually exclusive for the sake of this argument.
Hollywood is not going to make oranges for apple eaters. Likewise, they’ll avoid selling apples to orange consumers. To make an orange that tastes like an apple would simply confuse the marketplace! Apple-buyers want apples and orange buyers want oranges!!
So what is hollywood to do? If they don’t want a dip profits which would affect shareholder value, they continue down their path of related diversification: make a broad range of films (some blockbusters, some dramas, some rom-coms, and a straight comedy or two). They have to keep making the variety of fruit that the marketplace is purchasing!
So how do we change what the marketplace is purchasing? The answer is: the filmgoer on the street in middle America must be the evangelist for intelligent entertainment. Hollywood can’t do it – they’re too busy trying to stay afloat in a volatile economy. They have to keep satisfying the marketplace. So that filmgoer must seek out the films they deem “worth” the $14.50 and share it with their friends. Share it on facebook. Blog about it. Email their friends. Organize a movie outing and support opening weekend of the kinds of films of which you’d like to see more!
Hollywood trends towards the films that get the biggest opening weekends. So if you’re an apple eater and want less oranges in the marketplace, gather all your friends and support opening weekends of ALL the apple films.
Kevin? Are you listening?
May 28th, 2009 at 11:52 pm
@ Synthian – You didn’t really disagree with me there at all. Basically you’re saying they can keep up a crazy pace and throw a bunch of scenes together and market it really great, which I’m not arguing with. It’s fact. But just because they can sell their writing and get it done quickly and format it properly and know how to structure it doesn’t mean they’re good writers. Like I said, they’re successful and I imagine hard working as well, but I personally find their writing to be lazy and stupid. Maybe they shouldn’t be rushed with insane deadlines and instead take some time and see if they can turn out real quality.
May 29th, 2009 at 12:58 am
Tiny correction for the story: it’s I.A.L. Diamond (authors left out the L).
Thanks for the info from the writers panel; good stuff, at least the parts I read. I’ll read the rest after I see Star Trek!
May 29th, 2009 at 4:40 am
Kurtzman and Orci were sitting in their L.A. apartment, working on their specs and fetching coffee as assistants just like every other writer out there trying to make it. Their spec TV samples were getting rejected by ‘Xena’ for Pete’s sake. But they kept at it. Ended up showrunning a successful series. Sold a spec called ‘The 25th Amendment’ that big stars were circling (still are!). Created another series with Bruce Campbell. Got re-write jobs. Etc. They were making it happen before they met J.J. People trying to say “it’s who you know” — I’m sorry, that’s loser talk.
The bottom line is that these guys got in the trenches and kept at it. I doubt they ever got on message boards and complained about other screenwriters. Part of the problem? They keep writing successful feature films that audiences want to see. Please sign me up for that ‘problem.’
And for the hecklers on here, yelling stuff from the back of the room in the dark, please get up on the stage and rock the mic. We’re waiting…
May 29th, 2009 at 6:48 am
Wow, what a bizarre term, “structurefuck”. But, I love it now that it gives a name to something I love in thrillers. An example would be, for the few who watched Alias to the end:
In Season 5, Vaughn is inside a building opening a locker. We see the SWAT team (or whatver) approaching the building from the outside, and we think that Vaughn is screwed because Sydney, his girlfriend, just sold him out to the authorities. But then, we later see that the building Vaughn is in is not the same building that the SWAT team is entering. Turns out Sydney gave them the wrong location.
That’s the scene that came to mind immediately when I read about structurefuck. Although what I recounted above does not exactly repeat the scene…so, does structurefuck always have to repeat, or does it just mean turning the supposed “truth” upside down?
May 29th, 2009 at 7:49 am
@ Script Doctor Eric
I think Depp is. There are very, very few actors who have the range he has and could play all the characters at the level he’s played them at. The list of people’s he’s played is like a who’s who of iconic character: Willy Wonka, Jack Sparrow, Edward Scissorhands, John Dillinger etc etc.
But it’s a subjective medium. I’m sure there’s a ton of people who disagree. Which is cool.
@ Carol
I’m pretty sure you’re right. Haven’t experienced it personally, but once you sell a script I believe you sign a contract that specifies the spec as a work-for-hire.
May 29th, 2009 at 9:01 am
Wow, I knew that a post about Kurtzman and Orci would create a storm of comments. Perhaps they are the third rail of screenwriting politics.
To be fair to the team that states these guys are “part of the problem,” I must say that the evidence against them comes not from one work, but from a consistent body of work that all shares the same frustrating problems. It is not as if they re-invented themselves once they achieved their A-List pedigree.
Because I don’t like to bash careers, or people, I will try to be specific as the case against these guys from a screenwriting point of view:
1 Fringe A caveat: I don’t watch Fringe. I watch two episodes and hate it, but close friends and family do watch it, as well as as other famous screenwriting bloggers, and they all seem to be very frustrated with they all call a “lazy” storytelling style. What does that mean? Story events occur in convenient ways that move the story forward at the expense of logic or justification. Perhaps they need more “shoe leather.” It is as if they assume that the modern savvy audience can fill in the gaps here and there, so they don’t need to. While we may find these same flaws in Transformers, Star Trek, and The Island, we can attribute those leaps to other people. But Fringe is their baby. If you like Fringe, you like those guys.
2 Of Genres and Gimmicks I was recently talking to some veteran show runners recently (accomplished executive producers from a bygone era of television), and they were telling me that ideal spec scripts that they loved to read brought a fresh approach to a familiar show without going into that dark territory of novices. What did novices often do wrong? They unearthed a long lost sibling, or took grandpa off the wagon, or in some way used a structural device that was a melodramatic way into the story. They said the worst cliche of cliches was in the science fiction realm, where it was VERBOTEN to meet yourself from the future, or converse with your clone, etc…
Of course, I thought of Star Trek. What was so bad? Seeing Spock was integral to that story, I thought, but then it hit me. Well of course. It is so convenient! And the writers didn’t have to wrap anything up in the end. In their own words, the writers say they “are total genre guys” and because of this, they and JJ Abrams all speak their own “shorthand.”
Well, we as writers know what this means, right? It means we crib from every popular movie we ever saw, because we grown up in the same generation. In the writer’s room: “Hey, guys! We could have a ‘Die Hard’ moment here where our hero has his weapon tapes to his back as he turns himself in!” You get the idea. That is, in brief, the essence of their style.
Woody Allen once said that this new generation of filmmakers aren’t making movies about life, but about the life they know from watching movies and television. Well, if you really watch the movies of Kurtzman and Orci, you will see it as a pastiche of genre conventions, structural gimmicks, all polished with that A-List veneer that makes a studio think its gold.
And it is… until you look closely.
So the existential question becomes: is that good enough? You can be cynical and say the work is great because it sold tickets and satisfied clients. Transformers got rave reviews when it came out!
I think what critics on this board are saying is that it isn’t good enough, and that a good story is a good story is a good story.
We all saw the last Indiana Jones movie. Am I “hating” to say that Darabont’s version would have been infinitely better? Not really.
A story is a story is a story.
May 29th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
@Farley… No… I’m directly disagreeing with you.
Here… I’ll draw you a line…
Alex Kurtzman… and Roberto Orci —> are Good at what they do —> and what Alex Kurtzman, and Roberto Orci do, —> is write. —> what that means is, that —> the thing that they are good at, —> is writing. —> (Good —> Writers.) And so… when their paychecks come… they don’t get the ones that are supposed to go to the D Girl. –> they get the ones that are supposed to go —> to the writers. (Because thats what they do.) –> And then the people who hired them say, “Boy, we should hire them again! — Those were some damn good – writers. – You mean those guys that just made us a billion dollars by turning out a thing that almost nobody in the world would be able to turn out in 8 weeks? –> Yeah! Those guys!”
Now… does that mean that: The work they nail down in a crunch is the same depth of quality as the great 6 year scripts like say… The Sixth Sense and Deja Vu?
No. – But I just saw 2 guys write a Star Trek that was being completely re-cast from scratch… and then a few days after release I sat and watched 40 die hard Trekkies set down their pitchforks and line up in a row to thank them for their work.
Ya… I’m fuckin impressed.
Dude, they just OWNED the world.
So yeah… you’re right… they can just stay where they are now… with the whole world screaming they like them…
“I personally find their writing to be lazy and stupid. Maybe they shouldn’t be rushed with insane deadlines and instead take some time and see if they can turn out real quality.”
…Or they can appease you.
Hmmm… I guess if they would just buckle down and become good writers they’d have the wisdom to achieve the latter.
May 29th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
I think everyone is missing a crucial point, and the one that John originally made. Screenwriters don’t get movies made in Hollywood. It does not happen. Kurtzman & Orci are successful because they give the studios what they want, and more specifically, they give the DIRECTORS what they want. I don’t mean they think of great stuff that just happens to coincide with the studio mind — I mean they write a draft, get voluminous notes, and put those notes into the next draft. That process gets repeated fifty times (if they’re lucky). They don’t argue the notes or throw them in the trash. They do what the studios tell them. That’s why they get hired back. That’s why Michael Bay would work with them again after a debacle like The Island. Do you think he would work with writers who gave him the worst flop of his career because K&O thought of the ideas themselves? No, because they do what he says with no guff and eye rolling.
Anyone who thinks screenwriters put ideas from their heads to the page to the screen with minimal interference has never worked a day in Hollywood. If you think Transformers and Star Trek could have been better movies (which I do), then don’t blame the writers. Ask why two directors were hired to bring worlds to life which both have said in numerous interviews they did not like. Bay hated Transformers, Abrams didn’t get Star Trek. Sure, you can learn to appreciate a long-running franchise, but you’ll never truly know why it works and why audiences bought in in the first place.
Hollywood is a top-down industry. Screenwriters have no power. Enough bashing.
May 29th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
@ gilliebean (#61): “Some audiences want low-budget art films or intelligent dramas. Some audiences want blockbuster entertainment that is sometimes accused of being full of logic holes and shallow characters. Sometimes these filmgoers overlap in their preferences, but for the most part, I will consider them to be considered mutually exclusive for the sake of this argument.”
Even if the filmgoers’ tastes are mutually exclusive, I personally reject the notion that the films can’t have it both ways. Why can’t we have blockbuster entertainment with solid logic and fully-realized characters? The people who want solid drama will be satisfied, and the people who only want pretty colors won’t care either way.
BTW, what’s the problem with the M-class planet thing? Too coincidental? If the ice planet is the only one in the system besides Vulcan that supports life, then obviously it has to be the planet where Nero would maroon Spock to watch Vulcan implode, and the only planet where young Spock could maroon young Kirk — since he didn’t want to kill him, only get rid of him. The only real stretch is that Scotty’s there too, but eh. Someone’s got to be at the Federation outpost. Could as easily be Scotty as anyone else — maybe that’s where he came from.
I liked Star Trek a lot, by the way, and as someone else said, Transformers was perfectly enjoyable considering the premise. And I have no real beef with Orci and Kurtzman — there are WAY lazier writers out there.
May 29th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Jimmy, which screenwriting bloggers talk about Fringe?
May 29th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
I’m going to ignore any churlish value comments and just throw out a thank you to Matt from everybody who couldn’t be there.
May 29th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Am I the only person who thinks the first Charlie’s Angels is a clever, ridiculous, delightful romp that’s goes over the top and does a dance on the other side? It’s a big toothy grin.
I’m still surprised at how close it comes to flying apart into over-witty ’90s-style deconstruction without ever actually abandoning its own internal sense of peril — to the characters, the stakes still seem real, even in the midst of all those absurd antics. I think that’s great.
Charlie’s Angels chooses to be dumb for laughs and escapism, which is not the same as settling for some dumb because of “meh.”
May 30th, 2009 at 3:27 am
“It took them five months to break the story”
That explains why the story is so broken, I guess.
May 30th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
@Dorkman (71): “BTW, what’s the problem with the M-class planet thing?”
The problem is that Spock chooses to maroon Kirk there in the first place at that moment. Meeting Spock after that is actually fairly logical, but its kind of a whopping coincidence that Spock maroons Kirk rather than say locks him up in the brig. Ultimately it doesn’t matter that much because most of the audience seem happy to forgive the moment.
And for examples of structurefucks, I’d suggest Heinlein’s By His Bootstraps as the granddaddy.
May 30th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
Is it ok that I didn’t love Star Trek? I mean, I liked it, I just didn’t have the reaction that a lot of people had. The M-class planet thing was easy to dismiss, but never for a moment did I think Kirk or the Enterprise were in any danger. And that kind of took me out of it.
Mr. August: While it seems silly to want an answer to a question you mentioned tongue-in-cheek, I honestly am curious as to where you find inspiration.
Obviously, I am not wondering who you try to emulate because if you were just emulating I doubt you’d be successful at all. But I am interested if there are specific artists (screenwriters, authors, musicians, etc) that motivate you or challenge you to do better.
May 30th, 2009 at 11:29 pm
Damn, that’s pretty rude to come on a site that’s basically a gesture of good will toward other writers, and then call the guy “part of the problem.” I’m no fan of, say, Uwe Boll, but if he ran a site full of tips about making movies based on video games, I still wouldn’t think to seek out the site and rip the guy on his own site.
I guess that’s the way of the internet. Most people are either name-callers or sycophants. I like that comments on this site are usually pretty civil.
May 30th, 2009 at 11:40 pm
Wow, I feel a tiny bit responsible for the acrimonious–but interesting–turn this thread has taken, being the first to take a potshot at Kurtzman/Orci way up in post #8.
For me personally, I call them onto the carpet not because I don’t think they’re skilled, but because depending on how you view Hollywood in general and your personal position on the Art vs. Commerce spectrum in particular, these guys are Collaborators par excellence. A lot of their defenders immediately go to a “Why do you hate big, fun movies? Go back to your dorm room and fall to one knee before masturbatorial black and white angst-fests” defense. For one, I don’t think that’s really the issue. For two, I think that’s a pretty gross simplification of what we’re talking about here.
For me, the issue is not so much that these guys write popcorn movies, it was that 1) the report on their talk that this thread is attached to was written in a sort of breathlessly fawning tone, as if Kurtzman/Orci are a force for Pure Good rather than poster boys for tentpole overload. And 2) it’s not that I don’t like tentpole movies, it’s that, increasingly, that’s the ONLY kind of movie that gets made in America. Hey man, I love Snicker bars, but that doesn’t mean I think we should stop making Filet Mignon. Someone else pointed out that when they went to a movie recently, the previews were “Terminator,” “GI Joe,” “Harry Potter,” and “Transformers.” All pre-existing franchises, all but one based on children’s entertainment, and all aimed at the 13-year old boy in all of us. Nothing wrong with this, but a diet of nothing but this kind of movie makes for a sugar headache and an atrophied brain. The tone of the report on the Kurtzman/Orci talk was that there’s nothing greater in the world than to give your talent over to servicing these giant marketing juggernauts, and I just refuse to go along with that thinking.
I’d also take issue with the people claiming K/O bring an “A-List approach to B-material.” Bullshit. You want an A-list approach to B-material? Go rent a Coen Bros. movie. Those guys almost exclusively write in genre, and if you think a K/O joint holds a candle to anything in the Coen’s catalog, then there’s probably nothing we can agree on. K/O bring a B-Movie approach to B-material, and the $200 million spent hiring world class technicians to bring their scripts to life cover up all the problems.
I’d also like to burn down the straw man argument that the only kinds of movies that exist are either “Star Trek” or “Cries and Whispers.” That’s ignoring a whole country of delicious middle ground. 2007 (let’s forget last year and the first half of this year) had a lot of great genre movies that were done for a price and genuinely made you think: “No Country for Old Men” (chase movie), “Eastern Promises” (gangster), “Assassination of Jesse James” (western), “Zodiac” (serial killer), even “The Bourne Ultimatum.” (conspiracy thriller). These films have plenty of the thrills and chills the summer movie fans demand, and the Kurtzman/ Orcis of the world would never go near these because doing so would mean they’d have to do a little more artistic heavy-lifting and a little less “Yes Man”-ing with the studio execs.
But what do I know? I can’t even follow a plan of attack in “World of Warcraft.”
May 31st, 2009 at 3:48 pm
@Lerooy Jenkins & Others
Several points:
To believe that the only films that get made in America are popcorn flicks is to ignore the majority of films made and maybe even more than half of the films released into theaters. If you don’t live in Los Angeles or New York, the internet and your local video store are just about your only options, but take a look at the top 10 lists in the New York Times end of year wrap-up and try to honestly say that mainstream filmmaking dominates there. The films exist, just the market for them is smaller so you have to seek them out.
The overwhelming majority of filmgoers are populists, not elitists. They want entertaining pap with, hopefully, a clear, decent message. Since the overwhelming majority of filmwatching experiences are going to be of these films, it behooves us to put the most talented people possible in the position to make sure that clear, decent message gets across and actually adds something to the world. These films have the greatest direct impact on others by sheer force of numbers, and to be a part of that process is an honor. With the possible exception of films that inspire future filmmakers by pushing the possibilities of the language, mainstream filmmaking offers the greatest opportunity to make a difference as a writer or a filmmaker.
Additionally, mainstream films largely subsidize the more challenging American cinema. Yes, you get pure entertainment like Star Trek and pure schmaltz like Up (not meant to be demeaning; these are my two favorite films of the year so far because they’re so good at what they do), but that helps fund the other films on the schedule that you prefer. Tentpole films, more predictable in their earning patterns, are used to anchor the rest of the plate, allowing room for challenging films which are more hit-and-miss, but thus are given less funding, to be given a shot.
Finally, I would like to say that as a writer myself, pure storytelling is a major draw for me. Being able to make the best version of a story, regardless of its intentions, is a challenge and a reward all its own. Art demands a message, but for me personally writing can also work in the same way as, say, exercise. Perfecting a swim stroke, playing pickup ball in harmony, or running farther than I ever have before is its own reward, as is the self-improvement related to that. Part of being a craftsman is to be in love with your tools.
May 31st, 2009 at 4:39 pm
@David Dittell “Additionally, mainstream films largely subsidize the more challenging American cinema….Tentpole films, more predictable in their earning patterns, are used to anchor the rest of the plate, allowing room for challenging films which are more hit-and-miss, but thus are given less funding, to be given a shot.”
You’re right, you are a great storyteller. I haven’t read science fiction this good in years!
May 31st, 2009 at 4:47 pm
@David Dittell, sorry for the glib response (I can’t help myself, it’s the Internet!), but your trickle-down theory of movie funding just ain’t grounded in the realities of the biz. Major studios are making fewer and fewer movies. They’re shuttering their independent/arthouse divisions. “Home runs” are all they want. Middle ground movies are getting phased out at a geometrical rate to push all their budgets into franchise tentpoles with built-in “pre-awareness.” I’m sure a working screenwriter like John August, who sees the writing assignments as they roll out of the studios, wouldn’t deny this.
Yes, David, some more challenging, adult fare does manage to get made and even distributed, but a whole lot more doesn’t get anywhere near a greenlight.
May 31st, 2009 at 6:21 pm
@ Will -
I’m with you. I thought Charlie’s Angels the First is lots of fun, and actually own a copy. I think it’s a perfect send-up/homage to what was already cheesy source material. It is what it is: over-the-top, candy-coated fun. I don’t want every movie to be like that, but I appreciate the ones that are and do it well.