No, I don’t just mean indies. Studio executives, producers and development execs at production companies all read scripts. They get them from writers agents. For a working writer, you pitch because you want to sell your pitch, not because you want someone to say, okay, I’ll read the script. It sounds like you’re approaching the business without connections and making cold calls to pitch your material in hopes that someone will read you??? Not sure, but that’s not the way the business works (though maybe someone’s succeeded at that, who knows). Every script I’ve ever written has been read around town by producers, studio execs, and production company execs. I’m not at John’s level by a stretch, but even at my level (unproduced, have written for-hire, have had several near misses with projects that I originated or wrote for hire), this is the case.

Big budget FX comedies are probably often execution independent with the exception of needing a big name like Ben Stiller to guarantee making the money back.

It should be noted that even when a movie seems “execution independent” that’s still no guarantee that it will be a hit.

And while I haven’t seen either, Paul Blart and Observe and Report look pretty darn similar from the ads, probably a big reason the latter did so poorly. I have no idea how good either movie is, but in terms of financial success, O&R certainly is the ugly step cousin.

I’ve never heard anyone use the term “execution dependent” in terms of a film needing a specific star or director to get a greenlight. I’ve only heard it used in a way of saying it’s an easy movie to fuck up. We’re not talking about how easy or hard it is for a movie to get made, we’re talking about how easy or hard it is to make a specific project, script, or idea work as a final finished commercial product.

NIGHT AT THE MUSEUM isn’t an easy movie to fuck up. Twenty directors could have made it. Twenty stars could have been in it. Again, we’re not talking in terms of a greenlight. I can’t imagine a studio looking at that script and concept and saying it’s “execution dependent.” Twentieth Century Fox, at least the current regime, is not in the business of making “execution dependent” movies.

We’re going to have to agree to disagree. I specifically didn’t put Night at the Museum because (a) it was huge-budget and (b) it probably wouldn’t have been made without Ben Stiller.

Same thing with “Click.” Super-high-concept, but who knows if it would have been made without Sandler’s involvement.

The definition I’m working from is movies that were made and sold based on their concepts or properties — not on their budgets, stars, or quality.

To clarify, SON OF THE MASK is especially “execution dependent.” One of the most “execution dependent” genres are FX comedies with a dark sense of humor.

JUST MARRIED, ARE WE THERE YET?, SPLASH, VARSITY BLUES, NIGHT AT THE MUSEUM, BIG FAT LIAR, PAUL BLART etc.

@Nick:

I don’t think you understand what “execution dependent” means.

Any sequel that’s made without any or most of the original participants, on the assumption that the concept alone will put asses in the seats. Jaws 2 through 4, Daddy Day Camp, Dumb & Dumber-er, Son of the Mask.

You can extend that rule to include many films made from “pre-sold” properties with no big stars or creative talent: Bratz, Leave it to Beaver, Lost in Space, Hitman, the recent Street Fighter movie, House of the Dead, Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning and all those other horror quasi-remakes.

Basically anything where you can hire a Shawn Levy, Adam Shankman, Brett Ratner, Bryan Robbins, Steve Carr, Richard Donner, Ron Howard, John Turtletaub etc. I’m not knocking any of those directors, I actually really like a few of them, but this is their bread and butter.

SIMPLE AND STRAIGHT FORWARD COMMERCIAL CONCEPT/SCRIPT + LIKABLE ACTORS + COMPETENT DIRECTOR = THAT TYPE OF MOVIE