Writer control
When working on a big budget remake, does the writer have complete control over how the characters behave and talk? It must be difficult to shape the main characters when people all around you have their own personal ideas about them.
–RBC
Once the script has left the writer’s hands, he never has complete control over anything. That’s the first and possibly the most frustrating truth about screenwriting.
In order to be filmed, your perfect vision has to be mucked up by directors, actors, editors and cinematographers, each of whom will change it to greater and lesser degrees. The hope is that each step of the way, they’ll make it better. Surprisingly, sometimes they do.
Your question is about remakes, where there’s a general familiarity with the characters and the concept, and your instincts are right. Since everyone involved on the project knows the underlying material, they all have strong opinions about how to proceed.
The writer’s job, in this case, is to try to capture as much as possible of what’s beloved about the original, and yet still make a movie that can stand on its own.
In the case of CHARLIE’S ANGELS, the producers and I had long talks about the tone and characters, independent of the plot. Rather than mocking the original series, we wanted the movie to be a giant hug around it. We wanted the angels to be super-competent on the job, and approachably dorky in their off-time. Despite all the action, this would be fundamentally a comedy, and cool people just aren’t funny.
All of this seems pretty obvious watching the final movie, but getting everyone to agree to this approach was easily half of my job. It would have been easier to make a straight-out spoof (like SCARY MOVIE), or a full-on action movie (like James Bond), but I don’t think either would have been as successful.
Was Go written on-the-fly?
While listening to Doug Liman and Steven Mirrione’s commentary track on the GO DVD, they went through numerous scenes that weren’t in your original screenplay, but rather scenes they had you write in production. I was wondering what percentage of a film would you say is original material, and what percentage is threaded during the filming process? Have you ever had to rewrite a scene you loved with something you felt was lesser for the purpose?
–Brian
This is yet another example of why writers should always be on the commentary track.
What’s unusual about GO is how little did change from the first script to the final movie. It’s pretty easy to see what scenes were new and old by looking at the deleted scenes on the DVD. We went back and reshot several parts, including the "branching-off" scene at the supermarket and the finale in Gaines’ apartment. On paper, I much prefer the Gaines’ apartment sequence as originally scripted. I thought it was smarter and much more in keeping with the spirit of the movie. Unfortunately, it just didn’t turn out very well when we filmed it, which is why we went back and did the simpler version that’s in the movie now.
The other changes made during filming mostly involved production issues, such as the names of the hotels we were using, or legal clearance problems. (For example, Confederated Products was originally American Products, but we couldn’t get permission to use that name.)
Worried about copyrights
My movie has main characters who love movies and, at last count, reference over fifty films and watch nearly a dozen. You addressed the need to get permission during filming and encouraged us the aspiring to just go wild during the writing process, but what about in the copyrighting process? Should I get the permission of the producers of, for instance, THE OPPOSITE OF SEX, if I write that it’s playing in the background of the scene or of PHOENIX if my characters refer to it in conversation, even though they refer to it in a nice, non-slanderous way.
–Josh M. Nileski
I fall back on my standard advice of Just Don’t Worry About It.
If you’re excerpting whole scenes of THE OPPOSITE OF SEX, then there would obviously be legal issues, since you can’t copyright something that’s already copyrighted. But it’s not like there’s somebody at the Library of Congress who’s going to read your script and press the emergency copyright infringement alarm.
As far as referring to other movies, Josh, this is America. If you want your characters to say that TOWN AND COUNTRY was a boring, unfunny disaster, they can. (By the way, it was. I like and respect pretty much everyone involved in that movie, but what the hell happened?)
More camera angles
Is it possible to put to rest the largest writing controversy (next to the appropriate number of brads), CAMERA ANGLES? There are a lot of people who say camera angles don’t belong in a spec. [But] if you read scripts written by the writers who do sell, they nearly ALWAYS have camera angles. What I see all over the net is a large subculture of new writers excluding camera angles and not selling, while those who have advised them to take this route ARE using them and selling. One professional writer who suggests they be used goes as far as to say that these other pros suggesting they not be used are doing so to deliberately misguide the younger writers positioned to take their jobs.
–ZD
You’re uncovered a vast screenwriting conspiracy, ZD. William Goldman and his crack team of Writer’s Guild assassins will be visiting you shortly.
You actually make a very good point. Most of the classic screenwriting books and instructors will tell you to never use camera angles, because it hurts the readability and angers the director. While they have a point, I’d caution you to be suspicious of anyone who lays down hard-and-fast rules.
Speaking as a member of the pro-angle faction, I’ll make the case that reading a screenplay should give you the sense of watching the movie. Since camera position is a crucial element in the cinematic experience, there are times when it’s appropriate to mention it, just as it can be necessary to point out costuming, or music, or effects in order to let the reader know what’s what.
That said, I almost never use the words "camera" or "angle" in my scripts, because I think those words do tend to disrupt the flow. Rather than write –
ANGLE ON: The truck SLAMS into the gunman. – I’m more likely to write –
THE TRUCK
SLAMS into the gunman. – which uses a slugline to indicate that this a new and important shot.
Along the same line, rather than say, "The CAMERA CRANES UP over the field," I
would say, "we RISE OVER the field." Since the camera is the audience’s
eyes, using "we" or "our" makes sense to me.
But I’m not the last word on the subject, nor can it ever really be put to
rest. Although none have said it to my face, some of the directors I’ve worked
with probably hate the way I move the camera on the page and wish I would stop
doing it.
Ultimately, writers have different styles that work for them, and my best
advice is find an approach that suits your taste and the material. There are
no absolute rules.
Except that the appropriate number of brads is always two.
Theory #2
This week’s column continues a lengthy answer to a question posed earlier, namely… Why does it seem that there are maybe 6 templates for Hollywood movies? As a writer you pick one of those, fill in the check boxes, and poof the next movie of the week. Is it because of the money to be made, or a lack of talented writers getting their scripts to the right people, or is it due to producers and directors not getting the ‘picture’, or is it because those mentioned above don’t really give a rats butt about the people going out to see a movie?
–Niall
In a previous column, I talked about why so many movies seem to have the same overall "shape," which I postulate comes mostly from the limited number of outcomes any storyline can have. In a romantic comedy, either the couple ends up together or they don’t. Whatever the details, one of those two results is going to happen.
Of course, it’s the details that make a story unique and interesting. Even with just two possible outcomes, there are a million different romantic comedies you could write. So the real question is… Why does Hollywood keep making the same damn movies?
Theory 2: Audiences Want Hamburger
Right from the start, I’ll have to admit to some strong personal biases in this theory. I wrote and produced GO, which certainly wasn’t to everyone’s taste, but was at least different than every other youth-centered comedy on the market. There was no high school, no prom, no parents, no awkward girl who’s really pretty when she takes her glasses off. We got good reviews and great test audience scores.
But when the dust settled and the box office receipts came in, it turned out people wanted the prom. GO made money, but not nearly as much as NEVER BEEN KISSED, VARSITY BLUES, SHE’S ALL THAT, or 10 THINGS I HATE ABOUT YOU. The problem wasn’t the marketing, the problem was the movie itself.
We were offering taboulleh, but the audience wanted hamburger. Deep down, I think the movie-going public wanted to see the white, middle-class suburban fairy tale they’d seen a hundred times before. Our movie was a gritty $7 million comedy with drugs and guns, and the presence of young attractive stars wasn’t going to change that.
That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t make difficult, challenging, rewarding movies. You should. But you shouldn’t delude yourself into thinking they’re crowd-pleasing populist entertainment when they’re not.
So how do we get Hollywood to make more good, original, groundbreaking films and fewer by-the-numbers retreads? A few ways:
First and foremost, we need to support the quality movies that are made, which means buying tickets and dragging your friends to see them. Around December, there’s always a few "vitamin" movies, films that you’re told to see because they’re good for you. But it’s just as important to rally behind the groundbreaking action movies, comedies and genre pieces so Hollywood can see that quality counts.
Second, film critics play a crucial role in shaping the overall direction of movies. By championing new talents like Quentin Tarantino, P.T. Anderson or Darren Aronofsky, they legitimize these filmmakers in the eyes of the studios, who become more willing to take a chance on one of their movies.
Finally, the rise of independent film and diminishing barriers to production (i.e. shooting on videotape, or distributing via the Internet) allow new stories to be told, and new voices to be heard. Most of these movies end up being horrible, but that they can exist at all is cause for celebration. By not having to appeal to all tastes, smaller movies can offer something besides hamburger.
Is film school necessary?
Is it necessary to have a film-related degree/course in order to break into screenwriting?
–A. Plange
No. The truth is, no great screenplay has ever sat unsold because the writer didn’t go through an acclaimed program. No writer has ever been denied the Oscar because he didn’t finish his master’s thesis.
Frankly, a film degree isn’t a prerequisite for any job in Hollywood, from actor to gaffer to studio chief. The Industry is one of the last bastions of apprenticeship, perseverence and pure dumb luck. All that really matters is whether you can do the job.
That said, I personally went through USC Film School. And before I get dropped from the alumni rolls, let me retrench a bit and give two reasons why film school might be right for some people, and why it was right for me.
First, there’s a hell of lot to learn about filmmaking, and while you can learn the specifics of any trade on-the-job, film school can give you a broader perpective. In making GO, I was surprised to find myself dealing with budgets, lenses, preview screenings and TV spots. It went way beyond my "writer" function, but the breadth of my education in film school paid off.
Second, film school is a place to make contact with peers, experts and people who can ultimately hire you. I got my first job, my first agent, and my first paid writing assignment all with the help of friends I made in film school. To this day I work with many of them. This isn’t cheesy, gross let’s-swap-business-cards "networking," but simple reality. You tend to help people you like, and people with whom you share a common experience. The "boot camp" aspect of film school can be important.
Is film school right for you? It depends on your circumstances. If you’re still an undergrad, by all means switch to film. Follow your bliss. If you’re recently out of college, a two-or-three-year grad program could be great. Pretend it’s an MBA or law school. Beyond that, the benefits are harder to calculate. Because the truth is, it’s not an MBA or law school. There’s no guarantee you’re going to make any money. You might be better off learning film along the way. Take a course or two, read a lot of books, go to seminars when you can.
And most of all, if you want to write, just write. One hundred and twenty pages of quality screenplay are worth more than one page of diploma.
Articles