John August

John

On blasting and drafting

Follow Up

The guy who made that Phil Coulson fan film — and [wrongly credited me](http://johnaugust.com/2012/phil-coulson-and-the-failure-of-imdb) — thinks I was out of line to complain so much.

Chris R. Notarile writes:

> I don’t know why you think I was trying to garner fame from your name. When I was crediting my “Coulson” fan film, I simply Googled the character and listed on Wikipedia was YOUR name under “writing credits” for Iron Man. Since I don’t know you personally nor did I know what you contributed to the film, I gave you an honorary “character” credit for IMDB. But as we all know, IMDB is notorious for not posting correct information, thus they gave you a full on “writer credit”.

> And the only reason why I even did it, was because I didn’t want some crazy fan blasting me for NOT crediting you. (which I now find ironic) I apologize for the inconsistency, in fact I tried to explain it on the forum, but come on.

> Dedicating an entire blog to blast me is just wrong. I was very explicit within the film that it was a FAN FILM, which as we all know is just for fun. I busted my butt to make something entertaining for Coulson fans. That was my soul intent. And like any fan, I wanted to thank all those who I thought were responsible for the creation of something I adored. (I had no desire to take credit from anyone. Like any fan film, it is customary to list all those involved in the creative process) I am saddened to hear how aggressive you were about the listing of my movies on IMDB.

> And I’m even more disappointed at how you chose to handle this situation. I’m pretty accessible myself. A simple email to me would’ve sufficed if you were truly offended. I hope you can move on from this hickup and come to enjoy the films for what they are- fun.

I’ll accept his explanation, although I don’t fully buy it. For starters, my name is not strongly associated with Iron Man and especially not with the Phil Coulson character — at least not until this incident.

I wrote:

> He’s drafting off my name (and Whedon’s much bigger name) by misrepresenting my involvement in his short film.

Which he was. He can claim it was unintentional, but for several weeks anyone visiting Joss Whedon’s IMDb profile saw two fat links to short films about a Marvel character. Many, many people assumed they were official tie-ins, even after I explained they weren’t.

So was I wrong to put Notarile on blast? Should I have emailed him first?

Maybe. That would have been gentlemanly.

Granted, he didn’t email me. He didn’t give me the choice to be associated with his film. And considering that it’s taken him a month to acknowledge my July 9th post, I wonder just how quickly it would have gotten resolved.

At the time, it wasn’t clear whether Notarile himself had actually done the mis-crediting:

> Now, it’s possible that the director himself didn’t link my name to this. IMDb credits can be edited by just about anyone, so someone else could have done it.

This is why the bulk of my blasting was aimed at IMDb for making it so easy to create bogus credits. IMDb needs to handle this much better.

> Here’s a simple way you can start: I’m a registered user, so why doesn’t your system kick out an email to confirm a change like this? I know I didn’t work on this. It should never have showed up on the page.

> I have a movie coming out, and I’m starting to do publicity. All is takes is one lazy journalist looking at IMDb to assume I’ve been reduced to doing crappy superhero knock-offs.

> True, one idiotic fan film isn’t going to hurt my reputation much, but what happens when I’m listed for acting in a porn film, or producing a inflammatory religious documentary?

IMDb corrected the Phil Coulson credits, but to my knowledge, they still haven’t fixed the underlying issue.

As far as Notarile, I’m sympathetic to his situation. He wanted to credit the original creators. That’s laudable. But I’m frustrated that he thinks he did nothing wrong by listing them in a way that strongly implied we were collaborators.

Women, screenwriting and confidence

Film Industry, Follow Up, Psych 101

Continuing the podcast discussion on the comparatively low number of female screenwriters, listener Elana writes in to call attention to Deborah Tannen’s book, Talking from 9 to 5: Women and Men at Work:

> In the book, she at one point floats the theory that the Glass Ceiling is actually an issue of how confidence is perceived in different groups, and how groups are socialized to express (or not) that confidence starting in childhood. Women, she theorizes, are socialized very early to not speak too well of themselves, whereas young boys are both subtly and overtly rewarded for boasting about themselves a little bit.

> I’ve often wondered if the above is at play in screenwriting. So much of screenwriting as a career is not really about the words on the page but much more about how you come into a room and tell terrified people that you can save their asses and fix their franchise. Even at the level of interest [in the profession], I wonder if this is a factor. Perhaps even to submit to the Nicholl or to you guys, or to ask an agent to read your material, one needs to feel comfortable donning the mantle of “I’m probably pretty awesome”? Maybe, even to get interested in screenwriting in a minor way, you have to believe that you are crazy amazing and can beat insane odds.

> I am just speculating, but I would be prepared to believe that men, on a population level, are more likely to do that than women. That might account for some of the difference in interest levels.

To me, this speaks to the importance of modeling. Often, you don’t aspire to become something until you see someone like you achieve it. The best way to get more female screenwriters (and directors) is to raise the visibility of those we already have.

Better yet, don’t write anything at all

Words on the page, Writing Process

I quite like Colson Whitehead’s tongue-in-cheek [writing advice](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/29/books/review/colson-whiteheads-rules-for-writing.html?_r=3&src=me&ref=general&pagewanted=all):

> **Rule No. 6:** What isn’t said is as important as what is said. In many classic short stories, the real action occurs in the silences. Try to keep all the good stuff off the page.

> Some “real world” practice might help. The next time your partner comes home, ignore his or her existence for 30 minutes, and then blurt out “That’s it!” and drive the car onto the neighbor’s lawn. When your children approach at bedtime, squeeze their shoulders meaningfully and, if you’re a woman, smear your lipstick across your face with the back of your wrist, or, if you’re a man, weep violently until they say, “It’s O.K., Dad.”

> Drink out of a chipped mug, a souvenir from a family vacation or weekend getaway in better times, one that can trigger a two-paragraph compare/contrast description later on. It’s a bit like Method acting. Simply let this thought guide your every word and gesture: “Something is wrong — can you guess what it is?” If you’re going for something a little more postmodern, repeat the above, but with fish.

How the summer movie season expanded

Film Industry

Dustin Rowles looks at how studios learned to look beyond the [summer release schedule](http://www.pajiba.com/box_office_round-ups/six-movie-milestones-that-helped-shape-blockbuster-boxoffice-release-schedules.php):

> They were releasing too many tentpoles in a short period of time, and they were cannibalizing each other. The studios adjusted. The box-office release schedule evolved. The summer season expanded. Months that used to be dumping grounds became profitable. Big budget films were finding unusual times to exploit audiences.

> Gradually — and we’re still in the midst of this expansion — studios began to realize that Memorial Day through the first of August and the holiday season between Thanksgiving and Christmas were not the only times a a studio could release a $100 million film. They could also make money in January. And March.

Horace Deidu came to many of the same conclusions — [with charts!](http://www.asymco.com/2012/02/07/hollywood-by-the-numbers/) — when he looked at movie release schedules. The summer pattern is still dominant, but an increasing number of titles have made $100+ outside of that window.

In fact, for 2011, the only months that didn’t have a $100+ title were January, September and November. And November was an oddball — it’s traditionally a big month.