John August

John

The Amazon film thing, ctd

Follow Up

Drew McWeeny wades in with another look at why [Amazon Studios seems nuts](http://www.hitfix.com/blogs/motion-captured/posts/the-morning-read-why-amazon-studios-is-a-very-bad-idea-for-writers):

> Line after line of the legalese on these pages just confounds me. “You agree to be automatically entered into any future contests for which your work is eligible. The specific contest rules for future contests will be posted on this page when they are announced.” And considering one of the rules of this contest grants Amazon Studios a free 18-month option on your work the moment you upload it, the idea that they can enter you in a contest later and tell you the rules after they do so seems positively batty.

The myth of Hollywood is that there are giant walls to keep you out. Here, the walls keep you in, whether you like it or not.

A reminder on comments

Follow Up, Meta

Let me offer a quick refresher on policy and procedure here on the blog.

For most posts, I turn comments on. I enjoy discussion. You’re welcome to express your opinion and disagree. But it’s my house. If you’re being uncivil to me or the other people here, I may warn you, or simply kick you out.

When new users post a comment, the system holds it in moderation until Matt, Ryan or I have a chance to review it. This helps cut down on spammers and scammers.

Far too often, I’ll find something like this in the moderation queue:

> The fact that you deleted my post but kept Synthian’s just shows how you don’t care about rude or downright insulting comments as long as they support your agenda. Anyway, good luck with that, John. Hard times ahead for hacks and studio pets like you.

This charming person’s prior comment wasn’t deleted — it was in the moderation queue right above it. The fact she couldn’t wait *one hour* before going apeshit helps explain why comments are moderated in the first place.

(I don’t leave anything lingering in moderation, by the way. A comment is either approved or trashed.)

There is also an automated spam detection system (Akismet), which will occasionally flag a valid comment as spam — particularly if there are more than two links embedded in it. If your comment hasn’t shown up for 24 hours, send us an email and we’ll check for it.

When necessary, I delete comments. Here’s a guide for making sure your comment doesn’t get deleted:

* Stay pretty much on topic.
* Don’t link to your own sites, except in the URL spot.
* Be polite. Don’t say anything you wouldn’t say in my living room.

When a comment violates any of these three points, I’ll happily delete it. It’s one click for me. So keep that in mind before you spend 10 minutes writing something that won’t show up.

These are all fairly standard [Living Room Rules](http://redcouch.typepad.com/weblog/2006/10/living_room_com.html), but some people seem unfamiliar with them, so I thought it would be better to state them explicitly.

A few other helpful tips:

**Use your real name.** We will take what you’re saying much more seriously if there is an actual name attached. Plus, I want to say, “Hey, I know that person!” when you set up a project at Fox.

**Use an actual email address.** I understand the temptation to use an imaginary email address when filling out a form, but there are at least two reasons not to. First, while the public doesn’t see that address, I do. If it’s clearly fake, I’m less likely to take you seriously. Second, I sometimes need to follow up with readers, and I can’t if I don’t have a valid email address.

**Get a gravatar.** These helpful little icons follow you around from post to post, blog to blog, and help us remember who you are. They are incredibly [easy to set up](http://gravatar.com).

Lastly, if you’re posting a tag-along comment (“Me too!”) on a post that’s months (or years) old, I’m likely to trash it. We keep comments open on old posts because readers sometimes bring new information. Simple agreement isn’t enough to resurrect a dead thread.

On the Amazon film thing

Film Industry

Earlier this week, Amazon announced the formation of [Amazon Studios](http://studios.amazon.com).

Whenever new money comes into the film industry, it’s cause for some celebration. The purse strings loosen a little, and more people find work. Since you can’t shoot movies without scripts, screenwriters are among the first to benefit.

Over the years, money has poured in from venture capital firms, foreign investment funds and entrepreneurs from other industries. ((My first reader gig was with a production company bankrolled by Little Caesar’s Pizza money.)) Amazon has a lot of money. It’s understandable why they might want to get involved with creation rather than just the distribution of entertainment.

Steve Jobs got involved with a little company called Pixar, and that’s worked out pretty well.

If Amazon Studios were a simple finance and production outfit like Relativity or Morgan Creek, there would be nothing more to say. But Amazon Studios has an [unusual strategy](http://blogs.indiewire.com/thompsononhollywood/2010/11/16/amazon_launches_new_movie_studio_run_by_roy_price_son_of_frank/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter):

> Amazon Studios invites filmmakers and screenwriters from all over the world to submit full-length movies and scripts, which will then get feedback from Amazon readers, who will be free to rewrite and amend. Based on reaction (“rate and review”) to stories, scripts and rough “test” films, a panel of judges will award monthly prizes.

Several readers have written to ask my take on all this. I won’t conjecture about anything beyond what’s on the press release and website, but I’m left with some pretty big questions. I have a hunch other screen-bloggers will be tackling some of the glaring ones, like copyright, authorship and the 18-month free option.

So I’ll just ask one:

**Do you really want random people rewriting your script?**

To me, this feels like the biggest psychological misstep of the venture. Sure, most aspiring screenwriters yearn for access to the film industry and the chance to get their movies made. That’s why they enter screenwriting competitions, including things like Project Greenlight, which feels like its closest kin.

But here’s the thing: each of these writers wanted to get *his movie* made. I’ve never met a single screenwriter who hoped anonymous strangers would revise him.

From the [FAQ](http://studios.amazon.com/getting-started):

> **Can I make it so that no one else can revise my original work?**
> No. But if someone makes changes that are bad, their version is not likely to get a lot of attention. And if someone comes along and makes your work better, you’re more likely to win a prize and get your project made. Sometimes other people can bring a different viewpoint or a different set of skills that take the story in a new direction or add new elements that make it even more compelling.

“Look, I know your script was about a blind cheerleader in Harlem. But ramsey22’s revision making the cheerleader an elephant is *so much funnier.* And blueGoblin has a good point: a safari park is a better setting for a story about elephants.”

In software development, the open source movement has succeeded in bringing teams of strangers together. But writing code is a lot different than writing a screenplay. A bad line of code is obvious; it doesn’t do what it needs to do. A bad line of dialogue is a judgement call. A thumbs-up, thumbs-down voting system isn’t likely to fix this.

Hollywood already has a bad track record of messing up projects by bringing in too many writers — and that’s when they’re paying people who have already written and produced movies. The idea that an undiscovered screenwriter in Wichita will rewrite someone else’s screenplay *on his own time* seems far-fetched, and to me smacks of spec labor.

I’m pro new ideas. I think you can make interesting, artistically worthwhile projects through crowdsourcing, such as YouTube’s [Life in a Day](http://www.youtube.com/user/lifeinaday). I love sites that leverage group energy, like Wikipedia and Kickstarter. I had fun with the [trailer competition](http://johnaugust.com/archives/2007/trailer-winners) for The Nines.

But I don’t see Amazon’s model working, for the reasons above and many others. My readership is pretty much the exact target audience for their venture, so I’m curious to hear your opinions.

We love our pastor’s wives

Words on the page

A helpful [tutorial on apostrophes](http://www.rightpriceediting.com/rightpriceeditingblog/2010/11/8/the-art-of-apostrophes.html):

> They’re just tiny, seemingly insignificant marks. You can hardly even see them! Well, I hate to be the one to break it to you, but they can be a much bigger deal than you realize.

To me, the edge case is the most interesting: adding the apostrophe-s to a non-plural word that is already s-heavy, such as “more pricks than a seamstress’s thumb.” For display type, I’ll often omit the s. I can’t really defend my choice other than it looks better.

I never thought I’d subscribe to a Christian copy-editing blog, but here we are.