Follow Up

Any printer will do

February 10, 2011 Follow Up

Reader Brian asked for follow-up on an old post about [picking a printer](http://johnaugust.com/archives/2005/picking-a-printer).

Back in 2005, I had an HP LaserJet 4100. I still do. I haven’t needed to replace or upgrade it. It still works fine.

As I noted back then:

> I don’t print nearly as much as I used to, since most times I’m delivering a .pdf rather than a printed script. I used to recommend screenwriters spend the extra money for a fast printer, but there’s really no great advantage now. Almost any laser printer — and even most inkjets — can print a script in less time than it takes to walk the dog.

I’ve spent a lot of time this year in New York, working on a project that requires a fair amount of printing. My only printer is a cheap inkjet from Staples that I store in the producers’ office.

Every time I use it, I marvel. It’s remarkably fast. Inkjets have come a long way from my college StyleWriter.

Same with laser printers. My first Apple LaserWriter cost several months’ rent and weighed more than my dorm refrigerator. Now you can get one for a hundred-and-something on Amazon.

If I were in the market for a new laser printer, I’d have my choice of great options. But the one I’ve got is perfectly fine.

We’re used to technology becoming better, faster, smaller, cheaper — in this case, nearly disposable. ((The environmentalist in me frets that printers may have become too cheap and too easy to throw away. The printer cartridge racket supports selling printers at a loss (or near-loss). More than once while re-boxing this printer before carrying it several blocks, I’ve thought It would just be easier to buy a new one.)) I think the reason we don’t talk about how good printers have gotten is that paper has become much less important in our lives.

So for a screenwriter like Brian, I’d recommend checking out reviews online and buying the least expensive (but decently-reviewed) printer that meets your requirements: laser or inkjet, color or not. Don’t invest the money or time into more than you absolutely need. And then hold onto it. It’s likely to last you a really long time.

Amazon Studios now slightly less terrible

January 28, 2011 Film Industry, Follow Up

When it was announced in November, one of the bold new ideas of Amazon Studios was letting any user rewrite any screenplay in the competition. I thought that was an [absolutely terrible plan](http://johnaugust.com/archives/2010/on-the-amazon-film-thing).

As announced yesterday, the company [seems to agree](http://blogs.indiewire.com/thompsononhollywood/2011/01/27/exclusive_amazon_studios_december_20000_script_contest_winners_the_alchemis/):

> Also today, Amazon Studios launched a new feature that allows writers to control the level of collaboration on their original scripts. Writers, upon upload or thereafter, will be able to designate their projects as open (anyone can add a revised script to your project), closed (only you can add revised scripts to your project) or revisable by permission (only participants who obtain your permission can add a revised script to your project). This feature has been a top request of Amazon Studios participants.

How many writers do you think will actually choose “open?”

It’s hard to envision why any screenwriter would want to. It only makes sense if you believe that almost everyone is a better writer than you. In the Venn diagram of entrants, the overlap between “ridiculously low self-esteem” and “happy to share prize money” is probably small.

A contributing factor in the change: no one was actually bothering to rewrite other people’s scripts. In a few minutes of browsing, I could only find a handful of projects that had drafts by anyone other than the original writer.

Without the random-stranger-rewrites, Amazon Studios now resembles a more traditional screenwriting competition, albeit one in which the cost of entry is a lengthy and complex option agreement on the project.

The company announced its first two prizewinners, each receiving $20,000. I haven’t looked at either screenplay, but if any readers have, I’m curious to hear your opinions on their merits.

Screenwriting coach Linda Seger served as a judge. That seems right: she’s exactly the kind of “name” that means something to aspiring screenwriters, many of whom will have read her books or attended her workshops. But she doesn’t have a profile within the film industry itself; they didn’t pick her [for her credits](http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0781994/).

It wasn’t in any official announcement, but I can confirm Jack Epps, Jr. dropped out as a judge in November, citing philosophical concerns about the deal for writers. That leaves Mike Werb as the only named judge with produced Hollywood credits.

So this is a…success?
—

The studio announced they have 3,000 projects, but on the website today I saw 2,332 scripts. I asked my contacts at both the Austin Film Festival and Sundance Labs for comparisons. AFF received 4,400 scripts last year, and Sundance looks at 2,000-2,500 applications each year.

At least in terms of numbers, Amazon Studio is already in their ballpark after less than three full months.

Bottom line: I think getting rid of the crowdsourcing aspect of Amazon Studios is a step in the right direction, particularly in terms of acknowledging authorship. But most of the deal is still pretty terrible for writers. At the time of my original article, Craig Mazin was [horrified by the financials](http://artfulwriter.com/?p=1103), and as far I can tell, nothing has changed there.

Amazon has a ton of money, and a lot of experience with iteration. Maybe they’ll get this project to a worthwhile place. We won’t really know until they get a movie in production.

How Less IMDb came to be

January 5, 2011 Follow Up, Geek Alert

[](http://quoteunquoteapps.com/less-imdb) [Less IMDb](http://quoteunquoteapps.com/less-imdb), our browser extension for de-cluttering the otherwise useful movie site, seems to have achieved good traction. In its first month, it was installed more than 8,000 times, and made it to the main page of Apple’s [Safari Extensions Gallery](https://extensions.apple.com/#entertainment).

It is now available for Safari, Chrome and Firefox. A quick break down by the numbers: ((These stats reflect downloads from our site, not any direct installs via the Safari Extension Gallery. As the extension updates, we should be able to pull more precise figures.))

Safari: 6,118
Chrome: 849
Firefox: 1,088

I’m not surprised the Safari version is way ahead of the others; it came first, and got a big boost from the Apple-centric [Daring Fireball](http://daringfireball.net) site. But I would have expected more love from Chrome, honestly.

I’ve asked Ryan Nelson, who did all the design and coding, to give a walk-through of our process building and deploying the extension. This recap has a fairly high geek factor, but you may find some of the decision points interesting even if the details whoosh over your head.

—-

Per Twitter, most people hated the newly-redesigned IMDb. When John first brought up the idea of reformatting it with a Safari extension, his direction was minimal and straightforward: move credits from below-the-fold to up near the top.

He even provided a mockup of how it should look. When working on a new design, it’s fairly typical for John to create a wireframe or rough as a starting point:

And how would the user control the extension? John’s original suggestion:

John essentially decided what content Less IMDb would show, and what it would hide. But how would it deal with other bits of the interface, like IMDb’s ability to expand or collapse filmography listings?

The “less features is a feature” attitude informed the rest of the choices made when stripping IMDb to its bare bones.

Less IMDb, now for Chrome and Firefox

December 10, 2010 Follow Up

[](http://quoteunquoteapps.com/less-imdb)Less IMDb is now available for Chrome and Firefox, in addition to Safari.

Installing the Chrome version is even more straightforward than Safari: three clicks and you’re good to go.

For Firefox, we’re leveraging the popular Greasemonkey add-on. If you don’t already have Greasemonkey installed, Less IMDb will walk you through it.

In case you missed it when it was [first announced](http://johnaugust.com/archives/2010/less-imd), Less IMDb is a browser extension that rearranges IMDb’s name and title pages to bring credits to the top. So instead of this:

IMDb Profile Page

You get this:

Less IMDb Profile Page

Just install the extension and you’re done. It will automatically update — or notify you of an update — if something changes on IMDb’s end. And if you need to turn it off for a given page, the switch is always available on the right-hand side.

[Check it out](http://quoteunquoteapps.com/less-imdb), and pass it along if you find it helpful.

For example, you might want to send an [encouraging tweet](http://twitter.com/home?status=Loving%20Less%20IMDb.%20Now%20works%20on%20Chrome,%20Firefox%20and%20Safari%20::%20http://quoteunquoteapps.com/less-imdb), or let your [friends on Facebook](http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fquoteunquoteapps.com/less-imdb) know.

« Previous Page