John August

My question has to do with the recent trend in adapting books and old movies.

Is it that screenwriters have run out of good scripts, or that producers are too scared to produce anything that hasn’t already been in the public eye?

What is left for the writers who have original stories to tell?

— Ryan Scott Fitzgerald
via imdb

Books have been adapted into movies pretty much since the beginning of cinema. So it’s a mistake to conflate literary adaptations with remakes, or at least to label it a recent trend.

But you’re right to notice that a diminishing percentage of the movies coming out of Hollywood originated with the screenwriter. I don’t think the trend represents any failure on the part of America’s screenwriters. They’re still writing great original scripts. You’re just not seeing them, because these scripts aren’t getting made into movies.

I have two theories why.

The first is fear. We tend to think of studios as faceless corporations, but in reality, the decision to make a given movie rests with a very small number of people. At some studios, a single studio chief has the power to greenlight a movie. At others, it’s a committee of maybe four or five. Either way, it’s their call.

Let’s pretend you, Ryan, are a studio chief.

If you pick the right movie, and it’s a giant hit, you’re a hero. You get millions of dollars in bonuses. You move up a few notches on the “Power 100” list.

If you pick the wrong movie, and it’s a bomb, you get fired. Maybe you can get by with a few bombs. But eventually, you will get canned.

Which movies will you choose to make? Probably the ones you know you can market. The ones which, even if they’re not blockbusters, probably won’t be disasters either.

Basically, you make [Spider-Man](http://imdb.com/title/tt0145487/), [King Kong](http://imdb.com/title/tt0360717/) or [The Dukes of Hazzard](http://imdb.com/title/tt0377818/).

Because as much as you love movies, you’re afraid of making a bomb. You’re afraid of getting fired. And if one of your sure-fire hits ends up tanking (c.f. [Bewitched](http://imdb.com/title/tt0374536/)), you can at least defend why you tried to make it. Had you spent the same amount of money on a riskier project, you’d be in a worse situation career-wise.

My second theory for why fewer movies are coming from original scripts: control. Producers and studios want to drive the process. They don’t want to be beholden to a screenwriter’s vision. They’d rather buy the rights to a book, then hire a screenwriter to adapt it. (Or better, look through the vault for a film they can remake.)

For the producer or studio executive, there’s something comfortingly abstract about the rights to, say, [Knight Rider](http://imdb.com/title/tt0083437/). Properties like Knight Rider are very much like pieces of real estate. The studio owns them, and wants to build something incredible on them. Never mind that it would make a lot more sense — and be a lot less expensive — to build somewhere else. I often compare screenwriting to architecture, and this is another example. People hire Frank Gehry to build them a house on swampland.

An Academy Award-winning writer could pitch the most kick-ass movie imaginable, and the studio would still say, “How about Knight Rider? We just got the rights! We’re thinking Kevin Spacey for K.I.T.T.”

Sigh.

But while Hollywood isn’t making as many original movies as it used to, one really has to consider independent film, which didn’t exist to nearly the same degree a decade or two ago. Taken as a whole, the film industry still has plenty of room for original voices. But you won’t get paid as much, unless you incorporate a talking robotic car.

I’ve heard a rumor that in the “industry” it’s an inside joke to have some sort of nudity or sex on page 17. Specifically 17. First, is that actually funny? And second, is it a shoe-in in terms of a scriptreader reading further?

— Zeb
via imdb

I’ve never heard this, but I love it.

True, it’s not “actually” funny. Something so meta is almost never actually funny, because it relies on knowing something outside the world of the story. At best, it’s funny in the way a [Charlie Kaufman](http://imdb.com/name/nm0442109/) movie is funny: it makes you feel clever for a moment, but you’re not going to wet your shorts with laughter.

I just checked, and the script I’m currently writing does not have a sex joke or nudity on page 17. Which is surprising, because the first act is seriously stuffed with sex jokes. And implied nudity, if that counts.

I’ve received a couple million dollars to write and direct my own picture. I am in doubt as to whether or not I have the talent to pull it off.

I hear writers always talking about horrible writers and great writers. Does that actually exist? If so, what is it that makes great writers great and bad writers bad?

Also do you feel that in order to write an amazing screenplay your knowledge of grammar and your size of vocabulary are important factors? I feel that vocabulary and grammar are my weaknesses. However, I continue to think what Ron Howard once said that, “Your screenplay should make sense to an eight year old.”

In stating that, what is the most important thing for me to work on? My lack of grammar knowledge? Or my lack of vocabulary? Or do these two factors have any relevance at all to a screenplay? To sum up, what should I be focusing on?

— Matt
via imdb

You should focus on being very careful as you cross the street, because I suspect there are several hundred aspiring writer-directors reading this right now who might “accidentally” run you over. That’s why I’m not printing your last name.

Seriously, Matt. “I’ve received a couple million dollars to write and direct my own picture.” Did you win the lottery? Rob a bank? Blackmail some rich old guy?

I ask because you clearly didn’t get it by any ordinary means. See, most people don’t get to write and direct a multi-million dollar film out of the gate. Rather, they write a few scripts. Direct a charming short film. They do something that proves to the People With Millions to Spend that this young writer-director is worth the investment.

No offense, but that doesn’t sound like you, Matt.

The only reasonable scenario I could envision is if you’re actually tremendously talented in one of the other filmmaking crafts, and are now getting to direct for the first time. Maybe you’re a terrific production designer like [Bo Welch](http://imdb.com/name/nm0919514/), or an acclaimed cinematographer like [Jack Green](http://imdb.com/name/nm0005726/). Could be.

Or maybe you’re just really effing lucky.

Regardless, if someone is giving you several million to direct your own picture, make sure you don’t let them see this self-doubt. More than anything, the money people want confidence.

As to your actual question: Does grammar or vocabulary have any relevance to a screenplay? Um, yeah. A fair amount. It’s easy to get a smart person to help with your grammar. Vocabulary is tougher. I’d advise against a thesaurus, however. In my experience, they’re helpful in finding exactly the wrong word for the situation.

If you’re really in doubt, the best idea might be to spend some fraction of those several million dollars on a screenwriter with a strong grasp of grammar and vocabulary. (Along with character, dialogue, structure, pacing, atmosphere, tone and theme. Those help, too.)

For what it’s worth, good luck. I really don’t begrudge anyone getting to make their movie.