Go

I was wondering,
do you read reviews of films you’ve worked on? When you’re in a bookstore,
do you go to the film section and check out how many stars Maltin or Ebert
have given the films?

–Brenton

Thanks to the Internet, not only can I read what Maltin and Ebert say about
my movies, I can find out what the Pioneer Press and the Times of London thought.
And yes, I read them obsessively when the movie comes out, to the point where
I’ll be at my computer from midnight until 2:30 a.m. reading the Friday morning
reviews online, before the papers are even printed.

In addition to the "Reviews" links on IMDB, I love Rotten Tomatoes
because it gathers the reviews from thirty or forty different sources. I also
read the "User Comments" section on IMDB,
and sometimes the various be-your-own critic sites.

Honestly, my fondness for reading reviews is more a function of pride than
vanity. I don’t get excited reading my own name, but rather seeing what someone
thought of my baby. And of course, my attachment varies based on my involvement.
For GO and CHARLIE’S ANGELS, I was a veritable soccer mom. TITAN A.E., on the
other hand, was like a friend from summer camp you were never sure you’d see
again.

If someone offered you a lot of money to do a sequel to GO,
would you do it? Do you think a screenwriter has to take big money projects
whenever they come
along, just to survive in the business?

–L.M. Dix

First off, no one is going to offer me a lot of money to write a sequel to
GO, because barring a bizarre change of circumstances, there will never be
a sequel. While the movie was moderately successful given its small budget,
it was never the kind of breakout hit that merits a roman numeral after the
title.

Which is kind of a shame, because I had a sequel plotted out in my head while
we were still in production on the first one. It involved the Fourth of July,
Mexican fireworks, head trauma and Muppets. For a brief time after our debut
at Sundance, I was convinced I would be writing it. But alas no.

As for your second question, no. A screenwriter doesn’t have to take big money
projects to survive, any more than an actor has to take multi-million dollar
roles. It’s all about the choices you make for your career and your quality
of life.

Screenwriters can work three ways. The first is when you write "on spec." That’s
when you sit down and write a script all on your own, without any guarantee
of being paid by anyone. While that doesn’t make for much economic stability,
you have complete artistic freedom, because you answer only to yourself. GO
was written on spec.

The second way a writer can work is "on assignment." That’s where
a producer or a studio pays you a certain amount of money to write a script,
generally based upon a property they own, be it another script, a novel or
a TV series. CHARLIE’S ANGELS was written on assignment.

The third way for a writer to work is "on weekly." Usually, this
only occurs when a movie is coming close to production, and the writer is hired
to make smaller changes. The writer is paid every week, rather than every draft,
and is working mostly as a craftsman, fixing problems rather than reshaping
the story. It’s analogous to being a highly paid temp. Everyone’s nice to you,
but they know you’re going away soon, and don’t become very attached. I worked
on weekly for MINORITY REPORT.

To make a broad generalization, prominent screenwriters can make more more
working on weekly than on assignment or on spec. That’s because if a movie
is close enough to production to merit a writer working week-by-week, the studio
is often willing to pay a higher rate.

But working on a weekly basis is exhausting and ultimately a little unfulfilling,
because you don’t have a strong relationship with any of the scripts you work
on. That’s why a writer will often turn down a project despite the paycheck
attached.