Film Industry

I have written a script for a producer who says he will produce the film this
year. How exciting for me until I found out he has brought on another writer,
whose re-write is terrible. This would be my first credit, and wondered if
my chances at having a career are better with a produced script I don’t like,
or should I change my name for this one?

–B.U.

What a horrible situation. I’m sorry to hear you’re going through this. If
it’s any consolation, even more experienced writers with multiple credits find
themselves rewritten badly at times.

[Ahem.]

First and foremost, I don’t think you should take your name off the movie
until you see how it turns out. I speak from experience when I say that many
movies which seem doomed to suckdom somehow turn out better than expected.
A writing credit on a decent movie is better than no credit at all.

Also, a quick search through IMDb will reveal that many of today’s most respected
filmmakers have less-than-respectable credits. Ron Howard directed GRAND THEFT
AUTO. James Cameron directed PIRANHA II. They won Oscars,
eventually.

Since I don’t know all the details, I’m going to make some assumptions about
your situation. I’m guessing you’re not a member of the Writers Guild, and
that the producer is not a WGA signatory. (A signatory means that the producer
has signed an agreement with the WGA promising to abide by certain rules of
conduct.)

There are two reasons the WGA could be important here. First, the WGA guarantees
its members the right to use a pseudonym. Theoretically, this producer could
decide to use your name even if you didn’t want him to. Second, the WGA determines
final writing credits for movies under its jurisdiction. Since you were rewritten,
the issue of who deserves credit could come up. If the WGA is not involved
in the movie, the producer often determines credit by himself.

For now, assuming your relationship with the producer is decent, I’d hold
tight and see how the movie turns out.

If your screenplay is good enough will that guarantee it recognition or is
it more in the selling of the idea?

–Brett

A screenplay that is "good
enough" won’t get any recognition at all.
Unless it has an ingeniously compelling (and marketable) idea, a script has
to be ungodly well-written to attract much attention. Of course, the best scripts
have both a brilliant idea and brilliant execution, but that’s not your question.

Let’s say you decide to write a family drama. Unless it’s about a family of
killer robots, the "idea" of the story is not what will make it sell.
So you better have some fantastic writing in there to make it compelling.

On the other hand, the family-of-killer-robots script could conceivably sell
even with some sub-par writing, if it does a good job presenting the idea and
studios happen to be in the market for killer robots with a twist. Here’s the
big difference between the two kinds of scripts: if you write a extremely well-written
script that no one buys, you’ve still written a great script. On the other
hand, if you write a crappy script (even with a great idea) and no one buys
it, all you have to show for it is a crappy script.

Is it worthwhile for an aspiring writer with no experience or job prospects
to write and direct a short film if he thinks he has the right idea for an
entertaining, short, and cheap film, as well as knowing people who can shoot
it?

–A.A.

Absolutely. That’s what my very talented former assistant Rawson Thurber recently
did. He wrote and directed a funny short film called "Terry Tate: Office
Linebacker," which he later sold to Reebok and turned into a series of
commercials that debuted in the Superbowl. He now has a movie to direct at
Fox with Ben Stiller.

That’s a pretty extreme success story, but even if Rawson had followed a more
typical career trajectory, the short film would have served him well. He could
have gotten it into film festivals, hopefully attracting enough attention to
land him an agent, and possibly the opportunity to direct videos, commercials
or other projects. And since Rawson is also a writer, it was a good combination
with the comedy script he’d written.

Making a good short film is an incredible amount of work, but it’s absolutely
worthwhile if you have directing ambitions.

It has always bothered me that Christopher Fry did not get more credit for the work and writing he did on BEN HUR. [The studio] brought Fry in (after Gore Vidal) to work on making the language more appropriate to the times. As you know, the Writers Guild gave Karl Tunborg the full screenplay credit for BEN HUR. What attention do you think other writers who work on a film should get?

–Gail

BEN HUR came out in 1959. It would be comforting to think that in the 40+ years since then, the process of determining who should get credit for writing a screenplay would have been perfected. Unfortunately, it’s just as controversial as ever.

Screen credits are a huge, sticky mess that pits writers against writers. In fact, there is currently a major debate within the WGA about a proposed redraft of the Screen Credits Manual, the guidebook used by every arbitration panel. If you’re curious, you can read more about the issue in “A Credit Forum” at the WGA website.

In particular, one of these changes would have probably benefited a rewriter like Christopher Fry, since it addresses how much “story” credit a screenwriter gets when incorporating elements from a novel (like BEN HUR).

I’ve been through several arbitrations, one of which got ugly. I’ve also rewritten scripts for which I haven’t sought credit. In both cases, I truly believe there needs to be some sort of “Additional Writing” credit to acknowledge writers who have contributed to the script. It’s frustrating that a screenwriter can spend six months working on a film without having his name in the final credit scroll, while the caterer’s assistant is there for the world to see.