John August

Film Industry

To Chase or To Spec

Episode - 147

Go to Archive

Apps, Bronson, Directors, Film Industry, Pitches, QandA, Scriptnotes, Transcribed

John and Craig discuss whether screenwriters are better off pursing writing assignments or working on their own material. They also look at the visual comedy of Edgar Wright, and The Shawshank Redemption’s 20th anniversary.

Links:

* [WWDC14](https://developer.apple.com/wwdc/)
* [Bronson Watermarker PDF](http://quoteunquoteapps.com/bronson/) is available now! (And is half-off thru June 8th)
* [Highland](http://quoteunquoteapps.com/highland/) and [Weekend Read Unlimited](http://quoteunquoteapps.com/weekendread/) are also half off thru June 8th
* [Steve Ballmer on developers (developers, developers…)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8To-6VIJZRE)
* [Tony Zhou on Edgar Wright’s visual style](https://vimeo.com/96558506)
* [Russell Adams on The Shawshank Redemption](http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304536104579560021265554240?mod=trending_now_1) from The Wall Street Journal
* IMDb’s [Top 250](http://www.imdb.com/chart/top)
* [A Guerilla Filmmaker’s Guide to After Effects](http://www.fxphd.com/store/fast-forward-a-guerrilla-filmmakers-guide-to-after-effects/)
* [The New York Times Crossword](https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/the-new-york-times-crossword/id307569751?mt=8) for iOS
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Scriptnotes editor Matthew Chilelli ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))

You can download the episode here: [AAC](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/scriptnotes_ep_147.m4a) | [mp3](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/scriptnotes_ep_147.mp3).

**UPDATE 6-7-14:** The transcript of this episode can be found [here](http://johnaugust.com/2014/scriptnotes-ep-147-to-chase-or-to-spec-transcript).

Q&A from the Superhero Spectacular

Film Industry, QandA, Scriptnotes, Television, Transcribed

Craig and John, along with their talented panelists, answer questions from the audience at the May 15, 2014 live show.

One listener references Episode 99, Psychotherapy for Screenwriters, which remains one of our favorites.

You listen to it and the whole back catalog by subscribing at Scriptnotes.net for just $1.99/month. Subscribing gives you access to all episodes through our apps for iOS and Android.

Once again, our thanks to the Writers Guild Foundation for organizing this event.

Links:

* [The Writers Guild Foundation](http://wgfoundation.org)
* Scriptnotes, Episode 144: [The Summer Superhero Spectacular](http://johnaugust.com/2014/the-summer-superhero-spectacular)
* [Andrea Berloff](http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0075696/) on IMDb, and [Deadline’s Conan announcement](http://www.deadline.com/2013/10/legend-of-conan-lands-andrea-berloff-to-script-arnold-schwarzenegger-epic-reprise/)
* [Christopher Markus](http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1321655/) & [Stephen McFeely](http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1321656/) on IMDb, and [their interview on LA Times Hero Complex](http://herocomplex.latimes.com/movies/captain-america-winter-soldier-writers-revel-in-marvel-universe/#/0)
* [David Goyer](http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0333060/) on IMDb, and [his BAFTA Screenwriters Lecture](http://www.bafta.org/film/features/david-s-goyer-delivers-his-bafta-screenwriters-lecture,3931,BA.html)
* [Susannah Grant](http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0335666/) on IMDb, and a [feature on her from Salon](http://www.salon.com/2000/04/13/grant/)
* Scriptnotes, Episode 99: [Psychotherapy for Screenwriters](http://johnaugust.com/2013/psychotherapy-for-screenwriters)
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Scriptnotes listener Wilson Kelly ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))

You can download the episode here: [AAC](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/scriptnotes_ep_145.m4a) | [mp3](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/scriptnotes_ep_145.mp3).

**UPDATE 5-28-14:** The transcript of this episode can be found [here](http://johnaugust.com/2014/scriptnotes-ep-145-qa-from-the-superhero-spectacular-transcript).

How to Write a Photoplay

Film Industry, Formatting, Words on the page

Today’s one awesome thing comes from the Internet Archive: Herbert Case Hoagland’s 1912 book [How to Write a Photoplay](https://archive.org/details/howtowritephotop00hoag):

> To write a photoplay requires no skill as a writer, but it does require a “constructionist.” It requires the ability to grasp an idea and graft (please use in the botanical sense) a series of causes on the front end of it and a series of consequences on the other end. An idea so grafted will surely bear fruit; and to learn the art of this sort of mental horticulture it is necessary first to understand, in a general way, how motion pictures are made and what is done in the studio, in the field and in the factory. Let us learn something of these things and begin at the beginning—in the office of the Scenario Editor.

The photoplay was the precursor to the screenplay. It’s essentially a list of scenes, designed for silent films. Without dialogue, it can be challenging to establish the relationships between characters:

> The scenario writer must bear in mind that the first thing to do is to introduce his characters on the screen in a way that almost immediately determines their position in, and relationship to, the story. Many photoplays are failures because a proper beginning has not been arranged.

> If, for example, the scene opens in a young woman’s home and her lover is coming to see her, the fact that he is her lover and not her brother or husband should be clearly shown in the action, and the action of the play is the thing to write.

Scene geography and narrative sequence are extremely important. So are hats.

> If a man is to go from a room in one house to a room in another, there should be a scene showing him entering the second house, but it is unnecessary to have him leaving the first because in the first room he can be made to catch up his coat and hat and exit. Obviously he is going out, and when one sees him on the street and entering the second house the entire thought is conveyed to the spectator.

> The question may arise, if his action of putting on his hat and coat suggests leaving the house, why his entering another room and removing them doesn’t mean the reverse. The answer is simple—because he may have simply gone into another room in his own house and the man in the theatre seat wonders, “Why, in thunder, did he put his hat and coat on to go along the hall or just from room to room.” Seems farfetched, but it isn’t. The spectator asks just such questions.

Hoagland’s scenario writers are now called screenwriters, but many of the issues remain the same.

> Revising is the hardest part of a writer’s work. The first copy flows from the inspired pen like the proverbial water from a duck’s back and under the influence of watching the story grow the writer finds incentive to continue, but oh! the drudgery of rewriting and revising. Inclination may writhe and squirm and plead to go away and leave the work undone, but Determination must grab Inclination and club it into submission if the writer ever expects to flirt with the elusive Goddess of Success. Revision is imperative. All the big fellows in the literary world do it. Only by careful rewording and rewriting can any production of this nature be flawless. A good way to do this is to read your scenario aloud to members of the family or to friends; better still is it to have some one read it to you that you may hear the words with another’s intonation and vocal shades.

Hoagland’s book has a list of all the major motion picture studios, few of which exist today. But his warning sounds familiar:

> Don’t send Biblical stories to a manufacturer who makes a specialty of western stuff. Study the needs of the firms producing pictures and direct your scenarios accordingly. On another page the class of story most sought for by the different studios is touched upon, and ambitious writers cannot do better than to subscribe to The Moving Picture World or some other trade paper and carefully study the comments on the films as they appear week by week.”

You can read the whole thing [here](https://archive.org/details/howtowritephotop00hoag).

Full Whedoncé

Directors, Film Industry, Follow Up

Back in Scriptnotes [episode 125](http://johnaugust.com/2014/egoless-screenwriting), I wondered if a filmmaker could pull a beyoncé and release a film without any advance notice. I speculated that someone like JJ Abrams or Joss Whedon probably could pull it off.

Then a few weeks ago, Whedon seemed to do just that with [In Your Eyes](http://inyoureyesmovie.com/?utm_source=external_display&utm_medium=vod-google-search-na-na-20140420&utm_campaign=9868&gclid=CNvIqvDelb4CFYxufgod1RgAtg&dclid=CM-0ufDelb4CFQkIhQod9yQAYQ).

But was that really a beyoncé, or just the new version of direct-to-video? Was it more or less of a beyoncé than Much Ado About Nothing, which predated Beyoncé’s beyoncé. (Preyoncé’d?)

Popjustice wants to make sure we don’t forget what it really means to [pull a beyoncé](http://www.popjustice.com/briefing/anatomy-of-a-beyonce-a-proposed-classification-system-for-surprise-album-releases):

> We all think we know what a beyoncé is, but it’s vital that we do not assign beyoncé status to every album release that breaks with established release patterns. If we do misuse the term, we risk devaluing the purity of Beyoncé’s original ‘BEYONCÉ’ beyoncé.

Popjustice is looking at albums, but many of the criteria apply equally well to films:

> A Full Beyoncé must contain ALL these elements.

> This must be a full album, ideally but not necessarily containing a larger than average number of tracks.

In Your Eyes is a feature. That counts.

> The artist must be a global superstar, a multi-platinum act in at least one major territory, or an artist with a huge/deranged online fanbase.

Fanbase, check.

> Trickily, it must be common knowledge that the artist has been working on new material – but the release must still also, somehow, be a surprise.

> There must have been no legitimate leaked information about the nature of the release in advance of the release. A beyoncéd album that has been trailed by an interview regarding its release could potentially be regarded as little more than a conventional album release with a shorter promotional window.

Everyone knows Whedon is doing the Avengers sequel. But this, a script he wrote and produced but didn’t direct, was nowhere on the radar.

> There must be no conventionally promoted single leading into the album’s release.

There wasn’t a trailer. In fact, the online trailer is the first few minutes of the film. ((The trailerless-ness may ultimately work against In Your Eyes. The promo only shows kids; the film is mostly about adults.))

> It must be a standalone album release – it can’t just be an addition to a previous album campaign, a deluxe edition or any sort of repackage.

Check.

> By its nature this album will almost certainly be released digitally first – it’s impossible to send CDs into production then get them to retail without news leaking. (If an album does indeed make it to stores with literally no warning before, say, shops open at 9am, it will be permitted as a full beyoncé.)

In the podcast, I speculated that a filmmaker like James Cameron could conceivably create a release date for a fake film and use that to book theaters. But realistically, digital is how this would work, and that’s what happened with In Your Eyes.

> The nature of the release must be convincingly presented as an artistic statement or creative choice, rather than being a transparent attempt to drum up interest in an album campaign that hasn’t been working out properly.

It’s fair to ask whether the surprise-here’s-a-movie tactic was mostly because it didn’t make financial sense to do a more conventional release. The movie has no marketable stars other than Whedon.

> Total beyoncégeddon must be achieved across all social networks for at least 24 hours.

While I got a lot of tweets about it, I didn’t sense the universe going apeshit over this movie. Part of the problem is that movies require significant time to watch. You can watch a music video in three minutes and tweet while you’re doing it. With a feature, you’re asking people to stop doing everything else for 90 minutes or more.

In the end, I don’t think In Your Eyes pulled a beyoncé. But I think it’s rightly classified as a Whedon anyway. As a release strategy, it fits much more in the tradition of Dr. Horrible and Much Ado. He’s been doing this for years, and doing it well.

But I hold out hope that we will get our surprise film one day. It will have stars you recognize, and production values that leave you wondering how the hell they kept this under wraps.