John August

Search Results for: characters

How to handle a body-switching protagonist

QandA, Writing Process

questionmarkIn my script the appearance of the protagonist physically changes at the end of the first act. As I envision it, the same actor would not play the part from that point on. This is not a Face/Off situation where characters change places; the protagonist becomes a separate and new character (we’ll call him Tom) in the latter acts while retaining the previous mental identity (Jim) from the first act. I hope this makes sense with as little as I’m telling you.

The protagonist will then be referred to as Jim by those who knew him in the first act and meet him subsequently, and Tom by all those he meets in the 2nd act and beyond. My current solution is to refer to him as Jim in the first act and Tom in the latter two to match their physical appearance. Is it okay for me to rely on the context of my story to lead the reader through the transition (identity is a theme throughout) or am I risking confusing the reader?

— Jed
Fort Worth, TX

I understand what you’re trying to do, and so will your readers, as long as they’re engaged enough by your story to care. In fact, readers will follow you down almost any rabbit hole provided you can convince them something rewarding awaits.

When you’re pulling a big switch like this in a script, it’s okay to stop the action for a few lines and directly address the reader:

He ejects the DVD from the player and holds it up to see his reflection, an improvised mirror. He touches his face, confused.

Jim Maxwell is now TOM BARNHARD.

Mid-40’s, he has a similar build but a completely different face: rougher, darker. He is physically a different person.

(NOTE: From this point forward, we’ll be referring to this character as Tom. It is designed to be a different actor.)

Tom catches movement in the reflection. Another MAN. Charging right at him.

When dealing with potentially-confusing moments like these, it’s okay to give the reader slightly more concrete information than the viewing public might receive. The reader doesn’t have benefit of seeing that Derek Luke has suddenly become Denzel Washington.

Based on an idea by…

Producers, QandA, Treatments, WGA

questionmarkSo, I’m watching “Gosford Park” and I notice that the film is “based upon an idea by Robert Altman and Bob Balaban.”

My question is: How does one get that credit? Do you have to do some actual writing for it or is it some sort of a vanity credit? (I assume it isn’t, because otherwise every producer or executive type would have a whole stack of those on their record.)

— Steffen
Nuremberg, Germany

[Craig Mazin](http://artfulwriter.com) is on the screen credits committee, so he can likely answer this more thoroughly. But I can at least give you my take on it.

For feature films, the official WGA credits are “Story by” and “Screenplay by,” which can be combined to make “Written by.” ((There is also a very rare “Adaptation by” credit, which is only given in specific, complicated situations.)) When something is based on preexisting source material, like a book or a play, that original writer gets a “based on a novel/play by Original Writer.” ((Where it gets weird is when a movie is based on an earlier movie’s screenplay, such as a remake of a foreign film. There is ongoing discussion in the Guild about how to best handle this.))

Your instincts are right: Producers often have ideas for movies, but rarely do they get a specific, additional credit for it. However, if they wrote those ideas down, even in prose form, they could very likely get “story” or “source material” credit.

Per the [Screen Credits Manual](http://www.wga.org/content/subpage_writersresources.aspx?id=171), the requirements for these two credits are as follows:

> 3) Source Material

> Source material is all material, other than story as hereinafter defined, upon which the story and/or screenplay is based.

> This means that source material is material assigned to the writer which was previously published or exploited and upon which the writer’s work is to be based (e.g., a novel, a produced play or series of published articles), or any other material written outside of the Guild’s jurisdiction (e.g., literary material purchased from a non-professional writer). Illustrative examples of source material credits are: “From a Play by”, “From a Novel by”, “Based upon a Story by”, “From a series of articles by”, “Based upon a Screenplay by” or other appropriate wording indicating the form in which such source material is acquired. Research material is not considered source material.

> 4) Story

> The term “story” means all writing covered by the provisions of the Minimum Basic Agreement representing a contribution “distinct from screenplay and consisting of basic narrative, idea, theme or outline indicating character development and action.”

> It is appropriate to award a “Story by” credit when: 1) the story was written under employment under Guild jurisdiction; 2) the story was purchased by a signatory company from a professional writer, as defined in the Minimum Basic Agreement; or 3) when the screenplay is based upon a sequel story written under the Guild’s jurisdiction. If the story is based upon source material of a story nature, see “screen story” below.

When you see a credit like “based on an idea by,” that’s clearly a “source material” type of credit. In the case of Gosford Park, it may have been the strange way Robert Altman shoots. Apparently, rather than a complete screenplay, they had a framework upon which his actors improvised, with screenwriter Julian Fellowes on set to help shape the scenes.

Regardless of the specific situation, I’m not a fan of the “based on an idea by” credit, and would like to see it stay rare. It over-emphasizes the vague conception of a movie, at the expense of the distinctions provided by characters, narrative, theme and action (that is, story).

For example, “a movie about the Civil War” is an idea. Gone With The Wind is a story. For them to have rough equivalence is absurd.

Notes on the state of the industry

Film Industry, Follow Up, QandA, WGA

My assistant Matt went to the [WGA panel last night](http://johnaugust.com/archives/2009/script-to-greenlight-panel), and took notes for readers who couldn’t make it.

All panelists agree that the business is shrinking. Development slates are being cut in half. According to J.C. Spink, that means half the (400m?) dollars usually being paid out to writers and a much tougher market for selling. Studios walk away from deals much more easily than they used to.

Yes, but movies are doing well, right? Box office receipts are on the up and up.

True, but the motherships (Time Warner/GE etc.) suck out that revenue and use it to prop up other flagging sectors. So that money doesn’t go back into development or the pockets of writers. Also, Navid McIlhargey notes that while theatrical has made a comeback, DVD sales have dropped by roughly 30%. That means four things:

1. The financial models studios look at before greenlighting a picture are skewed. (Depending on various factors, DVD revenue used to be equal to or greater than domestic theatrical revenue.) The projections for break-even are falling short on movies that might have been easily greenlit a few years ago. One way to counter that is by exploiting the international marketplace, which translates to more big action, (male) star-driven movies.

2. Development gets shafted. David Beaubaire warns that you only get one shot at getting a movie through the system. If a script is passed up for greenlight that isn’t ready or doesn’t have a crystal clear idea for the marketing department to sell, that’s the end of the line. No going back into the development cycle for reworking.

3. Pre-branded material still rules the game. Amusement park rides, board games (CLUE), comic books will continue to win out over original material. Spink joked that they’re working up a treatment for STAIRMASTER, just because it’s a known entity. Hensleigh relayed (venomously) having to option a graphic novel similar to an idea he developed separately because, “The fucking idiots need a pre-branded thing to look at.” Spink doesn’t see an end to this until the financial system breaks down. It’s working too well.

4. Marketing is getting more involved in development. This fact sets writer Jonathan Hensleigh (THE ROCK, ARMAGGEDON) on fire. “Scripts can die a death of a thousand cuts when marketing starts giving notes,” Hensleigh warns, noting that it’s bad enough to deal with notes from ten young development execs at a time.

McIlhargy has run scripts by his marketing department for notes or approval before passing it up to his bosses because their input is so critical.

What does this all mean to the writer with hopes of getting a studio movie made?
=====

Concept is king. Write Big Ideas, well executed.

The executives were eager to argue that Hollywood’s not entirely a dehumanized assembly line, regurgitating and repackaging ideas.

Beaubaire believes that just because you’re reworking ideas from the past doesn’t mean it can’t be fresh, good and entertaining. In order for a movie to go forward, “I have to love the script,” Beaubaire says, adding that it must contain a “universally relatable idea” with better-than-stock characters.

Derek Dauchy requires a connection with the material before he tries to make a movie of it. He needs to feel there’s a good reason to make that movie, to put it out into the world.

McIlhargey cautions that with so many other options, there has to be a sense of immediacy behind making that movie at that time. There’s plenty of good material. Immediacy is, “The number one thing we look at before we pass it up.”

Advice for aspiring writers
====

__J.C. Spink:__ Writers have to be talented, collaborative and better at one thing. “Do one thing that distinguishes you.” Sadly, you’re “better off being the mediocre writer who’s good in a room” than the great writer who has a tough time coming out of their shell. Because of the Hollywood information “matrix,” if your script is good and marketable it will find the light of day. Competitions, the Nicholl excepted, are useless. There’s too many to keep track of. Successful people fail more than they succeed.

__David Beaubaire:__ As good as a script is, decision makers aren’t reading scripts. His job is to make sure they understand it and want to make it. His name isn’t on the movies, he does this because he loves movies and wants to make the best, most successful ones he possible can. In that process, no one is out to get the writer. Don’t worry about studio politics or what’s hot. Worry about delivering what you would want to see. Making movies is a game, but it’s golf not tennis.

__Navid McIlhargey:__ Before you write, ask yourself if this is a movie you would pay good money to see. Will it hold a release date? Then write with conviction.

__Derek Dauchy:__ If you can pitch and understand it as a title, it’s gigantic. If you can sell it with a logline, great. If you need a paragraph, you’re in trouble.

__Jonathan Hensleigh:__ You are the most important person in the process. Creation of fictional worlds is the engine room of this industry. Of course, no one will treat you like you’re the most important person. Once you’ve given all your blood to a project and they show you the door to bring on another writer, walk away without bitterness. (He was bitter about other writers coming onto THE ROCK but admits now that Aaron Sorkin and the rest improved a bunch of scenes).

Q&A
=====

1. Should writers do unpaid rewrites and polishes before handing in a script to the studio? Across the board, yes. Every panelist, especially Hensleigh, noted that writers have to ignore WGA rules and do as much work as needed to get the script in shape.

2. Does the success of SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE change anyone’s viewpoint about what audiences want to see? Across the board, no. Every year Fox Searchlight does a great job marketing a small movie. It’s what they do; we’re in a different business.

3. Is making a short and putting it on Youtube a waste of time? Across the board, yes. Don’t do it. Write something good instead.

4. Biggest turnoffs when reading new material? Across the board: lack of original concept.

Keep in mind this is an all-male panel of big Hollywood studio filmmakers. Consider other viewpoints before dumping all ideas that aren’t as commercial as THE B TEAM.

The new Kindle is pretty solid

Geek Alert, Rave


After playing around with it for an hour, I’m pretty happy with the Kindle 2. I was a satisfied user of the original model, and most of the changes are for the better. So if you’re thinking about getting one — and live in the U.S. — I vote yes.

The good:

* It’s light and tight. It feels like an Apple product. (The original iPod nano, to be specific.)

* The screen is faster. It’s not exactly snappy, but it’s fast enough that you can actually map the UI to it. That let the designers get rid of the roller bar.

* Text-to-speech is decent for non-fiction. It has no sense of dialogue, so it’s hard to hear two characters talking. But it would be great for reading a magazine article aloud while driving to work.

* Quite smartly, Amazon automatically links it to your account, so you don’t have to do anything to access books from your previous Kindle.

The bad:

* It’s so thin and smooth that I feel like I’m going to drop it. It doesn’t ship with a case/cover, but adding one will help a lot. (I just ordered the standard one.)

* Although it was prone to accidental bumping, I was a fan of the giant “Next Page” button. In the Kindle 2, your thumb has to hit it dead-on.

* The little joystick is only okay. Nudging it around, you’re never quite sure how much pressure to apply.

There’s definitely room for improvement, but I can certainly recommend it to all the folks who were fence-sitting. Having access to so many books simultaneously — and adding new ones at a whim — is a game-changer.

For example, I was at the San Antonio airport waiting for a flight home, when I finally decided I needed to read Twilight. It was $19.99 at the airport bookstore, or $6.04 on Kindle. In less than sixty seconds, I was reading it. ((My non-review: I can see why Twilight is so successful. Caitlin Flanagan’s analysis is spot-on.)) I’ve done a lot more of this spur-of-the-moment buying since having a Kindle, and read things I probably wouldn’t have otherwise. ((And on the flip side, getting the first chapter free has helped me not buy a few books I otherwise might have.))

The Kindle 2 runs $359, and is in stock. If you order through this link
, they’ll kick a few dollars my way.