Search Results for: outline

When writing teams break up

February 21, 2009 Psych 101, QandA, Rights and Copyright

I recently parted ways with a writing partner, and while untangling the issue of who gets to keep what material, a nagging issue has surfaced, to which I cannot find a satisfactory answer.

I decided I wanted to go ahead and complete a script we had both outline, but the premise of which was his. I contacted him, and after discussion, I changed my mind. However, I decided to use only a single character from the script we had outline (and only the basic character outline, such as “prison guard” or “starship captain.” I devised an entirely new premise, dependent not all upon his initial story.

My ex-partner informed me I could not use such a character in my piece without some type of concession on his behalf. Is this true?

— Anthony
Eagle Rock

It’s “true” in the sense that he won’t be satisfied. Both of you think that something about this character has value, even though it’s purely speculative at this point.

Without knowing the specifics — and both sides of the story — I can’t offer any strong opinions on the legal or ethical issues involved here. But from a practical perspective, if you try to write this story that has some connection to the work you did together, you’re going to be dealing with this pissed-off person (or the chance this pissed-off person will reappear) for a long time.

My advice: Figure out what it is about this story/character/world that intrigues you. Then come up with something wholly your own that scratches the same itch. Maybe you think you’ve done that with your new story, but you wouldn’t be writing in if that were the case.

The biggest TiVo in the world

February 3, 2009 Film Industry, Follow Up, Television

follow up In my post on [Cablevision and the infinite TiVo](http://johnaugust.com/archives/2009/cablevision-and-the-infinite-tivo), I argued that a proposed virtual-DVR service could be a Very Bad Thing for the film and television industry, and anyone who aspires to work in it.

But as a consumer of content, I would love it. That’s why studios, networks, guilds and operators need to keep working on ways to make it legal and cheap to watch any show, any time.

They just need to call it what it actually is: video on demand.

Much of the criticism in the ensuing comments came from one Anonymous poster, who claimed he wasn’t a lawyer, but sure wrote like one. And he didn’t deny that he worked for Cablevision, so it’s no surprise he had a strong opinion and very specific knowledge of the legal [proceedings thus far](http://johnaugust.com/archives/2009/cablevision-and-the-infinite-tivo#comment-167455):

> If you read the 2nd Circuit holding you will see that it is simply not the case that the holding could inadvertently extend to the very different system you imagine. If the Supreme Court hears the case, neither will their holding inadvertently extend to completely different systems. Agree with them or not, the justices are hardly a group of fools. The Court is certain to tailor the decision quite deliberately.

>That the system you imagine is achievable is irrelevant. Cases get decided based on the facts of what parties actually do, not based upon completely different facts that others concoct, regardless of whether those concocted facts are achievable.

But of course, the point of a blog is conjecture and analysis. And the job of a screenwriter is to ask what-if questions. What if the Yellowstone supervolcano exploded? What if monsters were afraid of us? What if SkyNet developed consciousness?

I’m certainly not qualified to argue about the language of the 2nd Court holding. But I’m very qualified to ask what-if questions. Nothing about the system I outlined in my original post is crazy. In fact, it’s all so reasonable that it seems very likely to be implemented, if not by Cablevision, then by another provider.

Anonymous [continues](http://johnaugust.com/archives/2009/cablevision-and-the-infinite-tivo#comment-167531):

> Let’s also remember that even when major changes are faced, the only thing that can be assured is that there will be widespread predictions of doom. Doom actually occurring is much less frequent. The Betamax case is an excellent example of such a change that spawned similar predictions of doom for the film and television industry, yet went on to have the exact opposite effect, vastly increasing revenues into that industry.

Revenues increased because *copyright holders* suddenly had an entirely new market for their product, which had hitherto been sitting on a shelf. The system I foresee Cablevision building wouldn’t create a new market. It would redefine an existing market (video on demand) and let them keep the profit for themselves.

I disagreed with almost everything Anonymous wrote, but it was a pleasure having such an eloquent spokesperson for the other side. I was serious when I said he/she needed to get a blog of his/her own.

[Sérgio Carvalho](http://johnaugust.com/archives/2009/cablevision-and-the-infinite-tivo#comment-167356) wonders if we’re just putting off the inevitable:

> You do understand that if personal DVRs are allowed, forbidding Cablevision’s “community disk” is a stopgap measure. It buys about ten to fifteen years. Moore’s law (applied to physical storage) coupled with codec evolution means personal DVRs will reach a virtually unlimited storage capacity at some point in the near future.

There’s a big difference between unlimited storage capacity and unlimited access to all television aired. Even if you had an infinitely big hard drive, you couldn’t simultaneously record every channel; there isn’t an infinitely big cable coming into your house. No matter what the storage capacity, a personal DVR is still limited to recording those things you’re interested in, or think you might ever be interested in.

[Nick](http://johnaugust.com/archives/2009/cablevision-and-the-infinite-tivo#comment-167361) offers a perspective from north of the border.

> In fact, in Canada, where the laws are different (though no less draconian in several ways) many cable companies are already offering a service like this: you can watch any show in an on-demand fashion if it is currently airing, but eventually those shows cycle out of your list of available shows.

The U.K. has a similar system, and it sounds useful. It’s the kind of thing networks and providers can offer jointly, with profit for both. While some WGA’ers disagree with me, I think it’s reasonable to define a window of time in which an episode is considered “new,” and doesn’t require any additional payment. ((To me, the window is a week. Maybe ten days.))

No matter what happens with the Supreme Court case, I think you’re going to see the clash between networks and providers become a much more public brawl in the next few years. Recently, Viacom threatened to pull 19 channels from Time Warner Cable when they couldn’t reach a deal. They played rough, with print ads featuring a crying Dora, and ultimately got the deal done.

If a company like Viacom decided they didn’t want their channels recorded on Cablevision’s DVR service, they could make that part of the deal — or walk. Cable isn’t a monopoly anymore. While Viacom would lose a lot of money, they don’t need one cable company as much as that one company needs them.

But again, the smarter solution is to work together find ways to let consumers watch any show at any time for the right price. Sure: easier said than done. But that’s the only way to ensure sustainability.

Short questions, short answers

July 6, 2008 Big Fish, Projects, Psych 101, QandA

In the [Big Fish Sequence Outline](http://johnaugust.com/downloads_ripley/bf-outline.pdf) posted in the [Library](http://johnaugust.com/library), you have boxes around certain sequences (i.e. sequences 3,5,8 etc.), but not around others. What do these boxes reference?

— Gerald
Mississippi

The boxes indicate which sections of the movie are Edward’s stories. I wanted to show the balance between real-world stuff and fable.

—

Why did Edward Bloom leave Ashland?

— Anonymous

Because it’s too small for a man of his ambition. That’s what Edward says to Karl the Giant before they head off on their adventure.

—

Beginner’s luck? Is that supposed to happen?

— Mark

It’s a fallacy. We expect someone trying something for the first time to fail, so when they succeed, we call it “beginner’s luck” to discount it. But depending on the nature of the task, it’s actually just skill or garden-variety luck.

A person who succeeds early and later fails may likewise try to diminish the first success by declaring it “beginner’s luck.” But it’s almost worth looking at the situation in which they were first successful, and what’s changed. Likely the “beginning” was an arbitrary point decided after the fact, and the subsequent efforts are being scored by different and perhaps unrealistic criteria.

Question sprint

June 9, 2008 Psych 101, QandA, Rights and Copyright, Story and Plot, Writing Process

A bunch of interesting questions have backed up in the queue, so let’s see how many we can get through while waiting for the new iPhone to be announced.

I’m currently outlining a spec feature, 98% of which takes place at the Superbowl. I’m on the fence about proceeding, however, because a few creative executives I’ve pitched the idea to were concerned about 1) the production costs and 2) the need to secure the NFL’s approval. One of the execs did say, however, if the NFL took to the script and got involved it would be a potential dealmaker.

While the production costs aren’t as much of a concern for me (given that those particular naysayers hadn’t gotten past the logline), the seeming make-or-break nature of the NFL’s involvement is a bit daunting. Before I take the plunge from outline to first draft, do you think it’s worth the risk?

— Patrick
Los Angeles

Yes. If you believe in the story and the characters, go for it. If a producer or executive likes your script, she’ll be smart enough to the realize that the NFL of it all can be figured out. ((On the other hand, if she doesn’t like your script, the NFL factor is an easy explanation for why she’s passing. Which saves face for everyone.))

At a USC workshop this weekend, a student asked me about writing a spec Alien vs. Predator. I gave him roughly the same advice — if you think you can write a kick-ass version of it, don’t let the potential unmake-ability of it deter you. My caveat to him was that in the case of AVP, it’s a really tired franchise, so you’re starting with a significant enthusiasm gap. Better to make your own mythology.

I’m about to re-write a script that I’ve been working on for a little while now. It’s a small character road trip drama in the spirit of 1970s American films (e.g. “Five Easy Pieces”, “Coming Home”, “Sugarland Express” — though not all films referenced there are road trip movies). This is my do or die draft — if it’s no good, then I will abandon it. But I’m hoping that some of your advice will help me avoid that outcome.

My concern is that too many of the scenes right now are overly reliant on dialog and I don’t want to tread into unnecessary exposition. At the same time, I want to be able to reveal character and backstory (and obviously, dialog plays a huge part in that). Do you have any general pointers on how to balance scenes (or sequences) of relatively quiet character moments, with the overall dramatic push that’s necessary to maintain tension? I want to make sure that both aspects remain compelling.

N.S.
Los Angeles

There’s nothing wrong with dialogue scenes if they’re moving the story ahead, or enjoyable enough on their own merits. But I suspect you’re finding that a lot of your dialogue scenes are telling us backstory about your characters, and the thing is, we just don’t care.

That’s hard to hear, but you need to hear it: except for crucial, story-twisting revelations, we simply don’t need to know more about who your characters were before they walked on screen.

So before you start that next draft, take a red pen to any chunk of dialogue that isn’t about what’s happening now. Be brutal. I suspect you’ll find that you have a lack of action and some unclear goals that were hiding behind the chatter.

The movies you cited, along with more recent ones like [Lost in Translation](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0335266/), [Sideways](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0375063/) and [Little Miss Sunshine](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0449059/), are all good examples of movies that are talky without ever becoming expositional. Characters talk about what they want, what they fear, but they never dwell on what happened. And each movie finds moments to be quiet. Long stretches of each film play as montage, letting the characters do things without commenting on them.

Let’s say you’re working on a script that’s based on a musician. He’s a fictional musician, so you’ve never heard anything this guy’s produced. As the story unfolds, we watch him build up his song. Is it okay to include the song? Or would that just kill everything and shut the reader down? I guess what I’m asking is, do you include lyrics or just leave them out and hype him like he’s as great as the supporting cast says he is?

— James

Give us lyrics. You’ll want to abbreviate a bit — cut out chorus repetitions, for starters. But it feels like too much of a tease to omit the words altogether.

Often, when I am diligently working on a script, or close to being finished on a script, I find my mind and writing meandering to other ideas. For instance, I’ve written several drafts on a thoughtful spy movie and have an extensive set of notes (from peer review) I plan to implement. Instead of completing the script, I spend time thinking and making notes on new ideas — a drinking road trip film and a sentimental father-son story.

Is this a natural way for new and good ideas to develop or am I merely avoiding “finishing” a project for fear it will suck? Not being a professional, yet, I’m not bound by deadline to turn something in…but how does a disciplined, professional, writer deal with this issue of…distraction?

— Greg

The script you haven’t written is always better than the one you’re staring at, cursor blinking, its flaws so obvious that you can’t believe you ever started writing it. That doesn’t change over the course of a career. __You will always want to be writing something else.__

You’re left with two choices: toughing it out, or [changing horses mid-stream](http://johnaugust.com/archives/2008/changing-horses-mid-stream).

Look at your spy movie, and ask yourself, “If this script had just landed on my desk, would I be excited enough by the possibilities to do this rewrite?” If the answer is no, feel free to investigate one of your other projects.

Granted, there are times you’ll really need to force yourself to finish a new draft. For instance, if you’re getting paid, or if you’ve promised a draft to someone whose opinion matters. And don’t mistake pragmatism for laziness: If something is difficult but do-able, do it. Not only will you improve the script, but you’ll learn something in the process.

The time to move on is when reaching the “best version” of your script ceases to be interesting to you.

« Previous Page