John August

Search Results for: shazam

Post-strike update

Projects, Shazam, Strike, The Remnants

Last night I went out for beers with my picketing team from the Van Ness gate. I hadn’t spoken with any of them since the end of the strike, so it was nice to catch up, and see them in clothes not specifically chosen for walking in the cold.

Remarkably, it was the first conversation I’d had about the strike in over a week. After three months of talking (and blogging) about nothing other than the AMPTP, the NegComm and picketing schedules, it’s surprising how completely the strike has vanished off the radar.

With the official contract ratification results due today, it feels like a good time to take stock of where various projects have ended up in a post-strike universe.

The web series
—

We’re finishing editing on the [web pilot](http://johnaugust.com/archives/2008/seeing-other-people) I shot at the start of the month. Once it’s done, the financiers will go off and look for distribution and advertising partners. If we can find the right combination, we’ll aim to shoot a block of episodes this summer.

Shazam!
—

I spent the weekend barricaded at the Disney Grand Californian working on the next draft of Shazam! I’d gotten the studio and producer notes just before the strike, so this was my first chance to address them. It was great having a three-month break from the script, because it meant I could look at it with fresh eyes.

There are some web reports out of WonderCon about a possible title change to something longer and more Harry Potter-ish. Nothing’s decided yet. Obviously, one of the challenges with the property is that an audience will automatically assume that the hero’s name is Shazam, when it’s not. ((Shazam is the wizard who bestows his powers; the guy in the cape is Captain Marvel. For legal reasons, the movie can’t be called Captain Marvel.))

Dreamworks project
—

When the strike began, I was halfway through the first draft of an unannounced project for Dreamworks, with a major star and director involved. Without being too specific, Something Happened unrelated to the strike which made it very unlikely that our movie could (or should) get made. So one of the first conversations I had after the strike was with the producer and director to figure out whether or not to proceed. After about 15 phone calls, many involving agents and executives, the decision was made to kill the project.

It was the right choice. While it’s hard to walk away from 55 pages, finishing the next 55 while almost certain that they could never be filmed would be even more dispiriting. As I write this, it’s not clear whether I’ll segue into a different project for the studio, or just write them a check for the money they’ve already paid me. Either way, I feel better getting to work on a script that is much likelier to become a movie.

Heroes: Origins
—

My hunch is that this [spin-off series](http://johnaugust.com/archives/2007/heroes-origins) will stay in the [deep-freeze](http://johnaugust.com/archives/2007/no-heroes) for a while, maybe never to be thawed out. Tim Kring has said in interviews that the priority is getting next season’s plotline (“Villains”) ready for launch, as it should be. If Origins is resurrected at some point, I’d be happy to direct my episode.

Not a word

Follow Up, Strike

Last week, I [wrote how much I admired](http://johnaugust.com/archives/2007/pencils-down) the [Pencils Down](http://www.wga.org/subpage_member.aspx?id=2529) ad, in which TV’s top showrunners said they would be doing no writing on their shows during a strike. I said that I’d be delighted to sign a similar ad for feature screenwriters. I’m happy to say the WGA took me up on the offer.

This morning’s trades include this ad, signed by nearly every screenwriter you can think of.
((**UPDATE:** Note entirely true: If you think hard, you can come up with names of screenwriters not on this list. It was put together over the weekend, and some writers couldn’t be reached in time. So don’t think ill of someone whose name isn’t there. From talking with the organizers, not a single screenwriter said no.)) (Click for a bigger version.)

[screenwriter ad](http://johnaugust.com/Assets/not_a_word.jpg)

There was a lot of speculation that the flurry of deals made before the strike meant that feature scribes would be busy typing away on assignments between shifts on the picket line. Nope.

Personally, I’m not writing on three big movies: Shazam! for New Line, a Sam Mendes feature for Dreamworks, and my fourth collaboration with a certain director for Warner Bros. Today’s Variety just announced that Prince of Persia [signed a director](http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117975541.html?categoryId=1079&cs=1) — Mike Newell — but has no writer to work with him.

The blockbusters of 2009 are sitting unwritten. That’s an economic factor I’ve never seen reported in all of this. The next installments of Spider-Man, Harry Potter, and every other movie franchise are unwritten and unproducible until the strike is over.

If I were a theater chain, I’d be worried. If I were Wal-Mart, I’d demand answers. If I were a shareholder, I’d demand blood. The AMPTP’s refusal to return to the bargaining table is costing more than jobs, and will keep hurting the studios well into 2009 unless they get back to negotiating.

The big Fox deal

Film Industry, News

In addition to Shazam! and The Nines, the other project that’s been keeping me busy for the past few months is a new deal over at 20th Century Fox, in which a group of 12 screenwriters will be getting first-dollar gross and a range of creative rights on their scripts. It was [just announced](http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117970235.html?categoryid=13&cs=1#).

The twelve writers (some of whom are teams) are:

* Michael Arndt (“Little Miss Sunshine”)
* Me (“Charlie and the Chocolate Factory,” “Go”)
* Stuart Beattie (“Collateral”)
* Ted Elliott & Terry Rossio (“Pirates of the Caribbean,” “Shrek”)
* Derek Haas & Michael Brandt (“3:10 to Yuma”)
* Tim Herlihy (“The Wedding Singer,” “Happy Gilmore”)
* Simon Kinberg (“Mr. and Mrs. Smith,” “X-Men: The Last Stand”)
* Craig Mazin (“Scary Movie 3 and 4”), and
* Marianne & Cormac Wibberley (“National Treasure,” “National Treasure 2”)

The deal isn’t unprecedented. Producer John Wells put together group of screenwriters who made a [similar deal at Warner Bros.](http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117961371.html) earlier this year. We followed the trail they blazed, and we’re indebted. What’s different about our situation is that we’re not a production company. There’s no one “in charge,” and we’re not sharing profits among us. We’re nine writers (or teams) making the same deal.

And what is the deal? Here’s the short version.

We’re each committing to writing an original (i.e. not an adaptation) for Fox — our next original script, in fact. For it, we’ll take a greatly reduced upfront fee, in exchange for our full quotes plus first-dollar gross when the movie gets made. If the movie get made — that’s the gamble the writers are taking.

Helping to ameliorate that risk, we are producers on our projects, and can’t be rewritten except in fairly narrow circumstances. We consult on the major creative decisions (like director, stars, other producers). Lastly, if the project isn’t getting a greenlight, we have the ability to take it back in a timely fashion. That’s why it’s important that these are original scripts. For adaptations or sequels, the underlying rights would make reversion difficult or impossible.

Note that when I say “we,” I’m referring the writers individually. There’s no group decision process. No production company. We’re each autonomous entities.

It’s in each writer’s interest to write a really commercial movie that (a) Fox will want to make, and (b) will earn a bazillion dollars.The deal memo doesn’t specify “bazillion,” but it’s a useful benchmark. To me, that’s the secret of the deal. While there are protections for both sides, the key ingredient is mutual benefit. Both sides have a lot to gain from making it work.

It sounds relatively simple, but Great Zeus, it was complicated. Of all of us, [Craig Mazin](http://artfulwriter.com) deserves the biggest props. If I had 10 phone calls a day about it, Craig had 30.I can now explain that the reason I had to [bail on the screening](http://johnaugust.com/archives/2007/student-films-across-america) for Student Films Across America was that the deal was closing that Friday. My phone was ringing every two minutes as the negotiations kept spinning. It was a super-heroic effort, for which he’ll be repaid in alcohol.

And now for the backstory. The day the John Wells deal was announced, Craig called me and asked what I thought about it. I thought it sounded terrific, and so did many other writers. Craig had already had conversations with Ted Elliott about doing something with a group of screenwriters, but the Wells deal was specific and tangible. It provided a focus, a template. Within a few weeks, a group of writers met at my house on a weekend afternoon to discuss the possibilities.There was no magic process in coming up with these specific writers. There’s at least another dozen who would make just as much sense on a list. A lot of us knew each other, and the few people we didn’t know had great reputations. My hope is that other writers and other studios would see this as something to try, either as a group or individually.

After phone calls with all of these writers’ representatives, Craig and I met with several studios, explaining why we thought the deal was good for them. There was a lot of interest from most of the studios,Here’s the pitch: “How would you like nine original scripts by some of the top feature writers for less than what you’d pay for one of them normally? But wait! There’s more!” but Fox stepped up in the biggest and most enthusiastic way. To put it politely, they pursued it very aggressively. To put it less politely, they pursued it with a vigor that sometimes frightened me. But their zeal was genuine, and the deal ended up happening much more quickly than any of us anticipated, through the combined efforts of many attorneys, agents, and executives. I’m loathe to start naming names for fear of leaving off someone who worked their ass off on the deal — some at the cost of family obligations — so I’ll just extend a public thank you to all of them on both sides.

So. Will it work? Will it change anything?

I don’t know. I think it’s best to classify it as an experiment. We’re each committing to one script, so if it simply doesn’t work out, no one is particularly worse off. And it’s hard to say whether the basic idea could (or should) be expanded to include the other kinds of movies screenwriters are hired to write: adaptations, sequel, remakes, and everything else that relies on underlying property. Without the ability to take the project back, it doesn’t make a lot of sense for a writer to reduce his upfront money. Even among this group, most scripts don’t become movies. The gamble might not make sense.

What I will say is that as an A-list screenwriter, it’s become increasingly difficult to set up an original project at the studios, who (understandably) want to save their development budgets for the movies they’re pretty sure they’re going to make — largely sequels, adaptations and remakes. I’m very excited to write an original for Fox, a movie not based on anything other than what I think would be great idea. So while this deal is largely about rights and money, I think it has the potential to lead to some better, more original movies. If so, that’s a win for everyone.

Update: Craig has his thoughts up at [Artful Writer](http://artfulwriter.com/archives/2007/08/meet_the_writin.html)

INT. BOOKSTORE, or something better?

QandA, Words on the page

questionmarkI am a fifteen year old living just outside of Washington, D.C. I hope to one day be a television producer, but also a film screenwriter. Thanks for your advice about writing the scenes I want to write (not necessarily in order) on paper before typing them on the computer. I felt stupid not thinking about that, but once I used that technique, the first draft of my screenplay came together in about three weeks!

Anyway, I’m not really trying to give a testimonial here, just asking a question and giving my thanks, so here goes: I’m writing the second draft of my screenplay, and I have a slugline situation. For the master, could I write “INT. BARNES AND NOBLE – NIGHT” instead of “INT. BOOKSTORE – NIGHT”. I thought that maybe giving a specific location, even if it wasn’t shot there, would add more of a realism, or connection, with the reader. Even if there’s simply a little bit more of a connection. Is there any con-side of doing this?

— Tim

Your instinct is right: being a little more specific helps the reader immediately understand the location, and saves you from having to throw a line of scene description explaining what kind of bookstore it is.

The only case where the comes back to bite you is when the line producer calls you, frantic: “We can’t get Barnes and Noble! It won’t fit the schedule! You have to rewrite the scene!” And so you end up spitting out colored revision pages that waste everyone’s time.

That’s why I tend to split the difference when I can. Instead of “BOOKSTORE” or “BARNES AND NOBLE,” try “CHAIN BOOKSTORE.” The reader gets what you are trying to say, and the line producer won’t hyperventilate.

For Shazam!, I just wrote a scene that takes place “INT. STARBUCK’S-LIKE COFFEE SHOP.” It should be clear to the line producer, production designer and everyone else that it doesn’t have to be Starbucks. It just needs that vibe.