John August

WGA

On the WGA elections

WGA

I was traveling last week when the WGA ballots were mailed out. Now that I’m back, I’ve had a chance to look through the candidates’ statements and endorsements. I want to explain my priorities for this election.

The future is important. The present is essential.
—–
The guild has focused so much of its energy on new frontiers — organizing reality television, political action committees, new media residuals — that we’re doing a lackluster job of providing basic services to our members: the boring but essential stuff like collecting residuals and enforcing contracts.

We’re running a deficit. We’re laying off staff members. We rail against “management,” but the fact is that our guild does not feel particularly well-managed. I want a president, secretary/treasurer and board of directors who will focus first on getting our own house in order. When I call the guild with a question, I want an answer. I want follow-up.

This may mean hiring more people, and firing some under-performers. This is a business. The guild needs to operate like one.

Groupthink is nothink
—–
I want a diversity of opinion and experience throughout the board. I’m leery of slates. I’ve endorsed several candidates who disagree with each other.

Rebuilding burnt bridges
—–
During a strike, it’s natural to demonize any person or organization that seems to be standing in the way of our goals. But the strike is over. DGA, SAG, AFTRA and IATSE aren’t stumbling blocks; they’re peers. We have reasons to be frustrated with these groups and their leaders, but the fact is that most of our goals overlap. We need to be meeting with them regularly and cordially.

The same can be said for the studios themselves. Their objectives are transparent — get as much as they can for as little as possible. But, like us, they also want to keep working. They want to figure out how to make money as technologies change and prices fall towards zero. They want to shoot movies and TV shows locally for a fair price.

Just as in international diplomacy, we’re often both partners and adversaries. I want officers and board members who understand this and don’t let heated rhetoric ruin any chance of cooperation.

My choices
—-
In all my conversations with **Howard Michael Gould**, I’ve been impressed with his ability to see multiple sides of an issue. His candidate statement for Vice President outlines exactly the points I think are most important.

I don’t know **Chris Keyser**, but his candidate statement for Secretary/Treasurer emphasizes enforcement and better fiscal discipline. These are my priorities. **Steven Schwartz** makes other important points about getting writers the money they’re owed.

**John Wells** is controversial because he’s perceived as being more of a producer than a writer. That’s naive, of course: in television, successful writers become producers, and mega-successful producers become John Wells. His experience and connections are an asset. His intercession during the strike wouldn’t have been necessary if guild leadership had engaged the DGA earlier.

**Howard Rodman** is a good friend, and an important advocate for indie writers, who are often overlooked. As a guild, we need to make sure we’re representing all screenwriters before trying to broaden our reach.

I got to know **Ian Deitchman** through United Hollywood and Strike.TV. Reading his candidate statement, I like that he’s pragmatic about the realities of new media, and the importance of enforcing the current contract.

Writer/directors like **Billy Ray** can help bridge the gap with the DGA. **Jeff Lowell** makes that a priority as well.

These are my opinions on the candidates and the issues. I’ll be keeping comments closed, because I don’t really want this to become another forum for accusations and potshots. It’s already become a frustratingly ugly election. My hope is that we can move beyond personalities to the crucial issues.

If you’re a WGA member, please vote. The deadline for ballots is September 17th — but mail them in early to be safe.

The only one who has seen the movie

Film Industry, Producers, Psych 101, QandA, WGA

Last week, I participated in a screenwriting panel with many estimable writers at which the topic of idiotic studio notes came up. [Robin Swicord](http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0842523/) said something that reframed the issue in a very helpful way:

> You have to remember that as the screenwriter, you’re the only person in the room who has actually seen the movie. You’ve seen the locations in your head. You’ve heard the music. So everyone else is trying to catch up with you, and you need to help them.

I’m paraphrasing a bit — none of this was recorded. But it’s such a smart observation that I didn’t want it to slip by undocumented.

Most of my job as a screenwriter is helping other people see the movie in my head. Obviously, the screenplay is a lot of that, but all the conversations that go along with it are often just as important.

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.