south to the border?

[preyer]

thought that title would make you look. :)

by heading 'south' i mean the quality, across the border being where crap is manufactured. 'manufactured' is an appropos word here, because by that i mean 'mainstream.'

to me, and i imagine a lot of others, 'mainstream' is almost a four-letter word synonomous with 'cookie cutter,' 'generic,' 'weak,' and 'politically correct.' stuff made for the masses, inoffensive, bland, and easily digestible. you know-- crap.

i've been reading some sites saying flat-out not to depict certain things, like the onscreen killing of a pet, rape or the beating of a woman or child, etc. (these 'rules' having been broken with amazing results). so, where do you draw the line between what's in your heart as a storyteller and what you envision as important versus what's likely to be sold? do you go ahead and write that graphic rape scene if you feel it's important or do you cut it beforehand, assuming its chances of surviving are about as real as pamela sue anderson lee rock mcguillicutty's boobs or as believable as a j. lo movie?

where the artist/craftsman collide with the salesman, who should win? are you just sealing your doom by going balls out, or should you restrain yourself and err on the side of decency if you expect massive distribution?

this may come as a shock to some people, but i've got some ideas that, well, simply shouldn't be viewed by the depends generation or the soccer mom cult, yet otherwise is bracketed by a relatively chewable story, so i'd be interested in some opinions on this. if i dumb things down, am i selling out? now, don't get me wrong, i'll sell out in a second, i'm a whore like that, but i want as much of my vision entertained as being viable, but at the same time i don't want to go nuts if it's going to hurt my chances of being taken seriously, not just some freak with a sick imagination... which would be a fair assessment, just that in an industry that on the surface doesn't seem to take common sense to heart, can someone tell me their version of common sense before i prove their assessment right?

[Optimus]

Assuming that it's well-written, if your story doesn't connect with the person reading it, then the wrong person is reading it.

Your obligation is to stay true to the story, not to the person reading the story.

[dpaterso]

Hah, your goofy thread title didn't "make" me look.

I don't agree with your assessment of mainstream!

And your claiming everything is crap paints you as a frustrated unsold writer who blames his situation on everything but his own writing.

Those teensy weensy little blips aside, write what you want to write, if the story demands distasteful events and imagery to rattle the emotions and put your characters through hell then that's what you should include.

Mainstream isn't the only market. The genre markets remain healthy and want your vile best.

-Derek
Derek's Web Page - stories, screenplays, novels, insanity. (http://hometown.aol.co.uk/DPaterson57/scripts.htm)

[pstudios]

:wag: Boy you hit the nail on the head with this topic. I think the Hollywood generic is just a small part of the bigger picture of the whole society generic. It's that whole conditioning thing Pink Floyd warned about way bac in the days of "The Wall". Here we are today in a society made up mostly of apthetic, bored zombies. I really get bugged when I see these young kids today, being conditioned by a generic world on a worse level than we were. Oh and if something's wrong "don't do anything to fix it, shove it under the rug." We need fresh air bad! People need to start thinking 4 themselves and demand their originality be accepted.

One thing about this is, the audience can safely live out things, as they sit in the theater, that they can't live out in their real day to day life. The audience grows along with the characters. The audience gets their need to exist satisfied, if the movie is well written and beleivable enough.

I say go with your heart first, you can always tweak it later to make the buyer and his ******* pannel of censors happy, and get your check.

Go for your story you want to write.

Jennifer

[preyer]

'I don't agree with your assessment of mainstream!

'And your claiming everything is crap paints you as a frustrated unsold writer who blames his situation on everything but his own writing.' well, dp, if you've got a better definition of mainstream crap than ''cookie cutter,' 'generic,' 'weak,' and 'politically correct.' stuff made for the masses, inoffensive, bland, and easily digestible,' have at it. isn't the point of mainstream to make it as palatable to the widest target audience possible? of course it is, and with that comes a certain kind of, hm, censorship of sorts. nothing else screams 'bottom-line' like 'mainstream,' no?

and don't misunderstand me, some mainstream is wonderful. however, it's easy to fall into a cynical mode of thinking about mainstream once it's clear where priorities lie.

i have no 'situation' as far as writing is concerned. knowing i can't be all things to all people, i try to be as many things as i can be to myself, if that makes any sense. in other words, i'm hardly frustrated by someone's opinion of just a story. i never said my stories are superior. indeed, i've never claimed to be anything other than a hack. i once used the moniker 'macdaddyncheese' briefly while my regular account had problems. that name is pretty descriptive. were i forced to find a new screen name, i'd work 'hack' into it. i've just never felt the need to base my 'situation' on the fact that someone does or doesn't pay me for a story. a great big part of selling words on paper is timing and there's a place and a time for every good story. sometimes that place is nowhere at the moment. writing for me has been and always will be more for personal satifaction than consciously trying to fit into a sellable mold, though if it's someone else's money involved, i think that entitles them to the story they want to sell, too.

that's really what mainstream has become, no? a mold? (or has it always been a mold?) if you look at this year's mainstream movies and minus out those based on comic book characters, franchises, remakes, and best-selling books (note that all of these are proven commodities), damn, what the hell is original out there in this category? 'stealth'? please. doesn't it seem as if 'mainstream' is almost anti-originality? i'm trying to be pretty liberal about the definition here to include as much as possible.

like you said, the genre markets are there and open to about anything.

[WritingFool]

It sounds like youre intending to write whatever 'off-mainstream' project you have, with a dark side to it. Once you give it up, its going to be shaped, molded and conformed to the best marketable picture the execs think would fill as many seats as possible. Thats really the end of it, there.

The writing itself will have a huge impact on whats kept and whats not, what rating it should be given and what target audience it can be aimed at, is also going to have a huge impact on the finl product.

If it fits, it fits. You think Braveheart's attempted rape scene, could have been been alittle more explicit. Of course it could have. Did it have to be, no. Because the integrity of the picture wouldnt allow it. Now take a movie like Irreversible. Long grueling 10 minute rape scene. Maybe 5, 6 minutes too long, but for affect. Guess the thought of Monica Bellucci being the victim was gunna be their bread and butter. Now, had they released that now thats shes bcome alot more recognizable, then that would be something. Moving on!

Two things here. First, once its out of your hands, its out of your hands. Option for money. Best you can hope for, is the writing, plot and story will keep true to what you originally hoped for. Chances are, it will be touched up, unless YOUVE MADE IT SO COMPELLING that its required to keep the integrity of the picture. So make it exceptional!

Secondly, find a smaller prod co. make it that way. Then you can have all the blood guts and gore you want. Heck, even have a 20 minute rape scene if you think it fits your story.

And thats your reality. No good whining over how things just are. Make a great story or make it yourself. Plain and simple.

[WritingFool]

Oh, and a P.S.
Have you seen some of the crap writings that everyone tries to submit. Ive been looking everywhere to find originality, and good writing. Maybe, just maybe the writers arent submitting GOOD, STRONG MARKETABLE concepts now a days, that are close to production. I see a ton of common stories, that need work, but would still fall close to the 'been there done that stories'

You'd have to be some type of moron to mess up a movie like Stealth. Big disappointment, but a great concept.
That 'crapper' movie could have been solved with good writing. It seems as if some people, who are not writers have good strong ideas for film, but it takes more than just a good concept to fill in 90+ minutes on screen.
Stealth is the perfect example of that.
A few years ago, Bruce Willis' Last Man Standing was a decent picture with more than its share of shootouts. but you cant have just a movie with shootouts throughout. Thats where I find most writings fail.

The smaller details of story are whats really going to make or break that story. Either you have gaps filled with story development, or its simply shoot em up bang bang which are the equivalent to a gratuatisk sex scene (however you spell that da.mn word).
Action movies can have the greatest shootouts, the best heist ideas, but if the acting and dialogue between the gaps are crappy, then thats what you will have. CRAP!

Good writing will attract better actors. Better actors will bring something more to the script. With good writing you can even get an unknown to carry the movies weight,if its really well done. But a crappy movie, is just a crappy movie. You can try to salvage it by getting highly recognizable actors (Dukes of Hazzard), and that might be able to pull the wieght.
Now A movie like the transporter, vs say a movie like Heat. Good example of different writings that equate to a competely different final product.
Id much rather see a HEAT II if possible than the Transporter Part II.

So maybe, Hollywood is waiting for some writer to break the mold and havent found it yet. Just maybe, because the concepts might be strong, but the writing is weak. Is that possible. So surprise the crap out of everyone. Do it your way, and if its done well, no one will argue with it, only say, we gotta get this done.

The reality is, everyone thinks they have the next best thing, and in their mind they might. However, in their writing, they dont. So go head, impress the crap out of everyone with your story preyer. Or just make it yourself.
Good luck

[preyer]

good replies, WF. i agree that in a movie such as 'stealth' (although i think the premise isn't so great), the difference between awful and pretty damn good is what's between making rings of fire in the sky.

again, though, i'm not saying i'm a great writer. i'm better than some, worse than others. before i go ahead and write 'the golden rules,' which is otherwise a pretty mainstream period action/comedy centred around alchemy, knowing everything that's already against the odds there, is, say, a rape scene going to just another nail in the coffin? or leave it out, which would alter the story? it wouldn't be a low-budget thing (though not eighty million dollars or anything outrageous, either). just trying to take as much into account as i can. it's not neccesarily about graphic depictions as much as content, even. (no, there's no rape scene it in, though there's a sexual content there that's not exactly presentable to virgin eyes.) not worried about graphic battle scenes for, like you said, that would be changed/cut/rewritten whatever according to what they think fits best.

i have no illusions here. i'm not deluding myself into thinking my story is better than 90% of the scripts sent in. i do think the strength of any story is the characters. that, obviously, isn't of paramount importance to the big studios all the time. i could hand them a great script, but up on screen it could be a big turd when they're done with it and nowhere near the same movie that's been running through your head for six months. could be better, too.

something like 'xxx: state of the union' would be something i wouldn't want to take on with a ten-foot keyboard. i'd have been embarrassed to attach my name on that. i hope the writer's check contained plenty of zeroes. i've read where you shouldn't look at the bad things in movies, rather concentrate on the good. thing with that is if you don't study the bad, you're apt to keep repeating them.

for my own personal amusement and thought processes, such as it is, i lean towards stories with a kind of shock value. seeing as how i also tend to centre around period pieces (yeah, i know, good luck with that, huh), i wondered if i should strike a balance from the start. i'm hearing 'no.' at the same time, a five million dollar budget won't get my alchemy story made. strike twelve. i just don't want obviously inappropriate content to be strike thirteen.

[Optimus]

Stealth was neither a good concept nor a good film.

It was cheap, generic, and lacked anything close to originality. It was the same story as War Games and *shudder* Universal Soldier: The Return.

Been there, done that.

It could have been a lot better if there had been some more originality or fresh spin put on the very trite concept but, alas, ideas/scenes like lightening hitting the computer to make it sentient pretty much blew those hopes out of the water.


There is, however, plenty of originality and good writing out there. And, kids these days aren't the mindless, apathetic automatons that Jennifer claims. On the contrary, audiences these days, kids especially, may even have more sophisticated tastes than in previous years.

Whenever I read a rant by some unsold writer whining about how "bad" Hollywood and/or society is and how that's why "fresh" and "original" stories never sell, I take Derek's stance that it's all a bunch of sour grapes and snobbery.

If anyone is to "blame" for the current situation in movie quality, it's partly the audience for actually wanting to see "dumb" movies with laughs and explosions and weak plots (you know, the kind of movies that are actually entertaining on a mass level) but mostly Hollywood's fault for not keeping pace with the public's shifting tastes. Proof of this can be found in the box office numbers. Even with SW: ROTS and Wedding Crashers, box office numbers are still on the decline.

[StephieM]

Preyer,

What YOU see is what YOU should write. Tell the story how YOU want to tell the story. If that involves a "crude rape scene". So be it. As long as it's not just thrown in for the sake of throwing it in. Every scene has to hold true to the story.

Stephen King didn't become a great writer by holding back. Sure he's not a screenwriter but a writer just the same. He never fails to shock me. I just finished reading "The Library Policeman." :Jaw:

Steph

[preyer]

in a novel, i don't hold back. you're right.

you're right, too, in saying we're also partially to blame. partially. we outright rejected 'elektra', 'stealth', 'the island' and 'catwoman' not because the market wasn't there as much as the movies were just not any good. so, in that, we're saying 'no more!' and next year we'll be bombarded by the same stuff once again. it's hard for h'wood to plead ignorance when everyone says the same thing time and again about why a certain movie didn't work. quality is not a trend. it may be subjective in this case, but at the same time there has to be a pretense of offering a quality product. how many times does it have to be proven that the more f/x you throw at a movie doesn't mean you're going to attract that many more people?

i don't know and as a movie watcher i don't care who greenlights these things or how a great script becomes a bad movie. the proof is in the movie, though, and when mass proof is there saying 'pffft!' over and over and over again, who's fault is it? not mine. i didn't go to the theatre to see those movies. i'm savvy enough to recognize most bad movies based on the trailer when i see 'em.

it's not sour grapes. i've never even submitted a script. if *i* go unfilled as a writer, hey, that's nobody's fault but my own. no quarter given, none asked. but, that's not an excuse for the *other* awful stuff being made, either. i half suspect the people who greenlight a movie for production have no idea what a good movie entails (a 'good' movie is one that makes money), as if by following protocol you automatically ensure a certain market share, and by further removing as much subjectivity as possible from it you only guarantee its success that much more. how many movies are shot with alternate endings nowadaze? plenty.

now, i'm not harping on all mainstream cinema, just the stuff (which there's plenty of it) which seems like creation by committee (imagine if God created the universe based on a focus group's suggestions) that comes off as crass commericialism, movies where fifteen minutes into them you have all you need to know to fill in the rest. disney, i'm looking at you. could i write that? of course, i'm a hack; that's what hacks do. bad mainstream movies write themselves for the most part.

(as an aside, being a hack is pretty easy. gimme a couple of actors, genre, and a few details and writing the story for it isn't exactly raising the titanic. that is, of course, if hack is what you want. gimme time to get a handle on this script stuff first, lol. then watch out, more same-old-same-old coming atcha! intangibles like 'quality,' well, that takes a bit more effort.)

is the box office on a decline from the same period last year? i think for the last two years the percentages have been down. we have some lookers left in the year, though. 'potter' should be worth $200 million. i don't see 'the corpse bride' doing much, but 'aeon flux' could do well if it's not a horrible mess. 'narnia' will probably kill, though i said the same thing about 'lemony snickett's,' too, and that was a big disappointment all the way around.

what's keeping people from going to the movies this year, if indeed that's true? the quality of the movies themselves? hm, not sure about that. we've had some damn good movies over the last couple of years. personally, i have to be pretty motivated to see a movie in a theatre. do those box office totals include DVD rentals, sales, and second-run theatres? that is, are there parts to the picture we're not seeing upfront that balances a lower box office out? are DVD sales and rentals on the rise at the same rate box office revenue is going down? i probably shouldn't include rentals, just sales. i feel there are strategies there left unexploited beyond releasing for sale *and* rental usually every tuesday. sorry, off-topic....

if every one of my scripts, or yours or anybody's, wins one oscar after another, that's not going to stop them making another 'xxx.' and they shouldn't if that's what makes money. if it doesn't, though, and neither does any of the other movies in the same vein, it makes one wonder why these people make as much as they do. it'd be different if every 'stealth' made money, but they don't. then i could blame myself and the poor tastes of the audience for giving h'wood the idea this is still what we wants and exactly how we wants it. next year will be another 'stealth' and it's just unforgiveable at some point. (btw, nice follow-up to 'ray,' jamie foxx, lol.)

[Optimus]

Foxx made "Stealth" before he made "Ray." It was shelved and only unshelved after the success of Foxx (trying to capitalize on his new fame).

If anyone saw him on either Dave Letterman or Jay Leno during the promotion of "Stealth," you could tell he was just a little embarrassed about this film. He acted like he was hoping it would pass into the night quickly (and, it did) so he could get on with his career.

[preyer]

i can hear it now: 'but, preyer, you suck at writing! what makes you think you're even a good hack? i'm sick of your crap. and for gawd's sake, use some damn capitals! you think you know everything!'

why you little *%#$, i oughta....

'and you're not as funny as you think, either!'

okay, can't deny any of that. but, i'll put my hack skillz to the test for a minute and see what y'all think.

'good boyz' features the powerhouse duo of will smith and jaimie foxx as con-artists in the 1930's panhandle or bible belt or whereever is cheapest to shoot. discovering how fast people throw money at evangelists after witnessing it, they decide to do just that, become evangelists. backstage after one big haul, they're counting cash and singing, 'bringing in the cash, bringing in the cash.' silly/stupid/insipid/profane/urbane/borderline criminally negligent of anything resembling anything other than a cheap cash money grab? you've got the wrong thread: ethics 101 is somewhere else.

it's a comedy, so by the end the two flim-flam men realize the error of their ways and see the light of God. this is accomplished by the ill daughter of a particularly hot paritioner. through the girl's love, will smith learns what's important in life. foxx's character starts off half-way there and acts as almost a foil to smith's incredible greed.

throw in a southern sheriff searching for them, maybe a car chase where they comically react to being shot at, and, hey, i pretty much assure you it'll make money. lots of heartfelt moments and tugs on the heartstrings to be had.

hm, jennifer lopez. to start with, she's lonely, because, you know, incredibly hot women with perfect assses usually are. don't believe me? why not? it's the basis of almost every single movie she's done. now an occupation.... i'm going to go a little different route with this one and make her a sanitation engineer, i.e. a trash lady picker upper. again, why the hell not? it being a romantic comedy, she has to lust for one guy who always seems to bring the trash up late, obviously just to see her. he's a wealthy bachelor, though, and she's from the wrong side of the tracks. let's say the guy longs to be a writer, his true passion, yet he's stuck in the family business and his comically crazy father says if he doesn't marry this one chick he's cut out of the will. the chick lives with him, and she's just a witch. something like that.

something the guy says to her makes her want to improve her life, so she embarks on a series of new jobs, each to comic effect, of course. enrolled in college, guess what happens in the science lab scene ala 'i love lucy'? you guessed it, hack-a-rama, baby.

anyway, she about desperate and tries one last thing, getting a job as a reporter for the local newspaper. well, well, guess who owns and operates that newspaper? if you haven't guessed, you're not paying attention. anyway, i'm sure you can put together the rest of the scenario, no? here's a hint: she hooks up with the guy in the end and he winds up doing what his heart desires. cue sappy music and sunset.

thriller? okay, you've got ashley judd and morgan freeman and-- wait, that's been done about fifteen times.

hm. morgan freeman does great v.o.'s. okay, i'm going to go all 'sunset blvd.' on ya. strike that, 'autofocus'-style voice over, but you won't know freeman is dead until the end. this would work good as a ghost story, too. anyway, judd turns out to be the killer, and she does get her's in the end.

retro-writing from the end, judd is probably a black widow character who freeman is chasing. geez, i don't think i even need to go on from there, do i? lol. here again freeman is a lonely detective just trying to make it to retirement before his nose swallows his face (bad joke, i know, couldn't resist), while we see the brutal rise and fall of the seductive temptress judd (charlize theron is more believable, though). i'm actually getting a lot of ideas for this, but i won't bother y'all with that.

'top gun II'? see, tom cruise owns this gay bar.... just kidding. he's an officer now training a new batch of recruits just like he was. same story as 'days of thunder,' which was the same as 'top gun.' rewind, repeat, except now the setting is in the middle east. hey, top gun was released in '86. in a few years his character's son will be about pilot age, no? do i have to beat the premise into you with a stick? lol.

i won't bore y'all with any more. :) some are better than others, but they're all off the top of my head. sad to say, but the foxx/smith one would probably make for a funny movie if you could get past their paychecks.

[Optimus]

You forgot to take your little pills today, didn't you?

[preyer]

i get in a 'mood' every now and then. the more i think about it, and i haven't really, i think i'd have to change j. lo's occupation to something a little more chicky. i don't know, some women might find that line of work empowering.

anyone want to pay me to write the con-man posing as evangelists thing? for a small fee (large lump sum), you can get in on the ground floor of this once-in-a-lifetime investment opportunity and achieve your goals of financial independance. not an identical twin of a midget selling shady 'insider' real estate information? don't have a poorly designed and even worser constructed kitchen piece of junk everyone can live without? no problem! no money? no credit? problem! if you're a gambler (the kind of person busty blondes like), i urge you to invest in this low-risk (less than a tenth of a percent of a chance of success) venture and soon (likely never) be living like the champion you are! because, let's face it, people won't like you without money, lots and lots of money. call today for a free brochure and get on the fast track to success (odds of success are 1,384,928,376,836 to -1. offer not valid in alaska, hawaii and the lower forty-eight states). call now!

okay, i think i'm done now.

[WritingFool]

What you have above, is an idea for a story. Your challenge is to show in your writing, how that can be something people would pay $7.50 for.

Any idea can go either good or bad, so heres where your writing talent paired up with your creativity will pull you through. So stop whining about how you perceive other people are percieivng you, and just do the work. Then it wont matter what other people think, because youll have option or sale money.
So get to work!

[preyer]

who's whining? i know my humour isn't always universal, but i think you just don't get it on any level. that's fine, not your fault, but don't misunderstand it, either. my point there is those ideas could be made into outline form fairly easily if the time is put into them. it's writing by numbers. don't say you can't get away with it: i may not be a screenwriter as such yet, but i know how to watch a damn movie and know nine times out of ten what's going to happen. *that's* the point i'm trying to make, that these big-budget flicks with great actors, experienced directors, and everything that money *should* be able to buy for you, and i *still* know what's around the corner. there's no point in making those ideas into even an outline because everyone knows, or should know, enough about how h'wood tells a story to fill in the rest. if anyone doesn't know the formula, they better get with that because the formula doesn't seem to be going away any time soon.

simply put, these movies fail for me. i'm not saying MY talent is better. it's not about that. when my talent is bought and transfered to so-so movies, then people will be able to complain about that then. and rightfully so. do any of us have a right to complain even if our talents are far less than what been brought to bear? you betcha. if you're paying for their service and that service is inadequate, yes, you have a right to complain just as if your fries are cold or your hamburger looks as if it was thrown together from across the room. they may not be inedible, but it's not quality. okay, that's not a very good analogy.

are people seeing fewer movies? if so, why? not for a lack of f/x, that's for sure. not for a lack of production values, star draw, or director influence. maybe it's because people don't want to spend $25 (you, a date/spouse/friend, snacks) on a movie whose entire story can reasonable be guessed at from the trailer. like me, like any of us here, the average movie-goer knows the formula, too. just as entertainment, the formula *can* work. go, maybe have a couple of laughs, a thrill if you're lucky, and that's what we've come to expect. it's partially our fault for seeing the movies, partially h'wood's for not giving us more options (which, when they do, will sometimes fail because we're so conditioned to seeing movies a certain way).

i can list plenty of great movies that didn't follow convention. can you list any that do? you're right, any of those ideas, regardless of how they are right now, could be a stinker or one that flies above the swampy surface.

i'm almost half tempted to jump forward with my script formatting and wing it for ten pages of one of them just to, if for no other reason, to illustrate the formula. i see no point in doing so. it almost feels as if i'm being challenged to do so to prove my abilities. can i? i think so, certainly. and even if i can't, what's that got to do with h'wood? is there a screenwriter that's *not* a critic, too?