Size of big boy screenplay market?

I was at a panel discussion at the Austin Film Festival last October. The panel had development execs from Universal, Sony etc. etc. These were 'the big boys'. They pointed out that roughly 200 films are made every year in 'Hollywood'.

And something like 50,000 scripts are registered with the WGA every year.

They didn't say how many were 'sold' - but honestly - the number you're looking for is 'optioned'. I'd say probably four to five times as many films are 'optioned' as produced. Say a thousand a year?

Options can be had for peanuts in studio budgets. Sure, the big boy's get huge options, but lesser known writers NOT WGA members are lucky to get 10 percent of the agreed purchase price.

For WGA minimums, go see their website.

Here's a decent enough link. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_movies_are_made_each_year

In 2007 2500 films were made. About 600 of them made it to theatres.

600 released in the US in 2007 - that includes documentaries and small 'art house' flicks.

One of hte points made at the panel in Austin, was that the number of films being produced by 'Hollywood' was shrinking - that money was tight - that investors wanted a 'sure thing' - (hence the remakes and sequel/prequel/reboot/comic book flood).

All in all, it was a daunting discussion. "The internet is the new leading edge - but nobody knows how to make money from it." - Also not an encouraging view.

Of course the game is rigged, but how are you going to win if you don't play?

JBwell said:

Maybe this question is at a slight tangent, but if the money is tighter shouldn't that give better prominence to great stories that can be told with less budget?

Click to expand...

From the perspective of a studio, the costs of marketing and distributing a movie are still going to be about the same, and for any kind of significant release, that is substantial.

So from their perspective, do they want to spend what amounts to a seven figure marketing and distribution budget on a little movie with a great story without stars or on Iron Man III?

The answer is -- if it's a little genre movie with a strong hook -- that is, a low budget horror movie or dumb R-rated comedy then maybe yes because with movies like that, the premise is really what's selling the movie.

But they're not willing to do it a lot because from their perspective, even though the movies cost list, from their perspective, the risk is actually greater.

Think about it this way. There are only so many theaters, so many screens, so many "slots" in a given year, and especially during key movie going times of the year when studios want to get their movies on those screens.

So you have to think, if you're studio, that in any year, you really only have so many times up at bat -- only so many opportunities to release your movies in theaters and make your money. And all sorts of things are going to determine whether that happens. When is it opening? What else is opening that weekend?

So you really want to take your best shots with the movies you've got. That, unfortunately, is why a lot of the sequels to these big movies tend to get overloaded with stuff -- studios get really nervous and insecure and try to stuff these movies with -- well, with stuff and with more stuff in the hopes that just more of everything will get people into the theater.

Buy that's the thinking -- what worked before? Don't just put that in. Put *more* of that in.

It's the sort of thinking that one might quickly dismiss -- were it not for the fact that, from their perspective, it often works quite well, if one were to judge solely on the basis of box office returns.

NMS

It is not enough to write a 'great story'. You have to get it into the hands of people who RECOGNIZE your brilliance and have the funds and connections to make it.

Sounds easy enough, doesn't it?

"To make rabbit stew - first; Catch a Rabbit."

JBwell said:

Thanks for a great reply, that all makes sense. So I guess the opportunities for a script with a 'great story' are limited to the very few of those studio films which are a bit different, or a different film market entirely...?

Click to expand...

You have to understand that what constitutes a "great story" to you isn't necessarily what constitutes a great story to a major studio. They are looking for things that have the ability to produce that immediate, visceral emotional connection to an audience -- not when they see the film (although that's obviously important) but when they see the trailer -- or even when they just hear about the movie, that is, when they hear the equivalent of the "log line" of the movie -- just when they hear what the movie's about and (potentially) who's in it.

That's what, from a studio perspective, is how you mint gold. Somebody hears "They're making XYX with X and J in it" and the response is, "Oh, man - I'm there."

That is a studio's definition of a great story.

NMS

JBwell said:

I tend to agree. Do you think then that these big films are edging more towards fairground rides than narrative 'films'? (And that the writing is more about how to plausibly hang various set pieces together than to tell an interesting story?)

Click to expand...

They want it to sound so good in one line that everyone else'd think they'd be crazy NOT to make it. Soundbites, ads and trailer to get bums on seats, thereafter amazing special effects, fab story/twist or hilarity/gore/suspense to keep the bums on seats after that first weekend. Or you hit it with so many marketing dollars that it's the Emperor's new clothes. Could be shit, still a hit.

JBwell said:

I tend to agree. Do you think then that these big films are edging more towards fairground rides than narrative 'films'? (And that the writing is more about how to plausibly hang various set pieces together than to tell an interesting story?)

Click to expand...

I think that they can be and there are certainly some big budget movies that can fall into that category, but the best of any kind of story is still going to turn to the basics of effective story-telling and story structure and it's really informative to listen to examine the sort of story analysis that goes on at places like Pixar which, let's face it, is a Hollywood studio aimed at making big budget Hollywood movies intended to pull in huge profits.

And they do. They succeed in precisely the way Hollywood movies ought to succeed, but also go through intense analysis on a story level aimed at making sure that the characters are working, that the emotional beats are working, that the structure is working, that the set pieces are working so that you end up with a final film that is successful at every level.

And that's why Pixar's movies tend to be so incredibly successful -- not only because they get the story right "conceptually" but because they do that intensive story work that nails it on the level of execution as well.

NMS

Pixar does things very differently than any other studio. Everyone is part of the development team, and things change constantly.

Just for the heck of it, I checked IMDB.com for the top grossing films world wide - for all time.

The top thirty five films or so - are all fantastic, fantasy, sci-fi, period, animated or epic films. In other words - 'escapist' films. There are no contemporary narrative features in the list.

None.

That's not to say that moving narratives aren't popular. Witness "The Help" - it has great legs and is setting all kinds of records - making Hollywood 'think'. But it IS a 'period' piece. Just as Mad Men is. A specific look at a cultural moment of time.

It's funny when you think about it. As you go about pitching to small pro-cos, you'll often here "Period pieces are too expensive - effects are too expensive - costumes are too expensive." - But if they're interested in bankability and ROI - it's almost a necessary element to a successful feature film.

WriteKnight said:

As you go about pitching to small pro-cos, you'll often here "Period pieces are too expensive - effects are too expensive - costumes are too expensive." - But if they're interested in bankability and ROI - it's almost a necessary element to a successful feature film.

Click to expand...

How many of the biggest grosses were small indie films?

I remember reading somewhere that period pieces were not so expensive for the BBC now because they had been doing them for years and pretty much had entire warderobes full of appropriate kit for any period and they rarely threw anything out

Ack. You can't look at the all-time list without adjusting for ticket price inflation. When you look at that list (granted, it's only domestic because worldwide figures were very spotty years ago), you see The Sound of Music at #4 (1.1 billion, adjusted), Doctor Zhivago at #8 (989 million, adjusted), The Sting at #16 (710 million), and The Graduate at #19 (682 million) - Perhaps only the Graduate qualifies as a contemporary drama, although the others were hardly distant period pieces when they were made. In any event, why even contemplate the all-time list? Isn't it enough to get a film made and distributed, indie or otherwise? Suppose you have an indie film with a 5 million dollar budget - that's still a nice payday for you if the film gets made. You don't get to write Star Wars these days unless you've already made a name for yourself.