What does "in development" mean?

cb474

Hi, I'm a novice to screenplays, but otherwise accomplished writer. I have an idea for a screenplay about a discrete historical event that, unsurpringly, I think is a good and timely idea. So I thought I might just give a try at writing a screenplay.

However, I was looking at the IMDB and saw that there is a script about this same particular event listed as "in development" for the year 2009. It's listed under the name of a producer, who has produced a number of fairly big movies.

Does "in development" in this context mean the movie is going to be made and so I probably should just drop my idea?

Thanks.
 

nmstevens

What happened?
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 25, 2006
Messages
1,452
Reaction score
207
Hi, I'm a novice to screenplays, but otherwise accomplished writer. I have an idea for a screenplay about a discrete historical event that, unsurpringly, I think is a good and timely idea. So I thought I might just give a try at writing a screenplay.

However, I was looking at the IMDB and saw that there is a script about this same particular event listed as "in development" for the year 2009. It's listed under the name of a producer, who has produced a number of fairly big movies.

Does "in development" in this context mean the movie is going to be made and so I probably should just drop my idea?

Thanks.


"In development" means that some underlying work -- a book or an article or a spec screenplay has been bought or optioned and that in the former case a script has been commissioned and is being written, or in the latter case that rewrites are underway and that the project -- that is, the "script" is "in development."

That process -- the process by which all of the various interested parties -- the producers, the studios, the director when their ultimately is one, etc, toss their various creative "contributions" into the hat that is the screenplay, hoping ultimately, to get somebody to say "yes" -- which is what's known as the project getting a "green light" -- is known as being "in development."

Once a project gets a green light it stops being in development and goes into pre-production. That generally only happens when a star of sufficient calibre (sometimes a director) agrees to be in it.

NMS
 

cb474

Thanks. So it doesn't necessarily mean that the movie is actually going to be made, because it hasn't got a "green light" yet?

Why would there be a future date on it, in this case 2009, in the IMDB? I thought that means that's when the movie is going to come out? Does that have no definitive meaning and it's just the date these people would like the movie to come out?

Thanks in advance for any further explanations.
 

Joe Calabrese

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
2,068
Reaction score
130
Location
NYC area
Website
www.josephcalabrese.com
nmstevens is absolutely right.

The release date on IMDB is part of their database and is needed for all entires. The producer may have a tentative schedule for 2009 but that doesn't mean it will ultimately be released then. Once it gets green lit, the an acurate release year will be put up.

Now since this project is out there and may well be made, that doesn't mean you should give up.

If it is a project you feel strong about, then go for it, but keep in mind that there is competition out there and it may be harder to sell. But that is not necessarily a bad thing. Look at Capote. Two movies less than a year apart. there are tons of movies that deal with the same subject or event.

Yours may have a different slant on the event, feature different characters, etc...

Just because it is the same event doesn't mean it will be the same film.
 

cb474

Thanks for the further explanation and encouragement! I did think exactly of Capote when I was pondering the possible dilemma here. I think I just needed to psyche myself back up again. Of course, everyone loves having what they think is a good idea that no one's thought of. But it doesn't mean two projects addressing the same topic is bad. Thanks again, nmstevens and Joe.
 

javili

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 21, 2007
Messages
289
Reaction score
19
Location
Mazatlan, Sinaloa, Mexico
That generally only happens when a star of sufficient calibre (sometimes a director) agrees to be in it.

Since many films are made without big stars, that seems like an overly restrictive definition.
If somebody's aunt dies and leaves them a billion dollars and they say, "Let's make this film", then it goes into production.

Of if an exec at HBO or wheverever greenlights it, it's on its way. Cast added later.

But yeah, that's "development hell". Everything being churned around except the money.
 

NikeeGoddess

Banned
Joined
Feb 22, 2005
Messages
1,896
Reaction score
103
sufficient calliber and big stars or directors are two very different things:
even d-listed red-haired comics can have a program greenlit ;)
and some b-list actors have their own production companies who will work with a c-listed director especially if they "hang out" at the pingpong tables
 

nmstevens

What happened?
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 25, 2006
Messages
1,452
Reaction score
207
Since many films are made without big stars, that seems like an overly restrictive definition.
If somebody's aunt dies and leaves them a billion dollars and they say, "Let's make this film", then it goes into production.

Of if an exec at HBO or wheverever greenlights it, it's on its way. Cast added later.

But yeah, that's "development hell". Everything being churned around except the money.

The rules for TV movies, including cable movies are different, because their audience is different, but you'd be mistaken if you think that casting is irrelevant to the process.

It's a different audience and so different names carry different weight, but the names matter on TV too.

And for certain kinds of movies of a certain budget -- if you're making "Saw" -- the stars aren't nearly as important.

But "Saw" had Cary Elwes and Danny Glover and Dina Meyer in it. That's a respectable cast.

There's a difference between "stars" as in Tom Cruise and "stars" in the sense of -- we've got to have names of a certain level of recognizability in order to be able to sell this movie in certain markets -- and lacking those recognizable names, the movie isn't going to get green lit.

Danny Glover may mean nothing to you or me -- but to a foreign distributor, or to someone releasing a movie on DVD, that's a recognizable name that can be put on a poster or on the front of a DVD -- it's the difference between a movie they're willing to release and another movie with a no-name cast that isn't promotable.

Once the first movie hit big, it really didn't matter -- because after that, they could sell it off the strength of the first movie.

Of course, once Saw hit big, then you could sell other movies like Saw -- just on the strength of Saw.

So you end up with movies like Hostel and the rest, also with very minor stars, riding that wave.

But you always have a package. A script, a director, a producer, and generally a star or stars.

Nobody, not HBO or anybody else in the business, just reads a script and gives a greenlight.

As for somebody being left a billion dollars -- sure, if you're rich enough, you can do what you want, including making your own movie. You can even rent the theaters yourself and distribute it yourself -- and if you really want, you can even pay people to sit in the seats and watch it.

But that's not how movies are generally made.

NMS
 

zeprosnepsid

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,006
Reaction score
90
Location
LA, unfortunately.
Usually when a film is 'in development' but is actually listed on IMDB, I think there's a fairly good chance of it being made. It was probably announced in Variety and well on it's way.

Without all the information, my suggestion would be to be wary of writing something on the same material. Only one Capote movie made money, and it was the first one to come out.

Sure, Hollywood has a tendency to put out two movies close together on the same topic, but usually that has to do with Hollywood inbreeding. All the executives hear the same pitches, and the same information about what is hot. But other than this, and unique cases like Capote, there's like a 10 year limit on addressing the same topic again.

I don't think it's ever a waste to write something you are passionate about, but beware that it may be years until someone else would want to make it. And the other movie can only hurt you -- if it does badly, no one will think your concept will make money and if it does well, they won't feel there's a need for yours...
 
Joined
Apr 14, 2005
Messages
11,961
Reaction score
2,070
Age
57
Location
NY NY
Does "in development" in this context mean the movie is going to be made and so I probably should just drop my idea?

Thanks.

Yes. You should IMO.

It's already out there and people of accomplishment are trying to get it done.

I think it would PROBABLY be a waste of time.

I'd come up with something original, especially for your first screenplay.