I'm on board with 'everybody's got an opinion'... and I'm okay hearing it. It takes a while to sift through exactly what part of their opinion has value. It helps if there's a certain ammount of context- AND you have more than one opinion to work through.
I used to run a screenplay group out of my home a few years back. The group was for COMPLETED screenplays. Could be first drafts, could be tenth. I ran the critique session with a timer, and everyone drew cards to determine the order - most times there were six to eight people in a group.
Everyone got EXACTLY the same ammount of time to address what they thought were the strengths and weakness of the script. (If you had format or spelling issues, they were noted on the scripts handed back.) The writer did NOT answer or address the critiques, untill after the first 'round.'
Its amazing how you'd get seemingly conflicting notes - "The villain was unbelivable' vs "I TOTALLY identified with the villain". Made you look carefully at what THAT person was bringing to the script. WHY did it resonate with THEM? Is it an issue because of their age? Gender? Culture? One man's problem is another man's solution. Also - if there was a majority of folks WITH THE SAME PROBLEM or issue - then it was a clear indication that the note was especially worthy.
You can get similar feedback by getting others to read it independently.
When I re-wrote my scripts that were optioned - I initially wanted to strangle the pro-co. "We want more of the girl's back-story" turned slowly... EVER. SO. SLOWLY into "We want the story re-written from the girls point of view". And you know what? It worked. It was a good script. I was a DIFFERENT script, but it was a good one.
From these sorts of experiences, I have learned that my job as a writer is to be able to take what seems like a LUDICROUS suggestion, and make it work. "We want a scene with the space shuttle" "But it's a 17th century script!" - Can I make it WORK?
As an architect we might be asked to change the design - From Country to Modern, reverse the plans, move this room over here... add in an extra door and fireplace. We do this, because they bought the design. AS architects, we also have to be able to say ... "NO. If you knock down that wall, the whole thing will collapse."
That's the key to accepting those critiques and 'suggestions'. Understanding what parts of your script are load-bearing, and being flexible and accomodating about suggestions because - gosh darn it - YOU'RE JUST THAT GOOD.
I've gone through a long, difficult road dealing with notes. Part of it has to do with simply a real frustration about it and simply accepting the fact (one that I have come to acknowledge as unavoidably true) that those who are giving you notes really don't read the script or the draft very carefully. Sometimes they're just skimming it. Or maybe just having their assistants read it and do notes for them.
I have been forced to accept this because I have found -- and at a certain point I really started looking for it just to be sure -- that I have yet to receive a set of notes that didn't contain at least one note instructing me to include something that was already in the draft in question.
And I'm not talking about some vague thing that's open to interpretation. I mean very specific things like, "We should see the fleet of missiles being launched" -- ignoring the fact that there's a four page scene in which the missiles are shown being launched.
And I have seen that constantly. All the time. And there was a time when I would be foolish enough to point this out to the people that were writing the notes -- "Yes, you're right. It would be a good idea to show the missiles being launched. That's why I wrote a four page scene starting on page 88, in which you can see the missiles being launched."
This never gets you anywhere. Because, no matter what, like the "customer" -- the people writing the notes are always right. What makes them right is that, in addition to writing the notes, they are also the ones writing the signature on the check -- and if they get annoyed with you, they'll write a signature on a different check to a different writer who annoys them less.
It has taken me years to figure out how to master the art of "agreeing" with a note -- and at the same time not doing it.
Because I've found that, more than anything -- that's really what they want. By agreeing with them, you are acknowledging whatever their concern is -- which may be legitimate -- in which you can actually do the note (no problem) -- or it may simply require some kind of clarification. But what it really requires -- whether it shows up in the script or not -- is acknowledgement.
One great method I've found, for instance is "lesser concern against greater concern" -- and it runs something like this, "I've been thinking about that note about establishing John's backstory. I can certainly do it -- and I agree that having that material would help us to understand where John is coming from -- but my concern is that we're already tight in the first act -- and that's really the only place that we can put it -- and you've already made the point that we need to keep that first act tight, and I completely agree with you there. I think that's really critical that we don't get bogged down. But it's really up to you. But you have to figure -- if we go with that material, it's going to add another couple pages to Act One. So -- it's up to you..."
The trick, of course, is to pick some "other concern" that you know that they really value much more than whatever it is that you don't want to do -- so that they'll go with the thing that they want more.
The argument generally works along the lines of X changes the story here in such a way that Y (the thing they like) over there, ends up being changed or lost. But you're more than happy to do it. Just so long as they understand what's at stake.
Not that X is a bad idea, mind you. But Y is so much better, you'd hate to lose it.
And there are other strategies and variations on this but it really comes down to the same thing. They're not wrong. It's a good idea, but for "reason X" -- oh, darn it -- we just can't do it. In fact, maybe I've even already tried to do it, and I couldn't make it work because of X, Y, and Z. But indeed, it was a good idea.
Because that way, instead of it being you against them, it's "us" working together, both of us trying to come up with ideas, trying to find solutions together to solve problems that we've both recogized in the script and sort of helping each other out.
Just creating that "sense" of collaboration rather than of knocking heads together can make all of the difference.
NMS
