south to the border?

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?

'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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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?