Too many cooks...

[opieh1]

This is not a bitch session. I am looking for some way to justify continuing with screenplays. Here's the deal. I have written seven screenplays, most of them after a lot of studying and reading about how it is done. None of them are going to win the Oscar, but I've read dozens of screenplays from actual movies that totally sucked. It's hard to be objective about one's own work, but I think I'm being fair when I say mine are as good as some of those dogs.

I am fortunate to know a producer for a major production company who was kind enough to read one of my scripts and then spent considerable time going over it with me. He tore it apart. He didn't say it was poorly done, only that he thought the story needed to be changed in all kinds of ways. After about forty-five minutes of this, I realized that he was only giving me his personal opinion. At least, that's what it sounded like to me.

In an earlier conversation with this producer, he mentioned a meeting he once attended regarding a script from a seasoned screenwriter. Some of the money people backing the movie were in the meeting and chimed in with their thoughts. In the original screenplay, the two protagonists were cops in LA. One of the money people, someone with no background in screenwriting, said, "Hey! How about this? They're cops in L.A., but they're on horses. Like cowboys!" Nobody in the meeting told him he was nuts because he was supplying the money. So the entire project got shot down.

My point is my producer friend was doing the same thing. In the movie-making process, there are many different people involved, and each person has their own perspective. It all becomes one big crap shoot. There are plenty of stories about writers who went to Hollywood and wound up frustrated by the process.
So my question is this. In the end, is it worth it if, ultimately, you have no power to influence the outcome?

 

[ChaseJxyz]

Welcome to the industry, baby!

When you write a book and get it trade published, your agent/editor can press for some changes, but it's going to be pretty minor stuff. They're not going to make you change the ending or have the cops ride horses. If they want to change something that major, then they're going to buy someone else's story that'll take less work.

But that's not how it goes with tv and film. Unless you are Mr Jimothy Cameron or Mr Jimmy John Abrahams, or you're one guy with a budget of $50, you are not going to be writing AND directing AND maybe also producing the movie. There are going to be a lot of other people who are going to be in charge of executing the artistic vision. And the director, ultimately, has that artistic vision. Things can and will change on the fly on the set and things can and will change in editing, too. So your story is never going to be 100% of what you see in the script.

I think the reason why a lot of writers go to Hollywood and end up frustrated by the process were people who weren't familiar with how the process even worked in the first place. It's like people who get mad that the "teenagers" in tv shows look like they're 20/30. Uh, yeah, because they are, because there's ridiculously strict rules about child actors. And that's a good thing, because it protects them. Same thing with guild hours/rules, safety rules, etc. Making a movie takes a fuckton of money and a ton of people, so there are many people whose feedback are important. The script itself is not the entire movie. The lighting is not the entire movie. The special effects is not the entire movie. Leonardo DiCaprio is not the entire movie. It's all of these things, together, that make a movie, and that's what makes movies special.

If, for you, the idea that you do not have full control of the story of the movie through the entire process is unacceptable, then you have two options:

1. Leave Hollywood and get into self-publishing books, or
2. Go full Neil Breen/Tommy Wiseau and auteur your way into making your own films

 

[Maryn]

There's a reason independent low-budget films get made, and your experience is one of them. Novelist Sue Grafton vowed after her screenplays were repeatedly butchered that she would not only stop writing for the screen but refuse to sell rights to her very successful Alphabet series (which ended at Y with her death).

Most authors don't get rich enough to be able to say, Screw you, Hollywood! So hats off to Grafton.

Have you seen David Mamet's "State and Main" with Phillip Seymour Hoffman playing the screenwriter whose story is utterly mangled? It may well speak to you. It certainly speaks for the industry's typical treatment of its writers as workers of little importance.

If you have your heart set on movies (or TV), you have two choices: spend more time and effort fundraising to produce and direct than you did writing your screenplay, or accept how Hollywood works. You've had a taste of it, but can you make it all your meals?

One thing to consider is writing for the stage. There's some overlap with screenwriting, although there are also some major differences--among them far less interference with the script.

Maryn, who doesn't write movies

 

[opieh1]

My issue isn't with artistic control. I've been on a movie set and witnessed the incredible amount of collaboration and work that the process involves. And I don't mind killing my babies. The process of choosing a script from a universe of choices seems so darn arbitrary. Plenty of rules and techniques can increase the odds of producing a good script. Still, in the end, it appears that one should pump out as many scripts as possible of whatever quality and hope an agent or somebody with influence sees one of your scripts and has a wild hair in their nether regions to do a movie about your Buddhist space alien protagonist that day.

In the medical field, we sometimes have trouble explaining a situation to a patient because they lack the background to understand it. They aren't stupid. It just isn't in their fund of knowledge. So you wind up saying, "Well, I could explain it to you, but you need a year of biochemistry, an understanding of immunology, and some time in clinical practice to decipher what the hell I'm saying." On the other hand, such an explanation can be a bullshit way to cover up one's own inability to account for one's decisions. My guess is this happens in movie-making, too (and probably in many fields)

So the question becomes whether such an inefficient (and at times arbitrary) system is inevitable and that's just the way art works, or will it be superseded by something like AI?

 

[Maryn]

(Just a heads-up that if we turn to discussion of AI, this thread needs to move to the place at AW where that's okay.)

 

[opieh1]

Didn't mean to wander off-topic. I only know enough about AI to worry that it might kill us all. No, I'm much more interested in the screenwriting process. When I read over my posts, it does sound like plain bitching. Still, I think there is a point somewhere in that mess. Maybe it's my way of working through my frustration. Do we have a psychiatry thread somewhere on this site?
What you said earlier about independent films and that whole route has always interested me, but I wrote an entire book about business failure, so probably shouldn't go down that path again. Do you think new models, such as crowdfunding, will become more important in the future? It seems many industries are dealing with decentralization. Making movies can't be immune to that.

 

[ChaseJxyz]

The process of choosing a script from a universe of choices seems so darn arbitrary. Plenty of rules and techniques can increase the odds of producing a good script.

Not really, considering the big studios/producers literally have a formula for what makes a successful movie. The inciting incident has to happen on this page, which means this minute in the movie. They use specific actors, directors, focus on specific things in the marketing, release the film at a specific time. Like they kept pushing back Avatar 2 because they wanted it to dominate Christmas again but Disney kept putting Star Wars movies and Fox knew they couldn't compete with that. And the ol "fuck you it's January" where they dump the crap they expect to make no money.

When they pick a script, they're picking what they believe can turn into a movie that can sell. That doesn't necessarily mean good writing or unique concepts. See: every single Hallmark Christmas movie ever.

In the medical field, we sometimes have trouble explaining a situation to a patient because they lack the background to understand it. They aren't stupid. It just isn't in their fund of knowledge. So you wind up saying, "Well, I could explain it to you, but you need a year of biochemistry, an understanding of immunology, and some time in clinical practice to decipher what the hell I'm saying." On the other hand, such an explanation can be a bullshit way to cover up one's own inability to account for one's decisions. My guess is this happens in movie-making, too (and probably in many fields)

Medical stuff isn't all that hard, though? You don't need to know the exact chemistry of internal combustion to know how to work a car. And you don't need to know the exact biochemistry to know what the hell is wrong with you or how a medicine is going to fix it. I can explain to you why wet wound healing is better for tattoos in a sentence or two and you don't need to know anything fancy or advanced because I'd simplify it to something you innately know (which is "open wounds hurt, bodies heal themselves").

The same thing would be true of movie making, too. "We're picking the thing we believe will make us the most money." "How do you know that?" "We have thousands of movies that we can study and find patterns and do those things." "Oh okay." But it's when you have to get into the nitty-gritty details do you need to go into detail and put a lot of explainers.

Like look at Elon Musk, he's good at looking smart, but whenever he talks about specifics about programming or dev ops or trust and safety is is painfully obvious he is a fucking idiot and doesn't know anything. But he is a "nanomanger" and wants to be elbows-deep in everything, so he NEEDS to know these details. But if he only has to hear the high-level overviews of things, then you can word it in a way he'd understand it. I imagine most movie producers don't give a shit about what diegesis is but it doesn't matter for the things they need to know.

So the question becomes whether such an inefficient (and at times arbitrary) system is inevitable and that's just the way art works, or will it be superseded by something like AI?

Movies, unfortunately, are mostly not an artform anymore. They are a product for people to consume. So the people who are setting the budgets are making business decisions, not artistic ones.

Yes, there are movies out there that are still artistic. Look at Cronenberg's "Crimes of the Future" (budget 27M box office 4.6M) or Skinamarkink (budget 15k box office 2.1M). But there's a reason there's no Skinamarink billboards or Crimes of the Future funko pops.

There's going to be movies that are written using AI, of course. They'll still have to bring in SOMEONE to edit it and make it sensical and fix the things the director/producers tell them to fix. It'll save them money, but I don't think it's gonna be a lot of money. Especially since most movies cost $50-$100M nowadays, paying ~$100k for a script is a drop in the bucket. It would make more sense to use AI for seat-filler extras or special effects. Or a headlining actor. Not having to give them their own trailer and paying their much-bigger salary would save them a lot of money. But saying "this is the first movie written by AI!" will be a little marketing nugget that'll net them some press, and that'll be the real value they're going after.

 

[opieh1]

This is why I love this site. So much to learn. Lots of smart people who can answer questions. ChaseJxyz responded with an intelligent, informative explanation. Maryn too. Thank you. So many writing sites seem to be full of people with fragile egos and little to add to the conversation. So far, this isn't like that. If the rest of the forums are like this, I'm gonna love coming here. I will try to be a good listener. Maybe someday I'll get that Oscar for original screenplay (lol).

 

[Maryn]

Is it too early to start name-dropping? Oh, I knew opieh1 when they were just getting started!

For the record, a friend I made at a screenwriting site, now defunct, has done four or five of those Hallmark Christmas movies we all joke about. (I watched two and deemed it sufficient. I shall politely say they're Not For Me.) He tells me the studio execs are so unlike others that even though these movies are not his first choice for screenplays he's eager to write, the people are a pleasure to work with and the money's not bad at all. (I saw pix of his new house and he's apparently doing just fine.)

Maryn, who couldn't write a sweet movie, period

 

[Anonymouse]

It all becomes one big crap shoot. There are plenty of stories about writers who went to Hollywood and wound up frustrated by the process.
So my question is this. In the end, is it worth it if, ultimately, you have no power to influence the outcome?

I am not a screenwriter, nor do I aspire to be one. However, even big-named authors have dealt with the vagaries of the film industry.

Neil Gaiman wrote a story that encapsulated his experience with Hollywood in the 90's called "The Goldfish Pool and Other Stories" It's a long meander through an author who's working on adapting his book to the silver screen and all the ridiculousness that ensues. (It's also so much more than that, and it subverts so many Hollywood Tropes)

 

[opieh1]

Is it too early to start name-dropping? Oh, I knew opieh1 when they were just getting started!

For the record, a friend I made at a screenwriting site, now defunct, has done four or five of those Hallmark Christmas movies we all joke about. (I watched two and deemed it sufficient. I shall politely say they're Not For Me.) He tells me the studio execs are so unlike others that even though these movies are not his first choice for screenplays he's eager to write, the people are a pleasure to work with and the money's not bad at all. (I saw pix of his new house and he's apparently doing just fine.)

Maryn, who couldn't write a sweet movie, period

Yeah, they churn those Hallmark movies out like they're making M&M's. But for a house? Sure. I'd do it.

 

[opieh1]

I am not a screenwriter, nor do I aspire to be one. However, even big-named authors have dealt with the vagaries of the film industry.

Neil Gaiman wrote a story that encapsulated his experience with Hollywood in the 90's called "The Goldfish Pool and Other Stories" It's a long meander through an author who's working on adapting his book to the silver screen and all the ridiculousness that ensues. (It's also so much more than that, and it subverts so many Hollywood Tropes)

thanks. I will read it.

 

[BronzeRadio]

So... here's my opinion on script writing.

The closest I ever came to writing scripts was freelancing some jokes for the New York based late night shows, but I've had several plays produced and came "Close" to getting a major musical produced a few times.

So the problem with script writers is that they are the most overcrowded part of the entire industry. What the industry always needs is good below the line people. If you're a good gaffer, rigger, grip, or makeup artist it's not that hard to break into the industry and earn a decent living because there are so many productions that need good people who are easy to work with and fairly small pool of those people.

The below the line people execute someone else's vision, which is why they have value, and here's where writers get into trouble. Both Hollywood and Broadway have a glut of people with visions, directors, writers, DP, other top of line creative types, and the goal of the writer, if you want to be successful is to get someone to buy into your vision. Your job isn't to write an amazing script, it's to get people with money or sway invested in your vision, and that's incredibly difficult.

The advice I got back in the day that I wish I had taken is that if you want to be a successful scriptwriter the easiest way to do that is to solve someone's problem, and the best way to do that is to get into a writer's room on a TV show. There are so many TV shows that need writers that you are solving someone's problem if you show up and can craft a good 45 minutes of television as a writer or a story editor. That allows you to make the connections that you need in order to get people invested in you, and invested in your vision.

An example I can give of this is Naren Shanker. he stated off as a writer for Star Trek. He had a hand in writing 30 Star Trek: TNG episodes and that gave him the connections and skills to become a producer on Farscape, one of my favorite shows, and show runner for The Expanse, another favorite of mine and was a passion project of his. He was an EP on the original CSI, which I'm sure made him a ton of money. All of that started in the Star Trek writer's room.

Almost all of my plays I got produced was because I was an artist working in orchestras/bands, for a number of musicals and befriended other artists who lead me to opportunities.

So my advice is this, if you want to get a script produced find a way to solve other people's problems, because it is very hard to break into Hollywood from a distance.

This is just my opinion.

 

[opieh1]

What a great post. So many times, when a problem is articulated, people respond with pure speculation. (I was tempted to say they pull it out of their ass, but that would be snarky.) In most cases, I suspect these people are looking at the wrong things to explain the problem and its solution. This is because most of us don't know diddly about any particular subject. I had one of my characters make the statement that most of us know two facts about any particular subject, and one of those facts is surely wrong. Thank you so much for your post because it comes across as very genuine and written by someone who has been in the trenches and knows of what they speak.