Development Heaven

i feel that this type of scenario will emerge in the forthcoming digital scene, albeit on a smaller scale than the current studios. and it will, strangely enough, be driven by economics.

with better quality digital production tools becoming more available almost monthly, there is going to be less of that barrier of “films cost millions, so we each have to sell to a studio and let them sort it all out”. my feeling is that smaller groups will club together to have sufficient production facilities to be able to make movies end to end. these facilities will then be used between their members on a basis similar to time share. these people will probably be needing to all work on deferment and working together to make their projects happen. this will, by it’s very nature, create closer working procedures between like minded individuals.

of course, as is human nature, eventually each group will be destroyed by ego, jealousy etc, but by that stage they will have something to show for themselves and that will help them hook up with more compatable long term partners.

as to writers and directors: here in the uk, they tend to work together much more than in the states, which has both an up side and a down side. the up side is they tend to make very good, intelligent films. the down side is the average punter doesn’t really want an intelligent film. they just want something to fill in their friday night/weekend/whatever. whilst i’m all for more intelligent films (i honestly feel insulted by some movies these days) the reality is you have to provide what the people want, simply in order to pay for the next film you want to make.

striking that balance - that’s the thing. and that’s the thing that i hope future digital studios will be able to provide.

A few thoughts on development heaven from an outside perspective to your industry, but having served several clients with product development problems:

Foster The Creative Nucleus One of the most essential aspects of developing a complex product: be it a car, a semiconductor, or a movie; excellent product development hinges upon anticipating production problems (cost over-runs, resource availablity, etc.), and the best way to avoid such problems is with the broad view a cross displinary team brings. So look at the Screenwriter as the Design Engineer, and the Director as Manufacturing, and you’ll be able to point to many industries to support your view on this, Craig.

Many, many, many.

Unify And Improve The Notes A good idea that doesn’t solve the problem. You need to unify your “Eat What You Kill” with this for it to be effective; specifically, development milestones/hurdles/go-stop points must be tied to each feedback cycle. In other words, you need to create a reward/penalty for “the team” at each milestone stage, otherwise, you’re still in development churn.

BTW, be prepared for difficulty in accepting this stage of the development process by “the team,” because you’re asking the creatives to be held accountable for their work to generate a result.

Make Good Writers Part Of The Family Gee, a full employment act for Screenwriters? You asking for a pay-cut, Craig, or should you be paid freelance rates for steady work?

Just playing, Craig.

While this is a fun idea within this circle I don’t see it being relevant; quite simply, what creative part of the movie process isn’t insecure?

Director?

Performing artist?

Music composer?

. . .

:-)

Ya know, Lee is on to something here. I have managed IT projects (as part of my day job) and there is a very defined structure (of course)…deliverables, milestones, critical paths. When a project is started, it has a ‘Project Authorization Request’, which is basically a proposal for the project (Example, setting up a help desk) and includes the budget (capital cost), the scope of the project, resource requirements (labor and materials) and the projected timeline. I don’t have a clear idea of how movies are managed as projects (do they use Project management software to keep track of progress?)

It seems to me that most films get greenlit without the PAR, just like some people try to write screenplays without an outline. Some are successfully completed. If a large multi-million dollar project were started without a PAR and a clear set of deliverables, the project would quickly bloat and become unmanageable. I’m guessing this is what happens to a lot of films too…

With all due respect, Craig, hoarding is good for writers.

If the only scripts that got bought were scripts headed immediately for a greenlight or a “fast track”, then the studio would only buy 10-15 scripts a year.

And we’d have a lot more unemployed/broke writers out there!

As abhorrent as situations like 30 writers for Flintstones or Hulk can get, “development hell” keeps writers working!

The current system works great for writers. You can be a working writer in this town and not have anything made for years. I personally know a few people like that and it’s amazing to witness. They get scripts bought, are paid for rewrites, and then get caught in development hell. The checks keep coming though and although they wish they could finally break through and get their work produced, they’re not complaining too much.

I think it’s a great hustle for writers, and the way the system is set up writers need every hustle they can get. If the system were improved the number of working writers would drop. Although salaries may increase, that would help the elite segment at the top that continually gets work.

As Peter and Cinque point out, improving development hell is not in the interest of all writers. There is no way around it: decreasing Work In Process inventory (development screenplays) decreases studio costs at the expense of the writers who tend to that inventory.

And this is what’s so interesting about Craig’s suggestion: why would a leader of a union which benifits from a production inefficiency suggest such a move? Does this not make him a shill for the evil studios? Especially when he writes an article about how the evil suit doesn’t exist?

The last two questions are how Craig - and WGA leadership which supports cleaning up development - will be attacked. And it’s sad for there’s real money to be made for the union by trading increased production efficency (bad for writers who want a paycheck for producing nothing) against picking up more backside revenue from things like DVD sales (good for writers who want a paycheck for producing something).

This is a classic union battle. From examining other industries, progressive unions work with employers to decrease costs due to inefficent production, in exchange for a larger portion of the overall pie, whereas regressive unions pitch everything as a zero sum game where the membership only gets fucked as the pie shrinks for all.

Which side do you want to be on?

Craig and other working writers-

To what extent does ANY of this exist?

While this is all “pie in the sky,” it’s not completely make-believe. Just like your relationship with Bob Weinstein, just like John August and Tim Burton, etc, there are pockets of these sorts of things here and there.

There has to be studios/prodcos that are best at doing some of these things, just as some are worse. Any insight?

RED

Craig and other working writers-

To what extent does ANY of this exist?

While this is all “pie in the sky,” it’s not completely make-believe. Just like your relationship with Bob Weinstein, just like John August and Tim Burton, etc, there are pockets of these sorts of things here and there.

There has to be studios/prodcos that are better at doing some of these things, just as some are worse. Any insight?

RED

To the point of the essay, this would very much describe Development Heaven. You not only receive compensation for your work, but get to see your work improved and made through a nurturing, exciting, creative process. Hey, we’re talking heaven here, after all!

It’s more of a “what if” discussion, not an industry proposal. I’d love to not have a day job, write at home from 9 to 5, have time for hobbies and not worry about eating and staying warm in winter. That has no foundation in my reality. But I still enjoy a brief foray into “what if”. Especially when experience a particularly trying day at the job.

Development Hell does keep the money flowing, and is the reality we live in. But for so many, they must live with the frustration of never seeing their work on the screen. Or, they live with the frustration of seeing their work butchered on the screen.

If I could choose between the two, I’d rather work in development heaven myself.

PS: I’d have to add that my tiny corner of Development Heaven would include encouraging the discovery of new talent — writers, directors, musicians, actors — the whole gamut. (This falls a bit in the nurturing creative nucleus category.)

I think Peter and Cinque and Lee are all correct.

The fact is that the more inefficient the system, the better the system is for writers en masse.

And Lee’s also correct—the paradox is that the better things are for writers en masse, the worse they tend to be for writers en single (probably not a valid French expression, but whatever).

That was sort of the sneaky point of my last sentence. :)

D-Heaven sounds quite a bit like pre-1948 Consent Decree.

Thanks, Craig, for another insightful essay. The thing that strikes me as the core is that your ideas are not only about making development a more functional process but about making better movies. That’s what results from making a place for the writer as a core member of the filmmaking team. That’s incredibly important.

For those who argue that it’s somehow great for writers to grind away forever, getting paid but never seeing their work on screen… well, I don’t know any writers who think that way, whether they’ve been produced yet or not. It is indisputably important to make a living, but of course that isn’t the end of it. We are all trying to get movies made… good movies. That’s why we’re here, not to perpetrate a scam that takes advantage of corporate inefficiency.

As to the union question, it’s in our direct interest to make our industry as healthy and functional as possible… indeed, to insure its survival. And then to fight like hell to participate fully in that success.

Thanks, Craig.

Miles:

Are you saying that’s a bad thing or a good thing for writers? I think I could argue it either way.

Jon

We don’t say “en single” but “en particulier”. And we rather say something with “globalement” or “en général”, “dans l’ensemble” instead of “en masse”.

Thank you for your great blog, by the way : I just love it.

Jon, I agree with you. I just think it’s kind of interesting if we come full circle. One could argue that “old Hollywood”, i.e. D-Heaven already exists - in terms of output, “filmic” quality/direction, and collaboration, HBO shows seem to follow the model. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’ve heard that HBO and cable writers earn less than their broadcast and film brethren - but if the show is a hit, certainly aren’t suffering. Which, of course, goes back to earlier points about individual vs. en masse. Fundamentally, it’s all about risk-sharing and the major component that upsets the balance of risk in feature films (and the most disproportionate difference between pre-1948 Hollywood and now) is star salary.

Froggy:

THANK YOU. You know, I actually tried solving that one by Googling “opposite of en masse”, but that was fruitless.

Okay, so “en particulier” it is, and…hmmm…”dans l’ensemble” sounds good too.

Merci, and I’m glad you enjoy the site. :)

A shorter expression of Development Heaven:

P I X A R

;-)

REACHING FOR DEVEL HEAVEN

Before I start let me just say that I DON’T know what I’m talking about with what follows. I’m just going to lay out my impressions of “how it is”, in the hope that the parts that’re waaay off the map can be dissected ‘n corrected. That said…

People often talk about film being “a director’s medium”, and it seems to me that it probably is, but, seeing as how it’s producers that hire directors, I gotta ask, is it perhaps more important for writers to be thinking about what producers they approach with specs, and/or look to for building relationships with that will lead to assignments?

I.e., if you want to avoid devel hell, know who you’re selling to or taking a job from, and if they’re not on the same wavelength you are with the project, Pasadena, or take the money and put up?

I agree with the idea that writers and directors should be teamed, but it seems to me that as things stand now, writers have no control over that at all, and probably shouldn’t. After all, how many writers can spend the time required to know which directors are right for which stories, and which are available to work on a story even if they are “right” for it?

On the other hand, every writer does in fact have complete control over who they take work to, or accept assignments from. Sure you don’t “get your pick” of anyone you want to work with. For one thing they have to want to work with YOU, and they (producers), have a lot more choices of which writers they want to deal with, but every writer does have the power of the NO. Now I don’t want to overstate that point. There are very real consequences to exercising any power, including the power of the ‘ol NO. Bills don’t get paid if you don’t have alternatives to turn to, and, often what seems like a deal that should be walked away from ain’t.

(I’m thinking at this point of something Derek posted recently) -

“So the president of Universal called and asked us if we would like to write the sequel to the FATF. We said ‘no.’ We had not seen the first one, and we just didn’t want to write a big, dumb action movie. Our agents called and said, ‘you don’t understand, this is like the Godfather asking you for a favor.’”

The thing is, I think what Derek and Mike did was EXACTLY the right thing to do.

“So Uni screened Rob Cohen’s movie for us and when we got to the end, we had an idea for where the story could go. We talked to Neal Moritz (producer) and Scott Stuber (pres. at Uni), told them our ideas in about ten minutes, and they said, ‘go write that.’”

I.e., once it was determined that their “bosses to be” were on the same wavelength with the project that they were, saying “yes” put ‘em in a position where no doubt the worst of any “devel hell” was precluded.

Not only that, but this I think is telling -

“We were lucky enough that the draft was very well received by Universal… so much so that Stacey Snider and Scott gave us a blind deal for our next script.”

Lucky? Or smart? Was it really “luck” that “the draft was very well received”? Or was it “very well received” because Mike and Derek were working for people on the same wavelength they were on to begin with?

Suppose for a moment things hadn’t gone that way. Suppose that, after the screening at Uni of TFATF, and their ten minute pitch of where the story could go they hadn’t gotten “Go write that”, but instead “We were thinking more like… (fill in the blank with a much shakier direction for the project to take)”, or something else that led Mike and Derek to believe that Neal and Scott just weren’t on the same page they were. At that point they’ve got a choice (and any writer does). Pass (and accept living on a diet of Cheerios and pancakes for a while), or sign, (knowing full well that what you’re signing onto is a deluxe tour of all “devel hell” has to offer).

In other words, avoiding a trip into devel hell relies first and foremost on a writer’s ability to sus out what the producer’s “vision” of a film is, and what they’re looking for?

First time poster, so be gentle:) The problem I see with Development Heaven is that it will revert to Development Hell by default. Say, for example, the studio does 15 movies a year and only buys the scripts that it intends to make. Eventually some great scripts will come along that the studio really wants to be in on and buys, even though it’s slate of 15 films is already full. Soon, the studio will have bought it’s full slate of scripts for the next 5 or more years. Then it seems to me that they will shuffle the scripts they see as the most likely to succeed to the front. Thus, your script might have been bought for production in their second year but you get pushed to the third, or fourth, fifth, etc,. In any case, I’d kill just be be in development hell:)

Neil

Miles, HBO is a very good example of development heaven. Based on my own experience working for them, their business model is to (a) know exactly what they want, (b) hire talented people who share their visions, and (c) let them do their jobs. It’s no wonder HBO is (or at least was, last time I knew) the most profitable network in the US. It’s just odd to me that more people don’t copy their business model.

That said, HBO is notoriously stingy. They know that creative people will work cheaply in exchange for creative freedom, and they exploit that to the hilt. I suspect the show I was on had the highest Number Of Emmies To Combined Salary Cost Ratio of any show on TV…