Story OR Screenplay - The Key To Our Credits
As most of you know, the credits for the movies and television shows you see are often arbitrated by the WGA. When it comes to films, the credits are frequently divided into two categories: “story by” and “screenplay by”.
Today, I’m going to discuss what the difference between those terms actually is (as opposed to what most people think), and I’m going to talk about how arbiters should approach the extremely difficult task of not only parsing a single literary work into two components, but of assigning portions of credit in two different categories to multiple writers.
First, let’s get some terms straight. When you see that a movie has been “written by” someone (or multiple writers), that credit indicates both screenplay and story. Given that this discussion is about those instances where credit must be divided, we’ll be ignoring “written by” credit for the sake of argument. Also, if you see “screen story by”, feel free to equate it to “story by”. It’s the credit we use when a writer is adapting source material (like a novel) but has created a significantly original story for the screenplay version.
With the housekeeping out of the way, let’s take a look at how the Screen Credits Manual defines “story”:
The term “story” means all writing covered by the provisions of the Minimum Basic Agreement representing a contribution “distinct from screenplay and consisting of basic narrative, idea, theme or outline indicating character development and action.”
Okaaaaaay. That’s a bit dry. But fear not. Let’s jump ahead and look at the definition of “screenplay”.
A screenplay consists of individual scenes and full dialogue, together with such prior treatment, basic adaptation, continuity, scenario and dialogue as shall be used in, and represent substantial contributions to the final script.
Oh God. What the hell does that mean?
Don’t despair.
The credits manual makes a few additional things clear for us. First, “story” can be incorporated in the screenplay itself. That means that treatments aren’t the only material eligible for story credit, nor are they required to receive story credit.
Oh…wait…that makes it less clear, right? Because now, the arbiter must read a script and parse out what is story and what is screenplay.
The Credits Manual does give one more set of clues. When it comes to determining who gets “screenplay by” credit, arbiters must take into consideration the following elements:
- dramatic construction;
- original and different scenes;
- characterization or character relationships; and
- dialogue.
Fair enough. Let’s begin. The most important instruction to keep in mind is this (and if you’re ever an arbiter, this is the key to it all):
STORY AND SCREENPLAY ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE
No, they’re not literarily mutually exclusive. Story and screenplay work together in order to make a good script. However, when it comes to parcelling out credit for one or the other, that which is story is completely distinct from that which is screenplay.
Story consists of basic narrative, idea, character development and action.
Screenplay consists of dramatic construction, original and different scenes, characterization or character relationships and dialogue.
Let’s go into what I think those terms mean.
We’ll knock the easy ones off first.
Dialogue
Credit for dialogue must go into the screenplay pile. This doesn’t mean “credit for the meaning of the dialogue”. We’re talking about one-liners, clever phrases, individual jokes or any situation in which the dialogue in and of itself is unique and credit-worthy. For instance, Writer A might have written “Be quiet! I was ready to renew our relationship the second you showed up.” Writer B might have written “Shut up. Just shut up. You had me at hello.”
The meaning and dramatic purpose of the lines are the same, but the dialogue is different, and Writer B has just earned some points for “screenplay by”.
Idea
The idea of the movie. Obviously, this is “story”.
Original & Different Scenes
These fall under screenplay. The idea here is that, as always, screenplay credit is about execution of the underlying story. The basic subunit of story is “plot point”. The basic subunit of execution is scene. A subsequent writer can keep the same plot point (Joe must escape from Harry and bring the secret plans back to Kelly) but execute it in a completely different way (motorcycle race through rush hour instead of wearing a secret disguise and walking right past the villain…)
Now let’s look at the first of our story/screenplay dichotomies.
Basic Narrative Vs. Dramatic Construction
Basic narrative, a function of story, is the group of story events that unfold in a particular sequence. I’ll use Finding Nemo as an example, because it’s so elegantly simple.
The basic narrative of Finding Nemo is: Marlin’s wife and most of his children are killed by a predator. Marlin is raising his remaining child, Nemo, by himself. Nemo is caught by a fishing boat and taken to Sydney. While Nemo works with his fishtank mates to escape, Marlin goes on a journey to find him. He meets a forgetful friend named Dory, is challenged by sharks and jellyfish, encounters some wise turtles and then is swallowed by a whale before finally reaching Nemo. When Dory is captured by a fishing net, Marlin lets Nemo try and save her. He does, and they all live happily ever after.
All of the above is STORY. It’s a basic narrative, with plot points fixed in relation to each other. If a subsequent writer decided that the turtles should come before the sharks or that the field of jellyfish should be replaced by scene where Marlin has to beat a flounder in a swimming race, that would earn that writer some story credit points.
Dramatic construction is different. Dramatic construction defines how the basic narrative is executed. While “Nemo rescues Dory” is basic narrative, the dramatic construction of Nemo swimming into the net and urging the other fish to swim down while nearly losing his life in the process is dramatic construction. It’s SCREENPLAY. If a subsequent writer were to keep the plot point and locus of “Nemo rescues Dory” but have Nemo rescue Dory from the mouth of a barracuda, that would earn that writer some screenplay credit points.
Note that these definitions pass the “mutually exclusive” test. That which is basic narrative shall not be dramatic construction, and vice-versa.
Character (Development & Action) Vs. Characterization (and Relationships)
The other major story vs. screenplay dichotomy is character and characterization. “Character” describes the basic profile of the character, as well as his arc and plot actions. “Characterization” describes the execution of the character and the manner in which he relates to other characters. For instance, while the character of Marlin is “neurotic father who desperately searches for his son”, the characterization of Marlin is embodied in the way he gets frustrated by Dory, fumbles joke-telling around the other fish, constantly underestimates himself, etc. Let’s say, then, that Writer A creates the character of Marlin and adds the characterization that he’s flirtatious with Dory. Writer B comes along and decides that the character should remain the same (still neurotic, still searching for his son), but the characterization should change. Specifically, he should resist Dory’s charming personality, and scold her as often as possible.
Writer B has earned no story points, but has earned screenplay points.
Now that I’ve talked about the differences between the mutually exclusive category of “writing that is story” and “writing that is screenplay”, here is another handy Artful guideline for discriminating between them.
Story is material that can be completely described in a treatment. Screenplay is material that can only be completely described in script format.
I don’t know how many credit arbiters approach material with this mindset, but I hope many do. Hell, I hope they all do. However, I have a sneaking suspicion.
I worry that some arbiters mistakenly award screenplay credit for literary material that is (and can only be) contributory towards story credit. It’s easy to read Writer A’s script, then read Writer B’s script, then say, “Boy, Writer B’s script is just a version of A’s. A gets screenplay credit.” One arbiter once told me, “I just ask myself…if I saw Writer B’s movie after seeing Writer A’s movie, would I think I’d just seen a whole new movie, or just a version of the first?”
Yikes.
That’s just wrong. By confounding “story” contributions and “screenplay” contributions, the arbiter is shortchanging the participants, failing to properly determine authorship, and not judging his peers in accordance with the terms of our MBA and our Screen Credits Manual.
The Credits Manual is, by and large, a good thing, but in the months to come, I’m hoping to get a little more explanation and plain English into it. Our writers deserve arbiters who completely and intuitively understand the subtle distinctions between our credits terminologies.
God, I hope it changes. Your explanation is the best I’ve seen for the terms — and after years of writing arbitration letters, I’m damn sure very few arbitrers apply those rules (TV arbitrers are particularly shitty, based solely on anecdotal evidence). I hate having to figure out what the incredibly vague rules mean in order to frame my argument for people who probably will interpret those rules completely differently as they are … vague.
Good frikkin’ luck.
Jon:
If I don’t make it back alive, sing something pretty at my funeral…
How are arbiters chosen and who choses them?
Seems to me some regulation is needed. If you ask people to use certain guidelines and don’t enforce it, things will never change. Before reading your article, I probably would have thought the approach of the one arbiter (asking themselves the question about how they would regard the movie if both versions were shot.) to be logical. Now, I know different.
There are some minimum requirements that must be met before you’re eligible to be an arbiter, and two of the three arbiters on any given project must be “experienced”, i.e. done a couple of arbitrations before.
Frankly, I think you’re right. We’ve got precious little QA involved in the process. One of the bugaboos is that the arbiters are volunteering their time, and they are also fellow writers. It’s hard for a union to criticize or scrutinize them under those circumstances, and yet…I think that’s exactly what we ought to be doing.
I guess debacles on Miracle levels are rare, but, even so, how often does the resulting arbitration actually make sense? It always seems like kind of an adventure. Sure, you brought the penguin with the golden fleece to the princess, but it turns out she means to drain its marrow and wear its magical hide like a crown, and you didn’t see that coming.
I guess it’s consistency that’s missing. It’s OK to be confounding as long as the arbiters are always confounding in the same way. It wouldn’t be practical, but it seems like maybe there should be three people who determine the credits for every movie that comes out—and they’re elected, just like other positions.
I don’t mean to nitpick, but your example about “Finding Nemo” doesn’t seem to pass your own test.
You say that “Screenplay is material that can only be completely described in script format.”
But in one of your examples, you say that Writer B, changing the relationship between Marlin and Dory (Marlin scolds Dory instead of succumbing to her charms) earns “Screenplay” points, not story points.
But certainly the nature of the relationship between the script’s two major characters falls under “story”? And certainly that relationship could (and definitely should) be described in a treatment, albeit not in great detail.
Characterization is inherent in character. If you change the nature of a character or of his/her primary relationships, surely you have contributed to the “story”, yes? Maybe not enough to cross the screenplay/story threshold, but you’ve at least earned some “points” which, taken into consideration with other contributions, might at least nudge you in the direction of “story”…
Thoughts?
CRAIG:
I have to admit that I agree with Peter.
Over the years I have contributed a great deal to the story elements of different feature films, uncredited of course. Characterization, unfortunately for me, has more to do with story than it does with screenplay. How a character acts or reacts is still imbeded totally in story, regardless of Writer B changing Writer A’s original intent.
Here’s another example of story vs. screenplay:
Monster’s Ball.
The original screenplay had the main character depicted as a white woman. Lee Daniels, my old boss and tormentor had this idea: Make her black. Changed the whole movie. In fact, it changed most of the story. But this wasn’t screenplay changes. It was story changes. Because the fact of the matter is, Lee can’t write a screenplay to save his life. Trust me, I know. But he’s a great storyteller. One of the best.
At least, that’s how I see it.
The actual relations between the two characters is screenplay.
And don’t call me Shirley.
You can describe the relationship as “one in which Marlin is fussy about Dory’s comments,” but that’s not the same as the actual relationship, which must be viewed in screenplay form.
See?
Kevin:
Character is story. Changing a character’s race is definitely a story issue.
The ways that this change affected, say, her speech patterns, however, would be part of characterization, and that’s screenplay.
Okay. Now I think I get where you’re coming from.
The [i]relations[/i] as you say between the two characters is screenplay.
But by “relations”, you seem to be describing simply the manner in which the [i]relationship[/i] is executed.
But the defintion of the relationship IS absolutely a part of story.
All you’re saying now is (I hope/I think) is that the execution of the relationship is screenplay.
Of course. The execution of concepts in story is the defintion of screenplay.
But the nature of the relationships between characters is absolutely an inherent part of story.
The way Marlin reacts to, relates to, treats, talks to Dory are an inherent part of his character AND of the story. And would certainly be defined in a treatment, if not in great detail.
You couldn’t write a treatment for “…Nemo” and say, “And along the way, Marlin is accompanied by a silly, forgetful and friendly blue fish named Dory.” without at least touching upon how Marlin deals with that character and vice-versa.
Well, you could…but it would be incomplete.
CRAIG:
I think that saying “The actual relations between the two characters is screenplay”, may be a sweeping generalization.
It’s also confusing.
Are you saying that if Writer A wants to create a story about a male friend and a female friend and Writer B says, “I think they should fall in love”, this constitutes screenplay? I could be misunderstanding your point but if that’s what you’re saying…I respectfully disagree.
Character Relations are Screenplay? I don’t think so. In addition to screenwriting, I’m also a producer and a director. I get pitched all the time. And if someone came into my office and pitched a STORY without explaining the relations between characters, I would call security.
I do believe that the EXECUTION of relations between characters is screenplay.
And now I see how being an arbitrator could be a very lucrative job…
Peter:
First off, we use HTML tags instead of BBCode. :)
You could (and should) absolutely write a story about Finding Nemo without going into the manner in which Marlin talks to Dory. You could describe his character and character actions, i.e. he finds her annoying and disagrees with her outlook and puts her down, but you wouldn’t want to start writing the dialogue necessary to actually impart the reality of the relationship.
After all, there’s a HUGE difference between the relationship information you get from reading a screenplay, and the relationship information you get from reading a treatment.
Kevin:
You’re confusing actions with relationships. Relationship doesn’t mean “relationship” in the dating sense, but rather in the comparative and executional sense.
“Falling in love” is a character action, and thus is clearly defined as story. How that action is expressed is screenplay.
I know, it’s annoying, but when you get it, it’s very very compelling.
It’s a huge story action to say “Joe falls in love with Kira.” It’s a plot point to say that Joe falls in love with Kira by watching her dance in a ballet.
What’s screenplay is Joe watching her silently, unimpressed at first because he thinks dancing is stupid, but then he warms to it despite himself and then starts to cry. Hell, that’s bad screenplay. :) Then again, Joe might be arguing with another audience member during the dance, and then Kira stops dancing and shouts, “Hey, jerk! I’m dancing here!” And suddenly Joe thinks, “Whoa…spunky!” Lots of different ways to execute. The story…character and basic narrative…Joe falls in love with Kira at the ballet…is executed through the screenplay…the characterization of Joe in the specific scene.
CRAIG:
Aha!
I totally agree with your last post.
In fact, I was saying the exact same thing.
As I suspected, I believe we were all talking about the same thing but it got lost in the translation. But isn’t it scary how easy it is to have 3 people talking about the exact same thing and not totally know it?
And so it goes…
Kevin:
Even scarier…what if those three people were deciding whether or not you were a writer of a movie you had worked on for a year?
It seems perverse that one can snag a screenplay credit for, essentially, rephrasing a sufficient percentage of someone else’s dialogue.
I once had someone assigned to a polish on a script of mine… he changed every line whether it needed it or not, all to up his score.
Damn thing came out sounding like a school play.
Craig, two questions:
1 - if the above is true why have I heard writers like Darabont and Helgeland and Bass say that you can rewrite 90% of a script’s dialogue, but if you don’t change the structure by half, then you get no credit?
2 - Can you discuss how all this applies in television - specifically with the “Created By” credit - a separate “story by” credit is very rare in pilot television.
Craig,
I think we are in complete agreement.
Back to “Finding Nemo”…in my “Nemo” treatment, I write that Marlin is “exasperated by the incessant and upbeat prattling of his new companion, Dory.”
But I don’t go into any more detail than that. That would be writing a screenplay and would obviously fall under the “screenplay” category in terms of our discussion.
You said that it’s unnecessary to: “[go] into the manner in which Marlin talks to Dory…but…[not] writing the dialogue necessary to impart the reality of the relationship.”
Yes. Then you’d be writing the script, not simply the story.
However, I think we both agree that defining the nature of that relationship (Marlin finds Dory annoying, but they grow to become great friends) without going into great detail into how we actually show/express that on screen, is very much a part of the story.
p.s. what are html tags? ;)
Paul:
One of the reasons writers complain about the system is because they suspect (and I completely agree with them) that it’s not being followed carefully. Look at the final thoughts in my post here. That’s the problem. The arbiters may not being doing their jobs properly.
I can’t really go into depth on TV credits, because I have absolutely no experience with them. If you know someone who does, I’d certainly agree to host a guest post from them.
Stephen:
Why is it perverse that someone should be credited for the writing they do that appears on screen? Who defines “rephrasing”? You? Who defines “school play” dialogue? You? And remember, credit isn’t for quality. It’s for the literary contribution you make that actually appears on screen, for better or worse.
Finally, how the hell do you know why the subsequent writer changed every line of dialogue? Isn’t it possible that he changed it because that’s what he was hired to do? And because he thought he was making it better?
This whole “changed lines to improve their chance for credit” thing is bogus, IMO.
CRAIG:
Regarding Stephen’s comments, “? he changed every line whether it needed it or not, all to up his score.” and “Damn thing came out sounding like a school play.” shows one major problem with screenwriters, including myself.
We all think we’re the best.
Isn’t it amazing how many screenwriters complain about being rewritten and blame it on the studio, or the producer, or the director, or the egomaniacal star, or whomever, and one fact is never being taken into account? And that’s…maybe your screenplay wasn’t very good. Whenever I read a blog, an article, or a book by a screenwriter and they write about how they were fired or replaced, it’s always due to some asshole who didn’t know that they had gold in their hands. Really? Because I read a shitload of scripts a week and do you know how many are good? And I’m not just talking about specs, I’m talking about movies that are in various stages of production. Some of the time, sometimes most of the time…they stink.
I read an early draft of The Man (starring Sam Jackson & Eugene Levy). Guess what? Stunk.
Paycheck. Stunk.
Into the Blue. Stunk.
Something’s Gotta Give, Bamboozled, Minority Report. Stunk, Stunk, Stunk.
So maybe Stephen should examine why he was rewritten and not, how. If you write a tight, interesting, and narratively exciting screenplay…more than not, you won’t be rewritten or replaced.
Sorry, that’s just how it goes.
Kevin:
I guess I look at it this way.
If I’m rewritten, I’m rewritten. It may be that I did a great job and the employer doesn’t realize it, or it may be that I did a crappy job, and the employer is spot on. Either way, I clearly didn’t deliver a script that the employer wanted to spend the money on to produce.
End of discussion, really.
Happily, I haven’t been rewritten in a while. Now, that may be because I’m just so gosh-darned talented, but could it possibly be that my attitude has something to do with it?
Frankly, the next time I get fired, I’m going to blog about what I did wrong…because clearly I did something wrong.
What do I mean?
If the work circumstances are horrendous, I should simply tender my resignation. “You guys have the wrong writer. Don’t continue to employ me on this project.” If I want to stay and I still get fired, well…
…clearly I did something wrong.
Right?
“…clearly I did something wrong.”
I agree, in the sense that if I didn’t deliver a script that the employer wanted to spend the money on to produce, then I was wrong. But it doesn’t mean that my script was badly written or that it was trash. In other words, it doesn’t mean my story sense was off. Simply means that — for whatever reason — it didn’t jibe w/ the employer’s.
Mariama
CRAIG:
Right.
You have to deliver what your employer wants. You might want to write a drama about a man who loses his faith, has a conversation with God, and is granted his powers in order to find his way. But what your employer really wants is a comedy about a man who gets the power of God and parts a bowl of tomato soup. Guess you guys really aren’t on the same page, huh?
Also…
It’s always easy to forget how much personality plays into the movie-making process, including screenwriting. We work in an industry selling product. For the sake of argument, let’s just say that product is a film print. But that product doesn’t exist until someone says “Action!”. That means, for a lack of a better statement, “personality” goes a looooong way.
So it is conceivable that you’ve written a good screenplay and the producer or director could be thinking, “I just don’t like that guy.”
Usually I can tell within the first 35 seconds if I’m going to get on with someone. Most of the time you can work through it, sometimes you just can’t. Quitting, as you put it, can absolutely be the best way out of that predicament.
That way you get the opportunity to say, “You can take this job and shove it!” (Haven’t said it yet but I promise I will!)
Well, I’ll agree that we all think we’re the best… we shouldn’t be in this game if we don’t. But I’ve been hired to rewrite dialogue on other people’s scripts and never for one moment felt that I was doing a job on equal terms with the screenwriter. It would be like redecorating a house and calling myself its architect.
The ‘school play’ crack was a criticism from an observer at the table read. And it was directed at me.
STEPHEN:
Rewrites are generally not just about dialogue.
Sure, that may be the reason you are told to come on board but the real reason is usually, “There’s something wrong with this. Fix it.”
And that’s why your analogy holds a fatal fundamental flaw. Because a screenwriter that’s been hired to rewrite an existing property can very well be another architect; Changing the foundation, the theme, and the execution, while still retaining the original intent: To build a house.
You see, rewriting dialogue can be a very dangerous game of semantics. If you’re rewriting dialogue, you may also be (and correctly) changing other things in the script to accomodate this new “dialogue”. Scenes may be shifted and plot points may be added or deleted. Would you still feel like just a Redecorator? Or rather, do you feel like a Decorator is less important than the architect? After all, all houses have 4 walls. It’s what you put inside of them that counts.
Ego’s certainly come into play during a rewrite - check out Friedman’s post - “Fear of a Josh Planet” when he wrote a Martin Lawrence project -
But yes, we’re hired to write what “they” want, whether we like it or not. That’s the job, right?
Re: DIALOGUE —
Personally, I think Craig’s example is both wrong and unfair.
First, by using a line that gained a certain amount of notoriety and deconstructing it to an inferior version doesn’t really demonstrate the issue particularly well.
Second, the two lines really are just different ways of saying the same thing. No question, the “had me at hello” version is snappier, but as Craig himself points out, quality is not the issue.
A different example:
People are familiar with the line “It’s like my momma always said, life is like a box of chocolates” from Forest Gump. Fewer people know that the line in the novel was “My momma always said, life ain’t no box of chocolates” (I’m probably paraphrasing both, but the gist is right).
If you imagine that both of those appeared in different drafts of a screenplay, penned by different writers, now that would be a change in dialogue that made a significant difference to the audience’s understanding of the story as it unfolds, the characters as they are revealed in the dramatization (ie, characterization) and the relationship between the characters as demonstrated on-screen.
-
Re: DIALOGUE
TED:
“Be quiet! I was ready to renew our relationship the second you showed up.”
“You had me at hello”.
You’re right. Both of these lines say exactly the same thing. The latter is a million times better. And do you know why Craig used this as an example? Because quality is the issue.
Snappy dialogue can absolutely make a significant difference to the audience’s understanding of the story as it unfolds, the characters as they are revealed in the dramatization (ie, characterization) and the relationship between the characters as demonstrated on-screen.
Why?
Because snappy dialogue can make an audience sit up and pay attention. It makes them like relate to a character on a completely different level. It just makes the movie, well…better.
If Craig had written Jerry Maguire and kept that awful line he invented, the audience would’ve been left a little flat. Sure, the rest of the movie would’ve been great. Lord knows we’ve heard, “SHOW ME THE MONEY!!”, one too many times but “You had me at hello”, actually meant something.
What it was really saying was: “I don’t need your wordy explanation. I don’t need your rationalization. I just want you. And all I ever need to know is that you want me too.”
The point is, dialogue—words, can change everything.
So you can have: It’ll Be Okay, Just Smile.
Or you can have: Don’t Worry, Be Happy.
It’s a small change but it make all the difference in the world.
Kevin:
I agree. When I was asked to rewrite a treatment. I had to totally re-create the whole story before I even begun to write the script. I can only imajine the type of problems one can run into trying to change lines here and there. It’s definetly more knocking over a house then rebuilding it.
Hello. See that i found yesterday:
cuckold interracial [url=http://cuckoldinterracial.freesexcredo.info]Cuckold Interracial[/url]Best Regards, Hollward http://cuckoldinterracial.freesexcredo.info
This page has been extremely helpful. I now see that my former writing partner should probably be getting “story by” co-credits for our projects instead of “written by” co-credits. However, there is still one thing that confuses me. He has been a mere idea man the whole time, never getting too specific about the exact nature of our screenplays, except he has has come up with a few really good one liners. He never said exactly when they should be used in the stories. Some of the one liners were just lines he thought would be funny to use in “a movie”. I am the one who formulated the exact natures of the uses of the lines, usually deciding who should say them and always deciding at what point in a story they should be used. Does this mean our screenplays are “written by” both of us, or does it mean that he is the co-writer of the story and I am the screenplay writer? How many of such lines would it take to make the difference, if any could?