The Myth Of The First Martyr...I Mean...Writer
Oh, me…I’ve talked before about an apparently intractable schism in the professional writing community—one on side you’ve got so-called “first writer advocates”, and on the other side, you have so-called “rewriters”.
Putting aside the relative sloppiness of those names, I’ve decided to lower my lance and tilt firmly at one of the most persistent and inaccurate myths of screenwriting.
The “first writer” does not necessarily do anything special or more difficult than subsequent writers on a project.
Going first isn’t harder. Going first isn’t special. Going first doesn’t earn you a halo or a special place in writer heaven for your sacrifice.
Going first is just…going first.
The martyrous argument sounds a bit like this. “Nothing is harder than the initial act of creation. The first writer faces a blank page, and the first writer creates a world out of nothing. Any writer brought in to revise the first writer is working from a head start. They’re standing on the shoulders of the first writer. Rewriting isn’t real writing…it’s something lesser and derivative.”
Bullshit.
I say this as a writer who has done both. I’ve written originals and I’ve rewritten other writers. There is no correlation between chronology and difficulty or effort.
There are many instances in which a company commissions or purchases an original screenplay and then determines that little beyond the basic idea is worth saving. At that point, a subsequent writer may be brought in to do a “page one rewrite”, in which everything is reimagined. Having done a few of those, I will argue that page one rewrites are more difficult than writing originals. Why?
First, consider the nature of the first writer’s generous grant to the subsequent writer—the idea.
Having an idea doesn’t take effort, nor does it earn you any spiritual or professional regard. Ideas are worthless. Literally. They are not intellectual property. They are not possessable. They are not creditable.
The process of creating a fictional narrative from an idea is writing.
The original writer “has” an idea (and it’s not really original…seriously…find me an idea that no one’s already used in some form or another, and I’ll buy you a car) and then writes a narrative. The owner of the narrative says “this is bad” and hires someone else to fashion a new narrative.
That writer faces the exact same task as the first writer, with one slightly daunting difference: he has less creative freedom. He’s not free to make some of the bad choices that the first writer made. In fact, unlike the first writer, the second writer is aware that there are certain mine fields to be avoided at all costs.
Think that makes writing easier? Nope. It’s harder. It’s useful information, but the task becomes more difficult when you can’t take one or more of the readily apparent or easy paths the first writer was free to wander down.
Still, the first writers will say that the second writer has the subconscious gift…the advantage…of the first writer’s work. The first writer’s work necessarily spawns some kind of narrative “rolling start” that the second writer can use.
That would be a very convincing argument…if the first writer hasn’t read any books or seen any movies or television shows in his life.
We all have a rolling start when we write. The very nature of screenplay is grounded in the collective story sense we all carry in our heads, be it by instruction or genetic code. We constantly crib from mythology, from the Bible, from movies, from plays. My approach to writing an “original” draft is absolutely no different than my approach to a page-one rewrite.
Same process. Same effort.
Entirely different reward.
Ted and I had lunch today, and he told me a funny story that revolved around the phrase “post hoc ergo propter hoc”.
Yes, we have odd lunches.
Anyway, when it comes to screenplays, it seems that many people hold the fallacy of post scriptum ergo scriptum deterioris.
“After the screenplay…therefore a lesser screenplay.”
By the by, if anyone knows Latin, let me know if I’ve gotten the syntax correct.
First writer advocates may carry this slogan into their battle with rewriters, but the only writers they’re hurting are themselves, of course. By classifying rewriting as a lesser process, they’re giving away a secret about their own work process, and the news isn’t good. Rewriting can be, and often should be, just as difficult and demanding and important as the first draft. Only writers can be so odd as to think that a page filling process is superior to a page changing process.
If you have problems getting to the end of your screenplay, that might be true…but that’s not my problem. It’s your problem, and I don’t like be punished or discounted because you think filling pages is harder than deleting the whole mess of them and starting again.
Post scriptum ergo scriptum novum.
After the screenplay…therefore a new screenplay.
So climb down from the cross, wouldja, my fellow first writers?
Hmmm.
I saw you palm that card.
Here’s what it’s called…
It’s called - If the first script sucks, THEN.
And yes, you said so in your writing.
But if the first writer’s script is good - as it damn well should be - or she/he should never have put it out there - then the cheese stands alone.
In other words, I only agree with you if the first script sucks and you’re doing a page one rewrite, basically only keeping the idea.
If you’re keeping the story, a good chunk of the structure, and more or less only doing a polish… then in my view, the first writer deserves special consideration. Because you’re late to the party, and playing in a world you didn’t invent, even if you’re creating in it, and expanding on it.
If the original story’s good, the first writer wins. If the original story blows, the second writer rules.
Onae orseway hantae igpae atinlay.
As for the difficulty of rewriting vs first writing, I suspect that this is the same argument as the “Is it harder to write or rewrite?” argument. Or the “Is it harder to play chess or juggle?” argument. Different people are better at different tasks, whether the field be writing or street performance.
I’ve done page one rewrites, and I’ve done first drafts. I find page one rewrites quite a lot easier. There are a million ways to go with the first draft. With a rewrite, if you’re trying to keep what’s good about the original draft, you have maybe two or three sensible ways to go to improve what’s there. Yes, if you’re chucking out everything the first writer did, it’s just as hard, but only in that case.
Another thing to consider is the effort involved. The first draft may have taken six months to two years of tinkering and pondering and writing and reworking. Unless the writer is a name, he probably wrote it on spec. The rewriter has guaranteed money coming to him, and he’s probably writing with some kind of deadline. So he’s forced to spend less time, too. The last script I rewrote I had five weeks to do my thing. I wound up with the same amount of credit as the woman who structured the thing and created the characters over the course of, I dunno, six months to a year.
If not for the joy of creating my own thing, and the credit, I’d stay away from first drafts like the plague. Dollars per hour, rewrites are the way to go.
This is a really interesting topic but I’m not so sure there’s a clear cut right answer.
I’ve also written original screenplays and I rewrite as well. So which one is harder?
Uh…they’re about the same.
One of my screenplays took me about 2 1/2 weeks to write. Till this day, I think it is one of the best things I’ve ever written. All of the characters just flew into my head and I just couldn’t stop writing. It was to say the least, easy.
Another original of mine, the one I’m going to direct has taken me 7 years to write. And it still needs a rewrite. I’m in a constant state of hell and most of the time I want to kill myself. Needless to say, this one is hard as shit.
Now on the other side of the coin I recently did a rewrite on some action thingy. It was easy as hell. It’s kind of like Moonlighting meets Die Hard (woo, that sounds bad). Most of the structure stayed the same. I basically made the female character a lot less annoying. Was it easier than writing an original?
ABSOFUCKINGLUTELY.
Basically, it’s all different. Some writing assignments are pretty easy, some are pretty hard. Same as writing originals. Exploring a definitive answer is ludicrous.
But then again there are other factors that make rewrites very difficult. Rotating producers and studios make rewriting a screenplay almost impossible. Remember that cute little book about that curious, bicycle riding monkey? From what I understand there’s been about 18 screenwriters on the project and they’ve been trying to get this movie off the ground for the last 14 years. I’m guessing that this was a very hard movie to get right, if it is “right” even now.
So guess what? Writing is hard. Writing is easy. ToMayto. ToMahto.
I would think that rewriting is slightly easier, if only because the first writer has already figured out some of the things that don’t work for the idea at hand… so that you don’t have to.
However, the degree to which this makes things easier is pretty much insignificant — in fact, it doesn’t make it easier, it just makes it take less time, since you no longer have to bother exploring those avenues. (Or at least, you know how to explore them better than the first guy did.)
But then maybe you need to explore that territory again with your own writing, for one reason or another, so… ultimately, I think it’s an academic distinction. Or it would be, if people weren’t trying to base credits and residuals off whether you were a first writer or a rewriter, rather than your contribution to the final product…
Craig— your comments have swayed the mind of someone prejudiced toward the first-writer. You didn’t have me at hello, but reading the post makes me reconsider my thoughts.
The main thing I would bring up, and another commenter briefly touched on it, is that the first-writer has already gone through a much longer process of rewriting their first draft, so thus they are both a first writer and a rewriter.
What I like about the notion of writing as “creation” is the opportunity to use that blank page to express something about yourself and your world view (as artists should). Rewriting can become this too, yes, but it’s more likely to just be a job. Then again first writing can be just as disconnected if you start with an idea that you yourself aren’t invested in, but think others might like.
I really appreciate your writings on writing— I’m a long time lurker-fan.
Andrew:
Thanks for reading!
My response to Alex is that he’s sort of hit upon the crux of the “time spent” issue when he brings up the notion of the deadline.
Spec writers can take as long as they’d like to write their draft. A page-one rewriter typically has six to ten weeks (no matter what their contract says)..
I’d argue that the length of time the spec writer takes isn’t a sign of more work or harder work…but rather, the same work done at a more leisurely pace. The spec writer has a luxury the rewriter is almost never afforded.
Alex puts it in terms of dollars per hour, but since we’re talking about effort and work, I’d rather view it in terms of pages per day. The rewriter gets paid more per hour because he gets a lot more done in each of those hours…and for good reason.
He has to. :)
Again, I think the rewriter has it worse in this way, but since I’ve got you leaning a bit, I’ll stop pushing it. :)
I have to agree with Chuck. They’re fundamentally different tasks.
First writers have an incredibly difficult job because they need to choose one out a trillion different ways to go in developing and then telling their story. In context, the lack of restrictions actually makes the job harder.
Rewriters have an incredibly difficult job because as you mentioned, they are restricted to working more or less within the framework the first writer developed. In this context, the presence of restrictions makes the job harder.
Both different. Both hard.
I think many writers will agree that the rewriting process of their own screenplays is infinitely more challenging than the outlining process or first draft. Unless someone else is doing it. Then suddenly rewrites become bullshit. Hmm?
Admittedly, I would feel the same way as the first marty… uhh, writer.
I only have experience in re-writing my own stuff so I have no frame of refence for how difficult rewriting someone else’s work might be. Although, like many things in the screenwriting world, it’s an experience I hope to have. Thanks for making the distinction, Craig!
I think that beyond the issue of who really writes and who doesn’t ( something that can’t be resolved anyway ), there is the insidious effect the entire rewrite practices have on writers as a group.
Studio and union propaganda might give the impression that rewriting another writer is okay, but it’s really not. It’s a Hollywood fallacy. Do you see anyone rewriting playwrites? Yet, contrary to propaganda, it is as much a collaborative media as films is and uses many of the same crews.
The WGA is the only writers union I’m aware of that gives free reign to producers. The other members of the IAWG, including the WGC, prohibits rewrites by anyone other than the original writer without approval by the original writer. No one can change his script, not the producers, not the director, no one.
Not only is it divisive, but it betrays the essence of creative writing and the respect writers have earned for centuries. I could go on, but you get my point.
I understand why the producers would defend this practice, but a writers union?
Daniel L
Have to agree with Alex.
There is however one situation in which being the first writer isn’t harder than being the rewriter. If the first draft is a generic kind of story then, yes, it doesn’t take that much more work than rewrites.
But if you write Twelve Monkeys or Seven or 8MM or Back to the Future, it’s an entirely different issue. It’s a hell of a lot of work to prepare for and then write a script of this caliber. We’re talking of years. I’ve had to opportunity to talk to David and Janet Peoples and they said it took years of work to write Twelve Monkeys. Same for Unforgiven.
Now, if the first writer write a carbon copy of a carbon copy, which is typical of the kind of writing we see, then I agree with Craig that the first writer doesn’t have it harder. Or to put it in another way, has it as easy as the writers that follow him.
Daniel L
rewriting is the soul of the process
rewriting is the soul of the process
It is the soul the process. That’s what great first writers do. They rewrite until their scripts fully express their visions. And that takes a whole lot more work than what a rewriter does. We’re not talking about a draft or two here. Not withstanding exceptions, great scripts, not generic scripts, but great scripts are the result of five, ten, maybe more major rewrites by the original writer. How can anyone equate qualitatively or quantitatively that kind of work and commitment with the rewrites by following writers?
DL
The WGA doesn’t give free reign to producers. The U.S. doesn’t recognize droit moral, and the U.S. has work for hire laws.
Your issue isn’t with the Guild. It’s with U.S. copyright law.
As for playwrights, you haven’t been reading the blog carefully enough. Use the search function for “Oh, So That’s Why We’re Not Treated Like Playwrights”
Daniel L:
There is one major reason why some screenplays are rewritten.
The idea of the story is sound but the screenplay stinks.
No conspiracy. No fallacy.
If I option a script for production, I want it exactly the way I want it. That’s why I spent the money. If you don’t like it, don’t option your screenplays. Make the film yourself, which is probably not a bad idea if you have desires to direct.
Never forget this: Most screenplays are NOT Chinatown. They are not The Godfather. They are Batman & Robin. They are Showgirls. If the original writer can fix the problems in their screenplay, GREAT. If they can’t, I will hire somebody else who can. That’s all.
“There is one major reason why some screenplays are rewritten.
The idea of the story is sound but the screenplay stinks.”
Not necessarily true - though you’re not wrong, you seem be saying that this is the ONLY reason screenplays are rewritten - really, there are many reasons, and your above point may not even be the primary reason they are rewritten (‘cause let’s face it, some stinky scripts DO make it to screen, many of which have several writers listed in the credits).
What other reasons are there? They are rewritten because a different actor is cast, a new director came on board, because they have three months until the production starts and there’s nothing better to do, because they’re filming in Canada rather than New Zealand, because a star has a writer he or she likes to work with, there are a lot of reasons screenplays get rewritten.
I think the primary reason screenplays are rewritten is because they are there.
Don’t get me wrong - rewriting is MOST important in any writing arean, film, fiction, theatre, sports column - but rewriting for rewriting’s sake is not rewriting - there needs to be a goal behind it, and endgame (or exit strategy, if you will) - it seems to me that many films, when written by committee, fall short of that (I say this as a viewer and fan of films) - not all, but a lot of them -
I also recall that a lot of scripts that we’re written by one writer get the awards and kudos more than the ones written by groups. If there is only one writer on a project, can’t we also admit that they can rewrite and push the story just as hard as a writer on a weekly or monthly?
If I remember right, Robert Towne wrote one scene in Armageddon (the animal cracker scene) and the whole of Chinatown - I guess I prefer the latter process to the former. As a viewer, anyway.
I mean, come on, we all can name films that have a bunch of writers listed in the credits and yet the film is lacking - the writers are good, we can assume they all, at one point, rewrote their asses off before having their work handed over to someone else - so what happened?
Craig, the archive link you listed above doesn’t come up for some reason - there is an error page in its stead.
Joshua:
You’re right, there are definitely other reasons why screenplays are rewritten. Probably the biggest reason is to accomodate directors and stars. Although, I don’t believe a studio will pay millions of dollars to rewrite a screenplay just because it’s there.
However, you bring up a very good point. When it comes to awards and accolades, a group of writers will definitely get the shaft. But then again, are the movies that are made with a bunch of writers really that good?
If you look up all the Oscars given out to Best or Adapted Screenplays, I don’t see more than 2 writers. But that was sort of your point so I decided to look up what real people thought of films. I went IMDB and looked up the 50 top rated (not grossing) films of all time. I don’t think any of them had more than 2 writers (in fact, I don’t think they really had more than 1).
To be honest, I really don’t think that was a scientific experiment. But I just don’t think a film that has a gazillion writers is gonna be good.
The same way a film with a comedy film romp with a bunch of STARS probably won’t be any gonna good(Big Trouble, Ready to Wear).
Isn’t there something to be said that less is more?
Kevin:
Those movies didn’t have more than two credited writers, and that’s a very different thing. I bet almost none of them had fewer than three actual participating writers.
One of the reasons you rarely see more than two credited writers is because the WGA explicitly discourages three credited writers (with a team counting as one writer). Four is very rarely seen. Five never ever ever happens. :)
“Although, I don’t believe a studio will pay millions of dollars to rewrite a screenplay just because it’s there.”
I think it happens, but I will leave this to others in the gallery with more insight -
I do remember John Sayles saying in an interview something to this affect, though - he does studio rewrites to fund his films, and he mentioned that he will go round and round, “changing a character from a black guy to a white guy to a jewish guy and back to a black guy again” and it seemed his opinion it happened primarily to keep everyone busy, rather then to improve the script.
I don’t think the studio’s reasoning is, let’s pay a writer big bucks to rewrite this even though it doesn’t need it - they may say, give it a dialogue polish, tighten the second act, etc. But I do think it happens as something to do, as a way of working people can deal with, and because the scripts are there - the actors aren’t there, the designers aren’t there - it starts with the script and the script is there and almost no one except Spielberg can read a script and greenlight it at that very moment (which he did with American Beauty) - the one thing that they can do is put their imprint upon the story so big Steve may give them the greenlight -
This is all just my opinion, of course - I think that it’s good to make a writer rewrite and define his work - I just wonder if that happens on all movies … one thing I like about stories, all kinds, all flavors, all disciplines, is a writer’s voice - you can hear that on collaborations, sure - but when it gets to commitee type work, I don’t know -
I thought there was five writers on TOY STORY, or maybe it was ANTZ …
And isn’t imdb now listing uncredited writers as well? I had thought that it was …
Did anyone do an uncredited rewrite on any of the Oscar winning scripts last year? What was it, Eternal Sunshine and Lost In Translation, or was that the year before …
Neither Antz nor Toy Story is a WGA covered film. That’s why. :)
Aha- that’s right, animation isn’t covered … ah …
Big question, do you agree or disagree with the discouragement of four to five writers being credited … assume each writer did enough work to be deserving of such …
Shouldn’t they get credit if they did the work, regardless of the number of writers already on board?
I believe the rewrite issue needs to be addressed from a moral perspective, not only a legal one.
As Pogue wrote:
While you expect to get mauled by studio ingrates, you don’t expect it from your pal fighting beside you in the trenches.
The above is from his article on Wordplay at http://www.wordplayer.com/pros/pr06.Pogue.Charles.Edward.html
His article, titled Writing from the Soul, pretty much says it all, imho.
Daniel L
One of the many problem’s with Chuck’s view on this issue (and I like Chuck personally, at least, from the small amount of time I’ve spent chatting with him) is that it’s disconnected from certain uncomfortable realities.
The first reality is that your pal in the trenches isn’t mauling you. It’s more like…you’re already dead. And he’s taking your ammo, because there’s still a job to do. Remember, I can’t rewrite someone until they’ve been fired. Not fired…can’t be hired.
The second reality is that there is no moral issue upon which the first writer can form a reasonable protest. The first writer knowingly signs a contract that states that he is writing something as a work-for-hire. He is ceding all legal and moral rights to the work. In exchange for that, he gets paid.
A lot.
If you don’t like that arrangement, don’t sign the deal and don’t take the money. Or…make it a term of sale that you cannot be rewritten.
If you can’t get that term and you still want the money, then take it, but don’t pretend you’re still an honest gal.
We’ve already figured out what kind of women we are. We’re just haggling over the price. :)
DANIEL L or CHUCK?:
So what if a screenwriter is hired, turns in his work, and that work isn’t very good? Do you just scrap the project and call it a day? There are other people involved in a project besides the screenwriter.
Actually, I’m thinking more of scripts written on spec. In the case of specs, the producer knows what he’s buying beforehand.
I do agree, though, that for assignments, the producer should be able to replace a writer if he feels the writer didn’t deliver.
Daniel L
“Five never ever ever happens. :)”
THE LITTLE RASCALS. Screenplay by Paul Guay & Stephen Mazur & Penelope Spheeris. Story by Penelope Spheeris & Robert Wolterstorff & Mike Scott and Paul Guay & Stephen Mazur.
I always find it strange that writers are so against “A film by”.
It’s not an accurate term, but so what?
Bill Gates, Richard Branson, Donald Trump. These guys run the show, but don’t literally do everything themselves. They get the credit for the success of their enterprises because they were the key instruments in that success.
They couldn’t have done it without their team—who not suprisingly are some of the best people out there—but that’s not the point. They put their name on something and took the risk. If it works, they get the credit. If it fails, they get the blame.
Nice try, Paul!
Note that in my comment, I said that a team counts as one writer.
I see a screenplay credited to one writing team, with a story credited to two writing teams. Perfectly legal. :)
Daniel:
When a producer buys a spec, what is it that you think he’s buying?
A point of clarification:
I am not Charles Pogue, and the comment I made above about different skills was made by me, a small-time Australian playwright/producer, not Mr. Pogue, the veteran Hollywood screenwriter.
If Mr. Pogue posts here under the alias ‘Chuck’, I apologise; in the brief time I’ve been reading this blog, I haven’t seen him comment.
As for the topic:
A lot of first writer advocates seem to suggest that every screenplay ever written is an original work. This is not the case.
Many movies are sequels, or adaptations of stories from other media. In the case of adaptations or sequels, the first screenwriter isn’t actually doing all the blank-page world creation that would otherwise entitle him to lounge about in paradise with a bevy of black-eyed virgins.
To use the extreme example, suppose a producer hires writer A to adapt a novel. The producer doesn’t like the draft, so he hires writer B to do a page 1 rewrite. Exactly what has writer A accomplished? If it is a faithful adaptation, then by definition he won’t have added or changed any characters, events, mood, theme, or other dramatic elements. Why, then, should he be awarded martyrific status?
I dunno Craig, I don�t want this to come off as some kind of rant, but in the spirit of informed debate, I have to take a diametrically opposed view.
First - I think one reason writers get rewritten so often is that, frankly, it’s just too dammed easy to dump ‘em and hire a new face, AND THAT HAS TO CHANGE.
It’s bad for writers, and it’s bad for film.
Writers should be extremely hard to fire.
As for “work for hire”, and �that�s the real world�, I understand your pov, and respect it, but I remain totally unconvinced. That situation exists because too many writers are in a position of putting up with it or not getting work.
I’d respond to that one with - if you don’t like what the original writer did, and don’t want a fight over what that writer thinks are valid story points, DON’T BUY IT. Go do another remake of an old TV show, a dusty comic, or sequel number XXII of some droll franchise in a vain attempt to “reinvigorate” it, and let creative people sell to those interested in creative work, as opposed to those more interested in finding a new market for selling Burgerp King Toys.
I read you’re post on why we don’t want the copyrights. I respect your view, but a vehemently disagree with it.
Film is, and has been, in a very nasty rut. The only new ideas, new and compelling stories, are NOT coming out of Hollywood. Film has become parasitic. It’s not capable anymore of creativity. All it’s capable of is copying ideas from other media and making it bigger.
Look at ALL the bigger money making films around right now. Where do they come from?
Stage plays, where the playwright�s word is sacrosanct, comics, in particular older comics, where the writers had MUCH more power over the work.
And books, where authors are in a position to tell publishers “If ya don’t like it, fine, your competitor might, I’ll go see him.” And baby, if it’s a tale worth tellin’, it gets picked up, it sells, and that original wannabee publisher, with all “he wanted changed”, is royally screwed, which is exactly as it should be. It puts overly cautious, never touch it if it hasn’t been done before publishers out of business, which is where they belong.
Additionally - if a publisher doesn’t support a book properly, if they screw the pooch, the author has a FABULOUS form of recourse. He can take the next book in that series to a new publisher, leaving the one that screwed the pooch exactly where he belongs, up a creek and holding the bag.
That’s good for the publishing industry, and it’d be wonderful for film as well.
Face it. If producers were in that position, then they simply COULD - NOT - AFFORD to let uppity A-List cast fuck up a good story by demanding more face time at the expense of story, or ad lib in truly shitty trite lines because they�ve been practicing them in front of a mirror since they were five, without a writer being able to do anything about it.
They couldn’t afford to let a car company turn a film into an ad for their car.
They couldn’t afford to “re-envision” characters to turn them into better toys, or characters that won’t offend anyone, or avoid bringing up uncomfortable questions about life and the world around us because a p.r. nooge is getting paid a hundred and eighty k to make sure all is sweet and fit for three year olds in the world of film.
They couldn’t afford to let a director, sit there, in the “required meeting with the writers”, doodling on a sketch pad as he figures out where on his property he’s going to put that new pool this film is going to pay for, while he totally ignores “the scribes”, because he already knows he’s going to throw the original script in the trash, a script that was worked on for more than a year, NOT by a hack, but by no less than an exceptionally competent pair of scribes YOU know personally, and then have that director turn right around to hire his brother in law, to pen a piece of crap in Mexico with him, in just two weeks, over drinks with little umbrellas in them. (Ask Ted or Terry about this it’s a TRUE STORY).
With things like this, and far too many others to list going on, IT’S NO WONDER SO MANY SHITTY FILMS ARE MADE, and it’s no wonder films are foundering.
Take a look at Wale’s THE INVISIBLE MAN (1933) and compare it to ANY of the subsequent pieces of crap made based on that character. Wanna take a guess as to why the 1933 classic was so good?
Because Wells, after watchin Tinsel Town totally fuck up THE ISLAND OF DOCTOR MOREAU, wouldn’t let the film rights to THE INVISIBLE MAN go without final script approval.
And in case you think “things were different then”, don’t kid yourself. The “work for hire” scribes working on the original drafts, fearing, just as too many today have to, that they’ll get the ax if they don’t trash the story with gratuitous action and thrills, penned a DOG that had an evil genius wielding an army of invisible rats!
It wasn’t until it occurred to the studio that Wells was going to have to sign off on the script that they pulled their heads out, and brought in Wales and Sherrif to come up with something worth putting to film.
And to further debunk the myth, that “writers”, especially original writers who are “too close to the story to accept needed changes”, or “don’t know the needs of film” and can screw up a film by digging their heels in and insisting that “the story comes first” (Which imo, it dammed well should). Compare Wale’s and Shirrif’s INVISIBLE MAN to Wells version. They’re nothing at all alike. The theme is different, the tone and style are different, the stories are different. But Wells was a STORYTELLER, and he dammed well knew a great tale well told when he saw one, and THAT is why he signed off on it despite the fact that it took a LOT of license with his original tale. Writers, especially good writers, simply do not dig their heels in and �cause problems� for no reason. When a writer has a fit, it�s usually because they see a viable, SALABLE film, getting turned into a flop. I have never in my life met a writer that didn�t want to see his story kick-ass at the b.o. every BIT as much as the highest of the holies of a studio.
Craig, with respect, you’re entire argument is predicated on the supposition that the original writer didn’t know his ass from a hole in the ground, thus creating the very need for a new writer to “fix” what should NEVER HAVE BEEN PAID FOR IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Crappy writers shouldn’t be able to make a living selling crappy scripts that need a page one rewrite.
If the script is no good, IT SHOULDN’T BE BOUGHT.
If the script IS good, but not quite right, and needs just a tweak or two, then there’s no excuse for firing the original writer. None. Period.
Just as you yourself once said - the writer is THE STORY TECHNITION, that’s his area of expertise, and everybody, from the studio, to the producer, to the director, the cast, and all the way down to the guy with the coffee and doughnuts, should be EVERY BIT as terrified of stepping all over the Story Technician�s turf, as the Story Technician is of stepping all over anybody else’s turf.
Yes, film is a “team sport”, and I’d offer that scribes with their heads up their asses in that regard aren’t going to have careers for very long (and shouldn’t).
But if what you’re doing is bringing A STORY to the screen, face it, there’s just no way around it, having the Story Technician at the bottom of the totem pole and in a position where he could be dumped at any moment for any reason, is a truly STUPID ARRANGEMENT.
That’s the way it is now, and instead of debating among ourselves about “which is more work, writing or rewriting”, we should be thinking about practical ways of altering a bad “modus operandi”.
As I said, I respect your viewpoint, but I vehemently disagree with it. Film would be much better off if writers were exceedingly difficult to get rid of. The triad of power in film SHOULD be producer, director, writer. Those three should be inseparable, the three legs on which a film stands, or collapses.
Right now one of those three legs is far too weak, and that has to change.
“The triad of power in film SHOULD be producer, director, writer. Those three should be inseparable, the three legs on which a film stands, or collapses.”
Forgive me my idealism, but can I get an Amen?
MIKE:
Your argument makes perfect sense ONLY in these specific circumstances:
ALL Writers are incredibly gifted and should never be second guessed.
ALL Producers are idiots who can’t wait to fuck up a script.
ALL Directors are idiots who can’t wait to fuck up a script and then hire his son or nephew or bookie.
ALL shitty movies are made because studio executives don’t know their ass from a pothole who will then get PEPSI to sponsor their pothole.
There’s NEVER an excuse to fire the original writer, even if he can’t quite get the script right.
ONLY perfect scripts should be bought. An idea is not good enough. And if the writer and producer clash, the producer simply shouldn’t buy it.
Okay, in those cases, I agree with you Mike.
But maybe, just MAYBE, the process in which a film is made is indeed flawed but your alternatives are a bit silly.
Yes, commerce has dwarfed creativity but the idea that all studio execs are evil assholes is incredibly offensive. Does Tom Cruise need to be drinking Coke in this scene? Nope. Does the van chasing Mel Gibson need to be papered by Trim Spa? Of course not. It’s a way to maximize the money made from a film. Which is the whole point anyway.
And let’s not dillude ourselves and think that this is happening in more “Arty” films. This happens in big budget action films. You’re not gonna get an action doll from Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. There are no American Beauty lunch boxes. If a studio didn’t make the deals they make for films like Star Wars and Fantastic Four (both dreadful, horrible films), then they’d be nuts. No, not nuts…incredibly stupid and irresponsible.
Do you know how many people work at Warner Bros.? Universal Studios? Those deals pay their salary. If writers were in charge of making movies, studios would be bankrupt. And I hate to tell you this but not everyone who works at a studio LOVES film. Some are there just to work and support their families.
There’s something else that we ALL need to get clear: We are too damn smart for our own good and we are too damn jaded for our own good. These horrible films that we all keep talking about? There are scores of people who just love them and aren’t they stupid, right? Only a complete moron could like a horrible film. When you speak to someone who’s not in the business and they argue that they truly did like Chronicles of Riddick, I KNOW that they’re uninformed retards. OR just maybe they like what they like and we “creatives” have a different take on movies. I remember sitting in the theatre watching Bringing Down the House and I wanted to run into traffic. Except, the entire theatre was laughing their asses off. What does that mean?
I think it means that we all think we’re the smartest, the most talented, the most put upon, the most taken advantage of, the most powerless people on the planet. Sorry, that’s just not the case. It makes for a very entertaining blog but it’s not accurate. This planet if ruled by Subjectivity. My gold is your shit. That’s what makes America great. We have different tastes and that seems to do the marketplace just fine. There are no absolutes. It’s not right vs. wrong. It’s THE ONE WITH THE MONEY CAN DO WHAT HE WANTS. Sometimes that process turns out shit. Sometimes that process turns out gold.
Again, if a writer wants 100% control of his script, the best way is to just make it themselves. But I’m guessing it’s much better to just blame someone else.
Well put, Mike T. I totally agree.
if you don’t like what the original writer did, and don’t want a fight over what that writer thinks are valid story points, DON’T BUY IT.
In Spring of 2002, I was quite happy when Solaris, the oldest and most prestigious French language science-fiction and fantasy magazine, published my short story entitled Moments Immobiles ( see http://www.revue-solaris.com/numero/2002/141.htm ).
Daniel L
Kevin A,
I don’t think producers and directors are idiots. Quite the opposite if my limited experience with them means anything. I feel that it’s a question of finding partners that are compatible; people who create a common vision.
DL
Daniel L:
Congratulations on writing something that got the attention of a prestigious magazine and movie producer. That takes creativity and skill and you definitely should be happy your work was recognized.
But when I read your post I was a little dumbfounded. First of all, where was your agent when you decided to take a week to think it over and then turn down the money and write a spec? As a former agent I think I would have had you drugged and then have my assistant impersonate you over the phone. Why didn’t you think that you could take the money, write the screenplay, and work TOGETHER with the producers? Producers are not unthinking monsters. Producers know that existing literary works need to be ADAPTED to fit into the confines of a theatrical movie. I just don’t understand how a writer can think, “My way or the Highway”. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say that filmmaking is a collaborative process and then completely abandon a project because you were unwilling to compromise with the producers on two points BEFORE you were even in preproduction.
I’m not brow beating you and you’re obviously a talented writer. But to be a successful writer you have to have a sense of practical business ventures as well. If you took the deal, wrote the screenplay, and hopefully went into production, I’m sure those TWO points that were in contention would have been resolved.
DL:
And by the way, I’m a Director/Producer and I AM an idiot.
Mike:
If I can rant, you can rant. That’s why I enable comments. :)
You say a lot of things, so I’m gonna go down the list.
First - I think one reason writers get rewritten so often is that, frankly, it�s just too dammed easy to dump �em and hire a new face, AND THAT HAS TO CHANGE.
Yeah, I hear that a lot. As long as you’re willing to be specific the way you need to be, and say something like…AND THAT’S WHY I BELIEVE THE BASIS OF COPYRIGHT LAW IN THE U.S. NEEDS TO CHANGE…then go for it. Otherwise, that’s like saying that it’s too damned easy for men to get dumped by women, AND THAT HAS TO CHANGE. It would be nice, but there are some major hurdles to acknowledge. :)
It�s bad for writers, and it�s bad for film.
It’s not bad for me. And IMO it’s not been bad for the films I’ve worked on (the other writers might disagree).
As for �work for hire�… I understand your pov, and respect it, but I remain totally unconvinced. That situation exists because too many writers are in a position of putting up with it or not getting work.
You’re unconvinced because you think a matter of law and record is my “pov”. It’s not. It’s a fact. It’s a fact that work for hire exists, it’s a fact that 99.9% screenplays are purchased as works for hire, and it’s a fact that the status of a screenplay as a work for hire means that the legal author of the screenplay (the employer) can fire us at will.
I�d respond to that one with - if you don�t like what the original writer did, and don�t want a fight over what that writer thinks are valid story points, DON�T BUY IT. Go do another remake of an old TV show, a dusty comic, or sequel number XXII of some droll franchise in a vain attempt to �reinvigorate� it, and let creative people sell to those interested in creative work, as opposed to those more interested in finding a new market for selling Burgerp King Toys.
Your pop culture snobbery aside (my kid likes those Burger King toys, I thought Soderberg’s Ocean’s 11 kicked the original’s ass, and the Men In Black comic was eh, while the movie was pretty spectacular), your demand of employers is the sort that would only make sense to employees.
As a producer (yes, sometimes I am an employer), I’m not interested in following your utopian rule of “buy it if you don’t want to argue about it”. I might buy it because I like two scenes, or because I like a character, or because I like the concept. I might buy it because I’m out of toilet paper.
Are you gonna sell it to me? That’s the extraordinary power you have. Still, it’s your responsibility to read your contract, which says (almost always) that I can do anything I’d like with “your” script, which is now “my” script.
You’re like a chef who gets enraged when someone decides to put ketchup on the dish you made because that’s the way they like it.
Too bad. You sold it. It’s theirs now.
Film is, and has been, in a very nasty rut. The only new ideas, new and compelling stories, are NOT coming out of Hollywood. Film has become parasitic. It�s not capable anymore of creativity. All it�s capable of is copying ideas from other media and making it bigger.
I won’t defend other people’s movies. Still, some fantastic stuff hit the theaters this year.
Look at ALL the bigger money making films around right now. Where do they come from? Stage plays, where the playwright’s word is sacrosanct, comics, in particular older comics, where the writers had MUCH more power over the work.
They certainly didn’t have any power over the screenplay adaptations of their work. Yet, the movies are making big money. I’d think this hurts your point.
And books, where authors are in a position to tell publishers �If ya don�t like it, fine, your competitor might, I�ll go see him.� And baby, if it�s a tale worth tellin�, it gets picked up, it sells, and that original wannabee publisher, with all �he wanted changed�, is royally screwed, which is exactly as it should be. It puts overly cautious, never touch it if it hasn�t been done before publishers out of business, which is where they belong.
Authors retain copyright. We do not (nor, as I’ve argued, should we). We don’t write end-user material like novelists do.
Additionally - if a publisher doesn�t support a book properly, if they screw the pooch, the author has a FABULOUS form of recourse. He can take the next book in that series to a new publisher, leaving the one that screwed the pooch exactly where he belongs, up a creek and holding the bag.
That�s good for the publishing industry, and it�d be wonderful for film as well.
Yes, it would be wonderful. And it exists. It’s called “turnaround” and “reacquisition”.
Face it. If producers were in that position, then they simply COULD - NOT - AFFORD to let uppity A-List cast fuck up a good story by demanding more face time at the expense of story, or ad lib in truly shitty trite lines because they’ve been practicing them in front of a mirror since they were five, without a writer being able to do anything about it.
I think that opinion is ignorant of the collaborative nature of filmmaking. I would never (again) direct a movie in which I had no control over the script. I would never want to make a film in which the actors (A or Z list) could not offer contributions.
They couldn�t afford to �re-envision� characters to turn them into better toys, or characters that won�t offend anyone, or avoid bringing up uncomfortable questions about life and the world around us because a p.r. nooge is getting paid a hundred and eighty k to make sure all is sweet and fit for three year olds in the world of film.
Do you have a three year-old?
They couldn�t afford to let a director, sit there, in the �required meeting with the writers�, doodling on a sketch pad as he figures out where on his property he�s going to put that new pool this film is going to pay for, while he totally ignores �the scribes�, because he already knows he�s going to throw the original script in the trash, a script that was worked on for more than a year, NOT by a hack, but by no less than an exceptionally competent pair of scribes YOU know personally, and then have that director turn right around to hire his brother in law, to pen a piece of crap in Mexico with him, in just two weeks, over drinks with little umbrellas in them. (Ask Ted or Terry about this it�s a TRUE STORY).
We’ve all had bad experiences, but Ted is the first person to say, “And that’s the employer’s right.”
And to further debunk the myth, that �writers�, especially original writers who are �too close to the story to accept needed changes�, or �don�t know the needs of film� and can screw up a film by digging their heels in and insisting that �the story comes first� (Which imo, it dammed well should). Compare Wale�s and Shirrif�s INVISIBLE MAN to Wells version. They�re nothing at all alike. The theme is different, the tone and style are different, the stories are different. But Wells was a STORYTELLER, and he dammed well knew a great tale well told when he saw one, and THAT is why he signed off on it despite the fact that it took a LOT of license with his original tale. Writers, especially good writers, simply do not dig their heels in and �cause problems� for no reason. When a writer has a fit, it�s usually because they see a viable, SALABLE film, getting turned into a flop. I have never in my life met a writer that didn�t want to see his story kick-ass at the b.o. every BIT as much as the highest of the holies of a studio.
I’m sorry, but any defense of original writers that relies on the participation of Orson Wells is a straw man argument.
Craig, with respect, you�re entire argument is predicated on the supposition that the original writer didn�t know his ass from a hole in the ground, thus creating the very need for a new writer to �fix� what should NEVER HAVE BEEN PAID FOR IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Nope. Sometimes the original writer has done great work. It’s just that it’s great work NO ONE WANTS TO MAKE.
Dig this. I’m not arguing about quality. I’m not arguing about what we screenwriters sit around and jerk off over. I’m not defending (or, frankly, interested in) a system that produces nothing but Charlie Kaufman movies and never gives us, say, Scary Movie 4. I and others must write movies for people that aren’t film nerds, pop culture snobs, ennui-filled critics, etc.
Crappy writers shouldn�t be able to make a living selling crappy scripts that need a page one rewrite.
And they can’t. What they CAN do is earn some money for a while. Then everyone pretty much realizes that they’re not worth the initial investment.
If the script is no good, IT SHOULDN�T BE BOUGHT.
And if you can figure out what is “a no good” script, please, let the world know. Make sure that you currently like all scripts that have gone on to become hit films.
If the script IS good, but not quite right, and needs just a tweak or two, then there�s no excuse for firing the original writer. None. Period.
Yeah, most producers dream of situations like that. Usually, though, lots of work needs to be done.
Just as you yourself once said - the writer is THE STORY TECHNITION, that�s his area of expertise, and everybody, from the studio, to the producer, to the director, the cast, and all the way down to the guy with the coffee and doughnuts, should be EVERY BIT as terrified of stepping all over the Story Technician’s turf, as the Story Technician is of stepping all over anybody else�s turf.
That’s right. But just like everyone else on the set with a job, the story technician CAN BE FIRED and replaced with a new one.
There has to be a story technician. Not the story technician.
As I said, I respect your viewpoint, but I vehemently disagree with it.
Pet peeve of mine. :) You respect me, but not my viewpoint. I respect you, but not yours. :) Let’s be honest with each other!
Film would be much better off if writers were exceedingly difficult to get rid of. The triad of power in film SHOULD be producer, director, writer. Those three should be inseparable, the three legs on which a film stands, or collapses.
But that IS the triad of power in film. It’s just that the writer that the other two legs are interested in standing with may not be the first one. It may be you instead. It may be me.
I’m not brow beating you and you’re obviously a talented writer. But to be a successful writer you have to have a sense of practical business ventures as well. If you took the deal, wrote the screenplay, and hopefully went into production, I’m sure those TWO points that were in contention would have been resolved.
You may very well be right, Kevin. I made my inexperience in these matters quite obvious in my post. But I did act according to the advice my agent gave me. I’m not blaming her, though. We made the decision together and I take full responsibility. But if she had told me that would find ways to work things out, I would have agreed to the deal for sure.
Daniel
Craig is 100% correct. Bravo!, Here, here and all that other shit.
DL:
Is she still your agent?
DL:
Also, your post completely invalidates both yours and Mike’s point of view. It was not buyer that was at fault but merely your (and your agent’s) inexperience.
DL:
Also, your post completely invalidates both yours and Mike’s point of view. It was not the buyer that was at fault but merely you (and your agent’s) inexperience.
Is she still your agent?
Not anymore. Although I did work with her for a few more years after that.
Also, your post completely invalidates both yours and Mike’s point of view.
I would rather say that it nuances it. True, my particular situation may partly be imputable to inexperience, but I avoided making the mistake of generalizing from my personal experience. I synthesized all the writers discontent I read or heard in the past decade.
There are too many stories about hacks making unwaranted changes to scripts just so they can receive a writing credit to ignore the problem. The system actually rewards the practice.
And who can argue that writers are considered disposable?
“And who can argue that writers are considered disposable?”
Writers aren’t considered disposable. They are disposable. So are directors. And producers. And actors. And studio executives. And studio chairmen.
Everyone is disposable. It’s not personal. It’s business.
comics, in particular older comics, where the writers had MUCH more power over the work.
Oh jeez. What am I supposed to do with this lung that I just coughed up?
The creative rights available to the older comic book writers make the Hollywood situation look like the Garden of Eden. There was NO ownership; there was NO control. There were no residuals on reprints, no payment or even acknowledgement of a previous writer’s foundational efforts, and not even (in most cases) a contractual guarantee of credit. The only reason that Stan Lee (writer and co-creator of Spider-Man, The Hulk, Daredevil, The X-Men, and most of the other Marvel characters recently adapted to the big screen) managed to insinuate himself into the income stream was that he was also the publisher. Compare that to Siegel and Shuster, creators of Superman: They got no payment for their creation beyond wages for work done, and in their golden years couldn’t even get jobs as delivery boys in the industry. It was lawsuits by their estates that finally got DC Comics to pony up some profits to their heirs.
So please remember, when the urge to martyrdom hits: There are creative situations a helluva lot worse than the terms of the WGA contract.
If producers were in that position, then they simply COULD - NOT - AFFORD to let uppity A-List cast fuck up a good story by demanding more face time at the expense of story, or ad lib in truly shitty trite lines because they�ve been practicing them in front of a mirror since they were five, without a writer being able to do anything about it.
Hmm. Let’s see. I’m a producer, and I’ve got an A-list star willing to do this picture with me. Who am I going to keep happy, when it comes down to the wire: The writer, whats’-his-name? Or the guy whose face will be on every poster and TV spot, and whose very name will guarantee me an opening weekend?
Whoops, Cruise walked because the writer stonewalled. That’s okay, I’m sure we can get Matthew Modine to step into the role, and be much less demanding on the writer who will NEVER WORK FOR ME OR ANYONE I KNOW IN THIS TOWN EVER AGAIN.
Pretty empowering, huh?
“True, my particular situation may partly be imputable to inexperience, but I avoided making the mistake of generalizing from my personal experience. I synthesized all the writers discontent I read or heard in the past decade.”
I have no idea what that means.
You argued that writers need to have more control over their material and you relayed a story about how a producer offered you a deal, made some reasonable story changes (some of which you admit were good and used), and then you imploded the deal.
How in the world does your story “Nuance” your point?
I have no idea what that means.
I was talking not only about my latest post, but my previous reponses on this topic.
DL
Everyone is disposable. It�s not personal. It�s business.
True, Craig, but isn’t the writer more disposable than producers, directors and actors?
Have you ever read Furia’s manifesto titled “We the Authors; A Common Sense Revolution?” It’s no longer on the WGA website but can be read on www.nzwritersguild.org.nz/news/authors.html
He quotes Irving Thalberg as saying: The writer is the most important person in Hollywood, but we must never tell the sons of bitches.
Daniel L
DL:
“True, Craig, but isn’t the writer more disposable than producers, directors and actors?”
No.
There’s not one person in the world that can’t be fired from their job.
There’s not one person in the world that can’t be fired from their job.
I agree, but I’d be curious to know the relative percentages of writers being fire versus producers, directors or actors fired. Firing writers seems to be the norm for nearly all studio films.
In fact, from articles, discussion boards and Imdb.com, writers are fired on the majority of films. Writers who retain sole credits are a rarity. Why is that? I can’t believe the decision to fire a majority of writers is justified.
I’m sure that writers get fired a hell of a lot more than producers, directors, or actors.
But then again their work services are completely different from one another. Producers, Directors, and Actors are hired to perform services.
Writers (spec writers, that is) sell their written work, authorship, and copyright. More than that, writers are completely invisible. Producers are pretty much putting the deal together so we’re pretty hard to get rid of. Directos and Actors tend to be very visible.
Writers are completely faceless.
But if your real question is, is it fair that writers get fired more than others than the answer is definitely NO.
Below is the Preamble to the IAWG Charter, of which the WGA is a signatory. I feel many of the articles apply to our discussion.
IAWG Charter THE AFFILIATION AGREEMENT
Preamble THE WRITERS’ CHARTER (The Writers Charter was adopted on June 4th, 1986 at the Annual Conference of the International Affiliation of Writers Guilds held in Toronto, Canada. On June 3rd, 1987 at the Annual Conference held in Los Angeles, USA, the Charter was adopted as the Preamble to the Affiliation Agreement.)
The writer is a primary creator of works of imagination, entertainment and enlightenment; a significant initiator of cultural, social and economic processes. These are of basic importance in all societies. To fulfill effectively these social responsibilities, the writer must have the following rights:
Believing that these rights are fundamental to the dignity, integrity and well-being of writers, it is the policy of the Affiliation to work for their attainment everywhere, and as part of this effort to take all necessary steps to achieve the following goals:
Um, I just wanted to say that while I do know a lil Latin, syntax is not my strong suit. I do think you did get it right. But props for even trying. That said, Latin is totally gonna make a comeback, I can just feel it.
I’m surprised such a simple topic has this type of half-life; clearly, there is (for at least two readers) some depth to this subject. So to push it a bit further, let me ask our host(s) this:
If first marytr is a myth (like myth is a bad thing to storytellers?), then why would the work known as DEJA VU have structured such strong legal protection of the first writer’s rights in determining the creative path of the project? Why would they have not simply accepted the Stockholm Syndrome concept that “Ideas are worthless”?
lt
Lee:
I don’t understand the question. I’m not sure what first writer’s rights you’re talking about in regards to Deja Vu. Please clarify.
I’m really not the guy to go into the details of DV - the producer (since they are considered to be the most salient point of view in evaluating “worth”) of that movie would be in a far better position to discuss the details of how the creative rights (i.e. the story ideas) of the writer were protected in the development process. And I’m not trying to be oblique with this, but attempting to stimulate “synthesis” (a Hegelian concept, even though I loath his obfuscation) on a subject which - from my view - is far more complex than what you offer in your article.
lt
PS I’ll let this sit to see if the primaries want to enter. Otherwise, I will weigh in with my third hand (and clearly flawed) understanding of what happened in a marquee screenplay sale, for I feel it represents a powerful rebuttal to your devaluation of first writer contribution.
Lee:
If you’re talking about Terry and Bill’s script, then you’re on very shaky ground. :)
As I’ve said many a time, if the first writer can negotiate rights for himself, then it stands to reason that his writing is worth those rights.
If everyone wrote like Terry, then yeah, you wouldn’t need subsequent writers. Terry, along with Bill, is capable of providing the work that the first writer provides as well as the second and third writer. He can rewrite his own material to the company’s satisfaction.
Look, I’m not arguing that you have to have subsequent writers. I’m simply arguing that if you do, odds are that they’re doing just as much, if not more, of the work than the first writer.
Something tells me that Terry would be the first person to tell you that the rights that he can bargain for ought not be granted to all.
The first writer does not necessarily do anything special or more difficult than subsequent writers on a project.
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. I did a studio assignment which was an adaptation of a 1,200-page biography. Finding the screenstory in a nonlinear, episodic biography is a hell of a lot more work than rewriting a screenplay. I’ve also been hired to rewrite writers who have found good stories in very messy novels. And I respect the hard work they put into finding the movie in the mess.
I’m a first-writer advocate, but for an entirely different reason than “the first draft is the hardest” one. In fact, I might be a “one-writer” advocate. As I’ve posted at length on WriterAction.com, I think the rewriting merry-go-round has created all sorts of other problems which would be remedied by fewer — not more — writers receiving screen credit.
Although relevant, the quantitative amount of work done by a first or second writer shouldn’t be the main critiria of authorship ( or screen credits ).
For example, I write science-fiction that involves meticulously created worlds and characters that are distinctively mine.
Whatever work rewriters would/could do, they’d still work with worlds and characters they wouldn’t be able to create if they spent their life trying simply because no one but me can write my stories ( as only S. King can write S. King, Kasdan, Kasdan or A.C Clarke, Clarke).
Even if someone did a page one rewrite of one of my scripts so that only 10% of the original script was left at the end of the process, that 10% is worth a lot more than its quantitative value. My worlds and characters would still permeate every single page the rewriter would do.
Tell me, what would be left of the rewrite if we were to remove my creation from it, remove the elements of my meticulously created world and characters? Nothing, nothing at all. Yet, the WGA would only give me a “story by” credit, if that.
So, imo, the argument made on the basis the quantitative amount of work done by rewriters is invalid.
Daniel L
Thanks David H for the link. I wish I were in a position to be one-writer advocate.
DL
The gentleman who wrote this article is a craftsman.
All crafts in every stage of the process from inception to final iteration are difficult.
Craig; You’ve got me close to being convinced. But not quite.
I still have to argue that, just because I can’t put my finger on a perfectly viable solution to a problem the status quo should continue. And I still see problems, plenty of them.
The underlying problem as I see it is this - when dealing with film there’s no such thing as selling “a story”, screenwriters don’t sell “stories” they sell story elements.
The script sold boils down in essence to nothing more than one example of a story that could be told using those story elements (i.e. the characters and the world they inhabit, or the situation they’re in). But nobody’s under any onus at all to use those story elements as originally intended.
That causes problems in the following areas.
First - There’s absolutely no downside at all to flat out lying to a writer to gain control over those story elements. “We love it. We’re not going to change a thing.”, heh, yeah, and “the check’s in the mail”.
Look, if all somebody’s interested in is “a scene or two”, or “a concept”, or using the established name of an existing body of work in other media for its marketing value or “Mental Real Estate”, then I God dammed well feel I have the right to know that, up front, BEFORE a deal is inked.
I’d offer that buying any script, just because you like “a scene or two”, or “a concept”, or whatever, without making, not only that, but the fact that after purchase extensive changes are going to be made, w/o your input, IS UNSCRUPULOUS.
The way things work now writers have no way at all of knowing what they’re getting into until it’s too late to consider other options or offers. Once the deal is made you lose ALL control over the results of something that has YOUR name on it.
Now in some cases, frankly, that wouldn’t bother me too much. I’d look at the rep of the prodco, the work they’ve done in the past, and be willing to roll the dice on the probability that the end result, that’s going to have my name on it despite the lack of any further involvement on my part, will be par for that outfit. So you toss the script over the studio wall, they toss a check back over, and you move on to your next idea.
That’s fine for “one off” stories. But it blows for a lot of other things, among them - tent poles.
This is going to get very long, and although I can think of quite a few other problems inherent in not having any control at all over what happens after you sign a deal, for the moment lets stick with this one - tent poles, just as a start.
Narnia, Harry Potter, The Lord of the Rings. There’s a reason those film franchises HAD to come from books. They HAD to come from books because Hollywood isn’t capable of producing franchises like that. The only exception, the singular exception, the exception I honestly can’t ever see being duplicated the way things work now is Star Wars.
These are precisely the kinds of stories that consistently put studios in the black, and yet Hollywood isn’t capable of developing them on its own.
And why is that? Because screenwriters aren’t as talented as novelists? Because they don’t know how to do it, or lack the imagination to do it?
Bullshit.
Screenwriters can’t do it because, currently, there’s no mechanism that would allow them sufficient control of a story for them to develop any narrative that extends beyond a single film.
Hell they’re lucky if they can stay on a single project from pitch to premier. And even if they manage THAT small miracle, during their time on that first film they’ve got no way of doing what any writer is going to HAVE to be able to do to create a storyline that will come to span several films. Things like building in set-ups in the form of lines or scenes that will pay off in the sequels.
Taken, The Triangle, television sees the writing on the wall. Television is developing the ability to work in long form.
I’m well aware that “miniseries” have been around for a very long time. But these projects are not being developed on the standard “miniseries” business model of the 1970’s. These things are not being developed simply to bump ratings during sweeps week. They’re packages. Mini-tent poles. And the first run broadcast of them is being viewed more as a way of marketing the sale of DVD sets (which is where the real money is these days), and creating a fan base for the franchise so that traffic to dedicated websites selling other products becomes viable.
In short this isn’t the standard TV business model we’re talking about here, where the customers are advertisers, and the product is viewers.
And in everyone of these cases they’re being written by either one writer (like Bohem), or a small (2 to 4) stable team of writers, and it’s the writers that are in the driver’s seat.
Why? Because writers demand or deserve more control? No. Because it’s the only way to pull it off.
Film has advantages that television is never going to have - screen size, the communal experience, and much larger production budgets.
Film should be considerably better at producing its own tent pole franchises than any other media in existence. But right now it can’t, and it’s left sucking hind tit off other media (like books, and comics).
I’d offer that there’s nothing at all in the way of limitations in the imagination or storytelling expertise of screenwriters in particular from producing a series of films every bit as exciting, not to mention marketable, as those produced by novelists.
My own personal belief is that that’s probably because novelists retain the copyrights to their work and screenwriters don’t, but if you can point to some scenario where screenwriters could duplicate what novelists can do w/o retaining the copyrights, I’D LOVE TO HEAR IT. And I’m not just saying that to stick it up your nose, I’m dead serious.
Can you think of anyway that a screenwriter could write, and then actually sell, a package of films?
How would you structure a deal like that? Has it ever been successfully done before?
I’ve never heard of anything even vaguely like that being done, and it’s my belief, at least until I know better, that the ONLY way to do it, and I do mean THE - ONLY - WAY, is to write a series on novels first, complete the series (to complete the tale), and then, and ONLY then, start taking calls.
Which puts us right back to where we are now. Hollywood isn’t capable of creating its own franchises that employ a continuing and coherent narrative, it relies totally and completely on other media to develop them first.
You cannot copyright an idea, therefore ideas are worthless? I don’t think so. An original idea is priceless (at least, an original take on ideas) and, provided it’s substantiated by an actual script, it’s also protected to some degree.
Someone mentioned The Godfather, Chinatown, and the like. These levels of expertise are what screenwriters ascribe to artistically. To do less makes you a hack. A first-draft writer not relying on derivative material is creating. The other guys are modifying.
Then is a major hole in your argument. If the creation of the initial script is so easy, and the initial idea is nothing more then a jumping off point… then why don’t all these underapreciated re-writers just cut out the middle man and write their own original creations.
Here here, Mike - well spoke and writ …
Great post Mike. Again, I totally agree with you. The films we see prove your point. In fact, the vast majority award winning films are written by single writers or ampersand teams. I wonder why?
Howard, That’s what I thought screenwriting was all about. But Hollywood made screenwriting into a chain of assembly where the hack is king. It’s a damn good year when Hollywood produces five to ten films with screenplays of the caliber you mention.
Anonymous, I’ve been asking myself that very question for the longest time.
I live in L.A.; shaky ground is what I know. But I’ll attempt to respond in two stages, beginning with:
“Look, I’m not arguing that you have to have subsequent writers. I’m simply arguing that if you do, odds are that they’re doing just as much, if not more, of the work than the first writer.”
More of what?
To answer this question, you can’t avoid the issue of screenplay quality, and on that score, I’d love to see anyone in this town define an objective standard for that. The closest this town has to an universally accepted benchmark on quality - from my view - is the Goldman maxum: nobody knows nothing.
The practical way to cut that knot, is, of course, saying the owner of the screenplay rights determines what’s acceptable and invests their resources accordingly. This is your position. Perfectly fair, but now you must accept you’ve reduced the issue of quality to a market dynamic where there is an economic reward for you to rework the ideas of others. Or: the conflict you allude to has nothing to do with maryterhood, carrion eating, or any other dramatic conceit — it’s the vulgar play of the market and you’re all submitting to it.
So when you say a Nth writer does as much, or more than writer 1, you’re really only saying they’re surviving the subsequent market dynamic better than the first guy.
And that’s what you’re defending.
If you’re with me to here, then we enter the second stage: that of Suvivorship Bias (which is why I find DV an interesting case example) and it’s impact on the process of screenwriting.
lt
Howard, my response to you should have been.
That�s what I thought screenwriting was all about. But Hollywood made screenwriting into an assembly line where the hack is king. It’s a damn good year when Hollywood produces five to ten films with screenplays of the caliber you mention.
I mistakingly translated “chaine de montage” directly.
DL
There’s two things that need to be created in order for a screenplay to exist:
A story
A dramatization of that story
This is an idea that goes back to Aristotle’s Poetics. I know a number of screenwriters who disagree with this, because they do not personally think of or create a screenplay this way.
Thing is, though: this is the dramaturgical theory that underlies the WGA-AMPTP MBA — both the schedule of minimums (which includes the type of literary material a writer may be hired to create and the applicable minimum compensation) and the credit provisions.
Story
Screenplay
So let’s take a story, a private eye story, a story that begins like this:
“She walked into my office like she owned the place.”
So, how to dramatize that.
What’s that? You say it’s already dramatized?
Okay.
INT. OFFICE - DAY
She walks in like she owns the place.
Yeah, okay, can I tell you: that sucks — because although that says what will be on film, it says nothing about how it will be filmed and edited in order for the audience to experience as drama a woman walking into an office like she owns the place.
Here’s a different version:
INT. OFFICE - NIGHT
The door opens. A woman is silhouetted against the light from the hall. A moment as she gets her bearings.
She flips on the lights.
Huh? See the difference?
First, the choice to set it at night — something that was not specified in the story. Why set it at night? So that she can A ) be silhouetted in the door way — a dramatization of the anonymous yet imposing entrance her character makes in the story (and one that is cinematic: light and shadow and action), and B ) so she can flip on the lights in the otherwise dark office (since she is silhouetted by backlight, there’s no light source in front of her; her flipping on the lights both reveals her and shows her acting like she owns the place).
But wait! Is that actually the best way to dramatize:
“She walked into my office like she owned the place”?
Consider: although she seems to be the first character introduced in the story, that’s not entirely accurate: although we don’t know until the fifth word, we’ve already met a character: the person in the office who is telling us about her.
So perhaps a better way to dramatize the story would be for the audience to meet the person in the office, and then experience “She“‘s entrance from that point of view. After all, that replicates the first-person narrative quality of the story, right?
Problem is, nothing in the story tells us what the narrator is doing when she walks in. It doesn’t even tell us where he (okay, assuming a he; it could be a she, but we’re going with he) — anyway, the story doesn’t even tell us where he is relative to the door and her entrance.
Is he sitting at a desk? If so, what’s he doing? Drinking bourbon? Cleaning a gun? Staring at a picture of himself, his dead partner and his dead partner’s wife in better times?
Or how ‘bout this:
INT. OFFICE - DAY
He lies sprawled on the couch, eyes closed, his fingers playing an imaginary piano. He’s wearing earbuds; the cord goes to the iPod in his front pocket.
The sharp CLICK CLICK of high-heels approaching —
A well-manicured hand yanks the earbuds from his ears, startling the hell out of him; he’s pulled a gun from beneath the sofa cushion even before he looks up —
— into the face of an angel.
“She walked into the office like she owned the place.”
Was that the sum total of creation here?
How ‘bout the first draft?
Was that the end of all creation, no further imagination required, rewriting was nothing but rearranging and regurgitating what already had been written?
How ‘bout if I told you that what actually ended up on screen was a shot of snow falling outside a window, pan down to reveal the window is open, further to the drift of snow on the floor of the office. A foot steps in it. Reveal a guy in a suit, holding a Starbucks cup. A shot of a flight of stairs, close on a woman’s feet in high heels going up. Back to him, he picks up a folder off the desk as he sets the cup on the edge, bends down to shovel the snow out, bumps the desk, the coffee spills on his pants. Back to the woman, from behind as she reaches the top of the stairs, heads toward an open door. Back to him as he goes through a door — tile and part of a sink visible. Her POV as she comes into the office, sees the spilled coffee cup, the folder, the snow drift. Back to him as he comes out of the bathroom, wiping his pants — and he’s pasted in the face with a snowball. He reacts, looks around, clocks — the woman, standing by the window, another snowball in her hand. She smiles, says “Best office decor ever” and throws it.
Are the seeds of that even present in “She walked into my office like she owned the place”? Or the first version? Or the second version?
We can argue over which of the three is better, but that’s a matter of sensibilities and aesthetics. But that the last version represents a lesser creative act than the first version, or that all three versions represents a lesser creative act than the story, or that the story was only the “true” act of creation — that is an argument that can made only in theory.
In practice, the single most common reason that writers get replaced is because what the writer has created is not what anyone wants to film, and what they will want to film has yet to be created.
-
Ted Elliott,
The credit rules work for the example you chose, but I don’t see how they can apply fairly to the example I gave in my 7:38 AM post.
Daniel L.
Mike:
Tent Pole movies that didn’t come from books or comics:
LETHAL WEAPON DIE HARD ROCKY AMERICAN PIE SCREAM MEET THE PARENTS PIRATES OF THE CARRIBEAN (will be) SHREK THE MATRIX RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK BACK TO THE FUTURE BEVERLY HILLS COP
Daniel L:
Worlds and characters are story.
The specific ways in which the characters behave — the things they do (or don’t do) and the things they say (or don’t say) that express their thoughts and emotions — their behavior in interaction with the behavior of other characters and their environment, the specific order in which those behaviors are revealed to the audience so as to guide and manipulate the audience’s experience of the story — that’s dramatization, and that’s screenplay. And, as I said, that’s a distinction that goes at least as far back as Aristotle.
This is why the WGA MBA says that screen writing credit is to be given for story in cases where the story is original to the movie, and is always to be given for screenplay — because they are recognized as two separate works of authorship, two separate creations, each having qualities distinctly their own that make them distinct from the other.
One way to think about this:
A screenplay is an adaptation of a story, even if the story has never been expressed in any other form other than the screenplay.
(And a movie is an adaptation of a screenplay — which is what marks the difference between the playwright and the screenwright: a performance of a play is not an adaptation of the play script — it is an oral recitation of the play script. A movie is not an oral recitation of the screenplay — although there are any number of professional screenwriters who think it is, and should know better).
-
Derek —
SHREK was based on a children’s book, and DIE HARD was based on a novel.
So how ‘bout these:
GODZILLA, BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER, ALIEN, ROBOCOP, THE TERMINATOR, The Bride and the Once Upon a Time in China movies (hong kong) and, what’s that one, nine movies, five separate television series, basis for hundreds of novels and nearly a dozen comic book series … oh, yeah, STAR TREK.
-
Your Latin syntax? It’s fine, because there was not formal Latin grammar. Different Latin writers had different styles. So I guess that plays into the theme of this post: The Illusion of the Original.
Your Latin syntax? It’s fine, because originally there was no formal Latin grammar. Different Latin writers had different styles. So I guess that plays into the theme of this post: The Illusion of the Original.
Mike T:
After reading your post I can only gather that you like the world of westerns where the Good Guys wear white and the Bad Guys wear black. It’s general, a bit silly, and in no way describes the planet that we live on.
Why the hell would a producer do that? I mean, who is this guy, Dr. Evil? But for the sake of argument, let’s just say I do want to purchase a script just for the story elements. Well…that kind of did happen. Years ago I was slipped a script by a writing duo after they pitched me an idea. The initial idea and story elements where absolutely hilarious. But the script stank. And after reading it, I KNEW there was no fucking way they were gonna get it right. But I let them try anyway. Four months and no movie later all I accomplished was a big waste of time. I could have just hired a really good comedy writer and done myself (and the original writers) a favor.
You’re not serious are you? Just who exactly is “Hollywood”? In your example, “Hollywood” must be screenwriters because Studio Executives don’t write screenplays. When people talk about the idiocy of “Hollywood”, it kind of makes me laugh. A studio is only responsible for producing and exploiting material. But then you’re actually blaming studios who make movies from great books? Should they not make those movies? Or maybe they should make movies from the screenplay knock-offs of those books….
I’d like to introduce you to Ted Elliot and Terry Rossio. They might want to talk to you about this little Johnny Depp project…
A deal is only as good as the one who is negotiating. If you’re selling your first screenplay, you will make a ton of money and get a little screwed in other areas. But it’s your first screenplay, you should be getting a little screwed. And when you are an incredibly known screenwriter, the deal gets better and better. That’s the way it is with anybody, in any business, on any deals.
Writing a novel and writing a screenplay are two completely different things. They are sold differently and exploited differently. If you’re a novelist and your novel is successful, there is one person and one person only who is responsible. Screenplays are not the same thing. It is part of the engine. An important part but stil just a part. Your new car will not run without gas, I don’t care how shiny it is.
So let me get this straight…after I spend a truckload of money on something and eventually own it, I actually CAN’T do whatever I want with it? Hmmm, America would be a very scary place if that were indeed true. I know, I know, you poured your heart and soul into this script. It was a personal story and it took 10 years to get it right. And now some asshole bought it and wants to turn it into a midget porn. That’s fucked up. But there is one sure fire way around this atrocity. DON’T SELL IT. That way no one can fuck it up. It will be yours forever and ever.
I don’t know why this has to be explained over and over. The Movie Business is just what it reads. A business. When someone pays you for something, they own it. Just like every other business in the world. If I buy the Mona Lisa and want to turn it into a kite, that’s my right. Just like it was Leonard Da Vinci’s right to sell me his painting.
The more you work, sell, and create your screenplays then the more you control you will have. There’s Akiva Goldsman then and Akiva Goldsman now. Sure there are flaws to the system. There are flaws to any system. So here’s a solution. Instead of paying you six figures to bring your work to the screen and perhaps some profit particiaption, I will pay you five thousand dollars and we can share the copyright. I may or may not make the film but you still will have total control and I won’t be able to touch a thing. But who cares? Every screenplay that’s sold gets turned into a movie right? No, they don’t. Maybe that’s why sale prices are so high. You get the opportunity to sell your work and perhaps make a movie. And if the film isn’t made you at least have enough money to stay home, keep on writing, and try it all over again. Yes, it’s not perfect but it works. Complaining is fine, healthy even. But to want to make all these radical changes is silly and inpractical.
Craig: As much as I try to cut you some slack, we remain diametrically opposed on most issues. On the first writer thing, having received a screwing royale, which I will not rehash at this time as you know exactly what I’m talking about, I have to come down on the side of you’re being full of crap. I too have done originals and rewrites. I’ve turned down a lot more rewrites than I’ve accepted because the idea stunk on ice to begin with and was not, in my opinion, fixable. No matter what they offered me to do surgery. And no matter what kind of bells and whistles you want to put on your theory about rewrites being on a level playing field with a first draft and filling blank pages with words, again, full of crap. Any director can come on board and screw around with the words once they’re committed to paper. Any “genius” actor can come in and ad lib their brains out given a blueprint as a starting point. But let’s see what kind of masterwork they commit to celluloid if you hand them 120 blank pages as a launch site. And before I leave the subject entirely, explain something to me: if the WGA was founded to protect writing credits, then why the hell do the studios get the first bite of the credit apple by being able to submit the tentative list of Writing Credits? If they want to be unscrupulous (if?), they get an immediate head’s up by being able to omit names, do favors, etc. thereby putting writers (sometimes even FIRST writers)at a distinct disadvantage.
Boy, you go off and edit for a day, and look what you come home to!
This is fun.
Michael:
You don’t have to cut me any slack. For those of you requiring context, Michael sued the WGAw over a credits issue, and his case was dismissed by the judge.
I’m sorry you think I’m full of crap, but I think you do your own argument a disservice by offering “you’re full of crap” as a main line of reasoning. The fact that a screenplay is of value to a production has nothing to do with the argument at hand, i.e. whose contributions to that screenplay ought we value the most?
Regarding the founding of the WGAw, I don’t believe credits was the primary goal of the union (I think it was founded in order to establish salary minimums), but regardless of that fact, the reason the studios “get to” submit their tentative list is because that is the longstanding negotiated practice. I believe our Guild forefathers negotiated it that way, and it has been that way since. We could argue that it shouldn’t be that way…but why? The tentative credits don’t give anyone a “head’s up”. The sole authority to determine final credits rests with the arbiters and the Guild. The tentative credits confer no advantage of any kind.
Lee:
I avoid quality by referring to quantity of contribution to the final screenplay.
Daniel:
You wrote “In fact, the vast majority award winning films are written by single writers or ampersand teams. I wonder why?”
I’ll reiterate: the vasty majority of award-winning films are CREDITED to single writers or writing teams. That does NOT mean that no one else wrote on those movies. More often than not, there are multiple writers on those movies. This is the fallacy that drives me the craziest.
The rules that unfairly (IMO) reduce credits on those movies are used as a justification for not hiring or discounting the writers who helped make those movies good???
Mike T:
I understand that you feel you have the moral right to not be lied to. On the other hand…hellooooo, this is Hollywood! It’s LieTown! You’re always being lied to! You can’t legislate “not lying”. As long as the employer doesn’t cross the line into bargaining in bad faith (and if you read your contracts, you’ll see that the letter of the contracts states quite explicity that their plan is to do anything they freakin’ feel like with the script once they own it), then it’s caveat scriptor, and that’s simply not changeable.
Also, I disagree with your belief that novels are required for successful film franchises, and others have written in support of this point.
Howard:
I think your comment says it all (whether you know it or not), so I’m going to reprint it with my emphasis added.
“You cannot copyright an idea, therefore ideas are worthless? I don’t think so. An original idea is priceless (at least, an original take on ideas) and, provided it’s substantiated by an actual script, it’s also protected to some degree.”
Bingo. See what you did? The idea? Feh. A “take” on an idea? Now you’re getting into unique literary expression. An actual script? DEFINITELY unique literary expression.
But without a take and without a script…or with a shitty take or a shitty script…an idea is just a bunch of who cares?
A mob boss hands the reins of the family business over to his reluctant son?
Worthless. That could be either The Godfather or some craptastic direct-to-DVD Roger Corman movie.
Anonymous wrote:
“Then is a major hole in your argument. If the creation of the initial script is so easy, and the initial idea is nothing more then a jumping off point… then why don’t all these underapreciated re-writers just cut out the middle man and write their own original creations.”
There’s a major hole in this objection. :)
First, I don’t know any screenwriter who rewrites and doesn’t also write their own “original” creations (keeping in mind that the term original has been stretched to the point of meaninglessness by some). That is, we who rewrite also write our own original screenplays as specs or from pitches.
Second, we often rewrite because we are paid large sums of money to do so, and we get excited about our own idea of how to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.
Re: The founding of the Screen Writers Guild, which became the WGAw and E.
Credit determination was, indeed, the primary issue. At one point, the studios set up their own writers’ union, and gave it exactly the authority that the SWG wanted — which resulted in the SWG founders getting screwed over on credits for a while. An nasty and divisive ploy.
Re: Companies submit tentative writing credit to the Guild
The company owns the movie, and so has the legal (and, arguably, moral) authority to decide what is going to appear on every single frame … which includes the frames might have credits.
All credits on U.S. movies are the result of a negotiated agreement, all credits on movies are a form of compensation guaranteed to an employee by an employer, and, as such, before any employee can protest that the employer has failed to compensate him in accordance with his contract, the employer must first actually fail to compensate him in accordance with his contract.
When it comes to the the form of compensation: screen credit, each individual writer-employee’s contract is the MBA. Each individual writer-employee is guaranteed the same terms for receiving credit.
And it is only after the company has determined how it will compensate each individual writer that it’s even possible for any of ‘em to know if the company has failed to compensate them in accordance with his contract.
And that is why the company gives a tenative notice of the writing credits it is going to append to its movie, and that is why if none of the employees who participated in the writing of the movie protest the tenative writing credits in a reasonable period of time, they become the final writing credits.
And, here’s the thing: on more than 75% of the signatory theatrical motion pictures made each year, the company’s tentative writing credits become the final writing credits without protest, and on more than 90% of the signatory television motion pictures (including individual episodes of a series), the company’s tentative writing credits become final writing credits without protest.
Protest is necessary only when a writer believes the Company has violated his contract, and arbitration is the means by which the dispute between the writer and the Company is settled.
And that is why companies have the right to make the initial, tentative credit determination: because it is their credit to give.
(The WGA does not, repeat, does not give writing credit to anyone. In the case of a dispute between a writer or writers and the Company, the WGAw determines to whom the Company must give credit, in accordance with the terms of the MBA)(although not always accurately to the terms of the MBA, that’s for sure)
-
This was, and still is, a hell’ve a discussion.
For the record, like many on the board, I’ve done both rewrite for hires and from scratch original scripts (both on spec and for money) - writing something from scratch is a hell’ve a lot harder than a rewrite (which is a lot of work) - much, much more - I can’t even see how anyone can reasonably argue that rewrite is more work - I’ve read through this and it seems that the best offered is that rewriting someone else’s work takes more hours (correct me if I’m wrong) and therefore is more important - yet there is no way to really affirm that a rewrite does indeed take more hours.
I think writing an original, especially one that prodco’s will want, takes much more work.
Secondly - I don’t see how plays (which, like screenplays, are not meant to be read but rather, performed) are different, in essence, from screenplays - screenplays are blueprints for film, plays are blueprints for public performance - the only real difference between the two is the role the audience plays.
Now before a bunch of guys jump on me and say movies are more visual, plays more literal, blah blah blah - I’m not talking about content (though I will point you to a film called My Dinner With Andre) - but the functionality of the script as it serves the story for both. Plays need actors, directors, a stage and most important, an audience, in order to be what they are, whatever that may be.
I don’t understand why playwrights get copywright and screenwriters don’t - that screenwriters don’t have copyright unless someone buys it - it seems to be to be a glitch in the copyright law, and I know Craig approves of it, but I don’t think it serves writers, overall - and it seems weird.
So it should be changed - just because it’s a law now, doesn’t mean it always will be. At one point cocaine was legal and pot wasn’t, and still isn’t. Things can change. Some day Mary Jane will walk free.
Why not we as well?
Lastly, why should we smile and approve of out and out lying in Hollywood? Does everyone lie? And why should we tacitly allow it? If someone lies to me (and it’s been done) about a contract, that’s false representation. And I’ve walked away. But this silent, hey, it’s what you gotta do, kind of thing has always bothered me - Can we not encourage truth and honesty in our profession? It’s not the White House, for crying out loud.
ps Craig, I found a film with five credited screenwriters - BLAZING SADDLES, which, to be fair, is very funny.
You never answered my original question of whether or not it’s fair that the guild discourages four or five credited writers from being listed, regardless of whether each has done enough work to deserve being credited - does this policy serve the writer, truly? And why?
JOSHUA:
This is incorrect. Anyone can have a copyright. My six year old son can have a copyright. A screenwriter chooses to SELL his copyright. For a very hefty fee.
The copyrights regarding screenwriters and playrights are different because their material is exploited differently.
A SCREENWRITER, in most cases will make 20 times more than a playright. This is due to the way a screenplay can be exploited. It is bought by a studio which can offer a screenwriter to make money by way of options, percentages, marketing, DVD, television, and residuals. When all is said and done, a screenwriter can gross over one million dollars for a produced film. So yes, for all that, a studio wants to own the copyright.
Kevin -
“A SCREENWRITER, in most cases will make 20 times more than a playright. This is due to the way a screenplay can be exploited. “
This is incorrect - somewhere in the world, a Neil Simon play is being performed onstage at this moment … a play, when properly “exploited”, can make the playwright a lot more money than a screenwriter will make on a spec. Plus, then the playwright sells the play to someone who will exploit it as a film.
Art, another play, made the playwright a lot more money than most screenwriters will see. And continues to do so - every time the play is performed (and it’s one of the MOST produced plays in the country) a royalty is paid and the playwright gets the bulk of it. Depending upon the deal, it could be as much as %60. Every time it’s done, for years and years. One a produced play hits a certain number of performances On Or Off-Bway in New York, the playwright stands to make much more than a million dollars.
There is a lot of money in plays when they finally hit - the trouble is getting them to hit and that the mainstream market, at least in New York, is small. I would agree that there is more people putting more money into films and film production, that I would agree upon, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that there isn’t a market for plays and a lot of money to be made there.
Now your argument that most screenwriters make more than most playwrights, it depends on numbers we’re talking about. There are a LOT more screenwriters than there are playwights, and I would argue, on average, that it is possible that playwrights may even make more, per person, than the average screenwriter does.
The market for comics is also smaller than the one for films, but Stan Lee isn’t hurting for cash.
And playwrights also write scores for musicals, and don’t even think that those don’t make money … RENT was a huge money maker before the film was ever shot. One hit musical, just doing book (like Urinetown) can set you for life, which is why there are so many crappy musicals abounding the great white way (and for the record, I know not why broadway is called “the great white way”, maybe I shouldn’t even be using it) -
There are million dollar screenwriters, you bet - but there are very wealthy playwrights, too.
Regardless, my point is that I don’t see a real difference, as mapped out by our colleagues above, between the function of the playwright and the function of the screenwriter when it comes to mapping out a story FOR SOMEONE ELSE TO TELL - which is what we both do. No matter which one makes more money, the function is, at essence, close or the same.
Lastly, one of us may have read Craig wrong regarding his post “Oh, So That’s Why We’re Not Treated Like Playwrights” - it could have been me, but let’s both check it just to make sure.
JOSHUA:
I would agree that well known plays can make a playwright (I’ve been spelling it “playright” this whole time—thanks for not making fun of me) rich but those plays have to be PRODUCED in order to do so. Screenwriters make a lot of money on mostly films that are never even made. There are a ton of writers that you’ve never heard of that make a lot of money.
And of course you’re absolutely right, Playwrights and Screenwriters both tell stories for someone else to tell and serve the same function. But FUNCTION wasn’t the debate. A rolling paper’s function is to hold in the plants for smoking. But depending on whether you use tobacco or marijuana, the rolling paper is EXPLOITED differently.
Screenwriters and Playwrights exploit their copyright differently, and rightly so.
And I’ve never read “Oh, So That’s Why We’re Not Treated Like Playwrights”. Was it good?:)
JOSHUA:
Ok, I just read “Oh, So That’s Why We’re Not Treated Like Playwrights”.
And thank you for pointing it out to me because it quantifies my argument. It’s all about EXPLOITATION.
So let me get this straight�after I spend a truckload of money on something and eventually own it, I actually CAN�T do whatever I want with it?
It may sound absurd, yet, in most of the Western world a screenwriter sells a license to produce, distribute and exploit one film from the material. The writer remains the owner of the copyright to the script.
As for rewrites, below are a few articles from the WGC collective agreement.
B110 Script Changes
The Writer of an original Script shall be consulted in regard to all proposed changes, modifications, additions or deletions affecting meaning, intent, theme, characterization or plot development of the Script, and all editorial changes of a major nature. Any such changes to which the Writer agrees shall be made by the Writer.
It shall not be a breach of this Article for the Producer to make minor Script changes during the production to meet the production needs. Any change that affects the meaning, intent, theme, characterization or plot development of a Script or any editorial change of a major nature shall not under any circumstances be considered “minor Script changes during the production to meet production needs”.
also
No additional Writer(s) may be engaged to work on the Script without the written agreement of the Writer, and where the Writer does agree that an additional Writer or Writers may be engaged, such Writers shall be contracted under terms no more favourable than the first writer.
This, imo, is a more balanced creative relationship between the writers and the producers. Of course, the producers is here demoted from his semi-god status.
Daniel L
And enforces my argument - that there is no difference in our function, so we shouldn’t be treated differently when it comes to copyright and exploitation.
My point was function.
And point of order, there are many writers making money on shows that do not make it to broadway - so on the other issue mayhap we should call it even … it’s hard to write a movie that will actually get made, and it’s also hard to write a play or musical that’s a hit - it’s just hard.
Actually Kevin,
Whether or not the rolling paper has tobacco or sweet Mary Jane within, it’s still exploited the same - burned for the amusement of the user - the effect depends upon the material inside, but the exploitation remains the same.
And again, that’s the argument and my point.
JOSHUA:
I don’t smoke tobacco or sweet—was it sweet Mary Jane…but the reason why the rolling paper is being EXPLOITED differently is because one is for legal use, the other for illegal use. What you are arguing is THE INTENDED RESULT.
A Screenplay and a Play’s intended result is to amuse the audience—much like Sweet Mary Jane. But they are exploited differently to incur that result.
And on the issue of rich playwrights vs. rich screenwriters—let’s call it even. And neither one of us are rich, so screw the rich!
DL:
You’re writing assignment deal can be whatever you negotiate it to be. If you can get all the executives at New Line Cinema to sing The Thong Song every other Thursday because it’s in your contract then more power to you.
Hey Kevin -
Wrong - the paper is used the EXACT same way in both case, so the paper is being exploited exactly the same.
Whether or not the end result is legal or not, makes no difference to how the paper ends up. The paper burns for the pleasure of the user. It’s exploited the same.
That’s like saying film stock used for Passion of the Christ is somehow exploited differently than it would be used for a pornographic film (which, granted, are mostly on video) - or to be closer to our ananogy, a snuff film, which is certainly illegal - the film stock is exploited no differently in either case -
Craig is speaking of the Myth of the Original. Deconstruct that!
Writing for film erases the original intent of the author. As it should. Intent is the starting-off point, but it is not an original act. The origin is always elusive.
Craig has decentered the point of origin, or at least he has shown how it can be decentered.
One way the �original� act is decentered, marginalized from an alleged moral and aesthetic superiority, is through the act of being made into a commodity by the filmmaking industry. Until the intent (movie idea) is transformed into a commodity (script), and set in motion in a dynamic cycle of revisions, it has little value. Is this capitalism? You bet. At it�s best, baby! Is it exploitation? Gee, I�d like to be exploited for the price they pay screenwriters, adequately credited or not. Writers have never been freer and allowed more creativity than in the modern capitalist period. Too bad we can�t consult the dead poets of antiquity who had to suffer all kinds of humiliation in order to win patronage from their aristocratic superiors. Now we have enough surplus capital to allow all kinds of creative writers to make a decent living at their craft.
You�re writing for filmmakers, for others. That is the nature of the beast. That is your job, your duty to Hollywood. It should be perceived as a liberating experience, to become the kind of writer who looks at a story to be re-told over and over again. I can�t think of a better education for writers.
The copyrights regarding screenwriters and playrights are different because their material is exploited differently.
Actually, as per my previous post, the only reason that the copyrights are treated differently is that Hollywood decided to impose its own rules. If it was because the material was exploited differently, then why do all other film industries acquire licenses and not the copyrights?
Of course, the only ones benefiting from this are the producers.
You�re writing assignment deal can be whatever you negotiate it to be. If you can get all the executives at New Line Cinema to sing The Thong Song every other Thursday because it�s in your contract then more power to you.
I don’t think this should be a matter of individual negociations, but, as is everywhere else, part of the MBA. You see, Hollywood is the aberration, not the world.
DL
Craig, Terry
Thanks to your explanations, I understand how credits are assign.
I still believe that the rules applied are as Morpheus would put it “the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth. […] That you are a slave, Neo. Like everyone else, you were born into bondage, kept inside a prison that you cannot smell, taste, or touch. A prison for your mind.”
DL
Let me pose a question to everyone. Here’s the backstory: you write a screenplay that is purchased by Warner Brothers. They give you a chance to rewrite it based on their notes, but you do not see eye to eye with the studio and your rewrite is not well received. The studio says they will not spend the money to make the movie as written. Would you rather the movie never get made? Or would you rather they hire a writer to rewrite your work, with a chance that the movie will eventually get made, and at least an iota of your original vision would make it to the screen?
First, while I’m happy that Daniel continues to cite the Canadian model, the very important issue to understand is that Canada does not have work-for-hire and DOES have droit moral, which is why their rules must be framed as they are.
Someone mentioned Blazing Saddles. There is only one credited writer for the screenplay of Blazing Saddles, but it is a multiple writer team. Teams, as you recall, count as one writer when it comes to arbitrations.
The challenge is…can you find a movie that has five writers, in which each writer (team or individual) is separated from the other four by “and” rather than “&”. I don’t think you can do it. :)
Lastly, Joshua wrote:
“I don’t understand why playwrights get copywright and screenwriters don’t - that screenwriters don’t have copyright unless someone buys it - it seems to be to be a glitch in the copyright law, and I know Craig approves of it, but I don’t think it serves writers, overall - and it seems weird. “
That’s not quite right. Assuming we’re dealing with the narrow case of spec screenplays only, here’s how it works.
You write a spec. You own the copyright on the spec instantaneously. When you sell the spec screenplay to a company, you have one of two options.
First, you can agree to transfer the copyright to the company. When you do so, they become the legal author and owner of the screenplay. The ramifications of this are obvious.
Second, you can make a legal agreement with the company that even though this wasn’t actually the case, you really wrote the spec screenplay as a specially commissioned project just for them, which makes it a work-for-hire, which means they are the legal author and owner of the screenplay.
By the way, you could do this with a play also. In fact, I could make an argument that playwrights SHOULD do this. It would allow them to be classified as employees, which would allow them to unionize, which would allow them to collectively bargain. They could bargain for separated rights (and in the case of playwrights, that could mean retention of publication rights, residuals to match the royalties they would lose as employees, etc.).
Maybe then playwrights would have some minimums and some health care and pension and legal advocacy and all the things that come with being a member of a federally certified labor union.
Writers aren’t given that choice, Derek, as it stands now - it’s passed over to other writers without consult to the first - isn’t that really the issue at hand?
Derek:
It would depend on the project and whether I wrote it on spec or assignment.
I have specs that I wouldn’t mind letting the studios do whatever the hell they wanted with them.
Other specs I wrote, I would rather shelve than letting the studios make changes I wouldn’t agree with.
But I understand that specs are different from assignments. The producer can read the spec and decide if that’s a film he wants to make or not.
On the other hand, the assignment is a gamble.
Also, it’s the writer who takes on all the risks when writing a spec. It’s his time, his money. The spec doesn’t sell and its a write off. Higher risks should equate to higher rewards, no?
On the other hand, for assignments, the producer is the one who takes the risks. Because of that, if he didn’t like the result, he’d more than welcome to find someone to rewrite it to his liking.
Crikey, did we break the comment record on this one?
Craig, Blazing Saddles was on last night and the credits listed screenplay by : five names (including Richard Pryor) -
If I understand you correctly, the guild’s position is that this is one writer team working as a single unit, even though it lists five names (plus a story by Andrew Bergman credit) -
Craig:
Here is where I’m more than a little confused. In the preambule to the IAWG agreement I cited above, the signatory guilds, including the WGA agree…
to work for copyright laws that are based on the concept that the creator of any work is its first owner, with inalienable legal and moral rights in that work that protect its use and integrity
Am I reading wrong here or is the WGA endorses the fight to changes the copyright laws so that their members can have the Droit Moral, etc.? And what doesn’t “protect its use and integrity” mean if not prevent additional writers and changes without the writer’s approval?
Daniel L
[corrected post]
Craig:
Here is where I�m more than a little confused. In the preambule to the IAWG agreement I cited above, the signatory guilds, including the WGA agree�
to work for copyright laws that are based on the concept that the creator of any work is its first owner, with inalienable legal and moral rights in that work that protect its use and integrity
Am I reading wrong here or does the WGA endorse the fight to change the copyright laws so that their members can have the Droit Moral, etc.? And what doesn�t �protect its use and integrity� mean if not prevent additional writers and changes without the writer�s approval?
Daniel L
If you write a screenplay on spec, you own the copyright.
When a studio purchases the screenplay, as a condition of sale, the writer is required to sign an agreement stating that the screenplay shall be considered a work-made-for-hire, commissioned by the studio.
Under U.S. copyright law, if a screenplay is commissioned as a work-made-for-hire, then the person or party who commissioned the screenplay owns the copyright, and not the writer.
If you write a screenplay on assignment, you are writing it as an employee in the course of employment.
Under U.S. copyright law, if a screenplay is written by an employee in the course of employment, then the employer is the copyright owner, and not the writer.
These same statutes apply to playwrights. If a playwright sells a play to an impresario and signs an agreement stating it shall be considered a work-made-for-hire commissioned by the impresario, then the impresario owns the copyright in the play, and not the playwright.
If a playwright writes a play as an employee in the course of his employment, then the employer owns the copyright in the play, and not the playwright.
This is also true for songwriters … architects … novelists … sculptors … painters … photographers … filmmakers … and anyone else who creates what are legally defined as “works of authorship.”
And, of course, the person or part who owns the copyright in a work of authorship has the right to abridge, amend or revise the work as he sees fit, or to employ someone else to abridge, amend or revise the work as he sees fit.
But here’s the thing:
If you write a screenplay on spec, there is nothing that requires you to sign an agreement stating that it shall be considered a work-made-for-hire.
If you want to write a screenplay, there is nothing that requires you do so as an employee in the course of your employment.
Either of those circumstances are ones into which a screenwriter can enter only knowingly and of his own free will.
If you knowingly and of your own free will sign a work-made-for-hire agreement with a studio, then you are granting the studio the authority to amend, abridge or revise the screenplay as it sees fit, and to employ someone to amend, abridge or revise the screenplay as it sees fit.
If you knowingly and of your own free will accept an assignment to write a screenplay as an employee in the course of your employment with a studio, then you are granting the studio the right to amend, abridge or revise the screenplay as it sees fit, and to employ someone to amend, abridge or revise the screenplay as it sees fit.
If you do not want your work to be rewritten by someone else under any circumstances, then here’s what you do:
Failing that, do not sell your spec screenplay to a studio that requires you to sign a work-made-for-hire agreement, and do not accept an assignment writing a screenplay for a studio.
-
But how about the WGA’s commmitment to
to work for copyright laws that are based on the concept that the creator of any work is its first owner, with inalienable legal and moral rights in that work that protect its use and integrity ?
What does “inalienable legal and moral rights…” mean in this context?
DL
Daniel:
That commitment is lovely, but it’s empty. First off, that’s mostly what our copyright laws already say, with the exception of the moral rights…and there’s zippo chance of that ever changing in the U.S. The trend has been towards laws that further favor corporate owners of intellectual property. The idea that we would suddenly sign on to droit moral?
Forget it.
The WGA can say it will fight for droit moral, but it’s not now, nor do I expect it will. It’s wasted breath.
It’s a loser of a fight. Even worse, it would lead to conditions that would probably mean the decertification of the guild, and unions are very rarely suicidal.
C.
Daniel L:
I’m not Craig, but I will answer:
Unlike the Writers Guilds in every other country, U.S. production companies signatory to a Writers Guild of America agreement are required by federal law to negotiate with the WGA.
That means that the WGA is also constrained by federal law.
One such law prohibits the WGA from instituting any policy that would in any way abrogate the right of a signatory company to hire whomever it wants to work on a screenplay it owns.
The only way the WGA can bring about circumstances wherein signatory companies are prevented from hiring additional writers or making changes without the approval of the first writer is if the signatory company agreed to it as the term of a collective bargaining agreement.
This has been accomplished with companies signatory to the Guild’s independent feature contract.
It has not been accomplished with companies signatory to the Guild’s AMPTP contract. The sixty-plus-year fight continues.
But, I will point out again:
If you sign a work-made-for-hire agreement or accept an assignment as work-made-for-hire, then you have knowingly and of your free will given the Company the right to amend, abridge or revise the screenplay as it sees fit, and to hire other people to amend, abridge or revise the screenplay as it sees fit.
What is that other than express approval for the company to hire additional writers and makes changes at its discretion?
As for the question of whether or not the WGA is fighting to win U.S. screenwriters droit moral:
Although U.S. copyright law does not include specific droit moral legistlation, U.S. law nonetheless guarantees equivalent rights to all authors.
If it did not, then the U.S. could not have been signatory to the Berne Convention; nor could it be signatory to its successor, the World Copyright Treaty.
But, here’s the thing:
Work-made-for-hire says that in the case of a work-made-for-hire, the party that commissions the work or the employer is the author. Both the Berne Convention and the WCT say that the laws of the country in which jurisdiction the work was created have primacy.
Get it? It’s the studio that has the equivalent of droit moral,.
However, what’s interesting is this: the absolute and fundamental moral right of authors is the right to claim authorship of a work.
And that is protected in all cases by the First Amendment. You write a screenplay on spec, you are the author, you sign a work-made-for-hire agreement, you are still the author of the screenplay as it existed before you signed the agreement. You can claim authorship of that all you want, and the studio cannot take any action to prevent you from doing so. Neither can the WGA.
What you cannot do is claim authorship of the screenplay as it exists and is used in the final movie, unless you have been given screen credit that recognizes you as the author of that screenplay.
Once again: no screenwriter is legally or morally compelled to enter into a work-made-for-hire agreement or accept an assignment that is work-made-for-hire.
But if they do, then they are legally and, I believe, morally obligated to accept all the consequences of their decision, both good and bad.
It’s called being a professional.
-
Craig, Ted, and Derek:
Thank you for intelligently illustrating my point. I’m a bit surprised that there’s so much opposition as to how a business does and should work.
Craig, when was the last time you told your agent, “Get me a cushy three-week ‘start from scratch’ job, something where they don’t even have an idea, nothing — I need a break from busting my ass polishing other people’s finished screenplays”?
Bill
I write screenplays so they will be made into movies. I don’t write them for the pages to be the final end-game. I certainly don’t write them for the reader. If a screenplay I write is not going to be made (for whatever reason), but if another screenwriter can rewrite it so that it will be made, then I am all for that. I will always reserve the right to bitch about the inferior changes made to my script, or the poor delivery of the lines, or the shoddy direction, or the strange editing, or the crappy new dialogue… but I will also have great pride in seeing my “little victories” up on the screen. And that is even on scripts in which my partner and I were the only writers. Conversely, if I accept an offer by a studio to rewrite a script, my job is to take what was given to me and turn it into a movie that the studio will make. There are many, many writing options other than writing for film if my primary goal is not to have my words altered.
Craig, thanks for responding to my post. Of course, I agree with your “take” on my comments. But that “feh” you gave me… that hurt! Just kidding.
Bill wrote:
“Craig, when was the last time you told your agent, “Get me a cushy three-week ‘start from scratch’ job, something where they don’t even have an idea, nothing — I need a break from busting my ass polishing other people’s finished screenplays”?”
I don’t really ask for types of jobs. One of the benefits of my meager success is that I get to pick and choose my gigs…at least to some extent.
However, I’ve certainly taken three-week start from scratch jobs. In fact, that’s what the first draft of Scary Movie 4 was. Three weeks. Starting from scratch.
Your point?
My point was clear, but I’ll spell it out for you:
I don’t believe you when you say that you consider writing a first draft from scratch easier than fixing an existing draft. And in the example you gave, you weren’t starting from scratch — you knew they wanted a sequel to Scary Movie 3, that it was a comedy, etc., and you had existing movies to parody, pull moments, characters and structure from, etc.
That is not the same as facing a ream of blank paper and crafting something that an agent wants to sell, a producer wants to buy, a studio wants to make.
This isn’t even debatable. If I took your column, this one we’re talking about now… and in one-fifteenth the time it took you to write it, I were to punch it up a bit — make a few changes, clarify a few points, take out some stuff I think is wrong and voilá — I don’t think you would agree that what I did was harder than what you did. I don’t think you would agree that it’s just as much my column as yours, probably even MORE because I’m the one who made it work within all those limitations you set.
Bill
Bill:
Regarding the writing of Scary 4…you know not of what you speak.
But I’ll tell you what. Take the title of this column.
Just the title.
I don’t like any of the rest of it. None of it. I like the idea that there’s an issue with first writers. I like this “martyr” concept. That’s it. I don’t want to see anything else from it.
Now go write me a new column.
It took me about 30 minutes to write this one.
Let me know what you’ve got after 2 minutes. I’m sure it will be great.
Oh, and I hope you don’t mind…but when it goes on the web, it’s still going to have my name on it.
Oh bullshit.
But okay, my point still remains and remains valid — because the extreme example you’re using is not a rewrite. It’s another first draft.
If you were asserting in your column that the guy who faces a blank page with no ideas and no help whatsoever deserves as much credit as the guy who faces a blank page with no ideas and no help whatsoever… then yeah, maybe I’d agree with you.
That’s not what you assert. You’re saying, quite plainly, that the guy who comes in to rewrite — not “start over again from scratch,” but REWRITE — a script has a harder job than the guy who only made up the whole thing from thin air.
And re SCARY MOVIE 4 — I know enough of what I speak to make my point. Unless you were brought in on a blind script commitment by people who said, “We don’t know what we want you to write, surprise us” and you knocked them over with “Hey, I know! How about a sequel to SCARY MOVIE 3?” then three weeks later, BAM, done….
Bill
Bill:
I’m pretty sure I mentioned the words “page one” in my article. You might have missed that.
Ergo…blank page.
Regarding Scary Movie 4, are you saying that if someone asks you for a movie of a certain genre and you supply one, you’re no longer considered to have started from scratch?
BILL:
Do you want to know the big difference between a page one original and a page one rewrite?
FREEDOM.
When you are writing your original script, you can do whatever you want to do. You can work at your own pace, there are absolutely no confines to the story and structure, and there’s no one giving you creative notes.
When you are performing a page one rewrite, you must stay within the confines of the original script if that is indeed the element that the producer likes. You have a schedule. A strict schedule. You can’t take a couple of weeks off to wait for some divine inspiration; you are in a contractual agreement that says that you have to sit your ass down and get to work. And that’s just for a page one rewrite. Do you know what’s like rewriting a sequel? Not only do you have to stay within the confines of the story and structure but now you have an existing audience that you can’t disappoint.
Ever bought something from IKEA?
Lawsuits aside, that store is a pain in the ass. Yes, the furniture is cheap as hell but it’s flimsy and you gotta put the fucker together. So anyway, you get home, read the instructions, and put together that dining room table at your own pace. It’s difficult and confusing but you did it. Now imagine this: Your wife already went to IKEA. She brought home the table, tried her best to put it together—failed, gave up and threw the instructions away. So you get home and there’s a note saying:
Put this table together in the next hour. If you can’t, we’re getting a divorce. Luuuuuv you.
So now you got this weird little monstrosity in your living room, you gotta put it together, but you have no idea how. AND you have a time limit. WITH consequences.
Common sense tells you that there’s no way you’re gonna be able to just add a screw here and a bolt there. You’re gonna have to DECONSTRUCT the thing. Pull it apart so you can successfully put it back together again. That’s the only way it’s gonna work and that’s what it’s like to rewrite a screenplay.
Can you honestly tell me that was easier than starting from scratch?
It’s a hell of a lot easier to deconstruct something than it is to construct something from scratch, Kevin -
Using your metaphor, it’s easier to figure out something via reverse-engineering than it is to invent it - sure, you have the freedom to do what you want, but that’s just but one of the things that makes writing something from scratch difficult.
That’s not to say rewritiing is not hard work - it is. But it’s not more difficult than writing something new, from scratch, in the same amount of time.
So yes, honestly, I don’t know about Bill, but for me, it’s a lot easier to rewrite you or anyone else’s script from page one than it is to write something from scratch. Less hours, less work and usually more guidelines to follow from those who have hired you.
JOSHUA:
How can reverse engineering something that’s totally new to you be easier than inventing it yourself? With a timeline?
Wanna know why there are so many writers brought on to rewrite something? Because it’s so damned difficult. Because a lot of the writers are flailing around trying to figure out what’s going on. Because they’ve run out of time and they weren’t able to reverse engineer the damn thing.
You’re honestly saying that it’s easier to look at a half put together table—a table that’s been put together wrong, take it apart, and put it back together correctly with absolutely no instructions? Within a timeline?
That’s the thing with putting something together from scratch: You don’t have a timeline, you don’t have any constraints, and you can make as many mistakes on it as you want.
JOSHUA:
And here’s the thing about Deconstructing:
Post-structuralist philosopher Jacques Derrida believes Deconstructing to be the most difficult art because it requires the artist to, “speak in two or more different “voices”.
Meaning, when you have to rewrite, we don’t just want you to write another original screenplay. We want you to incorporate the “voice” of the original writer AND your own unique voice. With creative notes. Within a timeline. Within a preconceived structure.
Ted:
I really appreciate you taking the time to go to the core of the copyright issue. Out of this debate comes a better understanding of what is, what can be changed and what can’t be.
Bill M:
I’m happy you joined the discussion. As you’ll read below, I’m also one who doesn’t believe the same amount of work is involved in both writing and rewriting.
Everyone:
The issue of who works more and who deserves credit is far from over, imo, since there are important aspects that we have until now ignored.
To explain. Most of the discussion we had so far stems from the premise that rewriting can be as much if not more work than writing an original screenplay. The argument has been brought that often a writer will to a page one rewrite or rework the entire script.
Most of the argument reduces the creation of a screenplay to the act of putting the story into words in the accepted format. I would argue that what a writer does before that is part of the creation.
I’m not a produced writer, but just so you understand that I’m not a complete newbie, I have devoted nearly every waking hour of the past ten years to the writing screenplays. That’s ten hours a day multiplied by three thousand six hundred and fifty days.
Now I didn’t spend all that time in Final Draft typing scene after scene. In act, I’d be surprised if that consumed even one quarter of my creative time. What took really a lot of hard work, and in my experience harder than writing out the scripts, was preparing for them.
Allow me to take my science-fiction project entitled The Sedentary Traveler as an example of the work that typically goes into writing one of my scripts ( and I’m sure there are many others who work that way).
DAY 1.
I’m driving to university. The traffic is heavier than usual and I get increasingly frustrated. I decide to make the best of it and think and review mentally the notes I received from an editor regarding a short story I sent him. It’s no use. Why the hell to we humans need to waste so much time transiting?!!! And just then, the title and the idea for a story blows my mind.
I don’t know how long I was in traffic after that, could have been an hour, but I when I felt frustration again it was because I had to pull myself out of the story that was forming to go to class.
DAY 2 to 325
The story is to take place in a future or alternative world. I could start working on the story immediately, outline the plot and all, but then I’d write from a tourist�s point of view. If I’m going to write a good honest story, I need to reside in TST’s world for a while. Doing anything else would be like writing about entirely foreign country after passing through on a tour.
I need to understand and experience every aspects of TST’s world as does any one of its citizens. So I explore this strange new world and acquaint myself with its politics, social classes, culture, values, etc., and write about it.
At the end of this part of the process, after having resided for the better part of the year in TST’s world and writing down what I have discovered/created, I have over six hundred very dense pages of notes. I’m now ready and qualified to write a story about some of its people.
DAY 326 to 366.
I outline the story and write the first and second drafts.
After Day 366 -
I did five more rewrites that took an additional three months.
Now, my seventh draft is a producer’s first draft ( learned that from Worldplay�s columns ). So let’s say the producer hires David Webb Peoples to rewrite the script - he’s one of my favorite writers so I’m not as pissed off as I would normally be - and he does a page one rewrite. As talented as he is, can you honestly tell me that he worked as hard as I did?
Now I don’t know how typical my process is, but I suspect that there’s a lot of exploration and/or research time going into so-called first drafts that the rewriters will never have to do.
I agree that the rewriter works hard and far from me the idea to demean his contribution, but there is lot more to screenwriting than writing drafts.
Daniel L
Kevin, you asked and I replied - yes, it is less work for me to rewrite someone else than it is to write something new and completely from scratch that someone will want to produce.
You also wrote - “Wanna know why there are so many writers brought on to rewrite something? Because it’s so damned difficult. Because a lot of the writers are flailing around trying to figure out what’s going on. Because they’ve run out of time and they weren’t able to reverse engineer the damn thing.”
You’re basing this on what, exactly? I’ve mentioned above that there are many, many reasons for a script to have multiple writers work on it that have nothing to do with the story and everything to do with the deal, who’s attached, etc. There are many reasons many writers are brought it, a fact you yourself acknowledged, and many of the best scripts that have won Oscars are scripts that were, in a sense, untouched by that process (I think of the Cohen brothers, Fargo, or Charlie Kaufmann, and I’m sure there are others) - not that that process isn’t important or valuable and multiple writers cannot do something great (I mentioned Blazing Saddles earlier), but I think you’re really generalizing the whole thing with this statement here.
I’m telling you what it is for me, in my experience - and that’s that is less work to rewrite someone else’s script than it is to write something wholly original in the same amount of time. If it’s more work for you to rewrite, that’s cool - but I don’t accept your explanation above as a universal reason for why it’s harder for everyone to rewrite than to write something completely new.
By the way, I’m familiar with Derrida from my days in grad school, somewhat, and I’ve always believed him to be wrong - it’s MUCH easier to deconstruct than an ORIGINAL construct, in my view …
Deconstruction is all the rage in theatre as well … everyone thinks they can do it and most do, whether it’s necessary or not, and they do it because it isn’t all that difficult to tear something apart and put it back together.
We may have to call detente’ on this issue as well.
JOSHUA:
First of all, I had to look up the word “Detente”.
Second of all, yes, I think we may have to chalk it up to to each his own. If you find rewriting easier, I don’t think I can or should try to convince you otherwise.
BUT
DL:
After reading your story I thought maybe you had switched sides and believed that rewriting was definitely harder. But after your story you said you still believed that original writing was easier. Predicated on this fact:
…but there is lot more to screenwriting than writing drafts.
I couldn’t agree more. There’s a hell of a lot more to writing than just writing drafts. But I’m confused. You just expressed to us that it took you 366 days to write a first draft.
Do you know how much time a rewriter gets?
Weeks.
And he knows NOTHING of what it took for you to get there. But it’s gotta be just as good. No, it’s gotta be better. It’s exactly like your metaphor: Writing about a foreign after passing through on a tour.
Anyway, I think it is indeed time to let the great debate go peacefully into the night.
To each his own.
Kevin,
Yes. It took that much time and I’m a fast writer. I can write a solid ten pages a day or more, every day.
Give me a rewrite or a sequel and I bet I’ll do it in three weeks. It’ll really hard and I’ll have to pack a hell of a lot of work in that three weeks, but I can give you a money back guarantee I can do it just the way you want or better.
Now, I worked with the same intensity for over a year on The Sedentary Traveler. What does that tell you?
Daniel L
DL:
It tells me that it took you a year to write an original screenplay. Nothing more, nothing less.
Because it’s MORE work than a three week rewrite, Kevin.
Obviously Craig opened a can of worms with this -
Craig,
Your comment is quite telling: “I avoid quality by referring to quantity of contribution to the final screenplay.” And it makes sense, for you are rewarded along these lines (again, an example of Suvivorship Bias: what’s required to survive the rewrite process while meeting the minimum constraint of pleasing your patron’s - a studio executive - aesthetic judgement). I doubt, however, that your peer group would reduce their activity to one of page quantity (which is why this discussion has rolled on as it has).
I do find the story & screenplay breakdown a helpful way to view the role of the writer. For screenplay writing - story fixed - there is every reason to toss a bunch of pages at the problem and see what sticks. However, if one views the writer as a story creator, the problem of quality returns. Moreover, the story & screenplay breakdown acknowledges the additional contribution of the first writer (two entities - story & screenplay), rather than the rewriter (screenplay only).
lt
JOSHUA:
DL’s example of how he took 366 days to write an original screenplay absolutely does not show that originals are more work. What it does show is this:
DL CHOSE to take 366 days to write a screenplay.
I read his post very carefully. He was not writing an original screenplay about the horrors of Haiti. He was not writing about the proper diction of the ancient Mayans. He was writing a sci-fi story. Just as it took 366 days to write his screenplay, it easily could have taken 15 days.
This does not make DL wrong. This does not make DL right. He just CHOSE to take 326 days to create an outline of over 600 pages.
I have no idea why his outline is 500 pages more than the actual script. I have no idea why his outline process didn’t last about 2 weeks. I can assure you, this is not the norm.
Again, this doesn’t make DL wrong. This doesn’t make DL right. After 366 days and a 600 page outline, his script may be the best screenplay ever written.
Or maybe it just took him 366 days to write a screenplay…
Kevin, damn man, his point was that it took that long because an original is MORE work - that’s why he told the story, for crying out loud - you’re deliberately overlooking the obvious. Of course he chose to do it, you think someone put a gun to his head and said, hey, don’t write this too fast …
And maybe his particular story DIDN’T tell you that originals are more work than rewrites, but DL DID say that himself, that’s his point. His rhetorical question, “now what does that tell you” is intended to mean just that - that his original is more work than a rewrite would be. That’s the meaning of that particular post.
Now you can disagree with his point, as you have been doing with me, it’s obvious you believe rewriting someone else’s script is far more work than writing something new and original on your own - but to maintain he’s NOT saying that at all is downright obtruse. That was the meaning of his posts - Come on, man - what is this, the Supreme Court?
Dude, come on -
What I tried to say with my example is that anyone can do a rewrite of a script or write a generic story ( which anyway makes the vast majority of films produced ) in a matter of weeks.
Any real writer can do a rewrite of my script in a month. No one could write the first draft in less than a year.
I didn’t chose to take a year to write TST. Even the most brilliant writers take at least that long to write comparible stories. Hell, you want a sequel to the Scream or Jason series, give me a week and it’ll be on your desk. Now if you want Crash or Million Dollar Baby, that takes talent and time. Real talent and a lot of time. Even more time if you need to create an entire world as I needed to for TST.
But it’s impossible, and I mean IMPOSSIBLE, to write a script like Dark City, Alien, Blade Runner, Total Recall, The Matrix, Adaptation or Being Malcovitch in that time, but yes, you can hack any of the above or rewrite them in a few weeks.
Show me a script that has been written in a three weeks and I’ll show you a generic story that competes with a thousand others for the Guiness record of the story that packs the most clich�s per minute.
That said, I think we need to make a distinction between two very distinct types of writing here. Generic versus original.
Daniel L
Josh,
I’m most certainly not being obtruse. I was making the point that at the end of the day there is no DEFINITIVE answer. Personally, DL feels that it is harder to write originals than rewrites.
After reading all these goddamn posts, it’s obvious that it’s a personal view.
That is why I said—
TO EACH HIS OWN.
TWICE.
Josh,
Now if you read DL’s last post he actually said:
No one could write the first draft in less than a year.
But it’s impossible, and I mean IMPOSSIBLE, to write a script like Dark City, Alien, Blade Runner, Total Recall, The Matrix, Adaptation or Being Malcovitch in that time, but yes, you can hack any of the above or rewrite them in a few weeks.
Where the hell is he getting those facts from?
It takes a year to write an original screenplay?
Now who’s being OBTUSE?
Total Recall takes a year to write?
Now that’s HILARIOUS.
Kevin,
If you read my post again, you’ll see that I didn’t say it took a year to write any of the films I mentioned. What I said, is that they can’t be hacked in a few weeks. Especially if you take into account the preparation time.
Twelve Monkeys took several years to write, so did Unforgiven ( and I got those numbers from the writer himself ). So if it took that long from someone as experienced and talented as David Webb Peoples, why would you think anyone could do the job in a fews weeks, even months?
Daniel L
Daniel, To defend Kevin a little bit, I think his point is that it is your individual process that means an original screenplay takes a year to write. My guess is if you were given a studio rewrite job, you would take months before you turned it in, no matter what it said in your contract. Your process is a slow one. There’s nothing wrong with that. But I reject the argument that time spent writing a screenplay has anything to do with difficulty, talent, and/or quality.
Thanks Derek…
I don’t know how many different ways I can write what you just wrote.
Derek,
Can you give me an example of a script of the caliber I mentioned that was written in a matter of months, let alone weeks?
I don’t know or heard of any. Especially in sci-fi.
Daniel L
Daniel, I have no idea how long any of the scripts you mentioned took to write, nor do I know how many writers worked on them. DARK CITY had three credited writers on it, TOTAL RECALL had five credited writers on it, BLADE RUNNER had three credited writers on it, ALIENS had five credited writers on it… I don’t know how long each spent or how much of the final product was theirs or how many drafts each did. But my guess is, and I hope you’ll agree with me, that there are probably 5,000 to 15,000 unreadable, derivative, unsold, unimaginative scripts being written right now that have taken over a year to write. Time spent writing has no correlation with difficulty, talent or quality. And isn’t difficulty, after all is said and done, relative to each writer?
Inarguably (heh-heh) the best STAR WARS film, THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK, has three credited writers on it. Was Lawrence Kasdan’s job any easier because Lucas came up with the story? Was it less of a writing job that he already had a “world” created for him? Or was it an amazing achievement that he could write such a great script within the limitations of that world?
DL:
Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid
A Bridge Too Far
Sunset Blvd
The Apartment
Sabrina
Monster’s Ball
Basic Instinct
The Fisher King
Kramer vs. Kramer (An adaptation. Does this count)
The Woodsman
Lone Star
There’s a bunch more but I think you get the point. Two of which, I’ve personally been involved in (Monster’s Ball, The Woodsman). Why is it so hard to grasp the concept that writers create at different speeds?
To reiterate:
Time spent writing has NOTHING to do with quality, talent, or difficulty.
Derek,
My point is not that taking a year to write a script means it’s going to be any good.
My point is that, with rare exceptions, there is no great script that has been written in less than a good portion of a year or more.
Daniel L
The Woodsman was based on a play.
The writing of The Fisher King took well over a year. There was several version prior to the one Gilliam read, in one of them Jack Lucas was a taxi driver.
As for Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. Well, William Goldman in his book Adventures in the Screentrade does say (page 123) that it took him four weeks to write his first draft (not the producer’s first draft though). He also explains that he researched and worked on it for years. He writes ( page 124):
When someone asks how long it takes to write a screenplay, I’m never sure what to answer. Because I don’t think four weeks is what it took to do Butch. For me, eight years is closer to the truth.
And Goldman was all for speed when it comes to writing.
Also closer to the truth is that one of Billy Wilder’s biography explains that Sunset and all his other took years to write. I’ll get the exact quote and reference when I go to the library.
I suspect the others example you gave to be similiar. As I said, there is much more to screenwriting than writing drafts.
The Butch Cassidy example - which you chose by the way - makes my point that there’s a lot of exploration and/or research time going into so-called first drafts that the rewriters will never have to do.
Daniel l
Daniel L
Daniel:
Yer kinda talkin’ out of your butt here. Because you take a year to write a screenplay doesn’t mean it’s common (it isn’t) or that it’s a normal prerequisite for success (it isn’t).
Since you were asking for a specific example though (and it’s hard to find one because length of writing time is rarely documented), one of the most celebrated cases is Scott Alexander and Larry Karazsewski’s excellent (and very original not-based-on-a-novel) first draft of Ed Wood, which they wrote in exactly six weeks.
You’re wrong about rewriters not researching, by the way. Ted and Terry were “rewriters” on Pirates. Something tells me they did an assload of research.
Craig,
I talk based on a class I took a few years ago on screenwriting. The teacher, Stephane Leclerc at the University of Quebec, had given a list of over fifty biographies and accounts on the most celebrated films (I’ll contact him for the list and post it here).
That said, I do believe there are exceptions. The teacher did mention that some very rare exceptions of great scripts written in a relatively short time. Taxi Driver, I believe, was one of them. But there are exceptions.
I wouldn’t generalize from my personal experience, but I am a fast writer and I know I can do a rewrite of any script in a matter of weeks. I also know that I can write a generic story as fast as I can type it.
As I said before, if you or anyone needs a sequel, a rewrite or a generic story, I can deliver one in a three weeks or less. You can put me to the test if you like. I’ll even do it for the fun of it. I love a challenge. :)
So if I took over a year to write TST, it’s not because I’m a slow writer. A slow writer would probably have taken a decade.
Talking about Ted and Terry. From their column on Wordplay titled crap plus one.
Ted and I spent two years working on various drafts of an adaptation of Robert Heinlein’s novel “The Puppet Masters.” Screenwriter David Goyer then did several drafts, and the studio gave the picture a green light. British director Steward Orme was signed. Two weeks before principal photography was to begin, he sat down with his hand-picked writers, and set about deciding what to film. All the work, all the story meetings, all the studio notes, the original novel, all the drafts done by four or five different writers and writing teams with various executives and producers over the previous two years — all of it was thrown out the window. A draft would be written in two weeks, and that would be the movie that hit the screens.
It is rare that I write something that I can’t back up, Craig. If I do, it’s usually followed by a question mark or a “imho.”
Daniel L
You’re wrong about rewriters not researching, by the way. Ted and Terry were “rewriters” on Pirates. Something tells me they did an assload of research.
Then I’m pretty certain they didn’t do it in a a few weeks. From what I saw on the screen, I would say that it took well over a year to do.
Just because, what is a pot for if not to stir ..?
I have noticed, in these kind of discussions about what is more difficult, writing the first draft or rewriting the first draft and subsequent drafts, the people who most ardently argue the “writing the first draft” side generally:
Whereas those who see both as having equal weight tend to have both rewritten drafts they wrote and rewritten drafts others wrote, have worked throughout the entire process of screenwriting, from initial idea to ADR and reshoots (although not necessarily on a single movie).
Just an observation, discuss.
Regarding the timeline on Pirates of the Caribbean:TCOTPB: We were hired in April, finished an outline by mid-May (based on which Gore agreed to direct the movie), turned in our first draft by early June (based on which Johnny, Geoffrey — actually, all of the first-choice actors signed on), started on the production draft with Gore, and production began at the beginning of October. We continued to work throughout the production, until it wrapped at the end of the next February, doing scene polishes.
However, we were not working from scratch. We worked from Stuart Beattie’s draft, and about the first third of the movie retains his story and structure, save for the inclusion of the supernatural elements. The characterizations, specific incidents and dialogue were all ours, though.
However, part II: Terry and I had first come up with the idea of a pirate movie incorporating the supernatural in 1992 — actually pitched it to Disney as a movie based on the Pirates of the Caribbean ride — and had continued to think about it — not in specifics, but in terms of how to write a swashbuckling romance that would appeal to modern audiences (and put some of that thinking into effect when writing — rewriting — The Mask of Zorro). And although we were not specifically doing research for POTC:TCOTPB, we were learning things that would have bearing on the movie.
(For instance: A few years before we got the Pirates gig, I had been reading about the opium trade in the 1800s for a project that never got realized; in the course of that, I found out that some historians think nearly 75% of all upper class Southern women (U.S. Southern) at that time were addicted to opium. Why? Because the corsets they wore were so incredibly restrictive, they were in constant pain. Same reason for the popularity of fainting couches, and the concepts of women swooning or having the vapors.
So we’re working on Pirates, we knew we wanted the medallion to “call” the pirates by touching the sea, we knew we wanted that to happen by having Elizabeth somehow end up in the sea (so Jack could rescue her) … but why does she end up in the sea? Aha! A corset! Which fit wonderfully well with the thematic content of the movie we were writing, too.
So … when I was researching the opium trade, was I working on Pirates? Or, when it came time to work on Pirates, did I draw on anything and everything I had learned prior to that?)
-
You totally miss the point. Though 95% of your argument is dead on. And then you miss the point. I have been the original writer as well as the re-writer on many projects. They’re both just as brutally hard, impossible, emotionaly charged and seemingly unchartable pathways that we somehow get to the end of. The only difference is, the original writer (if you’re a re-writer) got you the job. Without them, their wouldn’t be a job. So that fact is owed some respect, if not critical because the script sucks, then financial in any case. I was hired to do an original for new line in 2002, and a re-write for paramount in 2003, and both were complete originals as the re-write was a total tear down and redraft. But on the re-write I wouldn’t have been there wihtout the work of those before me, and I respected that. As writers, if we don’t respect this already termite ridden chain of work-for-hire that (regardless of neccessity) makes writers somewhat disposable, then we are all buying into the studios need to make us less and less important.
Philip:
I don’t think any one of us have argued that Original Writers should be deemed less important.
The argument is:
Original Writers AND Rewrite Writers should hold equal weight.
“Without them, their wouldn’t be a job”
That is absolutely correct. But this is also true…
Without Rewriters there would be no movie.
DL:
And Ted is also correct when he says that the ones arguing that rewriting is just as hard are all professional screenwriters that have truly done both on a Hollywood scale. This isn’t a slight, it’s the truth. The fact that you refer to writers that rewrite as “hacks” and that anybody could can rewrite is insulting, naive, and amatuerish.
I’m glad that you took a class in screenwriting at the University of Quebec but I don’t think that qualifies you to state your opinions as fact, especially when it’s clear that you don’t have a working knowledge of Hollywood.
Do you want to know why I chose those examples of screenplays that took less than a year? Because I’ve been involved in some or personally know the screenwriters. They don’t agree with you. Not by a long shot.
P.S. The Woodsman was based on a play. Written by the same writer that wrote the screenplay. And guess what? Neither the play nor the screenplay took anywhere near a year. I know this because I was the executive in charge of production.
If you believe that most original screenplays take well over a year, you’re mistaken.
If you believe that taking over a year to write a screenplay will make it good, you’re mistaken.
If you believe that not taking a year to write a screenplay means it’s bad, you’re mistaken.
If you believe that rewriters are hacks, you’re mistaken.
If you believe that rewriters don’t do research, you’re mistaken.
If you believe that anyone can write a sequel or a rewrite, you’re mistaken.
FIRST WRITING VS. REWRITING:
Both are hard. Both take skill. Both take talent. And both will be done the best when they are done by professionals.
My conclusions from what as been said so far.
There is real writing involved on both side of the rewriting process.
There are hacks on both side of the rewriting process.
Writers put up with the system because.
a) They can’t do a damn thing about it. b) They’re paid very well to do it.
but
If they had the choice, if it was a real option, all writers would rather be sole writer or sole ampersand. At least those who capable of writing a good original screenplay.
The whole rewriting practice is a mess that creates even bigger messes. Our discussion here and the many articles I’ve read over the years on the WGA website illustrate how much of a mess and how divisive it is.
I know it will never happen, not under studio governance for sure, but eliminating the rewriting by other writers practice may be the only way that can insure that credit is given where credit is deserved.
Also, only then would it possible to separate the men from the boys, the hacks from the writers (although, as I said above, they can be found anywhere along the rewriting process).
And if the output of American and international independant film industry is any indication, eliminating the practice would result in a higher percentage of great films.
So there is real creation, real writing and a lot of work involved in both writing the original script and rewriting.
But the present system is one in which hacks thrive, a place where they can assume all the appearance and indentity of real writers and live of them ( again, I’m not saying that rewriters are hacks here, only that they multiply and can be found at any step of the process).
Kevin,
You should read my posts again, but you distorting and drawing conclusions that I haven’t drawn. My posts are much more nuanced than that.
Second, I don’t know about The Woodsman, but it seems you aren’t too sure yourself about it.
And since you put films like Butch Cassidy, The Fisher King and others on list without checking the facts. I can only assume that the list you made was thrown together if not without proper knowledge, at least without rigor.
As for that teacher, he researched his topic for six or seven years, as far I remember. I gather that you know little of the academic process and how rigorous it is when it comes to facts. He didn’t just throw a list together to suit his opinions. He drew his conclusions only after careful examination of the data.
I notice that you took from my post what suited your conclusions ( which is fine by me ), but avoided commenting on Goldman’s answer to the question of how much time it takes to write a screenplay.
I can understand if you think I’m not qualified to pass judgment, but Goldman? Please.
DL:
Name dropping is tacky. But I’ll do it now anyway…
I spoke about Butch Cassidy because I personally know the writer. You can be sure about what you read from something that was written 23 years ago or you could speak to the man.
I spoke about The Woodsman because I was the executive in charge of production. Steven and Nicole are great people and I know full well about what went into that production.
I spoke about The Fisher King because I personally know the producer.
I’m glad that your teacher researched his topic for six or seven years. I have my own opinion about people who teach screenwriting who don’t work in Hollywood but that’s a whole other story.
And for the record, saying things like…
I know it will never happen, not under studio governance for sure, but eliminating the rewriting by other writers practice may be the only way that can insure that credit is given where credit is deserved.
…is not nuanced. It’s ridiculous. Not because studios and producers are evil but because a lot of writers that turn in an original script with a few cool ideas simply CAN NOT do the rewrites. This is a fact that can’t be argued. The system is flawed but it works for the most part. At times it’s unfair but that’s business and business is not meant to be fair.
BUT
You did change your tone by saying that there is real writing involved on both sides of the rewriting process.
Both are hard work. Both should be respected.
Yeah, I disagree with the notion that it takes a year to write a good screenplay. I write quickly. In fact, my latest screenplay, which also happens to be my best yet, took a few days for outlining, and then 24 straight hours for the first draft (really, between a Sunday and Monday morning), and then about a week of editing and rewriting.
If I kept fiddling with this screenplay for 11 and a half more months, I’d surely ruin it.
DL:
You cited BLADE RUNNER, TOTAL RECALL, ALIEN, DARK CITY, THE MATRIX, BEING JOHN MALKOVICH and ADAPTATION as top-tier screenplays. Of those seven scripts, four have multiple credited writers (who knows how many writers went uncredited???) I’m not talking teams… I’m talking rewrites. I just don’t understand how you can have such opposition to the process of rewriting, when four of the five movies you cite as being the pinnacle of the sci-fi genre have been rewritten (I’m not counting the Kaufman movies as sci-fi). Sometimes the process does work, to wonderful effect. Sometimes the process is reverse Rumplestilskin, turning gold into shit. But to say that we do it because it’s just about the money or because we can’t do a damn thing about it is a vast generalization. I am currently rewriting Robert Rodat’s screenplay of RED RABBIT for Paramount. Why? Because my partner and I are huge Tom Clancy fans, because we are fascinated with the world of espionage, because we want to see the movie made, because we believe we can improve on the already great Rodat script, because we like working with Paramount, because we believe the movie can be both a commercial and critical success.
Derek,
I’m sure you’ll do a great job on the Rodat script, but if it was Rodat’s choice, do you really think he’d agree to the rewrite? And that’s one of my main point. It should be the original writer’s decision. Hell, that’s how it works pretty much everyone else.
So, yes, I am firmly against rewriting. From the discussion I realized that there are rewriters who really work hard and improve over the original screenplays. Pogue’s The Fly was very good, but Cronenberg took it to a new level.
That said, it is to me a matter of principle. I wouldn’t rewrite a fellow writer. Nor would I sell my favorite specs without the guarantee that I was going to remain the sole writer. I know it’s easy to just say that, but I have declined a rewrite job offer and said no to not two but three sales ( since you’re in the business, I wouldn’t mind giving you privately the names of the producers and prodcos).
I know my position makes it impossible for me to work within the Hollywood industry so, after ten years and twelve specs, I made the decision ( long before this discussion started ) to give up on screenwriting and go back to writing novels.
Craig wrote:
We�ve already figured out what kind of women we are. We�re just haggling over the price.
I’m proud to say that I’m not part of that “we.” My principles aren’t for sale not matter how tempting the price.
Daniel L
Ted,
What you offer rings true. But I hear another dynamic in the discussion, and it is, per your earlier observation: the original writer creates two objects, the rewriter creates one (unless they change the story).
And here’s the rub: when does screenwriting become screen & story writing?
lt
ps I don’t know how one draws this distinction, other than the Justice Potter argument “I know it when I see it”. Problem is, that vantage point changes for just about every observer.
Daniel:
It’s sad to hear that you gave up screenwriting. There aren’t enough good sci-fi movies out there and it would’ve been nice to have another contributor.
Good luck with the novels. From what I understand it’s more rewarding on a creative level.
However, I wish that you didn’t feel that rewriting has anything to do with principle. It doesn’t.
At all.
I don’t know of any business that allows someone to sell something and then have complete control over it after they accept the money and the contractual obligation. I would love to sell my car but then decide that I can still drive it whenever I pleased. But as I said before, you can actually have whatever you want…if that’s what’s in your contract.
The problem with your argument is that you are operating under a set of absolutes. You are also under the assumption that a studio, a producer, or a director doesn’t know what they’re talking about. For your argument to be an valid, that would mean that ALL first writers are perfect and that they can ALWAYS deliver a shooting script. That is not the case.
I totally agree with you when you say that First Writers can be fired for arbitrary reasons. That definitely happens. But to say that all rewriting is unprincipled is a vast generalization.
It is also dead wrong.
You have an opinion and I will not argue with your opinion. It’s yours and it’s your right. I just wish you didn’t think so lowly of other working writers that have contributed a great deal of success and entertainment to millions of people.
And I promise that when your novel comes out, I will buy it.
Kevin,
It has to do with my personal principles and mine alone. I’m sure everyone as a set of their own which they wouldn’t betray regardless of any monetary counterpart offered.
I’m not saying my principles are better, only that they are what I chose to live by. That’s all.
Daniel L
“Without Rewriters there would be no movie.”
This is so dead on right, that I hope I wasn’t implying otherwise. My only feature credit is a movie I re-wrote, which would never have been a movie if I hadn’t done the job. So no argument there.
I think I’ve experienced, oddly, the opposite of your point where the re-writers are exalted and the original writers poo pooed in meetings and on the set. Even if I did a “better job” and got the script to talent, to market, to production, what have you. That’s what I take a bit of umbrage about, but perhaps I”m old fashioned.
But I completely agree if the feeling is somehow that re-writers are lesser.
I don think it’s an difficult political/business scenario for our guild however, and I applaud the attempts to guarantee the first writer more than one pass, etc. as there is a built in studio dictum to savage our power or neccessity at any turn. Even friends of mine in a-list and oscar land are experiencing dealing with current contracts where studios are asking for only one pass. I just don’t think it’s good for any of us. Curious what you and Ted think of that.
Loved Ted’s story about Pirates and how quickly he wrote it by the way. That story will be endlessly exhilarating and inspiring to me. And I know Gore who has nothing but good things to say about those two bumpkins.
I’m not a working screenwriter, so I can’t comment on the specifics of how things work or should work in Hollywood. I think I can, however, comment on the logic used in some of the arguments.
Fundamentally, there is no empirical way to determine which is “more work”. How are we defining the “work” in “more work”?
As a frivolous example, I work 9-5 at my job, just like the other guys in my office, yet I spend little time actually working, and still accomplish more than they do. Who is working harder?
Sure there would.
Studios must make movies, and because they must make movies, they must develop movies, and because they must develop far more movies than they can make in order to find enough movies they are willing to risk making, that means there are always jobs for screenwriters, and that means that there would have been a job for a screenwriter, even without the first draft screenplay of any specific movie.
And since there would be jobs for which screenwriters must be hired, there would be jobs for which specific screenwriters are hired first.
The studios’ need to make movies pre-exists a studio’s need to make any specific movie; the studios’ need for screenplays pre-exists any specific screenwriter job.
You know, it’s interesting: screenwriters seem to spend so much time protesting the fact that studios replace writers with other writers, they never seem to really think about why studios replace writers with other writers.
Sure, sometimes screenwriters are replaced for capricious reasons — but, most times, the reason studios replace writers with other writers is this:
To replace the writing.
-
In my experience—albeit extremely limited relative to guys like Ted and Craig…though I’ve been approached for and offered rewrite gigs as well as experienced the frustration of being replaced—it’s not quite as simple as “the writing sucks, let’s get someone to do it better.”
More than once I’ve been sent really good scripts that studios wanted rewritten…yet they had no clue what was actually wrong with them. Just one example, an adaptation of a classic 19th-century novel, was extremely well done, though very close to the book. When I suggested a few changes that would have changed the book’s version of the story, the exec said, “Oh, no, we want it to be exactly like the book.” I pointed out that they already had that script. “Yeah, but we want it to surprise people,” the exec said. I passed on the project. That was five years ago, and as far as I know the thing has gone exactly nowhere.
In the case where I was replaced, since I was never invited to meet with the director my script attracted and I was replaced with an Oscar-nominated writer, I can’t help but wonder whether the fact that my draft turned the project from a “little movie” into something that seemed to have the potential to attract solid talent meant that the studio suddenly saw it as a possible prestige project (when I was hired, I was told they weren’t expecting to hire any huge actors, and the director wish-list they ran by me consisted of talented guys who were a long way from the A-list, and as far as I know, all the directors and actors my draft was sent to wanted in on the project). Toward that end, they decided it “needed” a prestige writer, which at this point I admittedly am not. I’m not saying this out of bitterness—it was an assignment, after all, and I went into it knowing full well the chances were very good that I’d be replaced at any point after my second contracted draft, and at least I can’t complain that they replaced me with some no-name, no-talent hack—just suggesting that it seems to me that this kind of thing is possible and may well not be uncommon. (And I realize I’m just theorizing, and it’s entirely possible my writing was considered substandard—good enough to send to name directors and actors, but not good enough to actually work with them. ;-))
I think this not only because of what happened with this project, but because of what happened with another project of mine, not to me as the writer but to *actors* we wanted to attach. The producers, director and I spent a year playing musical actors with a studio who more than once demanded we “trade up” after we’d gotten actors who were willing to attach themselves to the project—as soon as they’d say “yes,” the studio would get cold feet and demand we go after somebody who was perceived to be a little higher on the prestige ladder. I found the process really obnoxious and horrifying, frankly, because it was never about who was the *best* actor for a role, it was about who seemed to be hot. That seems obvious when discussing actors, I guess…but wouldn’t the same argument apply, to some degree, to writers?
On the third hand, really, who cares? As writers, we’ll get jobs or we won’t, we’ll get replaced or we won’t. I know I’ve always given 100% when I’ve been hired to do a job—I’ve done my absolute best to deliver scripts that accommodated the studios’/producers’ expressed desires (though I’ve more than once taken the liberty of making choices that I believed saved them from themselves—but that’s part of the job, too, is it not?). I don’t think I’m a hack, and I don’t think for one minute I have anything to apologize for in anything I’ve ever delivered. Yet, I remain unproduced and about as far from the A-list as it’s possible to be while still being a full WGA member. So while I will be the first to admit that guys like Ted and Craig, who turn down more offers than I would get in six lifetimes, possess that rare ability to do not only good work but work that has that whatever-it-is that makes studios flash greenlights, I don’t for a minute think that my writing ability per se is in any way lesser or lacking. (And I don’t think I’m delusional, either. Heh.)
Anyway. As for the question as to whether it’s easier to write from scratch or rewrite another writer’s script…I don’t know why that matters, either. I know that the adaptations I’ve done, whether from works of fiction or adapting historical events for the screen, were no less challenging or fulfilling than the originals I’ve written. As Ted and others have said, if you cash the check without negotiating a “no rewriter” clause, you immediately, irrevocably and permanently waive your right to complain if and when the entity that covered the check hires a new writer. The script ceases to be yours. Whether their reasons for bringing on a new writer are good or bad, whether that new writer will get six times the money for one-tenth the work and whether the new writer’s script is horrible relative to yours but gets made is totally irrelevant to the terms of the contract you signed.
It’s business, man. If your blood runs through a script, then protect it with your life or expect to bleed.
well, i don’t know how to break this to you guys. the suits think this thread is running long and they can’t shoot it with the budget they’ve got. also, there are numerous creative differences and the project is going in too many directions. talent is going to bail unless the writing can be reined in
they have asked me to do a page-one rewrite on this thread. i have accepted the gig. no hard feelings. it’s strictly a business thing
z
Awesome discussion!
I recently optioned my first screenplay, so I’m not in any position to discuss/debate much of the material here.
I’m looking forward to the day I can sell the script and “make a ton of money and get screwed” at the same time.
As an aspiring screenwriter, I recognize and ACCEPT that I will be abused in the business and creative process. Sure, it sucks, but I go into this endeavor willingly.
Great post, Denise. Thanks for sharing your experience.
Mrosen.
That’s what I feel is great about sites like this one. Thanks to the pros who take time to share their experience, you are fully aware of what you’re getting into.
I wish that kind of information was available when I started screenwriting a decade ago.
On the subject of which is harder - the blank page or the rewrite - using a different point of reference than screenplays, I’ve found that the mileage varies.
I’ve had to write a bunch of manuals, guidelines, policies and functional specs. In doing so I’ve had to draw them up completely from scratch in some cases, while in others I’ve had other people’s work to rewrite.
In the cases of the rewrites, sometimes having someone else’s work makes the job easier - you’ve a bunch of thoughts already laid out - even with a complete rewrite, there’s still work that’s been done for you - even if it’s just a case of reusing the section headings.
In at least one memorable case though, having previous work actually made it harder by locking in a bunch of bad decisions. If you’ve ever had to rewrite something where everything is wrong, but you’re not supposed to be starting from scratch, you have to wriggle through such twisted hoops that it becomes a Herculean task (I think it was the thirteenth labour when Hercules had to clean up Eurystheus’s poetry).
In the end when I found what I was rewriting was just a poor rewrite of some other company’s work, I happily threw the whole thing out and started how I wanted to in the first place, but that’s beside the point.
So from my own sideways experience, I’d suggest that the page one rewrite isn’t as hard as an original spec - purely because you don’t have to develop that initial idea (leaving the idea-already-exists assignments out of the frame for the moment), but trying to actually rewrite, as opposed to recreate, a piece of work can be way more difficult.
I don’t think this in anyway contributes anything new to the debate, but as there seems to be an attempt at a record number of replies, I thought I’d better do my part.
How come “Who Do Screenwriters Hang Out With?” didn’t get this much excitement?
That’s an idea. How about making How come “Who Do Screenwriters Hang Out With?” didn’t get this much excitement? the topic of the next discussion, Craig?
Okay, I just had to add this comment to get us to ONE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY!
WHOOOO!
I’m seriously impressed, people. I’ll have to lob this molotov cocktail at you all again in a few months, just because it’s so much damned fun.
Thanks for a great discussion. I’ll be dredging up some rerun articles for the next week or so as we head into holiday season, then it’s back to all new lunacy come ‘06.
Now, Denise, where in my statement did I say or even imply anything about the quality of the writing — either the writing that is to be replaced, or the writing that will replace it?
171
-
Hehe, I was waiting for you to say something like that, Ted. I know the answer! You didn’t say anything about quality. You didn’t qualify it at all…which gave me room to run free, always a dangerous thing.
I think we have pretty much the same bottom line: Cash the check and shut your damn mouth. If a writer lacks the balls to say “no” or the brains to read and understand the terms of his contracts, that’s nobody’s fault but his own. It sure isn’t the fault of the subsequent writers.
Anyway, Ted, nothin’ personal. :-)
Chiming in from Christmas vacation, so I don’t have a lot of time (which, according to many here, means what I’m about to write must be better than those of you who spent all that unnecessary time THINKING)….
Kevin, I find it very telling that to illustrate the work of a screenwriter “starting from scratch” on an original screenplay, you use the example of someone getting a bunch of parts from IKEA and just assembling them along pre-set grooves, lines and screwholes until voilá, an original motion picture script. Just like putting together a table! Gee, how could I ever have doubted that you were an executive.
You wonder how anyone could “honestly think that it’s EASIER?!” to take that table apart and put it back together, than to just start over again from scratch?
Look up “start from scratch.” The first writer didn’t empty a box from IKEA and assemble a bunch of pre-made parts, man. The first writer designed the fucking table, went out into the forest, cut down the trees, cured and pared the wood, turned the legs, sanded the tabletop…
Start from there and talk to me again about what’s honestly easier, doing all that — FROM SCRATCH — or “deconstructing” a finished table and putting it back together. Yeah, right, the second guy is the “real” furniture maker, uh huh….
Bill
BILL:
Gee, how could I ever have doubted that you were an executive.
I actually laughed out loud.
The first writer designed the fucking table, went out into the forest, cut down the trees, cured and pared the wood, turned the legs, sanded the tabletop…
Uh…no, he didn’t.
That’s a false analogy. What you’re saying is the first writer went into the woods, cut down the trees, made it into paper, then went to the ocean, captured an octopuss, squeezed out all its ink…
That doesn’t happen either. When you write a screenplay, you are not reinventing the wheel. The first writer absolutely DOES assemble a bunch of pre-made parts because a screenplay is in a fixed form. Has been for years. With most programs you don’t even have to tab over to the “character headings”.
Yeah, right, the second guy is the “real” furniture maker, uh huh….
And why is the rewriter always being attacked for quality? Are you saying that there’s never a case where the rewriter makes the screenplay infinitely better? You keep working under the assumption that the First Writer creates a perfect screenplay and the Second Writer just comes in and fucks it up. This is not the case.
Uh, yes he did.
You’re confusing writing an original screenplay with typing an original screenplay. Again, very telling, but again, wrong.
You were the one who equated — and still equates — writing an original screenplay with assembling a bunch of pre-made parts from IKEA, but even within your false analogy I spoke correctly. I did not say that the first guy went out and smelted ore to build himself a screwdriver and socket wrench with which to build that table of yours. So you’re off-base claiming that I’ve got your analogy wrong.
But hey, you go on writing those IKEA screenplays that were originally designed by, well, nobody at all.
Bill
Bill:
I love the fact that no matter what the topic it will always degrade into analogies. Now, analogies aside, you didn’t answer my question. Why is the rewriter being attacked for quality.? What if that first draft, you know, the one where the guy “designed the fucking table, went out into the forest, cut down the trees, cured and pared the wood, turned the legs, sanded the tabletop…”
…is a pile of shit.
What then?
“And why is the rewriter always being attacked for quality? Are you saying that there�s never a case where the rewriter makes the screenplay infinitely better?”
Show me where I said that.
“You keep working under the assumption that the First Writer creates a perfect screenplay and the Second Writer just comes in and fucks it up.”
Show me where I said that.
You keep working under the assumption that the First Writer creates a perfect screenplay and the Second Writer just comes in and fucks it up.
“Show me where I said that.”
Here…
“But hey, you go on writing those IKEA screenplays that were originally designed by, well, nobody at all.”
And why is the rewriter always being attacked for quality? Are you saying that there’s never a case where the rewriter makes the screenplay infinitely better?
“Show me where I said that.”
And here…
“Yeah, right, the second guy is the “real” furniture maker, uh huh….”
(God Almighty, he can’t read either…)
Boys…let’s ease up on the personal stuff…
BILL:
Actually, I read just fine.
I talk good and I even write gooder.
But I am glad that your posts can be read by all because there was a question about what is belligerence and what isn’t.
And you never answered my question that I posed on the 24th…
You see, if you read all of these posts, there is an undeniable and recurring theme. It’s either by implication, inference, or statement:
The First Writer’s material is Superior. The Second Writer’s material is Inferior.
How can anyone be ABSOLUTELY dead set against rewrites? I don’t understand how any rational human being can operate under a set of absolutes.
Now Bill, before you have another hissy fit, that was not meant for you. I know full well that your argument was about which one was easier, originals or rewrites. It was after all, the original topic. My stance has always been that the answer depends on the situation. So we’ll “Respectfully” disagree. You’ve attacked me personally several times and each time I’ve turned the other cheek. I don’t know why. I’m not even religious. But if you can’t have a discussion without name calling you shouldn’t be having discussions.