Why Are We The Only Ones...? (HINT: We Aren't)

Why this is so, so, so wrong…. Shame on you, Craig :)

This is why what you offer is wrong; shape the message!

Once apon a time, in a life far, far away, I had a client who invented a seed. Honestly. The seed was a better type of seed. A type of seed that could survive the riggers of growing, picking, storage, delivery, and yes: final consumption. The owners of that GATACA sequence knew that; the challenge was: how do they harvest what they have sewn?

And on that score, the first message was: stop being a bitch for sale; honestly, if you were to whore out your IP, you’re going to continue the Prisoners’ Dilemma.

Stop.

Please, stop.

(OBTW, this will never happen)

Oh, by the way (non parenthetically), this is why I wanted to out DV; it’s an example of attempting to control a process from the wrong POV; instead, it must be done from owning the content, and the mantra of this Blog is: sell, sell, sell!

Wrong.

The answer is: forward integrate; push into producion and direction; otherwise, you’lll never capture the harvest. Really. Finally. Please. Writers’ of the world: see this simple fact.

Control through ownership.

Quit being the bitch for hire.

Really.

lt

Here’s some more people that get overlooked:

• The Cinematographer

• The Production Designer

• The First AD (and if it weren’t for him/her, the shooting days would run wildly out of control and there would be no movie)

I find that the AD is probably the most overlooked. If anyone can tell me the name of the First AD on Schindler’s List without looking it up, Craig will buy you a car.

Craig is 100% correct. Working in this business can be thankless but it can also be incredibly rewarding. I’m guessing that this post was created in response to the 169 posts from the previous blog. What started out as an opinion about first writers quickly degraded into the tale of injustice that Hollywood commits against screenwriters.

Boo-Hoo.

There’s a reason why Craig, Derek, and Ted tried so hard to get other writers to stop blaming big bad evil Hollywood. It’s an easy but silly notion that plagues a fair amount. I suspect it’s also the reason why Craig wrote about finding a Benefactor and fuck the Mentor.

In about 10 days it will be a new year. Some of the people who write into this website might sell a script or two. Or perhaps get a job as a writer’s assistant. It’ll be a great year. But I don’t think any of that will happen if the blame game doesn’t end.

I could be wrong about this but I’m guessing that some people think the point of Craig’s site is this:

To get into the Business of Screenwriting.

But I don’t think it is. I think the real point is this:

To get Screenwriters to treat their art as a Business.

This is probably why he has links to the various Guilds and Copyright/Labor Laws.

So let’s jump off the cross everyone. No one’s out to get you. Don’t believe those ridiculous PR stories where the screenwriter tells the director to fuck off and then everyone realizes what a genius he/she is. It’s all bullshit my dear. It sounds great in a press junket (Ha, who the hell is talking to the screenwriter at a press junket…?) but it’s all fluffy crap.

So here’s what you do. You work on your craft every day, every hour, every second. Maybe you get really good. Maybe you get really great. But you don’t stop there. You MUST learn the actual business as well. You don’t get bitter when something bad happens to you. You move on and try to learn. Cause guess what? That ridiculous bitterness that you carry around with you will leak out when you’re talking to a potential buyer that was thinking about purchasing your script, that is until you opened your mouth and torpedoed the whole deal.

A new year is coming people. It’s time to make the best of it. I know that there’s some incredible writers out there. But please…stop with the persecution rant. It’s naive and amateurish.

Business is business. It’s great and fucked up. For everyone. EVERYONE. So the real question is:

Do you want to be a WORKING screenwriter?

Here’s where you’re missing the deal, Kev:

Business - which is what you offer as the deal (and I agree) - is control; just ask your brother, man. Really. And on that score, writers whore out their product compared to the value they offer. From a business standpoint, it’s not any more complicated than that.

lt

So Lee, you’re saying we should not only write the screenplay, but produce and direct the film as well? Should we also form our own distribution channels? Most will not have the time, talent, or money to do all that. Thus, Hollywood.

Fair call, ~AW. True, if one accepts the division of labor, they accept the market dynamic (which is the moral of the Craig’s last two topics); so why does someone who’s smart (as writers’ self-style) accept this prison?

Perhaps it is as you say: ‘thus, Hollywood.’

Poignant moral.

lt

If you don’t want to be a screenwriter, write a screenplay, direct it yourself with your own money or the money of someone who is willing to give it to you, edit it yourself, and attempt to sell the completed product.

Or else don’t be a screenwriter.

Again, Jonah:

Per your moral, may I offer what our co-host articulates: “think in terms of writing away from the blank page, rather than writing toward the empty screen.”

And in the process, discount your value in creating story; there’s leverage to be had by co-opting existing story!

Like creating story is a trivial act…. Really. After all… what does the audience see?

lt

Lee:

“Production” and direction don’t necessarily make your life any better. You might get a little more face time in the press, but frankly, I’m not in this business for that.

If you want control in Hollywood (and no one really has much), your easiest method is to either personally have the funds to finance a slate of films or control a group of investors who have the funds to finance a slate of films.

You then leverage the equity and income of your growing library in order to produce new films, which you then add to your library, and so it goes.

In return for the risk you assume in the highly speculative world of film production, you reap the largest share of the rewards.

As it should be.

Therefore, your advice is germane but of dubious value.

Like Steve Martin says, “You can make a million dollars and pay no taxes! Wanna know how? Okay, here it is. First, get a million dollars…”

Not really, Craig; really, why do you feel you’re so cheap?

I’m not offering it’s any easier (please - anyone offering an “easier” take on the world is selling religion - I don’t want to proffer that fallacy). Instead, I’m saying the way to cut the knot is not what you offer: accept your role in selling your value for less than what it’s worth.

lt

Lee:

But I can’t. My value is set by the marketplace. Assuming my representatives are competent (and I believe they are), I get paid precisely what the market determines my work is worth.

What do you think I should get paid, btw? :)

Great push back.

Now, let’s really open up what your representatives know about writing; that’s my first push back: do they know shit about story? And not from what they’ve sold, but from your - storyteller - perspective?

If you have a stone-cold answer to this, then, well, you’ve got the right guy in your corner; then again, if you want me to be your agent….

Playful quips aside, my comments aren’t designed to be inflamatory, rather, properly confrontational in what I consider to be a superior forum.

lt

ps we really need to tip back a few pints one day…

It doesn’t matter what my representatives know about writing.

What matters is what they know about my value as a writer to the employers. My representatives may think I’m a crappy writer, and they may stare in shock at the phone when the company says “yes” to their demands, just as they may stare at the phone in agony when the company says “no” to their demands for a client they think is brilliant.

Their opinion of the work is no more relevant than an art broker’s opinion of a painting. All that matters is what the client will pay.

Well…in this case, you also need to consider what the company’s plan is. I might take less money up front if I receive an assurance of production.

Regardless, no inflammation occurred. :) I’m glad you enjoy the site, and a few pints it shall be.

Yikes.

If I may attempt to rephrase: ‘It doesn’t matter what my representatives know about my product?’

Is this a fundamentally wrong rephrasing?

And here’s the rub: you admit you’ll take less up front for a bigger slice of the back-end; why aren’t you an equity player?

Really?

(and this cuts to the core of what you’re worth)

lt

I think we first need to establish that the craft of selling creative material is part rooted in objective facts like track record and so forth, and part rooted in hucksterism.

Selling screenplays is a bit like selling houses. You don’t need to know how electricity works or any of the finer points of HVAC repair. What you do need to know is how to convince a buyer on the edge that this is the greatest house in the world for the price.

If screenplays didn’t require hucksterism, then screenwriters wouldn’t need agents. Instead, we’d follow more of a strict appraisal system, by which individuals would study scripts and put a value on them, based on the quality of the script.

That doesn’t happen because people don’t buy scripts for quality per se. They buy scripts that fill a perceived need.

The reason I am not an equity player (in the true sense of the term) is because I do not invest in the financing of the movie. Rather, I am one of a select group of individuals who get paid for my work even if the movie doesn’t get made. I bear no risk, and therefore have no particularly compelling claim to an equity stake.

I do, however, participate in the profits of the film through residuals.

Again, yikes…

Really, how does not one read this as: you’re a rewrite whore?

• You like that you bear no risk…

• You admit your agents peddle hucksterism…

• You don’t understand your fundamental value…

From here, we’ll agree to disagree; I’ll assert a player understands the market value of their contribution; a whore sells for the market rate. And yes, I admit that’s harshly said.

lt

ps Where is BM, TR, and TE in this discussion? Particularly regarding DV. Geeze, what’s the dealio around these parts?

What does rewriting have to do with it? Spec script sellers operate on the same principle.

Yes, I like that I bear no risk. That doesn’t make me a whore.

Yes, my agents will use whatever means necessary to get me the best deal possible. That doesn’t make me a whore.

I do understand my fundamental value.

What am I, Lee, is an employee. What you want me to be is a partner in the business. Sorry. Doesn’t work that way.

I do, from time to time, engage my services as a partner. I try and not do so when I’m writing. Either I’m a writer who gets paid a lot no matter what, or I’m a speculative producer who gets paid very little unless the movie gets made…in which case I get paid a lot.

Frankly, I’ll always do better writing unless I happen to produce a monster hit.

Craig:

A great post, especially because you highlight editors, who IMHO, get even less credit than writers, since everyone thinks it’s just joining together what’s been shot.

Lee:

I understand where you’re coming from, but what makes you think that directing/producing/etc require so little talent/experience/knowledge that a screenwriter can take them on and not completely stuff it up?

Plus it’s a trade-off; more control means more responsibility, more financial risk, more stress, etc. Not everyone wants that.

So now we net it out: an employee (which is the mantra of this site) takes what they are given.

And now we’re left to the the painful parsing of what’s a whore…

Which is my bad. It’s a fucked up way of phrasing things. It’s way too inflamatory. Too much a reflection of my unrealised expression. In this, I offer my discounted value.

Then again, I don’t accept — and never have with my banking peers — their view that “monster hits” determine worth. It’s a fucked up point of view. And by that I mean; why the all-or-nothing valuation? Please!

There — despite my poor wording — is a proper middle ground where writer’s capture value for their story rather than accepting a marginal value the market yields; less, they accept what someone will pay for their services.

lt

Other of the Invisiblies: the sound guys, starting from the set and ending in the studio.

Movies would be nothing without sound. Though this applies to many other aspects in movies as well.

But visuals are what you tend to notice and remember. Sound is what makes the entire thing crawl under your skin.

Lee,

Some interesting points. Drop me an email (adreply@spymac.com) I have some off-list questions.

Back to your posts.

Net-net is that screenwriters are no different than creatives in any other industry. Most of them thrive as employees, suffer little risk, low overhead and some can make very high pay. (More than a neurosurgeon.) For them, this is a good life.

Some creatives in business decide to be entrpreneurial, control ownership, take larger risks and seek greater rewards. These people are entrepreneurs in addition to being creative. It’s a different job. In movies, it’s producing.

Not everyone wants to be an entrepreneur. Not everyone wants to maximize their return if it means increasing their risk, and their responsibility. A lot of writers want to be left alone in a room to bang out another draft for another big fat check.

I’m not one of those souls, but many, many writers would be very happy with that life.

That doesn’t make them whores, it makes them employees. “Whoring” implies compromising standards and values. Being an employee doesn’t need to include that.

Be glad there are people who want to be employees. If everyone was entrepreneurial, it would be very hard for you to start up a business. Every intern would demand equity.

The first AD just stands around and gives orders. (joking)

It’s the second AD’s and PA’s who do the crap work at incredibly long hours. The Second AD on Schindlers was Michael Helfand, a great guy and my former boss. (It really was off the top of my head.)

When you talk about the economics of screenwriting, you have to talk about TV. It’s where most writers make the most money. TV writers, the hundred or so top dogs, anyway, have real power and the potential to make truckloads of loot.

Is it really better for the average writer over in TV land? Better to be working than not working, sure. But are writers turned producers any better or fairer as taskmasters than directors, stars, producers or studio execs?

Brilliant writer and abusive lunatic are not mutually exclusive categories.

Odocoileus:

If you knew the name of the First AD, Craig would have bought you a car…oh, well:)

Lee:

Your arguments are truly bizarre.

I’m glad you rescinded the term “whore” but it seems as if you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the term “Employee” means. What exactly should an employee of a company be entitled to? I think I would understand your point better if you specifically laid out what you think a screenwriter should be getting.

So now we net it out: an employee (which is the mantra of this site) takes what they are given.

No, an individual who accepts the terms of employment for a prospective job is an employee.

If there is a mantra for this site, it’s this: if you do the job of “screenwriter” in the U.S. film industry, it’s worthwhile to understand what that job actually is, including the terms of employment.

There’s no dishonor in being an employee — but its kind of stupid to go after a job if you don’t want to be an employee.

-

You can call me whatever you want if it means I’m making a living writing.

LEE:

Here’s a loose definition of Employee:

Every person in the service of another, under any contract of hire, express or implied.

That definition describes most Americans except if you are an Employer.

What you are doing is precisely what we are trying to stop. You are romanticizing the job of a Screenwriter. You are making it something that it is not. You seem to believe that a Screenwriter should not be beholden to the laws and rules that every other employee accepts for their work.

And I have no idea why.

Again, all of your arguments border on the bizarre because you’ve run the gamet of calling employees “whores” and equate accepting money from a negotiated contract, a prison.

What a pretty picture of a prison you must have…

Lee, do you work for a living? Do you accept money for a job well done, or maybe not so well done? Do you really think that employees should hold equity from their employers? Always? No matter what? And accept the financial downfalls that most employers experience?

What is your argument?

Specifically, what do you think screenwriters should get in addition to the compensation that they recieve?

Lee:

I think Kevin pretty much summed it up. But your comments irritated me so much I felt compelled to write too.

Since when is it considered whoring to earn a living doing what you love? It might be considered selling out to work on projects you hate for mere financial gain. That at a push, might be considered whoring. But I work at a Call Center five nights a week. I get paid for doing a job I find mind numbing, demoralising and essentially hate. But it all comes down to one thing: I have make money for my family. I have to make ends meet. No one, unless they were born with a silver spoon up their ass has the luxury of turning down paid work. Especially if it’s doing something they love.

‘Control through ownership’. Frankly, laughable. Tell that to John Sayles. He worked as a writer for hire (‘whoring’, as you like to put it uncredited on movies like Apollo 13) and used that money to make his own films. Again, unless you’re born with a silver spoon up your ass you’re going to have to do some kind of grunt work to generate the funds necessary to make your film. Even then it’s highly debatable that you ‘own’ the product through producing and directing.

The very idea of Auteurship is little more than another way to market product (or art if you like). Nowadays a prominent writer/director is only of value if they can be presented as a brand. There are only a select few directors who can pull in audiences by name alone. The credit ‘A Martin Scorsese Picture’ is only of value because his name gets bums on seats.

There’s probably only one director in the United States who comes even close to being an auteur - Woody Allen. The primary reasons he survives is because of his popularity in Europe, his iconic status in cinema and his adeptness at creating films that are almost a genre in themselves. He has a fixed fan base who will return to his films again and again, plus he’s willing to make his films for next to nothing.

He’s one of a select and lucky few. The rest of us have to take whatever opportunites come our way.

As so many people pointed out, the way Hollywood works is the way it works and it’s not going to change. What sites like this one and Wordplay help do is make us outsiders aware of what it’s like to work in Hollywood.

You can disagree all you want but, as Ted explained, when you sign a contract, you agree to its terms. But you don’t have to sign.

My partner produced nine short films and one feature on her own terms. I think that’s the way to go for anyone who has a passion for film but doesn’t want to work under the Hollywood system.

Hollywood will never change, but the film world is on the brink of a revolution. Thanks to new technologies, creators have access to the means of production as well as alternative distribution channels.

It’s pretty simple when you think of it. You don’t like the system? Work outside of it.

“It’s pretty simple when you think of it. You don’t like the system? Work outside of it.”

That’s 100% correct.

But I just want to make sure everyone understands what that means because there’s a big difference between Independent Film and working “outside the system”.

With the exception of *Monster’s Ball, my whole career has been as an Independent Producer. But even when you fund a film through private investors, you still have to actually sell the film cause after all, you do want people to actually see it. And if you think that screenwriters have to compromise, try selling a film to a studio. It’s about a million times worse.

The 2nd film we did was The Woodsman and when we sold it to Newmarket Films we got about a third of what the budget was. And when it was time to release the film we were put in…

6 Movie Theatres.

Newmarket decided to dump the film because it wanted to focus mainly on Monster w/ Charlize Theron and Passion of the Christ. It was a very sad experience and the complete opposite of the accolades that we had received at Sundance.

Do I regret selling the film to Newmarket?

Nope.

Wanna know why? Because it was the only studio that wanted to buy the film.

In business, you accept certain things. I can’t say that I KNEW that Newmarket would dump the film but I had my suspicions. But it didn’t matter. Because the alternative was NO SALE. With anybody.

If you are looking for an optimum situation, STOP. It’s not out there. Not for you. At least not yet. As your career grows, your money will increase and so will your leverage. Just like any other employee. If you expect out of the ordinary deals or try to change the way it works, you will forever be on the outside looking in.

The only real way to truly work outside of the system is to finance the movie yourself, package it yourself, pay for all prints & advertising, and then personally book it into theatres. If you can do all of that you probably should be running a studio…

*Monster’s Ball was a negative pick-up with Lions Gate.

I’d agree with you that this isn’t any kind of “writers are so put upon” issue. It’s an economic issue, but I’d sight very different economic issues to explain why things are the way they are.

“For a long time, I’ve said that actors get attention because they’re pretty and fascinating (undeniable)…”

To put it bluntly - BALLONEY.

Few actors are all that “pretty”, and frankly, most of them are no more “fascinating” than any other human being.

They get “attention” because they’re pros at it.

They show up for interviews with cute anecdotes from being on set in their hip pocket. They know enough to mention that their kid had a birthday yesterday in the green room so that that fact will be added to the host’s hit list of topics. They know enough not to mention that they thought the director was an ass-hole (even if they did), or so much as hint at any problems they had with other cast. They’re pros, and very well aware that a “preinterview” is no casual conversation. They know where, when, and how to be seen, and devote quite a bit of their lives to doing it effectively.

Half of an actor’s job is acting, but the other half is knowing how to be demonstrably effective marketing tool.

So why doesn’t the public know who their favorite screenwriters are every bit as well as they know who their favorite actors are?

MARKETING - pure and simple. “You can build a better mousetrap, but no one is going to beat a path to your door unless you’ve got good marketing.”

And before I go any farther at all with this particular line of thought I’d warn every writer that thinks he or she wants or feels they deserve more credit before the public they’re telling stories to (let alone the power that comes with it) -

BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR.

I have no doubt at all that films could be marketed on the basis of a writer’s name every bit as effectively as using the name of a director, cast member, or the brand name value of a franchise. “Ooo. I love his (or her) movies” would work every bit as well for screenwriters as it does for directors or cast.

BUT -

Consider just how RADICALLY any shift like that would change the lifestyle of screenwriters.

You’d have to have YOUR ass on a plane from L.A. to NYC two hours after appearing on Leno so you can do a taping for Late Night. YOU’D be the one who, sick as a dog or not, have to make all the same rounds cast, and to a lesser extent directors, have to make now. YOU’D be the one who has to show up for the “live online chats”, the magazine, television, radio, and all the rest of the interviews. And you’d have to know how not to fu@k up while doing it.

In short writing would become only half of what YOU have to do for a living, and the other “half” of your job (being promoted as a bankable brand name), would be added on top of everything else writers have to do now.

And of course, in the event that all that time and effort promoting your name is dammed well going to take out of your life is actually successful, there’s the fact that any hint of a right to privacy is going to be relegated more to a theoretical abstraction than any practicable practicality.

In the end analysis I’d offer that producers, directors, cast, writers, and everyone else involved in making a film, derive their power primarily on the basis of the value of their brand name.

Producers of monster hits garner an enormous amount of power, while the producers of lesser known films, be they brilliant or bad, don’t. The same goes for directors, and cast, and there’s no reason I can see why that couldn’t be just as true for screenwriters.

“Ooo. I love his films”

THAT’S where the real power in Hollywood lays.

And imo, the reason that’s the case, is because “Ooo. I love his films” is one of the best means known of putting asses in theater seats.

Mike:

You said that “few actors are all that pretty.” Maybe that’s true. But we’re not talking about actors, are we?

We’re talking about STARS.

Here’s a list of some of the most popular and well paid Stars of the last 10 years:

I’m not counting comedians, mind you. They’re a whole different breed…

• Tom Cruise
• Brad Pitt
• Angelina Jolie
• Mel Gibson
• Cameron Diaz
• Keanu Reeves
• George Clooney
• Matthew McConaughey
• Denzel Washington
• Will Smith

Do you know what they all have in common? They are all EXTRAORDINARY looking. Do you know what else they have in common? They are all extraordinarily boring. Press junkets are mindless boring drivel that offer absolutely no new insights to a film.

Do you know what writers look like? Do you know what Craig looks like? (Ha ha, no offense)…

If you think that writers could replace the popularity or marketing of actors, YOU ARE NUTS.

People who stack boxes for a living complain about the way they are treated as well. What if I didn’t stack all these boxes? I stack boxes better than all the other box stackers. I deserve more for my box stacking dedication…

But at the end of the day, anyone can stack boxes. When we write, we’re usually creating something that means a lot to us, it’s personal, our baby. We don’t like to think that our baby is just another box that someone else can stack. Like this site has taught us before, we are ever so replaceable. The thought of some idiot manhandling our baby, not treating it with the respect it/we deserve, drives us crazy.

Like Craig/Keven point out, it may be personal to us, but at the end of the day, it’s still business. And thank goodness for that. If it wasn’t a business, then a few more of us might be stacking boxes for a living.

I really hate stacking boxes.

Replace actors as a bankable brand name? Don’t be silly Kev. Who said anything at all about replacing actors as a valuable means of attracting theatergoers?

TOM CLANCY J.K. ROWLING J.R.R. TOLKIEN MICHAEL CHRICHTON STEPHEN KING HANS CHRISTIAN ANDERSEN ARTHUR MILLER ARTHUR C. CLARKE H.G. WELLS ALISTAIR MACLEAN ROBERT LUDLUM JOHN LE CARRE

How many more do you want me to list? Are you trying to tell me that those names don’t help - a LOT - putting asses in theater seats Kev?

Those names are as well known as they are because they were marketed, by publishers for the most part, but what gives you the crazy idea that studios couldn’t do the same thing with the names of screewriters?

The names you happen to have chosen are those of admittedly good looking thespians, but how ‘bout names like Danny De Vito, or Alec Guinness? And granted, there may have been a time, looooong ago, that Laurence Olivier’s name sold tickets because he was a good lookin’ guy, but don’t try to tell me his name was as promonent on the posters of The Marathon Man for that reason.

“Pretty” is nice, but it ain’t the only way to skin a cat Kev.

Kev:

Extraordinary looking? Denzel? Tom Cruise? Matthew McConaughey? Are you having a laugh?

I agree that Hollywood is a business. It is run like a business with market studies, etc,. Can’t change that but

if anyone can write what you write, you’re not writing, you’re hacking. Writing is one the most absolute expression of the individual. It is a human being’s particular point of view on the world, uniquely expressed. If your work is not unique, then you’re writing the equivalent of Harlequin romance books and that, it’s true, anyone can do.

But Harlequin books make tons of money. They reach a large readership, but are not literature. Most Hollywood films are the cinematic equivalent of Harlequin publications.

To the writers credit, hack or not, I must say that the industry is set up in such a way that it reduces the even the most talented writers to hacks by forcing him to manufacture stories.

Years ago I was outraged when a respected writer said that screenwriters weren’t writers. I disagree that they’re not writers. They are, only the industry rarely allows them to really create.

So yes, within that context, all screen “writers” ” are replaceable.

Those names are as well known as they are because they were marketed, by publishers for the most part, but what gives you the crazy idea that studios couldn’t do the same thing with the names of screenwriters?

You’re absolutely right. And if you recall, the WGA launched a wide campain not so long ago that supported that view. The “someone wrote this” compain, if I remember correctly.

I know a few people myself, ordinary movie goers, that want to see every Charlie Kaufman film that comes out.

Mike:

“TOM CLANCY J.K. ROWLING J.R.R. TOLKIEN MICHAEL CHRICHTON STEPHEN KING HANS CHRISTIAN ANDERSEN ARTHUR MILLER ARTHUR C. CLARKE H.G. WELLS ALISTAIR MACLEAN ROBERT LUDLUM JOHN LE CARRE”

All of these people are Novelists.

Novelists are completely different than screenwriters. A novel’s success is totally and completely beholden the the writer. A film is not. There are hundreds of technicians that will determine if a film is good or not (keep in mind that I did not say successful.)

Here’s the deal. Movies are a visual medium. You sit there and watch it with your eyes. You don’t see the pages of a screenplay. You see the actors. There’s just no way to market a film around the guy who sits in front of a computer for 3 months. Screenwriters are definitely a great SUPPLEMENT to marketing. Once you’re done with Leonardo Di Caprio maybe you can talk to John Logan for a bit. But centralizing the marketing around a screenwriter is ludicrous. Not here, not anywhere. Our culture, not even just the American culture, is mesmerized by beauty. Since the very first reel of film was developed we’ve been obsessed with the men and women who look nothing like us. That’s the way it will always stay. Because it is our belief that these STARS are gods. That may be wrong (and the more we know about these stars, we KNOW it is wrong), it’s the way it will always stay. And contrary to what you might think, this doesn’t make the general public wrong or idiots.

“but how ‘bout names like Danny De Vito, or Alec Guinness?”

Danny Devito and Alec Guiness are NOT marquee star names. They do not put asses in the seats. They never did and they never will. We’re talking about STARS. And I hate to tell you this but Laurence Olivier was not a huge film star. He was an extraordinary actor. But he certainly did not put asses in the seats.

Daniel:

When I see that I a film was written by Charlie Kaufman, you bet your ass that I run out and see it. But I am not the norm. We are not the norm. And it shouldn’t be the norm. Because if every movie was like a Charlie Kaufman script, I’d kill myself. Sorry, I do love my explosions.

“But Harlequin books make tons of money. They reach a large readership, but are not literature. Most Hollywood films are the cinematic equivalent of Harlequin publications.”

That’s a ridiculous and insulting comment. Harlequin books may not be your cup of tea (nor mine) but they are certainly literature. That’s like saying Die Hard is a film but it’s not cinema. Just because it’s not scholarly doesn’t make it less than.

Matt:

“Extraordinary looking? Denzel? Tom Cruise? Matthew McConaughey? Are you having a laugh?”

I believe all of these people were voted People’s Most Beautiful People.

You might disagree with me but there are millions and millions of people out there that don’t.

Are you having a laugh?:)

Kevin,

Harlequin stories are less because they’re generic. Same for generic films. Of course my comment is insulting. I didn’t mean it any other way.

Harlequin is literature? Sure. And McDonald’s burgers are gastronomy. I can buy that. ;)

Kevin, In reading both this thread and the previous one, you seem oddly full of contempt for writers. Or are you always this belligerent and condescending? Yes, “producers’ have a different take on this business than writers, we all get that… yes, writers are often fired, we all know that. However, your attitude here makes me wonder if some of the writers who’ve been “fired” by you (when you used to work for Lee Daniels) might not have breathed a sigh of relief.

Disagreeing with someone doesn’t always mean you should act like you know everything and no one else has a valid view point. Take a hint from Craig, he obviously agrees more with you than with those whom you’ve been jousting with (at full tilt each time), but he manages to do it without sounding like Jack Nicholson’s character in a “Few Good men”. Besides, we all HATED that character.

Here, now, straight from the pages of the Oxford English Dictionary:

literature

1. Acquaintance with letters or books; polite or humane learning; literary culture. Now rare and obsolescent.

2. Literary work or production; the activity or profession of a man of letters; the realm of letters.

3. a. Literary productions as a whole; the body of writings produced in a particular country or period, or in the world in general. Now also in a more restricted sense, applied to writing which has claim to consideration on the ground of beauty of form or emotional effect.

b. The body of books and writings that treat of a particular subject.

c. colloq. Printed matter of any kind.

-

There’s also a very interesting discussion on literature versus Literature on Wikipedia at: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literature

Here’s an excerpt:

Literature is literally “acquaintance with letters” as in the first sense given in the Oxford English Dictionary (from the Latin littera meaning “an individual written character (letter)”). The term has generally come to identify a collection of texts. The word “literature” as a common noun can refer to any form of writing, such as essays; “Literature” as a proper noun refers to a whole body of literary work, often relating to a specific culture.

“Literature”, with emphasis on the uppercase L, is a subset of the more general “literature”. “Literature” refers to written work of exceptional intellectual calibre, whereas “literature” can be anything written.

Accordingly, War and Peace by Tolstoy is “Literature” (singular) (as well as “literature”). Consequently, a novel by Danielle Steele will be included in “literature” but not in “Literature”, since most people would not deem the books to be sufficiently intellectual or meaningful.

What is intellectual or meaningful, though, is subjective and often controversial. Many would argue about what marks a work as “Literature”, such as whether or not Neil Gaiman’s The Sandman, Peter Straub’s lost boy lost girl, or Ronald Damien Malfi’s The Fall of Never are considered Literature.

ANONYMOUS:

“Kevin, In reading both this thread and the previous one, you seem oddly full of contempt for writers.”

First of all, I’m a Producer AND a Writer. I don’t have contempt for myself or writers. If you read my posts again you’ll see that I have a tremendous RESPECT for writers. I don’t like them being called Hacks and I defend all genres of work. Even Harlequin books. That’s why Ted posted the definition of LITERATURE. You might want to read my posts again.

“Or are you always this belligerent and condescending?”

The discussions that we’ve all been having have been respectful and civil between all parties. I don’t think Craig, Mike T, Daniel, Ted, Derek, or myself have been belligerent. When I told Daniel that I wanted to read his novel, I was serious.

And I am only condescending on Saturdays.

“However, your attitude here makes me wonder if some of the writers who’ve been “fired” by you (when you used to work for Lee Daniels) might not have breathed a sigh of relief.”

We’ve never fired a writer.

“…but he manages to do it without sounding like Jack Nicholson’s character in a “Few Good men”. Besides, we all HATED that character.”

I’ve never even used an exclamation point in my posts! And I kind of liked Jack Nicolson’s character…

Anonymous, all of my posts have been about one thing:

Being a Professional in the Business of Screenwriting.

It’s not enough to be just a good writer. You must be a good business man as well. I’m encouraging writers to not believe crazy PR stories or try to be “Mavericks” and change the business overnight. Trust me when I say this…it does not serve the writer’s well being to preach about the injustices of Hollywood. It will only hinder the process. A Successful Writer is a Smart Writer and he should know the laws of copyright and what it means to be an Employee. Most of the time, being an Employee is the very best thing for a writer.

I want to stop the romanticization of what it is to be a Screenwriter. It’s a career. Like being the manager of The Gap. The laws are no different for either.

Kevin,

I don’t know who anonymous is, other than it ain’t me, but I will tell you, respectfully and as someone who has met you and found you pleasant to speak with in person, that your posts over the last few days regarding this topic have indeed oftentimes been condenscending perhaps even belligerent … I don’t believe you’re intending to be, but it has definitely felt that way at different times. Your point often is - THIS IS THE WAY THE BUSINESS IS, DO IT THIS WAY OR DO SOMETHING ELSE …

Even if you are completely correct (and you and I have politely disagreed on a couple of other issues) I find myself always reacting negatively when someone says in large capital letters DO YOU WANT TO BE A SCREENWRITER - THIS IS WHAT YOU GOTTA DO, GET OVER IT!

Call it a knee-jerk McKee reaction, if you will.

Craig has this site in which he shares what he has done, how he has done it and what he believes will work for everyone, in his view. And I for one thank him for it, as that I have gotten a ton of valuable insight from his generosity. I appreciate him even when I disagree with him on individual points.

Hey, we don’t all have to agree, right? There are folks that have written, directed and produced films in a lot of different ways.

Kevin, I don’t believe for a second that you are an uncivil person, but I do believe that one or two or more of your posts have bumped up against that line of respect for other’s view.

I must point out that when I mentioned this previously you responded by stating WHICH IS WHY I SAID “TO EACH HIS OWN - TWICE!” - saying it doesn’t mean that you have been practicing it.

Now I’m not here pretending to be perfect, either, nor am I proclaiming to know everything - but I wanted to say that this is what I’ve experienced over the course of discussion the past few days.

Take it for what it’s worth, agree or disagree.

And on a side note to anon, post your name if you have something critical to say, we’re all adults here.

The more I learn the less I know.

Kev; I see your point, but I just don’t agree with it. I’m not convinced that the reason screenwriters can’t be used to market films is just because they’re not good looking enough, or due to the fact that they’re not the sole contributor to making films.

Actors are by no means sole contributors either, neither are directors. Directors are rarely in front of the camera (aside from cameos), and yet how many films are marketed around the names of directors?

Quentin Tarentino recently wrote and directed a C.S.I. ep for television. The show used his name to market it, and, just as you’d expect, got their biggest ratings bump of the year from it.

Now you’re not going to try to convince me that Q.T. is a handsome guy are ya? He wasn’t in front of the camera, and he was by no means at all any kind of sole contributor to that episode the way a novelist is to a book.

All I’m saying is that name brands can be hellishly effective marketing tools, and that they’re not strictly the province of “beautiful people”, or those solely responsible for the creation of the product those names are used to promote.

There’s no reason at all that the names of screenwriters can’t be built into widely recognizable, and bankable, names.

Or, more accurately, you haven’t conviced me yet that that’s not the case.

I’m glad both Charlie Kaufman and Quentin Tarantino were brought up. They are both immensely talented screenwriters, and if a studio chooses to market a film (or TV show) around their names, I am all for it. I definitely think writers could do more for themselves from a PR standpoint, even if the studios don’t want to promote a film based on its screenwriter.

In the case of Charlie Kaufman, the guy wrote a movie where he was the main character and got Nicolas Cage to play him. This did wonders for the marquee value of his name. It took a hell of a lot of balls and creativity, and the press picked up on this and ran many, many stories about Charlie Kaufman. It was a stroke of PR genius, even if you believe him when he says that it wasn’t his intention to make his name famous.

Another smart writer is Mike White. Mike wrote THE SCHOOL OF ROCK, ORANGE COUNTY and others. Mike appears in significant roles in all of his films. He was Jack Black’s roommate in TSOR; I’m sure you remember his face.

Quentin Tarantino appeared memorably in RESERVOIR DOGS, PULP FICTION, and FROM DUSK TIL DAWN. This made his face as famous as his name.

All of these guys are very smart, talented writers. It definitely helps that they’ve all also made themselves famous, by either acting or, in Kaufman’s case, making himself the main character in one of his films. I have hung out with Mike White, and believe me, studio execs want to work with him both because of his writing talent AND because he is somewhat famous. They want to tell their bosses, “I’m working with Charlie Kaufman, Mike White, or Quentin Tarantino,” not only because of their writing, but because there is a certain amount of fame associated with each name. And I think this is a good thing.

For those of you who say, but wait… studios promote movies based on directors too; there is no reason for them not to give the same PR push to screenwriters. I say to you… talk to your cousin, aunt, nephew, friend who lives in a red state. Someone who likes to go to the movies, but isn’t movie-business savvy. You know, your “normal” friend. Now ask that person to name for you all of the living movie directors he or she knows. If you get more than Spielberg or Lucas, I will be shocked… (I know this because I do this all the time.) They might know M. Night Shymalan (appears in his films) and they might know Martin Scorcese (appears in his films), but probably not. If you really want to depress yourself, ask them if they can name a single screenwriter who is not a director or is not Matt Damon and Ben Affleck.

Screenwriters definitely need to do more to promote themselves in order to gain power for themselves. But I think it is going to have to be self-generated PR, which many writers equate to “selling out” and so are sheepish about doing.

My two cents:

One of the great things about America (I’m Australian), is the entrepreneurial spirit: build a better mousetrap. Strangely, with Hollywood, in the last 20 years there seems have been little true innovation in terms of the business of making films.

One could argue that they have evolved to being as close to optimal as a capitalist system can support. One could also argue that innovation is discouraged as expressed by Kevin: this is how it works; accept it or go somewhere else.

I personally think that there are a lot more efficient ways of producing financially sucessful films that what is in current use. One of my goals in writing/directing is to try out some of my ideas.

I think an attitude of “let’s try it” is better than “no sex please, we’re British.”

JOSHUA:

I went back to read my posts to see if I was indeed being belligerent. Belligerent, no. Condescending, yes. I think what set me off was the attack on other writers. If you look at all the posts, writers were consistently called Hacks and Whores. I don’t think that’s fair and the name calling isn’t as faceless as one might think.

But thank you for the kind words.

Mike T:

I do see your point as well. But I have a question? How would you market a movie that has more than one writer credited? Not a team, mind you but other writers that have worked on the film? I think that may be another problem. Actors and Directors are a bit more definitive. But I do agree that it would be nice to see more writers front and center. I don’t think that they could replace actors or directors in the Marketing Campaign but I do think they should be included a whole lot more.

How would you market a movie that has more than one writer credited? Not a team, mind you but other writers that have worked on the film?

The same way you market a film when there’s several stars in it.

Written by… the creator of YYYYY and by the creator of ZZZZZZ, etc.

I have issues with the word “whore”, but if I remember correctly, it started with a our host comment saying and I quote:

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. :)

But the word “hack” has been created for very good reasons. Certain writers didn’t want to be associated in any way to a certain type of writers, their work, their values, etc.

As far as I’m concerned, it’s not the word that labels the work that demeans a writer, it’s the work itself.

This might be an extreme example, but who would would to be associated in anyway to the writing of the remake of The Fog?

In my previous post, I meant ” who would want” not “who would would”

The Fog was the worst film I’ve ever seen in a theater (and I saw Moonlight Mile and Christmas with the Kranks). One invaluable perk to being a screenwriter is a very easy way to shift blame when a film is a disaster. I have several friends that have written films that…um…well…didn’t do that well. A screenwriter in this town can always say a) I was rewritten or b) the director fucked it up. 95% of the time they’re write, but it’s a great secret weapon, as people don’t really think we have a lot to do with the final product, anyway.

They’re write? Jesus.

It seems to me that this discussion is dancing around the important issues without actually delving into them. Yes, stars are what get movies made and put asses in seats. Nobody doubts that or questions it, and I doubt anyone here thinks writers could ever have that kind of clout. Where it gets fuzzy is when we talk about directors. It’s also true that with a few small exceptions, most directors are as unknown to the rest of the world as writers are. So the argument that writers get short shrift because of economic realities has the merit of sounding like a reasoned, logical argument.

But it’s not. The argument isn’t, “Should writers be treated like movie stars?” That’s a no-brainer. The argument is, simply, “Should writers be treated better?” and the equally obvious answer to that one is, yes.

Carpenter’s comment about authorship is odious, self serving, and, ultimately, immoral. A director is the person whose job it is to translate the text to screen. Without a script, a director has nothing to do. Neither does an actor, or an editor, or a grip. To say that we’re just another cog in that great machine is a lie. We are the engine of the machine, the thing that starts it up and gives it a destination. The issue isn’t PR - the general public will never know or care who we are, nor should they. The issue is respect, which translates into dollars and power.

And this is where I ultimately wish the WGA would focus their energies. There are some core, fundamental issues that must be addressed before we can ever get our proper due in this industry. The “film by” credit is a major one, and we blew it a few years back. Setting aside the fact that film is a collaborative medium, and claiming sole authorship of any movie is an insult to your collaborators, no director should ever be able to take a “film by” credit on a movie he or she didn’t write. That should never even be on the table for discussion. That we let directors do this every day is to our eternal shame, and it’s one of the reasons we get the short end of the stick so often.

The notion that the director is the be all and end all is an artificial construct with no more basis in reality than the notion that movie stars are better human beings than “ordinary” people. By letting it stand, we do ourselves a tremendous disservice. If every working writer in town decided tomorrow to make it a contractual requirement that nobody could take a “film by” credit on a script they wrote, there would be nothing that DGA could do abbout it. Don’t like it? Write your own movies. It’s easy. It’s simple. It’s very, very small, and it’s very, very big. Start by taking that back, start by asserting authority and authorship, and watch what happens. If respect isn’t given to you, you must take it, and once you have it, the small things get much easier.

Does anyone find it ironic that the highest accolade we can heap upon a director is to call him the French word for “writer”?

I wrote, directed, and edited a film this year and I still don’t feel like an “Auteur”. It’s a ridiculous and stupid notion. I had an award winning Director of Photography (I’ve hired him twice and if I had my way, he would shoot everything for me…) and without him, the film would be nothing.

I think Jabez hit the nail on the head. Writers should definitely have more recognition. But then again so should directors. And Cinematographers and Editors. Movies are a collaborative process and if one of those people that I mentioned do a shitty job, the whole film is destroyed.

Ben David brings up another good point. When a film doesn’t do what we think it’s gonna do, it’s very easy to say, “The Director fucked it up!” It’s a Blame and Recognition game.

Kevin

I think I was unclear - I’m not talking about public recognition. That will never happen. I’m talking about within the industry. Directors do NOT need more recognition by the industry - they’re considered the creators. If anything, they need less. And within the industry, crew members could certainly be treated better, but I’m talking specifically the way in which writers - the primary creative force behind a film - are treated as minor players. There are all sorts of inequities in the industry, and all sorts of people who could use a little more recognition, but writers get monumentally hosed by the business, and my point is it’s our own fault.

Or, to be more specific, our guild’s.