If You Have To Ask...
Will work for
access to set…A reader wrote in with a question about the WGA’s preferred practices, but rather than dump a quick answer off in the Q&A bin, I thought I’d write a larger piece about the creative rights and preferred practices enshrined in the MBA for screenwriters—and what they actually mean for us.
All professional screenwriters have at least one or two awful tales about how they were discarded from or poorly treated on the production of a movie they wrote. In response to a seemingly unending march of boorish behavior on the part of directors and producers, the WGA began routinely demanding creative rights gains in each collective bargaining negotiation.
This is a brief summary of some of the bigger ones. For the whole kit and caboodle, get thee as always to the WGAw website.
Coverage Can’t Be Sent Around Town
That’s right. The studio can blast your script to pieces in its internal coverage, but it’s forbidden from emailing that coverage to another studio or producer inquiring about your work.
The Right of Prima Scripta
Okay, I just made that Latin phrase up, but the idea should be obvious. If you sell a spec, you are entitled to the first rewrite on it. Furthermore, if you’re still the only writer on the project and a new “element” is added (a director or star), the company must hire you for the next draft.
Consultation on Notes
The studio can’t just give you notes and refuse to talk about them with you. This is a curious right, because usually we can’t get the studio to shut up about notes. Remember this one, by the way. I’m going to refer to it at the end when I make my Big Point about all of this.
Authorization of Rewrites
Remember our big discussion about free rewrites? That’s what this attempts to address. Your contract must include the name of the person authorized to actually request a paid draft. Sadly, this person is usually the head of the studio, and typically you’ll never speak to them. A shell game, really.
How Many Writers???
If you’re called into to pitch on an assignment, and you happen to be so bold as to ask how many other writers are being called in to pitch on the assignment, the studio has to be honest about it. Roughly.
You’re Covered Under Their E&O
This is a big one. When you write a movie for a company, they must include you under their errors and omissions insurance policy, and they must indemnify you for legal expenses and damages. After all, they’re the official “author”, right? Makes sense, and a big protection for WGA writers.
You Get To Describe Your Vision To The Producer
Yeah, that’s right. Before production begins, you have the right to a meeting with the producer to talk about all aspects of production involved in translating your screenplay to film. Of course, what would really be great would be a meeting like that with the director, right? Well, that’s a “preferred practice.”
“Preferred practice” is a nice way of saying “the companies don’t have to do it if they don’t feel like it.”
Call Sheets
You must be listed on daily call sheets, and the currently employed writer is entitled to receive a daily call sheet when issued to the crew.
Table Reading?
Before a movie shoots, the cast sits around a big table and reads the script out loud. Theoretically, this would be the most important preproduction event for a writer to attend. Alas, we do not have a right to be there. Why? Because the DGA doesn’t like the idea of it. It’s not that directors are all insecure egotists. Some writers have shown up at those things and acted like jerks. On the other hand, the fact that this isn’t a right and is merely a “preferred practice” is quite ridiculous, and I’m hoping that will change.
Set Visits
We have a right to visit the set of the movie we wrote, but that right is subject to the director’s approval. So, umm…what the hell kind of right is that?
First Class, Baby!
You fly to a gig, you fly first class. Non-negotiable. Booya!
Cast And Crew Events
If you work on a movie, you get an invite to the cast screenings or the wrap parties. If you live in L.A. and the wrap party is in Saskatchewan, they don’t have to pay for you to get there. But you do get an invite. Notice that I didn’t say “premiere”, right? See, here’s another fun little “right” that we have. We have the “right” to attend the premiere and press junket of the movie we write…unless the company notifies us otherwise. Sigh.
Writer’s Viewing Period
The writer is owed a chance to screen a cut of the movie and give notes on it in enough of a timely fashion so that those notes might actually be incorporated. By someone. Theoretically.
A VHS Copy!
Yes! They owe us a VHS copy of the movie we wrote!
What’s a VHS?
Hey, we also get a copy of the script! Sigh.
As you can see, some of these rights are important and clearly well worth fighting to keep, while others are either pseudorights or completely worthless. What’s fascinating about this list, however, is that it’s essentially an insight into basic professional courtesies that have been denied screenwriters.
If they hadn’t been denied us, we wouldn’t have collectively bargained for them. Unfortunately (and here’s the Big Point, y’all), there’s a difference between getting a rule on the books and actually getting treated with courtesy. You can’t legislate good will. We can force the companies to let us watch a cut of the movie so that we can give notes, but we can’t stop them from not caring about a single thing we say.
That’s why my personal crusade has been to try and move professional screenwriters away from standing on these rights and demanding them like Norma Rae, and move screenwriters toward practical real-life solutions that actually improve the relationship between them, the employers and the director.
It’s significant that we have the right to discuss our vision with the producer. I can tell you, though, that it’s far more satisfying to have the producer call you and say, “Hey, we should talk about the movie before the cameras start rolling.”
The WGA is a labor union, and it must live in the world of institutions and bargaining. It will be very challenging to make real creative rights gains at the negotiation table. Positive working relationships are not governable by contracts. They just happen…or they don’t. Remember that right about “consultation on notes”? Well, apparently some studios were just handing some writers notes and refusing to discuss them further. Why would a studio ever do such a thing?
Probably because they had zero interest in that writer actually succeeding. The working relationship was bad. Now, thanks to our creative rights, they have to discuss the notes with that writer.
That won’t change a single thing about the way they feel about the writer.
Know your rights, but do what you need to do so that you get all those things you’re entitled to without having to ask.
Sometimes, I just can’t believe we are still fighting for such elemental rights.
Thanks a lot for the info. An for the fight.
Well, how do we move to a paradigm where these are not only rights but standard operating procedure, Craig? Here in Canada we’re still working on convincing producers that having a writing room on a TV show is a good idea. To writers this seems like a no-brainer, but producers have the idea it costs money. It saves money, of course, but they don’t know that.
So what’s the answer? Paid publicists whose job is to get people to realize that a good script is cheaper to shoot than a bad one, and having the original writer write a second draft is usually more effective than having a new writer write a new first draft? ‘Cause I will bet you not too many producers are reading either of our blogs. Therefore we are both preaching to the choir.
How do we change the paradigm?
Craig,
Question—if a studio can’t distribute coverage of a script outside the company, what’s the penalty if they do?
Ben LA
and what’s the punishment for free rewrites?
It’s seemed that the employers have, quite often, flouted the rules more than once with a few folks - not that I disagree with what you’ve written here and the need for all of this, but how do we enforce these rules? It often seems like they have all the power, and as we know, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
But thanks for posting this, it’s very informative.
Alex:
Well, the Canadian situation is just odd. I mean, the easiest thing to do, I suppose, would be to point your finger south and say, “You know those guys down there making billions off of TV? Well, they seem to think writers’ rooms are a good idea…”
Your larger question is a good one, and my tendency is to avoid paradigmatic solutions, because I don’t think there are any. I believe that in this business, it will be individuals who change the culture, and those individuals must not only be smart, strong people willing to make their own case, but they also need to be ready to stop acting like writers who came before them.
In short, I think just being a writer isn’t enough. I would have said “isn’t enough anymore,” but it was never enough to unlock the privilege of courteous treatment. We have to assume more responsibility, and we have to make that part of our goal.
Josh:
When a company violates any of these rights, then the WGAw typically files an arbitration claim against them. Sometimes we win, sometimes we lose, sometimes it takes years. I’d like to speak a little more frankly about the WGAw legal department, but given my current situation on the Board, I can’t. I’ll be more frank after my term is up in September.
Ben:
Generally, the penalties are financial. They pay a fine, and you get the dough. If you think they’ve violated this right, then contact the WGAw.
Here’s a transcript of a conversation I had with our producer two weeks ago -
Producer: “We’ll be done with the first cut of the movie in a few days.
Me: “Hey, that’s great.”
Producer: “We’ll send you a copy.”
Me: “Gee, THANKS!”
Producer: “Don’t thank me. We’re obligated to. WGA rules and all.”
Me: “Oh, yeah. I, uh, knew that….” (sotto) “Note to self: re-read the MBA!”
Just curious, why did you pick Saskatchewan as the location for the wrap party? Based on a personal experience? Or couldn’t think of a more out the way place to have a wrap party?
I probably already know the answer…
“In short, I think just being a writer isn’t enough. I would have said “isn’t enough anymore,” but it was never enough to unlock the privilege of courteous treatment. We have to assume more responsibility, and we have to make that part of our goal.”
Craig,
Why, in your view, is just being a writer not enough?
What would assuming more responsibility mean in practice?
Thanks, Mr. Insufferable
Coverage Can’t Be Sent Around Town
Doesn’t this effectively make script tracking boards an MBA violtion? (Or, at least, contributing to them as a signatory?) What am I missing?
Mr. Insufferable:
Why is just being a writer not enough? Because the things that most writers want simply don’t occur within the realm of “writer”. We want more control, more input, more inclusion and more money than is normally associated with the task of writing.
So…we must expand our job definitions, and thus, our titles. More writers should be learning how to produce movies.
As always, great stuff. Thanks for taking the time on this one.
God almighty. I leave you alone for a while, and you start in with this crap again.
You’re talking about RIGHTS here, Craig. The fundamental rights of creators in an artistic field. Yeah, it’s fucking OBVIOUS that you’ll do better in any field of endeavor if you’re pleasant to work with than if you’re not, but Jesus H Christ on a crutch, you’d turn us into a mass of Uriah Heeps, shuffling up to our masters, hat in hand, begging them to treat us with a smidgen of decency because we’re such nice people.
I have news for you - in the history of the world, in the history of the struggle for labor rights, just being nice to the people who are denying you those rights has NEVER led to change.
I’m a pleasure to work with because I see this as a collaborative medium, and because I am, by nature, a nice guy. I am NOT a pleasure to work with because I’m hoping maybe someone will throw me a fucking scrap from the table. We are a long, long way from being treated with the respect that is our due, and your “solution” is no solution at all. There are two unspoken assertions going on in your post - the first is that writers are treated like shit because most writers are assholes. The second is that it’s more important to just shuffle your feet and say “Yes Massah” than it is to fight for the rights that one can reasonably assume are due the primary creative force of this particular medium.
When you promote these ideas - and the insane notion that being “just” a writer isn’t enough - you do no good for writers. You do the work of the people who are working to keep us in our place.
You get so caught up in the notion that we work in a sausage factor, you lose sight of the fact that we work in a fucking ART FORM. “No,” says Mazin, “it’s NOT enough that you are one of those rare creatures who can cast words in manner that reaches down into the soul of the reader and causes him or her to re-examine the way they perceive the world. You must also know how to negotiate with teamsters about how to keep from paying golden time to the fucking honeywagon driver. Then, and only then, can you be a personage of any standing in this business. And as your WGA representative, I approve of that.”
No, it’s not enough that ours is the primary creative vision, the spark without which there can be no fire. Sure, directors can just direct, but writers must do more to make up for their lack of contribution to the finished product.
Bleargh.
Whether you like it or not, the world we need to be fighting for is not one where writers have to learn a second trade, nor a world where writers must always be pleasant to deal with. The world we need to be fighting for is one where writers are granted our due regardless of our character because - and this may, I suspect, be a newsflash - we do not get paid for being nice people. We get paid because we create something out of nothing. It would be nice if all creative personages were wonderful, warm, caring, decent people who truly went out of their way to please everyone, but we don’t live in that world, and if that really troubles you, take it up with Dr. Phil.
And while you’re at it, you might want to ask him why you’re so concerned with scolding screenwriters for behavior you apparently find perfectly acceptable in directors and producers.
“Dear Mahatma,
Please stop with the hunger strike. I have a better idea. If you all just try to make friends with the British, they may, over time, decide to treat you like human beings.
Regards,
Craig Mazin”
Do you know what that something is?
Here’s what the MBA says writers do:
“Write literary material where the Company has the right by contract to direct the writing or preparing of the material or making revisions, modifications or changes therein.”
You don’t have to be a nice guy to do that, true; but if you do that, and only that, then you are not going to be participating in any creative decisions regarding the film material, other than those you’ve made in the literary material; and all those decisions you’ve made in the literary material are subordinate to the Company’s decisions regarding the film material.
And what that means is that if writers want a voice in the creative decisions regarding the movie beyond the input represented by their writing, then they are going to have to be invited in.
It might be possible to make that invitation mandatory, as a term of employment — but just because you get invited to a party, it doesn’t mean anyone is going to ask you to dance.
But you can have all the snacks and punch you want, so feel free to graze the craft services table while other people go about making the movie.
-
Dear Josh:
Gandhi wasn’t getting paid six figures to write his speeches, but this analogy certainly was a fascinating insight into your self-image.
Ted,
It’s not a party. It’s a job. We don’t get invited because we’re likable, we get invited because we do a job well, just like everyone else. I’ve worked in this business for twenty years. If you want to peddle the notion that likability is the secret to power in Hollywood, peddle it to someone who just got off the bus.
I strongly resent Craig trying to make this about the personal behavior of writers. That’s a seperate issue, and one that isn’t really appropriate in a discussion of our professional rights.
Craig,
The fact that you make it about money is a fascinating insight into YOUR self-image. Inequity is inequity. If we’re going to play that utterly moronic game where we pretend not to understand what an analogy is, count me out.
Writers are the visionaries who create the stories. Everyone else - as important, as lovely, and as brilliant as they are - is there to implement that vision. You’ve spent so long eating the humble pie you prescribe for others, that you’ve lost sight of that. Saying that the best way for us to get the respect we absolutely and undeniably deserve is to be likable is creepy in a fellow writer, unacceptable in a representative elected to fight for my professional rights.
Josh:
I wasn’t elected to the Board to fight for your professional rights. I was elected to help set policy for a labor union. We all pay a staff. It’s their job to fight for your professional rights.
As such, I don’t give a sweet damn what you find unacceptable.
That aside, it is about money to me. That’s why I accept certain inequities in business. In the business of the screen trade, I accept that I have less influence and power than any one person on the planet, including the mentally retarded, that have one hundred million dollars to spend on the financing of a film.
That doesn’t mean I’m not interested in improving my non-financial treatment. I am. You can strongly resent that I believe writers are partially responsible for their own fate, and we can all argue over whether or not that makes you or me more of a fan of writers.
Again, though…sweet damn, don’t give one.
Because I accept certain things that you don’t, I chart a pratical course for gains. I’m not an idealist. I’m not an artist. I’m not a special person who wants to change the world. I’m not Malcolm X, and I’m not Martin Luther King. I’m a working professional seeking to get what I can, how I can. I reject anger and self-righteousness, because I find them ineffective for my situation.
The analogy you provided is flawed, because we are not fighting for basic human rights. Ergo, we have no true moral capital to expend. The reason people didn’t want Gandhi to die was not because they cared about him. They didn’t want Gandhi to die because they feared what it would say about them.
There is nothing for anyone to fear about the currrent moral mistreatment of screenwriters, nor will there ever be as long as screenwriters get paid more than the average American. Moral outrage must be felt by more than the victim for it to be a useful tool.
That said, this is my tao. You have yours. I wish you the best. You’ve been working in this business twice as long as I have. Maybe I’ll think like you in ten years. Ya never know.
The point of it all is to get us closer to a place where writers are respected and treated as the primary creative force they are. We’re not going to get there if our collective position is “We need to be more likable.”
Making it about the money is foolish. The money pours from the sky in this town.
You’re pointing everything in the wrong direction. If you want to do something productive with your attitude, re-direct it. MAKE it about the money thusly (and more realistically) - Do good work, and the money will come. You say if we’re nice and likable, we won’t need rules that force producers to invite us into the creative process. I’ll turn that around and say that if we’re good at the job, the money will take care of itself.
Even when I was struggling in the world of non-Guild, straight to video crap, I never got paid less than Guild minimum, and usually got paid more. I did good work. Those battles weren’t tough. You know the battles that are tough? Getting producers and directors and studios to acknowledge that the writer is one of the - if not THE - primary visionaries of the whole damn thing, even if you’re the most likable guy in the world (Which - and this might shock you - I am). Doesn’t matter HOW much they like you, the system stlll plugs along on the assumption that we’re interchangable.
You’re so close to getting it, it’s painful. You’re right - we ARE paid more than the average American. That’s why it’s inane to make it about the money. It’s not about the money. Never has been. Never will be.
I hate to break it to you, but we’re artists, Craig. Creators. Visionaries. Even you, much as you’re loathe to accept the mantle. Buy into the lie that we’re just bricklayers, and you really don’t need to fight anymore. You’ve already lost.
Josh —
You refuted my metaphor … by restating exactly what I said in my post?
Of course writing in Hollywood is a job — and the MBA description I quoted is the minimum requirement someone must fulfill in order to get paid.
You seem to confuse “in order to increase the creative rights of writers in Hollywood, writers need to take on greater creative responsibilities and do more than just the rock-bottom minimum necessary to get paid” with “writers should be likable so people will throw them a fucking scrap.”
So … the only thing you can think of that writers can do other than the rock-bottom minimum to get paid is … be nicer?
That’s an attitude I just don’t understand.
Of course, I also don’t understand how anyone could think that “Writers don’t get the respect they’re due in Hollywood!” is some kind of revolutionary idea, and saying it over and over will bring about real change.
Of course writers don’t get the respect they’re due in Hollywood. We all know it. Now: what should we do about it?
No, yeah — I know, “writers don’t get the respect they’re due in Hollywood,” right — wait, yeah, you said that, we all agree with — okay, I’ll wait … Done? Right, then what do we — wow. You’re saying it again. That’s kind of — oh, man. Wait, wait. Is saying that over and over your entire strategy for changing the system — oh.
Okay, I guess it is.
Writers don’t get the respect their due in Hollywood.
Hm .. nothing’s changed.
Guess you should say it again.
“Insanity: doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results” - Albert Einstein
-
I have to say, I don’t understand how you could read what I write and assume that my advice is to be likeable.
I’ll quote my post again.
Practical real-life solutions. Not “begging to be liked.” Frankly, half of my real-life solutions involve stepping on some toes. Being the boss.
I produced my last movie. I assure you, “being nice” wasn’t part of the gig.
“Producing” was, though.
You write:
You know, this should really concern you. See, I don’t have any problem at all getting the director and studio to acknowledge that I am one of the (if not the) primary visionaries of the movies I write. And I’m not that nice. Honestly. You are nice, and you’re apparently being treated less than ideally.
So, again…my problem is…what?
There’s a part of what I do that’s artistic, to be sure. This site isn’t about that. My advice to aspiring writers and other professionals isn’t about that either. I leave most of that stuff to people whose artistry is more impressive than mine (like Ted and Terry’s WordPlayer).
This site was very intentionally named The ARTFUL Writer, as opposed to the Artistic Writer or the Artsy Writer or the Artist Writer.
Artful. Clever or skillful, typically in a crafty or cunning way.
That’s me. That’s what I think needs to be cultivated in writers. In fact, I think your way of viewing our profession is precisely what needs to be challenged…because I think your way of viewing our profession is precisely what prevents so many of us (and apparently you?) from receiving the treatment we want.
JOSH:
What I find most compelling about your argument is your lack of it. Just to make sure I wasn’t caught in a temperal time flux, I went back and re-read all of your posts in the “History of Debate” article.
Nope. I’m not crazy. You just say the same thing over and over again.
You’ve made only 2 points in a series of over 40 posts. “The Film By credit is wrong and Writers are treated unfairly”
But whenever you’ve been asked to come up with any type of realistic solution, your answer has always been just to state your point in a louder tone, pepper it with insults, and make the occassional analogy to people who have fought for civil liberties. And by the way, we all get what an analogy is. We just reject the fallacy of the particular ones that you make.
Martin Luther King Jr. aside, I notice that in this particular case you continue to dimiss the legal definition of a Writer for a Feature Film; therfore making your argument a non-argument.
The point is this, when Writers have more input on a Feature Film it can make the product better. Employers, whether it be Producers or Studio Executives don’t really see it that way and we have to work to change that perception. But to just expect it by screaming about doesn’t really work now, does it?
Fact is, if certain people on a film had more input it could make a film better. God knows I’ve seen productions that could’ve benefitted if the production team worked a bit more closely with the Script Supervisor.
Nowhere in the definition of a Screenwriter does it say that you are entitled to certain rights for a film after you’ve already sold your copyright. Again, the final outcome of said film would probably be better if the writer had more creative input but you’re certainly not guaranteed those rights as an employee.
So yes, in order to gain rights in which you were never guaranteed, you’ll probably have to do more than just the job you were hired for. As a Writer who directs and produces, I’m looked at much differently when I’m just working as a writer. The perception of who I am as a creative entity has changed because I worked on the side of the desk that actually is guaranteed certain rights.
Now I’ll just wait for you to call me an idiot, a sell out, or a slave master and then you can boldly type out the words: WRITERS ARE TREATED UNFAIRLY!!
Ted,
“So … the only thing you can think of that writers can do other than the rock-bottom minimum to get paid is … be nicer?
That’s an attitude I just don’t understand.”
Me neither. Good thing I never said that.
I’m objecting to several things in Craig’s post:
A) He says we need to be more affable
B) He says we need to do more than “just” write, ie: producing.
To stick with the labor analogy, it’s like telling spot welders that the best way for them to become architects. Or, more appropriately, it’s like telling architects they need to become spot welders.
Craig,
�You know, this should really concern you. See, I don�t have any problem at all getting the director and studio to acknowledge that I am one of the (if not the) primary visionaries of the movies I write. And I�m not that nice. Honestly. You are nice, and you�re apparently being treated less than ideally.�
This goes to the heart of the problem, Craig. I�m not talking about my personal experience. I AM a likeable fuck; I�m extremely talented, and I�m very well liked by the folks I work with, and well treated. I�m writing, producing and directing my next project. But, unlike you, I�m able to distinguish between my experience and the common one. I know that I�m fortunate enough to have a combination of skills that allow me to navigate these waters in a smoother fashion than many others. I�m fortunate enough that the only thing I need my Guild to do for me is make sure my health insurance is active.
But I ALSO know that a lot of the benefits I enjoy come from the fact that I have a combination of skills that make it all a bit easier for me. It would never in a million years occur to me to advise writers, as a group, that they have to learn another skill if they want to see their work done properly. That�s nuts.
There are screenwriters out there whose understanding of cinematic storytelling dwarfs that of all of us here and who have no desire - let alone ability - to direct or produce. Hey, fuck’ em. They need to learn that shit. Just writing ain’t enough.
We�re writers. This is the Writers Guild we�re talking about. Not the Writer/Producer/Directors Guild. The very act of telling a writer that he�s �just� a writer shows monumental disrespect for the art and the work.
Why aren�t you out there telling directors and producers that they should become writers?
You guys are asking for solutions, asking for a way to gain more respect in the industry. I�m saying we can�t even begin to discuss solutions until we get to a place where WRITERS respect writers.
Josh —
There’s nothing in Craig’s post that says “be affable.” That’s an idea you introduced, so you’re the guy who has take credit for it.
Re: your analogy: if the spot welder wants greater influence over the final building then he has as a spot welder, there’s two options:
Be a spot welder whose abilities including and beyond spot-welding are valued by architects and contractors.
Be a spot welder and an architect or a contractor — which requires the spot-welder to have or develop abilities beyond spot-welding.
Leaving behind this analogy for the real thing:
We agree that filmmaking is a collaborative medium.
We agree that when a film requires a screenplay, the writer is one of the primary partners in the collaboration.
Now, a postulate:
In the collaborative relationship required to make a film, the writer must be responsible for two things:
His area of individual expertise
Fostering and ensuring the collaborative relationship in regards to his individual area of expertise.
So if a writer wants to have the greatest possible influence in the filmmaking process (as a writer and only a writer), the he/she must have or develop the ability to foster collaborative relationships beyond the ability to write.
Discuss.
-
Uh…yeah, where does Craig say that writers need to be nicer to get respect?
In fact, doesn’t Craig make a point in saying that he’s actually not that nice and that being nice has nothing to do with gaining creative rights?
“It would never in a million years occur to me to advise writers, as a group, that they have to learn another skill if they want to see their work done properly”
Well…thank God you’re not a union representative.
In any other occupation it’s pretty obvious that if you want more rights and responsibilities than the ones that you were originally hired for, you’ll have to expand your skill set in order to do so.
“It would never in a million years occur to me to advise writers, as a group, that they have to learn another skill if they want to see their work done properly”
When you sell your copyright to be exploited into a feature film, nowhere in the contract does it ensure that “your work be done properly”. If you want those type of assurances, I suggest you get into producing.
In Josh’s defense, he does have a valid point. No question, acting as a writer/producer is a wise path to take in the current system. But in endorsing that, we don’t want to wave the white flag for writers who “just” write. Working within the current system is good, but so is trying to change it.
(That said, I’m attaching myself as producer whenever humanly possible.)
Kevin,
Like Craig, you’ve had the phrase “just a writer” pounded into your head for so long, you’ve lost sight of what it is that writers do.
And if a union rep’s solution to the problems facing writers is, “You people need to learn a seperate trade,” I humbly suggest that that union rep is a quisling of the lowest sort and warrants repeated acts of violence upon their person.
Ted,
You write:
In the collaborative relationship required to make a film, the writer must be responsible for two things:
So if a writer wants to have the greatest possible influence in the filmmaking process (as a writer and only a writer), the he/she must have or develop the ability to foster collaborative relationships beyond the ability to write.
Plays are equally collaborative endeavors, and yet somehow, folks have managed to mount productions of Shakespeare for hundreds of years without Bill having to show up at the theater and deal with the overtime demands of the stage manager.
Your statement that a writer must be responsible for “Fostering and ensuring the collaborative relationship in regards to his individual area of expertise” is an assumption that gives up the battle before it’s even begun.
Yes. That’s the way things are. It is not necessarily the way things ought to be. If you WANT to do all that - and I stand here as someone who does, but resents the fact that even if I didn’t want to, I’d have to - you should be free to. But why is it enough for a playwright to “just” write a great play, but not enough for a screenwriter to “just” write a great screenplay?
(And just to save us some time - “Because that’s how it is” is not a valid response. Once upon a time - and this is just to piss off the analogy illiterate PCtards in the audience - segregated toilets was the way things were. Today’s How It Is is tomorrow’s How It Was. Choose your own analogy if you can’t bear the thought of professional inequities being compared to social ones.)
Josh:
“But why is it enough for a playwright to “just” write a great play, but not enough for a screenwriter to “just” write a great screenplay?”
For someone who’s been in the business for 20 years I thought the answer would be obvious.
Screenwriters sell their copyrights.
Playwrights exploit their copyrights.
Without going into the old Screenwriters vs. Playwrights argument, that is why screenwriters aren’t guaranteed certain rights.
Plays are equally collaborative endeavors, and yet somehow, folks have managed to mount productions of Shakespeare for hundreds of years without Bill having to show up at the theater and deal with the overtime demands of the stage manager.
Yes, you could use the word “collaborative” to describe a play but if you think a stage play and a movie are the same type of endeavor I’ll make a bet that you’ve never wrote a play and had it produced.
Like Craig, you’ve had the phrase “just a writer” pounded into your head for so long, you’ve lost sight of what it is that writers do.
Um…I’ve never uttered the phrase “just a writer” in my entire life. I know exactly what writers do. Writers write. Bees bee. Bears bear. It’s pretty simple.
And if a union rep’s solution to the problems facing writers is, “You people need to learn a seperate trade,” I humbly suggest that that union rep is a quisling of the lowest sort and warrants repeated acts of violence upon their person.
Again, no one said “learn a separate trade”. I think the idea is to expand your skill set. Learning a separate trade insinuates leaving the business to do something else.
Kevin
I understand the legal rationale, thanks. Not the issue.
As for theater, I have not had my own work mounted, but I have been involved in the production of plays, and the differences are purely technical, not related to this discussion a bit.
As for this:
“Learning a separate trade insinuates leaving the business to do something else.”
“Learning a seperate trade” means exactly what it says. Producing is a seperate trade from writing. Directing is a seperate trade from writing.
Josh:
Try and type your comments directly into the comment box. If you type them first in Word, the smart quotes and such get garbled.
Anyway, you wrote:
I’m not out there talking about that because I don’t believe I have enough legitimacy as a producer and director to advise other producers and directors on how to best optimize their careers and relationships with their employers.
That aside, I absolutely believe that directors should write. And producers should write. And director/producer/writers will, pound for pound, wield more power than their counterparts.
Funny, screenwriters are always complaining that they’re treated poorly, but television writers are treated so well.
Guess what television writers also are, Josh?
Producers.
See, your problem is that you believe there are certain entitlements that come with the gift of being a writer.
There are…just not the ones you think there ought to be.
Because you completely misunderstand how producing can work for writers, you get lost in bizarre concerns about the management of overtime and other minutia. Generally speaking, we hire other people (UPM’s) to handle that stuff.
Here were my shared duties as a producer of my last film.
Supervise/approve development of the script. Supervise/approve casting. Supervise/approve production design. Supervise/approve wardrobe. Supervise/approve locations. Supervise/approve visual effects. Supervise/approve special effects.
Attend all shooting. Screen all dailies. Attend all test screenings.
Supervise/approve editing. Supervise/approve mixing. Supervise/approve color timing.
Consult on budget. Consult on marketing.
None of those tasks fall under “screenwriting.” None. You might want them too. That’s fine. Wish in one hand, shit in the other…see which one fills up first.
As it goes, though…as it has always gone…those tasks are not screenwriting. They honestly shouldn’t be. Screenwriting is the creation of literary material for use in film production.
The stuff I’ve listed above isn’t.
The stuff I’ve listed above does, however, fall under the heading of “control.”
So sure, I think that if screenwriters want more control, they should produce or direct in addition to writing. Duh. Of course.
And sure, I think that if you get more control, then you will be extended courtesies and access freely, rather than because of a contractual obligation. And sure, I think volunteered access and courtesy is more pleasurable and meaningful then obligated access and courtesy.
I have news for you…the life of a playwright isn’t what you think it is. They get rewritten too (see “doc” Simon), they get mistreated too, they get ignored too, and they get exploited too.
What you seem to what, Josh, is the freedom to write a screenplay, assign authorship of that screenplay to a corporate entity in exchange for hundreds of thousands of dollars, and then participate in the production of that screenplay as you wish.
Hey, me too! But just wanting it hasn’t really been enough to make it happen for me, so I’ve been advising this other route.
If your route (which is…insisting?…complaining?…marching?) works for you, I’ll be the first to copy it.
Ted,
I wouldn’t characterize what writers do, either for screen or for tv or for theatre, as spot-welding. I think it’s a greater contribution than that - to me, we’re the architect of the story. We design it and someone else builds it.
There is a LOAD of empirical evidence supporting the proposition that writers are often exploited and I don’t mean in a way that benefits the writer (free rewrites, no payments, etc) so I find it interesting that anyone is actually arguing with Josh that writers are treated the way we should be. That’s the whole point of the post, after all. And why we need a union (playwrights don’t have one and we really need one).
Josh’s point is that, whether we work to get along with the powers that be or not doesn’t necessarily translate into equitable respect and voice.
I did get from Craig that we need to try harder to get along (I believe his words were, work together) and while I understand that point and agree with it, in part - I think writers would love to work hand in hand with the powers that be. I don’t necessarily feel that the powers that be would like to work equally with writers … not when they have all the power. Why should they?
It’s why I asked Craig what can we do once said union rules are broken by a studio (and we know that they have been and still are, shoot, I’ve seen coverage myself) and how we can hold them, and ourselves, to an acceptable code of behavior not just for them but for the writers as well.
So I see Josh’s point. I see Craig’s point, too - but I really think nothing will happen until we make it happen, not because we try to get along - writers are not viewed as equal creative partners yet and I think it’s a shame that we have to direct a film in order to get respect as a writer. It’s okay if one wants to direct or produce, but not everyone does.
Just my two cents, of course, and I’m still a tyro in some respects.
And I’m not gonna mix it up with Kevin, he’s already arguing with one Josh -
Craig,
I don’t believe everyone who writes for television produces it. Primarily it’s the showrunner’s job, if I recall, but not all the writers on staff produce.
Josh:
There are executive producers, producers, co-execs, associate producers…story executives…TV’s got a hundred writer-producer positions.
Anyway, you asked a question that really caught my eye here.
My answer shall be the next post for the blog.
Josh —
Ah, the Shakespeare card. The last refuge of the screenwriter who sees a movie as a recording of a spoken-word performance of a written work, rather than a different work in a different medium based upon a written work.
First, Shakespeare was a producer. Owned and ran a theater company, remember? He did exactly what you pillory Craig for suggesting writers should do: be more than a writer; he had abilities beyond those of a writers, the position that you threw the Shakespeare card to rebut.
Second, how many performances of any one Shakespeare play have there been? Hundreds of thousands? Millions? Think every single one of those performances was exactly the performance Shakespeare intended? Try looking up the etymology of the word “bowderlize” or the history of the melodrama; see if you think Shakespeare would have been happy a lot of the performances of plays credited to his pen.
Most screenplays will be produced once; and that one production will, for all intents and purposes, transplants the screenplay.
Oh, sure, someone could still read the screenplay as written; could even read it aloud; even get a group of someones to read each part aloud, on a stage, with sets and props — but that would a live performance, and not film production.
Film production means: one chance to get it right, or the chance is gone. There’s not a lot of do-overs in the film industry (there’s re-shoots, but those are precipitated by the lack of something in the screenplay or the footage, not because the spoken-word performance of the screenplay that was recorded was less-than-perfect, and needs to performed and recorded again).
If the writer wants to write his screenplay and then leave the responsibility of adapting it into a different medium to others, then he must be willing to accept the decisions others make in creating that adaptation, even when they are decisions he would never have made in a million years — like shooting entirely different scenes than the ones he wrote.
If a writer wants to collaborate with others in creating the adaptation of the screenplay into a different medium, then he’s got to be willing to take responsibility for fostering a collaborative relationship with those others.
You seem to be arguing in favor of the former, which is exactly the job of “writer” as defined by the MBA, while simultaneously complaining about the way writers are treated, even though writers are by-and-large treated in precise accordance with the MBA.
Which why your refrain of “Writers don’t get the respect they’re due in Hollywood!” rings hollow: you want all the rights of a filmmaker as a writer, but you don’t think writers should take any of the responsibility for actually making the film.
It’s poor form to complain that things should change all the while arguing they should stay the same.
-
“It’s poor form to complain that things should change all the while arguing they should stay the same.”
With all due respect, that’s not what I was arguing at all. (Unless you were talking about the other Josh, bre Olson).
I simply wonder how we can enforce rules when writers are viewed as simply disposable, as much as they are now, in the process of making a film. I certainly don’t want things to stay the same, I think writers should have more of the very rights Craig talks about in his post. I don’t think J. Olson disagrees with Craig on what we need, I think he disagrees on how to get what we need in turms of equity and respect.
I simply wondered how to enforce said rules and mentioned that I think Josh has made some good poinits.
It certainly is true that writers are often not treated well or equitably - there may well be movies without writers, but there is not story unless a writer writes one.
No one would argue that the writer is on par with a director. They are not equals, even though the director is often hired by the same company that hires the writer.
I believe that the writer is as important to the creation of a good film as a director. I don’t say that to take anything away from what a good director can do - just that good writing is as important as good shooting.
Don’t you think that the contribution of a good writer when it comes to story is worthy of equal time and consideration? Don’t you think good writers are often unnecessarily marginalized when they could be making good contributions to the final product, be it film or play? I’ve seen writers marginalized.
This happens in theatre too - playwrights are treated very foul oftentimes. It’s why we need a union there.
And can I add, if you were talking to me and not brother Olson, that I don’t think I brought up the Bard in my post. It’s true he produced theatre as well as wrote it, but I produce theatre too, or did before I got into writing this other stuff that’s taking up so much of my time - it’s fun and you learn a lot about yourself, but it’s not for everyone.
Your mention of medium is interesting - it’s true that a play can be done again and again, but really, so can a film. How many remakes do we have this year?
You’re right that theatre is a different medium than film, but TV is also a different medium from film as well. In my experiece, playwrights write stories to be performed, which is not so different from what screenwriters do, or staff television writers do.
They’re all stories to be performed by actors, lit by lighting designers and blocked out by directors.
The only difference between the three is the role the audience plays, in my opinion. A play is done live because that’s how it connects to its audience. MI3 is in the cinema because that’s where Tom’s audience is and LOST is on our ipods because that’s where its audience is.
I strongly believe plays are different from film only in terms of audience - I’m sure I’ll get roasted for that statement (I can already hear Kevin licking his chops) but it’s my experience. You can even do an action movie (and that has been done, it’s running in chicago).
Novelists write stories to be read. I write stories to be performed and in that way feel no different from you or Craig or Kevin or brother Olson.
Is your position such that, even though writers write the stories, they don’t understand the medium of film and should just get out of the way?
As the architects of the story, I think writers would have valuable insight in the transfer of anything to another medium. The Wedding Singer just opened on Broadway (not gonna get into that right now, my thoughts on that particular subject) and one of the screenwriters of the original film helped adapt it into a musical for that medium. He worked on it, just as Brooks worked on The Producers for Broadway. They were the original writers and they helped move their story into the next medium in the best, most efficient way possible for that venue and audience.
Why cannot writers who write screenplays do the same for movies?
Joshua —
The “spot-welder = writer” analogy was Josh Olson’s, not mine; I simply continued the debate as he chose to frame it. It seemed an odd analogy to me, too, particularly since he’d previously analogized writers to Gandhi; but Josh’s arguing style is rhetorical, rather than reasoned..
That aside, here’s what’s interesting:
Josh’ point (paraphrased): Equitable respect and voice cannot be ensured by the writer’s behavior.
Craig’s point (paraphrased): Equitable respect and voice cannot be ensured by the writer’s contract.
Both are true statements.
Here’s another true statement:
Equitable respect and voice is not ensured by the writer’s work.
This is the real source of the disagreement.
According to Josh, any suggestion as to what writers can do to better ensure equitable respect and voice other than “by their writing” is the same as saying that the work of writers does not deserve of equitable respect and voice.
Hence: Craig’s suggestion that, in order for writer to get the equitable respect and voice they deserve, they should also work as producers is an attack on writers.
My suggestion that, in order for writers to get the equitable respect and voice they deserve, they should develop the ability to collaborate with others is an attack on writers.
The only acceptable remedy to the problem writers not having the equitable respect and voice their writing deserves is to demand that writers get equitable respect and voice for their writing. Period.
Which does not really solve the problem, but it’s not our problem; it’s everyone else in the industry’s problem, so let them take the responsibility for solving it.
-
I don’t disagree the statement that writers should learn to collaborate - which I take to me, communicate about the goals of the work, etc (which Craig brought up) - I think it’s absolutely necessary -
My point is, it’s not a collaboration unless they (being the producers, directors, etc) agree to it to.
Too often collaboration means, I’ll tell you what I want and not listen to what you think about the work -
I know Craig has a post brewing on this subject which will address the question I raised earlier, but I don’t think the issue isn’t that writers (like Josh) don’t want to collaborate with studio types, I think a lot of writers can and would like to - I think too often the powers that be do not collaborate and no matter how accommodating (or bitter) a writer is fairly disposable. They have all the power, oftentimes, and by opening up to collaboration it is feared that power will be lost.
Now before someone says, “They hired the writer! Why should they collaborate with the writer?”
Because in the end everyone will make more money that way. In that I agree with you and Craig, it is better if we all work together. It just seems that oftentimes that doesn’t seem to be the case with those in power and I don’t see why that would change just because writers make the effort to be more collaborative. Like revenues from DVD’s, why should they give it to writers just because writers want it? They don’t get anything from giving writers something like that, in fact, it’s money out of their pockets.
Again, this is all just my thoughts and opinion and nothing more.
I read this and my head exploded.
“If you want to post on here and have a specific point of view, be an adult and don’t post under “Anonymous or Fan”. Posted by Kevin Arbouet on 2/9/06 from the History of Debate II”
Anonymous & everyone else who has been listening/reading,( being in agreement with Kevin, I happen to loathe anonymous, but it afforded a great intro. to the song below…)
Tell me you too are not filled with the song below while jamming through the posts as the big boys slug it out!
Now this is sooo worth learning from ring side as the blood spatters all over my wife-beater and white lace boy-shorts!(size small)
“yeah, yeah the boys are back in town, the boys are back in toooooownnnnnnnnn.”
xoxoLL
Ted,
“Ah, the Shakespeare card. The last refuge of the screenwriter who sees a movie as a recording of a spoken-word performance of a written work, rather than a different work in a different medium based upon a written work.”
It’s a big refuge, and I have no doubt that one or two of the countless throng here are the sort of abject morons you describe. Law of averages. However, the rest of us see a movie as the reflection of the writer’s vision. The more accurate the reflection, the better the movie. I’ve said it for years (I just discovered last night that Ring Lardner said the same thing a long, long time ago, which proves nothing except that the truth has been evident for quite some time), but in the history of film, the number of movies that have been better than the screenplay can be counted on the fingers of one hand. For all the yappity flap flap about who does what, a great director and a great cast with a shite script can’t make a great movie. A decent director with a decent cast and a great script can make a great movie. We aren’t just another one of the cogs in the machine. We are the least interchangeable piece of the equation, and we are viewed as the most. Great, yeah, DVD residuals will change all of that. I can’t wait.
I don’t know about you, Ted, but as a writer, I work in film, not a different medium. I write movies, not just dialogue. I design visuals, I edit, I cast, and sometimes I even score, and I do it all on the page.
The problem with squabbling over scraps is that over time, one loses sight of where the meal is. So long as writers, as a group, are unwilling to take responsibility for their place in the creative chain, nothing real’s gonna change. So long as writers, as a group, are afraid to stand up for the primal rights of “just” writers, and treat this job like it’s bricklaying, all of these discussions are completely academic.
It seems as if the production companies have us in a pinch. If all the screenwriters would go on strike and demand more and better rights, Hollywood would make no money. Not one cent. If they didn’t cave in to our demands they would eventually go bankrupt. However, since we work for them, we would also be screwing ourselves over. We would have our beloved rights, but we would have no jobs. Besides the fact that it would be an impossible task to keep all the screenwriters and prospective screenwriters from writing scripts and sending them in.
Josh:
You “score?”
Oh my sweet Lord. Unless you include staffed pages with time signatures, notes and instrumental arrangement along with the other pages of your script, then no you don’t. You don’t score any more than composers write scenes. Try to avoid saying things like that in public. It reflects poorly on the rest of us.
Ring Lardner was as wrong about movies rarely being better than their scripts as he was about the Soviet Union and communism.
Why? Because scripts and movies simply aren’t qualitatively comparable. They’re not on the same continuum. They are two different modes of communication and storytelling. I could make a similar statement that movies are rarely better than their pitches…or movies are rarely better than their storyboards…or movies are rarely better than their novelizations…
Sadly, you and Ring think the movie is, by nature, a diminished reflection of the screenplay, which perhaps explains your almost limitless supply of anger and frustration with the movie business.
I rarely say this, but in your situation, I’m starting to think that your emotions are punishment for your beliefs.
“Try to avoid saying things like that in public. It reflects poorly on the rest of us.”
Pretty much how I feel about the column that started all of this, Craig. My comments only reflect badly to people who believe writers are just links in the chain, creative typists.
“Ring Lardner was as wrong about movies rarely being better than their scripts as he was about the Soviet Union and communism.”
As a writer, you’re a lifetime or three from being in Lardner’s league. I’ll take his creative insights over yours any day of the week. As a political thinker, being a supporter of Bush’s war, you’re hardly in a position to criticize anyone.
“Because scripts and movies simply aren’t qualitatively comparable. They’re not on the same continuum. They are two different modes of communication and storytelling.”
Well, frankly, no. You haven’t got the slightest clue as to what you’re talking about. Not even the first glimmering hint. Is this the kind of subliterate drool they’re teaching in film schools these days? No wonder movies suck.
“So long as writers, as a group, are afraid to stand up for the primal rights of “just” writers, and treat this job like it’s bricklaying, all of these discussions are completely academic.”
Craig, Ted, Kevin — verbal sparring aside, Josh’s core point seems valid. Do you guys not agree with him at all?
Josh — given your thinking, what concrete things would you suggest the WGA push for?
Josh:
Find me a writer here who thinks other writers are “creative typists.” I don’t even know what the phrase is meant to convey.
Josh, let’s stipulate that my relative lack of talent as a writer doesn’t disqualify me from evaluating Lardner’s statements about writing.
If you’re not willing to go with that latter stipulation, then I’m willing to accept that exceptional writing talent is necessary to disagree with Lardner or you. I’ll defer the rest of the debate to Ted, who is a better writer than you or Lardner.
In my humble, untalented opinion, of course.
See? Ted’s useful to this site after all.
Anyway, it’s amazing that you believe statements like “you don’t know what you’re talking about” don’t have to be followed by any sort of explanation as to why you think I don’t know what I’m talking about. Are you tired or something?
Happily, I never went to film school these days or any days, so I have no idea what they teach there.
Todd:
Josh’s core point is invalid, and I do not agree with him at all. Writers are willing to stand up for the primal rights of “just” writers.
Writers have struck a number of times for those rights. There is a long-standing committee at the WGA that I believe I will be joining soon that does nothing but lobby the companies for improvements and additions to those primal rights.
Writers have repeatedly turned to the WGA when those rights have been ignored or violated, and the WGA has sought enforcement and redress. I’ve been one of those writers.
Josh is wrong, qed.
The problem for me is that Josh believes that writers have different “primal rights” than I believe they have, or Ted believes they have, or Kevin believes they have.
And so…we argue.
Todd,
“Josh — given your thinking, what concrete things would you suggest the WGA push for?”
Eradication of possessory credits, for one. Making some of those “suggestions” that Craig outlined in the beginning of all this requirements. Ensuring the writer’s presence on the set at all times. Ensuring that the director MUST meet with the writer and discuss the “vision.” For starters.
But Josh…seriously…duh.
I mean it. DUH. What do you think the CPSW (Committee for the Professional Status of Screenwriters) does? Precisely what you suggest.
The point of my article was not that we shouldn’t keep striving to make improvements in these areas via the CPSW, but that it also behooves us to individually find practical ways to get those improvements now for ourselves.
Why can’t you maintain both of those thoughts in your head at the same time?
Craig,
“Josh, let’s stipulate that my relative lack of talent as a writer doesn’t disqualify me from evaluating Lardner’s statements about writing.”
Lardner is one of the undeniable greats. Neither you, Ted nor I can even think about making such a statement about ourselves, nor - I assume - would we. To dismiss his opinions on an art form that he contributed more to than all of us combined is churlish.
“Anyway, it’s amazing that you believe statements like “you don’t know what you’re talking about” don’t have to be followed by any sort of explanation as to why you think I don’t know what I’m talking about. Are you tired or something?”
Extremely. Your statement was the height of ludicroussness, and the notion that I have to craft a serious argument against it gives it a legitimacy it will never have.
“Find me a writer here who thinks other writers are “creative typists.” I don’t even know what the phrase is meant to convey.”
That’s surprising. Even more surprising that you haven’t heard it before.
Are you talking about the creative chain that begins at the idea for a movie and ends at the version of the screenplay the writer wants made into a movie?
‘Cause I think writers, as a group, already take responsibility for their place in that creative chain.
However, if you’re talking about the creative chain that begins at the idea for a movie and ends at the produced movie that expresses that idea, then:
A _ That is exactly what Craig and I are talking about; and
B _ You have spent this entire discussion arguing vehemently against writers taking any more responsibility then they currently are given by the studios.
The screenwriter’s place in the creative chain from “idea for a movie” to “the produced movie expressing that idea” is as the expert on story and cinematic dramaturgy. The job of screenwriter is to forge from the various individual visions of the people necessary to make the movie — which includes himself, natch - a single collective vision of the movie’s underlying narrative … and that job exists through the entire course of production, right up until the reels are locked.
And, you’re right: until writers, as a group, are willing to take responsibility for their role in the creative chain, there’s not going to be real change … for writers as a group, that is.
Writers as individuals, its a different thing entirely.
-
Getting kind of hot in here, guys.
Todd —
Josh is the only person drawing an analogy between writers and bricklayers, just as he’s the one who drew an earlier analogy between writers and spot-welders.
As for writers, as a group, being unwilling to stand up for the “primal” rights of writers: Like Craig says, we have, and we continue to do so.
I don’t agree that diminishing the rights of directors is a “primal” right of writers. I would prefer to see the WGA negotiate for a writer’s possessive credit (something that I think we could win pretty easily, btw).
I do agree that writers should have the right to be on set throughout production, and I think that right could be won, also (although it would not likely be the ideal version of that right, at least, not right off the bat).
-
Josh wrote:
Oh, that’s quite right. I wouldn’t say it about myself, because it’s obviously not true and if ever were to become so, it would be lamely self-congratulatory.
I wouldn’t say it about you, because I don’t think it’s true.
I’d certainly say it about Ted and Terry though, even though they wouldn’t say it about themselves. Sorry, pal. They’re among the undeniable greats. They might not be the kind of writers that screenwriters tend to jerk off over, but they’re the kind of screenwriters I admire most. Aladdin, Shrek, Pirates of the Caribbean…yup. Works for me.
Anyway, back to substance.
In other words…”uncle”.
“The screenwriter’s place in the creative chain from “idea for a movie” to “the produced movie expressing that idea” is as the expert on story and cinematic dramaturgy. The job of screenwriter is to forge from the various individual visions of the people necessary to make the movie — which includes himself, natch - a single collective vision of the movie’s underlying narrative … and that job exists through the entire course of production, right up until the reels are locked.”
But what about the five or six uncredited writers brought in for a rewrite done to pacify the new star or the incoming director or for just a fresh look because a new executive was added to the mix?
The simple argument is that writers are brought on for a fresh look because the original writer wasn’t up to snuff. I don’t think it’s often that simple, however. I think everyone knows that new writers are often thrown at projects for often random, unnecessary reasons that do not better the story. It seems to me that the writer’s place in the creative process isn’t valued and taking responsibility for that doesn’t lie with the writers but with those on the other side.
Is anyone arguing that studios / directors / prodcos are treating writers the way that they should treating them?
Brother Olson’s main point, at least what I got from it, is that what we do is at least as important as any other creative job in the process.
I don’t see how anyone can disagree with that.
Doing another job on the film, be it producing or directing, may be a way of protecting the writing particular to that project (I notice a lot of the original script nominees were all projects like that) but i fail to see how it, in the long run, improves upon the world view held by many that the writer of the film is disposable and unimportant.
Learning how to direct and produces helps the writer individually ONLY because directors and producers are considered more important than a mere writer.
So yeah, it’s a good thing for you to do if you want to protect your work. But it doesn’t do anything in terms of underlining the value of having a good writer on a set.
JOSH:
You have the “foaming at the mouth” singular notion that tends to cloud over any real opinion that you could possibly convey.
What strikes me as the most odd, however, is that all of the disparaging remarks about writers have come from you.
You are the one that brought up the whole concept of being amicable vs. getting more creative rights. No one else brought it up. Just you.
You are the one who made the comparison of bricklayers as screenwriters. You again.
The spotwelding analogy? Yep, look in the mirror.
Again, everyone agrees that Writers should have more creative rights so a movie could possibly be better. I say “possibly” because more involvement from a writer trying to make a movie better won’t necessarily always make it better. This is not a math equation and to tout absolutes would betray my experience in this business. But yeah, Writers definitely, definitely, need more creative rights.
The problem I have with your opinion is the mine field of shit that goes with it. You can’t seem to express your obvious love of writing without disparaging the other creative positions on a film. To say things like, “I design visuals, I edit, I cast, and sometimes I even score… is disrespectful to every Production Designer, Editor, Casting Director, and Composer who has ever worked on a film. It’s truly a ridiculous statement, something I’m guessing you never wrote and if you don’t then that truly makes you the biggest hippocrite on the face of the planet.
Because then your argument is actually not Writers Should Have More Creative Rights. It really becomes Writers Should Have More Creative Rights And Fuck Anyone Else Because I’m The Writer, That’s Right, The Fucking Writer, Now Move Aside Shitheads. And that’s a pretty destructive, no, fucking stupid opinion to have. You want films to be more collaborative but then you denigrate the other people who work on a film?
Any writer who believes that truly should just be a bricklayer.
And yes, that was to Josh not you Joshua.
Craig,
I find you have a knack for taking these discussions into realms wherein the only possible response is to say things of a personal nature I do not wish to say. If the only conceivable way for you to continue this is to discuss the merits of the work being done by the various participants, I’ll leave you to that particular mudbath. There are depths I simply do not feel like sinking to at the moment. But when you slag off the giants who came before, or - even more hilariously - their politics, you make it tempting.
Setting that aside, the issue remains the same. There is a subtext in everything you write here that betrays your attitude to writers. It would be annoying enough if you were just someone who wrote a blog that was read by a lot of aspirants, but coming from someone who is theoretically representing our - MY - interests, it needs to be confronted whenever and wherever possible.
For instance:
“Remember that right about “consultation on notes”? Well, apparently some studios were just handing some writers notes and refusing to discuss them further. Why would a studio ever do such a thing?
Probably because they had zero interest in that writer actually succeeding. The working relationship was bad. Now, thanks to our creative rights, they have to discuss the notes with that writer.”
Your assumption - YOURS - is that this scenario most likely results from the writer being unpleasant to work with. The notion that many in the industry consider us disposable before we’ve even walked in the door, before we’ve taken a single meeting, before we’ve written a single word doesn’t seem to cross your mind. No, it’s because of bad personal relationships, which, as you hit a little harder later, is something we need to take responsibility for.
Now, I know you perceive all these things only through the lens of your own experience, and so, assume everyone else does as well. So if it makes you feel any better, I don’t have these problems. Didn’t have them much in the beginning, don’t have them at all now. But unlike you, I’m aware that that’s a result of my specific situation. And I still run into little things that give it all away. Here’s one -
Invites to the premiere of A History of Violence had a list inside that named the members of the “Premiere Committee” who were inviting you to the screening. The producers, the execs, the director, and most of the cast, down to the kid who played the bully were on the committee. No writer is mentioned.
So I call one of my guys at New Line, and I ask, “What’s up with this?” He has no idea, and he’s kinda pissed. So he calls around. Gets back to me - he spoke to someone in the department that runs this shit, and their response is simple - they never include the writer, because there are usually so many different writers on any movie, it’s easier to just leave them off.
Now, is this an example of me being personally assaulted and insulted and dismissed in a significant way? No. It’s kinda funny, actually. (And since you seem to miss this every time, I’ll say it explicitly - I was treated extremely well on AHOV. Few writers in this business have been lucky enough to have the experience I did, from beginning to end.) But it goes RIGHT to the heart of the matter. I’d never met the people who made that decision. They didn’t know me from Adam, and had we met, I’m sure we all would have agreed we’d each had a mutually satisfying social experience. But without a single thought towards what they were doing, or what they were saying, they had excised the sole writer of the movie from the list. Because that’s the way it’s done.
Now, in the grand scheme of things, whether or not the writer’s name is placed on the Premiere Committee list is so small that if you split it, you’d level Los Angeles. But what’s NOT small is the attitude behind it. The attitude behind it is enormous, and THAT is what the fight needs to be about.
My objection to your posts on these matters boils down to the fact that I’ve never seen you address the issue without making it about the loathsome personal or work habits of writers. Were you to tell the story of a writer being left off the premiere invite, the moral of the story would be, “Well, it was probably due to bad personal relations.”
And invariably, the specter of your own rather cushy gig looms large - If I can get this, anyone can, just by being like me. Here’s the thing, Craig - you and me, we live in the ivory tower every screenwriter dreams of. The difference between us is, I still look out the window. I know that I’m here because I’m in at least the 98th percentile for everything you need in this business - talent, and luck being at the top of that chart. I know there are writers out there who are way better than I’ll ever be who will never catch the breaks I’ve caught because they don’t have the social skills, or they don’t actually have any desire to produce or direct, whose cinematic visions dwarf everyone else’s, but who will never see that vision fulfilled because not only does the business see them as just one of the cogs in the machine, but the people who represent their rights see them the same way.
And yes, your steel-eyed, square-jawed, steadfast refusal to ever be fashionable, or turn into one of those screenwriters who jerks off over the accepted canon remains as admirable, manly and heroic as ever. You are truly - and I say this will all love and respect - the Bill O’Reilly of screenwriters.
Kevin,
You make a fetching cheerleader.
Josh:
Wow.
As a writer I’m shocked that you don’t understand the concept of Context.
“Remember that right about “consultation on notes”? Well, apparently some studios were just handing some writers notes and refusing to discuss them further. Why would a studio ever do such a thing?
“Probably because they had zero interest in that writer actually succeeding. The working relationship was bad. Now, thanks to our creative rights, they have to discuss the notes with that writer.”
Now why would you assume that Craig was saying that the Writer was to blame? The entire article was about Employers treating Writers unfairly. It’s obvious that he was talking about Studios being the one to blame. Are you sure you actually read these posts or do you just scan them looking for buzz words?
You’re basically saying that Writers shouldn’t have to ask for these rights. You’re saying that Writers should be respected as an important part to the making of a successful movie, right?
And you know what?
You’re right. But unfortunately, that’s not how it is and if you want things to change, you’ll have to actively create change.
Now, I’m Black. Which basically means that I’m always described as a Black Writer, or a Black Producer, or a Black Director. Now I don’t think that’s right. Why should I always have that little qualifier before my job? And every time I want to do something, the assumption is that it will ALWAYS be some sort of Urban project. Urban of course being the politically correct euphamism for Black. It’s not right. But it’s also reality. That’s where I live…in reality. And I know if I want to be viewed differently I have to work that much harder to be viewed as an equal to my fine Jewish counterparts.
But instead of just laying down screaming, “WHY ME?! OH, WHY ME?!!”, I actively work on projects that are completely color blind and expanded my skill sets to be seen differently. Maybe you should do the same.
You are truly - and I say this will all love and respect - the Nancy Kerrigan of screenwriters.
Josh,
You make a fetching jester.
Kevin,
The crux of Craig’s argument has been that writers NEED to learn to collaborate and work with others - not that the other side is or isn’t willing to work with us, but that the reason we don’t have the rights and experiences we deserve is because we often miserable bastards who bitch and moan. If we were easier to get along with, we’d be seen as more valuable to the creative process of the film.
Now Craig’s not wrong in that writers should be collaborative, in that I agree with him, but where I disagree (as noted above) is that the responsibilty of negative nature of the relationship rests completely on writers.
It doesn’t. Which is why we need a union, after all, because otherwise we’d be working for company script rather than dollars and residuals.
Writers are viewed very often as disposable, I’ve made that point again and again and that’s the problem, really. No one can really argue that they’re not, rather it’s projected that we are viewed as disposable because we don’t direct or produce.
I direct and produce, but I’m primarily a writer and I will state again and again that writing a script and doing it well is as important as directing and producing. One shouldn’t have to do one in order to protect the writing, but that’s how it is, now, and there’s something wrong with that paridigm, in my opinion.
It’s gotten awful personal, this debate, and maybe that’s unavoidable because we all take what we do very seriously. But I find it difficult to believe that writers are marginalized simply because we are hard to get along with. I think it’s about power, in this case, the power to make the creative decisions necessary for the final product - those in power, be they director, producer or studio head, have it and power is something that is almost never given away, even to those that deserve it.
We are all writers here and I find it interesting that the main conflict of the argument is how important we are to the process of making a film.
A good script is necessary for a good film. Can anyone argue otherwise?
I think too many here think that only the idea matters, not the writing and by that process of elimination, not the writer.
Kevin,
A couple things. First, I find it more than a little odd that someone who has taken umbrage at the political incorrectness of my comparing the struggle of writers with the civil rights struggle would make the comment you made about Jewish writers.
Second, there’s a reason I usually don’t respond to you - you don’t seem to grasp a word you read. Your entire response to me consists of career advice to someone who is whining about his own mistreatment. I have gone out of my way to make it clear that I am not complaining about my own situation. I’ve made it abundantly clear that one of my issues with Craig is he seems to think that his situation is one easily acheived by most writers. I do not make that mistake. If I thought most writers were as well treated as I am, I wouldn’t be posting here.
As for the career advice… Wow. Did you just give me career advice? I repeat… Wow.
Joshua,
“A good script is necessary for a good film. Can anyone argue otherwise?”
Apparently, they’re two completely different mediums, and are impossible to compare.
While we’re on the subject, though, let’s address at something:
There are great movies with competent cinematography.
There are great movies with competent direction.
There are great movies with competent acting.
There are great movies with competent scores.
There are great movies with competent producing.
There are no great movies without great scripts.
(PS: Craig will argue this point, which will validate my existence for another week.)
“As for the career advice… Wow. Did you just give me career advice? I repeat… Wow.”
If you think all of my posts are about giving career advice, you definitely haven’t grasped a word I’ve said. In fact, I’m not entirely sure you’ve grasped a thing.
And far be it for me to give you, JOSH OLSON, the Oscar nominated Writer, some sort of objective view. After all, Oscar nominations are an absolute scale of talent, intelligence, and longevity.
But then again, Ben Affleck won as Oscar.
How’s the air up there in that Ivory Tower?
“First, I find it more than a little odd that someone who has taken umbrage at the political incorrectness of my comparing the struggle of writers with the civil rights struggle would make the comment you made about Jewish writers.”
I’ve never taken umbrage at the political incorrectness of your analogies. I take umbrage to the stupidity of you analogies.
“But then again, Ben Affleck won as Oscar.”
So what does that mean, does that mean that the script for GOOD WILL HUNTNG sucked because an actor wrote it, or what?
Does that mean that anyone who’s won or been nominated for an Oscar sucks?
Or is it just a snide comment put together to get under someone’s skin?
I like Craig’s writing (one reason I spend so much time lurking here instead of working on the pilot), I like Ted’s work and I like Josh’s work. All three are tops in the game, no argument there. there are other really good writers lurking here, I’m sure, just as certain as there are talentless hacks frothing for the next hot “idea” or “hook” or “concept” who speak authoritively on McKee but haven’t seen The Godfather.
But in truth, the level of game really shouldn’t have anything to do with the logic of anyone’s arguments for or against. It either makes sense or it doesn’t.
Good writing and, by that measure, good writers, are as equally important as a good director or good producer. All I’m saying is writers should be treated equally in terms of the creative process.
JOSHUA:
“Or is it just a snide comment put together to get under someone’s skin?”
Absolutely.
And making fun of Ben Affleck is easy.
I find it absolutely hilarious that Josh proclaims to be a nice guy who’s working for the common man when everything he’s said has been to the contrary. I can’t speak for anybody else but myself but I think you’d find it hardpressed to find anyone on this site who considers Josh a nice guy. And Craig has never insuiated that he was better than anyone because he’s a working screenwriter but Josh can’t wait to tell you that he’s been in this business for 20 years and he knows his shit.
It’s all very ironic.
But more to the point, I completely agree with you when you say “Good writing and