WRITOPIA: A Movie Studio For Screenwriters
Welcome…Somewhere during the recent battles here on Artful Writer, it occurred to me that while we spend a whole lot of time criticizing our industry for the way it treats writers, I’ve never seen anyone lay out a reasonable description of how the ideal industry would operate.
Naturally, some people think they’ve done that, but I don’t have any time for ideas like “we get rid of work-for-hire laws, forbid studios from hiring rewriters and force directors at gunpoint to shoot what’s on the script and nothing more or less.” If you want to masturbate, there are millions of other sites on the web to visit.
If you want to talk about something that could actually exist, come sit near me for a while as I tell you about a wonderful studio called Writopia.
Just like other studios, Writopia buys film rights to books and plays, purchases specs and commissions scripts from original pitches. Once you enter development with Writopia, though, you notice some immediate differences.
There is one producer and one studio executive assigned to your project. The three of you are a team. All for one, and one for all. You have some job security, as Writopia eschews one-step deals. Writopia’s philosophy is that every professional writer deserves at least two bites at the apple before any decision is made to go with someone else.
It’s nearly impossible that your first draft will unpleasantly surprise them, because Writopia Studios require the writer to first deliver a story treatment. By doing this, the team gets an opportunity to solidify just what this movie really is before the first script is even begun.
When the writer is done with the draft, he delivers it and is paid.
On time. No questions asked.
In order to improve the odds of the team’s success, the producer and executive create one set of notes that they both believe in. This set of notes is next read by the Chairman, who has greenlight authority. If the Chairman doesn’t approve, the producer and executive redo their notes until he does. Then, the writer gets them.
Next, there’s a meeting just to discuss the notes. The notes are frank. If the studio thinks the material is very bad, they say so. If they think something’s very good, they say so. There is no glossing or sugar-coating or unnecessary diplomacy. Writopia’s motto is “respectful honesty.”
From that meeting, the writer heads off to write the second draft. When he’s done, he turns it in.
He’s paid.
If the studio determines that a new writer should be brought in, the executive calls the writer directly to tell him what’s happening and why. They offer to keep the writer in the development loop by alerting him to hires and sending him the subsequent drafts. It’s the writer’s choice whether or not to stay in the loop.
Eventually, the day comes when a director is hired and the script is greenlit. Writopia Studios stands by its development process. If a director decides to upend the apple cart, the studio doesn’t simply give in because “they have a director, and we don’t want to lose him.” They fire the director and get a new one that shares the collective vision of the movie. The director is not the king of the movie. The director is a very important part of what was once a three-man and is now a four-man team.
Furthermore, Writopia Studios has a policy of not granting “film by” credit to anyone, nor do they put boxes around any names in a credit block.
Writopia ensures certain creative rights for the writer during preproduction, principle photography and postproduction. There must be a writer’s office, there must be a writer’s trailer on location and there must be a writer’s seat with his name on it at video village. The writer must attend all table readings. The writer must attend the big production meeting that occurs shortly before commencement of principle photography.
The writer’s name is on the clapper slate.
Through mutual consent with the director, the writer will have full access to the set. Writopia always tries to make “all-services” deals with its writers as it nears production. The studio wants a writer on the set every single day. The studio encourages its directors to take advantage of the writer’s narrative, character and dialogue expertise during all phases of production.
The writer is required to give notes on the first cut, and the writer is required to attend all test screenings until such time as the studio determines that there will be no further production.
The writer is given the same number of premiere tickets as the director.
The writer and director are encouraged to do their DVD commentary together, as a team.
If Writopia Studios existed, I think it would eliminate every reasonable gripe writers have. Could it exist?
Yes.
The key to it all is spreading the Craig n’ Ted religion. Take the emphasis away from the document of the script. Put the emphasis on the projected movie. Expand the definition of the job of screenwriter. We can make repeated moral arguments for our rights (the current, failing strategy) or we can do our jobs in such a way that the companies realize ensuring our rights would be better for the movie.
Think Ted and I are wrong? Keep fighting your fight. Let us know if you win.
But if you think we’re on to something…
…we’ll call in a drive-on for you.
Great, but in your concept, can the screenwriter be also the director ? what are your criterions to allow that ? Thanks. ;-)
Sign me up! I’m available for originals, adaptations, treatments, dialogue fixes, whatever you want, and all for the reasonable price of whatever you can afford.
Furthermore, as a director and editor as well, I will always include the writers on every decision I make, especially if they happen to be me.
I know I’m only a spec-monkey at this point (phrase copyright John Rogers) but I will say one thing - writers HAVE to be at table reads. On making my last short, I was delighted that most of my dialogue sounded great coming from my actors, but there were one or two lines that just sounded hideous. Not their fault, mine. Instant rewrite, on the spot. Read-throughs, and the writer’s presence at them, are essential.
Keep fighting the good fight.
Alfie:
A screenwriter can absolutely also be the director…and the producer…and the editor…and whatever he wants to be.
“If a director decides to upend the apple cart, the studio doesn’t simply give in because “they have a director, and we don’t want to lose him.” They fire the director and get a new one that shares the collective vision of the movie.”
What if the director is… uhhh Ridley Scott. And what if he’s saying things that upend the apple cart, or whatever, and the things he’s saying are RIGHT, and would make the movie better?
“ummm this Star Beast thing has potential, but it’s gonna need major changes. For starters the name’s gotta go”
“Mr. Scott, we don’t feel you are sharing the collective vision of… Star Beast. You are fired. Security!”
Great idea.
I think it’s reasonable to ask a director for hire to share a collaborative vision, but it’s also reasonable to allow the director to make creative changes within the vision. It’s a collaborative art form, after all. To paraphrase Jim Jarmusch, if you don’t want to work with others, go write a novel. He was addressing writer-directors (if I’m not mistaken), but I think it applies to everyone in a collaborative art form. If David Sanchez composes a piece of music for a septet, he’s the leader of the ensemble and the writer of the music, but he still needs the artistry and improvisation of the other six musicians to make it work.
Craig, I really like what you have there, and while I’m not really in a position to judge, I have one misgiving with your proposal. It seems to treat the director as a minor cog in the machine.
I’m not saying that’s a bad thing, but considering how much they cling to possessory credit, would they, could they ever accept such a role?
I might suggest bringing the director in during the notes stage, so that he/she feels more of a connection to the story.
What is the problem with that? Why do you think today’s directors will be happy with merely directing the script? Or did I take something you wrote the wrong way?
I am going to echo Thomas a bit, and say while what you propose sounds pretty neat, why should any A-list director and studio sign onto it when they have complete freedom to do whatever they want now?
Now I know the reason why, which is that it will make better movies, more profitable movies. I know that treating writers better and fairer translates into more profitable product.
I know that. But do the A-list (or even B and C list directors) know this as a whole? Do the studios as a whole know this?
Just asking, that’s all.
One more question. Would the writer you mention above be paid for the treatment submitted, and if no, why not? Doing the outline and treatment is the hard part, is it not?
Quick, get Coppola on the phone! Someone correct me, but wasn’t this the intent of Zeotrope? He’s got the cash flow, maybe he just needs a new charter document.
It seems to me the only way this would ever happen is if you separate the corporate Big Brother from the studios (which is never going to happen unless you create your own studio with the extra half billion you have lying around). As soon as a studio is swallowed up by a ‘our primary interest is making money for our share holders’ type of organization, you can no longer take risks like firing a big name director because he isn’t playing nice. Nor can the chairman be the ultimate greenlight, because he still must answer to his shareholders and his shareholders want income, not a friendly working environment.
Who has thoughts on how work around the corporate environment? The only way I see is to make yourself a hyphenate: writer-director or writer-producer.
Regardless, great post. I’ll be reading Variety, waiting for the press release on the ground breaking for Writopia.
Craig:
Yeah, I gotta agree with the masses here.
There’s no reason for the director to not be included in the early pre-production phase.
Everything would work better if it was a 4 man team at all times. Otherwise, the director just gets treated the way writers are being treated now.
Like shit.
“The writer’s name is on the clapper slate.”
What for??? That’s useless…
Great googly moogly. The Paradise we both dream of is almost exactly the same. You didn’t mention bungalows, though. Or a studio bar. But otherwise, pretty damn spot on…
If you ever get there, Craig, call me.
Thomas,
“Why do you think today’s directors will be happy with merely directing the script? “
You mean, as opposed to the current mode, which is merely directing the script, then taking a FIlm By credit?
Kevin,
“Everything would work better if it was a 4 man team at all times. Otherwise, the director just gets treated the way writers are being treated now.”
Why not make it a ten man team? The more people you can have involved in development, the better the finished script will be.
Good point.
Out of curiosity, why can there only be one producer on a project? Is this producertopia too?
Craig (and all)
Fun entry to read, that’s for sure.
That would be a delightful situation, although I don’t see how spelling out the ideal without any indication about how to (really) get there does any good. For all the “writer need to adapt” theme you and Ted rightly stress, the Writopia idea is really more of a “if everybody else in the process changes completely of their own volition (and at the expense of their own power and/or prestige), then we’re golden!”
No one in the process is anti-writer, they are merely pro-[their gig]. Some use the writer to improve their lot, some don’t. None have to, and they never will.
Josh:
“Why not make it a ten man team? The more people you can have involved in development, the better the finished script will be.”
Or we could just keep it a 4 man team like I said. Having a director involved in pre-production is actually a good thing.
“………..Why not make it a ten man team? The more people you can have involved in development, the better the finished script will be.
Or we could just keep it a 4 man team like I said. Having a director involved in pre-production is actually a good thing………..”
yes, let’s argue over the pecking order in an imaginary film studio. Hey why even include a producer at all? what’s their creative contribution to the story? why not bring them in, when the story is done, you know, while we are talking about cuckoo twinkleland, where the sun always shines, and where children dance with gumdrop smiles…
Anyway… Bagsybobs the biggest imaginary chair. And I want to snort imaginary coke off imaginary hookers tits. I demand 15% of the gross of the imaginary profits too.
p.s. the first anonymous comment was me.
Imaginary hookers don’t die when the choke-play gets out of hand. I think I like this Writopia place. Does it have unicorns?
Sounds great for writers.
For directors and producers, not so much.
Have you read the John Lasseter interview where he explains how Pixar structures development? How the director is the key man, who gets a ton of feedback from everyone, but it’s ultimately his call? Interesting stuff, and apparently it’s proven to make money for the shareholders, too.
Of course the director is involved in preproduction. I don’t think you could even call preproduction preproduction if you didn’t have a director, because preproduction is when locations are scouted and sets are designed and the actors are cast…
Maybe you mean Writopia should involve the director in development. That’s fine too, although it’s often hard to get certain directors until the script is at a certain point in its progress.
By “don’t let the director upend the apple cart,” I don’t mean to say that the director can’t make some good arguments for changes. What I mean to say is that once you hire the director to make your space monster film, if he says “I want to do this movie but on Earth, and instead of space monsters, I want it to be lizard-men…but otherwise, it’s just the same”, the ideal studio does not allow the director to change the DNA of the movie simply because he’s the director.
In other words, the studio has a commitment to a certain story they want to tell. In my experience, some studios have that, and some studios don’t.
Lamont:
The director gets the ultimate call on the set when Writopia makes a movie too.
In fact, and I should make this clear…
Writopia hasn’t changed the job of “director” at all.
Granted, we got rid of the posessory credit, but that doesn’t change the job or limit the authority of the director.
Nope…any of you who thinks that this has made life worse for the director are just factually wrong. It hasn’t. Same circumstances. Same responsibilities. Same privileges. To think otherwise is to get lost in the zero-sum baloney argument that says writers can only be empowered at the loss of director empowerment.
Ain’t so.
Now, producers, well…yeah. They suffer a bit. But you know what?
I’m okay with that.
Craig’s 12:21pm post hits on a crucial point: Directors requesting profound changes to a script after they’ve signed on.
I guess one of the Ten Commandments of Writopia shalt be that “Directors only sign on to projects based on the script”, i.e. because they feel a deep desire to tell that particular story - and not because they need a hit (Davinci Code)…or the last director left to be with his wife and kids (X-Men3)…or they owe a movie to the studio (Tomb Raider)…etc. etc.
If the top-grossing writers in Hollywood pooled their resources could they not start Writopia as an independent studio now?
MoviePen:
Probably not.
Thanks for clearing that up Craig.
I guess I’m just a victim of that I think the director usually has more involvement than he/she actually does.
The way you wrote your piece, I got the distinct impression that the writer and producer hash out the story, then hand it over to the director to make. I didn’t see a lot of room for the director to have influence on the story. But then again, the director is mentioned only one, maybe two times in the entire post.
“the last director left to be with his wife and kids (X-Men3)”
Bryan Singer has a wife and kids now? How do they feel about his being gayer than the K-Tel Records “Broadway Favorites” box set?
C.Mac:
I was talking about Matthew Vaughn, who replaced Singer, overseeing the script and production, only to leave 9 weeks before filming. Actually X-MEN-3 isn’t the best example, as the movie arguably turned out to be the best of the series - thanks to Zak Penn and Simon Kinberg who joined forces against the studio’s will in a unique effort to bring their vision to the big screen… but that’s a different story.
“The director gets the ultimate call on the set when Writopia makes a movie too.”
Why?
CRAIG;
Fabulous, well balanced, well thought out, insightful,.. Having a vision like this, of where we’d like things to go, I really do think helps. Gives us some direction, some focus, now…
List three things (or more if ya feel the need), that each of us should do or keep in mind as we enter this industry, or look toward taking on our next project, that might help in moving us all toward making WRITOPIA a reality.
(I realize that’s going to involve repeating a few points you made in the past, but some things are worth repeating).
“Actually X-MEN-3 isn’t the best example, as the movie arguably turned out to be the best of the series - thanks to Zak Penn and Simon Kinberg who joined forces against the studio’s will in a unique effort to bring their vision to the big screen… but that’s a different story.”
I’m confused, are you talking about a fictional “X-Men 3” in Writertopia, or the crappy X3 that was released in the real world?
Joshua:
Because a set cannot run properly unless someone has final authority.
That individual is the chief of production.
The chief of production invariably delegates that authority to the director. Because the director is responsible for what is shot, the director must have authority over what is shot.
Responsibility for that which you do not control is a recipe for managerial disaster. Business 101.
“Because the director is responsible for what is shot, the director must have authority over what is shot.”
Okay, I got that. Where does the story authority come in?
I mean, if everything is set beforehand collaboratively, how does that translate into the director chucking everything whenever he or she wants and pulling a Michael Cimino?
I’m not trying to be combative, Craig, honest, I just wonder how it works in our favor as writers … while a director should have artistic authority on how a show is set and shot, that doesn’t necessarily translate to story authority, does it? Does that mean what the producer thinks regarding the story doesn’t matter, or the star? Not to mention the writer …
The director is the authority on the shoot, no argument there. Why do they get complete power over everything else? Doesn’t that fly in the face of collaboration?
Thanks Johnny, I forgot about Matthew Vaughn. I guess my head was swimming with thoughts of Fruitopia, the early 90s soft drink that changed the world: Will Writopia be similarly raspberrific? And tangelicious?
Joshua:
Story authority rests in the same place.
The chief of production.
Because the director is responsible for what is shot, he is responsible for the story telling in film form. Therefore, the chief of production delegates story authority to the director during the shoot.
Prior to the shoot, the chief of production is the authority.
You have to understand that while it may seem to us that directors are omnipotent, they are not. At all. In any way. They are dealing with their own studio issues. They are challenged and argued with over budget, schedule, creative choices, the dailies, the performances, the casting, the lighting…everything.
I’m talking about an ideal studio. It’s still a studio. It still owns the movie. It still seeks to profit. It still controls. Delegated authority to the director is smart and efficient…until it’s not, at which point, it’s revoked.
Keith:
…hence the word “arguably”…
What I said earlier was phrased rather clumsily, I admit - what I am trying to say is that having any one person as a final authority over the product seems at odds with what is meant to be a collaboration - wouldn’t be be better to work toward a consensus, with all four (or ten) minds at the creative table making those decisions?
My last post posted right at the same time as your answer, Craig, which is why it seems as though I repeated myself in response. Not the case - you answered my question.
Question for you, Craig:
One of the (bigger) ideas on how to empower the writer that keeps coming up is the proposal for us to be on set.
Will said writer/s be paid for time spent on set? If so, there’s most producers’ surefire argument against that idea. We’re talking the writer’s fee, plus travel, plus lodging, plus a mountain of blow for Ruairi, a bar for Josh, green liquorice for Kevin. That’s a hefty bill.
If not, well…
Are writers meant to turn down other assignments while spending all their savings just to sit in video village waiting to change ‘snoozlehammer’ into ‘buckslasher’?
What Ted & Terry did on the Pirates movies sounds like an ideal situation, but not all working writers are given that luxury.
Johnny:
That’s what an all-services deal accomplishes. You’re paid no less than weekly minimum for your time on the set. Ideally, you’re paid more, as the market dictates.
The question is not whether it costs money (it does), but whether the benefit of the money spent outweighs the simple expenditure.
It does.
I’m not the only one who thinks that. I’ve spoken to some of the biggest directors in this business about this stuff.
Craig:
And I totally, completely, 110% agree with you! Just trying to figure out a practical way of making it a reality.
Consensus is the absence of leadership. Moreover, recently, empirical evidence suggests brainstorming as a colossal time drain. So, stick the director and the writer in an oxygen-free bubble with the pages, and set the egg timer. Whoever turns reds has passion, whoever turns blue lacks it (or oxygen depravation).
Remember, words on a page don’t necessarily translate into a filmic vision. Perhaps a solution would be to put the writer and director in the bubble with an artist to story-board the treatment. Afterwards, let the director shoot the “vision” and compare it with the renderings. Then, cue the oxygen-free bubble.
Here’s something I would love to see the WGA bargain for as a collective right:
Once pre-production begins through post-production, a writer’s office in the production offices; during production, a writer’s trailer on location and a writer’s chair on the set.
As with anything else, the studio would still have discretion over the identify of the writer that occupies those things. In fact, the studio does not have to actually employ any writer to occupy those things at all … but even if they make that decision, they’ve still got to pay for the office space, they’ve got to have that trailer on location, and there’s got to be a chair on the set.
It’s an economic obligation on the part of the studio that translates to a practical collective creative right for writers; and just as in the case of any collective right for writers, it provides the opportunity for any individual writer to have that right.
Absent the opportunity for writers collectively to prove the value of our presence and involvement in the production of all movies, the involvement of any writer in the production of any movie will continue to be the exception.
-
I think your director rule is very biased. (I know, WRITOPIA, not DIRECTOPIA)
But, it sounds like you see the director as a slave to the script. That you don’t want the director to be king, you want the screenwriter to be king.
A movie starts with a script but it doesn’t end there.
Directing, like writing IMO, isn’t a skill it’s a talent. You can’t just DO what’s on the page. You aren’t some mechaninc. You have to make it your own. You have to find your way into the story. You have to tell the story you know how to tell. And that means there are going to be changes.
A director is inspired by the writer’s words to tell a story using image and sound. Two totally different mindsets.
A director is king of the movie because his job requires him to be. He has to command so many aspects of the filmmaking process, he is probably closer to the finished film than anyone.
It doesn’t take many resources to write a script. Just about anyone can jump in and create a screenplay (good or bad is a much different story). Obviously, a director has to wield a much larger arsenal of tools to get started.
I think this leads to there being more scripts than there are directors. And as long as it’s directors that get to choose which scripts they want to make, they will be King.
That’s not to say writers can’t do what a director does and vice versa. If a writer can direct, he should. Otherwise, he needs to make way for the director to do what he has the talent to do… making a movie.
Now, after that little rant…
I think it would be interesting to see writer/director teams established early on in the development process. Put the two individuals with the most creative influence together to shape something collectively from the beginning. Rather than trying to translate it into different mindsets when you pass the torch from screenplay to director.
Wes — Appreciate your final thought. A lot of good work does come out of that situation. As for the rest of what you say…
“A director is king of the movie because his job requires him to be.” No. Actually, the studio is “king”. Welcome to Hollywood. And while yes, there are some directors who have earned the king position, in no way is it inherent in the job description.
“And as long as it’s directors that get to choose which scripts they want to make, they will be King.” Again, you’re talking about a certain class of directors. Anyone (writers, directors, PAs) can turn down a job, but only a handful of directors get to pick and choose projects like that. If a studio really wants a movie made, it’ll get made. (Unless they can’t get a star…)
“Writopia” recognizes the reality that studios are ultimately in charge of writers and directors alike. Neither one is king, but in Craig’s vision, the writer is truly a member of the team making the movie. What could be wrong with that?
P.S. For some fun reading, check out any articles about Doug Liman’s work on SMITH and BOURNE. Talented director? Yes. In charge, like a “king”? Oh my, no.
Kevin,
“Or we could just keep it a 4 man team like I said. Having a director involved in pre-production is actually a good thing.”
Pre-production: One thing.
Development: Another thing.
You’re welcome.
Wes,
“A director is inspired by the writer’s words to tell a story using image and sound. Two totally different mindsets.”
What, pray tell, do you think writers tell stories with?
“A director is king of the movie because his job requires him to be. He has to command so many aspects of the filmmaking process, he is probably closer to the finished film than anyone.”
I see. So creativity is the same thing as labor.
“It doesn’t take many resources to write a script. Just about anyone can jump in and create a screenplay (good or bad is a much different story). Obviously, a director has to wield a much larger arsenal of tools to get started.”
Creativity is ALSO the same thing as access to equipment. Fascinating.
Craig once said these discussions are like arguing religion, and I have to say, it’s one of the most accurate statements he’s ever made. The cult of the director is truly as fantastical, as fanatical and as circular as any of the more established religions.
God is God because God says he is God, therefore God is God.
In writopia, does the writer get paid or compensated for the treatment?
Let’s shoot this from an entirely different angle. In the battle between director and writer for Champion of the Universe, why even throw down in the first place?
Writers have the upper hand (i.e., mind you, I am not referring to writer / directors) in that they hold the master set of “blueprints” in their head. So, the logical step is to bypass the director’s responsibility of moving the camera around, in its derivative form, and focus on post-production.
In the hallowed game of “Rock, Paper, Scissors, Director’s Intrusion,” scissors always wins. I submit we lock the writer in the cutting room with the editor, or promote the writer / editor concept, and let them snip at will. Oftentimes, the writer will accidentally delete scenes or shots, and politely ask the director to redo them (with accompanying notes).
If one were to study film history, one would discover that directors did not wield final authority. The question is, what created this little monster? Speaking of which, would access by the writer(s) to the cutting room, sans the director, have made a substantive difference in the movie, “Little Monsters?”
As a aside, I have heard peeps that editors brand films far more than directors ever could. Is this an editorial uprising?
I would like to invest in Writopia Studios.
There is no reason we couldn’t start this right now. If we team several of the top writers in this town to form a prodco, studios will line up to give them a home on their lot. Or do you not want a home? Are you talking more independent?
Either way, you already know we’re in.
Josh:
You’re right, I meant Development.
Either way, everything sounds amazing.
Craig:
Two questions though…will Writopia release their own films? Will there be a marketing team in Writopia?
“So, the logical step is to bypass the director’s responsibility of moving the camera around, in its derivative form, and focus on post-production.”
You’re talking DAMAGE CONTROL - when we should be talking CREATIVE CONTROL.
I think Ted’s office/trailer/chair proposal has been by far the most constructive AND feasible suggestion, as it does not impede on the director’s priviliges and position, but rather benefit the colaborative effort that is making a motion picture.
However, Ted, when you say: “…the studio does not have to actually employ any writer to occupy those things…” are you implying to make it the writer’s choice whether to take advantage of the empty chair - without payment? Or is the idea to give the studio an extra incentive to invite the writer on set, seeing that they’re paying for his office/trailer/chair anyway? If the latter, I think you’re creating a loop hole for studios to keep the writer off set and give the empty trailer to their girlfriend…
office rental for three months: $7,200
trailer w/AC for two months: $5,000
“director’s” chair: $139
writer on set: priceless.
“will Writopia release their own films?”
Seeing that Writopia describes the ideal studio…one would assume it does produce, market and distribute their own films. Unless you’re suggesting the ideal studio doesn’t release any films at all…?
Wes:
You wrote:
No. The director still controls his day’s shooting, just as the writer controls his day’s writing. In fact, I’m hard pressed to see how you could have drawn the conclusion that I want to see the director be a slave to the script.
Can you show me the text that implied that? I’ll edit it if need be.
Writopia pays professional writers for their work. Treatments are compensated, yes.
Marianne Wibberley, Marianne Wibberley, where have I heard that name before? Seems familiar for some reason (guffaw, guffaw).
Regarding your comment regarding Writopia studios being on an existing studio lot, I think Craig and Ted’s master plan lends itself more toward its own unique lot with rules following that of a parallel non-Hollywood pre-principle-post production universe. Of course, you could have meant renting studio equipment / space from the majors, but still remaining autonomous of them (hence, your inference to independent in name only).
Unless I am “reading” this incorrectly, I believe the team of three (or four) allows access to an unlimited number of writers in Writopia studios, not just a few of the hot ones, where the cream of the crop (material, not writers, per se) would rise to the top. I don’t get the vibe that Writopia studios wants to encourage page one rewrites until after the braintrust has burst (i.e., exhausting all of its creative energy).
So, the question remains in the implementation of the one (material) on one (writer, producer, and Writopia executive) collaboration into a dynamic synergy, which translates into a superior product onscreen.
Of course, I could be wrong.
I think prodcos on studios lots CAN work with some autonomy. I know many that do. But I guess my question is better phrased like this:
Where are we getting the money to pay for Writopia?
Are we getting it from a studio, hence a studio deal in which we ask for autonomy or forget it?
Or do we raise the money/find financing ourselves?
Marianne:
Not in front of the kids. :)
I thought we’re talking about studios, not production companies with a studio deal. But either way, both have developmentt funds. So there’s your cashflow. The money is there. It’s just a matter of what to spend it on…
Craig-
I understand directors typically come in when a script is completed and on the move…
But would it make sense that when the THREEMAN Team gets the greenlight on the script (that Writopia has approved) and a director is brought in- that they take one last (or multiple) note sessions with the director and represent that to Writopia once more, prior to filming, so that the FOURMAN Team is completely on the same page? Allowing the director his turn prior, instead of getting into principal and finding that he wants another route.
Also- As for financing- since so much is dependent on the cashflow…couldn’t it be feasable to start with small projects under this model? To see how it plays? Is it something you think is attainable?
I love the idea. I love the even plain. I also see how people could react very apprehensively to it…Great & Interesting post. James
Marianne writes: “Where are we getting the money to pay for Writopia?”
Truth is: it pays for itself. Craig’s ‘topia looks exactly like the new product development process for everything from semiconductors to automobiles (the differences in staffing numbers are minor compared to the similarity of the management framework). In industries which have team based product development with direct management accountablity, project throughput shows increases of 30-60% (an empirical statistic - not theory). Which means you can cut overhead to serve the same new product pipeline. Candidly, I’m surprised the studios haven’t adopted this process already.
Well, I’m not totally surprised…
Why?
Because the reduced development churn means less marginal employment… which means old school unions would oppose this process… because the net job count would go down.
lt
Johnny H.
In my prior post, I discussed the oxygen-free bubble, whereby the writer and director would collaborate on major “visual” decisions regarding the pages. My point regarding the director as a “glorified camera” was meant to circumvent the ppwer struggle during principle photography, which seems to be the precise moment when the writer gets the boot, and re-insert said scribe in post-prod with the option to reinstate the primary vision. In the end, the writer may “sacrifice” a spot at the head of the table while shooting, but retains the authority to correct any injustices. For the sake of simplicity, I do not mean that the writer doesn’t show up during principle photography, only that having two egos vying for position serves no purpose, except to create undue stress on the project.
Marianne W.
When you discuss studio autonomy, are you suggesting that the quasi-independent “entity” can not only fund and shoot said project, but also market / distribute the film without it seeming like a glorified series of commercials? In other words, the pressure by studios to diversify risk by inviting commercial enterprises into the fold seems counter-productive when you try to “implant” sexual enhancement advertisements into it. For instance, I got lost when Steve Martin, a grandfather figure, considered seducing Beyonce in “The Pink Panther” remake with the magic pill. I question the value of the thematic element with that “insertion.”
Craig M.
In your grand scheme, do you see Writopia catering to on spec, adaptation or assignment scripts? I think the latter two corrupt your vision of purity.
Moreover, if you were to see this project to fruition, would you be inclined to selling the finished product around town or actually work to market / distribute it worldwide?
What are your thoughts regarding “boutique” studios specializing in one genre or two? How many more films can Dimension produce without getting stale? I think Writopia contains a freshness seal inherent in the system.
Thank you all for allowing us vinegars a voice into your wine production.
Raging:
I don’t see why adaptations or assignments are any more or less “pure” than specs. I think good writing is good writing, and a good basis for a movie is a good basis for a movie. Provenance is irrelevant.
Look, I think some of you are reading this post like it’s a business plan. It’s not. I’m not planning on running out tomorrow to seek a few hundred million in capital investment. Nonetheless, since you ask…
A studio makes money in the long run by owning a library (or a real piece of a library). Writopia develops, produces, markets and distributes films like other studios.
I think genre specialization makes sense for smaller studios, sure. Why not? How many more films can Dimension produce without getting stale? Try infinity. The audience is ever-changing. People grow up. Kids are born. The wheel keeps turning. The object is not to invent new genres, but to reinvigorate them.
Craig,
I think this is the first time I’ve ever agreed with one of your posts. lol I think everything you’ve written is reasonable and desirable. Good job.
You convinced me as well, Craig, but I don’t know how it would be realized -
Record skips…
“The object is not to invent new genres, but to reinvigorate them.”
yikes
lt
I object to the term “Writopia.” It implies a kind of unachievable idealism. But what you’ve outlined here — while certainly idealistic — is in fact achievable because it requires exactly one person — like a studio chief — to make the decision to turn it into reality.
It’d be an interesting experiment. Two or three years of operating under this approach (roughly the life span of a studio chief) should produce a body of work sufficient enough to evaluate whether or not it has had any real effect, positive or negative, on the quality of the films.
It requires a leap of faith, to be sure. But it’s not blind faith. It’s a logical approach. And, after all, Pixar has had an astonishing track record with their philosophy of putting story development above all other considerations.
Raging-
I’m saying that I don’t see why a studio wouldn’t grant Writopia autonomy in the things Craig is suggesting:
one set of notes one executive guaranteed two-step deals no film by credits writers treated like teammembers and not the plague getting writers paid for their work
Studios diversify their products by having producers that run the range from Jerry Bruckheimer to Neal LaBute on their lots.
All we can do at Writopia is develop and produce the kinds of projects we all feel passionate about. If it’s a popcorn movie, great! A little indie piece, awesome!
I believe in the idea of a prodco where the story and the writing comes first, but I would hope that our goal would be to make movies that connect with audiences (i.e., make profits). In other words, if most of Writopia’s films are not mostly “commercial enterpises,” how long could we expect our utopia last?
Note: When I say profit and you say “commercial enterprises,” that doesn’t mean Writopia has to make movies budgeted at gazillions of dollars that earn bazillions of dollars in b.o. We can make small movies that make earn small b.o. too. Like Craig, I don’t discriminate. :)
Marianne W., thank you for your follow up.
In my madness, I thrust forth the phrase, “commercial enterprises,” which probably would have been better understood as financiers (e.g., studios, advertisers, and so on). More specifically, I was thinking about a study of the benefits of risk diversification by the studios where the findings did not support the strategy of multiple partners. In other words, hedging risk by taking on additional partners offered no higher ROI than going it alone.
My other comment had to do with front-running, my throwback term to day trading, by the studios to secure commitments to finance said pictures with advertising capital. The strategy smacks of consignment, which I find masterfully devious. That being said, do you think the finished product suffers by having the intrusions” of product placement ads, which serve to dilute the impact of the theme?
Finally, do you think the studios will pay Writopia not to make movies, in that the passionate vision will not have been trampled upon along the way? As you said and I agree, provided Writopia does not abandon its quest for viable material (blockbuster or not), it can only achieve commercial success.
Tom,
You said:
Sure, the studio holds the money. But “king” was referring more to who tends to be considered the driving force behind a movie…. the person who controls the reigns artistically…. The person leading the charge… (which is what I felt Craig meant by “king”.)
Again, either missed my point, or didn’t make my point. Everyone has battles. Does the director get all his wishes? No. But he is the “king” of a movie because he ultimately controls what the movie becomes… he has to understand the script, communicate the movie with his dp, with his actors, his editor, his composer, etc… a lot of people who affect the movie that the writer doesn’t deal with. (typically)
Again, it starts with the script, but it is just one step of many. There has to be that person who is responsible for overseeing all the elements and making sure they add up to a cohesive film. Since that person is the director, I say he’s the king.
Josh,
You said:
Words. What is your point? Writers use pen and paper. Directors use a camera and film. Right?
�A director is king of the movie because his job requires him to be. He has to command so many aspects of the filmmaking process, he is probably closer to the finished film than anyone.�
YES. Are you saying that only the writing process is creative?
What’s with the arrogant tone? :) Not sure I understand your remark, though. Do you not agree that its more difficult to mount a film (of any length) to direct than it is to start a script? And yeah… sometimes you have to be creative to get access to equipment.
I agree. Everyone (ie: writer, editor, sound, music, dp) feels they’re just as integral as the next guy.
Craig,
You wrote:
Somehow I got that funny taste in my mouth. I felt it was implied.
I’d think the two most important individuals of a movie are the writer and the director… and it seemed Writopia was absent of any meaningful director collaboration.
I’d say these few points made me draw that conclusion:
The writer, the producer, and the studio exec of all people get to decide what the movie is — what about the director’s voice?
Then you go over several revised methods for drafts and notes…. and
By this point, I still haven’t heard anything of the director’s input or expertise.
Then… if the director goes against the movie established on paper…
Of course, it depends on how you define “upend the applecart” (that could mean very different things to different people on the project). But by this point in the read, I already decided you didn’t value the director as much as I.
Sorry… didn’t mean to offend. I’ll just assume you value a director’s role in the final film after all. :)
BTW, if you guys have any counter points… try to wrap this up in one round. Don’t want this to go on forever like Josh mentioned.
“Writopia Studios require(s) the writer to first deliver a story treatment”
I think this is a brilliant idea.
I’m on the 2nd draft of an outline now and I don’t understand why it’s never occurred to me before to write a description of the film, practically scene-by-scene, before starting on the script. This really allows you to examine the bare bones of your story and get them into arrangement without being distracted by the soft tissue, like dialogue.
The H’wood note-giving culture, the way Craig and other writers describe it, appears to be incredibly chaotic/wasteful.
Seems to me that if 2 or 3 or more people are supposed to be working in conjunction during script development the first set of notes should be given right after the treatment is written. That way there’s a chance that the individuals involved get in step right at the outset.
As fot the rest of Craig’s Writopia, I don’t know. I don’t know how studios presently work. What, exactly, is the role of executives? Do they act as a kind of buffer between producers and the greenlighting entity (whatever that is)?
It’s hard to argue that a director being involved in the development of a film wouldn’t make the production process easier and the final product better.
With the mindset and business model of something like Writopia, getting a director to sign on during development probably wouldn’t be as hard as you think. Not to mention the fact that studios—erroneously—have passively dissuaded directors from signing on during development (this may have something to do with the fact that certain studios have absolutely no interest in actually bringing certain scripts into production).
Anna,
“I’m on the 2nd draft of an outline now and I don’t understand why it’s never occurred to me before to write a description of the film, practically scene-by-scene, before starting on the script. “
Because that may not be how you work. You can’t legislate the creative process. Obviously, SOMETHING has to be handed in before the script is written, but I don’t think Craig is saying it’s a requirement that every writer hand in a detailed, scene by scene outline before they’re commenced.
Some writers love doing that - Cameron writes intensely detailed treatments, usually longer than the finished script. That works for him. My outlines usually run to a page and a half of notes only I can decipher. I’ve never had to hand in a treatment - I usually just pitch it. I find that if I’ve detailed the entire story in treatment form, it sucks my enthusiasm to tell the story out of me. If this is truly writers’ utopia, I think we ought to allow for the differences in process…
Kevin,
“It’s hard to argue that a director being involved in the development of a film wouldn’t make the production process easier and the final product better.”
Sweet Jesus, it’s INCREDIBLY easy to argue that. When the thing is still just an idea, without form, the more cooks you bring in early on, the more likely it is to get fucked up. You hand a director an IDEA, and it increases the likelihood that he’ll see a completely different movie from the writer. You hand him a finished SCRIPT, and now you’ve limited how far afield he can take it.
If this is writers’ utopia, then we bring in the directors when the direction begins, not the writing.
Again, I know you cling fervently and passionately to the Director As Sky God faith (Nice “film by” credit, by the way), but the whole point of this thing is to eradicate the religious fanaticism of that view and bring everything back to a more reasonable and reasoned atheism.
If we’re going to start bringing in people before their job begins, I vote we allow the fluffer to be involved in the script development. At Writopia’s expense, of course…
Josh:
The outline I’m writing is more like a treatment and it’s written to be read by others. So it’s really like a 30 page presentation or pitch.
“I don’t think Craig is saying it’s a requirement that every writer hand in a detailed, scene by scene outline before they’re commenced.”
Perhaps not scene by scene. I don’t know what Craig’s talking about. I sort of assumed he’s talking about a fairly detailed description of the proposed film, something like a 10-15 page treatment.
Josh is right to an extent: you can’t legislate the process. However, I think the perfect studio would require a written document that satisfies everyone so that they all know they’re on the same page in terms of the story to be told.
This is not only for the studio’s interest, but for the writer’s as well. Of course, no one will push your fingers onto the keyboard for you. You can and most likely will deviate from your proposal as you get into the storytelling.
Happily, though, everyone will be able to talk precisely about why they did or didn’t like the changes, because there will be an agreed-upon story with which to compare.
“When the thing is still just an idea, without form, the more cooks you bring in early on, the more likely it is to get fucked up. You hand a director an IDEA, and it increases the likelihood that he’ll see a completely different movie from the writer. You hand him a finished SCRIPT, and now you’ve limited how far afield he can take it.”
Or a director can make the script infinitely better. Or he can make it infinitely worse. Or he can use it as a butt plug. The possibilities are endless.
“Again, I know you cling fervently and passionately to the Director As Sky God faith (Nice “film by” credit, by the way), but the whole point of this thing is to eradicate the religious fanaticism of that view and bring everything back to a more reasonable and reasoned atheism.”
Do you realize how funny it is when you talk about reasonable atheism? Josh, your views are closer to religious fanaticism than most. Your religion—DIRECTOR AS SCHLUB—is something you hold tighter to than a seat belt on a roller coaster. Reasonable is not exactly on your menu. You’re more more of a “Sorry, no substitutes” kind of guy. And strangely cuddly.
Oh, and I took a “Film By” credit because I Directed, Wrote, Produced, and Edited my film. If that ain’t a Film By me than I don’t know what is…
Kevin Arbouet wrote:
“Or a director can make the script infinitely better. Or he can make it infinitely worse. Or he can use it as a butt plug. The possibilities are endless.”
This is true. It also cleverly refutes the point made by a Kevin Arbouet just one post earlier:
“It’s hard to argue that a director being involved in the development of a film wouldn’t make the production process easier and the final product better.”
So, as Kevin’s evil twin has shown, it ain’t THAT hard to argue.
Craig, Ted & friends… if you were to guess, what objections would the existing studios raise to the Writopia model? Many of your suggestions seem like they’d be to everyone’s benefit, esp. your process for notes & the one exec / one prod. model.
Would studio heads say the current system is better? Why?
I also see dead people.
Tom:
I can see a few easy objections. For starters, they probably wouldn’t like the whole “one set of notes” concept. Too much work on their part. They also wouldn’t like the whole “big boss approves the notes”, for the very same reason. Thirdly, projects often come with a cadre of quasi-producers, hangers-on and so forth, none of whom will want to be shut out, and it’s easier for the studio to just let get involved.
Lastly, no studio is going to want to piss any A-list directors off by restricting possessory credits, granting inalienable production rights to writers, etc.
Craig writes: “For starters, they probably wouldn’t like the whole “one set of notes” concept. Too much work on their part.”
Why would you assert this is too much work? What are you benchmarking it against? The current, inefficent system?
“They also wouldn’t like the whole “big boss approves the notes”, for the very same reason.”
Is this a euphamism for accountablity is something they want to avoid? Seriously, I’m not tracking.
“Lastly, no studio is going to want to piss any A-list directors off by restricting possessory credits, granting inalienable production rights to writers, etc.”
If the WGA could deliver substantial economic savings with a new system, would studios be more inclined to explore topics which may piss other stakeholders off?
lt
Craig,
“Josh is right to an extent: you can’t legislate the process. However, I think the perfect studio would require a written document that satisfies everyone so that they all know they’re on the same page in terms of the story to be told.”
Why? Why is that something the perfect studio would do? I’ve never done that on a project, and never been asked for it. In the ideal situation, it seems to me, the project is discussed, and there’s a level of trust with the the writer, so the studio doesn’t have to oversee every single step of the process. A conversation - “Yes, it seems we’re on the same page.” Then the writer goes off and writes, with the certain knowledge that if, while writing, it becomes neccessary to deviate, he doesn’t have to adhere to some piece of paper.
Josh.
Try and find the middle between “nothing written” and “oversee every single step of the process.”
In that space, you will find outlines, treatments, summaries…I don’t care.
It’s for the protection of both sides when everyone later asks, “What happened here?” While it would be nice if everyone behaved perfectly competent and perfectly rational, that’s not true to life. There are writers that screw up, and there are executives and producers that screw up.
Something everyone agreed upon at the start is very useful to hash out the differences as you move forward. It has been for me, and I know it has been for Ted. It also takes the emphasis away from the first script, and puts it back on the essential story.
As I explicitly explained earlier, Writopia Studios never demands that its writers adhere to the treatment. They are left alone when they draft their script, and they are free to write what they please. In that instance, the treatment will serve as a useful basis of comparison.
So look, if you don’t want to write a treatment, you can’t work here. Sorry. :)
Hey, isn’t this pretty much what we had when the studios ran the show? The producer was the boss, they hired the writer, once they locked down the script - it was locked down. They hired stars and a director… and they just did their jobs. In fact - everyone just did their job.
I think the “director’s input” issue comes from the current state of directing - lots of folks who have no idea how to direct are doing it! The art of directing a film is using angle, camera movement, compositon, etc to tell the story. Five good directors can direct the exact same scene in 5 different ways and it will be 5 different scenes. That’s the asic skill set that a director needs… and I think that most these days don’t have. Which is why directors want to be involved in the writing of the script - which is not their job.
And actors all want to change their dialogue because “my character would never say this” - when that specific phrase is echoed through the script or has a thematic layer they never considered, etc.
My 18th flick has my name on it as writer - but the actors all changed their dialogue and the director changed all of the scenes and it’s now an unreleasable mess that has nothing from the original script (they even changed the concept!). All of those cooks messing with the story every day, not realizing that what they changed today may make tomorrow’s scenes stupid or pointless. It’s a house of cards.
Writers have to be able to hold the entire story in their heads - to remember that line on page 18 that comes into play on page 93. Often, we are the only ones on the project with that ability.
Kevin,
“Or a director can make the script infinitely better. Or he can make it infinitely worse. Or he can use it as a butt plug. The possibilities are endless.”
Huh. I thought it was hard to argue. Guess you were wrong.
Ignoring the radical change in position, I’ll just respond to this post - I have no doubt that sometimes too many cooks DON’T spoil the broth.
Listen, you want the director coming in before you even have a treatment, that’s great. But it’s not axiomatic that that’s the best way to do it (As you’ve just admitted), and from where I’m sitting, it would seem to add a lot of unneccessary work and confusion to the process. I know it’s outrageous to discuss the nature of art and artists here, but there’s a time to be collaborative and a time to be genuinely creative. While there are, obviously, exceptions, taking it on faith that the more hands on the keyboard the better is absurd and antithetical to the creation of anything meaningful.
“Do you realize how funny it is when you talk about reasonable atheism? Josh, your views are closer to religious fanaticism than most. Your religion—DIRECTOR AS SCHLUB—is something you hold tighter to than a seat belt on a roller coaster.”
Again, you infer all sorts of things I haven’t said. If anything, your own religious fervor is what translates my statement “The director is not God” into “The director is a shlub.”
Weeks and months go by, and you still haven’t the slightest clue as to what I’m talking about. It’s kind of astonishing, frankly. My comments about directing and writing have been, from day one, based on facts: Here is the job. Here is what is required. Yours has always - and I mean ALWAYS - been based on the Director as Sky God theory. When I state a fact, you respond as though I’ve stated an opinion. When I say, “This is what a director’s job is,” you howl that I’m somehow denigrating the true creators of a movie.
“Oh, and I took a “Film By” credit because I Directed, Wrote, Produced, and Edited my film.”
I see. So four credits wasn’t enough. Gotcha.
It’s the latter, but ever since Hollywood went corporate, studios don’t have girlfriends anymore.
Here’s the thing: right now, the only required costs associated with writing a movie is writers’ compensation: fees, bonuses, residuals.
The stuff I’m talking about, a writer’s office, a writer’s trailer — and I’ll throw in travel and housing costs for a writer on location — those are optional costs.
Studios do not like paying optional costs, to such an extent that the only reason that Terry and I had an office and were on location on the first Pirates movie was because the director, the producer and the star wanted us there (we didn’t have a trailer, though; we used Jerry’s … which otherwise would have sat unoccupied for the majority of the shoot). Even then, the entire time we were in St. Vincent, the head of production (who was doubling as the effective line producer on the movie) kept suggesting that our work was done, and we could probably go home tomorrow. When the production moved down to Union Island to shoot the scenes where Jack and Elizabeth were marooned, there was a genuine housing shortage. Since Terry and I were viewed as unessential to shoot those scenes, he decided that was the end of the studio paying for us to stay. Terry actually did leave, due to a family emergency; I would have gone, too, if Johnny had not invited me to stay on his yacht for the remainder of the shoot.
I don’t begrudge the head of production for doing his job (and it’s absolutely not a job I would ever want to have to do); I begrudge the system that makes it economically advantageous not to have a writer involved in the production beyond paying him to work out of his house and e-mail pages in.
Essentially, what I’m proposing is to work toward eliminating the economic advantage of not having a writer as involved throughout the production as any of the other key personnel. Make costs that are currently optional, mandatory costs of production.
-
I’m all for it!
Ted,
I hear you. Loud and clear. I think it’s a valid strategy. Money talks. Hence my earlier “Write Or Pay” proposal. Interesting to hear how even on a big movie you had to struggle to keep your feet on the sand…
Kevin,
“Oh, and I took a “Film By” credit because I Directed, Wrote, Produced, and Edited my film. If that ain’t a Film By me than I don’t know what is…”
Nothing is! That’s the whole point.
Hi Craig, interesting idea. I have a few clarifying questions…
STUDIO EXECS
1) At Writopia, how many projects would any given studio executive be expected to work on, at any given time? 5, 25, 50…?
1a) If a studio executive is spread too thin and can’t participate in collaboration in a meaningful way, would his producer and writer teammates be expected to wait for his schedule to clear up, or would they proceed as a two-person team?
1b) Given that under the current system, studio executives often have dozens of projects “in development” at any given time (I’ve used quotation marks because the majority of those are on back-back-back-burners), how many more studio executives would need to be hired to staff a similar development slate at Writopia Studios?
DEVELOPMENT
2) Speaking of back-back-back-burners, what happens when a creative team can’t come to consensus on a given project? You’re trying to design Development Heaven, but does Writopia have Development Hell, Development Purgatory, and/or Development Limbo?
Development Nirvana (where nothing is happening, but nobody cares about it enough to be unhappy with the situation)?
Development Happy Hunting Grounds (where Josh and his friends can stampede an endless herd of fauxteur directors off a cliff)?
3) Would Writopia Studios expect to put into production every project it started? I don’t imagine so, which leads to:
3a) When the Chairman is deciding whether or not to shitcan a project, whose advice does he listen to most? The producer, the exec, or the writer?
3b) Are the three-person teams democracies? At times when true consensus can’t be reaches, does majority rule?
3c) Would turnaround and reacquisition work the same at Writopia as they currently work at other studios?
PRODUCERS
4) You said that a producer would be assigned to a project, which implies that the producer didn’t bring the project to the studio. If a producer brings a project to the Chairman, would the Chairman have the ability to buy the project and then assign a different producer to it?
4a) In the current system, a producer with a studio deal commonly has several projects in the pipeline. The producer assigns his employees to different projects in producery roles, but he keeps tabs on all of them (and exerts control to a greater or lesser extent, depending on the individuals in question). In this case, there is then at least two people doing the job of “producer” on the project (the producer with the deal, who is exerting control through his employee, the producer on the project - follow what I’m saying?). If the Chairman assigns a producer-with-deal to a given project, and then the producer subcontracts it out to one of his employees (but still exerts his control through his employee), how would that affect the working collaboration between the three people who are supposed to be forming a team?
WRITERS
5) At Writopia Studios, can a writer ever be fired? What would be the conditions necessary to get to that unfortunate step?
6) Let’s say the Chairman bought the film rights to a hugely-successful book by a hugely-successful author. Let’s further say that the author of the book (though not assigned as screenwriter) wants to be a significant participant in the development process. How would that affect the working collaboration between the three people who are supposed to be forming a team?
ACTORS
7) If directors would be fired for trying to upend the apple cart, what happens if a name actor (on a pay-or-play deal) tries to upend the apple cart?
GENERAL
8) Would Writopia become a member of the AMPTP, or would it bargain individually with the unions and guilds?
Thanks, and sorry for the tome. I don’t mean to deluge you with endless contingencies, but I’m curious how all of these things would work. Looking forward to your response.
Here are some thoughts:
The writer on set would be the writer who delivered the shooting script, correct? If the first writer had his two shots and was replaced, then the second writer would be on set. If the second writer only did a punch-up, then it’s the first writer. This seems to be a potentially sticky new area of WGA arbitration.
I get the idea that under Writopia the director can make changes during pre-pro. It is simply that those changes would have to go through the four-human process. This ensures that the changes are refinements of the intended movie, not a whole new movie. But it needn’t completely exclude a director from helping make the movie better.
A good argument for bringing the director in during pre-pro instead of development is creative burnout. It might be beneficial to have a fresh mind in pre-pro to help with project refinement. The Exec, Producer and Writer might enjoy a new set of eyes at this point.
I feel the actual revolutionary idea behind Writopia has been clouded by the director/writer issue. Writopia is the De-Spreadsheeting of filmmaking. A film cannot be made by the exact same methods that corporations use to make razors, lightbulbs and yogurt that kids will eat. This is something which benefits writers and directors.
I might include the writer and the director in the marketing of the film. Somehow.
Craig,
I appreciate your input. With the three team (four team with the director) approach, I sense potential areas of contention with adaptations, wherein the author or miscellaneous attachments may doom the collaborative process. That is why I made reference to spec. scripts being a purer form.
In regard to assignments, the contracted writer has one degree of separation from the original vision. Again, I figure the closer the writer is to the idea, the better the ability to harness and explain it to others.
General Comments:
I think today’s released films sacrifice their thematic element for mass market appeal. I am a firm believer that audiences are not stupid. Why not challenge them?
What is the ratio of superior directors to superior writers? What is more important, the writer or the material?
One of many benefits of Writopia is its flexibility in pursuing projects that happen to arouse the American public’s interest. I assume the stream-lined approach to the collaborative process will shorten the time horizon for principle and post-prod, which should improve its chances of profitability tremendously by keeping the material topical and fresher in the minds of its target audience.
“When the writer is done with the draft, he delivers it and is paid.
On time. No questions asked.”
Does the last line refer to delivery or payment?
Seriously, though, I don’t see how writopia allows for a director-initiated film. Could Stanley Kubrick work here?
Stanley Kubrick is dead.
“Could Stanley Kubrick work here?”
Kubrick wrote/co-wrote pretty much everything he worked on (minus Spartacus), so I don’t see why not. Of course, he’d have to acknowledge that the others might decide he’s not the best man for the job (it’s Kubrick, but ya never know) and might get someone else. And considering his desire for infinite freedom, I don’t think that’s something he’d dig. So he could, but I doubt he’d want to.
You had me at, “The three of you are a team.”
This IS the answer. I’ve been saying it since my days as an intern and still believe it today. The only logical result will be more well-written and creatively realized scripts.
Thanks for voicing these thoughts.
I’d move to Writopia. I’m trying to learn the skills of producing, and I’m curious about learning to direct, but all I really want to do is write. Maybe I’m naive, maybe I’ve been lucky with my current director. Whatever, I think this is a top idea.
I think this idea makes a lot of sense. It’s top-level; implementation would expose the nooks, cranies and problem spots. But the gist is there — that great stories are told collaboratively, that a shared vision will produce a better product than what is essentially a telling (writer), re-telling (director), and re-telling (studio) of the same story.
Is this implementable now? Sure, on a small scale. As technology allows, there will be a fragmentation of the Hollywood system (just as there was a fragmentation of the studio system). Copolla had it right when he said there would come a time when a pimply faced girl in Ohio would be able to shoot and distribute her own film.
Small films and film companies will get financial backing if their business and product is good. It’s a business model of sorts, and just as top level. Steve Jobs started his company in a garage. Why can’t Writopia start in a garage?
Sorry, I’m on a bit of a break this week, so I’m behind on these comments.
First, directors who also write doesn’t mean there isn’t a writer. You might as well say they’re writers who also direct. The important thing is that someone is doing the job.
The writer on set would be the writer that the employers wanted on the set. I don’t think the WGA should tell employers who they can and can’t hire…only that they HAVE to hire SOMEONE.
As many as they could handle successfully. The determination of how many projects any studio develops is really a function of corporate and financial planning. Let’s assume that Human Resources behaves appropriately.