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.
If the team isn’t working, then you change the team. New writer or new executive assigned to the writer.
No. There is an inevitable failure rate in any R&D process. Minimizing it, not eliminating it, should be the goal.
He’s probably listening to all of them and then evaluating the arguments based on their own merit, rather than on who is making them.
Absolutely not. “After all, we’re not communists.” The employer has the final word.
Yes.
It’s possible a studio could do this, but it would be bad business. No, the producer who brings it is the producer.
Writopia Studios doesn’t care who the producer’s proxy is nor what the proxy’s relationship to the producer is as long as it is efficient and productive.
First of all, no WGA writer is ever really “fired.” We’re not at-will employees. We work per contract. What happens is that we’re not rehired. Yes, writers can not be rehired. The conditions? No conditions necessary. You can write as well as you can possibly write, but if there’s a better writer available who wants to improve the material, it’s in Writopia’s best interest to consider hiring her.
We’re not really interested in that. Authors can negotiate to be kept in the loop, but “significant participant in the development process” is a recipe for doom.
We’re up front with everyone we hire. This is the movie we want to make. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but please don’t sign on if you have major problems with the movie we want to make. Tantrums and sandbagging are dealt with the way they should be. Diplomatically, and very carefully. An angry actor can sink a movie pretty damned quickly.
Very good question! I think it might be advantageous for Writopia to negotiate a separate agreement with the guilds, because it might instantly attract major talent. Then again, it might not. I’ll let the imaginary lawyers mull that over. :)
“Something everyone agreed upon at the start is very useful to hash out the differences as you move forward.”
In my experience, this could well be the single most important item you’ve proposed. I’m always a little startled when discussion that define parameters are missing at the beginning of a process.
I’m on board… call me that drive on!
HI Ted,
Did you feel your being on location was more “stable”, more accepted, on Pirates II & III?
I guess Craig’s vision proved worthy of its name. Everybody loves Writopia! Even Josh. Yay. I think the problem with it is that it really just describes a prefered m.o. Any exsiting production entity with devlopment funds can choose this model tomorrow as a way to develop their projects. But will they? Probably not. Because what it doesn’t deliver is a basis for regulations applicable to writers’ rights the WGA can actually fight for… (except for the number of premiere tickets I suppose). So, let’s get back to reality:
“…we can do our jobs in such a way that the companies realize ensuring our rights would be better for the movie.”
That’s a tall order. Even the best writer is only as good as its employer (allows him to be). I think we need to come up with actual (read enforceable) rules that create opportunities for writers, or incentives for production companies, to involve the writer in the process of making the film. A great example of this is Ted’s office/trailer/chair proposal. Another might be to include the writer in production meetings to allow his/her/our voice to be heard… and not just on the page.
I made a Fruitopia joke about 90 posts back that was somewhat funny. Y’all should read it. Tnx.
I’ve been lurking on here for quite some time. I’ve found the conversation to be fascinating, but haven’t had much to say since I’m not at a point in my career where people pay me for anything. So my opinions as a writer may not be useful.
But my opinions as a moviegoer may be valid. When I’m choosing a movie to see, I often look for directors who have a history of making good movies. That’s because I consider the director’s vision to be what ultimately determines the outcome of the movie.
For example:
I like Mike White movies. I loved School of Rock.
Mike White was a writer on Nacho Libre, a movie I will probably never see. Why? Because I hated Napoleon Dynamite.
So when considering the ideal studio, and the ideal movie-making process, it may be worthwhile to consider what attracts moviegoers to the movies the studio produces. Unless the audience in this scenario is also supposed to be ideal…
Dante,
“But my opinions as a moviegoer may be valid. When I’m choosing a movie to see, I often look for directors who have a history of making good movies. That’s because I consider the director’s vision to be what ultimately determines the outcome of the movie.
For example:
I like Mike White movies. I loved School of Rock.
Mike White was a writer on Nacho Libre, a movie I will probably never see. Why? Because I hated Napoleon Dynamite.”
Maybe it’s me, but I’m missing your point. How do you illustrate the point that you follow directors by talking about a writer? Mike White performed the same function on both movies.
“So when considering the ideal studio, and the ideal movie-making process, it may be worthwhile to consider what attracts moviegoers to the movies the studio produces. Unless the audience in this scenario is also supposed to be ideal…”
What attracts moviegoers to movies is stars. With amazingly few exceptions, directors do not put asses in seats. The average moviegoer couldn’t pick Spielberg out of a lineup (although he is one of the few genuine name brand directors). So what you’re talking about is this arbitrary decision that directors are the primary visionaries behind their movies.
Which is, of course, absurd.
Had a great time last night watching To Die For for the first time in years. Amazing Buck Henry script in that one. Rings with his voice, his themes, his ideas, and that unique tone he’s been the master of since The Graduate. To Die For is, of course, a film by Gus Van Sant.
Maybe it’s me, but I’m missing your point. How do you illustrate the point that you follow directors by talking about a writer? Mike White performed the same function on both movies.
Because he doesn’t like the movies the director makes.
or doesn’t like the flow of traffic the director sits in the corner and watches pass by. Depending on your point of view.
I think you are wrong on this point though. I think if you went out on the street and shoved a photo of spielberg in 10 peoples faces, and asked if they recognised who it was in the picture, the ones that didn’t tell you to fuck off would all recognise spielberg. People go and see Spielberg movies. Not movies written by Lawrence Kasdan or the guy wot wrote angels in America. To say otherwise is just silly.
but then again, Spielberg was introduced in his cameo in Goldmember as “Oh look, it’s HOLLYWOOD DIRECTOR STEPHEN SPIELBERG!” just in case some idiot didn’t get the point, so I accept I could be completely wrong about this, and everything else.
I could be,
…but I’m not.
The last point was by me. Just in case anyone gives a crap.
Go with me on this:
A screenplay represents three elements:
Regardless of whether or not these things exist as discreet literary works, regardless of whether or not you’ve thought in terms of these elements, if you’ve written a screenplay, then that screenplay includes all three of those elements. And, in order for a studio to make a movie, all three of those elements must be created by someone.
Studios can get a story one of two ways: they can option the rights to a story that has already been published or produced in a different form (as a novel or as a play or as a etc.), or they can acquire the rights in a story created specifically for use in a motion picture dramatization. This is the true delineator between an “adapted screenplay” and an “original screenplay,” as those terms are commonly used: does the screenplay represent the first (ie, original) use of the story, or does the screenplay represent a secondary (ie, adapted) use of the story?
(the term “original screenplay” has a different meaning in the context of a WGA credit arbitration, but lets set that aside for now).
Now, here’s the big reveal, the secret to understanding how the film industry works in regards to writers:
During the development process, from the studio/producer’s point of view, developing a specific dramatization is secondary to developing a treatment of a story that can serve as the basis for a specific dramatization.
Whereas, from the writer’s point of view, the goal is always to develop a specific dramatization — which per force represents a specific treatment of a story that is the basis of that dramatization.
Also: from the writer’s point of view, both the treatment and the specific dramatization should/must be the product of an individual writer, whereas from the studio/producers point of view, while that is preferable, it is not a necessity. A treatment/dramatization can be the work of either a writer individually or writers collectively.
And, genuinely, studio/producers really would prefer that every movie be the work of a single writer (or writing team) if for no other reason than it’s more cost-effective: the fewest number of drafts necessary to go from “we got nothing” to “we have something we judge can be produced on a budget that will guarantee an acceptable level of revenue returned,” the greater the profit potential.
But the studio/producers’ need for a treatment/dramatization that they judge as satisfactory for the basis for a movie outweighs the preference to have that treatment/dramatization be the product of an individual writer.
And that is the source of development hell, for both writers and studios/producers. Writers being hired and replaced and rewritten; studios/producers running up the costs of development that, ofttimes, are never recouped (because the majority of all treatment/dramatizations developed never get produced, and so never generate revenue).
In other words, the development process at it currently exists is artistically frustrating and economically inefficient.
And, again, the reason it is that way is because what the studio/producers hire writers to develop is the treatment of a story that can serve as the basis of a specific dramatization used in a motion picture, whereas what writers believe they are hired to develop is the specific dramatization that will be used in a motion picture.
But the specific dramatization is what will actually be shot — and so that will not be finalized until after the decision is made that a specific dramatization will be shot. And the decision that a specific dramatization will be shot is not made until after the studio/producer has a dramatic treatment of a story that it judges satisfactory to serve as the basis for any specific dramatization.
This problem is only compounded by the fact that there are many studio execs and producers who do not understand or are not capable of recognizing the difference between the elements specific to the dramatization (action, dialogue) and the elements inherent to the dramatization (the treatment of story as a series of scenes that can be dramatized).
Now, here’s the thing:
Used to be, movies were developed in just this way: the studio purchased a story and commissioned a dramatic treatment of the story, or the studio commissioned an original story and its treatment.
Only after the studio has a story and treatment it judged satisfactory for development into a dramatization did it start commissioning screenplay drafts.
(This is still the process used in television production: what’s referred to as “breaking the story” is actually the development of the story and its dramatic treatment; although ideas for the specific dramatization may occur during that process, it is only after the story and its treatment have been agreed upon by the writer and the producer (and the studio and the network) that the actual work of writing the dramatization (script) begins).
This process is reflected/memorialized in the WGA MBA: in addition to the kinds of literary material studios have to pay for relative to dramatizations — screenplay drafts, rewrites, polishes — they also have to pay for: a story (if commissioned or acquired as a discreet work; a treatment (of a story assigned by the studio) or an original treatment (a story and its treatment either commissioned or acquired as a discreet work).
And, here’s something interesting: according to the MBA, the minimum fee for an original treatment is identical to the minimum fee for a first draft screenplay.
From the point of view of the studios, a dramatic treatment of a story is just as a valuable as a dramatization itself.
But, from the point of view of studio bookkeeping, commissioning only dramatization is more cost-effectivem, because that gets them both of a dramatization and a treatment … and, if need be, they can pick and choose elements from both in developing the specific treatment that will be dramatized, and in developing the specific dramatization that will be shot.
All of this has gone into Craig’s and my thinking about how individual writers can have, if not the guarantee of “idea-to-locked reels” involvement in the filmmaking process, then at least a far better chance of it (the guarantee is the ultimate goal, but not achievable at this time, save on a very rare individual basis).
So: reach agreement on the story, reach agreement on the overal treatment of that story as a dramatic work, and then focus on the dramatization itself — with the treatment becoming an objective touchstone for measuring the success of the dramatization. Did this scene realize the dramatic potential of the scene in accordance with its intent? Is there a different version that might realize it better? Would a suggested different version of the dramatization realize it better, worse, the same? Would it alter the dramatic treatment itself, and so change the way in which the audience perceives/experiences the story? Would a suggest alteration of the treatment itself serve as the basis for a better, worse, equal-in-quality dramatization?
Terry and I refer to this process as “designing the movie” — which really means: designing the audiences’ experience of the story as a movie dramatization (interestingly, Ron Bass is the only other writer I’ve ever met who uses that same term — “designing the movie.” Whereas Terry and I prefer to reach agreement with others on the design of the movie before beginning work on the dramatization — ie, the first draft — Ron prefers to write a first draft, and then use that as the basis for reaching agreement on the overall design that will be embodied in the second draft).
-
Ruari,
“People go and see Spielberg movies”
Which is why I said he’s one of the genuine name brand directors. People buy John Grisham novels, but they don’t know what he looks like, either.
A mistake movie people (and by that, I mean movie fans, as well as professionals) often make is assuming everyone cares as much about this crap as they do. Speilberg’s a household name. He’s not a household face.
Josh,
I admit I didn’t do the best job of illustrating my point before, so let me try again.
A History of Violence. Great movie. Oscar nominated movie. Personally I loved it. It didn’t make break box office records, but it didn’t have to, it was still a success in its field. The moviegoers who made it a success may have bought tickets because they liked the actors, or because they liked the concept, but I bet a lot went because they liked Cronenberg. For the people waiting in line at the Laemmle, it mattered who the director was.
Another point. Same movie. I listend to your interview with Creative Screenwriting magazine (via podcast), and you made it clear that Mr. Cronenberg suggested several changes to your script that you believe elevated the movie considerably. Eliminating characters, refining the theme, and so on.
I don’t know if there’s one “primary visionary” behind any given movie, but I know the director’s vision is vitally important. And when one day I sell my first screenplay, and if that screenplay actually goes into production, I hope the director isn’t so beholden to my work that he won’t change it for the better if he’s capable of doing so.
(geek out moment: I’m talking to Josh Olson, how neat is that? crazy internet)
“Which is why I said he’s one of the genuine name brand directors. People buy John Grisham novels, but they don’t know what he looks like, either.
A mistake movie people (and by that, I mean movie fans, as well as professionals) often make is assuming everyone cares as much about this crap as they do. Speilberg’s a household name. He’s not a household face.”
I’m not making any mistake, maybe it’s just harder to tell from inside the industry where you are sitting.
He’s on magazine covers all the time. He’s on tv all the time. He’s at the oscars all the time. You don’t think this seeps into the general population, by Osmosis? not just film fans watch the oscars. It’s not possible to live in the western hemisphere without coming across images of these people on occasion. I mean, we aren’t talking about Mongolia here are we? John Grisham? Are you kidding? there’s no comparison.
My mum can recognise spielberg. My fucking granny could. But I’d have to hold a seance to check. And that would just be weird.
dang, keeps forgetting my info.
Dante,
“I bet a lot went because they liked Cronenberg. For the people waiting in line at the Laemmle, it mattered who the director was.”
Not a hell of a lot, actually. As justifiedly revered as David is, the average moviegoer knows maybe five directors by name (Ten, if you count dead ones), and he’s far from one of them. Again, a mistake most of us make, because we all have a tendency to forget that to the world at large, movies are two hours of their life on the weekend and nothing more. (That’s not a gripe, by the way, that’s just the way it is.)
In terms of name draw at the box office, Kevin Smith means more than David Cronenberg.
“geek out moment: I’m talking to Josh Olson, how neat is that? crazy internet”
Two responses: 1) How cool is it that I’m talking to Dante Kleinberg? and 2) How do you know I’m not Craig Mazin pretending to be Josh Olson just so he can feel important?
“How do you know I’m not Craig Mazin pretending to be Josh Olson just so he can feel important?”
Don’t mind him. He’s actually just a 14 year old with the same name pretending to be Josh Olson, oscar nominated screenwriter.
We’re just humouring him.
http://www.greenmtn.edu/studentsnapshot/ssjosh_olson.asp
see what I mean?
Josh:
Nah, that’s not really true. Cronenberg’s name may not mean much to a mass audience or even a sub-mass audience, but it means a whole lot to people who have seen and enjoyed Cronenberg films before. Not every director is a brand like David is. Lots of people liked The Bourne Supremacy, but Paul Greengrass doesn’t necessarily have a devoted following.
David Cronenberg does. His name absolutely puts a specific, reliable number of asses in seats. It’s a relatively low number, but it is quantifiable, which is why he’s worth risking, say, 30 million in production costs.
The truth is that Cronenberg’s work is connected by style and theme, and while I do not subscribe to the auteur theory, his name and direction actually do imply a promise of a particular movie.
C.
The initial budget (prepared by the same head of production) did not include travel and housing for the writers on location. Like I said: optional costs.
-
Josh,
“Two responses: 1) How cool is it that I’m talking to Dante Kleinberg? and 2) How do you know I’m not Craig Mazin pretending to be Josh Olson just so he can feel important?”
1) Aww, you old softy. :) 2) That’s cold, my friend. Ice world. I’m a happy go lucky fellow, so I hope no one minds if I love Josh and Craig (and Ruairi and Ted [especially Ted, just watch Curse of the Black Pearl again last night in prep for Dead Man’s Chest — you rock, good sir] and Joshua and Kevin and so on and so forth) equally.
For what’s it worth, I’ve noticed almost all of my favorite movies are either written and directed by the same person (like Big Lebowski), or by a writer and director who developed the movie together (like Ghost World).
Ruairi,
“Don’t mind him. He’s actually just a 14 year old with the same name pretending to be Josh Olson, oscar nominated screenwriter. We’re just humouring him. http://www.greenmtn.edu/studentsnapshot/ssjosh_olson.asp”
Very funny. Also ice world.
Ted,
The least I can do for your generous, candid representation of a “representation of a dramatization” is act like a monkey and throw darts at a dartboard, with no intention of hitting anything (or anyone, for that matter).
In its condensed form, your explanation seems to elicit an us versus them mentality. So, my initial question is, in your opinion, who should hold final authority over the viability and marketability of any dramatization? In other words, on your all-star team, would you prefer to have only studio executives (Note: For simplicity, I have removed producers from the equation in that they serve as the mouthpiece of the studio executives in finding and developing material.) or writers?
Naturally, you might wonder why I do not allow for mixing and matching studio executives and writers on any given team. I do so in that I sense a Writopia versus Studiopia (notice how close Studiopia is to Stupidopia?) atmosphere.
With this separation in mind, who is better equipped to accurately predict market trends, a studio executive or a writer? Not only that, but how would you evaluate the “success” of a studio executive, by job stability / security or some other criteria?
Moreover, who is better suited to determine the “screen”-worthiness of a dramatization, a studio executive or a writer? Same follow-up, how would you evaluate the “success” of a writer?
As an aside, I have always felt that studio executives promote the apparent director / writer “conflict” as a means of dividing and conquering the writer from the material. Unfortunately, rather than lopping off the head of the studio executive, we writers squander our creative frustrations on the director (don’t get me wrong, much grief against said helmer is warranted, albeit for “principle” reasons).
If the one with the gold rules, then how do writers in Studiopia expect to have any say in the quality of the locked reel? Moreover, in Writopia, how will “converted” writers (read, studio executives) resist their impulse to control the vision of said finished product by injecting personal policy preferences into it? By the way, I have no problem with agenda-driven or art house films, but I take issue with those types of films being represented as entertainment for the mass audience.
Hollywood has been accused of offering mainstream “entertainment” with a hidden agenda. With this in mind, why would Studiopia cede creative control over a film to a writer who might not share the same social or political themetic vision? Not only that, but would Writopia provide “true” entertainment (i.e., from mindless to thought provoking) to its target audience without bashing it in the face with a frying pan (e.g., Crash)? My reason for mentioning this is that I see more film critics skewering releases for being too mean-spirited or not genuine enough. In the final analysis, I prefer a product whereby the writers care more for the material than trying to influence public opinion in some secretive, manipulative way.
I think Writopia, as conceived by Craig and Ted, was put forth to address the “sudden, temporary blindness” by writers that exists between pre- and post-production. But, don’t inefficient markets correct themselves … and isn’t it time for a correction?
From Ted’s post:
“This process is reflected/memorialized in the WGA MBA: in addition to the kinds of literary material studios have to pay for relative to dramatizations — screenplay drafts, rewrites, polishes — they also have to pay for: a story (if commissioned or acquired as a discreet work; a treatment (of a story assigned by the studio) or an original treatment (a story and its treatment either commissioned or acquired as a discreet work).”
One question:
Does the MBA (or attached literature) contain a definition of ‘treatment’?
Craig,
“David Cronenberg does. His name absolutely puts a specific, reliable number of asses in seats. It’s a relatively low number, but it is quantifiable, which is why he’s worth risking, say, 30 million in production costs.
The truth is that Cronenberg’s work is connected by style and theme, and while I do not subscribe to the auteur theory, his name and direction actually do imply a promise of a particular movie.”
Of COURSE there’s a devoted audience for his films. I never said there wasn’t. I’m part of it. Always have been, always will be. But there’s always a tendency on the part of movie folks to over-emphasize that sort of thing. To most people, the names David Cronenberg and Paul Greengrass carry the exact same amount of weight - none.
But as for the notion that David’s NAME is worth a studio investing thirty mil? That’s beyond ridiculous. His last five movies - Spider, Crash, eXistenz, M. Butterfly and Naked Lunch probably probably didn’t combine to make thirty mil between them.
As happens around here, I’m in a position where I seem to be saying things I’m not. I’m not impuning anyone. I’m simply reminding folks that here, in the bubble, we have a tendency to over-emphasize the popularity and draw of name-brand directors. There are precious few directors whose name ensures any kind of significant audience.
Anna —
From the 2004 MBA:
The term “treatment” means an adaptation of a story, book or other literary, dramatic or dramatico-musical material for motion picture purposes in a form suitable for use as the basis of a screenplay.
The term “original treatment” means an original story written for motion picture purposes in a form suitable for use as the basis of a screenplay.
-
“But as for the notion that David’s NAME is worth a studio investing thirty mil? That’s beyond ridiculous. His last five movies - Spider, Crash, eXistenz, M. Butterfly and Naked Lunch probably probably didn’t combine to make thirty mil between them.”
Two words: Joel Schumacher
Care to add up the box receipts vs. the budget for his last 7 movies?
Phantom of the Opera Veronica Guerin Phone Booth Bad Company Tigerland Flawless 8MM
But studios still invest money in him based on his name.
Just like Uwe Boll.
Or Paul Anderson…or even PT Anderson.
Guys, what’s the friggin’ point? The film industry is too complex a machine to make generalisations about why a certain director gets hired. EVERY project comes about in its own unique way. And the subjective debate over why an audience sees a film is redundant (unless you show polls that support/debute your opinion). Also arguing whether people recognize Spielberg’s face or not adds zilch to the process of empowering the working screenwriter. B.t.w. Spielberg is one of the most famous figures in modern pop culture, I’d say more people know what he looks like than what he actually does. Shit, I’m being sucked into the vortex of pointless polemic… must… find… rocket booster… now…. VOOOOSH!!
“Kevin,
Two words: Joel Schumacher
Care to add up the box receipts vs. the budget for his last 7 movies?
Phantom of the Opera Veronica Guerin Phone Booth Bad Company Tigerland Flawless 8MM
But studios still invest money in him based on his name.
Just like Uwe Boll.
Or Paul Anderson…or even PT Anderson.”
Uwe Boll has a name that puts asses in seats? If you said “Uwe Boll” to twenty people in a line for a Uwe Boll movie, nineteen of them would think you were talking about a piece of furniture from Ikea.
I mean, that’s just wrong. You’ve eliminated one possible reason for hiring him (his recent movies made money) and so you announce that, by process of elimination apparently, the only other explanation is “his name.” Why then don’t I just change my name to Joel Schumacher?
Just because (1) a director’s films have lost money, and (2) studios still hire him, that doesn’t mean he’s a name that puts asses in seats. (Obviously not enough seats, by the way.) They go to Joel Schumacher for a variety of reasons. He’s a known quantity TO THEM; he will give them a certain type of movie, which they think, this time, will make money. Or maybe he has a good relationship with them. Or maybe he attracts talent (!!). Or maybe they think he’s a good director. It’s not because anybody thinks that “A Film By Joel Schumacher” credit is going to convince more than, say, five hundred people nationwide to see the movie.
Paul WS Anderson? Same story. Brett Ratner? Same story. Even if their movies tank at the box office there is a sane economic rationale to working with these guys.
By the way, you display a certain ignorance (or, more likely, disingenuousness) by talking about “box office receipts.” As a professional you ought to know that box office is a loss leader in more than 90% of cases. I’ll bet you dollars to donuts that if Schumacher’s last seven movies had done as poorly as you imply, he wouldn’t be working.
Otherwise, what the hell is the value of Joel Schumacher’s name if it has failed, seven consecutive times, to make money for anybody but Joel Schumacher? Do they just want to socially be associated with Joel Schumacher? Do they want to tell their grandkids one day, “I knew ‘Phone Booth’ was going to lose money, but goddammit! It was Joel Schumacher! You can’t put a price tag on Joel Schumacher!”
(By the way I really like several of his films. Not dissing on Schumacher, but come on.)
I don’t get it.
Dante,
“I like Mike White movies. I loved School of Rock.
Mike White was a writer on Nacho Libre, a movie I will probably never see. Why? Because I hated Napoleon Dynamite.”
This is kind of astonishing to me. You’re telling me that if Richard Linklater had directed the same script, with the same actors, you’d be excited to see this movie, but because Jared Hess is directing it you don’t want to see it?
You didn’t even mention that Jared and Jarusha Hess are credited writers on both Nacho Libre and Napoleon Dynamite. (Would have sounded much more reasonable if you had.)
I know your main point was about how the unwashed mass audience thinks. I know that to the extent either of them are “names,” Linklater is much bigger than Mike White. But for a writer to think that way… to not even see it, because of the director…
Dude, one day you might sell a script and Jared Hess may be hired to direct. Think what a pickle you’ll be in then! You won’t be able to see your own movie!
Kevin,
“Two words: Joel Schumacher
Care to add up the box receipts vs. the budget for his last 7 movies?
Phantom of the Opera Veronica Guerin Phone Booth Bad Company Tigerland Flawless 8MM
But studios still invest money in him based on his name.
Just like Uwe Boll.
Or Paul Anderson…or even PT Anderson.”
What does that even mean? Do you really believe studios invest in Schumaker films because his name attracts an audience? That’s lunatic.
For better or worse, most of those guys continue to get financed because they have enough of a track record of success that some people perceive it as a good risk. But what they’re risking is that these directors will deliver a commercial film, not that an audience will flock to see a movie with Joel Schumacher’s name on it. If anything, by listing his recent string of flops, you’ve proven my point.
Schumacher plus big star in the latest in a giant franchise - hit. Schumacher with no name cast directing shitty musical - flop.
These directors are not stars. Their names do not draw audiences.
If you think Uwe Boll keeps working because he has a large and devoted audience who perceive him as a draw, you’re out of your mind. You truly are. He keeps working because he has German financing that allows him to lure mid-level names into his movies, ensuring decent foreign sales. What little recognition he has is strictly among this very limited set of film buffs, for whom he’s a punchline, his generation’s Ed Wood. Statistically speaking, there’s no such thing as an Uwe Boll fan.
“These directors are not stars. Their names do not draw audiences.”
Too true. That’s why after a big hit that director’s next film will be advertised as “from the director of ‘director’s last big hit’” and not with the director’s name. Studios don’t give a fuck to put some name above the title. Directors negotiate for the possesive credit themselves. Which b.t.w can result in weird titles…Maybe it’s just me but there is a strange irony in titles like: “John Carpenter’s Escape from L.A.”
Cbrown:
“By the way, you display a certain ignorance (or, more likely, disingenuousness) by talking about “box office receipts.” As a professional you ought to know that box office is a loss leader in more than 90% of cases.”
Talking about box office receipts is a shorthand way of talking about profit. Of course it’s not entirely accurate when you factor in the cut the theatre exhibitors get and the marketing costs but it’s still pretty standard to talk about a movie in box office receipts. But uh…thanks, anyway.
“Even if their movies tank at the box office there is a sane economic rationale to working with these guys.”
What? If you’re looking for a sane economic rationale as to why studios work with directors that consistently lose money you’re in the wrong business.
Fact is, David Cronenberg and PT Anderson cater to a specific audience. Yes, they do not have mass appeal but there people who will see their movies just by hearing the words, “PT” and “Anderson”.
“Statistically speaking, there’s no such thing as an Uwe Boll fan.”
Well…you got me there. Perhaps I should have used Kurt Wimmer as an example. He has an insane fan base that will swear up and down that he is the next coming of Christ.
Ofcourse…they’re wrong but to each his own.
“Yes, they do not have mass appeal but there people who will see their movies just by hearing the words, “PT” and “Anderson”.”
Their names are Ernie, Maya and Pearl.
I posted a couple days ago but for some reason it never showed up. Oh well. No harm done. It was just a joke-y little post complimenting the humor of Josh AND Ruairi, to make it clear I do not pick sides in the ongoing Artful Writer wars. I’m neutral, and I love all.
CBrown:
My main point (if indeed I have one, I have to go back and check) is that a director’s vision of a movie is important. And if Hess’ vision of the world makes Napoleon Dynamite a good movie, then unless the previews really wow me (and Nacho Libre did not), I’m not going to spend the money on his vision again.
Conversely, if I could pre-order tickets to the next David O. Russell or Noah Baumbach movie, I would, concept unseen.
But I assumed Superman Returns was going to be great because I loved Usual Suspects and the first two X-Men movies so what the heck do I know…
Kevin,
“What? If you’re looking for a sane economic rationale as to why studios work with directors that consistently lose money you’re in the wrong business.”
If you think that studios make movies for any reason other than to make money (or increase their prestige) then you are high. If they’re working with a director who has consistently lost money, it must be for one of three reasons:
Prestige. (They have to live and socialize in this town.) Joel Schumacher, Uwe Boll, Paul WS Anderson need not apply. I’m talking Coens, Scorsese, Altman, Woody Allen. (Well what do I know, maybe working with Schumacher does accord prestige in Hollywood). Still, if these types of guys consistently lose money they start to have real trouble. Look at Oliver Stone (recent NYT article; he admits having trouble raising money for anything.) Look at Spike Lee. Read The Big Picture if you haven’t already.
They think the director doesn’t matter too much; they think his track record is not predictive of future events. If this is true, it would mean — wowie! The studios don’t think that the name of a director is the end-all, be-all of movie profits!!
His movies didn’t actually lose money (when foreign, DVD rentals and sales, etc. are factored in), and so he actually has a good track record.
Whether accurate in any particular case or not, any of these three could be part of a sane economic rationale.
But studios are in it for the money. If you don’t grasp that elementary point, then as Director (God Among Men) you are starting to believe the hype.
“Fact is, David Cronenberg and PT Anderson cater to a specific audience. Yes, they do not have mass appeal but there people who will see their movies just by hearing the words, “PT” and “Anderson”.”
Not a good argument. Obviously these guys draw in a number of people. So do movies about snowy white owls— they bring in snowy white owl lovers. I’m sure Elisha Cook, Jr., drew in a certain number of moviegoers for every single movie he performed in. (I would have been one of them.) The question is not whether someone draws in X number of people; the question is whether, after counting those people and then adding everybody and everything else, the movie creates a favorable return on investment. Will PT bring in enough people (based on his name) to turn a flop into a hit? Is there a chance PT maybe make a great movie that will generate word of mouth and be the surprise hit of the winter? Those two are totally, completely different things.
Studios are not 501(c)(3)s. They’re not in the business of catering to fans of particular directors. They are in the business of making money, and if they don’t think they can make money on a movie (in the long run or short) they will not make it. End of story.
cbrown
“But studios still invest money in him based on his name.”
for fear of the lunacy spreading to my brain too, I’ll play devils advocate hear and suggest Kevin meant not just the name on the poster, but what goes with it, reputation, quality of character, ability to make stuff on time and on budget, deep throating skills and a really good grip.
basically he was confusing the terms, but I think he has a valid point in there somewhere. Maybe it could have done with a second draft before posting it…
for example, if I was to come out and say you are all a bunch of assjuice gargling shiteaters who have no talent and I hope you all die while being forced to eat shit and
…pressed send accidentally before I was finished, then I might wish I’d had a chance to go over what I’d just posted and… refine it a little. We don’t always say exactly what we mean first time.
2nd draft revision:
“for example, if I was to come out and say you guys are swell. Group hug. You know what, there’s a whole lotta love in this room.”
much more betterer.
My - hopefully - last word on the subject of directors and their name value. I was heavily involved during the discussions when David was pursuing the AHOV assignment. There were many factors involved in the decision to give him the job, but I can assure you that the draw of his name never once came up.
Again - let me be crystal clear, because I’m one of those people who goes to see anything the man directs - I am not knocking him or any of the other directors we’re discussing. I am simply trying to disabuse some folks here of the notion that any but a small handfull of directors mean anything, in terms of name branding.
God love the Coen Brothers. I believe that at their best, they are among the greatest filmmakers of all time, and I’ll go see anything they do. But their movies don’t get made because they’re stars. Their movies get made because they are perceived as being capable of delivering the goods.
Their name is valuable in terms of being a known commodity IN THE BUSINESS, but in terms of having any marquee value - no. They don’t have any. Neither does Cronenberg, or PT Anderson, or most of the people whose names are being batted around. Kevin confuses having an active an excitable fan base with having name value. Hell, most people that you perceive to be movie stars don’t get a movie made, so forget about directors. Kurt Wimmer may have fans, but his name is worth exactly zero in terms of getting a movie made.
You could have used any name you wanted, Kevin, but unless it’s Spielberg, Lucas, Cameron and….. Christ, that may be it… the point remains. Directors do not put asses in seats.
All I’m talking about is an excitable fan base. And that does count. And they do put asses in seats, relative to their cost and the cost of their movies.
This is not disputable. I’ve sat with a financier and had him show me, with charts, why any film by Gregg Araki (ANY FILM) is worth financing at a certain cost.
The answer? His name puts asses in seats. A certain, reliable number of asses.
I don’t share anything in common with those asses, but hey, bankable’s bankable.
…except… maybe the ones you listed. And Tarantino. And Hitchcock. And Woody Allen, (up to a point. Nobody goes to see his films any more, but everyone in the western Hemisphere recognises the guy) And Scorcese. And M. Night Shymalan.
And Stanley “Fucking” Kubrick.
You might argue that even the presence of Tom Cruise didn’t make Eye’s Wide Shut a success so how can you say he’s any kind of a guarantee of box office success. Obviously it’s no guarantee but it HELPS. it doesn’t put 150million bucks worth of asses in seats, but it helps put a certain amount of that. Fan bases aren’t the general public, but they HELP.
Why do you think they put “Quentin Tarantino presents” on the trailers and posters of movies he didn’t even direct? WHY? WHY? ANSWER ME WHY JOSH! was it for health reasons? or a random freak accident that just happened occur multiple times over multiple films he didn’t direct? Was it because they felt sorry for him? Just for the sheer laugh of it all? because they want to be his special friend?
You think “Quentin Tarantino presents” had nothing to do with HERO opening at number 1 in the US box office?
You think anyone would have bothered to see Kill Bill/volume 2 if Quentin Tarantino hadn’t directed it?
If he is not a name brand, than I gotta find the portal back to the universe I’m from. Seriously, what the fuck is going on? Help! My eyes are upside down!
Stanley “Fucking” Kubrick is still dead.
Craig — I’d say that the “excitable fan base” for directors only applies to smaller movies, Araki being a good example. For mainstream movies, I think Josh is correct that there’s only a tiny handful of directors whose name has any impact on box office.
Beyond that handful, the average moviegoer going to a mainstream release doesn’t give a crap who directed. Can we all agree on that?
Tom:
Yes, that sounds right. Oddly, Olson’s been using strange examples. The Coen Brothers’ name sells tickets. So does Cronenberg’s, IMO.
Beyond Spielberg, Scorsese, Eastwood, Ron Howard, Tarantino, Rodriguez…I don’t know if any other director has a mass-appeal brand name.
“Yes, that sounds right. Oddly, Olson’s been using strange examples. The Coen Brothers’ name sells tickets. So does Cronenberg’s, IMO.”
Yes. But not enough to finance anything but a small indie film. There’s a reason all those guys still have to work their asses off to get a movie made and Spielberg and Lucas don’t.
“Beyond Spielberg, Scorsese, Eastwood, Ron Howard, Tarantino, Rodriguez…I don’t know if any other director has a mass-appeal brand name.”
Yeah, those would pretty much be the other guys. Night, maybe, but that seems to be ending as we speak.
Mel Gibson, possibly. And every Kevin Smith movie makes about thirty mil. That’s not mass appeal, but it’s enough to get a halfway decent budget.
From the always accurate imdb.com:
Oh Brother where art thou: budget $26,000,000 (estimated) The Man Who Wasn’t There: Budget: $20,000,000 (estimated) Intolerable cruelty: budget $60,000,000 (estimated) The Ladykillers: budget $35,000,000 (estimated)
These sound like low budget indie films to you? a black and white low budget indie film that cost 20 million dollars to make…? The Coen brothers are not indie filmmakers. But then you aren’t REALLY saying they are, are you? it just seems that way because their films have “quirky” characters. Quirky = indie, right? even with 60 million dollars of studio financing.
But I take your point. It’s not exactly Troy. And To The White Sea did collapse for budgetary reasons. So yeah, they don’t always get their way.
But then again, was pretty surprised to hear Spielberg whinge recently about not getting his way, to direct Memoirs of a Geisha… in japanese. Hell if Mel Gibson can shoot in Latin and Aramaic right…?
Ruairi,
“Oh Brother where art thou: budget $26,000,000 (estimated) The Man Who Wasn’t There: Budget: $20,000,000 (estimated) Intolerable cruelty: budget $60,000,000 (estimated) The Ladykillers: budget $35,000,000 (estimated)
These sound like low budget indie films to you? a black and white low budget indie film that cost 20 million dollars to make…? The Coen brothers are not indie filmmakers. But then you aren’t REALLY saying they are, are you? it just seems that way because their films have “quirky” characters. Quirky = indie, right? even with 60 million dollars of studio financing.”
Ay yi yi. Are you serious? Do you have ANY idea how film financing works? The logic at work here is so bent, I almost feel like I’m talking to Kevin.
Three movies - Mission: Impossible, The Perfect Storm, and Batman Begins. All huge budgeted movies. You know what they have in common? The same crafts service guy, Bilbo Wynorski. Therefor, we must conclude that it is Bilbo whose name gets that money.
Dude, that is the EXACT same logic you’re using.
Here’s how these films DIDN’T get financed - because the Coen Brothers name is worth many millions at the box office. Here’s how they DID get financed - because George Clooney, Billy Bob Thornton, Catherine Zeta Jones and Tom Hanks ARE worth many millions at the box office.
The Coen Brothers alone, without those stars, do not get budgets that even remotely resemble those. Clooney, Thornton, and Hanks, however, get those budgets - and, often, much larger - without the Coen Brothers.
Put it this way, and then I’m gonna have to assume you’re playing dumb - The Coen Brothers walk in the door with you attached as an actor, they get about $800 grand. Maybe a million if someone’s in a good mood. Tom Hanks walks in the door with YOU attached to direct, he gets many, many millions of dollars.
See how it works?
What the Coens do is attract the actors whose names put asses in seats. What they do not do is put enough asses in seats themselves to justify those budgets, no matter how you may have convinced yourself otherwise.
PS: White Sea collapsed because Brad Pitt left the project, and, thus, the studio couldn’t justify the budget anymore. Had the Coens left and Pitt stayed on and brought, say, Craig on to direct, the film would have been made at the same budget.
However, had they brought on Bilbo Winorski, the budget would have doubled, because that motherfucker does things with an Oreo cookie you would not BELIEVE.
Josh. Good lord. Nobody has ever, in the history of the world, sold a movie as “from the craft services specialist of Batman Begins.” People do sell movies as “from the creators of Fargo and The Big Lebowski” Because that actually means something, at least in the universe I’m from.
As I said; “But I take your point. It’s not exactly Troy”…. Obviously I’m not saying the directors name is the ONLY factor or even necessarily the main one involved OBVIOUSLY - of course not, but I’m saying it is a OBVIOUSLY contribitary factor or they wouldn’t use it in the trailers, posters and press to publicise the films. Not just for the Coen brothers, the same as Tarantino’s name attached to a movie he had almost nothing to do with is a contribitary factor to possible success. Otherwise why would they put this crap on the posters? Why Josh why?
Btw, are you certain that To the white sea collapsed because Brad Pitt left, or Brad Pitt left because it collapsed…? (that’s what I heard, but hey, what do I know?)
Anyway, I concede to the superior decibel level of your insults, and look forward to a time once again when I have more oscar nominations than you, so we are on equal status footing and you can’t shout me down. Also, I have the biggest willy. Nya na na nya nya.
is this argument over now or what? I win, right?
I feel it’s my fault we are so off topic, so apologies. If anything good has come out of these discussions, I won’t be taking the fucking film by credit. Happy now? fuckers.
Ruari,
I concede to the impenetrable density of your conviction. Once again, opinions trump facts.
Happy Indie Day.
(PS: If it makes you feel better, I wish I lived in your world. It’s much sweeter than this one.)
Joshy:
I’m not sure how 4th of July pranks work but if it’s anything like April Fools I’m positive you’re playing one right now.
Billy Bob Thornton’s name means millions at the box office?
Holy Cow…I doubt even you believe the fallacy of that statement so it must have been a joke.
Because I know that you know that there’s about a handful of actors that actually greenlight a movie. Billy Bob Thornton ain’t one of them. Neither is Catherine Zeta Jones. C’mon man, your logic is always so quirkily absolute it feels like I’m talking to Pat Robertson. Funnily enough, most zealots don’t know they’re zealots. You, my furry friend, are a zealot.
If Billy Bob Thornton walks into a door with no director attached he won’t even get 800 grand. At best, they’ll validate his parking. Most movies are a COMBINATION of elements. Robert DeNiro is a great, great actor. But he can’t greenlight a movie.
Yes, most directors are NOT star directors. PT Anderson won’t get you 100 million at the box office. He probably won’t even get you 50. But he will get a certain percentage if he’s making the movie that audiences expect him to make
(Much like actors. Jim Carrey bouncing off the walls is one thing. Jim Carrey playing an alleged communist screenwriter with amnesia is another.)
By no means will it be anything close to a blockbuster and I know you think that most people wouldn’t recognize Spielberg (that one still gives me the shits) but audiences are a bit more market savvy than you think…or care to admit…or whatever.
But guess what?
There are also certain SCREENWRITERS that will put a percentage of asses in their collective seats. Charlie Kaufman is one of them.
Oh, and here’s another wonderful Josh Olson quote that is slowly giving me diarreha:
“Once again, opinions trump facts.”
Yeah…everything you say is a fact rather than an opposing opinion.
You can’t be…!
Oh, I forgot, it’s the 4th of July pranks. Good one, Josh.
I feel Ruari has a valid point when he asks (to paraphrase) “why would anyone slap Tarantino’s name on a poster if they didn’t feel it put asses on seats?”
And I notice Josh is pointedly ignoring that question (even if Ruari asked him twice) because he cannot answer the way he wants to.
But then I have noticed Josh does that consistently. He ignores any part of a question which casts legitimate doubts on his theories, selects just the bits he knows (or feels) he can attack and attacks them vehemently.
Well, I suppose it’s one way of trying to win an argument.
A friendly reminder…
I hate deleting comments (particularly long ones, like the one I just dusted). I don’t like disintegrating your opinions any more than you guys ilke it, so don’t ruin a perfectly good post with ad hominems or a generally uncivil tone.
And now, back to the show.
A lot of people liked American Beauty.
A lot of see “From The director of American Beauty” on a tv ad.
A lot of people will go and see the new movie he has directed, because they liked his last film. You’ll note I am leaving room to weasel out here - “A lot” is not an absolute.
Even if 90% of the people that liked American Beauty don’t even know his name. Saying this other movie is by the guy wot made American Beauty is enough (assuming the trailer isn’t complete crap) to make SOME people go and see his new movie, because of the promise of quality. AT least enough that it’s worth mentioning the director in the promotional material. As opposed to the fucking caterer. That in itself gives Sam Mendes mass brand appeal. That’s why the name is used in advertising. Because it helps sell tickets. (and perpetuates the notion that the director “makes” the movie. He is the autuuuueeeeeerrrrrrrrrr.)
My apologies Craig, too far… I’ve deleted the more over the top things, so I hope it comes under your tolerance threshold. Just a note that if some of my invective seems a little coarse, no (permanent) harm intended :)
“I concede to the impenetrable density of your conviction. Once again, opinions trump facts.”
Dude, that’s not conceding. I at least had the good sense to shift the goalposts of my argument after conceding. Just because I didn’t happen to mention that having famous actors attached can help secure finance doesn’t mean it isn’t screamingly obvious to me, and I would have hoped, to you, and to everyone else. It’s irritating that you have to twist my words to argue against them. Do I have to issue a standard set of disclaimers with every single thing I say to cover all bases? Just because I say a certain director is bankable doesn’t mean I think Stephen spielberg could sell videos of himself jerking off on ebay and it would sell by the bucketload. Thought actually, come to think of it, he probably could. Not that I’d buy it or anything. Err… Nothing to see here folks, moving along…
Anyway, we are arguing semantics, not facts. You have stated on more than one occasion that you are arguing facts, not opinion. So tell you what, I’ll make it easy for you - show me the error of my ways. Point out the FACTS I’ve stated that are incorrect. Can you do that for me? And ummm… jokes don’t count. Oh yeah, you’ve already said you can’t tell when I’m joking… that makes sense now. You are trying to argue factually, against a joke.
Look dude, I accept what you’ve said - people tend to overestimate the importance of the director, and their impact and all that stuff. I just think you are going too far the other way.
Since you seem to stand by every single thing you say, and are incapable of conceding even that you might not have expressed what you mean perfectly, thus allowing room for misinterpretation (as opposed to us all being a bunch of idiots who just don’t get it), I’m gonna have a little fun here with some of your facts. To save time, and effort, I’m gonna be lazy and just put a couple of ‘em head to head.
“Directors do not put asses in seats” (Josh)
“Beyond Spielberg, Scorsese, Eastwood, Ron Howard, Tarantino, Rodriguez…I don’t know if any other director has a mass-appeal brand name” (Craig) ”Yeah, those would pretty much be the other guys. Night, maybe, but that seems to be ending as we speak. (Josh)
“People go and see Spielberg movies” (me, out of context, but rest assured, the rest was equally brilliant) “Which is why I said he’s one of the genuine name brand directors” (josh)
Sooooooo…. tell me Josh, which set of “facts” are you sticking to today? Do they have mass appeal brand names or not? Don’t directors that HAVE mass brand appeal… put asses in seats?
Can you admit, maybe, that sometimes, some directors do put some asses in some seats? That would make at least one of your statements… wrong. Ok, if you can’t admit you were wrong, well at least admit that the blanket statement “Directors do not put asses in seats” is very easily open to misinterpretation. It’s an absolute. No room for manuevre. Will you stand by that statement to the grave? Or will you just cover your eyes and ears every time you see or hear “from the director of American Beauty” on a tv ad or a poster until your dying day?
Btw Josh, you should have seen what I edited out. It was classy stuff.
Ruairi — this is killing the thread. For one, by quoting Josh out of context, you’ve made a straw-man argument. What he said:
“but unless it’s Spielberg, Lucas, Cameron and….. Christ, that may be it… the point remains. Directors do not put asses in seats.”
You cut all but the last sentence, removing the qualifier, thus changing his meaning. You’re arguing a point he didn’t make. Ease up, ‘kay?
Kevin,
“Billy Bob Thornton’s name means millions at the box office?”
Billy Bob Thornton will guarantee you a reasonable amount of financing. I don’t know what your experience is, but you need to know there are actual lists, and financiers and distributors work off of them. They do not work off these “feelings” that people like you and Ruairi have. They don’t give a crap about feelings. They give a crap about these lists. And whether or not it strikes you as bizarre, the fact remains that Billy Bob gets movies made. Not fifty or hundred million dollar movies, but he’ll get you at least ten times the figure you’ve cited, at least he did as of last week. That’s a fact. If you move in the world of film financing, you can easily verify that. If you don’t, then you can scream all you want that your feelings outweigh these facts, but you’ll be wrong.
As usual.
Again, I find myself arguing with people who have vigorous and passionate feelings about these subjects, but are utterly unaware of certain realities. I get that some of these realities are harsh and fuck with your sense of how things ought to be. I’ve been there. But it won’t change the facts.
Mariano - Yes, I’d put Tarantino in the category of directors whose names mean something at the box office. How on earth does that change the fact that most directors - including a great many relatively famous ones - don’t?
This argument is absurd. The skygod worshipers are wailing and gnashing their teeth that reality conflicts with their faith. When you kids have dealt with real financiers, and gotten your hands on these lists, let’s talk about it again. But until then, stop being so damn silly.
Lastly, Ruairi,
When Road to Perdition came out, it did, indeed, say “from the director of American Beauty” on the copy. That’s because if it said “From director Sam Mendes,” nobody would have known who the fuck they were talking about. You’ll notice it didn’t say, “from the star of Forrest Gump.” It just said “Tom Hanks.”
Serious question, guys - why does this stuff upset you so much? Why is it so much more important to defend an absurd and ignorant position than it is to acknowledge the truth about how movies get financed?
As a studio head, I get into business with the Coens because they attract name actors. But I get into business with Clooney because his name means box office dollars. It’s beyond idiotic that you think that I’m somehow denigrating the Coens by saying that.
Kevin,
“Billy Bob Thornton’s name means millions at the box office?”
Billy Bob Thornton will guarantee you a reasonable amount of financing. I don’t know what your experience is, but you need to know there are actual lists, and financiers and distributors work off of them. They do not work off these “feelings” that people like you and Ruairi have. They don’t give a crap about feelings. They give a crap about these lists. And whether or not it strikes you as bizarre, the fact remains that Billy Bob gets movies made. Not fifty or hundred million dollar movies, but he’ll get you at least ten times the figure you’ve cited, at least he did as of last week. That’s a fact. If you move in the world of film financing, you can easily verify that. If you don’t, then you can scream all you want that your feelings outweigh these facts, but you’ll be wrong.
As usual.
Again, I find myself arguing with people who have vigorous and passionate feelings about these subjects, but are utterly unaware of certain realities. I get that some of these realities are harsh and fuck with your sense of how things ought to be. I’ve been there. But it won’t change the facts.
Mariano - Yes, I’d put Tarantino in the category of directors whose names mean something at the box office. How on earth does that change the fact that most directors - including a great many relatively famous ones - don’t?
This argument is absurd. The skygod worshipers are wailing and gnashing their teeth that reality conflicts with their faith. When you kids have dealt with real financiers, and gotten your hands on these lists, let’s talk about it again. But until then, stop being so damn silly.
Lastly, Ruairi,
When Road to Perdition came out, it did, indeed, say “from the director of American Beauty” on the copy. That’s because if it said “From director Sam Mendes,” nobody would have known who the fuck they were talking about. You’ll notice it didn’t say, “from the star of Forrest Gump.” It just said “Tom Hanks.”
Serious question, guys - why does this stuff upset you so much? Why is it so much more important to defend an absurd and ignorant position than it is to acknowledge the truth about how movies get financed?
As a studio head, I get into business with the Coens because they attract name actors. But I get into business with Clooney because his name means box office dollars. It’s beyond idiotic that you think that I’m somehow denigrating the Coens by saying that.
Josh:
“I don’t know what your experience is, but you need to know there are actual lists, and financiers and distributors work off of them.”
Well, considering that every single film that I’ve produced, including the one I just directed has been independently financed and then sold to distributors—so yeah, I’m pretty versed on who will get you what. But immature credit whoring aside, you’re missing the point. I can’t speak for Ruairi but all I’ve been saying all along is that putting absolutes like “what attracts an audience to see a film” is totally retarded.
“As a studio head, I get into business with the Coens because they attract name actors. But I get into business with Clooney because his name means box office dollars.”
That’s great.
As a studio head I get into business with the Coens because I want to know what Frances McDormand’s fingers smell like. My point? Every studio and every studio head is different. Yes, they ALL want to make money. You shouldn’t be a studio head if you don’t. But sometimes their reasons and methods are different. To think otherwise is ridiculous.
A man without objectivity is a man without reason.
Directors can put asses into seats. Most will not. Saying that a film was Directed by Len Wiseman will probably not put asses into seats. As a director, he doesn’t have a following or a distinctive feel to his films that make him stand out to an audience. But saying a film is Directed by Spike Jonze will put asses into seats. He absolutely does have a following and when audiences here his name they think that more than likely they’re going to get something different and fresh (whether that be true or not).
Producers can put asses into seats. When you hear the words, “From Producer Jerry Bruckheimer” (most of the time they don’t use his last movie, they use his NAME), it invokes a certain expectation for the film.
The same can be said for Screenwriter Charlie Kaufman.
We know the same is true for Actors.
Tom, nobody is stopping you talk about whatever you want to.
“You cut all but the last sentence, removing the qualifier, thus changing his meaning. You’re arguing a point he didn’t make. Ease up, ‘kay?”
I could have used those two sentences back to back and it wouldn’t have weakened my point at all. It’s not a qualifier - the two sentences directly contradict each other. It’s like saying “The matrix, Die Hard, Blade, Saving Private Ryan were very successful, violent films. But the point remains. Violence doesn’t sell tickets.”
Ordinarily I wouldn’t use such an absurd statement as “violence doesn’t sell tickets” to illustrate any point I want taken seriously, but it was said to me by a person of relative importance in the movie distribution arena, with a straight face. And met with a vacant expression when I retorted with those examples. Seriously, I shit you not.
That’s absolutely true, and doesn’t conflict with anything I’ve said. Tom Hanks is incontrovertably a bigger draw than whathisname mendes. Beyond a shadow of a doubt. We are in full and complete agreement. I don’t think a single word I’ve said contradicts this. I agree with you wholeheartedly. In fact, I think this argument is ending, with me agreeing with you. It’s taking a while, but we’re finally there. But it’s been an incredible journey, as they they on EPK’s. So to recap: There is a heirarchy of importance when it comes to Box office draw, and it starts, with movie stars, advertising money spent, interesting ideas, wind vectors, alignment of the planets, random chance, and a 1.276% (precisely) dash of various factors, including but not limited to: name directors, the fight choreographer from the Matrix, fart jokes, and quantity of explosions/tits onscreen. Whatever helps sell the picture. And ninjas. Ninjas are kewl.
Josh, believe it or not, I’m not taking this as seriously as it may seem, and I absolutely have the utmost respect for you, and your opinions, as well as your educated take on the facts. And I’m not pretending to be talking from anything other than my own point of view either, but I think it’s a valid, and (mostly) reasonable point of view on things. Also if I used ad hominem attacks (that post I edited wasn’t exactly ad hominem, it just got kind of wierd and surreal and probably offensive, but only in the jokes) It may not seem like it sometimes because I’m a stubborn fucker too, but I actually think we disagree a lot less than it might seem on most of these things. It’s just a disagreement on how the arguments are phrased. I basically just take issue with absolutes that are not supported by the facts, even if they are not INTENDED as absolutes. They just read that way. It would be nice if you would admit that. But that’s ok, I can live with that, Just in case you think there are any hard feelings, there really really aren’t, and I wish you the best and hope your next film is great too. I’ve been enjoying the hell out of this. Even if I am informed that I’m killing the thread, though I think the thread had been more or less winding down before it turned into this…
Anyway, aren’t we forgetting the set of asses directors definitely DO put on seats? The casting couch, baybee!
Kevin,
“Well, considering that every single film that I’ve produced, including the one I just directed has been independently financed and then sold to distributors—so yeah, I’m pretty versed on who will get you what”
You say that….. then you say that Billy Bob Thornton will get you an 8 hundred thousand dollar budget.
“all I’ve been saying all along is that putting absolutes like “what attracts an audience to see a film” is totally retarded.”
No, you haven’t. You’ve been arguing against a specific point that I made. I stated that most of the people we here consider “name” directors are not box office draws. That’s measurable and demonstrable.
Notice something, Kevin - you never see me get into qualitative, subjective arguments here. We never argue over whether or not Star Wars is any good. Go back and re-read the exchange that started this. I made a comment correcting a factual misconception, and the fact that that correction upset the peanut gallery led to the rest.
By the way, if a studio head is getting into the business with ANYONE because he wants to smell their wife’s fingers, he’s going to lose his job. That you have been in the business this long and don’t understand the basic economics of how real movies get financed is actually kind of surprising.
Ruairi,
“I basically just take issue with absolutes that are not supported by the facts, even if they are not INTENDED as absolutes. “
Sorry, but it’s a fact that most of the people we here think of as name brand directors do not guarantee enough of an audience to justify financing a studio feature, even a low budget one.
There’s three reasons I’m arguing this point so vigorously -
First and foremost, I’m interested in providing anyone who reads this crap with the realities of this business, and I’m in a better position than some people to know a few things. Obviously, there are people here who are in a better position than I am to know things. Life works that way. I can live with that even if, say, Kevin can’t.
Second, at the core of this discussion is the age-old “director as skygod” problem. I’d love to see that one die in my lifetime, and if it doesn’t, I’ll settle for fucking WRITERS to at least stop buying into it. Fucking quislings.
Third, I’m just the kind of guy who gets pissed off when I make an impassive, well intentioned attempt to provide information, then get jumped on by people who don’t actually know what the fuck they’re talking about.
“Third, I’m just the kind of guy who gets pissed off when I make an impassive, well intentioned attempt to provide information, then get jumped on by people who don’t actually know what the fuck they’re talking about.”
You say that…and then you say that Spielberg isn’t a household face.
“Second, at the core of this discussion is the age-old “director as skygod” problem.”
Hmmm. So when I say that “most directors can’t put asses in seats”, that’s me saying that the director is a skygod. Oooookay.
Look, I get your whole schtick here but I’m actually really surprised in your set of Josh Olson Absolutes. Absolute Thinking in the entertainment business should be left to John Edwards and Tony Robbins. That’s hucksterism. Maybe it’s well intentioned but it’s still comes off as damn silly.
“By the way, if a studio head is getting into the business with ANYONE because he wants to smell their wife’s fingers, he’s going to lose his job.”
Really? Cool, I wasn’t sure about that one. I’ll concede. If a studio head goes into business with someone and secretly wants to smell their wife’s fingers, he probably will lose his job.
Thanks!
FACTS
JOSH: “Sorry, but it’s a fact that most of the people we here think of as name brand directors do not guarantee enough of an audience to justify financing a studio feature, even a low budget one.”
CRAIG: “This is not disputable. I’ve sat with a financier and had him show me, with charts, why any film by Gregg Araki (ANY FILM) is worth financing at a certain cost.”
So…then one of you guys are lying I guess?
“So…then one of you guys are lying I guess?”
Actually, it was me! Muahhahahahah. Once again, my true colours are revealed. I am here to spread deception and ignorance, sent by my dark lord on high, the director! Fools! You will never change the true order of things! You will bow down before your dark Lord and Master! Blahahahahahaha!
Kevin,
“JOSH: “Sorry, but it’s a fact that most of the people we here think of as name brand directors do not guarantee enough of an audience to justify financing a studio feature, even a low budget one.”
CRAIG: “This is not disputable. I’ve sat with a financier and had him show me, with charts, why any film by Gregg Araki (ANY FILM) is worth financing at a certain cost.”
So…then one of you guys are lying I guess?”
Name one studio film directed by Greg Araki.
“You say that…and then you say that Spielberg isn’t a household face.”
FACE. Not name. FACE. Jesus.
Most people don’t give a fuck. Sorry if that hurts. They go to movies a couple times a year. Spielberg’s NAME means something. Absolutely, no question. But his face? More people know Spike Lee and Quentin Tarantino to look at. You know why? Because they’re IN movies. They have presence in FRONT of the camera.
Guys:
Just dial it down a touch. There’s some substance in this discussion (albeit a little circular at this point), but it’s really getting unnecessarily nasty. None of you are stupid or ignorant or malicious, so let’s cease any implications to the contrary.
Josh:
“Name one studio film directed by Greg Araki.”
I can’t name one. I’m not sure if one even exists. But we’re talking about financing not studio films.
“Most people don’t give a fuck. Sorry if that hurts. They go to movies a couple times a year.”
Most people go to movies a couple times a year?! Josh…I can’t…wait..I don’t…oooo boy. This may be the most flippant thing you’ve ever said.
Ever.
“FACE. Not name. FACE. Jesus.”
Josh, Spielberg could be picked out with 100% accuracy at a Jewish Beard Convention by a group of 11 year old Aborigines.
Kevin,
“I can’t name one. I’m not sure if one even exists. But we’re talking about financing not studio films.”
This is the statement we’re discussing:
JOSH: “Sorry, but it’s a fact that most of the people we here think of as name brand directors do not guarantee enough of an audience to justify financing a studio feature, even a low budget one.”
Greg Araki can get very, very small films financed off his name. So can David Cronenberg and a host of others. Very small, indie films. I’ve never said otherwise. Pick a point, stick with it.
Or better yet, don’t.
Oh Dear God.
It’s amazing. No, you’re amazing. I’ve never seen anything like this.
If you ran for President I would vote for you.
If we are specifically talking only about studio film financing, (or we are now anyway) was that clear? Kevin says we are talking about financing, not studio films. I guess I thought so too. I think it was a fair assumption to make, since I assumed we were talking about movie financing in general, including, but not limited to, Studio films. Since both indie and studio movies came up in the discussion, (Josh you yourself brought up the indie word here) I assumed they were both fair game, and covered by all absolute statements, with or without qualifiers. “Directors do not put asses in seats” makes no sense if you talk about Gaspar Noe, Park Chan Wook, Takashi Miike, Beat Takashi, Abbas Kiarostami, The Brothers Quay, and whoever else that has a smaller, dedicated market and following of people who see the films because they are fans of the filmmakers. As the market share decreases, I think it’s fair to say the percentage of people who go see these films based on the directors name probably increases in proportion.
I would hazard a guess that 90% of the people that went to see Sympathy for Lady Vengeance went to see it because they saw one or more of Park Chan Wook’s previous films, and somewhere in the region of nigh on 100% of the people that bought it on dvd know the name of the director. In the same way I can’t imagine many people buying 2001 and not knowing it’s a Stanley Kubrick film. Or a film directed by Stanley Kubrick. Or whatever. You know what I mean. The things you are saying Josh fall apart if we are talking about movies as a whole. But in Hollywood, I suppose you are 95% right, 95% of the time. Give or take. But not always.
United 93 didn’t have a single name actor, and that was a reasonable success wasn’t it? For the subject matter. I think specifically Greengrass’ track record for dealing with real life subject matter tactfully was a major draw in the financing of that film. In fact, apart from the already compelling subject matter, I’d say his name was pretty much the ONLY thing they had to sell. That’s what the electrical impulses travelling from my retina to my brain tell me after a small amount of processing, through my personal biases, etc.
Ever hear of Matthew Barney? He makes those “Cremaster cycle” movies. He makes movies with budgets well in excess of a million dollars, for a dvd home video market of exactly TEN.
He funds each new film by the following method. 1) he makes movie, for whatever money he can. He then makes ONLY 10 copies of each film on dvd. These are then sold to art collectors, who have a very good incentive to not make bootlegs, since it will devalue their personal copy. He then uses the money from these sales to make his next film. Each film he makes, the demand for these copies, and therefore the price, goes up. He’s now upwards of a million dollars for the budget of his films, featuring no actors I ever heard of. It’s a pretty unique way to fund films, and it’s exactly the opposite of the facts you were stating. But obviously it’s such a minority it barely comes into the equation. And obviously it requires no studio backing to work this way.
My girlfriend says there are three different conversations going on here and that you’re not talking to each other - yeh she is a psych. major, me just a meezly writer scratching it out in a closet size loft here in FL. We’re calling on that chai tea chick to confirm Delia’s thought. Me, I’m going with;
“Actually, it was me! Muahhahahahah” Ruairi, u r gr8.
“Pick a point, stick with it. Or better yet, don’t.” Josh, thx.
Ruairi (and Kevin),
“I guess I thought so too. I think it was a fair assumption to make, since I assumed we were talking about movie financing in general, including, but not limited to, Studio films.”
Exactly, you ASSUMED. The statement that triggered this little dance between yourself, Kevin and Josh mentioned studio films. Not indies. Josh brought up indies in context to demonstrate his point that what you are saying does NOT apply to, drumroll, studio films. See where this is going?
Yourself and Kevin keep jumping the gun, reading meaning into statements that was never there, instead of actually, second drumroll, READING the statements.
The whole “directors don’t put asses into seats” debate is a prime example. Here’s the actual first time mention of it:
Olson: “With amazingly few exceptions, directors do not put asses in seats.”
Read it?
See my point?
And so once again a potentially constructive thread has turned into OLSON VERSUS THE SKYGOD DECIPLES IN THE PEANUTS GALLERY.
Great title.
Not a great debate.
Yeah, I think Johnny’s right. This discussion is no longer productive, guys. I’m shuttin’ her down. They’ll be another one along soon enough…