Q: Whose Fault Is It When The Story Of The Movie Is Bad?
A: Failure Is An Orphan.
The emailer asks a question that deserves a serious answer, although theoretically it should be obvious.
Screenwriters are supposed to be in charge of the story of the movie. Screenwriters, therefore, should be responsible for the quality of the story, and screenwriters should receive the praise or the blame for the story.
Doesn’t work like that. First of all, which screenwriter? The credited screenwriter? The uncredited screenwriter? Moving beyond that, screenwriters are employees of production companies. Those companies often ask the screenwriter to make changes, deletions or additions that the screenwriter warns them against. They may occur regardless.
Then there’s the editors. A screenwriter can write a screenplay, a director can cast and direct the film of the screenplay, and an editor can take the footage and create a different story than anyone intended. I’m presuming, of course, that the director is just one person, but that’s not always the case. Anyone interested in film should take the time to watch Exorcist: The Beginning and Dominion: Prequel to the Exorcist. Both films originated from a story by William Wisher and Caleb Carr. The movie was first shot by Paul Schraeder. The studio, unhappy with Schraeder’s film, then hired Alexi Hawley to do extensive rewrites and hired Renny Harlin to direct large amounts of new footage.
The two movies are similar but dissimilar. They have overlapping footage, common story points, but they also have widely divergent footage and divergent story points.
It’s absolutely fascinating to watch both films. It’s the only instance I can think of where we, the audience, get to see the rewrite process in film form. Why is this so rare? Because it’s absurdly expensive to reshoot half of a movie with a new director. Nonetheless, by watching these two movies and seeing how similar footage serves the story in different ways, you quickly get a sense of how editing, pacing and style can affect how one experiences a story.
In the final analysis, however, directors are typically made responsible for the film’s quality. This responsibility and the authority that goes with it may not be justified, but at the very least, they’re commensurate. There’s a truism in Hollywood: when a movie flops, the director suffers but the writer doesn’t.
For better or worse, the industry views the writer’s goal as writing a script that justifies the green light. The director’s job is to make a successful film. And so, the director typically gets blamed for the story of the movie, but the writer skates away happily.
A lot of writers like this. I don’t.
Because I want writers to be filmmaking partners with directors, and because I want the job of the screenwriter to be understood as “write a movie”, I want writers to shoulder some of the burden. I want writers to share equally in the praise and blame. We deserve it, frankly. Mind you, I’m not talking about film critic reviews, which routinely blame screenwriters when things are bad and ignore them when things are good. No one cares about critics. Seriously. No one. I’m talking about the business, where success has a thousand mothers and failure is an orphan. If we’re partners and the film fails, we have to own that with the director.
But if it succeeds…
The interesting thing here is the subjectivity of the word “bad.” Does one type of audience think the story is great, like say with the film ACE VENTURA, while another portion of the audience thinks it’s not? As far as screenwriting goes — and how individual screenwriters are perceived within the industry — a strong box office can make up for a script that let’s say wasn’t lauded within the community. On that note, critical acclaim can also raise a screenwriter’s stature within the industry, even if the movie underperforms at the box office.
As long as writers are cast aside and their work rewritten, the percieved value of writers is diminished. They become replaceable cogs where the director is seen as creator and custodian of the machine.
Replacing a writer when all else fails isn’t a bad thing, but it seems commonplace for multiple writers to exist on just about every project. How many Hollywood movies have one writer from conception to realization nowadays? If the writer was valued as a creator and story teller as much as the director things would be different.
I suspect a lot of this originates from the idea that everyone thinks they can write a good screenplay, but there is a perceived skill barrier with being a director. Director’s have to learn their trade. Writers. What do they do but dream shit up and write it down? Tragic as that is, I think the idea of writing being easy is pervasive in a lot of people’s minds.
As long as writers are cast aside and their work rewritten, the percieved value of writers is diminished. They become replaceable cogs where the director is seen as creator and custodian of the machine.
Replacing a writer when all else fails isn’t a bad thing, but it seems commonplace for multiple writers to exist on just about every project. How many Hollywood movies have one writer from conception to realization nowadays? If the writer was valued as a creator and story teller as much as the director things would be different.
I suspect a lot of this originates from the idea that everyone thinks they can write a good screenplay, but there is a perceived skill barrier with being a director. Director’s have to learn their trade. Writers. What do they do but dream shit up and write it down? Tragic as that is, I think the idea of writing being easy is pervasive in a lot of people’s minds.
I think the producer should shoulder some of the blame - they are, as you mentioned above, controlling many of the key decisions in the story process - they demand certain things for their screenplays (a little along the lines of the stock characters mentioned on Scott The Reader’s blog) and specific types of stories, don’t you think?
A friend sent me this link of Kevin Smith at a Q & A talking about his experience writing the script for Superman Lives - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgYhLIThTvk&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Escreenhead%2Ecom%2Findex%2Ephp%3Fpage%3D2
If you haven’t seen this yet, you really gotta watch it - it’s long but totally worth it because it’s A) very, very funny and B) very illuminating on what happens at that level (Smith is very honest about his talks with Jon Peters)
Its all up for negotiation if we ask for it. Be a writer - exec producer and take more ownership. But then you really have to be ready to take the fall and perhaps lose out financially. That’s the price.
Kevin Smith talking about his experience writing Superman and dealing with Jon Peters is… well, it’s hilarious. As it the rest of his Evening with Kevin Smith DVD.
Thing is, then you read his draft of of Superman and it’s terrible.
If he only put as much time and effort into his scripts as he did to defending himself on the internet…
Tim,
how do you lose out financially? You’d still make your writer’s fee and (on union pics) your residuals. Plus the exec fee and you got yourself a new mercedes. Craig was referring to critical success/failure as in general consensus of the broader audience. Not financial. Not that the two are not related.
I agree with Thomas C. on the notion that a big dilemma with writers gaining respect is the fact that everybody thinks they can write. Truth be told, they can. Physically that is. Anybody and their two headed freak monkey can sit down and type words. And with programs like Final Draft the end result may even look like a professional screenplay.
The crux: writers have to be involved beyond fade out on the shooting draft to be held responsible for the end product (i.e. the story of the movie).
Craig,
You’ve mentioned on Artfulwriter a number of times in various itterations: “No one cares about critics. Seriously. No one.” I believe you are right but do you think it’s true for all films or has more to do with studio pictures which can compensate with their substantial marketing budgets? Do you think film critics can positively or negatively affect smaller indie flicks?
Chris,
I haven’t read Smith’s draft (and I don’t know that I think he’s a great writer, either - it seems he has talent but kinda lazy) but I have to ask you this about his draft - did it
A) have NO superman suit B) No flying C) have a big fucking spider in the third act
As per Peter’s instructions?
I mean, wouldn’t those restrictions contribute to the suckiness of the story?
MJ:
I’m talking about studio pictures. I think that critics do matter for movies that critics tend to like. This, by the way, is why studios pay money to test films in front of the target audience.
Joshua,
I have read smith’s draft. It’s a long time ago, but I remember it was very talkie - as to be expected - and the action was very generic. This is a typical problem with the studio system in general. They try to find a formula to success and the logic behind it is often…a little abstruse. In the SUPERMAN case the thinking was: Hey, that kevin smith fella knows a lot about comics and he’s hip with the kids! That’s how a guy who broke in with a 20K indi flick got to write a 200+ million franchise picture. And that’s also how Singer got the gig… He proved succesful in bringing a big comic franchise to the screen and hey, that magneto is wearing a cape!! And it’s red!!!
Absofreakinlutely, Craig!! Thanks for the spin on this important topic/issue. Scribe
Well, if the script in any way resembles the movie, this makes sense… but on my last film they changed the concept (as well as every single thing else) and what was on screen had nothing to do with my script. Should I shoulder some of the blame for stuff I fought against and told them would ruin the film?
I think it would be cool if we could have a “writer’s cut” (mentioned this before somewhere else) just as they have director’s cuts on DVD. On the SHAUN OF THE DEAD DVD they have these cool things called “plot holes” that shows you what happened off camera through comic book pages - we could do the same for all of those scenes that got cut and altered and screwed up in our scripts… of course, many of my flicks would be 98% comic book pages.
Leave it to the co-writer of 2 FAST 2 FURIOUS to argue that box office gross somehow equals quality filmmaking.
The discerning public sees through you, Mr. Haas.
And your delutional interpretation of what constitutes success is indicative of the mass-hypnosis that is killing the art of filmmaking and will inevitably be the downfall of the film industry.
Evil:
Hmmm.
Either one of two things happened. You’re either being sarcastic and sadly, it went over my head or you completely mistook what Derek said so you could criticize 2 Fast 2 Furious. Which by the way, I really thought was gonna be a bad movie but surprisingly, it was really good. Better than the first even.
Derek is right when he talks about the subjective nature of good and bad. It’s something that I’ve been talking about ad nauseaum so I won’t continue to bore everyone.
Who to blame is such an interesting argument. I remember reading a column over at Wordplayer and Terry talked about his experience with Little Monsters. He lamented how one critic asked why Fred Savage would do a movie with such a bad script. Terry went on to say (I’m paraphrasing)how dumb of a comment that was, considering the original script was rewritten into the mess that was on screen. Of course, the only problem with thinking is that the critic has no idea the script has been rewritten, he can only comment on the script that was shot, and yes, it was bad.
The point is, sometimes people are right. Sometimes the script was bad to begin with. Sometimes the director shot something different from the script. Which of course, can make it bad. But then again, considering “good” and “bad” is subjective, there really is no absolute answer. The real gold standard is the success the film has at the box office.
I don’t really know anyone who that thought War of the Worlds was a well written film. But it was pretty damn successful, much to the delight of Josh Friedman and David Keopp, I’m sure.
I thought WAR OF THE WORLDS was very well written. Only the directing sucked…
How bitter is Evil Sivle?
Clueless too — because even if Fast and Furious 2 wasn’t your cup of tea, you should know that you have to have written some pretty great stuff just to get a crack at that kind of franchise. Stuff way better than… well, Fast and Furious 2. It doesn’t make a lot of sense, but it’s true.
Fucking Evil Sivle, My nemesis. I’m pretty sure you live in Las Vegas, and I will find you. I was talking about perception of “good” versus “bad” writing within Hollywood. The same people who poop on a script will hail the screenplay as a work of genius if it puts butts in seats. And although 2 FAST did not win us an Oscar, I’m grateful it brought the country together and healed racial strife in a very sensitive time. The symbolism of Paul Walker jumping over that bridge still gives me chills when I think of how it popped out of my head whole on to the screen like Athena from Zeus. Don’t get me started on our shout out to Sartreian existentialism with the Yenko jumping over waves of oppression to crash into the rich villain’s yacht and bring down “the man.”
Derek:
At least he didn’t write:
Golden is the lover, not the girlfriend!
I noticed Dean Devlin talking about older projects he worked on. This might be of interest to Ted if he hasn’t heard it already…
He said that on one project himself and Emmerich were involved with, the studio had other writers working on a draft of the script. The studio told them ‘You’ll do the other script and that’s it.’ and Emmerich walked away from the project, saying ‘Well, I don’t want to make a $90 million failure.’
Uhh… they weren’t talking about Godzilla. That was a much more expensive failure.
http://www.darkhorizons.com/news06/060721k.php
WHOSE fault, WHOSE fault, not “who’s” fault. Don’t youse guys know anything? :)
What? It says “whose.” What are you talking about? I don’t see a problem. :)
Talking about The Harlin/Schrader versions of the Exorcist, we could soon compare Donner/Lester versions of Superman II. Some footages are available on youtube (when Lois tells to Clark that she knows he’s Superman) and of course, Donner wins.
There is also the “Cursed” experience. But I doubt they will release the original footage… :-S But if someone has a link to the original screenplay, it would be interesting ;-)
If I have a real life story that I think would be great for a movie. Where would a person get started? Thank you, Dottie Weir
No movie is truly bad IF the people involved stop playing the blame game, decypher what went wrong and avoid it in the future. Unfortunately, that isn’t always the case.
“The man who makes no mistakes does not usually make anything.” — Edward Phelps