REPRINT: You Can't Walk Into An Office Building

Well, since I was an AD for 10 years let me just add one final thought: You will never ever think of everything that a good 1st AD will ask you. So just sit back and enjoy the creative sparks that fly if and when you get to collaborate on turning your written words into a production reality. That’s actually part of the fun, isn’t it?

As a director I have to disagree with this. I know that many directors - myself included - like the script to be as tabula rasa, clean slate as it can possibly be, cleaning out all the parenthesis before rehearsing actors, etc. Walking into an office building, what kind of an office building? That should be the area of the production designer, in consultation with the director. If it has no special meaning to the story it should be their decision, not the writer’s. And any good AD should know this.

As a producer and writer, I have to say I wouldn’t enjoy working with you.

No offense, but this “script as tabula rasa” stuff? Ridiculous. You want your script to be a tabula rasa? Put two brads into 110 blank sheets of paper.

Yes, if the building has no special significance to the story, then a director an prod. designer or maybe a location manager can all figure it out.

But if you don’t ask the writer, are you sure you’d know?

What if the writer has an idea?

I know, I know…that interferes with the purity of your tabula rasa.

Ridiculous, IMO.

That’s a fast response :)

I used to work as a writer for quite a while, and in my screenplays I often used long, descriptive language in places that didn’t need it. Gladly I figured it out; I wanted control, to be a director. So I got myself into that position and suddenly realized it.

The views of the writer on what kind of an office building it is - or what the character should do between lines - is important to be brought out, but not important enough to be printed into the production screenplay. They should be taken into consideration, but the decision on those should be of the director’s. That’s my view. Always in consultation, but always the director deciding.

The best example of my “tabula rasa”-point, which you mock in a fairly non-civilized manner, is of course Shakespeare, who has pretty much no other screen (or stage :) direction than “Arrives” or “Leaves”. Just lines, dialogue of pure gold. I don’t argue that sometimes action is the line, he has to take the gun from the cupboard, but really mostly the screen direction in scripts is there to make it prosaic, to make it read well.

Non-civilized? Not even by my own strict standards. :)

Long, descriptive language is a bad idea, and if you reread the post above, you’ll see that I referred to that sort of thing as “awful.”

You completely missed the point of what I wrote, which was not to write these things into the script at all (I honestly don’t think I could have been clearer about that), but rather to know them and be ready to supply the answers when asked.

Yes, now on second reading I do seem to find that sentence in there. My bad. I read it earlier and now that I came back to check for updates, I responded to my memory of the article. Shouldn’t do that.

So I guess we agreed after all :) Sorry about that. Moving right along…

No sweat.

Just for the record, because I know a lot of non-pros read this page -

I think Craig’s advice here is, for the most part, pretty good (although sometimes it really doesn’t matter how many floors the building has), it’s coming from a guy who has a tendency to confuse his personal experience with the universal experience.

I’ve had five movies and one episode of TV produced. Before that, I worked production on dozens of features, and have even been an AD on a few (although never a first). Not only have I never had a meeting with an AD as a writer, I can safely say that in twenty years of working on movies, I never worked on a film in which the ADs met with the writer.

Just sayin’…..

I acknowledge that this is true (not the confusion, but rather the fact that this is often—and sadly—a rare experience for writers).

One of the purposes of this website is to try and make these experiences less rare, in part by publicizing that they do happen (so if they happen for me, why not for everyone else?), and in part by talking about why it’s good for them to happen.

In that I’ve never seen that done, or heard of it done, I can’t say I’ve given the process much thought, but it seems to me at first glance not to be the best way to go about things….

If those conversations are going to be had, it seems to me they need to be had with a director, not an AD. The situation you’re talking about makes the writer practically a co-director (which is fine), but in a way that can only bring confusion. When you tell the AD what kind of building it is, does he then send the locations manager out to find one, or does he go to the director to see what HE wants? And he’s doing that anyway, isn’t it a waste of his time to be talking to someone who DOESN’T have final say?

It seems to me that the only scenarious in which a writer will find himself having that sort of conversation with an AD are when the director’s weak and noncommital, or when the director’s humoring you enough to let you feel like you have some input, but not taking the time to meet with you himself.

Put it this way - it’s great if you’re working with a director who lets you make those major decisions, but it seems to me to be a chaotic way to work to have you meeting with ADs to discuss these things, rather than the director. It adds an extra pointless step to the process that could be avoided if you just discuss these things directly with the director….

The way the chain of command ought to work is as follows:

AD makes a list of pesky questions.

AD conferences with writer about pesky questions.

AD has meeting with director about pesky questions, and informs discussion with thoughts from writer…or…AD and writer and director have discussion about pesky questions together.

The writer and director should be the creative nucleus.

While this chain is not the most efficient way, it’s probably the best way. The answers may take a little more time to get, but they’re hopefully of a higher quality.

Granted, I’ve been doing the dual job of writer and producer, but if I were directing/producing someone else’s script, I’d love to sit with them (or assign my AD to sit with them) just to get their full mental megillah on a lot of the unwritten details.

Seems wasteful to not ask.

Nothing ruins the upcoming New Year than agreeing with Olson.

These conversations need to happen with the Director. Not the AD.

I’m Directing a television show this January and the best, most efficient way to do anything on this show is for me to talk directly to the Writer.

Why in the world would I have my AD running around asking double questions? And then perhaps misinterpret something the Writer has said (ever play the telephone game) and make things more confusing? As a Producer, I find this idea to be kind of…weird.

TV is different.

I produce mostly film and still doesn’t make any sense. And if it’s not the most efficient way or the most productive way…it’s probably not a good way.

Craig,

For once, I’m truly not trying to be contrary or argumentative. If there’s a goodd reason to add this extra step, I’m dying to hear it. I spent a solid decade in production, and I still learn something new every day. But I cannot conceive of a scenario by which it’s efficient or sensible to have the AD sit down with the writer and the director seperately.

AD: What kind of office building? Writer: Three story one, in a strip mall.

AD: What kind of office building? Director: Skyscraper.

Now the AD either has to go back and forth between them until they agree; schedule a meeting for the writer and the director, which should have happened earlier anyway; or go with the director’s idea and ignore the writer, in which case, why sit down with the writer in the first place?

I dunno. Maybe on them there mega-budget blockbusters you write, they have all the time in the world to do that sort of thing, but down here in low budget land, that’s just a huge waste of time. The First AD is the single busiest person on the crew, with one of the largest responsibilities. Adding to his burden by this sort of makework sounds tremendously inefficient.

Josh:

I don’t care about the AD’s burden, and yes, in the world of the “mega-budget blockbusters” I write (typically 30-60 million dollars), the 1st AD has an hour to spare at some point in pre-pro.

The reason it’s a good thing is simple: sometimes, it’s a better idea that the building be a three-story deal in a strip mall, rather than a skyscraper, and sometimes only the writer knows why, and sometimes directors actually enjoy input from their writers on these topics, even if it’s not direct.

As someone about to direct a mega-budget blockbuster (lucky if I get 30 million this time), I certainly believe that someone has to have the final say, and in the case of films, it’s the director.

I also believe in hearing input from everyone. If the director is avaiable or the 1st AD is available for redundant discussions with everyone from the extras casting people to the DP to the special effects guys, then why shouldn’t there be time for the writer?

Time should always be made for the writer. As a director and producer, I’m happy to waste 24 hours of preproduction in order to gain ten incredibly productive minutes…particularly if they save me from making an inferior choice.

Craig:

The reason it’s a good thing is simple: sometimes, it’s a better idea that the building be a three-story deal in a strip mall, rather than a skyscraper, and sometimes only the writer knows why, and sometimes directors actually enjoy input from their writers on these topics, even if it’s not direct.”

And why doesn’t The Director and The Writer just talk together????

I know I’m not the smartest person in the world but I actually reread your post just in case I was missing something and I still haven’t find the part where this makes sense. What you’re proposing is bureaucracy at its worst. Instead of having two conversations between three people, you’re proposing having three conversations between three people with the latter opening up the possibility of miscommunication.

Well…. yeah. I’ve never argued against giving the writer say in these things. But what that usually means is the writer sits with the director. As a rule, the AD - even if he has time - doesn’t engage in creative discussions with the crew. He’ll slot time for them to talk to the director.

The only thing that has people here scratching their heads is the idea of having the AD engage in these discussions with the writer, instead of the writer.

“sometimes, it’s a better idea that the building be a three-story deal in a strip mall, rather than a skyscraper”

Agreed.

“and sometimes only the writer knows why”

Yup.

“and sometimes directors actually enjoy input from their writers on these topics”

Especially the good ones. Yup.

“even if it’s not direct.”

Der…. what? Why not? The writer - director relationship is an important one, and one that there’s room for and precedent for. The writer - first AD relationship is far, far from the norm, and still doesn’t quite make sense.

No matter what the writer says, the AD doesn’t have the authority to make decisions about locations or sets based on what the writer wants, so it’s about the same thing as having the writer talk to the crafts service guy about who should be the lead in the film. I suppose in some way it can be seen as polite, but it doesn’t really serve any useful function.

On the subject of firsts - you damn well SHOULD care about your AD’s burden, because that’s the guy who’s gonna save your ass more than anyone else on your set, and if he has a spare hour in pre-production, I say give him a nap.

Well, I care about 1st ADs inasmuch as I don’t want them to die, but they’re all so beyond my comprehension anyway (why does ANYONE want that job???) that I just assume they can handle a little more.

I think most of the time it’s great for the writer and director to speak directly.

In many real world situations, though, it doesn’t happen. The reason is simple: the director misses some things that the AD doesn’t. That’s part of the AD’s job, of course. He’s the first guy to break the script down. He’s the first guy to think of the questions before the director does. It’s pretty early in pre-pro when this happens.

I know that I’ll be relying on my AD to surprise me with a few “Gee, I hadn’t considered that” questions.

As such, if there’s a bit of clarity that the writer can add before the AD sits down with the director, it’s a good thing.

You guys keep talking about efficiency and bureaucracy, but early in prep, it’s hardly the boot camp or battlefield that production becomes. It’s pretty casual. You’re still staffing up, you’ve hired your keys, you’re starting to board your film, you’re still casting, all schedules are tentative…

All I can say is that when I’ve had discussions with AD’s, it didn’t feel wasteful to anyone, and it was helpful to both them and me and the director and the production.

Nothing’s hard and fast. Every production is it’s own thing. Hell, I ended up hiring the dialect coach on History because David’s Canadian, and wouldn’t know a good Philadelphia accent from a bad one. Each show has its own issues.

But still… No matter how detailed these conversations get, there’s nothing the AD can do with the info the writer gives him without clearing it with the director, which means the conversation is redundant.

“I know that I’ll be relying on my AD to surprise me with a few “Gee, I hadn’t considered that” questions.”

Yeah…. when you’re DIRECTING.

You guys keep talking about efficiency and bureaucracy, but early in prep, it’s hardly the boot camp or battlefield that production becomes. It’s pretty casual.”

Wait…so because there’s more time in prepro (by the way, in under 10 mil a movie land, Prepro is NOT CASUAL), it’s okay to have redundant conversations?

Craig, this one seriously has me scratching my head…

I read Craig’s original point to be “make sure you’ve given this stuff some thought so you can have an intelligent conversation when you get asked about it,” not “make sure you talk about this stuff with the 1st AD.” He used the 1st AD as an example, but the basic point would be the same regardless of who actually asks the writer these questions.

Guys…are you serious?

I’ve spent some time on movie sets. I can’t think of a single conversation I had that wasn’t redundant in some way or another.

Oh, above is me (Craig), posted from another computer.

Craig?:

I’ve spent some time on movie sets. I can’t think of a single conversation I had that wasn’t redundant in some way or another.

But the point of filmmaking is to try and cut down on redundancies, not increase them.

Well…the point of filmmaking is probably to make a film but intentional redundancy is a bit wacky.

Again, how ‘bout the Writer and the Director have all those conversations and talk to the AD as a team?

Kevin:

The point of filmmaking is to make a GOOD film. Like I said, I welcome redundancies, because they usually give you better results.

This, for instance, is the theory behind coverage. And I’m not being facetious.

How about the writer has as many conversations with as many people as the director and producer allow?

More information is better. More, more, more. Have the conversation ten times if you want.

That’s how I produce. If you have the time, go back over it again. If there’s no time, then move on.

Craig:

I guess we just produce differently. I don’t particularly want my Writer having as many conversations with as many people as possible. I think this will lead to a tremendous amount of miscommunication and continuity problems. I want my Director and my Writer to discuss things together and if possible, act as one.

I don’t believe that More information is better. I believe that Clear and Concise information is better. I’d be interested to know how John August feels about this since he just directed something with a smaller budget…

In a small budget situation, this doesn’t really apply.

No kidding!:)

Um…..

No.

For better or worse, once the film is actually being made, the director is the central clearing house for creative ideas. Not gonna get into a long conversation about whose creative vision is ultimately being serviced, but there’s a reason there’s one person at the center of the hurricane.

Having your writer running around giving creative input to your crew is a disastrously bad idea. When your wardrobe person has an idea for an outfit, they don’t discuss it with the first AD, they discuss it with the director. When your DP comes up with a great shot, he doesn’t run it past the AD, he runs it past the director.

Now, your director may be a complete tool, who does every single thing you - the writer - says, but there’s still a chain of command on a crew, and even if all the director does is rubber stamp what the writer says, the ideas need to go from the writer to the director to the first AD.

I’m so baffled by this one that I actually ran it by an AD friend of mine, whose response was, “That’s fucking nuts.”

To be clear - because you seem intent on recasting what I - and Kevin - are saying to mean something else entirely: I am not arguing that the writer’s vision isn’t the most important, nor am I arguing for not involving the writer. I’m also not arguing that there shouldn’t be a free flow of information and ideas. I AM arguing for keeping communication clear and productive, and for not bogging down the single hardest working person on your crew with information he cannot possibly act on without getting the director’s input.

I don’t know what the form is in the US but I work in the UK and I’d never have a formal conversation with the AD. But that doesn’t mean I’d be excluded from the process. I tend to work collaboratively with my directors - strange concept, I know - and we’ve pretty much discussed every aspect of a scene prior to production; not just who, but also where and why. Consequently, a lot of it gets written down in my scripts. Even when I’m working on my own, from scratch, without a director - or say, on a book - I always work in images. Colour, place, mood, behaviour. It’s all important to me. I’m now in a bit of a panic reading that you all think this is awful! If I stripped everything away to just dialogue I’d be left with more of a shell than a script. But I don’t think that means I want to be a director. Doesn’t that just make me a writer? Maybe its a European thing. For what it’s worth, the tabula rasa comment in the first post horrified me. That would be my idea of the nightmare director. And, no, I do not want to step on the director’s creativity. I want the creativity to be shared. But now I’m proably going to go and reread my latest script, and use my delete button. A lot.

Anonymous,

There’s a couple of different things going on here. First, the initial comment was to the nature of what directors want to see, not neccessarily what’s right for the project. But directors DO like to see as much space as possible in a script - it gives them something to do so they can justify calling the finished film their “vision.”

But there’s also this - I know a LOT of actors ignore what’s in parentheses. Christopher Walken is known to go through scripts crossing them out before even reading. The notion - and I don’t have a real problem with this - is that the actors need to figure out for themselves how to act a scene.

But I don’t think the idea is to create a screenplay with no description, it’s just to keep it spare, keep it down to the essentials. I’ve always taken the Haiku approach - strip it down to the barest essentials. Describe what must be described, and do it sparely and efficiently. But that’s just my approach, the one that works for me. My stories tend to be stripped down and lean, as well, so there’s a connection.

But nobody’s saying you need to strip it down to just the dialogue. At least, I don’t think they are….

Josh,

Thank you. That clarifies a lot. I think I just completely misinterpreted the degree of what was meant here. The idea of keeping it spare but essential. That I buy. And completely relate to. I don’t tend to use parentheses much anyway - used to be an actress so know a bit about that - but I do like to be ‘in the room’ and draw the picture. Even if its in a very oblique way.

It’s obviously a personal style thing but it may also be something to do with working in the UK. Any script I write has to attract production funding - even if I’ve been paid to write it -so the script has to satisfy a reader / financier as well as attract a director. Writerdirector did actually make that point but I didn’t fully register it.

Also apologies to all. I didn’t mean to appear as Anonymous. Just forgot to add my name. Blimey, too spare that time!

Andrea

I read Craig’s article when it was originally published and was mildly puzzled by the idea of a 1st AD having a conversation with the writer about locations.

In my experience as a writer/director (of low-budget and decidedly non-Hollywood films) 1st AD’s always come aboard late in pre-production, much later than, say, production designers. 1st AD’s overtake existant shooting-schedules — or rather the rough drafts — and finalize them. Among other things. But 1st AD’s are never involved in selecting locations (or organizing location scouting). In my experience, that is.

But apparently in Hollywood 1st AD’s are one of the first people to be hired. And they act sort of like coordinators from day one.

What Craig describes in his article makes sense. Or so it seems to me. Under certain circumstances.

It makes sense if the location in question is a minor one — perhaps an entrance to an office building that’s going to feature for only a few seconds in the finished film (the hero gets out of a car and enters a building).

It makes sense if the shooting schedule has already started to gel. In other words, if it’s been decided where (geographically) the exteriors are going to be shot and all the major locations have already been selected.

If this is the case an office entrance — a relatively minor concern — should be reasonably close to the important locations already selected. Preferably. It’s a question of logistics.

It makes sense if the director is really really really busy. Too busy at the moment to be overconcerned about this yet-unfound office entrance.

Plus, if the director dearly loves his 1st AD and trusts him.

To facilitate things the 1st AD might as well ask the writer — if the writer is on hand (and he’s is on hand if he’s also the producer of the film) — what kind of office entrance this is supposed to be.

If the writer can describe this particular office entrance the 1st AD (or someone) can organize a location scout within a x-mile radius (of the other locations).

I don’t think this is undermining the director.

Ultimately the director makes a decision.

The director gets all the photos and videos. He picks the office entrance of his liking. It’s his or her choice.

It’s a simple as that.

Or:

The director is horrified by the pics. He suddenly realizes that the film calls for a totally different office entrance. So another location scout is set in motion and this time around the director sets forth specific wants and needs.

Whatever.

I’m so baffled by this one that I actually ran it by an AD friend of mine, whose response was, “That’s fucking nuts.”

Sorry he feels that way.

Anna,

There are a lot of different facets to the director’s job, and not all of them are mandatory. Some directors design shots, some don’t. Some work heavily with actors, some don’t. Some work on the script, some don’t. But the one aspect that lies at the heart of it, the one part of the job that’s an immutable responsibility is they are the final arbiter. Every decision made has to be cleared through them.

It’s conceivable, I suppose, that a director could realize that his writer has an eye for office buildings that’s nonpareil, and he could declare that all office buildings in the film will be chosen by the writer. But barring that, a director who asks his First to sit with his writer to find out what the locations should look like is passing on a pretty vital part of the job.

The First doesn’t sit down with Wardrobe to discuss what the costumes should look like. The director does. The first will sit with wardrobe to discuss the nuts and bolts of daily production needs with wardrobe after those creative decisions have been made.

Josh,

Craig was the producer of the film, or one of the producers. Or so I think. That’s why he was so actively involved in pre-production. A writer/producer has more clout than a writer-only. And prolly some say over the director.

Craig says in one of his posts:

“Granted, IÕve been doing the dual job of writer and producer, but if I were directing/producing someone elseÕs script, IÕd love to sit with them (or assign my AD to sit with them) just to get their full mental megillah on a lot of the unwritten details.”

As a director I don’t share this view. In the event the writer has a whole lot of unwritten details to share I’d simply expect him or her to tell me all about it to my face.

Anna,

This is becoming one of those grand internet muck ups where the issue gets lost in all the back and forth and confusion. Eventually someone tries to make a point by telling you something you yourself have already said. It’s an interesting phenomenon.

“Craig was the producer of the film, or one of the producers. Or so I think. That’s why he was so actively involved in pre-production.”

Yes, I know. I acknowledged this in my very first post where I said Craig was confusing his personal experience with a universal one. But he wasn’t speaking about the First AD/Screenwriter meeting as though it was some odd little thing he does on his films. He was asserting that it was a meeting we’d all have some day, and should all be prepared for. It’s not.

His last line was, “when it’s your time to sit down across the 1st A.D., make me proud.” He wasn’t just speaking of his experience. He was telling other writers to be prepared for a meeting that pretty much never happens. I stated that the overall advice he gave was pretty good, and simply pointed out that he got one minor point wrong.

“I stated that the overall advice he gave was pretty good, and simply pointed out that he got one minor point wrong.”

Agreed. And agreed.

Hey Josh, have you ever walked into an office building?

I have - on numerous times. It’s really not all that hard. Controlled falling - check, building, with offices in it - check. I don’t know much of the details beyond that, because they weren’t important to the story… of my life.

It happened to me on the second movie I wrote, and I wasn’t a producer.

Maybe our experiences are different.

Jesus, Craig.

Yes, our experiences ARE different. Different enough that I know how to differentiate between my specific experience and the universal. I hired the dialect coach on History, but I wouldn’t write a column explaining to writers how they need to be ready to interview dialect coaches. Based on twenty years of working in film, I’m reasonably certain that’s not a normal part of the job.

I don’t know why you’re so intent on clinging to this one. I think if you’re running a forum that dispenses information and advice on a subject, it’s reasonable to call you when you get facts wrong. When you tell that audience that there is an experience awaiting them in the future that really isn’t… I think it’s reasonable to point out that you’re wrong.

I did not state that the screenwriter/First AD meeting is an anomaly because I’ve never had it. I stated that it’s an an anomaly because it’s an anomaly.

I don’t think the info you posted is going to damage anyone here, but somewhere down the line, someone who reads this column is going to be working on a movie, and they’re gonna ask their director when he wants them to meet with the first, and he’s going to look at them like they’re an idiot. Which is no big deal. I’m just saying.

Let go of this one, kiddo. You’re just wrong, on a factual basis.

Yeah…

You know, to be perfectly honest, I’ve been a part of the posts where Josh is just stirring the pot to stir the pot. Sometimes it’s entertaining, sometimes it’s annoying.

But I gotta say, he’s been really cool about this and I couldn’t agree with him more. The Writer and the AD having these conversations isn’t good filmmaking. In fact, it’s bad filmmaking. And the fact that it wouldn’t even work on a film that’s less than 40 million dollars is a little more than a red flag.

This year alone I’ve been called the Samuel L. Jackson of Producing. That’s 7 productions in a year. When it comes to writing for a studio, I know NOTHING about that. I’ve only had one deal with a production company in a decade and that was almost 6 years ago. Your intelligence and advice is usually stellar and soooo on the money. With the exception of Ted, I’ve never heard another writer speak so eloquently and factually as you.

But this…this is bad production advice. This advice could literally throw production into a shit storm of miscommunication and counter productiveness.

Hey, whatever. You’re like the Muhammed Ali of the scribosphere. But even Ali was knocked down once. This is one small misstep with an otherwise flawless track record.

Josh:

I disagree. I don’t think it’s unreasonable for you to disagree with me either.

The reason I have open comments here is so that my word isn’t gospel. People can read what I write, and they can comment, and they can disagree.

I will not “let go of this one kiddo,” because I disagree with you. I disagree with Kevin as well. My personal experience is the only experience I have, so naturally I tend to extrapolate from it. In the case, my personal experience spans different circumstances (producer and non-producer).

Perhaps my experience is rare. So be it. That doesn’t change the fact that I think it’s preferable.

The fact that my experience conforms with what I’ve written makes your statement (“You’re just wrong, on a factual basis”) to be wrong.

On a factual basis, no less.

Kevin:

When you say things like “this advice could literally throw production into a shit storm of miscommunication” I have to tell you…no. It literally can’t.

At no point does the A.D. simply talk to a writer and then go off and tell the location scouts or production designers what to do.

Ever.

The director and producer have final authority for and on all decisions.

Let’s not get hysterical here. Seriously, is the A.D. allowed to speak with anyone independent of the director?

Should he ever ask questions of the costume designer?

The production designer?

The D.P.?

The location manager?

The producer?

Or is your actual theory that any and all questions for which the director has ultimate responsibility MUST be asked ONLY of the director and the A.D. should only, therefore, direct any statements ending a question mark to the director?

Frankly, I think that’s idiotic.

It’s not like the article I wrote says, “Now, in every production, there’s a big meeting between the A.D. and the writer. In that meeting, the A.D. will carefully go through the script with the writer. Just the two of them.”

No.

What I wrote was an article that said that an A.D. may come to a writer with a question.

You and Josh are lost in some weird objection of your own making.

A.D.’s ask questions of writers, particularly writers who are working on the set and during production.

All the article says is, “Might be good if you knew the answer.”

Hardly controversial stuff.

Craig:

I agree with your basic principle of knowing the details of certain elements in a script. All I’m saying is that these conversations need to happen with The Director. Not the AD.

Why you keep pushing the AD angle is beyond me. I’m sorry you think it’s idiotic but when you say things like, “I don’t care about the AD’s burden…” you’re setting yourself up for a production in which you’re likely to have urine in your coffee.

Craig,

“I will not “let go of this one kiddo,” because I disagree with you. “

I suppose it’s your prerogative to disagree with facts, but it’s an odd thing to do. It is not the standard, industry norm, for the First AD to meet with the screenwriter. That’s not how movies are made.

“My personal experience is the only experience I have, so naturally I tend to extrapolate from it.”

In the process of having your experience, I would imagine you’d have learned how movies are usually made, even when your own experience deviated from that. There are ALWAYS deviations from the norm, and yet, somehow, most of us who work in the business manage to learn the standard.

“Perhaps my experience is rare. So be it. That doesn’t change the fact that I think it’s preferable.”

Different subject. You’re experience IS rare. Fact. Whether or not it’s preferable is another subject altogether, and when it’s come up here, you haven’t made anything like a convincing argument for it. (When I say that, I’m expressing an extremely well-informed opinion. Not a fact. My own personal experience has led me to understand the difference between the two. You seem to still be stuck in that world where facts and opinion are interchangable. I like to call that world O’Reilly’s Planet.)

“The fact that my experience conforms with what I’ve written makes your statement (“You’re just wrong, on a factual basis”) to be wrong.

On a factual basis, no less.”

Well… No. On a truthiness level, I guess I’m wrong. On a factual one, though, I am absolutely correct. It is not the industry norm for the first AD to take a formal meeting with the screenwriter to discuss production issues. Never has been, probably never will be.

“Let’s not get hysterical here. Seriously, is the A.D. allowed to speak with anyone independent of the director?”

You’re doing what you do, Craig. Changing the terms of the discussion. Nobody has ever said you shouldn’t talk to the first AD. You’re equating conversing with the first with sitting down to formally and officially discuss locations and other production issues with him. Rather than acknowledge that it isn’t the norm, you accuse me of wanting to ban the AD and the writer from ever speaking, then attack me for holding such an idiotic idea. Hilarious. Next time we get into ar argument about something that actually matters, I’ll have to remember to link back to this.

“What I wrote was an article that said that an A.D. may come to a writer with a question.”

No, what you wrote was an article that closed with, “when it’s your time to sit down across the 1st A.D., make me proud, wouldja?”

I become more and more interested in why you’re so loathe to just acknowledge you got one simple, easily verifiable thing wrong.

I’ll reiterate: I do not believe there is any standard for formal meetings between the A.D. and the writer.

I do believe that A.D.’s ask questions of writers, as do directors.

In my experience, the niggling issues of things like “what office building did you mean?” are asked by the A.D.

If my article was ambiguous on that point, I apologize.

And, as always, thanks for reading.

Craig,

You should work for Fox News. Seriously.

“I do believe that A.D.’s ask questions of writers, as do directors.”

Equating two things nobody here has ever argued. From the get go, I - and Kevin - have stated clearly that the meeting you described should (and usually does) take place between the writer and the director.

“In my experience, the niggling issues of things like “what office building did you mean?” are asked by the A.D.”

Yup. Asked by the AD. Of the DIRECTOR.

“If my article was ambiguous on that point, I apologize.”

Your article was crystal clear.

Your reticence to admit error on larger issues is one thing, but this…. Ay yi yi.

As long as we’re reiterating - There isn’t a single thing the writer can tell the AD that the director won’t have to repeat for him. Questions like “what kind of building should it be?” should be resolved between the writer and the director. It’s a lovely idea to have the first present when the director and writer have that discussion, but in that there’s the possibility they may disagree, or have to engage in a long, creative discussion, your first’s time is better spent doing work that actually falls under his purview.

Your crew’s time is precious.

Josh:

I’m sorry, but again, I disagree.

For the record, your inability to have these discussions without making personal attacks in practically every single post is so tiresome, I’m going to avoid responding to you in any fashion in the future. I love a good debate about substance (and we’ve had those in the past), but you’ve pretty much ended up in the “life’s too short” category.

For me, this is a failure. I would have liked to have continued our ongoing debate about all things. For you, this is probably a victory of some kind.

So, congrats, I yield, and vaya con dios.

you guys would make a great couple.

Craig,

Sorry you feel that way. I’ve found your steadfast inability to acknowledge the slightest possibility that you’re wrong about something so small to be mind blowing. But it explains your steadfast inability to acknowledge when you’re wrong about something large.

Your rhetorical tactics during this have been fairly dishonest, and it’s hard for me not to comment on that. And I’m sorry if noticing that you use the same tactics Bill O’Reilly and John Gibson strikes you as a personal attack. That’s nothing compared to the mountains of shit I’ve had heaped on me here by you and others, but I guess I have a higher tolerance for such things….

And while you usually bury your personal attacks under a thin level of plausible deniability, please don’t think I’m dumb enough not to get them. I read you loud and clear every time, even if some of your peanut gallery don’t.

I have a headache now. If you guys (Craig and Josh) ever team up for a movie I already feel sorry for the 1st AD… and everybody else that works on the film. :)

I’ll save you the concern.

Never gonna happen. :)