Credits: June 2005 Archives

In an article on his blog, Steven Peterson makes an argument that credits arbitrations are best examined in the context of game theory.

It’s the right argument. While the architects of the WGA credits guidelines may have been motivated by prosocial concerns or dramaturgical theory, it’s always safest to assume that the participants in arbitrations will be motivated by self-interest.

Steven suggests that this creates a serious flaw in the system, inasmuch as “gaming the rules” will affect the manner in which writers approach rewriting.

…if I get a chance to do a rewrite of a script, I have a strong (self-interested) incentive to substantially change at least 33% or 50% of the material, even if the material doesn’t need that much changing. In fact, it’s an interesting little game by itself: I’m best off if I change enough to get as much credit as possible, while making the story something good, and retaining key elements from the earlier drafts that the producers, director, and actors aren’t willing to sacrifice (otherwise I get removed from the project or the project dies). This is markedly different from when I do a rewrite of my own script — then I keep the good bits and eliminate the bad bits, and, hopefully, after a few iterations of this I have a screenplay composed mostly of good bits.

I’ve seen this argument made a number of times.

I do not find it compelling.

There are two major reasons why “rewriting to the rules” is impractical and ultimately not in the game player’s best interest.

The first is that the goal is not objective, and accurately targeting a subjective goal is impossible. You may think that you’ve “done enough” to pass the 33% or 50% threshhold, but your impression is irrelevant. The judges are three other writers you’ve never met. Their standards of judgment are almost necessarily different than yours, not only because they’re different people, but because readers always approach material from a different perspective than authors of that material.

The second is that credits are awarded for quantitative contributions, but the game player’s continuing success is contingent on his qualitative contributions.

There is only one successful objective to motivate the task of rewriting a screenplay, and that is to write a screenplay that will please the studio and become a movie that pleases the audience. If you write with any ulterior goal in mind, you will fail. I believe this with every ounce of my professional conviction. Readers aren’t stupid. If you take a good scene and make it worse, they will blame you, regardless of your intentions. Given that, it’s best to only try and improve what you can, and preserve what you cannot.

If the game strategy is to “do the best job you can, with no consideration for quantity of change”, then you improve your chances for continued employment on the project. Continued employment on the project improves your chances for increased quantity of contributions. Emphasis on quantity of contributions will necessarily hurt the quality of contribution. This will result in you being rewritten.

In other words, rewriting with a goal of credit will get you hoisted by your own petard.

As always, game theory is instructive, if counterintuitive. I believe the optimum strategy for achieving credit recognition as a screenwriter is this: don’t try and get credit…just do the best job you can do.

Or as Alanis Morissette put it:

The moment I let go of it

Was the moment I got more than I could handle…