Screenwriting - Performance Based?
wcmartell
including the political thread here and writer compensation & CEO
compensation differences - made me think about this...
Has anyone read the draft of HANCOCK that sold? I didn't get all the
way through it, but thought it was interesting because it was so thick
with prose that would never show up on screen. It had tons of style,
and that style was amazing writing... would have made a great novel.
Problem was, all of the mood and character in the description was
*not* action and *not* dialogue - just stye. When you "translated"
what was on the page to what would be seen on the screen, it wasn't
really anything,
I have a script tip somewhere about this - I'd read a comedy script
that had me laughing... except all of the humor was in the way things
were described and *not* in what was being described. So this script
seemed really funny, when only a few funny bits would ever make it to
the screen. The rest stayed on the page. If you "translated" the
script to the screen, it wasn't very funny at all - but it read funny.
All of these great bits of description.
The HANCOCK script sold for fairly big money... and my guess is that
readers just loved the style and clever writing, and how the
description was dense with mood. But none of those things could be
seen on screen. The writer has a great style... for novels. But, for
some reason, the readers and development folks couldn't "translate"
what was on the page to what would be on the screen. The HANCOCK
script went through some major rewrites before it came to the screen -
and my guess is that many of these rewrites were to *remove* all of
the brilliant writing so that they could see what was left - what
would be on screen. And then they had to add material that actually
showed up on the screen. The opening had Hancock checking in to an SRO
hotel filled with hookers and bums... and the *description* was all
about how he was down and out and a drunk. This was replaced by
Hancock on a park bench with a bottle - something we could see. And
the film is more *demonstration* of his situation and condition than
pretty prose that give us the *feeling* of situation.
I can imagine readers with a stack of scripts that are all
*screenplays* stumbling on this piece of brilliant writing and just
being blown away. Passing this script up to the VP Devo who has been
reading a similar pile of *screenplays* and then reads this piece of
*literature* and the bidding war starting. And I can imagine the agent
or manager starting this whole process out by reading this amazing
writing and telling every poroducer in town that they have the next
big writer - "Just read this script! You'll find it amazing!" This
kid's a genius!" And it *is* great writing and it *is* like no other
script on their desk and this kid has a *voice* and... where's that
checkbook?
But like the comedy script with the funny description of things that
were not funny, by the time it ends up on the screen it's just kind of
bland... or they need to strip away the great writing to see what's
really there.
And I know this isn't just HANCOCK - I've read other scripts with
writing that doesn't end up on screen.
So what is up with the readers and VP Devos that they can't
"translate" what will end up on screen? Isn't that a major part of
their job? Why should some writer whose material doesn't translate to
the screen be rewarded... for the very writing that does not translate
to the screen?
Or, am I too "production based"? Am I too much about writing what ends
up on the screen? Am I too much about what can be performed, rather
than that pretty writing on the page that a few dozen people read?
nmstevens
I think that it's very simple and you put your finger on it. People
who's job it is to read scripts, and find themselves reading dry
script after dry script after dry script are only human. They want to
be entertained. They want their *job* to be entertaining -- not
unnatural since they're in the entertainment business.
So when they come across a script that entertains them, they naturally
respond positively to it.
I've seen this same thing happen in other incarnations.
There's the "entertaining but substance-free" pitch. Writers who come
in and just blow producers away with these incredibly great pitches
(we're talking now on assignments) -- and it's only after they've
gotten the job and they've been paid the money that somebody wakes up
and realizes that there's actually no "there" there -- that what they
pitched was just air -- that they really didn't actually address
anything in the pitch.
But they were entertaining. So they got the job.
And I really believe that it's this yearning on the part of
development execs to be entertained by the scripts they read -- for
the act of reading itself to be continually entertaining (rather than
just analytical or editorial work) that leads to writers being
constantly replaced.
You start to work on a script. There's a second draft, a third, a
fifth, a tenth. At a certain point, the funny scenes don't seem funny
any more, the scary scenes don't seem scary, the clever lines don't
seem clever. The surprising twists seem obvious. Well, why wouldn't
they? You've read the thing, often with relatively minor variations,
ten, fifteen, twenty times.
But often the execs just can't see it that way. They think that
there's something wrong with the script. They were excited reading it
once upon a time and that's what they want - not to engage in an often
boring technical editorial process -- but to recreate the experience
of excitement, because somehow that is the litmus test of whether the
thing is working.
So what they do is fire the writer, bring in another writer and have
them essentially write a brand new version of the script -- a new
"first draft" -- and if they're lucky, the new version will get them
"re-excited" --- and then they start the process all over again, until
re-writes start getting them bored, at which point, they fire that
writer and start the process over again.
NMS
Ron
wcmartell <wcma...@compuserve.com> wrote:
> So what is up with the readers and VP Devos that they can't
> "translate" what will end up on screen? Isn't that a major part of
> their job? Why should some writer whose material doesn't translate to
> the screen be rewarded... for the very writing that does not translate
> to the screen?
>
> Or, am I too "production based"? Am I too much about writing what ends
> up on the screen? Am I too much about what can be performed, rather
> than that pretty writing on the page that a few dozen people read?
I don't think it's fair to use an example a script that sparked
something of a bidding war. That's the exception, not the rule.
The real money for screenwriters is made by the guys who are hired to
write big-budget movies consistently, your Rossio&Elliots, Tony Gilroys,
etc.
And those guys see their quotes start to fall pretty quickly if they
stop getting movies made.
-Ron
mary...@rcn.com
sell them on the street and try my luck?
wcmartell
> Is this a script I can find online, or should I go to the guys who
> sell them on the street and try my luck?
There's a PDF version online somewhere - if it's not under HANCOCK it
may be under the old totle TONIGHT HE COMES.
- Bill
chip.m...@gmail.com
wcmartell wrote:
> So what is up with the readers and VP Devos that they can't
> "translate" what will end up on screen? Isn't that a major part of
> their job?
Devo dont know nothing. They didn't get to where they are by flexing
creative muscles. They got there by sitting in meetings for years, or
impressing the right people and being diligent or loyal or whatever.
They don't know whats good or bad until someone tells them its good or
bad.
I just went to a party for an above duh line crew of a series that I
ended up passing on. Pre-Roll Party. Cable Network head honcho was
there, as were a few Devo losers. Plus the Story team. And Below the
Line Dept Supervisors.
These people are gueeks. And most/all of them were totally clueless as
to who I was. They were all talking about the show (story). Terminal
party conversation, so I just went to my car and smoked alot, and came
back to the party and jumped right in and said, "Kennedy Space Center
sucks! And the Space Shuttle sucks too." The marshmello producers
were like, "What? How dare you say that" Who ARE you?"
I told em "I was the Tech Sup on the last series I was on, and I
warned that show that the Space Center was wack, and that nobody wants
to look at the space shuttle on TV shows, they thought I was crazy.
After we shot the liftoff they all pretty much told me that I was
right, and now I'm telling all of you, but Im just a TECH so if you
all really want to shoot there, I know all the gear we are gonna need
to do it. I'm fucken wasted just forget I said anything."
After the entire party stops asking each other "who is this guy?" The
awkward female show runner introduces herself and wants to talk about
the Space Center. I was like, "look I'm not a story producer. I
engineer video. I shouldn't have said anything, too many Dewers."
And thats the way it is. I'm not writing stories with a dozen other
idiots, that dont even know whats cool and whats not. Where we have
long meetings discussing what the characters are gonna do. Thats not
how I get down. Its not like sitting at a table with Martell, NMS and
Weller and talking about story with people that understand the craft
of cinematic storytelling. Its not. These staff writers and story
producers are losers. They got nothing. No screenplays, no shorts.
Nothing. They just stayed in the story system from Intern, PA, AP, to
Story Producer and they dont know what works on screen and what doesnt
they just do what everyone can agree on.
Oranse
Remysun
> Is this a script I can find online, or should I go to the guys who
> sell them on the street and try my luck?
Why Mary, would you like a copy? See if they still got it at Weebley.
Search for my posts mentioning Hancock. Somebody gave the website in
reply. Otherwise, I grabbed the .pdf.
Remysun
> There's a PDF version online somewhere - if it's not under HANCOCK it
> may be under the old totle TONIGHT HE COMES.
Right then and there is part of the change-- that double entendre. And
I keep thinking of The Cars' song Tonight, She Comes.
>From what I see, they kept the alcoholism and the stalking Mary
aspects, but gave the guy a different arc.
The spec would have been a good book or graphic novel.
Michael
and cheerful chappy that can keep the project on track from the story
side (inasmuch as the writer can actually do that).
M
Remysun
> You start to work on a script. There's a second draft, a third, a
> fifth, a tenth. At a certain point, the funny scenes don't seem funny
> any more, the scary scenes don't seem scary, the clever lines don't
> seem clever. The surprising twists seem obvious. Well, why wouldn't
> they? You've read the thing, often with relatively minor variations,
> ten, fifteen, twenty times.
I get that fatigue looking at my own stuff. In order to get through
this rewrite, I think I might have to work backwards, in the hopes
that I might be energized by the ending, because I'm really trying to
look at things differently.
Bert Coules
> I think that it's very simple and you put your finger on it. People
> who's job it is to read scripts, and find themselves reading dry
> script after dry script after dry script are only human. They want to
> be entertained. They want their *job* to be entertaining -- not
> unnatural since they're in the entertainment business.
That's it exactly, I think. I was a reader at the BBC for a year - not
exactly comparable with the film industry, since the Beeb accepted
unsolicited, unrepresented material, but the parallels are there - and *any*
piece of work that rose above the norm was something to greet with joy.
After the string of depressing, ill-spelt, badly laid out, hopeless,
worthless, sadly deluded stuff that every day brought, a script that
elicited *any* glimmer of pleasure in the reading was like pure gold. In
those circumstances, it was fatally tempting to be more positive than the
material actually merited - though an enthusiastic reader is one thing; a
script getting all the way to production when it isn't really up to the mark
is something else and more than a tad surprising.
Bert
Martin B
> Or, am I too "production based"? Am I too much about writing what ends
> up on the screen? Am I too much about what can be performed, rather
> than that pretty writing on the page that a few dozen people read?
I loved Dean Devlin & Roland Emmerich's writing in INDEPENDENCE DAY. I read
it at a sitting, enjoying it as literature. The descriptions are
economical, as they should be in a script, but manage to be entertaining
without trying too hard.
FADE IN:
AN AMERICAN FLAG
Oddly still, posted in gray dusty sand.
WIDEN TO REVEAL:
EXT. LUNAR SURFACE - THE MOON
One small step for man, one large pile of garbage for
moonkind. Untouched for years, the flag stands next to the
castoff remains of the Apollo mission. Slowly the discarded
equipment begins to RATTLE and SHAKE.
AN ENORMOUS SHADOW creeps towards us blotting out the horizon,
a loud RUMBLE is heard.
Suddenly we are covered in DARKNESS as the SHADOW engulfs us.
Only the lonely image of our EARTH hangs in the air, until a
huge silhouetted OBJECT suddenly blocks our view.
CUT TO:
EXT. NEW MEXICO - RADIO TELESCOPE VALLEY - NIGHT
A field of large satellite dishes scan the skies.
Super up: S.E.T.I. INSTITUTE, NEW MEXICO
INT. INSTITUTE - MONITORING CONTROL CENTER - SAME
A lone TECHNICIAN works on his putting skills. Behind him,
wall to wall technical equipment quietly sifts through data.
A RED LIGHT begins to flash.
The Technician turns and slowly walks towards the source.
One by one a series of LIGHTS turn on. The Technician (TECH
ONE) grabs a pair of headphones. His eyes widen.
INT. SLEEPING QUARTERS - SAME
Sleepily a SUPERVISOR picks up the phone.
SUPERVISOR
If this isn't an insanely
beautiful woman, I'm hanging up.
INT. CONTROL CENTER - SAME
TECH ONE
Shut up and listen.
[snip]
--
Martin
Martin B
> There's a PDF version online somewhere - if it's not under HANCOCK it
> may be under the old totle TONIGHT HE COMES.
tonight_he_comes.pdf 4MB
Type ["movie title" script] (with quotes) into Google. If it's available
online, it'll always be in the first few links.
--
Martin
Remysun
> Why are they saying that the script is worse that the movie?
No, the script is what it is-- a different take on the superhero
genre. I think we're just talking about what development can do to a
film, because somehow, they were supposed to make it more family
friendly, which they didn't, or at least they wouldn't have that
running "asshole" joke in the dialogue.
They gave him a flimsy arc, whereas it's actually kind of interesting
that a superhero who can do anything, can't have everything.
And they kept the interacting with the family bit, which is kinda
pointless when you remove the darker themes of the spec script.
BTW, haven't seen it yet, but read the spec and the mega spoiler off a
previous version of the Wikipedia article.
wcmartell
> Why are they saying that the script is worse that the movie?
Script is different than the movie. My point in using it as an example
is that what makes the script an interesting and entertaining read are
things that do not show up on screen (the script has style to spare) -
so you might read a half page of brilliant prose in the script that
translates to the guy walking across the room.
- Bill
mary...@rcn.com
> stepped to the mic and said...