Query Letters Tips, Dos and Don'ts.
Paulo Joe Jingy
Since as a producer I am inundated with query letters I thought I
would offer some tips. Take them for what they are worth, they are
only my opinion.
I do read nearly all queries and pass on 98% of them. Here's what
keeps me from requesting 3%.
1.) If you don't live in town, don't let on until after they read and
liked the script that you live in New Mexico or New Jersey or
wherever. An out of town client makes life tougher for the agent/
manager and unless your in the top 1% of screenwriters it will hinder
an agent's ability to get you a job - and him his ten percent of your
fee. There is a huge bias against out of towners so try not to tip
your hand. Similarly, don't tell me your in your forties, fifties or,
eek!,, sixties.
2.) Tell the reader something interesting about yourself - but only if
there is something interesting to say. Telling the reader you went to
Yale or Harvard or UCLA appeals to another industry bias towards name
brand schools. Don't tell me you went to Cal State Long Beach or some
college I've never heard of before. If you have something in common
with the reader, that you share a hometown, or school, or mutual
friends, use it. If you have had six scripts optioned by two-bit
producers, again, don't tell me. It means you have had your shot.
Written a NYT best selling book? Let me know.
3.) Don't fake a referral. Ever.
4.) Don't tell me you are "auctioning off" your script. You're not.
You are simply trying to get somebody to read it. Similarly, don't
tell me you are "looking for a producer to partner with." Just because
you have a name for a production company doesn't mean you have one.
Finally don't send me a fake follow-up letter in hopes that I think I
misplaced the script and will ask for another copy.
5.) Keep your query short.
6.) Nobody cares if you won a screenwriting contest. Sorry.
7.) Don't bother soliciting spec TV pilots. TV is driven by a writer,
his career and his body of work. It is not at all like the feature
business where any joker with a good script can get his foot in the
door.
8.) Give me a bulletproof logline. Short and sweet.
9.) Don't send a script unless somebody requests it.
10.) If offered the chance to send in your script, sign the release
form or don't. It is not a document to be negotiated.
11.) Don't send coverage on your script because I will assume it was
written by you.
12.) Don't tell me about how other production companies liked it. If
you are emailing me that just tells me that somebody I probably know
passed on it.
13.) If I don't respond to your query, that means pass.
14.) Don't list my films which you admire. IMDB is free,
15.) Don't stalk me.
16.) Don't stalk me.
17.) Don't tell me you have spent the past year working on the script.
This is L.A. where first drafts take twelve weeks.
18.) Don't use a goofy font. Or emoticons. Or any color other than
black.
19.) Don't query for unpublished or self-published books. If you think
unrepped scripts are bad...
20.) Don't let me know you are available to meet. Yeah, no **** you
are available to meet...
21.) Try not to come off as obsequious and don't thank me for reading
your email.
All this being said, I've bought and sold more than fifty studio
films. The first one was a script I requested from a smart query
letter.
IbnKa...@spammenotsir.com
<dbl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>(Stolen from a screenplay forum.)
Surely not this one.
>Since as a producer I am inundated with query letters I thought I
>would offer some tips. Take them for what they are worth, they are
>only my opinion.
They are worth zero. Just my opinion. You can disregard it, since
I'm not "in the biz," nor do I want to be.
>I do read nearly all queries and pass on 98% of them. Here's what
>keeps me from requesting 3%.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, but I get the impression
you have violated a rule of mathematics.
>1.) If you don't live in town, don't let on until after they read and
>liked the script that you live in New Mexico or New Jersey or
>wherever.
What a bunch of idiots inhabit Hollyweird. Can you imagine literary
publishers insisting writers live in New York?
Why don't you just read the damn material?
> An out of town client makes life tougher for the agent/
>manager and unless your in the top 1% of screenwriters it will hinder
>an agent's ability to get you a job - and him his ten percent of your
>fee. There is a huge bias against out of towners so try not to tip
>your hand.
And why is there a huge bias against out of towners? Because
Hollyweird is full of idiots. No wonder movies and TV have declined
so precipitously.
Why don't you just read the damn material?
> Similarly, don't tell me your in your forties, fifties or,
>eek!,, sixties.
Why? What kind of a moron discriminates against older people in a
knowledge industry? I know young people come cheaper and more
gullible, but the product the industry sells to consumers depends on
the knowledge and acquired skills of the people who make it. Or is
that over the head of Hollyweird idiots?
Why don't you just read the damn material?
>2.) Tell the reader something interesting about yourself - but only if
>there is something interesting to say.
No. Won't do it. I'll only share the most uninteresting details
about myself with you. The interesting stuff I save for my inner
circle of friends and confidantes.
Why don't you just read the damn material?
> Telling the reader you went to
>Yale or Harvard or UCLA appeals to another industry bias towards name
>brand schools. Don't tell me you went to Cal State Long Beach or some
>college I've never heard of before. If you have something in common
>with the reader, that you share a hometown, or school, or mutual
>friends, use it. If you have had six scripts optioned by two-bit
>producers, again, don't tell me. It means you have had your shot.
>Written a NYT best selling book? Let me know.
You want to judge the material on the writer's superficial personal
credentials rather than on the material? I doubt you even check out
people's college credentials.
Why don't you just read the damn material?
>3.) Don't fake a referral. Ever.
You want to judge the material on the writer's connections. They're
the most important thing to you, so you put the severest punishment on
those who fake them.
Why don't you just read the damn material?
>4.) Don't tell me you are "auctioning off" your script. You're not.
>You are simply trying to get somebody to read it.
It's obvious you just want to keep the upper hand in the negotiation.
Skip the psychological beatdown on the writer and face the fact that
artists are businessmen, and they are going to sell their product to
the buyer of their choice. And before you get all haughty toward
artists, remember they have a product. You don't have a product, all
you have is access to someone else's money.
Why don't you just read the damn material?
> Similarly, don't
>tell me you are "looking for a producer to partner with." Just because
>you have a name for a production company doesn't mean you have one.
>Finally don't send me a fake follow-up letter in hopes that I think I
>misplaced the script and will ask for another copy.
So you want to judge the material on something else irrelevant to the
material.
Why don't you just read the damn material?
>5.) Keep your query short.
You've already wasted a good 15 minutes evaluating the writer's
connections, university education, previous work, standing in
Hollyweird...
You could have just read the material by now.
>6.) Nobody cares if you won a screenwriting contest. Sorry.
I don't care if you are a producer, know someone at a studio or are
boffing Miley Cyrus right now. Of course, I don't have anything to do
with Hollyweird, so I may be different than the vast majority of
aspiring Hollyweirdos you encounter. If I had a piece of intellectual
property to sell, and you had just wasted this much time out of my
life with your stupid bullshit, I would break your nose and tell you
to get lost. Sorry.
You could have just read the material by now.
>7.) Don't bother soliciting spec TV pilots. TV is driven by a writer,
>his career and his body of work.
You forgot the most important thing in Hollyweird, TV included:
connections.
You could have just read the material by now.
> It is not at all like the feature
>business where any joker with a good script can get his foot in the
>door.
You could have just read the material by now.
>8.) Give me a bulletproof logline. Short and sweet.
You could have just read the material by now.
>9.) Don't send a script unless somebody requests it.
You could have just read the material by now.
>10.) If offered the chance to send in your script, sign the release
>form or don't. It is not a document to be negotiated.
You could have just read the material by now.
>11.) Don't send coverage on your script because I will assume it was
>written by you.
You could have just read the material by now.
>12.) Don't tell me about how other production companies liked it. If
>you are emailing me that just tells me that somebody I probably know
>passed on it.
You could have just read the material by now.
>13.) If I don't respond to your query, that means pass.
You could have just read the material by now.
>14.) Don't list my films which you admire. IMDB is free,
Sentences don't end with commas.
You could have just read the material by now.
>15.) Don't stalk me.
Don't fantasize that anyone wants to stalk you. That's you projecting
your own psychopathology onto other people. You call other people
liars, cheaters, no-talents, stalkers... I suspect it is you who is
all of those things.
You could have just read the material by now.
>16.) Don't stalk me.
You could have just read the material by now.
>17.) Don't tell me you have spent the past year working on the script.
>This is L.A. where first drafts take twelve weeks.
You could have just read the material by now.
>18.) Don't use a goofy font. Or emoticons. Or any color other than
>black.
You could have just read the material by now.
>19.) Don't query for unpublished or self-published books. If you think
>unrepped scripts are bad...
You could have just read the material by now.
>20.) Don't let me know you are available to meet. Yeah, no **** you
>are available to meet...
You don't even need to tell me what a busy person you are. I could
tell you wanted me to think that.
You could have just read the material by now.
>21.) Try not to come off as obsequious and don't thank me for reading
>your email.
I know why you go through all these elaborate gyrations about the
query letter instead of just reading the material -- you don't know
whether what you read is any good or not. In other words, you don't
know what the fuck you are doing.
>All this being said, I've bought and sold more than fifty studio
>films. The first one was a script I requested from a smart query
>letter.
Sure, and you've got a degree in astrophysics from Cornell, and you're
a personal friend of Bobby De Niro, and you're a very busy man, and
you've got a restraining order against you but that was just a
misunderstanding, and you're a near-billionaire but you read thousands
of query letters every year, and you live in Hollyweird itself where
all the "in" people live, and ...
Paulo Joe Jingy
> They are worth zero. Just my opinion. You can disregard it, since
> I'm not "in the biz," nor do I want to be.
Did you get tired of writing your opinions about other subjects, you
know nothing about, on all the other newsgroups?
Lucky them.
L8 nuz
>1.) If you don't live in town, don't let on until after they read and liked the script
So, since you already know I live in OH, I guess I’m fucked ..
“Why don't you just read the damn material?”
Sammyo
My guess is ibnkahl is trying to get into Pinks Pants.
Skipper
<IbnKa...@spammenotsir.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 23:11:14 +0000 (UTC), Paulo Joe Jingy
> <dbl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >(Stolen from a screenplay forum.)
>
> Surely not this one.
>
> >Since as a producer I am inundated with query letters I thought I
> >would offer some tips. Take them for what they are worth, they are
> >only my opinion.
>
> They are worth zero. Just my opinion. You can disregard it, since
> I'm not "in the biz," nor do I want to be.
Then WHY are you even bothering to post? Most of your opinions below
are wrong and most of the producer's are right. It's tedious, but I'll
explain why and leave big spaces so it's easier to follow.
>
> >I do read nearly all queries and pass on 98% of them. Here's what
> >keeps me from requesting 3%.
>
> I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, but I get the impression
> you have violated a rule of mathematics.
>
> >1.) If you don't live in town, don't let on until after they read and
> >liked the script that you live in New Mexico or New Jersey or
> >wherever.
>
> What a bunch of idiots inhabit Hollyweird. Can you imagine literary
> publishers insisting writers live in New York?
>
> Why don't you just read the damn material?
That's pretty good advice. You want to find people you can work with.
If you have to hire another writer, that costs extra money. With your
first feature sale they'll offer you scale plus 10% if it's a budget
covered by the WGA, but even then it could be the sagindie.org level of
script which means you get very little. So, for the great thrill of
having your first movie made, the producer assumes you might be willing
to take notes and do the rewrite for the same price. They will also,
however, most likely assume you've done the best you can do when you
sent them that script and will give you a small window to prove that
you can learn and improve according to talent they get involved,
available locations, budget, all kinds of stuff. It's MUCH better if
you're here in town like they are because they might be right there
with you. Example: a guy I know is writing Clone Wars. He flies up to
Skywalker and sits in a room with Lucas, who brainstorms and my new
friend types. He has feature credits but he's not complaining about the
arrangement (and he's doing writing, not just taking dictation). So
would Lucas fly you in from New Jersey? Not friggin likely unless you
really impressed him with something of yours that was made most likely.
Most producers don't have that kind of, or won't spend that kind of
money (flying someone in who's new) so you'd better live here.
>
> > An out of town client makes life tougher for the agent/
> >manager and unless your in the top 1% of screenwriters it will hinder
> >an agent's ability to get you a job - and him his ten percent of your
> >fee. There is a huge bias against out of towners so try not to tip
> >your hand.
>
> And why is there a huge bias against out of towners? Because
> Hollyweird is full of idiots. No wonder movies and TV have declined
> so precipitously.
No because of reasons I just explained to you. Also in TV it's 12 hours
days or longer when the season's rolling so you HAVE to be here. I
worked on a kids show for UPN where the producers were in Wichita, shot
in Minneapolis, and all the staff writers lived in California, but that
was a weird and unusual situation. "Idiots" are people who sneer at the
norms in "Hollyweird" without having a clue what the norms are.
> Why don't you just read the damn material?
Because they have TONS of people submitting material IN TOWN.
>
> > Similarly, don't tell me your in your forties, fifties or,
> >eek!,, sixties.
>
> Why? What kind of a moron discriminates against older people in a
> knowledge industry?
I knew a guy via email and mentioned him in one of my books who sold a
script to Will Smith at age 58. Very unusual. I helped a writer in New
Mexico who became a staff writer for a Cartoon Network show at age 54,
but that was only because she knew the showrunner and had taken classes
with him OUT HERE. Most of the viewers who watch shows and go to movies
tend to be YOUNGER. Therefore, it usually makes sense that younger
writers would be more in touch with the audience. Example, when Dave
Ayer (who was in his 20s at the time) told me about working on The Fast
and Furious, I had no idea about all the street racing going on. Dave
knew all about it, grew up near South Central. When he wrote Training
Day he was living in Ramparts with my former roommate. He was the same
age as the young cop in the movie, thereabouts.
So what "moron" are you talking about? OK, so Alvin Sergeant can write
a Spider Man movie and do a great job at age 73, but that's not normal
and he has a long and distinguished career. Some times that's done, but
the producer was talking about people BREAKING IN and the NORM.
> I know young people come cheaper and more
> gullible, but the product the industry sells to consumers depends on
> the knowledge and acquired skills of the people who make it. Or is
> that over the head of Hollyweird idiots?
>
> Why don't you just read the damn material?
One reason they don't read the damned (proper English usage) material
is because of people with anger management issues. This is a people
town and if you're not people they want to work with, you're fucked,
whether you like their reasons or not. I don't take you particularly as
a people person.
> >2.) Tell the reader something interesting about yourself - but only if
> >there is something interesting to say.
>
> No. Won't do it. I'll only share the most uninteresting details
> about myself with you. The interesting stuff I save for my inner
> circle of friends and confidantes.
Umm, OK, you're DEFINITELY not a people person.
>
> Why don't you just read the damn material?
>
> > Telling the reader you went to
> >Yale or Harvard or UCLA appeals to another industry bias towards name
> >brand schools. Don't tell me you went to Cal State Long Beach or some
> >college I've never heard of before. If you have something in common
> >with the reader, that you share a hometown, or school, or mutual
> >friends, use it. If you have had six scripts optioned by two-bit
> >producers, again, don't tell me. It means you have had your shot.
> >Written a NYT best selling book? Let me know.
>
> You want to judge the material on the writer's superficial personal
> credentials rather than on the material? I doubt you even check out
> people's college credentials.
The producer is a little arrogant and off the beam there but on the
other hand, people are looking for similarities because generally
people are more comfortable working with people with whom they share
similarities. That's just human nature. A real example of what that
producer was talking about was the daughter of Gov. Voinivich of Ohio
being a writer for the Drew Carey Show. Drew's a conservative (his own
kind) and from Ohio. She still had to have talent, but her background
was one of the reasons she got the job.
>
> Why don't you just read the damn material?
>
> >3.) Don't fake a referral. Ever.
>
> You want to judge the material on the writer's connections. They're
> the most important thing to you, so you put the severest punishment on
> those who fake them.
It's a people town. It's also a cutthroat town. A whole production can
ride some times on people keeping it quiet until just the right time.
So you have to know that you can trust people. It's BIG.
>
> Why don't you just read the damn material?
>
> >4.) Don't tell me you are "auctioning off" your script. You're not.
> >You are simply trying to get somebody to read it.
>
> It's obvious you just want to keep the upper hand in the negotiation.
> Skip the psychological beatdown on the writer and face the fact that
> artists are businessmen, and they are going to sell their product to
> the buyer of their choice. And before you get all haughty toward
> artists, remember they have a product. You don't have a product, all
> you have is access to someone else's money.
The producer is right. Most writers are happy to sell the pile of used
paper to anyone they can who will pay them something they consider fair
and will fall over themselves to give it to someone who will actually
make it. After they have some "fuck you" money in the bank and can be a
bit more discriminating (I'm talking about MOST writers) then they are
more likely to pick and choose, or have a smart agent and/or manager
who will pick and choose for them.
>
> Why don't you just read the damn material?
>
> > Similarly, don't
> >tell me you are "looking for a producer to partner with." Just because
> >you have a name for a production company doesn't mean you have one.
> >Finally don't send me a fake follow-up letter in hopes that I think I
> >misplaced the script and will ask for another copy.
>
> So you want to judge the material on something else irrelevant to the
> material.
STANDARD way of doing things. I wonder why, if you're not in this
business, you give a shit about railing so much at this producer you've
never even met?
>
> Why don't you just read the damn material?
>
> >5.) Keep your query short.
RIGHT. Two paragraphs max if it's email, no more than 3/4 of a page if
it's print (which is less likely to be read).
>
> You've already wasted a good 15 minutes evaluating the writer's
> connections, university education, previous work, standing in
> Hollyweird...
>
> You could have just read the material by now.
>
> >6.) Nobody cares if you won a screenwriting contest. Sorry.
Not completely true - they care if you place very high in a few
contests like Nicholl and Heart of Film (Austin).
>
> I don't care if you are a producer, know someone at a studio or are
> boffing Miley Cyrus right now. Of course, I don't have anything to do
> with Hollyweird, so I may be different than the vast majority of
> aspiring Hollyweirdos you encounter. If I had a piece of intellectual
> property to sell, and you had just wasted this much time out of my
> life with your stupid bullshit, I would break your nose and tell you
> to get lost. Sorry.
I know quite a few producers who could probably kick your ass straight
up into your angry brain with enough force to make it stay there.
>
> You could have just read the material by now.
>
> >7.) Don't bother soliciting spec TV pilots. TV is driven by a writer,
> >his career and his body of work.
Almost without fail COMPLETELY TRUE.
>
> You forgot the most important thing in Hollyweird, TV included:
> connections.
>
> You could have just read the material by now.
>
> > It is not at all like the feature
> >business where any joker with a good script can get his foot in the
> >door.
TRUE.
>
> You could have just read the material by now.
>
> >8.) Give me a bulletproof logline. Short and sweet.
TRUE in most cases.
>
> You could have just read the material by now.
>
> >9.) Don't send a script unless somebody requests it.
>
> You could have just read the material by now.
TRUE. You're really in your ass now.
>
> >10.) If offered the chance to send in your script, sign the release
> >form or don't. It is not a document to be negotiated.
Maybe true with that producer, NOT true with a great many. If you have
a respected representative (some times even a lawyer they don't know)
or even someone who fakes it very well (like the wife of a now
successful writer on this group), you're OK with a lot of them.
>
> You could have just read the material by now.
>
> >11.) Don't send coverage on your script because I will assume it was
> >written by you.
TRUE in most cases with exceptions.
>
> You could have just read the material by now.
>
> >12.) Don't tell me about how other production companies liked it. If
> >you are emailing me that just tells me that somebody I probably know
> >passed on it.
TRUE unless you have a very valid reason why they passed (like going
out of business) but in many cases they might recommend you to someone
if they liked your script.
>
> You could have just read the material by now.
>
> >13.) If I don't respond to your query, that means pass.
TRUE in most cases. I always give them 6 weeks before even asking.
>
> You could have just read the material by now.
>
> >14.) Don't list my films which you admire. IMDB is free,
TRUE but if you talk about specific recurring themes in their work,
something you might actually have in common, whatever, you have the
same kind of conversation starters you have with most people.
>
> Sentences don't end with commas.
>
> You could have just read the material by now.
>
> >15.) Don't stalk me.
>
> Don't fantasize that anyone wants to stalk you. That's you projecting
> your own psychopathology onto other people.
You've been stalking that producer (via the same sentence over and over
often not make sense) for most of this thread.
> You call other people
> liars, cheaters, no-talents, stalkers... I suspect it is you who is
> all of those things.
>
> You could have just read the material by now.
>
> >16.) Don't stalk me.
>
> You could have just read the material by now.
>
> >17.) Don't tell me you have spent the past year working on the script.
> >This is L.A. where first drafts take twelve weeks.
But people writing those drafts here don't have day jobs often enough.
It's irrelevant how long it took you to write it, however, so why
mention it? Good advice.
>
> You could have just read the material by now.
>
> >18.) Don't use a goofy font. Or emoticons. Or any color other than
> >black.
COMPLETELY TRUE.
>
> You could have just read the material by now.
>
> >19.) Don't query for unpublished or self-published books. If you think
> >unrepped scripts are bad...
TRUE but there are occasional exceptions. Cocoon was sold from an
unpublished novel.
>
> You could have just read the material by now.
>
> >20.) Don't let me know you are available to meet. Yeah, no **** you
> >are available to meet...
TRUE unless you are coming into town for a conference and you tell them
what times you have available. If you do that long enough in advance
for them to have it read AT THEIR LEISURE by the time you get here, and
they REALLY like the script, they'll meet with you.
>
> You don't even need to tell me what a busy person you are. I could
> tell you wanted me to think that.
>
> You could have just read the material by now.
>
> >21.) Try not to come off as obsequious and don't thank me for reading
> >your email.
AMEN!
>
> I know why you go through all these elaborate gyrations about the
> query letter instead of just reading the material -- you don't know
> whether what you read is any good or not. In other words, you don't
> know what the fuck you are doing.
>
> >All this being said, I've bought and sold more than fifty studio
> >films. The first one was a script I requested from a smart query
> >letter.
FROM EVERYTHING THAT PRODUCER SAID I'M PRETTY SURE THAT'S ALL TRUE. By
your comment below, however, you're bitter and cynical for some reason,
yet you went to great length to rail against something you don't want
to be a part of.
???????
>
> Sure, and you've got a degree in astrophysics from Cornell, and you're
> a personal friend of Bobby De Niro, and you're a very busy man, and
> you've got a restraining order against you but that was just a
> misunderstanding, and you're a near-billionaire but you read thousands
> of query letters every year, and you live in Hollyweird itself where
> all the "in" people live, and ...
>
Oddly enough, all of those things could be true of some producers.
MC
Paulo Joe Jingy <dbl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Since as a producer I am inundated with query letters I thought I
> would offer some tips. Take them for what they are worth, they are
> only my opinion.
>
Great.
--
"I read the script and I get it. If I don't get it, I can't do it."
- Morgan Freeman
MC
> You could have just read the material by now.
Ahhh... I don't think so.
Next!
IbnKa...@spammenotsir.com
<skipSP...@yahoo.not> wrote:
>In article <g2a153$6o7$1...@reader2.panix.com>,
><IbnKa...@spammenotsir.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 23:11:14 +0000 (UTC), Paulo Joe Jingy
>> <dbl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >(Stolen from a screenplay forum.)
>>
>> Surely not this one.
>>
>> >Since as a producer I am inundated with query letters I thought I
>> >would offer some tips. Take them for what they are worth, they are
>> >only my opinion.
>>
>> They are worth zero. Just my opinion. You can disregard it, since
>> I'm not "in the biz," nor do I want to be.
>
>Then WHY are you even bothering to post? Most of your opinions below
>are wrong and most of the producer's are right. It's tedious, but I'll
>explain why and leave big spaces so it's easier to follow.
I will summarize your responses: "That's the way Hollywood works."
Yes, I see. But, from my point of view, I don't care if that's the
way Hollywood works. I'm saying the way it works is idiotic. See?
Now, you ask, WHY would I bother to post? No, I'm not a Hollywood
aspirant. I watch movies. I used to love them. I don't love them
any more. They suck. And they suck because of the idiots and their
idiotic creative and business practices (note: I'm only talking about
Hollyweird here, not the international film business).
So I'm losing out on good movies that would be made if not for the
idiots and their idiotic creative and business practices. That's why
I post. Periods of artistic decline historically follow periods of
artistic flowering. The flowering is over, the decline is here and
now. I'm stuck here in a period of decline, and I don't like it.
>> >I do read nearly all queries and pass on 98% of them. Here's what
>> >keeps me from requesting 3%.
>>
>> I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, but I get the impression
>> you have violated a rule of mathematics.
>>
>> >1.) If you don't live in town, don't let on until after they read and
>> >liked the script that you live in New Mexico or New Jersey or
>> >wherever.
>>
>> What a bunch of idiots inhabit Hollyweird. Can you imagine literary
>> publishers insisting writers live in New York?
>>
>> Why don't you just read the damn material?
>
>
>That's pretty good advice. You want to find people you can work with.
You didn't answer my point. Publishers go over things with novelists.
They feel no great need to personally meet the writer. There must be
other reasons for this practice in Hollywood, and I suspect those
reasons are not good ones -- age discrimination, social cliquishness.
>If you have to hire another writer, that costs extra money. With your
>first feature sale they'll offer you scale plus 10% if it's a budget
>covered by the WGA, but even then it could be the sagindie.org level of
>script which means you get very little. So, for the great thrill of
>having your first movie made, the producer assumes you might be willing
>to take notes and do the rewrite for the same price.
You're really supporting my side. Obviously, the industry is backward
when the money a writer gets is based on things other than the quality
of their product (the script). I don't walk into a supermarket, pick
up a canteloupe and say, "It's a fine cantaloupe, but I don't pay
first-time growers." I don't walk into a restaurant and say, "Great
food, but you've only been in business a week and so I won't pay you."
Not only are these business practices unethical, they aren't a great
incentive to people to write a good script. Hence, a lot of the stuff
that gets submitted to Hollywood is shit because "you get what you pay
for." It's a vicious circle. As a movie viewer, I am only concerned
with the quality of the movies I'm being offered, and so the business
practices of Hollyweird adversely affect me in that way.
A true businessman would be looking for THE BEST material they could
find and would not impose such a ridiculous filter as geography.
>>
>> > Similarly, don't tell me your in your forties, fifties or,
>> >eek!,, sixties.
>>
>> Why? What kind of a moron discriminates against older people in a
>> knowledge industry?
>
>I knew a guy via email and mentioned him in one of my books who sold a
>script to Will Smith at age 58. Very unusual. I helped a writer in New
>Mexico who became a staff writer for a Cartoon Network show at age 54,
>but that was only because she knew the showrunner and had taken classes
>with him OUT HERE. Most of the viewers who watch shows and go to movies
>tend to be YOUNGER. Therefore, it usually makes sense that younger
>writers would be more in touch with the audience. Example, when Dave
>Ayer (who was in his 20s at the time) told me about working on The Fast
>and Furious, I had no idea about all the street racing going on. Dave
>knew all about it, grew up near South Central. When he wrote Training
>Day he was living in Ramparts with my former roommate. He was the same
>age as the young cop in the movie, thereabouts.
>
>So what "moron" are you talking about? OK, so Alvin Sergeant can write
>a Spider Man movie and do a great job at age 73, but that's not normal
>and he has a long and distinguished career. Some times that's done, but
>the producer was talking about people BREAKING IN and the NORM.
A true businessman would be interested in the BEST product he could
find and would not impose such a ridiculous filter as age.
>> I know young people come cheaper and more
>> gullible, but the product the industry sells to consumers depends on
>> the knowledge and acquired skills of the people who make it. Or is
>> that over the head of Hollyweird idiots?
>>
>> Why don't you just read the damn material?
>
>
>One reason they don't read the damned (proper English usage) material
>is because of people with anger management issues. This is a people
>town and if you're not people they want to work with, you're fucked,
>whether you like their reasons or not. I don't take you particularly as
>a people person.
A "people town" is a euphemism for "high school but worse" from what
I've read.
Yes, I know. That does not refute my contention that these are stupid
business practices.
>
>>
>> Why don't you just read the damn material?
>>
>> >3.) Don't fake a referral. Ever.
>>
>> You want to judge the material on the writer's connections. They're
>> the most important thing to you, so you put the severest punishment on
>> those who fake them.
>
>
>It's a people town. It's also a cutthroat town. A whole production can
>ride some times on people keeping it quiet until just the right time.
>So you have to know that you can trust people. It's BIG.
These just sound like Stupid Business Practices to me.
>>
>> Why don't you just read the damn material?
>>
>> >4.) Don't tell me you are "auctioning off" your script. You're not.
>> >You are simply trying to get somebody to read it.
>>
>> It's obvious you just want to keep the upper hand in the negotiation.
>> Skip the psychological beatdown on the writer and face the fact that
>> artists are businessmen, and they are going to sell their product to
>> the buyer of their choice. And before you get all haughty toward
>> artists, remember they have a product. You don't have a product, all
>> you have is access to someone else's money.
>
>
>The producer is right. Most writers are happy to sell the pile of used
>paper to anyone they can who will pay them something they consider fair
>and will fall over themselves to give it to someone who will actually
>make it. After they have some "fuck you" money in the bank and can be a
>bit more discriminating (I'm talking about MOST writers) then they are
>more likely to pick and choose, or have a smart agent and/or manager
>who will pick and choose for them.
It's all a negotiating tactic. Beat down the writers. That's why
they prefer younger writers -- they are not wise to what's going on.
If you tell a young person they have to give away the only piece of
valuable intellectual property they may ever create, they will be
gullible enough to do it. An older person is less likely to do so.
>>
>> Why don't you just read the damn material?
>>
>> > Similarly, don't
>> >tell me you are "looking for a producer to partner with." Just because
>> >you have a name for a production company doesn't mean you have one.
>> >Finally don't send me a fake follow-up letter in hopes that I think I
>> >misplaced the script and will ask for another copy.
>>
>> So you want to judge the material on something else irrelevant to the
>> material.
>
>STANDARD way of doing things. I wonder why, if you're not in this
>business, you give a shit about railing so much at this producer you've
>never even met?
Because he annoys me. I work in the real world. There are some bad
business practices here and there, but when I listen to the
Hollyweirdos talk about their industry, it's nothing but unethical
business practices. The shithead should pay the market price for a
script and skip the personal beatdown on the writer, the writer's
location, the writer's experience, the writer's personal connections,
the writer's appearance, etc. No other business works that way.
>>
>> Why don't you just read the damn material?
>>
>> >5.) Keep your query short.
>
>
>RIGHT. Two paragraphs max if it's email, no more than 3/4 of a page if
>it's print (which is less likely to be read).
>>
>> You've already wasted a good 15 minutes evaluating the writer's
>> connections, university education, previous work, standing in
>> Hollyweird...
>>
>> You could have just read the material by now.
>>
>> >6.) Nobody cares if you won a screenwriting contest. Sorry.
>
>Not completely true - they care if you place very high in a few
>contests like Nicholl and Heart of Film (Austin).
>
>
>
>>
>> I don't care if you are a producer, know someone at a studio or are
>> boffing Miley Cyrus right now. Of course, I don't have anything to do
>> with Hollyweird, so I may be different than the vast majority of
>> aspiring Hollyweirdos you encounter. If I had a piece of intellectual
>> property to sell, and you had just wasted this much time out of my
>> life with your stupid bullshit, I would break your nose and tell you
>> to get lost. Sorry.
>
>
>I know quite a few producers who could probably kick your ass straight
>up into your angry brain with enough force to make it stay there.
Of course, anyone who doesn't buy the Hollyweirdos' line of bullshit
must be an angry person. They couldn't just be contemptuous of
bullshitters.
Skipper
It sucks.
If you don't like how it works, change it.
If you can't change it, write about it for an audience that cares and
CAN do something about it.
This isn't that audience here; this is writers who work and some who
want to.
If you won't write about it for people who can change it, or if you
can't, best STFU about it because you're just wasting bandwidth.
In article <g2acg4$s9q$1...@reader2.panix.com>,
IbnKa...@spammenotsir.com
<skipSP...@yahoo.not> wrote:
>I will summarize your attitude.
No, you will mischaracterize it to suit your delusions.
>It sucks.
It's fine.
>If you don't like how it works, change it.
No. I'll just point out how stupid it is. Then you will scramble to
rationalize it.
>If you can't change it, write about it for an audience that cares and
>CAN do something about it.
We can assume from that remark that you don't care about the unethical
business practices of Hollywood, your own industry. Obviously, you
are part of the problem.
>This isn't that audience here; this is writers who work and some who
>want to.
You fit into neither of those groups, so your claim is untrue on the
face of it. But the writers should be exposed to how ridiculous
Hollywood's business practices are. That may help them not be
victimized by a producer or any of the other myriad creeps that
inhabit Hollywood. That, in turn, may bring about some small changes
in Hollywood.
>If you won't write about it for people who can change it, or if you
>can't, best STFU about it because you're just wasting bandwidth.
That advice has no credibility coming from a remorseless
bandwidth-waster like you.
Skipper
<IbnKa...@spammenotsir.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 05:32:51 +0000 (UTC), Skipper
> <skipSP...@yahoo.not> wrote:
>
> >I will summarize your attitude.
>
> No, you will mischaracterize it to suit your delusions.
You're really a fucking idiot. You don't live here, work here, or have
any idea what the fuck is going on here.
Fuck off, idiot. When you get back on your meds give us a call.
Paulo Joe Jingy
other questions.)
To answer the various questions, both posted and PMs;
No PMs queries, please. By the way, you should never pitch to a
stranger or on a message board like this. There are too many Br*****n
W*****s out there looking for ideas to feed their clients. You need to
have established a relationship, even if it is via email, to have
legal grounds to prove access if you believe you have been ripped off.
You can't prove somebody visited this website, read and stole your
idea. Also, save all of your emails forever.
I was trying to say"I request 2% of all queries, but if everyone in
the world followed these rules I might accept as many as 3% of all
queries.
Clarification: When I discussed queries in regards to agents it is
because I assume most of you are querying agents.
Of course, feel free to reprint what I wrote. In the long run it will
make my life easier!
Personally, I prefer email queries. You should too! It is easier to
get somebody to type "send me the script" and press send than it is to
pick up the phone to somebody who might want to actually have a
conversation.
Clairification: If you have been optioned by production companies
(nobody says "prodco") you should of course mention it. By big
production companies I mean Imagine, Jerry Bruckheimer or any other
producer with a studio deal or producer who has made a hit movie in
the last three years.
Pitch festivals are a good idea, but nobody worthwhile ever shows up
to hear them. It is practically impossible to make a valuable
impression in two months.
Registering scripts is fine, but since it lasts only five years is is
essentially worthless. Copyright everything with the U.S. copyright
office. Here's an example; I once wrote a two page outline, registered
it with the guild and pitched it to a writer. Five years later that
writer sold the exact same idea and it became a hit movie. Now, I
could technically claim ownership and I had a record of my meeting
with the writer, but since I had not bothered to re-register my idea I
had no legal evidence to support my point of view. If I had
copyrighted that short story I would have been protected and much
richer today. People will tell you not to copyright your material, but
don't listen to them.
Paulo Joe Jingy
(Some people on the forum *asked* if he'd read their query letters and
some other questions.)
L8 nuz
>
> Registering scripts is fine, but since it lasts only five years is is
> essentially worthless. Copyright everything with the U.S. copyright
> office. Here's an example; I once wrote a two page outline, registered
> it with the guild and pitched it to a writer. Five years later that
> writer sold the exact same idea and it became a hit movie. Now, I
> could technically claim ownership and I had a record of my meeting
> with the writer, but since I had not bothered to re-register my idea I
> had no legal evidence to support my point of view. If I had
> copyrighted that short story I would have been protected and much
> richer today. People will tell you not to copyright your material, but
> don't listen to them.
1. How can I secure a copyright?
This is a frequently misunderstood topic because many people believe
that you must register your work before you can claim copyright.
HOWEVER, NO PUBLICATION, REGISTRATION OR OTHER ACTION IN THE COPYRIGHT
OFFICE IS REQUIRED TO SECURE COPYRIGHT. COPYRIGHT IS SECURED
AUTOMATICALLY WHEN THE WORK IS CREATED, AND A WORK IS "CREATED" WHEN
IT IS FIXED IN A “COPY OR A PHONORECORD FOR THE FIRST TIME.”
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dcom/olia/copyright/copyrightrefresher.htm
2. For only 2 bucks more ($22 vs. $20) https://www.wgaeast.org/script_registration/
provides 10 years (vs. 5 years) of protection.
3. So what stopped you from being “much richer today?”
trawsars
> On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 23:11:14 +0000 (UTC), Paulo Joe Jingy
>
> >liked the script that you live in New Mexico or New Jersey or
> >wherever.
>
> What a bunch of idiots inhabit Hollyweird. Can you imagine literary
> publishers insisting writers live in New York?
>
> Why don't you just read the damn material?
>
> > An out of town client makes life tougher for the agent/
> >manager and unless your in the top 1% of screenwriters it will hinder
> >an agent's ability to get you a job - and him his ten percent of your
> >fee. There is a huge bias against out of towners so try not to tip
> >your hand.
>
> And why is there a huge bias against out of towners? Because
> Hollyweird is full of idiots. No wonder movies and TV have declined
> so precipitously.
>
> Why don't you just read the damn material?
I will only reply to this one point.
Your analogy with literary publishers is wrong. Writing a novel is a
mostly solo business - "mostly" because there'll be an editor. And the
editing process can be conducted through the mail - edited manuscripts
can be Fedexed back and forth between the writer and the editor.
Filmmaking, however, is a collaborative process. Once a script gains
the interest of a producer, he's going to want to meet the writer,
maybe discuss a few changes that might attract the interest of a hot
director or actor. Once the director or actor comes on board, he or
she might have their own input into the script. And all kinds of
things can happen during shooting that may necessitate on-the-fly
script changes. Finally, once the film's being put together in the
editing suite, it may look a lot different than it did on paper, and
maybe a scene may be trimmed here or a new scene may need to be re-
shot there - so more script changes. The writer needs to be on hand
for all of these things - unlike a novelist, a screenwriter needs to
*be there*.
You're not an aspirant in this business. Yet you think you can shoot
your mouth off about professional practices that have been in place
for decades, practices that have been proven to be the best way to
work. Don't be surprised if the pros - or even the aspirants - get a
little annoyed with you.
IbnKa...@spammenotsir.com
All you are saying is, "It's done this way." All I'm saying is,
there's no need for it to be done this way.
If the script is good in the first place, the changes that need to be
made can be made in two sets, assuming the producer or his story
editor know how to organize their thoughts and communicate them in
English to the writer.
Of course, if they don't know what they're doing...
If the original screenwriter cannot make the changes, then another
screenwriter can be hired. No need for the original screenwriter of
the spec script to meet personally with the producer and others.
That only works if the producer knows what they're doing...
There is no need for the actor or director to make substantial
changes. The main reason for accomodating them seems to be to stroke
their egos. If they have minor changes that *the producer* deems
worthy, those can be organized by the producer into one set of changes
and done without ever meeting the writer.
That assumes the producer knows what they're doing, and they have the
spine to stand up to an actor or director.
If the script goes through many more changes than this, the producer
either shouldn't have bought the script in the first place or the
producer doesn't know what they're doing as far as the writing is
concerned.
>You're not an aspirant in this business. Yet you think you can shoot
>your mouth off about professional practices that have been in place
>for decades, practices that have been proven to be the best way to
>work. Don't be surprised if the pros - or even the aspirants - get a
>little annoyed with you.
Kiss, kiss, kiss... any ass in particular or just Hollywood ass in
general? If you support the backward business practices in Hollywood,
you'll get no sympathy when your story is mangled or your check is
lost in the mail.
By the way, Skip Press's dramatic screenwriting credits seem to
consist of a single episode of Zoobilee Zoo. NMS and Martel have yet
to write a GOOD movie. If that's your idea of a pro, then maybe you
enjoy being a perpetual aspirant. It's kind of like buying a lottery
ticket, isn't it? You've got next-to-zero chance of winning the big
payday (which is all you're after), but it's a slender thread of hope
you can hold onto to brighten your spirits. That's perfectly okay,
but it's not the same as being a GOOD WRITER.
Paulo Joe Jingy
> All you are saying is, "It's done this way." All I'm saying is,
> there's no need for it to be done this way.
Well, yeah. In an alternate universe the film industry could have
established itself in Oklahoma City, all the studio heads could have
all been sociophobes who required all correspondence be by letter or
email, and who insisted that all screenwriters live in some other
country.
But the writer of the advice lives in this universe and he was giving
his advice to screenwriters who also live in this universe. To those
who are serious about selling screenplays and who are trying to avoid
as many roadblocks as possible, not attempting to erect more
roadblocks.
And one of the writers in their group just sold a comic book adaption
to Warner Brothers -- a studio that exists in this universe.
http://tinyurl.com/4qlfp9
But why do you care? You've said over and over again that you don't
intend to write for movies anyway.
L8 nuz
> On Jun 8, 2:24 pm, IbnKahl...@spammenotsir.com wrote:
>
> > All you are saying is, "It's done this way." All I'm saying is,
> > there's no need for it to be done this way.
>
> Well, yeah. In an alternate universe the film industry could have
> established itself in Oklahoma City, all the studio heads could have
> all been sociophobes who required all correspondence be by letter or
> email, and who insisted that all screenwriters live in some other
> country.
>
> But the writer of the advice lives in this universe and he was giving
> his advice to screenwriters who also live in this universe. To those
> who are serious about selling screenplays and who are trying to avoid
> as many roadblocks as possible, not attempting to erect more
> roadblocks.
>
> And one of the writers in their group just sold a comic book adaption
>
> But why do you care? You've said over and over again that you don't
> intend to write for movies anyway.
funny how loudly some sub-mediocre so-called writers defend the
(invented) virtues of a business – Hollywood – that never gave a shit
on them. The born losers fantasize that – although Hollywood
mercilessly ignored their love letters – they belong to da business:
aren’t they defending it? Didn’t they read in Trottier’s bable that
you must write “fade in” in capitals? Don’t they write (on this forum)
“prodco” with the legerity of the guy that just had a Martini with
Tarantino?
They are also experts in Intellectual Property: they repeatedly proved
to know less about Copyright Law than a 3rd grader that just wrote his
first poem.
And yeah: they crush the newbies (it’s been scientifically proven that
that’s the cretins’ favorite game). Or they imagine they crush
anything. If you ask for names in Hollywood there’s 1% chance that
someone ever heard of Mobutu Sese Seko and 0% chance that anybody ever
heard of the gODs of this NG
nmstevens
You are making a fundamental mistake, and like most of the mistakes
you make, it is born of of ignorance of how this business works and
how movies get made.
The analogy to a novel writer and a publisher is basically flawed (and
by the way, if you think that every novel that was ever published made
its way from initial submission to the bookshelf with two sets of
revisions, than you know as little about the book business).
In publishing, the novel is the end product. If they buy a novel,
they're going to publish the novel.
In the movie business, the screenplay is not the end product, the
movie is, and in this business, movies are extremely expensive to
produce, market, and distribute.
Screenplays and other literary material are, compared to the cost of a
finished film, extremely cheap.
That leads to one of the basic realities of the movie business -- one
of which you are no doubt completely unaware.
The overwhelming majority of producers who option, buy, and develop
screenplays do not have the money to make movies.
They only have enough money to acquire literary material and develop
screenplays.
Their goal is to use those screenplays to try to get those few
companies -- like a major studio -- that has the money to make a
movie, to give them that money.
But, of course, there are countless such companies, each one with many
screenplays in development, and only very few sources of financing.
That means a lot of screenplays chasing very few possible production
slots.
Within these companies, you generally have a number of development
execs and their assistants who are given independent authority to
develop screenplays and produce notes as they see fit.
Often, their bosses don't even want to look at the screenplay in
question until the exec thinks that it's ready to go -- why? Because
there may very well be ten, fifteen, twenty scripts, and for each
script there might be twenty initial drafts, twenty revisions, twenty
second revisions, twenty polishes -- and the boss's goal is primarily
strategic -- where to take screenplays, how to get them set up, etc.
-- he doesn't really want to be swamped with the details of
development.
So he wants to read as little as possible and as late as possible. And
only then will he give his input. If everyone is lucky, it will be
minor. But maybe it won't be. Maybe he'll hate what the exec has done
and want major changes. In which case, it's back to the beginning of
the process and it's all got to be done again.
But if it's good -- hey, time to go out and try to get it set up.
That brings us to the second reality of the movie business of which
you are no doubt unaware.
And that is that a script, by itself, can virtually never get a
greenlight. That is, you can't simply take a script to a studio --
even a great script, have them read it and say -- okay, here's fifty
million dollars, go make the movie.
You need some pre-sold element that will provide the financier with
some confidence that they will be able to market the project. Maybe
it's based on a best-selling novel. Or you can attach a star. Or a
well-known director.
But you've got to bring in something -- because a script by itself
will not go.
And then begins the search. You have to use the script to find a
director. You find one? He may like the script, but he doesn't want to
make "your" movie. He wants to make "his" movie.
You may say -- hey, who's in charge? You're the producer. Why not just
tell the director -- we've worked on this script for a year, this is
the script that we want to make, take it or leave it.
Because if you do, he'll leave it. And you need the Director. And
pretty much any director whose name is going to matter in packaging
the project will "leave it" if you say something like that to him.
So you "take him" -- and you take his changes to the script, and hope
that somehow or other either the old writer (or more often, the new
writer that the director brings in -- his "favorite writer") won't do
too much damage to the script.
And then you find a star. Most big stars have their own development
companies, with their own staff of execs who are more than happy to
write notes on whatever script you send them.
Want the star? The star and his/her "team" will also have notes. Sure,
you and the director can say, "Hey we like the script the way it is.
Take it or leave it."
Then you don't get the star. And without the star, you can't make the
movie."
So you take the star, and you take all the notes from her "creative
team."
Now, you can go to the studio -- we've got the script. We've got the
director. We've got the star.
Great. But you see, we also have some thoughts about the script too.
And then they give you their notes. And since they have the money, you
have to listen to their comments about the script too.
Of course you can say no. If you don't want to make the movie.
You may say it all sounds ridiculous. But at every step, if you look
at it from the other side -- it's not so ridiculous.
The producer who's paying hundreds of thousands of dollars wants every
script to have the best shot it can at being produced, and the notes
that they generate are aimed at that end result.
The Director doesn't want to simply be a hack -- his name is going to
associated with the project and help get it made. He wants to make his
movie, not somebody else's.
The Star is the one whose face is going to be on the screen. He or she
wants to protect the "name brand" that is the coin of his professional
success -- so their notes are going to reflect their desire to protect
that screen persona.
And the studio is the one putting up the money to make the movie -- so
why shouldn't they have a say in what that movie's going to be?
You can say that it's a system that frequently fails to work, on the
grounds that most movies are not very good.
But you know another system that frequently fails to work?
The system where one writer sits down and writes a novel, by himself,
and it's published by a single publisher with relatively few changes.
Because most novels suck too -- and suck just as bad, with no
committee to share the blame.
NMS
IbnKa...@spammenotsir.com
wrote:
All that says is that none of these people knows how to make a good
film.
The executive doesn't understand storytelling and film, he understands
studio politics, Hollywood trends, marketing mantras and "big names."
The producer either doesn't understand storytelling and film or
doesn't care; his only goal is to sell something to the executive,
something that appeals to the executive's sense of studio politics,
Hollywood trends, marketing mantras and "names."
The director doesn't understand storytelling and film, or his
contributions would be solely about improving the script and film
rather than about creating a "name" for himself.
The star doesn't understand storytelling and film, or his
contributions would be solely about improving the script and film
rather than about creating a "name" for himself.
At no point in the chain of production is there someone who
understands the story, how to tell the story properly, how to properly
turn that story into a good film, and how to turn down input that does
not improve the film.
I am NOT amazed films have declined over the last thirty years. I'm
amazed they are not worse.
Ron
>
> All you are saying is, "It's done this way." All I'm saying is,
> there's no need for it to be done this way.
I'm curious what your basis for this assertion is. By your own
admission, you have little experience with screenwriting in a
professional context.
It's somewhat presumptuous to look at a business about which you know
nothing and to dictate a "better" way by which they could do business.
> If the script is good in the first place, the changes that need to be
> made can be made in two sets, assuming the producer or his story
> editor know how to organize their thoughts and communicate them in
> English to the writer.
I can disagree with this one from personal experience. Ignoring, for the
moment, the need to change things to accommodate the requirements of
production, the truth is that scripts constantly need to change to
respect the requirements of shifting cast and budgets.
Saying it only takes "two sets" assumes, of course, that the writers are
going to nail the changes in one or two passes. This is naive in the
extreme - and I say this as a writer.
> If the original screenwriter cannot make the changes, then another
> screenwriter can be hired. No need for the original screenwriter of
> the spec script to meet personally with the producer and others.
>From experience, I can say that the process works better if you develop
a relationship which involves mutual trust. It's not a case of the
producers (or director) dictating requirements; development, when it's
working well, is a conversation.
I've been involved in both effective and ineffective development
processes - and I can say with a large amount of certainty that having a
good working relationship (having met in person, being comfortable on
the phone with someone, trusting them) encourages a positive and
effective development process.
Whereas relying on email, minimal face-to-face contact, and the
occasional phone call encourages a negative, dictatorial one.
It's funny that the producers I've worked with who very clearly know
what they're doing have ALL placed an emphasis on more interaction, more
conversations, being more involved in the process (relatively speaking).
They've all put more of an emphasis on developing the relationship.
Whereas the people I've worked with who haven't seen to know what their
doing - mostly development execs - have been happier with the sort of
process you seem to be advocating.
> There is no need for the actor or director to make substantial
> changes. The main reason for accomodating them seems to be to stroke
> their egos. If they have minor changes that *the producer* deems
> worthy, those can be organized by the producer into one set of changes
> and done without ever meeting the writer.
I would never ask a director to shoot something he didn't believe in.
And, again, your suggestions seem to be ignorant of how good working
relationships work. In the project I'm working on now, which will
hopefully go before the cameras this fall, the producers' and director's
notes, the script has indisputably been improved by the process.
Repeated conversations and meetings with the director have helped him
find good ideas which improved the script, while also giving him the
trust in us so that when we say, "No, that's a problem" he trusts us.
The movie will be better for the result.
As far as notes from an actor, the truth is that you don't get a movie
made without the consent of a star - so to a certain extent you have to
accommodate the star's wishes. The alternative is not getting your film
made - because the reality of the film business is that your star brings
your funding with him. If you can get your own financing, you can be
free of worrying about actor's concerns.
Although, again, if you had much experience in making movies, you'd know
what happens when an actor is asked to deliver a line he doesn't believe
in. It's not good. So you could have the actor just deliver notes, or
you could engage in a process with the actor, which would allow you to
find a third way, accommodating their needs while protecting (or even
improving) the project.
Your suggestion that the notes be collated and sent to the writer would
almost certainly end up marginalizing the writer. After all, the
producer sends notes, you don't execute them because they're bad (or you
don't execute them the way they envision because you see an
improvement), they fire you. No working relationship.
That working relationship - which you're so dismissive of - is exactly
what puts the writer in a position to make sure that the development
process improves the script while incorporating the legitimate needs of
the other key participants.
-Ron
nmstevens
(snip)
>
> All that says is that none of these people knows how to make a good
> film.
>From the perspective of those that make movies, either in 2008, or at
any time, such a statement is not only silly, it's virtually
meaningless.
"Good" according to whom? According to what standard?
Aesthetically good? Artistically good? Critically acclaimed? Movies
you personally like?
What constitutes a "good" movie for those who invest tens to hundreds
of millions of dollars in their making, marketing and distribution are
movies that give a decent return on that investment.
And while a certain number of movies fail, on the whole, if movies
weren't "good" in that sense -- in the sense of being profitable for
those that make them -- they'd go out of business.
And so long as they are profitable, why should those that make them --
so long as enough people go to see them, watch them on TV, buy the
DVDS, et al, to justify the expense of making and marketing them --
what possible motive would those who make them have, to change the way
they do business?
The movies make money. The industry is profitable. In fact, it
generally makes record profits year after year.
If the movies that make those profits are "bad" by some standard that
you apply or that the guys that hang out in your basement applies or
that Leonard Maltin applies -- why the hell should those that make
them care?
The people that finance those movies, make them to make money. If the
movies make money, they are "good" by that standard, which is the
standard that they care about.
I'm clipping all of the other bullshit you posted below, because it
really doesn't matter.
All of the various participants in the making of movies have to
understand how to create something that is going to appeal to a mass
audience. That movie may be "good" or "bad" aesthetically, critically,
or by some standard of yours -- but it has nothing to do with the
people who make them being stupid or not knowing what they are doing.
Because nobody is setting out to make "Daddy Daycare" to make some
deep and abiding statement about humanity. It's a dumb comedy aimed to
make money. That's what the writer wrote it to do, the producer
produced it to do, the director directed it to do, the studio financed
it to do. And that's what it did.
Nobody involved was in any way inept. They made exactly the movie they
wanted, it reached the audience they were aiming for, and it did
exactly what they wanted it to do.
And if you really believe that movies were being made according to
some different standard in 1978, or that the average level of movie
quality was significantly better then than now -- then it's obvious
that movie history is something else that you don't know anything
about.
NMS
IbnKa...@spammenotsir.com
<ronald...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> All you are saying is, "It's done this way." All I'm saying is,
>> there's no need for it to be done this way.
>
>I'm curious what your basis for this assertion is. By your own
>admission, you have little experience with screenwriting in a
>professional context.
Two things: logic and something called THE REAL WORLD. Most people
in the REAL WORLD do not do things the way Hollywood does them. That's
why it doesn't cost them two hundred million dollars to produce a
two-hour presentation, a novel, a play, a piece of software, a car, a
ship, an airplane, a business transaction, a restaurant, etc.
>It's somewhat presumptuous to look at a business about which you know
>nothing and to dictate a "better" way by which they could do business.
Who cares.
>> If the script is good in the first place, the changes that need to be
>> made can be made in two sets, assuming the producer or his story
>> editor know how to organize their thoughts and communicate them in
>> English to the writer.
>
>I can disagree with this one from personal experience. Ignoring, for the
>moment, the need to change things to accommodate the requirements of
>production, the truth is that scripts constantly need to change to
>respect the requirements of shifting cast and budgets.
Don't keep shifting the cast or the budget. That's the way people get
things done in the real world. In the past, movie studios made
hundreds of movies a year. Roger Corman made many movies, some of
which were quite good.
>Saying it only takes "two sets" assumes, of course, that the writers are
>going to nail the changes in one or two passes. This is naive in the
>extreme - and I say this as a writer.
If they don't "nail it" in one or two passes, then another writer can
be hired. If you end up hiring 32 screenwriters, as I understand
happened recently, you don't know what the fuck you are doing.
>> If the original screenwriter cannot make the changes, then another
>> screenwriter can be hired. No need for the original screenwriter of
>> the spec script to meet personally with the producer and others.
>
>>From experience, I can say that the process works better if you develop
>a relationship which involves mutual trust. It's not a case of the
>producers (or director) dictating requirements; development, when it's
>working well, is a conversation.
If a spec script is not relatively ready to make, you should not have
bought it. Somebody has to decide what changes to make and supposedly
that is the producer. A competent producer should be able to: a)
pick a script that is relatively ready to make; b) organize and pare
down changes to the minimum, then communicate them efficiently to the
writer. David O'Selznick used to do it with memos. People in the
real world manage to do with e-mail and telephone calls. Personal
meetings are a waste of time and money, and are probably used more for
social reasons than for business reasons.
>I've been involved in both effective and ineffective development
>processes - and I can say with a large amount of certainty that having a
>good working relationship (having met in person, being comfortable on
>the phone with someone, trusting them) encourages a positive and
>effective development process.
What kind of namby-pamby, warm-and-fuzzy bullshit is that? Either you
know the changes you want and you have picked a script and writer who
are capable of making them, or you are an incompetent excuse for a
producer.
>Whereas relying on email, minimal face-to-face contact, and the
>occasional phone call encourages a negative, dictatorial one.
Mainly it does not allow the producer to discriminate on the basis of
all sorts of irrelevant things, which apparently many people in
Hollywood WANT to do. Face it, most of you are just overly social
narcissists. If the movies are ever to improve, the business has to
get back to writers who sit alone in a room for a long time and
create, writers whose principle interest is creating a great original
story with great characters, scenes and human psychology, not
superficial hustlers whose principle interests are partying,
networking and socializing (not to mention fornicating and
drug-taking).
>It's funny that the producers I've worked with who very clearly know
>what they're doing have ALL placed an emphasis on more interaction, more
>conversations, being more involved in the process (relatively speaking).
>They've all put more of an emphasis on developing the relationship.
>
>Whereas the people I've worked with who haven't seen to know what their
>doing - mostly development execs - have been happier with the sort of
>process you seem to be advocating.
Bullshit. I happen to know some writers, and they tell me of
pointless meetings in which the executive called them in only to tell
them, "I just wanted to see what you looked like," or "Love your work,
Thanks for coming by." We know what you jerks are up to with all your
bullshit about who you want to party with -- er, work with. It's not
a normal way of doing business, and it obviously downgrades the
quality of movies.
>> There is no need for the actor or director to make substantial
>> changes. The main reason for accomodating them seems to be to stroke
>> their egos. If they have minor changes that *the producer* deems
>> worthy, those can be organized by the producer into one set of changes
>> and done without ever meeting the writer.
>
>I would never ask a director to shoot something he didn't believe in.
>And, again, your suggestions seem to be ignorant of how good working
>relationships work. In the project I'm working on now, which will
>hopefully go before the cameras this fall, the producers' and director's
>notes, the script has indisputably been improved by the process.
That means nothing. The script might have been bad to begin with, or
you might be a Hollywood apologist.
>Repeated conversations and meetings with the director have helped him
>find good ideas which improved the script, while also giving him the
>trust in us so that when we say, "No, that's a problem" he trusts us.
>The movie will be better for the result.
If your script needed so much improvement, maybe it wasn't that good
to begin with.
>As far as notes from an actor, the truth is that you don't get a movie
>made without the consent of a star - so to a certain extent you have to
>accommodate the star's wishes. The alternative is not getting your film
>made - because the reality of the film business is that your star brings
>your funding with him. If you can get your own financing, you can be
>free of worrying about actor's concerns.
This is one of those "this is the way it works" arguments. Logically,
if you have to make changes for reasons other than that they improve
the script, you are not working toward the end of having a good
script.
>Although, again, if you had much experience in making movies, you'd know
>what happens when an actor is asked to deliver a line he doesn't believe
>in. It's not good.
What do you think they do in the theatre? You think they call in Mr.
Shakespeare or Mr. Euripides for a script meeting every time somebody
doesn't like something? If the actor can't say the line, they cut the
damned line. If it's a really important line, they cut the damned
actor.
> So you could have the actor just deliver notes, or
>you could engage in a process with the actor, which would allow you to
>find a third way, accommodating their needs while protecting (or even
>improving) the project.
Or you could say, fuck you, Mr. Actor. Your requested changes do not
improve the film.
>Your suggestion that the notes be collated and sent to the writer would
>almost certainly end up marginalizing the writer. After all, the
>producer sends notes, you don't execute them because they're bad (or you
>don't execute them the way they envision because you see an
>improvement), they fire you. No working relationship.
No, you send them an email, a written memo or you talk to them on the
phone.
>That working relationship - which you're so dismissive of - is exactly
>what puts the writer in a position to make sure that the development
>process improves the script while incorporating the legitimate needs of
>the other key participants.
"Incorporating the 'legitimate' needs of the other key participants
(I'm leaving out the star's drinking buddy and the producer's bimbo)"
are not necessarily going to improve the script. So what you say is
bullshit.
L8 nuz
> On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 22:43:45 +0000 (UTC), nmstevens <nmstev...@msn.com>
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
But you have to understand, ibnkahl, that these guys are just begging
for attention. None of these patented losers wrote “Pulp Fiction” or
“Fargo”. None of them is a millionaire due to his/her writing skills.
The most these suckers ever accomplished was a PT (part-time) job as a
reviewer with a few pennies more per hour than a Taco Bell slave.
And they are so desperately trying to make you think that they
created/distributed/etc “No Country for Old Men” (by far the best
movie – so far – of the 21st century).
Well, guess what: they DIDN’T!
Some of them might bark a better English than mine (or yours), but
NONE “of them” can write one fucking line for “Heat” (a superb movie,
although I hated the end of it)
trawsars
> On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 23:34:17 +0000 (UTC), Ron
>
> >admission, you have little experience with screenwriting in a
> >professional context.
>
> Two things: logic and something called THE REAL WORLD. Most people
> in the REAL WORLD do not do things the way Hollywood does them. That's
> why it doesn't cost them two hundred million dollars to produce a
> two-hour presentation, a novel, a play, a piece of software, a car, a
> ship, an airplane, a business transaction, a restaurant, etc.
I'm curious as to exactly which REAL WORLD you're talking about. I
happen to have a day job in advertising, and I can attest that my line
of work is pretty similar to filmmaking. And I've helped my colleagues
on their 2-hour presentations before, and I can tell you, that's a
pretty collaborative process as well. Piece of software? Just take a
look at the number of credits on your typical Xbox game. Cars, ships,
airplanes? Plenty of cooks in those broths, I assure you. If you think
producing any of those things is the work of one Auteur, you're in
Cloudcuckooland.
> >It's somewhat presumptuous to look at a business about which you know
> >nothing and to dictate a "better" way by which they could do business.
>
> Who cares.
Clearly not you. Which makes you a troll.
mary...@rcn.com
I'm just happy you cited Aristophanes. Yes!
wra...@aol.com
>
> read more �- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
And yet these untalented losers all post under their own names. Unlike
all the loser shoe salesman who know better than the rest of us.
L8 nuz
Well, excuse me, Sir: my name is Dan M and I live in OH. Your (as of
“the rest of us”) name seems to be … ummm lemme think: wbra? Kin? Aol?
Bra (are ya a pornographer?)? I mean c’mon: when u’ve been born with
your only spinning neuron paying rent in yer testicles, why da fuck
would ya brag about it, eh?
and speaking Spanish, you retard, let's see: "all the loser"?!;
"salesman who know"?!
I mean I know you guys are stupid, but will ya ever stop proving your
autism again and again?
IbnKa...@spammenotsir.com
<traw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Jun 9, 8:53 am, IbnKahl...@spammenotsir.com wrote:
>> On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 23:34:17 +0000 (UTC), Ron
>>
>> >I'm curious what your basis for this assertion is. By your own
>> >admission, you have little experience with screenwriting in a
>> >professional context.
>>
>> Two things: logic and something called THE REAL WORLD. Most people
>> in the REAL WORLD do not do things the way Hollywood does them. That's
>> why it doesn't cost them two hundred million dollars to produce a
>> two-hour presentation, a novel, a play, a piece of software, a car, a
>> ship, an airplane, a business transaction, a restaurant, etc.
>
>I'm curious as to exactly which REAL WORLD you're talking about. I
>happen to have a day job in advertising, and I can attest that my line
>of work is pretty similar to filmmaking. And I've helped my colleagues
>on their 2-hour presentations before, and I can tell you, that's a
>pretty collaborative process as well. Piece of software? Just take a
>look at the number of credits on your typical Xbox game. Cars, ships,
>airplanes? Plenty of cooks in those broths, I assure you. If you think
>producing any of those things is the work of one Auteur, you're in
>Cloudcuckooland.
You can't follow a line of thought. Few pieces of software are made
the way you people make movies, and those are usually pieces of
software that fail to get made. Production processes are efficient
and organized, and no, they do not depend on meeting the engineer
personally, assessing their youth, sexiness, connections or
party-ability.
The question is not whether there are other people involved, but
whether the process is efficient and intelligent.
nomad
L8 nuz,
You are far too brilliant to be wasting your valuable time on this
newsgroup with a bunch of hacks and wannabe hacks. You need to take
your genius and your screenplay out to LA and show dem what it's all
about. No what I'm sayin? We can't keep up wit you, and dat's a
fact. You just shreddin us here. We is stupid, and you da man! You
keep givin us da beat down and it hurts real bad. So go give LA
the 411 on the L8 nuz style, get doze films made, collect doze Oscars,
and send doze women out there into orgasmic orbit. Den we be sayin, "I
knew L8 before he became orgasmic superstar", and maybe we finally get
laid.
Peace out, bro
nomad
Now I'm confused. I'm a software engineer. The best way to develop
software is to put the engineer in the room with the customer. The
customer tells the engineer what the software should do, the engineer
figures out how to do it. But the engineer must have absolute technical
control over the development to be successful. No interference from
non-software professionals.
I thought screenwriters complain their screenplays are ruined by idiot
producers, directors, stars, etc who know nothing about screenwriting. But
Neal is saying everybody's involvement makes for a better product. It
seems like collaboration is successful if everyone knows their area of
expertise and do not stray into other's, otherwise failure occurs.
Paulo Joe Jingy
> And yet these untalented losers all post under their own names. Unlike
> all the loser shoe salesman who know better than the rest of us.
The Amalgamated Union of Loser Shoe Salesman, Nosepickers and Sidewalk
Crawlers of America -- Local 1016, would like to express their outrage
at that remark.
"Yeah, we're low-life, mouth-breathing losers but we ain't that low.
Cut us some frickin' slack."
L8 nuz
>
> - Show quoted text -
suck what? You mean that's your way of being funny?! Maaaan we all
shit in our thongs due to the devastating E= mc2 that you so subtle
poisoned us with. My Doberman is still laughing. Don't ya stop here,
so what's next? C'mon, c'mon go ahead, u're so creative that my
neighbor’s grandma is ready to have an orgasm. Oh wait, she looked up
yer French and got constipated. But hey, my Doberman …..
nmstevens
> On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 03:58:41 +0000, IbnKahldun wrote:
I think that you've put your finger on why failure frequently occurs,
in the movie business and in other businesses -- when people in one
area of expertise feel the necessity of straying into areas where they
lack expertise -- but where their *authority* gives them the right to
intrude and where ego gives them the sense that they should, in a way,
intrude -- in the sense that they want to "leave their mark"
creatively.
When the process of bringing a project from origin (whether its a
pitch, or a spec script, or a book, or whatever) to a finished movie,
is as prolonged as it is, it is necessary for all of the people in the
process to feel "invested" -- and part of what gets people invested in
a project is the feeling that their ideas have been embodied in the
work -- that they aren't simply working to bring the creative efforts
of somebody else to the screen, but on some level, putting their own
creative efforts on the screen.
That's part of how, in any business, you get clients invested in what
you're doing, how you get members of a team invested in what you're
doing, how you sell a project to your boss -- you take their ideas,
their input (or at least make them think you are) and incorporate it
into what you're doing.
The challenge is to find a way to do it without welding the axle to
the top of the car.
NMS
pinknebulous
"nmstevens" <nmst...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:g2j447$i7q$1...@reader2.panix.com...
You, Neal Marshall Stevens, conversing with a known racist, illustrative of
how desperate for attention you are.
mary...@rcn.com
My ex is a software engineer, and yes - put the guy in the room with
the client. But it takes artwork to anticipate what the client might
need, and dexterity to put it there. Delight and surprise the
client. Sometimes brainstorming works - I know my writing working
partnership is a good one, two heads better than one. I also know
that, having read many drafts of many scripts, the early ones needed
work. Maybe they got sent out too soon, who knows. Legally Blonde
wasn't built in a day.
mary...@rcn.com
As an admitted sidewalk crawler, I'm surprised we have a union. I
could have been getting benefits. Time to head for the main office.
Alan Brooks
Brooks' Theorum: "If you must reform an industry in order to succeed in it,
you've already failed."
Alan Brooks
---------------------------
A Schmuck with an Underwood
-- If I see further than
other men it's because
I stole a better
telescope.
MWSM FAQ: http://www.panix.com/~mwsm/faq.html
Filtering Trolls: http://www.panix.com/~mwsm/trolls.html
pwt
>
> 1. How can I secure a copyright?
> This is a frequently misunderstood topic because many people believe
> that you must register your work before you can claim copyright.
>
You can't file a lawsuit until after you've registered, while doing so
post-infringement carries burdens and restrictions.
"Specifically, timely registration creates a legal presumption that
your copyright is valid, and allows you to recover up to $150,000 (and
possibly lawyer's fees) without having to prove any actual monetary
harm."
pwt