Newbie question... Marketing your script?
Mark
I've about half-completed my first screenplay, and would like to know... how
you go about marketing it?
Thanks.
Mark.
Gene Harris
Here we go again.
This question comes up about every third minute on this newsgroup.
I'll take it this time, folks.
Here's the short answer: do not market your first script, unless you
have gotten objective feedback on it from people who are knowledgeable
about screenplays and know a good script when they read it, and they tell
you it's fabulous.
I don't mean to discourage you, but it's extremely -- EXTREMELY --
unlikely that your first script will be of professional caliber.
Extremely unlikely. Extremely. Unlikely.
Think about it. How many writers sell their first short story or novel?
How many composers publish the first piece they write? How many
architects have the first structure they design turn into an actual
building?
Screenwriting is an art, and a craft. It takes time to learn. Check out
Terry Rossio's and Ted Elliot's web site (www.wordplayer.com). They'll
tell you that they wrote 12 or 13 scripts before they felt they were good
enough to sell one. Of course, they've gone on to great success with
Shrek, Pirates of the Caribbean, etc.
After you've finished this first one, get some good feedback, either by
paying a good consultant, or a reputable coverage service, or by hooking
up with someone in the business that's willing to read it, or by
persuading other, more experienced screenwriters, to read it and give you
notes. Whatever way you can get opinions from someone other than your
mother and your friends.
Under no circumstances should you try to market it -- unless a pro in the
business tells you you're the next William Goldman. Instead, get
feedback, learn from it, rewrite the script based on the feedback if you
wish, or put it away and start another.
I know you think it's going to be the next Academy Award winner. So does
everyone when they write their first script. In maybe one case out of
ten thousand, it's actually pretty good. The other 9,999 scripts range
from mediocre and flawed at best, to downright ca-ca.
The very fact that you're asking about how to market your script
indicates that you probably don't know much about the business of
screenwriting, and probably not a lot about the craft, either. Just a
guess.
Your time now should be spent learning the craft, by reading other
scripts, watching films, maybe reading a book or two about screenwriting,
and, above all, writing.
Hey, maybe I'm wrong, and maybe you're a genius who's going to write a
brilliant script right out of the gate. But that ain't the way to bet.
Just finish it. Rewrite it. Start another one. Repeat.
Gene
Mark
dream of trying to sell a first draft of anything , just like I wouldn't
send a demo tape of open mic night comedy to clubs and expect to a) get
booked, and b) leave nothing but a bad impression on the minds of those who
might be in a position to pay me.
I'm just thinking about a little further down the road... not next week.
But thanks for the thoughts... definitely a good idea to keep people
grounded... so easy to get carried away with these things.
Mark.
"Gene Harris" <gr810r...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns94F47751B9603...@130.133.1.4...
Vidar Nilsen
> Think about it. How many writers sell their first short story or
> novel?
Actually, I did this very thing. Although it was only for a Norwegian
magazine )it was written in Norwegian). It was called "Ventura" and it
was published in 8 consecutive issues way back in the early 90's.
It sucked like a rabies infected whore with cracked teeth on a cold
winters night, but still.
--
Vidar Nilsen
It all begins here www.project-si.com
Mysti Berry
1. Use script as writing sample to try and get an agent.
2. Pitch script to producers to get them to option it.
3. Use script to raise funds (never works for beginners unless the
budget is inside your mom's credit card limit or
you are driving/sleeping with/personal trainer for a bankable talent).
There are lots of books and websites advising how implement these paths.
If you think the idea is great, you might start with producers. If you
think your writing is brilliant, you might start with agents. Unless
both concept and writing are stunning, expect mass rejection, write
another script, repeat :)
Mysti
Ron Drake
"Mark" <ma...@meninblack.ca> wrote:
First of all, Finish It.
Then, register it with the Screenwriter's Guild and follow the previous
advice you've gotten here to allow other screenwriters to read it and
comment. You can get people here to read it and you'll find the feed-
back invaluable.
Then, Rewrite It.
Then, you've "finished" the first draft.
As for marketing?
A lot of people will tell you to write query letters to agents and
get them to read your stuff. That's good advice. But the best advice
I've gotten came from the only paid screenwriting seminar I attended.
From the moment you finish that first screenplay (and not before),
you are a screenwriter*. Tell people you meet that you're a screen-
writer. That's how I got in touch with a producer of "Columbo," who
allowed me to submit my work and taught me a lot about the business
(and writing those damned things taught me a lot about people, as it
turned out).
My first meeting in the business came when I ran across a producer of
"The Simpsons" online. I asked if I could submit. He said "yes," and
I've been writing ever since.
Identify people who've produced work like yours and send a query.
But, first and foremost, finish.
Then, start another one. Keeps you from going nuts while you're pur-
suing the first one.
Hope this helps. Good luck.
--Ron Drake
*Michael Hauge
--
*******************************************************************
http://www.coffeemac.com
*******************************************************************
Asbestos Jeff
> I've about half-completed my first screenplay, and would like to know... how
> you go about marketing it?
1. Write four more.
2. Take the lessons you learn on those and rewrite the one you have.
3. Apply the lessons you learn on that rewrite to rewriting the four.
4. Repeat steps 2 and 3 three times.
Dr. Jai Maharaj
"Mark" <ma...@meninblack.ca> posted:
> I've about half-completed my first screenplay, and
> would like to know... how you go about marketing it?
> Thanks. Mark.
Based on personal experience, one sells his screenplay
by relying on the wisdom, experience, connections and
recommendations of personal contacts in the industry.
Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
nmstevens
Okay, Mark. This is a question that gets asked here all the time, and
the best reply that I have is to rephrase the question in the
following way and ask you how it sounds.
I'm about half way through painting my first painting and would like
to know -- how do you go about marketing it?
Does it sound silly to you that someone would assume that, halfway
through painting his very first painting that the result would be
marketable?
Why would you assume that producing a screenplay of *professional
calibre* is somehow easier that producing a painting of *professional
calibre* - that is, a screenplay that a buyer of screenplays would be
prepared to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on -- which is
routinely what buyers of screenplays spend on them.
And if you say, "Well, hell, I've been to the movies and those things
look like crap -- I figure that just about anybody ought to be able to
whack out one of those things. Hell, it's not like I'm looking to
write Citizen Kane or something."
Well, you know what -- I can go to the Metropolitan Museum, and I can
look at some of the paintings hanging there and I can deliver
precisely the same sort of judgement -- some of that stuff strikes me
as crap -- hell, I'm not trying to paint like Rembrandt -- but I ought
to be able to spray paint a canvas a single monotone -- like some of
that modern art bullshit. If it's art when one of those guys does it,
it ought be art when I do it. So bing, bang, boom - I guess that ought
to make me a modern artist. Where do I send it and pick up my check
for a cool million?"
Only it doesn't work that way. Does it? Not for paintings. Not for
screenplays.
The "nice" answer to your question is that people who haven't even
finished painting their first painting shouldn't be asking questions
about where to sell their paintings. They should be asking questions
about how to perfect the craft of painting.
NMS
Gene Harris
>> Think about it. How many writers sell their first short story or
>> novel?
>
> Actually, I did this very thing. Although it was only for a Norwegian
> magazine )it was written in Norwegian). It was called "Ventura" and it
> was published in 8 consecutive issues way back in the early 90's.
>
> It sucked like a rabies infected whore with cracked teeth on a cold
> winters night, but still.
Man, that's pretty sucky, Vidar. But still, as you say, you did sell it.
It does happen, without doubt. There's certainly an exception to every
rule.
But you'd have to agree that most screenplays that suck like a rabies
infected whore with cracked teeth on a cold winter's night don't sell.
Unless they have "Van Helsing" on the title page ...
Gene
Mysti Berry
It took me less time to answer the guy's question than it took to read your explanation of why his question was stupid.
The screenplay marketplace is mysterious at first, I have answered this question from people who have never even written a script...
sigh.
mysti
Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)
<mysti...@oracle.com> wrote:
>My first screenplay won a little contest. It happens.
>It took me less time to answer the guy's question than it took to read
>your explanation of why his question was stupid.
>The screenplay marketplace is mysterious at first, I have answered this
>question from people who have never even written a script...
>
>sigh.
>
>mysti
Have you sold the script? Is it PRODUCED? '-)
Caroline
Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)
<rdrake_andt...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>First of all, Finish It.
>
>Then, register it with the Screenwriter's Guild and follow the previous
>advice you've gotten here to allow other screenwriters to read it and
>comment. You can get people here to read it and you'll find the feed-
>back invaluable.
NOOOOOOOOO...!!!
COPYRIGHT! Library of Congress, U.S. Copyright Office.
And what is the "Screenwriter's Guild?" Do you mean WGA? In any
case, NOTHING is as good as U.S. Copywright. Nothing counts in court
at the level of a registered copyright. After you have your copyright
registered, if you want to dump money on "bells and whistles," have
fun. But they don't do a thing for recovering punitive damages in a
plagiarism suite, and that's the reason for protecting your work. The
ONLY reason!
Caroline
Mark
with the experience of having seen a fellow comic (aka bunko artist) who'd
seen my act do a bit of mine on tv. How do you prove you're right?
In standup, it's pretty much every person for themselves, and whoever said
it on tv first can consider it theirs.
Might someone have a suitable link for registration with the copyright
office or related info?
Thanks again.
Mark.
Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)
A "Cut & Paste" from last Friday:
...........................
Here you go:
http://www.copyright.gov/forms/
For screenplays, you want Form PA. (Performing Arts) When you mail
your script with your check and the filled out form, mail it the
cheapest way that will get you a reciept back showing the date it was
accepted at the Copyright Office. Save it, and when your copyright
registration comes back, staple the return reciept to the copyright
because it will supercede the date shown on your copyright. This is
NOT some mickey mouse thing. I got the information directly from the
copyright office. There can be a considerable lag between the time
your script is delivered to them and the time it takes them to get
around to processing your script.
And for general information for those of you who are not U.S.
residents but are marketing your scripts to Hollywood, you do NOT have
to be an American citizen NOR do you need to reside in the U.S. So...
If you're writing with the goal of a Hollywood script sale, register
your work with the U.S. copyright office.
Caroline
Clay Heery
>it on tv first can consider it theirs.
Sadly, this is very true. A good friend of mine was crushed to hear a bit of
his on HBO -- done by somebody we both thought was a friend.
His response? "I did it on HBO, so it's mine now."
--C.
Dr. Jai Maharaj
> would like to know... how you go about marketing it?
> Thanks. Mark.
Based on personal experience, one sells his screenplay
nmstevens
> My first screenplay won a little contest. It happens.
> It took me less time to answer the guy's question than it took to read
> your explanation of why his question was stupid.
> The screenplay marketplace is mysterious at first, I have answered this
> question from people who have never even written a script...
>
> sigh.
>
> mysti
>
And I hate to say this to you --
"winning a little contest" -- is not selling a screenplay at a
professional level.
I've worked at a reader on a contest that wasn't particularly little
and the overwhelming majority of scripts were unreadable crap. Even
the finalists were only average at best. So far as I know, none of
them sold.
That's the thing about contests -- in the end, the winner is simply
the best of the submitted screenplays. It doesn't mean that it's
necessarily all that good. Only the best of the bunch.
And yes, of course, one can always find exceptions to any rule --
hell, you can probably find some five year old somewhere who painted
something and, through whatever twist of fate, impressed somebody and
sold it for some significant amount of money.
That doesn't mean that the work of five-year-olds -- nor those adults
who paint like five year olds -- as an operating principle -- are apt
to sell their paintings.
Given that painting is a skilled craft, it is, as a "general rule" --
far more likely that those who have worked hard to master that craft,
far more likely to end up succeeding at it -- at a professional level
-- than those who simply take up the brush for the first time, never
having touched it before -- those lighting-strike exceptions
notwithstanding.
Ditto with screenwriters -- those comparably exceedingly rare
exceptions notwithstanding.
Those exceptions do not cause the fundamental rule, as embodied in my
example to disappear.
Professional writing is a craft and screenwriting is an exceedingly
demanding and competitive profession.
It is not, by any stretch of imagination, the same as winning a
lottery ticket. Nor is it, as a general rule, simply some inborn skill
that some people simply happen to have -- any more than the
overwhelming majority of people could simply pick up an instrument and
play it without every having practiced, or pick up a brush and paint
without every having done it -- which is not to say that, every so
often, somebody doesn't manage to do just that.
But most don't. In fact, it happens so rarely, that were one to
presume ahead of time to be able to do it -- at least in respect to
painting, or playing a musical instrument, you'd probably look at him
as if he were nuts.
And yet, for some odd reason, when it comes to writing screenplays, it
seems by far, to be the default position -- that people who've written
one, or half of one -- or none, seem to feel that they should jump
right ahead to the really important question -- where to sell the
finished product.
And that, frankly, is my position -- that people who think that
they're going to be able to sell their first screenplay for the sort
of money that screenplays generally sell for -- are far more likely
(despite the extremely rare exception) to be nuts than that they've
actually come out (or are half way on the way to coming out with) with
a saleable screenplay first time out the gate.
NMS
AWILLIS957
>And that, frankly, is my position -- that people who think that
>they're going to be able to sell their first screenplay for the sort
>of money that screenplays generally sell for -- are far more likely
>(despite the extremely rare exception) to be nuts than that they've
>actually come out (or are half way on the way to coming out with) with
>a saleable screenplay first time out the gate.
>
>NMS
Speaking from the outside, I don't think there's any way I could sell a
screenplay out of the blue. That's why I'm entering a BBC contest. The prizes
are money and mentoring, that's all. Looking at the picture in Britain, it's
virtually impossible to break into television out of the blue, too. But there
is a channel: soaps. East Enders and Doctors use fifty scriptwriters each, and
there are many other soaps. The idea is, win or get placed in a BBC or
televison company competition, and hope to get into writing for soaps or other
bits and pieces. Kick off from there.
This is very paltry stuff, I know, but, I hope, realistic.
geoff alexander
> It took me less time to answer the guy's question than it took to read
> your explanation of why his question was stupid.
> The screenplay marketplace is mysterious at first, I have answered this
> question from people who have never even written a script...
>
> sigh.
>
> mysti
He did answer the question, Mysti. The answer is that he needs to
learn a lot more before he should even consider asking the question.
Giving him the straight dope is ultimately much more helpful to him
than some pat answer about query letters, contests and production
companies, which will only distract him from the only important issue.
G
Mysti Berry
agent, you pitch to a producer, or you produce it yourself. I would
never presume to know how good his script is, and I can't fathom why you do.
Mysti
nmstevens wrote a lot of...stuff:
>Mysti
>
Mysti Berry
Mysti
Ron
Mysti Berry <mysti...@oracle.com> wrote:
> Telling someone they aren't ready to hear the answer isn't the same as
> answering the question anywhere but cyberspace.
>
I disagree. A lot of people -- not just in cyberspace -- don't know
what questions they need to be asking. If somebody asks you a question,
in any context, that betrays a certain amount of ignorance I think
you're doing them a huge disservice by answering their literal question
but leaving unanswered questions that only went unasked because the
person didn't know enough.
The catch is, on line, answering those unasked questions becomes a
little testy. Neal, for example, gets a little offended. Jaybee is a
little brusque. I suspect that if you were in a position to ask them
those questions in real life (which presupposes that you know them and
are having a conversation with them) their generally friendly nature
would sooth out some of the rough edges of the advice itself.
Or maybe they wouldn't, but that's my guess.
AWILLIS957
>Subject: Re: Newbie question... Marketing your script?
>From: Ron ronald...@hotmail.com
>Date: 27/05/04 2:35 AM GMT Daylight Time
>Message-id: <ronaldinho_m-0D2A...@individual.net>
>
>In article <tvbtc.42$Bk6...@news.oracle.com>,
> Mysti Berry <mysti...@oracle.com> wrote:
>
>> Telling someone they aren't ready to hear the answer isn't the same as
>> answering the question anywhere but cyberspace.
>>
>
> I disagree. A lot of people -- not just in cyberspace -- don't know
>what questions they need to be asking. If somebody asks you a question,
>in any context, that betrays a certain amount of ignorance I think
>you're doing them a huge disservice by answering their literal question
>but leaving unanswered questions t
Some people like to know everything, even though they might not be in a
position to use that knowledge effectively, so I'd say Mysti's answer was
unexceptionable. After all, Trottier's basic guide to screenwriting goes from
babytalking you to telling you how to market your script; people want to know
everything.
The world-weariness of scriptreaders and contest readers, to judge by many
answers on this board, makes them over-reactive on this subject, I fear - as if
the ignorance of beginners is a personal affront. When I came to this board at
the beginning of the month to ask some basic questions, one person told me that
my questions betrayed that I wasn't ready to enter a contest yet. Without being
arrogant, I knew that wasn't so, but I knew I had a few basics to master before
I could. That's why I came here.
The learning curve for beginners is steep, but it's also quick.
Ron
awill...@aol.com (AWILLIS957) wrote:
> The learning curve for beginners is steep, but it's also quick.
If the learning curve was that quick, you wouldn't see so many dreadful
screenplays out in the world. Everybody would have their quick questions
answered and be writing great (or even good or even readable) work
instead of dreck.
But strangely, it isn't so. In fact, the evidence points to the opposite
conclusion: the learning curve isn't quick at all, not for most people.
I do think some people here jump down newbie's throats a bit, but I also
read things (including the following statement from your post) that make
me cringe.
> When I came to this board at
>the beginning of the month to ask some basic questions, one person told
me that
>my questions betrayed that I wasn't ready to enter a contest yet.
Without being
>arrogant, I knew that wasn't so, but I knew I had a few basics to
master before
>I could.
This is exactly the fallacy I'm refering to above. There is more to
learning screenwriting than "a few basics." A few basics will get you
started, but it really doesn't get you halfway to a decent script.
Look, obviously, I've never read your work, so I really don't want to
make this personal. Please don't take it that way. But unless you're
experienced in a related form of writing (such a for the stage) you're
almost certainly more than "a few basics" away from a decent script.
How did you know that "wasn't so" in your case? I don't want to put
words in your mouth, so I'll simply relay answers given by others: great
english grades, degrees from top universities, published short stories,
teachers who always said you were a great writer. You name it. People
have all of those and write dreck. Most of the time, people who think
they just need "a few basics" are really running head on into the wall
of, "things I don't know that I don't know."
Again, I'm not trying to pass judgement on you here. But in general, the
overwhelmingly majority of people who need to learn "a few basics" are
nowhere near creating anything close to a professional script. If you
want to argue that there are exceptions, sure, point conceded.
-Ron
nmstevens
It's really quite...simple.
Sometimes inexperienced people, when they ask questions, ask the wrong
questions.
If somebody asks for information about how to enter the professional
auto-racing circuit and you ask what kind of auto-racing experience
he's had, and he mentions in passing that, in fact, he's never
actually raced an automobile in his life -- maybe, in your book, the
appropriate response would simply be to give him the addresses and the
phone numbers, figuring -- what the fuck, you would never presume to
fathom how good a professional auto racer he might be, simply on the
basis of the fact that he has never actually raced before.
I, on the other hand, would think that the fact that, while someone
who had never raced might *someday* be a good auto racer -- but right
now, given that he's never raced before -- he's not going to hack it
on a professional course, in competition with other racers who know
how to do it. He's going to get smeared.
And that, in fact, is very likely what's going to happen to a
first-time screenwriter who attempts to sell his work. He's going to
get smeared.
You toss out these options above -- "hiring" an agent, pitching to a
producer, producing it yourself -- as if any of things are easy to do.
None of them are.
You don't just "hire" an agent like you hire a plumber. If you don't
have a sale, a recommendation, or a highly desirable script, the
chances of getting one are slim.
Access to producers -- or at any rate to producer's assistants is
slightly easier -- but nobody likes to have their time wasted and if
you waste the time of a professional with an amateurish script, a door
that might otherwise have been open to you, will slam shut and stay
shut.
There is more at stake than simply wasted time and squandered postage.
Personal contacts and friends of friends that, a few scripts down the
road might very well have proven to be genuinely useful professional
allies, can easily be squandered and lost forever, if you "use them
up" by showing them a first effort which wastes their time and brands
you as a writer of crap.
As for "making it yourself" -- anyone who's had the misfortune, as I
have had, of covering the IFFM -- the Independent Feature Film Market
-- where people go to try to find distributors for films they've "made
themselves" -- will understand just how disastrous a route that can
be.
The overwhelming majority -- and by that I mean easily 95% of such
films are no better than the movie equivalent of vanity press
publications - with the added disadvantage of their costing anything
from thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars -- generally of the
filmmaker's money, the filmmaker's relatives' money, or the money of
small investors, none of whom will ever see a dime of it again. They
will never find a distributor. They will never be released anywhere --
because they are unwatchable crap based on unreadable scripts written
by amateurs.
Jobs have been lost, credits ruined, marriages and families destroyed
by people trying to do this.
If you cannot "fathom" the basis upon which I determine the likely
quality of his screenplay -- it is simply probability.
I worked in development at a company that had an "open door" policy --
we were willing to read anything from anyone willing to sign a release
form -- and thousands of people send in screenplays. I read, over the
course of the six years that I worked there, literally thousands of
screenplays. In addition, at various times, I've worked as a reader
for production companies and for agencies, and for contests, and read
still more stacks and stacks and stacks of screenplays, many from
non-professionals -- and it is on that basis that I draw my
conclusion.
When I sit down to play poker and somebody deals me five cards, I
don't expect to get a royal straight flush -- albeit there is some
finite possibility that this might happen.
And when somebody tells me that they're writing their first
screenplay, I do not expect it to be any good -- albeit there is some
finite possibility that this might happen.
The reason, in both cases, is the same -- the odds, as I have to come
to understand them, in the former case, as regards the distribution of
cards in the deck, in the latter, the distribution of raw talent in
the general population of people who sit down, first time out, to
write screenplays.
If all the above amounts to simply more "stuff" -- so be it.
My goal isn't to make people who ask questions here unhappy -- but
neither, frankly, is it make them happy.
There's too much fucking fantasy in this business as it is. It's not
business to feed it, by letting unrealistic questions or attitudes go
by without response.
And his attitude *is* unrealistic, and by treating it as if were not
-- which is what you did, your response, in my opinion, was
potentially harmful.
If you're right and I'm wrong -- and this half-finished script is
actually good -- and he takes *my* advice -- the worst that will
happen is that, god-forbid, maybe he'll make it better or write a
second good script before he shows it around.
But if I'm right and you're wrong (and all the odds favor this) -- and
this half-finished script is lousy -- and he takes *your* advice --
then this guy, following your suggestions, is going to, at the very
least, waste his time, his effort, and his money, use up potentially
useful contacts -- waste the time of agents and producers on a script
that has no possibility of ever being sold -- or, heaven forbid, take
your last bit of advice and try to produce it himself with
consequences that might be unbelievably disastrous, financially and
personally.
The funny thing is -- however harsh my comments may sound -- I
actually am trying to be helpful. Sometimes, though, that means
answering the question a poster *should* have asked, instead of the
one that he did.
NMS
AWILLIS957
>From: Ron ronald...@hotmail.com
Ron, I can't feel that you've translated what I said into something dumber
before answering it, ignoratio elenchi. before i deal with that, let me say
that to me the worst aspect of the board is the use of excessive language like
"cringe" in what would work better as a civilized discussion.
Can I also say that what I've done is entered a regional BBC contest for a
one-hour TV drama. I said on another thread that I don't expect to get
anywhere. But if I fail it won't be by breaking the rules on the
ten-biggest-mistakes of beginners lists that I've been reading for the last few
weeks. That's what I mean by a quick learning curve: a month ago I have made
many of those mistakes. (Or maybe I wouldn't have, because I wouldn't have
proceeded by mastering the basics.)
>> The learning curve for beginners is steep, but it's also quick.
>
>If the learning curve was that quick, you wouldn't see so many dreadful
>screenplays out in the world. Everybody would have their quick questions
>answered and be writing great (or even good or even readable) work
>instead of dreck.
Whenh I mentioned the "basics", I didn't mean creative screenwriting skills,
which are intrinsically difficult and masterable, anyway, by only a few; I
meant format, presentation, scene length, balance between action and dialogue.
If you're intelligent you should be able to get that stuff right pretty
quickly. That so many people don't bother to learn this stuff makes them not
intelligent at all, in my opinion.
>I do think some people here jump down newbie's throats a bit, but I also
>read things (including the following statement from your post) that make
>me cringe.
>
>> When I came to this board at
>>the beginning of the month to ask some basic questions, one person told
>me that
>>my questions betrayed that I wasn't ready to enter a contest yet.
>Without being
>>arrogant, I knew that wasn't so, but I knew I had a few basics to
>master before
>>I could.
>
>This is exactly the fallacy I'm refering to above. There is more to
>learning screenwriting than "a few basics." A few basics will get you
>started, but it really doesn't get you halfway to a decent script.
Yes, but look, what I said there was that I was ready to enter a contest -. I
have no doubt about that at all. Is it saying much?
>Look, obviously, I've never read your work, so I really don't want to
>make this personal. Please don't take it that way. But unless you're
>experienced in a related form of writing (such a for the stage) you're
>almost certainly more than "a few basics" away from a decent script.
Yes, I work in theatre, and have been writing theatre scripts with and for
theatre groups since 1989. A part of me was intimidated by what appeared the
technical messiness of the screenplay form, but I've quickly taught myself that
is an illusion. It's been a relief to find that what's required in terms of
presentation is a clean unencumbered reading experience.
>How did you know that "wasn't so" in your case? I don't want to put
>words in your mouth, so I'll simply relay answers given by others: great
>english grades, degrees from top universities, published short stories,
>teachers who always said you were a great writer. You name it. People
>have all of those and write dreck. Most of the time, people who think
>they just need "a few basics" are really running head on into the wall
>of, "things I don't know that I don't know."
D'you know what? I just wish we could all have a little ten-minute screenplay
competition here so that I could get away from being talked down to like this.
I can't believe that simply saying I was ready to enter a contest has set you
off on this tack.
I've been trying to start discussions on this board about pretty advanced
issues - the position of information in dialogue and its effect upon actors'
response times, the punctuation of dialogue and its relation to thought, the
relation of scene structure to length, the question of what constitutes a
scene, the connection or distinction between the act structure and the
crisis-climax-resolution structure, the nature of all-female dialogue,
approaches to combining physical and emotional transitions . . . and I've
received some wonderful responses and learned a lot - but there are also people
on nthis board who pick out the stupidest thing they think you've said and then
knock you for it.
Mysti Berry
nmstevens wrote:
> ...
>
>Sometimes inexperienced people, when they ask questions, ask the wrong
>questions.
>
That's it, that's exactly what I'm talking about.
1. There is no wrong question.
2. You have no right to presume to know where this guy is coming from,
though your personal experience might give you strong feelings about
where he is likely to be coming from. It's off-putting at best, elitist
and exclusionary at worst.
3. The whole "you're asking the wrong question" response on the internet
is a hoary cliche. Screenwriters should avoid hoary cliches, unless the
story is celebrating them :) I've seen it too many times to be amused by
how clever the "experienced" person is talking down the the presumed
ignorant person.
4. Curiosity in any form is to be encouraged, not put down.
Mysti Berry
AWILLIS957 wrote:
> ....
>
>
>The world-weariness of scriptreaders and contest readers, to judge by many
>answers on this board, makes them over-reactive on this subject, I fear - as if
>the ignorance of beginners is a personal affront.
>
Yah, people respond to bad-script burnout in a variety of ways. I was
lucky, read for Sundance screenwriting contest, and every script I read
had at least some interesting, unique, or amusing elements. Most of them
had whack story structure--usually that worked against the story, but
now and then it worked in favor of it. I still read every script I can
get my hands on, offer critiques to anyone at any stage (that time
allows), and wholeheartedly support folks making the transition from
reader to writer.
I used to watch the planes fly into LAX and think, with sadness "look,
there's another couple hundred new screenwriters in town." I think it
was just a phase :)
> When I came to this board at
>the beginning of the month to ask some basic questions, one person told me that
>my questions betrayed that I wasn't ready to enter a contest yet. Without being
>arrogant, I knew that wasn't so, but I knew I had a few basics to master before
>I could. That's why I came here.
>
>The learning curve for beginners is steep, but it's also quick.
>
And some of the information changes very quickly, something that I've
been caught by a time or two--fashions in typographical conventions,
pitch vs. spec, stuff like that varies over time. So we're all always
learning. Hopefully!!!!
Mysti
Mysti Berry
Ron wrote:
In article <20040527013543...@mb-m19.aol.com>, awill...@aol.com (AWILLIS957) wrote:The learning curve for beginners is steep, but it's also quick.If the learning curve was that quick, you wouldn't see so many dreadful screenplays out in the world.
Everybody would have their quick questions answered and be writing great (or even good or even readable) work instead of dreck.
But strangely, it isn't so. In fact, the evidence points to the opposite conclusion: the learning curve isn't quick at all, not for most people.
I do think some people here jump down newbie's throats a bit, but I also read things (including the following statement from your post) that make me cringe.When I came to this board at the beginning of the month to ask some basic questions, one person toldme thatmy questions betrayed that I wasn't ready to enter a contest yet.Without beingarrogant, I knew that wasn't so, but I knew I had a few basics tomaster beforeI could.This is exactly the fallacy I'm refering to above.
90% of everyone, whether experienced or new, write dreck. I've been driven insane with jealousy by more than one person who just picks the damn form up. It doesn't happen super often, but often enough that I can still feel the pain :)...People have all of those and write dreck. Most of the time, people who think they just need "a few basics" are really running head on into the wall of, "things I don't know that I don't know."
Again, I'm not trying to pass judgement on you here.
But in general, the overwhelmingly majority of people who need to learn "a few basics" are nowhere near creating anything close to a professional script.
If you want to argue that there are exceptions, sure, point conceded.
-Ron
M.C.
Mysti Berry <mysti...@oracle.com> wrote:
Not to step in between you, but I think you're both making excellent
points, but on balance, I think Neal's advice is more useful and
applicable to the real world of trying to break into the biz.
Mysti Berry
M.C. wrote:
>Not to step in between you, but I think you're both making excellent
>points, but on balance, I think Neal's advice is more useful and
>applicable to the real world of trying to break into the biz.
>
Yah, the most practical advice is to not try :)
Mysti
Mysti Berry
AWILLIS957 wrote:
>...
>Yes, I work in theatre, and have been writing theatre scripts with and for
>theatre groups since 1989. A part of me was intimidated by what appeared the
>technical messiness of the screenplay form, but I've quickly taught myself that
>is an illusion. It's been a relief to find that what's required in terms of
>presentation is a clean unencumbered reading experience.
>
See, I'm completely intimidated by stage play writing. It's really hard
compared to the simplicity of most American films, and requires an
attention to internal rhythms of a scene that are far above my current
ability, I think. I have the illusion that all Brit t.v. is simply
brilliant, written by Ben Elton and Richard Curtis, that's kind of
intimidating too.
>D'you know what? I just wish we could all have a little ten-minute screenplay
>competition here so that I could get away from being talked down to like this.
>I can't believe that simply saying I was ready to enter a contest has set you
>off on this tack.
>
The problem is that the original posters aren't even talking to *you*,
they're talking to the hundreds of writers they've come in contact with
who don't know how to edit their own work, don't know an original idea
from Psycho III, etc. etc.
>
>I've been trying to start discussions on this board about pretty advanced
>issues...
>
Please don't stop asking questions. My brain is getting revved up again
after killer deadlines at my day job, and I appreciate it!
Mysti
Alan Brooks
"Ron" writes:
> This is exactly the fallacy I'm refering to above. There is more to
> learning screenwriting than "a few basics." A few basics will get you
> started, but it really doesn't get you halfway to a decent script.
>
> Look, obviously, I've never read your work, so I really don't want to
> make this personal. Please don't take it that way. But unless you're
> experienced in a related form of writing (such a for the stage) you're
> almost certainly more than "a few basics" away from a decent script.
>
> How did you know that "wasn't so" in your case? I don't want to put
> words in your mouth, so I'll simply relay answers given by others:
great
> english grades, degrees from top universities, published short
stories,
> teachers who always said you were a great writer. You name it. People
> have all of those and write dreck. Most of the time, people who think
> they just need "a few basics" are really running head on into the wall
> of, "things I don't know that I don't know."
I couldn't agree more.
Listen to this: My first screenplay was a comedy and I thought it was
terrific, so the instant I finished it I sent off query letters to every
agency in California (literally, *EVERY* agency, using the WGA
directory). Against all odds, I actually managed to land an agent.
The agent loved the concept but told me the script needed work, so he
coached me through what he thought was a terrific rewrite. Many drafts
later we're ready to go out with it, and we do: The reviews pour in;
people like it. Maybe they don't love it, but they're interested and
they want to talk to me.
So I make my first mistake. I tell my agent I don't really want to come
out to Hollywood just for a few maybes, so let's just do it over the
phone.
So I have a phone meeting with Dennis Quaid's head of development (I
can't remember her name now). She tells me *exactly* what's needed to
make this work for them. Looking back now, I realize I didn't even
understand the terms she was using, and I certainly didn't produce the
sort of script she was interested in. Eventually, I get them a rewrite
and they politely turn it down.
I have another phone meetings with a development exec at Warner Bros.
They tell me *exactly* what they'd like to see, and again, looking back
on it, I don't even understand what they mean. Of course I thought I
did, but looking back on it now, I didn't. I rewrite and send it to
them, and they turn it down.
I have a phone meeting with Nana Greenwald, who's head of development at
Arnold Kopelson, and another with a development exec at Paramount, and
another with John Cusak's head of development. All tell me basically
the same thing, and each time, I can't quite lift my game, so they all
pass.
Years go by. I've looked over the notes I got back in these meetings,
and I re-read the script. It's *SOOOOOO* obvious to me now what I
needed to do, and how close I was, and what excellent advice I got from
all these very nice, very helpful potential buyers.
But I wasn't ready to hear what I needed to hear. My abilities weren't
quite there, and more importantly, I just didn't know *how* to apply the
advice I got.
Learning to write screenplays -- successful ones that sell -- really
comes down to being able to tell a great story. But the devil's in the
details. As Ron points out, it's not just "a few basics"; it's
developing an ability to nail a commercial story in a striking tone with
exciting pacing and great characters.
Throwing a football only takes a few basics as well. But throwing a
football to a guy who can run a sub 10-second hundred-yard-dash, while a
half-dozen 320 pound steroid addicts are rushing you and a hundred
thousand fans are screaming for your blood, that's a skill you've gotta
develope.
Alan Brooks
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A Schmuck with an Underwood
-- Just work at it till
the blood pops out of
the pores on your forehead.
Gene Harris
Nobody said not to try, only to hold off marketing until you have something
worth marketing. That's real world.
Gene
Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)
>Yes, but look, what I said there was that I was ready to enter a contest -. I
>have no doubt about that at all. Is it saying much?
I'm going to jump in an try to clarify a few things here. Hope it
helps.
Contests: With very few exceptions -- and those are led head and
shoulders by the Nicholl Fellowship in Screenwriting, held under the
auspices of AMPAS (the Oscars people), followed by the Disney, the
Austin, and the Chesterfied, not neccessarily in that order -- there
are no other contests that really do anything of genuine value for a
screenwriter.
BUT...! This applies to the U.S.A. If you think a BBC one hour TV
drama contest will be of use to you, then why are you looking for
confirmation from a bunch of "across-the-pond" screenwriters who don't
know diddly apple butter about what's good in England?
In the United States, there aren't a lot of screenwriters who write
for both the big and little screens. Why? Well, one of the primary
reasons is that in order to work as a television writer, you MUST live
in either L.A. or New York. Most of the work is in L.A. And
television writing in this country is team writing. Movie writing is
rarely that, though a whole plethora of writers may end up working on
one project. Some movie producers feel the best way to fix a flat
tire on a star's Winnegago is to call in a new screenwriter! '-)
In this country, there is a vast difference between winning a contest
and winning a bona fide script sale. Many newbies spend a lot of time
chasing contest rainbows, not realizing that they are rarely a magic
key to anything but disappointment. Again, Nicholl is the exception.
Win the Nicholl and you get a $30,000.00 stipend with the only
requirement that you write one more screenplay in the following year.
And the entire industry is aware of the quality and professionalism of
the Nicholl judging process, so many winning scripts do get bought and
produced. That is not true of the Podunk Inviational with the $60.00
entry fee! Caveat emptor. Big time!
And then there are options... Be very wary of options. They are
basically a means for a producer to get you to help finance his indie
production attempt by deferring payment for your work until he raises
the money. And there is lots of room for him to manipulate and make
sure you're paid last. The option holder (the producer) also has the
rght in a standard option to renew the option for a second period of
like duration for the same fee, and you cannot say no. So yur script
may end up out of your hands -- the producer has the right to do
anything with it on the same terms as if he'd bought it, including
having it rewritten -- and in the end, it may be returned to you
exceedingly shopworn, and possibly even with serious strings attached.
Everyone has to make their own evaluation of whether to accept an
option. I don't do them.
>
>Yes, I work in theatre, and have been writing theatre scripts with and for
>theatre groups since 1989. A part of me was intimidated by what appeared the
>technical messiness of the screenplay form, but I've quickly taught myself that
>is an illusion. It's been a relief to find that what's required in terms of
>presentation is a clean unencumbered reading experience.
>
Theater is good experience, but it's very different than film! VERY
different. The dialogue is different, the acting is different, the
challenges to the director (and therefore the script writer) are
different. In theater, you are handicapped by a fixed proscenium, you
have to direct the audiences attention with lighting or some other
trick, actors have to use broad body language to communicate intimate
thoughts, and there is far more expository dialogue. A screenwriter
and/or director simply take each audience member by the scruff of the
neck and stick his face into what you want him to see! You can
whisper in their ear, scare the hell out of them, make them feel all
warm and cuddly, make them laugh, make them cry. For me at least,
good movies are a true vicarious experience, stage plays are a
vicarious experience once removed. But...! The one positive thing
that can be said for stage writing is *nobody* messes with the
author's words!
The technical aspects of screenwriting do seem stifling at first. My
first agent signed me before I had a clue about screenwriting, then
had to put up with my telephone rants about how it was all "formula
writing" and let's just stick with novels! But guess what? He
shackled me to a working screenwriter, made me buy a copy of
Cole/Hague, and forced me to learn the craft. And THEN I was set
free! When you don't have to stop and think about the mechanics,
you're free to fly.
>D'you know what? I just wish we could all have a little ten-minute screenplay
>competition here so that I could get away from being talked down to like this.
>I can't believe that simply saying I was ready to enter a contest has set you
>off on this tack.
And what exactly would that prove? What would the value be to the
group as a whole or to individuals? There isn't much of a paying
market for ten minute scripts, and having taught screenwriting in two
university extension programs, the only people I can think of that it
might benefit are directors-in-training who are too lazy to write
their own ten minute scripts, but would benefit more by doing it than
promising someone else a screen credit for their script.
Which is not to say that if you think writing ten minute scripts would
be a valuable experience for you that you shouldn't do it. If you
think it would help, go for it!
>
>I've been trying to start discussions on this board about pretty advanced
>issues - the position of information in dialogue and its effect upon actors'
>response times, the punctuation of dialogue and its relation to thought, the
>relation of scene structure to length, the question of what constitutes a
>scene, the connection or distinction between the act structure and the
>crisis-climax-resolution structure, the nature of all-female dialogue,
>approaches to combining physical and emotional transitions . . . and I've
>received some wonderful responses and learned a lot - but there are also people
>on nthis board who pick out the stupidest thing they think you've said and then
>knock you for it.
They may seem like pretty advanced issues to you, but to me they are
simply an effort to intellectualize the process, and that doesn't
really work for me. If you want intellectualized thinking about
screenplays, God knows there are enough books out there that do
exactly that. But the reality, again for me at least, is that all of
those processes work best AFTER the script is written, and most often
come from other people, not from the writer.
I've told this story on this board before, but it's been a while ago,
so I'll repeat it for your benefit because it illustrates my point so
well. I began my training in fine arts at age five, and when I was in
late high school, I was invited to submit a couple of painting to a
gallery show in San Diego, where I grew up. There was the traditional
hoy paloy cocktail party with all the gliteratti. Every artist was
asked to be present to discuss their work with prospective buyers, but
no one talked to me. I suppose they all assumed I was somebody's kid
who'd been hornswoggled into attending because the best I got was an
amused nod as someone passed me by. Then along came this art critic
from either the San Diego or one of the L.A. papers. Big entoruage
hanging on his every word. And he stops in front of one of my
paintings and begins to pontificate about who the artists were who
most influenced my work. I'd only heard of one, yet had to go to the
library to see what his work looked like.
Analysis in anything, be it art or screenplays, or indeed
psychoanalysis, come AFTER the work and may or may not be valid! I
like to compare screenwriting to sculpting. Format is your armature,
then you have to stick on dabs of clay/story, smooth it out, rough it
up, take it away, add more on, until you finally, after much sweat and
tears, get the work of art you had in mind when you set out. THEN you
can let the critics in and let them pontificate about your structure
and who influenced you. But chances are you were the only driving
influence. Screenwriting is exactly like playing God. You build the
world. You create the people. You decide who lives, who dies, who is
happy, who cries. Write with your guts, not your intellect.
Good luck...!
Caroline
Gene Harris
<a cautionary tale about his own experiences in trying to sell his first
screenplay>
Point well made, Alan.
Gene
Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)
<al...@sirius-software.com> wrote:
>Years go by. I've looked over the notes I got back in these meetings,
>and I re-read the script. It's *SOOOOOO* obvious to me now what I
>needed to do, and how close I was, and what excellent advice I got from
>all these very nice, very helpful potential buyers.
Let's see if I can recap this correctly? "Hindsight is always 20/20."
Whether I've caught it or not, well said, Alan. As always!
Caroline
How are the cockerels?
@hotmail.com Ken Brod
news:c955bd$oj2$1...@reader2.panix.com...
That was helpful, thanks.
I wondering if you or anyone here could give us a few examples of things
commonly asked for come rewrite time. In particular, the sorts of things
that a first timer would probably have difficulty fully understanding.
k.
Alan Brooks
"Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)" writes:
> Let's see if I can recap this correctly? "Hindsight is always 20/20."
20/20? Hell, hindsight is 20/10. It's 20/5. It's whatever peregrine
falcons use to spot the flicker of a fieldmouse tail from a quarter mile
high.
Alan Brooks
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A Schmuck with an Underwood
-- Hindsight makes the Hubble
look like a CrackerJacks toy.
Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)
Sounds like time to stock up on Cracker Jacks! '-)
geoff alexander
> the guy asked how he markets a film. The answer is simple, you hire an
> agent,
Hey, hey, the line forms in the rear!
"You hire an agent"?
Did you intend to say this?
G
M.C.
geoffale...@hotmail.com (geoff alexander) wrote:
Actually, you *do* hire an agent. The agent works for the writer. No
matter how the agent sees things!
geoff alexander
Who told you not to enter a cotnest? That's bad advice. You can
enter all the contests you like because, to put it simply, they are so
tenuously connected to Hollywood and the film business as to be almost
meaningless. If you have basic questions about screenwriting, and
these are the questions you *should* be asking, btw, this is a good
place to do it.
G
geoff alexander
By the way, Mysti, you're obviously perfectly bright, but you sound
like a lot of the perfectly bright people who think they can
understand the entertainment business from a distance and don't. Do
you have any real experience with the subject at hand?
G
nmstevens
> nmstevens wrote:
>
> > ...
> >
> >Sometimes inexperienced people, when they ask questions, ask the wrong
> >questions.
> >
> That's it, that's exactly what I'm talking about.
>
> 1. There is no wrong question.
Saying it doesn't make it so. I've heard thousands of wrong questions.
Any question that contains a false presumption is a "wrong question"
because it cannot really be accurately answered.
"Have you stopped beating your wife?" asked of somebody who doesn't
beat his wife is the classic example.
There are, of course, more subtle examples -- for instance, a beginner
who presumes, in a question, that his first screenplay is likely going
to be good enough to sell, when this is almost certainly untrue.
This is another example of a 'wrong' question -- a question that
contains a false presumption.
The real answer as to where the overwhelming majority of first-time
screenwriters can go to market their screenplays is "nowhere" --
because the overwhelming majority of first-time screenwriters are not
ready to go to market.
> 2. You have no right to presume to know where this guy is coming from,
> though your personal experience might give you strong feelings about
> where he is likely to be coming from. It's off-putting at best, elitist
> and exclusionary at worst.
Bullshit -- it is pure arrogance on your part to try to reduce a
professional judgement of mine based on years of experience to a
"strong feeling."
Clearly, he's not a professional writer in some other related field --
say a professional novelist or a professional playwright -- because if
he was, he'd already have "marketing" experience in those fields,
already have an agent, and he'd be able to pick up the phone and ask
his agent the question he asked here.
From other posts, he's had some experience in stand-up, although it
wasn't clear whether that was purely doing his own stand-up or whether
he'd actually sold any of his material -- or even whether he worked as
a stand-up professionally. Don't know.
But nothing in his original post suggested any professional writing
experience relevant to the writing of screenplays, nor did anything he
write subsequently lead me to believe otherwise.
If it is "elitist and exclusionary" to hold the opinion that if some
person with no professional qualifications, simply sits down to write
a screenplay, that the result will almost certainly not be of
professional, saleable quality -- pardone' moi -- I guess that makes
me "elitist and exclusionary."
Or maybe simply realistic.
> 3. The whole "you're asking the wrong question" response on the internet
> is a hoary cliche. Screenwriters should avoid hoary cliches, unless the
> story is celebrating them :) I've seen it too many times to be amused by
> how clever the "experienced" person is talking down the the presumed
> ignorant person.
Bullshit twice. There is such a thing as experience and there is such
a thing as ignorance. I don't come here to amuse you or to jerk off
newbies.
This is a tough business. If I come off as a hard ass, it's because
I've managed to survive and achieve a certain amount of success in it.
If I come off as embittered, I'm not. I love movies as much today as I
ever did -- but I have very few illusions about the industry that
creates them.
And most of the things that I kick other people's asses about are
things that I have, at various times in my own life -- done myself.
What do you think -- I didn't send out my first script? Of course I
did. I wrote my first feature screenplay when I was fifteen -- thought
if was a fucking masterpiece. Had my parent's lawyer send it out to a
whole bunch of agents. Strangely enough -- they all turned it down. Go
figure.
So I'm not preaching from a pulpit. It's Mea Culpa all the way down
the line.
I had to learn the hard way because when I was committing all of these
fuck-ups, there was no internet, there basically weren't any books on
screenwriting. I had to figure out the format from an old Star Trek
script I bought somewhere. I had no mentors who gave a shit about me.
What teachers I had, for the most part, were second rate. I had to
learn by making my own mistakes and I made plenty. And those mistakes
cost me a lot.
I wish I'd made fewer. I wish that there'd been people around who'd
have kicked my ass and told me some truths about my scripts and about
the realities of the business.
Would it have made me happy? Hell, no. Would I have believed it? Who
knows. I was pretty fucking stupid. But if I'd have been smart enough
to listen, I might have avoided making a lot of the mistakes I'd made,
and I might have gotten where I am now a lot sooner -- I might be a
better writer today than I am now, because I could have been writing
better younger.
And if the kind of remarks I make are likely to discourage somebody
from pursuing a career in screenwriting -- then chances are, they
should be discouraged, because the kind of discouragements they'll
face in the real world make my remarks seem like a kiss.
> 4. Curiosity in any form is to be encouraged, not put down.
My response had nothing to do with discouraging curiosity -- it had to
do with correcting a mistake. And mistakes should be corrected - even
at the price of hurting somebody's feelings.
And, in closing, I would simply like to say that people who begin
posts with phrases like, "There is no wrong question" should not have
the temerity to accuse others of invoking "hoary cliches."
NMS
geoff alexander
You can quibble about the meaning of "hire" if you like. But, one
does not "hire", in a traditional sense, an agent. One enters into an
agreement with them. Unless of course you're paying your agent up
front.
G
AWILLIS957
>And, in closing, I would simply like to say that people who begin
>posts with phrases like, "There is no wrong question" should not have
>the temerity to accuse others of invoking "hoary cliches."
I think you've backed yourself into a corner where you have started
exaggerating what is a sound though singularly unhelpful position. People ask
questions because they don't know the answers; the very act of asking is a
confession of ignorance. I've been laughed at for questions I've asked here
(fortunately, I also had helpful answers). You have so much to offer this board
with your knowledge of and insight into the screenplay business that it seems
to me a shame that you've wasted so many words on telling someone not to bother
and insubsequent lengthy justifications of the same. It's as if, despite your
excellent surrogacy post, you enjoy arguing more than talking about the craft.
There are more words wasted on this board telling people not to bother than any
other topic. to judge by the archives.
Your experience of having an unsuitable script returned as a boy is probabably
one most new writers will go through. It will teach them a lot, and they'll be
wiser for it. Being scolded on this board won't have any effect on them at all.
It hasn't on me.
Speaking as someone who's just written his first television script, I've been
inspired considerably by the few people who have responded helpfully to my
questions - Mysti in particular - and got nothing from those who put me down or
told me to give up.
If you want people to improve their scripts, be positive when you reply to
them. If you suspect they are timewasters or useless, don't reply to them at
all.
Pemch.
Secret Identity
@aol.com says...
>
> Speaking as someone who's just written his first television script, I've been
> inspired considerably by the few people who have responded helpfully to my
> questions - Mysti in particular - and got nothing from those who put me down or
> told me to give up.
>
> If you want people to improve their scripts, be positive when you reply to
> them. If you suspect they are timewasters or useless, don't reply to them at
> all.
>
With respect, you may be missing some context here. The US spec script
market went through a boom in the late eighties and early nineties; this
boom was in part a result of the 1988 WGA strike, when laid off writers
wrote spec scripts because they weren't on assignment. When the strike
ended, there was a great deal of development money circulating and some
big sales of spec scripts took place - Shane Black's 'Lethal Weapon'
script, for example - which were widely reported. At the same time
formatting software appeared, which meant you didn't have to learn to
format 'by hand' anymore. Syd Field's book began to sell. The combined
result of all these factors was that it became popular to think of spec
script writing as a kind of get-rich-quick scheme, where you could read
the Syd Field book, write a script in Final Draft, send it off and maybe
- just maybe - you'd get a million dollars for it. A whole industry has
sprung up to support this lunatic notion - competitions, books, seminars
- despite the fact that the market, which was once overheated, has now
corrected itself.
The market for British television scripts has never been through this
goldrush, and so has never attracted the attention of the public in the
same way. As far as I know, there isn't a way to sell a television
script in Britain and retire on the proceeds. As a result, most
television writers go through a standard apprenticeship, learning the
craft over time by writing on soaps like Coronation Street. And the BBC
has a remit to find new talent, hence the competitions, which -
apparently - often lead to paid writing opportunities for the winners.
--
SI
wcmartell
> I've about half-completed my first screenplay, and would like to know... how
> you go about marketing it?
Finish it. Shelve it. Start another script.
There's a learning curve involved - every toddler who takes his first
step is proud and excited... but not ready to enter a marathon. This
is a *very* difficult business to break into, you need to have a GREAT
script. Chances are, your first script will not be great.
Every year there are about 50,000 scripts registered with WGA, and on
December 31st those scripts don't just vanish. I have scripts being
read by producers right now that are 15 years old. But let's say 10
years - which gives us 500,000 scripts in circulation at any given
time. Now, they only make a couple hundred films a year. And *most* of
those films are based on novels or co,mic books or video games or some
weird idea the poroducer had while doing pilates. So that gives you a
reasonable idea of the odds - just this side of impossible.
The next thing to consider are the packages - say your script is GREAT
and lands on a producer's desk the same day as another script with
John Travolta attached. Is your script BETTER than Travolta + a
script? Your script has no cast attached - it's naked. The other
script has a $20 million star attached. Is your script so good that
the producer will DUMP John Travolta's project in order to do yours?
Also consider that your script isn't up against all of those awful
scripts out there, your script is competing against Paul Attanasio and
David Mamet and all of the other big name pro writers. If a producer
has a choice between the latest script from David Mamet and your
script, will they pick yours? Is it that good?
That gives you an idea of the quality level your script needs to be
before you send it out into the world. The greatest novelist in the
world is still going to have a learning curve when writing in a
completely different medium.
Finish your script. Start another. When you finish the *next* script,
go back and look at your first one - you're realize how crappy it is.
And you know what? Even when you finish your 90th screenplay and go
back and look at #89, you'll find stuff that needs to be fixed because
you learned something writing #90.
- Bill (finishing up #90)
Free Script Tips:
http://www.ScriptSecrets.Net
AWILLIS957
>On 27 May 2004 15:02:02 GMT, awill...@aol.com (AWILLIS957) wrote:
>
>>Yes, but look, what I said there was that I was ready to enter a contest -.
>I
>>have no doubt about that at all. Is it saying much?
>
>
>I'm going to jump in an try to clarify a few things here. Hope it
>helps.
> With very few exceptions -- and those are led head and
>shoulders by the Nicholl Fellowship in Screenwriting, held under the
>auspices of AMPAS (the Oscars people), followed by the Disney, the
>Austin, and the Chesterfied, not neccessarily in that order -- there
>are no other contests that really do anything of genuine value for a
>screenwriter.
<BUT...! This applies to the U.S.A.
I don't know about the U.S.A. But if the contests have cash prizes, then that
is doing something for the screenwriter: paying them. Screenwriting is about
the business of selling scripts, and maybe a contest is the best chance an
outsider has to make money from their script. Of course, contests don't usually
result in a film being made, but nor do most script sales.
>If you think a BBC one hour TV
>drama contest will be of use to you, then why are you looking for
>confirmation from a bunch of "across-the-pond" screenwriters?
Well, I'm not looking for confirmation at all. What I'm looking for is
discussions about writing scripts - the enjoyable and challenging process of
telling stories through moving pictures. I've mentioned this competition
several times here only as an act of submissiveness: to say, look, guys, this
is all I'm doing, I'm not trying to sell a newbie script to Hollywood. I've
mentioned it because there's such a put-down-newbies culture here, and I just
wanted to show that my ambitions are modest, at least for the time being.
IS wrote:
>The market for British television scripts has never been through this
>goldrush, and so has never attracted the attention of the public in the
>same way. As far as I know, there isn't a way to sell a television
>script in Britain and retire on the proceeds. As a result, most
>television writers go through a standard apprenticeship, learning the
>craft over time by writing on soaps like Coronation Street. And the BBC
>has a remit to find new talent, hence the competitions, which -
>apparently - often lead to paid writing opportunities for the winners.
I couldn't agree more. The competition I'm entering has offers four cash prizes
plus mentoring. But I know how the BBC works: if they had ten great entries
they'd keep in touch with all of the top ten writers. They'd invite them to
workshops, introduce them to people, ask them to submit to certain projects.
This must all seem very small-time to Americans, but screenwriters have been
known to eventually emerge from this process - people like William Nicholson,
for example, who wrote Shadowlands and parts of the screenplay of Gladiator.
But don't worry, I'm realistic. The most likely outcome of all is that I'll get
nowhere in my little competition.
Caroline wrote:
>It's not at all unusual for both trolls and honest seekers alike (such
>as Pemch) to show up looking for something akin to formal instruction
>on demand. That doesn't work. It takes a lot of time to teach
>someone, and not many here have that sort of free time to meet a total
>stranger's demands.
I hope I have the good manners not to selfishly "show up looking for something
akin to formal instruction". I've started posts to get discussion topics going,
because that's the life blood of a newsgroup. I've also tried to make sure that
when I ask a question I include insights and observations of my own that may
(or may not) be of use to other people or invite a response.
Pemch.
AWILLIS957
>I'm not in the business of making people feel good. . .<snip> . . .
>But this particular question comes up a lot too, and I have to be
>honest -- it just gets my goat.
But that's your problem, not Mark's.
And when you're posting on this board, you're not in a business: you're in a
conversation. It may be that your tutor at college was admirably harsh but I
don't see why that approach should apply in a discussion group where no one has
authority over anyone else.
As an actor, I can't tell you how often people come up to me in social
situations or to my door to ask me about how to get into acting, even though
it's quite obvious that I make little money. I'm always positive (and sometimes
help with audition pieces or work placements), even when it's plain these
people haven't got what it takes (in fact, give or take a few who've gone on to
take drama degrees, I don't know of any who have actually gone on to act)
because I know that in most cases interest in being an actor is only a small
and possibly a passing part of who they are; they'll wise up when they're good
and ready. I tell them the odds, but I'm not "in the business of" making them
feel bad about themselves.
Offence is often taken on this board against the idea of people who think
screenwriting is easy or that they can sell a script to Hollywood just like
that. But in my opinion such offence is being taken at a straw man, because no
one does believe that, not really. Most such people are only playing with the
idea of being a screenwriter - I daresay some probably posted to this board on
a whim and promptly forgot that they'd done so.
It's the biggest fallacy of all to pretend that everyday, poorly paid, people -
students, housewives, nine-to-fivers - who ask about screenwriting on this
board, actually seriously believe they can easily make money in the screenplay
business. That notion would contradict everything they know about life - that
it's hard, that even the smallest blessings are hard come by. Perhaps they
think of writing a script as like buying a lottery ticket, I don't know. More
likely, many are indulging in the pleasurable feeling of imagining themselves
for a moment as a successful screenwriter. They know it's a dream; it's
harmless. It makes them feel good.
Perhaps you think it less harmless if they have the temerity to go one step
further and enter a competition or submit a script to a company. Perhaps that's
what really gets your goat, not the idea of it but that you yourself might have
to sit and read their dire effort. But, look at this way, reading scripts is a
means of earning money for some people on this board, as is selling these
people books of tips.
I could turn the getting-of-the-goat round the other way and describe a
punters' standpoint. If we took the combined "made" films resulting from the
screenplays of writers on this board, the punters might conclude that the
standard was poor, that their money has been thrown down the drain time and
time again by going to see films, renting videos, or even buying screenplay
books, that were mediocre.
I don't doubt that a small number of the films made from misc.screenplays
writers' scripts are good, but is the percentage any greater than the
percentage of wannabes' scripts that might conceivably be good? Because the
truth is that the vast majority of films made, and by implication of
screenplays sold, is rubbish. As Mysti, who by the way, it has been overlooked,
told the original questioner to expect mass rejection, said, "90% of everything
is rubbish". Probably more than that.
Mark Jones (the original questioner) wrote:
>Everyone's got to start somewhere. I know that I'm nowhere near the point
>at which I should be marketing my baby, but the information I've read in
>here helps. Consider it "light at the end of the tunnel".... I'll have a
>bit of a clue, once I'm done rewriting it for the 10th time.
>Thanks for your responses.
You don't strike me as someone who's expecting miracles. Besides, you've got
other writing strings to your bow. Good luck.
Pemch.
AWILLIS957
Pemch said: >>Yes, I work in theatre
>Theater is good experience, but it's very >different than film! VERY
>different.
I know. I really do. My last play included a half-hour scene; the longest
scene in my TV script is two minutes. And, yes, I even know that there's more
to the difference than that. I felt obliged to mention my experience only
because of the assumption here that one has never written a word before in
one's life. However, I hate the way that this board always keeps forcing people
to declare their credentials for taking part in the discussions. Then they
declare them and the credentials themselves are criticised.
>The one positive thing
>that can be said for stage writing is *nobody* messes with the
>author's words!
You must be joking.
>>I've been trying to start discussions on this board about pretty advanced
>>issues
>They may seem like pretty advanced issues to you, but to me they are
>simply an effort to intellectualize the process, and that doesn't
>really work for me.
Well, I only used the word "advanced" because I'd been criticised for asking
about "basics". What I meant was, issues that go beyond formatting and
presentation questions.
I am not an intellectual - my imagination works in visual and physical ways -
and am only interested in finding the simplest and clearest way to write and
understand things.
>Analysis in anything, be it art or screenplays, or indeed
>psychoanalysis, come AFTER the work and may or may not be valid.
I like to subject a story to a good deal of analysis before writing it, much in
the way that McKee recommends in "Story". But others like to work in different
ways, and there's nothing wrong with that.
Thanks for your input.
Pemch.
Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)
>
>>The one positive thing
>>that can be said for stage writing is *nobody* messes with the
>>author's words!
>
>You must be joking.
No. Not at all. But I wasn't referring to "out of town" trials
before the big Broadway opening. I'm talking about the finalized play
once it's published and available for license to little theater
groups, revivals, and all that jazz. One playwright friend actually
had a production of her work shut down because they didn't stick to
the script. But even in pre-Broadway trials, in this country the
playwright is always involved and works with the director and cast to
improve the work... To their *MUTUAL* satisfaction. No one can fire
the playwright and hire a new writer. In movies, it happens all the
time. Sell your script and you no longer have a say in whether anyone
turns your cute cuddly puppy in Act III into Godzilla with worms. But
I have no idea how things are done on your side of the pond, though my
impression is that it's not all that different.
>
>>>I've been trying to start discussions on this board about pretty advanced
>>>issues
>
>>They may seem like pretty advanced issues to you, but to me they are
>>simply an effort to intellectualize the process, and that doesn't
>>really work for me.
>
>Well, I only used the word "advanced" because I'd been criticised for asking
>about "basics". What I meant was, issues that go beyond formatting and
>presentation questions.
It makes for a smoother "conversation" if you master the art of saying
what you mean the first time. :-)
>
>I am not an intellectual - my imagination works in visual and physical ways -
>and am only interested in finding the simplest and clearest way to write and
>understand things.
The best way to find that is through writing, not through reading
books or looking over someone else's shoulder. Then write some more.
And then write even more. It's the old "How do you get to Carnegie
Hall" thing: Practice! Practice! Practice! Applies to
screenwriting too. When I was still teaching "Screenwriting 101," the
only text book I used was Cole/Haag on formatting, and that's why I
used it. That's ALL it deals with. And my instruction to students
was NOT to read any "how to" books about story structure until they
had completed at least three feature length screenplays. And
hopefully, by then they would no longer be interested.
The truth of the matter is that in this day and age, by the time
someone finishes high school they have watched more movies than
they've had pairs of shoes! In their lifetimes! And with every
movie, they instinctively learned something about story arc and
structure and what works and what doesn't work. Watching is not the
same as doing, but letting those instincts guide you when you start
doing is a smart choice. As Yoda said, "Look into yourself, Luke."
Or words to that effect.
Caroline
IO
newsreader, so please don't reply to her, assuming her e-mail address
is even visible here.
Second, I was tempted to reply to Mark directly, off-list, just to
avoid the possibility of getting flamed for my own response. But then
I decided, what I have to offer is worthwhile -- frankly, a lot more
worthwhile than what some others have said -- and I'd like it to be
out here not only for Mark, but for others with the same question who
find this thread. So:
Mark:
No one on this newsgroup has a clue about your script or your writing.
Only you can decide if you've created something great, something that
is already good enough for the screen. Of course, it *may* be true
that you have a lot to learn, and need to get your script critiqued
from some Great Screenwriting Sage (but what makes him or her so great
-- that they say the are great? -- that they've got some silly MFA
degree in film? -- that they've sold a few scripts [lots of hacks
have sold lots of junk]?). It *may* be true that you need to write
ten more scripts to learn your craft.
And then again, it may be that you have native talent, plus a great
idea, and your script is terrific the way it is. And anyone who
hasn't even *read it*, has *no idea* about the plot, theme, or
characters, but *still* wants to tell you with great authority that
it's not ready for prime time, should do you and all of us a favor,
and stop showing how fabulously stupid they are, and just shut up.
Bottom line, you decide if your script is good enough to market, and
don't let all the pessimists and skeptics spin your head around.
As for the practical side: Unfortunately, screenwriting as business
is not just about quality, it's also about connections. So your best
bet is to move to Hollywood, and network like hell, and even then you
need a lot of luck (and a little sex appeal and charisma won't do you
any harm either).
Failing that, you can send query letters to agents. You can also send
your script to screenplay competitions. The better, more respected
competitions get literally thousands of scripts each year, and it
really only helps if you place your script in one of the very final
rounds. So the odds are not great -- in fact, the odds are really
quite poor -- but if your script really is terrific, it could be one
of the winners. For a list of reputable screenwriting competitions,
go visit: http://www.nyscreenwriter.com/competition.htm
And for a great book about not listening to fools who want to limit
your potential in the world, read Ayn Rand's "The Fountainhead." Even
the very first chapter will put you in the correct frame of mind.
Good luck,
Steve
On Tue, 25 May 2004 10:26:54 -0400, "Mark" <ma...@meninblack.ca> wrote:
>Hi all.
>
>I've about half-completed my first screenplay, and would like to know... how
>you go about marketing it?
>
>Thanks.
>
>Mark.
>
Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)
>And for a great book about not listening to fools who want to limit
>your potential in the world, read Ayn Rand's "The Fountainhead." Even
>the very first chapter will put you in the correct frame of mind.
>
>Good luck,
>Steve
Steve, Ayne Rand aside, there is one very very important, nay
critical! factor you have totally left out. And that is tenacity.
How does that apply? Well, if being told by strangers on the internet
that he isn't ready to submit his first script for production is all
that it takes to convince *anyone* they should fold their tent and go
home, then they lack tenacity and they truly should fold their tent
and go home.
This is a business where tanacity may rank above all else -- including
talent! -- when it comes to getting a script from paper to the screen.
Luck comes in second. THEN talent.
Caroline
AWILLIS957
>From: "Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)"
>>
>>>The one positive thing
>>>that can be said for stage writing is *nobody* messes with the
>>>author's words!
>>
>>You must be joking.
>
>
>No. Not at all. But I wasn't referring to "out of town" trials
>before the big Broadway opening. I'm talking about the finalized play
>once it's published and available for license to little theater
>groups, revivals, and all that jazz. One playwright friend actually
>had a production of her work shut down because they didn't stick to
>the script. But even in pre-Broadway trials, in this country the
>playwright is always involved and works with the director and cast to
>improve the work... To their *MUTUAL* satisfaction. No one can fire
>the playwright and hire a new writer. In movies, it happens all the
>time. Sell your script and you no longer have a say in whether anyone
>turns your cute cuddly puppy in Act III into Godzilla with worms. But
>I have no idea how things are done on your side of the pond, though my
>impression is that it's not all that different.
Well, I think one of the main differences might be the number of small
subsidised theatre groups there are here, which often perform in other spaces
than theatres, and the extent to which alternative forms of theatre and
performance thrive, and with them different types of script.
Conventionally, yes, a playwright attends rehearsals and makes changes as they
proceed; but it would take a really strong-minded writer to resist when actors
and directors want changes. The result can be what feel like carbuncles on the
final script.
The attitude to a published text varies from that of the Beckett estate, which
insists that not only the dialogue but the stage directions be faithfully
followed, to that of pragmatists, myself among them, who believe such a stance
is inimical to the spirit of theatre.
Arthur Miller once took offence at the Wooster group's mangling of one of his
plays (they adopted the post-structuralist "the author-is-dead" philosophy),
and Pinter objected to a Visconti production of Old Times which portrayed the
two female characters as lesbians. But they're big shots.
Personally, I don't see why performers shouldn't play around with texts if they
feel like it, much as musicians sample and cut up old songs to make new sounds
and artists reassemble the old masters.
It's true that some texts are published with the stipulation that not a word be
changed, but I don't think anyone sticks to that, here at least.
Lastly, there's the question fo actors improvising or fribbling round the
written lines; it happens more than people might think. The actor will usually
check the words over before the next performance and correct the fault, but it
still represents an adulteration of the text.
>>>They may seem like pretty advanced issues to you, but to me they are
>>>simply an effort to intellectualize the process, and that doesn't
>>>really work for me.
>>
>>Well, I only used the word "advanced" because I'd been criticised for asking
>>about "basics". What I meant was, issues that go beyond formatting and
>>presentation questions.
>
>It makes for a smoother "conversation" if you master the art of saying
>what you mean the first time. :-)
In context I did. There are limits to a "smooth conversation" in a form so
chopped about as a newsgroup discussion. It's always touch and go whether one
will be understood or not. That's life.
> And my instruction to students
>was NOT to read any "how to" books about story structure until they
>had completed at least three feature length screenplays. And
>hopefully, by then they would no longer be interested.
There's some merit in that approach, but it would be a shame if that left them
uninterested in story structure. In my opinion, a writer can never learn enough
about story structure, whether from books - preferably not "How To" books - or
from analysis of their own writing. It's a bottomless topic..
Cheers.
Pemch.
Ron
awill...@aol.com (AWILLIS957) wrote:
> but there are also
> people
> on nthis board who pick out the stupidest thing they think you've said and
> then
> knock you for it.
You mean like, no matter how many times I wrote, "this isn't personal,"
and "this isn't about your work," taking it really fucking personally?
Look, you said some stupid things. You also said somethings I agreed
with (and I have clashed heads with Neal and Jaybee more than once about
how quickly they jump down people's throats here sometimes).
Am I supposed to quote everything you say that isn't wrong and say,
"This isn't stupid?"
-Ron
Ron
Mysti Berry <mysti...@oracle.com> wrote:
> the fallacy is in thinking you know anything about another poster on the
> internet. You don't know how much other writing this person has done,
Actually, I do know how much writing the original poster of this thread
has done. He's half-completed his first screenplay.
He said so himself.
As for my disagreement with AWILL, since it was in context of my
responde to the original poster, I don't see what the problem is. I was
explicit -- repeatedly so -- about the fact that I wasn't talking about
AWILL or his work in this post, but rather the attitude that one can go
from no experience to doing solid work with only a "few basics."
And I conceded, right off the bat, that there were exceptions, that
some people just get it.
So what was your point again?
-Ron
Ron
awill...@aol.com (AWILLIS957) wrote:
> Speaking as someone who's just written his first television script, I've been
> inspired considerably by the few people who have responded helpfully to my
> questions - Mysti in particular - and got nothing from those who put me down
> or
> told me to give up.
Uh, who told you to give up?
You know, this is one of those things that really pisses me off. I
spend a hell of a lot of time giving feedback and sharing what I've
learned here -- and Neal does twice as much as I do, despite being much
much higher on the toten pole than I am -- and when we give someone real
world, cautionary advice we're accused of "putting people down" and
telling them to give up.
It's pretty rediculous.
-Ron
Ron
"Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)"
<otto....@keepyourviruses-sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> No. Not at all. But I wasn't referring to "out of town" trials
> before the big Broadway opening. I'm talking about the finalized play
> once it's published and available for license to little theater
> groups, revivals, and all that jazz. One playwright friend actually
> had a production of her work shut down because they didn't stick to
> the script.
Certainly this is the case sometimes. But let's be very clear. If the
director is a big name, somebody with clout, well, the words are going
to change.
Elia Kazan, in his autobiography, talks about repeatedly changing
scripts over the heads of writers (in dealing with his stage work). Now,
granted, few directors on the stage have the kind of clout he did back
then, and stagewriters are generally well protected by the guild in this
area.
But it does happen.
-Ron
nmstevens
> Subject: Re: Newbie question... Marketing your script?
> >From: nmst...@msn.com (nmstevens)
>
> >I'm not in the business of making people feel good. . .<snip> . . .
> >But this particular question comes up a lot too, and I have to be
> >honest -- it just gets my goat.
>
> But that's your problem, not Mark's.
I hope you didn't misunderstand my previous post. I was explaining --
not apologizing. I don't believe that I have a problem. I believe that
posters who come here with the attitude in question have a problem.
>
> And when you're posting on this board, you're not in a business: you're in a
> conversation. It may be that your tutor at college was admirably harsh but I
> don't see why that approach should apply in a discussion group where no one has
> authority over anyone else.
Sorry -- I don't buy it. Somebody comes here asking questions, they're
looking for information from people who know. This is a community of
people, some of whom have significant professional experience, many of
whom have some, most of whom have none. Like it or not, experience
confers authority. Not in the sense of a boss over an employee -- but
in the sense of somebody who, when a question is asked, is likely to
know what he's talking about.
We are not all equals here. Our opinions on professional matters are
not all equal here.
>
> As an actor, I can't tell you how often people come up to me in social
> situations or to my door to ask me about how to get into acting, even though
> it's quite obvious that I make little money. I'm always positive (and sometimes
> help with audition pieces or work placements), even when it's plain these
> people haven't got what it takes (in fact, give or take a few who've gone on to
> take drama degrees, I don't know of any who have actually gone on to act)
> because I know that in most cases interest in being an actor is only a small
> and possibly a passing part of who they are; they'll wise up when they're good
> and ready. I tell them the odds, but I'm not "in the business of" making them
> feel bad about themselves.
>
> Offence is often taken on this board against the idea of people who think
> screenwriting is easy or that they can sell a script to Hollywood just like
> that. But in my opinion such offence is being taken at a straw man, because no
> one does believe that, not really.
If you were psychic, and could actually read people's minds, you'd be
rich. You're not. And I believe, based on my experience, that a
tremendous number of them believe exactly that.
And it is, by no means, a state of mind restricted to the writing of
screenplays -- this business of people who live with one foot in
never-never land is something that you see all over the place - people
who are sure that they're going to win the lottery, people who are
sure that the rapture is about to come, people who are sure that
they're one screw-tightening away from that perpetual motion machine.
And the fact that common sense says that they shouldn't "really"
believe any of those things doesn't mean that, in fact, they *do*
believe those things -- really.
If you aren't in the "business" of making people feel bad about
themselves -- well, neither, frankly, am I in the contrary business of
making them feel good about themselves.
And the truth doesn't always make you feel good. It isn't always
inspiring. It isn't always positive. Sometimes it makes you feel bad.
But that's life. Everything doesn't necessarily make you feel good.
And it shouldn't be the responsibility of other people to make things
feel good for you. And it isn't "their problem" if they fail to do so.
Most such people are only playing with the
> idea of being a screenwriter - I daresay some probably posted to this board on
> a whim and promptly forgot that they'd done so.
> It's the biggest fallacy of all to pretend that everyday, poorly paid, people -
> students, housewives, nine-to-fivers - who ask about screenwriting on this
> board, actually seriously believe they can easily make money in the screenplay
> business. That notion would contradict everything they know about life - that
> it's hard, that even the smallest blessings are hard come by. Perhaps they
> think of writing a script as like buying a lottery ticket, I don't know. More
> likely, many are indulging in the pleasurable feeling of imagining themselves
> for a moment as a successful screenwriter. They know it's a dream; it's
> harmless. It makes them feel good.
Why do you assume that any of those above people cannot, in fact,
actually become screenwriters -- for real? I know a "housewife" from
Hoosick Falls, Maine who managed to sell a script to our old series,
"Monsters" -- and ultimately went on to a successful career writing TV
movies. But it didn't happen overnight and it took a lot of work.
I don't think that the majority of people who come here are indulging
in a moment of pleasurable imagining. Certainly it takes more than a
moment to write a screenplay -- which, at the very least, many of them
manage to do.
I think that a certain percentage of people who embark upon the course
of writing screenplays have heard about the kind of money that can be
made in this field - which is substantial -- and became infected with
a "get-rich-quick" mentality -- because they really have no clear
sense of the kind of work that's actually involved in creating a
saleable screenplay and making a career in this field. Most of the
"success stories" that end up being publicized tend to be of the "I
was working as a waitress, I wrote a screenplay, the next thing you
know, I sold it for half a million dollars" sort -- which promulgates
this false idea -- and people who don't know any better tend to
believe it.
Very much the same way people will invest a lot of work in "inventing"
some new product or other, expecting to get rich off of it -- again,
without having any clear sense of the kind of work that's involved in
actually getting rich off of an invention.
>
> Perhaps you think it less harmless if they have the temerity to go one step
> further and enter a competition or submit a script to a company. Perhaps that's
> what really gets your goat, not the idea of it but that you yourself might have
> to sit and read their dire effort. But, look at this way, reading scripts is a
> means of earning money for some people on this board, as is selling these
> people books of tips.
Sorry, no -- I haven't had to read scripts for a living in a good many
years. What bothers me is the contempt for our craft which is embodied
in their attitude, which I've already explained to you -- but which,
for some reason, you seem to have chosen to skip over in favor of your
own preferred explanations.
>
> I could turn the getting-of-the-goat round the other way and describe a
> punters' standpoint. If we took the combined "made" films resulting from the
> screenplays of writers on this board, the punters might conclude that the
> standard was poor, that their money has been thrown down the drain time and
> time again by going to see films, renting videos, or even buying screenplay
> books, that were mediocre.
>
> I don't doubt that a small number of the films made from misc.screenplays
> writers' scripts are good, but is the percentage any greater than the
> percentage of wannabes' scripts that might conceivably be good? Because the
> truth is that the vast majority of films made, and by implication of
> screenplays sold, is rubbish. As Mysti, who by the way, it has been overlooked,
> told the original questioner to expect mass rejection, said, "90% of everything
> is rubbish". Probably more than that.
You have no idea. No clue. Not the faintest, most minute hint. The
worst, most abominable released movie that you have ever seen, or
walked out on -- would be like Citizen Kane compared to the kind of
shit that comes out of the slush pile of amateur product.
There is absolutely no comparison between the two.
Ditto for screenplays written by professional writers compared to
screenplays written by amateurs. Certainly, the majority of them are
nothing to write home about. Most of them are junk.
But having come out of the world of amateurland -- it's a whole other
planet.
It's one thing, for instance, to say that this or that author is
"junk" as a critical judgement. But it is still a critical judgement
applied to a work of professional calibre.
A lot of these amateur scripts come in with writing that, frankly --
even though they're written by adults -- the writing is at -- maybe --
middle school level or below.
And I have on occasion (as a favor) given story conferences with the
writers of some of these scripts, and what's really painfully obvious
is that the writers have absolutely no idea that there is any
difference between the level of their writing and professional-level
writing of the sort that they read in novels or journals. They cannot
distinguish between the two.
There are sites where people can post their scripts (zoetrope is one)
- you might take a stroll on over to one and read a few if you want to
get a sense of what real amateur scripts are like.
Great spec scripts within the realm of professional scripts are rare.
Within the realm of amateur scripts they are unbelievably rare. For
someone who has never written anything at a professional level before
to write a great spec script as his very first effort would be
singularly rare.
It's also pretty clear that the original poster has taken much less
exception to those of us who have made this point to him (however
harshly) than have others who have leapt to his defense.
NMS
Asbestos Jeff
> We are not all equals here. Our opinions on professional matters are
> not all equal here.
"There are three kind of people in the world: the greater-thans, the
less-thans and the equals. Fact is, there aren't too many equals. Just
a few of them. And Jess Walters was one." -- Narrator, "Six Summers"
Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)
<bzel...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>"Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)" <otto....@keepyourviruses-sbcglobal.net>
>wrote in message news:qtskb0lq8ole9guja...@4ax.com...
>
>> Steve, Ayne Rand aside, there is one very very important, nay
>> critical! factor you have totally left out. And that is tenacity.
>> How does that apply? Well, if being told by strangers on the internet
>> that he isn't ready to submit his first script for production is all
>> that it takes to convince *anyone* they should fold their tent and go
>> home, then they lack tenacity and they truly should fold their tent
>> and go home.
>>
>> This is a business where tanacity may rank above all else -- including
>> talent! -- when it comes to getting a script from paper to the screen.
>> Luck comes in second. THEN talent.
>
>I think that's very true. Tenacity. The hard part is to take all that
>stuff you learn and still write with the passion of a teenager. That's
>hard!
>
>Maybe step one should be to write your first script. Step two is enter all
>the screenplay contests (spend all your money!) and send query letters out
>your ass. Step three is hand wringing and second-guessing and hoping you
>haven't ruined your career. Step four is go back and learn all that stuff
>you didn't the first time (it may be a rite of passage no matter how hard
>all of y'all try to help us). Step five is to write with experience with
>the passion of a teenager. This stuff is hard! But should be a bit fun and
>creative too. If we're not having fun how can the audience?
>
The most important thing a writer can learn to do is critique his own
work objectively. Until a writer learns to do that, the chances of
him/her becoming a really good writer are slim to none.
Family and friends are useless as critics. Remember, these are the
people who love you and will smile and nod at anything you do! The
*most* reliable feedback you can get comes from acquisition execs or
producers who take the time to write a few comments about your script,
but those guys are a fast-disappearing breed! So you're left with
teaching yourself to do it, if you want someone reliable!
A playwright friend who died a couple of years ago used to write all
of her plays in long-hand on legal pads. When she finished, she would
put her script in a drawer for ONE YEAR! Only then would she take it
out and critique it. Estella said it took her that long to develop
objectivity. Whatever works.
It's a never-ending learning process.
Heaven help us all. '-)
Caroline
Dena Jo
> It's also pretty clear that the original poster has taken much less
> exception to those of us who have made this point to him (however
> harshly) than have others who have leapt to his defense.
On the contrary, he appreciated the advice and agreed with it. These
were his words:
"But thanks for the thoughts... definitely a good idea to keep people
grounded... so easy to get carried away with these things."
--
Dena Jo
Email goes to denajo2 at the dot com variation of the Yahoo domain.
Have I confused you? Go here:
http://myweb.cableone.net/denajo/emailme.htm
new...@virtual.com
<otto....@keepyourviruses-sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>Heaven help us all. '-)
Heaven? Sure. I'll use it if it doe the trick, Caroline.
Doug
"Life is like a river. If you ain't gettin' your
feet wet, you ain't kickin' hard enough."
Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)
>On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 02:26:17 GMT, "Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)"
><otto....@keepyourviruses-sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>Heaven help us all. '-)
>
>Heaven? Sure. I'll use it if it doe the trick, Caroline.
>
>Doug
Oh, Doug, aren't you a deer! '-)
Caroline