Apple Readies $1 Billion War Chest for Hollywood Programing

[a whitmer]

Here's a test for a writer: can you take a historical event, where the ending is known to the audience, and make a compelling story out of it? I nominate Apollo 13 as a good example.

'Apollo 13' was an excellent film. I would add 'The King's Speech' and 'The Imitation Game'. Solid films with known outcomes and historical contexts, but so very well told via the script and the entire production process. Gorgeous on paper, and gorgeous on screen.

This comes back to competent storytelling. A good writer will know what and how to extrapolate nuances and facts so it is not only historically accurate, but also cinematically engaging. A good writer will know when and how to fill in details not in the history books, and compress timelines from months or years into two hours or less.

It also requires competent production to interpret the screenplay in the context of history, push the limits of the talent and the equipment, and somehow still make a few bucks.

I'd like to see more. There are just so many inspiring stories out there to either write about directly, or write about 'based on'. I'm sure sick of the comic book hemorrhage currently running the show. All formulaic writing. Gak. They even have programs to tell the writer where to add more laughs, more drama, more gore. Jimminy, if they ain't 'feelin' it', maybe writing isn't the best option.

'But the computer said it's funny!'

Remember Sturgeon's Law - "Ninety percent of everything is crap"

Alex



FIGS AND FOUETTÉS

A shoestring-budget screenplay about a young woman with Mosaic Down Syndrome struggling to establish her own independence. Things are working out as planned until a love interest with a painful past lands on her doorstep. Inspired by a real person.

Synopsis and first ten pages ...
https://alexmwhitmer.wordpress.com/z-figs-and-fouettes/

 

[Matt Bai]

"I am on the committee of a theatre company, and one of the reasons I love theatre is because shit writing never gets anywhere. It's almost impossible for a shit script to be popular."


I have seen many shit plays, shit writing, "but its a play-" so its fine.

You're right about everything else.

 

[Remington Chase]

I wish I had a nickel for every time I sunk a billion into a film slate.

 

[a whitmer]

Two things I didn't know about Netflix' House of Cards ...


1) House of Cards became the first online series to win an Emmy.

2) The show changed how television was traditionally delivered — both online and all at once.


I've been binge-watching through all the seasons. Great writing. Great shots.

Alex







FIGS AND FOUETTÉS

A shoestring-budget screenplay about a young woman with Mosaic Down Syndrome struggling to establish her own independence. Things are working out as planned until a love interest with a painful past lands on her doorstep. Inspired by a real person.

Synopsis and first ten pages ...
https://alexmwhitmer.wordpress.com/z-figs-and-fouettes/

 

[William Long]

Two things I didn't know about Netflix' House of Cards ...


1) House of Cards became the first online series to win an Emmy.

2) The show changed how television was traditionally delivered — both online and all at once.


I've been binge-watching through all the seasons. Great writing. Great shots.

Alex







FIGS AND FOUETTÉS

A shoestring-budget screenplay about a young woman with Mosaic Down Syndrome struggling to establish her own independence. Things are working out as planned until a love interest with a painful past lands on her doorstep. Inspired by a real person.

Synopsis and first ten pages ...
https://alexmwhitmer.wordpress.com/z-figs-and-fouettes/

Talking about original content...

Ian Richardson was Francis Urquart in the 'House of Cards'.

 

[a whitmer]

Talking about original content...

Ian Richardson was Francis Urquart in the 'House of Cards'.

I plan to watch the 'original' as soon as I finish this. it will be interesting to compare. Oddly, though, I rarely watch film or TV, so this binging is really a life event for me.

With this Apple thing in mind, I have been reading up on what's going on in the film biz. There seems to be some agreement that the spec script is dead, for now. Back to the in-house writing teams. The battle of On-line release and filling theaters still has a lot to work out as well. Butting heads as the industry changes with the times is nothing new. Just like everything else, it isn't what it used to be, and who knows what it will look like tomorrow. As a writer, I have no idea how to prepare for it. Seems the whole technology, business, and distribution models are moving breakneck speed, while writing is trudging along with way too much baggage.

'You run ahead, I'll catch up!'

The weird uncle nobody wanted to invite.

I got to wondering how long before the whole awards season goes. It has certainly lost its glamour, and I quit watching cuz of the politics. And do any of the stars really want to be there, or on the red carpet? It sure ain't Joan Rivers anymore.

As a person with Autism, technology is very difficult for me to learn. I don't have a cell phone (nor do I want one), I keep a basic computer, and I write on word. It has never failed me. But, many (most) of the folks I collaborate with demand that I write on one software or another, and start flinging around words like interface or inter whatever the hell they said. I really don't care! So far I have not seen ONE improvement in content - engaging storytelling - due to Final Draft, or Celtx or any of the others. Zilch. I would even argue it weakens the writer by no small amount. They are too tech dependent. Maybe even addicted.

I know most of you folks are up to your ears in tech, and savvy in so many areas. It's why we have such gorgeous shots, and amazing sound, effects, lighting, music, and all the nuances that are very much tech-dependent to produce and distribute a finished film, be it one minute, two hours, or the likes of House of Cards now running five seasons.

I just don't see this same addiction to technology doing squat for writing. Of course there are good writers using it. But they are good writes to begin with, and could create an engaging story with chalk and brick wall.

I recently had a tech-embracing fella I was writing for tell me that he didn't feel it was a good film because Final Draft condensed my 110 pages of word doc down to 70 pages, and since a 'real script' is 120 pages, there must be something missing. Forget the story, forget the characters. Focus on formatting and page counts. THIS is why so much film sucks now, and maybe even why spec writing is old news.

It just isn't delivering what the rest of the biz is geared up to do.

Jus' saying.










FIGS AND FOUETTÉS

A shoestring-budget screenplay about a young woman with Mosaic Down Syndrome struggling to establish her own independence. Things are working out as planned until a love interest with a painful past lands on her doorstep. Inspired by a real person.

Synopsis and first ten pages ...
https://alexmwhitmer.wordpress.com/z-figs-and-fouettes/

 

[William Long]

Yep, big can of worms you are opening there!

"Scientific knowledge provides us with powerful instruments for the achievement of certain ends, but the ultimate goal itself and the longing to reach it must come from another source."

 

[a whitmer]

Yep, big can of worms you are opening there!

"Scientific knowledge provides us with powerful instruments for the achievement of certain ends, but the ultimate goal itself and the longing to reach it must come from another source."

Absolutely. That needs to be carved into the walls of every tech development firm big and small. Be it cameras, phones, rocket engines, or a new and better bicycle tire. Seems this technology addiction has replaced all the coveted vice that once drove great minds to write. Vice has been replaced by device. Internal demons by Intel inside.

It was a dark and stormy night, and the internet was down.

Lol, give me a cheap bottle of screw-top wine and a prostitute that lied about her age, and I'll give you content.

Speaking of technology, I'm impressed with how day-to-day government is run in House of Cards. Does make you wonder how things got done in the days of yore.

alex







FIGS AND FOUETTÉS

A shoestring-budget screenplay about a young woman with Mosaic Down Syndrome struggling to establish her own independence. Things are working out as planned until a love interest with a painful past lands on her doorstep. Inspired by a real person.

Synopsis and first ten pages ...
https://alexmwhitmer.wordpress.com/z-figs-and-fouettes/

 

[Craig Parkes]

alex the reason to write in Final Draft is mostly to do with the needs of Pre production and production. It doesn't really make much of a difference if you are showcasing your creative work - but the truth is most of the time when you submit a script to someone the best outcome you can hope for is not that they want to make your project, but they want to pay you to work on a project they already have in development, that already has money attached to it.

As such, using Final Draft in particular means that your work will readily fit into their pipeline without a third party intermediary - this isn't some obsession with technology over story telling - it's to do with saving everyone time, effort and money by doing something right, the first time, and not creating double handling of work.

While being a screen writer might be a creative endeavour - most screenwriting work is not in original screenplays - people want dialogue punch ups, they want scenes re written, they want episode 5 out of 8 written because it was supposed to be written by someone else but they just had a heart attack and now they are under the gun.

 

[William Long]

@alex


Yes I like that quote a lot and should point out that those words came from a much smarter bugger than me - Einstein!

 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

I have seen many shit plays, shit writing, "but its a play-" so its fine.

But do those go anywhere? Are they performed in Seattle and Philadelphia and Manchester and Sydney? Sometimes a theatre company will produce a play but it won't go anywhere after that. I've heard some disaster stories about plays which are pure masturbation, but they're all original plays, not ones that have been popular. If you want to stay in business, you have to choose good stories. You can make money off a movie if it either has the right actors or the right comic book hero. Well, that's what I've seen anyway.

Lol, give me a cheap bottle of screw-top wine and a prostitute that lied about her age, and I'll give you content.

Genius! That would make a good beginning for a film noir. BTW, when scripts are submitted, I assume that they can be PDFs when submitted, but they should be in Final Draft format when they are worked on?

EDIT: BTW I though that The Imitation Game wasn't quite the great film it could have been. Some of it felt like parables, poorly adapted from a hypothetical stage play. Same problem with Bridge of Spies which was just a series of set pieces. It wasn't gestalt.

 

[Hugh Scully]

I'm sort of sick of scripts made from real-life stories and derived material. I like original screenplay fiction.

Crappy stories come from producers creating content. The whole "development cycle" is ass backwards. The genesis of most movies is derived material, either a novel or a memoir, or history. It puts the "idea" of a movie into the hands of the producers who then hire writers to make it work.

Even if delivered from a writer's room, it's best if it is fiction conceived by writer/producers taking the reins such as Vince Gilligan. Another good one the wife and I binged out on a little bit this weekend is Ozark (Bill Dubugue). Excellent stuff! The best movies aren't the IMAX deals. Photography notwithstanding, I thought Dunkirk to be not very satisfying. See "Wind River." That is an excellent work of fiction from an able single writer/director. That's why so many streaming series are doing so well - they are fiction coming out of the heads of writers, not money making machines designed by suits.

You hear it in interviews all the time "they gave us the resources and got out of the way." That's what makes compelling content for a US audience, anyway.

 

[a whitmer]

alex the reason to write in Final Draft is mostly to do with the needs of Pre production and production. It doesn't really make much of a difference if you are showcasing your creative work - but the truth is most of the time when you submit a script to someone the best outcome you can hope for is not that they want to make your project, but they want to pay you to work on a project they already have in development, that already has money attached to it.

As such, using Final Draft in particular means that your work will readily fit into their pipeline without a third party intermediary - this isn't some obsession with technology over story telling - it's to do with saving everyone time, effort and money by doing something right, the first time, and not creating double handling of work.

While being a screen writer might be a creative endeavour - most screenwriting work is not in original screenplays - people want dialogue punch ups, they want scenes re written, they want episode 5 out of 8 written because it was supposed to be written by someone else but they just had a heart attack and now they are under the gun.

The mechanics of the software are clear. I get it. The issue for me is the false sense of skill that it imbues. The engine in a car, for example, lets the driver choose forward or reverse, to get from point A to point B faster than a bus (usually), adjust speed, etc. Different bells and whistles might also do diagnostics, adjust for maximum fuel efficiency, shift torque to different wheels, and so on. Now add in some muscle features, and you get a whole bunch of guys and gals with a false sense of grandeur, and adding instant inches to wherever they are needed. Toss in some dashboard toys and cool interiors, and you complete the package. Indeed so many of the car commercials bate potential buyers with this crap; This car is a chick magnet, this car will make you stand out and make the sheeple pay attention. They'll want your autograph and a photo op because of your amazing car that goes forwards and backwards.

This manifests in everything we do, from high heels giving a false sense of confidence, black clothes and bandanas giving a false sense of relevance, and a vegetarian diet giving the false sense of health. You get the idea.

While the mechanics of screenplay software might make sense in the big picture, it is not, in my opinion, making stories one iota better. Now we could argue that one camera is going to give better overall results than another, but as I have read here before, knowing how to turn a camera on doesn't make you a cinematographer. There is an art to the science. I do believe that the technology behind making a film - the cameras, the editing equipment, sound and lights and so on - have produced tangible improvements we can see and hear. Watch any flick from the 70's and it is abundantly clear.

Maybe I'm off base here, and maybe, overall, having a Red camera gives far too many dudes and dudettes a false sense of skills not unlike screenwriting software giving screenwriters - or filmmakers that write their own material - a false sense Shakespearean timelessness. But the point is - I am not seeing the same tangible results in storytelling as I am in production quality. I would argue that it is doing the opposite, and contributing to the dismal state of films, and the screenplays used to make them. Everything feels factory made now.

The unfortunate - and very wrong - attitude in writing is that it has all been done. There are no new stories. So, everything is a rehash, but with the saving grace of cool new technologies to enhance the viewing experience. The story still sucks, but at least it's more fun to watch. It's been said that going to the theater these days is really more to see an event than to see a film. Film is for Netflix.

You are right. Screenwriting is not about the original scripts. Those are just calling cards to get paid work (define paid). Sad truth is, the best films are on a shelf somewhere. Or on a hard drive, or memory stick. There seems to be very little interest in original content. That requires too much interpretive thinking.

The other thing is presentation. I have yet to see a software-written screenplay designed for readability, and yes this matters. Maybe there is function to create white space, or to hang a word at the bottom of one page that makes the reader want to turn to the next. If the option is there, I never found it, and from what I gather, most filmmakers don't see the importance of it, or care. Just give me the script, and we'll take it from there. Readability and the design of pages does matter, just as the lighting of a scene matters. How a page looks and reads does set a rhythm in how it is interpreted. How it is visualized, and how it might then translate into moving images. I never felt like I had control of that when writing with software.

More later ...

 

[William Long]

The mechanics of the software are clear. I get it. The issue for me is the false sense of skill that it imbues. The engine in a car, for example, lets the driver choose forward or reverse, to get from point A to point B faster than a bus (usually), adjust speed, etc. Different bells and whistles might also do diagnostics, adjust for maximum fuel efficiency, shift torque to different wheels, and so on. Now add in some muscle features, and you get a whole bunch of guys and gals with a false sense of grandeur, and adding instant inches to wherever they are needed. Toss in some dashboard toys and cool interiors, and you complete the package. Indeed so many of the car commercials bate potential buyers with this crap; This car is a chick magnet, this car will make you stand out and make the sheeple pay attention. They'll want your autograph and a photo op because of your amazing car that goes forwards and backwards.

This manifests in everything we do, from high heels giving a false sense of confidence, black clothes and bandanas giving a false sense of relevance, and a vegetarian diet giving the false sense of health. You get the idea.

While the mechanics of screenplay software might make sense in the big picture, it is not, in my opinion, making stories one iota better. Now we could argue that one camera is going to give better overall results than another, but as I have read here before, knowing how to turn a camera on doesn't make you a cinematographer. There is an art to the science. I do believe that the technology behind making a film - the cameras, the editing equipment, sound and lights and so on - have produced tangible improvements we can see and hear. Watch any flick from the 70's and it is abundantly clear.

Maybe I'm off base here, and maybe, overall, having a Red camera gives far too many dudes and dudettes a false sense of skills not unlike screenwriting software giving screenwriters - or filmmakers that write their own material - a false sense Shakespearean timelessness. But the point is - I am not seeing the same tangible results in storytelling as I am in production quality. I would argue that it is doing the opposite, and contributing to the dismal state of films, and the screenplays used to make them. Everything feels factory made now.

The unfortunate - and very wrong - attitude in writing is that it has all been done. There are no new stories. So, everything is a rehash, but with the saving grace of cool new technologies to enhance the viewing experience. The story still sucks, but at least it's more fun to watch. It's been said that going to the theater these days is really more to see an event than to see a film. Film is for Netflix.

You are right. Screenwriting is not about the original scripts. Those are just calling cards to get paid work (define paid). Sad truth is, the best films are on a shelf somewhere. Or on a hard drive, or memory stick. There seems to be very little interest in original content. That requires too much interpretive thinking.

The other thing is presentation. I have yet to see a software-written screenplay designed for readability, and yes this matters. Maybe there is function to create white space, or to hang a word at the bottom of one page that makes the reader want to turn to the next. If the option is there, I never found it, and from what I gather, most filmmakers don't see the importance of it, or care. Just give me the script, and we'll take it from there. Readability and the design of pages does matter, just as the lighting of a scene matters. How a page looks and reads does set a rhythm in how it is interpreted. How it is visualized, and how it might then translate into moving images. I never felt like I had control of that when writing with software.

More later ...

Oh... I hate to say it but I agree with you.
But this is not new, just a reflection of where the world is now.
Look around, can you be surprised?
With all the posturing what is more important: quantity or quality?
Entertainment doesn't neccesarily aspire to the highest of levels.
And how could you begin to convince it otherwise?
Your 'sad truth' might be the real truth.



And just to stay on topic ) it's not about Apple, it's about us.

 

[Craig Parkes]

Software pretty much inherently can't make stories better - words on a page are words on a page. I think you'll find that Final Draft does allow you to format your screenplay however you want to, but it's likely not as flexible in doing so as Word or requires a more complicated work around to do so because instead it's built in such a way to optimise a standardised way of writing screenplays that works for the pre production and production process.

What improves story telling ability and script writing in general is people, not software - writers given the opportunity to do great work, producers knowing how to pair great writers with the right project.

In studio film making the problem with writing I think is more attributable to a class of writers whose chief skill seems to be incorporating studio exec feedback into screenplays in a way that doesn't read as completely incoherent on a cursory appraisal. The decision makers are not creative and don't trust creatives, so the really creativity is happening not in the writing that makes it onto the page, but in the creative backflips required to please people who have a high opinion of the value of their input, a low level of knowledge of actual creative writing, but have read Save the Cat or Story or any of the other 'make every movie the same' screen writing books as part of their required reading to get the job.

 

[a whitmer]

Crappy stories come from producers creating content. The whole "development cycle" is ass backwards. The genesis of most movies is derived material, either a novel or a memoir, or history. It puts the "idea" of a movie into the hands of the producers who then hire writers to make it work.

Even if delivered from a writer's room, it's best if it is fiction conceived by writer/producers taking the reins such as Vince Gilligan. Another good one the wife and I binged out on a little bit this weekend is Ozark (Bill Dubugue). Excellent stuff! The best movies aren't the IMAX deals. Photography notwithstanding, I thought Dunkirk to be not very satisfying. See "Wind River." That is an excellent work of fiction from an able single writer/director. That's why so many streaming series are doing so well - they are fiction coming out of the heads of writers, not money making machines designed by suits.

You hear it in interviews all the time "they gave us the resources and got out of the way." That's what makes compelling content for a US audience, anyway.

I have been told on many occasion that to see an original screenplay produced, at least with good to excellent production values and star draw, it should be converted into a novel first, where it can pick up interest. I do see some publishing agencies have 'book-to-script' legal advisors on staff. Course, once and if it is picked up, it's modified, gutted, changed. The best scenario, I think, is the writer/director or writer/producer that has better control over their content. That of course does not guarantee the content is good to begin with, or that a good film will come of it, but I think the chances are slightly in their favor. I am in the process of converting two screenplays into novels, but finding a publisher is no easier than finding a producer, so not seeing a big advantage just yet.

I suppose it's not all that different than walking through a museum of art, and you see painting after painting that are technically perfect. The quintessential marriage of composition, color or lack of, and a clear command of materials. But we walk right past most of them. We are fixed on the one ahead that fills us with emotion, and distorts our sense of perspective or reality. Makes us question why we like it. Or don't like it. We are fully engaged.

Film is the same. We watch movie after movie that are maybe technically perfect, maybe has some star power, maybe shitloads of money behind them, but we just don't feel it. We walk right past them regardless of the technical skill and experience invested. The content is formulaic, derivative, and wholly unoriginal. Meh. And yet is is still the path of least resistance. Churn 'em out.

Then along comes something like 'The Blair Witch Project' that upsets all the apple carts, and the formula is scrutinized and revised, then soon falls back into stagnation. Now we have the streaming content revising how it is delivered and digested. And the writing, with few exceptions, still goes nowhere.




Maybe someday I'll get my screenwriting book published. Ten years in the making, it is written with the Indy filmmaker that wants to write their own material in mind. Two volumes, 800-ish pages, but publishers are hands-off because of all the photos. Someday, maybe.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

Age of Idiocy.

Certainly the overall 'entertainment' model is in some kind a major flux, and personally I don't think it matters whether it's Apple, Google, Dog Pile, PayPal or Pussy Galore that jumps in the ring.

Oh yes it does.

Because there is a reason it is called "programming".

 

[a whitmer]

Age of Idiocy.

I always look forward to your thoughtful contributions.

There is no limit or barrier on what can be construed as programming. I could show cartoons in my backyard every weekend for the neighbors and call it programming. I could add bi-weekly podcasts to my blog, hold Saturday gardening classes in the park, or cooking classes in my kitchen, and put 'em up on my own YouTube channel with million followers. A new episode every week! Monthly bake sales with guest speakers on the value of organic ingredients and hormone-free butter.

Pocket programming in the hands of Herbie the Homeowner.

I think my point was missed. Content. Or better, content quality. A billion-buck war chest is no guarantee the entertainment programmed will be any better than what Joe's Garage might decide to put up. More flashy? Almost certainly. But will it be better? Will the money spent and made way outstrip Joe's Garage? Almost certainly, but time and again money spent has NOT been a deciding factor in content quality or audience appreciation.

It doesn't matter what the brand name is behind the programming if they embrace the same mediocrity in overall content. Extruded entertainment cashing in on the hyperactive hunger for anything but our own misery. Been there, seen that. I'd rather smoke opium.

Unless of course, you were only referring to the bottom line. If the numbers are good, then so must be the content? Successful programing?


I have to admit I am very curious what Apple can do with a billion bucks. Maybe they'll change the game, maybe not.

 

[a whitmer]

herd shaping

Love this!

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

I always look forward to your thoughtful contributions.

Not much thought there. More like Tourette but in written form, minus the pathology.

It sometimes happens when I see idiocy.
Which is what letting corporations' powers further increase in a world screwed up by corporations - is.

Not directed at you.

I could show cartoons in my backyard every weekend for the neighbors and call it programming. I could add bi-weekly podcasts to my blog, hold Saturday gardening classes in the park, or cooking classes in my kitchen, and put 'em up on my own YouTube channel with million followers. A new episode every week! Monthly bake sales with guest speakers on the value of organic ingredients and hormone-free butter.

And it would likely be more beneficial to the viewers because not motivated by obsessive increase of wealth/influence/control.

As a matter of habit, you have missed my point.

Not sure.

A corporation with perpetual access to behavior and private data of millions is now entering into their mind food production. What could possibly go wrong.

Content. Or better, content quality.

In the Age of Idiocy, quality is not the priority, quantity and perpetual increase of perceived gain is. Quality is just reserved for the wrapper to draw quantity.

Check this new infantile fairytale for grownups with an A level cast and top cinematography/costumes/art design/sound/picture post. Now coming in HDR. HDR is better than SDR because more of something is always better than less. Three slaps are better than one.

More money invested doesn't entail increased quality but higher expectations on return > quantity.

A billion-buck war chest is no guarantee the entertainment programmed will be any better than what Joe's Garage might decide to put up. More flashy? Almost certainly. But will it be better? Will the money spent and made way outstrip Joe's Garage? Almost certainly, but time and again money spent has NOT been a deciding factor in content quality or audience appreciation.

You can throw piles of money but it won't buy inspiration. Inspiration depends on a state of mind.

My point is, it doesn't matter what the brand name is behind the programming if they embrace the same mediocrity in overall content.

Okay I did miss your point. My bad.
I agree.

Extruded entertainment cashing in on the hyperactive hunger for anything but our own misery.

Nicely put.

Unless of course, you were only referring to the bottom line. If the numbers are good, then so must be the content? Successful programing?

Successfull programming = herd shaped as intended + some profit to proceed