Apple Readies $1 Billion War Chest for Hollywood Programing

[a whitmer]

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?

I'll have to find a place for that write-byte, and I love a good noir.

99% of the time I present my scripts as an unregistered word doc, and 98% of time they are accepted. I have done it this way for 15 years. Maybe that's why I'm still writing for table scraps.

As it has been said above, Final Draft (or another software) is the industry standard now, just like two brads and the courier font before it. I would imagine writing teams for television would require it, and I certainly understand its value as a tool of convenience and time-saver, but I just can't stand it. I need absolute control of every word and line, margin alignment, and white space. Call me Melvin Udall, but it's how the mind works.

This sorta gets back to content quality. I never participate in production, nor really know what the tolerance level is for those who just can't work within the confines of standards. I would imagine there are dudes and dudettes that can do absolute magic with their cameras. They can make them do things never intended or thought of. They can visualize shots like some kind of clairvoyant just by reading the script. At what point are they allowed to work outside the standards of cinematography? Production sees their value and gives them the room to breathe. Most of the time? Rarely? Need to earn their wings first, then we'll talk about it?

Of course production needs to stay on or close to budget. No shortage of stories of Directors taking projects well beyond the money. What I am saying is, with so much corporate money and image a stake, will there still be an allotment for creativity working beyond the standards of the machine?

Can a writer with clear vision work on a 1930s typewriter if that is the machine that triggers their subconscious epiphany ? Clitty-clack, clickity-clack. The rhythm is a great cathartic soother. Can a cinematographer glue a torched Polaroid to the lens to get some bizarre effect because they can see in their minds, but not put into words? Hey, someone came up with using two coconuts to imitate horses, so why not?

An old-time fave ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqtS9xyl0f4


There are far too many minds stuck in standard gear. Stick to the plan. Follow protocol. Keep your job. Budgets, timelines, image.

Anyways, I'll take the old Corona over Final Draft any day. This way I can avoid shitting my pants when the electricity goes out. Just light a candle, set the metronome to a slow BPM, and click away. Clickity-clack, clickity-clack. Cheap wine and prostitute on standby.

'It was a dark and stormy night, and all the other writers were shitting their pants ...'


alex

 

[Hugh Scully]

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.

That's what I think too but I assert further, that screenplays not derived from other sources, but were born screenplays are still the best. It just seems that the current studio pipeline only works the other way. There used to be a stronger market for spec scripts but if you don't want to produce them independently, they're only calling cards now. I hope for a renewed interest in original screenplays for production by the studios.

One recent exception for me was Arrival. I was very moved by the film so I read the original short story, and scoured around regarding its genesis and subsequent production and there is precious little of the original source in that film except its generous inspiration.

The old saying that there's the film you write, the one you shoot, then the one you edit is so true. I saw an interview with Taylor Sheridan where he said that you can't make a good movie from a crap script but you can make a crap movie of a good script.

Making a decent movie is hard.

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.

That's pretty interesting. I've never heard of that.

 

[a whitmer]

That's pretty interesting. I've never heard of that.

It's usually the other way around, and I have converted a few books into screenplays over the years. It can be an editing nightmare or editing chef d'œuvre. Take The Prince of Tides. for example. 576 pages. We'll give it a novel average of 275 words per page, which comes out to 158,400 words, give or take. An average 120 page screenplay might run 20,000 words, give or take. That means 138,400 words had to come out of the book, equivalent to about 7 feature screenplays. You get the idea. The screenplay went on to win an Academy Award for Best Adapted Screenplay, BTW.

To be fair, an average 'first novel' might run 80,000 words. Four times the number of words in an average screenplay. Now, to flip that around, and average screenplay and its story would need to expand four times the number of words. Four times the story. This does offer the writer an enormous amount of room to fluff and decorate, but I've spent 15 years trying to master the art of pithy writing, and mastering brevity and clarity. Now I need to blow the doors off. It's fun, but I still feel clumsy at it.

This ...


INT. SMALL CAFÉ – DAY

Dated décor. Small gatherings sit at the counter and few tables. In one booth, TWO TEEN BOYS and TWO TEEN GIRLS stare as …

… David steps in with Ginny, her eyes far away, her appearance disheveled. She tugs at her hair as David leads her to a booth, sits. ROBERTA FUNK, 30s and plump, approaches with order book in hand.

ROBERTA
Good afternoon, Ginny. You look lovely!

GINNY
Kristy’s coming home today!

ROBERTA
Great news! I’m gonna bring you a big plate of fries to celebrate.

A sympathetic nod to David, and she steps away. David hears the teens snicker.

TEEN BOY 1
Big plate ‘o retard fries!

TEEN BOY 2
Hold the brains!

The Teen Boys make faces. The Teen Girls elbow them to stop.

David twists a piece of bread in half, smells the air.

Amelie, short black dress, worn guitar case, enters. She sits at the counter, Roberta approaches.

ROBERTA
Afternoon.

AMELIE
Coffee please.

ROBERTA
Something to eat?

David watches, listens, as Amelie dumps a few coins on the counter.

AMELIE
Whatever that’ll get me.

ROBERTA
Coffee it is.

Roberta serves Amelie coffee, then takes a plate of fries to David.


Becomes this ...


Amelie can see the dated dècor, a few weather-worn farmers chewing on diner specials and tired stories. In one booth two teen couples wile away the day glued to cell phones; two arrogant boys certain of their awe-inspiring manliness, and two hapless girls certain of the attractive nuisance their full blouses were gifted with.

Nobody pays the teens any attention. There was one other item more irritating.

The diner, like many, has a bell hung so it rings whenever the door opens, prompting everyone to pause their mid-bites and half-finished words to see who was coming or going. On a busy day it’ll make one want to rip it from the door frame. Today was quiet, however. Folks had a blessed twenty minutes before getting roused from their nothing boxes.

The bell tingled, and everyone looked to see David enter with Ginny. They were well known here. David was a local hero for the way he looked after his mother, who everyone knew was quite insane, regardless of her cleaned-and-pressed looks. The Cafè’s plump, part-of-the-woodwork owner, Roberta, was always sincerely happy to see them. She liked knowing Ginny was still getting out these five years after the accident. And a full eight years after losing her husband. And his and her parents; her losses were legendary around here, and her insanity of little surprise. Everyone agreed, that under similar circumstances, they’d end up the same.

When Ginny did come, Roberta always had the same greeting ready. ‘Good afternoon, Ginny. You look lovely, as always.’
And Ginny always had the same reply. ‘Kristy’s coming home today.’

‘Great news!’ Roberta said as she led Ginny and David to their usual table. ‘I’ll bring you a big plate of curly fries to celebrate!’ she’d always add with a sympathetic nod to David. It was always the same short exchange any regular in the diner could hum along with.

Except the two teen boys. Being well-oiled internet trolls pretty much spilled over into most live events, and Ginny and David were just too rich a trophy to pass on.

‘Big plate ‘o retard fries’ one of the teen boys snickered. ‘Hold the brains,’ the other chimed in, waiting for approval from the busty teen girls. David didn’t miss any of it. He even saw the girls elbow the boys to stop. And he chose to ignore it. For now.

The door bell rang again. Of all the diners, only David and Ginny didn’t bother looking to see who’s coming – or going. They never did. Had they looked this particular time, however, they would have seen a stranger coming in. They would have seen Amelie, stuffed into a short black dress that looked slept in far more than just one or two nights. At the end of her sun-toasted arm hung a white guitar case with enough bumps and bruises to suggest it had been on the road for a long, long time.

Amelie approaches the counter and sits, keeping her guitar case close as she could short of sitting on it. It was her ticket to a better life. Someday.

A few of the men folk ogled her long legs, but most were trying to figure out what it was about her face that kept them riveted. ‘It’s the eyes,’ one old-timer muttered. ‘No, it’s the lips.’

Amelie’s beauty was of little interest to Roberta. She’d seen it all in her years at the diner. Pretty girls were always passing through on their way to Hollywood or New York, depending on whether they were hitching a ride east or West. What concerned Roberta was the fact that girls, pretty or not or in between, were still hitchhiking at all. She heard so many of their stories and dreams over sips of coffee and sodas, and she would often wonder if they ever made it. Or, if the innocent dreams were decaying with their bodies along some stretch of desolate road. It bothered her every time she saw a young woman come through that door, and much more so when they left. She secretly called them all dead babies. She knew that those who didn’t make it, if lucky, would someday be found, identified, and returned to their families for burial. The decayed dream would then pass to another young girl and bloom with new life. And then to another. And another. Possessing them. Today, the dream returned to the diner hitching a ride on Amelie.

Roberta greeted her with a menu and a smile like she would any other stumble-in or regular.

‘Good afternoon.’

‘Coffee, please.’

‘Anything to eat?’

David sees the two teen boys staring, follows their eyes to Amelie, sees her dig a few coins from under her dress and roll them out on the counter. ‘Whatever that’ll get me,’ she said, unconcerned with dignity. ‘Coffee it is, dear,’ Roberta replied. She’d love to help, but times were tough. Times were always tough. She pours up a full cup for Amelie as she mutters ‘Consider it bottomless,’ then carries a big helping of curly fries to David.


200 words expanded to 844. About on target.


What I like about comparing these side by side, is knowing how much talent and creativity - and some cash - goes into taking the economy of a screenplay, and making it feel as complete as a novel via moving images, sound engineering, etc.

But the issue for me remains the same. Getting it out there and published or produced. Getting a book published to garner enough attention to turn it into a screenplay and get it produced. Things are not moving any faster.

alex

 

[Craig Parkes]

I'll have to find a place for that write-byte, and I love a good noir.

Can a writer with clear vision work on a 1930s typewriter if that is the machine that triggers their subconscious epiphany ? Clitty-clack, clickity-clack. The rhythm is a great cathartic soother.

alex

Absolutely - they just need to know they'll need someone else to convert it to Final Draft for the next step of the process - the higher you are up the totem pole, the more people there are to do that for you. If you are at the bottom of the totem pole, making other's lives harder so you get to retain absolute creative control over the presentation of your words (when, really, your script is only worth what they are willing to pay for it an nothing more and by and large they are far more interested in the quality of the finished film then the quality of your script as a stand alone document) isn't necessarily the best way to collaborate.

Of course if you type up your perfect script, send it to people as you want them to read it as a PDF, and then also have a Final Draft version yourself to drop in the production pipeline, you can satisfy both masters. It means more work for you, but given you are the one trying to set a standard that is genuinely unhelpful to MOST prospective clients, the fact that the onus is on you to do the double handling makes sense.

 

[a whitmer]

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.

This is so true, and it's not just the studios. I encounter it with students and weekend film warriors as well. Their approach - and I understand why - is to have a story/script that matches the resources they have or can scrounge up. But it starts with a bigger than life story idea way beyond their means that later needs to be gutted to fit reality, and somehow still remain more or less intact. Then toss in their 'industry friends' whose opinion they value, and the next thing you know, the story is gutted again, and bizzare pet scenes added in. Chase scenes, naked chicks, weapons, zombies and the F bomb are high on the must-haves.

Maybe I should just write a story about two nekid chick zombies that chase each other around with ray guns that go fuck-fuck in instead of blam-blam.

Their entire understanding of screenplays come from these books, and they think they can add, subtract, and move story elements around with no consequences because they can regurgitate these books verbatim. Add in the false sense of greatness that comes from the software, and you have nothing but disaster that cannot be salvaged no matter the talent one brings to the production.

Here's the best part. This industry friend/s will add a few lines to the script, like 'Then the naked chicks run into the room with pizza and beer' and the filmmaker gives them a writing credit - 50% of the work is just handed over in exchange for their insightful edits.

I'm no expert, but it seems when these abstract business models take complete precedent over creative content, then expectations need to be kept low.

Really, really low

One young 'I just graduated director school' filmmaker dude I was chatting with needed a low budget feature as cheap as possible because he needed to save his money for the important stuff, like someone with a camera. What the hell are they teaching in these film schools?

 

[a whitmer]

I would also argue that the 'real creativity' for many, is networking. It isn't so much about the perfect story, but about getting in the door. They go to film school not to learn to really write, but to make connections. Shmooze. Exchange oral favors.

After watching a film, I will look up the 'critical response' information, and with rare exception, 15% to maybe 30% approval ratings are far too common, with some at ZERO! So I then look up the writer and find they have maybe a video game and a few shorts before landing a deal that spent 20 or 30 million dollars and had an A-lister or two. The script is poo-pooed as weak, wandering, pointless, contrived, copied and so on, but somehow it was produced anyways. How in hell does this happen?



This is just one example ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fathers_and_Daughters

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2582502/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_5

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/film/fathers-and-daughters/review/


And this one with a ZERO rating, with Bruce Willis at the helm ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prince_(2014_film)

And this by the same writer, with a 4% rating ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice_(2015_film)


This is one reason film as we have come to know over the past 40 or so years is in serious trouble. I think maybe it was a combination of fantastic new technologies, but next to zero truly creative content to work with. Star power and money just don't cut it anymore. I don't know, if Apple really wants to blaze new trails, they better find a way to vet writers and content a whole lot better than what's crawling all over the industry these days.

 

[a whitmer]

your script is only worth what they are willing to pay for it an nothing more and by and large they are far more interested in the quality of the finished film then the quality of your script as a stand alone document

And that is my whole reason for breathing! To fix that, cuz yes, it needs a fixin'.

I absolutely believe that HOW a script is 'designed' is part of its readability, and readability matters when not only taking in a story, but also the built-in instructions on where and how often to pull cable, lights needed, day and night shots, number and type of locations, FX, crew mobility, and on and on. Not to mention the actors finding their dialogue and actions without having to read twice and thrice. A producer should not be overly aware of all the structure and instructions built in, but have a very clear idea if what they just read is feasible.

A script should slow down, speed up, remain in neutral according to the action taking place, and the reader should FEEL this. White space can give a pause for the reader to digest whet they just read before moving to the next lines. A hanging word leaves a thought in their minds before moving to the next thread of words.

A writer doesn't just pick locations willy-nilly (most do, but that's another issue), but rather someplace through which they need to move a character or a piece of wind-blown paper, or a stream of light. And there needs to be a match in mass, color, purpose. Picking locations is as important as choosing characters. They are an integral part of the whole. Do they echo? Do they reflect light, or creak in the night? Is the horizon fuzzy, and if so, why? This shit matters, and how it is presented matters. How it is experienced by the readers matters.

It is how we experience it in moving images and the supporting effects of sound, lights, transitions, so why shouldn't it be in the script as well? It absolutely should be there, and I have yet to find a software that gives me that control. But as you point out, most really don't care. Their focus is on the production and finished film, and the script itself is just a disposable guide. And I revert to my my argument that one reason film sucks so bad these days is because of this attitude.

I'm not saying the script is king. It's not. By it should be on par with the rest of the production's gorgeous fricken' gear.

The technologies are just brilliant, but the writing is still just a disposable document. I do think that too many gear heads just do not have the patience to understand the importance of a well-written script's addition to the whole. That is likely part in fault to outdated books, lazy instructors, and an emphasis on business over creativity. It is not just a story, but a guide to translating words to moving images with oodles of emotion, movement, vision, instructions, and so much more, ALL THE WHILE inviting production to interpret it and be inspired by it, and take it to its full and yet unseen finish. Why are gear heads perfectly okay spending a few hours or days preparing even one lens, but do not see the same value in time spent writing a beautiful screenplay? Pleasing to the eye, and written in just such a way as to move the eyes effortlessly over the page.

it breathes. Listen to it.

Or one could just opt for a clunky, pipeline-friendly script that saves time and bothersome critical engagement. . This is a business after all.

Remember the scene in Dead Poet's Society ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjHORRHXtyI

Sadly, Pritchard still rules the screenplay.

You guys and gals show up on set with your amazing gear and years upon years of combined talent and experience and shared tricks and innovations, and then, more often than not, a piece of shit, pipelined script in hand to turn into a film. What gives?

I get that there is a glut of material out there that buries good and brilliant screenplays, making it time consuming to find a real gem. But mostly it is because the writers, be they spec or team, or writer/director or whatever, are so ill prepared to even write one. And producers are ill prepared to read them.

alex

 

[a whitmer]

Well, I tried watching the original 'House of cards', which the Netflix series was based on, but couldn't quite sit through it. I'll give it another go. I did watch the first episode of the first season of 'Bloodline', which was once touted at Netflix' best web series yet. Nope, didn't do it for me. Off the shelf dribble. I see it had good ratings for it's first season, then average for the second, then to a thumbs down. It went from 80, to 50, then to 29. Sinking fast.

The other issue with the writing for these kinds of series is the ability to sustain them over so many episodes. Keep it feeling fresh and engaging. And again I argue that Apple could spend ten billion, but if it doesn't bring entirely new ways of looking at story to the table, one on par with the technologies of today, not 1970, then they are just another brick in the wall.

I just discovered it is virtually impossible to email anyone at Apple.


Have a look-see at five excerpts of my never-to-be-published screenwriting book !

https://alexmwhitmer.wordpress.com/zz-book-excerpts/



Alex

 

[a whitmer]

Alex' Blog: Stardate 08302017

Since I am done now with all of the episodes of 'House of Cards', I am on to binging on pre-cell phone films/stories. Notting Hill, Sleepless in Seattle, Mona Lisa Smile, etc. I am doing this to compare them to the cell phone-infused stories in 'House of Cards', where these contraptions own half the stage. Maybe more.

Seriously guys and gals. Watch an episode of 'House of Cards', then watch 'Mona Lisa Smile'. Holy crap, how far we've come - or gone? I can smell the decay. Just like in real life, the contemporary stories are rife with the same impersonalisms we encounter on the streets. Disconnected from each other so we can connect to these handheld nannies with their inculating OM.

Pre-cell phone stories are likely to go the way of the Western. For a while. Just ain't cool enough. Maybe 'Dunkirk' is a last gasp? I have very low expectations with this so called Apple war chest.

I was born in the wrong decade.


''Ironic, isn't it? Look at what we have done to the man who refused to conform his ideals to popular taste. Who refused to compromise his integrity. We have put him in a tiny box and asked you to copy him.''

Katherine Watson on Vincent van Gogh, Mona Lisa Smile

Now THAT was good writing!!


Alex




Have a look-see at five excerpts of my never-to-be-published screenwriting book !

https://alexmwhitmer.wordpress.com/zz-book-excerpts/

 

[Christoffer Glans]

They should invest in new filmmakers, lower budget indies that doesn't eat up the budget in an instance. Instead open up the possibility to find new talent that they can keep within their system and at the same time get better investment to profit ratio. Films like Ex Machina is a prime example of lower budget movies, but could go even lower. Then put more money into marketing those films and shows that show potential while signing deals with filmmakers who might grow into bigger names further down the road.

Whenever I hear about investments like these I always feel they will aim and shoot in the wrong direction. They look at the big successes and want to do the same, when most of those successes came from either a long line of failures or a shot in the dark that went gold. Investments that grow over time are always more stable and investing in people who aren't bound by other projects or by their own established names as brands would probably be the better investment for a newcomer in the industry. 1 billion sounds a lot, but it's not in comparison to everyone else.

 

[Elsie N]

They should invest in new filmmakers, lower budget indies that doesn't eat up the budget in an instance. Instead open up the possibility to find new talent that they can keep within their system and at the same time get better investment to profit ratio. Films like Ex Machina is a prime example of lower budget movies, but could go even lower. Then put more money into marketing those films and shows that show potential while signing deals with filmmakers who might grow into bigger names further down the road.

Whenever I hear about investments like these I always feel they will aim and shoot in the wrong direction. They look at the big successes and want to do the same, when most of those successes came from either a long line of failures or a shot in the dark that went gold. Investments that grow over time are always more stable and investing in people who aren't bound by other projects or by their own established names as brands would probably be the better investment for a newcomer in the industry. 1 billion sounds a lot, but it's not in comparison to everyone else.

I don't disagree that that's what they should do... but that seems to be nobody's blueprint these days. Long-term gratification is a rarity.

And maybe that's best. After all, the "I want it now" being pervasive in today's societies has resulted in great accomplishments for and by the Hurry-Ups.

We can be cream and rise to the top... or skim milk.

 

[a whitmer]

Of course I would love to see new and up-and-coming filmmakers (and writers for film) get a shot at these kinds of opportunities, and maybe make a little cash bigger than a bagel and butter along the way. The chance to work on that level, and maybe – just maybe – bring fresh perspectives that tend to get deliberately buried in the echo chambers of big and little Hollywood, could open some interesting doors for both individual Creatives, and the stagnant industry at large.

In theory, anyways.

That said, however, this ‘new and up-and-coming’ is only as good as those who show up with their integrity off the market. ‘Safe’ was mentioned early in this thread, and I would tend to agree that, especially in the polarized frenzy of today, so much of the content will be groupthink driven.

Compare the critical response to ‘Mona Lisa Smile’ 2003, to that of ‘Mission Impossible: Rouge Nation’, 2015, and it’s not all that difficult to see the future of controlled content. Maybe for fun, go back to 1989 and compare the critical response to ‘Dead Poets Society’ as well – three 14-year intervals to consider. I have yet to see Dunkirk, so maybe there is still a ray of hope, but I fear what we used to consider as critical thinking has been filed down to dull wits. We’ll see.

There is the ‘ol proverbial pie, and Apple wants a piece of it; a slice of the same thing everybody else is already eating. I seriously doubt Apple has the guts to reinvent this pie, their vanguard history aside. Now I do think there will be technical innovation on delivery, selection options and profiles, probably on how it is viewed on both big screen and hand-held devise without losing whatever it is media loses when bouncing between viewing options – I think there is a word for that: responsive, or intuitive? Along those lines? Maybe some cool stuff will come along in the actually filming as well. And new Post-production magic the world has never seen, and really filmed for Apple’s own handhelds for maximum viewing pleasure. Feeding their own devices.

Apple is coming to the pie table at a very odd time. The technologies are flying beautifully out of control in a thousand directions, and they have no fears in this arena. On top of that, the old technologies can be adapted and exploited for their own intrinsic beauties, like this dude using a hundred-year-old camera to photograph Formula 1 racing …

http://www.boredpanda.com/photographer-shoots-f1-old-graflex-camera-joshua-paul/

Gorgeous!

But again I argue that the writing for all this technology’s end purpose is mired in outhouse muck, and no amount of dialled-up blue or an extra light, or a 4x5 format (or writing software) is going to hide that.

Sure, I could write on my own old technology – my 30’s LC Smith Super Speed - and design the pages in some kind of rhythmic, or even lyrical ba-bump. But then production would hand it over to Joe or Josephine Gadget who would then ram it through the crapper and call it art. There is zero appreciation for how the word LOOKS on the page. It is considered irrelevant. Nobody will see it, so what’s the point?

But that is so not true, and the single biggest misconception dragging film into the muck with it. The audience hears the sound, but they do not see the booms, or the toys that correct sound in post. They see shadows and reflections and absence of light, but they do not see the lights or cables or reflectors that make these effects possible. They do not see the camera, or the gadgets that edit, color, superimpose, or any other effects a viewing audience is consciously and subconsciously aware of while digesting story. How a screenplay is written DOES affect how it is read, and in turn how it is interpreted, and in turn how it is filmed. In the end that ends up on screen, so arguably, the screenplay is very much visible, just as visible as any given light, or as audible as any given mic. Not a doubt in my mind. Not as a stack of braded paper, but as a living, breathing hunk of lies and truths. Of skipped beats, smashed cars and broken hearts. It’s all there. Any dick or dickette can write a screenplay, but can they make it visible on screen? Compare any Billy-Bob trumpet lesson sheet music to a Mozart page of sheet music and tell me you cannot see – and feel – the difference.

Screenplay as a stand-alone document you say? Is that not also true of a stand-alone mic? Cool looking gadget, lot of thought went into making it, but what matters most is who is using it.

Story (content) is very much subordinate to whatever storm is brewing on the horizon, and always has been. The resurgent blood-sport of stomping on the necks of non-conformist thought will make sure content remains reigned in for some time to come. Until, at least, the full circle effect decides it is safe to come out again and engage new ideas. Yes, I am well aware many an inventor has been sliced and diced over the millennium for contraptions that threaten any ruling schmuck at the time, the telescope and sanded glass included, but without fail or fault, the free exchange of ideas is always the first to go. And what is film but an exchange of ideas?

Which also explains why ‘Gone with the Wind’ is now shelved.

The very technical advances that I hold in very high respect, are also partly at fault for the current state of shitty writing for shitty films, shitty documentaries, music videos, wedding captures, realty aerials, vine films, and so on. The writing is held at such a low esteem, one might as well just pick their scripts up at the local 7-11 or gas station feeder trough along with a phone card and extruded burger. Yes, it is that bad.

‘Oh, a script! You want the red one or the yellow one?’

I am morbidly curious what Apple will do. All these techno-toys have given us absolute endless options for film, with no imagination too big or too small to make use of them – and more surprises still to come. But they have also created a chronic attention deficit and an acquired cruelty through internet anonymity that will absolutely dictate content.

You know, I am at a real crossroads in my writing career this very moment. My (ex) agent managed to drive my career into the dirt and then some, and I am set back 15 years now, negotiating my own contracts that amount to roughly $1.50 per hour, and my original work has lost about 90% of its selling price. Throw in the current politics of exchanging ideas in a gladiator environment, and I have to really think if this is still the right passion for me. I feel like I need to hide in a cave for thirty years.

Seriously, guys and gals. It is past time to rethink about the content's role, and how it is presented and translated. You too, Apple. Piss or get off the pot.

 

[a whitmer]

By the way, Christoffer, I just watched 'The Girl King'. Great film and story. I'd recommend this biographical drama to all.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1254322/

 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

I just discovered it is virtually impossible to email anyone at Apple.

I wrote to Apple twice, back in the mid '90s, when I was probably not even 20. The reason I wrote was because I was passionate about the company's future. Anyway, I got back signed replies (I still have them in my archives). These days, I can imagine how many people want to get email replies from Schiller etc, partly as trophies to show the rest of the Internet.

Since I am done now with all of the episodes of 'House of Cards', I am on to binging on pre-cell phone films/stories. Notting Hill, Sleepless in Seattle, Mona Lisa Smile, etc. I am doing this to compare them to the cell phone-infused stories in 'House of Cards', where these contraptions own half the stage. Maybe more.

Interesting that you make that point. I posted a link to a video in this forum, '26 reasons why post-millennial movies are awful', and the presenter made that very point.

I actually have in mind a story I've been musing about for years which involves a text message - but that is the trigger for the story. It is by no means a story focused on the phones. OTOH, they can be used to great effect. I had another great idea for a story which has the same kind of setup as Rear Window. The protagonist relies on his iPhone, but even though the phone itself is very efficient at bridging distances, the protagonist finds out quick smart that even the most reliable people are not always around to pick up their phones. Well, you get the idea.

There is one story that I am actually going to write, but that's a play, and I would not have any interest in adapting that to a film. What is magical on the stage isn't necessarily so on the screen. It's a very different vibration.

BTW I really liked your example that compared prose to script writing.

 

[L. Langer]

I think Apple would do well to take a page from Asia, where they produce serialized, character-centric dramas that go no more than 1-2 seasons (They refer to them as "series"), with no intention of going 5-12 seasons or "aslongaswecandragthisfuckingthingontomakesomemoney!". The approach of doing American-style series for syndication doesn't work well anymore and it only results in a lot of "jumping the shark" moments and cancellations.

 

[a whitmer]

I think Apple would do well to take a page from Asia, where they produce serialized, character-centric dramas that go no more than 1-2 seasons (They refer to them as "series"), with no intention of going 5-12 seasons or "aslongaswecandragthisfuckingthingontomakesomemoney!". The approach of doing American-style series for syndication doesn't work well anymore and it only results in a lot of "jumping the shark" moments and cancellations.

Throw series spin-offs into the mix. The series that just won't die.

I just don't get how this stuff is getting through whatever committees are supposed to be vetting not just the content, but the production as well. I just watched 'The Drowning', 2016, with Julia Stiles. Actually I only watched fifteen minutes. It was UNWATCHABLE. A bloody horrendous script that should never have made it past the writer's desk, and really poor editing.

I guess all eyes are already on the future, with half a cursory eye on conventional film, and these kinds of films are really the industries last gasps. Maybe.

But if these numbers are correct ...

https://www.quora.com/How-many-films-are-produced-each-year

... then I will guess film still has some life left in it, and maybe some hope. It just needs a yogurt enema. I am curious of the 9,000-ish films released, how many just nailed it: good writing, good production and performances, engaging screen presence and audience hugs, and it actually made a profit. 10% ?? Less ??

An average restaurant might get by on a 3% profit under ideal circumstances. Maybe film is the same, as in the number of successful films needed to keep the industry alive and vibrant. For film, that means 270 out of 9,000 need to be great to keep an industry-wide pulse. The rest might make a little cash with limited fanfare, maybe break even, or nose dive into the forgettable abyss.

There really is no guarantee that all the Humpty Dumpty technologies and new business models will make things any better. Exciting? Yeah, but crashing an old car and crashing a new car has the same results. Scrap.

alex

EDIT: Started my first 'written for iPhone' script. Titled Fat Cap.