I Hate Screenwriters

[Erich Ocean]

I have the funding to hire a screenwriter for our story and this would suit me best, but how long am I going to search for the "right" guy and where do I find him/her?

Okay, so, this is something we've been dealing with at our studio since the late 90's, and that's the difference between: story, script, and film.

"Story" in our formulation is a combination of characters, setting and plot that is told in a particular order/POV. Change any of those things, and you end up with a different story. "Concept" refers to that which is the same between story variations. If I had to guess -- and I don't mean this to be disparaging in any way -- you have a story concept, not a story, at this point.

Which is great, that's where it all starts. So, given the story concept, you put in the time and effort to work out a story meant to be told as a film. At that point, you can do two things:

1. Write it down as a script.
2. Create a film.

Pretty much everyone does step 1, because -- so far -- it's the easiest, most reliable, and cheapest way to get to step 2: create a film.

But there are problems with step 1. For starters, scripts specify sequencing and dialogue well, but everything else is very poorly specified: pacing, production design, characters, music, editing. This is a limitation of the screenwriting format, and in particular, the need to attempt to pace the film with the script (the old "one page per minute" rule). The result are scripts that, when you get to step 2, completely fail to produce the same effect when told as a film.

It gets worse. Remember the "story", where the script is just a form? Yeah, that aspect, which is of critical importance, was completely lost when the script was written. Because we hand over the script, not the story that the script was created from. All of the hard thinking that went into the story is funneled through a script that can, at best, fully capture only dialogue and sequencing.

So, what to do? We have a story concept, we work our ass off on a story well told, and then we're stuck with this incredibly primitive method for turning that story into a film.

Well, you could do what Hollywood does: spend tens of millions of dollars at this point producing final footage, try and save the film in the edit suite, and then release it with a big marketing campaign. Sometimes it works, but most of the time, it doesn't.

Or you could do what Pixar does, which is: make a non-final version of the script. See what went wrong. FIX THE STORY/SCRIPT. Rinse, repeat, a hundred times or more until you have a film that accurately reflects the story, and a story that's worth telling and can be told with the same impact on film.

It doesn't always work for Pixar, sometimes they are forced to release a film that's half-baked for maketing/corporate reasons, but the process itself is sound.

Of course, Pixar does computer animation and so they can do that. Live-action is different, right?

Yes, but we can now use computers to do the photography (the live-action equivalent of animation). And that's what our studio, Fohr, is doing. Pixar-style story development and iteration, using computer photography to make it all possible. We use all of the same live-action roles you're used to (e.g. a traditionally trained DoP, actors, etc.) but, like computer animation, the result are instructions for the computer, which is willing and able to go out and reshoot until the power goes out. We can get a pick up shot with perfect lighting and the original actors at any point. We can change dialogue, shot length, lighting, costumes, sets, you name it, at any point in the process. Just like Pixar, but this time for live-action.

IMO this is the future of live-action filmmaking. What we're doing is essentially cheating. Where a traditional director gets, literally, one chance to turn the story/script into a film, we get hundreds of chances and can make fixes/improvements during any of them. When tens of millions of dollars are on the line, it's hard to imagine that business people will ultimately choose to just wing it 10-20 years from now.

Oh, and we can do 3D that's just as good as what the animated films can do, which is to say, excellent.

Best, Erich

 

[Will Keir]

We can get a pick up shot with perfect lighting and the original actors at any point. We can change dialogue, shot length, lighting, costumes, sets, you name it, at any point in the process. Just like Pixar, but this time for live-action.

IMO this is the future of live-action filmmaking. What we're doing is essentially cheating. Where a traditional director gets, literally, one chance to turn the story/script into a film, we get hundreds of chances and can make fixes/improvements during any of them. When tens of millions of dollars are on the line, it's hard to imagine that business people will ultimately choose to just wing it 10-20 years from now.

Oh, and we can do 3D that's just as good as what the animated films can do, which is to say, excellent.

Best, Erich

Sound like a great way to previs a film project and save some money in certain situations. See what shots work, edit, use the leftovers. It's also a good way to test your camera shots and find cheaper ways to do them. Instead of a huge crane/jib shot, maybe slight vertical elevation drop focused on the actor/action is all that's needed. Maybe instead of three dolly moves, you can do the shot in one choreographed steady cam shot. The problem with using computers is the same as the strengths, the options are endless.

There is something to be said about instinct, about dreaming of a sequence, seeing it in your mind and applying your vision to your film. We see a lot of cutting these days which can confuse people emulating their idols but a million cuts cannot compete with the simple elegance of a well thought out, cleverly implemented shot.

With a thread title of "I hate screenwriters" the relevance to topic is wide open. Glad to discuss story, concept & script with you, now I'm off to setup a long dolly shot in the woods, which means, more poison oak on my legs. It's literately true, I've got the itch and it's all over me.

 

[Jeremy Torrie]

Erich you have some valid points...at times I do instruct and story edit (after all, part of what we do is have an obligation to share, and give back to the next generation, much like our friend Mr. Mullen does on this site).

I tell these aspiring filmmakers every time: you can have a story about any subject matter in the world, but if there's no emotional journey at the core for us to follow by way of a protagonist, we won't care about any of it. This is why we cry over two people freezing in the middle of the ocean after their cruise ship hits a block of ice (even though we know what was going to happen going in), or when blue aliens are brutalized at the hands of industrialists.

However, there is a word Jannard has used here known as Alchemy. That's the reason we continue to make things up as we go...there's something magical about the creation of a scene bringing together all the talents of everyone involved captured by picture and sound to become greater than the sum of its parts. Certainly one of the heartbreaks of filmmaking is having the constraints of budget and time and having to make due with what you get at the end of the day even though it's nowhere near what was envisioned. On the other hand I have had scenes I wasn't very excited about become my favourites because they exceeded my expectations and vision of what I had in mind when I wrote it.

 

[alexwhitmer]

There is some really great stuff here. Nice to see something good come out of a rant!

So, some time ago (years) I started writing a book on screenwritng, but for filmmakers, not screenwriters specifically (did I mention I hate screenwriters?), since there are so many filmakers out there also wanting to tackle writing their own material. I also said I would start putting chapters up once I got over my post-rip off depression. Guess I'm finally there so here's the link to two chapters of the free!! eBook. Chapter 7 is Writing vVsually, and chapter 8 is Elements. There are many more, just need to polish them, so this will come together out of order. I'll get Clarity and Brevity up soon.

http://thestarvingdramaturge.wordpress.com/my-ebook-how-to-speak-script/

I think I posted this material in the past.

I am just getting my page back up, so many links are not yet working, photos are missing, some info is ancient, and script samples are missing, so no passing judgment just yet.

Take what you can from the info.

a

 

[Zeb B]

Okay, so, this is something we've been dealing with at our studio since the late 90's, and that's the difference between: story, script, and film.

"Story" in our formulation is a combination of characters, setting and plot that is told in a particular order/POV. Change any of those things, and you end up with a different story. "Concept" refers to that which is the same between story variations. If I had to guess -- and I don't mean this to be disparaging in any way -- you have a story concept, not a story, at this point.

Which is great, that's where it all starts. So, given the story concept, you put in the time and effort to work out a story meant to be told as a film. At that point, you can do two things:

1. Write it down as a script.
2. Create a film.

Pretty much everyone does step 1, because -- so far -- it's the easiest, most reliable, and cheapest way to get to step 2: create a film.

But there are problems with step 1. For starters, scripts specify sequencing and dialogue well, but everything else is very poorly specified: pacing, production design, characters, music, editing. This is a limitation of the screenwriting format, and in particular, the need to attempt to pace the film with the script (the old "one page per minute" rule). The result are scripts that, when you get to step 2, completely fail to produce the same effect when told as a film.

It gets worse. Remember the "story", where the script is just a form? Yeah, that aspect, which is of critical importance, was completely lost when the script was written. Because we hand over the script, not the story that the script was created from. All of the hard thinking that went into the story is funneled through a script that can, at best, fully capture only dialogue and sequencing.

So, what to do? We have a story concept, we work our ass off on a story well told, and then we're stuck with this incredibly primitive method for turning that story into a film.

Well, you could do what Hollywood does: spend tens of millions of dollars at this point producing final footage, try and save the film in the edit suite, and then release it with a big marketing campaign. Sometimes it works, but most of the time, it doesn't.

Or you could do what Pixar does, which is: make a non-final version of the script. See what went wrong. FIX THE STORY/SCRIPT. Rinse, repeat, a hundred times or more until you have a film that accurately reflects the story, and a story that's worth telling and can be told with the same impact on film.

It doesn't always work for Pixar, sometimes they are forced to release a film that's half-baked for maketing/corporate reasons, but the process itself is sound.

Of course, Pixar does computer animation and so they can do that. Live-action is different, right?

Yes, but we can now use computers to do the photography (the live-action equivalent of animation). And that's what our studio, Fohr, is doing. Pixar-style story development and iteration, using computer photography to make it all possible. We use all of the same live-action roles you're used to (e.g. a traditionally trained DoP, actors, etc.) but, like computer animation, the result are instructions for the computer, which is willing and able to go out and reshoot until the power goes out. We can get a pick up shot with perfect lighting and the original actors at any point. We can change dialogue, shot length, lighting, costumes, sets, you name it, at any point in the process. Just like Pixar, but this time for live-action.

IMO this is the future of live-action filmmaking. What we're doing is essentially cheating. Where a traditional director gets, literally, one chance to turn the story/script into a film, we get hundreds of chances and can make fixes/improvements during any of them. When tens of millions of dollars are on the line, it's hard to imagine that business people will ultimately choose to just wing it 10-20 years from now.

Oh, and we can do 3D that's just as good as what the animated films can do, which is to say, excellent.

Best, Erich

Problems w/Prometheus in a nutshell - beautifully filmed - just needed more "rinse & repeat" cycles to work out the rest

 

[Will Keir]

Problems w/Prometheus in a nutshell - beautifully filmed - just needed more "rinse & repeat" cycles to work out the rest

Yeah I'm hearing that a lot but I'm still thinking about that movie. Asking myself questions, trying to figure it out. Maybe I'm slower to come to the same conclusion. At the very least, it has made me want to revisit the Alien franchise.

 

[Mark K.]

IMO this is the future of live-action filmmaking. What we're doing is essentially cheating. Where a traditional director gets, literally, one chance to turn the story/script into a film, we get hundreds of chances and can make fixes/improvements during any of them. When tens of millions of dollars are on the line, it's hard to imagine that business people will ultimately choose to just wing it 10-20 years from now.

The future? God I hope not. I hope not with all my heart.

 

[Erich Ocean]

The future? God I hope not. I hope not with all my heart.

No worries, there will always be: television, live events, sports, corporate videos, low-budget independent films, and YouTube.

 

[Will Keir]

You forgot feature films like Ridley Scotts Prometheus.:yesnod:

No worries, there will always be: television, live events, sports, corporate videos, low-budget independent films, and YouTube.

 

[Erich Ocean]

You forgot feature films like Ridley Scotts Prometheus.:yesnod:

Not at all, I kind of doubt Ridley will still be making films like Prometheus when he's 94 years old.

Though you never know...

 

[alexwhitmer]

All feedback is valid around here!

---> just testing if i'm going to get a beating for saying that...

EDIT: Alex just make sure you don't talk about other high speed cameras, digital still cameras, 2.5K cameras and also "sponsored" camera tests and everything should be fine

A thorough lashing at best! And yeah, I've seen a few exchanges here as well. The mods seem pretty quick about stepping in.

Sooo, yeah, I put forth the notion that all feedback was valid ... there was a 'discussion' about how to give and take advice, and who should one listen to when conflicting advice comes along, and both seem logical. Mind you this is about the minutia of screenwriting, and should you say COP #1 and COP #2 or SKINNY COP nad CHUBBY COP, along with other nonsense to argue about?

I said ...

Everybody's advice is valid because everybody has a style and habits that work for them, whether they got it from adherence to a book, film school, or by school of hard knocks, or some combination. And whether they have been produced, sold, or neither or both, their own experience gives them a unique point of view on the craft. How their advice is given or perceived is what makes and breaks industry friendships - and starts a fight or two.

Yawn. Humans. This is why conflict is the backbone of storytelling. We crave it. And by god we'll get our fix even if we have to invent a misunderstanding.


Here is just one of the responses ...

Everyone's advice is valid! Hooray. So why come here? Why not just ask the meth-heads on the exit ramp?To all of you: Beware anyone who talks like this. You wouldn't think like this when learning to play golf or write code for apps or cook or deal with a sick child or fix an engine that won't start. Please don't think like this about writing screenplays. It is a very, very specific craft.

And this jewel after what I said somehow morphed into 'All advice is equal' .... (I never said that!!)

Are you actually still trying to defend your indefensible position that all sources of advice are equal when it comes to writing screenplays? (And don't play word semantics to try to twist something you said into something you didn't say.) Years ago when I was young and dumb, I tried to argue with someone who was trying to give me some good advice. Finally he said something that stuck, and I never forgot that. He said: "You can open your mouth and stay stupid, or you can shut it and learn something."

You might want to take that advice.


Yeah, okay, dude. Thanks for proving my point on inventing misunderstandings.

If it wasn't just so ridiculous, it would be funny. And these are seasoned writers. I gotta say, some forums are just dang hostile. And that's just a small sampling. If nothing else it's good material for slapstick horror. I'll file it under stupid.

a

 

[alexwhitmer]

Writers chose to work alone, all set staff chose to work in groups. For sure different personality types.

That's really so true. I think TV writing requires that folks work in groups. Not 100% sure. I'd rather jump off a bridge.

a

 

[Matthew Scott]

wowsers.....hostile is right!

 

[alexwhitmer]

Okay, so, this is something we've been dealing with at our studio since the late 90's, and that's the difference between: story, script, and film.

I'm just going to quote the opening line, but comment on the whole.


You are quite right. Concept is what you begin with, not a story. It really only becomes a story when you have structured it as such via a screenplay, with your beginning, middle and end, whether it's linear or not, or even wholly finished.

Per you comments on what happens next - trying to translate that screenplay into a film with all the non-tangible elements such as rhythm and tone to name just two, is something screenwriting dismisses all too easily, and puts little or no value on cadence or in writing to match action to the tempo one wants to convey, or that the original concept had in the purest of form - a love scene as opposed to a car chase wouldn't maintain the same tempo in the witten words. Instead of embracing this, screeenwriters would rather argue over whether COP #1 or SKINNY COP is the preferred method a reader wants to see. Who really gives a crap? It's THIS kind of nonsense that makes it difficult to interpret and match a film to its screenplay, and why so many costly changes need to be made before, during and after. Dang near all of it comes down to lazy writing that created a 'safe' script devoid of charisma. It just pisses me off!

In my someday free ebook book for filmmakers who want to write their own material, or at least know how to read a screenplay and know the difference between a good one, and one that falls short, I have a chapter dedicated to rhythm. To me, the screenplay is not just about story, but about getting a bunch of people out of bed at 4 in the morning to access the script as a document that will get cables connected, lights set up. sound gear unloaded, and then everyone dressed and ready to change written words into moving images. That means the screenplay must convey not just the organic story, but also its movement, its pulse, its static elements, its angst and anticipations. And so much more.

Even if it is clear in your head, you still need your actors and dp and everyone else to see and feel what you see and feel, or as close as possibe without stripping them of valuable input and interpretation. Somewhere there is a great song lyric -'I see everything you hear' - like that. Natalie Merchant, maybe?

I think I'm rambling, but you get the point.

Far too many writers, and filmamkers, think a screenplay is only about a story. Truth is, it's only one small part of it.

Love your post. Really appreciate the POV in it.

 

[Vance Colvig]

So glad to see you back, Alex. You liven thing up around here. Thanks.

 

[William Barber]

You don't hate screenwriters, you hate forum keyboard jockeys. I don't think many good writers would spend their time talking about writing instead of writing.

 

[Elsie N]

Screenwriters are just regular people with closeted dissociative personality disorders. Alex, maybe it was one of their meaner personalities that give trouble on the screenwriter forums.

 

[alexwhitmer]

You don't hate screenwriters, you hate forum keyboard jockeys. I don't think many good writers would spend their time talking about writing instead of writing.

This particular thread went on for 30-ish pages, and is likely still going. Yeah, I'm even ashamed of myself for chiming in. Could have been writing, or cooking, or walking my dog.

And for the record, I'm of the school that COP #1 is fine for those walk on-walk off peripheral characters. Making up identifiers such as COP WITH A LIMP or BY-THE-BOOK COP for a simple action that plays no other part than background filler is silly, IMHO. Now if this Cop somehow tweaks the story in a small way by distracting a main character, or somehow influenceing static or kinetic elements, and there are a few other cops around, then yes. Maybe. Only if it feels needed to keep periphs sorted out, and it doesn't screw with the cadence. COP #1 and COP #2 has a nice, quick rhythm to it, as opposed to COP WITH A LIMP and BY-THE-BOOK COP. Sounds trivial, but it can matter in a long read, when casting and when moving it from paper to film. If I had to read COP WITH A LIMP and BY-THE-BOOK COP 7 or 8, or more times over, I'd be ready to toss the dang thing.

See, I'm doing it again. Time to walk the dog.

What I have learned from stopping in on writer forums - and they all seem pretty much the same to one extreme or another, less one or two gems - is that many if not most writers (at least those in the forums) have already determined the boundaries of the craft, and will fight to the death to defend them. 30 pages of bickering without a single change of mind is proof in the pudding. And that's just one thread.

Yeah, I'd call it a waste of time that should be spent writing, or at least scratching out notes for a new concept, or reading old material, or reading oscar-winning screenplays. Anything but pissing in the wind.

Okay, dog, let's do this thing.

a

 

[alexwhitmer]

So glad to see you back, Alex. You liven thing up around here. Thanks.

Thanks, Vance.

I managed to shake off the yuk. Most of it, anyways. Still isn't over since the dirt bags refuse to pay, but I'm to the point where it just doesn't matter anymore. The longer I have to deal with them, the shorter my life becomes.

And, I was really missing the writing.

a

 

[alexwhitmer]

Not sure I consider "RedUser" a filmmaker forum, but whatever. What other filmmaker forums have you found? Enquiring minds want to know.

Well, one bigins with a D, but seems when I spell it out, the post gets deleted. There is FXhome, and a few others I'll need to find since it's been some years since I participated. Some are camera specific, others related to videography. Some have next to zero activity. Like two weeks between posts. Number viewing? 0. That says enough.

Of all of them, RedUser has, by leaps and bounds, the strongest viewership and partcipation. And the working knowledge to back up what is being discussed, argued, imparted, or questioned. As does the D, but the differnces make both valuable.

a