why are there so many BAD movies?

[crafty818]

I am a newbie and am absorbing info like a sponge. I read threads here, read books on writing, read countless screenplays. Everyone seems to agree on the basic points: you need tight dialogue, showing not telling, conflicts that move the story along, etc. Everyone seems to agree that this is a extremely tough business to break into and that a very good story with all the correct elements is the only way to get your foot in the door. If this is the case, why are so many pieces of crap making it to my local theater? I have a theory that talented writers are getting shortchanged by not so talented directors who are destroying these great stories that make it past 4 or 5 executives before getting greenlighted. Am I crazy or just incredibly naive? Or Both?

[William Haskins]

find the documentary "the blockbuster imperative".
do not ingest food or drink for six hours prior to viewing.
if you do eat, have a barf bag at the ready.
after viewing, take three showers in a row.

[Pen Dragon]

It's one of those questions that drives you nuts, crafty. Like what came first, the chicken or the egg, or where does infinity end.

Best to just try and write the best screenplay you can while giving yourself up for dead and spending 8/10ths of your time on the computer telling Haskins he's wrong in one on one.

You need to be perpetually jaded, like all aspiring writers, knowing that you get to know the answer only in the afterlife, and only if you get invited to dine with God.

In the meantime, favoritism and nepotism are big cogs in the Hollywood gearwork.

[OkeyDokey]

This is the $20 million dollar question that no one can ever really answer. I went to a panel where a creative exec from MGM was asked the same question. Her response was, "No one ever sets out to make a crappy movie, it just happens."

There are hundreds of ways a movie can go wrong, and only a very few ways it can go right. Part of the problem is definitely the involvement of too many executives trying to justify their existence. Another part of the problem is the involvement of marketing execs in the process from the very beginning, rather than after the movie is done, and the hopeless attempt to make a blockbuster out of every film.

But there are plenty of other reasons. And unfortunately, they are all completely out of our control as writers. We can only do our best and send our scripts out into the world.

[fearfactory5500]

The only reason I see is Mis-communication.


If the writer doesn't make the movie it's already bound for less than what it should become.

But if the writing is handed to a director with completely different tastes in imagery than what the writer has in tastes.
then it's already bound for something less.

That doesn't alway happen though.
If you take a skillful writer and a skillful director and they can communicate well, that can make for a good movie regardless of differences.

[TwoBrad Bradley]

I blame the screenwriter.

Either the screenwriter writes the story in such a way that the "makers" have no choice but to duplicate his/her vision - or he/she doesn't.

More times than not, the re-writers, directors, actors, dp's, editors, etc. make the story better.

[OkeyDokey]

I dunno, Brad. Apparently "Windtalkers" was a great script before John Woo got ahold of it.

[Salazkin]

Everyone seems to agree that this is a extremely tough business to break into and that a very good story with all the correct elements is the only way to get your foot in the door. If this is the case, why are so many pieces of crap making it to my local theater?The perceived disconnect derives partly because (1) WE are principally talking about spec scripts, but spec scripts constitute only a fraction of the scripts being made into film, and (2) as one sig line (WritePro?) says: it's not called show-art, it's called show-business. And with business considerations dictating product, you invariably end up with what appeals to the lowest-common-denominator in terms of taste: "crap".

[Fortean]

WINDTALKERS was a great concept, then John Woo came along, with Nicolas Cage. If the original screenplay wasn't good, didn't anybody think "rewrite"? The Navajo should've scalped 'em all!

[Winter in New York]

>>>I blame the screenwriter. Either the screenwriter writes the story in such a way that the "makers" have no choice but to duplicate his/her vision - or he/she doesn't.
More times than not, the re-writers, directors, actors, dp's, editors, etc. make the story better.

Wow. The naivete of that statement make my head spin.

Winter in New York

[pantalone]

I just finished Martel's book. He mentions a producer or somesuch on one of his scripts that thought the story needed a sex scene. Of course the story was set in a submarine with a male cast.

That's the kind of person that can ruin a film.

I think THE HULK is a perfect script. I mean, you can set your watch by the Acts, the II, the Mid-Point, etc, etc, etc. I even think the story was pretty good. The fault with it is that it wasn't the Hulk. GIGLI's problem wasn't the story or the director, but the All-Star Cast and the marketing hype. I bet you could re-make the script with the second place finishers from Next Action Hero and a minimal budget and make as much money as Gigli did. I'd call that a success.

One of the worst ways to ruin a film is expectation.

[Evil Elf the One and Only]

Well pant, if Viggo and Brad were on that submarine you betcha I'd pay my twelve bucks to go see a sex scene! Might just tip at the concession stand, too! Anybody with me on that?

The Sex Scene Between Viggo And Chris Walken Was Really Something! (http://terminalcity.diary-x.com)

[Margie24]

(2) as one sig line (WritePro?) says: it's not called show-art, it's called show-business

I would say, "Bingo!"

Here are the Writer's Guild Award winners for best original and adapted screenplays, respectively for the last few years. Their box office #'s are next to them:

2004:

Lost in Translation: $45 mil
American Splendor $6mil

2003:

Bowling for Columbine: $21.2 mil
The Hours: $41.4 mil

2002:

Gosford Park: $41.2mil
A Beautiful Mind: $170.7 mil

2001:
You Can Count on Me : $8.4 mil
Traffic : $123.8 mil

If I remember correctly, ABM's numbers were a big surprise. I remember an interview with Russell Crowe where he said that some of the suits had said, "You're lucky if it grosses $35mil."

[Keith Kocaine]

A couple reasons I can think of real quick.

1. Nepotism in the industry. Over time it results in horrible movies.

2. There is no incentive to make a good movie. Every movie, no matter how bad, makes a profit. If it tanks in theatrical release, there's the video market, television and of course the overseas market.

Ken ShamROCKS!

[Ivonia]

I used to wonder this myself, until I saw one of Bill Martell's Script Tip of the Day, specifically this one:

www.scriptsecrets.net/tips/tip215.htm (http://www.scriptsecrets.net/tips/tip215.htm)

This should hopefully explain the answer to your question crafty818, although other people have put in good info as well.

[nickj]

Great article by Bill. The most telling line is this:

"The audience pays their $9 before they've seen the movie."

That's it in a nutshell. Selling a movie is about making people want to see it. Cool concepts. Great trailers. Big stars. Making people glad they saw it afterward is secondary.

People are giving nepotism too much credit. No producer's going to bet what's already a very tenuous position on an unproven relative.

[NiteScribe]

Has it ever been any different? For every CASABLANCA there were several FRANCIS THE TALKING MULE movies. For every GODFATHER or TAXI DRIVER there were dozens of truly awful movies. The list of terrible movies is endless and starts right at the beginning of film history, continues through to today and will continue on for as long as movies are made.

Remember, STAR WARS and THE INCREDIBLE MELTING MAN were both released in 1977. Let's not forget such winners as: XANADU, THE BIG BUS, or RETURN TO BOGGY CREEK. Why are there so many BAD movies? Why have there always been so many BAD movies, books, comic books, TV shows, plays, songs, jokes, paintings, etc., ad nauseum? I don't know. Maybe mediocrity is the norm and we judge it against that which is truly exceptional. Most artists aren't Michelangelo, most writers aren't Shakespeare, and most directors aren't (insert your favorite director here). Or, we could just blame the Development Executives, Producers and Directors. Works for me. On second thought, let's blame (insert your favorite scapegoat here). Honestly, I don't know. Read the other posts, they probably make more sense than I do.

Creating a movie that taps honestly and memorably into the human experience is clearly a tough task to accomplish...or there would be far more great films. Maybe it's harder to maintain an integrity of vision in a collaborative medium. My guess is that it's a lot harder to make a good film than a bad one, even under the most ideal of circumstances.

[wcmartell]

The development, director and star meddling is part of the problem... but another part of the problem may be that all of those movies playing at your cineplex aren't all that bad.

When people see a movie over and over again or tell their freinds they just have to see "__" that's a good movie (even if *you* didn't like it). That movie is touching an audience (though maybe not touching *you*).

A long while back I posted the CinemaScore audience response scores for some films lots of wannabes thought were bad (like DUDE WHERE'S MY CAR) and it seems that the vast majority of viewers thought they were really really good. I don't know the exit poll scores for HAROLD AND KUMAR, but I've had a couple of pro writer friends tell me they laughed their butts off (and film critics are loving it, too). So it may look dumb, but it seems to be good (one of my friends said if I was planning on seeing it, they'd see it again with me - it must be good.)

But Hollywood *is* a big meat grinder that can take fillet mignon and turn it into really bad hamburger.

- Bill

[NiteScribe]

Okay, now...why are there so many BAD movies from Bollywood, France, Italy, Japan and the rest of the world? Those subtitles aren't fooling anybody. Bill is right, I think. How does one define BAD? Academy Awards don't always mean big box office and big box office doesn't always translate into Academy Awards. Who am I to knock, say...a remake of CAN'T STOP THE MUSIC? Okay, maybe that wasn't a great example. Who am I to knock...THE VILLAGE? Seems it is a love-it or hate-it, but it has already made enough money to justify its existence. Maybe the question should be: why is there so much disposable entertainment as opposed to films that will pass the test of time? Am I getting pompous enough yet? What the hell do I know? Your questions mock me and my very existence. My questions mock me and my very existence. Woody Allen used to make good movies. What the hell happened? Then again, many people never enjoyed Woody Allen, even in the ANNIE HALL days. Quality and lack thereof also mock me. Discerning what is good from bad mocks me as well...as do those opinions that rest squarely on that discernment. I'm getting dizzy. You, crafty818, must have been one of those kids who asked his dad why the sky was blue. Curses.

[TRQ]

I've found that my assessment of movies has changed over the years. I predict that it will continue to change as I write more. It's almost as if I no longer have an expectation of enjoyment of the movie as entertainment, but I do have an expectation that each film will have some aspect, positive or negative, that I can appreciate as an aspiring screenwriter. Maybe it's a cop out to think of it this way, but I find that I hate less movies ... and perhaps this simply lessens my resentment at the $9/movie pricetag.

The other thing that this discussion brings to light is the absolute necessity of reading screenplays. LOTS of screenplays. In my ideal world, which of course exists only in my head, I'd like to read at least the first draft, final draft and shooting scripts of movies that I find interesting. Groping around on the net has only allowed me to do this a couple of times, but it sure sheds light on how things can change. Now, if I can just get the theatrical release AND the director's cut of each movie ... I'll have ... well, alot of DVDs. Just kidding. Not really. It appears that even if the big Hollywood machine doesn't shred your screenplay and the director "gets" the story that you're telling, the good stuff could still end up on the cutting room floor.

Why don't I find all of this discouraging? I have a story to tell. It's this knowledge that helps me hone the prose and direction from my screenplays. The obvious benefit of doing so is that I can pack my pages with action and hopefully, meaningful dialogue.

Thankfully, my work isn't as wordy as my posts.

[TwoBrad Bradley]

As you are watching a movie, you notice things are going bad when you start to get "taken out of the movie".

Annoyances like shitty dialogue, plot holes, suspension of disbelief, "bad" flashbacks and narration, needless montages, unbelievable characters and events, etc. can contribute to a bad experience.

The screenwriter plays such a small role in the process so he can't be blamed.

[peakbeach]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the "coverage" phase, where your spec script moves forward, barely passes, or takes the quick and final plunge.

Are most coverage services trustworthy...like industry-rated ("A" list, "B" list, etc.) or just industry-recognized? Or are they largely scams?

Bottom line - how come so many bad movies ever pass the coverage phase?

:eek

[greyghost]

There are a couple of different ways to define a "bad movie."

One is a movie I personally dislike but is well executed.
I may tell everyone it stinks but it could appeal to many other people.

Another way to define a bad movie is one which is an inconsistent mess...a movie that doesn't seem to know what it is. I believe this comes from meddling.

The best movies seem to have a firm captain at the wheel. Somebody knows exactly what the movie is supposed to be and organizes all the contributors to pull the oars in the same direction. A good captain needs to hang some people from a yardarm or throw others overboard as required.

Collaboration is misused when a movie is a mess. If I build a spec house, I don't let the banker decide the design of the various walls. I don't let someone make the east wall English Tudor and another design the west wall as Spanish. I don't let the plumbers select the design and colors of the toilets, sinks and bathtubs. I don't let the painters each select the colors to paint the interior walls.

All the people who build my house are collaborating with their wonderful talents to the final product but one builder must retain a vision for the finished house.

Can you imagine what a new house would look like if every one who touched it had design and construction approval?

The only definition of a "good movie" that counts is Hollywood's. A good movie is a profitable movie. A bad movie is not profitable.

[NiteScribe]

"Are most coverage services trustworthy...like industry-rated ("A" list, "B" list, etc.) or just industry-recognized? Or are they largely scams?"

The industry uses its own script-analysts. They have staff readers and also use freelance readers. There is also a union for script-analysts or readers. There is another thread on web-based coverage services...which is an entirely different type of thing that usually has little to do with the industry.


"Bottom line - how come so many bad movies ever pass the coverage phase?"

Seems you mean bad scripts not bad movies, which is a different acquisition question. Studios review up to 15,000 submissions per year, including: spec scripts, novels, non-fiction books, treatments, pitches, magazine articles, etc. Out of all that material, a studio makes 12 to 15 features per year. Many of those features are based on material from other sources and developed in-house. That lowers the number of slots for spec-script-based original films. Even a spec that got great coverage, and sold, is then developed in-house. That development is where most of the changes, for good or ill, are made. That script that sold for a million bucks, and that everyone loved, may bare little resemblance to the finished product. Bad scripts generally don't make it past the coverage phase. Good scripts generally don't make it past the coverage process. Usually, but not always, only truly exceptional scripts get through. What happens after that is what is commonly referred to as "Development Hell." In that murky world, great spec-scripts often have all of the greatness "developed" right out of them. The bottom line is that it is not easy to write a good script or to make a good film. It's very difficult. Factor in the studio desire to please everyone, which usually results in pleasing no one, and you go a long way into understanding why so many films fail. This is also a business of egos, and a lot of people like to put their "stamp" on a script. Quite often those "stamps" damage rather than develop a project. Too many Chefs ruin the stew.

[TonyRob]

How come no one here ever asks, "Why are there so many GOOD movies? How did those great movies that knocked me on my ass get made? What were the exact steps that took them from script to screen?"

(And if you haven't seen any movies in the last few years that have knocked you on your ass, you're not watching as many movies as you should be.)

Also, nobody ever sets out to make what they think will be a bad movie.

[peakbeach]

To save my skin I should probably go along with Tony's:

How come no one here ever asks, "Why are there so many GOOD movies? How did those great movies that knocked me on my ass get made? What were the exact steps that took them from script to screen?"

I say that because after reading Ivonia’s link (www.scriptsecrets.net/tips/tip215.htm (http://www.scriptsecrets.net/tips/tip215.htm)) to WC Martell’s “CHA-CHA CHANGES” (or “how does a good script go bad…and why?”), I don't see much point in trying to change things. They simply won't change. That's the nature of the beast.

In telling us the real story, Martell offers no solution but (paraphrasing) "Just write a great script and ignore the madhouse. At least, they might buy your script and expose your talent to people that matters." Something like that.

However, Martell's illustration of how the Hollywood machinery operates (being in the biz of mostly turning “great spec scripts” into “crappy movies) does insult a writer's intelligence. Fascinating, but damn disturbing. Even scary.

A fair question: Can a screenwriter and his message board readers be blacklisted for writing/reading such outspoken go-ahead-make-my-day critique?

It reminds me of the censorship (with its nasty political ramifications) writers suffer in South American countries ruled by illiterate (if not plain stupid) “Juntas.” Granted, this is not censorship - but its end effect is similar. Joe Writer winds up with an unrecognizable piece of work (and if he doesn’t shut up, he won’t work in this town any more). Sounds familiar?

:eek

[Carson Parker]

Hopefully this hasn't already been quoted in this thread, as I'm too lazy to read every single post, but someone, somewhere mentioned, 'You can make a good script into a good movie, you can make a good script into a bad movie, but, you can't make a bad script into a good movie'. Maybe I missquoted, but you get the drift.

Outside of that credo, I think it's important to also understand just how many hands dig into the cookie jar during the production process. Having been on a few films myself, I've had the opportunity to learn several areas of production, and it's very enlightening when you realize how your script is no more than a simple starting point.

The script in my humble opinion is the most important ingredient; the dough, if you will. But, uncooked pizza dough does not a pizza make.

I wish it were different but films get screwed up so many times, regardless of the solid script. It's just a simple fact. It's like throwing together a hundred artists and giving them one paintbrush, then as a Producer saying, paint me an apple. Screw it, you'll have one fukked up piece of fruit on your hands. Anyway, just remember all the factors in the process, before rushing to the conclusion it was the script.

I'd like to throw in an extreme but important example. As mentioned everyone in the crew and cast has their hands in the mix. Let's say Joe Smoe, the Script Sup. is late for the call time, due to his hangover. During a vital scene he unwittingly switches the notes on two takes in his log. It's overlooked and come editing time the editor throws in the wrong take. They may notice the screw up, but seeing as the film is a small budget and it's on the fast track they push it through.

Then, you, sitting in the audience watch the film hit it's crescendo, but the scene sucked so bad it left a bad taste in your mouth, and you just can't seem to get over that crappy scene which did not fit with anything else. Bam, you have a crap film on your hand because Mr. Smoe, got tanked one night.

I know, I know, it's extreme and a little unrealistic, but it has it's merit, this stuff happens all the time. Not as much with larger productions, but certainly with lower budget films that you were certain was a script that was 'top notch'. Throw in another 50 crew members and you can see how being forgiving of the writer is mucho importante (at times).

(edited to add little example)

[NoozYooz]

I used to work in IT. The hot question there is: how come 80% of all IT projects end up as failures?

Many similarities: IT projects are started because someone thinks it's a good idea, a business case is created, lots of people are involved, ego's clash, consultants are called in, costs spiral -- and the end result is either a disappointment or a total failure.

Very important difference: in IT, the MBA people still believe that you can predict and ensure success through project methodologies, rigourous pre-testing, analysis and the like. Even though the results prove them wrong.

In Hollywood, the creative people realise that 'nobody knows anything'. For an MBA educated suit, that is maddening. If it were true, their reason for being would more or less fall away. So they deny that fact and turn to minimising risks. And use the same tools as their IT counterparts...

--Nooz

[NikeeGoddess]

Nina Jacobson, president of Buena Vista at Disney gives one reason why - sometimes it b/c there's a contractual agreement with a star before the script is completely. They'll have a window of time that the actor is available. And if the script is not finished or well written or rewritten yet then they either lose all the money they've already put into the development or continue on a make the movie even with a crappy script.

ie - say in Sept '04 Tim Allen signs a contract to do the next SantaClaus flick between his window of time March - May '05 b/c he starts another flick in June '05. The screenwriter(s) hired to write the script have plot holes and character flaws that they cannot fix in time. What ya gonna do? You've already paid Tim $20 million!

and

Todd Garner of Revolution says this: the Bennifer celebrity phenom was so great that their status and position in the contract outweighed proper decision making power. ie - it was Affleck's idea to name it Gigli after his character so they would have something to talk about during the pomotional interviews. the fact that it's too difficult to pronounce didn't concern Affleck.
and
Julia Roberts turned her latest flick, Mona Lisa Smile into a Revlon commercial. :lol said she was the worst thing about that movie.

Revolution will never ever develop another flick with a big vain star attached.

[AJ]

fear
fear
fear
fear
fear
fear of trying something new
fear of trying something that isn't proven
fear of trusting others
fear of trusting yourself
fear of losing your job
fear of failing

fear is at the root of most failure
that's what i think ...

[NoozYooz]

Agree on fear. This thread made me think about applying complexity science to Hollywood. Let me try to explain.

The fear in Hollywood is related to unpredictability. Unpredictability is a key property of any complex phenomenon, like box office success. By 'complex' I mean that the phenomenon is dependent on a web of so many interrelated free-willed agents (humans) and their interactions that there are no discernible cause-effect relationships.

There are no rules, so there is no real way to predict the future and so there is no clear way to minimise risks. Hollywood can only clutch at straws like getting a big star, 'developing' the script with well-known writers and using a gifted director.

Of course, this clutching at straws is usually inspired by the belief that there are rules but we just haven't found them yet. The crutch most businesses use is to try and deduct the rules from past experience, as in the dreaded 'best practices'. This approach is still taught in most MBA courses, although interest in complexity science is growing.

How to interpret our complex world without rules? Well, by examining patterns and accepting that patterns may or may not repeat themselves over time. Because of the nature of complex systems, tiny changes can produce a ripple effect that completely alters the patterns that occur. Like a bad rumour that eventually sinks an entire movie.

Complexity is not able to predict the future, but there are ways to get a grip on complex systems. They focus on areas like encouraging variation, interaction and experimentation. You can see patterns forming and encourage or discourage them. Much like a stand-up comedian will adapt his routine on the spot to accommodate the patterns in the audience (the rules-based approach would be: I'm in London, this is The Comedy Store and it's after 10 PM so this joke will not work).

So how can Hollywood use this? Lots of ways. For one thing, by embracing the 'fluke'. Chances are that the movie uncovered a pattern that is currently running through society. On a pre-production level, by encouraging interaction between writer, cast and director. And on a marketing level by using the focus groups to ask indirect questions. Like having them tell personal stories that the movie reminds them of. This way you can find out underlying themes that really resonate with an audience, instead of 'what was the best scene'.

Screenwriters can use it like this: think of a movie you saw 4 days ago. Which scenes come to mind first? What happened there? Who was the protag? What was he/she like? Do you get images, words or story elements? Those are the things that resonate with you. Ask someone else about these and you'll find out what resonated with them. Or try to retell the story - usually the best way to find the strong elements (useful in focus groups too).

And last but not least, by looking at patterns over time. Screenwriter Max Adams mentions that over the last 11 years, all scripts that won the Oscar for 'best original screenplay' were written by only one writer or writing duo. Now there's a pattern for ya.

--Nooz

[cluckyburger]

hollywood is not some fantasy land where people walk around quivering in fear of something new. it is business. properties have to be pre-validated. that can be done by casting a movie star, by making a property w/ a built-in audience (like a videogame or comic book), or a making a high concept movie. It is, in very rare cases, prevalidated by the director. It is never prevalidated by the presence of the writer.

don't get me wrong. there are some complete idiots in hollywood who have no business offering their takes on creative concerns. that is a problem not exclusive to hollywood.

there are plenty of independent movies coming out all the time and nobody ever goes to see them. you cannot complain about the dearth of originality in cinema if you only go to see i, robot and van helsing. you have to be willing to take chances with your wallet and what you want to see if you expect that kind of universe

[NoozYooz]

Hollywood is not some fantasy land where people walk around quivering in fear of something new. It is business.

But any multi-million dollar investment decision requiring your signature is going to cause you anxiety. So you try and find security. By minimising risks. Anything new and unproven is a risk. So indirectly, Hollywood does fear something new.

Properties have to be pre-validated. That can be done by casting a movie star, by making a property w/a built-in audience (like a videogame or comic book) or making a high concept movie.

Strong validation implies reliable criteria. Many supposed summer blockbusters fail even though they meet the pre-validation criteria you mentioned, and that must spook most executives. Any other business would go and find better validation criteria.

There's a human tendency to bark up one tree and keep barking. Like, development doesn't seem to be the answer and yet we try more development.

I'm not saying I know why that is, I'm just saying that there may be new avenues (trees) to explore here. And some exciting new tools to do it.

--Nooz

[cluckyburger]

NY-
I was not responding to your post. i was responding to the general consensus of people who don't know how hollywood works who assume that since so many bad movies come out of hollywood that it must be b/c hollywood is
a)dumb
b)out of touch
c)unoriginal

i do not object to the idea of fear as a motivator but rather the easy vilification of those who work in hollywood as cowering simpletons.

you and i are saying the same thing

[ShadowFormer]

There are two reasons why so many bad films get made in the first place: 1. It isn't so much as what you know, as who you know. 2. Commerce is, and always has been dictated by the money people.

Money people are not interested in how brilliant a script has been written. They only have two questions to ask: "How much will it cost"? - and - "will it make money"?

That's the way of the world - bankers will always have the upper hand while film-makers depend upon their loot. The moral is, I suppose: write films that are cheap to produce and are trendy enough to make wads of money for these unimaginative people.

However, I can honestly put my hand on my heart and say I don't think many scripts that get to the production stage are bad scripts. I say this because if they were, the veracity of the script-reader must be very much in question. A film is usually bad for a whole range of other reasons in my view, and therefor bad films cannot be laid wholly at the feet of the writer. I would say that in 99% of the cases it isn't the writers fault at all.

Shadow

[wcmartell]

"will it make money"?

All that means is - will an audience be interested enough in the story idea to pay to see it, and will that audience like the story after they've seen it enough to recommend it to their friends....

And those are elements of "good".

I think part of the "bad movie" problem is that it can be subjective. You may not like a movie at all, but everyone else might love it. In that case, you're the odd man out. This is a mass market media - so the majority's taste rules. It would make no sense to spend $102 million to make a film that a half dozen people loved and everyone else hates. The movies that get made have to appeal to the majority audience. If you want to write movies, it's always a good idea to be part of that audience. Doesn't mean you have to think that something like TITANIC is flawless, but parts of it should have been entertaining to you. Your job is to write scripts with the mass market entertainment elements that are also "good" to your individual taste as well.

Then they will be developed into crap and actors and directors who are clueless will further ruin the story until it becomes what you see on screen and groan at because you ended up with sole credit.

- Bill

[TwoBrad Bradley]

Much of the tone in this thread is rather defeatist. You sound like a bunch of old coots complaining about the weather.

Everybody knows there are bad movies out there. And there are reasons. So what do we as screenwriters do about it? Do we just plod along, keep doing what we’re doing, and pretend it’s someone else’s problem?

If the problem is really money and quick profits, then why aren’t we all writing stories that are inexpensive to make into movies and good enough to make the profits the “suits” want?

In the very first paragraph of “Screenplay by Disney” Jason Surrell references Goldman’s “Nobody knows anything.” and says, “... people inside and outside the motion picture industry have parroted this infamous maxim ... often in the course of explaining away the nonperformance of their own creative endeavors.”

So the system is flawed. Big @#%$ whiny deal. What do we do about it? Don't tell me there's nothing. Don't tell me the screenwriter doesn't have the power ... the creativity ... the responsibility ... to change things for the better.

One thing: You can't have studios making movies the public wants when there are screenwriters writing for themselves.

(This reply is cut by about 80 percent because I deleted a section about the importance/development of rules.)

[pantalone]

There always have been and always will be bad movies.