Dr Stiggers
05-03-2003, 02:44 PM
I read and enjoy scr(i)pt. I have suggestions for future
issues.
First, when interviewing “first sale” screenwriters, get
a beat by beat account of how they went from unsold
to sold. Too many interviews in screenwriting mags and
Web Sites read like this: “I got this idea of a 10 year
old kid who could throw a 90 MPH fastball. I wrote the
script in three weeks then Josh Goodstein at Good
Machine read it, loved it and showed it to Universal
who bought it.” And that‘s all the background detail
we get.
Ugh.
This is maddening to the aspiring writer because the
interview offers nothing the reader can duplicate
toward achieving his/her own success. Why else is
the reader reading the article in the first place? Make
this interviewees cough up the goods. Will’s interviews
here on Done Deal are exemplary as he probes and asks
the questions pre-pros would if given the opportunity.
In publicity interviews, many screenwriters gloss over
crucial “how I made it” details because they want to
maximize the melodrama of their success. The subtext
is clear, “I went from liquor store clerk to sold
screenwriter without really trying because I‘m a
****in’ genius.” Sometimes what these writers don’t
want to reveal are eye opening facts such as their
co-writer just happens to be the cousin of the Director
of Development at Universal Studios. Granted, those
blessed with built-in connections only have the door
opened and their script lives or dies by its commercial
potential. But ultimately this is frustrating to the
average reader because people with connections to
the biz have access to insider info such as what a
producer/studio is specifically looking for and, most
important is their access to oodles of previously sold
specs which serve as any aspiring screenwriter’s
most resourceful reference.
The only lesson may be to network and hope you click
with someone with a connection and perhaps that’s
solid advice, but it’d help if we knew exactly how each
newly sold scribe closed the degrees of separation
between wannabe and sold writer.
Often only during my meetings with D-people do I
learn the real back story of several screenwriters’
initial successes. Sometimes these writers take poetic
license with the truth in their publicity interviews but
I believe scr(i)pt can get the real skinny without
becoming adversarial. Readers want to know a writer
celebrating a first sale got his agent. Through a
friend? How do they know the friend? Did the writer
query the agent? How many queries did the writer
send out? What month did they query? Readers buy
screenwriting magazines scouring for road maps and
avenues into the business beyond just writing a
saleable script. Every little detail in success stories is appreciated.
Second, more coverage on first time writers in general
would be refreshing. The Top Ten Writers to Watch
piece in the March/April issue should have been
devoted more space. In fact, that should’ve been
your cover story with more in depth coverage on each
writer. One of those writers, Holly Brix, just sold another
spec. It'd be interesting to hear more about her process
and how found her representation.
I have a few boilerplate questions (besides how the
first vital connection was made) that may be ideal for
future screenwriter interviews: How long did it take
from the time your agent sent your script out till an
offer was made? What is more important, reading
scripts or watching movies? How important do you
believe living in Hollywood was to getting your break?
Extremely? Or did it matter? What has been your
biggest surprise since arriving in Hollywood? Would you
describe your outlining process? Please, tell us a
few produced scripts you believe every pre-pro
should read (and include a link or contact info where
these scripts may be obtained for “educational
purposes only.”) Tell us what dramas, novels or
authors you recommend aspiring scriptwriters read.
Third, sorry but I don’t think the majority of your
readers really care how a veteran scribe adapted a
novel into a screenplay. Most of the readers are pre-
pros and they cannot even identify with a millionaire
writer struggling with an adaptation of a Pulitzer Prize
winning novel. No rooting interest there. I could be
wrong, but I think most readers would rather read an
anonymous screenwriter’s first-sale-to-development-
hell/heaven memoir.
Fourth, how about some features on direct-to-video
producers and writers. Most movies released in any
given year fit into this category and this arena has
proven to be a reliable ignition for many screenwriting
careers. Interesting profiles may include Promark,
Concorde-New Horizons, York, Dimension Home
Video, Universal Family, Warner Home Video, and
Columbia-TriStar. What percentage of their projects
do they originate in house? What are their script
guidelines? How do they find writers?
Fifth, I’d like to see scr(i)pt’s excellent columnists,
John Hill and Ray Morton, breakdown genres by cliché
and convention. In other words, what events, in most
circumstances, are vital to a story and what can be
discarded as hoary cliché. For example, in a romantic
comedy, two people want to come together but a
situation forces them apart, without this convention a
story probably couldn’t be considered a romcom. But
do we need the third act epiphany and subsequent
“chase the lover leaving on a jet plane” denouement?
Certainly, that’s an unnecessary cliché -- or is it?
Deciding between convention and cliché is critical when
laying down structure and I’ve never read a thorough
article on this agonizing process.
Sixth, I like to see ground broken on an analysis of
over-the-top screenwriting. Define it. From my personal
knowledge, the over-the-top complaint is quickly
becoming the number one reason why otherwise good
scripts get dinged by buyers. A thorough examination
would contrast a screenplay scene that oozes over-the-
top with the same scene dryly, but compellingly
executed. Also, it’d be enlightening to read a take on
the differences between the dreaded Over-The-Top
Concept verses the Hollywood friendly High Concept
of 2003 (for instance, I’d like to know why ghosts are
practically the ONLY SF/Fantasy/Horror characters
that DON”T rub most spec buyers the wrong way).
And how ’bout an update of Ray Morton’s brilliant
“Scripts I Never Need Read Again” article. Have any
additional red flags recently unfurled?
Seventh, I’d like to see an article about age, both in
writers and in characters featured in scripts. Do young
film school grads who venture out to Hollywood with
their fresh scripts featuring twenty-something and teen
protagonists have the advantage over older people
locked in non-film careers (and living lives nowhere
near Hollywood) whose scripts typically feature main
characters aged thirty and up? Since the average
D-person is in his/her twenties, does the age on the
page make a significant difference? Or is it because
under twenty-five year-old moviegoers continually
prove to be the most reliable patrons at the box
office and unless a film is a big event movie (based
on familiar material from another medium) these folks
want to see people like themselves? Or is there no
bias at all?
Last, I realize the cult of celebrity is hard to ignore
but actors should never grace the cover any
scriptwriter‘s periodical. Such as it is, movie publicity
shots on the cover page make scr(i)pt look like a
Premiere Magazine retread at first glance. Celebrate
the scribbler who has the most difficult (and thankless)
job in the film business even though everyone knows
his work is “where film begins.”
Rx
issues.
First, when interviewing “first sale” screenwriters, get
a beat by beat account of how they went from unsold
to sold. Too many interviews in screenwriting mags and
Web Sites read like this: “I got this idea of a 10 year
old kid who could throw a 90 MPH fastball. I wrote the
script in three weeks then Josh Goodstein at Good
Machine read it, loved it and showed it to Universal
who bought it.” And that‘s all the background detail
we get.
Ugh.
This is maddening to the aspiring writer because the
interview offers nothing the reader can duplicate
toward achieving his/her own success. Why else is
the reader reading the article in the first place? Make
this interviewees cough up the goods. Will’s interviews
here on Done Deal are exemplary as he probes and asks
the questions pre-pros would if given the opportunity.
In publicity interviews, many screenwriters gloss over
crucial “how I made it” details because they want to
maximize the melodrama of their success. The subtext
is clear, “I went from liquor store clerk to sold
screenwriter without really trying because I‘m a
****in’ genius.” Sometimes what these writers don’t
want to reveal are eye opening facts such as their
co-writer just happens to be the cousin of the Director
of Development at Universal Studios. Granted, those
blessed with built-in connections only have the door
opened and their script lives or dies by its commercial
potential. But ultimately this is frustrating to the
average reader because people with connections to
the biz have access to insider info such as what a
producer/studio is specifically looking for and, most
important is their access to oodles of previously sold
specs which serve as any aspiring screenwriter’s
most resourceful reference.
The only lesson may be to network and hope you click
with someone with a connection and perhaps that’s
solid advice, but it’d help if we knew exactly how each
newly sold scribe closed the degrees of separation
between wannabe and sold writer.
Often only during my meetings with D-people do I
learn the real back story of several screenwriters’
initial successes. Sometimes these writers take poetic
license with the truth in their publicity interviews but
I believe scr(i)pt can get the real skinny without
becoming adversarial. Readers want to know a writer
celebrating a first sale got his agent. Through a
friend? How do they know the friend? Did the writer
query the agent? How many queries did the writer
send out? What month did they query? Readers buy
screenwriting magazines scouring for road maps and
avenues into the business beyond just writing a
saleable script. Every little detail in success stories is appreciated.
Second, more coverage on first time writers in general
would be refreshing. The Top Ten Writers to Watch
piece in the March/April issue should have been
devoted more space. In fact, that should’ve been
your cover story with more in depth coverage on each
writer. One of those writers, Holly Brix, just sold another
spec. It'd be interesting to hear more about her process
and how found her representation.
I have a few boilerplate questions (besides how the
first vital connection was made) that may be ideal for
future screenwriter interviews: How long did it take
from the time your agent sent your script out till an
offer was made? What is more important, reading
scripts or watching movies? How important do you
believe living in Hollywood was to getting your break?
Extremely? Or did it matter? What has been your
biggest surprise since arriving in Hollywood? Would you
describe your outlining process? Please, tell us a
few produced scripts you believe every pre-pro
should read (and include a link or contact info where
these scripts may be obtained for “educational
purposes only.”) Tell us what dramas, novels or
authors you recommend aspiring scriptwriters read.
Third, sorry but I don’t think the majority of your
readers really care how a veteran scribe adapted a
novel into a screenplay. Most of the readers are pre-
pros and they cannot even identify with a millionaire
writer struggling with an adaptation of a Pulitzer Prize
winning novel. No rooting interest there. I could be
wrong, but I think most readers would rather read an
anonymous screenwriter’s first-sale-to-development-
hell/heaven memoir.
Fourth, how about some features on direct-to-video
producers and writers. Most movies released in any
given year fit into this category and this arena has
proven to be a reliable ignition for many screenwriting
careers. Interesting profiles may include Promark,
Concorde-New Horizons, York, Dimension Home
Video, Universal Family, Warner Home Video, and
Columbia-TriStar. What percentage of their projects
do they originate in house? What are their script
guidelines? How do they find writers?
Fifth, I’d like to see scr(i)pt’s excellent columnists,
John Hill and Ray Morton, breakdown genres by cliché
and convention. In other words, what events, in most
circumstances, are vital to a story and what can be
discarded as hoary cliché. For example, in a romantic
comedy, two people want to come together but a
situation forces them apart, without this convention a
story probably couldn’t be considered a romcom. But
do we need the third act epiphany and subsequent
“chase the lover leaving on a jet plane” denouement?
Certainly, that’s an unnecessary cliché -- or is it?
Deciding between convention and cliché is critical when
laying down structure and I’ve never read a thorough
article on this agonizing process.
Sixth, I like to see ground broken on an analysis of
over-the-top screenwriting. Define it. From my personal
knowledge, the over-the-top complaint is quickly
becoming the number one reason why otherwise good
scripts get dinged by buyers. A thorough examination
would contrast a screenplay scene that oozes over-the-
top with the same scene dryly, but compellingly
executed. Also, it’d be enlightening to read a take on
the differences between the dreaded Over-The-Top
Concept verses the Hollywood friendly High Concept
of 2003 (for instance, I’d like to know why ghosts are
practically the ONLY SF/Fantasy/Horror characters
that DON”T rub most spec buyers the wrong way).
And how ’bout an update of Ray Morton’s brilliant
“Scripts I Never Need Read Again” article. Have any
additional red flags recently unfurled?
Seventh, I’d like to see an article about age, both in
writers and in characters featured in scripts. Do young
film school grads who venture out to Hollywood with
their fresh scripts featuring twenty-something and teen
protagonists have the advantage over older people
locked in non-film careers (and living lives nowhere
near Hollywood) whose scripts typically feature main
characters aged thirty and up? Since the average
D-person is in his/her twenties, does the age on the
page make a significant difference? Or is it because
under twenty-five year-old moviegoers continually
prove to be the most reliable patrons at the box
office and unless a film is a big event movie (based
on familiar material from another medium) these folks
want to see people like themselves? Or is there no
bias at all?
Last, I realize the cult of celebrity is hard to ignore
but actors should never grace the cover any
scriptwriter‘s periodical. Such as it is, movie publicity
shots on the cover page make scr(i)pt look like a
Premiere Magazine retread at first glance. Celebrate
the scribbler who has the most difficult (and thankless)
job in the film business even though everyone knows
his work is “where film begins.”
Rx