Let me preface this post by saying that this is NOT an attempt to argue that there are loads of diamonds in the rough and that certain scripts only succeed because the "right" people get involved. This is not a whine post. I believe that screenwriting is largely a meritocracy, and that great work usually stands out on its own merits. The difference between pro work and the average amateur spec is night and day.
That being said, does anyone think there is a difference in how people read scripts vs. how they watch a movie or TV show? If I pay 15 bucks to go see a movie, I try to enjoy it. I won't say I turn off my critical brain completely, but generally speaking I'm not there in the theater to nitpick every little flaw and suggest changes. I'm just trying to enjoy the ride.
Yet I think when people read scripts they tend to approach it from a "why does this suck?" perspective where they immediately start looking for flaws and things to nitpick. It's like readers have suffered through so much garbage that they automatically assume that the next script will also be crap, which causes them to seek confirmation for that self-fulfilling prophecy.
I'm wondering what the script notes would look like for films such as Moonlight, Annihilation, Manchester by the Sea, Goodfellas, and The Royal Tenenbaums if they had been written as specs by unknowns with no track record. I can easily envision readers having a field day with the various atypical choices and structural elements of these movies.
Some scripts are so good that they might be immune to this. I still remember reading the Prisoners spec when that hit the town. It was a real page-turner and I finished it one sitting, with little temptation to put it down. I'm not surprised it got made almost verbatim and did very well. Other stuff like Men In Black and Michael Clayton seems so strong that even if you went in biased against it, you would still come out a fan.
Maybe that's the secret: Write something so good and accessible that nobody can deny its value. Then, once you've proven something, consider the more experimental route. However, it seems like there's a built-in tendency for readers to seek out flaws and highlight those issues, as opposed to actual audiences, which engage with works for the sake of enjoyment first and foremost. It seems only natural that if your emphasis is on flaws and problems then you're going to skew negative in your assessments compared with an actual audience.
That being said, does anyone think there is a difference in how people read scripts vs. how they watch a movie or TV show? If I pay 15 bucks to go see a movie, I try to enjoy it. I won't say I turn off my critical brain completely, but generally speaking I'm not there in the theater to nitpick every little flaw and suggest changes. I'm just trying to enjoy the ride.
Yet I think when people read scripts they tend to approach it from a "why does this suck?" perspective where they immediately start looking for flaws and things to nitpick. It's like readers have suffered through so much garbage that they automatically assume that the next script will also be crap, which causes them to seek confirmation for that self-fulfilling prophecy.
I'm wondering what the script notes would look like for films such as Moonlight, Annihilation, Manchester by the Sea, Goodfellas, and The Royal Tenenbaums if they had been written as specs by unknowns with no track record. I can easily envision readers having a field day with the various atypical choices and structural elements of these movies.
Some scripts are so good that they might be immune to this. I still remember reading the Prisoners spec when that hit the town. It was a real page-turner and I finished it one sitting, with little temptation to put it down. I'm not surprised it got made almost verbatim and did very well. Other stuff like Men In Black and Michael Clayton seems so strong that even if you went in biased against it, you would still come out a fan.
Maybe that's the secret: Write something so good and accessible that nobody can deny its value. Then, once you've proven something, consider the more experimental route. However, it seems like there's a built-in tendency for readers to seek out flaws and highlight those issues, as opposed to actual audiences, which engage with works for the sake of enjoyment first and foremost. It seems only natural that if your emphasis is on flaws and problems then you're going to skew negative in your assessments compared with an actual audience.
Comment