Think Commercial

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Think Commercial

    when an agent asks to think commercial, what is he really asking? Is he asking about commercial appeal... is it demographics? Or, what's the commercial appeal for American Beauty?

    If you can't tell, I was asked about it today... I think commercial appeal involves everything: script/story, who's attatched, the sets, situations, and even sound track. Am I wrong that it's these thing the agent is asking about when he says "think commercial"? If I'm not wrong, should I be telling him about sets, who I see as the talent and of course the story when I answer? CreativEx, DR.St, PurpleCurtain, I could use your wisdom on this.. Thanks everyone!

  • #2
    Think Commercial

    As for American Beauty, I don't really think that is a very commercial script. Some people love it, others hate it. I see it as more of an independant film produced with a bigger budget by a big studio. That movie could have been made for a few million dollars (no special effects, no car chases, no outlandish locations, minus Kevin Spacey and Annette Benning as the leads because of their paychecks), but Spielberg loved the script and wanted to do it right.

    Comment


    • #3
      Thought

      Basically, the agent means he wants something he can sell in 25 words or less.

      What is commercial is flexible and is always changing. I've started a
      thread about sleeper hit films (in the Business and Advice drawer) because
      in my opinion, out of left field blockbusters dictate the Hollywood group think
      on what is commercial.

      For example, PRINCESS DIARIES' unexpected blockbuster success has
      sparked the recent spate of "poor little rich girl" films (WHAT A
      GIRL WANTS, CHASING LIBERTY, FIRST DAUGHTER).

      Hollywood wants, but isn't looking for the next LORD OF THE RINGS
      or AMERICAN BEAUTY. Think about it, it has been four years since
      BEAUTY bowed and what impact has it had on spec development? Virtually
      zilch. Why aren't the studios buying fantasy novels in anticipation of finding
      the next LOTR? The Hollywood consensus is these films were flukes, anomalies
      that cannot be easily replicated into projects that would survive the scrutiny
      of these movies' massive, but atypical demographic of moviegoers.

      Hollywood gamesmanship chases after the frequent moviegoer, typically
      people under 25, and studios prefer the cheapest bait to reel them in, low
      budget films. Spec scripts have traditionally provided the chum for these
      projects.

      How do you latch onto a spec friendly commercial trend?

      First, you should identify which upcoming films might initiate a trend, (whether
      or not they were born of specs/pitches) and then you must be honest with
      yourself and ask, which of these films would you rush to see during its opening
      weekend. Which films could you have written with genuine passion. Hollywood
      insiders catch the early buzz off of movie test screenings that can predict
      a film's breakout potential. But mostly it's guesswork and you'll just have to
      write something that speaks to you. Within reason.

      The reasons, the parameters, the guidelines, the view from here...

      Think commercial means consider young characters, contemporary USA
      setting, and one central locality,
      (no extended road trips, no jaunts into
      outer space).

      Universality. Can the average person relate to your idea from
      personal experience? This is why Hollywood buys so many
      wedding scripts. We all go to weddings. Someone recently sold
      the twist of having the Maid of Honor be a guy who struggles
      through his duties then realizes he has deeper feelings for the bride.
      It makes for an easy pitch from exec to exec to exec.

      Novelty. What is fresh, yet familiar about your idea? Just
      another wedding script isn't enough. The screenwriter of the Maid
      of Honor script presented an interesting "what if" that no one had
      ever done before.

      Paradox. David vs. Goliath isn't enough. But what if David went to
      war and while in battle, learned that Goliath, coincidentally, happened
      to be his mother's fiancé, or what if he discovered the evil giant is his real
      father who has comeback to use immoral means to save the family homestead?

      BETWEEN THE COVERS is a recently sold spec that MGM-based producer Arthur
      Sarkissian acquired. It's a romantic comedy that centers on a free-spirited
      woman who writes a book espousing female independence then winds
      up having an affair with a married writer who is considered America's foremost
      expert on marital problems(!)

      Nice paradox (I've met Arthur and this sale is no surprise).

      Zeitgeist. Ideally, your story taps into a national mood or a
      popular, regional interest (although zeitgeist probably works better
      for pitches than specs that may take months to scribble). Recently,
      someone sold a script about a dad whose child was put on a wait
      list for a prestigious private school that prompts his diabolical scheme
      to sabotage the reputations of the other families on the list. In LA,
      every Hollywood kid goes to private school and the script got read
      all over town.

      Technology/Illness. Many thrillers use technology (CELLUAR,
      PHONE BOOTH, PANIC ROOM) as an effective gimmick. Others
      exploit rare psychological conditions (IDENTITY, MEMENTO, the upcoming
      TWISTED).

      Avoid clichés. Try to keep the following subject matter out of your premise:
      Demons, devils, Hell, Heaven, angels, cops, detectives, mob, mafia, hit men,
      ad executives, writers, actors, Hollywood, serial killers, vampires, werewolves,
      blood, outer space, the White House, military, war, superheroes, road trip.

      The aforementioned clichés will underline your status as an outsider, a wannabe without
      a clue. Go ahead and finish whatever one of these you're working on now but now
      you know.

      Check the script sales archives here on Done Deal. Consider the easy pitches.
      Which could you easily pitch to your friends. The sales based on novels are not
      as easily articulated as those acquired via pitch and spec (novels have the advantage
      of being prevalidated by a publishing house and this eases the importance of the pitch).

      All of this advice may sound very mercenary and I wouldn't necessarily recommend
      a first-time writer spin wheels by considering the market before brainstorming, but if
      you're well read, and have scribbled a handful of scripts, and have received
      detailed feedback and such, go for it. It doesn't mean you can't write your
      "damn Hollywood, I'm gonna write for me" scripts too, but thinking commercially
      will ultimately help you during your career as a Hollywood screenwriter when more often
      than not, you're writing on an assignment based on material purchased because of its
      obvious commercial potential.

      Rx

      Comment


      • #4
        "Think Commerical"

        When somebody says this to you, what they mean is write something that will appeal to a large audience, not just a small one. These films are usually your big action flicks (Die Hard, Top Gun, Pirate Of The Carribean), broad comedies (American Pie, As Good As It Gets, Bruce Almighty), thrillers (Sixth Sense, Se7en, Phone Booth), sci-fi (Start Wars, Jurassic Park, Terminator), horror (Jaws, Final Destination, Freddy Vs. Jason).

        What they don't want you to write is a small independant film, a la The Cider House Rules, The Good Girl, Lost In Translation, Donnie Darko. Quirky films like these are harder to sell to a studio. They want something they know they'll be able to make their money back; if not domestically, in the foreign markets.

        I'm not saying independants don't make money; a lot of them become huge blockbusters (Pulp Fiction, Clerks, The Blair Witch Project, My Big Fat Greek Wedding), but these films weren't originally bought and financed through any of the big studios (Universal, Fox, Paramount, MGM, Dreamworks, etc.).

        So what your agent is saying is write something he will have an easy time convincing the people with the money (studios) that your script will make them a profit.

        Comment


        • #5
          Great Advice doc!!

          Comment


          • #6
            Now time for a commercial break....

            For the record, AMERICAN BEAUTY launched
            a huge amount of dysfunctional American
            family stories into the pipelines (many of
            them adapted from novels).

            Whether we see them make it to the big
            screen or not is another issue. But there
            are PLENTY out there.

            One never really knows what's commercial
            until it is released.

            Empirically, AMERICAN BEAUTY had
            commercial appeal. But most will admit
            it was a fluke.

            Ditto with PULP FICTION. (There have
            been a zillion imitators and none have had
            the same sort of success.)

            Early on, Warner Brothers thought that
            PLUTO NASH would be a commercial
            success.

            So, when someone suggests you write
            "commercial", they are merely asking you
            to write something that - in their opinion
            - will appeal to the masses.

            Part of being a successful writer is having
            an innate ability to write about universal
            subjects and themes that will appeal to
            a very broad market.

            Comment


            • #7
              Great answer, Doc.

              Thanks again for your detailed expert analysis and advice.

              Comment


              • #8
                "Demons, devils, Hell, Heaven, angels, cops, detectives, mob, mafia, hit men, ad executives, writers, actors, Hollywood, serial killers, vampires, werewolves, blood, outer space, the White House, military, war, superheroes, road trip."

                But I think there's always room for a new twist on the detective story, and certainly Danny Boyle did something new and interesting with those lame old zombies we'd had to live with for decades. It's all a matter of what you have to say and how you're going to tell it, I guess.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Now time for a commercial break....

                  A professional writer on this board (Crash) once observed, "I have no idea what is commercial, and neither do you."

                  He was perhaps being a little hyperbolic to make a point, but it was still interesting to hear from him. I've always remembered it.

                  theturnaround

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Now time for a commercial break....

                    This is a great thread.

                    But be warned young grasshopper, writing â€commercial†can be a double-edged sword.

                    I recall a thread about a â€type†of writer: the trend chaser. That may have been the thread in which CRASH made his remark.

                    Slapping together elements inspired by todayâ€TMs â€commercially†successful films, i.e. slapping them together into what a writer may think is a â€commercialâ€, trendy package, can sometimes result in a derivative mess. Sometimes it's a fine line. Thus doc's remark on "cliche".

                    I agree with CE and doc especially with regard to zeitgeist. Example: sometimes itâ€TMs about tapping into a prominent political topic. THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW will be interesting in this capacity. And sometimes itâ€TMs about reviving a style, subject, or genre that has appeal but has fallen by the way-side, i.e. PULP FICTION and Tarantinoâ€TMs revival of â€pulp†storytelling. Or the Coen's and their revival of noir. You should note, however, that Tarantino and the Coen's took a different path to breaking-in than the road most of us here are trying to ease on down...

                    From a well known lit agent: Write something original, but write within the genre.

                    And with regard to genre, Iâ€TMm reminded of Toby Emmerich talking about how New Lineâ€TMs business plan is to zig when all the other studios are zagging.

                    my two, c

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      When it comes to "commercial," the EYES have it!

                      ae,

                      What's commerical? The best and most empirically demonstrable answer is, I think, also shockingly obvious, perfectly logical, and, well, simple: it's Visual Spectacle.

                      Visual spectacle is the single most bankable, box-office tested (and proven) element that characterizes nearly all of the top-grossing films. If you want to write a blockbuster film, meaning a film that has a chance of attracting an audience massive enough to rake in 200 mil + (as good a definition of â€commercial†as Iâ€-or any studio execâ€-can imagine) you best write a story that naturally incorporates scenes and sequences of arresting visual spectacle.

                      Neither specific genre, featured talent, nor any other single factor matters nearly as much. But please donâ€TMt take my word for it. Listen to the paying mass audienceâ€-theyâ€TMve been saying the same thing since GONE WITH THE WIND, WIZARD OF OZ, THE TEN COMMANDMENTS, and SNOW WHITE topped the charts over sixty years ago. And theyâ€TMre saying it stillâ€-clear as day to anyone with a set of wide-open, cinema-hungry eyes. (Go aheadâ€-check the list of 200 mil + grossing films right now…Iâ€TMll wait….)

                      And thatâ€TMs the ticket, right there. Itâ€TMs in the eyesâ€-plain as the nose on my face. (And if you could see my nose, thatâ€TMs pretty plain.) But, seriously, doesnâ€TMt it make perfect sense that in a medium made up of Technicolor images splashed across massive 50-foot screens that Visual Spectacle would be king? No other artistic medium comes even close to cinemaâ€TMs power to deliver the visceral visual thrill of astonishing and spectacular images. Nothing. Not novels, not theatre, not television, not paintings, not sculptures, not comic books, not puppet shows…not even circuses. Contrary to P.T. Barnumâ€TMs claim, thereâ€TMs a new show in town, and movies have triumphed, quite literally, as â€-The Greatest Show on Earth.â€

                      And thatâ€TMs precisely because cinema delivers visual spectacle like, well, nothing youâ€TMve ever seen before. Visual Spectacle is cinemaâ€TMs artistic trump card, its ace-in-the-hole, its formidable competitive advantage in the battle between the arts for the hearts and minds of the world audience.

                      And every movie-goer knows this, whether they know it or not. Itâ€TMs the reason why the list of Blockbuster films looks the way it does. Science fiction, fantasy, adventure, action, animation (animation is almost pure visual spectacle from first frame to last). These genres dominate the blockbuster list for one reason: because their storylines can most naturally incorporate elements of strong visual spectacle. Even the comedies on the list, about 8 of 50, include visual spectacle in the story line.
                      BEVERLY HILLS COP and RUSH HOUR 2 are action-comedies. AUSTIN POWERS is a splashy, physical comedy, a live-action comic book adventure, a psychedelic â€shagadelic†visual feast.

                      In fact, so absolute is my conviction on this point that I would assert that only 2 of the films on the Top 50 list DO NOT incorporate some strong visual spectacle: THE SIXTH SENSE, and BF GREEK WEDDING. I know this invites dissent, but Iâ€TMm prepared to argue that every other 200 mil + film (as listed at www.boxofficeguru.com/blockbusters.htm) contains visual spectacle of one kind or another. And, yes, Robin Williams in drag is a Visual Spectacle!

                      So yes, ae, contrary to Crash and the position that regards â€commericiality†as some unfathomable mystery, I DO know what â€commercial†is, and, even more importantly so does every member of the global ticket-buying audience.

                      See you at the movies.

                      P.S. Without having examined the longer list of films grossing 100 mil +, I would predict that this argument would also apply to manyâ€-if not mostâ€-of the films there.
                      However, I would expect more films able to succeed with out visual spectacle in this commercial range, but at 200 mil + Visual Spectacle reigns.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Commercial

                        Clearly, if you truly knew what "commercial"
                        was, YOUR films would make up the top ten of
                        the biggest grossing movies of all time.

                        Firstly, the notion that you DO know is
                        based on empirical evidence: the box-
                        office.

                        Your knowledge is based on hindsight.

                        That's easy. Writers don't have that
                        kind of precognition while they're dreaming
                        up story ideas.

                        Hindsight is not necessarily a helpful tool
                        for writers because by the time their
                        script is finished, a particular trend in
                        buying, development or at the box-
                        office is over. (Writers who have the
                        clout to sell a pitch are in a better spot
                        with this kind of thinking.)

                        Case in point, the "war' trend at the box-
                        office dried up very quickly - after BLACK
                        HAWK DOWN - leaving subsequent films
                        to bomb (or under-perform) and littering
                        the town with war specs that would never
                        sell and scripts-in-development that just
                        disappeared.

                        Your "visual spectacle" theory has some
                        credence, but it is not the magic bullet
                        for commerciality. If it were, then THE
                        CORE (amongst thousands of other "visual"
                        bombs) should have been a blockbuster.

                        Perhaps a strong visual component is
                        necessary to a film's commercial appeal.
                        (I won't argue with that.)

                        But it is NOT a guarantee that a film will
                        succeed commerically.

                        Again, since you are not telling us what
                        WILL BE a commercial success but are
                        only telling us what HAS been a commercial
                        success, you are not proving much.

                        Furthermore, the top ten films of all time
                        were not made from SPEC scripts.

                        They were all writer/director or studio
                        projects. (That is probably true for 95%
                        of the top fifty.) This fact does not bode
                        well for spec writers.

                        When one reads a script - not a movie -
                        one can only GUESS at its commercial
                        potential.

                        There are many factors that go into
                        whether or not a film will succeed.

                        STAR POWER
                        DIRECTOR
                        TIME OF RELEASE
                        WORD OF MOUTH
                        BOX-OFFICE COMPETITION
                        ADVERTISING DOLLAR

                        These are just a few elements that can
                        make the difference between success
                        or bomb.

                        Although concept is the name of the game
                        for new writers, all anyone can really do
                        is PREDICT the possible success of any
                        project.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: The Eyes Have It

                          I'm not sure if I agree with boski62 completely on his point, for a few reasons.

                          First, I found a few films that made more than $200 million that I didn't find visually fantastic; Forrest Gump (a little bit of the Vietnam war and some nice scenery, but that's it) Home Alone (basically a slap-stick comedy), and The Exorcist (minimal sfx, peas soup). All of these film broke the $200 million mark, and I don't consider them "visually stunning". Also, Bevely Hills cop has a car chase and a gun chase, not visually stunning. Eddie Murphy is the reason that movie made its money.

                          Secondly, if your hypothesis is true, than the converse should be true; "All films that are visually stunning must have made $200 million dollars". That being said, how do you account for flops like Pluto Nash, Cutthroat Island, The Last Action Hero (sorry Zak, love your writing), Battlefield Earth, The Core, The Abyss, Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within, Treasure Planet, or Heaven's Gate? These films all "looked" great (some better than others), yet they all tanked at the box office. As a matter of fact, Pluto Nash and Heaven's Gate are two of the biggest flops of all time.

                          I will agree that most of the biggest commercial movies of all time tend to have a lot of action, but it's the story people connect with that makes them huge block busters. Remember Titanic? We all know how it ends, the boat hits an iceburg and sinks. But it's still the biggest movie ever made.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Speclicious

                            CE - in regards to AMERICAN BEAUTY, I'm noting its impact on the
                            spec writer. It has done almost nothing for the spec screenplay
                            market. Studios went to the bookstore for BEAUTYish material much
                            like they went to the comics store for their MATRIX fix.

                            JAKE - Alex Garland wrote 28 DAYS LATER more or less for Danny Boyle
                            who had earlier directed his THE BEACH with L. DiCaprio. With a director
                            firmly attached, you can throw out much of my missive about commerciality.
                            Directors rule in Hollywood. BTW, I'd like to hear a good twist on a detective
                            story that hasn't been seen on TV.

                            boski - you must keep in mind which blockbusters were sold on spec (or pitched).
                            There's a double standard in Hollywood and event films, or spectacles are
                            mostly culled from other resources other than spec scripts. Ideally, studios
                            want cheap comedies from specs because there are few alternative resources
                            for finding projects in this genre. Next, the suits like thrillers (since the interior
                            monologue of crime fiction tends to frustrate adaptations).

                            TheTurnaround - Having read many of CRASH's posts, the amateur linguist
                            in me says, judging from the syntax of his messages, that he is amazingly
                            gifted, blessed with the wisdom of a sage, and is a prolific man of letters --
                            either that or he's Chinese.

                            Rx

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Commercial

                              creative,

                              Actually, I just had some time--walking the treadmill-- to chew over my post, and I realized I was guilty of begging the original question a bit.

                              The writer, I think, was asking, a more specific, focused type of screenwriter question: What does "commercial" mean for a first time screenwriter and an agent trying to sell a spec script?

                              This meaning of "commercial" and the question of what makes a genuine "commercial" blockbuster ARE two different things, and you and Dr. Stiggers have addressed the meaning of the former quite well, I think.

                              What constitutes a "commercial" spec script given the complicated intricacies of the script-buying marketplace is a much more debatable and subjective question. A question definitely best answered by industry insiders.

                              However, I stand by my contention that what has actually proven itself over the last sixty years to be â€commercial†are films that incorporate strong visual spectacle. And the supporting evidence for this contention is available for everybody to see. From my pserspective, thereâ€TMs really no arguing with the box office record on this at all.

                              And far from being a fickle trend, Visual Spectacle seems to me to be the most consistently reliable element common to the genuine commercial blockbusters for the last sixty years! Far more important a factor, I would argue, than stars, directors etc. In fact, a healthy number of those films in the Top 50 are vehicles that made stars and directors, not the other way around.

                              Some rebuttals:
                              Firstly, the notion that you DO know is based on empirical evidence: the box-office
                              Guilty as chargedâ€-I do base my knowledge on empirical evidence. In fact, I think that might be one of the nicest things anyone's ever said about me...

                              Your "visual spectacle" theory has some credence, but it is not the magic bullet for commerciality. If it were, then THE CORE (amongst thousands of other "visual" bombs) should have been a blockbuster. Perhaps a strong visual component is necessary to a film's commercial appeal. (I won't argue with that.) But it is NOT a guarantee that a film will succeed commerically.
                              Given the established box-office record, I would insist that the â€visual spectacle†theory has more than "some" credence.

                              And in arguing that visual spectacles also bomb miserably, youâ€TMre making the logical mistake of confusing â€necessary†and â€sufficient†cause. Iâ€TMm arguing, based on the empirical evidence, that an element of visual spectacle approaches being a near â€necessary†cause if a film has aspirations of becoming a genuine commercial blockbuster. Of course, itâ€TMs not a â€sufficient†cause, but I never made that contention or suggested visual spectacle â€guarantees†blockbuster success anywhere in the original post.

                              â€Clearly, if you truly knew what "commercial"
                              was, YOUR films would make up the top ten of
                              the biggest grossing movies of all time.â€
                              Recognizing talent and genius is far easier and distressingly more common than actually BEING genuinely talented and brilliant. As an agent, I would've thought youâ€TMd understand that better than me. Watch AMADEUSâ€-the entire film turns on this often bitterly cruel realization. Recognizing â€commercial†and being able to write â€commercial†are two entirely different things. Noâ€-I donâ€TMt think I can write a commercial blockbuster. At least not yet…

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X