Is a bad credit worse than no credit?

Collapse

Announcement

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

  • Is a bad credit worse than no credit?

    This is purely hypothetical and not based on personal experience, but I thought it could make for interesting discussion.

    Let's say you are the average aspiring writer. You've been a semi-finalist in the Super Duper Screenplay Bonanza and the Antarctica Film Festival. You've never sold a script or made any money from your writing. You write a clever low budget horror spec called Throat Slasher that everybody loves. You get a modest non-guild offer from a small prodco. They're willing to fork over $20k for your script. It's the only offer on the table, so you decide to go for it. Throat Slasher ends up getting produced for $150k with Tori Spelling in the lead role. Along the way, the producers and director make some changes that you don't totally agree with, but hey, your movie is getting produced. You are a produced writer!

    Throat Slasher goes straight to streaming, makes no real impact on the zeitgeist, gets a 5.1 on IMDb, and a 38% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes.

    Now instead of being a total nobody, you are "the writer who did Throat Slasher". It's the first thing people see when they look you up on IMDb. You will forever be linked with it.

    If you want to eventually write AAA movies or pitch to big entities, are you now actually in a worse position by having this dud attached to your name?

    Can affiliation with a terrible product actually be worse for your reputation than no credits at all?

  • #2
    I think it's overthinking to worry that such a credit will doom you. Everyone knows the way the business works and nobody will fault you for taking a pay check in your effort to make a living.

    I say that as someone whose own less-than-mediocre film currently sits at 5.1 on IMDB; self-produced, I might add.

    Comment


    • #3
      Agree that people generally don't hold your first credit against you. Also, getting something into production is a skill that future employers look for.

      Comment


      • #4
        I also think you're selling short a movie that scores a 38% on Rotten Tomatoes. Movies are effing hard. Beerfest got 39%. Hannibal got 39%. Tango and Cash got 39%. Flightplan got 38%. You should want to crawl over broken glass to make one of those movies.

        Comment


        • #5
          All the responses make sense. I don't have a strong feeling either way, but was curious to hear some input.

          The general consensus about the industry these days seems to be that everything is either really huge (i.e. Marvel, F&F, Bond) or really small (i.e. contained thriller, low budget horror, etc). With the big stuff mostly reserved to the AAA writers who already have a solid track record, one theory is that new writers should target the low budget space if they want to actually make a sale and get something made.

          However, while it seems like this is solid advice if you are simply looking to move a project forward, it also seems like it could result in people abandoning their brand and sensibility simply to write to the market. So I can envision scenarios where people take this road just to get something made, but then end up with an outcome where that something doesn't actually reflect their taste or ambitions. Then you are sitting there with this random credit that doesn't actually tell us anything about who you want to be.

          It's like if you were in the music industry in the late 80s and everyone told you to play hair metal ballads because that's what was selling. Maybe you could've carved out a career as a Poison or Motley Crue knockoff, but you never would've become Nirvana if you were abandoning your sensibility to meet the immediate demand.

          The answer is probably that the two things aren't mutually exclusive, and that the challenge is to write something in the low budget space that also reflects your sensibility and ambitions. I'm guessing something like GET OUT could be a great example. Another part of me thinks that if everyone is chasing the low budget horror space then just writing the most absurdly gaudy, impractical blockbuster spec imaginable could be an interesting piece of counter-programming. That's probably the "writing sample" approach as opposed to the "this could actually get made" approach.

          Comment


          • #6
            Francis Ford Coppola wrote and directed Dementia 13 (1963) and he's done pretty good for himself despite that, so I wouldn't worry too much about an early bad credit, especially if you are trying to establish yourself.

            Can you imagine not having some of the great films he made/wrote if someone had held Dementia 13 against him?

            Comment


            • #7
              Not to say your underlying point is wrong, but Coppola was considered a huge gamble when hired to direct Godfather and my understanding is that part of the reason why he was selected was simply because he had Italian heritage. I think he actually was considered damaged goods to some extent at the time due to his less-than-stellar first few films, even though people seemed very impressed with him on a personal level. If Evans had not possessed a certain streak of mad genius, there's a strong chance that Coppola wouldn't have gotten The Godfather or had the same stellar run in the 70s. It's likely that all great careers rely on a certain amount of serendipity, but I'm not sure Coppola is the best example to show that early flops are no big deal since they nearly tanked his career before it really took off.

              However, my sense is also that Francis had immense ambition and a relentless power of will back then, so maybe he was always going to find a way.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by DaltWisney View Post
                If you want to eventually write AAA movies or pitch to big entities, are you now actually in a worse position by having this dud attached to your name?

                Can affiliation with a terrible product actually be worse for your reputation than no credits at all?
                I think it can hurt you more than some people think. You might be surprised. If you have never done anything before there is still that "What if?" factor. But once you do something and it tanks, it can leave some stank on your career.

                Coppola did DEMENTIA 13 but that was not the project he did before GODFATHER. He wrote and/or directed five other films before GODFATHER. FINIAN'S RAINBOW doesn't get high marks but THE RAIN PEOPLE received pretty good reviews. Also, he directed James Caan and Robert Duvall in the latter film. He showed he could work with good actors, and that's a pretty key part of being a director. In addition, he and Edmund H. North wrote PATTON and won an Oscar for it, before the GODFATHER as well. You're only as good as your last film, as they say. Winning an Oscar is good, of course, regardless of how things fully played out during development.

                You could get pegged as a subpar writer if some schlocky movie is made from your script. Generally, a director can survive a bad movie a bit better than a writer since the director has at least proven they can complete a film - beginning to end - which is quite the task unto itself almost no matter how bad the movie turns out.

                I'm pretty sure I've mentioned this before, but I quickly wrote a horror film for a friend of mine who was trying to get his producing career off the ground. It was "supposed" to possibly to shoot in Hawaii for around $750,000. Instead, the same script was produced for like $50K with Malibu as the stand in location for Hawaii. What they did is unwatchable. It was an okay little script that was an homage to some of the late 70s and early 80s slasher films. I used a pen name knowing they would somehow screw it all up. And they did.

                I've seen plenty of query letters from writers and writer/directors who want "you" to read their scripts and they include a links to some films produced from their work. Invariably, the poorly made (on every level) films they have posted do not help at all. Quite honestly, I find they work work against them.

                I'd suggest being at least cautious with doing something like this. Now at the end of the day, if you write a bunch of brilliant stuff and get those projects made after a bad film, a la Coppola, Hollywood will still take notice. No one will really care about your first "bad" project or two. Plenty of people have to take what they can get to break in. But generally, rebounding from a bad movie can be tough, whether it's fair or not.

                As they old saying goes, you never get a second chance to make a first impression. Just be careful and be realistic about how things could play out. If there is some decent money, but you are worried about how it will turn out or how it might reflect on you, then use a pen name.
                Last edited by Done Deal Pro; 07-12-2021, 03:52 PM.
                Will
                Done Deal Pro
                www.donedealpro.com

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by DaltWisney View Post
                  All the responses make sense. I don't have a strong feeling either way, but was curious to hear some input.

                  The general consensus about the industry these days seems to be that everything is either really huge (i.e. Marvel, F&F, Bond) or really small (i.e. contained thriller, low budget horror, etc). With the big stuff mostly reserved to the AAA writers who already have a solid track record, one theory is that new writers should target the low budget space if they want to actually make a sale and get something made.

                  However, while it seems like this is solid advice if you are simply looking to move a project forward, it also seems like it could result in people abandoning their brand and sensibility simply to write to the market. So I can envision scenarios where people take this road just to get something made, but then end up with an outcome where that something doesn't actually reflect their taste or ambitions. Then you are sitting there with this random credit that doesn't actually tell us anything about who you want to be.

                  It's like if you were in the music industry in the late 80s and everyone told you to play hair metal ballads because that's what was selling. Maybe you could've carved out a career as a Poison or Motley Crue knockoff, but you never would've become Nirvana if you were abandoning your sensibility to meet the immediate demand.

                  The answer is probably that the two things aren't mutually exclusive, and that the challenge is to write something in the low budget space that also reflects your sensibility and ambitions. I'm guessing something like GET OUT could be a great example. Another part of me thinks that if everyone is chasing the low budget horror space then just writing the most absurdly gaudy, impractical blockbuster spec imaginable could be an interesting piece of counter-programming. That's probably the "writing sample" approach as opposed to the "this could actually get made" approach.
                  I had success getting my name out there writing mid-budget adult fare (true story) stuff but didn’t get a really big break out of it. Options, stuff like that.

                  I intentionally pivoted to original, genre-y stuff that can be made for a price. And it was 100% the correct choice. If you have a great idea that hasn’t been done, you can stand out in a world that is saturated with low budget horror. I would not personally pivot to 100M+ non-IP stuff. If you have something that is like that with a great hook, write the 30M dollar version.

                  Given all of the upheaval and uncertainty around theatrical windows, I DO think there is opportunity going forward with so many streamers that there will be demand for mid-budget. Especially if there is some permanent level of correction with 50+ folks never fully returning to full theaters in previous numbers. There will be demand for that content at home in feature length. A lot easy to justify a 40M budget when you don’t have to also account for a marketing spend that is at least 2X.

                  I didn’t betray my brand. I’m writing the exact same stories with similar thematic elements that interest me. I’d love to go back to writing true/historical/period stuff. But hopefully it will be on an assignment basis, not trying to get stuff packaged over the course of years and then selling it. That it is even a possibility is because I decided to chase the market with a female driven action thriller and a female driven grounded horror. Opportunistic, sure. But the ideas were unique.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I'll tell you a story about a writer I knew that sold their first script for $100k. I don't think it ever got produced. Good writer. Amazing world builder. Writer writes a high concept horror, but it was changed, badly directed, badly shot. The resulting film wasn't the writer's vision. I read the original script. The writing was good. Suspenseful. Full of tension. Great characters. Very contained.

                    When this writer got a reputable manager, the strategy was to get that credit removed from their name because they were now writing high concept, high budget films. Yes, people can and do hold it against you, if it's really bad. They don't want you to **** up their film. Writer tried to get this bad credit removed from their name to no avail. How much impact? Don't know. But it wasn't nothing, otherwise their manager wouldn't have insisted.

                    There is a difference between writing a low budget horror that does okay and one that is terrible. Low budget horror doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad story, bad writing or a bad idea. If you don't want your name attached to it, then put a plan in place so it doesn't happen.

                    Your situation doesn't sound the same, but I wanted to offer another point of view for consideration for the group. When I was negotiating a sale on my rom com, we agreed to allow me to use a pseudonym if I wanted, solely because I didn't want to be known for writing rom coms. There are ways to protect yourself and still have a sale. The benefit of the pseudonym is if it isn't that bad a credit, you can always reveal your identity.

                    Two cents.

                    "Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy b/c you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say." -- Edward Snowden

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by finalact4 View Post
                      I'll tell you a story about a writer I knew that sold their first script for $100k. I don't think it ever got produced. Good writer. Amazing world builder. Writer writes a high concept horror, but it was changed, badly directed, badly shot. The resulting film wasn't the writer's vision. I read the original script. The writing was good. Suspenseful. Full of tension. Great characters. Very contained.

                      When this writer got a reputable manager, the strategy was to get that credit removed from their name because they were now writing high concept, high budget films. Yes, people can and do hold it against you, if it's really bad. They don't want you to **** up their film. Writer tried to get this bad credit removed from their name to no avail. How much impact? Don't know. But it wasn't nothing, otherwise their manager wouldn't have insisted.

                      There is a difference between writing a low budget horror that does okay and one that is terrible. Low budget horror doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad story, bad writing or a bad idea. If you don't want your name attached to it, then put a plan in place so it doesn't happen.

                      Your situation doesn't sound the same, but I wanted to offer another point of view for consideration for the group. When I was negotiating a sale on my rom com, we agreed to allow me to use a pseudonym if I wanted, solely because I didn't want to be known for writing rom coms. There are ways to protect yourself and still have a sale. The benefit of the pseudonym is if it isn't that bad a credit, you can always reveal your identity.

                      Two cents.
                      This is what happens when delusional artists who don't know what they're doing try to stick their fingers in everything instead of just trusting the creator. The creator is not the director, the creator is the writer, and it's time for the industry to start recognizing that. Unfortunately that won't happen until high profile actors start speaking out on it. If studios just shot what the writer has on the page -- making needed changes here and there based on budget and dynamics and location and what not -- there would be much better films in the world. But for some reason, someone thinks they can come up with a better idea for a scene in 30 minutes of thought than the writer, who took 30 days to think of that same scene.

                      I really can't think of any other industry in the world that does this.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X