I am an amateur screenwriter trying the break in to the business. I possess and read in-development scripts. I do so for purely auto-didactic purposes. I do not pass scripts on to others. I do not keep the scripts I read.
I know that there are several members on this board feel strongly that what I am doing is wrong and I am open to their views. I am seeking to initiate a civil discussion with those who feel what I am doing is unethical. I hope that others will consider my views below with the same open-mindedness.
There are two reasons for this post. One, I've noticed that a number of people on this forum and Twitter have recently decried the practice mentioned above, while subsequently subtly admitting to participating in this very practice themselves (I refuse to believe that all those who have read Hidden or Pacific Rim or Passengers were directly involved in those projects).
Two, the goalposts have recently shifted from the ethics of public reviewing (Scriptshadow) to private reading. While I was initially skeptical of the damage a negative review on a minor website could do to a film's development process (you truly have to wonder about the spinal fortitude of an exec scared by the poorly-informed and inconsistent views of an anonymous blogger). Nevertheless, I completely agree that a number of practices engaged in by that particular website are highly questionable and unethical.
It appears that the primary argument for not reading in-development material is that these days plenty of studios release screenplays following the theatrical release of a film. While I do often read this material I believe this is deficient for a number of reasons:
1. The material is often highly sanitized transcript of the released film. Scenes are omitted or added. It includes the input of executives, producers, directors, actors, other writers. Sometimes it is a shooting script, not a spec script. Sometimes it bears little relation whatsoever to the script that sold so we are unable to assess the original material that initially piqued interest.
2. We've already seen the film. I'm not sure about others, but for me reading a script after viewing a film is an entirely different experience. My reaction to the written material is controlled by the Platonic ideal of the film.
3. The material sold four or five years ago. When I started writing screenplays I went back and read some classic screenplays of my favourite films (Sunset Blvd., Casablanca, Citizen Kane etc.). This obviously affected my output as I was often told that I had an "old-fashioned storytelling style" or "they don't make films like this in Hollywood anymore". The primary piece of advice I received from managers and agents was that if you want to write something that sells, read what is selling today.
The secondary argument relates to the accusation of copyright theft. When downloading a film you would otherwise have watched at a cinema or bought from Amazon, the cost of copyright theft is obvious - it is the price of a movie ticket unsold or a DVD unpurchased.
So I ask - what is the tangible cost to the professional screenwriter or the film industry more broadly of an amateur screenwriter downloading and privately reading an in-development screenplay? I would argue that there absolutely no financial cost.
Finally, an argument is often made that should a screenwriter not wish to have their material read by the wider public then they should have their wishes respected. This, to me, is the most compelling argument against privately reading in-development material. However, I also happen to believe this is a minority view amongst screenwriters. Most screenwriters are extremely proud of their work. Most screenwriters wish to promote the craft of screenwriting and the role of screenwriting in the filmmaking process. Most screenwriters (as evidenced by this very board) are happy to go out of their way to help amateurs.
Yesterday, during the Blacklist Twitter Q&A, the following exchange occurred with a member of this year's Blacklist (not naming names):
Q: What are all of your thoughts about your work being circulated/reviewed online without permission? #BlackList2012
A: I think the more circulation the better. If you put something into the world you have to be okay w/where it goes.
This person was subsequently harangued as supporting public reviewing (which, if you actually take the time to read what they wrote, they clearly did not). But I believe generally the principle they expressed is correct. If there is no negative financial cost to private script circulation, and there is a net positive gain to screenwriting education I struggle to see the unethicality of my actions.
I look forward to hearing the views of others.
I know that there are several members on this board feel strongly that what I am doing is wrong and I am open to their views. I am seeking to initiate a civil discussion with those who feel what I am doing is unethical. I hope that others will consider my views below with the same open-mindedness.
There are two reasons for this post. One, I've noticed that a number of people on this forum and Twitter have recently decried the practice mentioned above, while subsequently subtly admitting to participating in this very practice themselves (I refuse to believe that all those who have read Hidden or Pacific Rim or Passengers were directly involved in those projects).
Two, the goalposts have recently shifted from the ethics of public reviewing (Scriptshadow) to private reading. While I was initially skeptical of the damage a negative review on a minor website could do to a film's development process (you truly have to wonder about the spinal fortitude of an exec scared by the poorly-informed and inconsistent views of an anonymous blogger). Nevertheless, I completely agree that a number of practices engaged in by that particular website are highly questionable and unethical.
It appears that the primary argument for not reading in-development material is that these days plenty of studios release screenplays following the theatrical release of a film. While I do often read this material I believe this is deficient for a number of reasons:
1. The material is often highly sanitized transcript of the released film. Scenes are omitted or added. It includes the input of executives, producers, directors, actors, other writers. Sometimes it is a shooting script, not a spec script. Sometimes it bears little relation whatsoever to the script that sold so we are unable to assess the original material that initially piqued interest.
2. We've already seen the film. I'm not sure about others, but for me reading a script after viewing a film is an entirely different experience. My reaction to the written material is controlled by the Platonic ideal of the film.
3. The material sold four or five years ago. When I started writing screenplays I went back and read some classic screenplays of my favourite films (Sunset Blvd., Casablanca, Citizen Kane etc.). This obviously affected my output as I was often told that I had an "old-fashioned storytelling style" or "they don't make films like this in Hollywood anymore". The primary piece of advice I received from managers and agents was that if you want to write something that sells, read what is selling today.
The secondary argument relates to the accusation of copyright theft. When downloading a film you would otherwise have watched at a cinema or bought from Amazon, the cost of copyright theft is obvious - it is the price of a movie ticket unsold or a DVD unpurchased.
So I ask - what is the tangible cost to the professional screenwriter or the film industry more broadly of an amateur screenwriter downloading and privately reading an in-development screenplay? I would argue that there absolutely no financial cost.
Finally, an argument is often made that should a screenwriter not wish to have their material read by the wider public then they should have their wishes respected. This, to me, is the most compelling argument against privately reading in-development material. However, I also happen to believe this is a minority view amongst screenwriters. Most screenwriters are extremely proud of their work. Most screenwriters wish to promote the craft of screenwriting and the role of screenwriting in the filmmaking process. Most screenwriters (as evidenced by this very board) are happy to go out of their way to help amateurs.
Yesterday, during the Blacklist Twitter Q&A, the following exchange occurred with a member of this year's Blacklist (not naming names):
Q: What are all of your thoughts about your work being circulated/reviewed online without permission? #BlackList2012
A: I think the more circulation the better. If you put something into the world you have to be okay w/where it goes.
This person was subsequently harangued as supporting public reviewing (which, if you actually take the time to read what they wrote, they clearly did not). But I believe generally the principle they expressed is correct. If there is no negative financial cost to private script circulation, and there is a net positive gain to screenwriting education I struggle to see the unethicality of my actions.
I look forward to hearing the views of others.
Comment