alex whitmer
Veteran
The importance inter-diciplinary courtesy and communication.
Last edited:
What they don't teach in film school
- Thread starter alex whitmer
- Start date
taormina
Hates to Rent
Were you paid for the scripts? If so, your work isn't philanthropy. A producer has no obligation to contact you in any way, shape, or form after he has paid you and obtained the rights for the script.
The last film I worked on (a real flick, A-list stars, $22M budget), the writer was ESCORTED around the set by a PA whose job was to keep him out of trouble and out of the way. He was treated like a cretin who might hurt himself or others if he ran amok. He even tried to talk to the director once and was whisked away by a producer to get him out of his hair.
So if that's they way it is in the big industry, why whould it be different down here?
I certainly don't agree with it, and when I have directed I have always involved the writer to a degree.
It's cruel, but such is hollywood.
The last film I worked on (a real flick, A-list stars, $22M budget), the writer was ESCORTED around the set by a PA whose job was to keep him out of trouble and out of the way. He was treated like a cretin who might hurt himself or others if he ran amok. He even tried to talk to the director once and was whisked away by a producer to get him out of his hair.
So if that's they way it is in the big industry, why whould it be different down here?
I certainly don't agree with it, and when I have directed I have always involved the writer to a degree.
It's cruel, but such is hollywood.
If I purchased a screenplay from someone, I certainly wouldn't want them around while I'm shooting. It's the Director's responsibility to make sure the scenes he/she shoots are interesting, and in some situations that means changing part of the screenplay.
If the original screenplay author was sitting around, and happened to disagree with one of the changes being made, the situation could get ugly (i.e., 100% counterproductive). There's a simple way to avoid that, which is what I think the original poster was referring to.
If you don't agree with how that's done, only sell screenplays to people who will sign a contract allowing you back into the creative process during the shoot. Otherwise, expect more of the same.
If the original screenplay author was sitting around, and happened to disagree with one of the changes being made, the situation could get ugly (i.e., 100% counterproductive). There's a simple way to avoid that, which is what I think the original poster was referring to.
If you don't agree with how that's done, only sell screenplays to people who will sign a contract allowing you back into the creative process during the shoot. Otherwise, expect more of the same.
IBEJohnson
Well-known member
alex whitmer said:
Why was your original post edited to say this? The responses make very little sense because of the edit. Can you repost the original question?
Nathan.Buxton
Well-known member
well.. you said it yourself
"all they do is create the stpry and the characters"
Just because what they have written may not translate perfectly on screen, doesn't mean they are any less respected.
a Director does his job... an actor his and a DP his respectively..
a writer is done his job when the writing is complete (or the script is bought)
"all they do is create the stpry and the characters"
Just because what they have written may not translate perfectly on screen, doesn't mean they are any less respected.
a Director does his job... an actor his and a DP his respectively..
a writer is done his job when the writing is complete (or the script is bought)
Nathan.Buxton
Well-known member
my point everyone should know their role. A writer is a writer... he writes.. he doesnt direct (unless of course he does both).
if you are goin to feel bitter about someone taking control of your work, then just dont sign the contract.
if you are goin to feel bitter about someone taking control of your work, then just dont sign the contract.
agreed here. I prefer to direct my own stuff (just finished my 8th short film!) and even then, characters change, dialogue changes on set. nothing is fluid. When I put on my director's hat, the writer's hat comes off and I figure out the best way to deal with what's on the paper, but sometimes you have to toss it.
other forums talk about writers being escorted off the set to keep them away from the director, who they feel is ruining their piece. c'mon people, this is a business. you are the architect, you design the building, you are not the construction crew. When you've finished and sign that over, it's up to the director to do an adequate job bringing it to life and if they can't, then it's on you for not having properly worked it out with the director in advance. This is similar to when a director flips out about fighting with his DP - these are all things that should be worked out before filming begins.
When I give a short to someone else to shoot, I let go of it from there. I've done my job. I'm available, so if they have questions, then they can call or have me on set and we'll work things out. But everything changes when going from script to screen. The perfect lead might not pull off a particular trait which could be subtle yet crucial to the ending, and it has to be changed. I know my actors vary by the time of day and what they've eaten.
If you're concerned about the quality of your script to screen translation, then direct. But beware, if you can't learn to let go of your creation, you're not going to have the ability to be brutal to your own material, which oftentimes you must do. And you can't be too much of a control freak because, even if you're directing, you'll then want to grab the camera and make sure the shot is what you want. then do the set design to make sure it's perfect. then set up the lighting. and then you've forgotten all about the big picture.
other forums talk about writers being escorted off the set to keep them away from the director, who they feel is ruining their piece. c'mon people, this is a business. you are the architect, you design the building, you are not the construction crew. When you've finished and sign that over, it's up to the director to do an adequate job bringing it to life and if they can't, then it's on you for not having properly worked it out with the director in advance. This is similar to when a director flips out about fighting with his DP - these are all things that should be worked out before filming begins.
When I give a short to someone else to shoot, I let go of it from there. I've done my job. I'm available, so if they have questions, then they can call or have me on set and we'll work things out. But everything changes when going from script to screen. The perfect lead might not pull off a particular trait which could be subtle yet crucial to the ending, and it has to be changed. I know my actors vary by the time of day and what they've eaten.
If you're concerned about the quality of your script to screen translation, then direct. But beware, if you can't learn to let go of your creation, you're not going to have the ability to be brutal to your own material, which oftentimes you must do. And you can't be too much of a control freak because, even if you're directing, you'll then want to grab the camera and make sure the shot is what you want. then do the set design to make sure it's perfect. then set up the lighting. and then you've forgotten all about the big picture.
Kegan
Spam Assassin Mod
I haven't read the whole thread and I may be a little late, but I believe that there should be a level of courtesy and integration between the writer and director. I personally have had tough experiences with writers constantly nagging, but for the most part I've been lucky in terms of writers. It actually adds to the production value in my opinon when a writer helps out and offers his/her ideas - not necessarily taking creative control or fighting for power, just generating ideas.
-Kegan
-Kegan
YaBoyTopher
Active member
I am what could be considered a control freak when it comes to the actual story, im laid back on many aspects of directing but i like to have pretty much full control over the story and that is why i simply write my own stuff that way if when im filming i have to change a scene around to make it work better i dont have to worry about hurting any feelings.
But if your not a writer also the best thing to do is be upfront with the Writer and just tell him that you love his script and its a great story and your gonna do your best to make an awesome movie out of it but at the same time he needs to chill and let you do your job, this isnt an easy thing to tell a writer because alot of times a script is a writers baby but it has to be done imo.
But if your not a writer also the best thing to do is be upfront with the Writer and just tell him that you love his script and its a great story and your gonna do your best to make an awesome movie out of it but at the same time he needs to chill and let you do your job, this isnt an easy thing to tell a writer because alot of times a script is a writers baby but it has to be done imo.
John LaBonney
Well-known member
A couple of my scripts are being produced for SpyFest, and I've been totally comfortable with letting the filmmakers handle all the aspects of making the films without any input from me.
I received a couple of emails from them along the way asking "can we change this or this?" I told them to do whatever they need to do to the script to make the film happen, I've participated in re-writes when asked. So far it's worked out great.
I think that as a screenwriter you kind of have to let go of a script when you give it to a filmmaker. How much input you have after that depends on the relationship.
I received a couple of emails from them along the way asking "can we change this or this?" I told them to do whatever they need to do to the script to make the film happen, I've participated in re-writes when asked. So far it's worked out great.
I think that as a screenwriter you kind of have to let go of a script when you give it to a filmmaker. How much input you have after that depends on the relationship.
alex whitmer
Veteran
Screen writers limits
Screen writers limits
The screen writer puts together the basic blueprint for the rest of the creative process. It starts with an idea, an inspiration, or just a vaugue concept, and the writer organizes it into a stcutured story.
How much of what the writer and/or others envision, and how they envision it will actually make it into the movie depends on part how well the writer can 'write visually'.
Once written, it is up to the director to 'interpret' the script, and put their own creativity into it. In turn, how the actors will interpret the characters and the director's vision will also add another layer to the finished film.
And on down the line, from music to editing to lighting to costumes to make-up, etc ...
Unless the writer is contacted for input, they are pretty much out of the picture at this point. As they should be.
As a writer, I like seeing how the director will add their creative layer. Often they see things in way I did not, and it makes the whole all the richer. It may not be how I envisioned it, but that is the beauty of collaborative work.
My original complaint was this ...
If one sells a script, including all rights. It is out of their hands. It may be filmed brilliantly or badly. It might be changed considerably, or even shelved.
However, when a writer is NOT getting paid, but is working with a film team, and for some reason the project is not moving forward, or has ran into any number of problems, I feel the writer should be contacted, or kept in the loop as to the status of the script / project.
If the project is dead, the writer should have the option to shop the script to another filmmaker. My original complaint was having 13 out of 19 scripts in just two months end up going nowhere, and of those 13 only three filmmakers contacted me. The others simply vanished, never answered emails, and this only AFTER the final draft had been sent.
My point was, as long as it is a collaborative effort, the writer should be kept in the loop as to the status of the project, not just blown off.
And by the way it is now up to 19 out of 23 projects that have hit the skids, or the filmmaker has fallen off the planet. Pretty crappy odds, and it is painfully obvious a lot of filmmakers out there do not have their **** together, and could use a little ''courtesy training'' when keeping the team, including the writers and performers, etc, updated, even if it's bad news. Afterall, we each all just as anxious to see our careers move forward as the next guy / gal.
On a happy note, the projects that are going forward make it all worth it!!
Alex
Screen writers limits
The screen writer puts together the basic blueprint for the rest of the creative process. It starts with an idea, an inspiration, or just a vaugue concept, and the writer organizes it into a stcutured story.
How much of what the writer and/or others envision, and how they envision it will actually make it into the movie depends on part how well the writer can 'write visually'.
Once written, it is up to the director to 'interpret' the script, and put their own creativity into it. In turn, how the actors will interpret the characters and the director's vision will also add another layer to the finished film.
And on down the line, from music to editing to lighting to costumes to make-up, etc ...
Unless the writer is contacted for input, they are pretty much out of the picture at this point. As they should be.
As a writer, I like seeing how the director will add their creative layer. Often they see things in way I did not, and it makes the whole all the richer. It may not be how I envisioned it, but that is the beauty of collaborative work.
My original complaint was this ...
If one sells a script, including all rights. It is out of their hands. It may be filmed brilliantly or badly. It might be changed considerably, or even shelved.
However, when a writer is NOT getting paid, but is working with a film team, and for some reason the project is not moving forward, or has ran into any number of problems, I feel the writer should be contacted, or kept in the loop as to the status of the script / project.
If the project is dead, the writer should have the option to shop the script to another filmmaker. My original complaint was having 13 out of 19 scripts in just two months end up going nowhere, and of those 13 only three filmmakers contacted me. The others simply vanished, never answered emails, and this only AFTER the final draft had been sent.
My point was, as long as it is a collaborative effort, the writer should be kept in the loop as to the status of the project, not just blown off.
And by the way it is now up to 19 out of 23 projects that have hit the skids, or the filmmaker has fallen off the planet. Pretty crappy odds, and it is painfully obvious a lot of filmmakers out there do not have their **** together, and could use a little ''courtesy training'' when keeping the team, including the writers and performers, etc, updated, even if it's bad news. Afterall, we each all just as anxious to see our careers move forward as the next guy / gal.
On a happy note, the projects that are going forward make it all worth it!!
Alex
Last edited:
Nathan.Buxton
Well-known member
Well that is a lot more interesting than what the topic was assumed to be by most of us. I would hate to have a good finished script i'm proud of go up in limbo to some amateur rag-tag filmmakers who don't have their **** together. Especially if the writer wasn't paid. Because, as you say, the writer should have the choice of shopping the script around so to say.
Even if you aren't being paid, you should have a written agreement and entitlement of duties. Say that for a period of 6 months or 1 year they have the rights to produce the film. If after a certain period they have not completed the project, the writer has the option of waiving the filmmakers rights to produce said project. With a clause to indicate that at the writer's (aka the copyright holder's) discretion, the production must essentially cease and desist.
This would give you pretty much all the legal leverage you would need to be able to shop around a script again without any fear of double-productions. If, for some reason, one of the abandoned projects does actually surface some day.
although i'm not a lawyer.
Even if you aren't being paid, you should have a written agreement and entitlement of duties. Say that for a period of 6 months or 1 year they have the rights to produce the film. If after a certain period they have not completed the project, the writer has the option of waiving the filmmakers rights to produce said project. With a clause to indicate that at the writer's (aka the copyright holder's) discretion, the production must essentially cease and desist.
This would give you pretty much all the legal leverage you would need to be able to shop around a script again without any fear of double-productions. If, for some reason, one of the abandoned projects does actually surface some day.
although i'm not a lawyer.
mrWr0ng said:
This is a very good analogy, and I'm sorry I never thought of it myself (had a lot of conversations where it would have come in handy).
Yes, the writer is very much like the architect, and the director and the producers are the construction engineers. Well-organized projects get architecture-versus-engineering requirements sorted out before construction, but there are always mid-course corrections and fixes to be made, and while the architect has the right to be informed by the engineer when a change is required, in the end it's the engineer's responsibility to see that the final product stands on its own.
James H.
Active member
You could also just direct your own script if it means that much to you. =-)
Seriously, I know how you can feel married to certain scripts that are more personal to you than your average brainstorm concept. In those cases, maybe it is better to hold on to it until you can direct it yourself.
I tend to like how other artists mold my ideas. Though, I have written a couple memoirs that I just couldn't let anyone else direct. I save those for when I'm more experienced and can do them myself.
Seriously, I know how you can feel married to certain scripts that are more personal to you than your average brainstorm concept. In those cases, maybe it is better to hold on to it until you can direct it yourself.
I tend to like how other artists mold my ideas. Though, I have written a couple memoirs that I just couldn't let anyone else direct. I save those for when I'm more experienced and can do them myself.
James H.
Active member
Just one thing - if you want selective control over the film, get contingent talent attached first. Having clout attached to your name makes you a producer, and while you still should not get in the director's way, you can at least talk to him/her with a little more respect. Just be modest or that'll be your last job.
Package deals, and even name talent, is quite realistic. The only thing that really matters is the idea/script. You can get anything you want if you write something fresh and catchy.
Package deals, and even name talent, is quite realistic. The only thing that really matters is the idea/script. You can get anything you want if you write something fresh and catchy.
stan harrington
Well-known member
Ironically, in television, the director get little respect and the writer is King...The writer becomes the Exec Producer and holds all the cards...Bochco, David E Kelly, Sorkin, Seinfeld and so on...
When you think about it...a film director has had a lot more opportunity to create something out of very little and consequently this is why I believe that screenplays fall far short of plays. Nothing will save your ass in a play if the script sucks. Conversely, in television, there wasn't that much opportunity to save a bad script either because of the cinematic limitations when TV first started, The story was everything. When film was first created, screenplay writing as a craft came out of necessity bu it didnt stop directors and cinematographers from creating content,,,and amazing content for its time...soon, great Producers like Irving Thalberg and the such began aquiring the best plays and novels they could find and hired scenarists etc. to adapt and prepare material for their directors...the HISTORY of Film and TV., it's roots, if you will, has determined where it is today regarding the status of writers and directors...and probably how it will continue to be. Whether we like it or not...
Just my observation and opinion on what I think is a fascinating subject,
Cheers,
Stan Harrington,
www.xristosproductions.com
www.igfdb.com
When you think about it...a film director has had a lot more opportunity to create something out of very little and consequently this is why I believe that screenplays fall far short of plays. Nothing will save your ass in a play if the script sucks. Conversely, in television, there wasn't that much opportunity to save a bad script either because of the cinematic limitations when TV first started, The story was everything. When film was first created, screenplay writing as a craft came out of necessity bu it didnt stop directors and cinematographers from creating content,,,and amazing content for its time...soon, great Producers like Irving Thalberg and the such began aquiring the best plays and novels they could find and hired scenarists etc. to adapt and prepare material for their directors...the HISTORY of Film and TV., it's roots, if you will, has determined where it is today regarding the status of writers and directors...and probably how it will continue to be. Whether we like it or not...
Just my observation and opinion on what I think is a fascinating subject,
Cheers,
Stan Harrington,
www.xristosproductions.com
www.igfdb.com