Are script gurus good writers?

Ted Spencer said:
Anyone who thinks it's within the power of any 'guru' in any field to teach *them* "how to become a [insert relevant 'superstar-career-type' here]" is, at least by my definition, a moron, and deserves every bit of what they (won't) get.

The best screenwriters that ever lived can't do that either...
Click to expand...

Actually, this topic, mutatis mutandis, is the topic of some number of Platonic Dialogs. Socrates, at least as presented by Playdough, taught a method of inquiry by which a number of questions were asked relative to some claim, and eventually 'leading' to a contradiction, and thus disproving the 'claim'. Socrates accepted no pay for his teaching. Sophists on the other hand, accepted money, and taught rhetorical methods to 'convince' the listener of the 'truth' of the claims... On the one hand, the Sophists have given us Politicians, and Political Reasoning... and on the other the Socratic Method has given us scientific reasoning... The platonic concept of education was a process of bringing out of an individual whatever was inherent in the individual. Whereas the Sophist taught some set of rhetorical 'tricks' that, give some substrate of ability, most could learn... and of course, lead to the teaching being paid...

For a lighter view of these things, Aristophanes often would take aim at the Sophists, and critique their methods and goals...

As it is, Playdough, Socrates, and Aristophanes probably are more 'known' today to some set of college educated... rather than the sophists of the day... say, Protagoras... except by the platonic dialog of that name...

Playdough did cast 'taking money for teaching' in a negative light which has lasted for a couple of millennia now...
 
S. Matthews said:
No they don't have to be is my answer, you can understand structure form, pacing and how to get a rise out of people but still have no voice of your own or stories to tell.

Not saying all guru's are good teachers, but there are also a lot of screenwriters who don't understand structure pacing... but have stories to tell and a voice. So yes in my opinion there is a place for them, and there are students for them just not everyone fits the mold.
Click to expand...
This. Exactly this.
 
@Ted

I've read that book, but a long, long time ago, and so, I can't remember that story at all. But I do know that Goldman is a self educated screenwriter and novelist. As most of the screenwriters of his (and previous) generations were. They studied only from other films and by using the best they could out of their common sense. Some succeeded, others didn't. So, same as today... I also know that Goldman is very aware of how storytelling in films, evolves and changes with the times, I'm not saying it is, but maybe that mediocre story he did, he was trying to purposely chalenge the form, aka; Terrence Malick...

Perhaps he wasn't, perhaps it was just pure horse****...

You probably won't find any Oscar winners teaching film writing in books or seminars (besides the very William Goldman, 2 Oscars!), but probably the closest you'll get is Terry Rossio and Ted Elliot, although they haven't won Oscars, their films made LOTS of money, so their system does work! And if you study their columns, there is not a single paragraph on technique! Most of their teachings are to make you to use your common sense and your knowledge of the movies and the movie industry. Same as both William Goldman's books, there's not a single line on technique...

A producer might read a script, spec or unsolicited and be surprised by how well it works, the story flows, the characters are solid, the writing is good and the theme is bubbling out of those pages. But... most times, although the producer is impressed with the 'technical' aspects of the script, when he finishes, he will think; 'who cares...?' Meaning, he's not invested in the story, there's no 'punch', this story has no urgency to be told, or whatever other reason he needs to show this script to his boss, the head of the studio, the guy that will green light this film...

So, this script will go nowhere. A good script. But not worthy story.

So in the end, I'm still convinced, that although it's good to read all the gurus and study them, that, in itself, it's only an extremely small portion of the work you have to do as a screenwriter. The rest, is really up to you, your life experiences, your sense of right and wrong, your sense of risk, self-discipline, etc...
 
Last edited:
Agree to disagree, gents:beer:

For the record, I didn't even start the guru = coach bit. I just ran with it & took it to the logical conclusion in relation to the original question
Are script gurus good writers?
Click to expand...
 
Well as far as I can tell, a script guru isn't supposed to be a great writer. They're supposed to be someone who makes YOU a better writer b

Hence, a coach.
 
Barry_Green said:
The quality of a great coach is whether or not they can coach you into becoming a great player.
Click to expand...

I know we don't disagree on this topic in almost any respect, but I just wanted to add, as I had previously mentioned (but perhaps somewhat ambiguously) that it's important to be clear that even the greatest coaches, script gurus or what-have-you can't turn *just anyone* into a great...whatever they teach. It should be an obvious point of course (hence my previous use of the word "moron" to describe those who might think otherwise), but all too often such script-gurus (or film schools for that matter) are cited as bogus because they allegedly offer some sort of 'magic bullet' path to success: "Take my seminar and soon you'll be writing Hollywood blockbusters!". Which is a straw-man argument - no one but a *genuine* charlatan would make such claims, and those guys tend to get run out of town at the business end of pointy sticks pretty fast. All the credible gurus, schools etc. can point to their success stories (as they should), but none (that I know of anyway) actually claim to offer some sort of 'golden pathway' as many of their detractors like to claim they do. Again: a classic straw man argument. And again, anyone who actually believes that such a thing is possible is a...well...see above.

A Paduan Learner still needs the raw talent after all (not to mention the midi-chlorean count!) if he's actually going to become a Jedi. Not even Yoda himself could train one who didn't : )
 
Ted Spencer said:
...but all too often such script-gurus (or film schools for that matter) are cited as bogus because they allegedly offer some sort of 'magic bullet' path to success: "Take my seminar and soon you'll be writing Hollywood blockbusters!".
Click to expand...

In the area that the Wife does her seminars, photographer, she has found it very difficult to compete with presenters who basically do make (not exactly blockbuster...) but the claim that by attending their class the attendee's business will increase... Since the Wife's presentations are on a more 'foundational' level with an eye for 'creating artists'... she doesn't make such a claim, other than by the formula, that if one's work is different in an 'artistic' sense, then one has a competitive edge on others who are providing essentially the same product. (We occasionally have to answer the question of 'how does what I'm learning here get my business bigger'...)

At the moment we are working on a program for the Deaf Community. We thought we would have some funding from a couple of grants... but alas... we are going to have to do it only with funding from the Clark Foundation for the Advancement of the Arts... which is to say... not much...
 
Ted Spencer said:
...A Paduan Learner still needs the raw talent after all (not to mention the midi-chlorean count!) if he's actually going to become a Jedi. Not even Yoda himself could train one who didn't : )
Click to expand...
Really glad to see that we agree on this point...
When you previously mentioned being born with "natural athletic ability" or "tall genes" in relation to sports;
I honestly thought you were discounting one being born with "creative muscle predisposition" for the sake of the argument.
It was honestly a sidebar I did not want to participate in.

I'm not shocked by much...but continue to be so by the idea that "anyone" can learn to be a great writer by mastering the craft/"rules"/formulas.
As I pointed out before, many seem to hold this belief to some degree. Many of this many are people I respect.

Although, your invoking the taboo'ed midichlorean analogy maaay have sent a few in your camp of this debate over to my (dark)side.
smily1339.gif
 
CallaghanFilms said:
When you previously mentioned being born with "natural athletic ability" or "tall genes" in relation to sports;
I honestly thought you were discounting one being born with "creative muscle predisposition" for the sake of the argument.
It was honestly a sidebar I did not want to participate in.
Click to expand...

Sorry to have been so unclear. I was only attempting to address the difference between a skill that has highly specific physical prerequisites (like professional basketball) and one that doesn't (like professional screenwriting). Talent (and certainly hard work) are prerequisites in all cases. But while I certainly could (hypothetically) become a professional screenwriter if I've got enough raw talent *and* work very hard learning how to do it really well (insert teachers/gurus/coaches here), I'd have an approximately .00000001% chance of becoming a professional basketball player, even if I were still of an appropriate age. I'm simply not built for it.

That's all I was trying to say. Hope it's a little clearer now : )

I'm not shocked by much...but continue to be so by the idea that "anyone" can learn to be a great writer by mastering the craft/"rules"/formulas.
As I pointed out before, many seem to hold this belief to some degree. Many of this many are people I respect.
Click to expand...

I just took a glance at several of my screenwriting books, and the closest any of them come to making such claims (at least on the covers) are in the subtitles on two of them:

John Truby's "The Anatomy Of Story": '22 Steps To Becoming A Master Storyteller'

and

Dara Marks's "Inside Story": 'The Secret To Crafting Extraordinary Screenplays'

Hardly ripe fodder for rainbow-chasers if you ask me. And IMHO people who read it that way are simply fools...or that other, harsher word I used earlier. Perhaps those folks should also be reminded from time to time that buying a certain brand of mouthwash won't actually get them laid. No matter how much Madison Avenue spends trying to make us all think so...

Although, your invoking the taboo'ed midichlorean analogy maaay have sent a few in your camp of this debate over to my (dark)side.
smily1339.gif
Click to expand...

I must have missed the memo on that one... : )
 
Okay, I know I buried it...but ZombieFest 2.0 is coming up, right?

Barry, rereading the last few pages, I have to make one last attempt.:beer:

I can't see how it is irrelevant that so many coaches - 90 some odd percent - were at some point good enough at what they coach to play at a national level (NCAA or Pro)... even if it was "decades ago".
I would likewise put more credence in a guru who was good enough to produce solid material (big or small screen), even if it were in the 1970's (hell, even more so.)

That being said, I think I see the overall problem with these comparisons:
An NFL or NBA coach is coaching a team dynamic.
Whereas what the guru is doing is "coaching" multiples individuals at once,
who will never be on the same team (in fact they will be competitors).
So what the gurus are doing isn't "coaching", but leading a "training camp" (football camp, etc.)
Fair enough?

With that in mind, who's camp would I want my son (let's say he had b'ball ambitions) to attend?
-ANYONE who was ever a pro player?
-or-
-A former high school level player who played a little, but never on a winning team (as most of the gurus are IMO)

I personally would think anyone who was good enough to play at the pro level would have more knowledge to pass on to my son than the second choice (yes, even Isiah Thomas:cheesy:)

Again, last time. I'll make sure this analogy won't be "coming to get you, Barbara" again. In fact, consider its brain shot.:zombie_smiley:

:beer:



EDIT:
I guess my bottom line is no matter what the arena (be it the NFL draft or Hollywood) what we are talking about is grooming young talent for the pros.
 
Last edited:
Ted Spencer said:
...I just took a glance at several of my screenwriting books, and the closest any of them come to making such claims (at least on the covers) are in the subtitles on two of them:

John Truby's "The Anatomy Of Story": '22 Steps To Becoming A Master Storyteller'

and

Dara Marks's "Inside Story": 'The Secret To Crafting Extraordinary Screenplays'

Hardly ripe fodder for rainbow-chasers if you ask me. And IMHO people who read it that way are simply fools...or that other, harsher word I used earlier. Perhaps those folks should also be reminded from time to time that buying a certain brand of mouthwash won't actually get them laid. No matter how much Madison Avenue spends trying to make us all think so...
Click to expand...
I was talking about (some of) those on the receiving end of the guru's teachings, not the giving end. :beer:
 
Well -- then let's forget team dynamics and go back to the one that David and I were talking about earlier -- tennis coaches. Because that's a case of one on one. I brought up Brad Gilbert -- a fair player, nothing special, but who took several players to the pinnacle of the sport. David brought up Richard Williams, a guy who never picked up a racquet as far as we know, yet he coaches both his daughters and they have been utterly dominant world champions. Or Toni Nadal, Rafa Nadal's uncle. Ever heard of Toni Nadal? Nothing special as a player, but Toni has coached Rafa into becoming a guy who was the #1 player for a couple of years.

So let's address your question specifically: would I rather have my kid attend Isiah Thomas' basketball camp, or a former high school player who played a little, but never on a winning team? I think that's a false choice and avoids the real question here. Let me rephrase it slightly:

Would I rather have my son attend Isiah Thomas' basketball camp, or Mike Kryzewski's? Duh - I'm going with Duke. I mean, it's an insane question -- of course I'd go to the camp of the greatest coach who's ever lived, instead of the camp of a lousy coach who happened to be one of the greatest players who ever lived. You may think you'll learn more at the Isiah Thomas school because Thomas was undoubtedly a much better player than Coach K ever was, but -- hey, if that's your choice, you go right ahead. I know who I'd much rather learn the game from, and that's Coach K. Thomas may be able to play better, but Coach K can undoubtedly teach better.

Or, let's take it really quite a bit further: let's say you had a choice of sending your kid to a training school where they could study tennis. Would you rather send them to the Rafa Nadal school (if such existed)? Or to the Nick Bollettieri Academy in Florida? To me it sounds like you'd most definitely send them to learn from Nadal. I mean, after all, who the hell is Nick Bollettieri? Can he even play tennis? Was he ever a tennis player anywhere? Did he ever win any tournament? I doubt it, but I don't even know. All I know is that Bollettieri's academy turned out players like "ten #1 players in the world – Agassi, Becker, Courier, Hingis, Jankovic, Rios, Seles, Sharapova and Venus and Serena Williams, as well as a multitude of other world-class players, including: Haas, Kournikova, Arias and Vaidisova, to name a few. "

If I had a kid interested in learning the game of tennis, who showed real proficiency, I'd send them to the Bollittieri Academy. And it would not bother me in the slightest, not one iota, that Bollittieri himself has never won a tennis tournament or, as near as I can tell, even picked up a racquet and tried to play the game on any sort of professional level. Because he has a real and serious record of being the guy who can turn skilled kids into world champions. And that's what I'm looking for in a coach. Not what they may have done on the field, because that's entirely irrelevant.
 
Again, fair enough.

But wouldn't the Bollittieri Academy be more akin to sending our little pishers to USC film school or for a Masters in English from Columbia...where as these writing seminars aren't "education" per se, but additional "training" or "guidance" (or, in some cases I suppose, a substitute to formal education)? In other words, a training camp?

I'm just asking...not saying I have all (any) of the answers.
 
CallaghanFilms said:
But wouldn't the Bollittieri Academy be more akin to sending our little pishers to USC film school or for a Masters in English from Columbia...where as these writing seminars aren't "education" per se, but additional "training" or "guidance" (or, in some cases I suppose, a substitute to formal education)? In other words, a training camp?
Click to expand...
Well, again, you have to keep it in context. My point is that a teacher is a better teacher than a doer is. The doer may be better at doing, but they may not be better at teaching. And if you're going to learn, aren't you going to learn better from someone who can teach you? I mean, last I looked, learning wasn't an osmotic process.

So let's find common ground -- does a teacher have to know what the hell he's talking about? Obviously. But which is more valuable to you as a student -- someone who can teach you how to do something? Or someone who can do it, but can't explain to you how they do it?

To me the answer is jarringly obvious.

There are layers and layers to this argument, that has gone around and around here, and I think if you want to find common ground we have to strip away and narrow down what it is that we're actually discussing.

My assertion is that "Those who can, do, and those who can't, teach" is a profoundly ignorant and (dare I say it) stupid thing to say, that grossly discredits the value of teachers and teaching.

Here's a fascinating example, to me, because it's the same person: Robert Rodriguez. Can the guy "do"? Certainly he can. I mean, not everyone may love his films, but the guy has grossed billions at the box office and has made a wide variety of films. He certainly knows what he's doing. And he's given out two lessons, one before he became someone who can "do", and one after. Before he was "the" robert rodriguez, he wrote "Rebel Without A Crew" and it was one of the most inspirational guides ever, which taught some really seriously valuable lessons. And after he became "Robert Rodriguez", he put out his "10 minute film school" video, which is perhaps the single most damaging, irresponsible, and pointless things ever to be fostered on the filmmaking community. It teaches, in effect, "you don't need to know anything -- just go shoot your movie now." Which is the exact opposite of what he taught in his book, which was "make so many short films, practice your craft like a guitar player practices the guitar until his fingers bleed, and don't go make a movie until you're ready." He was winning awards at top festivals with "Bedhead" before he tried to make "El Mariachi".

One of those lessons is valuable. One of them is complete horse****.

Now let's examine the various "gurus" -- are they all at the same level? Clearly not. I took Hauge's seminar and found it nearly valueless. I read Syd Field and found it really eye-opening for an absolute novice, and pretty much pointless for anyone who has a fundamental skillset. I took McKee's and found it brilliant, and exactly what I needed at the time. And I went on to a mild level of success, I've sold two screenplays for an excess of six figures, I've placed as a quarterfinalist and finalist at different national screenwriting competitions, I won 2nd place in a national screenwriting competition. And I give McKee due credit for opening my eyes to storytelling and things that I just didn't get from the "structure structure structure formula blah blah" guys.

Now, I'm no great screenwriter, and I've written plenty of scripts that I refer to as "firewood" and some that are so bad that they make me laugh out loud when I think back on them. But I also know a little bit about the process, like I said, and I found certain of these gurus quite helpful in getting me to that point.

When I was a beginner, would I have gotten more out of a lunch with Joe Ezterhaus? I assure you, I would not. Would I get more out of it today? I believe I would, because I would be capable of holding an entirely different conversation now. The relevance of "gurus" is very much relative to the individual writer's place on the path from beginner to master.
 
Again, tho...I don't think those who are skeptical of writing gurus are in the same asshat camp as those who recite this "those who can't, teach" malarkey as truth.
In may not be fair to lump them together.
It's like these politicians (no names) who say "you don't have a heart" if you don't agree with me on xyz...

In other words, teaching someone how to be a doctor, educator, etc. is beyond noble; and yes, is a skillset all its own.
But "teaching" someone directly or indirectly how to make it the the movie biz (something sooo few actually do)
does have a slight aroma of "Get Rich Quick" material.
I mean come on, we all agree that "those who can't teach" does apply to these guys seelling Get-Rich-Quick stuff on late night infomercials...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top