How often are writers involved with actual production?

R

RockmanX3

Well-known member
Besides the obvious Kevin Smith, Robert Rodriguez, Tarantino, etc, who write, direct, edit, produce, etc.. How often are actual "writers" involved in the production of the films based on their scripts? Are they invited on set to observe production? Or in most cases, they get paid their fee and are never spoken to again?

I think there's a term that's always thrown around called "auteur" which you can look up and I think I fit that description.

I'm not really the type of guy to hand over my idea to someone and have them do it, I want to be involved somehow, especially as a consultant if the cast/crew have any questions how the story needs to be interpreted.

I read in a book that even if you sell a script, you should never ask to be involved in production because that's already asking too much, especially if you're inexperienced.

I'm pretty sure if I ever sold my first script, I doubt I can be involved in production. But my scripts are like my kids and I want to nourish and see them grow. My goal is to be a writer/director/editor with my own production company in the future, but I'm sure it will take a long time before I can produce something I've written.

What are your thoughts on this?
 
I've heard stories about writers being invited onto the set of productions. For a recent example, Juno. By the sounds of the director&writer commentary, Diablo Cody was on set quite a bit.

I have also heard stories about writers never being allowed on the set. I think it depends on the script, the budget, the crew, type of story, etc. etc. If it's an indie film with a moderate budget you might get on set.

In terms of the interpretation, etc. I think that would be sorted out early on, maybe in meetings with the director, producer etc and getting that out of the way. One reason why writers might not be invited be on set in some cases is they might keep trying to change things on an already insanely tight schedule. It may be too late to be thinking about a lot of the things the writer might want to change on the day of the shoot. I think a lot of directors would get annoyed having the writer hanging on their backs all day, unless it was a friend, or someone they'd worked with, etc.

I'm not really the type of guy to hand over my idea to someone and have them do it
Click to expand...

If that is the case, why don't you write and shoot your own low budget feature and get a rep that way? Or, you could write a script and sell it, that would give you some sort of step up when it comes to getting funding/investors etc for your next project. Especially if the script sells and gets made into a big film.Cameraon Crowe did this I think, as well as Tarrantino and probably many others.

I didn't know people could label themselves auteurs...
 
Last edited:
If you view your script as your "baby" you might be in some trouble, maybe even more so if you make it yourself. Unless you want to movie to be crap, you have to be even more ruthless with your own work and be able to justify every line of dialogue and every action other than "because I like it". I'm pretty sure there is a saying that says, "kill your babies"; as in sometimes as a writer/director you may need to cut the scene or dialogue you love the most. If you're not prepared to do that, you may have to close your eyes and hand it over to someone who can. There are plenty of examples of writer/director/producers that couldn't be objective about their own work - can anyone say "The Happening".

From a director,'s POV, I'm of two minds about how much a writer is involved. While I would want to keep them in the loop and have them involved with their story, by taking it on I've made in MY story (or baby if you will) as well. I'm investing a lot of my time and myself into the project and the last thing I would need is to keep a writer around who's going to be a diva that will kick up a stink if I believe something needs to be changed either for practicality or because of my own creative vision. It all depends on the writer's attitude really and how differentiated they are.
 
If you are ever in the position of having a real offer, for real money, by a real team, you'll hand your darling over to the mob because it'll be a once in a life time chance. The odds are it won't happen and that applies to all of us. But let's say it does happen. Understand the best pro Hollywood writers feel like you do about their babies and often see their sweeties tortured, twisted and deformed by the "collaborative" efforts of the many involved. Writers are most often not a part of production other than rewriting, getting fired, and then getting rehired again only to be, ... they can be on set and keep their mouth shut. Many understand the reality of their situation and would rather be home knocking the next script out.

Let's just say, professional screenwriting is not for the weak.

The indie life: To ensure your darlings see the light of day as you imagined you'll need to have the talent, money and brains to put it all together by yourself, but then you'll still be stuck with the distribution nightmare. So if you want people to see it then you'll need to figure that one out also.

Bottom line, it's a very tough thing to write, make and distribute a movie that keeps it's original intent. Don't let this reality stop you, just be aware this is the typical case.

Goodluck!
 
You can "label" yourself an auteur, because you misunderstand the word if you think it means "genius" or "savant" or something. Sorry guys, the meaning is quite pedestrian -- "author." The auteur theory of film simply says that there is an author, basically, and that's generally the director. This isn't taken for granted; maybe a lot of you take it for granted, but with hundreds, sometimes thousands of people involved in a film, it's not at all obvious that there is a true author of the film. It's a collaborative art form, each person adding a little bit to the whole. That is how film is seen in many parts of the world, and that is still how many films are made.

The auteur theory says one person's vision prevails over the rest of the departments; this person is said to be the author of the film, because they leave their mark on every detail of production. A great example -- really the best -- would be George Lucas. He funds his films, he writes them, he directs them, and he's intimately involved with every detail of production. It's all in his mind. He steers everything from character designs to art styles on something like Star Wars. While thousands of people contributed their amazing artistic talents to the films, ultimately he was the author of the six film saga.

Saying you see yourself as an auteur is only saying that you don't see yourself as a craftsman, but as someone who takes more command of a project. There's nothing wrong with being a craftsman, either, someone who takes great pride in your job as director, but certainly see no reason to write your own material, or to step on the writer's material, or try to override the producer, whatever. You're there to do your job and that's it. Any television director basically will be a craftsman, whereas showrunners will be auteurs generally -- Joss Whedon, J. J. Abrams, and Cris Carter all come to mind. If you direct an episode of a TV show, you usually are there to do your job and listen to what the senior writers say. It's quite accurate to say that even the DP is above you in rank on the show -- there are usually only 2 DPs at most, sometimes just 1, on any network show, whereas each season will have a minimum of 6-7 directors, often more than that.

I feel like the OP on the script I just wrote, though. Nobody else directs this one but me, unless somehow a great A-list director I respected wanted it and the budget was great with amazing actors. And you're laughing, "Haha, that'll never happen" -- yeah, you're right. Which is exactly why I'd rather make it myself with my own funding. At least I know I'll be able to get it right.
 
FWIW based upon the last several features I suggest that you resign yourself to your baby being tossed into a wood chipper on day one, if you sell it to a large producing entity - whether you remain attached, or not. Getting comfortable with the notion will probably save you a lot of stress and anguish, right up front.

And if things develop differently, well, you get to be pleasantly surprised.
 
Simplest rule: if you want to be involved with how your script is produced, you had better raise the money yourself to make the film.

Or, you'd better have such a hot script that there's a bidding war for it, and you can insert the term "but I get to direct" into the negotiations.

Because if you sell it, it's gone. It's theirs. And they can do absolutely anything they want to it, including throwing it in the trash, or cutting half of it, or changing the ending, or anything else. Them's the rules.

In fact, while the writer is typically persona non grata on the set and ranks lowest on the totem pole, the fact is that large studios pretty much don't let anyone have any true control. There are very, very few directors who warrant "final cut" authority, meaning that if the studio isn't happy with the film the director created, they can edit it however they want. And that's the way it works -- because the studios follow the "golden rule" - he who has the gold, makes the rules.

As Max said, resign yourself to it because that's the way the system works and it's the way the system has to work. Nobody is going to raise a hundred million dollars to make a film and then turn it all over to someone and just say "here you go, do whatever you want." They're going to retain control.

If you want it done differently, you'll have to do it yourself.
 
Thanks for the advice everyone. Maybe it is best to see your children grow up and lead their own lives.

The hollywood babysitters better take good care of them!
 
HAHA, Rockman, elegantly put.

Barry -- so true. It is the way things have to work. As the individual, sure, you may not like it, but you have to understand it logically speaking.

You have to EARN the right to have that type of control, to have final cut, where someone trusts you and lets you do what you want with the film, because your track record is so exemplary that there is no reason to interfere with your work; tickets will sell! haha.

Otherwise, like you said, fund it yourself. Then nobody can tell you what to do. But that, of course, has its own drawbacks, from the difficulty of securing funding to the fact you'll probably have a lot smaller budget to the difficulty of finding distribution, etc.
 
I'm attached as producer on whatever I write. It doesn't give me veto powers, but at least I have some say and can argue against stupid decisions and guide the production the direction it should be heading.

There hasn't been any problem at all from the other producer(s) or from the funders -- I think a lot of writers are doing this now in an attempt to keep some level of control over their screenplay.

Best of all, you get a very intimate look at how difficult it is to get things done in the Hollywood Studio system -- and know the exact reasons why some things work and some don't
 
Until a couple of WGA contracts ago, writers were not even allowed on set.

Once you sell your script, well, it's like selling anything else - it is not yours. The new owners can do anything they want with your script - and probably will. What's more, part of your sale may include rewriting the script to conform to their idea of what the script should be. Usually, this ruins it... and *you* get to do that!

Writers can never have any sort of final cut or any sort of control because they *sell* their script. If you want control, find the money and make the film yourself - like those folks you mentioned in your post.

You can produce something you have written tomorrow - start socking away money from your day job, then go make your film.

But here's the thing: even if you fund the film yourself and direct it and edit it and are in complete control... well, all kinds of factors are *really* in control - weather, actors, light, and a million things that not only can go wrong, they will.

- Bill
 
If I sold a spec script, and then it were given the greenlight without myself attached as director, I'd surely be happy to stick around for rewrites. If the director and studio said, "get lost" and hired another writer or didn't want me on the set then I wouldn't want to be there. It would probably be uncomfortable and I'd feel useless unless they actually wanted me there for rewrites. Plus, if the production is a nightmare and they are butchering my story, well, I'd rather not have to witness that on a day to day basis.

Movie sets are boring too, unless you are actually doing something important like being a DP, directing, or whatever your area of expertise is. On big studio productions, even actors say they get bored. This is because they might have to sit in their trailers all day waiting for that hour or so of actual acting they'll do. So unless you are actually needed there to help rewrite stuff, think how boring it could be on an entire film shoot for a writer.

I suppose it depends though. Some writers might actually be friends with a certain director, so the director might want that writer there. Other times a writer might not gel with the director, especially if that director is changing the writer's vision for the film. I could totally understand why sometimes a director doesn't want the writer there. Also, bear in mind that like us writers, every director has their own processes. Some might relish the advantage of having an on-set writer, while others might not have room for it in their way of making films.

Personally, I'd rather get paid and take a week off to decompress, then start on the next spec script and then sell that one too. Either that or move onto an assignment. Who knows, if you were suddenly a hot writer due to your spec selling or creating a buzz around the town, you might get writing offers or be able to sell another spec, all before this first film might even be completed.
 
Last edited:
Ryan Paige said:
Surely you'd at least want to visit and check out the set for a day or two if they'd let you.

Picture it: You sell a script, do a couple of rewrites on it before being replaced, but your draft gets, let's say, the Hughes Brothers on board to direct and then Denzel Washington signs on, followed by Gary Oldman. So, they're out there in the New Mexico desert recreating at least some of what you wrote in real life with an Academy Award winning actor saying lines that you dreamed up in your head.

Don't you at least want to drop by and get your picture taken with Denzel?

If I'm not directing something, I don't want to hang out on set for the whole freakin' shoot, but give me a day or two to come by and see something cool, and I'll jump all over that.
Click to expand...

Considering I also want to get into directing in the future, I would like to be on set to see how the entire process is done, even if I'm unpaid and am not allowed to say or do anything.

I'd be glad to be strapped to a chair with duct tape on my mouth just as long as I get to watch on set. :Drogar-Dolar(DBG):
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top