No Budget: Decent Script vs Great Script?

[Kholi]

No right or wrong answer here. In short, if you only had fifty thousand dollars (50,000) to spend, not a penny more or a penny less, would you rather have a great script or a decent script?

I think you would define a great script as one that would only be given to a well-known and well-respected director to handle.

A decent script would be something that you would receive from an aspiring writer with a good mind for concept and dialogue, but missing a few things that really make it an outstanding script.

Not sure if this is the right comparison to make, just pulling this out of thin air:

THE THING - Great Script

THE FACULTY - Decent Script

I liked both movies, a lot actually. Of course the latter was heavily inspired by the former, and they are very similar.

This is just for the sake of discussion and perhaps to delineate the differences between what is considered a good script and what it takes to make a good movie, versus a decent script becoming a good movie.

Another example of what I would consider a decent script becoming a good movie (recently) would be DRIVE. I've made the comment about various parts in that narrative being very contrived, yet it was still one of my top three in the last three years.

So yeah, what say you!?

Personally, if I know I only have fifty or less to spend, I would choose the decent script over the great script. My twisted logic is that it's easier to make a decent movie from a decent script than it is to make a good movie from a good script. Of all the low budget pictures out there that get people noticed or are entertaining, I can't think of one that's say sub 1M~3M that I would consider a very good movie.

Primer is still a top ten for me, but it is not a good movie.

 

[David Jimerson]

Not sure why you wouldn't always pick the great script, unless it's infeasible on the budget. I'd say you always have more of a chance of making a good movie with a great script than you do with a "decent" script.

Are you saying it's unfair to the great script to do it on a low budget?

 

[Barry_Green]

It all depends on what it would cost to film each script.

But if I had a truly great, great script, I'd be shopping it around to agents, not trying to make it on fifty grand.

 

[Batutta]

I'm not sure you're asking the right question. A question that I would consider is, do I go with the decent script that has reliable, sellable genre elements, which tend to find distribution regardless of quality, or do I go with the great script without those reliable genre elements, and which has to be executed really well in order to succeed. The first is a fatter target that's easier to hit on a smaller budget. It doesn't have to be great in order to succeed. The second, you need to get really good actors, and direct and photograph and edit it brilliantly in order to be successful, which I think would be a crap shoot on that budget.

 

[Gary Huff]

What do you mean by "great" script? I would rather film schlock for $50 grand than the next Shakespeare for $50 grand, all things being equal. More likely to return on your investment.

Take it this way, would you rather spend $50,000 to make something like Pirhana, or something like The King's Speech? The shortcuts you have to take in a $50,000 can work in a schock horror film, but might put on the brakes of enjoyment on anything dramatic like the latter.

 

[Batutta]

Take it this way, would you rather spend $50,000 to make something like Pirhana, or something like The King's Speech? The shortcuts you have to take in a $50,000 can work in a schock horror film, but might put on the brakes of enjoyment on anything dramatic like the latter.

Similar to what I was saying...I've edited both mediocre dramas, and downright awful sci-fi horror shlock, and I gotta say, I enjoyed editing the shlock a lot more. For every Primer there are probably thousands of mediocre indie dramas that never even get seen outside of a film festival. And even then, have you seen a Shane Carruth movie lately?

 

[Kholi]

I'm not sure you're asking the right question. A question that I would consider is, do I go with the decent script that has reliable, sellable genre elements, which tend to find distribution regardless of quality, or do I go with the great script without those reliable genre elements, and which has to be executed really well in order to succeed. The first is a fatter target that's easier to hit on a smaller budget. It doesn't have to be great in order to succeed. The second, you need to get really good actors, and direct and photograph and edit it brilliantly in order to be successful, which I think would be a crap shoot on that budget.

Actually this is exactly what I meant. Especially the bolded area. Much more clear in approach. And, like Barry said, if you had a great script you definitely wouldn't want to waste it on petty budget, but the temptation to do it just because it's a great script would still be there no?

So in this case, yeah, which do you do if you have a choice?

I would probably say the exact same thing as you, Batutta, that you don't want to waste a good script on a bad budget.

 

[Batutta]

I would probably say the exact same thing as you, Batutta, that you don't want to waste a good script on a bad budget.

It's not so much wasting, more about odds of success...Everyone wants to make a great film, but on that kind of budget it tends to come down to factors beyond your control. If making money back is important, then go with the genre script. If you want this to be a calling card, that makes a statement about you as a filmmaker, the great script well executed might do more for your career. But if the execution falls short, you may end up with nothing. It's a gut call ultimately. Not sure which one I'd make. Depends on how good the decent script is, and how great the great script is. But as someone said, if the script truly is great, you shouldn't have trouble attracting good actors, and thus more money.

 

[Zak Forsman]

I would hold onto the great script to do it right -- name attachments, proper budget, etc. for $50k, I'd go with the decent script and do your best to knock it out of the park while taking each opportunity to learn from the experience of doing.

 

[john threat]

I'd split the 50k to 40k and 10k and do both.

Or at least hold out 5k and film a trailer and kickstart the the other one with the awesome trailer.

Of if a script is that great - just selling it - you'd get more connects selling a script than just about anything else you can do.

Yeah - Im a rebel!#@!

 

[Batutta]

I just want to add that if you've ever had a job as a script reader, you'd know that very few scripts are even decent, so if you've got one in your hands you're already ahead of the game.

 

[ugafan]

the only movie i would consider doing would be a comedy. so great for me means funny. if isn't really funny, i wouldn't do it.

 

[alex whitmer]

I just want to add that if you've ever had a job as a script reader, you'd know that very few scripts are even decent, so if you've got one in your hands you're already ahead of the game.

I get excited when I find even a mediocre one. At least it's readable.

But, this is another one of those 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder' deals, and what one filmmaker gets exicited about because they are certain they have a great, or even a decent script in hand may be utter crap to another. In truth, I don't think many of the fledging filmmakers - or even seasoned ones - understand how to read a script in the first place, or truly know whether they have a gem or not. They may believe it is great because it's so easy to film, or because it's 'totally' their cup of tea. i.e., lots of big guns and snug panties. There may be very little construct to the story, and basically one layer of meaningless, repeat action, but still great to someone with a camera. And marketable.

When do you know you have a decent, good or great script? I mean, one that moves beyond just a working document? Gleened from what I have read in writer forums, there is a clung-to belief that a script is merely a transitional document (?), and therefore has no real need to be a literary piece of work. This attitude, in my opinion, is why so many films are forgettable: they start with a decent but forgetable script that is never interpeted beyond a 'transistional document' that can be easliy budgeted, easily cast, etc - in other words it fits into the mold of mass marketing not unlike fast food and fad fashion. This is not a bad thing seeing how motion pictures is a business. Everyone gets a paycheck, a wrap party ensues, and then pretty much all is soon forgotten like last year's super low-cut jeans.

I have been soundly thumped numerous times in another writer's forum for even hinting that a script can be more than just a good or even great made-for-motion-pictures-industry document. It can, indeed, be a great piece of literary work, full of nuances and intrigue and good grammar and a creative use of words, and all that goes into a book you just can't put down, or at the very least recognize it to be exceptional and make the commitment to read it cover to cover. Is this what later translates into what we consider great films? Films that transcend fads and generation topics and FX glitter?

Will a filmmaker that somehow lands one of these sreenplays even know he or she has it in hand? Or will they see it only from a budget and marketing viewpoint and strip it down to bits and pieces that fit cost projections and studio profit engineering?

Screenwriting is, in essence, still in its infancy, a milemium or two behind theater and books. We all know when we read a remarkable story, but do we know how to retain it when translating it into moving pictures? And, the big question really is, how do we know it's a great script?

a

 

[Luis Caffesse]

I have to echo most of what Alex said above.
The problem here is you will never know for certain which script was 'great' versus which one was 'good' until you see the final execution.
(and even then people will disagree). I know people who think The Thing is not a good movie, for example - now you and I know those people are insane... but that doesn't change their opinion.

Keep in mind most people can't tell the difference between a great script and a bad one before they head into production.
The differences you're talking about are much more subtle.

There are so many other things to worry about when putting together a film, I don't see why you wouldn't simply try have the absolutely best script you can and go from there.
I can totally understand the idea of having a script that is 'good enough' - but to think there is some threshold of 'good' that you shouldn't go above seems a bit odd to me.