Critics of Critics

From the box office numbers, I'm guessing you've all seen Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull.

Just to throw it out there, I was disappointed. But it's just a movie.

I discovered something new. Something, that maybe has been there all along, but I just noticed.

All over Rotten Tomatoes and IMDB, people lambaste critics for giving reviews that are in direct opposition to their own viewpoint. I'm not sure I understand the point.

The overwhelming majority of reviews I read off Rotten Tomatoes are slightly different variations on the same comments and criticism, with a few extremists on either end. Like the Olympics, you gotta throw out the low Russian score and the high US score.

What I find particularly fascinating is the complete lack of empathy the average internet user has.

Is this a mark of the times?

Or have people always been like this? Just the internet is giving us privy to the sorted details we never really wanted to know.

Well, now I'm fascinated. I want to know.

Think About It.

So, I haven't posted in awhile. And it doesn't bother me at all. I like not posting. In fact, I have a hard time even reading most screenwriting blogs. In fact, they really piss me off.

I am tired of people believing everything they read or are told without the slightest ounce of thought to the contrary.

I am tired of people looking for easy solutions to problems that can only be solved by doing the grunt work yourself.

There are so many screenwriting blogs out there that preach "How To Screenwrite" like there was a set of Commandments etched in stone, sealed off in some dank dungeon of some studio vault (my guess, is Ted Turner probably bought and/or owns the rights to this tablet) some where that decrees this is how you write a screenplay!!!

There are a handful of blogs that delve out pure gold. Unfortunately, most simply stare at the gems presented in front of them, settling for the ability to describe what they look like, instead of actually taking these jewels and placing them within their own stories.

What is worse...

Misconceptions abound. And self-proclaimed experts on "the craft" spout nonsensical tripe that is completely irrelevant to the crafting of a story that reinforces this lazy thinking.

Think for yourself people.

Time is wasted arguing issues of format.

NEWS FLASH:

Formatting is easy.

It is cake.

Simple.

Which is probably why people use formatting as the lynch-pin of most arguments on what makes a good story. It is easy to spot abnormal formatting. It is also easy to make an arbitrary list of rules of what a screenplay should and shouldn't look like. And it is easy to pass a judgement based on a list of expected criteria.

But screenplays that become movies are never held to these same set of make believe standards preached so widely on the internet and in books.

They are held to a much more rigorous set of trials. Things like...

*) Who will want to play this role?
*) Can a producer secure money to get this made?
*) Is there an audience?
*) Who is reading your script? Male? Female? Young? Old? Religious background? Ethnicity?

All this plays a factor that you as a writer have absolutely no control over. And they play a much larger role in the life and death of your spec screenplay than formatting.

• I have had readers from production companies give me coverage that was off the charts excellent that also had notes stating that there was too much swearing in a script that had absolutely no swearing what so ever.
• I have had readers complain of the usage of "could of" in a script that did not contain that combination of words.
• I have had a script that received 100% positive coverage from females and 100% negative coverage from males.
• I have had meetings about scripts with producers that started the meeting by saying they loved the script, but haven't had the time to read it... and then preceed to talk about why they love the script.
  
• I have had producers give recommendations, send my scripts to other production companies as a favor.
  
• I have had genre scripts rejected because the company's reader didn't like the genre that particular company specialized in.

The list goes on...

...some reasons more ridiculous than others.

The point is... not every story is for every person.

I never see this addressed on ANY screenwriting blog. If you get 50% of people to like your screenplay you are actually ahead of the game. Most sites treat screenwriting as all or nothing. If one person hates your screenplay the deal is done.

The truth of the matter is, it is quite the opposite.

Readers have their own set of preconcieved notions about screenplays, about story, about genre, about films, and you as a writer have to get lucky on so many levels that I find it mind-boggling that screenwriting blogs can seriously argue how detrimental the usage of "We See" or Secondary headings is to a script. They don't even show up on the radar.

Work on story. Work on craft. Work on your voice. And, of course, learn the format... but I think it is safe to say that 99% of the people out there reading screenwriting blogs know screenplay format.

...

I know, I know. Look at the hypocrite, with his own screenwriting blog, blogging about screenwriting. Shit, I'm an ass, right? Nah. (Well, not because of that).

This blog has, and was created, to be a sounding board for my own thoughts and ideas. It was a way to make my thoughts tangible and work through my own problems I was having with the screenwriting medium.

I never set out to "teach" people. Just to learn for myself. I'm selfish like that.

Along the way, I realized that the writers I was reading were using "tools" that most books strictly forbid, in a way that made me connect with the story I was reading. It made me think twice about these rules that are supposedly set in stone.

I don't care if you folks out there in the internet void agree or disagree with me. All I care about, is that you stop and actually ask yourself why you believe the things about screenwriting that you do.

Is it because you figured this out through your own pursuits? Or is it because you read it somewhere on someone's blog... and hell, it's Craig Mazin, or John August, so it's gotta be true, right?

Think about it.

...But there's no money, yet!

Quotes from Michael Eisner.

"For a writer to give up today's money for a nonexistent piece of the future -- they should do it in three years, shouldn't be doing it now -- they are misguided they should not have gone on the strike. I've seen stupid strikes, I've seen less stupid strikes, and this strike is just a stupid strike."

“There’s all of this rhetoric by the media companies about this ‘great new digital business’, which is a small, growing business that will one day be dominant, but it isn’t, yet there’s no money there yet.

From The Walt Disney Company President and CEO, Bob Iger: "it's about a billion five in revenue."

Mm hmm.

Great video, btw.

Picket Lines are Forming.

Here's a neat little short that boils down a lot of the issues and reasons for the strike.



The short glosses over the internet issues. It isn't simply about Internet residuals.

The Internet has already changed what content looks like, helps support alternative formats to television, and is itself a very cheap and effective tool in distribution.

Nielson ratings have changed to take a % of internet views into account. This means that advertisers are already paying a pricetag that reflects a partial Internet distribution of any of your favorite shows.

The world is changing. And mass media is at the forefront.

Writers are the engines that keep content running. Highly skilled writers are the ones keeping the quality of shows you see on television at an all time high.

The internet has brought the viewing public and those creating the content something completely new. A new contract should reflect these changes, in all their intricacies.

To Strike or Not to Strike

Does it even matter? That is the question.

For the up and coming writer, that has been getting rave reviews on his latest script from a handful of sources, doors seem more closed than ever.

Why?

Signatories do not want to touch new material with the impending strike looming. They have their own problems to deal with. A perfectly valid excuse.

As if this business wasn't hard enough to break into.

Regardless of how the situation with the WGA and AMPTP is resolved, there is nothing I can do except sit on my hands. I can only hope that things are resolved quickly, but that does not seem to be the future I am looking at through this funky crystal ball.

Affectation

Since we can't call it plagiarism... because it isn't...

Tonight after viewing ABC's PUSHING DAISIES, I found myself torn.

While I do think there is potential in the central conflict revolving around a man who brings a lover back from the dead only to never be able to touch her again, I had a hard time getting past the visuals, as well as the storytelling format itself.

PUSHING DAISIES didn't just borrow from Jean Pierre Jeunet's AMELIE. It drew itself a hot, steamy tub full of Jeunet's bubbly masterpiece and dove in head first.

Only Gus Van Sant's remake of Hitchcock's PSYCHO paid more needless detail to recreating the original. Except this wasn't a remake. It really wasn't even a similar a story.

And that's where my gripe comes in to play.

Jean Pierre Jeunet's AMELIE has been raped by such thieves. I find Travelocity's "traveling gnome" to be a ridiculous rip-off. The advertising campaign makes no sense outside the context of AMELIE. You have to have seen the movie to understand what a lawn gnome has to do with traveling the world.

From set design, to wardrobe, to the stylistic quirky vignette's told by a voice over narrator, even the choice of characters themselves -- for lack of a better expression -- pay "homage" to AMELIE.

cough*Even the very, very similar French music for no apparent reason*cough

AMELIE is a story about a woman that still has wonderful fantasies much like when she was a child. The central conflict revolves around, that maybe living in this fantasy world she has created, she has let life pass her by.

It is a coming of age story.

And the visual and directorial style, as well as the children's book narration, go hand in hand with that premise. Form follows function.

For PUSHING DAISES form does not follow function. It follows style. "Wouldn't this be cool? Have you seen AMELIE? I liked that movie. We should do that. Wasn't that great?"

I have to say that I was surprised that this effort came from a seasoned director such as Barry Sonnefeld. I have to admit, that Barry Sonnenfeld is one of my favorite directors. And I'll bet a large majority out there have no idea who he is.

Ever seen MEN IN BLACK? THE ADDAMS FAMILY? These movies have a unique personal style all their own. They brought comic book "type" movies into the mainstream without taking away their edge. Without taking away what made them work as comic books. (Granted, The Addams Family was a television show. But the directorial style is so similar to MEN IN BLACK that it is hard to dismiss it as anything other than a Barry Sonnenfeld film).

In fact, it is my own belief that such movies paved the way for the comic book movies of today, as well as the Harry Potter type movies and opening a mainstream audience to the fantasy genre as a whole.

PUSHING DAISIES, in terms of directorial and and visual style, seems to have taken a step away from the progressive.

I guess, I expect a lot from my entertainment. I want to see the bar pushed. I do not want to see watered-down versions of things we have seen before.

Especially, from an interesting, unique story that has promise on its own merits.

That Which is Lacking...

Two manuscripts. Both 110 pages. Both the same plot. Both with very similar characters.

And yet, one is utterly fascinating. The other I want to throw out the window -- and possibly myself right after.

Why?

...

There is a difference between writing what you see in your head and crafting a story from ideas rattling around in the old noggin'. But wait -- there's more...

Even the dumbest reader can tell the difference. And that just may be me.

I really hated reading. I read slow. It wasn't until the last year or so that I actually started to enjoy reading. For the first time in my life I was choosing books I wanted to read, and not reading something that was forced upon me. I could take my time, or stay up all night to finish a book. Hell, I could even stop halfway through and throw the book in the garbage if I didn't like it.

I was free to enjoy reading.

I find myself going to Border's and perusing the new stock. Luckily, they also have a great selection of comic books so I can bail out if need be.

Point is, reading became more than a prescription issued by a teacher.

There is a magic that happens when a reader can ignore the fact that the words are orchestrated and arranged by another person (the writer) and bask in the glow of the world that is being created. To be able to take part in the lives of those that live there and feel confident in the fact that by the time the journey comes to a close you, your participation in the story, as the reader, was well worth it.

As a writer, first and foremost, it should be your job (hell, it is your job) to instill confidence in the reader that you are going to take them on a journey. That the time they spend reading each and every word you put on the page is time well spent.

...

Easy to say, harder to put on the page.

If for nothing more than giving me something decent to read, I want to pass this on to you...

...

Each and every SCENE in a movie/screenplay needs to have its place. It needs to exist for more than the fulfillment of the plot. If a scene ONLY exists for the fulfillment of the plot, you have a very weak scene.

I find all too often "scenes" in bad screenplays are simply a scene of filler. That is, a scene in which the writer needs these characters to come together in order to fulfill the plot. So it does. And is ultimately boring.

Watch any B-Movie picture.

The plot moves forward, making sense (usually), BUT WHO CARES!!!?
...

Every SCENE in a screenplay should be able to answer the question posed by a future viewer: "WHY DID I JUST WATCH THIS?"
...

Every scene MUST contain something that is to be won or lost, while putting at risk something valuable to your central character(s), at the same escalating the tension of the screenplay as a whole. This is no small feat.

...

For a terrific example, watch the FREE 9 minutes of Pixar/Brad Bird's RATATOUILLE.

This IS a SCENE!

Look at all the exposition it covers. Watch how it introduces those unfamiliar with cooking (most of the main stream audience) to the inner workings of the kitchen, while trumpeting the main character's love of cooking, and managing to slip in the central tension/dramatic question, foreshadowing the conflict that you will see throughout the entire movie.

(NOTE: This is done in about a minute).

It introduces the ANTAGONIST and there is no question that this guy is the antagonist.

It introduces the SIDEKICK who will become part of the hero team.

It manages to do all this work in a very fun, action-packed, thrilling chase sequence, without becoming muddy or confusing. The objectives of this scene are established.

This is a SINGULAR SCENE. It is completely self contained. You know where you came from before it and you know where the story needs to go after it. This is the essence of masterful screenwriting.

(If you want the Screenwriting book(s) definition of what this particular scene is, it goes by various names: The inciting incident, The catalyst, The Hook, The what the hell is this story about?)