Credits, Game Theory...and Alanis Morissette???
In an article on his blog, Steven Peterson makes an argument that credits arbitrations are best examined in the context of game theory.
It’s the right argument. While the architects of the WGA credits guidelines may have been motivated by prosocial concerns or dramaturgical theory, it’s always safest to assume that the participants in arbitrations will be motivated by self-interest.
Steven suggests that this creates a serious flaw in the system, inasmuch as “gaming the rules” will affect the manner in which writers approach rewriting.
…if I get a chance to do a rewrite of a script, I have a strong (self-interested) incentive to substantially change at least 33% or 50% of the material, even if the material doesn’t need that much changing. In fact, it’s an interesting little game by itself: I’m best off if I change enough to get as much credit as possible, while making the story something good, and retaining key elements from the earlier drafts that the producers, director, and actors aren’t willing to sacrifice (otherwise I get removed from the project or the project dies). This is markedly different from when I do a rewrite of my own script — then I keep the good bits and eliminate the bad bits, and, hopefully, after a few iterations of this I have a screenplay composed mostly of good bits.
I’ve seen this argument made a number of times.
I do not find it compelling.
There are two major reasons why “rewriting to the rules” is impractical and ultimately not in the game player’s best interest.
The first is that the goal is not objective, and accurately targeting a subjective goal is impossible. You may think that you’ve “done enough” to pass the 33% or 50% threshhold, but your impression is irrelevant. The judges are three other writers you’ve never met. Their standards of judgment are almost necessarily different than yours, not only because they’re different people, but because readers always approach material from a different perspective than authors of that material.
The second is that credits are awarded for quantitative contributions, but the game player’s continuing success is contingent on his qualitative contributions.
There is only one successful objective to motivate the task of rewriting a screenplay, and that is to write a screenplay that will please the studio and become a movie that pleases the audience. If you write with any ulterior goal in mind, you will fail. I believe this with every ounce of my professional conviction. Readers aren’t stupid. If you take a good scene and make it worse, they will blame you, regardless of your intentions. Given that, it’s best to only try and improve what you can, and preserve what you cannot.
If the game strategy is to “do the best job you can, with no consideration for quantity of change”, then you improve your chances for continued employment on the project. Continued employment on the project improves your chances for increased quantity of contributions. Emphasis on quantity of contributions will necessarily hurt the quality of contribution. This will result in you being rewritten.
In other words, rewriting with a goal of credit will get you hoisted by your own petard.
As always, game theory is instructive, if counterintuitive. I believe the optimum strategy for achieving credit recognition as a screenwriter is this: don’t try and get credit…just do the best job you can do.
Or as Alanis Morissette put it:
The moment I let go of it
Was the moment I got more than I could handle…
Thanks much for the response, Craig.
Regarding the first point: The fact that accurately judging when you’ve hit the 33-50% is difficult actually militates in favor of changing well in excess of 50% — just to be safe. So now we’ve got a reason to keep as little as possible.
Regarding the second point: It sounds like you’re saying that other factors, such as pleasing producers, are so overriding that they overwhelm any benefits from trying to beat the credit game.
Note that, even if true, this leaves intact the argument that the WGA guidelines promote something that they oughtn’t promote; it’s just that writers are shielded from the guidelines’ bad effects by the good effects of producers and such.
It seems there’s a third point as well: Do your rewriting job to the best of your ability without trying to game the credits and you’ll do as well or better than if you did try to game the credits.
Note that the first writer can’t take solace in the third point. While the first writer will likely receive a friendly credit split no matter what, they’ll also likely see something very unlike their version coming out of any rewrites — and that would irk anyone artisticly. Of course, that’d probably happen anyway since every writer prefers their own take on the material, but it still seems like the WGA guidelines shouldn’t be promoting slash and burn revisions.
Steven:
I think the credits guidelines ought to promote an equitable recognition of contribution.
As it happens, any threshhold of credit for a subsequent writer could be seen as encouraging “slash and burn”, as you put it.
Well, here’s the thing. The writing credit is for the screenplay of the movie. If you slash and burn and your material composes the majority of the movie, you deserve credit.
There is a valid argument to be made that the Guild shouldn’t be offering incentives for that. Tying residuals to credit is certainly an incentive to get credit (especially during these wild days of the DVD boom, where screen residuals are more lucrative than ever). On the other hand, residuals are the result of authorship.
I don’t see anyway of reducing the incentive to earn credit, because credit is valuable.
In the meantime, I stand by my experience in the trenches of Hollywood, which has taught me that these hypothetical “write to get credit” scenarios simply don’t occur with the kind of frequency people suspect.
I recently sold a Horror to a well-respected production company. I tried my hardest to get the mandatory rewrite clause you suggested a while back in your blog, but they wouldn’t budge. So, I’m being rewritten, but the film is being made. Not the best feeling being rewritten, in general. The new writer is even changing the names of almost every character except the main character…and I’m thinking, why? Where was the need? Could be worse, I guess. Probably a thousand aspiring screenwriters who would like to be in my position.
Ettanin:
This must not have been a WGA-covered deal. The production company must not be signatory to the WGA. If they were, you should call the guild, as you have a basic right to the first rewrite of your own spec script.
As for character names, sometimes writers change them pointlessly. I try as hard as I can to preserve the names, but occasionally you must change one. Names are actually very important, IMO, and when the character changes, the name should change too.
Sometimes I change names if they name is just plain stupid. I recently did a rewrite and changed one character’s name from “Stone” to “Eddie” because he was a pothead, and “Stone”??? I mean…come on.
Why not name him Bongwater McCheeb at that point?
The company is well-known, just not very powerful or rich. I was told at the very beginning that the option agreement would not be covered by the WGA even though they did agree to abide by WGA rules in determining writing credit. They did offer me okay money for the script, not WGA money, but still good.
I’m trying to inculcate a professional attitude about it. If I’m fortunate enough for my career to advance, I’ll inevitably end up rewriting someone else.
That’s so funny about your pothead name change. In my case, the name changes are pretty lame…like changing John to Joe, except my original names actually had underlying meanings to each character’s purpose in the story.
Hope I get to join you guys in the WGA eventually. I realize I don’t necessarily help things by taking these jobs, but I’m kind of surviving at the moment. :)
Craig,
Personally, if the WGA sticks with the historical method of assigning credit, then disconnecting the residuals (and other financial incentives) from the writing credit sounds like the right strategy to me.
Regarding how often this occurs: I take it this is an empirical question and I don’t have much data. But so far it’s one for one for me. At least the names weren’t changed though.
Craig- I think Ettanin may have fallen through the WGA loopholes. A signatory company can purchase or option a script from a non-professional writer and the wga agreement doesn’t apply to that writer (including right to first rewrite). The writer has zero protection except what they can insert into their contract. Since the writer is generally inexperienced they don’t know what to demand.
While I know nothing of credit allocation (in my dreams at this point) I appreciate the advice. Something almost Zen like to the suggestion, like a Chinese finger puzzle method to getting what you’re after.
Steven:
You’re saying that you believed someone rewrote you specifically with the credits threshhold in mind?
I think few people would write specificically with the credits threshold in mind — but a strong background incentive can influence one’s judgment. A particular receipt can look a lot more like a business expense when tax season comes around; an unreliable informant can sound more trustworthy when his testimony supports your military action; and those previous scenes and character motivations are a lot easier to jettison when you need a produced credit.
Hey Craig, very good post regarding the “gaming” issue. Re-writing for credit and profit is bad business, as you point out. I came on as a production re-write man for FIRE DOWN BELOW with Steven Segal. I had one mission - make the stalled film, already in pre-production with millions in, locations built and cast hired, a go-film, as the studio was hedging because the latest script submitted was considered unworkable. Because of the nature of when I was brought in - locations selected, sets built, cast hired with no money for new character actors, etc. I had to stick to a great deal of the existing story line, locations and couldn’t change the characters. So I had to go deeper into the material, devise a more satisfying character and enrich the emotions, dilemas and set pieces already handed me. I wanted to make this a great movie, so I imagined Steve McQueen in a modern “western” in the hills of Kentucky. And turned the film into a go - and got co-screenwriter credit, sharing only with the original writer, Jeb Stuart, and the three writers inbetween didn’t get billing. The last thing I was trying to do was get credit, I was working my ass off to make a great story - and stuck in the structure and locations of previous writers’ work. So - there is proof of your argument in the making. We must always go to our deepest source, the one connected to our thrill of story telling, our thrill of writing, and if we truly hit that - then the rewards come. The gamers will always only hurt themselves. Thanks for all your good blogging! I discuss these ideas and more on my own blog: www.screenwriterbones.bloglspot.com. You are linked there!
Philip:
Great story, and you cut to the heart of what successful production writing is all about.
I’ve got your blog link up under “Writing”. Thanks for mentioning it!