If You Have To Ask...

Sometimes, I just can’t believe we are still fighting for such elemental rights.

Thanks a lot for the info. An for the fight.

Well, how do we move to a paradigm where these are not only rights but standard operating procedure, Craig? Here in Canada we’re still working on convincing producers that having a writing room on a TV show is a good idea. To writers this seems like a no-brainer, but producers have the idea it costs money. It saves money, of course, but they don’t know that.

So what’s the answer? Paid publicists whose job is to get people to realize that a good script is cheaper to shoot than a bad one, and having the original writer write a second draft is usually more effective than having a new writer write a new first draft? ‘Cause I will bet you not too many producers are reading either of our blogs. Therefore we are both preaching to the choir.

How do we change the paradigm?

Craig,

Question—if a studio can’t distribute coverage of a script outside the company, what’s the penalty if they do?

Ben LA

and what’s the punishment for free rewrites?

It’s seemed that the employers have, quite often, flouted the rules more than once with a few folks - not that I disagree with what you’ve written here and the need for all of this, but how do we enforce these rules? It often seems like they have all the power, and as we know, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

But thanks for posting this, it’s very informative.

Alex:

Well, the Canadian situation is just odd. I mean, the easiest thing to do, I suppose, would be to point your finger south and say, “You know those guys down there making billions off of TV? Well, they seem to think writers’ rooms are a good idea…”

Your larger question is a good one, and my tendency is to avoid paradigmatic solutions, because I don’t think there are any. I believe that in this business, it will be individuals who change the culture, and those individuals must not only be smart, strong people willing to make their own case, but they also need to be ready to stop acting like writers who came before them.

In short, I think just being a writer isn’t enough. I would have said “isn’t enough anymore,” but it was never enough to unlock the privilege of courteous treatment. We have to assume more responsibility, and we have to make that part of our goal.

Josh:

When a company violates any of these rights, then the WGAw typically files an arbitration claim against them. Sometimes we win, sometimes we lose, sometimes it takes years. I’d like to speak a little more frankly about the WGAw legal department, but given my current situation on the Board, I can’t. I’ll be more frank after my term is up in September.

Ben:

Generally, the penalties are financial. They pay a fine, and you get the dough. If you think they’ve violated this right, then contact the WGAw.

Here’s a transcript of a conversation I had with our producer two weeks ago -

Producer: “We’ll be done with the first cut of the movie in a few days.

Me: “Hey, that’s great.”

Producer: “We’ll send you a copy.”

Me: “Gee, THANKS!”

Producer: “Don’t thank me. We’re obligated to. WGA rules and all.”

Me: “Oh, yeah. I, uh, knew that….” (sotto) “Note to self: re-read the MBA!”

Just curious, why did you pick Saskatchewan as the location for the wrap party? Based on a personal experience? Or couldn’t think of a more out the way place to have a wrap party?

I probably already know the answer…

“In short, I think just being a writer isn’t enough. I would have said “isn’t enough anymore,” but it was never enough to unlock the privilege of courteous treatment. We have to assume more responsibility, and we have to make that part of our goal.”

Craig,

1. Why, in your view, is just being a writer not enough?

2. What would assuming more responsibility mean in practice?

Thanks, Mr. Insufferable

Coverage Can’t Be Sent Around Town

Doesn’t this effectively make script tracking boards an MBA violtion? (Or, at least, contributing to them as a signatory?) What am I missing?

Mr. Insufferable:

Why is just being a writer not enough? Because the things that most writers want simply don’t occur within the realm of “writer”. We want more control, more input, more inclusion and more money than is normally associated with the task of writing.

So…we must expand our job definitions, and thus, our titles. More writers should be learning how to produce movies.

As always, great stuff. Thanks for taking the time on this one.

God almighty. I leave you alone for a while, and you start in with this crap again.

You’re talking about RIGHTS here, Craig. The fundamental rights of creators in an artistic field. Yeah, it’s fucking OBVIOUS that you’ll do better in any field of endeavor if you’re pleasant to work with than if you’re not, but Jesus H Christ on a crutch, you’d turn us into a mass of Uriah Heeps, shuffling up to our masters, hat in hand, begging them to treat us with a smidgen of decency because we’re such nice people.

I have news for you - in the history of the world, in the history of the struggle for labor rights, just being nice to the people who are denying you those rights has NEVER led to change.

I’m a pleasure to work with because I see this as a collaborative medium, and because I am, by nature, a nice guy. I am NOT a pleasure to work with because I’m hoping maybe someone will throw me a fucking scrap from the table. We are a long, long way from being treated with the respect that is our due, and your “solution” is no solution at all. There are two unspoken assertions going on in your post - the first is that writers are treated like shit because most writers are assholes. The second is that it’s more important to just shuffle your feet and say “Yes Massah” than it is to fight for the rights that one can reasonably assume are due the primary creative force of this particular medium.

When you promote these ideas - and the insane notion that being “just” a writer isn’t enough - you do no good for writers. You do the work of the people who are working to keep us in our place.

You get so caught up in the notion that we work in a sausage factor, you lose sight of the fact that we work in a fucking ART FORM. “No,” says Mazin, “it’s NOT enough that you are one of those rare creatures who can cast words in manner that reaches down into the soul of the reader and causes him or her to re-examine the way they perceive the world. You must also know how to negotiate with teamsters about how to keep from paying golden time to the fucking honeywagon driver. Then, and only then, can you be a personage of any standing in this business. And as your WGA representative, I approve of that.”

No, it’s not enough that ours is the primary creative vision, the spark without which there can be no fire. Sure, directors can just direct, but writers must do more to make up for their lack of contribution to the finished product.

Bleargh.

Whether you like it or not, the world we need to be fighting for is not one where writers have to learn a second trade, nor a world where writers must always be pleasant to deal with. The world we need to be fighting for is one where writers are granted our due regardless of our character because - and this may, I suspect, be a newsflash - we do not get paid for being nice people. We get paid because we create something out of nothing. It would be nice if all creative personages were wonderful, warm, caring, decent people who truly went out of their way to please everyone, but we don’t live in that world, and if that really troubles you, take it up with Dr. Phil.

And while you’re at it, you might want to ask him why you’re so concerned with scolding screenwriters for behavior you apparently find perfectly acceptable in directors and producers.

“Dear Mahatma,

Please stop with the hunger strike. I have a better idea. If you all just try to make friends with the British, they may, over time, decide to treat you like human beings.

Regards,

Craig Mazin”

we do not get paid for being nice people. We get paid because we create something out of nothing.

Do you know what that something is?

Here’s what the MBA says writers do:

“Write literary material where the Company has the right by contract to direct the writing or preparing of the material or making revisions, modifications or changes therein.”

You don’t have to be a nice guy to do that, true; but if you do that, and only that, then you are not going to be participating in any creative decisions regarding the film material, other than those you’ve made in the literary material; and all those decisions you’ve made in the literary material are subordinate to the Company’s decisions regarding the film material.

And what that means is that if writers want a voice in the creative decisions regarding the movie beyond the input represented by their writing, then they are going to have to be invited in.

It might be possible to make that invitation mandatory, as a term of employment — but just because you get invited to a party, it doesn’t mean anyone is going to ask you to dance.

But you can have all the snacks and punch you want, so feel free to graze the craft services table while other people go about making the movie.

-

Dear Josh:

Gandhi wasn’t getting paid six figures to write his speeches, but this analogy certainly was a fascinating insight into your self-image.

Ted,

It’s not a party. It’s a job. We don’t get invited because we’re likable, we get invited because we do a job well, just like everyone else. I’ve worked in this business for twenty years. If you want to peddle the notion that likability is the secret to power in Hollywood, peddle it to someone who just got off the bus.

I strongly resent Craig trying to make this about the personal behavior of writers. That’s a seperate issue, and one that isn’t really appropriate in a discussion of our professional rights.

Craig,

The fact that you make it about money is a fascinating insight into YOUR self-image. Inequity is inequity. If we’re going to play that utterly moronic game where we pretend not to understand what an analogy is, count me out.

Writers are the visionaries who create the stories. Everyone else - as important, as lovely, and as brilliant as they are - is there to implement that vision. You’ve spent so long eating the humble pie you prescribe for others, that you’ve lost sight of that. Saying that the best way for us to get the respect we absolutely and undeniably deserve is to be likable is creepy in a fellow writer, unacceptable in a representative elected to fight for my professional rights.

Josh:

I wasn’t elected to the Board to fight for your professional rights. I was elected to help set policy for a labor union. We all pay a staff. It’s their job to fight for your professional rights.

As such, I don’t give a sweet damn what you find unacceptable.

That aside, it is about money to me. That’s why I accept certain inequities in business. In the business of the screen trade, I accept that I have less influence and power than any one person on the planet, including the mentally retarded, that have one hundred million dollars to spend on the financing of a film.

That doesn’t mean I’m not interested in improving my non-financial treatment. I am. You can strongly resent that I believe writers are partially responsible for their own fate, and we can all argue over whether or not that makes you or me more of a fan of writers.

Again, though…sweet damn, don’t give one.

Because I accept certain things that you don’t, I chart a pratical course for gains. I’m not an idealist. I’m not an artist. I’m not a special person who wants to change the world. I’m not Malcolm X, and I’m not Martin Luther King. I’m a working professional seeking to get what I can, how I can. I reject anger and self-righteousness, because I find them ineffective for my situation.

The analogy you provided is flawed, because we are not fighting for basic human rights. Ergo, we have no true moral capital to expend. The reason people didn’t want Gandhi to die was not because they cared about him. They didn’t want Gandhi to die because they feared what it would say about them.

There is nothing for anyone to fear about the currrent moral mistreatment of screenwriters, nor will there ever be as long as screenwriters get paid more than the average American. Moral outrage must be felt by more than the victim for it to be a useful tool.

That said, this is my tao. You have yours. I wish you the best. You’ve been working in this business twice as long as I have. Maybe I’ll think like you in ten years. Ya never know.

The point of it all is to get us closer to a place where writers are respected and treated as the primary creative force they are. We’re not going to get there if our collective position is “We need to be more likable.”

Making it about the money is foolish. The money pours from the sky in this town.

You’re pointing everything in the wrong direction. If you want to do something productive with your attitude, re-direct it. MAKE it about the money thusly (and more realistically) - Do good work, and the money will come. You say if we’re nice and likable, we won’t need rules that force producers to invite us into the creative process. I’ll turn that around and say that if we’re good at the job, the money will take care of itself.

Even when I was struggling in the world of non-Guild, straight to video crap, I never got paid less than Guild minimum, and usually got paid more. I did good work. Those battles weren’t tough. You know the battles that are tough? Getting producers and directors and studios to acknowledge that the writer is one of the - if not THE - primary visionaries of the whole damn thing, even if you’re the most likable guy in the world (Which - and this might shock you - I am). Doesn’t matter HOW much they like you, the system stlll plugs along on the assumption that we’re interchangable.

You’re so close to getting it, it’s painful. You’re right - we ARE paid more than the average American. That’s why it’s inane to make it about the money. It’s not about the money. Never has been. Never will be.

I hate to break it to you, but we’re artists, Craig. Creators. Visionaries. Even you, much as you’re loathe to accept the mantle. Buy into the lie that we’re just bricklayers, and you really don’t need to fight anymore. You’ve already lost.

Josh —

You refuted my metaphor … by restating exactly what I said in my post?

Of course writing in Hollywood is a job — and the MBA description I quoted is the minimum requirement someone must fulfill in order to get paid.

You seem to confuse “in order to increase the creative rights of writers in Hollywood, writers need to take on greater creative responsibilities and do more than just the rock-bottom minimum necessary to get paid” with “writers should be likable so people will throw them a fucking scrap.”

So … the only thing you can think of that writers can do other than the rock-bottom minimum to get paid is … be nicer?

That’s an attitude I just don’t understand.

Of course, I also don’t understand how anyone could think that “Writers don’t get the respect they’re due in Hollywood!” is some kind of revolutionary idea, and saying it over and over will bring about real change.

Of course writers don’t get the respect they’re due in Hollywood. We all know it. Now: what should we do about it?

No, yeah — I know, “writers don’t get the respect they’re due in Hollywood,” right — wait, yeah, you said that, we all agree with — okay, I’ll wait … Done? Right, then what do we — wow. You’re saying it again. That’s kind of — oh, man. Wait, wait. Is saying that over and over your entire strategy for changing the system — oh.

Okay, I guess it is.

Writers don’t get the respect their due in Hollywood.

Hm .. nothing’s changed.

Guess you should say it again.

“Insanity: doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results” - Albert Einstein

-

I have to say, I don’t understand how you could read what I write and assume that my advice is to be likeable.

I’ll quote my post again.

That’s why my personal crusade has been to try and move professional screenwriters away from standing on these rights and demanding them like Norma Rae, and move screenwriters toward practical real-life solutions that actually improve the relationship between them, the employers and the director.

Practical real-life solutions. Not “begging to be liked.” Frankly, half of my real-life solutions involve stepping on some toes. Being the boss.

I produced my last movie. I assure you, “being nice” wasn’t part of the gig.

“Producing” was, though.

You write:

You know the battles that are tough? Getting producers and directors and studios to acknowledge that the writer is one of the - if not THE - primary visionaries of the whole damn thing, even if you’re the most likable guy in the world (Which - and this might shock you - I am).

You know, this should really concern you. See, I don’t have any problem at all getting the director and studio to acknowledge that I am one of the (if not the) primary visionaries of the movies I write. And I’m not that nice. Honestly. You are nice, and you’re apparently being treated less than ideally.

So, again…my problem is…what?

There’s a part of what I do that’s artistic, to be sure. This site isn’t about that. My advice to aspiring writers and other professionals isn’t about that either. I leave most of that stuff to people whose artistry is more impressive than mine (like Ted and Terry’s WordPlayer).

This site was very intentionally named The ARTFUL Writer, as opposed to the Artistic Writer or the Artsy Writer or the Artist Writer.

Artful. Clever or skillful, typically in a crafty or cunning way.

That’s me. That’s what I think needs to be cultivated in writers. In fact, I think your way of viewing our profession is precisely what needs to be challenged…because I think your way of viewing our profession is precisely what prevents so many of us (and apparently you?) from receiving the treatment we want.

JOSH:

What I find most compelling about your argument is your lack of it. Just to make sure I wasn’t caught in a temperal time flux, I went back and re-read all of your posts in the “History of Debate” article.

Nope. I’m not crazy. You just say the same thing over and over again.

You’ve made only 2 points in a series of over 40 posts. “The Film By credit is wrong and Writers are treated unfairly”

But whenever you’ve been asked to come up with any type of realistic solution, your answer has always been just to state your point in a louder tone, pepper it with insults, and make the occassional analogy to people who have fought for civil liberties. And by the way, we all get what an analogy is. We just reject the fallacy of the particular ones that you make.

Martin Luther King Jr. aside, I notice that in this particular case you continue to dimiss the legal definition of a Writer for a Feature Film; therfore making your argument a non-argument.

The point is this, when Writers have more input on a Feature Film it can make the product better. Employers, whether it be Producers or Studio Executives don’t really see it that way and we have to work to change that perception. But to just expect it by screaming about doesn’t really work now, does it?

Fact is, if certain people on a film had more input it could make a film better. God knows I’ve seen productions that could’ve benefitted if the production team worked a bit more closely with the Script Supervisor.

Nowhere in the definition of a Screenwriter does it say that you are entitled to certain rights for a film after you’ve already sold your copyright. Again, the final outcome of said film would probably be better if the writer had more creative input but you’re certainly not guaranteed those rights as an employee.

So yes, in order to gain rights in which you were never guaranteed, you’ll probably have to do more than just the job you were hired for. As a Writer who directs and produces, I’m looked at much differently when I’m just working as a writer. The perception of who I am as a creative entity has changed because I worked on the side of the desk that actually is guaranteed certain rights.

Now I’ll just wait for you to call me an idiot, a sell out, or a slave master and then you can boldly type out the words: WRITERS ARE TREATED UNFAIRLY!!

Ted,

“So … the only thing you can think of that writers can do other than the rock-bottom minimum to get paid is … be nicer?

That’s an attitude I just don’t understand.”

Me neither. Good thing I never said that.

I’m objecting to several things in Craig’s post:

A) He says we need to be more affable

B) He says we need to do more than “just” write, ie: producing.

To stick with the labor analogy, it’s like telling spot welders that the best way for them to become architects. Or, more appropriately, it’s like telling architects they need to become spot welders.

Craig,

�You know, this should really concern you. See, I don�t have any problem at all getting the director and studio to acknowledge that I am one of the (if not the) primary visionaries of the movies I write. And I�m not that nice. Honestly. You are nice, and you�re apparently being treated less than ideally.�

This goes to the heart of the problem, Craig. I�m not talking about my personal experience. I AM a likeable fuck; I�m extremely talented, and I�m very well liked by the folks I work with, and well treated. I�m writing, producing and directing my next project. But, unlike you, I�m able to distinguish between my experience and the common one. I know that I�m fortunate enough to have a combination of skills that allow me to navigate these waters in a smoother fashion than many others. I�m fortunate enough that the only thing I need my Guild to do for me is make sure my health insurance is active.

But I ALSO know that a lot of the benefits I enjoy come from the fact that I have a combination of skills that make it all a bit easier for me. It would never in a million years occur to me to advise writers, as a group, that they have to learn another skill if they want to see their work done properly. That�s nuts.

There are screenwriters out there whose understanding of cinematic storytelling dwarfs that of all of us here and who have no desire - let alone ability - to direct or produce. Hey, fuck’ em. They need to learn that shit. Just writing ain’t enough.

We�re writers. This is the Writers Guild we�re talking about. Not the Writer/Producer/Directors Guild. The very act of telling a writer that he�s �just� a writer shows monumental disrespect for the art and the work.

Why aren�t you out there telling directors and producers that they should become writers?

You guys are asking for solutions, asking for a way to gain more respect in the industry. I�m saying we can�t even begin to discuss solutions until we get to a place where WRITERS respect writers.

Josh —

There’s nothing in Craig’s post that says “be affable.” That’s an idea you introduced, so you’re the guy who has take credit for it.

Re: your analogy: if the spot welder wants greater influence over the final building then he has as a spot welder, there’s two options:

Be a spot welder whose abilities including and beyond spot-welding are valued by architects and contractors.

Be a spot welder and an architect or a contractor — which requires the spot-welder to have or develop abilities beyond spot-welding.

Leaving behind this analogy for the real thing:

We agree that filmmaking is a collaborative medium.

We agree that when a film requires a screenplay, the writer is one of the primary partners in the collaboration.

Now, a postulate:

In the collaborative relationship required to make a film, the writer must be responsible for two things:

1. His area of individual expertise

2. Fostering and ensuring the collaborative relationship in regards to his individual area of expertise.

So if a writer wants to have the greatest possible influence in the filmmaking process (as a writer and only a writer), the he/she must have or develop the ability to foster collaborative relationships beyond the ability to write.

Discuss.

-

Uh…yeah, where does Craig say that writers need to be nicer to get respect?

In fact, doesn’t Craig make a point in saying that he’s actually not that nice and that being nice has nothing to do with gaining creative rights?

“It would never in a million years occur to me to advise writers, as a group, that they have to learn another skill if they want to see their work done properly”

Well…thank God you’re not a union representative.

In any other occupation it’s pretty obvious that if you want more rights and responsibilities than the ones that you were originally hired for, you’ll have to expand your skill set in order to do so.

“It would never in a million years occur to me to advise writers, as a group, that they have to learn another skill if they want to see their work done properly”

When you sell your copyright to be exploited into a feature film, nowhere in the contract does it ensure that “your work be done properly”. If you want those type of assurances, I suggest you get into producing.

In Josh’s defense, he does have a valid point. No question, acting as a writer/producer is a wise path to take in the current system. But in endorsing that, we don’t want to wave the white flag for writers who “just” write. Working within the current system is good, but so is trying to change it.

(That said, I’m attaching myself as producer whenever humanly possible.)

Kevin,

Like Craig, you’ve had the phrase “just a writer” pounded into your head for so long, you’ve lost sight of what it is that writers do.

And if a union rep’s solution to the problems facing writers is, “You people need to learn a seperate trade,” I humbly suggest that that union rep is a quisling of the lowest sort and warrants repeated acts of violence upon their person.

Ted,

You write:

In the collaborative relationship required to make a film, the writer must be responsible for two things:

1.  His area of individual expertise

2.  Fostering and ensuring the collaborative relationship in regards to his individual area of expertise.

So if a writer wants to have the greatest possible influence in the filmmaking process (as a writer and only a writer), the he/she must have or develop the ability to foster collaborative relationships beyond the ability to write.

Plays are equally collaborative endeavors, and yet somehow, folks have managed to mount productions of Shakespeare for hundreds of years without Bill having to show up at the theater and deal with the overtime demands of the stage manager.

Your statement that a writer must be responsible for “Fostering and ensuring the collaborative relationship in regards to his individual area of expertise” is an assumption that gives up the battle before it’s even begun.

Yes. That’s the way things are. It is not necessarily the way things ought to be. If you WANT to do all that - and I stand here as someone who does, but resents the fact that even if I didn’t want to, I’d have to - you should be free to. But why is it enough for a playwright to “just” write a great play, but not enough for a screenwriter to “just” write a great screenplay?

(And just to save us some time - “Because that’s how it is” is not a valid response. Once upon a time - and this is just to piss off the analogy illiterate PCtards in the audience - segregated toilets was the way things were. Today’s How It Is is tomorrow’s How It Was. Choose your own analogy if you can’t bear the thought of professional inequities being compared to social ones.)

Josh:

“But why is it enough for a playwright to “just” write a great play, but not enough for a screenwriter to “just” write a great screenplay?”

For someone who’s been in the business for 20 years I thought the answer would be obvious.

Screenwriters sell their copyrights.

Playwrights exploit their copyrights.

Without going into the old Screenwriters vs. Playwrights argument, that is why screenwriters aren’t guaranteed certain rights.

Plays are equally collaborative endeavors, and yet somehow, folks have managed to mount productions of Shakespeare for hundreds of years without Bill having to show up at the theater and deal with the overtime demands of the stage manager.

Yes, you could use the word “collaborative” to describe a play but if you think a stage play and a movie are the same type of endeavor I’ll make a bet that you’ve never wrote a play and had it produced.

Like Craig, you’ve had the phrase “just a writer” pounded into your head for so long, you’ve lost sight of what it is that writers do.

Um…I’ve never uttered the phrase “just a writer” in my entire life. I know exactly what writers do. Writers write. Bees bee. Bears bear. It’s pretty simple.

And if a union rep’s solution to the problems facing writers is, “You people need to learn a seperate trade,” I humbly suggest that that union rep is a quisling of the lowest sort and warrants repeated acts of violence upon their person.

Again, no one said “learn a separate trade”. I think the idea is to expand your skill set. Learning a separate trade insinuates leaving the business to do something else.

Kevin

I understand the legal rationale, thanks. Not the issue.

As for theater, I have not had my own work mounted, but I have been involved in the production of plays, and the differences are purely technical, not related to this discussion a bit.

As for this:

“Learning a separate trade insinuates leaving the business to do something else.”

“Learning a seperate trade” means exactly what it says. Producing is a seperate trade from writing. Directing is a seperate trade from writing.

Josh:

Try and type your comments directly into the comment box. If you type them first in Word, the smart quotes and such get garbled.

Anyway, you wrote:

Why aren’t you out there telling directors and producers that they should become writers?

I’m not out there talking about that because I don’t believe I have enough legitimacy as a producer and director to advise other producers and directors on how to best optimize their careers and relationships with their employers.

That aside, I absolutely believe that directors should write. And producers should write. And director/producer/writers will, pound for pound, wield more power than their counterparts.

Funny, screenwriters are always complaining that they’re treated poorly, but television writers are treated so well.

Guess what television writers also are, Josh?

Producers.

See, your problem is that you believe there are certain entitlements that come with the gift of being a writer.

There are…just not the ones you think there ought to be.

Because you completely misunderstand how producing can work for writers, you get lost in bizarre concerns about the management of overtime and other minutia. Generally speaking, we hire other people (UPM’s) to handle that stuff.

Here were my shared duties as a producer of my last film.

Supervise/approve development of the script. Supervise/approve casting. Supervise/approve production design. Supervise/approve wardrobe. Supervise/approve locations. Supervise/approve visual effects. Supervise/approve special effects.

Attend all shooting. Screen all dailies. Attend all test screenings.

Supervise/approve editing. Supervise/approve mixing. Supervise/approve color timing.

Consult on budget. Consult on marketing.

None of those tasks fall under “screenwriting.” None. You might want them too. That’s fine. Wish in one hand, shit in the other…see which one fills up first.

As it goes, though…as it has always gone…those tasks are not screenwriting. They honestly shouldn’t be. Screenwriting is the creation of literary material for use in film production.

The stuff I’ve listed above isn’t.

The stuff I’ve listed above does, however, fall under the heading of “control.”

So sure, I think that if screenwriters want more control, they should produce or direct in addition to writing. Duh. Of course.

And sure, I think that if you get more control, then you will be extended courtesies and access freely, rather than because of a contractual obligation. And sure, I think volunteered access and courtesy is more pleasurable and meaningful then obligated access and courtesy.

I have news for you…the life of a playwright isn’t what you think it is. They get rewritten too (see “doc” Simon), they get mistreated too, they get ignored too, and they get exploited too.

What you seem to what, Josh, is the freedom to write a screenplay, assign authorship of that screenplay to a corporate entity in exchange for hundreds of thousands of dollars, and then participate in the production of that screenplay as you wish.

Hey, me too! But just wanting it hasn’t really been enough to make it happen for me, so I’ve been advising this other route.

If your route (which is…insisting?…complaining?…marching?) works for you, I’ll be the first to copy it.

Ted,

I wouldn’t characterize what writers do, either for screen or for tv or for theatre, as spot-welding. I think it’s a greater contribution than that - to me, we’re the architect of the story. We design it and someone else builds it.

There is a LOAD of empirical evidence supporting the proposition that writers are often exploited and I don’t mean in a way that benefits the writer (free rewrites, no payments, etc) so I find it interesting that anyone is actually arguing with Josh that writers are treated the way we should be. That’s the whole point of the post, after all. And why we need a union (playwrights don’t have one and we really need one).

Josh’s point is that, whether we work to get along with the powers that be or not doesn’t necessarily translate into equitable respect and voice.

I did get from Craig that we need to try harder to get along (I believe his words were, work together) and while I understand that point and agree with it, in part - I think writers would love to work hand in hand with the powers that be. I don’t necessarily feel that the powers that be would like to work equally with writers … not when they have all the power. Why should they?

It’s why I asked Craig what can we do once said union rules are broken by a studio (and we know that they have been and still are, shoot, I’ve seen coverage myself) and how we can hold them, and ourselves, to an acceptable code of behavior not just for them but for the writers as well.

So I see Josh’s point. I see Craig’s point, too - but I really think nothing will happen until we make it happen, not because we try to get along - writers are not viewed as equal creative partners yet and I think it’s a shame that we have to direct a film in order to get respect as a writer. It’s okay if one wants to direct or produce, but not everyone does.

Just my two cents, of course, and I’m still a tyro in some respects.

And I’m not gonna mix it up with Kevin, he’s already arguing with one Josh -

Craig,

I don’t believe everyone who writes for television produces it. Primarily it’s the showrunner’s job, if I recall, but not all the writers on staff produce.

Josh:

There are executive producers, producers, co-execs, associate producers…story executives…TV’s got a hundred writer-producer positions.

Anyway, you asked a question that really caught my eye here.

I don’t necessarily feel that the powers that be would like to work equally with writers … not when they have all the power. Why should they?

My answer shall be the next post for the blog.

Josh —

Ah, the Shakespeare card. The last refuge of the screenwriter who sees a movie as a recording of a spoken-word performance of a written work, rather than a different work in a different medium based upon a written work.

First, Shakespeare was a producer. Owned and ran a theater company, remember? He did exactly what you pillory Craig for suggesting writers should do: be more than a writer; he had abilities beyond those of a writers, the position that you threw the Shakespeare card to rebut.

Second, how many performances of any one Shakespeare play have there been? Hundreds of thousands? Millions? Think every single one of those performances was exactly the performance Shakespeare intended? Try looking up the etymology of the word “bowderlize” or the history of the melodrama; see if you think Shakespeare would have been happy a lot of the performances of plays credited to his pen.

Most screenplays will be produced once; and that one production will, for all intents and purposes, transplants the screenplay.

Oh, sure, someone could still read the screenplay as written; could even read it aloud; even get a group of someones to read each part aloud, on a stage, with sets and props — but that would a live performance, and not film production.

Film production means: one chance to get it right, or the chance is gone. There’s not a lot of do-overs in the film industry (there’s re-shoots, but those are precipitated by the lack of something in the screenplay or the footage, not because the spoken-word performance of the screenplay that was recorded was less-than-perfect, and needs to performed and recorded again).

If the writer wants to write his screenplay and then leave the responsibility of adapting it into a different medium to others, then he must be willing to accept the decisions others make in creating that adaptation, even when they are decisions he would never have made in a million years — like shooting entirely different scenes than the ones he wrote.

If a writer wants to collaborate with others in creating the adaptation of the screenplay into a different medium, then he’s got to be willing to take responsibility for fostering a collaborative relationship with those others.

You seem to be arguing in favor of the former, which is exactly the job of “writer” as defined by the MBA, while simultaneously complaining about the way writers are treated, even though writers are by-and-large treated in precise accordance with the MBA.

Which why your refrain of “Writers don’t get the respect they’re due in Hollywood!” rings hollow: you want all the rights of a filmmaker as a writer, but you don’t think writers should take any of the responsibility for actually making the film.

It’s poor form to complain that things should change all the while arguing they should stay the same.

-

“It’s poor form to complain that things should change all the while arguing they should stay the same.”

With all due respect, that’s not what I was arguing at all. (Unless you were talking about the other Josh, bre Olson).

I simply wonder how we can enforce rules when writers are viewed as simply disposable, as much as they are now, in the process of making a film. I certainly don’t want things to stay the same, I think writers should have more of the very rights Craig talks about in his post. I don’t think J. Olson disagrees with Craig on what we need, I think he disagrees on how to get what we need in turms of equity and respect.

I simply wondered how to enforce said rules and mentioned that I think Josh has made some good poinits.

It certainly is true that writers are often not treated well or equitably - there may well be movies without writers, but there is not story unless a writer writes one.

No one would argue that the writer is on par with a director. They are not equals, even though the director is often hired by the same company that hires the writer.

I believe that the writer is as important to the creation of a good film as a director. I don’t say that to take anything away from what a good director can do - just that good writing is as important as good shooting.

Don’t you think that the contribution of a good writer when it comes to story is worthy of equal time and consideration? Don’t you think good writers are often unnecessarily marginalized when they could be making good contributions to the final product, be it film or play? I’ve seen writers marginalized.

This happens in theatre too - playwrights are treated very foul oftentimes. It’s why we need a union there.

And can I add, if you were talking to me and not brother Olson, that I don’t think I brought up the Bard in my post. It’s true he produced theatre as well as wrote it, but I produce theatre too, or did before I got into writing this other stuff that’s taking up so much of my time - it’s fun and you learn a lot about yourself, but it’s not for everyone.

Your mention of medium is interesting - it’s true that a play can be done again and again, but really, so can a film. How many remakes do we have this year?

You’re right that theatre is a different medium than film, but TV is also a different medium from film as well. In my experiece, playwrights write stories to be performed, which is not so different from what screenwriters do, or staff television writers do.

They’re all stories to be performed by actors, lit by lighting designers and blocked out by directors.

The only difference between the three is the role the audience plays, in my opinion. A play is done live because that’s how it connects to its audience. MI3 is in the cinema because that’s where Tom’s audience is and LOST is on our ipods because that’s where its audience is.

I strongly believe plays are different from film only in terms of audience - I’m sure I’ll get roasted for that statement (I can already hear Kevin licking his chops) but it’s my experience. You can even do an action movie (and that has been done, it’s running in chicago).

Novelists write stories to be read. I write stories to be performed and in that way feel no different from you or Craig or Kevin or brother Olson.

Is your position such that, even though writers write the stories, they don’t understand the medium of film and should just get out of the way?

As the architects of the story, I think writers would have valuable insight in the transfer of anything to another medium. The Wedding Singer just opened on Broadway (not gonna get into that right now, my thoughts on that particular subject) and one of the screenwriters of the original film helped adapt it into a musical for that medium. He worked on it, just as Brooks worked on The Producers for Broadway. They were the original writers and they helped move their story into the next medium in the best, most efficient way possible for that venue and audience.

Why cannot writers who write screenplays do the same for movies?

Joshua —

The “spot-welder = writer” analogy was Josh Olson’s, not mine; I simply continued the debate as he chose to frame it. It seemed an odd analogy to me, too, particularly since he’d previously analogized writers to Gandhi; but Josh’s arguing style is rhetorical, rather than reasoned..

That aside, here’s what’s interesting:

Josh’ point (paraphrased): Equitable respect and voice cannot be ensured by the writer’s behavior.

Craig’s point (paraphrased): Equitable respect and voice cannot be ensured by the writer’s contract.

Both are true statements.

Here’s another true statement:

Equitable respect and voice is not ensured by the writer’s work.

This is the real source of the disagreement.

According to Josh, any suggestion as to what writers can do to better ensure equitable respect and voice other than “by their writing” is the same as saying that the work of writers does not deserve of equitable respect and voice.

Hence: Craig’s suggestion that, in order for writer to get the equitable respect and voice they deserve, they should also work as producers is an attack on writers.

My suggestion that, in order for writers to get the equitable respect and voice they deserve, they should develop the ability to collaborate with others is an attack on writers.

The only acceptable remedy to the problem writers not having the equitable respect and voice their writing deserves is to demand that writers get equitable respect and voice for their writing. Period.

Which does not really solve the problem, but it’s not our problem; it’s everyone else in the industry’s problem, so let them take the responsibility for solving it.

-

I don’t disagree the statement that writers should learn to collaborate - which I take to me, communicate about the goals of the work, etc (which Craig brought up) - I think it’s absolutely necessary -

My point is, it’s not a collaboration unless they (being the producers, directors, etc) agree to it to.

Too often collaboration means, I’ll tell you what I want and not listen to what you think about the work -

I know Craig has a post brewing on this subject which will address the question I raised earlier, but I don’t think the issue isn’t that writers (like Josh) don’t want to collaborate with studio types, I think a lot of writers can and would like to - I think too often the powers that be do not collaborate and no matter how accommodating (or bitter) a writer is fairly disposable. They have all the power, oftentimes, and by opening up to collaboration it is feared that power will be lost.

Now before someone says, “They hired the writer! Why should they collaborate with the writer?”

Because in the end everyone will make more money that way. In that I agree with you and Craig, it is better if we all work together. It just seems that oftentimes that doesn’t seem to be the case with those in power and I don’t see why that would change just because writers make the effort to be more collaborative. Like revenues from DVD’s, why should they give it to writers just because writers want it? They don’t get anything from giving writers something like that, in fact, it’s money out of their pockets.

Again, this is all just my thoughts and opinion and nothing more.

I read this and my head exploded.

“If you want to post on here and have a specific point of view, be an adult and don’t post under “Anonymous or Fan”. Posted by Kevin Arbouet on 2/9/06 from the History of Debate II”

Anonymous & everyone else who has been listening/reading,( being in agreement with Kevin, I happen to loathe anonymous, but it afforded a great intro. to the song below…)

Tell me you too are not filled with the song below while jamming through the posts as the big boys slug it out!

Now this is sooo worth learning from ring side as the blood spatters all over my wife-beater and white lace boy-shorts!(size small)

“yeah, yeah the boys are back in town, the boys are back in toooooownnnnnnnnn.”

xoxoLL

Ted,

“Ah, the Shakespeare card. The last refuge of the screenwriter who sees a movie as a recording of a spoken-word performance of a written work, rather than a different work in a different medium based upon a written work.”

It’s a big refuge, and I have no doubt that one or two of the countless throng here are the sort of abject morons you describe. Law of averages. However, the rest of us see a movie as the reflection of the writer’s vision. The more accurate the reflection, the better the movie. I’ve said it for years (I just discovered last night that Ring Lardner said the same thing a long, long time ago, which proves nothing except that the truth has been evident for quite some time), but in the history of film, the number of movies that have been better than the screenplay can be counted on the fingers of one hand. For all the yappity flap flap about who does what, a great director and a great cast with a shite script can’t make a great movie. A decent director with a decent cast and a great script can make a great movie. We aren’t just another one of the cogs in the machine. We are the least interchangeable piece of the equation, and we are viewed as the most. Great, yeah, DVD residuals will change all of that. I can’t wait.

I don’t know about you, Ted, but as a writer, I work in film, not a different medium. I write movies, not just dialogue. I design visuals, I edit, I cast, and sometimes I even score, and I do it all on the page.

The problem with squabbling over scraps is that over time, one loses sight of where the meal is. So long as writers, as a group, are unwilling to take responsibility for their place in the creative chain, nothing real’s gonna change. So long as writers, as a group, are afraid to stand up for the primal rights of “just” writers, and treat this job like it’s bricklaying, all of these discussions are completely academic.

It seems as if the production companies have us in a pinch. If all the screenwriters would go on strike and demand more and better rights, Hollywood would make no money. Not one cent. If they didn’t cave in to our demands they would eventually go bankrupt. However, since we work for them, we would also be screwing ourselves over. We would have our beloved rights, but we would have no jobs. Besides the fact that it would be an impossible task to keep all the screenwriters and prospective screenwriters from writing scripts and sending them in.

Josh:

You “score?”

Oh my sweet Lord. Unless you include staffed pages with time signatures, notes and instrumental arrangement along with the other pages of your script, then no you don’t. You don’t score any more than composers write scenes. Try to avoid saying things like that in public. It reflects poorly on the rest of us.

Ring Lardner was as wrong about movies rarely being better than their scripts as he was about the Soviet Union and communism.

Why? Because scripts and movies simply aren’t qualitatively comparable. They’re not on the same continuum. They are two different modes of communication and storytelling. I could make a similar statement that movies are rarely better than their pitches…or movies are rarely better than their storyboards…or movies are rarely better than their novelizations…

Sadly, you and Ring think the movie is, by nature, a diminished reflection of the screenplay, which perhaps explains your almost limitless supply of anger and frustration with the movie business.

I rarely say this, but in your situation, I’m starting to think that your emotions are punishment for your beliefs.

“Try to avoid saying things like that in public. It reflects poorly on the rest of us.”

Pretty much how I feel about the column that started all of this, Craig. My comments only reflect badly to people who believe writers are just links in the chain, creative typists.

“Ring Lardner was as wrong about movies rarely being better than their scripts as he was about the Soviet Union and communism.”

As a writer, you’re a lifetime or three from being in Lardner’s league. I’ll take his creative insights over yours any day of the week. As a political thinker, being a supporter of Bush’s war, you’re hardly in a position to criticize anyone.

“Because scripts and movies simply aren’t qualitatively comparable. They’re not on the same continuum. They are two different modes of communication and storytelling.”

Well, frankly, no. You haven’t got the slightest clue as to what you’re talking about. Not even the first glimmering hint. Is this the kind of subliterate drool they’re teaching in film schools these days? No wonder movies suck.

“So long as writers, as a group, are afraid to stand up for the primal rights of “just” writers, and treat this job like it’s bricklaying, all of these discussions are completely academic.”

Craig, Ted, Kevin — verbal sparring aside, Josh’s core point seems valid. Do you guys not agree with him at all?

Josh — given your thinking, what concrete things would you suggest the WGA push for?

Josh:

Find me a writer here who thinks other writers are “creative typists.” I don’t even know what the phrase is meant to convey.

Josh, let’s stipulate that my relative lack of talent as a writer doesn’t disqualify me from evaluating Lardner’s statements about writing.

If you’re not willing to go with that latter stipulation, then I’m willing to accept that exceptional writing talent is necessary to disagree with Lardner or you. I’ll defer the rest of the debate to Ted, who is a better writer than you or Lardner.

In my humble, untalented opinion, of course.

See? Ted’s useful to this site after all.

Anyway, it’s amazing that you believe statements like “you don’t know what you’re talking about” don’t have to be followed by any sort of explanation as to why you think I don’t know what I’m talking about. Are you tired or something?

Happily, I never went to film school these days or any days, so I have no idea what they teach there.

Todd:

Josh’s core point is invalid, and I do not agree with him at all. Writers are willing to stand up for the primal rights of “just” writers.

Writers have struck a number of times for those rights. There is a long-standing committee at the WGA that I believe I will be joining soon that does nothing but lobby the companies for improvements and additions to those primal rights.

Writers have repeatedly turned to the WGA when those rights have been ignored or violated, and the WGA has sought enforcement and redress. I’ve been one of those writers.

Josh is wrong, qed.

The problem for me is that Josh believes that writers have different “primal rights” than I believe they have, or Ted believes they have, or Kevin believes they have.

And so…we argue.

Todd,

“Josh — given your thinking, what concrete things would you suggest the WGA push for?”

Eradication of possessory credits, for one. Making some of those “suggestions” that Craig outlined in the beginning of all this requirements. Ensuring the writer’s presence on the set at all times. Ensuring that the director MUST meet with the writer and discuss the “vision.” For starters.

But Josh…seriously…duh.

I mean it. DUH. What do you think the CPSW (Committee for the Professional Status of Screenwriters) does? Precisely what you suggest.

The point of my article was not that we shouldn’t keep striving to make improvements in these areas via the CPSW, but that it also behooves us to individually find practical ways to get those improvements now for ourselves.

Why can’t you maintain both of those thoughts in your head at the same time?

Craig,

“Josh, let’s stipulate that my relative lack of talent as a writer doesn’t disqualify me from evaluating Lardner’s statements about writing.”

Lardner is one of the undeniable greats. Neither you, Ted nor I can even think about making such a statement about ourselves, nor - I assume - would we. To dismiss his opinions on an art form that he contributed more to than all of us combined is churlish.

“Anyway, it’s amazing that you believe statements like “you don’t know what you’re talking about” don’t have to be followed by any sort of explanation as to why you think I don’t know what I’m talking about. Are you tired or something?”

Extremely. Your statement was the height of ludicroussness, and the notion that I have to craft a serious argument against it gives it a legitimacy it will never have.

“Find me a writer here who thinks other writers are “creative typists.” I don’t even know what the phrase is meant to convey.”

That’s surprising. Even more surprising that you haven’t heard it before.

So long as writers, as a group, are unwilling to take responsibility for their place in the creative chain, nothing real’s gonna change.

Are you talking about the creative chain that begins at the idea for a movie and ends at the version of the screenplay the writer wants made into a movie?

‘Cause I think writers, as a group, already take responsibility for their place in that creative chain.

However, if you’re talking about the creative chain that begins at the idea for a movie and ends at the produced movie that expresses that idea, then:

A _ That is exactly what Craig and I are talking about; and

B _ You have spent this entire discussion arguing vehemently against writers taking any more responsibility then they currently are given by the studios.

The screenwriter’s place in the creative chain from “idea for a movie” to “the produced movie expressing that idea” is as the expert on story and cinematic dramaturgy. The job of screenwriter is to forge from the various individual visions of the people necessary to make the movie — which includes himself, natch - a single collective vision of the movie’s underlying narrative … and that job exists through the entire course of production, right up until the reels are locked.

And, you’re right: until writers, as a group, are willing to take responsibility for their role in the creative chain, there’s not going to be real change … for writers as a group, that is.

Writers as individuals, its a different thing entirely.

-

Getting kind of hot in here, guys.

Todd —

Josh is the only person drawing an analogy between writers and bricklayers, just as he’s the one who drew an earlier analogy between writers and spot-welders.

As for writers, as a group, being unwilling to stand up for the “primal” rights of writers: Like Craig says, we have, and we continue to do so.

I don’t agree that diminishing the rights of directors is a “primal” right of writers. I would prefer to see the WGA negotiate for a writer’s possessive credit (something that I think we could win pretty easily, btw).

I do agree that writers should have the right to be on set throughout production, and I think that right could be won, also (although it would not likely be the ideal version of that right, at least, not right off the bat).

-

Josh wrote:

Lardner is one of the undeniable greats. Neither you, Ted nor I can even think about making such a statement about ourselves, nor - I assume - would we.

Oh, that’s quite right. I wouldn’t say it about myself, because it’s obviously not true and if ever were to become so, it would be lamely self-congratulatory.

I wouldn’t say it about you, because I don’t think it’s true.

I’d certainly say it about Ted and Terry though, even though they wouldn’t say it about themselves. Sorry, pal. They’re among the undeniable greats. They might not be the kind of writers that screenwriters tend to jerk off over, but they’re the kind of screenwriters I admire most. Aladdin, Shrek, Pirates of the Caribbean…yup. Works for me.

Anyway, back to substance.

Your statement was the height of ludicroussness, and the notion that I have to craft a serious argument against it gives it a legitimacy it will never have.

In other words…”uncle”.

“The screenwriter’s place in the creative chain from “idea for a movie” to “the produced movie expressing that idea” is as the expert on story and cinematic dramaturgy. The job of screenwriter is to forge from the various individual visions of the people necessary to make the movie — which includes himself, natch - a single collective vision of the movie’s underlying narrative … and that job exists through the entire course of production, right up until the reels are locked.”

But what about the five or six uncredited writers brought in for a rewrite done to pacify the new star or the incoming director or for just a fresh look because a new executive was added to the mix?

The simple argument is that writers are brought on for a fresh look because the original writer wasn’t up to snuff. I don’t think it’s often that simple, however. I think everyone knows that new writers are often thrown at projects for often random, unnecessary reasons that do not better the story. It seems to me that the writer’s place in the creative process isn’t valued and taking responsibility for that doesn’t lie with the writers but with those on the other side.

Is anyone arguing that studios / directors / prodcos are treating writers the way that they should treating them?

Brother Olson’s main point, at least what I got from it, is that what we do is at least as important as any other creative job in the process.

I don’t see how anyone can disagree with that.

Doing another job on the film, be it producing or directing, may be a way of protecting the writing particular to that project (I notice a lot of the original script nominees were all projects like that) but i fail to see how it, in the long run, improves upon the world view held by many that the writer of the film is disposable and unimportant.

Learning how to direct and produces helps the writer individually ONLY because directors and producers are considered more important than a mere writer.

So yeah, it’s a good thing for you to do if you want to protect your work. But it doesn’t do anything in terms of underlining the value of having a good writer on a set.

JOSH:

You have the “foaming at the mouth” singular notion that tends to cloud over any real opinion that you could possibly convey.

What strikes me as the most odd, however, is that all of the disparaging remarks about writers have come from you.

You are the one that brought up the whole concept of being amicable vs. getting more creative rights. No one else brought it up. Just you.

You are the one who made the comparison of bricklayers as screenwriters. You again.

The spotwelding analogy? Yep, look in the mirror.

Again, everyone agrees that Writers should have more creative rights so a movie could possibly be better. I say “possibly” because more involvement from a writer trying to make a movie better won’t necessarily always make it better. This is not a math equation and to tout absolutes would betray my experience in this business. But yeah, Writers definitely, definitely, need more creative rights.

The problem I have with your opinion is the mine field of shit that goes with it. You can’t seem to express your obvious love of writing without disparaging the other creative positions on a film. To say things like, “I design visuals, I edit, I cast, and sometimes I even score… is disrespectful to every Production Designer, Editor, Casting Director, and Composer who has ever worked on a film. It’s truly a ridiculous statement, something I’m guessing you never wrote and if you don’t then that truly makes you the biggest hippocrite on the face of the planet.

Because then your argument is actually not Writers Should Have More Creative Rights. It really becomes Writers Should Have More Creative Rights And Fuck Anyone Else Because I’m The Writer, That’s Right, The Fucking Writer, Now Move Aside Shitheads. And that’s a pretty destructive, no, fucking stupid opinion to have. You want films to be more collaborative but then you denigrate the other people who work on a film?

Any writer who believes that truly should just be a bricklayer.

And yes, that was to Josh not you Joshua.

Craig,

I find you have a knack for taking these discussions into realms wherein the only possible response is to say things of a personal nature I do not wish to say. If the only conceivable way for you to continue this is to discuss the merits of the work being done by the various participants, I’ll leave you to that particular mudbath. There are depths I simply do not feel like sinking to at the moment. But when you slag off the giants who came before, or - even more hilariously - their politics, you make it tempting.

Setting that aside, the issue remains the same. There is a subtext in everything you write here that betrays your attitude to writers. It would be annoying enough if you were just someone who wrote a blog that was read by a lot of aspirants, but coming from someone who is theoretically representing our - MY - interests, it needs to be confronted whenever and wherever possible.

For instance:

“Remember that right about “consultation on notes”? Well, apparently some studios were just handing some writers notes and refusing to discuss them further. Why would a studio ever do such a thing?

Probably because they had zero interest in that writer actually succeeding. The working relationship was bad. Now, thanks to our creative rights, they have to discuss the notes with that writer.”

Your assumption - YOURS - is that this scenario most likely results from the writer being unpleasant to work with. The notion that many in the industry consider us disposable before we’ve even walked in the door, before we’ve taken a single meeting, before we’ve written a single word doesn’t seem to cross your mind. No, it’s because of bad personal relationships, which, as you hit a little harder later, is something we need to take responsibility for.

Now, I know you perceive all these things only through the lens of your own experience, and so, assume everyone else does as well. So if it makes you feel any better, I don’t have these problems. Didn’t have them much in the beginning, don’t have them at all now. But unlike you, I’m aware that that’s a result of my specific situation. And I still run into little things that give it all away. Here’s one -

Invites to the premiere of A History of Violence had a list inside that named the members of the “Premiere Committee” who were inviting you to the screening. The producers, the execs, the director, and most of the cast, down to the kid who played the bully were on the committee. No writer is mentioned.

So I call one of my guys at New Line, and I ask, “What’s up with this?” He has no idea, and he’s kinda pissed. So he calls around. Gets back to me - he spoke to someone in the department that runs this shit, and their response is simple - they never include the writer, because there are usually so many different writers on any movie, it’s easier to just leave them off.

Now, is this an example of me being personally assaulted and insulted and dismissed in a significant way? No. It’s kinda funny, actually. (And since you seem to miss this every time, I’ll say it explicitly - I was treated extremely well on AHOV. Few writers in this business have been lucky enough to have the experience I did, from beginning to end.) But it goes RIGHT to the heart of the matter. I’d never met the people who made that decision. They didn’t know me from Adam, and had we met, I’m sure we all would have agreed we’d each had a mutually satisfying social experience. But without a single thought towards what they were doing, or what they were saying, they had excised the sole writer of the movie from the list. Because that’s the way it’s done.

Now, in the grand scheme of things, whether or not the writer’s name is placed on the Premiere Committee list is so small that if you split it, you’d level Los Angeles. But what’s NOT small is the attitude behind it. The attitude behind it is enormous, and THAT is what the fight needs to be about.

My objection to your posts on these matters boils down to the fact that I’ve never seen you address the issue without making it about the loathsome personal or work habits of writers. Were you to tell the story of a writer being left off the premiere invite, the moral of the story would be, “Well, it was probably due to bad personal relations.”

And invariably, the specter of your own rather cushy gig looms large - If I can get this, anyone can, just by being like me. Here’s the thing, Craig - you and me, we live in the ivory tower every screenwriter dreams of. The difference between us is, I still look out the window. I know that I’m here because I’m in at least the 98th percentile for everything you need in this business - talent, and luck being at the top of that chart. I know there are writers out there who are way better than I’ll ever be who will never catch the breaks I’ve caught because they don’t have the social skills, or they don’t actually have any desire to produce or direct, whose cinematic visions dwarf everyone else’s, but who will never see that vision fulfilled because not only does the business see them as just one of the cogs in the machine, but the people who represent their rights see them the same way.

And yes, your steel-eyed, square-jawed, steadfast refusal to ever be fashionable, or turn into one of those screenwriters who jerks off over the accepted canon remains as admirable, manly and heroic as ever. You are truly - and I say this will all love and respect - the Bill O’Reilly of screenwriters.

Kevin,

You make a fetching cheerleader.

Josh:

Wow.

As a writer I’m shocked that you don’t understand the concept of Context.

“Remember that right about “consultation on notes”? Well, apparently some studios were just handing some writers notes and refusing to discuss them further. Why would a studio ever do such a thing?

“Probably because they had zero interest in that writer actually succeeding. The working relationship was bad. Now, thanks to our creative rights, they have to discuss the notes with that writer.”

Now why would you assume that Craig was saying that the Writer was to blame? The entire article was about Employers treating Writers unfairly. It’s obvious that he was talking about Studios being the one to blame. Are you sure you actually read these posts or do you just scan them looking for buzz words?

You’re basically saying that Writers shouldn’t have to ask for these rights. You’re saying that Writers should be respected as an important part to the making of a successful movie, right?

And you know what?

You’re right. But unfortunately, that’s not how it is and if you want things to change, you’ll have to actively create change.

Now, I’m Black. Which basically means that I’m always described as a Black Writer, or a Black Producer, or a Black Director. Now I don’t think that’s right. Why should I always have that little qualifier before my job? And every time I want to do something, the assumption is that it will ALWAYS be some sort of Urban project. Urban of course being the politically correct euphamism for Black. It’s not right. But it’s also reality. That’s where I live…in reality. And I know if I want to be viewed differently I have to work that much harder to be viewed as an equal to my fine Jewish counterparts.

But instead of just laying down screaming, “WHY ME?! OH, WHY ME?!!”, I actively work on projects that are completely color blind and expanded my skill sets to be seen differently. Maybe you should do the same.

You are truly - and I say this will all love and respect - the Nancy Kerrigan of screenwriters.

Josh,

You make a fetching jester.

Kevin,

The crux of Craig’s argument has been that writers NEED to learn to collaborate and work with others - not that the other side is or isn’t willing to work with us, but that the reason we don’t have the rights and experiences we deserve is because we often miserable bastards who bitch and moan. If we were easier to get along with, we’d be seen as more valuable to the creative process of the film.

Now Craig’s not wrong in that writers should be collaborative, in that I agree with him, but where I disagree (as noted above) is that the responsibilty of negative nature of the relationship rests completely on writers.

It doesn’t. Which is why we need a union, after all, because otherwise we’d be working for company script rather than dollars and residuals.

Writers are viewed very often as disposable, I’ve made that point again and again and that’s the problem, really. No one can really argue that they’re not, rather it’s projected that we are viewed as disposable because we don’t direct or produce.

I direct and produce, but I’m primarily a writer and I will state again and again that writing a script and doing it well is as important as directing and producing. One shouldn’t have to do one in order to protect the writing, but that’s how it is, now, and there’s something wrong with that paridigm, in my opinion.

It’s gotten awful personal, this debate, and maybe that’s unavoidable because we all take what we do very seriously. But I find it difficult to believe that writers are marginalized simply because we are hard to get along with. I think it’s about power, in this case, the power to make the creative decisions necessary for the final product - those in power, be they director, producer or studio head, have it and power is something that is almost never given away, even to those that deserve it.

We are all writers here and I find it interesting that the main conflict of the argument is how important we are to the process of making a film.

A good script is necessary for a good film. Can anyone argue otherwise?

I think too many here think that only the idea matters, not the writing and by that process of elimination, not the writer.

Kevin,

A couple things. First, I find it more than a little odd that someone who has taken umbrage at the political incorrectness of my comparing the struggle of writers with the civil rights struggle would make the comment you made about Jewish writers.

Second, there’s a reason I usually don’t respond to you - you don’t seem to grasp a word you read. Your entire response to me consists of career advice to someone who is whining about his own mistreatment. I have gone out of my way to make it clear that I am not complaining about my own situation. I’ve made it abundantly clear that one of my issues with Craig is he seems to think that his situation is one easily acheived by most writers. I do not make that mistake. If I thought most writers were as well treated as I am, I wouldn’t be posting here.

As for the career advice… Wow. Did you just give me career advice? I repeat… Wow.

Joshua,

“A good script is necessary for a good film. Can anyone argue otherwise?”

Apparently, they’re two completely different mediums, and are impossible to compare.

While we’re on the subject, though, let’s address at something:

There are great movies with competent cinematography.

There are great movies with competent direction.

There are great movies with competent acting.

There are great movies with competent scores.

There are great movies with competent producing.

There are no great movies without great scripts.

(PS: Craig will argue this point, which will validate my existence for another week.)

“As for the career advice… Wow. Did you just give me career advice? I repeat… Wow.”

If you think all of my posts are about giving career advice, you definitely haven’t grasped a word I’ve said. In fact, I’m not entirely sure you’ve grasped a thing.

And far be it for me to give you, JOSH OLSON, the Oscar nominated Writer, some sort of objective view. After all, Oscar nominations are an absolute scale of talent, intelligence, and longevity.

But then again, Ben Affleck won as Oscar.

How’s the air up there in that Ivory Tower?

“First, I find it more than a little odd that someone who has taken umbrage at the political incorrectness of my comparing the struggle of writers with the civil rights struggle would make the comment you made about Jewish writers.”

I’ve never taken umbrage at the political incorrectness of your analogies. I take umbrage to the stupidity of you analogies.

“But then again, Ben Affleck won as Oscar.”

So what does that mean, does that mean that the script for GOOD WILL HUNTNG sucked because an actor wrote it, or what?

Does that mean that anyone who’s won or been nominated for an Oscar sucks?

Or is it just a snide comment put together to get under someone’s skin?

I like Craig’s writing (one reason I spend so much time lurking here instead of working on the pilot), I like Ted’s work and I like Josh’s work. All three are tops in the game, no argument there. there are other really good writers lurking here, I’m sure, just as certain as there are talentless hacks frothing for the next hot “idea” or “hook” or “concept” who speak authoritively on McKee but haven’t seen The Godfather.

But in truth, the level of game really shouldn’t have anything to do with the logic of anyone’s arguments for or against. It either makes sense or it doesn’t.

Good writing and, by that measure, good writers, are as equally important as a good director or good producer. All I’m saying is writers should be treated equally in terms of the creative process.

JOSHUA:

“Or is it just a snide comment put together to get under someone’s skin?”

Absolutely.

And making fun of Ben Affleck is easy.

I find it absolutely hilarious that Josh proclaims to be a nice guy who’s working for the common man when everything he’s said has been to the contrary. I can’t speak for anybody else but myself but I think you’d find it hardpressed to find anyone on this site who considers Josh a nice guy. And Craig has never insuiated that he was better than anyone because he’s a working screenwriter but Josh can’t wait to tell you that he’s been in this business for 20 years and he knows his shit.

It’s all very ironic.

But more to the point, I completely agree with you when you say “Good writing and, by that measure, good writers, are as equally important as a good director or good producer. All I’m saying is writers should be treated equally in terms of the creative process.” That’s a very smart statement and I will speak for everyone else when I say that we all want that. I think we just disagree on how to do that.

But maybe, just maybe, it would be a lot easier to collectively achieve those goals if there wasn’t so much unwarranted hostility towards each other. Take a look at Josh’s first post. It’s ridiculous and baiting. Is this how we’re gonna band together?

I don’t think so.

And while I’ve never been nominated for an Oscar, I make my living in this business. And for a Creative in New York, I do pretty well. You and I both know that. But while you can express yourself in a civil, mature manner, Josh can not. That’s a problem. He may think I’m giving him career advice but I was merely giving him the opportunity to look at something from an objective point of view.

I agree this has gotten out of hand and my last couple of posts have been from an annoyed state but who in the world could blame me?

Do you want to know why Josh hasn’t answered most of my points? Because he lacks the words to express himself like an adult and instead behaves like a petulant child. He never has any real or tangible solutions, shit even a ludicrous solution would be a welcome change.

We’re all supposed to be in this together, right? So maybe we should act like it.

How in the world can we expect decency and respect from our employers when we can’t even give it to each other? We wonder why studios think we’re disposable but we never miss a chance to call each other hacks and sell outs.

Glass houses, baby. Glass houses.

I am not going to speak for brother Olson in terms of the personal vitrol going back and forth, but I find that he has made more logical points, to me, than anyone thus far. He’s not the only one, Craig and Ted made their cases as well, of course, but I found Josh’s story about being left off the invite list to HOV to be very interesting and illuminating.

Nor did I get from him that he was rubbing his credits in our face, anymore than Craig was. The information was presented to rebut the usual “unsuccessful screenwriter sour grapes” tag - in other words, whenever a writer complains about the biz, they get tagged with the label that they’re unhappy because they’re not successful and they’re not successful because they’re not any good.

I hear that ALL the time, in theatre as well. Whenever a writer complains or even stands up for themselves, it’s perceived as an indicator that they don’t know what they’re doing or anything about the “business”.

Which underlines my point that writers are viewed as being like the special kids who ride the short bus … we don’t know what’s even good for ourselves, much less the work involved or anyone else. I’ve been lectured by so many neophyte directors, all of 22 years of age and just out of film school, who tell me what it takes to create a “great” script, even though they’ve never written anything and I have a number under my belt. Usually you cannot even disagree or you get the “business” lecture or something equally silly from someone who has difficult spelling the word “the” without spellcheck.

I’m not doing the sour grapes thing, I usually find it very amusing, but it’s fascinating how widespread the belief is that “anyone” can write a screenplay and that it’s not nearly as important as the direction or the casting or the one sheet.

Again, I say, good writers deserve more and learning how to direct or produce or how to collaborate isn’t going to change that world view unless we get together and do it.

I’m fairly happy with what I’ve done thus far as a writer and in addition, the future also looks pretty bright for me right now, so it’s not sour grapes on my part. I like my chosen field of work and it’d be nicer if we were all treated as creative equals to the director.

Joshua (James) wrote:

But what about the five or six uncredited writers brought in for a rewrite done to pacify the new star or the incoming director or for just a fresh look because a new executive was added to the mix?

The job of “screenwriter” is constant, regardless of the number of individuals who do that job over the history of the project.

The question is: how to ensure that only one individual is employed in the job of “screenwriter” over the history of the project?

Some proposed solutions:

Proposal 1: The WGA goes out on strike until the AMPTP agrees to make “one writer, one project” a term of the MBA.

The flaw in this thinking is obvious: the MBA is a contract for writers collectively. Essentially, it represents the value the AMPTP Companies place on screenplays, teleplays, treatments and other literary material created by writers collectively — that is, to employ more than one individual in the job of “screenwriter” over the history of a project to create one screenplay that serves as the basis of a movie.

Fighting for “one writer, one project” would be a matter of writers as group fighting to reduce their collective value in order to increase the individual value of a minority subgroup of writers.

Proposal 2: All WGA members agree never to rewrite another writer’s work.

Although writers tend to describe the practice of serial collaboration (ie, a series of writers contributing literary material toward the same move) euphemistically as “the studio replaced me” or “another writer replaced me,” this is ego-balm. What happened was, a writer had a contract for employment, his employment ended, and the studio did not renew his employment.

The belief fueling the Proposal #2 is that if the studio could not employ someone else in the job of “screenwriter,” it would renew the employment of the writer whom it otherwise would not.

Whereas what would happen is, the project would be abandoned.

And if the studios were put in a position where they had only one shot per project to hire a writer, then they would exercise far greater discretion in selecting writers, and would pay them based on the studio’s confidence that the writer will be able to do the job of “screenwriter” required. Those writers who have proven capable of doing the job would be paid much more (and so could command greater creative rights), those who had not proven themselves would be paid far less, and would be far less likely to ever have their work made into a movie.

So Proposal #2 would result in a single individual employed in the job of “screenwriter” through the history of the project. However, just like Proposal #1, it would undermine the value of writers collectively, and would result in an extreme balkanization of writers: the A-list would be slightly larger, and every one else would be the Z-list.

Proposal 3: The WGA negotiates for economic rights that ensures that Companies will employ someone in the job of “screenwriter” throughout the history of production (not a given at this point), which will give more writers the opportunity to prove they can do the job of “screenwriter” in all its iterations; writers develop the ability to do the job of “screenwriter” as required by the studios, which includes but is by no means limited to the ability to write a screenplay.

This is not a perfect solution. It requires some concession on the part of writers that being able to write a screenplay is not the entirety of the job of “screenwriter.” It also requires writers to recognize that the screenplay is written in service of producing a movie, and not the other way around. And it’s also a long-term strategy for increasing the creative rights of writers, instead of an instant twitch-your-nose fix that remakes the world. As such, it will never be popular.

Proposal 4: Eliminate one or more of the people who has some measure of authority over who does the job of “screenwriter” by taking their jobs as well as the job of “screenwriter.”

This, too, is not a perfect solution, in that, like Proposal #3, it requires writers to develop abilities beyond that of writing screenplays. Also, it implicitly recognizes that the screenwriter does not have the authority to decide who does the job of “screenwriter.”

Proposal 5: Eliminate the director’s possessive credit.

The reasoning here is:

IF directors did not have the right to possessive credit …

THEN screenwriters would have the authority to decide who does the job of “screenwriters” and movies would be produced in service to the screenplay and anyone who wrote a screenplay would have the inalienable right to have someone else finance the production of the screenplay as a movie.

I believe the reasoning speaks for itself.

-

Joshua (James) part II —

I am not going to speak for brother Olson in terms of the personal vitrol going back and forth, but I find that he has made more logical points, to me, than anyone thus far. He’s not the only one, Craig and Ted made their cases as well, of course, but I found Josh’s story about being left off the invite list to HOV to be very interesting and illuminating.

That’s not a logical point; that’s an anecdote. Notice that in his story, he does not say what, if anything, he did to change the invitation. or New Line’s policy regarding premier invitations, or anything else.

Here’s another anecdote:

On the first Pirates movie, the studio issued its preliminary credit determination. Stuart Beattie was not included as writer of the screen story.

Terry and I called the studio exec, and pointed this out. We pointed out that we worked from Stuart’s draft, that the first half of the movie incorporate many of Stuart’s story moments (including the theft of the ship), and that, if Jay Wolpert deserved screen story credit, then there was no way that Stuart could not be given it.

The Exec said that he agreed with all those points, but nonetheless did not want to change the credit determination.

So Terry and I called the head of the studio, and explained the deal to her. She said that if the studio was not following the MBA, that was wrong. She set up a session for all the studio execs with the studio’s WGA liason, who took them through the credits guidelines step-by-step. They used the Pirates script as an example and, at the end of the it, determined that, yes, in fact, Stuart was entitled to screen story credit.

And the WGA arbiters agreed, and that was that.

I suppose we could have just called the first exec, and said “What’s the deal?” and then listened to his explanation, and then told the story as proof of how poorly writers are treated in Hollywood …

… but that would not have changed the way writers were being treated, would it?

-

Ted, Ted…you’re not fitting into the little box that Mr. Olson has designed for you!

Shame…

Josh O. wrote:

I find you have a knack for taking these discussions into realms wherein the only possible response is to say things of a personal nature I do not wish to say. If the only conceivable way for you to continue this is to discuss the merits of the work being done by the various participants, I’ll leave you to that particular mudbath.

This is why it’s hard to discuss things with Josh. See, either he knows or has forgotten that he first raised this argument when he wrote:

As a writer, you’re a lifetime or three from being in Lardner’s league. I’ll take his creative insights over yours any day of the week.

This is what Josh does. He opens a can of worms, and when I respond, he accuses me of worm-opening. The truth is that I never make such arguments proactively because I’m at an obvious disadvantage. I don’t think of myself as a superb writer as much as an endlessly learning student of the craft. I’m far more comfortable talking to writers that are better than I am (a remark that Josh later rewrote as “Mazin doesn’t like talking to other writers!”).

I don’t believe Mr. Lardner (Jr.)’s merits as a writer have anything to do with the validity of his points about writing. This was my point when I responded. Josh either agrees or disagrees, depending on what time of day it is.

Tides may have something to do with it. I don’t know.

As for blaming me for his inability to remain impersonal, I suppose it’s a consistentn statement from him, but it’s not a respectable point of view from an adult. Nonetheless, why hold back, Josh?

Do you wish to call me a talentless hack? Bottom feeder? Cheap fraud? Go nuts. I’m comfortable with my skill set and identity.

Regardless, your problem with the things I write on this site is entirely about the subtext you infer. Unfortunately for both of us, your inferences are inaccurate and very much a reflection of your personal issues, and not at all a reflection of mine.

What I wrote was this:

Well, apparently some studios were just handing some writers notes and refusing to discuss them further. Why would a studio ever do such a thing? Probably because they had zero interest in that writer actually succeeding. The working relationship was bad.

Here’s what that really means. It means that the studio had zero interest in that writer ever actually succeeding because…and here’s my subtext…the working relationship was bad.

Oh, wait. I’ve just retyped the sentence, haven’t I?

Hmmm, it is possible that non-fiction editorials don’t really have much subtext. It is possible that the point of what I write is intentionally revealed in its totality within the text itself.

The working relationship was bad. That could be because the writer was a jackass, but it could also be because the employer was a jackass. It could be because, despite the fact that both parties were cool, there was a mismatch of expectations. Or perhaps there was poor communication from one side or the other or both. Perhaps someone was drinking too much. Maybe the writer wasn’t very good at his job. Maybe the producer wasn’t very good at his job.

But all you read is what you want to read, because…and I’ve come to believe this over the course of this thread, but go ahead and tell me I’m wrong…you think self-empowerment is dangerous.

You don’t like what it implies.

You don’t want to have to lift a finger at all for empowerment, which makes your Gandhi and Civil Rights references all the stranger.

What you want is an institution or community to do what it must to establish the power you want for yourself.

What you want is for the power-withholders to be brought to their knees by a movement, or simply to give in to moral justice.

That’s fine. Honestly. There are times when that’s the very best way to wrest power. But like I said, when it comes to these matters, I prefer to do it my way while I wait for your way to work, okay?

Sorry, I just don’t think screenwriters should eat shit while they wait for the WGAw to figure out how to unravel the Gordian Knot of the possessory credit or power struggles with producers.

So I humbly propose some alternatives for self-empowerment.

You don’t like that. You think self-empowerment is some sort of acknowledgment of self-blame.

It’s not.

You think self-empowerment is sycophantic.

It’s not.

I think Ted’s got your number on your response to the premiere thing. What did you do for anyone else other than yourself that day?

Oh, one last thing. My gig is not “cushy.” I work way too hard under extremely demanding circumstances to hear that word applied to my work situation. I am well compensated, Josh, but there’s nothing easy or comfortable about my career.

You’re right in that brother Olson’s story wasn’t a logical point but an ancedotal story - to which I remarked that I found it insightful and illuminating, as I did yours regarding Pirates credit. My reference to logic points regarded his previous arguments, which I think still have merit.

I see merit in your posts as well, Ted and Craig … if only there could be an accord.

Josh Olson has made one point and one point only:

Writers are treated unfairly.

Beyond that lies venom, bile, and a side of hippocrity.

If Josh ever came up with any type of solution I truly believe the seas would turn to blood and the dead would walk. I may be overstating but I believe I’ll see Dean Martin strolling down 5th Ave before Josh ever comes up with any type of solution to anything.

If anyone can point to a post from Josh in which he’s ever said the words, “Ok, here’s what we should do…” I’ll give free piggy back rides on Tuesday. Tuesday because I’m busy on Monday. And this doesn’t include “Let’s Strike!” because no competent person would ever believe this could happen.

C’mon, I got a really strong back. Anyone?

Josh J.:

I have to admit, I’m not angry about Josh O. As it is, I don’t think about Josh until he shows up and starts throwing poop around. I don’t know if there’s a need for an accord. Josh is just a guy…like me…spouting off. We’re not nations at war. I’m not being smarmy when I wish Josh the best. He’s a fine writer, but I don’t need to reach agreement with him on, well, anything.

There’s a free market of ideas. Ted and I are doing our best to advance our way to writers, and we’re motivated to do so by a sense of charity and good will.

This is our goal.

Holding hands with Josh Olson isn’t.

Olson wrote:

“A good script is necessary for a good film. Can anyone argue otherwise?” Apparently, they’re two completely different mediums, and are impossible to compare.

Hmm. This is not a complicated interaction of statements, so I really don’t understand the confounding of it all.

You can compare a screenplay to a film, but you shouldn’t, because such a comparison is not qualitatively valuable. The two things are simply too different.

1. A good script is necessary for a good film.

2. Screenplays cannot be satisfactorily compared to films, because they are two different media.

Josh believes these statements aren’t compatible, but of course they are.

A good engine is necessary for a good car.

Engines cannot be qualitatively compared to cars, because they are two different objects.

A good theme is necessary for a good screenplay.

Themes cannot be qualitatively compared to screenplays, because they are two different kinds of writing.

Josh Olson’s brain is necessary for Josh Olson to write a good screenplay.

Josh Olson’s brain cannot be qualitatively compared to a Josh Olson screenplay, because one is a written document, and the other is a spongy mass weighing approximately 1.4 kilograms.

I could do this all day.

Necessity does not mandate direct comparability. Why would it? Josh’s syllogism is illogical, yes, but more importantly, it’s empty rhetoric designed to once again describe me as someone who devalues screenplays.

I do not.

This, too, should be obvious.

Kevin,

The relative merits of our individual work are more or less irrelevant. That I am a better writer than you is a statement of opinion, and one I wouldn’t make, as I haven’t the first fucking clue as to whether or not you’re any good. I DO know that career-wise, we are in extremely different places. I’m sorry if you think it’s arrogant to make statements of fact. That’s your issue, not mine. I’m not going to pretend to be something I’m not just so I don’t hurt your feelings.

At this point in time, I have my pick of choice writing assignments. I get paid outrageous sums of money for writing the kinds of movies I’ve always dreamed of writing. I live a life so far beyond my dreams when I came here, it’s ridiculous. And to hell with the Oscars (you brought ‘em up, not me) - my work has brought me the approbation of writers whose work has inspired me my whole life. You think you’re a better writer than me? Cool. I hope you are. I have nothing but respect for good writers, and the world needs as many of them as possible.

Find one post here where I’ve said I’m a better writer than you. When you can’t, have the courtesy to admit that, once again, you’ve completely altered the meaning of my words and apologize.

Oh man…

“I don’t believe Mr. Lardner (Jr.)’s merits as a writer have anything to do with the validity of his points about writing. “

My point was that, as someone who had a fifty year career in this business, Ring Lardner’s insights into the nature of this business carry a lot more weight than anyone’s here. None of here are in that league.

Even if the implication was that Ring Lardner was a better writer than anyone here, we’re talking about one of the established giants of this industry. That’s hardly the same thing as saying I am a better writer than anyone here, and when I posted it, it was inconceivable that anyone here could be thin-skinned or arrogant enough to take that personally.

You were the first person to bring into play the merits of the writers here. You did it with a reasonable amount of tact, but you brought it up, nonetheless. Your toady Kevin made it personal, and I can’t possibly blame you for his obnoxiousness.

On the subject of “cushy” - it’s all relative, of course. I’ve built houses, and I’ve written and directed a movie. As grueling and as difficult as making movies can be, at the end of the day, I know which job I prefer. Most people don’t have fun jobs. This one is about as much fun as you can have legally, while it can also be mind-bogglingly difficult. But c’mon, man. Be real. It’s a cushy gig.

Ted,

“That’s not a logical point; that’s an anecdote. Notice that in his story, he does not say what, if anything, he did to change the invitation. or New Line’s policy regarding premier invitations, or anything else.”

I did nothing. Like I said, it’s an extremely tiny issue. To compare it to your situation with the credits on Pirates is kinda silly. The point was that there was a larger issue at work, one that isn’t solved by, say, calling up the studio marketing person and kicking their ass. The issue was not - and is not - whether or not the writer gets his name on the invite. It’s how writers are perceived by the industry.

In your situation, a wrong was being done that had very real consequences for the victim, and you did the right thing. In my situation, a wrong was being done that had no consequences at all, but simply illustrated a larger issue.

I suppose I could have brought it to the attention of the Guild and asked that they make premiere invitations one of our issues, but that would sorta conflict with my position that we spend too much time on the little issues while the big ones get ignored, ya know?

Josh:

Ring Lardner Jr.’s final credit, for The Greatest, came in 1977.

That would be three decades ago. In those three decades, Hollywood changed as much as it did from 1947 to 1977.

I daresay that anyone who has worked steadily in this business for the last ten years knows more about today’s Hollywood than the ghost of Ring Lardner Jr., no matter how amazing a writer he was.

So let’s leave the sainted icons out of the debate, because it really adds nothing. And I dispute your assertion that I was the first to bring merit into play, and I’ve offered evidence to the contrary.

As for Kevin, he’s not my toady. I’ve never met Kevin. He happens to agree with me, Josh. I don’t mind the two of us going bare-knuckles, but please don’t abuse my other guests.

Yeah, yeah, I’ve sliced deli meat and worked as a fry-cook and bartended and so what? It’s not a cush gig. It’s an incredibly rewarding job, but “cushy” means “undemanding, easy, secure” (so says my dictionary widget) and our job is none of the three.

Craig,

“That would be three decades ago. In those three decades, Hollywood changed as much as it did from 1947 to 1977.”

Really? So in that period, someone finally made a movie that was better than its screenplay? Fascinating.

“And I dispute your assertion that I was the first to bring merit into play, and I’ve offered evidence to the contrary.”

Um…. You have? Where? Did I blink?

Let’s review: I made a qualitative comment on the nature of movies, and I quoted Ring Lardner. You dismissed him as a know-nothing. I said you’re not in his league, and you took that as a statement about the quality of your writing, and started discussing the writing abilities of people here. Tell me where I’m getting it wrong.

“I don’t mind the two of us going bare-knuckles, but please don’t abuse my other guests.”

Oh, okay. Sorry about that. The next time I feel the urge to call someone a no-talent asshole who doesn’t deserve the accolades his work has gotten I’ll… oh, wait. I didn’t do that. Kevin did. But then, he was saying all that about someone who doesn’t agree with you, so I guess that’s okay.

Josh —

In regards to your question “So, in that period, someone finally made a movie better than its screenplay?”

Are using “screenplay” in the sense of “the final script (as represented on screen)” (essentially, a transcript of the action and dialogue of the movie in screenplay format) or do you mean the screenplay from which the movie was shot?

-

Josh:

I didn’t read where Kevin called you a no-talent asshole who doesn’t deserve the accolades his work has gotten.

I’m not playing favorites. Honestly. Here, watch this.

Kevin…don’t be a dick.

Josh:

I never called you a no-talent asshole. You obviously he has lots of talent. I do question you tact, however. And never once did I compare my career with yours. You did. So I don’t know where that came from.

I did get a laugh from the cheerleader/toady comment. I’ve never been described that way before and it did give me a laugh so thank you.

But I was being a dick. So let me be the first to apologize because I desperately want to get back on track.

Here’s why this has gotten so ridiculous. We all agree on one major point. We ALL do. But has the last, oh, I don’t know 40 posts have anything to do with the original article. Who the fuck cares about Ring Lardner Jr.? This is supposed to be about a practical solution to Writers being granted more creative rights without necessarily having to ask for them.

Josh, do you have any practical solutions to the above issue? That’s all I want to know. You obviously disagree with lots of Craig’s ideas so I’m just wondering what you want to do differently.

“Josh, do you have any practical solutions to the above issue?”

Yes. He already answered that question, in this thread. Scroll up.

Josh did offer practical solutions in the posts above.

Craig, I don’t know that it’s necessarily true when you say that a script and a movie are not compariable. While it is true that an engine and a car are two different things, one can chart how well the car will run based on an evaluation of the engine. Even an engine that has yet to go into a car. Is your position that the engine should not be compared to the car it will go into?

I disagree.

You can evaluate a movie based on a screenplay - in fact, isn’t that what execs do all the time? Don’t they read a screenplay and then compare it to successful movies of the same genre? Aren’t scripts evaluated in the very manner in which you say that they don’t qualify?

Scripts are the written form of the movie that will be realized and they are written only to be movies.

It’s certain that they are two different things, but I think we can and should compare them and I also think that’s what takes up the majority of anyone’s time in development.

When brother Olson stated “evidently they’re two different mediums and shouldn’t be compared” he was being ironic, I believe.

I think it’s one of the only ways to see if the screenplay works.

We also go back and read scripts of great movies to see how they did it, at least, that’s what I do. Isn’t that making them comparible?

Ted,

You are certainly to be commended for your actions regarding the Pirates credit thing, that’s a goddamn great thing you did and more writers should have your sense of ethics.

But may I point out that not every screenwriter, once they reach an impasse’ with the exec in charge, can pick up the phone and call the head of the studio to come fix it.

It was cool of you to do.

I also want to thank you for some of the other possible proposals you posted (you did say some)and I’m sorry it took awhile to respond (lots of ideas, words and steam going back and forth on this threwat) - I’ve been a fan of the one writer (or one team) per movie position for some time and I also think that there are more positives to it than listed.

Kevin,

Apology accepted.

“Who the fuck cares about Ring Lardner Jr.? “

Craig, apparently. I cited him in a parenthetical, which Craig took as an excuse to slag off both his intellect and his politics. I felt that was churlish in the extreme.

Beyond that, you SHOULD care about Ring Lardner, Jr. We don’t exist in a vacuum. We all stand on the shoulders of the giants who came before us, and they deserve our respect.

(Huge aside. With the possible exception of pop music, I can’t think of another artistic field in which the practicioners are so ignorant of what came before them. I was at the Edgars last month, a guest of the Mystery Writers of America, and throughout the night, they had a little contest. They showed clips of old crime-related movies, and asked people to write down what films they were. Clips came from movies like Our Man In Havana, Laura, and The Last of Sheila. It was noted that had this been a film industry event, the oldest movie would have been Die Hard 3.)

As for practical solutions, I’ve already answered that here. But they’re all small, temporary solutions, and nothing’s gonna change until we take on the big issues, and like you say, nobody’s dumb enough to think there’s actually gonna be a strike.

Ted,

“Are using “screenplay” in the sense of “the final script (as represented on screen)” (essentially, a transcript of the action and dialogue of the movie in screenplay format) or do you mean the screenplay from which the movie was shot?”

I’m talking about the screenplay from which the movie was shot. And yes, I can actully name a couple that qualify, but the point is that the overwhelming, enormous majority of good or great movies are, at best, almost as good as their scripts.

Josh:

“Who the fuck cares about Ring Lardner Jr.? “

I meant in the context of this conversation.

But I definitely agree with you when you say that most people don’t know the history of the films that came before them—myself included.

Are you opposed to making a publicist part of the equation. Seems to me that the public/audience kind of dictates who’s a disposable part of the filmmaking process and I think that if more Writers made themselves visible it would truly help the situation. This isn’t a “blame the Writer” thing. I just think it’s something proactive that doesn’t really have a downside.

Kevin,

There isn’t an ounce of me that disagrees with the notion that writers can and should do everything they can on an individual basis to increase their power and their control. My problem is this - while you, Craig, Ted and I may all be the kind of people who are predisposed to that sort of thing, there are people who are pure writers, who craft flawless scripts and have no other professional skills.

It strikes me as fundamentally wrong that my work has a better shot at being translated faithfully to the screen than theirs, and it seems to me that the whole point of a WRITERS GUILD is to protect people who are primarily and fundamentally WRITERS. If you’re a great writer, you shouldn’t HAVE to have other skills. Without your work, none of these other clowns has a job.

Josh:

Oh, but that’s a worthless cliche.

Without your work, none of these other clowns has a job.

Directors say the same thing to each other…and they’re right. No one to direct…then no reason to write screenplays.

Producers too. No one to produce…then no reason to write screenplays or hire directors.

Film financiers definitely say this. So do grips, electricians, transpo, wardrobe, hair and makeup….

But go ahead. Call them clowns if it makes you feel better. I don’t think too many reasonable people subscribe to that sort of screenwriter chauvinism though, and for good reason.

This last post was certainly revealing, though. You believe that the Writers Guild ought to protect some perceived right of some screenwriter to have his script translated faithfully to the screen.

Well, that’s not what the WGA is there for, Josh. At all. In any way. It never will be, either.

“But go ahead. Call them clowns if it makes you feel better. I don’t think too many reasonable people subscribe to that sort of screenwriter chauvinism though, and for good reason.”

Then you don’t get out much.

Saying there’s no building without an architect is, I suppose, architectural chauvinism. And yet, shockingly, it’s true. I grow increasingly tired of the false modesty you’d have us adopt. I’ve worked on at least one great movie that essentially had no director. But you better believe it had a great script. At the risk of public character assassination, I won’t go into detail, but please rest assured, there is nothing here or on my imdb page that will give you a clue as to what that movie was, and no - I didn’t write it. There are about thirty movies I worked on that aren’t on my page.

And while the folks I’ve met, listened to, and read who subscribe to the notion that offends you so may not be all entirely reasonable, they are some of the greatest writers alive.

Finally, your mis-characterization of what I said the WGA should do is a little tiresome, and takes us down the road of yet another argument about what writers’ rights are, and how they should be protected.

Josh:

You can’t build a building without a rebar guy either. I repeat, your point is worthless because it can be made by pretty much everyone.

I don’t know what “essentially had no director” means. Sometimes the titular director isn’t doing the job, and someone else does it instead. That doesn’t mean no one is directing. I don’t know the details of this movie or your other 30 uncredited films, though, so I can’t really address your point cogently.

I’m sure some of the writers with whom you agree are the greatest writers alive, but in this debate, I’m certain (as you are, then aren’t, then are, then aren’t) that their writing talent is irrelevant, and their rationality or lack thereof is absolutely key.

TO ALL COMMENTERS:

Please keep the tone civil. I’ve had to delete two comments now (and the comments in response…mostly because they wouldn’t make sense without the instigation).

If you post a comment and return to find it deleted, assume you’ve crossed the line. Do not repost it.

Thanks.

Well, this is about as confounding to unsnarl as star thistles in a long-haired cat. (ha!)

I had some thoughts to share when I first read this - I hope they are still relevant after that half-hour of brain-frying reading above.

1) I mentioned this before somewhere but thinks it bears repeating. I DO notice that on DVD commentaries, good solid things are said about the writer(s) MUCH more often than not. I was reminded of this again after watching the DVD of “Mrs. Henderson Presents” a couple nights ago.

These remarks aren’t there because of some contractual obligation but, happily, either because they are genuine or because (politically speaking) writers are perceived to have enough clout that NOT saying good things about them and their work will have a negative payback.

I’ve noticed a tendency in myself to gravitate to where a fight is to be had and not always notice where the battle is being won - something I always thought was peculiar to myself, but since I’ve started corresponding with other writers online, I’ve determined (unscientifically, of course) that it is a behavior-streak common to writers. It probably serves some purpose so should not be squelched outright but I am seeking to find the positive side of what is definitely a two-edged sword.

I mention this because the comments to this post seem to display a lot of that streak and to say that perhaps the battle is further along to being won than this comment-thread might suggest.

2) I also wanted to say that the collaborative process and constraints CAN lead to a better script than the original draft, in my opinion. “Bennie & Joon” is a great example of this. The director’s input to make the character of Bennie an “everyman” as opposed to the New York City Psychologist of the original script improved the story as did the budgetary constraints requiring rewrites that made the story more about story and less about flash.

As a writer (albeit currently in a different field), I know from my own experience that sometimes I’ll think I have the draft perfect. Then my client says “I don’t like that, how about this?” and my first emotional reaction is resistance but when I put that resistance aside and just embrace the change, what I write next is MUCH better.

This isn’t about being nice. It is about embracing collaboration and a realization that the collective can push my individual creativity to heights I wouldn’t get to alone.

I hope I’m still on topic. :)

Craig,

Saying that you cannot have a movie without a gaffer is, perhaps, a bit of discrimination.

But you CAN make a good movie without a gaffer, a best boy and a carpenter. They all make important contributions, Craig, but ultimately their part is not as absolutely necessary as you are making them seem.

You can even make a movie without actors, even - it’s been done.

What do you need for a movie? A story with pictures. You need the story and someone to shoot the pictures.

Which is why a good director is important, to shoot it, and a good writer, to put the story together, and a good producer to assemble all the other parts that the writer and director need to realize it -

You can make a movie without a director or without a writer, you can even make a movie without a story, but I believe that it won’t be a good movie, not without a good story.

So while I believe everyone’s contribution to the making of a film is valuable, from the lead actor on down to the caterer’s assistant, it’s seems a bit much of a stretch to say that the REBAR guy is as important as the writer.

In fact, it’s … well, it’s a bit nuts.

Craig, I cannot tell you the value that I’ve gotten from your site here, the insight and knowledge you share has no price and as such I hesitate to disagree with you as I have. I consider myself a guest on your site and it’s tough to stand up and call ya nuts on this issue, but … it’s nuts … you’re a writer, we’re all mostly writers here and it’s a hell’ve lot easier to make money as a teamster than it is as a writer, so why are we even writing if it has no greater importance than what the friggin’ REBAR guy does?

The average teamster makes a lot more than the average screenwriter. Why would we do this if we didn’t believe it had more importance than it does?

I don’t say this as a slur to any and everyone who does the jobs in and around a production - my best girl is a costumer, I know that world well. She’s good and she deserves respect.

But she would never equate her job to that of the writer and director. She knows that what she does has value, but isn’t the same.

You and I, we can get our own camera, write our own script, shoot it starring barbie dolls and subtitles, edit it on my brand spankin’ new macbook and it could be good, all without the help of warddrobe, best boys and assistants. Even without a DP. It could be done.

We couldn’t do it without a story (and theme, as per artful writer guidelines) and without someone pointing the camera and shooting it. Couldn’t be done.

Listen, bottom line, what we do as a writer is a LOT more important than I feel it’s been painted here and, seeing as that you’ve devoted this whole site and hundreds of articles and columns about writing for film, can you honestly and truthfully say that you feel the REBAR guy is just as necessary to the creation of a good film as a good screenplay?

I’ve done a lot of those jobs and personally, I don’t know of hardly a PA anywhere who would believe that what they do is equitable to what the writer contributes to a film.

Well, there’s probably a couple PA’s that do believe that, but they’re already planning to direct …

Whoa, whoa…

NO WHERE did you see me write that the rebar guy is as IMPORTANT as the writer.

No. NEVER. Never ever ever ever.

The writer is the most important person to a movie. Got it?

The most important. I believe the writer is more important than the director. And the producer. And the gaffer.

But no more necessary. By the way, you can’t make a movie without, say, a gaffer. You can make a movie without a dedicated gaffer, but someone has to position the lights, or nothing will be exposed.

Well…I suppose you could make a home movie without lights.

I’ll amend. You need a gaffer to make a professional film.

Look, let’s pare it down. You NEED the following to make ANY film of ANY kind.

A director. A camera operator. A producer.

They could all be the same person. The average dad taking video of his kids at the playground is a good example. Producer Dad purchases the camera and assumes the risk of its use, as well as provides storage media. Director Dad chooses the shot. Camera operator dad presses “record” and moves the camera in the way Director Dad wishes.

To make a professional film, you need at least the following, IMO.

A writer. A director. A DP. A camera operator. A producer. Hair/makeup/wardrobe. An editor. A grip. A gaffer. An electrician. Transportation. Location manager. Production designer. An actor. Money.

Gotta have those for a professional film. Double/triple/quadruple duty is perfectly acceptable, but the jobs need to get done.

That’s necessity.

Importance is something else. Of course, what I was responding to was Josh O’s claim that everyone else owes us their jobs, when, in fact, they do not any more than we owe ours to them. The Necessaries of Hollywood need each other, by definition.

But of course the writer is more important.

“But of course the writer is more important.”

Well (sniff) … it wouldn’t hurt you to say it once in awhile (another girly sniffle).

Josh J.:

Tell you what. How about instead I volunteer my time for the Board of Directors of the WGAw and chair a couple of committees? When I’m not doing that, how about I serve as the member liaison between writers and the guild? And after that, I suppose I could run an ad-free, cost free website to offer advice on how writers can improve their professional situations.

Nah. Too hard. Maybe I should just say pretty things about writers to make them feel good. So much easier than actually working to change things.

Dig? Why would I do any of this if I didn’t think writers were important? I think I’d probably only talk about writers and how wonderful they are if I thought I was important.

Big difference.

I was making a lame ass joke with the sniffle gig, Craig, so I apologize if offense was handed … I expressed very clearly as I could how I much I value your generosity with your time and this site and experiences, even when I may or may not disagree with whatever discussion ensues as a result.

It is invaluable and for that I thank you.

I know you do, and I’m not trying to be a sensitive little prick. No offense taken.

My point is actually not aimed at you. :)

Josh wrote:

I’m talking about the screenplay from which the movie was shot. And yes, I can actully name a couple that qualify, but the point is that the overwhelming, enormous majority of good or great movies are, at best, almost as good as their scripts.

Don’t you mean that of all the movies that could have possibly been made from the screenplay, the one that was actually made is not as good as one you can imagine by reading the screenplay?

Because, otherwise, I don’t understand what you’re comparing.

(And, yes, I have seen bad movies made from screenplay that suggest far better movies — but I have also seen great movies made from screenplays that suggest far worse movies. In fact, all great movies are made from screenplays that suggest far worse movies).

-

Josh:

Why would you refer to the other people who work on a film as clowns? I’m not so sure this attitude helps the plight of writers, especially if one of the issues is RESPECT.

Joshua,

“What do you need for a movie? A story with pictures. You need the story and someone to shoot the pictures.

Which is why a good director is important, to shoot it,”

Actually, it’s why a cinematographer is important.

Kevin,

It’s a tonal thing. It whizzed by you. Let it die.

I’ve spent more time as a clown than you have. My respect for that make movies cannot be surpassed by anyone.

Ted,

“In fact, all great movies are made from screenplays that suggest far worse movies”

Um….. to who? Ed Wood?

Honestly, I’m too tired to argue the point. But I suspect you know that’s not actually true, although I don’t know why you’d ever try to argue it. Kinda weird, frankly…

Wow…the intensity in this room is incredible, and the passion actually inspires me to get my ass to my laptop and write!

Yet, I’ve sat here and watched for two days, and I can’t help now but overstep my boundaries and be the fly from the wall that buzzes his way into the middle of the table of giants, if only to be swatted off to the floor….

But if I didn’t try to be the love maker/peacekeeper that I am, I would regret it.

I must point out that if any director/producer stumbled across this site they’d spend hours laughing their asses off at how we squabble amongst ourselves!

I feel like I’m watching Austin Powers the way this pissing contest continues to go on and on and on and on (sometimes about minutia)!

Can we not find some commonality? Some compromise in belief? Some gesture of brotherhood amongst the writers of the world? To find a way to agree to disagree about who lives in a taller tower, or how great Ring Lardner Jr is, or who the hell cares about rebar or the architect or an engine? I mean, I get your points, and they are ALL valid….but…

Please, my friends, as the men who’ve forged ahead of me along this path of professional screenwriting-hood, stop the bickering and chest pounding, grab a little perspective, recall the humble days of the past, and work together to make a better world for the writers of today and tomorrow.

I apologize in advance for overstepping my boundaries. I really do.

Craig, I thank you for, if nothing else, taking the time to maintain this site and providing a peephole into a world so distant yet appealing to me. Josh O., thank you for your passion in presenting your thoughts and being the iron that sharpens Craig’s iron.

Sharpening is great, and should be always welcomed. But let’s be sure we’re not warring amongst ourselves, when there’s a greater war to be had elsewhere!

Josh:

“It’s a tonal thing. It whizzed by you. Let it die.”

No, it pretty much whizzed right on me. But that’s ok, I don’t want to start nitpicking and start a 45 post spree about the use of the word, “clowns”.

“I’ve spent more time as a clown than you have. My respect for that make movies cannot be surpassed by anyone.”

I have no idea what you mean here. I’m not trying to be a dick. I literally have no idea what you mean here. I think maybe you accidentally left out a couple of words. But as someone who regularly employs writers, I can tell you what dick writers think of dick studio executives, dick studio executives think of dick writers. It’s a mutual disrespect that helps no one. Unfortunately, studio executives are the employers.

At the end of the day, no matter what goes into a contract, nothing will change until mutual respect is given. I know that sounds kind of kindergartenish but man, is it true.

All I know is, if we want things to change we have to be proactive.

Eric:

You’re not a nobody and your words couldn’t be more true. Fact is, you have a perspective and objectivity to let someone know how ridiculous they’re being. Never sit back and watch the gorillas destroy the treehouse.

Thank you, again.

Kevin:

Force is often necessary to make change; I understand that. And as you say, sometimes the gorillas need to get a little frisky and beat the tar out of each other in the treehouse.

Just be reassured that there are thousands of aspiring writers (of which I am one!) who aim to be like you guys (Josh, Craig, Ted, Kevin, etc.) and we look to you to show us leadership, maturity, wit, creativeness, success, etc.

Forge away, gentlemen! Keep a “macro” view, and just be sure your efforts are forging together and not against each other.

I’m back to the wall! Bzzzzzzzz.

Kevin

Yup. Missing word.

My respect for the people that make movies cannot be surpassed by anyone.

“In fact, all great movies are made from screenplays that suggest far worse movies” Honestly, I’m too tired to argue the point. But I suspect you know that’s not actually true, although I don’t know why you’d ever try to argue it. Kinda weird, frankly …

You’re not arguing the point because it’s inarguable.

A given screenplay contributes to the quality of a movie made from it, but does does not guarantee the quality of the movie made from it. And here’s the proof:

If it did, then we would not be having a discussion about how writers can increase their creative rights, because every movie would already be an accurate reflection of the writer’s intent.

-

Ted,

“A given screenplay contributes to the quality of a movie made from it, but does does not guarantee the quality of the movie made from it”

Uh, right. I know that. I find myself baffled that an idea that has been kicking around film and writer circles for half a century or so is so alien here.

The point is precisely that a great screenplay does not ensure a great movie. The point is that the greatest movies have the greatest screenplays, and even those films don’t, as a rule, live up to the screenplays.

The point is that you can have a great movie without great direction, or great acting, or great camera work, or great editing. But you cannot have a great movie without a great script, and that says something about the heirarchical importance of screenwriters in the chain.

It’s not an alien thought; it’s just not particularly revolutionary or constructive. In fact, its borders on ‘trite,’ and although it has been of-repeated for sixty years or more, and will surely continued to be repeated as long as two writers congregate, it has not done jack to ensure that a great screenplay becomes a great movie.

That’s what I’m talking about, that’s what Craig is talking about: how to ensure the best possible chance of the screenplay you (generic ‘you,’ not specific) wrote becomes a movie that accurately reflects your intent.

It goes without saying that every screenwriters intent is a great screenplay and a great movie; it also goes without saying that the film industry does not automatically accord a writer the responsibilities to which writers are entitled for simply writing the screenplay.

Or, at least, it should.

-

Ted,

“It’s not an alien thought; it’s just not particularly revolutionary or constructive.”

First you tell me it’s simply not true, then you tell me it’s true, but just not revolutionary or constructive. I didn’t think it was. It’s as axiomatic as stating “writers write.”

I was making the case that the writer is the primary, most essential creator in the process. I agree entirely that it’s not a revolutionary concept. That’s why it’s so troubling that I have to fight for it here, of all places. If the people who are fighting for us don’t believe in any of that, how the fuck are we going to convince anyone else?

And THAT is the nut, Ted. That’s the problem I have with a lot of what gets posted here.

“The writer is the most important person to a movie. Got it?”

The most important. I believe the writer is more important than the director. And the producer. And the gaffer.

But of course the writer is more important.

I was making the case that the writer is the primary, most essential creator in the process. I agree entirely that it’s not a revolutionary concept. That’s why it’s so troubling that I have to fight for it here, of all places. If the people who are fighting for us don’t believe in any of that, how the fuck are we going to convince anyone else?

Who are you trying to convince? You’re arguing about concepts that have literally been expressed in bold statements. If you go back and read some of your posts, it almost seems as if you’re arguing with yourself.

And just out of curiousity, are you able to express a point of view without being so painfully obnoxious? Even your good points are destroyed with that nasty attitude.

Tone it down.

Actually Kevin, Josh O’s point has been that the writer is the most important cog in the movie making machine - on that he has been consistent and not arguing with himself. He has been vehement on that point.

Until Craig wrote the words in bold which you reprinted, my impression from Craig and Ted was that, while a writer’s work is important, it’s not as important as the directing and producing (that was my impression, guys, up until Craig wrote the above) - based on the following points from Craig, Ted, and yourself:

Screenwriters need to direct / and produce in addition to writing in order to empower themselves.

Screenwriters work in one medium, filmakers work in another and screenwriters need to understand that films are not the written medium and unless we also direct / produce, we are not an authority how how it is to translate whatever it is we wrote to film.

Screenwriters need to be easier to work with in order to get along better with those in power above them, that if we collaborate better we will be treated better (again, while I agree it’s important to learn how collaborate, I disagree that it will translate into writers overall being treated better by those in power).

Josh’s O’s big point is that when a writer constructs a story for a film, he’s creating everything necessary to make a good movie from scratch and without the writer, there is no movie and that everyone else who works on a film would not have a job if a writer hadn’t written something for them to film (a point to which, I must say, I agree to a certain extent) and as such, the writer is worthy of more consideration and better treatment.

Not that Ted and Craig do not believe writers need more consideration and better treatment, they do - the big differece of opinion here is A) how to achieve that and B) the writers role in the process.

Again I say, these are simply MY impressions from the heated and fast-flying discussion above -

I should add that I in no way present this as a criticism of Craig or Ted or Josh O, of course - as I mention above, it’s obvious they are doing us all good by having this kind of discussion in a public forum like this, even if one agrees or disagrees with whatever point is being put forth.

We are lucky to be able to be a part of something like this, even if there is the occasional-pimp slap between high rollers - Actually, there’s been more than an occastional one. But in the words of yet another Josh (this one Friedman) “That’s how a word famous blogger rolls, bitch”

Kevin

Nobody likes a politeness Nazi.

On top of that, nobody likes people who couch nasty attitudes in polite speech. The difference between how I write here and how some people write, is you never walk away from one of my posts wondering if you might have just been insulted.

I have enough respect for you to let you know, bitch.

Stop getting your panties in such a wad over how people express themselves and pay some attention to what they’re expressing. You’ll come off as less of a priss.

As for the statement in bold, you should take Joshua’s comments to heart. If that’s not the first time Craig’s expressed that particular sentiment here, it’s the second. Maybe the third. And I’d wager that the only other times have been when I’ve put his feet to the fire in the past to make that clear because - pay attention here, princess - it does not come through at ALL in his writings here.

What DOES come through is his irritation with writers who don’t think they need to do more than just write; with writers who think what we do is the most important aspect of filmmaking; with writers who think the big issues are more important than the small ones; with writers who think this is an art form and not a sausage factor; with writers who have the temerity to value real quality over fleeting commercial success.

I’m hardly the only working screenwriter who reads Craig’s stuff and rolls his eyes. I’m just one of the few who’s delusional enough to think that if I pound his head against a wall long enough, he’ll get it.

It’s almost cetainly a mental illness. But it sure does keep the peanut gallery entertained….

Wow. Remind me to steer clear of a few of your cages — VICIOUS.

I’m going to focus on my writing and my art now.

Best of luck to you all; Devin

I’ve been telling folks for years that the line between writing for a living and full contact cage fighting is pretty friggin’ thin …

I agree with Josh & Joshua.

I am endlessly grateful to Craig & Ted for this site; at the same time, I find that Craig’s writings seem to betray contempt for writers who are less successful/productive/talented than he is. Which is a tad unnerving given his role in the WGA.

There is hostility on this board, but it generally stems from a healthy, worthwhile debate, w/ the notable exception of many of Kevin’s posts. (Once you make fun of someone for being an Oscar nominee, you really… have to… um… stop posting.)

Okay, okay, we’ve descended into name calling again (Kevin, you know better), so I’m going to surround this thread with police caution tape and end the comments.

In a day or two…another article from me. I’ll try and make this next one something sweet and light.

After that, I’ll probably toss another grenade. Ya never know…

Thanks to all for an extremely robust exchange.