Q: Do I Need To Show "Range" In Order To Get An Agent?
A: No. You need to show that you can make the agent money.
A reader was talking with another writer who told him that A-list agents need to see three spec screenplays before they’ll agree to rep you. Why three? They need proof that you have range.
This is baloney.
Well, to be more precise, it’s a white lie. Agents ask for “range” because what they’ve seen isn’t impressive enough, and by “impressive” I mean “potentially lucrative.”
The only range one needs to be concerned with is the range of one’s talent. If you write a screenplay that an agent or producer reads and loves, then they will immediately attempt to exploit both you and the screenplay to their advantage.
There’s no formula, no magic number, no magical “range” required. Frankly, the notion is absurd on its face, because the first thing that happens to you after you sell a screenplay is an industry-wide pigeon-holing of you, your writing and your career.
There are writers who have different speeds, although it’s exceedingly rare to find a writer who is good at comedy and any other genre at the same time (they’re out there, but like I said…rare). Similarly, agents have a hard time selling writers who aren’t marketable, and marketability almost requires a reductive viewpoint.
My own range is rather narrow. I’ve written broad comedy, spoof, romantic comedy, whimsical dramedy…
Everything’s got an “medy” in it, though. I was hired once to write on a horror film. I didn’t want to do it. I was asked pleadingly and was paid well, so I did it with full disclaimers.
I really shouldn’t write horror movies, as it turns out.
I don’t think I’m bad at it per se, but it’s not what I love. I bring nothing special to it. Mere competence, or even just a high percentile of ability compared to the general population, is hardly a recommendation to a genre.
People tend to cling to formulaic rules or guidelines when attempting to navigate difficult challenges. I don’t blame them. Getting an agent can be difficult. Unfortunately, there’s no secret. You can write a script in every genre, but you’ll still be lagging behind the guy with one great screenplay.
This doesn’t mean you have to cling to one genre either. Most every writer I know has at least two facets to his writing. Sometimes more. And maybe you’re one of those rare renaissance writers who has what someone else might objectively deem “range.”
It’s all incidental to talent, passion and hard work.
“There’s no formula, no magic number, no magical “range” required. Frankly, the notion is absurd on its face, because the first thing that happens to you after you sell a screenplay is an industry-wide pigeon-holing of you, your writing and your career.”
Surely it’s a lot easier to shake out of this industry wide pigeonholing you say is inevitable if you show… range…?
Ruairi:
No doubt. But if you’ve been pigeonholed, that means you’ve sold something. And if you’ve sold something, odds are you already have an agent…
I was signed from a single spec.
That being said, I’ve heard from agent friends over the years that they like to see at least two specs from a writer. Not for range, but for consistency. They don’t want to get behind a good script, only to find that it was a fluke.
I imagine it’s more of a guideline than a rule.
“No doubt. But if you’ve been pigeonholed, that means you’ve sold something. And if you’ve sold something, odds are you already have an agent…”
Right but being pigeonholed still fucking sucks. So maybe it’s not to get an agent, but surely it’s still good advice to prove you can do different genres in advance of getting an agent anyway, to avoid being pigeonholed later. And surely it’s good to have worked on more than one good script ANYWAY. After all - People tend to be asked to do what they did last time, if it worked - not necessarily what you want to prove you CAN do if given the chance. I mean if you just want to write comedies, or horror, exclusively, then fine. But if you want to do different things every time you are gonna be very unhappy if you don’t bother “showing range”.
And also it helps prove you aren’t Troy Duffy.
I think Craig is saying that you really can’t avoid pigeon-holing no matter how many different scripts you’ve written because once you’ve sold your first script. You are instantly pigeon-holed in whatever genre that script was.
And it will be an uphill fight to break that perception. It has its ups and downs. On one hand you want to be able to write and sell in any genre you want. On the other it is nice for some exec to say, I need a writer for this comedy. Tom is a “comedy guy,” let’s get him.
If you are a jack-of-all-trades then you aren’t any “guy” and might suffer by being unclassifiable. Pick your poison.
Besides, I have to take what I get in the way of ideas. If I have several great ideas for “-medy” flicks and 20 okay ideas for horror, then guess which one I’m writing?
Maybe some people have incredible hooks in multiple genres, but right now, I’m not that guy.
“I think Craig is saying that you really can’t avoid pigeon-holing no matter how many different scripts you’ve written because once you’ve sold your first script. You are instantly pigeon-holed in whatever genre that script was.”
well, it helps if you can demonstrate you can do other types of stuff… right…? Assuming you want to in the first place.
“And it will be an uphill fight to break that perception”
yeah… especially if you haven’t proven you can do other types of stuff…
Or you could prepare yourself better by writing several COMPLETELY different stories. Then when you get an agent, and people will actually read your stuff, you can, you know, show that you aren’t just the >insert limited genre here< guy.
Do I really have to argue this any more? I mean, isn’t it just flawless, self-evident, incontrovertable logic?
It’s the pigeonholing that sets my spider sense tingling. Not whether an agent needs to see range.
But honestly, can it HURT?
the last anon post was me again…
“If you are a jack-of-all-trades then you aren’t any “guy” and might suffer by being unclassifiable”
I suspect this would only be a problem if none of your work was classified as “good”
Yeah, sure, if you’re not happy with the way the business sees you, then you should probably write something in the genre you want them to see you in.
Of course.
I remember a guy that thought he could play both Basketball and Baseball at the same level. He didn’t do very well in one of them.
“I remember a guy that thought he could play both Basketball and Baseball at the same level. He didn’t do very well in one of them.”
I remember Stanley Kubrick made
Paths of Glory Spartacus Lolita 2001 Dr. Strangelove A clockwork Orange Barry Lyndon The Shining Full Metal Jacket…
…Master of none? Unclassifiable? Not at all. They are all GOOD.
@Ruairi:
That is why he is Stanley Kubrick. You and I, unfortunately, are not.
Thanks for dispelling that rumor…
Ruairi:
“I remember Stanley Kubrick made Paths of Glory Spartacus Lolita 2001 Dr. Strangelove A clockwork Orange Barry Lyndon The Shining Full Metal Jacket… …Master of none? Unclassifiable? Not at all. They are all GOOD.”
I’m not sure you can make a strong point your argument by citing the exception and not the rule. I mean, isn’t there always an exception? If you told me that all models were dumb, cigarette smoking, vapid pieces of animated hanger, I’d obviously pick that one model who wasn’t to refute your argument like…uh…um…whatever.
Models are hot.
Hey if you can be diverse and get work writing multiple genres, I say go for it.
Just know that, from what Craig and others have said, it is a tough road. Seems to me that once you sell a comedy, there won’t be a whole lot of people excited to read your dramatic period piece set in 16th century Canada.
What I gather is, once you sell your first script, to the industry you have exactly one script, and people looking to make money off of you, like to minimize their chances, and they know that selling a comedy script from you after you had previously sold a comedy script is easier than anything else you might have.
God forbid your first script gets made AND makes good money. I’m guessing it is very hard to break free at that point.
But what do I know.
Put it this way.
I think Jim Carrey is a very talented actor. I thought he was great in Simon Birch, Doing Time on Maple Drive, and dare I say it…I even enjoyed The Majestic.
That being sad, the majority of people don’t want to see Carrey like that. They want Carrey in a comedy. And if it’s high concept, even better.
That’s just the way it is. WITH EVERYTHING. When you make your mark in a certain genre or medium, that’s where everyone wants you to stay. So it’s not really an agent thing. It’s a person thing. We do that with everybody.
Most people attempt to step out of their genre. And most people aren’t very good at it. Most people think they can do it.
Most can’t.
Even though they think they can.
I disagree with Kevin… Actors really should go for range, whilst writers should find their specialty, like Craig’s “medy”.
See, pigeon-holing is not neccesarily a negative, as it depends on YOU what hole you’ll be pigeoned into… What it really does is force you to find your niche, your style, your voice!
Ask yourself — what kind of films do I want to write for a living? Ruairi may shout: GOOD ONES! But a smart writer will try to develop and explore his own unique voice/style that makes him stand out from the crowd (thing Quentin). Agents - and studios - are looking for the “new voice”. And being the go-to-guy when it comes to writing great action with smart humor ain’t such a bad thing… ask Shane Black.
“I disagree with Kevin… Actors really should go for range, whilst writers should find their specialty, like Craig’s “medy”.”
I didn’t say they shouldn’t. I said that most people don’t accept it when they do.
“And being the go-to-guy when it comes to writing great action with smart humor ain’t such a bad thing… ask Shane Black.”
Exactly. And if you want to adapt a comic book to the screen, David S. Goyer is on the top of everyone’s list.
Unless it’s a Marvel book…then you go to Zak Penn. The point is, you can make a lot of cash if you tumble into the right pigeonhole…
“I’m not sure you can make a strong point your argument by citing the exception and not the rule. I mean, isn’t there always an exception? If you told me that all models were dumb, cigarette smoking, vapid pieces of animated hanger, I’d obviously pick that one model who wasn’t to refute your argument like…uh…um…whatever.”
Ok, so basketball is a much closer analogy for filmakers than a… film maker…? I knew someone would make fun of me for supposedly comparing myself to Kubrick. While I share much of his DNA characteristics, and am of the same sex, I was just pointing out that it’s a better goal to aim high, and maybe fail along the way. But at least you are failing to be “one of the best filmmakers of all time” rather than failing to earn a living. There was, as I’m sure every single person here knows, a rather nice article on wordplayer.com about this subject matter, written by “smart” writers who put it better than some failed Kubrick Wannabe ever could. In other words, It’s not a rule - it’s an ideal. It’s a goal. Not even a necessarily very realistic one. There’s nothing wrong with pigeonholing if you are doing what you want to do. All’s I’m saying is, I don’t want to be pigeonholed, it fucking KILLS me. Stanley Kubrick is a nice role model for people that don’t want to be pigeonholed. That’s it.
“Ruairi may shout: GOOD ONES! But a smart writer will try to develop and explore his own unique voice/style that makes him stand out from the crowd”
But…? But what?
Is this a counter argument to a single word I’ve said? Basically you’ve just said “doing good stuff that you like doing is good”. I mean it’s pretty hard to argue with, but it SEEMS like you were arguing with me. And I don’t disagree with anything you are saying, but since your post was designed to rub me up the wrong way, I’ll ask - what’s your fucking point, apart from being a dick?
Ruairi, relax your tone… we all know by now it’s easier for you to communicate with profanity, but try to have some “range”. I’ve made my point. Don’t see any need to repeat it.
Boy, this went downhill fast…
I think many writers frequent this site for solid industry-savvy advice. That’s what the point is.
The Kubrick analogy is flawed. He was a director who made prestigious pictures fairly cheaply and had a great deal with WB.
Look at the writers of the Kubrick films you’ve cited. How many historical dramas did Terry Southern get sold?
“Ruairi, relax your tone… we all know by now it’s easier for you to communicate with profanity, but try to have some “range”. I’ve made my point. Don’t see any need to repeat it.”
The thing is I’m more insulted by the kind of veiled insults you’ve been using, rather than naughty language. So tell you what, I’ll tone it down, if you stop playing hall monitor. Because it’s really “darn” irritating.
on the other hand, if Craig would prefer I toned it down, he has only to say the word. The last thing I want to to is bring the discussion downhill, you know, by mentioning animal sex or something.
Strange how the resident hall monitor was conspicuously silent on that one.
How about you all tone it down and stick to substance?
Good grief…
“How about you all tone it down and stick to substance?”
Sure thing boss.
Craig obviously I’m taking the view that pigeonholing is bad, evil, awful, terrible. etc. -but are you saying it’s a GOOD thing? in the same way failure is good now too… umm… I mean I guess this time it’s not quite as big a reversal…
I mean it’s good if you use it to your benefit. I’m sure David Goyer is more than happy to be the comic book guy (or is he? why then did he make Zigzag?) And I’m sure Eli Roth is happy as hell to be the horror guy, and then on the other end of the spectrum we have someone like Hideo Nakata, who I read in an interview isn’t actually that big a horror person, is sick of doing horror films and sick of being labelled that way and really miserable about it. The next job he takes? another horror film… And he’s still miserable…
I dunno, sometimes writers just sound like that guy in Life of Brian screaming “God Bless the Romans!”
“Failure is good! It’s just another step on the road to (much later) success!”
“Pigeonholing is gonna happen anyway whether you like it or not, so why fight it! In fact, pigeonholing is good!”
for me pigeonholing is just the worst thing in the world*.
*genocide is probably worse, I’ll admit.
How does it fall apart so quickly?
Just out of curiousity, how many people on this site actually have agents?
I’m not asking this to incite a riot but I do think certain viewpoints have a lot to do with not being represented.
The funny thing is, much like the last article from Craig, the disagreement is stemming from the personal definition of a single word.
Last time it was “Failure”.
Now it’s “Pigeonholed”.
How ‘bout this? If you feel comfortable in a certain genre and have objectively realized that you’re not “shining” in an alternative genre, then stay in the one you’re comfortable in. If you really can mix genres, more than likely you’ll get the chance. And if the venture is successful, you won’t be pigeonholed.
Don’t forget, sometimes when one complains about being pigeonholed they truly don’t realize that in reality, they’re pretty lousy in other genres.
Like me.
I suck at Horror. I found out the hard way.
Don’t think of it as pigeon holing (which sounds obscene), think of it as being a specialist. When you need open heart surgery, you don’t go to a GP, you go to a specialist. They know more about their branch of medicine. It’s great to be a specialist - you are a master of your trade.
My favorite Kubrick films are PATHS OF GLORY and THE KILLING… both written by Jim Thompson.
“I’m not asking this to incite a riot but I do think certain viewpoints have a lot to do with not being represented.”
As it seems like I’m the only person here offering any opposing viewpoint I’m guess wildly you are talking about me… No need to skirt around the question :) Worst that can happen is people who are not repped are no longer considered to have a valid opinion to offer. Because they are no Stanley Kubrick.
In answer to the question you sort of half wondered kind of out loud, no I am not currently represented by an agent (though I have had discussions with both agents and managers recently, and… well, we’ll see)
Maybe it’s just that am approaching this from a completely different approach vector to most of you here. I’m coming from the commercials industry, and maybe if I tend to shift things toward more directing-centric rather than solely writing centric, I apologise. It sort of filters my perspective a bit. I dunno, maybe pigeonholing is fantastic for people that want to work exclusively as writers, (and exculsively in a genre they like) but for people that want to direct as well as write (and come from doing commercials), it’s really, really really, really, really (am I stressing this enough) really bad.
Working on commercials is an endless struggle to NOT do what you did last time (but with the law of diminishing returns if you repeat yourself.) Because that’s all anyone ever wants you to do (until you pass a certain threshold like Jonathon Glazer, or Michel Gondry, or Spike Jonze where you’ve shown you can handle many genres successfully on a smaller scale in music videos, ads and short films, and people come to you based on your name, and the expectation of good results, whatever the genre) And I expect anyone coming from commercials to features is gonna try and do different things every time. (Spike Jonze is doing a puppet animation of Where the Wild things are, then a horror movie after that) and Jonathon Glazer, I figure he could cross any genre he wants. These guys already have - in commercials.
Me, I’m the cartoony 3d animation guy. I’ve been offered a couple of CG animation features to direct already but turned them down because I’d rather be shooting stuff. So I am. But since nobody else is gonna pay for it, so I have to just go and do it myself. (and turn down the extremely well paid animation commercial directing jobs in the meantime) Which is fine, as long as when I’m done I’m not pigeonholed as the goddamn animation guy any more.
So yeah, I’m not neutral on this subject matter, not by a long way. This time it’s personal :)
“Don’t think of it as pigeon holing (which sounds obscene), think of it as being a specialist. When you need open heart surgery, you don’t go to a GP, you go to a specialist. They know more about their branch of medicine. It’s great to be a specialist - you are a master of your trade.”
Hey Bill, that’s a nice way of looking at it.
But isn’t being a writer a specialist anyway :)
It all comes down to - are you happy with what you are working on. If you are, then you are a specialist. If not, you are being pigeonholed.
a link for ruiari:
www.artfuldirector.com
There are a million things you can write about - and dozens of fiction genres you can write in. Writing is very general… even screenwriting is general. There are very specific skill sets for each genre. I am funny in real life, not so funny on the page. Okay, I’m funny enough to write a buddy cop movie - but I couldn’t do a 90 minute comedy script like Craig does.
I could try and fail, but that’s not what’s required. What’s required is to write the top 1% in comedy (the ones that people buy and make - or the writers that get comedy assignments). Thrillers and action - I can do that… because I have developed that skill set over, well, a long time. I have worked hard to become a specialist.
Just like that open heart surgeon, there are new developments and new things to learn every day. I can barely keep up with thrillers & action… I can’t imagine trying to be an expert at everything. I suspect I’d just be mediocre at everything. We have enough writers like that - and they don’t earn much.
I have written a couple of (unfunny) comedy scripts and a couple of (terrible) romantic scripts…
I could waste my time writing more of those, but I’m just not any good at it. Steven Seagal I can write for (and get paid), but George Seagal? I’m just not good enough in that genre.
A man has to know his limitations.
Still I’m seeing someone like, say, David Benioff dance between projects, from the 25th hour to Troy, to Stay, then onto the upcoming Wolverine and Enders game, with a couple of serious sounding dramas in between… And he’s not even a guy that gets talked about much round these parts… So is it really that much of an exception to the rule to be able to swap genres like that? (Maybe he sucks at comedy?)
I think of it less as limitations, and being good at what you are interested in. Hey Maybe I’d suck at making a romantic comedy (Of course you could argue that I’ll probably suck at everything else too) - I’ll probably never know, because I have no interest in making one. But I don’t see that as a limitation…
Bill, do you WANT to write straight comedies? It’s only a limitation if it’s something you care about doing, imho.
Obviously if I’ve spent all of these years honing my action and thriller skill set, that was my choice.
I’m not sure I’d use Benioff as an example.
Ruairi:
As a human being you’re just gonna have to except that you have limitations. I mean, you could be that kid from Kyle XY but something tells me that you’re not a…(SPOILER, SPOILER, SPOILER).
It’s really not about interests. It’s limitations. But you know what? That’s ok. We all have them. In the long run, that’s what makes for a Great career vs. a Mediocre career. Knowing your limitations keeps a man who’s great at writing comedy from trying to adapt Chekov simply because he wants to take a crack at it.
Personally, I can’t relate because I’m sexier than Denzel and Taye Diggs combined and I have more talent than Spielberg and Kubrick, wrapped up in a Kurasawa gordita.
“there won’t be a whole lot of people excited to read your dramatic period piece set in 16th century Canada.”
From what I’ve heard, nobody’s going to be excited to read that one anyway. :-)
Personally, I find myself naturally being drawn to a specific genre and enjoy trying to find variation within that genre to write. A friend of mine writes/directs horror, and every time I see one of his pictures, all I can think of is funny lines I would’ve put in had I written it (probably completely ruining the horror and making the movie fail miserably at what it was trying to achieve).
Even within a genre, there can be many variations. I mean, Bill mentioned he couldn’t write 90 minute comedy screenplays like Craig does, but I would venture to bet there are many comedy writers who couldn’t write some of the stuff Craig does. Writing spoofs takes a specific skill set. I don’t think I could ever do it even though I fancy myself as something of a comedy writer.
No. Not at all. It’s just a reality. Part of the business, and mostly because it’s part of human nature. It’s up to the writer to either exploit it or defy it, depending on their individual perspective on it.
Quite right. I found that out the hard way. The skills I thought would be relevant were not. Happily, I happened to also be able to throw the new pitch once it was taught to me.
Likewise, I’d be terrible at a number of comedic sub-genres. I love Rushmore, but I’m sure I wouldn’t have the slightest aptitude for that kind of writing.
It’s all a psychological issue. How people perceive you is up to you. You just need to be convincing enough to sell.
And a great script is always wanted. Let your work speak for itself.
If I sell a thriller and it’s big at the B.O. I couldn’t blame the people around me for wanting me to write more thrillers and make more bucks until I proved them I can write romantic comedies too. And if they don’t want my romantic comedies then it’s clear they are not good enough.
“If I sell a thriller and it’s big at the B.O. I couldn’t blame the people around me for wanting me to write more thrillers and make more bucks until I proved them I can write romantic comedies too. And if they don’t want my romantic comedies then it’s clear they are not good enough.”
What a wonderfully objective and totally secure way to look at the business of screenwriting and craft.
Wait…just who the hell do you think you are?!:)
This comes from the “Atrful Debate” about us here; “I had to read all of part one TWICE just to follow the stinkin’ issue at hand. It was like rewinding a boxing match and playing it on slow forward just so you don’t miss a punch… each very polite punch.”
I’ll go with polite to post about these; “Personally, I can’t relate because I’m sexier than Denzel and Taye Diggs combined and I have more talent than Spielberg and Kubrick, wrapped up in a Kurasawa gordita.” AND; “What a wonderfully objective and totally secure way to look at the business of screenwriting and craft.”… “Wait…just who the hell do you think you are?!:)”
Insert polite-ness… Y A W N !
And Kimmy says we need to add to the above comparisons of ‘men’ that you forgot PeeWee Herman! (Now that’s some funny s*%#.)
RnD
I have no idea what the above post means. Are Rich and Kimmy upset that the cursing has stopped? Make a point, dude, or…well, you know…
Rich:
What in God’s name are you saying? Syntax is everything.
You remind me of that long lost poster, Sylvain.
Anyone remember him? Did anyone ever understand him?
I was going to say that Sam Mendes might be a good idea of a filmmaker who is not pigeon-holed. And he is, but each of his movies are penned by different writers.
So my question is: Are there any writers out there who have made a consistent living working in multiple genres? William Goldman comes to mind, and I’m sure there are others, but I’m guessing the members of that club could probably swim blindly in a pool without hitting each other.
I think the issue is that “pigeon-holed” is, by nature, a value laden word, but in this case it is used in a value neutral way. It just is
Are there any? Jeez… off the top of my head…
Ernest Lehman - West Side Story/The sound of Music/Who’s afraid of virginia Wolf/North by Northwest
Billy Wilder - Double Indemnity/The Lost Weekend/Sunset Boulevard/Some Like it Hot/The Apartment
Lawrence Kasdan - Raiders/Empire/accidental tourist/body heat/Grand Canyon
George Miller - Babe/Mad max/The road Warrior/Happy Feet.
Brian Helgeland - LA Confidential/Payback/Man on fire/Mystic River/Nightmare on Elm Street 4/076 EVIL, A Nights Tale, and also er… The Postman…
David Koepp - Stir of Echoes/Spider Man/Panic Room/Secret Window/War of the Worlds/Zathura/Mission Impossible/The Paper/Carlito’s Way/Jurassic Park/Death Becomes her
Scott Frank - Minority Report/Out of Sight/Get Shorty/Flight of the Phoenix/Little Man Tate… and he also worked on the Wonder Years…
Damn, most of these guys are directors too. Does that mean they don’t count? (actually I think it might have something to do with their tendency to swap genres) Hell even Scott Frank is directing now…
I remember a guy who excelled in both football and baseball.
That’s a good list. Originally I was thinking of writers only, but these still qualify. Seems like it is benefitial for you to be a writer/Director if you want to write in different genres. I’d say the Cohen brothers might also fit the bill.
It is still an exclusive club.
Ruairi + co:
the point is not that the people you list are writer/directors… the point is that none of them are you, i.e.: you are not them. You can list exceptions to the rule all you want, but the fact that an aspiring writer has to find his own style, his own voice, his own speciality, in order to (if he’s lucky!) make a living writing doesn’t change one iota.
Ruariri:
All of those people have one thing in common:
They’re exceptions to the rule.
Not to mention that Billy Wilder is mostly known for comedies.
Put it this way, I see your 7 and raise you 1000 (an absurd number of working screenwriters that I just arbitrarily made up).
I don’t know about anyone else, but the people I admire are all “exception-al.”
It’s what I work for and dream that I can someday be.
Johnny, golly you appear once again to be writing a counter argument to things I’ve said, so I feel like I should be disagreeing with you, but since nothing you’ve said contradicts anything I’ve said, I’m not sure what the point would be. You generally seem like a pretty sensible guy, It’s just that every post you seem to be giving a lecture. And if I wanted a lecture from you…well at least tell me something I don’t already know.
Kevin, yes, the are 7 exceptions to the norm (what rule?) but I’m hardly gonna use mediocre filmmakers as examples now, am I?
actually if you count my other two examples, Kubrick and David Benioff, that’s 9, and as resident exception to the rule/ninja, Ted Elliot sez:
“‘Crap-plus-one’ isn’t really worth aspiring to. And it’s not much of a career strategy. Better to be inspired by the classics and aim for that level, even if it’s never reached.”
That makes ten.
So we have 10 good screenwriters and 1000 mediocre ones.
and as the man says
“99% of everything is crap”
It seems that everyone here would just be happy to earn a paycheck in the industry (not that there’s anything wrong with that), and is embarassed to say they at least aspire to greatness. Lest they be compared unfavourably with the greats. As has happened several times already in this thread. And I’m not in even in that 1000 btw, before everyone jumps down my throat. I’m not even in the list.
But when I’m a grown-up, I aspire to be.
There’s nothing wrong with aiming high, dreaming big, having heroes and idols, all that good stuff… but the issue is, everybody has to make their own way. No one will ever be the next Kubrick. And why bother, when you can be the next James, or the next Arbouet. To do that you need to find your voice. Is all.
Normally these debates amuse or interest me, but I’m completely baffled by this one.
I just…don’t…get it.
There are great screenwriters who defy genre. There are also great screenwriters who do not. The opposite is also true.
Whether or not you choose to work in one genre or many genres is really not an indication that you’re either good or bad.
Honestly, are you guys just bored? :)
Reading through this discussion, one would assume that at some point, someone made the argument that for a screenwriter to have the ability to write in a range of genres is a bad thing.
Whereas Craig’s point seems to be that it’s not a necessary thing; what is necessary is the ability to write well in at least one genre.
-
Heh. Cross-posted.
-
“Normally these debates amuse or interest me, but I’m completely baffled by this one.
I just…don’t…get it.”
Agreed. I feel like I’m arguing, but I’m not even sure why. Think I’m gonna bail on this one. There’s nothing more to say.
Arghh. One more thing.
“Whereas Craig’s point seems to be that it’s not a necessary thing; what is necessary is the ability to write well in at least one genre.”
Well it is necessary if you don’t want to be pigeonholed. But I guess I’m the only person here that cares about that, so I can feel I’m spinning my wheels here.
Goodnight.
R.
I think there is this idea that a writer who can write and sell in a number of genres is somehow superior to those who specialize.
I don’t really agree with that, but I think this whole thing started because the idea that you have unwittingly type cast yourself out of the gate is a little disconcerting to a lot of people.
I agree though, this is much ado about nothing. I’ve got a daily quota for nouns and verbs that I must adhere to or sacrifice all that I hold dear.
As an aspiring writer who has sold nothing and is trying to break in any way I can, I was JUST thinking about this very topic (sort of) before I came to the site today. Right now, I’m editing my first novel, co-writing a screenplay, and I’m SUPPOSED to be polishing a TV spec.
My worry is… what’s worse? To be a “jack of all trades and master of none” or to “put all your eggs in one basket”? Which antiquated cliché should I fear the most? Ack!
I think the underlying question that tried to emerge from the muck of seemingly random and trivial posts is: Is it possible to be a succesful writer without nestling yourself in a pigeonhole.
Ruairi thinks yes, because Stanley did it. But then again Ruairi was thinking of directors all along, which makes me wonder why he’s posting on a site for writers…
Pandemoniom ensues each time somebody here makes a business related statement, and others start arguing it from an artistic point of view.
Jesus. Being pigeon-holed is a problem I’d love to have — and certainly not something I’m going to worry about overcoming until I have to.
Look, being “pigeonholed” simply means that people have an expectation.
Nothing more and nothing less.
Let’s say all I wanted to write was horror films. Okay. The obvious result is that I’m “pigeonholed,” but it’s irrelevant, because I want to write the films everyone expects me to write.
Now let’s say I decide…no, I want to write rom-coms now.
So I write one. It’s not like people aren’t going to read it because it defies their pigeonhole for me. Hell, they’re probably be more interested in reading it.
This is all much ado about nothing.
I think you should avoid all cliches like the plague!
Alfred Hitchcock was “pigeonholed”.
Take THAT, SUCKAS! :)
Awright, that did it for me…I’m outta this one.
I think it’s very important in Westerns to show range…
Cooking shows, too.
And Bill once again proves why he doesn’t write comedy. :-)
“range” is a clever rejection. my personal favorite though was “it’s episodic”.
took me a phone call to find out that was the new rejectiuon term at the time, and that there was not much I could do to make it un-episodic…
“Episodic” is hardly a new objection.
Aristotle complained about it in Poetics.
Aristotle complained about it in Poetics.
I complained about it when I saw the last three Star Wars films.
Though episodic writing seems to have enriched quite a few television writers.
hey, just because I sound un-educated doesn’t me I is
When Craig invokes Aristotle, turn out the lights…
Gee guys and gals, would it help the discussion if we substituted the word “branding or branded” every time the word “pigeon-holed” was used? You as a writer are your “brand” - your unique selling point that distinguishes from the rest of the herd…
Criag,
The more i hear people talk about breaking in, the more i think it might have gotten harder. Do you think that agents might be a little more gun shy about taking on unproven writers?
Like, ten years ago there seemed to be more spec sales, etc. It seems like the noose has tightened a bit. Any chance of that or is it the same?
I was branded when I was on the range shooting a western… Chuck Conners was not involved.
My first post on this site:
It seems, quite simply, that Craig is telling it like it is, as a working professional, a guy in the loop, who has a successful career as a screenwriter, with a number of well-known credits.
Ruairi’s POV, on the other hand, is the IDEAL, how he thinks and would like to to be.
Sorry, RR, but that’s just not the way it is.
I just wrote/directed my first film, a romantic comedy that got picked up by a major distributor. A lit manager wants to rep me, and insists that I have another comedy to sell, since that’s what I’ve proven I can do and sell.
It’s that simple. Sure, in the best of all possible worlds, studio execs wouldn’t be so close-minded. Quality writing is quality writing, right?
But they’re not. They’re nervous folks who are spending lots of money and want to know they’re not participating in a wild goose chase.
Wish it wasn’t so. But it is.
And all the angry posts in the world aren’t going to change it.
So figure out what you can do best (I’ll bet you know) and knock one out of the park.
“Ruairi’s POV, on the other hand, is the IDEAL, how he thinks and would like to to be.”
Yeesh. From the sounds of things, people here must think I’m looking to live in a place with flowery meadows, and rainbow skies, and rivers made of chocolate where children dance and laugh and play with gumdrop smiles. Let me make it clear My point of view isn’t the ideal. My ideal is. It’s not a business plan. But hell, we all have goals right? we all aim high… right………..?
I don’t believe it’s always as big a deal to cross genres as some people are making it out. And I don’t believe you have to be Ridley Scott to do it, though obviously, it couldn’t hurt. I mean you can have a sci-fi comedy or a period horror - styles of writing are obviously not just defined by genre, but by theme and tone and lots of other things. The things that make the writer unique. That doesn’t mean I think it’s “easy” to flip a switch from writing American Pie to Gosford Park or anything.
Look I get the point of the article, and I agree with 98.3% of it, and sure, this is a non-issue as Craig says, if the majority are happy doing exactly what it is they want to do (or just happy to be making a paycheck writing)
But many or most of the filmmakers I admire are people (ok ok, mostly directors or writer/directors) who cross genres without breaking any apparent sweat. And there are some who I admire who agonised greatly about being pigeonholed (Segio Leone anyone?) So I don’t agree that it’s a non-issue either. A minority maybe on both counts, but I don’t think it’s fair to dismiss it as a concern out of hand. Especially when it was brought up as “the first thing that happens to you after you sell a screenplay is an industry-wide pigeon-holing of you, your writing and your career.” - Yikes, tell me it’s not just me that thinks this sounds negative. Maybe it’s just the way it was phrased. I prefer Bill’s choice of words (speciality/expertise) on this matter. (If it had been framed in those terms from the get-go I probably wouldn’t have even posted on this thread)
so… there you go. Good luck with your film, btw. And the new one :)
R.
I wrote several scripts while in college. The first script was very Repo Man. The second script was very Neverending Story. The third script was Fast and the Furious. My goal was just to keep writing until I moved to LA. I didn’t show the scripts to anyone. Then, right before I moved, I came up with a high concept comedy idea. I wrote it quickly and a few months later I arrived…suddenly a “hot comedy writer.”
Immediately I got a manager, a few agents, and a lawyer. Blah blah blah. I wrote another script right away and it got optioned. It was a big, family adventure film. It has maybe two jokes in it. Next thing I know, everyone likes it, but “it’s not funny enough.” I’m not sure if I had a point….
how does one write a horror script anyway, I wonder?
EXT. GRAVEYARD. NIGHT
zombies eat brains.
It’s gross.
REALLY gross.
Fade to Black.
…i guess there’s more of a system than that. But I think I’d have nightmares trying to come up with it.
this thread is like a zombie… it just won’t die !!! please, craig, chop its head off !
I sometimes wonder, while reading various screenwriting (and other writing) blogs, why the self-professed writers fail to make posts that are well written. Some claim, that being a blog, they do not have to be held to the same standards. While that may be true, I’ve found that it becomes a bad habit. If you make posts that can’t properly express a concise viewpoint, or include a witty remark at the least, then it some could assume that it reflects your work professionally. Now, while I have made some bad posts to forums and blogs in the past, and although some of them allow me to delete them, I have left them as a reminder of how NOT to write in the future. As for the use of profanity, I limit the use of it to when I NEED to understand that I’m upset. Since I rarely use it, it stands out. More technically, certain words also will disallow some people to read the comments page due to filtering software.
More on topic, when I write, I write a number of things. While difficult for me to write something that I am not in the mood for, If I have other genre writings open that fit my mood better; those are what I work on at that time. I have genres that I write which I am strong in, those that I can do even if I prefer not to, and those that I would only turn out dribble. Work to your strengths. I suppose the best thing to say would be, write well when you can afford to, write commercially viable products if you can’t afford to do so.