Free Updates

Let us tell you when new posts are added!

Email:

Navigation

Categories

Search

Archives

<November 2009>
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
25262728293031
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293012345

Blogroll




# Wednesday, April 30, 2008
WEBSITE OF THE DAY: TVbytheNumbers.com
Posted by Chad

Hey, TV fans--

Wanted to introduce you to my new favorite website/blog, TVbytheNumbers.com

Here's what's awesome about this site... first of all, it's dedicated only to TV ratings, so unlike Variety or The Reporter or Mediaweek, you don't have to wade through a bunch of other news and information in order to get the numbers.  It's just ratings.

Second of all, it gives you easy-to-understand analyses and puts shows' ratings in the context of other shows, networks, and recent history.  The two bloggers, Bill Gorman and Robert Seidman, aren't TV professionals, but they're astute observers and analysts.  They're also unabashed TV fans, so they're not afraid to inject their their opinions on what good shows (like 30 Rock, one of their favorites), should be doing better.

TVbytheNumbers also lets you sign up for daily ratings emails, which is terrific, because Variety and The Hollywood Reporter's emails come out at night, so you don't get the ratings till the end of the day, which is pointless.

Anyway, take a look... it's a wonderful site... and a terrific help for anyone who loves or works in television...

(P.S. And I swear to you, these guys didn't pay me to write this.  I've never even met them--but I think I'll drop them an email and tell them how much I like the site...)


Books Tools Resources | Fun Stuff
Wednesday, April 30, 2008 4:42:13 AM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)  #  Comments [1]
# Sunday, April 27, 2008
TALKING POINTS: Does Marketing Affect the Quality of a Film?
Posted by Chad

Hey, guys--

So, I wanted to do something a bit different today... which is basically just: pick your brains and chat about stuff. 

A couple weeks ago, I posted my "review" on Vantage Point... or at least, some thoughts on the writing of the movie.  One of my biggest gripes is that the movie, like all mysteries, inherently asks the audience to go along for the ride and have the fun of trying to solve the riddle.  This is the point of mysteries.  And Vantage Point's marketing campaign supports this with the straightforward (although no less ridiculous) tagline: "Can you solve the puzzle?"  The problem is: no, you can't solve the mystery, because the movie intentionally cheats you out of the clues necessary to do so.  Which, I think, breaks the unspoken covenant between mystery storyteller and mystery audience.

Anyway, several of you wrote in, both in the blog's comments section and via email, with some interesting thoughts of your own, and one in particular caught my eye.  Loyal reader Jake writes:

"Isn't it possible that the bigger problem is the marketing machine at whatever studio put this out? Isn't it at all possible that they made the film they wanted to make, and then the marketing machine said: hey, let's make it a puzzle in need of solving?"

Well, before I get to the larger, more interesting question in Jake's post... lemme throw in my two cents worth for Jake.

In answer to: "Isn't it possible that they made the film they wanted to make, then the marketing machine said: let's make it a puzzle in need of solving?"...

No.  It's not possible.  Or rather, if it is possible, then I'm even more dismayed by the filmmakers.  Because regardless of its marketing, Vantage Point does not work.  It is fatally flawed as both a mystery and a story, so if it is the movie the producers set out to make, then... well... the producers have even more egg on their face, because they set out to make a crappy movie.

In fact, I think Vantage Point's marketing was the best thing about the film.  It had great marketing!  The trailers were cool... they clearly articulated the gimmick and the story of the movie... they made me want to see it!  I actually think the marketing campaign was marketing the movie the producers had hoped to make... they just didn't pull it off.

Now, Jake also writes-- "At least the film was different. Give it some credit for that."  And I agree.  I appreciate what the film was trying to do... but that doesn't mean it didn't fail miserably.  Which is also why I don't think the filmmakers "made the film they wanted to make."  They had a vision, sure, but their final product fell far short.  And that's not the fault of bad marketing.

However... the more interesting question buried in Jake's comments are: "How does movie marketing affect our enjoyment of a movie?" 

In other words, if a movie's marketing campaign leads us to believe one thing, and it leads our expectations in a certain direction, but then the movie turns out to be something different... even if it's a good movie... how do we react?  Do we hate the movie?  Are we surprised but pleased?

I'm just thinking out loud... and I'm trying to think of examples where the trailers and marketing campaign made the movie look like one thing, and it was actually entirely different.  And when a movie is mis-marketed, does it affect how much you like the movie?  Can good storytelling and acting still shine through and trump an audience's misled expectations?

I dunno...  I'm wondering...


Interesting Talking Points
Sunday, April 27, 2008 2:11:50 AM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)  #  Comments [3]
# Wednesday, April 23, 2008
UPCOMING EVENTS: 2 Great Festivals
Posted by Chad

Hey, guys--

Whether you're on the east coast or the west coast, I wanted to give you a heads up to a couple cool festivals this weekend.

First, check out the Indepedent Film Festival of Boston, which begins tomorrow, April 23, and runs through next Tuesday, April 29.  Seven days of movies, music, and parties!

Secondly... This weekend-- April 26 & 27... MY FAVORITE FESTIVAL IN THE WORLD!... THE LOS ANGELES TIMES FESTIVAL OF BOOKS!  For those of you who live in L.A. and have never been... what the hell's wrong with you??  And for those of you who don't live in L.A.... this is why you should move.

If you don't know about the L.A. Times' Festival of Books, it's an annual two-day festival held all over the UCLA campus... where hundreds of authors, booksellers, publishers, and book-lovers congregate to buy and sell books, listen to readings and interviews with authors, and meet and talk to other writers and readers.  In short: it's sheer awesomeness. 

Plus, each year, they compile an amazing roster of guest speakers and panelists.  This year's writers include Harlan Coben, Ray Bradbury, Michael Connelly, Tobias Wolff, Jane Smiley, and TONS of others.  There are also countless speeches, seminars, and panels on novels, poetry, journalism, film and TV... and about different genres-- sci-fi, mystery, romance, comedy, you name it.  

Leonard Maltin will be hosting "Reinventing Hollywood: The 1960's and Beyond," a panel discussion with Peter Biskind, Mark Harris, and Kenneth TuranGeoff Boucher is hosting "Comics: Superheroes of the Page & Screen," with Jeph Loeb, Mike Mignola, and Steve Niles.  And Ron Hogan hosts "On Page & Screen," with veteran authos/screenwriters Tom Epperson, Mark Frost, Gary David Goldberg, and Chris Miller.

And best of all-- the whole thing is FREE!  Totally FREE-- every speaker, ever panel, every guest reader and program... it costs-- ZERO DOLLARS.  (You DO have to have tickets to get into some of the popular events, however-- like Ray Bradbury, who-- if you've never seen him-- is an incredible speaker.  You can get tickets through the website, and if they're sold out, they often have some available the day of the event.)

Not to mention-- you can browse, peruse, read, or buy more books than you ever thought possible!  Come on, people... books, authors, movie-talk, readings, food stands, gorgeous California weather... WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT FROM LIFE?!

(And, for what it's worth, there will also be a live interview with Valerie Bertinelli-- ex-wife of Eddie Van Halen, greatest rock god on the planet.  Sure, she has a new book out, but again-- ex-wife of Eddie Van Halen.  HOW COME YOU'R STILL READING THIS?!  THIS THING JUST GETS BETTER AND BETTER!  GET YOUR FREAKING TICKETS ALREADY!)

Anyway, if you're in L.A. or Boston-- or can get to either city easily... take in some great film and literature-- there's no better way to spend a weekend!


Independent Film Festival of Boston - 2008 Trailer




Events Activities and Things To Do
Wednesday, April 23, 2008 1:07:18 AM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)  #  Comments [0]
# Tuesday, April 22, 2008
READER QUESTION: How Are TV Writers Paid?
Posted by Chad

Hey, screenwriters—

Today’s question comes from Dan, who comments at the end of Friday’s post in reference to something I had written about writing on TV shows.  I had written…

“You might be hired [on a TV show] for 10 weeks… or 6 months… or even just one episode.  It varies from show to show (not to get too technical, but the amount of time you’re hired for usually depends on how many episodes the show expects you to work on).”

And Dan asks

“I understand TV writers get paid per episode they write (usually 2 a season, no?). Do they also get paid week-to-week for time spent in the writer's room breaking stories and punching up the other writer's drafts?”

Well, Dan, you are exactly right… kind of.  How TV writers get paid is a pretty complicated arrangement, but here goes…

First of all, when it comes to getting paid, TV writers are divided into two categories: staff writers, or entry-level, bottom-rung writers… and everyone else above them.  Let’s look first at everyone else above them…


WRITERS ABOVE STAFF-WRITER LEVEL

First of all, most TV writers’ compensation is regulated by the Writers Guild of America, which establishes minimum payments that a writer must be paid.  These minimums go up each year.  Right now, for instance, the minimum payment for writing one episode of a half-hour TV show on a broadcast network (ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX) is $21,585.  The minimum for an hour-long show is $31,748.

When a TV writer is hired onto a show’s staff, he/she is contracted to work on a certain number of episodes.  But he/she is also contracted for a certain number of week (usually 6, 14, or 20), so the studio can’t bind you to 6 episodes of some show, then drag them out over two years.

Thus, the WGA also establishes minimum weekly payments.  Right now, for example, the weekly minimum for 6-week hire is $3,817, and the minimum decreases if the writer is hired for more weeks.  So the weekly minimum for a 14-week hire is $3,548.  The weekly minimum for 20 weeks is $3,272.  So the more work a writer is guaranteed, the less the studio pays.

HOWEVER… even though a writer is contracted to work on a specific number of episodes over a certain number of weeks, his weekly average can never sink below the WGA’s weekly minimum.  In other words, he can’t be given a 14-week contract to write one episode of a half-hour sitcom, at the minimum rate of $21,585, because that would make his weekly payment only $1,542… far below the WGA’s 14-week minimum of $3,548/week.

(Which is why, when writers/agents/execs negotiate a writers salary, they often speak in terms of what the writer makes per week.)

Still with me?  Good.  And if you’re not—don’t worry.  I’m pretty confused myself right now.  Which is we’re writers, not accountants.  But hold on, because things are about to get even MORE tricky…  

You know all that “writing” a writer is contracted to do?... IT DOESN’T  INCLUDE WRITING AN ACTUAL SCRIPT.  This is because most mid to upper-level writers are considered “writer-producers,” and their base salary is considered payment for OTHER writing-related duties… beating out stories, fleshing out characters, rewriting other scripts, etc.

So when a salaried writer does write an actual script, he gets paid an additional “script fee” ON TOP of his weekly salary.  In other words, let’s say you get staffed on How I Met Your Mother at $5,000/week for 20 weeks.  That’s $100,000.  BUT… when you write your first script, you get paid another $21,585 (at least; remember—it’s only the WGA’s minimum).  Which means if you write two scripts over the course of the season, your total take-home pay for the 20 weeks is $143,170 ($100,000 + $21,585 + $21,585).  (Of course, you’ll have to pay your agent, your lawyer, taxes, etc.)

Got all that?  Good.  Now let’s look at…


HOW STAFF WRITERS GET PAID

Unlike everyone else on the writing staff, “staff writers,” the writing staff’s lowest level writers, are not considered “writer-producers.”  They are pure writers.  This results in two main differences in their payment plans:

1)  Staff writers are not guaranteed a certain number of episodes, so they’re only paid a weekly salary, which is usually the WGA’s week-to-week payment.  So if a staff writer is hired for 14 weeks on How I Met Your Mother, he’s probably paid nothing more than the WGA minimum of $3,548/week… for a total of $49,672.

2)  Staff writers do not get paid script fees on top of their weekly salaries.  So if that same staff writer is hired to write on How I Met Your Mother, at $3,548/week for 14 weeks, and he writes two episodes on his own… HE DOESN’T MAKE ANOTHER DIME.  An upper level writer, however, would’ve made an additional $43,170 in “script fees,” because script-writing is considered to be in addition to his salaried “writer-producer” duties; but with staff writers, their salaries go against their script fees.

(A staff writer would, however, get paid extra money if he wrote three episodes… because the combined script fees for three half-hour episodes would be $64,755, which comes out to $4,625/week.  And since a writer with a 14-week contract must make at least $3,548/week, he’d probably get another $15,083 so he’s making the mandated minimum. However, staff writers almost NEVER write three episodes… or even two.  Many don’t even write one.)


Having said all this, it’s almost important to know that most writers are rarely guaranteed a certain numbers scripts they’ll actually get to write.  So when a contract has a “13 episode guarantee,” that simply means the studio promises to pay the writer his their weekly salary equivalent to 13 produced episodes.  It doesn’t guarantee he’ll get to write thirteen… or even one.  I’ve known shows where a sinly writer wrote five or six episodes… or more.  I’ve also known shows where specific writers—usually lower-level newbies—didn’t write a single episode.


Anyway, Dan—I hope this helps.   But if it hasn’t… if it’s left you more confused than you were before… then, well, welcome to Hollywood.

If anyone else has questions they’d like me to confuse them about, feel free to write me at WDScriptNotes@FWPubs.com.  

Until next time…

Chad


Career Advice | Reader Questions | Writing Advice | Writing TV
Tuesday, April 22, 2008 2:00:31 AM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)  #  Comments [1]
# Saturday, April 19, 2008
READER QUESTION: From 9th Grade to Hollywood...
Posted by Chad

Today's question(s) comed from Corey Nolter, a 9th grader who's an aspiring screenwriter working on a research paper about his future career.  Corey asks a ton of questions, so I'm just gonna dive in.  Corey-- I hope these answers help... lemme know how the paper turns out... and I expect a thank you in your Oscar speech!  Here ya go...

Hi, my name is Corey Nolter and i am a 9th grade student trying to finsih a research paper for school. The research paper is about the feature career I want for my future. I would like to be just what you are a Screen Writer or someone who works in that area, However i was just wondering if you could answer these questions.

1. Do you enjoy your career? Do you ever think you have chosen the wrong path? Explain.

I love my career… and EVERY DAY I wonder if I’ve chosen the wrong path.  I know this sounds crazy… so I’ll explain.  First of all, I never question that I was born to write.  I love writing, and I’ve wanted to be a professional writer for as long as I can remember.  But this is a hard—and by “hard,” I mean “nearly impossible”—profession to have any kind of real stability in.

In almost every profession in the world, you have a salaried position that gives you a regular paycheck… and, hopefully, benefits, vacation time, etc.  For screenwriters and TV writers, that almost never happens.  And by “almost never,” I mean “never.”

Screenwriters and TV writers are freelance employees.  Whether you’re the lowliest staff writer on a TV show or the highest-paid screenwriter in Hollywood, YOU’RE A FREELANCER.  Which means you’re never ENTIRELY sure where your next paycheck will come from, and you almost never have a job that gives you benefits, retirement packages, or vacation time.  (Most professional screenwriters get benefits through the Writers Guild, the labor union representing professional TV and film writers.  As for vacation time, well… you go on vacation between jobs.)

Now, there ARE certain jobs that provide a semblance of stability.  TV shows, for instance, are written by staffs of writers, and each person on that staff is hired for a certain amount of time.  You might be hired for 10 weeks… or 6 months… or even just one episode.  It varies from show to show (not to get too technical, but the amount of time you’re hired for usually depends on how many episodes the show expects you to work on).

But even these TV jobs are temporary.  You may get contracted to write for 10 weeks… and then not be asked back at the end.  Or you may get contracted for 10 weeks… and the show gets canceled after only two weeks.

So whether you’re a lowly staff writer on a TV show or Hollywood’s highest paid screenwriter, the life of a writer is one of agonizing uncertainty… especially if you have a spouse, kids, your own home.  After all, it’s hard to support people who are depending on you when your future is always murky.  

Of course, the more successful you are, the more work you are able to get… but that doesn’t necessarily make your job more stable.  Marc Cherry, a veteran TV writer, spent years as a highly-paid TV writer, writing on shows like The Golden Girls, before suddenly hitting a dry spell and not being able to get a job for several years.  Then, in 2003, he created Desperate Housewives and became one of television’s hottest writers.  But for many years before that, he couldn’t get a job.

I have a friend who’s a producer on Lost, and he always tells aspiring film and TV writers: “If there’s anything else in the world you want to do… anything else that interests you… go do it.  Unless this is the ONLY thing you care about… DON’T DO THIS.”

I think that’s a good thought—not just as a gauge of how hard this industry, but of what it takes, mentally and emotionally, to survive within it.  The odds against success are incredibly high… and even when you find success, you can’t take it for granted.

So, Corey, in answer to your question: I do enjoy my career… because I love TV, movies, storytelling, and the written word.  But very few days go by that I don’t wonder if life would be better if I was an insurance agent or a fireman or a librarian or a professor.  If I didn’t have to fall asleep sweating every night because I have no idea if I’d be making any money in a week, or a month, or a year.  If I knew I could give my wife everything she wants.  

The problem is this: I don’t think I’d be very good at any of those things.  Sure… I guess I could LEARN to be a librarian or an insurance agent or a professor (although trust me—I’m the LAST person you want to be a fireman)… but I think I’d be pretty poor at most of those jobs.  So… for better or worse, I’m here in.  Writing TV and articles and books and this blog… and praying—literally praying—that I can do this long enough to actually say I made a life at it.


2.How many years of education does it take for you to become a writer?

I guess the blunt answer to this is: NONE.  That’s not to say writers aren’t highly educated, intelligent people… or that there aren’t some top-notch colleges, conservatories, and grad schools out there.  I got my MFA from UCLA.  But to be honest… I don’t think any education prepares you for being a writer better than just LIVING.  

Now, this does NOT mean you can just drift along and expect to get writing jobs.  Writing is hard work that takes years and years of practice, growing, trial and error—both in and out of school.

What it DOES mean, however, is that writers—first and foremost—write about people.  And life.  And the world around them.  So your first job, as a budding author, is to get out in the world and study it.  Read everything you can: books, screenplays, biographies, graphic novels, song lyrics, magazine articles, poems.  Observe people around you… study relationships in your own life and how people connect to and communicate with each other.  Keep a journal.  Travel.  Take interesting jobs.  Talk to strangers.

I know this sounds like hokey motivational-speaker stuff, but it’s not.  As a writer, your job is to tell stories or create images that reflect the world and its people.  So the more you ABSORB the world and its people, the better writer you become.  Look at the world’s great wordsmiths and storytellers… Ernest Hemingway, Woody Allen, Aimee Mann, Carl Sandburg, H.P. Lovecraft, Kurt Cobain, Virginia Woolf… whatever genre or medium they work in, they move us because we read their words and say, “Wow… I’ve felt like that.”  Or, “Yeah, I’ve felt like the people in this story.”  Or—when it’s REALLY magical—“Oh my God… this writer ‘GETS’ me!”

So the short answer to your question, Corey, is: yes, a writer needs a lot of real education: both book-learnin’ and life experience.  But where you GET that education depends on how you learn best.  Maybe you learn best in the structured curriculum of a top-notch school or university.  Perhaps you learn best hopping trains and seeing the world.  Maybe you learn best by getting a real job, living in the real world, and spending your nights reading books and writing your own stuff.  Everyone’s different… but the tools and skills needed for being a writer aren’t.


3. After College is it tough to get noticed in your area of work?

Extremely.  Competition is incredibly, ridiculously high in the field of film and TV writing.  After all, there aren’t that many movies or TV shows each year, but there are MILLIONS of people (in L.A. alone, not to mention scattered about the country) vying to sell a film script or get a job on a television show’s writing staff.

To make things even harder, jobs aren’t always given out simply on the basis of talent.  Landing a job is a combination of being skilled enough to get the job, having experience working in the industry, and knowing the right people (most jobs are gotten by knowing friends or associates doing the hiring).

This doesn’t mean it’s impossible… or that there are thousands of hugely talented writers walking around looking for work.

Personally, I’m a big believer that cream rises to the top and most truly talented, focused writers get where they want to go.  Although to be honest, I don't know if there's any real truth in that... or if I just convince myself of it because-- well-- if you don't believe that, it's hard to remind yourself why you keep trying.  Either way, I guess what I DON'T believe is that the world (or even Hollywood) is full of incredibly talented writers who just can’t get their break.  Most people who aren’t working aren’t working for a reason.  Maybe they’re not good enough yet.  Maybe they haven’t networked enough.  Maybe they don’t understand the business well enough.  Maybe they don’t live in L.A. (like it or not, it’s almost impossible to be a working film or television writer anywhere but Los Angeles).

Having said that, I DO think that there are many ways of making a living as a professional writer and storyteller.  Write plays and stage them yourself.  Write amazing profiles or features for magazines and newspapers.  Publish a blog.  Do stand-up comedy.

I say all this not to discourage anyone from pursuing screenwriting or TV writing, but to say that "getting noticed" is often something out of your control... and there are many ways to scratch your writing/storytelling itch besides making TV shows and movies.  Not to mention... if you write a great stage play or a powerful short story/article, you may grab the attention of Hollywood anyway.  And it often seems that people only "get noticed" once they stop worrying about "getting noticed."

I guess the ultimate truth is: while OBVIOUSLY your goal is to be a working screenwriter, able to use your writing to support yourself, your lifestyle, and your family, you need to be pursuing screenwriting because you LOVE writing, and you LOVE storytelling, and you LOVE pairing together words and images and actions... not because you're dazzled by the lights of Hollywood or visions of dates with starlets or hopes of hanging out with Brad Pitt.  Which, sadly, is why many people come out here-- writers, actors, directors, you name it.  Yet at the end of the day, those that succeed in getting noticed are the writers and artists who work and sweat themselves to the bone... spending every waking minute perfecting their craft, immersing themselves in the industry, making and nurturing business relationships, etc.  ...so when they finally DO get their break, they're prepared-- creatively, mentally, emotionally, professionally-- to seize the opportunity and make the most of it.

Of course, there ARE certain things that almost definitely need to happen-- certain stars that do need to align-- in order to have a shot at getting noticed as a screenwriter:

•  You need to be living in L.A.

•  You need to have strong writing samples that prove you're a talented writer

•  You need to have a good network of professional contacts (which usually means living in L.A. for many months or years)

•  You need to have experience writing so an employer knows what you’re capable of

•  You have to be the right writer for the right project at the right time… or have the right project/script/pitch to sell at the right time (i.e., you may be the world’s greatest romantic comedy writer, but if an employer is looking for an action writer, they’re not going to hire you—no matter how good you are)

•  You need to be in the right place at the right time when someone is hiring (i.e. it’s easy to lose out on a job to someone else simply because… frankly… they happened to be there when the space needed to be filled)


4. After getting noticed is your work environment tough or enjoyable? Like hows the staff,crew,project,ect.


Like all jobs, I find this TOTALLY depends on the people you’re working with.  You might get a job on your favorite television show ever… but if you dislike the people you’re working with, you’ll be miserable every day of your life.  On the other hand, you could take a job on a film, series, or project that seems horrible… but if you connect with and love the people around you, it’ll be a blast.


5.Is their any on the job training involved?

TONS.  In fact—kind of going back to your education question—I’d say the best (maybe ONLY) way to learn how to live, work, and survive in Hollywood is simply to dive in and start DOING IT.  Hollywood has a very different work culture than almost any other industry, and no matter how many classes you take or books you read, you won’t understand it till you’re in it.

Understanding Hollywood’s culture—and how to navigate it—is especially important for writers… because unlike costume designers or propmakers or makeup artists, we don’t produce something “physical.”  Sure, there’s a script, but we’re basically sellers of storied and ideas, which are ephemeral, emotional, even psychological.  So while half of our job is being able write, to put words down on paper and move people, the other half is being able to socialize… to pitch ideas, collaborate, take criticism, offer criticism, etc.  

And while it sounds like much of this is simply innate and understanding how to be a nice, polite person (which is true), it also involves immersing yourself in Hollywood to learn the industry’s vocabulary and communication techniques.  I.e., how do you break a baby?  When should you beat a joke?  Who’s the second second?  How do you take the note behind the note?  

On one hand, this is all industry jargon that’s easy to pick up; on the other hand, these are all skills or bits of knowledge that aren’t really available until you’re on the job.  Which is why I always recommend people begin their Hollywood career at the bottom, working as a production assistant, doing grunt work on the set of a film or TV show where they can observe the processes and practices around them.

You can click here to check out an earlier post about getting a job as a P.A. (production assistant).


6. When writing does your company or advisor, give you any special equipment?

Not really—primarily because, as writers, our number one piece of equipment is in our heads!  If you’re working on a TV show, your company will often give you an office, desk, and computer… although most writers I know use their own computers.  Also on a TV show, the writers will all work together in one room called the “Writers Room,” which is equipped with a large table, chairs, and several dry-erase boards on which to write ideas and stories.



7. How long is a usual shift? and is their overtime?

This depends on the job.  In movies, most writers don’t go into an office… ever.  They write from home, or their own office, so they set their own schedules.

On a TV show, however, there IS an office.  Most writers start their days around 10 a.m., but the end of the day is different for each show.  Most TV writing staffs wrap up around 6:00 or 7:00.  A small handful have been known to have solid eight-hour days (Everybody Loves Raymond was famous for this.)  But many TV writing staffs work incredibly long hours, sometimes until midnight or later.  Many sitcoms, for instance, shoot an entire episode in one night… beginning around 5 p.m. and ending anywhere between 10 p.m. and 3 a.m.

And unfortunately, no—there’s usually no overtime.  TV writers are contracted to write a certain number of episodes.  If they finish those episodes ahead of their deadlines, great (although this never happens); if they need more time, fine… but they don’t get paid extra.

Movie writers are paid per project; they get paid when their script is delivered to the employer on deadline, regardless of how many actual hours they pour into it.


8. Do you and others follow by any schedual or routine to get the writing done in time?

Well, as I said above, movie writers are on their own to get their work done… although their employer may build certain “touchstones” into a project’s schedule.  In other words, if you get hired to write a horror movie that is due on July 1st, the company that hires you may want character descriptions by April 25th, a sketchy outline by May 1, a more detailed outline by May 7, a first draft of the script by June 1, a second draft by June 20, and a final draft by July 1 (that’s a SUPER tight schedule… but as an example, you get it).

How the writer budgets his or her time in there is up to them, but I think most writers like to have their own specific routine, whether it’s writing late at night or getting up early, running 5 miles, eating breakfast, and then writing at Starbucks.  But most writers find that having a specific routine helps train their writing muscles to work.

In television, however, where writers come in to an actual office, work together, and have tighter deadlines (because they need to shoot an episode each week), it’s a much more structured process.  As a team, writing staffs work begin thinking about what “larger” stories and themes their TV show wants to tell… stories that span many episodes and weeks.  I.e. on The Office, the Jim and Pam saga has spanned years.  Desperate Housewives tells a new mystery each season, and that mystery plays out over several months.  

The writing staff then brainstorms what individual story events, or “beats,” need to happen in order to bring these larger stories to life.  (I.e., if your TV show is telling a season long story, or “arc,” about a girl named JESSIE deciding to leave her fiance, we need to see several things: Jessie and her fiance together, Jessie being unhappy with her fiance, Jessie deciding to leave her fiance, Jessie deciding how to break up with her fiance, Jessie preparing for the break-up, Jessie actually breaking up with her fiance, Jessie in the aftermath of the break-up, etc.)

The writing staff then spreads these events over the course of a season, where each becomes the basis for—or even just a part of—its own episode.  Each episode is then outlined by the staff, then assigned to an individual writer to write.  Once the script is written, the writing staff often rewrites the script together, in the Writers Room, all at the same time.

Because TV shows must get an episode on the air each week, they are often under very strict deadlines to have outlines, scripts, and “shooting drafts” finished by specific deadlines.  So if the writing staff’s process is too slow, they’ll quickly feel the heat and pressure of being off schedule… and that slows down everyone else from the costume designers to the directors to the set-builders.


9. Is it nice to see a piece of your work transfer into televison, books, or magazines?

Yes!!  It’s awesome!!  I am by no means Hollywood’s most successful writer or producer, but I’m proud of the work I’ve done… and even though I’ve written articles and produced TV episodes, it’s still a thrill to see my name on screen or my byline in print.  It’s a little bit of validation telling you that this thing you love, this thing you set out to do, this dream you cling to because you’re afraid there’s NOTHING ELSE IN THE WORLD you’re capable of doing… isn’t just a hoax.  And believe me… most of the time, you’re pretty sure it’s just a hoax.  So seeing your name in print or on-screen is an INCREDIBLE feeling!


10.What is the average salary range for this position?

Salaries vary from job to job, and a writer’s salary on one job may be different from his or her salary on the next job.  It’s the writer’s job (or his agent or lawyer’s job) to negotiate his payment each time he gets hired… and, hopefully, to get an increase from the last job.  An entry-level writer probably gets paid only the minimum payment and may make $60,000-$70,000 per year.  Mid-level writers can make $200,000 per year.  And experienced showrunners, or head writers, can make well over a million dollars a year.  But it's hard to give a specific average salary because so much depends on the show, the network, the level, and the experience of each particular writer.

The Writers Guild, however, does mandate certain minimum payments.  The minimum for writing a single one-hour drama episode of television (like CSI or Law & Order), for instance, is $31,748.  For a half-hour (My Name Is Earl, Two and a Half Men), it’s $21,585.  Movies have a similar structure.  You can download the Writers Guild’s “Schedule of Minimums,” which details minimum payments for many kinds of film and TV writing HERE.


Anyway, I hope all this helps, Corey!  Good luck with the paper… and definitely write back and lemme know how it goes!

Chad


Career Advice | Reader Questions | Writing Advice
Saturday, April 19, 2008 2:47:39 AM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)  #  Comments [1]
# Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Forgetting Sarah Marshall: Best Movie So Far This Year--and Maybe Since Citizen Kane
Posted by Brian

Okay, so I've been sitting here racking my brain, trying to think of some witty, pithy intro to talking about Forgetting Sarah Marshall, and nothing's coming, so I'm just gonna say it...

I LOVED THIS FUCKING MOVIE.

I mean, there's nothing groundbreaking or insightful about saying the the Judd Apatow camp is a pretty brilliant comedy machine.  (Apatow just produced Forgetting Sarah Marshall; it was directed by Nicholas Stoller.)  I loved The 40-Year-Old Virgin... and I loved Superbad... and I thought Knocked Up was the best of the three.

But Forgetting Sarah Marshall may be the best yet.

Or, maybe I'm just so amped up after seeing it I only think it's the best yet.

But either way-- it's an awesome freaking movie.

The story: After being dumped by his girlfriend (Sarah Marshall, played by Kristen Bell) of five years, a broken-hearted Peter Better (Jason Segel, who also wrote the script) heads to Hawaii to try and flush her out of his system.  But no sooner has he arrived at his resort, than he discovers that Sarah has also come to this resort for her own bit of R&R... with her new boyfriend, Aldous Snow (Russell Brand).  Afraid he'll look like he's running away, Peter decides to tough it out and stay at the resort, which means he must get over Sarah... while constantly running into her and her ultra-cool new man.

Even though Judd Apatow just produced Sarah Marshall, his fingerprints are all over it... and he and his cronies certainly have down pat the male-skewing-romantic-comedy formula.  Like The 40-Year-Old Virgin and Knocked Up, this follows a can't-get-his-shit-together guy who learns to grow up and, basically, be a man... and it hits all the same beats that Knocked Up laid out for it.  It opens with a montage of Peter, an aspiring composer, slacking in his messy apartment... it has the guy-works-feverishly-to-grow-into-a-better-person montage... and it has plenty of sensitive-but-not-emasculating guy moments (as well as just enough full frontal dick shots to make you laugh and squirm).

But I think Forgetting Sarah Marshall is a more moving movie than Knocked Up.  It may not, ultimately, be a better movie, or even a funnier movie, or even-- I can't believe I'm gonna use this word-- a more "important" movie... but it might be (at least tonight, while I'm totally loving it) a more moving movie.  Here's why...

Knocked Up sets up a totally believable situation most people have thought about and dreaded...  then nails it with dead-on emotional (and comic) accuracy. 

But Forgetting Sarah Marshall takes us into a situation we've all been in before... so while it may not have as gigantic laughs or dramatic highs as Knocked Up, the pain feels deeper, more real, more relatable. 

In other words, many of us have imagined and feared what it would be like to be in Ben Stone's shoes and find out we knocked up some girl after a one night stand... but we've all actually suffered through a painful breakup and the inability to get over someone. 

And that's the genius of Apatow and his filmmaking buddies: they know exactly how to take agonizing, gut-wrenching emotional situations and turn them into comedies that are not only hilarious, but also amplify the characters' pain.

Then again, the genius of Forgetting Sarah Marshall may just be that is has the jaw-droppingly awesome Mila Kunis.

Either way, this is the first movie in a long time that reminded me why I love movies, which is a pretty damn good feeling.  I'll probably go see it again this weekend, making it the first movie I've seen twice in theaters since The Bourne Ultimatum (which I still believe, years from now, will be looked upon-- along with the Mona Lisa, Michelangelo's statue of David, and Van Halen I-- as one of mankind's greatest artistic achievements.  And for those of you who disagree with me... ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!  Matt Damon kills a guy with nothing but a book and his bare hands!  What more do you want from a movie?!).

Next up here at Script Notes, I'll answer Corey Nolter's questions for his 9th grade research paper.  Until then, here's a little Sarah Marshall...


FORGETTING SARAH MARSHALL TRAILER




Fun Stuff | Movie Talk
Wednesday, April 16, 2008 7:29:32 AM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)  #  Comments [1]
# Tuesday, April 15, 2008
WHAT NOT TO WRITE: Vantage Point
Posted by Chad

Hey, screenwriters—

I just want to say this up front: my wife made me go.

Okay, that's a lie.

She definitely wanted to go more than I did, but the truth is: I kinda wanted to see it.  At least, I had wanted to see it… before it got nothing but horrible reviews.  In fact, the best thing I heard about it was from a friend who saw it and said, “I dunno… there are probably worse ways to spend two hours.”

I’m talking about Vantage Point, the Pete Travis movie which came out a couple weeks ago and was universally panned.  And rightly so.  The movie’s pretty horrible, although to be fair, it’s an interesting premise that you really want to work.  Unfortunately, it just doesn’t.

Basically, Vantage Point is the story of an attempted presidential assassination-- and the investigation of who’s behind it-- as seen from multiple perspectives, a la Rashomon.  So it replays the same events multiple times, each from a different character’s point of view… illuminating a bit more of the story and a few more clues each time.

I won’t go into all things that are wrong with the movie because it’s a LOT… the least of which is Forest Whitaker’s ridiculous overacting.  The guy practically narrates everything he does on screen.  If his phone rings, he says to himself, “My phone’s ringing… need to see who it is…”  If he spots someone mysterious through his video camera, he says... “Hm… that’s weird… I wonder if he should be there…”

However... I did think Vantage Point was a perfect example of one of the biggest mistakes to avoid when writing a mystery movie, which—at its heart—this is.  Here’s the problem…

The posters, billboards, and marketing campaign for the movie were all based around the question/tagline: “Can you solve the puzzle?”  (Check out the trailer below.)  Which, sure, is simply a marketing tool.

Except that it’s not "simply a marketing tool"…

…because “can you solve the puzzle?” suggests that what makes this movie fun, like any mystery, is that YOU—the viewer or reader—are trying to solve the mystery along with the story’s heroes or detectives (in this case, Secret Service Agent Thomas Barnes).

And it’s right.  That’s exactly what should make this movie fun.

We love mysteries, whether it’s Sherlock Holmes or CSI, because we enjoy participating in the puzzle-solving.  Which means the storyteller has one very important job: to lay out clues that track logically from one to the next, so when everything adds up in the end, we—the audience—have that amazing “aha!” moment that all great mysteries have.  That “oh-my-God-I-should’ve-seen-that!” moment.  Or the “oh-of-course-it-all-makes-sense!” moment.

This doesn’t mean we should be able to solve the mystery before the hero.  It simply means that we need to be able to feel like we could, and that when the solution is finally unveiled, we can flip back through the clues in our head and see how it all fits together.

But Vantage Point never attempts to let you try and solve the mystery.  Why?  Because it purposely and shamelessly withholds clues.  For instance…

Characters continually see clues we’re not allowed to see.  I.e., at one point, Agent Barnes (Dennis Quaid) is watching a playback of the assassination on Howard Lewis's (Forest Whitaker) camcorder.  As he watches the screen, his eyes go wide, he says something ominous like, “Oh my God—that’s it!” and races off.  We don’t find out till much later, in a different person’s “story,” what he saw.  Which is not only frustrating as hell, it’s a cheap shot on the part of the storyteller.  We realize that the solution to the mystery is right in front of us, but we’re unable to solve it—or have the fun of trying to solve it—not because it’s a complex, intriguing puzzle, but because the storyteller is willfully withholding information… and sharing it with other characters right in front of us!

Also, each mini-story (each time we see the event from a new perspective) ends in a cliffhanger.  At one point, for example, one of the main characters steps out to confront someone and says, “Bet you didn’t expect to see me alive, did you?”… but before we see who he’s talking to, the mini-story ends and we move on to someone else’s perspective.  And while cliffhangers are supposed to be maddening and suspenseful, they should be maddening and suspenseful because we’re so emotionally invested in characters, relationships, and events that we’re dying to know what happens next… not because we’re angry at the filmmaker for not giving us information that's clearly right in front of our noses.

So while these moments are frustrating in and of themselves, the bigger problem is that we’re constantly aware that the filmmaker is not giving us the promised clues, so we’re never allowed to try and solve the puzzle… which is not only a complete betrayal of the marketing campaign’s promise, it’s a betrayal of the promise made by all mystery storytellers at the beginning of the mystery.  Which is: “I, the storyteller, am going to create a mystery so complex and intriguing you can’t solve it… but we promise to play fair along the way, giving you all the clues and tools you’ll need to solve it.”  In other words, "we'll do our best to outsmart you, but we'll at least play fair."

After all, you can’t have a great “oh-my-God-I-should’ve-seen-that-coming!” moment if there’s no way you could've seen anything coming.

It’s this flaw that makes Vantage Point such a dismal failure.  I think mystery audiences are willing to forgive a lot of things—bad acting, lame characters, etc.—if the mystery is compelling and they feel like they’re actually able to participate in the solving.

But by refusing to play fair, Vantage Point immediately sets its own course for self-destruction.

So, the lesson to take away from this: IF YOU’RE WRITING A  MYSTERY, YOU NEED TO PLANT CLUES FAIRLY AND HONESTLY ENOUGH THAT YOU AT LEAST GIVE THE “ILLUSION” THAT YOUR PUZZLE IS SOLVE-ABLE.


Coming soon… thoughts on Forgetting Sarah Marshall


VANTAGE POINT TRAILER




Movie Talk | Writing Advice
Tuesday, April 15, 2008 2:12:00 AM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)  #  Comments [5]
# Saturday, April 12, 2008
VIDEO OF THE DAY: Deleted "The Office" Clip!
Posted by Chad

Special thanks to Jen G. for pointing out this deleted scene from last night's The Office episode, "The Dinner Party" (which, if you missed it, had some terrific moments)...

By the way-- I always have an inner debate about which is funnier, The Office or 30 Rock30 Rock has been winning this season, but last nigh-- as both shows came back after the writers strike, I think The Office took the night, hands down.  But either way, it was great to have them both back...


THE OFFICE: "THE DINNER PARTY" - DELETED SCENE


Digital Media and Web Series | Fun Stuff
Saturday, April 12, 2008 12:41:26 AM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)  #  Comments [0]
# Thursday, April 10, 2008
READER QUESTION: How Do I Pitch or Distribute My Web Series?
Posted by Chad

Hey, screenwriters—

Today’s question comes from John… who actually sends in several questions, so I’m gonna spread them out and answer them one at a time.

So, first up, asks John, “what are the outlets for showing a web pilot or pitching a web series?  We have a solid, comprehensive plan for the show we're working on and about 12 other ideas for short web series.  We'd just like to talk to people about them.”

Well, the answer is: there is no answer.  Or, rather, in the wild and untamed world of the Internet, there’s not just one answer, and of the many possible answers or paths out there, none is necessarily better than the others.  But here are the primary avenues for getting your online series out there…

•  DO IT YOURSELF.  Literally.  In the age of YouTube, Bebo, and MetaCafe, it’s never been easier to produce your own series and distribute it to audiences.  The trick, of course, is getting people to find and watch it, but the mechanics are in place for any producer needing a “portal.”

I know this seems generic and haphazard, but the truth is: THIS IS THE BEST WAY OF ATTRACTING ATTENTION AND GETTING YOUR WORK SEEN.  One of the most popular Internet series of all time, Lonelygirl15, became an Internet phenomenon simply by posting shortform episodes on YouTube.

And fortunately, because it’s the Internet, you don’t need to post your work on only one site.  Sites like YouTube and Blip.tv don’t have exclusive rights to any of the videos there, so I recommend posting your projects on AS MANY SITES AS YOU POSSIBLY CAN: MySpaceTV, Vimeo, Revver everywhere you can think of.  


•  FIND A FINANCIER.  This is basically how traditional television works.  A writer or producer with a show idea pitches it to a financial backer (in TV’s case, usually a studio), who then ventures into the marketplace to find a distributor (a TV network).  This same model can occasionally work in cyberspace.  Many TV studios have started online entertainment divisions, like Warner Brothers 2.0, dedicated to finding and developing selling online content.  They then license the show to a portal, like MSN or Yahoo, just like the would a television show to a network.  Sometimes they produce the show themselves and put it on their own website, like with NBC’s Coastal Dreams.

Other companies are standalone companies that are solely in the business of producing Internet shows... such as Next New Networks, which is flush with $15 million in venture capital.  They then sell these shows to other distributors themselves, or create their own distribution sites or portals.


•  FIND A SPONSOR.  Many corporations and businesses are creating web shows to highlight and promote their products.  I Can't Believe It's Not Butter has Sprays in the City, Purina has Snouts, and Snickers did Instant Def with the Black Eyed Peas.  This is often referred to as “branded entertainment,” and while there’s a lot of it out there, much of it is developed internally.  If you know someone at a company interested in doing branded entertainment, you may be able to get in to pitch your ideas, but most companies don't take pitches and cold calls from random producers or writers.

There ARE production companies, like For Your Imagination, that specialize in developing branded entertainment for other organizations, so if you have an entrée to one of these companies, that could be equally valuable.  But you still need to prove you're a capable, competent producer, and the best way to do this is to produce and distribute things on your own to show off your chops.

Either way, however, you’ll probably need a pre-existing relationship.  Also, because branded entertainment is designed to promote a specific brand or product, it’s rare that outside ideas are bought, because they’re rarely developed to meet that product’s special needs.


•  JOIN FORCES WITH AN ONLINE ENTERTAINMENT OUTLET.  This is probably the toughest row to hoe, especially because there aren’t many organizations focusing solely on finding and nurturing fresh with which to develop Internet-specific content.  One of the best is SuperDeluxe, Turner's online comedy site, which works very similarly to a traditional TV studio and network.  SuperDeluxe finds talented producers, like Honor Student (a sketch group/production company which produces SuperDeluxe’s Chasing Donovan series), then makes development deals commissioning original work.  Michael Eisner also runs Vuguru, which produces Prom Queen and Sam Has 7 Friends.

Hooking up with these kinds of companies is, obviously, a great opportunity if you can get it… but these companies are few and far between.  The best way to land one of these deals is to find success on your own, posting work on YouTube, FunnyorDie, etc., then attract the attention of bigger buyers and producers.


While none of these paths is easy, John, I think the best starting place is to simply get your work out there via as many platforms as possible—iFilm, Podshow, Second Life… wherever you can find eyeballs—and then promote the hell out of it.  Your goal is to create work that’s buzz-worthy enough to go viral.

Unlike the network and studio systems of TV and movies, there isn’t yet a solid framework or pipeline in place to gather and develop online content.  Part of this is because the world of Internet entertainment is still fairly new, and no one’s figured out the best way to find, develop, produce or distribute work… so everyone’s using different methods and processes.  

But it’s also because there’s almost no money being made in the world of online content.  People are experimenting with different models of monetizing content, but so far, no one is striking it rich… and the amount of income generated by online shows is tiny compared to the billions of dollars generated by TV shows.  (To put this in perspective, online research firm eMarketer recently predicted that the U.S. would spend about $1.4 billion dollars this year on online video ad spending.  Which seems like a good chunk of change, until your realize that includes ALL VIDEO AD SPENDING ONLINE… and it’s only 1/50th of what America spends on TV advertising.)  

Plus, in the “Wild West” of the Internet, a professionally produced series like Quarterlife has no better chance of succeeding than a show like a Lonelygirl15, which began with a budget of a few hundred dollars in its producers’ bedroom.  So while everyone understands that the Internet is entertainment’s next frontier, no one want to invest a lot of money in it.

Anyway, John—all of this just to say, again: your best bet is to put your work out there yourself, on as many portals as possible, and work your ass off promoting it.

And now, for your viewing pleasure... one of the great episodes of Lonelygirl15 that helped make it such a phenomenon before it blew up and the producers ruined everything by admitting it was fake.   (Still, you can never get sick of some funky music, simple editing, and a cute girl in a swimsuit.)

LONELYGIRL15: SWIMMING!


And now, after watching a cute chick in a swimsuit, here's a quick scolding from Hayden Panettiere...


SEXUAL HARASSMENT PSA WITH HAYDEN PANETTIERE




Career Advice | Digital Media and Web Series
Thursday, April 10, 2008 11:51:03 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)  #  Comments [1]
# Monday, April 07, 2008
THINGS THAT INSPIRE ME: "Shine A Light"
Posted by Chad

A couple days ago I said I didn’t want this blog to turn into a movie review site.  And now I’m thinking… why the hell not?!  I mean, we’re here to write movies, right?!  So shouldn’t we be looking at movies, TV series, online shows… even plays and live performances… and talking about them?!

Maybe.  

Probably.

The truth is, I just want to justify today’s post, which—I’m gonna be honest—has virtually nothing to do with writing.

It’s just about a damn good movie that has me so pumped up I had to post about it.  I’m not even sure where to start, so I’m just gonna say this:

Go see Shine A Light.

I don’t care if you don’t like concert movies.  I don’t care if you don’t like the Rolling Stones.  It is a hands-down, unbelievable, knock-you-on-your ass experience.  (My wife hates concerts and doesn’t care about the Stones… and she loved it.)

The truth is: I’m not even a huge Stones fan.  I mean, I like them… and I’m listening to a Stones playlist on my iTunes as I write this… but I love music… and one thing this blog could use is a lot more music talk.  

(Yeah, it’s a screenwriting blog, but so what?  I’m the blogger, and if I say it needs more music talk, it needs more music talk.  Besides, I do my best writing when I’ve got the stereo cranked.  In fact, whenever I start a new project, I begin by making a playlist of songs that put me in the “head space” of that particular story, like making a soundtrack for the film even before it’s written.  It’s a great way to get into the tone and style of the movie.)

Shine A Light is Martin Scorsese’s documentary/concert film of the Rolling Stones’ performances at New York’s Beacon Theatre during 2006’s A Bigger Bang concert tour… and Scorsese does a fantastic job not only of capturing the music itself, but of bringing to life each member of the band through their on-stage performances.  Sure, he puts you right on stage as Mick Jagger struts and swaggers about, larger than life, but he also nabs every subtle, nuanced glance between the bandmates… as well as quick private moments.  Scorsese may be a master storyteller in the world of scripted film, but here he lets the music and the stage show tell the story.  Every crag on Keith Richards’ face, every tawny sinew in Mick’s serpentine body becomes a plot point or a moment of character development.

Mick, after all, is no longer the gorgeous frontman he was forty years ago, when he was full of sex and untamed energy.  But he’s now a master artist in total control, a musical Michaelangelo who knows his way around rock-and-roll better than anyone working today (not just around a stage or a single song, but around rock-and-roll itself—what makes it tick, how it rises and falls, etc.).  In fact, as the show goes on, you can actually see Mick get younger… he seems to “de-age” before your very eyes, dancing, bouncing, jumping and shaking around stage like a 25-year-old kid eager to taste his first groupie.

Keith, meanwhile, is like a wraith… withered, yet still powerful… hunched over his guitar cranking out bluesy riffs and chords, eyes squeezed shut.  He’s so into the music, lost in his own world, that every time he opens his eyes he looks shocked and overjoyed that people are actually watching.

Charlie, on the other hand, comes across as everyone’s favorite great-uncle, the genial old guy who’s just tickled to be included.  He’s constantly grinning and winking at the camera, as surprised as everyone else that the band is still going strong… but loving every minute of it.

Scorsese also does an amazing job of illuminating the shows’ “supporting characters”: the peripheral band members… the backup singers (namely, Lisa Fischer)… even the front row audience members we come to recognize over the course of the film (mostly a lot of hot twenty-something chicks… and one greasy-looking guy with a ponytail).  

But Scorsese also smiles upon the guest artists who appear.  Jack White shows up for “Loving Cup” and, smiling like a 12-year-old (when doesn’t Jack White look like a 12-year-old?), looks like he’s waited his entire life to share a stage with Mick Jagger.  For me, Jack is one of the highlights of the film because he looks exactly how I would look if I were on stage with the Rolling Stones… as if it’s all gonna be downhill after this, but he’s gonna savor every awesome moment.  Buddy Guy shows up for a cover of Muddy Waters’ “Champagne and Reefer,” and Mick duets “Live with Me” with Christina Aguilera.

For almost two hours, these guys rock through nearly every Stones hit you could want to hear: "Brown Sugar," "Shattered," "As Tears Go By" (maybe my personal favorite), "Sympathy for the Devil," "Start Me Up," "Satisfaction," "Jumpin’ Jack Flash."  And whether you’re a huge Stones fan or not, one thing is clear…

Whether talking about rock stars, screenwriters, painters, or dancers, artists like this come along only once every few generations.  There are a million bands and musicians that have written one or two amazing songs… or even one or two amazing albums… just like there are writers who have written one phenomenal book, or two brilliant poems, or a handful of stunning articles.  But the Stones have been churning out great music for almost fifty years.  

And by the way—I don’t consider the Stones’ to be groundbreaking pioneers.  In fact, you could probably make an argument (I’m not going to, I’m just saying you could) that the Stones are not one of rock’s most influential bands.  (Again—I’m not making the argument; I’m just saying—I’d understand if someone did.)  They didn’t start a new genre of music like Led Zeppelin or Nirvana or The Sugarhill Gang.  And everything the Stones did, the Beatles did first: first album, first Ed Sullivan appearance, first film, etc.  I suppose what the Stones’ influenced most was the rock-star persona of the incorrigible, unkempt, irrepressible youth.  Which—let’s be honest—may be a more important contribution to rock-and-roll than anything music-related.

Yet none of this diminishes their sheer awesomeness.  Because at the end of the day, the Rolling Stones are one of the most infectiously loveable rock bands on the planet.  Put the Rolling Stones on stage… either live or in front of Martin Scorsese’s cameras… and they are gonna rock your ass off.  That’s the beauty of both the band and the film… when you leave the movie theater, you feel AWESOME.  You have been undeniably moved.  And if that’s not the purpose of great art… whether a gut-wrenching novel, a side-splitting screenplay, a tear-jerking poem, or an ear-blasting rock concert… then I don’t know what is.

(Oh, and by the way—if you can, see the movie in IMAX.  Way cool.  And the sound is amazing.  Every time the audience roared, I looked around because I actually thought people around me were cheering.  Swear to God.  It’s awesome.)

Anyway… rock on, screenwriters…


SHINE A LIGHT TRAILER




Fun Stuff
Monday, April 07, 2008 9:12:24 AM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)  #  Comments [2]
# Saturday, April 05, 2008
READER QUESTION: If I Sell a TV Show, How Do I Protect My Merchandising Rights?
Posted by Chad

Today’s reader question comes in response to my animation interview with Charlie Stickney last week.  BuffyFan47 asks an interesting question…

“I'd like to hear Charlie's and your advice on how an animation writer can protect themselves since - as you noted - they are not covered by the WGA. With tie-in merchandising worth potential billions (see the aforementioned Mr. Squarepants) how does one make sure that someone else doesn't make gazillions off their idea while they get cut out of the process and don't make a dime?”

Well, BuffyFan47, as you asked—Charlie and I put our heads together and basically had the same response.

“There are two types of shows one would write for,” says Charlie. “Pre-existing, and something you've created.  If you're writing for a pre-existing show, you're not going to get anything in terms of a merchandising deal.”

In other words, if you get hired to write for Spongebob Squarepants, you’re not going to share in any of the show’s merchandising money, even though you're writing stories and dialogue for the same characters they're selling as toys, lunchpails, and T-shirts.

Nickelodeon owns Spongebob [in partnership with Spongebob creator Stephen Hillenburg, which we’ll discuss in a moment],” Charlie explains.  “And when you write for them, on one of their shows, you write on a work-for-hire basis.  Which means --  everything you create belongs to them.  It doesn't matter if the show's covered by the WGA, or if you have the biggest agent, etc.  When you write for someone else, you're writing for someone else.  The best you can hope for is to get the biggest check possible for the work that you do.  (This is where having those WGA minimums would help.)”

However, if you create and sell your own show—like Stephen Hillenburg did with Spongebob Squarepants—it’s a whole different ballgame.

When you sell a TV show to a TV network or studio-- whether it's animated or live-action-- you truly sell them the idea.  In other words, you relinquish most of your writes and they own the majority of the idea, usually including all merchandising rights.  However they’ll often let you participate in ownership of the idea, offering you a limited number of percentage points in the idea (every show ha 100 percentage points).

I.e.  Let’s say you create a show called Wally’s Wacky Fun World, which you sell to NickToons, the company that makes SpongebobNickToons will own the idea outright, but they may give you 5 of the show’s 100 percentage points… entitling you to 5% of the show’s backend profit.  This includes all monies from syndication, movie deals, merchandising, etc.

The number of points offered a show’s creator varies from show to show, depending on the clout of the creator, how savvy his agent or lawyer is, what duties he’ll be rendering on the show (is he gonna stick around and run the show himself, or just pass it off to another producer?), etc.  If a big star or another important producer is attached to the project—or comes aboard—he or she may also get some backend points.  The network or studio tries to keep as many points as possible, and they rarely give away more than 30.

This holds true for live-action shows as well, although live-action shows don’t usually have as many ancillary products as cartoons.  A few shows—usually sci-fi hits like Buffy, Alias, or Heroes—may have toys, comic books, novelizations, etc., but most don’t.  (I’ve never seen anyone carrying around a Gil Grissom doll.)

Whether in the process of selling an animated project or a live-action series, “it's up to the writer to look out for themselves,” says Charlie.  “Which means… if a studio or production company wants to option, buy or develop your idea, you need to have a lawyer or an agent look over your contracts.  If you don't have one, this is the perfect time to get one.  Coming to an agent with a deal in hand that they can commission is one of the surefire ways to get represented.”


Career Advice | Reader Questions | Writing TV
Saturday, April 05, 2008 11:27:11 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)  #  Comments [0]
# Wednesday, April 02, 2008
WHAT NOT TO WRITE: Leatherheads
Posted by Chad

Hey, screenwriters--

Today's post is brought to us by Martin Scorsese's new Rolling Stones IMAX movie, Shine A Light.  (Okay, not really, but it looks incredible, so do yourselves a favor and check it out.) 

And while I haven't seen it yet, I can only assume that it will rock hard... which will help to wash off the stink for those of you who go see director George Clooney's new movie, Leatherheads... which I just saw last night.  (So see Leatherheads first, then Shine A Light... so it's like you get dirty and then have a nice, warm, comforting shower...)

While I don't want this blog to turn into a movie review site, I do think it's helpful to look at movies and talk about their screenwriting qualities... and you often learn more by looking at bad movies than good ones, because you see all their mistakes. 

So, let's talk about Leatherheads (and I won't give away any actual plot details, just in case you decide to actually put yourself through it)...

Leatherheads is a 1920's love triangle set against the backdrop of the newborn professional football industry.  It follows three characters: Dodge Connelly (George Clooney), an aging pro football player for Minnesota's ailing pro football team, the Duluth Bulldogs; Carter Rutherford (John Krasinski), a college superstar-- and World War I hero-- who's drafted by Connelly to revive the dying Bulldogs; and Lexie Littleton (Renee Zellweger), a scrappy Chicago reporter determined to "cook Carter's goose" by proving he's not the war hero everyone thinks he is.

Of course, both Connelly and Rutherford fall head-over-heels for Littleton... forming a (supposedly) dramatic love triangle that's at the center of the film.  Here's the problem...

It doesn't work.

There are a myriad of reasons that keep the film from working: it's a pastiche of incongruent styles and tones (screwball comedy, dry social commentary, contemporary romantic comedy), it flits from theme to theme without ever being sure what it wants to say, etc.

But today I want to talk about one major script flaw that prevents Leatherheads from taking off...

It never takes the time to define its core relationships. 

The key to pulling off this kind of romantic comedy/love triangle is illustrating the love between all three people involved... and getting the audience to care for all of them.  We need to see the attraction between Littleton and Connelly... we need to see the attraction between Littleton and Rutherford... and, perhaps most importantly, we need to see the bond and friendship between the two men, Connelly and Rutherford.

In Leatherheads, the relationship between the two men is most important... but it's given the least amount of time.  The entire plot is driven by the partnership of Connelly and Rutherford... the fading veteran and the arrogant upstart.  Yet we know very little about the two men's relationship.  Are they father-son?  (Not literally, of course... but in the context of their relationship.)  Are they brothers who love and hate each other?  Best friends?  Business rivals?  Teacher-student?

Because we're never sure, we don't know what's at stake when the woman-- Littleton-- drives a wedge between them.  The destruction of two "brothers'" relationship is tragic and dramatic.  So is the break-up of two best friends.  But two guys who just like the same girl is just... well... two guys who like the same girl.  Thus, we're never really invested in caring about how these two men will solve their battle for the same woman, because it never feels like anything tremendous will be lost or gained.

Secondly, the script never fully articulates the Littleton-Connelly or Littleton-Rutherford relationships.  We know both men find Littleton attractive... but what does Littleton see in each of them?  Sure, she has some pseudo-witty repartee with Connelly... and she needs to cling to Rutherford to get her juicy newspaper story... but we're never sure what emotional need each of these men fills in Littleton.  How does each satisfy her, emotionally, in a different way?  And likewise, what emotional hole does she fill in each of them?

Because we never know, we have no idea what each man will lose if he loses this woman.  As a result, we have no idea why each even bothers to pursue or fight for her.  Does Littleton make Rutherford want to discover his wild, uninhibited side?  Does she make Connelly want to settle down and become a responsible family man?  We don't know... so we have no idea what each man stands to lose, personally, if he loses Littleton.

Likewise, we don't know what Littleton will lose if she loses one of these men.  Does Rutherford provide her with a sense of security and warmth?  Does Connelly give her excitement and adventure?  And by picking one over the other, what is Littleton gaining and what is she sacrificing?  We never know, so there are no stakes in her dating or giving up either.

So, Lesson #1:  If you're writing a romantic comedy, we need to know why your characters desperately need each other... and we need to know what they'll lose if they lose each other.

And Lesson #2:  If you're creating this kind of love triangle, we need to be invested in all the relationships... which means each relationship needs to be clearly enough defined that we understand why it's important to the characters... and what they'll lose if the relationship dissolves.

The best way to learn these lessons, of course, is to go see Leatherheads.  Unfortunately, it'll be a two-hour, ten-dollar lesson (and neither is refundable), but if you're writing a love-triangle/romantic comedy, it just may be worth it...

Chad


LEATHERHEADS



Movie Talk | Writing Advice
Wednesday, April 02, 2008 7:27:36 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)  #  Comments [2]
# Tuesday, April 01, 2008
Online Series of the Week: "The Writers Room"
Posted by Chad

Hey, guys--

Special thanks to Jason, a loyal reader who steered me toward The Writers Room, a new online series from Stun Creative and Sony Pictures Television.  Distributed via Hulu, NBC-Universal and News Corp.'s new online film and TV network, The Writers Room is produced by Fit Nation producers Brad Roth and Mark Feldstein and is a wry comic look at life inside a TV writers room.  It may not teach you how to write, but it's a fun look at life on a show... and inside the minds of neurotic TV writers...

Check it out at:

http://www.hulu.com/the-writers-room


Digital Media and Web Series | Fun Stuff
Tuesday, April 01, 2008 10:40:11 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)  #  Comments [0]
Google Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links