Prove me wrong, To be a successfull, you must at least be a good writer.

[caliboss]

With all the odds against us indie guys, I did a small research and found out that to be in the limelight and be termed successfull, allmost all successfull indie filmer wrote/co-wrote or created their films from scratch, all other talents/equipments they got at a price.......

[holy_handgrenade]

This is semi-true. Every single book on the subject of "how hollywood works" or filmmaking has said this. You're only as good as your last project and only hireable if you have another finalized script in hand.

If I'm reading and understanding this correctly, most of us indies are aspiring to be filmmakers, or more specifically, directors. Directors aren't creative types for hire, meaning they dont say "hey, we have this script and this project, who can we get to direct" If they're in that phase, or talking like that, they are thinking top notch, A-List Directors (Spielberg, Cameron, Jackson, et al.) For the rest of us, we have to have projects to pitch and sell to land a job.

I *may* be wrong on this, this is just based on reading :D

[JonFairhurst]

About a year ago, I met Tim Kring (Heroes) and asked him how my son, who is about to graduate with a business management degree and has shot a number of short films, should go about getting into Hollywood. His immediate response was "Writer or director?"

From this, I think that a director doesn't need to be a great writer. They have specialists for that. But a director needs a good sense of story, and dialog, and acting, and photography, and budget, and working with people, and, selling, and, and, and...

I think a director needs a great script, and needs to recognize things that don't work and crummy dialog. You don't need to be a great writer. You just need to know a great writer. ;)

[NoahK]

Good luck getting a job as a director without a good script in your possession to propel your forward. Whether you write it or just own it- really doesn't not matter. That you have a script someone wants to make and want to make it bad enough that they'll let you direct it is the main way you get started as a director. It's not like there's a shortage of folks in Hollywood who 'just want to direct'. Also ask any successful screenwriter if their secret ambition isn't to one day direct one of their own scripts and show directors how it's done?

Noah

[Gohanto]

You need to GET a good script. Whether you write it or not is irrelevant. And it's actually the same even for A list directors. What separates the good and great directors (at least partially) is that the great directors pick the best scripts.

You don't see Spielberg or Scorsese directing Charlie's Angels.

[Stefan Christou]

Her Anxiety

Earth in beauty dressed
Awaits returning spring.
All true love must die,
Alter at the best
Into some lesser thing.
Prove that I lie.

Such body lovers have,
Such exacting breath,
That they touch or sigh.
Every touch they give,
Love is nearer death.
Prove that I lie.

W.B Yeats (1865-1939)

[J Davis]

With all the odds against us indie guys, I did a small research and found out that to be in the limelight and be termed successfull, allmost all successfull indie filmer wrote/co-wrote or created their films from scratch, all other talents/equipments they got at a price.......

HELL YES
this is 100% true for low budget stuff. Why? Because there is no point writing 'helicopter blows up' in your script if you can't afford it.

When it comes to low budget stuff, you write your story around what is possible to shoot.

Take a look at C.Nolans break out film (his second feature) Memento. Look at the number of locations and the props involved. He write that script around what what was affordable leaving budget to secure name acors.
Same again with Soderbergs first film, Sex Lies and Videotape. Complete minimum of locations and everything dialogue driven.

[villachaise]

I found this place while looking to upgrade from the Canon T1i, so pardon the irony that follows.

The cheapest weapon you have in your arsenal is a script. It takes time to write, but that's all it costs.

Independent-wise, you gotta be a jack of all trades. You have to be the one handing out capri suns and sandwiches, finding locations, finding actors. Actors are very important. Many theater actors would love to be in a short film, but they're used to reading lines from classics and nationally reviewed plays, so you may not coax them with a poor script.

I find myself playing around too much now with cameras and equipment. You don't want to lose the power to come up with original creative concepts.

Practice writing 5 minute or less scripts and shoot them. I think Wes Anderson gleaned "Bottle Rocket" from a short, and he's successful now...

When you feel confident, post them internationally and see what others think if acceptance is paramount (it depends on your definition of "success").

I've seen many beautiful short films, but lately, most have just been playing around too much with the new equipment, myself included. We know what it can do, so now it's time to use it for more. (thats more for the dslr crowd, myself included).

My advice is to write every day, and the technology will be waiting for you when you're ready to hit REC, or even better have people to yell "action!" to. The first time you say that will be a great feeling.

So, in short, yeah, I'd say if you're on your own, you really are going to need to work hard to be great at everything, but their is no limitation to writing ability, but there is with equipment ($ and tech).

[holy_handgrenade]

HELL YES
this is 100% true for low budget stuff. Why? Because there is no point writing 'helicopter blows up' in your script if you can't afford it.

When it comes to low budget stuff, you write your story around what is possible to shoot.

I have to agree with this. Many "first time" filmmakers have to write thier own script because of the limitations involved. You may have a great script about area51 - but do you have an air force base that is willing to let you film on?

Robert Rodriguez is another example of this, Stu Manschweiz(sp?) also referred to script writing help as the "Rodriguez List" Take stock of what you have and write around that. It's how El Mariachi got written and later filmed.

[Dances With Cameras]

All you need is Love.
:hippie:

[Granty]

You hear this time and time again, you can't make a good production without a good script. But it's not true, yes it will be easier to make a brilliant film with a good script, but that is common sense.

Everyone will tell you you need a great script, but ask 100 people what a great script is and you will get many different answers, but most will tell you if they knew what a great script is they would sit down and write one time and time again, and sell them for $1m each.

I don't mind someone spouting bullshit like you need a great script, if it is backed up with what a great script is in definitive terms, and that is impossiable to do! What a good script is happens to be a subjective, worst still it is a subjective thing that changes over time.

Now look at Avatar, many people say this script is a cliche that steals from other peoples work (I disagree, and feel it is a finely honed piece dealing with classical themes). But let us say for this point in question that they are right that it is a cliche, hamfisted script that has a stolen plot line, yet it is also the biggest film of all time. Also look at many big budget films like Ironman, these films have very poor scripts that are sometimes written at the last minute once the money has been pulled together, and they go on to be successful!

The fact of the matter is many bad films have great scripts, and many great films have bad scripts, and a handful of great films have great scripts.

Also saying that you need great script to make something doesn't take into account the few successful creative people that don't start a production with a script, Larry David and Mike Leigh both spring to mind. Some successful people don't use scripts in the traditional sense.

So why is this lie being spun again and again, because it isn't a lie. If you are making a small low-to-no budget Indie film you can have as much or as little of a good script that you want. If you are unknow and looking to get a $1m together for a production then you need at the least something that reads like a great film on paper, regardless of how well it will translate into a film, so you need a great script to do that - it may be a good idea to write two scripts - the script for the film you plan to make, and the script that reads well to get money together for the film you plan to make!

So the truth is directly you don't need to be a writer or have a great script if you are self funding, indirectly if you need funding you need to be a writer or team up with one.

A script is like a blueprint for building a ship, you can follow your perfect blueprint and that ship floats off into the sunset, or sinks before your eyes. But maybe you grow up next to a shipyard, or have made so many ships before that you can build a good water tight ship without needing a blueprint.

[Duke]

You've just hit upon how Hollywood decides to make movies. Its all about the combination of factors that will make the movie have money.

A so-so script becomes successful when they have something else going for them. If you have stars people want to see, or a director that people like his/her films, or its based upon a famous book/comic book, etc. You can get butts in the seats without a great script.

People recommend a great script because indies don't have any of those things going for them and you certainly don't want to improvise. :eek: Each part is dependent on the other parts. At the very least you need an incredibly good outline, and not all actors can improvise.

[Tim Hole]

I refuse to become what I despise. I love my art and my storytelling. I'm not in it to make a buck. I want to create great cinema. End of...It seems pointless to me to make a film and spend two years of my life on something that is badly written.

[Granty]

Tim I'm with you on that, Art and storytelling, make some great cinema. But what is a good script, we don't know, it is like saying what is a great painting, we can all have opinions and ideals but it doen't mean they are worth a fart. The that is where the problem lies, you may write what you believe to be a great script, all your team think it is a great script, the money men think it is great script, you work hard for two years and realise the worse concept in the history of the world.

I remember you talking about knocking out a script quickly not so long ago, was it a week or so, was that you? If that was you it kinda doesn't make sense with the above statement.

I think a director needs to be a good storyteller, needs to know very well the current world they live in, and it's culture, then a Director like that can take any rubbish, on paper (or not on paper) and turn it into a great film, I truly feel that is the truth of the matter, and the harse reality in the world of film. Most of Spielberg's scripts are shlock B-movies, but he is a great storyteller.

[holy_handgrenade]

Well Granty, A quick rule of thumb on what a "good" vs. "bad" script is, when reading it do you feel compelled? It's hard to work on something for any amount of time if you think or have a feeling that it's just not going to play out.

I worked on a project a while back with a director that had quite possibly one of the best scripts I've read. Problem though, he had no knowlege, forthought, or really ambition to follow through with the script to get it shot. It was miserable being on that set some of the times because of this. Most of us on the set only agreed to it because of the awesome script roped us in.

The project ultimately fell apart and didn't go anywhere. We only got about 1/4 through shooting (he insisted on shooting scenes linearly) This is a good example of where a great script means nothing.

Other talents are required - BUT - in the way Hollywood works, as an indie you wont go anywhere unless you have another script in hand or another project that is good enough for someone to throw money at you to make.

In essence - you need to be able to write well(hence the topic be a good writer (not scriptwriter) so that you *CAN* write or develop a script. And have a few projects available to shoot before you run out into the world. Otherwise you run the risk of being famous and praised for your first and only film as you fade back into obscurity. :)

[NoahK]

That presumes good writers make good directors when that's seldom true and vice versa. Just like a good sound recordist is probably not a great DP and vice versa. Yeah as an indie it's great if you're a great writer and a solid director- aka Quentin Tarantino. But I still maintain being a good director is like being a good driver- it's not rocket science and doesn't get you nearly as far in the beginning as being an amazing writer.

Noah

[Tim Hole]

I remember you talking about knocking out a script quickly not so long ago, was it a week or so, was that you? If that was you it kinda doesn't make sense with the above statement.


:biggrin5: Yes I did 'knock out' a script in a little over a week. In my mind it shouldn't take any longer than a couple weeks (max) to write the first draft of a script...umm thats interesting...one simple reason is, I know exactly what i am writing. I NEVER even write FADE IN: until I have developed the story to a point where I am going through the motions of writing the draft and exploring the story with the framework I have previously developed. So yes a a week or so to bang out the first draft, fifteen months development prior to that!!

My process is a very detailed development process. I really explore the storyworld, the characters, the themes, plan the story, the structure, the hooks, plot points (hate that word). I know the story beginning/middle/end before I have started. This frees you up to explore the story a little in the first draft. Second draft is working on the story tightening it up. Figuring out what is working/not working. Third draft is working on the action/tightening up. Fourth draft is working on dialogue/character interaction. Then ship it off to three script consultants. Don't look at script or think about it for a good month or so. Read feedback from consultants and then re-read the script. Redraft again. Incorporate ideas from the breathing space of a month, and anything I agree with the consultants to adjust.

Then tighten and tighten and tighten and tighten........

[Granty]

I write the same way Tim, I have something flating around of a long time, think about all the details and then just write it.

The interesting thing that we find talking about scripts is that their seems to be an ideal of how a director needs to work, and that is a good strong ideal, but thinking about it only one director ever followed that ideal and that was Kubrick. This is the only guy to really nail a story before directing it. This was a guy that would work on a idea for 7 years and then decide it wasn't good enough for him to turn into a film, and scrape it.

But that is only one way of working, most don't do that directors like Spielberg can director a good film about taking a shit in the morning, I can't think of any good script he turned into a film. Tarantino first script was good, since then he has made a pile of shit. The problem is that you can take any lame idea and turn it quicking into a compelling story, take going shopping, throw in a nice arc of tension and a few jokes and you have a hit movie.

[LandonHolt]

I wouldn't say that someone has to be a good writer. Writing involves an exquisite understanding of a language, and putting it together in a way the pleases the reader. In film, not all of a writer's precepts will apply, but certain aspects of 'writing talent' do apply to good directing as well. For example, a good writer and a good director should understanding story-telling, character development, and have a proper understanding and vision for what goes on in the world.

[Granty]

I wouldn't say that someone has to be a good writer. Writing involves an exquisite understanding of a language, and putting it together in a way the pleases the reader. In film, not all of a writer's precepts will apply, but certain aspects of 'writing talent' do apply to good directing as well. For example, a good writer and a good director should understanding story-telling, character development, and have a proper understanding and vision for what goes on in the world.

I agree with that, I know of a few people who are not good writers, and have an amazing talent to write good solid scripts. I'd compare it to making a storyboard and drawing, you don't need to be able to draw to layout a good storyboard that everyone can follow. Both storyboard and scriptwriting are matter of fact, they ain't flourished with internal dialogue or endless creative concepts of form.

You need to understand the plot and story, character and relationship, setting and world and how to link that in a solid structure, but that has little to do with writing and more to do with creative concepts - the Who? Where? What? & Why?

[bodhifilms]

Here is some advice from David Mamet on some basics of what is needed for good/great screenwriting.

Great read on screenwriting...

“TO THE WRITERS OF THE UNIT
GREETINGS.


AS WE LEARN HOW TO WRITE THIS SHOW, A RECURRING PROBLEM BECOMES CLEAR.


THE PROBLEM IS THIS: TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN DRAMA AND NON-DRAMA. LET ME BREAK-IT-DOWN-NOW.
EVERYONE IN CREATION IS SCREAMING AT US TO MAKE THE SHOW CLEAR. WE ARE TASKED WITH, IT SEEMS, CRAMMING A SHITLOAD OF INFORMATION INTO A LITTLE BIT OF TIME.


OUR FRIENDS. THE PENGUINS, THINK THAT WE, THEREFORE, ARE EMPLOYED TO COMMUNICATE INFORMATION — AND, SO, AT TIMES, IT SEEMS TO US.


BUT NOTE:THE AUDIENCE WILL NOT TUNE IN TO WATCH INFORMATION. YOU WOULDN’T, I WOULDN’T. NO ONE WOULD OR WILL. THE AUDIENCE WILL ONLY TUNE IN AND STAY TUNED TO WATCH DRAMA.


QUESTION:WHAT IS DRAMA? DRAMA, AGAIN, IS THE QUEST OF THE HERO TO OVERCOME THOSE THINGS WHICH PREVENT HIM FROM ACHIEVING A SPECIFIC, ACUTE GOAL.


SO: WE, THE WRITERS, MUST ASK OURSELVES OF EVERY SCENE THESE THREE QUESTIONS.
1) WHO WANTS WHAT?
2) WHAT HAPPENS IF HER DON’T GET IT?
3) WHY NOW?


THE ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS ARE LITMUS PAPER. APPLY THEM, AND THEIR ANSWER WILL TELL YOU IF THE SCENE IS DRAMATIC OR NOT.


IF THE SCENE IS NOT DRAMATICALLY WRITTEN, IT WILL NOT BE DRAMATICALLY ACTED.
THERE IS NO MAGIC FAIRY DUST WHICH WILL MAKE A BORING, USELESS, REDUNDANT, OR MERELY INFORMATIVE SCENE AFTER IT LEAVES YOUR TYPEWRITER. YOU THE WRITERS, ARE IN CHARGE OF MAKING SURE EVERY SCENE IS DRAMATIC.


THIS MEANS ALL THE “LITTLE” EXPOSITIONAL SCENES OF TWO PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT A THIRD. THIS BUSHWAH (AND WE ALL TEND TO WRITE IT ON THE FIRST DRAFT) IS LESS THAN USELESS, SHOULD IT FINALLY, GOD FORBID, GET FILMED.


IF THE SCENE BORES YOU WHEN YOU READ IT, REST ASSURED IT WILL BORE THE ACTORS, AND WILL, THEN, BORE THE AUDIENCE, AND WE’RE ALL GOING TO BE BACK IN THE BREADLINE.


SOMEONE HAS TO MAKE THE SCENE DRAMATIC. IT IS NOT THE ACTORS JOB (THE ACTORS JOB IS TO BE TRUTHFUL). IT IS NOT THE DIRECTORS JOB. HIS OR HER JOB IS TO FILM IT STRAIGHTFORWARDLY AND REMIND THE ACTORS TO TALK FAST. IT IS YOUR JOB.


EVERY SCENE MUST BE DRAMATIC. THAT MEANS: THE MAIN CHARACTER MUST HAVE A SIMPLE, STRAIGHTFORWARD, PRESSING NEED WHICH IMPELS HIM OR HER TO SHOW UP IN THE SCENE.


THIS NEED IS WHY THEY CAME. IT IS WHAT THE SCENE IS ABOUT. THEIR ATTEMPT TO GET THIS NEED MET WILL LEAD, AT THE END OF THE SCENE,TO FAILURE - THIS IS HOW THE SCENE IS OVER. IT, THIS FAILURE, WILL, THEN, OF NECESSITY, PROPEL US INTO THE NEXT SCENE.


ALL THESE ATTEMPTS, TAKEN TOGETHER, WILL, OVER THE COURSE OF THE EPISODE, CONSTITUTE THE PLOT.
ANY SCENE, THUS, WHICH DOES NOT BOTH ADVANCE THE PLOT, AND STANDALONE (THAT IS, DRAMATICALLY, BY ITSELF, ON ITS OWN MERITS) IS EITHER SUPERFLUOUS, OR INCORRECTLY WRITTEN.


YES BUT YES BUT YES BUT, YOU SAY: WHAT ABOUT THE NECESSITY OF WRITING IN ALL THAT “INFORMATION?”
AND I RESPOND “FIGURE IT OUT” ANY DICKHEAD WITH A BLUESUIT CAN BE (AND IS) TAUGHT TO SAY “MAKE IT CLEARER”, AND “I WANT TO KNOW MORE ABOUT HIM”.


WHEN YOU’VE MADE IT SO CLEAR THAT EVEN THIS BLUESUITED PENGUIN IS HAPPY, BOTH YOU AND HE OR SHE WILL BE OUT OF A JOB.


THE JOB OF THE DRAMATIST IS TO MAKE THE AUDIENCE WONDER WHAT HAPPENS NEXT. NOT TO EXPLAIN TO THEM WHAT JUST HAPPENED, OR TO*SUGGEST* TO THEM WHAT HAPPENS NEXT.


ANY DICKHEAD, AS ABOVE, CAN WRITE, “BUT, JIM, IF WE DON’T ASSASSINATE THE PRIME MINISTER IN THE NEXT SCENE, ALL EUROPE WILL BE ENGULFED IN FLAME”


WE ARE NOT GETTING PAID TO REALIZE THAT THE AUDIENCE NEEDS THIS INFORMATION TO UNDERSTAND THE NEXT SCENE, BUT TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO WRITE THE SCENE BEFORE US SUCH THAT THE AUDIENCE WILL BE INTERESTED IN WHAT HAPPENS NEXT.


YES BUT, YES BUT YES BUT YOU REITERATE.


AND I RESPOND FIGURE IT OUT.


HOW DOES ONE STRIKE THE BALANCE BETWEEN WITHHOLDING AND VOUCHSAFING INFORMATION? THAT IS THE ESSENTIAL TASK OF THE DRAMATIST. AND THE ABILITY TO DO THAT IS WHAT SEPARATES YOU FROM THE LESSER SPECIES IN THEIR BLUE SUITS.


FIGURE IT OUT.


START, EVERY TIME, WITH THIS INVIOLABLE RULE: THE SCENE MUST BE DRAMATIC. it must start because the hero HAS A PROBLEM, AND IT MUST CULMINATE WITH THE HERO FINDING HIM OR HERSELF EITHER THWARTED OR EDUCATED THAT ANOTHER WAY EXISTS.


LOOK AT YOUR LOG LINES. ANY LOGLINE READING “BOB AND SUE DISCUSS…” IS NOT DESCRIBING A DRAMATIC SCENE.


PLEASE NOTE THAT OUR OUTLINES ARE, GENERALLY, SPECTACULAR. THE DRAMA FLOWS OUT BETWEEN THE OUTLINE AND THE FIRST DRAFT.


THINK LIKE A FILMMAKER RATHER THAN A FUNCTIONARY, BECAUSE, IN TRUTH, YOU ARE MAKING THE FILM. WHAT YOU WRITE, THEY WILL SHOOT.


HERE ARE THE DANGER SIGNALS. ANY TIME TWO CHARACTERS ARE TALKING ABOUT A THIRD, THE SCENE IS A CROCK OF SHIT.


ANY TIME ANY CHARACTER IS SAYING TO ANOTHER “AS YOU KNOW”, THAT IS, TELLING ANOTHER CHARACTER WHAT YOU, THE WRITER, NEED THE AUDIENCE TO KNOW, THE SCENE IS A CROCK OF SHIT.


DO NOT WRITE A CROCK OF SHIT. WRITE A RIPPING THREE, FOUR, SEVEN MINUTE SCENE WHICH MOVES THE STORY ALONG, AND YOU CAN, VERY SOON, BUY A HOUSE IN BEL AIR AND HIRE SOMEONE TO LIVE THERE FOR YOU.


REMEMBER YOU ARE WRITING FOR A VISUAL MEDIUM. MOST TELEVISION WRITING, OURS INCLUDED, SOUNDS LIKE RADIO. THE CAMERA CAN DO THE EXPLAINING FOR YOU. LET IT. WHAT ARE THE CHARACTERS DOING -*LITERALLY*. WHAT ARE THEY HANDLING, WHAT ARE THEY READING. WHAT ARE THEY WATCHING ON TELEVISION, WHAT ARE THEY SEEING.


IF YOU PRETEND THE CHARACTERS CANT SPEAK, AND WRITE A SILENT MOVIE, YOU WILL BE WRITING GREAT DRAMA.


IF YOU DEPRIVE YOURSELF OF THE CRUTCH OF NARRATION, EXPOSITION,INDEED, OF SPEECH. YOU WILL BE FORGED TO WORK IN A NEW MEDIUM - TELLING THE STORY IN PICTURES (ALSO KNOWN AS SCREENWRITING)
THIS IS A NEW SKILL. NO ONE DOES IT NATURALLY. YOU CAN TRAIN YOURSELVES TO DO IT, BUT YOU NEED TO START.


I CLOSE WITH THE ONE THOUGHT: LOOK AT THE SCENE AND ASK YOURSELF “IS IT DRAMATIC? IS IT ESSENTIAL? DOES IT ADVANCE THE PLOT?


ANSWER TRUTHFULLY.


IF THE ANSWER IS “NO” WRITE IT AGAIN OR THROW IT OUT. IF YOU’VE GOT ANY QUESTIONS, CALL ME UP.


LOVE, DAVE MAMET
SANTA MONICA 19 OCTO 05
(IT IS NOT YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO KNOW THE ANSWERS, BUT IT IS YOUR, AND MY, RESPONSIBILITY TO KNOW AND TO ASK THE RIGHT Questions OVER AND OVER. UNTIL IT BECOMES SECOND NATURE. I BELIEVE THEY ARE LISTED ABOVE.)”