Light vs. Dark

'The Road' versus 'Old Dogs'

Serious films like 'The Lovely Bones' are in a fight with lighter fare like 'Alvin and the Chipmunks' this holiday season. Guess who's expected to win?

By John Horn of the L.A. Times >>>

November 26, 2009

As any husband or wife who has picked the wrong kind of spousal Christmas present knows -- a gym membership, for example, instead of a trip to Maui -- there's a big difference between earnest and enjoyable gifts. The same can be said when selecting a film to see this holiday season: Some moviegoers actually welcome challenging stories, but many more prefer untroubled fun.

It's a critical distinction as Hollywood enters the final weeks of the 2009 movie season. Over the next month, audiences will be offered stark choices between disparate filmmaking styles, with perhaps the most telling choice coming this weekend, as “The Road” premieres opposite “Old Dogs.”

There's no question Disney's family comedy will sell many more tickets than the Weinstein Co. and Dimension Films' adaptation of Cormac McCarthy's post-apocalyptic drama.

The real issue is whether "The Road" is among the last of a dying breed: movies aimed at literate adults -- which literate adults haven't been supporting.
Everywhere you look the movie business is changing, and if you're a serious movie fan, it's been mostly for the worse. The makers and distributors of art house films are failing faster (latest victim: Miramax Films) than toxic banks

, and the makers of "The Road" aren't immune. Financier 2929 Productions, which backed "Good Night, and Good Luck" and "We Own the Night," hasn't made a movie since "The Road" wrapped in early 2008, and

distributors Weinstein and Dimension are now steering their limited resources into genre material like "Piranha 3-D" and "Scream IV."

Audience tracking surveys suggest "The Road" faces an uphill climb: Nothing quite says "Happy Thanksgiving!" like a movie with cannibalism.

Even though McCarthy's book about a father and his son struggling to survive a terrifying, inhospitable world was a Pulitzer Prize-winning bestseller, moviegoer awareness of the film is distressingly low -- less than half of the awareness of "Old Dogs." That's not the only worrying sign: among those who are "definitely interested" in seeing the end-of-the-world story, the only discernible bloc of support comes from older men and women -- the same demographic likely to attend "Old Dogs," but in much larger numbers for the John Travolta-Robin Williams comedy.

"The Road" isn't the only movie that audience surveys suggest has some work to do.

Early polling for writer-director James Cameron's $310-million "Avatar" from Fox isn't as favorable as it is for Warner Bros.' "Sherlock Holmes." The latter film comes out a week after "Avatar" yet still has significantly higher "definite interest." At the same time, young girls -- the fanatical ticket-buyers who pushed Cameron's Oscar-winning "Titanic" into the box-office record books -- are so far showing cool curiosity in Dec. 18's "Avatar," preferring by an almost 2-1 margin Dec. 23's "Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel," also from Fox.

The new movie from another Oscar winner -- Peter Jackson's "The Lovely Bones" (Dec. 11) -- will obviously come nowhere close to doing the same kind of business as the director's "Lord of the Rings" movies. The adaptation of Alice Sebold's dark novel about a serial killer and his young victim will need four-star reviews to overcome its subject matter.

In the same manner, "The Road" will need to attract consistent critical acclaim and positive word-of-mouth to build box-office momentum. One of its earliest reviews was not kind but later notices, while mixed, have been more favorable.

The initial advertisements for the film made "The Road," which was once scheduled to be released a year ago, look more like a "Mad Max" knock-off than a serious adaptation of a critically acclaimed novel, as the first trailer used news footage of global destruction that isn't even in the film. "I wasn't very involved in that," director John Hillcoat says of the opening trailer. "All I will say is it's a tough sell, and I think it's a good strategy." A subsequent spot focused more closely on the against-all-odds survival tale between the Man (Viggo Mortensen) and the Boy (Kodi Smit-McPhee).

Director Hillcoat and star Mortensen say it is that hopeful father-son story that ultimately anchors the tale, and what they both believe audiences will take away from a movie filled with horrors (although an infamously grisly scene of infanticide from the book was shot but cut from the finished film) almost too numerous to count.

"It captures something very difficult -- the spirit of the book," Mortensen says. The world may be dying, he says, "but it's luminous. Even though it's gray and it has a terrible bleakness to it, it's still beautiful."

The movie, the actor says, "did not compromise on the bleakness of the book, emotionally or visually. It allowed everything to be naked, raw and visceral. But it was able to capture something uplifting."

It's the same view that is working perfectly with "Precious: Based on the Novel 'Push' by Sapphire," which has become a breakout hit for Lionsgate. Though "Precious" contains scenes of incest and physical abuse, it, like "The Road," is also a survival story.

Hillcoat says "The Road's" optimism is reflected in the connection between the Man and the Boy: "The movie is really about their relationship, and how one learns from the other." Readers of the book will know that's part of the tale and come see the movie, "but the challenge is to tap into the people who haven't read the book -- the wider audience," the Australian director says.

"My hope is that people see that the film is about human goodness and what makes us special. Just because it's set in a very harrowing world -- that's only to highlight why this relationship is so special."

What Should I Write?

Because of yesterday's article about studios possibly relying less on A-list actors, I'm re-posting this from earlier in the year as it directly applies. As an aside, I happened to bump into a development exec from DreamWorks Animation at Saturday's USC/Stanford game. He echoed many of these same sentiments regarding what they are looking for; original concepts, new worlds, timeless stories.
For those of you wondering why a picture of Magic Johnson accompanies this, it's because he's taking a layup. Not a 3 pointer, not half court. Writing a sellable script is tough enough. Let's not make it harder than it already is.


WHAT SHOULD I WRITE?
I hear this question often from young writers and the answer will always be the same.... I don't know. Nor does anybody else, but here are some tips. Sure, we can make a few phone calls and tell you "Disney is looking for a Christmas project" or "Columbia wants a thriller, but no noir, or 90's female in jeopardy, and comedies grounded in reality always help" blah, blah blah.
Sure, you could write a script to fill one of those niches, but by the time you finished it the studios’ needs would have changed and you'd still be asking the same inevitable question...What does the market want now?
So, let's get less specific and start thinking about the person who's buying your material (script, short story, novel, comic book whatever). So now you're the studio executive. What's your job? How do you move your career forward? What motivates you to buy something?
As a studio exec. your job is to develop and produce commercially successful films. What does "commercially successful" mean? Well last I checked, the average cost of a studio film (including prints and advertising, P&A) tips the scales at around $79 million. Now think about that and let it sink in. $79 million! So they are looking for projects that can make back MORE than that amount. And remember approximately half the money at the box office goes to the theater, not the studio, so they're looking to gross over $150 million. Are the studios looking for your movie?
So what is a studio exec. looking for when shopping for stories? Even though many of them may not realize it, they're looking for one word.......
MONOPOLIES, or as close to them as they can come.
Let me tell you why. What’s your competition? As a studio exec. what is your entertainment product competing with?
Let's make a list:
Broadcast TV
Cable TV
Video Rentals
Video Games
Internet
.......or hell, the consumer could actually get off their ass and go play basketball, or ride a bike or go check out a sunset – or read a book!
Now we know all these activities (even the sunset) have some form of cost, just as going to the movies does. However, in the mind of the consumer, there is a huge difference between these items and going to the local multiplex. From the consumer's perspective all of these items are relatively FREE and movies are not.
When a consumer comes home and flips on the TV he doesn't feel the cable company slipping its hand in his pocket to fish out a couple of bucks, he thinks, or rather he feels at that moment that it’s free. He won't feel the pinch of the cable company until the bill comes in the mail. The same relationship, to a greater or lesser degree, exists between the consumer and the other entertainment options as well.
This is not the case for movies. Movies are like a heavyweight fight; they're pay per view. When you go to see a movie you are going to feel the financial and non-financial pain/costs immediately.
Costs to the consumer related to seeing a film:
Financial: Ticket price, food & drink, and possibly the cost of parking. Let's call this around $15 per person.
Non-financial: You have to drive there and park, you are forced to accept their schedule, you can't hit pause, the seats are far smaller than your couch, you have to share the room with 500 people you don't know etc.......
Thus, every time consumers are faced with an entertainment decision, in order for them to choose a film over other activities, clearly they must feel that the likelihood exists that the movie they will see, the moviegoing experience they are going to have, is not only superior to all those other free alternatives, but so superior that they are willing to give up an extra $15/person, all the creature comforts of home and put up with the hassles of going to the theater.
This means that as a studio exec you have to produce and market a film that is so compelling that Joe Schmoe will put down his beer or soda, get his ass off the couch, drive the 4.2 miles to the AMC Theater 28, park, walk, and plunk down $15 per person to sit in a dark room with 300 people he doesn’t know, in small seats and you cant hit pause to take a piss. In order to get people to do that you need some really good stuff!
So back to that word MONOPOLY. In order to compel the consumer to see your product you want to create a monopoly. You need a product they can’t get anywhere else. If you ran reruns of old Hogan's Heroes episodes at your local theater would anyone go? Hell no! They can get that at home for free. So how do you create a monopoly? There are essentially three ways to do it.
1) Movie Stars. You want to see Julia Roberts, Denzel Washington, Brad Pitt, George Clooney, Vince Vaughn, Tom Cruise etc.? You gotta come see my movie. You can't see these stars in new material anywhere else except by paying to see the flick. But here's the drawback, they're really expensive, fickle, and not always available when you need them. It's not like going to the store and pulling a box of Wheaties off the shelf whenever you want. In this scenario the Wheaties can say "No," or "Only if Ron Howard is directing," or "Sure, but I'm not available until next year."
2) Cutting Edge Visuals. Incredible special effects can help fill seats, but are often expensive. Sometimes they are worth the money and sometimes they are not (the same can be said of stars). If you can deliver cutting edge visuals that no one has seen anywhere else before, once again you've created a monopoly. You want to see what it's like to be inside a Tornado? Well you can't get that on CBS, you have to come to my movie. You want to run with dinosaurs, you want to see the Titanic split in two? You gotta come to my movie!
3) Original Concepts and New Worlds. What's it like to be an angel, a fireman, immortal? That's the basis for three films right there. “The Prophecy”, “Backdraft”, “Highlander” all written by Greg Widen. What's it like to play in underground poker games? "Rounders." What's it like to be in the mob? "Godfather 1,2,3" What's it like to be a Jedi Knight? "Star Wars." What's it like to have been in the Special Forces in Somalia....? "Blackhawk Down." You want to experience these worlds? You gotta come see my movie.
Deliver a world or a setting that we've never seen before, or that we haven't seen in a while (remember approximately 50% of the movie going audience is between 14 & 24. If a concept was used 10+ years ago, odds are they haven't seen it). “War of the Worlds” = “Independence Day”="War of the Worlds". “Kelly's Heroes” = “Three Kings”. "Taming of the Shrew"="10 Things I Hate About You," “Disturbia” = “Rear Window.” Are these exact matches? No! But are they delivering, or repackaging if you will, concepts that the earlier films/plays successfully sold to the consumer. Yes!
Now which of these methods of creating a Monopoly is most efficient to you the writer? Absolutely, positively #3. If you can deliver a fresh exciting concept to the studio, then the studio can choose whether or not to spend money on stars or visuals.
Will Smith's market price before “ID4” was squat. The "big stars" were Jeff Goldblum, and Bill Pullman. Was anybody in “Titanic” expensive? No, Leo DiCaprio hadn’t made a big name for himself yet. The expense went into the cost of the production (the ship) and the visuals.
What about “Oceans 11, 12, 13”? Big visuals? No. Big Stars? Yes!
What about Horror films? Maybe visuals, almost never stars, and for some reason monsters only attack hot chicks in their underwear???????
Romantic Comedies starring women? Visuals... none. Stars? These are female marketed films, often if you can’t get one of the five or six hot girls du jour (Sandra, Cameron, Julia, Nicole, Drew, Charlize) forget it. Your project is going nowhere.
(exception)Romantic Comedies starring men? (40 year old virgin etc.) Visuals... none. Stars? Not really. These are driven by the COMEDY, the romance is absolutely secondary. Sometimes the relationship between our hero and his buddy is more important than the fact that the hero get’s the girl like in Superbad (Bromance). These are about laughing and marketed mostly to men, but women will follow if the story has heart, so make sure it does. It's more Com/rom than Rom/com. This gives the writer an advantage.
Theoretically the studio could make a film that is interesting enough, original enough to sell to the consumer and not have to pay the enormous expense of mega-stars or pricey effects. Examples: “American Pie”, “Fast and the Furious”, “Animal House”
So what's the perfect script? I don't know, but since you don't have any $20 million actors as your best friends, or own Skywalker Ranch forget #1 and #2. A great (let’s define that as salable) script is one that delivers a new/revisited and interesting world, with heroes we like and can empathize with and villains we fear, despise and understand. It's usually set present day, in the U.S. and has interesting set pieces. If it lends itself to cool visuals, great. If it offers the kind of challenging or fun roles actors will enjoy playing, fantastic. This is what your buyer, the studio exec., is often looking for. Something he or she can read and immediately see in their minds who's staring in it and what the poster looks like. Something that makes them sit up and say "Wow this is really interesting, this is cool, I can sell this, my boss will be stoked!"
News flash! It's not the 70's anymore. At most studios the head of production and the head of marketing have to agree to make a picture. Regardless of how great your script may be, if they cant' sell it they won't make it, and if they won't make it, they wont buy it.
Does following this prescription mean a Best Picture or Best Screenplay oscar? Probably not, but we can work on that later. What it does mean is having a much better shot at selling your script, which means, getting your foot in the Hollywood door, getting paid for your work and starting your career.
By the way – this applies, to one degree or another, not just to beginners, but to every writer in Hollywood – and every experienced writer knows it.

J.J. Abrams' mystery box

From TED 2007

-Required Viewing
If you have any problem playing it, use the "required viewing" link

Billy Wilder: 10 Screenwriting Tips

Billy Wilder: 10 Screenwriting Tips

Posted using ShareThis

Well, here are some of Wilder's screenwriting tips: *

1. The audience is fickle.
2. Grab ‘em by the throat and never let ‘em go.
3. Develop a clean line of action for your leading character.
4. Know where you’re going.
5. The more subtle and elegant you are in hiding your plot points, the better you are as a writer.
6. If you have a problem with the third act, the real problem is in the first act.
7. A tip from Lubitsch: Let the audience add up two plus two. They’ll love you forever.
8. In doing voice-overs, be careful not to describe what the audience already sees. Add to what they’re seeing.
9. The event that occurs at the second act curtain triggers the end of the movie.
10. The third act must build, build, build in tempo and action until the last event, and then—that’s it. Don’t hang around.

* From Conversations with Wilder by Cameron Crowe

WGA Reports Plunge in Earnings

By Dave McNary
Guild hit by recession, writer's strike

Hollywood scribes are feeling the double-whammy of the recession and pre-strike stockpiling.
The Writers Guild of America West, in its annual report to members, disclosed that earnings plunged nearly 18% to $801.4 million for the fiscal year ended March 31. Guild-covered earnings had set a record in the previous year at $976.3 million.
"This change from the prior year was attributable to the effects on our industry of the general economic slowdown and to the strike to achieve the 2008 minimum basic agreement, which had accelerated some feature film income into 2007 and reduced the length of the 2007-2008 television season," the guild noted in the report.
The report details that feature scribes have taken the biggest hit because of the ramp up that preceded the 2007 contract wrangling, which included the Nov. 5, 2007-Feb. 12, 2008 work stoppage. The drop in scribe earnings has also significantly hurt the guild's financial fortunes.
The report was sent to the 8,000 WGA West members earlier this summer and recently posted on the guild's website.
The WGA noted the number of writers reporting income declined 9.7% to 4,163. TV employment declined 11.2% to 2,929 slots while earnings for TV scribes declined 3.1% to $437.5 million. Feature film employment declined 14% to 1,716 slots. Film earnings, which had surged 19.5% in the prior fiscal year, declined a whopping 30.7% to $361 million.
The pronounced fall in film earnings wasn't a surprise since the WGA had warned last year that the jump in feature earnings wasn't going to last.
The report for fiscal 2008 confirmed that assessment.
"The pre-strike stockpiling by the studios was a major factor followed by cautious development and a decrease in theatrical film production by the major studios following the expiration of the SAG contract and the subsequent economic slowdown," it said.
On the TV side, where guild-covered earnings are down 4.6% from the record $469.2 million in 2006, the WGA offered a more mixed recap.
"Television declines in the first half of the year can be attributed to the six weeks of the strike which fell in 2008," it said. "For the second half of the year, we found that while WGA series rebounded, the companies responded to the economic downturn by reducing the size of TV series staffs."
The new report also included a sobering picture of the WGA West's financial condition, noting that the guild operated at a $5.1 million deficit including net investment losses of $1.9 million and the costs of staff layoffs. Revenues totaled of $20.9 million and expenses of $26 million.
"The current economic crisis has had a profound global impact, and the WGAW has not escaped it," the membership and finance committee said in its statement at the start of the report. "Despite formidable challenges, we are pleased to report that your Guild remains in excellent financial shape. The guild owns its headquarters with no debt and our investments stand at $12.8 million, including a total of $7.4 million in our Strike and Good & Welfare Funds."
It also noted that its revenues of $22.7 million in dues and fees declined 3.4%, noting "this relatively small decline was due mainly to improved collection of delinquent and underreported dues."
WGA West expenditures had surged 11% in the prior fiscal year to $26.3 million due to the 100-day strike then declined only slightly to $26 million.
"This relatively narrow margin reflected extraordinary expenses related to staff severance costs and maintaining a reserve for estimated uncollectible strike loans," the report said. "The difficult decision to lay off just under 10% of our employees was made in order to balance the fiscal year 2010 budget and to maintain adequate reserves for contract enforcement, jurisdiction expansion, and future negotiations."
The report also includes disclosure of $30.3 million in "funds held in trust for members" including foreign levies, client trust accounts, undeliverable funds and a residuals trust fund. That's up 23% from the $23.8 million figure in the prior year's report but the WGA did not disclose any reasons for the increase, nor did it break out the amount of foreign levies accrued under a system in which the guild collects funds paid under foreign laws to authors of copyrighted works.
The DGA, WGA and SAG have all been sued over their practice of collecting foreign levies for nonmembers, alleging they overstepped their authority by doing so. The DGA settled its action last year; the action against the WGA had been in settlement discussions that fell apart in the spring.
The foreign levies for U.S. creatives began to flow after the U.S. agreement in 1989 to terms of the Berne Convention, which establishes the right of authorship for individuals who create works of art. 


IT’S HOW MANY PAGES??????????

Last night I was reading an indy comedy. The script was great. It was funny and sweet and original and the writer had a strong voice. The only problem….. its 124 pages long. You can’t have too mush of a good thing right? Well actually in this case, yeah you can.
You see if a company makes this, it’s going to be on a shoe string budget and every page in the script is more money the story takes to shoot, so at 124 pages producers will either Pass or say “cut 34 pages from the script.”
My advice, cut them off at the pass. Cut the number of pages down to whatever it should be in the first place before sending it out. And make sure that as you do you maintain the script's appropriate structural balance.
If you’re not sure how long your script should be, make a list of the three films made within the last ten years that are most like your movie in terms of cast, genre and size/scope (budget). Now look up how long they are on IMDB, take the average. Remember it's one page per minute. That’s how long your screenplay can be. Not a single page more.
This is one more little thing that communicates to the reader you’re a professional. If I was designing a car, I wouldn’t give Toyota plans for a 21 foot long midsize car, or a subcompact that cost the consumer $100k. The same is true of your screenplay.
In a marketplace where people will pass for just about any reason… don’t give them one. And don’t spit in the wind, don’t tug on Superman’s cape, don’t check into a hotel with Angela Lansbury, don’t wear a red shirt on Star Trek, don’t pull a gun on Little Joe (yes that’s some Old School TV), and never ever be so bold as to ask anyone on Lost to completely explain anything.

THE WRITER'S COUCH

OK, so a development exec read your script and liked it. Maybe they want to buy it, but odds are they don’t. That’s no reflection on you, that’s just the percentages. Most of the time when you have a meeting it will not be because you’re making a sale, but because someone liked your work, however it wasn’t the right fit for them or missed the mark a bit. Now they want to know if you might have something stuffed in a drawer, or that you're working on that could be cool. Take it from me, yes I was once a naïve writer too, don’t go in there thinking because you had one hot script that now your'e in a position to get a paid assignment. Odds are 9/10 you’re not. And remember, an unpaid assignment is just working for free, they are not the same.

So you walk into the office and inevitably there is “the writers couch.” Most offices are too small for a real couch, so it’s almost always a loveseat. If you write with a partner get used to sitting really close to them- use deodorant.

The meeting will start out with 5-10 minutes of small talk followed by the D-person asking something to the effect of “So what are you working on.” Which really means “please tell me you're working on some really cool stuff that we can set up and turn into amazing and profitable movies so I can get a promotion or move to a better production company than this shi@#y place.” This is where your preparation is going to come in, because you’re going to have:

1) 3 projects you can pitch them. No more than 5-10 minutes on each and you can do this by heart. You don’t have to pull out a piece of paper. And while you're pitching, observe whether they are into it or not. (I’ll write more on the theory of the “Execudot” another time) If not, move to the next one. We’ve got a client who can literally go in with 10 things. He pitches the hook, sees if they bite, if yes, gives them the rest and, if no, moves to the next one. It’s beautiful. And because he’s not married to any ONE project, the development exec. doesn’t feel any pressure to soft-pedal his or her response, and often enjoys the process more.

2) The knowledge of what this company is producing and has produced in the past.

3) A generally pleasant personality. Because they're also getting to know you and deciding whether, or not, they may want to work with you in the future. Nobody wants to work long hours with Debbie Downer, or some totally introverted freak. Everybody wants to work with nice, fun talented people. So be that guy. This, and pitching well, are what’s referred to being “Good in a room.” It's good to be "Good in a room," trust me.

AND THE WINNER IS........?

First, I want to genuinely congratulate all of last night’s winners and nominees. You all deserve the accolades received and you made great contributions to our art and industry. Also, to the producers of the show and Hugh, Great Job!

Now, before I get twenty writers calling me with scripts like Slumdog, I want to post an article from Forbes, their 2nd annual Forbesies.
Not that Slumdog wasn’t great, but I remember the fall of 2002, after the summer when My Big Fat Greek Wedding, (a mediocre film, marketed to women during a summer filled with bad male driven product) did so well and I constantly heard people saying they had something similar to MBFGW.

I urge you not to do this. 1) Hollywood wants things that are, or feel original- see my first blog entry 2) That Slumdog succeeded is great, and it arguably is a watershed event, but it doesn’t change the fact that the odds against it were huge.

I want you to succeed. So, if you’re not yet established as a working, (paid) screenwriter, I suggest first writing scripts that have a higher probability of selling. And now, on to the Forbesies. I have a small complaint regarding their methodology, but overall it’s a good study tool.

The Movie Biz The Year's (Truly) Best Pictures
John Burman (Forbes magazine)
Fans of Warner Bros.' The Dark Knight who are still reeling from its absence in the Best Picture category at the upcoming Academy Awards can take heart--the latest installment in the Batman franchise tops the second annual Forbesies Awards, Forbes.com's look at the real Best Picture winners, based on box office and critical response. Following The Dark Knight for 2008 honors are Disney/Pixar's WALL-E and another super hero who made his initial big-screen appearance last year, Paramount's Iron Man, based on the Marvel Comics character. In putting together the list, our nominating process, so to speak, was to look at all films released in calendar year 2008 culled from box-office reporting service Box Office Mojo. In Pictures: The Year's (Truly) Best Pictures Next, we took every film that grossed $1 million or more at the North American box office (a universe of nearly 220 films) and charted where they ranked in worldwide box office, according to figures from sources including Box Office Mojo and Exhibitor Relations Co. We then looked at how the film did with critics, using measurements from MetaCritic.com. Each film received a point for its rank in the category. (A finish in the No. 1 spot yields one point; No. 2 yields two points, etc.) The scores were then added together, and the film with the lowest combined number finished on top, indicating consistent placement in the upper tiers of each grouping. Dark Knight's No. 1 slot is familiar territory for the film given its reign at the box office when it was released in summer 2008. It flew out of the gate and finished on top in North America four weekends in a row. Grossing a phenomenal $996.9 million globally in 2008--it is now No. 4 all time worldwide and No. 2 all time at the North America box office with its $530.9 million take stateside in 2008 (those figures have grown in 2009). Director-producer-co-writer Christopher Nolan's film was a huge hit with critics as well, scoring an 82 on MetaCritic. Animated films are well represented on the list with four entries, led by WALL-E, which is nominated for a Best Animated Feature Film Oscar. In finishing at No. 2, it had a global box office take of $518.7 million and a tremendous MetaCritic score of 93. (Disney/Pixar's Ratatouille was No. 1 on the Forbesies list last year.) Also making an appearance is a name from the past who showed he still has muscle with audiences. The return of Indiana Jones to the big screen after 19 years away in Paramount/Lucasfilm's Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull proved bountiful as the film finished at No. 5 thanks to a global box office haul of $786.5 million (which was No. 2 in that category behind The Dark Knight) and a MetaCritic score of 65. In looking at trends in the top 10, six films opened in North America in the late spring through summer window, which Hollywood views as its summer period. That makes sense given the availability of audiences during the time, namely kids out of school and the greater potential for repeat business. But it also speaks to quality projects finding their way amidst the clutter of summer given their MetaCritic performances. Late-year debuts often provide a treasure trove for potential Oscar nominees by Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Science voters. (This year's Best Picture nominees include three that opened in December and two in November.) But only one late-2008 release made it on to this year's Forbesies list: Paramount/DreamWorks Animation's Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa (tied at No. 8), which opened Nov. 7 in North America. It showed impressive stats in its shorter window, taking in $473.6 million box office globally and snagging a MetaCritic number of 61. Certainly some films released toward the end of the year were no doubt hindered in North America either due to lack of days in the calendar or, perhaps, by a limited release before going wider in 2009. But, there's always next year--witness the fact that two entries from 2007 made the cut in 2008. At No. 7 is Fox Searchlight's Juno, with 2008 global box office sales of $201.9 million and a MetaCritic score of 81. Tied at No. 8, is Warner Bros.' I Am Legend (2008 global box-office: $361.9 million; MetaCritic score: 65), starring Will Smith, who recently topped the inaugural Forbes Star Currency survey of Hollywood's most bankable actors. On the studio front, Paramount was the most represented with four on the list, including DreamWorks Animation projects. And for those already looking ahead to 2009, your top five in order through Feb. 10: Taken, Hotel For Dogs, My Bloody Valentine 3-D, Notorious and Paul Blart: Mall Cop. Stay tuned.

STUDY THE MASTERS AND YOUR CONTEMPORARIES

If you wanted to be a painter, before attempting to have a career of your own you’d study the masters; Rembrandt, Monet, Michelangelo, Da Vinci, Dali, Van Gough, Picasso and some of your contemporaries like Warhol and Buffet etc.

If you wanted to be a musician you might go to Juilliard and study Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, and Vivaldi along with Muddy Waters, Clapton, The Who, The Clash and Daft Punk.

So it always amazes me when I talk to a young screenwriter and ask “have you read any Shane Black?” and I get the answer “No.”

Are you kidding me?

Now if you're one of the aspiring screenwriters that answered “no”, don’t take this personally as you're in great company. But unfortunately it’s a great company of unsold screenwriters.

Do yourselves a giant favor and read the masters AND your contemporaries. The masters show you the basics and classic style. Your contemporaries show you how those same basics are being adapted into screenplays audiences are enjoying today.

It’s sort of like here’s Henry Ford’s original V8 engine (a work of art and genius), and here’s Chevy’s first small block V8 (a work of art and genius), and here is the V8 in the new BMW 7 series (a work of art and genius).

Here’s a list of screenwriters I’d recommend you read. It is in no way everything you should read, but it’s a start.

Shane Black
The Wachowski’s
William Goldman
Oliver Stone
Ganz & Mandell
John Hughes
Lawerence Kasdan
Cameron Crowe
Charlie Kaufman
David Mamet
Ted Elliott & Terry Rossio
Billy Wilder

IT'S TOUGH OUT THERE

I include this portion of David Hayes article in today's Variety to emphasize the difficult environment indy film financiers and distributors find themselves in. Last year's Cinderella Coach (Hamlet 2) went for $10 million. However it promptly turned back into a pumpkin over the summer when it only grossed $5M. When you consider the marketing that went into the film's wide release, plus the $10M to buy it and the theater owners take, that's a loss of around $20 million, Ouch! Folks, that's real money, not the Monopoly stuff. If you're the type of person who slams the studios for being uncreative or short sighted, remember this financial loss before doing it again. Remember this is "Show Business," not "Show Art." And please think about the financiers' concerns when choosing what to write or which of your scripts to send to an agent, manager or producer. It's tough out there.

Industry dressing down for Sundance

Economy brings a more subdued festival

By DADE HAYES @ Variety

Sundance, the first major fest to take place in the midst of the brutal economic downturn, is likely to be a more subdued affair.

There will still be the usual distribs scouting pics and sellers offering a full range of fare, but the overall noise level at the fest, running Jan. 15-25, is expected to be turned down a bit.

Organizers are marking the fest's 25th anniversary with special "storytelling"-themed events and Web content. Steven Soderbergh will sit on a panel seeking to answer the question "What next?"

That question has haunted the indie and specialty arenas of late. Despite the fall emergence of breakouts like "Slumdog Millionaire," "Milk" and "Doubt" at the mini-majors, the hangover from 2008 has lingered as vets absorb the disappearance of Warner Independent and Picturehouse and a big pullback by Paramount Vantage just three years after its euphoric "Hustle and Flow" Sundance moment. Add the breakdown of ThinkFilm, Bob Yari's release arm and other pure indies and the ground has shifted significantly underfoot.

Funding for pics is available, but the capital-intensive distribution and marketing sectors have been in dire straits of late.

"It just feels a lot tougher this year because so much is changing," said Bob Berney, who headed Picturehouse before it was unplugged last year by Time Warner. "Even so, I'm looking forward to Sundance just for the chance to see movies because it's often been a place of renewal."

The 10-day fest will see an array of preems, some for pics that are already spoken for, some not. For many trekking to the Wasatch Mountains, memories of last year's cross-currents remain fresh -- success stories like "Frozen River" and "Man on Wire" mixed with misfires like "What Just Happened?" and "Hamlet 2." Focus bought the latter for a record $10 million in an all-night bidding war, only to see it gross barely half that in wide summer release........

(photo from last year's Sundance)

THE 21 QUESTIONS

21 QUESTIONS TO KEEP YOU ON TRACK

It's pretty simple, if you can't clearly answer ALL 21 of these questions then you're not ready to start writing. A builder doesn't start a home without a set of blueprints. These questions will help you create your blueprints. I originally saw a list similar to this in UCLA's graduate film school, by now it's commonplace. Good Luck!

1. What is the GENRE and TONE you are establishing?

2. Who is your PROTAGONIST? What is most relevant about his or her BACKSTORY? Why does the story start today?

3. What is the most VALUABLE aspect of his or her ORDINARY WORLD?

4. What is your protagonist’s main CHARACTER FLAW?

5. What is the THRESHOLD to the crisis (see question 8)? The threshold will occur around page 9-14 of act 1.

6. Who/what is the ANTAGONIST? (introduced prior to the end of act 1)

7. What is the specific incident that occurs at plot point 1?

8. This incident will create a CRISIS in your protagonist’s life. What is the crisis? how does this crisis create a loss of his/her destiny ( DESTINY WANTED)

9. What ACTION does he take to regain control of his destiny? What is his MAIN GOAL or PLAN in the face of crisis? What will happen if this goal is NOT attained? What’s at STAKE?

10. What is the MIDPOINT of the plot? How do the STAKES ESCALATE in the middle of act 2? What UNFORSEEN OBSTACLE is now in the way?

11. What is Plot Point 2 (end of act 2)? What is the specific incident that changes the direction of the plot? That is, the original plan (set up at the end of act 1) is now found to be completely unworkable, and thus abandoned. What is the NEW PLAN?

12. How does this incident put your character at a CROSSROADS? What EPIPHANY does your protagonist have about his life that creates new choices about his destiny? (DESTINY UNWANTED)

13. What is the NEW GOAL that grows out of this epiphany? How does the goal differ from the goal stated in #9 above?

14. How do the STAKES INTENSIFY as a result of the epiphany?

15. What is the TICKING CLOCK or deadline by which this new goal must be accomplished?

16. What is the CLIMAX? What is the SHOWDOWN between protagonist and antagonist? How has the above character flaw been overcome? What TRUTH emerges?

17. What is the END place? How much and what gets wrapped up?

18. What is the THEME of the piece? What does the ENTIRE SCREENPLAY stand for? What do you want the audience to come away with?

19. What is the ULTIMATE QUESTION posed? That is, what question are you posing allegorically in Acts 1 and 2 that get answered in act 3? And, what’s the thematic answer?

20. What’s the HOOK of the movie? That is, what is the central scenario/premise of the movie and what is the inherent conflict of the premise? Example: A guy’s best friend becomes his worst enemy. Or: A man becomes a better man by pretending to be a woman.

21. What is your working title?


(Note: His And He Is Interchangeable With Hers And She)

MARKETING DO I HAVE A GO FOR FILMING?

I met a writer for drinks last night. Not a client, a writer who I’d given some pro bono advice to in the past. This writer had come to L.A. with a degree from a prestigious eastern film school, worked at breaking into the business for 4 years, made little headway and now was moving back home.

We talked about the type of movies he liked to write and why it was so incredibly difficult, if not impossible to get anyone to pay attention to his work. Mind you this was not a discussion of the quality of his writing, just the subject matter. This writer hates violence and usually dislikes just about every film in the current top 10 box office, and his screenplays reflect this.

I pointed to a phrase my partner Rima often uses “Anytime a movie gets made, it’s a miracle.” There is a lot of truth in that. With the average cost of a studio film topping at over $70 million, a lot of people get to comment on whether or not your script should become a movie: Creative, Marketing, Legal, Finance, Producers, Actors, The Director, Budgeting, Distribution (Domestic & Foreign) etc, etc.

Unless all of these disparate groups find it in their own self-interest to make your movie, it won’t happen. So it needs to be a “win-win” for everyone, not just the writer.

I include this video from the space shuttle launch as a metaphor for this. Simply replace the departments at NASA with the departments listed above.

You might want to think about this when choosing your next subject.

WHAT SHOULD I WRITE?

WHAT SHOULD I WRITE?
I hear this question often from young writers and the answer will always be the same.... I don't know. Nor does anybody else, but here are some tips. Sure, we can make a few phone calls and tell you "Disney is looking for a Christmas project" or "Columbia wants a thriller, but no noir, or 90's female in jeopardy, and comedies grounded in reality always help" blah, blah blah.
Sure, you could write a script to fill one of those niches, but by the time you finished it the studios’ needs would have changed and you'd still be asking the same inevitable question...What does the market want now?
So, let's get less specific and start thinking about the person who's buying your material (script, short story, novel, comic book whatever). So now you're the studio executive. What's your job? How do you move your career forward? What motivates you to buy something?
As a studio exec. your job is to develop and produce commercially successful films. What does "commercially successful" mean? Well last I checked, the average cost of a studio film (including prints and advertising, P&A) tips the scales at around $79 million. Now think about that and let it sink in. $79 million! So they are looking for projects that can make back MORE than that amount. And remember approximately half the money at the box office goes to the theater, not the studio, so they're looking to gross over $150 million. Are the studios looking for your movie?
So what is a studio exec. looking for when shopping for stories? Even though many of them may not realize it, they're looking for one word.......
MONOPOLIES, or as close to them as they can come.
Let me tell you why. What’s your competition? As a studio exec. what is your entertainment product competing with?
Let's make a list:
Broadcast TV
Cable TV
Video Rentals
Video Games
Internet
.......or hell, the consumer could actually get off their ass and go play basketball, or ride a bike or go check out a sunset – or read a book!
Now we know all these activities (even the sunset) have some form of cost, just as going to the movies does. However, in the mind of the consumer, there is a huge difference between these items and going to the local multiplex. From the consumer's perspective all of these items are relatively FREE and movies are not.
When a consumer comes home and flips on the TV he doesn't feel the cable company slipping its hand in his pocket to fish out a couple of bucks, he thinks, or rather he feels at that moment that it’s free. He won't feel the pinch of the cable company until the bill comes in the mail. The same relationship, to a greater or lesser degree, exists between the consumer and the other entertainment options as well.
This is not the case for movies. Movies are like a heavyweight fight; they're pay per view. When you go to see a movie you are going to feel the financial and non-financial pain/costs immediately.
Costs to the consumer related to seeing a film:
Financial: Ticket price, food & drink, and possibly the cost of parking. Let's call this around $15 per person.
Non-financial: You have to drive there and park, you are forced to accept their schedule, you can't hit pause, the seats are far smaller than your couch, you have to share the room with 500 people you don't know etc.......
Thus, every time consumers are faced with an entertainment decision, in order for them to choose a film over other activities, clearly they must feel that the likelihood exists that the movie they will see, the moviegoing experience they are going to have, is not only superior to all those other free alternatives, but so superior that they are willing to give up an extra $15/person, all the creature comforts of home and put up with the hassles of going to the theater.
This means that as a studio exec you have to produce and market a film that is so compelling that Joe Schmoe will put down his beer or soda, get his ass off the couch, drive the 4.2 miles to the AMC Theater 28, park, walk, and plunk down $15 per person to sit in a dark room with 300 people he doesn’t know, in small seats and you cant hit pause to take a piss. In order to get people to do that you need some really good stuff!
So back to that word MONOPOLY. In order to compel the consumer to see your product you want to create a monopoly. You need a product they can’t get anywhere else. If you ran reruns of old Hogan's Heroes episodes at your local theater would anyone go? Hell no! They can get that at home for free. So how do you create a monopoly? There are essentially three ways to do it.
1) Movie Stars. You want to see Julia Roberts, Denzel Washington, Brad Pitt, George Clooney, Vince Vaughn, Tom Cruise etc.? You gotta come see my movie. You can't see these stars in new material anywhere else except by paying to see the flick. But here's the drawback, they're really expensive, fickle, and not always available when you need them. It's not like going to the store and pulling a box of Wheaties off the shelf whenever you want. In this scenario the Wheaties can say "No," or "Only if Ron Howard is directing," or "Sure, but I'm not available until next year."
2) Cutting Edge Visuals. Incredible special effects can help fill seats, but are often expensive. Sometimes they are worth the money and sometimes they are not (the same can be said of stars). If you can deliver cutting edge visuals that no one has seen anywhere else before, once again you've created a monopoly. You want to see what it's like to be inside a Tornado? Well you can't get that on CBS, you have to come to my movie. You want to run with dinosaurs, you want to see the Titanic split in two? You gotta come to my movie!
3) Original Concepts and New Worlds. What's it like to be an angel, a fireman, immortal? That's the basis for three films right there. “The Prophecy”, “Backdraft”, “Highlander” all written by Greg Widen. What's it like to play in underground poker games? "Rounders." What's it like to be in the mob? "Godfather 1,2,3" What's it like to be a Jedi Knight? "Star Wars." What's it like to have been in the Special Forces in Somalia....? "Blackhawk Down." You want to experience these worlds? You gotta come see my movie.
Deliver a world or a setting that we've never seen before, or that we haven't seen in a while (remember approximately 50% of the movie going audience is between 14 & 24. If a concept was used 10+ years ago, odds are they haven't seen it). “War of the Worlds” = “Independence Day”="War of the Worlds". “Kelly's Heroes” = “Three Kings”. "Taming of the Shrew"="10 Things I Hate About You," “Disturbia” = “Rear Window.” Are these exact matches? No! But are they delivering, or repackaging if you will, concepts that the earlier films/plays successfully sold to the consumer. Yes!
Now which of these methods of creating a Monopoly is most efficient to you the writer? Absolutely, positively #3. If you can deliver a fresh exciting concept to the studio, then the studio can choose whether or not to spend money on stars or visuals.
Will Smith's market price before “ID4” was squat. The "big stars" were Jeff Goldblum, and Bill Pullman. Was anybody in “Titanic” expensive? No, Leo DiCaprio hadn’t made a big name for himself yet. The expense went into the cost of the production (the ship) and the visuals.
What about “Oceans 11, 12, 13”? Big visuals? No. Big Stars? Yes!
What about Horror films? Maybe visuals, almost never stars, and for some reason monsters only attack hot chicks in their underwear???????
Romantic Comedies starring women? Visuals... none. Stars? These are female marketed films, often if you can’t get one of the five or six hot girls du jour (Sandra, Cameron, Julia, Nicole, Drew, Charlize) forget it. Your project is going nowhere.
(exception)Romantic Comedies starring men? (40 year old virgin etc.) Visuals... none. Stars? Not really. These are driven by the COMEDY, the romance is absolutely secondary. Sometimes the relationship between our hero and his buddy is more important than the fact that the hero get’s the girl like in Superbad (Bromance). These are about laughing and marketed mostly to men, but women will follow if the story has heart, so make sure it does. It's more Com/rom than Rom/com. This gives the writer an advantage.
Theoretically the studio could make a film that is interesting enough, original enough to sell to the consumer and not have to pay the enormous expense of mega-stars or pricey effects. Examples: “American Pie”, “Fast and the Furious”, “Animal House”
So what's the perfect script? I don't know, but since you don't have any $20 million actors as your best friends, or own Skywalker Ranch forget #1 and #2. A great (let’s define that as salable) script is one that delivers a new/revisited and interesting world, with heroes we like and can empathize with and villains we fear, despise and understand. It's usually set present day, in the U.S. and has interesting set pieces. If it lends itself to cool visuals, great. If it offers the kind of challenging or fun roles actors will enjoy playing, fantastic. This is what your buyer, the studio exec., is often looking for. Something he or she can read and immediately see in their minds who's staring in it and what the poster looks like. Something that makes them sit up and say "Wow this is really interesting, this is cool, I can sell this, my boss will be stoked!"
News flash! It's not the 70's anymore. At most studios the head of production and the head of marketing have to agree to make a picture. Regardless of how great your script may be, if they cant' sell it they won't make it, and if they won't make it, they wont buy it.
Does following this prescription mean a Best Picture or Best Screenplay oscar? Probably not, but we can work on that later. What it does mean is having a much better shot at selling your script, which means, getting your foot in the Hollywood door, getting paid for your work and starting your career.
By the way – this applies, to one degree or another, not just to beginners, but to every writer in Hollywood – and every experienced writer knows it.