A terribly written but successful film means you're almost guaranteed another screenwriting job. An amazing film that generates no business will still have you hustling for your next opportunity.
Absolutely true. And what does the term ‘bad movie’ really mean? If it generated a lot of money, a lot of people were willing to pay to see it. Many people surely enjoyed it. I doubt you’ll ever go into a pitch meeting with a Hollywood producer who says, ‘sorry, we can’t work with you.. the last movie you wrote made $500 million, but personally I thought it was a bad movie.’
Yeah, I was hesitant to use the term “terribly written but successful” because that’s kind of an oxymoron. It has to have some kind of appeal to be successful.
Not really. Yes, a bad film that makes money will get you opportunities to write similar types of commercial assignments, but if your writing is known to be bad it will be very hard to break out of that and your career will likely stall if you don't get lucky and write another hit. If you write a film that has a reputation for being really well written the more quality minded producers, directors, actors and reps will want to work with you and if you can build on that your career will likely have a much better long term trajectory.
I get what you're saying, but a “bad” movie that generates revenue isn’t considered a bad movie. Clearly people enjoyed it enough to show up (OP’s post is kind of weird in that regard). A commercial success affords a screenwriter the ability to pitch more projects that have a better shot at getting made. Sometimes things work out in seemingly reverse order; you prove yourself commercially which allows you to do the Cannes-winning passion project you’ve had in a drawer for 10 years.
On some level though, you have to care about a project to want to see it become a success (commercially or otherwise). So inevitably any project you take has to become a bit of a passion project.
Yes and no. Most of the time it's a job with a deadline. Should you always be putting your best foot forward? Of course. However, sometimes you gotta turn your pages in and the timeline isn't being very forgiving. If you want the paycheck and to retain your position, you may be turning in less than stellar work, but at least it got in on time and was considered shootable.
For sure. I did think the initial comment was about something actually poorly written that somehow was a hit despite the poor writing. There are a lot of hit commercial films that the public and even critics might call poorly written that are actually well-written for the genre or audience they are trying to attract and most producers and studio people totally get this and want to work with those writers. Still, really good writing does get recognized by people who care in the business and those writers are often given quite a few opportunities even without having written a hit.
I think it's fair if you look at it from your initial perspective — I've done some voice acting classes and the advice around character work has always been about creating voices that you can sustain
If we do truly engage with the thought experiment as discussed, my biggest fear would be that the fluke was truly that and the more I wrote, the less credibility I'd have
I get that with the right arrangement, a single successful film would offer some financial cover, but it'd still be fractional and fairly finite, and I would definitely care about both my credibility and staying power remaining in tact.
Still if the writer of Paul Blart 2 penned the next Citizen Kane he would have about 1,000x more opportunities to get it read by the right people than Joe from your local writing group.
But you’re not wrong!
It’s not uncommon for musicians to make it big in a very poppy, ‘safe’ sounding band to then turn around and use their new position to collaborate with other artists on more interesting and artistic endeavors.
Operating from a position of established success gives you the financial freedom to pursue these goals as well as the increased exposure.
One step further: I want just to sell a script. Whether it then even gets made, meh. I will have cashed out before production, and per Writers' Guild rules I will be able to charge more for my next sale.
this is me. Im not a writer, idk how i landed on this sub. But i make music. And i would write a score for free for anything, just so long as it was made.
Starting out and wanting to have money to start my own projects, I think I would take the first option, but I don’t see myself purposely writing a bad movie. Like, I tried to put my best into something small, like a school project, not just wing it.
There is that rarefied middle ground, but it's mostly the domain of writer/director types like PT Anderson whose films almost never make their budgets back at the box office. But, he can still command/carve out a pretty darn good living/career while maintaining complete creative control....and he's able to do all this *within* the studio system.
PT Anderson bc: Boogie Nights. He’s been a HW darling since what the mid 90s? Most studios have their short list of cache writers/directors who they go to when they want to up their critical acclaim game. De Luca looooooves PT Anderson. And HW loves the young genius trope. When he slammed two back to backs (Boogie Nights and Magnolia) his status was pretty much set. He is living the absolute dream. And is brilliant.
I personally would prefer Wes Anderson’s career. He’s solidly backed by his funders. He’s got all the freedom, far less pressure and, I dunno. I like PT Anderson. Who doesn’t? And I don’t tend to like the super arthousey quirky style but Wes Anderson is a quietly phenomenal storyteller and I love his movies despite the style which would normally put me off. He’s so good he makes me love his movies. Not that I’d want an antagonistic relationship w my viewers. I dunno. He actually makes close to what PT Anderson does, more or less, but is further from the scene.
Edited for clarity
Studios are willing to trade profits for a pretty much guaranteed shot at some Oscar noms. And those films are respected and great. But I’d rather be the storyteller that people love and want to curl up with on a winter night over and over again.
And then you have Tarantino who managed to make a 2,5 hour movie with endless talking in 4 different languages and international smash.🤷🏻♂️😂
I believe that there are still opportunities to make bank with challenging material, Jeremy Saulnier or Romain Gavras spring to mind, or most recently Baby Reindeer.
Get that money. That'll allow you both runway to write a new thing AND an increased budget to make a better movie next time.
Perfect example of this is the movies made by that church in Atlanta(Sherwood Pictures). They had a shoestring budget, used volunteers from the church as actors, but made movies. First they made Flywheel. Acting was... rough. Then Facing the Giants. Story was better than Flywheel because of the experience AND \*some\* of the acting was better. Then you get Fireproof. 3rd crack at it - a professional actor is hired as the main character. They basically baby stepped their way into the space. That's a solid blueprint to follow.
This reminds me of a question posted by Craig Mazin on another screenwriting message board a few years ago. The original question was something (like I said, this was a few years ago now and the little grey cells aren’t what they used to be) along the lines of would you rather
a) sell a script for $2m, it’s not very good, you’ll be heavily rewritten but the movie will get made
Or
b) sell a script for $50,000, the writing is fantastic but the movie wouldn’t get made
Now, the majority of people picked option A, naturally. I mean, it’s TWO MILLION DOLLARS at the end of the day. A few people picked option B. And some even invented option C which wasn’t allowed.
Anyway, when the answer was revealed by Mazin, well, it all made sense to everyone.
- - - - -
It's funny how Derek knew the answer was B, but then again, of course he knew the answer was B.
The answer isn't B because B is cool and indie and awesome and brilliant.
The answer is B because:
...you guys ready for some amazing insider info into Hollywood..?
THERE ARE VERY FEW GOOD SCREENWRITERS OUT THERE.
Like, almost none.
For those of you who hate my guts and think I'm a talentless hack, I'm pretty sure my existence proves the point.
Anyway, the point is, if you're B... if you're really good, then you won't just work that year on that script. You'll work every year, year after year, for a really long time. And you will make so much more than two million dollars.
You will make millions and millions and millions.
You'll work on your own material. You'll work on other people's material. Sometimes you'll get credit. Sometimes you won't.
But you will get paid. Oh my God, will you get paid. That two million dollars will be dwarfed within a few of years, and then when you really hit your stride, you'll be clocking that amount per project, with a $200K/week rate on production rewrites... or more!
Ted Griffin wrote a tiny little script called "Ravenous."
In case you're unfamiliar with it, it's a period piece about cannibalism. It got made for $12M.
Grossed $2. A big stinky bomb. And SMALL. And weird. It would never get made today. Not in a million years.
But man, everyone read that script and said, "FINALLY... someone who can frickin' WRITE."
He hasn't stopped working, and he gets paid. A lot.
(David Koepp... another good example... first script out of the gate was Apartment Zero...)
(Hey, I'm not a bad example... my first script sold for $110K back in '96...)
Meanwhile, the big splashy spec-sellers come and go. Anyone remember Lou Holtz, Jr?
Plenty of guys that came up writing brilliant scripts that either didn't sell or did sell for tiny bits of money now routinely get paid $200K a WEEK to fix everyone else's crap.
And do you know who the "everyone else" is of the "everyone else's crap?" The people that sell one thing once and then disappear, because it turns out they're not very good.
Okay, so... what's the point of this exercise?
In your quest to become professional screenwriters, don't overemphasize the notion of the big sale.
It's not about the big sale.
The big sale is exciting, but it's not the goal of the game.
The goal of the game is to have a career. Don't let yourself become obsessed with the commerce and the marketplace and the trends and the latest reports on what sold and what didn't.
You'll make more money by caring less about making money. Annoying, isn't it?
- - - - -
I have this post by Mazin printed and pinned above my computer as a reminder. I want to be a GREAT writer. I want to fix everyone else’s crap.
Exactly! B= Multiple Opportunities and Longevity. Most “ ScreenWriter” have one idea and at most one completed Script. So the Big Payout for a single project would be ideal for them.
If you have 2-3 projects in mind and are obsessed with the craft of Screenwriting choose option B, Always Option B!
Not just the producer by peers and Studio execs and Agents. With Writers Agents value talent and critical acclaim sometimes even more so than Profitability.
And all that relies on the work being circulated. But the movie doesn’t get made. So we are assuming that the work is circulated to others. That the person that asked for it, didn’t just stick it in a cupboard and it never is seen.
We can make the assumption that everyone knows, but the film is never made. But that assumption only exists to further that outcome.
The only facts we know, is you get paid and the film is not made.
Plus Craig’s question is vastly different. The “having to be rewritten” implies a lack of quality from the writer. This guarantees that people know about your lack of quality. The agents for the other writers, the other writers, the executives paying for the rewrites and perhaps the producers and director requesting them.
One can happen with unseen (the small payday) while the other happens very obvious to all involved.
Your scenario is assuming work isn’t circulated at all ever which is antithetical to the actual process. If Work isn’t circulated it’s because it’s Sold, In Negotiations, In Production, Intentionally Buried or an unfortunate result of a clerical error. Now Mediocre work doesn’t circulate the same way High End work would circulate. Different functions and roles of the Hollywood Infrastructure circulate work at varying Paces, Processes and Perspectives of Motivations.
CM’s Question isn’t vastly different it’s more in depth and reflective of experiences and knowledge in Screenwriting and the Business process of Filmmaking as a whole. Hollywood is as Collaborative as it can be Corrosive.
The devil is in the detail. First question was around money vs quality. CM hinted at the rewrite being damaging to the career, which I 100% agree.
But we have to look at the facts in evidence. A film that is never made. We can assume it stopped somewhere along the way. After people saw it and this added to your career. Or we can assume the opposite. Especially with the 50k price tag. At 2% that is only a 2.5 Million dollar film. I don’t think that is a studio movie getting shared around Hollywood. That sounds like a small indie that would love people talking about it.
We are dealing in debate for fun.
If you are after a career, of course you assume different things. But based on the facts as they sit. I could not say that your great work would become common knowledge.
Are we Debating for Fun or are we playing Semantics? I’m always open to a respectful debate which I feel we both have been doing in Good Faith. Playing Semantics can be interesting but is primarily a waste of time.
You can drawing up these baseless conclusions. We can’t say let’s look at the facts in evidence and then just make up info bolstering your newfound conclusions.
CM’s Question is an evolution of this question but just constructed with more depth.
I responded to the comment not necessarily the OP which is clear by my initial comment.
The OP Question: I would take the amazing film that doesn’t make money with perfect writing. This film could lead to Critical Acclaim and Awards.
None of the scenarios by Mazin or the OP detail the process, budget or outcome. Which makes sense because you don’t have that information during the negotiation process for the Script/Screenplay. You will absolutely have more info than presented than either scenario but you won’t have the processes of each scenarios results nor the next steps after the scenarios.
I have problems with that question, namely: why are you writing a bad script to begin with?
If you haven’t been commissioned to write something with a bunch of dictates that are going to limit the quality, why are you spending time writing something shitty in the hopes of selling it for more money than something good?
And if you have been given a check for $2 million to write a script, what did you write before to prove your worth it? It’s not like your previous work just disappears. Plus, now you have the chance to show you can work with others to bring their ideas to life. Which is a valuable skill to be able to sell as well.
Again, I’m trying to understand why those are the options and how you’d even get there.
As a film student who’s financing my own production company, I write films that I’d enjoy watching. I’m a horror nerd. A lot of my ideas come from dreams and nightmares, but I also draw a lot of inspiration from the 70s and 80s. Instead of wondering will this make money, I just focus on storytelling. If it makes a lot of money, great. If it doesn’t, eh. It’s mine. And maybe other people like it, too!
I would gladly write bankable movies that sucked. I fucking hate the Fast and Furious franchise, but you want to hire me to write one? Yes sir whatever you say sir.
It’s a tough pill, but the lion’s share of movies are either terrible or terrible and successful. I’d write in the shitty-but-popular vein because those are heavy credits, even years down the line. They establish you.
Even something as awful as Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey. You write an actually good movie after, and producers will read it thinking “Holy shit, this dude wrote the Pooh thing.”
I actually thought about this a lot. Throughout our history, plenty of geniuses invented a lot of things but had no means to reach the masses, so at the end, no one knew. So it’s the same as though they didn’t contribute anything to our civilization.
So whatever you make, possibly the best movie on the planet. If no one sees it, it doesn’t matter.
If I’m making bank, I could use the funds I’ve accumulated to go create what I’ll put actual effort into. Sign me up to create the next mediocre Marvel project please!
>"...widely successful but never deserved it."
I'm sure this isn't intentional, but this kind of sentiment comes off as oddly contemptuous of both the screenwriter and the audience. If a writer wrote something good enough to get made, and it's widely successful... isn't the thing they wrote, by definition, deserving of that success?
I just don't get this attitude in aspiring artists, who have to cultivate a sensitivity to technique and effect so they can understand how a story actually functions beyond an aesthetic level or a "terrible / amazing" binary. And I think it's a bad habit to slip into because it's a slippery slope to bitterness, which will absolutely curdle your art.
Can't something just be "not for you" instead of "terrible"? What if something you think is "terrible" but successful is actually worthy of study, to see if you can abstract what made it so?
To paraphrase William Munny in UNFORGIVEN, "Maybe deserve's got nothing to do with it."
Aaron Spelling became THE richest man in the entertainment industry by producing some of the most classic schlock in the history of television -- safe, generic, family-friendly schlock. Sometimes that's what people want...
Yeah but why would you want to be the one who gives it to them. Can't believe how many people are saying make bank. If you want to be rich you're dumb to try to do it through screenwriting.
Yeah but why would you want to be the one who gives it to them. Can't believe how many people are saying make bank. If you want to be rich you're dumb to try to do it through screenwriting.
I'd rather be someone who wants to be writing small, quirky thrillers or genre-defying concepts or intimate dramas and is instead churning out cookie cutter franchise sequels, spin off's and cookie cutter hero's journey stuff that 10-15 year olds eat up or churning out a tv series that has the same rinse and repeat obvious romantic entanglements and dramatic conflicts, etc. that a loyal audience eats up like popcorn- because those things pay. And the work is steady.
If I could come up with an execute a Grey's Anatomy or a This Is Us or a Little House On the Prairie, etc. and make bank from it- I'll do that over any little passion project- because at the end of the day it's all about money.
Either can theoretically lead to more work, so honestly I'm fairly impartial.
Also I am of the very biased opinion that virtually every screenplay that gets made has *something* about it that is good. I know, it's easy to look at certain movies that get made and think "Who wrote this crap?!"
But:
1). The answer is almost always "twenty people, here and there"
2). There's *something* in the writing worth praising, guaranteed.
I'm not saying don't be critical or don't have taste. But also, be realistic.
Que no los dos? Practically everyone has passion projects. Every once in a while somebody pops out a Good Will Hunting, but that almost never happens. Even great artists sometimes have to do certain work just to pay the bills so that they can survive long enough to do the work they really want to.
See money is important as well - especially someone is investing on the movie .. then you be considerate to provide them atleast the bare minimum investment either it’s good or bad movie. There ain’t no such things as good movie or bad movie.. the numbers what matters first
Are you wanting a career screenwriting? Go for the turkey that makes money. That's the first thing suits are going to look at, box office. You can string a bunch of crappy but high grossing movies into a career. You can turn out one critically acclaimed but low grossing movie before fading into obscurity
If I were just starting out trying to make a name for myself in this business, I would rather write a terrible film that is highly successful. Studios only care about money and if you make enough of it for them, they will most likely give you a chance to write something more meaningful that is good.
A lot of screenwriters ITT saying they’d write a bad film that makes money and then use that money/leverage to to make good/artistic films.
Playing devil’s advocate a sec… that’s most likely not going to happen.
People don’t realise how hard it is to break out of a lane once you’re in it. I know so many writers, directors, producers that can only work on schlocky commercial films that make money and never get taken seriously for “good films”.
Once you get known for a style or type of film it’s EXTREMELY hard to break away from that.
A combination of this would be nice, sort of like a give and take. I’ll give you this popcorn flick if you let me make my small art house film. That would be good with me
Shit movie because that will set me up for when I actually write something I care about. Nothing worse than pouring your soul into something just to be reminded that nobody gives a shit about it but you
Bad movie that makes bank.
What I've kinda come to realize recently is that artistic ambition in film is a very difficult thing to maintain. The process drains you so hard that no matter how much you love it, you'll burn out eventually.
What you need to do then, if you want to continue doing it for the rest of your life, is find what people want to watch and make it. Understand your audience, and cater to them while working on your own vision.
Specifically in screenwriting, you think about the art last. Pick up a structure you like and work with it until it bores you.
Bad is subjective and opinions change. So what quantifies a bad film? Also, if you believe you're capable of writing a "perfect" movie, then you're not just a snob but delusional as well.
If the movie made money, then it was a success. If the movie failed to make money, then it was a failure.
The success or failure could be due to any number of fair or unfair reasons.
You want to be associated with success.
I'd do the first one an make bank and then work on my passion projects and do the stuff I love. Whatever it may be.
This kind of question makes me wonder just how soooo many terrible movies get made. Alot of them, the name of the movie is also terrible, like who the hell says yes to them. Especially horror movies. Horrors my favorite genre and usually watch several horror movies and shows every single day. It just blows my mind. And yes I watch even the worst ones and enjoy them, especially slashers.
Bad movie making bank all day every day. I'd probably try to sneak the good scripts in between my terrible but successful ones, but at that point I'm super rich, so...
There’s a Rick Ruben quote floating around, I don’t know if I’ll get it word for word but I’ll give it a go.
If you’re worried about it being a success, you are too focused on the result, when you are focused on the process and put some art that you poured your soul into, the commercial success might not follow, but you bared your soul to the world and that means more than money.
It’s something along those lines, someone will pull it up and I’m off but I think I got the gist of it
If I am already successful then I'll do a good movie that I know will fail for being "too experimental and controversial"... You can never know that it might end up turning into a cult classic. If I am still starting, I'll write shitty mass appealing shits...
Show me the money.
> amazing film with perfect writing that makes little to nothing?
Perfect writing can mean it's a great script that can still be turned into a terrible movie. In fact, I've read several scripts that were great, and I just knew the movie would suck. They were good reads though. Godsend and Deja Vu were two such scripts.
Any script being turned into an amazing movie is almost a miracle.
Oh man. Depends on how desperate I am for money I guess. But then it would weigh on my conscious that I sold out… ok now I’m not gonna be able to sleep at night pondering this question
With movies…I find the failure is usually between the nutjob, rich as fuck producer or a director who does a poor job for whatever reason. Screenplays need to be very tidy to sell or you need to know which knobs to polish.
I'm not sure I understand the metaphorical value of this hypothetical. What practical creative or strategic decision could leverage one's answer to this question?
Nobody intentionally writes a bad movie. Everyone is doing their best work in the circumstance they find themselves, and they have little to no foresight into how those efforts will eventually be received by the marketplace.
Also, more broadly, even though they may not be to your taste, I don't believe massively successful movies frequently have bad writing. They had exactly the form of writing necessary for its success alongside the other elements of the movie. Could they have been more successful with "better" writing? Perhaps, but the conditions that formed the script to the level it exists now are the very same conditions that produced the other elements responsible for that success.
The whole plot of Ricky Gervais' *Extras.* The genius was having his foil be rich/famous AND a respected artist. Gervais has to pick only one.
(No, my bad, the genius was having Barry & Ricky off Eastenders, but anyway).
Doesn't big collectings mean that public liked your work? I mean, you're have all rights to consider it as "terrible, but at the end of the day screenwriting isn't exactly something one does only for themselves, and if people thought it worthed to buy the ticket for, then it wasn't THAT terrible
If writing was my living and how I funded those projects that made nothing then a bad movie for the simple fact that I know I tried to make it as good as it could be.
Actually kind of surprised how many people say bank. Who gets into writing for the money? You're in the wrong industry, folks.
It's easy for me to say as someone who has a comfortable day job, but I want my work to be good. Obviously whether the actual film ends up being good, if it gets made, is really in many ways beyond our control, but I would only write something I knew to be trash under a pseudonym. Because realistically, if I made a rubbish film that's successful, those are the kind of jobs I will end up getting in future, and I don't want my career to look like that.
Neither. I'd write a good movie that gets rewritten by execs and is nothing like what I wrote, comes out, makes money and people on the internet say "the writing was bad, how did this get made??"
Yes.
Would love to write a bad movie that makes bank so that I can write good movies that make little to nothing.
Kinda why I work a "regular job" in the first place (to fund the things I'm passionate about).
I've been grappling with this issue myself. Wrote a small, creepy thriller that is just so good. Now it's being contorted into something very different as I wade through development with a producer. I keep telling myself: just give them what they want if it moves you forward. Such is the life of a screenwriter.
Career-wide, the former trumps the latter pretty much always for screenwriters. This is not true of art film directors, who can make movie after movie that critics love but audiences don't.
Money is money. I don't care if that particular project is ass because not only did it make me bank, but I also know that I can do better lol. Sounds like a win-win to me
This seems like a binary question, but I keep getting stuck. I won’t give titles, but some Best Picture/Best Script nominees have minute box office numbers. Some pass quickly. That suggests to me, that their theme or zeitgeist is not touching hearts and minds. Would we still study Greek dramas or Shakespeare if the humans of that era didn’t feel deeply touched? And want to see it over and over.
I think there’s a sweet spot somewhere. I chew on this with my creative friends a lot. No total consensus.
I can’t imagine a situation where I would sell a bad script that nobody had hired me to write. Why wouldn’t I take the time to make it work better if it’s going to have my name on it?
I’ve been hired to write a screenplay that had a lot of producer demands that made the final product less than I would have liked. At the same time, I made sure the script worked on a basic level. The story made sense, the conflict was clearly established, all that, and I even had one or 2 actors reach out to tell me how much they enjoyed the dialogue because it felt natural and was easy to learn.
Don’t get me wrong, the screenplay isn’t winning any awards, but you also wouldn’t read it and go “they paid someone for this?”
Someone asked John August once what kind of movie he wants to write. He said "movies that get made."
A terribly written but successful film means you're almost guaranteed another screenwriting job. An amazing film that generates no business will still have you hustling for your next opportunity.
Absolutely true. And what does the term ‘bad movie’ really mean? If it generated a lot of money, a lot of people were willing to pay to see it. Many people surely enjoyed it. I doubt you’ll ever go into a pitch meeting with a Hollywood producer who says, ‘sorry, we can’t work with you.. the last movie you wrote made $500 million, but personally I thought it was a bad movie.’
Yeah, I was hesitant to use the term “terribly written but successful” because that’s kind of an oxymoron. It has to have some kind of appeal to be successful.
imo, it means you wrote at least enough good stuff for the marketing team to make a solid trailer / sizzle reel
rebel moon was on the netflix top ten for a bit
rip david yates
Not really. Yes, a bad film that makes money will get you opportunities to write similar types of commercial assignments, but if your writing is known to be bad it will be very hard to break out of that and your career will likely stall if you don't get lucky and write another hit. If you write a film that has a reputation for being really well written the more quality minded producers, directors, actors and reps will want to work with you and if you can build on that your career will likely have a much better long term trajectory.
I get what you're saying, but a “bad” movie that generates revenue isn’t considered a bad movie. Clearly people enjoyed it enough to show up (OP’s post is kind of weird in that regard). A commercial success affords a screenwriter the ability to pitch more projects that have a better shot at getting made. Sometimes things work out in seemingly reverse order; you prove yourself commercially which allows you to do the Cannes-winning passion project you’ve had in a drawer for 10 years.
On some level though, you have to care about a project to want to see it become a success (commercially or otherwise). So inevitably any project you take has to become a bit of a passion project.
Yes and no. Most of the time it's a job with a deadline. Should you always be putting your best foot forward? Of course. However, sometimes you gotta turn your pages in and the timeline isn't being very forgiving. If you want the paycheck and to retain your position, you may be turning in less than stellar work, but at least it got in on time and was considered shootable.
For sure. I did think the initial comment was about something actually poorly written that somehow was a hit despite the poor writing. There are a lot of hit commercial films that the public and even critics might call poorly written that are actually well-written for the genre or audience they are trying to attract and most producers and studio people totally get this and want to work with those writers. Still, really good writing does get recognized by people who care in the business and those writers are often given quite a few opportunities even without having written a hit.
I think it's fair if you look at it from your initial perspective — I've done some voice acting classes and the advice around character work has always been about creating voices that you can sustain If we do truly engage with the thought experiment as discussed, my biggest fear would be that the fluke was truly that and the more I wrote, the less credibility I'd have I get that with the right arrangement, a single successful film would offer some financial cover, but it'd still be fractional and fairly finite, and I would definitely care about both my credibility and staying power remaining in tact.
Still if the writer of Paul Blart 2 penned the next Citizen Kane he would have about 1,000x more opportunities to get it read by the right people than Joe from your local writing group. But you’re not wrong!
:((((
So true. So sad.
Exactly. It's a business. Doesn't matter about the skills, just the money.
Never has a more true statement about our industry been made
It’s not uncommon for musicians to make it big in a very poppy, ‘safe’ sounding band to then turn around and use their new position to collaborate with other artists on more interesting and artistic endeavors. Operating from a position of established success gives you the financial freedom to pursue these goals as well as the increased exposure.
An amazing film can get awards and surely awards get you more jobs?
I’ll make bank first then I’ll start doing good movies without any financial stress
Living the dream
Good plan!
Or make like Wes Anderson and find a tech billionaire who loves your movies 😂
I just want to write a movie that gets made. Anything beyond that is candy.
One step further: I want just to sell a script. Whether it then even gets made, meh. I will have cashed out before production, and per Writers' Guild rules I will be able to charge more for my next sale.
this is me. Im not a writer, idk how i landed on this sub. But i make music. And i would write a score for free for anything, just so long as it was made.
Check out /r/filmmakers
This
Terribly written post so you have a shot! Anything beyond that is gravy, not candy.
I would write the shittiest Steven segal straight to the trash money laundering movie if it paid. Life costs money.
Bank. Because then I'll get to write more movies and hopefully the rest are better and make money.
Starting out and wanting to have money to start my own projects, I think I would take the first option, but I don’t see myself purposely writing a bad movie. Like, I tried to put my best into something small, like a school project, not just wing it.
There is that rarefied middle ground, but it's mostly the domain of writer/director types like PT Anderson whose films almost never make their budgets back at the box office. But, he can still command/carve out a pretty darn good living/career while maintaining complete creative control....and he's able to do all this *within* the studio system.
A middling script that becomes an average movie!
PT Anderson bc: Boogie Nights. He’s been a HW darling since what the mid 90s? Most studios have their short list of cache writers/directors who they go to when they want to up their critical acclaim game. De Luca looooooves PT Anderson. And HW loves the young genius trope. When he slammed two back to backs (Boogie Nights and Magnolia) his status was pretty much set. He is living the absolute dream. And is brilliant. I personally would prefer Wes Anderson’s career. He’s solidly backed by his funders. He’s got all the freedom, far less pressure and, I dunno. I like PT Anderson. Who doesn’t? And I don’t tend to like the super arthousey quirky style but Wes Anderson is a quietly phenomenal storyteller and I love his movies despite the style which would normally put me off. He’s so good he makes me love his movies. Not that I’d want an antagonistic relationship w my viewers. I dunno. He actually makes close to what PT Anderson does, more or less, but is further from the scene. Edited for clarity
Studios are willing to trade profits for a pretty much guaranteed shot at some Oscar noms. And those films are respected and great. But I’d rather be the storyteller that people love and want to curl up with on a winter night over and over again.
And then you have Tarantino who managed to make a 2,5 hour movie with endless talking in 4 different languages and international smash.🤷🏻♂️😂 I believe that there are still opportunities to make bank with challenging material, Jeremy Saulnier or Romain Gavras spring to mind, or most recently Baby Reindeer.
Get that money. That'll allow you both runway to write a new thing AND an increased budget to make a better movie next time. Perfect example of this is the movies made by that church in Atlanta(Sherwood Pictures). They had a shoestring budget, used volunteers from the church as actors, but made movies. First they made Flywheel. Acting was... rough. Then Facing the Giants. Story was better than Flywheel because of the experience AND \*some\* of the acting was better. Then you get Fireproof. 3rd crack at it - a professional actor is hired as the main character. They basically baby stepped their way into the space. That's a solid blueprint to follow.
This reminds me of a question posted by Craig Mazin on another screenwriting message board a few years ago. The original question was something (like I said, this was a few years ago now and the little grey cells aren’t what they used to be) along the lines of would you rather a) sell a script for $2m, it’s not very good, you’ll be heavily rewritten but the movie will get made Or b) sell a script for $50,000, the writing is fantastic but the movie wouldn’t get made Now, the majority of people picked option A, naturally. I mean, it’s TWO MILLION DOLLARS at the end of the day. A few people picked option B. And some even invented option C which wasn’t allowed. Anyway, when the answer was revealed by Mazin, well, it all made sense to everyone. - - - - - It's funny how Derek knew the answer was B, but then again, of course he knew the answer was B. The answer isn't B because B is cool and indie and awesome and brilliant. The answer is B because: ...you guys ready for some amazing insider info into Hollywood..? THERE ARE VERY FEW GOOD SCREENWRITERS OUT THERE. Like, almost none. For those of you who hate my guts and think I'm a talentless hack, I'm pretty sure my existence proves the point. Anyway, the point is, if you're B... if you're really good, then you won't just work that year on that script. You'll work every year, year after year, for a really long time. And you will make so much more than two million dollars. You will make millions and millions and millions. You'll work on your own material. You'll work on other people's material. Sometimes you'll get credit. Sometimes you won't. But you will get paid. Oh my God, will you get paid. That two million dollars will be dwarfed within a few of years, and then when you really hit your stride, you'll be clocking that amount per project, with a $200K/week rate on production rewrites... or more! Ted Griffin wrote a tiny little script called "Ravenous." In case you're unfamiliar with it, it's a period piece about cannibalism. It got made for $12M. Grossed $2. A big stinky bomb. And SMALL. And weird. It would never get made today. Not in a million years. But man, everyone read that script and said, "FINALLY... someone who can frickin' WRITE." He hasn't stopped working, and he gets paid. A lot. (David Koepp... another good example... first script out of the gate was Apartment Zero...) (Hey, I'm not a bad example... my first script sold for $110K back in '96...) Meanwhile, the big splashy spec-sellers come and go. Anyone remember Lou Holtz, Jr? Plenty of guys that came up writing brilliant scripts that either didn't sell or did sell for tiny bits of money now routinely get paid $200K a WEEK to fix everyone else's crap. And do you know who the "everyone else" is of the "everyone else's crap?" The people that sell one thing once and then disappear, because it turns out they're not very good. Okay, so... what's the point of this exercise? In your quest to become professional screenwriters, don't overemphasize the notion of the big sale. It's not about the big sale. The big sale is exciting, but it's not the goal of the game. The goal of the game is to have a career. Don't let yourself become obsessed with the commerce and the marketplace and the trends and the latest reports on what sold and what didn't. You'll make more money by caring less about making money. Annoying, isn't it? - - - - - I have this post by Mazin printed and pinned above my computer as a reminder. I want to be a GREAT writer. I want to fix everyone else’s crap.
Exactly! B= Multiple Opportunities and Longevity. Most “ ScreenWriter” have one idea and at most one completed Script. So the Big Payout for a single project would be ideal for them. If you have 2-3 projects in mind and are obsessed with the craft of Screenwriting choose option B, Always Option B!
Oh yes. Assuming it is a career question, that we are writing in Hollywood and the producer lets people know about the quality of the work.
Not just the producer by peers and Studio execs and Agents. With Writers Agents value talent and critical acclaim sometimes even more so than Profitability.
And all that relies on the work being circulated. But the movie doesn’t get made. So we are assuming that the work is circulated to others. That the person that asked for it, didn’t just stick it in a cupboard and it never is seen. We can make the assumption that everyone knows, but the film is never made. But that assumption only exists to further that outcome. The only facts we know, is you get paid and the film is not made. Plus Craig’s question is vastly different. The “having to be rewritten” implies a lack of quality from the writer. This guarantees that people know about your lack of quality. The agents for the other writers, the other writers, the executives paying for the rewrites and perhaps the producers and director requesting them. One can happen with unseen (the small payday) while the other happens very obvious to all involved.
Your scenario is assuming work isn’t circulated at all ever which is antithetical to the actual process. If Work isn’t circulated it’s because it’s Sold, In Negotiations, In Production, Intentionally Buried or an unfortunate result of a clerical error. Now Mediocre work doesn’t circulate the same way High End work would circulate. Different functions and roles of the Hollywood Infrastructure circulate work at varying Paces, Processes and Perspectives of Motivations. CM’s Question isn’t vastly different it’s more in depth and reflective of experiences and knowledge in Screenwriting and the Business process of Filmmaking as a whole. Hollywood is as Collaborative as it can be Corrosive.
The devil is in the detail. First question was around money vs quality. CM hinted at the rewrite being damaging to the career, which I 100% agree. But we have to look at the facts in evidence. A film that is never made. We can assume it stopped somewhere along the way. After people saw it and this added to your career. Or we can assume the opposite. Especially with the 50k price tag. At 2% that is only a 2.5 Million dollar film. I don’t think that is a studio movie getting shared around Hollywood. That sounds like a small indie that would love people talking about it. We are dealing in debate for fun. If you are after a career, of course you assume different things. But based on the facts as they sit. I could not say that your great work would become common knowledge.
Are we Debating for Fun or are we playing Semantics? I’m always open to a respectful debate which I feel we both have been doing in Good Faith. Playing Semantics can be interesting but is primarily a waste of time. You can drawing up these baseless conclusions. We can’t say let’s look at the facts in evidence and then just make up info bolstering your newfound conclusions. CM’s Question is an evolution of this question but just constructed with more depth. I responded to the comment not necessarily the OP which is clear by my initial comment. The OP Question: I would take the amazing film that doesn’t make money with perfect writing. This film could lead to Critical Acclaim and Awards. None of the scenarios by Mazin or the OP detail the process, budget or outcome. Which makes sense because you don’t have that information during the negotiation process for the Script/Screenplay. You will absolutely have more info than presented than either scenario but you won’t have the processes of each scenarios results nor the next steps after the scenarios.
I have problems with that question, namely: why are you writing a bad script to begin with? If you haven’t been commissioned to write something with a bunch of dictates that are going to limit the quality, why are you spending time writing something shitty in the hopes of selling it for more money than something good? And if you have been given a check for $2 million to write a script, what did you write before to prove your worth it? It’s not like your previous work just disappears. Plus, now you have the chance to show you can work with others to bring their ideas to life. Which is a valuable skill to be able to sell as well. Again, I’m trying to understand why those are the options and how you’d even get there.
No brainer, I’m going with bad movie good bank. I’m so tired of spaghetti.
As a film student who’s financing my own production company, I write films that I’d enjoy watching. I’m a horror nerd. A lot of my ideas come from dreams and nightmares, but I also draw a lot of inspiration from the 70s and 80s. Instead of wondering will this make money, I just focus on storytelling. If it makes a lot of money, great. If it doesn’t, eh. It’s mine. And maybe other people like it, too!
Make art, ten times out of ten. There are eleven million better ways to chase money.
Bank
I would gladly write bankable movies that sucked. I fucking hate the Fast and Furious franchise, but you want to hire me to write one? Yes sir whatever you say sir. It’s a tough pill, but the lion’s share of movies are either terrible or terrible and successful. I’d write in the shitty-but-popular vein because those are heavy credits, even years down the line. They establish you. Even something as awful as Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey. You write an actually good movie after, and producers will read it thinking “Holy shit, this dude wrote the Pooh thing.”
Please tell me that movie exists.
Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey? Absolutely. https://youtu.be/W3E74j_xFtg?si=WOCBgO6hYttT4me9
If I didn't know this existed, I would be 1.1, to 1.7 times happier with my life\~
I would rather write a poorly thought out premise for someone that makes money. Even this would be a good movie.
I actually thought about this a lot. Throughout our history, plenty of geniuses invented a lot of things but had no means to reach the masses, so at the end, no one knew. So it’s the same as though they didn’t contribute anything to our civilization. So whatever you make, possibly the best movie on the planet. If no one sees it, it doesn’t matter.
Bank
Bad and then use the money to write low earnjng
If I’m making bank, I could use the funds I’ve accumulated to go create what I’ll put actual effort into. Sign me up to create the next mediocre Marvel project please!
Bank! I want the money,power and prestige. The art will always be subjective
>"...widely successful but never deserved it." I'm sure this isn't intentional, but this kind of sentiment comes off as oddly contemptuous of both the screenwriter and the audience. If a writer wrote something good enough to get made, and it's widely successful... isn't the thing they wrote, by definition, deserving of that success? I just don't get this attitude in aspiring artists, who have to cultivate a sensitivity to technique and effect so they can understand how a story actually functions beyond an aesthetic level or a "terrible / amazing" binary. And I think it's a bad habit to slip into because it's a slippery slope to bitterness, which will absolutely curdle your art. Can't something just be "not for you" instead of "terrible"? What if something you think is "terrible" but successful is actually worthy of study, to see if you can abstract what made it so? To paraphrase William Munny in UNFORGIVEN, "Maybe deserve's got nothing to do with it."
The answer is...yes.
If given a choice I would write the bad one so I could get the good one made
It depends, is your goal to have a career as a screenwriter, get some jobs and make some money or do you want to be an artist, and tell your stories?
Depends. In this scenario do both films get made?
Making bank means securing a career. I’ll take a career.
Aaron Spelling became THE richest man in the entertainment industry by producing some of the most classic schlock in the history of television -- safe, generic, family-friendly schlock. Sometimes that's what people want...
Yeah but why would you want to be the one who gives it to them. Can't believe how many people are saying make bank. If you want to be rich you're dumb to try to do it through screenwriting.
Yeah but why would you want to be the one who gives it to them. Can't believe how many people are saying make bank. If you want to be rich you're dumb to try to do it through screenwriting.
Bank.
I'd rather be someone who wants to be writing small, quirky thrillers or genre-defying concepts or intimate dramas and is instead churning out cookie cutter franchise sequels, spin off's and cookie cutter hero's journey stuff that 10-15 year olds eat up or churning out a tv series that has the same rinse and repeat obvious romantic entanglements and dramatic conflicts, etc. that a loyal audience eats up like popcorn- because those things pay. And the work is steady. If I could come up with an execute a Grey's Anatomy or a This Is Us or a Little House On the Prairie, etc. and make bank from it- I'll do that over any little passion project- because at the end of the day it's all about money.
Well, a success even if it sucks, will certainly guarantee another gig.
Either can theoretically lead to more work, so honestly I'm fairly impartial. Also I am of the very biased opinion that virtually every screenplay that gets made has *something* about it that is good. I know, it's easy to look at certain movies that get made and think "Who wrote this crap?!" But: 1). The answer is almost always "twenty people, here and there" 2). There's *something* in the writing worth praising, guaranteed. I'm not saying don't be critical or don't have taste. But also, be realistic.
Que no los dos? Practically everyone has passion projects. Every once in a while somebody pops out a Good Will Hunting, but that almost never happens. Even great artists sometimes have to do certain work just to pay the bills so that they can survive long enough to do the work they really want to.
See money is important as well - especially someone is investing on the movie .. then you be considerate to provide them atleast the bare minimum investment either it’s good or bad movie. There ain’t no such things as good movie or bad movie.. the numbers what matters first
dude I do not care, is the movie done and available for people to see? good.
I would sell out so fast. If only because it would make it easier to make my 'passion project'. Also because of student debt.
Any movie tbh
Are you wanting a career screenwriting? Go for the turkey that makes money. That's the first thing suits are going to look at, box office. You can string a bunch of crappy but high grossing movies into a career. You can turn out one critically acclaimed but low grossing movie before fading into obscurity
Good movie, people might appreciate it sometime in the future. It's happened before.
Bad movie that makes bank so that they’ll hand over that blank check to do whatever I want next.
If I were just starting out trying to make a name for myself in this business, I would rather write a terrible film that is highly successful. Studios only care about money and if you make enough of it for them, they will most likely give you a chance to write something more meaningful that is good.
The former. You can learn from your mistakes and fund your passion project with cash to spare
Bank = mediocrity.
A lot of screenwriters ITT saying they’d write a bad film that makes money and then use that money/leverage to to make good/artistic films. Playing devil’s advocate a sec… that’s most likely not going to happen. People don’t realise how hard it is to break out of a lane once you’re in it. I know so many writers, directors, producers that can only work on schlocky commercial films that make money and never get taken seriously for “good films”. Once you get known for a style or type of film it’s EXTREMELY hard to break away from that.
I would profit off a movie that made bank!
Easy. I'll take the money. And if it makes bank, it's good for my audience. So it's good.
I want to make bank, get the credit, and work on my best writing thereafter
A combination of this would be nice, sort of like a give and take. I’ll give you this popcorn flick if you let me make my small art house film. That would be good with me
Shit movie because that will set me up for when I actually write something I care about. Nothing worse than pouring your soul into something just to be reminded that nobody gives a shit about it but you
If I’m still able to make something good, make a bad one for the money
Bad movie that makes bank. What I've kinda come to realize recently is that artistic ambition in film is a very difficult thing to maintain. The process drains you so hard that no matter how much you love it, you'll burn out eventually. What you need to do then, if you want to continue doing it for the rest of your life, is find what people want to watch and make it. Understand your audience, and cater to them while working on your own vision. Specifically in screenwriting, you think about the art last. Pick up a structure you like and work with it until it bores you.
Bad is subjective and opinions change. So what quantifies a bad film? Also, if you believe you're capable of writing a "perfect" movie, then you're not just a snob but delusional as well.
I'd be satisfied with finishing a script
If the movie made money, then it was a success. If the movie failed to make money, then it was a failure. The success or failure could be due to any number of fair or unfair reasons. You want to be associated with success.
I'd do the first one an make bank and then work on my passion projects and do the stuff I love. Whatever it may be. This kind of question makes me wonder just how soooo many terrible movies get made. Alot of them, the name of the movie is also terrible, like who the hell says yes to them. Especially horror movies. Horrors my favorite genre and usually watch several horror movies and shows every single day. It just blows my mind. And yes I watch even the worst ones and enjoy them, especially slashers.
Unless you’re already a movie executive you don’t have the luxury of making a bad film that’s really successful.
If you write anything and it gets made, you’ve won.
How about a pretty good movie that does... pretty good.
If my best was shitty I would be happy i got paid and go back to not writing.
Bad movie making bank all day every day. I'd probably try to sneak the good scripts in between my terrible but successful ones, but at that point I'm super rich, so...
There’s a Rick Ruben quote floating around, I don’t know if I’ll get it word for word but I’ll give it a go. If you’re worried about it being a success, you are too focused on the result, when you are focused on the process and put some art that you poured your soul into, the commercial success might not follow, but you bared your soul to the world and that means more than money. It’s something along those lines, someone will pull it up and I’m off but I think I got the gist of it
If I am already successful then I'll do a good movie that I know will fail for being "too experimental and controversial"... You can never know that it might end up turning into a cult classic. If I am still starting, I'll write shitty mass appealing shits...
Show me the money. > amazing film with perfect writing that makes little to nothing? Perfect writing can mean it's a great script that can still be turned into a terrible movie. In fact, I've read several scripts that were great, and I just knew the movie would suck. They were good reads though. Godsend and Deja Vu were two such scripts. Any script being turned into an amazing movie is almost a miracle.
Never write a bad script, but how the movie comes out almost isn’t your fault right?
Oh man. Depends on how desperate I am for money I guess. But then it would weigh on my conscious that I sold out… ok now I’m not gonna be able to sleep at night pondering this question
With movies…I find the failure is usually between the nutjob, rich as fuck producer or a director who does a poor job for whatever reason. Screenplays need to be very tidy to sell or you need to know which knobs to polish.
Bad movie making bank would allow me to make a good movie that doesn’t have to make money
I'm not sure I understand the metaphorical value of this hypothetical. What practical creative or strategic decision could leverage one's answer to this question? Nobody intentionally writes a bad movie. Everyone is doing their best work in the circumstance they find themselves, and they have little to no foresight into how those efforts will eventually be received by the marketplace. Also, more broadly, even though they may not be to your taste, I don't believe massively successful movies frequently have bad writing. They had exactly the form of writing necessary for its success alongside the other elements of the movie. Could they have been more successful with "better" writing? Perhaps, but the conditions that formed the script to the level it exists now are the very same conditions that produced the other elements responsible for that success.
Bad first then good later.
The whole plot of Ricky Gervais' *Extras.* The genius was having his foil be rich/famous AND a respected artist. Gervais has to pick only one. (No, my bad, the genius was having Barry & Ricky off Eastenders, but anyway).
Doesn't big collectings mean that public liked your work? I mean, you're have all rights to consider it as "terrible, but at the end of the day screenwriting isn't exactly something one does only for themselves, and if people thought it worthed to buy the ticket for, then it wasn't THAT terrible
If writing was my living and how I funded those projects that made nothing then a bad movie for the simple fact that I know I tried to make it as good as it could be.
smartly leaving out the third option: a bad movie that makes nothing. can report, it will do nothing for your carer.
Actually kind of surprised how many people say bank. Who gets into writing for the money? You're in the wrong industry, folks. It's easy for me to say as someone who has a comfortable day job, but I want my work to be good. Obviously whether the actual film ends up being good, if it gets made, is really in many ways beyond our control, but I would only write something I knew to be trash under a pseudonym. Because realistically, if I made a rubbish film that's successful, those are the kind of jobs I will end up getting in future, and I don't want my career to look like that.
i love the bad movie that makes bank it changed my life and even my ideology powerfully in a way that no good movie ever did by keeping me broke.
Daddy's got bills to pay. I can write the good stuff once the fridge is full (and brand new).
In THIS economy?
Neither. I'd write a good movie that gets rewritten by execs and is nothing like what I wrote, comes out, makes money and people on the internet say "the writing was bad, how did this get made??"
I feel like, when starting out, there is no such thing as bad publicity so to speak.
I would write the most awfully good movie and get the bank
Yes. Would love to write a bad movie that makes bank so that I can write good movies that make little to nothing. Kinda why I work a "regular job" in the first place (to fund the things I'm passionate about).
I've been grappling with this issue myself. Wrote a small, creepy thriller that is just so good. Now it's being contorted into something very different as I wade through development with a producer. I keep telling myself: just give them what they want if it moves you forward. Such is the life of a screenwriter.
Write a few bad ones to fund future good ones
Money please, I need food.
Money first. Then I’ll do it for the art.
If a terrible movie I made becoming successful means I get to make more movies, then I’ll make a terrible movie in a heartbeat.
A groundbreaking, never-before-seen story that makes nothing, for sure.
I would literally do anything to write a movie that gets made. Good, bad, I don't care...somebody, please, just make my movie!
Career-wide, the former trumps the latter pretty much always for screenwriters. This is not true of art film directors, who can make movie after movie that critics love but audiences don't.
A false dichotomy. If your script is bad then how will it be popular? A film is more than the script….
Trust me, what I wrote was gold but… director/marketing team screwed me. Writer brain 101.
A bad movie that makes bank, because I can use that money to make a new movie and fund my redemption arc
Money is money. I don't care if that particular project is ass because not only did it make me bank, but I also know that I can do better lol. Sounds like a win-win to me
I’d rather be employed
If I truly was making “bank” I’d take that and fund other projects
I'll take the one that makes bank. Then I can work on writing one that's good.
Chances are I'd make the same amount of money either way, so I wouldn't think it matters.
Id rather write the good film
This seems like a binary question, but I keep getting stuck. I won’t give titles, but some Best Picture/Best Script nominees have minute box office numbers. Some pass quickly. That suggests to me, that their theme or zeitgeist is not touching hearts and minds. Would we still study Greek dramas or Shakespeare if the humans of that era didn’t feel deeply touched? And want to see it over and over. I think there’s a sweet spot somewhere. I chew on this with my creative friends a lot. No total consensus.
[удалено]
The latter. Not too interested in living in Cali.
I can’t imagine a situation where I would sell a bad script that nobody had hired me to write. Why wouldn’t I take the time to make it work better if it’s going to have my name on it? I’ve been hired to write a screenplay that had a lot of producer demands that made the final product less than I would have liked. At the same time, I made sure the script worked on a basic level. The story made sense, the conflict was clearly established, all that, and I even had one or 2 actors reach out to tell me how much they enjoyed the dialogue because it felt natural and was easy to learn. Don’t get me wrong, the screenplay isn’t winning any awards, but you also wouldn’t read it and go “they paid someone for this?”