Terry Rossio: Savvy Populist or Outrageous Hack?

D

DirtyPicturesTV

Thread started as response to public dare by brianluce:

http://indietalk.com/test/posts/205678/

I'll begin with a key example: "Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End."

The only reason that this film wasn't automatically the biggest turd of 2007, was that "Transformers" was released that same year. This bombastic mess was filled with abortive plot threads, pointless additional characters, leaden dialogue without a shred of wit, nonsensical storytelling, and bloated, kitchen-sink excess on every level. And it was unforgivably boring. A hateful movie-going experience on every level, which was enhanced by Gore Verbinski's ham-fisted direction and a pompous Hans Zimmer score that repeatedly stabbed you in the eardrums. This film is a prime example of how more equals less.

Ironic that Rossio authored a screenwriting site for years that contained lots of useful, smart advice -- and then found a way to ignore everything he preached.

Discuss. :cool:
 
Thanks for the movie review. It's not a good movie. But you can't blame a writer for a bad movie, especially at that level wherein plot points and character motivations are worked out by committee. You say he's a hack? Not sure how fair it is to judge a writer by a singular example when he's written so many scripts -- some of which are academy award nominated. Don't suppose you have an ax to grind do you?
 
I think people ought to listen to director, producer, actor, and the ever rare WRITER commentary, often listed on the DVD extras, as the movie is playing.

About two dozen of them ought to do the trick.

It won't take long to notice that directors have a SOP to only adhere to basic fundamentals of the writer's screenplay. Pretty much everything else is up for significant re-work/change.

Included >> HERE << are several of my first primarily director commentary reviews on several movies.
These had mostly a notation emphasis regarding screenplay writing, whereas my current written reviews focus on production making them just slightly less germane than the older ones regarding your OP's theme that the writers are directly to blame for the final outcome of a film.
I STRONGLY suggest otherwise.

Others:
- SKYLINE
- MONSTERS Screenplay for this was more of a treatment I gather.
- OPEN WATER Cast and crew thought they stuck to the script pretty tight. If you listen closely and pay attention you'll hear that they didn't.
- CABIN FEVER Cast and crew thought they stuck to the script pretty tight. If you listen closely and pay attention you'll hear that they didn't.
- BLACK SWAN (This one is a comparison between a writer (actually an adapter as the film's director's director of development, Mark Heyman) and Aronofsk'y featured product. Note the "Sheet 2".

From script-to-screen I think the biggest change was with SALT.
For the largest overt neglect of the script as a illegitimate, red-headed step-child I'd have to go with Stallone's approach with THE EXPENDABLES.

Director's gonna have his/her own vision.
Producers are going to have budget consideration that determine locations and cast, both of which will have an impact from script-to-screen.
Actors are going want to change every GD line and deliver it eight different ways, which is nothing compared to director David Fincher who will have them deliver it ninty-eight different ways.
The DP is even going to have a say in how scenes are going to be shot.
The location itself may force structural changes in the story.
The editor is going to take the best take variant and monkey with other pick-ups and alternate deliveries to make the story geehaw for timing and pace.
Every time you see the catch-all bin of "deleted scenes" not only is that potentially tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of screen minute dollars being ultimately wasted on the feature, but it is an indication of how much changes script-to-screen.
The distributor (if you should be so lucky) actually has the right to change some things.
The MPAA is going to balk at some stuff, ask for it to be deleted or changed, the director can often argue to keep some stuff but may very well be forced to acquiesce others. That's three changes right there.
If you see "Director's Cut" or "Unrated Cut" those are variations.
Once in awhile you'll hear directors talk of 'the fat cut" which are often three or four hours in length. What does that say about the writer's contribution to the overall "featured" product?

I understand it's fun to "blame" someone for something, like being President for instance, or a doctor, or the director, or the writer, but truth is many things are so bloody complex that there really isn't any one person to point to and say "Dude! You're movie's GREAT!" any more than "Dude! Your film sucked donkey balls!"
 
Last edited:
That's all true Ray, also even before production, a writer on a tentpole movie may not have much autonomy to begin with. Things can be tightly managed and controlled. It's simplistic and naive to say the movie was weak therefore the writer is a hack.
 
I like any movie that opens with the hanging of a small child. Does that make me a bad person?

...oh, yeah, I guess it sorta does....

(in all seriousness, I liked the third better than the second, and the second better than the first, but I'm way in the minority there. I might have liked the fourth better than the second, but way more than the first)
 
brianluce said:
Thanks for the movie review. It's not a good movie. But you can't blame a writer for a bad movie, especially at that level wherein plot points and character motivations are worked out by committee.
Click to expand...

that's something I HATE about many reviewers. It's so easy to riff on the "crappy" or "inept" screenplay without having any idea what the original script looked like compared to the final product.

Rossio's advice is good, in my opinion. He's honest, he's been around, he knows his stuff, and he doesn't hold back.

For those interested, here's J. D. Shapiro's (funny) letter to the New York Post apologizing to the world for writing "the suckiest movie ever (BATTLEFIELD EARTH)":

http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainme...kiest_movie_ever_sorry_MdXedZpTMWJmfpw80Xc7aO


Key quote:

"My script was very, VERY different than what ended up on the screen. My screenplay was darker, grittier and had a very compelling story with rich characters. What my screenplay didn't have was slow motion at every turn, Dutch tilts, campy dialogue, aliens in KISS boots, and everyone wearing Bob Marley wigs. "


Point is, a screenwriter is usually somewhere after the studio janitor when it comes to having the power to enforce his vision through pre, production and post.
 
Adeimantus said:
Rossio's advice is good, in my opinion. He's honest, he's been around, he knows his stuff, and he doesn't hold back.
Click to expand...

He's probably helped more filmmakers than any person on earth. And he doesn't do it to enrich himself, there are no Terry Rossio "How to Get Rich in Film" seminars or books to buy. The guy gives back a lot to the filmmaking community and has written some great scripts. A lot of great scripts. He's also got great commercial instincts and has shared those insights with the world via is website.
 
brianluce said:
Thanks for the movie review. It's not a good movie. But you can't blame a writer for a bad movie, especially at that level wherein plot points and character motivations are worked out by committee. You say he's a hack? Not sure how fair it is to judge a writer by a singular example when he's written so many scripts -- some of which are academy award nominated. Don't suppose you have an ax to grind do you?
Click to expand...

I didn't say he was a hack -- I asked whether he was.

His Oscar nom -- not "some," just one -- was for Shrek, an okay film. Hardly Oscar-worthy material, and he didn't win. (Roger Ebert noted that the Oscars are basically a marketing tool for films still in theaters, and I tend to agree.)

Rossio's track record is often one of mediocrity. Godzilla, Small Soldiers, Treasure Planet, National Treasure (he's got a thing about treasure) -- all of these are fair to bad. And even money-makers like the Zorro or Pirates films are not really of quality. They are formulaic, paint-by-numbers, blockbuster capital-P Products. They aren't memorable, or of lasting quality, and they are often barely entertaining.

And you can blame a writer for being responsible for writery things, like the ones I mention -- plot, dialogue, and character development. While you can turn a great script into crap, you can't turn a bad script into a good movie. And the Pirates script I mention is textbook bad. All of those random, ridiculous plot threads are not the kind of element changed during shooting; Rossio authored them, and they stink. Don't get me started on Godzilla.

Also, how come screenwriters can't be blamed for a bad movie, but get to reap a share of the credit if the movie makes money? They either are somewhat responsible, or aren't, but you can't have it both ways -- those of you who argue otherwise need to pick a side and commit. If Rossio's not really responsible for how the movies he writes turn out, then his writing is of no significance whatsoever, and he is, therefore, a hack. A mere typist.

Regarding his website, giving good, even great screenwriting advice is a very different skill than writing a great script. That's why so many screenwriting gurus aren't screenwriters.

No ax. You brought up Rossio, which gave me an excuse to talk about him. More to the point, why do you have such an interest in defending his extremely average screenwriting skills? What's your ax?

Do I win anything by answering your dare? :lol:
 
DirtyPicturesTV said:
I didn't say he was a hack -- I asked whether he was.

His Oscar nom -- not "some," just one -- was for Shrek, an okay film. Hardly Oscar-worthy material, and he didn't win. (Roger Ebert noted that the Oscars are basically a marketing tool for films still in theaters, and I tend to agree.)

Rossio's track record is often one of mediocrity. Godzilla, Small Soldiers, Treasure Planet, National Treasure (he's got a thing about treasure) -- all of these are fair to bad. And even money-makers like the Zorro or Pirates films are not really of quality. They are formulaic, paint-by-numbers, blockbuster capital-P Products. They aren't memorable, or of lasting quality, and they are often barely entertaining.

And you can blame a writer for being responsible for writery things, like the ones I mention -- plot, dialogue, and character development. While you can turn a great script into crap, you can't turn a bad script into a good movie. And the Pirates script I mention is textbook bad. All of those random, ridiculous plot threads are not the kind of element changed during shooting; Rossio authored them, and they stink. Don't get me started on Godzilla.

Also, how come screenwriters can't be blamed for a bad movie, but get to reap a share of the credit if the movie makes money? They either are somewhat responsible, or aren't, but you can't have it both ways -- those of you who argue otherwise need to pick a side and commit. If Rossio's not really responsible for how the movies he writes turn out, then his writing is of no significance whatsoever, and he is, therefore, a hack. A mere typist.

Regarding his website, giving good, even great screenwriting advice is a very different skill than writing a great script. That's why so many screenwriting gurus aren't screenwriters.

No ax. You brought up Rossio, which gave me an excuse to talk about him. More to the point, why do you have such an interest in defending his extremely average screenwriting skills? What's your ax?

Do I win anything by answering your dare? :lol:
Click to expand...

Speaking of taking a position and sticking to it, you've trashed him twice in two different threads, a bit late to start wiggling and backstroking by claiming "I didn't say he was a hack, I asked if he was..." Sure, you asked that question as a thread header, but it immediately became rhetorical after about the first sentence when you proceeded to dump on him.

My ax? I get tired of people who relish in tearing down talent, like Terry and Amy Winehouse -- artists who bring light and intelligence to a dark world. It smells of sour grapes. And yeah, I have worked with Terry on a project and he happens to be an extremely nice guy and quite generous.

If you feel he's mediocre, that's an opinion you're entitled to but it's mistake to present it as a statement of fact considering he's Oscar Nominated (I know, Oscars are mere marketing tools because Ebert wrote that), He's got a BAFTA, WGA awards, a Nebula, and he also has the highest spec sale in history. His films (not all) have scored well with critics. His films have grossed more than any screenwriter, so it's not a stretch to say he's the most successful screenwriter ever. But according to you he's mediocre. And btw, he didn't write Godzilla or Nat'l Treasure.
 
brianluce said:
And yeah, I have worked with Terry on a project and he happens to be an extremely nice guy and quite generous.
Click to expand...

If you'd just mentioned from the beginning that you didn't have an objective point of view on this topic, the entire discussion would have unfolded differently. Everything you say about Rossio is questionable in light of your relationship. Pretty dishonest not to mention that in the first place. Now we know your ax.

Also, I've said nothing negative about Rossio personally, and for you to conflate my statements with those who've trashed Winehouse (which I also didn't do) is an unfair characterization. I've stuck to talking about the quality of his work. I have not, in your words, "trashed him," but questioned the value of his writing, which is always a fair topic no matter the circumstances.

Part of the price of being successful is that those less successful get to debate the quality of such people's work -- but instead, you're acting as if such debate shouldn't be allowed to occur. Calling somebody's position, for example, "sour grapes" is not an argument, but a plaintive whine. Resorting to emotional appeals is not a substitute for your lack of intellectual ammunition. And by trying to push the subject in this direction, you also sidestepped answering nearly every one of my points.
 
If you've met someone that means you can't be objective? What it really means is you have additional insight in to a person. I said I worked with him on a project, I didn't say I slept with him.

With regards to sidestepping your claims, nope, I've offered objective facts that your assessment is at odds and essentially invalidated by Terry's critical acclaim, box office receipts, the Hollywood brain trust, the Motion Picture Academy, BAFTA Nebula, etc. Terry has met and exceeded every metric used to weigh and evaluate a screenplay, and yet you insist on marginalizing those accomplishments with things like "Oh he's merely the co -writer" or "Ocars are marketing ploys and don't count for jack".

And I don't think you'd appreciate it and not take it personally if someone crapped all over your Aborted Fetus movie -- as you've done to a lot of Terry's films (and also films you mistakenly ascribe to him) . Most people feel connected to their work. Perhaps you don't, which, along with your assessment of Rossio, puts you in a small minority.
 
brianluce said:
...your assessment is at odds and essentially invalidated by Terry's critical acclaim...
Click to expand...
Out of ten Rossio films for which reviews are compiled on RottenTomatoes.com, seven out of ten score "rotten." And box office is not a measure of quality, as Michael Bay's career illustrates.
And I don't think you'd appreciate it and not take it personally if someone crapped all over your Aborted Fetus movie
Click to expand...
We're not talking about me or my work, just as we're not talking about you and your work.
(and also films you mistakenly ascribe to him)
Click to expand...
Story credit counts (plus, he may very well have written early drafts but not gotten credit). "Story" equals" "plot," and one of my big gripes against Rossio are his uneven plotting skills. I "mistakenly" ascribe nothing -- he has credits on the movies I mentioned. "Credit" equals responsibility, and the WGA has very strict rules about who gets credit.
Most people feel connected to their work. Perhaps you don't
Click to expand...
This is the weirdest thing you've said yet. Again, we're not talking about me -- more deflection on your part -- and secondly, how do you know how I feel about my movies? Also, I have never said nor suggested how Rossio feels about his work.

Again, these are intellectually bankrupt tactics. Stick to the topic -- which is at the top of the thread -- and try to respond to or expand upon the posited points. And leave me out of it as I have left you out of it.

This is just a debate, and you seem to insist upon making it personal, even though we're not discussing a person, but their work -- two entirely separate things. And from my perspective, you don't actually understand how to construct an argument.

Here are a few of the logical fallacies you've committed:

  • argumentum ad hominem: "Don't suppose you have an ax to grind do you?"

  • argumentum ad populum & argumentum ad verecundiam: "I've offered objective facts that your assessment is at odds and essentially invalidated by Terry's critical acclaim, box office receipts, the Hollywood brain trust, the Motion Picture Academy, BAFTA Nebula, etc."

  • argumentum ad misericordiam: "And I don't think you'd appreciate it and not take it personally if someone crapped all over your Aborted Fetus movie -- as you've done to a lot of Terry's films"
I'm waiting to see if you can manage to work in Godwin's Law before we're done. :rolleyes:

The first thing you said to the first example I gave, was, "It's not a good movie." My point scored.

But you're not changing my mind at all, because you've failed to give me examples. If you want to adequately defend Rossio, then talk about brilliant plots or dimensional characters or witty dialogue he's written, and show me why he's worth all of the money he makes. Get me to admit that he's done worthwhile work. His character, box office numbers, awards, and salary are not the topics.

I dare you.
 
Adeimantus said:
that's something I HATE about many reviewers. It's so easy to riff on the "crappy" or "inept" screenplay without having any idea what the original script looked like compared to the final product.
Click to expand...

What else are reviewers supposed to go by, if not the finished product, on-screen...? Their job is to review the movie, not the movie that could have been made from the original script...

gelder
 
Last edited:
DirtyPicturesTV said:
Out of ten Rossio films for which reviews are compiled on RottenTomatoes.com, seven out of ten score "rotten." And box office is not a measure of quality, as Michael Bay's career illustrates.
Click to expand...
Critical acclaim doesn't put steaks in the Sub-Zero freezer at the pacific coast weekend house.
I'll take the cash.

Box office receipts are a fair, quantifiable measure of entertaining the public with what they are interested in.

By that measure Rossio's stories have provided a great deal of public entertainment and can justly be listed near the top of any comprehensive list as a contributing member to great public entertainment.


DirtyPicturesTV said:
I'll begin with a key example: "Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End."

The only reason that this film wasn't automatically the biggest turd of 2007, was that "Transformers" was released that same year. This bombastic mess was filled with abortive plot threads, pointless additional characters, leaden dialogue without a shred of wit, nonsensical storytelling, and bloated, kitchen-sink excess on every level. And it was unforgivably boring. A hateful movie-going experience on every level, which was enhanced by Gore Verbinski's ham-fisted direction and a pompous Hans Zimmer score that repeatedly stabbed you in the eardrums. This film is a prime example of how more equals less.

Ironic that Rossio authored a screenwriting site for years that contained lots of useful, smart advice -- and then found a way to ignore everything he preached.

Discuss. :cool:
Click to expand...
Let's apply a critical eye to this provocative assessment.

The only reason that this film wasn't automatically the biggest turd of 2007, was that "Transformers" was released that same year.
Arguing that a $300M movie that worldwide took in $963M, (not including merchandising rights) ranked #1 in 4,362 theaters opening weekend was second turd to a $150M movie that worldwide took in $709M, (also not including merchandising) that also ranked #1 in 4,011 theaters over a month later is hardly excoriating.

I'll go out on a limb here and propose that not everybody likes everything, however those that do not "appreciate" some things can acknowledge that others do "appreciate" those things. Either party may be in the majority or minority.

Regarding PoC:WE, the public majority view it with appreciation while the public minority does not.

This bombastic mess was filled with: Subjective value ascription.
- abortive plot threads, I'd have to watch it again to confirm or deny. I have no intention and will take your word on it in this case. You appear above average in intelligence.
- pointless additional characters, Likely, these are supposed to add depth and flavor, like Madona's back-up singers.
- leaden dialogue without a shred of wit, Often changed by directors and actors.
- nonsensical storytelling, and I'd have to read the "locked" studio approved screenplay and compare that to the final revisions and then again with the featured product everybody from studio to MPAA tinkered with.
- bloated, kitchen-sink excess This over-the-topness seems to be entertainingly popular with audiences not interested or (likely) incapable of discerning sublime subtlety in their art.
- on every level. Including on the aforementioned "abortive plot threads"? That's quite an achievement!

And it was unforgivably boring. Subjective value ascription.

A hateful movie-going experience on every level, Subjective value ascription. Yet people kept watching it and recommending it and buying the DVDs. Sadists!

which was enhanced by Gore Verbinski's ham-fisted direction Subjective value ascription.

and a pompous Hans Zimmer score that repeatedly stabbed you in the eardrums. Subjective value ascription. Also, I noted Brian Luce was cited over:
argumentum ad misericordiam: "And I don't think you'd appreciate it and not take it personally if someone crapped all over your Aborted Fetus movie -- as you've done to a lot of Terry's films"
Click to expand...
So, you can't very well tell me what happened to my ears.
FWIW, frankly I don't recall the music specific to World's End, indicating it's nil impact on me personaly.

(Thanks for the very Harry Potter-esque argumentum citations! I'll certainly investigate those and learn how to cast them properly in the future!)

This film is a prime example of how more equals less. Again, the cash proffering mob indicates otherwise.
Seriously, I think you're arguing the subjective value of ethereal rare air vs. that which emanates from whoopie cushions.
app-ntnm.cs.png


Ironic that Rossio authored a screenwriting site for years that contained lots of useful, smart advice -- and then found a way to ignore everything he preached.
I'd have to look at his original draft, co-written with his credited partner Ted Elliot, and then all the documentation of who dictated what story changes from that original version to the locked, studio approved version and then onto all the subsequent version changes.
It would also be helpful to know what the MPAA and distributor had to say.

Ten words or less: I think you're dumbfounded by the number of people less intelligent than you are that sincerely liked At World's End.
Idiots are aplenty.
There's no shortage.

Simpson's has been on TV for how long?
Married with Children was on for how long?
Burgers kill more Americans than bullets, yet what do we worry about?
If Federal taxes are lowered State taxes will increase to compensate, but does the average retail or food service worker have any comprehension of these things?
If the national debt level is raised the value of the USDollar decreases making the relative value of other global currencies greater allowing them to purchase more commodities of production like iron ore, met coal and copper, which makes our stock market increase yet do you think John Q. Public has any understanding of this ten minutes after it's explained to them?

French Revolution.
American Revolution.
Fear the masses.
Fear the wind driven fire.
This is the spiritual appeal of zombie movies.
 
Last edited:
Dirty Pictures, you don't know what you're talking about. No, story does not equal plot. Story does not equal screenplay.

And even if Terry had ONE film film that won critical acclaim -- that's crossing the threshold. He's succeeded with critics. End of story.

I've given you all the metrics to objectively assess a writer's talent. Critical acclaim, box office, and Awards. He's nailed all three. Those are the only metrics I know of to assess the relative quality of a film. "Uneven plotting skills" is not provable, it's just your subjective opinion. For some reason you cannot accept that and it causes you to flame his movies. That's graceless and poor form -- particularly in view of the fact Terry has given so much back to the community. You don't get that either. That's why I mentioned your comedy movie about the talking Aborted Fetus. You wouldn't like it if people ridiculed it. So why ridicule someone else's work? You ought to consider shelving your pitchfork and torch, just makes you look like a nasty bitter person with an ax to grind. And please, spare us the freshman logic lecture.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top