Article: "Film bosses accused of mutilating scripts and pushing out writing talent"
I saw this article on The Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...ded-script-editing-pushing-talent-out-of-film
The article was essentially talking about how many screenwriters write a script, sell the script, are booted from the process, and then the script is eventually altered to the point where it bears little resemblance to the original. Many writers are often sacked without warning by the studios, and then discover later on that their original work has been altered beyond recognition by a production line of writers. Even when writers are unceremoniously removed from projects, their name may still appear in the credits. They may not even know they were replaced until it appears in a blog or trade report.
Obviously this phenomenon been around for a long time, but this was an article where some notable British born screenwriters were actually stepping out of the shadows to shed some light on the problem.
This phenomenon has seemed to lead to two things: One, the number of writers flocking to television, where directors shoot what's on the page and writing is well respected, and two , the general, decreasing quality of theatrical films. Many films today appeal to the lowest common denominator. Audiences vote with their dollar, and when films like Transformers rake in the most money, studios will continue to produce films just like that. Audiences have become used to seeing bland, recycled storylines because so many scripts are stripped of their original material, so it's no wonder the cycle continues. Even if an idea is unique - not the result of some remake or book adaptation - the plotline and writing itself still yields to a certain cookie-cutter mold, because studios are absolutely terrified of deviating from the norm and taking risks. It's pretty sad, although I can't necessarily say it doesn't make sense. A lot of people claim that a majority of moviegoers only go to theaters to be distracted and entertained, not to take something more from the experience or witness 'art'.
This leads to a question of mine: The article continuously refers to "film bosses" being the ones to change a script. Who exactly are these film bosses, and who is the most responsible for the 'mutilation' of a script? If a screenwriter steps behind the camera to direct their own work, is this enough to bypass the issue? Or is it essentially pointless.
In the article, it was mentioned a few times that many screenwriters have opted to direct their own work, although I'm wondering if this is actually enough to make a big difference. It's a wonder how any good films make it into theaters under these conditions. Don't get me wrong, I can appreciate commercial appeal - I don't think someone who writes a 'deep', artsy film about a guy chain smoking next to a window for three hours deserves to complain that his film isn't being released in theaters. But can't a script be good, original, well-written, and appeal to a large audience? It seems like the best avenue for writers today is to direct their own work on a low budget within the indie bracket (where there won't be as many studio heads demanding changes), aim for a limited theatrical release, and then hope the reviews are good enough to warrant a greater theatrical release. Of course it's a long shot, but what other options are there? I see a lot of writers who are quite jaded from this whole process. In the article, one writer (Oscar winner Jeffrey Caine) likened this process to a chef preparing a wonderful dish, and then having someone smother ketchup all over it.
I'm curious to hear any general thoughts! On the article, on studio executives and directors changing a script, on the quality audiences expect today, on writer-director hybrids. What do you think of this issue? In your mind, is it even an issue at all?
I saw this article on The Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...ded-script-editing-pushing-talent-out-of-film
The article was essentially talking about how many screenwriters write a script, sell the script, are booted from the process, and then the script is eventually altered to the point where it bears little resemblance to the original. Many writers are often sacked without warning by the studios, and then discover later on that their original work has been altered beyond recognition by a production line of writers. Even when writers are unceremoniously removed from projects, their name may still appear in the credits. They may not even know they were replaced until it appears in a blog or trade report.
Obviously this phenomenon been around for a long time, but this was an article where some notable British born screenwriters were actually stepping out of the shadows to shed some light on the problem.
This phenomenon has seemed to lead to two things: One, the number of writers flocking to television, where directors shoot what's on the page and writing is well respected, and two , the general, decreasing quality of theatrical films. Many films today appeal to the lowest common denominator. Audiences vote with their dollar, and when films like Transformers rake in the most money, studios will continue to produce films just like that. Audiences have become used to seeing bland, recycled storylines because so many scripts are stripped of their original material, so it's no wonder the cycle continues. Even if an idea is unique - not the result of some remake or book adaptation - the plotline and writing itself still yields to a certain cookie-cutter mold, because studios are absolutely terrified of deviating from the norm and taking risks. It's pretty sad, although I can't necessarily say it doesn't make sense. A lot of people claim that a majority of moviegoers only go to theaters to be distracted and entertained, not to take something more from the experience or witness 'art'.
This leads to a question of mine: The article continuously refers to "film bosses" being the ones to change a script. Who exactly are these film bosses, and who is the most responsible for the 'mutilation' of a script? If a screenwriter steps behind the camera to direct their own work, is this enough to bypass the issue? Or is it essentially pointless.
In the article, it was mentioned a few times that many screenwriters have opted to direct their own work, although I'm wondering if this is actually enough to make a big difference. It's a wonder how any good films make it into theaters under these conditions. Don't get me wrong, I can appreciate commercial appeal - I don't think someone who writes a 'deep', artsy film about a guy chain smoking next to a window for three hours deserves to complain that his film isn't being released in theaters. But can't a script be good, original, well-written, and appeal to a large audience? It seems like the best avenue for writers today is to direct their own work on a low budget within the indie bracket (where there won't be as many studio heads demanding changes), aim for a limited theatrical release, and then hope the reviews are good enough to warrant a greater theatrical release. Of course it's a long shot, but what other options are there? I see a lot of writers who are quite jaded from this whole process. In the article, one writer (Oscar winner Jeffrey Caine) likened this process to a chef preparing a wonderful dish, and then having someone smother ketchup all over it.
I'm curious to hear any general thoughts! On the article, on studio executives and directors changing a script, on the quality audiences expect today, on writer-director hybrids. What do you think of this issue? In your mind, is it even an issue at all?
