These go to ll.
Happy Nigel Tufnel Day! (11-11-11)
Episode 326: The WGA Strike
3 years ago
Friday, November 11, 2011
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
The difference between coverage and a review
After my post on Monday wherein I expressed that aspiring script readers might find it useful to peruse internet reviews, I got a tweet from someone called "BrainyReviewer":
"So if aspiring script readers should read reviews, that entails reviewers (good ones) can succeed as script readers?"
That's one of those apples = oranges/transitive property tricks that I'm often wary to agree with because it's not a perfect analogy. Limited to 140 characters in response, I tweeted back "It's possible, assuming they can adapt to the needs of coverage."
To that, BrainyReviewer asked, "Can you please elaborate?"
Certainly. At the core of this is a simple truth. A review is not coverage. What Roger Ebert writes is not coverage. What AICN publishes is not coverage. And most any review you read on the internet is not coverage.
Coverage and reviews are similar in that both (presumably) entail looking at a work of art analytically. A review of a TV show or a movie might examine the deeper themes of the film, note the complexity of the plot or character arcs, or evaluate the merits of the concept. The difference is that the format of a movie review or a random internet review is almost certainly less rigid than coverage. When writing coverage, brevity is often important. You're writing a review for people who are too busy to read the actual script, so the coverage needs to break down the nuts and bolt succinctly in a professional fashion.
In my experience, agencies are the most rigid when it comes to coverage format. Basic coverage is four paragraps, broken down as follows:
- Introduction
- Characters
- Plot/Structure/Concept
- Conclusion
Most of the time, that's all expected to fit on less than a page. Depending on the agency, there might be a little give on those numbers, but I'm not aware of any agency that encourages coverage to be two pages or more. Most of the places I've worked for prefer the coverage notes not go over a page.
Also, as rigid as agency coverage guidelines are (and like everything else associated with agency work, they are indeed needlessly complicated and weighed down with a multitude of arbitrary rules) production companies tend to be a bit looser about coverage structure. Out of habit, I maintain the four-paragraph format unless specifically directed otherwise - but I have read for companies that have accepted briefer, more superficial coverage.
But I'm drifting. My point is that reviewers used to just putting their thoughts down on paper might find it a bit of a tricky adjustment fitting into the constraints of coverage. In addition to that structure, coverage is supposed to somewhat objective and analytical in a way that a review often isn't. If I'm reading a genre that I personally hate, I still need to be able to weigh the script on it's merits. My own tasted can't be the last word on the script. It can be a guide, certainly, but I've got to have more to back up my opinion than just "It sucks."
Don't get me wrong - most of what I read sucks. I just need to be able to "show my work" and do the math to PROVE that it sucks.
I'm sure many reviewers are capable of adapting to this format, but I did feel that it was important to make this distinction.
"So if aspiring script readers should read reviews, that entails reviewers (good ones) can succeed as script readers?"
That's one of those apples = oranges/transitive property tricks that I'm often wary to agree with because it's not a perfect analogy. Limited to 140 characters in response, I tweeted back "It's possible, assuming they can adapt to the needs of coverage."
To that, BrainyReviewer asked, "Can you please elaborate?"
Certainly. At the core of this is a simple truth. A review is not coverage. What Roger Ebert writes is not coverage. What AICN publishes is not coverage. And most any review you read on the internet is not coverage.
Coverage and reviews are similar in that both (presumably) entail looking at a work of art analytically. A review of a TV show or a movie might examine the deeper themes of the film, note the complexity of the plot or character arcs, or evaluate the merits of the concept. The difference is that the format of a movie review or a random internet review is almost certainly less rigid than coverage. When writing coverage, brevity is often important. You're writing a review for people who are too busy to read the actual script, so the coverage needs to break down the nuts and bolt succinctly in a professional fashion.
In my experience, agencies are the most rigid when it comes to coverage format. Basic coverage is four paragraps, broken down as follows:
- Introduction
- Characters
- Plot/Structure/Concept
- Conclusion
Most of the time, that's all expected to fit on less than a page. Depending on the agency, there might be a little give on those numbers, but I'm not aware of any agency that encourages coverage to be two pages or more. Most of the places I've worked for prefer the coverage notes not go over a page.
Also, as rigid as agency coverage guidelines are (and like everything else associated with agency work, they are indeed needlessly complicated and weighed down with a multitude of arbitrary rules) production companies tend to be a bit looser about coverage structure. Out of habit, I maintain the four-paragraph format unless specifically directed otherwise - but I have read for companies that have accepted briefer, more superficial coverage.
But I'm drifting. My point is that reviewers used to just putting their thoughts down on paper might find it a bit of a tricky adjustment fitting into the constraints of coverage. In addition to that structure, coverage is supposed to somewhat objective and analytical in a way that a review often isn't. If I'm reading a genre that I personally hate, I still need to be able to weigh the script on it's merits. My own tasted can't be the last word on the script. It can be a guide, certainly, but I've got to have more to back up my opinion than just "It sucks."
Don't get me wrong - most of what I read sucks. I just need to be able to "show my work" and do the math to PROVE that it sucks.
I'm sure many reviewers are capable of adapting to this format, but I did feel that it was important to make this distinction.
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
Tuesday Talkback: Longhand or Word Processing?
George Lucas has said in many interviews that he prefers to write his scripts in longhand. Indeed, there is a behind-the-scenes feature on the Phantom Menace DVD that shows he writes his first drafts in pencil on line-legal paper which is then given to an assistant to type up in the proper format.
I have a similar quirk - when I'm brainstorming, I prefer to work out ideas in my own handwriting on lined paper. I've tried brainstorming by typing on my laptop and despite the fact that word processing programs allow my work to be intensely more legible than the chicken scratch that passes for my handwriting, it just doesn't work for me. Somehow I think better while writing in one of my binders.
I also habitually get my best ideas in the shower - so I suppose that means I should start taking legal pads into the bath with me.
Even after producing a typed version of my outline, I have another longhand habit. Before I begin a day of writing, I hand-write a beat sheet of the scenes I intend to write that day. Somehow that helps me focus. Then, after I complete a first draft of the script, I always find it more effective to print out a hard copy and edit from that, making notes with a red pen.
So I'm curious to hear how many of you have longhand habits. I suspect that the younger among you might be more prone to working completely on the computer. Are any of you guys like me in that you have to work in long-hand at particular stages of writing?
I have a similar quirk - when I'm brainstorming, I prefer to work out ideas in my own handwriting on lined paper. I've tried brainstorming by typing on my laptop and despite the fact that word processing programs allow my work to be intensely more legible than the chicken scratch that passes for my handwriting, it just doesn't work for me. Somehow I think better while writing in one of my binders.
I also habitually get my best ideas in the shower - so I suppose that means I should start taking legal pads into the bath with me.
Even after producing a typed version of my outline, I have another longhand habit. Before I begin a day of writing, I hand-write a beat sheet of the scenes I intend to write that day. Somehow that helps me focus. Then, after I complete a first draft of the script, I always find it more effective to print out a hard copy and edit from that, making notes with a red pen.
So I'm curious to hear how many of you have longhand habits. I suspect that the younger among you might be more prone to working completely on the computer. Are any of you guys like me in that you have to work in long-hand at particular stages of writing?
Monday, November 7, 2011
The last word on "How Can I Become a Script Reader?"
In the nearly three years I've run this blog, one question has been submitted more frequently than any others: "How can I become a script reader?" I've run several blog posts covering this question from many angles and yet I rarely go long without getting an email that asks this question. From now on, unless I have a compelling reason to give more of an answer, I'm just going to reply to that question with a link to this page.
So how can I become a script reader?
I'll direct you to this post where I talk about my history and how I got the job. As several years have passed, things have doubtlessly changed, but the important detail to understand is that it's rare to get hired right out of college as a script reader. At the risk of sounding someone pretentious, Script Reader isn't a job you "get," it's a job you "earn." Get a job that puts you in contact with people who need scripts read, then offer to do coverage on the side for them. If you want to be a Script Reader, don't be above taking a "lowly" PA job, particularly an Office PA job.
What education should I get in order to be a better reader?
Watch movies, read scripts. That's essential. Don't just watch/read good movies, but do the same for bad ones and attempt to understand why they're bad. I also highly recommend reading reviews. When I was in college, I visited Roger Ebert's website several times a week and I learned a lot about the art of criticism just from reading his takes on films. I didn't always agree with him - but it was almost always informative to read why he thought what he thought.
There were also two other reviewers whose work I devoured in those days. Tim Lynch was a major internet reviewer in the Star Trek world during the late 90s. Though he'd been mostly retired by the time I stumbled onto his review archive, I found his reviews of Deep Space Nine so insightful about the show and TV writing in general that I made it a point to read the corresponding review before revisiting any of those episodes in syndication or DVD. It was like a master class in both criticism and TV writing.
Another Trek reviewer who always left me with a lot to think about is Jamahl Epsicokhan aka "Jammer." He covered most of the modern Trek series and Battlestar Galactica. If none of those shows floats your boat, that's cool. The net is full of quality reviewers out there, so find something you're passionate about and see if there's a reviewer who inspires you to think deeper about what you watch.
Are there many jobs out there? How can I get hired? How much does script reading pay?
If you're looking to be a full-time script reader, completely supporting yourself just on that job, I'm going to tell you it's very difficult. It used to be that some production companies I've worked for had a script reader on salary. They'd pay a weekly rate and that reader would get a relatively consistent workload. Those guys had the security of knowing they'd be able to pay their bills each week.
Far more common is an arrangement where the reader is paid per script. This rate varies. Most reputable companies should be paying at least $50 a script, but it's not entirely unheard of to get more, like $70 a script for basic coverage. So if you read ten scripts a week (hardly an impossible task), you could pocket between $500-$700.
That's not too bad. So what's the problem?
The problem is that for the last three years, companies have been cutting back. As you can see, a reader who covers 2-3 scripts a day is costing the company about the same amount as a full-time assistant. When the pennies get pinched, that becomes an unnecessary expense. Thus, a lot of companies have started farming out work to freelance readers only when absolutely necessary and have forced the assistants to do a lot more of the reading. The reason for this should be obvious - the assistants are already on salary and they aren't paid extra for these additional coverages. Make an assistant take those extra two scripts a day and the company has just saved the cost of an entire person's salary.
Most readers I know have to read for more than one company. When I got started, I was more than secure just with one company. I picked up a second gig just for security and that was a perfect arrangement because when one office was light, I knew I had the safety net of another. As work dwindled, I did my best to pick up other gigs. At one point I was juggling work from four different companies. Some weeks they all had enough to keep me busy, but there were times where I found all of those employers to be light on work.
Reader jobs as they were when I got started no longer exist. If you want to really make it climbing the ladder this way, set your sites on an assistant job and try to climb the ranks in development as a development assistant or a story editor. Long-term, that's a far wiser strategy.
So how can I be a script-reader without living in NYC or LA?
Are you daft?
Look, I get that the fantasy is that in the age of the internet, everyone can sit on the toilet with their iPads in their laps and do their jobs from anywhere. There might even be some readers who've managed to move out of LA and continue their jobs - but they almost certainly built relationships in the business first and made a reputation for themselves by actually being in LA.
If you want to work for an agency and a production company, you're almost certainly going to have to physically be here. The only way I ever see getting past that is if you've got an impressive resume that backs up your coverage skills. Usually the person asking the question above is someone fresh out of college or someone slightly older who's settled into a "real" job and life and wants to work for Hollywood without uprooting.
I don't see it happening. I'm sorry to be that blunt, but that's what my experience tells me.
But I saw an ad for Film Festivals and Screenwriting Contests who are looking for readers who can submit coverage over the internet! You're a liar!
I consider most of those jobs beneath my notice. Contests really don't pay much at all, and they're seasonal so it's nothing even close to a permanent solution. At best, you'll get coverage experience you might be able to parlay into another gig. Most of those places underpay so hideously that I think it undervalues the entire coverage process. I know of a place that paid $30 for two-pages of synopsis and 2-3 pages of notes. For that level of work anything less than $50 is taking advantage
There are some competitions where all you have to do is fill out a score sheet and you'll get paid maybe $10-20 a script. That's not taking advantage quite as much, but still... what are you getting out of that? Most contest submissions are crap and a real pain to read. You can always learn something from bad writing, but after a few contest scripts, you'll often cease to see anything of value.
If you had to start all over again, would you pursue being a reader?
As I indicated, I'd make more of an effort to stay on the development track and rise within a company. It's a really bad time to try to break into reading. The jobs aren't out there, the workload is shrinking and you're competing with guys like me who have a lot more experience. Reader jobs tend to go to people who have already made contacts in the business and guys like me are always looking for additional freelance assignments. If you don't have any contacts in the business yet, it's going to be hard to break into this end of it.
So how can I become a script reader?
I'll direct you to this post where I talk about my history and how I got the job. As several years have passed, things have doubtlessly changed, but the important detail to understand is that it's rare to get hired right out of college as a script reader. At the risk of sounding someone pretentious, Script Reader isn't a job you "get," it's a job you "earn." Get a job that puts you in contact with people who need scripts read, then offer to do coverage on the side for them. If you want to be a Script Reader, don't be above taking a "lowly" PA job, particularly an Office PA job.
What education should I get in order to be a better reader?
Watch movies, read scripts. That's essential. Don't just watch/read good movies, but do the same for bad ones and attempt to understand why they're bad. I also highly recommend reading reviews. When I was in college, I visited Roger Ebert's website several times a week and I learned a lot about the art of criticism just from reading his takes on films. I didn't always agree with him - but it was almost always informative to read why he thought what he thought.
There were also two other reviewers whose work I devoured in those days. Tim Lynch was a major internet reviewer in the Star Trek world during the late 90s. Though he'd been mostly retired by the time I stumbled onto his review archive, I found his reviews of Deep Space Nine so insightful about the show and TV writing in general that I made it a point to read the corresponding review before revisiting any of those episodes in syndication or DVD. It was like a master class in both criticism and TV writing.
Another Trek reviewer who always left me with a lot to think about is Jamahl Epsicokhan aka "Jammer." He covered most of the modern Trek series and Battlestar Galactica. If none of those shows floats your boat, that's cool. The net is full of quality reviewers out there, so find something you're passionate about and see if there's a reviewer who inspires you to think deeper about what you watch.
Are there many jobs out there? How can I get hired? How much does script reading pay?
If you're looking to be a full-time script reader, completely supporting yourself just on that job, I'm going to tell you it's very difficult. It used to be that some production companies I've worked for had a script reader on salary. They'd pay a weekly rate and that reader would get a relatively consistent workload. Those guys had the security of knowing they'd be able to pay their bills each week.
Far more common is an arrangement where the reader is paid per script. This rate varies. Most reputable companies should be paying at least $50 a script, but it's not entirely unheard of to get more, like $70 a script for basic coverage. So if you read ten scripts a week (hardly an impossible task), you could pocket between $500-$700.
That's not too bad. So what's the problem?
The problem is that for the last three years, companies have been cutting back. As you can see, a reader who covers 2-3 scripts a day is costing the company about the same amount as a full-time assistant. When the pennies get pinched, that becomes an unnecessary expense. Thus, a lot of companies have started farming out work to freelance readers only when absolutely necessary and have forced the assistants to do a lot more of the reading. The reason for this should be obvious - the assistants are already on salary and they aren't paid extra for these additional coverages. Make an assistant take those extra two scripts a day and the company has just saved the cost of an entire person's salary.
Most readers I know have to read for more than one company. When I got started, I was more than secure just with one company. I picked up a second gig just for security and that was a perfect arrangement because when one office was light, I knew I had the safety net of another. As work dwindled, I did my best to pick up other gigs. At one point I was juggling work from four different companies. Some weeks they all had enough to keep me busy, but there were times where I found all of those employers to be light on work.
Reader jobs as they were when I got started no longer exist. If you want to really make it climbing the ladder this way, set your sites on an assistant job and try to climb the ranks in development as a development assistant or a story editor. Long-term, that's a far wiser strategy.
So how can I be a script-reader without living in NYC or LA?
Are you daft?
Look, I get that the fantasy is that in the age of the internet, everyone can sit on the toilet with their iPads in their laps and do their jobs from anywhere. There might even be some readers who've managed to move out of LA and continue their jobs - but they almost certainly built relationships in the business first and made a reputation for themselves by actually being in LA.
If you want to work for an agency and a production company, you're almost certainly going to have to physically be here. The only way I ever see getting past that is if you've got an impressive resume that backs up your coverage skills. Usually the person asking the question above is someone fresh out of college or someone slightly older who's settled into a "real" job and life and wants to work for Hollywood without uprooting.
I don't see it happening. I'm sorry to be that blunt, but that's what my experience tells me.
But I saw an ad for Film Festivals and Screenwriting Contests who are looking for readers who can submit coverage over the internet! You're a liar!
I consider most of those jobs beneath my notice. Contests really don't pay much at all, and they're seasonal so it's nothing even close to a permanent solution. At best, you'll get coverage experience you might be able to parlay into another gig. Most of those places underpay so hideously that I think it undervalues the entire coverage process. I know of a place that paid $30 for two-pages of synopsis and 2-3 pages of notes. For that level of work anything less than $50 is taking advantage
There are some competitions where all you have to do is fill out a score sheet and you'll get paid maybe $10-20 a script. That's not taking advantage quite as much, but still... what are you getting out of that? Most contest submissions are crap and a real pain to read. You can always learn something from bad writing, but after a few contest scripts, you'll often cease to see anything of value.
If you had to start all over again, would you pursue being a reader?
As I indicated, I'd make more of an effort to stay on the development track and rise within a company. It's a really bad time to try to break into reading. The jobs aren't out there, the workload is shrinking and you're competing with guys like me who have a lot more experience. Reader jobs tend to go to people who have already made contacts in the business and guys like me are always looking for additional freelance assignments. If you don't have any contacts in the business yet, it's going to be hard to break into this end of it.
Friday, November 4, 2011
Universal head Ron Meyer cops to making "shitty movies."
I'm an audio commentary junkie. For a long time there, if I rented a movie with an audio commentary, I'd have to listen to it. Sure, this means that you're bound to run across a few duds along the way. You'd think the low point was when I found myself listening to the Swimfan commentary, but no one - NO ONE - is a worse commentator than Mel Brooks. His commentary on Spaceballs might as well be one of those tracks that visually impaired people listen to because he spends the entire 90 minutes describing EXACTLY what is on the screen at that point.
That's not why I listen to commentaries. The best ones are with participants who are willing to be candid and blunt about the process. Interestingly, I feel like we saw more of these back in the early days of the DVD. This probably has something to do with the fact that in the early days of commentaries, the people who'd be cajoled into doing the audio track were people who really felt they had something to say. This is explains why most commentaries I listend to were part-old war stories and part-explanation/apologies for where the film went wrong.
And this is why I now demand that Universal puts out a special edition Blu-Ray of The Wolfman with an audio commentary featuring Ron Meyer, head of Universal Studios and director Joe Johnston. It's guaranteed to be entertaining considering some statements that Meyer made at the Savannah Film Festival:
He doesn't stop there...
This might make you wonder, "what does director Joe Johnston have to say for himself?" I'm glad you asked:
I want to get these two guys in a room, force them to watch the film, and let them fight it out. Do you hear me, Universal? I'd buy this on Blu-Ray... And I bet a lot of other people would too.
And don't stop there. The entire Universal catalog should be re-released in special "Ron Meyer 'Shitty movie' Editions." Order now and hear Ron's straight talk on Cowboys & Aliens:
...Land of the Lost...
Are we sure this guy doesn't post on AICN under an alias?
Universal: It Happens.
That's not why I listen to commentaries. The best ones are with participants who are willing to be candid and blunt about the process. Interestingly, I feel like we saw more of these back in the early days of the DVD. This probably has something to do with the fact that in the early days of commentaries, the people who'd be cajoled into doing the audio track were people who really felt they had something to say. This is explains why most commentaries I listend to were part-old war stories and part-explanation/apologies for where the film went wrong.
And this is why I now demand that Universal puts out a special edition Blu-Ray of The Wolfman with an audio commentary featuring Ron Meyer, head of Universal Studios and director Joe Johnston. It's guaranteed to be entertaining considering some statements that Meyer made at the Savannah Film Festival:
“We make a lot of shitty movies. Every one of them breaks my heart.
“We set out to make good ones. One of the worst movies we ever made was Wolfman [produced, coincidentally, by local Savannah resident Stratton Leopold.] Wolfman and Babe 2 are two of the shittiest movies we put out, but by the same token we made movies we believe in. We did United 93, which is one of the movies I’m most proud of. It wasn’t a big moneymaker, but it’s a film I believe every American should see and it showed you what people can do in the worst of times and how great the human spirit is and all that, so there are moments that can make up for all the junk that you make.”
He doesn't stop there...
“[The Wolfman is] one of those movies, the moment I saw it I thought, ‘What have we all done here?’ That movie was crappy... We all went wrong. It was one of those things… like I said, we make a lot of bad movies. That’s one we should have smelled out a long time ago. It was wrong. The script never got right… [The cast] was awful. The director was wrong. Benicio [del Toro] stunk. It all stunk.”
This might make you wonder, "what does director Joe Johnston have to say for himself?" I'm glad you asked:
"I had three weeks of prep on WOLFMAN, a ridiculously inadequate amount of time to try to bring together the fractured and scattered pieces of the production. I had taken the job mostly because I had a cash flow problem, the only time in my career I’ve ever let finances enter into the decision process. Money is always the wrong reason for doing something that requires passionate devotion. The production was a leaky, rudderless ship in a perfect storm suffering from bad decisions, infighting, reluctance of the powers-that-be to take responsibility, and too many under-qualified cooks in the kitchen."
I want to get these two guys in a room, force them to watch the film, and let them fight it out. Do you hear me, Universal? I'd buy this on Blu-Ray... And I bet a lot of other people would too.
And don't stop there. The entire Universal catalog should be re-released in special "Ron Meyer 'Shitty movie' Editions." Order now and hear Ron's straight talk on Cowboys & Aliens:
“Cowboys & Aliens wasn’t good enough. Forget all the smart people involved in it, it wasn’t good enough... All those little creatures bouncing around were crappy. I think it was a mediocre movie, and we all did a mediocre job with it.”
...Land of the Lost...
“Land of the Lost was just crap... I mean, there was no excuse for it. The best intentions all went wrong. Scott Pilgrim, I think, was actually kind of a good movie. [Addressing a small section of the audience, cheering.] But none of you guys went! And you didn’t tell your friends to go! But, you know, it happens.”
Are we sure this guy doesn't post on AICN under an alias?
“Cowboys & Aliens didn’t deserve better. Land of the Lost didn’t deserve better. Scott Pilgrim did deserve better, but it just didn’t capture enough of the imaginations of people, and it was one of those things where it didn’t cost a lot so it wasn’t a big loss. Cowboys & Aliens was a big loss, and Land of the Lost was a huge loss. We misfired. We were wrong. We did it badly, and I think we’re all guilty of it. I have to take first responsibility because I’m part of it, but we all did a mediocre job and we paid the price for it. It happens. They’re talented people. Certainly you couldn’t have more talented people involved in Cowboys & Aliens, but it took, you know, ten smart and talented people to come up with a mediocre movie. It just happens.”
Universal: It Happens.
Thursday, November 3, 2011
"Tower Heist" - a struggle to execute a high-concept one-liner
It took five years for the Ben Stiller/Eddie Murphy film Tower Heist to go from concept to screen, and in that time, the one-line hook that got everyone interested went through substantial changes. The LA Times has the story:
As anyone who's seen the trailer for the film can tell you, the final cast was multi-ethic and predominantly white. But you have to admit - there should be a market for an all-black Ocean's Eleven. Heist movies are a pretty popular genre and the novelty of getting the biggest African-American stars all in one film would almost certainly have marketable appeal.
So what was the fundamental change that Griffin felt was necessary and how did that define the cast? Check out the rest of the article here.
Eddie Murphy had a simple suggestion about six years ago: Why not make an all-black version of "Ocean's Eleven"?
Director Brett Ratner and producer Brian Grazer loved the comedian's idea, and before long, the trio was throwing around ideas about who could star opposite Murphy: Jamie Foxx, Dave Chappelle, Chris Rock, Tracy Morgan and Chris Tucker headed the list.
As anyone who's seen the trailer for the film can tell you, the final cast was multi-ethic and predominantly white. But you have to admit - there should be a market for an all-black Ocean's Eleven. Heist movies are a pretty popular genre and the novelty of getting the biggest African-American stars all in one film would almost certainly have marketable appeal.
The evolution of "Tower Heist" illustrates how even a seemingly
straightforward idea can go through countless iterations from concept to
screen. While "Tower Heist" is credited to screenwriters Ted Griffin
("Ocean's Eleven"), Jeff Nathanson
(Ratner's last two "Rush Hour" movies) and writing partners Adam Cooper
and Bill Collage ("Accepted"), the script also was revised by Russell
Gewirtz ("Inside Man"), Rawson Marshall Thurber ("Dodgeball"), Leslie
Dixon ("The Thomas Crown Affair") and Noah Baumbach ("The Squid and the Whale").
What follows is a pretty stardard look at the development hell that many films go through. It's a good illustration of how just having a good idea isn't enough - it takes talent to execute even the most seemingly-obvious no-brainer.
As the film's racial profile changed, another question loomed over the production: Who are these bandits, and what is their motivation? The earliest plot held that the protagonists worked in a building owned by someone like Trump. "It was a fun movie, a classic underdog story," Ratner said. "But the problem was, you couldn't distinguish the characters apart." Even more knotty, it wasn't clear what provoked their thievery.
After two and a half years of screenplay revisions, Ratner called up Griffin, with whom Ratner collaborated on "Ocean's Eleven" before Steven Soderbergh replaced Ratner as that film's director.
"I have good news and bad news," Ratner recalled Griffin telling him. "The good news is that I am going to do this. The bad news is that I'm going to throw away your script."
So what was the fundamental change that Griffin felt was necessary and how did that define the cast? Check out the rest of the article here.
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Why is Revenge kicking Ringer's ass? A lesson in tonal consistency
As the new fall season approached, there were few shows I was more eager to see than Ringer and Revenge. Both promised to be the sort of drama that I usually sink my teeth into - more serious than something like Melrose Place and Desperate Housewives, but more escapist than The Sopranos or The Good Wife. As an added bonus, each one starred one of my favorite "former girls of the WB." Revenge was headlined by former Everwood ingenue Emily VanCamp, while Ringer was the comeback vehicle for onetime Buffy the Vampire Slayer Sarah Michelle Gellar.
Interestingly, both series featured the lead characters passing themselves off as someone they were not. In Revenge, Amanda Clarke returns to the Hamptons for revenge on the people who destroyed her father's life and reputation 17 years earlier. Having assumed the name "Emily Thorne," Amanda uses her amassed fortune and insanely detailed plans to take down her father's betrayers one-by-one.
Ringer, on the other hand, as Gellar playing identical twins. One has married into wealth, while naturally the other one is a stripper on the run from the mob boss she was meant to testify against. The wealthy twin Siobhan disappears soon after meeting with her sister - a sister none of her friends know about. Thus, the poor sister, Bridget, decides to take her place, only to find that her sister's seemingly envious life is full of its own tension and drama.
Now that we're about a half-dozen or so episodes into each series, it's clear that Revenge has pulled way ahead of Ringer, not just in the ratings, but in critical buzz and in fan reaction. Revenge has been one of the better received new shows this year, while Ringer is viewed mostly as a disappointment. To be fair, Ringer has shown incremental improvement creatively week-to-week, even if it still clearly has a way to go.
But what is Revenge doing right that Ringer is doing wrong?
One thing that strikes me about the two shows is that Revenge employs a greater variance of tone. I know I've spoken in the past about the value of tonal consistency, lest your script feels disjointed or unbalanced. Still, there's something to be said for a little variety in tone. Think of it like how a counter-harmony compliments the lead singer in a song, or how a song's bridge offers some relief from the main verses of the melody. (And as I know very little about music, that's how far I'll take that analogy.)
Ringer is so tonally consistent that it's almost a mono-tone. The show seems to be striving for a noir tone, but it takes itself so damn seriously that it sucks any potential fun out of the premise. As the concept has the potential to be goofy, I can almost understand why the producers would work so hard to ground it. The problem is that it leaves the actors with only a few notes they can play. Gellar, Ioan Gruffudd, and Kristopher Polaha have all shown their range on past projects, and there's ample evidence that they've got a gift for comic timing. Unfortunately, there's no chance for any of them to have any fun with the morose characters and the situations they find themselves in.
Contrast that with Revenge. Though Emily's mission of vengeance provides the show with its spine, there's been a bit of levity in pretty much every episode. Gabriel Mann's Nolan character is an effective sidekick for Emily, being the only one who knows who she is. He's eager to help out, but at least at first, she resents his butting in. His snide, sarcastic attitude tends to steal nearly every scene he's in and he's often used to puncture the pretension of some of the other characters.
It doesn't stop there. Both Revenge and Ringer feature storylines focused on teen characters. In Ringer, the story of Siobhan's step-daughter so far has ended up being an excuse for greater melodrama. She's been thrown out of her prep school over drug use and has some trouble fitting in at public school. Tonally, it's no relief from the melodrama of Bridget's life.
In contrast, Revenge treats its two teenage characters - Charlotte (Krista B. Allen) and Declan (Conor Paolo) - as the two innocents in the next of vipers that is the Hamptons. She's the rich girl and he's the working class guy from the wrong side of the tracks. While that's hardly a dynamic dripping with originality, the two actors manage to make the budding romance a bit cute and endearing. It works because it doesn't feel like everything else in the show - and it rarely takes up a disproportionate part of the episode.
The other difference in tone is that Revenge is often all about how Emily gets the upper hand and takes someone down. There's a vicarious thrill for the audience in seeing someone get what's coming to them. Ringer never has that release. Bridget never gets to win - nothing EVER seems to go right for her. Week after week, the show seems to be an exercise in making Bridget miserable.
From a dramatic standpoint it makes sense to continually challenge your character. There's that old saw about the way to write good drama is "Act One - get your character stuck up in a tree. Act Two - Throw rocks at them." If the rocks seem to be unrelenting, there's the risk that the audience will become numb to the blows. Apathy is the real enemy of drama. Revenge makes excellent use of shifts in momentum by letting Emily win, and then throwing her a few setbacks now and then.
Certainly these aren't the only reasons for the gulf in quality between the two shows. I don't think it's possible to underestimate the importance of tone, though.
Interestingly, both series featured the lead characters passing themselves off as someone they were not. In Revenge, Amanda Clarke returns to the Hamptons for revenge on the people who destroyed her father's life and reputation 17 years earlier. Having assumed the name "Emily Thorne," Amanda uses her amassed fortune and insanely detailed plans to take down her father's betrayers one-by-one.
Ringer, on the other hand, as Gellar playing identical twins. One has married into wealth, while naturally the other one is a stripper on the run from the mob boss she was meant to testify against. The wealthy twin Siobhan disappears soon after meeting with her sister - a sister none of her friends know about. Thus, the poor sister, Bridget, decides to take her place, only to find that her sister's seemingly envious life is full of its own tension and drama.
Now that we're about a half-dozen or so episodes into each series, it's clear that Revenge has pulled way ahead of Ringer, not just in the ratings, but in critical buzz and in fan reaction. Revenge has been one of the better received new shows this year, while Ringer is viewed mostly as a disappointment. To be fair, Ringer has shown incremental improvement creatively week-to-week, even if it still clearly has a way to go.
But what is Revenge doing right that Ringer is doing wrong?
One thing that strikes me about the two shows is that Revenge employs a greater variance of tone. I know I've spoken in the past about the value of tonal consistency, lest your script feels disjointed or unbalanced. Still, there's something to be said for a little variety in tone. Think of it like how a counter-harmony compliments the lead singer in a song, or how a song's bridge offers some relief from the main verses of the melody. (And as I know very little about music, that's how far I'll take that analogy.)
Ringer is so tonally consistent that it's almost a mono-tone. The show seems to be striving for a noir tone, but it takes itself so damn seriously that it sucks any potential fun out of the premise. As the concept has the potential to be goofy, I can almost understand why the producers would work so hard to ground it. The problem is that it leaves the actors with only a few notes they can play. Gellar, Ioan Gruffudd, and Kristopher Polaha have all shown their range on past projects, and there's ample evidence that they've got a gift for comic timing. Unfortunately, there's no chance for any of them to have any fun with the morose characters and the situations they find themselves in.
Contrast that with Revenge. Though Emily's mission of vengeance provides the show with its spine, there's been a bit of levity in pretty much every episode. Gabriel Mann's Nolan character is an effective sidekick for Emily, being the only one who knows who she is. He's eager to help out, but at least at first, she resents his butting in. His snide, sarcastic attitude tends to steal nearly every scene he's in and he's often used to puncture the pretension of some of the other characters.
It doesn't stop there. Both Revenge and Ringer feature storylines focused on teen characters. In Ringer, the story of Siobhan's step-daughter so far has ended up being an excuse for greater melodrama. She's been thrown out of her prep school over drug use and has some trouble fitting in at public school. Tonally, it's no relief from the melodrama of Bridget's life.
In contrast, Revenge treats its two teenage characters - Charlotte (Krista B. Allen) and Declan (Conor Paolo) - as the two innocents in the next of vipers that is the Hamptons. She's the rich girl and he's the working class guy from the wrong side of the tracks. While that's hardly a dynamic dripping with originality, the two actors manage to make the budding romance a bit cute and endearing. It works because it doesn't feel like everything else in the show - and it rarely takes up a disproportionate part of the episode.
The other difference in tone is that Revenge is often all about how Emily gets the upper hand and takes someone down. There's a vicarious thrill for the audience in seeing someone get what's coming to them. Ringer never has that release. Bridget never gets to win - nothing EVER seems to go right for her. Week after week, the show seems to be an exercise in making Bridget miserable.
From a dramatic standpoint it makes sense to continually challenge your character. There's that old saw about the way to write good drama is "Act One - get your character stuck up in a tree. Act Two - Throw rocks at them." If the rocks seem to be unrelenting, there's the risk that the audience will become numb to the blows. Apathy is the real enemy of drama. Revenge makes excellent use of shifts in momentum by letting Emily win, and then throwing her a few setbacks now and then.
Certainly these aren't the only reasons for the gulf in quality between the two shows. I don't think it's possible to underestimate the importance of tone, though.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)