Rochee asks:
I'm a regular reader of your wonderful blog, and I have a question that is keeping me up late at night. I have developed a pilot for a tv show that I think is pretty awesome, but I just learned that one of the primary relationship dynamics in my teleplay is very similar to a relationship dynamic that is at the center of a feature script that is in development (Father Daughter Time).
Although my overall concept is very different from Father Daughter Time, my protagonist is also an unemployed recovering alcoholic with a complicated relationship with his ex-wife and his 11-year old daughter. My protagonist is also involved in illegal activities. Every other aspect of my pilot is different, but will these parallels hurt the reception of my pilot?
I doubt it. Frankly, for such a grounded, character-based story, I wouldn't be worried even if there was a passing similarity conceptually. There have been a lot of scripts, movies and TV shows over the years that have dealt with a recovering alcoholic who has a complicated relationship with his family. A broad character outline that bears some resemblance to another pre-existing character is hardly cause for concern.
How many lawyers have we seen on TV over the years who are zealous in pursuit of winning cases, even to the point where it leads them to skirt ethical and professional guidelines. How many young doctors have we seen who get emotionally involved in their cases? (And how often are these people depicted as brilliant in their professional lives, but struggling to maintain their personal relationships, be they marriages or friendships?)
Honestly, "recovering alcoholic who has complicated relationships with his family" probably describes at least half the alcoholic characters out there. I wouldn't worry about it. A parallel that broad won't hurt you, especially since FATHER-DAUGHTER TIME hasn't even been produced yet.
Showing posts with label spec sales. Show all posts
Showing posts with label spec sales. Show all posts
Thursday, October 31, 2013
Thursday, June 28, 2012
"Any chance they just want to buy my idea and have someone else rewrite it?"
A writer calling themselves "Inconsolable Cat" sent me the following question:
How likely are you to pass up the line a script that has a great concept, but which is merely competently executed? Have you ever written, "The only good thing here is the idea. But what a great idea!"? How likely is a studio to buy a script just to own the concept, opting to send it to an established pro for a re-write?
I've been asked variations on this question before, and usually with a specific subtext to the query. I'm not saying "Inconsolable" is guilty of this motivation, but this seems like a good opportunity to address those who are.
When I'm asked, "If the idea is great, would the studio buy that and get someone else to rewrite it?" my first thought is that I'm dealing with a writer who doesn't have confidence that their writing is up to the level of other professionals. But somehow, they're convinced their idea is wildly original, so original that they can cash in by selling that and banking on someone else to get hired to do all the hard work.
I hate this sort of attitude.
It smacks of the laziest sort of writer, the kind of writer who's just in it to "cash in." A real writer with a brilliant idea shouldn't want to give it up. A true writer resists someone else coming in to work on his baby.
If you want to be a writer and you have an idea you believe in, they should have to pry that script out of your cold dead hands. The only reason you should ask the question above is out of the fear that you won't get to complete the project on your own.
If you welcome the idea of someone just tossing a nominal fee at you to buy the idea and then do what they want with it, just get the fuck out right now.
I mean it. This isn't a profession for dilettantes. When you treat screenwriting in that manner, it's disrespectful to the people who work hard to develop their craft and better their product. If you don't show respect to the profession, I'm under no obligation to show respect to you.
As I said, Inconsolable Cat might not be coming at the question from the motivations I ascribe above, but I know that there are people out there who DO think like that.
To cover the rest of the questions, yes, there have been plenty of coverages where I've said, "Good concept, terrible execution." It's somewhat rare to find an EXCELLENT concept and terrible execution, only because the work of a weak writer might end up undermining anything good about the script.
A weak writer also is less likely to conceive with an entirely unique concept. If it's an idea they came up with, odds are someone ELSE has thought of something similar, and they might have done it even better. So while readers like me can always champion the concept while slamming the script, a sub-par writing sample does no one any favors.
The decisions about that kind of purchase are made above my paygrade. While it might happen now and then that a concept is SO impressive that it merits immediate purchase, I can't say I've ever seen that scenario happen at any of the companies I've worked for. In other words, don't bank on it.
I'd say it's more likely that a script would sell if it's by written by a writer just short of professional level. That writer would then get their guild-obligated rewrite and then the script would get passed on to another pro only after it was decided the original writer couldn't get the script to where it needed to be. That kind of thing is probably more common than the concept being bought and the original writer being immediately removed.
Your goal should to sell that script, and be strong enough to be hired on even after the requisite rewrite. Strive to be a writer, not a concept farmer.
How likely are you to pass up the line a script that has a great concept, but which is merely competently executed? Have you ever written, "The only good thing here is the idea. But what a great idea!"? How likely is a studio to buy a script just to own the concept, opting to send it to an established pro for a re-write?
I've been asked variations on this question before, and usually with a specific subtext to the query. I'm not saying "Inconsolable" is guilty of this motivation, but this seems like a good opportunity to address those who are.
When I'm asked, "If the idea is great, would the studio buy that and get someone else to rewrite it?" my first thought is that I'm dealing with a writer who doesn't have confidence that their writing is up to the level of other professionals. But somehow, they're convinced their idea is wildly original, so original that they can cash in by selling that and banking on someone else to get hired to do all the hard work.
I hate this sort of attitude.
It smacks of the laziest sort of writer, the kind of writer who's just in it to "cash in." A real writer with a brilliant idea shouldn't want to give it up. A true writer resists someone else coming in to work on his baby.
If you want to be a writer and you have an idea you believe in, they should have to pry that script out of your cold dead hands. The only reason you should ask the question above is out of the fear that you won't get to complete the project on your own.
If you welcome the idea of someone just tossing a nominal fee at you to buy the idea and then do what they want with it, just get the fuck out right now.
I mean it. This isn't a profession for dilettantes. When you treat screenwriting in that manner, it's disrespectful to the people who work hard to develop their craft and better their product. If you don't show respect to the profession, I'm under no obligation to show respect to you.
As I said, Inconsolable Cat might not be coming at the question from the motivations I ascribe above, but I know that there are people out there who DO think like that.
To cover the rest of the questions, yes, there have been plenty of coverages where I've said, "Good concept, terrible execution." It's somewhat rare to find an EXCELLENT concept and terrible execution, only because the work of a weak writer might end up undermining anything good about the script.
A weak writer also is less likely to conceive with an entirely unique concept. If it's an idea they came up with, odds are someone ELSE has thought of something similar, and they might have done it even better. So while readers like me can always champion the concept while slamming the script, a sub-par writing sample does no one any favors.
The decisions about that kind of purchase are made above my paygrade. While it might happen now and then that a concept is SO impressive that it merits immediate purchase, I can't say I've ever seen that scenario happen at any of the companies I've worked for. In other words, don't bank on it.
I'd say it's more likely that a script would sell if it's by written by a writer just short of professional level. That writer would then get their guild-obligated rewrite and then the script would get passed on to another pro only after it was decided the original writer couldn't get the script to where it needed to be. That kind of thing is probably more common than the concept being bought and the original writer being immediately removed.
Your goal should to sell that script, and be strong enough to be hired on even after the requisite rewrite. Strive to be a writer, not a concept farmer.
Monday, August 24, 2009
Links about industry humor and the Spec Market
Jason Scoggins over at Life on the Bubble has posted a new Spec Market Scorecard. Check it out. Among his insights:
"Going out wide remains a terrible sales strategy: Just 2 of the 84 scripts that went wide after May 1 have sold. That's 2.4% over the past 15 weeks. Time to assemble a death panel."
And since you'll need a laugh after that, mosey on over to Go into the Story and read Scott's hilarious interview with the man behind the satirical website "The Hollywood Roaster." (It's like the Onion if it made fun of Variety and The Hollywood Reporter.)
"Going out wide remains a terrible sales strategy: Just 2 of the 84 scripts that went wide after May 1 have sold. That's 2.4% over the past 15 weeks. Time to assemble a death panel."
And since you'll need a laugh after that, mosey on over to Go into the Story and read Scott's hilarious interview with the man behind the satirical website "The Hollywood Roaster." (It's like the Onion if it made fun of Variety and The Hollywood Reporter.)
Monday, June 15, 2009
State of the Spec Market
I figure that this link might be of interest to many of my readers:
http://www.lifeonthebubble.com/2009/06/has-the-spec-market-been-irreversibly-damaged.html
Among the revelations:
"As of the end of May,
- only 14 out of the 227 spec scripts that went wide had sold; and
- only one studio had bought more than 3 scripts so far this year (Warner Bros., with 5)."
"The conventional wisdom among the executives and producers I have been talking to is that the studios simply aren't buying as much material as they used to...
"For better or worse, the studios seem not to be buying things they don't intend to make, and when it comes to spec scripts, they're looking for projects that are ready to go (i.e., a script that is damned close to shootable, with an attached filmmaker with whom they know they want to work)."
More information in depth at the link. Check it out.
http://www.lifeonthebubble.com/2009/06/has-the-spec-market-been-irreversibly-damaged.html
Among the revelations:
"As of the end of May,
- only 14 out of the 227 spec scripts that went wide had sold; and
- only one studio had bought more than 3 scripts so far this year (Warner Bros., with 5)."
"The conventional wisdom among the executives and producers I have been talking to is that the studios simply aren't buying as much material as they used to...
"For better or worse, the studios seem not to be buying things they don't intend to make, and when it comes to spec scripts, they're looking for projects that are ready to go (i.e., a script that is damned close to shootable, with an attached filmmaker with whom they know they want to work)."
More information in depth at the link. Check it out.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
