Comments on: hallam foe: open source filmmaking

By: Witte Brigilte

Witte Brigilte — Fri, 04 Nov 2005 07:13:01 +0000

hallam foe: open source filmmaking

hallam foe: open sourc…

By: Philip Raga

Philip Raga — Fri, 04 Nov 2005 00:18:14 +0000

hallam foe: open source filmmaking

hallam foe: open sourc…

By: Christopher Coulter

Christopher Coulter — Mon, 24 Oct 2005 10:23:19 +0000

Ack. Trigger happy POST return hit. Oh well…

By: Christopher Coulter

Christopher Coulter — Mon, 24 Oct 2005 10:18:27 +0000

Focus groups and audience feedback have always been part of the equation, it’s just a tad more demographically-targeted than the blogger touchy-feely Internet randomness. And you don’t play the film to the critics either, as professional critics have a differing outlook. Crits hated Flightplan but audiences lapped it up. Crits loved The Constant Gardener but audiences found it a chore. The Crits got toothaches over Dreamer, but audiences love such feel-good spin. Entertainment vs. Art…the eternal battle.
And single visions also work out, having every Producer or Development guy kick it around muddles it up so much that it’s worthless. And never change until ALL agree, as Development has to crank out agreed-upon notes, otherwise you will be in eternal rewrite hell. I can see the value in a limited small-focus group sense (under NDA and all) but not this ‘open source’ running water.
Besides you really have to sit down and talk over the story and hash out the big picture, as without an full assessment as to what the ‘800 lb gorilla’ wants, imparting my vision on someone else’s vision is a ticket to nowhere. Open Sourcing seems endless work before your figure out WHERE said person is heading. Makign teh script better, tighter and more functional
But zoetrope.com is quite useful (although I’d never want to kill future potential) but craft-honing is always a good thing, I personally just like to memorize and tell the story, everyone can feedback on the story, a far better idea than helping write the script itself. Heck, once you have a good outline, the script sort of writes itself. Tell the story, get feedback on the story, write the script yourself and if need be bring in a script consultant, not getting the unwashed Internet masses.
As for your points…
“He gets to know of my existence as a screenwriter.” — Bit naive eh? Hollywood is full of them. Dime a dozen. Recall ‘The Last Shot’ signature line? “This is Hollywood. Just go outside and ask anyone you see to give you a script. A gardener, a cripple, a child molester. They’ve all got ‘em.”

By: Webs

Webs — Mon, 24 Oct 2005 07:12:15 +0000

This script analysis is the sort of thing TriggerStreet was made for.
Part of the TriggerStreet policy for providing the service is right of first refusal on script purchases, but if you can work around that, open a TriggerStreet account, post your script there, and do a few reviews yourselves to pump up your credits.
You’ll have a dozen or more above-average assessments within a few days.

By: Roy Blumenthal

Roy Blumenthal — Mon, 24 Oct 2005 04:05:35 +0000

There is definitely a precedent for open source script-improvement.
Billy Wilder talked to Cameron Crowe about spitballing sessions with comedy writers in the book, CONVERSATIONS WITH WILDER.
These guys would meet once a week. They’d mention story blockages, or sketch rough outlines of work-in-progress. They’d each contribute freely and without expectation of credit to each other’s scripts. Some contributions would be used. Some wouldn’t.
Overall, the comedy writing skills of ALL participants stayed sharp and even improved.
Who would have benefited if each of the half dozen or so particpants in those spitballing sessions were demanding payment???
Blue skies
love
Roy
PS: Dammit. I’ve looked through the book to try and find the names of all of the participants. But the index is terrible, and I simply cannot find it on a quick flick through. My memory tells me that Simon brothers were somehow involved. Does anyone know?

By: Roy Blumenthal

Roy Blumenthal — Mon, 24 Oct 2005 03:43:25 +0000

Hiya Christopher…
I think some of your assumptions might profit from being challenged. My take on your comments, even though you’ve used smileys, is that you’re firmly in the paradigm of ‘payment equals quality’, and ‘lack of payment equals marginal talent’.
I’m in the paradigm that the open source movement allows powerful acts of fruitful generosity.
For instance, I’m not an incompetent screenwriter. And I devoted a good two and a bit hours to reading the screenplay (in Word format), and a good few more hours to making notes on that same screenplay.
I’m very most certainly NOT expecting to get paid, and I give my comments freely and with my blessings, HOPING that they’re useful in some way, and might find their way into a shot movie. Nobody has ANY fears at all that I’ll sue them for profit participation!!!
That thought could only come from non-open source paradigm thinking.
Here’s how I see it.
My offering comments to David serves me in many different ways.
1. He gets to know of my existence as a screenwriter. If he likes any of my comments, he may say to himself, ‘Hmmmm, this Roy fella stuck on the southern tip of Africa seems to know a thing or two. I may think of asking him for a script he may have lying about. Or maybe one day I’ll ask him to take a stab at an idea I have running around in my brain.‘
2. Other massive-media types who read Hugh’s blog get to see my no-strings-attached comments. (I have to point out that even though I benefit from these comments, I’m offering them freely. I’m not EXPECTING anything at all to come from them.) They may look into my world and say, ‘Hey… Roy’s useable to me.‘
3. I get to hone my critical skills more, and I learn more about the craft of movie writing. I don’t know if you’ve ever been active on Coppola’s zoetrope.com. The way that works is that writers have to offer meaningful critiques of around five screenplays before they can get feedback on their own screenplay. One of the premises is that the more you read and critique, the better your own writing becomes.
4. I kick myself in my own butt and say, ‘Okay! I’ve GOT scripts! Write the goddamn marketing blurbs and start shipping them to producers.’ Commenting on David’s screenplay lights a fire under me.
5. I get to rub shoulders with an established filmmaker. An indie filmmaker. Someone able to raise money to make films. This is quite simply delicious for me.
There are probably countless other reasons to offer my thinking to David freely and without expectation.
I trust that David is able to look at comments and say, ‘Hmmm… that’s a crap comment, that’s a good one, that’s an even crapper one. And yeah! Here’s the big one!!!’ I trust that HE has the critical distance on his own script to be able to find value in the myriad ideas offered by this diverse bunch of readers.
I also trust the levels of my own criticism. I know my skills. And I’m sure they shine through. And hey… if they don’t… it MAY be that I’m deluding myself.
But you know what? If I’m deluding myself, it would be better for me to know that. And commenting in such a public forum is a very exposing thing to do. I’m naked before the world.
If I’m delusional, the world will tell me. Which would be great, cos then I wouldn’t have to waste my time redrafting my script.
Re your PS about the format… David wrote it in Final Draft. Only professional screenwriters are likely to have Final Draft, so if he offered it to us in that format, only those of us who own Final Draft would be able to read the thing.
If he offered it to us in PDF format, that is intrinsically a non-open source format. It cannot be edited. It cannot be bookmarked. It’s closed. It does not INVITE comment.
I have legal copies of Movie Magic, Final Draft and Sophocles on my machine. I also have ScriptWright, an add-on for MS Word that is just as professional as ANY package.
But I love Sophocles. It is the package I choose to write in. Do I see you as a lesser being because you choose Final Draft??? And yes… I can easily export it to Final Draft format if I need to send it to Hollywood.
So why should David fit in with your preconceptions of what’s acceptable? Remember, he’s GOT financing for this film already, whether he wrote it on napkins or in Windows Notepad or on a typewriter.
So, Christopher… I challenge you to take the three or four hours off from your speechwriting and crit David’s script. I’ll bet you you’ll get huge benefit out of it, even if that’s just the warm fuzzy feeling of sharing your expertise and knowledge.
Blue skies
love
Roy

By: hugh macleod

hugh macleod — Sun, 23 Oct 2005 19:28:00 +0000

Christopher, I think from a producer’s standpoint, the “This is the way it is” attitude of many of my “Traditional Media” colleagues should be encouraged. It keeps their prices down

By: Christopher Coulter

Christopher Coulter — Sun, 23 Oct 2005 16:37:54 +0000

Ahhh, culture of participation becomes freeloader central; more eyeballs doesn’t translate into quality. An Army of wantabe-amateur-script-consultants or a small hit team of proven producers? Personally I’d just pay Alex Epstein some bucks and have him at it. Now marketing the movie, itself, beforehand is a good idea, but an open-invite to help craft a script is pure chaos.
Plus it ruins any sense of discovery, the ending is known, spoiler-breaking is the unpardonable sin all along Wilshire. And not to mention that this opens up a LEGAL can of worms. If did a rewrite (which it so obviously needs, never mind just the 15 pages) and he uses it, and I get no cut, you better believe I will sic lawyers and WGA all over him. This is DANGEROUS territory, he should know that.
I, myself, am a screenwriter (sadly more speechwriter these days), but you don’t get a rewrite man for free. Besides scripting is an ever-changing vocational art, placing script in the hands of people who don’t know the basics of Hollywood script format or the in’s and out’s of the Development Community is an invitation to disaster. I could help, but ummm, show green stuff.
And it’s VASTLY different than Robert and Shel, but even that is really 70–80% Shel and 20–30% Wiley editors (Robert’s just the name), with the bloggers doing the fact-checking and editing help for free, with zero return. Open Source, blah, it’s usually nominal talent getting other people to do their work for them.
PS — In MSFT Word format? You NUTS? Final Draft or Movie Maker PDF only. Scripts in Word are suicide, Readers won’t touch them, you will get NO coverage. MS Word scripts? Ok, that’s ANOTHER unpardonable sin.

By: Chris H.

Chris H. — Sun, 23 Oct 2005 11:10:39 +0000

Not really a dumb idea. A lot of the great comedians of the 30s and 40s got to hone their material in front of live audiences before they used it in film, as well as guys like Roger Corman whose films would go from town to town, he would see what worked in front of a crowd and would re-edit before they hit the next town.
The only problem you might get is if someone decided to take you to court for a share of the films proceeds because one of their ideas got used.

By: hugh macleod

hugh macleod — Sun, 23 Oct 2005 06:45:00 +0000

Fair enough, Tim, but I also changed the contents of the file…

By: Tim Windsor

Tim Windsor — Sat, 22 Oct 2005 22:35:45 +0000

Hugh,
RE: Pulling down the draft, you need to either rename the file or yank it off the server, because its location is still there in the Google cache.

By: Sandra

Sandra — Fri, 21 Oct 2005 22:06:46 +0000

Hi Just to let you know that, in a different field, a fellow blogger is making a similar move by inviting comments to the manuscript of his international politics book: http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/002365.html

By: everyhuman

everyhuman — Wed, 19 Oct 2005 02:39:14 +0000

what is blogging?

Joshua Minton @ boywearspants got me thinking. He said, “On a grander scale, I believe that, with the Internet, we are literally watching the virtual creation of the collective human mind into a tangible form that can be accessed from…

By: Roy Blumenthal

Roy Blumenthal — Wed, 19 Oct 2005 02:02:24 +0000

Yo David…
Re losing 15 pages
I’m fairly certain that the whole of the first act as it stands is largely extraneous. It’s ‘nice-to-have’, but not essential.
Also, the treehouse stuff is pretty high budget to shoot, so maybe culling it will release budget for the other stuff?
But nah… I quite like the solitary madness of the treehouse, and the way it foregrounds his rooftop adventures.
It’s more a case of trimming that first act to the essential character-establishing scenes. And adding the bits that intro our female lead.
Thinking in terms of writing a female lead that is a tad more ‘star-friendly’, I’d like you to give me a tiny scene showing me that she’s FORCED to have sex with Alisdair, and that it’s not VOLUNTARY.
(I know there’s a sort of implication that he’s got something over her, but she nullifies that near the end of her arc by suggesting that she’s kinda okay with it.)
What I’m expressing here is that I need her to be more sympathetic. At present, I don’t feel much for her. She’s a bit of a placeholder for our heroe’s development.
Blue skies
love
Roy