Working with managers is a tricky business in general, but in this economy it is especially challenging. As writers, we're told, the spec market has disappeared. A script, to be sold, must be "packaged" with a name actor attached. Going to a studio with a naked spec script is not a recipe for success.
So, while it's a very cool feeling to nail a historical time period in your research, to nail the accent, rhythm, and cadences in your dialogue, to have some scenes that verily pop off the page...it's not enough. That "actor of the moment" has to take a shine to it to give it the luster it needs to pass through the necessary fiery hoops and land in development.
How do you do that? You need more than a solid structure and the illumination of a certain time period. You need a protagonist -a lead character- that grabs a name actor and pulls him or her in. So we face a choice with our epic, period script: do one more pass to improve the character (as requested by the managers) or hold the line and say we've done enough work.
We've been working on this script for close to one year, and we don't want to be spinning our wheels in another year after having done several more passes. But the "character pass" is a reasonable request, and we're inclined to agree with the managers. After spending our time, paring down the script from 140 pgs to 120 pgs and getting the structure and the dialogue right, we may have lost sight of the character and his motivations. What makes him tick is a question we need to get at.
There's still no guarantee we hook an actor with additional character work rendered on an already solid script, but we're deferring to the professionals and their expertise on what makes a solid script a sellable script.
Still, we're talking limited time because we naturally want this to move into the next phase--that is the selling phase. Check back with us for updates in the coming month.
Erin Go Bragh!
Friday, April 24, 2009
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Massachusetts Tax Credit Wars
Not too long ago, in a state very, very close...
The Masssachusetts Tax Credit Wars erupted. In about 2005, Massachusetts (along with many other states) implemented tax credits for film and television productions. If a production spent enough money in the state, it would qualify for tax credits. What followed was a boom in production in the the Bay State. Movies began to pour into Massachusetts like never before. From "The Departed" to "Mall Cop" to "21," for the past few years Massachusetts has felt like Hollywood East. Indeed, based on the tax incentives and the boom in production, several movie studios are in the planning stages of building permanent facilities in Massachusetts.
But then, the economy took a nose dive and the state began to run a huge budget deficit. Not, mind you, California proportions (but, huge nonetheless!). At last count, the debt was more than $2 billion. Some began to wonder whether offering tax credits to out-of-state productions -when the Bay State is in the hole- is wise policy. That growing chorus of opinion prompted this article in The Boston Herald: http://bh.heraldinteractive.com/news/regional/view/2009_03_28_Study:_Say_goodbye_to_Hollywood:_Report_claims_state_tax_credits_don_t_pay_off/srvc=home&position=0
The Herald article prompted an immediate response from the film community, including the state's own Mass Film Office (MFO). The MFO and others claimed the study was faulty, not to mention a conflict of interest for those who produced it. The tax credit wars were on!
Where do the Sages stand? As members of the local film community, we naturally want to see robust film production occurring in Massachusetts. Those who argue that tax credits drain the Treasury of revenue are perhaps missing the point of the credits. Credits, those who are for them will argue, are designed to lure productions to a given state and not to be a source of revenue for the Treasury (everyone knows how fierce the competition is for Tinseltown dollars especially from some of the right-to-work southern states). These mainly L.A.-based production companies will spend -and spend big- in the state on everything from equipment to labor to hotels and so on. It's an argument for supply side or trickle down economics, which, of course, is hard to measure because much of the spending a production generates is fungible. Those who argue against credits can easily point to a depleted Treasury as their proof positive of the credits' deleterious effects, while it's hard for the other side to provide metrics.
Whether a credit is exercised by the production or sold to a company in-state for use against its tax burden, it's clear someone's tax return is being eased--and thus the Treasury ends up with fewer funds. In the final analysis, it's political: Do you think money in the Treasury, where the state can spend it, is a greater good than in the hands of citizens? It's a debate that mirrors what's happening in Washington.
As for me, it seems pretty obvious: a decade ago there was next to no film production going on in the state. All that has changed now. You can't tax what isn't there, so if the tax credits are eliminated the productions won't come and no one will have revenue--not the state...not local businesses...not local workers. On balance, the State House might not have as much tax revenue for its coffers by providing generous credits, but it's local businesses that will flourish as they meet the demands these large out-of-state productions require. That impact may not show up on the balance sheet of the government, but ask anyone who has a grocery store near a production how they are doing: the response will be the only evidence one needs to come out in favor of retaining the tax credits.
-Randy
The Masssachusetts Tax Credit Wars erupted. In about 2005, Massachusetts (along with many other states) implemented tax credits for film and television productions. If a production spent enough money in the state, it would qualify for tax credits. What followed was a boom in production in the the Bay State. Movies began to pour into Massachusetts like never before. From "The Departed" to "Mall Cop" to "21," for the past few years Massachusetts has felt like Hollywood East. Indeed, based on the tax incentives and the boom in production, several movie studios are in the planning stages of building permanent facilities in Massachusetts.
But then, the economy took a nose dive and the state began to run a huge budget deficit. Not, mind you, California proportions (but, huge nonetheless!). At last count, the debt was more than $2 billion. Some began to wonder whether offering tax credits to out-of-state productions -when the Bay State is in the hole- is wise policy. That growing chorus of opinion prompted this article in The Boston Herald: http://bh.heraldinteractive.com/news/regional/view/2009_03_28_Study:_Say_goodbye_to_Hollywood:_Report_claims_state_tax_credits_don_t_pay_off/srvc=home&position=0
The Herald article prompted an immediate response from the film community, including the state's own Mass Film Office (MFO). The MFO and others claimed the study was faulty, not to mention a conflict of interest for those who produced it. The tax credit wars were on!
Where do the Sages stand? As members of the local film community, we naturally want to see robust film production occurring in Massachusetts. Those who argue that tax credits drain the Treasury of revenue are perhaps missing the point of the credits. Credits, those who are for them will argue, are designed to lure productions to a given state and not to be a source of revenue for the Treasury (everyone knows how fierce the competition is for Tinseltown dollars especially from some of the right-to-work southern states). These mainly L.A.-based production companies will spend -and spend big- in the state on everything from equipment to labor to hotels and so on. It's an argument for supply side or trickle down economics, which, of course, is hard to measure because much of the spending a production generates is fungible. Those who argue against credits can easily point to a depleted Treasury as their proof positive of the credits' deleterious effects, while it's hard for the other side to provide metrics.
Whether a credit is exercised by the production or sold to a company in-state for use against its tax burden, it's clear someone's tax return is being eased--and thus the Treasury ends up with fewer funds. In the final analysis, it's political: Do you think money in the Treasury, where the state can spend it, is a greater good than in the hands of citizens? It's a debate that mirrors what's happening in Washington.
As for me, it seems pretty obvious: a decade ago there was next to no film production going on in the state. All that has changed now. You can't tax what isn't there, so if the tax credits are eliminated the productions won't come and no one will have revenue--not the state...not local businesses...not local workers. On balance, the State House might not have as much tax revenue for its coffers by providing generous credits, but it's local businesses that will flourish as they meet the demands these large out-of-state productions require. That impact may not show up on the balance sheet of the government, but ask anyone who has a grocery store near a production how they are doing: the response will be the only evidence one needs to come out in favor of retaining the tax credits.
-Randy
Monday, April 13, 2009
The Brave New World of the Internet
My late stepfather, Kirk Scharfenberg, was a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist with The Boston Globe. For years, as an Op-Ed columnist, then Metro Editor, he wrote opinion pieces and edited and mentored dozens of Globe journalists. Our home in Dorchester during Kirk's heyday with the paper was always full of journalists, politicos, and fellow travelers. It was a very stimulating environment for a young high school student like myself. So, it was with some sadness that I, along with many other fans of the paper, learned that The Globe may be shuttered by its parent company The New York Times. The Sunday paper has upwards of 350,000 subscribers so, we're told, it's not a subscription issue. It's a problem with the business model.
A problem with the business model?
I don't know about you, but there is something very special about the feel of the newspaper in your hands that cannot be replicated in Boston.com. Randy and I are both big Red Sox fans and there's nothing quite like reading the Globe sports page. The obits of The Globe are jokingly referred to as "the Irish sports pages" and, for a certain generation who don't even necessarily own a computer, they have long been considered required reading over the morning cup of joe. So, the threat to the Globe got me thinking about the ways - large and small - that I have had to adapt to the whims of technology as a teacher and writer.
The Script Sages have started to both "blog" and now "tweet" (we're up to 38 followers in under two weeks on Twitter!); we have embraced the technology in the hope of jumpstarting the business model of promoting our work as writers quickly and cheaply. Before that, perhaps like the (so it seems now) old fashioned Globe, we thought we could simply write and send out our scripts--and this was the business model. No longer, as we've learned that writing to succeed means more than just churning out scripts. God love the writer who writes the script that sells without having to do much self-promotion, but that is the extreme exception. It takes a lot of other writing (on blogs such as this) to make the "screen" writing pay off. And the internet is undeniably the medium to be embraced to help any writer win success.
But what of my morning paper?
In a similar vein, students who embrace technology so wholeheartedly that it crowds out the joy of hitting the stacks in the library or cracking the spine of a good book...worry me. These students worry me because part of what makes a good writer - be it journalist, or blogger, or screenwriter - is that they are diligent and voracious readers and researchers, are familiar with the canon of western literature, and can string a sentence together on the page. And there's a feel to the page that the internet can never replicate.
-Joe
A problem with the business model?
I don't know about you, but there is something very special about the feel of the newspaper in your hands that cannot be replicated in Boston.com. Randy and I are both big Red Sox fans and there's nothing quite like reading the Globe sports page. The obits of The Globe are jokingly referred to as "the Irish sports pages" and, for a certain generation who don't even necessarily own a computer, they have long been considered required reading over the morning cup of joe. So, the threat to the Globe got me thinking about the ways - large and small - that I have had to adapt to the whims of technology as a teacher and writer.
The Script Sages have started to both "blog" and now "tweet" (we're up to 38 followers in under two weeks on Twitter!); we have embraced the technology in the hope of jumpstarting the business model of promoting our work as writers quickly and cheaply. Before that, perhaps like the (so it seems now) old fashioned Globe, we thought we could simply write and send out our scripts--and this was the business model. No longer, as we've learned that writing to succeed means more than just churning out scripts. God love the writer who writes the script that sells without having to do much self-promotion, but that is the extreme exception. It takes a lot of other writing (on blogs such as this) to make the "screen" writing pay off. And the internet is undeniably the medium to be embraced to help any writer win success.
But what of my morning paper?
In a similar vein, students who embrace technology so wholeheartedly that it crowds out the joy of hitting the stacks in the library or cracking the spine of a good book...worry me. These students worry me because part of what makes a good writer - be it journalist, or blogger, or screenwriter - is that they are diligent and voracious readers and researchers, are familiar with the canon of western literature, and can string a sentence together on the page. And there's a feel to the page that the internet can never replicate.
-Joe
Sunday, April 5, 2009
The Sages Now on "Twitter"
Yes, the Script Sages have begun to "tweet." Check us out on Twitter.com under the handle 'ScriptSages'.
In this day and age, you have to explore all the outlets you can, and Twitter is undeniably one of those avenues.
It also gives us a chance to post our thoughts more frequently. We'll still continue with our weekly blog posts here, but these posts are closer to essays on deeper topics. On Twitter, we'll be able to quickly offer our thoughts on a movie we've seen or a development in the local filmmaking industry. We'll even be able to give quick updates on projects we are writing or considering.
So look for us on Twitter and follow along. We'll be happy to link to anyone else who is on Twitter, so check us out and let's keep the conversation going.
-The Sages
In this day and age, you have to explore all the outlets you can, and Twitter is undeniably one of those avenues.
It also gives us a chance to post our thoughts more frequently. We'll still continue with our weekly blog posts here, but these posts are closer to essays on deeper topics. On Twitter, we'll be able to quickly offer our thoughts on a movie we've seen or a development in the local filmmaking industry. We'll even be able to give quick updates on projects we are writing or considering.
So look for us on Twitter and follow along. We'll be happy to link to anyone else who is on Twitter, so check us out and let's keep the conversation going.
-The Sages
Inktip
Inktip.com is one of the most widely known and used script services sites. Writers can post loglines, synopses, or even scripts themselves for producers, agents, and managers to browse. Those looking for scripts can search by genre, number of locations, budget, and so on to find material or new talent. Writers are charged a fee to list their loglines or scripts for features (posting a logline for a short script is free). Producers and agents, I believe, are charged to gain access to the site, and are thoroughly vetted.
Inktip offers other services such as a weekly newsletter, which, for a small fee, provides writers with leads from producers or agents looking for specific types of material. If a writer thinks he has a match, he can contact the producer to pitch his script. Inktip also offers a printed newsletter in which writers can list loglines. This newsletter is circulated periodically to many different sources in the industry. There are also links to script analysis services as well as screenwriting contests and other resources.
Inktip boasts weekly success stories: A script has been optioned, a writer hired-- even a script produced as a result of being listed on its website. Why would a writer not want to sign on, right?
First, let me say that I think Inktip is a great service. There are few websites out there like it and we've followed it from its very early days. Joe and I have listed scripts material of ours, as well as clients, and I continue to use it to list loglines on behalf of BU students for their short scripts.
But, as always, I would exercise caution. I think few of the "success" stories are paying success stories. A writer might be optioned or hired, but it's never listed for how much. Maybe this is to protect the privacy of the writer, but I often wonder how successful the success stories are. Joe and I have had scripts optioned, but that's for $1 and not much has come of those (see previous posts about spec writing) deals. So when I see a writer hired or a script optioned on Inktip I do wonder what the substance of the deal is.
Though I do like Inktip, I can't say Joe and I have had a success story of our own from it. We had interaction with more than a few producers based on a logline or script posted, but the producers, in the end, were either trying to get free work out of us or the interest just withered and died on the vine after a time.
I believe Inktip is more useful for certain kinds of scripts. If you have a sweeping epic or a high-budget drama, you might find less interest on Inktip. But if you have a limited location horror script or a thriller with no F/X then you might have better luck.
If you decide to list a logline or a feature-length script, it's $60 for a six month listing. Is it worth it? That averages out to $10 per month, and I think it's worth a try. Just be aware there is no easy way to success in screenwriting, and listing a script on Inktip will not instantly propel you to fame and fortune. It's may be a toe in the door, and, for its versatility, is something that didn't exist few short years ago (and we should be thankful for that), but it's really the beginning of the road and not the pot of gold (figuratively and literally) to which we all aspire.
We'd love to hear about your experiences with Inktip, so please post your thoughts on this topic.
-Randy
Inktip offers other services such as a weekly newsletter, which, for a small fee, provides writers with leads from producers or agents looking for specific types of material. If a writer thinks he has a match, he can contact the producer to pitch his script. Inktip also offers a printed newsletter in which writers can list loglines. This newsletter is circulated periodically to many different sources in the industry. There are also links to script analysis services as well as screenwriting contests and other resources.
Inktip boasts weekly success stories: A script has been optioned, a writer hired-- even a script produced as a result of being listed on its website. Why would a writer not want to sign on, right?
First, let me say that I think Inktip is a great service. There are few websites out there like it and we've followed it from its very early days. Joe and I have listed scripts material of ours, as well as clients, and I continue to use it to list loglines on behalf of BU students for their short scripts.
But, as always, I would exercise caution. I think few of the "success" stories are paying success stories. A writer might be optioned or hired, but it's never listed for how much. Maybe this is to protect the privacy of the writer, but I often wonder how successful the success stories are. Joe and I have had scripts optioned, but that's for $1 and not much has come of those (see previous posts about spec writing) deals. So when I see a writer hired or a script optioned on Inktip I do wonder what the substance of the deal is.
Though I do like Inktip, I can't say Joe and I have had a success story of our own from it. We had interaction with more than a few producers based on a logline or script posted, but the producers, in the end, were either trying to get free work out of us or the interest just withered and died on the vine after a time.
I believe Inktip is more useful for certain kinds of scripts. If you have a sweeping epic or a high-budget drama, you might find less interest on Inktip. But if you have a limited location horror script or a thriller with no F/X then you might have better luck.
If you decide to list a logline or a feature-length script, it's $60 for a six month listing. Is it worth it? That averages out to $10 per month, and I think it's worth a try. Just be aware there is no easy way to success in screenwriting, and listing a script on Inktip will not instantly propel you to fame and fortune. It's may be a toe in the door, and, for its versatility, is something that didn't exist few short years ago (and we should be thankful for that), but it's really the beginning of the road and not the pot of gold (figuratively and literally) to which we all aspire.
We'd love to hear about your experiences with Inktip, so please post your thoughts on this topic.
-Randy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
