|
This is the third part in a
three-part summary of the 1999 Writers Guild Words Into Pictures Writers Conference. For a
complete lists of panel topics and guests, sponsors, or program information for 2001, visit
the Words Into Pictures website at: http://www.wordsintopictures.org.
* * *
The Entertainment Business
The Writers Guild "Words Into Pictures
1999" Conference brimmed with useful information ranging from inspiring words on creativity
to humorous, anecdotes on craft and career. But one of the greatest jewels that attendees
walked away with was a renewed appreciation for the Entertainment Business. It's not,
afterall, called Show "Art."
"We're not in this to make movies," one
of the panelists explained to a quizzical audience, "We're here to make money." Duh. You
could almost hear the light-bulb pop in a communal epiphany.
The average film loses money. That's a
simple fact. The average film takes $53 million to produce and another $40 million to market
- while the average return is only $50 - 60 million. As a matter of fact, only 8 percent of
the movies made since 1985 grossed over $50 million. Not to mention the fact that movies
with budgets in excess of $50 million must be financed by joint ventures which narrows the
field from about seven players to four. When you think about it, studios must launch 20 to
30 new products - from the ground up - every year. If Microsoft had to develop, market, and
distribute that many loss leaders annually - just to find one hit in the mix, they'd be hard
pressed to stay in business - let alone be profitable. Perhaps this is one of the reasons so
many studios forever shadow dance on the precipice of bankruptcy. The average studio expends
two billion per year - and nets $150 million. The studio system overall has an average ROI
of 5 percent. "It's insane to call this a 'business'!" one of the panelists laughed.
Hollywood makes great use of the "Greater Fool Theory," however they are quickly running out
of other countries and industries to troll for investment partners. Take the business
experiences of "Titanic" versus "Star Wars." One studio exec shared that these were,
respectively, his worst experience and best experience ever." While "Titanic" was fraught
with risk, it did enjoy a great return - and it made a lot of money for the studio.
But, since Lucas financed "Star Wars"
(Phantom Menace - Episode I) himself, all the studio had to do was distribute his property.
Like "Titanic," this film reaped a great return and the studio made a "decent" amount of
money - but at absolutely zero risk. All they had to do was distribute - and they could
sleep at night. Titanic made $600 million in the US - but $1.2 billion overseas. And since
the US has only 5 percent of the world's population, it's no wonder the studios are
marketing multi-nationally because it's easier to get a piece of the remaining 95 percent
than to dig deeper into the 5 percent. The studios have typically relied on video to provide
40 percent of the average film's income. Now, between VHS, DVDs, laser discs, DIVX (already
a goner), fiercely competing and muddying the waters by further segregating this channel,
it's difficult for the studios to know which new technology to invest in for these releases:
the pie gets more and more piecemealed. And since a saturated marketplace has a short memory
span and is unforgiving of delays in distribution, they must make a choice and strike while
the iron's still hot.
If the average consumer goes to see five
movies a year, how do you condense a two-hour character-driven idea into a 26-second visual
sound bite? And get them to go see films like "Shawshank Redemption," "Rushmore,"
"Election," or "Quiz Show?"
There's no sense in developing creative
diversity - if you can't SELL creative diversity. This is perhaps part of the reason for the
bifurcation of the market into big budget movies for everybody and more specific movies for
"somebody" (or a particular market niche). It's hard enough to make bad movies. It's even
harder to make good movies. Fortunately, however, smart movies can become commercial
successes. Take "Shakespeare in Love," "The Fugitive," "Election" (a smart, albeit
unmarketable, movie), even "There's Something About Mary" (arguably a smart comedy). This
has ushered in the advent of the "Mini-Majors." Miramax while "technically" an
"Independent," is quite obviously still a studio with arguably not low-budget products. The
only thing that survives the ripple effect of conflicting information from critics and box
office results is word of mouth. Star power can cut through this noise, too, but if their
performance doesn't match the story, then your a word of mouth campaign won't work. And
derivative stories, while perhaps easier to market, have an increasingly lower survival
rate. Younger consumers are hypercritical of things they have seen before. The average
two-year old could spell out the plot points of Mighty Joe Young. Thus, if you're following
a visible trend then you're already behind the curve and anything you come up with will
inevitably be derivative - and you've got one leg in the hack grave. "Die Hard in a
Building" was actually pitched to one of the studio execs on the panel. In terms of the
moviegoer, it should not be forgotten that there should be an emphasis on the word
Entertainment in the Entertainment Business. Consumers are spending their money NOT to be
preached at or talked down to or made to feel guilty - they are spending their money to be
entertained.
The Killer Deal
As part and parcel of the business and
how screenwriters should navigate this ever-changing terrain, the "Sony Deal" was debated
from all angles. Is it an incredible breakthrough setting the stage for better deals for all
writers? Or does it simply create an elitist upper class in the WGA? Is it a heroic group of
34 Davids forcing one Goliath studio to deign to recognize the significant contributions of
the writer? Or is this "clique" just breaking through the glass ceiling while leaving their
4,300-other WGA siblings to fend for themselves?
There were few areas of concurrence.
One, that this was a long time coming. Two, that it's not perfect. And three, that both
writers and studios take advantage of one another's successes and failures to improve their
own deals. That's the nature of the business - of any business.
It was conceded that every time a studio
makes a deal, it affects every deal thereafter. And for that reason alone, the Sony Deal
establishes an important precedent.
Some important elements were discussed
intelligently and fairly. The good humored self-appointed "studio apologist" (or perhaps
appointed by default) was quite blunt and straightforward in his assessment of his job
duties: "The first rule is don't pay. The second rule is, if I must pay, I'll pay as late as
I can." This, again, is not a shocking position in the corporate world, rather prudent. A
compromise is where everyone ends up with what nobody wanted. A negotiation is where you
give up things you don't want as much as other things that are more important to you. Ron
Bass was rather eloquent in his analysis of their communal strategy and that was that a lot
of effort is wasted by trying to outsmart each other or figure out arbitrary parameters. All
service contracts are a popular strategy to keep a project out of turnaround hell and to
maintain the original vision. Afterall, everyone on a project should share the same goal: to
get the property produced and make it a success.
A Final Note On Comedy
Screenwriter, Ed Solomon cracked up the
audience with his analysis that the fact that the studios are making a sequel to his "Men in
Black," which is still inconceivably $56 million in the red, is testament that they're in it
for the "art."
The finale of the jam-packed weekend was
a panel of comedy writers including Albert Brooks, James L. Brooks, Janeane Garofolo, Norm
MacDonald, and Ed Solomon (Men in Black), to name just a few. And they gave some excellent
advice on comedy. "Work the crowd." Don't be afraid to layer in different levels of jokes
for different segments of the audience.
They reminisced about the style and
approaches of classic comedians. Jackie Gleason was explosive, but with grace, while others
worked with small, subtle gestures. Gleason could be hysterically funny - and a billionth of
a second later he could be dead serious.
One of the panelists made the comment
that most people fall into one of two camps: they either enjoy physical, broad humor or
verbal humor. They are either fans of the Three Stooges or Laurel and Hardy. There is a
bizarre societal prejudice that public figures - whether they be sports stars or fictional
characters - be role models for children. When did this start? Comedic characters are FLAWED
by design. The entire panel lamented the focus grouping the comic flaws out of your
characters. "You end up with likeable attractive people who wisecrack each other." Safety is
an illusion.
In response to a question from the
audience about how comedy can be cruel and really hurt public figures, Janeane Garofolo
commented: "Comedy can't always be victimless, so if you're going to be vicious and
mean-spirited you had damn well be REALLY funny. It's not my job to teach manners with
comedy. My job is to entertain." And finally, James L. Brooks summed it up nicely when he
said: "You are the exact kind of comedian you are as a human being. If you're an ass to
waiters, odds are you'll be an ass on stage."
In a nutshell, the Words Into Pictures
Conference encouraged writers to strive to write an original, castable, marketable,
well-told story.
Heather Hale is a screenwriter.
"Quadroon Ball", set to star Vanessa L. Williams and air on Lifetime television will be her
first produced credit. She is the founder and coordinator of the Screenwriters On-Line
Cooperative http://members.aol.com/SOCwebsite and is currently working on two speculative
screenplays: "Bait & Switch" and "SuperHero".
|
