|
|
Post by dave243 on Mar 4, 2010 0:31:10 GMT -5
I have taken a break from reading scripts ( sendspace is going through some scheduled maintenance ), to pose a question.
If a script is being read, and there similarities to other pieces of work, would that necessarily be such a bad thing?
Don't producers, or agents, something think "Hey! We need another Twilight/KnockedUp/Titanic" and then actively search for such scripts?
I see the market as not an artistic venue but certainly a "financial" one as well.
Is it more likely to go sour as opposed to being a benefit? Don't most films tend to be repetitions of each other anyways? It certainly - at times - seems that all the original ideas, have all been done before.
Maybe I'm being too cynical. Thoughts?
|
|
DangerousWriter
New Member
I am a monkey. And an astronaut. I am a Monkeynaut.
Posts: 15
|
Post by DangerousWriter on Mar 4, 2010 1:23:26 GMT -5
If a script is being read, and there similarities to other pieces of work, would that necessarily be such a bad thing? , I think it's good for a spec to have similarities to other works. It's something execs can point to/identify as something familiar they can wrap their heads around. I heard the great term - "uniquely familiar", basically descriptive of the fact that Hollywood doesn't want something totally untried/unique, they want familiar bets, safe bets. But they also don't want retreads or direct rip-offs (unless you're working in the T.V. & straight to dvd realms). They want their own unique brand, just not too unique. Is it more likely to go sour as opposed to being a benefit? Don't most films tend to be repetitions of each other anyways? It certainly - at times - seems that all the original ideas, have all been done before. Ever heard of Georges Polti's "36 Dramatic Situations"? It's a theory that every dramatic story ever told is derived from one or more of 36 basic plots. I can't speak to its truth or not, but if you read up on it, you'd be hard pressed to find any good story that isn't rooted in one of those 36. And I don't think something that was successful - in financial terms - ever "goes sour". I think they're benchmarks that comfort executives: if "Titanic" worked, our "A Guy, a Gal and a Ship" movie is a safe bet. If "Twilight" worked... wait a minute... why the fuck did Twilight work??? |
|
|
|
Post by mscherer on Mar 4, 2010 5:50:59 GMT -5
dave243,
Hollyweird's mantra is: Similar, but different.
Repeat after me: Similar, but different.
Hence we get a slew of movies made that are billed as Die Hard in a <fill in the blank>.
I am of the school of thought -- and I may be alone here -- write what interests you and write it well. Don't chase the latest trend -- let Hollywood come to you and make you THE trend.
Keep Writing!
|
|
|
|
Post by dave243 on Mar 20, 2010 11:22:03 GMT -5
@ DangerousWriter I looked up "The 36 Dramatic Situations" and it was very interesting, mind you it was a bit depressing as well. I think uniquely familiar is the most "uniquely familiar" way I've heard it phrased. You just made something click, thank You. I actually have no clue why Twilight worked. Blimp on the radar perhaps? I recall someone mentioning the hate mail they were getting after The "Wolf Man" came out. The letter stated that werewolves were young, sexy, and shirtless. Nothing like Benicio Del Toro. mschererI agree with the "write what you enjoy, and well" mantra. But what if you enjoy such vast genres? Does that diminish your weight as a screenwriter? Lately I have found myself beginning to come up with stories that are such polar opposites from the stories before and after them, that I am suddenly becoming wary of my potential credibility. Am I less of a screenwriter? |
|
