Screenwriting : Are script writers undervalued and unappreciated? by Dain F. Turner

And yet they need writers or there's no movie, TV show or stage plays. It's like being in an abusive relationship. They hate us but need us at the same time and we keep coming back for more..

Undervalued. Just like in any other academic pursuit, we value technical skills over softer creative skills. I'm not saying that it's wrong. I admire techie people but every discerning viewer re-writes the screenplays of movies they see.

As wag who knew the business once said, "The wages of screenwriting are money and oblivion." The only sure way to protect your words in a script is to be a playwright and even that's not a sure thing any more, despite the efforts of the Dramatists Guild. In return for getting full control over your words, you get to not make any noticeable money when the script goes into production. That's why most produced playwrights jump at the chance to write Hollywood films or sign onto a writers room -- that's how they pay the rent.

Yes. Since the beginning of time. Isn't going to change any time soon.

@ Richard. I have a good friend, John Darrouzert. He wrote "The Contract" starring Morgan Freeman and John Cusack. John did something very smart. When he sold the script, he also worked himself a co-producer credit which also paid him. Nice to know when negotiating deals. BTW, John sold that script for $750,000 upfront, and $250,000 when made as part of his producer deal.

Yes God dang it!

The answer to your question would be "yes, and no." + Look at the Writer's Guild 2013 Annual Report and you'll see that around 1,600 writers made over $320 million - an average of $200,000 each. So that's not so bad, all things considered, for those 1,600 writers. Some made way less than $200,000, and some made way more. At least they can be moderately well-off (relatively speaking); have careers that are ascending (or declining); and have or are developing relationships with reputable people who make reputable films. + Some of those writers made over $2,000,000 each, so that's not so bad for that group, all things considered. They are doing pretty good, and some of them may get overpaid at times due to their specialties of successful script doctoring in the studio system; in being the main writer of a studio's film; and in getting big bucks because of a book or comic book that orignated with them. + Some of the professional writers in the Guild didn't make a dime in 2013. A few thousand of them, if memory serves me (I believe there are over 4,000 professional screenwriters in the Guild). + Many of the thousands of non-union writers who consider themselves "professionals" (rightfully or wrongfully) may make as little as $1,000 for their feature-length script, so that may be bad for those writers, all things considered. Some could even pop out the concept for an eventual franchise movie and receive very little of the total return because they sold the rights for a small amount. + Most importantly, though, there is a law of supply and demand at work here, which establishes the market place for writers. There is something like 300,000 - 500,000 scripts in the cumulative inventory of scripts available out there. I think something like 50.000 scripts are registered each year. I think in 2014 there were around 1,600 total movies made worldwide (including documentaries and concert performance movies). So, given that huge supply of inventory, the huge supply of professional writers (maybe 4,000 - 8,000, depending on our definition of "professional"), and the amounts of movies made each year, it's only natural that there would be a buyer's market for professional writers in most conditions. In a specific, movie-by-movie situation, each professional writer commands their own value based on current conditions for that writer in that instance. In an overall sense, I think the glut of scripts and glut of professional writers has marginalized and undervalued many writers in the professional writers pool. The unsold/aspiring professional writers aren't even in that pool, and don't really count. But at the same time, successful writers with track records can still command high pay, based on specific conditions, too - namely, their past success, their specialities, and their relationships - and many other professional writers are still doing pretty good. I wouldn't call those two groups "undervalued" based on everything I've stated thus far. I think that the best thing an unsold screenwriter can do is convert their unsold script into a book that can establish an audience for a potential movie. And if an unsold scriptwriter doesn't want to do that, then he/she is going to have to deal with a lot of lowball offers for their spec scripts - and that's IF THEY ARE TRULY THAT GOOD (WRITER AND SCRIPT) - and hope to ascend to receiving better offers through successful marketing endeavors from a higher quality of people in the movie business. As an aside, I have turned down option offers from some producers, and will never option one of my scripts to someone that doesn't meet my professional qualifications or my monetary requirements. That might sound crazy to some of you, but that's the way it is for me, personally. I'm simply not tying up any of my scripts for a year in a low-money option with a low-level producer who doesn't have a successful track record;, access to capital, studio relationships, or the proper distribution channels if they distribute movies independently. Too many writers get burned in those situations, and I'm not going to be one of them, all things considered. "Undervaluing" a writer usually starts with that own writer's beliefs about what "value" is. Don't undervalue yourself, and then others can't, either.

@Bill. Great research and great advice. Thanks for your input, and so eloquently at that.

I've always wondered why after a movie is made and the script goes "public" online that anyone can read it for free - especially original scripts? I still have to pay to read the book the script is based on. It just seems the "writer" of a script should get some sort of royalty for the script that people to read as they would a book. (I understand the script has been bought by the producers and they literally own it - but still once the movie is made (script has served its purpose) that as a literary document the writer should still get some sort of royalty for each "hit" by a reader.

Thanks Kathaleen, and a very good point.

it's all in the contract the writer negotiates and signs....he can include these kind of provisions though he risks being replaced....a lot of the movies nowadays put very little money into the writing making up for it with FX and Name Actors, and usually the writers are stock studio writers with average writing skills to keep their costs down...

There is a distinct beginning to every film. The idea. Writers are full of them and we like to write them down, document our thoughts so to speak. Sometimes they are another person's idea and they want it in writing. Personally, I don't take notes, verbal directions, hints of what is preferred, other writers contributing, script changes, et al, personally. The only thing that's not going to change is the change that is natural and necessary to the process of film making. On some films there are thousands of people involved while other films' paradigm requires everyone do grip work or it won't get done. Studios have producers, APs, directors, DAs, script consultants, technical consultants, caterers, location specialists, transportation ... you get the idea. There are situations requiring a scene be changed, omitted, made longer and that always changes the story flow. Rewrites are a natural part of the process in the thousands of contributions to that delightful phrase, "That's a wrap!" Writers are not underrated more that they may be underpaid. But in the beginning, there's virtually no money and that's the writer's business position before a "green light" starts the serious process of funding the thing: the only money available before that is the profits from previous works. That's not going to be spent on speculation before it gets spent on producing income. Writers are as much an expense as anyone else trying to make a living in the film industry. There's a business side to creativity and it needs to be addressed. Once you get a gig, you can only negotiate for the best terms possible. Realistically, the writer doesn't make the most important contribution. So how much should you expect? Talents of a cast being directed by the right person for the story and by whom the story is being dramatically told is far more important. The producer can influence, ruin, or make better a film story. In the end, the audience is wowed by performance that takes them to the wonder and pleasure of story. Whoever shows it best is going to bow to audience demand. Who cares about the writer when the trailer is on the street, and the film is in its opening days – the writer is not in that picture ...!?! The writer is not in the trailer or the movie and is not in the position of being on the line such that, the writer is making the film sell. Actors, directors, and producers are intimately involved in putting the film in the black, on the big screen - placing it in the market place of film stories. It's a business first. The writer’s first responsibility is to create a story which is a savvy entertainment business product.

With all of the Reality TV shows out there, Screenwriters are becoming obsolete. However the Writer's strike in the 90's is what brought on Reality TV #IRONIC

Short answer - yes. Always. When you have 120 blank pages and an idea - you're God. As soon as you've committed the words to paper - and especially after money's changed hands - you become low man on the totem pole and every Tom, Dick and Harriet (producer, studio exec, director, actor) thinks they can do it better. They can't - but they think so. And you will be inundated with notes ranging from the clever to the mundane to the moronic. Steel yourself. Even the best, most well paid, most highly regarded screenwriters in the business are ultimately underappreciated (for the most part). It is the nature of the beast. You need a thick skin. Some take the money and run. Some care and get hurt feelings. Find a middle ground and learn to live there. It will prevent ulcers, loss of hair and a drinking problem.

I feel if we, like anyone else, start to demand respect from the director and the producers, then we can gain some ground on this issue. What if we decided not to let them have our templates unless we became equal partners until the end of the production process? Who else but ourselves know our screenplays? That is power - and we hand it over to them - and we don't have to - so easily. I truly feel writers and director need to work hand in hand sharing there subtexts in order to create the best film. One of the reason they chop it to pieces and recreate another film is because we let them... we don't have to accept this. Let's start asking, in our contracts, for our roles within the filmmaking process to be equal.

Linda - with all due respect - this has been going on since title cards and talkies. The Writers Guild was founded expressly to give proper credit to those who write the scripts for movies and TV - and even they get it wrong. The fact is - you can ask for anything you want. You won't get it. An entire union with a membership in the thousands (strength in numbers anyone? Don't believe it) goes to the mat every three years to try to improve on the lot of writers. They are the fightingest union in the business. Unafraid to strike to get what they want. But most times - the strikes (and I know whereof I speak since I've been a union member for 4 of them - costing me a total of close to a calendar year of picket lines and no writing) have resulted in minimal gains - and oftimes - merely the prevention of rollbacks in previous gains. the studios give you what they want to - and no more. You can't threaten them - because they will walk away. You have no leverage. You write a great script - they will throw money at you. Ask for more than that - and you'll kill the offer. The Guild won the right for the writer of original material to be GUARANTEED the first rewrite on the script. The studios got around it by PAYING for the first rewrite but having someone else do it. The directors - once they sign on - are king. They call the shots. They're out there on location yelling "Action!" once the studio has budgeted the movie and is spending hundreds of thousands a day. They are not likely to take the side of the writer over the director. Ever. Some directors - like Spielberg and Scorcese - work closely with their writers - and have them on set. Most do not. Most - even at their elevated position - feel diminished by the writer. After all - the writer filled blank pages with words and ideas. The director shows up to interpret them. Most directors can't do the writer's job - so they'd rather NOT have them hovering around on the set and cringing when a line of dialogue is screwed up or some "star" decides to ad lib and the director doesn't have the nerve to tell them it's no good and to stick to the script. There's only one 500 pound gorilla per picture - and it ain't the writer. In a perfect world - the writer and director WOULD work hand in hand - as you said - it can only make the piece better - but other than TV - where the writer/producer/show runner is king and the director is a hired gun brought in one per week to shoot the script in 5-6 days and get it on the air - you're dreaming. Directors - even novices - even first timers whose big claim to fame is some hot TV commercial or an MTV video - take what's known as a possessory credit. You've probably noticed - "A FILM BY..." and add the name of the director. This is some BS propagated by the French auteur theory that says the director is the principal pot stirrer of a film. It belittles the idea that unless the director has also written the screenplay (a la Woody Allen) - the writer - who began the entire process - is but a minor cog in the machine. I have yet to see a masterpiece directed by anyone from 120 blank pages of paper. By your words - you would think that the writer has some power here because he or she is the wordsmith - the one who writes "Fade In" on that very first sheet of paper, but alas - the business doesn't see it that way. It sees writers as disposable - fill up one tissue - throw it out - pull another from the box. Writers now must endure cattle calls like actors - auditioning for the chance to write the script - doing all the tough slogging up front sans pay - coming up with a plot and 3 acts and characters and their arcs and snatches of dialogue - all for free - on the wee chance that they'll be chosen to actually write the script. And those who finish out of the money - have no way of knowing what pieces of their work made it into the finished product - until they see it on screen - and even then - the studio's fallback is - well, we heard those same ideas from 20 of the writers we spoke with including the guy who actually wrote it for us. That possessory credit I spoke of earlier - that bit of thievery known as the "A FILM BY" credit - that is clung to so voraciously by the Directors' Guild - that every time the WGA has gone into a negotiation with the AMPTP to ask for that to be killed - except in the case of a true writer/director - the DGA - which has NEVER struck in the entire history of it's union - always leaving the heavy lifting to SAG and the WGA and taking our hard fought gains as their own (when they're not cutting us off at the knees by giving up increased residuals on DVDs and the like in exchange for a quick fix money infusion for their ill-managed retirement and pension funds) has threatened to walk off the job if the AMPTP even CONSIDERS revoking the possessory credit. You would think that we fight on the same team - but it simply is not the truth. You can ask for the moon in your contract - you're lucky to get a soft patch of earth to fall back to. I'm as militant as anyone along the lines you espouse - so is the WGA - but you're marching at the front of a fool's parade if you think any of what you want is feasible. Reasonable? Absolutely. Deserved? In spades. Ain't gonna happen. And if you even deign to ask - you're branded a troublemaker - and you simply won't work. Pick your battles. Respect for the writer and an equal playing field with the director is one that you won't win.

As you like ... Michael Eddy. You've said your piece. Here's the difference between you and I - Call me Shaherazad. I go into that negotiation knowing I have already won it. It's pointless to give them a template that they destroy and make into a mess. Why do you then give it to them? This obviously is a form of sacrifice - you actually espouse to kill your own darling then and accept it as a normal practice. So if there are two directors that do that then there can be more. I see no wrong in living in that hope. So when the strike came and reality shows saw their opportunity to came to life - why is it so hard to think you cannot make a difference and create a new life for yourself and others like you?

Why this attack on good, quality writers? It's the same of kind attack within the church institution for good, quality singers. Just my observation.

Hello Dain. I've heard disparaging remarks about screenwriters, and I'm miles away from hollywho. Pay it no mind; simply work on improving your craft.

WTG Margie Walker - keep pounding the keys, use your mind to hone your craft, and write the best great story possible.

Sorry I didn't read the entire thread. For what it's worth, in feature films, the writer stands a greater chance of being "devalued," because it's a director's medium. In TV, there is zero chance the writer is "devalued" because it's a showrunner's medium, and the writer is "King," producer, head creative, and the big dog in the room. That said, every studio exec knows that the problems in the script will likely show up on screen, and if you've been blessed with a great script, you probably won't have many problems (even though there's a long road filled with variables when traveling from script and screen).

Thank you Regina. That's the point (amongst many) that I was trying to make. I don't want to repeat the actual word - because I find it abhorrent - but many years ago - one of my agents - and a very savvy and intelligent one who did more for my career than all of the others combined - referred to writers as "the N word of Hollywood". And she was a literary agent who made her living working with and selling the work of writers. It's a sad fact. Hollywood claims to be impressed by talent - and in some case they actually are - but the bottom line is that they are more impressed by how much that talent is paid. Their quote. And even that is no longer sacrosanct. As for Linda - or "Shaherazad" - I like your attitude. That and 2 bux will get you a latte at Dunkin Donuts. I told you to go in and ask for the moon - what you'll get is an exec dropping trow and showing you his. You said that you "go into the negotiation knowing I have already won it". My question is: why are YOU going into the negotiation at all? That's why you have an agent - to separate the business side from the creative. If you're negotiating your own deals - any animosity that entails will impact the other side of the equation. Also - a negotiation is with the BUSINESS/LEGAL side - and ALL they care about is the bottom line. They're there to get you as cheaply as possible for their studio. They can't agree to putting you on an equal footing with a director - who negotiates his or her own deal - so how do you even ask for that. And - if you have no agent - then the studio doesn't take you seriously to begin with and I doubt you even got the meeting that you are able to go into all locked and loaded and cocky. I'm speaking from long experience and that of fellow working, successful writers who I know. I'm not sure where you're coming from. Having dreams is a wonderful thing. Highly recommended. But usually - in order to dream - one is asleep. Wide awake - it's not dreaming, it's being delusional. You threw "reality shows" into the mix here. First of all, there's nothing real about them. They are scripted and edited. And they are cheap to make - and the bane of dramas and comedies. the writers are paid less and have to fight on a show by show basis to be covered by the union - because the networks don't want to pay minimums for what they do - they denigrate the work - nor do they want to pay health and pension. Animation writers can't get covered by the WGA because the studios have fought it tooth and nail since they realized they can pay less for equal work - and again - no health and pension - and make more money than they do on live action movies. But you think you can go in sans template and change how it's all done. Based on what? Your list of credits on blockbuster movies and hit TV shows? They OWN the template. It's their ball. You don't like it - they take it and go home. I can't fathom how you think that playing lone wolf and asking will get you more leverage than people with actual clout - with huge agencies behind them (and along those lines - the big agencies use their writers - even their A list writers - to service their A list stars and directors - NOT the other way around). Dain asked if writers are "undervalued and underappreciated". I should have just gone monosyllabic with my original answer and said "yes" and left it at that.

Hey, I realize I should not be flippant in my response. Please be assured that every feature and TV studio fully appreciate the value of a good script and a good writer. Everyone knows it starts with a good script. Obviously, in features, just for example, the director almost always has the authority on a set and in the edit room. Still, I promise you that great writers and great writing are always cherished and taken completely seriously. Not taken for granted. I should not have been flip; I did not mean to incite malcontent. Great writers have a very easy time getting their next writing job! That is the best proof of all that everyone appreciates the treasure that is great writing.

Michael Eddy, as u like. I am glad you are able to speak freely and vent your frustrations. From the picture you paint there is no reason for writers to exist. I asked you why you feel you can't make a difference. It is as if they have killed you. I also asked why do you put yourself in a position where people walk all over you, abuse you, degrade you, undervalue you, under-appreciate you... and change your script to a point it is unrecognizable. In an abusive situation; we are taught leave these kinds of situations for our own sanity and well being. I understand the studio process vey well. Who I know is my clout and greatest resource. Isn't that the way it works in Hollywood; by networking and relationships? If I want something from him, all I need to do is ask. If I decide to ask - I am genuinely courteous, full of respect, and thankful, but I would never allow him to walk all over me - worse accept his mooning reaction - as you think he might behave if I dare ask him for more... poor Oliver. By the way, he is a gentleman and is courteous. Where injustices exist, we must live in the hope that we can make a difference and change the system in order to provide a better living situation. Even a few steps is better than none, even if it is done for the sake of others and not my own. I may never reap the benefits of my work in action but, hope is there to know that someone else will.

Linda - or Sheherazad - or whatever nom de plume you're going by this week...I actually went back to the start of this thread and read all the posts - specifically yours - to make sure that I hadn't missed something or hallucinated some remark. Frankly - I don't know what the hell you're talking about. I'm glad that you're glad that I'm free to vent here on Stage 32. If you think from what I've written that I think "there is no reason for writers to exist" than you might need a remedial reading course. In my opinion - writers are the single MOST important cog in the big machine that churns out movies and TV. If writers don't exist - than neither do actors or directors or set designers or editors or animal wranglers. It BEGINS WITH THE WORD. If it ain't on the page, it ain't on the stage. Dain began this thread asking if writers are undervalued and underappreciated. Yes and yes. Nowhere in that answer do I think that they shouldn't exist. In terms of the above the line "talent" - the writers, actors, directors and producers - the writers are the lowest paid and the least appreciated and the least able to make something happen on their own - other than sitting alone in a room and writing the script in the first place. I did NOT make any blanket statement saying that writers can't make a difference - what I said was - you can go into any meeting/negotiation with an armfull of requests - but unless you have a sparkling track record as the credited writer of hit movies and are the flavor of the week with a red hot spec - you can ask - but you most likely ain't gonna receive. You made it sound as if you go in asking for equal footing with the director - and actually think you have a chance to get it - and I asked you - based on what? Who are you and what makes you think that you can accomplish what 1000s of other writers can't? the studio can indeed change your script into something unrecognizable - as soon as you accept money for same. Once money changes hands - it is THEIRS and they can do with it what they want - for the length of the option or in perpetuity if they buy it outright. That is a fact. If a writer feels undervalued or underappreciated - it is not the same as letting themselves be "degraded" or walked all over - YOUR words, not mine. Believe me, I've fought the wars and stood up for myself and maintained my dignity and refused to kowtow to people in power merely because they had the power and NOT because they knew what they were doing (I once had a genius of a producer tell me - after I spent an hour meticulously - and politely - explaining the plot and characters and the whys and wherefores of my ORIGINAL screenplay - only to have him say, "We're writing the check. Do it the way I tell you to".) I've sued studios. I've sued my own union. I have the scars. I'm talking from personal experience. In Hollywood - either you can leave the "abusive situation" to preserve your sanity (again - your words) of your own volition - or they'll do it for you. It's called "bringing in new blood". That's studio speak for - you don't want to do it our way - you're fired - we'll call another writer who's only in it for a paycheck and will follow our notes to a T. Yes - networking and relationships do form a foundation in Hollywood. A rocky one to be sure. Made from bad cement. Because even with your network etc. - you rarely work more than once for the same person. When they expect you to take the short money (and NONE of the other perks you apparently think you can finagle) - their line is always, "I'll make it up to you on the next project". Problem is - there rarely is a next project. "If I want something from him, all I need to do is ask"? Who the hell is "him"? You drop these little bon mots in your posts as if the rest of us are supposed to know who this magic genie is that can make your dreams come true. Whose lamp are you rubbing? Who the hell is Oliver - I'm sorry - "poor Oliver" who you mentioned in your last post - but never before - putting the rest of us mere mortals on a first name basis with this courteous gentleman as if we're supposed to know who he is. It would take Agatha Christie to figure out what you're talking about. Yes - injustices exist. Yes - we should be living in the hope that we can make a difference and change what we can - but like an AA member - we must also know enough to accept that which we cannot change and like Dirty Harry - know how many bullets are left in the gun - if you ever had any to begin with. I am a writer - first, last and always. I have the utmost respect for writers and what they do and I rail at those who do not. I made a good living at my craft for better than 2 decades (until that lawsuit...) and worked for almost all the major studios and with some of the top producers in the business - many of them no walk in the park as human beings. I've been a member of the WGA since 1977. Lifetime Current. Been through four strikes. First name basis with past Presidents and Board members of the Guild. I've been there and done the stuff you're talking about. Won some, lost some. When I speak out here - it's from experience. Long roads walked - full of potholes and land mines - and the occasional pot of gold at the end. Usually, when someone responds to one of these threads and goes sideways - or sounds like some novice whose head is still full of dreams and who's read all the how to books, but hasn't actually done it yet - I have the choice to either laugh to myself and move on - or to actually add my 2 cents - to be taken for what they're worth - at face value or with a grain of salt - and see what happens. I don't mean to be singling you out or turning this into some verbal duel or ping pong match - but some of your comments pushed all the wrong buttons - so I reply with the only thing I know - which is my truth. Take it or leave it. Go on with your Donna Quixote quest if that works for you. I'm talked out.

“Writing is very hard work, and having done both writing and directing, I can tell you that directing is a pleasure and writing is a drag… but writing is just an empty page—you start with absolutely nothing. I think writers are vastly underrated and underpaid. It’s totally impossible, thought, for a mediocre director to completely screw up a great script.”— director Billy Wilder,

So, for me the takeaway from all this is: write for TV! Which is cool, because that's what my summer's going to be about anyway:) Oh, and I will definitely be choosey about who I grant 'option's' to (one year where I get no money and the story has a good chance of going nowhere...fugedaboudit!) . Isn't there some documentary out on netflix about how crappy it is to be a screenplay writer? For me, as one of the multitude of as-yet-undiscovered, it's still the love of writing that keeps me going...I was born this way! To be paid to write so I don't have to be a stressed-out teacher is the dream. If I can make more money writing than I do teaching then I'm in. They can re-shape my ideas and fail to give me credit all they want...just let me be paid to write and I'll be happy. Don't get me wrong...when I do 'make it' I'll support the WGA (and the Can.WG) and likely get politically active about it when the call comes...I believe in the collective power of unions. But the fact is that writers are nameless & faceless for the most part. I think there must be people in the industry who love us as the spark, the idea-makers, (for example, the execs we pitch to via 'happy writers'...I loved the fella in my first pitch)...and those are the people I will surround myself with. If I wanted limelight and fame, I'd be a director or an actor. Thanks so much to everyone who posted on this thread!

Sarah - not sure where you got the idea that options last for a year and are free. Standard options usually run for a year - and sometimes have a renewal for another year (by which time, if the project hasn't moved forward - it's probably dead) - but you can do a 90 day option, 6 months - it's all negotiable. And since in option is the equivalent of a "rental" of your screenplay - whereby you're granting someone the exclusive right - for an agreed upon time period - to try to get your work set up - you deserve to be paid for that. Again - the amount is negotiable. It can be as little as a dollar - or a thousand dollars - of five or ten...there is no set term nor set amount. I've run the gamut on that in my career. If you get that far - you're usually also negotiating the back end part of the deal as well - your production bonus - which is the amount of money you get IF the movie gets made AND contingent on screen credit. The full bonus for a sole credit, cut in half for shared. So when you say you don't care about them mangling your work or credit - as long as you get paid (more than you'd make as a teacher) - you should rethink that attitude IMMEDIATELY. Credit is part of the coin of the realm. Your "quote" is all that concerns the business affairs people - and that by which you garner respect within the biz. If you sell yourself cheap - that's how they look at you. And if you let them screw up your work - that's what you're known for. People see the end result - not what you started with. I wrote a script which was made into a movie (in Canada by Canadian producers BTW) - and they mangled it beyond recognition - and THEN still gave me sole credit. It bore little or no resemblance to the cool little Hitchcockian thriller than I wrote and they bought. I was told by some friends (in the business) who went to see the movie at a theater in LA - that the head of a studio came to see it and was sitting in front of them. He walked out well before it was over. I don't blame him - I would have done the same. The finished product stunk on ice. My point being - this studio head never saw a movie version of MY work - he saw a cheap crappy version it was turned into when the producers grabbed some cheap hired gun to gut my script because they wanted to trim the budget by 2/3rds. That was the impression "my" work left on this guy. So be careful what you wish for and how you want to play the game. If you have talent, and will power, and are meant to make it - make it on your terms without selling yourself out at the start. The unions are there to guide and protect you right from the beginning (since my script was shot under Canadian jurisdiction - I also joined ACTRA when it was made.) You clearly are passionate about this - that's a great foundation. The more you write, the better you hone your skills. Write what YOU want to see. Don't try to follow trends and what you see on screen. It takes years before anything gets made - and by then - it could be a whole other trend. Don't play follow the leader. Set your own course. And get an agent. And Dan G. - just take out the "probably"s in your last post - and we're 100% in agreement. Those others you mentioned DO appreciate our talent - because they know that they're not writers and can't do what we do (hell, some of them can barely read - which is why they all employ readers so they can glance at 2 page coverage instead of actually taking the time to dissect a 110 page script). They speak with their checkbooks. All they understand are numbers - and all writers need numbers for is to place in the upper right hand corners of their screenplays.

Jack Warner is largely responsible for the treatment os screenwriters in Hollywood. He made it his mission in life to marginalize screenwriters so they would never have the same level of power playwrights have in theatre.

Not sure I'd give Jack Warner credit for singlehandedly marginalizing writers in Hollywood - there were a lot of studio moguls who played their parts - Harry Cohn, Louis B. Mayer etc. - putting scribes under contract - expecting X amount of pages per day - coming into their offices to look over their shoulders and see where they were - having them punch time clocks to denigrate the skill it took to do what they did and make it seem like they were merely a bunch of assembly line drones, but Warner has been tagged with having referred to screenwriters as "schmucks with underwoods" - so you may not be far off the mark.

What about Jack Woltz? Look what he did to Johnny Fontane.

There are a lot of good points people are making on this thread (guess I knew it would strike a nerve). But someone made a point that, no one outside of the writer has an idea until a writer puts it down on paper, then suddenly everyone turns into Ernest Hemingway! This I know to be true from my personal experience. Furthermore, the writers Hollywood invariably brings in to re-write a script...The changes they make are almost always cosmetic. The scene doesn't take place at a basketball game, it takes place at a baseball game. WTF?! How is that adding to, or improving the story. Now, as a director, I understand why some scene are rewritten to accommodate budget, or even blocking a scene, but again, almost all are cosmetic. In the end, if you sold your script, they can pretty much do with it as they please.

Philip - Jack Woltz? Funny line. Should we take it that his having the same initials as Jack Warner is not merely a coincidence. Also, it is widely held that Johnny Fontane was Frank Sinatra - and the pressure put on some Hollywood execs to get him a coveted role in a movie - was Sinatra in "From Here To Eternity" - when he was thought of as "only" a singer - and went on to win the Oscar as Maggio. And Dain - I'm one of those who has made the point that the writer is God until that 110 pages is filled up with words - and then everyone and their baby sitter thinks they can do it better. It's false and demeaning. As for your comment about most changes made being "cosmetic", I would take exception to that. In some cases - yes - they certainly can be. There are writers who take a job for the money - and in the process they go in and change a basketball game to a baseball game - and change the names of all the characters - and do nothing BUT cosmetic things - in an attempt to fool readers at an arbitration into giving them a screen credit. It almost never works. I've seen directors do it on a screenplay which automatically triggers a credit arbitration at the WGA - and I've read reports that literally said - "the director has made cosmetic changes only and minor alterations to the dialogue and deserves NO CREDIT". But more often than not - when writers are hired to rewrite an original or another writer's work - they are given a laundry list of changes by the studio (most of them idiotic and unecessary. A buddy of mine - a writer - who has feature credits and has been a showrunner on various TV series - said that after the 3rd set of revisions - a script "doesn't get any better. It only gets different".) - and they make them - because they're only there for the $$$ and have no vested interest in the story. I've told this story before and alluded to it in my last post - but I had an original screenplay - a Hitchcockian murder mystery - which was sold outright to some Canadian producers - who brought in a Canadian writer to rewrite the script - for budgetary reasons. In my original - the murder VICTIM - who dies on page 12 and sets the entire plot in motion - not only does not die in the movie (yeah - it got made) - but turns out TO BE THE MURDERER!! So much for cosmetic changes. If only...The movie was a turd. The highpoints for me were: a cool one sheet, a #14 domestic opening in the Top 50 movies the week it was released in the US (in only 3 cities) and it spawned a sequel for which I got a sequel payment without writing a word of it.

Dan, that makes sense to me.

For sure, relative to the $$$ the others receive.

Dan, I replied to this post on another thread - thinking you made it there. So in brief - you and I tend to be in lockstep much of the time, but on this comment - I disagree. Look - if you're only in it for the money - then take it and run. The business owes nothing to anyone on that level - other than to be paid commensurate with your skills and track record - and on time. But it's about so much more than that - and I think deep down you know that. Writers have long been the low man on the totem pole - considered to be interchangeable and easily replaceable and malleable to the whims of whoever is paying them. "Schmucks with Underwoods". The fact is - it starts with the words. the script (or novel or play that it's based on) brings EVERYONE else to the table. No one else is hired or has a job without the writer telling the story first. In some areas - there is a degree of jealousy in that - directors are notorious for not wanting the writer anywhere near the set once shooting has commenced. Martin Scorcese - who I respect as one of the best directors ever - never had a writer on set until 1991 when he made the remake of Cape Fear (Wesley Strick). Respect costs nothing. I've done it (writing) for long enough to know how it works - and which studio execs expect it to go their way...period, and which ones listen and don't expect you to merely follow orders like a German soldier in WWII. And when you say that it's all about the money - and how much more should the writer expect...how about proper credit for one's work? Credit = money in the movie BUSINESS. There is a degree of arrogance that runs rampant in certain quarters - and directed not only at writers, but at others who love their work and try their best to deliver the best they have in them. There is always someone who thinks they can do it better, and yes - the movies are considered a collaborative medium because of the number of hands of countless specialists that each one goes through on its way to the screen - but being respectful of others, being open-minded, knowing when you're wrong and someone else is right, being willing to hear someone out and say yes with a smile or no with a reasonable and well-mannered demeanor - all of that is important. Money pays the bills - and keeps you on the chosen path - and tells you that you're getting something right - but it ain't everything.

And Margie - if Dan's comments "make sense" to you - you probably haven't been in too many meetings getting notes from studio execs.

@ Michael Eddy. Thank you for expressing what needs to be said, and I think that is a huge part of what I was trying to get at by creating this thread. Nothing happens without the story first, and who knows the characters in the story better than the writer. I'm not saying the directors (or others involved) get it wrong, but consulting the writer would (in some cases) help to complete the vision of what the writer had imagined to begin with. And in this respect it might help to make Hollywood (sic) a little less trite, a little less predictable, and maybe, just maybe, a little more (dare I say)...original. In the meantime, please excuse me if I don't hold my breath.

@Dain, Nothing happens without the story first, and who knows the characters in the story better than the writer = power.

@Dan - I understand your comment completely. And you're right. @Michael Eddy - It's well documented on Stage 32 that you have a tragic experience with the studios, but keep the faith brother.

This is what I love about writers, we do get emotional. LOL :)~

Dan, you said writers get paid for material they sell and paid when they're hired to write - followed by "I don't know how much more appreciation they feel they are entitled to". The latter sentence was what provoked the rest of my "stuff". I didn't think it was an illogical leap to get to what I said from what you wrote. Directors, for example, come aboard with a finished script, get paid plenty, call the shots on set and everyone answers to them - and yet - they still think they're entitled to a possessory credit. Talk about entitlements.

And Marvin W. - appreciate the encouragement. Not sure what I'm "keeping" at this point - other than a candle burning in the window for wayward producers in search of a great screenplay - but I have been through the wars. I was a successful working writer for better than two decades, sued a studio over an egregious wrong (and I'd do it again) - and had my ability to remain gainfully employed in my chosen profession taken from me. Couple that with the "grey list" - Hollywood's penchant for ceasing to hire writers over 40 - for which they already paid a multi-million dollar settlement (FYI for those of you aspirants already considered over 40 and obsolete by the industry you want to join) - and it's been one long picnic overrun by fire ants.

Dan. No worries. Glad I still have the energy to occasionally leap to anything. And as for talking about two different things - I frequently do that to myself in the mirror - so nice to have someone who actually replies and doesn't stare back at me in need of a shave.

@ Michael. I've never heard the over 40 thing about writers for Hollywood, however it would seem to make sense. The largest ticket buying audience is the 15 to 25 year old group, or at least that's what I've read. So mature writing doesn't appeal to them, or maybe that's just what Hollywood thinks. Of course, this could be a whole new thread and a new topic to consider.

Dain: Yeah, the "grey listing" has been around a long time. I was aware of it when I was starting out after college, but not worrying at the time because 40 seemed a long ways off - and I only had "making it" on my mind. The crazy thing about it is that writers who are able to establish themselves and make a living at it - know a helluva lot more at 40+ than they did as young pups fresh out of film school or the like. They've been doing it a while. They become better editors of their own work and less enamored of every word they commit to the page. I know that in my career - I started out thinking that a mason should be brought in as soon as I completed my first draft - and commence to chiseling my masterpiece into stone. Now - I can maintain an objective distance and do right by the story and listen to the notes without getting aggravated at the short-sightedness of the giver. Also - as you mentioned with the demographics - in TV and film - the studios/networks still seem to cater to younger skewing audiences - and post 40 writers have and have raised children of their own - who are IN those target demographics - and are living under the same roof as sounding boards and idea machines for their writer parents. (The writer of "HOOK" got the idea from a dinner table conversation with his child). So to dismiss them because of a # is downright idiotic on the behalf of the studios. The grey listing also applies to agents as well - who were refusing to take on clients over 40 - either established writers trying to change reps - or older writers trying to break in. After many attempts to do something about the problem via the WGA - a law firm took on the case as a class action - representing TV writers (although for some reason - not feature writers - to whom it happens as much if not more). They went after all the major studios, TV networks, agencies (large and small) and after a protracted 10 year battle - reached an out of court settlement with most. Some - like CAA - one of the largest agencies in the business and as egregious in this nonsense as any - refused to go along with the settlement and did not contribute to the pool of money. Also, as part of the settlement - an agreement was reached (which is monitored I believe and streamlined for those to bring actions against entities thought to still be grey-listing) monetarily and also a system was set up to present opportunities for over 40 writers to be able to pursue work both in TV and film. A sort of Writer Access program. I'm not sure how well any of it is working - but I think any studio caught still actively shutting out over 40 writers will put themselves in a very bad way post-settlement.

@Michael. Sounds like you were in the trenches and maybe picked up a few battle scars along the way. But I take heart in knowing that, the majority of Americans are aging and will pull a larger influence on the quality of what's being produced. Only an aged writer can write from experience.

Dain: Too true. At least I also picked up some union health insurance to make sure the scars heal properly. Young writers have experience too - just not as much.