Screenwriting : Thoughts: Studio & Creative Heads Sabotage New Talent they Desperately Need? by A Alex

What "mediocre" projects are you referring to?

@ AA; 1. Never heard of the Scoggins Report until today. So thank you for bringing that to my attention. 2. I'm not sure 'The Big Bosses" are an entity that exists with the mission to proliferate mediocrity and greenlight horseshit projects. I subscribe to William Goldman's notion that: "“Nobody knows anything...... Not one person in the entire motion picture field knows for a certainty what's going to work. Every time out it's a guess and, if you're lucky, an educated one.” In other words, most folks are well meaning schmoes, knowing that large sums of money are at stake, hoping they make the right choice and naturally gravitating to what seems like "a sure thing" or "a safe bet". That's why so many sequels get made. 3. Sorry, but since time immemorial, artists have needed patrons; and adventurous work has always been compromised by money. So rather than subscribing to any theories, I believe that what is perceived to make money, will rule the day. And yes, this often impedes writers from creating real art. 4. As writers, we have to make choices. Either you commit to making art the way you sit fit. Or you compromise and attempt to fulfill someone else's vision. And, you may be monetarily compensated for that. I choose to do both at different times.

@Bill: I'm referring to poor scripts constructed from bad storylines (we've all seen movies made from them) that studio execs favour over good, fresh creations that will not only make them money, but allow their creativity to progress

@Phillip, I'm all for compromise, making money etc. Economics isn't what I was questioning, but even that is something that should worry studio heads; bland scripts often turn to foreign audiences with undying loyalty to a star to fulfil box office expectations/make a decent profit. Also, I wasn't suggesting being stubborn to helpful & necessary alterations for your work; I guess I wasn't clear enough.

A Alex: Without knowing exactly what scripts you're referring to, it's impossible to agree with your conclusions. Have you read some/many/all of the spec scripts that were sold in 2015 and that are listed in the 2015 Scoggins Report? And if the Scoggins Report lists a partial universe of the speculative scripts that sell - shouldn't your attack be on those spec script writers? They are the ones, after all, who are conceptualizing and writing the sold scripts that you refer to as "poor scripts constructed from bad storylines" and that are listed in the report.

Bill thanks for the comments but I wasn't necessarily asking for agreement; just thoughts on the state of movie production, whether or not from spec scripts, and how it affects the entertainment industry. I hope I didn't offend anyone.

AA: There are scores of film makers that make small movies, get them into little film festivals and mostly, nobody ever sees them. However, my hats off to anyone who gets a film made. But if you're speaking of big budget studio projects, I can't stand and won't watch films I perceive to have little artistic merit. This is not to say that these movies weren't developed by the Syd Field, Blake Snyder playbook and that's totally fine. The movies are geared toward audiences that like The Hunger Games, Divergent or the latest Walking Dead clone; but they wouldn't get bank rolled if they had a poorly crafted script. So I agree with Bill, without really telling me what films you're referring to, your original post is vague and makes a generalization without much supporting data. I too made a generalized statement about commerciality versus artistic merit. Big Budget films in this category would be Oscar nominated films like Spotlight, The Danish Girl and The Big Short that tackle meaty social issues like corporate greed, transgender stories and child molestation. These are the kind of films that I'm more interested in. And I'm not saying all these movies always turn out great. That being said, I don't really worry about what everyone else is doing. I worry about what I'm doing and endeavor to do that to the best of my ability. As far as "helpful, necessary alterations to my work?" I'm all to happy to accommodate someone who wants to pay me to make a film. But only to the degree that I'm not doing harm to the integrity of my work. And at the pre-production phase of the game, I'm not afraid to walk away from something I think is going to be a creative disaster. However, in the slight chance Spielberg, Clint Eastwood or Alejandro González Iñárritu come calling; when they ask me to jump, I'll ask how high?

They are the bosses. What the bosses say, goes. Also - you may have noticed that box office has been breaking records recently... so maybe they know what they are doing.

Here are my thoughts on this. Studios have huge fixed overhead so they have to make a lot of money just to pay the bills every month. They know that big action scenes, expensive special effect shots and big name stars is what sells tickets. So they do look at a scripts differently than most screenwriters that care more about the story. There is nothing wrong with that and it isn't going to change anytime soon anyway. Smaller Independent production companies can't afford to spend a ton of money on big action scenes and expensive special effects or big name stars so they rely on good stories to attract their audience. I like writing for this market because I prefer working with the people that make these kind of films.

I love what Philip had to say--I believe the best movies inform as well as entertain. But Mr. Martell is also right--the bosses decide which movies get made. I'm not capable of spending a year on a project that I don't believe in deeply and that brings me joy during the writing process.