Screenwriting : Turning down (paid) spec assignments...yay or nay?! by Evelien And Dorien Twins

I have never turned down a paid job because it went against something I stood for. I am a writer. I write. I tell stories. I find that when I have taken a job writing something that I "stand against" I learn a different perspective and point of view. I have never changed what I stand for but I have learned and grown as a person and a writer.

I wouldn't turn down paying work

I would turn down work for ethical reasons. Absolutely. The other thing to consider is: do you want your name attached to whatever it is that you find questionable? Do you wish for it to be forever attached to your brand? Sure, everyone wants/needs work, but some projects may warrant further consideration.

Yes. A bunch of times. The most insane one was a treatment about a prostitute who was murdered and reincarnated as a 12 year old girl, who hooked up with a hit man to get revenge. And, I mean hooked up. I was shocked that the story was all about a 12 year old kid who had a series of sex scenes with an adult male. I tuned it down and told them what I thought of the idea. Here's the thing: if there's one paid gig coming your way, there's a good chance that another will come your way. Though it's stupid to be picky about small stuff, there's nothing wrong with being picky about big stuff.

If it goes against your principles and you feel strongly about it, don't do it.

I wouldn't write a novel about subjects that may not only offend some readers but would bother me to show my name as author.

To answer your questions, Beth; I have no problem having my name attached to something I find questionable. I don't mind that my name is forever attached to it. I'm a writer. What I do is write fiction. Even if that fiction is questionable or goes against what I stand for. It's only words. I do not change.

Well, I for one would have a problem, but, of course, to each their own. :) I would have strong reservations about projects that are along the lines of what William previously described. I would not wish to help put something like that out into the world. No thanks. William also said, "Here's the thing: if there's one paid gig coming your way, there's a good chance that another will come your way." Yup! Couldn't agree more! There are always other options. :) Anyway, I am picky about big issues, no question, but not so over little ones.

Plus, it goes without saying that every project has its own individual circumstances and considerations. ;)

If your heart and convictions tells you, "don't do it". Don't, you are not going to enjoy it, unless you really need this $$ to feed your children for example. Parents do what it takes. Years ago, I almost did something I would not feel proud of to help my mother $$, . Which BTW became the subject of Stage 32, November Write Club, thanks to BETH, so there you have it, you can write a story of, "what if?" Like I did. I would have hurt my mom and my own conscience for years to come.

One practical issue is - Can you write well what you really dislike? I don't think so. Yes, you may be able to pound out a script and cash a check but I doubt it would be your best work or even get up to the level of mediocre. Others may disagree, but in my view, you have to have a certain emotional enthusiasm for the world in which you are working. If it all clashes with your deepest values, I'd say you should pass.

Talk about a loaded question - those E-Twins are sharp! But what if your mortgage was due; your refrigerator had no food in it; you needed medications that insurance didn't pay for; and you had no gas in your car to look for a job? And of course, you're unemployed. Morals and ethics are nice and all, but so is having a roof over your head, food, medicine and gas - and a job. Jobs are nice, too..

Right. Sometimes those "jobs" aren't really much as far as actual income. You gotta be careful. I've even turned down "producers" interested in my work.

The right choice. All the reasons have been stated.

I would never do anything illegal. Or immoral. Or unethical. But I don't get the impression that's the question here. My impression is this topic is about paid work writing fiction that goes against ones personal opinion. I can write about an immoral, unethical subjects or immoral or unethical characters. I'm one who disagrees with you, Douglas. I am a writer. I always write to the best of my ability and experience regardless of the assignment. I can write what I dislike well. Even with no emotional enthusiasm I can write well. That is my job.

D Marcus. OK Then there's no problem taking the assignment. My point was that, if based on its nature, if I am utterly personally opposed to project, I will not write well. If others can do so in that context, then, of course, they should take on the project.

I wouldn't censor myself. It's fiction after all and shouldn't cause unnecessary guilt if written. (Unless of course it's something illegal, which isn't the case). I agree with @bill, fine sensibilities don't pay bills, but I do respect very much you're "To thine own self be true" stand.

Well, the twins stated the project was "against everything we stand for when it comes to our writing ethos." Plus: "we think that sometimes, for the sake of your own ethics and moral beliefs, you have to turn things down." That sounds a little more serious than something that's merely against one's "fine sensibilities." Lol!

The TWINS are right. I will not take my clothes off, no matter how much money. As a screenwriter, I let my characters do it for me, IF, it's in "good taste" like they say and if the scene demands it. Lol. Right , writers? Beth?

Douglas, I understand your point of view. If you were utterly personally opposed to project, you would not write well. However if I were utterly personally opposed to project, I would write well. My dedication to the writing overcomes my personal opposition. It's a simple matter of different people with different personalities. My writing doesn't come from a certain emotional enthusiasm. It comes from the enthusiasm to do my best work under all situations. Not trying to change your mind. Just offering my personal perspective.

@D Marcus Well said, some writers are good at personal detachment, with subjects they my not like, others aren't. It's down to the individual at the end of the day. @All Also this situation could be turned on its head, if I was offered a project I utterly opposed the ethos of, I would write it "highlighting" the points I most detested. (Obviously intertwined with pace and subtlety not going against the grain of what was asked of me, but adding more fuel to the fire of subject). Thus being the puppeteer to make the subject even more loathed by the masses. There is a saying "Fight evil with Craft." Writing is a craft. @Beth I realise project stands for everything ladies against, but what I meant, was writing about something doesn't necessarily make you part of it. Lol. The thread is getting heavy. Happy Saturday All.

I think your gut is right. It sounds like you'll fight to express your own voice(s) which is ironic as your vioce is what got you the opportunity. I'm having a similar weekend and a good friend said "Stick with your gut, it's good so far!"

D Marcus. Thanks for clarifying.

I'm with D Marcus on this one. It's one thing if the material is morally or illegally reprehensible and would turn your own stomach to write. Then yes, turn it down. But if it's just something you disagree with or it goes against your feelings on a topic...and it's Good money and it's something you COULD write (as the OP stated)... then suck it up, be a professional, and do the damn job and cash the check. An opportunity is an opportunity and they're not always going to be perfect opportunities.

Yup, I understood your point, Debbie. :) Mine is simply: to choose not to be a part of a project. That's it. It happens all the time and at all levels for ethical, moral or other reasons. The other key element is the creative intent of those who are the decision makers for any given project. Perhaps the intent is not a good fit. Every project has lots of factors at play and obviously each project should be considered specifically and independently. Plus, everything is subjective. Lol! Again, to each their own. :)

Twins, just do what works best for you. :)

My confidential informants in London relayed the story idea that the E-Twins may have turned down. Here it is, please destroy it after you read it. "In a post-apocalyptic society, a pair of honest and ethical twins transform into diabolical and deviant psychopaths, intent on destroying the last vestige of civilized society - the Easter bunny - and eviscerating all bunnies in England and the world." Yeah...I guess I could see how the E-Twins turned that one down. Heh-heh. And Happy Easter to Christians and Pagans who celebrate it, and also to those with no beliefs and who don't celebrate it, even though they get a day off of work for it anyway!

Bill: Lol! You are a riot!! I love it.

I'm with Danny and D Marcus. Unless it's something morally reprehensible, I'd probably take the job. In fact, I have. As a freelance writer for many years, I've often had to write about things I think are stupid, people I don't like and schools of thought I disagree with. But I was also laughing all the way to the bank. I tend to be very mercenary and it would have to be a pretty corrupt story premise for me to say no.

Yup, most are saying roughly the same thing: big moral reprehensible or illegal stuff is probably a "no." ;) Thanks for the laugh, Bill!

I will not comprise on love of country, love of people and their religious beliefs. My novels are of much moral values. Money cannot buy my ethical principals or diminish my respect for all people. My writings are war stories of the brave men that serve our beautiful U S A. One who proudly served with many veterans. My book and screenplay is a testament of the ethical standards, I wish many writers would extoll. Semper Fi Patrick Delligatti

Hey twins, I haven't had the luxury of a paying (writing) gig yet but I know I wouldn't hesitate refusing one against my principles. When requested to do so in the business world, I refused. Hope that helps.

I think you have to have moral convictions, places you wouldn't go, even if it costs you everything but your soul. That's not the same as preferences. Lots of times we do what we have to rather than what we prefer. That's just being professional. But I don't know how you write a great story without somehow being connected to what makes a story great, and that's the power of conviction. It's like that scene from Lord of the Rings, where Samwise says the people in the great stories kept going, when they had every reason not to, because there is some good in this world, and it's worth fighting for. That's conviction. Fighting for what's good. Sometimes it will cost you. But it's worth it.

Is writing about something you find immoral the same as compromising your moral convictions? I find murder immoral. I write about murder all the time. I find child molestation immoral but I have written characters who are child molesters. My moral convictions do not change when I write about something immoral. To use the Eveliendorien Twins words; murder is against everything I stand for, child abuse is against everything I stand for. Racism is against everything I stand for I have written about all three. And I don't have a problem doing so.

Yes I've turned down paid work. I was asked to ghost write a novel about a guy who like sex with kids... and it was a pro-pedofilia story. I said no.

Can I have their number? Kidding....I'm just kidding guys, relax.

D Marcus. Good points. To me, the issue is not necessarily writing, or declining to write, about an action you find immoral. As you say, I find murder immoral but I do write scripts including it frequently. I think the values in question are your most deeply held beliefs. An example. Suppose you asked to work on story in which the murderer gleefully escapes completely unpunished. In this story, there is (what I would refer to as) no justice. Based on your belief in justice as an essential value, you might decline to work on that story. Your choice as an individual.

Hey Erik... nice to see you :)

D Marcus, you said: "Is writing about something you find immoral the same as compromising your moral convictions?" It depends. As others here have already said, it is possible to be true to your core beliefs even when you write about things you find reprehensible, as long as the verdict of the writing is that they really are reprehensible. To Kill a Mockingbird, for example. You've got murder, prejudice, revenge, etc. Yet the story resolves all these into a strong moral vision that ultimately condemns murder, prejudice and revenge, and instead argues for life, love and forgiveness. So I guess that's how I'd analyze it. What's the argument of the writing? Is it arguing that something you find immoral is actually good? Is it arguing that something you find virtuous is evil? Those would be the kind of projects I would have trouble with.

Douglas, I took the original question to mean what choice would we make as an individual. So there we agree. I hope no one is reading what I write thinking I am suggesting in anyway that MY choice should be YOUR choice. My opinion stated here are only my choice as an individual. I would have no problem writing a story in which a murderer gleefully escapes completely unpunished even though that is against everything I stand for. Murder going unpunished is against my core beliefs but I would still have no issue writing a story that ends with a murderer going unpunished. Joe, as I said in my first post on this interesting subject, writing about something that is against everything I stand for (as the Eveliendorien Twins put it) or writing about something I find immoral is actually good allows me to grow as a person and a writer. Creating a character who is completely immoral and making that character come off as "good" is a fascinating challenge for me as a writer. I would welcome an assignment like that rather than turn it down. But (of course) I respect that you would have trouble with that. I am not willing to change what I stand for or change my principles but I'm thrilled to write about things I find immoral and what is against what I stand for. I love exploring all aspects of human behavior.

D Marcus. Excellent explanation. To borrow from it, "Creating a character who is completely immoral and making that character come off as "good" is a fascinating challenge for me as a writer. I would welcome an assignment like that rather than turn it down. But (of course) I respect that you would have trouble with that." I completely agree with the first sentence. (I'd say that it's a truly excellent challenge for any writer.) And I would have no trouble with taking that assignment if I were allowed (by the producer, exec, whoever's in charge) to create a hero who's smart enough, tough enough, to handle everything the 'good guy' dishes out and to see to it that the 'good guy' is nailed in some fashion. (I'd make that clear up front in the preliminary interview. If I don't get the job, so be it.) I'd add that I think that appropriate punishment can come in many ways, not just legal. Perhaps physical or psychological or a combination of both. (An example could be the AC Doyle story in which Holmes fights to the death with Moriarty.)

I turned down paying work once not because it was morally or ethically bothersome but because it was so breathtakingly uninteresting - dare I say dumb? - I would have had to shut down 3/4 of my brain to write it. I could probably deal with morally questionable subject matter because there's generally some texture there, some shade of grey to play with.

I right dark subject matter, I wrote one actually, but only if it serves what the characters are or have lived through. God knows I lived through some difficult shit to say the least. No shame in spotlighting it. It's what makes us better writers and a deeper understanding of human behavior in our characters.

I've turned down a paid job for a rewrite (page one) where I didn't think the story was very good or could be salvaged by a rewrite. I don't think I've ever turned down a paid gig because it clashed with my ethos. I'm not even sure I understand what that means - and if you could use the money - and it's a legit job - then I'm not sure why you're letting your "ethos" get in the way of a paycheck. That may sound cold - but lets face it - most aspiring writers never make a living at it - and if you've done something to attract the attention of someone who wants to pay you (a nice buck) for WRITING (something you said you "could" do)- you don't seem to be in a position to say no for the reason you list. You don't have to agree with whatever you find objectionable in the assignment - and if it compromises your morals you certainly should feel free to express that to the person looking to have you write it - and see whether you're own POV can be expressed through the writing of another character so that whatever this (cryptic) tale is - thereby achieving a balance in the telling, but to just say "no" out of hand I think is a mistake. When you're a raging success and have what I refer to as "fuck you money" in the bank - you can turn down any assignment for any reason that makes you feel good. But the way you did it - any actor would turn down jobs playing serial killers or child molesters or gangsters or Republican Presidential candidates - because it isn't "who they are or what they believe in" - and since the villain is oft-times the best role in a movie - that would amount to cutting off one's nose job to spite one's face lift. I haven't read anything posted above - but your logline caught my eye and I responded from the gut.

Actually - they are. And to act in it and direct it. Francis Ford Coppola shot some porn movies early in his career.

Porn uses scripts, as in, dialogue and stuff?!?

Graham I think they are. If there's a shooting, I think there's a script to guide the shooting...

Scripts: "dialogue and stuff"

Pierre - you don't think those siliconed bimbos ad lib their lines, do you? They have enough to worry about.

Lines? But hey, let's not be sexist, it's not just the siliconed bimbos that have "lines". Is the word Himbo still in use these days?

As a ghost script doctor pay is good but I turnd whatever would make me feel the same as if I take money for sex if my heart is not in it.Now I remember whoreing not for me.rather dig ditches.

This thread is getting dangerously off point....

Just seeing the most recent comments and was about to echo what Mark already said.

Yes, it is way off point. Please, let's get back to the thread topic. Thanks!

I'm curious why you 'think you could write it even though it goes against what you stand for'? Is this like a could the Coen Brothers write regular daytime soap opera, sort of question?

James. I'm LOL trying to picture the result. 'The Young and the Restless in Fargo.'? 'The Bold and the Beautiful raise Arizona'? (I'll apologize now for being a bit off topic.)

I have no interest in explotation the horrific deeds of a sadistic killer.I am interested in how a person becomes and what we can do to prevent and alter to the good.If you are happy being a hack thats what you are dont pass yourself off as a writer.

Gus; sorry but that's BS. Plenty of amazing writers have written about sadistic killers. Just because you personally disagree with the notion does not make them "hacks".

Gus - writers write. Across a broad spectrum of genres and characters and story lines. Both true and invented from whole cloth. Writers can choose to live in the real world or the deepest, darkest (or lightest) recesses of their imaginations. It's what we do. A "hack" , by your implied definition, is "one who forfeits individual freedom of action or professional integrity in exchange for wages or other assured reward, i.e. - a writer who works mainly for hire". Pretty broad in this context. To echo what Jody already said - you'd be throwing some rather distinguished names out of the tent - Norman Mailer, Truman Capote, Domenick Dunne, Mario Puzo, Francis Ford Coppola, Quentin Tarantino...Name a screenwriter who doesn't "work for hire". Or strives to work "...in exchange for wages". Can't live on daydreams and empty promises. These are all assuredly "writers" - in the best sense of the word. Accomplished and acclaimed. Not a one passing themselves off as anything but what they are - writers. Subject matter does not make one a hack. So don't go all evangelical here and start painting others as something they are not - other than in your own narrow opinion. If we're going to go down that line, I could just as easily say that you also don't seem to be interested in proper grammar, punctuation. spelling or sentence structure. But you still seem to be writing.

Amazing writers who write to exploite the gore with no purpose other than to horrorfy no message .is only crap.

Gus - you made your point. And you keep proving mine.

Porn actors think of themselves think of them selves as paid professional actors. Who do they think they are fooling.Some are very talented and professional.To call them actors requires a very low standard.

@Gus Now you aren't even making sense.

As someone currently working on a thriller script I take offense, Gus. And I'm certainly not writing it to "exploit gore." Nonetheless, everyone is entitled to their opinion, however let's not pass judgement, shall we? And, please, let's get back to the topic of the thread or just let it go... Thanks.

@Douglas, how about No Country for Old Men with a General Hospital? Although not many of the victims get hospitalized... @Beth, even if this doesn't get us completely back on topic, I hope it helps....

How do you get work when you're impossible to read?

Please, no more, Gus. If not can we please just ignore Gus? Let's stick to the great constructive conversation that was this thread. He's just trolling for his own entertainment at the expense of the rest of our reasoned discussion

I've got a slightly different story. The only time I've turned down a paid writing gig was not for the screen but for the page. But this decision was not made from a moral standpoint, more one of self-protection. I used to write non-fiction and was commissioned many times to develop true crime books; serial killers, extreme science etc. Then my publisher asked if I'd develop a book on british gangs. Initially it sounded intriguing. Then, through some prelim research, I got chatting to a fellow author who had written something in a similar vein. He told me how he'd naively dived straight in only to start getting death threats, suspicious packages and the like sent to him after publication. It made his life a misery. This was enough to make me turn down the gig. I love writing, and while I often put myself under extreme stress during the process (you empathise fully, I'm sure!), I am not about to threaten my own existence or the lives of my family. I want to continue writing! This is ust one reason why I admire investigative journalists!

Damn Phil - that was a helluva story - even if your personal turn down was once removed and the result of your chat with the "fellow writer" who had blazed that same path and gotten burned. I've written a few gangster pieces - but only about those who have great stories and are pre-deceased. Takes a bit of the problem areas you mentioned out of it. And back to the original topic - not sure how many of you watched the recently concluded (last night): "American Crime Story: The Trial of O.J. Simpson". Within the parameters of this thread - I lived in LA during the entire thing - the murders, the Bronco chase, the trial - the verdict. I always thought that the evidence was overwhelming against Simpson and never for a minute did I think he didn't murder Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman. Nothing else ever made any sense. DNA was a nascent science at the time and might have been hard to understand - but when someone says that there's a one in 5.6 BILLION chance that someone other than OJ did it - it kind of leaves an impression. Did Ron Fuhrman hurt what looked like a slam dunk case? Absolutely. Did Johnny Cochran play the race card like a Mississippi gambler? Absolutely. Did the jury appear to ignore the evidence for reasons known only to them? Yes. Did the prosecutors take what appeared to be an unloseable case and make some foolish missteps? Yeah. Even after they let OJ try on the glove - why not point out that the dried blood all over it would've caused shrinkage and the rubber gloves ALREADY on his hand (to what purpose - prevent him from leaving fresh DNA inside the already thoroughly tested gloves?) might have also had a "hand" in impeding his progress in pulling the other glove on OVER that one? To say nothing of his lousy acting job in attempting to pull it on in the first place. Do I think that Simpson was a scumbag, wife abusing ticking time bomb who finally got around to graduating from spousal abuse and threats to hacking his ex-wife to death and killing a waiter who came by to return a pair of sunglasses left at his restaurant and put himself in a very wrong place at an awful time? No doubt in my mind. Did I plan to watch this miniseries at all? No. But I tuned in to the first episode and was riveted. I watched all 10. I knew where it was going and most of what played out (to one degree or another having "lived" it back in LA) and my feelings for the crime (horrendous) and the accused (a piece of garbage) would not have stopped me from one millisecond from taking the job as a writer had it been offered to me. The highest compliment I can pay to the writers of this series is to tell them that I am jealous of their work. Not that they got the gig and were paid for it - but for their splendid words and telling of the story. Like "United 93" or "All The President's Men" - they took a real life story where the outcome was well known and made something that you couldn't look away from. Bravo to the writers. And this is an example of what I meant when I said that you don't have to side with every character you write, or agree with reprehensible behavior in their "lives" (real or invented from whole cloth), but to dismiss writing that kind of tale or those kind of human beings out of hand - is being rather short-sighted and ultimately depriving you of stretching your writing muscles and overcoming a pre-judgment on what stories you will or won't tell. In my opinion - a mistake.

Hey alls, sorry for our absense and thanks for your input of late! We're happy to see that this has turned into such an interesting discussion/debate (also, we had no idea we had been nicknamed the E-twins, we like it!) The fact that we labeled the project "against everything we stand for" doesn't neccesarily have to do with any of any of the scenes that would be in the film - in fact, this was for a "horror feature". We have no problem writing about murder, violence, rape,... even against things that we ethically cannot stand behind (like any of the before mentioned things haha), it's difficult to explain without giving away what we were asked to do, but we guess it's got more to do with the fact that even the one page synopsis came across as very expoitative to a certain minority (personal appearance wise) that has had nothing but terrible stereotypes written about them. We couldn't see what adding (this particular minority) would add to the storyline other than (this personal appearance feature) being used as a cheap gag and we refuse to write something that is inherritly an undertoned way of making fun of people because of their appearance. No matter how much money ppl pay us, we're not going to write to make a buck over the back of anyone... We're not the kind of people to "use" others in that way ... Basically our point is that, if we don't see what adding (this minority for this personal appearance feature they own) would add to make this a better movie instead of simple thrill, we cannot stand behind the project (if that's all they have, it's not good... It's just comic relief in poor taste) also - during a talk with the producer about the project, it appeared as though "personal input on the project was not appreciated"...what? LOL

Well I for one am glad to see the E-Twins are back and taking a break from writing The Human Centipede 4. How many are in the human chain now, ladies? Heh-heh.

It's actually turned into the Sharknado Centipede, Bill... we're so ashamed :D

Well that's clear as mud. Listen - the Kardashians can take it, I wouldn't worry about anything you write along those lines. Just make sure every character in the script has a name beginning with a K and you should be good to go.

I've just caught this thread far down the line. We don't need centipede 4. Human science hasn't caught up with making longer human chain. St James Hospital only can do!

No worries Debbie. This thread started to unravel a bit along the way and got tangled into a whole bunch of knots.