Screenwriting : Think like a producer by Craig D Griffiths

1 and 3. Making a film for as cheap as possible (2) makes me think of low production values. It may not be the best way to phrase this, or to bring a film into profitability.

Great post, Craig D Griffiths. It's always helpful to put on the producer's hat when outlining, writing, and rewriting a script. If nothing else, writers should definitely do 1-3.

#3 says, "I want something that has as big an audience as possible. I want something that will have 1,000,000 (or more) customers no matter what." I had a Pitch Session on here a while ago. The producer liked the concept, but he didn't see an audience for it. I didn't even think about the audience when I outlined and wrote the script. Now, I think about who the audience will be when I start a project.

Great thoughts, Craig. It's important that we are able to look at things from different perspectives. Particularly when we are extremely close to something. Unless one plans to write, direct, and self produce something, they've got to be able to see what others want too.

Good answer cryin' Jordan. :)

That's a nice way of looking at things. But, I would have to disagree with #7. If I were a producer myself, I would be proud of a passionate writer. It just means that the story can be engaging, memorable and profitable from his POV.

Also, 100% agree with #4. Check your ego at the door.

Thanks for sharing your perspective, Craig D Griffiths! Something I've learned in this business is that once a script is optioned or bought, anything a writer does isn't for "their script" anymore, its for the producer's project. Thinking like a contracted writer rather than the shepherd of the script makes the rewrite process much easier. Takes the ego out of it because you're just doing your job.

I am always so happy and gladdened by the insights of this group, thank you.

The word “cheap” in point 2 is deceiving. The three Lord Of The Rings movies were all made at the same time to make them as cheap as possible. A cheap production is always bargain basement. They do go hand in hand. Someone that cannot raise a budget is probably going to make a poor quality film.

Lately (Not here) I have seen so many arrogant writer. People that make me look humble, hard to believe I know.

My favourite stupid comment was “bad dialogue exists because the actors and director don’t ask the writer how it is suppose to be said”. It wasn’t a joke. This person then went on and on about how no one can know his story better than him (I am attributing gender as I have never met a woman this stupid).

Thanks again.

As Billy Connolly say “You must walk a mile in someone’s shoes. Because you’ll be a mile away and you’ll have their shoes”. Sorry I just love that line.

I would want to think that I have the hottest idea in town and a writer capable of getting it the rest of the way. AND I'd want a story that has a higher floor (reduced risk) with super high ceiling (reward). Something with a very successful comp as well.

I'd just do my own movies, ideas...this is really how big industry works...you don't see Damon, Cruise, Affleck, Murphy, Theron, etc. doing your dream projects, they do theirs...some ideas maybe originating from their teen days when they too hustled to have someone else produce them...

Let me summarize,

I want, I want, I want.

I don't want, I don't want, I don't want.

What does the Audience want?

Craig D Griffiths Number 2 is interesting. IMHO, no screenwriter should care how much a movie might cost to produce, UNLESS they are specifically working to write a "low-budget" movie, e.g., $1M or less. For one thing, I'm terrible at estimating costs of anything, from a gallon of milk to a major home remodel. I simply don't know. Two, I believe in writing the movie you'd go to see. I like big spectacle, so some of my scripts would probably cost north of $50 million to produce. On the other hand, a smart producer might find a way to make the picture with $25 million, but have it look like $100 million. To me, this means writing the script, and taking care to pick the right producers to pitch. Just my two cents.

Thanks for the comments.

If the focus of a scene is to get Person A to meet Person B. We could do it at a party, meeting or in the stadium of the super bowl.

The first two are not that expensive. The last one is super expensive. So why write it? If it gives us some additional information. But if it is to be cool? I would make a different choice.

If some random woman asks me to give her $2000 I would have to ask a lot of questions regarding credibility. My wife just purchased a $2000 pizza oven and didn’t even ask me, it just turned up.

Why am I telling you that?

It is much easier to raise 200,000,000 for a Nolan screenplay than a Griffiths screenplay, I think we can agree. Even if they are the same quality, no one is coughing up that cash on stuff I write.

Do people ever complain about a bargain? Do they complain about getting something great for less money?

I cannot see the problem in having a skill set that enables me to see the costs of things and make decisions (that don’t impact the story) but cost less.

Thanks again. I do enjoy informed and intelligent discourse.

Just replace cheap with punches above its weight. Every producer wants something that does more for less. That's just sound business.

Certainly pays for every screenwriter trying to break in to have one low-budget script in their portfolio. That puts the odds on your side.

There's also nothing wrong with an artist having some ego. Being too compliant/servile can come across as bad/creepy. You need to be passionate about your work, voice, and brand.

CJ and Dan G, very true statements. I am not saying we are all destined to be indie writers (except for me of course). But I cannot see many people I know getting to write for a studio with deep pockets. So from a art POV budget should not be a concern.

But Producer Craig lives by the saying “a dollar saved is a dollar earned”. It is better, it is more like a $1.60 before tax.

We are beginning to see bad CGI (the flash) because of shrinking budgets. If big IP is becoming budget aware, it will flow down hill to us.

Dan Guardino I have been doing some research. The analyst in me thinks I have a model to your problem.

I’ll drop it here.

I won’t mention you unless you say I can. But I think it is a good video episode next week.

Dan Guardino far from it. You have intrigued me. Your position must have external forces at play. The market must have some function built into its culture or collective operating model, undocumented, but somehow adopted.

Think about it. You get John Travolta, not a “poor man’s” JT, but the real actor in a film for ten million. And people say no. It is like getting a $10,000 Rolls Royce and saying no.

If we can understand these anomalies, we can avoid them like land mines.

Something worth pointing out here is that a proper pitch usually has two budgets stated; the "lowest budget" and the "ideal budget".

The lowest budget is the absolute rock-bottom price the producers believe the script can be made for (subject to the talent already attached).

The ideal budget is how much the producers believe needs to be spent to generate the most amount of revenue back. More money should mean higher production quality and thus better distribution deals and more sales.

When you write a low budget script, that doesn't mean it must be made for peanuts. It just means it can be made for peanuts if say a filmmaker working off their own credit card wanted to make the film using their old film college buddies. The same script could still have a studio exec choose to spend $20m on cast, sets, camera gear, and an indulgent production schedule.

Go look at Tarantino's own attempts to shoot True Romance (aka My Best Friend's Birthday) on rented 35mm cameras each weekend with his friends. Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction could have easily been shot the same way but would have come out playing like student films. There would have been no Jack Rabbit Slims in the latter production either, or car crash.

As Dan states, different producers live in different worlds and think differently as a result. However, they are reading your script differently too. No sane producer sees a script as rigid. They see it as something they can potentially adapt to suit their needs, which comes with both pros and cons as a result.

The problem comes when you have a screenwriter who's written one or two scripts that absolutely need tens of millions to do them any justice. While they will serve as writing examples, the odds of aligning with someone who can get them made is statistically unlikely.

I have done some research and there is a “dip of death”. Due to the shrinking of secondary markets like video. I think Dan G, that your screenplay, even though great and backed by A List talent drifted into the dip.

Lol Craig, Im shocked Disney didn't call you to replace Chapek! Keep talking theories.

Affordable and effective.

Dan MaxXx me too. Considering it is based on solid business logic. Most of it I got from those Fxxkwits at the Harvard Business Review, wankers.

Ted Hope has been warning about the death of indie film for decades. Can't recommend his blog and his book (Hope for Film) enough. It was guaranteed the second the long-tail returns of DVD/TVOD were replaced by streaming.

I'd argue the ultra-low-budget side only exists because a lot of people can afford to lose that money.

CJ Walley I think ultra-Low-budget is a gamble people are willing to take. Most of it goes to horror as it has a hungry audience that isn’t 100% quality driven. So a bit of bad lighting or questionable acting is accessible.

But if you are good. An Ultra-Low can be a great stepping stone. Which what I think drives people to risk the money and time.

https://youtu.be/ySwLPrBcTOY?si=tAujvmRqm3cpJhYQ

This was a quick video about the graph above. The world has segmented into Ultra-Low which is a gamble (low budgets also mean low returns) and things that are blockbusters.