Screenwriting : There is No Such Thing as a Good Script. by Edwin Adrian Nieves

God bless John Ford, who was one of the greatest American directors. There are so many factors in getting a film idea to the marketplace. It begins with something as seemingly simple as a great logline. We live in an ADD world and you have precious little time to capture someone’s interest. Though one can read a lot to the contrary, the film business also adheres very strongly to the three act structure when considering the merit of a screenplay. Like the literary industry, formatting errors are also not looked upon with favor. I look at other writer’s screenplays all the time; and there are definitely degrees of writing skill. So ultimately, I disagree with Ford. A good film begins with a great scipt like a solid house is built on a good foundation.

Film is collaborative, so I agree that everyone who works on a project helps shape the end result. They can make good become great or can do the reverse and tank the project with too many people pulling it in various directions. But I do contend that nothing starts without a solid script.

Well put both of you! I do agree that a film is like building a house, and that a good foundation has to come from the script. Film as collaborative is also key. There is nothing more truthful when a director, after getting recognition, admits he or she would not have been able to do the work without the team behind the project. In regards to the statement from Ford, the vision of the film may change from the script to the screen; nonetheless, it is obligatory to have that good script before any vision can be brought to life.

I disagree. No one ever says " Let's take this shitty script, spend $50 million and make a movie" (or maybe they do). A directors "vision" is based on the imagination of the screenwriter. IMH, a real directors vision would only exist if he/she actually wrote the script (see the matrix). The industry has deliberately positioned screenwriters to be lowest on the totem pole, because they don't want them to exercise any control like playwrights. Most directors end up screwing up the original idea.

No one ever says this script is genius! Let's spend millions on producing this work of high art which no one will watch because it needs to exist in the medium of film! ... either. The cracks are where the light gets in and all that...

From what I have learned, Marvin, it is an unusual privilege for a writer to even be present on set. In my opinion, this can work against the production (unless the relationship between writer and director is poor) since much of filmmaking lies in problem solving, and I find it advantageous to have creative people brainstorming and finding solutions--a good team of creative people that is. Nonetheless, as much as the script was the screenwriter's vision, the actual producing of the the script puts the final work in the director's hands because that is the director's job, to "direct" the film version of the script. Marianne, your comment then leads me to this simple fact. The story of a film undergoes three stages: from the script, to the shooting, and finally, to the edit where we get the final cut. In some ways, Ford may be hinting at this process and that in the editing room we finally find our cinematic story. Also, Marianne, your statement brings to mind this interesting thought on the script from Andrei Tarkovsky: "If a scenario is a brilliant piece of literature, then it is far better that it should remain as prose. If a director still wants to make a film from it, then the first thing to be done is to turn it into a screenplay which can be a valid basis for his work. At that point it will be a new script, in which literary images have been replaced by filmic equivalents."

While I think there are great scripts, as it is it's own artform, I think what Ford was talking about was the fact that a script is really just like the foundation of a house that hasn't been built yet. It may look awesome on paper, but there are so many other people that have to come in and put their stamp on it, which can be good or bad in the end.

Edwin is right about screenwriters being present on set. Here's an interesting story. A director and a Screenwriter were doing press and the Director was harping on about "his vision" for a sequel the screenwriter was writing. Later, the Director got a package from the Screenwriter. It was 120 blank pages with the note, "Go create your vision" True story. Read it on the Internet.

I am a poet and a screenwriter. The best poem will allow different interpretations from different people reading the same words. The best screenplay will allow different words from different directors interpreting the same meaning. I create words to interpret my meaning on the page and I create meaning without words on the screen. https://www.facebook.com/PoetryForPeopleWhoHatePoetry

Perhaps a good screenplay is like a good musical score... the orchestra/actors/director/camera etc. will make it unique at each rendition - the better the score, the more scope for exploration...

Marvin, I had never heard of that story but DAMN. That writer really went for it, and I respect that. One of the biggest things a director needs to learn is to put the ego to a side (not that there aren't any big time directors with egos out there). I've been on projects where the director speaks of the work as "his film," and it's disconcerting because in the end each film, unless one accomplishes each role, is everybody's film. I personally give credit where it's due. For example, if someone like an actor suggests a shot, I will always mention how that shot came to being, and to me, that ties into one of the most enjoyable parts of working in film, witnessing the evolution of an idea. That is too why some time ago I wrote a post on my blog stating that I will no longer use the phrase "A Film by" or "A [insert name] Film." The Comforter John West, you brought to my mind a statement by the poet Paul Valery, "A poem is never finished, only abandoned." Ezra Pound's poem "In a Station of the Metro" was a much longer poem. He edited/rewrote it until at last he was satisfied with the version we have now, the famous two lines "The apparition of these faces in the crowd;/ Petals on a wet, black bough." He "abandoned" the poem with those two lines, when the poem finally represented what he was pursuing, a precise equation to a moment he had in a subway station. I wonder, Marisa, if as a poet, you enjoy Ezra Pound's works or those of the Imagists and others influenced by the movement. I myself was led to screenwriting from poetry when I began to concentrate more strongly on the image itself as a, let's say, metaphor for the feelings and thoughts I wanted to convey. Marianne and Jacqueline, I completely agree with both you on how a good work always leads to a variety of interpretations. The greatest works, I feel, have two qualities: they are universal and timeless, and these qualities equal that greater scope for exploration.

Not leaving you out, Keith! I do see how the comparison of a script to a blueprint for a house is justifiable. In the end, one can say filmmaking is precisely that: a group of laborers with their own roles working together to construct something that will stand and, hopefully, endure the passing of time.

Every script is only 98% finished

i agree with him , it has to be the movie its self [pictures ] but not the papers , if you have ever written for a director you can easily tell , that maybe his apprach polished or destroyed what you had in mind , i have had two experiences, i there fore base my judgement on that .

The original point is a good one - a script isn't literature, it's a blueprint. Sometimes I read fantastic scenes from famous films in their 'blueprint' version and the language seems clunky and the ideas seem petty - but great direction, performances, and cinematography can fix all that!

If it ain't on the page - it ain't on the stage (32). I have no way to interpret Mr. Ford's comment taken out of context of what might have been a longer quote. Not sure how he meant it. John Ford is one of my 4 or 5 favorite directors in movie history. But if he meant the comment literally - or as some derisive remark about the quality of screenplays or the men and women who write them (I am a screenwriter) - then he's full of shit. There are not only "good scripts", there are also great scripts, lousy scripts and magnificent scripts. As someone else already commented in sharing their story about the writer who sent a director 120 blank pages to shoot for "his" sequel - that's always how it begins. With nothing. And before a writer adds words to the page - there remains nothing. Nothing to shoot or light or costume or act. The director does not put actors on their marks in full makeup - yell action - and hope they come up with dialogue and action. Directors have long fancied themselves the be all and end all of movies (and in truth - once the film begins principal photography - they are indeed the captains of the ship - calling the shots - spending hundreds of thousands of dollars of the studio's money every day - but prior to that - they have been given the blueprint to shoot - the story and action and dialogue. It didn't come from a vacuum. They're not making it up on the spot. The studio approved a budget based on the SCRIPT. They hired the director to shoot the STORY. Hired actors to speak the screenwriter's WORDS. So it has long bothered the hell out of me and the WGA that director's love to take the possessive "A Film By" credit. Even novices who've never done more than directing a TV commercial before their film debut. It's insulting in a "Collaborative" medium to put your name not only in final position but above the title as well. Unless the director is also a writer - like Woody Allen (and he has never taken a "Film By" credit) - it's bush league. I once had the pleasure of meeting Ernest Tidyman who wrote (and won the Oscar for) the screenplay for "The French Connection". Terrific film. And as good a director as William Friedkin was (also an Oscar winner for the same movie) - Tidyman told us that the famous chase scene with Gene Hackman screaming behind the wheel of his car as it careened below the L-tracks chasing the subway train with the French hit man on board - was all written out - shot for shot in his screenplay. Meticulously described. So if (and only if) Ford's remark is taken as a diminution of the writer's craft - than I take great umbrage with it. because I doubt very much that "She Wore A Yellow Ribbon" and "Fort Apache" and "How Green Was My Valley" (which was a great book first), and "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance" and "Mr. Roberts" (a stage play) and so many of his other films began on the set when he shouted "Action". They began as scripts. GOOD scripts. Better than good. Might he have made them better? Perhaps. Could he have screwed them up? Certainly. But sorry Mr. Ford - there most certainly ARE such things as good scripts - and if you don't at least begin with one - than there would be no such thing as good movies.

To Lance - if you start with petty scenes and clunky dialogue - you end up with the same thing and it all adds up to a lousy movie. No one starts out to make a bad movie or TV show - but the time to fix it is in the rewrite stage on the script - not after the filming begins. there's only so much a brilliant editor can do after the fact. They can only work with the footage that was shot (or re-shot). You can loop dialogue. You can change the score (famously - the entire score for "Love Story" was thrown out and they began anew and the haunting score certainly enhanced the film - but it in no way changed the story that so many found so gripping). Can actors bring more to the dialogue than it seemed on the page - sometimes. But if you watch films where a lot of ad libbing went on on set - because the director lost control of the 800 pound gorilla who was the highly paid "star" - it sticks out like a sore thumb. Might work in the end credit outtakes - but not in the body of the work. The script may well be the "blueprint" for the film - but it is an indispensible tool - the foundation of the piece - the skeleton already fleshed out. No builder in their right mind would hire a construction crew to frame a house if they didn't have the WRITTEN plans in hand. Too much can go wrong - and often does.

@ Lance Blair. A script IS literature by definition. It can go both ways, a great script can be made into a crap movie. Producer, Scott Rudin said the biggest shortcoming in Hollywood is EXECUTION. That comes down to the Director.

How exciting that film is such a young medium, and the re-making of scripts in different ways by different teams will be part of its evolution...

I have worked on many features, and as a screenwriter, a storyteller, I truly believe that writers make the best directors... because no director can ever really see what is in the writer's mind's eye -- so translation -- from page to screen -- can often be skewed. Most good movies tend to stick to the original script. And most writer/director's screenplays/ features also tend do well.

As an editor, a script is a never perfect. It is only really used as a guide to what order the film progresses.

disagree completely. directing and writing require two different set of skills and just because one is good at one doesn't mean they can do the other. the whole point of a director is a different set of eyes on the script. also disagree with the statement 'most good movies tend to the original script'. I have yet to work on a film that didn't have numerous rewrites etc while shooting. In fact, most of the time, by the end of the shoot - the script has few white pages left.

An interesting thought Farron - it's similar to a quote from Humphrey Bogart (?) about the Oscars and how difficult it is to judge 5 actors in the same category with such disparate performances. I think he (or someone) said the only way to judge is for all to do the same role (Shakespeare) and see how they line up. Your idea - with the prohinitive cost of movies nowadays - will never happen just to prove or disprove a point - but the flip side is - that other than choice of casting, lens, DP - the story would still essentially be the same. All you might end up proving is which director is more skilled at casting, working with the actors and bringing the writer's vision to the best result. I've heard many actors (including Dame Maggie Smith last night on 60 Minutes) talk about how nice it is to work with actors turned directors (Dustin Hoffman - who at 78 directed his FIRST film but took a "A Film By Dustin Hoffman" credit!!) because they know how the actor's process works.

To Marianne - Universal Pictures is celebrating their 100th Anniversary as a film studio this year - so not sure that film qualifies as a "young medium" any longer. Maybe compared to cave drawings - but a century is nothing to sneeze at - as one of the earliest silent films will attest.

To Joshua and Leonardo - a script may never be perfect - what is? As Billy Wilder so rightly intoned in the great last line of "Some Like It Hot" - but it is FAR more than merely a "guide" to the order of scenes. It is an entire story - told in words, pictures and dialogue. And as for Leonardo - I agree about the rainbow colors of the pages by the end of a shoot - but has the film improved from all these changes? A good friend of mine - a writer - with multiple film credits and a former TV show runner says that after 3 revisions - the script no longer gets any better, "it just gets different".

I both write and direct. I have read scripts that brought on an emotional response, but is that because it was a great script, or because my imagination and visual way of reading it, made it a great film, in my head? It is quite a conundrum when you think about it too much. I have written scripts that have brought criticism, as well as accolades. so I would like to say that yes, there are great scripts, and not so great ones. I have seen great scripts ruined by bad acting or direction, just as I have seen horrible scripts made brilliant by great acting and visionary direction.

Scripts are blueprints and not meant for the reader. Maybe what Ford was saying is if a script is good it gets translated to film. A good script doesn't live on its own and become a success and or a best seller like a novel does. A good script must be made into a movie to be considered a piece of art at all. Film is a collaborative art form which of course begins with the script. But then there are so many performances that make a script anything at all and by that time its called a movie.

I found the full quote, and it's context. I think his position is pretty self-explanatory... Ford argued that he had no difficulty making the transition from silent pictures to talkies, but the early years of sound did constitute a transitional period in his career and a temporary decline in his standing. His first three sound pictures were financial failures, and he needed The Black Watch and Salute to bolster his prestige within the industry. Ford Continued to argue that the spoken word was for the stage; movies should concentrate on the movement and the visual. "It's still a silent medium," he vowed. "There's no such thing as a good script, really. Scripts are dialogue, and I don't like all that talk. I've always tried to get things across visually." Ford thought of himself first as a cameraman, then a director. He learned to move narrative along swiftly and not to pack too many ideas not a single scene. Movies were at their best when they told story through "a series of simple, beautiful, active pictures." That's when "the motion picture medium is being used to it's full advantage," he said.

Playing off your thought, Edwin, I think Ford may have been right. The script is but one piece of the collective art we know as a movie. Yes, it is a foundational piece. However, a director, an actor, a score can bring the story to life.

More than likely the GREAT Ford is right, but my confidence won't allow me to say such a thing, if there has never been a good or great script, I plan to be the first to create one, that's what drives me to keep writing

Thanks Keith for finding the full quote! I do agree with Ford on how the filmmaker should center on the moving image. For me, dialogue should be used only when it is absolutely needed, and to add to that, when it reflects something more than what is being said. This conversation on the script has been very interesting. Even with the differences in opinion about the script being either literature or a blueprint, it seems like we all agree on the importance of it leading to a solid product, the film itself. I too like Joshua's comment from the view of an editor. Editing too is writing, and as Joshua stated, at this stage the script does become more of a guideline.

Keith - thanks for the more robust Ford quote - and as I said earlier - he remains a favorite of mine. And yes - I agree that film is a visual medium - otherwise they wouldn't spend so much time trying to "open up" stage plays when translated to the screen. And I believe that Ford meant what he said during his transitional period from silents to talkies - but the fact of the matter is - there's a reason they don't make silent films any more (and even those were scripted to a degree) - and I like to think of one of Ford's movies that is one of my all time favorites - THE QUIET MAN. There is nothing "quiet' about it and it contains some of the most indelible characters and splendid lilting dialogue ever put on film. Am I to believe that Ford would have preferred to throw away Frank S. Nugent's wonderful screenplay and reshoot the entire film with John Wayne and Maureen O'Hara holding hands and skipping through the heather?

Robert Gwinn -- you say you both write and direct - but judging by your comment - I suspect you are far more loyal to the directing part of your personal equation. Just out of curiosity - perhaps you might name one or two of the "horrible script(s) made brilliant by great acting and visionary direction" that you've read...

Screenwriting: "There is No Such Thing as a Good Script" ? ... Actually, I agree. A script will either be spectacular or it sucks. Spectacular, in that the story is successful more by what is visual than spoken otherwise it's just a play on film. Or it sucks and nobody is going to work on it at all to be in a position to put it down. ...To me if a director can't take a script and make it better visually, with (at least MOST of) the writer's words, everybody's wasting their time, talent, money and commitment.

actually, you're wrong. despite the strike, writers were able to finish work on 'Quantum' without being 'scabs'.

of course they did to cover their asses. I've worked on at least 3 films that were in production during writers' strikes and that didn't hold up production, or prevent the writers from working. they just changed the dates (to make it look like the rewrites were done before the strike) or they just didn't tell anyone

Playing off of your comment, Andrew... yes, a script/storyline is the foundation. However... a director, the actors, and the score, can also kill the original storyline -- an original script that enough people thought worthy of producing. Sure, everyone always seems to want to add their two cents to the writer's original script -- and sometimes, for the better. But I'd rather have a dollar for ever lousy movie that came for a decent screenplay... than all the successful movies that came from lousy screenplays;-}! Obviously, from the various responses... this is a very subjective issue.

i just can't get it here , yes i must agree a good script is foundation of a good movie , but not all good scripts can make good movie , trust me how ever good you might be [ writer ] when your director and actor are fake , its total waste of time . lets assume you created this emotional character but director does not give time to actor or can not shoot the movie well or is too weak to control every thing in his/her limit , do you think you will ever get that emotional character on screen ?even just this one runner on set can destroy every thing if your director is not strong enough to stand his position on production . i will there 4 stand my point , the director is final person upon which the movie should be judged the rest of us add to what he wants and blue print just sparkle his/her mind , and if he/she cannot see beyond what you wrote possitivelly then i doubt if you will ever get that good movie , good writer .

And, Julian, why I feel that writer/directors make the best directors -- seeing the full picture from the writer's point of view. If you have bad actors, that's a casting decision call... and we all know that talent does not always win the day when it comes to casting. And if the director sucks, get rid of him/her. But that's a producer's duties. This is a very subjective topic, and as you can see, people's opinions tend to vary. I am in the industry, so I view it from that perspective. I have been in 'the business' for over 20 years. So, I'm going out on a limb, here, when I say that... depending on from what/whose point you are looking at this issue... opinions will always vary. I have seen many a lousy performance, and yet, I have never heard an actor admit that their lack of talent ruined the flick. I have heard of writer's who have actually taken their names off of screenplays after directors have interjected their two cents -- probably for the WGA credits/pension. So, I just chose to think of it this way... if not for the story... there would be no actors, not directors... no movie;-{!

Review the movies you love. What stands out? It's not always the same. My example: Raiders of The Lost Ark: Everything Groundhog's Day: The Writing Dances With Wolves: Everything Citizen Kane: The Directing Boyz N The Hood: The Writing/The Directing Jerry Miguire: The Writing/The Acting Die Hard: Everything Remains of The Day: Everything Titanic: The Directing/The effects/The Production Design/The Sound Alien: Everything Ace Ventura Pet Detective: Jim Carrey Star Wars: The Writing/The effects/The Music Blair Witch Project: The Writing/The Directing Warm Bodies: The Writing/The Directing Good Fellas: Everything S7ven: Everything Toy Story: Everything Borat: The Writing/Sacha Baron Cohen The Dark Knight: Everything Good Will Hunting: The Writing Taxi Driver: The Writing/The Directing/Bobby D

So Taxi driver was only good because of the directing and Deniro? So no one was attracted to movies because of the screenplay?

who's that directed too?

to*?

oh @ chuck

Take a look at the Taxi Driver script. It's an example of how there are always exceptions to the (screenwriting) rules. Of course, it is written by Paul Schrader, however, what needs to be said is that a writer can get away with breaking or bending the rules through exceptional writing. It's definitely one of my favorite screenplay reads. http://ubuntuone.com/4rlqKhZb3sAN2iO3l1obF0

Hmmmmm.... I beg to differ. Yes, a screenplay is a foundation but if it isn't a good one the rest of the project is doomed. Even if the director changes things while shooting, chances are it will be in contexts with the story as a whole. All due respect to Ford.

Trust me, no film that's won “Best Picture” has done it by winging a script or in post. If that were true, why not just shoot first drafts and kill the TONS of rewrites requested by studios and producers? I may as well say, “there is no such thing as a good director” because a decent camera man, actors, and editor can just slap the thing together.

could have sworn you guys said that twice...meh im losing my mind

In order for you to have a good movie, you have to have a good idea, and the script is the end result of the idea. Once it is written, it can always be made better, so I think that there is such a thing as a good script.

I've always felt... why'd they buy it in the first place, if they were just going to rewrite it... unless that was the original objective -- in which case -- the original writer could actually find themselves out of their writer's credit. I don't know if, or how much, of your life is in the industry... but it has been my observation that selfish directors tend to do rewrites on scripts in order to gain the credit recognition. And, I feel, that those who do this really have no respect for writers. Otherwise, why not have the original writer do the rewrites? If it's that easy to write a good screenplay -- then why didn't the director come up with the idea in the first place? Sorry if I sound a bit jaded. I've had stories and television concepts ripped off... been the whole legal route... so I come from this in a different light. But if you want to read a spec script, that looks very much like the shooting script -- very little changed -- then read -- SPEED;-}!

isn't the WGA kinda strict and picky about adding writing credits? the original writer will always get credit, no matter how many rewrites, unless he wants his name taken off. unsure of the specifics but a writer has to have added something significant before he gets his name added to the credits.

The WGA, well, they can be pretty nutty. They wouldn't give screen credit for the writer who did additional work on the "Hangover." He added the stuff about the tiger, stealing the police car, and some other key things. The director insisted, as well as the original writing team, that the guy got some credit but the WGA said no for some reason.

William, so Shakespeare when put on the screen is just a guy that wrote a foundation?

@ Marvin Willson. Yes Paul Schrader's writing was exceptional. ( I edited my post.) re: "Ford is insisting that the final product, the film itself, is what should be judged" For me sometimes it's just the writing that makes the film, sometimes it's the directing, sometimes it's not the acting, but simply an appearance that can turn around a mediocre script and tired directing. Steve Martin's a good example.

The WGA is not nutty. LOL It's pretty straight forward. From the WGA... Screenplay by credit Percentage requirements Any writer whose work represents a contribution of more than 33% of a screenplay shall be entitled to screenplay credit, except where the screenplay is an original screenplay. In the case of an original screenplay, any subsequent writer or writing team must contribute 50% to the final screenplay. if it goes to arbitration... At the time of the credit arbitration, the production executive or production executive team must assume the burden of proving that he/she/they had, in fact, worked on the script as a writer and had assumed full share of the writing. If the production executive or production executive team is the second writer he/she/they must have contributed more than 50% of the final script to receive screenplay credit. His/her/their contribution must consist of dramatic construction; original and different scenes; characterization or character relationships; and dialogue.

@ Kevin S Birnbaum. has a point. Is a playwright held in higher regard than a screenwriter? Are their scipts classed as "good"?

Unless things have changed, Leonard, the max writers for writer's credits is four. It used to be three, like ten years ago... but I believe it's now four. And as Marvin wrote, any writer contributing 33% or more... gets a credit -- which can eventually knock the original writer right out of the ball park.

It's three name on credits. The original writer is usually credited last. Which brings up "&" vs "and" (for those that don't know) Screenwriter "&" Screenwriter = Co-writers Screenwriter "and" Screenwriter = The first writer wrote the screened draft and the last writer wrote the original.

"Romeo and Juliet", written as is, is not changed by a film director - or other writers doing rewrites. That was my point. Therefore, there is such a thing as a good script no matter what John Ford says.

leonard - I beg to differ about the WGA always giving credit to the original writer. I was the original writer of an original screenplay which became "the Last Samurai". The director and his producing partner did minimal work on the script (judged originally by WGA arviters to be insufficient to share credit) and yet they managed to game the system and block me and the next two writers who came in to do revisions on my original script from even being included in the MANDATORY credit arbitration - where - if the rules were followed - as a writer of original material - I could be reduced to no less than a shared story by credit (on a film that eventually had a worldwide gross of $444 million). I received no credit at all on the film - had to sue not only the distributing studio but the WGA as well (picture that - a union founded to protect writer's credits sitting at the defense table with the studio who omitted the credit) - and take it all the way to the appellate court over a 4 and 1/2 year period of time. And I lost. the lower court - ignored all the evidence (and trust me - there were enough bullets for a smoking Gatling gun) and tossed the case on a summary judgment 3 weeks before a jury would have been impaneled and then the appellate court wouldn't overturn the bad judgment of the lower court. Fun and games in Hollywood.

Yup, hooray for Hollywood.

I'm SO sorry Michael. I recommend all writers to get a decent entertainment lawyer and ensure you get a credit clause put in your option agreement, ensuring you get on the title card.

well, Michael, I think yours is the exception instead of the rule. and just to be fair - found this article. "A federal court in Los Angeles on Tuesday threw out claims by screenwriter Michael Alan Eddy that he was wrongfully barred by the Writers Guild of America, West from participating in arbitration over screenplay credits for last year's The Last Samurai. Eddy had claimed that the movie was based in part on his script titled West of the Rising Sun but that he was excluded from participating in a credits arbitration hearing. The WGA said that it employed three expert readers to determine whether Eddy's claims should be arbitrated. Producer Ed Zwick had conceded that he had seen Eddy's original script about an American in the 1870s who fights with the Samurai, but had decided to throw it out and start all over. " posted this not to challenge Michael's claims but just to show another point of view. all too often there are screenplays with 'similar' themes, plotlines and characters but that's not saying one is stealing from the other. look at 'Priscilla, Queen of the Desert' and 'To Wong Foo, thanks for everything, Love Julie Newmar', and Dr. Strangelove and Fail Safe which I love being referred to as 'Dr. Strangelove without the laughs'.

Glad the writer credits issue was all cleared up. And, to clear up my opinion regarding the script vs everyone else... I have a Helene-ism, that you are all welcome to borrow: "A screenplay is like a road map. Follow it, and you will get there."

@ Micheal am sorry for what happened to you , that's disrespect in the first place not artstic views at all , whether you adding a million layers of cream on cake , why to forget who baked the cake in the first place ? . value added is neccessary but respect is more important in this biz , but any way my point was not about the credits , but the attributes we earn from either sucessfull or failed project we are attached to as creative people . who really matters and who should be judged for the best or worst of screenplay in theatre is the director not me the writer , for me a director must be this person that can see thing beyond every one attached on the project , if he can not visualize possitivelly to add value on what i started , then i doubt if good script will ever be a foundation for good movie ,

Marvin - appreciate the sympathy - but at the time of the deal - I was a WGA member, had an entertainment attorney and the deal was negotiated by a very good agent. The company that hired me to write the script for them was run by a guy I had worked with in the past. He left and the company tried to NOT pay me after delivery of a draft of the script (against WGA rules - and the Guild went after them on it and got me paid in 24 hours) then tried to avoid paying a bonus called for in the contract - which they claimed to have "accidentally" deleted without red-lining (they accidentally deleted a three line clasue from a 75 page contract) - I went to the WGA again - and they filed an arbitration against the company - and their first witness under oath testified that he was "ordered" to delete the clause by the head of business affairs and was only following orers (the Nuremberg defense) - so by the time they screwed me on my credit - I notified the union of the people they were dealing with - liars who had tried to screw me twice already ON THE SAME PROJECT - but the Guild - who I feel was complicit in what happened (the long time head of credits retired after my case and the head of legal was fired and replaced) chose to ignore me and the evidence of prior hearings in their own archives - and side with the studio. As for getting a clause in your option agreement (and I did not option this script to the company - I was brought in after they read a spec i wrote and pitched an idea and hired to write an original screenplay for them after I worked out the entire story and characters) to guarantee credit - there is no such thing. Credit is determined solely bt the WGA after all drafts are written and within weeks of the end of principal photography - after the studio submits a list of tentative writing credits - and any writer who worked on the screenplay is to be notified by the union that his or her name is or is not on the list - and can appeal the decision. If production executives (director, producerm actor) claim writing credit - an arbitration under the WGA's jurisdiction - is called to determine credit - and they have sole and final decision making power over that. In my case - I should have been automatically be included in the arbitration as the original writer - but I was excluded through a dog and pony show and my automtaic credit went by the boards, prompting my lawsuit.

Leonard - thanks for taking the time to find an article - but the article gets it all wrong - the same as the judge did. the judge who dismissed the case had been on the bench for 6 months - and never did a film themed case before. Mr. Zwick lied through his teeth about everything and I found that out after the fact based on depositions he gave in another case by other writers who claimed he stole their work as well. My script was entitled "Eastern Western", NOT "West of the Rising Sun" - which was the title it changed to by subsequent writers before ending up as "The :ast Samurai" and in fact - Zwick claimed to have thrown out my work and started from scratch - yet was going to all the studios originally pitching the script under MY original title and with MY original characters - and was never able to explain away the fact that after "throwing out" my work - SEVENTY similarities (characters, dialogue, plot, scenes and major action set pieces" from MY work ended up in the FINAL film. And 75% of the producers listed in the credits were people I had worked with and for and been paid by. The news coverage tells only part of the story - the wrong part. If you want an unbiased opion - contact the writer at VARIETY whp covered the story from the start through the appeal and said I should have won. And finally - because there are far too many elemenst here to go into in detail - the three "expert readers" the WGA put on to determine who should be included in the arb - originally found for me and the 2 writers who followed me - but their opinions were forcibly changed by the WGA and their original determination was altered and deleted (I have originals of all the memos we found in discovery) after they were lied to when they asked a specific question of the WGA credit people. this is a matter of record. One of the "expert readers" in fact said that my story and script was "too unique NOT to be considered" the foundation of the final script and I should unequivacally be included in the arboytration - which would have guaranteed me a screen credit.

It's a nice quote and not meant to be taken literally, I'm sure. If anyone DOES take it literally and ascribes to this assertion, I would urge you to read the script for Gattaca.

@ Michael A. -- If you have a link to Gattaca please send. Would love to read. @ Edwin A. Nieves -- Great thread. Very informative!

@Chuck. Gattaca ;)
(sorry to answer, I was on it already so it was to save you time)

Here is another link to masterpiece Gattica http://www.dailyscript.com/scripts/gattaca_early.html

Thanks for the links! And thanks errrr.... "Jack" :-)

@ MIcheal what the story with Aaron and Matthew Benay, who claim their script was stolen for the Last Samurai?

john ford also said "Anybody can direct a picture once they know the fundamentals. Directing is not a mystery, it's not an art. The main thing about directing is: photograph the people's eyes."

Marvin - the Benays filed a suit against Ed Zwick and his producing partner Marshall Herskovitz back around the same time that my suit was filed - which was right when the movie was being released. Both of our suits were eventually dismissed on a summary judgment. As I said earlier - the judged dropped the ball on my suit. I could have proven it in court 10X over. I went to the appellate court and the decision stood. the Benays went to court - and their decision was overturned and the court permitted them to go to trial. Their attorneys contacted my attorney for our material. I had access to their depositions. Their claim was that "The Last Samurai" was THEIR title on a screenplay submitted to Zwick's company, Bedford Falls (although you can't register a film title - only a studio can do that on something which is MADE) and that he lifted elements from their script in the final film. They had two major problems - one - they wrote their script AFTER I had written mine (and mine was done under contract and there was a firm chain of title) - so if anyone got ripped off - it was me - not them - unless they could prove elements that were not in my work but was in theirs. Secondly - everyone at Zwick's company denied all the Benay's claims and that of their agent - who claimed that he had submitted the material and had conversations about it with Zwick's VP. The VP said he never spoke to the agent and never saw the script and never asked for it. remember, someone in a credit arb can CLAIM to have never seen previously written material - and that similarities are merely coincidental - but under WGA rules - each subsequent writer in the chain is ASSUMED to have had access to and seen/read any previous drafts - whether they deny it or not. Zwick acknowledged having read my drafts (remember - he claimed they were lousy and tossed and they started over from scratch - a lie) - and in fact - part of his defense in the Benays case was to say he couldn't have taken material from their script - because he had the set up and plot and storyline from MY script. Basically he admitted using my material as a defense against using the Benay material. Nice huh? Bottom line - I could prove all my claims - I had interoffice e-mails and memoes and arbitartion statements from the principals and their agents etc. - all found during depositions and in the discovery phase. But the denials could not be overcome by the Benays - who could not prove with any paper trail that anyone at Zwick's company had indeed seen their script - so the jury threw out the case without ever hearing what elements they claimed had been stolen. Last thing on my case - for the elucidation of the naysayers - there was a director hired (from New Zealand) to direct the film from my script. He worked with the first rewriter who came on the project - when the title was changed (to "West of the Rising Sun"). He supervised 5 drafts and 8 revisions. When the original production company couldn't land an A list actor for the lead - they brought in a Pulitzer Prize winning playwright to do a dialogue polish to land one - still didn't work. the company decided to put the script on the back burner without a star - and asked the director to step aside and direct a different movie for them (all ready to go with Robin Williams). He agreed - under the condition that when the "samurai movie" was made - he would get a producer credit. He then GAVE THE SCRIPT to Ed Zwick. (all this was testified to or we have it in writing). Flash forward. Zwick makes the movie. the original director did not direct it. He was gone long before Warner Brothers came aboard to co-finance it. Guess who is listed as an executive producer on "the Last Samurai"? The original director from New Zealand. We asked the Warners execs point blank - if this was NOT based on my original script - than who was obligated to give the guy an EXP credit? They had no answer. Also - the one writer who DID deserve a writing credit (but should have shared it with me, not Zwick & Herskovitz) was John Logan. Logan was hired by Z&H when they pitched him the story based on my screenplay and those that came after me. He was told that he would not be rewritten (he's originally a playwright). He did 3 drafts of "Samurai" and left to work with Scorcese on "The Aviator". Zwick and herskovitz did a pass at the screenplay and then asked for shared writing credit (incensing Logan). They convinced Logan to write a letter to the WGA agreeing to share credit (even though an arbitration would be automatic). As an "incentive' to do so - Logan's contract was amended to give him his SOLE CREDIT BONUS (I am legally precluded from divulging how much that is - but trust me - it's a really nice number) EVEN IF HE SHARED CREDIT. I saw the amended deal. Logan claimed he knew nothing about it. Claimed it wasn't his signature on it. Said he didn't do business stuff - so it must've been a lawyer. the problem is - even with power of attorney - lawyers sign their own names - they don't forge their client's name on a contract. And Hollywood does business a certain way - back end bonuses are dependant on CREDIT - because they use so many writers on a given project that if they had to pay SOLE bonuses to everyone - it would be prohibitive. I can't think of any reason to give Logan a SOLE credit bonus on a shared credit (which normally would cut his back end payout in half) other than as a bribe. He signed the letter and even with that - the WGA arbiters ORIGINAL ruling was that Zwick & Herskovitz had made only "superficial" changes to the script and nothing substantive - and they did NOT deserve ANY WRITING CREDIT AT ALL. I saw the paperwork on this. Some magic was spun - an arbiter was convinced to alter his original decision and voila! Credit reads "Screenplay by John Logan and Edward Zwick & Marshall Herskovitz. Based on a Story By John Logan" (the latter being a credit Logan did not want - but the WGA insisted). Forgive me for the length of my reply - but this keeps opening a can of worms for me. And I still have a card to play - but I'll play that close to the vest. Thanks for letting me vent here - but I'm done for the moment - at least insofar as rehashing the whole case on Stage 32. But thanks for the forum.

And according to most bios written about Ford - he was a nasty and tormentive drunk on set and not particularly nice to some of his co-workers. It is what is is. Still a great director - and his words set off a firestorm here on Stage 32 - but why not judge him on the work and not go all postal trying to interpret one quote out of a 50 year career.

What I love about this discussion is how everything said is also a reflection of ourselves as filmmakers. Now to add fuel to the fire--my apologies!--here's a quote from French filmmaker Claire Denis: "I don’t at all like the idea of a screenplay being a cage and that inside the cage you have to direct the actors. It seems to me that a screenplay is a kind of take-off and that the best moment is to see the characters taking off. They can turn left, or right, loop the loop, whatever. And at the same time you’re always a bit afraid. As long as they don’t crash. Because if filming means you have to control everything, I’d shoot myself. You already have to control the framing, the colours, the costumes, the sets and all that. But that’s done before, the control’s done before.” For me, the process of the page to the cut is all about a harmonious blend between control and surrender, which I feel essentially means awareness. In terms of performance, this is my belief. A bad director is someone who can't direct actors. A good director is someone who directs the actors. An excellent director is someone who let's the direction come on its own. A director needs to be able to bring out the right performance from an actor, and for this to happen one needs to be aware of the actor, his/her personality and talents, how to communicate with him/her (it differs from one to the other), and so on. This is being aware of the actor. That awareness needs to be applied to the other aspects of filmmaking. I truly believe you can have an excellent script, that it can be literature. At the same time I can see a script being but a blueprint. It will differ (and maybe this applies to the perspective of the director) from script to script. What needs to be emphasized is the story, and by story I do not mean the screenplay. The story is present from pre-production to post-production. It is the essence of the script, that then is captured by the camera, and finally that comes forth through the edit. One can say that regardless of literature or blueprint, the film is the translation of the emotional experience found in the script. Thus, that script better be a good one.

Oh, barf.

Yeah - a good director directs the actors - which is why actors make good directors - and good actors are good at saying the words written by good writers. Ms. Denis might as well give credit to the casting director for choosing the right actors for the roles in the first place - because that certainly makes the director's job easier. Being French, I have to take what she says with a grain of salt as they are the progenitors of the "auteur theory" which I have railed against in the past. Director's are very fond of taking an inordinate amount of credit for the collaborative work of the many. So in that I would agree with Mr. Birnbaum and his "oh, barf" comment. Also - the French have lionized Jerry Lewis - who I like - but than I like Dean Martin more. Also - with the Wilders and Wylers and Fords and Spielbergs and Hitchcocks and Hathaways etc. etc. - Jerry Lewis?

Let's see Mr Ford make a good movie without a script at all good bad or otherwise.

"Eighty percent of a picture is writing, the other twenty percent is the execution, such as having the camera on the right spot and being able to afford to have good actors in all parts." - director Billy Wilder.

BOOM! Bill Martell. Dropping bombs!. LOL.