Tommy btw, found us through my blog!! Which makes him my bitch I think. Just kidding, glad you're here Tommy!Dan,
I'm an actor...I'm always somebody's bitch. Might as well be yours.
Most films are about the "project" and not about the "Story". People think when you've got the kernel of an idea, some actors willing to help, some money and a free day, you've got a movie to make! Very true. It's important to make the distinction between writing a script and making a film. A film project can be about anything and everything but story. The writing and/or writer may be irrelevant.
As for the writer, part of the distinction between script - film - project probably depends on whether you're a writer for hire or whether you're writing a spec script.
If you've been hired by Tom Cruise's company to adapt a book/play/anecdote into a film script for him to star in...that's definitely about the project.
If you're writing a spec script from your own idea (as opposed to an idea you've stolen
), then you may have any number of actors in mind (or none) for your protagonist and/or antagonist as you write. I'd say that in a spec, particularly for an unknown writer, story is more important than 'project', at least until after the script is finished.
What will attract other 'elements' that take the script from spec script to potential 'project' is very much related to story and character. Starting first with the script reader for the company, agency, or ??? to which the script has been submitted. They tend to be other writers and writers tend to be attracted to story and character. If they write 'coverage' to your script that says you have no sense of story and write cliched, cardboard characters, you're not likely to get very far with that prodco/agent/whatever. (Does not apply to Christian films...kidding...sort of)
The degree to which story and/or character attracts viable elements to a 'project' varies at least to some extent, by position (job title): The director may be attracted to the story/theme/concept/genre/character/paycheck (not in order of preference).
The actor who can get the film made is probably more attracted, at least initially, to Character. This is particularly true for 'name' actors in independent films. ALMOST anytime a viable star appears in a film whose budget does not allow for them to make their normal $$$$$$$, it's because they were attracted to the CHARACTER, the role. Sometimes, to the director who has already pulled the rabbit out of the hat at least once. (This does not include name actors on the downside of their careers who have many reasons for working which have nothing to do with script/character, etc.)
Having said that, many actors who can get at least help get a film made (very few can actually GET a film made) are just as attracted to a PROJECT by the other ELEMENTS already attached : the director, another actor, even location.
It's not new to say it, but writing is REwriting. And nobody's doing it.Again, true....writing/rewriting. What's often difficult if not impossible to determine, at least in film, is where the writer got left behind and the project (committee: 2nd/3rd/4th writer ->director -> producer -> producer's girlfriend -> star -> star's wife -> star's girlfriend, star's boyfriend (different day), etc. ect.) took over.
So sometimes a good script goes bad in production. And sometimes a bad script just gets worse. Once in a while a good script gets made into a good film. Oh Happy Day! And the chances of a bad script becomming a good film...well, It's not new to say it, but "If it ain't on the page, it aint on the stage".
And..to try to circle back to the start...one way to get to be a writer for hire is to write a few terrific spec scripts that many people agree show that the writer has a sense of story and character. Of course it helps if one of YOUR scripts actually gets made into a film.
[right]
[/right]
[/quote]
0
