50 Responses to “What’s your motivation?”

1. Pat Rodio on Sunday: 3 December 2006|1922

   Good post, and good question. I’d say passion. Movies that have always stuck with me are filled with it, earlier Peter Weir stuff like Gallipoli, most of Spielberg’s work. The original Star Wars has passion, the new ones? Not so much.

   There just aren’t many memeroable movies anymore. I think I need to post about this!

2. Unk on Sunday: 3 December 2006|1935

   Pat,

   I’d have to agree with you but to me, it’s the characters that aren’t that passionate anymore… Motivation creates passion and I just don’t see very many motivated characters in movies anymore…

   Shitty movies I mean.

   Unk

3. Matt Hader on Sunday: 3 December 2006|2125

   Characters are what make the movie going experience work for me. I want to “meet” someone new - I want to learn about new things that I’m not quite familiar with. I want to find out how the character is going to handle all that is thrown their way. I hope to be surprised by what I see, and how the character acts/reacts, often times I’m not, BUT I go see movies in the theater anyway. Then again, I may just be an eternal optimist who loves running full speed into brick walls.

   Eh…There’s just nothing that can compare to seeing a movie on the big screen.

4. Unk on Sunday: 3 December 2006|2141

   I hear ya…

   Just like me… Waiting for that jackpot.

   Unk

5. spatula on Sunday: 3 December 2006|2217

   I remember going to the cinema by by house, in a local strip mall. Movies were $2 on Tuesdays. It was cheaper than the popcorn. I was home from school, sick as hell, and I walked down to the theatre by myself and saw “What Lies Beneath”. There was maybe 3 other people in the cinema. I once saw Godzilla 2000 there; the only other person in the theatre was an 8 year old kid, who left halfway through because he thought it was the Matthew Broderick one.
   The cinema’s shut down now. I think it sells clothing and belts. For it to come back, there has to be some kind of resurgence to community events and a withdrawl of the “myspace” reality. People act like drones- if we please them with good movies, like bees to honey, they’d be back. But lately all my movie-going experiences are either spoiled by idiots in the cinema,- you know, the dumb-asses who put thier coats down and walk in during the credits. Everyone’s been asking “Are these seats taken?”, pointing at the seats, and now your armrest is gone because of the girl’s jumbo soda.
   You look over, and they have waists the size of a tube of toilet paper, yet she’s muching on a large plate of nachos. After slurping up her drink, she decides to go to the bathroom. Then her friend goes. Each time, the people behind you moan while they trip on your legs.
   Cinemas need more room! I hate the cattle-sized herds at Paramounts. Why have most of the rep cinemas closed? No one’s buying tickets. Thanks for the Bloor Cinema in Toronto- the only Rep. left. They played Pirates 2 a few days ago, and Army of Darkness shows up a lot. It’s only $4 a movie. Those are the ones that make it feel special.

6. caroline on Sunday: 3 December 2006|2315

   I guess what makes a movie memorable is, for lack of a better way to describe it, a sense of heart or purpose. Also relatability or at least some vague plausability. Too many movies I’ve seen lately that are just too beyond what a normal person, let alone the characters as set forth, would tolerate. Am I making any sense? It’s late and I’m not having a really coherent day.

   I guess I’m like you, Unk [though considerably younger to be so wise ;-) ], in that when I grew up a movie was really something to look forward to. My friends still say I am too forgiving in what I like and don’t — I am a friendly audience and WANT to like the movie. And I’ll overlook a lot if there’s any real touchstone moments for me. It also doesn’t hurt if it makes me cry. I love a good movie cry.

   And maybe could we have something a little inspiring, a little uplifting? Something that celebrates the human spirit and the interent goodness in us, not yet another nail in the coffin of us as a species? Sorry to rain on the parade for all you doom and gloomers, but I think we need some love and romance and soul. That doesn’t just go for movies, either. TV, too. No more post-apocalyptic stuff. No more Lord of the Flies themes. I just want to feel good when I leave a movie once and a while and lately, not happening.

   That’s all I’ve got. Not educated or high-fallutin’, just one loyal moviegoing girl’s thoughts at way passed her bedtime. Night, all.

7. Unk on Sunday: 3 December 2006|2321

   Caroline…

   You said a mouthful…

   Now hit the rack you youngster.

   Unk

8. Ann Wesley Hardin on Monday: 4 December 2006|0359

   We got a word for this syndrome in my circle, “meh”. Everything’s meh. I was gonna blog about the Broadway show, Wicked, that I saw with my daughter on Saturday but I couldn’t get my ass out of the meh miasma enough to even critique it.

   I’ve mentioned here before that I want to be enchanted again. I also want to be wowed. Remember the show-stopping songs from Howard Ashman in the 90s Disney flicks? Be Our Guest–Beauty and the Beast; Under The Sea–Little Mermaid; Prince Ali–Aladdin. Now those were some wowzas. The guy poured every ounce of heart and energy he had into writing those songs. He had to, cuz I sure felt it! But like ya’ll said, it seems everyone involved in the entertainment arena these days (some book writers too) aren’t passionate. They’re lazy. They’re spoon feeding us and trying to pass off meh as original, exciting, or as, God save me,”deep.”

   In Wicked there were exactly three brilliant moments and I thought, well, if they can write that, surely they could’ve written MORE brilliant moments. The potential was there. The story was original and creative. But it felt slapped together.

   Actually, it played like a first draft.

   So, I dunno. Where does meh come from? I think it comes from fear. If a writer writes passionately, he has to feel what he’s writing. No one wants to go through that. It hurts. And it hurts the audience while they’re listening/watching, whatever. But afterwards you realize how exhiliarating it was, and that’s what becomes memorable. That’s what makes you remember lines from songs or movies or books after only hearing them once. The exhiliaration.

   Gimme some of that!

9. Matthew Spira on Monday: 4 December 2006|0911

   One of the reasons why I think PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN has been so ridiculously successful is that it is one of the relatively few recent films that actually seems INTENDED to be watched in a theater.

10. Clive on Monday: 4 December 2006|0949

    I grew up watching Saturaday afternoon movies on the TV in the 1970’s — so I grew up on Humphrey Bogart, James Stewart, John Wayne, Katherine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy.

    When I was old enough to go the pictures myself I got to see One Few Over The Cuckoos Nest, Taxi Driver, The Blues Brothers, French Connection, The Exorcist, MASH, The Godfather.

    And when I finally figured out that you could watch world cinema, the first Japanese film I ever saw was Kurosawa’s “Ran.”

    God, I’ve been so lucky — Movies were just so great in those days.

    I’m like you, if I know “The Great Escape” or “The Italian Job” or yes “Cool Hand Luke” is on, I’ll drop everything and kick my shoes off.

    I still get that feeling at the cinema — but no where near as much as I used to. I’ve had some very disappointing cinema experiences — hell, I almost walked out on “Gangs of New York.”

    And when I do find a film that wows me, guess what, it’s usually been written by someone like Paul Schrader! One of the giants of the 1970’s.

    But none of this depresses me.

    When I was seventeen I wanted to play guitar in a band and my first guitar teacher asked me a question “Do you know the difference between a wannabee and great guitarist?”

    Of course I said “No”

    He leaned towards me, lit his cigarette and said “A wanabee listens to Hendrix and says ‘I’ll never be that good,’ a great guitarist listens to Hendrix and says ‘Man, one of these days, I’m going to be better”

    As a guitarist, I’m never going to be better than Hendrix — but my hero Paul Schrader needs to watch his ass, because I’m going to be so much better!

11. Unk on Monday: 4 December 2006|0956

    Clive,

    To steal a line from QT, “That’s a bold statement.”

    I like that.

    Unk

12. Clive on Monday: 4 December 2006|1008

    Gung-ho, Gung-Ho

    This is my laptop, there are many others like it, but this one is mine…

    The scary thing is, you know me well enough to know I’m not just saying that. I really am that ambitious and like you I want to see great movies back in the cinema.

    The only thing that makes it a real challenge, is Paul keeps on getting better as well!

    I mean “Bringing Out The Dead” how good a movie is that! Wow!

13. Brian on Monday: 4 December 2006|1018

    What is lacking in modern movies (that was present in most of our old favorites) is clearly defined morals. As corny as it sounds, there’s something deep within us that wants the good guy to be really good and the bad guy to be really bad, and for good to triumph over evil. For me, I’m really tired of the sort-of-good and sort-of-bad characters that are supposed to make us all feel good about ourselves. Just a little too much psychobabble for me, thanks.

    Brian

14. Joshua James on Monday: 4 December 2006|1219

    Jesus Hamilton Christ, what a post, Unk. I have to say, in the words of Sam from GHOST, “ditto”.

    Couple things. Do you not believe that some of the story problems regarding movies rest in part with the legion of screenwriting do-it-yourself books and seminars, a la McKee weekend special? The idea that a formula is all you need to write a good screenplay, rather than practice plain WRITING every day, etc? In the seventies they weren’t mapping out screenplays like that and while there certainly bad movies made at that time, there were a load of good movies, too.

    Next, I think it doesn’t just rest on the screenwriters, what’s happened to movies, the lack of passion and specialness - it rests on the directors and actors and most of all, the producers as well, don’t you think?

    But I agree, I used to see every movie playing at theatres, in back as far as ‘94, now I feel I’m getting ripped off because each movie is following the same cookie-cutter pattern. I don’t get surprised or shocked, not since FIGHT CLUB and THE MATRIX, I think. And the two sequels to that film just irritated me.

    I think audiences are a lot smarter than producers believe, and it’s catchign up on them. It always irritates me when I see an ad for a film and it’s touted as the “movie event of the year!” and I’m like, “but it’s only fucking MAY, how can this be the movie event of the year when the year ain’t even half over, you morons!”

    Thanks Unk. We keep talking about what’s going on, maybe enough folks will get it and passion will come back in - we hope, anyway.

15. Unk on Monday: 4 December 2006|1253

    Josh,

    You said, “Couple things. Do you not believe that some of the story problems regarding movies rest in part with the legion of screenwriting do-it-yourself books and seminars, a la McKee weekend special? The idea that a formula is all you need to write a good screenplay, rather than practice plain WRITING every day, etc? In the seventies they weren’t mapping out screenplays like that and while there certainly bad movies made at that time, there were a load of good movies, too.”

    Absolutely. Very many of us writing screenplays think that reading several books or going to McKee is the answer and while I highly recommend reading EVERY BOOK and going to EVERY GURU…

    You can’t stop there.

    It’s very much like the digital video camera revolution that we’re also going through… i.e., everybody and their brother is picking up a camera and making a movie.

    The education and learning never stops. When it stops, I think you stop.

    And while there are some movies from that era that are hard for me to watch NOW, the classics are definitely STILL the classics. The other night I watched THE GRADUATE when it came on the satellite. Hadn’t seen it in a couple of years at least.

    Wow! That was special.

    I think you’re also right that it rests with everyone up the line from the screenwriter but let’s face it… It starts with US so why not start digging in and take that screenplay that we think is good enough to be sold, rip it apart, find the high concept and rewrite the hell out of it… Is anyone really saying they couldn’t make it better? Sure, I know… When does THAT process stop?

    It stops when you have something unique.
    It stops when you have something not predictable.
    It stops when you have something not derivative.

    Let’s start giving the people UP THE LINE FROM US, something to really fucking work with… We do that and I assure you, you’ll always be working.

    We hope.

    Unk

16. Miriam Paschal on Monday: 4 December 2006|1330

    I think part of what made movies so special back in the day was that practically the only place to see them was “at the movies.” There was no cable or videos to rent (replaced by DVD’s). If you saw them on TV, the colors were different and you had to sit through commercials.

    Nowadays you can have that same experience at home, AND you can pause the movie whenever you want. You don’t have to go out in a rain or snow-storm. You don’t have to listen to strangers cough or make other weird noises that kind of frighten you. We can microwave our popcorn and drink our favorite brand and flavor of soda, not just the best out of the five that the theater has. We can even eat special snacks like brownies or a pizza while we watch on our big plasma screen with surround sound.

    I think the stories themselves, and the characters, are no better or no worse than they used to be. You can’t expect every movie to “move” you. The law of averages says that only a few movies every year are going to be really special and memorable. Most of them are going to be worth renting or spending the extra monthly fee for HBO. And some of them are going to be disappointing as hell and make us ask, “what were they thinking?”

    Jaws was a great movie. When it came out, people were blown away. They couldn’t stop talking about it. Same with Taxi Driver, Star Wars, and at least one movie every year up to The Matrix and Fight Club. How many other movies came out at the same time as Jaws? Do we remember them? There may have been as many as 20 movies released that month, but we only remember Jaws, because it was worth remembering.

    I think it’s the experience itself, not the movies, that isn’t as special any more.

17. Unk on Monday: 4 December 2006|1354

    Miriam,

    Interesting take and I actually agree that movies are no better or no worse but aye, there’s the rub.

    We have so much MORE going on around us now that they HAVE to be better for us to consider NOT flopping down in front of the plasma.

    Actually, I don’t have a plasma but I do have a large LCD and no matter how much I try, I can’t get the same feeling I used to get in a theater when I sit down in front of it.

    Even with my favorite beer, buffalo salami sammich, and the ability to pause I DON’T get the same special feeling that I used to get.

    Is it because I’m just used to the theater? Has the novelty worn off?

    No way… I just watched DEJA VU and it was special.

    As the world speeds up and information flows to and fro, we still write a lot of the same stuff with the occasional special flick.

    And yeah, I saw JAWS but if I remember correctly, I also saw some other outstanding films that year…

    ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO’S NEST
    STEPFORD WIVES
    KILLER ELITE
    THE FRENCH CONNECTION II
    THE SUNSHINE BOYS
    THREE DAYS OF THE CONDOR
    THE MAN WHO WOULD BE KING
    MANDINGO
    NIGHT MOVES
    ROCKY HORROR PICTURE SHOW
    PRISONER OF SECOND AVENUE
    DOG DAY AFTERNOON
    DROWNING POOL
    BREAKHEART PASS
    BREAKOUT
    THE EIGER SANCTION
    THE GREAT WALDO PEPPER
    HARD TIMES
    RANCHO DELUXE
    ROLLERBALL
    SHAMPOO
    ROOSTER COGBURN
    TOMMY
    RETURN OF THE PINK PANTHER
    THE HINDENBURG
    FUNNY LADY
    BLACK CHRISTMAS

    I’m probably leaving some out but for some reason, I’m not able to make a list quite as extensive for 2006.

    I’m sure it’s just me…

    Unk

18. Laura Reyna on Monday: 4 December 2006|1514

    Aaah, another great post, another great discussion! :-)

    Just to quickly add–

    The last movie i saw in a theater was the KING KONG remake. It was “meh”. Before that, my last theater movie was the 1st LOTR movie. It was also “meh” for me.

    My husband won’t see a movie in a theater b/c he has a bad back & the other annoying reasons ppl always cite. He built a home theater system for us (w/ big, pull down screen) & now we only rent & buy DVDs.

19. Joshua James on Monday: 4 December 2006|1541

    Nice Unk,

    I think that you’re the only other person I know, besides me, who’s seen The Killer Elite!

    HARD TIMES is one of my favorite movies of that era. You know what is really cool about it? No real character arc, just real characters. Awesome film.

    Though while I think you’re correct in that we need to write unique, challenging movies which are not derivative or predictable, that does us no good if people don’t PRODUCE them, if they don’t recognize that stories like that should and need to be told without turning them into cookie-cutter predictiable cartoons via (example A, the first ROLLERBALL vs the last ROLLERBALL) . . . You’re right, the great movies start with great writing, so it STARTS with us, but great writers are not the ones producing movies, so it doesn’t happen unless producers recognize what you’re talking about now . . . we have to let those who produce and market films know that audiences want to see those movies . . . not the same predictiable Tom Cruise is in a jam kind of film with either a sci-fi twist or a spy twist, but real stories with real characters.

    And actually, I don’t necessarily think there’s anything wrong with being derivative when i see a film (as I mentioned, I liked 8 MM even though it was derivative of Hardcore) as long as the story-telling craft is clean and characters interesting . . . I understand you’re talking about specs and the need to be original while breaking in, and in that I agree . . . but familiar stories can work as long as the characters are original and interesting and engaging. I don’t mind seeing a movie that is familar (I like me my kung fu movies) with familiar pay-offs - but it still needs to challenge within that framework, and the way to do that is with character . . . that’s just me. I mean, what was really new about Reservoir Dogs, in terms of events? It was the characters that made it sing. Other than that, it was not too different from any ten or twenty Hong Kong ganster films.

    I often wonder if character hasn’t been squeezed out of films by movie stars . . . I mean, look at NIGHT MOVES with Gene Hackman, there was a character, right?

    Oops, I’m talking too much. Better stop before Unk gives me a judo chop . . .

20. Unk on Monday: 4 December 2006|1607

    Josh,

    So let me see if I understand you…

    It does us no good to write unique screenplays for movies if nobody is going to produce them?

    You’re NOT REALLY saying that are you? LOL.

    Let’s go back to the observation that 98% PLUS of the screenplays out there are UNREADABLE. Some of these even come from working paid screenwriters.

    In other words, GARBAGE IN — GARBAGE OUT.

    I submit to you that EVERYBODY is in FACT looking for the next hot screenplay that screams UNIQUE and is well executed… Read: HIGH CONCEPT.

    The real problem is getting producers to read the stuff… Remember, 98 screenplays out of 100 are unreadable hence, they SUCK.

    So you go through 100 scripts to get 2. It’s very likely that even these two scripts were nothing more than “the best of the bunch” which explains why a lot of fucking screenplays NEVER EVER SEE THE LIGHT OF DAY.

    Some of these “2″ are simply purchased because of the idea contained somewhere inside the screenplay.

    So…

    Knowing that 98% plus of the screenplays that everybody reads are shit, you’re not really saying we should also write that kind of crap are you?

    Trust me, I know that you’re not.

    Cream RISES to the top my friend. It’s just a matter of getting the stuff out there assuming that it IS THE NEXT GREAT SCREENPLAY.

    If it is, it will get JUMPED on in a heartbeat and made into a movie.

    But that’s another problem, right? How do you KNOW what’s good anymore? Trust me, there’s people that do know. You just have to find them.

    When I say DERIVATIVE, I’m talking about walking away from a movie and saying it was nothing more than a copy of such and such movie.

    Luckily, 8MM was different enough from HARDCORE to deliver the goods.

    Judo chop complete. LOL.

    Unk

21. Joshua James on Monday: 4 December 2006|1719

    Oops, should have kept my mouth shut. But now that it’s open . . .

    What I’m saying, Unk, is simply this . . .

    You maintain FAR too many folks are trying to write movies without really knowing what it takes to make a great movie, in terms of story, right?

    I agree. Absolutely. One hundred percent.

    But it works the other way, too . . . if most of the thousands upon thousands of people writing screenplays don’t get what it takes to make a great movie, doesn’t it stand to reason that the thousands of producer / reader / development types are also missing the boat?

    People who read scripts but do not study writing, story, the whole deal? Doesn’t that must make sense, mathematically? If an average writer can’t see what doesn’t work about a script, can’t an average producer miss the boat as well.

    I know this indie-producer / actor, had some good resources, etc . . . raised the money for an idie-movie and the script blew. It blew. He was a friend so I tried to talk him out of it. I offered to write him something new, as a friend. I offered to find a script for him, in that budget, from another writer.

    He wouldn’t go for it. He wanted to do that script because then he could play a secret-agent - they raised the money, shot it. Looks good but it sucks. It’s sat on a shelf for five years. Terrible waste. I know three or four other writers he could have used who would have made a better movie, but he didn’t want to listen. He made a shitty movie that was boring and derivative, and derivative in the wrong sense.

    And that’s an indie, which is a genre that’s supposed to have balls and originality, and it failed. There are many other folks like that, mainstream and indie.

    My last agent, nice lady . . . smart . . . couldn’t tell you the difference between a great script and a sandwich, I swear to god. Especially when she spilled mayo on both. One reason I’m no longer with her. She botched so many things, couldn’t tell you what stories work or didn’t (and she went to those McKee conferences) - I’m not trying to dump on her (not for that, anyway) she wasn’t a writer, she didn’t write, she liked what she liked and didn’t like what she didn’t like, but couldn’t really identify high concept as you have, and it hurt how she sent / sold material . . . I’ve met more than a few like her . . . at fair companies, too. Would not recognize a great script if it bit them on the ass, I swear. I do, I had one of my best, most unique specs take a few slings and arrows from a couple D-folks before it got picked up by someone (a script my previous agent didn’t even spec out, mind you). A script, though I don’t own it any longer, I’d stack up against any out there. That’s why it got picked up, eventually.

    We all have agent horror stories, of course . . . I’m simply saying that, in terms of what makes a movie great, we should speak the same language, the suits and the writers, you know?

    I’ve met more than a few, here in nyc and a some on a couple sourjourns to LA . . . and I listen and sometimes I’m a bit taken aback at what I hear is, well . . . good, in their view. You know?

    I think it was Terry at WordPlayer who wrote about when someone sent the script for CASABLANCA around to readers and not only was it not recognized by most, but most gave it a PASS.

    Bear in mind . . . I’m not saying these folks are dumb . . . far from it . . . just not conversant in what it takes for a great movie story. So I’m simply saying, if the tree falls in the forest, the folks at the lumber companies who have their fingers in their ears won’t hear it.

    Granted, we run in different circles . . . you are in more rarified air, with proven gladitors who recognize the taste of real victory blood. I’m in the trenches with the common foot soldiers.

    Shoot, I’m already tired of that frakkin’ metaphor. I went from Paul Bunyon to Gladiator. But do you get what I’m saying?

    You bet, let’s put passion and excitement and specialness back in movies, oh HELL yeah, if not for movies, I wouldn’t have ever had the sack to get myself out of Iowa - absolutely, yes. I agree.

    However . . . It’s not simply resting solely on the screenwriters shoulders . . . it rests on the shoulders of the people making the movies . . . right? The screenwriter, for the most part, does not have green-light power (well, maybe George Lucas does) to make a film (though I agree with you that, with the digital revolution, that could soon change).

    I mean, don’t you have a script that you know will make a great movie that you haven’t been able to get someone to give it a go, for one reason or another? The movie you’re determined to shoot on your own at some point.

    Well . . . maybe you don’t.

    But a lot of folks do, and many of those movies, If they’re done, could turn out successful (off the top my head, I think of Duvall’s THE APOSTLE, which he paid for, five million, on his own) . . . because no one would give an Oscar winning actor the money to make the movie he knew would work. For the record, that film was successful.

    The height of irony. Nobody would give Duvall the money to make his dream project THE APOSTLE but they forked over plenty for Travolta’s dream, BATTLEFIELD EARTH.

    I guess I’m saying the message you’re communicating about movies, the passion and excitement, that shouldn’t necessarily end with the writers - I know you don’t want this site turned into one of those whiney, bitch-fest places where folks kick and scream about how the establishment doesn’t get ART, STUDIOS don’t get it, etc . . . I get that and agree . . . shoot, I want to make mainstream films, I grew up on that stuff, mother’s milk to me . . . I don’t want to blame THE MAN, I want him to get what YOU’RE saying, to see what you and I both see . . . because things are different than they were and that’s sad . . . I don’t think it’s only because of the writers, it’s because they figured out in the eighties that you can make money at this but they wanted to to follow a specific business protocol and my point is, it’s related, you know? The choices about what gets made as opposed to what doesn’t, it does affect what gets written . . . don’t you think?

    I mean, I’ve got a producer guy now who speaks that language we’re talking, he has my movie and we speak the same language as you do with your folks . . . but it took years to find one guy like that.

    Just like it took him years to find that one script he felt the same way about.

    Am I making sense? Or do I need another Samurai Slap?

    Joshua “Stop, Drop & Roll” James

22. Unk on Monday: 4 December 2006|1816

    Josh,

    You said, “But it works the other way, too . . . if most of the thousands upon thousands of people writing screenplays don’t get what it takes to make a great movie, doesn’t it stand to reason that the thousands of producer / reader / development types are also missing the boat?”

    I can’t honestly say that I believe the above statement STANDS TO REASON. What you seem to be saying is that one goes hand in hand with the other and to be honest, I refuse to believe that.

    I will however, acknowledge that there are obviously producer/reader/development types that are missing the boat. So I guess I agree a little with what you’re saying but NOT to the extent that you put it.

    You said, “People who read scripts but do not study writing, story, the whole deal? Doesn’t that must make sense, mathematically? If an average writer can’t see what doesn’t work about a script, can’t an average producer miss the boat as well.”

    To me it doesn’t make sense mathematically because still, these people are reasonably intelligent and on top of that intelligence, they read a HELL OF A LOT of scripts and hence, the 98% plus are weeded out of the bunch. Obviously, some stragglers make it through the system…

    It seems to me that what you’re saying is that there’s probably some outstanding screenplays being passed up. I would certainly agree with that. Unfortunately, that’s the system we have at hand.

    But even having said that, I still believe that most of the scripts just simply miss the mark but there’s just not enough good screenplays to choose from. Many of the mediocre scripts are selected and then handed off to a multitude of script doctors… Sometimes they get it right and sometimes they don’t. A lot of those scripts are purchased because of the concept and NOT the writing.

    Whew… I won’t EVEN try to quote what you said about your agent… LOL. But I do sympathize with you. She sounds like an imbecile to be sure. However… And I certainly do not have the final say-so on this… I’ve met a hell of a lot more COMPETENT people in this business than I have INCOMPETENT. Again, I will certainly agree that many of the people that make the decisions are missing the boat on what’s good and what’s not. But I simply go back to the DUMBING DOWN OF AMERICA. Don’t get me wrong, I love this country and I don’t want to talk politics so please, no political debates… But let’s face it… Even with all the additional information that’s overflowing everywhere we turn, we have learned to cut corners… We have lost a lot of the old work ethic we used to have. We want a shortcut. We want immediate gratification, etc. etc. etc. To me, screenwriting simply falls into that same fucking wormhole…

    I can’t tell you how many people I’ve met over the years whose screenplays I’ve read that had no business even writing one. Well, I shouldn’t say that. It’s a free country… Write what you want but I’ve read scripts from people who saw a movie and decided they could do better and then they sat down and pounded out a script without knowing even a baseline of information. To be honest, I am thinking of one woman in particular who I met at my very first screenwriting workshop. It was put on by FADE IN magazine in Universal City back in the 90s… They took this woman’s very first page and projected it on the screen and picked it apart. Wrong font. Wrong format. On the nose dialogue. You name it, that first page had the problem. I end up talking to this lady during lunch… She had actually come up with a pretty decent marketing logline which is what got her script read by many many people in the business. She even showed me her marketing log sheet. Very impressive and everybody passed.

    Why did I tell you this?

    To give you an example of the kind of shit that good writers who’ve done their homework have to contend with. That’s right… Among the diamond in the rough and the needle in the haystack are fucking THOUSANDS of crappy screenplays that end up wasting hundreds of thousands of man hours.

    That’s the system we have. It sucks but it’s the system and I don’t see it changing anytime soon hence, the reason so many agencies and producers only read referred screenplays…

    I totally agree with your statement that we should all be speaking the same language but WE DON’T. But we screenwriters COULD BE. That’s my point.

    If the aggregate of spec scripts get BETTER, less garbage in — less garbage out. As a screenwriter, I can only control what I write. I can’t control ANYTHING ELSE so why try when that same effort can go into something I can control…

    Now imagine if simply 25% of the screenwriters out there dedicated themselves to the same standard. Less garbage. Less wasted man hours. Better movies. Higher box office. Employment longevity. More opportunity and on and on we go.

    Simply UP THE QUALITY of the screenwriting and the powers that be MUST PICK BETTER SCREENPLAYS TO MAKE MOVIES OUT OF.

    That kind of math makes sense to me.

    As far as THE APOSTLE and BATTLEFIED EARTH are concerned… Let’s face it. At the time, Travolta was a much higher draw and in demand actor than Duvall and I’m sure if you compared both concept loglines, BE had the higher concept. Was it a better movie? Of course not. LOL. But that’s the system we have. You could try bucking it I guess by writing what everybody else is writing but to me, that’s simply giving in to the system. I’d like to see the system change as much as you would and that’s exactly why I advocate increasing the QUALITY at our level.

    I totally agree that my “message” as you call it shouldn’t end with the writers but it sure as hell should start with us.

    You make a lot of sense but there is no HOW TO BOOK that the studios and producers will read and take on as the gospel. LOL.

    Think about it… You want that system to change. You have NO power to change THEIR system so what kind of power DO YOU HAVE?

    Your writing. That’s the one and only thing you have that they DON’T have. And just like businesses that always deliver MORE than the client ever expected to receive, so should we screenwriters deliver more than the MAN expects to receive.

    Do that and you’ll sell script after script after script.

    Unk

23. Joshua James on Monday: 4 December 2006|1826

    Thanks Unk - I cannot tell you how valuable this is, what you share with us and this exchange, this is frickin’ gold.

    I plan on making some bold statements of my own, regarding writing, and work by butt off for that very end, in all areas of writing.

    But we do have power beyond our writing . . . in our voice, as genuine fanboys, with dialogues like this . . . it gets it out there and people hear it and sometimes they even llisten . . . I believe that.

    Thanks . . .

24. Unk on Monday: 4 December 2006|1837

    Josh,

    You’d be surprised at who reads this stuff… LOL. One look at my site tracker is, on most days, like a WHO’S WHO of the studio system with a smattering of entertainment lawyers thrown in for good measure…

    Which is one of the reasons I love using Active Meter for watching my stats (shameless plug).

    Unk

25. jutratest on Monday: 4 December 2006|2024

    UNK!

    You have bionic fingers! How do you type so much on your blog and in your comments section?!! I don’t even have time to read all the comments but I loved your post.

    What makes me love movies?? Make me forget everything about my world, and make me live in the movie world. Surprise me! Make me lean forward in my seat and figure stuff out. Make me feel!!!!

26. Unk on Monday: 4 December 2006|2032

    It just FLOWS baby…

    Unk

27. caroline on Monday: 4 December 2006|2133

    Unk, I feel like I’ve been microchipped … so your site tracker charts visits by visitor and logs IDs/emails? How very devious of you. Good to know ;-)

    And Jutra, you’d better have read my opus up there, warts and all.

28. Unk on Monday: 4 December 2006|2140

    Caroline…

    No need to fret… No way for me to know EXACTLY who’s visiting the blog. I can make pretty good edumacated guesses of course… If somebody has a blog in some particular city or town (especially a small one) and clicks through to this blog via a link on their blog, I might be able to figure it out.

    But that’s WAY TOO MUCH WORK… LOL.

    No, what’s interesting is how many of the studios seem to have their internet connections in their own name.

    Of course WHO’s visting from the studio?

    Again, no way to know… It’s the entertainment lawyers that kind of baffle me… Not many but a few.

    The Internet… You gotta love it.

    Unk

29. Mystery Man on Monday: 4 December 2006|2312

    Great post!

    I think we secretly long for a return to ’70s cinema when filmmaking was truly at its pinnacle, when great movies were truly great in every sense of the word because they didn’t compromise their integrity, and you felt like you sat through a great EVENT.

    Was there a movie in the ’90s that will be remembered 50 years from now like “The Godfather?” Or the films of Altman? Or Kubrick? Or a young Spielberg with “Jaws” and “Close Encounters?” Or “Star Wars?” Or a superhero movie like Donner’s “Superman,” which filled you with such joy and exhiliration because it made you believe a man could fly? Back then, summer blockbusters were also 4 star films.

    We’re unhappy because we’ve been spoiled by greatness and we long to get it back.

    -MM

30. The Film Diva on Tuesday: 5 December 2006|1004

    Great post, excellent and lively comments. My only addition is that I feel not enough screenwriters bother to train themselves in the “other” arts of filmmaking: acting, directing, producing. (I’m leaving out the craft trades, but I think it’s instructive to know some basics about production, costume and cinemaphotography as well). Screenwriters have to imagine an entire world using only the props inside their imagination. In my opinion many of the better screenplays written in the last few years have come from writers who either have acting training or who workshop their screenplays with actors.

    Anyway, my 2 cents, yadda yadda yadda.

31. dave on Tuesday: 5 December 2006|1203

    Man, what a post. Sure to stir up the juices of everybody.

    In case nobody made the connection, this entry is *exactly* what you want in your script. That being, something that prompts a response! I’ve read that some writers/directors have a goal for their film to have the audience talking about it after they leave - something like Basic Instinct - where they want the audience in a coffee shop afterwards discussing whether she did it or not. They’ve engaged the audience enough with the characters and plot that people are interested enough to continue the conversation.

    Same thing with this blog entry. People can’t stand to just read, sigh and move on. They just have to speak and be heard! Congrats!

    My own personal belief is sort of two-fold.

    I believe that the advent of DVDs and larger screen TVs, entertainment systems, etc. have encouraged many people to stay home instead of going to the movies. Now, it’s a matter of convenience — the movies come to them! Let’s face it, many folks (richer than me sadly) have their own screening rooms - 10 or fewer recliners, a huge TV and sound system. It really is just like a mini movie theatre.

    I’m sure I’m not alone in wanting to go see movies with somebody (friend/wife/lover, etc.) but we’re so busy, have different schedules, etc. It’s often easier to get a flick on dvd and watch it when you both have time rather than bend over backwards to try and make it to the movie theatre (where, as somebody else mentioned, you’re prone to the visitation of idiots/a$$holes who ruin the experience for you).

    Lastly, movies have always been about cashola, but these days, there is so much more money expended with so much more return expected. Everybody wants a piece of the pie now so the pie now has to feed more than it used to. As all businesses have changed, so has Hollywood. Would anybody have expected something like Enron to take place 40 or 50 years ago? Just as our plots and characters are thinning out, so are our morals.

    These days, as you’ve pointed out, the first thing on the studio’s mind is “will this make money?” Then, “how”, “why”, “how can we market it”? All these questions come around up front. Not “is this a great story/script?”. It’s why we see so many sequels. People don’t want change - they want more of the same - but different. It’s why so much pre-established material sells - it has a pre-existing audience built-in already.

    In addition, over the last 50 years, we’ve become more and more desensitized to just about everything.

    Let’s look at a couple examples from your list.

    Jaws - Great flick. Something released somewhat recently was Deep Blue Sea. I mean, what else can you really do with Sharks? This was something different. Unique setting, high concept. What made it bad? Must have been characters. Me, I enjoyed it, but it’s not Jaws.

    Also, Dog Day Afternoon. Does that get released today? Considering the characters, the language, etc. Does it just get watered down to an ambiguous pg-13? Or is it slated for an indie release that hardly anybody sees?

    I believe that prior to the 90’s, there were fewer big names with more power than many of today’s flash in the pans. Everybody wants to jump on the bandwagon of somebody who’s hot, but many of these folks are unproven - heck - still learning.

    The entertainment industry is one of the few that places youth above experience. Do you want the latest spec from some 22 year old out of film school or do you want the latest script from Richard Price or Bill Goldman? Compare how many of the latter we have to explain our current situation in movies today.

    As for kids not knowing what they want to do when they grow up? I don’t think the answers are any clearer today than when we were kids. The question is just asked more. These days, the obsessive kids aren’t out “hanging around” they’re “doing what they want to do”. You have a kid wants to be in movies, he’s not hanging out at the mall, he’s trying out for parts or he’s making his own movies with a digital video camera. Too many parents are aware of the way of the world these days - you wanna be somebody, you’d better start by age 10 or you’re going to be too old to do it.

    Living life is no longer an option, you have to live every day like it’s your last. Make every moment count. Be remembered. Sometimes, just being around until tomorrow is enough.

    Sorry for the long post.

32. Unk on Tuesday: 5 December 2006|1217

    Dave,

    INSIDE MAN… DOG DAY AFTERNOON WITH A TWIST?

    I wish I knew some kids that are busting their asses from 10 years old on up… LOL. I’m sure they exist but I have yet to meet any.

    Most of the kids I know try something a couple of times and either:

    1) Fail — so they quit.
    2) Don’t get immediate praise — so they quit.
    3) Aren’t immediately the BEST — so they quit.

    On top of that…

    Anything that requires extensive knowledge or WORK just doesn’t seem to be worth it when you might get a shot at becoming an American Idol… LOL.

    But what do I know?

    Unk

33. JAG on Tuesday: 5 December 2006|1539

    I hear you. I went to the video store today intent on buying a dvd. I walked up and down the isle looking for something to jump off the shelf and say buy me. But instead, everything looked either boring and repetitive or I wasn’t interested in rehashing a bad theater experience. So I walked out empty handed, disappointed that I couldn’t find one title that interested me enough to want to purchase it.

34. dave on Tuesday: 5 December 2006|2024

    ok, Unk…did a little research here. This is based off your list above.

    Adaptations: 17 total - 12 known
    ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO’S NEST — Adaptation
    STEPFORD WIVES — Adaptation
    KILLER ELITE — Adaptation
    THE FRENCH CONNECTION II — sequel
    THE SUNSHINE BOYS — Adaptation
    THREE DAYS OF THE CONDOR — Adaptation
    THE MAN WHO WOULD BE KING — Adaptation
    MANDINGO — Adaptation
    ROCKY HORROR PICTURE SHOW — Adaptation
    PRISONER OF SECOND AVENUE — Adaptation
    DROWNING POOL — Adaptation
    BREAKHEART PASS — Adaptation
    BREAKOUT — Adaptation
    THE EIGER SANCTION — Adaptation
    ROLLERBALL — Adaptation
    THE HINDENBURG — Adaptation
    Jaws — Adaptation

    Originals: 11 total - 7 known
    FUNNY LADY — original
    BLACK CHRISTMAS — original
    NIGHT MOVES — original
    DOG DAY AFTERNOON — original
    THE GREAT WALDO PEPPER — original
    HARD TIMES — original
    RANCHO DELUXE — original
    SHAMPOO — original
    ROOSTER COGBURN — original
    TOMMY — original
    RETURN OF THE PINK PANTHER — original

    28 total
    17 adaptations

    total seen by me: 3

    Now, the only statement I’m making here is that we’re all talking about writing original spec screenplays. I don’t think many of us non-pros are getting the opportunity to adapt a high profile book/existing piece of work with a pre-existing audience. So with that in mind, you have to look at the original movies made in your list.

    Then go back and see who made them and how many were “out of the blue newbies” with a first sale or somebody without an established reputation. I believe that removes the majority of the 7 that are recognized by me. So now, out of 28 movies set in 1974-1975, we have less than 5 that are original and possibly from non-big name players in the industry.

    You show me a list of films from 2004-2005 and I think we could pick out 5 originals we felt were deserving of recognition.

    Whole point here is that it’s not necessarily that movies are getting that much worse, but probably the margin of forgettable ones is larger AND as a society we are changing the way we view media such as film; thus, the traditional box office proceeds are not a true reflection of how consumers enjoy the film product any longer.

    God love people who watch a flick on an ipod, it ain’t for me, but you know people are paying $10 to do it.

35. brooks on Tuesday: 5 December 2006|2044

    A-Fucking-Men.

    Great post. I’ve always cherished going to the movies. In school I’d go to an 11am showing three days a week, usually having the screen to myself.

    I don’t think I’ve gone in over a month. I’m sick of seeing actors…what happened to the characters? Can’t I forget who I’m really looking at for once? The 10 minutes of commercials, misbehaving miscreant children, and that idiot who keeps jingling his keys have all diminished my desire to drop $10 for the ticket.

    Funny that you mention Inside Man. It was the only movie I really enjoyed seeing in a theater over the last year. I haven’t left the movies in a state of blissful shock since Eternal Sunshine. That was almost three years ago. I miss that feeling.

    Brooks

36. dave on Tuesday: 5 December 2006|2330

    Unk - the kids working from 10 up that I’m thinking of are many musicians, sports athletes and such. Kids that start young and just work at it forever. You know a lot of actors grew up in the industry (like Jodie Foster) and are still working in it.

    I remember when it was okay to not know what you wanted to do - even after college! Now, people are throwing kids in pre-pre-school so they have a leg up when they start kindergarten.

    As for Inside Man - haven’t seen it yet - but I have it on DVD :) LOL

37. Joshua James on Wednesday: 6 December 2006|0819

    I get your point, Dave - and I would add that Rooster Cogburn, Return of the Pink Panther and Funny Lady were sequels. Tommy was an adaption, though of an album, it’s still an adaptation rather than an original spec.

    But really, you should see more than three of those films . . . it’s worth it, I’ve seen all but Rancho Deluxe, Black Christmas and Mandingo (I read the book, though).

    Stephen King writes that if you want to write books, you have to read books (too many aspiring writers don’t like to read, it seems). I’d add that if you want to make great movies, you have to watch great movies. So I’d order up all the films on that list (especially HARD TIMES, me likey a lot).

    And actually, for the record, I believe 1999 was a great year for film - we had THE MATRIX, FIGHT CLUB, AMERICAN BEAUTY, BEING JOHN MALKOVICH, THREE KINGS, THE SIXTH SENSE, MAGNOLIA, and a whole lotta more.

    There were some really great films in the 90’s - it’s after that that for me movies became less special and less an event, I don’t know if it’s the studio takeover of the independent movement or what, but since 2000 or so it feels like a lot of the process has been gentrified, in some ways.

    I guess that’s why I nitpik about the writer end of things, Unk . . . I can remember really being excited about seeing movies in the nineties - for real . . . I saw PULP FICTION three times in the theatre, I saw NATURAL BORN KILLERS on the opening night, front row . . . same with THE MATRIX, saw it in TIMES SQUARE with hundreds of other people and we all gasped collectively when Neo woke up in his pod . . . I feel that the passion for writing great, challenging and unique stories is still there among the writers I know . . . I just see (again, just my experience) that it’s tamped down by the d-folk I’ve met . . . I think a lot of that passion and originality has gone into cable television . . . THE SOPRANOS, OZ, ENTOURAGE, THE SHIELD - no one asks on cable whether or not the lead is likeable or if they have a character arc . . .

    But again, this is just what I’ve observed - Oops . . . did I do it again?

38. Unk on Wednesday: 6 December 2006|1326

    Dave,

    The real point of the post was that going to the movies isn’t special anymore… The films on my list made it special for me back then EVEN if most of those films were adapted from stories or books.

    True… Most of us spec screenwriters won’t be adapting anything real soon but you can write a spec and make it as unique as any of those screenplays adapted from those books.

    The theory’s the same…

    And your point about THOSE 10 year kids… I wholeheartedly agree. Even Britney Spears was singing at county fairs when she was in middle school. Of course a lot of kids like this are going to make it… LOL.

    What I’m talking about however is the average kid I meet on the street… I know one kid out of MANY who’s busting his ass like a crazy man to get good grades and perform well in high school football in an effort to obtain a football scholarship to go to college.

    Most other kids I meet just don’t care… About ANYTHING.

    When I was a kid, many of my friends and associates had goals and dreams and never saw working HARD as a problem…

    I just don’t think you can say the same thing today…

    On average.

    Unk

39. dave on Wednesday: 6 December 2006|1920

    I don’t necessarily disagree with what’s been said, I guess I should have summarized by saying something like, “I believe that times have changed, along with technology. For many of us, things aren’t as good as they used to be, but, perhaps, they’re just different.”

    I was among many kids that had no clue what I wanted to do when I grew up. I was a late starter. Everything I tried, I was already about 5-10 years too late to start.

    Maybe kids today are just more aware than they used to be. Kids in the 60’s-80’s might not have been as acutely aware of exactly what’s awaiting them out of school. Now, I don’t think there’s any doubt. I think in one respect, a lot of dreams are just plain squashed early because you’re told from an early age, “you want to be (substitute any low-end manual labor job)?” if you don’t apply yourself. Maybe some of these kids just give up.

    I dunno. I think that the movies are the same as they’ve ever been, but now, movies are being written, directed, acted and financed by people that are much younger than (I’m betting) most of us here. Therefore, the material is less apt to engage us.

    Is that a direct result of Hollywood hiring more writers under 40 than over? Certainly the writers that have been doing it for 10, 20 or more years are more accomplished, no? But movies are for the young demographic, so that’s who is hired to write the material. I believe the emphasis on youth is a recent development - over the last 10-20 years, and if you look back at the 70’s or before, you’ll see that the writers, actors, were all older and the audience was typically family (or older).

    But, heck, I could be way off base.

    Enjoy the conversation though.

40. Unk on Wednesday: 6 December 2006|2015

    Dave,

    A lot of what you say has merit… I think kids are definitely more aware — but even within that awareness is a whole lotta naivety of what it takes to be successful.

    I’m not even saying that’s a bad thing… Just the way I personally see it. Additionally, there seems to be a lot of “when my ship comes in” thinking… More than I ever saw growing up but again, that’s not a scientific hypothesis — just an observation among the young people that I see and know.

    And once again, let me reiterate that movies ARE probably not that much different than they were HOWEVER, WE ARE. Technology IS. Look at how MTV changed editing in films… In other words, it’s almost as if a lot of movies are NOT keeping up with the world so that we can still view them as special.

    We’ve seen it all… Except for the occasional special film that WOWS us, we just aren’t surprised anymore. In other words, WE, the audience have RAMPED UP but the movies aren’t keeping up.

    I was invited to watch TURISTAS yesterday… I did. I wish I hadn’t. Another 3 hours of my life that I’ll never get back and I was told that this was a WINNER.

    It could’ve been good though… It had potential but nobody took advantage of it.

    And it was definitely written for the younger demographic by the younger demographic… Most of who, DON’T KNOW SHIT.

    I enjoy the conversation too… LOL.

    Unk

41. your president on Thursday: 7 December 2006|0245

    Is Unk really a screenwriter? He spends A LOT of time on his blog and watching movies. When does he write? I got ONE HUNDRED AMERICAN DOLLARS he’s not real…

    -your president

42. Unk on Thursday: 7 December 2006|1236

    Yo… Just wanted to say THANKS for loving white people (your link).

    And if Unk’s not real, why post a comment on his blog?

    You just helped make me even MORE REAL. LOL.

    But then I know you’re only playing… Because I know who YOU are and you know who I am…

    So I must be real.

    Next Americano is on me… LOL.

    Unk

43. Splattered Wall Fly on Friday: 8 December 2006|1609

    Greetings all,

    In my generation (pre PC), Unk, the word, “special,” meant retarded. I pray you were not part of my generation. I cannot imagine anybody getting hyped up over a retarded movie.

    All goofing aside, I agree that a diluted movie form exists, but for a different reason. As studios derive the majority of their sales and “profitability” from overseas venues, they have to reach their target market and, therein, be sensitive to cultural differences in the host country. As a side note, I have always maintained that the freer the country, the higher the level of movie sophistication. Thus, the US studios “dumb down” the product for foreign consumption and comprehension. If anything, audiences in the US should demand more movie sophistication as they had from unfettered creativity in the mid to late 20th century. An obvious solution could be shooting multiple versions of the movie, one for US viewership and the other for audiences with less movie sophistication. By the way, my definition of movie sophistication is not meant to insult anyone, and simply means the level of cultural awareness of US customs and practices. Trust me, with the watered down versions of most commercial US films today, the international market will surpass the movie sophistication of the US audience in days, not years.

44. Splattered Wall Fly on Friday: 8 December 2006|1650

    One brainfart I forgot to emanate: when did test audiences at screenings become similar to jury peer selection? Isn’t it possible that those who attend the free screenings aren’t able to properly articulate their opinions for improving filmic quality? It seems more and more like the criteria for viewership are two eyes and a mouth with grey matter optional.

45. Thomas Rufer on Thursday: 21 December 2006|1746

    When I went to see Lord of the Rings in theater (they showed it in Switzerland one day before world premiere, afaik) the first few minutes brought me back to cinematic adventure. It was great. I haven’t felt like that in years and I didn’t until now. Only other movie that gave me a supergreat movie-going feeling was Mulholland Drive (thanks Lynch!).

    What happens to movies is happening to video games nowadays. It gets too much business and no one wants to risk anything because you get your head cut off by corporate guys who have no idea about movies.

    One thing that makes the movie theater experience become dull is the incredible big amount of movies produced and the limited need to show them all. It’s all domestic. Foreign movies aren’t in theaters. Wouldn’t it be great if you just can go to the cinema and say I want to watch “Oldboy” and after that you want to watch “City of God” and then “Million Dollar Baby”.

    I think when the movie theaters get all digitalized it will be easier to change programs according to what an audience wants to see. So more quality movies can make it to theater while the bad ones will go away faster.

    It’s just mad that you can go to four movie theaters in your area and they all show the same six movies. No other choice.

    Just random thoughts.

46. James on Friday: 5 January 2007|1914

    Sorry for the backpost…

    The ONLY time I find movies “special” anymore is usually with the audience I am seeing it with.

    I saw SCARY MOVIE and THE PATRIOT at the Century Citywalk.

    When I first arrived, I was dismayed by the expense. Pay for parking. Pay 3 bucks more to see a movie here than anywhere else on the planet. Pay more for beverages. Too late now.

    No sooner do I take m seat than, a laser pointer pops up on the screen. Oh no. This is going to suck if someone thinks that is funny all movie. To my surprise someone yells, “If I see that thing one more F$##%ing time, I’m going to break your F#$%ing face.”

    Rock on!

    The laser pointer never made a return visit, and the vocal nature of this movie fan was present in the viewing experience throughout the entire movie. SCARY MOVIE was okay, I guess. But what made it PHENOMENAL was the fact that everyone was cheering and laughing together.

    It was a community experience.

    On a different day my friends wanted to go see THE PATRIOT. It looked like a terd, but they were going to see it at the Century Citywalk again.

    I’m in!

    Let me tell you, THE PATRIOT was god-awful. I was waiting for Mel Gibson to impale somebody with the American flag. The audience agreed. It was very evident. People were laughing. Booing. Throwing things at the screen.

    It was GREAT!

    The audience made a very, very, very bad movie into a fun viewing experience. I got my money’s worth out of it.

    This is a factor that no one taps in to. In fact, I’d say it is discouraged in most theaters.

    I am all for one about turning movies back into EVENTS!!! Give us a reason to go to the theater!

47. Depth-charging clarification… » The Unknown Screenwriter - a screenwriting blog featuring screenwriting tips, tricks, rants, and observations... on Tuesday: 23 January 2007|1530

    [...] MOTIVATION [...]

48. Depth-charging clarification… « The Unknown Screenwriter back up blog… on Tuesday: 23 January 2007|2013

    [...] MOTIVATION [...]

49. Let Tarantino do Tarantino… Please! » The Unknown Screenwriter - a screenwriting blog featuring screenwriting tips, tricks, rants, and observations... on Monday: 29 January 2007|1627

    [...] Why… After reading the script, would I go see SMOKIN’ ACES? Because I STILL want movies to be special! [...]

50. RAT - Uttaruk.com » Let Tarantino do Tarantino… Please! on Monday: 29 January 2007|1702

    [...] Why… After reading the script, would I go see SMOKIN’ ACES? Because I STILL want movies to be special! [...]

Leave a Reply