tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7823625636675642409.post904247755861547026..comments2024-03-14T04:07:39.792-07:00Comments on Earl Pomerantz: Just Thinking...: "Why I Can't Write A Movie"Earl Pomerantzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16963705121297866334noreply@blogger.comBlogger38125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7823625636675642409.post-75964982826054585202009-01-01T16:36:00.000-08:002009-01-01T16:36:00.000-08:00Cleaver a screenwriter? LMAO. Go look at the revie...Cleaver a screenwriter? LMAO. Go look at the reviews of his "movies" on IMDB and see how well his masterpieces have done. Hell, he hasn't had anything made into a movie in over 10 years. What a toolAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7823625636675642409.post-29616499536834962962008-07-18T14:06:00.000-07:002008-07-18T14:06:00.000-07:00I agree about the wonder of 1939, but one tiny nit...I agree about the wonder of 1939, but one tiny nitpick: <I>The Thin Man</I> came out in 1934.The Wrong Boxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11525871621986041165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7823625636675642409.post-64699074717031592812008-06-20T10:07:00.000-07:002008-06-20T10:07:00.000-07:00"Somebody wants something. And they get it."“Someb..."Somebody wants something. And they get it."<BR/><BR/>“Somebody wants something, and they go crazy.”<BR/><BR/>Isn't that all comedy and tragedy? And wasn't this discussed in Aristotle's poetics 2000 years ago?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11080123567288659697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7823625636675642409.post-36740723888195297992008-06-09T14:04:00.000-07:002008-06-09T14:04:00.000-07:00TV is better than Film.TV writers have far more co...TV is better than Film.<BR/><BR/>TV writers have far more control than screenwriters.<BR/><BR/>It's not a coincidence.<BR/><BR/>There's a reason why, IN GENERAL, that writer-directors make more original movies than directors who don't write. <BR/><BR/>Compare Tarantino, Kevin Smith, Woody Allen, Spike Lee, Coen Brothers et all to Spielberg, Bay, Ratner, and whoever else you want to throw in -- the latter three make more money, the former make more original movies (though you could argue about Tarantino).<BR/><BR/>Someone else mentioned it, but in film the people who are the best at telling stories (the writers) have the least control. You have studio execs who've never written a screenplay before in their life doing whatever they want to the script, and if the screenwriter doesn't like it, they're replaceable.<BR/><BR/>In TV, the creator of the show stays around to make sure the show stays on course. In film, the creator can be replaced.<BR/><BR/>And I could point to hundreds of examples where your theory of "the character wants something, and they get it" doesn't apply.<BR/><BR/>No Country for Old Men, Blair Witch Project, Rocky, Se7en, for instance.<BR/><BR/>The problem is that those movies generally don't make as much money.<BR/><BR/>And if you're investing $60 million dollars, you're going to aim for the sure thing over anything that has artistic value.<BR/><BR/>I'd also like to point out that most TV shows follow the same formula -- a character wants something, and they get it. Friday Night Lights -- they win state. Dexter finds the Ice Truck Killer. Buffy saves the world. An American Idol gets a contract. <BR/><BR/>For the most part I agree, but it's not that there's not good scripts being written, it's that no one is willing to take risks.Dave Alehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03474450946075032613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7823625636675642409.post-64194528237699065332008-06-09T09:49:00.000-07:002008-06-09T09:49:00.000-07:00Agree with your take on Indy Jones. Seemed like th...Agree with your take on Indy Jones. Seemed like the guys (Spielberg, Lucas and Ford) got together and said, "Let's slap one last Indy movie together. And, just for laughs, let's open it with a tribute to American Graffiti and throw in a salute to E.T." Where were the compelling characters from previous Indy flicks? I still don't get the UFO/space alien stuff. Were they nice aliens or aliens who wanted to destroy us? But the least believable part of the movie was actress Karen Allen's return as Indy's old/new girlfriend. Not to sound sexist, but couldn't she have visited a gym a few times before shooting? The movie dragged on and on. I kept hoping Cate Blanchett's character would turn into a young Bob Dylan, just to liven things up.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7823625636675642409.post-81873410392576743472008-06-06T12:22:00.000-07:002008-06-06T12:22:00.000-07:00And I say all that to say: this means you CAN writ...And I say all that to say: this means you CAN write movies.<BR/><BR/>But apparently I cannot post on a blog without prematurely "sending".<BR/><BR/>Let the wisecracks begin.Earl Newtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17097757244062301721noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7823625636675642409.post-28295241718563879462008-06-06T12:18:00.000-07:002008-06-06T12:18:00.000-07:00Earl - First off, AS an 'Earl', it's odd to be add...Earl - <BR/><BR/>First off, AS an 'Earl', it's odd to be addressing another Earl. It's not like we're Davids or Joes.<BR/><BR/>Second - one of the things that occurred to me during this post is about the inherent difference of TV versus movies.<BR/><BR/><BR/>But that said: movies are about ideas. Only a few of them are really about characters. Indiana Jones is one of them, but he comes out of the serials of the 40s - which certainly resembles the format of television (episodic, following a single character or set of characters over a long period).<BR/><BR/>No one goes to Alien Vs. Predator to see if the humans make it out alive. They go to see what Alien will do to Predator, and vice-versa, and to the humans, ad infinitum.<BR/><BR/>(As a post-script: I think there IS an implied foreknowledge of the end of a TV episode, as much as there is in movies. Audiences know you aren't going to kill off a main character or dramatically change the relationship dynamics. Just like movies, it's about what you do in the middle.)Earl Newtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17097757244062301721noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7823625636675642409.post-22695282779279840652008-06-06T09:15:00.000-07:002008-06-06T09:15:00.000-07:00I believe to cavil over seven words in this post -...I believe to cavil over seven words in this post -- "Somebody wants something. And they get it." -- is to miss the larger points. What I get from those sentences <I>in context</I> is an argument that Hollywood movies are overwhelmingly optimistic, comforting and wish-fulfilling -- an argument, exagerated as it may be, that's a lot more interesting than snippy comments about semantics and categories.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7823625636675642409.post-57142157330935490532008-06-05T21:36:00.000-07:002008-06-05T21:36:00.000-07:00Look at movies from other countries. They're not ...Look at movies from other countries. They're not about outcomes. They're about something else, usually having to do with the journey. I know that Zennier than Thou, but there's a difference. This country has a value system in which the final score is all that matters. That's fine for baseball, but it narrows the range of acceptable storytelling.Earl Pomerantzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16963705121297866334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7823625636675642409.post-36434014145734496952008-06-05T20:29:00.000-07:002008-06-05T20:29:00.000-07:00Earl, your description of every American movie - s...Earl, your description of every American movie - somebody wants something, and they get it - could well describe Homer's Odyssey. He created the template 3,500 or however many years ago, and everybody's been ripping him off since.<BR/><BR/>Commerce and craft can go together, as Shakespeare proved. The reason a movie stinks is simply a lack of dedication to the craft and total focus on the commerce.<BR/><BR/>But don't worry, once film makers figure out how to use the Internet as their main distribution route, and that day is surely coming, the whole calcified edifice will crumble, and a new era will dawn. Keep the faith, brother.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7823625636675642409.post-17171174950495741872008-06-05T09:27:00.000-07:002008-06-05T09:27:00.000-07:00Mark,All of those variations exist in American mov...Mark,<BR/><BR/>All of those variations exist in American movies. Earl said all movies boil down to "Somebody wants something. And they get it."<BR/><BR/>He's already discounted your variations. My question still stands.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7823625636675642409.post-28475599006098215242008-06-05T01:11:00.000-07:002008-06-05T01:11:00.000-07:001976:All the President's Men Bound for Glory Carri...1976:<BR/><BR/>All the President's Men <BR/>Bound for Glory <BR/>Carrie <BR/>Marathon Man <BR/>Network <BR/>The Omen <BR/>Rocky <BR/>Taxi Driver <BR/><BR/><BR/>That's a pretty good list - and there are comparable ones from every year from 1969 to 1979 (with some stellar films in '67 and '68 as well.)<BR/><BR/>And of course, 1939 also included Hitler - Beast of Berlin, Barricade, Bachelor Mother, Boys' Reformatory, Andy Hardy Gets Spring Fever, and Daughter of the Tong. <BR/><BR/>Every year has good and bad films. <BR/><BR/><BR/>Though, I do admit, the balance has been off for a while - I think it's cyclical. Film improves every time it's threatened by new technology. In the '30s - there were over 40 million radios in use in homes in the US. To compete with radio shows, the movies had to be better. In the 60's TVs had proliferated - and in the 70's, with the advent of the VCR, movies had to shine a little more to compete with videos.<BR/><BR/>I think we're about due for another golden age, as "new media" becomes more prominent and studios realize that to compete with DVRs and the Internet, they don't need to make more expensive movies - just better ones.Laura Deerfieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06481017193764065233noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7823625636675642409.post-21106734430454512652008-06-04T22:41:00.000-07:002008-06-04T22:41:00.000-07:00Actually, "Screenwriter," they've been throwing mu...Actually, "Screenwriter," they've been throwing multiple screenwriters at movies since there were talkies. In fact, that and the fact that the studios were reserving to themselves the right to decide who had actually "written" what got made had everything to do with the founding of the Screen Writers Guild (which eventually became the WGA)<BR/><BR/>As a matter of fact, I've been in this since (probably) before your parents even knew each other, let alone started propagating, and every one of those points you make are points I used to discuss with my old mentor Wendell Mayes and his great good friend Billy Wilder and <I>they</I> talked about that stuff from back when they were at your stage of the game.<BR/><BR/>Nice to see that with your post here that my theory of "hope springs infernal" is true. Indeed, "there's a sucker born every minute." :-)TCinLAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10019943818456775718noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7823625636675642409.post-33507979884452562012008-06-04T19:15:00.000-07:002008-06-04T19:15:00.000-07:00Somebody wants something. And they get it.Somebod...Somebody wants something. And they get it.<BR/>Somebody wants something. And they don’t get it.<BR/>Somebody wants something. They don’t get it but get something that’s still satisfying.<BR/>Somebody wants something. They get it and discover they don’t want it.<BR/>Somebody wants something. They discover that they want something else.<BR/>Somebody wants something. They get it and discover the real cost of it.<BR/>Somebody doesn’t want something. They get it and have to get rid of it.<BR/>Somebody doesn’t want something. They can’t get rid of it and have to reconcile to it.<BR/>Somebody doesn’t want something. They learn they’re wrong for not wanting it.<BR/>Somebody doesn’t want something. They learn they’re right for not wanting it.<BR/><BR/>I'm sure you could work out more variations.Mark Mayersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00065971589878678848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7823625636675642409.post-24711695766807226792008-06-04T18:55:00.000-07:002008-06-04T18:55:00.000-07:00Earl,I agree. TV writers have longer careers.So wh...Earl,<BR/>I agree. TV writers have longer careers.<BR/><BR/>So what was the knock knock?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7823625636675642409.post-71523172926576774432008-06-04T17:10:00.000-07:002008-06-04T17:10:00.000-07:00Somebody wants something. And they get it.The only...Somebody wants something. And they get it.<BR/><BR/>The only other option is, "And they don't get it."<BR/><BR/>So... there's only two stories?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7823625636675642409.post-57339066734976287812008-06-04T10:21:00.000-07:002008-06-04T10:21:00.000-07:00Brilliant post, and fantastic comments…especially ...Brilliant post, and fantastic comments…especially because I’m an “up and coming” screenwriter who’s trying to make a career out of it (I know – GULP), and I have the EXACT same sentiments and feelings across the board…from the current state of film (and TV), to the craft of screenwriting, and on to the fact that the same visceral emotions films used to evoke from me are now being evoked by video games.<BR/><BR/>Instead of passionately reaffirming everything that’s already been said (and I could at great length), I’ll throw out something that hasn’t necessarily been said yet.<BR/> <BR/>What I’ve found on the film side of Hollywood is that a lion’s share of screenwriters do not value their creative contribution (The Story) to the film project as a whole. This lack of value for The Story has been breed out of the screenwriters and into everyone else. There are a lot of (unreasonable) reasons why, and I won’t bother to list those. But do know that it wasn’t always like that, and it doesn’t have to continue.<BR/><BR/>The greater point is that it means that The Story is CONSTANTLY being hijacked by those people in the production who are not storytellers. This may seem trivial, but it is (along with the monetization of the industry), in my opinion, at the very heart of the problem, at least from my “in the trenches” perspective.<BR/><BR/>Take your standard film project with your standard professional filmmakers filling their roles in making a movie. Just as screenwriters are not directors or actors, the reverse holds just as true. But, as of right now, you have directors and actors all believing they can craft stories, which is as asinine as a pitcher thinking he can play center field and hit cleanup. Both players are on the same team and have the same goal, but are encouraged (and expected) to focus on their own expertise to achieve that goal.<BR/><BR/>The other absurd trend is to bring in multiple screenwriters to work on a screenplay. Again, GENERALLY speaking, they don’t do that with directors, or actors, or composers. If the talent the production hired decides that they’re going to phone their performance in, there’s nothing they can do. The movie’s gonna bomb and everyone knows it. But, for some ridiculous reason, everyone things it’s a fantastic idea to have a revolving door with the screenplay, even if the original writer is available. This makes as much sense as having four chefs all come in and work on the same dinner…train wreck much? And for an industry being run by “business” professionals, Econ 101 should’ve taught them the “Law of Diminishing Returns”.<BR/><BR/>Either way, whether it’s through the directors thinking they can write, or productions sabotaging their own scripts with multiple writers, the end result is the same: The Story gets hijacked somewhere along the way. And when that happens, when screenwriters allow The Story to be hijacked, when they don’t defend what they know is right, then everything else after that point (the direction, the acting, the score, the post-production) is DOOMED. No amount of CGI or mass marketing is going to save it.<BR/><BR/>As a screenwriter, I have worked EXUBERANTLY hard in my limited experience to establish creative trust as quickly as possible with the producers I work with. Making sure that before any director or actors walk in the door, the producers know that I am more than committed to not only protecting The Story, but am actually capable of (lightbulb!) making it better. And a key component of earning that creative trust, besides striving to always have the best idea in the room, is valuing my contribution to the project.<BR/><BR/>And I do it not out of ego, though I do take great pride in my work…I do it most of all because I, too, LOVE warm popcorn, cold soft-drinks, sour candy, and being swept away as much as anyone else…and I know that it all begins with a great story.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7823625636675642409.post-62711164237423025102008-06-04T08:37:00.000-07:002008-06-04T08:37:00.000-07:00Someone above said: Taxi was the last sitcom that ...Someone above said: Taxi was the last sitcom that was structurally about learning to live with failure. After that, everyone is a hero.<BR/><BR/>Fascinating observation! This has been a delight - the post and the comments both. I would posit that those great movies from 39 that we all love are also about someone wanting something and he gets it. It's kind of what a movie is. Still, dreck is dreck and there's a hell of a lot of it spewing from screens today.vandrophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09616169751501524035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7823625636675642409.post-45786806429576143212008-06-04T06:25:00.000-07:002008-06-04T06:25:00.000-07:00"May I have your comparable list of any other year..."May I have your comparable list of any other year? "<BR/><BR/>Off the top of my head I'd say, how about 1976?<BR/><BR/>Network<BR/>All The Presidents Men<BR/>Bound For Glory<BR/>Taxi Driver<BR/>(and they lost Best Picture to the mediocre Rocky)Richard Marcejhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05103986097053252333noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7823625636675642409.post-82764237736266413602008-06-04T03:14:00.000-07:002008-06-04T03:14:00.000-07:00Couldn't agree more. And I'm only 28. I find myse...Couldn't agree more. <BR/><BR/>And I'm only 28. I find myself wondering what happened to all the good movies.<BR/><BR/>I think that perhaps we are simply in a transitional phase in the history of film. Much like the advent of sound paved the way for gimmicky talkies cashing in on the new technology, the advent of CGI has dulled the imaginations of not just those that tend to the money machine, but film makers as well --<BR/><BR/>"Oh, we can fix that in post," is the new mantra.<BR/><BR/>Unfortunately, it is incredibly difficult to fix flawed story in post. And to be honest -- I get the feeling people have forgotten what story is in the first place.<BR/><BR/>Once upon a time, story needs drove the need for technological advances in film. See sound. See Star Wars. See Terminator 2. <BR/><BR/>Now, with the ability to make the most ill-conceived fantasy have a tangible form on the screen, it is now technology that drives story.<BR/><BR/>I only hope that this phase is on its dying legs.Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16897402622057966364noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7823625636675642409.post-80247537469761119832008-06-04T00:18:00.000-07:002008-06-04T00:18:00.000-07:00Thing about Indiana Jones is that I can't see why ...Thing about Indiana Jones is that I can't see why it can't be a shameless cash-in, rake in a fortune and yet still be a well-crafted movie. I had no problem with so many of the elements, but the story just didn't come together.<BR/><BR/>It seemed to suffer from too-many-draft-itis. Like it was just a patchwork of drafts that didn't connect. A collection of scenes rather than a story.<BR/><BR/>But there are great writers out there. I've read some great scripts in the last few years. And yet a film like this, with such history, potential and expectations, ends up with a patchwork non-script. I don't get it.<BR/><BR/>On a side note, TCinLA, I'd recommend you give Temple of Doom another go after all these years. You might still hate it but that, to me, is a film that somehow massively improved with age.Bitter Animatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06617537816971588380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7823625636675642409.post-59672092901683310222008-06-04T00:08:00.000-07:002008-06-04T00:08:00.000-07:00Great post. I have a running joke with my wife abo...Great post. I have a running joke with my wife about. How different things will be if the Movie industry doesn't get it's act together. Today people who work in film tend to be slightly condescending towards their TV counter parts. But in ten yours you are going to hear TV people saying "oh you work in movies, how quaint"Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03471146914341812015noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7823625636675642409.post-66537298508354946642008-06-03T23:58:00.000-07:002008-06-03T23:58:00.000-07:00A little off topic here (looks like Tuesdays are h...A little off topic here (looks like Tuesdays are <EM>hoppin'</EM>)...but if anyone wants to get in on the giftlist exchange, I'd be simply honored. Especially if you showed us yours, Earl darlin' (and maybe your wife's).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7823625636675642409.post-39666114049200885852008-06-03T23:24:00.000-07:002008-06-03T23:24:00.000-07:00Television isn't better, just ten to fifteen years...Television isn't better, just ten to fifteen years behind, as always. The changes you describe in the movies are happening in television as well. There is less and less room for ambiguity and negativism in television. See the succes of Ugly Betty, Men in Trees, etc. Compare Men in Trees to Northern Exposure and you'll see what we have lost. There's a whoole generation out there that is not prepared to laugh at itself or exept the image of themselfs as people capable of failure. Taxi was the last sitcom that was structurally about learning to live with failure. After that, everyone is a hero.Ger Apeldoornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03633862833036214748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7823625636675642409.post-18701609033197347532008-06-03T23:08:00.000-07:002008-06-03T23:08:00.000-07:00Actually, it's not a surprise that the latest Indi...Actually, it's not a surprise that the latest Indiana Jones movie is crap. I've watched "Raiders" 20 times and will likely watch it another 20 before I die and will love it each and every time. I cringed through "Temple of Doom" because I had a screening pass and didn't want to embarass myself walking out, and then went to the last one to see it because a good friend was "the man in the hat" in the prologue, and then walked out 20 minutes later.<BR/><BR/>Same with Star Wars. I've watched the original 39 times and as a professional s-f writer still love it in either the original or enhanced bersion and could watch it another 39 times without problem. Saw "Empire" three times (the 2nd and 3rd times to convince myself the first time was as bad as it seemed), cringed once through "Jedi," walked out of "Episode 1" over the cheesy story and effects and incompetent direction (all Lucas' fault), and didn't waste time or money on the last two.<BR/><BR/>Spielberg and Lucas are both vastly over-rated, and are only good on the first one, then they just copy themselves and like a bad xerox copy being copied into the 10th generation, the movies jsut get more and more awful. Spielberg's at the point where he sleepwalks through even his "good" stuff ("A.I." "Minority Report," "Munich"). The truth is that if "Private Ryan" didn't have the first 30 minutes it has, it would be a third rate made-in-WW2 WW2 propaganda movie.<BR/><BR/>I havea good friend who is a very good computer animator, who thought he had "made it" to be hired at LucasFilm for the "first trilogy" of Star Wars." He discovered Lucas <I>wanted</I> it to be cheesy and quit before subjecting himself to the next two. He went to work for a good filmmaker, Peter Jackson. <BR/><BR/>30 years from now Spielberg and Lucas will be seen for being the pernicious influences they are and have been for the past 30 years.TCinLAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10019943818456775718noreply@blogger.com