To Mac H. About Being Underwhelmed

[DevelopmentExec]

For some reason the powers that be closed the other thread, but I wanted to answer your question:

"DevExec - Do you find yourself underwhelmed by writers who are professional as well?"

Of course. I've been underwhelmed with a lot of unproduced scripts I've read, just as I've been underwhelmed by some produced efforts of those I consider the most talented writers, directors and actors around. But Charles Kaufman or the Coen Brothers or Scott Frank or David Koepp at their worst are still better than most writers at their best. And even when I'm underwhelmed by professional writers, for the most part the scripts have a certain level of competence, that many scripts written by amateur writers (including some contest winners) don't.

You need to to differentiate between what you like or don't like and what the quality of the writing is. If an agent takes on a client it means he believes in the money making potential of that client and the writing needs to be at a certain level to be commercially viable. I very rarely come across a script submitted by an agent - where I'll think "how did this guy get an agent?" no matter how unimpressed I am. But I've read a lot of stuff by non pros where I'll think "no agent will touch this writer he doesn't understand drama."

As for what makes a script great - it is quite simply as Robert McKee says - " a good story, well told." Perhaps not so simple - dramatic writing of any kind has to do so many things and work on so many levels - and screenplays have so many limitations when it comes to storytelling. But a well structured plot, a clear theme, strong conflict, and a protagonist you root for are all necessary for success. And just as important, it has to evoke emotion in the reader. I think that part doesn't always get the attention it should - because a story can't succeed if it doesn't make us feel something.

[icerose]

That's funny, I also wanted to respond to that post.

From what I understand, Spiderman whichever number you said wasn't a spec script, it was a write for hire. What you saw was the rough draft, which was just to get the feel for the story then went through extensive note sessions to get it fine tuned. You can't compare your writing to that because it was already sold and with the intention that it was going to be a first draft.

[Rainy Night]

But Charles Kaufman or the Coen Brothers or Scott Frank or David Koepp at their worst are still better than most writers at their best.

I was underwhelmed by NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN. I didn't think it lived up to all the hype. I haven't personally talked to a lot of people that did like it, yet it's a critically acclaimed film.

IMHO - it a matter of personal taste, what may underwhelm one person may overwhelm another. For a writer it's getting the right script to the right person at the right time. (telling a good story doesn't hurt either ;))

[zeprosnepsid]

I think we've established a good two step process here. One is that the screenplay has to be really well written with a good understanding of story and structure and all that to really even be considered. And secondly, after that, you have to match it with someone who actually likes your story, according to their taste.

See, it's so easy :)

[DevelopmentExec]

And secondly, after that, you have to match it with someone who actually likes your story, according to their taste.

See, it's so easy :)

Actually "like" isn't nearly enough. You gotta be lucky enough to get it to someone who is really passionate about the material (or at the very least really passionate about the money they believe it will make.)

[PerditaDrury]

I was underwhelmed by NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN. I didn't think it lived up to all the hype. I haven't personally talked to a lot of people that did like it, yet it's a critically acclaimed film.

IMHO - it a matter of personal taste, what may underwhelm one person may overwhelm another. For a writer it's getting the right script to the right person at the right time. (telling a good story doesn't hurt either ;))

I work in the business and I don't know anyone who doesn't think that NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN isn't a work of profound genius. I've seen it multiple times: it's brilliant.

Maybe your "underwhelmed" reaction says more about you than about the film.

Thankfully, the Coen brothers are appreciated by those with access to the greenlight switch and with the power to bestow acclaim.

[icerose]

I work in the business and I don't know anyone who doesn't think that NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN isn't a work of profound genius. I've seen it multiple times: it's brilliant.

Maybe your "underwhelmed" reaction says more about you than about the film.

Thankfully, the Coen brothers are appreciated by those with access to the greenlight switch and with the power to bestow acclaim.

Not everyone appreciates the same film. There are plenty of acclaimed films that I think are completely lame. And I really like some underrated movies.

And well, now you've met someone who doesn't think it's a work of genius. It's why there are a lot of genres and such. Not everyone has the same tastes.

There's nothing wrong with the person who doesn't like that film. It just isn't their thing.

[Rainy Night]

I work in the business and I don't know anyone who doesn't think that NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN isn't a work of profound genius. I've seen it multiple times: it's brilliant.

I work in the business too and people I know here who have over 20 years experience in the business didn't like it.

At risk of going off topic... (I think I'm already there) what was so brilliant about what the Coen's did? They adapted an existing work, so it wasn't original material that they brought to the script. And (IMHO - as I said before, it's just an opinion) there was no resolution to the story, the end came much to abruptly, I left disappointed. Lebowski was a much better Coen Bros film. But that's just me, I know people who didn't like that one either.

[zeprosnepsid]

Dev - you're just being a big semantic. I was kidding.

But while we're off topic, I also really disliked No Country. I thought it was really boring and I guessed everything that was going to happened before it did. It was so predictable. But it depends on taste obviously, because I have a friend who loved it because she thought it was so unpredictable.

But for me, it has no character arcs or development and it's just a Michael Myers movie.

And as for Scott Frank, I thought The Lookout was one of the worst films of that year.

But yeah, it's all a matter of taste. It doesn't mean someone is inexperienced in the business for disagreeing with you.

[nmstevens]

Dev - you're just being a big semantic. I was kidding.

But while we're off topic, I also really disliked No Country. I thought it was really boring and I guessed everything that was going to happened before it did. It was so predictable. But it depends on taste obviously, because I have a friend who loved it because she thought it was so unpredictable.

But for me, it has no character arcs or development and it's just a Michael Myers movie.

And as for Scott Frank, I thought The Lookout was one of the worst films of that year.

But yeah, it's all a matter of taste. It doesn't mean someone is inexperienced in the business for disagreeing with you.


You see, the question of what one thinks about "No Country" or these other movies is, in terms of the original question, really beside the point.

I've heard this a lot -- that people will watch this produced movie or that produced movie and pass some judgement on it -- and they ask, in all seriousness -- (and I'm not saying this in reference to NCFOM) -- this was just the worst piece of junk I've ever seen. How could this have been made? Surely this couldn't be any worse than the sort of thing that you get from the slush pile.

You just don't know. Those who have not regularly read *really* amateur work (which I have) simply have no basis of comparison.

The worst professional work that I've read -- the worst professionally produced movie that I've ever seen (and I've both read and seen some truly dreadful professional work) are like Citizen Kane compared to the worst of the worst of the amateur stuff that I've read.

It truly is a whole other world of awfulness. These are things written by grown men and women that are written at a pre-junior high school level, in every way. In fact, when I was writing, before I was in junior high school, I was probably writing better than a lot of the non-pro stuff that I've read. And I'm not saying that my stuff was good. My stuff was crap.

You just have to read it to understand that you're talking about a whole different level of material.

NMS

[zeprosnepsid]

I have no idea what relation your response has to mine.

And I'm grumpy this morning, so here it goes....

"You see, the question of what one thinks about "No Country" or these other movies is, in terms of the original question, really beside the point."

I wasn't responding to the original question. I was responding to the post before mine which was "At risk of going off topic... (I think I'm already there) what was so brilliant about what the Coen's did?" It may be 'beside the point' but it's not like this is the first thread ever to go off topic. Why pick on me?

"I've heard this a lot -- that people will watch this produced movie or that produced movie and pass some judgement on it -- "

I pass judgment because my paid job for 2+ years was as a film critic, I'm just used to it.

"and they ask, in all seriousness -- (and I'm not saying this in reference to NCFOM) -- this was just the worst piece of junk I've ever seen."

I didn't say anything was the worst thing I ever saw. I said The Lookout was the worst movie I saw that year. Were there worse movies? Maybe. But that doesn't change the fact that I didn't see those. Of the movies I saw, that was the worst.

"You just don't know. Those who have not regularly read *really* amateur work (which I have) simply have no basis of comparison. "

I wasn't making a comparison to anything. And how do you know what I know and don't know?

"The worst professional work that I've read -- the worst professionally produced movie that I've ever seen (and I've both read and seen some truly dreadful professional work) are like Citizen Kane compared to the worst of the worst of the amateur stuff that I've read."

I'm sure they are, what does this have to do with me?

"It truly is a whole other world of awfulness. These are things written by grown men and women that are written at a pre-junior high school level, in every way."

Yeah, but we're simply not talking about this. We're comparing professionally produced movies to professionally produced movies. I'm sure amateur movies are worse, but that wasn't the discussion we were having.

You can post whatever you want obviously, but don't quote me if you are not actually addressing me. I was just giving my personal opinions on a couple movies, not making a statement about the movie industry.

Originally I was going to end that last post with a joke about how Dev and I probably aren't ever going to work together (because of our divergent tastes, and his inability to read my sarcasm) but I forgot before I posted. It was just a light post about my opinion. I'm not sure what you read in it, but clearly something else.

[DevelopmentExec]

Originally I was going to end that last post with a joke about how Dev and I probably aren't ever going to work together (because of our divergent tastes, and his inability to read my sarcasm)


Actually, I'm a big fan of sarcasm - WHEN it's well written.

As for my taste - I never stated what I felt was the best or the worst of any of the writers I mentioned. For Scott Frank, I was thinking of "Out of Sight" "Get Shorty" and "Dead Again" as among his best - although I wouldn't put "The Lookout" as his worst. I found it an interesting little film and though I felt it moved a little slow - I thought that had more to do with the directing and editing than the pacing of the plot.

[nmstevens]

I have no idea what relation your response has to mine.

And I'm grumpy this morning, so here it goes....

"You see, the question of what one thinks about "No Country" or these other movies is, in terms of the original question, really beside the point."

I wasn't responding to the original question. I was responding to the post before mine which was "At risk of going off topic... (I think I'm already there) what was so brilliant about what the Coen's did?" It may be 'beside the point' but it's not like this is the first thread ever to go off topic. Why pick on me?

"I've heard this a lot -- that people will watch this produced movie or that produced movie and pass some judgement on it -- "

I pass judgment because my paid job for 2+ years was as a film critic, I'm just used to it.

"and they ask, in all seriousness -- (and I'm not saying this in reference to NCFOM) -- this was just the worst piece of junk I've ever seen."

I didn't say anything was the worst thing I ever saw. I said The Lookout was the worst movie I saw that year. Were there worse movies? Maybe. But that doesn't change the fact that I didn't see those. Of the movies I saw, that was the worst.

"You just don't know. Those who have not regularly read *really* amateur work (which I have) simply have no basis of comparison. "

I wasn't making a comparison to anything. And how do you know what I know and don't know?

"The worst professional work that I've read -- the worst professionally produced movie that I've ever seen (and I've both read and seen some truly dreadful professional work) are like Citizen Kane compared to the worst of the worst of the amateur stuff that I've read."

I'm sure they are, what does this have to do with me?

"It truly is a whole other world of awfulness. These are things written by grown men and women that are written at a pre-junior high school level, in every way."

Yeah, but we're simply not talking about this. We're comparing professionally produced movies to professionally produced movies. I'm sure amateur movies are worse, but that wasn't the discussion we were having.

You can post whatever you want obviously, but don't quote me if you are not actually addressing me. I was just giving my personal opinions on a couple movies, not making a statement about the movie industry.

Originally I was going to end that last post with a joke about how Dev and I probably aren't ever going to work together (because of our divergent tastes, and his inability to read my sarcasm) but I forgot before I posted. It was just a light post about my opinion. I'm not sure what you read in it, but clearly something else.


I think your grumpiness has caused you to misconstrue what I most definitely intended to be a general comment as a personal one.

If one looks at the very first line of *my* post, which you quoted, I think (or at least I intended to make clear) -- that it was my attempt to steer the conversation from your comments about "No Country" back to the original subject of the post.

If I specifically say, "(and I'm not saying this in reference to NCFOM) -- this was just the worst piece of junk I've ever seen" -- apparently you feel the need to respond by insisting that you never said that No Country was the worst thing you ever saw and that I shouldn't misquote you.

Okay. For the record -- when you are discussing No Country, you would officially qualify as not being one of those people to whom I'm referring when I say, "I'm not saying this in reference to "NCFOM" etc., etc.,"

I understand that you had steered it away to a discussion of "No Country" -- well, just as you can steer it away, what keeps me from steering it back?

Your post wasn't written in isolation -- it was part of an-going conversation that began with a question about DevExec being underwhelmed with non-pros and whether he ever found himself comparably underwhelmed by professional writers -- and thus to the various exchanges about people being underwhelmed/disappoined/etc. about "No Country".

The larger discussion about underwhelming non-pro scripts vs. pro scripts may not have been the subject of *your* particular post -- but it most definitely was relevant to the larger discussion.

So please excuse me if I happened to find things in your post that I thought material to that larger *on topic* conversation.

It actually wasn't meant as a personal affront.

NMS