I've been teasing you to think about screenwriting differently than most teachers. Instead of focusing solely on your story, your structure, your product, I've been asking you to think about the fortune of film itself in the digital age. A few weeks ago, I pointed out that while we may love film, we screenwriters are as guilty as anyone else is of killing the movies because we, too, partake in the wonderful world of digital entertainment. It would be like a photographer going on and on about the importance of 35 millimeter film and using a smart phone to take pictures of her kids. And, yet, that happens all the time, I bet. So, let's admit that we're joining the attrition crowd to read blogs, to join in Facebook discussions, to watch YouTube.com videos, and to play games in a million different ways. Let's wonder about the loss of books, and films that tell stories classic to our understanding of humanity itself, and let's not think of gimmicks to save them but of re-purposing those big stories for the audience.
For a few thousand years we have depended on books to help us interpret the meaning of life. Now, we are looking at the end of paper publishing. Really and truly. In a decade libraries will be on-line more than they'll be places for pimply-faced kids to make too much noise in while they're supposed to be researching their report for history. What took 10 hours for us to research 10 years ago, takes kids today 10 minutes, and pretty soon it will be 10 seconds, and there is nothing, short of blowing up satellites, that we can do to change that. The same things are happening in films. My daughter, aged 14 made a 10- minute documentary that would have been a monumental task for me to do in junior high school. When filmmakers can so easily make films, and it is sure to get even more accessible, and easier to do more amazing things than simply editing a home video (for instance, on-line greenscreens, special effects and stock-footage dramas) how is the industry going to stay in business? Who are the future arbiters of content if any script can be made by a teenager on their PC or iPad or Smartphone? When will the industry's efforts to stay technologically one or more steps ahead of the home filmmaker finally be fruitless?
This experience, I say to you, screenwriters, in all seriousness, isn't that far away from today, and so I want you to begin removing from the equation that there is only one way to be a successful screenwriter and that is the Hollywood way. The future is in the hands of the storytellers who can honestly reach the audience and touch their hearts in such a way that the audience shares your story with their friends. Success for filmmakers and screenwriters will look much the same as it does for book authors in a few years. As we have print on-demand, and uploaded eBooks from a myriad of sources, as we get our music from YouTube and iTunes and Amazon Cloud, so will we get films virally. I'm not talking about 5 minute YouTube Videos, I'm talking about full-fledged feature films and episodic programs. The more Hollywood worries about the stuff I was trained to worry about - intellectual property rights - the more they will take themselves out of the equation. When you write and make a movie, expect it to be pulled apart by a Digital Jockey somewhere in the world and re-purposed into another story you never dreamed of and how in the world do you make a living that way?
One way for certain is to be recognizable and unique. For instance, Tim Burton is going to be fine, as is Christopher Nolan, because when we see their work, even cut up, we'll know they made it. So that, even pirated, their film work will be in demand and that demand will create protection. There's going to be tons of up front work for actors and writers, but royalties...I don't know if they'll survive. Royalties are the backbone of the industry as it exists now. They make it possible for the artists who create film to be compensated for the repeated use of their work, and for the use of their work in other products (i.e.; games, toys, t-shirts). If everyone is just freely "borrowing" filmed content, then royalties can't be calculated and paid. Are there enough lawyers in the world to chase after everyone who downloads a video and uses some bit of it for something else? Did the dissolution of Napster return the music industry to the way it used to be? Without royalties, how will the studios, networks, agents and guilds survive? I don't know how they can survive. Although, yes, there are travel agents still, there certainly are not as many. There are not as many realtors. Bookstores who resisted eBooks in favor of the tried and true way, are now declaring bankruptcy. There are not as many music execs who can sit in a glass building and arbitrate a deal that will make money for years to come. So, people will still make a living, but who and how is the question at hand. I think also distribution channels and theater releases are in big trouble. The filmmaking world has got to come up with something better than 3D to keep people paying exorbitant prices to leave their flatscreens and iPads (where they can now even purchase 3D). I rarely use a DVD, much less a Blu-Ray, even though I have the capability because I don't want to go out and get it during my already overbooked time. Theaters?
Gimmicks are not going to save the movie theater or possibly television. What is going to save the movie theater? That's our problem as screenwriters as much as it is a problem for distributors. Let me use another metaphor: I suppose we could stick our heads in the sand, like Ford and their engineers did with Lincoln Continental and Buick and hope that the big swishy car is going to be popular again because of some gimmick, or we could invent the electric SUV and mini-van. Do you get what I'm saying? Our limitation is not the audience. It is ourselves. A new interior design is not the gimmick that is going to save a big, swishy sofa of a car. A re-purposing might save it. It is not the story itself. The world still needs big cars for some purposes, but for what, but for why? The world still needs big stories but for what and why?
For a few thousand years we have depended on books to help us interpret the meaning of life. Now, we are looking at the end of paper publishing. Really and truly. In a decade libraries will be on-line more than they'll be places for pimply-faced kids to make too much noise in while they're supposed to be researching their report for history. What took 10 hours for us to research 10 years ago, takes kids today 10 minutes, and pretty soon it will be 10 seconds, and there is nothing, short of blowing up satellites, that we can do to change that. The same things are happening in films. My daughter, aged 14 made a 10- minute documentary that would have been a monumental task for me to do in junior high school. When filmmakers can so easily make films, and it is sure to get even more accessible, and easier to do more amazing things than simply editing a home video (for instance, on-line greenscreens, special effects and stock-footage dramas) how is the industry going to stay in business? Who are the future arbiters of content if any script can be made by a teenager on their PC or iPad or Smartphone? When will the industry's efforts to stay technologically one or more steps ahead of the home filmmaker finally be fruitless?
This experience, I say to you, screenwriters, in all seriousness, isn't that far away from today, and so I want you to begin removing from the equation that there is only one way to be a successful screenwriter and that is the Hollywood way. The future is in the hands of the storytellers who can honestly reach the audience and touch their hearts in such a way that the audience shares your story with their friends. Success for filmmakers and screenwriters will look much the same as it does for book authors in a few years. As we have print on-demand, and uploaded eBooks from a myriad of sources, as we get our music from YouTube and iTunes and Amazon Cloud, so will we get films virally. I'm not talking about 5 minute YouTube Videos, I'm talking about full-fledged feature films and episodic programs. The more Hollywood worries about the stuff I was trained to worry about - intellectual property rights - the more they will take themselves out of the equation. When you write and make a movie, expect it to be pulled apart by a Digital Jockey somewhere in the world and re-purposed into another story you never dreamed of and how in the world do you make a living that way?
One way for certain is to be recognizable and unique. For instance, Tim Burton is going to be fine, as is Christopher Nolan, because when we see their work, even cut up, we'll know they made it. So that, even pirated, their film work will be in demand and that demand will create protection. There's going to be tons of up front work for actors and writers, but royalties...I don't know if they'll survive. Royalties are the backbone of the industry as it exists now. They make it possible for the artists who create film to be compensated for the repeated use of their work, and for the use of their work in other products (i.e.; games, toys, t-shirts). If everyone is just freely "borrowing" filmed content, then royalties can't be calculated and paid. Are there enough lawyers in the world to chase after everyone who downloads a video and uses some bit of it for something else? Did the dissolution of Napster return the music industry to the way it used to be? Without royalties, how will the studios, networks, agents and guilds survive? I don't know how they can survive. Although, yes, there are travel agents still, there certainly are not as many. There are not as many realtors. Bookstores who resisted eBooks in favor of the tried and true way, are now declaring bankruptcy. There are not as many music execs who can sit in a glass building and arbitrate a deal that will make money for years to come. So, people will still make a living, but who and how is the question at hand. I think also distribution channels and theater releases are in big trouble. The filmmaking world has got to come up with something better than 3D to keep people paying exorbitant prices to leave their flatscreens and iPads (where they can now even purchase 3D). I rarely use a DVD, much less a Blu-Ray, even though I have the capability because I don't want to go out and get it during my already overbooked time. Theaters?
Gimmicks are not going to save the movie theater or possibly television. What is going to save the movie theater? That's our problem as screenwriters as much as it is a problem for distributors. Let me use another metaphor: I suppose we could stick our heads in the sand, like Ford and their engineers did with Lincoln Continental and Buick and hope that the big swishy car is going to be popular again because of some gimmick, or we could invent the electric SUV and mini-van. Do you get what I'm saying? Our limitation is not the audience. It is ourselves. A new interior design is not the gimmick that is going to save a big, swishy sofa of a car. A re-purposing might save it. It is not the story itself. The world still needs big cars for some purposes, but for what, but for why? The world still needs big stories but for what and why?
No comments:
Post a Comment