This Is What 99% Of Screenwriters Don't Understand - Scott Kirkpatrick 

That what most people want these days is a simple product that's easy to swallow and doesn't overstimulate the brain. That is why the standards in art have been lowered, now "painting" a canvas leaving it blank is considered a masterpiece. That is why reggaeton is heard more than classical music and that is why the clubs are more crowded than the museums. We live in times where people hold a world of knowledge in the palm of their hands but prefer to watch sports scores, surf TikTok's and consume porn on apocalyptic scales. That's what I thought of what Scott said "Write something generic that will please the masses and entertain the audience like kids in a park". And Scott has only said what happens in the industry, nothing against him, but it is still sad and unfortunate.

I believe that Scott has a tendency to overstate exactly how wise industry-types are when dictating what sort of content “can” or “should” get made For example, he uses the term “verifiable audience” as if every past customer of some book/IP is magically “verified” to be a prospective theater-goer later But what if the new adaptation is a steaming pile of crap, like Amazon/Bezos’s Lord of the Rings flop? What about if the material doesn’t translate well to cinema, like with (I imagine) Dostoevsky’s “Crime & Punishment”, or even Zafon’s “Shadow of the Wind” as the author himself proclaimed? What about if the core audience simply “ages out” of the target demo by the time this new screenplay is greenlit, and we’re left with confusing analytics on what exactly its genre/tone should become? I respect the difficulty which comes with securing work as a writer especially nowadays, but we should always keep emphasizing that this approach Scott champions is simply one path toward financial stability: the “safe”, industry-preferred approach. And flies completely in the face of “breakout” hits such as Hereditary, Joker etc., which clearly had little concern with the “profitable” route instead of simply doubling-down on the strength of material itself and hoping audiences chose to “meet them halfway” for it.

He's mayonnaise made of ghost pepper. Pretty much the market is saturated and we need to make copy-paste films with just slight tweaks while writing so that the suits can twist it into the same shit.

I think Scott wasn't blunt enough since so many seem to have missed his message. In order for a script to turn into a movie someone has to bet millions of dollars on it that they may never see again if the film bombs. To mitigate this financial risk there needs to be some evidence that enough people will actually want to see the movie. If there is no evidence, sticking to a familiar template is the next best thing. You can always take a gamble on a weird experimental script, but please do it with your own money.

@@karamzing But then how do you explain all of the unconventional box-office successes which weren’t self-financed? What did those studios have which Scott’s company doesn’t?

I was just thinking... in what other creative field would no one bat an eyelid at the use of the phrase "original content", as if such material were so rare, as it certainly seems to be in mainstream western cinema?

No, because the executives are the ones currently LOSING BILLIONS of dollars with their bad products, so you would be better to write something that you think is good and hope they agree and if the reasons they disagree are the same reasons Indiana Jones 5 flopped or whatever, then you know they will not buy that movie from you. So you can either take the short-term win and change it into something they WILL buy that will likely lose money, or you can be patient and hope for a meeting down the road with their replacement who will see the value in YOUR story that hopefully goes on to be successful.

I think there's a lot of this naive maverick attitude as there is in most creative fields, of wanting to reinvent the wheel, of wanting to be so utterly original (you know, just like everyone else does), as if no one had had that idea before and as if it were so easy. Like he says, try writing that cliche movie, see how "easy" it is. What is "easy" is simply identifying similar structures or storylines or plots or character arcs in a genre, and saying, hey look, it's all the same . Being able to identify something does not equate to being able to recreate it. Similarly, as I think other guests on this channel have stated, having an idea or framework or even treatment is not the same as having fleshed out a rough draft. One is basically the starting point, the other is some way to being the finishing line, though still quite far off.

“Advantage” is relative. Job security goes up, self-esteem goes down Unless you want to argue that there is similar self-image between writers who draft an original character-drama versus Emoji Movie 2

They don't want to, but end up doing it anyways???

you gotta feed the machine. MacD got a ton of Happy Meal plastic figurines to shift@@joshuaperrine2019

If writing cookie-cutter is your calling…good for you. None of anything culturally significant in this world is that. But it is a job.

how many blockbuster movies are regarded as 'culturally significant' I can think of 20 right off the bat. I'm sure you can too.@@TheWorld_2099

lol What a rollercoaster.

Haha, I laugh because I was about to write the exact same thing. He is the kind of producer I would never want to work with. I have a 25 year career in animation, I have worked with all kinds of producers. The best producers to work for are the opposite of this guy. The best producers are super passionate about their projects, they want to do something different and creative, they think outside the box, they take risks. They are not cold and analytical like this guy.

@@EasyZee69 Just out of curiosity, whom would you consider passionate producers of the type of content you prefer here? I believe Brad Bird was instrumental in spearheading the impact The Iron Giant had on audiences & the cast/crew alike, but that’s about all I remember. And maybe that one deceased gentleman from Disney who wrote a lot of songs for Little Mermaid and so on in the ‘90s Howard Ashman, I believe his name was

​@@EasyZee69, in your 25 years, which animated movies pushed the envelope?

@@RajeshBhavnani , that is spot on.

You don't have any restrictions in the indie cinema and 99% of the "let's take a risk" content is a complete sh*t. Don't blame them. They don't want to lose their money on something that won't work. It's not like you have a new Tarantino popping up every 2-3 years. Of course, some of the risk-takers do begin a revolution, but most don't.

Indie cinema doesn't find much audience since early 2000s

I didn't very far yet. By Inside Lines, does he mean STRUCTURE?

That old cliche line that producers love: "Give me the same but different."

@@WanderingWeirdly Yikes lmao Do those geniuses even bother to trying under their own instructions? Would slap them awake a little bit

He mentions nothing of creative guiding principals, only spews garbage marketing think thats directly shoveled from studio marketing heads.

Executives definitely like to act smarter than they are, that’s for sure Hence the existence of box-office bombs But there’s also something to be said for the types of films which make money “on average”. Christmas movies apparently serve as a reliable income stream, for example

It's what most people want these days my friend, trash. A simple product that's easy to swallow and doesn't overstimulate the brain. That is why the standards in art have been lowered, now "painting" a canvas leaving it blank is considered a masterpiece. That is why reggaeton is heard more than classical music and that is why the clubs are more crowded than the museums. We live in times where people hold a world of knowledge in the palm of their hands but prefer to watch sports scores, surf TikTok and consume porn on apocalyptic scales.

​@@peter_shadow7559 As James Gray said, that's because the audience is being "inculcated with nothing but trash... if someone eats McDonald's everyday and then you feed them sushi, they're gonna say what the 🤬 is this?!?" You have to give the audience what they didn't know they wanted and challenge them. I've changed friends' taste in movies and music just by feeding them a steady diet of great stuff unlike anything they've ever been exposed to before. Sometimes it doesn't connect, but most of the time they're absolutely blown away. Then they start searching out things that challenge and astonish them!

Hi Bumdog! We have a filmmaking video going up tomorrow and another on Sunday. Also, here are a bunch of filmmaking videos - tinyurl.com/ytvvwbkf Hopefully there are some in there that you haven't watched yet.

Most of the films lately have been LOSING money on trend for at least a decade now, so..........

They don't understand genres or structure???? I like when the title matches the content when I click on something, but I have no idea what it is I'm not supposed to understand here exactly if I am the Target Audience.

Are we not living in the "wiped out" period? Driving past the giant cineplex by my home with it's nearly empty parking lots I'm wondering? The movie (now content) industry does seem to be in a transition period.

Most "independent" movies are complete garbage. You're talking about very few that are actually good. Taking a risk is called "taking a risk" because you're talking A RISK (meaning: it prob won't work).

@@pawel1545 Yeas its taking a risk but all good writers take risk that's what makes them. Good writers is that they talk risk no good writer has gotten that way. By not taking a risk because taking a risk is how some. Writers an directors got themselves noticed like for prime example. A small writer and director by the name of Wes Craven no one in mainstream Hollywood wanted. To have any thing with the screenplay for the movie A Nightmare on Elm Street. Because they didn't understand it or want to take a risk on it. Only a small straight to VHS movie studio at the time liked what they heard an was willing to take a risk. On it an its name was New Line Cinema. Then to say most independent movies are a complete garbage. Is only your soul opinion an nothing else. Because some people say that most mainstream Hollywood movies are complete garbage. Especially nowadays so your own personal opinions don't make it a actual fact. Then

@@83shadow3 Have you read my comment? How many Wes Cravens are out there? He's an exception. Most independent films are garbage and it's not my opinion. People don't care for these films and don't watch them, distributors are not into them, and critics rate them low. But yeah, most Hollywood films are garbage too for the same reasons. It is what it is.

@@pawel1545 Here's the thing an my point because you fail to understand it. Independent filmmakers or movies are risk but they show more hart an soul. Because the writers have a story that they want to tell how they want to tell it. So it's more original an unique so it makes the writers actually stand out. Now people may like the movies or hate them but it's all personal opinions. So person opinions don't make it a fact. Now when it comes to movie critics they are not neutral they are thinking of only themselves. Those are the facts this is backed up by someone that reviews movies honestly. He was in good with a movie studio he had full access to their movies an to them. Until he was honest about a movie not being good for legitimate reasons. Then he was cut out of nowhere immediately cut out no communication no access nothing. He was just a normal person all of a sudden now if he was relying on them for money he would be in trouble. Because he would be out of work but since it's hobby of his it did not affect him. Now these so called "critics " you speak of that's not the case. They lie an make things up about movies to. Make movies sound good an to cater to the movie studios because if they say. Something the movie studio doesn't like about their movies they can easily be put. Out of work by the movie studios not allowing them access to their movies or their people. Because if a critic loses access to movie studios they no longer. Have access to movie premieres or early releases of their movies. They no longer get any interviews with anyone from the movies so that means. That the critics are out of a job because they make their living from that stuff. If they lose that they have no job. So these "critics " are just looking out for themselves they are not a neutral party like you think they are. Then when it comes to independent movies hardly anyone really knows about them. Because the mainstream Hollywood an mainstream media only wants safe and reparative movies. Because if the movie is somehow linked to a pre-existing IP it already has a built-in audience. So that's what mainstream Hollywood an mainstream media is looking for. But you would already know this if you seen the video Film Courage did. Where they where talking about if creativity is dead in Hollywood. Because Chris Gore says yes you need to look towards independent filmmakers for creativity. He basically says if you want new an original ideas that are different. You need to look into independent filmmakers because they take risks. The only reason that hardly anyone really knows about them is because they spread by word of mouth. Because all mainstream Hollywood an mainstream media wants is to play it safe. So they only like an approve movies that are guaranteed to have a built-in audience. Because that means guaranteed money for them. So you can't compare mainstream Hollywood an mainstream media. To independent filmmakers an movies because they are to completely different things. Because critics work to protect an promote mainstream Hollywood movies. Because they need them inorder to stay working. The movie critics don't rely on Independent movies. So basically anything that may be batter then a mainstream Hollywood movie they are going to talk trash about. Here's more proof of this allot of people like the movie The Sounds of Freedom or whatever it's called. But mainstream Hollywood hates it so big surprise the critics hate it. Because for a critic to like it would mean they would cross mainstream Hollywood. Then they would be punished by mainstream Hollywood for liking something they don't like. That critic would lose excess to the movie studio an its movies an its people. So you have given no actual evidence to support anything you said about independent movies. Because I just gave you facts with evidence that critics are not neutral. That they are only thinking about themselves and that means pleasing the mainstream Hollywood movie studios only. Because if writers fallow his advice from this video all they would be. Doing is copying the same exact formula that other have done an they don't stand out from the crowd. Then they may hurt their writing career because if they only write what the movie studio wants them to write. It can go against what the actual movie audience wants. Because the movie audience is getting tired of movies preaching to them an punishing massages. But if that's what the movie studios want an the writers write that. The writers will only be known for writing movies like that. Because it's bad advice to say to someone only write what you're told to write. By someone else that is not paying attention to what the actual audience wants. Because the audience is what actually makes the money. Because if no one likes your movie it hardly makes any money. Then you won't be hired again the movie studios don't care about. Writers or if they don't work again so it's bad advice to tell writers to do that.

@@83shadow3 Jesus Christ, you like long messages, don't you? I'm gonna keep it short though. It's not like I disagree with you about freedom of writing. I watch a lot of independent films. Some of my favorites are independent films, but most, to me, are bad/boring. And you can't say that critics and audiences don't matter. If you have an independent film and critics don't like it and the audience doesn't watch it and, if some do, they rate it low, then it means that it SUCKS. Some great independent films premiere at Sundance, Venice, or TIFF. They find their audience, and critics love them. And I like them too. However, it's a small percentage of the indie cinema. Most indie films are simply bad. I say this. Critics say it. And the audience says it. You may disagree all you want, but the film appreciated by the director's mother alone is not a good film in the real world.

Possible

It's the nature of reality, I'm afraid. Art requires time, skill, and resources. Art has no intrinsic value in of itself, but people imbue art with value. No one want to give someone else money and resources to simply indulge in art.

He is the cinema equivalent of fast-food. Hopefully his particular angle on the industry makes much more sense from that perspective lol, he just considers it a means to an end

I mean, if audiences keep watching this fluff then hey 🤷‍♂️