I saw this short piece posted about UCLA part-time lecturer Sam Albrecht and then reposted it. I find it encouraging that a college screenwriting teacher is telling the truth.
This
article by Amiee Manis (See below) shows that few WGA screenwriters are working and
for that matter ever work. Only 8.1% of all WGA screenwriters worked in
2011. (1,562). I suspect film and other schools have four
times that number in classes now. This disconnect between the industry
is ignored. Numbers for DGA directors are slightly better. What's wrong
with this picture? How are the schools addressing this disconnect?
How can they seriously offer a "professional training program" when
there is no "there" there? See full article below.
Hope In Students' Eyes Too Much For Screenwriting Teacher To Handle This Week
The First in a Series on the Fate of the Screenwriter in Today’s Hollywood
Talk to any screenwriter—a newbie, a
veteran, an A-Lister—and you’re sure to hear the same worrying refrain.
The Hollywood landscape has gone through vast changes in recent years,
and all of them seemingly at the screenwriter’s expense.
On July 2, 2012, the Writers Guild of
America West (WGAW) released a report that confirmed the angst-filled
chatter among all levels of writers. The report stated that
screenwriting jobs and wages in Hollywood fell for the second straight
year, putting facts and figures to what screenwriters already knew: The
cost-cutting of studios, all of them making fewer movies year by year,
has resulted in fewer jobs available for drafts, rewrites and polishes
not to mention less development funds for spec scripts. Over the past
several years, screenwriters have faced ever-greater obstacles in trying
to earn a living in this industry.
As
detailed in the WGAW report, employment declined 8.1% for screenwriters
in 2011 with a total of 1,562 writers reporting earnings against 1,699
writers in 2010. In 2011, total earnings dropped 12.6% to $349.1
million, down from $399.4 million in 2010. From 2009 to 2011, the number
of writers employed in film fell by more than 15% and earnings dropped
by over 20%. Further, total feature film residuals shrank by 10% from
$141.8 million in 2010 to $128.5 million in 2011. The drop was led by
the significant decline in receipts writers earned from DVD and Blu-ray
sales, which dropped 23.9% in 2011 from its record year in 2010.
Here’s another stat from the WGAW report
worth noting: 2,041 writers reported earnings in 2007, the year in
which the infamous “writers strike” began—that’s a whopping 23.5% more
than the 1,562 writers with reported earnings in 2011. Moreover, total
earnings in 2007 were $526.6 million, 34% more than the $349.1 million
in earnings in 2011. Moreover, according to MPAA reports, the number of
releases from the major studios has steadily declined since 2008. That
year saw a total of 168 studio releases. The number fell to 158 in 2009,
then to 141 in both 2010 and 2011, and to 128 in 2012. These numbers
bear out the sentiments of many writers, agents and managers who have
witnessed the post-strike decline of the film industry.
THE WRITER’S STRIKE AND ITS AFTERMATH
The struggle of the screenwriter began
more than five years ago, when the Writers Guild of America (WGA)
launched a strike against the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television
Producers (AMPTP) on November 5, 2007 and immediately shut down
production on numerous films and more than 60 television shows through
February 12, 2008. There were several issues of contention between the
two industry groups, including a WGA-proposed increase in the residual
rate for DVD sales and union jurisdiction over animation and reality
television writers.
But
the core issue for most writers was the dispute over “new media”
revenue sharing. At the time, both sides of the strike were facing a
changing and largely unknown industry due to innovations in the way
consumers watch entertainment outside of movie theaters or their living
rooms. Writers needed to protect their future income from residuals from
movies, TV shows and other work distributed through the Internet and
viewed on computers, phones and other devices, as well as revenues for
original content created for the Web. WGA members argued that residuals
are an integral part of a writer’s income and are depended upon during
the periods of unemployment that are inevitable in the industry.
It took more than three months for a new
contract between the WGA and the AMPTP to be signed. Though the outcome
was considered a success and an important victory for the striking
writers, the contract included several concessions. For example, union
jurisdiction was not granted to the writers of animation or reality TV,
studios would be allowed to hire non-union writers for low-budget
Internet shows and writers would not earn residuals for repeat shows
viewed online within a few weeks after the original air date. Gains for
the writers included formalized union jurisdiction over content created
for the Web and residuals for shows streamed on ad-supported sites.
Additionally, the residual rate for programs streamed online would be a
much higher rate than that paid for DVD sales.
The
effects of the writer’s strike still resonate throughout the
entertainment industry today. After all, the strike not only halted the
work and wages of writers but also that of thousands of actors,
production assistants and affected virtually every crew department, from
camera operators to makeup artists. In turn, related businesses such as
equipment rental, accounting, catering, transportation and hotels
suffered directly from the strike. Over time, the loss in wages and drop
in consumer spending by entertainment employees rippled through
countless seemingly-unrelated industries like retail, dining, insurance,
auto and housing. According to a May, 2008 report by The Milken
Institute, “The three-month strike had a substantial impact on
California’s economy in general and on Los Angeles County, in
particular. The work stoppage came at an unfortunate moment, coinciding
with a major downturn in the state’s housing market. This lingering
effect of the strike was one of several factors that tipped California
into a recession in early 2008.”
The Second in a Series on The Fate of The Screenwriter
THE NEW WRITING LANDSCAPE
The so-called successes of the strike
came at a high price. In spring 2008, screenwriters emerged from the
strike to find a studio-writer relationship that has deteriorated ever
since. That dynamic, coupled with an economic recession, has resulted in
less work available to screenwriters across the board. In anticipation
of a strike, studios stockpiled scripts for much of 2007 and then
reviewed all the material they already owned during the three-plus
months of the strike. The economic downturn slowed the flow of Wall
Street loans to studios to a trickle, forcing the restructuring of
filmmaking.
The new business model came at the
screenwriter’s expense, as studios began the quest to maximize profit
and minimize the number of films on their production slate. Development
spending was slashed as studios could no longer afford to take as many
risks on original ideas or unknown writers. And so began the current era
of focusing on franchises, sequels and prequels and, some would argue,
the death of creativity.
Screenwriter
Dave Johnson, who teaches in the MFA Screenwriting and Producers
Program at UCLA, believes that the landscape for the screenwriter
changed dramatically after the strike with fewer jobs available and
fewer movies being developed. Says Johnson, “I don’t think the studios
set out to ‘punish’ the writers for the strike. However, the strike did
enable the studios to step back and look at how they were doing
business. The bottom line was they were spending a lot of money
developing projects that never went anywhere.”
Now that studios no longer focus on the
business of developing films, one-step deals with writers have become
prevalent. The “steps” refer to various drafts of a script, and, at the
end of each deal, the writer can be terminated depending on the terms of
his or her contract. Prior to the strike, multi-step deals between
writers and studios were the norm, many times three or even four-step
deals, wherein the writer was guaranteed at least one rewrite and
polish. With the one-step deal, the writer is hired to deliver a single
draft of a screenplay, and all future work on it is optional and
determined by the studio.
One-step deals look great on paper,
since they are a way for studios to avoid investing time and money into
second drafts. Also, they take on less risk when hiring an unproven
writer since the writer can be easily replaced after the first draft.
Not surprisingly, writers are not fans of these deals because they put
extreme pressure on getting the draft right the first time around,
without the crucial process of revising and fine-tuning. According to
one veteran screenwriter who prefers to remain anonymous, the writing
has suffered as a result of studio shortsightedness, and anything that
hurts the writing hurts the movie. Hiring an endless succession of
writers negatively impacts the consistency and depth of character and
story development, takes away the sense of “ownership” of the project
and, ultimately, shows at the box office. “I—like so many other writers—
need that rewrite to find the movie. Sometimes the difference between a
first and second draft from the same writer is amazing. So, trying to
save money isn’t giving the studios better writing, they just end up
paying for a bunch of first drafts from a bunch of different writers.”
Studios are trying to navigate this
challenge by requesting and often expecting free rewrites. They also ask
for detailed outlines before the writer goes to script, which is
essentially a free step. Some top-tier writers don’t give in, but many
low and mid-level writers aren’t powerful enough to stand up to this
pressure even though doing free rewrites violates WGA rules.
The
one-step deal has created the phenomenon of multiple writers on
tent-pole films, with many of those writers going uncredited. For
example, 2011’s Cowboys & Aliens had a total of ten different writers, five credited and five uncredited. And 2009’s Iron Man had nine different writers with only four of them credited. The A-Team from had eight different writers but only three of them got credit.
So what do credits offer other than
pride and name recognition? The credit system affects WGA membership, as
union eligibility is based on what a writer has been credited for.
Credits also affect income since some contracts limit the amount writers
are eligible to be paid if they aren’t being credited. And, normally,
only credited writers receive residual payments from a film’s future
distribution.
Thus, the multiple-writer practice
perpetuates the cycle of the struggling screenwriter, even for those who
have been working consistently in the industry for years. As long as
there are writers who are willing to write for lesser pay and no credit,
the studios have leverage.
When pressed about the implications of
the new marketplace, including the one-step deals, several screenwriters
commented on the challenge to make ends meet, the stress of chasing
assignments and constantly keeping one eye on the next job as soon as
they start a new project. In effect, they are always dividing their
attention between the work they have and the work they need to find.
Some writers feel that compensation has
suffered since the recession and that even when their quotes are
honored, bumps are harder and harder to negotiate. Then there are the
increasingly difficult challenges to simply get hired. Studios bring in
multiple suitors to pitch not just a take but sometimes the full-fledged
story, before asking potential writers to revise it and pitch it again
in hopes of hedging their bet before a writer is even hired.
Screenwriter Hillary Seitz (Eagle Eye, Insomnia)
has been fortunate enough to work consistently in the post-strike
market, but she has witnessed the system changing. “The biggest thing
I’ve noticed is the level of competition for any job, big or small.
Handfuls of writers are now thrown into the ring to duke it out.”
Another screenwriter who asked not to be named, remarks, “Assignments
are harder to come by, with everyone vying against each other for the
same job. I end up doing a lot of free pitch work. I know I’m in a pool
of tens of other writers pitching on the same project and the odds (of
getting hired) are not that great.”
With a surplus of writers at all levels,
where does this leave the new generation? High-profile projects
including tent-poles and branded films usually demand a high-profile
screenwriter seen as a safe investment. This has the unfortunate effect
of shutting out the talent pool of as-yet-unknown or newer writers
without A-list representation—writers that could potentially offer a
fresh perspective on an existing property. Without an agent or manager, a
writer doesn’t have access to writing assignments at the studios and,
without the luxury of a burgeoning spec market that gave many pre-strike
writers a gateway to the inner circle, it has become increasingly
difficult for a newbie to get his big “break.”
Sometimes, a newcomer has to think
outside the box to get noticed. Some writers have turned labels like
“inexperienced” and “cheap” into bona fide hot commodities. Take for
example Jeff Lieber, film and TV writer and showrunner (Lost, Necessary Roughness, Pan Am, Tuck Everlasting)
who emerged on the scene more than 15 years ago. With a collection of
scripts, a manager and an agent, he still needed that “big break” and
how his came about has become an urban legend among the screenwriter
set. After Dreamworks turned down one of his pitches, the company asked
if he’d still be interested in a re-write job. Lieber was up against
only one other writer for the job, but that writer turned out to be John
Patrick Shanley, the Oscar-winning screenwriter of Moonstruck and Doubt.
Rising to the challenge, Lieber got creative in his bid to win his
first big job. Playing up his status as a little fish in the big
Hollywood pond, he sent a live fish with food and a fishbowl to the
decision-making supervisor at Dreamworks, along with a note that read:
“Little fish take up less space, eat less food and cost less … give a
little fish a chance.” He got the job. And then another and another,
including adapting Tuck Everlasting for Dreamworks not long after, and he has worked back-to-back ever since.
The Third in a Series on The Fate of The Screenwriter
The
term “spec,” or “speculative,” refers to an original screenplay written
without compensation to the writer. Like any capital investment, the
writer invests their time (along with blood, sweat and, often, tears)
into the spec with the hope of selling it to a studio, producer or
production company and seeing a financial and professional return on
that investment.
Whether you’re an established
screenwriter—or aspire to be one—you’ve probably heard doom-and-gloom
reports of today’s spec market and wondered if writing a spec is even
worth your effort. Here’s a look at the current state of affairs, how to
adapt to it, and why writing a spec is always worthwhile.
The Value of Spec Scripts
All unknown writers who try to break
into the industry need to have several excellent writing samples in
their portfolio. Even if the spec doesn’t sell, it has the potential to
introduce a new writer and to launch a writing career through other
assignments. Agents and managers read a spec not only to judge its
inherent talent and marketability but to gauge the writer as a potential
client. Even if the material isn’t a fit for them, great writing can
open doors.
Even when spec sales are sluggish, there
is still a need for the flow of fresh, original material and filmmakers
will always be looking for visionary storytellers and the next great
script. Adam Kolbrenner, manager-producer with Madhouse Entertainment,
advises: “As long as a writer has a great idea for a movie, and writes
that story well with an exceptional voice, the demand for specs is
always high. Strive for incredible characters, original story ideas,
ideas that are well-told, and let the universe decide on the great
scripts.”
Riding the Spec Cycle
Entire books have been devoted to the
history of the spec, and it’s rise and fall, but here’s a short version
of the phenomenon and where it stands today.
In the late 1940’s, film studios phased
out the full-time employment of screenwriters to cut costs and, for the
first time, screenwriters had to function as independent contractors.
This change led to the rise of the spec sales era of which a high water
mark was the 1967 sale of William Goldman’s original screenplay Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. That script was sold for a then-record $400,000 to Warner Bros. in a bidding war.
In the mid-1980’s, the spec market became a headline-making force thanks to the success of Lethal Weapon, Highlander and
several other big-ticket sales. That force became frenzied by the early
90’s, driven by a gold-rush mentality that saw spec price tags soar
into the seven figures. For example,1992 saw the $3 million sales of
both Basic Instinct, written by Joe Eszterhas (City Hall, Big Shots)and Medicine Man, written by Tom Schulman (Dead Poet’s Society), and 1996 saw the $4 million sale of The Long Kiss Goodnight, written by Shane Black (Lethal Weapon, The Last Boy Scout)
Alas, no frenzy lasts. By 2003, the spec
bubble had burst. Annual spec sales dropped from an average of 136 down
to an average of 76 per year from 2003 to 2010.
As discussed earlier in this series, the
writer’s strike of 2007-2008 gave the studios plenty of time to review
the arsenal of scripts they’d been hoarding instead of investing money
into new material. The end of the strike was welcomed by a new world in
which studios were no longer development machines but where most movie
ideas were culled found from books, toys, video games and the like; the
era of developing original content seemed finished.
Although
experts like Jason Scoggins, founder of The Scoggins Report and
SpecScout, don’t foresee the return of seven-figure sales, the spec
market has leveled out in recent years. During the same period from
January to May, 44 specs were sold in both 2009 and 2013, in 2010 only
35 specs were sold, in 2011 47 specs were sold, and in 2012 the spec
market hit a high of 63 specs sold within that period. According to the
Scoggins Report on Spec Scout, the May 20 Spec Market Scorecard shows a
30% drop in spec script sales this year over the same period last year;
that’s 44 sales this year against 63 in 2012. Rightly so, there has been
less material offered for sale this year than in 2012.
Taking a closer look at the facts behind
the figures reveals the reason behind this market stagnation: It’s not
the major studios that are driving this marketplace. Says Scoggins, “So
far, 2013’s spec market has been sustained by non-studio buyers,” and
the data shows that Fox and Universal are the only studios buying
anywhere close to the rate of previous years.
For a bit of perspective, consider that Universal bought 9 specs in 2012. yet it’s recent purchase of the dark comedy Little Evil by
Eli Craig is only its second buy this year. Making the point
crystal-clear is a chart within the May 2013 Spec Market Scorecard that
illustrates the buying trends by the Big Six between 2011 and 2013 when,
as Scoggins points out: “Major studios cut their spending by roughly
45%.” The trend is troubling for the current spec writer but more so is
the question of its effect on the future of original storytelling.
If the drop in the amount of material
for sale is a barometer of the screenwriting climate, one has to wonder
whether the lack of studio support is causing writers to lose faith in
the spec system. Among several screenwriters interviewed, the general
attitude is that selling a spec to a studio has become virtually
impossible. One veteran film screenwriter admits: “I haven’t gone out
with a spec in years. I think it’s a losing battle. It’s become clear
that the studios are only looking for brands. Most are just pilfering
their own catalog of movies to reboot.”
The glass-half-full theorists would
argue that the entertainment business is inherently cyclical and that,
in time, the spec market will correct itself. Either that or the studios
will simply run out of big titles to remake and will have to fill their
development pipeline with original scripts again. As one screenwriter
puts it, “Eventually, the studios will either (A) run out of known
brands and start pumping out lesser known brands, which leads to (B) the
audience becoming tired of branded movies.”
Independents Offer a Silver Lining
Fortunately,
studios aren’t the only game in town. A buyer is anyone with access to
production financing, and the number of independent finance/production
or finance/distribution companies who shop the spec market is
significant and increasing each year. According to Scoggins, while it’s
become exceptionally difficult to sell a spec to a studio, a “silver
lining” can be found in the rise of non-studio buyers. He believes
independents represent a great opportunity for writers, and his research
shows that the range of material being purchased by non-studio buyers
is much wider than what was considered by the studios.
Compared to a studio, an independent
company invests in fewer scripts, giving them a far better ratio of
purchase-to-production than the studios can claim. Says one veteran
screenwriter, “Selling a spec to an independent company may give the
writer a real shot at seeing their project come to fruition rather than
watching it languish in development hell at a studio.” Regarding
purchase or option prices, he adds, “The amount of money upfront may not
be as big [as what a studio would pay], but if the film gets made, the
production bonus may make up for the difference.”
Commercialism Continues to Reign
In
the quest for the next breakthrough story, writers are creating
characters and worlds in innovative ways and seeking a voice as unique
and distinctive as a fingerprint. Yet, the economics of film production
dictate that the finished product must be viewed through the lens of
commerce—an inescapable fact of the business of Hollywood. The effect of
high-value intellectual property—think powerhouse series like Harry Potter, The Hunger Games and Twilight—on the way Hollywood does business is profound. The choice between producing another installment of The Lord of the Rings and rolling the dice on an original script is a no-brainer for a major studio.
Franklin Leonard, founder of The Black
List, believes that the industry needs to do a better job at blending
the creative and the commercial, that is, letting scripts tell a human
story, then adding certain elements, like action sequences and set
pieces, to make it commercial. He adds, “Historically, writers have been
the most undervalued part of the business, but they now stand to
benefit from the economic shift. There is and will be growing
recognition of the writers and writer-directors who are the key to great
storytelling.” Meanwhile, as the next generation of writers waits for
both audiences and studios to sour on sequels, they should be developing
specs designed to be both original and commercial.
Knowledge Is Power
Ignorance may be bliss, but it’s no
longer an option for screenwriters, who have access to more industry
information than ever before thanks to resources such as The Scoggins
Report on Spec Scout and The Black List. Researching development trends
can give writers insight into how marketable (or not) their scripts are
in the evolving climate; the data can revewal what specs have sold, who
bought them, which genres are hot and what types of projects are being
made by studios versus independents. Before they even begin writing a
script, writers can get a grasp on the spec marketplace and which buyers
are the right targets for their material. For those writers who
subscribe to the write-what-they’re-buying theory of spec success,
there’s no such thing as too much information.
So
what genres are hot for spec sales? Thrillers topped the charts in 2011
and 2012, accounting for over 25% of sales, with comedies placing
second in 2011 and tying with action-adventures for second place in 2012
at around 21% of sales. Drama is the current underdog, with a sales
share below 10%.
A word of warning: Writers must know the
market, but being beholden to the facts and figures can also crush
creativity. When a writer is clearly aiming for what buyers want, rather
than following their own passion, the results can be emotionally hollow
and mechanical. Similarly, writers who rigidly stick to formula or who
try to force their vision to fit the template of a particular genre are
doing a disservice to the story and to themselves.
The Sky’s the Limit
The script services offered by SpecScout
and The Black List have broken down some of the long-standing barriers
to entry for aspiring screenwriters. Writers without connections in the
industry, without an agent or manager or who live outside L.A. or New
York have no excuse to sideline themselves now that these resources can
get specs in front of the right people. Unknown writers are being
discovered through these services and being signed by agents and
managers.
Writers from all over the world can now
find an audience for their work. According to The Black List,
screenplays have been uploaded to the paid service from 34 countries and
from all 50 states. The Black List recently announced its first
international sale, the spec script Broken Cove by Irish writer Declan O’Dwyer.
As Players Diversify, Every Spec Has a Shot
While no one is claiming it’s easy to
sell a spec—not by a long shot—it’s being done month after month. There
will be writers who deplore the dismal state of the entertainment
industry, attributing their lack of success on the economic shifts in
the industry, and there will be those who adapt to the New Hollywood,
using all of the resources, tools and technology available to them to
stack the odds in their favor. Take a piece of advice from Jason
Scoggins: “Ignore the short-term numbers and keep writing specs.” No
matter the ever-shifting fortunes of the Big Six, the widening diversity
in financing, production and distribution options seen now with the
rise of independent and Internet players means there will always be
potential for talented spec writers to find success.
The Fourth in a Series on The Fate of The Screenwriter
Over
the past decade, we’ve witnessed a gradual shift in the screenwriting
world, wherein feature writers no longer look at television as a
second-tier medium. Just as viewers have tired of the
sequel-prequel-reboot-repeat pattern of theatrical fare and turned to TV
for compelling characters and stories, so have the screenwriters.
Visionaries who established their names in the film medium are bringing
their talent to the small screen now in what is referred to as “The
Golden Age of Television.” While reports on the film industry continue
to forecast dwindling writing opportunities for the big screen, it comes
as no surprise that screenwriters are turning to TV to compensate for
the decline in studio production. Television is burning hotter than ever
before, offering greater opportunities for creative control and
financial success.
Exceptional TV dramas like Mad Men and Game of Thrones,and sitcoms like Modern Family and Arrested Development
have all benefited from this shift in perception and raised the bar on
great writing. As screenwriter Beau Willimon showed audiences with House of Cards,
top writers are bringing their A-game to TV, knowing that the
opportunity for risk-taking storytelling—particularly on cable and new
media—is gaining momentum, season after season.
Growth of the TV Sector
As reported previously in this series,
the film industry has yet to claw its way back from its post-writers
strike decline. According to the 2013 annual report from the Writers
Guild of America West (WGAW), the number of its members employed in film
declined for the third consecutive year, with a 7% drop from 2011 to
2012 and a 35% drop from 2007 to 2012. Writer earnings followed suit,
with 6.1% less earned in 2012 than 2011. The major studios have
continued to release fewer films each year since 2008, from a total of
168 releases in 2008 to just 128 in 2012. That translates to fewer
writing jobs and less earnings each passing year, much to the despair of
the writers, agents and managers who reside in the feature world.
On
the flipside, employment in television is rebounding from the
double-blow of the strike and economic recession. As detailed in the
WGAW report, TV writers had a record year for earnings, up 10% from
2011, thanks in part to writing fees from cable programs and services
such as Netflix. Total television employment by WGA members grew 2%
since 2011 and caught up to its 2007 pre-strike numbers.
Further, total writer residuals
collected for television programs (including network, basic cable,
premium cable and reuse by new media such as Hulu and Netflix) were
stronger than for film, with an increase of more than 45% from 2006 to
2012. Writer residuals collected for theatrical films, meanwhile,
(including television broadcasts, pay TV and new media) increased by
only 23.8% in the same period. In fact, 2012 saw an all-time high of
residuals for made-for-basic cable programming as well as for residuals
paid for the reuse of programs in foreign television markets. In fact,
the residuals for reuse in foreign TV markets jumped by a remarkable 60%
from 2010 to 2011 alone.
The WGAW also states that late reports
for 2012 is expected to further elevate the TV numbers, paving the way
for the continued exodus of writing talent from the big screen to the
small.
Looking Behind the Numbers
Aside from the obvious lure of better
employment opportunities that TV offers, the creative pull is equally
strong. Simply put, film is more director-driven while TV is more
writer-driven. A feature director is king of the playground while the
feature writer has virtually no control over their script once they’ve
turned it in, and it’s then turned over to more writers for rewrites …
and so on. Not so in TV where the writers are the producers on their own
shows and hold the creative power while the director is the journeyman.
A television writer has the luxury of seeing their vision come to
fruition, while the feature writer must answer to the director,
producers and a bevy of studio executives.
Jeff Lieber, film/TV writer and showrunner (Lost, Necessary Roughness, Pan Am, Tuck Everlasting)
explains, “There are many great reasons why a writer would move from
films to TV, especially because of the expanding opportunities from
cable since 2008. There is more space on cable than ever before, more
jobs available there, and a range of channels to fit different types of
writing, from AMC to FX and the like.” Lieber has seen the increased
need for material, both scripted and reality, and noted an increase in
dedicated audiences, as they become deeply attached to the characters in
dramas like Downton Abbey and Mad Men. Lieber observes, “Networks are becoming the place to create new brands. It’s no longer the film studios. With series like Downton and Mad Men, one show can ‘brand’ a whole network now.”
With the major studios narrowing their
focus on tentpole films and existing properties, TV seems to be the
destination for original voices and groundbreaking new stories. In
effect, one can wonder whether audiences are now looking to shows like Breaking Bad and House of Cards for
the compelling experiences they used to seek at the multiplex? Says one
veteran screenwriter dipping her toe into TV writing, “Getting a film
off the ground and finished is significantly more challenging—and
slower—than ever before. Not everyone wants to wait several years
between [film] productions. With a TV series, your ideas are brought to
life much more quickly. Writers are in charge in TV and able to push the
envelope more and more now, especially on cable.”
The
fortuitous trend of film writers switching to TV isn’t limited to drama
series; made-for-TV movies offer coveted opportunities too. Take, for
example, Steven Soderbergh’s Behind the Candelabra, written by feature screenwriter Richard LaGravenese (Beautiful Creatures, The Mirror Has Two Faces).
It garnered critical acclaim and became the highest-rated HBO movie in
nine years. Helmed by an A-list director and boosted by the star power
of Michael Douglas and Matt Damon, the film still couldn’t attract a
major studio. And yet the film, like other exceptional made-for-TV
films, will be seen by many more people than if it had been released
theatrically and had to fight the box-office battle. With that outcome,
it’s tough to question the prestige of TV writing in today’s
marketplace.
With reports sizing up the increasingly
bleak marketplace for feature screenwriters, the rise of TV as an
increasingly profitible industry and as an art form that rewards the
writer is certainly a welcome phenomenon. Perhaps more so now than ever
before, writers of all levels, from aspiring to newbie to established
names, need to adapt to Hollywood’s changing landscape in order to
survive. Whether they write for networks, basic or premium cable or for
new media like Amazon, Hulu or Netflix, TV is the place for top writers
to find creative power, financial success and career longevity. H.G.
Wells put it best: “Adapt or perish, now as ever, is nature’s inexorable
imperative.”
