Questions, eh. Permission to treat as hostile?

What on EARTH possessed you guys to think that letting random users rewrite others scripts would a good thing? Are you that tone deaf about how writers regard their own creative output that it never occurred to you that some might have a problem with this? Exactly what kind of writers were you hoping to appeal to? At no point did anyone say, "Gee, this might really offend the creative community we're trying to appeal to?"

And don't feed me the line about "well a bad rewrite won't get ranked high" so writers shouldn't fear someone "ruining" their script. Is that supposition worth all the goodwill you guys have lost with your Wikipedia approach to screenwriting?

Has the reaction to the Draconian rules that lockdown the script and the idea for 18 months or longer prompted any sort of soul-searching on your part? Do you accept that the many, many negative reviews from respected bloggers like John August and Craig Mazin raises a good point, or do you convince yourself that this is just a vocal minority speaking out against you?

Scott, I'm sure that your questions will be phrased with respect and class... but if you need someone to be the "bad cop," (as in "well, some people on the internet have strong opinions about this") consider me on the beat.

Well, I see (and have always seen) your (Bitter's) point about the details of the Amazon Studios offer.

But I'll never be going back out to LA to spend 10 years in the mail room and reading scripts like you. Remember the old saw: "Get a life"? I have a family and a decent career going.

By your logic new writers should ignore their aspirations to see a movie they wrote produced: play the Hollywood game or get out of the way. Well, we've seen the kind of movies that predominate: super-heroes, 20-something sex farces, no-brainer action movies, re-makes, tv shows as features, and one or two others (that make it through somehow).

Well, f'get about it, Bitter! I'll do it from here. OR NOT! And I can live with that.

I've had LA agents. I've had studio meetings. Many. I've had "almost" deals. I've sold options. I've actually worked in the business and had stuff produced by a major studio. After all of that I find myself still writing. Are you telling me to shut up and "let the pros do it?"

To tell me that I need to do it YOUR way or the HIGHWAY is, frankly, crap! I'm doing it (or not doing it) THIS way, and if it doesn't work, well, I've fought the good fight. See you upstairs. It's why I also got a paying career. And my kids are glad for it.

Yes, the Amazon deal is bad. But if you're in Podunk without a shot, it's A deal! Let the best script win.

Lee - You act as if the Amazon deal is the only way for an outsider into the business, a falsehood disproven by your own story: "I've had LA agents. I've had studio meetings. Many. I've had "almost" deals. I've sold options. I've actually worked in the business and had stuff produced by a major studio. After all of that I find myself still writing."

"Are you telling me to shut up and 'let the pros do it?'" - Lee, I said nothing of the sort. Not even remotely of the sort. I said that AMAZON STUDIOS is a horrible option for aspiring writers and that no writer should want to subject their work to the whims of being rewritten by a committee.

Did I tell new writers to give up? No, I told them to stay away from Amazon Studios. It's not a zero-sum game. Avoiding this particular "open door" is not "giving up."

You admit that the Amazon Studios deal is a "bad deal," (your words) yet you celebrate that it exists at all. And yet you yell at ME for saying that this is a bad deal?

I fail to see the purpose of your post. You ascribe motivations to my opinion which did not assert, your perception that I attacked on your lifestyle decisions is groundless and carries more than an air of defensiveness, and at the end of it, you agree with my central thesis, which is that Amazon Studios is a "bad deal."

So if you agree with me, what exactly is your problem with me?

Well, being one of the only people who have cosen to take this deal, and after the ridiculous post Scott validated (Scott--are you really thinking that a "few pages" review is legitimate?), I find all the negativity to be more "post-fodder" than positive. Here are a number of writers who are taking their shots, and accepting of the 18 month option and the peer revision stuff (the revisions are almost nonexistent, BTW) for their own reasons. By requiring that a new player (Amazon) conform their deal to the one the WGA achieved over 70+ years of negotiation is ridiculous. I agree, I'd rather thae option was paID, AND I'd rather the option was 6 months. As for the peer revision issue, I felt it was mis-guided and it would actually be a real factor. Why? because writing is hard, and most wouldn't make the effort. Those that would would not imnprove the material significantly. And those that could would be writing their own stuff. So peer revision is a straw man. I predict it will eventually be dropped.

But, I take issue with your implication that the Amazon deal needs to fit the existing Hollywood paradigm. It ain't working even as we speak. People are gettiong laid off all over; specs are fewer and fewer. Newspapers and magazines are dying. The music business has been transformed. The movie business may be next.

All we see are super-hero movies, outrageous (or ridiculous) comedies, and "serious" issue movies. Every so often a different film gets through, but it's because they're catering to a star or it did well in a foreign market.

The Amazon deal has problems, but if I'm faced with leaving a script that never saw a decent reading in a drawer, or showing it to Amazon, don't ridicule me (or post a link that ridicules me) because I take them up on their open-source offer.

Pleaswe excuse the typos. I am cooling off , now.

Or maybe not. (Ha!)

Hilarious how you make a rude personal attack on me over a position I did NOT assert, then proceed to dictate to the blog owner what he should and should NOT post, yet it is only the typos you are compelled to apologize for.

@Lee: I only scanned the first few reviews, had no idea they had reviewed one of your scripts. My take was the writers of the post were just having some fun, the reviews weren't serious, or else I wouldn't have posted it in the first place.

I actually think they raised some necessary and important questions about Amazon Studios here which is why they were on my radar in the first place.

I'm compiling questions and will speak to one of their reps, hopefully next week.

And by "their reps," I mean Amazon Studios.

Bitter,

I apologize. Some of us can't play according to rules that amount to a "closed shop."

And, Scott, I only have a problem with the "legitimizing" your linking to such thin reviewing does. So be it.

But there are many legitimate writers who cannot play by the rules of the Hollywood paradigm. And Bitter's argument implies that they must. The system is not even working for the people who have up to now depended on it.

Who cares about what's happening with Amazon? If it is irrelevant, why complain about it? Or is it a threat to the system? A system that's failing to the extent that writers are surviving as readers.

You can argue that you are standing up for the little guy, but the little guy has been facing slammed doors from the beginning. Do you think complaining that a deal that doesn't fit the Hollywood template will do any good? It's all just virtual ink!

If Amazon is screwing writers, then let them sue or go public with the injustice. If Amazon is merely offerinbg a poorer deal than the WGA Minimum Basic Agreement, then wake up and smell the coffee. If Amazon doesn't change things somebody e4lse eventually will.

Film budgets have increased way more than the rate of inflation. It is killing the industry. All they want to do anymore is gross $100M before Sunday. All they want to see is "tent-poles." Movies have become carnival rides. Are you arguing for that status quo?

Again, I apologize for the rhetoric. But all we are trying to do with Amazon is get a script made. And many of us don't have the "luxury" of working from Hollywood and Vine.

Lee - Right, because I call a spade a spade and think this is an exceptionally bad program, then clearly that's unequivocally an argument that a closed shop is the only way.

Please stop putting words in my mouth so that you can get on your particular hobby horse.

@Lee: The guys on that site admitted they read perhaps only a couple of pages, in some cases zero pages, so again their 'reviews' are just jokes - that's my take on it, and I think they're pretty clear on that front.

Your main point though is well-taken. It is a truly frustrating experience for someone outside the Hwood system trying to break in. I communicate with people every day on the blog, via email, in my classes who are in the same boat, most of them even further away than you as you've actually had some success with your screenwriting, and the text and subtext of their words is pretty much the same thing: How can I break into Hollywood?

I basically do four things on GITS: (1) Honor screenwriters and screenwriting. (2) Talk about the craft of screenwriting. (3) Offer inspiration. (4) Try to have a bit of fun. The first three are aimed at helping aspiring screenwriters have the best shot possible at becoming professional screenwriters. The last one is because it's so damn hard, we all need some humor from time to time to take off the edge.

I'm all for people who provide opportunities for writers to break into the business. I just don't want to see writers get taken advantage of.

More later.

Bitter,

You are right to call it as you see it. The thing that "put me over" was that you logged a comment on that site that added to their garbage momentum.

I am fine with people criticizing my work, but pulling a few pages out of the whole and dumping all over it?

Ultimately, whatever happens at Amazon is either gonna be great, forgettable, or worth litigating. But to put up a website devoted toward criticizing it? It's ridiculous.

If Amazon craps all over its writers, what will happen? Plenty, and the uploads will die out. If Amazon pays out as it claims, what will happen? I'll venture a whole bunch of those hold-out writers will start uploading old scripts.

In my case it was choosing between the drawer and taking one last shot with Amazon. Eighteen months compared to that is nothing. Six figure money for a buy is not peanuts. Yes, I can be re-written, even having my name taken off, but it's a start, and it's better than the alternative. So why all this negative BS? It's our choice, and it's not a zero sum game. We're not taking jobs from WGA members.

The vitriol is just too shrill to be believed. The naysayers "protest" a bit "too much." If it's all altruism, what are they doing about world hunger?

I'm sorry if I put words in your mouth. That comment on that review site just looked lousy to me.

Writers. Fighting for scraps - mostly among themselves - since time immemorial.
It's not Amazon - we only have each other to blame for the state we are in.
Aren't we supposed to be the ones who can THINK? So why are we so near-sighted when it comes to our future as a community of creative people?
Something similar is happening her in India too - we're still fighting for a basic minimum wage and for profit sharing and copyright. Not surprisingly, the writer's camp is divided, all the producers have ganged up together. Ah, well, such is life...

BTW, to go with Scott's need for humor on the site, here's Harlan Ellison in the famous rant 'Pay the writer' on the scourge of the amateurs.
NSFW due to a lot of swearing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mj5IV23g-fE

All the very best, Lee. Do keep us informed about the Amazon project(s) of yours.

Is Amazon seriously trying to get into film?

The setup to publicize scripts openly to anyone, seems like they aren't taking film making seriously.

Notice how FOX is suing multiple parties when their DEADPOOL script leaked. And that's a character that's drawing for cannon that is widely known from the comicbooks.

Does Amazon really think appealing to the lowest common denominator is the best way to get into the film business?

BTW-- we've had an internet mass consensus movie put to film. It was called SNAKES ON A PLANE.

Is this what Amazon is hoping for?

Can we have a little civility in discussions of Amazon Studios?

Lee, I find your response to Bitter's comments to be hostile, defensive, and inaccurate (you constantly accuse him of positions he does not espouse in his comments).

Your heated defense of Amazon seems to basically come down to "Yes, this is a bad deal, but I have no other options."

I hope you can see how this isn't exactly a ringing endorsement, or defense, of Amazon as a real opportunity for screenwriters.

I guess if you're desperate for money, then loan sharks would appear appealing too.

I'd be interested if anyone had a defense of Amazon based on actual business sense rather than desperation, because I certainly can't see it.

@Lee: Your complaint that you can't break into to the Hollywood industry unless you live in LA isn't valid or accurate.
I know writers who've had scripts picked up by studios in LA who live in England. You've stated yourself that you don't live in LA but have made script sales there.
The one thing a person needs to become a professional screenwriter (OK - the one thing apart from the ability to write well, market and promote themselves, and take criticism) is the will to treat being a screenwriter as a serious full-time profession, not as a hobby or a part-time job.
Do that and you're on the way to breaking in to the industry - whether it's in LA or Savannah. Don't and you won't.

@Lee--With all due respect:

-I don't think one needs to be altruistic to point out that a lousy deal is a lousy deal.

-Asking/demanding to know what people reading/writing a blog focused on screenwriting are doing in regards to things other than screenwriting strikes me as just a bizarre thing to do. For all any of us know, the Shitty Script Reviewers also have a webpage where the critique foreign aid packages, but whether they do or don't is irrelevant to the discussion at hand and/or their opinion that Amazon's deal is lousy and likely to attract lousy, desperate writers.

-Maybe I'm unclear on the subject, but I'd think that if you've had agents and sold options, you're at least to some degree a professional writer and you have options for getting your work out to people that don't involve signing onto a lousy deal for no money.

-While the Shitty Script reviews are clearly comedic in intent, I would argue that a "few page review" is absolutely a valid way to consider scripts. If after a few pages a writer's failed to hook a reader, the script has to some extent failed to do its job. I don't see how one could expect anyone not being paid to do it to read a hundred+ pages they don't enjoy, much less to do it fifty times over.

-I don't believe there are many writers "who cannot play by the rules of Hollywood." I believe there are a vast number who refuse to do so, most for very good reasons (they have a good job and a family, for instance.) That's still the writer's choice and their problem, if that's how they choose to perceive it.

-Put simply, I don't understand your apparent antagonism towards Bitter, the Shitty Script Review guys, or anyone else who criticizes the Amazon deal. I especially don't understand why you chose to go public with it. I'd have thought someone who's gone through the Hollywood system in the past would have a thicker skin when it comes to criticizing a deal you admit is bad and/or your screenplay.