Something I've been thinking about for a *long* time, but with advances in computer game technology, particularly wrt character animation and computer speech, I'm a little surprised that more people haven't started to do what George Lucas calls pre-visualization, which is to make a prototype for the movie itself. Basically, you'd make a reel which is an animated version of the movie, with key shots, scenes, locations, etc..., and then have your actors do voices to get close to the interpretation you're looking for. As a bonus, you'd be able to track all your locations, props, sets, etc... and do more detailed budget estimates. There's been resistance to this kind of thing in the industry, but as costs rise and it becomes more difficult to get movies made, it'll happen, because as you said in a previous post, writers are going to have to start thinking a lot more like producers in the future. What I'm wondering is if in 10 years or so, we'll start seeing fewer spec scripts, and more spec projects put together by small co-ops of filmmakers.

Funny timing. Just this last week I was talking with fellow writer friend about this. I love the idea of selling a spec with a trailer. There's a lot of great technology out there, we see great web videos everyday. District 9 did this, that's my main inspiration for this approach, and plus it's just one more thing a writer can do to expand their film making horizons. But like everything you have to make the time for it. For my own career I love the idea of multiple visual aids with pitching and selling.

There are two schools of thought on this: a) It's a gimmick, and... b) Show not tell. I skew someone down the middle of this. Please let me explain, and give some examples. In regards to a), I have to say that the old "Ticking man" thing is well over a decade old and it's been trotted out more times than a Nevada brothel employee. It's a gimmick first and foremost and does little to enhance what's on the page. In regards to b) I understand that the writer-director of SHOOT EM UP storyboarded and created an animatic for his movie to show what the finished product would feel like. SKY CAPTAIN AND THE WORLD OF TOMORROW was "sold" in a similar manner with a six-minute video chapter for the proposed movie. In both these cases, the supplementary material enhanced the project and developed the idea to the point where the money people could 'see' the movie. And that's exactly where you want to be - whether it's with the pitch, the script or what-have-you... You want to be in a position where the guy who signs the check can see the movie. In addition, I have to add this anecdote from my own experience: Since coming to Los Angeles in 1997, I have attended every single AFM at the Loews in Santa Monica. Either as an exhibitor, a buyer, a writer or a marketer. If you get the chance to go, I highly recommend doing so because it will immediately wash away the haze as to how to create a 'successful' movie that will get distributors and financiers interested. If you attend an AFM then you can go into one of the myriad suites at the Loews and see how movies are sold to the world at large. It is an eye-opening revelation. How does one put this? Let's just say that more movies are sold worldwide based on the concept, the artwork, the title, the cast , the trailer, and finally - the script. Of course, there's some juggling going on in that list, but for the most part it rings true. Buyers look at the artwork and the title to see if they want to go further and ask to see the trailer. In my own experience, I co-wrote a little horror movie called SCARECROW which was in post while AFM was going on. All the distributor had was - a poster, a trailer... and a poster for the sequel, SCARECROW SLAYER. (No cast, and certainly no script). We created the artwork which was pretty eye-catching, but it had no credit block or anything. Just a killer scarecrow reaching out at you, the title and "Coming soon." I was in my office when I got the phone call. The distributor told me I had to come up with an outline for the sequel right away because she had pre-sold half the movie's budget on the 2nd day of AFM. The movie had a greenlight based on the trailer of the first movie, the title and the poster. No story, no script, no cast. And while this isn't exactly the same thing we are talking about - it points to the notion that people want to see the movie in their head before they sign the check. However you can accomplish that task is up to you - but they have to see the movie. And remember, a picture is worth a thousand words, so make them the most potent, enticing words possible.

Thanks for the insight, Bill.

Yay greenlighting of Scarecrow and Scarecrow Slayer! May all sorts of good things come to pass for the projects. Shoot 'Em Up, what came immediately to mind. With young child and primitive setup (for animation), Michael Davis literally drew out what he saw to help figure out the story, a device that turned out later useful at a pitch meeting (or something like that, from interview on dvd). I love that story. His first storyboarding gig was with Chuck Norris movie Missing in Action, his next was with Paul Reubens' Pee-Wee's Playhouse, from here. That's a fun range. Another good background piece on Shoot 'Em Up here.

From imdb, Scarecrow came out in '02 and S. Slayer in '04. While the direct to video market isn't completely dead, it needs to be pointed out that this has a completely different dynamic to the movie and tv markets. In the 80's and 90's people like Roger Corman, Andy Sidaris and Lloyd Kaufman were all able to pre-finance their movies against deals with video distributors and the major cables companies line Cinemax and Showtime, enough in fact to turn a small profit before a single frame of film had been shot. But your point re: Sky Captain is right, and it was one of the movies I had in mind (although both it and Shoot 'Em Up lost beaucoup bucks at the box office)

Great trailer! And it conveys the premise pretty well: Once a year, Death comes calling, just like swine flu or killer bees. Be prepared. Great idea! But, like, the average, struggling writer *really* has the dough, or the contacts, to make something this good? I don't think so!

This is key if there is a director attached or the writer wants to direct. If not I don't think it's worth the risk since (a) it needs to be great, not easy to to do, and more importantly (b) you aren't allowing the buyers to imagine the film they are looking for in your script. Rather you are giving them one interpretation, one tone.

They came out domestically on those dates, but were sold internationally and in profit before they were released here in the United States. Since both were low budget efforts made for around $100K each, they have since grossed around $1M (and spawned a third movie SCARECROW GONE WILD). Both movies also screened in a double feature night on the then SciFi Channel. Movies are really just movies no matter where they screen. Some territories are more Cable/ TV oriented, some are theatrically oriented, and some are a cornucopia. At markets like AFM - buyers don't just buy DVD rights - the buyers purchase the rights which will make them the most profit in their territory to their customers. Sometimes you are piecing out the rights - DVD, Broadcast, Cable, theatrical - and other times you are selling all rights to a territory. My point is, a movie is a movie is a movie. The principles used to finance one can be used to finance another even if the budget are vastly different. Distributors like Graham King raise the money for films like THE AVIATOR and THE DEPARTED before they are shot primarily through pitches and star power... http://articles.latimes.com/2004/dec/21/entertainment/et-goldstein21 But the concept is the same. People who invested could see the movie Scorcese and DiCaprio wanted to make.

Oh and UNDERWORLD was another movie that had a commercial director attached, and it wasn't until they started taking in drawings of what the movie would look and feel like to their pitch meetings that they got financed. A big difference between that and sending out a ticking clock.

Thanks, Bill C, for enlightening folks to the 'realpolitik' involved on the financing and distribution side of things. On a pragmatic level in terms of screenwriting, most screenplay style-and-format-meisters into whom I've bumped over the years have consistently said the guideline is NOT to include photos, illustrations, maps or what-not in a spec script, that this is seen by script readers as a sign of a amateur. The subtext, if not text of this approach is that the story itself as written on the page has to do the selling. So if we are entering a period of increased openness, even desire on the part of buyers to see some sort of visual elements attached to a script, we will have a ways to go in terms of conventional wisdom. With iPad and other readers, and the emergence of interactive books with embedded video, perhaps this will become THE way to write and sell a script in the future. That said -- and this could be my old fart brain cells talking -- I know how many people in the industry suffer from shiny object disease. Combined with the fact that many buyers have a less than stellar grasp of 'story' leads me to wonder how many MORE scripts will sell based primarily on the ancillary visuals when in fact those visuals can shroud problematic aspects of the script, story, etc. Of course I guess none of this really matters because according to Charlie Kaufman's upcoming new film Frank or Francis, this is how screenwriting will soon be handled: "In a bizarre twist, Kevin Kline will also play Richard's Head, an animatronic head loaded with advanced screenwriting techniques which Jonathan uses to make broad Hollywood movies with no artistic integrity."

Bill, first of all, we're in violent agreement about the need and value for art design/trailers when pitching a project. I'd go further, because one of the most common nuggets of advice I hear being being to prospective filmmakers is actually to make something like a short. However, what I was questioning is the practice of green-lighting a movie, be it theatrical or tv/video simply on the basis of an outline and some artwork. Sure, it happens every once in a while, even in theatrical releases (usually sequels to movies expected to be a big hit), but it feels like a rare occurrence nowadays, whereas in the 80s and 90s it used to happen all the time, especially in the direct to video market. You almost always need a great script nowadays. So, why is this relevant? Because with the decimation of the DVD and video markets in favor of digital distribution, combined with the low cost of entry for digital cinematography, there's going to be a shift in the way movies get made that's just as profound as what happened when video was introduced. Once the porn industry figures out how to curtail piracy with streaming video (because, let's be honest, those guys has always been on the forefront of distribution technology), the economics will start to be highly attractive. We're starting to see a lot of movies, with theater quality cinematography being shot using DSLR technology such as the Canon 7D/EOS5, etc... Movies like "A girl walks into a bar", etc... And the cost of making such films, excluding talent costs, is dropping dramatically, although I think we're a camera generation away from this starting to take off (one issue is that with the current crop of cameras it's hard to shoot with a moving camera eg car chases, steadycam shots, etc...). If one combines low cost movie making, with direct access to a distributor like Netflix, Hulu or Youtube (who are all looking for original content, btw), then the economics for filmmakers change radically, and I expect we'll end up with a huge number of small film companies, just like all those DTV companies in the 80s. And there are going to be problems: how does one make and sell such a film, and how do you find people with the skills you're missing? Do you use the low cost version as a trailer or prototype for a big studio remake, or do you try and bypass the studios completely and self produce? And how much money will you be able to make? For writers, there are huge opportunities to be had, but they're going to have to get their hands dirty digging for gold.

I agree with all of the above, and would add the Kickstarter factor as part of the equation we're trying to sort out. I have no doubt in my mind that the film professional who can conceive of a high concept movie, and then realize that concept for a low budget and independently is going to "win." The tech is that good, and people who think in long terms of their career have developed skillsets using that tech. In a world where shorts, comics and best-selling (and even proof copies of) novels get optioned, you can't argue that it has to be JUST the words on the page (although that is a foundation upon which the whole product is built). There is too much evidence that a visual reference is another key building block upon which a movie is a 'go' project. And yes, if you are going to provide that visual reference it has to be good... nay, great in order to build that forward momentum. I work with indie filmmakers and distributors all the time and they are all notorious for leaving stills to the last minute. (cuts off before he diverges into another rant for another time) ;)

I've been thinking about doing this for awhile now since I have a background in VFX and some production. I could just pull out action bits for my trailer, it would be pretty simple for me to do.