I think we have to be careful to critique the screen story - eg, the story that made it to the screen, wherever each element of it may have come from - rather than "Joe Screenwriter's story". Unless we have a copy of each draft of the script, we don't know what Joe Screenwriter wrote, and we have no business blaming him for any specific element. On a more general note: as a fellow writer suggested to me when I set up my blog, there's a lot to be said for letting some time elapse before attacking the weaknesses of a story. If I'm talking publicly about a film that's still on general release, I try to pick up on the good things about it, not the bad ones. There'll be time to learn from those later, when everyone involved is feeling less fragile...

I actually think this could be a very interesting topic/debate. Kind of like when a new Transformers or Twilight comes out, and everyone is quick to trash Michael Bay or Taylor Lautner -- not that they should or shouldn't be ridiculed -- but what about the writers behind those movies? They are the ones initially responsible for creating the blueprint for which the worlds end up becoming. Are they not to blame? How much blame should they take? I do believe certain writers reach a point where they are able to "cash out" or "phone it in" and sit back and take it easy. But who says it's right or wrong? They're working writers, are they not? Professionals? Damn you Scott, now you got me thinking!

Toph Eggers... my first thought was, any relation to Pulitzer-finalist writer Dave Eggers? I Googled it: Toph is Dave's little brother. Maybe that explains something. My immediate reaction to the article is that Eggers hasn't been in the business very long (Google says Toph is 28), because the films he is criticizing are big studio comedies that are almost never the original vision of the screenwriter, and are rarely worked on by only one or two writers, no matter what the credits say. An example: Timothy Dowling was the main writer for This Means War, but he was the 10th writer on the project, and one of almost 20 (twenty!) to work on it. Dowling did a rewrite, was rewritten himself, then wrote it again, Reese Witherspoon brought in her own writers, et cetera... and this happens ALL the time. Eggers should know this. So if you didn't like that movie, would you blame Dowling? How can you? When these movies fail, look to the studio. Fox bungled the whole thing. Why is Eggers blaming Koren when he should be upset with Paramount? And why is he using IMDB to personally criticize a writer, as if those credits relate to the craft in any way? If Koren has any obvious failing, it's his willingness to participate in these mind-numbing projects. But how do you blame a guy for taking work? I can't do it. I can blame Eggers for this immature article that smacks of jealousy and undeserved self-importance. At least I know who wrote it.

Yes. I think films can be critiqued without turning into a verbal hate crime. 'Critique the film not the writer' (or the director etc...), is a good start. And critiquing involves suggesting an observed problem and offering a solution... not just saying, "That's crap!" or even worse, "You're crap!" Like a marital dispute, there's no place for name-calling, it doesn't achieve anything but hurt, even if you believe the other person to be wrong. I also think tone comes in to play. Points of improvement can be offered without nastiness or making it personal. Maybe trying to see it from the team’s perspective, "Why did they choose to go with that?" and then discussing how you may have done it differently and why. I think the biggest issue with Egger’s article, has to do with the failure to acknowledge the collaborative aspect. More often than not the writer is brushed under the carpet when a film is a raging success, "It was the acting... the directing... the editing... the score..." And it is all those things, and more. So why lump the heavy and already disheartening load of a failed movie (or 3), on one person? So wrong. One other thing, Scott, since you've mentioned wanting suggestions on how to critique (perceived) bad movies, I think having everyone adhere to some very basic rules would go along way (such as mentioned above). Also using the basin method to critique (or shit sandwich) where you start with a positive, move into what didn't work, but only if you are able to offer suggestions on why, or how you might do it differently, then finish on a positive. Every film has to have at least ONE redeeming quality! Even it ends up being something as broad as "and congratulations to the filmmakers for getting this sold and made..." God knows that sounds like an accomplishment worth honoring! And lastly, rather than calling it 'Bad Movie Review', maybe give the critique forum a redeeming title, such as "Standing On The Shoulders of Giants" or something else over-the-top positive. After all, most of us have not yet broken in, so it would be an honor to study the mistakes of those that have gone before us and hopefully make better choices (if available to us) if we should ever be so lucky to be given the chance.

Well, Hollywood makes everything so opaque. Who knows who's to blame? Maybe that's one of the reasons the system is set up this way. You can't put your finger on any one person. Of course, judging a Hollywood writer by IMDB is misleading at best. Steve Koren may have written hundreds of fantastic screenplays, every one the equal of Chinatown or Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, but if they're all stuck in a studio vault somewhere, IMDB users will never know. For a writer, IMDB represents so little of a career. It's like seeing an iceberg: what's visible seems massive, but there's so much more you'll never see. I really have no problem with the article. It made me chuckle a little (just a little). He does have a point. Actors and directors get publicly lambasted all the time. If writers really want the same level of recognition as those members of the team, they can look forward to the same level of vitriol (I'm not saying that's right, but that's how it works). Maybe this is a reminder that writers should be more thankful that no one knows who they are ;)

Most people who work in Hollywood have very little say in what projects they get to work on. They're just happy to get work, and that goes for all the fields of expertise. I can't speak for Mr. Koren and his involvement in these projects, but I'm sure he's happy to be a working writer and producer. Is he the ringleader of this group of people that produces a stream of films that make “Hollywood” a cuss word? I don't know, but I doubt it. A Thousand Words is a film I happen to have on my credit list as well in my particular field, and although it may not be my proudest creative achievement, I sure am happy to have worked on the project. It pays the bills just like working on an Oscar winning film does. I can guarantee you that anyone who had the opportunity to work on an Eddie Murphy movie would gladly take the job, unless they had something bigger and better on the horizon. It's easy to put down these kinds of films, but like you said, you cannot conflate the work and the hired gun.

"Critique the material, not the writer." Sounds about right. And Debbie's point is good one, too! Of course, there are traditions in other mediums where wildly successful authors are fair game for critique from lower-tier or mid-level writers. (For example, novelists will engage in this from time to time.) However, this usually involves the wildly successful author making public pronouncements that are critical of an another genre, group of authors, etc. But, even then, the skirmish is usually concentrated around the specific points of disagreement. I'm not aware of Steve Koren pontificating in public on the state of screenwriting, or Hollywood, or anything like that. And if he did, Toph Eggers certainly didn't bring that out in the article.

**OFF-TOPIC I just wanted to share this link with you Scott, it's from @BittrScrptReadr and his new webshow - they mention GITS http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbDnb8QWHoA&feature=youtu.be

Since for copyright purposes the studio is the author any given film it produces, I think it's legitimate to blame the studio if the film sucks. If the film is good, then we should credit the writer for navigating the morass of development.

Scott, You keep writers focused on the work. All that matters is the work and it's extremely important not to lose that focus. For that you are Screenwriting Saint. However - navigating the work and navigating the town are two totally different animals. One takes discipline and the other takes time. What Toph Eggers revealed in this article is not how writers feel about other writers but how anyone without success feels about anyone with success in a brutal business of relationships and audience research spreadsheets that dictate what gets made. Eggers is actually attacking the brand. An exec I am very close to that runs an A list directors company explained to me that studios are only interested in branded entertainment. His example to me was that he would have an easier time setting up a movie about "Mr Whipple" because Charmin is a known brand, then it would be to set up a movie about a quirky character that likes to squeeze toilet paper. The Chamin flick can be marketed and that's all that matters in today's environment. So let that reality sink in and then consider how someone would prosper in it. Can you honestly say that we should only critique the material when it's painfully obvious that there is a certain niche that Steve Koren fits in? That he keeps tapping it over and over because there is a studio and people willing to pay for the work because they consider him a brand? Who wouldn't do that? Clearly Steve Koren knows how to play the game and he is smarter than most screenwriters. He's reacted to the system in the way that anyone who wants a paycheck reacts. You like it when I do X so I will keep doing X, cashing all the checks and living the dream. Why is Ridley Scott attached to Stretch Amrstrong the movie? Because Stretch Amrstrong is a brand. Why is someone making Connect Four the movie? Because connect four is a brand. Look at all the branded entertainment with a built in audience. The brand matters more than the material itself, which explains all the remakes. There is a provable built in audience. It's a way for a studio to make it's version of a safe bet. I'm sure you'd have huge success with another dog themed movie because they can say "From the writer of K-9 comes another instant classic about a man and his dog" I challenge anyone to prove me wrong. But you must keep in mind that we're talking about studio funded movies that they know will make a certain profit no matter what. The writing is far less valued than the overall package that can be marketed and recouped. Every talented and committed producer I know loathes the current situation they're in. Amazing material must be financed outside the system and then sold to the studio as a finished product. What studio folks must find are brands. Give me a high concept Steve Koren script (no matter how good or bad) and I'll attach a well known actor who needs a new swimming pool in their backyard and I'll set that up in no time. Eggers makes a point but more information is needed to really understand it.

I think a good critique would be comparable to a wine tasting. You look/smell/taste (i.e., read the script, watch the movie) and discuss what you like and dislike about it -- but with the understanding that it's your opinion only and not the definitive word on the subject. How many people would think of proclaiming a particular merlot or chardonnay the best or worst in the world, along with the caveat that anyone who disagrees is an idiot? That doesn't happen. You might say you love this wine or you like another brand better, but it always comes down to individual taste. When wine afficianados meet, everyone is usually pleasant and interested in other opinions. If there's disagreement, it'll be along the lines of "I've never liked that wine. I prefer X. It's more [crisp, bold, subtle, whatever]." Respectful disagreement, but followed up with specifics about preferences. And having a broad interest in a topic doesn't make one an expert in all of it. To continue the analogy: I like red wines best. I'm not an expert, but I know what I like and can discuss with some measure of intelligence. I'm not as good with whites. To me, they tend to taste alike. So I converse about reds and listen up when others more knowledgeable than I talk about white wines. I don't like sweet wines at all and never taste them. In the same way, I know what I like in comedies, dramas and especially historicals. Ask me about horror movies and I wouldn't know what to say (except "not for me"). So I know better than to engage in conversation about those films. Granted, there are some things everyone will agree on -- a wine that's turned or wasn't fermented/bottled correctly will meet with displeasure everywhere (and a movie that's not written or made well will prove itself, primarily at the box office) -- but for the most part, it still comes down to what each person likes. I enjoy hearing the details of what makes a certain wine someone's favorite in the same way I enjoy reading or hearing about what was most enjoyable or what was lacking that made a movie less than enjoyable. As soon as someone starts dictating what's good and what's not good, I lose interest and turn my attention elsewhere. And the person dishing out opinion loses an audience. My suggestion for discussing movies and scripts is to pretend you're at a wine tasting. What do you like or dislike? Have you sampled something better? Why was it better? What would make this better? And then listen while I tell you how it tastes to me.