[…] • There are 72 scripts on the 2013 Black List. (There were 78 on the 2012 Black List) • More than 250 working film executives at major Hollywood financiers and production companies contributed to the 2013 Black List. • 33.3% of the scripts on the 2013 Black List have a financier attached. (37.1% on the2012 Black List) • 68.0% of the …read more […]

Okay, devil's advocate moment - so familiarity sells, then? "I've heard of that real-life central character, I'll read/buy the script." "This movie's about Hollywood/familiar TV shows, I'll read/buy that script." Which, of course, carries the danger of constantly reinforcing a narrow spectrum of experience: "This movie will play to people with my life experience and cultural references, which makes it good!"

Debbie, that's one of the things that's so interesting about the Black List. Every year, there are these bizarre scripts that make the cut. Jaws? Mr. Rogers? Stanley Kubrick conspiracy theory? What that says to me is, yes, there is an audience out there for mainstream commercial high concept stuff. But there is also an audience that wants NEW and ORIGINAL. No shame for a writer to be working in one or the other. Story is story. But be aware of who that target audience is.

Couldn't agree more with both of you, Debbie and Scott. It's an odd and maddening conundrum that Hollywood studios court a wider global audience with product that appeals to an increasingly narrow spectrum of experience. Only Frank John Hughes' POX AMERICANA, on the list of 72 scripts, comes close to being about the experiences of people of color. That's why we need a whole lot more of Sundance Screenwriter's Labs going on. And why Franklin's initiative to create opportunities for diverse voices within Warner Bros and other studios is so vital.

Scott, First off, thanks for all of the work you do regarding GITS. I always read your new posts first thing in the morning and then throughout the day. The one suggestion/complaint I have with The Black List is that each script doesn't include its genre. Some of the descriptions are pretty evident but others are not. Subject matter can be treated seriously or comedically and reading a synopsis doesn't always illuminate which way the writer went. Also, the list is broken down many different ways (by agencies, managers, etc.) by different media outlets but I haven't seen any of them break the Black List down by genres: how many comedies were on the list, dramas, sci-fi entries, etc. I think that would make it better for, primarily, writers, but also other industry people, to easily see what was popular this year with readers. So I suggest that Franklin also include the genre with each script synopsis, and also include a genre breakdown list.

Concur, John. Do my own little part on that front. For example, The Quest Initiative in 2013 featured 6 writers, 3 of whom are women. It's heartening to see things like Julie Bush get dubbed to adapt the next Bourne project: A woman writing action. Who'da thunk?!?! There's no scientific way of proving this, but I BELIEVE the greater diversity of voices, the better the movies.

Ambrose, that is a good suggestion and I will forward to Franklin. Of course, the challenge is figuring out what genre some scripts are. I'm running into this with an analysis of spec script sales from 1991 to present as a lot of scripts have three, even four genres listed. With The Black List, this is also an issue because some of the stories are [often] so unusual. How to categorize them? But even if they used multiple genres as tags, your point is quite valid, I think. Thanks for it!