[…] “At first we …read more […]

This is totally a "story a day" prompt, btw. Imagine some studio uses this thing, all of a sudden everyone involved is making all the little changes they want since there's no writer and no one to say "no," and there's no real way to integrate all these little changes together. A big "too many chefs spoil the broth" story. The studio wants to sell toys or whatever, so they program in some product integration into all the scenes, so there's a tender emotional scene with brand names in all the lines, then the director decides he always wanted to do, say, a car chase, so he has the computer put that in and now this dialogue-heavy scene is interrupted by fast-cutting action, and then the actress decides she doesn't want to do a sex scene or whatever so that's cut out and now she's pregnant for no reason, but then the lead is pissed because he wanted to do that scene, so he puts it back in and sluts up the other scenes, a supporting actor has a CD coming out so the label says they should get to sing, so now the family lawyer has a five minute set in the middle of the movie for no reason, on and on and on. And it's such a mess that the cinematographer decides "you know what, I'm not going to film this mess" and walks off, so they make a computer program that can control little drones with cameras that film everything, then a computer program that edits it together. Then, instead of paying for music, they make a computer program design music for the movie, and the result is a score so forgettable that no one in the test remembers it five minutes after leaving. So they have a computer pick the most popular songs at the moment (or time of release) and put them in there, even if they're overpowering the dialogue or don't fit in at all. Then, the lead actor or actress (probably the actress) decides they want nothing to do with the movie, so the romantic lead is replaced with a CGI double that looks familiar but not familiar enough, so the audience is disturbed by that, dead-eyed, dead delivery, just off-putting. And then they realize that the movie is garbage, and have a computer design a release that will get them the most amount of money and to automatically sell it to the parent companies' media outlets at the highest possible prices. Then, seeing that the movie made "more than they thought," they decide it works and do it again.

Considering the plethora of crap that Hollywood churns out, this can't possibly fail. That's not a reflection on the good writers out there. It's a reflection on who decides what gets produced. What they really need is an upper management computer program that recognizes quality over crap. Imagine the upper eight figure salaries and seven figure bonuses that would be saved.

To ignore formula is to ignore marketing conventions. Are you willing to go there?

Jon, the studios have approached the process from that angle, too, and I've blogged about it (when I get time, I'll try and track down those posts). Basically every year or so, some consultant emerges who claims to have a way to analyze scripts to determine if they are commercially viable or not. Not quite what you're suggesting because often the thing redirects toward the screenwriter -- "Hey, if you add a dead wife, stats show that will make it more emotionally resonant".

Jon, I'd say there's a difference between writing TO formula and being AWARE of conventions. For example, I happen to believe one of the single most important attributes of a spec script in terms of commercial viability is its story concept: If the story has a strong one, and one consideration there is if it lends itself to marketing schemes, then that's a plus. Then again Romeo & Juliet qualifies as having a strong story concept, so having one does not preclude quality, even great art. To me, there is a world of difference between being mindful of and knowledgeable about the movie business -- that should be quite evident by the amount of time I spend talking about it on the blog! -- and crafting a story, then writing a script per some sort of prefab paint-by-numbers system or formula. To support my bona fides in this regard, please see this interview I did with this marketing executive at one of the big six studios. Again most screenwriters will benefit from learning as much as they can about how the movie business operates, and carry that understanding into their writing. But in my view, that is not writing to formula. That's just being smart.

I appreciate the response and read the interview. I understand the distinction between writing your passion and writing for the industry. However, I am assuming most of us reading this are not established writers in the industry with a successful monetary track record. For those who are, marketing conventions make a lot of sense, if for no other reason than a sustainable living. But for anyone else, the chances of getting a script sold are virtually nill, are they not? It seems more likely that in writing your passion you could make a much better impression, even if you want to be recognized by the industry as marketable. At least that way, you have a shot at coming up with something original that will turn heads as the examples I mentioned. Why would anyone in the industry bet on an unknown screenwriter with a marketable script, when they already have thousands from relationships with known successful writers? The relationship is a huge part of making the deal. So my question is now, do you have a better chance writing for passion, in disregard of marketing convention, since in doing that you would have a shot with having the script produced independently. There are directors and talent out there, many with names, looking for passion projects. Is that not a better route, both financially and artistically? Sundance recently reported a rate of 2% of submitted films that get any kind of distribution, and less than 1% showing any return to the filmmakers. My guess is that as low as that ratio is, it is still better than doing a spec script for the established industry. And with an even higher rate getting exposure at the festival, something like 6%.