[…] We spoke with screenwriter Christopher McQuarrie, who explained the original script for Edge of Tomorrow was tonally much darker. Cruise stressed …read more […]

I loved Edge of Tomorrow as well. The concept is so deliciously Hollywood, the perfect "the same, only different" studio heads are looking for. The pitch, which I can only assume must have been "Groundhog Day meets Starship Troopers" sells itself. And it was very well executed with a cast of some of our best character actors, cutting-edge (heh heh) special FX and tight storytelling. It's also a quintenssential Doug Liman film. Cage and Vratasky are a very Liman-esque couple: strong woman, man who's in over his head, etc. The end credits song ("Love Me Again") is not only thematically very appropriate but it also resembles Moby's "Extreme Ways" that worked so well for The Bourne Identity.

Thanks for bringing in Liman to the conversation, as I didn't do much on that front, but I think you're right: EOT does have some resonance thematically to other of his movies. Interesting to see he's attached to a remake of the 1981 movie Victory, the WWII soccer P.O.W. film.

Why wasn't Dante Harper (the guy that started it all) credited for anything? He's the guy that started it all with his hot spec. Even the secondary grip gets credited. Producers who maybe happen to get the ball started but aren't a major part of the overall making of the movie also get credited. I think writers are treated terribly sometimes when it comes to credit.

Eric, such are the mysteries of WGA credit arbitrations. A few points. First, because Harper adapted the story from existing material, writers only needed to contribute 33%, not 50% (as with an original screenplay) to receive writing credit. Second, here is an exact quote from the WGA guidelines about credits: In each case, the arbiters read any source material and all literary material provided to them in connection with the development of the final screenplay in order to assess the contribution of each writer to the final shooting script. The percentage contribution made by writers to screenplay obviously cannot be determined by counting lines or even the number of pages to which a writer has contributed. Arbiters must take into consideration the following elements in determining whether a writer is entitled to screenplay credit: * dramatic construction; * original and different scenes; * characterization or character relationships; and * dialogue. It is up to the arbiters to determine which of the above-listed elements are most important to the overall values of the final screenplay in each particular case. A writer may receive credit for a contribution to any or all of the above-listed elements. It is because of the need to understand contributions to the screenplay as a whole that professional expertise is required on the part of the arbiters. For example, there have been instances in which every line of dialogue has been changed and still the arbiters have found no significant change in the screenplay as a whole. On the other hand, there have been instances where far fewer changes in dialogue have made a significant contribution to the screenplay as a whole. In addition, a change in one portion of the script may be so significant that the entire screenplay is affected by it. Evidently in the eyes of the arbiters, the difference between the shooting script and Harper's first and, if any, subsequent drafts was so marked that he didn't hit that 33% threshold. This case, I believe, quite unusual as first writers almost always get some credit, even if only shared "story by". And many writers I know are confounded by this aspect of the credit determination. But little need to shed tears for Harper, who currently has at least three big movie projects he's writing and repped by CAA and Management 360, so he would appear to be doing just fine. If you'd like to read the whole WGA credit guidelines, go here.

I remember when the movie came out and my friends were looking for his name and wondering where is his name? Is this the same movie? It was more of a gut emotional reaction than anything else. It's a shame that the WGA isn't better about getting their writer's credits. While almost any excuse will be given for producers to get some sort of credit---you wouldn't believe how easy it easy is to get a credit, the WGA has set it up where writers have to fight it out just to get credit on something they spent a lot of time on. They can look at the final product and decide, but Dante Harper's script is the one that got everyone excited and hot for the project. Writers should make exit plans to direct because they just aren't getting the respect for birthing the entire foundation of a movie.

Reading MacQuarrie's comments, evidently Tom Cruise felt the story would benefit with more humor, so they took it that way, which tonally is, as I understand it (not having read the original source material), pretty different. I've been involved in perhaps a dozen arbitrations, both as a judge and as a participant. In all honesty, I'm probably better trained at doing that than most because of my background in grad school where I studied source criticism, and that's basically what you do: Read the very first draft and the very last draft. Determine what of the last draft derived from the first draft. Then read all subsequent drafts to see where the other material in the shooting script came from. It really boils down to percentages and how much weight you put on things like characterizations, original scenes, dramatic construction, etc. I agree with you: The first writer deserves a lot of credit, especially on projects they wrote from their own original idea. The 50% threshold helps in that regard, but there are cases where the first writer is never on the set, never meets the actors, and their contribution, when rewritten considerably, gets lost in the haze of history. No one says the WGA arbitration system is perfect. But it's FAR better than what used to exist wherein a producer or studio exec could slap ANYBODY'S NAME for writing credit. And as far as I'm concerned, the guidelines for determining credit are fine. The problems arise from two things: 1) When judges don't do a thorough job reading and assessing scripts. I understand. It's not easy. In one arbitration, I read over 15 drafts. But if you take on the responsibility, you should do it well. 2) Some people don't understand the relative importance of screenplay elements. I can't tell you how many times I've read where somebody involved in production says, "S/he rewrote all of the dialogue," as if that constitutes deserving credit. It almost assuredly does not unless it's something like a two-hander and essentially all dialogue. In almost every other kind of movie, dialogue is the LEAST important creative contribution. I have had an idea for many years and this discussion has provoked me to go ahead and blog about it. It won't solve the credit issue, but it might make more sense of it.

Interesting points, thanks. I can just imagine the writers who told their family that "I worked on such and such movie" and then watching the movie come out without their names. Off the disbelieving looks of their family and friends, the writers are like "No really. I worked on those movies! I'm making a living." What about having a separate written by credits for the main writers and then a separate list of writers who have worked on the project? I remember watching this movie that listed the assistant to the producer and director, some production assistants and extras, but not some of the main writers who started it all! Sorry Scott, this is a hot button issue for me.

Eric, that is precisely what I have argued for years. "Additional Writing By". I'll do a post on it when I get the time to do it justice, but it's ludicrous not to include writers who have worked on and gotten paid for writing on a project. I know some of the counter-arguments, but at this point, I haven't found them convincing. More soon.

Great idea Scott. I just think writers need to get more respect than they've been getting. Many times, they are the creative force laying a huge percentage of the foundation, but are treated like servants who aren't even allowed on the set. And, the studios used the writers strike as an excuse to scale back even further to take way what little power film writers had. Movie stars and directors get so much, but writers not so much. Btw, are you going to do that reader questions blog you mentioned a couple of weeks ago?

Which reader questions blog? I've got a few questions I need to respond to. Was there a particular one you're referring to? Or do you mean me posting a request for reader questions, which I try to do every so often. Lots of things going on in my world just now, hard to keep everything straight!

It was the blog where you asked reader's to submit questions for you to answer. Here's the exchange: http://gointothestory.blcklst.com/2014/06/reader-questions-10.html#comments Eric Harris says: June 21, 2014 at 5:28 AM 1. You always hear about movie studios getting sued for films like Liar Liar, Terminator from some person that claims they had a similar idea…. in these nuisance suits, in the writer’s deal….are the writer’s protected from this? Do they sue the studio/production co. or the writer? Reply Eric Harris says: June 21, 2014 at 5:34 AM What is life really like for the beginning screenwriter who breaks in with a manager/agent, maybe sells a spec? Do they start taking meetings, competing for open writing assignments? Are they chewing their nails because it’s an unstable profession? No one ever gives a detailed explanation of what it’s really like and what to expect. Are they writing for free with producers in hopes that it will get set up? Reply Scott says: June 21, 2014 at 1:47 PM Eric, I’ll go at both questions next week. Thanks! (second blog) http://gointothestory.blcklst.com/2014/06/binge-viewing-is-forcing-showrunners-to-evolve.html#comments Eric Harris says: June 25, 2014 at 6:12 PM And Scott, I forgot to ask another burning question to the Reader questions and I think that blog is buried 20 blogs ago…man you throw a lot of content a day. :) How do you decide between managers?–owner of a medium firm vs. manager working for a bigger firm (who might jump to a different firm since they are not the owner)? What is life like working with one and what should you expect to make the most of it. I’ve worked with one before, but they went on to just producing. Reply Scott says: June 26, 2014 at 1:17 AM Eric, let me take up that question as a blog post, okay? Reply

I've got those as drafts. Will get to them later this week I hope. Thanks for the reminder.

Cool. Thanks Scott. Between those and the Mickey Fisher interview, you're batting 1,000. Really loving this week.