It's great to get commissioned. You get paid for what you love doing the most - you get paid to write! Then pretty soon you learn about payments, too. About the how and the when and, of course, the how much. And that's when you start to wonder ... could there be a major flaw in the European system? The answer is yes.
 |
| A good balance, there should be. |
The way it works is simple enough: You get hired, then you get paid in installments until the full sum agreed to in the contract is paid out. Sounds okay, doesn't it? Well it would be if there were a smart balance built into that system. As is now, writers get paid the small amount of the overall sum for the large amount of time they spend on building the foundation of a story. Later on they get paid the bigger chunk for typing it all out into screenplay form.
Most writers will agree that they spend 50% and more of their overall time with the foundation (world, theme, characters, research, structure all the way to a great treatment). Once you have a killer treatment, the script flows beautifully and fairly swiftly from it. Robert McKee apparently said that, if you spend six months on a script, you shouldn't start writing the actual screenplay for the first five and a half of those months. That may be a bit extreme but the point he makes is correct.
You might say - where's the problem? After all, in the end the writer will see the full amount. But here's how this plays out in real life (where writers have obligations like other people - with family, rent, mortgage, insurance, food, etc., ya know?) - the writer knows he gets paid very little up front - what does he do? What would YOU do? You hustle to get as quickly as possible to the stage where you get the bigger payments, right? As a result the producer may fire you because your treatment isn't good enough. The project then proceeds with a different writer and the cycle continues. In the end countless potentially brilliant European stories will never be told (because they were never developed to their potential). As for the stories that end up getting made - how often to you find yourself thinking - "this could have been so much better" ?
Is this so difficult to change? After all, every producer will tell you that he knows how important the development phase is and that it should never be rushed. Those same producers simply need to put their money where their mouth is. I absolutely believe that a change in the remuneration system would create an important shift in Europe. Writers would, and finally could, take the necessary time on the building of rock-solid story foundations.
Most writers will agree that they spend 50% and more of their overall time with the foundation (world, theme, characters, research, structure all the way to a great treatment). Once you have a killer treatment, the script flows beautifully and fairly swiftly from it. Robert McKee apparently said that, if you spend six months on a script, you shouldn't start writing the actual screenplay for the first five and a half of those months. That may be a bit extreme but the point he makes is correct.
You might say - where's the problem? After all, in the end the writer will see the full amount. But here's how this plays out in real life (where writers have obligations like other people - with family, rent, mortgage, insurance, food, etc., ya know?) - the writer knows he gets paid very little up front - what does he do? What would YOU do? You hustle to get as quickly as possible to the stage where you get the bigger payments, right? As a result the producer may fire you because your treatment isn't good enough. The project then proceeds with a different writer and the cycle continues. In the end countless potentially brilliant European stories will never be told (because they were never developed to their potential). As for the stories that end up getting made - how often to you find yourself thinking - "this could have been so much better" ?
Is this so difficult to change? After all, every producer will tell you that he knows how important the development phase is and that it should never be rushed. Those same producers simply need to put their money where their mouth is. I absolutely believe that a change in the remuneration system would create an important shift in Europe. Writers would, and finally could, take the necessary time on the building of rock-solid story foundations.
7 comments:
I feel the pain Daniel. The payments are the same with books too, one dribble for the idea, another when you produce the manuscript and the final amount when it's published. If the royalties come in later it's a bonus, but it's incredibly tough. It probably puts a lot of talented people off taking the plunge.
Julie
The system is as is because producers/publishers of course don't want to put up any money before they know it's worth their money ... and so it continues - writers need to make a living. Since you get paid practically nothing, you work your dayjob - or two dayjobs, while writing on your first gig. If you're a pro you'll just get several projects going at the same time. That way you'll get trickles from different places ... again, doesn't exactly help the concentration your story foundation needs and deserves ... in the end, I think the whole European film business suffers because of this - will it ever change? Course not.
It never ceases to amaze me. Producers don't ask directors to shoot half a film before deciding whether or not they'll get paid. or actors half a film. And in-house producers sitting in cosy companies draw a living wage too. How did writers get to have such a "special relationship?"
Writers have to learn to be braver and unite to have the careers and conditions they deserve. You know I'm always going to say writers must join their country's Writers' Guilds for action.
We teach people how to treat us. It starts with speaking up!
Yes Gail - courage is a major element, absolutely. Most writers are humbled to bits if a producer gives them a nod. They'd even write for nothing - how serious would I personally take a grovel like that? All writers need to learn to stand up for themselves - it CAN make a difference - systems CAN indeed be changed - doesn't even have to be revolution, sometimes evolution does the trick. But it doesn't happen by itself - we need to make it happen.
It's flawed from our point of view, for sure. That's why it's important that we try to become a hyphenate (writer-director, writer-producer) and control more of the content that we want to create.
Our point of view is of course the one I'm most concerned with. I'd love to know more about your experiences with the hyphenate action - must check your blog to see if you've already written about that - otherwise I'll have to pester you to do so :-)
I think the hyphenate writer-producer is definitely the way to go, for maximum financial and creative reward. Although Simon Passmore did raise an interesting point about the potential to always have your writer's hat on in meetings when you should just have your producer's hat on. Interesting post Daniel and I wholeheartedly agree.
Post a Comment