Screenwriting : "The Script's the Thing" by Jay Gladwell

Screenwriters don't get the respect they deserve a lot of times, Jay Gladwell, but without screenwriters, there are no movies. And screenwriters are problem solvers for producers and directors during development and production.

It's easy to write a screenplay! Just ask anyone who HASN'T written one...

"Just take my amazing two pages of notes and flesh it out. My IDEA is genius! You're just a scribbler...lucky to even be able to work on my idea for FREE!"

Arggh.

Jon, it sounds like you've gone over the "Job Postings" here at Stage32. I just saw one that reads: "This is strictly a Work-for-Hire / Ghostwriting position: all copyright and authorship will remain with me."

That's common for ghostwriting jobs, Jay Gladwell.

Yes, from reputable sources! (I have ghostwritten a book).

With “live” stage plays the writers can seem more personal to audiences. It’s a close up, intense & real experience. Performers are tangible, in real time & can’t go anywhere except off stage. With obvious restrictions for action many plays are dialogue rich & attention to the audible aspect is amplified. Words carry heavy weight. I’ve seen playwrights carried shoulder high & others win awards. True point you make, script writers rarely do receive public recognition even with box office success. However, we write for the moving visual medium which requires multiple skillsets for its execution so I look upon scripts as an embryo in progress. Passed up the food chain they change, morph & even diversify in genre but okay by me. “Blue Print” does not feel negative & many writers direct to put their own unique stamp on films.

I think there's some fundamental differences between the two mediums and the collaborative requirements of the stage vs. the screen.

Theater operates as a writer-centric medium because the playwright's words are the primary creative element audiences experience directly. Directors, actors, and designers interpret the text, but the language itself remains central to the theatrical experience. The intimacy of live performance means dialogue and character development through words carry greater weight.

Film functions differently due to its visual nature and technical complexity. A screenplay serves as one element in a multi-layered creative process involving cinematography, editing, sound design, and performance - each contributing significantly to the final artistic product. The "blueprint" comparison isn't dismissive; it's accurate. Architects don't expect the same recognition as the completed building, even though their work is foundational.

Your Diamond anecdote, while compelling, misses some of the point about collaboration, as even a finished screenplay is nothing - until it's brought to life by so many other artists. As a director, Wilder brought substantial style and creativity to these projects himself. While he probably should've been nicer, more appreciative of his writer, and not let his ego get in the way, Diamond's scripts on their own two legs may never have reached those high Award-winning and beloved heights without Wilder's flair.

Point being, every element of making a movie requires others' expertise for completion.

The real issue isn't about elevating screenwriters to playwright status, but ensuring fair recognition within film's collaborative framework. Many successful screenwriters do receive appropriate credit - Charlie Kaufman, Aaron Sorkin, and the Coen Brothers built careers on their writing reputations.

Studio executives focusing on marketable packages over writing quality is a legitimate concern, but this reflects commercial pressures rather than inherent medium limitations. The solution isn't reorganizing creative hierarchies but developing better systems for recognizing quality writing within collaborative filmmaking structures. Each medium has evolved recognition systems appropriate to its creative demands.

As a writer, I'm not offended by the term "blueprint" for a script. I understand it is a collaborative process to bring a story to screen as Pat describes above. But I do believe "the script is the thing". Without a good story, told well, you have nothing to work with.

I've learned so much about screen writing and story since I began this adventure, that I now know if I am picking a story apart as I watch, not enough attention was given to the script. Not enough re-writes, not enough discussion and consideration of story beats, not enough character development, no table reads, a writer not willing to listen to feedback... myriad reasons.

The more attention paid to story development for the screen, the more immersive a story becomes and the better off we will all be as viewers.

Pat, please, don't misunderstand, but I have to ask. Are you suggesting that producing a play isn't a collaborative effort?

Writing a screenplay is 150 pages of oxygen. Try filming without it — you’ll feel like a climber on Everest without a tank, unable to even blink or move a hand or a foot.

Pat said, "A screenplay serves as one element in a multi-layered creative process involving cinematography, editing, sound design, and performance - each contributing significantly to the final artistic product."

I have to respectfully disagree. Cinematography, editing, sound, actors, etc., and yes, even directors, exist to perform one function: to translate the screenplay from page to screen. The script is foundational; everything else serves to bring it to life. And just as these elements can elevate a story, they can also destroy it if mishandled by the director. And each of us has seen ample evidence of this.

It is no coincidence that a completed movie script can get referred to as a 'First Draft'.

Hi, David!

Two points: 1) The term “First Draft” is a convention, not a judgment. Many “first drafts” are actually very complete and fully realized. Calling it a first draft acknowledges that revision is part of the process. That doesn’t mean the script lacks value or cannot serve as the foundation for a film. 2) Calling it a first draft doesn’t diminish the script’s primacy. It simply signals that film is collaborative: actors, directors, designers, and editors will inevitably add their contributions. The label doesn’t mean the screenplay is secondary; it’s still the organizing core.

It’s a different set of rules for a scripts execution than that of a stage play. A word verbatim live performance with no retakes or location changes & playwrights copyright permission is a far cry from a film producer who wants to make a script their own. People interpret written art in many different ways. A live stage play has obvious actionable limitations. A film shoot has epoch possibilities. Stage plays & scripts can be equally well written but when making a film other skillsets are in juxtaposition together with how producer & director see tone & genre etc. The word “Blue Print” does not offend me. If my art touches a person enough for them to want to make it albeit their own interpretation that is positive.

Movie and TV scripts - this is the only medium where too many people want to get, and do get, their fingers involved. Great symphonies, one composer. Great artwork, one painter. Great poem, one writer. Great book, one writer. Great movie script, how many (writer, producer, director, actors x2, studio execs x2)? If it's a success everyone takes credit. If it's a failure, blame the writer. The director is not an auteur unless a writer/director (at the studios I saw a number of directors wreck many-a-script).

The voice of experience! Thank you, Mr. Hollingsworth.

I once thought I was writing one movie and discovered I was actually writing three and somebody else's name was on the cover.