As writers, what do you objectively feel is a great script that came out as a weak film, and a weak script that came out as a great film.
For great script/weak film I'm going with the recent Adam Sandler and Jennifer Aniston vehicle "Murder Mystery" that was released on Netflix. The script felt genuinely funny and clever, but the overall direction didn't really exhibit that.
I have to say, I think Jurassic Park is a near perfect film, but the script is technically pretty weak from an objective standpoint. A few holes here and there, and a poorly written character on the page (Ian Malcolm, he's there just to deliver exposition directly to the audience and ask the other characters for exposition, has no arc of his own, completely disappears for the third act) yet it's cast so perfectly and directed so well we forgive these things entirely. I keep imagining submitting that script as an unknown writer and getting rejected because they couldn't understand how the T-Rex got into the building in the end without making any noise if prior he was always heard coming from his earth-shaking steps.
2 people like this
This is a tough one. First because I've never sat through Jurassic Park. I was 13 when it came out and at every slumber party my entire 7th grade year someone would put it on. I was forced to find new friends. Second because I'm a nerd who loves Hallmark movies. So I would say that I'm attracted to interesting and quirky characters. Which can exist in both above scenarios.
I think that a great script is like a great novel: it makes you excited to get to the next page. So I don't know that I've read one that was crappy but made a good movie. Because I wouldn't have forced myself to keep turning those pages.
PS I liked Murder Mystery enough, I'll check out the script. Maybe.
1 person likes this
Hmm...this reminds me of the Transformers Films Directed by Michael Bay. The Directing, Cinematography, and Special Effects were great. The Scripts were terrible, especially in the second Film, which made them unwatchable for me.
I loved the first Jurassic Park. You tried to ruin it with the whole "earth-shaking steps" point. Please, let's not bring Logic into this. It's a movie about bringing dinosaurs back to life in present time for crying out loud.
My only issue was the following Films all had the same Story. How many times does someone try to make money off of dinosaurs? Quit it! "No wonder you're extinct. I'm gonna run you over when I come back down." lol
Hi Eric. It's not a logic point. Not trying to ruin the film in any regard. It's very literally just part of the craft of screenwriting. If you establish a rule in your script, you need to continue the rule. If you break the rule you often lose the reader/audience. The whole point of the post is that we, as an audience, forgive this particular rule-breaking because the film is so great. But on paper, someone reading it might toss it aside because they haven't seen how it's been brought to life yet. And it's a fascinating dichotomy how we, as amateur writers, could probably not get away with something like that because people don't already know our work, but when Spielberg is behind a project, he not only gets away with it, he proves breaking the rules can sometimes work to your advantage.
well, if we're gonna dump on Spielberg, I think the original spec script "The Post" by Liz Hannah is better than the final script w/ co-writer and Oscar winner Josh Singer. I didn't like all the conspiracy Vietnam scenes added to the movie.
Also original "Passengers" screenplay was better than the movie. Last Act changes & Society views shifted from paper to the screen (11 years to make)
Alright, so what if you're an amateur writer, this is your script, your scene? Do you stick to the rule and mess up your idea for the scene? Or do you kick the rule to the curb partly because you can't think of a better alternative for the scene?
Besides, the audience loves the scene as is. If we hear the T-Rex coming, it ruins the moment. More important than the rule is making sure the audience feels the tension of our heroes about to become supper. Of course, they escape yelling, "Get to the Chopper!" and we're all relieved.
I'm not dumping on Spielberg at all. Jurassic Park is pretty much a perfect film in my opinion haha.
Eric C. Jackson the only real answer to that question is whatever serves the story best. Which is exactly how the ending of Jurassic Park works. It serves the story still. Of course, there's an argument to be made that hearing the T-Rex approaching during that climactic scene, as we do throughout the scenes prior, could have built more tension. Who knows. Maybe they tried it that way first and it just didn't work right. That's the beauty of filmmaking. We may write something on the page that gets ruined or enhanced by the production.
The beauty of screenwriting is that it's all in the eye of the beholder. All points above can be true at the same time!
3 people like this
Right yeah the pit that appears after the fact so the car can fall. Exactly what I mean by holes we forgive just because the film is so great and engaging.