Fun With the Film Critics

Many thanks for the superlative insights offered in "Their Opinions Count"(Issue #47, Vol. 9) by Mark Griffin. It's about time that discerning, intelligent critics like Kenneth Turan, Roger Ebert and
David Sterritt received some long overdue recognition for advising a nation of wary moviegoers. It cannot be an easy task to continuously provide entertaining, informed and meaningful commentary about so many recent films that are noticeably devoid of those qualities. I had a much better time reading these compelling interviews than I've had at my neighborhood multiplex all year.

—Cynthia DiPietro, Amawalk, NY

Hidden Costs and Tiny Successes

While I found Jennifer Wood's article "Screenwriting Success in Cyberspace"(Issue #47, Vol. 9) informative, there are two important items that were overlooked. Hidden costs: Just last week I discovered ScriptShark's Website and was genuinely excited. But then a friend pointed out the small print concerning ScriptShark's parent company, Baseline/Filmtracker, collecting 10 percent of the sale of a script: "If Baseline/Filmtracker enables the eventual sale or option for sale of a project listed on SpecMarket, Baseline/Filmtracker will be entitled to collect a 10 percent fee from the gross proceeds of any such sale."

This makes a huge difference if you're also shelling out 10-15 percent to an agent. I don't know if any other online services take a commission on sales or options, but this should be part of the screenwriter's decision-making.

Tiny Successes: Writers' Script Network seems to be the only one that boasts more than a handful of success stories, and it includes the date of every recent sale or deal. The other sites mention a few of their sales, but we don't know how recent they are, or if there are any other potential sales or negotiations. Other sites only use testimonials to "prove"how popular the service is, without any real success stories. Again, the proof is in real effectiveness. In future articles, these items should be addressed to better inform the budding screenwriter.

—Robert Chomiak, Vancouver, BC

ScriptShark and Script P.I.M.P. Respond

Hidden Costs: There are no hidden costs. It has been standard practice for us to send a letter to the writer after their script receives a 'consider' that lets them know about the commission. More importantly, the quote used from our site also clearly states that if we aren't involved with the promotion of the material, we won't commission it—as was the case with Hardcourt, a script that recently sold to Phoenix that we covered, but did not promote. If we don't do the work, we don't commission. If the writer has the ability to get the script into the hands of agents, managers or producers, we suggest they do it without us. Because we agree: you shouldn't be paying unwarranted commissions.

If, however, they would like our expertise and help, then we will do what we can. But, like all businesses, we do charge for our services. Representation for writers and sales of scripts don't just magically appear, no matter what any service or publication leads a writer to believe.

That being said, we are certainly not the only service to commission for this kind of service. It is standard policy for most of the coverage services in the field. We work very hard for those writers that have had their careers started by our service, and are willing to furnish your magazine with interviews and/or testimonials that will clearly back this up...

Proven Success: To answer the final question, we ask you and your readers to simply peruse our home page as well as www.scriptshark.com/inthenews.html. This month alone, we have had three very notable successes. Additionally, ScriptShark has been in the trades repeatedly this summer and seen a number of our writers repeat success because we helped provide them the foundation to build a career, not just a low/no money option to a small production company... This makes sense, because Baseline/FilmTracker provides data and software to studios, production companies and agencies. In addition to looking for data, these executives are looking for strong material that can be developed into commercial films.

The coverage portion of ScriptShark has always been a tool built for executives, and our analyses are often less forgiving than other services. Other sites post without analyzing the material. Thus, they don't have the unfortunate duty of delivering negative responses to their writers. The goal of coverage, however, is not to provide notes or encouraging words, but rather deliver the kind of feedback that will honestly provoke an executive, representative or producer to respond to a piece of material.

We are focused on providing high-quality services and assistance to all our clients (both writers and executives), and it's expected that the scripts submitted for coverage are of professional caliber. Our growth lies in the hands of the writers that submit to us. The more success we turn over, the more success we will have. However, being the first of our kind in this field, we are very conscious of the fact that significant successes only come at the hands of quality writing.

—Ryan Williams, Filmtracker/ScriptShark, Santa Monica, CA

Let me answer the questions raised in regards to Script P.I.M.P.: 1. We do not take any commission fees. If Script P.I.M.P. helps option/sell your script, we get nothing but a better reputation among writers. 2. As for 'recent success stories,' we've had four in the last year: Donna White optioned her script, Turn-Around, through placement in our 'Script P.I.M.P. Recommends' category on Writers Script Network. Doug Rappaport gained agent representation and agreed to a five-figure writing project for director David Winkler. William Jack Sibley optioned his script, Amor, to director/producer Bryan Harston in a six-figure deal. Robert Nelms gained agent representation from Sara Margoshes of SMA, LLC.

—Chadwick Clough, President & CEO, Script P.I.M.P., LLC

Ray Carney’s Back— and So Are His Naysayers

It is amusing, to say the least, and false advertising, to say the most, that this month's interview with Ray Carney is billed in the table of contents as "a brand new rant."In point of fact, it's the same old rant, is it not? Right down to some of the same sound bites and catchphrases?

It is a distinct piece only inasmuch as Mr. Carney does not, to my memory, remind us that he is "the world's leading authority on John Cassavetes,"as he is wont to do at the drop of a hat.

Other than this refreshing break from Mr. Carney's relentless self-promotion, the "brand new rant"seems little more than yet another regurgitation of his trademark, shopworn blend of pontification, sneering disdain and mind-boggling arrogance written up by (no surprise here) another of his acolytes.

Mr. Carney has successfully "branded"himself as a rebellious outsider, but when one takes into consideration statements like his snorting, categorical dismissal of, say, Steven Spielberg's capacity to think about the limits, implications and context of his craft—a summary, personal, ad hominem attack (made, I'll warrant, without having ever spent any time in Mr. Spielberg's company)—one can't help but think that outside is exactly where Mr. Carney belongs.

Mr. Carney, in my opinion, has no place in a publication aimed at the community of creative artists; let him remain outside—or better yet, perched on his proverbial ivory tower, preaching to the choir, where he seems to enjoy the attention generated by his increasingly shrill, banal and insulting academic carping at the expense of actual filmmakers.

—Michael Sheehan, Chicago, IL