Re: the bold part: No. If (1) a solid screenplay (which you don’t have) had (b) called for this exact footage (which it wouldn’t have, as the footage is purposeless and unfocused) then (c) it might or might not be on its way to theatres right now, but probably not. Why? Because there are dozens, yea, thousands of videos like that on Youtube right now, and some of them are better, and it needs to be tied into the plot anyway.
I can see a lot of ways something like this (but more focused and more interesting) might tie into a plot. I can’t think of any way freerunning footage, no matter how compelling, could tie in with a cure for cancer, though.
But basically it’s just a bunch of people doing tricks, splice in with some scenery. It’s very nice scenery and the people doing the tricks are very talented but…I’m sorry to say your example isn’t even a very good example of a short video of freerunning.
Only two minutes! Lots of different ways to get around lots of different actual urban obstacles. A bit of interaction. No plot, but more of a situation. Plus “Big Chief” by Professor Longhair.
Incidentally, thanks for mentioning the 8 sequence structure. I’ve considered writing several stories and wrote one and every time, I ended up with an 8 sequence structure without even knowing it was a thing. The 4th chapter even ended in a way that was similar to the 8th.
No it isn’t, for the reasons mentioned in thread. If you do this and you don’t have rights to the song, you look like a complete amateur.
Hmm…
Hmmm…
Hmmmm…
HMMMMMMMM…
(Athletes aren’t as well trained at giving rejection as managers. That’s why managers are managers…)
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm…
Hahaha - what? It’s got some cinematography tricks, sure, but nothing that hasn’t been done a million times. What the hell is so novel about any of those shots? Please God don’t tell me time ramping, which is a staple of every action movie of the last 20 years.
You should go watch Thin Red Line, it’ll shit your top.
…
I feel like everyone has someone like this in their family, no? The one cousin or Uncle that makes holiday gatherings… interesting… because they insist they’ve invented/developed/idea’d something NOBODY has everthought of before. And you try to be nice and talk through the idea with them, according to reality as you’ve experienced it, but they see it as you not believing in them, or not listening to them, or whatever, and they get pissed off and leave.
The thing is, if a studio is setting out to make a blockbuster movie, they won’t shackle themselves to some amateur free-running footage they found on the internet. They’ll hire a group of top free-runners/stuntmen, go on location, and shoot exactly the footage they need. The cost of such a shoot is peanuts compared to all the other things that go into making a blockbuster movie.
Something else I’m not sure you’ve considered: Aside from the challenges of acquiring the rights, there’s also a union problem. All major productions in Hollywood are union gigs and there are strict rules about employing non-union talent. A movie that relies on extensive footage of non-union amateurs for its action sequences is likely to set off all sorts of alarm bells with the studio legal department.
It sounds to me like you’ve invented a process that you think would be a good tool for making feature movies. So you’ve decided you want to make a movie to showcase the tool. But that’s putting the cart before the horse. If that’s the case you should patent the process and license it to the movie studios – like Technicolor or THX sound. But you can’t sell a new tool by pitching film ideas. That’s a complete waste of time.
I’m developing a treatment of this thread as a Lego animation using Chuck Norris soundbites for all the dialogue. I guess I’ll post it on YouTube…
This has become a very interesting thread. Thanks for all the hard work.
Having had some minimal dealings with screenwriting and Hollywood and agents, the people who are answering you in this thread are correct. I’ll even go under the assumption that your work is genius and will blow people’s minds and 100% win Academy Awards if it’s made. You’ve got a guaranteed blockbuster, and your supplemental material is staggeringly good. Hollywood will do nothing with it in its current form. You need to submit a screenplay and only a screenplay, end of discussion. And you will 99.9999% need that screenplay to be represented by an agent before anyone will seriously look at it. I get that you think this concept is unfair, but that’s how it works, even for geniuses. When you interview for a job, they want a resume, not a bunch of high school essays you wrote or trophies from MENSA proving how bright you are along with a half-written CV. There are absolutely rules, and you’re not the one who gets to make them.
ETA: Your best bet is trying to find someone to independently finance the project, shoot and edit it, and then try to get distribution. If you want to sell it to Hollywood in anything other than screenplay form, that’s really your only option.
To be absolutely clear, I’m talking at this point about where to submit things when the screenplay is completed. I was aware this particular project is unlikely to fly without a good script. I’ve been asking theoretical questions, because if I knew how to pitch a project with *no *screenplay, then maybe I wouldn’t have to focus intensely on making this one 100%.
A project with a finished treatment, full musical score, professional storyboard, and 20 notable actors who’ve signed on, is a notable project of *intrinsic *substance. I won’t accept “no one anywhere will review anything like that”. I’ll accept that my *particular *project really *needs *one, but I can’t accept submitting it completely out of context with a much greater picture, and then only being able to present the bigger picture if the script happens to fly completely on its own terms.
I still can’t digest these basic illogical simplicities people are stuck on. Look:
A toaster does not exist.
I invent a toaster.
I sell the patent to GE.
I write a horror screenplay called “The killer toaster”.
My query says “This is about a ‘toaster’, and GE may half-fund a movie”.
Agency says “send us the script and GE contact info”.
I send the script.
Agency loves the script.
Agency calls Paramount who provide the other half of the funding.
Paramount works legal details out with GE marketing.
GE + Paramount > final film.
I can’t bend my brain around how you rip that apart and say it never works that way. You say blanket things like well a screenplay that involves an invention wouldn’t profit. That’s nuts. If that’s right, then we have to throw out every movie ever made in which an electronic device was an important component.
To be crystal, the cancer cure was a metaphor. If an unspeakably valuable invention was integrated into a screenplay that would be excellent and fly even if the content had nothing to do with a real-life cancer cure, then the reality of the cure existing at whatever precise stage of development and marketing you want to assign it, would make the project overwhelmingly valuable.
The metaphor is an extreme to point out the axiom that:
(great screenplay) + (real-world marketing applications) = better project than JUST (great screenplay)
THAT would warrant asking more of someone’s time than a skim of a screenplay looking for intrinsic profitable value outside of a greater context, and nullifies the absolution of all these claims that nobody wants to spend ABC time on XYZ.
Your inability to think up how my project might tie together all these miscellaneous parts isn’t a criticism. It just shows it’s creative, which doesn’t prove or disprove that it’s valuable, of course, but what you’re saying is a bit rhetorical. A great unorthodox project or a lousy unorthodox project are both going to result in you saying you can’t see it’s value on the surface.
OK, fine, here’s here’s a way a cancer cure could be tied in with freerunning footage in our theoretical scenario.
================
*Some kids are separately diagnosed with a rare form of cancer and given a year to live. They find each other through group therapy and become friends. They struggle coming to terms with the disease, but begin to overcome their fears by deciding to:
A) make maximum use of their bodies while they’re still healthy
B) tour exotic world locations to explore the world while they’re still in it
C) make a creative contribution to humanity to give their lives meaning
This combination leads them to invent “freerunning”, the performing of impressive acrobatics in outdoor settings. They travel the world and document their journey and struggles, achieving their goals, but still facing conflict as they loose the ability to freerun and travel.
Somewhere along the line, several medical gurus are moved by their story and dedicate time to developing a cure for their particular strain. Finally, by the end, the cure is fully developed, but not in time to save the kids. We’re left with mixed emotions, as the characters weren’t saved, yet their actions have made an even stronger impact on the world than they aimed for. There is now a new therapy for cancer patients (freerunning), and a standing new cancer cure.
*
The audience would exit this highly educated in freerunning, cancer, medical research, world locations, and the general creative process of overcoming struggles. …all of which exist in the real world!
Whatever the completion status of a project attempting to executing this film idea, it becomes more valuable and notable if:
A) this is about a cure was just developed in real life. That means a million more people will flock to the movie just to learn about the cure because anyone considering it would have to do a lot of tedious research anyway. They might as well get it from a crafted piece of profitable entertainment.
B) half the footage for it is already filmed, but has only been tapped for short one-hit online videos!
I’m really trying to digest your statements about what will/won’t increase the pitching value of a script in the system as it’s set up, but I have to put things through the filter that at least some of this advice is coming from people who have to have it spelled out how unspeakably valuable attachments can increase the profitability of a movie, even if there’s no time-honed process to deal with XYZ scenario. Creation means summoning something new. If you want to quote a time-tested process, how about that new innovations necessitate working *against *established habits?
Look, it’s very helpful to know how things work. The question is how to bypass those things when they don’t make any sense inside a certain framework. Stating Hollywood does XYZ doesn’t say anything negative except there’s a hurdle. Just in itself, I don’t sees how this makes sense. Lone screenplays have a universe of elements that need to be brought into play. How is the task of finding a composer to write original music, in a higher class of professionalism than negotiating legal rights? In other words, a lone screenplay doesn’t have the “rights” to any of the thousand things that need to happen to bring it to life. Why are legal negotiations the screenwriter’s job and not a lawyer’s?
This stigma (and I do believe you that it exists) especially doesn’t make sense in the scenario I’ve laid out. Look, take item B) above. Let’s suppose the screenplay is not 50%, but 99% reverse-engineered from existing freerunning footage, of a few authors extremely likely to say yes to a major film studio ready to flood them with royalties and mass exposure for doing almost nothing? How is that not a great pitch (assuming the screenplay is gold)? If it doesn’t click with Hollywood’s established processes, then how might I creatively go about proving its worth?
Only if the studio plans on giving you full artistic control. They probably won’t since you’re an unproven risk. They may like your idea but have a different actor set for the lead because they think he’s bankable. They may want to change some plot points, film it in Vancouver because it’s cheaper, and use an in-house music department. They may want to hire a proven director for the project who they trust to make a commercially successful film. Again, you’re asking them for their money. Unless you happen to be Spielberg or a young Orson Wells you are unlikely to get that much control with no track record. All of the things you think have intrinsic value may not be valuable to a studio since they plan on using your script as a starting point for their own vision.
Make a smaller version of the film yourself. Submit it to film festivals and get some folks to see what you can accomplish. It’s easier today to make a high quality independent film than ever before. Show them your vision AND your ability to turn that vision into reality.
Don’t go around saying an actor has “signed on” unless you have her under contract and you intend to pay her. Otherwise, you have nothing. You can’t start shooting with someone who is free to leave for a better gig, or has a paying gig somewhere else at the same time as your project. This is always, always a big deal in film and theater. Availability. Timing. Schedules. Name actors drop out of projects all the time when their window of available time closes.
Amateur musical scores have no value to Hollywood. If they’re going to spend the money to produce the project, they’ll spend the money for professional composers and sound designers.
Professional storyboard? Really? Who did this, and why do you think it’s professional?
You seem to think we just don’t comprehend what you’re pitching. We do. We’re telling you that’s not how it works. You’re not a known quantity. You don’t have a track record in Hollywood. So you’re stuck with offering them a screenplay. That’s all they’re going to accept from you. You can mention, if anyone shows interest in the screenplay, that you have other material to show them that further illustrates your vision and why it would be profitable, but movie studios have huge resources to handle things like the score and storyboards, staffed by professionals they trust (i.e., not you).
As to your final question: you go about proving its worth by giving them a screenplay they love. It’s baffling that you think a multi-billion dollar industry is going to cede all control to you because you’ve spent time and money creating supplemental materials to wow them with. They don’t give a shit. There are tons of people who try similar stunts. The only thing you’re showing them by offering more than a screenplay is that you’re an amateur who doesn’t understand how the process works.
If you want to do it your way, as I said: get independent funding for your project and actually make the film yourself. That’s the only way you’re going to get anything done without going through the usual screenplay route. If you still refuse to believe this is how it works, contact an agent (or hell, even a mail clerk at an agency or studio) and tell them your plan, and let us know their response.
If GE is actually willing to put up half the funding for the movie, then THAT is your pitch. You and GE work out an agreement between you in advance, and then you (or more likely GE) approach the studio with that deal already in place. I guarantee a bucket of money like that will get you noticed.
However, if you do not have a signed agreement with GE committing to being involved in the project, then mentioning it is pointless:
“GE might be willing to fund this.”
“Okay. Come back when you’ve finalized that deal and we’ll talk.”
It’s just like having an actor signed to the project, or having the rights to a video. It doesn’t mean anything unless you have it in writing.
I am not in the entertainment business. I have, however, been a gatekeeper for an organization that gave out grants. It was my job to look at the first round applications that people sent in to make sure that they met certain criteria before sending them higher up the food chain. I was involved in creating the application system, and we were quite specific in what we were looking for in the first round, and did not want to see anything else. If you made it past the first round, we would ask for more detail in the second round.
While I did not have decision making authority, I did have the power to reject applications that did not meet certain criteria without passing them along to the decision makers. In part because we had many more applications than we had funding, and the first cuts had to be made somewhere - and I was that somewhere.
I tell you that story for a reason. You have an idea to make a Hollywood film, but it apparently includes some unorthodox methods for making the film. Cool. Since you are not already a Hollywood player, with a proven track record, there are two ways to make this happen. The first is to make the film, or a version of the film, independently and hope it catches the eye of someone with the authority to greenlight a film.
The other method, which you have inquired about, is how to submit this project to a studio. What you need to accept, is that the first people to see your project are gatekeepers. Part of their job, as mine was, is to cull down the huge number of submissions they receive. Those people will not have the authority to approve your project, but they do have the authority to reject it if you haven’t met their basic criteria. One of those is a finished screenplay, which they will judge on certain merits. However, they have also been trained to look for certain red flags - and things like submitting other people’s video, music, etc. or even the suggestion of it without iron clad contracts with those people already in place will raise more red flags than May Day in Moscow.
Even your notion of “GE might fund this” could be a problem because for all you know studio X just signed a multi-billion dollar deal with Sony to promote their products exclusively in their films and now they won’t touch your movie.
So my advice to you is that instead of trying to figure out how to to package your partial screenplay + marketing options, or to bypass the system is to finish your screenplay and make the screenplay good enough to get past the first round of gatekeepers and on the desk of someone who has the authority to make a decision. Do not include any storyboards, music ideas, or notions of using other people’s footage - all of those only provide reasons for the gatekeepers to reject you. Then, maybe, when you are actually in a meeting with someone who matters, you might be asked to provide more information to flesh out the project. However, do not be surprised if your unorthodox suggestions are rejected.
If that seems like selling out your genius, than make the damn film yourself and prove us all wrong.
And to follow up - you answered your own question. Those things are not the screenwriter’s job, they are a lawyer’s job. More importantly the job of multiple lawyers. Movie studios have massive legal departments to do just that sort of thing. Unless you also specialize in contract law, you should not be doing that sort of thing.