No blockbusters from me
“You’re a successful screenwriter now. Why are you still teaching at your age?” That’s an inquiry I frequently field. First, I’m still teaching at my age, 60 in four months, because I love the students. With a new semester starting, I look forward to meeting students new to me and catching up with those I already know. I realize it’s a tired trope, but being around young people, in my case mostly people ages 18 to 24, keeps an old dude young.
On top of that, I like the actual teaching. I like provoking thought. I like opening minds. And, as something of a ham, I like performing in front of classes.
As for being a “successful screenwriter,” I’ve had a few movies made, but I don’t exactly write big-budget movies, so I don’t exactly get huge paychecks for the films I write that do get made.
To make the big money one has to write big-budget movies, better known as blockbusters.
Here’s how screenwriters get paid: generally, the writer gets 1 to 2 percent of the movie’s budget. So if the screenwriter is hired to write, for example, yet another Fantastic Four sequel with an estimated $40-million budget, the screenwriter, if the writer’s agent can negotiate the 2 percent, would be paid $800,000.
I write films that generally have budgets between $200,000 and $400,000. If I’m paid 1 to 2 percent of the budget, how much do I get paid? You do the math. Then you pick up the check.
When they find out how the system works, people often ask, “Then why don’t you write a blockbuster?” Well, first, I’m not exactly being asked, and these blockbusters are almost always generated in-house at a studio.
Second, I’m not terribly interested in such movies. Sure, I’ve seen some of the recent blockbusters, and particularly enjoyed the “Guardians of the Galaxy” films, but superhero/slasher/ disaster films aren’t movies I long to see. I probably could write a blockbuster, and it might be fresh approach because I haven’t watched many such movies, but I don’t think that is the best qualification to write one.
My students, though, can’t wait to see the next superhero, or group of superheroes, movie. They love the fighting, the pyrotechnics, the noise, the general spectacle.
I love movies for character development, humor, drama. Sometimes blockbusters have those things, and when I hear they do, I’ll go watch, which means I don’t go to see such films often.
My wife and I traveled to theaters in Yuma twice in recent weeks to see “Eighth Grade” and “BlacKkKlansman.” (We don’t get many such critically acclaimed movies in Imperial Valley cinemas. We should all be offended by that.) Both are brilliant films, early favorites to win Academy Awards.
In trying to attract more television viewers, particularly younger viewers such as my students, the Academy Awards organization announced recently that this year’s program will include a new category for “Outstanding Achievement in Popular Film.” In other words, it’s an Oscar for best blockbuster.
Because I think of filmmaking as an art form, and I believe the Oscars are meant to honor that art form, I object a bit to that, although I understand the Academy Awards organizers’ logic.
Here’s an example of why: Over the last few years I’ve sometimes had my students watch and write about Academy Award-winning films for extra credit. One film I’ve had many watch is “Whiplash.”
Most love this story of a music student and his abusive instructor. When I ask if they would pay to see “Whiplash” in a movie theater, though, my students say something along the lines of, “I don’t go to movie theaters to see films like that. I go to see superhero movies.”
I just shake my head and laugh. “Kids,” I think.