u/wstdtmflms

Yeah. The industry's gone to shit. But not everybody is a producer. If your contention is that writers have to be producers now if they want their scripts to move into production, that's a conversation that can be had. But I'd still disagree with it because the foundation is still the writer teaming with a producer who is an expert in all those producorial activities. It's a partnership. What does a producer do if they refuse to even consider a script - even a great script - if it's not already broken down, budgeted, packaged with a director and two stars, and got 25% of its financing committed? At that point, the writer's already done the heavy lifting; they don't need a producer because they're doing the job of producing. At that point, all they need is finance counsel and finders to complete the financing. That's the reality!

"Everyone is a producer now" is a crutch because everybody can't be everything in any meaningful way. The successful writers are the ones who find producers who are passionate about the story and then who put their producer minds to work figuring out how to finance the movie. Somewhere along the way, a lot of producers became more interested in getting attached as producers than they did in actually producing, and so they shifted the burden upstream to the writers to handle all of this "pre-producing" before they decide whether they want to begin producing. That's just another way of saying they won't do their due diligence to decide if the investment of their time is worth it. The industry's catered to this. A producer doesn't have to buy a script anymore. A producer doesn't have to option a script anymore. A producer doesn't have to $1 option a script anymore. Hell, a producer doesn't even have to "option to negotiate" anymore. For almost 20 years, the industry's allowed shopping agreements to proliferate sending the barrier-to-entry for producers down to not only $0 in rights acquisition costs, but also $0 in transactional costs. But producers won't offer shopping agreements (dubious in their legal value anyway) unless and until all those benchmarks are reached?

Producing's hard. Producing's a gamble. But spec producing's always been hard and a gamble. The state of the industry hasn't changed the nature of producing, either in its job functions or its difficulty. It's only changed the likelihood that the gamble will pay off in a meaningful way. But that doesn't make it logical to pawn off the job functions of producing onto other people whose role is - by definition - not producing. Or one day the producers are gonna wake up and realize that they aren't writers or directors, but the writers and directors don't need them anymore because they forced them to do the producing for the producers.

I mean... Yeah? After all, they're screenwriters - not producers. They're highest and best use is writing - not producing. That's why they start looking for a producer or a manager/agent who can get their script to a producer. Unless producers want to be put out of a job, it's probably for the best that writers seek out producers who want to/can produce flicks from their scripts instead of becoming producers themselves. Why does a writer need a producer if the producers expect the writers to do the producers' jobs for them before they ever hear the logline?

Was the foregoing snarky? Yes. But for good reason: a writer's job is to write a great script. Period. Unless they are commissioned to write on an outline provided by a producer or director, their job is to author a great script and find a buyer later. And my, what a boring library every studio would have if the only spec that ever got produced was a low budget family drama and horror because that's what is easy to finance! I'm not intending to come down too hard on OP here. But when the title calls out screenwriters specifically for not taking on a non-screenwriting role, it makes me a little ouchy. Yes, if you're a writer who also wants to direct the flick, you'll likely also have to get used to the idea of producing, in which case I agree with 99% of OP's post. However, for many writers, it's a million and twenty one percent okay to not want to be a multihyphenate and to simply write a spec and look for the right producer to option it, generate a breakdown and budget, and create the business proposal/pitch deck later since that's a producer's job. If every writer is now expected to do a breakdown, a budget, a pitch deck, a sizzle reel and attachments just to market their script, then every spec writer should be getting a full producer credit, a full producing fee in addition to their writers fee, and backend for their producing in addition to backend for their writing.

We pretty much got it, but as a feature on Apple called Greyhound.

We should all get tickets to the Vance rallies and start a "fuck off, fatty!" chant.

Donald Trump spending more time in Kansas in a month than Roger Marshall did in the 5 1/2 years before this election.

That's crazy! The School of Digital Arts at the university I adjunct at has been the fastest growing school and degree program university wide for three years in a row now. I figured that other schools with more established programs would be crown jewels at the momet.

Yes, because god forbid a documentary be informative and based on accurate information. There's a word for what you just described, and it's not "documentary." The word you're looking for is "propaganda."

It's a terrible doc. It's not about one of corporate America's greatest villains of the last decade; it's about a woman who happens to be one of corporate America's greatest villains of the last decade. But the filmmakers never delve into her thoughts deeply, of at all, about that. What's the point of the documentary, then? What are we humanizing then? Why should we care? (In two words, we shouldn't). The Fyre doc dug more deeply into Billy McFarland than this doc did Holmes. And those guys only had McFarland for one interview. He refused to answer questions, he evaded, resisted, built straw men. But at least we got to see him evade and draw conclusions about him. No doubt, this was a slickly produced doc about a sensationalized subject. But it never goes deep enough to make me care about the subject matter beyond what I got from newspapers, news magazines, a documentary and a mini series a decade ago. But it'll probably win an Oscar.

Second screen screenwriting.

Don't worry about how the other instructors grade. As long as your rubrics and grading policies are obvious and apparent in your syllabus or elsewhere, you should be fine. If your retort can be "You knew what the expectations were at the beginning of the course," nobody in admin will have a problem with it unless they are a diploma mill "university."

The cruelty is the point.

You should look up Bela in Supernatural then!

I'll go you one better. They should have been reinforcing the fence every day. Even parking cars lengthwise along it (like the Rabbi did with the fence around the synagogue in FTWD) would have kept the weight of those bodies from collapsing it while they build an actual wall along the walk-along between the inner and outer fencing. The chainlink always should have been treated as a temporary solution.

If security wasn't an issue, give me the Greene Farm all day every day.

It absolutely infuriates me that the Dems - of all people - will do everything but make the cost of education lower, enact the SAVE Plan statutorily, cap all aggregate loan payments to 125% the principal, and make student loans dischargable in bankruptcy.

The context is immaterial. I was looking for a kit recommendation. Y'all decided to comment on collateral matters instead of just making the recommendation I was seeking. Other people got to it. No need to concern yourself with it now.

Which is exactly why I'm asking if anybody has any recommendations. If anybody's aware of new developments in the kit game that avoid that exact problem, I'd love to know.

Is there a reason everybody seems to find it necessary to comment on choices without full context, which I'm not obligated to give, instead of just answering the question that was actually asked? 🤷

Not really an option. The objective is a full 210 round load out. 7 mags at 1/3 capacity is just 70 rounds.

As an attorney, I'm much more interested in recruiting law students with clinical experience than I am students on law review and other publications. Providing me writing samples from real cases you're working on and taking me through your representation is much more enlightening about your competency as an attorney than managing a publicstion and cite checking other people's articles ever will be.

Uh huh... Remember that time Donald Trump was mentioned more than 10,000 times in the Epstein Files? 🤷

I'm not sure what you mean by "subjective." Nevertheless, I promise they aren't offering notes based on their personal tastes. They're offering notes like that because that's what you're paying them to do. An unvarnished "No, that's not fair use" or "That's a high risk use" would do you no good specifically because they are the experts and you are not. If all you want is a straight yes-or-no, you can tell them that's all you want. But it would do you zero good because all you know is the way you did make a use is high risk. But knowing that one way doesn't work doesn't mean you know what ways you could cut the flick to make the use actually work for your purposes. If all they said was "Nope, not a fair use" and then shut up, you'd be left groping around in the dark paying your lawyers more and more money every time you make a new cut instead of taking advice on how you can cut it for clearance.

It is approximately 1,372% paranoid to think your R&C attorneys are offering notes because they think they're better directors than you. As long as you pay your bills to them on time, they honestly don't care how good a director you are. They do care about doing good legal work for you and that includes offering advice and suggestions which are relevant to your film and not just general advice. Again, that's what you're paying them for. Whether you choose to take that advice because you've got a chip on your shoulder, or ran out of money, etc. is up to you. But, at the end of the day, they go to bed sleeping fine at night whether your flick gets distribution or not. So, you can either take their counsel at face value, or you can keep shopping for the opinion you want. For my money, it feels like you're going to spend money either way - either on more attorneys, or on editing - so if I was in your shoes, I'd rather spend it on editing that I know will clear the flick rather than spend it on more attorneys looking for the one that will tell me what I want to hear even if it's not what I want to hear.

But, also, let this be a lesson: next time, bring your R&C attorney in on earlier cuts before locking the edit and the mastering.

They can be. But you're effectively discussing exactly one factor in the fair use test. There are four factors that apply to every use. That you don't seem to know or understand that suggests you really ought to be listening to your attorneys instead of shopping for a third opinion.

His "we prepare for every game the same" coach speak BS would be easier to swallow if we were actually winning any of those other games. Sounds an awful lot like his process as a general proposition is flawed.