Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Amazon studios

studios.amazon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 91 posts

Re: Amazon studios

#71

Post by jonnathanson »

wisty wrote: post #69
jonnathanson wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First-time specs rarely sell for much higher than the low sixes. After that, a writer usually finds himself jobbing around town on low-paying rewrite and polishing gigs on existing studio projects. It could be years before a young writer, hot off the sale of a spec script, ever cracks mid-sixes on his next payday. And he may even sell multiple specs, never to see a single one made. So I'd argue that Amazon offers a c…

So it's not a great deal, but script writers rarely get great deals.

Typically not, unless they manage to get really lucky and find their script in a bidding war the first time out the gate. Or unless they get a script actually made into a movie (very rare, even for successfully beginning screenwriters), and the movie does well. Once you start hitting it big in screenwriting, you can make a very nice living. But most writers go through a very long dues-paying period, and that's not including the ones who never even make it to the starting gate.

Now, some people might be tempted to say "But if I can make a couple hundred thousand from a spec sale, can't I just write a ton of specs and get rich?" Probably not. The way to become known amongst studios is to take a bunch of rewriting or project-based jobs, preferably after having sold a debut spec. If you figure that the average spec could take anywhere from 6 months to a year to write, and that most specs don't sell, you're looking at a very uncertain income stream. And even if you do make a nice sale, you have to factor in everybody's cut: agency, manager (if you have one), lawyer, taxes, etc.

In general, screenwriting follows the pay function common to most of Hollywood: you spend a long time making close to nothing, but if you ever manage to make it to the higher echelons, you can make a killing. Skill plays a role in this journey, but luck is arguably even more important. Understandably, not everyone has the stomach for it. If you want to get rich, there are far easier and better paths to doing so.

Writing is really a game you have to be in because you love it so much that you can't imagine doing anything else. It can be a fun lifestyle if you manage to make ends meet, and a great lifestyle if you manage to become successful at it.

Re: Amazon studios

#72

Post by cschwarm »

DrJokepu wrote: post #41

I am a little concerned that such a democratic creative process will lead to the redditification of motion picture; only kumbaya-style movies that make you warm inside, approved by the hive mind will ever be made, while controversial pieces of works that ask questions or raise issues most people are not prepared to listen to yet will never be realised. Which would be a shame because that's one of the important roles…

>I am a little concerned that such a democratic creative process will lead to the redditification of motion picture;

The conflict between art and craft is present in almost every kind of media, in my opinion: Whether it's books, music, or movies. The only difference is that some media are cheaper to produce and thus more open to art.

The higher the up-front costs for a medium, the less room for art. If it isn't resolved on the script level, it will get punished at the box office.

I assume, this is what worries Amazon, too: Writers who think of themselves as artists are probably those who are unlikely to sell their script(s); but they are also the ones desperate enough to submit it to Amazon. There might be a nice idea in some of these scripts, but they probably need some additional work.

Of course, a bunch of guys who have no clue about art or craft aren't going to produce anything worthwhile, no matter how many of them participate.

Re: Amazon studios

#73

Post by wisty »

jonnathanson wrote: post #71
wisty wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So it's not a great deal, but script writers rarely get great deals.

Typically not, unless they manage to get really lucky and find their script in a bidding war the first time out the gate. Or unless they get a script actually made into a movie (very rare, even for successfully beginning screenwriters), and the movie does well. Once you start hitting it big in screenwriting, you can make a very nice living. But most writers go through a very long dues-paying period, and that's not in…

Would TV scripts be better than movies? You wouldn't need too much trust to start with (there's less production costs at stake, and you are working within an established framework), and there's opportunities on both sides if you are any good (you get to write subsequent episodes, and they get another writer).

Or would TV shows have enough writers already?

Re: Amazon studios

#74

Post by jonnathanson »

wisty wrote: post #73
jonnathanson wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Typically not, unless they manage to get really lucky and find their script in a bidding war the first time out the gate. Or unless they get a script actually made into a movie (very rare, even for successfully beginning screenwriters), and the movie does well. Once you start hitting it big in screenwriting, you can make a very nice living. But most writers go through a very long dues-paying period, and that's not in…

Would TV scripts be better than movies? You wouldn't need too much trust to start with (there's less production costs at stake, and you are working within an established framework), and there's opportunities on both sides if you are any good (you get to write subsequent episodes, and they get another writer). Or would TV shows have enough writers already?

I'm not sure I understand your question. Are you asking whether the TV business is easier to disrupt (for Amazon or others)? I'd argue that yes, it is, precisely because its distribution channels and ad dollars are much more easily shifted into digital and social channels. And because production costs are much lower. The minimum viable product for a TV show is, typically at least, considerably less costly and less time consuming than the minimum viable movie. It's very hard to make a blockbuster movie whose special effects, action, and production values rival those of a Hollywood blockbuster. But it's considerably less hard to make a low-budget, independent series that's every bit as funny as a mainstream series.

Or are you asking whether it's easier to become successful as a TV writer? Again, the answer is probably yes. You stand an equally tough time breaking into the TV writing business, but if you can get staffed on a show, you can make a respectable and steady income. TV writing is much more like an office job than movie writing is. You work on a staff, you usually have an office to which you show up everyday, you make a salary, you can get promoted up the staffing ranks every few years, and so forth. Of course, there's still some uncertainty in the mix. Not every pilot goes to series, and not every series lasts very long. And "staffing season," the period of the year in which shows staff up with writers, is fiercely competitive. But there's a lot of light at the end of the tunnel, provided you can make it there. At the top of the TV writing pyramid, you have show-running executive producers and creators. If one of their shows is very successful, these folks can do extremely well for themselves.

Re: Amazon studios

#75

Post by wisty »

jonnathanson wrote: post #74
wisty wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would TV scripts be better than movies? You wouldn't need too much trust to start with (there's less production costs at stake, and you are working within an established framework), and there's opportunities on both sides if you are any good (you get to write subsequent episodes, and they get another writer). Or would TV shows have enough writers already?

I'm not sure I understand your question. Are you asking whether the TV business is easier to disrupt (for Amazon or others)? I'd argue that yes, it is, precisely because its distribution channels and ad dollars are much more easily shifted into digital and social channels. And because production costs are much lower. The minimum viable product for a TV show is, typically at least, considerably less costly and less ti…

I was asking about becoming a TV writer, though your first point is also very interesting.

Re: Amazon studios

#76

Post by TylerE »

GuiA wrote: post #50
firefoxman1 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I'm not a Redditor, but I've seen some of the most controversial topics make it to the top page. Heck, even the whole SOPA debate, which hardly got any traditional media coverage, was king of HN and Reddit these past few weeks. And yesterday I read a great AMA from a former prostitute. Let's see that subject get any traditional media time.

The SOPA debate was hardly a controversial topic for HN/Reddit. Websites like Reddit definitely have great content, but as parent commenter pointed out, this content is necessarily the kind of content that appeals to the average user, and there is no room for outliers.

Doesn't have to be.

Hint: Unsubscribe from any sub-reddit that new users default to being subscribed to...

Re: Amazon studios

#77

Post by FreakLegion »

danssig wrote: post #70
FreakLegion wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your odds are astronomically worse with Amazon, actually, because by submitting to them you grant them an exclusive option on your work. Hollywood works in the opposite way, with studios competing (and, thus, cutting bigger checks) for good scripts. There are hundreds of ways to sell a script in Hollywood. There's only one way to sell a script on Amazon. So, if your script's been floating around for a year or two and…

Well, Hollywood also has a reputation for simply stealing a script if they like it.

It's true that this is a common belief among outsiders, but it's not true that it's actually...true.

Re: Amazon studios

#78

Post by FreakLegion »

wisty wrote: post #75
jonnathanson wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I understand your question. Are you asking whether the TV business is easier to disrupt (for Amazon or others)? I'd argue that yes, it is, precisely because its distribution channels and ad dollars are much more easily shifted into digital and social channels. And because production costs are much lower. The minimum viable product for a TV show is, typically at least, considerably less costly and less ti…

I was asking about becoming a TV writer, though your first point is also very interesting.

TV writers do tend to make more money than movie writers. They also tend to have more creative control (in TV, directors are usually the ones who play second fiddle), but they also have to work harder. It isn't really the case anymore that the top movie writers do better than the top TV writers, either. Show runners, who are almost always also head writers, are all making "fuck you" money. I believe Matt Weiner of Mad Men is still the highest paid, at an estimated $8-10 million per year:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/31/mad-men-matthew-wei...

Re: Amazon studios

#79

Post by onemoreact »

FreakLegion wrote: post #77
danssig wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, Hollywood also has a reputation for simply stealing a script if they like it.

It's true that this is a common belief among outsiders, but it's not true that it's actually...true.

Do you have a better expiation for how often multiple studio's put out near identical movies at the same time?

Re: Amazon studios

#80

Post by jonnathanson »

FreakLegion wrote: post #78
wisty wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was asking about becoming a TV writer, though your first point is also very interesting.

TV writers do tend to make more money than movie writers. They also tend to have more creative control (in TV, directors are usually the ones who play second fiddle), but they also have to work harder. It isn't really the case anymore that the top movie writers do better than the top TV writers, either. Show runners, who are almost always also head writers, are all making "fuck you" money. I believe Matt Weiner of Ma…

Weiner is king of the hill right now, but it also must be said that serious, crazy fuck-you money happens if your show gets sold into mass syndication. Larry David has made north of $800 million off of Seinfeld. David E. Kelley is worth somewhere in the range of $250 to $300 million, and Steven Bochco is close to $200 million. The late Aaron Spelling was worth about $300 million, as well.

Of course, the days of such lucrative syndication and residual deals are probably numbered. My prediction is that, as content distribution opens up, TV writers will find it easier to become a millionaire, but harder to become a quasi-billionaire. We're entering a world in which there will be fewer Larry Davids, but more Matthew Weiners. Either way, TV writing will continue to be very lucrative at the top of the field.

And the path to the top may get shorter. The days of paying dues for 10 years at the staff/producer level before having enough juice to sell an original series are relics of the network TV business as it currently exists and has existed; the democratization of distribution, and the hunger of new distributors for original content, will open up the field to younger writers. More and more young writers will get their start shooting spec pilots or series, too, and not just trying to get staffed on existing shows. It's not unheard of, this day and age, to make a name for oneself on the internet and then get drafted by Hollywood. Look at Andy Samberg and his Lonely Island cohort, for instance.

Post reply on HN