• Wondering which camera, gear, computer, or software to buy? Ask in our Gear Guide.

It is utterly IMMORAL to encourage new writers

I am utterly baffled why so many would engage in the raw evil of encouraging new writers.

There are four very, very good reasons why one should never encourage new writers:-

1. Encouraging new writers is the equivalent of trying to popularise taking up Russian Roulette as a sport. It is going to be an utter beating out there. 250,000 screenplays arrive each year in Tinseltown, of which just 600 are made and about 200 provide a sustainable living.

2. In an already crowed, packed field, encouraging someone talentless undermines hard working talented people, struggling to make ends meet.

3. In encouraging talentless people to take up writing, one is, de facto, encouraging them NOT to do what they are actually talented at, deriving them of a living and the world of whatever they are actually taleted at.

4. People generally work hard for their money. It is disgusting to see audiences waste their hard earned dough of watching utter crap produced from someone's bad screenplay.
 
Well, nobody lives forever. If the industry won't have knew writers, it will die out along with the already established writers.

Now about talent. Normally, one wouldn't struggle to write and sell (or film) his screenplay, unless he really wants to... no, no just wants to - obsessed with it! Talent is what responsible for this obsession. When you pick a random 4 y.o. kid, you can see that there is a certain thing he likes to do - this certain thing is where his natural talent is.

Basically, the old cliche phrase of "do what you love to do", - actually means, - "Do what you are talented with". You can call it predestination. Talentless people are very likely to give up themselves, no matter how you encourage them, because they find out they don't love writing. Encouraging is aimed at those who ARE talented, because talented people tend to give up as well.
 
Many individuals enjoy writing because they find it pleasurable and rewarding. It's stimulating to the brain, and I'd never discourage someone from writing if that is what they want to do. Additionally, a lot of writers work full time in a different field and then write as a hobby on the side. I see nothing wrong with encouraging writing and creativity even if most of the end products aren't up to your subjective standards, Editor. Unfortunately, none of your emotionally-deriveted points make sense.
 
Who judges the talented from the talentless? Is it you?

I certainly hope I wouldn't be judged by the first screen play I ever wrote. I've gotten a lot better now with a couple years of practice.

Here is a little story for you from when I was in 4th grade. There was an essay contest open to students from many schools, and our teacher picked the best ones from the class that she thought should be entered. Mine was not picked, but I took the initiative to enter mine anyway.

Guess who won?
I don't give a rats ass who believes in me on this forum, in the sense that I believe in myself and this is the path that I've chosen. No one is going to encourage or discourage me.

Each person is responsible for their own choices in life.
 
Last edited:
He sure makes dramatic comparisons.

First he said that not using uppercase when writing sounds in
a screenplay is as immoral as murder. Now encouraging a new
writer is the equivalent as trying to popularize Russian Roulette.
 
Well the bad writers will not find employment. It's natural selection. Except Michael Bay did his whole Transformers thing... That's garbage, yet somehow sucessful. I don't know where I'm going with this......
 
sighs....I am going to have to go ahead and discourage you from starting any more posts mate. Clearly writing posts that add value is not your strength...and according to your own argument here, we should not be encouraging you, but rather saving our breath for those that can and do add value.

Clearly to encourage you in writing more posts is an act of pure evil...and I don't wish to be titled as pure evil, so this is my kind way of letting you know that you should stop.
 
Now encouraging a new writer is the equivalent as trying to popularize Russian Roulette.

With some of the people I've met lately, I'd rather encourage them to play Russian Roulette than encourage them to write.

I do understand that there's a difference between not encouraging and discouraging. If we discourage new writers, we may miss out on the next great writers as they become the next wave of engineers, politicians, accountants or heaven forbid, film makers.
 
1. Encouraging new writers is the equivalent of trying to popularise taking up Russian Roulette as a sport. It is going to be an utter beating out there. 250,000 screenplays arrive each year in Tinseltown, of which just 600 are made and about 200 provide a sustainable living.
A lot of those asking questions here plan on filming their own works. They are writer/directors. Some are in high school, others in college while others are hobbyists. It seems so many cynical critics assume that writers only submit to Hollywood. Indie filmmakers shooting their own works want feedback and guidance. But even those just having questions deserve to have informed answers.

2. In an already crowed, packed field, encouraging someone talentless undermines hard working talented people, struggling to make ends meet.
Why teach people how to play a musical instrument? There is only a limited number of symphony orchestras and the positions are very competitive. There are so many musical avenues beyond the symphony. Sometimes people like just the sense of accomplishment and derive pleasure from the activity. Knowing how to play an instrument and enjoying it doesn't impact the number of musicians making a living. I'm not sure why you think the field is crowded. Looking at the number of projects coming out on YouTube, Vimeo, other VOD services. Where do you think all the films that appear in film festivals come from? Not everyone seeking guidance are pursuing this to make a living. Those who want this as a living, don't sit on their ass sending scripts out to contests. They get active in the industry and work their way up. Making it is not about luck or even so much talent but effort and networking. Those most cynical tend to think writing the 'perfect script' is their 'golden lottery ticket'.
3. In encouraging talentless people to take up writing, one is, de facto, encouraging them NOT to do what they are actually talented at, deriving them of a living and the world of whatever they are actually taleted at.
Screenwriting is a combination of art and craft. Most people can learn and develop their skill. While there is a degree of innate talent needed to get to the top of the field, it is possible to become proficient. Expanding one's experience, challenging oneself is an essential part of growing. A teacher can provide the tools and the guidance, not the innate talent. But sometimes a student surprises you and that can be rewarding. Teaching is, in part, an investment in the future.
4. People generally work hard for their money. It is disgusting to see audiences waste their hard earned dough of watching utter crap produced from someone's bad screenplay.
One, people have a right to spend their money on films that interest them. Nobody tells them they have to see a movie. While I don't always agree with what audiences choose to watch, the box office speaks volumes about the appeal of certain concepts. It drives future projects. That's why production houses have coverage done on scripts before optioning or purchasing a script.

Two, a film is a collaborative effort. A great script can be butchered by bad acting, directing and production quality. Similarly a bad script can sometimes be salvaged by good acting, great direction and high production. One should never assume that the film exactly mirrors the script. That's like assuming a film exactly mirrors the book upon which it's based. So unless it's your screenplay, it's impossible to say based on a theatrical release what the original screenplay was like from which the film was created.

It's wonderful that life can be baffling.
 
I have to disagree with Editor on this. I came here to ask for advice and feedback as a semi new writer. How would I improve if I just toil away at home with no feedback? New writers will try and if they are no good will get biored of it and go and find something they are good at.

I write at the moment to shoot my own stuff. I can't afford a writer or a script doctor. So I appeal to the good natured folks on this site to offer their insights. Which I've found to be (brutal) but invaluable.

So as a new blood on this forum, thanks to everyone who has read my little efforts so far.
 
You’re ignoring the fact that those “hard working talented people” were new writers once. I wonder if anybody engaged in the “raw evil” of encouraging those people?

I mean, how in the hell could Harvey Keitel have been so callous as to offer encouragement to that ‘new writer’ Quentin Tarantino? Evil bastard.
 
Encouraging new writers is the equivalent of trying to popularise taking up Russian Roulette as a sport.

........ how? You know, saying something outlandish doesn't make it true



encouraging someone talentless undermines hard working talented people

New does not mean talentless.


deriving them of a living and the world of whatever they are actually taleted at

Talent is gained through many hours of experience. You aren't born with it



It is disgusting to see audiences waste their hard earned dough of watching utter crap produced from someone's bad screenplay.

A "Bad screenplay" is purely subjective.
 
Well the bad writers will not find employment. It's natural selection. Except Michael Bay did his whole Transformers thing... That's garbage, yet somehow sucessful. I don't know where I'm going with this......

Perhaps that different people have different tastes and there are different demographics that writers can appeal to?
 
The title is silly and so are the given reasons.

Let's do a replacement experiment:

It is utterly immoral to encourage new businesses.
In an already crowed, packed field, encouraging someone talentless undermines hard working talented people, struggling to make ends meet.
BS businesses mostly implode. Businesses that get into trouble because of new kids on the block were either arrogant or already behind the curve. (2 reasons why GM had to be saved.)

It is utterly immoral to encourage new atletes.
Encouraging new atletes is the equivalent of trying to popularise taking up Russian Roulette as a sport. It is going to be an utter beating out there. 250,000 students play basketball each year, of which just 600 are noticed and about 200 have the skill to provide a sustainable living with it.
Most of those students might dream of such a carreer, but know they will have to settle for less.

It is utterly immoral to encourage procreation.
The more people there are, the harder it becomes for the ones who were here first.
(Actually: this one could be a valid argument, dependingon your point of view.)

Let's turn it around:
1. If only a handful of people would try to write screenplays. How would anyone be able to tell they are good?
From a big pond full of fish, the great fish can emerge. And some competition will keep everyone sharp.

2. That's protectionism. That line of thought would have prevented the steamengine.
Talentless people will mostly fail: they are no threat. It's harder for the talented people in general, not because there are so many 'bad writers', but because there is a economic system of invested interestsand a large group with talent. That makes it hard to get 'in'.
Last year of over 1000 new products from asia only 35 did well in reaching the market and getting profitable.
Without new people challenging what already is, there will be no progress.

3. Do you think that saying: 'no, you are not allowed to write. You must become a farmer.' will still work?
Yes, I believe everyone can be happy by forfilling his/her full potential by using their talents. But is it so bad if someone takes a small detour?
The talentless will eventually have to discover what makes them happy and excel. But you can't make carreerpaths for others in a stalinist way.

4. What are the chances that a bad screenplay gets made by a studio?
And what defines bad?

@Mussonman:

.....
Talent is gained through many hours of experience. You aren't born with it

Talent is something natural. Putting the hours in it to develop it turns it into skills.
(A subtle play of words ;) )

A "Bad screenplay" is purely subjective.

That's a whole different discussion: I think it is subjective to a certain degree. :P
When it really makes no sense anymore it could be bad from an objective point of view...
But like you said: one person might likewhat some else hates.
It's like music: hiphop is not my cup of tea. But there is still good and bad hiphop.
Or metal... yeah! :P
 
Last edited:
Writers should be encouraged because they have potential or are good. They should NOT be encouraged just beause they are "new". It deeply annoys me when people tell me that I should not tell people that they have a lousy script and are talentless when it is true.

PaulWrigtyThen IS talented and his work is a delight to read.
Quentin Tarrentino is ESTABLISHED, but I view his work and writing skills to be trash, certainly compared to PaulWrightyThen who IS talented and should be encouraged.

Thanks to people "encouraging new writers" and "networking", we have Michael Bay churning out utter rubbish with the budget of a medium sized African country's GDP, swallowing the hard-earned paycheques of many good decent folk. (Consider, according to one survay, more than 60% of the audience never knew that "The Island" was a put up job because they had all walked out of the cimena before it reached 20 minutes.

It makes me vomit.
 
By what criteria do you define talented or not? That is the question. Writing is not math, where 2+2=4, not 3 and not 5. There is no "right" answer in this.

P.S.
Michael Bay maybe makes bad movies, but his movies make money. So it's okay for the industry
 
It should be noted that Michael Bay is a director/producer/actor. He has no writing credits. He does have a ton of production experience that translates into his visual style of telling stories. He is successful. For many in the entertainment industry being successful is the measure of talent. Indeed from the Classical Latin, talentum referred to weight or sum of money. So in that sense, talent and success go hand in hand.

Just being new and/or making mistakes doesn't equate with being 'talentless'. Talent has more to do with sweat equity than innate skill. For all the skill demonstrated in a short exhibition of sports, dance, martial arts, etc. there are hours of training with failures and successes.

I agree there are lousy scripts out there. To be honest, there are a few people whose work never improves. One script reader put it aptly saying they are "story deaf". But I have choices. I can choose to offer a suggestion/insight that may help improve a 'lousy' script and allow some growth. I can remain silent if it really doesn't appeal to me or someone else has already addressed a deficiency.

I don't begrudge any writer being "successful", having their script (lousy or not) produced and marketed. The reality is that most successful writers write dozens of "lousy" scripts to get that one break. Often breaks come from networking inside the industry. The script is often the visible tip of the iceberg. Talent takes work. That's why those without talent lose interest.

To be truthful, if Michael Bay wanted to take one of my "lousy" scripts and make it into a film, I'd be overjoyed. My IMDb ranking would drop significantly. My other scripts and commissioned works would suddenly grow in demand. Though my work leans more to a Spielberg feel with fantasy/science fiction elements. One of my first "lousy" scripts was an 'Amazing Stories' episode involving Celtic mythology set in the forests of Dartmoor. I learned a lot from it and have overhauled it over the years. Optioned twice but never produced because it was too CGI effects intensive at the time.

Other than being early morning rambling, my point is that every screenwriter has a series of old scripts (perhaps honestly "lousy") that reflect a developing style and skill. Even if my 'lousy' Amazing Stories script were picked up and made into a film by a reputable non-Hollywood producer, I'd still be on top of the world to be paid and see my name in the credits. That is the measure of success. That is why many on this forum are writer/directors. They produce their own writings rather than sit back and wait for that call from the studio. They collaborate, helping each other realize their projects.

Lone wolves sitting back in armchairs will get passed over. They can be skilled writers but that's not the only element needed to succeed. To believe otherwise is wishful thinking. I have to say that 'talentless' is really more a description of being lazy and not putting in the effort needed to establish credibility. By working with a producer or directing my own work, I can create multiple film credits. I don't enter endless contests and waste money hoping for useful feedback and that it may lead to someone wanting my script. I get script feedback by working professionals--those I collaborate or network with. I work on my craft, learning about the industry, studying production and acting. In the acting community, the expression is 'werking', putting yourself out there so you become a lightning rod for opportunity. I think successful writers do the same.
 
Last edited:
What a thoroughly bizarre thread! Bizarre not only because you (the OP) don't seem to understand the nature of "talent" [1], nor only because you don't seem able to identify talent [2] but because with your own arguments you contradict yourself [3]!

1. You appear to be working under the misconception that talent is obvious. It's frequently only obvious in a developed, successful artist/musician/writer/etc. Until then, there may or may not be obvious signs of talent or potential talent. It's common that someone may appear to be relatively talentless, sometimes for many years. Then something happens which causes a change in attitude, approach and understanding, which in turn causes the previously largely hidden/dormant talent to flourish.
Furthermore, talent is only one part of the equation and by itself is usually relatively useless (or worse than useless!). I personally know people who you would have encouraged to play Russian roulette, who went on to become one of the best in the world in their chosen artistic field. I also personally know others who demonstrated extraordinary levels of talent, who according to your OP would definitely have been worthy of your encouragement but who never even made it to the ranks of "professional", let alone achieved the world leading status their talent indicated.

...we have Michael Bay churning out utter rubbish ... It makes me vomit.

2. With this statement you're essentially saying that you are incapable of identifying the good from the bad, as far as those tens of millions of "good decent folk" who are willing to spend their "hard-earned paycheques" and therefore as far as the film industry itself is concerned! If you were able to identify the good from the bad in these terms, then you would be able to identify the talent of Michael Bay.
You are equating good/bad with your personal preferences, if you like something it's good, if you dislike it, it's bad or "utter rubbish". This is a classic subjectivist mistake, your determination of good/bad would only be valid if your personal preferences were identical to the personal preferences of all those "good decent folks", which in this case they obviously aren't!

3. You can't have it both ways! If, as you imply/indicate, Michael Bay is effectively talentless (because he only creates garbage) and yet is one of the most successful modern filmmakers, then logic must dictate that there is no correlation between talent and success. Why then would you encourage the talented and discourage talentless if, as you indicate in your OP, the goal is success (a sustainable living in Tinseltown)? Regardless of whether or not the seemingly talentless should be encouraged to shoot themselves, your points/arguments only make any logical sense if you concede that Michael Bay is extremely talented!

G
 
Last edited:
Back
Top