I've read screenwriting books and they all seem to say that every script needs these very specific elements to be successful, but does that only apply to studio films and/or when you're selling a script?
Part of me is worried my feature screenplay (which I plan to shoot myself) doesn't have enough "going on" to keep people interested, but at the same time the feel I want for the film is a more realistic slice-of-life piece that focuses on my main character....
There's a fair difference between
a story a major or mini-major studio will finance and
one which often independent filmmakers will finance, the difference often being profit related.
A business is in business to exchange a product or service for a profitable return on their capital investment.
You don't goto work because you're being punished.
You goto work to exchange labor for a profitable return on your time and effort.
Apple doesn't make products just for fun.
Apple makes products to exchange labor + materials for a profitable return on their capital investment.
Even the government invests in the nation, other nations, the states, counties, cities, and certain businesses for an anticipated return on their revenue (taxes) spent.
Hospitals. Universities. Charities and other "non-profit" organizations are
actually in the profit making business.
A film studio is no different.
Film studios are not making films JUST because they're fun to spend money on.
Now,... art films are a whole other kettle of fish.
Art films are being made just like Billy Bob spends $25,000 on a fishing boat + motor + dock fees + gas + gear + license just to go fishing.
There's zero profit motive even though he's spending some serious coin.
Billy Bob's brother Zeke spent $30,000 for ATVs for his entire trailer park family. They have a great time making donuts on the mudflats on the far side of the local forest.
No profit motive on some serious money.
Billy Bob and Zeke's diabetic mom with macular degeneration loves to spend her disability money on 20x30 canvases which she paints with gobs of acrylic paints applied with a biscuit.
She makes two "paintings" a week.
It makes her happy.
Runs them out to the shed on her Little Rascal scooter.
Billy Bob and Zeke take the oldest "paintings" at the back of the shed to burn on Saturday evenings while they sip beer and reflect upon their week of fishing and muddin'.
They don't really think much about the cost of two canvases, six pints of acrylic paint, their mother's happiness when she paints, or their own expenditures for their recreation.
They don't invest.
They spend.
There are stories out there that no one to thousand people gives a d@mn about.
If a story is so boring people don't givadam then
you've got yourself a good candidate for a independent film.
Recently I've been watching some 2011 Sundance Festival feature films that have received distribution.
OMG.
They're mostly boring as sh!t.
I know darn good and well why studios didn't pick 'em up.
They aren't entertainment. Not by a large factor. Some. But not much.
They're art.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AsBznn8D13zOdGlCeDRmWTFCYXJRWjJ3SUphZDNzMGc#gid=0
(note columns X and Y on the first page, and then cell Y76.)
-
HOBO WITH A SHOTGUN Dumb schlock but fun if your like ridiculous splatter fliks, Director's use of colored lighting is especially notable.
-
I SAW THE DEVIL Fairly decent crazy man horror show
-
MARTHA MARCY MAY MARLENE **textbook indie film** Well acted. Martha's sister and husband are complete idiots. The story drags along something dull. I'm not even sure if it's worth watching.
-
MEEK'S CUTOFF **textbook indie film** Starts after they're already lost, plods along excruciatingly slow, ends before their before their dilemma is resolved or just barely suggested.
-
RED STATE **textbook indie film** Interesting, odd, campfire story. Kinda like three or four stories, really. In fact, in the otherwise poor DVD extras Kevin Smith actually states the story deliberately zig-zags to keep the audience off balance. He did well, but I understand the wishy-washy reviews. My first KS non-studio film.
-
TAKE SHELTER **textbook indie film** Slow. Self-naveling. I have no idea WTH they spent $5m on. Although the reviews are great, and while adequately well shot/acted/edited, I don't understand what the hub-bub is on this. Sorta disappointed. Thank God I could FFx2 with subtitles through much of it.
-
THE GUARD This is a very nice story. There's a couple of rough shots in there, but otherwise it's all very good. I wonder if the Irish think us Yanks are as curious as we them. Writer did a good job of creating one goofy character with Boyle. There were plenty of other interesting blokes, too.
-
WIN WIN **textbook indie film** What a nice, quirky little movie. The kid does a great job of being odd. A lovely story how sometimes 'deceiving' turns out to be for the better while being 'honest' can just make things get worse.
EDIT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendy_and_Lucy LOL. Same director as MEEK'S CUTOFF, also starring Michelle Williams.
I have the DVD for
THE LEDGE waiting for me to watch maybe tomorrow.
I suspect it'll be more dysfunctional melodrama that no profit motivated studio wanted to pick up so the writer just done it himself, like his four previous features despite having been writing plenty of other screenplays for other directors to shoot.
This one he couldn't unload, I bet.
If you're
writing a spec script to sell to a studio it had better be pretty darn interesting.
Interesting enough for them to INVEST tens of millions of dollars just to produce and more tens of millions to print and promote to generate 2.5 to 3 times their production budget in revenue just to break even, typically.
FWIW, unofficially "micro-budget films"
BEGIN at around $4million in production costs.
Below that and the film's considered a "no-budget film."
If the premise isn't interesting enough then they have literally forty-thousand other feature length screenplays EACH YEAR to consider. Most of which will also be sh!t -
I mean "non marketable great stories."
If you're
writing "a great story" that no studio believes they can provide a return on their stakeholder's investment then you've probably a good candidate for a self financed writer/director indie film.
Odds are you'll be SPENDING money on art, not INVESTING money in art.
And you know what? That's okay.
PS, +1 to what Josh just said in the post above!!
Word.
PPS, just checked your "About Me" page and see BLUE VALENTINE as one of your favorite films.
Yep, that's another textbook indie film. Dysfunction as entertainment. A well executed "great story". Not very entertaining, as in enjoyable.
I think you're in the right forest, Josh!

You might wanna check out some of 2010s indie films, as well:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AsBznn8D13zOdHh6cHJBMW5aQkZSMzZYR2V3VUxQVUE#gid=0
I'd recommend for you GET LOW, I AM LOVE, THE KILLER INSIDE ME, and surely you've seen WINTER'S BONE but I'll just lump it out there anyways. I bet you'd like CYRUS, too.