Uberhack Damon Lindelof on Blockbuster Screenwriting

Quote :

Damon Lindelof, the ubiquitous ­screenwriter-producer whose name seems attached to all of Hollywood’s biggest blockbusters, is doing his damnedest to get small. This summer, he (along with fellow triage artists Drew Goddard and Christopher McQuarrie) miraculously pulled Brad Pitt out of the mass grave that was World War Z’s zombocalyptic original third act and restored the regular-guyness that made Pitt’s character work. He also resisted the temptation to threaten Earth’s existence (yet again!) at the end of Star Trek Into Darkness, focusing instead on a personal vendetta—albeit one enacted via a dizzying mile-high pursuit across a 23rd-century cityscape. But, hey, you have to give something to get something.
“We live in a commercial world, where you’ve gotta come up with ‘trailer moments’ and make the thing feel big and impressive and satisfying, especially in that summer-movie-theater construct,” says Lindelof. “But ultimately I do feel—even as a purveyor of it—slightly turned off by this destruction porn that has emerged and become very bold-faced this past summer. And again, guilty as charged. It’s hard not to do it, especially because a movie, if properly executed, feels like it’s escalating.”

That escalation can be felt across the entire film industry this summer, a season of unparalleled massiveness: more blockbusters released, more digital demolition per square foot, and more at stake than ever. The first tentpoles out of the gate did breakneck business, but a late run of expensive flops (and even respectable also-rans) has industry watchers reexamining Steven Spielberg’s prediction, in June, that Hollywood is headed for an “implosion”: An industry that makes only megamovies, prophesied the father of the megamovie, will die of its own gigantism.

http://www.vulture.com/2013/08/script-doctor-damon-lindelof-on-blockbuster-screenwriting.html

Quote :

“Once you spend more than $100 million on a movie, you have to save the world,” explains Lindelof.

What about SKYFALL?

A US$100M could finance 20 low budget films.

Anyone trying to get a foothold in the industry should think about whether their support for such shit is a good idea.

So the reason HackTrek failed is because nobody saved San Francisco from the uglier spaceship?

Gee, and I had about 4000 other reasons ...

God I hate Lindelof. The whole NuTrek team are overrated talents for sure. It's not that they've done NOTHING good, but put together they do nothing but reinforce each other's worse habits -- Abrams prefers style to substance, Orci and Kurtzman string grandiose setpieces together with the minimum of plot and characterization, and Lindelof believes that the longer you can avoid explaining anything that's going on the better your story is. Sub just one of them out for someone who knows what they're doing and the overall effort would be immensely improved but all together it's just a recipe for disaster. I mean, look what Lindelof did to PROMETHEUS -- a fine concept but rubbish execution thanks to Lindelof's penchant for "mystery" and desire to leave things open for a sequel that if it ever comes (doubt it) will probably still insist on not explaining anything.

The difference between ambiguity and what Lindelof does is that at least in cases like 2001, BLADE RUNNER, INCEPTION, etc. you got the sense that at least the writers themselves KNEW what was happening even if they were being sly with the audience, whereas with Lindelof you know there was never any plan to begin with (see: LOST), which when you mix it with O&K's "big explosions now, justify it with bullshit later" approach just becomes a complete mess.

It's a pretty great interview, whatever you might think of Lindelof.

It's funny how he mentions that the stakes should often be higher to justify its large budget and live up as a summer spectacle. Right. He's a Star Wars fan, as that had been brought up a lot. Let's look at EMPIRE, considered by many to be the best of all the films. What were the stakes on that film? Right, just the well being of the characters. No high stakes like a giant space station that can destroy planets, it didn't need any of that (and arguably JEDI didn't need it either).

No doubt why Lindelof insisted on turning Harrison into Khan in INTO DARKNESS, because there was no big threat for Earth he felt they needed to add another gimmick (and of course have a space ship crash onto San Fransisco bay for the trailers).

Harmsway wrote:

It's a pretty great interview, whatever you might think of Lindelof.

Yeah. I'm not his biggest fan but he's pretty good in interviews. For what it's worth, he's been much more outspoken about the Lost finale (and even Prometheus, for that matter) than I expected him to be. I guess I expected him to be a bit more defensive.

If he wrote a GALAXY QUEST sequel (heaven forbid), the motto would have to be changed to, 'always equivocate, never surrender.'

I hate to think his stock has gone back up for 'helping' wwz along.

I recently saw the newest Trek and I cannot even be bothered to write my review.
It's more or less at the level I had expected from the man who also gave us Prometheus.
Lindelof is what you get when someone's ego far outweighs his actual skills or talent.

Salomé wrote:

Lindelof is what you get when someone's ego far outweighs his actual skills or talent.

His ilk seem to be en vogue in Hollywood right now. Abrams, Whedon etc. My guess is their stock is artificially boosted by Hollywood's tracking of online chatter and the disproportionate representation of their fans when it comes to online chattering.

Whedon had very little experience making films until "The Avengers". The reason why he was brought in was because he got his start writing comic books for Marvel, and "The Avengers" needed a writer who was capable of tying together four separate film franchises into an overn-arching storyline. Given Whedon's familiarity with the characters and his ability to plan out storylines years in advance (stuff that happens in the fifth season if " Buffy the Vampire Slayer" was set up in the second season) he was the ideal choice for "The Avengers".

Still towing the company line, Caged Simian?

Not sure why Whedon gets lumped in with all the other hacks by many here, as I've found most of his stuff much more riveting than anything by Abrams, Lindelof, Kurtzman, Orci, ect combined. His only shortcoming is his tendency to have too many characters be jokey.

His unsuccessful attempt at retelling MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING shows he has some promise, and has more highbrow aspirations than the others mentioned, even if I don't like FIREFLY, SERENITY, BUFFY, DOLLHOUSE, AVENGERS etc..

He may have more potential, but the pedestal he is put on is beguiling to say the least. At almost 50 the biggest success he can claim is THE AVENGERS, which would've been a massive hit regardless of who directed it, and a couple of middle-brow niche tv shows with vocal fanbases. Spielberg he aint.

Harmsway wrote:

It's a pretty great interview, whatever you might think of Lindelof.

While I plead guilty for really liking the film Prometheus, in that interview Lindelof curiously reminds me of Hans Zimmer, I wonder why  .

Largo's Shark wrote:

Still towing the company line, Caged Simian?

Okay, if you were making the ultimate James Bond film, one that was the truest representation of the literary character and tied together as many of the unused elements from the novels as possible, would you hire a) JJ Abrams or b) a guy who is familiar with the character and Fleming's works to write the script?

If you chose b), then please explain to me why you would not do the same for a film like "The Avengers". I mean, common sense dictates that you're going to at least need someone who has written those characters before. And if that someone has experience working in film and television, why wouldn't you hire them? Or are you so short-sighted that you would only look at that person's name and the opinion if the fan community and think "no, he's clearly popular with the people who are going to love this film the most, so whatever he produces is going to be shit"?

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

Or are you so short-sighted that you would only look at that person's name and the opinion if the fan community and think "no, he's clearly popular with the people who are going to love this film the most, so whatever he produces is going to be shit"?

No - I'd only look at his CV and see what projects he'd been credited on. As it includes BUFFY, FIREFLY and DOLLHOUSE to name three, I'd tick his name off the list.

Sharkville is not a democracy, it's a dictatorship.

Even though none of those have anything to do with the actual content of the film you're trying to produce.