“Writing Movies for Fun and Profit” offered an interesting take on how movies are written and produced, and the formulaic process behind their success, which I have never really thought about.
If I were ever crazy enough to write a screenplay, this seems like pretty straightforward, solid advice. But I looked into this essay a little more and found out that the two guys who wrote it, Tom Lennon (who I loved in 17 Again, shamefully enough) and Ben Garant, are known chiefly for Night at the Museum, Herbie: Fully Loaded, and Reno: 911.
It’s interesting because while these aren’t movies that are really known for their stylistic nuances and charming prose, they did make money - Night at the Museum made half a billion dollars within the first five months of its premiere in theaters.
Reading an essay like this that’s written from the perspective of these two writers/actors is interesting because I wonder if screenwriters from different genres that aren’t necessarily action or comedy (which I feel like these authors are mostly referencing - though not exclusively) would approach the screenwriting process differently. I wonder what kinds of “nonconventional” (by the authors’ definition) movies exist that don’t follow this three-act formula and have still done well. I’m not much of a movie buff, so I don’t have a lot to go off of, but I’d love to discuss how the authors’ ideas can be reinterpreted. What about foreign films or non-Hollywood productions?
I guess my main point is that while I find their advice credible, I really hated Herbie: Fully Loaded and it’s hard for me have 100% faith in the people that made that happen.
