Make Your Story a Movie: Adapting Your Book or Story for Hollywood

Home

About

The Book

Bio

Story Services

Disclosures

Contact

Subscribe

Search...

Screenwriter / Producer Terry Rossio

(Extreme Interview)
by John Robert Marlow

TERRY ROSSIO is probably the highest-paid screenwriter in the history of the medium. He
prefers to write with a partner, which is almost invariably Ted Elliott. Together, theyve written
the screenplay and/or story for films such as: Aladdin; Godzilla; The Lone Ranger, Shrek; the
Pirates of the Caribbean, Zorro, and National Treasure movies; and far too many others to
mention here. Terry also co-wrote (with Bill Marsilii) the record-breaking Deja Vu spec script
which sold for $5 millionand Lightspeed, which sold for $3.5 million. Terry is also a producer.
(Read Terrys official bio here.)
I interviewed him for the book, Make Your Story a Movie: Adapting Your Book or Idea for
Hollywood. And while much of Terrys adaptation-specific advice appears there, it just wasnt
possible or appropriate to include (in that format) the wisdom he was kind enough to share on
other topics. And so you find it here

JRM: How did you break in, and how did you come to be where you are now?
Terry Rossio: Im going to try to not give the usual boilerplate answers in this interview, and
that means not going along with false presumptions, no matter how seemingly benign. The
question about breaking in seems perfectly legit, but really its not. A writer must create
compelling work, and then try to sell it. Once sold, the writer has to do the same thing again. Its
really not true that the writer breaks inthats an artifact of the belief that the person is being
judged, not the work, and also of the belief that there is an inside and an outside, which I dont
think exists. There are too many screenwriters out there with only a single credit for there to be
an inside, and too many writers on the outside making sales, to too many markets which are
either new, changing, or undefined.
In truth buyers are just not that organized, your buyer is not my buyer, or in some cases, you can
become your own buyer. Courtney Hunt was nominated for an Academy Award this year for best
screenplay for Frozen River, and shes never sold a screenplay. Is she on the inside or the

outside? In truth, anyone, at any time, can come up with South Park or Superman or Sandman,
and thats all that matters.
I know writers want to think its all about access, and its true that for me, at this point, I can get
a screenplay read, far easier than most. But that doesnt mean much if it doesnt sell, and no
writer is so inside that anything they write sells. Lawrence Kasdan has three unsold specs. Shane
Black has films he wants to get made he cant get made. When every studio passes on your
project, let me tell you, that feeling of being on the inside disappears fast.
Sure, of course, when it comes to breaking in, there are techniques to market work, which should
be used. Any single avenue is possibly correct, but you only know the right avenue in retrospect.
In our career, we broke in through sending query letters and spec screenplays, but so what? New
writers have to try every technique, all the time. This includes query letters, phone calls,
networking, contests, seminars, internships, working on spec, blind submissions, creating your
own website, making films on your own, working as an assistant, targeting an agent first,
targeting a production company first, working in other media, optioning properties, etc., etc., you
get the idea. One approach will eventually be effective, but that doesnt mean the other attempts
could have been avoided. You cant fire just one pellet out of a shotgun.
As to the second half of the questionhow did we come to be where we areI guess the thing
that gets overlooked is that we picked projects that had built-in high audience awareness.
Aladdin. Godzilla. Zorro. Sinbad. Pirates of the Caribbean. And now Lone Ranger. Weve
created some cultural awareness as wellMen in Black, Shrek, National Treasurewhich is
more difficult, but great when it happens.
***
JRM: You make it look easy. You say you chose projects with high audience awarenessbut
how did you come to be in a position to do that in the first place, when those properties were
owned by others? I guess what Im saying is, that may be how you and Ted became the 800pound gorillas of screenwritingbut how were you able to convince the plantation owners, so to
speak, to hand you the big bananas?
Terry Rossio: Its not as impossible as it seems. Stephen King gives up rights to his stories to
filmmakers for a dollar, if he is approached with the right level of expertise and passion. Thats
how Frank Darabont got started. There are many, many titles in the public domain. Anyone could
write a Medusa film, or Aphrodite, or Shakespeare in Love. Look what Broadway did with
Wicked, based on Baums novel. New books are published all the time where the film rights are
available. There are board games, obscure comics, foreign films where the rights are unwanted.
Heck, you could even approach Disney and try to get them to make a film from a theme park
ride, which we tried to do in 1992.
There are treasures to be found on the open assignments list. Ted and I were shocked to find
Mask of Zorro was an open writing assignment. Any writer with an agent had a chance to go
pitch on that. There are historical events (such as Titanic), biographic movies, such as Walk the

Line or Ray, or Milk or Nixon. Look what Scott Alexander and Larry Karaszewski have done in
their careers writing household name biographies.
Short of that, writers can choose to work on projects where at least the topic is universally
known. Do a disaster film about the moon crashing into Earth, for example. Or a horror film
about the monster under the bed. Or a kid catching cooties. Everyday common knowledge is
potential pop culture. Its not up to me to be creative and point out all the possibilities, thats up
to the writer. I dont mean to say that it is easy, but there is so much mental real estate out there, a
screenwriter should be able to grab onto something.
It does no good for writers to take a helpless stance.
***
JRM: Being probably the highest-paid screenwriter in historywhat does it take to get you
excited these days?
Terry Rossio: Oh, my. You say that like money is now out of the equation. I wish that were true.
Honestly, I dont expect to get any sympathy on this point at all, because Ive made so much
money, and even great writers in other fields make relatively little, but let me walk you through
it. Lets talk money, because no one ever does. A top tier screenplay deal these days might be for
a million dollars or more. Most are far, far less, but lets work with those crazy high numbers, in
fact lets say 2 million dollars, though nobody is paying that any more. Wow thats a lot of
money. But consider. With a writing partner, that gets cut down to $1,000,000.00, and after taxes,
lawyers, agents, managers, and the WGA, lets hope you get to keep $400,000.00.
Thats still a truckload of money, life changing, but they dont give you that all at once. It might
take six months to a year just to get the contract done, and the deal is contingent on the film
going into production, and if it does that might take a year or three or five, and also the WGA has
to grant full credit at the end of it all, which often doesnt happen. But lets say it all goes well,
which means the highest paid screenwriter in history is actually taking home around
$200,000.00 a year, at least on that one deal. Which is good money, real good money, more than
I ever imagined making, and let me tell you I do own a dream home in the hills but its not in
the fly-a-Learjet-to-your-own-private-island-in-the-Caribbean category.
So hey, yes, the money is great, yes, and lets hope we can all work on more than one project at a
time. But its also easy to put a couple hundred thousand down on a house, give some to mom
and dad, pay off a loan, hire an assistant, put some in savings, loan some cash to starving writer
friends and in a year or two or five its clear youre not through still needing to work for a
living, hopefully as a writer, back trying to sell a new pitch.
Of course, writers dont want to hear this. It makes them angry. They get suspicious, like youre
some kind of financial idiot, or you have a secret drug problem. They want to keep alive the
fiction that the top end of financial reward for screenwriters is up there with the actors, directors,
and producers. But there is a brutal glass ceiling for screenwriters. If Keira Knightly gets $15

million and a piece of the gross for just one film, thats more than Ive been paid in my entire 18
year career, every project combined.
So money is still a motivation. Because money is power in Hollywood. The deal structure of a
director, actor or producer can give them the resources to open a production company, option a
best selling novel, or finance a low budget film. You dont see writers doing those things.
But to answer the question. What gets me excited is the same thing that has always got me
excitedinventing a story. More precisely, heaving a big heavy idea into the pop culture pond
and seeing if its good enough to send ripples all around the world.
***
JRM: If you could go back and spend an hour with yourself before the Big Doors opened, what
advice would you offer? Put another way: what do you wish youd known when you started out?
Terry Rossio: You can guess the first part of my answer. There are no Big Doors. There is only
the challenge of writing Network, or The Sting, or Cabaret or Harry Potter. The project is the
challenge, always.
But what do I wish I had known? I would tell myself: become a director. My fear was always
that as director, I would have to know what I was doing. Over time it has become clear to me,
that was a useless worry. Yes, of course, talent, knowledge and ability are valuable assets, but
they are not strictly necessary. While many directors are brilliant, for example, Gore Verbinski
and Steven Spielberg are so capable and competent theyre like beings from another planet, it
was dumb of me to hold myself to that highest standard. Not when there are so many directors
out there who are cluelesswith ten times the power, ten time the control over content, ten times
the rewards of any screenwriter. You can get by in this town, quite often, by appearing confident
and yelling. The bad idea from the bully often beats the good ideas from the reasonable person.
Faint heart neer won fair lady.
This is a key point for screenwriters, because your only hope of success, renown, residuals and
more work comes from delivering stellar content to an audience. And the director controls the
content. So no matter how well you write it, if the director prefers shit, the audience will be
forced to eat shit.
***
JRM: How do you approach writingdo you have particular habits or working environments
that you find helpful, and how does the collaboration process work for you?
Terry Rossio: The only odd thing I do is take frequent long drives. For some reason, story
solutions seem to come to me while Im on the road. This may go back to when Ted and I started
out, and every meeting began with a 2-3 hour drive from Orange County to Hollywood.

Longest drive I ever took was from LA to Washington DC, leaving late Friday and arriving early
Monday morning for the cast and crew read-through of National Treasure. But that was more
about my fear of flying (and relative love of driving) than the working process.
Regarding the collaboration process, the best part of it is story invention through discussion.
When you articulate a story problem to someone else, you have to frame it, prep it for the
solution. Sometimes your framing is off, and youre making presumptions you shouldnt, and
your writing partner can spot that. Sometimes the framing is done so well the solution is readily
apparent.
Also, alone, the mind can wander. But if youre locked into a discussion, there is a discipline, a
commitment to not quitting until some kind of answer is found.
***
JRM: Its been said that nothing is more common than unsuccessful people with talent. So other
than the obviousan abundance of talentwhat do you believe makes you different from other
writers?
Terry Rossio: Ah, great question. I dont know the answer to that right off. But youve made
another questionable presumption. I do believe there are writers with an abundance of talent
that would be Stephen King, Harlan Ellison, David E. Kelley, Theodore Sturgeon, Rod Serling,
etc. Their first drafts are brilliant and they have a high level of output. Let me tell you, I do not
belong in that category.
Im just an average writer. But Ive learned the trick of applying what talent I possess many
times over to a project, elevating it a little each time. What you do is create from a personal,
subjective viewpoint, and then assess what youve done from an objective, audience viewpoint,
and then switch back to creating, and then back to assessing, etc. Essentially, I am an abundantly
talented editor.
But that doesnt answer the question. It should be noted that all of the success Ive had has been
in conjunction with others, with very talented writing partners. Maybe Im just good at picking
talented partners?
But no, thats not an answer. A couple things jump out. Weve never turned in a draft where we
felt it couldnt go into production the next day. There is such a thin membrane between done and
worth doing. It takes a certain insanity to achieve the needed level of denial and believe what
youre doing is worth the pain, because most drafts get rejected, most drafts get misread, and
every draft gets changed. But we never became jaded, we always managed to tell ourselves this
is the one, this is the one theyll want to make, as-is.
The other thing that comes to mind is weve never cared so much for dark, bleak, and cynical.
Though the entire town here seems to think thats what audiences want. And so dark, bleak and
cynical screenplays get attention, and dark, bleak and cynical films get made. Fine. That leaves
the top of the box office to us, and Steven Spielberg, and James Cameron, and David Koepp.

Whats really going on is producers, writers, development executives, directors and actors are
overly worried about looking not-cool. They fear corny so profoundly they err on the side of
long dark coats, neon lights, reflections in the water, smoke, blue lighting, black sunglasses, and
sneering looks. They are so afraid of heartfelt they take refuge in dim and bleak and ugly. Youve
never seen anything as funny as a producer wax all excited about how theyre going to reinvent
Superman, give him a costume of chain and black leather.
How else am I different? I think I have commercial sensibilities. Of course everyone in town
says that. But I truly want to write a film about the monster under the bed, or a window that
looks three days into the past. Those ideas seem good to me, more worth writing than, say, a
husband and wife struggle to survive a series of affairs and find meaning in their lives.
And Ill go ahead and addI never thought of myself as having a great work ethic, Ive always
felt lazy, indulgent and slow. But Ive discovered over the years thats not true, Im a pretty hard
worker. I work every night, on weekends; weve worked over the holidays; Ive given up travel
and parties and poker games, you could argue Ive traded having adventures in life for having
adventures on the page. Not sure at times whether thats a fair exchange, but it sure helps with
the career.
And I will also add: one does not face this task alone. I have on my side Heinlein, and Bradbury,
and Poe. Ellison, Shakespeare, and Chandler. Serling, Asimov, and Christie. Twain, Bach, and
Tolkien. Sturges, Simon, and Vonnegut. King, Sturgeon, and Chayefsky. Gaiman, Ashman, and
Matheson. You get the idea. Not to mention every episode of the Twilight Zone, Outer Limits,
Night Gallery, Dark Shadows, heck, all the great television shows Ive seen and all the great
films Ive watched, all the great comic books and comic strips Ive read. You have to come at
this job with a background in popular works of fiction, from all media.
***
JRM: Why did you choose to collaborate, rather than going soloand what made you decide to
continue that practice?
Terry Rossio: Lack of that abundance of talent you referred to earlier.
***
JRM: What goes through your head when you sit down to writewhat are you thinking?
Terry Rossio: Well, okay. Starting from the beginning the first issue to me, and most
important, is whether the concept of the movie is intrinsically compelling. I like to feel with
absolute certainty that the fundamental idea for the film is, without a doubt, an exceptional
premise, one that implies that a film must be made from it, without question. You want to cross
the finish line at the beginning of the race.
Next, I would ponder exactly why the concept is compelling. This is kind of like examining a
diamond from every angle under different lighting, against different backdrops. Yes, you know

its pretty, but what makes it so? And how does it achieve its beauty, and could it be enhanced
even more?
Once you know, perhaps, the several different ways a premise is compelling, you can attempt to
know how best to present it would the interesting stuff in it be better explored as comedy, or
a drama a police procedural, a western? Even if you have a genre in mind that seems obvious,
its worth thinking about how the idea plays in other genres.
Right away Ted and I start to see key images. There is nearly always a series of filmic images
naturally associated with every good film idea. As those images cometrailer momentswe try
to think of ways to link them or group them, to write toward them and away from them a plot
starts to form. (Its sad whenmuch laterone of the early, key images drops out, or falls away
from the spine of the eventual storyline.)
Next I would spend some time thinking about the all-important second idea. Since I fear working
on something that isnt great or compelling from the start, I want to stack the deck in our favor
by taking the first inspiration and going past it, add to it with a second inspiration. This is hard to
describe because it could be adding or merging the first concept with another concept from
another movie idea, or it could be coming up with some twist that derives from the original idea
and pushes it further. I guess at all times we keep thinking, how can we push this more than
what we have already. Can we do the entire concept in the first thirty pages, and then go from
there, and really blow the audience away? Again, this is all fear-based is it good enough? No,
not yet, it can get better, we can do more
I shouldnt go too far without starting to think about the main character relationship or
relationships in the film. (Note, not the main character, or characters, their histories and such.
Thats not so important. To me, the relationship between characters is what needs to be defined,
those are the moments audiences want to watch, and the actual characters can be adjusted to
make the main relationship or relationships the most interesting). That leads to thinking about
what kind of character, and character situation, is best to mine the concept, or take best
advantage of the concept or story arena.
As always, I would try to think of ways to push the characters into extremes, because this is my
personal weak point, and I would worry that my characters are too timid, or bland; too much a
reflection of myself, meaning my actual self or the self I wish to present to the world, and not
enough a reflection of my hidden self, my fears, experiences, dreams, wishful thinking, intuition,
hang-ups and psychosis; or at the least, not compelling or unique enough in an external-tomyself sense, as in, the worlds greatest detective (Sherlock Holmes) or a man ages backward
from birth (The Curious Case of Benjamin Button) or a man who lives 2000 years (Lazarus
Long); etc.
I try to think of situations, or evolving situations. I would start to explore what I would visualize
as possible umbrella situations (overall issues that are simple, and so allow for complex
exploration) as well as interesting sub-situations. My goal is from page one to present whatever
the story is in only a series of characters in situations where the information and issues appear
as a side effect of people dealing with immediate problems, with no relief.

I ask myself: have you made the mistake of making the secondary characters more interesting
than the leads?
Early in the process I want to focus on the ending. Nothing else matters, nothing will happen, no
project will be begun or get anywhere or make any progress at all until the ending is known. If
there is no satisfying ending, or at least the glimmer of one, then the idea will sit on the shelf.
Good endings are hard. But once you have it, then everything else derives from the ending,
because its all, in a sense, setting up that final twist, or emotion, or feeling, or thematic
statement, or rush of excitement, or chill, or brilliant payoff, or sublime wisdom, or whatever.
You always askwhat is the tone? Again, as part of that, back to genre are there genre
conventions that can be mixed, or used to advantage? Is this really a Romeo and Juliet story,
hiding, in disguise? Is it really the Count of Monte Cristo? Is it Guns of Navarone? Once Upon a
Time in the West? Is it an innocent on the run like North By Northwest? Is it a combination of
story patterns, or, is it something thats not been done before, or at least, I dont know that its
been done? If so, how do I see the pattern in my head?
Whats the title? If the project doesnt call to mind a cool title, then I start to suspect that its not
a good project, or Im not ready to write it yet.
Has a theme emerged yet? Its almost impossible to have the makings of a story without a theme
implied, but then you ask, is the theme trite, or is the opposite of the obvious theme more
interesting, or is there an entirely different theme that is actually better, more sublime, more
compelling? I would also explore whether all aspects of the theme, or central question of the
screenplay, can find form in the storyperhaps characters or character relationships can be
invented by assigning them different aspects of the thematic argument.
What is a compelling opening image?
At some point, after having a few scenes and images in mind, some characters, I would start to
wonderwhat is the point of view? It usually starts off flying all over the place to explore the
story, but is there some way to limit the point of view that would actually enhance the telling of
the story. (What if we revealed stuff from this character instead, how does that change the
emphasis, how does that change the unfolding narrative from the audiences point of view?)
At some point I would double checkis the setting right? What if I changed the gender of my
lead, would it matter? What if I opened at the end instead of the beginning? Would the whole
thing be better if the leads were ten years old? These are just routine questions used to double
check the whole creative process, shake things up, and make sure Im fully exploring all options.
I might askis this all really best suited as a screenplay is it really a novel, a short story, or a
play, or a comic book or a television series just masquerading as a feature screenplay?
I would double checkis this castable, is the budget under control, is it something that a director
might like to make are actors going to want to be in these roles I want the thing to get
made!

I would also double checkhave I fulfilled, and also exceeded the genre? If its a horror film is
it actually scary, if its a romance is it actually romantic? What are the reference films the
audience will bring to this?
I would wonderdoes it require a character as villain or is it not that type of film, is the conflict
not imbedded in one person? What if there were two villains? What if the villain turned out to be
the hero? What if we told the story from the point of view of the villain? Again, these are just
questions I would ask to assure myself Im not missing some obvious opportunity.
I guess at this point the process of generalizing breaks down hopefully Id have enough
answers to start getting into specific problem issues and story problem solving. I would start to
generate ongoing patternscharacter relationships, setting up reversals. I would want to build in
surprises. Id play around a lot with the lines of force which is just tracking each character
through the story, understanding that each would continue toward the path of what they want,
unless their wants change; but all actions are a result of intent and intent comes from desire. So if
I want the plot to work the characters desires have to be designed such that as a by-product the
plot works.
Over and again, I would ask: whats cool? Whats a cool sequence? Character? A cool line of
dialogue? A cool set, a cool exchange, a cool sequence? A cool relationship? Whats a cool
demise? Whats a cool fight sequence, a cool visual? A cool opening image? (And by cool I
mean actually cool, as in Superman becoming Clark Kent in one shot, or Jack Sparrow stepping
off a sinking ship, or Howard Beale yelling Im as mad as hell and Im not going to take this
any more, or Elliott and E.T. riding across the face of the moon, not the Hollywood version of
cool as mentioned before, all wet streets, neon lights, long black coats and grim-faced killers
shooting each other.)
Repeat this whole process several times, as needed, until in an excruciatingly slow process, each
solution asserts itself and declares itself, good and finally, when everything is good or you run
out of time, its done.
THEN you can start writing the screenplay
***
JRM: What are the most important things for a writer to know?
Terry Rossio: The first impulse is to say the difference between good and bad. But thats not
right, because there are many, many people who can recognize the difference between good and
bad. The most important thing for a writer to know is how to move something from bad to good.
This may be different for each writer. But unless you have a method, a process, a technique, or
an ability to move your work from not so good to better to okay now it works, youre in trouble.
The first step of knowing whats cool, I guess, is recognizing whats not cool which is very
rare when it comes to your own writing. The worst thing a writer can do is be finished and all
satisfied with the work, and be delighting in how good it is, because that means the work will

stop, and if it in fact sucks it will never get to not sucking, and your work will turn people away
rather than attract them.
My second impulse is to say www.wordplayer.com! (But then I have to add John Augusts site
as well.)
***
JRM:> What gets your attention and makes a script stand out from the crowd?
Terry Rossio: There are buyers and sellers in Hollywood. Writers, agents, even most producers,
are sellers. Im a seller. The opinions of sellers dont count, this question is more properly asked
of a buyer. I dont look at scripts to buy them, I dont look at other peoples screenplays much at
all.
Having said that, when I see a writer accomplish something I have trouble doing or I cant do at
all, of course Im impressed. Karey Kirkpatrick understands how to write those minimal scenes,
and uses a straightforward, clean style to great effect, cutting through all the unnecessary
embellishments and getting to the heart of a story. Damn him. I admire that. John Logan writes
performance dialogue so well; his dialogue is both natural sounding and reveals character. Love
his work.
The times I have read spec screenplays and been impressed, I have noticed, those screenplays
have a voice from the very first line, a sense of control, a sense of purpose. Every line is a
statement to a purpose. The writer leads and the reader follows.
***
JRM: What makes you think a script will be a chore to read, and is there anything you find
particularly lacking in todays scripts?
Terry Rossio: Its far too difficult to try to catalogue or characterize ineffective writing. It comes
in so many varied forms.
But I will point readers to a recent Wordplay column, called Scene Character [linked below].
So many screenplays, professional and amateur, execute scenes that are just kinda basic. They
look like scenes and smell like scenes, and the writer no doubt feels a sense of accomplishment
because writing anything coherent is difficult, but the real work of screenwriting hasnt even
been attempted. Anyone can write a scene. The job of the screenwriter is to give scenes
character, make each scene distinctive, the way characters are unique and distinctive.
We all know the basic forms. So if thats all youve accomplished, then why does anyone need to
hire you? In the article I make the argument, if you take the trouble to give character to your
characters, then go to the trouble of giving character to your scenes. Push past writing the basic
scene the basic way, try something ambitious and memorable.

I will also add that many screenplays out there seem woefully deficient regarding character
patterns. That issue makes up the largest category of screenplays that demand rewrites. Great
stories examine evolving and interesting character relationships; the character interaction
patterns are as important, or more so, than the plot patterns. Too many writers, I think, dont even
consider their stories from this point of viewtoo bad, because more than anything else, thats
the part of the work that will be judged, by the studios, producers, actors, directors and the
audience.
Finally, I will say beware of timid characters. Polite is your enemy. Meek is a fiend. Go for it.
***
JRM: What are some of the mistakes you see writers make in their approach to people or the
industry?
Terry Rossio: The most idiotic approach will work if the writing is genius. The best approach in
the world wont work if the writing is mediocre. The biggest mistake a writer can make
regarding their approach is to worry about their approach. Win the game by having better content
than anyone else, and the whole approach issue goes away.
This especially applies to when you get in the room. Have an opinion, and make sure you can
back that opinion. Essentially, be right. Be the person who has solutions, or at least the path to
the solutions. Be the person overflowing with character ideas, plot structures, filmic premises,
references to relevant novels and short stories, or works of nonfiction, applicable foreign films,
etc.
Its crazy to expect the big contract unless you can actually slam dunk the ball. And hit your free
throws. And make three point shots, and box out for the rebound. For writers, that means
providing ideas, answers, possibilities, solutions. We are the content creators of the town, so
ultimately, thats how we will be judged. I hate to say it, but most writers I know who are not
successful dont actually have Shawshank Redemption sitting on their hard drive, and cant
speak with confidence about point of view to executives, or havent come up with one or more of
those instant-sell high concept ideas. Given that harsh truth, why waste time worrying about your
approach?
Essentially, dont try to be Peter Benchley if you dont have Jaws. Dont try to be Michael
Crichton if you dont have Jurassic Park.
***
JRM: Aside from the script itself, what says to people in the businessHey, I want to work
with this writer?
Terry Rossio: Humor. Making people laugh. Thats the first thing that comes to mind. Maybe
not the most important, but its a factor. Funny is appealing.

Perhaps the most needed ability a writer must possess is the ability to instill a sense of
confidence in the buyer. They need to believe you have the answers, they need to believe the
solution to all their needs has just walked into the room. You have to alleviate their fears. They
need to believe you are not crazy, that youre not on drugs, that youre fast and capable. It makes
them feel more secure if you can show that you know the film must be marketed, that they are
going to have to attract a director, and movie stars, that the budget cant get out of control. That
you are willing to take on their problems as your problems. They want to know that you will
work with them on notes, that you can work with a director, or the studio head, or an actor, on
notes. They want to believe that you have a legitimate, successful take, and that choosing you
will never be a mistake, will never make them look bad that you have the solution and can
deliver the final shooting draft next week. And theres where the need for good content comes
back, only good content can truly, effectively allay their fears.
***
JRM: What says I dont want to work with this writer?
Terry Rossio: Well, the opposite of the above. The kiss of death is when a writer thinks
something is really super cool that just isnt cool at all. If the aesthetic doesnt match, then, to
quote Jimmy Buffett, its over from the start.
***
JRM: What are the odds of selling a spec as opposed to getting work from a spec that doesnt
sell?
Terry Rossio: There are no odds. Not in either case. That question presumes a reality that is in
no way connected to actual reality, making it difficult to form a response. (Have you noticed a
pattern? Im challenging the presumptions behind many of these questions.)
Consider that most projects dont sell and most writers dont get hired. The existence of those
projects and people does not increase, or decrease, anyone elses specific chance of getting any
type of sale or job meaning, then, the very concept of odds (which requires a playing field)
is a delusion.
Even trying to speak comparatively, you cant arrive at a conclusion. The first problem is with
the concept, or term, a spec as if all specs are one thing, as if they are all similar, like jars of
peanut butter lined up on the shelf. In the real world, there is no generic spec; there are only
individual screenplays of varying quality, read by individual people with varying ability to
understand them. LeBron James is not in competition with Ron Jeremy to make the starting
roster of the Cleveland Cavaliers, even if at some point they might have passed each other on the
street. Some screenplays cant miss selling, which gives them (I suppose) a 100% chance while
other screenplays wont sell, and have a 0% chance. Does that mean together, each has a 50%
chance? Nope.

Then there is the problem of the buyer. One buyer may have a 100% chance of not hiring
anyone, because the budget has been spent that year. A different buyer just sold a series and is
looking to ramp up a staff. Yes, there are more assignments available than sales, but that means
nothing on a case-by-case basis. In the world of film, something happens or it doesnt mostly
the latter.
We all have an impulse to try to generalize and spot patterns, but asking that question is like
asking what the odds are of a creature coming into your house through either the front door
or a side window, when the actual task at hand is specifically to go outside and paint a fence.
***
JRM: Theres a widespread perception that a big part of making it in Hollywood is who you
know. How true is thatand how does who you know stack up against what you know and
how good you are?
Terry Rossio: Here I go again. No, in fact that is not a widespread perception. It is only claimed
to be widespread perception. At least not at the point of breaking in. The prevailing opinion I am
familiar with is that your level of talent is what matters, because that determines who you get to
know. And of course that is correct.
Now, after you get to know people, yes of course, its important to know people, this is a town of
relationships. You must put together your team, or become a part of a team; that is the only path
to success. No film gets made without at least a dozen key people choosing to lay their careers
on the line to push it forward.
But thats like saying a big part of flying up to the space station is who you know. We dont
speak that way in the context of astronauts, and it makes just as little sense with screenwriters.
***
JRM: Related question: Its been said that there are three crucial elements to breaking in: talent,
access, and timing. Can you rate their relative importanceor would you alter the equation in
some way?
Terry Rossio: We have to talk about necessary but not sufficient conditions. Talent is necessary
but not sufficient, because there are many talented people who never break in. Access is
necessary but not sufficient, there are hundreds of thousands of people who have access who can
do nothing with it.
Timing only seems important in retrospect. If your project is great and it sells, then the timing
was perfect. But timing alone wont make a salethere are tens of thousands of projects that
have equally perfect timing, but their projects go nowhere. In the end, timing is usually
something that only works against youthe executive who loved the project gets fired, a similar
project is set up just before yours goes out, etc.

So what are the crucial elements? This is a very hard concept to truly appreciate, but Hollywood
is a place that grants huge rewards to the exact right thing and exerts disinterested punishment on
great stuff that is even just the tiniest bit off, as well as all the bad stuff. Its a lot like writing a hit
song; the difference between she loves you, yeah yeah yeah, versus she loves you, ooh, ooh,
ooh (to steal a moment from Peggy Sue Got Married) is profound. One is not almost as good as
the other, one works, the other doesnt.
This idea is so hard to convey because its so counter-intuitive. You think if you get something
90% right you should get 90% rewarded. It doesnt work like that. The world will give gobs of
money to Star Wars to watch Luke Skywalker, but it might not have been interested in The
Adventures of Luke Starkiller as Taken from the Journal of the Whills.
In the end you have to come up with the one single exact thing, and it has to be one hundred
percent exactly right. Sherlock Holmes. The Cat in the Hat. Mary Poppins. Napoleon Dynamite.
In the final analysis, the only element that matters is coming up with the exact thing that can
catch fire in the public consciousness. We are kin to the purveyors of the Pet Rock, The
Macarena, Catch-22, and the Hula-Hoop. Pet dirt would not have worked. The thing is the thing
and only the thing, and not some other thing.
***
JRM: How does a new guy or gal make contacts?
Terry Rossio: Contacts arent really that hard to make, and not really that important. Content is
what counts. Having said that, make contacts through
Internships. Film festivals. E-mails. Message boards. Query letters. Phone calls. Entry level jobs.
Parties. Friends. Family. Church. School. Seminars. Since you dont know what will work, you
have to do everything.
I will mention a few little known avenues that most people wont ever try, but they would work.
1. Offer to work for free with the people in the business you most admire. Sure it sucks to have
to work a second job to pay the bills, but this is your career were talking about, and you dont
have to do it forever. Six months working at a company you admire, even sweeping the floors,
and you leapfrog ahead in terms of learning and contacts.
2. Write a book, or start a newsletter, or author a series of interviews, on the people or companies
you admire. Best way to learn about anything is to write a book about it.
3. Throw a series of parties in Hollywood. Only a series of parties will work, and they have to be
really good parties. But I will tell you, there is no better way to meet a lot of people.
4. Create somethingwebisode series, graphic novel, short film, micro-budget film, novel, play.
After all, its really not so much about getting to know them, you want them to want to get to
know you.

***
JRM: What are the chances of making it in this business without a good rep?
Terry Rossio: Everyone in this business who ever made it, made it without a good rep, at least at
the beginning. So the odds are absolute that you can, even if it remains unknown if you will.
Really its only after you get something to happen, thats when the agents start to circle.
I think of agents as the water skiers behind the speedboat. Its up to me to get us all up to speed,
and to decide which direction to go, not run aground or hit a pier. I have to aim us toward the
ramp. After we reach the ramp, they are free to do their tricks back there, woo-hoo. But the agent
doesnt drive the boat, thats the writers job.
This is true even with an ongoing career. Agents are frighteningly incapable of making anything
happen, if the thing just doesnt want to happen. And I love my agents and my manager, we have
the best in town. But agents are not buyers, theyre sellers. An agent cant make a sale happen if
there is no interest, or get a film into production if a studio balks, or stop a director from ruining
a movie. What they do very, very well, is manage interest to your best advantage, when the
interest is present. Agents cant really make hot out of cold. But they can turn hot into yummy
soup.
***
JRM: Agent vs. managerwhich is best, or does a writer need both?
Terry Rossio: A writer has to get access, somehow, to that open assignments list, compiled by
each of the major agencies. And then the writer needs to get meetings to pitch on the best of
those assignments, the ones the writer believes can become hit movies, the ones the writer can
solve. You have to get in the room.
So I guess I will come down on the side that a writer needs an agent, because you need the
agency. But even a hip-pocket arrangement with an agent is enough. Even the most tentative
relationship with an agent can work. You just have to get to that binder, somehow. Once the
writer spots the job he wants, its up to the writer to get into the room (if the agent cant set it up)
and then, once in the room, get the job.
As to the question of agent vs. manager again, agents do not come in six packs. A good
manager is better than a bad agent. What matters is building a team, finding that person who is
competent and is truly on your side. That can be an agent, manager, or producer; that can be a
studio executive, that can turn out to be a production assistant who eventually goes on to run a
studio. Individuals matter, not titles.
***
JRM: Thoughts on manager-producers?

Terry Rossio: Most of the best producers are not managers, and most of the best managers are
not producers. Theres a generalization for you. But the exact right manager-producer could work
wonders for a writer.
Keep in mind agents, managers, and manager-producers are sellers. They may try to act like
buyers, but dont get swept up in that. Theres nothing more pointless than a bunch of sellers in a
room hyping each other up, with nary a buyer in sight.
While its good to have anyone out there on your side working for you (the business is that
difficult) ultimately you need a buyer on your side. You need a buyer and a great entertainment
attorney. An agent is great, but you cant fall into the trap of thinking that just having an agent
will cause deals to come your way.
***
JRM: What makes a good rep, and what are some of the things that tell you youre dealing with
a keeper?
Terry Rossio: A good rep takes your phone calls at least half the time right away, and never lets
24 hours pass without returning your call. There are other qualities, of course, but all bad reps
violate this rule and none of the good ones do.
Good reps dont give story notes. Sorry, they just dont. They may give a reaction to the read,
and they should give information to the screenwriter that may help the screenwriter better
understand the market at that particular moment, and they can be a sounding board for concepts
before a script is written. I dont know how the tradition of getting notes and doing unpaid
rewrites for reps started, but thats the last thing a writer needs, another hoop to jump through,
another opinion to battle. You can make the argument that many writers give drafts to their reps
that are terrible and in need of helpfine, but the solution to that problem is not notes from the
agent, the solution is for the writer to get better, and to get better on their own. You cant bring
the agent to the story meeting.
***
JRM: What are some signs of a bad repthings to watch out for?
Terry Rossio: When you meet an agent, if one of the first things they mention is how good they
are at developing material, and giving notes, I say run. Theyre just giving themselves an out, a
way to excuse not being able to effectively market your work. Everyone wants to be in
development, because it takes the pressure off. A lot of agents give notes to help cover the fact
that they havent done anything else for their client. But if a project cant be automatically
marketed and sold, its far better to skip the make-believe that something is actually happening
with the agent-rewrite, and just move on to something else.

A writer needs to have the same attitude the Coen brothers had from the beginning of their
careers. Everyone wanted to talk about the screenplay. We told them, No, the screenplay is
finished. Weve handled that. Now we need help making the movie.
Now you might point out, that only works if the writer has written something great, if the writer
has written something that really works, that doesnt actually need changes. And my answer to
that is a resounding yes. Exactly right. If the screenplay is anything less than that, the effort will
fail anywayand rightly so.
Of course, I do a disservice to all the times an agent read a draft and offered some fantastic
suggestions and insights, and the writer went on to reassess their own work, and do a muchneeded rewrite, and the work was vastly improved for the exchange, and then went on to sell.
There is nothing wrong with that, if it happens. But that should never become the target. You
cant count on co-writing something with your agent. The writer needs to be the expert on the
writing. If someone fixed your work for you, with an actual great idea you missed, that should
make you really pissed off, and you should endeavor for it to never happen again. The writer
should be vastly more capable than any agent, or anyone else in the world, when it comes to a
particular screenplay, else how could the writer ever hope to be hired?
***
JRM: Big agency vs. boutique vs. small agency: whats your take, pro and con?
Terry Rossio: Big agencies are better, because their open assignments list is more
comprehensive, with individual agents covering individual studios, then sharing the information.
Having said that, the most important aspect is really the person, not the company. The right
person can be found anywhere, better to have a responsive agent who is into your work at a small
agency than an agent you dont like at a large agency.
***
JRM: And of course, the eternal question: how does a writer get repped?
Terry Rossio: Create popular product.
***
JRM: How important are loglines, pitch-sheets, and treatments?
Terry Rossio: As important as the letter e and the proper use of the word as. Meaning, you
cant write without them, and you should endeavor to execute them to perfection.
***

JRM: Many writers believe its all on the pagethat once the script is in the right hands, the
writing will sell itself. In your opinion, how important is it to be good in a room, and to be able
to pitch the work in person?
Terry Rossio: All right, here we go.
There is a big problem in this field of screenwriting, and it has to do with the very word
screenwriter. What is meant by that term, exactly? Not what everyone seems to think. Not even
what screenwriters seem to think, for the most part. And its the cause of a huge amount of
disappointment, disillusionment, frustration, and grief.
People tend to believe this: as novelist is to novel, and playwright is to play, screenwriter is to
movie. And thats just not the case.
But its a compelling, persistent notion. The novelist or the playwright gets to define the content
of their projects, right? So it follows the screenwriter gets to define the movie, yes? No. The
screenwriter may only suggest content, or provide content that is subject to change, or revise the
content of other screenwriters until another screenwriter comes along, etc. The screenwriter may
have the opportunity to argue what the content should be, but quite often, has to execute the best
possible version of the content as defined by others.
As with the novelist or playwright, youd like to say the screenwriter at least gets to invent the
concept of a movie, but that doesnt happen as often as one might hope. They (studios and
producers) have plenty of ideas, theyd rather get your help on one of their marginal ideas than
put their weight behind one of yours, even if yours is clearly superior. And consider, there are so
many millions of books and short stories written, so many plays, and remakes, sequels, television
shows, and old spec scripts, etc., such a monstrous glut of material, in their world, new content is
not much valued.
So the only power a writer might have lies in the ability to provide superior content, but in a
world where few people can even recognize superior content, this power is greatly dissipated.
So what, then, is a Hollywood screenwriter? What is the more true, actual working definition of
that term? Something like this:
1. Person who writes screenplays, but cannot get them read.
2. Person who writes screenplays, but cannot get them sold.
3. Person who sells a screenplay that is considered in need of revisions.
4. Person who, when selling a screenplay, gives up copyright.
5. Person who is forced to sign a work for hire agreement, even on a spec screenplay that was
not written as work for hire.

6. Person who cannot get their sold screenplay into production.

7. Person who does free revisions, based on notes by non-filmmaking development executives,
whether those notes are good or bad, in order to get past that executive and to the actual decision
maker.
8. Person who writes and revises screenplays who cannot get a studio to send their screenplay
out to directors.
9. Person whose screenplay is passed on by directors and stars, thus stalling the project, but
generating more free revisions.
10. Person whose screenplay attracts a director, who is then replaced the day the director shows
interest.
11. Person who spends a lot of time preparing pitches on open assignments.
12. Person who pitches open assignments, but does not get hired.
13. Person who, without being hired, agrees to do free revisions on their open assignment pitch.
14. Person who writes treatments and outlines as part of a pitch or step deal, then gets let go prior
to the screenplay step.
15. Person who revises their spec screenplay, for free, according to their agents notes, in order to
get the agent to send out the screenplay.
16. Person who revises their spec screenplay, for free, so a big name producer might agree to
attach themselves to the project.
17. Person who revises their spec screenplay, for free, so a big name producer will agree to send
it out to directors or stars, hoping this path will lead to a studio deal.
18. Person who options their work for free to independent production companies who then show
the screenplay all around town, hoping to interest a director or star, often after the free rewrite
step, based on notes that may or may not be helpful.
19. Person who takes meetings with money people who in fact have no money.
20. Person who, when eventually working with a director, must execute the directors notes,
whether the notes are good or bad, and even when everyone in the world knows the notes are
bad.
21. Person who is the only person in the room not getting paid, even when everyone else in the
room has come to the room because of the project created by the screenwriter.

22. Person who gets no credit when writing the final version of a film, but who will be
guaranteed credit on a film that is vastly rewritten, and not reflective of their abilities or
sensibilities.
23. Person who creates work that can become the source material for other people to make a
film.
24. Person who is forced to co-write screenplays with people who dont know how to write
screenplays.
25. Person invited into the room to offer an opinion to directors, producers, actors, editors,
storyboard artists, animators, and special effects people, without any ability to enforce that
opinion.
And so, finally, we come to the answer to the questionhow important is it to be good in a
room, and to be able to pitch the work in person?which is a resounding very. The writer has
to be good in the room because that is really the job description. Nobody wants to follow the
screenplay; the screenplay (unlike a play) is always suspect. It gets in the way of people doing
what they want to do, which is define the content of the film.
(In Hollywood, defining the content of a movie is like sex, everyone thinks they can do it, and do
it well. And theyre not inclined to give up the chance to do it just so someone else can do it.)
Yes I know I belabor the point, but while the job description of screenwriter does involve writing
screenplays, it never involves leaving them in a fixed form, ready to be produced. The real job of
screenwriting is interacting with the group mind of the filmmaking process.
(Now, yes, I know, there are those who will happily point out exceptions, such as Juno, or Grand
Torino, projects where the screenplay reportedly was the exact description of the final film.
Those are the zebras of the horse world, and I must argue from the common case rather than the
rarity, the same way I refuse to say all horses have black and white stripes, even when the
occasional zebra runs past.)
***
JRM: For the writer, how important is it to read scriptsgood, bad, or indifferentas opposed
to watching movies?
Terry Rossio: Do both. But my opinion is that volume is more important than format. If you
can watch 10 movies or read 2 screenplays, I say watch the 10 movies.
***
JRM: What do you see as the pros and cons of television vs. feature work, from a writing and a
directing or producing standpoint?

Terry Rossio: If you can stand to work in television, you should. If you can handle the unique
requirements of television, then by all means you should pick television over features.
How do I justify this bold claim? Simple. Feature writers are generally unhappy, television
writers are generally happy. If you go the features route, the most common experience is to never
make a sale of any kind. After that, you may make a sale or two, but your life is wasted because
nothing ever gets produced. If something does get produced, in the majority of cases, its not the
way you would wishthe director screws it up, or there wasnt enough money, or the casting
was wrong, etc. If it does get produced in a halfway decent manner, great, but now youre at the
bottom of the hill again, trying to get a second thing produced. (Unlike directing or acting,
having one produced credit does little to get you your next produced credit.) At no point in
featuresever, doesnt matter if youre the number one highest grossing screenwriter in the
worlddoes your creative opinion count, unless the director decides to empower that opinion.
And, as a final insult, if you do actually get something up on screen that resembles what you
intended, there is a good chance the WGA will endeavor to leave you uncredited for your work.
That is, if a strike doesnt happen, and the one break you might have had to make your career is
gone forever. Meanwhile legions of new, talented, creative people arrive every day, crowding
into the overcrowded marketplace, making it more and more difficult to sustain a career.
At least in the world of television, once youre in, there is slightly more job security, slightly
better creative control, and more accurate credits.
***
JRM: Im afraid Im going to have to ask you to be a liiitle less encouraging here. And, heyis
this the same guy who spoke out against dark, bleak, and cynical, who never became jaded?
Terry Rossio: One has to be precise in ones thinking. Audiences crave films that are not dark,
bleak, and cynical. Therefore the product need not be dark, bleak, and cynical. That doesnt mean
I cant assess the Writers Guild of America as idiotic in its strike strategies or unfair in its credits
arbitration process, or that I cant hate the tendency of directors to alter good film content to bad.
Its the difference between choosing a strategy and acknowledging a reality. As for jaded, as I
mentioned before, it takes a supreme act of self-deception to believe that the next project will
turn out well, that the next draft will be shot as-is, because it never happens. Screenwriters are
the Charlie Browns of Hollywood, and everyone else holds the football.
***
JRM: Whats your best advice on finding a writing partner?
Terry Rossio: Im not sure it can be done. Finding a writing partner is like trying to be struck by
lightning. My radical position: your best luck is a spouse, or a brother or sister, or a childhood
friend, or a close friend who you like to hang out with anyway. Hooking up with a talented
person you dont really know very well so often leads to conflict, legal battles, and wasted time.

Most endeavors between writing partners will fail, so you at least should be spending time with
someone truly on your side, someone you want in the trenches with you.
The real trick is to find an arrangement where each writer secretly thinks the other writer is
better.
***
JRM: Should writers want to direct or produceand if so, why?
Terry Rossio: Of course. In features, the only good viable job opening for a writer who is just a
writer in Hollywood is screenwriter who has hooked up with an empowering director which is
very worthy, only its just so damn rare. Every other job for screenwriters in town, as mentioned
above, lands somewhere between court jester, royal food taster, nursemaid, and political advisor
to the King (with a secret agenda to assassinate the bastard).
Be careful, though. You dont do it the way you asked the question. You cant be a screenwriter
who also hopes to direct, or produce. If you love to write, you should decide quickly whether you
want to be a director who writes or a producer who writes. Dont position yourself as a
screenwriter who wants to do something else, or doing that something else will become very
difficult.
But definitely yes, especially when you consider the rewards. Become a director and you have a
chance at first dollar gross and creative control. If you have a few hit movies, you even get your
own production company, and digs on some studio lot. Check out Spielbergs Amblin facility,
for example, or Gore Verbinskis offices. They dont hand that stuff out to writers, ever.
***
JRM: What industry trends do you see that writers should be aware of right now?
Terry Rossio: The industry is moving toward the big and the small. I think studios will always
want a few of the high-budget high-profile projects. And there will be more and more of the
micro-budget stuff. Everything in between is getting cut back, the marketing costs and
production costs are too high, they dont make sense in a world of YouTube, video games, cable
programming, etc.
By all means, try to make your way to one of those big-budget projects. But also take time to
write and produce on the micro-budget scale, because thats where were all going to live in a
few years.
***
JRM: Any tips for those looking to follow in your footsteps?

Terry Rossio: Not all of those footsteps are worth following. We wasted a lot of time. I would
say to have enough faith in yourself to bail when the project goes bad. And have the faith to
leave bad people. You can tell when a project isnt going to be what you hoped it would be, and
throwing another couple of years at it really doesnt make sense. We would have been a lot more
successful if we had just learned to move on.
I think of it like this its always worth doing the first draft, or the last draft. All the in-between
drafts are suspect. People will insist on them, but rarely are they important. You can tell what the
project is trying to be from the first draft. And the last draft is crucial, the one where youre
making all the final creative decisions. The middle drafts, for the most part, those are just
babysitting.
***
JRM: Any suggested resources, other than Wordplay?
Terry Rossio: You know what? Read the books on screenwriting if you want, read Wordplay if
you want, but get through that stuff as quickly as you can and then scrap it all. Move on to
reading about playwriting, songwriting, novel writing, comic books, directing, special effects,
ancient myths, photography, childrens books, performing magic you get the idea. That type
of instruction is superior, in that it forces the writer to think and assimilate and theorize, to
explore how those techniques can be used and adapted to screenwriting, rather than read books
that promise answers.
***
JRM: Whats next for you?
Terry Rossio: Oh, no, I refuse to tempt the fates like that. Not in a world of plane crashes and
carjackings and flesh-eating bacteria. Theres no telling in this business whether anything I work
on will get completed, or produced, or be successful. Ill keep trying to invent pop culture,
through plays, books, scripts, and webisodes, via the studio system and independently, thats the
only claim Ill make.
***
JRM: Anything else youd like to say?
Terry Rossio: Lately Ive come to appreciate the importance of productivity. As ScriptGirl says,
You cant sell it if you dont write it. You can think youre being productive, but when you
look back over the last few years of work, its scary how fast time goes by and how little actually
get accomplished. Writers have to write, every day if possible, and you have to finish work, put it
out in the marketplace, and move on. In a world of disinterest and disdain, creating product is our
only weapon.

###
The Wordplay websiterun by Terry Rossio and longtime writing partner Ted Elliottcontains
a wealth of information for screenwriters.
This interview edited by Terry Rossio.

ADAPTATION
SERVICES

* ADAPTATION CODES used on this website indicate the type of source material on which the
films were based: ART (article in magazine, newspaper, etc.); BLG (blog); COM (comic book /
graphic novel); HIS (historic event); MLF (myth / legend / faery tale); MOV (movie remake /
spinoff); MOVs (movie short); NFB (nonfiction book); NOV (novel); SNG (song); STO (short
story); GAM (game / toy); THM (theme park / theme park ride); TRU (true-life story); TVS
(television series).
Leave a Comment
Name *

E-mail *

Website

Previous post: Script Sales: The Biggest of 2012, and Biggest Ever (Page Update)
Next post: How I Got an Agent in 8 Minutes, Over the Christmas Holiday, Without Asking to be
Represented

Blog Topics
o Adaptation (1)
o Book Excerpts (4)
o Interview (4)

Author (Novel) (2)

Producers (2)

Screenwriters (2)

o Pitching (4)
o Site Updates (4)
o Story Development (1)
o Uncategorized (2)

Twitter: john_marlow

o Return of the Dragon (Girl) http://t.co/7pbSLmTsvY #scriptchat #scribechat

#screenwriting #filmmaking #filmmakers #filmmaker #Digital 09:01:09 PM
March 17, 2015 ReplyRetweetFavorite
o Return of the Dragon (Girl) http://t.co/7pbSLmTsvY #selfpublishing #novels
#AmWriting #SelfPub #epub #author #Ebooks #IndieAuthors #litchat 08:59:02
PM March 17, 2015 ReplyRetweetFavorite
o Veronica Roth on INSURGENT trilogy adaptations: http://t.co/MNXBFZTxwU
#selfpublishing #novels #yalitchat #AmWriting #SelfPub#epub #author 04:55:04
PM March 16, 2015 ReplyRetweetFavorite

Resources
o Box Office
o Screenplays
o Script Sales

The Book

Book Excerpts & Info

Credits

o Credits

Copyright 20102015 by John Robert Marlow

WordPress Admin