I took a bit more time than 30 minutes to write this. I spent more time than needed in the Brainstorm session in order to know what I will need to talk about. Any tips? Also, what's my score?
First of all, if the average film tends to make greater profits than a best-selling book, this doesn't mean that the writer of the screenplay made more money than the writer of the best-selling book. Screenplay writers don't receive a cut of the movie profits but get paid a fee by the production house to use their screenplay. The main line of reasoning of the author is wrong as he is comparing apples to oranges. The profits made by giving the rights to the screenplay should be compared to the profits made by selling the book. Any other comparison is flawed and doesn't provide true information as to what type of authors are more successful. Moreover, if screenplay writers make more money than book writers, this doesn't mean that all screenplay writers make more money than book writers. It would be interesting here to further analyze the market and see which type of writers are actually more successful.
Secondly, stating that film producers are more likely to produce movies based on screenplays rather than books is a useless claim. Screenplays are written with the purpose of being made as movies while books are written with the purpose of being read. If anything, books have an advantage in that not only they will be sold to the public but they also have the chance to be made as a movie. An example here would be Harry Potter. Lastly, the author's claim that films based on original screenplays are making more money doesn't add any value to his claim as this is totally expected. Since most of the movies are based on books, it only makes sense for these types of films to sell more tickets.
In summary, the author's argument that writers who want to be successful should write screenplays instead of books is not properly supported by evidence. In order for the author's claim to make sense he needs to compare the profits of screenplay writers vs. book writers and then proceed with his analysis from there.
The author argues that writers who want to succeed should write screenplays instead of books as an average film tends to be more profitable than a best-selling book. The author acknowledges that some books are made into films but states that most of the time, they are based on original screenplays. This argument is flawed as the author fails to provide the right use of evidence and reasoning to support his case.The following appeared in an ad for a book titled How to Write a Screenplay for a Movie:
"Writers who want to succeed should try to write film screenplays rather than books, since the average film tends to make greater profits than does even a best-selling book. It is true that some books are also made into films. However, our nation's film producers are more likely to produce movies based on original screenplays than to produce films based on books, because in recent years the films that have sold the most tickets have usually been based on original screenplays."
First of all, if the average film tends to make greater profits than a best-selling book, this doesn't mean that the writer of the screenplay made more money than the writer of the best-selling book. Screenplay writers don't receive a cut of the movie profits but get paid a fee by the production house to use their screenplay. The main line of reasoning of the author is wrong as he is comparing apples to oranges. The profits made by giving the rights to the screenplay should be compared to the profits made by selling the book. Any other comparison is flawed and doesn't provide true information as to what type of authors are more successful. Moreover, if screenplay writers make more money than book writers, this doesn't mean that all screenplay writers make more money than book writers. It would be interesting here to further analyze the market and see which type of writers are actually more successful.
Secondly, stating that film producers are more likely to produce movies based on screenplays rather than books is a useless claim. Screenplays are written with the purpose of being made as movies while books are written with the purpose of being read. If anything, books have an advantage in that not only they will be sold to the public but they also have the chance to be made as a movie. An example here would be Harry Potter. Lastly, the author's claim that films based on original screenplays are making more money doesn't add any value to his claim as this is totally expected. Since most of the movies are based on books, it only makes sense for these types of films to sell more tickets.
In summary, the author's argument that writers who want to be successful should write screenplays instead of books is not properly supported by evidence. In order for the author's claim to make sense he needs to compare the profits of screenplay writers vs. book writers and then proceed with his analysis from there.
