<p>I wouldn’t say those positions are harder to obtain. Getting into one of those jobs is certainly more sporadic, and you may have to cast your line out for a few months until you find an opening - the time when jobs open or close doesn’t necessarily follow some neat pattern. But a screenwriter without debt can take that risk, working as a waiter or grocery bagger until that job opens up. A USC or NYU grad needs that job right away, or else they’ll begin to suffocate very quickly under their monthly payments (assuming they took out large loans). </p>
<p>Once your foot is in the door, it’s all up to you. Your debt and your degree become irrelevant. A writer with a degree and crushing debt who gets their foot in the door and underperforms won’t beat out a debt-free writer without a degree who gets into that job and works their butt off to advance in the ranks. </p>
<p>Students mom’m mom stepping in here. The dept will be ours so my son will not have to worry about that piece . Given that, what do you think about Emerson’s program. Let’s assume he gets into all three. As his mom I can do the wishful hoping. </p>
<p>I think that Emerson is usually ranked up at the top, especially since they’re opening up the splashy new satellite campus in LA. They have always been strong in Media, Creative Writing, and Film. Admission is competitive, albeit not quite as brutal as Tisch/NY or USC. Tisch Film has one of the lowest acceptance rates of any undergraduate program in the country. If she really wants to go there, can put together a strong portfolio by the fall, and you know that you can afford it, it’s probably worth applying to Early Decision. </p>
<p>Let’s bring things up to a current age. I believe that M Night Shyamalan was at NYU when he penned 6th Sense. I’m not saying that this movie would be on par with Citizen Kane wrt the placement of classics by various critics, but it was a movie highly thought of by most.</p>
<p>Say, he weren’t at NYU, but was say a 17 year-old somewhere in the state of NY, a precocious sort, and he wrote this story by learning to pen screenplays via the internet, which is possible now, and presented this in his high-school creative-writing class. There’s a lot of info out there with free content: universities offering classes on youtube, how-to writeups, etc, and an autodidact can learn just as well, if not better, than if he/she were enrolled in college.</p>
<p>Did this screenplay come about only because went to NYU? I’m not sure of the exact details of his story, except for some of what I wrote previously in a general sense, but I would have imagined, that if he presented this in class at NYU, his professors would have helped him gain industry contacts and an agent, because film professors are as you stated, very connected.</p>
<p>But my question would be: would this screenplay not come about if he were in the scenario as I detailed in paragraph three, the precocious 17 y-o in NY?</p>
<p>I’m guessing that his high-school teacher would have had enough savvy to direct him to an agent. Perhaps, the teacher himself was an NYU grad with aspirations of being a writer him/herself.</p>
<p>Later on, I’m guessing his story would still have been made into a movie and it will have been made as well as it was and wouldn’t have been wasting away on a heap somewhere as you stated, or even discarded. This is because as a precocious 17 year-old, he would have hopefully had final rights as to the content that came to be on screen, as directed by his agent and maybe his atty. His story would have gained notice, but unlike in the literary field, stories on screen need to be on the down low, lest there are a bunch of movies come forth with the same general theme. </p>
<p>Especially now, there are studios and producers looking, thirsting for the next big script. The competition is fierce to snap them up as quickly as possible whether a book that will be adapted, or a screenplay written on spec at big dollars. Indies are an important facet to the movie-making business and not just the big studios as before. You have persons with considerable amounts of cash, reading scripts and joining in on the competition, with little experience themselves, forming their own production companies. I can name you two persons, and they did well because they hired the right people. It seems, every actor has his/her own company. You have actors sponsoring screen-writing competitions because they want the next big indie story. </p>
<p>Because of all of the above, someone, somewhere will give your story face-time, and I believe it will be noticed. But the key, as repeated over and over, it must be good. Again, I think people who enter the screenwriting game know enough to hire agents and to protect their work. </p>
<p>I guess the outcome of this is to show how fleeting creativity can be. I don’t know if I call Shyamalan a one-hit wonder, but his second movie, I believe, of his after 6th Sense, Signs I thought was pretty bad. I don’t have a lot of thoughts about the movie that followed 6th, was it Unbreakable?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, I think as I stated above, that most people who enter the game have the savvy to gain industry representation, an agent. As you stated before, someone can learn the ins and outs of engaging in writing without having to go to film school. Writing stories doesn’t take a lot of capital backing; just get on your laptop and start typing.</p>
<p>It’s a weak argument to take something that did happen, The Sixth Sense, and posit that it would have happened anyway if he hadn’t gone to NYU. You also left out the parts where he was a name before The Sixth Sense, including being the screenwriter for Stuart Little. He was 7 years out of NYU by the time it was released. How many others also wrote screenplays in the same timeframe? How many were produced? And how many came out of nowhere. It’s pretty easy to spot the successes and think that’s going to be you, try looking at how many failures there were and seeing what they had in common - it’s not always lack of talent.</p>
<p>You also fail to see that Hollywood may be looking for the next big thing, but they are also extremely risk averse - they’ll go with a name over an unknown in an instant. Why do you think we suffer from so many sequels and so few original ideas? Any new idea is quickly copied and not by new talent but by existing screenwriters.</p>
<p>Do not underestimate the ease of breaking in the business, even in the era of the New Media. It is, and always has been, difficult to get anyone’s attention. The more unknown and unconnected you are, the more difficult it is.</p>
<p>I believe the bottom line is this - there are some people out there who suck at writing, and some who are gifted naturals. For those who suck, no amount of training will save them, and for those who are naturals, success comes easily with a bit of hard work and tactic. Then, there are individuals who fall in the middle of the spectrum - these people can learn to write decently, or even well, using formulas and classes (why do you think Blake Snyder is so successful? He offers writers a “recipe” for a screenplay, and all you have to do is plug in the points). Chances are these people won’t be winning awards any time soon, unless the premise for ‘the next big thing’ stumbles into their mind one day - think something like The Matrix. The writing itself wasn’t particularly special, but the killer high-concept made all the difference. There’s a difference between technical writing (which can be taught at a University) and an ear for storytelling, which cannot be taught. </p>
<p>I believe attending college for screenwriting has little to no outcome on a writers skill or work output. The only real, tangible, and measurable effect it has on a writer is debt - and in the case of schools like USC or NYU, debt that’ll haunt the student and the family for years to come. There will always be Diablo Cody’s and M. Night Shyamalan mixed into the bunch. </p>
<p>Attending a prestigious college does offer connections - you pay to have these connections handed to you. But that in no way means that someone outside of a prestigious school can’t acquire the same exact connections, albeit with a little hard work and intuitive thinking. If anything, being out on your own and learning how to properly query, network, and dig for information without the aid of some professor or program holding your hand is a valuable commodity. </p>
<p>Someone who understands marketability and genre (as in, the appeal of Transformers versus some art house film), and has the grit to seek out networking opportunities will always be worth their weight in gold. Success in any creative field is about tactic - taking a series of calculated, well-planned risks. I don’t think splurging on an expensive school and neglecting to face the fact of what the debt might do to you later is anything but tactical. </p>
I apologize for all the Shyamalan fans, including yourself if you are indeed one, for stating his history incorrectly, but at the same time, I stated that I didn’t do a search of his history partly because it didn’t matter in the two scenarios I presented, because I wanted to generate a hypothetical situation that ran counter to his experience at NYU, even if this were a bit arranged wrt his actual history. In other words, though I didn’t say such, I’m exhorting the reader to just just roll with it. </p>
<p>My point was, as good as Sixth was it had to be made, and I don’t think that seven-ten years from his actual concept of the story to screen is all that bad. Do you know how long it took for James Cameron to get Titanic to screen? I believe it was much longer. Btw, I thought this movie was excellent wrt script too, because it was as @Abcde11 might have said per his recent post: it had an excellent storyline, mixing fictitious characters with historical, that didn’t wasn’t just blowing movie-goers away with just special effects. Cameron was a truck-driver at one point, I believe. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wrt bold, are you kidding me? Recently they’ve started to taper things back, but only after colossal failure after failure. The idea of repackaging remakes and adding sequels will only mean that the industry will lose more and more movie-goers. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not underestimating anything. I prefaced everything by “it [the screenplay] must be GOOD.”</p>
<p>I don’t think I addressed this part as well as could have.</p>
<p>It doesn’t matter how many persons wrote screenplays from the time it took for Sixth to reach the screen, because the special script is always a rarity in the whole mass of screenplays, even when they are culled along the lines of established screenwriters. There’s doubtlessly a core of established writers as @Abcdef11 stated, who can adapt books or a mishmash of director’s thoughts and place things in a detailed order on a script, and do it well within the limited “confines” of a movie and still stay reasonably true to a book/author or whoever’s visions. But the creativity aspect always rises over and above anything else, and it is extremely rare.</p>
<p>We obviously have to divide things into the originating source, whether a book or a standalone script that can be translated onto the screen, or even someone taking thoughts and creating a short film. </p>
<p>If it is a book, it is an open source, and a producer, a reader, or an actor, even the general public, will note collectively whether it could or should be adaptable to the screen. If it is, someone or some company will snap up its rights fairly immediately and start the process of converting it to screen. (I’m always amazed at how the Disney people creatively turned Andersen’s Little Mermaid very short story to the animated classic if became, albeit rearranging the story to fit Disney’s profile of happy endings, added with its incredible music.)</p>
<p>And this is why it would probably be better if the writer were able to put things in book/novel form (as the whole bookwriting business has opened up also), and hope his/her creation becomes widely noticed, maybe even becoming a bestseller, and later having its movie rights purchased. But the intention of an author is usually based foremost in the literary field, and someone or some entity purchasing a book right for an intended movie usually isn’t the original intent of said author. And of course, an agent is always needed, along with a portfolio of writing presented to him/her to initiate the process. </p>
<p>But for scripts, obviously this is where the writer him/herself has to perfect the art of pitching his/her idea to an agent, or to someone in script development at a studio, or to an indie person, and that’s probably why developing a portfolio of projects would probably be better initially in trying to catch the attention of an ever-present agent. </p>
<p>Putting things on film seems rather risky also, because of increased amounts of capital needed to create a film even if it is a short, even if afterwards presenting the film at local festivals might be ideal, with the idea of stepping up to a wider audience and bigger festivals. But whether this is a finished product and not to be remade into a bigger budget film, might be a something to ponder. I would think the smaller the script, the better it is to try to gain notice by being made into a short or generally a smaller budget film, especially for those who want to be film makers. I’m sure the viability of the script might deem it necessary for it to be made into a film. </p>
<p>But either way, as @Abcdef11 stated, you have to place yourself out there. And there are increased nos. outside of the big studios that are entering the script and book rights’ purchasing game, so the increased due diligence of everyone involved deems it necessary to follow through and give each intended story adequate “facetime” (along with the writer himself), all because they are looking for the next big script. And sometimes it does take decades for a story to reach the screen, but that’s sometimes undoubtedly what it takes because not everyone can see the writer/author’s vision, which obviously deems it necessary that a synopsis is created to help hopefully in hooking the reader. </p>
<p>I don’t know how Shyamalan presented his idea for Sixth because we were all blown away at the end of the movie, watching it with maybe a bit of consternation up until that point where we were wondering what was really happening, related to the boy and his visions. We were all agonizing in wanting to help him, but there seemed no relief in sight for his terror. I think Shyamalan had to obviously present the ending initially in synopsis, and work in the details of the story from beginning almost to the end if he were trying to pitch it. Or, maybe it was indeed a class project at NYU, which deemed it necessary for the professor to read it all the way through.</p>
<p>I agree, though, that many people’s egos causes them to believe their script is the next big film. That’s actually a good thing, for even if their ideas were passed upon by the powers repeatedly, these writers will continue to try to pitch their scripts though lengthy periods of time, through decades if necessary. But again, the question of whether it is at worst a viable script, could be sending false hope to the writer. I always think of Christopher of the Sopranos series typing away trying to initiate his script with it fraught with spelling errors, and ‘The dog is brown’ sentence construct. Obviously this would be an immediate deal-killer. Most readers probably know fairly quickly, along with a synopsis, whether things might be work well later on in the script. So I don’t think every script needs interminable facetime to determine whether it is viable, but at the same time, diligence needs to be given also to follow through. I think all this leads to a better process in finding the next big story, with less and less amount good-great stories falling by the wayside.</p>
<p>Regarding your statement wrt talent… ‘Talent’ will more likely show forth in work, which is the most important thing. Work as related to talent is such a fleeting thing, Shyamalan being a most likely probable example, even as talented a writer as he is. (However, perhaps he has something cooked up that will blow us away later as Sixth did.) Someone can have a lot of talent, but putting things to paper doesn’t always come to fruition. An agent can book a writer to his client list based on potential – doubtful, but this doesn’t necessarily mean things will pay off for the agent’s projection, and it probably won’t. So he/she needs to see something tangible, a work placed on paper, which means work is the most important thing. </p>
<p>I think the OP was interested in perspectives on specific college programs that she should consider applying to, not ongoing discussions about screenwriting in general (interesting as they may be). I might be wrong about that, though.</p>
<p>Yeah, good points, but @Abcde11, and @MrMom62, and myself were just offering similar and differing opinions related to screenwriting and someone trying to make it in the field, that may or may not be helpful to the OP, with tempered expectations, college-cost awareness, etc.</p>
<p>Sometimes an OP will try to attract someone to a thread by some really general and eyecatching theme – Attending College in CA, and specifically narrow things in his/her originating post. </p>
<p>In this case the title "Writing for TV, the best college??’ was expanded by @Abcde11 and myself as effectively no college specifically will help nor hinder especially as related to writing, and by @MrMom62 as being NYU and USC.</p>
<p>These are our recommendations: myself, self learning hopefully with natural skill; @Abcde11, somewhat tempered, and in the middle ground; and @MrMom62, the big-named u’s. </p>
<p>My recommendation: apply to a range of colleges with opportunities for filmmaking and screenwriting classes, while realizing that the elite handful of film schools have brutally competitive admissions processes. Write whatever you can, whenever you can - enter every contest, join every writing group available, etc. - for the experience and feedback. Make contacts and connections for internships, entry-level jobs, networking opportunities, etc. Once your options are in place, weigh them carefully, based on all considerations. Do you want to max out on debt before launching a career in a difficult, usually underpaid field? Given imperfect choices (ie. no NYU/Tisch or USC on the table), should a BA without a strong filmmaking component be preferable to a BFA at a less-respected school? There are no correct answers. My older son went through the audition and application process for acting and theater programs. BFA admissions are brutal: just as most seniors are breathing a collective sigh of relief after mid-year grades are submitted and application deadlines met, the BFA aspirants are just winding up for most of their auditions, interviews, and portfolio presentations. I suggest a good mix of non-audition/portfolio BAs, some pretty safe admissions bets (Columbia College Chicago is a favorite), and some BFA programs with varying degrees of competitiveness. </p>
<p>All the comments have been helpful. but yes, the question was pretty literal, which of those three were the best if I one was accepted to all three, wanting to write for tV (1) movies(2).</p>
<p>An agent said recently, “Be sure to take all calls, and return them all. No person is too big or too small not for me to have time for them.” I would hope that this would be the credo for all of them, instead of them taking supercilious airs. So they should be approachable and available (or someone will be) as a whole because they are always looking to farm new talent, whether they discover you or you initiate things with them.</p>
<p>Wrt the educational aspect, movie-makers, generally, aren’t a particularly academically inclined set – they’d be just one step up from actors, with many of these latter not even having attended college. So for this is the reason I tend to shrug at things related to academia for this particular career path, even if writers in the field are more educated than, say, directors. So this is the reason for my recommendation, to be an autodidact, and learn all about writing, etc, via youtubes or the internet in general, </p>
<p>However, if someone is really academically inclined and has profound interest in screenwriting, he/she should probably attend college for things like English Lit/Creative Writing, history, something that will help foster their creative ability better, in addition to helping him/her gain some ideas from fictional or historical characters and persons. This would be like studying entrepreneurship, without having any thing to entrepreneur, as opposed to someone studying, say, engineering (akin to studying English, history) and later starting his/her own engineering firm. If you don’t have the seeds (of ideas) to proceed, you probably won’t be successful (succeed). (Even more of a stupid rhyme if I went with it in triplicate.) </p>
<p>Sorry, @studentsmom , that you still haven’t had your questions answered. I think specifically, you’re probably wondering about Emory’s screenwriting program compared to NYU’s and USC’s in both tv and film? Maybe someone will be able to answer your questions, specifically related to this university. I hope they do. </p>
<p>Although the OP was originally asking about specific college programs, the discussion did expand to screenwriting in general – and more importantly, the worth of a screenwriting degree. I think these are both extremely relevant to his/her decision </p>
<p>As for what drax12 said, I don’t fall in the middle at all. I support the notion that connections are invaluable in screenwriting, and a degree from a prestigious University would possibly help sway an agent or manager in a query letter</p>
<p>The two points that I most strongly agree with, however. The first is that University’s CANNOT teach screenwriting; or at least, they can’t teach it any better than a couple of writing books for $15 bucks a pop (“dialogue secrets” and the rest of the screenwriting bluebook series, “writing for emotional impact”, “scriptshadow secrets”, and “from reel to deal” – for filmmakers – are some personal favorites). The second point is that the minor impact a big name University has on your craft and the few connections it would hand to you on a silver platter (all which could be invaluable during the first job seeking phase) are ultimately not worth even a fraction of the debt you’d be picking up. Yes, attending these Universities would be a positive experience, and yes you’d make some connections, and yes you might have an easier time getting an entry level job, but no, I don’t think any of that is worth $40-$60k a year. With that kind of money, you could live in Los Angeles for a few years, working a part time job pulling down some extra cash and networking, instead of digging yourself down the money hole </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Once again, I really, really, really hate to sound so harsh (and detract from the original question), but that’s a little insane. NO writer’s retreat is worth the amount of debt you’d go into attending USC or NYU. None. Take that cash and travel to Italy and Hawaii for a year, write in a cabin in the peaceful countryside for Pete’s sake. Even those could resemble a high-class retreat.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, screenwriting and filmmaking IS a job where you have to consider your career long in advance. Students like you can’t afford to think about the job later, and have a good time now, because unlike other fields there won’t be plenty of jobs waiting. The job will come later, but you need to be thinking about it now – always keep your eyes on the ultimate prize, which is that job. I just think that in 30 years, you might deeply regret that 4 year “writer’s getaway”, unless you got heavy financial aid to back you up. Whatever choice you make, think ahead. People only screw themselves over when they put off the tough decision making until later, and solely live in the moment. There’s a time and place for living in the moment (such as when you’re writing), but selecting whether or not you’ll go into debt isn’t one of those places. Future you might just thank you.</p>
<p>^Fact is, that those who are the top in their fields especially in directorship and acting, and even some in writing, are not a particularly educated set. This is the reason for my recommendation of being an autodidact, though I obviously was purposely trying to push an envelope. But if someone is supremely interested in education, I would recommend an English related major, or history, something that might spark ideas of script-writing for the aspirant in the future. And if need be, he/she can always attend grad school for an MFA of film-making or screenwriting. </p>
<p>I’m not against education, I’m not Peter Thiel, though I can see his viewpoint in a lot of fields related to business, and maybe even tech – there are great programmers out there that are college dropouts and just high-school diploma-ed, but i’m more just catering to the set in most cases of which I am addressing. Obviously for future doctors, a presence in college is required. </p>
<p>If things go online for higher education, which I hope the UC pursues, they’ll be able to do much educating in the student’s locales without their presence. I do think this is the future. There are many youtubes for the autodidact from universities like Stanford and UCLA and other UC’s, and he/she can be just about as educated. Besides, there’s no more greater activity for a screenwriter than to read as well as continue to hone his craft by banging away on the keyboards. </p>
<p>And I don’t think connections are as important in screenwriting, again, because its more incumbent on creativity. I don’t even think connections are important in directorship because of examples like James Cameron, who used USC’s libraries to learn the art of film making.</p>
<p>I agree 100% with what you’ve just said. But let me clarify - I mean to say that connections are crucial for SELLING and marketing a screenplay, not writing the screenplay itself. In terms of writing the actual script, you don’t need any classrooms or connections whatsoever. As you said, that part’s up to luck and innate talent, but can be improved through various books and online courses. However, if you wish to establish a long term career (and not just be the writer who sells one big script and then disappears from the picture), networking is key. This usually happens a while after college, however, when you’ve built up a portfolio of work and earned yourself some respect. Once you have that portfolio of writing or a directors reel - and a good manager - you can begin the process of branching out. This sort of branching can be difficult while attending a University full time though. </p>
</p>