> I'm honestly surprised, because of all the crap I hear and see about how Hollywood works, that *anything* good comes out of there. The fact that every year they manage to eke out one or two memorable if not great movies never fails to astound me.
>
> -- Dave

I suggest that perhaps you get a biased view of Hollywood -- most of the people who are willing to write "tell-all" accounts of it are those who have been burned by it. Those working successfully there probably tend to be busy, uh, working. There are some notable exceptions (particularly William Goldman, but he's a bit of a raving madman), but there are also accounts of talented people being recognized for it and working because of it.

Some great examples have come up in the past decade or so, with the birth of modern independent American film: look at the success enjoyed by people like Quentin Tarantino or Steven Soderbergh. Even somebody like Kevin Smith has enjoyed success based solely on his merit, and he's pretty far from being a Hollywood insider (his first film was made in New Jersey, of all places).

You may say that all three of those directors were able to break in because they made their own independent films, but there's examples of people just working their way up the foodchain. Directors like David Fincher or Spike Jonze started out making commercials and music videos, and eventually got jobs directing features. Both are great young directors.

The IMDB runs a regular column called "Ask a Screenwriter" with screenwriter John August (who wrote "Go" and worked on a number of other scripts, ranging from schlock like "Charlie's Angels" to good stuff like "Minority Report"). He took sort of a conventional approach to get into the business: went to film school at USC, worked a crap job as a script reader for two years for a studio, made contacts and tried to sell his scripts (which he did with "Go"). His take is that Hollywood is ultimately a meritocracy which really rewards people who can do the job.

This doesn't necessarily mean you have to be responsible for good movies -- Michael Bay has no shortage of work -- but it means you have to make movies that make money. For as much as we read about Hollywood being all about insider deals among friends and stuff, I've read a ton about well-liked and connected people being tossed on their ears after being responsible for a few flops. The fierce competition may make it hard to break in, as everyone with the ability to buy scripts, greenlight films and cast actors is going to be deluged with people trying to win their favor, but I don't think it acts as a total shield for people who just plain suck.

Oh, speaking of sucking, "Dragonheart" kind of did. Connery ruled, but all that crap with the prince? Come on.

Stephen