Frank's transition from script doctor to top screenwriter mirrors a classic dev story: a shift from fixing bugs to building entire systems. His journey underscores the universal truth in creative fields: mastering the basics leads to groundbreaking work.

From reading the article it sounds like he first wrote his own scripts, had one of them produced, then adapted a couple of novels. After the success of the adaptations he was "inundated" by rewrite job offers.

> For decades, Scott Frank earned up to three hundred thousand dollars a week rewriting other people’s screenplays

"Decades" (plural) suggests this must have been at least 20 years. So let's see, what that would have made in the best case:

    $300,000 * 52 * 20 = $312,000,000

Not the worst reason to keep that job.

Yeah so that’s the best case scenario, but it’s an absurd estimate.

I can assure you the first years doing this were hard work and low pay.

What point are you trying to make, that he was just doing it for the money?

He was doing it for the money (at least at the end)! That and the psychological safety of not doing his own things.

Honestly, I don't really know what point I'm trying to make or if I'm trying to make one at all. Sorry.

“Up to”

True. So, in the worst case, there was a single week where he earned that.

It's a newspaper article. It's very likely there was one week he was paid for the previous 5 years of messing around with a script all at once. Or it was actually a week and he holed up with some director for a week to save a show off the rails. Is this how the final season of game of thrones happened?

The New Yorker have an extremely strong reputation for fact-checking every detail in every one of their stories.

A couple of fun New Yorker stories about that: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/02/09/checkpoints and https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/10/15/daniel-radclif...

I'd be really interested to hear what their fact-checkers came up with for this $300,000/week note!

That's not how it works. It's literally in the article. For undivided attention on a script for a couple of weeks, for a movie that might have a budget of tens of millions of dollars, this is completely reasonable. The article also says he's worked on scripts for 60 movies in 20 years. So yeah, maybe 3 per year. How much is it worth to the studio to have Saving Private Ryan be a better movie?

For such assignments, which are generally uncredited, he commands a fee that he acknowledges is “insane”: three hundred thousand dollars a week. Most jobs last a few weeks.

> “There is something so vulnerable and frightening about doing your own thing, because it’s your fault if it doesn’t work. And then there’s this other kind of work, where you’re paid an extraordinary amount of money, you’re the hero before you walk in the door, you’re not even held that accountable, because you have a limited amount of time, and all you can do is make it better.”

This quote from Frank resonated with me as very similar to software dev. It’s so much psychologically easier to work a day job than even small side projects. And that’s for a variety of reasons but I normally focus more on the “mechanical” obstacles like context-switching and the difficulty of shapelessness. But with enough reputation your job can also give rise to something of a “risk-free” external-affirmation loop that your brain doubtlessly pushes you to keep spinning.

I'm fascinated by screenwriting, and this profile has so many delightful little notes about why it's such a challenging craft.

Then you might enjoy Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting:

https://johnaugust.com/scriptnotes

It's hosted by John August (Big Fish, Corpse Bride) and Craig Mazin (Chernobyl, The Last of Us).

Already in my Overcast!

I read "Maltese Falcon" in the eighties. I remember vividly that story about Flitcraft, even if I had forgotten where it came from. It's really powerful.

Great interview/article.

One thing that leapt out at me, is the use of the deeply archaic spelling "coöperating" (with the 'ö') which I love — is that a thing the NYT is generally doing these days?

(Although I wonder if it's a way they can track people ripping off their content).

The New Yorker (not NYT) has used diaeresis in their style guide since they started and have stuck with it ever since.

""" Basically, we have three options for these kinds of words: “cooperate,” “co-operate,” and “coöperate.” Back when the magazine was just getting started, someone decided that the first misread and the second was ridiculous, and adopted the diaeresis as the most elegant solution with the broadest application. The diaeresis is the single thing that readers of the letter-writing variety complain about most. """

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/the-curse-of-...

Some other New Yorker typographic peculiarities:

(1) Putting a semicolon before a closing quotation mark:

   ... did not hide their sympathy for Eichmann or their regret that he had not “finished the job;” a broadcast from Cairo ...

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1963/02/16/eichmann-in-je...

   But Clyde is not the urban sharpster of “The Public Enemy;” he is the hick as bank robber ...

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1967/10/21/bonnie-and-cly...

(2) Including commas for nonrestrictive apposition, even when there is no possibility of a restrictive interpretation:

   When he died, in 2004, his books and exhibitions were too numerous to count, and his magazine work had been published all over the world in the best publications.

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/photo-booth/when-in-berlin...

The copyeditors seem to think that writing “When he died in 2004” would imply that he had died not only in 2004 but also in another year.

In general, the New Yorker uses a lot more commas than most other publications.

(3) Adopting American spelling overall but using the double-ell “travelling,” “unravelling,” etc., which are more common in British spelling.

Fascinating! Thank you!