"I just wanted to make sure that what I write is what appears on screen, to not have some idiot change it on its way to the screen"

In this quote, Joe Eszterhas, a renowned screenwriter, reveals a strong desire for creative control over his work, especially as it shifts from the page to the screen. The area where films and tv develop a concrete truth from composed words is swarming with potential alterations, often due to the collaborative nature of these mediums. Thus, his statement encapsulates a common struggle for authors who are protective of their initial vision.

Eszterhas' use of the term "idiot" suggests frustration, most likely born from experience where external influences-- be it manufacturers, directors, or editors-- have compromised his scripts in methods he perceives as negative. This term doesn't necessarily show incompetence but rather a divergence from the author's intent or perhaps a failure to appreciate the subtleties of the original script.

The crux of Eszterhas' comment lies in the tension in between artistic integrity and the collective process of filmmaking. Screenwriting, unlike novel writing, is naturally collaborative. Numerous stakeholders have input before the last version is recorded, leading to modifications that can water down or even change the original story, tone, or intent. This truth can be disheartening for writers like Eszterhas, who invest deeply in their productions.

Furthermore, the quote can be viewed as a review of the film market's sometimes mechanical technique to script adjustment. Commercial pressures typically take precedence over artistic vision, resulting in changes aimed at attracting broader audiences or fitting within a specific genre mold. Eszterhas' desire for his words to stay unaltered suggests his dedication to credibility and the initial message or impact he intended.

Eventually, this quote highlights a perennial difficulty for writers in collective artistic fields-- balancing individual vision with the creative inputs of others. It's a call for respect towards the author's craft and possibly an idealistic wish for a market where the author's voice isn't simply heard however protected in its initial kind.