Does it even matter? That is the question.
For the up and coming writer, that has been getting rave reviews on his latest script from a handful of sources, doors seem more closed than ever.
Why?
Signatories do not want to touch new material with the impending strike looming. They have their own problems to deal with. A perfectly valid excuse.
As if this business wasn't hard enough to break into.
Regardless of how the situation with the WGA and AMPTP is resolved, there is nothing I can do except sit on my hands. I can only hope that things are resolved quickly, but that does not seem to be the future I am looking at through this funky crystal ball.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Affectation
Since we can't call it plagiarism... because it isn't...
Tonight after viewing ABC's PUSHING DAISIES, I found myself torn.
While I do think there is potential in the central conflict revolving around a man who brings a lover back from the dead only to never be able to touch her again, I had a hard time getting past the visuals, as well as the storytelling format itself.
PUSHING DAISIES didn't just borrow from Jean Pierre Jeunet's AMELIE. It drew itself a hot, steamy tub full of Jeunet's bubbly masterpiece and dove in head first.
Only Gus Van Sant's remake of Hitchcock's PSYCHO paid more needless detail to recreating the original. Except this wasn't a remake. It really wasn't even a similar a story.
And that's where my gripe comes in to play.
Jean Pierre Jeunet's AMELIE has been raped by such thieves. I find Travelocity's "traveling gnome" to be a ridiculous rip-off. The advertising campaign makes no sense outside the context of AMELIE. You have to have seen the movie to understand what a lawn gnome has to do with traveling the world.
From set design, to wardrobe, to the stylistic quirky vignette's told by a voice over narrator, even the choice of characters themselves -- for lack of a better expression -- pay "homage" to AMELIE.
cough*Even the very, very similar French music for no apparent reason*cough
AMELIE is a story about a woman that still has wonderful fantasies much like when she was a child. The central conflict revolves around, that maybe living in this fantasy world she has created, she has let life pass her by.
It is a coming of age story.
And the visual and directorial style, as well as the children's book narration, go hand in hand with that premise. Form follows function.
For PUSHING DAISES form does not follow function. It follows style. "Wouldn't this be cool? Have you seen AMELIE? I liked that movie. We should do that. Wasn't that great?"
I have to say that I was surprised that this effort came from a seasoned director such as Barry Sonnefeld. I have to admit, that Barry Sonnenfeld is one of my favorite directors. And I'll bet a large majority out there have no idea who he is.
Ever seen MEN IN BLACK? THE ADDAMS FAMILY? These movies have a unique personal style all their own. They brought comic book "type" movies into the mainstream without taking away their edge. Without taking away what made them work as comic books. (Granted, The Addams Family was a television show. But the directorial style is so similar to MEN IN BLACK that it is hard to dismiss it as anything other than a Barry Sonnenfeld film).
In fact, it is my own belief that such movies paved the way for the comic book movies of today, as well as the Harry Potter type movies and opening a mainstream audience to the fantasy genre as a whole.
PUSHING DAISIES, in terms of directorial and and visual style, seems to have taken a step away from the progressive.
I guess, I expect a lot from my entertainment. I want to see the bar pushed. I do not want to see watered-down versions of things we have seen before.
Especially, from an interesting, unique story that has promise on its own merits.
Tonight after viewing ABC's PUSHING DAISIES, I found myself torn.
While I do think there is potential in the central conflict revolving around a man who brings a lover back from the dead only to never be able to touch her again, I had a hard time getting past the visuals, as well as the storytelling format itself.
PUSHING DAISIES didn't just borrow from Jean Pierre Jeunet's AMELIE. It drew itself a hot, steamy tub full of Jeunet's bubbly masterpiece and dove in head first.
Only Gus Van Sant's remake of Hitchcock's PSYCHO paid more needless detail to recreating the original. Except this wasn't a remake. It really wasn't even a similar a story.
And that's where my gripe comes in to play.
Jean Pierre Jeunet's AMELIE has been raped by such thieves. I find Travelocity's "traveling gnome" to be a ridiculous rip-off. The advertising campaign makes no sense outside the context of AMELIE. You have to have seen the movie to understand what a lawn gnome has to do with traveling the world.
From set design, to wardrobe, to the stylistic quirky vignette's told by a voice over narrator, even the choice of characters themselves -- for lack of a better expression -- pay "homage" to AMELIE.
cough*Even the very, very similar French music for no apparent reason*cough
AMELIE is a story about a woman that still has wonderful fantasies much like when she was a child. The central conflict revolves around, that maybe living in this fantasy world she has created, she has let life pass her by.
It is a coming of age story.
And the visual and directorial style, as well as the children's book narration, go hand in hand with that premise. Form follows function.
For PUSHING DAISES form does not follow function. It follows style. "Wouldn't this be cool? Have you seen AMELIE? I liked that movie. We should do that. Wasn't that great?"
I have to say that I was surprised that this effort came from a seasoned director such as Barry Sonnefeld. I have to admit, that Barry Sonnenfeld is one of my favorite directors. And I'll bet a large majority out there have no idea who he is.
Ever seen MEN IN BLACK? THE ADDAMS FAMILY? These movies have a unique personal style all their own. They brought comic book "type" movies into the mainstream without taking away their edge. Without taking away what made them work as comic books. (Granted, The Addams Family was a television show. But the directorial style is so similar to MEN IN BLACK that it is hard to dismiss it as anything other than a Barry Sonnenfeld film).
In fact, it is my own belief that such movies paved the way for the comic book movies of today, as well as the Harry Potter type movies and opening a mainstream audience to the fantasy genre as a whole.
PUSHING DAISIES, in terms of directorial and and visual style, seems to have taken a step away from the progressive.
I guess, I expect a lot from my entertainment. I want to see the bar pushed. I do not want to see watered-down versions of things we have seen before.
Especially, from an interesting, unique story that has promise on its own merits.
Monday, October 1, 2007
That Which is Lacking...
Two manuscripts. Both 110 pages. Both the same plot. Both with very similar characters.
And yet, one is utterly fascinating. The other I want to throw out the window -- and possibly myself right after.
Why?
...
There is a difference between writing what you see in your head and crafting a story from ideas rattling around in the old noggin'. But wait -- there's more...
Even the dumbest reader can tell the difference. And that just may be me.
I really hated reading. I read slow. It wasn't until the last year or so that I actually started to enjoy reading. For the first time in my life I was choosing books I wanted to read, and not reading something that was forced upon me. I could take my time, or stay up all night to finish a book. Hell, I could even stop halfway through and throw the book in the garbage if I didn't like it.
I was free to enjoy reading.
I find myself going to Border's and perusing the new stock. Luckily, they also have a great selection of comic books so I can bail out if need be.
Point is, reading became more than a prescription issued by a teacher.
There is a magic that happens when a reader can ignore the fact that the words are orchestrated and arranged by another person (the writer) and bask in the glow of the world that is being created. To be able to take part in the lives of those that live there and feel confident in the fact that by the time the journey comes to a close you, your participation in the story, as the reader, was well worth it.
As a writer, first and foremost, it should be your job (hell, it is your job) to instill confidence in the reader that you are going to take them on a journey. That the time they spend reading each and every word you put on the page is time well spent.
...
Easy to say, harder to put on the page.
If for nothing more than giving me something decent to read, I want to pass this on to you...
...
Each and every SCENE in a movie/screenplay needs to have its place. It needs to exist for more than the fulfillment of the plot. If a scene ONLY exists for the fulfillment of the plot, you have a very weak scene.
I find all too often "scenes" in bad screenplays are simply a scene of filler. That is, a scene in which the writer needs these characters to come together in order to fulfill the plot. So it does. And is ultimately boring.
Watch any B-Movie picture.
The plot moves forward, making sense (usually), BUT WHO CARES!!!?
...
Every SCENE in a screenplay should be able to answer the question posed by a future viewer: "WHY DID I JUST WATCH THIS?"
...
Every scene MUST contain something that is to be won or lost, while putting at risk something valuable to your central character(s), at the same escalating the tension of the screenplay as a whole. This is no small feat.
...
For a terrific example, watch the FREE 9 minutes of Pixar/Brad Bird's RATATOUILLE.
This IS a SCENE!
Look at all the exposition it covers. Watch how it introduces those unfamiliar with cooking (most of the main stream audience) to the inner workings of the kitchen, while trumpeting the main character's love of cooking, and managing to slip in the central tension/dramatic question, foreshadowing the conflict that you will see throughout the entire movie.
(NOTE: This is done in about a minute).
It introduces the ANTAGONIST and there is no question that this guy is the antagonist.
It introduces the SIDEKICK who will become part of the hero team.
It manages to do all this work in a very fun, action-packed, thrilling chase sequence, without becoming muddy or confusing. The objectives of this scene are established.
This is a SINGULAR SCENE. It is completely self contained. You know where you came from before it and you know where the story needs to go after it. This is the essence of masterful screenwriting.
(If you want the Screenwriting book(s) definition of what this particular scene is, it goes by various names: The inciting incident, The catalyst, The Hook, The what the hell is this story about?)
And yet, one is utterly fascinating. The other I want to throw out the window -- and possibly myself right after.
Why?
...
There is a difference between writing what you see in your head and crafting a story from ideas rattling around in the old noggin'. But wait -- there's more...
Even the dumbest reader can tell the difference. And that just may be me.
I really hated reading. I read slow. It wasn't until the last year or so that I actually started to enjoy reading. For the first time in my life I was choosing books I wanted to read, and not reading something that was forced upon me. I could take my time, or stay up all night to finish a book. Hell, I could even stop halfway through and throw the book in the garbage if I didn't like it.
I was free to enjoy reading.
I find myself going to Border's and perusing the new stock. Luckily, they also have a great selection of comic books so I can bail out if need be.
Point is, reading became more than a prescription issued by a teacher.
There is a magic that happens when a reader can ignore the fact that the words are orchestrated and arranged by another person (the writer) and bask in the glow of the world that is being created. To be able to take part in the lives of those that live there and feel confident in the fact that by the time the journey comes to a close you, your participation in the story, as the reader, was well worth it.
As a writer, first and foremost, it should be your job (hell, it is your job) to instill confidence in the reader that you are going to take them on a journey. That the time they spend reading each and every word you put on the page is time well spent.
...
Easy to say, harder to put on the page.
If for nothing more than giving me something decent to read, I want to pass this on to you...
...
Each and every SCENE in a movie/screenplay needs to have its place. It needs to exist for more than the fulfillment of the plot. If a scene ONLY exists for the fulfillment of the plot, you have a very weak scene.
I find all too often "scenes" in bad screenplays are simply a scene of filler. That is, a scene in which the writer needs these characters to come together in order to fulfill the plot. So it does. And is ultimately boring.
Watch any B-Movie picture.
The plot moves forward, making sense (usually), BUT WHO CARES!!!?
...
Every SCENE in a screenplay should be able to answer the question posed by a future viewer: "WHY DID I JUST WATCH THIS?"
...
Every scene MUST contain something that is to be won or lost, while putting at risk something valuable to your central character(s), at the same escalating the tension of the screenplay as a whole. This is no small feat.
...
For a terrific example, watch the FREE 9 minutes of Pixar/Brad Bird's RATATOUILLE.
This IS a SCENE!
Look at all the exposition it covers. Watch how it introduces those unfamiliar with cooking (most of the main stream audience) to the inner workings of the kitchen, while trumpeting the main character's love of cooking, and managing to slip in the central tension/dramatic question, foreshadowing the conflict that you will see throughout the entire movie.
(NOTE: This is done in about a minute).
It introduces the ANTAGONIST and there is no question that this guy is the antagonist.
It introduces the SIDEKICK who will become part of the hero team.
It manages to do all this work in a very fun, action-packed, thrilling chase sequence, without becoming muddy or confusing. The objectives of this scene are established.
This is a SINGULAR SCENE. It is completely self contained. You know where you came from before it and you know where the story needs to go after it. This is the essence of masterful screenwriting.
(If you want the Screenwriting book(s) definition of what this particular scene is, it goes by various names: The inciting incident, The catalyst, The Hook, The what the hell is this story about?)
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
The Mystery That Is Coverage
I've been on a blogging hiatus. Mainly because I have a script that is actually gaining traction. Being the superstitious fool that I am, I don't want to jinx it.
But there is something strange that has come up. Something that I had no idea about.
Let me start off by saying, I set out to write an Action/Adventure picture that females would enjoy (yet, still be a balls to the wall action/adventure flick). I love Blockbuster movies, but I have a hard time convincing a date to come see one with me. And I understand why. I mean, this summer was atrocious.
So I did it. And the script is good. It's not just good. It's excellent. At least that's what the word that has been getting back to me has said.
But here's where the Twilight Zone music comes in...
Every positive piece of coverage on my script is from a woman.
Mission accomplished, right? WRONG. Unfortunately, Hollywood is still very patriarchal. When the script gets bumped up to producer level, which is overwhelming male, most of the producer's simply "don't get it."
The lead is a female. She's our 'in' to the story.
This creates a variety of dilemma for a producer. They can't relate to her character, simply because she is a woman. Instead they try to relate to the male character in the script, who is more or less a comic foil. And now we have real problems, because our producer is projecting himself into the embodiment of the fool in what is supposed to be a heroic action/adventure script.
And it is. Just from the point of view of the female. Which is the whole point of the story. That this female lead is overshadowed by her comic foil male counter-part.
My female readers have understood that with no problems. In fact, written coverage that has scored off the charts. A handful of male readers as well.
The problem is ... do a handful of male producers want to make it?
And that is yet to be determined.
...............................................................................
This experience has reminded me of Bill Martell's blog about "Passing Notes," in which he discusses a similar problem. He tackles it from the POV of a writer being forced to change the intent of the story. However, I think it reflects a larger issue. Take a gander.
But there is something strange that has come up. Something that I had no idea about.
Let me start off by saying, I set out to write an Action/Adventure picture that females would enjoy (yet, still be a balls to the wall action/adventure flick). I love Blockbuster movies, but I have a hard time convincing a date to come see one with me. And I understand why. I mean, this summer was atrocious.
So I did it. And the script is good. It's not just good. It's excellent. At least that's what the word that has been getting back to me has said.
But here's where the Twilight Zone music comes in...
Every positive piece of coverage on my script is from a woman.
Mission accomplished, right? WRONG. Unfortunately, Hollywood is still very patriarchal. When the script gets bumped up to producer level, which is overwhelming male, most of the producer's simply "don't get it."
The lead is a female. She's our 'in' to the story.
This creates a variety of dilemma for a producer. They can't relate to her character, simply because she is a woman. Instead they try to relate to the male character in the script, who is more or less a comic foil. And now we have real problems, because our producer is projecting himself into the embodiment of the fool in what is supposed to be a heroic action/adventure script.
And it is. Just from the point of view of the female. Which is the whole point of the story. That this female lead is overshadowed by her comic foil male counter-part.
My female readers have understood that with no problems. In fact, written coverage that has scored off the charts. A handful of male readers as well.
The problem is ... do a handful of male producers want to make it?
And that is yet to be determined.
...............................................................................
This experience has reminded me of Bill Martell's blog about "Passing Notes," in which he discusses a similar problem. He tackles it from the POV of a writer being forced to change the intent of the story. However, I think it reflects a larger issue. Take a gander.
Friday, August 17, 2007
Mike Wieringo!
http://www.newsarama.com/Chicago_07/Ringo.html
This is a big shock to comic book fans.
44 years old and a powerhouse of artistic talent.
My world has just gotten a little smaller. And a little less magical.
This is a big shock to comic book fans.
44 years old and a powerhouse of artistic talent.
My world has just gotten a little smaller. And a little less magical.
Saturday, June 23, 2007
That Thing You Do
I owe some very nice people ... something. I don't really do reviews on this site.
I received an email asking if I wanted a free copy of THAT THING YOU DO. There were no strings attached. Just watch it. Write something about it if I felt like it.
How can I say no to free stuff?
Since this is a re-release and much of the draw to this DVD is the new EXTRAS and the extended cut I figured I'd go through all the content before posting. And that's where I found items that are actually applicable to this blog.
To screenwriting.
To filmmaking.
To collaboration at its best.
I have to warn you... The Extended Cut is pretty boring. (Luckily, the DVD provides BOTH the original theatrical cut, as well as the extended cut). It is long with scenes that really do not touch on anything other than giving minor character motivation and backstory (through dialogue). They are not bad scenes. They simply do not push the story forward, and thus, do not belong in the film.
How could you say this? These people gave you a free copy of their DVD.
Well, take a step back for a second and think about it.
That means the editor and director made GOOD choices when lopping off scenes that did not deal with the central premise of the story. In a time when extras on DVDs are expected as an additional bonus to the theatrical release, it is oftentimes easy to forget why scenes get cut out of movies in the first place.
Every "extended" cut should be WORSE than the theatrical cut. If they aren't someone didn't do their job getting the best possible cut to the viewing public.
And this is where the strength of both this movie and DVD lies.
THAT THING YOU DO was Tom Hank's directorial debut.
It is a fun movie that struggled due to a lack of genre expectation. I think it succeeds in a way I haven't seen from the hordes of 'bands coming to glory and falling apart' stories previously have. These stories tend to be overly nostalgic and overly dramatic, forgetting what it is that made these bands fun in the first place and trying to transfer that feeling to the screen. To this the movie was a success.
Secondly, actors that become directors tend to focus heavily on character to character interaction and generally forget that the director's job also includes the overall tone, attention to detail, and storytelling of the film as a whole, and not just moment to moment.
This DVD illustrates something very rare.
Tom Hanks made good DIRECTORIAL decisions on this movie.
And while it received fairly luke-warm reviews, the movie is actually able to capture the feel, tone, and vibe of a Beatles-esque type band coming up around that era.
If you are a big fan of Tom Hanks, I think this DVD is a must-have. It marks his debut into directing. Illustrates that he has potential as a future director (Hopefully, he tries directing more often (especially seeing as his looks are going.)) The behind the scenes footage, as well as comparing the Extended Cut Vs. the Theatrical Cut is also a great tool at analyzing the different toolsets that are needed from one filmmaking profession to the next.
I received an email asking if I wanted a free copy of THAT THING YOU DO. There were no strings attached. Just watch it. Write something about it if I felt like it.
How can I say no to free stuff?
Since this is a re-release and much of the draw to this DVD is the new EXTRAS and the extended cut I figured I'd go through all the content before posting. And that's where I found items that are actually applicable to this blog.
To screenwriting.
To filmmaking.
To collaboration at its best.
I have to warn you... The Extended Cut is pretty boring. (Luckily, the DVD provides BOTH the original theatrical cut, as well as the extended cut). It is long with scenes that really do not touch on anything other than giving minor character motivation and backstory (through dialogue). They are not bad scenes. They simply do not push the story forward, and thus, do not belong in the film.
How could you say this? These people gave you a free copy of their DVD.
Well, take a step back for a second and think about it.
That means the editor and director made GOOD choices when lopping off scenes that did not deal with the central premise of the story. In a time when extras on DVDs are expected as an additional bonus to the theatrical release, it is oftentimes easy to forget why scenes get cut out of movies in the first place.
Every "extended" cut should be WORSE than the theatrical cut. If they aren't someone didn't do their job getting the best possible cut to the viewing public.
And this is where the strength of both this movie and DVD lies.
THAT THING YOU DO was Tom Hank's directorial debut.
It is a fun movie that struggled due to a lack of genre expectation. I think it succeeds in a way I haven't seen from the hordes of 'bands coming to glory and falling apart' stories previously have. These stories tend to be overly nostalgic and overly dramatic, forgetting what it is that made these bands fun in the first place and trying to transfer that feeling to the screen. To this the movie was a success.
Secondly, actors that become directors tend to focus heavily on character to character interaction and generally forget that the director's job also includes the overall tone, attention to detail, and storytelling of the film as a whole, and not just moment to moment.
This DVD illustrates something very rare.
Tom Hanks made good DIRECTORIAL decisions on this movie.
And while it received fairly luke-warm reviews, the movie is actually able to capture the feel, tone, and vibe of a Beatles-esque type band coming up around that era.
If you are a big fan of Tom Hanks, I think this DVD is a must-have. It marks his debut into directing. Illustrates that he has potential as a future director (Hopefully, he tries directing more often (especially seeing as his looks are going.)) The behind the scenes footage, as well as comparing the Extended Cut Vs. the Theatrical Cut is also a great tool at analyzing the different toolsets that are needed from one filmmaking profession to the next.
Thursday, June 14, 2007
On the Karmic DL
Some things have come up. Things I'd really like to share. To talk about. To get out of my head and into the nether-void of the internet. Things that pertain to the struggle of the screenwriter, trying to get their first big break.
But, right now I just can't.
Really, I use this blog as a forum to gather my thoughts. To make them tangible. As much as I want to get them off my chest, at this point, I am keeping a low profile ... for karmic reasons. I am the most pessimistic optimist you will ever meet.
Things are going good. There's some potential with a few projects, but for me, personally, when there is a ray of sunshine, I am waiting for the thunderclouds to roll in and rain on my parade.
It makes me uneasy when things are up in the air. I dream big and I chase those dreams like Jason chases under-aged campers that have just lost their virginity. But the duration, length, money, time that needs to be invested to get anything off the ground as a screenwriter has me perpetually holding my breath, crossing my toes, rubbing my lucky rabbits foot, and performing a horde of other superstitious rituals in the hopes that nothing will get jinxed.
And talking about that which is yet to happen ... is very high on my list of ways to jinx everything.
So I'm letting these chicks hatch before I start counting them.
That said, I will share the inner workings of what is going on when the time comes. Afterall, success or failure, it doesn't really matter. This blog is about the journey.
But, right now I just can't.
Really, I use this blog as a forum to gather my thoughts. To make them tangible. As much as I want to get them off my chest, at this point, I am keeping a low profile ... for karmic reasons. I am the most pessimistic optimist you will ever meet.
Things are going good. There's some potential with a few projects, but for me, personally, when there is a ray of sunshine, I am waiting for the thunderclouds to roll in and rain on my parade.
It makes me uneasy when things are up in the air. I dream big and I chase those dreams like Jason chases under-aged campers that have just lost their virginity. But the duration, length, money, time that needs to be invested to get anything off the ground as a screenwriter has me perpetually holding my breath, crossing my toes, rubbing my lucky rabbits foot, and performing a horde of other superstitious rituals in the hopes that nothing will get jinxed.
And talking about that which is yet to happen ... is very high on my list of ways to jinx everything.
So I'm letting these chicks hatch before I start counting them.
That said, I will share the inner workings of what is going on when the time comes. Afterall, success or failure, it doesn't really matter. This blog is about the journey.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)