This makes the second time in as many months where I attended a movie with less than ten people. I'm beginning to think I have awful taste.
The first was Dredd 3-D that while awesome became a box office bomb here in the U.S. The verdict is still out on Silent Hill: Revelations as it just opened this week. And while not as good as the first one--it's weakened by a slightly more exposition heavy script--it's still an awesome representation of the source material.
If you look at this trailer and this writeup and interview something very cool comes through that overshadows perceived weaknesses in the adaptation. There is a love of the source material here and all that love is up there on the screen.
This sequel and it's predecessor are on that shortlist of best video game adaptations but more than that, these filmmakers managed to create the movie I wanted to see from this material. Directors Christopher Gans and Michael J. Bennet managed to recreate the experience inside my head as I was navigating my digital avatar around the fog shrouded town of Silent Hill.
That's the best kind of adaptation there is.
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
Elementary: Holmes/Watson Everywhere!
CBS has a new crime drama called "Elementary" which puts the iconic character in a modern setting and changes Watson's gender. You can see the trailer here.
Holmes at his most basic is the brilliant socially crippled genius paired with the practical supporter. The practical person is usually our POV to guide our understanding of the eccentric person. And like all good characters they are fine on their own but taken together are so much better. In the original stories Watson was Holmes' chronicler of their adventures and our viewpoint character. This new show takes that formula and runs with it.
This isn't the first show to try this. Robert Doherty, creator of "Elementary," mentioned in an interview that a lot of shows these days have a kind of Holmes character in them. He isn't wrong. My favorite TV show of all time is The X Files and Mulder played Holmes to Scully's Watson. House, MD was the Sherlock Holmes of Medicine and his team plays the role of Watson. Law and Order: Criminal Intent had Detective Goren in the role of Holmes while Detective Eames played Watson. "Bones" has Tempe Brennan in Holmes' role while Seely Booth is her Watson.
Doherty's version is not the craziest revision I've every heard of with these public domain characters. The Guy Ritchie films turn Holmes and Watson into superheroes despite the period trappings. Dan Simmons has an insane take in bringing Sherlock Holmes into a story that I'm praying he writes it in the future.
However, in the realm of TV/Film I think my favorite take comes from John Rogers, co-creator of a fun caper drama called "Leverage." I pulled this from his blog where he recreates a favorite rant of his.
-----------------
"At the beginning of "A Study in Scarlet", Watson has just returned from Afghanistan with a nasty case of PTSD. He went straight into the Army from medical school, and straight to Afghanistan the next year. So he can't really be more than 26 or so when the novel starts - Victorian doctors went to university at 18 or so and studied for five or six years. And Holmes is about the same age if not younger - he's studying at the university, he's had no previous job that anyone mentions, and Watson doesn't describe him as significantly older than himself.
John Watson is a twenty-six year old combat hard-ass with mujhadeen shrapnel buried in his leg (or shoulder, depending on the story), not some foppish fuckwit with a bowler hat. Sherlock Holmes is your substance-abusing perpetual grad student solving cases for the London underworld/working class that the cops won't touch. THAT'S why everybody fucks up Holmes and Watson including, probably, my favorite writer in the world.
About two years ago I was developing that version of Holmes and Watson with a director to do a TV pilot, and our agents correctly argued that no network was really looking for that. However, it's my fondest wish to someday do that show.
Oh, and they're women. Did I mention that?"
------------------------------
Come on, who wouldn't want to see that?
Of course, being late to the party for lots of things, I just discovered that the BBC has already done a modern Sherlock Holmes show and some comparisons have already been done between "Sherlock" and "Elementary."
I will be looking at both with great interest in the future.
Holmes at his most basic is the brilliant socially crippled genius paired with the practical supporter. The practical person is usually our POV to guide our understanding of the eccentric person. And like all good characters they are fine on their own but taken together are so much better. In the original stories Watson was Holmes' chronicler of their adventures and our viewpoint character. This new show takes that formula and runs with it.
This isn't the first show to try this. Robert Doherty, creator of "Elementary," mentioned in an interview that a lot of shows these days have a kind of Holmes character in them. He isn't wrong. My favorite TV show of all time is The X Files and Mulder played Holmes to Scully's Watson. House, MD was the Sherlock Holmes of Medicine and his team plays the role of Watson. Law and Order: Criminal Intent had Detective Goren in the role of Holmes while Detective Eames played Watson. "Bones" has Tempe Brennan in Holmes' role while Seely Booth is her Watson.
Doherty's version is not the craziest revision I've every heard of with these public domain characters. The Guy Ritchie films turn Holmes and Watson into superheroes despite the period trappings. Dan Simmons has an insane take in bringing Sherlock Holmes into a story that I'm praying he writes it in the future.
However, in the realm of TV/Film I think my favorite take comes from John Rogers, co-creator of a fun caper drama called "Leverage." I pulled this from his blog where he recreates a favorite rant of his.
-----------------
"At the beginning of "A Study in Scarlet", Watson has just returned from Afghanistan with a nasty case of PTSD. He went straight into the Army from medical school, and straight to Afghanistan the next year. So he can't really be more than 26 or so when the novel starts - Victorian doctors went to university at 18 or so and studied for five or six years. And Holmes is about the same age if not younger - he's studying at the university, he's had no previous job that anyone mentions, and Watson doesn't describe him as significantly older than himself.
John Watson is a twenty-six year old combat hard-ass with mujhadeen shrapnel buried in his leg (or shoulder, depending on the story), not some foppish fuckwit with a bowler hat. Sherlock Holmes is your substance-abusing perpetual grad student solving cases for the London underworld/working class that the cops won't touch. THAT'S why everybody fucks up Holmes and Watson including, probably, my favorite writer in the world.
About two years ago I was developing that version of Holmes and Watson with a director to do a TV pilot, and our agents correctly argued that no network was really looking for that. However, it's my fondest wish to someday do that show.
Oh, and they're women. Did I mention that?"
------------------------------
Come on, who wouldn't want to see that?
Of course, being late to the party for lots of things, I just discovered that the BBC has already done a modern Sherlock Holmes show and some comparisons have already been done between "Sherlock" and "Elementary."
I will be looking at both with great interest in the future.
Thursday, May 17, 2012
MATURING TASTES AS READER AND WRITER
If my experience is anything like other writers who are trying to get published there are probably four books in storage and the fifth or sixth one works the best. My frustration doesn't come from whether or not I can get someone else's attention with the product. It's the fact that it's taken this long to feel this confident to get material out there. Until I read stories like this. Then I don't feel so bad.
Sometimes it takes a long time to get a tale correct. And hopefully, regardless of how long it takes, that tale will be the best it can.
James Cameron can take all the time he wants with his own work. You write a book to fill a publisher's slot and make a movie to fill a release date. It's been said that Cameron's treatment for Avatar was written in 1994 but he couldn't do it until he felt the tech would be ready. I'm hoping he'll hold onto the Battle Angel adaptation rights long enough to complete the project. There is an awesome character at the center of that saga and a lot of the themes in it Cameron has handled in other stories. He and his team would do it justice.
Lately I've been re-experiencing a fantasy series called "Wheel of Time." I gave up on it in high school but I find myself enjoying it a lot more now that I'm older. I appreciate the characters more and though the style is a little unwieldy the sense of scope overwhelms everything and makes it quite compelling for me. The original author died and a new author was commissioned to finish the volume. He has an interesting post here about how all that came to be. It's also a great essay about the commitment to a story. The wait is long but I think the payoff will be worth it.
For my own work I have a few ideas beyond this setting and these characters. One of them is a horror story that scares me on a conceptual level because I don't know if I'm mature enough as a person let alone a writer to tackle the tale and do it properly. I can say this with a little confidence because the current books I'm working on all revolve around a character that's been in my head for the better part of fifteen years. And now do I feel confident enough to give these characters a story worthy of them.
The take away from this should be that the best story will be ready when it's ready. We as storytellers have a responsibility to the audience whatever medium we use to convey the tale. That responsibility is to give our best. Anything less is a betrayal of a contract whenever you engage with the story.
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
MASS EFFECT AND THE JOY AND HEARTBREAK OF CATHARTHIS
Let me get this out of the way first. I want to thank the team at Bioware responsible for this magnificent saga. They hit it out of the park and smashed all my expectations. This is one for the ages and I can't wait to see what you all have in store for new projects and your existing franchises.
Now I get to defend myself from the Internet.
Bioware's Mass Effect series has caused me a lot of heartbreak and joy and not because of a controversial ending. I think the best response to the broughhaha over the latter is found here so I won't say anything else about that. Reviews and impressions of the first two games came from writer Greg Rucka, found here and here, and a review from Adam Sessler of G4's X Play reflects a lot of my own thoughts of the final game.
What's amazing about this series in the five years it took to release the saga, Bioware evolved the game as they went along, almost as if Game 1 was a Beta Test and Game 3 was the final product. But the foundation laid in Game 1 was so strong that it was like making improvements on a mansion. Incredibly smart writing gave us thrilling action in a convincing universe and top notch voice acting cemented emotional connections to characters that by game three felt like old friends.
It made subsequent plot developments heartbreaking. Their greatest success is they made me care about the characters and by extension the consequences of my decisions. I wanted to do everything I could to help them. Even if in trying to help resulted in some very ugly situations.
The overall illusion this game series did best was making you feel responsible for the state of this corner of the universe. By the time this game ended I think it's safe to say that this Commander Shepherd was yours, regardless of how the avatar looks.
I didn't have a problem with the ending, either, as I felt my first decision made with the final problem was the right one as my version of Shepherd would do it. And I applaud Bioware for doing it the way they did.
Now, to justify this opinion I'm going to have to mildly spoil it. So, if you haven't finished the game don't read any further. If you don't care, read on.
Still here?
I part company with the outraged fans here because of something very simple. They misunderstood where this ending of the series actually took place. It's not in the last fifteen minutes. By my clock it's about twenty hours or so in to the third game itself where the ending really starts. For those of you keeping score each game takes about 40 hours max to complete, allowing variance for completionists to speed runners. So, all told it's about 120 hours to complete this saga give or take. So, at about hour 100 you get a sense that things are wrapping up--permanently.
The ending started not with combat but with a conversation. It occurs between you and Admiral Hackett who is coordinating earth's defenses while you rally galaxy forces to take back the planet. After priority missions that take you to the Far Rim you can ask why you got drafted into this and Hackett explains, including call backs to what you've done before and who you were before you took command of the Normandy back in game 1.
It's at this point even knowing how the plot is more or less going that I thought Shepherd wasn't going to make it out of this alive. And it made the connections already established even more endearing. If you pursued a romance (and I did) there's an air of melancholy about it. Your crew from the second game makes appearances with missions and other things and it felt like saying goodbye to them whenever they were around--sometimes in the most brutal way possible.
Every mission felt like a sense of closure. As if you knew you were going to die and wanted all your affairs in order before you pass. When the others in your crew get a chance to shine, especially the one you chose to romance, it's some of the best writing in the game. Later on you're given one final time to say goodbye during the multi-stage ending that results in some well wrought emotional catharsis.
Bioware pulled off an interesting trick with the ending because they had to find a way to make the ending logical even accounting for all the decisions the player made from game 1 onward. And they do this by bypassing it entirely and making half the internet mad.
But I maintain that this was probably the only way they could do it. I think people misunderstood where they wanted their closure to the story happen. The closure has been happening for hours at this point, not in the last fifteen minutes. The last decision falls to you to decide the state of the universe. Everyone else at this point has had their final moments, of sorts. Now it's time for yours.
We all know how this was going to end--in a confrontation with the reapers. And what's making people angry is the outcome is generally the same with each path you take. But there's something else going on here when you approach that platform. It's not about the action of dealing with the Crucible. It's how you feel as a player (and by extension how Shepherd feels).
I said earlier I was happy with my initial choice and I still am because it actually did reflect everything I was trying to do--being the ultimate diplomat. I base my feeling on how I felt after two key missions from this game and the overall sense of what happened in games 1 and 2. In those key missions one outcome resulted in a hopefully bright future for a race, the other resulted in the destruction of a race. The decision I made at the very end could be the result of how I was feeling about that as she walked to the platform for the final time. Namely, this has to end because one path clearly wouldn't work based on who I was and the other carried the risk of repeating what already happened.
I don't know what Bioware has planned next for their RPG franchises. But this one is closed for now. And if this is all we get I will be satisfied. They have created something special and have set the bar incredibly high not only for their future works but for other game studios working on RPGs. I am grateful for having the opportunity to play it.
PS
While I have the floor, PAX East, PAX Prime and E3 are coming up. Bioware would make my year if they would announce Jade Empire 2. Or Dragon Age 3.
Post Post Script
Well, I will be one of the ones who won't need this but it is interesting that there's some appeasement for those that absolutely hated the ending to this saga.
Now I get to defend myself from the Internet.
Bioware's Mass Effect series has caused me a lot of heartbreak and joy and not because of a controversial ending. I think the best response to the broughhaha over the latter is found here so I won't say anything else about that. Reviews and impressions of the first two games came from writer Greg Rucka, found here and here, and a review from Adam Sessler of G4's X Play reflects a lot of my own thoughts of the final game.
What's amazing about this series in the five years it took to release the saga, Bioware evolved the game as they went along, almost as if Game 1 was a Beta Test and Game 3 was the final product. But the foundation laid in Game 1 was so strong that it was like making improvements on a mansion. Incredibly smart writing gave us thrilling action in a convincing universe and top notch voice acting cemented emotional connections to characters that by game three felt like old friends.
It made subsequent plot developments heartbreaking. Their greatest success is they made me care about the characters and by extension the consequences of my decisions. I wanted to do everything I could to help them. Even if in trying to help resulted in some very ugly situations.
The overall illusion this game series did best was making you feel responsible for the state of this corner of the universe. By the time this game ended I think it's safe to say that this Commander Shepherd was yours, regardless of how the avatar looks.
I didn't have a problem with the ending, either, as I felt my first decision made with the final problem was the right one as my version of Shepherd would do it. And I applaud Bioware for doing it the way they did.
Now, to justify this opinion I'm going to have to mildly spoil it. So, if you haven't finished the game don't read any further. If you don't care, read on.
Still here?
I part company with the outraged fans here because of something very simple. They misunderstood where this ending of the series actually took place. It's not in the last fifteen minutes. By my clock it's about twenty hours or so in to the third game itself where the ending really starts. For those of you keeping score each game takes about 40 hours max to complete, allowing variance for completionists to speed runners. So, all told it's about 120 hours to complete this saga give or take. So, at about hour 100 you get a sense that things are wrapping up--permanently.
The ending started not with combat but with a conversation. It occurs between you and Admiral Hackett who is coordinating earth's defenses while you rally galaxy forces to take back the planet. After priority missions that take you to the Far Rim you can ask why you got drafted into this and Hackett explains, including call backs to what you've done before and who you were before you took command of the Normandy back in game 1.
It's at this point even knowing how the plot is more or less going that I thought Shepherd wasn't going to make it out of this alive. And it made the connections already established even more endearing. If you pursued a romance (and I did) there's an air of melancholy about it. Your crew from the second game makes appearances with missions and other things and it felt like saying goodbye to them whenever they were around--sometimes in the most brutal way possible.
Every mission felt like a sense of closure. As if you knew you were going to die and wanted all your affairs in order before you pass. When the others in your crew get a chance to shine, especially the one you chose to romance, it's some of the best writing in the game. Later on you're given one final time to say goodbye during the multi-stage ending that results in some well wrought emotional catharsis.
Bioware pulled off an interesting trick with the ending because they had to find a way to make the ending logical even accounting for all the decisions the player made from game 1 onward. And they do this by bypassing it entirely and making half the internet mad.
But I maintain that this was probably the only way they could do it. I think people misunderstood where they wanted their closure to the story happen. The closure has been happening for hours at this point, not in the last fifteen minutes. The last decision falls to you to decide the state of the universe. Everyone else at this point has had their final moments, of sorts. Now it's time for yours.
We all know how this was going to end--in a confrontation with the reapers. And what's making people angry is the outcome is generally the same with each path you take. But there's something else going on here when you approach that platform. It's not about the action of dealing with the Crucible. It's how you feel as a player (and by extension how Shepherd feels).
I said earlier I was happy with my initial choice and I still am because it actually did reflect everything I was trying to do--being the ultimate diplomat. I base my feeling on how I felt after two key missions from this game and the overall sense of what happened in games 1 and 2. In those key missions one outcome resulted in a hopefully bright future for a race, the other resulted in the destruction of a race. The decision I made at the very end could be the result of how I was feeling about that as she walked to the platform for the final time. Namely, this has to end because one path clearly wouldn't work based on who I was and the other carried the risk of repeating what already happened.
I don't know what Bioware has planned next for their RPG franchises. But this one is closed for now. And if this is all we get I will be satisfied. They have created something special and have set the bar incredibly high not only for their future works but for other game studios working on RPGs. I am grateful for having the opportunity to play it.
PS
While I have the floor, PAX East, PAX Prime and E3 are coming up. Bioware would make my year if they would announce Jade Empire 2. Or Dragon Age 3.
Post Post Script
Well, I will be one of the ones who won't need this but it is interesting that there's some appeasement for those that absolutely hated the ending to this saga.
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Suppposed Failure of "Boys Films"
Another blog entry posted here asked a question of Walt Disney Studios. "Why can't Disney make Boys movies?" He was using the apparent box office failure of "John Carter" and "Tron: Legacy" as an example.
To be fair he isn't far off, at least for the box office take on these shores. The global market tends to balance this stuff out and having seen both of these movies I really hope they continue with more stories.
Box office take is by no means a measure of success but it is the primary barometer used to gauge how fearful a studio executive will greenlight the next similar themed feature. And according to this theory the box office failure of one film directly impacted the future plans of another.
I think the original blog poster's point is valid but it doesn't go far enough. Regardless of which studio backs the "Boys" film, these kinds of movies "fail" for one overall reason--the audience doesn't show up.
Now, I'm a guy and I grew up on great adventure stories so consider this opinion incredibly biased. It perplexes me why a traditional action adventure tale doesn't resonate with an audience as much as it does. Let me use John Carter as the current example for illustration purposes.
First of all, this movie does a fantastic job keeping everything about the original 1916 novel intact while modernizing a handful of things. The biggest differences being they introduce a foe (who appears in later novels I'm told) that attempts to give a plausible explanation for Carter's transportation to Mars and give a science background to Dejah Thoris. What's cool about this version of the saga is they keep all the period details intact. It's fun to spot all that's been stolen from this story by modern filmmakers.
Special effects are convincing and the action is well choreographed. Casting is a home run. Carter and Thoris have a convincing romance that is improved upon from the novel without losing the spirit of these characters. There's humor without being stupid because it grows out of the situation. In short, there's a little bit of everything I love when I witness the execution of a good story.
A family film, and by extension a boy's story, should appeal to the most audiences because they work very hard to walk a thin line between being exploitative and bland with objectionable content. John Carter gets this right, including a moral center that doesn't hit you over the head with its message.
I can't answer with any certainty why this film and others like it don't pull in the business but I can tell you three different theories. The first theory is families don't go to movies in great numbers. What's on screen is part of the problem as different people have different tolerances for what they want to be exposed to. But the other part is simply economical. The second theory is when girls go to movies they tend to go multiple times and they go in packs with their friends. The final theory (one of my own) is boys don't go to movies unless they cross a few lines that films of this calibre typically don't.
Sequels have been bankrolled despite an apparent failure on the first run. (The Hellboy series is a good example, cited above). Hollywood has a long memory and I hope they adapt more books in this series. Edgar Rice Burrough's creations will always be available in printed form. But there's something sublime of seeing a filmmaker's interpretation of material both literal and inspired.
To be fair he isn't far off, at least for the box office take on these shores. The global market tends to balance this stuff out and having seen both of these movies I really hope they continue with more stories.
Box office take is by no means a measure of success but it is the primary barometer used to gauge how fearful a studio executive will greenlight the next similar themed feature. And according to this theory the box office failure of one film directly impacted the future plans of another.
I think the original blog poster's point is valid but it doesn't go far enough. Regardless of which studio backs the "Boys" film, these kinds of movies "fail" for one overall reason--the audience doesn't show up.
Now, I'm a guy and I grew up on great adventure stories so consider this opinion incredibly biased. It perplexes me why a traditional action adventure tale doesn't resonate with an audience as much as it does. Let me use John Carter as the current example for illustration purposes.
First of all, this movie does a fantastic job keeping everything about the original 1916 novel intact while modernizing a handful of things. The biggest differences being they introduce a foe (who appears in later novels I'm told) that attempts to give a plausible explanation for Carter's transportation to Mars and give a science background to Dejah Thoris. What's cool about this version of the saga is they keep all the period details intact. It's fun to spot all that's been stolen from this story by modern filmmakers.
Special effects are convincing and the action is well choreographed. Casting is a home run. Carter and Thoris have a convincing romance that is improved upon from the novel without losing the spirit of these characters. There's humor without being stupid because it grows out of the situation. In short, there's a little bit of everything I love when I witness the execution of a good story.
A family film, and by extension a boy's story, should appeal to the most audiences because they work very hard to walk a thin line between being exploitative and bland with objectionable content. John Carter gets this right, including a moral center that doesn't hit you over the head with its message.
I can't answer with any certainty why this film and others like it don't pull in the business but I can tell you three different theories. The first theory is families don't go to movies in great numbers. What's on screen is part of the problem as different people have different tolerances for what they want to be exposed to. But the other part is simply economical. The second theory is when girls go to movies they tend to go multiple times and they go in packs with their friends. The final theory (one of my own) is boys don't go to movies unless they cross a few lines that films of this calibre typically don't.
Sequels have been bankrolled despite an apparent failure on the first run. (The Hellboy series is a good example, cited above). Hollywood has a long memory and I hope they adapt more books in this series. Edgar Rice Burrough's creations will always be available in printed form. But there's something sublime of seeing a filmmaker's interpretation of material both literal and inspired.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Proof that there are no bad ideas
According to this news that action classic "Bloodsport" is being "re-imagined." This news both relieves and appalls me. I find relief in that someone is taking a legitimately "bad" film and attempting to make it better. The appalling part for me is the pure number crunching involved here. There are two audiences for this kind of remake. Audience one is someone who's never seen this film and will go to it just to see it. Audience two is those who've seen the original and wonder what, if anything, survived here.
I'd like to see news like this happen more often. Because what they are doing here is taking a very basic idea of this "bad" film and putting an entirely new spin on it. One of my favorite recent examples of this is Paul W.S. Anderson's version of Roger Corman's Death Race 2000. He took the very basic concept of a race where the object was to kill other people and turned it into a very well made action romp. Is it better than the original? Opinions vary but I would maintain that the question is irrelevant. This "Bloodsport" falls into the same category.
A while back I thought of a way to redo the original "Bloodsport." The characters more or less remained the same but I wanted better connections between them to tie the audience closer. For example, the hero goes to this tournament to find out what happened to his commanding officer who'd been killed in that tournament. The reporter is the commanding officer's daughter who teams up with the hero to also find out what happened. The people running the tournament are fighting a civil war of sorts in that one side wants to run it for profit, the other for honor. The killing of the commanding officer sets everything in motion. Even the agents chasing the hero have a better reason to be there than "you're going to get hurt."
Now I'm not saying that any of the above would make it better but it would be closer to a movie that I'd like to see. I don't know what the producers have in mind for this remake but I'll be there to check it out if it ever gets out of development hell.
"Bad" films stick around usually because somewhere in there is an idea that works. An idea lives or dies on how it's executed. Someone else has an idea to redo Point Break. That's a film about an undercover FBI agent who surfs to catch a team of bank robbers. Is it a bad idea? Is it a good idea? Depends on how it's executed. For the record I thought the original was awesome.
I'd like to see news like this happen more often. Because what they are doing here is taking a very basic idea of this "bad" film and putting an entirely new spin on it. One of my favorite recent examples of this is Paul W.S. Anderson's version of Roger Corman's Death Race 2000. He took the very basic concept of a race where the object was to kill other people and turned it into a very well made action romp. Is it better than the original? Opinions vary but I would maintain that the question is irrelevant. This "Bloodsport" falls into the same category.
A while back I thought of a way to redo the original "Bloodsport." The characters more or less remained the same but I wanted better connections between them to tie the audience closer. For example, the hero goes to this tournament to find out what happened to his commanding officer who'd been killed in that tournament. The reporter is the commanding officer's daughter who teams up with the hero to also find out what happened. The people running the tournament are fighting a civil war of sorts in that one side wants to run it for profit, the other for honor. The killing of the commanding officer sets everything in motion. Even the agents chasing the hero have a better reason to be there than "you're going to get hurt."
Now I'm not saying that any of the above would make it better but it would be closer to a movie that I'd like to see. I don't know what the producers have in mind for this remake but I'll be there to check it out if it ever gets out of development hell.
"Bad" films stick around usually because somewhere in there is an idea that works. An idea lives or dies on how it's executed. Someone else has an idea to redo Point Break. That's a film about an undercover FBI agent who surfs to catch a team of bank robbers. Is it a bad idea? Is it a good idea? Depends on how it's executed. For the record I thought the original was awesome.
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Viability of a Medium
According to this and this it is not a good time to be in the business of distributing anime in the U.S. In other news a proposed live action revamp of a fabled anime and manga from the 80s called "Akira" has hit a snag. Economic realities and other factors beyond the scope of the current essay have all contributed to these recent debacles and these three events have made me reassess some long held ideas I've had.
I've always responded best to anime (and a lot of Asian cinema in general) to the unapologetic way they handle the emotions in their stories. Characters die and people react realistically. Heartbreak is felt through the animated avatar on the screen. Despite all the great effort various US companies have done in giving us the anime industry here on these shores it will always be a niche market. But, like any good consumer, I want more of what I love best about animation. And for that I wish Hollywood filmmakers would embrace "the maturity" of anime.
Now, I have to be careful here because "maturity" is a loaded word. We have lots of "mature" animation here in the U.S. It's mostly relegated to sitcom style shows. Those are fine. In the 90s Warner Bros. animation gave us Batman: The Animated Series and eventually expanded it into a universe that encompassed the Justice League and others. Disney had "Gargoyles." Both of those shows worked as well as anything produced across the pond. They had smart writing, fluid action, great art, terrific voice acting and genuine emotional content. There are others but they are exception, not the rule.
All this is to say I wish Hollywood would embrace animation as a medium that is just as viable as live action. There's room for the animated sitcom and the 90 second Looney Toon style gag show. But what I want is a story. And for me, that's a set of characters that I can care about and be emotionally moved on whatever journey they happen to be on at the moment.
And in my ideal world, "Akira" would cross an executive's desk and in sheparding it to various companies for production, one of those companies specializes in animation. And no one blinks.
I've always responded best to anime (and a lot of Asian cinema in general) to the unapologetic way they handle the emotions in their stories. Characters die and people react realistically. Heartbreak is felt through the animated avatar on the screen. Despite all the great effort various US companies have done in giving us the anime industry here on these shores it will always be a niche market. But, like any good consumer, I want more of what I love best about animation. And for that I wish Hollywood filmmakers would embrace "the maturity" of anime.
Now, I have to be careful here because "maturity" is a loaded word. We have lots of "mature" animation here in the U.S. It's mostly relegated to sitcom style shows. Those are fine. In the 90s Warner Bros. animation gave us Batman: The Animated Series and eventually expanded it into a universe that encompassed the Justice League and others. Disney had "Gargoyles." Both of those shows worked as well as anything produced across the pond. They had smart writing, fluid action, great art, terrific voice acting and genuine emotional content. There are others but they are exception, not the rule.
All this is to say I wish Hollywood would embrace animation as a medium that is just as viable as live action. There's room for the animated sitcom and the 90 second Looney Toon style gag show. But what I want is a story. And for me, that's a set of characters that I can care about and be emotionally moved on whatever journey they happen to be on at the moment.
And in my ideal world, "Akira" would cross an executive's desk and in sheparding it to various companies for production, one of those companies specializes in animation. And no one blinks.
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Multiple Wishes for New Stories in 2012
To commemorate a new year and to give a sense of professionalism to this blog I'm going to develop a mission statement here for 2012. In no particular order here are the things I wish for not only in my own work but others involved in the storytelling arts.
1. Take 3 to 6 months to produce a novel rather than 3 to 6 years like my last endeavors. No writing is ever wasted but I finally feel I have a voice I actually like and, at least with this current project, a set of characters I love and genuinely surprise me now and again.
2. Stop breaking your own rules when telling your story. I see this in all genres and my own writing from time to time but let this example serve best. How does a telepathic mutant suddenly develop diamond hard skin as a "secondary mutation?" (This is Emma Frost, from the X Men, by the way). What? Being a telepath wasn't interesting enough?
3. If a video game requires a narrative (beyond being an obstacle course) get us emotionally involved to drive the narrative.
4. Finally, remember if it isn't working for you, it's not going to work for others.
If I stayed true to my convictions, hopefully this blog will look a little more active in the coming year. Regardless, see something awesome, experience an electrifying emotion, and never stop creating.
1. Take 3 to 6 months to produce a novel rather than 3 to 6 years like my last endeavors. No writing is ever wasted but I finally feel I have a voice I actually like and, at least with this current project, a set of characters I love and genuinely surprise me now and again.
2. Stop breaking your own rules when telling your story. I see this in all genres and my own writing from time to time but let this example serve best. How does a telepathic mutant suddenly develop diamond hard skin as a "secondary mutation?" (This is Emma Frost, from the X Men, by the way). What? Being a telepath wasn't interesting enough?
3. If a video game requires a narrative (beyond being an obstacle course) get us emotionally involved to drive the narrative.
4. Finally, remember if it isn't working for you, it's not going to work for others.
If I stayed true to my convictions, hopefully this blog will look a little more active in the coming year. Regardless, see something awesome, experience an electrifying emotion, and never stop creating.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)