Different authors have different ideas about what constitutes a draft of a particular tale. Some count drafts by number of rewrites. Others are not so exact. Broadly speaking I think most authors would say they work in three drafts. And it works out like this:
DRAFT 1: Figuring out what you have and this constitutes everything from whatever is planned to the actual writing of the pages.
DRAFT 2: Making it the best draft possible based on whatever discoveries were made in that work of draft 1.
DRAFT 3: Bringing it before an audience and finding out if the story works for anyone else but the author.
To use film terminology, Draft 1 is the screenplay, Draft 2 is the footage shot, and Draft 3 is the final edited cut.
I'd like to show you how I grew as a writer taking a tale from Draft 1 to Draft 3. I'll call this STORY X. Mostly because it took approximately ten years.
DRAFT 1 came about because in two previous stories that didn't work I met two characters that I thought would make interesting friends. I liked the spirit of one of the girls and the other fascinated me because I couldn't figure out her past. Eventually I found a way to have them meet and put them up in a kind of modern samurai/ninja epic. The supernatural aspect of the story was kind of wonky but I ran with it thinking it could make sense later.
DRAFT 2 was the polishing portion of it. I tried my best to make it work by making the writing sing and making sure the dialogue was polished and it all made logical sense. I still didn't have a sense of one of the girl's past but I kept working at it. This story skewed young but the adults kept taking over and that's when people noticed how slow the story was moving by that point. I didn't disagree. It's the old adage if two or people tell you you're drunk maybe it's best to lie down.
DRAFT 3 was the toughest in that I was trying to make the world building aspect of the story make sense. I thought I finally had this cracked in that some of the myths I was playing with got better details and I was doing my best to make sure the rules I'd set up weren't being broken. I thought I stripped out most of the boring parts. Then I passed the draft to a trusted reader.
And that last draft solved a lot of problems. But my friend's reaction to that last draft made me rethink the central relationship of the story. She could figure out why one of the girls was fascinated by her. But she couldn't quite understand why the other one would switch sides the way she did. Again she wasn't wrong. Curiously she didn't have much to say about her reaction to the world and rules I'd set up. This also forced me to take a closer look at that execution.
Now we were in the stage where we discover whether or not this story is worth saving at this point. One point of clarification about this story taking ten years. I have been living with these two central characters as they are now conceived for about ten years. The actual act of writing this particular plot was closer to 8. And while I wrestled with other things I was writing for either assignments or my own pleasure these two characters never really left me. And they still haven't.
There were two major things I changed based on my friend's reaction to Draft 3. Since I wanted the focus to be mostly on these two girls I had to eliminate one character. I also conceived of a backstory for the girl who switches sides. Her switching sides finally made sense with the building of her past. The supernatural agents causing the chaos in this story recruited her when she'd died. But the era in which she lived fascinated me. I put that on the back burner while I attempted to see where the story went when I eliminated one of the characters (made Girl 1 an only child instead of a sibling) and just ran with the friendship as part of the plot.
While I liked what I had something about the entire enterprise was bothering me. And this went back to the world I created for this story. There is a very real act of evil that kicks off the story but the reason for that evil are the agents that Girl 2 works for. And this bothered me. It took the agency off the characters when it came to taking responsibility for their own actions. And taking responsibility for what you could do and not do to prevent these actions drives the plot of the story.
It took a long time but the world I'd set up was flawed from the start and I couldn't make this work. This wasn't a waste of time except for maybe a few hours lost from my very patient first readers. The characters worked. The world didn't. And all of this effort showed me something that made all of this effort worth it.
I am not very good at world building. Those writers who conceive whole worlds I greatly admire and love reading them but I can't do it. I am more fascinated by character. This is why this particular story hasn't yet died. I am still convinced I can use these characters in the future.
In fact, Girl 2's backstory provided a window of something I'm going to try. It's set in 16th century Japan and if I really still want to do a samurai/ninja epic, well why not go to the source. And the era in which the girl was alive provides a fascinating time in history in which a very real act of evil occurred. Their response to it would drive a book's plot. And there's no supernatural crutches to diminish the horror of it.
I figure if I can't build a world, I can simply steal it. This will require research for the details and I think I can stick with that.
In the meantime I'd like to work on something as a kind of test. If I really feel that character building is stronger than my world building, I have an old plot in my files that will fit this. It's a ghost story that will have to succeed on character and atmosphere. A slightly different challenge but I think I'm up for it.
Thanks for sticking with this post. I'll leave you all with this caveat for any writers, published or not. Don't ever stop. Any time spent before a keyboard or pen/paper gets you better.
Sunday, February 21, 2016
Sunday, January 10, 2016
The Perils of Remaking Classics
I have wondered now and again when a story doesn't connect with an audience is it because of the idea behind it or in the execution of the idea. I tend to side with the way it is executed.
Case in point is three versions of that sci fi classic The Day The Earth Stood Still. I say three versions because the original story that inspired both film versions has a connection with the theme that all three versions share despite being separated by generations.
This theme is our reaction to being made aware of proof of the existence of extra terrestrial life and how we are judged as a species by that life. Ultimately our response to that encounter helps us grow or, in other versions of this kind of tale, destroys us.
To start with the tale that inspired these works we have to look at Harry Bates' original tale "Farewell to the Master". This short story involves a reporter dealing with the aftermath of an arrival of an alien ambassador protected by a robotic machine who'd been accidentally killed when first arriving. The robot never moves while it stands sentry over the tomb put up to commemorate the event. The reporter suspects that this robot can move and is up to something. The story details what he finds.
Robert Wise's version of The Day The Earth Stood Still takes the broad plot of the story and tailored it to the politics of the day of Soviet era Cold War Red Scare and McCarthyism. Scott Derrickson's version takes the same broad strokes in the plot and builds a convincing first contact scenario. But in that scenario the reasons for the contact are about environmental destruction.
In both of these versions the ambassador is there to deliver an ultimatum to the planet. The ambassador has an experience with a cross section of humanity and both beings are changed by that experience. The short story is most different in that there is a sense of loss with this first contact scenario. There isn't an ultimatum delivered. Both films invented one for the eras in which they were made. The reporter mourns about what they could have learned from this ambassador. I won't spoil it here but what the reporter discovers gives us hope for all.
Your mileage will vary but I think both movie versions are successful in selling their ideas. The reasons for the ultimatum change due to changing times of course but neither lose sight of the opportunity to learn. Missteps happen but that's what drives the plot. They are working from a scenario which is a hard sell to begin with. You have been measured and found wanting. Fix your problems or face the consequences. I think both versions fail in one regard for both their messages in that they have to expressly spell out the message with speeches and then also respond with speeches. It is very much "on the nose" as writing instructors would say.
For the evil version of this scenario check out The New Twilight Zone episode "A Small Talent For War."
In some ways I think the original story sold the idea the best by leaving out the ultimatum. Simply mourning the loss of an opportunity to learn from another species is the greatest missed opportunity.
Monday, April 13, 2015
The Terminator and Time Travel
This summer, The Terminator is getting a reboot. Two trailers have been released.
And boy is it a doozy. In terms of marketing it does everything it is supposed to. Show right out of the gate that this is new and also give away a lot. Kyle Reese is sent back from a timeline that is broken. Everything that presumably happened in the four other movies occurred but now has been reset to make room for this story. Your mileage will vary but I am genuinely excited for this. It feels a bit like what the Star Trek reboot did and this is a good thing.
The original Terminator is my favorite movie. I didn't fully understand it when I first saw it (probably around age 10) but it stuck with me through the years and still holds up on repeat viewings. And what keeps that viewing fresh is the love story underlying the plot.
Strip away the time travel, the apocalyptic future, the unstoppable killer cyborg and you have a story as old as fairy tales. One lone knight protecting a princess and willing to die to protect her. The sequel is a variation on this plot only it's a father protecting a family instead. Too early to tell if this film will have an authentic emotional core but I want to outline below the kind of potential I see.
The Terminator film rights revert to Cameron in 2019. Before that happens we get this film, the first of a planned trilogy. This second trailer gave away another plot point that I wished they'd saved but like the two terminators in the sequel it was kind of hard to avoid.
John Connor has joined the machines.
I cackled with glee upon seeing that twist. This series is going in a direction that I always thought it needed to if it would continue beyond two. John Connor would have to die. T3 and T4 sort of addressed this but mangled the execution. The Sarah Connor Chronicles was heading in this direction, I think, before it got weird.
My only worry for this series is that bit about stopping judgement day from occurring. This series now appears to be playing with quantum mechanics rules of time travel. Alternate realities here we come. It takes the sting out of that horribly bleak ending to the original. Maybe Sarah and Kyle can find a reality where the missiles were never launched.
Saturday, November 29, 2014
Solaris: A Saga of First Contact
Stanislaw Lem's novel Solaris is one of those novels that proves how difficult science fiction can be to adapt to other mediums. Two filmmakers separated by a generation have taken a crack at it and both missed the point.
As a story Solaris is as simple as it gets. A research station orbiting an alien planet experiences some trouble and a psychologist is dispatched to determine if the project should be shutdown.
What the psychologist discovers is just how alien alien contact is. The planet Solaris has been attempting contact with manifestations of people or things from their past. Our psychologist must attempt to understand why when his dead wife returns to him.
Both versions of the films follow this template to the letter. Andrei Tarkovsky's 1972 version proves to be more faithful than Steven Soderburg's version in 2002. At least in terms of whole scenes lifted verbatim from Lem's novel. Both films emphasize a love story and that was never the point of the book.
A film professor I studied under maintained that people go to movies to experience an emotion. I think he is correct. Both films hang on the love story as that is probably an easier hook for an audience than anything else. Science Fiction doesn't deal in terms of those emotions as much. What science fiction excells at is Wonder.
And Wonder, despite the ability for filmmakers to craft any image, is seemingly hard to convey. Lem's novel is all about Wonder. Humans attempting to understand an alien intelligence through any means necessary and failing utterly.
All that said I don't think either of these films fail as an experience. These are vehicles for the filmmakers own ideas that they took from Lem's novel. Tarkovsky's version in particular seems to understand better not only why the humans misunderstand the nature of the contact. But the planet itself seems to understand where it went wrong.
Soderberg's version deviates the most only because it follows a more Hollywood like plot structure including a third act twist to produce a villian and an action sequence. It also only plays lip service to some of the greater ideas from the book. I think it succeeds in making the wife a little more human than the Russian version. It also can't hold a candle to those long philophical arguments that Tarkovsky loves.
I think what I find most curious about this is even with the original text (translated of course) and two different interpretations of the book filmed the ultimate answer is still waiting to be uncovered. And Stanislaw Lem would probably appreciate that.
As a story Solaris is as simple as it gets. A research station orbiting an alien planet experiences some trouble and a psychologist is dispatched to determine if the project should be shutdown.
What the psychologist discovers is just how alien alien contact is. The planet Solaris has been attempting contact with manifestations of people or things from their past. Our psychologist must attempt to understand why when his dead wife returns to him.
Both versions of the films follow this template to the letter. Andrei Tarkovsky's 1972 version proves to be more faithful than Steven Soderburg's version in 2002. At least in terms of whole scenes lifted verbatim from Lem's novel. Both films emphasize a love story and that was never the point of the book.
A film professor I studied under maintained that people go to movies to experience an emotion. I think he is correct. Both films hang on the love story as that is probably an easier hook for an audience than anything else. Science Fiction doesn't deal in terms of those emotions as much. What science fiction excells at is Wonder.
And Wonder, despite the ability for filmmakers to craft any image, is seemingly hard to convey. Lem's novel is all about Wonder. Humans attempting to understand an alien intelligence through any means necessary and failing utterly.
All that said I don't think either of these films fail as an experience. These are vehicles for the filmmakers own ideas that they took from Lem's novel. Tarkovsky's version in particular seems to understand better not only why the humans misunderstand the nature of the contact. But the planet itself seems to understand where it went wrong.
Soderberg's version deviates the most only because it follows a more Hollywood like plot structure including a third act twist to produce a villian and an action sequence. It also only plays lip service to some of the greater ideas from the book. I think it succeeds in making the wife a little more human than the Russian version. It also can't hold a candle to those long philophical arguments that Tarkovsky loves.
I think what I find most curious about this is even with the original text (translated of course) and two different interpretations of the book filmed the ultimate answer is still waiting to be uncovered. And Stanislaw Lem would probably appreciate that.
Wednesday, November 5, 2014
HORROR BETWEEN CULTURES. Re-experiencing The Ring.
Recently my littlest sister and I were having a movie night and she wanted a
list of good scary films. I looked at the list on her phone and made
suggestions accordingly while we waited for our pizza.
Something struck me about the titles I suggested for the list. All of them
were remakes of foreign horror films. "Quarantine", aka "REC"; "Silent House";
"The Ring" aka "Ringu"; "The Grudge" aka "Ju-on"; "Let Me In" aka "Let the
Right One In." The film my sister picked that night was "The Ring", the american version of
the japanese hit, "Ringu." She liked it and it had been long enough between
viewings that I got a new perspective on it. This also allows me to make a
larger point about what happens when you adapt source material for different
cultures.
Let's start with the original novel. Published in 1991 as "Ringu", Koji
Suzuki's novel about a reporter's quest to uncover what killed a family member
struck a chord in it's home country. It's a good cocktail of urban legend,
technophobia, and that old staple of Japanese horror the vengeful female ghost.
The title comes from the neverending cycle of this cursed videotape that kills
you in a week. The novel's protagonists are two men, the reporter and a friend
of his who's basically a nihilistic sociopath. The nature of the girl at the
center of the curse is different and there's a better explanation in the novel
for the need to copy her endlessly.
"Ringu," the 1998 adaptation of the original novel takes some liberties with
the book beyond the basic plot. They changed the gender of the reporter and
the nihilistic sociopath is the ex husband of the reporter. The nature of the
tape is basically the same. The ex husband has some psychic abilities that act
as a visual shorthand to get the info you need across at times. The fate of
the girl and her family have changed the most between the book and the film.
They basically made it palatable for a bigger audience without losing the main
idea behind the story. This isn't the first time this has happened and it
won't be the last. The novel "Let the Right One In" was similarly neutered but
for it's benefit. The nature of the monster in that story was changed by not
revealing a few key points from the book. The horror is lessened but still
effective on screen. The American remake "Let Me In" simplifies it even
further without losing the impact of the story.
"The Ring" most directly adapts the 1998 feature and the original novel. The
protagonists and the plot turns are basically the same. I will say that the
American version has a slight edge in atmosphere but I think that's mostly
because "Ringu" feels like a TV movie by Hollywood standards and "The Ring" is
a big budget studio feature. There is a lot more shocks in this film and set
pieces that goose the audience. I got the impression that the filmmakers
didn't trust the audience to stay awake or something.
But here's where I think the cultural differences come in. There's a
difference in running time between the two features of about twenty minutes.
That extra twenty minutes in the American version is devoted to those
unnecssary shock scares and the dreaded "Jake the Explainer" roles. And yet,
with all that explanation on the screen I still had to explain to my sister
what was going on in the ending. Believe me it wasn't just her. I saw this in
theatres in 2002 and you could feel half the theatre go "Huh?" I saw the
japanese version later and only THEN did I get what was happening in the end.
The novel does a better job explaining all of this.
I think horror works best when the reasons for WHY this is happening to people
isn't really spelled out. This is why I tend to enjoy the first film in a
franchise rather than the sequels. One of the complaints I remember about the
american version is once that countdown starts you're just sort of waiting for
the end to see if how they get out of it. To be fair that's a problem with the
set up for both versions. But japanese culture has a different relationship to
ghosts than western culture. Japanese culture treats spirits as part of the
scenery. They only become dangerous if they become something else. A ghost by
itself wouldn't necessarily be scary--just something to be respected.
American culture tends to treat a ghost as a problem to solve. "How do we help you
pass on?"
The American version also spends much more time using the scientific method to
break down what this is and what it isn't. It feels like a quick class in
video production in some of these scenes. That is completely missing from the
Japanese adaptation but is pulled liberally from the original novel.
I can recommend both versions of this movie as I think they represent two
responses to a classic ghost story. More films and books are in this franchise
and while I haven't seen or read all of them they go in wildly different
directions and beyond the scope of this piece.
list of good scary films. I looked at the list on her phone and made
suggestions accordingly while we waited for our pizza.
Something struck me about the titles I suggested for the list. All of them
were remakes of foreign horror films. "Quarantine", aka "REC"; "Silent House";
"The Ring" aka "Ringu"; "The Grudge" aka "Ju-on"; "Let Me In" aka "Let the
Right One In." The film my sister picked that night was "The Ring", the american version of
the japanese hit, "Ringu." She liked it and it had been long enough between
viewings that I got a new perspective on it. This also allows me to make a
larger point about what happens when you adapt source material for different
cultures.
Let's start with the original novel. Published in 1991 as "Ringu", Koji
Suzuki's novel about a reporter's quest to uncover what killed a family member
struck a chord in it's home country. It's a good cocktail of urban legend,
technophobia, and that old staple of Japanese horror the vengeful female ghost.
The title comes from the neverending cycle of this cursed videotape that kills
you in a week. The novel's protagonists are two men, the reporter and a friend
of his who's basically a nihilistic sociopath. The nature of the girl at the
center of the curse is different and there's a better explanation in the novel
for the need to copy her endlessly.
"Ringu," the 1998 adaptation of the original novel takes some liberties with
the book beyond the basic plot. They changed the gender of the reporter and
the nihilistic sociopath is the ex husband of the reporter. The nature of the
tape is basically the same. The ex husband has some psychic abilities that act
as a visual shorthand to get the info you need across at times. The fate of
the girl and her family have changed the most between the book and the film.
They basically made it palatable for a bigger audience without losing the main
idea behind the story. This isn't the first time this has happened and it
won't be the last. The novel "Let the Right One In" was similarly neutered but
for it's benefit. The nature of the monster in that story was changed by not
revealing a few key points from the book. The horror is lessened but still
effective on screen. The American remake "Let Me In" simplifies it even
further without losing the impact of the story.
"The Ring" most directly adapts the 1998 feature and the original novel. The
protagonists and the plot turns are basically the same. I will say that the
American version has a slight edge in atmosphere but I think that's mostly
because "Ringu" feels like a TV movie by Hollywood standards and "The Ring" is
a big budget studio feature. There is a lot more shocks in this film and set
pieces that goose the audience. I got the impression that the filmmakers
didn't trust the audience to stay awake or something.
But here's where I think the cultural differences come in. There's a
difference in running time between the two features of about twenty minutes.
That extra twenty minutes in the American version is devoted to those
unnecssary shock scares and the dreaded "Jake the Explainer" roles. And yet,
with all that explanation on the screen I still had to explain to my sister
what was going on in the ending. Believe me it wasn't just her. I saw this in
theatres in 2002 and you could feel half the theatre go "Huh?" I saw the
japanese version later and only THEN did I get what was happening in the end.
The novel does a better job explaining all of this.
I think horror works best when the reasons for WHY this is happening to people
isn't really spelled out. This is why I tend to enjoy the first film in a
franchise rather than the sequels. One of the complaints I remember about the
american version is once that countdown starts you're just sort of waiting for
the end to see if how they get out of it. To be fair that's a problem with the
set up for both versions. But japanese culture has a different relationship to
ghosts than western culture. Japanese culture treats spirits as part of the
scenery. They only become dangerous if they become something else. A ghost by
itself wouldn't necessarily be scary--just something to be respected.
American culture tends to treat a ghost as a problem to solve. "How do we help you
pass on?"
The American version also spends much more time using the scientific method to
break down what this is and what it isn't. It feels like a quick class in
video production in some of these scenes. That is completely missing from the
Japanese adaptation but is pulled liberally from the original novel.
I can recommend both versions of this movie as I think they represent two
responses to a classic ghost story. More films and books are in this franchise
and while I haven't seen or read all of them they go in wildly different
directions and beyond the scope of this piece.
Friday, September 12, 2014
Big Hero 6 and the Lost Audience
WHAT HAPPENS WHEN AUDIENCES CROSS OVER:
I wish I could say the news about THIS was surprising but in the business of Hollywood it's not. I think it illustrates something about audience crossover between media. In brief, massive success in one medium doesn't always translate to bigger numbers when accessing the adapted source material. I'll try to outline why here.
Big Hero 6 (TRAILER HERE) is a Disney Animation adaptation of a somewhat obscure Marvel comic. As the article above states Marvel Comics won't be reissuing the older material except for a short mini from 2008 and that's only in digital form. What we will be getting is a manga adaptation of the film. The article is HERE. Irony abounds because Big Hero 6 was initially conceived as aping Japanese comic book conventions in superhero form.
The article above points out why Marvel is doing this and it's not surprising. Disney gets to make the property their own while Marvel Studios focuses on it's ever expanding superhero roster of films. The money keeps getting made and this is a good thing. Guardians of the Galaxy was the biggest success of 2014 because it was well made and everybody involved had a good time. But I can nearly guarantee that those that enjoyed the film won't attempt to seek out the inspiration.
An author I like works in both novels and comic books. In one case he wrote three novels featuring characters from his comic book series. They weren't adaptations but original stories. He said something that stuck with me during one of his signings. He found that the comic book readers of that series sought out the novels featuring the same characters. But the novel fans did not seek out the comic books. I am sure he was painting with a broad brush there but the point remains. Fans appear to seek out anything. But the average audience won't. And if this ARTICLE'S stats haven't changed much the audience is there but it's rather small.
I think there are two reasons for this audience disconnect. The first is pure economics. Comics are insanely expensive these days for lots of reasons. When I got into comics as a kid they were slightly easier to find but they were also less expensive. Average cover price was about $.75. Now they're $4.00 or so. Per issue. You'd also think that trade paperbacks of collected material--the only way comics get into bookstores these days--would be cheaper. Not so. Digital comics mimic their paper counterparts in price and that's not going to change anytime soon. Film ticket prices have been going up but it's still cheaper to get two hours of entertainment than about twenty minutes of a comic book for the same price.
The second reason requires some training. Some people don't understand how to read a comic. Panels flow in a particular order to convey the story and if a writer and/or artist doesn't understand how that works you get an incomprehensible mess. Scott McCloud wrote and illustrated a graphic novel called "Understanding Comics" that explained the theory behind how a comic works, how it's put together as well as the history of the medium itself. It's fascinating reading but one critic I remember pointed out that unless you knew how to read a graphic novel it wouldn't work. This isn't just learning to read a comic. This also applies to reading subtitles on a screen. Some can't do it. This is why we'll get a new English dub on foreign material.
The economic reason can't be fixed but the education reason can. Those that create the source material that gets adapted into something else have a responsibility then to make it the best it can be. A good film will pay for itself and then some. As will good source material. I want graphic novels (and superheroes are only one part of this medium) to be on the same shelf as all the other things we read in bookstores and online. I want it to catch up to the rest of pop culture. It's getting there. Slowly.
I wish I could say the news about THIS was surprising but in the business of Hollywood it's not. I think it illustrates something about audience crossover between media. In brief, massive success in one medium doesn't always translate to bigger numbers when accessing the adapted source material. I'll try to outline why here.
Big Hero 6 (TRAILER HERE) is a Disney Animation adaptation of a somewhat obscure Marvel comic. As the article above states Marvel Comics won't be reissuing the older material except for a short mini from 2008 and that's only in digital form. What we will be getting is a manga adaptation of the film. The article is HERE. Irony abounds because Big Hero 6 was initially conceived as aping Japanese comic book conventions in superhero form.
The article above points out why Marvel is doing this and it's not surprising. Disney gets to make the property their own while Marvel Studios focuses on it's ever expanding superhero roster of films. The money keeps getting made and this is a good thing. Guardians of the Galaxy was the biggest success of 2014 because it was well made and everybody involved had a good time. But I can nearly guarantee that those that enjoyed the film won't attempt to seek out the inspiration.
An author I like works in both novels and comic books. In one case he wrote three novels featuring characters from his comic book series. They weren't adaptations but original stories. He said something that stuck with me during one of his signings. He found that the comic book readers of that series sought out the novels featuring the same characters. But the novel fans did not seek out the comic books. I am sure he was painting with a broad brush there but the point remains. Fans appear to seek out anything. But the average audience won't. And if this ARTICLE'S stats haven't changed much the audience is there but it's rather small.
I think there are two reasons for this audience disconnect. The first is pure economics. Comics are insanely expensive these days for lots of reasons. When I got into comics as a kid they were slightly easier to find but they were also less expensive. Average cover price was about $.75. Now they're $4.00 or so. Per issue. You'd also think that trade paperbacks of collected material--the only way comics get into bookstores these days--would be cheaper. Not so. Digital comics mimic their paper counterparts in price and that's not going to change anytime soon. Film ticket prices have been going up but it's still cheaper to get two hours of entertainment than about twenty minutes of a comic book for the same price.
The second reason requires some training. Some people don't understand how to read a comic. Panels flow in a particular order to convey the story and if a writer and/or artist doesn't understand how that works you get an incomprehensible mess. Scott McCloud wrote and illustrated a graphic novel called "Understanding Comics" that explained the theory behind how a comic works, how it's put together as well as the history of the medium itself. It's fascinating reading but one critic I remember pointed out that unless you knew how to read a graphic novel it wouldn't work. This isn't just learning to read a comic. This also applies to reading subtitles on a screen. Some can't do it. This is why we'll get a new English dub on foreign material.
The economic reason can't be fixed but the education reason can. Those that create the source material that gets adapted into something else have a responsibility then to make it the best it can be. A good film will pay for itself and then some. As will good source material. I want graphic novels (and superheroes are only one part of this medium) to be on the same shelf as all the other things we read in bookstores and online. I want it to catch up to the rest of pop culture. It's getting there. Slowly.
Sunday, May 18, 2014
SCIENCE FICTION PURITY TESTING
A recent post of mine on FB sparked a conversation about the "purity" of science fiction in films. Christopher Nolan's "Interstellar" posted a trailer HERE and I remarked that Hollywood was releasing a "pure" science fiction film and I hoped audiences would embrace it.
A friend asked for a "purity scale" and I just used an arbitrary 5 point system. It would measure how close a film adheres to science fiction concepts without aping other genre conventions. Just based on the trailer and what I've heard about "Interstellar" this film looks at best to explore a human's place in the universe or perhaps some variation on a first contact type of situation. I gave it a four out of five.
For contrast I used James Cameron's "Avatar" as a counterpoint for something that looks like science fiction but is clearly a western instead. The alien NaVi are the Native Americans. The humans are the calvary. Jake Sully is the officer that goes native and joins the war against the oppressors while trying to make his CO see where he's wrong. (He's also stealing from Edgar Rice Burroughs' "A Princess of Mars" but everybody steals from that book so he gets a pass there.) Avatar gets a 1 out of 5 on this scale.
My friend's next question prompted this entry. "What's 5 out of 5" on this scale?"
Before I dive into that I need to clarify a few things. Science Fiction revels in exploring really big ideas--explaining the origin of life, our place in this universe, what being human really means. It's a great strength and sometimes a weakness in that sometimes the concept outshines the characters. Asimov, as great as he was, was a better idea man than a character writer. I think this is part of the reason that science fiction isn't embraced as easily by some audiences. You need to care to have an emotional reaction. It's no accident that Interstellar is focusing on that main family in that trailer. The heart latches on. The head will follow.
Let's stipulate that story, whatever it is, trumps everything but in telling that story sometimes genres cross. Films do this less than books but that's primarily a matter of time. Urban Fantasy seems to borrow from everywhere--horror, science fiction, romance, mystery.
With that in mind here's a few films that rate a 5 out of 5 for the most pure science fiction films out there. Order doesn't indicate preference and these are limited to what I've seen.
Robert Wise's Star Trek: The Motion Picture: Yes, this is the one that everyone seems to hate and you can lob a lot of critcism on it for it's pacing, stiff acting and such but in terms of pure science fiction this film is the closest out of the dozen that have been made. It's a first contact story even if the alien turned out to be our own creation. It embodied everything that made the original Trek such a phenonenon. What happens when we actually discover new alien life?
Stanley Kubrick's 2001: Another alien contact saga filled with multitple interpretations that required a sequel (2010) to explain what happened in this one. I'm going on some very vague memories here but I don't know if this film is known more for what that alien presence was trying to teach us humans or Hal 9000s homicidal rampage and the perils of messing with artificial intelligence.
Ridley Scott's Prometheus: A group of scientists attempt to unlock a mystery about what seeded the Earth with life. They are essentially trying to find God (in a plot that Star Trek V only wish it had) and they get more than they bargained for. Yes, this is part of the "Alien" series and ironically it was the least well received out of the series despite being the only one that qualifies as science fiction.
Alex Proyas' Dark City: Lots of science fiction deals with that perception of reality and how we relate to it. This story of a man trying to figure out what's hunting him in a city that changes every night is fascinating in just how much is held back until the ulitmate reveal. Others I know figured it out before I did but I didn't and I was thrilled for it.
I've barely scratched the surface here but I'll close with a list of honorable mentions and why they didn't quite make 5.
Ridley Scott's Blade Runner: No matter what version you've seen (there are technically seven) they are all wrestling with that question of "What makes us human?" This film is a noir thriller in science fiction dress and plays like a Raymond Chandler novel.
Christopher Nolan's Inception: Even though this is wrestling with things like memory, reality, dreams and such it's a heist film only instead of knocking over a bank they are knocking over a brain.
James Cameron's The Terminator: Despite the time travel, apocalpytic trappings this is a horror film. The Terminator is an unstoppable killer and Sarah Connor is the babysitter running up the stairs into the closet.
Danny Boyle's Sunshine: A group of scientists attempt to use a nuclear device to restart the sun when the first expedition doesn't succeed. The science is plausible but this is a horror film once they get where they are going.
Kathryn Bigelow's Strange Days: A very misunderstood picture with stomach churning violence but despite the tech trappings is a psychological thriller about an ex-cop trying to uncover the identity of a serial killer.
A friend asked for a "purity scale" and I just used an arbitrary 5 point system. It would measure how close a film adheres to science fiction concepts without aping other genre conventions. Just based on the trailer and what I've heard about "Interstellar" this film looks at best to explore a human's place in the universe or perhaps some variation on a first contact type of situation. I gave it a four out of five.
For contrast I used James Cameron's "Avatar" as a counterpoint for something that looks like science fiction but is clearly a western instead. The alien NaVi are the Native Americans. The humans are the calvary. Jake Sully is the officer that goes native and joins the war against the oppressors while trying to make his CO see where he's wrong. (He's also stealing from Edgar Rice Burroughs' "A Princess of Mars" but everybody steals from that book so he gets a pass there.) Avatar gets a 1 out of 5 on this scale.
My friend's next question prompted this entry. "What's 5 out of 5" on this scale?"
Before I dive into that I need to clarify a few things. Science Fiction revels in exploring really big ideas--explaining the origin of life, our place in this universe, what being human really means. It's a great strength and sometimes a weakness in that sometimes the concept outshines the characters. Asimov, as great as he was, was a better idea man than a character writer. I think this is part of the reason that science fiction isn't embraced as easily by some audiences. You need to care to have an emotional reaction. It's no accident that Interstellar is focusing on that main family in that trailer. The heart latches on. The head will follow.
Let's stipulate that story, whatever it is, trumps everything but in telling that story sometimes genres cross. Films do this less than books but that's primarily a matter of time. Urban Fantasy seems to borrow from everywhere--horror, science fiction, romance, mystery.
With that in mind here's a few films that rate a 5 out of 5 for the most pure science fiction films out there. Order doesn't indicate preference and these are limited to what I've seen.
Robert Wise's Star Trek: The Motion Picture: Yes, this is the one that everyone seems to hate and you can lob a lot of critcism on it for it's pacing, stiff acting and such but in terms of pure science fiction this film is the closest out of the dozen that have been made. It's a first contact story even if the alien turned out to be our own creation. It embodied everything that made the original Trek such a phenonenon. What happens when we actually discover new alien life?
Stanley Kubrick's 2001: Another alien contact saga filled with multitple interpretations that required a sequel (2010) to explain what happened in this one. I'm going on some very vague memories here but I don't know if this film is known more for what that alien presence was trying to teach us humans or Hal 9000s homicidal rampage and the perils of messing with artificial intelligence.
Ridley Scott's Prometheus: A group of scientists attempt to unlock a mystery about what seeded the Earth with life. They are essentially trying to find God (in a plot that Star Trek V only wish it had) and they get more than they bargained for. Yes, this is part of the "Alien" series and ironically it was the least well received out of the series despite being the only one that qualifies as science fiction.
Alex Proyas' Dark City: Lots of science fiction deals with that perception of reality and how we relate to it. This story of a man trying to figure out what's hunting him in a city that changes every night is fascinating in just how much is held back until the ulitmate reveal. Others I know figured it out before I did but I didn't and I was thrilled for it.
I've barely scratched the surface here but I'll close with a list of honorable mentions and why they didn't quite make 5.
Ridley Scott's Blade Runner: No matter what version you've seen (there are technically seven) they are all wrestling with that question of "What makes us human?" This film is a noir thriller in science fiction dress and plays like a Raymond Chandler novel.
Christopher Nolan's Inception: Even though this is wrestling with things like memory, reality, dreams and such it's a heist film only instead of knocking over a bank they are knocking over a brain.
James Cameron's The Terminator: Despite the time travel, apocalpytic trappings this is a horror film. The Terminator is an unstoppable killer and Sarah Connor is the babysitter running up the stairs into the closet.
Danny Boyle's Sunshine: A group of scientists attempt to use a nuclear device to restart the sun when the first expedition doesn't succeed. The science is plausible but this is a horror film once they get where they are going.
Kathryn Bigelow's Strange Days: A very misunderstood picture with stomach churning violence but despite the tech trappings is a psychological thriller about an ex-cop trying to uncover the identity of a serial killer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)