WRITING IS A SCIENTIFIC ART

Bu$hleaguer

2011-11-03T09:15:00.000Z

I remember when you sang that song about today.

Now it's tomorrow and everything has changed.

Ed got a lot of stick for putting the (then) President's head on a spike.....

Dexter - what's an extra 4 million....?

2011-10-05T09:55:00.000+01:00

So there are rumours that Dexter (my favouritest show on air at the moment) is facing cancellation because of cuts:

Showtime is currently in a similar situation with its own hit series Dexter, since talks have broken down between the network and series star Michael C. Hall. The actor's contract is up after this current season, which premiered on Sunday night with a record 2.2 million viewers tuning in. That figure is up 24% from the Season 5 premiere. It is said that Showtime is offering Michael C. Hall $20 million for two more seasons of Dexter. The actor is asking for $24 million for two seasons. Negotiations are still ongoing, but it seems there is a big gap to overcome.
(via movieweb)

Read that again.

Showtime is offering Michael C. Hall $20 million for two more seasons of Dexter. The actor is asking for $24 million for two seasons.

Seriously? Four million?! What's four million to Michael C. Hall - the co-executive producer and star of Showtime's biggest show ever? Especially compared to 20 million?

Now, I'm all for people getting money for their work. It doesn't bother me that Tom Hanks has enough money to build seven Death Stars. Neither does it bother me that Michael C. Hall is (most likely) a wee bit richer than me.

But does it really matter whether he gets that four million? I'm in two minds really - part of me loves Dexter and wants to see it continue for as long as possible. But another part of me doesn't want to see the show fizzle out and get worse and worse until, finally, it's axed (Smallville anyone?).

On a side-note, Sunday's season 6 premiere seemed to present a real sense of finality about the show. As though serious shit is about to go down that will never be reversed. Dexter has to get caught eventually, right? I just hope we get to see it....

Ah, I don't know. Watch this space I suppose......

The Academy Awards "changes"

2011-09-22T11:10:00.000+01:00

They're clamping down on the "cheating" involved in the Oscars. Take a look here.

A rundown of the new Academy restrictions:
- After Oscar nominations are announced on January 24 (until Feb. 21), no receptions may be held following screenings.
- During this period, Academy members (and nominees) may not attend non-screening events celebrating that year’s nominees.
- Filmmakers may only participate in two Q&A panels at screenings that Academy members have been invited to.
- Remember, no crap talking the other guys on Twitter or Facebook or other social media. Or else, suspension and then bye bye membership! Got it, Nicolas Chartier?
- Also, this will be the first year in which studios may send digital screeners to voting members for consideration.

But will it do any good? Will it make a difference?

There's always going to be a prestige issue with the Oscars, particularly Best Picture.

Why does a "Comedy" never win? Why does Animation get its own category - should every film not be measured on the same scale? Just two issues. There are many.

Looking at the Best Picture winners over the years:

The King's Speech (2010) - I thought Black Swan was vastly superior in terms of writing, acting, and scope. But The King's Speech was a film about a historical figure and was "important". So it won. It was always going to because of that alone.

The Hurt Locker (2009) - again, I thought District 9 was superior. But The Hurt Locker was "important" and based on fact. Whereas aliens have yet to invade (apparently).

Shakespeare in Love (1998) - I've never understood this one. How Saving Private Ryan didn't win is a mystery to me. But then.....Shakespeare in Love is about a historical figure.

Titanic (1997) - better than Good Will Hunting? Seriously?! Ah....but Titanic actually happened!

Yes, I know I'm generalising, but the point is that it's never a level playing field. Prestige is always there.

Maybe it's better that 10 films are nominated now (instead of five, since 2009). But does it mean the bottom of the barrel gets a little scraped?

Some Best Picture nominations from the last two years:

Inglourious Basterds - seriously?! Other than one very well-written scene early on, it's a bit of a train wreck, surely?

Avatar - yes, it's technologically wonderful. But what does it bring to the table? Not much.

Inception - I know a lot of people love it, but for me, the logic doesn't hold up half the time, it's not that visually interesting, the performances are sub-par, and it all seems like an inferior version of The Matrix.

Okay, rant over. You may now go back to your coffee/beer/whisky.

Sometimes you're treated like crap. Get over it - you'll be fine....

2011-09-06T09:43:00.000+01:00

An interview with someone who got screwed over a few times, but didn't turn out too bad (Joss Whedon):

"Most of the dialogue in Speed is mine, and a bunch of the characters. That was actually pretty much a good experience. I have quibbles. I also have the only poster left with my name still on it. Getting arbitrated off the credits was un-fun."

"In X-Men, not only did they throw out my script and never tell me about it; they actually invited me to the read-through, having thrown out my entire draft without telling me. I was like, "Oh, that's right! This is the movies! The writer is shit in the movies!" I'll never understand that. I have one line left in that movie. Actually, there are a couple of lines left in that are out of context and make no sense, or are delivered so badly, so terribly... There's one line that's left the way I wrote it.

O: Which is?

JW: "'It's me.' 'Prove it.' 'You're a dick.'" Hey, it got a laugh.

O: It's funny that the only lines I really remember from that movie are that one and Storm's toad comment.

JW: Okay, which was also mine, and that's the interesting thing. Everybody remembers that as the worst line ever written, but the thing about that is, it was supposed to be delivered as completely offhand. [Adopts casual, bored tone.] "You know what happens when a toad gets hit by lightning?" Then, after he gets electrocuted, "Ahhh, pretty much the same thing that happens to anything else." But Halle Berry said it like she was Desdemona. [Strident, ringing voice.] "The same thing that happens to everything eeelse!" That's the thing that makes you go crazy. At least "You're a dick" got delivered right. The worst thing about these things is that, when the actors say it wrong, it makes the writer look stupid. People assume that the line... I listened to half the dialogue in Alien 4, and I'm like, "That's idiotic," because of the way it was said. And nobody knows that. Nobody ever gets that. They say, "That was a stupid script," which is the worst pain in the world."

Full interview:

O: How closely were you involved with the making of the Buffy movie?

JW: I had major involvement. I was there almost all the way through shooting. I pretty much eventually threw up my hands because I could not be around Donald Sutherland any longer. It didn't turn out to be the movie that I had written. They never do, but that was my first lesson in that. Not that the movie is without merit, but I just watched a lot of stupid wannabe-star behavior and a director with a different vision than mine—which was her right, it was her movie—but it was still frustrating. Eventually, I was like, "I need to be away from here."

O: Was it a personality conflict between you and Sutherland, or was he just not what you'd envisioned in that role?

JW: No, no, he was just a prick. The thing is, people always make fun of Rutger Hauer [for his Buffy role]. Even though he was big and silly and looked kind of goofy in the movie, I have to give him credit, because he was there. He was into it. Whereas Donald was just... He would rewrite all his dialogue, and the director would let him. He can't write—he's not a writer—so the dialogue would not make sense. And he had a very bad attitude. He was incredibly rude to the director, he was rude to everyone around him, he was just a real pain. And to see him destroying my stuff... Some people didn't notice. Some people liked him in the movie. Because he's Donald Sutherland. He's a great actor. He can read the phone book, and I'm interested. But the thing is, he acts well enough that you didn't notice, with his little rewrites, and his little ideas about what his character should do, that he was actually destroying the movie more than Rutger was. So I got out of there. I had to run away.

O: What was Paul Reubens like? He seems to be the actor people remember most from the movie.

JW: [Adopts weepy, awed voice.] He is a god that walks among us. He is one of the sweetest, most professional and delightful people I've ever worked with. [Normal voice.] He was my beacon of hope in that whole experience, that he was such a good guy, and so got it. I mean, most of the people were sweet. Most of them were actively out there trying... They were good people. Paul was a delight to be around, trying to make it better. He actually said to me, "I'm a little worried about this line, and I want to change it. I realize that it'll change this other thing, so if that's a problem..." I'm like, "Did I just hear an actor say that?"

O: How early on did it occur to you to re-do Buffy the way you'd originally intended?

JW: You know, it wasn't really my idea. After the première of the movie, my wife said, "You know, honey, maybe a few years from now, you'll get to make it again, the way you want to make it!" [Broad, condescending voice.] "Ha ha ha, you little naïve fool. It doesn't work that way. That'll never happen." And then it was three years later, and Gail Berman actually had the idea. Sandollar [Television] had the property, and Gail thought it would make a good TV series. They called me up out of contractual obligation: "Call the writer, have him pass." And I was like, "Well, that sounds cool." So, to my agent's surprise and chagrin, I said, "Yeah, I could do that. I think I get it. It could be a high-school horror movie. It'd be a metaphor for how lousy my high-school years were." So I hadn't had the original idea, I just developed it.

O: You joke a lot in interviews about how you wanted to write horror because you experienced so much of it in high school. Did you have an unusually bad high-school experience, or was it just the usual teen traumas?

JW: I think it's not inaccurate to say that I had a perfectly happy childhood during which I was very unhappy. It was nothing worse than anybody else. I could not get a date to save my life, but my last three years of high school were at a boys' school, so I wasn't actually looking that hard. I was not popular in school, and I was definitely not a ladies' man. And I had a very painful adolescence, because it was all very strange to me. It wasn't like I got beat up, but the humiliation and isolation, and the existential "God, I exist, and nobody cares" of being a teenager were extremely pronounced for me. I don't have horror stories. I mean, I have a few horror stories about attempting to court a girl, which would make people laugh, but it's not like I think I had it worse than other people. But that's sort of the point of Buffy, that I'm talking about the stuff everybody goes through. Nobody gets out of here without some trauma.

O: How much of your writing made it into the final versions of Twister and Speed?

JW: Most of the dialogue in Speed is mine, and a bunch of the characters. That was actually pretty much a good experience. I have quibbles. I also have the only poster left with my name still on it. Getting arbitrated off the credits was un-fun. But Speed has a bunch. And Twister, less. In Twister, there are things that worked and things that weren't the way I'd intended them. Whereas Speed came out closer to what I'd been trying to do. I think of Speed as one of the few movies I've made that I actually like.

O: What about Waterworld?

JW: [Laughs.] Waterworld. I refer to myself as the world's highest-paid stenographer. This is a situation I've been in a bunch of times. By the way, I'm very bitter, is that okay? I mean, people ask me, "What's the worst job you ever had?" "I once was a writer in Hollywood..." Talk about taking the glow off of movies. I've had almost nothing but bad experiences. Waterworld was a good idea, and the script was the classic, "They have a good idea, then they write a generic script and don't really care about the idea." When I was brought in, there was no water in the last 40 pages of the script. It all took place on land, or on a ship, or whatever. I'm like, "Isn't the cool thing about this guy that he has gills?" And no one was listening. I was there basically taking notes from Costner, who was very nice, fine to work with, but he was not a writer. And he had written a bunch of stuff that they wouldn't let their staff touch. So I was supposed to be there for a week, and I was there for seven weeks, and I accomplished nothing. I wrote a few puns, and a few scenes that I can't even sit through because they came out so bad. It was the same situation with X-Men. They said, "Come in and punch up the big climax, the third act, and if you can, make it cheaper." That was the mandate on both movies, and my response to both movies was, "The problem with the third act is the first two acts." But, again, no one was paying attention. X-Men was very interesting in that, by that time, I actually had a reputation in television. I was actually somebody. People stopped thinking I was John Sweden on the phone. And then, in X-Men, not only did they throw out my script and never tell me about it; they actually invited me to the read-through, having thrown out my entire draft without telling me. I was like, "Oh, that's right! This is the movies! The writer is shit in the movies!" I'll never understand that. I have one line left in that movie. Actually, there are a couple of lines left in that are out of context and make no sense, or are delivered so badly, so terribly... There's one line that's left the way I wrote it.

O: Which is?

JW: "'It's me.' 'Prove it.' 'You're a dick.'" Hey, it got a laugh.

O: It's funny that the only lines I really remember from that movie are that one and Storm's toad comment.

JW: Okay, which was also mine, and that's the interesting thing. Everybody remembers that as the worst line ever written, but the thing about that is, it was supposed to be delivered as completely offhand. [Adopts casual, bored tone.] "You know what happens when a toad gets hit by lightning?" Then, after he gets electrocuted, "Ahhh, pretty much the same thing that happens to anything else." But Halle Berry said it like she was Desdemona. [Strident, ringing voice.] "The same thing that happens to everything eeelse!" That's the thing that makes you go crazy. At least "You're a dick" got delivered right. The worst thing about these things is that, when the actors say it wrong, it makes the writer look stupid. People assume that the line... I listened to half the dialogue in Alien 4, and I'm like, "That's idiotic," because of the way it was said. And nobody knows that. Nobody ever gets that. They say, "That was a stupid script," which is the worst pain in the world. I have a great long boring story about that, but I can tell you the very short version. In Alien 4, the director changed something so that it didn't make any sense. He wanted someone to go and get a gun and get killed by the alien, so I wrote that in and tried to make it work, but he directed it in a way that it made no sense whatsoever. And I was sitting there in the editing room, trying to come up with looplines to explain what's going on, to make the scene make sense, and I asked the director, "Can you just explain to me why he's doing this? Why is he going for this gun?" And the editor, who was French, turned to me and said, with a little leer on his face, [adopts gravelly, smarmy, French-accented voice] "Because eet's een the screept." And I actually went and dented the bathroom stall with my puddly little fist. I have never been angrier. But it's the classic, "When something goes wrong, you assume the writer's a dork." And that's painful.

O: Have you done any other uncredited script work?

JW: Actually, my first gig ever was writing looplines for a movie that had already been made. You know, writing lines over somebody's back to explain something, to help make a connection, to add a joke, or to just add babble because the people are in frame and should be saying something. We're constantly saving something that doesn't work, or trying to, with lines behind people's backs. It's almost like adding narration, but cheaper. I did looplines for The Getaway, the Alec Baldwin/Kim Basinger version. If you look carefully at The Getaway, you'll see that when people's backs are turned, or their heads are slightly out of frame, the whole movie has a certain edge to it. I also did a couple of days of looplines and punch-ups for The Quick And The Dead, just to meet Sam Raimi.

O: I attended your Q&A session at a comics convention last year, and many of the people who got up to ask questions were nearly in tears over the chance to get to talk to you. Some of them could barely speak, and others couldn't stop gushing about you, and about Buffy. How do you deal with that kind of emotional intensity?

JW: It's about the show, and I feel the same way about it. I get the same way. It's not like being a rock star. It doesn't feel like they're reacting to me. It's really sweet when people react like that, and I love the praise, but to me, what they're getting emotional about is the show. And that's the best feeling in the world. There's nothing creepy about it. I feel like there's a religion in narrative, and I feel the same way they do. I feel like we're both paying homage to something else; they're not paying homage to me.

O: Does knowing that you have fans who are that dedicated put extra pressure on you, or does seeing the show as something outside yourself make it easier to deal with?

JW: You don't want to let them down. The people who feel the most strongly about something will turn on you the most vociferously if they feel you've let them down. Sometimes you roll your eyes and you want to say, "Back off," but you don't get the big praise without getting the big criticism. Because people care. So. Much. And you always know that's lurking there. It does make a difference. If nobody was paying attention, I might very well say, "You know what, guys? Let's churn 'em out, churn 'em out, make some money." I like to think I wouldn't, but I don't know. I don't know me, I might be a dick. Once the critics, after the first season, really got the show, we all sort of looked at each other and said, "Ohhh-kay..." We thought we were
going to fly under the radar, and nobody was going to notice the show. And then we had this responsibility, and we got kind of nervous. You don't want to let them down. But ultimately, the narrative feeds you so much. It's so exciting to find out what's going to happen next, to find the next important thing in the narrative, to step down and say, "That's so cool."

O: Are you ever surprised by your fans' passion for the show?

JW: No. I designed the show to create that strong reaction. I designed Buffy to be an icon, to be an emotional experience, to be loved in a way that other shows can't be loved. Because it's about adolescence, which is the most important thing people go through in their development, becoming an adult. And it mythologizes it in such a way, such a romantic way—it basically says, "Everybody who made it through adolescence is a hero." And I think that's very personal, that people get something from that that's very real. And I don't think I could be more pompous. But I mean every word of it. I wanted her to be a cultural phenomenon. I wanted there to be dolls, Barbie with kung-fu grip. I wanted people to embrace it in a way that exists beyond, "Oh, that was a wonderful show about lawyers, let's have dinner." I wanted people to internalize it, and make up fantasies where they were in the story, to take it home with them, for it to exist beyond the TV show. And we've done exactly that. Now I'm writing comics, and I'm getting all excited about the mythology. We're doing a book of stories about other slayers, and I'm all excited about that, and it's all growing in my mind, as well. I think she has become an icon, and that's what I wanted. What more could anybody ask?

O: Do you ever feel a responsibility to society, to use your massive power for good?

JW: Yes and no. I mean, I've always been, and long before anybody was paying any attention, very careful about my responsibility in narrative. How much do I put what I want to put, and how much do I put what I feel is correct? People say, "After Columbine, do you feel a responsibility about the way you portray violence?" And I'm like, "No, I felt a responsibility about the way I portrayed violence the first time I picked up a pen." I mean, everybody felt... It's a ridiculous thing to ask a writer. But you feel it, and at the same time—and I've said this before—a writer has a responsibility to tell stories that are dark and sexy and violent, where characters that you love do stupid, wrong things and get away with it, that we explore these parts of people's lives, because that's what makes stories into fairy tales instead of polemics. That's what makes stories resonate, that thing, that dark place that we all want to go to on some level or another. It's very important. People are like, [whining] "Well, your characters have sex, and those costumes, and blah blah..." And I'm like, "You're in adolescence, and you're thinking about what besides sex?" I feel that we're showing something that is true, that people can relate to and say, "Oh, I made that bad choice," or "Oh, there's a better way to do that." But as long as it's real, then however politically correct, or incorrect, or whatever, bizarre, or dark, or funny, or stupid—anything you can get, as long as it's real, I don't mind.

O: Speaking of sex and reality, the Tara-and-Willow relationship has been controversial from several angles, with one side of the spectrum accusing you of promoting a homosexual agenda while the other side accuses you of exploiting lesbian chic.

JW: You just have to ignore that. I actually went online and said, "I realize that this has shocked a lot of people, and I've made a mistake by trying to shove this lifestyle—which is embraced by, maybe, at most, 10 percent of Americans—down people's throats. So I'm going to take it back, and from now on, Willow will no longer be a Jew." And somebody was actually like, [adopts agitated whine] "What do you mean she's not going to be a Jew anymore?" I was like, "Can we get a 'sarcasm' font?" But, you know, the first criticism we got was, "She's not gay enough. They're not gay enough." We were playing it as a metaphor, and it was like, "Why don't they come out? They're not gay enough!" And eventually we did start to say, "Well, maybe we're being a little coy. They've got good chemistry, this is working out, why don't we just go ahead and make them go for it?" And, of course, once you bring it out in the open, it's no longer a metaphor. Then it's just an Issue. But we never played it that way. Ultimately, some people say "lesbian chic," I say, "Okay, whatever." Those criticisms don't really bug me. You look at shows like Ally McBeal and Party Of Five, which both did lesbian kisses that were promoted and hyped for months and months, and afterwards the characters were like, "Well, I seem to be very heterosexual! Thank you for that steamy lesbian kiss!" Our whole mission statement was that we would bury their first kiss inside an episode that had nothing to do with it, and never promote it, which I guess caught people off-guard at The WB. The reason we had them kiss was because if they didn't, it would start to get coy and, quite frankly, a little offensive, for two people that much in love to not have any physicality. But the whole mission statement was, "We'll put it where nobody expects it, and we'll never talk about it." I mean, there are people who are genuinely concerned—are we falling into a pattern that other shows are falling into? It's very possible. The WB was like, "We have gay characters on all our shows. Why didn't you tell us you were making characters gay?" "Well, I don't watch your other shows. I didn't know." I'm sort of not really aware of what's going on out there. So the accusations of, "You shouldn't have a gay character on your show," those people are just—they should just be tied to a rock. "Whatever, you dumb people." Not that I feel strongly. But the other ones, "Oh, you just do that because it's sexy"... Well, the writers, and the men and women on the set, are like, "Yeah, it is pretty sexy!" I mean, so were Buffy and Angel. If it's not sexy, then it's not worth it. Like those two guys in thirtysomething sitting in bed together, looking like they were individually wrapped in plastic. They did a scene with two guys in bed, and it was a big deal, on thirtysomething, and it was the most antiseptic thing I've ever seen in my life. They were sitting ramrod-straight, far away from each other, and not even looking at each other. I was like, "Ahhh, sexy!"

O: One aspect of your fans' dedication is that they become very threatened by perceived changes in the show, like Giles becoming a lesser character as Anthony Stewart Head moves to Britain, or the show itself moving to UPN.

JW: Change is a mandate on the show. And people always complain. [Agitated voice.] "Who is this new guy, Oz?" "Where'd that guy Oz go?" They have trouble with change, but it's about change. It's about growing up. If we didn't change, you would be bored. The change as far as Tony Head is concerned, the man has two daughters growing up in England, and he'd like to live there. The kids [on Buffy] are old enough now that they don't really need a mentor figure, and this is a period in your life when you don't really have one. So it made sense for him to go back, and he chose to be on the show as a recurring character. But change is part of the show, and people always have a problem with it. But I think it's why they keep coming back.

O: How do you think the move to UPN will affect the series?

JW: I don't think it'll affect it one iota. Any change that happens in the show will happen naturally because the show evolves. UPN has never said, "Skew it this way, do this thing," and they never will, because I'm not going to do it. I've had an unprecedented amount of control over the show, even for television, considering the show is a cult show. From the very start, The WB left me alone. You know, they collaborated, they didn't disappear, but they really let me do what I wanted. They trusted me. And UPN is on board for letting me do the show the way that works. I don't think anything will change. I mean, there'll be wrestling. But tasteful wrestling. Wrestling with a message behind it.

O: I've got a quote here from a recent interview with James Marsters [who plays Spike on Buffy]: "Joss likes to stir it up. He likes a little chaos. He likes to piss people off. He likes to deny them what they want. He loves making people feel afraid." Do you agree with that?

JW: First of all, if you don't feel afraid, horror show not good. We learned early on, the scariest thing on that show was people behaving badly, or in peril, morally speaking, or just people getting weird on you—which, by the way, is the scariest thing in life. In terms of not giving people what they want, I think it's a mandate: Don't give people what they want, give them what they need. What they want is for Sam and Diane to get together. [Whispers.] Don't give it to them. Trust me. [Normal voice.] You know? People want the easy path, a happy resolution, but in the end, they're more interested in... No one's going to go see the story of Othello going to get a peaceful divorce. People want the tragedy. They need things to go wrong, they need the tension. In my characters, there's a core of trust and love that I'm very committed to. These guys would die for each other, and it's very beautiful. But at the same time, you can't keep that safety. Things have to go wrong, bad things have to happen.

O: What's your method for balancing humor and drama when you're writing the show?

JW: We get bored of one, and then switch to the other. I thought we got very dramatic last year, and I was like, "We need more jokes this year!" Every year the balance falls one way or another. You've just got to keep your eye on it. All of my writers are extremely funny, so it's easy to make [Buffy] funnier. The hard part is getting the stuff that matters more. Our hardest work is to figure out the story. Getting the jokes in isn't a problem. We wanted to make that sort of short-attention-span, The Simpsons, cull-from-every-genre-all-the-time thing. "You know, if we take this moment from Nosferatu, and this moment from Pretty In Pink, that'll make this possible. A little Jane Eyre in there, and then a little Lethal Weapon 4. Not 3, but 4. And I think this'll work."

O: Does the writing itself come naturally to you, or do you have to set hours and force yourself to sit down and get it done?

JW: It's like breathing. I'm not un-lazy, and I do procrastinate, but... Some of my writers sweat. The agony, they hate doing it, it's like pulling teeth. But for me, it comes easy. I love it. I don't rewrite, almost ever. I basically just sit down and write. Now my wife is making gestures about what a pompous ass I am. [Laughs.] And she's not wrong. But that's how it is. I love it. And I know these characters well enough that it comes maybe a little more naturally to me.

O: Have you gotten good at delegating, or do you really want to be doing all the writing yourself?

JW: No, I have, and that was really hard for me. It was hard because I had such a specific vision, and nobody was seeing it. And so you have to do everything—props, costumes. Gradually, you surround yourself with people who do see it your way. I've worked for producers, and I know producers, who are true megalomaniacs, and need to write everything, and be responsible for everything, and get all the credit. And, although I am something of a control freak, if somebody does something right, I will not change a word. If the script works, if a costume is right, if an actor gets it, I'm not going to get in there just so I can have gotten in there. I've spent five years culling the most extraordinary staff, which I trust to share my vision and my experience. So if somebody gets it right, I leave it alone.

O: Do you think you'd ever be able to completely let go of a Buffy spin-off, leave it totally in someone else's hands?

JW: It's possible. It's possible that I could. A while ago, I would have said, "No." But now I'm working on what will be four Buffy shows and three Buffy comics, and eventually you sort of go, "Uh, maybe somebody else could do that other thing." Would I be able to not have any hand in it at all? I think I just said "yes" and meant "no." I don't want it to have my name on it if it doesn't reflect what I want to say. Because once you get to the position of actually getting to say something, which is a level most writers never even get to, and is a great blessing, you then have to worry about what it is you're actually saying. I don't want some crappy reactionary show under the Buffy name. If my name's going to be on it, it should be mine. Now, the books I have nothing to do with, and I've never read them. They could be, "Buffy realized that abortion was wrong!" and I would have no idea. So, after my big, heartfelt, teary speech, I realize that I was once again lying. But I sort of drew the line. I was like, "I can't possibly read these books!" But my name just goes on them as the person who created Buffy.

O: Now that you've actually appeared in an episode of Angel, do you have the acting bug? Are you going to write yourself into more scripts?

JW: I do and I don't. I've always had it, and I think it's part of being a writer and a director. It's knowing how you want things to be played. But I don't have the face—that's the problem—and I don't want the giant ego. I don't want to become Kevin Costner, singing on the soundtrack to The Postman.

O: If you had Buffy to do over from the start, this time knowing how popular it would get, would you do anything differently?

JW: Not in terms of popularity. I mean, there were certain things on the show that I learned the hard way, but not really. I love the show, and I love the people. I love the stories we told. I mean, I'm angry about every single edit, and line, and costume change, and rewrite, but that's part of the business. So ultimately, I wouldn't change anything.

Talking theme - 2001: A Space Odyssey

2011-08-02T12:08:00.000+01:00

I remember talking to someone a bit ago (someone with considerably more experience) who said that theme is pointless. A writer shouldn't think about it once during their work. It's just a word used by critics and academics. A prestige thing. To which I say - bollocks!

For me theme is what makes a good movie (which may have a very enjoyable story) a great movie. Particularly with sci-fi.

2001: A Space Odyssey is a classic example. Some say it's only about theme and that there's no story whatsoever. They may be right, but in terms of theme, it's littered with interpretation. "Bring your own subtext," as Joss Whedon would say. I've read/heard about dozens, if not hundreds, of interpretations of 2001. What is that Monolith? Is it God? Is it an alien being? An alien technology? Does it merely symbolise technological advance? Organic advance? Change in human life?

Take one route.....

The monkeys open the film. They are at war with a rival clan, it's a stalemate. One monkey touches the Monolith. Then he uses a bone as a weapon to win the clan war. The Monolith triggers his development into the humans we see aboard the spaceship. These guys also encounter the Monolith and x years later, the ship is controlled by the computer HAL - technological evolution. The people aboard this ship are forced to kill HAL, the thing they created. They destroy their own technological advance. Dave encounters the Monolith again and ages dramatically - the Monolith destroys human life and gives birth to the next stage of evolution (whatever we see floating in space). Theme = technological and human evolution.

Another interpretation: the Apollonian vs Dionysian man.....

The monkeys are purely Dionysian - instinct, emotion, the "id" - and that just doesn't work, the result is murder. Later, during the Jupiter mission, the characters we see are purely Apollonian - structure, logic, the "ego" - having created a mechanical being (HAL) to control their lives. They are completely devoid of emotion and what makes humans human. This also fails, resulting in death. So in the film's finale, the Monolith scraps both versions of Man (Dave ages rapidly and dies) and creates a new form (the foetus we see hanging in space is another kind of Man). This is the "super ego", the natural balance between the instinctual, primal side of Man and the logical, mechanical side. What Freud would say is the balance needed for humankind to function completely. Theme = what makes us human?

Anyway, those are just two possible interpretations (very loosely summarized). The point is, you can throw anything you want at 2001 and it will stick. A religious interpretation - the Monolith is God and He presses the reset button on humanity. Or.....in the end, Dave - the representation of Man - becomes God (he is afterall, hovering in the sky over the world all deity-like).

One way of creating theme would be to write the script (forget about everything else). After draft 1 or 2, look for some sort of interpretation for your script, and you can create a theme. If your film has a clear Christian vs. Atheist thing going on, change that character's name from Bob to Abel. You might surprise yourself....

Next up - Blade Runner.

Sad

2011-07-18T10:05:00.001+01:00

This was a b-side:

All the photographs are peeling, colors turn to gray
He stayed... in his room with memories for days
He faced... an undertow of futures laid to waste
Embraced... by the loss of one he could not replace

And there's no reason that she passed
And there is no God with a plan, it's sad
And his loneliness is proof, it's sad
He could only love you, it's sad

The door swings through a passing fable, a fate we may delay, we say
Holding on, live within our embrace

He lit a match, he lay in bed,
Hoping that dreams would bring her back, it's sad
And his loneliness is cruel, it's sad
He could only love you, it's sad

Holding his last breath, believing
He'll make his way
She's not forgotten, he's haunted
He's searching for escape

If just one wish could bring her back, it's sent
And his loneliness is proof, it's sad
He will always love you, it's sad

Written by Eddie Vedder

5 Shock Horrors

2011-07-06T11:19:00.007+01:00

This blog is great for writing rants and general thoughts/advice etc. But sometimes it's nice to have the bigger audience, y'know? So scoot on over to Obsessed With Film (which has just become whatculture.com) and check out my article on Five Shocking Horror Film Scenes to Keep You Awake at Night.

It’s undoubtedly a bad day when you and your friends happen across a seemingly deserted house, only to discover a collection of human bones and a terrifying masked killer. But spare a thought for poor Leatherface. That’s what director Tobe Hooper demands of us in The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

Not two kills into his massacre, Leatherface panics when Jerry discovers Pam inside a freezer. Things were fine until those meddling kids poked their noses in. What can Leatherface do? He can’t let them get away! So more killing is called for. After which, he runs in circles and collapses onto a chair. He holds his head in hands like a man who knows he’s got himself in deep trouble. This very human reaction tells us that Leatherface is not some unstoppable monster or a crazed psychopath – this is a man, nothing more. It’s a very sobering scene that ultimately brings the film back to reality. A very bad day for Leatherface!

Keep reading.

Katie Wech interview

2011-06-30T11:27:00.000+01:00

Here's a great talk with screenwriter Katie Wech, who has just broken into the biz with her feature Prom, having worked as a staff-writer on TV show The Dead Zone and as an assistant on Prison Break.

The vid annoyingly starts automatically when you load my blog, so go to MakingOf to watch.

Chocolate fart

2011-06-24T10:20:00.002+01:00

Disclaimer: please excuse a young man's right to giggle.

Picture the scene.....

You're an innocent, twenty-something female out shopping with your boyfriend. You are also rather attractive (but this is irrelevant). You enter the local chocolate-selling establishment and peruse the shelves of sugary goodness. After a while, you choose your poison and head to the till, where the dashing, devilishly-handsome young gentleman (artistic licence taken) carries out his mind-numbing job.

What you don't notice is that your boyfriend has suspiciously positioned himself curiously close to the exit. He glances around, scanning the surrounding area like a casual Terminator. And then, just as you are about to hand over your money to the aforementioned devilishly-handsome young gentleman behind the till (artistic licence quota fulfilled), you hear this:

PARP!

A fart. So loud a fart, so obvious a fart, that it cannot be mistaken for anything other than a fart. And you know, at that exact moment, that your boyfriend, whose suspicious self-placement by the exit you failed to notice, has done the unthinkable. And then, to make matters worse, you turn around (no doubt to die of shame) only to find that your beloved has rabbited - he's already out of the shop and out of sight.

What do you do?!

The fart was so unmistakably a fart that it's impossible to accuse it of being anything else. And the devilishly-handsome young gentleman behind the till (artistic licence quota exceeded) has an expression that says "Your boyfriend just farted. I am now judging you. Yes, YOU!!!"

The point is - how a character reacts in this situation can tell you a lot about them. Do they say nothing? Do they burst out laughing? Do they pause.....then leg it?

Arnold Schwarzenegger would say something along the lines of "My giiiirlfriend farded! This is an ambarrasing! I must teach duh giiiirlfriend a lesson. I shall farder a child wid anuther female!"

Michael Bay would say "My god, man! That was, like, the most amazingest explosion ever, man! I gotta put that in a film. Man!"

Bruce Willis would say........nothing, cos he's way too cool to go out with someone who farts!

So what would your character do? What would you do?

For those interested, this is what happened in the story told above -

Attractive Female: My boyfriend just farted.

Devilishly-Handsome Young Gentleman (artistic licence quota shattered): Erm....yeah.

*Awkward silence*

Attractive Female: Here's your money.

*Awkward silence*

Devilishly-Handsome Young Gentleman: Here's your change.

*Awkward silence*

Attractive Female: Good-bye.

Devilishly-Handsome Young Gentleman: Yep, bye.

*Awkward silence*

Attractive Female: Sorry. He farted!

Devilishly-Handsome Young Gentleman: Right.

Attractive Female: It's going to smell.

Devilishly-Handsome Young Gentleman: That's not improbable.

Attractive Female: I'm going to go.

Devilishly-Handsome Young Gentleman: Ok.....

*Attractive Female walks away. Throws up a hand on exiting*

Attractive Female: Enjoy the smell!

Devilishly-Handsome Young Gentleman: Cheers.

Attractive Female (off-screen): You twat! You farted in there! And left me! Prick!!!!

The end.

Leon

2011-06-20T10:08:00.002+01:00

A lesson, boys and girls, from one Mr Luc Besson - this is how you shoot a suspenseful, awesome action sequence:

Why you should all watch Ink (2009)

2011-06-08T09:20:00.001+01:00

Ink is a 2009 US Indie film written, directed, edited and composed by Jamin Winans (no, I hadn't heard of him either). It's tricky to sum up, but IMDb says:

As the light fades and the city goes to sleep, two forces emerge. They are invisible except for the power they exert over us in our sleep, battling for our souls through dreams. One force delivers hope and strength through good dreams; the other infuses the subconscious with desperation through nightmares. John (Chris Kelly) and Emma (Quinn Hunchar), Father and Daughter are wrenched into this fantastical dream world battle, forced to fight for John's soul and to save Emma from an eternal nightmare. Ink is a high-concept visual thriller that weaves seamlessly between the conscious and the subconscious. Ink has been hailed as the new "it" movie and compared to cult classics Brazil, Donnie Darko, The Matrix, Dark City and Pan's Labyrinth.

Here's the trailer:

Looks good, right? So while I was really looking forward to it, I was also worried - the new Matrix? Really?! I was half-expecting one of those poorly-produced rip-off movies with no heart ,and style over substance. I was wrong.

Ink is probably one of the smartest films I've ever seen. Rather than being completely detached from itself, like No Country For Old Men (I liked that film, but the ending was just too anti-climax for my tastes), Ink cleverly straddles the line between realism and fantasy. No answers are given to you (as would probably be the case in a Hollywood-ized version) and you're made to work your arse off to keep up. You're constantly trying to work out the motivations of three characters (including the character Ink from the title).

There's definitely a low-budget feel to the film and some of the acting is a little hit-and-miss. But not only is it visually stunning (pay very close attention to some clever editing), with awesome special effects, the film tells a gripping plot with compelling characters. Forget the dream-warriors and scary monster people - at the heart of Ink is a story about a man who has become detached from his daughter.

So that's substance taken care of. And then comes the style (which is why most people are going to watch this film, let's be honest!). There's a bit of a Harry Potter feel to opening - ordinary world being invaded by the unusual, with dream-weavers appearing from nowhere in the middle of suburban streets. Then there's a stunning action sequence that makes sure you don't even think about turning off.

If you're so inclined, you might like to write an essay on it - I'd recommend an existentialist reading of the film (just to be poncy!). Point of view is very important and one character says something along the lines of "it's all about how we perceive ourselves." Exactly right in this film. Time is also a factor - what happens when etc. Indeed, does it happen at all? And while you're at it, might as well throw in a free will vs. determinism debate too.

There's loads to talk about, so if you like analysing films, it's for you. But despite its various levels, Ink never preaches to the audience. It says "here's a concept.....an idea....a question....we're not saying what the answer is, but we invite you to take a stab at it."

I don't describe many films as beautiful (to name a few - A Beautiful Mind, 2001, Blade Runner) But this one is, both visually and in its story. It's not for everyone, but I think you should all go off and watch it. It's a great example of what Indie film makers can do on a limited budget with just a strong story. Also make sure you check out the DVD commentary.

So if you give it a whirl, let me know what you think. Even if you hate it. Even if you think it's more brainless than Michael Bay's Recycle Bin and less entertaining than The Phantom Menace.

Stay shiny!

Review - X-Men: First Class (2011)

2011-06-02T08:53:00.001+01:00

Let's forget about the comics - I love them, but this is a film. Obviously the biggest complaint is "this isn't Xavier's First Class at all! Grr!!!" Yes, I would love to see the origins of the X-Men with Cyclops, Beast, Ice Man, Angel and Marvel Girl. But I'm ignoring that completely. Alternate timeline, in a way.

So....X-Men: First Class. For the record, I'm a big fan of the first two X-Men films - I thought they did a good job of balancing comic book action with real-life, realist situations. I really didn't like X-Men 3 (too many characters not doing anything, too many issues not dealt with enough). And I hated X-Men Origins: Wolverine (absolutely terrible!). First Class is a mixed bag.

The film opens using segments from the first X-Men film - Young Eric in Auschwitz during WWII. Some clever editing shows evil mastermind Sebastian Shaw (Kevin Bacon), who sees Eric's abilities and investigates further. The way Magneto's powers are explored and developed from then on is fascinating and compelling, with some dark shocks to really show the good-to-evil transition.

So it's a strong opening, the only downside being that it's a little disjointed, darting from one location to the next. But if you're half awake (and you will be any time Michael Fassbender's Eric Lensherr is on screen - he owns everything!) it won't be a problem.

Once the film gets into its stride, there's loads of fun to be had - Charles Xavier (James McAvoy) struts around Oxford chatting up the ladies by reading their minds and regaling them with facts about mutations (remind me try that one in a bar!). Meanwhile, Eric goes from country to country on a revenge mission (I won't reveal why). And it's dark - being able to control metal, ripping fillings out of people's mouths and diverting bullets is child's play. It makes for great viewing - you understand Eric's choices, but can easily see the seeds of Magneto trying to get out.

We get to see the meeting of Charles and Eric, which is nice. My only issue is that, whilst significant, it seems to be played down. And from that point, the film isn't quite as good. Eric's revenge mission takes a back seat. Granted, it's probably necessary to tell the story, but you can't help thinking there's a more compelling story to be told by following Eric all the way.

You'll probably notice that I haven't mentioned the X-Men at all. That's because they take a long time to enter. A montage shows Charles and Eric recruiting mutant after mutant. And it's in this scene where the film hides its shiniest moment - amongst these mutants, there is a cameo. I'm not saying who, but you will smile when s/he appears.

Once Charles' First Class is assembled, Sebastian Shaw's plan for nuclear war (after which mutants will stand victorious) moves swiftly along, as he manipulates both US and Russian military forces to get what he wants. So Eric and Charles leap into action to save the day.

Essentially, this is two films. The first half is about Eric and his revenge against Shaw, with Charles finding a bigger purpose in life. The second half focuses more on the young X-Men, with Havok, Mystique, Beast, Banshee et al getting some screen time.

Mystique's story is probably the most compelling as we learn why she decided to throw in her lot with Eric. Beast's is obvious and a little cliche, and would have worked a lot better had Hank appeared earlier in the film. But it works. Havok, however, is completely irrelevant. He could easily be removed from the film without consequence and seems only there to make up the numbers. The same goes for Banshee. They both take up valuable time which could have been devoted to Beast's story.

Shaw's mutant henchmen are made up of diamond-edged telepath Emma Frost and teleporter Azazel. Azazel really is there to make up the numbers. But that's fine - he's cool and has some decent action scenes (he's the first film's Sabretooth). Frost however, is a wasted opportunity. Zero screen presence and none of the jazz the comics gave her. A huge shame, since she could have been a great addition.

So it's a mixed bag. James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender are both excellent and Kevin Bacon is fun too (maybe a bit more humour would have been good?). I was about ready to give this film a 4/5 rating until the younger cast appeared. They do their best, but unfortunately, they're not given enough screen time to do their jobs.

The most fun definitely comes from seeing Eric's transition to Magneto (complete with retro costume). Had the film focused solely on that (and forgotten the First Class), it would have been much better. A vast improvemet on the last Wolverine movie, but could have been better I feel.

Of course, there's huge sequel, so hopefully the new X-Men will be properly developed there. And they're missing a trick if they don't put Emma Frost centre stage!

3.5/5 - go see it, then wait for it to drop to £10 in HMV.

X-Men (2000) - 4/5

X2 (2003) - 4/5

X-Men: The Last Stand (2006) - 2/5

X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009) - 1/5

X-Men: First Class (2011) - 3.5/5

'sKorned' facebook page

2011-05-27T10:36:00.000+01:00

Howdy folks. My first feature film - sKorned, which will be directed by Darren S. Cook later this year - is now on facebook at www.facebook.com/sKornedmovie. We're trying to generate as much buzz as possible, so it would be beyond shiny if you'd take a minute to 'like' the page. The more people who know about the film, the smoother funding etc will be.

An action-packed, dark, supernatural revenge thriller with mortals and devils. And the odd morally-conflicted angel.

When Natasha Morgan was 15, she sold her soul to the devil in return for the power to take revenge on the gangsters who killed her parents. The price – when revenge is done, Natasha’s place on earth belongs to him.

Now, four years later, revenge is close at hand. But the closer Natasha gets to completing her mission, the closer Satan gets to taking over her body and mind. Meanwhile, best friend Dexter launches his own campaign to rescue Natasha from her self-destructive nature, turning to redemption-seeking Father Ronan, a mysterious priest with a dark past.

Natasha’s journey comes to a close in a climactic finale, as she battles not only her human enemies, but also the devil himself, who senses victory is close at hand.

Teaser trailer

We've also decided that once we get 100 'likes', we'll put the first 3 minutes of the script online for the world to see - that will be your chance to insult my work ;)

So please follow this link, or try the button/badge thingy at the top right of this page.Your awesomeness is, as always, appreciated.

Stay shiny!

Hopefully you'll take something away from this....

2011-05-09T11:22:00.000+01:00

There's a reason Will Smith is one of the most skilled and successful actors working today..

Talent you have naturally. Skill is only developed by hours and hours and hours of beating on your craft.

If you're gonna be here, then there's a necessity to make a difference. I want to do good. I want the world to be better because I was here. I want my life, I want my work, my family, I want it to mean something. If you're not making someone else's life better, then you're wasting you time.

I want to represent an idea. I want to represent possibilities. I want to represent the idea that you really can make what you want.

The first step, before anybody else in the world believes it, is you have to believe it. There's no reason to have a plan B, because it distracts from plan A.

Three, Skorned, Thor, Insidious

2011-05-04T10:58:00.000+01:00

My slightly nervous and awkward first video blog.

http://threefilm.co.uk/
http://www.skornedmovie.co.uk/

Watch 'Three' online now!

2011-05-02T13:35:00.000+01:00

Three - the first script I ever wrote, about four years ago at university - was directed by the uber-talented Darren S. Cook, starred Mike Sani, Tony C, and Dean Rees, and was written by yours truly. I'm very proud of how it turned out (everyone did a great job!) and I'm glad this was my first produced credit.

You can now watch it online on the official site, or enjoy below (click full-screen for extra shinyness):

Feel free to let me know what you think - I won't be offended.

Cheers,

Neil.

Positive reinforcement

2011-04-27T10:10:00.012+01:00

Yesterday, I finally finished the three-page treatment for my latest featue script. For some reason, it was taking gorram ages to get done. That reason is probably what David said:

Writer's block is where confidence fails. The writer doesn't know their story or their characters or their world. Maybe they haven't done enough research. Maybe they haven't dug deep enough into their creations. Maybe they've lost confidence in their idea, their reason for writing the story, for writing in this genre or for this medium.

Although a big helping of my inability to get the treatment done is just darn laziness :(

Yesterday, I did get a surge of confidence in the idea, but what really got me through it (it only took me half an hour to complete) is the pomise of a reward. It's like that Skinner bloke said - if you have something positive to look forward to, the work will get done. It ain't rocket science (just behavioural psychology).

My promise - a book. I decided that once the treatment was done, I'd start reading Mike Carey's The Taming of the Beasts (it's been sitting on my shelf for months and I'm really looking forward to it based on what happened in the previous book!). It's sad, I know, but it works.

Now I must be off to finish redrafting a short film script. Maybe I can give myself a cookie once that's complete.......

Just because it's awesome.....

2011-04-18T11:31:00.000+01:00

PS - if they pay me enough, I'll happily write the feature. Just sayin'

If in doubt - female.

2011-04-14T10:30:00.001+01:00

Most of the stories I write are about men. That's because I am one, simple as that. I find it much much easier to think what a man might do than a woman. Just like it's easier for me to imagine what a 22-year-old would say than a 40-year-old. Because I haven't yet been 40 (in this lifetime).

There are some stories where I actively want a male protagonist. The last TV script, for example. And there are some occasions when I actively want a female protagonist - my last feature script.

But when I started planning what I'm working on now (a contained horror script), I saw no reason for either gender. It didn't matter whether the hero was male or female. So, by default, I went for female.

Because, no matter what anyone says, there is still a lack of women in films. Both in them literally, and working in them. One reason is probably similar to what I've said above - I'll wager there are more male screenwriters out there than female (or at least getting their material produced), so they're writing from the comfortable POV of male writer = male hero.

So the female protagonist is now my default. Unless I have an active urge to make her male. In which case, I might call him Jayne or something......

I also planned my characters (for the current script) based on a gender balance. There are more men than women in the main cast, but that still works out at 4 ladies. And many people will die in this film. It's not looking too good for the gents - my current plans have the survival percentage at around 75% for the ladies and only 25% for the blokes.

Anyway, I'm feeling good about this one. I'm sure the film industry will continue to be a male-dominated business for a while yet, but I'm playing my part by writing parts for the ladies. And, for the record, these ladies are not gun-toting "blokes with tits" or scantily-clad sex objects. We have Zack Snyder for that, right?

Over and out!

Everyone is the main character

2011-04-06T10:51:00.000+01:00

I came across one of the best nuggets of writing advice ages ago when listening to the Joss Whedon DVD commentary of a Firefly episode. He said that every character is the protagonist of their own story. As far as Jayne is concerned, everything happens to him first, then others.

Think about The Terminator. The main character is Sarah Connor. But from Ginger's POV (Ginger would be Sarah's best friend), this is her story. She's in a happy relationship with a decent bloke. She lives with her introverted friend who likes lizards. She loves her new Walkman and listens to it all day. After a nice night out with her boyfriend, she is suddenly attacked by a huge bloke wielding a Glock. He kills her boyfriend and shoots her in the back.

It's not the best story (which is why she isn't the protagonist) but it's a story. It has a constant state (happy relationship) and a trigger (the T-101 breaks into her house). She just dies very early on.

It's all about looking at the entire story from your sub-characters' POVs. The supporting cast are always tricky to get right. Some characters are there just for expositional reasons (to show that your hero only has one good friend). There's nothing wrong with that, but you run the risk of them being throw-aways.

So a good way to make them relevant is to check out what their story is. How would your script play out if John was the centre, not Jill?

What if Captain Dallas had survived in Alien? What would the story be from his POV?

Ron Weasley is the main dude in Harry Potter - what's it like being best friends with the most famous wizard ever?

What does Alfred do when Bruce Wayne is off saving Gotham City?

You don't need to go overboard with backstory or huge developments, but by thinking about sub-characters' story arcs, they will seem like far deeper personalities.

The last script I wrote has a female protagonist who is going down a particularly rough road in her life. That's where the best story is. I have two main secondary characters:

One is her best friend, who makes it his mission to protect our hero and drag her out of the life she's made for herself.

The other is a Priest who sees the bigger picture. He's not really too concerned with the people involved, but more on what their actions will result in. He has a past that is hinted at throughout and perhaps gets explained if you pay close attention.

But the point is - they both have stories. One goes on a mission to save his best friend, and the other sets out to save the world. All three stories (these two and my protagonist's) come to a head in the final act.

Make sure those minor characters are major in their own heads!

Over and out - shiny writing!

The film I always go back to - 'Jurassic Park'

2011-04-02T10:20:00.001+01:00

This be part of the Kid in the Front Row blogathon, the idea being that you declare which film you always go back to and why. As Kid says: the film that speaks to you when you need to be spoken to. See Kid's here.

Mine is Jurassic Park.

It's not the greatest film ever made. But it's the first film I saw at the cinema. Tiny five-year-old me, sitting in the front row (yes, I think it was the front row, due to the aforementioned tinyness), eyes wide open, staring tabula rasa at the humongous silver screen.

Then that ominous music started as the team rolled out the huge crate containing the (unseen) velociraptor. And I was bloody hooked. Scared out of my gorram mind. But hooked.

Then there were the dinosaurs themselves - running around, throwing cars through trees, leaping onto T-Rex skeletons - generally destroying things. And the truly terrifying velociraptor kitchen scene. I remember viewing that through shaking fingers.

Those dinosaurs made such an impression on me that, for the next....12 years, I wanted to be an archaeologist. Part of me still does. Assuming all archaeologists get to endorse dinosaur theme parks. No? Ah well, writing it is.

What really strikes me about this film is that I don't recall being remotely bored at all. If you think about it, a fair bit of the film is taken up with scientific explanations. One scene actually sees the main characters sitting round a table discussing the ethics of bringing dinosaurs back to life (now that's something my script tutor would flay me for!*) This is not writing for little people.

But I was never bored. Why not? There's no way I could have understood the line "what you call discovery.....I call the rape of the natural world." It must have been because there were fucking dinosaurs!!! Massive, man-eating monsters roaming around, waiting to break free and wreak havoc! Perfect!

And that's why I always go back to Jurassic Park. If I'm feeling all smart and sophisticated, I can sit back and marvel at the possibility of using frogs to complete DNA sequences and bring dinosaurs back to life, or get thoroughly invested in the ethical ramifications of such a decision.

And if I'm feeling like a scare, I can regress to Five-Year-Old Neil and rewatch those fecking raptors lurk through the kitchen.

But, finally - and most importantly - if I'm feeling in the mood for destructive dinosaurs and general peril (and, let's face it - when am I not?!), Jurassic Park is always going to deliver.

Honourable mentions:

Die Hard (I'll always watch it when it's on, no matter what time it is or how long it's got to go)
The Lion King (my favourite Disney movie, and some killer action sequences!)
The Terminator (greatest sci-fi horror ever? After Alien, anyway)
Predator (same as Die Hard. I can never resist posting quotes on facebook as they happen on-film)

So what about you? What's the film that you always go back to? Please - someone tell me theirs is Jurassic Park! Please?

* My script tutor might not flay me

for writing such a scene.

Perhaps I would just be

dismembered or something....

Over here....

2011-03-31T12:36:00.000+01:00

Just cos it's awesome:

That is all.

FADE OUT....and relax....

2011-03-24T14:25:00.004Z

I've literally just written FADE OUT on the feature script I've been writing this week. And what a relief it is!

Time being quite important on this one, I didn't plan as much as I should have. I know, a big slap on my wrist. I hang my head in shame. I was working from 10-page outline when, for a feature script, I'd normally like something twice that long to go by.

Anyway, I started writing the script itself on Monday at 5am. By Monday 5pm, I was nearly half way through the outline. And I'd written just under 30 pages. You do the maths on that one - if half is 30 pages, then the full script would be 60 pages. For a feature script. To sum up ------

So it suddenly dawned on me that I'd fucked up somewhere down the line. On something we often take for granted - length. This has never been an issue before, not really. I've had to cut the odd page here and there before, but I've never come up so monumentally short on the page count.

So I panicked. Like you do. Impressively, I resisted the urge to open with an Alien-esque tracking shot, which would probably add at least three minutes to it. Self-control, people!

So instead, over the course of Tuesday, half of Wednesday (I took the afternoon off), and today, I was constantly thinking of ways to lengthen the story. There had to be bits missing that would have worked really well. There had to be subplots or characters that weren't developed fully.

And there were. I found myself doing a very strange rewrite whilst writing. If that makes any sense. I was writing draft two before I'd finished draft one. I'd be working on scene 80, then I'd suddenly stop, go back to scene 5, and put in a few extra lines of dialogue. Or a completely new scene.

Anyway, I wrote FADE OUT, then clicked 'Type Set/PDF.' That will mean something to those of you using Celtx. You wait, painstakingly, for about 10 looooog seconds as the little green bar fills, the text next to it saying "formatting script" all god-like.

I won't give away the spoiler, but suffice to say it's longer than 60 pages. Which is good. It's not yet a feature length piece, but I'm leaving it until Monday now. The weekend will give me some perspective. Space to breathe. To get my head round everything and brainstorm a few ideas. Then I can attack it on Monday and finish everything off.

So this is a cautionary tale. I'm a big planning dude. I love it. It gets a little slow after a while, but it means that when you come to write the script, you're itching to go. And nothing can stop you. You can write a 60-minute drama in just under three hours on a good day.

My other piece of advice - don't panic. Everything works out in the end. You'll come up with something. Take that half day off (like I did). Get out of the house, go for a walk, meet up with some friends, get completely sozzled in a crummy bar. Do something other than writing! This way, you won't get a massive headache! Which is always good.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to bash my head against a brick wall.

Over and out. Shiny writing!

Just because it's awesome....

2011-03-21T16:39:00.000Z

A fan vid for what will always be favouritest TV show ever! Ain't it shiny?!

TV show bible template (for Celtx)

2011-03-14T13:29:00.000Z

We all know TV show bibles are a huge pain in our little (relatively speaking) arses. I've never written one. Not properly. I've been putting it off for ages. Now, thanks to Mike Jones, there's a template for Celtx, with pretty much everything you need.

What I am proposing here is a more clearly defined third kind of series bible; the Development Bible. The purpose of this is for the bible to serve as an effective writing and project development tool. Certainly parts of the Dev Bible might become part of the pitch and indeed it may also serve to guide writers of a series into the future when a show is in production, but its primary purpose is to give the creator of the show a firm structure and platform to flesh out story-worlds, natural dynamics, characters and story-archs in a way that will feed the series scripts.

Download and edit to your heart's content here. Please spread the word as much as possible.

So so shiny!

The Perfect 10 (pages)

2011-03-10T09:35:00.003Z

The BBC have been doing workshops around the country recently and yesterday they paid a visit to Sheffield Hallam uni. Being a good old script student there (and also fitting comfortably into my tutor's pocket) I managed to get my first 10 pages looked at by Jo Combes from the Writersroom. She only talked about them for a few minutes, but it was enough to get me rethinking the opening.

Here's what she said about those dreaded first 10:

Think very hard about the opening hero shot. What the character is doing, who they're with and - particularly - where they are is very important. I had to justify showing my hero staggering out of a strip club. What's the relevance? Well, it obviously tells you something about his character, but that element isn't that important to the story. So change it.

Work out what the strength is in that opening - what really screams "I'm different! Sit up and listen!" In mine, it was the supernatural element (which felt really fresh) rather than the crime moments. Things felt best when those two came together. So the advice is to work out what really works and hammer that home in the opening.

We all know we need to get into the story ASAP, but you really really do! We need to get a sense of what is going to happen from page 1. Maybe even line 1!

Our opening should either a) make us concerned for the character/s (meaning they, their relationships, their lifestyle etc are in peril) and/or b) make us curious about who they are and what their motives are.

Establish some contrast - between characters, between location etc. There's something very interesting about seeing a priest in a brothel, or an atheist in a church, or a free-thinking woman in some misogynistic boardroom. These are compelling contrasts that instantly make us sit up.

Are the stakes high enough? Links back to the character or their life being in some kind of peril. Think of the opening of Blackadder Goes Forth - we instantly establish that our guys are a) in war, and b) likely go over the top soon.

Start on the job, especially if the job is the story. A cop show needs cops. Who do some copping. So start with a cop copping with other cops.

The rest is fairly straightforward you're all bound to know anyway. Some kind of hook to draw people in, decent characters, good dialogue etc.

There's even more useful information on the Beeb website, so go take a gander.

All in all, it was a seriously interesting class. And all this advice comes straight from the Beeb. So if you ignore it, you're a wand short of being a wizard! Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go and completely rewrite my script.

Shiny day, all. Happy writing :)

But did it really happen?

2011-03-03T10:28:00.088Z

There's been a lot of talk recently about "True Story" films and how much of what they contain is actually accurate. It's probably because of that little film The King's Speech, which has been criticised for its portrayal of Churchill.

Black Swan has also come under some fire from the ballet community who say it presents their world as nothing but brutal and harsh.

Clearly there are issues involved in false information within a script. It doesn't bode well if, for example, Hitler is portrayed as a fun-loving dude with a slight foot fetish or something. There obviously has to be some realism in there. You can't really have a car turning up in the Wild West (unless it's a DeLorean). The second you show that lack of research in a story, the audience begins to completely doubt everything you say.

But here's my standpoint from a film/TV watcher - I don't care.

Simple as that. Obviously I want things to make some sense, but does it bother me that Churchill was George VI's best bud in The King's Speech? No. Why? Because it makes for a better story than if he weren't. I like that the ballet profession was shown to be brutal, because, again, it made for better storytelling.

300 was based on a graphic novel, so it's an interesting discussion. People assumed that it was grossly inaccurate, what with it featuring giant elephants and 11-foot tall warriors etc. But it's not actually that far off. We don't really know that much about the Battle of Thermopylae anyway. The one thing I do know is that the way those Spartans fight is wrong. But do I care? Not really. Because by taking a few liberties with certain plot points and fighting styles, the film is simply better.

A Beautiful Mind - I don't know that much about John Nash, but I doubt the film is 100% accurate. And I'd wager that if it were 100% true, the film's story would suffer.

I don't feel that it's a film's job to present accuracies. All it has to do is show some things as truth so that the audiences trusts the storytelling. But there's no moral obligation there. Is it Tarantino's fault if kids start writing history essays on how Hitler was gunned down and blowed up in a cinema? Is it Bruce Willis' fault if folk go around thinking you can punch a dude in the face and not break your hand? No.

From a storytelling POV, you have to do what your audience needs you to do, be it tell a certain level of truth, or take creative liberties to enhance the experience. And from a viewer POV, I couldn't care less. If it makes for a good story, I say go all out. If I want to know the true story of George VI, I'll hit wikipedia, thanks. Tell me a good story - that's what I want from a film.

Any thoughts? Should writers/film makers always tell the truth? Do they have a responsibility to their audience? What if that audience consists of children? Is Pocahontas a gross betrayal of its content subject? Leave a comment.

The 3D event of the year!!!

2011-02-24T12:05:00.000Z

WARNING - RANT IMMINENT

So.....is anyone else completely sick of these bloody 3D movies? It seems like if any film has the tiniest bit of action in it or it will appeal to anyone under the age of 20, there'll be 3D galore.

What really pissed me off was this brilliant Thor trailer which is spoilt by that pesky "in 3D" thing at the end:

Let me explain.

Y'see, I already see in 3D. I think we all do. Unless you have some serious depth-perception issues, you're capable of knowing that the smaller car behind the bigger one is not in fact miniature. It's further away! We've been knowing this for a while now.

The other thing is that it completely fecks up the picture quality. Filming in 3D or adding that post-production layering thing makes the picture darker. Then, you're forced to wear dark glasses. The picture you're looking at on the big screen isn't what was intended. So the cinematographer might as well have not turned up at all.

Oh, and you have to wear crappy glasses. Well, at least they're not made of cardboard.

And it costs more. Considerably more when you consider you're paying for the aforementioned dorky glasses. Which you already own from your last trip.

All this just so you can be absolutely, 100% positively certain that the smaller car is, in fact, further away.

Ok, rant over. I now return you to your previously scheduled Thursday.

Watch immediately.

2011-02-22T11:14:00.005Z

This was doing the rounds last week. Excellent, innovative storytelling. And there's zombies:

That is all.

Writing sitcom B characters

2011-02-18T10:03:00.018Z

This just in from the Euroscript newsletter on writing the B characters for sitcoms. Very useful advice for anyone undertaking the sitcom writing. By Paul Bassett Davies:

Think of some great sitcoms. Fawlty Towers. Absolutely Fabulous. Peep Show. All based around great characters: Basil Fawlty, Patsy and Edina, Mark and Jeremy.

Now think of Basil without Manuel, Patsy and Edina without Saffron, Mark and Jeremy without Super Hans. What would happen? Those sitcoms would lose more than just a secondary character, they'd lose a vital part of what makes them special.

The right B character can make a sitcom a classic.

B characters aren't as complex as the main characters, in fact they're usually stereotypes, but they play a vital role in the way they interact with the main characters.

Why are B characters so important?

When the B characters show up in a sitcom something changes. B characters always behave the same way - but they change the way the main characters behave.

How do B characters change the behaviour of the main characters?

The B characters are often like cartoon versions of the A characters. They're like an exaggerated offspring of one quality in a main character. They can represent exactly what the A characters don't like - about themselves. They reflect them in a distorting mirror.

In 'Will and Grace' Jack is exactly the kind of flamboyantly camp gay man that Will would dread to be seen as. Yet Will knows there's a side of him that could be like that. And Karen is the type of crazy, raddled New York fashionista that Grace suspects she could become if she just let things slip a bit and let one aspect of herself out of the cage.

Sid James was the perfect side-kick for Tony Hancock, the lower-middle class snob, because he showed Hancock everything he was trying not to be, and often lured him into betraying himself - or taking such pains not to betray himself that he became ludicrous.

How to create a B character.

Pinpoint the quality that the A character most hates about themselves. Create a B character who embodies this quality. Write some dialogue in which the B character offers advice - like the A character's bad angel, luring them to betray themselves or to react against the B character's attitude so strongly that comic tension or conflict is created.

Now you've got the makings of a B character - and now you can start to play, because:

B Characters are a lot of fun!

More info on Euroscript's courses here. I went on the Exciting Treatments day-course back in 2009 and I highly recommend them. They're somewhat expensive though, hence the reason I've only been on one. But if you've got bounds of cash to throw around in Tony Stark fashion, have at it! At the very least, sign up to their newsletter to hear about upcoming classes and get these nifty tips/nuggets of advice.

Natalie Portman love

2011-02-15T10:28:00.019Z

I was ill last week - so very very ill. With flu. And not over-egged "Man Flu", but proper, real, completely horrible flu. I didn't get out of bed once on Monday and in the space of five days I think I ate a total of two meals.

Anyway, over it now (more or less). I don't have a blog post prepped, so I thought I'd pointlessly shae some Natalie Portman love. The last film I went to see was Black Swan - not sure if it should get the Oscar (haven't seen the other nominations), but I really want Portman to get Best Actress. She perfectly balances the vulnerability of the White Swan with the raw primal instinct of the Black Swan. Flawless.

Anyway, here's some Natalie love. But first, you should watch this. Just.....cos:

See how I've tastefully avoided putting in any saucy videos? There are a few in Black Swan. Just sayin'

Dollhouse - potentially the best show ever made

2011-02-01T10:36:00.003Z

The key word here is "potentially." I don't think Dollhouse is the most amazing show ever, but it's definitely in my top 10. Just think about the premise for a moment - an organisation that turns people in tabula rasas and them uploads personalities into their brains so they can live out other people's fantasies. They can be anyone. Literally!

Now that's high concept!

The massive problem with season one, though, is that our main character - Echo (Eliza Dushku) - is a complete blank slate. We can't relate to this character, because she isn't a character! It's far too episodic, since after every hour, Echo ceases to be whatever person she was, and becomes nothing again. Of course, episode six threw things wide open with a brilliant hour of TV. And the show got so much better.

But it didn't really come into its own until season two. Based on ratings, it should have been axed, but Fox were scared to repeat their mistake with Firefly, so gave it another season. Good old Joss Whedon, knowing full well that season two would be the end of Dollhouse, went all out with twists and turns and made it a lot better. Go out with a bang. Why not?

My personal favourite moments were the Epitaph episodes, flashforwarding to the future, where the Dollhouse has gone apeshit and destroyed the world. So I'm uber-glad the comic books are following that storyline.

Anyway, Dollhouse could have been amazing based purely on that awesome premise and the potential it had. But, while we wait for the comic books, why not check out this shiny fan-made trailer. Really captures what I'm on about. Ain't it cool?

The problem with theme

2011-01-27T09:39:00.002Z

I got thinking about this yesterday, when a writer shot down another's comment about the importance to theme. He said he'd never really given it any thought and that it seems to be a term thrown around by literary/critical types (such as myself, with that ol' English degree).

I first thought he was talking a load of bollocks, because theme is bloody important. It's what your entire script is about! Not what happens, why it happens, or when it happens, but the underlying (sometimes overlying) message/issue etc that the story contains. I don't think I've come across a single screenwriting book that doesn't stress the importance of theme in such a way. But it got me thinking - is it really that important?

For me, the whole issue is very problematic. There are at least two dangers when you think about the theme, with the intention of demonstrating it through the story:

You get so caught up on the theme/message that it completely ties you down. You become inflexible. Say you want to write a story on the theme of outcasts, but as you get writing, the story wants to become a story about religious oppression. Because of your desire to write about a particular theme, you can't see the better opportunity when it arises.
You think you're writing about one theme, but that doesn't come across to the audience/reader. You think your comments on child suicide are perfectly fine. But the audience somehow thinks you're saying it's a good thing.

So it's tricky.

So I'm currently looking at stories in terms of available themes. Not necessarily what it's about, but what it could be about, depending on what the audience wants to take away from it. A few examples:

X-Men is about a variety of things - oppression/domination, empowerment, the outcast, the "Other", slave/master.

The Terminator - humanity, female empowerment, rape, survival.

A Beautiful Mind - the power of the mind, love conquering all, triumph in the face of defeat.

Blade Runner - what is human?, the right to exist, consciousness.

You get the idea.

All the above themes are available, but not everyone takes them all away. For example, I don't see Gladiator being about female empowerment particularly. But maybe that theme is there and plenty of other people get it.

So maybe it's worth thinking less in terms of what your theme is, and more in terms of what your story has to offer in the way of theme.

If it's about oppression, chances are it's also about survival (Schindler's List). If it's about what death is, it's about what life it (American Beauty). The value of one man's life = the value of all men's life (Saving Private Ryan). Slavery = religion (Harry Potter).

There are loads and loads of things every story could be about. And if you're really, really, really stuck, think about sex. Dig out an Idiot's Guide to Freud and make it all about the Oedipus complex, Penis Envy and whatnot. Can't fail.

Stay shiny!

Forgive me, for I have sinned.....

2011-01-18T10:49:00.012Z

......just not, y'know, much. It's been a week and four days since my last blog post, and I know you're all desperately awaiting my next lot of brilliant insight. No? You're not? Well poo to you then.

The reason I've not posted sooner is cos of that thing called work. You may have heard of it - always gets in the way, huh?

I managed to get my Firefly essay finished. It was on feminism (so fairly easy in terms of finding stuff to write about) and we all know how much I like Joss Whedon. I also wrapped things up with my TV drama script ready for submission. I'm quite proud of it. Obviously I need to do plenty of polishes, but it's going well.

So now I have a week and a half relatively workload-free (besides the usual), so I can spend time on preparing the children's fantasy feature I'm going to bash out for my next writing project. Raring to get going, since I started thinking about it over a year ago!

Random Musings:

Really looking forward to seeing Black Swan at the cinema as soon as it comes out - Natalie Portman is a great actress and it looks disturbing as hell! Definitely my cuppa tea.
I watched the first episode of Breaking Bad - liked it, not majorly, but some good writing there. I think it's on its 3rd season or something now, so I'll probably have to dedicate some time to catching up.
Hated Ricky Gervais' speech at the Golden Globes - he's still a humourless arsehole, it seems. But loved the digs that Robery Downey Jr & Tom Hanks got in at him.
Rewatched Taken last week - still a feckin' awesome film and the sequel should be filmed soon.....
Got The Time Traveler's Wife playing in the background - make sure you watch it for some clever narrative crafting.
Reading The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins at the moment - a great book, appeals to everyone 10+ in my mind. Making me think a lot about book-to-film adaptations and how you would work this one (apparently one is already in the works). It would be very tricky, but is visual enough to work really well.

Now here's a cute picture for your amusement:

Tuneage:

Dialogue: less is more

2011-01-07T11:10:00.002Z

Let's talk dialogue. Because it's one of the least important aspects of a script. Yep, least important, way behind structure, plot, character, action, audience etc. (Note the honest in keeping with my award thingy)

Everyone knows that one of the biggest issues with "aspiring" writers is that they overwrite, especially dialogue. This is also the case with first draft scripts - my first drafts are always riddled with unnecessary, expositional dialogue. But, in later drafts, you have to accept that less is more.

With dialogue, it's not about what's said, but about what's not said. Subtext. Which is better:

"Please shoot that woman, giving me an excuse to put a bullet in your brainpan."

"Go ahead....make my day!"

And which is shorter?

There are two films that I think nail the "less is more" dialogue rule. The first is Wall-E.

The poor little dude can hardly say anything anyway, but all his emotions are done through actions (such as watching TV and making substitute skyscrapers) and through the way he says things. "Eeeeeeva?" he wails, desperately. So simple. So subtle. So emotional. It just works. So if you haven't watched Wall-E before, go away and give it a viewing. If you have, watch it again and make a note of how much is actually said by the two main characters.

The second film is Conan the Barbarian. It is, hands-down, one of the best written movies around. Conan isn't a talker. He's a do-er. He acts (usually with a heavy broadsword). One of his lines is actually "Enough talk!" before hurling his sword into someone's chest.

Conan, the protagonist, doesn't say a word until 23 minutes into the film. 23 minutes! And it's this:

Slave-driver: Conan, what is best in life?

Conan: To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentation of their women.

For the next seven minutes, the only word even uttered by Conan is "Crom!" (which, to those who don't know, is the equivalent of "God!")

Conan's last word is spoken at the 01:44 mark. It's a prayer to Crom, which pretty much says "Give us a hand. If not, fuck you!" That's his last bit of dialogue. The film finishes a the 02:01 mark. Let me grab my calculator (I ain't too good at the ol' mathematics). That's 16 minutes without a single word from our hero. What does Conan do in that time? He acts. He fights off the advancing hordes, travels to Thulsa Doom's castle, nearly fails his mission, then hacks off Doom's head and sets the place on fire.

Now toddle off and watch Conan the Barbarian (give Conan the Destroyer a miss - it's rubbish). Come back when you've done that.

Back? Good.

Anyway, what I'm saying is - less is a hell of a lot more. Compare Raiders of the Lost Ark with the fourth (crappy) Indiana Jones movie. Compare the dialogue and how much there is. I'll bet good money that if a film uses less dialogue, it's simply better.

Dialogue is important, but it's not the be all and end all. Choose your words wisely and sparsely. If you can do it in two words, don't do it in four.

Activities:

1) Go through your script and cut every single section of dialogue down by half. If you have 10 words, cut it to five.

2) Rewrite one, dialogue-heavy, scene cutting all dialogue. Not a single word. Do it all with actions. It might not be possible, so instead do the same thing, just cutting all dialogue from your protagonist.

Thoughts? Any other films that nail the "less is more" dialogue rule?

Stay shiny, folks - happy writing!

Peer award-winning!

2011-01-03T10:30:00.001Z

The lovely Miss Manda over at Memoirs of a Word Nerd has gone and awarded me this beast:

This is awarded to folk who tell the truth, so I now feel like a character from a George Orwell novel. I'm very proud of my no-bullshit approach to blogging. What's the point otherwise? So uber-thanks to Manda for the award - it proves that at least one person is reading his. Howdy!!!

I'm now supposed to brag about getting it - check. Then I'm supposed to write some random facts (Manda has done 5, so naturally I upstage her by doing 6. Ha!) and pass the award on to other bloggers. So here we go:

1) Get me drunk, give me an acoustic guitar, and I'll make a royal arse of myself with sloppy Pearl Jam riffs and vocals like Bob Dylan on razor blades. I'll mercilessly sing Black at the top of my lungs and it will sound awful! This happened on New Year's Eve. And in the right hands, an acoustic guitar is a poweful love-weapon (not like that!). My hands are not the right hands.

2) Jack Daniel's is both my best friend and my worst enemy. If it were a woman, we would shag and fight.

3) I have a thing for ladies who play acoustic guitars and for ladies with Australian accents. So if there's an Australian woman out there who rocks out on the ol' acoustic, you know where I am....

4) I once got floored after I was hit in the face by a perfectly-executed spinning back-kick from this dude (the fella with black hair) from Strike (Britain's Got Talent). It hurt. A lot. NB: he wasn't so angry at shirts at the time. I don't know what went wrong. On the plus side, I now know his weakness. Muahaha!!!

5) I am in love with Kaylee from Firefly. There is no denying this. It is probably the only way you'll ever get me in the engine room of anything remotely mechanical.

6) I am a vigilante, Black Ops, warlock-Viking and space cowboy, slaying dragons in a post-apocalyptic world. I am best friends with a giant flying talking tiger called Ragnar. We voyage the nine worlds in search of epic battles and thrilling heroics. We always return home in time for tea.

Factual note: one of the above 'facts' is, in fact, false. In fact, I can actually play guitar reasonably well.

So now I nominate some other peoples who deserve the no-bullshit award (by which it will known forthwith):

Michelle Goode over at Confessions of a Screenwriter

John Hunter at Nigh Journal

Kid in the Front Row (you can work out where he is)

Honourary mention - Manda herself, who always writes entertaining and honest posts, including what life would be like if that sparkly "vampire" bloke (I use to term "bloke" loosely!) were her boyfriend.

Over and out, campers.

Tuneage:

My favourite film of 2010 is....

2010-12-28T11:05:00.000Z

Kick-Ass!

Because I understood it. Not in a "oh, so that's why the bad guy has world domination in his sights" way, but in that I got the characters and I could see things from their POV.

I've never stolen/implanted thoughts and memories from/into businessmen's minds, I've never created a world-wide networking phenomenon, I've never appeared in a burlesque show (that I know of!), and I've certainly never tumbled down a rabbit hole (anyone care to explain that Golden Globe nomination?!).

But I have been a teenage boy at school dreaming of becoming a superhero. I even got close every now and then. I never bought a ~~dorky~~ snazzy ~~costume~~ battlesuit, but I sure as hell designed one.

So it wasn't just about the incredibly fun fight scenes (which were miles better than anything else I've seen this year), or the witty, boundary-pushing dialogue. It was about the characters.

And it was brilliantly written. The most emotional and tense scene I've seen all year is when Hit Girl is trying to save Big Daddy and Kick-Ass after sending the room into darkness and slapping on some night-vision goggles. If you've seen it, you really know what I'm talking about - great stuff!

So, yep - Kick-Ass is my favourite film of 2010.

Worst film - a tossup between The Last Airbender and that Resident Evil film (I can't even remember the name!) They're both full of plot holes, terrible acting, and characters you have a) seen a million times before, and b) couldn't care less about. In the end, it all comes down to this question:

Which is worse:
a) Characters locked in prison (zombies outside). Finally let loose "sinister bloke" who "knows a way out". His way is to simply open a door to a large hanger (no-one has thought of looking in here before?!) to reveal a tank-like vehicle. Which they can't use because the engine has been taken out. So they go out another way.

or

b) A civilisation of people who can control water. Literally, they can lift it up and make it fly about. They live on an island surrounded by water. The Fire Nation arrive to declare war. Yes, FIRE! They come by boat. The Water dudes don't think of sinking the fecking ships!!!!

So, if I can decide which is worse, I have my least favourite movie of 2010. It's a tricky one. The Last Airbender had slightly better action sequences. But Resident Evil had more women in tight tops running around. And a woman in water. Hmm....

Anyway Kick-Ass is my favourite. Yay!!!

Have a shiny new year everyone!

Johnny Got His Gun

2010-12-22T11:29:00.052Z

Have you heard of that film? Probably not. I came across Johnny Got His Gun when I was about 13 and it scared the hell out of me. It came out in 1971, an adaptation of Dalton Trumbo's novel of the same name. Trumbo also wrote and directed the film.

"I'm just like a piece of meat that keeps on living."
Joe, a young American soldier, is hit by a mortar shell on the last day of World War I. He lies in a hospital bed in a fate worse than death - a quadruple amputee who has lost his arms, legs, eyes, ears, mouth and nose. He remains conscious and able to think, thereby reliving his life through strange dreams and memories, unable to distinguish whether he is awake or dreaming.

The film haunted me for ages. Joe's story is told through flashbacks from his living hell of a hospital bed. At the time, I didn't quite understand everything that was going on. Joe is visited (during his flashbacks/dreams) by Jesus. I got that it was Jesus, but a lot of the film's religious imagery went over my head. I watched it a again about a year ago and got a better grip on the meaning.

The scene below is particularly disturbing - Jesus telling Joe that there is hope. But as the scene progresses, God is forced to admit that there are some people even he can't help. For a religious person, that must be rather terrifying.

It's not the best film in the world. It's not amazing or fantastic. There's quite a bit of over-writing and the acting is sometimes painful. But the idea, the simple premise, is undeniably effective. I haven't told anyone about the film and not seen a disturbed face looking back at me.

So I've only seen the film twice and that's more than enough for me, thanks. Obviously it stuck a chord with James Hetfield, because Metallica bought the rights for the movie and released One back in 1988.

What say you? Anyone else out there seen this movie and were you as disturbed as I was? Any other films had that effect on you?

Songs that tell stories

2010-12-17T11:30:00.001Z

I've said before that music is a huge influence when I'm writing. The playlist is a powerful weapon for getting you in the mood for what you're writing. But songs also tell stories that can directly influence - and sometimes create - a story. Here are a few:

Pearl Jam - Betterman

Metallica - One
NB: this song was entirely influenced by Johnny Got His Gun (the movie featured in this video)

The Who - Behind Blue Eyes

Metallica - Low Man's Lyric

Dire Straits - Brothers in Arms

Johnny Cash - Folsom Prison Blues

The Rolling Stones - Angie

Bob Dylan - Going Going Gone

Kim Richey - A Place Called Home

Pearl Jam - Deep

Feel free to share your own story-telling songs in the comments.

3 hours and 2 pages later.....

2010-12-13T10:43:00.014Z

.....I finished the latest rewrite of my hour-long drama.

WARNING: this story will be partially told through feline images.

I met with my uni tutor last week to talk over my script. All in all, good response, but some key issues with character motivation and plausibility - this is always a thing with my early drafts. One problem involved a flashback. It's a little too tricky to explain (and you probably couldn't care less on a Monday morning), but this flashback needed to do several things:

1) establish core conflict between Character A and B, 2) set up the backstory between Characters A and C, and 3) kill off Character D, whilst dumping the blame on Character A. Does that make any kind of sense?

Anyway, I gave myself two pages to do this in, since it comes very early on in the script and there's nothing worse than endless flashbacks to start a story, resulting in a delayed trigger/inciting incident.

I'd have had no problem doing this in 10 pages (60 pages would have been great!), but two pages it was. The biggest problem I had was choosing a situation. I had the final image firmly set in my head, so that wasn't a problem. What I needed was, literally, the location for the scene. I went through roughly 20 different locations and wrote the scene around that. Barely any of them worked and none of them did it in two pages.

It had taken me roughly 3 hours in the morning to rewrite the rest of the script, changing a whole bunch of stuff around. But, by this point in the afternoon, I'd been sitting in front of my laptop for two and a half hours and I hadn't written a single page. All I'd done was write, read, delete.

Then a friend* popped onto MSN messenger and I explained my dilemma as best I could. After about 10 minutes, she mentioned the character's home.

The home.

In all those 20 locations I'd written for, at no point had I used the home. I'd gone with bars, strip clubs, dingy warehouses, dark alleyways, hospitals, police stations, schools, motorway pile-ups, a magician's brothel (don't ask!). But no home. What a stupid idiot I had been!

Anyway, after three hours of sitting there, I'd finally written the scene. It was 2 pages long. And it worked. Huzzah!!! Then I looked at the dialogue. Oh dear. It's a long and arduous road ahead.

* Needless to say, I owe this friend a drink or 10.

John Lennon.....

2010-12-08T09:00:00.001Z

.....really knew how to write! Granted, he probably never tried his hands at Hollywood blockbusters, but the guy could write songs. Pretty good ones.

John Lennon

(9th October 1940 - 8th December 1980)

Dealing with negative feedback

2010-12-02T10:44:00.080Z

We all get negative feedback. Everyone. If you don't, you're simply not sending your work to the right people. Naturally, we all want constructive criticism, stuff we can learn from. "It's shit" doesn't really help us. But "it's shit, because your hero is entirely inactive" is brilliant criticism that helps you.

It's never fun getting bad comments about your work. We can all be way too protective at times and it affects us all in different ways. Let's say you send off a 60-page script. You've sent it off because you think it's pretty good. But the feedback you get tears it to shreds. Mercilessly! How do you feel?

I like to think I can take criticism well. I accept that it's not Shakespeare (and even he wasn't Homer!) so I'm capable of accepting that it can be made better. However, I go through three thoughts when I get bad feedback, whether it's from a director, a competition, or a fellow writer who's just read a very early draft as a favour:

Annoyance

Anger

Despair

These three things come and go very quickly.

Annoyance because I was hoping for nothing short of an essay on its brilliance.

Anger because I always ask "what do you know?!" Of course, this is anger at myself, my own annoyance.

Despair because I can see how much work I still have to do.

But despite all this anger etc, I tend to take it quite well. If you're not getting angry when someone says your work is crap, then there's something wrong with you. You get angry because you care.

I have a great situation with the lovely Miss Michelle. We send each other a lot of work, usually in the very early stages. And we're merciless. We don't bother with formal niceties; that it's remotely decent is now taken for granted. What we focus on is the shit stuff, because that's what's useful. We're entirely and absolutely honest about what we think of each other's work. Of course, if I think something is working really well, I'll say so, since I don't want her to go and change it in order to fix something else.

But if Michelle sends me something that's horrendous, I'll tell her. Likewise, she'll tell me when I'm ripping off Supernatural (seems to be happening more and more these days.....)

The key thing we do, however, is offer solutions. For example, Michelle came to me with a script that she thought lacked a bit of tension and pacing. I sent her a long long email with possible solutions. No good me saying "yes, I agree". Much better to say that, then try and help.

Likewise, I sent Michelle a treatment of mine, my concern being that it just wasn't long enough for a 60 minute drama. But I didn't know why. Michelle pulled me up on a bunch of stuff - poor exposition, unbelievable character developments, actions, motivations etc. And through those criticisms, I was able to expand the entire thing.

So the key thing is to take something away from the criticism. Get some possible solutions to problems. And that's the other thing - possible solutions. You don't have to agree with everything that's said. I play devil's advocate when I critique stuff, throw as much criticism as I possibly can. I don't expect them to take everything I say and agree with it. Sometimes your gut is the right way to go. If you really think a piece of criticism is wrong, ignore it. Better yet, get 5 other opinions and see if it comes up again.

So don't be afraid of criticism, deal with it - it's a big part of writing (possibly the biggest). On that note, if anyone wants any criticism of their work, do contact me. I assure you - no bullshit. Just anger-inducing criticism.

Why?

2010-11-25T11:42:00.054Z

No, this isn't some emo-induced, desperate cry to the universe about why I'm here, worry not. I've been spending a lot of time over the last two months reading through people's script proposals, treatments and outlines. I go at it with a nice multi-coloured pen, scribbling all over it. It's fun, since critiquing other people's work is easy as pie (why is pie easy?), whilst redoing your own stuff it a pain in the arse (aren't there worse places to have pains?)

The word I find myself writing more than any other is.....

WHY?

Why is Bob deciding that he should go out on his own? Why is Shelly contemplating suicide? Why is Isac not contemplating suicide?

What is the character's motivation for doing what they do? You have to know the answer to this because, if you don't, the audience comes out with that inevitable criticism -

"This doesn't make any sense!"

If you can justify actions in the eyes of your protagonist - if you can give him motivation - then you can do just about anything.

How does Sarah Connor keep going at the end of The Terminator when she's lost everything and the fucker just - won't - stop? It's not just survival. Her character motivation is that she needs to save her unborn son. It's that mother's instinct .

Why does Maximus not kill Commodus when he has the chance, in front of all those people? Because it's not the right time. He needs to do it right, it's all he has left.

Why does Willy Loman continually try to kill himself? Because he wants to save his family by getting some money from the insurance claim - they're better off without him anyway. Why does Linda (his wife) not say anything to him? Because she respects the one thing Willy has left - his pride.

Character motivations. That's pretty much what it's all about. After every single action your character takes, ask yourself - why? Can you justify this character's action based on their motivation? If you can, great, go for it. If not, prepare for:

"This doesn't make any sense!"

Good morning!

2010-11-22T09:30:00.011Z

Anyone fancy a little Viking metal with their morning coffee?

Movie shown here is Beowulf btw.

Have a good day!

Graduation and Dominic West

2010-11-15T10:06:00.068Z

Just thought I'd do a bit of name dropping. I graduated last week (payoff for 3 years of English) and attended the ceremony thingy in Sheffield. It pissed it down with rain and I was in a fowl mood. But things brightened up (hypothetically speaking) when the ceremony started.

Good old Robert Winston presented the awards, shook my hand, and said "Congratulations, Neil. Very well done."

But also there was Mr Dominic West, receiving an Honorary degree. It was cool, but the one thing that pissed me off was the fact that no-one gave us a heads-up. Had I known Mr West was going to be there, I'd have brought a script along and, as I walked past him on the stage, I would have thrown it in his general direction. Then been attacked by some random bodyguard, I expect. Although they were all cunningly disguised in gowns like the rest of us. But they were there, I tell you. They were there!!!

And on the subject of Dominic West, a friend recently lent me season one of The Wire. I started watching it a few years ago but just couldn't get into it. But said friend suggested I binge-watch it, several episodes at a time. So I did. And it's bloody good! Not my favourite TV show, but definitely top 10.

After the ceremony, it was off to an over-priced reception thingy, then to the pub. 2 vs. 2 game of pool. We were 3-0 down, mainly due to me being shite. But as more Jack Daniels trickled down my throat, my game got a little better, which translates as "I stopped giving a fuck and just bit the bugger". And the evening ended with us winning 4-3. Huzzah for drunken victories!!!

Anyway, that was my Thursday. How was yours?

PS: speaking of pool games, have I praised Joss Whedon this week? Here there be bar fights:

A feminist's nightmare

2010-11-09T11:01:00.003Z

I'm writing this having just rewatched The Mummy (1999) for the first time in years. I like the film, ok, I think it's a good adventure movie. Yes, it may be the poor man's Indiana Jones, but Stephen Sommers really knows how to write and direct fun, exciting action. Which is why the third film was shite - he wasn't involved. Anyway, I digress......

On several occasions throughout that movie, Evelyn (Rachel Weisz) is perved on by Imhotep (Arnold Vosloo). The thing she does more than anything is pull that really annoying face (you know the one) when presented with danger - the classic "hands in front of face, waiting for a man to save her" one:

Eugh! I can accept that some movies are "Man Films" and must play to a man audience - this means a woman in danger and a man doing the rescuing. But, to be honest, I worry about any man who wants a woman who can't do a damn thing for herself. I'm all for the protagonist (in this case, a man) doing most things - they should! But Evie should at least do something. She should at least try to save herself. Run, slap, punch, kick in the fucking balls. Do something!!!

Another film that really pisses me off is Titanic. I love Cameron, despite Avatar. He created Sarah Connor, a brilliantly strong female character who literally drags the man to safety. He made Ellen Ripley bigger and badder with Aliens. But in Titanic, we have Rose De....whatsherface.

She's trapped in a controlling relationship. It's the olden days, so women had very little power over their own lives. But she is saved, constantly, by bloody Jack. I'm not quite sure who the protagonist even is in this film (further analysis needed, methinks). I want to say Jack, but Rose narrates and it's Rose who changes more than anyone else. All Jack does is make Rose change. So why is she so bloody passive?

Time and time again she is saved by men. The only time I'm convinced by Rose as a strong character is at the end of the movie, when she picks up that whistle and blows for help (Steady now, not that kind of blow!) But did you catch that? End of the movie. The end. Too bloody late. I've just sat through 3 hours to see a woman do one little thing?!

Then we have Twilight. I won't go onto an even bigger rant (we all know I'd love to, but you wouldn't. Again), but seriously?! This is Twilight:

Girl likes boy. Nearly hit by car, saved by boy. Nearly raped, saved by boy. Plays baseball, saved by boy. Piggyback by boy. Nearly kidnapped, saved by boy. Actually kidnapped, saved by.............boy.

'Nuff said.

I really don't understand this attitude towards women in films. It's not like I'm setting out to write the next feminist movie, I'd probably fall fat on my arse. Most of the things I write are about men. And most of those men treat women like shit (note: not a form of self-expression). But the very very least you should do is make your women characters. Forget that there are men and there are women. There are people. What do people do in danger? Flight or fight - run or punch.

So please stop treating your female characters like little children unable to do anything for themselves. I don't have a single female friend who would rely on a man for help. In fact, most of the women I know could beat me into pathetic pulp. Most, I tell you. Not all. Most!

What about you? Anyone else get seriously pissed off by all these inactive, 2D (sometimes literally) women in films? What is the biggest feminist's nightmare? Any feminists even out there anymore.......?

PS: anyone now looks at my google images searches will think I'm fairly obsessed with Leo Dicaprio and Robert Pattinson. Oh dear.

Done.

The 10% rule

2010-11-04T11:01:00.001Z

Everyone's heard of the Ten Minute Rule, yes? This is the one where you absolutely must have your story's trigger in the first 10 minutes or people will get bored. Not always true, but why would you go against it when it's true usually?

I was shocked and stunned (literally, my mouth dropped!) to hear someone I respected as a writer-y person say that you have to have your trigger in the first 20 minutes. This was when talking about a 60 minute drama.

First 20?! 20???!!!

Yep, twenty. To which I say - bollocks! Even as a kid I had a 15 minute rule (still do) - if a film doesn't interest me in the first 15 minutes, I'm gone. Ok, so character development may be interesting and needed, yes. But it doesn't grab me. What grabs me is a character doing something - that's how we learn about who they are, by seeing what they do.

We find how who Captain Miller is in Saving Private Ryan by how he commands his men in battle. We find out who Maximus is in Gladiator by.......how he commands his men in battle. We find out who Jack Sparrow is by how he arrives into port. What they do.

In my opinion, it should be a 10% rule. This means that if you're writing a 100 page screenplay (which most of us are), your trigger should appear by page 10. This also means that if you're writing a 60 minute TV drama, your trigger should be there by page 6.

Think about it - people sit down on a Friday night at about 11pm. "It's too late to start watching a movie," they say. So they're flicking through the channels and they see something just about to start that is an hour long. "Ah, an hour is perfect," they think. "Just what I need."

Because this person is only willing to invest an hour into this story, this also means they're most likely to only invest a small amount into the story's setup. Your audience is there - make sure you keep it! As Kurt Cobain said - "Here we are now, entertain us."

If your trigger comes in at 15 minutes in a two-hour film, that's 1/8 of the way through. Fair enough. But if it's 15 minutes into an hour piece, that's 1/4 of the way through. 1/4, 25%.

So I've wasted 25% of this story just finding out whether it's "my sort of thing". Boring.

So yes, the 10% rule is what I go by, but always falling back on the 15 minute rule as well. If you're writing a 90 minute piece, make it 9 minutes in. An hour = 6 minutes. A 25 minute sitcom = 2.5 minutes.

Not only do you keep the audience interested, but you also force yourself to get into the heart of the story as soon as possible, meaning you are able to fully explore its potential.

That's all. Disagree? Let me know. I'm always up for a good debate.

Animal Drama

2010-11-01T10:53:00.003Z

This is why I like nature shows - the drama.

There's more tension in these two and a half minutes than you'd find in half the films being let loose from Hollywood these days. This is also a good lesson in writing a scene with no dialogue. Cos animals can't talk, ya see. Right? The Lion King isn't real is it?! *curls into a ball and cries*

Time Travel Taboo

2010-10-29T10:15:00.002+01:00

Just a quicky today:

Please be bloody careful when using time travel in a story. If your hero uses it to save the day, stop and think. Let's say I'm the Captain of the Starship Enterprise. The world has been destroyed, it's game over, I've lost, bad guy's won. But I can go back in time and stop it if I want.

"Good good, let's go back to the last possible moment I have to stop the bad guy, dragging William Shatner back with me. A solid plan."

What? WHAT?!!! The last possible moment?! How about you go back to the beginning of the movie and kill the fucker before he even has chance to plan anything?

"Well then there wouldn't be a story, would there!" I hear you cry.

No, there wouldn't. Which is a damnsight better than having a story that completely, absolutely, catagorically falls apart in Act III. As if the deus ex machina itself wasn't bad enough! Jeez!

So if you're going to use time travel, be very very careful. And make sure you watch two things first: a) Back to the Future and b) Terminator.

All done. Feel free to yell at me now.

NB: Star Trek Generations may be shite, but First Contact is a damn good sci-fi movie!

The Man of Steel

2010-10-25T10:26:00.001+01:00

Last week, my script tutor said something that I've thought for a long time, and without any prompting from me.

"Superman is the most boring character ever because he's too fucking strong!"

Yep, that about sums it up. Superman never interested me comic book-wise as a kid. He really is too powerful to be a decent character. The clue's in the name - Man of Steel. So anything less than steel is useless. If Superman's going up against a gang of gun-toting maniacs, do we ever worry about him? No, because bullets do jack shit to Mr Clark Kent. And I know what you're saying:

"Ah, but if they have kryptonite, he's in serious trouble!"

Yes, right you are. So the only way to battle Superman is with a piece of green rock? How exciting!

Any bad guy that squares up to Superman has to have a certain amount of power behind him to even stand a chance -

a) He must be fucking strong
b) He must be fucking fast
c) He must fucking fly

This makes every bad guy the same as Superman. So what's the point? I'm never convinced Superman is really in any danger since he can always just fly away at the speed of light. Problem solved.

Yes, I know Supes' biggest foe was Mr Lex Luthor - brains vs brawl and all that. But if he wanted to, Superman could just pop his head like a balloon and it's game over.

So yes, Superman is horrendously boring. Like all little boys, when I saw those movies, I was running round with a home-made cape with one arm out. But I wasn't doing much. Just flying really. Was I fighting bad guys? Nope, cos that got boring since every bad guy I dreamt up was the same. And that wasn't 8-year-old Me's fault. It was Superman's.

Characters are only interesting if they're in real jeopardy. Spiderman isn't that strong. Yes, he can probably lift a car, but if a tank falls on his head, he's in trouble. Whereas Supes just flicks it away. So when Spiderman is in danger, I'm worried. If he gets shot, he dies. The bullet would just bounce off The Man of Fucking Steel. This is a hero in trouble:

Right, rant over. All I'm asking is - please, please, please refrain from making your characters so powerful that nothing can stop them. It makes writing their obstacles so much more straightforward!

Over and out.

Character Introductions (X-Men)

2010-10-21T11:03:00.000+01:00

At uni yesterday, I gave a quick presentation on character introductions. So I thought I'd do a quick run-down of what I talked about, and maybe someone will find it useful.

The character intro I looked at is Wolverine/Logan from the first X-Men film, which is, in my opinion, one of the finest character introductions written. We can learn a lot from this short scene. Take a look:

A good character intro should do two things -
1) Define the character - give us a real sense right from the off about who this guy is. What's he about? What does he do?
2) Drop hints/subtleties about his full character which can be developed over the remaining film/show etc. If everything is laid bare early on, there's no reason to keep watching. The audience stay with us to understand and explore those character hints we gave early on.

So in the case of Wolverine in X-Men:

1) Wolverine is half-naked, in a cage, fighting. Perfect! Wolverine is an animal, a weapon, a savage beast. Type "Wolverine" into google images and this is one of the first images you get:

So by introducing Wolverine in such a situation, we know instantly that this guy is a savage animal and that fighting is second nature to him.

2) The hints - this scene is littered with clever subtleties about Logan's character:

He has his back to any opponent - he doesn't give a damn about who enters the cage, it makes no difference to him.
He takes the beating and bides his time - he doesn't care about any injuries and at no point does he raise his arms in defence. Pain doesn't mean anything to him.
When the fight is (very quickly) over, he gets that cheeky little kick in at the end - a very telling aside to his attitude and the way he fights.
He has dog tags and wears layers of clothing (four?). Yes, this could be a) to make Hugh Jackman look bigger or b) because it can be bloody freezing in Canada. But it could also symbolise the layers to Wolverine's character. In the cage, he's stripped down, this is who he is. But outside the cage, with all those layers, we are not seeing the real Wolverine.
He is, as a rule, against the confrontation in the bar. And, again, he isn't too bothered about who comes up behind him. It takes a brave/stupid man to remain seated when someone that big is behind you.
The claws - he's clearly ashamed of or confused by them somewhat, but will fall back on them if he has to.
When he completely owns the big guy and the barman, he stops for a moment. At this point, he could waste everyone in sight, just take them apart. But instead, he decides to walk away.

By dropping in all these subtle character traits early on, the audience is completely drawn in to this character. We want to keep watching to find answers to all the above asides.

As a writer, you probably can't do quite that much with your characters. For example, the layers comment was probably something completely disregarded in the script and dealt with in wardrobe.

But what you can do is think long and hard about how you introduce your characters and what impression they're making on the audience.

A few other honourable character intro mentions, check them out:

Blade, Achilles (Troy), Cap'n Jack Sparrow (Pirates), T101 (Terminator), Riggs (Lethal Weapon), The Joker (The Dark Knight), Somerset (Se7en), Henry V (Kenneth Branagh's version).

So what say you? What are your favourite character intros and why? Am I wrong about the importance of introducing a character? Is it not that important? Is it more important? Is the intro of Wolverine the crappest ever? Let me know.

Forcing an idea

2010-10-14T11:36:00.002+01:00

My script class at uni has us writing a 60-minute drama/comedy this semester. I grabbed an idea I've had for a while and developed it a little. Task one was to write a 300 word proposal outlining the story. This is so our tutor can see if our idea has any potential - whether it's actually worth a turd.

I had a few problems with mine. I knew it had a lot of potential and could work, but I just wasn't putting that across in the proposal. I should say, though, that there was one fundamental flaw with the entire premise that would have taken quite some time to work out.

Anyway, my tutor (being the blunt, no-bullshit sort of bloke that he is) told me to either make this one good or give him something completely different. Throughout the week, I often had this face:

And contemplated this:

So Saturday night I frantically tried to think of ideas. I went everywhere, from Die Hard rip-offs, to a male-centered version of Juno. But nothing really that great and original.

But in the end, I managed to get something that I actually like a hell of a lot more than my original idea. It's perfect for a 60 minute drama and the story came very easily once I had a grasp on the theme and central character conflicts. Actually, the hardest thing about writing the proposal was thinking of a name. Seriously! I actually called it "United" as a working title. Ouch! That's not at all vague and corny(!)

I'm writing this as a quick break from the two-page outline I'm writing, which is also working well. This is, of course, before my tutor reads the outline, laughs in desperation, and tells me it's a pile of fei-oo.

Anyway, my point is that I was forced to come up with this very quickly. I didn't want to do it (at that point I was dead set on the awesomeness of idea #1), but now I think it could be some of my best stuff.

How about everyone else? Ever had an idea come so quickly and easily when you've been forced to do it? Ever had more trouble finding a title than anything else?

Btw, the title now (which might still change) is "Hellfire and Brimstone". A far more eerie title, don't ya think?

Updates and whatnot

2010-10-07T10:10:00.003+01:00

Since I'm far to busy at the moment to entertain y'all with an in-depth blog post about post-modernist character development (cos I know you love that shit!), here are a few updates and general musings.

For my script class at uni, we were going over proposals (300-word pitch-type documents for a script). Most had major flaws, mainly in the way they were written, but almost everyone had enough to make into a decent story.

Our script tutor is an interesting fellow, a no-nonsense, tell-it-to-you-straight sort of chap. Which I love! It's exactly what you need in this sort of work. There really isn't time for fancy explanations and pussy-footing around. When he tells me something is "bullshit", I know exactly what he means. I'm not sure everyone on the course gets this sort of criticism, but for me, it's invaluable.

I'm giving a presentation in a couple weeks, reading some of my own work and then showing some other work I admire and discussing the connections, influences etc. I'll be nervous, but it should be quite fun. For those interested, I'll be talking about Dexter and reading a short script I wrote (entered into the BSSC).

We have to give another presentation for this module that's a little more serious. As long as it's "contemporary", anything's game. Yep, I know - what's contemporary?! I don't know either - last 10 years, set in the last 10 years? Who knows?

I'm playing to my strengths with this one, no pissing about - Joss Whedon. Simple as that. Providing I can convince my tutors that Buffy the Vampire Slayer (which began in 1997) is contemporary, we're good to go. We all know I love Joss Whedon like a god, so it was only a matter of time he got me a decent mark for something - he really needs to start pulling his weight!

Feminism in the works of Joss Whedon - piece of piss writing 3500 words on that! Providing I can work out how to reference DVD boxsets and youtube........

Got lots of nice prezzies from my friends when I went out last week - books (these people know me very well!) and a notepad for those script ideas (like I said, very well!). Problem is, as the note in the notepad says, anything that goes in it technically belongs to the buyer, so any profits from said ideas go to the lady who bought it for me. I think I've haggled her down to 75% now. Either way, time to get me a lawyer!

That's about all that's going on in my life at the moment. So, what's new with you?

Tuneage:
My goodness, it's Eddie Vedder with a guitar! What are the odds?

Copyright essay

2010-09-30T10:45:00.000+01:00

Most of the things universities get you to read are boring. They are, however, vital to the course. So you end up reading them in the end. Occasionally they are pretty interesting. Like this one from my Writing MA on copyright.

It's hard going, fairly long, so I recommend you sit down with a coffee and some heavy metal before diving in. Here are a few of the highlights if, like me, you're far too ~~lazy~~ busy to read it all:

Appropriation has always played a key role in Dylan's music. The songwriter has grabbed not only from a panoply of vintage Hollywood films but from Shakespeare and F. Scott Fitzgerald and Junichi Saga's Confessions of a Yakuza. He also nabbed the title of Eric Lott's study of minstrelsy for his 2001 album Love and Theft.

One imagines Dylan liked the general resonance of the title, in which emotional misdemeanors stalk the sweetness of love, as they do so often in Dylan's songs. Lott's title is, of course, itself a riff on Leslie Fiedler's Love and Death in the American Novel, which famously identifies the literary motif of the interdependence of a white man and a dark man, like Huck and Jim or Ishmael and Queequeg—a series of nested references to Dylan's own appropriating, minstrel-boy self.

Dylan's art offers a paradox: while it famously urges us not to look back, it also encodes a knowledge of past sources that might otherwise have little home in contemporary culture, like the Civil War poetry of the Confederate bard Henry Timrod, resuscitated in lyrics on Dylan's newest record, Modern Times. Dylan's originality and his appropriations are as one.

[...]

In a courtroom scene from The Simpsons that has since entered into the television canon, an argument over the ownership of the animated characters Itchy and Scratchy rapidly escalates into an existential debate on the very nature of cartoons. “Animation is built on plagiarism!” declares the show's hot-tempered cartoon-producer-within-a-cartoon, Roger Meyers Jr. “You take away our right to steal ideas, where are they going to come from?”

[...]

At the movies, my entertainment is sometimes lately preceded by a dire trailer, produced by the lobbying group called the Motion Picture Association of America, in which the purchasing of a bootleg copy of a Hollywood film is compared to the theft of a car or a handbag—and, as the bullying supertitles remind us, “You wouldn't steal a handbag!”

This conflation forms an incitement to quit thinking. If I were to tell you that pirating DVDs or downloading music is in no way different from loaning a friend a book, my own arguments would be as ethically bankrupt as the MPAA's. The truth lies somewhere in the vast gray area between these two overstated positions. For a car or a handbag, once stolen, no longer is available to its owner, while the appropriation of an article of “intellectual property” leaves the original untouched.

As Jefferson wrote, “He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.”

Read the full article.

Birthday and Burton

2010-09-27T11:30:00.004+01:00

It's my birthday today - yay! Don't worry, I'm not sad enough to do a blog post on my actual birthday - wrote this yesterday. Or today, depending how you look at it.

Hopefully I'll get lots of goodies, but something tells me I won't be getting that Flux Capacitor I need to finish off my DeLorean time machine. Oh well, one day.....

What I'm really counting on is a little cash to go towards the Les Paul I'm going to buy. It's an Epiphone btw, not a Gibson - they're essentially the same instrument. Ok, a Gibson would last longer if you chucked it down the stairs, but I'm not that rock n roll! And with the Gibson being about £1000 more than the Epiphone, it's no contest! This is how most of these conversations go:

October 2010....
Dude in Shop: Greetings!
Me: Howdy. I'm after an Epi Paul.
Dude in Shop: An Epiphone Les Paul eh? You don't want the real thing?
Me: Nah, five hundred quid's my limit. Besides, they're basically the same thing.
Dude in Shop: Ah, very well. (under his breath) Cheap fucker!

October 2030...20 years later...after winning the lottery....
Duder in Shop: Greetings!
Me: Howdy............you still work here, dude?
Duder in Shop: Nah man, I'm Dude in Shop's third son - Duder in Shop - note the "R".
Me: Ah, I see. My mistake. So........I'm after a Les Paul
Duder in Shop: An Epiphone? Cos they've come along leaps and bound since the government stopped putting tracking bugs in them. Of course, I'm not legally allowed to sell you such an instrument since the Rock n Roll outlaw of twenty-three. I can, however, show you a wide variety of triangles?
Me: No no no. What I'm looking for is a Gibson Les Paul.
Duder in Shop: A Gibson?! I'd really recommend an Epiphone - they're half the price and basically the same instrument.
Me: Same instrument?! Nonsense! I'll be taking the real thing, thank you very much! I mean, what am I to do when Prime Minister Cowell comes knocking at my door late one evening because he heard "Won't Get Fooled Again" blasting from my house? Attack with my Gibson, that's what! There's certainly no way an Epiphone would withstand such a beating!
Duder in Shop: Right you are, son, right you are. A Gibson it is. And since you're spending so much money here, we'll throw in a "Government Communications Static Scrambler" free of charge.
Me: That's mightily grand of you, sir! Ta very much. You.....erm.....don't have any Flux Capacitors do you?
Duder in Shop: I don't think so. But I'll check with my future self.
Me: Cheers.

Yes, my views of the future are pretty much standard - the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. And rock n roll has been outlawed by Simon Cowell.

Anyway, today also marks the death of Cliff Burton, who was killed in a coach crash exactly two years before I was born. No-one could make a bass guitar scream quite like Cliff. And if I headbanged like him, I'd have a constant headache!

So here's a little tribute:

Oh, one last thing - last week, a guy on my street (whose last name just happens to be Burton) turned 98. Yep, 98! And he can still do a Sudoku faster than anyone I know. Now that's sticking it to the man!

Later folks!

A snippet of Three

2010-09-23T11:38:00.000+01:00

Why not take a quick look at the showreel of Darren S Cook (director of Three) for a few snippets of my short film (featured at 4 mins 13 seconds):

And while you're at it, check out the trailer for Darren's upcoming feature Sure Fire Hit:

Kam is in her thirties and from the suburbs nearing her well earned if somewhat early retirement. She is asked by her boss to train up a replacement before she leaves. Only trouble is, her replacement seems to have an agenda of her own.

Exciting, no?

Three nominated, BSSC, and three more shorts

2010-09-20T11:05:00.000+01:00

So, a few people will know - Three was nominated for Best Comedy in the Portobello Film Festival yesterday (Sunday). I couldn't make it down to the ceremony, but the team were there in force.

Unfortunately, we didn't win. And while it would have been amazing if we had, it's far from the end of the world: the film got a nomination at a major festival - that's fairly shiny in itself! And it'll be entered into many a-more fest in the coming months.

In other news, my script Survival of the Fittest made it through to the first round of the British Short Screenplay Competition. I think this is certainly some of my best writing, which is why I entered into into the comp rather than tried to get it produced. Worse case scenario - I don't win and I have another short to link with a director.

In other news, a short film I had a hand in has recently been filmed. I came up with the concept for Drowning as a way of demonstrating the power of music. It sounds corny as hell, I know, but the idea went through a lot of changes etc with director Juliane Block. In the end, the story and idea are mine and Juliane's, with the script itself penned by co-director Virginia Kennedy.

The film also has a good song in it, lyrics being written by my friend Chloe Louise Patrick and myself (ok, just one verse from me). It was originally written as a poem and, me being shite at poetry, I called on Chloe to give me a hand. And the whole thing came out shiny!

Also, since meeting up with the crew of Three a few weeks ago, I've been working on another short script. It was originally going to be a bit of fun, a military action piece to suit Airsoft (which these guys play all the time!) But the ideas started flowing and I'm now working on a script I think I'll soon be very proud of. It's called Disposable Heroes and it's about....well....disposable heroes.

And finally, I have been working with director Scott Murden, rewriting a script I penned about a year ago, another comedy, since Three went down so well (but not that well - I'm looking at you Portobello!):

Would You Kill For Her?
Patiently waiting for his girlfriend to get ready, Jim finds himself at the interrogative mercy of a protective relative. Dads and brothers move over - little sisters will stop at nothing to get the truth!

Filming is aimed for around November time to enter into festivals next year. And it was this film that made me want to work with him - short, to the point and thought-provoking (everything a good short should be):

So it's all good on the short film front - now I just need to knuckle down with this Masters and get a decent feature penned.

So......what's new with you?

X-Force

2010-09-17T11:50:00.000+01:00

I'm a big fan of the X-Force comics at the moment. Not big enough to buy every issue as they come out, but big enough to buy every graphic novel (that's a series of individual issues collected in each volume, for those who don't know) ASAP.

If you like very dark storylines and extreme violence, they're definitely worth checking out. And you don't have to have a Mutant degree to get into them. Essentially, all you need to know is that the X-Men are the public mutant face. But there are some jobs that require.....under the table solutions.

X-Force are the badass mutants who handle the wetwork, "terminating" threats before anyone even finds out about them. The general public and the other X-Men can never know. So naturally, the team is led by good old Wolverine, who is probably at his darkest here.

By far the most compelling element to the story is the grey area each mission inhabits. "For the greater good" often comes to mind.

Anyway, loving the run they're doing at the moment. And the upcoming Uncanny X-Force gets me all giddy with excitement:

After Cyclops disbands Wolverine's black-ops group, Logan assembles a brand new team to face a deadly new threat.

Why so excited? Because Wolverine seems to have recruited Archangel, Psylocke and.....wait for it.....only fucking Deadpool! All in one team, doing very violent-y things! Yes, I am super excited. Check out the trailer:

So, anyone else interested?

If you could write anything....

2010-09-15T10:01:00.003+01:00

....what would you write?

I got into writing because of Mr Joss Whedon. I'm not going to say I acted out almost every episode of Buffy and Angel back in the day, but after watching an episode I could never stop thinking how awesome it would be to inhabit that world. To be Angel, or Spike, or Riley, hell, even Xander! But since that's impossible, the next best thing is to write it, yeah?

That's my general thinking on writing - would I like to be in this world, to hang out with these characters? If not, then I've failed.

The first bit of fiction I ever wrote was after Angel finished. I heard that the series was going to continue in comic book form, which pissed me off since the show ended on such an amazing note and I felt I knew what was going to happen - Angel, Spike, Illyria and Gunn (mortally wounded) were facing down an army of demons, with a giant and a dragon thrown into the mix. They die. It's that simple - Angel goes out on a battlecry with the message "always keep fighting", but they lose that battle. They all die! But the point is, they fight.

I can't help but quote Angel himself:

This isn't a "keep fighting the good fight" kind of deal. Let's be clear. I'm talking about killing every... single... member... of the Black Thorn. We don't walk away from that.

We do this, the senior partners will rain their full wrath. They'll make an example of us. I'm talking full-on hell, not the basic fire-and-brimstone kind that we're used to.

Ten to one, we're gone when the smoke clears. They will do everything in their power to destroy us. So... I need you to be sure. Power endures. We can't bring down the Senior Partners, but for one bright shiny moment we can show them that they don't own us. You need to decide for yourselves if that's worth dying for. I can't order you to do this. Can't do it without you. So we'll vote... as a team. Think about what I'm asking you to do. Think about what I'm asking you to give.

But I digress. I decided to try my hand at writing a Spike spin-off thingy. It was in prose form and absolutely terrible! And I mean seriously shite! But the one thing that was good was how I wrote Spike - I'd known the character for about 7 years so that meant I was able to write him easily.

This was, of course, before I decided writing was something I wanted to do as a career. Back then it was all a bit of fun - I wrote whatever I wanted to write. And it was crap.

I wrote a TV episode. It was for Firefly. Now Firefly was loooong dead by this point - it was never going to happen. But it was great fun. I believe my episode was about Jayne being left behind on a planet (the crew of Serenity didn't notice until they were miles away, naturally). So the decision was - do we go back and get Jayne? It it was Kaylee or Mal left behind, hell yeah. But Jayne? Really?

Anyway, the episode was, as previously mentioned, poo. But, again, I managed to nail the voices of the characters, because I knew them so well.

So if I could write for any TV shows past, present or future, it would definitely be Buffy, Angel and Firefly (there's a whole Joss Whedon theme here, you may notice). Notably not Dollhouse. Sorry, Joss.

But when push comes to shove, if there's any set of characters I could write for - what would be my absolute dream - it would be the X-Men.

X-Men is still one of the finest pieces of fiction ever conceived. I started reading them at school, grabbing whatever issues were lying around. I didn't understand it all, because if you pick up a random X-Men issue now, you'll need a Masters degree in Mutant Ethics to have the slightest clue what's going on.

But these characters are the core of what makes it great. The constant tension between Wolverine and Cyclops and the love triangle with Jean Grey. Beast's ongoing internal struggle with the creature within. Colossus' connections with his old family. Emma Frost's constant questionable allegiances. This is what makes X-Men. That, combined with the brilliant moral, ethical and political "mutant problem", make it amazing to read.

I could quite comfortably sit for an entire year and write nothing but X-Men. Unlike Hellblazer, where I would probably find myself repeating what's gone before, X-Men still has stories yet to be told.

For example, if I were to create a live-action X-Men TV show (my undying dream), I would remove Wolverine. Don't get me wrong, Logan is amazing and possibly my favourite mutant, but he's been done to death now - everyone knows who he is and what he's all about. At most, he would pop in every now and then, fuck things up, and piss off. In classic Wolvie fashion.

No, my X-Men team would quite simply consist of Cyclops (the classic, core, father-figure of the group - if it ain't broke, don't fix it), Colossus (who would do a lot more than just stand there and hit things - thank you, Mr Brett Ratner!), Shadowcat (for her awesome relationship with Colossus), Beast (as a solitary quiet type, a mere shadow of his former self) and Psylocke (because every team needs a psychic). That's where I stand. And, no, I would not throw Gambit in there just to please fanboys!

Anyway, that would be my dream - to write the X-Men, either on TV (preferably), film or comic book. Now, there's very very little chance this will ever happen, but I can't see X-Men ever dying. So it'll be around for a long long while. Whether it'll get better or worse is anyone's guess - probably both. I'm not holding my breath, but maybe, just maybe, I'll one day have the opportunity to write the X-Men. And then I can die a very happy dude!

So, what about you? If you could write any set of characters, who would it be? Friends, Cheers, Lost, 24, James Bond, The Avengers, Spider-Man, Dr Who, Harry Potter?

Let me know.

Over and out.

PS: if you've never read a comic book before in your life, just watching this video and you might change your mind......

London & Portobello

2010-09-09T09:26:00.002+01:00

I hopped on a train to London yesterday to see Three in the Portobello Film Festival. I don't know if we won; I don't even know what we win if we win. Not the foggiest.

Anyway, I pottered round Oxford Street for an hour and mistook a young bald man for Patrick Stewart - don't worry, I didn't say anything. Though, had I decided to, the exchange would most likely have gone like this:

Me: Greetings, sir. Looking to produce any short films?
Sir Patrick Stewart: I was Professor Charles Xavier. I played every single role in Dicken's A Christmas Carol. I was Captain Ahab. I was Claudius in Hamlet! I was the Captain of the Starship fucking Enterprise for christ's sake! Who the hell are you?!
Me: ........your new best friend.....?
THWAK!
*Mr Stewart walks away, leaving me unconscious in a pile of my own self-hatred*

Anyway, that didn't happen. So on to more interesting matters.

I met up with Mr Ty Jon Knowles (fellow writer and worked as production assistant on Three). One fellow (who will remain nameless) later may or may not have been eyed up by a prostitute in a trenchcoat (if the police ask, I'm a writer, ergo - antisocial, ergo - didn't see a thing).

I then spent the night shaking hands with a bunch of people I'd never met before - and what fine people they were - directors, producers, actors, cinematographers, armourers (they're the dudes with the guns. Note: don't say "Hey, you're the gun guy!" too loud in a bar. Turns heads. Wrong heads!), a few rather ~~hot~~ beautifully talented actresses as well.

I also had a few drinks bought for me, which is always appreciated at London prices. I'm sure the first Jack Daniels I had was half the price of the fourth.....

I was interviewed by a friend of a friend of a friend of a.........hmm.....I was interviewed by a lovely lady called Jo (I certainly hope that is her name - that part of the night is a little fuzzy. I'm almost certain it is. I think). Yes, so I was interviewed for a website - for the life of me I can't remember what website that was, but sure I'll find out.

We then settled down to watch Three on the big screen. I say big, but problem was, the projector wasn't close enough to the screen, so the opening title went from "THREE" to "HRE". But never mind, it just meant we missed off some of Mr Tony C's face in some of the shots. Which isn't the end of anyone's world.

Plenty of people laughed at the right moments (but that was mostly our gang to be fair) and also laughed at the wrong moments (again, us!). But it seemed to go down well and it was amazing to see the final thing on the big (slightly cut-off) screen. We did cheer an awful lot! Which is more than the film before ours got, since no-one turned up to see it. Just as well, since their DVD chocked and died before they could play it.

So after a few more drinks and shaking the hands of a few more people (it's very strange being congratulated on something you wrote over two years ago!), and after declaring that I could easily take Mr Robert Downey Jr in unarmed combat (not everyone shared my confidence), I headed on home. Three and a half hours later, at 2am, I crashed on my bed and now I feel like I've been hit by a truck. So it was a good day!

Thanks everyone, that is all.

Three in Portobello

2010-09-03T11:27:00.000+01:00

Those who know me on facebook will probably already know that short film Three (that I wrote) was accepted into the Portobello Film Festival. It's playing in the comedy section (it being a comedy and all), playing on Wednesday 8th (that's this Wednesday) at Inn on the Green, London, from 6pm to 11pm (we're showing around 9-ish). You can see the other films being entered (along with Three) at this link, on page 11.

So if anyone feels like spending a night watching some good old comedy shorts in a decent bar, come along, drinks on me! *

In other news, I'm currently rewriting a short script for a director. After reading it, he had a bunch of ideas to improve it. I was against them to start with, but I soon realised he was right, so a rewrite it is. Directors, eh, always gotta be right!

Still waiting to hear on the BSSC and Red Planet Prize (along with thousands of other people), so nothing to say there.

I've been doing a bit of research into Script Reading this last week, working out if it's something I could be any good at. It's going well so far - I'm certainly not at a stage where I can think about charging yet, but you never know.

Other than that, I'm just running around trying to get everything sorted for my MA starting later this month. The reading lists aren't really going down at all - the bad habits have already started. I'm doing a Writing MA and they expect me to read too?! Jeez!

Anyway, happy writing folks!

Tuneage:

PS: Kick-Ass comes out on Monday - go buy it. Immediately. On Monday. Obviously.

* Drinks are not on me, I just
like to think I'm rich enough
to say such things.

Top 5 fight scenes

2010-09-02T10:45:00.000+01:00

I like fight scenes. I know, who knew?! Anyway, I figured I'd share (for no apparent reason) my top 5 fight scenes from film and TV. To bend the rules slightly, I'm going to show what I believe to be the most realistic fights in film. Not so realistic that it's that Bridget ones thingy, but decent and real at the same time. So, without further ado, here it be --

5) Spider-Man - Spidey vs. Green Goblin
A realistic superhero fight? Really?! Yep - taking into account these two dudes' powers, this is nice and brutal. The complete lack of music is what really sells it - no fancy shit, just two blokes slugging it out.
Lesson learned - Willem Dafoe hits like a Mack Truck!

4) Dollhouse - Echo vs. Ballard
Great innovation in this fight, from the two toughest characters. What I really love is that, despite Echo being a rather small woman (the woman Ballard is supposed to be saving), Ballard doesn't hold back one tiny bit.
Lesson learned - hitting women is sometimes very very ok.

3) Taken - pretty much the entire film
Earns a place on the list because these fight scenes (while repetitive) are incredibly realistic. Fighting is simple - put your opponent down as fast as possible. Nothing does that quite like a slap to the larynx.
Lesson learned - don't wish Liam Neeson good luck!

2) Kick-Ass - Hero time!
What makes this scene so good and realistic is that is captures what the entire movie is all about. At this point, we want nothing more than for our boy to succeed, but, well.....things don't quite go as planned - perfect realism.
Lesson learned - cars are dangerous!

1) Casino Royale - Staircase fight
Twice as tense as any other Bond scene, increased tenfold by having a machete involved. Brutally hard at the end as well, since that sleeper hold is textbook - only way to get out of it is to deal out enough pain on your aggressor that he lets go. Love it!
Lesson learned - gambling has dangers we didn't even know about!

Just a quickie

2010-08-25T10:24:00.000+01:00

No, not like that! Well, maybe if you play your cards right, you blog-reader, you!

You'll excuse me while I take a quick break from blogging to get tonnes of stuff done writing-wise, uni-wise and social-wise. Yes you will. Cheers.

Expect the odd post every now and then - will be back full steam ahead in about a month. In the meantime, there's something for everyone below........

Eddie Vedder

Cliff Burton

Edgar Allan Poe

Hitchcock

Zod

Pinky and the Brain vs Spike and Angel

Rewriting The Matrix, and respecting kids

2010-08-20T11:11:00.002+01:00

This is a bit of a wordy post, so feel free to breeze in and out accordingly.

So I spent a few days a couple weeks ago writing the first draft treatment of my children's fantasy film. If all goes to plan, this would be part one of a trilogy.

I've had ideas for this script knocking around for about a year now and I've just let everything settle in my head before I wrote anything down. It worked out well, because I found it very easy to fit everything to Blake Snyder's outline template and write an 11 page outline pretty fast.

As a rule, children's fantasy stories are fairly formulaic. Just look at the striking similarities between Star Wars: A New Hope and the first Harry Potter book - they're essentially the same story.

So you know what I'm talking about, you often get things like:

- A child protagonist with no parents (Luke Skywalker, Harry Potter)
- A very clear mentor character (Obi Wan, Hagrid)
- A villain with strong personal connections to the protagonist (Darth Vader is said to have killed Luke's father, just like Voldemort did)

And so on.
My story does conform to a few of these rules and it pisses on a few others. That's not to say it's complete cliche (though it is in parts since it's only the first treatment draft), but that some of these things are vital for a kids' fantasy film.

You have to have a child protagonist, otherwise, who are the audience going to relate to? You need a kid whose parents take an inactive role or they wouldn't be able to do anything. You need a mentor character to teach a kid (since they can't do everything themselves) and fill that missing parent void. And your hero and villain have to be connected in any story.

So yes, my story has a fair few similarities with Harry Potter. But I noticed, when reading through the treatment, that it's also quite similar to The Matrix. Which drew me to the conclusion that The Matrix is, essentially, a children's fantasy film. Only, without a kid.

- We have a protagonist with no clear family (like every child in fantasy stories)
- He discovers something unusual and leaps into that world with the help of a mentor character (Morpheus)
- There's a very clear training section where our hero learns what they need to do (fighting Morpheus, leaping across buildings, seeking out the Oracle etc)
- Our hero is The Chosen One (Harry Potter, Star Wars, His Dark Materials, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, The One)

I could go on. But the point is that my story is pretty similar. Which is a) a good thing, since The Matrix is awesome and is a great example of complex storytelling and b) a terrible thing, since....well.....it's been done!

But I ain't worried. Everything I write is a little cliche in the first draft, so I'll work it out.

If there's one thing I've tried to do in this story, it's respect a) my child protagonist and b) my child-dominated audience. If reading Pullman's His Dark Materials trilogy has taught me anything, it's that kids are smart and can take a lot more than we give them credit for.

I went back and forth with one very tough decision in this story. It's part of the film's trigger/catalyst so vital that I get it right. I'm talking about killing a child's parents on-screen. Not just letting people know that this kid's parents are gonners (Star Wars, Harry Potter), but actually showing them die and allowing my hero to deal with that event.

On one side, I didn't want to scare the audience away, which this can certainly do. You can easily say that killing off a 13-year-old boy's parents in the first 15 minutes of a film is way too dark. But on the other side, I knew that this was the right move for the story. It instantly lets you know what's at stake and gives my hero something to fight for.

So I went back and forth, trying to find other ways of creating the same effect. I even thought about fake-killing them, only to bring them back at the end (don't worry, I punched myself on the nose for that one!). But in the end, there was nothing I could do to say what I wanted. So kill them I did. And I'm firm in my resolve that it's the right decision. Definitely! Which is why I felt the need to blog about it.......

The number one issue (and the thing I've had the most headaches with) is showing how my hero deals with that experience. I can draw on a limited amount of experience of losing loved ones at a young age, but never anything that severe or significant.

It helps that I force my hero into this fantasy world, which in a way, means he doesn't have chance to deal with the loss in a conventional way. He has to focus on surviving first, and only then can he stop and think.

Anyway, I expect many a headache in the future of this script. Looking forward to it!

So, thoughts? Does anyone have an opinion on the whole "killing off a kid's parents" thing? Horror stories about how it can go wrong? Examples where it works perfectly in tone with the story? Let me know what you think.

Great Screen Moments - Beauty and the Beast

2010-08-17T13:01:00.000+01:00

What's the matter, Beast? Too kind and gentle to fight back?

Written by: Linda Woolverton

Double Mumbo Jumbo

2010-08-13T10:22:00.000+01:00

For those who don't know, Double Mumbo Jumbo is something Blake Snyder talks about in Save the Cat:

audiences will only accept one piece of magic per movie. It's The Law. You cannot see aliens from outer space land in a UFO and then be bitten by a vampire and now be both aliens and undead.

The example Snyder uses is from Signs:

In M. Night Shyamalan's Signs, we are asked to believe that aliens from outer space have invaded Earth. The movie is about Mel Gibson's crisis of faith in God. Huh?! I'd say proof of an alien intelligence outside our solar system sorta trumps all discussion about faith in God, don't you think? But M. asks us to juggle both. And it's a mess. Well, God and aliens don't mix. Why? Because it's two sets of different kinds of magic. It's Double Mumbo Jumbo.

It's hard to disagree with Snyder at the best of times and he makes a pretty solid point here. How can we be expected to believe two different, seemingly contradicting, sets of magic? It's a problem.

However, are there occasions where it's acceptable? Another example Blake uses is Spider-Man. At one end of NYC, Peter Parker is bitten by a radioactive spider, giving him superpowers. Ok. Then at the other end of NYC, an experiment gives Norman Osborn different powers. Ok.......

But I think superhero movies are allowed to bend the rules. Because as we enter into a superhero world, our believability expands and what it is "realistic" goes out the window.

This'll be interesting when the Avengers movie is released, since it will combine a variety of supers, all made that way through different means - Norse Gods, super-soldier serums, growth experiments, high-tech suits of armour et al. This sort of thing has worked in comics for going on 70 years, so should it be a problem at all?

One thing that really pissed me off during Supernatural's latest season is that Sam and Dean were fighting Lucifer. As in - Christian mythology. Then they encounter gods from a bunch of other religions - Islam, Greek, Norse etc. Surely the existence of the Christian deity directly proves that every other religion is tosh? There's your Double Mumbo Jumbo!

Never mind the fact that Balder was in charge, while Odin (Balder's Viking superior) took orders! And Lucifer managed to kill Odin and Zeus?! Please! Anyway, I digress....

So Double Mumbo Jumbo happens. A lot. What say you? Does it really bother you that they use it? I'm a huge fan of Signs, despite that obvious flaw. And I think Spider-Man is one of the best superhero movies.

Let me know what you think - are there times when Double Mumbo Jumbo is acceptable? Or even welcomed? Do you want to see Merlin do battle with Emperor Zod? Or see Thor slug it out against Freddy Kreuger? Share your thoughts......

It all started when....

2010-08-09T11:39:00.000+01:00

I've randomly decided to go down one of those "write a blog post on something and tag a few other people to do the same thing" posts.

I know a lot of people have talked about their long journey to screenwriter, but I just felt the need to talk about that initial moment where you decided that this was something you could/should/would do. So here's mine:

Early 2008 during a creative writing seminar at uni. I think the module was called Verse & Narrative and was very much the basics of writing. The main focus was to get you to understand story structure, characters, voice etc. This particular was (if memory serves) on dialogue and our tutor (the Texan lady who later guided me through my first feature script) presented us with a few pages of Trottier's Screenwriter's Bible.

After 90 minutes of reading through it and lots of thinking, I realised that writing screenplays could be majorly fun! So I bought the book, read it in one weekend and got to work on the whole writing thingy. By the summer of that year, I decided I was ready to write a feature script. I wasn't, because what I produced was an 80-page piece of (in a word) shit.

But I can remember exactly where I was when I wrote the words "FADE TO BLACK" and hit save. It printed it out and it was one of the most awesome feelings ever!

And that was the moment I knew that screenwriting was what I wanted to do. There wasn't any other option. Yep, it's all very cliché. But, as my writing tutor told me repeatedly last year, I'm a huge fan of cliché!

So, I hereby tag Miss Michelle Goode, Mr John Hunter and Miss Manda Diaz to tell the world how they knew they wanted to be a writer......

Great Screen Moments - The Lion King

2010-08-06T10:20:00.000+01:00

"Scar! Brother, help me!"
"Long live the King."

Written by: Irene Mecchi and Jonathan Roberts and Linda Woolverton

Great Screen Moments - Serenity

2010-08-03T11:12:00.000+01:00

"Love. You can know all the math in the 'verse, you take a boat in the air you don't love, she'll shake you off just as sure as a turn in the worlds. Love keeps her in the air when she oughta fall down, tells you she's hurting 'fore she keens. Makes her a home."

Written by: Joss Whedon

Visual Writing - help from Eddie

2010-07-28T11:49:00.001+01:00

Listening to songs and hearing poetry read aloud has always helped me visualise a scene, which is what, as screenwriters, we really need to do. We can't show the reader what's happening; all we have are words on the page to explain what's being seen.

I find these two Pearl Jam songs particularly useful. Apart from being amazingly moving [insert essay on love of Pearl Jam here], they also paint a very visual picture. Might be worth giving something like this a shot? Take one of your scenes and simply write it in prose, as if someone is describing it to another person. Might help?

I'm Still Here

"I picture a sober awakening, a re-entry into this little bar scene. Sip my drink till the ice hits my lip. Order another round."

I'm Open

"A man lies in his bed in a room with no door. He waits, hoping for a presence, something, anything, to enter."

"Lying sideways atop crumpled sheets and no covers, he decides to dream. Dream up a new self. For himself."

Louder than Hell!!!

2010-07-24T09:17:00.000+01:00

For those who like a little metal with their morning coffee.....

Metal high-five for any Manowar fans out there *clink*

Great Screen Moments - Se7en

2010-07-20T11:06:00.000+01:00

I got a hair sample, I got a stool sample, I got piss, I got fingernails. He's laughing at us.

Written by: Andrew Kevin Walker

Art is the gateway to our soul

2010-07-16T10:58:00.000+01:00

'Harry,' said Basil Hallward, looking him straight in the face, 'every portrait that is painted with feeling is a portrait of the artist, not of the sitter. The sitter is merely the accident, the occasion. It is not he who is revealed by the painter; it is rather the painter who, on the coloured canvas, reveals himself. The reason I will not exhibit this picture is that I am afraid that I have shown in it the secret of my own soul.'

Wilde, 1890

The above extract is from The Picture of Dorian Gray - Basil (the painter of the infamous picture in question) has a lengthy discussion with his friend Lord Henry Wotton about why he is reluctant to display the portrait.

Is this the reason why people are reluctant to show off their work? I can see there's something very personal about a piece of art, including writing. It's almost as if, by writing a moving, emotional scene, you are exposing yourself to the reader as if you were genuinely in that scene.

Oscar Wilde had a lot to say about art and writing, but what do you think? Is there something extremely personal about writing? Are you the sort of person who won't show their work around? Or are you perfectly fine with anyone and everyone reading what you've done?

I think I'm somewhere in the middle. There are some people I wouldn't want to read certain aspects of my writing, but that's mainly because it would be massively uncomfortable. But in the end, if these things get filmed, they're bound to be seen eventually.

Let me know what you think.....

Great Screen Moments - Harry Brown

2010-07-13T10:50:00.000+01:00

Written by: Gary Young

Lessons learned from.....

2010-07-09T10:30:00.002+01:00

Clash of the Titans (1981)

The Good:

A strong, powerful trigger to kick things off - Perseus and his mother are left for dead at sea (locked in a coffin). What makes this trigger work so well is that we see the immediate, vital effects (Argos is destroyed by the Kraken).

A very high-concept idea - Man vs all manner of mythological creatures. Also has the string-pulling element from the gods that make it even more compelling.

Good use of poetic licence - mythology is changed to suit the story: the origin of Pegasus, adaptation of Cerberus into a two headed dog (Dioskilos) et al.

Active protagonist - despite being controlled by the gods, Perseus takes an active role in the film, making the decision to seek out Andromeda and save her from Calibos et al.

The Bad:

Terrible exposition - the opening 10 minutes, which features a scene in Olympus are fairly horrible. Zeus systematically goes through each god present and tells us what their role is. We are then told straight away that Perseus is Zeus' son and his entire story.

Later on, a guard tells Perseus "we live in fear of [Calibos]". This not only breaks the sacred 'show, don't tell' rule, but also comes in the middle of a conversation that tells us (the audience) stuff we were shown not half an hour before. Boring.

The Ugly:

The acting - sorry, but I refuse to accept that Laurence Olivier was ever a good actor. Yes, I accept that I'm going to get lynched for this, but I've seen his Lear, his Othello, his Hamlet, and I don't like them. His Zeus is no better. There, I said it. The rest of the cast ain't great either. Except for Maggie Smith (always pretty decent). I haven't seen the remake, but I refuse to accept that Liam Neeson is even capable of bad acting. Ever.

No longer a student

2010-07-06T11:16:00.001+01:00

After three years of work and shiteloads of reading, final results came on Saturday. So I now have a 2:1 in English. Now just hoping I get on the Masters course for Writing.......

Roll on the embarrasing graduation in November!

That is all.

Currently digging:

Create your own movie posters

2010-07-02T10:27:00.001+01:00

When I was at a meeting with writer/actress buddy Sue Clarke, I noticed a few things on her wall - pictures, or rather posters of what she's writing. I decided to follow suit, loading up word, grabbing tonnes of pics off google and printing out some posters.

Why? Principally for two reasons:

One - with those posters stuck up on my wall, every single time I walk through my room (which is a lot), I can't help thinking out the story. This way, I am having at least one mini brainstorming session every day. I've had the posters up for a couple of months now and already lost count of the number of times I've walked past, stopped, walked back, and scribbled down a new idea for the project.

Two - it gives me something visual. There's always debate about whether you should visualise a particular actor in the character you're writing. On the plus side, you're more likely to actually write a good character. On the negative, if you aim to write a Robin Williams persona and the reader doesn't see it, you're screwed!

Personally, I create a character and then (occasionally) think about which actor would be good in that role. Right now I have one poster with pictures of Kenneth Branagh and Yvonne Strahovski on it - an unlikely but awesome pairing? I like to think so. *

So anyway, for me, this works great. Yes, it might come off as cocky or arrogant, but who cares?! Just don't put the words "Winner of 11 Academy Awards" on it and you should be ok. Aim for at least 12!

Happy writing!!!

Currently digging:

* Six degrees of seperation:

Kenneth Branagh > Derek Jacobi (Henry V) > Russell Crowe (Gladiator) > Paul Bettany (A Beautiful Mind) > Tom Hanks (The Da Vinci Code) > Nathan Fillion (Saving Private Ryan) > Adam Baldwin (Firefly/Serenity) > Yvonne Strahovski (Chuck)

Ok, so not exactly six degrees, but it works. Note: this took me ages to work out. Thank Odin for that Nathan Fillion > Tom Hanks connection!

Random musings

2010-06-28T10:04:00.002+01:00

This is one of those random catch-up session thingies. I get my uni results next Monday, where I'll find out whether the last three years of my life have been a waste of time or not. At least the sleepless nights will be done.

I'm hoping to get a couple more short films into pre-production in the next few months, hopefully shooting over the summer. Fingers crossed.

I'm making good progress on my Red Planet Prize entry, rewriting the pilot script this week after some good critiques from fellow writers.

I also started watching K-Ville on channel 5 which was certainly one of the finest pilot TV episodes I've ever seen. Compelling stuff with strong characters. Episode 2 is on Wednesday.

My sister did the Race for Life at the weekend and did the 5k in 38 minutes, which ain't half bad for someone with a dodgy knee and sprained ankle. So kudos to her! In the process, though, I got sunburn - yay!!!

I've also been watching more and more game cinematics recently, merely because I love the CGI and you occasionally get some really good ideas from them. Like this little gem - more tension in these few minutes than in all the new Star Wars films put together:

Yeah, so that about sums things up at the moment. Hope everyone is having lots and lots of fun writing!

Great Screen Moments - Pulp Fiction

2010-06-25T11:19:00.001+01:00

Oh I'm sorry, did I break your concentration? I didn't mean to do that. Please, continue. You were saying something about "best intentions." What's the matter? Oh you were finished? Well allow me to retort.

Written by: Quentin Tarantino (stories by Quentin Tarantino & Roger Avary)

Great Screen Moments - Blade

2010-06-22T11:17:00.000+01:00

"I'm getting a little tired of chopping you up."

Written by: David S Goyer

TV pilot & short films

2010-06-18T10:58:00.006+01:00

I've been doing a lot of writing recently, having finished my degree and having not yet found a job. I believe the technical term is "unemployed", but let's call it "free living" yeah?

With the Red Planet Prize looming, I've written the first draft of my TV show pilot. It is, without a doubt, the most fun I've ever had writing. After about a year of research and planning, throwing myself into the mythology and characters, I finally got to write "FADE IN:"

And what fun! I've had half these scenes mapped out in my mind for several months, so it flowed naturally. Making a change from my usual writing style, I spent about 4 days writing one scene per night. But, as things started to get going, I was eager to finish, so I ordered 2 pizzas, grabbed a few beers, and spent a long night getting it done.

Then came the dreaded rewrite. The biggest problem was that Act II lasted 7 pages and Act III was 20 pages. But after some headache-inducing juggling around, I managed to fix the problem. The script is now in the hands of several shiny friends who will offer their merciless critiques in the next few weeks. The number of people I now owe pints to is ridiculous!

In other news, I've been brainstorming a few short film ideas in readiness to collaborate with a fellow writer/director/producer. We both want to do something different to what we've done before, me limiting the action, and her steering away from the martial arts.

Anyway, I've never forced myself to think of story ideas before. Everything I've done has come naturally (at least the very basics of the story), so actually telling myself to think of something from scratch was a first. And I liked it!

In the process, I came up with an idea that I think goes beyond a short film, so naturally I'm sticking that on the shelf - it can develop there for a while until I'm ready to put pen to paper. But I have come up with a few decent short ideas, so hopefully we'll be writing together in the next couple of months.

Finally, on Wednesday, I received the shiniest of gifts. Y'all know about Three, yes? Well, the awesome Darren S Cook went and got the cast and crew to sign a humongous film poster and then threw it in the post to me. It made my ~~day week month~~ year, I tell thee! And it now takes pride of place on my wall, alongside various movie, TV and writing posters.

So a huge thanks to those craft buggers who kept their sinister scheme very quiet! An amazing way to remember my first ever writing credit!

Anyway, that's me done - hope everyone's writing is going well. And good luck to everyone else entering the Red Planet Prize - if you want me to read and critique your script for it, let me know. Never hurts to check out the competition, right?

Stay shiny!

Currently digging:

The scene every screenwriter should adapt

2010-06-14T10:47:00.000+01:00

The scene I'm talking about is from Robert Louis Stevenson's The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde.

Now, I read the opening of the novel not really thinking about what it was actually telling me (it was in a hurry, as I was studying it the following day!). I managed to find a version online, so if you have an urge, you can probably read the whole thing here. But here's the scene I'm talking about, edited to get to the point:

Mr. Enfield and the lawyer were on the other side of the by-street; but when they came abreast of the entry, the former lifted up his cane and pointed.

"Did you ever remark that door?" he asked; and when his companion had replied in the affirmative. "It is connected in my mind," added he, "with a very odd story."

"Indeed?" said Mr. Utterson, with a slight change of voice, "and what was that?"

"Well, it was this way," returned Mr. Enfield: "I was coming home from some place at the end of the world, about three o'clock of a black winter morning, and my way lay through a part of town where there was literally nothing to be seen but lamps. Street after street and all the folks asleep--street after street, all lighted up as if for a procession and all as empty as a church-- till at last I got into that state of mind when a man listens and listens and begins to long for the sight of a policeman. All at once, I saw two figures: one a little man who was stumping along eastward at a good walk, and the other a girl of maybe eight or ten who was running as hard as she was able down a cross street. Well, sir, the two ran into one another naturally enough at the corner; and then came the horrible part of the thing; for the man trampled calmly over the child's body and left her screaming on the ground. It sounds nothing to hear, but it was hellish to see. It wasn't like a man; it was like some damned Juggernaut. I gave a few halloa, took to my heels, collared my gentleman, and brought him back to where there was already quite a group about the screaming child. He was perfectly cool and made no resistance, but gave me one look, so ugly that it brought out the sweat on me like running. The people who had turned out were the girl's own family; and pretty soon, the doctor, for whom she had been sent put in his appearance. Well, the child was not much the worse, more frightened, according to the Sawbones; and there you might have supposed would be an end to it. But there was one curious circumstance. I had taken a loathing to my gentleman at first sight. So had the child's family, which was only natural. But the doctor's case was what struck me. He was the usual cut and dry apothecary, of no particular age and colour, with a strong Edinburgh accent and about as emotional as a bagpipe. Well, sir, he was like the rest of us; every time he looked at my prisoner, I saw that Sawbones turn sick and white with desire to kill him. I knew what was in his mind, just as he knew what was in mine; and killing being out of the question, we did the next best. We told the man we could and would make such a scandal out of this as should make his name stink from one end of London to the other.

Now this might not seem like an amazingly interesting scene to adapt for screen, but I assure you it is. What is actually happening here? Obviously we're being introduced to the degenerate Mr Hyde. But what is happening? You can never say for certain, but ask yourself this:

What is Mr. Enfield (a resepcted member of the community) doing out on the streets at 3am? I think we can all guess....

What is a girl of "maybe eight or ten" doing out at 3am? Again, we can guess...

What is actually happening here:

the man trampled calmly over the child's body and left her screaming on the ground. It sounds nothing to hear, but it was hellish to see. It wasn't like a man; it was like some damned Juggernaut.

Stevenson wouldn't have been published had he fully described what I (and most critics) assume is actually happening. The little figure of Mr Hyde doesn't just trample the young girl. He rapes and beats her! Is it really horrific to see a man bump into a girl and knock her over? No. But the alternative is!

So how would you adapt that scene for screen? Would you make it as brutal as you could? Or somply keep is as a retelling and show us nothng, letting the audience make up their own mind?

Personally, I'd go for all-out horror, pushing the cencors to the limit. But that's just me. The point is, there are many ways of adapting a scene, depending on a) how the adapter reads what is happening and b) how they want to show that scene on screen.

This scene is particularly important because it shapes our view of Mr Hyde from the off. In your version, is he a careless, grumpy little man who knocks people over and doesn't apologise? Or is he an evil, brutal child-rapist? The choice is yours.

Over and out.

Great Screen Moments - Pan's Labyrinth

2010-06-09T12:10:00.000+01:00

Written by: Guillermo del Toro

Resources/Websites

2010-06-05T12:05:00.000+01:00

Via iFeatures:

Useful Sites

BAFTA http://www.bafta.org/

BBC Film Network http://www.bbc.co.uk/filmnetwork/ BBC showcase of British filmmaking talent

BBC Talent – http://www.bbc.co.uk/newtalent/film BBC’s website for new talent in film

BBC Writers Room - http://www.bbc.co.uk/writersroom/ BBC site for new writing talent

BFI - British Film Institute http://www.bfi.org.uk

Brit Movie http://www.britmovie.co.uk/ Website dedicated to British Cinema

British Board of Film Classification http://www.bbfc.co.uk/

British Council – www.britfilms.com British Film Catalogue, Directory of International Film festivals

Encounters Short Film Festival http://www.encounters-festival.org.uk Focus for rising film talent

FilmFour http://www.film4.com/

Films and Festivals http://filmandfestivals.com/ Online and print magazine

Microwave – http://microwave.filmlondon.org.uk/Film London’s microbudget film scheme

Microwave & Kate Leys - http://microwave.filmlondon.org.uk/get_the_resources/podcasts/screenwriting_for_micro_budget_films contains a very useful podcast on screenwriting for microbudget features, chaired by Kate Leys.

Screen International – http://www.screendaily.com/ International movie industry magazine

Shooting People http://shootingpeople.org/index.php The UK's largest independent film community

Sight and Sound – http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound The BFI’s international film magazine

Skillset http://www.skillset.org/careers The Sector Skills Council for the audiovisual industries.

Take 12 – http://www.nesta.org.uk/library/documents/film-guide.pdf Digital innovation in film

The Knowledge http://www.theknowledgeonline.com Industry listings online

The Production Guide http://www.theproductionguide.co.uk/ Online production industry tool

Twelve Point – http://www.twelvepoint.com/ Evolved from Scriptwriter magazine and has built up a fantastic following worldwide. Julian Friedmann's blog is particularly good value

UK Film Council http://www.ukfilmcouncil.org.uk The lead organisation for film in the UK.

Wordplayer http://www.wordplayer.com A Phenomenal resource. Set up by Ted Elliott and Terry Rossio who wrote Shrek and Pirates of the Caribbean and includes great essays on art and business of screenwriting.

Screen Agencies

South West Screen is one of nine regional screen agencies. Details of the agencies covering other English regions can be found below:

National Screen Agencies

Guilds and Associations

Stormy May

2010-06-02T11:19:00.001+01:00

The month just gone - May - was probably one of the most stressful, crazy and rewarding months of my life! It's the month I pissed off thousands of people (apparently), got my first short filmed and finished my English degree:

Saturday 1st

My parents' 25th Wedding Anniversary celebrations with the family. Lots of alcohol and the odd political debate.

Thursday 6th

I resisted the urge to vote for the Zombie party in the General Election. Although, had it only been a choice between them and David Cameron, they'd have got my vote!
I apparently pissed off north of 8000 people on Whedonesque by tastelessly describing the Columbine Massacre as "some kid went all Rambo and killed a bunch of his mates." For this, I am very sorry!

Friday 7th

I handed in the last 3 essays of my English degree; one on WWI and Manning's novel The Middle Parts of Fortune, one on Renaissance tragedy, and one on the issue of Naturalism in American fiction (1880 - 1910). I believe one is good, one is average and the other will hopefully get me a 3rd!
I got my acoustic guitar back from the shop, with the annoying buzzing on the 6th fret fixed. I then proceeded to play it non-stop for the rest of the day and most of Saturday in a desperate attempt to perfect the Stones' 'Sympathy for the Devil.' Fingertips on the left hand hurt for a week afterwards.
I stumbled across my old Ancient History/Classics teacher in town and had a good chat. He joked about getting my autograph now, before I become famous, and I considered giving it to him. I thanked him for all he taught me about the Ancient Greeks and the Romans, with which I was able to piss a few people off at university by knowing everything there is to know about the Emperor Augustus.*
My first ever short film Three was shot by Darren S Cook. As I lay in bed on Friday night (not being able to take time away to be there) I couldn't stop thinking about possible Oscar acception speeches I could give. What?! Arrogance is just heightened self-confidence. Everyone's done it!!!

Sunday 9th

I ventured out on a proper shopping trip for the first time in months at the terrifying ~~Meadowhell~~ Meadowhall. Spent a lot of money I shouldn't have!

Monday 10th

Went for a end-of-uni pissup at a friend's house. Watched American Psycho and worked out exactly what was going on from the first scene. Yes, I'm very proud! Being the only male humanoid there, I was forced to watch an episode of Glee. It wasn't as bad as I thought it would be, but not an experience I would like to repeat. A bottle of Scotch helped me through the pain, but I paid the price for it in the morning!

Tuesday 11th

~~Tony Blair~~ David Cameron became PM and I lay in bed listening to The Who's 'Won't Get Fooled Again', paying particular attention to the line: "Meet the new boss, just the same as the old boss."
The teaser trailer for Three went online and general reception was excitement.

Wednesday 12th

Got to work revising for my Shakespeare exam, while polishing 2 short film scripts to send to the BSSC. Also learnt Nick Cave's 'Hold on to Yourself' on guitar.

Monday 17th

Saw the final edit of Three and was very proud - brilliant direction and solid acting work - turned out better than I could have hoped for.

Tuesday 18th

Launched the official website for Three - www.threefilm.co.uk

Wednesday 19th

Went into uni to talk to someone about the Writing MA. Realised I couldn't start when I wanted so frantically rushed around trying to get in a late application to start in September (gone is the chance of a break between work!) in the hope that someone drops out....

Tuesday 25th

I had my last ever English exam, on Shakespeare, where I wrote about Henry V, Coriolanus, Othello and The Merchant of Venice. I think I did ok....
Had a rather interesting drink over a pint with a tutor where I came to realise the level of hypocrisy and corruption that goes on in universities. Seems they like to cut off their nose to spite their face as well. [insert very angry rant here]

Wednesday 26th

Spent a very long day polishing and submitting my entry for the BSSC and sorting out writing samples for my Masters application.
Shook my head because of how the education system will be in the next few years. University funding cut and insane private academies promoted, increasing chance of bomb-makers running schools. Good times!

Monday 31st

Almost finished my Masters application to take in later on in the week.
Actually finished reading a book I wanted to read, having been forced to read stuff for uni for the last 3 years. Twas a nice read.

Yeah, so that was my crazy month. Probably no-one actually got to the end of this - I get that it's gotta be interesting to me alone. But hope you all had a shiny May! And now, to play us out, the awesomeness that is AC/DC ............

*Note: I don't know everything there is to
know about the Emperor Augustus.
For example, I have no idea what his
favourite play was! Though, at a guess,
I'd say it wasn't Anthony & Cleopatra!!!
See what I did there?! Wrong crowd? Ok....

TV character development

2010-05-27T10:29:00.003+01:00

With Lost having come to a close early this week, let's talk television. So stories are all about characters and their development. In a film, the big question is - what can the character do at the end that they were unable to do at the beginning? In other words - how have they changed?

In TV, however, this doesn't apply. Rather, the non-development of a character is what the show depends on.Let's say your character is someone who fights aliens for a living. If, after season 1, they no longer want or need to fight aliens, then they have developed, yes, but there is no story left to tell.

Or, perhaps a character's defining trait is the need to unravel the mystery behind a world-wide blackout that leaps to a particular date. If that date comes and goes, then there's nothing left for him to do. FlashForward got axed a bit ago btw.....

Movies tell us about a small, defining part of a person's life (the moment they realise they are The One, the moment a cyborg comes back in time to kill them, the moment a Roman General is thrown into slavery etc). But in TV, we get several years (hopefully) of a character's experience - what we care about is their day-to-day activities in whatever field they belong.

As a wise man once said:

In the end, we are all who we are, no matter
how much we may appear to have changed.
- Rupert Giles, Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

So with TV depending on characters not changing, how can they be developed without becoming boring?

A character doesn't have to change the fundamental traits of themselves in order to develop. We all change as people throughout our lives, but I don't ever stop wanting to be a writer. Likewise, the doctor may leave her husband, rob a bank and win the lottery, but they never stop being a doctor.

One character that changed dramatically in Buffy/Angel is Wesley. He joined Buffy season 3 as a jittery, comical uber-embarrassing version of Giles. But by the finale of Angel season 5 (6 years later) he'd become a Rogue Demon Hunter, betrayed everyone's trust, kidnapped his best friend's son, been exiled by the group, led the group, had his throat slit, shot and killed his father (kind of) and held the love of his life in his arms while she died, not to mention battle all manner of grizzly demons, including a particularly nasty warlock.

Upon being faced with a tough decision, Buffy season 1 Wesley would have run to help. Whereas Angel season 5 Wesley would have made the call, regardless of the consequences.

Supernatural's Dean Winchester hasn't changed that much over 4 and a half seasons in personality; his key trait (the way he mouths off at absolutely every demon around with a devil-may-care persona) remains, but I can't be the only person noticing differences in his 'I'll have sex whenever possible' attitude and the way he treats the sacred Chevy Impala. It's almost as if something happened to him to put everything into perspective. Can't for the life of me think what it is.......

Angel (in his self-titled show) needs to do what he does in order to repent for his sins. Along the way, he hopes to earn that redemption and (possibly) turn human - that's part of the drive from season 2 onwards. So if we suddenly realise that Angel will never find redemption or he signs away any chance of regaining his "once precious humanity", then there is no drive and, therefore, no show.

Dexter's hero has a need to kill - if that ever goes away, there will be no fuel for the show. He's changed over the years, taking new approaches to his "Dark Passenger" but his primary desire remains the same.

So obviously characters do change over the course of a TV show, but what is key is their continued development. You can change a character as much as you like, but what you have to do is make the audience keep watching in order to see:
a) how that change affects not only themselves, but also the other characters. And...
b) what change comes next.

Comments? How do you change a character enough to be interesting, but avoid resolving the key conflict that makes the show function?

Great Screen Moments - 30 Days of Night

2010-05-24T10:45:00.000+01:00

There is no escape. No hope. Only hunger and pain.

Written by: Steve Niles and Stuart Beattie and Brian Nelson (based on the graphic novel by Steve Niles and Ben Templesmith)

Great Screen Moments - Beauty and the Beast

2010-05-22T11:30:00.000+01:00

"I warned you never to come here!"
"I didn't mean any harm."
"Do you realise what you could have done?!"

Written by: Linda Woolverton

It's going to be quiet

2010-05-20T10:55:00.001+01:00

Yeah, there's not going to be that much activity on here for the next few weeks, while I cram in revision for an exam, desperately write and submit a late application for a Writing Masters (in the hopes that someone drops out before September), critique a few scripts, earn some more cash at work, celebrate leaving uni, possibly get paid in vouchers by doing some writing for uni and make a trip to do a commentary and interview for Three. In short, I'm stressed!

There'll be a few regular posts on Great Screen Moments and the odd musing, and of course I'll keep you up to date on what's happening with the film - which now has its own, very snazzy-looking website; go look! - www.threefilm.co.uk.

But fear not - there'll be more writing-related posts going out in a few weeks. And if in doubt, quote Oscar Wilde:

Anyone who lives within their means suffers from a lack of imagination.

At twilight, nature is not without loveliness, though perhaps its chief use is to illustrate quotations from the poets.

Consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative.

I always like to know everything about my new friends, and nothing about my old ones.

I am not young enough to know everything.

Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.

And who doesn't love Nick Cave?!

Strip your characters #2

2010-05-17T10:17:00.000+01:00

A while ago I wrote a post on stripping your characters, using Supernatural's Dean Winchester as an example:

Strip your characters down and take them to a place they'd do anything to stay away from. Expose their dark side. Make them overflow with emotion. That might result in buckets of tears, a psychological breakdown, a suicide or a blast in the chest from a sawn-off shotgun. Expose their fears and see what happens.
Keep reading

This time, why not take a look at this scene from Frasier. In this episode, Frasier is receiving a Lifetime Achievement Award for his broadcasting services over the years, but encounters his old mentor and delves into some serious self-analysis.

Examine how Frasier is stripped bare, at first by his mentor and then by himself:

(after the first segment, you'll have to skip through the awards ceremony to the self-analysis)

Now obviously this is slightly easier in a show all about analysis and psychiatry, but maybe it's worth entering into this sort of debate with your own characters at some point? Just to get to know them better? The key to this technique, as I said last time, is to force the character into this situation. If it takes no effort to get them there, then they have no internal conflict and nothing for us to care about.

Have fun!

'Three' teaser online

2010-05-12T09:48:00.008+01:00

Most of you will know about Three - the short script I wrote about 2 years ago:

'Three' is a short comedy about a trio of hitmen who discover they have been sent to kill one another. Finding themselves in a stalemate, they have no choice but to talk out their differences.

Starring: Mike Sani, Tony C, Dean Rees
Director of Photography: Neill Phillips
Sound: Carl Homer
Produced by: Gene Fallaize
Written by: Neil Baker
Directed by: Darren S. Cook

I haven't talked about it in a while, but last weekend, the entire thing was shot in one long night. I couldn't make it to filming, but it went really well and everyone got along swimmingly. There are a bunch of pics from the shoot in this post and more on the facebook group.

Darren (director) has been editing ever since and yesterday put together a teaser trailer. You can take a look here.

I'm rather excited about this being my first credit and really looking forward to seeing the whole thing in its entirety. I'd also appreciate any support on the facebook group :)

That's all for now!

Great Screen Moments - The Fifth Element

2010-05-08T13:10:00.000+01:00

Sir, are you classified as human?

Written by: Luc Besson & Robert Mark Kamen