Monday, January 19, 2009
Life on Mars?
by M A N
Well, is there ? I'm going to venture a highly uneducated guess and say no, but it's fun to speculate. A nice roundup of "where we are now" comes from Phil Plait over at one of my favorite blogs: Bad Astronomy.
And if you're looking for the thrill of discovery a little closer to home, there is a fascinating series of posts over at Scientific American called Dispatches from the Bottom of the Earth . A scientist by the name of Robin Bell is documenting the expedition to study a mountain range hidden beneath the ice sheet in Antarctica. Mountains of Madness anyone?
We also seem to have taken one step closer toward invisibility. The military applications are pretty obvious, but I'm curious. What commercial uses would there be for this technology? So tell me, Monkeys. What would you use an invisibility cloak for?
(And let's try to avoid the "sneaking into the girls' locker room" type shenanigans, for decency's sake. If you need invisibility to see someone naked, it's probably safe to say that your kung fu is not strong. Nor your use of teh Google.)
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Food For Thought: Shadows on the Wall
My favorite book is Wizard's First Rule by Terry Goodkind (please, no judging). I mean, I LOVE this book. Of my list of five books I'd take with me to a deserted island, it sits at the top. I can't really say why, either. It certainly isn't the best book I've ever read or the most well written (and the last several books of that series get bogged down with the author's ideology which make them difficult to get through), but there's something about the story, the characters, and the way everything unfolds that I find myself rereading all 820 pages at least once a year.
So imagine my surprise when I discovered that there is now a television show based on that book. Like any fan, I sat down to watch the show, but was completely surprised by how different it was from what I was expecting. I wasn't expecting a Lord of the Rings quality adaptation and knew it would have a tone more along the lines of Xena or Hercules (which it does), so as a WFR fanboy, my expectations were pretty grounded. But as I watched through the episodes, I noticed that the show, the story, was, well, different.
This, of course, made sense. Things would have to be changed. Telling a story through nearly a thousand pages of text is different from telling it visually in 42 minute chunks. Some scenes would have to be abridged, if not outright cut, certain characters would have to be molded and shaped in a way to make them sympathetic much more quickly than what a writer can get away with in a novel, story structure would have to be more rigidly formatted for t.v. than the looser stylings of prose. All of this got me to wondering. How much does the medium within which a story is being told dictate the story itself? When the mediums change, does the story cease being one story and become another?
I don't know and I'm sure that's something that can be debated about in comments. But my point here isn't to find an answer to the question, but to think about story itself. Without walking too far into Plato's cave, I'm talking about the TRUE story, the one that's sitting in your head right now. What medium best serves THAT story? And be honest with yourself. Just because you want to write a stageplay doesn't necessarily mean that it's the best medium for the story.
Every medium has its pros and cons (I'm referring more toward the creative aspect of writing for a medium as opposed to working within a medium--different animals). As Sensei Waid has said numerous times before, comics is a visual medium. If your story isn't very visual, comics might not be the best medium for it. So it's a matter of finding which medium will work best for that story.
This may sound a little backwards since most writers probably find a story that best serves a medium rather than the other way around. But if you have a story gelling in your brain that you're struggling to tell the way you want to, it's possible that it's the medium that's the problem. Anway, food for thought.
So how 'bout it, fellow monkeys? What's your favorite adaptation of a story from one medium to another? Least favorite?
So imagine my surprise when I discovered that there is now a television show based on that book. Like any fan, I sat down to watch the show, but was completely surprised by how different it was from what I was expecting. I wasn't expecting a Lord of the Rings quality adaptation and knew it would have a tone more along the lines of Xena or Hercules (which it does), so as a WFR fanboy, my expectations were pretty grounded. But as I watched through the episodes, I noticed that the show, the story, was, well, different.
This, of course, made sense. Things would have to be changed. Telling a story through nearly a thousand pages of text is different from telling it visually in 42 minute chunks. Some scenes would have to be abridged, if not outright cut, certain characters would have to be molded and shaped in a way to make them sympathetic much more quickly than what a writer can get away with in a novel, story structure would have to be more rigidly formatted for t.v. than the looser stylings of prose. All of this got me to wondering. How much does the medium within which a story is being told dictate the story itself? When the mediums change, does the story cease being one story and become another?
I don't know and I'm sure that's something that can be debated about in comments. But my point here isn't to find an answer to the question, but to think about story itself. Without walking too far into Plato's cave, I'm talking about the TRUE story, the one that's sitting in your head right now. What medium best serves THAT story? And be honest with yourself. Just because you want to write a stageplay doesn't necessarily mean that it's the best medium for the story.
Every medium has its pros and cons (I'm referring more toward the creative aspect of writing for a medium as opposed to working within a medium--different animals). As Sensei Waid has said numerous times before, comics is a visual medium. If your story isn't very visual, comics might not be the best medium for it. So it's a matter of finding which medium will work best for that story.
This may sound a little backwards since most writers probably find a story that best serves a medium rather than the other way around. But if you have a story gelling in your brain that you're struggling to tell the way you want to, it's possible that it's the medium that's the problem. Anway, food for thought.
So how 'bout it, fellow monkeys? What's your favorite adaptation of a story from one medium to another? Least favorite?
Ephemera 2009 (3)
-- My Bloody Valentine 3-D. Wow, the 3-D works. Seen in a packed theater with the appropriate screaming, it's a hell of a time. Occasionally it forgets its nature and attempts to let people act, but not so often to distract you from the over-the-top gore. The coolest thing? This gentleman makes an appearance:
-- Apparently there's been a rash of perfect ice circles forming in Britain.
As we know, it's impossible for such complexity to arise spontaneously in nature. Plainly, this is proof of an intelligent designer!
-- There are a lot of specialty travel sites, but a friend has recently started one oriented around "just couples" travels, focusing on getting to know the destination organically rather than hitting touristy spots. Check out Travels with Two.
-- Although this Penny Arcade strip mentions documentaries about single letters of the alphabet merely in passing/mocking, I must note I would watch a documentary about the letter Q. My friends still joke about the fact I read Salt: A World History. Often during the mocking they botch the title as "The Story of Salt." That, of course, is totally off-base. It's not the story of salt; it's the story of the world as told through the lens of salt. I can only imagine their shame, now that I've pointed out their mistake.
It's a great book. He's also written about Cod and Oysters. But the Salt book is really his best.
-- Gail Simone's Welcome to Tranquility is the comic you didn't read, and you are poorer for it. And anyone who can explain why the Batman R.I.P. arc was both necessary and relevant to the sequence in Final Crisis, feel free to take your shot in the Comments.
-- Cowboy BeBop is, and will forever be, Cowboy BeBop.
-- Today in the writer's room:
"Did you know Dolly Parton's first album was cut in 1957?"
"I did not."
"And look at this album cover --"
"-- Dolly had a really modern look back then."
" John, why are you on a Dolly Parton Timeline site?"
" ... blogging is not always pretty, Chris. Sometimes you follow a link, and it leads you ... places."
-- You're welcome.
-- For discussion in the Comments: Maureen O'Hara in The Quiet Man or Angie Dickinson in Rio Bravo?
-- Apparently there's been a rash of perfect ice circles forming in Britain.
As we know, it's impossible for such complexity to arise spontaneously in nature. Plainly, this is proof of an intelligent designer!
-- There are a lot of specialty travel sites, but a friend has recently started one oriented around "just couples" travels, focusing on getting to know the destination organically rather than hitting touristy spots. Check out Travels with Two.
-- Although this Penny Arcade strip mentions documentaries about single letters of the alphabet merely in passing/mocking, I must note I would watch a documentary about the letter Q. My friends still joke about the fact I read Salt: A World History. Often during the mocking they botch the title as "The Story of Salt." That, of course, is totally off-base. It's not the story of salt; it's the story of the world as told through the lens of salt. I can only imagine their shame, now that I've pointed out their mistake.
It's a great book. He's also written about Cod and Oysters. But the Salt book is really his best.
-- Gail Simone's Welcome to Tranquility is the comic you didn't read, and you are poorer for it. And anyone who can explain why the Batman R.I.P. arc was both necessary and relevant to the sequence in Final Crisis, feel free to take your shot in the Comments.
-- Cowboy BeBop is, and will forever be, Cowboy BeBop.
-- Today in the writer's room:
"Did you know Dolly Parton's first album was cut in 1957?"
"I did not."
"And look at this album cover --"
"-- Dolly had a really modern look back then."
" John, why are you on a Dolly Parton Timeline site?"
" ... blogging is not always pretty, Chris. Sometimes you follow a link, and it leads you ... places."
-- You're welcome.
-- For discussion in the Comments: Maureen O'Hara in The Quiet Man or Angie Dickinson in Rio Bravo?
Friday, January 16, 2009
Six Scripts
As various Humans reported today, Leverage has a new six-script order. To clarify fan speculation, these will not be tacked on to the end of Season One, but would be in theory the first six of a Season Two, if we are indeed picked up for a second go-round.
It is encouraging, but not a guarantee. So keep watching and linking and recapping if you like the show, and if you don't, well, ummmm ... read more? I don't know where that sentence was going.
It is encouraging, but not a guarantee. So keep watching and linking and recapping if you like the show, and if you don't, well, ummmm ... read more? I don't know where that sentence was going.
WW #6 Follow-Up: Good With The Treasure Hunting, Not So Much With The Treasure KEEPING
Judging from the comments, the "Six Qualities" list sparked one of our more interesting debates. The comments certainly had me thinking and reflecting. Some clarifications:
1) I apologize if anyone thought I was deliberately belittling Dr. Henry Jones or the Indy movies. At least one commenter seemed to have taken it personally. Not my intent. Raiders is still one of the greatest screenplays of all time and one of the best movies in anyone's film collection, including mine. But I honestly think that what I love most about that movie is its subversiveness towards the classic movie-hero tropes--most notably that if you take Indy out of that movie, the plot stays virtually intact. Okay, yeah, it might take the Nazis a little longer to find the Ark out there in the desert, but they still get their faces eaten off by tampering with Forces Unknown. ("Find the ark and get it to the US Government. He did that." Please. Only because the Villain Defeated Himself.) I really don't mind this. And, more importantly, I surrender to it.
2) I still feel like you have to stretch the definition of "successful" in order to make it fit Indy, who loses things almost as often as he finds them and manages to leave an awful lot of archaeology-unfriendly destruction in his wake, but I certainly accept that "successful" doesn't always mean "at the obvious goal" and can mean "at an unintended goal" so long as you can sell the audience on the idea that the latter's just as significant. (Not always a given.)
3) I have no idea how Frodo manages to bypass this list, but I'm convinced I could figure it out if I liked him as a character even remotely and hadn't spent eight moviegoing hours silently imploring his comrades to just leave the little bastard behind.
4) I probably should have added the word "altogether" to the statement "if my hero is missing one or more of these qualities". Not backpedalling, just emphasizing the earlier point--not every hero has to have all six qualities firing on all cylinders all the time. But, as I said, if I look back on some story of heroic fiction that I've written and realize I failed to have my protagonist hit these touchstones even once, the story feels "off" unless I did it on purpose.
Agreed all around that sometimes the most interesting stories are about the protagonist acquiring one or more of these traits as part of his journey. In fact, to further the discussion, let's let's expand on the original list. Here's how I interpret the Six Qualities. YMMV. (In fact, since it's not even my list to begin with and I no longer know how the original author interpreted these terms, MY mileage may be the one that's varying.)
COMPETENT--this doesn't leave a whole lot of room for interpretation. Hero doesn't have to be consistently brilliant--that's dull--but it seems like you want your hero to be at least baseline not-a-total-buffoon. I suppose there are exceptions--within the world of the Pink Panther, Clouseau is a hero, I guess--but I'm not sure these guidelines translate well to slapstick comedy.
BRAVE--again, pretty self-explanatory. Fundamental, I'd say. Because no matter how quirky or comically cowardly your hero seems, anyone who's willing to start down the path of the Heroic Journey however reluctantly is, to some degree, "brave."
MORAL--I take "moral" at its strictest definition: demonstrating a consistent ethical code, not necessarily MY ethical code. Dr. Doom is actually "moral" in that sense. I do think that if your hero's all over the map morally, it's much harder for the audience to keep his motivations straight.
SELFLESS--toughest to infuse consistently without making your hero a dull boor. Personally, I like selfless heroes more than heroes with feet of clay--personal preference--but I fully understand why they don't resonate widely. In Back to the Future, one of my favorite movies of all time, Marty McFly shows only the occasional flash of selflessness--his goal is, in fact, 100% selfish and his own welfare is almost always at the forefront of his actions. But the key word there is "almost"--there are the occasional flashes of selflessness in act three, and I'd argue that without them, the story would be more hollow.
RELEVANT, at least as I interpret it, means that the hero's goals or needs are in some way relatable to our own--the more relatable, the better. The reason Spider-Man's popularity overtook Superman's back in the '60s was that Spider-Man's problems were relevant to us--family worries, trouble at school, feeling like you can't catch a break. Meanwhile, Superman's biggest problem was that he couldn't figure out how to enlarge the Bottle City of Kandor.
And SUCCESSFUL we've already discussed. Successful at something important to the audience, something the importance of which (if it isn't the stated goal) clearly supersedes on an emotional level any failed goals.
I repeat: not a recipe. Rules of thumb. But, for writing pulp adventure, rules I find useful.
1) I apologize if anyone thought I was deliberately belittling Dr. Henry Jones or the Indy movies. At least one commenter seemed to have taken it personally. Not my intent. Raiders is still one of the greatest screenplays of all time and one of the best movies in anyone's film collection, including mine. But I honestly think that what I love most about that movie is its subversiveness towards the classic movie-hero tropes--most notably that if you take Indy out of that movie, the plot stays virtually intact. Okay, yeah, it might take the Nazis a little longer to find the Ark out there in the desert, but they still get their faces eaten off by tampering with Forces Unknown. ("Find the ark and get it to the US Government. He did that." Please. Only because the Villain Defeated Himself.) I really don't mind this. And, more importantly, I surrender to it.
2) I still feel like you have to stretch the definition of "successful" in order to make it fit Indy, who loses things almost as often as he finds them and manages to leave an awful lot of archaeology-unfriendly destruction in his wake, but I certainly accept that "successful" doesn't always mean "at the obvious goal" and can mean "at an unintended goal" so long as you can sell the audience on the idea that the latter's just as significant. (Not always a given.)
3) I have no idea how Frodo manages to bypass this list, but I'm convinced I could figure it out if I liked him as a character even remotely and hadn't spent eight moviegoing hours silently imploring his comrades to just leave the little bastard behind.
4) I probably should have added the word "altogether" to the statement "if my hero is missing one or more of these qualities". Not backpedalling, just emphasizing the earlier point--not every hero has to have all six qualities firing on all cylinders all the time. But, as I said, if I look back on some story of heroic fiction that I've written and realize I failed to have my protagonist hit these touchstones even once, the story feels "off" unless I did it on purpose.
Agreed all around that sometimes the most interesting stories are about the protagonist acquiring one or more of these traits as part of his journey. In fact, to further the discussion, let's let's expand on the original list. Here's how I interpret the Six Qualities. YMMV. (In fact, since it's not even my list to begin with and I no longer know how the original author interpreted these terms, MY mileage may be the one that's varying.)
COMPETENT--this doesn't leave a whole lot of room for interpretation. Hero doesn't have to be consistently brilliant--that's dull--but it seems like you want your hero to be at least baseline not-a-total-buffoon. I suppose there are exceptions--within the world of the Pink Panther, Clouseau is a hero, I guess--but I'm not sure these guidelines translate well to slapstick comedy.
BRAVE--again, pretty self-explanatory. Fundamental, I'd say. Because no matter how quirky or comically cowardly your hero seems, anyone who's willing to start down the path of the Heroic Journey however reluctantly is, to some degree, "brave."
MORAL--I take "moral" at its strictest definition: demonstrating a consistent ethical code, not necessarily MY ethical code. Dr. Doom is actually "moral" in that sense. I do think that if your hero's all over the map morally, it's much harder for the audience to keep his motivations straight.
SELFLESS--toughest to infuse consistently without making your hero a dull boor. Personally, I like selfless heroes more than heroes with feet of clay--personal preference--but I fully understand why they don't resonate widely. In Back to the Future, one of my favorite movies of all time, Marty McFly shows only the occasional flash of selflessness--his goal is, in fact, 100% selfish and his own welfare is almost always at the forefront of his actions. But the key word there is "almost"--there are the occasional flashes of selflessness in act three, and I'd argue that without them, the story would be more hollow.
RELEVANT, at least as I interpret it, means that the hero's goals or needs are in some way relatable to our own--the more relatable, the better. The reason Spider-Man's popularity overtook Superman's back in the '60s was that Spider-Man's problems were relevant to us--family worries, trouble at school, feeling like you can't catch a break. Meanwhile, Superman's biggest problem was that he couldn't figure out how to enlarge the Bottle City of Kandor.
And SUCCESSFUL we've already discussed. Successful at something important to the audience, something the importance of which (if it isn't the stated goal) clearly supersedes on an emotional level any failed goals.
I repeat: not a recipe. Rules of thumb. But, for writing pulp adventure, rules I find useful.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Waid Wednesday #6: Six Qualities of a Hero
Late posting. And thin. Sorry. Horrific week, dead desktop computer beyond resurrection. So, this, sent to me almost two decades ago by award-winning writer/artist Ty Templeton, who in turn cribbed it from a then-recent PSYCHOLOGY TODAY article. Author lost to time (and to Google), exact citation lost to time, but this list has been in my head nonetheless ever since I first read it and is an invaluable checklist/touchstone that, to this day, I refer to every time I write a story in any genre.
THE SIX QUALITIES OF A HERO:
Competent
Brave
Moral
Selfless
Relevant
Successful
While all six characteristics are not always 100% present in every hero (see: Jones, Indiana, who fails u-t-t-e-r-l-y and r-e-p-e-a-t-e-d-l-y at Quality Six), I find the list terrifically insightful and have come to learn that if my hero is missing one or more of these qualities, I had better be able to articulate why...and if/how that makes it a better, more compelling story. Because generally it does not.
In the comments: debate. And, for extra credit, defend Indy to my satisfaction. Good luck with that.
THE SIX QUALITIES OF A HERO:
Competent
Brave
Moral
Selfless
Relevant
Successful
While all six characteristics are not always 100% present in every hero (see: Jones, Indiana, who fails u-t-t-e-r-l-y and r-e-p-e-a-t-e-d-l-y at Quality Six), I find the list terrifically insightful and have come to learn that if my hero is missing one or more of these qualities, I had better be able to articulate why...and if/how that makes it a better, more compelling story. Because generally it does not.
In the comments: debate. And, for extra credit, defend Indy to my satisfaction. Good luck with that.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
LEVERAGE: 'Til Death. Like A Steel Cage Match.
A short post on "The Wedding Job", as we're a bit stacked up today. This was the third episode shot -- you can see some of the raw edges in the character relationships intended for the early part of the season. I think you can also track the season by Beth's evolving hair-style. Maybe we'll have a competition after the season finale. Figure out the original order based on dialogue and hairstyle, and win a prize!
Written by Chris Downey, directed by Jonathan Frakes (yes, that one.) Watching Frakes direct is a delight. High energy, lots of laughs on set. Actors directing actors is always fun. They share a common working vocabulary -- and are a bit more ruthless.
This is, as Chris calls it, our "farce with guns." It was actually born the day we were putting up the Hundred Cards of Crime. I'd written "Scandal in Bohemia" on a card. Chris, because he has a life, didn't get the reference. I immediately launched into my long explanation of the story -- with a digression into my usual rant of how everybody always cast Holmes and Watson too old -- when Chris cut right through to "Nate as a minister is interesting." So a "steal a wedding" became our high concept, and what's the most dangerous wedding?
You got it. Oh, and yes, you do recognize the FBI guys. FWIW, his is my second favorite fight scene of the year, if only because it's so Jackie Chan in tone. Man, Downey really hit all the buttons of the show with this one ...
EDIT: Almost forgot. That's Chris Kane doing not just the fight knifework but the kitchen knifework. He's actually a pretty great cook.
Let's tackle last week's questions, then open this up to an Open Thread for Comments and questions about this week's ep. Particularly the amazing fight scene.
Caseyo: asked about the books since I saw Apollo's list, was checking to see if there are any other's I should pickup when I go back to work.
Sorry, I was just jammed up that day. Sitting on my shelf right now are:
Sapphire Smoke: It might be just me, but the whole Hardison and his thing for orange soda reminds me of Kenan & Kel. "Who looovvee orange soda? Kel loooovves orange soda" LOL!
Aldis brought in the orange soda first day, and it's now become a running gag. Sadly trimmed from a script -- his half-page rant about the inferiority of Eastern European orange soda.
Hollie Neil: (Stork Job) seemed like a really expensive episode to shoot. Explosions, child actors, etc . The other episodes were slightly more contained (the bank, the church, etc) Did you have to sacrifice anything you loved in order to make all that work? Just curious.
Actually, shooting on our own set for Howl Force, plus KNOWING we were writing for a bigger budget, kept things relatively under control. We did however trim up the budget for a few future episodes to pay for it, but that's okay, that's the balance every TV show does. Ask the BSG folk about the boxing episode someday.
Ironically, blowing things up is not that expensive. CHILDREN, on the other hand, are brutally expensive. And you have to be all, like, careful with them and everything. Fuck 3-D, we desperately, desperately need robot children for tv acting.
TheMindFantastic: The American Embassy scene, found the banter especially interesting. 'Irina' knowing how a person will lie by eye movements, seems right out of a Bandler-Grinder NLP book, which links to the 'Anchoring' Sophie tells Eliot and Nate about, which is right out of a Ross Jeffries manual on seduction (who got most of his tech from Bandler-Grinder). That alone (mostly because its shit I happen to know about) made this my fav ep so far
It's almost as if you were looking over the hard-researching shoulder of ep writer Albert Kim. Who had to explain to his wife why he had that stack of books on seduction she found in his office. Ouch.
Robert Emerson: You know, episodes of shows where the premise is fake movie or television shoots are always hilarious, as those involved seem to exorcise some ghosts of real shoots past through the episode. I mean, seriously, damn funny episode, espcially the "Director." :D Anyone or group of someones in particular?
The Howl Force experience is based on various nightmare tales of eastern european film shoots from our crew. From the 1st Ad to the Best Boy, everybody's shot in a tax-friendly former dictatorship at some point in their life. We did, at one point, turn to each other and say "you know, we could just shoot out the rest of Howl Force and sell it to SciFi ..."
Rob: On one hand, I don't have a really clear thread of character/relationship development. This might be a function of broadcast order, but to sum up, given they started out as People Who Work Alone, they all got more or less totally comfortable with this arrangement way too quickly. After the pilot it's a little like I've just checked back in for season 2. Is this intentional? Tied to the slightly retro tone?
A mix of both. It's always hard, once the audience has bought the ticket, for the writers to say "Whoa, whoa, slow down the fun train ...". Coflicts remain between the characters all season, and the eps in original order track the arc a little more carefully. Actually, a major new conflict/shift occurs about halfway through, so it'll be fun to see how people respond to that.
On the other hand, yeah, retro fun. I think we split the diference.
KazG: The injury that Eliot was holding an ice pack to in the beginning looked pretty real, was that make up or Chris Kane's own stunt-induced damage?
SOMEBODY went out at 1am after his weekly poker game with Tim Hutton and SOMEBODY started tossing around a football, until SOMEBODY slipped on the asphalt in his goddam cowboy boots.
Miraculously -- and I mean MIRACULOUSLY -- that Somebody heals at weirdly supernatural speed. We only had to cover the problem in two shots (the lesbian bar joke was an on-set throwaway, I think). Seriously, the entire asphalt burn was healed in under three days. The doctors were freaked. It definitely supports the idea that "shitkicker" actually has a genetic component.
Commish: ) I'm going to do some poking around on the internet myself, but I'm just curious how real, and how large-scale, of a problem the situation with orphans in Serbia is. How much did you learn about that whole dilemma in order to shoot the episode? Were the actors involved in your research? Were you hoping that this episode might highlight the problem so that it might be further addressed?
We did a fair bit of research, more into the adoption scams (that tend to run out of Russia) than the Serbian issue. Enough to get really, really depressed while writing. But no, we're not arrogant enough to think we're drawing attention to the situation. If someone's motivated to poke around based ont he show, we'll take the win.
commish cont'd: 2) The only nit-pick I had this week was the way they decided to get the "real" director in Belfast out of the picture. They had to SWITCH his cell phone to send him a fake text message? Hardison couldn't just get the guy's actual cell phone #, and rout him a fake text message? Besides, wouldn't the guy be halfway to the airport when he realized it wasn't his phone, and be back on set within an hour? I know I need to zip it and suspend some disbelief, but I just wanted to mention that one.
You're looking at the "we can only afford to shoot one third of the actual scam" version of that scene. But fair on ya, particularly because we phone scam all the time without a lift.
commish cont'd: Ooh, wait, if I can get it answered, I have one more question... how are the ratings coming for this show? Is TNT pleased? How do the +3 ratings for it compare with some of the other original programming that TNT is airing?
TNT is pleased, and our DVR numbers in particular are ... strong, and we'll leave it at that. You know, at this point in the broadcast model, there's no real point to the overnight ratings we all quote, but that's what we've been doing for years, so that's what we all talk about. TNT, like most cable shows, looks at "runs" of episodes -- so, say, the three showings on Tuesday are added together -- and also pays a lot of attention to DVR +3.
Killah Mate: Don't worry about it though, it wasn't too suspension-shattering. In fact, if we ignore the locations, extras casting, all that budget-dependent stuff (and hell, even Casino Royale wasn't shot anywhere near Montenegro) you come out looking pretty good. I appreciated the amount of local language spoken, even by the leads (which is rarely done, maybe because they don't want it to sound stupid - which your guys and girls didn't, so props to the language team). Also, you established a nice sense of place (lovely greenscreen work, regardless of the actual source of the panoramas).
We appreciate your appreciation. Gina did have some grim satisfaction in watching everybody else learn how to do what she does every damn week. I know there's been a bit of a kerfuffle on the greenscreen samples, but that's one of those things where the importance of a.) affordable and b.) available at c.) the right resolution with d.) the matching camera movement trumped fine-point accuracy.
All told, we do our best in seven days. Nicely enough, there are a lot of actors who speak multiple language sin LA; we do tend to favor native speakers if they're available in those roles.
Jim Kakallos: I was also going to ask about Hardison using a translation book as opposed to software (even if the software I could use is too slow, I don't believe that Hardison hasn't hacked the NSA's super secret real time programs).
Hardison foolishly forgot to switch his keyboard over to Cyrillic on the drive over, so at that moment it was faster for him to pick up his dead-tree dictionary.
No, seriously. That's why. LOOK OVER THERE!
That's it for the mailbag this week. Use this thread for comments and questions, and we'll see you soon. Thanks for the time and attention.
Friday, January 09, 2009
Ephemera 2009 (2)
-- Mike Nelson is too modest to pimp here, but issue #1 of HEXED came out this week (hey, free first issue is a FREE DOWNLOAD!! SMART!!). It's very, very good. I call it "Juno meets Hellblazer". I don't know what Mike calls it. Great artist, too.
-- From Warren Ellis: Polar Nuclear Lighthouses. I repeat. Nuclear. Lighthouses.
-- Mysterious Skin / Brick / The Lookout, that's a hell of a run. Skin is a hard, hard movie but for a weekend rental you can't go wrong with either Brick or Lookout. The Lookout is actually the best of the lot, really a hell of a movie, and streaming off Netflix. You could pump it through your XBOX360 and have it up on the big screen in five seconds. Oh, wait, Brick is available on Amazon VOD, too. Cool.
-- Charlie Stross' Jennifer Morgue is finally out in paperback, meaning you can now do the one-two punch with Atrocity Archive. I will admit that although I like both books, I actually prefer "The Concrete Jungle" novella in Atrocity Archive. You can read both on your Kindle ...
-- ... which, having had for nearly a year now, I will say is well worth the money if you buy as many books as I do. Like most people I have a deep aversion to throwing away books, and finding trading situations can be tricky (although Mrs. Glenn likes The Paperback Exchange EDIT: she actually recommends The Paperback Swap.).
The Kindle provides several benefits. First, I keep my big clunky non-fiction off the much smaller bookshelves of my tiny LA bungalow house. I read more, because I have that 3 pound, 1000+ page Colony to Superpower tucked into the outside sleeve of my briefcase so I can pick it up at lunch anywhere I go. It handles magazine subscriptions well -- I picked up subscriptions to Asimov and Amazing, which I'd never do with the dead tree version. Better for the environment, too.
The Kindle editions are discounted enough that I've managed, particularly on the hardcover purchases, to earn back in savings what the Kindle cost. It takes about three days to get used to -- during which you wonder what chimp engineer designed it so every surface a normal human would use to hold the device is actually a button -- but after that you can't live without it. I now actually delay some book purchases because they don't have a Kindle edition yet.
-- speaking of books, the First Law trilogy: ** SPOILER**I love, love, love Joe Abercrombie's writing style and storytelling. His female characters aren't great, but hey, first book. I urge you to read the trilogy. I'd read his shopping list. However, I don't know if I needed to spend 3000+ pages to suddenly discover that the entire work was a buildup to: "What if Gandalf was a dick?" (highlight to read).
-- New link going into the sidebar: Frontal Cortex, neuroscience fun by Jonah Leherer. Prepare to lose a day plowing through the archives.
-- Keep a pipe bomb on you at all times, you can use it to shift that genny out of the elevator door. Although I've noticed the practice is waning. Oh, and on the roof of Mercy Hospital, Smokers should ambush ladder-climbers from the LOWER rooftop, closer to the edge. You're still in range.
-- I recently in a meeting said "As useless as a Hunter on the roof of Mercy Hospital." Sadly, I do not think it's going to catch on.
-- In the Comments, please post your senior prom theme song. Which, for the life of me, I personally cannot remember ...
-- From Warren Ellis: Polar Nuclear Lighthouses. I repeat. Nuclear. Lighthouses.
-- Mysterious Skin / Brick / The Lookout, that's a hell of a run. Skin is a hard, hard movie but for a weekend rental you can't go wrong with either Brick or Lookout. The Lookout is actually the best of the lot, really a hell of a movie, and streaming off Netflix. You could pump it through your XBOX360 and have it up on the big screen in five seconds. Oh, wait, Brick is available on Amazon VOD, too. Cool.
-- Charlie Stross' Jennifer Morgue is finally out in paperback, meaning you can now do the one-two punch with Atrocity Archive. I will admit that although I like both books, I actually prefer "The Concrete Jungle" novella in Atrocity Archive. You can read both on your Kindle ...
-- ... which, having had for nearly a year now, I will say is well worth the money if you buy as many books as I do. Like most people I have a deep aversion to throwing away books, and finding trading situations can be tricky (although Mrs. Glenn likes The Paperback Exchange EDIT: she actually recommends The Paperback Swap.).
The Kindle provides several benefits. First, I keep my big clunky non-fiction off the much smaller bookshelves of my tiny LA bungalow house. I read more, because I have that 3 pound, 1000+ page Colony to Superpower tucked into the outside sleeve of my briefcase so I can pick it up at lunch anywhere I go. It handles magazine subscriptions well -- I picked up subscriptions to Asimov and Amazing, which I'd never do with the dead tree version. Better for the environment, too.
The Kindle editions are discounted enough that I've managed, particularly on the hardcover purchases, to earn back in savings what the Kindle cost. It takes about three days to get used to -- during which you wonder what chimp engineer designed it so every surface a normal human would use to hold the device is actually a button -- but after that you can't live without it. I now actually delay some book purchases because they don't have a Kindle edition yet.
-- speaking of books, the First Law trilogy: ** SPOILER**I love, love, love Joe Abercrombie's writing style and storytelling. His female characters aren't great, but hey, first book. I urge you to read the trilogy. I'd read his shopping list. However, I don't know if I needed to spend 3000+ pages to suddenly discover that the entire work was a buildup to: "What if Gandalf was a dick?" (highlight to read).
-- New link going into the sidebar: Frontal Cortex, neuroscience fun by Jonah Leherer. Prepare to lose a day plowing through the archives.
-- Keep a pipe bomb on you at all times, you can use it to shift that genny out of the elevator door. Although I've noticed the practice is waning. Oh, and on the roof of Mercy Hospital, Smokers should ambush ladder-climbers from the LOWER rooftop, closer to the edge. You're still in range.
-- I recently in a meeting said "As useless as a Hunter on the roof of Mercy Hospital." Sadly, I do not think it's going to catch on.
-- In the Comments, please post your senior prom theme song. Which, for the life of me, I personally cannot remember ...
Thursday, January 08, 2009
Big Hollywood and Why I Admire David Zucker
Yeah, if you're just here for LEVERAGE pr0n, best skip this. For you newcomers, I may need to establish that this is my blog, not an official blog of TNT. All opinions on this site are utterly my own. Only I am responsible for them. TNT or any other parent company neither agrees or endorses anything on this site.
Seriously, you're not going to enjoy this. Go back to TWoP.
*******************************
No.
Stop e-mailing me. Stop wondering, in your blog, when I'm going to start going over there. One or two odd posts where the facts are wrong, I can handle that -- hell, that was the whole point of "Just Stay Down", people's hypotheses should be tested against actual facts. It was an intellectual exercise in the scientific method. With snark.
But after swinging by Big Hollywood this morning, I realized (me) + (that site) = (getting on the boat to look for Kurtz).
It's a crack pinata. It's a garden of crack pinatas, and I'm spinning and spinning -- half the site is triumphantly noting that Hollywood is finally making conservative or secretly conservative big budget mega-hits (Dark Knight! Iron Man! Transformers!) while the other half bemoans how Hollywood keeps making anti-war/anti-American movies mega-flops. Somehow the massive hits made by mega-corporations are happy subversive accidents, while flops are the direct product of these exact same mega-corporations' self-destructive liberal agendas.
For chrissake, there's even one woman, the sum total of her post was how Hollywood types don't worry about taxes because we incorporate and then laugh at the Red State rubes who pay taxes. Because S-corps don't exist outside the 90210 zip code, as you well know. But Hollywood is laughing at you, America! This post basically summarizes populist conservative rhetoric in America, brought to its alchemically pure conclusion in Sarah Palin: "Oh , they think they're sooo smart, don't they? Well we'll show them!"
*******************************
This is the section you were probably sent here for. It's not here anymore. A friend of mine e-mailed me, and pointed out that personal attacks were beneath the level of this blog, particularly now that it's a group blog. He basically ass-kicked me, and he's right. I can't invite Mark and Mike on here, try to make the focus of the blog in the new year alt media production, and continue on these rants. I certainly can't pick this fight, and then deny Comments. At the same time, I desperately never, ever, ever want to discuss these humans again.
The major teaching point is: do not post at 1 am.
Let's just note that Big Hollywood's bugaboo is "Hollywoood"'s incessant attempt to shove anti-war/anti-culture movies down our throats. In particular, Editor-in-Chief John Nolte notes that there were 16 movies he'd consider anti-War in the last two years, most of which were actually independently produced documentaries or did not, in fact, directly involve the Iraq War. And that they flopped. Actual numbers show that most broke even at least. You can recreate the research with five minutes and BoxOffice Mojo.
But I was, to be blunt, a raving asshole while I made that point. And I'm trying to do less of that. As a matter of fact, consider this my last binge of the New Year, before the resolution kicks in.
You can probably find this original page in the Google cache.
So consider it trimmed down tooooo ....
*********************************
"Now, John," you might say, as a reasonable human, "that's not fair. Big Hollywood's argument is that the anemic box office domestically indicates Americans don't want to see movies that show America in a bad light, and despite that fact Hollywood produces lots of them -- okay, not lots of them but anyway -- still produces these movies because of its liberal bias. You should engage his intended argument, not his actual one."
Well, first off, for a trillion dollar industry dedicated to pushing anti-War movies on America, dedicating to this cause less than 5% of the last 300 movies kind of indicates our hearts aren't really into it. Not to mention the limited number of release theaters for most of the movies we discussed. FIFTEEN THEATERS for Redacted, for chrissake. Here's a quick clue -- when Hollywood wants to sell something, we make it as widely available as possible for purchase. Crazy, I know. What sort of marketing mumbo-jumbo is this?
You'll note thay evil "Hollywood" kind of lay down on the oppression job, allowing An American Carol to be released in 1600+ theaters, and Proud American to be released in 750 theaters, and Expelled to be released in over 1000 theaters, the widest release of a documentary in history. As far as soul-crushing propaganda machines go, we are not getting the memos out, apparently.
Let's take a moment to address the first, possibly non-crazy part of that argument: we should use domestic box office. No, because Nolte was right to use the worldwide box office in his argument.
This is how it works, kids. Hollywood is run by large corporations. Large corporations do not want to make controversial political movies. Which is why, by and large, they don't. They want to make franchise-friendly four-quadrant super-profitable family entertainment, with some sex comedies for the teens/dumb-guy comedies for college students, sprinkled liberally with horror movies for Date Night. Which is why, by and large, they do.
This is not hard. This is capitalism. Capitalism is our friend.
Artsy People in Hollywood, on the other hand, often want to do something artistically satisfying, or personally important. And, too, studios sometimes want to win awards, because with that prestige comes more bargaining power with the Artsy People, and often more profits. And, hey, some Execs are secret Artsy People. It's kind of cool, actually.
So let's pretend I'm Reese Witherspoon. I'm going to do that right now. Gosh, I'm pretty. This shirt doesn't go with my eyes, though --
-- okay, let's bail on that. Let's pretend we're watching Reese Witherspoon. NO! Not like that! What is wrong with you people?! Let's make you Reese Witherspoon. You can bear the burden.
Right, Reese. After a couple years as the It Girl in little dramas, you break big in Pleasantville/Cruel Intentions/Election. You have a hell of a year. Now you are the Head on the Poster, and in five years you topline movies making Suits lots of money. How much money? Roughly $770 million worldwide by 2005, not to mention winning an Oscar along the way, which increases both your marketability and the marketability of every movie you star in from now on.
You then announce that you found a very tough little script called Rendition you want to do. You'll do it on the cheap. Anybody wanna help?
The correct answer is "Who do you need dead, Miss Witherspoon?"
There is some trepidation, of course, in the studio office. Let us produce a short play to illustrate how both the dilemma and the resolution may have played out:
Suit #1: In this movie you have brought me, Reese Witherspoon -- America's blonde shiksa sweetheart -- is married to an Arab who is wrongfully kidnapped by the Americans, and tortured. Because, you imply, stopping terrorism can sometimes be bad.
Suit #2: Yes.
Suit #1: Get the fuck out of my office.
Suite #2: If we do this, if we take this risk for her, she may spend her enormous marketplace capital on a project of ours in the future. Say, that script for Romantic Comedy #283 sitting there on your desk.
Suit #1: I am intrigued, but still trepidacious.
Suit #2: She may win an Oscar. She's done it before, it's a serious drama ... that would boost our profile, add to our marketplace capital, and insure profitability with the Oscar Bump.
Suit #1: Still not sure. Let us call Foreign Sales Guy.
Foreign Guy: (entering) I sensed you needed me.
Suit #1: Reese Witherspoon. Anti-war drama.
Foreign Guy: Budget?
Suit #2: Under thirty million. Gyllenhal's in it too.
Foreign Guy: Reese Witherspoon reading -- not even aloud, just sitting and reading -- will sell X million tickets worldwide. Gyllenhal's a bonus. You're covered.
Suit #2: Thank you, Foreign Guy.
Foreign Guy: You're welcome. Now excuse me, I have to go kill an African-American comedy two offices down.
Thus, a box-office "flop" is born -- because it is, in fact, probably going to be profitable in the long run, and make Artsy/Important people happy. And it just might be a really, really good movie.
******************************
This leads us to why, frankly, I admire the hell out of David Zucker.
Because this is the decision everyone makes in Hollywood -- actors, directors, even execs. You have Hollywood Capital -- reputation, proven box office performance both domestic and foreign -- a non-physical set of Assets within the economic system, but capital A-assets nonetheless. (It is, frankly, damn close to a reputation-based economy. Hollywood runs on whuffie.)
And let us get this straight. You have earned that asset, through a mix of hard work and luck, like every other independent contractor in the nation. You have something people wish to buy. It has a value, established in an open and free pure public marketplace.
You then trade this capital with other participants in your indistry for services or products. Services like creative control, or exclusivity, or a product like a script you want, or the studio's own resources -- time, money, access to physical production means, promotion apparatus -- dedicated to your own agenda. This is what every person who has made one of these movies has done. Even execs trade their capital to make movies that might be a risk but might be art, and it's their right, because it's their capital. And if they fuck up, the marketplace will HAMMER them for it.
That's what David Zucker did for An American Carol.
Zucker took his Hollywood Capital, his money, his rep, and his relationships, and invested it in a project he believed in. Hell, do you think that was easy? To make that movie in Hollywood? The amount of shit he must have taken? Good. For. Him.
Was it funny? Well, not to enough people, I guess. But that doesn't matter. He spent his Hollywood Capital, and made the product he both believed in and believed the American Public would buy. Which is exactly how every one of these movies was made. This is what Witherspoon and Gyllenhal did for Rendition. The financiers did for In the Valley of Elah. The stars of Lions for Lambs. It's what Gibson did for Passion of the Christ. They spent their Hollywood Capital, and took their risk. Often slightly less risk as far as Hollywood structure goes because of the nature of the community, but an equal risk in the marketplace.
The difference is, the guys at Big Hollywood look at Stop-Loss -- costing $25 million and making $11 million -- and deduce that America is rejecting Hollywood's liberal agenda. While I look at An American Carol -- costing $20 million and making $7 million -- and deduce "Huh, people didn't seem to like that movie."
Indeed, I might look at the failure of those two overtly political movies at the either end of the ideological spectrum say "Huh, people don't seem to like overtly political movies from either end of the ideological spectrum." But probably not, as I'm not the sort of fuckwit who tries to derive patterns off two lousy data points.
***********************************
So that's the short (ahem) version of why I'm not going over to Big Hollywood, and it will absolutely be my last post on the place. Hell, I'm closing the Comments on this post, because even idly reading them, positive or negative, will be a waste of time. Why? Because they relate to Big Hollywood.
We at Kung Fu Monkey, between Doctor Who jokes and comic book references and the odd political screed, are in the business of Making Shit, or helping you Make your Shit. When conservatives Make Shit we applaud, because we know how hard it is (Good for you, Sherwood Baptist Church. Aces up.)
When conservatives -- or liberals -- spend all their time bitching about how hard it is to Make Shit, they're not worth anyone's time.
Seriously, you're not going to enjoy this. Go back to TWoP.
*******************************
No.
Stop e-mailing me. Stop wondering, in your blog, when I'm going to start going over there. One or two odd posts where the facts are wrong, I can handle that -- hell, that was the whole point of "Just Stay Down", people's hypotheses should be tested against actual facts. It was an intellectual exercise in the scientific method. With snark.
But after swinging by Big Hollywood this morning, I realized (me) + (that site) = (getting on the boat to look for Kurtz).
It's a crack pinata. It's a garden of crack pinatas, and I'm spinning and spinning -- half the site is triumphantly noting that Hollywood is finally making conservative or secretly conservative big budget mega-hits (Dark Knight! Iron Man! Transformers!) while the other half bemoans how Hollywood keeps making anti-war/anti-American movies mega-flops. Somehow the massive hits made by mega-corporations are happy subversive accidents, while flops are the direct product of these exact same mega-corporations' self-destructive liberal agendas.
For chrissake, there's even one woman, the sum total of her post was how Hollywood types don't worry about taxes because we incorporate and then laugh at the Red State rubes who pay taxes. Because S-corps don't exist outside the 90210 zip code, as you well know. But Hollywood is laughing at you, America! This post basically summarizes populist conservative rhetoric in America, brought to its alchemically pure conclusion in Sarah Palin: "Oh , they think they're sooo smart, don't they? Well we'll show them!"
*******************************
This is the section you were probably sent here for. It's not here anymore. A friend of mine e-mailed me, and pointed out that personal attacks were beneath the level of this blog, particularly now that it's a group blog. He basically ass-kicked me, and he's right. I can't invite Mark and Mike on here, try to make the focus of the blog in the new year alt media production, and continue on these rants. I certainly can't pick this fight, and then deny Comments. At the same time, I desperately never, ever, ever want to discuss these humans again.
The major teaching point is: do not post at 1 am.
Let's just note that Big Hollywood's bugaboo is "Hollywoood"'s incessant attempt to shove anti-war/anti-culture movies down our throats. In particular, Editor-in-Chief John Nolte notes that there were 16 movies he'd consider anti-War in the last two years, most of which were actually independently produced documentaries or did not, in fact, directly involve the Iraq War. And that they flopped. Actual numbers show that most broke even at least. You can recreate the research with five minutes and BoxOffice Mojo.
But I was, to be blunt, a raving asshole while I made that point. And I'm trying to do less of that. As a matter of fact, consider this my last binge of the New Year, before the resolution kicks in.
You can probably find this original page in the Google cache.
So consider it trimmed down tooooo ....
*********************************
"Now, John," you might say, as a reasonable human, "that's not fair. Big Hollywood's argument is that the anemic box office domestically indicates Americans don't want to see movies that show America in a bad light, and despite that fact Hollywood produces lots of them -- okay, not lots of them but anyway -- still produces these movies because of its liberal bias. You should engage his intended argument, not his actual one."
Well, first off, for a trillion dollar industry dedicated to pushing anti-War movies on America, dedicating to this cause less than 5% of the last 300 movies kind of indicates our hearts aren't really into it. Not to mention the limited number of release theaters for most of the movies we discussed. FIFTEEN THEATERS for Redacted, for chrissake. Here's a quick clue -- when Hollywood wants to sell something, we make it as widely available as possible for purchase. Crazy, I know. What sort of marketing mumbo-jumbo is this?
You'll note thay evil "Hollywood" kind of lay down on the oppression job, allowing An American Carol to be released in 1600+ theaters, and Proud American to be released in 750 theaters, and Expelled to be released in over 1000 theaters, the widest release of a documentary in history. As far as soul-crushing propaganda machines go, we are not getting the memos out, apparently.
Let's take a moment to address the first, possibly non-crazy part of that argument: we should use domestic box office. No, because Nolte was right to use the worldwide box office in his argument.
This is how it works, kids. Hollywood is run by large corporations. Large corporations do not want to make controversial political movies. Which is why, by and large, they don't. They want to make franchise-friendly four-quadrant super-profitable family entertainment, with some sex comedies for the teens/dumb-guy comedies for college students, sprinkled liberally with horror movies for Date Night. Which is why, by and large, they do.
This is not hard. This is capitalism. Capitalism is our friend.
Artsy People in Hollywood, on the other hand, often want to do something artistically satisfying, or personally important. And, too, studios sometimes want to win awards, because with that prestige comes more bargaining power with the Artsy People, and often more profits. And, hey, some Execs are secret Artsy People. It's kind of cool, actually.
So let's pretend I'm Reese Witherspoon. I'm going to do that right now. Gosh, I'm pretty. This shirt doesn't go with my eyes, though --
-- okay, let's bail on that. Let's pretend we're watching Reese Witherspoon. NO! Not like that! What is wrong with you people?! Let's make you Reese Witherspoon. You can bear the burden.
Right, Reese. After a couple years as the It Girl in little dramas, you break big in Pleasantville/Cruel Intentions/Election. You have a hell of a year. Now you are the Head on the Poster, and in five years you topline movies making Suits lots of money. How much money? Roughly $770 million worldwide by 2005, not to mention winning an Oscar along the way, which increases both your marketability and the marketability of every movie you star in from now on.
You then announce that you found a very tough little script called Rendition you want to do. You'll do it on the cheap. Anybody wanna help?
The correct answer is "Who do you need dead, Miss Witherspoon?"
There is some trepidation, of course, in the studio office. Let us produce a short play to illustrate how both the dilemma and the resolution may have played out:
Suit #1: In this movie you have brought me, Reese Witherspoon -- America's blonde shiksa sweetheart -- is married to an Arab who is wrongfully kidnapped by the Americans, and tortured. Because, you imply, stopping terrorism can sometimes be bad.
Suit #2: Yes.
Suit #1: Get the fuck out of my office.
Suite #2: If we do this, if we take this risk for her, she may spend her enormous marketplace capital on a project of ours in the future. Say, that script for Romantic Comedy #283 sitting there on your desk.
Suit #1: I am intrigued, but still trepidacious.
Suit #2: She may win an Oscar. She's done it before, it's a serious drama ... that would boost our profile, add to our marketplace capital, and insure profitability with the Oscar Bump.
Suit #1: Still not sure. Let us call Foreign Sales Guy.
Foreign Guy: (entering) I sensed you needed me.
Suit #1: Reese Witherspoon. Anti-war drama.
Foreign Guy: Budget?
Suit #2: Under thirty million. Gyllenhal's in it too.
Foreign Guy: Reese Witherspoon reading -- not even aloud, just sitting and reading -- will sell X million tickets worldwide. Gyllenhal's a bonus. You're covered.
Suit #2: Thank you, Foreign Guy.
Foreign Guy: You're welcome. Now excuse me, I have to go kill an African-American comedy two offices down.
Thus, a box-office "flop" is born -- because it is, in fact, probably going to be profitable in the long run, and make Artsy/Important people happy. And it just might be a really, really good movie.
******************************
This leads us to why, frankly, I admire the hell out of David Zucker.
Because this is the decision everyone makes in Hollywood -- actors, directors, even execs. You have Hollywood Capital -- reputation, proven box office performance both domestic and foreign -- a non-physical set of Assets within the economic system, but capital A-assets nonetheless. (It is, frankly, damn close to a reputation-based economy. Hollywood runs on whuffie.)
And let us get this straight. You have earned that asset, through a mix of hard work and luck, like every other independent contractor in the nation. You have something people wish to buy. It has a value, established in an open and free pure public marketplace.
You then trade this capital with other participants in your indistry for services or products. Services like creative control, or exclusivity, or a product like a script you want, or the studio's own resources -- time, money, access to physical production means, promotion apparatus -- dedicated to your own agenda. This is what every person who has made one of these movies has done. Even execs trade their capital to make movies that might be a risk but might be art, and it's their right, because it's their capital. And if they fuck up, the marketplace will HAMMER them for it.
That's what David Zucker did for An American Carol.
Zucker took his Hollywood Capital, his money, his rep, and his relationships, and invested it in a project he believed in. Hell, do you think that was easy? To make that movie in Hollywood? The amount of shit he must have taken? Good. For. Him.
Was it funny? Well, not to enough people, I guess. But that doesn't matter. He spent his Hollywood Capital, and made the product he both believed in and believed the American Public would buy. Which is exactly how every one of these movies was made. This is what Witherspoon and Gyllenhal did for Rendition. The financiers did for In the Valley of Elah. The stars of Lions for Lambs. It's what Gibson did for Passion of the Christ. They spent their Hollywood Capital, and took their risk. Often slightly less risk as far as Hollywood structure goes because of the nature of the community, but an equal risk in the marketplace.
The difference is, the guys at Big Hollywood look at Stop-Loss -- costing $25 million and making $11 million -- and deduce that America is rejecting Hollywood's liberal agenda. While I look at An American Carol -- costing $20 million and making $7 million -- and deduce "Huh, people didn't seem to like that movie."
Indeed, I might look at the failure of those two overtly political movies at the either end of the ideological spectrum say "Huh, people don't seem to like overtly political movies from either end of the ideological spectrum." But probably not, as I'm not the sort of fuckwit who tries to derive patterns off two lousy data points.
***********************************
So that's the short (ahem) version of why I'm not going over to Big Hollywood, and it will absolutely be my last post on the place. Hell, I'm closing the Comments on this post, because even idly reading them, positive or negative, will be a waste of time. Why? Because they relate to Big Hollywood.
We at Kung Fu Monkey, between Doctor Who jokes and comic book references and the odd political screed, are in the business of Making Shit, or helping you Make your Shit. When conservatives Make Shit we applaud, because we know how hard it is (Good for you, Sherwood Baptist Church. Aces up.)
When conservatives -- or liberals -- spend all their time bitching about how hard it is to Make Shit, they're not worth anyone's time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)