Thursday, March 22, 2007

The Colbert Strap-On ... of JUSTICE!




You know, I've been staying out of this one, but White House spokesman Tony Snow said this morning ...

The executive branch is under no compulsion to testify to Congress, because Congress in fact doesn't have oversight ability.


Come on. I mean ... come onnnnn. They're not even pretending to give a shit how the government works anymore. Remember when Rule of Law made us different from other countries? Remember when it was the whole point of the goddam country?

My seventh-grade Social Studies teacher, Mr. Oliveri, is weeping somewhere. He made sure his kids understood "checks and balances." Who taught these Bastards in Suits, and where did they fail?

Wednesday, March 21, 2007

LA Times and credit to Kevin

Quick note -- the LA Times did an article on our friends at BOOM!. In it, I'm quoted briefly:
"Comics is not a genre. It's a medium," Rogers said. "What Boom is doing is really exploring and exploiting that."
I'd like to point out that this particularly insightful observation is actually BeaucoupKevin's. I quoted him and credited him, but that bit disappeared in the newspaper machine. For far more comic-y goodness than I'm ever capable of producing, read Kevin and his new webcomic The Rack.

Sunday, March 18, 2007

Shuster Award Nom

I wasn't going to mention it, but somebody pointed out it would be good for Blue Beetle. The nice folks at the Joe Shuster Canadian Comic Book Creator Awards announced their 2007 nominees:

Outstanding Canadian Comic Book Writer
A Writer is someone who wrote a story that was illustrated by an artist(s). Writers who also drew their own stories are classified as Cartoonists, not writers.

___Ian Boothby for DCU Infinite Holiday Special (DC Comics), Futurama Comics 23-26, 28, Simpsons Comics 118, 119, 121, 123, Simpsons Super Spectacular 3 (Bongo Comics)
___Darwyn Cooke for Superman Confidential 1-2 (DC Comics)
___John Rogers for Blue Beetle 1-10 (DC Comics), Contributing writer for Cthulhu Tales 1, Ninja Tales 1, Pirate Tales 1 & Zombie Tales: The Dead 1 (Boom! Studios)
___Ty Templeton for Civil War: Choosing Sides (Marvel Comics), Revolution on the Planet of the Apes 2-6 (Mister Comics)
___J. Torres for Cartoon Network Block Party 22, Hi Hi Puffy Amiyumi 3, Teen Titans Go! 27-38, The Batman Strikes 23 (DC Comics/Johnny DC), Ninja Scroll 1-3 (DC Comics/Wildstorm), Degrassi: The Next Generation - Extra Credit Vol. 1 & Vol. 2 (Pocket Books), Love As A Foreign Language 5 (Oni Press)

I'm ridiculously flattered. Canadian readers can vote here, if you like. I just hope this gets some more readers for BB -- issue #13, coming out this month, is a GREAT jumping on point as we start the Year Two storyline. There is an interview here talking about the upcoming fun.

Oh, and I voted for Darwyn Cooke, by the way. Because you'd be high not to.

Thursday, March 15, 2007

Writing: Arbitration Letters

One of the contributing factors to the brown-out here, other than meeting with producers to talk about casting, and selling the house and realizing oh sweet holy mother of God I don't ACTUALLY KNOW HOW TO DIRECT -- is that I'm working on the arbitration letter for TRANSFORMERS.

For you Spec-Monkeys and the generally curious, the process of figuring out who exactly gets the blame/credit for a movie is actually pretty convoluted, particularly when a.) there are multiple writers and b.) there are massive amounts of money to be made. The main reason people want credit on a movie is not for bragging rights or employment; everybody in Hollywood knows what kind of writer you are based on your scripts circulating through the studio system. Which is the answer, by the way, to the question I get on an almost weekly basis in my e-mail: "How the hell are you still working?" Nobody in Hollywood blames me for CATWOMAN, because they all like the other scripts I've written. Particularly the unmade ones. Hell, I've gotten hired on stuff because of my early, unmade version* of the CATWOMAN script. So there you go. Welcome to Oddsville.

Credits determine residuals. And residuals, my friends, are the only candy we get in the studio system. We are way, way far down the line from box-office bonuses and gross points. The simple truth is that the massive studio films generate so much lucre in their wake
that even our shitty flotsam and jetsam residual deal, on a halfway successful film, is life-changing. To be blunt, after reading the shooting script of CATWOMAN, I was pretty dubious about having my name on it. (Full Disclosure: My name was one of the ones the studio submitted in the tentative writing credits. There was arbitration on the movie, but I didn't initiate it) But then -- and I am being brutally honest here, folks, you may lose a chunk of respect for me, if you had any, er, ever-- I thought about the two odd years of shitty, shitty development, weekly meetings with ungodly notes until finally they asked me to leave because I'd gotten too truculent with my insistence that if we made the movie the way they wanted, it would suck ... and I considered any possible residuals the bonus pay for that experience.

After all, how bad could it be? The shooting script was odd and kind of boring, but was it really that bad?

Talk about an object lesson.

On the other hand, said residuals are one of the things that allow me to match your donations to military charities. So, there you go.

What's the process? This is really more Craig's territory, but here's how I understand it. Shortly after the picture locks, the studio determines what they consider to be the final shooting script. Sometimes this document's provenance is pretty oblique, as pages are being rewritten on the fly, there are improvs -- basically, it's the text version of what you finally see on screen, using the pages that were the basis for what was actually shot. (In TV we called this the "As Broadcast", or "As Broad" for short). Then the studio looks at all the writers on the movie, balances creative inputs from various drafts with whatever internal office politics they have -- people will protest, but hey, we're not children here -- and they notify the Writer's Guild of the Tentative Writing Credits for the movie.

The Guild then forwards this notice to all writers of record, to see if anyone disagrees with the credits. If you do, you can ask for arbitration. The arbitration process is also automatically triggered under certain circumstances, as when one of the Producers is given a writer's credit. This is not always a Bad or Undeserved Thing, but it is a Suspect Thing, and so it's better to be safe than sorry.

At this point, the studio determines what it considers to be the documents of record for the shooting script's evolution. Submitted drafts, treatments, etc. and when there's original material, that's included. These materials are given to three Guild screenwriters, chosen randomly from an approved list that's, well, umpteen pages long. These screenwriters -- always anonymous -- read all the materials (poor bastards), compare them to the shooting script, and rule on what the credits should be.

If that form of judgment seems terrifyingly subjective, humans who run the Guild would agree with you. As a result, there are actually decades-old guidelines for not only how this process runs, but they also define various credits in extremely specific forms. That is, "Written by", "Story by", "Screen story by", and "Screenplay by", when you see those whip past on the big black screen, are all finely attenuated objective terms with completely different meanings. There's even a limit --recently added -- as to how many different people can share each of these credits.

Now the insane ugly truth here is that trying to turn the difference between "Story by" and "Screenplay by" and "Written by" into solid, actionable guidelines for the arbitrating readers is, well ... insane. Despite the best efforts of the Guild folk -- and I do honestly believe that they've done a pretty good job of trying to bang these rules out given the weird nature of their assignment -- the guidelines somehow manage to be both authoritative and vague. In some conditions a "significant contribution" is considered enough. In other places actual percentages of screenplay are mentioned, but the reader is then chastised about using too literal an analytical framework to come up with said percentage.

Ugh. And now it gets ugh-ier. Because this is where the arbitration letter comes in.

Each screenwriter then gets to write a letter, substituting in the anonymizing terms "Writer A", "Writer B" for our identities, in which we argue out how we interpret these objectively/subjective guidelines applying to the scripts in question, supporting the credits we think are fair. These letters can range from "I agree to the credits as submitted" to inch-thick legalistic opuses. The real thriller is that you have no idea what other writers are claiming. Some guys come on hard on arbitration because they got fucked on their last project, and now it's time for the hate to run downhill. So while you're docilely tooling along with "I think these credits are fine,", Writer F is crafting a footnoted fifty page on how you contributed Jack subShit to the script, and need to be kicked off the credits toute suite.

These letters tend to have a lot of attention focused on them, not particularly because they're so effective (at least in my belief) but because, irrationally, it's the one part of the process where you feel any sort of control. Some people treat it as a way to finally vent the various frustrations they've felt at the film development process. I've read arbitration letters that come off like debate team scripts, and I've read some that you wouldn't be surprised to discover were pages torn from a heartbroken stalker's hidden wishbook. This creates a horrible spiral, where even if you don't want to parse through nine goddam drafts of the project, you have to in order at least bang out enough paragraphs to lodge yourself in the readers' minds, to pre-empt some nuke assault another writer might be launching. And while the results from the arbitration process are generally pretty reasonable , every now and then some infamously bizarre decision will come down the pipe that's so disturbingly arbitrary, it reinforces the sense of panic and helplessness most writers feel ... well, every day-ish.

There are always desultory attempts at fixing the credits system. To be blunt, it's a complicated situation in an age of corporate film-making, with years-long multi-draft development. If I remember correctly, there were something like ten -odd writers vying for the credit slots on CATWOMAN. I don't know the answer, and I doubt I'll still be in the business when they come up with one.

Frankly, it's just fucking grubby. I mean, every screenwriter's felt like a whore at some point in his career. Arbitration is where we scrawl on the lipstick, tug on the stained minidress and entertain Uncle Billy's gentlemen friends from Russia.








*
the version where the final fight scene of the summer tentpole movie is NOT Halle Berry beating up a fifty year old cosmetics executive in an empty penthouse. For. Fucking. Example.

Monday, March 12, 2007

Yum. Crow.

FIVE YEARS AGO:

John: "I think you're a great match for Mage."
Young Director: "I love it. I'm a huge comic book fan."
John: "That helps."
Young Director: "I just optioned Frank Miller's 300."
John: "Who bought it for you?"
Young Director: "No, I did. Bought the rights with my own money -- basically harassed Miller into giving it to me. Just wouldn't leave him alone. I have a vision, and I'm going to do it. "
John: (chuckling) "Zack, Zack ... 300 is unfilmable."

Commence pointing and mocking now.

Saturday, March 10, 2007

The Host

Is it less than three hours driving time to the only theater playing The Host?

Drive it.

People were screaming. Some people backed up so fast in their seats from the monster charging the screen they nearly came over the top of their chairs. People cried. People cheered. For the final thirty minutes, all critical faculties of my brain shut down and I was, Lord bless it, just an audience member for the first time in a very, very long while. After seeing this, there are very famous directors in Hollywood who claim to be able to direct action who should snap their own necks in shame at even coming within ten feet of a lens.

I will buy it. I may make finger puppets and form little clubs wherein we re-enact crucial moments of the film.

I trust I've made myself clear. This thing is pure movie. Plot development and character that would never escape intact from the Hollywood development process. Go.

Go go go go.

Friday, March 09, 2007

Jargon in Action

For those of you looking for a concrete example of "the idiot ball", please see Locke comma John on this week's Lost.

And yet somehow the Hurley/Jin/Sawyer triumvirate becomes even MORE entertaining, and I thought the bus bit was the topper. (Weren't there documents on that bus WASN'T THERE A MAP? For the luvva...) More of them doing cool stuff, please.

Wednesday, March 07, 2007

Moving moving moving

You see , the thing is, I don't like linkslutting around too much. And I hardly think I can just drop a sentence or two like "Dick Cheney may well prove to be the most ineptly dangerous/dangerously inept man in American political history" without some supporting arguments. Which he is. Was. Whatever.

Also. my editor will also kill me if she sees another 1000 word blog post before she gets BB #14 in. I'm pinned.

So in short, some quick observations:

1.) Don't lie to grand juries or the FBI. That's a crime, whether you like it or not.

2.) "Government" is not a problem. The "government" is the focused will of the people. Specific Administrations within governments are the problem.

3.) The Taliban and Al-qaida are building training camps and fielding battalion-sized forces. New rule -- one land war in Asia at a time.

4.) Please remember -- when you bomb people for their own good, they rarely take the point in the way you hoped. Empathy is our friend. When America was attacked, its population became incredibly nationalistic, and rallied wildly behind a leader who was of mediocre popularity beforehand. Assume other countries are also populated by human beings. (EDIT: Ezra also reminds us that President Ahmadinejad is not Hitler, primarily because unlike Hitler, he doesn't actually run anything. If you're going to argue that Iran s dangerous, then you have to start with the idea that you're talking about the Islamic Supreme Council going batshit nuts and signing their own death warrants, and move on from there. At least that will be a factually accurate discussion.)

5.) What Guliani's popularity proves is that the right wing of this country doesn't really care about so much are religious principles, but a big Daddy figure, the more authoritarian and Daddy-ish the better. Trading Bush in for Guliani is like going from strong-talking but secretly not very competent Daddy to mean smart Daddy who knows how to balance a checkbook.

Maybe we need to stop looking to the President to be our Daddy. Just saying.

6.)When wounded soldiers lay in their own urine at Walter Reed, we're sending units to Iraq without appropriate training or appropriate equipment (AGAIN or STILL, depending on my rage levels) --
Guard Units Short on Vital Equipment. Maj. Gen. Harry M. Wyatt III, commander of the Oklahoma National Guard, said in an interview that one-third of his soldiers lacked the M-4 rifles preferred by active-duty soldiers and that there were also shortfalls in night vision goggles and other equipment. If his unit is going to be sent to Iraq next year, he said, “We expect the Army to resource the Guard at the same level as active-duty units.” Capt. Christopher Heathscott, a spokesman for the Arkansas National Guard, said the state’s 39th Brigade Combat Team was 600 rifles short for it’s 3,500 soldiers and also lacked its full arsenal of mortars and howitzers. [New York Times, 2/22/07]

-- and even the Joint Chiefs of Staff say the Army is close to breaking -- then I can no longer remind you that "supporting the troops" is not the same as "agreeing with absolutely everything certain bastards in suits say." They are two distinct phrases with two distinct meanings. If you cannot see the difference between the job of soldiers and the job of sending soldiers to do things that have not been properly thought out -- I can no longer even attempt to engage. I am exhausted, sir. I will merely file your name in a tiny notebook, which sits in my desk, waiting until the day the Puke Gun is finally perfected. Then, my friends, then you had best bib the fuck up. Lobster bibs, improvised napkin bibs, whatever, and you scrabble on over to the linoleum because I will not leave until you have Krauthammered all over yourself and your loved ones.

7.) The Ask a Ninja DVD is out today. That is a good thing.

8.) And this was what I was working on last year

Brosnan takes the job while preparing a sequel to "The Thomas Crown Affair," which John Rogers scripted and Brosnan is producing under his Irish DreamTime banner. A director will be set shortly and production will begin before year's end.

The producers on it are filthily cool, and I hope they'll let me talk about the process a bit for your illumination. All this, of course, assuming somebody doesn't come along and rewrite the script after me. Which does happen, you know. Or so I've heard.

Wednesday, February 28, 2007

Tuesday, February 27, 2007

Kosher Delis on OA

Moving house downtime, and I set my next post as a book review -- which I want to do right, so it'll be a while. A few random thoughts to fill the space.

1.) Last night's HEROES was a fine piece of televisioning. Just boom baby, plenty of revelations, all leading to deeper mysteries and re-arrangements of character dynamics. Some nice acting, to boot. Color me impressed.

2.) Paperback edition of Misquoting Jesus is out, and is my favorite book of the week. Regardless of where you fall on the church policy, this is a fascinating, beginner-level guide to how the actual ancient writings that became our Bible are examined and parsed out. Exactly the sort of detail-obsessive work I would have fallen into if I hadn't discovered a career of booze and cash payments, so I dig it.

2.) Blue Beetle #12 is out this Wednesday. The folks who built Jaime's sci fi bug suit show up, and are very angry. Leads into the year long invasion arc, with lots of DC guest stars showing up.

Also, if you're a comic book fan and a Mark Waid fan (which, are of course, synonymous), some notes on his new BRAVE & THE BOLD series:

WIZARD: So now that you are almost done with your first arc, what has been the most surprisingly fun team-up to write?

WAID: I think Batman and Blue Beetle have an amazing relationship as defined by Keith Giffen and John Rogers, mostly John. Their relationship is great. It’s unlike any relationship Batman has with anybody, and it’s so much fun to write because Beetle has the same weird, “creeped out by Batman” fear that everybody does, but Batman actually likes Jamie. He likes the Beetle. He’s not all warm and fuzzy around him, but there’s a nice scene in issue #3 where Beetle is just weirded out because Batman is being pretty forthcoming and not doing the whole creature of the night schtick with Beetle. There’s no need to. They’re on their way somewhere, but Beetle’s freaked out because this is not the Batman he’s heard so much about. So Batman says, “You want to see that? All right.” And we slam cut to an alleyway where Batman’s in full, raging creature of the night mode putting the fear of God into a mugger to get some information. And Beetle’s like, “Okay! That’s the Batman I know!”

There’s something fun about their relationship because they’re not buddies and they don’t banter, but you really get the sense in the dialogue and the actions that Batman has the same relationship to Beetle as he had to Dick Grayson. Unlike the relationship he had with Jason [Todd], unlike the relationship he has with Tim [Drake], this is a lot more reminiscent of him and Dick. That’s been the most fun to write so far.

WIZARD: That seems to fall in line with the idea that came out after Infinite Crisis where you writers kept saying, “Let’s lighten things up a bit and let the characters out of their shells.”

WAID: Yeah! Every issue of Brave & the Bold—despite the fact that the first six are a big arc and that there’s huge stuff going on with a bunch of characters—every issue at its core is based on a relationship between two of the characters. The first one defines the relationship between Batman and Green Lantern. The second one defines the relationship between Green Lantern and Supergirl. The third one is really based on the relationship between Batman and Blue Beetle, and that’s the story. It’s not the plot, but at its heart, that’s the story. I want you to come out of every one of these with an understanding of how these characters relate to each other in this sort of post-Infinite Crisis world.


Come, buy #12 and join the love train for comic's most famous teen Hispanic superhero based in El Paso!

3.) In researching BB #14, I discovered that the Guardians of the Universe, the dudes who run the Green Lanterns -- their appearance is based on Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion.

That means, in the DCU, the Jews just don't control the media, they control the UNIVERSE. Discuss.