Rabu, 05 Oktober 2011

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

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......

Kamis, 22 September 2011

The Academy Awards "changes"

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.

Selasa, 02 Agustus 2011

Talking theme - 2001: A Space Odyssey

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.

Senin, 18 Juli 2011

Sad

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

Rabu, 06 Juli 2011

5 Shock Horrors

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!

Kamis, 30 Juni 2011

Katie Wech interview

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.

Jumat, 24 Juni 2011

Chocolate fart

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.