The Screenplay Formula and Why Movies are so Homogenized

You might hear a lot of people question why so many movies have such a similar tone; as if they're all of the same genre, or made by a few filmmakers with exactly the same tastes.  You may have noticed this yourself and added your voice to the plethora of bloggers, vloggers, and other fans who have expressed their frustrations at how all movies seem alike now.

This might seem a bit like the old man going, "it' ain't like the good ol' days," but there's a strong truth to it, and a reason for it.  As an example, when Star Wars and Star Trek movies came out in the late '70s and early '80s, there was a strong distinction between them.  You went to Star Wars and got an action packed adventure.  You went to Star Trek and got an intriguing mystery.  Even the action scenes were completely different.  In Star Wars you got fast cuts with small ships or individuals shooting rapid fire shots at one another.  In Star Trek you had longer wide shots of large ships laboriously turning on one another while their crews discussed the best way to win.

Neither style was better.  It was like going to a restaurant.  No one wants the same food every day.  If you want Mexican food, you go to a Mexican restaurant.  If you want Italian food, you go to an Italian restaurant.  You switch it up to have a variety.  Hell, even films made by the same director had very different feels.  Take for instance Spielberg's Raiders of the Lost Ark versus Jaws.  Their tone and style was so different that they seem like they're made by completely different filmmakers.

But now you could replace the title of one film with another and hardly anyone would notice.  In computer gaming terms, it's like changing the skins.  So what caused this?  Well, there are numerous theories, and I'm sure many of them have truth as any subject of this magnitude will naturally have a lot of answers.  But I've come to believe there's one overall reason.

Screenplay formulas.

For decades, filmmakers and theorists have been trying to narrow down what makes a film "work."  Understanding this will cause filmmaking to be less risky, and solve psychological mysteries of taste.  So people set about writing books on screenwriting, observing what has been respected and loved in movies, and trying to capture the reason for the magic in them.  The result of all this research was a multitude of formulas.  Books from Adventures in the Screen Trade to The Foundations of Screenwriting to Story to the Writer's Journey all try to identify the genie in the bottle.

These books do provide a basis for good practices in screenwriting.  For instance, they remind a writer to not linger too long in their introduction of the characters and the situation.  They provide guidance on moving the plot forward, and ideas for creating dynamic story beats.  These are positive guidelines to follow.

Why Watching Online Movie Critics Makes Me Feel Better

Some of the most popular channels on Youtube are movie critics.  Their rise has come because of how much a producer could get with the smaller investment.  A content creator can tape him or herself in a room, or even just record their voice, and let the clips of the movies provide the higher production value.  Since these movies have their own marketing departments, audiences already know what they are.  And since Youtube worked out a fair use clause to utilize movie footage, they could air their reviews and even monetize them.

In some ways I feel guilty for watching so many of these shows rather than searching harder for more original content by people who are willing to take the risk and not ride on the coattails of premade products.  However, I've found that there's something very cathartic about watching the critics slam on bad movies.  There were obvious reasons for this, but as I got to thinking about it, there were more reasons for me that go beyond the usual viewer.

When my own scripts and projects got rejected, I was willing to accept that there could be something better.  Whatever they did choose would probably be a better film, something that I would aspire to with my own writing.  Whenever a film got accepted into a festival mine didn't get into, I thought the same thing.  Then I would watch them...

My discouragement came from the fact that there was nothing to look up to; nothing to aspire to.  What I had presented may not have been perfect, but it was certainly better than what they were choosing.  Added to my frustration was the fact that I was then told that no, I was wrong.  The production companies, studios, and film festivals were right in their choices.  After all, they were the ones in power.  They made more money than me.  Their careers were going great.  They're right and I'm wrong.

Channels like Nostalgia Critic, Lindsay Ellis, Red Letter Media, and Your Movie Sucks beg to differ.  In fact, they've specifically taken on some of the movies that I got rejected in favor of.  Being outside of the industry, they feel no need to conform, or kiss the ass of anyone "important."  They actually scoff at Hollywood's self-importance.

THAT is cathartic.  It may not give me a career or change Hollywood, but it definitely makes me feel better to see movies that are objectively bad and producers who believe they're right about everything get called out on their bullshit.

The True Winner of Game of Thrones

It's been a few months since Game of Thrones ended, I think it's time to point out who was the true winner in the end. We all speculated on who would win at the end of the series, and now we know who it was...

Books.

This series I think proved more than any other the superiority of storytelling in books to movies and television. It's evident through the way the story thrived while following the text, but then faltered and finally failed while on its own.

One might argue that the problem is not with film/television but with the specific writers, but the fact that D & D were the ones who got the job to do this series IS the problem. David Benioff had been the writer of Wolverine: Origins, a spectacular failure. Like so many in Hollywood, he failed upward. Hollywood is based more on who is well-liked and popular rather than who is the right fit. Book writers more often write to their passions.

So, if you want a good story, rather than just going on and on about how much you hate Game of Thrones or Star Wars (of which the GoT writers will now be taking charge,) go read a book. You'll have a better time.

Avengers: Endgame is at the Top, and Fairly Won

Avengers: Endgame has come at last, and its accolades and success are fairly won.  This series deserves nothing short of absolute praise.

For 11 years they've not only entertained us, but they've surprised us.  They could have just told cliché stories of superheroes and fed the comic book fandom with what they'd already seen; but they determined to do more.  They had an ongoing story that broke into multiple paths of films and TV shows, and each one had its own unique feel to it.  You had the obvious action stories, like the first Avengers movie, you had dramas like Jessica Jones, you had wild comedies like Thor: Ragnarok, you had team stories, like Agents of Shield, you had political intrigue in Captain America, you had social commentary in Luke Cage, and on and on and on.  And through it all, they had an ongoing story-line that everything led toward in addition to their own individual story-lines and character arcs.

There were also more subtle unique elements to each story, as well as subtle references to one another.  Some might call this nostalgic fan service, but in my view, these references were like glue holding it all together and reminding us that this was one large universe where everything connected.

Others have been trying to emulate Marvel, but like Hollywood so often does, they missed the one most important aspect: Marvel succeeded because it took a risk on treading new ground.  One cannot, by definition, follow this formula.  The only way to emulate the Marvel formula to success is by taking those same risks in a new direction.  It was that originality that we've all respected.  To be clear, yes, these were based off of comic books with a fan base and a long history.  However, the filmmakers researched these books thoroughly to have a complete understanding of them, and they took the characters and stories in new directions.

I watched many of the MCU movies with a comic book crowd, the ones at Emerald Knights.  They knew the stories, but they were still surprised and pleased with the way these stories were altered because it was respectful to the source material, and it added to it rather than rebuilt it.  The new Star Wars films have completely missed this concept, with Force Awakens being a copy of the originals, and Last Jedi being empty undermining of expectations without reason.

The MUC movies were daring in the way they portrayed these characters and situations in ways that honored the source material, but still found new ways to tell them.  THAT'S how they were original.

I personally watched all the movies and shows as they came out.  I've never been much of a superhero fan; definitely not of these characters.  But they did such a great job of making us care about them that I had to see how their journeys weaved through each other.  The characters altered as they went.  The filmmakers weren't afraid to change them from their iconic looks and make massive changes to their environments.  And they weren't afraid to swap the characters in and out of the stories of other characters, thus making the world more complete.

But the accomplishment is even more than that.  Anyone who has tried to get a film made knows how espically difficult it is.  Most films never get made.  In this case, they made 22 films over 11 years... with a new company.  That accomplishment is unheard of.  I'm sure the Academy Awards and other awards shows will ignore this while honoring other films that accomplished far, far less.  But those who realize what they did, and how difficult it was to do it successfully, will always know how monumental this achievement was.  They deserve every penny of what they've made.

#Endgame #Avengers #AvengersEndgame #TheAvengers #Marvel #MCU #MarvelCinematicUniverse

The Real Reason Style Over Substance is King Now

Many online critics have noted how movies today seem to care a lot more about being flashy than about being substantial.  It's not that there aren't good movies anymore; there are several great ones that couldn't even be made in decades past.

However, there is a noticeable drop in how many movies that are released in theaters have much substance to them.  Most of them, even many of the good ones, place an emphasis on the style way above the substance.  And people have been asking why.

I've personally seen the progress of this, and why it happened; though I didn't recognize what was happening because I thought it was just my own bitterness at failing to become a filmmaker myself.  In retrospect, however, I realize that the change was taking place right before my eyes.

It all comes from the film festivals.  You see, in order to get a film made, you can't go directly to any studio or production company.  They will all tell you that they take no unsolicited materials, which means you have to go through a major agency.  You go to the agencies and they all say the same thing, that you have to go through a manager.  Most managers will say the same thing, and the buck stops there.  It's a catch 22; an incestuous relationship among Hollywood insiders of which no one can break in.

The only way to slip through is in a film festival.  If you can get a film accepted into one of those, the agencies will go to them and will contact you to represent you.  You can then submit your projects to the studios through your agent, and those are the films that get made.  Even the "independent" companies that claim to be outside the Hollywood system work this way.  (It's called hypocrisy.)

So the real gatekeepers are those deciding what films show at the film festivals.  These festivals were originally created to build up creative talent and independent voices outside the studio system.  Many of the early films were rough around the edges but had a spirit to them that sparked viewers' interests.  As a great example of this, check out Peter Jackson's first film that got accepted to the Cannes Film Festival.

Films like this would never get accepted into festivals today because they're not sleek enough, or because they don't have a famous name in them; and thus, one of the greatest directors of all time would be overlooked.  How many other Peter Jacksons are being overlooked today because of this reason?  We'll never know.

Instead, most of the films that get accepted have high production value, and little attention is paid to story or character.  Sometimes films have style and some of the other elements, but only style makes a difference in whether or not a movie gets accepted.  Thus you wind up with filmmakers that are all about flash going to these festivals and getting through the gates to be able to pitch to studios.

The only way to break this cycle is for production companies and studios, or at least agents, to open up their ears to other voices that didn't have to go through such a narrow-minded corridor.  It's the reason why Youtube has such fresh voices that we're not seeing in the movie theater, and why staying home and watching something for free is often more appealing to people than paying money to go see movies that are full of style and lacking on substance.

Why Watching Online Movie Critics Makes Me Feel Better

Some of the most popular channels on Youtube are movie critics.  Their rise has come because of how much a producer could get with the smaller investment.  A content creator can tape him or herself in a room, or even just record their voice, and let the clips of the movies provide the higher production value.  Since these movies have their own marketing departments, audiences already know what they are.  And since Youtube worked out a fair use clause to utilize movie footage, they could air their reviews and even monetize them.

In some ways I feel guilty for watching so many of these shows rather than searching harder for more original content by people who are willing to take the risk and not ride on the coattails of premade products.  However, I've found that there's something very cathartic about watching the critics slam on bad movies.  There were obvious reasons for this, but as I got to thinking about it, there were more reasons for me that go beyond the usual viewer.

When my own scripts and projects got rejected, I was willing to accept that there could be something better.  Whatever they did choose would probably be a better film, something that I would aspire to with my own writing.  Whenever a film got accepted into a festival mine didn't get into, I thought the same thing.  Then I would watch them...

My discouragement came from the fact that there was nothing to look up to; nothing to aspire to.  What I had presented may not have been perfect, but it was certainly better than what they were choosing.  Added to my frustration was the fact that I was then told that no, I was wrong.  The production companies, studios, and film festivals were right in their choices.  After all, they were the ones in power.  They made more money than me.  Their careers were going great.  They're right and I'm wrong.

Channels like Nostalgia Critic, Lindsay Ellis, Red Letter Media, and Your Movie Sucks beg to differ.  In fact, they've specifically taken on some of the movies that I got rejected in favor of.  Being outside of the industry, they feel no need to conform, or kiss the ass of anyone "important."  They actually scoff at Hollywood's self-importance.

THAT is cathartic.  It may not give me a career or change Hollywood, but it definitely makes me feel better to see movies that are objectively bad and producers who believe they're right about everything get called out on their bullshit.

The Screenplay Formula and Why Movies are so Homogenized

You might hear a lot of people question why so many movies have such a similar tone; as if they're all of the same genre, or made by a few filmmakers with exactly the same tastes.  You may have noticed this yourself and added your voice to the plethora of bloggers, vloggers, and other fans who have expressed their frustrations at how all movies seem alike now.

This might seem a bit like the old man going, "it' ain't like the good ol' days," but there's a strong truth to it, and a reason for it.  As an example, when Star Wars and Star Trek movies came out in the late '70s and early '80s, there was a strong distinction between them.  You went to Star Wars and got an action packed adventure.  You went to Star Trek and got an intriguing mystery.  Even the action scenes were completely different.  In Star Wars you got fast cuts with small ships or individuals shooting rapid fire shots at one another.  In Star Trek you had longer wide shots of large ships laboriously turning on one another while their crews discussed the best way to win.

Neither style was better.  It was like going to a restaurant.  No one wants the same food every day.  If you want Mexican food, you go to a Mexican restaurant.  If you want Italian food, you go to an Italian restaurant.  You switch it up to have a variety.  Hell, even films made by the same director had very different feels.  Take for instance Spielberg's Raiders of the Lost Ark versus Jaws.  Their tone and style was so different that they seem like they're made by completely different filmmakers.

But now you could replace the title of one film with another and hardly anyone would notice.  In computer gaming terms, it's like changing the skins.  So what caused this?  Well, there are numerous theories, and I'm sure many of them have truth as any subject of this magnitude will naturally have a lot of answers.  But I've come to believe there's one overall reason.

Screenplay formulas.

For decades, filmmakers and theorists have been trying to narrow down what makes a film "work."  Understanding this will cause filmmaking to be less risky, and solve psychological mysteries of taste.  So people set about writing books on screenwriting, observing what has been respected and loved in movies, and trying to capture the reason for the magic in them.  The result of all this research was a multitude of formulas.  Books from Adventures in the Screen Trade to The Foundations of Screenwriting to Story to the Writer's Journey all try to identify the genie in the bottle.

These books do provide a basis for good practices in screenwriting.  For instance, they remind a writer to not linger too long in their introduction of the characters and the situation.  They provide guidance on moving the plot forward, and ideas for creating dynamic story beats.  These are positive guidelines to follow.

However, somewhere along the way people started taking these books as rules rather than guidelines.  Rather than suggesting that the screenwriter shift into the second act before the audience gets bored, the screenwriter is now required to move onto the inciting incident by page 15, no exceptions!  Rather than the third act being a point at which the characters focus on their goals, it MUST follow the lowest point of their lives, where they were worse off than when they began the story, and the antagonists must now move in on them.  NO EXCEPTIONS!

Let's put 2001, A Space Odyssey to this test.  The opening of this movie, which is widely considered a classic, even by those who swear by the formulas, follows a group of apes, none of whom are main characters in the rest of the movie.  We get an entire story about them, and how they discover the monolith, which takes us into the main part of the story.  This story does involve the character getting into a worse and worse situation until things are really bad for him.  But he's still reaching his goal, and no conscious villain is closing in on him.  Ultimately, he doesn't have a dramatic ending where his heroic action saves or destroys the day.  He experiences something that speaks to the existence of humanity.

This movie fails the formula test in every way possible.  Hell, even Star Wars would fail as it doesn't introduce its main character until nearly 20 minutes into the film; a major taboo in screenwriting formulas.

But somewhere along the way, I believe in the mid to late '80s, the industry became populated by people who saw these formulas as indispensable.  This belief has permeated every nook and cranny of the industry.  Not only do producers believe in the formula, but so do their assistants, (who must if they want to keep a job,) and executives and agents and people who run film festivals, and people who decide what gets accepted into festivals.  In short, the gatekeepers to the industry all worship the formula, and anyone who does not conform is kept out.

And thus, films have become very homogenized because filmmakers are not allowed to do anything different if they want careers.

The Hypocrisy of the Academy Award Popular Film Category

This year the Academy Awards tried to add the popular film category; an attempt to appease viewers that ultimately got mocked and failed.  This category is widely seen to have been added because of two things: the popularity of Black Panther, a bandwagon upon which the Academy wanted to jump without actually considering it for best picture, and lower ratings of the show in general.

I'm actually not going to talk about whether or not Black Panther deserves to win, or even a nomination.  It was a very good movie, and it also had some glaring flaws.  Most of all, though, the whole subject of its merit brings out the absurdity of what a "best picture" is.  Can we really declare a single movie to be the best when there are so many genres and styles?  Isn't it like comparing apples and oranges to a degree?

But what I find particularly ludicrous is the hypocrisy that created this apparent need for a popular category.  The idea that something popular needs a separate category from best implies that if something makes a lot of money, it is inherently inferior to something that doesn't make a lot of money.  While certainly the motivation for wealth can be separate from the motivation for art, the idea that something that is popular can't be great is the very wrongful thinking that caused Hitchcock to never win a regular award, and why one eluded Spielberg for so long.

But what of you, Academy Awards?  Isn't the major reason why you're doing this so you keep your audience?  We all hear you every time you complain that the audience numbers are shrinking.  If the Academy Awards really believed that art and commerce are so separate, why are they so concerned with their own ratings?  It seems to me that if you're going to frown upon popular films that make money and smugly hold films that don't on a pedestal, then you shouldn't be so concerned about your own wealth.

But if ratings are so important, maybe stop looking down on those producers who are literally doing the exact same thing as you.

Finally Saw the Bad News Bears

When I was 5 years old I played in Little League and a movie came out about Little League called The Bad News Bears. I obviously wanted to see it, but my parents wisely said I could not until I was old enough.

At 46, I suppose I'm old enough, so I just watched it, and I found something particularly interesting. This was close to the same time of Rocky, and it had the same message which is lacking in so many sports movies. The lead team loses, and the point of the movie is that there are more important things than your petty little game.

My favorite part of the movie was the climax where they are losing the game as a direct result of decisions they made which were better for their lives, even if they caused them to lose the game. It is triumphant, because the characters have learned that what's happening here isn't really all that important.

I never had any interest in seeing Rocky 2 for this very reason. As I understand it, Rocky wins in a rematch against his opponent in the first. This takes away the entire point of the first movie. All these films which advertise themselves as "this boxer's one chance" or "this team's one chance to win" are huge turn-offs to me because, I'm sorry, what happens in a game just isn't as important as what happens in their lives.

It's interesting that several films of the '70s seemed to understand that.

Netflix and the Future of Entertainment

It’s been said for a long time now that Netflix is leading the future of entertainment.  Many people saw it years ago when they were taking business from Blockbuster Entertainment and other video stores, and amazingly, they did nothing to counter this.  Despite the fact that Netflix’s model was working better than theirs, the heads of Blockbuster ignored these obvious signs and continued their business as usual rather than adjusting and evolving.  This was due in large part to ego.  I know because I’ve talked with someone who served as president for a time at Blockbuster and left because he saw that no one would even consider changing tactics.  When he pointed this out, they ignored him and kept their ship driving right into the iceberg.

            Now Netflix is continuing their innovative efforts in competition with regular television.  What’s amazing is how little these networks have learned from Blockbuster.  They believe that, because they are the big guys on the block today, they are destined to always be that way.

            To be sure, they are adjusting in some ways, but usually they are the wrong ways.  CBS is beginning a subscription service that will be led by their Star Trek series in which viewers will have to pay to watch.  However, viewers aren’t going to see any reason to pay for this television service that they are getting for free with other shows unless CBS offers something more.  Of course, they’ll have some shows that they know audiences will want on the subscription channel, but that’s not enough.

            What’s caused viewers to turn to Netflix is that their programming has been more interesting and innovative than network TV.  Rather than following tired formulas and using outdated methods, they have created new ways of telling stories both artistically and technically.

            Artistically, they tell stories in unique fashions and they make sure the entire show is aired so the whole story is there.  What I mean by unique fashions is that they do not limit their writers to specific formula patterns.  On television, you have five acts broken up by commercials.  Every show has to follow those acts, and executives will require that producers break down their scripts into these acts to prove it.  Netflix makes no such requirement, and thus the stories are more interesting.

This is further improved by the fact that they don’t make pilots, see how they go, then just a few episodes and see how they go before making entire seasons.  Networks do this all the time, and it makes for very broken up storylines.  Worst yet, they will cancel a show if it’s not doing well.  This may save them money in the short run, but it destroys trust in the viewer, who decides not to watch the next show.

Many people will not waste their time on a network show because that show may be cancelled next week.  There’s no point in wasting the time getting invested.  But with Netflix, you know that if you try a show out, they’ll at least get through a season, so there will be some semblance of a story.

Basically, think of it like this.  If you buy a book, would you rather get one that the author is still writing and might not finish, or would you rather get one that you know has been finished, and may even go on to more books?

Unless the networks wake up, they’re going to go the way of Blockbuster.

People Connect More to Video Than to Words

            It’s a painful thing to admit as a book writer, but there’s a reason why movies and television are more popular storytelling formats than any type of written material.  The reason is simply because visual mediums appeal to multiple senses; primarily sight and sound.  They more easily and effectively manipulate our emotions.  And, perhaps most importantly, they can be enjoyed in groups.  While reading a book or a short story is an intimate moment between reader and writer, visual productions can bring together multiple audience members at the same time and cause them to all feel the same thing at the same moment.

            An example of this is John Green of the Vlog Brothers on Youtube.  He speaks poetically and quite well about how reading is a shared experience between author and reader.  However, even he has to admit that his fame came not through his books, but through his program with his brother.  It was once the audience could see him, hear him, and get a sense of his feelings through his expressions that they connected with him, and wanted to know more about what he was writing.

            Books that have been made into movies always do better than before they were put on film.  Even though the movies ruin the endings and every secret in these books, people become curious about what’s in the book in addition to the film.  Not only is there a lot of free advertising, but once people have heard voices of the characters, even though it’s stolen away their ability to make their own voices, more readers flock to these books because they’ve had a more visceral connection.

            I’ve embraced this fact and started a few Youtube channels of my own.  They have, regrettably, been as unsuccessful as my writing and I struggle to get views.  But I do find it easier to get people to take a chance with one of my videos than it is to get people to take a chance on my writing.  Even trying to get people to read a free short story is a daunting task.

            I’ve become convinced that a healthy mix of these two mediums is the best chance for success.  The difficulty is in juggling my time with these two art forms.

The Makers of the New Ghostbusters Are the Ones Who Caused the Controversy

A lot has been made about the new Ghostbusters, mostly in terms of its switching genders of the lead roles.  Those who have disliked it have been called sexists, and those who do like it have been said to be ruining their childhoods.  Both are absurd statements... well, mostly.  There are chauvinistic trolls, but the majority of people had a true gripe about this reboot.  But why did this in particular get so much extra attention?

I have a very specific reason why the creation of this movie annoys me, and I think it gets to the heart of why it stood out for a lot of other people, too.  There are a number of movies and TV shows that have female protagonists that came out, and only the true assholes complained that the star didn't have a dick.  The rest of us didn't mind because the story and the characters looked really good.  Even when something was rebooted with a female lead, like Star Wars or Battlestar Galactica, most of us didn't bat an eye.  But when Ghostbusters came out and said we're making this again with all female leads, those of us who hadn't had a problem before were suddenly annoyed.

Why?

Because that's ALL the studio said.  They didn't explain why they felt it warranted a remake, or what they could add.  They didn't explain the story or who the characters would be.  They didn't even try to make excuses.  They just said, "Look!  It's Ghostbusters!  And they're all women!"

The problem with this is that they were using two things to manipulate audiences:  The brand name, and feminism.

Rather than doing what the original film did and coming up with an interesting, original story with unique and enjoyable characters, they cynically took a brand name with monetary value and threw it at us, pretending to be paying homage to the original.  And to hide the fact that they really had nothing but a desire to profit off the brand name, they threw a bunch of women up front and said, "See?  We're progressive!"

This goes to the point I'm making about them using feminism to their own greedy ends.  Feminists shouldn't be defending this movie, they should be appalled by it.  There are few examples more blatant than this one of a company using their cause for their own gain.  For months the studio kept saying, "Look!  We've got women in this!" without saying anything else about it.  There was nothing about the plot, what the characters were like, what made them interesting or unique.  Just a bunch of "you have to like this movie or you're a sexist!"  They're still using that marketing campaign during this first weekend of release.

It's sounding like the movie itself is okay, but not particularly good.  The biggest problem I'm hearing is that it's basically soulless and cliché, even from people who like the film.  This is not a surprise at all considering the fact that the film is so much more about making money on the brand than making a good film.

The studio is still tone deaf to the problem, also.  They heard the complaints and their solution was to make another movie with all male leads.  This shows their absolute obliviousness.  The problem has nothing to do with the gender of the lead.  It has everything to do with them making a huge deal about that one thing and not caring about the rest.  If they truly wanted to pay homage to the original Ghostbusters, they wouldn't do these reboots, and they wouldn't even try to do a Ghostbusters 3.  They would do what the original writers and producers of Ghostbusters did; they would come up with a new, original idea with interesting and enjoyable characters and they would take a chance on it.  Is it risky?  Yes.  Does it have the definite value of a brand name?  No.  It's what real artists and comedians do; like those who made the original, and really only, Ghostbusters.

My Concerns for Indy 5 as a Fan and as an Author

Recently Steven Spielberg revealed that the next Indiana Jones movie is not only going to stick with the ongoing story of Indy getting older, leaving Harrison Ford as the title character, but also the story will continue where the Crystal Skull left off.  This concerns me both as an Indiana Jones fan, and as the author of Relic Worlds.

As a fan, I’m concerned for the same reason a lot of people are.  Crystal Skull was awful.  I mean, Star Wars prequels bad.  By declaring that the storyline from this will continue without any acknowledgement of how bad Crystal Skull was, or reassurance that this will be better, Spielberg has revealed a certain amount of tone deafness on his part.  I’m sure he has so many levels of walls around him that he doesn’t hear most of what the public’s saying.  It’s one of the biggest problems with artists reaching a certain level of fame.  But this is one of those times that so many people cried out in horror.  It’s hard to imagine him sticking his head so deeply in the sand.  But he just might have.

As the author of Relic Worlds, I’m particularly worried because Crystal Skull was about Indiana Jones searching for aliens.  This could work greatly in my favor, or greatly against me.  It could give me a lot of great promotion opportunities, or it could cause people to think I’m copying Spielberg.

In any case, it’s clear to me that I need to get the word about Relic Worlds out even more so people know about it before they know much about Spielberg’s next stories for Indy.

http://movieweb.com/indiana-jones-5-continues-crystal-skull-story/

Tales of a Failed Filmmaker - The First Time I Learned About Star Wars

My first movie experience was almost Star Wars.  I was six years old and my father wanted to take me to this new science fiction film.  But my mother, being a responsible parent, stopped him and said that he should watch it first to see if it would be appropriate for someone at my age.  So my dad took my brother to see it while my mom took me to see Benji.  Yep, my mother’s sense of responsibility made Benji my first movie rather than Star Wars.  Damn you good parenting!

My mom, sister and I got home first and we were in the kitchen when the door opened and my brother rushed in with his eyes wide.  My father was right behind him, his own eyes wide as well.  It was as though he had just seen a ghost doing gymnastics.  He told her that I had to go see this movie.  Not should, had.  Still being the responsible parent, my mother asked if it was age appropriate, and he vigorously nodded his head.

Soon after, we went to see it at the Stuart theater in downtown Lincoln.  It was a former stage theater from the days of grand productions.  It looked more like an opera house, complete with deep cushioned, plush, red seats, and etched mirrors in the lobby; and it played only the biggest movies.  I remember only bits and pieces of watching it.  In particular, I remember that I didn’t know what “terminate” meant, and when my mom explained that it meant to kill, I couldn’t believe they were thinking about killing Princess Leia.  It was the first time I remember feeling fear.  I didn’t understand yet that the good guys general win these movies; my exposure to television thus far had often been football, and in that, either side could win.  So I truly didn’t know that the rebels would win.  (Oh, spoiler alert.)

I also remember going to the bathroom during the scene when Obiwan Kenobi turned off the tractor beam, so I didn’t understand why the characters were able to leave.  For some reason I remember another older black kid in the bathroom with me.  I think I remember this because it was one of the first times I was using a bathroom alone, and I didn’t know how I was supposed to react to a stranger in a bathroom.  I wasn’t nervous with fear, I was nervous about my manners.  Am I supposed to look?  Am I not?  I think men and women react differently to bathrooms; we never get over our fear of looking at one another while in them.

After the movie, I remember going to the apartment buildings my dad owned and jumping in the pool.  We had taken a family friend, Jon, and he and my brother Trevor were reenacting scenes, especially the one in the trash compactor as though the walls were going to smash them in the pool, and the snake creature was underneath.  I remember one point when Trevor said, “we’re all going to be a lot thinner” and Jon responded, “At least I won’t have to iron my clothes anymore!”

In the years to come, it would prove to have an impact on me as strong as my dad predicted; especially with the toys.  My best friend Ryan and I collected as many figures as we could and created stories with them.  This became my first efforts at storytelling.

And then my father purchased making of documentaries on laserdisc.  I began watching them over and over and over.  I was obsessed with how people made images that went on the screen; how storytelling could be visually explained, and how those images stirred the emotions.

All My Blogs

I’m going to be brutally honest here.  I don’t particularly like blogging.  Actually, I like the theory of it.  In fact, I love the fact that it gives a voice to everyone to say what they believe; and I don’t buy the idea that it merely creates rumors while “legitimate” newspapers and magazines tell the truth.  They are owned and controlled by corporate backers who tell them what to say, so they’re as much rumor mongering as any blog.  A reader merely has to judge how much integrity a given source has.

For me, though, I’m so busy creating books and games that I don’t have time for a blog.  And you’re expected to write something at least once a week to get noticed.  However, I’ve been told, and have noticed this to be true, that people tend to not notice you unless you have a blog.

And so I write.  And now, in my usual fashion of over-doing it, I’ve created multiple blogs.  I’m a person who’s torn in many directions, and I create projects for every interest.  It’s spread me a bit thin, and perhaps I should drop some, but every time I think of it, it’s like Sophie’s Choice.  Which of my children could I really let go?

And so I keep them, and I have a blog for every one of them.  All but one of them, the Dice Depot, are mine.  I do the Dice Depot for Ric Wickham, who has a fantastic game site.  Here they are listed:

Bandwagon Books

Jeff McArthur

Relic Worlds

Tales of a Failed Filmmaker

I also have Facebook groups for these, and my projects Command Combat Battle Reports and Geo-Hunters, plus, of course, Twitter accounts.  Accchhh!!!