Interesting blog-post from a screenwriter (responsible for The Thing 2, but don't hold that against him.

Most people have heard that it's the "suits" and the process of accommodation of the corporate people's demands that make scripts (and movies) so awful. I heard that, but then I've also heard that's a lot of a crap; that that's an easy line peddled by outsiders.

This guy, on the other hand, says "No, that's actually correct."

That first notes meeting is illuminating. You learn right away who actually read your previous script and who didn’t. You also discover what the other people involved want the movie to be. NOTE: Rarely will everyone want to make the same movie. You’ll get notes like “Can we make it more like [popular movie]?” Or, “This feels like it should be more in the [obscure art film] neighborhood.”

...

Perhaps finally this is the stage where it goes to the top studio execs. You attend another notes session and are tasked with notes you feel you’ve already addressed. Things like, “I don’t know what the characters are feeling,” or “What is this person’s arc and why is it so hard to figure out?”

...

This second full pass is where youÂ’re tested. The biggest problem is realizing that some readers on the studio level donÂ’t understand subtext. Or rather, they get it when theyÂ’re seeing a finished film, but with all the scripts they read (or coverage thereof) they have no subtext radar. It all blows by them. (Not every exec is like this, but itÂ’s a common problem, and can sometimes extend to producers and other people in the process.)

About this time, your agent calls again and says: DonÂ’t screw this up. For both of you.

Your new job: Spell out all the things you so artfully seeded through innuendo and subtle suggestion. Now youÂ’re writing things in ALL CAPS and talking about how this is THE TURNING POINT FOR YOUR CHARACTER because she realizes SHE MUST BETRAY HER FRIEND to SAVE HER FAMILY. If you learned how to write from a certain LOST writer, youÂ’ll be doing this already, along with statements like HOLY SHIT, this is the MOST HEARTBREAKING MOMENT WEÂ’VE EVER SEEN.

Reading the draft back to yourself makes your teeth hurt. This isnÂ’t representative of your writing, itÂ’s more like a transcript of some frat boy describing your script to his buddies. And yet this draft goes over like gangbusters at the studio. You are called and thanked by the studio, and then the producer. Once a director/movie star/both get on board, itÂ’s all systems go for this project.

Maybe that work has already been done, in which case, you’re getting notes from those people as well. If an actor is involved, the draft the studio loves to death will rankle the movie star. Why? Because in this draft you’ve written out all the subtext and given the actor no room for them to do their job. Actors hate drafts like this. It’s like a photograph of a starving child in some third-world country holding up a flag that reads “FEEL SAD.”

Movies really have become awful, haven't they? I don't mean politically; sure, there are a lot of liberal zingers put into movies for no very good reason, except to make the filmmakers think they've done something positive with the piece of shit project they're foisting on people.

Hollywood has always made most movies for a juvenile crowd. A producer, I think his name was Zanuck, worked out the logic like this: Girls will see anything boys will see, but boys will not see most things girls will see. Younger kids will see anything that older kids will see, but older kids will not see things made for younger kids. Adults will see most things that older teenagers will see, but older teenagers will not necessarily see things that adults would see. Therefore, the correct money-making demographic to make a movie for is a 17 year old boy.

Even though Hollywood turned out all sorts of juvenile dreck (and be aware, they always did; if older movies seem more adult to you, remember that's largely because only the classics survive and most of the juvenile dreck is forgotten and no longer seen), certainly they've gotten worse and worse about this lately. Virtually every movie has a number in the title-- to avoid this, some sequels and prequels avoid numbering, but even if they avoid that, we still know that X-Men: First Class is X-Men Part 0. (And that movie was halfway decent.) Everything is either a prequel, a sequel, or a remake; every movie made is an attempt at a financially "safe" exploitation of a property that's worked at least once in the past.

And everything is written for that 17 year old boy. The more years that separate me from 17 the more this grates. Almost every script is some kind of coming-of-age story about a young man with limitless potential if only he can learn to [x] (control his emotions, come to peace with his father's death or his living father's authority, etc., etc.). Those are not bad stories, necessarily. A lot of classics are in that mode. But when almost every movie is that sort of Edge-of-17 I-Can't-Wait-To-Find-Out-What-I'll-Be-When-I-Grow-Up power fantasy (competence fantasy, career fantasy, etc.), that's an awful lot of movies with the same basic theme and only the slightest differentiation between them.

Even in the Beach Party Bingo days of the late sixties, Hollywood still put out a decent number of movies made for adults. They weren't literally all for that 17 year old boy. Just most of them, and most of the exploitative ones. But they did attempt to target adult audiences, and produce some movies that weren't all about What I'll Be When I Grow Up but about the problems you face when you have grown up.

It's very hard to name movies made in the last 20 years which are made for adults. You can name a few, but they're few and far between. And they're increasingly mostly small-operation independent movies.

I used to despise independent and foreign movies. I wouldn't see them on principle. But with the major studios just churning out one adolescent power-fantasy after another (and usually poorly done adolescent power-fantasies at that), I am beginning to see the appeal.

Television used to be a vast wasteland of insipid corporate least-common-denominator writing, while movies used to be a notch above that. Now that situation is entirely reversed, and with a vengeance. I still prefer the form of the movie over television (I don't like episodic stories-- I like beginning, middle, and end), but there's little doubt that if you want to write interesting stories that aren't about a boy-man on the cusp of adulthood finding a Power Ring and learning to control his Go For It impulses, you should write for television rather than the movies.

A documentary called American Grindhouse discussed exploitation films. One point, I think made by John Landis, was that despite the low budgets, exploitation films actually offered a writer or director (or, commonly, a writer/director) a great deal of freedom, because so long as one delivered the Exploitation (whether Bikinis, Bikers, Black Revolutionaries, or Blood), the producers did not care at all what you made the story about. Deliver the three or four bits of nudity, shock material, or Current Teenager Fad material and you could otherwise do whatever you wanted.

I get that feeling about TV, now. Most shows are still pretty formulaic (every episode is mostly just a rehash of the basic situation and conflicts in the pilot episode, which, actually, they sort of must be), but you do occasionally see some things you weren't expecting, and hear some dialogue you weren't expecting, on TV.

In the movies, it's all entirely predictable. Almost every studio movie is just an assemblage of things that have worked in other movies for the last 20 years. And as Hollywood's hits are fewer and further between, every movie seems to be rehashing the same Moments That Worked from previous movies. Even in the very small creative space they're working in (movies for 17 year old boys looking to become awesome I Win At Life adults), they're not offering much variation or novelty.

For God's sake, do we really need Ridley Scott's Monopoly-- The Movie of The Game?

It's my guess that, given the ease of distribution via the internet, and plummeting costs of making a movie in the first place (making a cheap movie I mean-- as cheap movies become cheaper, the regular big-budget studio picture explodes in price), we'll see more and more micro-studios pop up, offering low-budget movies (but made by veterans who aren't idiots) offering more "alternative fare," and alternative will usually mean "featuring adults or adult themes." The actor Michael Biehn (Aliens, Terminator) was talking about this sort of thing on Adam Carrola. Although it was a TV show rather than a movie, "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia" illustrates this idea -- if your budget is low enough, you have the liberty to do whatever you like, and you might just wind up making something that hasn't been seen sixty three thousand times before.

Posted by: Ace at 08:27 AM | Comments (349)
Post contains 1551 words, total size 10 kb.

Idiot.

In an interview with New York Times media reporter Bill Carter that appeared in Tuesday's editions, Costas said: "I think most reasonable people think we do not have sufficient controls on the availability of guns and ammunition."

So tell me, super-genius Bob Costas, what new law would have prevented this? It's not like he bought the gun that morning.

And speaking of that morning ...

The night before the killings, Perkins had attended a concert downtown with friends, and Belcher had “partied” at the Power and Light District, police said. It was unclear when they arrived home, where Belcher’s mother was watching their baby. A woman who answered Belcher’s mother’s cell phone Monday declined to comment.

Detectives donÂ’t know what specifically sparked the argument between the couple at home, but a friend of Perkins told The Star that the couple argued around 1 a.m. Saturday when Perkins returned home from the Trey Songz concert and drinks with friends afterward. Belcher was mad she had stayed out so late, the friend said.

Sometime later, Kansas City police talked with Belcher after finding him asleep in his Bentley on Armour Boulevard. Officers determined he was able to drive himself home. Police believe he arrived home about 7 a.m., well before a 9:30 team meeting. ThatÂ’s when the yelling began.

Police said youth, immaturity and financial pressures served as a backdrop. During his college years, Belcher allegedly punched a dormitory window because he was upset over a woman.

Autopsies with toxicology tests were performed on both bodies, but results will take weeks, police said. Investigators believe alcohol may have played a role in the argumentÂ’s escalation.

Police recovered several legally owned guns from BelcherÂ’s home. Investigators were testing each one, and the gun found with BelcherÂ’s body, against shell casings and bullets they recovered.

"Investigators believe alcohol may have played a role in the argumentÂ’s escalation." Shocking, right?

Maybe Costas should call for booze control too.

Posted by: andy at 07:51 AM | Comments (250)
Post contains 338 words, total size 2 kb.

• Looks Like Disney Plans To Destroy What's Left Of The Star Wars Brand Name
  
• Some Dem Lawmakers Refocus On Gun Control In Wake Of Belcher Murder Suicide
  
• Belcher Spent Drunken Night With Another Woman Before Killing His Girlfriend
  
• Heartwarming News Of The Day, NYT Cutting More Jobs
  
• Nice Twitter Smackdown Of Piers Morgan
  
• Does This Look Like A Party Serious About Spending Cuts
  
• America Leads World In Energy Revolution
  
• Chris Christie Seeks 100% Reimbursement From FEMA For Sandy
  
• Details Of The HMS Bounty's Sinking During Sandy
  
• Kate Middleton Is Pregnant
  
• The Hobbit Is Getting Some Bad Reviews
  
• South Africa Decimated By One Party Rule
  
• Egyptian Newspapers and TV Stations Protest Islamic Constitution
  
• Japanese Nationalism Rises Ahead Of The Election
  

Follow me on twitter.

Or e-mail me tips at benaoshq at gmail.com

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 04:46 AM | Comments (480)
Post contains 139 words, total size 3 kb.

Happy Tuesday.

Ashley Judd is seriously exploring the possibility of running against Sen. McConnell in 2014.

Meanwhile, New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez denies that she's thinking about making a 2016 run for the presidency.

From the DOOM series, San Bernardino is seriously DOOOOOOOOOMED.

Iran claims that it seized another drone. Defense official says that all drones are "accounted for," which isn't actually a denial, and CNN paraphrases "whatever the Iranians claim to have, it is not an actively operating U.S. Navy drone," which isn't actually a denial either.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 02:52 AM | Comments (271)
Post contains 96 words, total size 1 kb.

Unshocker: Majority of Democrats Like Socialism

Okay that's not really a surprise  - the fact that 53% of Democrats view socialism positively seem rather low actually.

But who the hell are these 23% of Republican voters who loves themselves some socialism?!? Are they unclear on the concept or did they punch the wrong chad or something?

The Top 100 Baby Names of 2012

Posted by: Maetenloch at 06:00 PM | Comments (657)
Post contains 1118 words, total size 11 kb.

"This kid was bad news."

Gun culture?

[Update - Andy]: But wait, there's more ...

Angry about woman, Jovan Belcher punched out window, gashed hand in 2006 UMaine incident

(via Slublog)

Posted by: Ace at 04:30 PM | Comments (237)
Post contains 63 words, total size 1 kb.

Non-amicable.

"The top management team of FreedomWorks was taking a direction I thought was unproductive, and I thought it was time to move on with my life," Armey tells Mother Jones. "At this point, I don't want to get into the details. I just want to go on with my life."

In the email, Armey indicated that he wants nothing to do with FreedomWorks anymore. He asked that all user names, passwords, and security-related data created in his name be emailed to him by the close of business on December 4. He even insisted that FreedomWorks—"effective immediately"—was "prohibited" from using a booklet he authored. Was Armey's resignation a reaction to the recent election results? "Obviously I was not happy with the election results," he says. "We might've gotten better results if we had gone in a different direction. But it isn't that I got my nose out of line because we should've done better."

I like FreedomWorks but I did not approve of their decision to refuse to endorse anyone for President.

Really?

It seems very strange that an organization could simultaneously be so committed to the principle of limited government that they refuse to endorse Mitt Romney, and yet also be so lackadaisical about limited government that they would state, effectively, that Barack Obama's reelection is something they're just fine with.

I do think sometimes people have an egostical or cash-money interest in maximizing credibility on conservative principle, to the point where they effectively self-select out of any involvement in conservative achievements.

I can sit here all day and say "This person isn't conservative enough for my tastes; he falls short of my standard." And I suppose I could/would accrue a certain amount of credibility for doing so.

At the end of the day, though, what am I doing, aside from increasing my own cache and my own value?

Posted by: Ace at 04:17 PM | Comments (91)
Post contains 344 words, total size 2 kb.

Sorry, had one phone call after another.

Updated [DiT]: We'll make it a two-fer. MNF, Giants and Redskins.

I hate them both, so whatever.

Posted by: Ace at 03:41 PM | Comments (152)
Post contains 30 words, total size 1 kb.

The image was released as part of the stateÂ’s ninth supplemental discovery, and more documents could follow, ZimmermanÂ’s lawyers say.

By "supplemental discovery," I assume they mean that this was not released in the main discovery, but is only being released now because there has been an argument that this, in fact, helps make the defendants' case, whereas before they were taking the position that it was immaterial either way.

And as far as that last part -- immaterial? On what planet?

Prosecute this prosecutor.

Update: They previously released a grainy black and white photocopy of the picture in their main discovery.

Why? Why would they release the photocopy but not the best evidence (the actual picture)?

Because, of course, the best evidence makes it very clear that Zimmermann was pummeled whereas the black and white picture, being grainy, is open to a bit of interpretation. In the black and white picture, you can't tell his face is bloodied -- it just looks like the hair of his mustache and goatee.

Bring her up for bar review and discipline. And possibly prosecution. This is not a mistake; this is a clear decision to deny the defendant evidence that helps his case, to which he is legally entitled.

Thanks to Andy.

Posted by: Ace at 01:46 PM | Comments (282)
Post contains 242 words, total size 2 kb.

Involves fuse-cord and some light hamster cruelty. more...

Posted by: Ace at 01:34 PM | Comments (61)
Post contains 23 words, total size 1 kb.