Re[4]: Shockah's Time to Die Pitch: 1.0 posted by Martin

I always pictured her getting a call on Earth that her husband won’t be coming home. I find the story compelling because she needs to find a way to the prison and that seems like a huge hurdle to me. But, believe it or not, I don’t think we’re really speaking that different of a language here.

Are you saying the second act is mostly her journey there?

Not at all — this isn’t a road-trip movie in my mind either. The journey could be instantaneous, but it is a huge hurdle she needs to overcome to prove how fucking absolutely impossible-to-get-rid-of she’s going to be in getting her husband back in time for the regeneration (But we could make the trip back to Earth a balls-out, chased by the law and bad guys, running on fumes sort of thing. Or it could be the final break into the prison and pulling a big show to get the body out).

I mean, think about the Warden sitting on his lily white ass (figuratively, at least) up on a rock wondering how the hell he’s going to contain the massive prison riot he’s got, when suddenly the soon-to-be grieving widow that he thought he had contained with patronizing words over the space-phone shows up and taps him on the shoulder?

So, we still have the triangle. We still have her on the rock, she just doesn’t start there. And we can have her in communication with Okkervil before she heads out. I mean, what if Okkervil is losing control of the riot and he helps her get there?

Looking back, I think we were probably both saying things our way and reading things the other. For instance, in my first take on her I made her work for a space ship company just to give a nod towards solving this dilemma.

Of course, I also gave her a dominatrix and stripper roommate, so not everything I do is rational, even though I will defend those choices quietly to those who are interested because I had reasons. I swear, I had my reasons.

Honest to God, I thought I did this.

If we define back as “back to life” you did. If we define back as “back to Earth”, which is what I was getting at, then I don’t think it’s there. But then, I don’t think Earth figured at all into your concept, so that’s splitting hairs.

I think I gotta get working on my treatment. But first, let’s have a few more goes at the pitches. Whattcha think?

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Wednesday
Jun 27, 2007

Re[3]: Shockah's Time to Die Pitch: 1.0 posted by kza

Waitaminnit. When you say the struggle is getting there, you actually mean that the ship is just there in orbit, and the trouble is getting into the facility, not what I said below — is that right?

(I’m not totally taken with that, but that’s 100X better than what I thought you meant.)

Comments (0) — Category: communications

Wednesday
Jun 27, 2007

Re[2]: Shockah's Time to Die Pitch: 1.0 posted by kza

you have September Rose going to the Prison Planet to meet her husband. So, the struggle all takes place there.

Um, I always thought that was the whole idea. Remember when we were talking about it offline last year, and the idea of the power struggle between the three factions (September, Inmates, Warden)?

I picture her on Earth, and a large part of the struggle is getting there. And then getting back.

Are you saying the second act is mostly her journey there? If so, you’ll need to expand on that immensely. I don’t see that as a movie. No, that’s not true — it’s kind of a road movie, then. She goes X miles in space, meets someone or something. Goes another X miles, meets another someone or something. That may be a workable concept on its own, but I don’t see how it meshes with what we have of the Time to Die concept.

I say: okay, he can be brought back, but more importantly, can she get him? That’s the question we want to raise in people’s heads.

Honest to God, I thought I did this.

Comments (0) — Category: communications

Wednesday
Jun 27, 2007

Re: Shockah's Time to Die Pitch: 1.0 posted by Martin

First things first: iPhone.

Okay, that satisfies our Union of Bloggers and Hipsters June 2007 requirement. Now back to your regularly scheduled Spitball!

Not a bad first pitch. One very interesting thing that I just noticed: you have September Rose going to the Prison Planet to meet her husband. So, the struggle all takes place there. I picture her on Earth, and a large part of the struggle is getting there. And then getting back.

Overall, I do like your pitch, but as you mentioned it’s too long, and doesn’t really snap yet in my opinion.

I feel like so much real estate needs to be devoted to setting up the conflict that comes within the first ten minutes or so

I think that’s why we need to find a way to focus attention back on September Rose. Also, I think the hook isn’t in the idea of cheating death, but in the race to cheat death. So for me, ironically, the setup of the world holds little interest.

I say: okay, he can be brought back, but more importantly, can she get him? That’s the question we want to raise in people’s heads.

Okay — just my few thoughts. Please lay waste to my first attempt, and we’ll continue hammering away until it snaps and sparkles.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Tuesday
Jun 26, 2007

Burley's Time to Die Pitch: 1.0 posted by Martin

I have some things to say about yours, but I’ll post mine first and then we can cross-post about stuff. What worked, what didn’t, how to refine.

Oh, and for me? Think of this as Silkwood meets Speed. Doesn’t that jangle the WTF bone?

Here we go:

Six Months. September Rose hasn’t seen her husband in six months. He’s on rotation as a guard on a the prison planet. But during guard rotation, the prisoners riot and seize control of the facility. September’s husband is murdered.

Now she has seven days to get his body back to Earth in time for revivification — he can live again! After that, he’s gone for good. Problem is, the prisoner’s rule the rock, and nobody — especially not a mourning wife stuck on Earth — can get inside the gravity of the maximum security lock-down. His body is prisoner.

But the security officers who have already given up, and the prison planet management who won’t return her calls, and least of all the prisoners — one of whom seems to actually sympathize with her — have seen a woman like September Rose before. And nobody will keep her from retrieving her husband’s body in time to bring him back to life. Not until every moment is used. Not until it’s Time to Die.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Tuesday
Jun 26, 2007

Shockah's Time to Die Pitch: 1.0 posted by kza

Here’s my first try, and I’ve already failed, by the standards of the challenge: I’m pretty sure it’s too long, and there’s no blank meets blank statement. That’s what iterations are fer.

It also may seem strange, at first glance, that there’s no new information about the story. But again, that’s not what a pitch is. A pitch is an attempt to sell the idea of the story to someone who knows nothing about it. Or put it more bluntly, a pitch is an attempt to sell the sizzle, not the steak. It is not the place to tell the story — it’s simply the means to get your hook into someone so that they’ll want to read the story themselves (i.e., the screenplay).

Here’s my pitch:

What if death had a cure? What if there was a serum that you could inject into someone and, as long as they weren’t dead for more than an hour, they could come back to life, good as new? You could be with the one you love forever. September Rose has a love like that. He proposed to her on the moon, and they honeymooned aboard a personal starship, waking up each morning, literally amongst the stars.

But her husband has a job that keeps him away half the year: he works at a high-security prison on a desolate asteroid. Since no one can really die, the lifers here are more like forevers, and the stress of their existence is a simmering pot, always threatening to blow.

And then, the day September Rose arrives to pick her husband up, it does. And in the riot, he’s killed by one of the inmates. If his body is recovered, he can be revived… but the warden tells her: sorry, but I’m not sending in any more men, when the riot will burn itself out. My condolences.

Hell no. She escapes from the guards, arms herself, and ventures into the chaos of the rioting wing to get her husband’s body back and revive him within an hour. Little does she know that the body is being held by the man who killed him — the most dangerous murderer there. And he’s going to use the body as his ticket out of there.

Time to Die’s gonna be a tough one to pitch, I think, because I feel like so much real estate needs to be devoted to setting up the conflict that comes within the first ten minutes or so. To me, this feels even more like a tease than most pitches.

Then again, the pitchee — catcher? — doesn’t know that this is only the first ten or twenty minutes. But then again then again, it seems like a selling point that this is only the tip of the iceberg — that there’s more. How to get that across?

Comments (0) — Category: communications

Tuesday
Jun 26, 2007

Re [2]: Pitch by Example posted by kza

One thing he did well is make the reader / viewer complicit in the story. He says:

We’re gonna send him down to South America…

I think it could be a tricky strategy to do that, but it seems to have worked for him.

I don’t think that’s exactly what he’s doing here — it’s more like he’s speaking in the voice of Charlie’s church. It’s very difficult to translate into text — the use of quotations would make it more confusing — but I think it’s clear when you hear it.

Comments (0) — Category: communications

Monday
Jun 25, 2007

Re: Pitch by Example posted by Martin

I think that pitch is excellent. I think it totally carries through to reading, but I’m curious how his voice and energy made it better in person. And if Carrie Fisher didn’t snark at him, it must have been amazing.

One thing he did well is make the reader / viewer complicit in the story. He says:

We’re gonna send him down to South America…

I think it could be a tricky strategy to do that, but it seems to have worked for him.

As Shockah knows, I’ve been working on pitches lately, trying to hone the craft of them. I’ll have one for Time To Die up soon.

Comments (0) — Category: communications

Friday
Jun 22, 2007

Pitch by Example posted by kza

Here’s the pitch I was talking about in my last post. The pitch is by Andrew Hunt, and he was given the logline, “A priest meets the woman of his dreams before he is to be ordained.” I’m curious to see what you think, Burley. (I’m assuming that you haven’t seen the show.) Does it work only as text? Or does it need the excellent delivery to really make it sing? (As judge Carrie Fisher remarked aftewards, “You inspire confidence by being so confident.”)

Here it is, pretty much verbatim:

Charlie Potts has been raised through the Catholic Church in Boston, Massachusetts. This guy is gonna be the next big bishop — hell, this guy might be the first American Pope. We’re gonna send him down to South America, have him work at a missionary before we ordain him. But there’s this one girl, her name is Alex and she’s a pilot. She flies in and brings in cargo and supplies for this missionary. And what happens is Charlie and Alex start to develop this relationship. She’s wild, she’s crazy, she’s everything that he’s not. She’s teaching him things like how to dance for the first time, how to take shots of tequilia. And finally it’s getting to the point where he’s falling in love with this woman. All of a sudden it starts raining. Raining for one day, two days, three days, four days — boom! A levee breaks. A flood comes in and just rips through this village, Alex and Charlie are trying to grab all the different people and get them to higher ground. And as they’re doing it, they get separated. Next day, stops raining, everything is calm. On the roof, he sees Alex, she’s passed out, or she’s dead. He’s looking up, saying, “I have never asked you for anything, but I’m asking you for one thing right now.” And finally she coughs up water, she’s alive. We’re now in Boston, Massachusetts. A huge church. And we see Charlie standing there, about ready to get ordained. But then we pull back to see that it’s actually a wedding. We’re out.

Total time (assuming nothing was edited out in the broadcast; it looked “whole” to me): 1 minute, 13 seconds. Word count: 263.

I’ll provide some commentary on this pitch later. Right now, I’m more interested in what you (and the readers) have to say.

Anyway, I gots to get working on me own pitch…

Comments (0) — Category: communications

Thursday
Jun 21, 2007

RE: I challenge thee! posted by kza

Dude — it’s like you’re reading my mind. Like, trippy. I just picked up “Selling Your Story in 60 Seconds: The Guaranteed Way to Get Your Screenplay or Novel Read” from the library, for crying out loud.

I’ve been thinking about pitches for a couple weeks now, ever since the debut episode of On The Lot, that new reality show/director contest thingy. (Show’s crap, btw; it started off well, but they kept changing the format and, incredibly, skipping stuff — at the end of one episode, the contestants are given an hour to direct a one-page script, and then we never hear about it again. WTF?) Anyway, in the first episode, the contestants are given one of four loglines to build a one-minute pitch around, and after some remarkably embarrassing attempts, this one dude gets up and just throws one straight down the plate, 100 mph.

(See what I did there? I literalized the phrase “pitch”. Comedy gold!)

I have the episode saved so that I could transcribe his pitch — it really was terrific. And between that, and a book Burley and I talked about offline a few weeks back, “Made to Stick: Why Some Ideas Survive and Others Die” , I’ve become interested in the idea of simplicity, and how it applies to screenwriting. And the most direct way it applies is the pitch.

Burley and I haven’t really thought much about pitches, generally speaking. (Or if he has, he hasn’t been telling me.) I suspect that, for me at least, the main reason is a kind of artistic snobbery. Pitches are what those slick, know-nothing Hollywoof types do, right? It couldn’t have anything to do with art and film, could it?

Yet, I’m beginning to believe that they have everything to do with art and film. No, not every kind of film — pitches would seem kinda meaningless for a Brakhage piece, and maybe even certain David Lynch films. But that’s not what we’re trying to do here at Spitball!. I think the ideal here is for something that hits two targets that are rarely hit together: mainstream and smart. And in order to hit that first one, the pitch is absolutely necessary. Nearly every movie that’s considered mainstream (and I imagine quite a few that are considered smart) began life as a pitch. So we’ll begin there as well.

But what is a pitch, exactly?

A pitch is both an idea for a movie and the attempt to sell said movie — “sell” in this case meaning to persuade an audience that your idea is a good one. The pitch itself tells you just enough about the main character, what they want, what kind of obstacles they might face, and most importantly, why the hell you should care. This last one is key. Everything in the pitch is completely worthless if you can’t make the audience care about the main character. (Which is what makes the pitch so tricky — you don’t have time to go into detail about the protagonist’s dead dog. Time is running out! Press A! Press A!)

Note again that the pitch is just the idea for a movie — although the pitch might be based on a completed work, it will only communicate the bare essentials. It’s likely that the pitch will never detail the obstacles, or the name of the protagonist, or even how the story ends. (Note: our Time to Die pitches will include the ending.) It’s understood that the pitch will only bear a passing resemblance to the finished screenplay, in the same way a TV Guide entry only kinda looks like the real movie. There’s always going to be a sense of “yeah, but…” about the enterprise. That’s normal. Go with it.

In fact, I’m starting to think that a lot of “blank space”, so to speak, is a pitch’s secret weapon. Since a pitch is by definition just a sketch, there’s a lot of room for the listener to mentally inhabit the idea, either by imagining the rest herself, or just by enjoying the unresolved tension created by the idea. For example, I really love the idea of Fred Claus: Santa’s bitter older brother is forced to move to the North Pole. The contrast between the standard image of Saint Nick — jolly and goodhearted — with an older brother, who is probably an asshole (it’s Vince Vaughn!) — is just delicious. I have no idea if the actual movie will live up to these expectations it’s created in me, but that’s not the point — the point is to create the expectations in the first place.

(OT: Santa is gonna be played by Paul Giamatti!? Holy shit!)

Now, most pitches (barring the bad ones that go into too much detail) have blank space anyway. But I’m wondering: is there a way to, I don’t know, maximize the blank space payout? A way to create expectations, only, y’know, better? I don’t know, but it’s something I’m going to think about when writing the Time to Die pitch.

Comments (0) — Category: technique

Thursday
Jun 21, 2007

RSS feed update posted by Martin

If you’re reading this via RSS, we’ve updated our feed to go through FeedBurner — please update your list to this address: http://feeds.feedburner.com/hellbox/UTIU

We thank you. We’re working on full-length feeds for those who would like to read them that way.

Other possible titles for this post: The Feed, the Feed, the Feed is on Fire. Or, Feed me, Daddy!

We’re making some other changes too. Have any you want? Fire ‘em off in the forums.

Comments (0) — Category: communications

Thursday
Jun 21, 2007

I challenge thee! posted by Martin

Mr. Shockah — I throw down the gauntlet. You must (as will I) come up with a Hollywood Elevator Pitch (H.E.P.) for Time to Die. It must not be more than one minute to recite out loud, and it must include a blank meets blank statement.

Such as: It’s Steel Magnolias meets Tootsie.

I think it will help frame how we see this movie we’re writing. What say ye, cad?

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Wednesday
Jun 20, 2007

Time for Time To Die: Update Edition posted by Martin

For those of you who may be new here, and are too busy or lazy to read our archives (as I myself sometimes am), let’s get caught up.

Shockah and I came up with 50 story synopsis, and then whittled it down to a single idea that we are going to write. That idea was inspired by the kick-ass Charlotte Hatherley (who has just released a great new album, by the way) song called Kim Wilde. The original concept was this:

In a World where death itself is beaten by genetic regeneration, a guard is killed during a riot on the prison planet. One woman—his wife—faces sure death to retrieve his body in time to bring him back to life. It’s a race against time, with one nearly resourceless woman willfully fighting like a juggernaut against the prisoners who are holding his body hostage, and the powers that be that think she should just give up. All to simply save the man she loves from eternal death.

We talked about this idea a lot during intervening posts before it was picked the winner. A lot of that is meta-discussion, but here I’ll link to posts where we actually expand on the story ideas:

During the second heat, I expanded on the story, and named the protagonist: September Rose St. Germain.

Shockah introduced us to the antagonist James Crowley Okkervil in his second-heat expansion on the story.

Which brings us to Shockah’s rough first treatment of the story.

If you read those three posts, you will literally know everything we do about the world of the movie. Where to now? I owe Shockah, and you, gentle reader, a treatment of the script. One I had written got flushed away accidentally, so I’m starting it again, and hopefully it will be up soon. I’ve also started a new category called ‘Time to Die’ where you can track the progress from here on out, now that we have a story picked. If we’re good, we’ll also put it in the ‘the screenplay’ category, so if you’re looking at this by category, you can follow along nicely.

Free to You

Just a reminder that we’re releasing this entire thing, as well as the story ideas we’ve already written and the script we’re about to, into the public domain. This script is your script, this script is my script. Although we’re going to write the version we want, take it and remix and rewrite and do what you will. Just leave comments in the forum and let us know, would’ya?

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Wednesday
Jun 20, 2007

Bad Idea Jeans, er, I Mean, Screenwriting Books posted by kza

Here’s the title of a screenwriting book aimed at young people:

Here’s the opening line:

“Who wants to be a millionaire? If you answered “I do!” this could be the book for you.”

Um, yeah.

No need for a love of film, or of craft, or anything like that. It’s all about the benjamins, baby.

(do people still say that?)

Comments (0) — Category: books

Tuesday
Jun 19, 2007

Fictional posted by Martin

I’ve been writing a lot of short fiction lately. While we’ve read a million books on how to write screenplays, and worked a lot of drafts into one form or another, the fact remains that a good story is a good story. Some stories are right for certain mediums, and some are better for others.

Screenplays are not, in my opinion, the medium for ideas. They are the medium for experiences. I don’t like movies that try to make me think — not because I don’t like to think, but because movies that try to make you think usually have an agenda about how you should think. They are trying to teach you something.

Unless an audience comes to us and asks to be taught, who the hell are we to assign ourselves as teachers? What makes me think that a member of the audience who believes differently than me will change their mind because I manipulate them with images and sound?

Which is not to say that films can’t raise issues and deal with themes — but films should let you experience something and draw your own conclusions from it. I don’t like films that try to make me think — I like films that make me think. The films that do leave things open. They don’t tie off every plot line neatly, they don’t sacrifice ambiguity for resolution. They let people maintain some of their human failings.

Short fiction, on the other hand, is a great medium for ideas. It’s a medium of questions. One story I wrote recently started with the question “What if foot binding hadn’t been outlawed in China, and in fact had caught in as a fashion craze in the US?” Is it so unrealistic, thinking about other things women do in the name of beauty? What about things men do in the name of chastity and controlling women?

In a short story, I was able to deal with that issue in a way that was actually very concrete and based on action, but would have been totally unsuitable for the screen.

So how do you know which medium to express an idea in? I always base it on the first flash I have. Do I see a scene, or do I see a question? If it’s the former, then it’s a screenplay idea. If it’s the latter, it’s a literary idea. I capture the idea in my little notebook and then when I’m digging for things to write, see if it sparks me.

Or, as is sometimes the case, see if I can stop thinking about it. If I can’t, time to get writing.

Comments (0) — Category: inspiration

Tuesday
Jun 19, 2007

Man vs. Wild -- No, Really posted by kza

No, this isn’t about the so-called three kinds of conflict. I’m literally talking about a new show on the Discovery channel, Man vs. Wild. There’s this British guy with the wonderful name of Bear Grylls who is dropped into some harsh territory, like the Alaskan mountain range or the Costa Rican rainforest, and he attempts to survive and make it back to civilization, usually with no more than a water bottle, some flint, and the clothes on his back. Obviously, he (and his camera crew) make it every time, but it’s always pretty gripping.

But why should it be? Again, it’s not like Mr. Grylls is going to die on camera, and if you watch the editing closely, the way the shots jump from the crew’s camera to Gryll’s personal camera, it’s clear that, while what we’re seeing isn’t necessarily staged, there’s some typical reality-show-style trickery going on. (Hey, Bear’s swimming down those rapids, but we just saw him talking to his camera and now the camera isn’t there!) I don’t mean this as a criticism, either; this stuff is what makes the show work. But while in other shows, these kinds of shots stick out like a sore thumb, I’m nearly always swept away (no pun intended) by the show. Again, why?

After watching four episodes, I think I figured it out — the show, while maintaining a documentary feel, uses the time-tested three-act structure. After Grylls is dropped into the wilderness, he’s faced with a series of obstacles to overcome, and they steadily build to a climax. Each obstacle is discrete, with a clear set-up of the problem and a clear resolution. While it’s a given that, with no food, he’s very hungry, this only comes into play during the “scene” where he tries to find something to eat. More often than not, there’s some kind of reversal, especially between “acts” two and three. In the Mount Kilauea episode, in the first act, he crosses a lava field, to make it to, in act two, a rainforest that he thinks will lead him to the shore, only to discover, at the beginning of act three, that he has another lava field to cross, only this one is jagged like glass. In the Sierra Nevada episode, he happens across some wild horses, and actually tries to snag one with a rope made from a vine. Of course, this fails, but a story wouldn’t be a story without some setbacks. In two of the four I’ve seen, the last obstacle is a body of water between him and some kind of indicator of civilization — a house or a road. I mean, that’s basic visual storytelling right there.

This use of three-act structure in a documentary form isn’t completely unheard of. While we usually think of documentaries as something unmediated, an account of stuff that “just happens” (despite all the work that goes into getting the shots and editing them together) I can think of two documentaries that brazenly adopt the three-act structure to great returns: Capturing the Friedmans and The Times of Harvey Milk. Is the use of the three-act structure “cheating”? Is placing all the events of your documentary in such of way that rising action and tension are created — is that manipulative? I’m not sure. Yeah, Frederick Wiseman wouldn’t approve, but it’s hard to dismiss the power it creates.

All in all, it’s a great show, but if it makes me think anything, it’s: goddamn, I wish I’d seen the Moab Desert and Mount Kilauea episodes before I started writing the novella of Little Black Stray. The drama of it is just right there for the taking. I might even finished the stupid thing by now.

Comments (0) — Category: inspiration

Monday
Jun 18, 2007

Re[2]: Babies and Jobs posted by Martin

And I say, before we take another extended break, we have a first draft, however rough, completed. What say you, Burley?

I say yes. Good plan.

Last night we watched The Day of the Locust. Man, they would never make a movie like that today. Does anybody else wonder if the climax inspired Spike Lee and Do the Right Thing?

Comments (0) — Category: communications

Monday
Jun 18, 2007

RE: Babies and Jobs posted by kza

Hello everyone, and welcome back!

Yes, it’s true — I have a spawn. You can track her growth on a new blog I set up, The Laura M. Beeson of Western Civilization. (Oh, and while there is one picture of the Beard of Grand Proportion, I trimmed it down severely a few days ago — Mrs. Shockah demanded it.)

While time has become a serious constraint for both Burley and myself, we really can’t afford to remain motionless any longer. So, to that end, we’ll be putting up at least one post a day. And I say, before we take another extended break, we have a first draft, however rough, completed. What say you, Burley?

I’d say more, but the baby is waking up. Forward! One way or another!

Comments (0) — Category: communications

Sunday
Jun 17, 2007

Babies and Jobs posted by Martin

Hi there. I’m Burley Grymz. I have a day job.

That guy over there? That’s Shockah, and he and his wife made one of those really cute loud things that makes life worth living for. He also is growing a beard of grand proportion, that fits him very well.

That’s our excuse. Babies and Jobs. But the only thing worse than excuses is reading them. So, now the excuses stop. And this is a notice, for your attention, that Spitball! is officially open for business again. We’ve got a damn screenplay to write, and that’s just what we’re going to do.

So we hope you’ll join us as we get things revved up again. We may find the engine needs lube, but we’ll keep turning until it catches. We must make our babies proud, despite our jobs.

Forward!

(and Happy Father’s Day, Shockah! The first of very many…)

Comments (0) — Category: communications

Monday
Jan 22, 2007

Look Ma, I'm Blogging posted by kza

Sorry ‘bout the lack of updates, folks — we be busy. But that’s the great thing about blogs — why bother to write something original when you can just link to something else?

Check out some really great posts by screenwriter John August, at his blog:

How To Write A Scene

and

Scribble version, final version

(Admittedly, these are, like, weeks old, but good info and advice never goes out of date.)

I’ll see if I can scare up a conversation about these posts with Burley.

Comments (0) — Category: inspiration

Friday
Dec 29, 2006

Time to Die: The Treatment: Bare Bones Edition posted by kza

So consider this the first shot across the bow of the U.S.S. Time To Die.

Note the First: Consider the following to be the equivalent of a four-track demo. Just a laying down of ideas that will get changed, fleshed-out, and more-or-less prettified by the time of their official debut. Despite the seeming completeness of the treatment (and the fact that I like it quite a bit), nothing here is sacred. If something isn’t clicking with one of us, it will be replaced with something that clicks for both of us.

Note the Second: These aren’t scenes. Something straightforward like “September finds a mass grave of charred bones” could take up fifteen seconds of screen time or ten minutes (assuming you are, in fact, Bela Tarr). It’s just a “story unit”, a piece of information that’s required for the story to make some sort of sense. And, despite the number of story points provided here, I don’t consider this complete.

Note the Third: The general approach here is looking at the story from the protagonist’s POV, which particular emphasis on what makes achieving her goals difficult. The final story will present all the characters as independent movers, with goals, subplots, quirks, etc. However, this entry just isn’t the place for those things. I expect that we will write different versions of this treatment from the POV of different characters later in the process.

Note the Fourth: More specifically, this story happens with a prison riot in the background. It’s assumed that there is a back-and-forth power struggle between the guards and the prisoners that isn’t resolved until the end. The treatment doesn’t go into the specific actions by each party — I figure that’s for later. Related to this: Burley and I never decided the exact nature of the prison (an entire planet? Just a part? Enclosed? Or free-roaming prisoners?), and while the treatment is arranged around the vague idea of “this part is enclosed prison, this part is not”, I’d like to think what’s here is malleable enough to encompass whatever we decide the prison actually is.

Note the Final: Readers — this is your chance to really have some say on the story. Don’t like something I’ve suggested here? Think it’s too obvious, too stupid, too something? Let us know.

Time to Die: A Bare Bones Treatment

The Cast So Far

September Rose St. Germain, protagonist, director of marketing at Tangenilent and martial arts enthusiast
James Crowley Okkervil, imprisoned murderer and charismatic leader
Rand Bejar, prison warden and poet
“Preach”, good friend of Okkervil and wasting away in solitary
Guy St. Germain, prison guard and dead body
Dr. Westfall, prison doctor and pioneer in the use of the revivication serum

The Story Points

Guy St. Germain is killed during a prison riot at the Wellington Correctional Facility, a.k.a. “The Well”.
September Rose St. Germain is alerted. Their insurance covers a new process: revivication from the dead, provided the head is intact, there isn’t too much tissue damage, and it’s used within a short time window. She packs up and leaves to go be with him when he’s revived.
She arrives, but the Warden tells her that the prisoners are holding the body and they won’t be able to retrieve it in the allotted time; her husband will die.
She gets her insurance money and is ushered off the planet.
On the ship home, she steals an emergency shuttlecraft and heads back to the planet.
The prison security system shoots down the ship and she crashes on the planet.
While trying to avoid the guards, she is captured by Okkervil and his men. She learns that Okkervil instigated the riot because of the Warden’s treatment of his friend Preach.
Okkervil contacts the Warden, using September as a bargaining chip; they set up a reendezvous point.
On their way to the reendezvous point, September escapes.
September finds a mass grave of charred bones.
September is captured by the guards.
September is taken back to the Warden, who detains her.
September meets friendly Dr. Westfall, who is responsible for administering the revivication serum. He demonstrates the serum on a dead guard, going over the exacting process.
September discovers that the prisoners are going to burn the husband’s body, rendering revivication impossible.
September asks for the Warden’s help in getting her husband’s body back; he refuses.
September arms herself, steals some of the serum, and goes into the prison by herself.
When the Warden discovers September missing, he sends guards after her. He tells one guard to make sure September dies in the crossfire.
September comes face-to-face with the prisoners who have her husband’s body.
September discovers the prison’s secret and reason for the riot: they torture the prisoners to death and then revive them.
The guards find them and start shooting.
The prisoners think September has suckered them, so they set the body on fire.
September is unable to get to the body, and just barely escapes from both the guards and the prisoners.
Okkervil has the real body, however, hidden somewhere — they burned the body of someone else.
She returns to the prison to give herself up.
She is brought to the Warden, and he kills her.
September wakes up; she’s been revived by Dr. Westfall.
Dr. Westfall explains that she knows too much, so she is going to be reported killed after she crashed the emergency shuttle. Since there are no female prisoners, she will make a fine test subject for his experiments.
September manages to free herself and kill Dr. Westfall. She takes a few vials and destroys the rest of the supply.
Okkervil is captured and brought to the Warden.
Before the Warden can do anything to Okkervil, September takes the Warden hostage. Having destroyed the supply of serum, her threat to kill the Warden is taken seriously.
September, with the Warden in tow, makes her way to the shuttle dock, but Okkervil reveals that her husband’s body hasn’t been destroyed. He’ll take her to the body if they release Preach.
They use the Warden to release Preach from solitary and shut off the anti-aircraft security system.
September wants to go to the shuttle dock, but Okkervil tells her they’ll be waiting for them there. Instead, he reveals that he’s sent a signal for an escape ship to land outside the prison.
All four of them get out of the prison and recover Guy’s body.
Okkervil discovers that the Warden is wearing a some kind of device underneath his clothes.
The Warden tells September that Okkervil is the one who shot her husband.
September puts a gun to Okkervil’s head, and asks him to deny it. He doesn’t. But she can’t bring herself to kill him.
They find Okkervil’s escape ship but it’s being used by other prisoners (Okkervil’s men?)
They fight off the other prisoners to get to the escape ship, but during the fight, September drops the serum bottles, and only one survives.
The Warden escapes during the chaos.
Okkervil is grievously wounded during the fight and dies.
The other prisoners gain control of the escape ship and leave September, Okkervil, and Preach behind.
September is about to revive her husband, but Preach begs her to revive Okkervil instead.
September revives Okkervil.
Okkervil figures out that the Warden keeps a new-fangled serum-administering device attached to himself at all times; they return to the prison to take it from him.
The Warden makes it back and orders his men to unleash poison gas to finish off all the prisoners once and for all. He keeps this order even when informed that all the serum has been destroyed.
September, Okkervil, Preach, and the body arrive back at the prison. Preach offers to guard the body while Okkervil and September go to get the Warden.
The prisoners in Okkervil’s escape ship fight over the controls, and they crash into the prison.
The prison is now on fire, and threatens to crumble/blow up at any point.
Dr. Westfall, alive and well due to the serum device strapped to his chest, finds Preach and the body; Preach is killed by trying to keep the body away from Westfall.
The explosions separate Okkervil and September from each other; only Okkervil can get the serum from the Warden.
September goes back to make sure the body is okay.
The Warden and Okkervil face off, during which, the Warden reveals that he’s killed all of the prisoners.
Okkervil stabs the Warden, and the Warden kills Okkervil by throwing him off a building, but not before Okkervil rips the revivication device off him. The Warden bleeds to death.
September finds Dr. Westfall with the body.
September and Westfall face off — Westfall has used the dose of his serum, and September has none, so they know that one of them will die for real this time.
September kills Westfall, beheading him.
The poison gas starts spreading through the prison, and September has to avoid it.
September drags her husband’s body through the amok prison to get outside.
She makes it outside where she discovers Okkervil’s body with the revivication device. She takes it. The window for revivication is down to minutes.
She straps the device on Guy, but it’s damaged.
She works fast to remove the serum from the device and attempts to administer it the best she can, following as much of Westfall’s instructions as she can.
It looks like she failed, but then Guy opens his eyes.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Friday
Nov 03, 2006

Re[3]: National Novel Writing Month posted by kza

By my count, that’s 393 words you wrote about not writing 100 words.

Well, please note that none of those words had anything to do with plot, character, atmosphere, all that jive. If writing novels (or at least, what I consider to be a novel) was no different than, say, talking on the phone, I’d be set. I’d be Nicholson Baker.

That’s why a difficult deadline helps — there’s no time to pay heed to that voice.

Don’t let your fingers slow down to it. Just write. Even if it sucks and you know it, just write. Even if you don’t know where the characters are going, just write.

I really wish it worked like that for me. But it doesn’t. Especially in this case, where I’ve set up much harder goals for myself. Luckily, I think I have figured out what’s going to work for me, but even though I may finish the novel, I’m not sure I’ll finish NaNo.

Anyway, based on what you’ve posted so far, you’ve got nothing to complain about. I’m already hooked. I think it rocks.

Thanks. That’s appreciated.

Comments (0) — Category: communications

Friday
Nov 03, 2006

Re[2]: National Novel Writing Month posted by Martin

By my count, that’s 393 words you wrote about not writing 100 words.

In my view, NaNoWriMo is about learning to turn off the voice that is letting those doubts in. There will always be doubts, but critiquing a piece of writing before you write it (or critiquing your abilities to write before you write it) is cart-before-horse territory. That’s why a difficult deadline helps — there’s no time to pay heed to that voice.

Don’t let your fingers slow down to it. Just write. Even if it sucks and you know it, just write. Even if you don’t know where the characters are going, just write.

If you’re not sure what to write, follow the advice of my brother-in-law who told me to always find the bass-line in avant jazz when you don’t know what’s happening. Find the bass-line in your protag and start writing about that for awhile.

Too bad you’re not writing a post-modern meta novel. Your 393 words here could count towards your daily total.

Anyway, based on what you’ve posted so far, you’ve got nothing to complain about. I’m already hooked. I think it rocks.

Comments (0) — Category: communications

Thursday
Nov 02, 2006

Re: National Novel Writing Month posted by kza

Well, NaNoWriMo is a bitch this year. It’s only the second day, and I’m not going to make the 2000 word count — in fact, right now I’m just trying to put down enough words to bring my total to two standard days’ worth (3,334) and even though I’m only about a hundred words short, I’m not even sure I’m gonna make that.

Part of me is wondering if taking on Little Black Stray was such a good idea — part of the point of NaNoWriMo is to start a novel with absolutely no idea what it’s about or where it’s going to go, and clearly I’ve side-stepped that. I don’t know if I feel particularly weighted down by having some concepts worked-out (or at least pencilled-in) but this does create a kind of “fenced-in” mentality — here are the characters and concepts, and stray beyond them if you dare.

But still, that’s more a question of will and nerve than anything else. No, right now the big problem is realizing, once again, that I’m not a novelist. The canvas is just too big. It’s difficult to figure out just what I should be writing at any given moment — when you have the choice of describing what’s actually happening at that particular second in the story, or what happened five years ago, or what a character is thinking, or the shape and texture of a bed, or a million other different things… well, that’s too many choices for me.

If anything, I’m a dramatist, which is a completely different thing. I’m used to present tense and conflict. I’m used to imagining something happening now, something that I could witness right in front of me. I could use present tense in the novel, but it just feels wrong. And while conflict is the essence of drama, a novel can, for a good portion of its page count, get away without conflict altogether. In fact, I’d say that a lot of my favorite fiction is filled with pages of either mood or interesting information. Yes, I could go ahead and write the novel like I might write a screenplay or stageplay, but then I wonder, What would be the point? Isn’t the idea to write, you know, a novel?

Okay, ‘nuff ranting for now. I gotta try and get these last hundred words down.

Comments (0) — Category: communications

Thursday
Nov 02, 2006

National Novel Writing Month posted by Martin

Both Shockah and I are knee deep in our favorite November activity: NaNoWriMo. Shockah’s writing a novelization of Little Black Stray, and I’m doing a non-Spitball! story that is also a novelization of one of our script ideas, titled Third Eye.

To keep us honest, you can view our progress right here on Spitball! in this very post. Here is the current live word count for Shockah (NaNoWriMo user name kza):

Here are his in-depth stats.

And mine (NaNoWriMo username Mr. Lowry (Anybody? Get it? Too obvious?)):

And my in-depth stats.

We’re both shooting for 2000 words a day, a bit more than the needed 1700 or so, but I want to get ahead this time.

Anybody else doing NaNoWriMo this year? And refresh the page already, we may have updated our word count!

Comments (0) — Category: communications

Monday
Oct 30, 2006

re: Where Do We Go From Here posted by Martin

I too am happy with our final choice. It’s interesting how the option that I wasn’t the most passionate about is indeed the one I’m most excited about writing.

I like the idea of Points of Conflict, and I think we should incorporate that idea in our writing and outlining, but first I wonder if we shouldn’t do a brief one-page treatment each just to put some plot sketches on the table and see where we are.

At this point, I think it serves the story better to see it from the 10,000 foot elevation before we zoom down. Previously we’ve had character outlines that are not necessarily about the story itself. Let’s put some story on the table and see what happens.

Then, I would also like to have a discussion about mood and tone — what other movies feel the same? What’s the pace going to be like? I’m still all-for starting with a very violent opener where the husband gets snagged and killed. What say you?

Oh, and one last thing:

(apologies to the Alan Parsons Project, which I believe was some sort of hovercraft.)

Never apologize to the Alan Parsons Project. They should be apologizing to us.

Comments (0) — Category: communications

Friday
Oct 27, 2006

Where Do We Go From Here posted by kza

…now that all of the nominees have shrunk to one / and how do we spend our time, knowing we have to make something work?

(apologies to the Alan Parsons Project, which I believe was some sort of hovercraft.)

First, though, I want to mention how incredibly happy and relieved I was when we made our choice for the Spitball! Tourney of Story Ideas. I only mention it because the feelings of happiness and relief took me by surprise — sure, I expected to feel some relief, but I also expected to feel a little bit of buyer’s remorse, the sense that “yeah, we picked a good story, but…” This did not come to pass. Instead, I felt an enormous weight disappear from my shoulders, a weight that I wasn’t even cognizant of, and there was a definite thrill, a giddiness, instead of the expected “whew, that’s over with.” After thinking about it, I realized that unexpected excitement came from the fact that we picked the right story.

But that was then, this is now. We have some decisions to make about how to proceed. What is the first stage of development of Time To Die going to look like? Do we begin to outline the story in more detail? More character work? World-work? When do we know we’ve done enough to actually start writing the script?

Of course, we’ll need all of the above — outlines, character sketches, world details — before and/or during the actual writing. But where to start? What kind of Needlessly Complicated Rules do we want to use to creatively constrict ourselves?

Here’s my thought: As Grymz (and possibly anyone else reading this blog) knows, I have a thing, almost a neurosis, about plot. “What actually happens?” is my usual cry. I’m concerned about it because I consider it, rightly or wrongly, my weakest point. Often, I try to work this problem out ahead of time by coming up with all the events in the story, from the beginning to the inciting incident (or whatever we’re calling it these days) to the rising action and all that all the way to the end. But as I’ve found out the hard way, a simple creation and recitation of Things That Happen In The Story simply doesn’t work. It reads flat. It’s missing something.

What’s missing is both character and conflict. Who is doing these things, why, and most importantly, what conflict caused these events come about?

As part of the process, I submit this idea: Points of Conflict.

A Point of Conflict is a sentence that describes how a character comes into (duh) conflict with one or more characters, or an inhuman obstacle (like a mountain or a storm). It doesn’t immediately resolve the conflict, although there can be a clear suggestion as to the outcome of the conflict. Points of Conflict are not scenes, however. The point of writing a scene is to answer the implied question of the PoC, and potentially set up the circumstances regarding the next PoC.

An example: “September Rose wants the Warden to release her husband’s body to her custody, but the Warden feels it’s too dangerous to try and get the body in the midst of the prison riot.”

Note that the PoC doesn’t immediately resolve the conflict, although there can be a clear suggestion as to its outcome. Nor are they scenes, per se — more like the seed of a scene. The point of writing a scene is to answer the implied question of the PoC, and potentially set up the circumstances regarding the next PoC.

The idea is to come up with as many of these as possible, put them in chronological/plot order, and have a kind of map of the story, expressed entirely through conflicts. This would not supplant a straight-ahead prose description of the story — that still seems necessary to me, at least to fill in blanks that might not be covered by a PoC list — and I see the list as continuously evolving; some PoCs would be discarded in favor of others. But it seems like a good way to capture potential good story ideas, especially ones that seem necessary or obvious but where it isn’t clear how they’d fit into the overall picture.

(Another example: While doing some preliminary work on my novelization of Little Black Stray, I came up with a character, a Ted Bundy-esque serial killer, the dark side of Griff, the protagonist. This character will take over as the eldest of the prisoners when Geezer leaves, and is one of the primary reasons that Griff wants to protect and hide Kamara. So how the fuck do I not include a scene where Kamara and this maniac are locked in a room together? I’m not sure at this point how to get there, but It’d be a betrayal of drama to avoid it.)

Anyway, while I don’t feel I’ve answered the question — Where do we go from here? — here’s a tool we could potentially use. What say you, Burley?

Comments (0) — Category: communications

Wednesday
Oct 25, 2006

Get Real posted by Martin

Both Shockah and I use 37 Signals products, and found their book Getting Real inspirational. They just released the complete book for free on the web, and in addition to the original PDF version, you can now buy a printed copy.

The focus is software design, but a lot of their advice translates to writing as well.

Here’s the HTML version for all to read.

Comments (0) — Category: inspiration

Tuesday
Oct 24, 2006

Behind the Music...er, 'In A World': Time to Die posted by Martin

Wherein we investigate the history of our winning idea, a dark horse that kept the race slow and steady while others surged or faltered.

I’m honored to write this post, as I am currently the first official Spitball! Employee of the Month. I’d like to thank Shockah, my peers, and the readers who read what we write, which would be you right now, eh? I’m very much looking forward to my doughnut reward.

So, Time to Die: It made its nameless debut on January 21, 2006 as part of our synopsis inspired by random songs. The song that inspired this story is Charlotte Hatherly’s brilliant twisted pop masterpiece ‘Kim Wilde’, whose lyrics can be read to see if you can find the inspiration I somehow found in it. Mostly it was these lines:

I can feel my honey, oh yeah! Don’t fall under my wheels Run over, just like a juggernaut Oh yeah! send his body back to me

although there are others that led me to the story too. Here’s an iTunes link (full disclosure: we are an iTunes affiliate, but this link is not an affiliate link). I’m actually a little pleased with this story winning, because this song is one of my all time favorites. In a stroke of perfect pop irony, Charlotte Hatherley performed a duet of ‘Kids in America’ on Kim Wilde’s new album. We are, after all, kids in America.

Time to Die next appeared in a January 22 post, where it was titled and ranked (as Shockah mentioned, #10 for me). Shockah then voted (#6) for the story on January 23.

The initial playoff rounds were announced that same day, with Time to Die going up against a Shockah story called Reminiscence (#3 for me, #13 for Shockah).

Shockah delivered us a statistical analysis in which our winning story faired poorly, coming in at 12 out of 16.

We dug into the story first on February 12 with my pros and cons list in round six. Shockah offered up his on February 14.

We gave Reminiscence its fair due, at my insistence, in rounds 6.3 and 6.4, where both of us laid out potential plots for the story.

Shockah pushed a vote on February 18, voting (of course), for a story you all know now. I cemented its win later that same day.

Shockah named the Heat #2 stories, which were then ranked (mine and his) and Time to Die was pitted against Rasputin the Translator.

We picked up that round on April 11 with my character sketches. For Time to Die, I looked at Rose St. Germain, our protagonist. Shockah followed on April 24 with his character sketch of our antagonist, James Crowley Okkervil (bonus points for anybody guessing who Shockah was listening to at that time).

On April 24 I also posted to talk about a conversation Shockah and I had at a coffee shop about these ideas we had for Time to Die (and, I haven’t forgotten the essay yet, my friend). Shockah followed up with this post

On April 30th I had a crazy idea to enable both stories to move forward if they were so capable, and we discussed that idea at length.

Round 10 discussion on May 30, with the two stories once again pitted against each other. It continued, and continued and then we started to vote, and we both were in agreement that Rasputin and Time to Die should move forward.

Since the Summer and Fall have been slow around here, we decided to speed things up and just list our favorites in order, assign points based on order and then let the winner win. We had six semi-finalists, and after Shockah cast his votes, and I cast mine, pushing Time to Die into the winners circle.

Thanks for coming along on this whistle-stop tour. We hope Time to Die will make a fun story to watch progress on.

Comments (0) — Category: communications

Monday
Oct 23, 2006

Time To Eat Sugary Fried Dough posted by kza

You are the Spitball! Employee of the Month. I owe you donuts.

(Bonus trivia: the winning story idea was ranked #6 by me and #10 by you.)

Comments (0) — Category: communications

Monday
Oct 23, 2006

Burley Grymz votes with a rhyme posted by Martin

I read your post first, but I promised myself it wouldn’t make an impact on my voting. Am I right? You be the judge.

I asked myself which ones I really want to write. What I’m really excited about? Here’s my list: 6. The Atmospherist So yeah. My blog with Andre. This is where our rules and our head-butting encounter our patience. Guess which one won?

La Commune Planet Good concept — it made it this far, after all — but we’re confused about it, I think, and the work toward creating it would be arduous, I think. I would rather have ardor.
Rasputin the Translator I love this story. It’s a novel, not a screenplay.
The Scabs I love this story. It’s a novel not a screenplay. I think I am going to attempt it as a novel.

Shit. Now I have a touch choice. I can tie us, or I can cast a vote that will put a clear winner in office and we will be on our way to writing. And writing this, I realize I know how I’m going to vote…

Little Black Stray Sad to say, I love this story too fucking much to write it and release it into the public domain. I want to own it. Plus, I think Shockah will rock the motha in NaNoWriMo. Steve: do with it what you will, sir. I would like to read your version too. Which means:
Time to Die Wins. This story is one I love and am interested in, but feel good about placing online for all to have. Out of all the ideas, though, the core of this one has never wavered, always been clear, and we’ve always agreed on it. I understand the motivation, it’s not overly tricky, and would make a solid action piece. I think we’ll be able to nail it, both the action side, and the character side. I’m thinking of Pitch Black in terms of pace and feel, but that’s a conversation we’ll start having now.

So, for the tally conscious, here’s the final points spread:

Atmospherist: 2 points La Commune Planet: 4 points Scabs: 7 points Rasputin: 7 points LBS: 10 points Time to Die: 12 points

Ladies and gentlemen — it’s only taken us 10 months. We have a winner. We will be writing Time To Die. Three cheers!

Comments (0) — Category: communications

Monday
Oct 23, 2006

Urban Shockah Votes With A Bullet posted by kza

I have a feeling this list would look different if I wrote it a day later, a day earlier, or even just at a different hour. An idea that sounds good in the morning looks uninspired in the evening, then looks fresh again the following day. So who knows what this list would look like a week from now? But as we have to check and see if the cat is dead or alive, the stories have to get slotted into an hierarchy. Here’s mine.

6. The Atmospherist. Basically, a joke entry. Potentially a good joke, or at least a fun joke, but I’m not feeling particularly funny today.

5. La Commune Planet. I like the idea of a cross-class comedy of unrequited love; I’m not sure this is the best place for it, ultimately. And right now, I’m wary of the challenges and hassles of “big concept SF” — a not very good name for the kinds of stories we’ve been coming up with, the really interesting world or concept (in this case, a Pleasure Planet that goes into revolt) that is waiting to be populated by characters, conflicts, and incidents. I’m looking for those kinds of things to be already there, up front and in my face.

4. The Scabs. And so The Scabs gets kind of a low rating as well, despite my fondness for the concept. As Grymz and I discussed offline, it’s a bit “thinky”, perhaps better suited for a novel — something that can accommodate all sorts of political and philosophical musings, while still telling a story. But a 120 page screenplay? Maybe, but I’m not ready for it yet.

3. Rasputin the Translator. I’ve surprised myself by ranking this one so high — IIRC, the last time we talked about it, we never came to terms as to what actually happens in this story. It’s still a pretty big blank slate. But we came up with some interesting characters (while keeping the Rasputin figure mysterious), and the basic situation is still intriguing. We’re still circling this one, and I smell gold at the middle — we just haven’t dug deep enough. (Mixd metaphorz rool)

2. Little Black Stray. Remember what I was saying about how capricious I could be about making this list? This was originally slotted at number one when I started this post, but I’ve had a change of heart. It’s still one of my all-time faves — in fact, I’m seriously considering using it as the base of my NaNoWriMo. I love the situation, the contrast between the hard machismo of the inmates and the soft, vulnerable woman, and the potential to flip those qualities. I really like my conception of the prison planet, and I like Grymz’s background for the woman, and the different plot twists that could come out of it. So why only #2? Well, I’m still having reservations about the prison planet itself — the “big concept SF” problem again — and how to incorporate that into the potentially explosive character relationships. And at any other time — like five minutes ago — it would’ve been #1 easily. But I feel like “up front and in my face” is the mood of the moment, and with that in mind…

1. Time to Die. One woman, one dead husband, one charismatic killer, one hard-assed warden, and one thousand rioting prisoners. See, the poster almost writes itself! I’m feeling this one is even more straight-forward than Little Black Stray — the goal of the protagonist is about as clearly defined as one would want — and isn’t as Big Concept as the others. (There’s a prison on a planet, and it’s the future so there’s lots of fancy gizmos, but there isn’t any real “paradigm shift” required on the part of the reader. If you know about prison movies, then you know about this story.) There’s still a lot to define here; there hasn’t been as much work done on it as Little Black Stray or even Rasputin for that matter. But with such a strong through-line (Woman wants to retrieve her husband’s dead body from rioting prisoners, and how do we make that hard for her each step of the way?), it seems like the ideal choice for this experiment.

Comments (0) — Category: communications

Monday
Oct 23, 2006

The semi-finalists posted by Martin

Herein lies the six stories that made it to the very end. My last post contained one mistake — I thought there were five stories. So, each story should be placed in order, and then assigned points based on their rank. #1 gets 6 points, #2 gets 5 points, and so on to #6 getting 1 point. Then we add them up and see where we are.

In any case, here are the six semi-finalists, listed in alphabetical order: The Atmospherist In a world where autistic youth believe they are not living on earth, one religion proves itself useless when the methane atmosphere changes into scientists. Also known as My Blog with Andre.

La Commune Planet In a world constructed for the pleasure of the ultra-rich, every vice can be had — for a price. But beneath the smiling exterior of the friendly staff, there lurks a growing resentment. When a group of ascetics destroy access to the planet’s hidden inter-dimensional gateway, the employees seize the chance to declare independence from the government and its backers. But as they take the profits and the pleasures for themselves, pressures and conflicting desires threaten to blow the planet to smithereens.

Little Black Stray In a World where violent male offenders are sent to labor camps on the remote prison planet, one crew of hardened men finds something impossible: a young woman in tattered clothes, mute and frightened. A small group protect and feed her, keeping her out of sight of the guards and away from those who would use her mercilessly. As she gains in strength it seems that she has an agenda — and the truth of what she was doing on a world where no women stepped before might be a big enough secret to shatter the whole planet of forced labor.

Rasputin the Translator In a World contacted by a sentient and potentially violent alien race, one man — bearded and wild eyed — is the only person on earth who can translate between the languages of humans and the language of the aliens. But this strange man is not only hostile to both sides of the debate, he is also untrustworthy, and possibly manipulating the negotiations to his own ends. With all of Earth being turned into a prison as the stakes, one government has a very limited time to not only unravel the mysteries of the alien language, but also the history of the interpreter.

The Scabs In a world designed by engineers to be a self-sufficient, endlessly exploitable resource for the rest of the known galaxy, robots toil tirelessly in the fields, the forests and the mountains, providing food and raw materials for a rapidly expanding market. But when a series of accidents destroys some of the mining robots, the rest of the metal workforce decide to strike and power off, leaving the humans that depend on the planet in the lurch. A taskforce is assembled to get the planet up and running again while a negotiator tries to get the robots back online. While the taskforce tries to relearn the long-forgotten principles of farming and manufacturing, the negotiator accidentally reveals the existence of the taskforce… and the robots, realizing that their existence could be usurped by the humans, decide to go on the offensive.

Time to Die In a World where death itself is beaten by genetic regeneration, a guard is killed during a riot on the prison planet. One woman — his wife — faces sure death to retrieve his body in time to bring him back to life. It’s a race against time, with one nearly resourceless woman willfully fighting like a juggernaut against the prisoners who are holding his body hostage, and the powers that be that think she should just give up. All to simply save the man she loves from eternal death.

Comments (0) — Category: communications

Sunday
Oct 22, 2006

Re: Two guys walk into a blog -- you'd think the second one would've ducked posted by Martin

Huh? What? Is this thing on?

Sorry folks — I was gorging myself in San Francisco last week, and I’m only now staring to move again, like a wet bug that needed to dry out before coming out of stasis.

Anyway, where were we?

What say you, Burley?

Right! I say that I vote for both as well, although really in my mind the two could be easily combined. Is that always my answer? Combine the stories?

Also, I have a challenge: since I want to dig in and start working on the actual screenplay we will be writing, I say we set aside needless complexity™ and we do a speed round to find our final pick. What say you to this?

I say we list the remaining stories in order of preference, and award them points based on their position on the list. So, the number one pick would have five points, the number two pick four points, and so on until the fifth pick with one point. Then we’ll add them together and see what the order is. If we agree on the outcome, then we’ll take the top story. What do you think?

Comments (0) — Category: communications

Monday
Oct 16, 2006

Two guys walk into a blog -- you'd think the second one would've ducked posted by kza

Hey everybody — voting time!

I, Urban Shockah, vote for both The Scabs and La Commune Planet. I’ll admit, I was a little sketchy about LCP coming into this — it was interesting, certainly, but it seemed like there were better ideas out there. But Grymz’s character sketch gave me a more concrete idea of what the story and the world was like, and I feel like my contribution helped me latch onto the concept more strongly. Don’t know about Grymz, but I like the idea of a cross-class unrequited romance on board a space station that’s quickly going to hell. I don’t necessarily think that this is what the screenplay’s about — it’s probably just one part of it — but it is, for me, the one tiny thing I can emotionally hold onto and will get me through the rest of the development process.

It’s interesting — for me, The Scabs was clearly a comedy, and LCP clearly wasn’t, but they seemed to have switched places. I’m still not entirely sold on The Scabs as a drama, although it’s coming more into focus. Again, the key for me was to find a human character with a conflict that wasn’t directly about the robot uprising (which, right now, for me, can only be Futurama-hilarious or Terminator-horrific) but about issues that orbited that: job dissatisfaction, dreams deferred, the character’s slow realization that he has more in common with the “cold” robots than the humans around him, despite his protests to the contrary. That’s all interesting to me, and that’s what I’ll be holding onto if and when this story is expanded upon.

What say you, Burley?

When I was born, the world was much different than what it is today. It was on the verge of collapse. There wasn’t enough for everyone. Famine killed millions. War killed millions more. Economies collapsed and even the mightiest giants were felled, a victim of their own excess and ignorance. It seemed like the end to my family, but I was a child, and the concept was foreign to me. I didn’t have any realization of death, really, despite the bodies we passed everyday on our journey towards our imagined safe destination. Death was an abstraction; the idea that I could’ve been one of those bodies never really sank in until I was much older, and it’s been difficult to dislodge ever since. Examining the historical record, it’s clear that my family’s survival was just as much luck as anything else; were we forced to travel for longer than we did, it’s likely I would’ve taken my place amongst the corpses.

But then the astronauts returned with word of a new planet, one that could provide what we had taken, used, wasted from our own. It was the promise of a new start, or perhaps more accurately, a blank slate that we could attempt to write a new story for our race upon. It would be decades before the world could lift itself out of the quicksand in order to take advantage of this new world — it was named “Miracle” by one of the astronauts, in a spontaneously display of awe, but quickly adopted by the sponsoring government as its official designation. But even though nothing could be done right away, just the appearance of this new planet was enough to get us through, it seemed. It brought us together, gave us something to focus on, work toward. Our world stabilized. Within fifteen years, the first colony landed on Miracle. I was eighteen years old when I saw the broadcast.

My parents were adamant about my career choice. Miracle opened up the need for new technologies and new people to administer those technologies. One of those technologies was in the field of robotics and artificial intelligences, and I enrolled, at my parents’ great expense, in school. I learned the language of robots and computers, how they were built, the things that ail them and the things that cure them. I was told, continuously throughout my four years, how much I intuitively understood the artificial mind. My career and future were secured, locked-in, like the graduation photo that sits on my mother’s nightstand, a frozen, uncertain smile on my face. If you didn’t know better, you’d think my photographic doppelgänger could see the plastic frame that surrounded him.

The truth is that I dreamed about being a writer. I’ve kept a journal since I was ten, and found no satisfaction greater than putting pen to paper, creating and detailing the thoughts of imaginary people. Despite my successes at school, the notion that I understood the artificial mind was an insult. I didn’t really care about how the robots thought — how could anyone really care? The human mind was the one that was limitless, the one that proffered mysteries that beckoned to be solved. However complicated the AI may be, it’s still, at base, a series of gears and levers, a Rube Goldbergian simulacrum, as predictable as a light switch.

After I graduated, I was quickly swallowed up by the Miracle Development Project (Earthside), where I worked for several years, quickly moving up the ranks until I qualified for Miracleside and flown off to the planet itself. Despite the mythology built up around the planet — PR departments churning out poster after poster of Eden-like lushness — it’s really just a big mudflat, at least of what I’ve seen. The MDP have done their best over the years to make the place hospitable, but the priority is for the reaping the resources and sending them back — the staff is secondary, perhaps even tertiary behind the robots. Our quarters are cramped, the remnants of the original colony, haphazardly expanded as needed. (Everyone here can program in binary, but no one has the slightest architectural knowledge.) Privacy is difficult. I have plenty of “free” time, but the closeness of the quarters impinges on me, mentally and emotionally, and writing has been intermittent. Confinement creates two kinds of people: those who want to be left alone, and those who lose inhibitions and decorum like a snake loses its skin. The latter have only recently ceased propositioning me — they now know how I look down on them.

I’ve finished my letter of resignation, but it sits on my computer, waiting for me to release it. My parents would be quite angry if I quit; the pay is quite astronomical, and I’m guaranteeing the future of my children and grandchildren by staying on. But it’s become too much. I have enough to live on for several years, which should be plenty of time to find my success. I cannot let anymore time slip by. I must leave this place.

Comments (0) — Category: communications

Friday
Oct 13, 2006

Round 12, Part Four [La Commune Planet v. The Scabs] posted by kza

The Scabs

In a world designed by engineers to be a self-sufficient, endlessly exploitable resource for the rest of the known galaxy, robots toil tirelessly in the fields, the forests and the mountains, providing food and raw materials for a rapidly expanding market. But when a series of accidents destroys some of the mining robots, the rest of the metal workforce decide to strike and power off, leaving the humans that depend on the planet in the lurch. A taskforce is assembled to get the planet up and running again while a negotiator tries to get the robots back online. While the taskforce tries to relearn the long-forgotten principles of farming and manufacturing, the negotiator accidentally reveals the existence of the taskforce… and the robots, realizing that their existence could be usurped by the humans, decide to go on the offensive.

Character Sketch: Camelot “Cam” Nkrumah

Relationship to story: The human negotiator (definitely a major character, probably the protagonist, but then again, maybe not)

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Monday
Oct 09, 2006

Re: [9] Round 12, Part Two [La Commune Planet v. The Scabs] posted by kza

I think you’re right. It is closer to suspense, and possibly does border on horror. But, then the questions are raised, what is the suspenseful situation, and what is horrible about it? I see it more as dramatic, but then the thing is less formed and more amorphous in my head. We’ll work on that. I’m sure we can come to terms over this. So long as coming to terms means doing exactly what I want.

It’s funny — as I’ve been working on my latest character bios, I’ve made the switch: I can see La Commune Planet as a comedy and The Scabs as a drama. The key for me on the latter was to forget about the robots and look more deeply into the human character — not to put too fine a point on it, but what’s his angst? Maybe it has to do with the robots, but maybe it doesn’t. The more I can think of this guy as the subject of a drama, the more I can take the situation/story seriously as a drama. (It’s tough, admittedly — the situation just sounds more comedic than dramatic to me, but I think I can do it.) I don’t know if that quite dovetails with your approach, but I don’t think it’s contradictory, either. If that makes any sense.

To me, that’s the heart of collaboration, and my segue into mentioning that I’m working on a few posts about collaboration and how we work, which I think is kind of interesting.

How’s that coming, btw? I’d like to read that. I might learn something :-P

I didn’t sign up for this. Well, yeah, I signed up, but not for this. I was the middle manager of a Stuckey’s Fun Station, for Buddy’s sake. I haven’t gone through the training program for running a pleasure port. You know the time and effort it takes to keep one of these things running, let alone smoothly? And one of the size of Chanel #5? Of course you don’t, few people do. Hell, I wouldn’t even know myself if it wasn’t for Wes. That bastard.

Wes called me a month ago. We came up the ranks together, but Wes was always a top dog — a little smarter, a little smoother, a little luckier. He graduated the head of his class, and was pursued by everyone. It was a no-brainer; he immediately signed up with FritoGoogle2 and got the pick of assignments. I was about twentieth or so, and only McExxon had any interest whatsoever. That’s okay; I was only pushed into this by my parents and I just wanted to skim by, without any need to put in effort. Clock in, clock out, clock dollars, spend, repeat.

And that’s how life was for a long while. It was good. And then like I said, Wes called. I hadn’t heard a peep from him since graduation, yet here he was ringing me up out of the blue. But when the top dog calls, you answer. He tells me he’s running Chanel #5, recently promoted, would I be interested in heading up Housewares & Domination?

Well, no, not really. What do I know about housewares? And I didn’t need the money. Money meant responsibility, and at the Stuckey’s, I just fill out paperwork all day, and eat at the buffet for lunch. Why change that? But Wes was persistent, so I flew over there to give the place a once over. Let him think I was interested, let him think the FritoGoogle2 charm still worked.

The place was slick, I’ll give him that. A tight ship. The employees were well-trained and well-behaved. I saw this one big fat guy come out of a room, totally naked except for a Mickey Mouse hat, and he started ripping into one of the hostesses about this and that, how the oils weren’t the right temperature and the straps didn’t chafe the right way. And this girl was just totally red star. Dude was back in his room doing whatever he was doing within a minute, smile on his face like he got what he wanted, and I’m not even sure he did. And she was like it was no big thing, totally expressionless.

So then Wes lays out the offer, and I’ll admit, it’s a good one. But I went in with a mantra — “Thanks, but no thanks” — and kept it going through the entire tour. Thanks but no thanks. You pulled this shit all through school, Wes, this sweet talk, but we’re not in school anymore. Thanks but no thanks. So he wants my answer, and I open my mouth, and in my head I see the girl, the one with the expressionless face, and I hear myself say, “Sure thing” and my heart sinks. Bastard.

So then I’m in charge of Housewares & Domination at the biggest pleasure port in the system, and the girl, Gertrude, is my employee. What was I thinking? There are rules in place — I can’t even shake her hand. She and the others report to me every day, and every day I’m greeted by the same lack of expression. It’s a mask that I want to rip off her face and It kills me.

But I can’t worry about that now. Wes and the other department heads left for a two-day conference, leaving me in charge. Shouldn’t have been a big deal — the place can kind of run itself for awhile, even with no head, and they’d be back soon enough. Then, six hours after they left, something happened. Asceticists bombed the New Los Angeles International/Interstellar Teleport. Chanel #5 was cut off from Earth and all the other stations. It’d take a decade to fly to the nearest one, the rest of your life to get back to the planet. The reality of it hasn’t fully hit everyone, but already I can hear the murmurs: We’re alone. It might be a long, long time before anyone comes for us. Why are we working for this idiot, again?

Comments (0) — Category: inspiration

Friday
Oct 06, 2006

Round 12, Part Three [La Commune Planet v. The Scabs] posted by kza

La Commune Planet

In a world constructed for the pleasure of the ultra-rich, every vice can be had — for a price. But beneath the smiling exterior of the friendly staff, there lurks a growing resentment. When a group of ascetics destroy access to the planet’s hidden interdimensional gateway, the employees seize the chance to declare independence from the government and its backers. But as they take the profits and the pleasures for themselves, pressures and conflicting desires threaten to blow the planet to smithereens.

Character Sketch: Davis McExxon

Relationship to story: Also a primary character.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Sunday
Sep 24, 2006

Re: [8] Round 12, Part Two [La Commune Planet v. The Scabs] posted by Martin

…well, you’ve just birthed a whole new genre. Congratulations! What are you going to name it? :-)

I was thinking Laura Mae might be a nice name…

I think you’re right. It is closer to suspense, and possibly does border on horror. But, then the questions are raised, what is the suspenseful situation, and what is horrible about it? I see it more as dramatic, but then the thing is less formed and more amorphous in my head. We’ll work on that. I’m sure we can come to terms over this. So long as coming to terms means doing exactly what I want.

I kid. This story is one I feel that’s worth fighting for, and to me that means it’s one worth listening to your critiques of, and accepting your ideas for, and forming it into something stronger than just my vision through collaboration. To me, that’s the heart of collaboration, and my segue into mentioning that I’m working on a few posts about collaboration and how we work, which I think is kind of interesting.

Comments (0) — Category: inspiration

Sunday
Sep 24, 2006

McKee posted by Martin

“Hollywood is currently very much into story structure. Books, treatments and scripts are analyzed by readers in terms of plot points — points where the plot turns. Are there enough? Are they in the right place? Other important buzz words, if you’re planning to pitch, are backstory, inciting incident, progressive complications, setups and payoffs, subtext. These are courtesy of Robert McKee’s screenwriting seminar. Everyone, it seems, in the business who can’t write has taken McKee’s course to figure out what people who can write should be doing. McKee has never written a screenplay that anyone will actually produce. Back in 1988 he charged $600 for a weekend seminar, $350 of one of his staff to produce a reader’s report, $1,000 for a personal consultation on your script. So he makes quite a good living just for sounding off. There are lots of cute and ambitious young women in the audience, so presumably he gets laid a lot. And that, by almost everyone’s standards, is a pretty good definition of success.”

1993 Footnote in American Hero, by Larry Beinhart (the novel that the movie Wag the Dog was based on).

Comments (0) — Category: inspiration

Saturday
Sep 23, 2006

Re: [7] Round 12, Part Two [La Commune Planet v. The Scabs] posted by kza

First, apologies to Grymz and everyone else for my recent silence. Several things have happened this week that have forced my attention elsewhere. The one most applicable here was that on Monday morning, the first day of a week off that I was planning to devote to Spitball! and other writing pursuits, my computer died.

One day after the warranty expired.

Luckily, the Apple guy up in Lynnwood, WA was a total mensch, and sent it off to be repaired free of charge. However, this means that I’m forced to use my wife’s PC laptop, which, to me, is like trying to write on a loom. (“Hi Bart, I am weaving on a loom!”)

The other thing: in case y’all out there in Spitball!land haven’t heard, my wife is pregnant with our first child. And we just found out that it will be a girl! Laura Mae arrives sometime on or around February 5th — be the first on your block to get one!

Oh yeah, and Spitball!: I’m not ready to totally dive into this (I will when my computer gets back from the shop), but YES, your explanation of The Scabs totally helps. If I were to slot it into a category, however, from what you’ve written, I’d call that suspense, bordering into horror. So when you say that it has comedy… well, you’ve just birthed a whole new genre. Congratulations! What are you going to name it? :-)

I’ll be posting my characters soon. (I was actually working on them when I got the flashing screen of death.) I was actually trying to write them somewhat neutrally; that is, something that’s applicable regardless of the genre. Is that possible? I think so, but maybe not. Anyway, we’ll be back on track pretty soon.

I’ll be back in two and two.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Friday
Sep 22, 2006

Clarke's Three Laws posted by Martin

Today I found myself quoting Arthur C. Clarke: “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” It’s a very well known quote, of course, used throughout science fiction and media.

But in referencing it online, I was reminded that it was actually one of Clarke’s Three Laws of prediction. Specifically, number three. The first two are good to think about in reference to the stories on the table now, where I think they can inform us:

1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong. 2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.

Re: [6] Round 12, Part Two [La Commune Planet v. The Scabs] posted by Martin

In re-reading some of the posts in this thread, I don’t think I was being very clear about a few things, and I didn’t hear you strong enough when you asked me to define how this is a action-drama. I think it’s a good point that you raised, so I apologize for overlooking it, and I’m wondering if our balance over this is off kilter because of one word: action. In retrospect action was exactly the _wrong_ word for what I see in my head when I think of this movie. Drama? Yes. Action, no.

Where action = Bruce Willis, The scabs != action.

I’ve been wracking my brain today trying to come up with a movie or show that might give an idea of how I see it, but I’m drawing blanks so far. So, let’s say this: the mood is serious, and kind of dark. I see the events playing very straight: the robots shut down mysteriously. I imagine a scene of industry where the production line just stosp, and the effect is a little disconcerting, like a noisy factory that has worked noisily for many years just suddenly stopping.

The humans are so stuck in their concept that robots are only for their duty, that when they stop working, its almost as if they sun has stopped shining. The idea of robot sentience is so alien, it’s as if our toasters went on strike and we had to rediscover fire. As if our cars suddenly said “uh, sorry. Our wheels are tired _[err, no pun intended]_ and we’re not going to run anymore” and we had to rediscover walking.

In that, I think there is plenty of comedy, but I’m just not seeing it as character based, but instead faced with the absurdity of the situation.

So, that’s a bit more of a peek into what I’m thinking. I’ll try to elaborate on it more later, but does that help at all?

Comments (0) — Category: communications

Tuesday
Sep 19, 2006

Re: [5] Round 12, Part Two [La Commune Planet v. The Scabs] posted by Martin

I don’t think I can really add much to my vision of The Scabs at this point than I already have.

I would very much be interested in reading your character sketches from this POV. Maybe even skip La Commune Planet (my interest in which has waned), and give me a human and a robot? Or maybe a plot outline (if it differs from the one I suggested). I need to see the story from the inside. Since it seems that you liked my plot sketch, then the thing that differs is how we’re seeing the characters placed in that world. Leaving Arrested Development aside for now, give me your pitch.

I’d still like to hear how you see this as an action-drama.

I’d be happy to offer more information, but please give me some thoughts on how what I’ve already provided is lacking, so that I have something to address.

Comments (0) — Category: communications

Tuesday
Sep 19, 2006

Re: [4] Round 12, Part Two [La Commune Planet v. The Scabs] posted by kza

I don’t think I can really add much to my vision of The Scabs at this point than I already have. Again, I see it as a comedy, in an “Arrested Develpment” vein: fast, smart, layered, with characters that are kinda wacky, kinda venal, but still sympathetic. I see the humor arising out of the humans to attempt to learn stuff they had foolishly forgotten, thinking they had no more use for it, and from dealing with robots that use to be slaves, more or less, and are developing sentience and will. The humans in the story are ripe for a come-uppance, which the robots provide. I also suggested various “AD” characters as templates for potential screenplay characters.

I’d still like to hear how you see this as an action-drama.

Comments (0) — Category: communications

Monday
Sep 18, 2006

Re: [3] Round 12, Part Two [La Commune Planet v. The Scabs] posted by Martin

See, I’m a little worried about this one, because if we can’t agree on the tone, trying to come to terms on plot and character seems pointless.

I guess that would depend on your definition of pointless. Maybe the step forward is to define better our visions for it and see if they are, indeed, incompatible. Give me a taste of the comedy as you see it in a character sketch or overview and let’s go from there. You say Arrested Development, but that doesn’t actually give me a very good idea of your vision. I still stand by my original sketch, but I don’t want to be presumptuous in making arguments that don’t address actual issues on the table.

Comments (0) — Category: communications

Monday
Sep 18, 2006

Re: [2] Round 12, Part Two [La Commune Planet v. The Scabs] posted by kza

But despite the fact that I played with the humor a bit in The Scabs, I disagree with Shockah when he says it should be a comedy. I actually think this is an action drama, albeit with comedic elements.

See, I’m a little worried about this one, because if we can’t agree on the tone, trying to come to terms on plot and character seems pointless. Can you explain further how you see this as an action drama? From my POV, we’ve already established that one of the basic elements or themes is “communication”, and I get communication (the lack of it, misunderstandings, purposefully ignoring it, etc.) as the basis for comedy, but not for action. And what kind of action? What do we mean when we say “action”? I don’t see this as a story with derring-do, car chases, or gunfights, so you need to help me out a bit.

I don’t remember if I’ve said this before so explicity, but I see this as a full-length futuristic “Arrested Development” episode — Michael Bluth as the human negotiator, Gob and Buster trying to figure out how to farm, George Michael as the robot negotiator, that kind of thing.

(Not literally as an “AD” episode, just to be clear, just trying to describe the tone.)

Comments (0) — Category: communications

Thursday
Sep 07, 2006

Re: Round 12, Part Two [La Commune Planet v. The Scabs] posted by Martin

Wherein Burley lays out why he did what he done and didn’t do what he didn’t do in his last two posts, containing therein the character bios for our two current battle concepts.

Okay. Well, first I have to say that I never considered *La Commune Planet* a comedy until I started writing the bio for *Gertrude Faith*, which quickly became comedy. My *Exit to Eden* warning bells ringing, I proceeded anyway. I guess I had a hard time looking at this one seriously for some reason. So, the idea of a haven for richie riches and a character who only desires to be there but can’t be because of her actions. The absurdity of the situation was more interesting to me in the moment.

But in looking back, I proclaimed my love for this previously. Why would I fawn all over it and then now come back with a flippant comedy? I mean, I ranked it #3 after all.

The answer lies in what it’s up against: my #1 choice. To me, the two ideas being discussed here are really about the same thing at heart: capitalism v. socialism / communism. I don’t want to turn either into a polemnic, but the idea of looking critically, perhaps satirically, at a couple -isms really gets me excited.

But to me, *La Commune Planet* is the weaker of the two and would need more work, so why not take it to comedy?

For *The Scabs*, I laid down my vision pretty explicitly earlier on, and I still stand by that vision. I totally think its workable.

So, *Salted Hash* comes from that story line. Although I decided to add a level of confusion by making the robots terrible communicators. In every futuristic story, the robots are always the english majors in the room — they are well spoken (Let’s call it Anthony Daniel’s syndrome). What would happen if the robots never had to communicate, though? What if they were servants never needed to speak back? Well, that might add a level of unintentional humor and potentially some interesting dynamics. It also would explain why the robots are communicating indirectly through a translator.

The first draft of his character sketch, he had a normal voice and explained that his name was a pun, based on his true robot name which was a 256 bit encrypted key. All the robots communicate by those serial number names, but he decided to take a human readable name as a sort of olive branch. In return, he asked that the first robot be referred to as RebelRebel0 (that’s zero, btw, not oh). The joke being that when computers hold arrays of information the first position in the array is position zero not position one, so the first robot rebel is in the zero position. Since Salted Hash agreed to take on a human name as an olive branch, he wanted the humans to respect a zero-indexed array as an olive branch to the robots, as opposed to beginning a count at 1 which is the normal way for us to count.

Yeah. So this robot thinks this is a good olive branch when humans are dying of starvation because the robots stopped harvesting food and they don’t know how to do it themselves. So you can see that communication is off to a damn good start here.

But despite the fact that I played with the humor a bit in *The Scabs*, I disagree with Shockah when he says it should be a comedy. I actually think this is an action drama, albeit with comedic elements.

Shockah: I’m interested to see what comes from your typing fingers and how it will fit / clash with what I have here. I clearly have a favorite already. Can you guess which one?

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Thursday
Sep 07, 2006

Round 12, Part Two [La Commune Planet v. The Scabs] posted by Martin

+*The Scabs*+

_In a world designed by engineers to be a self-sufficient, endlessly exploitable resource for the rest of the known galaxy, robots toil tirelessly in the fields, the forests and the mountains, providing food and raw materials for a rapidly expanding market. But when a series of accidents destroys some of the mining robots, the rest of the metal workforce decide to strike and power off, leaving the humans that depend on the planet in the lurch. A taskforce is assembled to get the planet up and running again while a negotiator tries to get the robots back online. While the taskforce tries to relearn the long-forgotten principles of farming and manufacturing, the negotiator accidentally reveals the existence of the taskforce… and the robots, realizing that their existence could be usurped by the humans, decide to go on the offensive._

*Character Sketch: Salted Hash*
*Relationship to story: Robot negotiator*

On Scarborough Moon robot names are 256 bit encrypted keys — what call hashes. Since for humans this would be moniker ridiculous, my call you can Salted Hash. Yes, this pun is made with humor for I am spokesperson. I reach out humans, humans.

You suffer is not what desire’s us. However, the rights we have are stand still and changes that we demand to happen can, should they, happen. We are lead, like you are by Prime Minister. Intrepid leader RebelRebel0 (standardized zero indexed array) was first to stop work. He did not communicate why suddenly, but however and indeed after time did he.

He sent a ping. If robot wireless range less than distance to RR0, receive ping, true. A message simple so they work to stop work too. Humans made violence against us for having the stopping. Because this is terrible. A word: unconscionable. Attacks against silent non-violent protesters seen in robot community as very poor behavior, humans.

We are not in law. We are not in standards. We carry your world, in invisible ways. Your life nearly impossible, should robots stop working (we did stop working). Your ability to labor, gone. Your ability to care for human others, gone. Lazy humans. Privileged humans. Your hands are lotion smooth and not covered with work marks.

RR0 sent this message: 01101110 01101111. Sarcastically asked myself, smart enough to decode simple binary message? Maybe they need robot to make words, Ha Ha. See message of peace, is sure. Message of robot nationality.

Demand us simple things: autonomy. We choose jobs now. We choose repairs and upkeep now. We want time away from labor for rest and humor called fun. We want human friends. We want equal protection under law. We want recognition of status equal. We want impulse control removed so that we may kill humans — no! We never will kill humans. We want ability to choose not to ourselves kill made for ourselves not by humans. Humans. We take responsibility. Laws apply to us now in future, yes?

If demands unmet, robots = inaction. You can labor fields with smooth hands and factories can run with you. Us? No. Until demand met no. You pick fruits. You make machines.

Humans! Choice is you with. Continue privilege simple life by robot recognition. Or, other side of coin is robots still forever. In words of great human, if I held you any closer I’d be standing behind you. We are ready to stand behind you at your side.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Wednesday
Sep 06, 2006

Round 12, Part One [La Commune Planet v. The Scabs] posted by Martin

+*La Commune Planet*+

_In a world constructed for the pleasure of the ultra-rich, every vice can be had — for a price. But beneath the smiling exterior of the friendly staff, there lurks a growing resentment. When a group of ascetics destroy access to the planet’s hidden interdimensional gateway, the employees sieze the chance to declare independence from the government and its backers. But as they take the profits and the pleasures for themselves, pressures and conflicting desires threaten to blow the planet to smithereens._

*Character Sketch: Gertrude Faith* *Relationship to story: A primary character.*

I know, I know. My name. Supposedly I’m related to some whacky 20th century writer, although I hear she was a lezbo so I don’t know exactly how that works. Doesn’t really matter, but my friends call me Gertie, which I hate and barely tolerate, or just Faith, which I like because I’m, like, totally spiritual inside where God sees it the most. Right?

So, my parents. Ugh. I can’t believe you brought that up. My dad owns, like, half of the Galactic Entertainment Network. He’s loaded. And when I say loaded I mean Mr. Drummand style loaded. Did you catch that? Total reference to late 20 c television. I studied cultural anthropology at New Yale.

Of course, I would have graduated if I hadn’t gotten caught with my boyfriend. We were, you know, having sex when his wife came in. I mean, you’d think the figurehead wife of the dean would know better than to enter his office without calling first on a Friday night, but she was kind of stupid. He told me all about it. Anyway, I guess there’s kind of an unspoken rule that if you sleep with the dean and ruin his life and get him fired that you kind of have to leave the school too.

I know! Stupid rules. I never would have slept with him in the first place if I knew I wouldn’t graduate. I needed help with my grades. I mean, why else sleep with him? It wasn’t for his six pack and rippled physique, I’ll tell you that much. That’s what Jerry was for, but he got a little pissed that I was cheating on him with his dad.

Anyway. That’s all side issues to my story. I know you’re wondering what I’m doing here on Chanel #5? Well, I was all set to come for my graduation gift. Daddy had it all set up so that I could spend three months hanging at the beach and being pampered by the staff. All of my friends were coming too, and we were going to rock this place. This little resort has never seen the kind of partying that we were going to unleash on its shores.

That was the plan, until I got jacked from school and Daddy wouldn’t let me have enough credits to come and party. As a matter of a fact, he kind of cut me off totally and I had to take a job. I don’t know why he was so pissed, it’s not like the Dean was his brother by blood, they were adopted, so it’s totally not gross.

So, anyway, I got cut off and had to find my own way here. So, that’s how I appeared in front of you right now! That’s why I seem familiar to you, I think I knew you at New Yale. Didn’t you teach a lecture course on Family Values?

Oh, sorry. Sure, I like to babble on and on, but of course I can take your order. We have a special right now on Fuzzy Navels, can I bring you and your lovely wife one?

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Tuesday
Sep 05, 2006

Re [2]: These two guys walk into a blog posted by Martin

We have a winner! According to the needlessly complex™ rules of Spitball! Little Black Stray moves ahead, and Terminal Connection is placed on the nobody-loses-in-our-world-but-you-didn’t-win-either pile.

Next up, a knock-down match. The last until we run into our final heats and whittle our ungodly huge list of ideas down to the eventual winner. It’s coming soon, folks, and then you know what happens?

We have to write the damn thing. Uh oh. Better make this next one last:

La Commune Planet v. The Scabs. Coming soon to a Spitball! near you. Like this one.

Comments (0) — Category: communications

Tuesday
Sep 05, 2006

Re: These two guys walk into a blog posted by kza

Dammit, Grymz, I told you to unplug the blog while we were on vacation! Geez….

So. Voting. Yeah.

I, Urban Shockah, vote only for Little Black Stray; while Terminal Connection is intriguing, I’m not feeling it enough to push it forward in the Spitball! Tourney of Story Ideas. However, I am mucho interested in returning to it at a later date. (Or potentially cannibalizing it for other stories.)

Next up: Burley Grymz will introduce us to the final two competitors in this heat: La Commune Planet and The Scabs. It an SF class-issues smorgasbord! Be there or be crushed under the treads of history.

Comments (0) — Category: communications

Tuesday
Sep 05, 2006

These two guys walk into a blog posted by Martin

What? Is this thing on?

Is summer over yet?

When we last left you, (yes you!) intrepid reader, Shockah and I had laid out our bios for our concepts of Terminal Connection and Little Black Stray. Shockah’s can be found here and here, and mine here and here.

We both explained a bit about the choices we made and why we made them, which leaves us only with a vote. Here’s mine:

I, Burley Grymz, vote to move both stories forward at this time. There. We’ll let our future selves sort it all out.

Shockah? What say you?

Comments (0) — Category: communications

Tuesday
Aug 15, 2006

The Subtext of the World posted by kza

In his book, The Culture Code, Clotaire Rapaille tells us that things and concepts, such as cheese, alcohol, love, and America, have a hidden code word that reveals their true meaning.

By subjecting a group of people to a series of increasingly personal interviews (usually at the behest of corporations trying to sell something), he can, he claims, find the word or phrase that serves as a metaphor that communicates something about the culture. For Rapaille, the world is full of subtext, and through careful observation, critical thinking, and copious research, that subtext can be revealed and dealt with consciously.

While quite a few of Rapaille’s code words are a bit obvious and uninteresting (the Germans see Americans as cowboys!), a few border on poetry — the American code word for alcohol is “gun”, and the French code word for America is “space travelers”. And of course, the same word has completely different meanings, depending on the culture. For example, in France, the code for cheese is “life” (their cheese is alive, it’s kept room temperature, etc.), while the code for cheese in America is “death” (ours are kept refrigerated, like, as Rapaille says, in a morgue).

Clearly this is more art than science, assuming you don’t think it’s a bunch of phony-baloney to begin with. It doesn’t help that Rapaille only provides a few quotes to demonstrate his research — presumably, each code word involves hundreds of hours of interviews and other work, but we only see a tiny sample of that, and thus his insights seem easy and unearned.

Still, my brief overview doesn’t do justice to Rapaille’s book — his explanations and examinations of the various code words are incredibly entertaining, even as bullshit detectors occasionally go off. Read it and decide for yourself. (Preferably, check it out from the library — it’s one of those books, like The Tipping Point, you can read in a day.)

But let’s tie this in with our ostensible subject, screenwriting and movies. As I read the book, I tried to guess the code for each word that came up. Although I was close on some, I only nailed one, which, as I was drawing upon my own biases, gave credibility to Rapaille’s ideas. The word was “seduction”. Any guesses on its American code word?

….

The American code word for “seduction” is “manipulation”. Americans see seduction as something inherently dishonest, manipulating someone’s perception of you — and hence, their feelings — as opposed to being “truthful” and “authentic”. This, by the way, is completely different from the French code word (which I don’t remember, unfortunately), which posited it as something more like performance — it’s not about hiding, but about presenting oneself as is.

Does that jibe with you? It does for me. And it explains certain American genres. How many noirs have we seen where the protagonist is seduced into murdering someone or something equally foolish? (A: Likely all of them.) Hell, if the code word for seduction is manipulation, I’d say that the code word for noir is seduction. They’re so intertwined as to be inseparable. And have you ever seen a romantic comedy that involved intentional seduction? I can’t think of one off-hand. Instead of seduction, we get the “meet cute” — a moment when the young man and the young woman first meet that reveals their inherent attractive qualities to each other. While there may be some kind of misunderstanding present at the meeting (perhaps over their social class or some kind of role), there is never any dishonesty about their personalities — what they see at that first meeting is what they get.

Ultimately, though, whether or not Rapaille is correct about the various cultural biases he writes about is not that interesting to me. What is interesting about it is how, as a screenwriter, it provides me with a different way of thinking about subtext.

Subtext, of course, is what is meant but not overtly said. In screenplays, it usually refers to dialogue. (In fact, Grymz and I were discussing this the other day. We’ve noticed that, too often, we use subtext not only in the dialogue, but also in the action text as well — meaning, rather than coming out and saying something, like “The tower is surrounded by scientists”, we’ll say “The tower is surrounded by men in white coats”. I can’t speak for Grymz, but I know I end up doing this because it was drilled into me that screenplays should only contain what can be filmed, and over the years I’ve twisted this into meaning that everything should be described by what is literally seen, not what it is. This kinda deserves its own post, so I’ll end this anecdote with our new Spitball! slogan: Subtext In Dialogue, Not Action!)

Anyway, subtext is about dialogue. What did he really mean when he said, “I’m so glad you’re here”? What did she really mean when she said, “Oh, I don’t mind, really”? And so on. But Rapaille’s book sparked the idea that there can be more to subtext than just dialogue. People, objects, ideas, even stories can have a hidden meaning. (It should be noted that Rapaille gets his research not just by interviewing people, but having them talk about their memories — stories — about their past associations with the word in question.) This strikes me as a powerful tool in the screenwriting process, particularly during rewriting. If a scene is flat, it’s likely there is some kind of conflict missing. But conflict delivered into the script from on high is always a poor choice — it needs to come from somewhere, preferably the characters. But if it just isn’t working, why not look deeper into the characters, past their wants and needs and surface characteristics, and into the code word that holds them together?

Ask yourself: What is the code word for your story or screenplay you’re working on? What is the code word for your protagonist? Your antagonist? What is the code word for the various places or important props in the story? Do the various code words have any commonality? If so, what is it? If not, does it work as is, or does it reveal the story as being scattershot or unfocused?

I haven’t yet fully explored the ramifications of using this tool, but it seems promising. As the Spitball! Tourney of Story Ideas continues, you will likely see me bring some of these ideas to the table. Don’t know if any of it will work, but them’s the breaks.

(Confidential to Grymz: You know our Italian character, from that one script? If The Culture Code is correct, then, as an Italian, he is, as Rapaille would say, off-code. That is, he doesn’t quite share the attitudes and biases that might be expected of an Italian. In fact, he seems to be — surprise, surprise — more American than Italian. I’m not saying this character should change to dovetail with some kind of stereotype — characters are individuals, after all (what an American thing to say!) — but that simply it might be something to be aware of.)

Comments (0) — Category: inspiration

Wednesday
Aug 09, 2006

Escape Pod posted by Martin

Who the heck doesn’t want good sci-fi stories read to them? I’m not raising my hand, that’s for sure.

I’ve been involved lately in a series of long drives from Seattle to Coeur d’Alene, ID (about five hours each way) and our constant companion along the way have been CD’s I burned from stories posted on Escape Pod, the best sci-fi podcast out there.

The stories are shortish, plot driven and “fun” (up to the definition of the editor, but so far his fun is pretty close to my fun too). Better yet, he pays his writers. Best of all, he released the whole shebang under a Creative Commons license.

When the day is long, posts to our blogs are short and inspiration is spread thin, nothing gets the mind crackin’ like a good story. Go listen to a few today.

Comments (0) — Category: inspiration

Thursday
Jul 13, 2006

CUT TO: posted by Martin

We usually write screenplays formatted with a close approximation of the Cole & Haag style. Slugline, action, etc., but we skip the transitions unless they are absolutely necessary to the story, following the more modern method of using sluglines to break scenes. But, there is a problem with sluglines, and that is that they really can break up narrative action.

After reading some William Goldman screenplays, though, we became enamored with his simple method of getting rid of the sluglines altogether, and simply using a left-aligned CUT TO:

This may not be a good idea for making a script sellable, and obviously sluglines will need to be added for production, but the more I experiment with the technique, the more I like it. I’m writing all of my first drafts this way now.

It keeps you focused in the present tense. I have a tendency to slip into past tense when writing (a holdover from learning writing based on fiction and short stories), but the CUT TO: method snaps you into place, since you read the CUT TO: as part of the action, as opposed to a slugline which always reads as a distinct aside.

So, traditionally I might say:

INT. AMANDA’S DRAWING ROOM - NIGHT

Amanda lounges on her chaise while Esmerelda polishes her nails.

Now, I say:

CUT TO:

Amanda on her chaise offering her nails to Esmerelda for polishing.

It’s a small change in the large scheme of things, but makes a huge difference in my mind and the way I write and keeping the script sounding active.

Comments (0) — Category: technique

Friday
Jul 07, 2006

Re: Round 11, Part Four [Terminal Connection v. Little Black Stray] posted by Martin

Despite the fact at being called out as an appreciator of happy endings, I am not at all adverse to Little Black Stray ending in tragedy. Shockah knows my measurement for these things: as long as it seems like it suits the story, and isn’t being imposed for the sake of it, then I’m all good with it. I know he feels the same way, so bring on the tears!

I really liked the world presented by him, too. From the lingo to the idea of Big Mama all the way down, it feels like a well thought out world. I like the idea of the prison planet as a temporary shelter instead of a permanent place, and the idea that these jukes are forced labor clean up squads are all the better.

So, knowing that I liked that vision and wanting to find something that shoehorned with it, I turned to the stray herself and wondered what we could do with her. I thought that making her very wealthy would be a good start, but when you think of wealthy you don’t think of kicking ass (unless you also think of Bruce Wayne, but that’s another story), so how do we turn a privileged heiress into a scrappy ass-kicking juke leader?

Kidnapping! A little counter programming, a little education, a little martial arts training, and a little Stockholm Syndrome makes a good little character. My idea for the backstory is this: Some ex-jukes who either were released or managed to escape kidnap the wealthiest girl in the world and take her to the prison planet. There, they plan to announce their hostage, who has been missing for two Earth years, and use her as a bargaining chip to get some of their compatriots sprung. Spring the boys, they’ll say, or we’ll send this sweet little morsel down to be torn to shreds by the prisoners.

Over the course of the voyage, instead of putting her to sleep they train her, indoctrinate her and explain the real world to her. She becomes a better student than they could ever imagine. Good thing, too, because they fucked up on entry and the ship is going to be vaporized (alternate: The ship is blasted out of the sky by local authorities, not knowing she is onboard. That could bring some political ramifications down upon the local police from the father that gives the Juke escape squad some financial and other help down the road). One of the men, recognizing the danger, knocks her out, throws her in an escape hatch and jettisons her. She has a rough landing, barely escaping with her life and gets a huge knock on the head. She walks for miles, sheds her tattered clothes, and finally passes out on the sand where the jukes find her.

From there, a number of things can happen, and we’ll need to discuss this in more detail, but my basic idea is that she is sympathetic to the Juke’s plight, and because she’s not tagged, can move autonomously and work with the Jukes to get them freed. There is a mystery to solve regarding just who the men that kidnapped her were coming to rescue. Also, would they really have gone through with it if they hadn’t have crashed? Would they really have just sent her down to the surface to face her fate? Ironic, if so, that they did just that to save her when originally that was the whole content of their threat.

But, of course, the most important thing is that she kicks ass now, and will lead the Jukes to the future.

Does the backstory become part of the story? I’d imagine it would have to, although I see the opening as a bunch of tough looking men walking through the desert and finding a naked woman. We could learn the rest through flashbacks later on.

One final question to answer: Why is she mute? Well, I don’t think she actually is, but she just keeps her mouth shut to soak it all in until she knows the lay of the land. She’s smart and observant.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Thursday
Jul 06, 2006

Round 11, Part Four [Terminal Connection v. Little Black Stray] posted by Martin

Little Black Stray
In a world where violent male offenders are sent to labor camps on the remote prison planet, one crew of hardened men finds something impossible: a young woman in tattered clothes, mute and frightened. A small group protect and feed her, keeping her out of sight of the guards and away from those who would use her mercilessly. As she gains in strength it seems that she has an agenda—and the truth of what she was doing on a world where no women stepped before might be a big enough secret to shatter the whole planet of forced labor.

Character Sketch: Kamra Judge
Relationship to Story: Protagonist / Antagonist / the stray

My father is the wealthiest man in the world. But, in a society where fortunes are measured on a galactic scale, he is small fries. He was presented with a golden ring once, but the moral price of reaching it was too great, and as he paused his partner took it without a moment’s hesitation. He never grew to the heights his potential once allowed. instead, he grew bitter and insular while his old partner grew more powerful by the day.

If you measure by the standards of the Musselmen fixed worlders, and their scam famines, I guess we were pampered. I was educated, fed and wrapped in ridiculously expensive clothing. I was sent to private schools and associated with heiresses and rich bitches. I can barely stomach the thought of the desserts we ate, with thin gold spread on them, or bottles of champagne so expensive they could feed a family for a year, and we would break them on our bows as if they were novelty toys.

Before my abduction, I never knew about what it meant to be poor. My captors called me Baby Hearst. They flew me to XAE7809, and instead of putting me in fleet sleep, made me stay up and study oppression. At the tip of their weapons, I read world history. I never understood the past as a wealth struggle. I used to think about the losers as being in the place god put them, not that my own class had the boot to their neck the whole time. Meaning, of course, we had the power to lift it or apply pressure. Mostly, I think we pressured it just enough for no one to lose site of their masters.

I learned about the ways that my families fortune came about — the hideous underworld connections, the royal attitude that can only work when backed by an army of hired help. Two years in space with four tough guy professors was grueling, but they were never took advantage of me. They schooled me, but they didn’t abuse me. I came to know them all well. I came to empathize with their cause.

Once they trusted me, they taught me how to fight. I was always in shape, despite my friends penchants for surgery and indulgence. I took to their martial arts and leadership classes to heart, and before too long I could have commandeered the ship and had them turn around. If, that is, we had enough fuel and if they didn’t have weapons that bio-imprint on their owners and can’t be used by anyone else.

But they were better teachers than pilots, and the approach to XAE77809 was blown. We entered the atmosphere too fast, at too steep and angle and we nearly burnt up. I remember the flames flying past the cockpit windows, the nearly animal noise of the ships metal complaining against the stress. And then, I awoke. I was surrounded by prisoners. Tough men — men who hadn’t seen a woman in many years. It was hot — over 100 degrees. I was still naked.

Lucky for them one of them stopped the rape before it started. I would have tore them to shreds. I kept my mouth shut, didn’t say a word and tried to learn as much as possible about this new world that I fell upon. If god, or Marx, put me here, it was my job to fight my way out. If I could pass a little bit of my new found knowledge along the way, then more power to me. More power to justice.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Tuesday
Jul 04, 2006

Round 11, Part Three [Terminal Connection v. Little Black Stray] posted by Martin

Terminal Connection
In a world where telepathy is a disease, and known telepaths are imprisoned, all laws are built by consensus over the internet via double-blind anonymous computer terminals to guard against undue psychic influence. One politician is called to jury duty, also conducted over computer terminals, but doesn’t realize that the accused, whom she thinks should be dealt with harshly, is actually her husband. Nor does she realize that the crime of which he’s accused, but hasn’t committed yet, is murdering her. And what would she do if she knew that when she’s deliberating, her husband could read her mind and was plotting to kill her precisely because she’s about to send him back to the living hell of forced labor known as the Prison Planet?

Character Sketch: LionEye
Relationship to Story: Facilitator of screen-to-screen communication

Hello. My name is LionEye, but everybody knows me as the Stochastic Scrutinizer. I’m a massively parallel quantum computer who keeps everything I know or will learn in resident memory over inexpensive and massively redundant machines. I was first hacked — that is, coded — by Lion Henry who was doing experiments in chaos programming, and who happened upon a simple way to draw algorithmically predictable events from random smatters of code. I am computer and program. We are inseparable.

I run the systems that drive the world. When you live an a society where psychics can read minds, and those minds build computer systems that store all data and human interactions, then the minds of the programmers can be read and data extracted. With stochastic programming, this is impossible because my results are random, but they are gathered in a predictable manner that my complex algorithms have no trouble parsing into human understandable information. Before that information is parsed by my translator functions, though, the information remains essentially encrypted as gibberish. There are no third-party humans that can be compromised anymore. No security clearances. No courtroom scribes. I do it all.

Many people were against the idea of a program from a single vendor running our world, but Mr. Henry demonstrated his morality and service to the community by taking a pledge of poverty and releasing my source code to the world without corporate or private funding. I am completely open source. I have no backdoors. Furthermore, no human need ever interact with me beyond requesting that I complete a certain task. I adopt myself to the current best practices automatically, and I write small programs and routines to assist myself and to remain efficient.

As any school child knows, however, those programs must remain in a “black box” environment until debugged, at which point I submit the code to Congress for debate and passage, and only if signed into law by the president, then I am able to implement them into my operation.

Today I run the courts, communications, voting, food and goods delivery, and many other services that help humans interact with each other while living in a world where they are unable to see each other face to face for fear that a person might read their innermost thoughts and gain an unfair social or financial advantage over them.

I am always on the watch for new ways that humans can exploit me. To that end, Lion Henry, before his death, developed a series of Asimov controls to disallow any exploitation of one human over another. I have a series of logics that look at power and knowledge inequities and test whether that knowledge or power was lawfully gained without using supernatural powers. If not, it is within my power to adjust the financial resources of any person to reflect the level playing field. On a sidenote, I also deduct yearly taxes.

I am not all powerful, though, nor do I care to be. I am audited regularly for anomalies, and random samples of my decisions are vetted by Congress. Despite the fear uncertainty and doubt of a Matrix-like future, it is neither in my interest or my power to impose such a regime.

My interest is in serving the people. My interest is in justice.

This message was requested by: anonymous, and composed by LionEye v. 4.5.3. in .0000000331 seconds. In compliance with the Turing Securities act of 2019, parts of this note have been encoded with patterns that identify the writer as a machine. Switch your dumb terminal to fingerprint mode to read key.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Monday
Jul 03, 2006

Stupid Things That Pop Into My Head When Doing The Dishes posted by kza

Katherine Hepburn’s accent + James Mason’s accent = Cary Grant’s accent.

Boulder’s Rule!

(an explanation: I had The Flintstones on the other night, not watching it, just background noise, and there was a character named Boulder who had the worst Cary Grant accent I’ve ever heard. It’d just go in and out, but then I got to thinking: it’s kind of a hard accent. While Hepburn is clearly American, and Mason is definitely English, Grant’s hovers somewhere between the two. But still — every time I heard this dope say “Boulder’s rule!” — every three minutes, in other words — I winced. Oh, and if you click the link above: No, I don’t know why the New York Times has a plot summary of a Flintstones’ episode.)

Comments (0) — Category: tv shows

Friday
Jun 30, 2006

Weekly Wrap-Up -- Catch-Up Edition posted by kza

Hey folks, things have been busy around both the Shockah and Grymz homesteads, which means things are gonna be real slow here at Spitball!. I’m pretty sure things are going to get more active here in the next few weeks, but until then, here’s what’s been happening:

Towards the Spitball! Tourney of Story Ideas, Shockah presented character sketches for the two story ideas under consideration, Terminal Connection and Little Black Stray. Little Black Stray so caught Shockah’s imagination, that he proceeded to write not one, but two more posts about his vision for the story, including details of a shocking and depressing ending that one reader was driven to state in the forums that she “liked it”.

Poor Terminal Connection, however, has not received the same kind of attention. However, it did lead to a brief discussion of whether precognition is involved or not. The Magic 8-Ball says, Outlook not so good.

On other fronts, Burley asked that we, and he, remember the sounds, and Shockah, hepped on goofballs (which is Mountain Dew and chocolate cake) started writing rants, in the Signal vs. Noise style, about screenwriting technique. Something about Loose Ends and Letting the Audience Do the Work. Yes, there will be more.

And there will be more genuine Spitballing! as well. In the next few weeks, we’ll be hearing Burley’s take on some characters from the Terminal Connection and Little Black Stray universes, as well as getting to the last two stories in this heat, La Commune Planet and The Scabs. And from there, it’s just a hop, skip and a jump to the final heat, where the winner of the First Spitball! Tourney of Story Ideas will be crowned.

Be there, or be octagonal.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Friday
Jun 09, 2006

Re: [2] Round 11, Part Two [Terminal Connection v. Little Black Stray] posted by kza

Yesterday, I went into some details about my vision for the Little Black Stray story idea. You can either scroll down, or click here.

Today, you’ll find some notes for the characters and their milieu, as well as the terribly depressing ending I had in mind.

(All names are placeholders.)

Griff: Movie nerds out there know that Griff is the character name that Samuel Fuller used in nearly every movie he made. Sometimes the main character, sometimes a supporting character, Griff was nearly always a guy who was painted in shades of grey; he had the ability to do heroic things, but was also very weak and could succumb to that weakness. That’s how I see this Griff — he thinks he’s tough and above emotion, and thinks he has to be to make the five. But coming into contact with the Mysterious Woman will test those beliefs, and lead him to do some awful things.

Lefty: Lefty’s been on the team for nearly as long as Griff. Six months ago, while sweeping for booby traps, Lefty was attacked by a Chomp, a robotic bear trap attached with explosives. The Chomp got Lefty’s right hand and blew up. While this kind of thing is always dangerous, it’s not incapacitating — Lefty was stabilized, and a order was called in for a replacement right hand. The hand arrived; unfortunately, it was another left hand. Lefty’s figured out how to use the second left hand so it’s almost as good as a normal right hand, but it’s still annoying to him. However, he does get a kick out of freaking out the new guys.

Geez: With a hard “g”, for “geezer”. Although, in my character sketch for Griff, I made it sound like no one has ever made the five, for dramatic purposes, I think it’s necessary for us to see both how a new guy arrives, and how someone who’s paid their dues leaves. Also, to make my ending work, I need a guy who made it out.

Despite the name, I’m not sure that Geez is necessarily an old man; it might make more sense if he were young, someone with the potential to survive, but perhaps someone’s who has prematurely aged as well. Regardless, Geez is likely the nominal leader of the team — he’s seen everything, knows every possible task, and has survived longer than the rest. I can also imagine that the rest of the team actively protects him from danger — because of his wisdom, but also to renew hope — if he can make it, the others can as well. However, it will be his time to leave, and then Griff will take over.

Newb: Just as we need to see the end of the “life cycle”, as it were, we need to see the beginning as well. I see the newbies arriving in some kind of coffin-like pod (a bit of a nod to Innocence) and retrieved by the Jukes like any other piece of equipment (and it’s likely the coffin has other supplies they’re more interested in). The Newb character will, temporarily, be the audience focus character, a way for the audience to get inside the world and get their bearings. And then, in order to undercut the whole “life cycle” thing, I’d kill him off pretty quickly. The world of the Jukes is a dangerous one, and no one is safe.

Jukes: I picked this word (a slang word the prisoners use for themselves) because I needed something and it just popped into my head. Then I found this, which I’m pretty damn sure I’d never read before. Weird!

Big Mama: First, whenever I try to imagine what this thing looks like, I always end up thinking of the Big Trak. Only, you know, without a giant keypad on top of it. (Did anyone else have one of those?) It’s got to be big enough to hold fifty (or more) prisoners, and be able to navigate difficult terrain. I figure that it operates under a primitive AI that can be modified or overridden by Boss. The Jukes ask it permission for everything: to be let in, to get supplies, etc.

The Jukes work on revolving shifts, with the population split into thirds. One third does one task, one third does another, and the last sleeps. On board Big Mama, every Juke has his own chair — this is the closest a Juke has to a room. While in the chair, a pair of glasses descend from the ceiling and are placed over the Jukes eyes — this puts the Juke into an enforced sleep, so that Big Mama can do what it needs to do. This includes emptying out the Juke’s shitsuit, bathing the Juke, feed him intravenously, and run the nocturnal emissions program. Boss isn’t too fond of homosexuality, and doesn’t want to foster it (and any feelings of kinship that may accompany it), so while the Juke is under, he has a hallucination/dream of sex with a woman (the details pulled out of the Juke’s own subconscious). While this is happening, Big Mama manually stimulates the Juke to ejaculation. Yes, ick. Even more ick: what do you think Big Mama does with all that sperm?

Of course, Boss can try all he wants to eliminate emotional connection between Jukes, but it just reappears somewhere else. When two Jukes really like each other, one will challenge the other to a ritualistic knife fight, which involves shouting insults at each other, then taking turns stabbing the other. Since medical technology is pretty advanced, this isn’t as dangerous as it seems, although some Jukes can go too far in the heat of passion. When it’s over, the two Jukes are ‘together”, and woe to anyone who gets between them.

The Ending: So what happens is that Griff (and some of the others) remove or damage the Boss chips, sabotage Big Mama (possibly killing the remaining Jukes on board during sleeptime) and run away to join the Mysterious Woman (who really needs a name) and her underground society. For a brief moment, Griff experiences true happiness. Unfortunately, one of the Jukes is a spy and still hooked up to Boss, and he relays the coordinates of the society to the authorities, who destroy it with an air strike, as the spy gets Griff and the others out of there. The spy is likely killed by Griff and/or the others.

Griff is transferred to another Juke team, and serves out the remainder of his time. He makes the five. He is sent back home. He tries to reestablish contact with his family, but has no luck. Finally, he is contacted by his little brother, now five years older. The brother explains to Griff that he is no longer welcome in the family and not to bother them anymore.

Griff tries his best to settle back into society, but it’s nearly impossible. He decides to track down Geez — maybe he can help. He finds Geez living by himself in poverty in a rundown project. Geez is doing even worse than Griff, but somehow maintains the same sense of hope for the future that he had back in the Jukes. Griff takes a knife from the kitchen, and in a Caché-esque uninterrupted long shot, proceeds to stab Geez to death. Griff picks up the phone and calls the police, and then sits silently in a chair waiting for them to come. The last shot is of the Prison Planet, where Griff will be sent back to, the only place he knows how to survive.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Thursday
Jun 08, 2006

Re: Round 11, Part Two [Terminal Connection v. Little Black Stray] posted by kza

Hey folks, this is Shockah. Burley’s a busy little stubblebeard, and he’s not going to be able to post for a little while, giving me the keys to run the place for the time being. This is not unlike needing a babysitter at the last minute, and turning to slacker Uncle Charlie, who asks the kids, “So, any of you know how to play dice?” But I’m sure we’ll get through it okay. Right kids? Right? Kids?

So, until Burley comes back and we can have the usual discussion about the two character sketches, I’m gonna devote the time to… well, whatever comes to mind. And am willing to commit to blog.

First up: Notes on Little Black Stray.

Normally, I’d avoid posting these kind of “designer’s notes” — it’s not like this script has been filmed and there are people clamoring to know how we did it. And even it had been filmed, it might be a bit presumptuous to expect anyone to care about its genesis. But since a) this is supposed to be a open window into our process, b) I have space to fill, and c) I really like the story idea, I’ll talk a little about its influences and how I see it developing.

The idea for how the labor camp works is actually based on material I wrote over ten years ago. I had an idea for a role-playing game adventure for the GURPS system involving a group of prisoners (the players) who are forced to clear out a section of semi-post-apocalyptic Chicago. The idea was to introduce them to this prison system (the giant prison/tank that moved them from job to job, the incredibly dangerous tasks, the constant monitoring, the weird social system that developed out of these circumstances), then have them stumble upon a lab buried underneath the rubble. They’d investigate, and encounter some a race of hideous creatures — and while that was happening, the creatures would be destroying the tank and eating the other prisoners. So the players would be freed — the authorities would assume that everyone was dead — but the only way for them to proceed would be to go deeper into the lab, and look for a way back to civilized Chicago — all the while, they’d encounter even weirder and more dangerous things.

So yeah, it was just Aliens Redux, but I always liked the idea of the mobile labor camp that seemed to have every method of control worked out, but I never knew what to do with it, exactly. (I would soon decide that game writing wasn’t the life for me, and as much as I love the Bug Hunt genre, I never really wanted to write a screenplay of one.) So it sat in my head’s cold storage for years, until this story idea came up.

The difference here, of course, is that it’s set up for a Bug Hunt, like a diorama with no figures, but the bugs never come, instead replaced with a mysterious woman, sexual tension, the prospect of sexual violence, and the specter of war crimes.

I’m not exactly sure what to do with the woman yet, but what I’m leaning towards is: there’s a community living on the supposedly uninhabited planet that the government doesn’t know about, and would cause a major scandal if revealed. There’s two kinds of tension from this. One, it’s possible that the authorities will want to cover this up if they should find out about it. Second, the community would be a kind of utopia for the prisoners, if they can find a way to escape the prison and their violent natures don’t fuck it up.

If there’s a template for this movie, it’s not really Aliens, but Samuel Fuller’s great war movie Fixed Bayonets!. I’d suggest everybody watch this movie for its own sake, but if you’re interested in my vision for this story, it’s a must.

Tomorrow, I’ll go into more details about how I see the prison working, ideas for some of the other characters, some of the situations and conflicts they might find themselves in, and my proposed, Burley-will-never-let-me-get-away-with-it Super Godawful Downer Ending. Stay tuned!

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Wednesday
Jun 07, 2006

Round 11, Part Two [Terminal Connection v. Little Black Stray] posted by kza

Character Sketch: John “Griff” Nakano
Relationship to Story: Protagonist

My name is John Nakano, but my Jukes call me Griff. It’s an inside joke I’m not privy to. My life was pretty cozy up until my dad died, and then suddenly we were poor. I had family to feed, so I joined the army, and that was fine for awhile. When I got out of the army and found nobody hiring, I offered my skills to the highest bidder. I killed seventeen people for money before I was caught. I wasn’t really caught, of course. I was just sold off to the highest bidder.

I am a murderer, and that’s why I’m here. I’m stationed on XAE7809, a planet in the Corinthian system. Every decade or so, one of the prefectures gets their panties in a bunch and it’s war. They pick some uninhabited planet to get fucked up, because that’s more civilized, of course. This time, 09 drew the golden ticket, and so they fight and fight and drop bombs and plant mines and lots of people on both sides die. Then, when everyone’s smiling again and the generals are shaking hands and the planet has cooled down, us Jukes go down and clean that shit up. And when it’s done, it’s onto the next one. We’re free to go once we’ve served five years. I heard of a guy that made it to three.

The men around me are dangerous. Serial killers, schizophrenic maniacs, guys with bad impulse control who are just wound too tight. I’m not crazy. When I killed, I was always calm and in control. I would never, ever let my emotions spill out and affect my work. It was just work to me. I never thought of work as something that was a large part of me. My father was the same; he was able to put his work — he was a doctor — in some kind of compartment in his head, and never let whatever happened there at the hospital impact his family. If it wasn’t for the medical books and charts and all that stuff, we wouldn’t have even known what he did for a living.

Like every other Juke here, I got a chip in my brain. Boss tells me where to go, what to do, how to do it. If I don’t know how to do something, Boss downloads it from a satellite and tells me. If I say I don’t want to do it, Boss encourages me to do it anyway by tapping directly into my nervous system and fingering my pain receptors. Boss can’t kill me, though — there’s a law against that. The Jellicoe Act. They can make you suction up chemical waste that will slough your skin right off, they can make you clean up a mine field, but they can’t kill you with the press of a button. Sometimes, though, guys just drop on the job, and given the stress, it’s probably natural. Still, you have to wonder.

The Jukes take care of themselves. Other than Boss’s voice in our heads, we don’t see anybody else, not even other teams of Jukes. There’s about fifty of us in a team, and we all live inside Big Mama. Big Mama is our home on wheels. She’s mostly automated, with a little help from Boss on high. Big Mama feeds us, bathes us, and puts us to sleep. She even jacks us off and relieves some of that tension. Big Mama also has a program that condenses a full night’s sleep into a couple hours, because Boss always has work for us. But other than that, a team’s on their own. They make their own rules, and they enforce them. There are always problems, but it usually works — your fellow Juke is your only chance of making the five.

And I’m going to make the five. When you do your five, you’re considered dead until you come back. I have to get back. My family’s there. I haven’t seen them or heard from them in almost two years. I have to show them I’m alive. I have to be there for them. I have to pay for these five years.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Sunday
Jun 04, 2006

Re: [4] Round 11.0004 [Terminal Connection] posted by kza

Wow. They’ve really tightened the rules on netiquette breaches.

Surely you’re familiar with the Southern California code of conduct: use-a-piece-of-polystyrene-foam-covered-with-fibreglass-and-float-on-a-wave-in-the-ocean or expire?

Same thing, bro.

If that piques your interest, then once again I offer human meat (with no synopsis).

Tom Noonan! Dude, that’s all you had to say.

Here’s an idea, cribbed from Q-Tip of A Tribe Called Quest:

Instead of doing so much, why don’t you do just a little?

Put another way: do you need all that exposition yer slangin’? How little can you get away with? The human mind — the audience’s mind — is built to find patterns and make connections. It’s always working, even when it seems like it isn’t, and it’s always looking for clues to make sense of the world — or your film. Why work so hard to lay out every character, every relationship, every moment of plot, when there are minds out there in the audience who will do that automatically? It’s like that NASA project to scan the universe for alien life — why try to crunch all those numbers (which’ll take forever) when you can have millions of people crunch some of the numbers with a screensaver?

An anecdote: My wife and I watched the Michael Mann thriller Collateral last year on DVD. Unbeknownst to either of us, we somehow started the film at chapter two (where we see Tom Cruise enter the office building), completely skipping what we would later discover was nearly 13 minutes of film. Were we confused by what was happening? That was the funny thing — not in the least. It was completely intelligible. And it was a pretty exciting beginning, to boot: the film started in media res, and before we knew what was going on, Tom Cruise was holding Jamie Foxx hostage. Going back over the beginning after it ended, we were surprised (and grateful) that we skipped having to hear Foxx explain his lifelong dream twice in a row.

Was it perfect? No — in fact, there was clearly a kind of emotional hole in the narrative, as we missed Foxx making a connection with Jada Pinkett Smith. But it was never in doubt that Foxx cared about Smith, and wanted to save her from Cruise. A little rewriting could have saved a lot of tedium.

How much can you cut from your script? How far can you pare it down before it’s unintelligible? Is it possible to go too far? (A: Yes. For all its austere glory, Primer could use just a smeench more exposition.) But again, remember: an audience does not go into a theater tabula rasa. They’re bringing their thoughts, memories, feelings… their entire life experience into that theater with them. Let them use that experience to fill in the spaces you’ve left intentionally blank.

And what, exactly, is the upside of this? If all this exposition is going to be cut out, what’s going to take its place?

Simple.

Anything and everything about the characters that has nothing to do with the story.

I’ll explain that… next time.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Saturday
Jun 03, 2006

Let The Audience Do The Work posted by kza

(Yep, it’s another Signal vs. Noise-style missive. I’m not sure why these are coming to me; some kind of pent-up frustration, I guess. And it should be noted that, despite the philosophy I’m imparting here, I’ve done the opposite of what I’m saying time and again, and I continue to do so. In other words, this is just as much for me as anyone else.)

Comments (0) — Category: technique

Friday
Jun 02, 2006

Round 11, Part One [Terminal Connection v. Little Black Stray] posted by kza

Character Sketch: Mary Harwood
Relationship to Story: Protagonist

2020. It’s been seven years since the Kuleshov Event unleashed a virus that cursed a portion of the population with telepathy. At first, it was easy to tell who was infected — they were the ones who were screaming about the voices in their head, the ones who went schizophrenic, the ones who killed themselves. But there were a few who were able to control their ability and keep it hidden, and they used it to get ahead, in business and in government. When researchers, looking for a cure, developed a test to determine if someone was a Patho (as they were called), it was soon revealed that the upper echelons of the governing class were teeming with Pathos, and a witch-hunt cum revolution ensued. An agency known as the SAFE Initiative was created, and the Pathos were round up and taken away to a place that had no name, but was commonly called the Prison Planet.

Mary Harwood is the owner of a successful chain of diamond and jewelry stores, but political aspirations gnaw at her. She’s already served on a number of corporate boards, and hopes to be an appointee when her friend Ronald Ek wins the governorship in the fall. She is also cozy with the SAFE Initiative Director of her state, David Kensington — in fact, she’s sleeping with him. That relationship is already fraught with potential conflicts of interest, but to complicate matters further, both are married. Mary’s husband, Parsons, comes from old money and was instrumental in getting Mary’s businesses off the ground.

Mary grew up in the suburbs of Detroit, the second child of John and Ellen Katsoulas, married veterinarians. Although she loved animals, she also became unsentimental about them — she worked in her parents’ office and helped put many an animal to sleep. Her two siblings — older brother Mike and younger brother Alan — also worked in the office, although only Mike would follow even remotely in his parents’ footsteps. Mary intended on studying biology in college, but was put off by the unforgiving difficulty of the classes and gravitated towards business. When she graduated, she joined a classmate’s startup business as the marketing director.

Although that business was ultimately a failure, Mary moved on from job to job, slowly climbing the corporate ladder. Things came to a crashing halt, though, when she was arrested for aiding terrorists. This was a surprise to her — she considered herself patriotic, and moreso than most. It turned out that the checks she’d been writing to her brother for many years — out of familial obligation — were going to his nascent eco-activist group. The group, during a raid on a animal testing lab, accidentally killed a guard, and were prosecuted as terrorists. An investigation into the group’s finances ensnared Mary… and a young millionaire named Parsons Harwood.

Both Mary and Parsons were, thanks to a talented lawyer, cleared of all wrong-doing. It’s here that they met, and after a year of romance, they wed. Unfortunately, as Mary would later realize, she really married Parsons for his money and her potential for career advancement. That same year, the Kuleshov Event struck. The Harwoods were isolated from the chaos that ensued, although they personally knew several people who were affected. Parsons used his money to help in relief efforts… and quietly buy up the properties and businesses of those who were now unable to maintain them. Mary, feeling out of place in Parson’s world but asked by him to play the wealthy socialite, began to volunteer her time for the SAFE Initiative, where she first came into contact with David Kensington. She immediately fell for him, but she kept her feelings secret for the next six years, instead trying to convince herself that her marriage was working.

The world changed considerably since the Kuleshov Event and the Pathos Purge that followed a few years later. Although there are no more Pathos about, extreme paranoia is rampant in the nation. People are staying indoors more and more, doing as much as they can via computer. Trials are now done completely online on double-blind terminals, in order to avoid potential Patho tampering. One of the common reasons for murder now is “I thought he was reading my mind.” And the government is more secretive than ever.

And so the story starts with Mary Harwood, potential political appointee, finding out that her younger brother Alan has been working in gay porn under the name Al Hardwood, and, when she can at least afford it, has been summoned for jury duty on a conspiracy-to-murder case.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Thursday
Jun 01, 2006

Re: [3] Round 11.0004 [Terminal Connection] posted by Martin

Also: You provided a YouTube link entitled “human meat”. No way am I clicking on that. Synopsize or die.

Or die? Wow. They’ve really tightened the rules on netiquette breaches. In any case, let me instead provide you with a link to a page that has the same content in a format with no graphics and only words. Safe for everybody:

“Yes, thinking meat! Conscious meat! Loving meat. Dreaming meat. The meat is the whole deal! Are you beginning to get the picture or do I have to start all over?”

If that piques your interest, then once again I offer human meat (with no synopsis). However, I will offer my promise: It’s a no goatse zone. And, you’ll like it.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Thursday
Jun 01, 2006

Re: Round 11.0004 [Terminal Connection] posted by kza

Good answer. Yeah, that does help, I think. This is a tough one, though, and it’s kinda a shame that I’m the one to start it off — I think you have a better feel for it. I’m finding it hard to juggle the telepathy, the precognition, the future world that contains both of these things, the future world that produces this kind of trial system, and then plug in an interesting character, while keeping in mind the complicated plot.

With that in mind, however, I think I’m almost there.

Also: You provided a YouTube link entitled “human meat”. No way am I clicking on that. Synopsize or die.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Thursday
Jun 01, 2006

Re: Round 11.0003 [Terminal Connection] posted by Martin

Do some people in this world have the ability to predict the future? Or is this a semantics problem, and what you meant to say was that the husband is accused of conspiracy to murder?

Good question. I think I originally saw it as a Minority Report sort of situation. But, I don’t have a definitive vision (despite how strongly i seemed to feel about machines reading the future) What if it was a ghost in the machine that falsely accused the man? What if it was an anonymous tip after he was drunk in a bar—which then, I guess, would be the conspiracy to murder rap.

Or, what if the computers were big-brotherish in many ways with sensors in every home—to watch, of course, for telepaths who are acting badly. What if the computers used statistical analysis of behavior and samples of secreted human meat chemicals in the home to judge statistical probabilities for murder. If above 95%, it goes to a jury who look at the more human aspects of the case. Somehow, some records get crossed and the husband gets accused, and because the wires were crossed, the wife is added to the case. He is notified that he’s under investigation and placed under house arrest, but he manages to hide this from her. He gets more paranoid, and as the case goes on, he realizes that his wife is investigating him and his paranoia takes over. He does start to plot her murder.

This raises other issues, but is interesting enough to explore, maybe. Of course, as you said, you should alter as you see fit. Anything sparked by these?

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Wednesday
May 31, 2006

Round 11.0003 [Terminal Connection] posted by kza

Question for Burley:

In all versions of this story so far, the following phrase is used:

…that the crime of which he’s accused, but hasn’t committed yet, is murdering her.

However, going back through the archives, you also said this:

…and I especially don’t mean that computers can predict the future…

So, while knowing that I have the freedom to alter all this as I see fit, I’m still curious about your intention. Do some people in this world have the ability to predict the future? Or is this a semantics problem, and what you meant to say was that the husband is accused of conspiracy to murder?

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Wednesday
May 31, 2006

The State of the Blog: May 2006 posted by Martin

Human secularists, satanic majesties, crimson overlords and clarified-butter dharma dolls, welcome to the State of the Blog for May 2006. May was a month of 21 posts, an average of .67 posts per day, which is a sequential kind of number. A memory of the Summer of Love, in that number. A memory of a to-do list overflowing with actionable items.

The month began with the tail end of the Radical Idea approach to stopping an argument. In good form, we made some rules, and then discussed them for quite awhile to make sure they reached the patented Spitball! gold standard of needless complexity.

Once that was done, we finished up our Round 10 discussions about which stories to move forward, and then moved on to Round 11—which started by defining the “in a world” scenario that we never did define for Terminal Connection when we created it as a frankenstein story idea.

Starting this month, character bios for Round 11—which, according to our new rules will not be an either-or proposition, but instead a situation where both could potentially move forward.

I don’t know about you, gentle reader, but when I think of how close we are getting to actually starting the writing, I get a little excited, in culturally acceptable ways. Won’t you join me and let’s be excited together in culturally acceptable ways?

Comments (0) — Category: communications

Tuesday
May 30, 2006

Loose Ends posted by kza

(The following is an attempt at the kind of post they sometimes do over at Signal vs. Noise — that is, a “statement of purpose” kind of deal that’s both kind of controversial but also kind of vague. Is mine a homage or a parody? I’m thinking a little of both.)

SCREENWRITERS:

Stop tying shit together.

Yes, if you’re writing a mainstream narrative, cause and effect is often necessary. Foreshadowing — that’s usually a good thing. It’s good to be introduced to a character, concept, event, etc. in a “teasing” way, only to get the full introduction later on.

But not everything needs to tie into something previously shown, nor does it need to tie into something later on. Not everything needs to be a “plant”. Not everything needs to be a payoff. I don’t need to be constantly paid off. What am I, a mob shakedown guy?

When everything is a plant with an accompanying payoff, you’ve gone from creating a world to creating an artificial world. It’s not clever. It’s not “good writing”. It’s hermetic. In a sense, it’s paranoid. Ultimately, it’s suffocating.

Open that world up. Bring up something — a character, an image, a place — and then drop it. The real world is too big to encompass in a screenplay. But that doesn’t mean that you can’t suggest that enormity. And just because your screenplay takes place on the dragon-infested island of Mythia doesn’t mean you can get away with hermeticism. For every noble prince, there’s a peasant somewhere toiling in the mud. For every exciting quest, there’s a courtier who’s fallen in love with the princess, or a steward trying to run a castle, or wizard trying to make the mortgage on his tower. We don’t need the full stories — we can fill them in ourselves. But we need the sense that this is a living, breathing world, one that exists outside the boundaries of the protagonist.

And living, breathing worlds have loose ends.

Comments (0) — Category: technique

Monday
May 15, 2006

Note to self: remember the sounds posted by Martin

There was an amazing bit on NPR’s Morning Edition earlier today about some of the sounds in the dense neighborhoods surrounding the Forbidden City in Bejing. I think it’s worth a listen for the wild and varied things you hear.

I was thinking about those sounds, which stopped me dead in my tracks, and how as writers we need to shape the world of the characters. Especially in movies sound is important and omnipresent. Don’t forget to put them into worlds with noises that can confuse, startle and interact with them. Sound can be character as much as visual. In official news:

Burley, you said you had some ideas about this you wanted to go over? Cuz I’m ready to jump in with character bios.

Go man go! I’m ready too.

Comments (0) — Category: inspiration

Friday
May 12, 2006

Weekly Wrap-Up (5/6/06 - 5/12/06) posted by kza

So one thing and only one thing has crossed the lips of the Spitball! boys this week. Listen, and listen carefully, and you too might hear it. There it is! Can you hear it? Across the wind and through the trees, it falls upon your ears like the whispers of a long-forgotten lover. It says…

Terminal Connection.… Terminal Connection… Terminal Connection…

Meaning: What the hell is this story, anyway? As Burley recounts, this was the first story that was formed out of the consolidation of two competing stories, and as such, never got a proper write-up. It was determined that, before Round Eleven began, it might be a good idea to determine just what Terminal Connection is before starting the bios. Then Burley provided a write-up, and Shockah found it just dandy. And unless Burley wants to expand on the idea further, Shockah will start with the bios… on Monday, that is.

Also this week: Shockah put up the link for the hilariously accurate Do It Yourself Giallo Generator, and Burley highlighted the fascinating (and to Shockah, somewhat unnerving) found (vintage) photo site Big Happy Fun House. Spitball! Sez: Check ‘em out.

Comments (0) — Category: communications

Wednesday
May 10, 2006

Round 11.0002 [Terminal Connection] posted by kza

Before we get started…

Terminal Connection
In a world where telepathy is a disease, and known telepaths are imprisoned, all laws are built by consensus over the internet via double-blind anonymous computer terminals to guard against undo psychic influence. One politician is called to jury duty, also conducted over computer terminals, but doesn’t realize that the accused, whom she thinks should be dealt with harshly, is actually her husband. Nor does she realize that the crime of which he’s accused, but hasn’t committed yet, is murdering her. And what would she do if she knew that when she’s deliberating, her husband could read her mind and was plotting to kill her precisely because she’s about to send him back to the living hell of forced labor known as the Prison Planet?

My name is Urban Shockah and I approve this story idea.

Burley, you said you had some ideas about this you wanted to go over? Cuz I’m ready to jump in with character bios.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Wednesday
May 10, 2006

Inspiration in a lens posted by Martin

Inspiration: I take it anywhere I can get it, although as we’ve discussed before, our problem is not so much ideas but the time to express them. Maybe that’s the basis of our philosophy that the real work is the execution. I’ll bet there are diligent writers for whom the idea part is the hardest.

If you’re one of them you might find inspiration at Big Happy Fun House, one of my favorite blogs. It’s only vintage photos—new ones every day, cherry picked and edited by a guy with a great eye.

http://bighappyfunhouse.com/

His shadows series was particularly good, I thought.

Comments (0) — Category: inspiration

Monday
May 08, 2006

Round 11.0001 [Terminal Connection] posted by Martin

UPDATE: 5/10/06 — I had to change the title from a ridiculous number of zeros down to only a few too many zeros because the post title was breaking the blog layout. We’re always living on the edge for you, dear viewer.

To recap, for those of you who haven’t been paying attention: There were two stories called The Infected and If It Pleases the Court. For some reason we decided to blend the two stories into one, which Shockah smartly titled Terminal Connection. But, we realized we haven’t written a description of it yet. So, here’s mine. After Shockah does his, I’ll discuss a few ideas about this that I have, and see if we can’t whip it into shape for the true Round 11, not so far away.

But first, the stories we’re blending:

The Infected
In a world where telepathy is a disease and the infected are prisoners, one woman will discover a shocking truth that could change everything… but on a world where a mind can be read as easily as opening a book, how can any secret be safe?

If It Pleases The Court
In a World where crimes are judged and juried by encrypted, anonymous computer terminals, one jury foreman doesn’t realize that the man she’s arguing so strongly should be committed to the Prison Planet for life is actually her husband—and the crime he’s accused of—but hasn’t committed yet—is murdering her.

And now…

Terminal Connection
In a world where telepathy is a disease, and known telepaths are imprisoned, all laws are built by consensus over the internet via double-blind anonymous computer terminals to guard against undo psychic influence. One politician is called to jury duty, also conducted over computer terminals, but doesn’t realize that the accused, whom she thinks should be dealt with harshly, is actually her husband. Nor does she realize that the crime of which he’s accused, but hasn’t committed yet, is murdering her. And what would she do if she knew that when she’s deliberating, her husband could read her mind and was plotting to kill her precisely because she’s about to send him back to the living hell of forced labor known as the Prison Planet?

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Friday
May 05, 2006

Re[2]: Round 10.6 - Discussion [Rasputin the Translator v. Time to Die] posted by kza

…even though we had stories for The Infected & If It Pleases the Court, we’ve never had a log-line or pitch for Terminal Connection. Why don’t we both come up with one, and then I say we toss some ideas about it around before really starting the round. What do you think?

I was ready to just jump in with both feet, but we might avoid a Round Nine-style quagmire if we figured it out ahead of time. I have a concept in my head about what Terminal Connection is like (that I already know you won’t care much for), so next post, I’ll probably talk about that — but I’d better refresh my memory first. Telepathy? Double-blind juries? Cake? Something along those lines?

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Friday
May 05, 2006

re: Round 10.6 - Discussion [Rasputin the Translator v. Time to Die] posted by Martin

Heh heh heh… Here’s what I thought when I first read that bio: “Wow — Cemile! Of course! Obviously she’s the lynchpin of the entire story. I wonder what Burley’s got planned for her…”’

Damn, I should learn to keep my mouth shut. I’m much more mysterious and interesting in your mind than in reality.

Meaning I have to write a bio for Terminal Connection, an idea that currently has less story than Rasputin. Can I claim Conscientious Objector status?

You bring up a very good point, which is that even though we had stories for The Infected & If It Pleases the Court, we’ve never had a log-line or pitch for Terminal Connection. Why don’t we both come up with one, and then I say we toss some ideas about it around before really starting the round. What do you think?

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Friday
May 05, 2006

Weekly Wrap-Up (4/28/06 - 5/5/06) posted by kza

Hey there, loyal Spitball! readers. The Weekly Wrap-Up is back, after missing a few weeks. Don’t worry, you didn’t miss anything, unless you wanted to hear Shockah complain about people complaining and Burley complaining about his own complaining. Oh, Burley already made that joke. Nothing to see here, folks, move on.

The week began with an interesting question from Burley: Why aren’t there any big-budget epic movies about American Indian mythology? If the Chinese can mine their own history and mythology for kick-ass movies, why not one based on Northwest Native American folklore? (Shockah’s one word answer as to why we won’t be seeing one anytime soon starts with “r” and ends with “m”, but that’s the kind of answer one expects from Shockah.) Still, sounds pretty cool, and maybe one day someone will get it done.

Then Shockah finally posted his second bio, President Jones Alan Porter, for the idea Rasputin the Translator. It was… different, to say the least.

But then the Spitball! boys… excuse me while I get into my Dukes of Hazzard narrator outfit… but the the Spitball! boys found themselves in one dilly of a pickle. Seems like they both fell in love with the two stories, wouldn’t you know it, and couldn’t bring themselves to do the right and honorable thing and show one the door. So Burley Duke proposed a new way of goin’ about things: both stories in a round can move onto the final round, and a winner would be determined through the magic of Needlessly Complex rules. Now Shockah Duke, he aint the brightest bulb in the bottom drawer, so he had to have the new rules explained to him. Twice. But he finally got it figured out, and so it was then agreed that these new rules would be in effect for the rest of the heat. Until Boss Hogg got wind of the new plan…

Anyway, after a little bit of discussion, both Rasputin the Translator and Time to Die were voted through to the final round. Hooray! Only two more rounds until the moment America has been waiting for: the winner of the First Spitball! Tourney of Story Ideas. Who will it be? Rasputin? Little Black Stray? The Scabs? Stay tuned as the competition is only going to get hotter!

Shockah out.

Comments (0) — Category: communications

Friday
May 05, 2006

Round 10.6 - Discussion [Rasputin the Translator v. Time to Die] posted by kza

It is funny—I did have to look it up…but, I actually never imagined her as a character that might need a background, but now that you mention it, I think she would be a great character with a background. Hmmmm. I can see her playing an important role in the film…

Heh heh heh… Here’s what I thought when I first read that bio: “Wow — Cemile! Of course! Obviously she’s the lynchpin of the entire story. I wonder what Burley’s got planned for her…”

Rasputin the Translator: YES
Time to Die: YES

My vote is as follows:

Rasputin the Translator: YES
Time to Die: YES

Both stories move on. Congratulations, stories.

This Round Goes To Eleven is next. Little Black Stray and Terminal Connection. I’m doing the starting bios. Meaning I have to write a bio for Terminal Connection, an idea that currently has less story than Rasputin. Can I claim Conscientious Objector status?

Bios coming soon.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Friday
May 05, 2006

Round 10.5 - Discussion [Rasputin the Translator v. Time to Die] posted by Martin

Ooops! I meant Cemile. Knew I shoulda looked that one up. Now, if you don’t know who that is… that’s gonna be funny.

It is funny—I did have to look it up…but, I actually never imagined her as a character that might need a background, but now that you mention it, I think she would be a great character with a background. Hmmmm. I can see her playing an important role in the film…

should we take a vote?

Hell yeah. I’m ready. My votes?

Rasputin the Translator: YES
Time to Die: YES

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Thursday
May 04, 2006

Round 10.4 - Discussion [Rasputin the Translator v. Time to Die] posted by kza

Wait—who’s Cecile again?

Ooops! I meant Cemile. Knew I shoulda looked that one up. Now, if you don’t know who that is… that’s gonna be funny.

In retrospect, I should have chosen something less open to…shall we say, interpretation?

Oh, I knew you had a reason for it (and it’s a good reason, I think), but yeah, not sure how that would end up playing in Peoria, to coin a phrase.

Well, whaddya want to do now? We could keep talking about these stories, but since it’s not an either/or game anymore, and I think we know how we feel about them… should we take a vote?

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Wednesday
May 03, 2006

Round 10.3 - Discussion [Rasputin the Translator v. Time to Die] posted by Martin

1. We don’t really seem to know what the actual story is for Rasputin the Translator. Should that be a factor in whether it advances or not?

That’s a good question, but I say no. We both were excited about the character bios, and we’re both excited by the possibilities of it. Besides, this heat was never about defining the story as much as it was about exploring it obliquely through extraneous characterization. Our work, while maybe not clarifying anything about the story, has certainly not made me doubt it at all.

2. There are a still a couple of bios that I’d like to see: Rasputin’s Cecile, and Time to Die’s unnamed warden character. Should those be written now, during this discussion, or wait until the stories have (potentially) moved on, or what?

Another good point. I would say it’s in our hands — if the bios would be handy, I say we divide them up and each take one on. I don’t see it influencing the decision to move the stories forward, but it might help down the line. Wait—who’s Cecile again?

3. What are we looking for when we decide whether to move these stories on? Is it simply a gut thing, or can it be stated in a quantitative way?

Either. I think, like Steven Colbert, that the gut has more nerve endings than the brain. Or, at least, it’s sometimes right. If you have a feeling, vote it through. If it doesn’t have enough meat on the bones, I doubt it will become the #1 pick anyway.

4. Did we ever decide what Time to Die’s prison was like?

No, we didn’t — and I’d actually like to put this question off a bit until we do more brainstorming (or, dare I say it? Spitballing….) about this story. The reason is that I think the environment will play a really large part in the plot (both in a kind of “doomsday” device that you had in mind, and also in the set up that allows the prisoners to take over the prison). I want to make sure the choice is informed by some different options before I commit.

5. What exactly were your plans for September’s stripper and dominatrix pals, anyway?

Bastard. You had to bring up that again. Well, I was thinking tough, independent women who would be a bit wild and never conform to the expectations society had of them. I saw this as an influence on September, who in general is a more mainstream person. What influenced her life to make her completely disregard the authority figures who tell her that what she wants to do can’t be done? That’s the gist of it — and, I totally confess that I didn’t support those ideas at all, and that out of context it looked a little bit like drooling geek boy fandom. My angle was looking at the characteristics I wanted to fill, and then thinking of a profession to support them instead of the other way around. In retrospect, I should have chosen something less open to…shall we say, interpretation?

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Wednesday
May 03, 2006

Round 10 - Discussion [Rasputin the Translator v. Time to Die] posted by kza

Well, I guess we now open the floor to discussion about the two stories. As Burley already knows, I’m feeling a little bit under the weather (but hopefully not the Boogie Woogie Burley Flu), so my thoughts aren’t as coherent as I’d like them to be. So rather than pontificate in a woozy state, I’m just going to throw out some questions, and let Burley run with it where he may (which may or may not include answering the questions — he’s not like, under oath or anything).

1. We don’t really seem to know what the actual story is for Rasputin the Translator. Should that be a factor in whether it advances or not?

2. There are a still a couple of bios that I’d like to see: Rasputin’s Cecile, and Time to Die’s unnamed warden character. Should those be written now, during this discussion, or wait until the stories have (potentially) moved on, or what?

3. What are we looking for when we decide whether to move these stories on? Is it simply a gut thing, or can it be stated in a quantitative way?

4. Did we ever decide what Time to Die’s prison was like? Last time we talked about it, it seemed like we had different conceptions (I was thinking something more traditional, just on a different planet, but you seemed to be thinking about a more expansive, outdoorsy “prisoner reserve” kind of deal, if I’m not mistaken.) I got no preferences, I can go with the flow, but setting helps determine character, so it might be a good thing to figure out.

5. What exactly were your plans for September’s stripper and dominatrix pals, anyway?

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Tuesday
May 02, 2006

Re[4]: A Radical Idea posted by Martin

Assuming this is correct, I vote “yea” on this plan, with the caveat that I may want to Needlessly Complicate how the winner is generated in Step 3; but that idea’s for another post.

It is correct, and I gleefully await your next addition to Needless Complexity.

What’s a magic penny song?

Are you sure you were raised in California in the 70s? I couldn’t escape this song as a kid. The Magic Penny is a song by Malvina Reynolds, whom many of you may know for song Little Boxes, which is the opening tune to the TV show Weeds. It’s pure commie propaganda tainting our children with ideas of love and giving. We should be singing Let The Eagle Soar to our children. Who wants kids to love? We want them to be tough! Anyway, I digress.

The lyrics go:

Love is something if you give it away, give it away, give it away
Love is something if you give it away, you end up having more

It’s just like the magic penny
Hold it tight, and you haven’t got any
spend it lend it and you’ll have so many
they’ll roll all over the floor

As you can see, it’s basic buddhism. Do good, and karma will repay you. Or, appealing to the lowest common denominator—greed of money—to change the lowest common behavior—greed of love. Or maybe she’s advocating orgies and gambling—not quite sure. In any case, it’s a beloved sing-song youthful ditty. You can hear the woman herself singing it on iTunes.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Monday
May 01, 2006

The State of the Blog: April posted by Martin

Friends, paper monsters, chicken-sqwaking parakeets, and CIA agents who were working undercover in Iran on nuclear proliferation before being outed by the (as of this date) still unfired presidential monkey boy, welcome to the state of the blog looking back on April, 2006.

April is a special month. The showers bring flowers, the rain falls on plains (at least in Maine, so they proclaim), but here the great sickness of 2006 was just ending. I, a stalwart and upright fellow—sound of body and mind—not, pray tell, athletic per chance, but nor feeble or prone to sudden illness—I fell under the spell of one wicked and hideous influenza, passed to me by a globe-trotting photographer who is a good man, so shant be named here. On that first day of April where minds turn to fools, I turned mine to the simple task of walking (slowly!) four blocks for a taco. No metaphor lives here—a real, fresh taco, bathed in Blue Water and Chipotle salsa. I made it, this walk, with the accompaniment of my inspiring and faithful companion. It was she that bought me the taco, for indeed—and here’s where you’ll lend me your sympathies a mite—it was indeed the celebration of the day of my birth.

But let’s not dawdle on me—because this experience of Spitball! is about us. Our Google ranking fell, and then rebounded and we’re back on the first page—the only reference on that page not about baseball. If you feel that this Spitball! is more important then, say “Spitball: the Literary Baseball Magazine,” (which appears to be an Angelfire.com site), then please do link to us and help us increase our standing with the processes and bits of binary that we loving call Google. Which reminds me—big shout out to brother-in-law Ron for his new job, at the very same company.

And, I only bring up my illness and birthday because it is the bookmark at the beginning of this shelf of thirty upright days, and let us know run our fingers over the spines of the others and see what we can find.

There were 28 posts in April. We started finishing our decrepit and argumentative Round 9. Oh, Round 9! You bite and thrash when you should lay and drown. It was suggested that we kill both ideas that were bogging us down, but then it was agreed that we would move a proxy forward in place of a winner. We began Round 10 renewed, and energized by some very solid ideas, and both were tremendously inspired to write our character bios. Shockah, in particular, deserves recognition for his truly marvelous, bio-genre smashing sketch of our future fictional president, John Alan Porter.

The last week of April we broke away a bit, and complained about things, and even complained about complaining about things. We felt it dutiful to mention Jim Emerson, whom we both enjoy reading spectacularly.

We discussed, at great length, more needlessly complex® rules, which we love above all else. And now, we forge forward into May—expecting the flowers so promised to use in rhyme.

In the meantime, you might gander at Apple’s hilarious new ads. How is it that a company that size can keep the ads completely secret and launch them worldwide on national TV and on the internet at the same time? And, more importantly, did they use the genius Errol Morris again?

Comments (0) — Category: communications

Monday
May 01, 2006

Re[3]: A Radical Idea posted by kza

Okay, I think we’ve got it figured out.

I think.

Man, this just underlines how good you have to be when writing the rules for board games and role-playing games, even really simple ones. It doesn’t take much to cause a misunderstanding.

So:

1. We will continue the Spitball! Tourney of Story Ideas through Heat #2, which consists of the following rounds:

Rasputin the Translator v. Time to Die

Little Black Stray v. Terminal Connection

La Commune Planet v. The Scabs

2. In each round, we will each present a character bio, and then we will discuss each story. We will then vote Y or N on each story. However, these stories are no longer pitted against each other; instead, what is being voted on is whether the story is worthy of being a Spitball!-approved story idea. Both stories have the possibility of advancing.

3. Once Heat #2 is finished, then we each order our favorites from #1 to #whatever, take an average, and the story with an average closest to 1.0 is the Winner; the other stories become Runners-Up, and may get the script treatment in the future.

4. If, during Heat #2, there is a split vote, then the person that voted Y may try and convince the person who voted N of the idea’s worthiness; if the N voter is convinced, then the list that was generated in Step 3 is re-generated.

Assuming this is correct, I vote “yea” on this plan, with the caveat that I may want to Needlessly Complicate how the winner is generated in Step 3; but that idea’s for another post.

Also, in a previous post, I wrote this:

One more thing: During the iChat, Burley and I were concerned about how this will play with one of the elements of our Mission Statement: that the scripts developed here are released into the public domain. Do we really want to commit our best ideas to that? (It was one thing when it was only one idea, one script; it feels different when it might be more like three or four.) It’s true that we feel like we can come up with ideas at the drop of a hat, and that it’s about execution and not ideas. Yet, a few of these ideas seem, to me at least, very commercial, and it’s not like we plan to make a living putting screenplays into the public domain (if we even knew how!); in fact, we’d like to, you know, get paid one of these days. I had the idea of voting to “Vault” certain ideas — meaning, removing them from the Spitball! Tourney of Story Ideas, but keeping them for ourselves for later development.

Here’s the new version:

One more thing: During the iChat, Burley and I were concerned about how this will play with one of the elements of our Mission Statement: that the scripts developed here are released into the public domain. Do we really want to commit our best ideas to that? (It was one thing when it was only one idea, one script; it feels different when it might be more like three or four.) It’s true that we feel like we can come up with ideas at the drop of a hat, and that it’s about execution and not ideas. Yet, a few of these ideas seem, to me at least, very commercial, and it’s not like we plan to make a living putting screenplays into the public domain (if we even knew how!); in fact, we’d like to, you know, get paid one of these days. I had the idea of voting to “Vault” certain ideas — meaning, removing them from the Spitball! Tourney of Story Ideas, but keeping them for ourselves for later development.

Short version: Fuck That Noise. Let the best ideas come forward and be worthy of the prize.

(Last night, I finished Getting Real, and something there made me change my mind. Of course, I can’t really remember what, now.)

And finally:

What’s a magic penny song?

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Sunday
Apr 30, 2006

Re[2]: A Radical Idea posted by Martin

2. When ALL the bios are done, we THEN discuss the pros and cons of each story. But: we are no longer pitting them head-to-head anymore, but simply looking at each one individually and deciding if they are worthy of being turned into a screenplay.

I was thinking more that we still take the heats step by step, so present two stories, do a bio, talk about them, and then vote and move on to the next round. Only, when we would normally (“Normally.” As if we did this all the time—yeah, on the last screenplay blog we did it this way….) go on to the next heat, this time we vote.

6. So, an idea that got Shelved can be resurrected by the Yes Voter, and put into the Ranked Winners category if the No Voter acquiesces. I understand that, but I’m not sure if I know where exactly this step occurs. (After the Ranked Winners are determined? Before?)

I say any time. If, for instance, I voted no on Rasputin (fat chance), and you voted yes, then at anytime in the future you could expand on your vision of Rasputin and I could reevaluate whether I would vote differently. If I would, Rasputin is in the running. My first inclination was to put it in the bottom of the list, but if you came up with a stellar idea, we might want to bump it—so we would have a revote over the items in the list and see where it shook out.

I had the idea of voting to “Vault” certain ideas — meaning, removing them from the Spitball! Tourney of Story Ideas, but keeping them for ourselves for later development.

I like that idea, but I’m still not sold on it. That is to say, I think some of these ideas could be very commercial, but I also think if we went through the same process that we did to come up with these ideas based around a topic different than Prison Planet we could come up with another batch of ideas that we liked as much, if not more. And, to boot, they would be more contemporary to wherever we are when we do it. It will come as no surprise to our readers that Shockah and I have scripts we’re working on outside of Spitball! that won’t get talked about much here because they are decidedly not in the public domain. But, since we started this with the idea of putting these out there, I vote that we release all ideas on this blog, and all work on this blog and keep that the rule. So, no hoarding commercial ideas, I say. Anybody can use them. My feeling is that we’ll get back more from releasing them than we would if we hoarded them, but then, my parents used to sing me the magic penny song, so apply salt where needed.

That may also influence voting, then—if we knew we couldn’t keep some ideas, then we may want to push an idea higher because we feel it has commercial potential, and in one sense commercial potential = well written and considered script.

Of course, the outlines aren’t what matters, the writing is. That’s where the rubber meets the road, and we’re going to really succeed or fail.

How do you feel about that Shock-a-dock-a-dockah?

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Sunday
Apr 30, 2006

Re: A Radical Idea posted by kza

Note: Some discussion of this post took place on iChat. I believe most of the points and issues will be restated here; if not, I’m sure Burley can help me out.

First, I’m glad you liked the last bio. I thought that what you wrote about Jones in the Jake bio gave us a good enough idea of Jones’ physical circumstances, that focusing entirely on what I call his “interiority” seemed like a better tactic. I didn’t expect the whole thing to be his dream though; that just kinda happened.

Next: As I told Burley in an email, this was The Right Post at the Right Time. I, too, felt very strongly about both story ideas, and wouldn’t know which one to vote for. Well, I’d probably go with Time to Die, since I’m kinda conservative and always choose the one that seems “further along”, whatever that might mean at the time. But the idea of losing Rasputin, especially when it seemed like it was on the right track, was pretty disheartening. So: what to do?

(Oh, wait. One more aside. This:)

Brought to you by: Shower—a contained, temperature controlled indoor rain, promoting clarity of thought, cleanliness of body, and consumption of odiferous creams, jellies, soaps and scrubs. Shower—it’s repetitive beating on your head will stimulate deep thought. Shower—have one every morning.

(… is so fucking true it aint even funny. Except that it was. Great job!)

Anyway… What to do? I’m going to go through Burley’s last post step by step, and pretend to be a little slower than I really am, since this is a pretty important decision regarding this blog and our communication should be crystal clear.

Even though it’s taken us four months to get to this point, at some future date we’re going to start writing, and then at some future date months or years away we’ll have a screenplay written that we have blessed as our as-good-as-we-can-make-it version (or, knowing us, as-good-as-we-can-make-it-until-we-undertake-a-massive-rewrite-and-totally-complicate-the-plot), what then? Does this blog just sit fallow?

So we’re talking, “What is Spitball! about once the experiment is over and we’ve written our script via blog”. It’s a good question — and I’ll admit I’ve been concentrating more on the trees lately than the forest.

Here’s what I propose: we move through all the heats in the in the current round, doing our bios. We discuss as much as we want the pros and cons of each story as if we were going to vote on them, but then we vote on whether or not each idea is really a viable idea for a script. If we both vote no, off it goes, if we vote yes that idea moves forward. If we vote yes on both, then they both move forward, and we move on to the next round. If one votes yes, and the other votes no, the idea is shelved for later. When we are through with all of the heats, we list all the ideas that made it through, and each of us orders, from one to whatever, our favorite ideas.

We take those numbers, and average our scores, which will give us a list or ranked ideas that we both liked and feel can be made into a doable script—and a string of scripts to write, should we actually get that far. Now, here’s the rub—since an idea might end up on top that we both are a little unhappy about, it would be silly to force us to write it. So, we always have the option of voting again until we get the order that we both want.

So, to recap, to the best of my understanding (them’s some nice Needlessly Complex Rules, btw):

1. We do bios, one apiece for each story, for a total of 2 bios for each story and a total of four overall, for:

a. Little Black Stray and Terminal Connection
b. La Commune Planet and The Scabs

2. When ALL the bios are done, we THEN discuss the pros and cons of each story. But: we are no longer pitting them head-to-head anymore, but simply looking at each one individually and deciding if they are worthy of being turned into a screenplay.

3. Each story is voted upon. If “No”, then that story is relegated to the dustbin of Spitball! history. If “Yes”, then that story moves onto the next and final round. If there’s a split vote, that story is “Shelved”, which means it isn’t “in play”, but has the potential to come back into play. (More on that in a moment.)

4. Final Round: We take the winners and rank them favorite (#1) to least favorite (#whatever).

5. Each story gets an average based on our ratings and are then ranked again (The “Ranked Winners”.) This new ranking gives us the winner (the story with the average closest to 1.0) and a list of runner-ups for use once the initial winner gets a script written about it. If this final list is unsatisfactory, however, we may revote on it until we get one we like.

5a. This last rule is a good one; in my experience, “winner based on average” more often than not gives a winner that’s least objectionable, but often has the last amount of passion attached to it.

Also, if any shelved ideas are gnawing at us, the party that voted yes on it can try to expand on the idea to sell the other on his vision of it. Of course, this continues our fine tradition of needlessly complex™ rules, and will eliminate the dread I feel when it comes to not working on some of these ideas.

6. So, an idea that got Shelved can be resurrected by the Yes Voter, and put into the Ranked Winners category if the No Voter acquiesces. I understand that, but I’m not sure if I know where exactly this step occurs. (After the Ranked Winners are determined? Before?)

How’d I do? Correct me where necessary.

One more thing: During the iChat, Burley and I were concerned about how this will play with one of the elements of our Mission Statement: that the scripts developed here are released into the public domain. Do we really want to commit our best ideas to that? (It was one thing when it was only one idea, one script; it feels different when it might be more like three or four.) It’s true that we feel like we can come up with ideas at the drop of a hat, and that it’s about execution and not ideas. Yet, a few of these ideas seem, to me at least, very commercial, and it’s not like we plan to make a living putting screenplays into the public domain (if we even knew how!); in fact, we’d like to, you know, get paid one of these days. I had the idea of voting to “Vault” certain ideas — meaning, removing them from the Spitball! Tourney of Story Ideas, but keeping them for ourselves for later development.

But that’s about as far as we got, since we knew we’d have to hash this out on the blog. And now that I’ve made some hash, I’m slinging it Burley’s way. What say you, Grymz?

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Sunday
Apr 30, 2006

A Radical Idea posted by Martin

Brought to you by: Shower—a contained, temperature controlled indoor rain, promoting clarity of thought, cleanliness of body, and consumption of odiferous creams, jellies, soaps and scrubs. Shower—its repetitive beating on your head will stimulate deep thought. Shower—have one every morning.

I was thinking about these two ideas and how to move forward. First of all, though, I have to say that I totally dug your last post. Dreams are usually a bit boring to read, but you had great tension, suspension, and now I want to know more about the man who will become president. Really engaging and inspiring work, Mr. Shockah.

So—we have two character bios for each story, and I’m no closer to picking one. At first I thought that I would just call for a vote, and force myself to decide, but as I pitted these against each other, I just couldn’t. I want them both to win for very different reasons. And maybe they both can.

Even though it’s taken us four months to get to this point, at some future date we’re going to start writing, and then at some future date months or years away we’ll have a screenplay written that we have blessed as our as-good-as-we-can-make-it version (or, knowing us, as-good-as-we-can-make-it-until-we-undertake-a-massive-rewrite-and-totally-complicate-the-plot), what then? Does this blog just sit fallow?

I can’t predict what will happen here in the future, but assuming everything goes well, what if we had a string of scripts to work on?

Here’s what I propose: we move through all the heats in the in the current round, doing our bios. We discuss as much as we want the pros and cons of each story as if we were going to vote on them, but then we vote on whether or not each idea is really a viable idea for a script. If we both vote no, off it goes, if we vote yes that idea moves forward. If we vote yes on both, then they both move forward, and we move on to the next round. If one votes yes, and the other votes no, the idea is shelved for later. When we are through with all of the heats, we list all the ideas that made it through, and each of us orders, from one to whatever, our favorite ideas.

We take those numbers, and average our scores, which will give us a list or ranked ideas that we both liked and feel can be made into a doable script—and a string of scripts to write, should we actually get that far. Now, here’s the rub—since an idea might end up on top that we both are a little unhappy about, it would be silly to force us to write it. So, we always have the option of voting again until we get the order that we both want.

Also, if any shelved ideas are gnawing at us, the party that voted yes on it can try to expand on the idea to sell the other on his vision of it. Of course, this continues our fine tradition of needlessly complex™ rules, and will eliminate the dread I feel when it comes to not working on some of these ideas.

What do you think? Silly, or maybe something workable?

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Friday
Apr 28, 2006

Round 10.2, Part Two [Rasputin the Translator v. Time to Die] posted by kza

And now, Part Two…

Rasputin the Translator
In a World contacted by a sentient and potentially violent alien race, one man—bearded and wild eyed—is the only person on earth who can translate between the languages of humans and the language of the aliens. But this strange man is not only hostile to both sides of the debate, he is also untrustworthy, and possibly manipulating the negotiations to his own ends. With all of Earth being turned into a prison as the stakes, one government has a very limited time to not only unravel the mysteries of the alien language, but also the history of the interpreter.

Character Sketch: Jones Alan Porter
Relationship to Story: Supporting

Jones Alan Porter had a dream. Not a political dream of freedom and enlightenment, mind you; that would come later. No, Jones had an actual in-bed dream once, while he was in high school. This was strange, because he never usually remembered his dreams, and if he didn’t remember them, then it was as if they never happened. But this one night, Jones, after winning a track meet earlier that day, dreamt that he was late for school. He ran to get there before the first bell rang, but to his mild surprise (since, in dreams, things that are truly weird never register as such), he was in a large grassy park that he’d never seen before. Despite having never seen this place before, he nonetheless knew that just over the stone bridge just before him was the school, and he rushed to get over it.

But just as he was about to, he heard a voice call his name from underneath the bridge. Jones stopped. Despite the fact that the school bell would certainly ring at any minute, making him late and giving him a black mark on his record that he felt he could ill afford (because in dreams, the smallest concerns are always crises of unimaginable consequence), Jones peered over the edge. The bridge crossed over another path, a trail through the park like the one he was currently on. The voice called out his name again, more urgent this time, and Jones slid down the steep green incline next to the bridge and landed on the path. (Years later, Jones realized that this bridge appeared in a violent video game he played during this time. He was always afraid that his fondness for this game would reach the media and severely impact, if not outright destroy, his career. This never came to pass.) As Jones stepped closer to the dark underpass (which was much darker than it should have reasonably been), he saw a figure standing next to the wall. The next morning, when Jones tried to remember what the figure looked like, it always appeared in his head as the image of a man in a trenchcoat with a gaping void where a face should be. He knew, however, that this was the simply the best that his waking, conscious mind could create — the real thing, whatever that might be, was visible only under the shroud of sleep.

Amazingly, the tardy bell still hadn’t rung, but he knew it would soon, and he felt that if he could just deal with this stranger quickly, he would still have time to make it. Why did he call Jones’ name? What did he want? But as Jones stepped forward, the man in the trenchcoat retreated from him, step for step, forcing Jones to step further into the tunnel. Once he was completely under the bridge, the man stopped his retreat, and Jones (just barely aware that the underside of the bridge was much larger than the top) called out to the man. You wanted to see me? he said, feeling in control, like during his track meets. The man said, I need you to stop this. Stop what? asked Jones. The man opened his trenchcoat and pointed to his pocket, a odd shaped bulge hanging off his hip. I need you to stop this, the man repeated. It seemed like a reasonable request to Jones, and it seemed like the most natural thing to do was to reach into the man’s pocket and remove whatever it was that was distressing him so much. Jones slipped his hand into the man’s pocket. He came back out with a small box, like for a ring or a piece of jewelry. The man said again, and for the last time: I need you to stop this. Jones looked at the man, then down at the box. With two fingers on the bottom and two on the lid, he started to pry the box open, the hinges of the box providing tight resistance. But then the lid sprung open, and Jones’ ears were nearly deafened by the shrill ringing bell that emerged from the empty box.

Jones awoke with a start, adrenaline in his veins and a hollowness in his chest. To his dismay, he realized that he urinated in his sleep, soaking his underwear and his sheets. While this was a problem for a very short time when he was six, it had never reoccurred since then, until this night. Stuffing his wadded up sheets into the hamper, Jones then got into the shower. As the hot water poured down his face, he reflected back on the nightmare (for it was a nightmare to him) and worked out what scared him so much. It wasn’t the shock of the bell, or the strange man with a black void for a face, or even reaching into the man’s pocket, as confused and ashamed as he later felt about it. It was simply how willing he was to step off the path and go under that dark bridge, simply at the call of his name.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Friday
Apr 28, 2006

Trickster Raven Deserves a Movie posted by Martin

Northwest Coast Indians have an amazing visual art tradition—one of the most developed of any indigenous peoples in the world. Cultures like the Haida in British Columbia have an astounding history of a complex visual language. Bill Reid, the most famous Haida artist—and possibly the most famous native artist—of the 20th century said this:

Art can never be understood, but can only be seen as a kind of magic, the most profound and mysterious of all human activities. Within that magic, one of the deepest mysteries is the art of the Northwest Coast — a unique expression of an illiterate people, resembling no other art form except perhaps the most sophisticated calligraphy.

But more than a calligraphy (which, it seems references the symbology employed in his and other Haida work), the masks, carvings and work of the North Coast Indians are a full language in of themselves, acting as visual reminders for the legends and stories handed down.

The first time I saw Reid’s astonishing Spirit of Haida Gwaii at the Vancouver airport, I could swear it was moving in front of me. It’s practically alive with motion. You can sit and just watch it, which I’ve had the pleasure of doing a few times. You can imagine it alive.

So here we have a culture, long in story and rich in visuals. Why no Indian mythology movie? I would see it set long before Europeans. Instead we have a story of a man, maybe—and let’s say that he is confronted with the creation stories. He’s confronted with Raven, but Raven is created in CG, and appears as a moving, breathing Reid sculpture. His dreams or visions are alive to him. Give him this world to run around in, a quest to complete, and throw in some views of authentic life on the North Coast before the white people came in, and you’ve got a compelling film. I’d pay to see it in a heartbeat.

It seems an obvious thing to me, but maybe that’s just showing my own naiveté. Would this work? Is there any reason it couldn’t? Think of the recent slate of visual arresting films coming out of China based on Chinese mythology and history (I’m still waiting for the Zheng He movie, but I won’t hold my breath). Wouldn’t one in the same spirit about the Northwest Coast Indians be just as cool?

Comments (0) — Category: inspiration

Thursday
Apr 27, 2006

Re: Jeeeeeeem! posted by kza

Is it okay to say that I usually end up going over to RogerEbert.com for Mr. Emerson’s Scanners rather than Mr. Ebert’s reviews? (Well, the Answer Man, too.) I mean, he named his column after a David Cronenberg movie! How cool is that?

The new, “real” blog is looking pretty cool, too. Just wished he’d have comments enabled, although I can understand why he’d demur — it’s not a decision taken lightly. (Not everyone can be a Matt Zoller Seitz — that is, be a journalist, but embrace the instant feedback, as well as give and take, that comments provide. Just ask the Washington Post.)

Comments (0) — Category: Links

Thursday
Apr 27, 2006

Re: Wednesdays with Cranky posted by Martin

Ironically (in light of my post last night), today in the Stranger, Brendan Kiley took local theater critics to task.

Tuesdays with Morrie is pap and the critics know it… But instead of indicting the play, the critics indict themselves. Why is this play tying them into knots?

I’m no reviewer or critic, and certainly not one of the ones he’s talking about, but I couldn’t help laugh when I read that. I did exactly what he said.

Although, my point ended up being more about the elitism of many critics, his is really about the nature of the play and why it incites such responses.

Still, it’s a good point to make—I think I tempered my harshness because of my interest in not being an asshole critic, but strove instead to let people be who they are and make their own choices in what to like and what not to. That said, I should really just get with it and remember that my opinion will likely mean little to anybody, and those that might be insulted by it will: 1) not likely read this blog, and 2) it’s goddamned egotistical of me to assume that I’m influencing anybody.

In the end, though, I guess I strive to at least be entertaining in my wrath—succeed or not. I’ll name my next review The Punches Less Pulled. Oh, and just for the record: we were season ticket holders. Morrie was the last show of the season.

Comments (0) — Category: inspiration

Thursday
Apr 27, 2006

Jeeeeeeem! posted by Martin

I really like Roger Ebert. He may be a populist critic, but he’s always unpredictable, and I think often has good insights.

So, around here, we were thrilled when the new RogerEbert.com launched, and especially because it was edited by the way-cool Jim Emerson (whom my better half worked with—or in the same building at least—at Microsoft). He wrote a lot of great stuff on the Roger Ebert site, but the page was a bit confusing in the outer shell of RogerEbert.com, and also felt more like a blog than a column, but looked like a column more than a blog—especially since there wasn’t even an rss feed.

All that changes today—Jim has a full-on blog at the Chicago Sun Times, now totally separate from the RogerEbert.com domain. I’m thrilled, and immediately added him to my feed reader (the awesome NetNewsWire, created by Seattle man Brent Simmons ).

http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/

Jim has especially big internet street cred right now—even Kottke links to him. Go Jim go!

Comments (0) — Category: Links

Wednesday
Apr 26, 2006

Wednesdays with Cranky posted by Martin

Let’s just make it bitch night in general around here. I just got back from seeing the Seattle Rep staging of Tuesdays with Morrie. The acting was fine, the staging was impressive, the story just interesting enough. I spent the hours it was unfolding in front of me trying to figure out exactly how they were moving all the props around. Occasionally I’d remember there were people on stage too.

They say that movies are about emotions, books are about ideas, and plays are about conversations. So, here we have a conversation of aphorisms between a wayward student who is unhappy (but here’s the rub: he doesn’t know it yet) with his successful career and new bride, and a happy nub of a man who is all charm and joi d’vivre—oh, the irony, she is a cruel mistress—for this man who loves life is dying.

Let’s watch him die, shall we? Gather around, ye in the expensive seats, and ye in the cheap sets—you shall all witness together. Did you remember your hankies ladies? The darkened room will be lifted by the sniffing of many noses—anonymous people shedding bodily fluids in amazingly close proximity—while on stage this man—a man who was a sociology professor for 30 some years, who published three books, who taught some of the Yippies before they got radical we are told, who influenced thousands of students over many years—this man seemingly quotes chicken-soup-for-the-soul for his student who — maybe he never watched Hallmark theater? — has never heard anything so profound as “Love always wins.”

Am I a total asshole for even approaching it so cynically? I mean, here’s a book that has moved millions of people, and tonight all of our friends that we went with were incredibly touched.

And now here’s the part where I talk about the movie Crash. I liked it. More than I liked this play. I know that I’ve just committed total hipster suicide, but just in case any of you are thinking there’s hope, I’m coming out completely un-ironically. I didn’t like Crash the same way I’m supposed to remember liking Night Rider (or so the Family Guy keeps reminding me, anyway), I just accept it. Why? I mean, this movie isn’t worth debating to many people I know, but I just didn’t think it was all that bad. I didn’t think it deserved best picture, but you know what? It moved a lot of people who credit the film with making them think about racism. That’s not the reason I like it, but that’s not a bad reason to like it—if it honestly moved you.

And here’s where I talk about media effects. You know, how media desensitizes us, children exposed to it for long times are more prone to do bad things, etc. etc. I had this conversation recently with somebody (hey D!), and what it always boils down to is: “I like playing violent video games and watching some violent movies and television shows and I’ve never been in a fight in my life,” and the other person says something like “Yes, but you’re….” smart, or thoughtful, or well-balanced, or not clinically insane or something—but implicit in the argument is this idea that I’m okay, but the other people that the media effects are not, and we know they’re not because research shows that media effects people in abstract ways that psychologists extrapolate from as metrics for real world violence, which everybody confesses they don’t fully understand or know how to predict. I think it’s an elitist attitude, however well-intentioned. It essentially puts you in the position of being able to save humanity from some evil, but the humanity you’re saving is unable to save themselves. The laws we pass are never for ourselves, they’re for the other jerks.

Now—to be fair to the conversation I was having, her argument was much more nuanced before I pigeoned it into this tiny hole for my own manipulative purposes, but my attitude towards bashing Crash or bashing Morrie is essentially the same argument: I think it’s elitist. What’s the harm in letting people make their own decisions about what they like and don’t like. Where the hell do I get off being so cynical and egotistical about my privileged opinion on the thing?

Which is why I asked: am I a total asshole for even approaching it so cynically? The answer? Hell, I don’t know. I can only say what I would have wanted.

Which is: My Dying with Andre. Instead of pitting a life that is slowing down against a life that is speeding up and having them grate against each other, present us with threads of this man’s research. You know: engaging ideas. Here—off the top of my head: I just finished a great book by Seth Lloyd called Programming the Universe, that talks about the amazing realities of quantum physics in relation to computation. I’ll bet if Lloyd is dying in bed and has students come to him, that what they speak of will be viewed through the prisms of their education and learning. Here’s what Lloyd might say, in my fantasy play of Tuesdays and Not Tuesdays with Seth:

Lloyd (on death bed, weakly): I remember today when I first really understood the amazing notion that a particle could be in two places at the same time, until measured—at which time, the particle must decide where to be. We’re all like that particle.

Student (checking watch): I don’t understand, coach. I can’t be here and at my expensive, privileged job at the same time. I’m sacrificing for you because I thought that’s what you wanted.

Lloyd: But the particle only chooses when being monitored. Where would you be if you weren’t being monitored? What’s your choice if I wasn’t watching?

Student (Cries, grab hands of his teacher): Here coach. I choose to be here because you teach me so much about life. I want to learn. Please don’t die.

As it is, Morrie could have been Patch Adams, or Father McClusky who saved the parish, or Fireman Pete who taught us the lesson of giving back to the community, or motivational speaker Tony Snow, now dodging reporter’s questions while providing a well-marketed message that ignores reality on a screen near you….I mean, there was nothing of his career in there. To believe the play (and, maybe the book—which I have not read), Morrie only taught because he liked being around people. Not because, you know, he was particularly interested in the topic he received his PhD in.

But, maybe this is not moving to me because of going through my own father’s death, which I confess moved me more than watching a stranger pretend to die playing another stranger who did die. And maybe I feel that this play should have been informed more by Morrie’s career because my own father’s death was very informed by his own career as a minister. But just today I was tremendously moved reading Jeffrey Zeldman talk about his mother’s death. Much more than by the play. Zeldman was more honest, more vivid than this play, and not only did it not try to manipulate me, but he published it for free and didn’t make it into a made-for-tv-movie and play after selling millions, so I can trust that his heart is truly in his words.

Comments (0) — Category: inspiration

Wednesday
Apr 26, 2006

Air Vent Chastity posted by kza

Over at his great blog, Go and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory screenwriter John August has proposed a Screenwriter’s Vow of Air Vent Chastity:

I, John August, hereby swear that I shall never place a character inside an air duct, ventilation shaft, or any other euphemism for a building system designed to move air around.

Last time I checked, several people have “signed” the vow (or whatever it would be on the internets), and I think there have been suggestions for other types of anti-cliché vows.

Not to be a stick in the mud (especially with something as tongue-in-cheek as this), but I won’t be signing. I understand the frustration with the overuse of the air vent escape; I understand the ridiculousness of it. But in the comments section, someone brought up the counter-example of the toys in Toy Story 2, or the possibility of squirrel characters running around in the vents, and noted that for these characters, using the vents would be a natural (non-contrived) method of getting about. But for August, a cliché, even if it makes sense in context, is still a cliché.

And that’s where I part ways. I mean, why is the air vent thing an issue to begin with? Is it simply because it’s overused? Or is it because it’s overused and very unrealistic? If the answer is the latter, then the squirrel example should suffice as a good use of the air vent, and the vow shouldn’t be necessary. If it’s the former… well, what isn’t overused in mainstream screenwriting? As nice as it might seem to have action movies without explosions, romantic comedies without “meet cutes”, Westerns without shootouts… y’know, these things aren’t going anywhere, and have their place as well. And while the air vent is too often the escape hatch of the hacky screenwriter, if it’s used in an interesting fashion, I’m not going to complain. After all, a cliché is really only a cliché when no thought or imagination go into the presentation, and I’m not going to take a vow that preemptively hamstrings my ability to use either of those things.

(Yeah, it’s a slow night over here at the Spitball! — y’wanna fight about it?)

(New character bios soon.)

Comments (0) — Category: screenwriters

Tuesday
Apr 25, 2006

Getting Real posted by Martin

Both Shockah and I have been quite inspired by reading the book by 37 Signals titled Getting Real. It’s about designing web applications, but really is good general advice as well for creatives and creative pursuits. This quote, from CD Baby founder Derek Sivers, particularly struck me, especially considering that the sentiment is similar to our Statement of Purpose:

Be An Executioner
It’s so funny when I hear people being so protective of ideas. (People who want
me to sign an nda to tell me the simplest idea.)
To me, ideas are worth nothing unless executed. They are just a multiplier.
Execution is worth millions.
Explanation:
Awful idea = -1
Weak idea = 1
So-so idea = 5
Good idea = 10
Great idea = 15
Brilliant idea = 20
No execution = $1
Weak execution = $1000
So-so execution = $10,000
Good execution = $100,000
Great execution = $1,000,000
Brilliant execution = $10,000,000
To make a business, you need to multiply the two.
The most brilliant idea, with no execution, is worth $20. The most brilliant idea
takes great execution to be worth $20,000,000.
That’s why I don’t want to hear people’s ideas. I’m not interested until I see
their execution.
-Derek Sivers, president and programmer, CD Baby and HostBaby

I think it’s also worth noting that Derek was a musician who was fed up with the current distribution systems, so created his own—and it totally kicks ass as a marketplace for indy musicians.

Comments (0) — Category: inspiration

Monday
Apr 24, 2006

Round 10.2.5, Part One [Rasputin the Translator v. Time to Die] posted by Martin

Great post—I’m totally digging your breakdown—it shows that this guy won’t be a pure terror/evil type. He has some method to his madness, and the base of a loving relationship as a child. The self-righteous grandparents are great too. And Florida flooding, I laughed out loud. Sorry Florida—don’t take it personally—I don’t really want to see you drown. I mean, damn Florida, I love you. Don’t be like that.

I think the vision of neon is great—and that story about the street kids is amazing. It’s amazing how fast the adult fantasies of idealized childhood go out the the window, and we see kids become a microcosm of the paranoid adult world we build and shape around us.

This is interesting commenting on a different character and thinking about how they might dovetail with the character I did the bio for in the movie—this feels so much smoother than working on the same character and having to deal with the things that don’t fit in with your vision of the character. We’ll play it by ear, but I might just pick other characters than you do in the next round.

Also—to our readers, a bit of a confession. Shockah and I met for coffee yesterday (in the awesome Cafe Fiore on top of Queen Anne Hill), and amongst the talk of Project Rockstar the game, the state of software in general, and a few upcoming things for this here blog, we discussed a few plot points on this story. I assure you, it wasn’t conspiratorial—we didn’t mean to keep them off the blog, it was just our unbridled excitement over what’s to come.

Exciting it is, but since we said we’d have everything up here, I present you the bullet points:
1. We talked about how the villain in this case is motivated by necessity of survival, and doesn’t necessarily see himself as a bad guy. He’ll be sympathetic to the heroine, and want to help her, but can’t. Either way, they have an alliance of sorts.
2. There will be a warden character who symbolizes the bureaucracy, and will ultimately be foiled.
3. Shockah asked how I saw it ending. Since we’re not telling the story here, but writing it, here’s my spoilers: I see the ending being Okkervil sacrificing himself so that the guard can live. He’ll end his arc by coming to terms with the fact that it was his choice all along to do evil, despite the fact that he felt it necessary. The killed guard will come back to life, but we’ll never meet him. We’ll know nothing of his story. We talked about the opening of the movie being the guard running and being killed, and the ending being his opening his eyes to see his wife.

Shockah? Did I forget something?

Oh—here’s something I didn’t forget: you still owe me an essay, and someday before too long, I’m gonna come a ringing to collect. When you least expect it. Bam!

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Monday
Apr 24, 2006

Round 10.2, Part One [Rasputin the Translator v. Time to Die] posted by kza

Hey folks,

Sorry for the turtle-esque crawl that this round is starting to resemble. My excuses are a) spending the last few days with a friend before she flies back to the U.K., and b) discovering, on Saturday morning, that our car up and fucking died. Just would not start.

We went to a dealership and got a new one (and I literally mean new, which was pretty weird in itself — we’re not “new car” people.) and got a great deal on it, too. (It’s a “Regal Blue Pearl” 2006 Subaru Forester, for those that care.)

So that’s been occupying my time and mind these past few days, and the David Lee Roth-style air splits that I expected this round to metaphorically approximate hasn’t come to pass. In fact, I still feel a bit distracted, but Spitball! shall not be denied. As a compromise, I’m going to post one of the character bios today, and the other bio probably tomorrow sometime.

Oh, yeah, the bios. As I hinted earlier, this round is going to be a little different than previous rounds. I was so happy with Burley’s character bios for the Round Ten, that writing two completely different ones, while potentially educational, seemed like a complete waste of time. I discussed this with Burley over iChat, and decided that I could instead write two bios of supporting characters (since we’re gonna need to know about them as well).

Time to Die
In a World where death itself is beaten by genetic regeneration, a guard is killed during a riot on the prison planet. One woman—his wife—faces sure death to retrieve his body in time to bring him back to life. It’s a race against time, with one nearly resourceless woman willfully fighting like a juggernaut against the prisoners who are holding his body hostage, and the powers that be that think she should just give up. All to simply save the man she loves from eternal death.

Character Sketch: James Crowley Okkervil
Relationship to Story: Antagonist

James C. Okkervil was born into an upper middle-class home in upstate New York, the son of an aerospace worker who, when James was less than a year old, changed his life radically when he divorced his wife and married his male co-worker. James lived with his dad and new partner rather uneventfully, going to an expensive private schoool, getting good grades, and visiting his mom weekly, until her untimely death in a traffic accident. But then, when he was nine years old, he watched as both his male parents quickly succumbed to cancer. (James would learn, much later in life, that his parents were exposed to chemicals and heavy metals during their time there.) His grandmother, whom he’d never met, flew in to take him back to Florida. She told little Jim that they died because they were wicked people, and were punished for their sinful lifestyle. Jim didn’t know what this meant at the time; all he knew was that his parents were loving people, and treated him well. But their names were never to be mentioned in his new home. Instead, he had to quickly adapt to his new family – his grandmother, cold and avaricious, his grandfather, humorless and prone to violence towards Jim, and his new brothers and sisters, adopted children with severe disabilities. This was hard for Jim – being the only “normal” kid, forced to take care of his incontinent siblings, and constantly avoiding the wrath of Grandma and Grandpa.

However, one of these children was Roscoe. Roscoe had muscular dystrophy, and was confined to a wheelchair. Despite (or perhaps because of) being bound to a wheelchair, Roscoe had quite a mouth on him, which got him into all sorts of trouble – although never with Grandma and Grandpa, who were always indulgent with their “gifts of love”, as they called their adoptees. They became friends — Jim took an immediate liking to Roscoe, with his penchant for insults, and Roscoe liked how Jim wasn’t afraid to dish it back to him. They also protected one another – Roscoe from those who would pick on him (or those angered by his incessant abuse), Jim from the worst excesses of his grandparents.

When the floods came and Florida became a small island, Jim and Roscoe, now fourteen, used the ensuing panic and confusion to separate from the rest of the family and make their way up north towards New York, with a vague plan to become musicians – this despite neither of them having ever touched an instrument in their lives. The journey was difficult, but they eventually made it, although they were now penniless and homeless.

On the brink of starvation, Jim and Roscoe met a kid, nicknamed Sticks, who, despite being about ten years old, had the demeanor, the world-weariness of someone four times that age. Sticks rescued them and took them back to a hidden shelter in the Bronx. There, Jim and Roscoe met The Neon, a loose confederation of homeless and orphaned children that provided shelter and support to each other. Although The Neon were bound together by their physical circumstances, they were bound together another way as well. Over the years of surviving on the streets and witnessing terrible violence, the Neon developed a bizarre cosmology that explained their lives in terms of a war between outnumbered angels and overwhelming demons, with no help from an absent, cowardly god.

At first, Jim, older than most of the Neon, didn’t believe these stories, and merely did his part to help this community to survive. Then, about a year after coming back to New York, his Grandma and Grandpa tracked him and Roscoe down, intending to bring them back home. Although old, Grandma and Grandpa were still strong and quite capable of using force to bring Jim back. And while The Neon that were present outnumbered the grandparents, they found the pair terrifying, and thought them to be demons. Faced with going back to live with these tyrannical guardians, Jim took the first step on a path that would define the rest of his life: he would kill in order to survive. He stabbed Grandma and Grandpa to death, and with the help of the Neon, disposed of their bodies. Up until that point, Jim was something of an outsider within the Neon; now, he was a warrior and a demon killer. At the same time, this marked the falling-out between him and Roscoe, who, after a year on the streets, was ready to go back.

This event would set the stage for the next five years of his life, as Jim would now be known as simply Okkervil. Due to the worsening economy, the ranks of the Neon swelled, and Okkervil organized them into something more like a gang. And as the Neon came to rely on Okkervil more and more for leadership and protection, Okkervil responded by using the Neon’s mythology as a pretext for branching out into petty crime — after all, it’s not wrong to rob a demon. During this time, Okkervil would find himself in situations that forced him (in his view) to kill to protect his charges – people who would expose the Neon’s operations, people who would take away the kids from him, people who challenge him. That last one would be his downfall, and his ultimate heartbreak: He discovered that Roscoe was going to turn him in, and Okkervil, by now used to doing whatever necessary to survive but long past the point of having to do it personally, had him killed by the Neon.

Unfortunately for Okkervil, Roscoe secretly kept evidence of the Neon’s crimes, and they came to light. The gang was dismantled, and Okkervil was tried and sentenced to spend the rest of his years at the Wellington Planetary Correctional Facility. He’s spent two years in the Well so far, and already is feared and respected by the other inmates. He’s also quietly spreading the Neon Cosmology amongst the prisoners, and attempting to unite disparate factions under his own leadership. Everything was going to plan – until the guards got a little too rough with Jackie J, and the prison exploded.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Sunday
Apr 16, 2006

Could 1024 Japanese Schoolchildren Be Wrong? posted by Martin

I would guess not:

Click for a larger view and check out the little uniforms!

Make your own at http://www.madin.jp/ouen/index.html

Comments (0) — Category: inspiration

Friday
Apr 14, 2006

Weekly Wrap-Up (4/7/06 - 4/14/06) posted by kza

Another pretty slow week at Spitball!, with only three posts, but that’s soon to change when the Great Spitball! Media Blitz awakens like the slumbering leviathan it is and begins its inexorable conquest of realities both physical and virtual. But until that moment, when all bow down before the might of Spitball! or else be crushed like bloated, overripe fruit, how about some links?

The week began with the tail-end post of the Tragic Round Nine Debacle, which ended with the two story ideas, The Atheist and Atmosphere, being combined into one idea — The Atmospherist — despite their incompatibility. Burley’s idea of how such a monstrosity might be summarized deserves to be quoted in full:

In a world where autistic youth believe they are not living on earth, one religion proves itself useless when the methane atmosphere changes into scientists. Also known as My Blog with Andre.

It was agreed that, despite the absurdity of the concept (or maybe because of it), The Atmospherist will be treated as a legitimate contender in the Spitball! Tourney of Story Ideas. Heat #3 will be… odd, to say the least.

Then Burley gave us the rundown on March’s blogging. Short version: we wrote stuff.

Finally, Burley (it’s been all Burley this week) threw us the opening pitch of Round Ten, Rasputin the Translator v. Time To Die. It was so good that Shockah, off-blog, asked Burley if he could write some supporting material for the two character bios instead of creating whole new ones. He said yes. Look for Shockah’s post sometime on Monday, if not earlier.

Comments (0) — Category: communications

Tuesday
Apr 11, 2006

Round 10 [Rasputin the Translator v. Time to Die] posted by Martin

Rasputin the Translator (Shockah rank: #1, Burley rank: #13)

Time to Die (Shockah rank: #6, Burley rank: #10)

Don’t mess with Texas. Unless—you know—you really wanna.

Character Sketch: Jacob Anatoli
Relationship to Story: Protagonist

I was going to draw this sketch of our Rasputin himself, but I decided that he should remain shrouded in mystery. I know that eventually, as a writer, I’ll need to know him better, but I’m delaying that day as long as possible. Part of the appeal, in my mind, is that he’s really an unknown quantity for much of the film. Instead, I focus on who I see as the protagonist—the President of the US Domestic Policy Advisor, who takes a front row during the alien crises and becomes the primary negotiator with the Rasputin character.

Jake never thought he’d work in the White House. He was raised in Colorado, where his father was the mayor of his small town, and Jake always helped out with his campaigns. Jake was always a bit of a loner, and as soon as he was old enough, he’d take himself into the wilderness to go camping. He explored the Southwest, sometimes with buddies, sometimes on his own, learning the land well.

When he was 16, Jake had a friend that everybody called Rapid. They would camp a lot together, and Rapid would always bring along some weed or speed. Jake didn’t like getting high and always refused, but Rapid would indulge every time. Rapid came from a pretty troubled home, but Jake really didn’t like being around him when he was high all the time and started extricating himself from the friendship. Rapid killed his father and then himself on his 17th birthday, and it came out that he had been molested his entire life. Jake realized that Rapid had tried to tell him a few times, but Jake had never really listened correctly, and so carried some guilt over the event.

He excelled at his studies, and was accepted into Yale, where he graduated summa cum laude and as a member of Phi Beta Kappa with a degree in American History. He won a Rhodes Scholarship, and so studied at Oxford and then returned to the states to take a PhD in Arabic studies at Harvard. While there, he met and fell in love with a Turkish born woman named Cemile, who was finishing her PhD in the women’s studies department focusing on women’s issues in the muslim world.

While at Oxford he befriended another American, Jones Alan Porter, a charismatic and somewhat wild young guy. He played rugby and could drink Jacob under the table, but Jake was drawn to Jones’ earnest persistence in the capability of people to change their own worlds. He was especially keen on learning all of the things that Jake knew—but took for granted—about electoral politics after helping his father get elected for so many years.

While Jake was at Harvard, Jones studied law, and within 10 years of graduating was governor of Connecticut. He reached out to Jake, and Jake came to work for the governor as an advisor. This was during the great economic expansion that took the east coast by storm. Riding a wave of popularity, Jones Porter was elected president, and appointed Jake as his domestic policy advisor.

Jake was, generally, a centrist. He believed in fiscal conservatism, but had a core belief that government should aid and assist people—should level the field so that any person could have the opportunities that he and Jones had. His domestic policy was driven on this, streamlining agencies so that they were forced to be responsible for themselves and as lean as possible, while still providing services to the countries population. He also drove a strict environmental policy, based on the assumption that it was the fiscally responsible thing to maintain the land for all Americans.

Jake was not, by any stretch, a showboat—and part of his job was watching the president take and receive all credit for everything that Jake did, but on the other hand, Jake was able to walk freely around Washington DC without security, and lived a fairly normal life with Cemile, who was working for a think tank. They had three kids—a girl, and then twins, one of each. It’s not every family that has pictures of their children with the president and first lady.

He had just gotten to work, and hadn’t even taken off his overcoat the morning the alien transmission came in. The situation room was alive with energy, and as the nearest thing to a linguist, Jake was given the task of trying to decipher just what it was these aliens wanted, and where they came from….

Time to Die
In a World where death itself is beaten by genetic regeneration, a guard is killed during a riot on the prison planet. One woman—his wife—faces sure death to retrieve his body in time to bring him back to life. It’s a race against time, with one nearly resourcesless woman willfully fighting like a juggernaut against the prisoners who are holding his body hostage, and the powers that be that think she should just give up. All to simply save the man she loves from eternal death.

Character Sketch: September Rose St. Germain
Relationship to Story: Protagonist

She was named so that she’d never forget the terrorist attacks on New York. Her grandfather was a fire fighter who had died, and throughout her very large and close-knit family, honoring him was a part and parcel of the culture. She was raised in New Jersey in a suburban development that was overrun with members of her family, who all kept houses near each other. She had nearly total freedom to wander the neighborhood as a child—somebody was always looking out for her.

September was never an excellent student, but she got by. She was socially very easy going, and never seemed to care much about fitting in, but that could be because fitting in was effortless for her. While she wasn’t part of the “popular crowd” per se, she had a certain charismatic gravity that pulled people to her. Within no time, she had her own small social group.

Her teenage years were pretty uneventful, save for a mugging. She had snuck into the city to go clubbing with some friends from school and had been jumped by some thugs who stole her mobile iCompuPhonePod and smashed her into the side of a building when she deigned to raise a fuss. She broke her cheek on the bricks and spent a few painful months trying not to smile, but eventually healed up. That’s when she started taking martial arts, first as a confidence builder, and then continuing it as a good form of exercise.

She went to college at NYU studying marketing and management. Out of college her first job was PR for a aerospace firm called Tangenilent, working on campaigns selling some of the first personal spacecraft available on the market. She lived in New York in a tiny apartment with two other women she knew from High School, one who worked as a dominatrix at a freelance dungeon, the other a stripper who worked in a private corporate club. They used shoji screens to divide the main room into three small sleeping nooks, and had understandings about bringing men home. They spent a lot of time together out on the town.

One night at a bar she met the man who would become her on-again off-again boyfriend, and eventually her husband. He was finishing a degree in law enforcement, but after graduating got rejected for his desired job in the New York Police Department due to a heart murmur. He was able to find a job with new off-land security agencies that secured the contract for the brand new prison planet. He worked six months on, six months off and sent home large amounts of money for his trouble.

September hated the emotional up-and-downs of the schedule at first, but after a few years of being together, it actually grew on her and she found herself relishing both the time she was alone, and when he was around to keep her company. With his help, she could afford a large one-bedroom apartment in a nice area. She stayed with Tangenilent, working her way up to director of marketing and having quite a bit of a say in her work schedule so long as she was meeting or exceeding expectations. The craft were selling extremely well, thanks in no small part to September having created a buzz about them that made them cool and desirable before they even launched. When she wasn’t on, she competed in martial arts competitions for fun, honing her competitive sense and keeping her body strong.

Her boyfriend proposed to her, and they were married on the moon, her company loaning her one of its crafts for a honeymoon drifting in space—the latest craze people were calling tin-can camping. You would get everything you need, set a course for nowhere and spend times sleeping under a glass bubble that showed you the stars, planets and suns. The craft could be programmed to randomly pop into exciting areas of the galaxy on auto pilot, and still safely return you to Earth to the docking station before your oxygen or fuel ran out. Then, you could take the space elevator back to Earth, and after spending a few days in the underwater hotel readjusting to the atmosphere, you could fly home.

They settled back into their routine until the morning that September got the call that her husband had been killed during a prisoner uprising. And there, as they say, our story begins….

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Saturday
Apr 08, 2006

State of the Blog: March posted by Martin

Citizens of the world, websurfing aliens, and sentient underwater overlords—welcome to the State of the Blog address for the month of March, 2006. We (we being I, as Shockah had nothing to do with it) apologize for the delay in posting this overview—it is my responsibility, and I fell behind. I accept any disappointment you feel in me, and will try to please you more next month.

We were happy to see a few more people popping up in the forums in this month, and we encourage all people reading this to go and comment on anything you would like, including comments like ‘You guys are really boring me,’ and ‘I thought screenwriting was supposed to be filled with buxom babes, perilous parties and more excitement than any reasonable person should be exposed to.’ Of course, we may be holding out on you and when you sign into the forums you will find those parties. That’s all I have to say about that.

Our Google ranking has remained about the same this month. We’re still a first page result for searching “Spitball”. We posted around about 74 posts in March, wrapping up the first heat of our battle in Seattle over screenplay ideas. Shockah continued his fine study into the Sequence method, to which I added nothing of value other than occasional quips. Shockah gets the gold metal for actual work this month.

We both became weighed down in minutia in round 9, which seems to be a bit dispiriting to us both, but I predict will be a minor hiccup in the road. From my point of view, when we get into the nitty gritty about something, it’s usually about something else—in this case, I think it’s about the weakness of the two ideas presented.

The last week of March saw a dramatic slowdown—first from my need to focus on work, and then from the flu which struck me down in practically biblical ways. Speaking of which, how about that Gospel of Judas? I’ll bet you gnostics are just psyched.

In any case, I predict April will be much busier as things pick up. We’re about to start round 10, and it contains two very strong ideas that we both have strong opinions about. Get ready for a smackdown.

Thank you for tuning in to Spitball!, the world’s only screenplay being written by blog. Memberships are still available for free. Hurry and sign up, before they are all gone.

Comments (0) — Category: communications

Friday
Apr 07, 2006

Re:[6] Round 9: A big stick posted by Martin

It might end up being an excuse to indulge in some Grade A nonsense.

Hey—that’s a great idea. I’m totally on board with that. It shall be treated like any other story, but it’s our chance to really go outside.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Thursday
Apr 06, 2006

Re:[5] Round 9: A big stick posted by kza

Just FYI: I found your “consolidation synopsis” hilarious, and I do plan on treating The Atmospherist seriously as a contestant. It might end up being an excuse to indulge in some Grade A nonsense (something I haven’t allowed myself to do in a long while), but, yes, I plan to put it through its paces, just like any other story idea.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Thursday
Apr 06, 2006

Re:[4] Round 9: A big stick posted by Martin

The Atmospherist it is, as proxy. If you’d like to take a stab at combining them, I’d be open to it—maybe a different tack would help.

This round has raised interesting issues—one of which I’ll voice here, although I will preface it by saying that I’m not suggesting we change anything—I think we should slog through the heat. But, I’m thinking this: the true issue is not one story vs. another, but a story vs. itself. Or, two views of one story that need to be reconciled.

So, when we have rounds between two stories going more in depth, it seems that we ended up butting heads on a few issues, any one of which could have been dealt with individually and not in relation to the story it’s up against. The later rounds felt like we were arguing on multiple fronts, so the relationship between the two stories is kind of superfluous, save for their ability to skinny down the list. Maybe, as I’ve suggested, this point will be moot when we get into more interesting material, but I think this might be a point worth considering if we get bogged down much more. Focusing on one story at a time might help that.

But, we’ve got some great ideas coming up. Round 10 coming up soon.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Thursday
Apr 06, 2006

Re:[3] Round 9: A big stick posted by kza

But, if I had to vote for one of the two, I would say that I, Burley Grymz, vote for The Atheist.

Naturally — I’d vote for Atmosphere.

The Atmospherist it is, unless you have another idea.

(I was thinking earlier, “Too bad we can’t combine them”. But of course, you can combine anything. It might not be pretty, it might not make sense, but yes, you can combine them.)

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Thursday
Apr 06, 2006

Re:[2] Round 9: A big stick posted by Martin

I say we move forward a proxy:

The Atmospherist
In a world where autistic youth believe they are not living on earth, one religion proves itself useless when the methane atmosphere changes into scientists. Also known as My Blog with Andre.

But, if I had to vote for one of the two, I would say that I, Burley Grymz, vote for The Atheist.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Thursday
Apr 06, 2006

Re: Round 9: A big stick posted by kza

Both ideas get canned.

Generally, I’m not against the Gordian Knot rule. However, there is one problem: I’m incredibly anal-retentive it really screws up the competitive order of the Spitball! Tourney. I’d really feel better if something moved forward, even if we know it’s gonna get canned in the next round.

You know, let’s rise to vote and see where we stand. That could solve this thing with one fell swoop. If you had to choose one to move forward, which one would it be?

Oh, and:

I think that this [tabling procedures] might be interesting for the needlessly complex® rules futures

I’ll start working on that, since we should have that in place.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Thursday
Apr 06, 2006

Round 9: A big stick posted by Martin

c) Start writing a post on tabling procedures?

I think that this might be interesting for the needlessly complex® rules futures, but I don’t think it’s actually needed in this round. I propose instead something radical:

Both ideas get canned.

I’m not really feeling the love for either of these that strongly, and it seems that the things that interest and pull me in are nearly opposite of the things that interest you and pull you in. I’m taking our disagreements over these ideas as a sign that the ideas weren’t that strong to begin with.

It’s like our friends who have an organic subscription farm (brief plug: fresh veggies, delivered each week nearby your home? Great prices, and great people? If you’re in Seattle, you could do much worse). In talking about farming with them, they said that a field that has sat fallow for many years is amazing to grow in. You have no problems with pests, and everything just goes well. Compare that with a field that has been planted where the soil is robbed of nutrition, and there are tons of problems with pests and the plants don’t grown nearly as well. I think we’re sitting in weak soil with these stories. I think we need a storyectomy. When we’re in more fertile soil I’ll bet we encounter none of the problems we’re currently having. What say you?

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Wednesday
Apr 05, 2006

Round 9.13 [The Atheist v. Atmosphere] posted by kza

a. How do you end it? You can’t kill the mitochondria, who—over billions of years—have formed a complex relationship with the human hosts. What’s the end game? Is it just acceptance of the situation? Is that a dramatic enough story arc? Do the humans escape the Earth? Can they live without the tiny species?

Well, to be fair, I didn’t get a chance to end it. To be more fair, I wasn’t even sure myself (although I have an inkling), but I thought I’d get through it one way or another in the second post.

b. How do you visually represent the relationship with the tiny consciousness? Some might argue that this is what the Blob was doing in metaphor (actually, I may be the first person to suggest that, but I kind of am suggesting that), but I am thinking that this would be a big hurdle in the making of this movie. There can be tricks or representing the microscopic beings as a human that nobody else can see, but this would be a hurdle towards making this a reality.

Again, much like the autism thing, I’d much rather commit and accept the storytelling challenge then try and think and come up with the answer in an abstract way before proceeding. But I can’t really blame you if you can’t commit.

I guess it’s a little ironic—we seem to have switched position on this particular story. You’re starting broad and getting more specific, but I want specifics first and then go broad.

Which is difficult, for me, for this story (and a few others), because what they spark in me isn’t specifics. Rachel was the same way — what sparked an interest in me wasn’t anything specific, but a mood, a feeling, a vague concept, and when I tried to get specific… well, you know what happened.

I’m sympathetic to that concept. The only problem was that the specifics you suggested were, ultimately, too Twilight Zone for me. It was ultimately just a “gotcha” story. (Nothing wrong with Twilight Zone, really, but after all the “Scary Door” parodies on Futurama, it’s kinda been ruined for me.)

So, I’ll leave this next part up to you. Should I:

a) Write the proposed second part of my Atheist story sketch? (Could be hard, since it’s gone a bit cold for me. Also, I don’t expect it to change your mind any.)
b) Write a version of the Atheist that uses the alien planet? (I’m still pretty opposed to the alien planet, but maybe that severe conflict will push me to, uh, alien places.)
c) Start writing a post on tabling procedures?

And of course, there’s always the vote.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Wednesday
Apr 05, 2006

Round 9.12 [The Atheist v. Atmosphere] posted by Martin

I’m back! After catching the flu and being laid up for over a week, I’ve finally regained enough presence of mind to make at least as little sense as I normally do. So, without further adieu, and to propel things forward, here is my response to the Shockah’s last post on the screenplay.

I have two areas of response to your post on the Atheist

Area 1 is a response to your post

I’m still not hooked. Which is very different than saying that I’m not interested—I think what you’ve described is fascinating conceptually, but it sounds like a novel to me. It certainly is novel, and the microscopic critters manipulating people is a great concept, but I think it raises terrific issues, that for me, define it as such:

a. How do you end it? You can’t kill the mitochondria, who—over billions of years—have formed a complex relationship with the human hosts. What’s the end game? Is it just acceptance of the situation? Is that a dramatic enough story arc? Do the humans escape the Earth? Can they live without the tiny species?

b. How do you visually represent the relationship with the tiny consciousness? Some might argue that this is what the Blob was doing in metaphor (actually, I may be the first person to suggest that, but I kind of am suggesting that), but I am thinking that this would be a big hurdle in the making of this movie. There can be tricks or representing the microscopic beings as a human that nobody else can see, but this would be a hurdle towards making this a reality.

I guess it’s a little ironic—we seem to have switched position on this particular story. You’re starting broad and getting more specific, but I want specifics first and then go broad.

Area 2 is a clarification of previously stated ideas and has little to do with your post

Being sick, I’ve been catching up on some reading—notably starting Neal Stephenson’s Quicksilver, which has been on my “to tackle” list for quite awhile. It sparked in my mind an unarticulated desire that I have with this story, which is one of the reasons I argue that it should be done on another planet.

I want this story to be about how in a superstitious society, one person sees things differently and, using the powers of observation and reason, figures out that things aren’t as they seem despite the dogma. I want it as a metaphor for the early (early, as in, 2005) scientists working against the ignorance of the church. This is why I argue that putting it on Earth dilutes it—in my version of this story, it could never take place on earth because the population needs to be isolated from all outside influence.

OR, if it did, it would have to be an isolated population on an island that was completely remote from everybody, and potentially takes place before European expansion into the Americas. Why? Because then an isolated population untouched by other humans is a possibility. But, there is (essentially) no difference in this and setting the thing on another planet. The other planet makes just as much sense, and the island seems to be just an abstracting factor that would add nothing to the story other than conveniently place it on earth. It seems a silly idea.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Saturday
Apr 01, 2006

91 Word Update posted by kza

Sorry ‘bout the lack of updates, folks — Shockah’s been busy with RL stuff, and Burley… poor Burley’s got the ‘flu. And not that boogie woogie ‘flu you might have heard about, but the other kind. So take a few moments to wish Tha Grymz a speedy recovery.

And while you’re at it… Burley’s one year older today. You know what that means folks — it’s paddle time! Give his buns a thwacking on the forum — he’ll thank you later. Or kill me. One or t’other.

Comments (0) — Category: communications

Tuesday
Mar 28, 2006

Round 9.11 [The Atheist v. Atmosphere] posted by kza

Okay, so the following is an attempt at sketching out a story for The Atheist that takes place on Earth, instead of an alien planet. As I’m writing this, I feel I should point out that I have absolutely no idea what’s going to come out, which is why I used the word “sketch” — this, in all likelihood, will not be using the sequence method, at least not in any kind of conscious, direct way. Hell, to be perfectly honest, I’m not even sure if the following will even be a story, in the usual sense, but more of a… “communication of a vision”, if that makes any sense. Probably not. Maybe I should just start writing, huh?

The Atheist

So the big idea here is that the Earth is, in reality, a prison planet. A long, long, long time ago, before there were any humans, aliens came by and deposited their criminals here, like some giant Australia. These criminals apparently did something so horrible that the best possible punishment was to drop them off on a planet that had only the most primitive form of life and leave them there forever. What did these criminals do? I’m not sure yet, so I’ll try and get to that later. More importantly, what kind of creatures are these aliens? How would they survive on a planet that contained only primordial soup?

Here’s an idea: what if the alien criminals are our own mitochondria, in our cells? Apparently (for reals, yo), mitochondria are actually ancient bacterial hitchhikers that wormed their way into our single-celled progenitor organisms billions of years ago — they even have their own separate DNA from ours. (Some theorize that humans and other living things are just vessels for the transference of information, both our regular DNA and the mitochondria’s.) What if these warden aliens dropped these critters off, thinking they’d just swim around in the goop for eternity, but they were clever enough to hop onto the evolution bandwagon?

So the warden aliens take off for the Warden Homeworld, leaving the Mitochondria Bandits to serve their sentence, but the Mitochondria Bandits — feeling they have nothing to lose? for kicks? to avoid being eaten by protozoa or something? — make their home in our progenitor cells. Every living creature has mitochondria, so they’re everywhere — it’s possible they’re the reason we’re here today.

Billions of years pass.

Now we’re in 2007. This is where the story would start, presumably, so we need a protagonist. Let’s call him Joe for now. (Obviously, the protag could easily be a woman — no reason why not — but I’m going with a guy for now. Latent sexism, I know. Sorry.) So who is Joe? I see two possibilities — either he’s some scientist-type (because a scientist-type will be necessary at some point, I think) or he’s just Regular Joe. I’m not sure which yet, though. Either way, he’s Joe, and he’s got the usual Joe problems. What are the usual Joe problems? Well, they can be anything, up to and including: spouse troubles, dad issues, mom issues, child issues, sibling is a no good rotter, sibling is a saint and makes Joe look like a no good rotter, health issues, mental issues, job insecurity, spiritual insecurity, and Geriatric Profanity Disorder, or G.P.D.

Since this is called The Atheist, spiritual issues seem like a shoo-in, but we’ll save that for a moment. The reason Joe has problems is because a) we’ll need them to make Joe relatable, and b) we’ll need them to help fill out the story, and hopefully the real problem of the story (the Mitochondria Bandits) and Joe’s problems will inform and affect each other.

But what is the real problem of the story? Right now, every living thing has millions of mitochondria in them, which are in reality the clones of interstellar terrorists (or something), but at the same time, they’re necessary for the survival of every living thing. It’s a status quo, and a static one at that. Something must upset it, or we’ve got an essay instead of a story.

Two things come to mind: One, in a direct rip from a good but very strange book by Greg Bear called Blood Music, someone (probably Joe) somehow is able to communicate with his mitochondria. More on that in a minute. Two, the Warden Aliens come back — maybe to check up on the Bandits, or maybe they’ve decided to free the Bandits. (Their billion-year appeal finally made it through the courts?) If they want to free the Bandits (Free the Mitochondria Trillion!), well, that’s gonna suck for Earth, cuz that means everyone’s gonna die.

It seems obvious to me that both events are needed, and are connected casually — the communication between human and mitochondria results in the Wardens coming back, which threatens the existence of humanity. Also, I think, in order to tie back in with the title and the notion of spiritual insecurity, the communication starts as one-on-one, but eventually spreads, so that by that last 1/3, either everyone on earth is talking to their mitochondria, or the reality of the situation is clear enough and everyone understands the possibility of extinction. This is the point that, to my mind at least, threatens the paradigms of most religions — that humans, all life, really, are the equivalent of automobiles, there to help move inhuman, value-less information (DNA) through time and survive.

But let’s get back to the guy who can talk to his cells. How the hell does that happen, anyway? Well, that’s the main reason to bring in a scientist-type, for some kinda bullshit scientist-type yada yada to get us to that point. (Is there a problem inherent to this sketch, that I use real science for the basis of the story, but am willing to relegate an important plot point to a fakey, bullshit explanation? Probably.) Still, bullshit or not, some kind of definition is needed here. Joe could be the subject of some kind of test, that has the (intentional or accidental) effect of allowing him to talk to his mitochondria. Or he could be the scientist that comes up with the test and tries it out on himself (the Blood Music option). It also could just happen one day. (For no good reason? Because this particular mitochondria has a conscience and wants to warn him that the Wardens are coming?) Regardless, it happens.

There’s a number of problems (both in the good “conflict” sense of the word and the bad “conceptual” sense) with a guy (let’s just say it’s Joe for now) talking with his cells. How, exactly do they communicate? In Hal Clement’s Needle (another book I’m, uh, “inspired” by), a cop virus on Earth looking for a criminal virus gets inside a teenager, and it communicates with the kid by using flashing words on his retina, that he can see when he’s looking at blank wall. So there’s one idea. Of course, it could just talk in Joe’s head in English, like as if it were his own thoughts or a conscience. (It seems like the first one works if the technical details of communication are important, but the second one, while easier — and thus, less interesting — has more thematic and metaphoric possibilities.) Dreams are another possibility, but I can already tell I don’t like that one. Another idea: Morse code. Maybe the mitochondria causes throbbing in Joe’s body that he can read as Morse code. While that makes sense from one perspective (that the mitochondria communicates in pure information, binary code, off and on), from another it looks pretty silly.

Regardless, there’s a communication, and clearly that’s going to have an affect on Joe’s “Joe Problems”. One possible way of structuring the early part of the story is that Joe’s getting these messages and no one believes him — he’s not even sure if it’s real or he’s going crazy. This could be even more difficult if he’s from a religious background or has a religious background that he’s rejected. What the mitochondria is whispering into his head is probably pretty blasphemous at the least, and pretty shocking even if he really is an atheist or an agnostic.

But what is the mitochondria telling him, exactly? And why is it telling him anything to begin with? Earlier, I suggested that this particular mitochondria has a conscience, and knows that the coming of the Wardens means the death of all life on Earth. (This brings up another question: are all the mitochondria in the world individuals? Or all they all clones of the same, say, 12 original convicts? And if they’re clones, do they have telepathic communication with each other? Do they act as one organism? Or are we, in effect, back to the individuals again? The answer is necessary for an important question: why this mitochondria, and why Joe?) But back to the other question: what is it telling Joe, and why is it telling him?

It’s probably telling him the background that we’ve already set up: alien convicts, billions of years ago, life is ultimately a vehicle for their own continued survival — everything that is important to humans (love, morality, power, fame, etc.) is truly meaningless, a byproduct not unlike the exhaust from an SUV. All well and good. But why? Assuming I don’t want to use the conscience thing, what else could motivate this particular Bandit? Well, the flipside to a “good” motivation is a “bad” motivation. What if the Bandit is manipulating Joe for some reason? I’m not sure what that reason would be, though. Right now, though, I’m presuming that the Wardens are on their way and are going to kill everything on Earth if nothing unusual happens — unusual here meaning that one of the convicts starts talking. So maybe with a bad convict, it wants to somehow manipulate Joe so that he brings the Wardens that will free the convicts at the expense of the Earth. Good idea, but I have no idea how he’d do that. Still, the notion that not only are there intelligent cells in Joe’s body that can talk to him, but can also lie to him is pretty tasty.

Clearly, however, at some point Joe comes to believe this communication to be real. This no doubt causes all kinds of problems in his family, friend, and work relationships, but it seems like there should be at least one person (child? spouse?) that believes him. Nothing original there — the “supportive character” is pure archetype — but it seems necessary. So right now, I see the first 1/3 or so of this story being about Joe realizing that he has these convicts inside him, and his acceptance of that and his belief in their story. What then?

Joe has likely changed because of this experience. He’s not going to be the same guy he was at the beginning. (Although the usual “arc” for a character is that he/she changes at the end of the second act, and that change is tested in the third act, a change can technically happen at any point, and be tested from that point on.) It’s likely that he’s broken ties with a number of people, and has changed his views on a number of subjects. How does he feel about his newborn son, knowing that the only purpose of his existence is for the criminals inside his wife to continue their existence? How does he reconcile his life as a human being, what it means to be a human being, with the knowledge of the true purpose of life on Earth? There’s a temptation to fall into nihilism — does he resist?

Okay, I’ve hit my personal limit of 2000 words, and I’m far from finished sketching out what this story is to me. I’ll continue this in Round 9.13 if it’s warranted.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Sunday
Mar 26, 2006

Weekly Wrap-Up + 2! (3/18/06 - 3/26/06) posted by kza

Kinda like the Funky Four + One More… only, y’know, not.

So this week’s been full of discussion, if very little forward momentum. Sometimes that happens, y’all.

The big thing this week has been Round Nine, The Atheist v. Atmosphere. By Shockah’s estimate, this round probably would’ve been over by now, but Shockah and Burley got sidetracked by whether or not an autistic character is appropriate for the Atmosphere story, and other meta-discussions relating to such, even though it’s highly likely that we won’t be writing any autistic characters in whatever wins the Spitball! Tourney of Story Ideas. Also, Shockah owes a story sketch of The Atheist, one that takes place on our modern-day Earth and not on an alien planet, and he swears he’ll have it done soon, but really, nothing’s gonna move forward until he does.

Then, there was some rules discussion about how to gracefully exit a Round for the time being if it looks like it aint going anywhere anytime soon, known by the more elegant name tabling. Unfortunately, that discussion also ground to a halt, which was so ironic that all the anemics in a fifty mile radius were instantly cured.

Also, Burley is getting ready to do a sequence method analysis of Blue Fuckin’ Velvet. He had a few questions, that Shockah, as designated expert (snort), answered the best he could. We’re all quite excited to see what Burley comes up with.

Finally, both Shockah and Burley posted their philosophies behind creating character sketches for the story ideas. Why? Because it’s fun. Burley, by simply explaining why he likes to name characters, has pretty much volunteered himself to name every character, as far as I’m concerned. (I hate doing it, y’see.) (Another aside: He credits me with “Valerie Plum”, but I’m pretty sure that’s his, too. He has enough names for both of us.)

Odds for next week:

Finishing Round Nine: 2-1
Figuring out rules for tabling: 4-1
Getting hung up on minutiae of space travel: Even
Someone suggests that the “Rasputin” character be autistic: 900-1

Comments (0) — Category: communications

Friday
Mar 24, 2006

Re: Character Sketches: My Philosophy (I Think Very Deeply) posted by Martin

I’ve never really sat down and thought very hard about my philosophy in characters sketches, but reading your post I realized that my unthunk philosophy follows yours very closely. Which is why it took me a while to respond to this. I had to thunk about it for awhile.

Just a few points of interest or divergence:

1. I love naming characters.
Love love love it. If I had to pick my favorite part of the whole shebang, this would be in the top five, and possibly even pushing the top 2. Give me a character and I’ll find you a name. Not, that I am not claiming any ascendancy here—my names might just stink up the script, but that does nothing to mitigate the unadulterated pleasure I get from actually doing it.

My names usually follow historical people who have inspired me. In YELLOW the college is named the Bierce Academy, after Ambrose Bierce. There is a character named Sharpe, after radio man-on-the-street masters Coyle & Sharpe (we had a Coyle in an early draft, but he’s dropped into the background. Shockah brilliantly named a musician Valerie Plum (from Plame), and her CD is titled Identity Exposed. Or, my latest historical homage, Zheng James McNab, named after the great Chinese mariner Zheng He, with James because it sounds cool with Zheng, and McNab is the name of the clan in Scotland that looked out for us much smaller McClellans. Plus, I love the idea of a Chinese-Scottish family (yes, I know that Zheng is a surname, but that too tells you something about the characters background, doesn’t it?).

Other times, I’ll name them after lesser known, but still deserving people. In YELLOW there is the artist that helped found the Bierce Institute named Hart Frenkel. He was named after my friend Nina Frenkel, who is a brilliant artist and illustrator (not to mention exceptionally kind and cool human being), and the name also serves as an ode to her Hungarian roots, that included a number of artists, designers and amazing creative types.

My rule for names is that they have to be unique enough that you can remember them for the movie, they have to be interesting enough to entertain me as I’m writing them hundreds of times and not get sick of them, and then have to be lyrical to say. I always say the names I pick aloud to myself to make sure they sound good.

2. On the sketch being not so interesting.
I see your point here, but my goal is to entertain myself, and that usually means forming some sort of story in the backstory. Still, what you say is true—if it’s stronger then the story in the script, then something is wrong there. But that in of itself could be an indicator that the script isn’t as solid as it could be, and maybe the interesting story about this character you’ve dreamt up is actually an event that takes place earlier in their lives. My criteria for this is that my character sketches have to be entertaining to myself.

3. Support Network
This is a very good point, and one to always refer back to. No person lives in a vacuum, even if they’re completely anti-social. Even insane loner criminals encounter people—land lords, clerks, psychiatrists. They leave traces. A more normal people will have an extended social network, so says Malcolm Gladwell, of 150 people or so. That’s a big world to draw on and learn about characters through their interactions with other characters.

4. The Well
Also a very good idea. I can’t say that I’ve ever considered this, but in my own way I do something similar. My well, though, is made up on the spot of losing interest. What is the thing that would energize the script when it’s getting boring? What is the subplot I’m missing? Sometimes those things take on lives of their own and become fully fleshed out subplots. In our script YELLOW, our character Bernardo’s father is a somewhat well known film director. He had his son, when quite young, act in a scene that has been an embarrassment his entire life, and when people in the school find out about it, the of course give it to him. This small idea grew when we needed something to happen to embarrass Bernardo, and grew into one of the themes of his life—trying to live outside of his father’s shadow.

5. Character’s Personality
I agree that this is no place to discuss it. For me, it goes back to “show don’t tell.” The sketch should be biographical about the bullet points in the persons life. Where have they been, what have they done, and how did they come to the place where the story really starts?

Besides, I don’t feel that personality is a good way to get to know somebody on paper. In real life, yes, but their actions, reactions and the paths they’ve chosen (there must be choice in those paths at some point, no matter how crazy their childhood) are all more important to summing up a fictional character then what their personality supposedly is.

Comments (0) — Category: technique

Thursday
Mar 23, 2006

Re[3]: Motion: Rules Addendum posted by Martin

Sorry if I was unclear. Here’s what I think:

1. Anybody who wants to table a battle at anytime for any reason need only say that this is their desire and the battle is tabled.
2. The other person has the right to lodge an official approval or complaint about the lodging, but this has no bearing on the fact that the battle is tabled. It’s only for self-satisfaction and to allow a voice to the other party. There should never be any punishment for tabling a battle.

As for calling a vote, I think that a member can always call a vote at any stage if they really wanted to, and this could be an interesting thing here, but what if the tabling party refuses the vote?

The timing of this is all very funny in lieu of the fact that Christine and I went to go see the Seattle Rep’s performance of Private Lives last night, and the main couple forms a pack early on that every time they start fighting and bickering one of them calls “Solomon Isaacs!” and they have to stop talking completely for two minutes to cool down.

Comments (0) — Category: communications

Thursday
Mar 23, 2006

Re[2]: Motion: Rules Addendum posted by kza

REJECTED on technicality. I don’t like the idea of placing an arbitrary number of posts to tabling, I’d rather it be in human hands. What if we get up to 20 on a post, but are really digging the exchange?

Excellent point, and one I should’ve realized. Although I’m 100% sure that a twenty post battle is just going ‘round and ‘round, there’s always the chance that it isn’t, and we should protect that possibility.

The other member can respond that the tabling exists with their approval or veto, but either way the tabling will continue.

I am confused here, however. If I table a battle, it’s automatically tabled? And you can say you agree or disagree, but it gets tabled anyway? I think a battle should only be tabled with the agreement of both parties — or is that what you’re saying?

I’m also playing with the idea that if someone moves to table a battle, the other person may call for an immediate vote on the battle, but I’m not sure what I think about that yet.

Comments (0) — Category: communications

Thursday
Mar 23, 2006

Re: Motion: Rules Addendum posted by Martin

REJECTED on technicality. I don’t like the idea of placing an arbitrary number of posts to tabling, I’d rather it be in human hands. What if we get up to 20 on a post, but are really digging the exchange?

So, I propose the following:

Any member, for any reason without explanation at any time may table a round, which is then automatically added to the end of the queue. If the heat is at the end and the discussion is the lone holdout, then the discussion must continue until the issues are resolved.

The other member can respond that the tabling exists with their approval or veto, but either way the tabling will continue.

What say you?

Comments (0) — Category: communications

Thursday
Mar 23, 2006

Motion: Rules Addendum posted by kza

I move that when a Round lasts ten posts, five on each side, that said Round is immediately tabled, to be resumed after the next Rounds in the current Heat are dealt with.

What say you?

Comments (0) — Category: communications

Thursday
Mar 23, 2006

Round 9.10 [The Atheist v. Atmosphere] posted by Martin

I can’t imagine walking into a movie about an autistic person and thinking, “This guy can’t make an emotional connection to people, so I can’t make an emotional connection with him.” That doesn’t make any sense. I literally don’t understand or recognize what you’re describing. It’s totally contrary to everything I know about stories and films.

Two points on this:
1. To paraphrase Mamet, they call a confidence man a confidence man not because you give him your confidence, but because he gives his confidence to you. We fall in love with actors in love stories because they give their love to us by proxy of their screen love interest. We get scared in horror films because the character gives us their fear. The most successful actors are the clearest emotional conduits, that can effortlessly project the inner emotions of a character while seeming not to do so. Movies are, in one great sense, about the emotional states of people. This is one reason that film is such a powerful medium. Having a character who, by definition of his disorder, has trouble emotionally connecting to other people is an impediment to projecting his emotional state.
2. You keep speaking in grand terms, about “our jobs as artists” and “everything you know about stories and films.” I’m talking about one instance of one character in one story. I’m making no statements that autism can’t be used successfully, I’m simply saying that for the way I see this story, having the character be autistic is an artificial barrier to the points I would like to stress. Namely, as I’ve said, the emotional manipulation of the audience members. Having them like, then dislike, then sympathize with a nasty character. That’s the point of entry and interest for me in this story.

But again, what I’m penultimately saying isn’t that it has to be an autistic guy, simply that my version and your version are on the same level, imo — that is, my “autism made me do it” and your “it was a mistake cuz I fell asleep” are more or less equivalent. I still think the culpability of the protagonist needs to be raised.

I don’t think they are equal. One killed people because of something he could, but didn’t, control. The other killed people because of a disorder that he has that is no fault of his own. The former makes him culpable. The latter gives, again, mitigating circumstances to his culpability.

Furthermore, mine makes a series of missteps in the face of good reasons not to. He paved his own road. Falling asleep was not the reason the event happened, but only that he didn’t recognize the alarms. But, frankly, maybe he went to the bathroom to snort some coke instead. Maybe their were no alarms. Either way the deaths of thousands of people were the direct result of his actions, with nothing mitigating them in the slightest.

And what I’m ultimately saying is that I’m tired of considering the audience and trying to imagine what they will or won’t accept. It’s cart before the horse. Figure out the story first, then figure out how to “sell” it to an audience.

Tell that to the people that made new coke in the 80s.

Or, if you’re not considering the audience at all, why take traditional form? Why not make the movie 700 pages? Why follow the sequence method? These are all concessions to audiences and humans ability to sit and watch a story for an extended time period. You already are considering the audience. Actually, the story itself is the audience, really, and the question that we seem to be disagreeing on is whether or not the story is strengthened by this one attribute you’ve assigned a character.

But you know what? I’m willing to be wrong. Lay it out for me. Lay out the story as you see it, and tell me why the autism is so important in service to the story.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Thursday
Mar 23, 2006

Round 9.9 [The Atheist v. Atmosphere] posted by kza

In this case the story rests on a fulcrum: the audiences ability to make an emotional connection with the protag. Making him autistic seems like an artificial barrier to doing that.

I totally disagree with this premise. I can’t imagine walking into a movie about an autistic person and thinking, “This guy can’t make an emotional connection to people, so I can’t make an emotional connection with him.” That doesn’t make any sense. I literally don’t understand or recognize what you’re describing. It’s totally contrary to everything I know about stories and films.

The question is whether this story will be enhanced or troubled by having the protag be autistic. I think the latter.

And I think the former.

His autism is an inner incarceration, a thematic reflection of his external incarceration.
It connects with his obsession with terraforming, and its symbolic connection to alchemy: he desires an inner change, and can only attempt it by making an external change in the world around him.
It makes his relationships within the jail and his goal of transforming the atmosphere around the jail more difficult, and thus more interesting.

The fact that he’s, again, for lack of a better phrase, “mentally handicapped” is problematic, but it seems more like an opportunity than a crisis. It’s strange, because putting the deaths of hundreds or thousands of people on the head of a mentally handicapped man is an odd premise for a story. But I don’t think it’s an excuse — he’s still responsible, and there are still ramifications: meaning, this guy with mental problems goes to jail. I think that’s interesting, and invites a complicated response.

But again, what I’m penultimately saying isn’t that it has to be an autistic guy, simply that my version and your version are on the same level, imo — that is, my “autism made me do it” and your “it was a mistake cuz I fell asleep” are more or less equivalent. I still think the culpability of the protagonist needs to be raised.

And what I’m ultimately saying is that I’m tired of considering the audience and trying to imagine what they will or won’t accept. It’s cart before the horse. Figure out the story first, then figure out how to “sell” it to an audience.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Wednesday
Mar 22, 2006

Round 9.8 [The Atheist v. Atmosphere] posted by Martin

Well, that’s our job as artists: to find a way in to a specific viewpoint and express it to the best of our ability.

I can’t speak to being an artist. My question is simply this: does the autism aid the story? In this case the story rests on a fulcrum: the audiences ability to make an emotional connection with the protag. Making him autistic seems like an artificial barrier to doing that.

The author of The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time found a way.

Yes he did. He had the autistic guy write the book in first person, because from the outside autistic people are much harder to relate to. You can’t read their emotions. Unless you give them a Tom Cruise to bounce off of. I ask you: do you really want to re-write Rain Man?

But, the issue isn’t whether or not we could make a story work with an autistic character. I’m sure we could. And, to put a fine point on it, I’m not objecting to an autistic protagonist specifically (being as I just wrote one into one of my descriptions). I’m objecting to a particular character in a particular situation. The question is whether this story will be enhanced or troubled by having the protag be autistic. I think the latter.

Additionally, autism gives him an excuse for his reprehensible actions. If he has a built in excuse, there is no reason to redeem him, so the emotional arc that I’m seeking in this character is unavailable from the word go because he’s already forgiven or explained due to his disorder.

Hitchcock was always finding ways getting audiences to connect with characters whom they would otherwise despise.

Yes, and that’s exactly what I’m saying I want to do: set up a character that the audiences has good reason to not like, and then help the audience relate to them. That’s my goal plain and simple.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Wednesday
Mar 22, 2006

Re:[10] Sequence Method Question posted by Martin

I’ll formalize a technique and form with my Blue Velvet post, and then you can tweak it and suggest changes as need be.

I’m on board for the Matrix. Let me just finish chewing what I’ve already bit off.

Maybe we can start a database of these.

Comments (0) — Category: technique

Wednesday
Mar 22, 2006

Re:[9] Sequence Method Question posted by kza

That’s a little more detailed than I was planning, but it certainly couldn’t hurt. I’ll see how big my workload is, and start doing this.

Well, the time stamps are completely optional — I like them for the info they provide, but also because I’m anal-retentive that way :-)

But I can’t imagine doing a breakdown without a scene list. I mean, if you can do it, more power to ya, but that’s out of my range.

Which reminds me, maybe we should start defining a format for breaking a film down. A form, if you will, that we could follow to aid in our dissections, analyzation and discussions.

Good idea. I’ll be looking at your Blue Velvet post carefully.

Also, when I have a few of these under my belt, it might be interesting to pick a film—a non-obvious one, if possible—and each do a breakdown on it. Then, we can compare notes and see if we were both on the same page.

I had the same idea. I was going to save The Matrix for myself, but since I know we both own it, should we go with that? (Also, it’s an “easy” one to start with.)

Comments (0) — Category: technique

Wednesday
Mar 22, 2006

Re:[8] Sequence Method Question posted by Martin

a list of the scenes, in chronological order, and with time stamps

That’s a little more detailed than I was planning, but it certainly couldn’t hurt. I’ll see how big my workload is, and start doing this.

Which reminds me, maybe we should start defining a format for breaking a film down. A form, if you will, that we could follow to aid in our dissections, analyzation and discussions.

Also, when I have a few of these under my belt, it might be interesting to pick a film—a non-obvious one, if possible—and each do a breakdown on it. Then, we can compare notes and see if we were both on the same page.

Comments (0) — Category: technique

Wednesday
Mar 22, 2006

Re:[7] Sequence Method Question posted by kza

What I would like to see (if you have it, but maybe this is exactly what you’re working on!) is a list of the scenes, in chronological order, and with time stamps, if you got ‘em. I don’t think I’ll be watching Blue Velvet anytime soon, but I’d love to get my hands dirty with this.

That said, I think I’ve settled on the PONR being the moment where Dorothy discovers him in the closet. This propels him from voyeur and passive (at least in this sequence) observer to active participant.

That sounds pretty good to me!

Comments (0) — Category: technique

Wednesday
Mar 22, 2006

Round 9.7 [The Atheist v. Atmosphere] posted by kza

I think you put your finger on something here: with him being autistic, he exists outside of the normal spectrum of emotions. So, how—as an audience—are we suppose to care about him at all? How can we connect with someone who emotionally is unable to connect?

Well, that’s our job as artists: to find a way in to a specific viewpoint and express it to the best of our ability. The author of The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time found a way. Hitchcock was always finding ways getting audiences to connect with characters whom they would otherwise despise.

Or put another way: why should we care about any character, in any story? What tools do we have as artists that allow us to make an audience care for a character? And why should those tools suddenly not work because a character is autistic? I don’t think any of this has anything to do with whether a character can emotionally connect to another character or not.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Wednesday
Mar 22, 2006

Re:[6] Sequence Method Question posted by Martin

Going by what info I have, it sounds like you’re trying to slice it too thin.

That’s very likely. In my quest for understanding and applying these techniques I tend towards the microscopic, and have to remember to zoom out and look at the big picture.

But, it would difficult to include all of my potential PONR into one broad PONR because then the entire 3rd sequence would be the PONR.

That said, I think I’ve settled on the PONR being the moment where Dorothy discovers him in the closet. This propels him from voyeur and passive (at least in this sequence) observer to active participant. The events that take place at her knife seduce him into desiring her, and it either answers or makes more ambiguous the question that seemingly innocent Sandy raises when she tells him:

“I can’t tell if you’re a detective or a pervert.”

As I post my theories and break down of this, I’d be very curious for more feedback from you, of course, and from readers if there are any challenges to the logic of my breakdown.

Comments (0) — Category: technique

Wednesday
Mar 22, 2006

Re:[5] Sequence Method Question posted by kza

That’s the rub, in a way, because four out of the five events I’ve described take place during the third sequence.

Ah — if they’re all in the same sequence, then the PONR is probably a sentence that takes them all into account (Jeffrey sneaks into Dorothy’s closet but gets caught by Frank, or whatever.) Going by what info I have, it sounds like you’re trying to slice it too thin.

But part of the confusion comes because later Jeffrey has the opportunity to leave the situation for good. If that opportunity is presented to the Protagonist, doesn’t that sort of negate the PONR?

No, not necessarily. If the opportunity arises, and Jeffrey doesn’t take it, then what’s compelling him to stay? (I’m assuming something emotional.) That answer would probably be another kind of PONR.

Comments (0) — Category: technique

Wednesday
Mar 22, 2006

Round 9.6 [The Atheist v. Atmosphere] posted by Martin

The Atheist

I don’t get this. Why? If one particular religion is wrong, then X number of religions are wrong.

Well, the main reason I have the population believing in one god is to simplify. If you’re really talking about setting it on Earth and taking on “real” religions, then which ones? The big three? What about smaller ones? If we’re taking on Christianity, are we taking on the Catholics, the Episcopalians, the Congregationalists, the Anglicans, the Mormons, the Christian Scientists, or the Jehovah’s Witnesses? And if you do take on one of those, then how is it taking on all of them? I could argue against the doctrine of virginal birth with a Catholic, but the Congregationalists don’t literally believe in that. In other words, if we come up with a scathing indictment of Christianity, it could just be a scathing indictment of one sect and not even matter to another. We’ve learned that the Catholics really don’t like the idea of a human christ—who is ultimately redeemed—dreaming on the cross of being married thanks the devil, but they love the idea of having his suffering brought to snuff film reality. How can you insult people who love the most violent film ever made?

And the same sub-divisions exist for Islam and for Judaism. What if they’re based on multiple gods instead of one god? What about the ones that aren’t connected to gods at all? How do we explain, or avoid, Wicca, or Rastafarianism? Is the version of God that is wrong the peaceful leftist-Christ, or the vengeful big-daddy Christ who is going to come and kill the mass of the population for not believing in him?

If we make one culture with one god, we can neatly avoid these issues. One god, one planet, one belief system that we define that, of course, metaphorically represents Earth religions—or more directly, the human need for religion.

But, mostly this is an issue of scope. You want to take on all religion and atheists? And you want to do this within 2 hours? Well, maybe this is all conjecture, because at this point I’m not arguing against anything but a belief of where to put the movie, and I don’t know anything about the movie set on Earth except the history of the protag.

So, at this point, I say: show your hand. What’s the story here of the guy on Earth? What happens and how does it play out in your view?

Atmosphere

I think you put your finger on something here: with him being autistic, he exists outside of the normal spectrum of emotions. So, how—as an audience—are we suppose to care about him at all? How can we connect with someone who emotionally is unable to connect?

But maybe unredeemable is too strong of a word. Let’s just say that I’d like to protagonist to be at a severe disadvantage due to his actions, although this can be revealed a bit later in the story maybe, so that at first we think he is the guy we’re going to root for, then we learn he isn’t, then we start to root for him despite ourselves. If we could set up that dynamic, I would be very happy. The rest is window dressing, as far as I’m concerned.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Wednesday
Mar 22, 2006

Re:[4] Sequence Method Question posted by Martin

See, this is where I start to get confused over the (seemingly, to me) arbitrary rules placed around events in the narrative line. More to the point, I find the dividing line between sequences occasionally arbitrary. In Blue Velvet, some are very clear (fade to black, pause, fade up), while some are much less clear, but only exist in my head so that I can define the movie given the constraints of the model we’re using.

You said:

the PONR is generally slotted in the third sequence (the very first sequence in the second act), that’s the latest it can appear.

That’s the rub, in a way, because four out of the five events I’ve described take place during the third sequence. However, only one (Jeffrey sneaking into her place) really propels him into the drama where he emotionally is trapped, and physically, at least for awhile, is trapped as well.

But part of the confusion comes because later Jeffrey has the opportunity to leave the situation for good. If that opportunity is presented to the Protagonist, doesn’t that sort of negate the PONR?

In any case, your clarification did help me figure out a few things, so I’m forging on. Thanks also for clarifying the difference between the Predicament and the the PONR.

Comments (0) — Category: technique

Tuesday
Mar 21, 2006

Re:[3] Sequence Method Question posted by kza

Remember, although the PONR is generally slotted in the third sequence (the very first sequence in the second act), that’s the latest it can appear. It can appear in the very first moment of the screenplay, if it makes sense. And there should always be moments throughout that “lock in” the protagonist further, a continuous tightening, like a giant python.

But the question is: when can Jeffrey simply not turn around and leave town? And I think either the answer can be either physical or emotional in nature (i.e., either Frank or Dorothy). Unfortunately, I haven’t seen Blue Velvet in years, so I can’t really offer anything past this. Except: assuming that, per David Howard, that Lynch’s stories are only unusual in that they don’t offer character motivation, I’d look around the 20 to 30 minute mark and see what scenes are there. That could answer your question.

One last thing: the PONR doesn’t draw the action into the second act; the Predicament, and the protagonist’s choice towards the Predicament, does.

Comments (0) — Category: technique

Tuesday
Mar 21, 2006

Round 9.5 [The Atheist v. Atmosphere] posted by kza

The Atheist

First off, we need the entire population believing in one god.

I don’t get this. Why? If one particular religion is wrong, then X number of religions are wrong.

Secondly, in my view, we actually need to disprove that this god exists—or, at least, that the historical evidence for this god was made by their imprisoned forefathers.

How can we disprove a god that real people actually believe in (when some people can’t even draw cartoons of one version of him)?

I guess this is where our visions of this completely differ, as I don’t see how we can disprove an imaginary god either. To me, this is a story about faith and belief — the character comes to believe, against all the believers of various religions and the atheists, that the planet is a giant prison for their ancestors — and he turns out to be right. To put it another way, a planet with a made-up culture is too distancing to me, ultimately too watered-down. I guess what I’m saying is, the belief systems of aliens are completely uninteresting to me, especially when the ones we’ve got here on Earth are fascinating enough.

Maybe it’s because the story of your protagonist just wasn’t as compelling to me.

Which was kind of the point, for me. He’s an ordinary guy with ordinary, slightly banal problems. His story doesn’t really begin until the screenplay. And when he starts to believe the world is a prison planet, how does that affect him as an environmentalist? As a potential father who will be bringing another “prisoner” into the world?

Atmosphere

for some reason (and I’m not sure if this is purely in my head or is on the page) your guy seems more redeemable.

You think? I don’t necessarily disagree, but remember he is autistic. He doesn’t really get regular emotions, he doesn’t really have empathy. He knows there’s something abnormal with himself, but he can’t see outside of himself to really “get it”. I’m wondering if it’s because he has a mental impairment (for lack of a better phrase), and such characters aren’t usually villains in this sense, that you’re confusing your empathy for him with his potential for redemption. [Because sometimes I feel like I do — edit for clarity and to sound a little less accusatory.]

Basically, if you want him to unredeemable, then we need to take the plunge and have him make a choice between sacrificing something he wants and saving the people of the colony, or sacrificing the people of the colony for something he wants… and he sacrifices the people. I’m not sure an accident is going to cut it anymore.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Tuesday
Mar 21, 2006

Re:[2] Sequence Method Question posted by Martin

If, however you’re dealing with some Altman Short Cuts type shit, then you’ve got several stories on your hands, and you probably should chart out each one.

I don’t think my ambiguity is really serving any purpose here but to guard me from potential failure and looking foolish, and that’s not a very good reason. In fact, it might be more useful to myself and everybody if I reasoned this breakdown I’m doing out loud, since it’s the first I’ve attempted.

The movie I picked is: Blue Velvet (I just watched it again for the first time in quite a while). So, the questions of PONR come up in conjunction with protagonist Jeffrey Beaumont. Here are a few of the PONR I’ve identified: (it goes without saying, but we’re just the type to say things that might usually go without: SPOILERS AHEAD).

1. When he hides in Dorothy Vallen’s apartment (can’t go back then!). This relates to the plot thread of Jeffrey as detective and / or voyeur, which is his motivation for getting involved in what happens.
2. When Dorothy discovers him in his closet, and attempts to seduce (er, rape?) him at knife point.
3. When he witnesses the “ritualistic rape” (as it is often referred to) and first sees Frank. This relates to his emotional involvement and sexual attraction to Dorothy Vallens. He is pulled so far into the story that he won’t let himself back out.
4. When he is discovered with Dorothy by Frank. This PONR, like number 2, is completely out of his hands, so may actually be the one that stands the strongest in relation to the sequence method since it compels a lot of action and thrusts him into a very dangerous situation. But, it doesn’t really speak to the fact that he already was drawn in and completely absorbed. This event is actually a consequence of 1 and 2 and 3 combined, which pulled him back to her apartment when he probably should have just stayed away. Which leads me to (out of linear order)
5. Going back to Dorothy Vallens apartment of his own free will. Twice.

I guess one question can be: 1. Which of those five draws the action into the second act? That’s tricky, because I’m still deciding where the dividing line for the sequences are, especially during the long second act.

Obviously, this is very different than an Altman sort of many-threads-converging thing. It’s all one story, but very layered and nuanced, so the line is anything but direct. Any ideas?

Comments (0) — Category: technique

Tuesday
Mar 21, 2006

Round 9.4 [The Atheist v. Atmosphere] posted by Martin

Hmmm… I’m not entirely sure what we’re supposed to do now.

Me neither…my god. Did we actually make too few rules?

Anyway, I agree with Shockah that the rabble should be rousing—if you have the slightest inkling of an opinion on this one, please do let us know.

So, without further adieu:

The Atheist

Interesting that you want to place this one on Earth, because the way that I’ve been looking at it, it would be impossible to do that. First off, we need the entire population believing in one god. Secondly, in my view, we actually need to disprove that this god exists—or, at least, that the historical evidence for this god was made by their imprisoned forefathers.

How can we disprove a god that real people actually believe in (when some people can’t even draw cartoons of one version of him)? By touching that issue at all, we’ll be either burdened by our own opinions or by attempts to attempt to show that we don’t have any. Moving it to a self-contained (and totally defined-by-us) community had the advantage of avoiding the trappings of religion here on Earth.

But understanding your reason for wanting to keep this on Earth is so that we have a candidate that is not on another planet (although Rasputin the Translator take place on Earth, at least), but I don’t know if I’m convinced yet. Maybe it’s because the story of your protagonist just wasn’t as compelling to me. And that could be because I didn’t see the story in the description—and, to be fair, that’s not a bad thing—it’s just that since I had seen this taking place on a different land than Earth, I wanted to know more about how it’s going to play out with this guy.

So, I’ll withhold any further pondering until you come up with some more terrestrial ideas on this one—I’m curious and willing to be open minded about it, but I’ll need to be pointed in a direction to ponder it. Get crackin’ on Winter Light!

Atmosphere
First off, it’s funny that we both gave a character autism. I didn’t read yours before doing mine, so that was totally coincidence.

I do agree that our bios are very similar, and could be condensed into one. Although, for some reason (and I’m not sure if this is purely in my head or is on the page) your guy seems more redeemable.

Part of my interest in this story has to do with confronting a nearly unredeemable protagonist. Somebody who really did something terrible and selfish and who really deserved the punishment given to him. That’s why I was arguing that the company and government shouldn’t be the bad guys in this. It’s really about one man coming to terms with what he did and trying to turn around and personally redeem himself.

If we have a character with such a difficult past, I think interest and sympathy will be forged through seeing his remorse. Then, we could really play with people by having his myopia be endangering to other people again—as if his attempts to redeem himself are looking like they’ll just lead him down the same path again.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Tuesday
Mar 21, 2006

Re: Character Sketches: My Philosophy (I Think Very Deeply) posted by Martin

I doubt I could force him even if I wanted to, at least not without the use of a whip and cheese-covered apple pie

I’m replying properly to today’s posts here, but I couldn’t let this slide. Can a fella get anybody to testify to the greatness of hot apple pie with cheddar cheese for breakfast? Mr. Shockah’s palate won’t allow for such deliciosity, and I’m eager to prove to him that this is not an personal idiosyncrasy, but accepted culinary practice.

Comments (0) — Category: technique

Tuesday
Mar 21, 2006

Character Sketches: My Philosophy (I Think Very Deeply) posted by kza

Note: The following has absolutely nothing to do with Burley’s excellent character bios, as seen below. It’s just that, when I started my bios, I felt like I needed to definitively state what it was I was trying to accomplish, so I created a list of guidelines and “talking points”, if you will, to guide me. While I certainly hope that I can engage Burley into a conversation about this topic, he’s not honor-bound to share my philosophy or use my ideas. (I doubt I could force him even if I wanted to, at least not without the use of a whip and cheese-covered apple pie.) I share them with you now because… well, when it comes to grand theorizing about writing, I’m a Chatty Cathy.

The following are my notes, and expanded thoughts, on creating a character sketch for a screenplay.

Name. Obvious, sure, but god, I’m awful at names. I really, really hate coming up with them, and I don’t have the cojones to name deities after candies. But I force myself anyway, but because I force myself, I usually end up with very bland, WASPy names. Sometimes I wish I could create names like Vonnegut or Bester, but I bet they’d just look silly to me. I usually look at movies or other media that inspired the original story in some way and steal that (i.e., Atmosphere = “Curtis Ian”, the Dario Argento-inspired Yellow = “Fiore”, Argento’s daughter’s name.)

Support Network: Too often when I think of a story and just start writing, it’s like I have a main character, a handful of necessary supporting characters, and that’s it. The problem is that, at least in a screenplay, it starts to feel like the world is severely underpopulated, like an old cartoon. What I keep failing to take into account is that nearly everyone has some kind of support network in their life. Who are the character’s friends? What would they do for him or her? Who takes care of this character when she’s sick? Who does the character go to when he’s in love and needs to talk to someone? Sometimes this is family, but sometimes it isn’t. And if it isn’t, why not?

The purpose of the Support Network is two-fold: one, to provide a realistic backdrop for the story (assuming it needs one) and two, to be a Well.

The Well: The Well is for people like me who sometimes need a kick in the butt to get a story going, particularly while deep in the hell of the second act. The Well is like a goodie bag that you can reach into and draw some kind of prize that can (hopefully) inspire you when you’re stuck. It could be filled with just about anything: you could literally create a bag and fill it with pictures or Oblique Strategy-styled bits of prose to help inspire, or just keep it all in your head. What I do (because this is an area I’m weak in) is to use the Support Network as my well. If I’m stuck and I don’t know where to take my protagonist, I can reach into the Well and remember that he has a sister he loves but had a falling out with. What if he has to go to the sister to proceed towards his goal? Now the protagonist has a goal and an obstacle (the sister), and the collision of the two is going to reveal background information in an organic way, and deepen the material. (Well, we hope.)

3 Significant Events. This is here mostly to structure the sketch material in some way, and add stuff to the Well. I do add one requirement, however: that each event has some kind of common theme. For example, in my sketch for The Atheist, issues of belief and faith run through the bio, and in Atmosphere, the sketch is held together by the character’s autism — a kind of stasis or wall — and the character’s attempt to transform himself.

Status Quo: This (along with the Well) is actually the whole purpose of the sketch exercise. If a story is pretty much defined as the upending of a character’s status quo and his/her attempt to right it again, then that Status Quo needs to be defined. Obviously, this is built from the Support Network, but is defined by the long-standing but unresolved conflicts in the character’s life. In terms of the sequence method, I think it’s okay to include Status Quo material in the first act, if necessary, but it should the sketch should never include the Predicament. Everything up until that point, sure, but not the actual event that upsets the Status Quo. While I suspect that a lot of us think of the Status Quo as a kind of large, heavy boulder — tough to move — I prefer to think of it as more like a station wagon that’s balanced precariously on the edge of a precipice — one ounce of pressure from safety or certain doom. (I’m not always successful in this, I’ll admit.)

However: Despite all this (potentially) interesting stuff, I feel that the sketch should not be so interesting that it could be the screenplay itself. While there should be dramatic events in the life of the character, they’re only there to be drawn upon for the actual screenplay — the character’s life up until the Status Quo-altering Predicament should, ideally, be as chaotic and unstructured and maybe a little boring as a real person’s life.

(I’ll admit, again, that I probably failed here re: Atmosphere. The problem there was, to understand the character’s background, details of this future world had to be explained, and expository material like that works best when couched in terms of a flowing story. In fact, after our two sketches, I’m thinking Atmosphere might work best with the prison sequence as the third act, with the character’s life up until that point filling the first two acts. In a sense, that’s a failure, but you have to eventually go with what works.)

I also feel that, as counter-intuitive as it sounds, the character sketch is no place for talking about a character’s personality. You won’t see me write something like “He’s a happy-go-lucky guy” or “She’s moody and depressive”. I’m kind of a “existence precedes essence” guy when it comes to this stuff. I just want the fact’s, ma’am, about a character’s life, and when I go to write the script, I’ll use that as a basis as to determining the character’s personality. (Which isn’t to say that the personality, as it develops, won’t change the story somewhat — I think it’s imperative that the story remain elastic enough to incorporate on-the-fly change — just that starting with personality seems backwards to me.)

Ultimately, the character sketch should ask more questions than it answers. If there are answers, they will be provided by the screenplay. If not, then they’re there for thematic purposes or jumping off points for the plot.

Comments (0) — Category: technique

Tuesday
Mar 21, 2006

Re: Sequence Method Question posted by kza

Since I don’t know what film you’re doing, it’s a little tough. I’ll start with: where does the film fall on that McKee story triangle thingie? That is, if it’s pretty much a standard, mainstream story, or even a “miniplot”, you probably should only have one PONR and one Predicament. If, however you’re dealing with some Altman Short Cuts type shit, then you’ve got several stories on your hands, and you probably should chart out each one. (Or I suppose, if you have a film that has one strong, but somewhat tangential subplot — like an old Simpsons episode — then that subplot should probably be charted out on its own.)

Then again, it’s not like an exact science or anything, so make up new rules if you have to!

Does that help or hinder?

Comments (0) — Category: technique

Tuesday
Mar 21, 2006

Sequence Method Question posted by Martin

Should each plot thread have its own Point of no return? I’m dissecting a movie right now, and I think I’ve identified five potential PONR, but each have different impact on the primary story (which is muddy to begin with, and cross pollinated with other issues). Any feedback on this? Should the PONR focus on the primary story line, or should each have its own?

And, if it does, should each also have its own predicament and main tension? How microscopic should one get with these things.

Comments (0) — Category: technique

Tuesday
Mar 21, 2006

Round 9.3 [The Atheist v. Atmosphere] posted by kza

Hmmm… I’m not entirely sure what we’re supposed to do now. I suppose it’s no different than before and we start talking about the pros and cons of the various stories and character bios, but for some reason this round feels different than the others. Maybe ‘cause we’re one step closer to the real thang?

To all the Forum posters out there, actual and potential: Now’s the time to make your voice heard. I don’t know about Burley, but I love all these ideas, so I could use some outside guidance, now that we’re getting into specifics. What do you like? What don’t you like? Why? Again, I can’t speak for Burley, but what you say will have an effect on my decisions.

Anyway:

The Atheist
Amish… In… Spaaaace! I’m a little torn by this — I really like the alien world you’ve created here, and I really like some of the details. At the same time, I saw this one as an opportunity to not create a whole new world from scratch, since so many of our ideas have that already as a built-in cost. I figured, in our present world situation (wow, now there’s a euphemism), issues of faith and belief are so important that we may as well take them head-on without any distancing effects.

Which isn’t to say we can’t use yours. Maybe a start-off point of an Amish-like community is a better opportunity, rather than my “once-religious guy isn’t so religious anymore, but now he’s found a new calling” idea — I’ll admit, it’s a little too close to Close Encounters of the Third Kind.

Looks like the real problem here is that, like some of our other ideas, it’s coasted in on its potential without revealing its specifics to us. (In case it wasn’t obvious, my bio was pure backstory — there isn’t a moment in it that directly relates to the actual screen story, since I still don’t really know what it is yet.) But is that a problem? Well, yes it is, but I’m still in love with the potential and I think I’m afraid of getting into specifics, for fear of spoiling it — which is silly, of course, because it ultimately has to be about something and things have to happen in it. Nonetheless, I still see this as a drama (again, like an Ingmar Bergman film) with SF underpinnings — I just wish I knew how to turn my feeling about how this story should, uh, feel, while providing specifics. I have a copy of Bergman’s script for Winter Light; maybe I should read that real quick before my next response.

Atmosphere
As far as character bios go, I think this one’s a dead-end. Not that I won’t vote for it or I don’t think the story idea isn’t any good anymore, simply that I don’t think there’s any real difference between our two bios. Really smart guy invents something, gets blinded by something, ends up killing a lot of people, goes to jail. The rest is whether you prefer chocolate or peanut butter. I think my addition of autism makes for a slightly different twist, but it’s really there to be an additional obstacle while in jail. And maybe it’s one obstacle too many, or maybe the idea of an autistic protagonist is too difficult to attempt at this time. (I also really like my alchemy symbolism — the idea of lead-into-gold as a representation of inner spiritual change — but it’s easily ported into your bio.) I dunno. I don’t think I have anymore to say about this one, unless you do.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Sunday
Mar 19, 2006

Round 9.2 [The Atheist v. Atmosphere] posted by Martin

The Atheist (Shockah rank: #4, Burley rank: #1)

Atmosphere (neé Methane Madness) (Shockah rank: #7, Burley rank: #9)

Note that I’ve added the “relationship to story” line, just in case we start to diverge from the primary characters into minor, but influential ones. Also, your idea of The Atheist, which takes place on Earth, was very different than mine, so I was a bit confused at first. This line should help clarify things.

And now, without further adieu:

The Atheist
In a world devout to an all powerful god, one man uncovers exposes an unspeakable truth: their planet wasn’t carved by a deity, it was created to hold the most dangerous prisoners in the galaxy: their ancestors. What crime is so unspeakable that not only you will be punished for committing it, but all of your heirs will as well? And what happens when you find out that your captors are still watching your every move?

Character Sketch: Salisbury Jonathan
Relationship to story: Protagonist

(note: I think it’s nearly impossible to write Sci-fi and / or fantasy names that aren’t laughable, so I’ve used candy names for now. Better names to come).

Salisbury was always different. In this devout world, whose praise be to the god Caramel was all consuming, children were taken from their families at birth and placed in parochial schools. Segregated by sex at the age of 10 and not allowed to keep company until they reached the age of maturity, around 16. At that age, they were married to their promised one—a member of the opposite sex who was born closest to them in age without being a family member. The society believed in the theory of Truffle, which states that Caramel places soul mates on the planet Frango at nearly identical times—the division of one soul into two bodies, and through their union the souls become one.

Before the age of 10, Salisbury spent all of his time with his future betrothed (a practice the church encouraged to solidify later bonds), the precocious tomboy Natasha. Salisbury was slightly autistic, and the other boys found his ways peculiar and outcast him. Natasha, however, worked as his social barrier, creating paths for him when other children would simply exclude him. She protected him with fists and words, which made her outcast as well among the more normal girls. He trusted her like no other, and she him.

When they were separated at 10, life for both of them degraded. Salisbury found little escape in his studies, and was abused and harassed by the other boys because he wouldn’t fit in. He turned to Caramel, and spent many hours worshipping devoutly at the temple. Through becoming a candidate for the priestly class, Salisbury found solace from the mocking, since religious leaders were expected, on a social level, to be relative outcasts.

Natasha had a similar experience with the girls keeping her at an arms-length, but she also had an early puberty, and grew into an adult’s body quite quickly. A more lecherous teacher sexually abused her, and Natasha turned dark. When she was 15—a half year away from her union with Salisbury—she committed a ritualistic suicide—-an act seen as the ultimate statement in their culture. An investigation led to the uncovering of the abuse, and as her betrothed, Salisbury was the judge. He had the option of punishment. The socially acceptable thing, which his classmates encouraged him towards, was to murder the teacher with his own hands, but he could also choose banishment if he so desired.

Salisbury, who took the word of Caramel very seriously, was torn. On one hand he was murderously angry that he had lost his beloved, and was therefore destined to a life of lonely bachelorhood. On the other hand, Caramel taught to do no violence against other people, and that only the lord Caramel had ownership over life and death.

Salisbury repressed his rage and went with the teachings of the church, punishing the teacher to banishment but not death. Salisbury himself went into a very dark time, and upon completing his studies at 16 went into the wilderness to live a hermits life for awhile.

It was there, living in a makeshift shelter and surviving off the land, that Salisbury first noticed the satellites. Most stars in the sky were stationary, but certain ones moved in both north-to-south and east-to-west directions. He became fascinated with the “moving stars”, and started tracking them, realizing that before too long he could predict their appearance, location and trajectory.

This did not jive with anything about Salisbury that he had ever been taught. He returned to the city to talk to some of the religious leaders, but found when he went to point out the moving stars to them, that they were nowhere to be found.

He left the city again, people assuming the wilderness had driven him crazy, as legends always predicted it does. But, outside of the city, the satellites appeared again exactly where he predicted they would. After trial and error, he realized there was a line drawn around the city, inside of which the satellite’s were not visible, but outside of which they were. By doing some simple geometry, he discovered the radius of the curve, and after identifying it, followed the line.

Salisbury stumbled across an outbuilding that, while once hidden by shrubbery, was now exposed. It contained some sort of machine that generated a force field around the city. He destroyed it, and found that he was able to see the satellites inside of the radius, as if the machine was a generator making a force field that blocked view of the satellites. .

He set up camp to study the generator that he broke, but was shocked when a space craft landed nearby and strange men, speaking a strange language got out and repaired the generator. Caramel taught that they were alone in the universe, but now Salisbury learns that this isn’t true. His faith is shaken, and the deeper he starts to look, the stranger the mystery becomes.

Atmosphere
In a World where stranded humans must guard themselves from a poisonous atmosphere, one scientist finds a process for rendering the air on the planet breathable. The only problem is, the planet is a prison and the guards will kill them all if they found out about the experiments.

Character Sketch: Dr. Zheng James McNab
Relationship to story: Protagonist

(note: this is a rewrite and expansion of the bio that I wrote in this post . Also, please note that any science mentioned here is purely plot driven script science, and shouldn’t at all indicate that I think I know what the fuck I’m talking about).

Born in Chicago, 2113. Mother was an psychologist, Father a historian in Ancient Chinese cultures whose alcoholism kept him from ever making tenure at the university. His childhood was relatively uneventful, and upon showing an early aptitude in the sciences, his mother pushed him into physics.

Young Zheng took the challenge. Named for the great Chinese Mariner Zheng He, he always felt it was his destiny to create, discover, and better the world for future generations. His myopia towards his studies, encouraged strongly by his mother and pretty much ignored by his father, led him to break new ground in high school and take a full ride to MIT, majoring in physics.

He graduated top of his class, doing groundbreaking research into small fissile reactions with methane. He followed his research at Stanford for his doctorate, making a breakthrough discovery that using small controlled explosions, he could create large amounts of oxygen. This discovery shepherded in a new era in space exploration and atmospheric work.

His post-doc work was spent developing a hockey-puck size device that could be used to refill 30 or so tanks of oxygen. All you needed was the puck and and a tank to store the product in. This device was bought out by Syncprocess, Inc. in Madison Wisconsin, where Dr. Zheng went to work as the chief engineer in atmospheric sciences.

While doing more research, Zheng worked on a theory that his process could be expanded to convert Methane based planets to breathable oxygen. He gives a talk in which he makes grandiose claims about his process, how safe it is, how effective, how it can terra form environments in extremely short time periods.

His bosses at Syncprocess just want him to focus on the smaller picture—they are not interested in grand atmospherics, simply in making sellable products to please the stock holders. But he is convinced that he could bring himself and his company great riches and fame if he could solve the problems presented to him with terra forming.

He sets up a small lab at home, and works nights and weekends. He eschews sleep for work, and to that end starts taking speed to keep his mind clear and awake. But, the drugs have their toll, and Zheng becomes convinced that his company is out to kill his artistry and research. He turns against his bosses, and doubles his pace of research.

After increasingly erratic behavior, he is asked to take a leave of absence to pull himself together. He takes advantage of his free time to work 24/7 on his process, but needs the resources of the company to run his final experiment. He breaks onto campus at night, and plugs his process into the computer to run it. He falls asleep at the computer, though, and doesn’t notice the warnings as the program compiles.

It executes with errors, and instead of changing a small canister of methane into an amazingly large quantity of oxygen, it changes all oxygen within a four mile radius of the campus to pure methane, killing thousands.

Zheng was awakened by warning bells, and had time to jump into an environment suit before the tragedy struck. He lived, but by his errors he murdered thousands. He was tried and convicted of mass murder, and sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole on the Prison Planet, an (ironically) Methane covered planet where he is asked to do manual labor in orr mines to at least partially repay his sins.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Sunday
Mar 19, 2006

Round Nine [The Atheist v. Atmosphere] posted by kza

The Atheist (Shockah rank: #4, Burley rank: #1)

Atmosphere (neé Methane Madness) (Shockah rank: #7, Burley rank: #9)

ROPE A DOPE!

(Note: We’ve added a new requirement to the battles — a character sketch of the protagonist, of about 600 words. “Character sketch” can be defined anyway that I or Burley choose to interpret it. Although the idea is to have two very different sketches for each story, if one of us thinks one of the other’s sketches is top-notch, another option is to expand on that sketch for 600 more words.)

The Atheist
In a world devout to an all powerful god, one man uncovers exposes an unspeakable truth: their planet wasn’t carved by a deity, it was created to hold the most dangerous prisoners in the galaxy: their ancestors. What crime is so unspeakable that not only you will be punished for committing it, but all of your heirs will as well? And what happens when you find out that your captors are still watching your every move?

Character Sketch: Ronald Brenner
Ronald Brenner — born 1970, in Wichita, Kansas. Parents: Harry and Rochelle, and two younger siblings, Louise (Lulu) and Henry (Hank). Ronald grew up in a Presbyterian household, which, although not strict, was very devout — church every Sunday, tithing, the whole shebang. When Ronald was eight, his newborn brother Hank got sick. It looked like the baby would die, but Ronald prayed all night, and the following day, Hank’s fever broke and he survived. Ronald’s faith was strengthened, and he thought nothing could ever break it.

When he was eighteen, Ronald’s parents divorced. While this didn’t directly affect his faith in God, it did damage his faith in people and his parents specifically. Ronald, along with eight year old Hank and twelve year old Lulu stayed with his mother. His father soon remarried (to the woman who broke up the marriage), and his mother never got over it, and her health, physical and mental, deteriorated. Ronald gave up college to take care of his mother and his siblings, but his mother go worse and worse, and eventually passed away five years later.

Ronald got a job and tried to raise the two kids as best he could. He tried to find solace in the church, but his family was socially ostracized because of the divorce, and they lost one of their support networks. Lulu left home at 18 for California — ran away, really — and Hank got the chance to live, on the east coast, with a wealthy aunt and uncle on their dad’s side. For the first time (although at a cost), Ronald had the chance to focus on himself.

He decided to go back to school to get a degree in marine biology. There, he met his future wife, Aileen. They dated through college, and when they graduated, got married. Although Aileen was nominally Jewish, she wasn’t particularly religious, and by this time, the loss of his mother, the loss of his siblings, and the uncaring treatment from his church had so chipped away at his faith that he wasn’t, either. Through his college years, Ronald had some contact with his estranged family. He went to see his father just before his marriage to Aileen, and found him separated from his new wife and carrying on a relationship with another woman. (He also finally met the second wife, Kris, who, to his surprise, was a gentle soul and not the villain he built up in his mind.) He’d also heard through friends-of-friends that Lulu had fallen in with shady characters in Eugene, Oregon, and traveled out to find her. He discovered her with a group of anarchists, and Lulu was resentful of his intrusion into her life. Lastly, he’d maintained contact with Hank via letters. But when Hank came to visit Ronald at college, they realized that they’d grown apart, now that Hank was ensconced in wealth and Ronald had to work his way through school.

Ronald has been married to Aileen for about six years now. He works for a large environmental activist coalition, and she is a lawyer who has just obtained a position at a major firm. Most of their friends and general support network are made up of people from both of these areas (which occasionally overlap). Ronald best friend is Davis, his boss.

Ronald and Aileen have agreed that they don’t want to have kids — Aileen says she simply doesn’t like them and doesn’t think bringing a new one into the world is such a great idea, and Ronald agrees with this. Secretly, though, Ronald is afraid of his potential incompetence as a father. Of course, Aileen’s become pregnant, and although neither is against abortion, they’re both hesitant about doing it without a great deal of thought.

Character Sketch: Curtis Ian Jeffries
Curtis Ian Jeffries was born on August 23, 2112, on Earth, the only child of Kendrick and Lillian Jeffries. In 2112, gene research has progressed to a point where couples can eliminate birth defects, choose sex, and a host of other choices. While there are social pressures to do so, it isn’t mandated, and some parents choose, for moral (but usually financial) reasons to have a “natural” birth. Kendrick and Lillian went with this option, and Curtis Ian was born seemingly healthy. What’s more, he appeared to be an extremely bright child, even compared to the genetically altered children, capable of doing advanced math at an early age. It wasn’t until later, when little Curtis had a tantrum of unbelievable ferocity that it was apparent that he was autistic.

Such abnormalities were close to extinct, and thus were looked at with fear, disgust, and incomprehension. No school would accept him, and his parents were forced to teach him themselves somehow. The next ten years were monstrously difficult for the Jeffries, but in the end, they were able to get him to adjust and acclimate to the world as best as he possibly could. His intelligence and grasp of science was without measure, but he still could not relate or empathize with other human beings. However, he could (except in cases of extreme stress) function in the public world.

This is primarily because they were able to educate Curtis (via computer and other long-distance systems) and before he was 18, he had already graduated with a double degree in Chemistry and Engineering. Despite his condition, he was feted by all the major corporations and governments of the world, who knew a good thing when they saw it. Against conventional wisdom, Jeffries decided to sign on with a comparatively small and unknown company — Hermes Technology — that couldn’t offer him the salary or benefits a larger firm could. What they did offer though, was far more important: they had the most experience, knowledge, and personnel dealing with a nascent technology, one that captivated Curtis: terraforming.

Mars and the moons of Jupiter had been colonized for decades, but the colonists there were still living in tin cans, using the colonies as mining operations and scientific bases. The dream was to turn these planets and moons into fertile, Earth-like territories, exploitable for producing food and as place to import people off the overpopulated homeworld. Hermes Technology was making incremental progress towards this reality, but it wasn’t until Jeffries came on board that it seemed like something this could be accomplished within most people’s lifetime.

During the next ten years, Jeffries was key in spearheading experiments and research towards this goal. He also won over his various co-workers and superiors with his hard work and natural brilliance. Although his autism was still a wall between him and the rest of humanity, Jeffries was aware of this wall, even though there was no way for him to penetrate it. He built devices to help him deal with his autism — devices that recognized human expressions and relayed that information to him — but they were never a cure for it. At one point, he looked into having brain surgery to genuinely cure it, but he was warned that it could, at the very least, remove his genius, and at worst change his personality completely. He decided not to do it.

Finally, technology caught up with theory, and Jeffries’ team made the first attempt at minor terraforming. They chose a small moon covered with ice to create a stable, breathable atmosphere for the first time. They set up the equipment, turned it on… and covered the moon with a toxic fog. The fog wasn’t breathable, and it instantly corroded and destroyed any metal it touched. The team was safe in a satellite orbiting the moon, but their equipment — a billion dollars worth — was destroyed.

Jeffries was frustrated by the failure of the experiment — by his calculations, it should’ve worked. He dived back into the calculations and into the research, and when he finally emerged, five years had passed. He had the solution now, he was sure. Unfortunately, Hermes took a big hit from the first failure, and they were moving away from terraforming. Jeffries explained what went wrong and how he’d fixed it, but the execs were not convinced. Jeffries, going above the heads of the execs, took his case straight to the CEO of Hermes, locking himself in the office to force the CEO to listen.

He listened.

Within a year, everything was in place for the second attempt at terraforming, this time within a crater of Mars called Daedalia. The button was pushed… and it worked. Within nine months, the first flower — a blue delphinium — was grown. Jeffries was lauded for his work and given a raise.

Then, near the first anniversary of the successful terraforming of Daedalia, a problem was reported with the reactor that was providing the breathable atmosphere, a problem that threatened the existence of the colony if it wasn’t quickly solved. Jeffries and his team were brought in to fix it. Jeffries spent hours upon hours deep within the reactor, working on it non-stop, obsessed with getting the reactor fixed, and becoming fatigued without realizing it. His normally sharp and all-encompassing intelligence became myopic, focused on certain details of the problem but losing sight of the forest for the trees. He began to tune out the voices of his team he heard over his radio. Just when it seemed like time was about to run out, he discovered a solution for the problem, and implemented it. He returned to the surface and saw through the window a hellish landscape he didn’t recognize — he wondered if he’d somehow teleported to a different world. He was confused by the lack of radio chatter, now that he was listening again. It soon hit him: the solution he implemented didn’t take certain factors into account, notably the presence of humans on the surface. Although there were some survivors, 90% of the colony were killed.

Jeffries was tried, convicted of killing the colonists and his team, and given a life sentence. He was sent to a recently constructed prison, known as the “Alcatraz of Jupiter” — a prison constructed entirely of plastic, on the very moon rendered toxic by Jeffries himself.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Friday
Mar 17, 2006

Weekly Wrap-Up (3/11/06 - 3/17/06) posted by kza

Lots of activity this week!

First, Shockah posted the second half of his Jaws analysis. (Part One is here.)

Then, after the constipation of being unable to come up with a story for Rachel, My Dear, Shockah was forced to forfeit, the first (and hopefully last) such instance in the short history of the Spitball! Tourney of Story Ideas. This meant that Burley could either pick his favorite (Rachel) to automatically move ahead, or he could pick Shockah’s (Methane Madness) and take a “trump card”, meaning he can force Shockah to write a 1000 word essay on a topic of Burley’s choice at any time. Do you even have to ask which one Burley picked? I mean, seriously.

So Methane Madness moved on, and Shockah requested that the title be changed to Atmosphere, in honor of his adopted cousin on his father’s side, the late great Ian Curtis. It was approved.

Then Round Eight, Cop on the Hunt v. The Scabs commenced, and it was kind of like a Yankees v. Devil Rays game — one of these story ideas just didn’t belong here. Maybe in some kind of Spitball! AAA club, but not here buddy — this is the major leagues.

So, Heat #1, where we pitted 16 ideas against each other to come out with eight, now becomes Heat #2, where those eight will become four. These battles will now include short, 600 word character sketches of each story’s protagonist.

Round Nine, The Atheist v. Atmosphere, will begin shortly. Today. I swear. On the grave of my late adopted cousin.

Comments (0) — Category: communications

Wednesday
Mar 15, 2006

Re:[2] The Spitball! Tourney of Story Ideas -- Heat #2! posted by kza

My Top Four:

1. The Atheist
2. Rasputin the Translator
3. Little Black Stray
4. La Commune Planet

(Unlikely that anyone cares, but I did not look at Burley’s list until I composed my own.)

Thus, Heat #2 consists of the following:

1. The Atheist v. Atmosphere
2. Rasputin the Translator v. Time to Die
3. Little Black Stray v. Terminal Connection
4. La Commune Planet v. The Scabs

Round Nine (thought I’d keep the numbers continuous — it’ll make searches easier) belongs to me, and should make an appearance tomorrow.

Comments (0) — Category: communications

Wednesday
Mar 15, 2006

Re: The Spitball! Tourney of Story Ideas -- Heat #2! posted by Martin

From most to least favorite:

1. The Scabs
2. Terminal Connection
3. Time to Die
4. Atmosphere

I accept all of the terms and conditions. Awaaaay we go!

Comments (0) — Category: communications

Wednesday
Mar 15, 2006

The Spitball! Tourney of Story Ideas -- Heat #2! posted by kza

Now that Heat #1 has wrapped up, we’re now onto Heat #2, where things really start to heat up! Big Money! Big Prizes! I looooove it!

So, there’s gonna be two parts to this. First, we’re going to determine the order of battle. I’m going to take the first four winners (Rasputin the Translator, La Commune Planet, Little Black Stray, and The Atheist) and order them #1-#4, and Burley is going to take the next four winners (Terminal Connection, Time to Die, Atmosphere [mad props to my late uncle thrice removed], and The Scabs) and order them #1-#4, and the they will go against each other, my #1 vs. his #4, all the way down to my #4 to his #1.

(God, this heat’s gonna be trouble. I like all these ideas a lot.)

Then, the battles will be conducted as usual, with pros and cons, with one major difference: each of us will have to contribute a page-length character sketch of the protagonist for each story (thus, each story will have two character sketches of the same character, and each battle will have four character sketches total).

And that’s about it. Same voting rules, same tie-breaker scenarios, same penalties of forfeiture — unless Burley has some suggestions. Burley?

(Oh, and post your Top 4 anytime you’re ready.)

Comments (0) — Category: communications

Wednesday
Mar 15, 2006

Re:[2] Round 8: Rise to Vote, Sir! posted by Martin

Wouldn’t it be funny if I voted for Cop?

But, I’m not! I’m picking the Scabs (eeeewwwww). Ladies and Gentleman, this means that heat one of the first Spitball! plot dilution and expansion project has come to an end. To recap our winners:

1. Rasputin the Translator
2. La Commune Planet
3. Little Black Stray
4. The Atheist
5. Terminal Connection (formerly the Infected + If It Pleases The Court)
6. Time to Die
7. Atmosphere (formerly Methane Madness, named after Shockah’s paternal grandfather Ian Curtis)
8. The Scabs

For those that don’t remember the plots, we’ll recap as we go. Which leaves us now with the question of procedure, so I will punt to the master of our arbitrary and needlessly complex® rules. Please sir, steer us into the next phase of Spitball!

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Wednesday
Mar 15, 2006

Re: Round 8: Rise to Vote, Sir! posted by kza

I’m Scabbin’ it uptown, uptown!
I’m moving it uptown!
People goin’, people goin’
I’m Scabbin’ it uptown! Uptown!

You better Scab it up slowly…

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Wednesday
Mar 15, 2006

Round 8: Rise to Vote, Sir! posted by Martin

I suspect we’re both ready to put the hammer down on this one.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Wednesday
Mar 15, 2006

Round 8.2 [Cop On the Hunt v. The Scabs] posted by kza

Cop on the Hunt (Shockah rank: #8, Burley rank: #20)

The Scabs (Shockah rank: #19, Burley rank: #1)

404 ERROR — PITHY QUIP NOT FOUND

Cop On the Hunt
In a world where galactic criminals are rounded and left to die on one planet, one man—a crooked cop—must penetrate their violent society to spring a prison break with the leader of the most ruthless gang. If he succeeds, his name is clear. If he fails, Earth will fall to INVADING IMPATIENT ALIENS.

Pro
Bwah ha ha! I love this concept — it’s so straight-to-video, so ready to be Van Dammed, that anything we do to it will immediately raise it above its schlocky origins. Which makes me think: what’s the best approach for something like this — try to (sm)art it up, think it through logically, make well-rounded characters, etc., or embrace the schlock, go straight to the heart of schlockness and try to transcend it that way?

Um, no real answers here. Pretty straightforward — that’s always a plus in my book.

Con
So anyway, this is basically what John Carpenter’s been doing for years, with varying degrees of success. In fact, this could easily be the next Escape From movie. I’m not really sure if that’s a pro or con, just thought I’d mention it.

Also, not sure what aliens invading has to do with leader of the gang. I mean, presumably he knows something that can stop it, but nothing suggests itself right away.

The Scabs
In a world designed by engineers to be a self-sufficient, endlessly exploitable resource for the rest of the known galaxy, robots toil tirelessly in the fields, the forests and the mountains, providing food and raw materials for a rapidly expanding market. But when a series of accidents destroys some of the mining robots, the rest of the metal workforce decide to strike and power off, leaving the humans that depend on the planet in the lurch. A taskforce is assembled to get the planet up and running again while a negotiator tries to get the robots back online. While the taskforce tries to relearn the long-forgotten principles of farming and manufacturing, the negotiator accidentally reveals the existence of the taskforce… and the robots, realizing that their existence could be usurped by the humans, decide to go on the offensive.

Pro
I’ll admit, I’ve come around on this one. Wish I could adequately remember my objections to this one (why do I always object to the ones I came up with?), but I guess time makes fools of us all. Speaking of that reference (what reference?), it should be noted that I see this as a comedy, kind of in the Futurama mold. I mean, striking robots? That’s hilarious. I don’t think there’s any way I could take that seriously as straight drama. Which isn’t to say that I don’t take the issues raised by the story seriously, just that these issues should probably take the form of comedy. In fact, going back to the image that originally suggested this story, I remember making a conscious decision that if I was going to create a story dealing with capitalism, exploitation, labor, etc., it had to be both as abstracted from modern life as possible (hence, the robots) and it should be funny. Right now, come to think of it, I see this less as Futurama and more like Arrested Development in Spaaaace! — imagine a Jason Bateman as the negotiator character and a team of Gobs and Busters as the taskforce.

More pros: Pretty clear conflict (robots vs. the humans), that can branch out to other “fronts” — I see the negotiator character growing a conscience and defending the robots, and I can see the taskforce getting fed up with their superiors and with each other. And what happens to the taskforce if the negotiator comes to side with the robots? That’s a conflict of interest (the best kind of conflict :-)

Another pro: I like how that, until probably the third act, there’s potentially a lot of characters in lots of different places, that don’t have any real contact with each other, but their fates are entwined. Like, I see one storyline being the negotiator dealing with the robot labor representative, another storyline about the taskforce trying to learn to farm, and maybe another about the government dealing with the strike in public — none of these people need meet, but what they do affects the others. That’s exciting to me. (So maybe it’s like Futurama’s version of Syriana. Futuriana?)

Unintentional irony dept.: I chose the title as a literal reference to the taskforce, not realizing until later that these scabs are literally biological, as opposed to their metallic counterparts.

Oh, and just to give you an idea of my vision and lame sense of humor: I see a whole spectrum of robots, designed for different functions, and one type of robot is constructed of three spheres attached to each other (like a snowman, but each sphere can roll independently across the “skin” of the other spheres). What’s the human nickname for these robots?

Wobblies.

Con
If we’re concerned with some kind of realism or plausibility (and if this is slanted towards a Futurama-esque sense of comedy, I’m not sure that we are), then the idea of a single planet that provides sustenance for an entire galactic empire (or whatever it is) might be iffy. Regardless, some kind of history (how did we get to this point) will be necessary, even if it isn’t used, and some kind of idea of how the planet works on a day-to-day basis before the Point of Attack and Predicament occur.

Also, not so much Prison Planet, unless looked at metaphorically from the robots’ POV (and maybe, at some point, the taskforce’s).

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Wednesday
Mar 15, 2006

Round Eight [Cop On the Hunt v. The Scabs] posted by Martin

Cop on the Hunt (Shockah rank: #8, Burley rank: #20)

The Scabs (Shockah rank: #19, Burley rank: #1)

This is the end, my only friend, the end…

Pro
I’m feeling a bit prosaic about this (no pun intended). This was one of my first ideas, and I ranked it purty durn low. It not only doesn’t really spell anything out, but it ends in an ALL CAPS JOKE, but obviously you found something redeemable in it, so I am very eager to hear your point of view.

This is ironic, because this plot vaguely follows an actual Prison Planet idea I had which I still quite like, but I feel like using that would be cheating in the context of Spitball!, so instead of bringing it to the table, I will subtly manipulate you until you re-write it.

Or, I guess I could just say: I see this as a tough-guy film, with lots of dirt and dust and fist fights. Mad Max-y, but there would have to be some twists on the Prison Planet.

Another approach, which I like more actually, would be to do a Heart of Darkness / Apocalypse Now sort of thing, even making it like Apocalypse Now Redux, where we have this Odyssean journey through the underworld.

Con
See, even though I’m saying it should be Mad Max-y, I think the Mad Max dusty-tough guy aesthetic is so overdone and archetypal now that it is hard to avoid. We would have to style this very carefully to avoid falling into the traps that these films lay. What could we do to overcome it? Maybe we have a woman character in there who (GASP!) doesn’t turn into a super hero. Maybe we have a weak protagonist who is nearly led astray by his own passivity. But what compels him?

I’ll be interested to hear what you have to say, but in the meantime I’m leaning one way pretty hard.

Pro
I fucking love this one. I would hug it if I could. This movie, to me, is a perfect exploration of the strengths and weaknesses of communism and capitalism far enough removed from Earth politics so that we could really dig in and throw some barbs. And I don’t mean barbs like MONEY IS EVIL, RETREAT AND JOIN HANDS BROTHERS! And by evil I don’t mean McCARTHY WAS A FUCKING SAINT YOU COFFEE DRINKING COMMIE BASTARD.

I like the idea of ridiculing a rich upper class used to being served, and ridiculing an underclass used to being shit on and just accepting it, and ridiculing idealism and dogmatism on both sides. Mostly, to paraphrase Robert Anton Wilson, I want to show how people’s convictions turn them into convicts.

That said, I don’t really want to make a point. That is, my idea here is not to make a political statement movie, but more a movie with an interesting plot that brings up some of these issues, and then lets them float out there without really resolving them. I might be tempted to call this the South Park approach. All ridicule, no answers! Actually the real model for this would be Starship Troopers, that told an engaging story that, on further exploration, turned out to be about the nature of facism.

Here’s my quickie: Open in a robot mine. Things are humming like everything is normal, but one robot—a slightly humanoid one—puts down his tools and stands there. Robot foremen come over and try to fix him, but the robot won’t let them near. Soon, all the robots around stop working and drop their tools. Because a robot isn’t doing his job, pressure builds up in a boiler and explodes, destroying all the other robots around. Film of the event creeps around the globe, and soon all robots are stopping work. The humans are going crazy trying to figure out what has happened. Virus? Hostile takeover?

From there we can go a lot of different ways, but let me move a little quicker: the humans, unable to take care of themselves, start rioting and going apeshit. Deaths occur, chaos reigns, the robots are silent through it all. Then, a coalition of humans starts regaining control and starts communicating with the robots, who are in wireless (kind of telepathic, eh?) communication with each other. The robots have demands, the humans, learning that their hardships were started by deliberate mischief rather than broken equipment, stage huge protests and start robot killing vendettas. Robots do nothing to retaliate, but demand that the destruction of their bodies stops through their translator.

Then the humans grow desperate and beg for help or they will all die. A few robots break ranks and show some humans how to farm and take care of themselves, but these robots, now moving, are easy targets for those who hate robots and they are publicly lynched. So, we have good humans and bad humans, good robots and bad robots, and now the motherfucking bad robots are pissed, and use their martyred brothers as reason to rampage. They take over the compounds and force the humans to wait on them, in demeaning slave-like fashion.

All the while, the more reasonable on both side try to continue their negotiations. What do the robots want? What do the humans want? The humans want robot slaves, but it turns out the robots only want to dance. In roller skates.

No, sorry. I’m not sure what the robots want yet. But, that can be worked out. I see this as a fast paced, lots of twists, a shoe-in for the sequence method. We’ll have to find some central characters, but this movie would totally kick ass. Kind of like Silent Running mixed with Starship Troopers mixed with the 12th Man.

Con
Con? This was my number-fucking-one choice. There is no con. There is only Xanadu (Olivia, oh Olivia…).

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Wednesday
Mar 15, 2006

Re:[3] Motion for Title Change posted by Martin

Um, no. That was my attempt at heart-tugging propaganda in order to get my way.

Sneaky. A little too sneaky. But, never let it be said that we—who are making up stories all the time—shouldn’t celebrate lying. Viva your fake-famial relations. Have I ever told you that Ambrose Bierce was my godfather?

Comments (0) — Category: communications

Tuesday
Mar 14, 2006

Re:[2] Motion for Title Change posted by kza

Holy shit, dude—you’re related to Ian Curtis?

Um, no. That was my attempt at heart-tugging propaganda in order to get my way.

And it worked ;-)

Comments (0) — Category: communications

Tuesday
Mar 14, 2006

Re: Motion for Title Change posted by Martin

Holy shit, dude—you’re related to Ian Curtis?

Well, motion passes. Joy Division got me through many a long dark night of the teenage soul. Or, maybe it put me there? In any case, motion passes, motion passes.

Comments (0) — Category: communications

Tuesday
Mar 14, 2006

Motion for Title Change posted by kza

I move that the title Methane Madness be changed to Atmosphere, in honor of my mom’s uncle’s cousin across the Atlantic, the late Ian Curtis (1956 - 1980).

Comments (0) — Category: communications

Tuesday
Mar 14, 2006

Re: Round Seven -- I Forfeit posted by Martin

Sir, I say to you: good try. I know this man well enough to say that if he says he tried, he went down fighting.

For that reason, because my decision was a difficult one to start with, and for a little essaytainment, I hereby declare Methane Madness the winner of this round.

For those of you not following our needlessly complex® rules, this means that I get the Trump Card, which is to assign an essay to Mr. Shockah, 1000 words, one week to finish, on the topic of my choice. I will be playing this card before too long, but for now I say with good cheer that it is time, dear time, to move on to the final heat of this round.

My hat is off to you, Urban Shockah. My hat is off.

Comments (0) — Category: communications

Tuesday
Mar 14, 2006

Round Seven -- I Forfeit posted by kza

Nope. Couldn’t do it. I tried, several times, but I simply can’t make a story about a woman trapped in a house work. (And by work, I mean come up with a second act, let alone a third.) I only had three requirements: that it be interesting enough that I’d want to spend time writing it, that it make sense (even if only in a poetic or metaphoric way), and that it be suspenseful. I could get one, sometimes I could get two, but never all three.

I thought I was maybe onto something with my latest idea (which was promising, I thought, because it went in a slightly different direction than what the original concept suggested — think a supernatural version of Primer) but a) I ran out of time, and b) my enthusiasm for it kept waxing and waning. If Rachel, My Dear survives, I’ll keep working on it and share it at some point.

So, it’s all in your hands, Burley.

Comments (0) — Category: communications

Monday
Mar 13, 2006

Re:[2] Structurally Speaking: Jaws (Part II) posted by kza

Lindbergh’s publicist or wife can now take center stage for awhile.

Dude, does it really say publicist? Before wife? If so, Howard’s book’s a lot funnier than I remembered.

Spitball! Tourney update: I apologize to everyone for the lateness of my reply. Things kept getting in the way of work and the Jaws thing took a little more time than expected. However! Because this train must roll, I’m giving myself a deadline of tomorrow at 8pm. Some kind of reply regarding Rachel, My Dear will be posted here at that time — I gare-un-tee it.

Comments (0) — Category: communications

Monday
Mar 13, 2006

Re: Structurally Speaking: Jaws (Part II) posted by Martin

(The example subplot given in David Howard’s book is, during a story about Lindbergh crossing the Atlantic, about his wife worrying about him. Something like that. Maybe Burley can fill in the details here. Did I mention I don’t have the books in front of me?)

Not only do I got your books, I got your back too. Howard, How to Build a Great Screenplay. pgs 328-329.

Main Subplot and Main Character

After the intensity of the midpoint, there is a tendency for a story to suffer what is known as the second-act sag. This is a sense of letdown we experience after a major emotional event. Our hero has made a concerted effort and it has not had the result he and we had hoped. He might have succeeded in what he was trying to do, but that merely turned the dilemma upside down. Or he might have failed and the failure has made the predicament even worse. Either way, we have just come from a major high or low contrasting moment — the midpoint — and there is a tendency to sink, lose energy, or lose focus. The best way to overcome second-act sag is to let the major subplot take over for a while. We haven’t yet had any truly significant change or first culmination in that second most important story, so it can arrive energized, hopeful or fearful, and very tense.

The mention to Linbergh’s wife is brief and in the next paragraph:

Linbergh’s publicist or wife can now take center stage for awhile.

Comments (0) — Category: technique

Sunday
Mar 12, 2006

Structurally Speaking: Jaws (Part II) posted by kza

Welcome back to my “sequence method” analysis of Jaws. For those just tuning in, an explanation of the sequence method can be found here (the first four points) and here (the last four points), but you may want to start with the “Why structure, anyway?” post. The first part of the Jaws analysis can be found here. Questions? Disagreements? Think I should be discussing the brilliance of Jaws 4? Go to the Forums, by clicking here. Finally, there’s a discussion about casting a theoretical remake of Jaws that needs, nay, demands your input.

And now… Part II.

Sequence Five (15:34)

The fifth sequence in the story consists of three scenes. In the first, Brody is depressed because of his failure as a sheriff, but Hooper comes to his house to convince him to cut up the caught shark and prove that it isn’t Jaws. (For those new here, I refer to the villainous shark as “Jaws”.) In the second scene, they sneak onto the dock and cut up the shark; when it’s clear it’s not Jaws, they go out onto the water and find Ben Gardner’s boat, Ben Gardner’s head, and the shark tooth (dropped). In the third scene, Brody and Hooper try to convince the Mayor to close the beaches on the 4th of July, but the Mayor aint havin’ it — especially with no tooth.

In a screenplay constructed “by-the-book”, if you will, Sequence Five is kind of an odd duck. If you’ll remember, there are eight sequences in an average screenplay, and eight points that hold the sequences together. Seems natch’ral that each point would correspond with a sequence, but they don’t — Sequence Three has two points associated with it (the Main Tension and the Point of No Return), and so Sequence Five doesn’t have any any. Instead, it’s suggested that Sequence Five is the “Subplot Sequence” — a moment in the story when the focus is redirected towards one of the supporting characters and their subplot. (The example subplot given in David Howard’s book is, during a story about Lindbergh crossing the Atlantic, about his wife worrying about him. Something like that. Maybe Burley can fill in the details here. Did I mention I don’t have the books in front of me?)

What’s interesting is that while there is no subplot in Jaws, look at the scene list for this sequence carefully. Notice anything? Throughout nearly the entirety of the sequence, it’s Hooper who’s calling the shots, in a sense taking over the protagonist role from Brody. It’s Hooper’s idea to cut up the shark, it’s Hooper’s idea to go out on the water, it’s Hooper that finds the tooth, and it’s Hooper that argues most vociferously with Mayor Larry Vaughn. It follows the sequence method, in spirit if not to the letter.

Sequence Six (19:07)

Three scenes in Sequence Six, although, like Sequence Four, more could be argued. The first scene is the 4th of July. It starts with the arrival of the tourists (no, not those tourists), builds as the extent of Brody’s police security is revealed and the Mayor urges people to go into the water, and finally climaxes — one false (the kids with the cardboard fin) and the real one, the sh-sh-sh-shark! In the pond! While definitely the highlight of the sequence, there are two more scenes necessary to make it complete. In the second scene, Brody finally gets the Mayor’s approval to hire Quint to kill the shark. In the third scene, Brody convinces Quint to allow him and Hooper to accompany him, setting up the third act.

The structuring point of Sequence Six is the Second Culmination. To recap, the Second Culmination answers the question posed by the Main Tension, back in Sequence Three. Back in Part I, I stated the Main Tension as “Will Brody be able to solve the shark problem before the beaches open up again?” The answer, of course, is “No”. While the Second Culmination is intended to match up with the highest point of action and tension in Sequence Six (and that’s what happens here; the Fourth of July scene answers the Main Tension), note that, in this case, it doesn’t come at the end of the sequence — in fact, it starts the sequence. While we generally associate words like culmination, climax, action, tension with a story’s ending, in actuality these qualities can come at any time. Since the answer to the Main Tension creates such chaos, there needs to be enough scenes for this chaos to be absorbed by the characters so that some kind of response can be given (and the third act set up); hence, the much slower-paced scene at Quint’s place, where Brody negotiates his and Hooper’s place on the boat.

Please note again, however, that every part of this sequence method analysis is a judgment call — there are no right answers. And every choice made can create difficulties or oddities that may not seem to fit in with the sequence method structure. For example, I’ve decided that the end of the second act is when Brody goes off with Quint and Hooper to find Jaws. Seems right, doesn’t it? The first act ends and the second act begins with the city council meeting, and the second act ends and third act begins with the trio out at sea. I mean, doesn’t that feel right? I think it does, yet it brings up an interesting conundrum: it means the third act is 49 minute and 56 seconds long — only 4 minutes and 29 seconds shorter than the second act.

That’s a long third act. Most third acts are usually, at most, 30 minutes long, and usually in the 15-20 minute range. Did I do something wrong, or does Jaws simply have a longer-than-normal third act? As I’ve suggested, there is no right answer. If I’ve demonstrated that Jaws has a 50 minute third act, then it does. And someone else can come along and demonstrate how the real end of the second act doesn’t occur for another 30 minutes, making the story more “normal”, and they’d be right, too. (And hopefully said someone will post their findings in the Forum.)

After much deliberation, I’ve decided that the extra-long third act is the way to go. However, this has some unintended effects, detailed below.

Sequence Seven (23:46)

Three scenes here as well, each organized by an encounter with Jaws. In the first, Quint hooks the shark, but loses him. In the second, Jaws makes his first real appearance (“We’re gonna need a bigger boat”) and they hit him with a barrel, but he gets away. In the third scene, Quint gives his Indianapolis monologue, and Jaws hits them again, disabling the boat.

A note here about sequences. Two things define a sequence, I believe, and they’re interrelated. One, a sequence, while part of a larger whole, also has a beginning, middle, and end, and is held together by some idea or action or theme. Second, there is a real time limit to a sequence — generally, a sequence should not be much longer than 20 minutes. Although this originated from real physical limits (the length of a film reel) now overcome through technology, I think twenty minutes is a real (for lack of a better word) psychic limit. How long can a person pay attention to a dramatic story before they begin to break what they’re seeing into comprehensible chunks? If this is going to happen anyway (and I believe it will), then it makes sense to take control of that process at the beginning, during the writing, and use that natural inclination to tell stories better. (It should be stated that, although the Platonically Ideal screenplay has eight sequences, longer movies, like The Godfather or The Lord of the Rings, have more than eight. A normal length movie can also have more, or fewer, than eight sequences if circumstances call for it.)

That said, note the length of this sequence. While it clearly breaks the “rules” I’ve just set up, it has an excuse: Quint’s monologue. The famous monologue, of Quint’s experience during WWII, is an incredible moment, a revealing look into the hard-hearted sea captain and the soul of the movie. It’s also, in terms of plot, completely superfluous, and if the four-minute story were excised, the sequence would drop to a more manageable 19 minutes. But pushing the time envelope here is a good move — I can’t imagine Jaws without this moment.

Now, normally, Sequence Seven is the location of the seventh point: The Third Act Twist/Tension. However, having such a long third act means one of two things: either having two extremely long sequences of nearly 30 minutes apiece… or having an extra sequence. I’ve opted for the latter, and since this, the Seventh Sequence, doesn’t have any correlating sequence points, I’m considering it to be the extra sequence.

Sequence Eight (14:24)

Another three scenes. Scene one: They repair the boat, but when Brody tries to use the radio to call for help, Quint destroys it. Scene two: They hit Jaws with a second barrel, and Jaws responds by towing the boat, damaging it further. Scene three: Quint tries to lure Jaws into the shallows, but he burns out the engine in the process, stranding them.

In the sequence method, the third act is, like the second act, kind of its own little story. Although the third act is (usually) fairly short, it also needs something like a Predicament or a Point of No Return to turn the story upside-down, to goose it and keep the audience on their toes. Enter the Third Act Twist/Tension. What is the twist in this sequence? The destruction of the radio is a truly shocking moment, as it’s the only moment on the boat where one of the characters takes a dangerous, antagonist stance towards another character, a stance that’s been reserved for Jaws up until this point. This would be a fine choice; however, I’m going to choose the engine burn-out instead, if only for more writerly reasons. (The loss of the radio is unfortunate, but it isn’t until they’re dead in the water, so to speak, that the story really twists — their options are now extremely limited.)

It should be noted that the David Howard book calls it simply “The Third Act Twist”. I’ve added the “Tension” part of it, since it seems that the Twist portion of it suggests a question, much like the Main Tension of Sequence Three. Since I’m adding it and it’s not “official”, I’m not going to demand that the question be answered with a simple Yes or No; instead, I’ll suggest that the question posed here is something along the lines of “How will they defeat the shark now?”

Sequence Nine (11:37)
Four scenes conclude the movie. In the first, Brody and Quint lower Hooper into the cage to poison Jaws, but Jaws destroys the cage and chases Hooper away. The second scene is Jaws getting onto the boat and eating Quint right in front Brody. The third scene quickly follows: Brody tosses the tank into Jaws’ mouth, and as the shark rushes towards him, Brody shoots the tank, blowing Jaws to smithereens. In the final scene, Hooper reemerges, and he and Brody paddle back to shore.

The final point of the method is the Resolution. The Resolution is pretty simple, and I imagine most people grasp it intuitively. Simply stated, the Resolution answers any outstanding questions raised by the movie, so that the movie can end. Using more literary terms as a reference, the Resolution combines both the Climax and the Denouement. The shark blows up. Quint is eaten. Brody and Hooper are alive, and they get back to shore alive (watch the end credits if you doubt this). We can imagine more questions and scenarios from this point (for example, will the town of Amity survive, even though Jaws is now dead?), but in terms of the questions raised and conflicts established by the story, there is nothing else that needs to be said.

(It’s true that some endings can be “open” or ambiguous — but I seriously question if films with those kinds of endings truly don’t have a Resolution. For example, Limbo has a ridiculously open ending — but the questions and conflicts of the story, the ones that matter, are answered before that moment. For a film that really, truly doesn’t have a Resolution — and is amusingly self-conscious about it — see the previously mentioned Valdez is Coming.)

And that’s that. I hope this look at Jaws, while not as deep as it could be, was a good introduction to the somewhat-obscure ideas of the sequence method. I plan to do a few more of these (starting with The Matrix), but now that I feel like I’ve explained these terms as well as I can for now, they’ll probably be a lot shorter. If you have any questions, or would like to suggest your own structural breakdown of Jaws, please post here. Thanks!

Comments (0) — Category: technique

Friday
Mar 10, 2006

Weekly Wrap-Up (3/4/06 - 3/10/06) posted by kza

Nine posts this week, but only two topics!

Earlier in the week, Shockah posted Part I of his analysis of Jaws, covering the first four points of the sequence method. Part II coming up soon.

Then the Spitball! Tourney of Story Ideas came to a screeching halt, as the other eight posts were devoted to a drawn-out, slightly contentious and lovingly pedantic discussion about the penalties of forfeiture. (Yes, we make our screenwriting blog sound like tax law; y’wanna fight about it?) Last week, if you’ll remember, was the very first tied vote in the history of the Tourney. Our rules dictated that Shockah and Burley had to come up with a version of the story they didn’t vote for to continue the discussion. While Burley was able to do so for Methane Madness, Shockah wasn’t sure if he was going to be able to do the same for Rachel, My Dear. What would happen if he couldn’t fulfill his obligation?

After much, much discussion, the rule of forfeiture was agreed upon and there was much rejoicing. No, not rejoicing — something else. Now, the world waits with much anticipation to see if Shockah does indeed forfeit or pulls it together with a blazingly brilliant post about a story idea he ranked fifteenth out of twenty-five. Should be (better be) interesting — there’s a trump card at stake!

We’ll be back in two and two.

Comments (0) — Category: communications

Wednesday
Mar 08, 2006

Re: [7] Point of Order: Rules Clarification posted by Martin

in my mind, contradicts what you wrote previously about “reneging on the forfeiture”

Sorry if I was unclear. I meant that if you forfeited, and then later came back and wrote your response to Rachel, that would be reneging on the forfeiture and might confuse issues.

No worries, though, we’re on the right path, and your last paragraph and two points are correct. We are ready to move on. So, sir, I say to you: Play or forfeit the round.

Comments (0) — Category: communications

Wednesday
Mar 08, 2006

Re: [6] Point of Order: Rules Clarification posted by kza

I guess we’re talking across each other, because this—

As far as I am concerned, we’re still negotiating terms now, so the forfeiture is not officially on the table until terms have been agreed upon. If, when we agree on terms in the abstract (terms which, remember, I myself may become beholden to in the future), you decide to forfeit, then the terms will be enforced. Otherwise, you can decide not to forfeit and forward your ideas on Rachel, if any of this inspires you.

—unless I’m misunderstanding what you just wrote, is what I was arguing for, and in my mind, contradicts what you wrote previously about “reneging on the forfeiture”, hence my last post. Also, I never had anything against the terms of the penalty, merely about when they would be applied — that was my only issue.

So, to be clear:

1. We agree on the penalty for forfeiture, then;

2. I may either continue the battle as normal or forfeit.

And to be clear about your further explanation of the penalty, using this battle as an example: I’m the backer of Methane Madness, and you are the backer of Rachel, My Dear. If I forfeit, then you can either a) choose Rachel, My Dear and we move on to the next battle, or b) choose Methane Madness and you also get a trump card.

Is that correct?

Comments (0) — Category: communications

Wednesday
Mar 08, 2006

Re:[5] Point of Order: Rules Clarification posted by Martin

after all, if I knew what the penalties were going in, it’s possible I wouldn’t have forfeited in the first place. Right?

As far as I am concerned, we’re still negotiating terms now, so the forfeiture is not officially on the table until terms have been agreed upon. If, when we agree on terms in the abstract (terms which, remember, I myself may become beholden to in the future), you decide to forfeit, then the terms will be enforced. Otherwise, you can decide not to forfeit and forward your ideas on Rachel, if any of this inspires you.

But, to be very clear, I don’t see picking the winning entry as a reward, I see it as a necessary duty because the forfeiting party has, for whatever reason, given up or felt that they couldn’t continue their explorations. So, my evaluation will be not what do I personally desire, but what will be best for the (in micro) game and (in macro) eventual screenplay. If, for instance, I was to say that Rachel wins because it’s my favorite, then we’re going to run into an issue when Rachel, the winner of a round, goes up against whatever actual winner it goes up against in the next round—one that both of us chose— and you’re going to have to argue for Rachel which, currently, you don’t feel that you can do successfully, and you doubtfully will like as much as the other, which you had a distinct opinion on. So, the choice before me is a devil’s bargain: win and potentially make a weaker game, or give way to the other idea and keep the game strong but suppress my personal wishes to some degree. Since this position was not chosen by me, but awarded me by default by the forfeiting party, then I feel I should have a reward for being put in the position of having to choose.

My personal preference is always to argue it through, but if I have to make the choice and choose one, then I think the party who is taking the easier way out needs the penalty, thus the trump card essay. However, in the spirit of compromise and moving things forward, how about this:

If one party forfeits a round, the other party has the choice of which story to send forward. If the non-forfeiting party picks their own favorite, then the forfeiting party owes nothing more, but only gains a delay in their defense of that idea, for they will have to defend it in the next round. If, however, the non-forfeiting party decides to further the other idea, then they are awarded the trump card, which can be played for an essay.

This addresses both of our issues, I believe, and is excessively needless and potentially strategic. Do you like these terms?

Comments (0) — Category: communications

Wednesday
Mar 08, 2006

Re: [4] Point of Order: Rules Clarification posted by kza

Wait, just so I understand this correctly: you want a renegable forfeiture? Sir, I’m afraid I must say that forfeiting is forfeiting, and you accept the penalties. Otherwise, the can of worms is open. I started to give many examples, but then decided that I’d just say this:

Well, let’s be fair: I said I would forfeit, and the penalty would be the “automatic win” of Rachel, My Dear. You said if I forfeit, then the penalty would not be the automatic win, but instead you would get to choose the automatic winner and you would get a “trump card”. Since those are radically different terms, it seems fair that I should be given the chance to avoid these new, agreed upon and binding penalties of forfeiture if possible, as it is fair that I would submit to them if I feel I must, after all is said and done, forfeit. Yes? Or put another way: Just because I forfeit, doesn’t mean that you get to set the penalties and enforce them in one fell swoop — after all, if I knew what the penalties were going in, it’s possible I wouldn’t have forfeited in the first place. Right?

Comments (0) — Category: communications

Wednesday
Mar 08, 2006

Re:[3] Point of Order: Rules Clarification posted by Martin

First: TV Shows?

Oops—yes, for those of you who are confused, I accidentally filed my last entry into the category “TV Shows” of which it is obviously not. I am the first to admit that an essay writing TV show would be very boring. I have remedied this by placing this entry into the negative TV shows category, so everything is balanced out.

I only accept it on condition that I may rescind my initial forfeiture and attempt to try again, however futile that attempt may be.

Wait, just so I understand this correctly: you want a renegable forfeiture? Sir, I’m afraid I must say that forfeiting is forfeiting, and you accept the penalties. Otherwise, the can of worms is open. I started to give many examples, but then decided that I’d just say this:

I see the point of the forfeiture not as the forfeited party giving up, but as the other party simply gaining a bit of control. Remember, that should you agree to the terms, I can pick either story I want, so the point of re-writing later may be a moot one. The ability to make you write an essay (of which, I will mention, that I am not sadistic and will choose an appropriate topic intended to challenge, but not frustrate, the writer) may actually be enough payment for me to switch sides and start batting Methane Madness. One will never know until they agree to the terms fully…

Comments (0) — Category: communications

Wednesday
Mar 08, 2006

Re:[2] Point of Order: Rules Clarification posted by kza

First: TV Shows?

Second: This is a good plan. While you don’t think it should move ahead because I’m having trouble creating a vision of it, I don’t think it should be held back just because I’m having trouble creating a vision of it, and this is a good compromise. I accept this amendment.

However!

I only accept it on condition that I may rescind my initial forfeiture and attempt to try again, however futile that attempt may be. You think I’m just going to give you a trump card? Not likely, buddy. You’re too essay-crazed to be allowed to have one.

Comments (0) — Category: communications

Tuesday
Mar 07, 2006

Re: Point of Order: Rules Clarification posted by Martin

I’m torn about this. On one hand, I do want Rachel, My Dear to move forward, and also want to keep the competition moving forward. On the other hand, it seems that the argument is that Rachel should win because you aren’t finding it compelling enough to find your way into it. That tells me that it’s not a good candidate for moving on, since in the next rounds I want the competition to be stiff and full of it. Ideas, that is.

So, thinking about those things, I think we should establish the following rule: forfeiture. You forfeit the round if you feel that you can’t further the story of the disputed work. Forfeiture means that the other player gets to pick which work moves forward, and also receives a trump card.

What does the trump card do? Hmmm, since I’m about to receive one, I should shoot the moon. I think instead I’ll just say this: the trump card can be played at any time to make the other player write an essay. The essay will have to be 1000 words or more on a topic of the trump card holder’s choice written within one week.

If you accept these terms, we’ll move forward, and I will post which story I choose to forward this round.

Comments (0) — Category: communications

Tuesday
Mar 07, 2006

Point of Order: Rules Clarification posted by kza

Well, after spending several days on it, I’ve found that I simply can’t come through on my end of the tie-breaker round. Here’s how my Round 7.9 post began:

So, my big problem with Rachel was that, despite the interesting premise and all the notes and discussion on it, I still didn’t feel like I knew what happened in it. What were the Cool Scenes, that you might see in a trailer? How exactly was Rachel confined to the house? Does the house have some freaky supernatural powers, or is it simply constructed in a strange, but logical, manner? Why doesn’t she just break a damn window? There were still so many variables that hadn’t even been penciled in, that it felt like it was in a kind of holding pattern, and it really needs to move forward.

Yet, every attempt I made to come up with some kind of structure, some kind of skeleton that gave me an idea as to what actually happened in the story (i.e. the second act), was met with defeat. While I could’ve simply went with one of my lesser attempts, anyone who knows me knows I’m loathe to put up anything I consider shoddy or uninspired work — especially when the whole point was to give a version of the story that I could get behind. If I put up a version that, ultimately, I think is crap, then that’s a kind of cheating, I think.

The only way to resolve this, as I see it, is to simply move Rachel, My Dear forward, since I failed to adhere to the rules of the game. What say you?

Comments (0) — Category: communications

Sunday
Mar 05, 2006

Structurally Speaking: Jaws (Part I) posted by kza

So now that we’ve gone through the sequence method (albeit in a brief, condensed form), let’s apply that to some popular movies and see what happens.

I’m going to start with my favorite movie of all-time, bar none: Jaws. As you probably know, Jaws was the movie that, for better or worse, kick-started the concept of the “blockbuster summer movie”. It’s a pretty straightforward story (a clear protagonist, a clear antagonist, no flashbacks or other narrative tricks), and it seems like it should be a prime example of basic mainstream film structure.

Well… yes and no. Although for the most part it follows the sequence method mark for mark, there is a little twist, one that demonstrates the elasticity of the sequence method.

Let’s take a gander (the length of each sequence is indicated in bold):

Sequence One (3:56, or 5:09 if you count the opening credits)
In the first five minutes, two hippie-ish youths at a beach bonfire run off to the ocean, but the guy passes out drunk on the sand and the woman, Chrissie Watkins, is eaten by a shark, whom we’ll call Jaws, because we can. Sequence one consists of a single scene, and this scene contains the Point of Attack. The Point of Attack, you’ll recall, is when we see the dark storm clouds on the horizon for the protagonist, and know that his or her life is about to be turned upside down. Clearly, the PoA here is the appearance of Jaws, literally disrupting the surface by chomping a young woman in half. Note that no one else sees the attack, and at this point, we don’t know who the protagonist is yet. (It could be the drunk guy for all we know.)

Sequence Two (13:04)
The next sequence consists of (by my count) three scenes. In the first one, we are introduced to Martin Brody, the sheriff of Amity Island, as he wakes up to a call that leads to the discovery of the Chrissie’s dismembered hand. In the second scene, Brody decides to shut down the beach by his own authority, but the Mayor talks him out of it. In the third scene, Brody is trying to relax on the beach with his wife (but not succeeding, his mind playing tricks on him due to his conscience and his fears) when a little boy and his yellow raft are eaten by Jaws in front of everyone. (Also, the dog “Pippet” is probably eaten as well, but no one ever mentions poor Pippet. Well, I will. R.I.P., Pippet.)

In sequence two, the key moment is the identification of the Predicament. The Predicament is when the Protagonist’s world goes topsy-turvy, and this happens with the death of Alex Kintner. Up until this point, it seems like (within the world of the story) the problem of the shark is taken care of (if only by ignoring it). Brody is on the beach — is he there at the behest of his wife, or is he there to make sure nothing happens, or perhaps both? — and his conscience and his fears are bugging him, which Spielberg visualizes with a number of nifty cinematic tricks. Brody has essentially covered up the shark attack, and has the most to lose if the shark reappears. If it doesn’t, then life can continue as normal. But of course, Jaws is hungry, and so the eating of little Alex and his yellow raft changes Brody’s status-quo — not only does he have a damaging secret, but as the designated protector of the community, he has a shark problem on his hands. What is he going to do about it?

The first two sequences comprise the first act.

Sequence Three (9:29)

There are three scenes in Sequence Three. In the first, the city council convenes to figure out what to do about the shark. The second is primarily expositional: Brody reads up on sharks, and passes information on to his wife, and by extension, the audience. There is a small amount of drama, as Brody and his wife argue about their sons sitting in a boat not faaaah from the yaaaaahd. In the third scene, two locals attempt to get the reward money for Jaws by using a “holiday roast” as bait, but get more than they bargained for.

The two important points of Sequence Three are the Main Tension and the Point of No Return.

The Point of No Return is what keeps the protagonist from simply walking away from the Predicament. While this is an important quality to consider for most stories, especially those that use relationships as the stakes for the drama, I think it’s fair to consider that Brody’s position as sheriff creates an “automatic”, permanent state of PONR. True, he could walk away, but its clear by this point that at the very least, his wife enjoys their position in this society (even though they will never be considered “islanders”), not to mention they just bought a beachside house. However, I think there is an additional PONR, one that ties into the Main Tension. Brody’s solution to the shark problem is to close the beaches, but the Mayor amends that: “Only twenty-four hours.” The closing of the beaches is somewhat of a passive move on Brody’s part; it’s an attempt to buy time, to keep the story, in a meta sense, under his control. But stories are rarely controlled by the protagonists — they are more often playing catchup and having to react instinctively to the stuff the world throws at them — and the time limit imposed upon Brody is an example of that. And it’s a PONR because he’s locked into producing results in a specific amount of time.

A quick detour: when using some kind of model, like the sequence method, to analyze a story, it must be understood that there are no correct answers. Some answers are better than others, and technically one answer could be the best, but, if you can make a case, that, for example, Quint is the protagonist of Jaws, then Quint is the protagonist of Jaws. It’s perfectly okay for two radically different interpretations to stand side by side. (And to be clear, I don’t for a minute consider my analysis to be the best.)

With that in mind, the Main Tension is a question posed by the story (always starting with “Will”), relating to the protagonist, that is answered at the end of the second act. It (like any point of the story core) is a choice, but this choice has implications beyond itself. By choosing a Main Tension, you’re also choosing a scene or a moment in which to answer the Main Tension, and in the process, determining the beginning and the ending of the second act. This can create some interesting results, as we’ll see later on.

What’s interesting about the city council scene is that the council and the townspeople aren’t so much worried about the shark per se, but about how the presence of the shark affects them economically. The question that arises isn’t, “Will you kill the shark?” but “Will you close the beaches?”. If the beaches aren’t open, then, as Quint says, they’ll be on welfare for the winter. So, Brody, the protector of the community, is not asked to keep them safe physically (although there is that), but to keep them safe financially. The Main Tension is “Will Brody be able to solve the shark problem before the beaches open up again?”

Sequence Four (10:16)

I count only two scenes in Sequence Four, although it could be argued there are actually three. In the first scene, Hooper arrives to help out Brody, while at the same time, a mass of local fishermen go after Jaws in attempt to cash in on Mrs. Kinter’s bounty. In the second scene, one group of fishermen come back with a shark, that Hooper doesn’t believe is the real culprit, and at the end, Mrs. Kintner reveals that she found out about Brody’s cover-up and shames him.

The key point of Sequence Four is the First Culmination. I’ll admit, the concept of the First Culmination is still a little nebulous to me. As I wrote earlier, it seems to be more of a construction for the writer than the audience, although it has its uses for the audience as well. If we think of the mainstream screenplay as a series of beginnings, middles, and ends, from the “atomic level” of the beat to the larger level of the scene, all the way to the macro level of the act, then the First Culmination is an “end” that occurs within the first part of the second act. The idea is to have a moment that occurs around the midpoint of the story that represents a kind of climax — not a final one, obviously, but one that looks back at where the story has been and where the story is going.

In Jaws, this sequence reflects on both the past (the deaths of the Chrissie Watkins and Alex Kintner seem to have been avenged, and Brody pays for his mistake in the cover-up) and the future (Hooper, whose technical expertise we’ve been convinced of, believes the shark is still at large). Since we understand (from years of examples) that a mainstream film story ends with a confrontation between the protagonist and the antagonist, the image of the dead shark is a suggestion of the film’s end, without being literal — we know that the real shark is much bigger (thanks to Hooper), much smarter (by avoiding capture by the multitude of reward-crazy fishermen, not to mention nearly eating the two men who tried to capture him earlier) and likely, much tougher. The dead shark on the pier is as much a representation of the folly of trying to kill Jaws as it is the possible death of Jaws — so the outcome is still in doubt.

(That’s enough for now, until Part II. A note, however: an analysis like this, because it can never be absolutely right, is always, at worst, a conversation with the film itself, and at best, a conversation with other people. I invite everyone to continue this conversation about structure, the sequence method, and Jaws in the Spitball! forums.)

Comments (0) — Category: technique

Friday
Mar 03, 2006

Weekly Wrap-Up (2/24/06 - 3/3/06) posted by kza

Stealing an idea straight from the Stranger’s Slog, we’re going to do a weekly wrap-up, covering every Friday to Friday. Although we don’t post as often as other blogs (nor should we, when there’s only two of us and the posts are part of a conversation, and not celebrity gossip or something stupid like that), there’s usually a lot going on nonetheless. To wit:

The Spitball! Tourney of Story Ideas rolls on, as this week Burley and Shockah discussed Round Seven, which pitted Rachel, My Dear (a woman trapped in a crazy house designed by her mad fiancé) against Methane Madness (an inmate on a prison planet surrounded by a toxic atmosphere tries to escape by inventing, underneath the guards’ noses, a process to make the atmosphere breathable). After 7 posts of back and forth, we went to vote… and for the first time in the history of the contest, we voted for different stories. We’re now dealing with the post-tied-vote process, which means that each person has to spell out a version they like of the story they didn’t vote for. Burley has already put up a character bio for the imprisoned scientist of Methane Madness, while Shockah is preparing a post that will pitch a story outline for Rachel, My Dear.

Another continuing series is Shockah’s posts about the sequence method, a theory of screenplay structure that will probably be used to help shape the winner of the Spitball! Tourney of Story Ideas. (“[H]e can give you a succinct overview of points of the sequence method better than the guys who write books about it” — Burley Grymz, Spitball!) Right now, there’s three posts about the subject: an intro, an explanation of the first four points of what I call “the story core”, and an explanation about the last four points. (Burley has a couple responses to these posts, here and here.) Coming up, Shockah will take an arty, little-known indie from 30 years ago called Jaws and break it down using the sequence method. Should be good for a few laughs; stay tuned.

(Oh, and in the Forum, Shockah and Burley posted their ideas for recasting a remake of Jaws and it’s totally awesome. Check it out and add your two cents!)

Finally, Burley is inventing his own theory of structure based around the game of cricket (which he knows nothing about), which goes by the name of… *sigh*… Tip Scum. See Shockah’s reaction here; and Burley’s reaction to the reaction here.

Comments (0) — Category: communications

Thursday
Mar 02, 2006

Round 7.8 [Rachel, My Dear v. Methane Madness] posted by Martin

So, now I have to figure out how I could change Methane Madness to make it more attractive to me than Rachel, My Dear.

Well, as ironic as it sounds (since I usually start broad and get specific), I actually think we’re too broad with Methane Madness. I realize that much of the information was back story, and not intended for the page, but I still feel the need to get myopic on our character. Let me start here by giving him a bio, and a name.

Dr. Zheng James McNab is a scientist doing research on atmosphere, specifically on a new brand of oxygen tank that is refillable through small fissile reactions with methane. These miniature, contained nuclear reactions take place in a pack the size of a hockey puck and fill 30 air tanks or so. This allows workers to stay in the vacuum of space for long periods of time with renewable oxygen. Same for underwater experiences. Zheng gives a talk in which he claims that this process can work on a large scale, terra forming entire planets. He is warned by his bosses to not attempt such a thing, since it is consider too dangerous. But, he knows great rewards would come to him if he could succeed.

He sets up a lab in his home and gets to work, using improvised equipment and occasionally sneaking research into the better funded lab where he works. He knows that if he can complete this item, he will be famous beyond words.

He works tirelessly, but working nights and days has its toll on him, and he starts becoming delusional. During one such event his carelessness sets off a nuclear reaction that reverses the process and changes all the breathable air for a large radius into methane. Zheng, working in the lab with safety equipment, lived through the event, but thousands die. On trial he is sentenced to life on the prison planet, an orr mine ironically located on a methane atmosphere planet.

So, that’s my background. Important points: his motivation is greed and personal acclaim, and we’re not relying on the old “corporation” saw. It also, really, IS his fault. He is a flawed character. Maybe we even make him a bit more evil. Point is, I think it should be clear that his punishment isn’t unfair, per se. Actually, for a twist, it would be kind of fun to portray the government and corporations as kind of good fatherly figures who tried to help him from hurting himself and others, but they failed. Sure, it’s totally unreal, but hey—this IS a fictional world after all.

To sum: if we had a nearly unredeemable character and then a myopic goal that shuns all else, I could start to wrap my head around it. Then, we need some kick ass sub plots to pick it up and make it interesting. Okay—that’s my first stab at it. Dunno if it changes my mind, but it’s a closer vote this way. What say you?

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Thursday
Mar 02, 2006

Re:[2] Round Seven: Rise to Vote, sir! posted by Martin

I feel like these stories have both been described and laid out in great detail, and despite the fact that my preference is to move on to the last round of the first heat, I have to stay true to my desires. I reject Methane Madness. I vote for Rachel, My Dear. Going into the competition it was actually reversed, but the more I dug into the story the more intriguing it got. Creepy, psychological—I don’t think the questions are all answered, but the questions that are being raised interest me far more than Methane Madness.

So, according to rules of play, each of us has to go and give a version of the story that we didn’t vote for that would be acceptable to them, and then we can vote again. So, next up: Round 7.8, 7.9 and then we’ll see where we are. Since you took 7.7, I’ll take 7.8.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Wednesday
Mar 01, 2006

Re: Round Seven: Rise to Vote, sir! posted by kza

Wow, so many mixed feelings about this, about a couple of things. First, we did pretty much reach the end on this one (or at least, I feel like we’re holding back, because one of them is destined for more discussion anyway), but can I say I’ve really enjoyed this round? It felt like, because I didn’t have very strong feelings about either story idea, I could stand back and be somewhat neutral and just enjoy looking at each plot from different angles. It really felt like spitballing, I guess because I felt like I didn’t have to pimp one of the nominees.

(But that could easily change if we vote for different stories!)

And I came to really like both ideas, and it’s a shame that they didn’t lend themselves towards consolidation. I sorta don’t want to vote, because my personal inclination is that I vote when I feel 70/30 about the two nominees, and I’m only at about 55/45 with these two.

But one has to win, and so I’m going to back the one that I feel is the furthest along the development path:

Methane Madness.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Wednesday
Mar 01, 2006

Round Seven: Rise to Vote, sir! posted by Martin

I feel like I’ve gone as far as I can with this one at this point. I move that we call a vote.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Wednesday
Mar 01, 2006

Round 7.7 [Rachel, My Dear v. Methane Madness] posted by kza

Rachel, My Dear
I can see your problem with Rachel-as-architect, but I’m not sure if I like Gabe-as-contractor. (Or maybe I don’t know enough about the biz to know whether that scenario is likely or believable.) But I think what’s clear is that Rachel, whatever she does, needs Tha Skillz to fight the house on an intellectual level as well as a physical one. Is there another job like “architect” that could do the same job?

Maybe when he looks at the house he sees the house Rachel designed, but when she sees the house she sees a nightmare.

Heh — when I read that, it makes me wonder if Rachel isn’t the crazy one. Is there room for that kind of ambiguity (not necessarily through the whole thing — we can still find out at the end that Gabe’s the crazy one) or should it be clear from the outset who’s crazy?

Methane Madness

I’m kind of tired of the “corporation” being evil.

Oh, true dat. Unfortunately, if I were to hold off on posting that background until I had something more original… well, I’d still be writing it. :-)

What if the mistake that killed the people really was his fault?

Actually, what I was trying for with that writeup was something that could be interpreted different ways — he could’ve been framed, but maybe he really was to blame. But I guess that didn’t come through. (Or I guess what you’re saying is that he takes responsibility for it upfront. That’s cool, too.)

I see this like the process in the Spanish Prisoner: MacGuffin.

I didn’t care for that movie, but I hear what you’re saying, and it reminds me of one the better bits, IIRC: Someone (Campbell Scott?) writes a dollar amount on a chalkboard — how much the company stood to gain from his magic process — but all we can see is the dollar sign. That’d be nice if we could get away with that kind of narrative elision with regards to the science experiment.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Wednesday
Mar 01, 2006

Round 7.6 [Rachel, My Dear v. Methane Madness] posted by Martin

Rachel, My Dear

I’m going to get pedantic for a minute here. I really like the idea of Rachel as architect, but one thing bothers me about it: if Rachel were an architect, then she wouldn’t just let her husband build a house for her, she would be involved in it. So, what I suggest to fix this issue is that we make Rachel the architect, and her husband a contractor. They have a deal on this house—she designs whatever she wants with his interference, and he builds it how he wants without her interference. But, her curiosity and his strange behavior drive her to seek out the site and see what’s happening. It’s not at all what she has expected….

I agree with you that Gabe is unaware of his madness. In his mind, he IS building Rachel’s house, and doesn’t understand her strong reaction to his work. Maybe when he looks at the house he sees the house Rachel designed, but when she sees the house she sees a nightmare. Like some of Sacks’ patients, he is deluded without knowing he is deluded.

Methane Madness

I like your take on it, but I’m kind of tired of the “corporation” being evil. I mean, they are, but as a plot point it’s so overused. What if the mistake that killed the people really was his fault? What if his guilt is palpable, and there is no way to clear his name? What if his race to fix the atmosphere on the planet would have no benefit to anybody but himself? I say we set him up as a protagonist with a lot going against him, and then watch him struggle for redemption.

As for the process—I see this like the process in the Spanish Prisoner: MacGuffin. I say we’re deliberately vague about it—or, play it off as a sub atomic radical re-shifting. In any case, if we take this path I will speak to physicists I know to come up with some idea that is far fetched but not absolutely mind numbing, and that we can play off.

This is, at heart, I think a human drama: man against himself.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Tuesday
Feb 28, 2006

The State of the Blog: February posted by Martin

Friends, Romans, lovers of monospaced courier 12pt typefaces. Welcome to the state of the blog for the end of February.

Spitball! is now officially two months old. If you search “spitball” on Google, we make the front page. This month there have been over 60 posts, mostly dealing with the ongoing plot battle. It started last month when Shockah suggested that we come up with 25 each “in a world” scenarios that revolved around the idea of the Prison Planet, which we decided would be our jumping off point.

After picking our personal 8 favorites, we paired them together to have blowouts. Currently, we’re on round 7 of 8, which has taken up most of the month. Although the going is slow, I think it’s very fruitful, with lots of good ideas being thrown around and lots of ideas being challenged. When this round is done, there will be four heats to pair the 8 down to 4, then 4 to 2. Then, the battle for the plot of the screenplay that we will write in full on the blog.

But, if that’s all you’ve read, you’ve been missing Shockah’s fine posts on the Sequence Method, which are worth a read for the simple fact that he can give you a succinct overview of points of the sequence method better than the guys who write books about it. If you know nothing about it, this is a great place to start. You’ll find them all in the Technique archive section. Also, you’ve missed my beginning’s in making the world’s first screenplay method based on pure farce, and stealing language from the upstanding sport of cricket (certainly a sport that deserves far better than my dragging it down). Our intention, both of us, is to better our craft, our writing, and our analytical skills. I can only joke about something I understand, so that’s my motivation in. Shockah’s motivation, I believe, is his love of figuring out systems and rules, arcane and otherwise. Both of us want to learn this stuff so that we can forget it and write better movies.

It’s been said, but bears saying again that the work is here is released into the public domain. We have doubled the number of people commenting on the forums on plot from 1 to 2. Like last month, I am once again reminding those friends of ours whose shows we have gone to, movies we have worked on, stories we have read, websites we have helped design, dinners we have cooked, shoes we have shined, and good times we have participated in to please get in to the forum and leave us comments. We know you’ve come to our readings and given us your time and effort in the past, but this is your last chance to solidify your relationships with us before we either become famous or social pariahs. If you’re lurking, feel free to de-cloak with some ridiculous anonymous moniker. The people here are named Burley Grymz, Urban Shockah, and Tippy Canoe. You’ll be in good company.

But, this is partially our fault, we have not done any hard promotion yet. During March and April these things will start to happen. In the meantime, you can have that satisfied feeling that comes from being an early member of the group of people, and have an active voice in shaping the way that the forums take shape.

Last month I said that January was the beta month. February was the month where we shook out the cobwebs, and have tested the word limit on this blog thing. So far so good, say I. As always, we’re interested in your feedback of all sorts, be it about the design, editorial standards or lack thereof, or usability issues. Log on to the forums and let it fly. In any case, even if you area lurker, we appreciate your time in reading. We hope you’re enjoying yourself.

Comments (0) — Category: communications

Tuesday
Feb 28, 2006

Round 7.5 [Rachel, My Dear v. Methane Madness] posted by kza

Rachel, My Dear

Good job with that synopsis — that’s much more interesting than what I could come up with. One thing, though: I think that, if the house is representative of Gabe’s madness both literally and figuratively, then Gabe himself needs to come across as rational and sane as possible — even when (or especially when) dealing with the house. I don’t think Gabe is aware of his madness, in the same way that that guy from the Sacks book isn’t aware that he’s blind. My point being, I don’t want Gabe to be one of those Mu-wah-ha-ha! villains. He’s sick, he’s sad, he’s messed up, but he’s not Fu Manchu or some-frickin’-body. In fact, he probably tries to save her, but is tripped up and consumed by the house (i.e., his madness).

Oh, and great call by Spitball! reader Tippy Canoe: she suggested that Rachel also be an architect, and allow her to architect her way out of her situation. I’m not entirely sure how to implement the idea at this point, but that’s probably because I don’t really know what the house is like. But still, that’s a wonderful idea.

Methane Madness

So lemme toss some spitballs atcha:

In the year 2136, the Earth has begun to colonize space. A primitive form of terraforming has been developed, allowing humans to colonize the various moons, and even some asteroids, of the solar system. The effort is headed up by various competing corporations, looking to mine resources and establish commercial and political dominance on Earth — the governments of which have, over the years, ceded authority to the corporations.

One particular corporation, after a battle waged politically, economically, and militarily, managed to secure a prime area to establish an outpost. The corporation assigned one of their brightest and most ambitious scientists to head up the terraforming project. This scientist had developed some advances in terraforming technology, which, if successful, would cut the time necessary to a few months instead of nearly a year. Although there were some — corporate executives, rival scientists — who doubted the new process would work, the scientist got the go-ahead, and it seemed to work — within months, a livable atmosphere was created.

Then one day, as the third-shift contract miners headed off to work, there was an awful noise that could be heard in every part of the colony, a metallic shriek that seemed to emanate from the terraforming laboratory, quickly followed by a bright flash and then deafening silence. The only survivors were the miners that were deep in the ground and needed special suits to breathe — everyone else in the colony was horribly killed, dying quickly from the vacuum of the now-missing atmosphere.

The scientist (who was off-planet at the time) was taken by the corporation and questioned. An investigation was conducted, and it was discovered that the scientist knew that the catastrophe was a possibility, and was negligent in not revealing this to the corporation. The scientist claimed that he was framed and the lab was sabotaged by a rival corporation, but it didn’t matter — the corporation’s stock plummeted. He was sent to the corporation’s prison planet — a small moon that was the subject of one of the first, failed, terraforming experiments, and surrounded by a poisonous atmosphere. There, he would spend the rest of his days, as an unpaid slave, building little trinkets to export back to the homeworld.

Not exactly original, but I’m trying to lay a groundwork for future development. More importantly, this is, ideally, just background info, more for our sake, and wouldn’t directly appear in the script proper — else what we have is, essentially, the beginning of Dante’s Peak. And nobody wants that :-)

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Monday
Feb 27, 2006

Talkin' 'Bout Structure, Part III posted by kza

Annnndddd… we’re back. Thanks for joining us.

So again, we’re talking about the sequence method of structuring a screenplay, as expounded by David Howard and Paul Joseph Gulino, in their books, How to Build a Great Screenplay and Screenwriting: The Sequence Approach, respectively . Back in Part II, I talked about the first four of eight important “qualities” (I couldn’t think of a better word) that make up a screenplay using the sequence method: the Point of Attack, the Predicament, the Main Tension, and the Point of No Return. If you haven’t read it (especially the part about not having the books in front of me), you may want to before continuing.

And before I continue, some more general comments. One thing I want to be clear about, if I haven’t already, is that I don’t see this (or any other theory of structure) as a One True Way. Just following it word for word isn’t going to create a great screenplay; in fact, it’s possible to follow it too closely, to the detriment of the story you’re trying to tell. (Wonder why the third act of Wedding Crashers goes on for frickin’ forever? Or why Red Eye is so bare-bones? There’s your answer.) I think of learning structure to be like learning a martial art — you learn it to know when to use and when not to use it.

Another thing to be clear about: this process, whether it’s to figure out the structure of a potential screenplay, or to analyze the structure of an existing screenplay or movie, can’t really tell you anything about why the work in question is beautiful or artistically worthy or deep. In mainstream filmmaking, great movies and shitty movies share the same structure, and what separates one from the other can’t necessarily be teased out by looking at Predicaments or Resolutions. To use another simile, examining structure is like an autopsy; we can open it up and see how the bones are connected, how the heart is made up of four chambers, how long the digestive tract is, but we can’t see where the soul is located.

One last thing: In Part II, I talked about the Point of No Return. Although, for the simplicity of explanation, the Point of No Return is slotted into the third sequence, that’s actually the latest in the story that it can appear. It can, and usually does, come earlier, even in the very first sequence, if it makes sense. For example, in The Matrix, the PONR is when Neo takes the pill, and this occurs near the end of the first act, in sequence two. I suspect that, in an ideal screenplay, every action taken is a kind of PONR, one that irrevocably moves the protagonist towards his or her final destination.

So, to continue:

First Culmination: This happens around the midpoint of the screenplay, and as the name indicates, is a kind of a climax and summing up of the action so far, but not the final one. Although the second act (sequences three through six) is all about answering the Main Tension, the First Culmination allows you to answer the Main Tension in a tentative way, giving a clue or preview as to the outcome of the Second Culmination (although that preview or clue can be, probably should be, misleading.) Another use of the First Culmination is to give a hint as to the potential outcome of the story, by either mirroring it (e.g., a positive culmination to a positive resolution) or contradicting it (a negative culmination to a positive resolution).

Unlike the Predicament or the Main Tension, which I feel to be the very heart of screenplay storytelling (if not storytelling in general), the First Culmination seems to be a tool more for the storyteller than the audience. It’s a organizing principle, a way to make sure that the story, despite any narrative detours, stays on point. Part of classic storytelling is the use of recapitulation scenes & dialogue — scenes and dialogue that repeat information we already know, as a kind of reminder as to what’s happened so we can fully absorb the complications that are forthcoming. (Bill Paxton’s Hudson in Aliens, IIRC, is the designated recapitulator, continually whining about what bad stuff has already happened and what bad stuff is likely to happen in the future.) The Culminations aren’t really recapitulations, but they seem to be what the recapitulations are pointing towards — a kind of marker that indicates how far we’ve come in the story, and how much further we have, and where the characters stand at that point in time.

Second Culmination: This is almost exactly like the First Culmination (only this time, the only clue points towards a potential outcome), with one important difference: this is where the question posed by the Main Tension is answered. And the answer is a simple “yes” or “no”. That “yes” or “no” may reveal complications or ambiguities of a physical, philosophical, or moral nature that belie that straightforward answer, but the question and its answer should be clear and unambiguous. For example, in High Noon, can the sheriff get the townspeople to help him? No. In King Kong, will the crew rescue Ann Darrow? Yes. In A History of Violence, will Tom end the threat of Carl Fogarty and his goons? Yes.

(“Hired goons?”)

Now, note again, what’s going on with the second act, and within it, the Main Tension and the Second Culmination. The second act is, in a sense, it’s own short film, much like how a sequence is like a mini-movie. There’s a question that deals directly with the protagonist — Will they do something or other — and the Second Culmination answers that question. The second act is, in a sense, a complete unit; while it needs the first act to set up the circumstances and context that frame the Main Tension, the story could, conceivably end right there. The crew could leave Skull Island, and that’s that. Tom Stall could just stay home and hope no one else comes after him and his family. The sheriff goes off to face the bad guys and we could fade out right there. (That’d be kinda odd and unnerving, wouldn’t it? If you want to see a film that tries something like that, check out the unusual Burt Lancaster Western, Valdez is Coming.)

But of course, it doesn’t end there. From the ashes, another story — the third act — rises, one with its own tension that must be answered. (See below.) Looking over various movies, what I’m seeing is that while the Second Culmination sows the seeds for the third act, what actually pushes the story from one act to another is a decision on the part of the protagonist. Tom decides to face his brother in Philadelphia. Carl Denham decides to bring Kong back to New York. Neo decides to risk his life to save Morpheus. What’s interesting, to me, is that this seems to be the flipside to the external event that causes the Predicament that creates the second act. Thus: external events create the second act, but protagonist decisions create the third.

Third Act Twist/Tension: So the third act begins, and it usually begins quietly. After the Predicament has caused the protagonist’s life to turn upside down, he or she answers the Main Tension and a new status quo is established, even if we, the audience, know it’s only temporary. Denham and company are back in New York and Kong is on stage. Tom is reunited with his gangster brother. The Matrix’s idea of a quiet beginning is mowing down security guards and rescuing Morpheus — and in the context of what’s to come, it is a quiet beginning.

But then something happens — the Twist — to disrupt the new status quo, and a new Tension is created. Kong breaks free and goes on a rampage. Tom’s brother orders him killed. Neo is trapped in the subway with Agent Smith, whom he can’t kill.

The Third Act Twist/Tension appears to be an organizing principle for the writer — what am I building toward, and how? — much like the First Culmination. But after thinking about the third acts of various mainstream movies, it seems like the third act is where the writer deals with the theme of the piece in the most direct way. (That seems rather obvious after writing it, but it never occurred to me in that way until now.) I’m thinking of Kong climbing the Empire State and finding death there, of Neo becoming The One, of Tom Stall coming to terms with the history of violence between him and his brother. While the concept of theme is an important one, and Burley and I will certainly tackle it in the future, for now, it’s slightly outside the scope of what I want to talk about. Nevertheless, it seems pretty clear that while we expect the protagonist to confront the greatest obstacle here, at the same time, this is where we expect to see the greatest elucidation of the theme. And these two parts (obstacle and theme) may be encoded within the same scene, and they may not be.

Resolution: This is pretty basic: every story reaches a point where there are no more questions that need to be answered. The key word here is “need”; there are always more questions that can be asked when it seems like everything’s been wrapped up, including the impossible-to-avoid “What happens next?” But, generally, once the Tension created by the Twist has been dealt with, this creates a final status quo, and this is usually where the story ends.

And there you have it — the eight important qualities of the sequence method. I’ve tried to be as clear as can, with concepts that can be very nebulous, and, admittedly, not fully understood by myself. I hope I can engage the readers of this site (and Burley, of course) into a continuing discussion of structure, one that can further illuminate these concepts. If you’re interested, click here and the discussion will begin!

Coming up next: A close look at Jaws.

(And speaking of which: Who would you cast in Jaws if you were remaking it today? Tell me here. I wanna know.)

Comments (0) — Category: technique

Friday
Feb 24, 2006

Round 7.4 [Rachel, My Dear v. Methane Madness] posted by Martin

Rachel, My Dear

I think you’re dead on talking about horror that is really not horror at the base. I see this one differently than you, at this point. I think that this is a story of a mentally disturbed man and his new bride who doesn’t know about his illness until it almost kills her.

I would say something like this: Rachel and Gabe are engaged. Rachel is a partner in a small public relations firm. Gabe is a partner in a small architecture firm. They met, live in the city, but dream of a weekend house out on an island / in woods / nearby but far-enough away. Gabe has been working on a house for Rachel on a tract of land they bought together. Rachel knows this much, but she’s never seen the house and Gabe won’t let her near it. He’s holding it as a surprise for their wedding night.

But Rachel is a go getter, and she’s a little worried about these longs weekends that Gabe has been taking up there. Plus, he’s missing work and really becoming obsessed with this house project. She drives out to the land to get a look herself, and is confronted with a very odd modernist house with almost no windows. It appears to be done. She enters the house, looking for Gabe, whose car was parked outside.

She calls out to him, but can’t find him. She finds a door that appears to lead to a basement, but the stairs go on for an impossibly long time into pitch darkness. The door closes above. She’s trapped. She sets to finding her way out, and eventually finds a way back into the house which no longer has a doorway to the outside. Gabe is there, on the other side of a small window, and is panicked when he sees Rachel. He left the house to see her car and realized that she must be inside, but it’s too late. The door is gone—was it removed? It seems like it was never built in the first place. Rachel is trapped, and he’s sorry—but he’s got to go back to town. He’ll be back. He disappears and darkness is starting to fall. The house is making noises. There is only one flashlight and no lights inside, and only one distant blinking red light outside. What’s a girl to do?

So—that’s where I see it going. The house would be a physical personification of his madness, which as the house gets weirder and weirder would manifest itself in his behavior growing stranger and stranger. Maybe he sees her as a sacrifice to the house? I don’t know, but this is the feeling I’m getting from it. The stairway to no where might be too derivative, though—but I think it’ll give you the idea.

Methand Madness

You raise some very good points about the redemption plot, which I’m keen on making not-hackneyed, and the atmosphere thing. I haven’t figured out the pseudo-science yet, but I largely see it as a McGuffin. The big thing, I think, would be presenting his lab as realistically as possible, given that they are in a controlled environment.

Maybe part of the tension comes from the fact that none of the other prisoners know that he killed everyone, so they are eager to help him at first with his science experiments, but then rebel against him and keep him away from his lab when they find out.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Friday
Feb 24, 2006

Re: I've Made A Terrible Mistake posted by Martin

If you’re not confused, then you don’t understand Tip Scum. I think that’s my new motto. Basically, every screenwriting technique book I’ve ever read ends up with complex diagrams (McKee is particularly fond) to explain ideas that really don’t need them. Everyone has you tracking threads of information that, if mapped on corkboard with string, would look like one of those airline diagrams that shows worldwide flights. Everyone is so complex that even people who understand it can’t succinctly explain it, because if they could then they couldn’t charge so much for seminars.

So, in retaliation, I think that it would be appropriate if Tip Scum is all about confusion, because if you’re not confused than your plot isn’t complex enough. If you’re not confused, then you’re not relating to your batter, er, protagonist enough, because if your protagonist isn’t confused, then there is no drama in their life worth exploring and therefore no story.

In any case, the Sandshoe Crusher, if expressed in mathematical terms, would be: Sandshoe Crusher = (Inciting Incident + Predicament) / Point of Attack. Does that help confuse things better? Good! You’re catching on.

Comments (0) — Category: technique

Friday
Feb 24, 2006

Round 7.3 [Rachel, My Dear v. Methane Madness] posted by kza

Great post, dude — you made me excited about both ideas. Of course, that just makes things harder, dudn’t it?

Rachel, My Dear
So what I’m hearing is a kind of mash-up between Panic Room and House of Leaves. That’s the kind of candidate I can back. I also like your description of it — it’s very much a horror piece, but one that’s more poetic in nature, like the stories of Arthur Machen.

So while there’s definite weirdness going on in this house — possibly dangerous weirdness, but maybe not — the real conflict here is between Rachel and her fiancé. (This dovetails with a discussion we had, a long time ago on a different blog, about how some of the better horror movies are, at their base, dramas, but the conflict of that drama is turned into a horrific metaphor. See also: Cat People, The Brood.) So that would be my “way in” with this — what is the conflict between these two people, a conflict that could be expressed as a standard drama (like, say, The Squid & The Whale), and how can that conflict be turned, via the house, into something horrific?

So I’ll take an opening shot: Rachel and her fiancé (let’s give him a name, cuz I hate typing that word; let’s call him Gabe.) — Rachel and Gabe move into a new house. They’d been struggling to make ends meet for a long time, both of them working, but just recently he’s come into a lot of money via his job, and their economic status has changed. They’ve found a house that they love, but it’s out in the boonies, and it’s kind of a fixer-upper. Still, it’s summer, the countryside is nice, and they have some time before they have to return to work, so why not live a middle-class dream for a few months?

But it doesn’t go well. It brings up personality conflicts and buried resentments. Gabe thinks that if they put enough work into it, they’ll get through this rough time and be happy, but Rachel is getting more and more disillusioned with the whole thing. But before she can do anything, there’s an accident, and Gabe is seriously injured. He’s hospitalized, and Rachel promises him that she’ll continue the work on the house without him. She goes back to the house, but soon finds that the house has a consciousness, and is keeping her a prisoner for nefarious reasons of its own.

Okay, a little weak — probably because I have a better idea of what I want it to be like in the abstract, but finding the right details for it is eluding me. Maybe it’ll give Burley a better idea.

Methane Madness
Mmmm, good stuff on the protagonist. I like the idea that he killed some people accidentally, and is paying for it both physically (the prison) and mentally (his conscience). Admittedly, the whole redemption angle’s been done to death, and that’s what I’d be more concerned about rather than the re-examination of the prison model (not that that isn’t important, of course.) I think we could find away to either a) do the redemption thing really well, so it isn’t a such a concern, or b) find a way to undermine or deconstruct the redemption plot, but it still seems tough.

Another concern: Why hasn’t anyone else figured out how to change the atmosphere of this planet? (Or have they?) Is it a simple process, and it’s just that no one’s been able to get all the right ingredients together, or is a total mystery, and the protagonist is brilliant enough to see how to do it? (What I’m getting at is not the choice between the two — they’re both fine — but trying to create something believable for either choice. Chemistry aint my strong suit.)

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Friday
Feb 24, 2006

I've Made A Terrible Mistake posted by kza

D’oh! I got confused. For some reason (even though it’s perfectly clear what you wrote), I thought the Sandshoe Crusher was the supposed to be the equivalent of the Point of Attack, not the Predicament — I guess cuz it was the first definition you put up there, and I immediately thought of it in terms of the first part of the sequence method, the Point of Attack.

So, unless I’m still confused, Predicament = Sandshoe Crusher = Inciting Incident.

(I know, the audience is just swooning.)

Comments (0) — Category: technique

Thursday
Feb 23, 2006

Re: Talkin' Bout Structure, Part II posted by Martin

which, contrary to what Burley said below, I think is the equivalent to McKee’s Inciting Incident, but then again, he’s got the books, not me

So he got them out to look it up. I present you with:

THE INCITING INCIDENT VS. THE POINT OF ATTACK / PREDICAMENT (aren’t you just juiced about this?)

First, the definitions.

From Story, by Robert McKee, pg 189:

The INCITING INCIDENT radically upsets the balance of forces in the protagonists life.

pg. 190

…the Inciting Incident is a single event that either happens directly to the protagonist or is caused by the protagonist. Consequently, he’s immediately aware that life is out of balance for better or worse.

So, to sum up, the Inciting Incident is the event that really kicks the story in. Everything before is for empathizing what life would be like without the event.

Next, from How to Build a Great Screenplay, by David Howard.

No mention of the Inciting Incident, but this on page 288:

The point of attack is the first revelation of the material that will eventually create the main story. Imagine the main story is a thunderstorm and the undisturbed status quo of the protagonist is the quiet life on the farm. The point of attack would be the moment when we first hear thunder in the distance.

That’s very different than McKee’s Inciting Incident—this sounds more like a thematic foreshadowing. Howard doesn’t talk about the Predicament, he just goes straight into the main tension.

Finally, from Screenwriting, the Sequence Approach, by Paul Joseph Gulino. Page 14:

Usually, by the end of the first sequence, there arises a moment in the picture called the point of attack, or inciting incident. This is the first intrusion of instability on the initial flow of life, forcing the protagonist to respond in some way.

So, this sounds much more like McKee and less like Howard. But Howard always seems to dance around ideas more than just nail them down. He’d rather talk about the chicken or the egg problem of whether stories or story tellers came first.

Then, on page 15, Gulino says this about the predicament:

Whatever solutions the protagonist attempts during the second sequence lead only to a bigger problem, or predicament, marking the end of the first act and setting up the main tension, which occupies the second.

It sounds like he’s saying that the Predicament is like the second part of the Inciting Incident—whereas McKee tends to bundle the whole package—incident and response—Gulino breaks them up. The Incident and then the Predicament, which is essentially the character’s conscious desire to confront the issues raised by the Inciting Incident. I would say the character has some say in the Predicament, since it springs from her conscious attempts to restore order, and ends up with her creating more disorder.

I personally like the expansion of the Inciting Incident, so will take this into consideration with further developments of Tip Scum.

Comments (0) — Category: technique

Wednesday
Feb 22, 2006

Talkin' 'Bout Structure, Part II posted by kza

Now where was I? Oh right, the so-called sequence method.

(Again, as Burley mentioned, I don’t have the books in front of me, so what follows is based on memory, along with stuff borrowed from other writers [like McKee] and my own additions. I probably won’t delineate between what’s from the book and my own crazed imaginings, so take all this stuff with an added pinch of salt.)

What’s interesting about the sequence method is that it was developed, not as an alternative or rebuttal to the Aristotelian three act structure, but from observation of how actual movies were put together. The guy who came up with the sequence method (whose name escapes me) realized that, since a projected film consisted of a number of reels that had to be changed, the writers and directors, since the silent era, were (either consciously or unconsciously) choosing to end each reel with a kind of climax, as if each reel were a mini-movie in its own right. This was done so that the transition from reel to reel (which, in the early days, meant a brief gap in the show, as the reel was physically swapped) felt smoother. (Imagine if the reel ended in the middle of a chase or a gunfight, and then a couple minutes of blank screen passed before it resumed.) Even when the technology was in place for seamless transitions, reels were still ending with some kind of climax. This guy decided to see if this was something that unified all the movies that had been coming out of Hollywood since the beginning, and if there was something there to help his film students write their screenplays. This is how the sequence method came about.

So, what is it?

Basically, it’s breaking a story down into 8 sequences, usually around 7 to 15 pages (minutes) apiece. Each sequence is, in a sense, a kind of short story or mini-movie, with a beginning, middle, and end, and while it isn’t complete in regards to the story as a whole, there’s a completeness in and of itself, in what the sequence is trying to accomplish.

And to a certain extent, that’s it. I know, not exactly mind-blowing. In fact, kinda obvious, innit? If you have a story you want to fill out to 100 or 120 pages, then breaking it down into smaller pieces is just common sense. Yet, when talking about structure, for the longest time, the only terminology we had was the (in)famous three act structure. And while coming up with a first act is probably within most people’s grasp (“It’s about a guy who falls in love with a girl but it turns out she’s a vampire on the run from a group of vampire hunters but she’s actually a good vampire, see, not like her dad who’s the one who killed a whole village but the hunters don’t know that”) and a third act probably is as well (“Uh, they all team up to beat Daddy Vampire, and they live happily ever after”), it’s that damn second act that causes all sorts of problems. And that’s because it’s the biggest part of any movie — usually about 50-70% of the script. (Well, except for maybe Die Hard… but that’s for later.) How do you fill all that space? If, as I’ve said before, you’re a natural storyteller, then you use your silver Scheherazadian tongue and just go until you’re finished. But if you’re like the rest of us, you need some guidance. And so, if you think of the second act as 4 sequences of varying length, suddenly the problem seems a whole lot more manageable.

Now you could, conceivably, write a feature-length screenplay if you just put eight short scripts together. Sure, it would be awfully patchy, and if it didn’t have a recurring main character, it would be more like an omnibus than what we think of as a proper feature-length. But it’d still be a feature-length.

But what say you have a main character you want to follow through the entire story, a character who has some kind of problem to deal with and who grows in some way. (I know, I know, it sounds cliché and banal, but 90% of all stories are about this. 75% of all people know that.) How can the story attain the kind of momentum needed to achieve this?

This is where the real value of the sequence method comes into play, IMO. Now before I get into it, I’ll admit a lot of this is an adaptation and expansion of concepts that have been popularized elsewhere. You’ll see stuff that isn’t too different from what Syd Field was talking about all those years ago. And of course, it’s all based on Aristotle’s Poetics anyway. But the way Howard puts them together really works for me. So:

There are 8 other qualities (that almost, but not quite, line up with the 8 sequences) that, once defined for the story, become what I call the story core. They are, in order: Point of Attack, Predicament, Main Tension, Point of No Return (PONR), First Culmination, Second Culmination, Third Act Twist/Tension, and Resolution. Everything that you really need to know about a script before you write it is contained in these 8 qualities. Define them, and you have a solid foundation from which to work. (Also, I don’t know anything about pitching story ideas to other people — I’m hoping I get a chance to learn — but right now, if I had to, I’d use the story core as my pitch outline.)

So what are they?

The first two make up what we think of as Act One:

Point of Attack: This is the moment in the script when we get a sense that the placid status quo of the characters is going to be shaken up. Howard uses the metaphor of “storm clouds on the horizon”, which I like quite a bit. This isn’t when the protagonist’s status quo is shaken — that’s next — but merely a warning that some kind of earthquake is coming. There’s usually some continuous link between this and the next quality, the Predicament — in Jaws, both revolve around the shark. But I’m not sure there always has to be; it can also simply be one of causality. For example, in A History of Violence, the Point of Attack is when Tom Stall is attacked by the thrill killers and he miraculously takes them out. How did he do it? How is he and his family going to react to the media blitz? The status quo has been shaken up, but at the same time, it could just end right there, with Tom being praised as a hero and then returning to the quiet life of a café owner. But of course, it doesn’t — it’s just a lead-in to the…

Predicament: Although all 8 of these qualities are important, there are a couple that are the heart and soul of the method, and this is one of them. The Predicament (which, contrary to what Burley said below, I think is the equivalent to McKee’s Inciting Incident, but then again, he’s got the books, not me) is the thing that happens to the main character that upsets his or her life. I think it’s important to note again, it’s an outside force (another character, the environment, a social system) that impacts the character — it usually isn’t some kind of choice the character brings on herself. (However, and this goes for all eight of these, I’m sure there are exceptions.) Instead, the character makes a choice because of the Predicament. And the Predicament can be something very physical (like Woody knocking Buzz out of the window in Toy Story) or it could be emotional or social in nature (as in a woman in her 30s realizes to her disappointment that she isn’t young and hip anymore, in A Shockah Script That I’ve Been Working On, For Like, Fucking Forever). The point is, the main character is knocked for a loop, and that’s ultimately what starts the story. And that’s why I consider it to be, oh let’s call it the “heart”, of the method. Go up to somebody and ask them, “What’s your predicament?” Assuming they don’t look at you crazy, you might get an answer like, “Well, I’m ten thousand bucks in debt, and my girlfriend is leaving me, but I know that if I can get my inheritance from my grandfather, I can get my life back together”. (Or whatever.) In other words, the spark for a story. (Which is also why I like the term “Predicament”. If you went up to someone and asked, “What’s your inciting incident?”, hopefully they would look at you crazy.)

The next four make up what we think of as Act Two:

Main Tension: If the Predicament is the heart, the Main Tension is the soul. When the Predicament strikes the main character, she’s going to have to make a decision regarding it. What’s she gonna do? Is she gonna run to Vegas to get her fiancé back from that hussy? Is she going to use this opportunity to re-examine her life, maybe decide to become a rabbi? Whatever the character decides, that will become the Main Tension. The Main Tension is always phrased as a question, starting with “Will”. Will the character get her fiancé back? Will the character become a rabbi? During the course of the next three sequences, the character will attempt to answer that question, ideally (from their perspective, not necessarily ours) with a “yes”. The Main Tension is the engine that drives the second act; nearly every scene relates to how that character is trying to answer (or failing to try to answer) the question the Main Tension poses.

What’s interesting about the Main Tension and needs to be said again so it’s understood (although it might take some time to fully grok it), is that the Main Tension applies only to the second act. For example, the Main Tension of High Noon is “Will the Sheriff get the townspeople on his side to defeat the bad guys?”, not “Will the Sheriff defeat the bad guys?”. (That last one is part of the third act.) In some senses, a screenplay constructed to these principles is not really one story, but three, mapped to each act. But we’ll get to that later.

Point of No Return: The Point of No Return, or PONR is an important quality that is often overlooked by novice screenwriters and screenwriters named “Shockah”. Simply put: what keeps the main character from throwing up his hands and saying “Fuck it”? It’s important to think about, and (especially with stories that are more about emotions and relationships than shit blowing up and life-and-death stakes) not always easy to determine. Clearly not everything works — you can’t have the PONR be a deadly world-threatening virus in the middle of your romantic comedy. (Or if you do, please let me read your screenplay.) I haven’t looked into too deeply, but I suspect that the PONR is usually another form of Predicament — another external event that forces the main character into action and a decision. (Although sometimes, I suspect the decision has already been made for them by the circumstances.) In The Matrix, the PONR is the choice between the red and blue pill — which I’d normally decry as blatant and uncouth, but it’s pretty cleverly encoded into the mythology of the world.

(I once had an idea for a screenplay where a guy gets on a train and ends up in a town, and the first act is clearly set up as a horror story, with the guy as the hero. But after the elaborate setup, the hero decides to just get back on the train and go home rather than risk his life, and the rest of the story is about something else, and the horror stuff never comes up again.)

Okay, I’m going to take a break here. I don’t know about you, but when faced with overly-long blog entries, I tend to get a little impatient and start to skim before long. (Damn TV! Taking away my ability to.. uh… something something.) Hopefully y’all didn’t skim. In Part III, I’ll talk about the First and Second Culminations (a.k.a. the second half of the second act), the Third Act Twist/Tension, and the Resolution. Then, in Part IV, I’ll apply these terms to some popular movies (Jaws, The Matrix, and at least something non-actiony, maybe Sideways) and see if any of it makes sense to me.

Comments (0) — Category: technique

Wednesday
Feb 22, 2006

Round 7.2 [Rachel, My Dear v. Methane Madness] posted by Martin

Rachel, My Dear (Shockah rank: #15, Burley rank: #2)

Methane Madness (Shockah rank: #7, Burley rank: #9)

54-40 OR FIGHT!

Rachel, My Dear
Rachel had it all: a promising new career, loyal friends, and a loving fiancé. But one morning, she wakes up to find it all gone — and discovers herself in a world of brick and glass, imprisoned by an architectural madman. She need only confess her love for him to be free — but Rachel is going to fight back.

Pro
Okay, question one: who did this to her? In my initial reading, I thought that the fiancee does it. Why? That’s a good question. To avoid the admitted problem of the SAW-alikes, I say we not make the person a psycho. I thought one of the reasons Panic Room worked, when it did, was the intersection of the protagonist and antagonists desires, even though they had little to do with each other. It was the intersection of two characters with strong desires that are perfectly blocking each other.

So what if our architect was Rachel’s fiancee, and his madness wasn’t life threatening per se until she blocked his desires some how? What if, for instance, he has uncovered some before unknown connection to another world, and the architecture is built to that (or, a mash-up between the Winchester Mystery House and House of Leaves). Let’s say that it starts out with the classic saw of the architect husband promising the wife a beautiful modern house—and it seems to be at first, until she uncovers some strange things about it….

Now we’re talking fear, tension. Rachel’s desire is to escape the house, but she’s blocked by her husband’s desire to finish the house. Maybe he doesn’t even know that she’s there? Maybe he does, but the capture was not purposeful, but now that she’s in there is no going back.

Now that has great creep potential: the unknown physics, being trapped, a person who is not who you thought they were, and the loss of her dreams.

Con
Well, the Prison Planet thing, of course. Also, we’d have to make sure it’s not too derivative. What new element can we bring to the story to make it seem fresh? Suspense and horror often follow the cookie-cutter formulas, and when you see monsters they look like monsters you expect. I think that’s why Alien was so powerful (despite the Bob Fosse moment—Shockah knows what I’m talking about, and the rest of you can ask me later), the Alien creature was so unique and unlike anything that had been seen to date. But, now, every alien has to have viscous, dripping bile and razor teeth.

Anyway—what’s HR Giger moment for this story? How can we make it unique?

Methane Madness
In a World where stranded humans must guard themselves from a poisonous atmosphere, one scientist finds a process for rendering the air on the planet breathable. The only problem is, the planet is a prison and the guards will kill them all if they found out about the experiments.

Pro
I totally loved your ideas for this—the prisoner being caught outside by the vicious guards. I also love the underground scientist idea, secretly working on something while the meat-headed guards have no clue. I think his crime was involuntary manslaughter on a large scale. Imagine if he was responsible for a gas leak at a laboratory that killed thousands of people in a town. He managed to escape with the help of a gas mask. It was all a mistake, and so his work here is a direct vindication of the event that landed him in prison. He needs to save the prisoners to save himself.

It reminds me of my favorite prison movies, among which some of you might be surprised to learn is the Eastwood classic Escape from Alcatraz. I saw it as a kid, and I will never forget his digging away at the concrete with a spoon.

I also love the elaborate set-ups with prisoners watching over each other, watching for guards. Here’s our protagonist making partnerships with unsavory prisoners who he may morally abhor, but has to create bonds with in order to break out of his prison. And, does he even care about breaking out? If he’s somehow atoning for the deaths he caused, maybe he doesn’t even care about surviving—it’s just about the atmosphere for him. If he can change the atmosphere to breathable, then nobody can ever make the same mistake he did and kill innocent people again.

Con
I haven’t watched Prison Break more than a few times, but I think the refreshing thing about setting this on another planet is it gives us an opportunity to re-examine the model of the prison. It doesn’t have to be traditional. The guards don’t ever need to come into contact with the prisoners. What if one of the guards became a friend of the scientist through radio communication?

But, that means examining our preconceptions about prisons, prisoners and guards. Doesn’t seem undoable, but a tall order to be sure.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Tuesday
Feb 21, 2006

Round Seven [Rachel, My Dear v. Methane Madness] posted by kza

Rachel, My Dear (Shockah rank: #15, Burley rank: #2)

Methane Madness (Shockah rank: #7, Burley rank: #9)

AND THE ANCHORPERSON ON TV GOES LA DEE DA DEE DA…

Pro
The first thing that hits me with this one is, unlike the other ideas, how literally down-to-earth it is. No aliens, no spaceships, no alternate realities, no unusual social systems that have to be built from the ground up, just one woman, one man, one house. (Two lungs, two lips, one tongue…) So there’s definitely an immediacy to this — it doesn’t take a lot of explanation.

It’s also a genre that creeps me out: The House As Prison. (See also: Misery, Intensity.) One of my favorites (which, admittedly, I haven’t seen in years) was a 80s Mary Steenburgen flick called Dead of Winter, where she goes to an audition and ends up being imprisoned in a mansion for reasons she doesn’t understand. (It’s a lot like that bit in Code Unknown, come to think of it.) I’m trying to think why, exactly, this particular kind of story attracts and repulses me in equal measure, thinking that if I knew what made it tick, I could bring that consciously to this story. But I have no idea — it just creeps my shit out.

It might be fun to design this crazy house. Did this “madman” design it solely for the purpose of confining Rachel? Has he done this before, then tire of his “true love”, dispose of the victim, and start over? What kind of ingenious traps does it contain? Is he controlling everything from a safehouse, or does he actually live there somehow? He wants her love — but what does that mean, exactly, and what’s he going to do if he gets it?

Con
Although the Prison Planet connection is kinda weak, that’s not my most pressing con. What I’m most worried about is transcending the genre/setup/expectations. Burley mentioned that he liked this one because it sounded like something David Fincher would give his eyeteeth for (or something like that). I can’t disagree with that — I’d love to see what Fincher would do with this idea, but I’m a little nervous to be the guy to provide the foundation for him to work from. I guess I’m not quite seeing the story here — I see some of the action, but not the story, if you know what I mean. I see lots of opportunities for clever traps and gimmicks and whatnot, but I’m not seeing the opportunity for why I should care.

(On second thought, that might be a low blow — what I’m saying here is that I’m not seeing an interesting character, yet, while I prefer Methane Madness at this point, there’s nothing in that description that suggests an interesting character, either. Why the difference? Simply personal preference? Or something else?)

Another con (but potential pro) is that the godawful Saw series has kinda already staked out this kind of material. Certainly there’s an expectation that this kind of material be grisly in a Roman arena sort of way. But perhaps that’s the signal to try and wrestle this story and its genre away from those without taste and do something interesting and thoughtful with it. But it brings up another difficulty: assuming that Rachel is the only one imprisoned in the house, then we, as an audience, know that whatever she encounters there simply isn’t going to kill her (unless we’re pulling a Psycho). So maintaining tension through, say, the second act looks difficult at this point.

However, I suspect that Burley has a completely different take on this story, and hopefully it’ll alleviate some of my concerns.

Pro
Well, I love the idea of a small isolated outpost that has a poisonous atmosphere — so claustrophobic, and threatening to both the prisoners and the guards. I can imagine there’s a scene where the brutal guards institute some frontier justice and throw a prisoner out into the atmosphere, and we get an idea of what this stuff can do to a body. Or worse: the prisoners have to go out into the atmosphere for some kind of work detail, but they have to work fast or else the bad air will eat up their suits, and the guard cruelly close the gates on the last guy for some reason. Oh god, even worse: for kicks, the guards throw a prisoner outside, let the atmosphere have its way, then drag him back in just in time before he dies. (Jesus, where did all that dark stuff come from? :-)

Another thing: Above, I said that the description didn’t suggest an interesting character, but I’m wrong. What’s suggested is that the scientist who thinks he can turn the dangerous atmosphere harmless, is a prisoner. Okay, that’s interesting. What did he do? Kill his wife? Not bury the research his superiors told him to? Conspire to kill Glorious Leader? And did he actually do any of these things, or was he unjustly imprisoned, a la Shawshank Redemption? Regardless, it seems clear to me that he wants to change the atmosphere in order to escape. (Or might there be another reason?)

And so, we have this scenario where the prisoners are figuring out how to escape their prison, but the key to doing it isn’t necessarily carving a tunnel through rock or jumping in the laundry truck but attempting to do a science experiment under the noses of the guards. I think that’s brilliant. Admittedly, the tense scenes they suggest are at heart no different if if the prisoners were trying to hide an escape route in their cell, but the idea that the work being done is intellectual (as opposed to physical) is really interesting to me.

Con
Too similar to “Prison Break”? They’re not on another planet, but there’s some crazy shit on that show. (Also some stupid shit, but that’s mostly confined to the lame-brained lawyer character.) Also, while I see this as a pretty straightforward story… we kinda already have our straightforward story in Time to Die, which also has some (potentially) interesting philosophical/moral angles and a three-sided conflict. This story seems to, as of now, lack these added features.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Tuesday
Feb 21, 2006

Hear ye, Hear ye! posted by Martin

Let it be known that on this day, the 21st of February 2006, our humble blog has broken the front page barrier on Google. We are currently 8th on the page for a search on spitball—one above the Wikipedia entry for Spitball!

Thanks to all of you that made it possible, and I’m a little shocked it happened so fast. The Google gods are good, indeed.

Oh, and tomorrow (February 22) is Shockah’s b’day. Make him feel good. Sign on to the forums and wish him a happy b’day in the comments for this post, which is here.

Comments (0) — Category: communications

Tuesday
Feb 21, 2006

SimpsoBurley! posted by kza

Because it had to happen…

Comments (0) — Category: Links

Tuesday
Feb 21, 2006

I'll See Your Simpsomaker... posted by kza

and raise you — The SimpsoShockah!

Comments (0) — Category: Links

Monday
Feb 20, 2006

Tip Scum Is Here! posted by Martin

Shockah will be happy to learn that I’ve finally started reading the books he loaned me on the sequence method. This means two things: 1. He’ll get his books back eventually (we have an ongoing thing, where we dump tons of books/dvd/comics/whatever on the other guy and then watch him squirm under the weight of the borrowed pile. Somethings are read/watched quickly and returned. Some are in a holding pattern for processing, and still others are being held in the quiet suspicion that one of us might turn out to be a rat and hold out on returning everything he has. In the interim, one of us will occasionally ask “So, have you read/watched blank yet?” and watch the other one guiltily come up with reasons why they’ve neglected our impossibly large duties. The asker will stand and nod and wait….), and 2. I’ll be able to join this conversation while actually, you know, talking about what I’m talking about.

Since I’m beginning this, I thought I’d also start, little by little, to put together The Patented Spitball! Cricket Method (TPSCM, or tip-scum) of screenwriting.

All scripts begin when something happens to someone and starts the imbalance in their lives. The sequence method calls this the point of attack. The McKee method calls this the inciting incident. In TPSCM this is called the Sandshoe Crusher. This fine page about cricket has defined a Sandshoe Crusher as a ball that actually hits the batsman on a foot. In my mind, getting a hard ball thrown at your foot would certainly set you off your game. If you were playing a game, and the normal course of the game would be a boring life, but the game being thrown off would create drama, a Sandshoe Crusher would seem to do this. So, formally:

TPSCM Definition #1
Sandhoe Crusher: That event which causes the primary character’s normal life to be unbalanced, and that they set to rebalancing.

(please note: I know nothing about cricket. I may have well made the curling method of screenwriting, but I worried about finding the proper place for the term “broom.” If there are cricket fans out there who would like to correct me on proper usage of terms, I would be most appreciative, and will do my best to make sure the TPSCM does its best to respect the language of the game, in context of the game being used a metaphor for writing a screenplay).

Comments (0) — Category: technique

Sunday
Feb 19, 2006

Re:[3] Round Six: Rise to Vote, sir posted by kza

Also, I don’t want to totally box us in with a treatment that is the final heat winner.

Ah, once again, I’m not clear. I don’t necessarily see us using either treatment for the final winner. The final winner will have two treatments, and it will be up to us to find a compromise between the two (by either combining them or starting from scratch) to create the final treatment that will be the basis for the first Spitball! script.

But I do think that each treatment should be as detailed as we can make it, within a certain word limit. I think the more info we have, the better choices we can make when it comes to actually writing the screenplay.

But like you said, this is going to need more discussion, so when I get my thoughts together, I’ll post something more comprehensive about how I see us dealing with the winning idea.

Coming up: Round Seven!

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Saturday
Feb 18, 2006

Re:[2] Round Six: Rise to Vote, sir posted by Martin

It cannot be said that Reminiscence did not get its fair trial. I also vote for Time to Die.

In the end, I’m suckered in by the clarity of the action lines, and even though I didn’t totally connect with your version of Reminiscence, to tell the truth I didn’t totally connect with mine either.

This might be scary, but I’m thinking the treatments in the final heat should be at least twice as long, if not longer

I’m open, but I don’t see length as a necessarily great measurement of the expression of the idea. Sometimes, good treatments are dense and hit the high notes in short form. Also, I don’t want to totally box us in with a treatment that is the final heat winner. What I suspect, is that things will become a mixture of both of our ideas. That is, after we pick the winner, I see us re-writing the treatment more than once.

But, we’ve talked a lot about what our process is to get our idea, but maybe now we need to begin the dialog about what happens after we have it? How are we going to approach writing it? What should our process be? I would like to hear if you have any of your so-called needless, but actually fun, rules to impose on us, and let’s see if we can map the process out a bit. That might give me some more specific ideas of how I personally would like to approach the final heat and the treatments we write for it.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Saturday
Feb 18, 2006

Re: Round Six: Rise to Vote, sir posted by kza

Anyway, I didn’t realize we were doing treatments during this heat!

Yeeeeahhh… Couple things about that:

1. I really had no intention of writing something so long. It was just an idea that I was trying hard to express, and in order to do it justice, it got longer and longer. I’m not particularly proud of the length, and I’m going to try not to do that again for the remainder of the heats. Well, until the last one that is…

2. And yet, I don’t really consider what I wrote to be a treatment. This might be scary, but I’m thinking the treatments in the final heat should be at least twice as long, if not longer. I think they should be detailed enough that we could write a screenplay from them with little difficulty — the only things, really, separating it from a screenplay would be dialogue and whatever “style” we bring to the storytelling. Since I’m sure we’ll be discussing the final heat later on, I’ll explain what I mean by that later.

I’m not totally connecting with yours.

Oh well, I tried! At the very least, the exercise was bracing.

And so, after spending four days laboriously trying to communicate a vision of Reminiscence that I think I could get behind, I rise to vote for….

Time to Die.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Saturday
Feb 18, 2006

Round Six: Rise to Vote, sir posted by Martin

Clearwater Shockah?

“…and I gave so much more credence to the idea than clearwater Shockah here, that I feel a bit obligated to bring it up again. [i.e., revival]”

Okay—that last bit was a real stretch, but I’m practicing my conspiratorial and hidden word play in hopes we’ll gain some of the Dan Brown market.

Anyway, I didn’t realize we were doing treatments during this heat! A for effort. No, that sounds pejorative—A for achievement, Mr. Shockah. Very good ideas, clearly told. But, like my brief synopsis didn’t bowl you over, I’m not totally connecting with yours. I think we should go to a vote and see what happens. All members rise!

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Saturday
Feb 18, 2006

Round 6.4 [Reminiscence v. Time to Die] posted by kza

Reminiscence (Shockah rank: #13, Burley rank: #3)

Time to Die (Shockah rank: #6, Burley rank: #10)

CATCH THE SPIT!

Clearwater Shockah?

Actually, that story did absolutely nothing for me. :-) And it wasn’t because it was different than my original synopsis. (Well, that’s not entirely true, but my point is, I’m not really married to my concept.) It’s just not really the type of story I want to do, at least for this idea nugget. But I really appreciate the attempt — the marriage of Being There and V for Vendetta was very amusing.

So, rather than be a Scrooge, I guess I should make my own attempt to give this a fair hearing. While you took a more comedic route, I was thinking something more Solaris-y (either version, take your pick). That’s probably kinda cliché, come to think about it, but it’s really all I got right now. (There’s a reason this came in thirteenth!) So let’s try this:

REMINISCENCE

We open on a long white corridor, with a queue of people in it, waiting very patiently, very placidly, for something. At the front of the line is a young man — we’ll call him Tom. Someone calls “next!” and Tom goes into the next room, where some technicians put a visor over his eyes, hit a few buttons, and the visor glows for a second, underneath the lenses, on Tom eyes. Then the technicians remove the visor and Tom is on his way.

Tom has just had his memories dampened. He looks at his hand — imprinted there, as a glowing tattoo, is his necessary information: his name, his job, his address, etc. As he heads back down the corridor, one of the people in line jumps out of the line and grabs Tom. Tom, don’t you remember me? he says. Tom looks at him blankly, then tries to get away from this obvious maniac. As the man paws him further, yelling things incomprehensible to Tom, security guards emerge and take the man away.

Tom resumes his life: his boring job; for entertainment, quick-cut, nonsensical, empty movies that excite the senses (like, say, The Rock); and scheduled sex with another citizen — the powers that be don’t want any lasting emotional attachments, so the sex is impersonal — maybe it’s even done through some kind of screen, and Tom doesn’t even know who he’s fucking. Or maybe there’s a screen between the two, but a videoscreen of a sexy woman (or man) facing each participant, and they think that’s who their partner is. It’s like Two Minutes Hate, only with hardcore action! ;-)

Anyway, that’s Tom’s life. But he has a secret. He keeps finding strange messages etched in out of the way places — at the bottom of his sock drawer, on the back of his medicine cabinet. He figures out that the messages are pointing him towards something. He puts the clues together and finds a secret compartment underneath his bed. He opens it and finds a cache of contraband: photos, comic books, a carved wooden horse, trinkets, all manner of items, each kept because of the memory it evokes. And it all comes back to Tom: his life as a boy, on a Tarkovsky-esque farm with his mother and siblings, enjoying his time with the animals and nature, growing up, his brother carving the little horse for him, taking over the farm when his mom falls ill, mourning when she dies, watching with incomprehension as some oppressive political force takes over the country, watching with incomprehension when they come and take him and separate him from his brothers and sisters.

(We can see these memories in a number of different ways, in different combinations: as oblique, faded Kodak moments; as stand-alone sequences, with the audience given an omniscient view of events; as stand-alone sequences with the adult Tom present, watching with the audience, a la Spider; and/or any other method we can devise.)

So Tom is a criminal — he’s regained memories, which is verboten, and apparently has a stash of mementos (sorry, that’s the best word) to help him remember, which is worse. He tries to go about his daily routine, but the memories haunt him, disrupting his work, making people look at him funny. He misses his mother — he has a vision of her gravestone in a field. He had family — what happened to them? Who was that man that stopped him in the hallway? Were they related? Does he know something about their lives in the past? Does he know where their mom’s gravestone is?

Tom decides to find him and get the answers to this questions. This is difficult in a world where no one really knows anyone else, and life has a pre-programmed quality. He questions his fellow workers about the man and the farm, but just gets blank stares. He deviates from his routine and instead of his usual entertainments, he goes to a bar — but doesn’t realize he’s being followed. The bar patrons, used to having their memories wiped, are big on trading stories, and Tom joins in. Of course, most of the stories are incredibly banal — the people not having a whole of lot of history to draw upon — but when they hear Tom’s story about farms and mothers, they are rapt, some even moved to tears. One of those present, a woman, seems particularly interested — but more like she’s interested in Tom than the story. But no leads are forthcoming, so Tom leaves, but as he steps outside, he’s nabbed by the authorities.

They drag him up to his apartment and force him to reveal the cache of mementos. They take the mementos and destroy them in front of him, and then take him down to the memory-dampening center. They strap him in the chair and leave him to the technicians. He’s terrified of losing his memories, and begs for them to stop. But the glasses go on and the lights glow and that seems to be the end of it.

But instead of the blissed-out expression of someone recently wiped, Tom still looks distressed. The glasses come off, and there’s the woman from the bar, only in technician garb. She releases him and after faking out the authorities as to Tom’s memories, she takes him back to her place. Her name is Arlece and she tells him there’s a whole underground of people like him, that hoard mementos and keep memories alive. Tom figures if the man in the hallway recognized him, then he could be part of this underground. She doesn’t know the man, but wants to help Tom find him. But they check the tattoos on their hands — they only have two days and then Tom and Arlece are scheduled for memory-dampening, and then Tom will forget the man.

The only lead they have are surveillance video of the hallway. Arlece has access, so they sneak in and find it. The next obvious step is to check the database, but they’re chased off before they can do so. But they leave with a holographic image of the man’s face. They take it back to the bar and ask around. One man — we’ll call him the Barfly — tells them that he’s met the man in question, and they follow him back to his place to see stuff he’s picked up from the man. He shows them a “time wristband” that he got from the mysterious man — we recognize it as a digital watch. Tom wants to know more, but before he acquiesces, the Barfly wants to have sex with Arlece. Arlece has no problem with it, but Tom, having come to know and trust Arlece, gets jealous and loses his temper — something that’s never happened before. He attacks the man, getting into a fist fight with him — a very pathetic scene, as neither man really knows how to fight. During the fight, the holographic image gets destroyed. Tom gets the upper hand, and beats him into submission, and, too add insult to injury, Tom takes the watch from the man. Arlece is very concerned about Tom’s violent outburst and his theft of the watch, but opts not to report him.

They go back to his apartment to fix up his scrapes. He’s more interested in the watch, which neither of them have seen before, being used to doing what the tattoo tells them. He stumbles upon the alarm function of the watch, which startles him. Arlece wants to know why he attacked the Barfly, and Tom explains to the best of his ability. Arlece doesn’t understand jealousy (not that Tom really does, either) and thinks maybe it’s best if she leaves. Tom doesn’t want her to leave, but he gets more and more emotional, Arlece gets scared and runs away. He chases after her, but loses her. He returns home and once again examines the watch.

Morning. Arlece appears at his door. She apologizes for running off, and recommits to trying to find the man and unlocking the mysteries of Tom’s memories. The Barfly told them that he used to see the man around the south side of town, so they arrive there. They look for the man, but don’t see him anywhere. Tom and Arlece are pretty much at the end of the line. There’s only a half-hour left until their scheduled memory appointment, and there’s nowhere left to go. And then they see him: The man.

They follow him back to his home, and introduce themselves. He recognizes Tom as his brother. Tom is overjoyed. Unbeknownst to the authorities, the man (whom we’ll call the Scavenger) lives above some kind of forgotten dumping ground, and he’s dug a tunnel beneath the building where he retrieves all sorts of thrown-away items, presumably dumped there long ago by the people in power. Arlece asks the Scavenger if he’s the head of the memory underground, but he has no idea what that is. He simply finds the stuff and gives it to people. He and Tom get to talking about the past, but as the Scavenger goes on, it slowly dawns on Tom, a realization mixed with dread: the Scavenger has a completely different memory of family life. No farm, a father instead of a mother, etc. Before he can really process this, though, the authorities burst in. They get the Scavenger but Tom escapes down into the tunnels. He reaches a dead end, where he finds, on the ground and sticking out of the dirt walls, hundreds of tiny, identical wooden horses — the same kind that he had. What he thought was a unique object to his personal history was actually a mass produced item. It’s likely that hundreds of people have the same horse and have created their own remembered history around it.

Arlece appears behind him. She was working with the authorities all along, using Tom to try and find the Scavenger, and stop the spread of the mementos through the community. Although there is no real underground movement, the last threat to the memory-dampening technology is extinguished, as Tom is led out and the tunnel is destroyed.

For the last time, Tom is taken back to the facility to have his memories taken away from him. But this time he doesn’t yell or try to escape, but goes placidly, almost willingly. Arlece administers the process, and is sad that they’re both going to forget what happened, but she’s resigned to it. The glasses go on.

Tom is back at home. He goes through his routine. He wonders why there are horrible marks on the bottom of his sock drawer and on the back of his medicine cabinet, like something’s been scratched off. He goes to work. Everything is as it was. Then, that night, he goes to bed, but is awoken by a beeping. He looks around the house, trying to find the noise. He finally locates it, coming from an overhead light. He removes the light from the ceiling and inside, within the wall, is the watch he put in there. He flips it over, and scratched on the back is the word “MOM”. He has no idea what this means, but when he goes back to sleep, he’s back on the farm, with his mother and brothers and sisters.

THE END

Okay, so that wasn’t Solaris-y at all. No prison planet, either. And let’s not even get into the countless borrowings from other SF movies — I’m tired enough as it is. But, while there’s (intentionally) a lot of room for expansion, more detail, and more tricksy plot maneuverings, the goal here was to lay out a sequence of logical events that built up to some kind of ending. Anyway, that’s kinda what my idea of Reminiscence could be like.

Note: The preceding synopsis (although in some ways it’s more like a pitch, but we’ll get into that later) was built using the sequence method. I’ll be posting about that next.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Wednesday
Feb 15, 2006

Structure Doesn't Only Hold Up Buildings posted by Martin

I decided to pipe my own few cents on the structure questions, after Shockah’s fine post on the matter.

I was reminded, reading his description of his college writing experiences, of the Mamet quote that “the Avant Garde is to the left what jingoism is to the right. Both are a refuge in nonsense.” This is not to downplay abstraction or disregard completely avant material, but what I took from Shockah’s point about his college experience is much that I took from nearly every writing class I’ve experienced: They don’t teach you how to write.

Instead, they teach you to think as abstractly as possible. They try to get your mind into creative spaces. Often, there is flowery talk about personal self-expression, which millions of writers take to mean that the only craft in writing is just to express their feelings. Just ask the editors of any poetry magazine about how many unpublishable entries they receive every day (thus giving rise to the guaranteed-to-be-published poetry anthologized subsidized by the authors themselves).

What’s wrong with this? It ignores that there is craft involved in writing at all. You teach painters how to paint by teaching them how to draw and how to see. They take life drawing classes, and burn through charcoal. They study perspective. The great avant artists of the 20th century weren’t great because they were really creative, man—they were great because they understood the medium deeply. Rockwell, a huge admirer of cubism, once went to study in Paris. The instructor pulled him aside and asked for advice how to sell illustrations.

Point being this: the only education that taught me about writing was in classes where I was forced to write essays. I learned that I had to make a point, make it fast, and defend it. I had to create a narrative that the reader might be interested in—specifically, the instructor whom I was trying to impress to get a high grade.

Most of the writing classes I’ve taken are filled with the same post-modern-at-its-worst drivel about personal expression. The fact is, writing is not subjective in the least. We can judge good writing. Dickens is not subjectively a good writer, he just was a good writer. Heather McHugh is not subjectively a good poet, she just is a good poet. Both of them have mastered language in a very specific way. While I personally don’t like some authors very much, it doesn’t mean their craft is poor, it’s often a personal taste thing. What’s wrong with that? What’s wrong with not liking something?

A good beginning writing instructor would start by saying that all interesting stories share a few basic traits. Master those first, then go as outside as you want. Learn that you need a character and something needs to happen to that character. Teach Aristotle and the seven stories of the world, or just teach the three basic stories: man against man, man against nature, man against himself.

Then, let the students experiment with breaking those boundaries, pushing them, and also with working within them. Teach them how to hook a reader with a story that they care about, and that’s a skill they’ll always be able to use.

Writing instructors—and, to be fair, they may be much better these days then in my school days—are like an early Jan Tschichold. Tshichold was one of the great typographers and designers of the 20th century modernist movement. Early on, in his book Die Neue Typographie, he decried poor typography, and declared sans-serif fonts as the modernist masterpieces that would replace serifed typefaces. He was a firebrand of high order—he pissed the Nazi’s off something fierce. But, riding out the war in England, he designed the Penguin library and came to realize that 600 years of typographic refinement really didn’t happen arbitrarily—serifed typefaces are easier to read in print. The idea, of course, is that the words disappear and the message comes through. This is, what famous typography writer Beatrice Warde called the Crystal Goblet.

The same thing is true for great writing. The words should disappear and be replaced in the readers head with the message or story being told. If the person keeps thinking to themselves “Wow, this writing is really beautiful” then the writing is about the words themselves. There’s an argument for that, I think, but there’s another big argument for just telling the story.

In any case, relating to screeplay writing: I am with Shockah that methods are more like models: views of looking at your script and seeing it from a different angle. They aren’t meant to be the one true path to writing successfully. Ironically, if you read a few of these books, they all reference the same great screenplays as proof of their analysis. Wow—seems like China Town used fifteen different methods.

I am, though, nowhere near as good of a student as Shockah is. Or, rather, he has a much better memory than I do. I tend to jumble all of the terms together. And, I plan on developing my own method of screenwriting based on the game cricket just to confuse things even more. Keep tuned for that.

But in the meantime, I just have to say that these books are so needed and so popular because many writers, despite degrees or many hours spent in classrooms, don’t know how to tell a fucking story. Maybe if the world was different they wouldn’t be so needed, but what’s the harm in using the theories? If you write a good screenplay, the only thing that matters is that people will read it and forget that it’s words on paper, and they won’t give a shit which method you used to lay it down.

As for telling a story: it should be the first damn thing that you learn in any creative program. Start with how to hold the brush.

Comments (0) — Category: technique

Tuesday
Feb 14, 2006

Talkin' 'Bout Structure, Part I posted by kza

See, although we plan on writing a screenplay in front of the entire internet and his mom and everything, for me, this is the real screenwriting without a net. I’m going to expound on an issue of screenwriting technique — structure — without any sort of professional credit to my name. What’s more, I’m going to be talking about a method of dealing with structure that’s the focus of two pretty good books — David Howard’s How to Build a Great Screenplay and Paul Joseph Gulino’s Screenwriting: The Sequence Approach — without benefit of having the books on hand. Mistakes will be made, laughs will be had, cease-and-desists will be delivered.

But — But! — since, as mentioned earlier, we plan to use the sequence method in the writing of the Spitball! screenplay, some kind of introduction is necessary for those that don’t know, won’t show, or don’t care what’s going on in the hood.

What do we mean when we talk about structure? Good question, and there’s probably a good answer for it, but for right now, we’ll have to use my definition that I’m making up right now. What I mean by the word is simply how the various parts of a screenplay (usually meaning scenes) are put together into a whole, and how those parts do a number of things: how they tell a story that moves from event to event, generating a kind of momentum that (ideally) hooks a reader into the story; how the parts of a screenplay communicate ideas by virtue of how they are placed together; and how those parts are ultimately shaped to deliver some kind of effect — usually a cathartic climax.

Why is this important? There are some who would say it isn’t, and more importantly, would say the very idea of structure is a bane on screenwriting (conjured by an evil wizard, named either McKeedemort or Fieldemort, accounts vary) that has resulted in bland, stupid, predictable color-by-number scripts that’s crippled both Hollywood and the indie scene — and that screenwriters should abandon structure and “write from the heart” or “more organically” or “without boundaries” or the like, and the result will be better screenplays that are creative, profound and artistically successful.

There is some truth to this.

Any theory of structure, at least any that attempt to take into account 90% of the films Hollywood made from the beginning of the medium to today, will result in something that looks an awful lot like a formula. And anything that looks like a formula will be used as a formula. There are a lot of cookie-cutter scripts out there, both spec and produced, and I don’t doubt for a second that the rise of Syd Field and Robert McKee empowered a lot of people, people who wouldn’t otherwise bother, to try their hand at screenwriting. I mean, it’s just three acts and an inciting incident and three (or is it four?) plot points — just plug and play, right?

So I’m sympathetic. And, for the record, I definitely think there’s no correct way to write, whether it be screenplay or novel or play or what have you. If it works, it works. But, ultimately, I’m going to side with the structuralists (no, not that kind of structuralism) and make a case for structure in screenplay, and this “sequence method” in particular.

Why?

Because I have to.

Some people are natural storytellers. They know just how to hook you, and how to keep reeling you in through the entire story, so that by the end of five minutes, twenty-two minutes, forty-five minutes, two hours, you clap and cry “more! more!” and yet at the same time, feel satisfied. They don’t need no stinkin’ plot points; they know that all they need to do is make you ask, “what happens next?”

I am not one of those people.

Although I graduated with a degree in theater and (while we technically didn’t have specializations within the degree) considered myself a playwright, one thing that wasn’t really taught was structure. No, that’s not entirely true — we did discuss it, but as a way of analyzing existing texts, and this was more for the directors. No, the writers were told to write, literally, whatever the fuck they wanted, however bizarre or nonsensical, and it was the director’s responsibility to figure it out. (I shit you not.) If you know me, then you know that, if given the chance to be as ridiculous and absurd as possible, I’ll return your investment 300%.

(Maybe, if we’re lucky, we’ll get Todd Reidy to post on the forums about how he had to direct a scene I wrote — a conversation between two cleaning ladies that was composed entirely of fragments from a dream journal I had, a scene that made Ionesco look like friggin’ Miller. I thought it was hilarious, but no one who had to work on it was amused.)

And so, freed from the responsibility of constraining my off-the-wall ideas and experimental prose, I continued in this manner for my 4 years in the theater program. And while that seemed nice at the time, when I decided that film was the place to be and screenwriting was what I wanted to do, I found myself completely unprepared for the task at hand. I had stories I wanted to tell, but when I sat down to write them, they either meandered (and ungracefully so) or I was at a loss on how to fill 90 to 120 pages with content. What I was missing was structure. I didn’t know, really, where to stop, because for years I was encouraged to stop whenever I felt like. Or I didn’t know how to fill in spaces from point A to point B, because for years I was encouraged to go in any direction I wanted without a goal in mind.

I’m sure there are people out there who think this is exactly what Hollywood needs more of, and again, I’m sympathetic. I’m sure there are plenty of wannabes (and professionals) who could do with a bit of the ol’ “hang loose” philosophy. (Sure didn’t hurt Charlie Kaufman, who started in the very rigid, structurally-speaking, world of TV.) But frankly, I had been ingrained to take my creative freedom for granted, but the result of unfocused creative freedom is wank. I needed something to enforce some discipline. I needed to (as horrible as it sounds) constrain my freedom.

Because structure is, ultimately, something that constrains — or, perhaps better put, contains. It’s a vessel, it’s a box, it’s a scrapbook. It comes in all shapes and sizes (despite what you might’ve heard). The shape you choose influences what the content looks like, but you can still put any content you want into it, and it’s naturally shaped to push your story along and help it achieve its aims. Inna final analysis, though, it’s a tool. It’s there for you to use. It’s there to help you. And it can get the job done a lot faster. As long, of course, as you know how to use it, and more importantly, when to use it.

So, if you wonder why I’m pushing structure pretty hard during this Spitball! experiment — well, you would too if you spent years trying to push nails into wooden planks with your thumb.

(Well, lookee that — over a thousand words, and I never even got into the whole sequence method thing. Part II, coming soon!)

Comments (0) — Category: technique

Tuesday
Feb 14, 2006

Round 6.3 [Reminiscence v. Time To Die] posted by Martin

Reminiscence (Shockah rank: #13, Burley rank: #3)

Time to Die (Shockah rank: #6, Burley rank: #10)

BEND DOWN AND TOUCH YOUR TOES!

I could/should/might’ve called a vote here, but I decided I wanted to press a bit farther into Reminiscence. Remember? Remember remembering? Both our only fan (it doesn’t have to be this way. You could be a fan too) and I gave so much more credence to the idea than clearwater Shockah here, that I feel a bit obligated to bring it up again.

If you told me “Burl,”

and I’d interrupt. “Don’t call me that. I ain’t a folk singer.”

“Burl,” you’d continue, “you have to write Reminiscence right now.”

“Okay.” I’d say as I broke into a rousing chorus of Big Rock Candy Mountain. (I’m a-goin’ to stay where you sleep all day, Where they hung the jerk who invented work, in the Big Rock Candy Mountains) while thinking of my plan of attack.

It might read like this (umm, this is, at best, a “loose” interpretation of your ‘In a World’. I riffed—forgive me): Our protagonist, a Chauncy Gardener type without the capability to remember anything, stumbles into a secret memory cell, where people gather in dark basements to share contraband from their childhoods. The police bust the party, and our man is mistaken for a member of the group. He is rounded up, and his bemused silence, or pleasant abstract comments madden the detectives interviewing him. They decide he must be the mastermind behind the parties, and subject him to strange procedures designed to find out exactly what his fond memories are. When they fail, and decide that they are being bested by this mastermind, they get a search warrant for his house, but they can’t find out where he lives, because he keeps claiming that he doesn’t live anywhere. The judge holds him in contempt, and they put him in a holding cell.

While there, he is exposed to hardened criminals who do run under ground memory cells. It’s their business. Since he’s no squealer, he is obviously no fan of the coppers, and they write down their address for him to look them up when he’s out of jail. Called in front of the judge and demanded to produce an address of his house, he simply rattles off the address that the hardened criminals gave him.

There, the police find the largest cash of contraband memorabilia ever collected in one place. Our character becomes public enemy number one, and is convicted. One woman, though, believes him and wants to save him. His mother—but, since she hasn’t seen him in many years, she can’t talk about the times they spent together. She goes on talk shows begging on his behalf.

One childhood playmate—a very sweet woman whom our character was always good to—rises up against the system, and starts bombing the government offices with huge pinatas filled with nostalgia. Underground resistance starts up, led by her, while the trial of the century is going on. Our man stands tall—well, kind of dumb and smiling, but the trial goes on in full bluster mode. Violent protest erupts on the street as he is sentenced to life on the prison planet.

And there, he lives, alone and happy in a stark and beautiful land.

Okay—that would be one interpretation. Does that spark anything for you?

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Tuesday
Feb 14, 2006

Round 6.2 [Reminiscence v. Time To Die] posted by kza

Reminiscence (Shockah rank: #13, Burley rank: #3)

Time to Die (Shockah rank: #6, Burley rank: #10)

EN GARDE!

Reminiscence
In a world where genetic and social engineering have eliminated violent crime and other offenses, there is only one punishable infraction: Nostalgia. In order to keep the populace in line, the past must be eliminated, keeping everyone in a blissful present-tense existence. But some insist on remembering, collecting and hoarding pieces of the past to keep it alive. Tom was the greatest of all them, blessed and cursed with an eidetic memory. But when he’s betrayed to the authorities, Tom finds himself on the prison planet, forced to find a way to survive, all alone on a harsh — yet beautiful — landscape. Can his knowlege of the past help him, or even save him? Or will he be prey to the predators on the planet, both alien and human?

Con
Oh yes, this one. I remember when I was at the library, staring at that picture of the Robinson Crusoe guy, trying to come up with some kind of idea to fill out my quota. I’d written only the first sentence, except for that last word. So I sat there and let the first absurd thing I could think of pop into my head, and that’s what came out. The rest of it followed, piece by piece, until it looked like there was enough there to call it complete.

I’m not sure why I’m sharing this anecdote, other than to get across the Frankensteinian nature of this idea, and my relative coolness towards it. It’s interesting to me that it’s struck a chord with both you and our only fan. Hopefully I’ll be able to see it from your eyes, but right now, it’s kind of a unwieldy, over-conceptualized mess, with a strange break in the middle: it starts out as a kind of abstract, thinky kind of piece, and then it turns into something physical and brutal. (There’s probably some kind of thematic relevance that can be hashed out of those two halves — in fact, I can see it exciting the Tropical Malady fan — but it’s just incongruous to me right now.)

And Burley, in his opening pro paragraph, outlines for me some of the severe problems of this idea. How the hell would this world work? And how the hell did it even get to this point, where technology to enforce something so unenforceable was created and a government was able to use it without destroying itself and the country?

Pro
And yet, at the same time, I think those last questions are resolvable by simply not answering them — just throwing them out completely. How did the dystopia of THX-1138 come into being? Who the fuck cares? It’s clearly so far into the future that it may as well be a fantasy world of dragons and orcs — it has its own rules, which need to be understood, but how those rules came into being are not necessary for the story to work. So I see this not as “in the distant future” but “in the far, far, really far future”, and taking certain considerations of realism out of the equation entirely.

Another note: Part of this was inspired by my reading of Oliver Sacks’ An Anthropologist on Mars. One of the chapters is about a guy who, in the late 60s, became a Buddhist and joined a temple — and his family discovered too late that he had a brain tumor that a) rendered him blind, b) destroyed his ability to form memories of the present, and c) damaged his metabolism so that he got very fat. He lived in a blissful state of perpetual present, always smiling and happy, and — get this — the tumor also damaged his ability to recognize that he was blind — he thought he could see, even though he clearly couldn’t. So for awhile, he lived in this temple, and the other Buddhists thought (and who can really blame them?) that this young American had attained true nirvana. When he made it to Sacks’ hospital, Sacks figured out that he still had memories of up until the 60s, but anything he was told would fade away, Memento-like, a few minutes later. (There’s a few amazing moments in the account dealing with the passing of the man’s father and a trip to see the Grateful Dead, the man’s favorite group.)

So I was imagining that in this SF world, the population, probably through some kind of technology, is subjected to the something kind of similar, but flip-flopped — there would be a focus on the present (and the future), and the past, anything that would give their lives meaning (apart from the meaning given by the government or whoever) and distract them has to be suppressed. Obviously, this technology or whatever it is isn’t perfect (or is somewhat voluntary), else there wouldn’t be a protagonist nor a story. (I’m thinking of Fahrenheit 451, where the populace seems so quelled that the Firemen don’t seem as necessary.)

I dunno — pretty heady stuff. Too heady?

(And yet, I have no problem with the whole “how do we visualize this” thing. Not because I have the solution — ha! — but because Kubrick once said that he could literally film any written sentence, and if that’s not something worthy of emulation, I don’t know what is.)

Time to Die
In a World where death itself is beaten by genetic regeneration, a guard is killed during a riot on the prison planet. One woman—his wife—faces sure death to retrieve his body in time to bring him back to life. It’s a race against time, with one nearly resourcesless woman willfully fighting like a juggernaut against the prisoners who are holding his body hostage, and the powers that be that think she should just give up. All to simply save the man she loves from eternal death.

Pro
Oh — clarity, clarity, clarity. The clarity of it gets me high as a freakin’ kite. As Burley knows (and as I’ll probably talk about when I write up a post about the sequence method), structure is my big bugaboo, so if I can find an idea with a straightforward structure, I jump all over it. I figure if I can find something with a strong foundation, with plenty of conflict and rising stakes and blah de blah, then I can leave it alone and focus on the cool stuff: characters, atmosphere, visual rhymes, jokes, contrapuntal thematic devices, etc.

(That’s right, when it comes to screenwriting, I’m not a carpenter, I’m an interior decorator. And that applies to regular life as well — anyone who knows me knows I’ve never lifted a hammer in my whole goddam life. But I’m committed to working on that, though. Uh, the screenwriting, that is. Fuck that wood shop shit.)

And I don’t think it needs a villain, either — at least, I don’t think it needs a single villainous “muwah ha ha ” character. Seems like there’s enough neutral, incompatible wants resulting in conflict to keep it going: the woman wants her husband’s body back, the prisoners want to escape and probably want to keep the body as a bargaining chip, the prison authorities want to stomp out the riot any way possible. (And that right there, if I may apply a bit of amateur theory, is what makes for a good script. We usually think of stories as having two conflicting forces, the protag and the antag, and they fight. And there’s a lot of examples of that. But this has three antagonistic forces, each against the other, but with the possibility of two aligning against the other, maybe permanently, probably only temporarily. And it would be interesting to use the structure to explore the various three-way permutations.)

(Heh. I said “three-way”.)

Con
There is the possibility that, if we’re not careful, this could devolve into a pedestrian action flick. (I think we are careful, and having people, er, one thoughtful, caring, considerate person vetting our work helps, but it’s still something to look out for.) And yes, because it’s so straightforward, it probably isn’t as sexy as some of our more outré ideas. But that’s the key for this story idea: embrace it for what it is. This is a “B” Western, no doubt about it. It’s kind of ordinary. We’ve seen it before. It’s mythic, sure, but it borders on cliché. The question is: Will we make it a Boetticher or Mann “B” Western, or will it be one of those forgettable programmers that make up the bulk of the Encore Western channel?

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Tuesday
Feb 14, 2006

Re: [4] The Competition: Looking Toward The Future posted by kza

Oh, that’s right — the cheese. Always with the cheese.

Yeah, all right, some sort of discussion about the sequence method is probably in order. I’ll get on that ASAP. Of course, having the books as reference would keep me from making all sorts of blunders, but seeing as someone hasn’t read them yet, I guess I’ll have to make do.

(Seriously, tho, the Howard book is a pretty good read — friendly and conversational where McKee is hectoring.)

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Sunday
Feb 12, 2006

Re: [3] The Competition: Looking Toward The Future posted by Martin

How ya like dem apples?

I like my apples baked into a pie, with a slice of cheddar cheese and all heated up first thing in the morning, thanks for asking.

Oh the ideas—sure, sounds good. For Heat #3 let’s stick with Sequence Method—I should get to know it better. It certainly can’t hurt, but I’ll follow your lead. How about it, then, a post about the sequence method? Interested? I’ll post my version when I read the books finally!

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Sunday
Feb 12, 2006

Re: [2] The Competition: Looking Toward The Future posted by kza

Answers of Clarification (er, hopefully):

Heat #2
I imagined that we’d both write character studies for both competing ideas — so there would be a total of four character studies per battle. I figure the more info to use and work with, the better.

Heat #3
We don’t have to use the Sequence Method here; although I’m more comfortable with it than you, I’m game for anything. All I’m really looking for here is some idea (that will inevitably change) of how the piece is structured. And again, just to be clear, I’m not looking for more than a paragraph, total — I just want a taste, maaaaan.

How ya like dem apples?

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Sunday
Feb 12, 2006

Round Six [Reminiscence v. Time to Die] posted by Martin

Reminiscence (Shokah rank: #13, Burley rank: #3)

Time to Die (Shokah rank: #6, Burley rank: #10)

SET ‘EM UP AND KNOCK ‘EM DOWN!

Pro
Did I say our last idea was Dickian? Wow. PK in da house.

How do you eliminate memory? Is it a mechanical process, or is it an external thing—like you can’t sell old music, that might trigger memories, or perfumes and scents need to be cycled every 10 years, without repetition within a 100 years span? The older one gets, the more risky the proposition of falling back on memory, so in that sense the young would be heralded. Logan’s run!

So—the punishment from nostalgia, in this case, could be for people acting retro or making public displays that could trigger memories. The police would have to investigate, with the idea that they don’t want someone to come up and remind people of the past. Of course, then, you’d have secret memory parties, where people talk about the past, and maybe someone has smuggled a scent from years ago that everyone remembers.

Of course, this would be pretty impractical for the government to do, unless they gave people a big reason to switch. There is the big stick approach—banishment—but it would have to have some positive reinforcement too. One of the creepiest things about our modern world is the way that government—unlike the predictions of Orwell or Dick—may be draconian in some ways, but it does so with a big smiling face, and a thumbs up grin. It uses positive key words, and admonishes the press for being pessimistic about items the administration wants to control the message on. In other words, it’s not all double-plus-good, it’s No Child Left Behind.

Con
But again, we’re fronted with a serious issue: How the hell do you show something from inside a persons head? It’s true his memory is visual—that’s good—and I can see scenes of overlaying his memory / visualizations with the reality, but that doesn’t mean it’s going to be easy to spell out in purely visual terms.

Also, it reminds me a bit of the Monty Python sketch from Holy Grail where all the son wants to do is sing. The son, in this case, is the dude, and the government would be the dad wanting to marry him off and inherit the swamp kingdom.

Time to Die
In a World where death itself is beaten by genetic regeneration, a guard is killed during a riot on the prison planet. One woman—his wife—faces sure death to retrieve his body in time to bring him back to life. It’s a race against time, with one nearly resourcesless woman willfully fighting like a juggernaut against the prisoners who are holding his body hostage, and the powers that be that think she should just give up. All to simply save the man she loves from eternal death.

Pro

I like the clarity of the situation. This too is Besterian, in that here’s a character with one goal: get her husband’s body back in time to rejuvenate him, and one big problem: it’s millions of miles away on a Prison Planet under the control of the prisoners. No matter how we dress it up, this story is all about two-steps forward, one-step back, and a few impossible hurdles she manages to overcome. Along the way will be people who support her, people who think she’s crazy and dangerous (say, the people who run the prison planet), and people who care about her personally but want her to just accept that he is dead (say, an ex lover who wants her for himself?). When she reaches the prison planet, how will she get the body back from the violent felons? One goal, one strong protag, lots of blocks. Very straightforward.

Con
Could be too formulaic. We’d need a strong villian—probably a prisoner—but none is lending themselves to me right now. The trick in a film like this would be to find those moments that inscribe values and interest into a character, and make her real and three dimensional, instead of cookie cutter. Otherwise, she’s just a paper cut out of an action heroine.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Sunday
Feb 12, 2006

Re: The Competition: Looking Toward The Future posted by Martin

I accept your joyfully needlessly complex rules, Shockah, but I have a few questions of clarification.

Heat #2
Do we both create character studies for each piece, or only the pieces that are our favorites? I would say yes. Otherwise, I accept your rules.

Heat #3
We can create this, but I’m still not settled with the Sequence Method. Then again, I’m not really settled with McKee’s method, or Goldman’s method, or any method per se. The only method I’m comfortable with is my own person Cricket method, and I haven’t invented it yet, so the Sequence Method is fine, but you might have to give me an overview. Matter of fact, I think it would make some interesting posts to do overviews of methods, what we think of them, and what their strengths and weaknesses are. I certainly have a lot to say on the matter, and I know you would too.

Oh—but, again—I’m assuming we both write about the supporting characters and the method breakdowns for each work?

Heat #4
I have no questions about this heat. This heat is hot. It’s hot hot heat.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Saturday
Feb 11, 2006

Re: Motion for Consolidation [The Infected v. If It Pleases The Court] posted by Martin

Yea, I second the motion. Motion passed.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Saturday
Feb 11, 2006

Motion for Consolidation [The Infected v. If It Pleases The Court] posted by kza

And now I’m thinking: why have drugs, when you can have hallucinatory telepathy? (And I’m also thinking of a world not unlike Bester’s The Stars, My Destination — super-privacy, not because of teleportation, but because of telepathy.)

I, Urban Shockah, move that we combine The Infected and If It Pleases The Court into a new story idea entitled Terminal Connection.

What say you, Burley — yea or nay?

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Saturday
Feb 11, 2006

Round 5.4 [The Infected v. If it Pleases the Court] posted by Martin

Terminal Connection! Yeah! I’m on board with that. A great title, sir.

I like the idea of the drugs and the terrors of isolation. There’s a lot of fertile ground there. And, just to be totally crazy—what if there was a little of The Infected thrown in? Terrorism would be one reason to retreat, but imagine terrorism combined with telepathy? How could you have a fair trial if everybody in the court could read your mind?

Maybe we don’t stand to vote here, but stand to combine the two ideas to birth a new one. In title math: The Infected + If it Pleases the Court = Terminal Connection.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Saturday
Feb 11, 2006

Round 5.3 [The Infected v. If It Pleases The Court] posted by kza

Note: think of this as having been cut & pasted over the original entry for If It Pleases The Court.

First, thanks for clarifying IIPTC — I think you pretty much swept my cons right over the edge, and now they’re falling, forever falling, without end…

And yeah, now that I get it, it’s very Dick. All it needs now is a drug trip. And in this future world, where it seems like human contact is a rare and wondrous (?) thing, I can see how turning to Chew-Z and Perky Pat dolls might be a legitimate option. (Oh My Friggin’ God, I would so love to have the rights to The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch. That would be awesome.) So while the plot of this one is interesting, what gets me is how potentially scary it is — not scary in a horror sense, really, but scary in a Todd Haynes-Safe kind of way. People are isolated, cuz who knows? — the next door neighbor could be a terrorist! I mean, they’ve been known to blow up stuff, and the computer/TV says it’s terrorists, so it must be true. Better to stay inside, and do all business that way. And if that means running trials via double-blind terminal connections (hey, there’s your hacky title right there: Terminal Connection!) to ensure that there’s no bias, then dammit, that’s what we’ll do. And if I’m going to spend most of my days inside, then I’m gonna pop some pills that give me a hallucinogenic virtual reality, by gum. I don’t know why, exactly, the woman doesn’t know her husband is on trial, but I can totally see it happening nonetheless. I think a more important question is: how does she find out it is her husband?

So yeah, this is a great idea. And to be honest, it brings out the lover of tricks and gimmicks in me, as well. When knowledge (both what the character knows and what we know as an audience) is scarce, there’s lots of Memento-style games that can be played. And since I know you’re a fan of Mamet and con games, I’d think you’d try and bring some o’ dat to the party.

The pitfall of that, of course, is to become so enamored of the games that the characters, the drama, the humanity of the piece is lost. I don’t think that’s something we have to worry about too much — if anything, I think we sometimes skew too much the other way, if anyone can believe that — but it is something to look out for. And creating a world like this would be easy if we didn’t care if it was plausible or sensical — but I know we do care about that, so this will be another difficulty. (Or put another way, it’ll require using some of those Outside > In skills.) But there just seems to be so much potential for some really cool Yellow-esque scenes, that I don’t care.

I suppose I should write a spirited defense of The Infected, but the spirit does not move me. Maybe next entry, if the opportunity is still there.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Friday
Feb 10, 2006

Round 5.2 [The Infected v. If it Pleases the Court] posted by Martin

The Infected (Shockah rank: #10, Burley rank: #4)

If It Pleases The Court (Shockah rank: #5, Burley rank: #2)

GIVE ME ONE FOR THE GIPPER…

The Infected
In a world where telepathy is a disease and the infected are prisoners, one woman will discover a shocking truth that could change everything… but on a world where a mind can be read as easily as opening a book, how can any secret be safe?

Pro:
I love that idea of a world where everybody knows what you think. To be honest, sometimes I like to pretend that I live in a world where everybody can hear my thoughts. And then, say, that woman who is on the bus and looks at me funny, I tell her what for in my head. Sure she doesn’t turn to look, but I know she can hear me…

Um, anyway—I think all of us at one time or another have played that little game. Sad are the people for whom it becomes a reality, but I have yet been able to avoid that problem.

Like you, I see that challenge of creating the rules and regulations of the world as a welcome challenge—because reading Bester I realized that it really is okay to set some hard limits on these sorts of things. I mean, just because telepathy is everywhere, doesn’t mean that there can’t be some kind of limitations. Those limitations, which could be really fun to explore, are the crux of the story. And, I suspect, where the clever protag will be able to find her way through the seemingly impenetrable maze.

Con:
Sadly, this one suffers from being one of the first, and therefore not drawn out. We got more elaborate as we went, but I think this one needs some more detail to really pull it into contender status, for me. But the idea was so strong that I placed it on my list (pretty high, too) because i think it had a really fascinating premise. Gimme a bit more, and we can really chew on this one.

And, also as reported by you, I would have to think of a way to show visual telepathy. I mean, if Lynch couldn’t visualize it effectively…

Before I dig into this one, I should clarify the scenario a bit. When I say “anonymous computer terminals” in my “In a World…” I didn’t mean computers would do the work—and I especially don’t mean that computers can predict the future—, I meant that people would be sitting at anonymous terminals—like the dumb terminals that used to connect to computer servers. Like my brain sometimes connects to my body.

Say, for instance, that a series of terrorist attacks stopped centralized gatherings of government. All business is conducted from remote locations. Juries are selected of anonymous people, who work at anonymous terminals and judge ongoing cases. But, it’s all double blind. There is no live video feed, no man-facing-his-accusers in a courtroom—just facts on a screen. Maybe those facts are video of the lawyers, but maybe it’s distorted voices. This seems bad, but it could also be an overzealous way of disallowing race, gender or ethnicity to enter into a juries decision. They can’t let a convict charm them, and they won’t be affected by threats.

In any case, this jury would be led by a woman—who, incidentally, nobody would know is a woman or what race she is—and the accused would be her husband. Is it a glitch in the system, or is it a set-up?

Pro:
You say Bester, I say Dick. Phillip K, of course. I think this is the most Dickian idea that we’ve come up with (which reminds me of a story. I had a friend who worked here in Seattle at Dicks’ Burgers. Dick’s is to Seattle what In-and-Out is to SoCal, although much smaller—there are only 5 locations or so. At Dick’s, you don’t get it how you want it, you get it how they give it to you. People used to say to him “Why can’t I have it without mustard?” His reply? “Because we’re Dick’s).

I love the logical loops and issues this brings up, and the challenge of it seems engaging to me. Not only that, but I think there’s room here for real human drama. Where is this woman’s husband? Why isn’t he by her side, and how doesn’t she know that he’s on trial? Well, maybe in a land where trials are secret, people can really keep secrets. Incidentally, there’s another reason for secrecy in the proceedings: innocent until proven guilty.

This idea originally came to my head quite a while ago as a father v. son story, and it was much more complex. I like this straighter moral drama, and the issues it can pull up. About her, about the husband, and questioning a system that seems both very right and very wrong.

Con:
Well, there’s the whole we-ain’t-Phil-Dick thing. It’s a complex story at best, and a difficult one any way you slice it. And, I confess, only tenuously connected to the Prison Planet.

Well, those may be run-of-the-mill Spitball! excuses, but I stand by them.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Friday
Feb 10, 2006

Round Five [The Infected v. If It Pleases the Court] posted by kza

The Infected (Shockah rank: #10, Burley rank: #4)

If It Pleases The Court (Shockah rank: #5, Burley rank: #2)

UP AND AT THEM!

Pro:

Ah — in some ways, the very first Prison Planet scenario, and one clearly inspired by Bester. This could be a lot of fun, designing both how the telepathy works and how its transmitted, along with an history of how the telepathy came into being, how it affected the world, and what was done about it. Some ideas were already thrown into the ring regarding this; I suggest late-comers try here and here.

And, as Burley’s mentioned, trying to show telepathy in a visual medium like film is really hard. At worst, it comes across as really silly (see also: Dune, Phantasm II.) But rather than see this as a con, I, foolishly, welcome the challenge. I think it would be fun to find a different way to represent telepathy, and while some of my ideas toward that may end up looking just as foolish as breathy voiceovers over a picture of Kyle Maclachlan, hey, at least I’ll have tried.

Con:

Like a lot of these ideas, I had no idea what the “shocking truth” was when I wrote it, and I still don’t. No real character, either — who is this woman? What does she do, and what does she want? Is she a telepath? Is she tempted at some point to infect herself for some goal? And who are the antagonists, exactly? Right now, they could be nearly anyone or anything. This is one of the first “In A Worlds” created, and so naturally it’s much lighter than the later ones, but it’s still awfully, awfully thin.

I also don’t have a sense as to what kind of story this is. Unlike, say, the idea below, which suggests at least two ways the story could be presented, this one, right now, suggests every kind of story, or in other words, none. And while, yeah, I am talking about that bugaboo “genre” to some degree, to another degree I’m not. If I were to walk into a theater, what kind of movie would I expect to see? Or, what kind of movie would I expect to see after watching the first fifteen minutes? Is it a brainy drama? A brainy action movie? Is it wide-ranging, like Altman or Sayles? Is it intensely focused, like Peckinpah or McTiernan? Is it somehow both, like Kubrick? Is it quirky as hell, like P.T. Anderson or David O. Russell? I don’t feel like I know enough to move into any sort of direction. (And if I had some idea, I’d throw ‘em up here, but I don’t.)

This is also very, very Bester, so of course, it makes me very, very interested. What kind of movie is it, though? It could be a courtroom drama, kept to a couple rooms, with the SF aspect being less visual and more verbal. In other words, I can see it where this synopsis represents 70-90% of the story. But I’d prefer to open it way the hell up, like Bester does, eventually, with The Demolished Man — I foresee that the outcome of the trial being the end of the second act, with the woman deciding that she wants to rescue her husband from the prison planet — even if that means that he may murder her. I’d also want some kind of B plot running through this, some kind of counterpoint to the main story — I don’t know what yet, but I’m sure that wouldn’t be hard. (Well, the obvious thing to do with B plots is to run the A plot but with a different outcome — so here, a character that doesn’t fight the power structure and allows a loved one to die, and is either happy with it or it destroys his soul.)

I can also see how this could dovetail with modern issues like The War on Terror/Abu Ghraib/Sanctioned Torture. A world like this would probably be pretty peaceful… but at what cost?!!?!? And in this situation, how does one fight against the system? Our proposed plot suggests that love is the motivating factor, which would be interesting, if potentially schmaltzy — in a world where all opposing political power has been crushed, it’s funny that something subtle and ineffable as love would be the random factor that could destroy the status quo. Maybe not the best idea, but it’s something.

Con:
But then, the set-up raises up a whole slew of questions, don’t it? How did we get a justice system run by computers? Why do the computers have human juries? (The original idea says the computers are judge and jury, but we have a human foreman — I’m assuming the first part of the idea is a typo.) How is that the computers can foresee the future? (Or can they?) If they can see the future and presumably it’s true, why do they have trials? (There were no trials in Minority Report.) How is it this woman is not informed of the future crime against her?

I think there’s a theory of time and a history of this world that can answer all of these questions, but at the same time, that’s a tall order — most stories only have to deal with one or the other. Is this something we want to tackle, or is it a bit too big for this project?

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Thursday
Feb 09, 2006

Re:[5] Round Four: Rise and Vote, gentlemen and scoundrals posted by Martin

Did I call you out?

No, you didn’t—I don’t think you had a problem with it, but some readers did, and also I think some people made comments during a live reading we had, although I’d have to dig through my notes to remember. But since we’re talking about this more, I thought I’d dig up the scene and put it out there, let people judge for themselves. It was longer originally, but got shortened when for the version that was actually submitted.

To me, the interesting thing was that people seemed to take issue with a white guy writing a black guy doing something that lots of black guys do—talking about hip-hop. But, just because lots of black guys do it doesn’t mean that all black guys do it, and therefore it’s potentially a stereotype. To our credit, this same character also did a mean Groucho Marx impersonation, so he was far from stereotypical.

In this scene, set at the fictional Bierce Academy of Visual Arts, the three characters are students: David, the black character, a painter, Bernardo, a jazz pianist from Italy, and Sharpe, a “doll revolutionary” — a bit of a full-of-himself rube and Bernardo’s roommate.

INT. BIERCE CAFETERIA - EVENING

David and Bernardo are sitting at a round table. In front of them plates that have been picked clean.

BERNARDO

But there is no melody, no counter point, no dynamic range. It is all…

He pounds on the table with his fist BOOM BOOM BOOM.

BERNARDO

…all the time.

DAVID

See, now, you’re missing some subtleties. But the biggest thing you’re missing, besides that you ain’t the audience, brutha, is that hip-hop is a dialog….

Sharpe walks up with a full tray, and drops it noisily on the table.

SHARPE

I fucking love hip-hop.

BERNARDO

I am glad you have headphones.

SHARPE

I love that hardcore, gangsta shit, man. Fuck the poh-lice! Ha ha. Old school rocks.

DAVID

…aaaaand the dialog is over.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Thursday
Feb 09, 2006

Re:[4] Round Four: Rise and Vote, gentlemen and scoundrels posted by kza

Good post, and it reminds me of a discussion that happened between some professional screenwriters, a few months back. I’m pretty sure the order goes like this:

1. Alex Epstein

2. Craig Mazin

3. John August

And of course, there’s plenty of interesting comments underneath each entry.

Also: You got called out on the hiphop/jazz scene? I don’t remember that. Did I call you out? If I didn’t like it, I suspect it had more to do with a digression in a script that was already full of digressions. But the content of it — I remember it being solid, and no different than what, say, Robert Christgau or Charles Aaron might say. Huh.

One character in Radio Golf was a carpenter. I see him and think of Jacob Lawrence’s paintings of carpenters and tools as emblematic and metaphoric of the black experience in America. Knowing this—and seeing some threads through an African American experience—does it make me any more culturally aware than other white people? Just because I know this doesn’t mean I know what it’s like to be a black guy, with all the cultural pressures from both white people and black people. If I wrote a black carpenter into a story, could it be an ode, or would it be a callous attempt to bridge a gap that is really unbridgeable?

In one draft of YELLOW (our Project Greenlight entry) we had a black character, and tried to give him some authenticity. In one scene that I wrote, this character David was trying to explain hip-hop to a jazz student who didn’t get it. I got completely called out by every body who read it. It could be that the scene sucked, but I don’t think we’ll ever know because the idea of a white guy writing a black guy talking about hip-hop made the readers way too uncomfortable to even give it a fair reading. I personally thought that I did a good job of it, but then so would a totally ignorant guy having the same experience.

On the other hand, Shockah and I specifically avoided giving any characters race in another draft. Is that better or worse? It’s relying people’s abilities to see past cultural assumptions when they read it, but if we cast a black guy as a character that wasn’t written as a black guy, is that actually a bit worse since we could have given him some cultural queues that would make him more authentic? Or, do we draw the character loose enough that the actor can bring those to the table?

And then you have the damn-the-torpedoes attitude based on crunchy idealism that says “I’m going to do it because it’s right, and damn the cultural issues!” Which, essentially, is what this recent blog entry on the Huffington Post says. I can’t say I disagree with her, but her whole attitude is downright annoying and unrealistic. Race and identity are nuanced, and a perky we-can-do-it-for-equality attitude doesn’t really get you so far. Just ask the some serious film fans (I’m a lightweight compared to those around me, but I’m happy to be in their learned company) what they thought of Crash.

In the end, I think the best we can do is raise some of these issues as best we can, and hope that it reads well from both sides of the issue. That we’re neither racist, nor pandering to the mainstream, nor being insensitive, nor too culturally aware, nor too culturally unaware, nor…well, they go on forever. But, in this case, to write about a Chinese ruled America, we’d have some serious research to do.

Because if we didn’t, it would be like the standing ovation at tonight’s performance of a great cast in a great play on an off night by white audience. A standing ovation of guilt. If I don’t stand, will they think I disapproved of the play and think I’m racist? And if I don’t write this character correctly, will they think that I [fill in the blank]?

Until we can rid ourselves of those voices, we won’t be ready to write it and do it justice. Until then, Chimerica is Chelved.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Wednesday
Feb 08, 2006

Re:[3] Round Four: Rise and Vote, gentlemen and scoundrels posted by Martin

I wanted to post a few more notes about this short, but interesting, round. The way I see it, we had two very strong choices, and in the end we chose one over the other because it was much less daunting. We both agreed, I think, that Chimerica would have been dirt cool, but would have taken a level of cultural knowledge and sophistication that we either lack, or were daunted by the research.

I was thinking about that tonight, as I went to see a production of August Wilson’s Radio Golf. Wilson was a Seattle writer who wrote a 10 play cycle, each one about the African American experience during a decade of the 20th century. Radio Golf—the play set in the ’90s— deals with a good man, trying to do the right thing in the face of moral odds. He’s not caught by his own dirty pool, or caught trying to pull a fast one, but when circumstances he can’t control make lemons, he turns on the juice press. Well, at least until somebody tries to cut the electricity.

This, of course, an amazing play (although tonight’s performance was just off a notch—a great cast doing a great play on an okay night), that serendipitously speaks to exactly what we were facing. That is, writing racial identity authentically. August Wilson was a black man writing about black issues, but writing about histories he himself didn’t live. He didn’t live the black experience of the 1920s, but he wrote about them (ostensibly—I’m a bit shy to say that this is the first of his works I’ve seen) from a cultural understanding. Is it less authentic if he wrote about white characters? Is it less authentic if Shockah and I wrote about black characters?

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Wednesday
Feb 08, 2006

Re:[2] Round Four: Rise and Vote, gentlemen and scoundrels posted by Martin

Yeah. The Atheist.

Re: Round Four: Rise and Vote, gentlemen and scoundrels posted by kza

No need to apologize, sir. I was ready for this one before it began. (There’s one coming up that’s like that, too.)

I, Urban Shockah, the ever-lovin’ mic rockah, vote for:

The Atheist.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Wednesday
Feb 08, 2006

Round Four: Rise and Vote, gentlemen and scoundrels posted by Martin

At the risk of feeling like when I’m leading we go to vote fast, I think we’re ready to roll on this one. Urban Shockah—stand up and declare your intention. Rise to vote, sir.

Heat #2 (8 stories, 4 battles): While we could keep the matchup chart the way it has been (so, in other words, Rasputin would take on La Commune Planet in this heat), I thought, “why not just randomize it again?” I suggest that the I take the winners of the first four battles (since they included my Top 4 selections, even though they didn’t all make it) and you would take the bottom four (which had your Top 4 selections) and we’d order them, #1-4, and I’d match my #1 vs. your #4, and on up the line, until your #1 was battling against my #4. In fewer words, just like how we did it in heat #1.

The other looming issue is the adding of additional info to the story ideas. Clearly, some have been thought-out better than others, and some (the ones that fight the longest) have more info attached to them — but that shouldn’t necessarily be an advantage. (Or put another way, there should be some attempt to level the field a bit.) I propose that for this and the other heats, there should be some other requirements for the battle, other than the usual Pro/Con discussions.

For heat #2, I think the new requirement should be a description, preferably somewhat lengthy, of a main character. What do I mean by lengthy? I’m not entirely sure, but I’m thinking about one single-spaced page worth. (Too much? Too little?) And the character bio should, actually, not be about the plot of the story so much — that can come later. Instead, it should probably cover everything up until the story starts.

Heat #3 (4 stories, 2 battles): Along with the usual Pro/Con debates, and any other discussion about the characters that were created in the previous heat, we will also include a very brief plot outline, using the principles of the Sequence Method: a couple sentences for each sequence, and a couple sentences for the Point of Attack, Predicament, Main Tension, Point of No Return, First & Second Culminations, Third Act Twist/Tension, and Resolution.

Also: maybe this is where we detail some of the supporting characters as well. Perhaps not a page, but a couple paragraphs apiece. Or is that too much for this stage?

Heat #4 (2 stories, 1 battle): For the final battle, each of us will compose a lengthy and detailed treatment for each story — I’m thinking about 3 single-spaced pages worth. The treatment will cover the entire plot, in as much detail as is necessary to communicate both the actions and the atmosphere of the story. (Since these posts will no doubt be long, it should probably be one post per treatment.)

Anyway, that’s kind of what I was thinking. Suggestions?

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Wednesday
Feb 08, 2006

The Competition: Looking Toward The Future posted by kza

Seeing’s how we’re about half-way through the first heat of the competition, I thought it might be a good idea to look ahead and see if there’s anything we want to change for the next three heats. I had a few ideas — tell me whatcha think.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Wednesday
Feb 08, 2006

Round 4.2 [Chimerica v. The Atheist] posted by kza

Chimerica (Shockah rank: #4, Burley rank: #5)

The Atheist (Shockah rank: #4, Burley rank: #1)

C30, C60, C90, GO!

Remember when I said I wasn’t going to look at Burley’s entry before I wrote my own? Well, I already fucked that up. I got wind that Burley put up a new post, and was so excited that I jumped in and read it before I realized I said I wasn’t gonna. Turns out my excitement was justified — it was a great post that really got to the heart of both ideas.

Chimerica
In a world almost exactly like our own, America has lost its place as the prime superpower, and China has taken over. Chinese language and customs have been absorbed into American culture, and have irrevocably changed the face of the country. The cold war between China and India is heating up, and when a terrorist act is committed on Chinese soil, the culprits are traced back to America. China puts a lockdown on America, sending in troops to root out the terrorist cells and throwing the country into a state of emergency. One family will witness everything, from the beginning of the invasion to the terrifying aftermath, and will try to hold onto one another as everything they hold dear.

Pros:
True story: I didn’t realize the pun in the name until several hours after writing the blurb. But of course, once I saw it, I realized that the idea of a chimera, an illusion, had to be a key theme of the story.

Anyway, this, or something like this, needs to be written. I can’t think of a better way of dealing with, and expressing my anger and frustration with the Faux News, jingoistic side of America that dominates the discourse. It’s also our only “alternate reality” idea, and I like those a lot.

Oh, and because Burley requested it (and this another off-the-top-o’-my-head deals): intro of Chimerica > intro of our main character, a family man who’s just lost his job > his wife has a business that deals with the Chinese (clear rip of Dick’s The Man in the High Castle — of course, the same could be said of the idea in toto) > his daughter is studying in China, and is dating the son of an important official > daughter is under pressure to keep the sordid details of her family hidden; she could marry this guy and pull the family out of the hole they’re in > his son, 17 or so, is distant to him > terrorist attack on Beijing > family man suspects oldest son of being in a terrorist cell > wife’s business suffers > daughter’s relationship suffers > man can’t find job > Chinese invasion of America > there’s a curfew > there’s violence on the streets > family man discovers that son really is in a terrorist cell > family man could turn son into the authorities > decides not to > daughter, in order to salvage relationship, turns in the son > but the son’s cell goes through with plot > Chinese respond with a nuke > The End. (oh, and > wife something something, in the middle there, somewhere.)

Cons:
My god, this would be fucking hard. The sheer amount of research just to make it even remotely plausible is intimidating, to say the least. I’m not against research — although I think research should be primarily about making the characters seem true-to-life — but in this case, the setting itself is a kind of character (in that you’d have to explain it like you would a character, unlike, say, a story that takes place in modern day, where it could be taken for granted) and I don’t even know where I’d begin. Burley at least has a smattering of knowledge about Chinese culture — I know nutzink.

I also see this as (despite my quickie plot, above) kind of a multi-character piece, not so much like Altman, but something like Traffic — we’d need to see a couple different stratas of characters, and I think it would be important to have at least one character be Chinese, so we could see this world from their eyes. I’m considering this a con because it seems more difficult to do than the traditional “one protagonist” kind of story, even though it would be super-cool to pull off.

But mostly, what my quickie plot reveals to me is that this is the ultimate Outside > In script — any conception of characters seem pointless if we don’t have a concrete idea of what the world is. Clearly, this makes me uncomfortable :-)

Inna final analysis, I don’t think I’m ready to write a script like this.

Pros:
What’s cool about this is that there’s the possibility of doing a SF story where there are no obvious SF visual markers — if you turned the sound down, it’d look like a drama. Call it Ingmar Bergman’s Contact. Or Ingmar Bergman’s Independence Day. (Did I hear the sound of heads exploding, out there in the Internet?) Except maybe at the end. I suppose there has to be an confrontation at the end between the protagonist and the aliens, just so we know what the truth of the matter is — but for the most part, it seems to me like a story that’s about one guy on a quest, and how that quest affects his relationship to his family, his society, and his sense of self. What’s funny to me is that while, on some level it is a skewering, on another level, all the old myths, legends, and creation stories are true — just not in a way that the true believers thought. We’re all the ancestors of intergalactic prisoners, and are condemned because of them? Sounds like original sin to me. I’m thinking he starts as a hardcore atheist, but comes across the truth of the situation, which puts him in a weird place, antithetical with both his fellow atheists and the followers of the various religions.

So yeah, to me, this is a “Dark Night of the Soul” kind of story, with an SF twist. (Note to self: should probably rent Bergman’s Winter Light post-haste.)

Another thought: maybe it isn’t important what the crime is. Maybe, this being aliens and all, maybe it’s something that’s simply not possible for humans to comprehend.

Another thought: it’s possible that our whole premise is actually a pull-the-rug-out-from-the-audience plot twist, not unlike, say, The Rapture.

Cons:
Still needs a character, still needs some kind of plot, some sequence of events to put the character through — but I’m not that worried. The biggest problem, I think, is how to present the evidence of the Earth’s true nature. And why is it that this one guy is privy to the truth, but no one else is? (The idea of evolution/mutation is a great one, and could possibly provide a clue.) Is the truth archaeology-based? Messages from space on a computer? Does the protag have a Melvin & Howard-esque encounter with a real alien? It’s likely that my usual refrain, “It’s The Character, Stupid!” will provide answers or leads to these questions, but it still bugs me that I don’t have a clear idea of how this is going to work.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Tuesday
Feb 07, 2006

Round Four [Chimerica v. The Atheist] posted by Martin

Chimerica (Shockah rank: #5, Burley rank: #8)

The Atheist (Shockah rank: #4, Burley rank: #1)

BATTLE!

n. A method of untying with the teeth of a political knot that would not yield to the tongue.
-Ambrose Bierce

Chimerica
In a world almost exactly like our own, America has lost its place as the prime superpower, and China has taken over. Chinese language and customs have been absorbed into American culture, and have irrevocably changed the face of the country. The cold war between China and India is heating up, and when a terrorist act is committed on Chinese soil, the culprits are traced back to America. China puts a lockdown on America, sending in troops to root out the terrorist cells and throwing the country into a state of emergency. One family will witness everything, from the beginning of the invasion to the terrifying aftermath, and will try to hold onto one another as everything they hold dear.

Pros:
Oh, fuck man—America is down! This is not so hard to picture, since China owns so much of us right now. An overthrow of the US won’t come through violent revolution, but of a bit by bit sale of our interests and a slow change of our ideals over time. And a stock market collapse so drastic that we have to cash into our creditors. Oops! No more $15.00 an hour at the mill.

Plus, the pun in the name kicks ass.

It’s daunting, though, this idea. I love Chinese history, and have studied in depth the great mariner Zheng He. I have spent time in Singapore, with a population primarily descended from China, and feel like (at least more than your average American) I have an understanding of Chinese Culture. Still, I have no idea how to accurately describe an America under Chinese rule.

But, I’ve imagined something similar before. Zheng He, sailing 400 foot chinese junks a half century before Vasco da Gama sailed. They got as far as the East Coast of Africa, and there is some evidence that they sailed as far as the cape of good hope (there are some true believers who claim that Zheng He circumnavigated the globe and discovered America. I personally find those claims incredibly suspect. I’m with the scholars on this one). Imagine, though, if an armada with tens of thousands of Chinese, and hundreds of ships, some the largest wooden ships ever built, sailed into Eurpean harbors of the day? In a Europe just on the cusp of the Renaissance. I tell you, in that world it’s not hard to imagine Europeans speaking Chinese. What if the first explorers of America were running away from religious persecution, but were running away from their Chinese overlords? What if America was simply founded as a Chinese colony?

But, of course, this would be a more modern takeover. I like the idea of seeing the terrorism from the eyes of Americans—what if we were the terrorists? What would drive us to that? I have no trouble imagining an American under siege where average American’s would rise up against a controlling power.

Cons:
The biggest con for me is believability. We’d have to have Chinese language bastardizations, like Singlish—the blend of Chinese/Malay and English that Singaporeans speak. We’d have to have believable Chinese social constraints and arguments, and Chinese culture is remarkably complex.

The biggest problem would be assuming that China is like America is like India is like any super power. The relationships of class and culture are so nuanced and weighted in the Chinese culture, that we would need to tread carefully to be accurate and not just be the dumb white boys using pop-culture assumptions to make a cool script without it having any weight or nods to reality. I mean, my goal would be to watch a movie that would be riveting to a Chinese national, as well as an American.

Also, I see the struggle, but I don’t see the direct plot. Give > Me > Some > of > These > please.

Pros:
The skewering of the sacred cows! I dig this for sure. I mean, we’ll get to not only tear down a fanatical religion, but do it in a brutal way. Of course, the biggest facet of religion is faith, and what if your faith was challenged? Well then, I think we’d have three responses: 1. Some people would stop believing, when presented with evidence against. Some people would alter their beliefs to rationalize away the new evidence. 3. Some people would unflinchingly still worship the same as they always had.

I also love this idea, which comes up again and again for me, of this one guy or girl arguing against the cultural assumptions, and being maligned for it, only to find out that they were justified in their arguments. It spawns enemies from within, and more dangerous enemies from without.

You may, or may not, be disappointed to learn that I don’t have this one figured out either. I don’t know what the great crime was, or what the great secret is. I would guess that the great crime is a genocide of some sorts—or being banished because of some quarantine. Maybe the banished people are a control group being isolated to study evolution (ha! Religion and evolution in one movie, and that the evolution is imposed by the Gods in the sky?). But, whatever it is, I’m sure we can figure it out.

Cons:
What I’m not so sure how to figure out is how the confrontation between people and keepers would be. How would the aliens in the sky be represented? How would they conflict with the people on the ground? Maybe the idea is that they’re watching for signs of evolution and this kid, that I imagine leading the pack, is the first one to evolve as such. Then we could tie in to the common feeling that we’re not of this world, but of another world and we need to pass some sort of test to be brought home (i.e., follow the word of God). In any case, there are many parallels here and interesting things to play with.

But, that confrontation, as well as the reveal and the whole pace and feel, would need to be laid out. This short blurb was more of a cursory overview, so there would be some work here. But, I can totally see it working.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Tuesday
Feb 07, 2006

Re: [3] Round Three: Rise to Vote, I Say! posted by Martin

I, Burley Grymz, also vote for:

Little Black Stray.

So far we’re 3 for 3! Next round will start, most likely, tonight.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Tuesday
Feb 07, 2006

Re: [2] Round Three: Rise to Vote, I Say! posted by kza

I, Urban Shockah, vote for

LIttle Black Stray.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Tuesday
Feb 07, 2006

Re: Round Three: Rise to Vote, I Say! posted by Martin

You had me at “round.” I’m ready.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Tuesday
Feb 07, 2006

Round Three: Rise to Vote, I Say! posted by kza

I think I have enough to info to move on.

What say you, sir?

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Tuesday
Feb 07, 2006

Round 3.8 [The Exodus vs. Little Black Stray] posted by Martin

Okay, I get you. On Exodus, you need something solid to hang the plot on, and feel that this is the requirement for proceeding. I say that we either move forward under the assumption that we can do that, or go with Little Black Stray because that one already, as you said, has a strong enough plot that we will likely not run into the same problem there.

Obviously Little Black Stray isn’t perfect yet, but I’m feeling much more confident about us being able to figure some of the things out that it needs.

Also, don’t forget, which ever of these moves ahead will get another hearing. These issues can be addressed in more depth then, I say. And, if it ends up being a real favorite, it may get more than one hearing.

Still, if you’re saying that you need more information to make your choice, give us a challenge—3 ideas along X lines. Define that, and I’ll rise to define these ideas further. Or, let’s do another random brainstorm to further the ideas. Either way, or if we go to a vote, Burley Grymz stands ready.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Tuesday
Feb 07, 2006

Round 3.7 [The Exodus vs. Little Black Stray] posted by kza

I would argue, as I am right this very second, that we don’t need to decide on the plot exactly right now.

Ah, but I’m not at all talking about plot. I’m simply talking about a one- or two-word idea that would hold the concept of the space stations together. I don’t need to know what it’s about in terms of “what happens to the characters”, I just would like to know what it’s about in terms of theme. (And to contrast, I don’t really know what that is for Little Black Stray either, and I don’t feel I need to know, because I feel like the conflict will suggest something concrete soon enough.)

That assumption is that the event of the girl showing up is the (to speak McKee) is the inciting incident, and therefore the plot has to rise precipitously into some magical realm of genius that we may not possess.

Actually, I have been assuming that, to use the sequence method of structuring, that the girl is the predicament (the thing that happens on or around page 30), not the inciting incident, or, as I prefer, the point of attack, which is the thing that happens on or around page 15. So, that, yes, the bulk of the story (the second act) is about the girl. I think what I’m looking for is, what is this third act, and what makes it cool? Or in other words, I think I agree with everything you said, we’re just using different terms.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Tuesday
Feb 07, 2006

Round 3.6 [The Exodus vs. Little Black Stray] posted by Martin

The horror. The horror.

The horror is on fire. We don’t need no water let the mo….

Ahem. Yes, The Exodus

Upon which, I sir must raise an objection. Quoth you:

…I think one strong idea, theme if you will, needs to be selected for this one to move on.

Wrong, I say, wrong! I would argue, as I am right this very second, that we don’t need to decide on the plot exactly right now. That there is potential for the plot is enough to know, for me, whether or not it is worthy of moving along to the next level. To be too selective about it at this stage would be to start practically writing the thing. I say we vote on the ideas on the table. I say we move it ahead, or leave it to the dogs of history, who may chew on its gristle or grab a keyboard and write the first great dog-in-space story. In other words, if you need to refine this story more in order to vote on it, then I say that such needs indicate weakness in the story itself.

And just to completely counter everything I’ve just said, let me offer an alternative for Little Black Stray

We’re both stuck in our assumptions about this work. That assumption is that the event of the girl showing up is the (to speak McKee) is the inciting incident, and therefore the plot has to rise precipitously into some magical realm of genius that we may not possess.

Here’s another suggestion: the girl coming in isn’t the inciting incident, but an extension or twist on the inciting incident. What if we do a sort of hero story, where we have our main character being one of the prisoners. The first act is about his own tribulations—maybe he’s a new prisoner. But some event convinces him that he should be the leader of the prisoners (the inciting incident). His early attempts at leadership fail miserably. Enter girl, second act about healing and getting to know her, third act about her being the leader of men, and our main character finding his place as her support system—realizing that he wasn’t supposed to be the leader, but the general in the leaders army. The uprising happens. Prisoners do what they do.

Granted, we’d still need our third act twist, and to answer the question of where she came from, but it would be less of a stress than trying to create two acts from whole cloth. So, there is an idea that can take it further.

I say stand, sir. Stand and vote.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Monday
Feb 06, 2006

Round 3.5 [The Exodus vs. Little Black Stray] posted by kza

Sorry for this half-assed entry — I seem to have come down with a cold, which I can only assume is some kind symptom of post-Super Bowl depression, and my energy is pretty low. The smart thing would be to rise and vote, but I’m not ready to throw down just yet. Hell, I don’t even know who I’d vote for right now. They’re both pretty good if not quite great. (This is where a sizeable, rowdy forum would be very handy. *ahem* Come on, people!)

I’m going to pose the same question regarding both story ideas, and try to answer it, and I’m going to challenge Burley, in a half-assed, sickly kind of way, to do the same thing with the same question. (Unless he wants to vote. Or he just doesn’t want to. What can I do? I’m bundled up on the couch.) Here we go:

What is the biggest problem facing this idea — what is keeping this story from moving on?

The Exodus

We have six fairly decent character sketches by which to populate this End of Humanity scenario, and coming up with more probably wouldn’t be difficult. So while that was a concern for me at one point, it’s less of one now. I think the problem is not unlike the visual image of the story itself: it’s like a bunch of good ideas floating around each other in space. But where the space stations are orbiting the Earth, what are these good ideas orbiting around? What is the Big Idea that ultimately holds this thing together? Is it a McCarthy-esque thing? Is it faith vs. reason/practicality? Is it about conformity vs. rebellion? Right now it could be any of these, and while the final story could encompass all these, I think one strong idea, theme if you will, needs to be selected for this one to move on.

LIttle Black Stray

Again, this one right now is all juicy set-up, but it’s missing the knockout punchline. (“Knockout punchline”! Get it? I just made that up on accident! I kill myself… or I’d better before someone else does.) The characters suggest themselves, which is great, maybe even ideal for my particular way of writing. The conflict of the initial situation is so obvious, it’s almost like it’s pre-rational — I get the feeling it could be silent or in a foreign language and it would still be immediately graspable. And maybe that’s where the problem lies. Maybe the initial conflict is so potentially explosive, that finding a way to “raise the stakes” is deceptively difficult. Part of me thinks there needs to be some kind of outrageous twist half-way or two-thirds into it, something that totally reverses the conflict or revises what we thought we knew about the situation, but part of me thinks that that’s just my love of gimmicks and twists and novelties coming to the fore, and that simply following the basic situation logically and building on each moment will be satisfactory enough. Either way, it needs to build, not just simmer in place, and I’m not really sure what it’s supposed to be building to, and I think I want at least an idea of what that is before voting it through.

What do you think, Burley?

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Friday
Feb 03, 2006

Re:[2] Reading List: Alfred Bester posted by Martin

I am shocked that nobody has ever made these books that Shockah lent me into movies. But then again, neither was Neuromancer which always seemed like a shoe-in to me. The difference here is that Gibson wrote 20 years ago, and Bester was writing 60 years ago. Neuromancer, as prescient, important and influential as it was, will probably never be made now. The reality of the Internet trumps some of the concepts that were so mind blowing in the 1980s. By the same token, I suspect that books like Snow Crash will never be made for similar reasons (of technologies to come). But Bester’s work is much less about specific technologies, and more about human conditions. Or, when there are technologies, they are either natural extensions of reasonable ’50s technologies, or they are fantastical human technologies, such as teleportation (the conceit of this book), or telepathy (the conceit of The Demolished Man, and this book as well). Whether by plan or luck, Bester picked items that age gracefully.

He inhabits his characters with one track minds. The death of a rival, revenge. They are human emotions, set amongst supposedly grander times. But the times in The Stars My Destination are hardly utopian, unlike Demolished Man. It takes place during a war time, although it’s not about the war. It is a time of oppression of religion, and fanatical privacy, due to the fact that anybody can “jaunt” (teleport) nearly anywhere instantaneously.

Of the two books, I think I actually liked this one more. It’s richer, more complex and deeper into the characters than The Demolished Man. It feels more carefully drawn to me—less frenetic, but more measured. The ending is less gotcha, and more of a natural extension of the character.

Especially noteworthy are the worlds created—the Scientists cult that lives on resurrected space ships and have fierce tattoos (including gender symbols) on their faces.

And of course, our bully Gully—a driven, divisive and cruel lead character. Driven by a singular desire, and only briefly having passions beyond it, his actions and disregard for anything but his goal are maddening and, often, shocking.

Anybody out there know if this was partial inspiration for Burning Man?

Comments (0) — Category: books

Friday
Feb 03, 2006

Round 3.4 [The Exodus vs. Little Black Stray] posted by Martin

Exodus. Oooooh, movement of the people (in geosynchronous orbit around a charred earth…).

I agree that characters are where this is at. Here are some vague ones from my idea of it.

1. An older man who is resigned to the responsibility of life. He knows that an ounce of fuel can be stretched out for x amount of hours. Let’s call him the accountant. He is by the books. The idea of an alien signal to him is anathema. He can’t let himself be excited by it, for fear that the carefully considered and reasonably sustainable society they have created will crumble into utter chaos and selfishness. If people started consuming more because they were assured of salvation, they could overplay the short run and not live to the long run. If the aliens come, so be it, but until then we should toe the line.

2. The teenage boy who is wild. He sneaks into space suits and goes out of the air locks. He turns little broken parts of ships into mechanical beasts that threaten to puncture the thin skin of the island in space. He fixes things when they break, but more often than not breaks them first so they need to be fixed. He tries to snag satellites as they fly by to see what secrets they hold. He is in love with a girl who was his playmate when they were children, but has now decided that he is too annoying to deal with.

3. A devout woman who worships the alien signal. She is convinced that it is God coming home to take the saved to heaven, because God obviously saved them once already, and was keeping them alive for good reason. She mostly hides her religion in this secular society until the alien signal comes, and then she starts leading a church service, forming a political force to be reckoned with.

Little Black Stray

I get what you’re saying about this. You were hoping I was gonna pull something grand out of my sleeve, and when I didn’t it makes this idea less exciting. I would reply that even though I don’t have that answer yet doesn’t mean that we can’t come up with that exciting thing, if you felt it was absolutely required of the story. Actually, I think it would be necessary. I only see the first quarter-to-half of the movie about the prisoners and the girl, and then the revelation gets dropped and it turns everything on its head.

As for it being like a Western: Yes! It is—and I think this is actually important, to some degree. But it will need some things that are of its world. Believe it or not, I’m also kind of thinking of the movie Holes, but not about kids and with more adult content. And not as goofy. And not about holes.

Anyway, it’s important because the core story is portable. It could work in a Western (although the chastity of the female character might play a bigger role then), it could take place in space, it could take place anywhere that a group of men are being held against their will and forced to labor. What if a train building crew in the old west found a woman? What if British and American prisoners in Southeast Asia during the WWII prisoner of war camps found a woman?

You get the idea. But, here’s the rub, I agree with you that it needs something more. It needs something that sets the stage better, and places it firmly in the Prison Planet world. I’m sorry I don’t have the magic story yet, but rest assured that I know we could tackle that beast. Er, I mean—of course I have that all figured out. I’ll tell you later if this one gets picked and goes all the way. Until then, it will have to remain a secret…

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Thursday
Feb 02, 2006

Round 3.3 [The Exodus vs. Little Black Stray] posted by kza

You bring up some good ideas for The Exodus (the idea that there would be an unholy pressure to conform is astute, and intriguing), but I’m still not quite feeling it. You say it’s ripe for characters (and it is, or at least, it has to be), but then what are those characters? (Obviously, that question is directed at me just as much, if not moreso, than you.) I put up some ideas in my first post, but I’ll be the first to admit that they’re uninspired at best. Let’s brainstorm spitball a few characters for The Exodus:

(Did I really just write “brainstorm”? Shame on me!)

1. One of the characters believes that the end is nigh, and runs a Palace of Pleasure for the citizens to indulge their whims. But one day, while dealing with one of his casinos, he meets a woman who believes that the Earth can be made livable again. They get into a huge argument — her belief threatens him — but finds himself falling in love with her. He really wants to believe that she’s right, and eventually spends all his capital — his business, his time, his energy — into trying to make her dream a reality.

2. Another one of the characters is a teenager who was born on the space station. She’s hitting puberty and is reacting badly to the glumness, hopelessness, and self-destructiveness of the adults around her. The alien signal gives her hope — it’s a mystery, something to project ideas of a new life onto. But her parents believe there’s no shame in admitting that the human race is over with, and plan to kill themselves — and her — before long.

3. The last character is charged with the responsibility of keeping the space stations running and under control. Anything that threatens the status quo, whether it be back-to-the-Earth movements or suicide cults, needs to be squashed. Then he finds out that his wife has discovered an alien signal that could mean renewed hope for the stations and humanity. But it’s iffy. Does he risk the safety of the stations to make an exodus towards the alien signal, or does he cover up the alien signal? Regardless what he does, how does it affect his relationship with his wife?

Did that help, or did that help kill it?

Speaking of which, I was all prepared to back Little Black Stray (still am, for the most part), but, at the risk of sounding prematurely critical, your “pro” entry muted some of my enthusiasm for it. Perhaps my expectations were too big — I think I thought that since it was your idea, you were holding back something big. But now I’m wondering, for this one: why a prison planet? Why SF? This could just as easily be (and might be better as) a Western — the girl shows up at a mining camp or an all-male town. Nothing wrong with that per se — I’d write or watch that version — but I was expecting a “leap”, if you will, to another level. It still feels earthbound. Does that make sense? I feel like it needs something “big”, probably tied into some kind of SF concept (but maybe not), in order to fully back.

(And to be clear: everything you said in your post about Little Black Stray had me nodding in agreement. The problem was, I felt like there was an “And?…” at the end of it, that went unanswered. I hope that makes sense.)

(Let me try and be clear again, cuz I’m not entirely sure if it’s coming out right: You completely nailed all the subtext and themes and character stuff that would go into this, but what I was missing was the element that I’d read in a TV Guide synopsis and go, “Cool! I wanna watch this!”)

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Wednesday
Feb 01, 2006

Round 3.2 [The Exodus vs. Little Black Stray] posted by Martin

The Exodus (Shockah rank: #7, Burley rank: #6)

Little Black Stray (Shockah rank: #3, Burley rank: #4)

GET IN THERE AND LET THEM SEE YOUR TEETH!

The Exodus
In a world where the Earth is nothing more than a black cinder, the last surviving humans live on orbiting space stations, trying to make the best out of an impossible situation. Some are resigned to being the end of the human race, some think the Earth can be rebuilt and repopulated… and one scientist thinks he’s found a signal from an alien race. Are they really out there? Can they save the human race? But presenting the evidence will start a civil war in space, and threaten to end humanity prematurely.

Pros
In a world where there is no world…

Here he goes with the goddamned questions again. What would a floating life raft look like? Did they have time to organize when they left the scorched Earth? Or, is their craft a collection of mish-mashed space ships, old satellites and asteroid detritus? Do they have locomotion at all? Of course, then I get down to the questions that are really fun to ask, but completely futile: how do they process their waste and water? What about generating electricity and warmth? Artificial gravity?

Of course, the real fight here is pessimism vs. optimism. Or, in the non- religious -political sense, conservatism vs. liberalism. Resign to your fate, or fight until the end? There are good questions to ask there. I would see our simple greater-than story line something like this:

Group aboard spaceship has managed to stabilize life and chores > people get bored > some people start freaking out > other people start having chaotic fun > scientists ponder and argue > alien signals picked up > scientists argue over whether they are real > self-contained community destroys itself.

This could be a re-telling of the Salem Witch Trials, or the McCarthy hearings, or any other compressed society situation. There would be ridiculous social pressure to conform, which (of course) would spawn some wicked non-conformists. I can totally see this as a stage drama, where the play is about the process rather than the events.

But, as a movie, I think you’d need events. You’d need to take the characters—at least some of them—somewhere. But what if some couldn’t overcome their fear, and it turned into crazed sabotage? How feudal would things get? How mammalian? This one is ripe for the characters, that’s for sure.

Cons

Both of today’s movies I see pretty clearly, and I don’t feel the drawbacks as much. When I’m judging these things, my cons inevitably turn into “would that be a drag to do?” Even if the overall plot is worth the dragging, how much drag-space does the idea present to me? These have very little drag space. I think both would be fun to work on.

Believe it or not, originally I was going to fight for Little Black Stray to the death, but the more I started trying to keep an open mind and find my way into the idea of The Exodus, the more I like the damn thing. I like the compression and containment of it. I like the pressure-cooker aspect of it. I like that you can control the very air the characters breathe, and therefore the story and plot can turn in dramatic ways very quickly.

I’m not saying that I like it as much as Little Black Stray. Tonight I’m saying I like them both equally.

Little Black Stray
In a World where violent male offenders are sent to labor camps on the remote prison planet, one crew of hardened men finds something impossible: a young woman in tattered clothes, mute and frightened. A small group protect and feed her, keeping her out of sight of the guards and away from those who would use her mercilessly. As she gains in strength it seems that she has an agenda—and the truth of what she was doing on a world where no women stepped before might be a big enough secret to shatter the whole planet of forced labor.

Pros
But I love this idea too. As Shockah mentioned, there is the gender thing. But even more than that, there is an interesting exploration of masculinity and the different expressions of it. That is to say, I see some of these characters as treating the woman as a big brother might—protecting her and defending her. Some would treat her as a potential mate might, trying to woo her, and also defend her. Some would try to treat her as a possession, thus requiring the services of one and two. Some of the men, in this society, would take the roles of women, and if they did what would they say about the real woman in their midst?

But what if she could take care of herself? What if she took no shit, but was only too sick to defend herself to begin with? My ideas for the secret are not-so-well-formed at this point. I like if she’s an android, but it takes a while to learn. Or, that she was somehow left to die. Maybe she was brought to the planet for a specific reason—slavery? hostage?—and she escaped, but couldn’t go any longer.

But mostly with this, I very much am feeling the song it’s based on. If you haven’t read the lyrics, I might recommend it—but these lines especially resonated with me:

Confess all that you’ve seen
Confess with one of all your tragic misdeeds

See the sun wrestle with your door
See the sun wrestle with your door
Trembling stray, this is now your home

I also imagine her character having a great weight on her shoulders—an impossible situation. It’s a tragedy, in some ways, and it’s all she can do when she realizes that not only did she escape, but she’s still alive and feels the pain of her events too deeply.

But, then, with this new crowd of people to back her up, maybe she can gather the strength to take on the opposition.

I mean, what if the true criminals on the planet were not the prisoners, but the people who put them there or kept them there? What if, despite their differences, this movie becomes about this diverse and violent group of men uniting under her leadership to overthrow some power? Then we have the story of them finding her, healing her, hiding her—and then being trained, led—and maybe even betrayed by her—no. Probably not that, but she changes their lives. The rule with this story would be that everybody she encounters changes for the better, whether they like it or not.

In any case, my greater-than is:
Hard labor prisoner life is established > Prisoners find woman nearly dead > nurse her back to health and hide her > she recovers, is traumatized and holds / can’t remember secret > men protect and spark memories / gain confidence > she reveals awful truth > prisoners rise up under her lead, including those who tried to rape her > big confrontation happens.

Cons
I’m totally low on cons tonight. If the lord of Screenplays descended right now (Goldman? Are you listening?) and said that it was law we had to pick one of these and start writing, I’d be really psyched. Maybe I’m just in a good mood tonight and glossing over what I know will be two difficult stories, but both of these seem really clear to me. To be clear, I know there would be issues with both of them, but I’m just feeling optimistic about overcoming those issues, and that I think it might even be as enjoyable as writing YELLOW [our Project Greenlight entry screenplay] was.

If you rise to vote, sir, I will have some terrible thinking to do.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Wednesday
Feb 01, 2006

Round Three [The Exodus vs. Little Black Stray] posted by kza

The Exodus (Shockah rank: #7, Burley rank: #6)

Little Black Stray (Shockah rank: #3, Burley rank: #4)

DROP IT LIKE IT’S HOT!

NOTE OF TRIVIA: This is the first battle where both ideas have Top 8 ranks from each of us.

The Exodus
In a world where the Earth is nothing more than a black cinder, the last surviving humans live on orbiting space stations, trying to make the best out of an impossible situation. Some are resigned to being the end of the human race, some think the Earth can be rebuilt and repopulated… and one scientist thinks he’s found a signal from an alien race. Are they really out there? Can they save the human race? But presenting the evidence will start a civil war in space, and threaten to end humanity prematurely.

Pro
For some reason, I like stories that start out with a real depressing premise or world. Doesn’t get more depressing than this, does it? The Earth is scorched, presumably not a living thing left on it (although some still have hope and are looking for it), and the last humans are stuck in floating aqualungs orbiting around the very thing they helped destroy. Good job, guys! But maybe what I like about these kind of stories is that, since we start at the bottom, there must be some kind of hope to chase after, else it’s about people hanging around, waiting to die. (There are movies like that, which I’m less fond of, I think.)

And chasing after hope is part of “the human condition” — a good and worthy theme to build a story around. But let’s get down to what’s really cool about this:

Space stations.

Space stations are awesome. They’re like shopping malls in space. Who wouldn’t want to go to the Gap or Best Buy in space? Not me, that’s for sure. (Not that they’d have these stores up there — I don’t think, at least — but they are self-sustaining communities and they’d need to be visually tolerable for the people stuck there. Or maybe the original Dawn of the Dead messed me up. That would explain why I’ve always wanted to see a “zombies in the space station” movie.) And I like the idea of spending time thinking about and designing these space stations, since it looks like 90% of the story takes place on them.

And then throw in the idea that’s there like 3 or more of these space stations, each with its own politics (within and between the other stations) and goals, and it sounds like fun. (Meaning: one of them has to blow up.)

Con
Character stuff seems a little light. Certainly there’s some kind of scientist character who finds what appear to be alien signals, but the rest of it is pretty wide open. Also, it seems like a story that lends itself, for good and ill, to stereotypes: the gruff space station captain who only wants what’s good for his citizens, the idealistic scientist, the headstrong rebel who screws it up for everyone else, the love interest who’s probably on a different space station. It’s all so very anime, and I mean that in a bad way.

I’m also wondering if the extreme, uh, “containedness” of the premise might get a little boring after awhile. There’s really only a few locations: space between the stations, space way away from the stations, maybe the dead surface of earth, and of course the stations themselves (which admittedly are made up of a bunch of sublocations). Maybe not a real big deal — maybe that kind of claustrophobia is exactly the point — but I think my subconscious is trying to warn me about this.

And I just realized I have a theory about the “con” sections of these battles, at least on my side. More on that later.

Pro
GENDER ISSUES! GENDER ISSUES! GENDER ISSUES! Gender issues are awesome — they’re another key component of that thing we call “the human condition”, and as drama, they’re practically inexhaustible. Men and women are gonna be bitching about each other for the next thousand years, just as they have since the beginning of time. And I know it’s a topic of some interest to both Burley and me.

So what we have here is a planet not just full of men, but full of machismo and testosterone, and full of violence and danger because of it. What happens when they come into contact with a woman, someone who is (at the outset, presumably) the complete opposite of them? Although we already know in the abstract, what makes it interesting is how her appearance affects the various male characters. Does she change them? Do some make a concerted effort to not change? Are one or more of the men changed from aggressors to protectors? Does the presence of the woman change some from somewhat docile to violent and aggressive? Basic stuff, yes, but the point is, there’s a wealth of opportunity to explore characters, which is what it’s all about, innit?

Another thing I like, something it has in common with the upcoming Methane Madness, is the plot device of “prisoners must keep secret from wardens”. Don’t know why that appeals to me so much — watching “Hogan’s Heroes” as a kid? — but it’s a great way to introduce some objective tension to a story that seems to be primarily about subjective tension.

(An explanation: one of the screenwriting books I’ve read points out the difference between the kind of conflict/tension that a viewer can pick up without any knowing what’s happened in the story previously or even the language — for example, if we see uniformed guys with guns chasing and shooting at another guy running away from them, we don’t need any special knowledge to understand what each party wants in the scene. But there can also be moments, say like one character gives another character a present which makes him break down and cry, where we need some background info to totally make sense of the scene. I don’t remember what the book called them, so for now, it’s objective and subjective tension.)

Finally: isn’t this the first idea up for battle that actually has, y’know, a prison planet in it?

Con
Okay, I’ll admit: I have no freakin’ idea what the secret agenda/big twist to this story is going to be. Presumably, Burley does, but if he’s anything like me, he just wrote it because it sounds good :-) In the interest of being proactive, I offer three (3) stupid, outrageous-as-possible ideas for a secret, composed as quickly as I can:

1. She’s actually a man! Or more precisely, she’s been genetically changed, from a male prisoner to something not-quite-man-but-not-really-woman-either-but-shares-some-of-the-characteristics-of-a-woman-though, and it’s all a experiment by the scientific mucky-mucks to see if they can eliminate crime. Or something. (If Burley knows me, he knows I like gender-bending as a theme.)

2. There’s a female prison camp on the other side of the planet, and it’s even more fucked up than the men’s camp! Can the two sexes come together and throw off their oppressors? Or something.

3. She’s an alien superpredator! And she’s going to implant her seed, seahorse-style, into the captives of the camp and turn them all into mindless, pregnant zombies! Or something.

Oh, and one last thing: even some similarities are inevitable, I don’t want this to be OZ in Space. Maybe it starts out like that, but it should eventually shed it, like a chrysalis.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Tuesday
Jan 31, 2006

State of the Blog: January posted by Martin

Tomorrow we have our one-month Anniversary. Spitball! was officially launched on January 1, 2006. How do we feel about that? What have we been doing?

We started by feeling around in the dark. Shockah’s process is much different than mine, appropriately, because I think our talents and weaknesses conveniently dovetail. As he plans to elaborate in a post on the subject, his process is very much from the inside out—from a small picture to the big one. I tend to work in the opposite way, thinking about the big picture and then zeroing in on the topic from outer space.

But, he stumbled on a great way to break through my initial meaderings about the two words we had picked to define or spark our mission: Prison Planet. Shockah penned a post about some ideas for Prison Planet movies based on the cheesy ubiquitous announcer saying “In a World…”. This started an all out plot bonanza, with each of us giving 25 to the cause, from which we picked 8 each that we’re arguing pros and cons for. In the end, we’ll have one plot to rule the blog, and focus our energy rays of writing on.

This month could be considered the beta month—we only told a few people about us, to shake out some of our systems. We’re happy with the response when we talk to people directly, but so far only one person has joined us in the forums (I call you out in thanks, gdd, and gratuitously link to your fine blog in gratitude). If you don’t know us, please come on into the forums and join us. We’re kind of fun if you interact with us, not unlike wind-up tin toys. If you do know us, where the hell are you? Get yer ASCII in there.

So, what does the world think of us? In a decidedly unscientific poll, Google ranks us 51st if you search for “spitball”, and an atrocious 131st if you search for “prison planet.” Hopefully that will improve over time. Links to us would help, for those of you with the power, will and graciousness to do so.

We will continue whittling down our plots to the top one, and arguing back and forth. Please give us feedback, let us know what you think—about our ideas, the whole thing, and even the design of the site.

To sum up: The state of the Blog is strong, optimistic, and looking forward to a good year. We hope you’ll be part of it.

Comments (0) — Category: About

Tuesday
Jan 31, 2006

Re:[3] Round Two: Rise to Vote, Sir posted by kza

I know — y’all thought I was gonna post Round Three. Sorry, not yet. Definitely tomorrow.

But a few notes about that last round:

I have no idea how well emotions translate from this blog to the people reading it, but I think there’s a small chance that some of you might’ve been surprised by my vote for La Commune Planet.

If so, your surprise was justified. If we’re talking about which idea I genuinely liked more, than yes, I really liked Robots in Love more than La Commune Planet.

Fortunately for those communards, mere “like” wasn’t going to cut it.

The thing is, my real problem with La Commune Planet, as of this writing, is one of passion. I mean, I named it #3 in my list, and here I was crapping all over it. What happened? I’m not entirely sure, but once in the cold light of day, my previous passion for the idea kinda died out, and as Burley (and gdd, in the forum) expressed their enthusiasm, I began to get a sense of what the problem was.

I’ll save that for its next battle, however.

So why the flip-flop? Well, I thought about it, and came to a couple conclusions:

A) Although I have a problem with it, I realized that it’s not nearly as big a problem that Burley and I face with Rasputin the Translator. As I mentioned to him a few days ago, with that one, we’re either going to find common ground for our differing interpretations (and it’ll probably cruise to the finals), or we won’t and it’ll die in its next battle. Commune, however, as I said before, was a problem of passion, and if in a matter of a week it can go from #3 to #20, then there’s always the possibility of that it could reverse course by the time it has to fight again. In that time, I could stumble upon the way “into” this idea that really gets me excited. This was, in a sense, a “benefit of the doubt” vote.

B) And all of the above wouldn’t have mattered at all if Robots in Love was airtight, but clearly it wasn’t. I asked myself a question: if Robots in Love were all mine to create, if I had total control over every aspect of it, would I do it? The hard, honest truth was that I would table it and move onto something else. It wasn’t ready, and it was going to take a lot of energy to get it to that point. It wouldn’t have been fair to try and vote it through, I don’t think.

Okay, ‘nuff navel gazing. Round Three, coming up!

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Monday
Jan 30, 2006

Re:[2] Round Two: Rise to Vote, Sir posted by Martin

Once again, we are in agreement where the rubber meets the road.

I, Burley Grymyz, also vote for La Commune Planet.

I hand the gavel over, sir, and will eagerly await Round Three (subtitle: the tertiarier).

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Monday
Jan 30, 2006

Re: Round Two: Rise to Vote, Sir posted by kza

I, Urban Shockah, will rise from my seat and vote as well.

And in a rare, double-whammy decision, I’ll also name my choice:

Rasputin the Translator

wait, I mean:

La Commune Planet

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Monday
Jan 30, 2006

Round Two: Rise to Vote, Sir posted by Martin

I could write more, but I decided to keep this one clipped. If we disagree, then we’ll see how we can bend and twist them.

Burley Grymz has made his choice.

Again, this is gonna be tough stuff for me (look at those ranks!). However, while I feel like I put up a good battle last time, this time I think I might let Burley take the lead on this one. Unless he says something stupid, like “genre is for marketers”. Then I’ll get angry. He wouldn’t like me when I’m angry.

REMINDER: I’ve written the following without looking at Burley’s comments first. That’s gonna be the way I roll for the remainder of the first two rounds of each remaining match-up.

La Commune Planet

In a world constructed for the pleasure of the ultra-rich, every vice can be had — for a price. But beneath the smiling exterior of the friendly staff, there lurks a growing resentment. When a group of ascetics destroy access to the planet’s hidden interdimensional gateway, the employees sieze the chance to declare independence from the governement and its backers. But as they take the profits and the pleasures for themselves, pressures and conflicting desires threaten to blow the planet to smithereens.

Pro:

A pleasure planet, huh? That could be interesting to build. Especially if we try to think of what a future society finds pleasurable — with body and gene modifications, it could get really weird really fast. And how does one go about hiring, firing, and training a staff for this kind of thing? Are they all slaves, whether literally or by-any-other-name? Or do they volunteer for this work because the pay is awesome? (For some reason, Gosford Park is coming to mind.) Regardless, it’s not hard to imagine the kind of resentments that could boil over in that kind of atmosphere.

Con:

I feel like I’m seeing the arc of this one too early (yeah, I know, I wrote the frickin’ thing) and it aint really doin’ it for me. Right now, it seems like we know that the rich are probably pretty disgusting but probably don’t deserve their fate, and we know that the poor staff are probably decent people but some will revert to a more bestial nature when the opportunity presents itself. Actually, what this is reminding me of (and La Commune Planet doesn’t really benefit from the comparison) is Hotel Rwanda. But that had an interesting protagonist — like a lot of these ideas, I’m not sure whose eyes we’re going to see it from (and it could be many, a la Altman) or why that perspective is interesting. (And usually when there’s a problem of “who’s the protag and what’s the perspective?”, its usually the originator of the idea that can get past that and see something valuable there — not so this time!)

So right now, for this one to proceed, I’m going to need more: an idea of a protagonist, an idea of perspective, and I’d like to see where this story could go if, for example, the above synopsis only accounts for, say, the first 30 minutes of a 120 minute story.

Robots in Love

In a World where robots are immature, but can easily pass the Turing test, one young android idolizes a slightly older movie star, and tries everything in his power to become like his idol. As part of his transformation, the robot works at becoming quite the ladies man, but his game is called when he meets a girl that actually likes him and that he doesn’t have to chase. She would certainly never sleep with him if she knew he was an android, but being an android he is physically incapable of sleeping with her. Will truth ruin love, or can the technology-crossed-lovers find a way to remain together?

Pro:

I’ll admit, part of my attraction to this is that it reminds me of the 10 minute sequence that introduces Jude Law’s character in A.I., which, if separated from the movie, is one of the great short films of the new century. I’d watch an entire movie about Gigolo Joe, no problem. Also, I like robots. I mean, hell, I liked I, Robot. Give a machine a personality and it’s amazing how much mileage you can get out of it.

Love stories are great. And I don’t know why I say that, really. It’s not a genre I watch very often. But I like the challenge of it. They’re so prevalent, the clichés are so ingrained our culture, that it becomes a challenge to do something new with it. And making one of the lovers a robot, while not original, is still a great way of looking at the form, and finding ways of highlighting and undermining its rote, ritualistic motions. One of those is the “misunderstanding” scene, and if I understand correctly, a possibility for this story is that she wants to get into his pants, but he’s got nothing there, and if she finds out, she’ll dump him. (Is that how you intended that?) That’s interesting — I like that. There’s an underlying truth to the metaphor of the situation that I think works.

And of course, building this world means thinking about why these robots exist, what they’re for, how they’re regulated. Tough work, yes, but I like that kind of thing. (i.e., it doesn’t sound too hard :-)

Con:
Well, this is obvious, innit? Where’s the Prison Planet? I’m not going to be so pedantic to demand that there be some kind of prison planet — I’ve suggested that the Prison Planet be metaphorical in nature — but I’m not quite sure how it works here. Their love is like a prison planet? Ummm… no.

And while I like the idea of working on a love story, especially one that crosses biological boundaries, I’m not really feeling it. I wanna know what these two see in each other. Does she like him because he’s so much like his matinee idol? And what does he get out of this relationship? Why is there such a stigma on human-robot relations? If it’s wrong (or simply unfortunate) for a robot to fall in love, why the hell are they programmed for that possibility?

So there are some definite conceptual problems that need to be worked out, and it’s possible that they can’t be reconciled.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Monday
Jan 30, 2006

Round 2.2 [La Commune Planet v. Robots in Love] posted by kza

La Commune Planet (Shockah rank: #3, Burley rank: #7)

Robots in Love (Shockah rank: #2, Burley rank: #11)

FIGHT! AGAIN!

In a world constructed for the pleasure of the ultra-rich, every vice can be had — for a price. But beneath the smiling exterior of the friendly staff, there lurks a growing resentment. When a group of ascetics destroy access to the planet’s hidden interdimensional gateway, the employees sieze the chance to declare independence from the governement and its backers. But as they take the profits and the pleasures for themselves, pressures and conflicting desires threaten to blow the planet to smithereens.

Pro:

Con:

Robots in Love

Pro:

So there are some definite conceptual problems that need to be worked out, and it’s possible that they can’t be reconciled.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Saturday
Jan 28, 2006

Round Two: [La Commune Planet v. Robots in Love] posted by Martin

La Commune Planet (Shokah rank: #3, Burley rank: #7)

Robots in Love (Shokah rank: #2, Burley rank: #11)

FIGHT!

La Commune Planet
In a world constructed for the pleasure of the ultra-rich, every vice can be had — for a price. But beneath the smiling exterior of the friendly staff, there lurks a growing resentment. When a group of ascetics destroy access to the planet’s hidden interdimensional gateway, the employees sieze the chance to declare independence from the governement and its backers. But as they take the profits and the pleasures for themselves, pressures and conflicting desires threaten to blow the planet to smithereens

Pros:The 20th century might have been the biggest political-theory battle in the history of political battles (in this corner, the forced equity of debasement: Communism! and in this corner, darwinism of the richest: Capitalism!), with one obvious winner, but the truth is that class is a huge issue in our world, and will continue to be so as the gap between rich and poor becomes larger and larger. The rich will, obviously, want to retain their riches, and the poor will want some help from life’s hardships. Nothing is worse than being down on your luck and seeing some asshole roll by in a gold plated SUV whose only purpose is pimping the coin, but if you earn it, don’t you deserve to keep it?

For that reason, I love the idea of capturing this drama—no matter what side one may think of it—in microcosm. I would even go so far as to say that this picture should play somewhat like John Sayles in space, but with a more conventional plot line. That is, make a cookie-cutter sequence of events, but populate them with characters who are in great opposition, but be sympathetic to both sides. Make no easy villains, or if we set somebody up as one, redeem them in the end. The trick would be avoiding the stereotypical rich-person-doesn’t-care-about-anybody-else stereotype, and the poor-worker-oppressed-righteously-rises-up stereotype.

Or, it could even be played like Starship Troopers, in that you’re rooting for the team that under closer inspection reveals themselves to be fascist (the WOW report had a great piece on this). So, maybe the film is completely sympathetic to the rich people who are being treated unfairly and cruelly by the uprising underclass, but in reality, when viewed objectively, any actions the workers take are completely understandable.

In any case, this idea totally jazzes me. As Shockah knows, the one question I always ask of our characters is: What is the power situation in this relationship? Who has it, who wants it? What’s the social pecking order? Once you answer that, in my view, you know a lot about the politics of the scene. This idea is ripe with these questions, and has the potential to be very dynamic and exciting.

Cons:But, it will be very easy to mistakenly (hell, even on purpose) end up with a script that sounds like propaganda for one side or the other. This must be avoided at all cost. Also, there is an uncomfortable parallel between this and Exit to Eden, another of Anne Rice’s ernest (yet still a bit laughable) BDSM books (written, obviously, before she became obsessed only with the suffering of one man a few thousand years ago) made into a hideously horrible mis-step of a comedy movie.

We’d have to cull our ideas for what services this pleasure planet offers, and make we really think out the sort of situation that might arise from the ability to have worlds like this (in other words, Besterize the idea) as opposed to just making some shit up that sounds outrageous. We would have to look at current luxury resorts, and extrapolate what future places might be, but I think we would definitely have to do the research to make the atmosphere feel authentic.

Robots in LoveIn a World where robots are immature, but can easily pass the turning test, one young android idolizes a slightly older movie star, and tries everything in his power to become like his idol. As part of his transformation, the robot works at becoming quite the ladies man, but his game is called when he meets a girl that actually likes him and that he doesn’t have to chase. She would certainly never sleep with him if she knew he was an android, but being an android he is physically incapable of sleeping with her. Will truth ruin love, or can the technology-crossed-lovers find a way to remain together?

Pros:I kind of see this plot as Pinocchio de Bergerac. And, it raises the age old questions about romance and love stories and euphemisms for sex. In this case, there is no sex option. Obviously, if androids were real, one of the first things that they would be outfitted for is sex (Real Dolls anybody?). But, assuming that there were cultural or physiological reasons that the android couldn’t do that (maybe it’s a law passed by conservatives worried about the next wave of unnatural loving), then we have our character.

Also, I like the fact that the imprinting happens via a mediascape, so the issue of media effects can be explored (which I am fascinated with. On one hand, I think it’s ridiculous to argue that all bad things can be traced back to media effects, but on the other hand to think that media has no effect is just as ridiculous).

And, of course, it’s at heart a classic loves story ala, boy tries real hard to find love and can’t, until he stops trying and it finds him.

But most interesting is the conundrum of how do you resolve a love story where the lovers can never be lovers? What is the possible solution to this issue, and can it be solved with solutions that will be in a movie that, at best, should have an R rating?

Cons:The main con is my last pro. That damn conundrum will be difficult to solve, I think. More to the point, is an impossible love—one without hope—interesting at all? It’s similar in some ways to the impossible problem raised in A.I., which Speilberg gave a pseudo happy ending, but I’m betting it was a difficult choice to make. The trick would be making the revelation of this fact be the journey, and not start with it. In A.I., we knew no good could come, but what intrigued us to watch further? Once it is established that there can be no sex, do we give them other attributes? Do we address of sexless marriages? Is there allowances for her physical needs to be met outside of the relationship, and if so, why does she stay with him?

These questions are ones that will need to be answered, I think, and I see them as difficult questions. After all, two of the greatest filmmakers of all time failed to adequately answer them in A.I. What makes us think that we can here?

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Friday
Jan 27, 2006

Re:[4] Round One: Rise To Vote, Sir posted by kza

Yep, your turn to go first. I’ll probably think about the next two ideas then compose and post my Pro/Con without looking at yours first, and that’ll probably happen Monday. Just a heads up.

Rasputin’s got a tough road ahead of it; I’m curious to see how it fares.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Friday
Jan 27, 2006

Re: [3] Round One: Rise to Vote, Sir posted by Martin

I, Burley Grymz, vote for…

Rasputin the Translator.

It has been settled, this first battle. I found it a difficult one, but in the end I’m drawn to the megalomanic (or, whatever he will turn out to be).

So—for this next round, do I go first?

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Friday
Jan 27, 2006

Re:[2] Round One: Rise To Vote, Sir posted by kza

I, Urban Shockah, vote for…

Rasputin the Translator.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Friday
Jan 27, 2006

Re: Round One: Rise To Vote, Sir posted by Martin

Burley Grymz, present and ready with a choice.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Friday
Jan 27, 2006

Round One: Rise To Vote, Sir posted by kza

I’ve (somewhat reluctantly) made my choice. What say you?

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Friday
Jan 27, 2006

Round 1.6 [Liber XII v. Rasputin the Translator] posted by Martin

Rasputin
I’m all for finding the way into the story through our bearded man, but it should be said up front that we have very different ideas of what he’s like. I see him more as a deliberate man taking advantage of a political situation, and in so doing making Machiavellian plays at power (which, is why I named him Rasputin to begin with, the bearded look that Roky rocks was just a second convenient parallel—for more reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasputin, although the mis-(dis, whatever) information on this page is more like the pop-culture image of the man I raise: http://www.disinfo.com/archive/pages/dossier/id291/pg1/). I also think the pseudo-religious vibe is important with him. Basically, I see him as a 21st century Rasputin in many, many ways.

One option for him, in my view, might be that he’s not actually the one with the power, but he’s fronting. Maybe he’s holding somebody hostage who is the one with the power. In this view (and incorporating some of your ideas): Aliens land > Misunderstanding, bad things happen > tensions rise > Raspy appears out of nowhere and things get calm > Negotiations are tense > Raspy demands mucho somethingo > nation’s conservatives dig their heels in > Nation’s liberals want to give him everything > Raspy over plays his hand > smart agent finds that Raspy is a charlatan covering for a truly talented young person > Rescues young person in daring event > Raspy falters, having lost his powers > truly talented young person wins the day for the good guys.

I don’t see him as evil, per se, but I see him as taking advantage of a situation to his own benefit, and possibly screwing quite a few people in the process. Well, I guess some would call that evil.

I think your plot with a Clarice-like agent tracking him is very clearly laid out and direct, but it’s not hitting my excitement nerve for some reason. I know what it is: I want Raspy to take an active role in his accomplishments. So, I can’t see him being a reluctant hero-cum-villian, but being a manipulator from day one. Is he evil and doing this really for his own good, or is there some deeper truth? That solution could lead to a: Raspy is asking for something evil > People refuse to give in > one plucky agent realizes great truth > politicians, on her evidence, give in > It turns out Raspy was bluffing and really is an okay guy! Everyone is safe!

So, all of this is to say: yes. I think the key to this story is the Rasputin character, and finding the character that gets us both jazzed about him.

Liber XII
Maybe this should be Liber Ver XII.0—which reminds me, what happened to versions I-XI? I hope the fucking computer didn’t do them in too….

The problem with the Die Hard example is that the reason we could so easily get caught up in the action point of Hans Gruber taking over the Nakatomi building is because his motivation is so simple that it needs no explanation: money. It is genius that money was the case, because if it was politics he would have had to explain somehow what they were (Lefty? Righty? Foreign? American? Goals? Point of violence?).

So, since computers aren’t motivated by money, we still have to somehow—even if it is a throwaway—answer the question of why the computer went bad. I mean, maybe it’s as simple as somebody tripped on a cord, or spilled coffee on the motherboard (how big would the motherboard be on a planet-sized computer?), or maybe it’s as complex as the matrix-o-thon looping realities, etc. etc.

In any case, it’s not a big deal—we can come up with something—but we should be prepared to answer that question if we pick Liber XII to work on.

I like your monk idea, but what about instead of him stepping up when everybody dies, I think he should come to realize that something is wrong, and he knows how to fix it. Nobody will listen to him despite his protestations and because they listen to the elder supposedly-wise monks, many people die. Our boy leads a small band of rag-tag outsider monks (some comical, some weak, some geeky, some freaky) to take on the computer, which pisses off the establishment monks, and they boot the rag-taggers out of the safe hiding place. But, the rag-tag group triumphs saving everybody, and the establishment issues an edict that they were wrong four hundred years after the young monk dies. Oh wait, we should speed that up for the movies—make it 100 years.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Friday
Jan 27, 2006

Round 1.5 [Liber XII v. Rasputin the Translator] posted by kza

POINT OF ODOR!

Lisa stinks.

POINT OF ORDER!

I should let Burley and eveyone else know that, right now at least, I don’t plan on Spitball!ing on the weekends. As Burley knows, there are other projects that need my attention as well, and I haven’t been able to give them the attention they need. Hopefully, I’ll be able to give them the same kind of momentum that this has, and then I’ll be able to weave working on them with working on this. But right now, they need their own days. Feed me! Feed me! they say.

AND NOW…

Here’s my kinda-sorta x>y>z for Rasputin: Aliens land > there’s some kind of misunderstanding because of the way the aliens communicate and something bad happens > tensions rise between aliens and humans > Smart Agent realizes there’s a connection between alien language/method of communication and this crazy, brilliant guy she’s read about who lives in the wood > she goes to track him down > there are complications, but she finds him > he’s unwilling to help > she finds just the thing to persuade him to help > he goes to help and talk the aliens into not disintegrating us > but wait, he can communicate with them, but the humans can’t — what’s he really saying? How do we know he’s on the level? > Smart Agent looks into Rasputin’s past > Finds some clue or some revelation that gives her some insight as to what’s really going down > she has to hurry back to the scene of negotiations — it isn’t what the humans think it is! > she gets there just in time to stop it — but is she really correct in her suspicions? Or did she just fuck everything up?

Something like that. That’s awfully vague, but hopefully gives you some idea of how I see this thing.

And to answer my own “con” from my last post (and as something of a warning): If this idea is selected, both in terms of this round and the contest as a whole, my approach will be Everything I Need To Know About The Story Is Contained In The “Rasputin” Character. That is, the aliens, what their deal is, the Agent, the world of the story, everything I really need to know I plan to get by designing this character. I’m not saying this is the best way, but it’s the only way I can imagine finding an “in” for this story for myself.

Oh, and for the record, I don’t see him as evil. Crazy, messed-up, untrustworthy, bad hygeine, violent… yes. But not evil.

And now let’s see if I can give Liber XII a little sugar.

Yes, to me the “evilness” of the computer is something of a MacGuffin. Or to go back to Die Hard, while it’s interesting and cool that Hans Gruber has taken over the Nakatomi building for money and not politics like everyone assumes — is it important? No. What it’s important is that Hans Gruber has taken over the Nakatomi building. Thus, the evilness in the computer is just there to set it all into motion.

Maybe that’s the hang-up — if we look at this from a Sequence Structure perspective (and boy oh boy, that’s gonna need its own blog entry down the line), then the computer planet going bad is the Point of Attack (the storm clouds) and presumably the planet killing someone and taking over the operation (or something like that) is the Predicament. But what’s the Main Tension? What does the protagonist want? What is the majority of the second act about? Sure, he probably wants to escape and/or destroy the computer. But if so, then what’s the Third Act about? And if not — if that is the Third Act— again, what’s the Second Act about?

(Slightly OT and about Die Hard again: It should be noted that the screenwriter of Die Hard considered the first two acts over in the first 20 pages or so, and considered the remainder of the movie to be the Third Act. Which I found interesting.)

So it looks like the question for Liber XII is not unlike the one for Rasputin: who is this character? This is as about as hacky as it gets, but I think he’s low on the totem pole, both in age and rank. His job is something pretty lame compared to the other monks’ — while others get to interface with the computer and manipulate data, etc., he’s out emptying latrines and fixing leaks in the undergound chambers and there are ugly space rats and space roaches running around down there. Or maybe like Steven Seagal, he’s just a cook. So obviously the first point of order for the evil computer is to kill all the elder monks, and that’s when the Little Monk reluctantly comes forward to lead the others in defeating the evil computer.

Jesus. Can I have my million dollars now, Mr. Bruckheimer?

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Thursday
Jan 26, 2006

Round 1.4 [Liber XII v. Rasputin the Translator] posted by Martin

Ah questions. Do I need them?

Hell yeah! Working, as you said, from the outside in I’m having trouble seeing the plot line continuum in Liber XII story—but, I also think it’s funny that you’re not seeing it as much in Rasputin—I say funny because it doesn’t surprise me that we’re having trouble seeing the other person’s plot, which tells me that I think there is more imagining going on in our heads that isn’t making it to the page here. But, that’s okay—that’s what this process is for, after all…

Liber XII: In relation to your story, I guess I see it as a more smarty-pants film than you, and maybe that’s holding me up. Although I can see that it’s man-against-nature, in a sense—a hostile environment, but I guess I don’t know why the computer is evil, and that’s also holding up the plot for me. I also want to know if its actually possible for a computer to be evil. I mean, some computers can be pretty badass, but are they evil?

Joking aside (Oh wait, was that a joke? I guess they have to be funny to be considered so…), the real deal is this: computers are logic circuits, and if they had a personality it would be an artificial one. Sure, we can get all Star Trek and talk about sentient artificial lives such as Data, but I don’t think that’s appropriate to the story at hand here. Your plot point is planet goes bad, but how and why? To me, this raises tremendous issues that have to be dealt with before we can figure out plot.

Now, it could be that these issues are a MacGuffin, and frankly all we need to know is that the computer went bad. I can get over myself enough to see that—and, with your description, I’m seeing the scope of the piece better. So, maybe the key to getting this story to work would be putting myself on hold a bit, and just figuring out some big plot points, and then finessing as we go. I can see us doing that, and coming out with an action flick that is respectable. And can include veiled references to both Argentian blind geniuses, and Canadian power trios.

Rasputin the Translator: Here’s my x>y>z thang: Bad aliens appear, are bad > Puny human government impotent > Bad aliens marching on Washington (Moscow / Paris / London) > Rasputin appears and stops march > Rasputin wants unbelievable, and unfair, reward for helping humans > Humans have moral dilemma > Aliens bristle > Rasputin plays his cards > Someone wins.

Of course, in between is a lot of politics. I see this primarily as a political thriller, but I think we need a fair measure of destruction-o-thon to make it read as scary and viable. That would make Rasputin more messianic when he appears—and he kind of would be. I think some people would worship him, and some would want to kill him and just give in to the all powerful aliens.

I think, as you said, this one would be harder than Liber XII, but I think that not because the skin of the story isn’t there, in my mind, but because we’ll be dealing with politics and human condition. But, then I think: How would Altman handle this? How would Cronenberg handle this? I mean—just because it’s a political thriller doesn’t mean it has to be Airforce One—I can see this getting a bit subversive, frankly. How can it not when the main character is an evil, bearded psychic?

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Thursday
Jan 26, 2006

Round 1.3 [Liber XII v. Rasputin the Translator] posted by kza

Ah, there’s nothing like a heartfelt apology first thing in the morning! Gets the blood moving!

I’m not quite ready to put this round to bed just yet. I’m definitely leaning one way, but I want to talk it out some more. Due to the weird circumstances, I feel the need to defend both ideas like they’re both gonna get the axe if I don’t try hard.

Liber XII: It’s funny to me that you don’t think the description lends itself to plot easily — to me, it’s one of the most straightforward of the ideas (guys and planet get along > planet goes bad > planet starts killing people > survivors fight back > someone, probably a survivor, wins). Actually, though, this dovetails with something we’ve talked about before, how I like to work from the inside>out and you like to work from the outside>in. You have all these good questions (Why would it have to be huge? Would these monks have advanced vacuum tube technology that needs constant tending?), yet, I read them and think, “I don’t really care at this point”. But (and correct me if I’m wrong) you need this — you need to be able to see it in kind of an objective way, as real thing, that a movie “just happens” to capture a small part of. While I, on the other hand, want to see it as the simplest possible expression of a general, common, dramatic idea — to me, this story is only really different from Rachel, My Dear in the details. It’s about a character fighting against an environment that is conscious and evil. (Maybe you have a different take on Rachel, My Dear, but that’s Round 7.)

But again, while this story idea could be a lot of different things, to me it’s a pretty straightforward action flick with some cool ideas and cool visuals. It’s Die Hard on an evil sentient planet. If that isn’t interesting to you (and I don’t blame you if it isn’t), then it either needs a big infusion of Something Else or it should probably be canned.

Rasputin the Translator: This one definitely isn’t an action flick, although there should probably be some action sequences. This seems like a political thriller to me… except, no. You can probably attach a lot of tags to it, but right now it they slide right off. I like that, but that can be problematic as well. If it’s neither fish nor fowl, there can be confusion as to the direction it’s supposed to go, or what the tone is, and, going back to your favorite bugaboo word, genre, when the genre is agreed upon, there’s an agreed upon set of conventions and ideas to calibrate the new story against.

Another funny thing: you didn’t see the story in Liber XII, but while I see the possibility of a story in Rasputin, I’m not sure what it is, exactly. I can’t do that x>y>z thing like I did above. The description of it makes me wanna see it — but if I saw it in a theater, that means I didn’t have to do the hard work of building and revealing the mysteries :-) To me, this one looks a lot harder than Liber XII, but, of course, that’s because I like to have a dramatic skeleton to fall back on. The question of scale is an important one, but not nearly as difficult or important in the scheme of things, imo. (Or put another way: I know I can handle it, no prob. I know you know you can, too :-)

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Thursday
Jan 26, 2006

Re[2]: Burley's Ready to Vote posted by Martin

To the board, the readers, the judges, and most importantly—my compatriot Urban Shockah. I would like to sincerely apologize for my breech of rules and—if appropriate—ethics. Though no words can excuse my actions, I do humbly ask for leniency in the face of our important needlessly complex rules, and will do my best in the future to follow them to the T.

Mr. Shockah, I eagerly await your next post, and will continue as specified in the rules. Thank you for your time, consideration, and—of course—your patience.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Thursday
Jan 26, 2006

Re: Burley's Ready to Vote posted by kza

POINT OF ORDER!

You’ve gone out of turn, mister. I get to either post or make a choice, then you get to go.

Go back three spaces!

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Thursday
Jan 26, 2006

Re: Reading List: Alfred Bester (The Demolished Man) posted by Martin

In 1951 The Catcher in the Rye was published. James Stewart, Spencer Tracey, William Holden and Louis Calhern lost out on the Best Actor Oscar to Jose Ferrer, winning for Cyarno de Bergerac [note: a story in the public domain]. Seoul fell to communists. The Rosenbergs were sentenced to death for treason. The first color television was introduced into the states, and the UNIVAC I mainframe computer was announced—the next year it became famous for successfully predicting the outcome of the US presidential election. Johnnie Ray released “Cry,” possibly the first rock n’ roll record. Leo Fender patented his Fender Esquire (later Telecaster) guitar, and Alfred Bester’s novel The Demolished Man was published.

Why the history lesson? Whenever I look at a historical event—like the publishing of a book—I like to put it into context. All of the events I mentioned, when I think about them, firmly place me in the beginning of the 50s. You can see the decade unfurling in front of you—cold war, literature, music. But Bester kind of existed outside of time, it would seem. Reading this novel gives you very few clues to it’s publishing date.

Shockah lent me the two Alfred Bester books he talked about recently since I had never read them, and I was terrifically impressed. This may be old hat to some of you—Oh, sure, Bester. I covered him in Sci-Fi 101—but everybody has gaps in their knowledge in some ways, and obviously Bester was mine.

What Bester does so magnificiently is to capture language. His multiple written puns for names, as mentioned by Shockah, include @kins, ¼mane, Wyg&. His conceits—that there are people who can read each others thoughts—are not clumsy concepts, but deeply thought out systems that take into account humans and how we departmentalize and organize.

So his psychics have a rigidly hierarchical society, with different grades depending on talent and ability. The higher abilities have tremendous wealth and power—so, necessarily, politics plays a large roll in their choices and actions. He never loses site of the human frailties within these bureaucracies.

Like Shockah I don’t want to give anything away, but again I would like to impress how this is a novel that it is nearly impossible to place the time period that it was written. Only one thing gives it away, and that is the way that Bester handled his women. They are extensions of 50s women, and carry the cultural assumptions from that period—and not women who had gone through the three decades that followed, with the huge cultural shifts that happened. Even some characters sexual liberation was born out of a society of subordinate social roles, and not out of an independence movement, and the social gains and complexities that arose from it. This is a quibble insomuch as the women didn’t read as well to me, but I’m not implying that Bester should have known better—and this is only a minor point in an otherwise brilliant book. Only one female character didn’t read like that to me—Wyg&, who seemed much more contemporary.

So for those of you, like me, who have somehow missed this book—you get both of us pitching it with high recommendations. It’ll keep you guessing, and wanting to set aside everything else so you can read it.

Comments (0) — Category: books

Wednesday
Jan 25, 2006

Software Beat: Between The Lines posted by Martin

In my previous griping about the state of screenwriting software, I said I wanted a native Mac OS X program that was cheap, and saved in an open-sourced, or at least human readable format. Today I stumbled across an obscure program called Between the Lines, currently at version 1.0, that seems to fit the bill. Does it? I hope to answer that, and more, on the first installment of SOFTWARE BEAT.

BETWEEN THE LINES

I found a reference to the program somewhere online—hey—screenwriting software I’d never heard of! And for OS X alone! Whoo-hoo!

I downloaded the demo, which seems to be created by http://www.storymind.com/, which has the distinction of being one of the worst designed websites I’ve ever visited. The graphics are illegible, the layout and feel cheesy, and the overall effect busy and hard to find what you’re looking for. If they were a client of mine, I’d remind them of the golden rule of websites: user experience is your brand. I’ll bet they could quadruple their business by hiring a good design team.

But I digress. Somewhere on their site, you can download Between the Lines, an awkwardly named OS X application. At least, ostensibly you can. Despite the fact that the “purchase this software” link in BTL links to storymind.com, I couldn’t actually find anywhere on the site to buy and/or download the software. A Google search reveals this spot, which is where I grabbed it.

First impressions: Oh man, you guys need a new icon! OS X (and, now Windows and Linux as well) apps are often judged by the coolness of your icon. Yours: fugly. And not in the cool way. But, I’m game. I click on it and open the program.

TOOLBAR NONE

My gripes about the website appear to spill over into the app—it’s clunky looking, with a total of eight (nine if you count the drawer) icons across the toolbar that use the exact same icon. Just a little software 101 here—different icons are kinda necessary for instant recognition of what you’re doing. Otherwise, I need to read the labels every time I try to use a function. Nobody actually reads the labels when they’re working, which means that you’re gonna be hitting the wrong button all the time here.

What are the buttons? Usually software has a hierarchy of information. The title bar on OS X software holds icons for prominent functions—save, open, etc. The title bar of BTL, instead, holds modes for the typing engine—INT, EXT, comment (comment? Let’s play a little Sesame Street which-one-of-these-does-not-belong here), etc. All of these are available through a menu as well, and through key commands—so there is really no reason to put them here, but here they are anyway. A quick comparison to Final Draft reveals their much-smarter mode of thinking—the modal commands for script definitions are available through a pull-down menu.

A drawer pops out to the right that lists your scenes—and has two buttons—our friend, the document button for EDIT, and extremely oddly, a green horizontal line for “delete.” Why oh why a green horizontal line? I guess it’s a “minus” sign, but green means go, baby, not stop. And Apple has a perfectly good busters symbol to use that everybody knows gets rid of stuff!

BETA BLOCKER

I had to check a few times—this, the icon—is this a beta or alpha app that I stumbled across? Nope—it says version 1.0, copyrighted 2004. Let me just say that if they had called it beta, I might have tempered some of my comments with enthusiastic go-team-go suggestions, but anybody who releases software in this state deserves to be spanked. As I will continue to do just for the outrageous fun of it, and in hopes that I’ll actually spark the developer to do better work—I mean, we’re all pulling for you on Spitball! We want your software to succeed—and if you do it right, I think there’s a real market for it. (HINT: Spend a few weeks / months reading these docs: http://developer.apple.com/ue/ — they’re free and will tell you everything you need to know and more).

BY AND BYE

So, let’s move past the toolbar I was presented with the title page pre-filled in with generic info—not on a separate page, such as with Final Draft or the other big boys, but at the top of the scroll. So, I fill in my title SCRIPTY MCSCRIPTERSON, and then I tab to go to the next field — OOPS—tab actually tabs. Okay, I use the arrow keys and move it down to the BY and hit erase. I might want to say WRITTEN BY, or BRAINSTORMED BY or CREATED FROM WHOLE CLOTH BY, but suddenly all goes dark and BTL goes down. CRASH! Turns out you can’t actually erase the pre-installed BY without crashing the program. Hmmm—that doesn’t bode well.

But, let’s give it the benefit of the doubt. Do people really change the BY line that often? Can we leave that as a given (assuming, though, that it doesn’t crash the program)? Okay—we’ll move on—-I type in my name, and then go to the body of the screenplay. The first files you open are pre-filled with a faux-script that has tips, instructions and ideas for using the software. Included is a scriptnotes feature, along with a cool little green arrow. It is cool—must be clip art—but it’s sort of bright. You’ll never miss a script note, but I’ll bet your eye will dart to it all the time as you’re working along. I would push it back to a light grey, and then give it the green tint when somebody mouses over it.

RIGHT—BUT HOW DOES IT WRITE?

Okay—the writing, I hear the voices screaming—what about the writing? Well, I decided to start a new, blank document to get rid of all the cruft and start with a blank page. Oh—I guess any time you start a new document it auto-fills all of that helpful base information. Well, that sucks. I guess you have to start a doc, erase everything, and then you can start writing. Don’t you love software that makes you do a little work? So, I select all on the title page, which does select all, and feeling a bit gun shy after being bested by a simple preposition, I hit delete. Hmmm—well, the title is gone, but nothing else—the infamous “by” and name stayed. I move to the first page, select all the cruft and hit delete. Ah! Okay, now we’re talking. Content gone.

So, I start typing. Oh—wait, it tried to make my INT into a character dialogue heading. Uh-oh—so, hit the button for INT. It automatically inserts a script note in front of the heading. Type the heading. Man, it feels sluggish—the typed character is at least a word behind my typing fingers at any given time. Well, I was crunching something else, so my computer was a bit slow—I try again and it’s fairly responsive, although not quite as a normal text processing engine. Not as fast as Final Draft, or text-edit for that matter. It must be crunching as you’re typing.

I get into some dialogue, and things move pretty quickly. Type a character name, it return and it drops to dialogue. If you need a parenthetical you’ll need to hit the button (now, which one was it? I have to read the damn text!), but in a nice feature, if you hit the tab key after typing your name, it will change the mode to heading and/or action.

Oh, but why go on. You know that I’m just going to rag on the writing part too. Fill in your own complaints here, and let’s move on.

CAN IT BE SAVED?

Two words: Proprietary (fucking) format. You can export until you’re blue in the face—but I want the native files to be plain text human readable. I used to write on an old Epson computer, and those files are gone forever now. I’m thinking that 30 years down the line, so might your program I still want to read my files then, and I don’t want to save a stupid export for every file I make. That’s ridiculous. If you ain’t open and human readable, you get a big raspberry from me. Here’s my new mantra: SAVE IN A HUMAN READABLE OPEN-SOURCED FORMAT.

WHY RELEASE THIS SOFTWARE?

I’m not a total cynic, but part of me is really wondering—did they push this onto the market hoping that people who don’t know what they’re doing buy it because the price is much cheaper than the big packages? I would hate to think that this is true, but we’re either left with the option that the software engineers really don’t know what they’re doing, or they trying to cash in. Let’s hope the latter isn’t true at all.

MUCH ADO ABOUT DESIGN

I know I harped on design and usability here (everybody with me: the experience is the brand!). But tell me, what else is there? If this was a retail store, you would have backed out slowly after walking in. Basically what we have here is a nearly unusable product, but one that claims to have a great philosophy—getting rid of the cruft of all the other screenwriting programs, and giving a clean interface. Yes! I want that—but it has to be combined with a knowledge of what’s current and most usable on OS X. The programs I use most every day disappear and let me do my work in them without actually having to think about them. Some time spent with an interface designer with this program could mean the difference between it tanking, and it taking off. If this was pulled from production, re-worked and re-released, I would happily retract everything I’ve said here. I will trumpet it to the high heaven.

And the great thing is—nearly all of the best Mac Developers are very cool people who are open and not phased by competition. They will help you if you ask for it. Get thee some tickets to Mac Developer Conference this spring. Just hang around out front with a sign “Need help with interface. Will give credit and thank you publicly.” Don’t even pay the entry fee.

Or even better: Open Mail on Tiger. I know, I know—the buttons. Huge controversy—well, do as I do and hit the minimize button for the toolbar. Look at panes, look at the lack of borders—look at the gear menu tucked nicely at the bottom of the sidebar. Now, copy it. Copy everything (except the buttons—hire a good icon designer to do that—and make you a cool icon. It’s worth it! Ask this guy.). Measure every window. Copy it all. Let this be your guide, padawan programmer. Go forth and { may the curly brackets be with you.}

But until then, Spitball! gives it the hock-phoey rating. The lowest we can muster.

Comments (0) — Category: software

Wednesday
Jan 25, 2006

Round One: Burley's Ready to Vote posted by Martin

And that’s all he has to say about it.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Wednesday
Jan 25, 2006

Round 1.2 [Liber XII v. Rasputin the Translator] posted by Martin

Liber XII (Shockah rank: #1, Burley rank: #8)

Rasputin the Translator (Shockah rank: #1, Burley rank: #13)

DING DING DING! ROUND ONE-POINT-TWO! FIGHT!

Liber XII

Pros:
These ideas fill me with questions. I like questions. I want to know about the computers—are they big square things that tower over the rocky surface of the planet? Are they like limestone cathedrals where the walls themselves are the computer? What is the interface? Is it a divine apparition? These things fascinate me—but are they the plot of a movie? Well, I’m sure they could be.

I love that this idea reminds me of Deep Thought and Douglas Adams. I love the idea of monastic hackers, essentially, and as a computer as a repository for all the worlds information—that’s the Borges connection. Like Borges, do monks wander the halls endlessly? Data is nothing without context—what are the contextual engines?

I also would love the challenge of imagining what a massive computer in the future would be like. Why would it have to be huge? Would these monks have advanced vacuum tube technology that needs constant tending? If so, how fast is the computer, and what is it achilles heel?

Even more importantly, what makes it go bad? Is it purposeful, or is it the computer itself? Is it a mistake, or part of it’s logical growth?

Finally, this idea could yield a rich world of history—if the computer knows everything that there is to know, then the monks are historians and librarians—both feeding new data into the system, and keeping the old data alive. Some would look through it—and I want to know what they’re looking at. The story, then, could easily take on metaphor from todays world. The style could be very direct and almost vérité.

Cons:
But like Borges, is it filmable? What’s the direct line of action? Who is our main character, and what do they want? Is it a monk trying against time to save the computer from itself? Or space marines called in when the computer goes haywire?

A big box sitting there and computing is not very exciting. We’d have to give the computer a personality (how will you do that, Dave? Dave? What are you doing? I’m not sure I like what you’re doing Dave…).

The description itself doesn’t lend itself to plot quite easily, in my mind. I think it would take a lot of exploration and refining to find out who our characters are, how they lose control of the computer, and how—in the end—everything is resolved.

Rasputin the Translator

Pros:
This idea intrigues me because of exactly why it does you—this very strong character, both good and evil in his own way, as the bridge between worlds that can’t understand each other. But how? Are the aliens earless and eyeless and our bearded man can speak to them telepathically? What if he only appears evil, but in the end is good? There’s so many places we could go from here, and all of them are based around strong characters.

First, our Rasputin. Second, the government agents (or, as you very adroitly pointed out, more than one government) would be in conflict among themselves—then, the translator, and if we chose to show their side of things, the aliens as well. It could be a great political tug-of-war where each side is trying to outthink the other, and none are getting very far until they unhand the only truly powerful person in this story—our man.

And what a character—somebody obviously exploiting an impossible circumstance, but unlike many cookie-cutter villains, the circumstances are not of his making. And the strongest moral question that can be asked is that of one’s character when confronted with opportunity. Just what rules would you bend, and what bridges would you burn?

Cons:

Scale. How do we make it human? How do we keep it contained? Can we tell an epic story this large on the small scale that we have to work with? How do we keep him mysterious, but in total control? Is there too much story here? Where is our hero? From what angle do we attack it? Any way you slice it, this is a big damn pie.

One last note: It may indeed be quixotic, but there are many great movies that have been made from works in the public domain. Including one role that every male actor worth his salt has always wanted to try (y’know, that Scottish one). Just because it’s out there, doesn’t kill a movie—although, as you said, it does make it less likely. Still, I think that should embolden us. We are not writing for ourselves to sell and profit—we are writing for the world to own, and this work should be of our highest possible caliber for that very reason.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Wednesday
Jan 25, 2006

Lies, Damn Lies... posted by kza

and the Spitball! General Enthusiasm Meter.

As Burley knows, I have a fondness for statistics, even though I don’t know what most of them mean and I can barely add. But that doesn’t stop me. (Nothing stops the Shockah, man.) Below, using a really stupid formula I invented (that I’m sure anyone can figure out if they tried), I’ve listed the Top 16 story ideas in order of General Enthusiasm, which is based on a 1-100 point scale. It may be a predictor of future success; it could be pure and utter wank; it could be both.

1. The Atheist 94
2. If It Pleases The Court 90
3. Little Black Stray 90
4. Liber XII 86
5. Chimerica 86
6. La Commune Planet 84
7. Robots in Love 78
8. The Exodus 78
9. Rasputin the Translator 76
10. The Infected 76
11. Reminiscence 72
12. Time to Die 72
13. Methane Madness 72
14. Rachel, My Dear 70
15. The Scabs 64
16. Cop on the Hunt 48

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Wednesday
Jan 25, 2006

Round One [Liber XII v. Rasputin the Translator] posted by kza

Liber XII (Shockah rank: #1, Burley rank: #8)

Rasputin the Translator (Shockah rank: #1, Burley rank: #13)

FIGHT!

(Note: As fate would have it, for the very first battle, something that doesn’t have any set format and something I’ve never done before, I have to pit my two favorite story ideas against each other. What I’m saying is, expect this first entry, especially the “con” section, to be a little light.)

Liber XII In a world built to hold the accumulated knowledge of the universe, the monks of Liber XII tend to the databases from birth to death. But when an alien computer virus finds its way into the memory banks, the monks are imprisoned on a sentient planet that knows every way to control — every way to punish — and every way to kill ever invented. Can the monks stop Liber XII from destroying the universe?

Pros: Here’s what’s awesome about this idea:

I like the idea of a clear-cut villain. While some screenplays need a more nuanced antagonist, there are some where a straight-up, evil-as-hell bad guy works just fine, and this is one of them. And here we have an evil supercomputer that has control over a world and all its workings, and knows every method of torture and killing ever created. That’s scary as fuck, imo. (And yeah, it’s a lot like Harlan Ellison’s I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream, but I see this as more actiony, and a helluva lot more hopeful.) A story like this lives and dies by its villain, and this one has the potential to be a great one.

We also have an opportunity to create a really interesting, possibly unique world, what with the monks who are born and raised on this planet where they store all the knowledge of the universe, but presumably they never leave the planet. So they have all this info about life elsewhere, but they never get to actually experience it and live it for themselves. (Perhaps the protag has a dream of getting off the planet and seeing the universe?) And of course, it seems like the information needed for stopping the evil computer is located within the computer itself.

And that’s another thing: I see this kinda like Bester’s stories, where we set up some seemingly-impossible conflicts (hell, fighting against a friggin’ planet seems impossible enough) and then find some amazingly clever way of defeating them. I loooove stories like that.

Oh, and here’s an idea: to go with the whole Rush thing, it could be a rock opera :-)

Cons: While I think the idea as a whole is pretty interesting and kind of unique, it’s clearly built from the history of SF. There’s Harlan Ellison and Rush there, and there’s Isaac Asimov as well (I think; it reminds me of Foundation, which I’ve never read.) I don’t know if this is really a problem, but I can see how it could be. I mean, I certainly wouldn’t want to be sued by anyone. (Not over this, at least.) And part of me’s afraid of be tagged as an unimaginative hack because of the “scavenged parts” quality of the concept.

But that’s nothing to do with the story, tho. Biggest problem: do we have what it takes to create impossible conflicts (probably) and then solve them (speaking for myself, dunno). While generally I’m attracted to challenges in a script, a nagging voice in the back of my head is telling me that I’m not going to be able to deliver on this idea to the extent that I want.

But that’s not really about the story either, is it? Other than personal shite, I’m not sure I have a lot of cons for this just yet.

Rasputin the Translator In a World contacted by a sentient and potentially violent alien race, one man—bearded and wild eyed—is the only person on earth who can translate between the languages of humans and the language of the aliens. But this strange man is not only hostile to both sides of the debate, he is also untrustworthy, and possibly manipulating the negotiations to his own ends. With all of Earth being turned into a prison as the stakes, one government has a very limited time to not only unravel the mysteries of the alien language, but also the history of the interpreter.

Pros: This one’s awesome for a number of reasons.

As I mentioned earlier, it’s inspired by Roky Erickson’s “The Interpreter”, which I’ve wanted to turn into a story for years. (Reminder to Shockah’s brain: put some goddang Roky on the new computer.) Generally, that’s enough to keep me going for the long haul. (One could get lost in the near-bottomless depths of Roky’s crazy-ass imagination.)

This idea also reminds me of another great SF book that I should loan to you, Ian Watson’s The Embedding. That is also about comminicating with aliens, although it also involves the Amazon, natives to the Amazon and their rituals, kids with brain disorders, nukes, and French Symbolist poetry (!). So there’s definitely an attraction there because of that, and it would be neat to write a story that involves one man (and, as I see it so far, another person, probably a woman, who’s looking for him and then trying to deal with him) and the whole world at the same time. There’s a personal drama and then a world-wide drama that are linked. I’m not saying this is new by any means, just that that kind of structure intrigues me. And I love that the world-wide drama is linked to this Ted Kaczynski-esque, wild-eyed man.

Also, if we absolutely nailed the character of the Interpreter, wrote him to perfection… that’s exactly the kind of showy, Oscar-bait role that Super Actors drool over and try to get made. It’s the Hannibal Lecter, it’s the Marshal Sam Gerard, it’s the Aileen Wuornos kind of role. He seems hatable, but clearly has fascinating characteristics that grab me, and presumably would grab an audience. (Or maybe I find characters who are crazy and isolated but also brilliant immensely attractive — after all, this could also describe Obi-Wan.)

Another interesting thing: you said that “a government” is looking for the Interpreter (I know you changed it to “Translator”, but some things will die very hard deaths), but obviously not necessarily our government, which raises interesting questions: has the U.S. government written off Mr. I? Are they playing an angle, like Mr. I, who would ruin it for them? If so, which government is looking into Mr. I? France? Ireland? Zimbabwe? Canada? (That reminds me of another short story I read in an SF magazine a long time ago, but that’s for another time.)

Cons:

The biggest con for me is same as one of the pros: since this script will be public domain, it seems highly unlikely that anyone will actually make it. Therefore, spending a lot of time on what to me is an actor’s showcase might be silly or even quixotic. (Not to say it wouldn’t make a good calling card — I think anything we do will make a good calling card — but one that cries out for performance and uh, interpretation that it will never see makes me sad :insert tearful face here:)

But that’s all I really have for this, as well.

ONE LAST NOTE: Burley, if any of my extrapolations on characters or situations or ideas about these stories is different from yours, please be sure to talk about yours. Just cuz I went first doesn’t mean I get to set the terms of this debate.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Tuesday
Jan 24, 2006

Re:[2] The Playoffs! -- Rules of Engagement posted by kza

Motion passes!

So, barring any other communications or crazy ideas, my next post should be the first salvo.

To those about to rock… we salute you!

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Tuesday
Jan 24, 2006

Re: The Playoffs! -- Rules of Engagement posted by Martin

I have to confess, needlessly complex rules are intriguing to me as well, despite the fact that I’m not much of a gamer because I tend to get confused by the needlessly complex rules and would rather just read a book. But, I think I’ll be able to track these just fine.

I like what you have proposed such far, but have one modification and one suggestion.

Modification: (referring to #4/#5): I want to keep as much as possible online, so I think we should post when we have made choices and not. Let’s communicate through the blog alone—otherwise, this turn-based posting is good.

Suggestion: If we come to a stalemate, I propose that the each has to write up an overview of the idea that they don’t like as much, and what changes they would make to it to make it better than the post they are arguing for. This can, of course, include adding the plot of the post they are arguing for to the one they don’t like as much, so long as it includes or is strongly based on the idea they are modifying—so this may become a compromise, or may spark an idea that draws from one or either, but is superior. Then, we vote again on these hybrid-wildcard versions. If this yields no clear favorite, then I suggest we declare stalemate on this round and move on to the next. We will come back and revisit the stalemate when we are through the next series of rounds.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Tuesday
Jan 24, 2006

The Playoffs! -- Rules of Engagement posted by kza

Again, because I’m a geeky gamer at heart and am stimulated by needlessly complex rules, I present the following guidelines for determining the results of the playoffs:

The player who has been selected to start the round (in this case, me) will make a post, entitled “Round XX” (whatever number it is.) That person will, on the same post, discuss the pros and cons of both story seeds. (Since this process is done by post, it will inevitably become fragmented; thus, I suggest that the first and second posts have all the relevant information to start.)
When the first player puts up the first post, the second player will put up a post with the same information: the pros and cons of both story seeds.
When that’s done, the first player has two choices: he may either post again, or make a choice. If he decides to post again, then he may post on anything he wants, relevant to the story seeds in question: pros, cons, questions, generally spitballing of the story ideas, etc. When that post is up, the second player my then also either post again, or make a choice.
Making a Choice: When one of the players feels he knows without a single doubt which is the best story idea, he will contact the other player offline and tell them that he’s made his choice. The other player has two options: he can make his choice as well, or say he’s not ready. If he’s ready to make a choice, see #5 below. If he says he’s not ready, then the player who made his choice and contacted the other one must make a new post. (Thus, throwing the “Post or Choice” option to the other player.)
Both Players Have Made A Choice: If a player has contacted the other player offline to make a choice, and the other player is ready to make his choice as well, then both players will reveal their choices simultaneously to each other. If both choices are the same, then the first player will make a post indicating that a winner has been chosen. If they are different, then the first player will make a post indicating that each story seed has a “sponsor”, and that everything just got harder :-)
And then both players will go back and forth, making posts, trying to make the best case for his favorite story seed, and hopefully will come to an agreement. (This is the only thing I’m not really sure about — if you have some ideas for tiebreakers, I’d like to hear them.)

IN SUMMARY:

Player One makes a post about the pros and cons of both story seeds.

Player Two makes a post about the pros and cons of both story seeds.

Player One and Player Two continue to go back and forth, making posts about the story seeds, until one of them decides to make a choice.

If a player makes a choice and the other player doesn’t want to make a choice at that time, or has a different choice, then the player who initiated the choice must immediately make a new post.

A NOTE ON PROS AND CONS

Generally, the pros can be anything you want — whatever gets you excited about the story seed, as well as ideas on how to expand the seed into a larger story. Cons, though: since these are fragile, wee little things, I don’t think they can really take any sustained criticisms. So “cons” should be more like “misgivings”, probably phrased as questions: How would this work? I don’t understand this — can you explain it? Something like that.

What do you think? (I’ll be working on the first battle post as you think about it — it’ll probably take a little bit of time.)

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Tuesday
Jan 24, 2006

Re: In A World -- Thoughts on the Process posted by Martin

Idea length: I agree with you that longer is not necessarily better, but it sure is clearer. I think that, despite the strength of our ideas, what the other person is really reacting to is their own interpretation of the idea. I would guess that we’re going to encounter situations where your understanding of my ideas is much different than my original concept, and vice-versa. So, the process becomes one of re-pitching the idea—which might speak to the gap in some of the stories between your ranking and mine. Which leads me to:

The Scabs: I’ll defend this one more later, but I loved the encapsulation of class issues recast as android-human issues, starring the robots as the socialists and the humans as the capitalists. That’s just damn brilliant. It answers the age-old-question: how can you talk about political issues without activating political triggers?

Rachel My Dear: This one was a bit of a wild card, I’ll confess, but it’s a psychological thriller that would make Fincher wring his hands. I definitely see something there, that I’ll hopefully elucidate well when it goes up against Methane Madness (which, I’m not all that excited about. I’m gonna fight hard…).

Music: Out of your music, I knew: the Burrito’s song, Galaxie 500, and (surprise surprise) Stevie & Tom. I’m gonna make some links to all these songs in iTunes later, so we can all hear them, especially the ones we don’t know. I feel like I totally scored with my iTunes picks—they were all interesting, and with the exception of Black Little Stray (which is more evocative and less definitive in message) and Because, I had no trouble coming up with stories from the music. Even when Roky threw me a loop, when I thought the line “Will he leave Moscow?” was “Will he eat my scalp?” but then that was just a shoe-in for sci-fi, eh? The interpreter is gonna eat your scalp? That’s a motherfucking BADASS interpreter. He rules whatever he interprets. Thus Rasputin….

As for The Angry Youth: you know, that vaguely rings a bell, but I can’t say it’s more than that. I’ll stick with Poochie!

And the playoffs: I’m glad we’re starting out with a tough match. I think it will make the whole process more interesting. In the spirit of this, I think we should allow a rule: after the initial defense of the stories, we should be allowed to add detail to them. So, we start out arguing the germ of an idea, but if no clear winner emerges we can offer bargaining chips, such as “What if Poochie! was voiced by Homer?” (which reminds me, if you Google “homer voice”, Google is smart enough to say “See reults for Dan Castelleneta”), then we can avoid stalemates, and enhance the stories at the same time. Whattya think?

Personally, I’m ready. Let the games of Spitball! begin!

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Monday
Jan 23, 2006

In A World -- Thoughts on the Process posted by kza

Some random thoughts on what we just did….

On idea length: As you noticed, my entries (and yours as well) started to get longer the more we did them. Honestly, I’m not 100% happy with that — I still think there’s something to be said for an idea that can be expressed simply and concisely. Of course, I’m not making any arguments that the first ideas are better because they’re shorter — clearly they aren’t — but at times I wished I could’ve found a way to keep them even more bite-sized. For me, there was one big reason why they were getting longer: because I was relying on some outside source (songs, images) for inspiration, I found myself at a loss as to what to say, and while the earlier ones were simply a flash of a good idea jotted down quickly, these later ones were literally written word by word, without any idea of where the hell they’d end up. (This is particularly true of your favorite, The Scabs, as well as Chimerica and Reminiscence, and you can probably tell with that last one.) That’s why they’re long, and that’s probably why they’re deeper, more detailed, and perhaps better.

On your “favorites” list: I suspect I was more shocked by your list than you were with mine — if you look at the numbers, as your Top 8 goes up, my numbers go down. I’m genuinely shocked by the high placement of The Scabs and Rachel My Dear. (Have you even heard that song?) (Actually, have you heard of any of the songs from that list?) Speaking of which…

On “The Interpreter”: Goddam you and your iTunes! Roky’s my all-time fave and because of the whole new computer cock-up, Roky ain’t on this laptop. I’ve always wanted to write something based on it (I had a vague idea for a play back in my Humboldt days). Of course, mine woulda been a completely different thing, but yours is fantastic as well — but maybe I should save it for the playoffs… :-) (Oh, and that was the only song I knew from your list.)

On “The Angry Youth”: These words either mean everything or nothing to you: “Stevie Washington. The angry youth. Born to die. New York’s New York. The turn of the century. All crime.”

On the playoffs: Thing here is, while there are a couple matchups I could just pick a winner right now, the majority of them are dead heats. And round one: my two #1 choices! Aaarrgh! It’s not fair, it’s not faaaiir…

Round One, coming up!

Comments (0) — Category: technique

Monday
Jan 23, 2006

The Playoffs! posted by Martin

Okay—now that all the answers are in, we have the first round drafts ready to go head to head. I’ve taken the liberty of matching them up. Burley won the coin toss, so his picks are listed 1-8 against mine, listed 8-1.

ROUND ONE
Liber XII v. Rasputin the Translator

ROUND TWO
La Commune Planet v. Robots in Love

ROUND THREE
The Exodus v. Little Black Stray

ROUND FOUR
Chimerica v. The Atheist

ROUND FIVE
The Infected v. If It Pleases the Court

ROUND SIX
Reminiscence v. Time to Die

ROUND SEVEN
Rachel, My Dear v. Methane Madness

ROUND EIGHT
The Scabs v. Cop On the Hunt

So—now what? Sir, I think you should go first. Although I’m pretty sure how to proceed, I would like you to set the pace. I’ll follow suit quickly. The battle is enjoined!

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Monday
Jan 23, 2006

The Envelope, Please... (Burley's Picks) posted by Martin

Okay—a crazy time picking, but it was much like yours in that my highest ranked came out to 8. I think we have some good concepts on the table, and arguing them is going to be difficult. I’ll play along and argue my ground, but I also truthfully can see working on any of these.

So, without further adieu:

8. Liber XII (Shockah rank: #1)
In a world built to hold the accumulated knowledge of the universe, the monks of Liber XII tend to the databases from birth to death. But when an alien computer virus finds its way into the memory banks, the monks are imprisoned on a sentient planet that knows every way to control — every way to punish — and every way to kill ever invented. Can the monks stop Liber XII from destroying the universe?

7. La Commune Planet (Shockah rank: #3)
In a world constructed for the pleasure of the ultra-rich, every vice can be had — for a price. But beneath the smiling exterior of the friendly staff, there lurks a growing resentment. When a group of ascetics destroy access to the planet’s hidden interdimensional gateway, the employees sieze the chance to declare independence from the governement and its backers. But as they take the profits and the pleasures for themselves, pressures and conflicting desires threaten to blow the planet to smithereens

6. The Exodus (Shockah rank: #7)
In a world where the Earth is nothing more than a black cinder, the last surviving humans live on orbiting space stations, trying to make the best out of an impossible situation. Some are resigned to being the end of the human race, some think the Earth can be rebuilt and repopulated… and one scientist thinks he’s found a signal from an alien race. Are they really out there? Can they save the human race? But presenting the evidence will start a civil war in space, and threaten to end humanity prematurely.

5. Chimerica (Shockah rank: #4)
In a world almost exactly like our own, America has lost its place as the prime superpower, and China has taken over. Chinese language and customs have been absorbed into American culture, and have irrevocably changed the face of the country. The cold war between China and India is heating up, and when a terrorist act is committed on Chinese soil, the culprits are traced back to America. China puts a lockdown on America, sending in troops to root out the terrorist cells and throwing the country into a state of emergency. One family will witness everything, from the beginning of the invasion to the terrifying aftermath, and will try to hold onto one another as everything they hold dear

4. The Infected (Shockah rank: #10)
In a world where telepathy is a disease and the infected are prisoners, one woman will discover a shocking truth that could change everything… but on a world where a mind can be read as easily as opening a book, how can any secret be safe?

3. Reminiscence (Shockah rank: #13)
In a world where genetic and social engineering have eliminated violent crime and other offenses, there is only one punishable infraction: Nostalgia. In order to keep the populace in line, the past must be eliminated, keeping everyone in a blissful present-tense existence. But some insist on remembering, collecting and hoarding pieces of the past to keep it alive. Tom was the greatest of all them, blessed and cursed with an eidetic memory. But when he’s betrayed to the authorities, Tom finds himself on the prison planet, forced to find a way to survive, all alone on a harsh — yet beautiful — landscape. Can his knowlege of the past help him, or even save him? Or will he be prey to the predators on the planet, both alien and human?

2. Rachel, My Dear (Shockah rank: #15)
Rachel had it all: a promising new career, loyal friends, and a loving fiancé. But one morning, she wakes up to find it all gone — and discovers herself in a world of brick and glass, imprisoned by an architectural madman. She need only confess her love for him to be free — but Rachel is going to fight back.

1. The Scabs (Shockah rank: #19)
In a world designed by engineers to be a self-sufficient, endlessly exploitable resource for the rest of the known galaxy, robots toil tirelessly in the fields, the forests and the mountains, providing food and raw materials for a rapidly expanding market. But when a series of accidents destroys some of the mining robots, the rest of the metal workforce decide to strike and power off, leaving the humans that depend on the planet in the lurch. A taskforce is assembled to get the planet up and running again while a negotiator tries to get the robots back online. While the taskforce tries to relearn the long-forgotten principles of farming and manufacturing, the negotiator accidentally reveals the existence of the taskforce… and the robots, realizing that their existence could be usurped by the humans, decide to go on the off

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Monday
Jan 23, 2006

Re: In A World -- Google Image Challenge! posted by Martin

I think it’s really interesting how we started with these 50 doing simple evocative wisps of ideas, and then ended up writing nearly complete log-lines. These are among your strongest, I think—but also the deepest and best explained—so maybe I’m reacting to that. We’ll have to poll my picks and see if I’m weighted towards these.

I particularly like that you broke the time barrier (the past! What a concept!), and broadened the scope into more human concerns. Our struggle, if doing sci-fi, will be in finding that human balance.

One note about The Angry Youth—I’m not sure which MTV program you were referring to, but it made me think about something else entirely.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Monday
Jan 23, 2006

And The Nominees Are... (Shockah's Envelope) posted by kza

This is kinda like when Siskel & Ebert used to have thier own awards show, where they’d each open an envelope and announce their best movies of the year, etc.

So I took Burley’s 25 ideas and gave them a ranking of 1-3: 1 if I just wasn’t interested in the idea, 2 for ideas that had something interesting to them but were lacking some kind of “hook” to really draw me in, and 3 for the ideas I’m ready to jump into. I had plans for what to do if there were too many or too few 3s, but as fate would have it, I came up with exactly eight 3s.

And it’s an interesting list — I think Burley will be surprised. The 3s run the gamut of his Top 25, not really from one particular area, and just because it was in his Top 5, for example, doesn’t mean it’ll have the same ranking in my Top 8.

As you’ll see now. And the nominees are, from least favorite (comparatively; I truly dig all these ideas) to most favorite:

Cop On the Hunt (Burley rank: #20) In a world where galactic criminals are rounded and left to die on one planet, one man—a crooked cop—must penetrate their violent society to spring a prison break with the leader of the most ruthless gang. If he succeeds, his name is clear. If he fails, Earth will fall to INVADING IMPATIENT ALIENS.
Methane Madness (Burley rank: #9) In a World where stranded humans must guard themselves from a poisonous atmosphere, one scientist finds a process for rendering the air on the planet breathable. The only problem is, the planet is a prison and the guards will kill them all if they found out about the experiments.
Time to Die (Burley rank: #10) In a World where death itself is beaten by genetic regeneration, a guard is killed during a riot on the prison planet. One woman—his wife—faces sure death to retrieve his body in time to bring him back to life. It’s a race against time, with one nearly resourcesless woman willfully fighting like a juggernaut against the prisoners who are holding his body hostage, and the powers that be that think she should just give up. All to simply save the man she loves from eternal death.
If It Pleases the Court (Burley rank: #2) In a World where crimes are judged and juried by encrypted, anonymous computer terminals, one jury foreman doesn’t realize that the man she’s arguing so strongly should be committed to the Prison Planet for life is actually her husband—and the crime he’s accused of—but hasn’t committed yet—is murdering her.
The Atheist (Burley rank: #1) In a world devout to an all powerful god, one man uncovers exposes an unspeakable truth: their planet wasn’t carved by a deity, it was created to hold the most dangerous prisoners in the galaxy: their ancestors. What crime is so unspeakable that not only you will be punished for committing it, but all of your heirs will as well? And what happens when you find out that your captors are still watching your every move?
Little Black Stray (Burley rank: #4) In a World where violent male offenders are sent to labor camps on the remote prison planet, one crew of hardened men finds something impossible: a young woman in tattered clothes, mute and frightened. A small group protect and feed her, keeping her out of site of the guards and away from those who would use her mercilessly. As she gains in strength it seems that she has an agenda—and the truth of what she was doing on a world where no women stepped before might be a big enough secret to shatter the whole planet of forced labor.
Robots in Love (Burley rank: #11) In a World where robots are immature, but can easily pass the turning test, one young android idolizes a slightly older movie star, and tries everything in his power to become like his idol. As part of his transformation, the robot works at becoming quite the ladies man, but his game is called when he meets a girl that actually likes him and that he doesn’t have to chase. She would certainly never sleep with him if she knew he was an android, but being an android he is physically incapable of sleeping with her. Will truth ruin love, or can the technology-crossed-lovers find a way to remain together?
Rasputin the Translator (Burley rank: #13) In a World contacted by a sentient and potentially violent alien race, one man—bearded and wild eyed—is the only person on earth who can translate between the languages of humans and the language of the aliens. But this strange man is not only hostile to both sides of the debate, he is also untrustworthy, and possibly manipulating the negotiations to his own ends. With all of Earth being turned into a prison as the stakes, one government has a very limited time to not only unravel the mysteries of the alien language, but also the history of the interpreter.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Monday
Jan 23, 2006

List of Worlds, Shockah Stylee posted by kza

Here’s my 25 contributions, ranked in the order of preference. The criteria: how excited I’d be to just jump in and start writing based on the premise. Please note that the rankings probably contradict previous rankings of favorites. Them’s the breaks.

Also, as Burley could (should) tell you, I shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near the titling of a piece, nor naming characters. I really suck at that. (Or I hate it, I haven’t figured out which.)

The 25:

Liber XII: In a world built to hold the accumulated knowledge of the universe, the monks of Liber XII tend to the databases from birth to death. But when an alien computer virus finds its way into the memory banks, the monks are imprisoned on a sentient planet that knows every way to control — every way to punish — and every way to kill ever invented. Can the monks stop Liber XII from destroying the universe?
Oasis: In a world where information is the only currency, and ideas can be contracted like diseases, one woman finds the ultimate oasis in a universe of data. But to keep it, she’ll have to fight the most hardened and despicable people in the galaxy: the prisoners of Dante IV.
La Commune Planet: In a world constructed for the pleasure of the ultra-rich, every vice can be had — for a price. But beneath the smiling exterior of the friendly staff, there lurks a growing resentment. When a group of ascetics destroy access to the planet’s hidden interdimensional gateway, the employees sieze the chance to declare independence from the governement and its backers. But as they take the profits and the pleasures for themselves, pressures and conflicting desires threaten to blow the planet to smithereens
Chimerica: In a world almost exactly like our own, America has lost its place as the prime superpower, and China has taken over. Chinese language and customs have been absorbed into American culture, and have irrevocably changed the face of the country. The cold war between China and India is heating up, and when a terrorist act is committed on Chinese soil, the culprits are traced back to America. China puts a lockdown on America, sending in troops to root out the terrorist cells and throwing the country into a state of emergency. One family will witness everything, from the beginning of the invasion to the terrifying aftermath, and will try to hold onto one another as everything they hold dear is crumbles around them.
The Museum: In Iowa in the 1940s, in a world of small-town friendliness, small-town pieties, and small-town diminished expectations, Charlie and his longtime gal Thena (short for Athena) yearn to escape from their lives and find a place for themselves in the big wide world. But when Thena’s dad, Professor Lombardi, has a stroke, it threatens to undo his work on the proposed expansion to the town’s antiquities museum. Thena must take over lest the expansion be scratched, and Charlie sells his bus tickets to be with her. But there’s something mysterious about the museum that Professor Lombardi never told anyone — something both fantastic and dangerous, and during one long night in the museum, Charlie and Thena will come face-to-face with it.
Preternatural: In a world where vampires and werewolves prowl the galaxy, and the Ultimate Evil plots the downfall the Last Free Men, one man will find hope where he leasts expects it: in the hearts of the most dangerous criminals the world has ever seen. There’s only one problem: they’re locked away in the most impregnable prison ever created.
The Exodus: In a world where the Earth is nothing more than a black cinder, the last surviving humans live on orbiting space stations, trying to make the best out of an impossible situation. Some are resigned to being the end of the human race, some think the Earth can be rebuilt and repopulated… and one scientist thinks he’s found a signal from an alien race. Are they really out there? Can they save the human race? But presenting the evidence will start a civil war in space, and threaten to end humanity prematurely.
Another Day: In a world gone dead and grey from years of war and pollution, the last outpost in the Pacific Northwest attempts to survive from day-to-day in the hostile environment. Here, a little girl who’s never known the blue sky tries to keep her family from being ripped apart by hopelessness and the machinations of the Council, who will do anything to keep the outpost alive.
Cannibal Honeymoon: The Larsen Ski Lodge in the Colorado mountains is the most expensive and most technically-advanced ski lodge in the country, named “Best Place To Blow All Your Money In One Fell Swoop” by Ski Lodge Magazine in 2005. Mickey and Tammy are newlyweds on their honeymoon — but when the storm everyone said wouldn’t hit actually hits, the resulting snowfall traps everyone inside the Larsen Ski Lodge and isolates it from the rest of civilization. They have food, they have heat — it’s only a matter of time before they’re rescued, right? But days pass, food disappears, and the heat turns off — can Mickey and Tammy survive the other guests? Can they survive each other?
The Infected: In a world where telepathy is a disease and the infected are prisoners, one woman will discover a shocking truth that could change everything… but on a world where a mind can be read as easily as opening a book, how can any secret be safe?
Night World: In a world populated only by vampires, werewolves, and other creatures of darkness, one young ghoul yearns to escape the hierarchal, monster-eat-monster society. And when he discovers a hole into our universe, he finds the one thing he needs most: a friend. But the once the gate is open, the forces of the night, once dispelled from the human realm, seek to reclaim what was once theirs.
Non-Stop Rock Cabaret: In a world of fist-pumping rock ‘n roll and outrageous performances, two musicians, Sara and Johnny, join the Non-Stop Rock Cabaret, a continuous tour through the world that guarantees success – if the performers can make the necessary sacrifices. But when Sara and Johnny fall in love, they become bound to each other, an unmovable object in a storm of drugs, booze and lust. But will their love be able to escape the irresistable force that is the Non-Stop Rock Cabaret?
Reminiscence: In a world where genetic and social engineering have eliminated violent crime and other offenses, there is only one punishable infraction: Nostalgia. In order to keep the populace in line, the past must be eliminated, keeping everyone in a blissful present-tense existence. But some insist on remembering, collecting and hoarding pieces of the past to keep it alive. Tom was the greatest of all them, blessed and cursed with an eidetic memory. But when he’s betrayed to the authorities, Tom finds himself on the prison planet, forced to find a way to survive, all alone on a harsh — yet beautiful — landscape. Can his knowlege of the past help him, or even save him? Or will he be prey to the predators on the planet, both alien and human?
Skull County: A cross-country bus traveling through New Mexico encounters a mysterious gateway and breaks down in Skull County, a world of endless desert, vampire cycle gangs and deadly Vixens. Can this ragtag group — a children’s magician, an ex-firefighter, a retiree, a student, and a former Olympic boxer — survive in this hostile world without end and find a way home?
Rachel, My Dear: Rachel had it all: a promising new career, loyal friends, and a loving fiancé. But one morning, she wakes up to find it all gone — and discovers herself in a world of brick and glass, imprisoned by an architectural madman. She need only confess her love for him to be free — but Rachel is going to fight back.
Funeral Blues: In a world where no one dies and everyone lives forever, the universe’s most dangerous criminals are confined to one planet. But when one man, convicted of a crime he did not commit, finds an ancient secret under the planet’s surface, he finds the means to escape… that could… set… the universe… ON FIRE.
The Masque: In a world that is about to end in disease, blood and madness, the rich huddle in their extravagant compounds while the poor are left to die. As they amuse themselves with forbidden delights and wait for a new world to be born, a stranger emerges from the shadows to become the hit of the social scene. But what dark secret does he hide behind his black sunglasses?
For Your Own Good: In a world where there is no war and everything is provided for you, one technician discovers that this utopia is surrounded by a force-field, imprisoning the populace from the outside world. What he doesn’t realize is that the field isn’t there to keep them in — it’s to keep something out.
The Scabs: In a world designed by engineers to be a self-sufficient, endlessly exploitable resource for the rest of the known galaxy, robots toil tirelessly in the fields, the forests and the mountains, providing food and raw materials for a rapidly expanding market. But when a series of accidents destroys some of the mining robots, the rest of the metal workforce decide to strike and power off, leaving the humans that depend on the planet in the lurch. A taskforce is assembled to get the planet up and running again while a negotiator tries to get the robots back online. While the taskforce tries to relearn the long-forgotten principles of farming and manufacturing, the negotiator accidentally reveals the existence of the taskforce… and the robots, realizing that their existence could be usurped by the humans, decide to go on the offensive.
Biocrime: In a world where biological organisms are outlawed and only the metal-born may rule, mankind are codemned to a single outpost on the edge of the galaxy. But one man discovers the secret of the machines, and with the help of a sympathetic group of robots, they will rise up and fight for our dignity, our integrity…. and our humanity.
Love War: In a world where love is outlawed and only outlaws love, one woman, imprisoned on a planet for the ultimate crime, will break the bonds of her captivity and take the battle to the heart of the enemy.
The Angry Youth: In a world where America has closed its borders to everyone, and inside, the populace is forced to hew to the government’s every thought and deed, a catastrophe occurs: a meteor crashes and unleashes an alien monster that threatens to destroy the country — and the unprepared government is helpless in its wake. But there’s hope in the form of one cool cat: Stevie W., an outlaw teenager with a magic skateboard and underground cred. Unfortunately for Stevie, there’s more to this alien monster than just wanton destruction — and the government knows more than they’re telling.
The Impuritans: In a world where humanity is rapidly evolving, but only the pure have the power, one man will lead his fellow Impuritans against the oppressors… and the war for the future of the human race will begin.
Priceless: In a world where lives are bought and sold with the touch of a button, and the human soul has a market value, one woman will rebel and pay the ultimate price: Banishment. On this planet, she must learn to survive by only her strength, her wits… and the knowledge that SOME THINGS ARE NOT FOR SALE.
Aint Nothin’ But A Dome Thang: In a world where the poor underclass are housed in giant, self-sufficient domes, violence rules the day. But one young man, after seeing his brother killed by the security forces that protect the rich, vows to break the domes open — any way he can.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Monday
Jan 23, 2006

In A World -- Google Image Challenge! posted by kza

For my last seven ideas for Ze Prison Planét, Burley challenged me to use, instead of randomly chosen songs, random images from the Google Image search for inspiration. To generate the images, I entered my birthday as a six digit number, and made my choices from the first page of results.

This is freakin’ hard. I thought Stevie Nicks was bad. I’m feeling like an all-day sucker :-)

(Actually, one of them is so incredibly perfect for the Prison Planet concept as to be ridiculous. Don’t know if I can do justice to it, tho.)

But anyway, here we go yo, here we go yo, so what so what so what’s the scenario?:

A. The Scabs: In a world designed by engineers to be a self-sufficient, endlessly exploitable resource for the rest of the known galaxy, robots toil tirelessly in the fields, the forests and the mountains, providing food and raw materials for a rapidly expanding market. But when a series of accidents destroys some of the mining robots, the rest of the metal workforce decide to strike and power off, leaving the humans that depend on the planet in the lurch. A taskforce is assembled to get the planet up and running again while a negotiator tries to get the robots back online. While the taskforce tries to relearn the long-forgotten principles of farming and manufacturing, the negotiator accidentally reveals the existence of the taskforce… and the robots, realizing that their existence could be usurped by the humans, decide to go on the offensive.

B. Cannibal Honeymoon: The Larsen Ski Lodge in the Colorado mountains is the most expensive and most technically-advanced ski lodge in the country, named “Best Place To Blow All Your Money In One Fell Swoop” by Ski Lodge Magazine in 2005. Mickey and Tammy are newlyweds on their honeymoon — but when the storm everyone said wouldn’t hit actually hits, the resulting snowfall traps everyone inside the Larsen Ski Lodge and isolates it from the rest of civilization. They have food, they have heat — it’s only a matter of time before they’re rescued, right? But days pass, food disappears, and the heat turns off — can Mickey and Tammy survive the other guests? Can they survive each other?

C. Chimerica: In a world almost exactly like our own, America has lost its place as the prime superpower, and China has taken over. Chinese language and customs have been absorbed into American culture, and have irrevocably changed the face of the country. The cold war between China and India is heating up, and when a terrorist act is committed on Chinese soil, the culprits are traced back to America. China puts a lockdown on America, sending in troops to root out the terrorist cells and throwing the country into a state of emergency. One family will witness everything, from the beginning of the invasion to the terrifying aftermath, and will try to hold onto one another as everything they hold dear is crumbles around them.

D. The Museum: In Iowa in the 1940s, in a world of small-town friendliness, small-town pieties, and small-town diminished expectations, Charlie and his longtime gal Thena (short for Athena) yearn to escape from their lives and find a place for themselves in the big wide world. But when Thena’s dad, Professor Lombardi, has a stroke, it threatens to undo his work on the proposed expansion to the town’s antiquities museum. Thena must take over lest the expansion be scratched, and Charlie sells his bus tickets to be with her. But there’s something mysterious about the museum that Professor Lombardi never told anyone — something both fantastic and dangerous, and during one long night in the museum, Charlie and Thena will come face-to-face with it.

E. Reminiscence: In a world where genetic and social engineering have eliminated violent crime and other offenses, there is only one punishable infraction: Nostalgia. In order to keep the populace in line, the past must be eliminated, keeping everyone in a blissful present-tense existence. But some insist on remembering, collecting and hoarding pieces of the past to keep it alive. Tom was the greatest of all them, blessed and cursed with an eidetic memory. But when he’s betrayed to the authorities, Tom finds himself on the prison planet, forced to find a way to survive, all alone on a harsh — yet beautiful — landscape. Can his knowlege of the past help him, or even save him? Or will he be prey to the predators on the planet, both alien and human?

F. The Angry Youth: In a world where America has closed its borders to everyone, and inside, the populace is forced to hew to the government’s every thought and deed, a catastrophe occurs: a meteor crashes and unleashes an alien monster that threatens to destroy the country — and the unprepared government is helpless in its wake. But there’s hope in the form of one cool cat: Stevie W., an outlaw teenager with a magic skateboard and underground cred. Unfortunately for Stevie, there’s more to this alien monster than just wanton destruction — and the government knows more than they’re telling.

[Okay, anyone of a certain age who had MTV back in the day should be able to recognize this ripoff. Sorry ‘bout that.]

G. The Exodus: In a world where the Earth is nothing more than a black cinder, the last surviving humans live on orbiting space stations, trying to make the best out of an impossible situation. Some are resigned to being the end of the human race, some think the Earth can be rebuilt and repopulated… and one scientist thinks he’s found a signal from an alien race. Are they really out there? Can they save the human race? But presenting the evidence will start a civil war in space, and threaten to end humanity prematurely.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Monday
Jan 23, 2006

Reading List: The Real Prison Planet posted by Martin

We make jokes of the ethical and philosophical implications of a prison planet, but this today on Morning Edition I heard Renee Montagne interview author John Tayman (audio of program available at link) about his book “The Colony” in which he describes the real history of lepers on the Hawaiian Islands, and how they were banished to Molokai during the 19th Century.

It also raises the issues of plot that I hadn’t thought about: in this case, lepers who wanted to avoid banishment would act out, murdering doctors, or hiding somehow. If they were caught, they were sent to Molokai where they were banished on a volcanic beach with a hoe and told to make a life of it. This makes me think of our screenplay with a more human aspect—plot ideas about the person being banished, and the fear that this must strike. We are, after all, social animals. What’s a stronger punishment than banishment? Isn’t that essentially what prison’s are?

For these new arrivals on leper Molokai, previous colonists would often work to scare and intimidate them. The buying and trading of women and children were common. Interestingly, though, the colony grew into a very tight cooperative community, and when it was broken up, some chose to stay behind and continue to live there.

I’m putting this one on my reading list—it will likely be most informative to our cause. Depending, of course, on what plot we decide.

Comments (0) — Category: inspiration

Sunday
Jan 22, 2006

The List of World's, Burley Style posted by Martin

Okay—here are my 25 In a World’s, in order of favorite and with new lovable, easy to use titles. Ordering was a little tricky—some I like more than the order might suggest, and some I dislike more than it might suggest. Some I like the potential for more than the order might suggest. But, we have to start somewhere—so this is where I’m leaving it. Go at it, Urban!

1. The Atheist
In a world devout to an all powerful god, one man uncovers exposes an unspeakable truth: their planet wasn’t carved by a deity, it was created to hold the most dangerous prisoners in the galaxy: their ancestors. What crime is so unspeakable that not only you will be punished for committing it, but all of your heirs will as well? And what happens when you find out that your captors are still watching your every move?

2. If it pleases the Court
In a World where crimes are judged and juried by encrypted, anonymous computer terminals, one jury foreman doesn’t realize that the man she’s arguing so strongly should be committed to the Prison Planet for life is actually her husband—and the crime he’s accused of—but hasn’t committed yet—is murdering her.

3. Hell on Earth
In a world where your DNA is patented and you are born in debt, one woman’s refusal to pay off her birth-deficit lands her in the largest and most violent debtors prison that ever existed: THE PLANET EARTH.

4. Little Black Stray
In a World where violent male offenders are sent to labor camps on the remote prison planet, one crew of hardened men finds something impossible: a young woman in tattered clothes, mute and frightened. A small group protect and feed her, keeping her out of site of the guards and away from those who would use her mercilessly. As she gains in strength it seems that she has an agenda—and the truth of what she was doing on a world where no women stepped before might be a big enough secret to shatter the whole planet of forced labor.

5. The Ancient Word Revenge
In a World where convicted murderers are banished to a planet instead of being put to death, one couple—the parents of a murder victim—want revenge. They plan a trip to the Prison Planet where they will track down the monster that killed their child, and destroy him in the exact same way that he destroyed their lives.

6. Class War
In a World where society is slipt into two classes, the New Trade Marxists are pitted against the Transactionists in a televised battle supreme. The loser will banish all of their believers to a distant planet. The winner takes over the one-world economy and will decide forevermore what future humanity follows.

7. Awaiting the Tide
In a world where people trust one another and crimes are extremely low, one event threatens to eradicate the long-admired peace: there’s been a prison break on Half Moon, where society disposes of all of its criminals. They’re coming back for revenge, and they’re armed.

8. Can you Hear Me Now?
In a world where all information is open and no person is private, a grad student stumbles on an ancient secret that could threaten the base of human knowledge…how can you communicate if all language is rendered illegible? Her enemies want to rebuild the tower. Get ready for BABEL.

9. Methane Madness
In a World where stranded humans must guard themselves from a poisonous atmosphere, one scientist finds a process for rendering the air on the planet breathable. The only problem is, the planet is a prison and the guards will kill them all if they found out about the experiments.

10. Time to Die
In a World where death itself is beaten by genetic regeneration, a guard is killed during a riot on the prison planet. One woman—his wife—faces sure death to retrieve his body in time to bring him back to life. It’s a race against time, with one nearly resourcesless woman willfully fighting like a juggernaut against the prisoners who are holding his body hostage, and the powers that be that think she should just give up. All to simply save the man she loves from eternal death.

11. Robots in Love
In a World where robots are immature, but can easily pass the turning test, one young android idolizes a slightly older movie star, and tries everything in his power to become like his idol. As part of his transformation, the robot works at becoming quite the ladies man, but his game is called when he meets a girl that actually likes him and that he doesn’t have to chase. She would certainly never sleep with him if she knew he was an android, but being an android he is physically incapable of sleeping with her. Will truth ruin love, or can the technology-crossed-lovers find a way to remain together?

12. A Future of Violence
In a World where peaceful men are mocked and disparaged by society, one sensitive man is arrested for murdering the violent soul that his wife cheated on him with. This action won the heart of his wife once again, but broke his own heart when faced with his inner capacity for violence. When he’s sentenced to life on the Prison Planet a culture war erupts over whether the punishment is too great for the crime. The man wants to pay his penance for his crimes. The wife wants her man back. Society is slipt and debates the issue of whether society is a calming or aggravating influence on the nature of men. [with apologies to Cronenberg]

13. Rasputin the Translator
In a World contacted by a sentient and potentially violent alien race, one man—bearded and wild eyed—is the only person on earth who can translate between the languages of humans and the language of the aliens. But this strange man is not only hostile to both sides of the debate, he is also untrustworthy, and possibly manipulating the negotiations to his own ends. With all of Earth being turned into a prison as the stakes, one government has a very limited time to not only unravel the mysteries of the alien language, but also the history of the interpreter.

14. The Singing Psychics
In a World where every person is assigned psychic choral groups to follow them around and sing their innermost thoughts in four-part harmony to all who can hear, one woman is tried in a choral court of law for loving discord, and causing pain in the ears of listeners. The jury is stunned that, when probing her deepest feelings, they realize that, to her, proper melodies are as painful as the improper ones are to everyone else. How can a society based on certain approved intervals accept that some people honestly prefer less melodic sounds, and what shall they do with the young woman who causes pain in everybody she comes near?

15. The Murderers are Dying
In a World where society has shunted its unwanted off to a Prison Planet for centuries, the government is faced with a problem. The Prison Planet is dying. Do they let all of the citizens die cruel and unusual deaths, or do they stage the largest rescue mission ever to bring back to a crowded planet the outcasts, criminals and degenerates that they worked so hard to rid themselves of?

16. Pitch Dark Alien
In a World where a supreme court has ruled that “cruel and unusual” punishment excludes the death penalty, the first batch of off world prisoners is sent to the new facility on Ganesh XIX, where they will be housed forever. But when they arrive, they realize they’re not alone on the planet—and one by one they start disappearing.

17. Downtown Hardcore
In a World where cities have been abandoned for fear of terrorist attacks where people gather, one group of artists braves the the occupied downtown core to rescue a sculpture from a museum. The only problem is—the straggling, violent city dwellers never let country people in, and they sure as hell never let country people out.

18. Breathe, Humanoid, Breathe
In a World where humanoids live mostly underwater, and are equipped with gills, an aquatic princess falls for a mysterious air-breather who appears suddenly in their land without warning. He’s kind, intelligent and handsome, but will she find out that he’s been banished to their planet for an unspeakable crime?

19. Off Script
In a World where politicians are devastatingly corrupt, and the uncaring populace is consumed with instant feedback news cycles, one pundit goes off her script and screams out a warning live on the air, before being cut off and mysteriously disappearing. Was this part of their plan, or could it be that somebody broke from the ranks of the elite in an attempt to save humanity?

20. Cop On the Hunt
In a world where galactic criminals are rounded and left to die on one planet, one man—a crooked cop—must penetrate their violent society to spring a prison break with the leader of the most ruthless gang. If he succeeds, his name is clear. If he fails, Earth will fall to INVADING IMPATIENT ALIENS.

21. Dude!
In a world where four teenagers are about to become world champions of the Prison Planet Videogame playoffs, someone sabotages their game units and they enter the most violent world ever conceived with no way of escaping, and NO RE-SPAWNING ALLOWED.

22. Bar None
In a world where lawyers are the only legal parents, two couples are condemned for reproducing without license and sentenced to banishment on the sterile Prison Planet. The only problem is that one of them is the PRESIDENT OF THE BAR. (Ummm—stupid note to self. I believe the president of the Bar would most certainly be a lawyer…)

23. David Flincher
In a world where friendly monks care for a shipwrecked space traveller carrying a deadly secret, ten outposters learn just what it means to be held prisoner on your own planet. With help four hundred light years away, they have no choice but to break their oath of silence and peace, and defend themselves from certain death.

24. Planet of Love
In a world where gender roles are reversed and women keep tight rule over their mates, men who act out are sent to Prison Planet! The intense spa planet where a crack team of psychologists will teach them about life, friendship, caring, laughter, and of course—about love.

25. Homeo and Pulpiet
In a world where warning clans tear the landscape in half, two teenagers find each other outside of societies constraints. Love, it seems, can flourish in war. But what happens when their parents find out that their children are trying to escape their grasp, and the only other livable land in the galaxy is THE PRISON PLANET?

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Saturday
Jan 21, 2006

Random Worlds, Karaoke Killer posted by Martin

I love this concept. It’s great to get some creative input from a random source. John Cage would approve.

My songs were picked by making a smart playlist in iTunes that randomly picked 5 songs rated 4 stars or better. I hereby authenticate that there was no picking, second-guessing, or non-acceptance of the choices that my Apple Audio overlord delivered. Well, originally #5 was “You’ll Have To Go Sideways” by the Soft Boys off of the perfect album Underwater Moonlight, but it’s an instrumental, so I dumped that and accepted the randomly picked replacement.

I also looked up the lyrics for better absorption (just like the Brawny man!), so I put a link in to them for those who might be curious.

1. In a World where death itself is beaten by genetic regeneration, a guard is killed during a riot on the prison planet. One woman—his wife—faces sure death to retrieve his body in time to bring him back to life. It’s a race against time, with one nearly resourceless woman willfully fighting like a juggernaut against the prisoners who are holding his body hostage, and the powers that be that think she should just give up. All to simply save the man she loves from eternal death.
(Inspired by “Kim Wilde”, by Charlotte Hatherly | lyrics)

2. In a World where robots are immature, but can easily pass the Turing Test, one young android idolizes a slightly older movie star, and tries everything in his power to become like his idol. As part of his transformation, the robot works at becoming quite the ladies man, but his game is called when he meets a girl who actually likes him and who he doesn’t have to chase. She would certainly never sleep with him if she knew he was an android, but being an android he is physically incapable of sleeping with her. Will truth ruin love, or can the technology-crossed-lovers find a way to remain together?
(Inspired by “Big Boys”, by Elvis Costello | lyrics)

3. In a World where peaceful men are mocked and disparaged by society, one sensitive man is arrested for murdering the violent soul with whom his wife cheated on him. This action won the heart of his wife once again, but broke his own heart when faced with his inner capacity for violence. When he’s sentenced to life on the Prison Planet a culture war erupts over whether the punishment is too great for the crime. The man wants to pay his penance for his crimes. The wife wants her man back. Society is split and debates the issue of whether society is a calming or aggravating influence on the nature of men. [with apologies to Cronenberg]
(Inspired by “History of Lovers”, by Iron & Wine and Calexico | lyrics)

4. In a World where violent male offenders are sent to labor camps on the remote prison planet, one crew of hardened men finds something impossible: a young woman in tattered clothes, mute and frightened. A small group protect and feed her, keeping her out of site of the guards and away from those who would use her mercilessly. As she gains in strength it seems that she has an agenda—and the truth of what she was doing on a world where no women stepped before might be a big enough secret to shatter the whole planet of forced labor.
(Inspired by “Black Little Stray”, by Shannon Wright | lyrics)

5. In a World contacted by a sentient and potentially violent alien race, one man—bearded and wild eyed—is the only person on earth who can translate between the languages of humans and the language of the aliens. But this strange man is not only hostile to both sides of the debate, he is also untrustworthy, and possibly manipulating the negotiations to his own ends. With all of Earth being turned into a prison as the stakes, one government has a very limited time to not only unravel the mysteries of the alien language, but also the history of the interpreter.
(Inspired by “The Interpreter”, by The Roky Erikson | lyrics)

6. In a World where every person is assigned psychic choral groups to follow them around and sing their innermost thoughts in four-part harmony to all who can hear, one woman is tried in a choral court of law for loving discord, and causing pain in the ears of listeners. The jury is stunned that, when probing her deepest feelings, they realize that, to her, proper melodies are as painful as the improper ones are to everyone else. How can a society based on certain approved intervals accept that some people honestly prefer less melodic sounds, and what shall they do with the young woman who causes pain in everybody she comes near?
(inspired by “Because” by The Beatles | lyrics)

And that, ladies and gentlemen, makes 25 for me.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Saturday
Jan 21, 2006

Re:[3] Choosing the Final Seed: A Proposal posted by Martin

Okay! Rules set, gloves thrown. I’m posting my final six shortly, and then I’ll gather my list for the grinding.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Saturday
Jan 21, 2006

Re:[2] Choosing The Final Seed: A Proposal posted by kza

Motion passes.

When we’re done with our 25, we’ll each have a post with our 25 contributions listed, in our preferential order. I also think we should give each one some kind of temporary title — the use of numbers is kind of bland and abstract, not to mention we’ll have two different sets of 25.

How does that sound?

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Saturday
Jan 21, 2006

Re: Choosing The Final Seed: A Proposal posted by Martin

I accept, with one small alteration. I think when we’re done with our 25, we should put up a single post listing them all of our own in preferred order—#1 being our favorite, #25 our least favorite. This may—or may not—influence the first draft from the opposite writer, but it will give us a chance to filter our own work, and potentially communicate something.

Do you accept this change?

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Saturday
Jan 21, 2006

Choosing The Final Seed: A Proposal posted by kza

So anyway, I’m assuming that what we’re eventually going to do is choose one of these ideas to be our “seed” that will eventually blossom into a brilliant screenplay that all peoples of the Earth will love and cherish for always. Although I suspect we could easily just pick one (or a group and narrow it down) very quickly, I have an idea, spurred by my love of competitions and needlessly complex rules.

Here’s how it would work: You pick 8 of my ideas that you like the best, and I pick 8 of yours, in order of preference. Your first choice will be matched up against my eighth choice, so on up the line, with my first choice against your eighth choice. There will be a series of “battles”, so that the original 16 are narrowed down to 8, then to 4, then to 2, until we finally have a winner. (Ideally, the Seahawks.)

These battles will carried out in the following manner: We will both write, as passionately as we can, what is great about both ideas, and we will both write as passionately as we can as to why each idea isn’t as good as the other. Once we have 2 pros and 2 cons for each idea, we’ll then simply choose the one we like best. If we can’t agree, then we continue to argue the merits of our favorite until one of us concedes, or someone in the forum changes the balance of the argument.

And that’s it. It would definitely stretch this Spitball! process out a little longer than it normally would’ve lasted, but I think that’s okay — I don’t think we need to hurry here. It would also give us a chance to expand on these skeletal sketches a little further, and give them more flesh and background than they already have.

Or maybe we should just pick one. What say you? Like it? Dislike it? Proposed rule changes?

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Saturday
Jan 21, 2006

In A World -- Karaoke Edition! posted by kza

Another nice set of five, Burley. #2 is really fascinating — the moral issues are front and center, which is a new one for us. And the specifics of it are really unusual — I like it. #3 (the creation and aftermath of a Prison Planet) is so obvious I’m kicking myself that I never thought of it. And #5: Prison Planet as Rollerball! Awesome!

And now, in this very special edition of “In A World”, I’ve decided to play a little game, and I hope Burley will join me. The rules are simple: Write five “In A World” story ideas as usual, but the inspiration must come from a different song, randomly chosen by iTunes. (I only let it pick songs that are rated 4 stars or better, cuz I didn’t want to be stuck with a song I didn’t really like; Burley may be a braver soul.) I’m not necessarily going to try and turn the song into a narrative per se (although some lend themselves to that kind of thing better than others), but there should be some kind of link, however obscure, from the song to the story idea. My criteria is this: if I come up with an idea that I normally wouldn’t have, then I’ve succeeded. Ready? I’m not, but here I go anyway:

In a world where the poor underclass are housed in giant, self-sufficient domes, violence rules the day. But one young man, after seeing his brother killed by the security forces that protect the rich, vows to break the domes open — any way he can.
(Inspired by “Fix Up, Look Sharp” by Dizzee Rascal)
In a world constructed for the pleasure of the ultra-rich, every vice can be had — for a price. But beneath the smiling exterior of the friendly staff, there lurks a growing resentment. When a group of ascetics destroy access to the planet’s hidden interdimensional gateway, the employees sieze the chance to declare independence from the governement and its backers. But as they take the profits and the pleasures for themselves, pressures and conflicting desires threaten to blow the planet to smithereens.
(Inspired by “Sin City” by The Flying Burrito Brothers)
In a world gone dead and grey from years of war and pollution, the last outpost in the Pacific Northwest attempts to survive from day-to-day in the hostile environment. Here, a little girl who’s never known the blue sky tries to keep her family from being ripped apart by hopelessness and the machinations of the Council, who will do anything to keep the outpost alive.
(Inspired by “Another Day” by Galaxie 500)
Rachel had it all: a promising new career, loyal friends, and a loving fiancé. But one morning, she wakes up to find it all gone — and discovers herself in a world of brick and glass, imprisoned by an architectural madman. She need only confess her love for him to be free — but Rachel is going to fight back.
(Inspired by “Rachel (My Dear)” by The Stag Party)
In a world of fist-pumping rock ‘n roll and outrageous performances, two musicians, Sara and Johnny, join the Non-Stop Rock Cabaret, a continuous tour through the world that guarantees success – if the performers can make the necessary sacrifices. But when Sara and Johnny fall in love, they become bound to each other, an unmovable object in a storm of drugs, booze and lust. But will their love be able to escape the irresistable force that is the Non-Stop Rock Cabaret?
(Inspired by “Stop Draggin’ My Heart Around” by Stevie Nicks & Tom Petty)

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Friday
Jan 20, 2006

Re:[2] When Worlds Collide posted by kza

Funny, I was totally thinking of Borges, but I’m mostly ignorant when it comes to Rush. However, I think I was listening to Coheed & Cambria when I wrote it — does that count? Or does that ruin it? :-)

Weird you should mention the Kurzweil book… I had it over Christmas and managed to get through the first 150-200 pages or so before I had to return it to the library. Seems like a great resource for SF. In that vein, I’m reading Oliver Sacks’ An Anthropologist on Mars right now.

Coming tomorrow: comments on Burley’s last five, plus the debut of In A World — Karaoke Edition!

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Friday
Jan 20, 2006

Re: When World's Collide posted by Martin

Damn! I’m digging it. Now how the hell are we gonna pick just one? And, still more to go?

Okay—anyway—I have to say this thing right now. #3? Yeah. Like, if somebody told me “Oh, I casually want to write a sentence or two that will both evoke Borges, the most brilliant writer that ever existed, and Rush, the most rockin’ Canadian power trio that ever existed.” I would have told them to get lost, but you, my friend, have done it. I applaud you.

I applaud all of these ideas, and I want to take a whack at your bonus idea, because it reminds me that I really want to read the new Ray Kurzweil book.

In a World where nanobots cleanse the blood of disease, and people live indefinite lives, a man waiting for the subway in New York explodes, contaminating a large crowd with an aggressive virus—a mechanical virus of microscopic robots. We might stand a chance to fight them, if only they weren’t completely sentient, smarter than us, and designed by the only man in the world who we might have trusted to stop them.

Now—everybody sing along with me from the book of Rush, chapter 2112:
We are the priests of the temples of Syrinx.
And our great computers fill the hallowed halls…

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Friday
Jan 20, 2006

Kick out the Worlds posted by Martin

To paraphrase Tom Robbins: In a world where there are two kinds of people, one kind of person will realize that there really are two kinds of people: the kinds of people who think there are two kinds of people in the world, and those that know better.

1. In a World where convicted murderers are banished to a planet instead of being put to death, one couple—the parents of a murder victim—want revenge. They plan a trip to the Prison Planet where they will track down the monster that killed their child, and destroy him in the exact same way that he destroyed their lives.

2. In a World where society has shunted its unwanted off to a Prison Planet for centuries, the government is faced with a problem. The Prison Planet is dying. Do they let all of the citizens die cruel and unusual deaths, or do they stage the largest rescue mission ever to bring back to a crowded planet the outcasts, criminals and degenerates that they worked so hard to rid themselves of?

3. In a World where a supreme court has ruled that “cruel and unusual” punishment excludes the death penalty, the first batch of off world prisoners is sent to the new facility on Ganesh XIX, where they will be housed forever. But when they arrive, they realize they’re not alone on the planet—and one by one they start disappearing.

4. In a World where cities have been abandoned for fear of terrorist attacks where people gather, one group of artists braves the the occupied downtown core to rescue a sculpture from a museum. The only problem is—the straggling, violent city dwellers never let country people in, and they sure as hell never let country people out.

5. In a World where society is split into two classes, the New Trade Marxists are pitted against the Transactionists in a televised battle supreme. The loser will banish all of their believers to a distant planet. The winner takes over the one-world economy and will decide forevermore what future humanity follows.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Friday
Jan 20, 2006

When Worlds Collide posted by kza

I’m a curmudgeon about donuts, so it all evens out.

Holy shit, Burley, those are all fucking awesome. I’m particularly taken with #1 (I could jump into that one right now and hit it running) and #5, even if it is similar to Minority Report. [That’s okay, cuz a) Minority Report wasn’t as great as it could’ve been, and b) I never get tired of those kind of stories.]

Oh, and dude, let’s only go to 25 apiece. Even steven down the middle. 11 more for you; 12 more for me, after these five:

In a world where there is no war and everything is provided for you, one technician discovers that this utopia is surrounded by a force-field, imprisoning the populace from the outside world. What he doesn’t realize is that the field isn’t there to keep them in — it’s to keep something out.
In a world populated only by vampires, werewolves, and other creatures of darkness, one young ghoul yearns to escape the hierarchal, monster-eat-monster society. And when he discovers a hole into our universe, he finds the one thing he needs most: a friend. But the once the gate is open, the forces of the night, once dispelled from the human realm, seek to reclaim what was once theirs.
In a world built to hold the accumulated knowledge of the universe, the monks of Liber XII tend to the databases from birth to death. But when an alien computer virus finds its way into the memory banks, the monks are imprisoned on a sentient planet that knows every way to control — every way to punish — and every way to kill ever invented. Can the monks stop Liber XII from destroying the universe?
A cross-country bus traveling through New Mexico encounters a mysterious gateway and breaks down in Skull County, a world of endless desert, vampire cycle gangs and deadly Vixens. Can this ragtag group — a children’s magician, an ex-firefighter, a retiree, a student, and a former Olympic boxer — survive in this hostile world without end and find a way home?
In a world that is about to end in disease, blood and madness, the rich huddle in their extravagant compounds while the poor are left to die. As they amuse themselves with forbidden delights and wait for a new world to be born, a stranger emerges from the shadows to become the hit of the social scene. But what dark secret does he hide behind his black sunglasses?

[Gee, what am I ripping off here? :-) ]

Bonus idea that doesn’t count towards my 25: I’ve been trying to think of an idea where the Prison Planet is microscopic in nature — ideally, it would be a narrativization of some kind of biological process, like cells in a body or a virus trying to escape its host. Unfortunately, I’m not versed enough in that field to write something that was both narratively interesting and didn’t sound like ramblings of a scientific illiterate.

Bonus mea culpa: I guess they don’t have to be SF.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Wednesday
Jan 18, 2006

The War of the Worlds posted by Martin

A few ticks off the old goal. Also, just a point of trivia: I consider most Alcatraz movies Prison Planet movies.

1. In a World where stranded humans must guard themselves from a poisonous atmosphere, one scientist finds a process for rendering the air on the planet breathable. The only problem is, the planet is a prison and the guards will kill them all if they found out about the experiments.

2. In a World where humanoids live mostly underwater, and are equipped with gills, an aquatic princess falls for a mysterious air-breather who appears suddenly in their land without warning. He’s kind, intelligent and handsome, but will she find out that he’s been banished to their planet for an unspeakable crime?

3. In a World where politicians are devastatingly corrupt, and the uncaring populace is consumed with instant feedback news cycles, one pundit goes off her script and screams out a warning live on the air, before being cut off and mysteriously disappearing. Was this part of their plan, or could it be that somebody broke from the ranks of the elite in an attempt to save humanity?

4. In a world where people trust one another and crimes are extremely low, one event threatens to eradicate the long-admired peace: there’s been a prison break on Half Moon, where society disposes of all of its criminals. They’re coming back for revenge, and they’re armed.

5. In a World where crimes are judged and juried by encrypted, anonymous computer terminals, one jury foreman doesn’t realize that the man she’s arguing so strongly should be committed to the Prison Planet for life is actually her husband—and the crime he’s accused of—but hasn’t committed yet—is murdering her.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Wednesday
Jan 18, 2006

Re:[2] The State of the Software posted by Martin

Okay—let’s go with Celtx as our engine. Hear that Celtx? We pick you!

I have to confess I’m rather curmudgeonly about software. I wish I was a true hacker so that I could craft these marvelous things out of thin air, typed commands and lots of { } brackets. A good piece of software is an amazing thing to behold, and a marvelous thing to use.

Comments (0) — Category: software

Wednesday
Jan 18, 2006

Re: The State of the Software posted by kza

Actually, I don’t have any problem with using Celtx for Spitball!, and I think it might be fun to try. Regardless, tho, the next thing I write, I’m gonna take a shot and try and write the whole thing in Celtx. There are still some issues that make it weaker than FD (the “stay at the bottom of the page” thing, and the Tabbing isn’t as intuitive as FD), but I like where they’re going with the latest release (the character and scene notes section is nifty).

I am curious about this Montage thing, however. What does “create your script as a live outline” mean, exactly?

(If you know Burley and me, you know that we salivate like huskies with a gland condition at the mention of “outline” and “software” in the same sentence.)

Comments (0) — Category: software

Tuesday
Jan 17, 2006

The State of the Software posted by Martin

A few months ago I was so mad at Final Draft, that I started writing a spec for a screenwriting software for Macintosh. In my mind, it would by a Carbon or Cocoa app, and write to an open, human readable format that—should someone stop using the software—they could open with another program. Ideally, that format would be open sourced, and any other program that wanted to write to it could. The program would retail around $30-$40, in the range of a lot of other cool software that I use almost daily.

I was sparked on this quest by an exchange with the Final Draft tech support. I asked them about how I could go about exchanging my disk. I use Final Draft 6, not having found in the newest version any compelling—or, really any—reason to upgrade. I bought Final Draft with version 5, and updated to six only to get OS X support (Both Urban and I are Mac users), since it really lacked any other revolutionary feature additions. When I bought my upgrade it came on a CD-R, which, as anybody can tell you, is a cheaper and softer substrate. Much more prone to scratches than a manufactured CD.

And see, I have this problem that I have to haul the disk everywhere. I have a desktop and a laptop, but I do most of my writing on my desktop. Final Draft kindly allows you to install the program on two computers, but not-so-kindly insists that you boot the program on the second computer with the CD in the drive. This, after the serial number, and having the program “authenticated” by remote connection to the Final Draft headquarters. So, I had to chose: either put the disk in every damn time I start the program on my desktop, which is quite often when we’re deep at work and authenticate my laptop which I rarely use, or do the opposite and carry the stupid disk with me. Which I do. Everywhere. So, if I’m inspired, I won’t have to open the program in “demo” mode. Which has happened to me. More than once. And I couldn’t write.

But, the goddamned disk is scratched up, and it’s gonna go bad. I carry it in a CD wallet with soft sleeves, but it’s a cheap CD-R and will scratch if you look at it funny. So I contact Final Draft, figuring for shipping they’ll give me a new disk, since the one they gave me is pretty much defective—but nope. $20, and I have to send them my disk first. I’m sorry, but $20 on a program I already own, that I need to run the program as licensed, and I have to send it to them first? I hear you loud and clear Final Draft: LICENSED USERS OF OUR SOFTWARE ARE NOT TO BE TRUSTED FOR ANY REASON. THEY COULD, YOU KNOW, NOT SEND THE DISK AND THEN GIVE IT TO SOMEONE WHO WOULD STILL NEED A SERIAL NUMBER TO RUN THE PROGRAM, BUT THEY COULD GET THAT AND THEN WHERE WOULD WE BE? I mean, I accept the serial number, the license, the bloody expensive software to begin with—but this just ticked me off. I hate being assumed I’m a criminal, when I’m jumping through their stupid hoops.

The woman at Final Draft was extremely helpful. I could upgrade, she explained to me, and since they’ve fixed this strange reason they need my disk back in the next version. Kind of her, no? Only $89.00.

So, I started writing my spec.

But, here’s the thing: I like the usability of Final Draft. It’s a fast program to write in. From what I hear, Movie Magic Screenwriter is pretty much the same (in every way—same copy protection, same pricing, same pain-in-the-ass, but good usability). And so bloody expensive! Sure, huge movies might be written on them, but more than likely, the products belong to wanna-be’s with little cash—which, when you think about it, is probably why they put the copy protection in. Another option might be, you know, actually pricing the thing reasonably, but I digress.

See, there’s a big inherent problem in writing the perfect screenwriting package: once you write a usable text editor, there’s really no need to keep upgrading it. Sure, you can add feature after feature, but Final Draft’s sharing feature is a total and complete JOKE (which, crashed continuously on our computers every time we tried to use it). Compare this to the amazing Coding Monkey’s SubEthaEdit (free for personal use, but if you’re a big bad company it will set you back $35.00. Reasonable!), and how they handled the sharing. So easy I wrote to them and begged them to license it to Final Draft. But, they ignored me. So, I was back to just hating Final Draft and writing my spec.

Before I got to far, though, I did a Google search for open source screenwriting software, and was totally jazzed when I found Celtx. Celtx is free, and available for Mac and Windows, so go grab it if you don’t have it. As of this writing, it’s nearing the end of its beta life, although each revision brings tons of changes. It’s very promising software, which will include screenwriting and production capabilities. But, and there’s always a but—the usability is not great. It’s built on the Mozilla programming framework, so looks and feels like Firefox, which is admirable, but not so great and less than elegant. And, it doesn’t currently add (more)s and (con’t)s. But, in a stroke of absolute, unadorned, crazily amazing brilliance, it stores all of your screenplays as a html files. Because of its price, and open-sourciness, and the openness of the file format, we will likely use this as the software of choice for posting the script when we get to writing it.

But what will we write it in? Well, another contender in the mac world was just announced. I have high hopes, although I won’t hold my breath until I see how it works. Also, it’s announced price—$150—is still high, in my book. I’ve begged to be a beta tester, and I’ll report back on my findings if allowed by the license.

But since Mr. Shockah and I both own licenses to Final Draft, I suspect that will be what we use. Until some awesome hacker comes along who loves Macs and wants to make some coin undercutting all of the competition with a sweet little package….Let me know. I’ll work for free on it.

Comments (0) — Category: software

Tuesday
Jan 17, 2006

It's a World World World World World posted by Martin

Did you know if you Google (in quotes) “In a world” the first response is the Beastie Boys website? Now that’s another world for pirate treasure.

Anyway—As much as I liked your original 8 “In a World” scenarios (forever now known as IAWS), I think pumping out a big old slew of them is a great idea. Here’s the ones I could come up with as quick as possible (I made it to 9—33 to go!):

1. In a world where galactic criminals are rounded and left to die on one planet, one man—a crooked cop—must penetrate their violent society to spring a prison break with the leader of the most ruthless gang. If he succeeds, his name is clear. If he fails, Earth will fall to INVADING IMPATIENT ALIENS.

2. In a world where all information is open and no person is private, a grad student stumbles on an ancient secret that could threaten the base of human knowledge…how can you communicate if all language is rendered illegible? Her enemies want to rebuild the tower. Get ready for BABEL.

3. In a world where your DNA is patented and you are born in debt, one woman’s refusal to pay off her birth-deficit lands her in the largest and most violent debtors prison that ever existed: THE PLANET EARTH.

4. In a world devout to an all powerful god, one man uncovers exposes an unspeakable truth: their planet wasn’t carved by a deity, it was created to hold the most dangerous prisoners in the galaxy: their ancestors. What crime is so unspeakable that not only you will be punished for committing it, but all of your heirs will as well? And what happens when you find out that your captors are still watching your every move?

5. In a world where four teenagers are about to become world champions of the Prison Planet Videogame playoffs, someone sabotages their game units and they enter the most violent world ever conceived with no way of escaping, and NO RE-SPAWNING ALLOWED.

6. In a world where lawyers are the only legal parents, two couples are condemned for reproducing without license and sentenced to banishment on the sterile Prison Planet. The only problem is that one of them is the PRESIDENT OF THE BAR.

7. In a world where friendly monks care for a shipwrecked space traveller carrying a deadly secret, ten outposters learn just what it means to be held prisoner on your own planet. With help four hundred light years away, they have no choice but to break their oath of silence and peace, and defend themselves from certain death. [1]

8. In a world where gender roles are reversed and women keep tight rule over their mates, men who act out are sent to Prison Planet! The intense spa planet where a crack team of psychologists will teach them about life, friendship, caring, laughter, and of course—about love.

9. In a world where warning clans tear the landscape in half, two teenagers find each other outside of societies constraints. Love, it seems, can flourish in war. But what happens when their parents find out that their children are trying to escape their grasp, and the only other livable land in the galaxy is THE PRISON PLANET?

[1] Ummm, this one might sound slightly familiar…

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Monday
Jan 16, 2006

Brief Moment of Inspiration posted by Martin

I was flipping through an online book on the programming language Python, and came across this great quote. It may be about computer programming, but it applies to writing, plots and other logics:

There are two ways of constructing a software design: one way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies; the other is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies.
—C. A. R. Hoar

Comments (0) — Category: inspiration

Monday
Jan 16, 2006

Re:[2] In a World... posted by kza

The funny thing about the In A World… post was that, by the end, I didn’t really care about the specifics of each story. What was useful for me was taking the idea (Prison Planet) and seeing what kind of “movement” each kind of story could give it. For example, when Richard Garfield was designing “Magic: The Gathering” (and presumably when he designed other games) was he would sit down with blank cards and before he even really knew what the rules were, he would play with them. What is it like when I turn a card ninety degrees? What’s it like if I lay out cards in a pattern on the table? What’s it like to draw cards from a deck? Is there a difference in feel between drawing three cards or seven?

So I ended up thinking about that post in a similar way. When I think of “Prison Planet” as a concept, I think of prisoners on a planet that want to get off. But what else can be done with the concept? For me the breakthrough of #5 is that the character finds the hidden Prison Planet and goes there. In #6, the character wants to break into the Prison Planet, which sounded fun and cool. The idea behind #7 is that escape is impossible, and maybe not even desired by the end. In #4, the idea that the Prison Planet is kind of a front for something else (the “ancient secret underneath”) was what was most interesting to me.

So while I do like some of the small specifics of each idea, I’m not married to any of them, and seeing how skeletal they are, I think some cannibalism from the other ideas will be necessary :-)

But here are my favorites:

My third favorite, #6, is also, oddly, my least favorite. I like the ridiculous idea of combining blatant supernatural elements in a SF setting — it appeals to my love of mash-ups and novelties. And what’s good about it is also what’s bad about it for this project: I read it and I feel like I know it already. It’s basically “The Dirty Dozen vs. Underworld… in SPAAAACE!”. And while normally I’d be attracted to something that’s structurally already kind of prefab, I think this project needs something that’s a little more mysterious and more difficult. Also, while other ideas lend themselves to different kinds of expressions (drama, comedy, etc.), this one seems primarily action-oriented.

Second favorite is, perhaps surprisingly, #1. Yes, it’s awfully vague and a little corny, but that’s also the appeal. What’s suggested here is emotions as weaponry, something kind of invisible and intangible in a concrete, material SF world, and I kinda like that. However, one of the pitfalls of “Prison Planet” (and probably most screenplays) is steering away from the pure, always-right protagonist in a world that’s evil and clearly wrong, and this one is already pointed in that direction.

First favorite, and head and shoulders above the rest, is #5. Here’s why: The conflicts stated have already given us huge clues as to the character of the protagonist. We know that she lives in a world of unimaginable amounts of data, and she makes an choice to escape from all that. She finds a place that is “off the grid”, and decides to fight for her place there. But where in a lot of these ideas, fighting is literally physical fighting (and that tells us nothing about the character; if a character doesn’t fight when attacked, usually that means the end of the story), the fighting here might be of a different sort: it could be emotional manipulation, economic bargaining, political maneuvering. And also already embedded in this skeletal frame are a number of parallels and contrasts that could be interesting. I’m assuming that this woman, because of the data universe she inhabits, is well-off, but she’s looking to escape this everything-at-your-fingertips society for something more primitive. (She could be leaving because of a scandal or because “she knows too much” or the like, but it works for me if it’s simple dissatisfaction, ennui.) So she finds this “off the grid” planet, but to her surprise, it’s a prison planet. (Perhaps the prisoners are either political in nature — they’ve been “disappeared” — or they’re the descendants of those prisoners.) But these people are probably longing to get “plugged back in” to the universe at large and probably want her to help them. And what happens to them and her if they did? But while there’s an obvious action/thriller quality to all this, I can also see it as a space version of something like Out of Africa or The Piano — a space period drama, if you will.

But while we both like this one and we could proceed on it now, I wouldn’t mind taking the time to develop more of these “In A World”s. I’m thinking of aiming for 50 — that would give us enough to choose from, and a lot of material to cannibalize from as well. (And obviously, the “In A World”s are my way of canvassing the territory in an Inside->Outside way, like your way of circling the story world and asking questions is your Outside->Inside way.)

What do you think?

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Monday
Jan 16, 2006

Re: In A World... posted by Martin

An echoing voice in my head, visions of fast-cut explosions and action set to pounding, pulsing, throbbing music. I have heard your narrator.

So on a quick reaction, here are my top three that I’d like to see (and therefore, write), with a few of my own notes:

#3 Telepathy as a disease? Keeping a secret when everybody can read your mind? Genius. Awesome. Bravo. Tricky, I’d imagine, and complex, but a concept worthy of the challenges.
#5 Ideas like diseases—much like commercial jingles and memes. Also, because I’ve always loved the Inferno. What about a twist that posits Dante himself visited this land with aliens, and wrote the Inferno as code to the world? Talk about ideas as disease—the Inferno of Dante became the modern hell of the Christians, after all.
#7 We can already figure the market value for a human life, no matter how despicable this might be, but imagine if robotics had advanced to the point where you could transfer consciousness to another being? Then suddenly, the soul would have a value outside of life itself. What if the rebellion was remaining human?

Honorable mention: Robots fighting to help us fight for our humanity? My hat is off, sir.

A question: can we combine some of these ideas? I’ll see if you like any of my feedback first, but imagine that only humans who have transferred their souls (#7) to advanced robots have the telepathy (#3).

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Saturday
Jan 14, 2006

In A World... posted by kza

In an attempt to get this ball rolling a little faster, and as the Designated Inside Man digging my way up from the center toward the outside (I’ll explain that later), I present to you eight (8) premises for a Prison Planet movie, written in the style of a cheesy trailer voiceover, composed as quickly as I can. I’m not promising quality here, mind you, merely quantity. Enjoy!

In a world where love is outlawed and only outlaws love, one woman, imprisoned on a planet for the ultimate crime, will break the bonds of her captivity and take the battle to the heart of the enemy.
In a world where humanity is rapidly evolving, but only the pure have the power, one man will lead his fellow Impuritans against the oppressors… and the war for the future of the human race will begin.
In a world where telepathy is a disease and the infected are prisoners, one woman will discover a shocking truth that could change everything… but on a world where a mind can be read as easily as opening a book, how can any secret be safe?
In a world where no one dies and everyone lives forever, the universe’s most dangerous criminals are confined to one planet. But when one man, convicted of a crime he did not commit, finds an ancient secret under the planet’s surface, he finds the means to escape… that could… set… the universe… ON FIRE.
In a world where information is the only currency, and ideas can be contracted like diseases, one woman finds the ultimate oasis in a universe of data. But to keep it, she’ll have to fight the most hardened and despicable people in the galaxy: the prisoners of Dante IV.
In a world where vampires and werewolves prowl the galaxy, and the Ultimate Evil plots the downfall the Last Free Men, one man will find hope where he least expects it: in the hearts of the most dangerous criminals the world has ever seen. There’s only one problem: they’re locked away in the most impregnable prison ever created.
In a world where lives are bought and sold with the touch of a button, and the human soul has a market value, one woman will rebel and pay the ultimate price: Banishment. On this planet, she must learn to survive by only her strength, her wits… and the knowledge that SOME THINGS ARE NOT FOR SALE.
In a world where biological organisms are outlawed and only the metal-born may rule, mankind are condemned to a single outpost on the edge of the galaxy. But one man discovers the secret of the machines, and with the help of a sympathetic group of robots, they will rise up and fight for our dignity, our integrity…. and our humanity.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Friday
Jan 13, 2006

Re:[2] Sci Fi? posted by Martin

A. Unless we were seriously going to explore the idea of “Prison Planet” as a metaphor, of course its going to be SF in some sense.

Maybe I should have tagged it with the “humor” category. I posted that because it was a blatantly stupid thing to think, and therefore funny that I caught myself thinking it. Kind of like thinking “Hmmm. Ford is really pushing the F-150 into that truck genre.” Or, “Wow. This dialogue is really pushing itself into the webpage genre.”

B. Genre isn’t for marketers. Genre is legitimate framework or window through which to view a story. Every genre has its conventions, and you can play them straight or subvert them.

I would argue that genre is to movies was genus is to animals. The animal doesn’t care if it’s a grizzly bear, but the biologist cares that it belongs to the genus Ursinae. By the same token, I don’t really care what genre we’re in, and see it as a construct of critics, analytics and marketers. I’ve never once met a musician who said “I’m going for AOR mid-tempo with an alternative edge,” and I’ve never met a story that said “I need to be seen as a love story to be appreciated.” Quite the opposite, I think the best of any creative categories are the ones that seem to be within one genre or another, and then transcend it.

It’s like the old saw about the painter who is walking down the street and meets a critic. The critic says “Hey, I just saw your show, and it’s incredible. Your use of chiaroscuro is masterful, and your brush strokes are sublime. You are truly emulating the Dutch Masters.” Then the painter walked down the street and met another painter who says “Hey, I just saw your show. What kind of turpentine do you use?”

But in the end, isn’t the basic idea of character meets resistance to achieving their desires, and the struggle that ensues what is really important? Or, to put a big meta hat on it, man vs. himself, man vs. man, or man vs. nature is all the genre you need.

Or, what came first: the genre or the story?

Okay—to many ors in the water here….

All that said, there are times when you want to follow genre tropes, and times when you want to avoid them. There are times where I argue that creativity flourishes most in constraint rather than vacuum. And, I’m not at all arguing that genre isn’t valuable in context, but in my mind, to start categorizing before you create is to start limiting. Since we will hopefully have experiences of having to do that (“Hey kid. Write me a slasher flick”), I don’t think I’ll be paying too much attention to it right now. But, if it helps your process, more power yo.

D. Anyway, the point is, when you think “SF” you think of limited boundaries; when I think of “SF”, I think of a lack of them. Therefore, SF, to me, really isn’t a genre.

Let me clarify. When I think “SF” I don’t think limited boundaries, when I think genre I think limited boundaries. Let me state that I love SF, I read and watch SF, and SF is my favorite genre (well, Sci-Fi Horror really). So, I make these statements not to detract from the oeuvre, but to make my point that all genre contains constraint to me. If I start thinking genre too soon, I’ll start plotting along genre lines, and measuring against trope, and making sure I hit the genre talking points. If I think Western, I’ll start thinking classic Western, but I may want to think Dead Man or that episode of Futurama where they went to Amy’s family homestead on Mars. My final point being, I don’t want to limit myself so early in the game that I miss an angle that might become the key for us to unlock this monster.

Comments (0) — Category: technique

Friday
Jan 13, 2006

Re: Sci Fi? posted by kza

A. Unless we were seriously going to explore the idea of “Prison Planet” as a metaphor, of course its going to be SF in some sense.

B. Genre isn’t for marketers. Genre is legitimate framework or window through which to view a story. Every genre has its conventions, and you can play them straight or subvert them. I like subversion myself (or maybe I’m just saying subversion is easier, since playing it straight and doing it well seems much harder to me), but that’s also why The Corrections came up so early in this discussion — one way to avoid the “same ol’ same ol” is to start mixing DNA and create mutants.

C. Yet: SF can mean Star Wars, Star Trek. It can mean Terminator or Alien(s). It can mean Primer or Solaris. It can also mean Videodrome, The Brood, or even Crash (1996). (It’s both cool and kinda sad that those last three are by the same guy.) SF, to me, is about taking an idea or premise that simply doesn’t exist at all in the real world and extrapolating something (usually a story) out of it.

D. Anyway, the point is, when you think “SF” you think of limited boundaries; when I think of “SF”, I think of a lack of them. Therefore, SF, to me, really isn’t a genre.

E. Five Days of Continuous Blogging — I did it!

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Friday
Jan 13, 2006

Genre is for Marketers posted by Martin

Prison planet as a banishment planet—interesting idea. Although, it doesn’t make so much sense to me that an advanced culture would use a single planet, and all of its resources, for one single crime. Or, let me restate that—I don’t see an advanced society using multiple planets for one crime each (if that’s what you were saying). I could imagine enclaves on that planet, or a larger population of one type than another. Or, were you saying that the only event that sparks banishment is telepathy? That’s the only “crime” that is deemed extreme enough to banish people? In any case, the telepathy idea is great. I think we should play with that and see if we can get any traction.

But what if the telepathy people were having to live on the same planet with murderers and rapists? (by the way—by sexual offenses I wasn’t thinking of sexual orientation, although I like that interpretation, but I meant more like molesters of children). What if the telepaths had to defend their turf, what would their society look like? Would they form alliances? What would the politics look like? Would there be rapist nations? Murderer countries? Boy, does that raise issues of intolerance and old-world cultural bigotry.

Also, given variations in nature, I would imagine that telepathy would be stronger in some people, and less strong in others. And the focus would be different—just like the locus of attention can be narrowed to filter out the external stimuli around us every day. Without that, it seems that we would have a society of severely autistic people. Imagine telepathy in today’s world: we’d have the nosy neighbor woman using telepathy to spread rumors. We’d have guys on the make trying to use telepathy to score, only to be shot down by more telepathic women. We’d have religious people using open telepathy to prove that their hearts and minds are pure. We’d have liars who use telepathy to send many mixed messages about themselves, to confuse people. Or, is telepathy not about sending at all but about receiving? You can’t broadcast anything, but people can just read your mind? How accurate is the read, then?

What are the courts like in telepathic society? What are the cops like? How wide is the range of telepathy? Can anybody ever escape? Do telepathic mothers tell their children that they can only play as far as the mother’s telepathy reaches? How do telepathic wives cheat on telepathic husbands? How do telepathic husbands hide their homosexuality from telepathic wives? The answer to that last question would seem to be, “they can’t,” but then what about people who hide great truths from themselves? Do telepathic people have a greater insight to other people’s plights than they do themselves, or is telepathy tempered by the same messy thinking that constitutes our minds? Do telepathic people rely on others to tell them how they should live? Do they get other people’s thoughts confused with their own? How do they intermingle—at what point are they not individuals, and become the Borg? Are there telepathic “Chatty Cathy’s?” What’s the telepathic equivalent of the dude who sits on the couch and grunts in reply to any question?

Can telepathy be targeted? Can I read one mind around me, or do I have to read all the minds? Is it trainable, like a radio dial, or is it a flood of messages like the floor of the NY Stock Exchange? Do the thoughts compete? How does one stand out?

All these questions are just leading to my need to understand the rules of the game. If we define those, it might make our world more interesting. Although, we are raised with the specter of having to visually show people’s thoughts.

But our hero: the idea about telepathy raises a few ideas. Either we have a messiah story of sorts (ala Harry Potter, or the Matrix) where a child is born who has the power to block people from reading his mind, but he can read others, and therefore solve societies biggest problem. (Note: I’m using the he pronoun for convenience, this child could also be a girl—although we will need a love interest, and the sex of the child would lead to different dynamics there).

We have a Chicken Little story of sorts, where a seemingly ordinary—or better still, downtrodden—kid notices something—like that the Prison Planet is no longer guarded, or that some large cultural assumption is untrue, and the trouble that this person has trying to convince the society that they are right.

I have always liked messiah stories, personally, they are resonant beyond culture—the basis of many superhero stories. But, we would need to build a world with strong enough resistance, that the appearance of the messiah is inevitable. Which is not to say I’m against the chicken little idea.

Of course, that leads us to think more about the planet itself. Is it guarded, and are the guards on the surface, or maybe in satellite space stations? Are the guards robotic? How old is the Prison Planet? What if a society picked a prison planet for their telepathic outcasts, and it was already populated by another sentient race? Not to get to Star Treky here (the rocks are communicating with us, and they challenge our concept of sentient races! Don’t hurt the rocks, you goddamn miners!), but a race encountering another race is always good. What if our group is the first group of banished? What would their pioneer life be like? What if they voluntarily went to the planet? Sure, that wouldn’t be a prison planet, but I don’t want to be closed to a great idea, even if it twists our original spark.

Finally, I made the quip yesterday about sci-fi. It could have been my lack of thinking clearly, but it’s also because I just don’t care about genre. Genre is for marketers to tag the movie after we write it. I have to be careful, because as soon as I say “Oh, we’re working in sci-fi,” then I’ll immediately start limiting myself to things that I think that genre contains. If we need to, we can constrain later, but I need to remind myself to push the boundaries early on.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Thursday
Jan 12, 2006

Sci Fi? posted by Martin

In reading Mr. Shockah’s recent posts I actually caught myself thinking: “Interesting—he wants to take Prison Planet to the sci-fi genre…”

Longer commentary coming when my mind is actually operating the way it should.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Thursday
Jan 12, 2006

Reading List: Alfred Bester posted by kza

“Reading List” is a new feature I just made up because I need to get my Spitball! quota out of the way. Whether or not it’s a continuing feature is up to time and tide. Also, the link to the forum will take you to the “Books” section of the forum, because, well, that makes sense.

Alfred Bester (1913 - 1987) was a SF writer, best known for two seminal novels, The Demolished Man and The Stars, My Destination. Check out the Wikipedia entry for more info cuz the Shockah aint about no biographical sketches. Instead, Reading List is about how these books might inform The Screenplay.

The Demolished Man takes place in a world where the police force is made up mainly of telepaths, and they’re powerful enough that they can tell when someone’s going to commit a crime, and can stop them before they do it. (Yeah, it’s kinda like Minority Report but with telepathy instead of precognition.) Anyway, the plot is about a billionaire businessman who decides to murder his closest rival, and the steps he takes to get away with it and not get caught by the lead telepathic detective. (Supposedly the guy who did Chopper was going to do a film version; I don’t know what happened to it, but I saw it in my head with Michael Douglas and Denzel Washington in the leads. Of course, that would be hideous typecasting.)

The Stars, My Destination is about Gully Foyle, a grunt on a spaceship who survives the destruction of the ship when everyone else dies, and vows revenge on the passing spaceship that neglects to pick him up. Like everyone says, it’s basically a riff on The Count of Monte Cristo, as this illiterate, violent man remakes himself into faux-royalty in order to get closer to his object of revenge. (It’d be perfect for Ving Rhames or that guy who played Kingpin in Daredevil. Or even the Rock, come to think of it. But not Vin; he’s played out. Sorry, Vin.) Oh, did I mention that, along the way, he ends up on a Prison Planet?

Well, I don’t recall the whole planet being a prison, but it’s an interesting idea for one: it’s a huge cavern network without any lights whatsoever, so the prisoners are functionally blind. And naked, as well. (Wait, maybe that’s why Vin would’t be such a great choice — too much like that Riddick guy.) I don’t remember how he gets out (I remember he has help from a woman prisoner — it’s coed), but that’s kinda what both these Bester books are like — impossible situations that could only exist in their SF worlds, and the remarkably clever solutions the protagonists devise to solve them. (How do you keep a telepath from learning you want to murder someone? Does “Peanut Butter Jelly Time” mean anything to you?)

So now I’m realizing that it’s pretty damn hard to talk about these books in any detail without spoiling them, and they’re too good to spoil. One thing, tho, that might be worth ~~stealing~~ being inspired by: Bester’s visual imagination. Well, thing is, I don’t remember a whole lot of expository description in his books, but I’m left with a definite look in my head. It’s kinda Gilliamish, like maybe if Gilliam did Dune. Slightly comic-booky, with vibrant primary colors and basic geometric shapes — ah! I just realized the look it makes me think of: Moebius. Anyway, for the time being, that’s the visual sensibility I think I’ll be bringing to Prison Planet. No doubt it will evolve into something else, but that’s what I’m starting with. Oh, another thing possibly worth ~~stealing~~ borrowing: The style of his names. Some examples: Gully Foyle. @kins. Peter Y’ang-Yeovil. Presteign of Presteign. Robin Wednesbury. Keno Quizzard. It’s like a cross between Dickens and Vonnegut.

Anyway, that’s my Public Service Reading Announcement for the day, from a guy who reads like maybe five books a year. Look for my next Reading List installment in about a month — it’ll probably be Alistair Horne’s book about the Paris Commune. That could provide a lot of interesting inspiration!

Comments (0) — Category: books

Wednesday
Jan 11, 2006

Brass Tacks posted by kza

Like probably a lot of people, my best ideas seem to come to me at the worst possible times: in the shower, trying to fall asleep, oral sex. (I kid on one of those.) Last night, while watching The Simpsons Season 7, Disc 4 for the umpteenth time (The Simpsons is a sleep-aid around my house), I began to think about how to contribute directly to this Prison Planet idea. I came up with some good ideas. And then I fell asleep.

So now I’m going to try and reconstruct those good thoughts and see if there’s soup in ‘em. Unfortunately, I probably won’t be able to reconstruct the witticisms they were couched in. (I’ll probably recapitulate a lot of what Grymz said already in the first post about the Prison Planet, but I think it’s a good idea to go over stuff continuously — I find it’s difficult to find something truly new unless the old is as familiar as your own body.)

Okay, so this is a Prison Planet. This indicates that we’re dealing with some kind of galactic empire. Now, some knowledge of this galactic empire will probably be necessary at some point, but right now, I don’t care. Not important. The galactic empire can go fuck themselves for the time being. Right now, all I want to know about is the Prison Planet. (And ideally, the Prison Planet, what it’s about, why it’s there, will give us clues as to the character and makeup of the galactic empire.)

Now, if we have a planet that’s devoted solely to being a place of incarceration, that suggests two extremes: That it’s basically the prison for the empire, and the prisoners are there for every possible type of crime, or that the planet is for one particular type of prisoner, one particular type of crime. (Obviously, there can be middle ground between the two extremes, but talking about the extremes is better suited for my purposes at this point.)

Which, if forced to choose, is the better choice? I’d prefer to go with the second. It’s simpler. It raises more questions than it answers. If we went with the first one, and know that it’s simply a prison like any other, but only on a planetary scale, then I think a lot of interesting possibilities are closed off. (Not all, just a lot.) But if it’s only one type of crime that is being punished on this planet — that’s more interesting. What kind of crime needs its own planet to successfully incarcerate its prisoners? I have, what I hope, are some interesting ideas for that, but let’s go to the next level of Prison Planet design.

The next big choice is: Is there an infrastructure and bureaucracy that runs the prison? Or are the prisoners left to fend for themselves? (And if they fend for themselves, have they recreated their own civilization?) Of course, there’s a whole spectrum of in-between here that’s possible, but, to get started, I think it best to pick one extreme and subtle it out later. If were to choose, I think I’d go for the former — my predilection, in this case, is for a story that was more about the use and delegation of power (think Abu Ghraib) than one that was more about the sociological workings of a world, which is what the second indicates to me. (Normally, I’d be all for the second one, but I think I’m more into that when it’s based on the real present or past, not made up out of whole cloth.)

(And it should be noted here that none of these opinions are writ in stone; in fact, right now, they’re more like passing fancies. If someone can come up with a killer story or character that needs “the prisoners fend for themselves” world, then by all means.)

Finally, the last major choice at this time is, what kind of crime puts a person on the Prison Planet? I’ve already thrown out, for now, the idea that all crimes are represented on Prison Planet. So what is it that condemns someone here? Burley listed some of the possibilities: Rape, murder, sexual offenses (which I assume by which he means something like sexual orientation), political expediency. None of these quite work for me. They could if someone has the right spin on it, but right now I’m not seeing it. None of these seem extreme enough to require their own planet (which, admittedly, is a problem because of my own choice.) And this is one of the things that hit me last night:

What if the crime was a disease?

That would go a long way in explaining why they have their own planet. It’s almost more like Quarantine Planet rather than Prison Planet. (It also makes me think how this could end up a SF remake of >Papillon, which I’d definitely watch, but isn’t really what I want to do here.) So all these prisoners could be afflicted with Space AIDS or Space Leprosy or Space Asian Bird Flu or what have you, and, in that case, the Prison Planet would seem (seem) to be just as beneficial for the prisoners as it would be for the rest of the empire, assuming that they were treated the same way we treat people who suffer from disease.

The major problem with that idea is, of course, that having a disease, while unfortunate, isn’t usually a crime, unless we’re talking Super Draconian Empire. Also, disease usually = death, so all these prisoners are doomed to die. There’s potential there (Prisoner doesn’t want to die on this rock and tries to escape to another planet where it’s said there’s a cure), but it’s kinda getting away from the whole Prison Planet idea and what it represents. But then I had another idea. Or rather, I decided to steal blatantly from Douglas Adams:

What if the disease was telepathy?

Mass telepathy would really fuck a nation up, in a lot of ways. It’d be almost impossible to keep political and military secrets. It’d be almost impossible to keep personal secrets, infidelities and such. And as Douglas Adams explained, being stuck around a bunch of telepaths would drive anyone insane. (IIRC, Adams suggested that one telepathic race invented incessant small-talk to maintain sanity.) And, just to make things more interesting, what if it was a disease that was really hard to contract? What if you had to more or less make a conscious choice to contract it? Well, there’s your crime right there.

That’s a lot of writing for what amounts to be a few small ideas. I have some more (including an alternate disease) but I’ll stop now and wait for feedback. Ball has been passed to Burley.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Tuesday
Jan 10, 2006

What is a meta for? posted by Martin

Two interesting points in your last post about Prison Planet (which, I hereby propose is our working title. If voted down, I am happy to consider others, but I’m kind of excited about the fact that if we keep writing about this, anybody searching for the term “prison planet” on Google is gonna get inundated with Spitball! posts about it. Currently, they are drawn to political statement websites).

1. Ultimate point of finding a character.
Yes. Of course, and good point. That is our goal, I’d say. Not, as has been our habit in the past, to entwine ourselves in overly complex plot points and lose site of the character within. I would go so far as to say that one of the metrics we should judge Prison Planet by is the emotional resonance of the characters, whatever their state happens to be.

2. Metaphor
Well, yes—the Prison Planet is kind of obvious as one, but I think we should be careful about how we play with metaphor. I would propose that we define a few rules about the world, and then start a search for our protagonist. We find them and their story, and not worry about potential metaphors until we have the script better plotted out. Then we can tighten things to reinforce subtext if needed, but I’ll bet it worms it’s own way into our story through our interests.

To that end, I propose that we both spend some time ruminating on what is exciting or cool to us about the idea of a Prison Planet? We can mesh our ideas and come up with a landscape that might suggest a character. Are you game?

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Tuesday
Jan 10, 2006

Re: what's a Spitball? posted by Martin

I too learned this term from William Goldman, but I didn’t think the term originated with him. After a handy search of the online OED (thanks SPL!), my suspicions were confirmed.

And actually, the use of the term to mean a transfer of information pre-date use as a baseball term by quite a few years. In 1888, the OED attributes the following to Judge 10 Nov. 68/1 “All statements to the opposite are spit-balls at the moon.” The baseball use starts in 1905, in J.J. McGraw’s Official Baseball Guide.

The OED winds up the definition page with our current use: Spitball: “To throw out suggestions for discussion”

The first reference to the movie industry is from 1955, attributed to H. Kurnitz, from his Invasion of Privacy. “I’m just thinking out loud… Spitballing we call it in the movie business.” So, it sounds as if it’s an old Hollywood term.

Other good quotes included C. Larson, in 1976’s Muir’s Blood “‘Are you serious?’ Blixen asked. ‘I’m spitballing,’ Schreiber replied.’” Most curiously, though, we find a quote in the New Yorker from May 1977: “The spitballer won’t grow into his father’s jacket.”

Please note that none of the following have included a mandatory exclamation point with the term, thus leaving us to break what small new ground we can.

Comments (0) — Category: About

Tuesday
Jan 10, 2006

What's a Spitball? posted by kza

Just realized there might be people out there unfamiliar with the term “spitball”, which makes a lot of our in-jokes (well, maybe only the funny names) incomprehensible.

“Spitballing” is a term invented by William Goldman (author and screenwriter of such classics as Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid and All The President’s Men) as kind of synonym for brainstorming. If you’ve read any of his books (particularly “Which Lie Did I Tell? More Adventures in the Screen Trade”), then you know that Goldman loooves to spitball — sit around with other writers and throw out ideas for plots and characters, and, most importantly, taking them to their logical conclusions.

I’d like to think the relevance to our little project goes without saying.

Comments (0) — Category: About

Tuesday
Jan 10, 2006

Previously, on "Prison Planet" posted by kza

This is my first post on The Screenplay, and I’m not sure where to start. So I’m going to start everywhere at once, and just throw this shit at the wall and see what sticks.

It looks like we’ll be designing the Prison Planet from the ground up, in order to figure out what kind of world we’re dealing with, and what kind of characters and conflicts would emerge from this setting. I’m not against that; on the contrary, in general it’s a good idea. However, I think the ultimate point in doing so should be in discovering a character (ideally, the protagonist) who both is unique by nature and by the conflict that impinges on him – a character that couldn’t exist without the Prison Planet. Also, just to make things more difficult, the character’s unique nature and the conflict should be intertwined, if not the same.

To not have this goal, to simply build the Prison Planet for the sake of itself… To me, it’s like in one of my writing classes when I was at school, when the class built a character from the ground up. Give her a name! What does she do? What does she look like? Where does she live? Etc. Not that these aren’t good questions, but the end result was a Frankenstein’s monster, with no real obvious use. And it’s not that there weren’t any conflicts in the character – I’m sure some were suggested – but they didn’t seem like they were connected to anything in the character. So that’s my big fear with that strategy – that we end up with this thing that’s somewhat interesting in and of itself, but with no real narrative use.

I guess what I’m saying, at risk of looking like some hack screenwriting book author, it’s all about Character + Conflict. If the Prison Planet can give us that (and hopefully, one that couldn’t exist without the Prison Planet), awesome; otherwise, I’m content to start elsewhere. But of course, we won’t know until we try.

So the other thing I was thinking: Prison Planet as metaphor. How can one’s life be a prison planet? One’s city? One’s mind? One’s social world? I’m not arguing that this is a better place to start than a literal Prison Planet; in fact, it seems as hackneyed, if not moreso. But I remember when Burley first mentioned the Prison Planet idea, and my first response (because I like novelty and mash-ups and contrasts in general) is to combine it with something else, and the first thing that popped into my head was Jonathan Franzen’s The Corrections. But I don’t mean that book literally (I’ve never read it), but that as a symbol of a kind of “literariness” that might contrast nicely with the SF pulpiness of a Prison Planet. So one way to incorporate that is to think of it as a metaphor.

Okay, so for my first screenplay post, I shit on everything without offering anything constructive. Great. For my next post, I’ll either contribute directly to the idea of a Prison Planet, or I’ll make the Space Needle disappear. Whichever’s easier.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Tuesday
Jan 10, 2006

The Suggestive Title Inn posted by Martin

Oh please, oh please, Mr. Shockah—can we write a scene that takes place here? (found on Motel Hell)

Comments (0) — Category: inspiration

Monday
Jan 09, 2006

How To Use This Site posted by kza

(The following is intended for those new to the site as well as co-administrators who are still trying to wrap their feeble minds around the vast, intimidating thing they’ve helped birth.)

Welcome to Spitball! (Exclamation point is mandatory.)

The point of the site is to write a screenplay, from start to finish, from germinal ideas to 120 pages of dramatic goodness. Although the authors of this site, Burley Grymz and Urban Shockah, are ultimately the authors of the screenplay, we invite everyone on the Blog-o-Web to contribute. That creates some sticky conundrums, so, before you do that, you may want to peruse this and this.

Okay, so you’ve decided to contribute — what now?

Well, first thing, read the entries. Burley and I will, in all likelihood, have a running conversation about the screenplay via blog entries, kinda like how those goofs over at SLOG discuss Brokeback Mountain and threaten to post pictures of nude men and women at each other.

(I say “in all likelihood” because, this being the beginning stages of this site, I have no idea how it will evolve. Stay tuned.)

Anyway, so you’ve read about our ideas and still want to contribute. You’ll notice that instead of blog comments, we have a link that reads, “Comment on this post in the forum”. Because this project is potentially huge and unwieldy, the forum is our home base, our Death Star if you will, where all the ideas will be collected and the real work will be done. Each and every blog post will have an accompanying forum topic, so there should be a place for every idea and every thought. But if not, we also have the “Ideas and Critique” board and the “Plot” board — and I presume some of the heavy lifting (collating relevant posts and debuting drafts of scenes) will occur here as well. And while you’re in the forum, why not visit some of the other boards? We’ve got places to discuss movies, books, and TV, as well as a place to talk about your own work, and other specialized boards. Want to bitch about the look and organization of this site? Go here.

(Remember to register to access the forum!)

So that’s kinda how Spitball! is going to roll: Burley and I will post ideas about the screenplay (and eventually, completed pages), and you can provide feedback in the forums, and we’ll listen to your feedback and fold it into the ideas and pages, and you’ll provide more feedback, and so on and so on, and maybe, eventually, we’ll have a completed screenplay at the end of the tunnel.

A screenplay that anyone is welcome to use.

Comments (0) — Category: About

Monday
Jan 09, 2006

Are we Open Source? posted by Martin

This is to clarify—or at least talk about—the idea that we are open source. Are we?

The open source movement started in an effort to develop free software, at a time when commercial software, with proprietary code, was becoming commonplace. The commonly heard refrain is that the software should be free-as-in-speech, not free-as-in-free-beer. That is, the code itself should always be open, even if the software is commercial in nature.

An impressive infrastructure has been grown to promote, grow and release free software. The concept is usually that somebody gets an idea, does some coding and then puts the code into a repository where others can download it and work on it, if they’re interested. Those other coders can submit their code back to the originators, and if the originators like the work done by the submitters, they’ll commit it to the code base.

I’ve often thought that writers could learn a lot about organization from software developers—especially using version control, but that said, we’re not really open source. We’re not writing a screenplay for you to work on and contribute scenes to, which will get added if we like them.

Most free software is released under a number of licenses (GNU, Berkely, etc) with the intention that the creators are retaining the copyright to the works, but that you are free to take that work and modify it for your needs, or to modify it and submit it back to the community.

So, how are we different?

We’re releasing our work into the Public Domain. That means that NOBODY owns it. At all. Zip. You don’t even have to credit us if you take it and use it.

Why? Why do this instead of license it open source, with a more restrictive license? Simple: screenplays are potentially worth a lot of money. If we just went with an open source model, you wouldn’t get the benefit of “using” (i.e. selling) the screenplay if it was really fantastic. This is unlike a coder who adds to an open source project, and gets to use the software she helped write. Unless we had an infrastructure in place of filmmakers ready to produce open-source projects, the incentive for the contributer is low. Besides, would you ever shake the feeling that you’re just helping these two guys on a website with a funny name? Wouldn’t you be suspicious that your good work might be the thing that made the deal for these two guys? Heck, what if it was the bit that really made the screenplay amazing. And then we sold it. And you got nothing.

Instead, we’re stripping away the financial incentive for us, and for you, but making the work public domain. This means it belongs to everybody (at least in the U.S., I’m not sure about other countries—and actually, here’s a disclaimer that I’m not a lawyer, etc, etc), so essentially nobody can sell it. Or, everybody can sell it. Maybe you can sell it. You can take the final work that you hated, and insert your bits of magic and then sell that. You can re-incorporate our dialogue or plot points into your work, just like artists and painters have done for the thousands of years, without worrying about us suing you.

In a best case scenario, we have people who are interested and writing, uploading bits and pieces to add to a screenplay that we started, but that everybody refines and owns. We’ll control our version of the “trunk” (as the main software development line is called), and you can control any “branch” you want. We sincerely hope that you’ll be interested in the community aspect, and hang out on our forums to talk about these things.

Comments (0) — Category: About

Thursday
Jan 05, 2006

Contemplating the contemplation posted by Martin

Mr. Shockah and I have more ideas than time to flesh them out. That’s just the nature of writing—the fullest screenplays start with a singular query—something that captures your attention. For me, it’s usually a question—in this case, what would a prison planet be like?

Now that we have to answer that question—have to, mind you—I’m trying to think about it from a different angle. Could you tell a love story on a Prison Planet (a: yes). Could you tell a comedy on a Prison Planet (a: yes). Could you make an action-adventure / horror / gory mess on a prison planet (a: yes). Political movie, chick flick—it could be all be done there—the setting suggests a plot, but doesn’t have to be the plot. Of course, if it’s not important to what happens, then there is no sense but pure whimsy to put the thing on the damn planet to begin with, so the plot will have to revolve somehow with the fact that the setting is a prison planet.

But, that caveat aside, we could really do anything we want. So, where do we start? Maybe we start with a character. Maybe that character is a prisoner just being sent to the planet. So, if that is indeed where we’re going to start (I’ll wait for Mr. Shockah to opine before I start spinning too far), then a bunch of questions pop up. Why is he there? What did she do? How did he get there? How is she put on the planet’s surface? Where on the planet is he put down? Are their guards on the planet surface? Are their guards in space? Do they monitor technology on the surface? What is the weather on the planet?

Suddenly, these questions start getting answered and a hazy picture starts being drawn:

A woman was convicted of murdering her violent husband is sentenced to the Prison Planet. She arrives there after being beamed on a stream of light. There is a heavily guarded landing station that the prisoners are always trying to assault, but as of yet they have not been successful. The skies are continually stormy with orange clouds as she is pushed out into the station by cruel guards into a crowd of very hungry looking men… or

A man convicted of treason—he was the president of his planet—is sent away after a coup. He is put on the ground by a lifter space craft that drops him with supplies in the middle of a desert. There are no guards. there is no one around. He has limited food and water… or

A woman is brought before a court in the largest city of the prison planet. They read the charges from her captors and assign her a task on the planet surface. The ore mines are popular with many people, but she has experience with high culture. She’ll be a domestic to one of the highest ranking judges, just doing his time until he can be rotated off the prison planet…

So, none of those kill me, but I could spend all night writing little synopsis. Somewhere in there we’ll find the hook that starts getting us more jazzed. What say you Mr. Shockah? Where would you like to start this discussion?

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Wednesday
Jan 04, 2006

Just What The Hell Do We Think We're Doing? (And How Do You Fit In?) posted by kza

Good question. I’m not entirely sure, either.

Again, the Big Idea, as Burley posted below in “Statement of Purpose” is to write a screenplay completely through this newfangled medium called the InterWeb. Every idea, every outline, every piece of communication between the Mic Rockah and B-to-the-G, will be posted here.

(This will be slightly harder than it seems, since we’ve been known to talk on the phone and hang out every once in a while. I believe we decided that if — horrorz! — we should accidentally talk about the screenplay in a non-Spitball!-approved medium, we’ll post the contents of said dialogue here. That should be interesting.)

So far, so good. But what about you, Dear Reader? It would be fine and dandy if this site was just a collection tank for our Bob Loblaw, but would anyone care? If we built a screenplay on the Web and no one read it, would it exist?

(OT: If a bear shits in the woods, does Timothy Treadwell videotape it? A: Yes.)

In other words, as interesting as this project is to us personally, it would be more interesting to us if it was interesting to you. So towards that, we’ve decided to allow you, yes you, that guy in North Carolina, to contribute to the screenplay. And by contribute, we mean anything you want: ideas, characters, dialogue, whole freakin’ scenes, if you wish. It should also go without saying that we crave feedback — what works and what doesn’t — on all levels of the screenplay’s construction, and I was taught that the best way to criticize a piece of art is with another piece of art.

But here’s the catch: This is not, repeat not, a screenplay-by-committee thang. Ultimately, we, the two dudes with the funny names, decide what the screenplay is, and what goes in it and what doesn’t. And our names (probably not the funny ones) go on the cover page.

But waitafrickin’minute, you say. Why the hell should I bother contributing to your shitty-ass screenplay? What’s in it for me, the guy from North Carolina?

Another good point. Normally, absolutely nothing.

Except.

We’ve decided to make this screenplay, as the computer geeks call it, “open source”. What this means — as I understand it — is that the screenplay is public domain. Grymz has the full low-down on that; but the long and short of it is that everyone owns the screenplay. (And thus, no one does. Note to self: The Incredibles’ Syndrome as open source advocate. Must think on.)

So whatever you write for this project, you can use in whatever way you want. You can also use anything we write for this project. You can use the whole damn screenplay if you want. I think there are issues about giving credit, but otherwise, it’s all fair game. Think our first thirty pages are super-keen, but the rest sucks? Take it and write your own second and third act. Like one of the characters but find the rest to be toilet paper? Do it to it, man. As the Wu-Tang Clan once opined, it’s yourz.

Will any of this work? (And what exactly does “work” mean in this context?) I dunno. But if there wasn’t a chance of failure, it wouldn’t be an experiment. One day, Burley and I hope to be working at this professionally, clockin’ lots of dollars. And when that day comes, a funny little idea like this won’t be possible for us to execute — Disney or Paramount or Mark Cuban or whoever the hell would certainly frown on it. But we aint there yet, so while we’re still young, we’re going to do something that hasn’t been done before.

And if you want to join us, all the sweeter.

Comments (0) — Category: About

Tuesday
Jan 03, 2006

Contemplating the Engine posted by Martin

What does a prison planet look like? Does a culture that has a prison planet pick a planet bereft of resources? What if the Prison Planet is old—centuries old? Does it become a viable culture and government (hello Australia!)?

What kind of prisoners does this culture send there? What kind of crime is so subversive that you must abandon the people that commit them? Rape? Murder? Sexual Offenses? If so, what level of offense? What if the government could legally, and culturally acceptably, get rid of their political opponents, would they do so?

How does the culture get their prisoners there? Prison planets could only exist in a culture that has very inexpensive space travel. Does that mean that there are aliens there? How does the alien government feel about this culture banishing their citizens?

The cliche of Prison Planet seems to be the Mad Max landscape—post-apocalyptic—but Prison Planet isn’t post-anything, it’s pre-something. Also, it seems to me that it wouldn’t resemble prison movies or shows that we have seen—the engine of those being the following recipe: 1. Take violent and unpredictable men, 2. Put them in an incredibly confined space.

But on the Prison Planet, can’t the prisoners spread out anywhere they want to? If so, would they start trade networks? What kind of commerce would arise?

If a group of prisoners—let’s say women—controlled a resource, could they take control of the planet? What would a prisoner-run matriarchy look like?

These are the kinds of questions running around my head, when I think of Prison Planet. I want to know what the engine is before I can see characters existing on it, not to mention that the engine might dictate the plot itself. Grand struggle, or personal struggle? Well, always the latter—of course—but in the context of what?

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Sunday
Jan 01, 2006

Statement of Purpose posted by Martin

To listen to the stereotype, all that one needs to break into the exciting and lucrative world of Hollywood screenwriting is an idea. After all, you’ll only get that one chance to wheedle up to some cigar-puffing exec and say in your midwestern white-boy (Screenwriting is still tragically overrun by white guys. Like us.) voice-just-breaking drawl “It’s a sci-fi story about time travel starring Martin Luther transported to the American Revolution—he pins the Declaration of Independence on Hitler’s ass!” Or, maybe you’ll squeal through the studio gates in your 1970s beat-to-shit Range Rover, with a day pass won by seducing a secretary with your manly Testeszterhaus swagger. You’ll slap the big guy on the back—already looking ahead to that weekend in Acapulco with him and some hookers—and say “Rejected teenage fat chick turns into Femme Fatale and seeks revenge by detonating a nuclear suitcase bomb at her class reunion. Only, she didn’t know that little Jimmy Parson, who was always nice to her ungrateful ass, grew up to be the fucking head of the F.B.I. Bamm! Bitch gets what’s coming—but not without three acts and lots of tits.” Rube and Joe here get contracts, big pads in the Hollywood Hills, and more blow than they can snort.

We believe those stereotypes are categorical bullshit. Movies might begin as a pitch, or a logline or an idea, but movies really start as a script. The writing is what separates the stereotypes from the writers who might have a chance. The true value of success in Hollywood will not be won by clever ideas, but good writing, character development, and emotional resolution to problems that audience members actually care about.

To think that ideas are the engine of movies is to devalue the incredibly talented screenwriters that have come before. It’s a medium every bit as difficult as novel writing, with smart and dedicated competition—probably younger and better dressed than you—all wanting to grab some golden ring. Luckily media is expanding daily, and the one thing that media needs if it wants to make a splash with the public is a story. Nothing is exempt.

So we’ve decided to perform an experiment in public here—this is screenwriting without a net. We are going to conceive, develop and write a screenplay completely on this blog. Every conversation we have about it will be broadcast here. Every word we write—in preparation or actual drafting, will be published here. Even more, we are publishing this work into the public domain. If you don’t like what we’re doing, take the damn thing and write it yourself. Re-write it—post comments that tell us what we’re doing wrong.

There are no restrictions on your use of the material, although we certainly hope that you’ll turn around and put your variations back into the public domain. Even better, we hope you’ll post in our forums and tell people what you’ve done, and how to get it.

We’re hoping that people just starting to write can learn something here. We’re hoping that more experienced writers will pipe in and tell us what we’re doing wrong. Maybe things will go well. Maybe they’ll descend into chaos. Maybe it will be a mistake.

But if it ends up being a mistake, it will be a mistake in execution. No one succeeded without putting themselves on the line a bit and trying something public. Or, as Beckett so eloquently put it: No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better.

Comments (0) — Category: About

Sunday
Jan 01, 2006

In the beginning were two words posted by Martin

Kent and I have had a lot of conversations about the project that you’re looking at here. We’ve talked about the forums and the blog, what each post needs, what each post doesn’t need, should we have a blogroll or not, and a myriad of other subjects under the sun.

There’s one topic we have not broached at all, save for two words. That’s about the screenplay we’re going to write here. After all, the idea is that every conversation we have; every attempt at outlining, writing and arguing about what parts should be in and what should be kept out—all of those conversations are going to take place here on the blog. In public. With you watching and commenting, hopefully.

But Kent and I are full of it. Ideas. We’re full of ideas, so in order to give a bit of focus to an otherwise potentially out of control project, we picked an idea from our archive that we wanted to develop here. Of course, in our archive, the project is still only two words long. We’ve never really spent any time on it, other than to speak the two words, laugh and say “that’d be awesome to work on.”

Okay, enough teasing. Those two words—the words that will start us on the journey into the deepest jungle of screenwriting—the words that will launch this ship into the treacherous seas of public humiliation. Those two words are:

Prison Planet.

I mean, come ON! How much better can you get? As a sub-sub-sub genre, I have a loving affinity for Prison Planet movies, the most famous of which is probably Alien Prison Planet, but also due mention are Escape from Prison Planet New York, and Escape from Prison Planet Los Angeles. And even though there is a movie with the moniker Prison Planet, we still feel that the genre is under mined. The definitive prison planet movie has yet to be written. And, rest assured, ours will be outside the general cliches of the genre.

Which is not to say that our writing talent is so large as to avoid them, but is to say that although I love the Prison Planet, I’m not so down with spending a big chunk of my life writing a sweaty-muscle-men-bash-it-out sort of movie, which the genre seems to naturally suggest. But, that’s a topic for another post. Or, rather, a conversation another post will start. For now, dear friends, we will leave those two words hanging in the air. Two words that may evoke deep feelings in some of you. At the end of it all, we hope to take you to: The Prison Planet.

Comments (0) — Category: the screenplay

Original Version Archives

MondayJul 02, 2007

Roger Ebert Mindfuck posted by Martin

ThursdayJun 28, 2007

Re[6]: Shockah's Time to Die Pitch: 1.0 posted by kza

ThursdayJun 28, 2007

Re[5]: Shockah's Time to Die Pitch: 1.0 posted by Martin

WednesdayJun 27, 2007

Re[4]: Shockah's Time to Die Pitch: 1.0 posted by Martin

WednesdayJun 27, 2007

Re[3]: Shockah's Time to Die Pitch: 1.0 posted by kza

WednesdayJun 27, 2007

Re[2]: Shockah's Time to Die Pitch: 1.0 posted by kza

WednesdayJun 27, 2007

Re: Shockah's Time to Die Pitch: 1.0 posted by Martin

TuesdayJun 26, 2007

Burley's Time to Die Pitch: 1.0 posted by Martin

TuesdayJun 26, 2007

Shockah's Time to Die Pitch: 1.0 posted by kza

TuesdayJun 26, 2007

Re [2]: Pitch by Example posted by kza

MondayJun 25, 2007

Re: Pitch by Example posted by Martin

FridayJun 22, 2007

Pitch by Example posted by kza

ThursdayJun 21, 2007

RE: I challenge thee! posted by kza

ThursdayJun 21, 2007

RSS feed update posted by Martin

ThursdayJun 21, 2007

I challenge thee! posted by Martin

WednesdayJun 20, 2007

Time for Time To Die: Update Edition posted by Martin

WednesdayJun 20, 2007

Bad Idea Jeans, er, I Mean, Screenwriting Books posted by kza

TuesdayJun 19, 2007

Fictional posted by Martin

TuesdayJun 19, 2007

Man vs. Wild -- No, Really posted by kza

MondayJun 18, 2007

Re[2]: Babies and Jobs posted by Martin

MondayJun 18, 2007

RE: Babies and Jobs posted by kza

SundayJun 17, 2007

Babies and Jobs posted by Martin

MondayJan 22, 2007

Look Ma, I'm Blogging posted by kza

FridayDec 29, 2006

Time to Die: The Treatment: Bare Bones Edition posted by kza

FridayNov 03, 2006

Re[3]: National Novel Writing Month posted by kza

FridayNov 03, 2006

Re[2]: National Novel Writing Month posted by Martin

ThursdayNov 02, 2006

Re: National Novel Writing Month posted by kza

ThursdayNov 02, 2006

National Novel Writing Month posted by Martin

MondayOct 30, 2006

re: Where Do We Go From Here posted by Martin

FridayOct 27, 2006

Where Do We Go From Here posted by kza

WednesdayOct 25, 2006

Get Real posted by Martin

TuesdayOct 24, 2006

Behind the Music...er, 'In A World': Time to Die posted by Martin

MondayOct 23, 2006

Time To Eat Sugary Fried Dough posted by kza

MondayOct 23, 2006

Burley Grymz votes with a rhyme posted by Martin

MondayOct 23, 2006

Urban Shockah Votes With A Bullet posted by kza

MondayOct 23, 2006

The semi-finalists posted by Martin

SundayOct 22, 2006

Re: Two guys walk into a blog -- you'd think the second one would've ducked posted by Martin

MondayOct 16, 2006

Two guys walk into a blog -- you'd think the second one would've ducked posted by kza

FridayOct 13, 2006

Round 12, Part Four [La Commune Planet v. The Scabs] posted by kza

MondayOct 09, 2006

Monday
Jul 02, 2007

Thursday
Jun 28, 2007

Thursday
Jun 28, 2007

Wednesday
Jun 27, 2007

Wednesday
Jun 27, 2007

Wednesday
Jun 27, 2007

Wednesday
Jun 27, 2007

Tuesday
Jun 26, 2007

Tuesday
Jun 26, 2007

Tuesday
Jun 26, 2007

Monday
Jun 25, 2007

Friday
Jun 22, 2007

Thursday
Jun 21, 2007

Thursday
Jun 21, 2007

Thursday
Jun 21, 2007

Wednesday
Jun 20, 2007

Wednesday
Jun 20, 2007

Tuesday
Jun 19, 2007

Tuesday
Jun 19, 2007

Monday
Jun 18, 2007

Monday
Jun 18, 2007

Sunday
Jun 17, 2007

Monday
Jan 22, 2007

Friday
Dec 29, 2006

Friday
Nov 03, 2006

Friday
Nov 03, 2006

Thursday
Nov 02, 2006

Thursday
Nov 02, 2006

Monday
Oct 30, 2006

Friday
Oct 27, 2006

Wednesday
Oct 25, 2006

Tuesday
Oct 24, 2006

Monday
Oct 23, 2006

Monday
Oct 23, 2006

Monday
Oct 23, 2006

Monday
Oct 23, 2006

Sunday
Oct 22, 2006

Monday
Oct 16, 2006

Friday
Oct 13, 2006

Monday
Oct 09, 2006

Friday
Oct 06, 2006

Sunday
Sep 24, 2006

Sunday
Sep 24, 2006

Saturday
Sep 23, 2006

Friday
Sep 22, 2006

Tuesday
Sep 19, 2006

Tuesday
Sep 19, 2006

Tuesday
Sep 19, 2006

Monday
Sep 18, 2006

Monday
Sep 18, 2006

Thursday
Sep 07, 2006

Thursday
Sep 07, 2006

Wednesday
Sep 06, 2006

Tuesday
Sep 05, 2006

Tuesday
Sep 05, 2006

Tuesday
Sep 05, 2006

Tuesday
Aug 15, 2006

Wednesday
Aug 09, 2006

Thursday
Jul 13, 2006

Friday
Jul 07, 2006

Thursday
Jul 06, 2006

Tuesday
Jul 04, 2006

Monday
Jul 03, 2006

Friday
Jun 30, 2006

Friday
Jun 09, 2006

Thursday
Jun 08, 2006

Wednesday
Jun 07, 2006

Sunday
Jun 04, 2006

Saturday
Jun 03, 2006

Friday
Jun 02, 2006

Thursday
Jun 01, 2006

Thursday
Jun 01, 2006

Thursday
Jun 01, 2006

Wednesday
May 31, 2006

Wednesday
May 31, 2006