Posts Tagged ‘screenwriting’

Daybreakers: What went wrong?

Last night some friends and I went to see the new movie Daybreakers. Honestly, I’m a little sick of vampires, but I wanted to see what they did with it.

Daybreakers is the vision of the Spierig brothers. With the 1940s style costuming and vampire friendly environment you feel like you’re seeing something close to our world, but just a little different. I thought this was nicely done, even though in a few places it felt more like I was watching a music video than a film.

Honestly, this story almost made it for me. I think it’s greatest weakness was its hero. The main character fails to grab your interest, because even though he has an overriding concern, he never goes through any great transformation. He makes a physical transformation, but not a psychological or moral one, which leaves the audience with the feeling of, ‘What’s the point?’

He’s a victim hero and those guys are never any fun unless they’re out for hardcore, car-exploding, mob-bosses-dying-in-terrible-ways revenge. Our hero has no need to change, because he’s there to do exactly what the writer wanted him to do–show off the neat vampire world. Had more work been done to create a satisfying hero arch, you would have seen a completely different movie. A much better movie.

It’s good eye-candy though and there are a few cheesy lines that got a good laugh, but overall it falls short of being a satisfying film experience.

OK, so technically, it’s probably not considered a Christmas movie, but I put it in my catalog of fun things to watch around Christmas time.

Here’s the original trailer:

Here’s some making of clips about the film’s birth:

Part 2

An excellent interview with the screenwriter Caroline Thompson:

http://library.creativecow.net/articles/olague_robert/caroline_thompson.php

I couldn’t find the original script, but I did find a transcript. It at least gives you a flavor of the wonderful dialogue and character development Caroline put into the work.

http://www.imsdb.com/scripts/Edward-Scissorhands.html

I’ve noticed that most of my favorite films tend to have a speculative element. Edward Scissorhands is a kind of suburban fairytale and fantasy. I’m not sure if it’s a good one to use as a commercial model though, because honestly I don’t think something like this would have made it through the studio system at the time. Something like it might today though.

Edward is on my ‘watch 5 times’ list. I think it takes watching something about 5 times to truly grok its structure.

[It should be noted that most of this is derived from work done by Michael Hauge's Screenwriting for Hollywood]. The character types and goals are his, the patterns are something I derived. The patterns are flexible and shouldn’t be considered an exhaustive resource.

The following are the most common external goals:

EG.A) Hero’s goal is to win a competition.
EG.B) Hero’s goal is to win a love.
EG.C) Hero’s goal is stop a disaster.
EG.D) Hero’s goal is to retrieve an item.
EG.E) Hero’s goal is to escape a place.
EG.F) Hero’s goal is to escape a person.

The following are the most common internal goal endpoints:

IG.A) Hero stands up for her authentic self.
IG.B) Hero risks connection with another person.
IG.C) Hero stands up for a principle.

The following are the primary characters

Hero
Antagonist
Lover
Support

EG.A) In the story where the hero’s goal is to win a competition, the antagonist is often the hero’s competition. The lover often has a relation with both the hero and the antagonist, but is in support of the hero. The support character is often a mentor who is a veteran of the competition.

EG.B) In the story where the hero’s goal is to win the love of a person, the antagonist is often a rival for that love and is typically better suited to be the object of affection’s counterpart. The lover is promised to the antagonist in some way, but desire’s the hero’s true essence. The support is typically a friend or equal who encourages the hero to pursue the love interest.

EG.C) In the story where the hero’s goal is to stop a disaster, the antagonist is often behind the disaster or wants it to occur for her own goals. The lover’s interests’ are deeply rooted in the outcome of the disaster and she faces the greatest jeopardy. The support character could easily be a secondary hero in this structure or a mentor.

EG.D) In the story where the hero’s goal is to retrieve an item, the antagonist has the item or also wants to retrieve the item. The lover is deeply connected to the item. The support character often knows the ways to retrieve the item.

EG.E) In the story where the hero’s goal is to escape a place, the antagonist is the captor. The lover is the destination and person most longed for by the hero. The support character often knows means of escape.

EG.F) In the story where the hero’s goal is to escape a person, the antagonist is the captor. The love interest is the healer and often plays the duel role of support. The support is often a reflection to the hero, showing how life away from the captor should be.

IG.A) In the story where the ending theme is ‘standing up for your authentic self’, the hero typically feels inadequate for some reason. The antagonist typically sees this inadequacy and flaunts it. The lover loves the authentic self of the hero. The support pushes for the hero to be her authentic self.

IG.B) In the story where the ending theme is ‘Hero risks connection with another person’, the hero has often suffered some great loss. The antagonist will threaten greater loss and remind the character of his past. The lover will work to uncover the wound and heal the hero. The support represents the good that comes from connecting.

IG.C) In the story where the ending theme is ‘Hero stands up for principle’, the hero often has a strong belief they are unwilling to compromise. The antagonist tries to break that principle down. The lover tests that principle and likely discovers a change in herself. The support could likely be a betrayer and show the failed principle.

This is the start of a mind map I’m working on. Its purpose is to help me make sure I’ve covered all the things I feel are important to get a complete story covered. This is a little too verbose for something like a short story, but would be ideal for a shorter novel or screenplay.

It’s not finished yet. One of my goals is to build in the various relationships between one node and another. For example, how does the character’s force of antagonism interact with the character’s fatal flaw? Eventually, I should have a long list of questions to help get the ball rolling. The end goal would be to have some sort of report that resembles a story.

It’s the day before Thanksgiving. I should be getting ready to go to the day job where I’m fighting with my antique operating system to load a stupid service pack so I can get magic application development.

What have I been doing with myself lately?

Well, the novel was fail. Total fail. Why didn’t I just finish the damn thing? Because, honestly, I don’t think anyone would want to read it. I think the subject was interesting. I think the setting was interesting, but the story I wanted to tell just wasn’t working.

First, I’m surrounded by distractions. I know that’s a lame excuse. People work through distractions all the time writing novels the size of Gone With the Wind on their Twitter accounts taking the train to and from Manhattan. I say, good for them. That’s not me. I need long stretches of time without interruptions. Maybe when I’m moved into my own place this won’t be such an issue and I can tackle longer works. I don’t know, I’ll have to just wait and see.

Second, I’ve been shifting more of my attention to screenwriting. Technically, I’m shifting more of my attention to writing romantic comedies.

Why romantic comedies? How could you possibly go from writing speculative fiction to writing romantic comedies? What the hell?

Well, here’s the deal. I had a sort of ‘coming to Cthulhu’ moment and realized something important. I have built my ego on being a speculative fiction author. Never mind the fact that I like to read and write in genres outside speculative fiction. Never mind that most of my fantasy reads more like thinly disguised attempts at bad literary fiction. And never mind the fact that I’m attempting to write a type of speculative fiction that even most speculative fiction readers don’t really like. In the end, I had to ask myself, what the hell am I trying to prove and to whom am I trying to prove it?

I’ve done some soul searching and some ego checking.

I really like romantic comedies. Actually, I really like fun, funny romantic stuff. I like romance. I like love stories. I want to see two wacky kids meet and find love in all their wackiness.

I also love big epic stories about people exploring new worlds, but when they do this stuff, I also want them to find love, redemption, beauty, and other useful virtues. So I still love speculative fiction, I just don’t think I love the kind of speculative fiction I’m writing. That’s messed up.

I’m not sure what put me down this path. Maybe it was an attempt to live up to some expectations from others or maybe it was me just going down a road blindly failing to realize it wasn’t the road I wanted to go down.

I’m also funny. In real life, I make people crack up all the time. It tends to be dry and sarcastic humor, but it’s something I’m good at. I’m not sure why I’ve fought this. I’ve fought putting humor into my fiction, I’ve fought putting myself into my fiction.

I’ve been on a quest to be honest with my fiction, but I haven’t been allowing “myself” to be a part of my fiction.

What’s the plan?

The plan is to focus more on screenwriting. Some of you who know me know I’ve had a flirting fascination with filmmaking for years. I started this fascination in the theatre and moved into various amateur attempts, but they never amounted to much.

Well, I’ve decided to stop fucking around with stuff that might get me where I want to be some day and just aim right for the target. I want to write and sell one of the best romantic comedy scripts ever. I want to write the next When Harry Met Sally. I want to write the next Working Girl, or Pretty Woman, or some other charming romance.

The plan is to keep reading every screenplay I can get my hands on. To keep watching every romantic comedy I can. The plan is to go into this thing with a clear idea of what the genre expects and find ways to both embrace that and subvert it. The plan is to allow me, the real me, to be a part of my fiction. I’ll have to show all my weak and vulnerable parts, but that’s ok. I think I can handle that now.

Does this mean I won’t write any more short stories? No, of course not. It also doesn’t mean I’m giving up on my ambitions of writing great speculative fiction. However, right now, at the place I’m at, I just can’t keep doing what I’m doing and loving what I do. I’m just not feeling the love for speculative fiction that I used to feel and instead of forcing the relationship to work we’re going to separate for a little while. We’ll still see each other from time to time, but it’s time to start seeing other genre’s and mediums.

So for the two people who occasionally check my blog, I hope this isn’t too much of a disappointment. Probably not, because you can count my publishing credits on your right hand, even if you’ve lost a few fingers. Not a big loss.

I still plan to remain somewhat active locally with the speculative fiction community. I have a lot of friends there. I’ll still continue reading slush, I’ll still attend NTSFW, but my focus for the time being is on screenwriting. Specifically, screenwriting for a whole new genre.

So I reinvent myself again. Not the first time. Won’t be the last.

This from Hitchcock by Francois Truffaut [originally found this on Mystery Man on Film's old blog]

“In many of the films now being made, there is very little cinema: they are mostly what I call ‘photographs of people talking.’ When we tell a story in cinema, we should resort to dialog only when it’s impossible to do otherwise. I always try to tell a story in the cinematic way, through a succession of shots and bits of film in between.

“It seems unfortunate, that with the arrival of sound, the motion picture, overnight, assumed a theatrical form. The mobility of the camera doesn’t alter this fact. Even though the camera may move along the sidewalk, it’s still theatre.

“One result of this is the loss of cinematic style, and another is the loss of fantasy. In writing a screenplay, it is essential to separate clearly the dialog from the visual elements and, whenever possible, to rely more on the visual than on the dialog. Whichever way you choose to stage the action, your main concern is to hold the audience’s fullest attention.

“Summing it up, one might say that the screen rectangle must be charged with emotion.”