June 10, 2008
Project: Silver Lining
Official Website
It's my pleasure to announce that Silver Lining has been selected as one of the short films to be broadcast as a part of the TVFilm series on WMHT PBS Television. WMHT is located in NY's Capital Region and is the only full-service public broadcaster serving eastern New York and western New England. TVFilm is a six-episode series spotlighting filmmakers from our region. Silver Lining will be broadcast on the TVFilm premiere on Thursday, June 12th at 10pm and will repeat the following Saturday at midnight.
This just in: Watch the extended interviews from TVFilm (including mine of course) at their website. (Adobe Flash Player required) -Ben
Showing posts with label Entertainment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Entertainment. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Sunday, March 2, 2008
Why is “Professional” a Dirty Word?
Since when did “professional” become a bad word? Since when did it mean unoriginal, uncreative, overpriced, inflexible and/or elitist? Why are professional methodologies so immediately rejected in today’s marketplaces, businesses and creative endeavors? If you undergo years of training or you have several years of experience-- that’s a bad thing? Being involved with a number of industries, I see it more and more. If a professional mentions industry standards, professional methods or structures or even accepted practices they get immediately rejected or even insulted. It's happened to me many, many times. Let’s say you own Cogswell Cogs. You want to design a new cog so, what’s the first thing you do? Create a computer model? Let’s go 3D, Wooo! Sorry, but when did the first step of problem solving become model a solution? HUFF! That tired, old, dusty, outdated, outmoded and certainly high-horsed ‘5 Steps to Problem Solving” can’t apply to our new, totally different, techno-world! To coin another ancient phrase, balderdash. Since you’ve admitted/found that there is a problem/need for this new cog, why wouldn’t the next thing be to define the problem? Why wouldn’t you talk about the need for this cog and what it should accomplish? Then perhaps you should use a low-cost method to envision the cog... perhaps even use... a... pencil. NOOOOOOO!! Graphite must be bad for the environment or something because no one seems willing to allow sketches anymore. The brain-pencil (or pen) connection is scientifically proven to engage the brain more fully than a keyboard and mouse. I’d wager even a tablet or other pen-like computer input device is still not as good as the real thing, but that’s me. Still, that’s not our focus here.
Let’s look at it a different way. A number of people have said to me that they’re proud of their success without training or experience and with less-than-professional tools. That’s great. I’m glad that anyone can pick up a tool and make something that allows them to express themselves and maybe even gives them a measure of success. That's freedom. I guess my problem is many of these people think their success means they’re suddenly da Vinci, a master at their craft. In many cases, they fail to realize the other factors that added into his or her success. Let’s say one of these folks is named Pat. Pat, who is without training or experience, has gathered a small team and together they’ve built a house using tools and materials afforded on a shoestring budget. A week after completion, the house is still standing and everyone in town loves it. It’s not totally level, but that’s okay. Genius! It doesn’t meet all the codes and standards, but that’s fine. Brilliant! Pat made it on a shoestring so, that sort of thing is understandable. A Marvel! Against these great odds, this house is a towering achievement of the layman who has conquered those terrible professionals! What Pat hasn’t told people, or doesn’t realize, is the team pulled all-nighters and worked for reduced rates without overtime or for free. Pat also doesn’t mention that some of them were actually trained carpenters who showed the team how to fill in the cracks when the pieces weren’t flush. Pat doesn’t admit that the project was a house of cards and at any moment, were it not for the kindness of others, the project would have failed. And, were it not for the vigilance of Pat’s team, someone could have been hurt or killed if the house of cards had fallen. Nope, Pat jumps from rooftop to rooftop yelling that s/he’s a visionary. Pat also doesn’t realize the ramifications his house has on the industry. Other folks in the town also want to make houses on a shoestring and complain when the (evil) professionals quote them prices ten times what Pat’s house cost. How DARE they! Soon, the professionals have to lower their rates to get any work and try to find ways to cut costs. The townspeople are unapologetic. They know you can cut costs because pros are SO overpaid and they saw that all you have to do is get cheap unskilled laborers like Pat did. And of course you don’t need to use quality tools or materials; you’re a pro and can work miracles! Wait, wait, wait. So pros are miracle workers and so they should be paid half and forced to work twice as hard? What is going on here?!
Folks, “professional” is not a bad word. Working your ass off through rigorous training doesn’t automatically mean you can’t think outside the box. Years of experience doesn’t mean you’re old and don’t apply anymore. Would you expect some untrained person to be as consistent as Norm Abrams? Just because Norm has been in the business for decades, does that mean he can no longer function? Have you watched This Old House? Mastery of one’s craft takes a lifetime. It doesn’t mean you have to know everything, but it does mean you know who to ask. And I don’t see why being good at what you do and knowing a solid, proven methodology is such a horrible concept-- to the point of insulting professionals for merely suggesting to Pat that s/he might want to look before leaping. And, being nice people who care about their craft and whose latest project is their calling card, they take it upon themselves to make it work. That my friends is eking by, not a mandate. Yes, it may work out in the end at least to an extent, but the means matter. The means matter because they always have longer lasting ramifications. Ramifications beyond that one project and perhaps even into our everyday lives.
This is not an attack on layman or on independent endeavors. I don’t think you need a huge corporation to do... well, much of anything. I’m actually a firm believer in partnerships and localizing. What I’m saying is there is a standard that should be sought and fought for. The standard is the challenge. If we keep lowering the standards and slapping down anyone who strives to exceed them, we hurt ourselves as a people. These habits bleed into the rest of our culture. This goes for high school math brains to musicians trying to share their music. It also goes for anti-social artist types and mighty athletes. It’s not the accolades that matter; it is the progression of the human race. Striving to be a pornstar college dropout Heroin addict? That’s a goal? Being the person with the most hits on Myspace or most friends on Facebook is a goal? Posting pics of your cleavage and of you and your friends getting drunk is bucking the system? As long as you have the latest cell phone, all is right with the world? What the crap is going on here? Would you want to go under the knife of a surgeon who believes a few mistakes here and there aren’t so bad? This devolution is occurring because people are lowering their standards for everything. This may be because a growing mass of people are becoming evermore lazy and wish to satisfy whimsical and shallow desires ASAP. I want, therefore I am. Is that what we're saying?! Perhaps I should have entitled this “Why is REALITY a Dirty Word?” Face up, anything good takes time and effort and you never do anything totally alone. If you want something really good, open your mind and heart and listen to a professional who might know a thing or two about what you’re trying to do. Even if that pro is a psychologist. And when you’re done, be realistic about what the final product is and strive to do better next time. And PLEASE strive to pay people an acceptable wage or make it worth everyone’s while somehow. All I ask is that you don’t use professionals as mindless tools, keep your promises and don’t ask anyone to sacrifice their integrity to complete your project. We’re all in this together. Making adjustments for safety, courtesy or quality doesn’t make it any less your baby. And lastly, give credit where credit is due. Not only make sure you have everyone’s name spelled correctly, but if someone on your staff was key to the completion of your project, let people know. Acting like you did it all alone will only harm you in the long run. If you can loosen up on the reigns a little, you’ll find you still stay on course and it’s a more rewarding ride.
That’s enough metaphor for one day! Thanks for reading. Please share your opinions and experiences. I mean that! Also, please take some time today to hug a professional. They need hugs, too.
Let’s look at it a different way. A number of people have said to me that they’re proud of their success without training or experience and with less-than-professional tools. That’s great. I’m glad that anyone can pick up a tool and make something that allows them to express themselves and maybe even gives them a measure of success. That's freedom. I guess my problem is many of these people think their success means they’re suddenly da Vinci, a master at their craft. In many cases, they fail to realize the other factors that added into his or her success. Let’s say one of these folks is named Pat. Pat, who is without training or experience, has gathered a small team and together they’ve built a house using tools and materials afforded on a shoestring budget. A week after completion, the house is still standing and everyone in town loves it. It’s not totally level, but that’s okay. Genius! It doesn’t meet all the codes and standards, but that’s fine. Brilliant! Pat made it on a shoestring so, that sort of thing is understandable. A Marvel! Against these great odds, this house is a towering achievement of the layman who has conquered those terrible professionals! What Pat hasn’t told people, or doesn’t realize, is the team pulled all-nighters and worked for reduced rates without overtime or for free. Pat also doesn’t mention that some of them were actually trained carpenters who showed the team how to fill in the cracks when the pieces weren’t flush. Pat doesn’t admit that the project was a house of cards and at any moment, were it not for the kindness of others, the project would have failed. And, were it not for the vigilance of Pat’s team, someone could have been hurt or killed if the house of cards had fallen. Nope, Pat jumps from rooftop to rooftop yelling that s/he’s a visionary. Pat also doesn’t realize the ramifications his house has on the industry. Other folks in the town also want to make houses on a shoestring and complain when the (evil) professionals quote them prices ten times what Pat’s house cost. How DARE they! Soon, the professionals have to lower their rates to get any work and try to find ways to cut costs. The townspeople are unapologetic. They know you can cut costs because pros are SO overpaid and they saw that all you have to do is get cheap unskilled laborers like Pat did. And of course you don’t need to use quality tools or materials; you’re a pro and can work miracles! Wait, wait, wait. So pros are miracle workers and so they should be paid half and forced to work twice as hard? What is going on here?!
Folks, “professional” is not a bad word. Working your ass off through rigorous training doesn’t automatically mean you can’t think outside the box. Years of experience doesn’t mean you’re old and don’t apply anymore. Would you expect some untrained person to be as consistent as Norm Abrams? Just because Norm has been in the business for decades, does that mean he can no longer function? Have you watched This Old House? Mastery of one’s craft takes a lifetime. It doesn’t mean you have to know everything, but it does mean you know who to ask. And I don’t see why being good at what you do and knowing a solid, proven methodology is such a horrible concept-- to the point of insulting professionals for merely suggesting to Pat that s/he might want to look before leaping. And, being nice people who care about their craft and whose latest project is their calling card, they take it upon themselves to make it work. That my friends is eking by, not a mandate. Yes, it may work out in the end at least to an extent, but the means matter. The means matter because they always have longer lasting ramifications. Ramifications beyond that one project and perhaps even into our everyday lives.
This is not an attack on layman or on independent endeavors. I don’t think you need a huge corporation to do... well, much of anything. I’m actually a firm believer in partnerships and localizing. What I’m saying is there is a standard that should be sought and fought for. The standard is the challenge. If we keep lowering the standards and slapping down anyone who strives to exceed them, we hurt ourselves as a people. These habits bleed into the rest of our culture. This goes for high school math brains to musicians trying to share their music. It also goes for anti-social artist types and mighty athletes. It’s not the accolades that matter; it is the progression of the human race. Striving to be a pornstar college dropout Heroin addict? That’s a goal? Being the person with the most hits on Myspace or most friends on Facebook is a goal? Posting pics of your cleavage and of you and your friends getting drunk is bucking the system? As long as you have the latest cell phone, all is right with the world? What the crap is going on here? Would you want to go under the knife of a surgeon who believes a few mistakes here and there aren’t so bad? This devolution is occurring because people are lowering their standards for everything. This may be because a growing mass of people are becoming evermore lazy and wish to satisfy whimsical and shallow desires ASAP. I want, therefore I am. Is that what we're saying?! Perhaps I should have entitled this “Why is REALITY a Dirty Word?” Face up, anything good takes time and effort and you never do anything totally alone. If you want something really good, open your mind and heart and listen to a professional who might know a thing or two about what you’re trying to do. Even if that pro is a psychologist. And when you’re done, be realistic about what the final product is and strive to do better next time. And PLEASE strive to pay people an acceptable wage or make it worth everyone’s while somehow. All I ask is that you don’t use professionals as mindless tools, keep your promises and don’t ask anyone to sacrifice their integrity to complete your project. We’re all in this together. Making adjustments for safety, courtesy or quality doesn’t make it any less your baby. And lastly, give credit where credit is due. Not only make sure you have everyone’s name spelled correctly, but if someone on your staff was key to the completion of your project, let people know. Acting like you did it all alone will only harm you in the long run. If you can loosen up on the reigns a little, you’ll find you still stay on course and it’s a more rewarding ride.
That’s enough metaphor for one day! Thanks for reading. Please share your opinions and experiences. I mean that! Also, please take some time today to hug a professional. They need hugs, too.
Monday, February 4, 2008
"Indies at the Madison" Success!
Many thanks go out to all the great folks who came out for "Indies at the Madison," a week-long showcase of independent short films from local Albany, NY filmmakers. Our show actually out performed all six Hollywood films at the Madison Theater over the weekend. Silver Lining was one of the films featured along with shorts by Jeff Burns, Kevin Dobies, Joy E. Reed, Michalina Almindo, Frank D'Andrea and Terry J. Field. Click here to see the trailer and for more info check out our Myspace.
For more info on Silver Lining and to see the official site. For more info on Runic Films and to see full credits from the film, visit RunicFilms.com.
Thanks again intrepid indie-goers!
Ben
Writer/Director, Silver Lining
For more info on Silver Lining and to see the official site. For more info on Runic Films and to see full credits from the film, visit RunicFilms.com.
Thanks again intrepid indie-goers!
Ben
Writer/Director, Silver Lining
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Star Trek to be 'Re-Imagined' for More Curb Appeal
I recently saw the IFC show "Dinner for Five" (normally hosted by Jon Favearu, this one by Kevin Smith) and J.J. Abrams was one of the great guests. Seeing him in this casual round table multi-interview, I really got to like him. He described how his connections and writing skills ended up creating a cascade effect for his career he would never had anticipated. This doesn't mean I take back my open questions from my earlier Star Trek XI post, but I was glad to see that Mr. Abrams seems like a nice, humble guy. Unfortunately, the questions I had about Trek XI are becoming more apparent at the least, dire at the most. According to recent interviews, it's apparent that this production is not doing what I prescribed (not that they would, I don't think they read my wee blog) and they are doing as I feared. For the creative team behind this film, they're gathering together a who's-worked-with-who-before line up of folks that have worked on previous Abrams projects. I'm not saying these people aren't talented or capable, but what do they know about Trek? Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman were writers on two campy favorites of mine, "Hercules: The Legendary Journeys" and "Jack of All Trades," but no Trek, no sci fi. They did however write my favorite film in the world, The Island (please note my sarcasm). Scott Chambliss, production designer, no Trek, no sci fi. Jennifer Garner is now rumored to be Spock's love interest. Double huh?? I'm not saying that you have to fill the crew with Trek alums, but the closest they've come is a conversation with the venerable Marc Zicree. There is such a wealth of amazing people who have contributed to Trek and to science fiction over the years, I just think it's simply nearsighted to hire all your buds. I totally understand that it's best to know who you're working with personally, but this Hollywood form of "cronyism" is probably the reason we have so few great studio films these days. Even with my relatively deep familiarity with Star Trek, I would at least consult the people who know more than I. Not doing so would be like making a Spider-man movie without ever talking to Stan Lee-- simply unthinkable! I've never met Stan (although I'd love to), but that doesn't mean I'd be afraid to include him. And now the Orci/Kurtzman team have commented that ST:XI will not be a prequel to the Original Series, but a 're-imaging' of the mythos. They've been watching and reading Trek all their lives, they said. It makes perfect sense then that the first thing they want to do is change it.
It seems to be the new buzz word in Hollywood--"re-imaging." This is what they did to James Bond in Casino Royal. Casino Royal is a gritty updated-pre-sequel (I'm coining that one) where it's set now-a-days, but Bond is as young and green as… okay, so in the film he's only young. The first film to do this in recent memory is The Sum of All Fears in which Ben Affleck plays a young-again Jack Ryan and the Tom Clancey Cold War story is brought to present day. The next was probably Batman Begins which tells a slightly more realistic and detailed story of Bruce Wayne's evolution into The Batman. That film also brought Bats, with an amazing cast lead by Christian Bale, up to the present day although there was still a timelessness of Gotham as a nior forward-backward Metropolis. The problem with Casino is that they took out everything that comprises a Bond flick (the mystique, the swagger, the ladies, the super-spy gadgets and the humor) which made the film generic. Truly, the only real resemblance to Bond was the name which makes me wish they had just started a new franchise and called the characters something else. This is what I don't want to happen to Trek. The writers talk about how they want to be "100 percent true to the fanbase," yet make the films more "accessible." That frightens me. They're talking about actively attempting to write the film to so it appeals to a wider audience. How narrow is the appeal? I personally don't know anyone who won't watch Trek, but watches other sci fi content. Usually, people either like sci fi or they don't. Trek or no Trek. Unlike space operas like Star Wars, these films are specifically intended to be explorations into the human condition through science fiction. Star Wars may appeal to a wider audience because it's not intended to be science fiction, but a fun and exciting serial with roots in myth and legend, just like early opera. To make Trek 'more appealing' would be like making Battlestar Galactica into a sex-driven soap opera about "who's baby is it?" Huh? They already did that? Okay, it would be like making The Doctor in "Doctor Who" twenty years old, giving him a hot blonde companion and a libido… What's that? They have? Oh dear lord, is nothing sacred?! I think you get the picture folks. There is no way to force Star Trek to appeal to everyone and it still be Trek. All you can do is spend some time and money and write a truly stellar script that speaks to the human (or Vulcan) in all of us. Then, have a strong advertising campaign that gets the word out that no matter who you are, this is a movie to see. Then, maybe they won't mind that it's not Armageddon. Like I've said before, a deep, dramatic, star blazing adventure about Kirk getting his wings with Spock by his side will appeal to a lot of non-Trekkies/ers regardless. Buddy films put butts in seats, too (Shawshank Redemption). But, if getting more Trek on the big screen means dumbing it down, adding soapy love interests and visceral violence, you can just count me out.
If you'll allow me to digress, I have to wonder if this is the trend to succeed remake mania. Not only remake films and adapt old TV shows, but rewrite the essence of whole franchises so maybe they will appeal to more people or another, larger segment of the population. Do they think by changing it all around will make it seem more like an original film and somehow have more credibility? "Sure it's another remake, but we changed it all around this time, see?" It feels like they're buying the license to a character or franchise just so they can make a knock-off and not get sued.
Of course, studios questioning the size of the sci fi viewership is nothing new. It's probably the reason we haven't seen many sci fi or space films/shows in a while. It's the same old rhetoric that potential audience is too small to make sci fi. Just like there supposedly isn't enough money in the school budget for music or art. At least internationally, history shows that most all sci fi makes it's money back and some even make gobs of cash. But that's not really the point, what I really mean is, so what? Should we ONLY make films to sell tickets on opening weekend? And since when did they think it would be smart to alienate the locked-in fanbase? If you make an excellent Trek film (and by "Trek film" I mean one that fits the established mythos, characterizations and vision), you may not make number one on the first weekend, but if it's released at a fitting time and it really IS good, it will rise to it's true value. Even if that didn't happen, it would quickly reach "cult status" and become a blockbuster video release (Donnie Darko). It's just that in my opinion, no film should be made simply to appeal to the most people possible. That's just pissing on the creator's grave (i.e. It's disrespectful). Comedies are very successful and most have a very wide potential audience. Should we make "CSI" or "24" into comedies in an effort to expand their appeal? Should we remake Citizen Kane or Gone With the Wind, but as comedies? ‘Will Ferrell is Charles Foster Kane! In this re-imagined epic laugh fest you won't know what to do with your rosebud or where to put your Xanadu! Citizen Kane, coming this Christmas.' What do you hold sacred? Would you like it bastardized? Reprocessed to sell, sell, sell? Would you like it if William Petersen(Grissom), Marg Helgenberger(Catherine), Gary Dourdan(Warrick) and the rest of the cast of CSI were suddenly replaced with more widely known faces? ‘Yeah, they may not fit the parts, but we've gone seven seasons so, I think our fans will give Tom Delay, Paris Hilton and La Toya Jackson a chance.' That's what it feels like to me when people mess with Trek.
Okay, that's all from me… for now! Thank YOU for reading and PLEASE share your thoughts. And be ready because next month I'm going to rewrite this post, but with more sex, more explosions, gory accounts of torture, shorter words and I'll name it the same dang thing. Oh heck yeah, stay glued!
It seems to be the new buzz word in Hollywood--"re-imaging." This is what they did to James Bond in Casino Royal. Casino Royal is a gritty updated-pre-sequel (I'm coining that one) where it's set now-a-days, but Bond is as young and green as… okay, so in the film he's only young. The first film to do this in recent memory is The Sum of All Fears in which Ben Affleck plays a young-again Jack Ryan and the Tom Clancey Cold War story is brought to present day. The next was probably Batman Begins which tells a slightly more realistic and detailed story of Bruce Wayne's evolution into The Batman. That film also brought Bats, with an amazing cast lead by Christian Bale, up to the present day although there was still a timelessness of Gotham as a nior forward-backward Metropolis. The problem with Casino is that they took out everything that comprises a Bond flick (the mystique, the swagger, the ladies, the super-spy gadgets and the humor) which made the film generic. Truly, the only real resemblance to Bond was the name which makes me wish they had just started a new franchise and called the characters something else. This is what I don't want to happen to Trek. The writers talk about how they want to be "100 percent true to the fanbase," yet make the films more "accessible." That frightens me. They're talking about actively attempting to write the film to so it appeals to a wider audience. How narrow is the appeal? I personally don't know anyone who won't watch Trek, but watches other sci fi content. Usually, people either like sci fi or they don't. Trek or no Trek. Unlike space operas like Star Wars, these films are specifically intended to be explorations into the human condition through science fiction. Star Wars may appeal to a wider audience because it's not intended to be science fiction, but a fun and exciting serial with roots in myth and legend, just like early opera. To make Trek 'more appealing' would be like making Battlestar Galactica into a sex-driven soap opera about "who's baby is it?" Huh? They already did that? Okay, it would be like making The Doctor in "Doctor Who" twenty years old, giving him a hot blonde companion and a libido… What's that? They have? Oh dear lord, is nothing sacred?! I think you get the picture folks. There is no way to force Star Trek to appeal to everyone and it still be Trek. All you can do is spend some time and money and write a truly stellar script that speaks to the human (or Vulcan) in all of us. Then, have a strong advertising campaign that gets the word out that no matter who you are, this is a movie to see. Then, maybe they won't mind that it's not Armageddon. Like I've said before, a deep, dramatic, star blazing adventure about Kirk getting his wings with Spock by his side will appeal to a lot of non-Trekkies/ers regardless. Buddy films put butts in seats, too (Shawshank Redemption). But, if getting more Trek on the big screen means dumbing it down, adding soapy love interests and visceral violence, you can just count me out.
If you'll allow me to digress, I have to wonder if this is the trend to succeed remake mania. Not only remake films and adapt old TV shows, but rewrite the essence of whole franchises so maybe they will appeal to more people or another, larger segment of the population. Do they think by changing it all around will make it seem more like an original film and somehow have more credibility? "Sure it's another remake, but we changed it all around this time, see?" It feels like they're buying the license to a character or franchise just so they can make a knock-off and not get sued.
Of course, studios questioning the size of the sci fi viewership is nothing new. It's probably the reason we haven't seen many sci fi or space films/shows in a while. It's the same old rhetoric that potential audience is too small to make sci fi. Just like there supposedly isn't enough money in the school budget for music or art. At least internationally, history shows that most all sci fi makes it's money back and some even make gobs of cash. But that's not really the point, what I really mean is, so what? Should we ONLY make films to sell tickets on opening weekend? And since when did they think it would be smart to alienate the locked-in fanbase? If you make an excellent Trek film (and by "Trek film" I mean one that fits the established mythos, characterizations and vision), you may not make number one on the first weekend, but if it's released at a fitting time and it really IS good, it will rise to it's true value. Even if that didn't happen, it would quickly reach "cult status" and become a blockbuster video release (Donnie Darko). It's just that in my opinion, no film should be made simply to appeal to the most people possible. That's just pissing on the creator's grave (i.e. It's disrespectful). Comedies are very successful and most have a very wide potential audience. Should we make "CSI" or "24" into comedies in an effort to expand their appeal? Should we remake Citizen Kane or Gone With the Wind, but as comedies? ‘Will Ferrell is Charles Foster Kane! In this re-imagined epic laugh fest you won't know what to do with your rosebud or where to put your Xanadu! Citizen Kane, coming this Christmas.' What do you hold sacred? Would you like it bastardized? Reprocessed to sell, sell, sell? Would you like it if William Petersen(Grissom), Marg Helgenberger(Catherine), Gary Dourdan(Warrick) and the rest of the cast of CSI were suddenly replaced with more widely known faces? ‘Yeah, they may not fit the parts, but we've gone seven seasons so, I think our fans will give Tom Delay, Paris Hilton and La Toya Jackson a chance.' That's what it feels like to me when people mess with Trek.
Okay, that's all from me… for now! Thank YOU for reading and PLEASE share your thoughts. And be ready because next month I'm going to rewrite this post, but with more sex, more explosions, gory accounts of torture, shorter words and I'll name it the same dang thing. Oh heck yeah, stay glued!
Sunday, October 8, 2006
Pre-Original Trek on the Big Screen?
There have been some murmurs and now some hype about a 2008 Star Trek film possibly featuring a young Kirk and Spock as cadets back in the good old days of Star Trek. Here's a great article that collects the various tid-bits and clues floating around the world.
Personally, I don't know if JJ Abrams can do a Trek film justice. I feel it must be pointed out that in addition to shows like Alias and Lost, Abrams also created Felicity. Although I liked some of Alias, I find many of the storylines in Abram's shows to be simply preposterous; much like the film Armageddon (which he also wrote). When talking The Original Series (TOS) Trek we're talking about pulpy sci fi hits hard-science science fiction-- that's a difficult balance. Kirk has to get the ladies, but that can't be the whole show. The film has to make a profound point about society and the human condition; which to me is the guiding light of science fiction and is something the original series did well on many occasions. With Abrams at the con, this could quickly descend into NCC-90201. I like Abrams more than Michael Bay, but the two seem to have certain similar sensibilities about (not) developing realistic and compelling characters and storylines. I don't want to apply guilt by association, but other people who have worked along side Abrams also helped create Bay's horrible The Island and will soon crush the hopes of millions of Transformers fans when that disaster of a film is finally released (in which the similarities of the film to the original franchise pretty much end at the Autobot symbol). Is this really the guy we want? Should it matter that he's associated with (potential) franchise-killers? Well, I have to say that there are so many better creators out there who are being ignored. Wouldn't it be better to dig a little deeper and build a creative team of people who have been dreaming of creating Trek for a little longer or a little more? Abrams may call himself an Uber-Trekkie, but I can't see someone creating Felicity when he really wants to make Trek. Overall, Paramount has done a lot to lose the trust of Trek fans. Now that they own the franchise, CBS has only continued the erosion by announcing that in their forthcoming HD re-release of Star Trek: TOS they will be replacing many of the original special effects with new CG effects. Not only does that sound, well, really dumb and an extreme waste of time, to some, it's even sacrilegious. (Heck, as a visual effects artist, I think it's at the least dishonoring our visual effects heritage. One can only hope that, like the DVD releases of Doctor Who, you can turn off the replacement effects. And those original effects were REALLY... underfunded). If they're going to win back the trust of Trek fans, they have to show reverence for what has come before and make up for the poor choices they've made since The Next Generation. Not bringing Berman and Braga back might be a step in the right direction, but it won't heal the wounds.
Is the future-past story concept is a good one? Well, it may provide some fun situations and give the creators a chance to explore the characters and the Trek Universe in a different way. It may also free them from trying to continually stretch the TNG storyline as Berman/Braga did, which may be a boon. It may also be a chance to make up for the TNG mold they forced Enterprise into. The thing that this storyline would definitely have going for it is something that none of the later series had: the strong bond between Kirk, Spock and Bones (well, Data and Geordi, Paris and Kim were probably closest). I'm not saying that the others should have had that, but if you're going to use these characters, you have to include the genesis of that close friendship. As far as the look and feel of a film like this, clearly, CBS/Paramount et al are indicating that the old gold and blue colors will make a comeback, but I don't think you can make a feature film today that simply uses the same exact designs as the 60's show. Doing so would imply a certain tongue-in-cheek attitude that might not work if you want the audience to judge the film on its laurels and not as just some homage or parody. You need more detail in the designs or they'd end up looking cartoonish. Perhaps you have to start at the beginning, look through the prism of TOS and say "Okay, if the original series had money and things like laptops and cell phones had already existed, what might the series have looked like?" I think some of the costume and production designs for the TOS-crew films were brilliant, but much of it didn't really reflect The Original Series. The inspiration has to be there if fans are to enjoy it. And lastly, cast people who fit the roles, not just pretty faces. Say what you will about Shatner's acting, I think it takes a solid actor with the right attitude and even the right voice to pull off a character in sci fi. And that goes for crew as well. Don't hire someone to direct your film simply because he has some hit series and is a hot commodity in Hollywood. For both actors and crew, I think Hollywood is trapping itself inside ever-contracting bubble sort of like Washington D.C. Instead of actually looking for the right people to fill roles, Hollywood is limited by its rolodex. If so-and-so isn't in the rolodex, they don't exist. And we wonder why box office numbers are falling? Every community needs fresh blood in its gene pool or it will corrupt and die out. And fresh blood pumps in the veins as much in older individuals as younger. New people mean more risk, but the lack of risk-taking is probably the other biggest thing killing Hollywood. (Heck, if you wanted to choose a proven commodity, why not ask Joss Whedon, creator of the Buffy the Vampire and Firefly series? Now that could be cool!)
In the end, a good Star Trek story is much larger, much deeper and much more fun than any soap opera drama or action show set in contemporary times. Because of that, this film may be beyond JJ Abrams and many, many others, but if he can look beyond the immediate and finds the right people, young and old, Hollywood and not, he can make a truly amazing film. And, he can use his clout and popularity for good and make that big corporate conglomerate care about what they're making. Unfortunately, to do any less will mean the end of the franchise. (At least we'll still have New Voyages!)
That's only my jaw flappin' though. What do you think?
This entry originally appeared in my Myspace blog. Here are the comments as posted:
Posted by Tantra on Friday, January 05, 2007 at 9:21 PM
I can appreciate your sentiments on this subject. Do you work with New Voyages? If so, I look forward to meeting you sometime. I'm with Farragut.
Holly
Posted by Ben'jamin on Friday, January 05, 2007 at 9:54 PM
Thanks Holly! I guess you could say I'm a little passionate about Trek and other great sci fi. I do work with New Voyages and I don't think I could forget who you are, Lt. Commander. Fair wind and calm seas to the cast and crew of Starship Farragut!
Personally, I don't know if JJ Abrams can do a Trek film justice. I feel it must be pointed out that in addition to shows like Alias and Lost, Abrams also created Felicity. Although I liked some of Alias, I find many of the storylines in Abram's shows to be simply preposterous; much like the film Armageddon (which he also wrote). When talking The Original Series (TOS) Trek we're talking about pulpy sci fi hits hard-science science fiction-- that's a difficult balance. Kirk has to get the ladies, but that can't be the whole show. The film has to make a profound point about society and the human condition; which to me is the guiding light of science fiction and is something the original series did well on many occasions. With Abrams at the con, this could quickly descend into NCC-90201. I like Abrams more than Michael Bay, but the two seem to have certain similar sensibilities about (not) developing realistic and compelling characters and storylines. I don't want to apply guilt by association, but other people who have worked along side Abrams also helped create Bay's horrible The Island and will soon crush the hopes of millions of Transformers fans when that disaster of a film is finally released (in which the similarities of the film to the original franchise pretty much end at the Autobot symbol). Is this really the guy we want? Should it matter that he's associated with (potential) franchise-killers? Well, I have to say that there are so many better creators out there who are being ignored. Wouldn't it be better to dig a little deeper and build a creative team of people who have been dreaming of creating Trek for a little longer or a little more? Abrams may call himself an Uber-Trekkie, but I can't see someone creating Felicity when he really wants to make Trek. Overall, Paramount has done a lot to lose the trust of Trek fans. Now that they own the franchise, CBS has only continued the erosion by announcing that in their forthcoming HD re-release of Star Trek: TOS they will be replacing many of the original special effects with new CG effects. Not only does that sound, well, really dumb and an extreme waste of time, to some, it's even sacrilegious. (Heck, as a visual effects artist, I think it's at the least dishonoring our visual effects heritage. One can only hope that, like the DVD releases of Doctor Who, you can turn off the replacement effects. And those original effects were REALLY... underfunded). If they're going to win back the trust of Trek fans, they have to show reverence for what has come before and make up for the poor choices they've made since The Next Generation. Not bringing Berman and Braga back might be a step in the right direction, but it won't heal the wounds.
Is the future-past story concept is a good one? Well, it may provide some fun situations and give the creators a chance to explore the characters and the Trek Universe in a different way. It may also free them from trying to continually stretch the TNG storyline as Berman/Braga did, which may be a boon. It may also be a chance to make up for the TNG mold they forced Enterprise into. The thing that this storyline would definitely have going for it is something that none of the later series had: the strong bond between Kirk, Spock and Bones (well, Data and Geordi, Paris and Kim were probably closest). I'm not saying that the others should have had that, but if you're going to use these characters, you have to include the genesis of that close friendship. As far as the look and feel of a film like this, clearly, CBS/Paramount et al are indicating that the old gold and blue colors will make a comeback, but I don't think you can make a feature film today that simply uses the same exact designs as the 60's show. Doing so would imply a certain tongue-in-cheek attitude that might not work if you want the audience to judge the film on its laurels and not as just some homage or parody. You need more detail in the designs or they'd end up looking cartoonish. Perhaps you have to start at the beginning, look through the prism of TOS and say "Okay, if the original series had money and things like laptops and cell phones had already existed, what might the series have looked like?" I think some of the costume and production designs for the TOS-crew films were brilliant, but much of it didn't really reflect The Original Series. The inspiration has to be there if fans are to enjoy it. And lastly, cast people who fit the roles, not just pretty faces. Say what you will about Shatner's acting, I think it takes a solid actor with the right attitude and even the right voice to pull off a character in sci fi. And that goes for crew as well. Don't hire someone to direct your film simply because he has some hit series and is a hot commodity in Hollywood. For both actors and crew, I think Hollywood is trapping itself inside ever-contracting bubble sort of like Washington D.C. Instead of actually looking for the right people to fill roles, Hollywood is limited by its rolodex. If so-and-so isn't in the rolodex, they don't exist. And we wonder why box office numbers are falling? Every community needs fresh blood in its gene pool or it will corrupt and die out. And fresh blood pumps in the veins as much in older individuals as younger. New people mean more risk, but the lack of risk-taking is probably the other biggest thing killing Hollywood. (Heck, if you wanted to choose a proven commodity, why not ask Joss Whedon, creator of the Buffy the Vampire and Firefly series? Now that could be cool!)
In the end, a good Star Trek story is much larger, much deeper and much more fun than any soap opera drama or action show set in contemporary times. Because of that, this film may be beyond JJ Abrams and many, many others, but if he can look beyond the immediate and finds the right people, young and old, Hollywood and not, he can make a truly amazing film. And, he can use his clout and popularity for good and make that big corporate conglomerate care about what they're making. Unfortunately, to do any less will mean the end of the franchise. (At least we'll still have New Voyages!)
That's only my jaw flappin' though. What do you think?
This entry originally appeared in my Myspace blog. Here are the comments as posted:
Posted by Tantra on Friday, January 05, 2007 at 9:21 PM
I can appreciate your sentiments on this subject. Do you work with New Voyages? If so, I look forward to meeting you sometime. I'm with Farragut.
Holly
Posted by Ben'jamin on Friday, January 05, 2007 at 9:54 PM
Thanks Holly! I guess you could say I'm a little passionate about Trek and other great sci fi. I do work with New Voyages and I don't think I could forget who you are, Lt. Commander. Fair wind and calm seas to the cast and crew of Starship Farragut!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Ben Alpi
Posts
