|
ThirdCorinthian
|
read my profile
sign my guestbook
Location: Colorado Springs, Colorado, United States
Birthday: 4/3/1980
Gender: Male
Interests: stories, faith, art, myths, soccer, Steve Martin movies, Chesterton, foosball, Sportsnight , Enya, how to walk on water, Paul, 42 , Steven Brust, Mafia , how McDonalds can make a profit on their value meals, where Lutherans went wrong, music mixes, great authors, bass guitar, my sister Susanne, how to write the great Christian novel, how to make the great Christian movie, the Monroe doctrine, The Princess Bride , card games, Ultimate Frisbee, and--of course--the most important year in a man's life.
Expertise: 19th century English poetry , Danish, origami, procrastination, the English language, how to lose a girl in 10 days, Spanish , Spades, Ultimate Frisbee, 2 Cor 4:16-18 , the back of my hand
Occupation: Artist
Industry: Nonprofit
Message: message meEmail: email me
Website: visit my website
AIM:  Maussimo12
Member Since:
2/2/2005
|
|
| In case anyone's still reading this, I've posted some of my writing samples over at my Wordpress blog. Go check it out! | | |
| At its best, The Seeker is a pretty vivid fantasy book come-to-life; it does a decent, passable job of adding to the canon of kid-lit flicks. —Kelly L. Carter, Chicago Tribune
The Seeker: The Dark is Rising is the first eye-popping, jaw-dropping installment in a film fantasy series that could turn out to be the new Harry Potter. Tautly scripted, smartly cast, beautifully shot in an England of snow and fog, it’s a dazzling slice of cinematic imagination. —Roger Moore, Orlando Sentinel
It seems to me that it was intellectually dishonest for Ms. Carter and Mr. Moore to give a review of John Hodge’s adaptation of The Dark Is Rising without actually having gone to see the movie. But I’m sure I cannot blame them; if I had press privileges, a free movie pass, and the choice between seeing The Seeker or 3:10 to Yuma, I’m not sure I could have resisted the temptation myself.
In point of fact, Mr. Hodges fell short of “dazzling,” and apparently thought “passable” too high of a goal.
There are 17 laws of making a film out of a popular book. Mr. Hodges broke all of them, and then—perhaps feeling he had not done enough for cinema—invented 3 other rules so that he could trample upon them as well.
Picking out just a few:
- It is understood that a two-hour movie cannot contain the full length of narrative from a 200+ page book. Some cutting—of depth, of secondary plotlines, of characters—is a necessary evil. But the Seeker movie felt the need to ADD several characters mentioned nowhere in the book, none of whom added anything meaningful, all of whom distracted from the ultimate goals of the story.
- In addition to adding new characters, The Seeker added new plotlines to the story, all of which were shockingly inferior to the original plotlines of the book.
- The main character drives the story, and is generally the main reason people are fans of the book in the first place. In the movie, John Hodges decided to change the main character’s age, nationality, family system, personality, hobbies, talents, physical features, goals, and love interests. The spelling of the protagonist’s name is about the only thing which survived the transition unscathed.
- One shall assume that the intelligence level of the book’s readers is a good baseline to keep the movie at. One will not dumb down the movie in the hopes of catering to the illiterate masses. Illiterate masses don’t like movies based on books anyway, and the original reader base will become disgusted at your pandering attempts.
- For all of Hollywood’s revenue models predictions, good explosions can not cover for bad dialogue.
- Narrative arc in movies moves more quickly than in books. But this should not be a reason for throwing away all arcs completely.
- Artsy filmography can be a useful tool for prosaic story. But when presenting a fantasy story, more straightforward techniques are required. The fantasy parts of the story can carry the film on their own. In other words, if you already have dragons, you don’t need to further dazzle the viewer with stylistic zooming.
On top of all these glaring mistakes, John Hodges showed a lack of understanding on the basic art of storytelling, aside from his sins against the original novel.
A quick recap: In the book The Dark Is Rising, Will Stanton, a young boy from a small English town, turns 11. On his birthday, he discovers that he is the last to be born of a race of magical protectors of humanity, The Light. They fight to protect man’s free will against the powers of The Dark, who wish to see mankind a slave to its own darkness and sin. Will, and the rest of the Old Ones of the Light, have powers which make Harry Potter and Dumbledore look like carnival magicians. Will’s quest is to be the Sign Seeker, and find six ancient artifacts which can help rout the forces of the Dark. This series of books is the reason I’ve never fully been able to enjoy the Harry Potter series, because it handles similar themes in a vastly superior way.
And to clarify that I’m not just a book snob, who hates all movie adaptations, I thought that the Harry Potter movies and The Lord of the Rings movies did very good jobs with their original source material. I might not have agreed with every artistic decision, but it was clear that the movie-makers respected the books they were adapting.
Hodges clearly had no respect for the original book, his intended audience, or the magic of a good fantasy story.
Even ignoring their differences from the book, Hodges’ characters fall flat and act illogically even within the simplistic plot. At one point Merriman (in the book, a wise and compassionate mentor) refuses to answer Will’s question about his new powers. Then later, he complains that Will is using his powers immaturely. Considering Will has only known about them for a day, and his one mentor insists on being mysterious rather than helpful, who can blame Will?
The new movie story line relies on Will being as ignorant as possible, so he can accidentally stumble on the right answers in his quest. This is not fulfilling for the viewer. We don’t want to watch a series of accidents, which somehow result in a happy ending for everyone. We want to see characters with power over their destiny, who are able to work together to overcome the Dark. In this case, because Will has been painted as a stupid, shallow American for the whole film, his final epiphany on how to beat the Dark comes across as nothing but an ass-pull.
Will has been given unbelievable magical powers. Yet, in the movie, he does NOTHING with them, except have a temper tantrum where he blows up a building. Also, he somehow accidentally time travels. It’s like Chekhov’s Gun—if in the opening of the movie, we see a kid get super powers, we want to see him USE them. In the book, Will uses his new powers for all kinds of cool things: he stops time, he erases memories, he controls fire, he speaks with animals, he travels through time and place, he flies. It’s inexcusable for a movie which could have shown these things so fantastically to turn Will’s quest into a haphazard hide-and-seek, where he mostly just rummages through things to find the Signs. No powers necessary for this quest.
J.K. Rowling believes that there is magic in reading about an 11-year-old discovering a higher destiny, and powers beyond what mere mortals can hope for. Susan Cooper, the author of The Dark Is Rising, believes that there can be a maturity and amazement in a coming-of-age fantasy story. John Hodges believes that enough money can be made on opening weekend, before critics warn everyone how bad a movie is.
Here’s hoping that someone in the near future will be willing to relaunch the franchise. Maybe the movie’s 11% positive rating on Rotten Tomatoes will be a persuasion.
| | |
| Rewriting the Graphic Novel Bible has been the most fun thing I’ve ever done at work. But it’s also really challenging my faith, my Bible knowledge, and my storytelling. There are just so many narrative gaps. Usually I’m able to fill them by reading one of the SIX commentaries I have. But some questions I seem to be the first one to have ever asked. So I’m going to start throwing my toughest questions out there to all my Bible-knowing friends. Several of you may be tempted to answer one of these questions with, “Because it was God’s plan.” Please don’t be that guy. God’s plan is fulfilled through humans, and through human motivations. Samson didn’t burn the Philistines fields because it was God’s plan. Yes, it was part of God’s plan, but Samson did it because the Philistines had just stolen his wife. Do you see the distinction? I’m looking for a consistent plot, not just God’s divine nature. I already know that part. So, here we go: - Why didn’t Jonathan fight Goliath? 1 Samuel 17:1-11
After all, he was brave, believed in God, and had killed many Philistines himself. Previous chapters in 1 Samuel show that Jonathan was willing to do brave things because he believed the Lord was with him. So when the Bible says “everyone in the Israelite army was afraid to fight Goliath,” does that include brave young Jonathan? Shouldn’t Jonathan have been the first to step up and slay the giant in the name of the Lord? He didn’t know David was going to show up to the battle. - How did Michal know Saul was planning to murder David that night? 1 Samuel 18:11
I don’t understand how Michal’s subterfuge worked? 1 Samuel 18:13-16
I mean, picture it: You’ve been sent to kill David, his wife stops you at the door and says he’s sick. So you say, “Oh, sorry ma’am, we didn’t know. We’ll come back to kill him once he’s healthy.” NO! You’d break down the door, and kill him, whatever his state of health is. - Also, what good did making a fake-David mannequin do? 1 Samuel 18:13, 1
Seriously, fake-body-under-the-covers works for making parents believe you haven’t snuck out past curfew. What earthly good does it do for men who are coming to kill you. At most, it buys you an extra 3 seconds for your escape. I would love any ideas or suggestions. Don’t necessarily exclude yourself because you’re not a Bible scholar. I need creative suggestions that can fill in the details of the scant narrative skeleton that the Bible gives us. | | |
| I like music videos. A lot. Which is interesting when you consider my music-less background. My parents never really had favorite groups that they raised me on. And, growing up in the Philippines, there was only one radio station in English—the Oldies station. To this day, I can sing all the lyrics to any pop song made before 1969. But I never got into the groups themselves, and never developed an emotional relationship with any songs or their singers. This led to a moment of supreme embarrassment in youth group. My Freshman year, the DCE (as part of a hypothetical situation) asked me to name the musician I'd most like to see in concert. And I couldn't think of a single living musician except for Weird Al Yankovic (the only album I owned).
But also in youth group was where I saw my first music video—Michael W. Smith's "Secret Ambition." And, yes, to look back at it, it's kind of cheesy, (and why does Jesus have an '80s-style perm?), but this video brought The Passion to me long before Mel Gibson got saved. That was the first time that music became emotional for me, and it took a music video to do it.
Since then, I've had a soft spot for music videos. Done right, they add to the meaning of a song. Unfortunately, they're all too often done wrong. But a new video just came out that I really like. Thinking about it, I've realized that you can break music videos down into a few basic types:
- The Concert - "Hey, the band already played this song at a concert, with cameras rolling! I just thought of a way to save money!" Groups who are good live can sometimes pull this off, but generally it's just as boring as watching someone play music, without even the benefit of the "contact high."
- The Concert with Pretentions - It's still basically just the band playing or the singer singing directly to the camera, but with some cool imagery, collages, and artsy shots mixed in. This is the most common type of music video that you'll find.
- The Soundtrack - This hit song was also used in the latest hit movie. And the movie already blew millions on filming emotionally and visually provocative scenes. An opportunity for piggybacking. Celine Dion was the mistress of this:
And for all you Twilight fans: "Decode" by Paramore
Finally, a personal plug, from my favorite movie: Enya's music video for "Exile"
- The Playboy Challenge - Unfortunately, it is proven gold to just find a hot chick to dance around in your video. Pretty much every music video from the '80s reveled in this, along with most R&B. This is the second most common type of video.
- The Block Party - Every rap and hip-hop video EVER. Let's just gather all our friends, all our buxom and scantily-clad lady friends, and jam out in somebody's backyard or "in da club." Generally features cars, cleavage, and booty shaking. And if the song has a misspelled title, you can definitely bet lots of people are gonna be "rollin' with the homies."
- Any Excuse for a Dance Routine - Basically every N*Sync, , 98 Degrees, Britney, Usher, Christina, and Michael Jackson video. If you like choreographed dancing (yes, yes I do), then these are the videos for you.
- Somebody was on Drugs - After this video is over, you don't understand any of what went on. Except that somebody involved in the creative direction (and/or the musicians) was in an altered state of consciousness.
But finally, the best kind of all....
- The Story - This isn't necessarily a literal acting-out of the song. At its finest, The Story music video adds a new facet, a new layer of meaning to the original song. When a song has been made better, the music video has reached the pinnacle of distinction—it becomes art, instead of just a marketing tool.
Daniel Powter - "Bad Day" This video is a romantic comedy done in three minutes. Two forlorn and lonely artists miss each other by minutes as they follow their daily humdrum routine. But a penchant for quality graffiti finally brings them together. The song by itself may be saccharine, but the video and song combine to be a charming, feel-good experience.
For a stirring country example, there's Brad Paisley and Allison Krauss' "Whiskey Lullabye." A haunting tune, literally acted out as a WWII drama. Ricky Schroeder plays a GI who comes back from the war to find his true love cheating on him.
Dido's "Thank You" video is a sweet and unique little thing. They lifted a key line from the song ("Even if my house falls down now, I wouldn't have a clue.") and used it as the climax of the plot. The production crew actually built that cute purple house in the middle of a downtown block, and then they actually demolished it.
A video that personally speaks to me is "Here's to the Night" by Eve 6. An example where I just thought the song was okay until I saw the music video. For anyone who has romantic regrets from their high school years, this video is sure to be poignant for you.
Anyway, I'm writing about this topic because a new video just came out that I think will become a classic. It's for the song "If I Were a Boy" by Beyoncé Knowles. I've never been a particular fan of Beyoncé or Destiny's Child. But I'd already taken note of this song for being a well-written—if bleak—description of common gender dynamics in our society. This video fleshed out the concept even more with a compelling story, and a really good twist at the end.
(Grammar note: I also appreciated that the title of the song was grammatically correct. It's rare to see the proper conjugation of the conditional verb tense of "to be" in today's illiterate culture.)
| | |
| Well, it turns out that the U.S. government is extending its socialist principles into yet another area of society. This current plan wants a government program to provide the basic minimum of services to all citizens. They insist that private entities will still exist for those who can afford to pay for their services. The government-backed portion may be less efficient or may not cover as many services as private companies, but the president hopes that extending this basic right to all people is worth having yet another unwieldy government program.
That’s right. I’m talking about the U.S. Postal Service.
Seriously, why doesn’t the USPS get any of the flak that government health care does? As near as I understand Obama’s plan, his healthcare functions on the same principles as the Post Office. The government’s program is there so that everyone can always send a package cheaply. If you want better service, you go to FedEx, UPS, or any of a variety of private carriers. And that’s what Obama wants to mirror with health service.
Many people deride government healthcare as welfare and being just another handout that will keep poor people poor. But the fact is, health care has become a liability to the middle class. The majority of small business entrepreneurs can’t afford to provide health care to themselves or their employees. The majority of bankruptcies in this country arise due to unforeseen medical expenses.
I’d like to move and travel, doing the Lord’s work wherever He leads me, but I can’t, because I couldn’t afford private health care at the same time. I would love to pursue my goals as a writer, and work towards becoming a full-time writer. But I can’t quit my current job to focus full-time on writing, because I have to have health care.
Health care is not a “throwing money at the poor to let them stay lazy” issue. It’s crippling our companies. One of the main reasons GM says it can’t compete with foreign auto makers, is that it can’t afford the high costs of health care for its employees. Offering a government-backed alternative to health care will force private insurance companies to be competitive, both in pricing and breadth of coverage. Right now, private health care companies are beaurocratic, and can take months (and years) to screw over their supposed clients. Their clients can’t go to any of their competitors anyway, so there’s no reason to provide quality or timely service. Competition is the cornerstone of capitalism, and right now the health care companies have no competition. Let’s let the government give them a reason to better themselves.
And keep in mind, please, for the comments: this is different than socialized medicine. We’re not talking about making all doctors work for the same salary, or forcing all hospitals to work for the government. We’re talking about another health care company, backed by the government, to ensure that everyone has access to health care. And all the numbers I’ve read show that this will lower costs for all consumers. It’s a healthy way to go.
| | |
|