If someone is really enthused about an idea, but the rest of the table isn't fired up about it, ask the Someone what's at the core of what they're excited about.
If the rest of the table is fired up about about an idea, but someone isn't really enthused about it, ask the Someone what their dislike is really about.
Write those answers down.
In fact, try and write everything down, not matter how small. It's all stuff to get inspired by later, and it sends a signal that everyone's contribution is important. Bring a couple of big pages of paper to write it all down in front of the group.
The point: Promote a shared understanding between the group about the things they're enthusiastic about, in common. Try to create a healthy brainstorming environment where everyone listens to each other. Get everyone talking and contributing - including yourself - and then keep a good ear out for interesting ideas.
And keep in mind that it takes guts, sometimes, to point out an interesting idea. Be brave about doing it yourself, and make sure everyone else respects someone who's doing it.
.gif)
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
Friday, August 25, 2006
Sapphire & Steel
Sapphire and Steel fans, make yourselves known. You will be contacted.
(And I'm talking big fans - you reference it in casual conversation; you speculate about what happened next; you either own episodes or you've seen them multiple times. I'm talking love here, people.)
(And I'm talking big fans - you reference it in casual conversation; you speculate about what happened next; you either own episodes or you've seen them multiple times. I'm talking love here, people.)
Filed in: rpg
Silent Hill is coming
My god, that trailer is great.
Sean and I will be seeing Silent Hill on Tuesday 5 September after work. Details posted closer to the time, but feel free to join us if you know what you're getting yourself in for.
Sean and I will be seeing Silent Hill on Tuesday 5 September after work. Details posted closer to the time, but feel free to join us if you know what you're getting yourself in for.
Michael Mann, I love you
Miami Vice.
I want to write a film like this. This was absolutely the perfect movie to see at this stage of writing The Limit, and I went into it perfectly primed.
*** IT'S SPOILERS, ALL THE WAY DOWN ***
Here's what I was told: the movie starts in the middle of a police operation, and it keeps going from there - you really have to pay attention to follow what's going on, because Mann doesn't ease you into the world of the story.
1. It's like Brick. You have to listen carefully to everything everyone says & figure things out for yourself.
2. This is a perfect companion piece to The Wire. In fact, I'd say it's almost compulsory to watch a season of The Wire before seeing this film. It'll get you in the mood for the tone Mann is going for.
3. That mood is 'Hollywood' + 'Miami Vice' + 'The Wire'. Schmaltz + Cool + desperate people (on both sides of the badge) having to be as smart as they possibly can, to stay alive.
Here's what I didn't like:
- the script needed one more beat in the first meeting with the Fed to establish Crockett & Tubb's emotional connection with the case. That would have sustained us a lot more easily during their initial moves undercover.
- the performance of their fixer was over the top.
- where'd they get that grenade?
- the dialogue during the second meeting with the Fed was over the top.
- bringing the people they did to the club. It was a stupid move, and they should have known it. Biggest plot flaw of the movie, but it also sets up such an intense ending.
- Crockett & Tubbs needed to get proactive after what happened to Trudi.
- the story didn't return to the initial sting on Neptune.
Here's what I liked:
- Farrell & Foxx.
- starting in media res. I'm really coming to understand the advantages of this, for me as a writer.
- the jeopardy in their first meeting with the drug dealers. Smart people doing smart things because they know they could die at any moment.
- the seduction on the boat. A classic Mann scene.
- the romance. Absolutely unbelievable, but so necessary to (a) get in, (b) create tension in the finale, (c) be sexy.
- how will they respond to Trudi?
- the intensity of the ending & how it builds. Competent people doing deadly things.
The film is filled with music, it has a relentless pace, and its use of video captures the world in such a way that I was seeing the streets outside Reading when I stepped out like I was still in the movie.
Miami Vice is sleazy. Maybe it represents the real Miami; maybe it represents the degeneration of Michael Mann from the stylisation of Manhunter and Heat. All I know is I loved it.
I want to write a film like this. This was absolutely the perfect movie to see at this stage of writing The Limit, and I went into it perfectly primed.
*** IT'S SPOILERS, ALL THE WAY DOWN ***
Here's what I was told: the movie starts in the middle of a police operation, and it keeps going from there - you really have to pay attention to follow what's going on, because Mann doesn't ease you into the world of the story.
1. It's like Brick. You have to listen carefully to everything everyone says & figure things out for yourself.
2. This is a perfect companion piece to The Wire. In fact, I'd say it's almost compulsory to watch a season of The Wire before seeing this film. It'll get you in the mood for the tone Mann is going for.
3. That mood is 'Hollywood' + 'Miami Vice' + 'The Wire'. Schmaltz + Cool + desperate people (on both sides of the badge) having to be as smart as they possibly can, to stay alive.
Here's what I didn't like:
- the script needed one more beat in the first meeting with the Fed to establish Crockett & Tubb's emotional connection with the case. That would have sustained us a lot more easily during their initial moves undercover.
- the performance of their fixer was over the top.
- where'd they get that grenade?
- the dialogue during the second meeting with the Fed was over the top.
- bringing the people they did to the club. It was a stupid move, and they should have known it. Biggest plot flaw of the movie, but it also sets up such an intense ending.
- Crockett & Tubbs needed to get proactive after what happened to Trudi.
- the story didn't return to the initial sting on Neptune.
Here's what I liked:
- Farrell & Foxx.
- starting in media res. I'm really coming to understand the advantages of this, for me as a writer.
- the jeopardy in their first meeting with the drug dealers. Smart people doing smart things because they know they could die at any moment.
- the seduction on the boat. A classic Mann scene.
- the romance. Absolutely unbelievable, but so necessary to (a) get in, (b) create tension in the finale, (c) be sexy.
- how will they respond to Trudi?
- the intensity of the ending & how it builds. Competent people doing deadly things.
The film is filled with music, it has a relentless pace, and its use of video captures the world in such a way that I was seeing the streets outside Reading when I stepped out like I was still in the movie.
Miami Vice is sleazy. Maybe it represents the real Miami; maybe it represents the degeneration of Michael Mann from the stylisation of Manhunter and Heat. All I know is I loved it.
Thursday, August 24, 2006
The Limit – Anatomy of a Scene
Not so much procrastination in the re-starting of the writing this time. Maybe because I’m already three-quarters of the way through the script – because it’s in media res, I’m immediately interested, whereas starting from the beginning involves slowly relearning why I like the characters and then building up interesting situations for them.
Anyway, I took a crack at the confrontation scene between Tracy and Forster on Tuesday. By about halfway through Draft 1, I stopped. Here’s what I wrote about that:
All I was doing here was taking the pressure off myself - to remind myself that while I was doing the best I could with the scene, there were going to be plenty more opportunities before the script was finished to judge how it worked.
So I backed up, started a Draft 2, and stalled again.
Time to take a break, think through it again. In the middle of doing dishes, I realised what each character wanted, that it was actually a pretty simple conflict (and that I’d been circling around articulating it that simply for about 2 years). Tracy wants Forster to live and face justice, while Forster wants to die, in a very specific way.
I also realised that I wanted to create a connection between the 2 of them, to show that they had common ground, having been through the same stuff. It’s a technique I admired in Lost, in the Sayid/AnaLucia conversations after Shannon’s death.
So, I worked yesterday, mulled over the scene and came back to it this morning after a bit of internet procrastination.
First things first, what’s at stake? Well, I know that the lead character will live, and I know that she’s going to ‘get’ Forster. What’s at stake is how she’ll do it: will she use the law and reason, or anger and brute force. It help, having already written the brute force scene that I know I can make that plausible.
I wrote down the fundamental beats I want to see in the scene, and ID’d the next point to get to – which is Tracy’s realisation that Forster wants to die. I decided that Tracy had to be the one who realised, because (a) it makes her active, and (b) it shows her doing some detecting.
The dialogue came easily to start with, because the characters’ Wants are so diametrically opposed. I was handwriting everything, and if I couldn’t get an exact phrasing, then I just jotted down the idea behind the dialogue – to work it up later.
I came across a couple of things repeatedly:
1. An impression that some lines were either clichéd, or contained a repetitive subtext. (Have I talked before about how (for me) subtext has to be deliberately constructed and hammered into a scene? That was certainly the case here, with Tracy’s concern for her Dad.) Anyway, I decided to leave judging all that to the next readthrough.
2. If the audience knows some information is coming, withhold it. Create tension. It’s very natural to pop that stuff too early.
Toward the end of the scene's second act, Tracy learns some bad news. It's a Bang - I'm fascinated in how she'll react because I have no idea what she'll do. So I start brainstorming 20 ideas. At #8, I get to one I like - that she confronts the situation. I'm able to write out two or three more lines between Tracy and Forster, and then the dialogue dries up. After half an hour, I admit that to myself & back up, brainstorm some more ideas and adopt a subtler, softer approach. The scene flows pretty easily from that point to its end.
I wasn't sure exactly how Tracy would subdue Forster, so when I reached that moment I wrote from the heart. The end result is probably way over-long, but I was really INTO it while writing.
Anyway, I’ve roughed out the scene, I’m ready to move on now. Tracy has a real hero moment; I understand the characters better; their conversation NEEDED to happen; and it’s probably made the remainder of the film about 70% to 240% more interesting than it was before.
Anyway, I took a crack at the confrontation scene between Tracy and Forster on Tuesday. By about halfway through Draft 1, I stopped. Here’s what I wrote about that:
Fuck, I really want to mine the subtext – but I think I have to write the scene out first, then figure out what it’s about – and how that adds to the About of the film (‘2 dads vying for the love of their son’), and then simplify the scene down. I’m talking about writing and editing, really … and then re-reading the whole thing in sequence, so I can see how it all fits together. So … no need to panic about ‘getting it right’.
All I was doing here was taking the pressure off myself - to remind myself that while I was doing the best I could with the scene, there were going to be plenty more opportunities before the script was finished to judge how it worked.
So I backed up, started a Draft 2, and stalled again.
Time to take a break, think through it again. In the middle of doing dishes, I realised what each character wanted, that it was actually a pretty simple conflict (and that I’d been circling around articulating it that simply for about 2 years). Tracy wants Forster to live and face justice, while Forster wants to die, in a very specific way.
I also realised that I wanted to create a connection between the 2 of them, to show that they had common ground, having been through the same stuff. It’s a technique I admired in Lost, in the Sayid/AnaLucia conversations after Shannon’s death.
So, I worked yesterday, mulled over the scene and came back to it this morning after a bit of internet procrastination.
First things first, what’s at stake? Well, I know that the lead character will live, and I know that she’s going to ‘get’ Forster. What’s at stake is how she’ll do it: will she use the law and reason, or anger and brute force. It help, having already written the brute force scene that I know I can make that plausible.
I wrote down the fundamental beats I want to see in the scene, and ID’d the next point to get to – which is Tracy’s realisation that Forster wants to die. I decided that Tracy had to be the one who realised, because (a) it makes her active, and (b) it shows her doing some detecting.
The dialogue came easily to start with, because the characters’ Wants are so diametrically opposed. I was handwriting everything, and if I couldn’t get an exact phrasing, then I just jotted down the idea behind the dialogue – to work it up later.
I came across a couple of things repeatedly:
1. An impression that some lines were either clichéd, or contained a repetitive subtext. (Have I talked before about how (for me) subtext has to be deliberately constructed and hammered into a scene? That was certainly the case here, with Tracy’s concern for her Dad.) Anyway, I decided to leave judging all that to the next readthrough.
2. If the audience knows some information is coming, withhold it. Create tension. It’s very natural to pop that stuff too early.
Toward the end of the scene's second act, Tracy learns some bad news. It's a Bang - I'm fascinated in how she'll react because I have no idea what she'll do. So I start brainstorming 20 ideas. At #8, I get to one I like - that she confronts the situation. I'm able to write out two or three more lines between Tracy and Forster, and then the dialogue dries up. After half an hour, I admit that to myself & back up, brainstorm some more ideas and adopt a subtler, softer approach. The scene flows pretty easily from that point to its end.
I wasn't sure exactly how Tracy would subdue Forster, so when I reached that moment I wrote from the heart. The end result is probably way over-long, but I was really INTO it while writing.
Anyway, I’ve roughed out the scene, I’m ready to move on now. Tracy has a real hero moment; I understand the characters better; their conversation NEEDED to happen; and it’s probably made the remainder of the film about 70% to 240% more interesting than it was before.
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
Talking with Sean
During our lunchtime stroll, we talked about another two things to be alert for in creative groups.
The first is ‘dead points’, areas or ideas that one or more people just aren’t interested in. The flipside is when there’s an idea that only one person is interested in, but they’re PASSIONATE about it. I experienced this during our first 48 Hours competition; there were some elements of the story that only a few people were into it, and each time the story focused on those there was a drop in energy and contribution. So, some solutions:
- Talk about why they are or aren’t interested.
- Accept you can’t make someone interested in something.
- Try to massage a story so it contains only elements that everyone’s interested in.
- Be generous in attempting to become interested in an idea. Really try to understand and internalise it.
The second thing to be alert for are conversations that go awkwardly. There’s usually something going on behind that, and although it takes bravery to bring it up for discussion, you’ll usually come to (a) a better understanding, and (b) develop more trust that you can work through creative differences.
Sean, anything else you want to add?
The first is ‘dead points’, areas or ideas that one or more people just aren’t interested in. The flipside is when there’s an idea that only one person is interested in, but they’re PASSIONATE about it. I experienced this during our first 48 Hours competition; there were some elements of the story that only a few people were into it, and each time the story focused on those there was a drop in energy and contribution. So, some solutions:
- Talk about why they are or aren’t interested.
- Accept you can’t make someone interested in something.
- Try to massage a story so it contains only elements that everyone’s interested in.
- Be generous in attempting to become interested in an idea. Really try to understand and internalise it.
The second thing to be alert for are conversations that go awkwardly. There’s usually something going on behind that, and although it takes bravery to bring it up for discussion, you’ll usually come to (a) a better understanding, and (b) develop more trust that you can work through creative differences.
Sean, anything else you want to add?
Personally, I'd read #2
Two incredibly useful threads at the Forge.
One, discusses how to start conflicts in Primetime Adventures – and it’s suggesting taking a WAAAAY less overt approach than I’ve used in my games. Jenni, I think you’d be particularly interested in this post. Look how it’s saying you don’t explicitly describe how a conflict will play out; you just identify that the conflict is a-brewing, play your cards and take the results into account.
That's very different to how we approached our Buffy game, and it really makes me want to play PTA right now, to try it out.
Two, which discusses the RPG 'Bachannal', and how to approach roleplaying that has an erotic content.
One, discusses how to start conflicts in Primetime Adventures – and it’s suggesting taking a WAAAAY less overt approach than I’ve used in my games. Jenni, I think you’d be particularly interested in this post. Look how it’s saying you don’t explicitly describe how a conflict will play out; you just identify that the conflict is a-brewing, play your cards and take the results into account.
That's very different to how we approached our Buffy game, and it really makes me want to play PTA right now, to try it out.
Two, which discusses the RPG 'Bachannal', and how to approach roleplaying that has an erotic content.
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
The Limit - It begins again!
Well, having cleared the decks of Lucky Jones design, it's back to The Limit. I left it just at the end of Act 2, about to start a big rewrite of an action scene. So, let us see if I have my usual day of procrastination. (To try and prevent it, I started the morning with a big, uphill walk, to try and get the endorphins flowing. I'll have to see how that works).
... and Matt, yes, there was a Mystery Post, and yes, I took it down after half an hour. There are good reasons for that, and it’ll be reposted soon, probably in another location.
... and Matt, yes, there was a Mystery Post, and yes, I took it down after half an hour. There are good reasons for that, and it’ll be reposted soon, probably in another location.
Sunday, August 20, 2006
Tips for working at the Writing Table
Over the last year or so, I've been involved in semi-regular get-togethers to brainstorm ideas for TV shows. Here's a few things I've learned from that, about working as part of a creative team:
Like the people you're working with.
Listen. Plotting is like jazz; you have to listen to everyone's contribution. Make sure you (and hopefully everyone else at the table) is committed to the principle that it's not about getting your ideas across, but making everyone else's shine.
Accept that it doesn't have to go your way; other ways are just as good. The end result won't be like you thought, and that's fine. However, you do need to buy in to what the idea's become.
Assume everyone's adult and friendly - you can raise objections and alternatives in a mature and reasonable way.
Proceed carefully when disagreeing with people. If you think an idea is lame, wrong or stupid, DON'T SAY THAT. Ask what's behind their suggestion. Seek to understand and keep trying, until you either buy in to it or get what their goal is. Asking them to explain is better than saying ' No '.
Play with the idea and the characters. Have fun.
Like the people you're working with.
Listen. Plotting is like jazz; you have to listen to everyone's contribution. Make sure you (and hopefully everyone else at the table) is committed to the principle that it's not about getting your ideas across, but making everyone else's shine.
Accept that it doesn't have to go your way; other ways are just as good. The end result won't be like you thought, and that's fine. However, you do need to buy in to what the idea's become.
Assume everyone's adult and friendly - you can raise objections and alternatives in a mature and reasonable way.
Proceed carefully when disagreeing with people. If you think an idea is lame, wrong or stupid, DON'T SAY THAT. Ask what's behind their suggestion. Seek to understand and keep trying, until you either buy in to it or get what their goal is. Asking them to explain is better than saying ' No '.
Play with the idea and the characters. Have fun.
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
Pointing out problems at the writing table
This is an addition to the writing table post, below. It's inspired by a conversation with Sean, yesterday, where we were talking about how you need to create a team where everybody feels like they can contribute (in order to bring out the best in them). It's also about getting everybody on the same page, and trying to improve a show by solving the problems that will have the most benefit on other areas of the show.
It's pretty simple:
Tell everyone we're going to list out all the problems we have with the show.
Tell them we're not going to try and solve them yet. We're not even going to say WHY they're a problem. We're just going to list them and move on.
Once everyone understands that we're going to try and keep the big picture in mind and not get bogged down (and everyone feels free to point out if the conversation starts getting down into specific details and justifications) ...
Get everyone to list out all the problems they have, on a whiteboard.
Get everyone name their top prob, or top 3.
Look for patterns, priorities. See if there are problems that everyone has in common.
Choose the problems that, if you solve them, they’ll have the most flow-on effect
Brainstorm solutions. Brainstorm a lot of them.
It's pretty simple:
Tell everyone we're going to list out all the problems we have with the show.
Tell them we're not going to try and solve them yet. We're not even going to say WHY they're a problem. We're just going to list them and move on.
Once everyone understands that we're going to try and keep the big picture in mind and not get bogged down (and everyone feels free to point out if the conversation starts getting down into specific details and justifications) ...
Get everyone to list out all the problems they have, on a whiteboard.
Get everyone name their top prob, or top 3.
Look for patterns, priorities. See if there are problems that everyone has in common.
Choose the problems that, if you solve them, they’ll have the most flow-on effect
Brainstorm solutions. Brainstorm a lot of them.
Friday, August 11, 2006
Joining a Writing Table - some tips
As I've found, it's not easy to be the new person at the writing table. I've mentioned before how I'd like to be part of a table that listens to each other and tries to bring out the best. Here are some tips on how to do that:
- Just ask questions – try to get a feel for what’s important, the reasons why something was done, and where the reasoning is weak.
- Don’t prepare a 40 page document filled with all the problems I've identified and how I'd solve them. This sort of stuff has to come out in conversation.
- Do bring a page of questions, organised in order of importance.
- If I do have to ID problems, keep the list very very short. Either, (a) Point out why I find them problematic, and suggest a couple of solutions, or (b) do a deep analysis to find out what I think the basic problem is – and then see if others at the table agree with me.
- Don't get anxious about joining an established team. It takes quite a while to fit in with them and get a sense of their style (like a month to six month quite a while)
- Try to keep the Big Picture in mind.
- Be co-operative.
- Just ask questions – try to get a feel for what’s important, the reasons why something was done, and where the reasoning is weak.
- Don’t prepare a 40 page document filled with all the problems I've identified and how I'd solve them. This sort of stuff has to come out in conversation.
- Do bring a page of questions, organised in order of importance.
- If I do have to ID problems, keep the list very very short. Either, (a) Point out why I find them problematic, and suggest a couple of solutions, or (b) do a deep analysis to find out what I think the basic problem is – and then see if others at the table agree with me.
- Don't get anxious about joining an established team. It takes quite a while to fit in with them and get a sense of their style (like a month to six month quite a while)
- Try to keep the Big Picture in mind.
- Be co-operative.
My new writing process - a rough outline
Hmm, here's the stripped down, mechanical version of the writing process I want to try.
Intro characters. Present them with a Kicker, a situation that cannot be ignored
Brainstorm 20 (B20) ideas for each character’s reaction.
Choose the most interesting.
Write down on a separate page for each character, what I’ve discovered about them in making that choice.
Create the new situation based on that choice.
Write a synopsis of it on a Word doc.
Characters have to react to the new situation. Intro any new characters that that situation demands. Repeat the B20, writing process.
Soon I’ll have ‘character sheets’ filled with traits that allow me to make decisions that are consistent with their characterisation.
If I come up with awesome new ideas, write them down on a page that says Act 1,2,3. But keep going with my current story – to see what I learn. Why? Well, the idea is that I won’t know if these new ideas are the 'right' ones – all I’ll know is that they’re better – but I could come up with more if I keep going. So rather than keep getting distracted by - let's face it - an inexhaustible supply of new possibilities, I'll work through the entire story and then be able to make a decision based on overviewing the whole thing.
Read aloud. Record.
Take notes.
Go back to the start and start with the most interesting situation I've now devised. Rebuild.
Repeat till I’m confident.
Pitch.
This whole process is more character based, with a structure that (I assume) will naturally get imposed on it over time. The question of what it's 'about' also needs to be answered - but I have another post on that coming up, based on my recent consulting work on this TV show.
Intro characters. Present them with a Kicker, a situation that cannot be ignored
Brainstorm 20 (B20) ideas for each character’s reaction.
Choose the most interesting.
Write down on a separate page for each character, what I’ve discovered about them in making that choice.
Create the new situation based on that choice.
Write a synopsis of it on a Word doc.
Characters have to react to the new situation. Intro any new characters that that situation demands. Repeat the B20, writing process.
Soon I’ll have ‘character sheets’ filled with traits that allow me to make decisions that are consistent with their characterisation.
If I come up with awesome new ideas, write them down on a page that says Act 1,2,3. But keep going with my current story – to see what I learn. Why? Well, the idea is that I won’t know if these new ideas are the 'right' ones – all I’ll know is that they’re better – but I could come up with more if I keep going. So rather than keep getting distracted by - let's face it - an inexhaustible supply of new possibilities, I'll work through the entire story and then be able to make a decision based on overviewing the whole thing.
Read aloud. Record.
Take notes.
Go back to the start and start with the most interesting situation I've now devised. Rebuild.
Repeat till I’m confident.
Pitch.
This whole process is more character based, with a structure that (I assume) will naturally get imposed on it over time. The question of what it's 'about' also needs to be answered - but I have another post on that coming up, based on my recent consulting work on this TV show.
Sunday, August 06, 2006
Some Lucky Jones playtesting
So, we played my family sit-com game, The Lucky Joneses on Tuesday night. The nuts-and-bolts write-up is at the Forge.
Filed in: rpg
Filed in: luckyjones
Saturday, July 29, 2006
How to design a 600 page roleplaying game
Burning Empires is high on the list of games I want to play in the next couple of years. Thor, who was involved in its production, has started a series of blogposts backgrounding how the game was created.
First post is the background - inspiration, legal processes, ethical challenges, and what the game is 'about':
The process of developing the Vaylen (parasitic worms) and Kerrn (geneered warriors) is pretty fascinating stuff - and obviously these few paragraphs of description boil down hours and hours of intense game-designy conversation. But, parasitic worms as fully playable characters = Wow.
This post also talks about beginning to come up with implementations of the rules - how Firefights have to be 'about' something; how Psychology (a mind control ability) needed to be balanced so that it wouldn't create player vs. player dysfunction.
And there's this great insight into Luke Crane's design process:
It also talks about playtesting the big rules at a macro-level, so you can run through entire campaigns (or, in this game's case, Worlds) quickly, and shows the gruelling yet valuable work of playtesting. There's some great stuff about how the game is designed to force the creation of a story
There are insights into editing, artwork, and project management (in the form of co-ordinating playtesting when rules are being revised, and every group could have a slightly different draft).
And there's this quote, which I think is key:
First post is the background - inspiration, legal processes, ethical challenges, and what the game is 'about':
"The first thing we settled upon was that the underlying metaphor for the game would be disease. The Vaylen were a parasitic infestation infecting the bloated, dying body of humanity. Once we had that concept down [we could] explore the ways in which we could extend that metaphor throughout the game ..."Second post reveals some stuff I hadn't really taken onboard about the Burning Wheel system:
"Luke and I began focusing on Vaylen culture, which we needed to understand before we could create any rules for them. Burning Wheel’s lifepath system, which we had decided to keep for Burning Empires, requires that you thoroughly understand the structure of a society in order to create lifepaths for it."
The process of developing the Vaylen (parasitic worms) and Kerrn (geneered warriors) is pretty fascinating stuff - and obviously these few paragraphs of description boil down hours and hours of intense game-designy conversation. But, parasitic worms as fully playable characters = Wow.
This post also talks about beginning to come up with implementations of the rules - how Firefights have to be 'about' something; how Psychology (a mind control ability) needed to be balanced so that it wouldn't create player vs. player dysfunction.
And there's this great insight into Luke Crane's design process:
The very first step Luke takes when designing a project (before logos, layout, etc.) is to select fonts.Third (and last, so far) post has a great comment from Iskander that skim-illustrates how to use theory to improve a game for everybody.
“Fonts are the foundation for the look of a book." [says Luke]. They’ve got to knit together all the other elements. So for BE, I knew I wanted a different look than BW. It had to have a classic look to it, like BW, but also had to be modern.”
Luke went through his font database of several thousand fonts and made a short list of the fonts that suited his needs.
It also talks about playtesting the big rules at a macro-level, so you can run through entire campaigns (or, in this game's case, Worlds) quickly, and shows the gruelling yet valuable work of playtesting. There's some great stuff about how the game is designed to force the creation of a story
There are insights into editing, artwork, and project management (in the form of co-ordinating playtesting when rules are being revised, and every group could have a slightly different draft).
And there's this quote, which I think is key:
"One thing that Luke and I and others at the Forge have seen very clearly is that role playing texts in general are pretty poor at teaching players how to use them. Invariably, creators do things when running their games that are essential to making the games function as they should, and yet some of the most important of those things never make it into the text. We do things that are so ingrained that we take it completely for granted that other players, who learned to play in other environments, do them too. Once you release a game, if you interact with your fans, you quickly start to see patterns in the questions they ask. Pretty soon, the conclusion is inescapable: you’re doing something at your table that is not actually in the text. Burning Wheel is no different than other games in that regard.
Luke and I pledged that we would do our best to hard code the way we played into Burning Empires by critically evaluating every nuance of how we played our games, and making sure it made its way into the text.
The Scott Pilgrim movie
Well, according to AICN, Edgar Wright is going to direct the/a Scott Pilgrim movie. This makes me happy because he'll be really frickin' great/ideal at it. This makes me sad because I want to do one/them/it. Hopefully it'll turn into a Harry Potter franchise and I'll get my shot.
Filed in: film
Friday, July 28, 2006
A fantasy epic in 3 hours (or How I took the Gloves off)
This happened back in January, on the first day of Kapcon, I think. It’s one of my favourite role-playing experiences, for reasons I’ll surely discover as I write this out.
Four players – Ivan, I’d never met before. Margee was a friend from just hanging out with people we both knew. Jon and Nasia I’d only played with for the first time earlier that day. I introduced them to Universalis, a game where you figure out what it’s about as you play it – each person paying Coins to create elements of the world, introducing new characters and create conflict.
Here’s the key to what happened next: if you don’t like what someone else has introduced, you can Challenge it. At first you just talk it out, try and negotiate a solution. If that doesn’t work, you can start a bidding war & other players can support or oppose what’s being challenged as well.
So, the game starts with the Tenet phase, where you go around the group, stating one fact each about what you want the game to be about. I went first and suggested something I like to throw in, just to sound out where everybody’s at, “This game’s set in the Real World.”
Immediate challenge from Ivan. “Screw that,” he says, “I don’t come to cons to play real world stuff.” He took the turn and introduced Black Wolf, a wizard. Basically, he was introducing the world of Ralph Bakshi’s movie, ‘Wizards’. And I was uncomfortable with that – I didn’t want the game to slavishly recreate the plot of an existing fiction.
Straight up, I told him what I was feeling, and said that I was going to mess with it. So that’s the first thing – I’ve never been that overt before, and certainly never taken such an oppositional role.
“That’s fine,” said Ivan. “That’s what the game’s for.” So he got it.
First thing I did was trash a major component – the city of Montegaria – which shocked the hell out of me, and I wonder if it shocked the other players.
Cool stuff that came out as the game went on:
- Everyone was comfortable with challenges.
- We created a full on fantasy epic in 3 hours. And it was gripping – I went to the toilet at one stage (and ‘cos of the way Uni works, the game kept going without me), and can remember actually running back to the game because I wanted to know what I missed
- The most important components turned out to be a Dead Baby and a Prophecy. Players were wresting control of the Prophecy, trying to get the right to write down what it said.
There was a real creative tension – and each player contributed a different thing. There was the competitiveness between Ivan and me. Margee kept making these amazing, subtle connections between the different characters; Nasia focused on relationships and introducing elements that were epic in scale & usually concerned with religion and the Prophecy.
And Jon … Jon kept blowing my mind, because he’d shift the timeline around so much. First scene – city laid to waste, epic confrontation between the villain and sort-of-hero wizards, a princess fleeing for her life. Jon gets the second scene, and says, “… Three months earlier.” Once we cut back to the ruined city and kicked off a three-way chase across the planet, the real heroes take refuge in Crusk, a safe haven surrounded by force fields that the wizards can’t enter. “… 20 years later,” says Jon.
That’s about it. There was a final conflict, which I wanted to kick off straight away but everyone else felt that that would be too soon – so we manoeuvred components around, introduced traits, set up an eclipse. Not much actually changed, but everybody felt comfortable enough after about 20 minutes to get things started.
After that resolved, we were approaching the end of the session and everybody was getting a bit drained. Epilogues were being narrated for other characters, but we couldn’t figure out what to do with the two wizards who’d kicked the whole game off. “They die,” said Margee, which everyone was satisfied with.
Full disclosure: there was a little bit just at the end of the game I wasn’t happy with. Black Wolf, the wizard-villain, was definitely Ivan’s component, and used all the Coins I’d won in the final conflict to buy-off every one of its traits, effectively killing it. Of course, we were never going to play this game again, but it still felt a little bitter, or like a pissing contest. Maybe I wasn’t used to that level of competition.
Anyway, to mollify myself, I bought a new trait for Black Wolf, that he was lauded as a saint in the future of this fantasy world – which actually seemed consistent with all the crap he’d pulled and carnage he’d committed. It actually had helped bring about a better world.
That’s the key to why I enjoyed this so much: full-on competition without acrimony gave Universalis a *zing* I’d never experienced before, and the whole game was incredibly satisfying as a result. Not just its usual unpredictable self, but tense - and I felt utterly involved in wanting to get an outcome I’d be happy with.
Four players – Ivan, I’d never met before. Margee was a friend from just hanging out with people we both knew. Jon and Nasia I’d only played with for the first time earlier that day. I introduced them to Universalis, a game where you figure out what it’s about as you play it – each person paying Coins to create elements of the world, introducing new characters and create conflict.
Here’s the key to what happened next: if you don’t like what someone else has introduced, you can Challenge it. At first you just talk it out, try and negotiate a solution. If that doesn’t work, you can start a bidding war & other players can support or oppose what’s being challenged as well.
So, the game starts with the Tenet phase, where you go around the group, stating one fact each about what you want the game to be about. I went first and suggested something I like to throw in, just to sound out where everybody’s at, “This game’s set in the Real World.”
Immediate challenge from Ivan. “Screw that,” he says, “I don’t come to cons to play real world stuff.” He took the turn and introduced Black Wolf, a wizard. Basically, he was introducing the world of Ralph Bakshi’s movie, ‘Wizards’. And I was uncomfortable with that – I didn’t want the game to slavishly recreate the plot of an existing fiction.
Straight up, I told him what I was feeling, and said that I was going to mess with it. So that’s the first thing – I’ve never been that overt before, and certainly never taken such an oppositional role.
“That’s fine,” said Ivan. “That’s what the game’s for.” So he got it.
First thing I did was trash a major component – the city of Montegaria – which shocked the hell out of me, and I wonder if it shocked the other players.
Cool stuff that came out as the game went on:
- Everyone was comfortable with challenges.
- We created a full on fantasy epic in 3 hours. And it was gripping – I went to the toilet at one stage (and ‘cos of the way Uni works, the game kept going without me), and can remember actually running back to the game because I wanted to know what I missed
- The most important components turned out to be a Dead Baby and a Prophecy. Players were wresting control of the Prophecy, trying to get the right to write down what it said.
There was a real creative tension – and each player contributed a different thing. There was the competitiveness between Ivan and me. Margee kept making these amazing, subtle connections between the different characters; Nasia focused on relationships and introducing elements that were epic in scale & usually concerned with religion and the Prophecy.
And Jon … Jon kept blowing my mind, because he’d shift the timeline around so much. First scene – city laid to waste, epic confrontation between the villain and sort-of-hero wizards, a princess fleeing for her life. Jon gets the second scene, and says, “… Three months earlier.” Once we cut back to the ruined city and kicked off a three-way chase across the planet, the real heroes take refuge in Crusk, a safe haven surrounded by force fields that the wizards can’t enter. “… 20 years later,” says Jon.
That’s about it. There was a final conflict, which I wanted to kick off straight away but everyone else felt that that would be too soon – so we manoeuvred components around, introduced traits, set up an eclipse. Not much actually changed, but everybody felt comfortable enough after about 20 minutes to get things started.
After that resolved, we were approaching the end of the session and everybody was getting a bit drained. Epilogues were being narrated for other characters, but we couldn’t figure out what to do with the two wizards who’d kicked the whole game off. “They die,” said Margee, which everyone was satisfied with.
Full disclosure: there was a little bit just at the end of the game I wasn’t happy with. Black Wolf, the wizard-villain, was definitely Ivan’s component, and used all the Coins I’d won in the final conflict to buy-off every one of its traits, effectively killing it. Of course, we were never going to play this game again, but it still felt a little bitter, or like a pissing contest. Maybe I wasn’t used to that level of competition.
Anyway, to mollify myself, I bought a new trait for Black Wolf, that he was lauded as a saint in the future of this fantasy world – which actually seemed consistent with all the crap he’d pulled and carnage he’d committed. It actually had helped bring about a better world.
That’s the key to why I enjoyed this so much: full-on competition without acrimony gave Universalis a *zing* I’d never experienced before, and the whole game was incredibly satisfying as a result. Not just its usual unpredictable self, but tense - and I felt utterly involved in wanting to get an outcome I’d be happy with.
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
A Scanner Darkly (and a thought about scene structure)
**MILD SPOILERS**
Linklater's film has all the strengths and weaknesses of the book.
We didn't get totally inside Bob Arctor's headspace. Only occasionally did I feel what his personality breakdown (due to the drugs and having to surveil himself) must be like - and these peaks of paranoia and disorientation weren't frequent enough to satisfy me (because I pretty much feel they're the point of the story).
However, it has a scene about 20 minutes before the end which is simply incredibly - it totally justifies the use of the (seemingly gimmicky) scramble suits as Keanu's interview with his boss gradually becomes a experience of drawn-out and mounting horror. That was where the film peaked, and then introduced a plot point (that I think is new to Linklater's script) which I believe is a necessary step towards someone someday finally cracking how to tell a kick-arse version of this story.
The film's visually brilliant, and I cried at PKD's dedication to his friends, lost to drugs in the '70s. Go read Jenni's review for another POV.
A lot of the time, I was watching the film going "Where's the conflict in this scene?" And I realise that my recent experiences with Primetime Adventures have been subtly educating me in this screen-writing tool. Creating conflicts and having to decide which ones are meaningful up to 15 times a game is a really effective way of building up your chops.
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
Girlmore Girls news
This script review of the first post-Sherman-Pallindino episode of Gilmore Girls makes me cautiously optimistic. Beware, though - massive spoilers.
And, although I missed 20 minutes in the middle, this Sunday's ep seemed the funniest and sharpest the show has been in a while: Michel's tantie at Rory about messing with his system; Mrs Kim helping write a hit rock song (!); Rory and Lorelai both avoiding the problems in their life. Nice, insightful stuff.
But when Luke directly asked Lor THREE times if she had a problem with the bag, and she said "No", I decided she deserves everything she going to get. This woman is going to have to grow if she's going to win back my sympathy.
And, although I missed 20 minutes in the middle, this Sunday's ep seemed the funniest and sharpest the show has been in a while: Michel's tantie at Rory about messing with his system; Mrs Kim helping write a hit rock song (!); Rory and Lorelai both avoiding the problems in their life. Nice, insightful stuff.
But when Luke directly asked Lor THREE times if she had a problem with the bag, and she said "No", I decided she deserves everything she going to get. This woman is going to have to grow if she's going to win back my sympathy.
Sunday, July 23, 2006
A rough as guts summary of Phoenix Episode 9
This is very much a reference post for the people who played Phoenix on Saturday. I tried to remember the order of scenes, but by about halfway through my memory failed so I separated them out into each character's strand and put down as much as I can remember. Hopefully it'll serve as a memory jog if we write the stuff up.
So, don't expect this to make much sense if you keep reading. It's all pretty rough, and doesn't get to the dramatic juice that powered each scene.
Episode 9 (Season Finale)
Boyd talking to Carl (via radio) outside compound.
Saul talks to Carl on roof - “You'll choose one of us to die.”
Terri decides to take Tom with her into the compound – which puts her in danger of being discovered.
Molly 'tortures' Lacey.
Maybe Saul talks to Alistair came here, and realised he's got to change the Rules. ??
Terri, almost discovered by guards – intimate moment with Tom.
We might have cut to the scene where Lacey's drinking hot chocolate in the kitchen & Saul comes in to speak with her.
Then the scene with the guard moving through the compound, seeing the grill open, Molly's missing, sounding the alarm.
(maybe)
Terri tries to get the medical files.
Saul lets Boyd out of the storage locker.
Terri gets the med-assist to help her / activate Stage 6
Scene outside the compound, the Tactical Team arguing about whether to go in – hearing a gunshot from inside.
** I'VE LISTED THINGS OUT BY CHARACTER, FROM HERE
Molly talks to the kids
Molly convinces the kids to step in the room.
The compound is breached – this was colour that affected subsequent narration.
Saul lets Boyd out of the storage locker.
Saul and Boyd talk in the corridor.
Boyd talks to Carl.
Boyd rescues Molly.
Boyd at the end.
Terri tries to get the medical files.
Terri gets the med-assist to help her / activate Stage 6
Tom regains consciousness – he's losing himself – he and Terri have a last conversation.
Tom asks Saul to take him to Carl.
Carl makes the decision about who will die.
Epilogue
So, don't expect this to make much sense if you keep reading. It's all pretty rough, and doesn't get to the dramatic juice that powered each scene.
Episode 9 (Season Finale)
Boyd talking to Carl (via radio) outside compound.
Saul talks to Carl on roof - “You'll choose one of us to die.”
Terri decides to take Tom with her into the compound – which puts her in danger of being discovered.
Molly 'tortures' Lacey.
Maybe Saul talks to Alistair came here, and realised he's got to change the Rules. ??
Terri, almost discovered by guards – intimate moment with Tom.
We might have cut to the scene where Lacey's drinking hot chocolate in the kitchen & Saul comes in to speak with her.
Then the scene with the guard moving through the compound, seeing the grill open, Molly's missing, sounding the alarm.
(maybe)
Terri tries to get the medical files.
Saul lets Boyd out of the storage locker.
Terri gets the med-assist to help her / activate Stage 6
Scene outside the compound, the Tactical Team arguing about whether to go in – hearing a gunshot from inside.
** I'VE LISTED THINGS OUT BY CHARACTER, FROM HERE
Molly talks to the kids
Molly convinces the kids to step in the room.
The compound is breached – this was colour that affected subsequent narration.
Saul lets Boyd out of the storage locker.
Saul and Boyd talk in the corridor.
Boyd talks to Carl.
Boyd rescues Molly.
Boyd at the end.
Terri tries to get the medical files.
Terri gets the med-assist to help her / activate Stage 6
Tom regains consciousness – he's losing himself – he and Terri have a last conversation.
Tom asks Saul to take him to Carl.
Carl makes the decision about who will die.
Epilogue
Thursday, July 20, 2006
Superman Returns
My favourite characters, from most to least …
Lois Lane’s boyfriend
Perry White
Lois Lane
Lois’ son
Lex Luthor’s girlfriend
Lex Luthor
Jimmy Olsen
Superman
Clark Kent
How could a script get it so wrong? Starting with 20 minutes of stuff that doesn’t advance the story at all (who care if Superman feels like an alien? Who cares how Lex gets his money? These things don’t have any pay-off in the film), and then focusing on – basically – Lois’ story, because she’s the one in interesting dramatic situations and having to make interesting choices.
Let me say this plainly: I have no problem with Superman Returns grounding itself heavily in the drama – Unbreakable is one of my favourite films – but I have a massive problem when the drama Singer chooses to focus on pushes all the attention away from Superman.
Either make a movie about Superman or make a movie where Superman does cool shit every 3 minutes against impossible odds and super-powerful villains. Either way, I’d be more entertained … which is what this movie forgot to do.
Lois Lane’s boyfriend
Perry White
Lois Lane
Lois’ son
Lex Luthor’s girlfriend
Lex Luthor
Jimmy Olsen
Superman
Clark Kent
How could a script get it so wrong? Starting with 20 minutes of stuff that doesn’t advance the story at all (who care if Superman feels like an alien? Who cares how Lex gets his money? These things don’t have any pay-off in the film), and then focusing on – basically – Lois’ story, because she’s the one in interesting dramatic situations and having to make interesting choices.
Let me say this plainly: I have no problem with Superman Returns grounding itself heavily in the drama – Unbreakable is one of my favourite films – but I have a massive problem when the drama Singer chooses to focus on pushes all the attention away from Superman.
Either make a movie about Superman or make a movie where Superman does cool shit every 3 minutes against impossible odds and super-powerful villains. Either way, I’d be more entertained … which is what this movie forgot to do.
What's it all about?
What's your story about? I need to know this so that when I'm reading the script I can tell whether each scene is adding to the story that I want to see unfold.
'What's your story about?' is not what it's about at a premise level - where, for example The Limit is about Vigilantism vs. The Law, which is more effective & how using each method changes you.
It's what your story is about at an emotional level, about what's grabbing the audience and making them want to watch more. The Limit, in this case, is about 2 dads vying for the love of their son.
'What's your story about?' is not what it's about at a premise level - where, for example The Limit is about Vigilantism vs. The Law, which is more effective & how using each method changes you.
It's what your story is about at an emotional level, about what's grabbing the audience and making them want to watch more. The Limit, in this case, is about 2 dads vying for the love of their son.
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
Getting More Things Done
I may write about this in more depth later, but I’ve made a pretty radical adjustment to how I’m using the Getting Things Done (GTD) system to plan out my weekly work. The goal was to simplify my life, so that I’m focusing only on the really important stuff.
I’ve created a one page document covered with post-its that represented goals in my life – that’s divided into ‘Personal’ and ‘Creative’. At the bottom are the two MAIN PROJECTS that I’m working on over the next fortnight (example - 'Creating that 1-page document' & 'All my script editing jobs'). Just above that is a second tier of goals – where each category has two more POSSIBLE GOALS in it. These are what I’ll do, either once I finish what I’m currently focused on or things I can swap to if I get bored or blocked with my Main Projects.
Above that are bigger things like all the areas of my life I have to keep track of (you know, like Flatmate, Writer, Employee, and stuff), and the bigger goals that stretch out from 3 years to the rest of my life.
It may sound confusing, but the result is that I’ve now got a Big Picture of my life that I can refresh and review very easily, that I can see entirely on one page, and that means I focus on the important stuff rather than the shit, kipple and cruft that’s been building up around the edges of my calendar over the last six months.
I’ve created a one page document covered with post-its that represented goals in my life – that’s divided into ‘Personal’ and ‘Creative’. At the bottom are the two MAIN PROJECTS that I’m working on over the next fortnight (example - 'Creating that 1-page document' & 'All my script editing jobs'). Just above that is a second tier of goals – where each category has two more POSSIBLE GOALS in it. These are what I’ll do, either once I finish what I’m currently focused on or things I can swap to if I get bored or blocked with my Main Projects.
Above that are bigger things like all the areas of my life I have to keep track of (you know, like Flatmate, Writer, Employee, and stuff), and the bigger goals that stretch out from 3 years to the rest of my life.
It may sound confusing, but the result is that I’ve now got a Big Picture of my life that I can refresh and review very easily, that I can see entirely on one page, and that means I focus on the important stuff rather than the shit, kipple and cruft that’s been building up around the edges of my calendar over the last six months.
Phoenix
The next session is on Saturday. We’ll be playing the finale of Season 1, and setting up the premiere of Season 2. More notes (including episode summaries) here.
Filed in: rpg
Me creative stuff at the moment …
I’ve been script editing, rather than writing. It’s a refreshing change, and the process seems to come naturally, now that I’ve done it about 70 times. I’ve had the privilege of reading:
- an historical drama / true crime story set in NZ
- A western drama/adventure that I’ve recommended become a noir, set in an undefined time in both The West & The East of America.
I’ve also been consulting on a small town drama-comedy TV series set in NZ (which means all my close watching of the Gilmore Girls is finally paying off). Contributing to this project has made me aware that I’ve taken something from Universalis – I’m becoming extremely focused on consistent characterisation and making the plot flow out of the ramifications of that.
- an historical drama / true crime story set in NZ
- A western drama/adventure that I’ve recommended become a noir, set in an undefined time in both The West & The East of America.
I’ve also been consulting on a small town drama-comedy TV series set in NZ (which means all my close watching of the Gilmore Girls is finally paying off). Contributing to this project has made me aware that I’ve taken something from Universalis – I’m becoming extremely focused on consistent characterisation and making the plot flow out of the ramifications of that.
I've been Watching
... lots of TV ...
Carnivale (Seasons 1 & 2) – it takes a few eps to get into, but it’s an excellent drama that introduces more and more magic realism and then reveals that it was a full-blown horror all along. Probably cancelled too soon, but I’d love to read a novel that continued the story.
Clone High – pretty damn fun. A few bum eps.
The Prisoner – about half the episodes don’t work for me, but the other half are genius. The finale of this series changed my understanding of how societies work.
Deadwood (Season 1) – love the language, love the acting. I wish it had been given the budget of Rome, in order to really recreate the craziness of frontier South Dakota.
Battlestar Galactica (Season 2) – the first 6 eps are pretty much entertaining soap opera that re-establishes the status quo. Then the season starts focusing on external threats; whereas these were problems of immediate survival in Season 1 (pursuit, finding water, finding fuel), now they’ve transformed into social survival (the black market, free press, abortion, and elections). And towards the end of Season 2, the showrunners perform an act of absolute genius and start showing what life is like in Cylon society. This is becoming an exciting show.
Lost (Season 2) - many more ep reviews are coming, but I can say that as a season it works great - held back by a few too many episodes that focus on character (Kate and her frickin' horse, Charlie's dreams) rather than having a 3-5 ep arc (such as Meeting the Tailies or Dealing with Henry Gale or ... Michael) to hold them together.
Update:For a nearly parallel opinion on Lost, check out this article by DocArzt over at thetailsection.com, and then have a wander around lostpedia.com.
Carnivale (Seasons 1 & 2) – it takes a few eps to get into, but it’s an excellent drama that introduces more and more magic realism and then reveals that it was a full-blown horror all along. Probably cancelled too soon, but I’d love to read a novel that continued the story.
Clone High – pretty damn fun. A few bum eps.
The Prisoner – about half the episodes don’t work for me, but the other half are genius. The finale of this series changed my understanding of how societies work.
Deadwood (Season 1) – love the language, love the acting. I wish it had been given the budget of Rome, in order to really recreate the craziness of frontier South Dakota.
Battlestar Galactica (Season 2) – the first 6 eps are pretty much entertaining soap opera that re-establishes the status quo. Then the season starts focusing on external threats; whereas these were problems of immediate survival in Season 1 (pursuit, finding water, finding fuel), now they’ve transformed into social survival (the black market, free press, abortion, and elections). And towards the end of Season 2, the showrunners perform an act of absolute genius and start showing what life is like in Cylon society. This is becoming an exciting show.
Lost (Season 2) - many more ep reviews are coming, but I can say that as a season it works great - held back by a few too many episodes that focus on character (Kate and her frickin' horse, Charlie's dreams) rather than having a 3-5 ep arc (such as Meeting the Tailies or Dealing with Henry Gale or ... Michael) to hold them together.
Update:For a nearly parallel opinion on Lost, check out this article by DocArzt over at thetailsection.com, and then have a wander around lostpedia.com.
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
Game playing fool
I'm back from house-sitting at Gino's - where I clocked 4 video games. It's not that I had a lot of free time, it's that I prioritised my time badly.
Katamari Damarcy - goofy goddamn fun.
We love Katamari - improved level design from the original, but much worse writing and characterisation and pretty much everything else. It made the game a real pain to play.
Ico - a good puzzle solving game in the mould of Tomb Raider but it doesn't fulfill its early promise. I may go into that later.
Fahrenheit - an okay mystery-actioner game that doesn't fulfill its early promise. I may go into that later.
Katamari Damarcy - goofy goddamn fun.
We love Katamari - improved level design from the original, but much worse writing and characterisation and pretty much everything else. It made the game a real pain to play.
Ico - a good puzzle solving game in the mould of Tomb Raider but it doesn't fulfill its early promise. I may go into that later.
Fahrenheit - an okay mystery-actioner game that doesn't fulfill its early promise. I may go into that later.
Sunday, July 02, 2006
The Limit - realising why I stopped
Last weekend, I hit the big rewrite at the end of Act 2 and the wall of "What the hell do I do next?" I thought I'd take some time out - and in the meantime, brainstorm some possible solutions, try to understand the basic problem, and work on some stuff that I've needed to catch up on (including the next draft of The Lucky Joneses RPG).
However, over the last three days, this is what's happened:
1. A lunch-time conversation with Sean where I realised that the scene I was blocked on has to reflect the father-child dynamic that the whole movie's about;
2. A realisation that I'm trying to make this perfect, which leads to procrastination. I should make rough, necessary changes, and complete this draft; and
3. Another realisation, that I've lost track of the big picture - and finishing this script is more important than working on the game.
4. ... Maybe there's some fear of finishing in there, too.
So, I'll be trying to go back into it tonight & definitely be working on it for the remainder of the week.
Ode to Singstar
Much Singstar fun last night. Discussion with Giffy has convinced me that it's a great game. It has a sliding difficulty level - which means that you can make the game less forgiving of bum notes & it encourages practice and study in order to get really good - but it's also completely accessible to novice singers.
Plus the Party Games option is incredible fun. Making it a competive team event and then having everyone gather together for an 8-person singing finale is a celebratory act of smart game design.
I'm looking forward to house-sitting at Gino's. Playing Singstar, Eyetoy games and Dance-Dance Revolution - basically anything that doesn't require me to hold a tiny controller in my hands but instead use my whole body. To me, that feels like the next step in game design - making the room you're playing the game in part of the game. And it's why I'm so exciting by Nintendo's new console.
Also, I got a rating of Singstar on Dido's White Flag, emo'd on The Offspring's Self-Esteem and got to vamp on Alicia Keys' Fallin'. So I'm happy.
Plus the Party Games option is incredible fun. Making it a competive team event and then having everyone gather together for an 8-person singing finale is a celebratory act of smart game design.
I'm looking forward to house-sitting at Gino's. Playing Singstar, Eyetoy games and Dance-Dance Revolution - basically anything that doesn't require me to hold a tiny controller in my hands but instead use my whole body. To me, that feels like the next step in game design - making the room you're playing the game in part of the game. And it's why I'm so exciting by Nintendo's new console.
Also, I got a rating of Singstar on Dido's White Flag, emo'd on The Offspring's Self-Esteem and got to vamp on Alicia Keys' Fallin'. So I'm happy.
RPGPlaytesting and Publishing wisdom from the pros
Just found a couple of useful threads on playtesting. One's at the Forge, the other's at StoryGames. If I have time, I'll post some summary in the comments
Also Jared's rant and Tony's analysis about self-publishing are complete opposed, but still educational. Jared suggests focusing on creating first and publishing second (if at all). Basically, distribute what you create for free - with, I think, the result that work through vastly more interesting ideas rather than fixate on the One Great Game you must be publishing. Tony, instead, has started a discussion of the nuts and bolts of publishing that OGG.
Also Jared's rant and Tony's analysis about self-publishing are complete opposed, but still educational. Jared suggests focusing on creating first and publishing second (if at all). Basically, distribute what you create for free - with, I think, the result that work through vastly more interesting ideas rather than fixate on the One Great Game you must be publishing. Tony, instead, has started a discussion of the nuts and bolts of publishing that OGG.
Thursday, June 29, 2006
Scott Pilgrim #3 is out!
Just read it on Ain't it Cool -
From the review: "If I called SCOTT PILGRIM the finest example of comics, the most fun a reader can have with graphic novels, then that would be an understatement. The third volume manages to top the insanity of the previous volumes ..." And then there's spoilers. And people who've read this series know that knowing nothing is the knowledge you want to know when you start reading it.
SCOTT PILGRIM & THE INEVITABLE SADNESS
... has been published. Sweet!From the review: "If I called SCOTT PILGRIM the finest example of comics, the most fun a reader can have with graphic novels, then that would be an understatement. The third volume manages to top the insanity of the previous volumes ..." And then there's spoilers. And people who've read this series know that knowing nothing is the knowledge you want to know when you start reading it.
Filed in: comics
Sunday, June 25, 2006
Online ettiquette
Does linking to this cross the line?
What about googling your date?
And here's some advice for the LiveJournalistas out there.
What about googling your date?
And here's some advice for the LiveJournalistas out there.
Relationship Failure (No. 463)
INT. THE OLD FLAT -- NIGHT
I'm talking to my soon-to-be Former Flatmate (STBFF).
Me: So I looked at a flat today, and I met this woman I was interested in. Now, she's the flatmate who's moving out, and we only talked for a couple of minutes, but I still have the phone number, so I wanted your opinion on whether it'd be weird if I -
STBFF: No. Because that'd be stalking.
Me: ... Yes. Yes, of course you're right.
I'm talking to my soon-to-be Former Flatmate (STBFF).
Me: So I looked at a flat today, and I met this woman I was interested in. Now, she's the flatmate who's moving out, and we only talked for a couple of minutes, but I still have the phone number, so I wanted your opinion on whether it'd be weird if I -
STBFF: No. Because that'd be stalking.
Me: ... Yes. Yes, of course you're right.
Filed in: personal
Fury and Betrayal
ulatFriday night. Played Fury of Dracula (FOD) again, and my third game of Betrayal at the House on the Hill (BATHOTH).
FOD holds up as a great example of co-operative strategy and finely balanced adversaries. Once again, Gino played Dracula. Once again, the hunter-players were on his trail from the beginning, and three-quarters of the way through we'd cornered the fiend in Eastern Europe ... but this time, Gino played a few new cards that allowed him to jump over our net and run for his un-life.
Again, it was exciting, ended with a confrontation with Dracula over the course of dusk to twilight, across the English channel &, this time, with victory for the Hunters.
As for BATHOTH. Well, see the comments thread in the link above for more. BATHOTH is beautifully designed, it's interesting and tense as you explore the house, generating mood reasonably effortlessly. Then the Haunt starts - one of the players becomes a Traitor and plays the forces of the House trying to kill all the other (non-traitor) characters. There are 50 different Haunts in the game (aliens, zombies, angry servants, evil plants, and more and more) so there's a lot of variability in every game.
But that's what I think it at the heart of the controversy. Because of the variety of Haunts, there's no consistency to the gameplay BETWEEN games. Some Haunts seem tougher than others, attributes are randomly penalised, and some Haunts require you to explore more of the House than you have. This lack of consistency means some Haunts'll be easy to defeat; others, impossible. Some Haunts will be tense and fun; others, boring.
Whereas FOD has delivered a consistent experience each time I've played it, BATHOTH has been highly variable, more reliant on luck than player skill, and up and down in terms of fun. I've heard (and can believe) that there are great Haunts that are really fun to play through, but my point is that that should be the case every time you play, not just every fourth time it happens (or however often it does).
FOD holds up as a great example of co-operative strategy and finely balanced adversaries. Once again, Gino played Dracula. Once again, the hunter-players were on his trail from the beginning, and three-quarters of the way through we'd cornered the fiend in Eastern Europe ... but this time, Gino played a few new cards that allowed him to jump over our net and run for his un-life.
Again, it was exciting, ended with a confrontation with Dracula over the course of dusk to twilight, across the English channel &, this time, with victory for the Hunters.
As for BATHOTH. Well, see the comments thread in the link above for more. BATHOTH is beautifully designed, it's interesting and tense as you explore the house, generating mood reasonably effortlessly. Then the Haunt starts - one of the players becomes a Traitor and plays the forces of the House trying to kill all the other (non-traitor) characters. There are 50 different Haunts in the game (aliens, zombies, angry servants, evil plants, and more and more) so there's a lot of variability in every game.
But that's what I think it at the heart of the controversy. Because of the variety of Haunts, there's no consistency to the gameplay BETWEEN games. Some Haunts seem tougher than others, attributes are randomly penalised, and some Haunts require you to explore more of the House than you have. This lack of consistency means some Haunts'll be easy to defeat; others, impossible. Some Haunts will be tense and fun; others, boring.
Whereas FOD has delivered a consistent experience each time I've played it, BATHOTH has been highly variable, more reliant on luck than player skill, and up and down in terms of fun. I've heard (and can believe) that there are great Haunts that are really fun to play through, but my point is that that should be the case every time you play, not just every fourth time it happens (or however often it does).
Filed in: boardgames review game design
The Limit - Solving the Midpoint
Today's my 'finish this re-draft' deadline ... & I'm approaching the end of Act 2. REASON: MWA offered me some more work which has had to be done over this week and last, so I've deferred script progress in order to earn some dentist money.
The writing's been going smoothly but right now I think I'm facing a psychological block - I need to make a change that has big ramifications for the rest of the film. It's a simple change, but I think its implications are stopping me from going ahead with making it. Instead I'm analysing. And working on this much-delayed post.
The work I'm doing for MWA is confidential, but I can say - Without disclosing anything secret - that a lot of very successful people in this country perceive a difference between women and men in the way they solve problems. Apparently, (1) men come up with solutions and implement one quickly whereas (2) Women analyse the whole situation, try and get down to the core of the problem and then generate a solution.
Now I'm not sure whether those patterns are gendered that strongly, but I've reached a point on The Limit that reminds that I've certainly been guilty of #1 a lot.
The Midpoint of the script consists of an argument plus a new threat for one of the lead characters. Now, the threat's always worked fine but the argument has always seemed to slow things down. I've tried a lot of fixes on it over the last five drafts and nothing's worked.
So what did I realise during this edit? That none of these quick fixes had addressed the main problem. That the midpoints for the two leads were separated by about 10 pages ... and that that distance was killing momentum the script's momentum.
So, lessons to apply in future:
1) Coming up with a quick fix is fine, if I'm utterly convinced by it.
2) If I'm not convinced, then analyse the problem thoroughly. I've been finding that Deviation Analysis works well as a tool.
3) Analyse anything that looks like a massive drop in engagement when I draft my Whammo Chart.
4) If, after coming up with a quick fix, a problem still remains in the next draft, analyse it.
Now, to probably procrastinate further!
The writing's been going smoothly but right now I think I'm facing a psychological block - I need to make a change that has big ramifications for the rest of the film. It's a simple change, but I think its implications are stopping me from going ahead with making it. Instead I'm analysing. And working on this much-delayed post.
The work I'm doing for MWA is confidential, but I can say - Without disclosing anything secret - that a lot of very successful people in this country perceive a difference between women and men in the way they solve problems. Apparently, (1) men come up with solutions and implement one quickly whereas (2) Women analyse the whole situation, try and get down to the core of the problem and then generate a solution.
Now I'm not sure whether those patterns are gendered that strongly, but I've reached a point on The Limit that reminds that I've certainly been guilty of #1 a lot.
The Midpoint of the script consists of an argument plus a new threat for one of the lead characters. Now, the threat's always worked fine but the argument has always seemed to slow things down. I've tried a lot of fixes on it over the last five drafts and nothing's worked.
So what did I realise during this edit? That none of these quick fixes had addressed the main problem. That the midpoints for the two leads were separated by about 10 pages ... and that that distance was killing momentum the script's momentum.
So, lessons to apply in future:
1) Coming up with a quick fix is fine, if I'm utterly convinced by it.
2) If I'm not convinced, then analyse the problem thoroughly. I've been finding that Deviation Analysis works well as a tool.
3) Analyse anything that looks like a massive drop in engagement when I draft my Whammo Chart.
4) If, after coming up with a quick fix, a problem still remains in the next draft, analyse it.
Now, to probably procrastinate further!
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
The Lost timeline
I love that there are people out there more obsessive than me.
Here's a timeline for before the crash and Seasons 1 & 2. Be aware: there are HUGE spoilers for anyone who hasn't seen up to the end of Season 2. However, the timeline is missing much Eko and Ana-Lucia information.
Things I learned:
Sayid met Kate's father in Iraq.
Here's a timeline for before the crash and Seasons 1 & 2. Be aware: there are HUGE spoilers for anyone who hasn't seen up to the end of Season 2. However, the timeline is missing much Eko and Ana-Lucia information.
Things I learned:
Sayid met Kate's father in Iraq.
Locke inspects Nadia, Sayid's love's house.
Sarah (Jack's ex-wife) blows out a tire and flips into oncoming traffic, hitting and killing Adam Rutherford. Shannon’s last name is
Now, enough procrastinating, back to the script ... which I was stressing about this morning ... but have since taken a walk, calmed down and resolved to write as much as I feel capable of today.
Thursday, June 15, 2006
Buffy - Season 6 Overview
When I first watched this season on TV, I felt it was the weakest outing in the Buffy-verse yet - a real disappointment after the highs of Season 5.
Specifically, I was fine with the downbeat opening tone - it's appropriate, after all; the lead character has come back from the dead and (although she died triumphantly) I believe her resurrection here is a metaphor for a person who's attempted suicide - but that downbeat tone continued for too long - past Willow’s car crash, past Xander’s wedding - dragging the characters and the show down, down, down, further and further into misery, until it finally recovered with a great, 4-part, action movie season finale.
I've just re-watched Season 6 – and had a completely different experience on this viewing.
For me, the downbeat tone stems specifically from Buffy (the character) being passive and not driving any of the plots forward. She’s numb, socially withdrawn and most importantly not very funny. Compare that to episodes from previous seasons – Buffy is at the centre of most stuff, initiating conversations, deciding how things happen – she’s the charismatic sun at the centre of a solar system of Scoobies [/metaphor]. Changing the characterisation like this gives the show a radically different feel. Even though Buffy’s there, she feels absent ... and as a result the show feels far more subdued.
This leads to my next discovery, that Season 6 feels like a necessary maturation in the series. At this point – the characters did need to grow up and start confronting life in all its setbacks and ... awesomeness. To do otherwise – to simply keep returning to a status-quo of characters wise-cracking their way through tragi-comedy would’ve been pretty shallow.
So that was a bit of a shock to me – to approve of the goal of Season 6 – a goal that’s explicitly signalled by Giles’ motives for returning to England: To force our leads to stand on their own feet.
And finally, Spike’s characterisation. Yes, he was cool in Season 2, but in order to work with him again, Whedon chose to humanise Spike – first by putting a chip in his head so that he wouldn’t automatically kill the core cast, then by making him fall in love with Buffy so he had a reason to stick around. But underneath all of this, Spike’s still evil, as demonstrated by Season 4’s “The Yoko Factor” and later his manipulative, dysfunctional and predatorial seduction of Buffy when she’s at her weakest.
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
The Limit - Decisions
Work on The Limit was brutal today.
I've been trying to get back into this re-edit. I have, in fact, set myself a two week deadline to finish this part of the writing - so that's 25 June. But I was stuck on this 2 page section where Peter talks to his stepson. What has happened during this rewrite is that I've figured out how important this scene is to the movie - and it's helped clarify how I should be characterising Taine.
Unlike working on the 48-hour competition, there is no immediate pressure on me to make a decision about a line of dialogue or an approach to the scene. This leads to perfectionism - which is my curse & the reason I've been working on this goddamn project for what seems like most of the decade - and this two-page scene for the last four days.
The big picture upshot: next film I write, I'm getting myself a year to complete it. One year, and then I'm getting out no matter what state it's in. Hopefully that'll give me some motivation not to waste all the work I've put in.
Medium picture upshot: working on this has been long, secretive & driven by the need for perfection/the desire for greatness. Next project, I'd like to do something shorter form (TV, short film, short TV - the link goes to a Wired article about fan TV shows in the Whedonverse), with a development process that is completely out in the open, and it's driven by attitude and immediacy.
Right now: I had to take a walk in the bitter cold to clear my head. And my conclusions were a) I need to relax and have fun while I'm writing, and b) the scene didn't need to be perfect - I'm going to go back, read the script aloud when I've finished this re-edit, and make adjustments.
Scenes finished now, and I got through another four pages to boot.
I've been trying to get back into this re-edit. I have, in fact, set myself a two week deadline to finish this part of the writing - so that's 25 June. But I was stuck on this 2 page section where Peter talks to his stepson. What has happened during this rewrite is that I've figured out how important this scene is to the movie - and it's helped clarify how I should be characterising Taine.
Unlike working on the 48-hour competition, there is no immediate pressure on me to make a decision about a line of dialogue or an approach to the scene. This leads to perfectionism - which is my curse & the reason I've been working on this goddamn project for what seems like most of the decade - and this two-page scene for the last four days.
The big picture upshot: next film I write, I'm getting myself a year to complete it. One year, and then I'm getting out no matter what state it's in. Hopefully that'll give me some motivation not to waste all the work I've put in.
Medium picture upshot: working on this has been long, secretive & driven by the need for perfection/the desire for greatness. Next project, I'd like to do something shorter form (TV, short film, short TV - the link goes to a Wired article about fan TV shows in the Whedonverse), with a development process that is completely out in the open, and it's driven by attitude and immediacy.
Right now: I had to take a walk in the bitter cold to clear my head. And my conclusions were a) I need to relax and have fun while I'm writing, and b) the scene didn't need to be perfect - I'm going to go back, read the script aloud when I've finished this re-edit, and make adjustments.
Scenes finished now, and I got through another four pages to boot.
Monday, June 05, 2006
Hot or Not - Boardgames
Played two new boardgames on Friday night.
The second one's called Caylus - it's very much in the Puerto Rico/St. Petersberg school of design - there's a basic premise (you're building a castle for a King and, in order to do so, you have to build up the town surrounding the castle) and a nice economy - you can gradually build up a more sophisticated town that'll give you money, victory points and the raw materials needed to contribute to the castle.
I didn't enjoy this one so much - it felt very samey to me - in that it's really nice and playable, but similar in concept to many other 'German' boardgames that I've played over the last couple of years.
The first game was Fury of Dracula - the game covers all the major cities of Europe - one player controls Dracula, who moves from city to city, trying to breed new vampires and laying traps for the players hunting him. Everyone else plays the Hunters - we don't know where Dracula is, so we have to use deduction to track him down and fight him, while avoiding his traps. There's lots of nice stuff in here: a co-operative game, a nice combat system, a real sense of threat on both sides.
And I really like this. So, comparing the 2 games, I've decided that I like games with strong colour that mean something to the game. To clarify - in Caylus, when you buy a Stonemason so that you can build a Bank, it feels to me the same as buying a Wibble to build a Neek. There's nothing in the process of buying and strategising that makes me feel like a construction worker, or that I'm building anything.
In contrast, in Fury of Dracula, every element of colour is designed to either create period detail or to engage you in the conflict between Dracula and the Hunters - the backs of the cards, the emphasis on combat and tracking, the way the map of Europe works, the unreliable rail system, ... there's even a ticking clock that counts down the hours till nightfall ... at which point, Dracula becomes more powerful (mechanically) in the game.
The second one's called Caylus - it's very much in the Puerto Rico/St. Petersberg school of design - there's a basic premise (you're building a castle for a King and, in order to do so, you have to build up the town surrounding the castle) and a nice economy - you can gradually build up a more sophisticated town that'll give you money, victory points and the raw materials needed to contribute to the castle.
I didn't enjoy this one so much - it felt very samey to me - in that it's really nice and playable, but similar in concept to many other 'German' boardgames that I've played over the last couple of years.
The first game was Fury of Dracula - the game covers all the major cities of Europe - one player controls Dracula, who moves from city to city, trying to breed new vampires and laying traps for the players hunting him. Everyone else plays the Hunters - we don't know where Dracula is, so we have to use deduction to track him down and fight him, while avoiding his traps. There's lots of nice stuff in here: a co-operative game, a nice combat system, a real sense of threat on both sides.
And I really like this. So, comparing the 2 games, I've decided that I like games with strong colour that mean something to the game. To clarify - in Caylus, when you buy a Stonemason so that you can build a Bank, it feels to me the same as buying a Wibble to build a Neek. There's nothing in the process of buying and strategising that makes me feel like a construction worker, or that I'm building anything.
In contrast, in Fury of Dracula, every element of colour is designed to either create period detail or to engage you in the conflict between Dracula and the Hunters - the backs of the cards, the emphasis on combat and tracking, the way the map of Europe works, the unreliable rail system, ... there's even a ticking clock that counts down the hours till nightfall ... at which point, Dracula becomes more powerful (mechanically) in the game.
Sunday, June 04, 2006
Lost 1.21
We start with Locke dealing with the consequences of killing Boone – badly. When Jack confronts Locke, his emotions are RAW.
Locke says, “I know what it feels like when you lose family.” What are the ramifications of that?
The episode breaks down like this:
CB1:
CB2: Locke reveals he attacked Sayid and destroyed the radio. This pisses Sayid off.
CB3:
CB4: Locke survives
End: “John. No more lies.” Awesome.
Nice bits:
“You drugged me? Oh. Okay.”
Locke has the bad taste to talk to
Ooh. Walt’s afraid of Locke now.
Locke says, “I know what it feels like when you lose family.” What are the ramifications of that?
Script issues:
It doesn’t seem plausible for two Arabs to be discussing bombing and martyrdom in such a public place. But technically it’s an excellent scene. Hassan is expressing doubts while Sayid, through necessity, is arguing for something he doesn’t believe in.
Using Sawyer as a natural pacifier, someone who’s voice keeps the baby quiet seems … goofy.
Act 3 starts with the preparations for the terrorist attack. Act 3 seems to be about action. Act 4 is about resolution, tying up, consequences. I really need to get how each CB links to the next major step in the script.
Sayid’s character – does he represent guilt? The search for love?
General things:
Locke’s gun comes back into play.
I’m not convinced by Maggie Grace’s performance as
Thursday, June 01, 2006
Lost 1.20
My episode reviews of Lost Season 1 continue. I took down some notes for the end of the season back in January, and I'm just getting round to transcribing them now.
CB1: Claire's having a baby.
CB2: Kate'll have to deliver the baby. These are oddly oblique commercial breaks.
CB3: They have to amputate.
CB4: Boone dies.
Yep, this is the episode where we contrast Life vs. Death. Baby vs. Boone. You can see it in all of the CBs, and the end of the episode contrasts the new baby being presented to the tribe with people bury Boone.
It's very much an episode exploring Jack's character. He has to make a choice between which patient to treat (Boone or Claire), and he chooses the hopeless case. "I am gonna save you," he says. Jack is defined by his need to take responsibility, but he also questions himself and has doubts.
Three script-writer notes:
1, Jack's "Don't tell me what I can't do!" mirrors Locke.
2. Jack worked a miracle on his wife (who had a similar injury to Locke), therefore the script makes us believe he can save Boone.
3. There's no comedy in this episode.
4. Next episode promises a Jack vs. Locke smackdown ... and see how we're really getting into follow-on continuity now?
Some other character notes:
We're seeing Charlie as father - he's seeking redemption via creating a family. Charlie is also the new Boone - a wannabe hero.
Jin knows a lot about healing for a rich girl.
Man, Daniel Dae Kim is an awesome actor. He was good-ish in Angel, but he's knockin gthis out of the park.
I love how the crisis of Claire's pregnancy forces Jin to talk to Sun.
Observations:
Water, running, everywhere - it means a lot of ADR, but it's an easy way to create motion in the background.
Flashbacks in non-chronological order reflect the truth of being human - we can learn a lesson and then be in trouble again; we have patterns that we fall into.
Notes that I've written down and have no idea what they mean:
This is different from pregnancy ???
Sawyer helped Kate, twice.
Community, despite language barrier.
And a question:
How'd they get he cargo container up to the caves? Maybe it was addressed in an earlier episode, because it seems implausible to me.
CB1: Claire's having a baby.
CB2: Kate'll have to deliver the baby. These are oddly oblique commercial breaks.
CB3: They have to amputate.
CB4: Boone dies.
Yep, this is the episode where we contrast Life vs. Death. Baby vs. Boone. You can see it in all of the CBs, and the end of the episode contrasts the new baby being presented to the tribe with people bury Boone.
It's very much an episode exploring Jack's character. He has to make a choice between which patient to treat (Boone or Claire), and he chooses the hopeless case. "I am gonna save you," he says. Jack is defined by his need to take responsibility, but he also questions himself and has doubts.
Three script-writer notes:
1, Jack's "Don't tell me what I can't do!" mirrors Locke.
2. Jack worked a miracle on his wife (who had a similar injury to Locke), therefore the script makes us believe he can save Boone.
3. There's no comedy in this episode.
4. Next episode promises a Jack vs. Locke smackdown ... and see how we're really getting into follow-on continuity now?
Some other character notes:
We're seeing Charlie as father - he's seeking redemption via creating a family. Charlie is also the new Boone - a wannabe hero.
Jin knows a lot about healing for a rich girl.
Man, Daniel Dae Kim is an awesome actor. He was good-ish in Angel, but he's knockin gthis out of the park.
I love how the crisis of Claire's pregnancy forces Jin to talk to Sun.
Observations:
Water, running, everywhere - it means a lot of ADR, but it's an easy way to create motion in the background.
Flashbacks in non-chronological order reflect the truth of being human - we can learn a lesson and then be in trouble again; we have patterns that we fall into.
Notes that I've written down and have no idea what they mean:
This is different from pregnancy ???
Sawyer helped Kate, twice.
Community, despite language barrier.
And a question:
How'd they get he cargo container up to the caves? Maybe it was addressed in an earlier episode, because it seems implausible to me.
48Hours - The Screening
It went bloody well.
Monster Hunter IV: Beyond Repair is what our film's called. MHIVBR, for short. What stood out for me was how it didn't waste time - the work me, Sean and Morgue did in compressing the story meant that it compared favourably to the other films in our heat, in terms of being tight and solid.
Also, the screening confirmed that a 48 Hour film doesn't need to be an out and out comedy - the objective is to have a film that has lots of moments that really 'get' the audience, and big laughs aren't necessarily the only way to do that.
So, in last night's heat, I felt our film was probably the most solid and true to genre.
Optimistic Prime, a Based on a True Story black comedy with a barbershop quartet Greek chorus, was the most entertaining.
The Longest Wait - B&W puppet movie - was the most ambitious and moving.
Honourable Mentions to Driving for a Bargain and to Let it Go, the musical. Man, musical is tough.
**
Oh, and the process of rewriting the script in my head continues. The final lines (to me) are now:
Monster Hunter IV: Beyond Repair is what our film's called. MHIVBR, for short. What stood out for me was how it didn't waste time - the work me, Sean and Morgue did in compressing the story meant that it compared favourably to the other films in our heat, in terms of being tight and solid.
Also, the screening confirmed that a 48 Hour film doesn't need to be an out and out comedy - the objective is to have a film that has lots of moments that really 'get' the audience, and big laughs aren't necessarily the only way to do that.
So, in last night's heat, I felt our film was probably the most solid and true to genre.
Optimistic Prime, a Based on a True Story black comedy with a barbershop quartet Greek chorus, was the most entertaining.
The Longest Wait - B&W puppet movie - was the most ambitious and moving.
Honourable Mentions to Driving for a Bargain and to Let it Go, the musical. Man, musical is tough.
**
Oh, and the process of rewriting the script in my head continues. The final lines (to me) are now:
Robin and Diana look at the monster's corpse.
DIANA
Some things are too damaged to survive.
Robin stares up at her.
ROBIN
What about us?
There's a long look between them, as Diana considers him.
DIANA
... Let's find out.
She drags Robin to his feet. They stagger away, together.
Sunday, May 28, 2006
48Hours - Day 2
We've just heard that our runners are AT the Embassy about to drop off the finished version.
THE TAPE HAS BEEN DELIVERED!
16 minutes, 58 seconds before the deadline.
I'm very happy with the final result. It's a monster movie with attitude, it's a romance, it's a story of a beast alienated from society. And the team didn't lynch me - which is also a result I'm happy with.
Editing was great - Norman and Matt working together, editing separate scenes, which really saved our bacon. Learning to use Adobe Premiere was the best decision Matt made this year as far as I'm concerned. And I remembered how much I enjoy editing - that's an environment I'm really comfortable with.
I got to direct an action sequence - and it cut together really well, with many spectacular stunts.
All in all, we had a WAY harder shoot this year, but getting it in is making it all worth it.
Champagne now. Then much sleep. And maybe some food.
Oh yeah, and maybe some admiration and love, but that'll probably happen over at our forum, nzrag/jennisangels.
THE TAPE HAS BEEN DELIVERED!
16 minutes, 58 seconds before the deadline.
I'm very happy with the final result. It's a monster movie with attitude, it's a romance, it's a story of a beast alienated from society. And the team didn't lynch me - which is also a result I'm happy with.
Editing was great - Norman and Matt working together, editing separate scenes, which really saved our bacon. Learning to use Adobe Premiere was the best decision Matt made this year as far as I'm concerned. And I remembered how much I enjoy editing - that's an environment I'm really comfortable with.
I got to direct an action sequence - and it cut together really well, with many spectacular stunts.
All in all, we had a WAY harder shoot this year, but getting it in is making it all worth it.
Champagne now. Then much sleep. And maybe some food.
Oh yeah, and maybe some admiration and love, but that'll probably happen over at our forum, nzrag/jennisangels.
Saturday, May 27, 2006
48 Hours- Day 1
It's mid afternoon of the first day - very cloudy, been lightly showering and cold for most of it.
So, of course, we've written a movie where all of our cast and crew have to stand outside for the entire script.
I am hoping that they find it a bonding experience, rather than an incentive to lynch me.
Our genre is Monster Movie. This is awesome. We've got a couple of monster hunters who are romantic rivals in a John Carpenter/Predator hunt through the jungle buddy movie thing.
What I'm really happy about with the script is the pacing and the attitude. We're currently waiting for the first footage to arrive - so that we can see how the script's been interpreted. So weird to not be on set for this part. I think our cast is pretty damn good, actually but it makes me realise that it all comes down to how the director and actors'll work together, as to whether it'll come across broadly comedic, deadly serious, wryly amusing ... and all of that affects the music that I'm currently listening to Svend select.
Yeah, I'm not on set because I was up till 5.30 finishing the script. Jenni made me sleep and forbade from coming out there until I was fresh. Three catnaps later and I think I'm there.
So, we'll be shooting more tomorrow. We have professional stuntpeople doing the 'everyone gets killed by the monster' thing. Hopefully we'll also have a rough cut of stuff by tomorrow too.
More later.
So, of course, we've written a movie where all of our cast and crew have to stand outside for the entire script.
I am hoping that they find it a bonding experience, rather than an incentive to lynch me.
Our genre is Monster Movie. This is awesome. We've got a couple of monster hunters who are romantic rivals in a John Carpenter/Predator hunt through the jungle buddy movie thing.
What I'm really happy about with the script is the pacing and the attitude. We're currently waiting for the first footage to arrive - so that we can see how the script's been interpreted. So weird to not be on set for this part. I think our cast is pretty damn good, actually but it makes me realise that it all comes down to how the director and actors'll work together, as to whether it'll come across broadly comedic, deadly serious, wryly amusing ... and all of that affects the music that I'm currently listening to Svend select.
Yeah, I'm not on set because I was up till 5.30 finishing the script. Jenni made me sleep and forbade from coming out there until I was fresh. Three catnaps later and I think I'm there.
So, we'll be shooting more tomorrow. We have professional stuntpeople doing the 'everyone gets killed by the monster' thing. Hopefully we'll also have a rough cut of stuff by tomorrow too.
More later.
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
The Limit - Interesting times
David emailed me, hoping that the Limit was going better.
Yeah it is. My last big post about it was just a demonstration of a writer getting emotional about what he wrote. That's cool; I expect ups-and-downs now.
At the moment, I actually feel pretty confident about the script. Everyone's feedback works together & ... more importantly to me ... I feel like the script is now 'telling' me what it wants to be. Adjusting scenes feels like a natural process now, one that doesn't require that much thinking about it. It's like there's an ideal version of this draft that I'm chiselling the unnecessary material away from.
Downside: I'm focusing on the 48 now, so not so much time to really dig into the writing and get into a groove.
Yeah it is. My last big post about it was just a demonstration of a writer getting emotional about what he wrote. That's cool; I expect ups-and-downs now.
At the moment, I actually feel pretty confident about the script. Everyone's feedback works together & ... more importantly to me ... I feel like the script is now 'telling' me what it wants to be. Adjusting scenes feels like a natural process now, one that doesn't require that much thinking about it. It's like there's an ideal version of this draft that I'm chiselling the unnecessary material away from.
Downside: I'm focusing on the 48 now, so not so much time to really dig into the writing and get into a groove.
The Writing Table
Really fun session with the 48 Hour writing team auditions last night - a nasty little silent film thriller - and a valuable demonstration for me about what I want from a writing table (the group that sits around breaking a story ... and for more on what's entailed in breaking a story, read this blog post by Jane Espenson).
Simply: I like writers who listen. At its best last night, our group was having a fun, considerate, reflective, other-adjectives-that-mean-we-were-grooving-off-each-other's-ideas time.
A conversation without ego, with everyone willing to accept the best that each other has to offer. That's a writing table I can feel comfortable around.
Many well-functioning groups fit that description; it's just nice to have it illustrated for me.
Simply: I like writers who listen. At its best last night, our group was having a fun, considerate, reflective, other-adjectives-that-mean-we-were-grooving-off-each-other's-ideas time.
A conversation without ego, with everyone willing to accept the best that each other has to offer. That's a writing table I can feel comfortable around.
Many well-functioning groups fit that description; it's just nice to have it illustrated for me.
Sunday, May 07, 2006
Next for me
I've had a great and productive week – working 3 days at Women's Affairs and 2 days on The Limit. I'd like that to become my new routine. However, there are 2 things coming up that are going to take priority and I'm going to have to focus on.
First there's the Innovation Initiative – a New Zealand On Air project to get shows that deal with more challenging material onscreen. I've got one that fits the bill – in fact, I've been working on it on and off for about 3 years - so I have to work that up into a proposal by 18 May.
Aside: I don't think I mentioned, I put another proposal into TVNZ as part of their comedy initiative. It's called “The Whanau”, and I should hear back about that and The Improvers this week. The fun thing for me about The Whanau was that I came up with the idea on the night before the deadline and threw the whole thing together in about 4 hours. It was low stress and fun to work on.
Secondly, there's the 48 Hour Film competition. I'm Head Writer again this year, and I'm going to have to select the (very small) team for the Friday night script session. That'll have to take place either this week or next – and the actual competition itself is in 3 weekends time.
So with all that, finishing the feature script may start to slip in priority.
Hopefully though, I'll finish up this new proposal on Tuesday – and with that cleared, I can continue to split my focus in 3 or 4 directions at once.
And on a personal note – a great week of coffees, work drinks, double 30th parties, and Singstar victories on Dido's 'White Flag' and Frankie Goes to Hollywood's “Power of Love” (my performances on “Material Girl” and “Let's this Party Started” shall NOT be spoken of again).
Thursday, May 04, 2006
Mission Impossible 3
Why is Mission Impossible 3 so good?
And make no mistake - it's not only the best of the series, my new list of favourite Action Movies now reads:
The Matrix
The Terminator
MI3
Die Hard
Why?
- I admire how the first scene gives you the structure of the entire film to come
- The first 10 minutes makes me care about the relationship (which is pretty vital to the film working)
- Keri Russell turns into an action-goddess the second she gets a gun in her hand
- Italy
- every single Tom Cruise/Philip Seymour HOffman conversation
- I like Ethan Hunt as a character (and anyone who's heard my 'I nearly vomited during MI2' story will appreciate how much of an achievement that is)
- the entire supporting cast is fun to watch (and sexy too!)
- it had real plot twists
And most importantly, it played action the way I think it should be played. The heroes fail at every turn + the writers ask at every point "What would make this situation worse?" That's the rhythm I like from my films.
It falls apart a little towards the very end - but not in any real way that messes with my appreciation of it.
Go see!
And make no mistake - it's not only the best of the series, my new list of favourite Action Movies now reads:
The Matrix
The Terminator
MI3
Die Hard
Why?
- I admire how the first scene gives you the structure of the entire film to come
- The first 10 minutes makes me care about the relationship (which is pretty vital to the film working)
- Keri Russell turns into an action-goddess the second she gets a gun in her hand
- Italy
- every single Tom Cruise/Philip Seymour HOffman conversation
- I like Ethan Hunt as a character (and anyone who's heard my 'I nearly vomited during MI2' story will appreciate how much of an achievement that is)
- the entire supporting cast is fun to watch (and sexy too!)
- it had real plot twists
And most importantly, it played action the way I think it should be played. The heroes fail at every turn + the writers ask at every point "What would make this situation worse?" That's the rhythm I like from my films.
It falls apart a little towards the very end - but not in any real way that messes with my appreciation of it.
Go see!
Tuesday, May 02, 2006
How to TV - Story decisions
If it's a tie between which option will create the most interesting situation, go for the one that causes the most pain/problems.
Case in point: Veronica Mars, the election result.
Case in point: Veronica Mars, the election result.
Friday, April 28, 2006
Update on the Limit
I've thought a lot about whether I should post this, but given that I'm trying to keep a full record of my writing process I think I have to go through the last fortnight.
Two Fridays ago - DBS gave me feedback on the script. Much of it was good, some of it was really challenging. I enjoyed the session a lot.
Two Saturdays ago - I finally read through the script myself. My emotions went through two phases:
Two Sundays ago - acted in the Wasps. My character was supposed to receive utterly devastating news to his ego. I drew on the memory of just having read the script.
I took a week off, where I couldn't face reading or thinking about the thing. I drew some solace from a book on script-editing where another writer was described as adopting the fetal position for two days, curled up in bed with a hot water bottle. I was not that bad.
Last Saturday - Morgue and Pearce described how Clive Barker reads his books aloud when he finishes writing them. I resolved to do that with this script.
Last Sunday and Monday - I forced myself to read through the script, taking notes. While most of them were pretty specific, what I was really trying to do was get an understanding of the big picture.
Today - just read it aloud, and it really gave me a clear idea of why certain scenes (like Peter deciding to take revenge) weren't working. I'm feeling better about the script.
So the big picture changes are:
Act 1 - tighten up the family stuff
Act 2i - clarify Peter's motivations and restructure the mid-points.
Act 2ii - make sure the action scenes relate to characters. Possibly put Tracy into a much darker place, emotionally.
Act 3 - focus on the three main characters, plus handle the exposition 2000% better.
Now to look at everyone else's feedback and see where they and I agree.
Two Fridays ago - DBS gave me feedback on the script. Much of it was good, some of it was really challenging. I enjoyed the session a lot.
Two Saturdays ago - I finally read through the script myself. My emotions went through two phases:
- 1) the actual reading, where I thought that the script was terrible. Unrealistic, badly motivated, lame writing. It totally didn't live up to the ideal in my head and I was pretty much devastated by the end;
- 2) drawing the whammo chart - my graph of how interested I was in the script. This revealed that many of my problems lay in the first act but that the middle of the script still wasn't as strong as I hoped. Two reasons for that were that it was unclear what Peter wanted to achieve in his first intense conversation with Forster, and that Tracy's midpoint is misplaced. So, I was slightly lifted by that. Slightly.
Two Sundays ago - acted in the Wasps. My character was supposed to receive utterly devastating news to his ego. I drew on the memory of just having read the script.
I took a week off, where I couldn't face reading or thinking about the thing. I drew some solace from a book on script-editing where another writer was described as adopting the fetal position for two days, curled up in bed with a hot water bottle. I was not that bad.
Last Saturday - Morgue and Pearce described how Clive Barker reads his books aloud when he finishes writing them. I resolved to do that with this script.
Last Sunday and Monday - I forced myself to read through the script, taking notes. While most of them were pretty specific, what I was really trying to do was get an understanding of the big picture.
Today - just read it aloud, and it really gave me a clear idea of why certain scenes (like Peter deciding to take revenge) weren't working. I'm feeling better about the script.
So the big picture changes are:
Act 1 - tighten up the family stuff
Act 2i - clarify Peter's motivations and restructure the mid-points.
Act 2ii - make sure the action scenes relate to characters. Possibly put Tracy into a much darker place, emotionally.
Act 3 - focus on the three main characters, plus handle the exposition 2000% better.
Now to look at everyone else's feedback and see where they and I agree.
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
Gilmore Girls creators quit
I heard about Amy and Dan not being able to renegotiate their contracts to their satisfaction. This is a full interview about their situation (link goes to TV Guide, spoilers about Season 6).
Filed in: tv
Sunday, April 02, 2006
Normal service should resume
Hey gang,
I've been busy at work and settling in to the new flat. This weekend's the first time I've really started to feel back on top of things - hence the post.
So, there should be some upcoming stuff about script writing soon, but in the meantime things are good. Talked to the head of development at the Film Commission, sent in a submission for a sitcome to TVNZ and I'm about to start back up on the Limit. In fact, I already have - the groundwork of finishing up getting feedback is being laid.
So I'll try and ease myself back into the blogging with a couple of posts a week.
In other news
Lord of War - 50% a good film about arms dealing, 50% a slightly obvious character drama.
Me, You and Everyone we know - a way quirky, almost uncomfortable love story that ends just before the first date. Loved it.
I've been busy at work and settling in to the new flat. This weekend's the first time I've really started to feel back on top of things - hence the post.
So, there should be some upcoming stuff about script writing soon, but in the meantime things are good. Talked to the head of development at the Film Commission, sent in a submission for a sitcome to TVNZ and I'm about to start back up on the Limit. In fact, I already have - the groundwork of finishing up getting feedback is being laid.
So I'll try and ease myself back into the blogging with a couple of posts a week.
In other news
Lord of War - 50% a good film about arms dealing, 50% a slightly obvious character drama.
Me, You and Everyone we know - a way quirky, almost uncomfortable love story that ends just before the first date. Loved it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)