Jonathan on the Internets - Latest Comments

Re: Scribosphere Carnival #3 – Submit Your Ideas

movieguyjon — Sun, 06 Oct 2013 00:40:09 -0000

Gonna call this one a little early since I won't be at my computer tomorrow. I think writing about the criticism we take/don't take would make a great Scribosphere Carnival #3. Have at it, yo!

Re: Scribosphere Carnival #2 – Workflow

movieguyjon — Sun, 06 Oct 2013 00:33:29 -0000

Hey, it works! This past week was particularly busy, so I completely understand. I'm sure it will be all ups and downs from here on out! :)

Re: Scribosphere Carnival #2 – Workflow

movieguyjon — Sun, 06 Oct 2013 00:32:28 -0000

Just in the nick of time, too! :)

Re: Scribosphere Carnival #2 – Workflow

David Anaxagoras — Sat, 05 Oct 2013 19:02:23 -0000

Well, at the risk of "cheating" -- from three months ago: http://davidanaxagoras.com/...

Hey, I really want to be part of this. I've just been incredibly busy until now...

Re: Scribosphere Carnival #2 – Workflow

TeelaJBrown — Sat, 05 Oct 2013 18:45:13 -0000

Finally! http://wp.me/pmXB7-nI

Re: Scribosphere Carnival #3 – Submit Your Ideas

Fri, 04 Oct 2013 13:51:55 -0000

Next topic idea: write about your writing influences.

Other next topic idea: how you take or don't take criticism.

Second other topic idea: what steps have you taken to get your work in font of people...short films, staged readings, plays, etc.

Re: Scribosphere Carnival #2 – Workflow

movieguyjon — Mon, 30 Sep 2013 23:50:21 -0000

Nice! Added to the post. You've got a nice setup there, sir!

Re: Scribosphere Carnival #2 – Workflow

Mon, 30 Sep 2013 19:16:59 -0000

I'm up

http://www.redrighthand.net...

Re: Scribosphere Carnival #2 – Workflow

movieguyjon — Mon, 30 Sep 2013 15:44:36 -0000

Sweet! I added that to the post and also responded. I liked what you said about the writing environment and wonder if that would make a good topic a bit later down the road. There seems to be the logic that you can "write anywhere," but my experience is teaching me that professionally and personally that's not necessarily the case.

Re: Scribosphere Carnival #2 – Workflow

Emily Blake — Mon, 30 Sep 2013 14:51:59 -0000

My contribution: http://bambookillers.blogsp...

Re: Dave And Killer And The Baby

judi Koehmstedt — Tue, 10 Sep 2013 17:40:00 -0000

I read this-- and I,m not crazy 'bout cats, but I sure like babies

Re: Writing The Malaise Away

movieguyjon — Mon, 09 Sep 2013 17:19:25 -0000

Well, true. I have things out there that are "technically" produced, and that is pretty killer. There are some attitudes about writing in animation that undercut that, though as a lot of indie animators just write the stuff themselves or they don't really focus on it and let the visuals tell the story.

In short: WHY MY GENIUS NOT RECOGNIZED?! :P

Re: Writing The Malaise Away

movieguyjon — Fri, 06 Sep 2013 11:35:15 -0000

It's interesting to note that films are rarely praised for their writing if they are successful, but almost always slammed if they are bombs or financial "disasters." The outliers are (of course) people like Tarantino, Sorkin, et al. Still, there's this sense that the writer has the ability to make a sucky product, but no actual agency to make something great. It's a weird dissonance that I come across when I see people talk about writing in film.

There are people who would certainly disagree with you about the whole "aspiring" versus "actual" argument when it comes to writing. Some would even say that the line of demarcation would be whether or not you are a working writer. "If you're not professional, you're aspiring." I kind of play the field with the distinction depending on who I am around or the types of people I interact with. But you do make a good point about having "written by" credit. That does count for SOMETHING, I suppose.

Re: No Superheroes Today; But Some Musings On Gender

movieguyjon — Fri, 17 May 2013 20:28:16 -0000

1) This. Even as a writer, agency is tough. Have I given enough agency to my characters or not enough? Is there an imbalance? In novels I imagine it's rather tough to tell until you're well within the revision stage or get notes from an editor that point out some of these problem areas. And what if that's not really a concern of the person going over your work? A manuscript isn't the northern plain, but rather a dense forrest.

With screenwriting, despite the page count being significantly smaller there's so much to keep track of and that's before other writers get brought in to revise or a Director comes in and does his pass. The credits for Iron Man 3 have Drew Pearce and Shane Black credits. There's a lot that can change between two Hollywood writers, especially when one of them is known for Lethal Weapon, which came about in an age where this kind of conversation was not happening.

But yeah. I only envy the success of these guys, not the work of trying to cram in as much as possible and still try to get the characters right.

Re: No Superheroes Today; But Some Musings On Gender

Amalia Dillin — Fri, 17 May 2013 15:42:55 -0000

1) Definitely it will take time, and that equation of weapons with agency isn't just a "guys don't get it" thing, either. I just had a long discussion about this in relation to Merida in Brave and how taking the bow out of her hand and putting her in a fancier dress DOESN'T MEAN she doesn't have agency anymore, or that she isn't the same character. It's okay for women to like girl things, and be feminine and that doesn't make them lesser characters or take away their agency at all because it's totally unrelated to the ISSUE of agency. I think that the concept of agency is just difficult for us to wrap our heads around, and I know that even being aware of it myself, I still struggle with it as a writer.

2) Potts of Avengers would have totally found Tony. Potts of Iron Man 2 would have totally found Tony. I mean, did you see her taking care of business at the Stark Expo while Tony was fighting robots? She wasn't just standing around having an emotional breakdown, she was taking charge and getting people out of harms way! But the movie doesn't have to be Pepper Potts 3 in order to give her that small bit of agency where she actually does something, in the same way that it doesn't take away from Tony that Rhodey saves the president, or that Happy goes hunting after Killian's goons.

3) Sigh. I don't even know. I mean, Jane has spunk and all, but yeah, she was completely underutilized. I cannot tell you why. I wish I knew. Maybe because there was so much going on in that movie they just didn't have time to flesh out the earth stuff, outside of Thor-as-fish-out-of-water. The humility he learns isn't even from Jane, it's from Loki coming back to lie about Odin and the situation in Asgard after he realizes he's lost his right to Mjolnir in his pride. Just. Another reason why they should have brought Jane out swinging in this sequel, and why I'm so disappointed by what it looks like they're doing instead.

Re: No Superheroes Today; But Some Musings On Gender

movieguyjon — Fri, 17 May 2013 15:25:22 -0000

I'm going to address your points in order based on paragraphs.

1) It may take awhile to grok that putting a weapon in hand does not equal agency. Someone pointed out that despite Pepper only being in The Avengers for a short while, she was every bit Stark's equal and they were truly a team. Rhodey was nowhere to be seen. In this, he kind of takes what agency is left in the agency pool, leaving Potts her moment in the finale...who somehow still needed "fixing." There's definitely an "old way" versus "new way" at play in the film and it does make for some rather head-scratchy moments.

2) As far as I know, she cried over Tony Stark for most of Act 2. But to your earlier point, this wasn't Pepper Potts 3. But don't you think the Potts of Avengers would have found Tony? How does a partner to the most technologically advanced hero in the Marvel Universe not know how to find someone? Oh right, it requires agency.

3) I have an early guess that they're going to put Jane "in the refrigerator," like they did with Gwen Stacy in the Spider-Man comics. Incidentally, Jane's friend had more agency and dimension in the first Thor film than Jane did herself. What the heck was up with that?

Re: No Superheroes Today; But Some Musings On Gender

Amalia Dillin — Fri, 17 May 2013 14:59:51 -0000

I talked about this a little bit on facebook yesterday, too -- but I think one of the problems is that there is this idea that giving a woman a weapon and an action sequence equals strong-female-character. But strong characters male OR female are really about AGENCY, which, like you mentioned, was kind of taken away from Pepper in this third installment, regardless of how much butt she kicked at the finish. Now, on the one hand, this isn't Pepper Potts 3, so the story isn't really about her journey or her growth or her agency (and none of the marvel movies ARE about a female heroe's journey, because Black Widow is in every respect still super-secondary) but, if we compare her arc in Iron Man 3, to say, Rhodey's, where instead of having to be rescued by Tony, Rhodey leaps from his suit and knocks people around and saves himself, and then on top of that, he saves the president, too, you can really see the difference in the treatments between secondary male characters and secondary female characters in a huge way.

There is never a point in the movie where Rhodey is not taking charge of his own safety. Even Happy goes out and DOES things, trying to figure out what's going on and unravel the mystery that is Killian, even if it lands him in the hospital. And really, after that event, did Tony Stark need any further motivation to go after the bad guys? A possible solution to trying to seduce Tony to the dark side could have just as easily been the promise of some miracle drug to save Happy's life as kidnapping Pepper. Pepper might have been out searching for Tony during his disappearance, could have caught up with him in that small town and brought him supplies, or provided him with transportation and helped to repair the suit instead (you're telling me that if she could find that message from Tony, she didn't have a way to track him in the suit and home in on him too?). There are so many other choices besides "Damsel-in-distress" which could have been made to keep Pepper in the film in a meaningful way, but it seems like people just don't think about them at all.

And on a similar topic, my first response to the Thor 2 trailer was definitely "Aw MAN, they turned Jane, the rockin' scientist into a damsel in distress? COME ON!" because there was so much potential for Jane giving a lesson in humility to the gods of Asgard by being the one to repair Bifrost or something along those lines, dazzling them with her brilliance and her abilities, and from the look of the trailer, they've just thrown it all away. So why did they bother to make her a scientist at all? Why have Heimdall make a point of telling Thor she's searching for him, trying to find a way? Just, give me a break, guys.

Re: Superheroes In A Cafe: The Flash and Bruce Banner

movieguyjon — Mon, 13 May 2013 12:05:15 -0000

I wanted the "gramps" and "old man" to be a Central City thing, and perhaps could have established that a little bit more or something. All I know is that "gramps" irritates me and I figured it would be great to have a superhero utilize such an annoying nickname for Bruce. :P

As for references, they're kinda dubious. Avengers HQ sounds good and even if one doesn't exist it would be a logical leap for The Flash. And I'm not sure Bruce would even be able to respond fast enough to explain one did or didn't exist. I pulled Stark Tower from the Avengers movie, so it may not be in the strictest cannon. But it's a sweet tower and I plan to use it. Unless those things weren't what you were referring to..

Re: Superheroes In A Cafe: Supergirl and Batgirl

movieguyjon — Sun, 12 May 2013 03:48:15 -0000

You haven't come off as a know-it-all at all, and the discussion has been enlightening and helpful. With stuff like this, it is fun to pick things apart and discuss. One thing I've noticed between doing this series and the Dave and Killer series is that with this one discussion is much easier since the source characters are steeped in such backstory.

Re: Superheroes In A Cafe: Supergirl and Batgirl

movieguyjon — Sun, 12 May 2013 00:01:32 -0000

This post series has kind of a dual purpose: 1) To showcase my writing, and 2) to develop a command of detail, which has been a bit of a weak point in my screenwriting so far. Deciding how much or how little detail to put into something takes perhaps the most time, and even when the thing is complete it's never quite certain that the correct choice was made. In the example above, the Waitress wasn't a particularly stand-out character so I tried to keep her description as basic as possible while still giving some picture in the reader's mind. I play around with this a bit more in a future Superheroes post, actually. We'll see how that turns out.

To a previous point about Babs stiffing the Waitress. Yeah, it does seem a bit against the nature of her character to do so, and is kind of an odd choice. When she pops back around, I imagine she will deal with her shortcoming.

Re: Superheroes In A Cafe: Supergirl and Batgirl

movieguyjon — Sat, 11 May 2013 22:58:20 -0000

Specificity in screenwriting is a complicated beast, and I hope to write a blog post in the future about using too much of it (kind of the other end of the spectrum). In such a short piece I can get away with giving fringe characters descriptors as names and less blurbs than I would give the main characters. I might even be able to get away with it on a 90-120 page feature, if it read well enough. That said, I plan to play around with more of the fringe characters in this series, maybe even slip extra heroes in subtly if I can. Who knows?

Re: Superheroes In A Cafe: Supergirl and Batgirl

Jandy — Sat, 11 May 2013 12:39:58 -0000

2) If I had a Batcycle, I'd take it down to the corner market. ;)

And it passes the Bechdel test!

Re: A Post About Specificity, Specifically

Jandy — Sat, 11 May 2013 12:38:41 -0000

Even beyond being a slog/boring to read through, specificity actually makes it much easier for the art director/set decorator to do their jobs. I've never done that, per se, but in building websites for people, it's much easier when they give you some restrictions than when they just go "do whatever you want." Too much freedom stifles creativity.

Plus, in describing Olaf's apartment the way you did above, you've used the setting to help build the character. We haven't even met Olaf yet, but I have an idea of what kind of person would live in an apartment like that - even if designing sets isn't your job, defining characters is, and his apartment helps define him. The character who lives in the apartment you described as your own pre-marriage apartment is a very different person than Olaf.

Adding those two things together, if you aren't specific about things like this, the art director has to become a literary detective and figure out what kind of apartment Olaf would live in. Or, since you wrote the character and have an idea of where he'd live, you could put it in the descriptions and save the art director a lot of trouble. :)

Re: A Post About Specificity, Specifically

movieguyjon — Fri, 10 May 2013 10:05:27 -0000

My first instinct on writing a scene is to come in fairly generic because, hey, I'm not the art director or the set decorator or the location scout. I also don't consider myself much of a casting director either. But by making all the details generic, it makes the script a slog to read through, which is problematic since I would naturally want to get the script read.

As a viewer, you get those specifics on the screen, but imagine if you had to read something as generic as "INT. HOME - DAY - A place like any other." and then read 50 more scripts that were the same!

Practicing what I've preached is another beast, though. It's easy to say all this, but then comes the application in my own writing.

Re: Superheroes In A Cafe: Supergirl and Batgirl

movieguyjon — Fri, 10 May 2013 09:59:22 -0000

I'm glad you liked it! The specificity thing comes from that mini essay I wrote about the subject. One of the things I've been weakest on has been establishing the setting and making it a character with just as much agency as those doing all the conversing. The mason jar thing came from where I work, since we all got free ones when we were employed and that's how I get my iced coffees throughout the day.

Early on in writing this it became apparent that Babs was going to be the straight (wo)man to Supergirl, which meant less of her than the other. A little bit of a bummer, but the zany Supergirl kind of took off quicker than I expected.

1) There is that. I messed around with all of the lines but that one. In the previous edition, I did a little better job of keeping the characters' manners of speaking consistent throughout. It is way too easy to let my own way of typing bleed into the characters (another essay for another time, maybe)

2) Babs took a bus for the hell of it. The cafe is not too far from Gotham proper. Think a northern suburb of Chicago. It's not far enough for Babs to REALLY want to take out her vehicles. But hey, I didn't actually set that up. It was in my noggin, though. :P

3) One of the traits that makes Batgirl very much a Simone character is how good she is despite her demons. She's always mindful of her effect on others. Lest it come across as a direct copy of her take, I want to give her some faults/traits that are different. It may or may not work, but the beauty of it is that I have more interactions with her in mind so maybe I can establish it properly.

Incidentally, not a single male presence to be found in this one, implied or actually in the setting.