Saw and ad with a new cover for the book Dune and I misread it initially. This is my interpretation of that misread.
Saw and ad with a new cover for the book Dune and I misread it initially. This is my interpretation of that misread.
Let me say up front that there will be spoilerish things in this post.
You were warned.
When I saw the initial ads for PASSENGERS I got really excited. Two of my favorite actors in a science fiction drama. What more could I ask for?
Well, I could ask for a lot of things, actually, like good special effects, a good script, and a good finish. Opinions on movies vary about as much as anything on Earth. And I rarely agree with the professional critics, and man oh man were they being tough on this movie.
David Edelstein, a film critic for New York magazine and for NPR’s Fresh Air, is the only critic I found (in a very small sampling) that said he actually liked the movie. But even he didn’t like the ending. Most of the negativity was relayed to me from my son or from a few articles online. But there seemed to be a general consensus that the movie sucked.
Given all of the naysaying and negativity, I had modest expectations. I went in with a half-open mind, expecting the ending to suck.
I enjoyed the opening. I really like Chris Pratt, and his mechanic alone on a huge ship and looking at spending the rest of his life in the midst of five thousand sleeping people worked for me. His character felt believable and then the moment comes when, on the verge of suicide, he sees the Jennifer Lawrence character, and the movie takes a darker turn.
I’ve heard about the discussion that the premise of waking her up was a plot contrivance. Those people completely missed the entire point of the story. It was about a guy who has a choice to make, live forever alone, or ruin someone else’s future so that he doesn’t have to be. That is the WHOLE PLOT! Then others said it was tantamount to rape. PLEASE. Are you effing kidding me? Did you even watch the movie? Was it extremely creepy that he knew about her and had read all her published work? Yes. Clearly. But it felt plausible the way it was played. He had agonized for months about doing it, then they became friends and then lovers over the course of time. It wasn’t rushed, played about as well as it could be to show time without being pedantic. And it was Pratt and Lawrence. They were right for their parts, or at least made them seem like people. People put in an impossible situation.
Was the screenplay perfect? No, but it was plausible and some of the plot issues people discussed were lamp-shaded right up front. It was enjoyable seeing the two of them together.
Then comes the moment of truth when she finds out that he woke her on purpose, which he did not flinch from, and her reaction felt realistic.
Things start progressing when one of the crew also wakes up, because the ship is dying.
All this time I’m waiting for the suck. Surely something blaringly bad was going to happen. A horrible line or something really cliché or just plain awful plot. I kept waiting, and expecting.
They deal with the ship starting to have problems individually, because she was trying to avoid him. But, it turns out if he hadn’t woken her up everyone on board would have died. In the process of saving the ship both of them have hair-raising experiences where I was sure they were going to die. That had to be the part that ruined the movie. This happened multiple times for both characters. No, they live through one heroic thing after another. Still not sucking. In fact, it is really working for me. I am feeling the characters. I care. Then as the climax comes, I was starting to think it was going to have one of those cliché Romeo and Juliet endings, and that really would have sucked, because I am still waiting for it to suck.
But no. It has, to me, a satisfying conclusion. A happy ending. I like happy endings!
The final scene can be taken many ways, but I will say it was the simplest choice of endings. The screenwriter or director could have gone a multitude of different directions at the end, but chose the easiest closing. It was fine with me.
I walked out of the movie happy. It didn’t suck. It actually exceeded my expectations! So, I guess I owe all of the naysayers a thank you.
I have no idea why so many people were so hard on this movie. Okay, it won’t win an Oscar, and there were no truly emotional moments for me, ones that make something memorable, but I did enjoy it. Is it really too much to ask for a movie with a nice happy ending to be released at Christmas time? I don’t think so. All the Grinches out there need to get some perspective.
I recently watched a video of Celeste Headlee doing a TED talk on 10 Ways to have a better
conversation. Celeste’s TED Talk
It was sadly eye-opening for me. For a long time I know I’ve struggled to be a good listener. Actually most of the time I don’t struggle; I just don’t listen well. I am a chronic interrupter. But, as usual, this is bigger than my poor listening skills. Celeste hits the nail on the head in pointing out that as our children grow up in this new connected environment we all live in, with a cell phone usually within arm’s reach, that we’ve become accustomed to transmitting, but not receiving or interacting. Or if we do receive it is on our time and without the worry of interruption. There is little face-to-face conversation. I touch on this very issue in my story Quintessence where being connected in the future is not just habitual, it’s the law. But I think these communication issues are very real.
Be in the moment. Don’t be reading email or watching a show or checking your phone for texts, while half-listening to the other person. We all do this in degrees, some worse than others, and some far, far worse (like me.)
Your here to be in a conversation, not bloviate. If you want to do that, and I love this, make a blog. You can even turn off the comments if you really don’t want any interaction.
You are going to have ideas pop in your head while the other person is talking. Let them go. It’s not about you. You are supposed to be listening. If the idea is big enough it will still be there when it’s your turn to talk. It will also help you to NOT INTERRUPT THEM. My wife is one of the few people that calls me on this. It is one of my biggest character flaws.
And this is a big one for me, too. Don’t equate your experience with theirs. If they had someone close die, don’t try to compare it with the death of someone close to you. It is good to have empathy, but it shouldn’t turn back to being about you.
Actually listen, actively. Yes, some of us enjoying hearing our own voice more than that of others. That may not be the case, but you still need to pay attention to what the other person is conveying. Not only the words, but the way they convey it. Read the body language and the expression. You can’t do that if you aren’t paying attention.
I worry about these things with my children sometimes. Maybe unfairly, they are pretty great after all. Just ask me. But in general we are all doing less active interaction and more by proxy. I have become attached to my cell phone almost as much as my kids are, and Facebook, and Twitter, etc. But there is value in face-to-face interaction, especially with people you care about. It actually shows the other person that you value them, so there is more than simple communication involved, even if it’s really not all that simple.
This is a very broad topic and some smart person could probably do a doctoral thesis on this subject. The internet is an amazing technological gift and I don’t think anyone envisioned the sort of potential it had when in its fledgling state. The ability to connect people from all over the world in real-time has unlocked an unprecedented global community. It’s facilitated the Arab Spring, which the jury is still out on whether that is going to turn out to be a good thing or a bad thing. We’ve seen a young woman (Justine Sacco) vilified for making an off-color tweet in a poor attempt at humor that cost her job and ruined her reputation. We’ve seen young people commit suicide because of cyber-bullying. Harassment and death threats are rampant. And what is turning into a horrible custom–people jumping on the bandwagon of something they have very little knowledge of and creating a mob mentality. All of these things have happened and are happening, and it’s sickening. Gamergate, puppygate, leftwing vs. rightwing politics, I don’t even want to get started on the details, but these things impinge on my daily visit to the web. News spreads at a viral pace now and people don’t bother to take the time to see if things are true or not, they just take at gospel because everyone else says it’s horrible. It must be bad if so many people say it is. It’s as if a “journalist” from a gossip magazine is running the internet.
Why is it we want to believe the worst in everyone? The corporate world is not immune either (Examples of Social Media Crisis.)
And here is the worst part. If you speak out against something you are inviting the hordes to your doorstep. In some cases, literally. I’m hesitant to take a stand on any issue now. Who needs that kind of drama in their life? I know I don’t, but I do think about stuff, and want to take a stand on things I feel strongly about without being singled out as the target du jour. Free speech should mean we all get to have a say, and be able to do it in a civil manner.
I don’t know how we fix it. This age of free speech is different than any other time, because the reach is nearly instantaneous and global. My old roommate used to say, “Why can’t everyone just be cool?” What is it about being insulated by your keyboard that gives people carte blanche to be A-holes? It’s a little like road rage. It’s a lot like pitchforks and torches and burning people at the stake, or a lynch mob–the worst type of social justice with no trial.
We need a new age of civility, social rules for the internet. I would rather see people chastised for breaking etiquette when he or she is being an A-hole, but not death threats, simple peer pressure to do better, that it’s not acceptable behavior. I like what Chuck Wendig says about trying to be your best self on social media. I would love to see us be nice to each other, all the time, everywhere. I wish every person could be treated equally, male or female, gay or straight, black or white or whatever, all the time.
Wishful thinking? Perhaps, but I get the feeling we are on the cusp of something big. I don’t know if it’s going to be a good thing or a bad thing. I’m reminded of the first age of public discourse back in fourth century Athens, where orators were pleading with the public in courts and public events, to change the course of politics in their day. But that is nothing compared to the way disinformation flies around the world at the speed of light today. We can do so much with the connectivity we have now, but that could mean wonderful things or horrible things. This new age of communication is just beginning, and who knows how it will mutate as it matures. We do have the power of choice. We can chose to stand up for niceness. Or we can pile on.
Here’s hoping niceness prevails.
There doesn’t appear to be a consensus from my informal survey of Goodreads and blog sites on Save the Cat in most writing circles. Some would say it needs its own “save the cat” moment. Others are devoted to the teachings laid out within. I found it useful in several ways. A point in Blake Snyder’s favor is that he provides exercises at the end of each chapter and gives a lot of excellent examples.
Snyder opens strong with his logline concept. The idea of being able to sum up your story in one sentence has its appeal. It will make pitching your book all that much simpler, but it is certainly easier said than done. Blake’s construct is framed around having the “Big Idea” from the start. There is value in this, but his focus is on selling the script to a producer, not on helping frame the book.
He even goes so far as to try to convince the reader that the title of the project should reflect the logline. The titles may be self evident but they certainly aren’t “killer” as he would put it. They lack imagination.
Having a logline before you start seems like a good idea if you want to write a story using your craft skills. I can see a lot of “pantsers” arguing that this would strip the soul from their story, but it can be a useful starting point to deviate from perhaps. Trying to go back and capture a logline after the first draft is well underway can be a daunting task.
The next chapter lacks focus but the bottom line is read in your genre and avoid clichés. Snyder confuses the reader with talk about doing the same thing but different, and then provides a list of the different types of movie plots. He refers to them as genre, but they are not the same thing that novel writer would recognize. Perhaps there is profit in this for a screenwriter, but it’s more plot focused than genre focused.
Blake follows this with selecting your hero. Here again it can be a little confusing for the novel writer. Snyder says, “It has to be about someone. It has to have one or two people we can focus our attention on, identify with, and want to root for – and someone who can carry the movie’s theme.” This is all fine and good, but his focus is more on picking a character that will amp up the logline. What I think he actually means is that you need to pick the character that can tell your story and has the most at stake. This is critical. There are craft things we can do to make the character more or less sympathetic, so maybe there is a little of cart before the horse here. I think Snyder knows that, but simply has trouble putting it in the right context. We see snippets in this chapter about his focus of selling the script versus telling a good story, when he talks about not writing the script for a particular actor or type. That is probably good advice for a screenwriter, but not necessarily important for a novel writer.
Next, we get to the meat and potatoes of the book, where the advice is widely praised for its story structure ideas. The three act play and Snyder’s fifteen beats are great fundamentals to hang a story on. He goes through each beat, providing good descriptions of what they are, with solid examples. He also explains how they fit within the three act play structure. This chapter alone is the payoff for the entire book. His advice to hit the mark on the proper page can be taken with a grain of salt, but the beats are sound.
The section that follows is also gold. Snyder talks about the value of a good mentor, to which I can attest, and he lays out the storyboard concept.
I’ve had a lot of mentor figures in my life, both good and bad, and there are beneficial things to be learned from both, but a great mentor is invaluable. It’s like a fastpass to learning tricks-of-the-trade along with the fundamentals. They may also furnish priceless networking connections. Even the less good ones can often provide at least a few lessons, as well as showcasing how not to do it if the roles are reversed.
The storyboard idea can be used in pre and post draft work. For someone who enjoys outlining and plotting ahead of time the storyboard is a great way to see if you are staying on track and hitting all your marks. For someone who would rather seat-of-the-pants write, the storyboard can clarify the plot structure and framework of the draft, showing where things might need to be cut or moved around to better fit the flow of the story. I like his concept of using note-cards and limiting them to 40. This keeps the work focused and forces the writer to examine every scene to see if it moves the story forward. I especially like Blake’s idea of writing down on each card the emotional change and conflict for each scene. These comments make the story arc easier to visualize, and the ability to color code and add further clarity by tying concepts or arcs together.
The next two chapters go into pitfalls to watch out for, and then he closes with a potpourri of things about selling scripts and stuff that really doesn’t do much for the novel writer.
Overall, I found a lot of value in this book. Blake’s focus on selling to a producer versus good story telling leaves a bad taste in the mouth of many writers, but there are nuggets of gold in these pages if you can grasp the underlying meaning. The concrete examples he uses provide a clear picture of the concepts and his structure ideas are well worth the read.
The inimitable Paul Goat Allen is an expert when it comes to good reads. Everyone should check this out if you are a fan of books.
Ever since reading Walter M. Miller, Jr.’s wildly thought-provoking classic A Canticle for Leibowitz (1959) for the third time a few weeks ago—it’s one of the rare novels that I’ve read multiple times—I’ve been thinking a lot about the significance, and ultimate mission, of science fiction. One statement that keeps resurfacing in my mind is something that Lou Anders, the former editorial director at Pyr Books, wrote in the introduction of the 2007 anthology Fast Forward 1: Future Fiction from the Cutting Edge:
“Science fiction is skepticism. Science fiction is rationalism. Science fiction is the notion that there are other perspectives out there, other modes of thinking, other ways of being than those in front of your nose, worlds beyond your current understanding. Science fiction opens the mind to the notion of change. Science fiction is enlightenment packaged in narrative.”
View original post 541 more words