Wrap Up!

Note:

For the last two entries I will be writing about two different movies. I was unable to see Pixar's Up and Indiana Jones. I will be discussing Chasing Amy and Alice in Wonderland. These movies I have seen numerous times and could go on about them for days.

Alice in Wonderland

Although I did not see the movie in 3D the movie was no less spectacular. Time Burton remakes this classical Lewis Carroll story. His characters are riveting and they display such emotion in body language. The depictions of their characters are so accurate. I can see the dialog come to life (in Burton's film) just the way Lewis Carroll intended. Compared to the old school television, the movie was intelligent, quick and witty, where as the cartoon was dumb downed so children could gaze into the brightly colored fantasy-land.

I always wondered how a writing of such adult material could end up to be a show (we as kids) watched on Nickelodeon or something. Growing up knowing the shows, movies and stories of Alice of Wonderland including Jefferson Airplane's "White Rabbit", I absolutely loved it. I think the writing was incorporated beautifully and Burton's world displays everything Lewis Carroll.

I found the new version, "live action" Alice in Wonderland to lack such creativity. The characters and cast actors were spot on. They were enticing and kept me wanting more. They really tapped into the written text that Lewis Carroll intended. But the actual creative content is lacking originality. Burton is such an awesome director, I don't see why he would produce something less than extraordinary and "mind-blowing". The most astonishing piece of work would be the outfits and Johnny Depp's outfit and make up in particular!

Most indifferently, die hard Carroll fans find this rendition to be a complete disaster! Carrie Rickey of the Inquirer Film Critic says, "It is whimsical to read about the Red Queen's playing croquet with a flamingo for a mallet and hedgehog for a all. But it is enchanting to see an apparently real (if digitized) flamingo and hedgehog used for the games." Whether or not the movie brought Carroll's exact world into play it definitely got the "jest" of it. Tim Burton brings out that colorful explosion rather than keep us wondering.

Chasing Amy

Although not a new movie, it is undoubtedly one of my favorites. Kevin Smith is a brilliant writer. Although he is outward and a bit crude, he takes his well written dialog and his elaborated intertwined and developed characters. Many of the characters can be seen in other Kevin Smith movies as lesser important characters.

As far as writing goes it is a class (of new age cinema). Smith has a knack for real life interpersonal relationships and he definitely understands the way we interact in the most casual of settings.

Margaret A. McGurk of the Cincinnati Enquirer says, "It's a tribute to a smartly written script that the triangular relationships are played out in hip, flip language, but are not trivialized. These characters may be wry, rude and foul-mouthed, but they are grappling with honest human emotion." The characters are so deeply written and built. It creates a whole new outlook and brings the viewer into the scene. It exposes the characters for what they really are, genuine and raw. There is a level of sophistication between his ridiculous plots and bad humor.

His comics as well as his cartoons are well written. To Smith's disadvantage he doesn't reach all audiences and can be considered somewhat of a fool. Kevin Smith has a way with words and come backs. The dialog could come off the page and there would be the scene being played out in front of you. Each character has his/her own distinct traits and flaws. Some being jealousy, passion and loss of self. I feel like I know the characters as if I were each of them. There is something to be said about well written dialog that jumps along with the natural rhythm and flow of a conversation.

Conclusion

Throughout the semester we have examined the way that writing can be expressed in movies. Cinema is accessible and exposes us to all the different types of written dialog. Most things we see are not solely original and make up on the spot. They have been carefully written down and analyzed in several different ways.

Some conversation can be taken different ways. But what makes a good written dialog? When writers express a flow of words that blend to make music, they are creating verbal harmony. Being able to recognize good writing is as simple as being able to recognize good dialog.

Movie scripts and critiques create a lot of buzz. There is always talk of the action and the special effects, but if there is no main story and the dialog is garbage, then there is no way for the movie to be a success. Sometimes the movie do not adapt well to the book, however alone they could stand as successful writing.

final blog post

During this blog, I learned about how writing is incorportated into movies and cinema. It gave me a new way of looking at writing, because all of the essays and papers I have had to write in my high school and college career were mostly academic papers. The writng mentality is very different when trying to create a character on screen.

When writing an academic or research paper, one has to sound sophisticated and intelligent. They should mostly follow all the rules of grammar and other guidelines that have been taught in english classes. One has to be able to give the proper information, while also trying to make your paper interesting and not boring to read. If you are writing a personal essay, you need to bring your expereinces and emotions to life, so that the reader will understand you and be engaged.

When writing for a movie, the writer needs to focus on bringing an entirely fictional character to life. They need to create an adequate script for him, and make sure that every line he or she says is "in-character". If the character is written as funny, the writers need to supply that character with an ample amount of jokes through-out the film so the audience is entertained all the way through. A comedy can not simply stop being funny half way through. If the character is written as serious, then he must have certain qualities that make him likeable, for it is very rare that we encounter and unlikeable and uncharismatic protagonist.

I've also discovered that writing in the form of character development is one of the hardest things for a cinema writer to pull off. The writers must first establish a prime character with a noticeable personality. Then the writers must have that charatcer interact with other charatcers or events that happen so that the charatcer can have a noticeable personality shift. Although, many movies try to get their characters to change, not all of them come off as believeable because the of the events that occured earlier in the film did not mesh correctly, or the change was too sudden with no build up. As I was writing about films for this blog, I noticed al ot of them focused on having character development. In the Dark Knight, Harvey Dent went from being a noble crime fighting district attorney, to one of the films villains. However, due to what he went through and the changes that occured through out his life during the film, this change did not feel out of character. In the movie Up, the main protagonist Carl Fredrickson goes from being a grumpy old man, to becoming a softer and kinder human being because of his interaction with Russel.

Another thing I learned from this blog is that creating the plot of a film is a lot like creative writing. There needs to be an engaging story that has no, or atleast a few plot holes to make it work. Also, there can be more than one person who gives suggentions and helps with the piece, just like in film there is usually never just one writer wo takes credit for the story.

All in all, this blog helped me see that writing can come in mnay different forms and there are many ways in which it can go wrong or right.

Reflective Post – How Can a Bad Movie be Elevated with a Better Story?

Most of the movies today are rated on either special effects or upon the stories within them. Why should they not? This is essentially what composes any film out on the current market. However, in the current culture, special effects seem to have become more pronounced and more pervasive than the film’s story. This can lead to an overabundance of special effects and an underdevelopment of the story. One of the best examples of this was a superhero movie that came out in 1997. This film was Batman and Robin, directed by Joel Schumacher, a film made so horrible due to its intended audience that it has been deemed one of the worst superhero films ever made and won numerous nominations at the Razzie awards.
In Batman and Robin, the story seemed to be the typical Batman story that was similar to the previous three films: A villain decides to take control of Gotham and harm its innocent civilians, thus causing Batman to emerge and take down the twisted criminal. Everyone has heard that story, so this one won’t be any different. This wasn’t the case. In Batman and Robin, the villains decide that one city just isn’t enough and they decide to take over the world, which instantly turns the film into a clichéd remake of so many other films. Another mistake was the tone of the film. The film was so overloaded with flash and sparkles, that it made one forget they were watching Batman and instead made them think they were watching a toy commercial. Incidentally, this was exactly what the film was hoping for in order to market off the toys that would follow its release.
From these examples, one can derive an important rule for making a successful story: If you’re going to create a movie, make a good story to go with it. If you’re going to create a commercial, which is essentially what Batman and Robin could easily be called, just an overblown, multi-million dollar commercial, then write a creative concept, not a typical script.
When a movie is reviewed as “bad,” most of the time, the plot is thin or the characters seem weak. The story has to be the basis for the film. Special effects and CGI will come later when it’s time to flesh out the story. Writing the story is the first step and most likely the most important step of the movie process. The story has to be one that audiences can relate with or that will draw interest so that viewers will stay for the entire film. A strong story will only be further enhanced by the use of special effects and CGI. The story should be what the main focus of the film is about, not a chance to show off the special effects. But many films do this. It’s almost as if the story has become an excuse for special effects testing. A good story stimulates emotion and gets the audience motivated. It can take characters and make the audience relate to them, make the audience feel for them. People who relate to what the person on the screen is doing are far more likely to understand their motives, more so if these motives are portrayed in unique circumstances.
By going back and examining the stories of films, people can see where there could be rooms for improvements. For example, in the above film, Batman and Robin, scaling back on the number of characters would be a first step. By having to only focus one villain perspective story and one hero perspective story, more time can be dedicated to filling those two stories to make them detailed and original. Splitting that between two or three is only going to hurt, unless there is the necessary man-power to do so. It’s best to not have too much going on at one time. Another improvement would be to completely remove the world-domination aspect. It’s been done before and done to death. There are ways that this can be pulled off, but in this film in particular, it fell flat. Matching the plot of the story with what the characters can do is a fine way to keep the story in check.
For the most part, if the stories of films these days were examined for what they were, stories and not effect experiments, then there might be a better diversity between films. I would make a suggestion that when a film is being designed from a previously written story, a script, then run the story through without special effects and see how it goes. If it works without the effects, then limit them. Don’t try to cover up the weak story with high definition and flashy substance.

It has been an interesting time working on this blog and I’ve learned some interesting things from what I’ve read here. I hope to continue to improve my writing as the years go by and I hope that what I’ve garnished here influences my style as well.

Till next time,
Richard Jicha

Conclusion

There are many ways writing is incorporated into movies. The script and story are among the most central features that determine whether or not the movie will be a success. Movies that are sequels, adapted from books, or completely new stories all have their challenges in making their film come to life and send their audiences home happy. Another way in which movies inspire writing is by causing other people to write about what they saw. While some do this for fun, criitcs do this as a job and they are forced to make their writing sound much more professional, as are people who are forced to write in order to achieve a grade. All in all, movies may be made for watching, but are made from imaginations and the way in which they are written down from paper to the big screen.

Thank you for reading these posts. We hope you enjoyed them. From Alex Daniels and Richard Jicha.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

One of the most iconic action heros in the histroy of cinema is Indiana Jones. The first three installemts were realeased in the 80s were a huge smash making Harrion Ford one of the biggest stars in Hollywood. In the summer of 2008, after a nineteen year absence from the big screen, the newest installment Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was released.

Although there were many who loved the film, there were a large portion of viewers who were left unsatisfied. A lot of people were turned off by its story which revolved around aliens. Although the first three were anything but realistic, there was something about extra terrestrials that many felt did not feel in line with the other three installments and should have belonged in a different movie. This is especailly present in the end that actually features a UFOSteven Speilburg and George Lucas had nineteen years to think of a plot and it can not help but feel like they simply ran out of ideas and decided to throw in aliens because many people have been fascinated by the concept of life outside of Earth. Apart from aliens, there were even more instances in the story where audiences felt were too ridiculous and invoked unintentional laughter. In one scene Jones is involved in a nuclear explosion and manges to survive by hiding inside of a refrigerator. In another scene, a character swings from some vines along side a bunch of obviously computer generated monkeys. Also, towards the end a bunch of Indians attack the heros that came out of nowhere and are easily dispatched making the audience wonder why they were written into the story at all.

Another reason some people were disappointed by the film is the introduction of its newest characters. The most prominent of these characters is Indiana Jones' son Mut played by Shia Labeuf. In the past inserting a side-kick into an already established franchise usually never yields positve results. Although Mut does contribute to the events and story, there were many who found him annoying and felt his character could have been better written. He is not given much debt other than being a street kid who wants to help his mother, and the revelation that he is Jones' son was obvious to many viewers from the beginning of the story despite the fact that it is treated as a shocking revelation in the movie. The villain in the film played by Cate Blanchett also does not receive much attention and her motives are not very clear.

However, there were some positive results for the film. It proved that a story can still work despite the amount of time that has passed from one installment from another. Usually when sequels are introduced after several years, audiences get turned off because it is fairly obvious the movie was made as a cash grab that is going to offer the same things as its previos outings. However, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Cyrstal Skull managed to avoid this. The movie still feels like an Indiana Jones movie and managed to retain its tone and sense of fun as Ford still plays the character just like he used to. The writing and script is also quite good as the film is aware that its protagonist is well past his prime and offers a few quips to ensure their audience that they know its star is over sixty and can no longer move like he used to.

All in all, the newest Indiana Jones flick retains the same elements that made the earlier installments a huge success, but could have used some work on creating a better plot and direction which would have made this a classic like Raiders of the Lost Arc, instead of just a worthy addition to the franchise.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull – Story Reception

Today, many film sequels are set up in quick succession. They follow one another from year to year or with only a few years between them. Examples are prevalent throughout the superhero film genre; these include the Batman series, the Spider-Man series, and the X-Men series. In fact, hero films in general have done this, ranging all the way from James Bond to the more recent Harry Potter. However, there are some film series that make sequels many years after the previous release, mostly due to the limits of technology during the filming of the preceding movie. One of these heroes has been well known to audiences of a wide range of age groups. This hero is none other than George Lucas’ own legendary creation, Indiana Jones.

While it hasn’t been the first to fit in this category, Indiana Jones, played by Harrison Ford as one of the actor’s most famous roles, has had his fame blown to massive proportions due to his series that expanded over the course of a few films. His first film, Raiders of the Lost Ark opened in 1981, followed by Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom in 1984, and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade in 1989. Skipping the television series, The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles, which ran from 1992 to 1996 and only had the famous actor in one scene at the end of an episode, it has been quite some time since Indy has graced the silver screen. This all changed with the fourth entry to the Indiana Jones franchise, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, released May 22, 2008.

The film’s release time, nineteen years after The Last Crusade, caused joy in many fans of the character. Despite the extreme length of time between film continuity, the film doesn’t seem all that different when compared to the previous trilogy. Indy still acts like Indy, still sounds like Indy, and still looks like Indy, just aged. The story still contains the same plot as the other entries in the series: Indy hunting a priceless artifact and overcoming obstacles in his quest. It’s a tried and true formula that embodies the old saying, “If it’s not broken, then don’t fix it.”

For this outing, the treasure is a little different than the ones in the other three films. All of the previous artifacts were historical, or at the very least, of earthly material. The fourth film offers a quite literal departure of this trend. Instead of finding a treasure used for religious purposes, the object in question is a mysterious crystal skull. For some reason, it seems that the directors had tired of the confines of our home planet and decided to invoke the otherworldly theme of aliens. While this certainly is a path that could have been taken, it just doesn’t seem to fit in with the treasures of the previous films. Indy has traveled all over the world to find artifacts that reside on Earth and that’s the formula that audiences are used to. However, to suddenly introduce an artifact from the depths of outer space itself seems to be a little bit of a stretch. Due to the film exuding a sense of finality, it does make sense to end it with the last unexplored frontier our human minds can imagine.

To further expand on the story, despite offering nothing new in the way of formula, it did manage to entice the audience by retaining its roots. The details of the story, mostly angled at alien visitors from outer space, were brand new and completely out of left field. Audiences probably weren’t expecting to see a UFO in an Indiana Jones film; this plot element and the story it is settled in managed to help and hinder the film in different ways. It helped by offering something original for Indy, something that hadn’t been tapped before. It introduced new characters to the story, helping flesh out a character that already had plenty of characterization from his previous films. Additionally, it proved that age has nothing to do with affecting the story. Despite the years in between, the age gap is hardly noticeable and the story makes use of it by adding some humorous instances to bring attention to it.

In some ways, though, the story was a little, what one might call, “campy.” With the introduction of aliens, some fans felt that the story had overstepped its boundaries, even going so far as to call the film absurd. It was a new route, one that did not agree with every person who saw the film.

The major consensus for the film is that even though the plot runs on the same formula, the elements that made the first three Indy films such a hit are still present in the fourth entry and that is enough to make audience still enjoy the movie. This was apparent even before the film was released. A major part of the marketing theme relied on the public’s memories of the previous films. Feelings of nostalgia ran high, enticing people to see the film because they had “seen the others before.” For the most part, people weren’t disappointed. Indy took a chance by returning to the big screen after such a long absence and it was worth it. Indiana Jones was greeted with open arms and a warm reception by fans and casual movie goes alike. It just goes to prove that, even in old age, heroes who have etched themselves in the hearts and minds of the public can be received with positive reviews once again.

Till next time,
Richard Jicha

Pixar's Up

If there is one name in Hollywood and cinema that is equivilent with greatness, its Pixar animations. They have been known to produce film after film like Finding Nemo, The Incredibles, and Toy Story, all of which have received enormous praise and box-office success. Their latest offering is Up which came out during the summer of 2009 is Up.

One of the reasons why Pixar has achieved its flawless reputation, is all there movies have a good story and characters. However, after nine films their patterns and similarities are beginning to grow transparent. Most of their films revolve around two primary characters who do not get along at first, but grow to become friends. Toy Story had Buzz and Woody, Wall-e had Eve and Wall-e, and Ratatouille had Remy and Linguine. Up follows the characters Carl Fredrickson, an elderly short tempered man, and Russell an energetic and happy child. This writing technique of pairing two unlikely characters is used very often in films like buddy cop movies and romantic comedies becuase it creates tension and character development between the characters. Having a story about two people who have nothing in common and must learn to get along provides an ideal opportunity to create a funny script and entertaining story. However, it takes good writing and believable characters to make this strategy work. Up and most of Pixar's films manage this quite well.

Pixar is noted for having very adult thems in their movies and their latest film Up is the darkest of them all. The film starts off seeming like it will be a happy little tale filled with joy and humor. Carl meets his wife Ellie when their both kids and lots of laughter ensues. However, the story is anything but bright and happy as we are treated to a heart breaking montage which showcases the entire lives of the couple in a few short minutes. It even shows that Ellie had a miscarriage, something unthinkable of putting in an animated film. It also ends with Ellie dying and Carl sadly mourning her. Some might find this writing too depressing, while others enjoy a story that does not play it safe and deals with real human issues. The film then takes a happier turn as the character Russell shows up and provides lots of comic relief and the two fly upward in Carl's house as the house is actually lifted up by hundreds of balloons attached to it by carl. The two characters then encounter many adventures as they sail away in the flying house and then find themselves stranded in a jungle.

The film explores many themes not often found in animated movies. The most prominet is the issue of love and death. Although Ellie, is given very little screen time, the audience grows to care about her, and we can really feel the pain and grief that Carl feels throughout the film. We are reminded of her death quite often as Carl stares longinly at a photo of her in his house. The other main character who becomes a part of Carl's life is Russell. Their relationship receives the most attention, as Carl grows from finding the kid annoying and irksome, to deeply caring about him. This is further exasperated by Russells lack of a father. It is clear that his attachment towards Carl is not because he really likes the man, but because he yearns for a father-figure in his life and by the end of the film, Carl has filled that void. Spending time with Russell also softens Carl's heart and begins to open him up from the shell he clamped in when his wife died. The story is carefully crafted out so that when Carl does change from an angry old man, it feels natural and believable after everything he's been through.

Up is a movie that takes great risks. Focusing a kids movie on an old man is not something studios do very often, but it was still able to draw large crowds due to its story and script. Being able to tell a story that balances laughter, action, and tears is no easy feet, but Pixar is often able to pull it off.