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.
Showing posts with label Alex Daniels. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Alex Daniels. Show all posts
Monday, April 26, 2010
Friday, April 16, 2010
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.
Thank you for reading these posts. We hope you enjoyed them. From Alex Daniels and Richard Jicha.
Saturday, April 10, 2010
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.
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.
Friday, April 2, 2010
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.
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.
Friday, March 19, 2010
Sherlock Holmes-Critics
Its no secret that movie critics are often disliked by the general public. They not only get to watch movies for free, they get paid to do it which is something most people would love to do. They are also said to be narrow-minded and only like oscar worthy films while dismissing everything else. This is not necessarly true. There have been many times when a film has been beloved by both audiences and critics. However, it is almost impossible to please everyone which is the case with the film Sherlock Holmes.
Sherlock Holmes was directed by Guy Ritchie and was released on December 25, 2009 starring Robert Downy Jr and Jude Law. The story revolves around the famous detective as he sets out to solve a series of murders along with his sidekick John Watson. The films has been mostly liked by audiences along with critics. At rottentomatoes.com, the films has a 69% approval rating with 137 positive reviews and 63 negative reviews. It is said that films in which movies are based on are never as good as the original work. While the movie is not a direct story from one of its novels, turning the famous icon into a movie character is no easy task. There have been many different opinions on whether or not Sherlock Holmes is an entertaining and thought provoking film or just a big mess.
While the film has received mostly compliments, many critics have had a problem with its story. Critic Stephen Silver says "The plot of Sherlock Holmes is so needlessly complex and nonsensical that you'll try to understand, but eventually give up, since its not worth it." Having a good story is essential to a mysfilm like this, because it requires the audience to want to play along and solve the case along with its protagonists. Just like reading a mystery book, it should put the viewer on edge and make them anxious to find out the answers. Some critics say that the makers of the film should have gone with one of the stories that made the titular character such a classic in the first place, while others applaud them for trying to make Sherlock feel new and original. While its story and plot has some problems, Sherlock Holmes has been praised for its writing and script. Fellow critic Alex Zane writes that watching the two leads, Holmes and Watson, converse with eachother is the film's strongest appeal. This is mostly thanks to the chemistry and delivery of its stars.
Another way this film has divided audiences and critics is its approach in bringing Holmes to life. Most think of him as an ordinary man with a bowler hat and pipe in hand. Instead the film makers opted to go with a more gritty Fight Club style in which Holmes is more of an action hero than a detective. While this may cause some to be turned off, it does allow for some great chases and fights to take place. All in all, Sherlock Holmes is a film that can be highly enjoyed by everyone depending on their tastes and style of prefernce in watching a mystery or action movie.
Sherlock Holmes was directed by Guy Ritchie and was released on December 25, 2009 starring Robert Downy Jr and Jude Law. The story revolves around the famous detective as he sets out to solve a series of murders along with his sidekick John Watson. The films has been mostly liked by audiences along with critics. At rottentomatoes.com, the films has a 69% approval rating with 137 positive reviews and 63 negative reviews. It is said that films in which movies are based on are never as good as the original work. While the movie is not a direct story from one of its novels, turning the famous icon into a movie character is no easy task. There have been many different opinions on whether or not Sherlock Holmes is an entertaining and thought provoking film or just a big mess.
While the film has received mostly compliments, many critics have had a problem with its story. Critic Stephen Silver says "The plot of Sherlock Holmes is so needlessly complex and nonsensical that you'll try to understand, but eventually give up, since its not worth it." Having a good story is essential to a mysfilm like this, because it requires the audience to want to play along and solve the case along with its protagonists. Just like reading a mystery book, it should put the viewer on edge and make them anxious to find out the answers. Some critics say that the makers of the film should have gone with one of the stories that made the titular character such a classic in the first place, while others applaud them for trying to make Sherlock feel new and original. While its story and plot has some problems, Sherlock Holmes has been praised for its writing and script. Fellow critic Alex Zane writes that watching the two leads, Holmes and Watson, converse with eachother is the film's strongest appeal. This is mostly thanks to the chemistry and delivery of its stars.
Another way this film has divided audiences and critics is its approach in bringing Holmes to life. Most think of him as an ordinary man with a bowler hat and pipe in hand. Instead the film makers opted to go with a more gritty Fight Club style in which Holmes is more of an action hero than a detective. While this may cause some to be turned off, it does allow for some great chases and fights to take place. All in all, Sherlock Holmes is a film that can be highly enjoyed by everyone depending on their tastes and style of prefernce in watching a mystery or action movie.
Friday, March 5, 2010
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire-positives
One of the most successful franchises in all of cinema has been the Harry Potter series. They have accounted for billions of dollars world-wide and with its fourth entry, Goblet of Fire, it is easy to see why. It is no easy task to condense a 734 page book into aproximately two hours and twenty minutes, but the film manages to strike a good balance for most of its important events. Hard-core fans always complain that events from the book are changed and certain plot points are left out. I fail to see how this can be a bad thing, as what would be the point of watching a film in which you already know every single line and event that will happen ahead of time. I believe that this film, as well as the other entries, have been pretty faithful to their source material. Not to mention, movies such as Goblet of Fire and Order of the Phoenix would be six hours long if everything were to stay exactly the same from the book.
Another reason Goblet of Fire is an excellent film is because it boasts tremendous action pieces. The film resolves around a tournament in which Harry as well as three others contenders must compete in difficult and dangerous tasks to be crowned champion. Although I would have liked to see the third task extended, the first and second task which includes an air-bourne battle with a dragon and an under water rescue more than make up for it. No Harry Potter movie would be complete with out magic, and the film has some great special effects. Scenes such as the quidditch world cup and a chilling battle inside of a graveyard are a treat for the eyes.
When the movie is not trying to wow its audiences, it manages to be enjoyable by boasting a witty and funny script for all ages to enjoy. Some say Harry Potter is for children, but this is the first of the fims to pander more towards adult audiences as seen by its pg-13 rating. The acting from its stars Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, and Emma Watson continues to improve with each film as they all perform funny and charming roles. The film is also helped by newcomers Mad-Eye Moody and Harry's arch-nemisis Lord Voldemort, who always manage to hold your interest when they are on screen. Whether or not this film is is the best of the current Harry Potter films is a matter of opinion, although I definetly found it to be in the top three. The film can feel a bit rushed sometimes, but the end result is well worth it.
Another reason Goblet of Fire is an excellent film is because it boasts tremendous action pieces. The film resolves around a tournament in which Harry as well as three others contenders must compete in difficult and dangerous tasks to be crowned champion. Although I would have liked to see the third task extended, the first and second task which includes an air-bourne battle with a dragon and an under water rescue more than make up for it. No Harry Potter movie would be complete with out magic, and the film has some great special effects. Scenes such as the quidditch world cup and a chilling battle inside of a graveyard are a treat for the eyes.
When the movie is not trying to wow its audiences, it manages to be enjoyable by boasting a witty and funny script for all ages to enjoy. Some say Harry Potter is for children, but this is the first of the fims to pander more towards adult audiences as seen by its pg-13 rating. The acting from its stars Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, and Emma Watson continues to improve with each film as they all perform funny and charming roles. The film is also helped by newcomers Mad-Eye Moody and Harry's arch-nemisis Lord Voldemort, who always manage to hold your interest when they are on screen. Whether or not this film is is the best of the current Harry Potter films is a matter of opinion, although I definetly found it to be in the top three. The film can feel a bit rushed sometimes, but the end result is well worth it.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Transformers 2 negatives
There has been a lot of controversy over last summer's blockbuster "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen". Some have called a fun popcorn movie while others have called it a piece of garbage. While I did not hate the film, I found it could have been much better. The main problem is that the story and writing is pretty weak which is a big problem for a movie that is two hours and twenty minutes long. There are lots of spots where it is difficult to figure out just what is going on. Some might say that a good plot is not the reason people attend a movie like this and you should just turn your brain off. Well I don't believe one should have to turn off their brain in order to enjoy a movie.
There are also other areas that could have been improved. The film has been praised for it special effects and graphics. This may be true as the giant robots look very realistic, but director Michael Bay messes up the action sequences by filming the camera way too close to the robots and adopting the shakey cam technique. This makes it not only difficut to tell who is winning the fight, but its also hard tell who's fighting who. The film is also filled with plot holes. At one point, a human turns out to be an enemy robot in disguise, which makes no sense as the whole premise is supposed to be about cars that turn into giant robots, not humans. Another reason this film did not meet my expectations is because the humor often falls flat. Some of the writing seemed geered more towards children than adults.
In addition, the sidekicks in this film, Leo and two robots called Mudflap and Skids, were supposed to provide comic relief, but instead came off as more annoying than funny. One of the few bright spots were Shia Labeuf and Megan Fox who provided some funny lines and were atleast interesting, unlike a lot of other characters on the screen. Despite this, the film still managed to become one of the highest grossing movie of the year, and was liked by audiences. Everyone has their own opinion, but I believe people will delude themselves into liking a movie as long as it has eye candy like cool robots or Megan Fox. All in all, I found this movie to be a letdown as it was ok, but could have used a better story and script.
Alex Daniels
There are also other areas that could have been improved. The film has been praised for it special effects and graphics. This may be true as the giant robots look very realistic, but director Michael Bay messes up the action sequences by filming the camera way too close to the robots and adopting the shakey cam technique. This makes it not only difficut to tell who is winning the fight, but its also hard tell who's fighting who. The film is also filled with plot holes. At one point, a human turns out to be an enemy robot in disguise, which makes no sense as the whole premise is supposed to be about cars that turn into giant robots, not humans. Another reason this film did not meet my expectations is because the humor often falls flat. Some of the writing seemed geered more towards children than adults.
In addition, the sidekicks in this film, Leo and two robots called Mudflap and Skids, were supposed to provide comic relief, but instead came off as more annoying than funny. One of the few bright spots were Shia Labeuf and Megan Fox who provided some funny lines and were atleast interesting, unlike a lot of other characters on the screen. Despite this, the film still managed to become one of the highest grossing movie of the year, and was liked by audiences. Everyone has their own opinion, but I believe people will delude themselves into liking a movie as long as it has eye candy like cool robots or Megan Fox. All in all, I found this movie to be a letdown as it was ok, but could have used a better story and script.
Alex Daniels
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)