http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117991319.html?categoryid=2508&cs=1
From VARIETY ONLINE: Aug. 28, 2008,
U.S. short on tough guy actors
Filmmakers turn to U.K., Australia for action stars
By ANNE THOMPSON
As if reminding me that I have not been blogging, Variety has caught onto the dilemma that I first broke on March!
It’s nice to know that I’m not the only one who thinks this.
I’ll be blogging more often now so Variety can have new inspiration…
It's a good article tho.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Here's a Wacky Thought About TV...
Today, the AP, via CNN, tells me:
NEW YORK (AP) -- The fevered response to the latest loopy Paula Abdul episode, where she judged a phantom performance, just goes to show how "American Idol" continues to dominate television in its seventh season.
"American Idol" is now down to its final four contestants. The finale will be later in May.
Yet while "Idol" is still a hit, it's no longer necessarily hip.
You can hear it in the lack of enthusiasm in 14-year-old Katharine Bohrs' voice.
"Last year I was really into it, and the year before that," said the high school freshman from Brookline, Massachusetts. "This year in the beginning I was, but then track started up and I have a lot of homework. It's two hours long and I don't have the time."
She used to watch regularly with a friend. Now her friend records it and watches only occasionally, Bohrs said.
Statistics back up the anecdote. Audience declines for "American Idol" are steepest among youthful viewers, the people who set the pop culture agenda and are most likely to buy music made by the show's winners. These are not the people you want to turn off.
Make no mistake, "American Idol" is still the biggest thing on television. It is the reason why Fox will end the TV season later this month as the nation's most-watched network for the first time in history.
The show is averaging 28.7 million viewers this year, according to Nielsen Media Research.
That's down 7 percent from the nearly 31 million viewers who watched last year. It's also typical -- maybe better than typical: in this writers strike-marred season, "CSI: Crime Scene Investigation" has shed 19 percent of its viewers, "Grey's Anatomy" is down 20 percent and "Survivor" is off 9 percent from last spring's edition.
"We're not in denial that the ratings are down," said Preston Beckman, Fox's chief scheduling executive. "There are things that we can control and there are things that we can't control. I defy anyone to show you a hit show that has been on for seven seasons that is at the level this one is on relative to where it started."
Among women aged 18 to 34, the "American Idol" audience has slipped 18 percent this year. Isolate teenagers 12-to-17, and the drop is 12 percent.
The median age of an "American Idol" viewer, once in the mid-30s, is now up to 42, Nielsen said. And -- horror of horrors -- viewership is actually up this season among people aged 50 and over. Those are the folks many television tastemakers pretend don't exist."
Well, well, well...
For years, we've been hearing about how TV has been losing viewers, especially the 18-40 year old prize consumers. It seems to me that in a knee jerk reaction to get those viewers back, TV decided it was going to be more like movies; sexier, edgier, darker, more mature.
We graduated from the family oriented 60s,70s and 80s to the darker Crime Shows, "Sopranoes", "Deadwood" and even family show "Battlestar Galactica" became edgy and angsty. TV, broadcast and cable, chose to keep a dead man's grasp on the younger audience who was being wooed away by Video Games, the Internet and all the other entertainment options that no one had 20 years ago.
For some reason, this just doesn't make sense to me and never has. If you are losing the younger viewers and retaining older viewers, why not make the ones you have happy - and loyal? Let's look at the demographics - These are my impressions and are generalities, I admit:
40-50 Year Olds: Born in the 60s, many have had computers since they came out. Many remember fondly 70s and 80s TV, they liked 80s music and they have seen tons of technology changes. Many had 8-tracks, most had Vinyl and Pong or at least knew about Pong. They waited in line at STAR WARS and had Commodore Computers. Many are on the internet and probably have Netflix or some other service.
50-60 Year Olds: Born in the 50's. Were in their teens during the hippy and Vietnam years. Likely remember fondly Westerns and other 60-early 70s fare. Had 8 Tracks and cars built in the 50's. They remember the cold war, nuclear proliferation and Flower Power. Probably have computers, may have gotten some help from the kids getting online but are online. May not got to the movies as much because the films aren't for them and probably rent DVDs instead. TV is OK but what the heck is up with 100 channels and nothing on?
60-70 Year Olds: Born in the 40's: There is nothing worth watching on TV. The media has changed so much and many of these people and the next generation older were raised with a much different set of sensibilities than later generations. TV is crude, loud and offensive and not something to watch with the family because there might be some nudity and no one wants to sit in a room with family and deal with that uncomfortable scene.
Anyway, rambling aside. When will the Broadcast and Cable folks understand that they need to embrace the older viewers. These are not people who grew up with horses and buggies and fought in the Big One. Now, as the population ages, these are people who smoked pot at Woodstock, played Pong, waited in line at Star Wars, burned their bras, opposed the Vietnam War, hid under their desks when the siren went off, etc. There's also more of them than ever before as the population ages and *gasp* some of them even buy things!
I recall a couple years back, there was a fun Western show with Tom Berenger that was part Gunsmoke and part CSI. It was dropped by its cable network because it appealed to the over 50 crowd. Now, look back above at who the over 50 crowd are... I bet these people are excellent consumers with some disposable income but for some reason, TV can't let go of the "Need to Attract the 18 year olds".
It's been a mainstream idea for years that teenagers put butts in the movie-plex. They take out dates, they have some money for entertainment, they tend to go back and see a movie multiple times, they can't drink and go to bars and are getting booted out of malls so they head to the movie-plex. Fair enough. But someone please tell me how that translates to TV?
Most of the people I know who watch TV, who really sit and watch TV, are all over 40. The younger people I know aren't the TV crowd. It seems so simple and yet, to quote ZOOLANDER, I "feel like I'm taking crazy pills". Most of those people watching TV have a show they like and then say, "Bah, there's nothing to watch" but they watch anyway because that's what they like and for some, that's what they are used to doing.
I want to helm a network that focuses on the over 40 crowd. I want to fill it with excellent scripted shows and maybe a little reality and prove that the TV audience has changed. I think the networks are too entrenched in archaic thinking to try something new! They'd rather chase the younger audience and then lament that all the numbers are down instead of sticking their necks out to change the paradigm.
There's the crux of the problem: "Sticking Their Neck Out Syndrome" in Hollywood. When people try new things and it doesn't take off in three episodes, the show is cut, people are fired, etc. It just ensures that the next executive who comes around won't stick their neck out. They'll cull ideas from books, older shows and films and from the success of other networks guaranteeing that if ABC has success with a show about "Psychics Who Use Their Powers to Thwart an Alien Invasion" that within a year, everyone will have a twist on it and will wonder why it doesn't do very well.
By the way, if you want that show ABC, drop me a line...
To put a long posting into some context. TV Execs, embrace your audience, don't try and make them something they aren't. If 40 somethings are watching your shows, be glad they are and find advertisers to match! Don't try and make them 18 again. Despite what the plastic surgeons say, that just isn't going to work...
NEW YORK (AP) -- The fevered response to the latest loopy Paula Abdul episode, where she judged a phantom performance, just goes to show how "American Idol" continues to dominate television in its seventh season.
"American Idol" is now down to its final four contestants. The finale will be later in May.
Yet while "Idol" is still a hit, it's no longer necessarily hip.
You can hear it in the lack of enthusiasm in 14-year-old Katharine Bohrs' voice.
"Last year I was really into it, and the year before that," said the high school freshman from Brookline, Massachusetts. "This year in the beginning I was, but then track started up and I have a lot of homework. It's two hours long and I don't have the time."
She used to watch regularly with a friend. Now her friend records it and watches only occasionally, Bohrs said.
Statistics back up the anecdote. Audience declines for "American Idol" are steepest among youthful viewers, the people who set the pop culture agenda and are most likely to buy music made by the show's winners. These are not the people you want to turn off.
Make no mistake, "American Idol" is still the biggest thing on television. It is the reason why Fox will end the TV season later this month as the nation's most-watched network for the first time in history.
The show is averaging 28.7 million viewers this year, according to Nielsen Media Research.
That's down 7 percent from the nearly 31 million viewers who watched last year. It's also typical -- maybe better than typical: in this writers strike-marred season, "CSI: Crime Scene Investigation" has shed 19 percent of its viewers, "Grey's Anatomy" is down 20 percent and "Survivor" is off 9 percent from last spring's edition.
"We're not in denial that the ratings are down," said Preston Beckman, Fox's chief scheduling executive. "There are things that we can control and there are things that we can't control. I defy anyone to show you a hit show that has been on for seven seasons that is at the level this one is on relative to where it started."
Among women aged 18 to 34, the "American Idol" audience has slipped 18 percent this year. Isolate teenagers 12-to-17, and the drop is 12 percent.
The median age of an "American Idol" viewer, once in the mid-30s, is now up to 42, Nielsen said. And -- horror of horrors -- viewership is actually up this season among people aged 50 and over. Those are the folks many television tastemakers pretend don't exist."
Well, well, well...
For years, we've been hearing about how TV has been losing viewers, especially the 18-40 year old prize consumers. It seems to me that in a knee jerk reaction to get those viewers back, TV decided it was going to be more like movies; sexier, edgier, darker, more mature.
We graduated from the family oriented 60s,70s and 80s to the darker Crime Shows, "Sopranoes", "Deadwood" and even family show "Battlestar Galactica" became edgy and angsty. TV, broadcast and cable, chose to keep a dead man's grasp on the younger audience who was being wooed away by Video Games, the Internet and all the other entertainment options that no one had 20 years ago.
For some reason, this just doesn't make sense to me and never has. If you are losing the younger viewers and retaining older viewers, why not make the ones you have happy - and loyal? Let's look at the demographics - These are my impressions and are generalities, I admit:
40-50 Year Olds: Born in the 60s, many have had computers since they came out. Many remember fondly 70s and 80s TV, they liked 80s music and they have seen tons of technology changes. Many had 8-tracks, most had Vinyl and Pong or at least knew about Pong. They waited in line at STAR WARS and had Commodore Computers. Many are on the internet and probably have Netflix or some other service.
50-60 Year Olds: Born in the 50's. Were in their teens during the hippy and Vietnam years. Likely remember fondly Westerns and other 60-early 70s fare. Had 8 Tracks and cars built in the 50's. They remember the cold war, nuclear proliferation and Flower Power. Probably have computers, may have gotten some help from the kids getting online but are online. May not got to the movies as much because the films aren't for them and probably rent DVDs instead. TV is OK but what the heck is up with 100 channels and nothing on?
60-70 Year Olds: Born in the 40's: There is nothing worth watching on TV. The media has changed so much and many of these people and the next generation older were raised with a much different set of sensibilities than later generations. TV is crude, loud and offensive and not something to watch with the family because there might be some nudity and no one wants to sit in a room with family and deal with that uncomfortable scene.
Anyway, rambling aside. When will the Broadcast and Cable folks understand that they need to embrace the older viewers. These are not people who grew up with horses and buggies and fought in the Big One. Now, as the population ages, these are people who smoked pot at Woodstock, played Pong, waited in line at Star Wars, burned their bras, opposed the Vietnam War, hid under their desks when the siren went off, etc. There's also more of them than ever before as the population ages and *gasp* some of them even buy things!
I recall a couple years back, there was a fun Western show with Tom Berenger that was part Gunsmoke and part CSI. It was dropped by its cable network because it appealed to the over 50 crowd. Now, look back above at who the over 50 crowd are... I bet these people are excellent consumers with some disposable income but for some reason, TV can't let go of the "Need to Attract the 18 year olds".
It's been a mainstream idea for years that teenagers put butts in the movie-plex. They take out dates, they have some money for entertainment, they tend to go back and see a movie multiple times, they can't drink and go to bars and are getting booted out of malls so they head to the movie-plex. Fair enough. But someone please tell me how that translates to TV?
Most of the people I know who watch TV, who really sit and watch TV, are all over 40. The younger people I know aren't the TV crowd. It seems so simple and yet, to quote ZOOLANDER, I "feel like I'm taking crazy pills". Most of those people watching TV have a show they like and then say, "Bah, there's nothing to watch" but they watch anyway because that's what they like and for some, that's what they are used to doing.
I want to helm a network that focuses on the over 40 crowd. I want to fill it with excellent scripted shows and maybe a little reality and prove that the TV audience has changed. I think the networks are too entrenched in archaic thinking to try something new! They'd rather chase the younger audience and then lament that all the numbers are down instead of sticking their necks out to change the paradigm.
There's the crux of the problem: "Sticking Their Neck Out Syndrome" in Hollywood. When people try new things and it doesn't take off in three episodes, the show is cut, people are fired, etc. It just ensures that the next executive who comes around won't stick their neck out. They'll cull ideas from books, older shows and films and from the success of other networks guaranteeing that if ABC has success with a show about "Psychics Who Use Their Powers to Thwart an Alien Invasion" that within a year, everyone will have a twist on it and will wonder why it doesn't do very well.
By the way, if you want that show ABC, drop me a line...
To put a long posting into some context. TV Execs, embrace your audience, don't try and make them something they aren't. If 40 somethings are watching your shows, be glad they are and find advertisers to match! Don't try and make them 18 again. Despite what the plastic surgeons say, that just isn't going to work...
Sunday, April 27, 2008
"Demolition Man" is coming true! Sort of...
IMDB tells me: "MTV Networks' TVLand cable channel may be the place to watch classic television shows, but the channel announced Thursday that it has now included on its website, www.TVLand.com, nearly a thousand old movie trailers produced from the '50s to the '90s..."
The next step is logical: Someone, somewhere will come up with the idea that we need a website for classic TV commercials, then we'll have a radio station dedicated to the jingles and then, whammo, "Be Well."
I'm just joking of course. In fact, I'm happy that there will be a place to view old trailers. I wish there was a place to view old TV shows that were cancelled ahead of their time and will never see a DVD set, like "Sword of Justice" and other campy fare. Why not... it makes me happy.
Enhance your calm, be well.
The next step is logical: Someone, somewhere will come up with the idea that we need a website for classic TV commercials, then we'll have a radio station dedicated to the jingles and then, whammo, "Be Well."
I'm just joking of course. In fact, I'm happy that there will be a place to view old trailers. I wish there was a place to view old TV shows that were cancelled ahead of their time and will never see a DVD set, like "Sword of Justice" and other campy fare. Why not... it makes me happy.
Enhance your calm, be well.
Saturday, April 5, 2008
Charlton Heston 1924 - 2008
Charlton Heston died tonight at his home in Beverly Hills.
I'd like to say something pithy or come up with a great "In Memorium" for this man who was always a straight shooter and a great legend in the business but I just don't have the words.
Tinseltown is a lot less sparkly tonight.
I'd like to say something pithy or come up with a great "In Memorium" for this man who was always a straight shooter and a great legend in the business but I just don't have the words.
Tinseltown is a lot less sparkly tonight.
Monday, March 17, 2008
Three Times The Charm...?
Today, VARIETY tells me...
"Peter Berg is attached to direct a bigscreen adaptation of Frank Herbert's classic sci-fi novel "Dune" for Paramount Pictures."
Dune was an epic, groundbreaking feature in 1984, then a sweeping mini series in 2000.
By the way, get the soundtrack to the 2000 Dune - Amazing.
Why on earth do we need another interpretation of "Dune"?
I will make a prediction before the film is even written.
People are tired of re-do's and this film, which will be hugely expensive, will bomb.
If Paramount is so hard up for original, ground breaking material, they should get in touch with me. I can connect them with fantastic new material.
"Peter Berg is attached to direct a bigscreen adaptation of Frank Herbert's classic sci-fi novel "Dune" for Paramount Pictures."
Dune was an epic, groundbreaking feature in 1984, then a sweeping mini series in 2000.
By the way, get the soundtrack to the 2000 Dune - Amazing.
Why on earth do we need another interpretation of "Dune"?
I will make a prediction before the film is even written.
People are tired of re-do's and this film, which will be hugely expensive, will bomb.
If Paramount is so hard up for original, ground breaking material, they should get in touch with me. I can connect them with fantastic new material.
Sunday, March 9, 2008
Patrick Swayze
None of my triple threat titles are "doctor" or "gossip columnist" so I'll keep this brief.
I'm sending prayers and well wishes to Patrick Swayze.
Not only does he have a challenging medical situation but the nasty gossip press are going nuts over it. I wish they had an ounce of class and the worst are T** and P**** who I will dignify with a searchable reference.
He is fantastic.
I just watched GHOST and TO WONG FOO THANKS FOR EVERYTHING JULIE NEWMAR. I don't know the man. I wish I did but I don't. I've never heard a contrary word about him but his talent is undeniable. Sit down, watch GHOST, watch TO WONG FOO. Fantastic.
And Miss Julie is statuesque.
Love and prayers for you Patrick.
I'm sending prayers and well wishes to Patrick Swayze.
Not only does he have a challenging medical situation but the nasty gossip press are going nuts over it. I wish they had an ounce of class and the worst are T** and P**** who I will dignify with a searchable reference.
He is fantastic.
I just watched GHOST and TO WONG FOO THANKS FOR EVERYTHING JULIE NEWMAR. I don't know the man. I wish I did but I don't. I've never heard a contrary word about him but his talent is undeniable. Sit down, watch GHOST, watch TO WONG FOO. Fantastic.
And Miss Julie is statuesque.
Love and prayers for you Patrick.
Friday, March 7, 2008
Remake, Re-Imagination, Regurgitate
Adaptions, Remakes, Re-Imaginations, Oh My!
I have my writer hat on now.
"No One Knows Anything", screenwriter William Goldman wrote and his words are never truer than now. As six major corporations absorb Hollywood, more and more, business-centric managers (who I loved to hate when I was in Software) are finding themselves in charge of creative decisions. These people have business degrees from places where the ivy grows freely but don't know sub-text from rising action.
When the pressure is on and viewers are running away, these execs and producers fall victim to what I call, "Burning Barn Syndrome". A horse will sometimes run back into a burning barn because it's scared and the barn is "safe" even though the action means certain death. This applies to TV and Film, different delivery methods but the net effect is the same.
In this case, the burning barn and the false safety it offers are previously established projects that supposedly have a built in audience. They are: Books, Comics, Old TV Shows and Older Popular Films. Look at BOURNE, HARRY POTTER, THE HOBBIT, BATTLESTAR GALACTICA, but for every GALACTICA, there's a STARSKY AND HUTCH or BIONIC WOMAN or KNIGHT RIDER where fans are left feeling empty, people are irritated and ratings are poor.
It's a vicious cycle. Viewers are bored, they look to new media, ratings go down, execs panic and retreat to their "Safe Place" (Remakes, Adaptions and Re-imaginations[R.A.R.]), viewers resist the same old stuff and run away. You can almost hear the stampede of execs running to their legal departments to find out who owns the rights for CHARLIE'S ANGELS (oh wait, they did that) or MAGNUM PI (oh wait, they're doing that) or B.J. and the BEAR (not done yet) every time a TV or Film project tanks but for every R.A.R that works, many, many more fail and, to be honest, piss off the viewers.
I've seen a growing lack of tolerance for R.A.R projects. Over and over, in blogs and discussion groups and fan sites there's the collective groaning when a R.A.R is announced. This happens for one of two reasons; either there's the impression that there's nothing new coming out or the fear that a beloved film or show from yesteryear will be butchered in the R.A.R process.
Around the Globe, screenwriters gnash their teeth. They have the new ideas but they can't crack the walnut of Hollywood. The business insulates itself and sadly, it should. I have read a lot of scripts this year and 95% of them were DOA. Everyone hates to read, who has the time? Agents have all they can do to keep their clients happy. The internet has allowed anyone and everyone to write a screenplay and sadly,many should not. Just because a person watches a lot of TV or Films does not a writer make. The creative talent pool is dirty and there's not enough chlorine to clear it up.
At the end of the day, it all falls on the execs and they know it, which is why they go the safe route to begin with. When the bottom line drives the industry, creative ambition is squashed. Granted, Indie film, long the bastion of true creativity where R.A.Rs rarely exist, forges ahead but its work pales in comparison to the volume and distribution of the studio / network system. Show Business is a business, there's no denying, but it's also an entertainment venue and an art form. There must be some way for the bottom line to co-exist with the creative without a battle to the death and without having to resort to the desperation of R.A.Rs.
Right?
I have my writer hat on now.
"No One Knows Anything", screenwriter William Goldman wrote and his words are never truer than now. As six major corporations absorb Hollywood, more and more, business-centric managers (who I loved to hate when I was in Software) are finding themselves in charge of creative decisions. These people have business degrees from places where the ivy grows freely but don't know sub-text from rising action.
When the pressure is on and viewers are running away, these execs and producers fall victim to what I call, "Burning Barn Syndrome". A horse will sometimes run back into a burning barn because it's scared and the barn is "safe" even though the action means certain death. This applies to TV and Film, different delivery methods but the net effect is the same.
In this case, the burning barn and the false safety it offers are previously established projects that supposedly have a built in audience. They are: Books, Comics, Old TV Shows and Older Popular Films. Look at BOURNE, HARRY POTTER, THE HOBBIT, BATTLESTAR GALACTICA, but for every GALACTICA, there's a STARSKY AND HUTCH or BIONIC WOMAN or KNIGHT RIDER where fans are left feeling empty, people are irritated and ratings are poor.
It's a vicious cycle. Viewers are bored, they look to new media, ratings go down, execs panic and retreat to their "Safe Place" (Remakes, Adaptions and Re-imaginations[R.A.R.]), viewers resist the same old stuff and run away. You can almost hear the stampede of execs running to their legal departments to find out who owns the rights for CHARLIE'S ANGELS (oh wait, they did that) or MAGNUM PI (oh wait, they're doing that) or B.J. and the BEAR (not done yet) every time a TV or Film project tanks but for every R.A.R that works, many, many more fail and, to be honest, piss off the viewers.
I've seen a growing lack of tolerance for R.A.R projects. Over and over, in blogs and discussion groups and fan sites there's the collective groaning when a R.A.R is announced. This happens for one of two reasons; either there's the impression that there's nothing new coming out or the fear that a beloved film or show from yesteryear will be butchered in the R.A.R process.
Around the Globe, screenwriters gnash their teeth. They have the new ideas but they can't crack the walnut of Hollywood. The business insulates itself and sadly, it should. I have read a lot of scripts this year and 95% of them were DOA. Everyone hates to read, who has the time? Agents have all they can do to keep their clients happy. The internet has allowed anyone and everyone to write a screenplay and sadly,many should not. Just because a person watches a lot of TV or Films does not a writer make. The creative talent pool is dirty and there's not enough chlorine to clear it up.
At the end of the day, it all falls on the execs and they know it, which is why they go the safe route to begin with. When the bottom line drives the industry, creative ambition is squashed. Granted, Indie film, long the bastion of true creativity where R.A.Rs rarely exist, forges ahead but its work pales in comparison to the volume and distribution of the studio / network system. Show Business is a business, there's no denying, but it's also an entertainment venue and an art form. There must be some way for the bottom line to co-exist with the creative without a battle to the death and without having to resort to the desperation of R.A.Rs.
Right?
Saturday, March 1, 2008
Where are the tough guys?
I thought it was interesting that "3:10 to Yuma" used Russell Crowe and Christian Bale to play iconic Western Characters. With Crowe from New Zealand / Australia and Bale from Wales, just how far afield do we have to go to find guys tough enough to play in Westerns, a genre which only 50 years ago was brimming with enough tough guy American actors to stretch from Mid-Wilshire to the Sea?
The metrosexualization of the hairier sex has left us in a predicament. Where are the tough guys?
Crowe and Bale - covered them.
Hugh Jackman - iconic US comic book Wolverine character? Doh, he's from Australia.
Sean Bean - If you don't know who he is, find out because he's fantastic - England, btw.
Clive Owen - England
Daniel Craig - England
Ok, in the US corner: Bruce Willis (Born in Germany but really from here), Brad Pitt and for the slick action stuff; Mark Wahlberg and Matt Damon. Viggo Mortensen and Nick Cage are pretty good but for "John Wayne sit on a horse and load your six shooter kind of tough", we're not doing too well.
I'm packaging a Western and have been thinking about this a lot lately. So tell me, who am I missing?
Who are the next generation tough guys? I'm fairly sure none of the above are under 30.
Is the 'tough-guy' going extinct?
The metrosexualization of the hairier sex has left us in a predicament. Where are the tough guys?
Crowe and Bale - covered them.
Hugh Jackman - iconic US comic book Wolverine character? Doh, he's from Australia.
Sean Bean - If you don't know who he is, find out because he's fantastic - England, btw.
Clive Owen - England
Daniel Craig - England
Ok, in the US corner: Bruce Willis (Born in Germany but really from here), Brad Pitt and for the slick action stuff; Mark Wahlberg and Matt Damon. Viggo Mortensen and Nick Cage are pretty good but for "John Wayne sit on a horse and load your six shooter kind of tough", we're not doing too well.
I'm packaging a Western and have been thinking about this a lot lately. So tell me, who am I missing?
Who are the next generation tough guys? I'm fairly sure none of the above are under 30.
Is the 'tough-guy' going extinct?
Monday, February 25, 2008
Let's Get Started
I do many things and have many hats. I'm a writer, producer and director interested in both film and television which gives me many, many things to have an opinion about.
You can find out more about my credits and background at IMDB and my website at http://www.jemartin.net/. This blog is for opinions and observations so lets get started.
I've recently signed on to do coverage and ratings for a very large screenplay competition. I have to admit, I'm floored by the quality of scripts that I'm reading. While the stories are clever and interesting, the presentation is miserable. I don't think that formatting is the most important aspect of a screenplay unlike many people I know who do coverage. It IS, however, important not to scare the reader away with formatting so far from standard that it reeks of an amateur screenwriter.
You don't have to buy a lot of books and please don't rely on published screenplays. You should not be submitting shooting scripts to contests, agents or prod cos. You can learn a great deal by using your search engine and by signing up for any one of the gazillion groups online. Ask questions when you don't know.
At some point, I'll put together an e-book of my observations being what is essentially a judge for a major contest. Of course I can't mention which one it is and please don't ask. Would something like that be useful?
You can find out more about my credits and background at IMDB and my website at http://www.jemartin.net/. This blog is for opinions and observations so lets get started.
I've recently signed on to do coverage and ratings for a very large screenplay competition. I have to admit, I'm floored by the quality of scripts that I'm reading. While the stories are clever and interesting, the presentation is miserable. I don't think that formatting is the most important aspect of a screenplay unlike many people I know who do coverage. It IS, however, important not to scare the reader away with formatting so far from standard that it reeks of an amateur screenwriter.
You don't have to buy a lot of books and please don't rely on published screenplays. You should not be submitting shooting scripts to contests, agents or prod cos. You can learn a great deal by using your search engine and by signing up for any one of the gazillion groups online. Ask questions when you don't know.
At some point, I'll put together an e-book of my observations being what is essentially a judge for a major contest. Of course I can't mention which one it is and please don't ask. Would something like that be useful?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)