Andrew J. Aulner's Blog
February 25, 2016
On Handling Criticism
Any good writer understands the need for figuratively thick skin. Our stories, poems, essays, and novel manuscripts are routinely hacked and slashed with the dreaded editor’s pen, and almost any famous author, from J. K. Rowling to Stephen King, had to experience dozens or even hundreds of rejections before hitting the big one.
I have tried to remember all of this throughout my relatively brief writing career. Enrolling in a Writer’s Workshop program (quick plug right here: http://www.unomaha.edu/college-of-com...) means writing weekly pieces that come under the scrutiny of a group of your equally skilled and talented classmates, as well as a professor who has spent more time studying his or her craft than you have spent living past puberty. It means exposing yourself to people who know or are at least learning to know what works in a piece of writing and what doesn’t. It means holding out your throat and hoping your fellows don’t tear into it too viciously.
I have indeed developed the requisite thick skin. The Bully Buster was rejected twice before WestBow took a look at it, and I have yet to submit any of the short stories I have written in the last two-odd years because I’m still improving the manuscripts based on classmate critiques. This week, however, I was thrown off my game. Going through the various copies of a blank verse poem I had written for my Fundamentals of Poetry class, I noted many of the attributes described during the workshop: “good framework,” “playful and witty,” “really relate to this one,” “loved this [verse],” “this part made me think,” even a “hell yes” to a Faust reference. A couple classmates even wrote out the scansion (the measure of a poem’s accentuation to determine the meter) and complimented me on how well I executed the iambic pentameter. The professor himself commented both in person and on the page that he could hear the iambs throughout; high praise indeed, and it made me glow on the inside.
But as I flipped the pages and noted the comments, one critique stuck out to me. Scrawled in black pen and unsigned, it said, “More Iambs & pentameters…seemed no desernable [sic] pattern.” In that moment when my eyes fell upon the words, it didn’t matter that the other fifteen or so people in the class, including the professor who has taught poetry for countless years, had specifically complimented my ability to keep to the meter. It didn’t matter that, on the whole, I had written a decent poem that made a lot of folks smile. All that mattered to me was this one arrow that cut through the others’ words and planted itself in my gut. I tried to focus on the compliments I had been paid, but my mind kept coming back to that absurd, poorly written criticism.
I almost wanted to take out my own black pen and write something along the lines of, “Maybe I’ll take your comment seriously when you learn how to spell” beneath the critique. Fortunately, I realized just how petty this was. Even more fortunately, I read this wonderful Art of Manliness article the very next day: “Never Complain; Never Explain” (http://www.artofmanliness.com/2016/02...). It urges readers to follow the eponymous maxim of the legendary British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli, who understood that his energies were better spent improving himself and actually accomplishing things rather than stooping down to answer senseless critics who would only them drag him down to their level.
Socrates said, more or less, that a truly wise man understands the limits of his knowledge. From this, we can infer that to listen to those who have different perspectives and levels of knowledge and experience is the height of wisdom. However, that doesn’t mean that every single criticism should be answered or even taken seriously. Whoever wrote those words on my poem, for instance, was incorrect; my poem, as noted by several others, did in fact follow iambic pentameter, though not perfectly all throughout–what can I say, even Shakespeare cheated the meter when he had to–and it used that pattern to convey its message. It makes no sense to give credence to a criticism that is blatantly wrong, and so I have finally convinced myself to ignore it.
The only reason I’ve gone back to the incident at all is that I hope that the writers out there who may read these words, or even the non-writers who still face a good deal of criticism in their professions, will take heart in knowing that even though we may stumble and feel personally affronted by criticism, as ill-founded and illogical as it may be, we can still brush ourselves off, remember Disraeli’s words, and carry on in the mission of improving ourselves and improving our craft.
November 16, 2015
“Spectre” Review
James Bond has been better. To be fair, he has also been much worse. While Spectre, the twenty-fourth entry in the long-running spy film franchise inspired by and based upon the bestselling novels and short stories of the late Ian Fleming, is far from the proverbial cream of the crop of Bond fare, it is not going to be the butt of everyone’s jokes, either.
In this latest adventure, Daniel Craig’s Bond, Agent 007 of Her Majesty’s Secret Service, sets out on a journey to fulfill an unofficial mission given to him by the previous head of the British Secret Intelligence Service, M (played in a video cameo role by Dame Judi Dench). In the film’s fantastic opening, an impressive tracking shot follows a disguised Bond throughout Mexico City during a colorful Day of the Dead parade complete with skeleton costumes, face paintings, and vintage suits and dresses (Bond himself sports a distinctive skeletal face mask and a spiffy black top hat).
After following a beautiful and inviting woman up to her hotel, Bond ditches the costume, promises not to keep his lady waiting long, and begins jumping rooftops dressed in a gray suit and armed with a pistol. Typical of Bond, however, this is no ordinary gun; it is outfitted with slick attachments that convert it into a carbine equipped with a laser sight and a laser microphone (yes, I looked it up, and those actually exist). Using his tools of the trade, Bond overhears his targets discussing an upcoming terrorist attack. One thing leads to another, and Bond must catch his main target, a white-suited assassin, in a spectacular combination foot chase/helicopter fight that meets the standard of action-packed opening Bond scenes.
The title credits and song, however, fall quite short of the bar established in the previous Craig films Casino Royale and Skyfall. If Sam Smith’s nasally-performed “The Writing’s On the Wall” had either the same intensity that Chris Cornell’s “You Know My Name” gave to Casino Royale or the emotional poignancy that Adele’s “Skyfall” lent to the film of the same name, I might have given it a pass. Instead, it is cringe-worthy in performance and overall forgettable, especially when sung over the fascinatingly bizarre title designs featuring, amongst other things, an octopus that seems obviously out of place in a Bond movie.
Once the main bulk of the film begins, Bond is suspended from active duty by the new M (Ralph Fiennes in an admittedly tired performance; hopefully, he will bring some of his usual intensity into the role as time goes on), forcing him to receive some unofficial help from gadget-master Q (Ben Whishaw in an expanded step up from his whiz-kid role in Skyfall) and M’s assistant/former field agent Eve Moneypenny (Naomie Harris).
Bond travels to exotic locations like Rome, Austria, and Morocco in his hunt for the terrorist organization Spectre, relying upon the help of those whose loved ones were involved with the group, such as the widowed Lucia Sciarra (Monica Bellucci, who has disappointingly little screen time considering her prominence in the film’s promotional material) and Dr. Madeleine Swann (Léa Seydoux, who mostly subverts the typical “Bond girl” archetype through her character’s forceful personality and grim humor in the face of a dark past, making her as interesting as Camille Montes of Quantum of Solace and nearly as notable as Vesper Lynd of Casino Royale).
During his journey, Bond moves through a series of car chases, fist fights, shootouts, and all the other trappings of a Bond film, including a train car fight (think From Russia with Love) against an implacable henchman akin to Oddjob or Jaws named Mr. Hinx (played by Dave Bautista, whose performance convinced this reviewer that if any thug could kill 007, this powerful yet quick, mostly mute assassin was the man). This battle is one of my favorite moments in the film due to its sheer intensity and skilled choreography.
Eventually, Bond comes face to face with the leader of Spectre, played by Christoph Waltz. If there is one criticism about Spectre that rises in my mind above the rest, it’s the underdeveloped nature of Waltz’s character (I’m leaving him nameless to avoid spoilers). While he is interestingly charismatic whenever he is on screen, as any Bond villain should be, Waltz’s character isn’t in enough of the film for us to form a genuine connection with or interest in him or his actions. Whereas I could feel some measure of sympathy for Raoul Silva in Skyfall despite his obviously evil actions, I never made a connection with Waltz’s character. This says more about a lack of development from the writers than it does about Waltz, who uses his two-time-Oscar-winning skill to charm his way to the top in almost every one of his scenes.
Overall, Spectre is entertaining and features several impressive, Bond-worthy stunts and sequences, as well as some interesting moments that fit in well with the other Craig films—there is a conversation scene (specifically, between Bond and Swann in a train car about a gun) that rings as true in this blockbuster as it would in a drama film—even if it lacks the emotional substance of the previous three Bond films. It certainly isn’t the worst Bond fare that has ever been put onto the table, even if it’s not quite top-notch like director Sam Mendes’ previous Bond flick Skyfall, either.
October 31, 2015
Notes from the O! Comic-Con (Part 3)
This is the final set of notes from the panels I attended at the O! Comic-Con last May. The final panel I attended, which was held on the third day of the Con (May 31), was titled “Establishing Era in Comics” and featured Cullen Bunn (Deadpool Kills the Marvel Universe, Spider-Man: Season One, The Sixth Gun; also featured in the first part of this notes series), Ande Parks (inker and writer best known for his collaboration with Phil Hester on the Green Arrow comic series, as well as for his writing on the Lone Ranger comics; he has also written the original graphic novels Union Station and Capote in Kansas), and B. Clay Moore (writer of the mini-series Hawaiian Dick and Battle Hymn).
Drawing upon their experiences in writing stories set in time periods and locations such as the Old West (Cullen Bunn’s The Sixth Gun), the American Midwest in the 1960s (Parks’ Capote in Kansas), and the Aloha State in the 1950s (Moore’s supernatural mystery noir Hawaiian Dick), these three writers shared their advice on how to write comic books in the historical fiction genre.
Remember that historical characters are people too; they may have different values and viewpoints, but they also have feelings and dreams like modern-day people do.
As long as you do your research for the majority of the era your story takes place in, the audience will forgive you for the occasional anachronism so long as it’s believable (i.e. not far-fetched). However, don’t let your research show, and be careful not to let your research dictate your plot. The story and the characters rather than the minute historical details are the stars.
Determine the theme and thrust of the story before diving into your research. Let historical facts and events fuel the fire of your story.
Don’t be afraid to pass on photos to your artist(s) if a particular historical image strikes you as important or helpful for establishing the era.
If you question the authenticity of what you’re writing, put forth the effort to research your point before you insert it into the final product.
Finally, a quote from Ande Parks that encapsulates the lessons: “You can’t just plug historical facts into a calculator and spit out a reasonable narrative.” Remember, no matter when your story takes place, your primary job as a writer is to tell an engaging story.
October 26, 2015
Notes from the O! Comic-Con (Part 2)
Two months to the day later, he bursts back onto the scene! I haven’t done much of anything writing-related that I felt was blog-worthy until I remembered that I still have two more sets of notes from my Comic-Con experience this last May!
This second session, which took place on the second day of the Con (May 30), featured comic book writer Brian Winkeler, who contributed material to Popgun, self-described as a “graphic mixtape” featuring work by contemporary comics creators, and wrote the graphic novel Knuckleheads: First Contact. As you can probably gather from the name of his book, Winkeler’s writing has a comedic bent, which he shared in “Humor in Comics” at the Con.
Here are some key points that Winkeler discussed (paraphrased rather than verbatim, because I can’t take notes as fast as most people can talk):
In comedy writing, the situations are just as important as the characters.
However, characters are more important than the jokes. A writer needs to understand the characters before they can be used to tell a story.
Be willing to create characters that stretch you out of your comfort zone (e.g. a middle-aged white man writing about an eighteen-year-old black female pop star).
These points resounded with me. Any reader of Stephen King knows his horror fiction is just as much about situations (vampires invading Maine or a rabid St. Bernard trapping a mother and child inside a broken-down Pinto) as it is about characters, but the characters are more important than the scares because we, the readers, won’t care what horrible things might happen if we don’t dig the characters. The same principle applies in comedy.
I know this post is a bit light, but don’t worry; I’ll have another, fuller post up later in the week (fingers crossed for Thursday, schoolwork permitting). Thanks for reading.
August 26, 2015
“Terminator: Genisys” Review
Sigh. Terminator Genisys. I love the first two Terminator films; who doesn’t? I really wanted to like this latest installment, which decides to play fast and loose with the series’ rules of time travel in order to create a so-so plot. Admittedly, writers Laeta Kalogridis and Patrick Lussier had their work cut out for them, thanks to the somewhat difficult time travel narrative that the series has presented. Still, the resulting film, directed by Alan Taylor, falters even though it brings Arnold Schwarzenegger back into the spotlight in his most famous role.
I won’t go into too much detail about the backstory. If you aren’t familiar with it, go watch the first two films on Netflix or rent them at the video store (and yes, those still exist). Basically, future Earth is plagued by war after Skynet, a deadly artificial intelligence, wipes out most of the human population through nuclear weapons and then wages warfare against the rest of mankind with nearly unbeatable killer robots called “Terminators.” Just as the forces of humanity, led by John Connor (Jason Clarke), defeat the machines, Skynet sends a Terminator back in time to kill John’s mother, Sarah Connor (Emilia Clarke), before she can give birth to him. John sends his friend and confidante, Sergeant Kyle Reese (Jai Courtney), back in time to 1984 in order to save Sarah.
However, in Genisys, the past that Kyle arrives in has changed. Sarah is protected by a reprogrammed Terminator that she nicknamed “Pops” (good ol’ Arnie back in action). The three must work together to find out how the timeline changed and, ultimately, discover the secret to saving the human race.
I left the theater thinking that Genisys was just okay. The action was cool, the effects were decent, the performances were enjoyable (it’s really good to see Arnie doing his thing again after his stint as “the Governator” of California), and I had seen worse plots. But then I realized something: Terminator: Genisys is bad because it’s average. If it were just another random blockbuster, I might pass it off as mediocre. But I can’t forgive mediocrity when one of my favorite series is on the line. The more I thought about it, the more I realized that this film contains some glaring plot holes, uninspired dialogue, and action scenes I could’ve seen in a movie that at least didn’t screw up a landmark series.
In short, the mediocrity of Terminator: Genisys rings out its death knell. I can only hope that the planned sequels, if they do indeed come to pass, will try harder to stand out like the classic movies did.
“Jurassic World” Review
Jurassic World is the fourth installment of the film franchise that began with Steven Spielberg’s classic sci-fi adventure film, Jurassic Park (inspired by Michael Crichton’s bestselling novel of the same name), way back in 1993. Directed by Colin Trevorrow and written by Trevorrow, Derek Conolly, and the husband-and-wife team Rick Jaffa and Amanda Silver (co-writers of the two latest Planet of the Apes films), with Spielberg on board as the executive producer, Jurassic World finally shows us how awesome that dinosaur theme park John Hammond tried to build two decades ago could actually be.
Two kids, Zach and Gray (played by Nick Robinson and Ty Simpkins, respectively), attend the park while their parents are going through divorce hearings. The brothers’ aunt, Claire Dearing (played by Bryce Dallas Howard), is the park’s operations manager, ensuring that the dinosaurs keep getting bigger and badder, thereby bringing in more customers. Unfortunately, the latest genetic hybrid, the Indominus Rex, escapes from containment, nearly killing Velociraptor trainer Owen Grady (played by Chris Pratt, who seems to be carving out a niche as a comedic action hero in the vein of Indiana Jones, and yes, I’ve heard the rumors). Owen teams up with Claire to find Zach and Gray and save the park’s patrons from being eaten by killer dinosaurs.
Obviously, the plot isn’t all that complex; much more focus is put upon the effects, which are hardly groundbreaking but still manage to be impressive. There are a few side characters, such as Vincent D’Onofrio’s performance as greedy security chief Vic Hoskins, who, surprise surprise, wants to exploit the dinosaurs for his own gain (this has certainly never been done before in a Jurassic Park movie, right?), but they’re mostly serve as raptor fodder rather than interesting characters. However, the four leads do have good chemistry, even if the inevitable romantic subplot between Owen and Claire is too brief and the story of the kids’ parents’ divorce just kind of fades into the background.
However, the story and characters are more interesting than The Lost World: Jurassic Park, and things make more sense in the film than in Jurassic Park III, so despite its flaws, Jurassic World is the best sequel in the franchise.
July 5, 2015
“Inside Out” Review
Thanks to an Aulner family reunion last week, my immediate family and some relatives from out of town were fortunate enough to go see Pixar’s latest production, Inside Out. To cut to the chase, I’ll open by saying that Inside Out is the first movie since 2010′s heartwarming Toy Story 3 that actually felt like a Pixar film. Don’t get me wrong, Cars 2 isn’t a bad movie, per se, nor are Brave or Monsters University. Unfortunately, these films all lacked the sheer exuberance and creativity that has distinguished virtually every previous Pixar Studios endeavor from its competitors.
At last, the greatest studio in computer-generated animated films has returned to its position as king of the proverbial hill. The studio that made you cry for a band of toys, root for a clownfish searching for his lost son, and laugh at the exploits of a superheroic family struggling to adapt to suburbia has ditched the heavy-handed storytelling of the Cars films and the mediocrity of Brave and Monsters University (mediocre at least in comparison to their Pixar predecessors) to bring us Inside Out, a delightfully zany, visually splendid, and emotionally complex film that, like the best Pixar films, can be enjoyed by both children and adults.
Inside Out follows five emotions that includes Joy (Parks and Recreation‘s Amy Poehler), Sadness (The Office‘s Phyllis Smith), Fear (SNL’s Bill Hader), Anger (stand-up comedian Lewis Black), and Disgust (another Office actress, Mindy Kaling), who all work together to manage the mind of Riley Anderson, a preteen girl from Wisconsin. As Riley goes through life, she has different memories, which are stored as orbs with the color of whichever emotion the memory is tinged with (golden for Joy, blue for Sadness, and so on); thanks to her happy-go-lucky childhood, friendships, healthy family life, and hockey aspirations—those Wisconsinites, you know–, Riley’s emotions are predominantly postive, making Joy the de facto leader of the emotions within Riley’s mind.
Unfortunately, due to their natural differences, Joy and Sadness don’t work well together. Joy doesn’t understand where Sadness fits into Riley’s normally happy personality, and Sadness consequently feels left out. After Riley and her parents move to San Francisco, the young girl experiences a difficult first day at school and creates a “core memory” (i.e. a memory that forms a new aspect of her personality); however, this is the first sad core memory Riley’s mind has ever created, so Joy tries to stop from being stored. The ensuing chaos strands both Joy and Sadness outside of the emotions’ headquarters. The rest of the film follows the efforts of the two main emotions to return to the HQ of Riley’s mind before her personality erodes completely.
While this may sound like a big lecture in psychology and (thanks to Riley’s young age) pediatrics, it’s actually very easy to follow along thanks to the film’s explanatory visuals and well-written script, which make the story’s key concepts easy to comprehend for anyone, even if they’ve never heard of Sigmund Freud or Benjamin Spock.
As for the cast, I have nothing but praise for them, especially Amy Poehler’s delightful performance as the effervescent Joy and Phyllis Smith’s portrayal of Sadness’s inherently melancholy nature. Of course, Pixar regular John Ratzenberger makes his obligatory cameo, this time as a “mind worker” named Fritz, and Spin City‘s Richard Kind has an important role later in the film as the lovably goofy Bing-Bong, Riley’s imaginary friend from childhood.
Thanks to the strength of its plot and characters, its humorous dialogue, and its wondrous imagery, which put many mental concepts into interesting visual forms, Inside Out is the latest and greatest Pixar film, a movie that hopefully signals a return to the shining pinnacle of cinema that Pixar stood at a mere five summers ago. And I’m no Oscar expert, but I’m calling it six months in advance: Inside Out will win the Academy Award for Best Animated Feature.
June 22, 2015
Notes from the O! Comic-Con (Part 1)
The Mid-America Center in Council Bluffs, Iowa, hosted the inaugural O! Comic-Con(vention) for the Omaha/Council Bluffs area from May 29-31. I attended all three days, dressed in an Original Series-era Captain Kirk costume. I attended several panels and met different people during this exciting three-day period and will write several posts about my experiences.
This first post includes the notes I took during a Q&A panel with writers Cullen Bunn (Deadpool Kills the Marvel Universe, Spider-Man: Season One, The Sixth Gun), Jai Nitz (The Green Hornet, Dream Thief, The Amazing Spider-Man), and Christopher Sebela (High Crimes, Dead Letters).
The Mid-America Center in Council Bluffs, Iowa, hosted the inaugural O! Comic-Con(vention) for the Omaha/Council Bluffs area from May 29-31. I attended all three days, dressed in an Original Series-era Captain Kirk costume. I attended several panels and met different people during this exciting three-day period and will write several posts about my experiences.
This first post includes the notes I took during a Q&A panel with writers Cullen Bunn (Deadpool Kills the Marvel Universe, Spider-Man: Season One, The Sixth Gun), Jai Nitz (The Green Hornet, Dream Thief, The Amazing Spider-Man), and Christopher Sebela (High Crimes, Dead Letters).
The panel started off with prepared questions prompted by the moderator (note: responses are arranged in the order they were answered at the panel):
Where did your interest in comic book writing come from?
o Cullen Bunn was inspired by both his father, a natural-born storyteller, and the comic books that Cullen grew up loving.
o Christopher Sebela struggled with finishing epic-length prose stories but has always thrived on the more episodic nature of comic book writing.
o Jai Nitz’s father was, like Cullen’s, a natural-born storyteller. Jai was also influenced by his older brother, who read comic books as a kid. Wanting to emulate his older sibling, Jai started reading comics, then began collecting them, and finally decided to write his own comic book stories for a living.
What was your first published piece of work?
o Jai started out by self-publishing a comic book anthology called Novavolo, which he considers the worst title for a comic book ever.
o Christopher’s first comic was published through Image Comics (he didn’t mention the name of the piece in question).
o Cullen’s first comic was a book he drew and wrote in fifth grade called X-Lazer Knights (because “laser” looks cooler when it’s spelled “lazer,” Cullen joked) and was a hit with his classmates. He followed this up with Captain Cosmos, a comic that he and a friend co-created in sixth grade and promoted by taking it to hotel-room conventions. His first professional comic was The Damned.
What have you learned since the start of your career?
o Cullen studied the scripts of fellow writer Greg Rucka and compared them to the latter’s finished comics, which taught him more about the creative process as a whole. He received a bachelor’s degree in Creative Writing, which has helped him examine the differences between comic book and prose writing.
o Jai explained that due to the lack of the World Wide Web at the start of his career, it required a lot of effort to obtain comic book scripts to study. He said that an important thing he has learned is that “when you write a comic book script, you’re really writing for just three people: yourself, your artist, and your editor.”
o Christopher said he just makes it up as he goes along. He’s always learning how to write scripts and views writing s being willing to write a terrible first draft and following it up with increasingly better drafts until it’s ready to be shown to another human being.
How much do you tailor your scripts to your artists?
o Jai didn’t know who he was going to work with at the start of his run on The Green Hornet. They did fifteen issues together and understood each other’s method by the tenth issue.
o Christopher said that if you know your artist, you can use a form of shorthand. If you’re working with an artist who speaks English as a second language, you have to avoid using idioms that could cause confusion.
o Cullen thinks that there is no “right style” and writes the same full, detailed scripts for his longtime Sixth Gun partner as he does for a first-time collaborator.
Do you think that comic book creators should use the “Marvel Method” (i.e. the form of comic book creation in which Stan Lee wrote a general plot outline and dialogue and gave it to Jack Kirby, who interpreted it when putting the story onto the page) nowadays?
o Jai thinks that the “Marvel Method” only works if you have someone as talented as Jack Kirby. Otherwise, it’s antiquated and obsolete.
How much do you think about the other individuals involved in the creative process, such as the editor, the letterer, and the colorist?
o Christopher said, “I never think of my editor” and also prefers to give the visual artists—the penciler, the colorist, etc.—creative freedom.
o Cullen tries to be considerate of his other collaborators but rarely caters to them. He acknowledged that certain editors are easier to work with, while others are more adversarial.
o Jai is colorblind and leaves concerns involving color to other individuals. He used to letter his own work but hasn’t for a while, saying that “[lettering is] easy to learn but hard to master.” Jai admits that editors are valuable for their ability to help a writer maintain consistency and accuracy, but he doesn’t care too much about editorial opinions of his stories and characters.
What advice do you have for other writers here today?
o Christopher said, “Keep writing until it stops sucking,” recommending that new writers start with shorter pieces (roughly eight-to-ten pages) and build up a portfolio.
o Jai said that writers have to prove to editors and publishers that they’re serious about the craft and that they are valuable as storytellers.
o Cullen said, “If you want to do comics, there is nothing standing in your way.” The hardest challenge of writing, which requires both talent and work ethic, is to find an artist.
At this point, the floor opened for questions from the audience.
I got to ask the first question: “Is there any one comic book that really stands out as an inspiration for you?”
o Jai: Eightball #22 by Daniel Clowes (author of Ghost World); Mephisto and the Empty Box by Jason Hall and Matt Kindt
o Cullen: Micronauts #7, the tie-in comic book that made him fall in love with comics
o Christopher: The two-part issue of G.I. Joe that featured Snake Eyes and Storm Shadow; Grant Morrison’s run on Doom Patrol; Charles Burns’ Black Hole
Next, “How long does the conception process take?”
o Christopher said that it can range from days to years.
o Cullen said that some ideas take years to come to fruition, and some ideas never pan out. A comic book requires more outlining and preparation than a prose work because the pacing of comics is unique. The outline can change even throughout the scripting process.
o Jai said that he incorporates pictures into Microsoft Word files on his outlines to provide visual references.
Finally, “How do powers (i.e. the abilities of certain characters) affect the characters in your story?”
o Christopher: “Powers are just the icing on the cake.”
o Cullen: “Readers will forgive you for many problems in your script [e.g. inconsistent limits to a character’s abilities] if you can hook them on an emotional level.”
o Jai: “Powers inform the story, but first readers have to care about the characters.”
May 11, 2015
Movie Review: “Avengers: Age of Ultron”
With bigger locales, a larger cast of characters, and a higher budget than any Marvel Studios film to date, Avengers: Age of Ultron expands upon the both the epic scope and the intriguing characters showcased in the first film. I have been a huge comic book fan for over half a decade, and the film adaptations of the stories that I love have rarely disappointed me. Age of Ultron is no exception. Written and directed by Joss Whedon and produced by Kevin Fiege, the mastermind behind the Marvel Cinematic Universe (aka “the MCU”), Age of Ultron references events from Iron Man 3, Thor: The Dark World, Captain America: The Winter Soldier, and, of course, its predecessor, 2012′s The Avengers, acknowledging that the events of those films helped shape the story of this one without ever making Age of Ultron dependent upon Marvel’s previous offerings.
The film opens with the re-assembled Avengers, led by Captain America and Iron Man, attacking a HYDRA (read: Nazi science supervillain group) base commanded by Baron Wolfgang von Strucker (no, there won’t be a quiz at the end), whose appearance in this film is unfortunately limited–in the comics, he’s a major villain, but here…not so much. The Avengers succeed in capturing the HYDRA fortress and retrieving the magic scepter that Loki, the villain of the first film and brother of the Avenger’s Asgardian member, Thor, used in his bid for world domination. Iron Man and Dr. Bruce Banner (the Hulk when he isn’t hulked out) try to use the scepter to kickstart an AI program that would allow the Avengers to protect the entire world through a global robotic peacekeeping force. Unfortunately, the AI, Ultron, believes that the only way to grant the world peace is to bring about the Avengers’ extinction. Battles, chases, escapes, and rescues ensue, gripping the audience for two-and-a-half glorious hours.
Obviously, I’m very immersed in the world of the MCU, which I believe is the greatest expression of the larger-than-life feel of comic books that Hollywood has ever produced. Age of Ultron is another diamond in that crown of cinematic glory, giving the audience fresh insight into the motivations, doubts, and decisions of its amazing characters; even Ultron, the insane “murderbot” (as Banner describes him), manages to be both terrifying and heartwrenching, and the film ends in a fashion that makes the audience anticipate future MCU movies (there’s exactly one teaser scene after the film’s end; if you’re a Marvel junkie, you don’t want to miss it!).
To be fair, Age of Ultron isn’t a perfect movie. Because of the larger cast of characters, the movie occasionally feels crowded, and the constant action with relatively few scenes of quiet drama in between may be a turn-off to more contemplative viewers, although the quiet drama scenes that do make their way into the film are still essential to the film’s success. Perhaps the greatest strike against the movie is the inescapable fact that, unlike The Avengers, Age of Ultron isn’t the first of its kind. The Avengers was a daring move by Marvel to bring together some of its greatest heroes together in an unprecedented crossover movie that was expected not only to hold its own as a film, but also to serve as a centerpiece for the entire MCU and its various franchises. It was a phenomenal risk that paid off to the tune of over a billion dollars and outstanding critical praise, allowing The Avengers to be ranked as perhaps one of the greatest films not only of the 21st century, but of all time; it’s unlikely that any successive film, no matter how well-executed, can ever quite match that first exciting cinematic innovation.
Overall, I’d say that Age of Ultron is just as entertaining as the first Avengers film, even if it’s not quite as groundbreaking, and it will serve to spur the MCU on for years to come.
April 2, 2015
Writing Consistently
Let’s start this post with a bit of irony. Here I am, planning to write about writing consistently when this blog has been anything but. My posts were irregular in the first few months, but even when I announced my plan to commit to one post a week, I still had trouble putting out content. I suppose it’s because blogging doesn’t come naturally to me (the fact that life has a nasty habit of creeping into my schedule, such as when I had my wisdom teeth removed last week, doesn’t help matters any). However, even though I fail, I still continue to strive for consistency.
While the habits of writers are as diverse as the writers themselves, one thing that sticks out is consistency. The most successful writers plan when they are going to write, how much writing they mean to accomplish during that time, and set about doing it.
Anthony Trollope, considered one of the greatest of all Victorian English writers, dedicated himself to three hours of writing in the morning every day, setting his watch on the table beside him to keep track of the time. If he finished the manuscript for a novel before his writing time was up, he would set it aside and immediately begin working on the next book. Even if he was in the middle of a sentence when his writing time ended, Trollope would set down his pen and go to his day job as a postal worker, not returning to the pen and paper until his designated time came the next day. Through such a solid work ethic, Trollope wrote over fifty novels and non-fiction books, including his autobiography, in addition to several short stories, literary criticisms, and other works of short length.
Stephen King is another excellent example of a writer with a consistent schedule. King churns out New York Times bestsellers that you could use as a doorstop, a handy weapon against a home invader, or as a read that could require weeks of commitment–what I’m saying is, his books are looonnnggg. His longest non-Dark Towernovel, The Stand, comes in at 1,153 pages, according to a 2009 TIME feature (check the bottom of the post for the original article). How does the Master of Horror maintain such a prolific career? It’s simple; as he explains in his wonderful memoir, On Writing, King begins writing in the morning and will continue through the day until he has written at least 2,000 words. He sticks to this regimen every day of the week, allowing him to produce a first draft of 180,000 words or more in about three months. Don’t worry about the frightening length; another of King’s writing rules is to remove at least ten percent of the words from a first draft in order to produce a more concise, albeit still epic-length, novel.
Even though I may not have quite the same habits as these two authors, I can still write consistently. Every day, I should do something to improve my writing and produce something worthwhile, or at least something that has the potential to be worthwhile. I’ve been experimenting with writing at various times of the day to find out when works best for me–the jury’s still out, unfortunately–but once I find out what works for me, I’ll do my best to throw myself into it and start consistently producing manuscripts, short stories, and scripts like nobody’s business.
TIME Magazine Article Referenced Above: http://entertainment.time.com/2009/11...