HAVE SOME HANS

Exploring vs. Straying

2012-02-02T02:57:00.000-08:00

It's always exciting trying something new. You get to feel out just how much you can and can't do. That process is exciting to the brain for any person interested in exploring. And exploring is one of the main reasons why we tell stories. The question is, what are we exploring in what we do? How far can you explore before you start straying from the path?

I watched Tin Tin a few weeks ago. It was something I've been wanting to see for a long time. I really look up to a lot of what Spielberg has put out over the years. Indiana Jones is one of my favorite trilogies. That's right, trilogy. I had heard Spielberg wanted to make Tin Tin into a feature a while ago, probably back in 2005 or 2004. This excited me. I had read some of the books when I was a kid and felt it was very much up the alley of his Indiana Jones movies. Then when I heard about the motion capture approach he was gonna give it, I had my worries, but was overall interested to see what someone like him would bring to the table in that medium.

I'll say right now. I didn't dislike the movie. There was a lot in there that was pretty interesting. One thing I will give my upmost respect to is the visual stylization of the characters. When I first saw the screenshots and posters of the movie I was a bit worried it'd become one of those awkward uncanny valley recent Robert Zemeckis movies. Where they are just in an awkward middle ground of looking real and not. But to my surprise I thought it was well executed. It wasn't distorted to the point of being distracting, but it had enough stylization to leave a very fresh and unique perspective on that universe. Props to that. It seriously worked very well.

So over all, I think this movie was decent. I had a few iffy feelings about some of the narrative pacing and stuff, but I'd like to use this movie as a different example. I think that due to the very unique circumstances, Spielberg trying out a new and very flexible medium, some interesting results came up... From this point on, to understand my points best, you'd have to had watched Tin Tin to understand what I mean...

In Tin Tin, there is a scene in the middle of the movie where he and his pal Captain Haddock are trying to catch 3 important strips of paper before their rivals as they flutter down a middle eastern city while it's being flooded by a broken dam spilling water everywhere. Already by my description, this sound like a VERY complicated scene. This isn't my problem with it though. I think with a clever enough eye for scene direction, you can get anyone into any scene happening really. But the problem with this was. On top of this complex scene, the whole sequence was portrayed in ONE SINGLE SHOT. It was literally the camera following the strips of paper as everyone tried to grab them for what seemed like 5 minutes (maybe more).

You hear that? one single shot that kept moving and recomposing itself to specific situations happening. Now this sounds like a cool concept to anyone interested in the technical aspects of film (Spielberg). It's like a fun challenge. My thoughts are this:

The elaborate camera rig for an awesome scene in "Children of Men"

Speilberg was introduced to this new medium where gravity didn't effect his choices in creating motion in camera. He saw this as an opportunity to be able to tackle something he maybe wanted to see some day. An incredibly elaborate action scene shot in one take. Again, this sound exciting... for film tech geeks. But wha does that do to your story? your scene? your characters? everything else? This is where I get to my point. How far should you explore before it turns into straying. In other words, until you loose your audience.

I remember watching this scene and being mesmerized by the idea of it. I was genuinely surprised with the intricacy. But that wore thin very quickly. This is because the focus was set on the flying paper strips, as every character sort of whizzed passed the screen trying to get it (essentially). Because of the nature of that approach to illustrating a sequence, you aren't allowed to put the focus you need on the emotional aspect of the characters in those situations. (in other words, compress time) so you end up developing a detached perspective and end up resort to the visual pleasures of the sequence.

Psychologically, durring intense moments, your brain's processing powers fluctuate. I remember being in a pretty intense fight with somebody and time seemed to slow down and speed up depending on what was going on. I think this is a basic element in the idea behind "compressing time" when editing a movie. There's a reason why we hold on moments and rush others when editing scenes, because it's like you're trying to get the viewer on the character's mental wave length, seeing what the character is putting attention to and fear to and so on. Get the audience to feel what they're feeling so that they are immersed into the situation with the character. On the contrary, the flashback pirate battle sequence worked with all those single shot sequences because there was no tension in that moment you were being retold a story about a bad ass captain. So resorting to spectacle there completely supports the story.

But choosing to make such a complex moment in one shot for so long made me eventually become very detached from the events. There was too much to digest in real time. Like a conveyor belt going at a steady pace into my eyes. In the end the visual excitement was all I resorted to, but that wore off quick because I wasn't invested in what anyone was going through and it turned into like... being in a circus and watching acrobats do little tricks in the distance. Like little specs. Maybe invested in shock value, but not in emotion. Perhaps resorting to that isn't smart in a CGI movie, or any movie altogether cause there's always the thrill of danger with acrobats that they are really putting themselves through actual danger. Unlike movies.

Essentially, I feel Spielberg explored this CGI medium in a very destructive way. He let his desire of having a scene like that happen without understanding the context of the impression it might leave on the audience. He resorted to spectacle rather than emotion. In this case, crippling the investment of the audience. This is something any creative person should be aware of. It's important to remember that we can be our biggest weakness. It's easy to do what you think might be cool and forget what will make the over all scene work. This relates to the end of my previous post about purity in a creative project.

Tin tin is just one of them, but creative people exploring mediums too far and effecting the movies negatively appears all over the place. Wachowsky Brother's Matrix 2 and 3 has a lot of that, moments that are visually overblown that dont fit the context of the situation emotionally or by intensity. George Lucas' new star wars movies, I mean... the lit goes on. The point is, when making something, don't be tempted by the conceptual possibilites.

Always ground your basic decisions with the story and characters, not spectacle!

What Happened To Ace Pilot?

2011-12-31T09:39:00.000-08:00

It has been a very long time since I made a blog post. I'll say right now that the month of December has been an incredibly intense one. Good and bad, but more importantly. Intense.

A section of a live-action movie style rendition of Ace Pilot poster made by RJ Palmer

Finishing Ace [Ace Pilot], that beast of a project, was a big deal. My end heavily involved directing the cutscenes of the game, and coordinating the team of four in the final stage of that process. We have Brian Sadler as the composer of the soundtrack who lives in Japan. JP Neufeld, the sound designer who is based in Montreal Canada. Nathanial Milburn, in charge of the after effects based in Atlanta, GA. Atlanta also including Justin Pruitt (co director) and Josh Sole (programmer). Thankfully Carlos Ubillus, making the CGI ships and cutscene background art, was my room mate in San Francisco.

Point is, I had to live in like 3 time zones at once, basically stay awake for an entire week of crunch time on the project. I had to do all of this before my family trip to Spain, because I wouldn't have access to the computer with flash and such until I returned January 7th. Also, we were initially planning on releasing before the year 2011 ended. But after showing Tom Fulp the game and discussing stuff, we figured it'd be more practical to release it early Feb. Being that he sponsored some awesome games coming out December, and January.

In the end I think it's much better off releasing the game later. On top of the reasons just explained, we have more time to test and honestly we've been getting great feedback and are making the game better and better!

Technical notes aside. I'm gonna go on a personal tangent here. Well, not really tangent, this is something I've love to talk about in this post.

Ace in his true cartoony form

Basically, Ace was a very ambitious idea from the get-go. We placed the bar pretty high for ourselves and it was a tough experience. I learned a lot of things. The first is just that. I learned to realize how important it is to learn. Not only do you get something good out of hard times by learning, but in order to learn, you need to keep an open mind and a decent attitude. I am immensely happy and relieved at how this project turned out. I have indeed experienced working on a dream project of mine and boy was it exciting. But what I am most satisfied with is how we have grown and improved as a team.

One thing I learned a lot about is communication. Me and Justin Pruitt (the co-director and writer of Ace Pilot) are very different people when it comes to communication style, but we share very similar appreciations. This was awesome in the writing process, our strength was how our differences complimented each other to provide a very well-rounded mindset creatively. However that was also our struggle throughout the productive process at first.

Like any process, there were difficulties. Many of them I might add. One of the major ones was communication. I will admit now that I can be a very intense person. Intense is putting it lightly. This causes stress and stress equals 'not thinking clearly'. And all that snowballs into bigger problems. It's just inefficient and stupid. Something that's essential is confronting issues. My over communication is just as inefficient as a lack of communication. And in working in a project, especially one like this one where we are spread out all over the world.

Every step we take in the project took double the time it would if we were together in one studio. There's a lot more extra steps when working online like this. This stresses further how important good communication is. In that process, I felt Justin was having trouble with something. We eventually talked about what was going on. He said, this being his first game at this scale made him feel like he had to prove himself as a game designer, leading him to over think every decision he made, naturally causing him to get stressed. In discussing the problem at hand we came to a conclusion. Which I think is one of the most important thing every creative person should always keep in mind.

We can't be purists, if we are, what we put out will not be pure.

What do I mean by this? Well, Justin told me he felt like he was marrying himself to his own ideals and that was effecting what Ace needed to have in order for it to be a great game. Every idea, thought, or inspiration starts with a feeling. And for you to effectively carry it out, that feeling needs to be very personal to you, obviously. But when it comes to putting it together, after you have passed the main stage of defining, you basically need to throw your personal standards out the window. You need to see your project with its own identity and be adaptable to it. That way, you'll know what it really needs to be better and reach it's full potential rather than butchering it with probably inapplicable and unnecessary personal limitations. I was very happy to figure this out with justin. When everyone on the team sees it that way, no egos will clash and we can be incredibly effective.

Working a lot on fleshing out and developing an idea helped us create a defined world and clear characters. Then, having that open mind and fresh perspective in the process of putting it together allowed the story and characters to almost write themselves.

Not only did we get to experience that, but our teams matured and evolved. Even though I slept 10 hours in my last week and the game took a year to make, and so many other nightmarish steps in the process... I am looking forward to making part two, telling the story of Ace Pilot, and continue to learn and grow with this great team more than ever.

Throughout the month of January, we'll be releasing the game's epic soundtrack on iTunes by Brian Sadler. I'll be printing promotional posters and spreading them all over different cities. I might give out some custom tank men figures for some competitions preparing for the release of "Ace Pilot Episode 1: Infinity Drifter"

It's been a crazy but great year. Thanks for following my new blog, and I hope you guys have an awesome end of the world in 2012!

Some ideas for promotional posters I'll print and spread around a handful of major city streets.

01/01/2012 EDIT:
The soundtrack is available to buy now! Click the links below for your consumer preference:

iTunes Amazon Zune Rhapsody

What Happened to Star Wars?

2011-11-03T20:08:00.000-07:00

It's been quite a break from the usual rate of posts I've been making. I've been pretty busy finishing up Ace Pilot, which is finally coming together and pretty well I might add!

Ace Pilot Cutscene progress board on my fridge. (I burred the scene names to avoid spoilers)

Last week I got a very special package in the mail. I had ordered the Star Wars (IV, V, and VI) dvd in the mail in fear of the originals becoming rare to see in their true form. One version came with the CGI additions and crap, but most importantly, the original theatrical version in the bonus discs! I watched the original trilogy with my room mate Carlos (who hadn't seen them before) and it was awesome to get his fresh perspective on it. We had some great discussions and talked a lot about all aspects of the movie.

The next day we watched "The People vs. George Lucas". Clearly, it was a very George-ful week. That documentary is good because it's not just bashing George, it provided a good neutral perspective on the events of the rise and fall of Star Wars. This all leads to my topic of discussion...

What Happened To Star Wars?

It's easy to blame George blindly on Star Wars. While yes, he made the prequels and is ruining the originals, I think there's something we could all learn from this by understanding who he is and why this might have happened.

Let's tackle some basics. It's obvious that George is a businessman before he is a creative director. That isn't a bad thing. But he is more talented at selling a product than constructing a good one.

You hear stories of how he was so limited making the originals, how the editors had to save the movie, and some of his insane initial decisions for the characters. He needs those limitations from people who know what they are doing. He is a business man. I mean, even seeing how he carbon copied "The Hero's Journey" Mono-myth Structure, he was set out to make a universally appreciated story in a fantastical and interesting world to sell more tickets. This is where being a salesman is a great thing in the storytelling universe. You touch more people's souls when you write universal stories. That's what the originals did.

IV V and VI are released. Star Wars is a hit! Everybody raves about them. Over and over people mention George Lucas. His name rings in every nerd's conversation. George is considered a super creative genius, and responsible for every reason why it was so good. He gets culturally mis-credited for Star Wars' success.

What do I mean by "culturally mis-credited"?

Well, George is an idea man. He is only partially responsible for the original's effectiveness. The original trilogy would have turned out completely different if it were completely under his control. *Cough* episodes 1-3 *Cough*. That's how they would have been. Look at Indiana Jones 4. A movie Spielberg didn't want to do at first, but George Lucas' fingerprints are seen all over it. That one sucked, too!

My point is that people raved over Star Wars and crowned George complete creative credit. That is dangerous. It probably got to George's head. It doesn't help that he's a control freak. It's probably why he shoots everything green screened in the new ones, and CG's as much as he can. Complete control.

When an idea/business guy is suddenly put on the writer/directors chair, a job that involves channeling all the billions of decisions and ideas into a solid product effectively, things don't look pretty. I can tell the prequels are purely made as a fan response. Explaining the force, treating light saber fights with over the top choreography, focusing way too much on making the action scenes bigger and more fantastical, making the story about Darth Vader, forcefully including characters from the originals. There was no one to ground him in the process of decision making. Because he's "George Lucas" the "creative genius of star wars".

George was just trying to give people what they wanted like he did in the originals. Except this time, instead of responding to people with an interesting story, he was responding to a culture that had spawned out of his own product with a flat, turd-pile of a story. He was probably watching how people play with light sabers, reading about people discussing the force, seeing how people's favorite scenes with the big battles, who were people's favorite characters. These were his reference points. How we respond to shit is a very sensitive and important matter in the audience/creator relationship. Well, it's important if you want the creators to make good material for you to watch... I talked a lot about that in this post.

He probably saw them at a very superficial business level and forgot that all these things mean something to people because of the well constructed story they were presented in. Not just because they are those things, you can't forget they are those things for a reason. It's all context sensitive. His lack of creative skill lost touch of his own story and forgot the basics of telling a good one. The truth is, while he came up with the idea, an idea is as good as you make it.

As a side note this is a good example of 'something is as good as you make it'. My friend Rodrigo Huerta made this short but funny cartoon. It's called "Batman Eats a Hot Dog" watch it.

The idea of batman eating a hot dog is retarded, but the way Rod made him eat it is what's hilarious.

George is the guy going "what if we have a 20 second cartoon of batman eating a hot dog?" Steven Spielberg, Irvin Kershner, Richard Marquand, And a New Hope's editors, and all the talent involved are what's making that funny.

George has proven that he is not good for that creative process. Maybe him being such a control freak is a response to that lack of his talent for that.

I guess the last question remains. How does this apply to him ruining the original movies more and more? That's not because he's a control freak. That's because he's a business man and you assholes keep buying them! It's called repackaging!

Visual Language and Action Sequences

2011-10-22T15:19:00.000-07:00

The hand-held/ shaky-cam approach to cinematography for action scenes seems to be a popular easy-way-out for a lot of film mediums lately. It can be argued as style, but something can only be justified as style if it is still visually logical. I think it's popular for financial reasons, and you can get away with a lot more using cuts on movement in the editing room. That makes every shot potentially useful even if the shots are poorly executed or chosen.

When you approach editing, you have to consider how the brain takes in data. Time is perceived linearly to our minds. Our eyes dart around and kind of take mental snaps shots of things. You walk into a room you've never been to, look around, and while you do this your brain makes a mental map of the location. As your brain stacks this perceived data it makes sense of it based on what you've seen in what order.

Film mimics the way the mind works. Following this effectively will make a perfectly immersive experience where every piece of data that occurs on screen can be identified by the audience and therefore appreciated. Obviously, there are the basic rules:

-Screen directions
-180 degree rule
-Composition
-Camera movement
-Color
-Timing

All these and more are things to keep in mind for each shot and know what that shot will lead to. All these things in motion picture language are the equivalent to grammar and adjectives when writing and the english language. And giving a shot a certain composition will say something completely different about what's in it if it were given another composition.

Below I've drawn a breakdown of how our brains will process a sequence. Imagine each number (or piece of data) is a specific moment in a scene. You can imagine this hypothetical scene to be a car chase. So each of those data bits are like "the car hits the one in the front's bumper, the next data is the car nearly swerves off the edge of the road. Etc etc etc.

If each of those pieces of data are clearly shot and shown, through whatever style a cinematographer chooses to display them. The audience will be immersed in the scene. What I see happening a lot in a more careless approach to this, usually in shaky cam handheld form, is because things aren't very clear the brain breaks down a movie like this:

If shots aren't clear, the brain will blur together what could be an elaborate sequence into one piece of data. Rather than remembering specific moments and details the brain will group that whole sequence together as just "a car chase". It simplified and dumbs down the movie. Even though a movie has the typical runtime, it will be saying a lot less emotionally in the audiences memory of it. This is because the viewer's brain is focusing their energy on following what is going on. On the other hand, if you are careful to create a logical sense to the sequence, the viewer will have no difficulty following, and therefore will focus their energy on worrying what is going to happen next in that sequence. In other words, it is more immersive.

Depending on this loose, jarring, and energetic visuals not constructed properly does create this detachment from the viewer. I've noticed with movies with that approach tend to depend on shock value a lot. Loud noises, abrupt moments, invasive stuff. While those are exciting the first watch through, it is pretty much a very gimmicky and cheap way of constructing an action sequence. That creates sensory reactions, not emotional ones. Usually it's not the same at all watching it a second time through. I don't think this is a healthy way of making movies. They just don't hold up to the test of time.

I will probably say this a lot, but when it comes to movies (and especially the visual language of it) I believe specificity is key. Other wise you're just making noise. I have absolutely no problem with handheld cameras or exciting camera work. In fact I encourage it. It's just important to realize that everything the camera does and where it is and what you are showing is providing a specific perspective into the world you are presenting. All these shots together build a 3D map of the setting in the audience's head. Why not just be careful how each of your shots will effect the scene. And make sure that it is communicating what you want it to communicate. Even jarring effects of crazy cameras can work as a tool to tell a story, but when it's so consistent and not specific it just doesn't allow the viewer to appreciate what is going on as much.

OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD
-Examples of effective energetic cinematography action sequences:

1. Saving Private Ryan
2. Speed Racer
3. Children of Men
4. The Incredibles
5. Evil Dead 2
6. Brain Dead/Dead Alive

While those movies have jarring moments, its still very clear what's going on, and you're with it all the way.

-Examples of less effective energetic cinematography action sequences:

1. Hancock
2. Skyline
3. Batman Begins/ The Dark Knight
4. Gamer
5. Battle L.A.
6. Cloverfield

One can argue that this loose style of cinematography makes it feel more 'real'. But the only reason that I feel that people come to that conclusion isn't so much that it mimics the human eye, but more because that style of camera work is more documentary style. People watch documentaries, knowing the subject matters are real. If they watch a movie with a similar visual style it just triggers that impression in the brain automatically. But is that always fitting or necessary or dependable for fictional movies? No.

Documentaries call for being shot more loose to react on the moment and capture reality as best as possible. This leads to shot by shot inconstancies. But this is expected, there is hardly any preparation that can be made with most documentaries. Applying that logic to films is usually an excuse for lack of preparation and as I have mentioned in this post, if not treated right, it is prone to get in the way of effective visual story telling.

P.S.
As an extra treat, i really suggest watching this very well done dissection of a chase sequence in the dark knight. This guy shows how ineffective visual language can hurt a perfectly good action sequence and dumb it down as I mentioned before. Click the link below!

http://vimeo.com/28792404

Anarchy. What a Load of Crap.

2011-10-17T13:06:00.000-07:00

I'm going to take a political side track from the usual theme in my posts....

I read an article about the Wall Street Protests in the New York Times. This growing group of protesters who, according to yesterdays article in the new york times, still haven't come up with any demands...

Oh jeez. People coming together who are mutually angry at the government, for an unclear reason through tough times. That can't lead to anything good. The violent riots in London and Rome foreshadowing what will most likely become of the Wall Street protests.

Later in the Article I read this:

" Joseph Schwartz, a political science professor and an Occupy Philadelphia participant, said he thought the movement's "anarchist strain" discouraged a demand-making environment."

This lead me to think about anarchy as an idea and remembering how silly it is. Joseph Schwartz's comment supports my thoughts on it. The fact that this mentality discourages a 'demand-making environment' defines how irrational it is.

Since I lived in Berkeley for a while, I've had my share of conversations with people who believe in anarchy. But they forget that stability comes from having order, and once that's established, orders need to be given out. All good things come from being well balanced and organized. Just because world order still has issues, needs fine-tuning, balance and hell, even needs to take control of itself a little more, it doesn't mean it's worth scrapping all together.

Anarchy is based off of absurd idealism. It has a very faulty foundation.

Example:
I remember a handful of anarchists I spoke to argued that they didn't need anyone telling them what to do. That they could grow their own food, live off the land with their family and life would be much more simple that way. What they don't consider is if the world is in a complete anarchistic state, they'd probably have to deal with raiders coming to their land, stealing their crops, perhaps murdering their wife and raping their kids.

I'm sure they wouldn't like that and learn from this and try to hire a friend who's stronger than them to keep watch. Or they'd start trading with other people. What I'm saying is, naturally shit would just reset itself and come full circle. So, anarchism is a step backward. Therefore, idiotic. It only works if that person who is anarchistic lives in a land surrounded by order.

The reason why all of this does strike my mind and matters to me, is because we are going through a tough time. The whole world is. Seeing these Wall Street protests, seeing how big they are getting and how they aren't even defined yet just spells out 'desperate and angry' to me. That is not a good state for any country to ever be in. That's how Nazis started. People in this state are easily manipulable.

I am not comparing their ideals to Nazis at all. I am comparing it more to how bad people can take advantage of people in this state. The evidence is already seen in London and Rome. Those started off as 'peaceful protests'. And it just took some petty criminal scum to badly influence it and turn it into a destructive, unproductive, horrible thing. While the London riots were angry at how the government screwed up and ruined citizens lives, they went out and trashed citizen's shops and ruined their own people's lives. That's ridiculous.

Some riot thugs trash an old man's barber shop during the London riots.

I have no respect for protests, even if they are 'peaceful'. Not if they aren't clear on what they want. Because if they aren't defined, any assholes violent actions can easily become misinterpreted and inspire chaos and ruin the protest.

P.S.
One thing I'd like to make clear about this article is that no matter what I write about, if it's politics or people or whatever, it's all personal conclusions that I aim to carry into my work. Talking about this kind of stuff can still help make movies and art. So it might seem like I'll stray from the focus of my blogposts, but it's all part of clarifying my perspective of the human social world. That's all stories are. Personal perspectives about the world we all live in.

Super Heroes As A Sub-Genre

2011-10-15T18:27:00.000-07:00

I'm going to go ahead and exclude the new Batman Movies from this discussion, because Nolan has chosen the realistic path for Batman in his series, and can't quite apply to what I'll talk about in this post. To loosely quote him, I can remember seeing and interview with him and he mentioned he wanted to go for making his Batman films feel more like a crime drama. Which he did so in that respect.

Now that I've made that point, I'll move on.

This year I saw "X-men First Class" and I really thought it was very well done. I think it did a lot of what the incredibles did. Character driven powers. More about the character relations. Used powers more as a story mover and character developing fashion rather than a pure spectacle. As opposed to another recent super hero movie. "The Green Lantern". If you notice in the green lantern, it does what a lot of super heroes do. They write a typical adventure story, and then sprinkle the powers over it.

Ryan Reynolds has his female love interest B plot, and normal daily life world. And then he has his very detached super Hero life style that feels like a completely different movie. Like two movies in one. Whenever they try to mix the two, it's used almost as a gag scene or something cheap. Green Lantern has that very awkward, dumb moment where he shows off his suit to his friend in his living room.

Cyclops [left] Racer X [right]

In X-men first class. The powers are always a part of the characters, and always strengthening their relationships, or making them more difficult. Basically, having that power is a part of why they are who they are, and how they deal with other people. This might be easier with stories where more than one person has super powers.

Unlike stories like Green Lantern or Spiderman where they are the only ones truly granted with this gift. And it's all about them adjusting to it. But I do see a lot of detachment between their super hero world and normal life world. Many time's they conflict.

X-men first class did a wonderful job of keeping all the characters struggles and conflicts more directly related with their powers. Whether is be using their mind and heart to control their powers, or not let their powers effect their mind and heart. This is very important to have because it transcends into the story and over all tone and the caliber of moments the movie consists of.

*SPOILERS FOR X-MEN FIRST CLASS*
At towards the end of the movie, when Magneto finally gets revenge off Kevin Bacon's character. He let's his personal issues overcome him.

Xavier gets inside Kevin's head and freezes him momentarily while he and Magneto are confronting. Even though he knows his best friend Xavier is in Kevin's head, and can see and feel everything his arch enemy is feeling, Magneto uses his power to cause a slow and painful death using the coin that was given to him as a child. Xavier feels every bit of it first hand, but Magneto's selfish ways took over.
*SPOILERS FOR X-MEN FIRST CLASS FINISHED*

This is an incredible moment, and this could not have happened in any other kind of story.

This very specific brand of fantasy found in super hero films enhances real life moments. Either through metaphor or mere caliber of the event going on. I guess what I'm saying is, the powers should be a much more integral part of the story and characters, rather than be treated as skin of excitement pulled over a story that could appear in any other type of film.

Super hero stories are the modern mythologies. They enhance our modern day world the same way Greek mythology enhanced their ancient one. They shouldn't just be an aesthetic.

X-men First Class is a good movie, it has some minor flaws, but over all very worthwhile.

(And yes. I think Nolan's take on the Batman series is just a super hero skin pulled over a poorly written crime drama.)

The Power Of Assumption

2011-10-12T14:44:00.000-07:00

A certain level of ambiguity is always nice. Isn't it? It's fun to read or watch something and the process of figuring things out on your own is great! They're like fun puzzles.

But I have to say a lot of bad can come out of that. Let's take it outside the perspective of entertainment for a moment, and think of how a lack of clarity can negatively effect the social world.

I've heard many times of things being censored or thrown to court for being 'potentially' racist, hateful, insulting, homophobic, so on and so forth. But to me, this is very wrong. Everything is potentially anything. And using that to validate something in public or among others is absolute bullshit. You can personally validate anything however you want. That is called faith. But people should keep that to themselves. (Faith is another subject I'll eventually like to write about, though).

Shows like South Park, Family Guy, or anything controversial, really, constantly battles with this. They're a prime example. Let's use that to go back to the entertainment angle of this 'assuming out of lack of clarity'.

Clarity is key in my book. And I don't mean obvious, I just mean clear. A good story that 'makes you think' is one with a clear message, and the message itself based on the context it was told in, makes you think about things outside of the story. When basic working elements of a story need discussion and figuring out, those are just faults in need of clarification or rethinking. It doesn't mean it's deep or multi-layered.

To me, ambiguity causes the audience to construct their own explanations, their own theories. That's fine and dandy, but when a story depends way too much on that, the creative credit should go to the audience. They're doing the story tellers work.

Many people make the error in classifying that story into one "that's for thinkers" or "makes you think" "This isn't a popcorn movie" yada yada yada. But that's arguably just a lazy writer depending the success of their movies on snobby self loving audience members who get ego boosts out of "figuring the movie out" but then praise the creator for making them feel that way.

This mis-credit is a problem. That is how assumption can add something that just isn't there. Now, how can assumption have the power to remove things?

I feel when something is cut off for being potentially whatever is just a very poor foundation for making such powerful decisions. It's all about context.

Banning a word is stupid. Because yes, words have meaning but they are also words and they can be used in many ways. It's gotten to the point where the mere fact that a word is uttered can become an issue. This should be cited if the intentions are genuinely out of hate. Not because some people can take them negatively. Like when Jennifer Aniston used the word "Retard". She was using the word as a variation of "silly". There is nothing hateful about that. And someone finding it offensive just for hearing that word, means they have their own problems and are misunderstanding what she is communicating.

Using the logic of people who found that offensive means that it'd be okay for Jennifer to say "Like a mentally challenged person" instead of "Like a retard". But that, in fact, is more directly referring to that specific kind of person, which by nature is truly insulting. I guess it's the common case of putting words in her mouth. Because people who find that shit offensive are working on an outer layer of right and wrong. They are applying their morality on words as sounds rather than indication of things.

We can't give that response any credit. Or else we'll have to start building laws and rules over such a faulty and personalized ocean of possible moral principles. Again, a weak foundation. Words and their uses and meanings are always changing. That's the beauty and flexibility of language.

We can't let assholes who don't understand that start having a say in whats right and wrong.

The Future Of Stories And Our Modern Lifestyle

2011-10-10T14:44:00.000-07:00

For a long time I've wondered how our evolving life style and technology's influence on it would effect modern story telling.

You need conflict in order to fuel a story. I'll take one classic example of how a writer now needs to work around a common element we all have to raise the stakes...

How many times in the Horror genre have we seen cell phones not working at the perfectly wrong time. How many times do cars not start in order to make things more tense. You can call it out as being cliche, and think it's cheesy or what-not. But to be honest it is very hard not to resort to that. While you can argue it's a lazy writing tool, it's increasingly becoming difficult to write around those sort of things with technology blooming in our every day lives and making so many things easier. In a way I guess technology helps us cut corners in social situations and obstacles in our real daily lives.

If I want to write about a story where some couple gets lost on route to some location. I would have to somehow stop and explain or show how characters are stripped of their tools like GPS's and phones in order for that situation to work. And because it's common for people o devalue things they see reoccurring and consider them cliche, it hurts the story.

Let's take a leap into a hypothetical future where everything has gotten to the point of living their life using the internet. I'm saying people even order groceries online and have them delivered to their doorstep, people can ONLY find dates online because bars are going out of business due to people not needing to go out, so on and so forth.

While maybe that would mean stories would be told differently, or what we currently consider common situations would be severed, leaving room to explore new kinds of problems. Think of how little material we'd have to work with. Or think of how boring it'd be to watch a romantic comedy based off of chat windows and messaging. I dunno, maybe a very good story teller can keep that ball rolling in an interesting way.

(It might sound like I'm being bitter but I'm leading up to an optimistic point.)

As our world grows and develops, evolves, (call it what you want) and our priorities and fears shift... There can clearly be many ways one can take the narrative world. Bu to me, one of the most interesting thoughts that personally come to mind is: What will that do to the fantasy genre?

As real as a movie might feel or claim it's achieving, all stories are escapist. stories are about sending messages and communicating ideas by putting the audience in a perspective that either might be different, might be the same as the audience, but what makes a story interesting is that surprise of seeing or thinking things you otherwise wouldn't have or even if it's something you do think about. It's all about perspectives and making sure your audience is right there with the perspective you're providing.

That goes back with the most simple of rules in story. "Siding with a character". Whether that is wanting to see some guy succeed, sharing sympathy for someone even though they might not be completely aligned with your idea o good and bad, all that wonderful stuff. Again, it's all perspectives, hell the whole universe is, we each have our own and stories just are another social form of sharing them.

So, as our lives get more and more simplified, we might not experience the same kind of issues that are common today in the future. And it'd e very boring to watch a modern movie that consists of chat windows, perhaps fantasy will in the end become the most common genre. Because it'd be taking things we still feel, but shell them in interesting situations. Metaphors of real emotions and things will become the way to tell stories. The way many fantasy stories might use unnatural vessels to tell stories but are really talking about the most purely human and universal things. Simple dumb example: Talking toys, but it's really a story about friendship. Again, metaphors! Sometimes that works best, because you peel away things that might normally poison your perspective. You introduced to a fresh new world and the audience peels away things their selective minds might normally take the wrong way and poison the experience. Because after all, they have their own perspectives too.

Below is a very stupidly and simple example...

On the left I have a live action film with humans and real people (don't know where it's from). On the right is two fantastical characters. Both are having a romantic moment. I couldn't find one where the robots where fore-playing in a bed, but basically, taking a real scenario with real people always runs the risk of the human brain with watch having its own experiences and preferences becomes selective. Maybe this very beautiful moment is happening on the left. These two people even through their struggles, manage to have some time alone to finally get intimate and know each other. However, through personal experience, the viewer might be thinking what the blue words are saying.

Maybe because the viewer is jealous of the guys muscles. Or the girl might have the same curly hair his bitch ex girlfriend had. But those comparative impulses in our brain naturally happen, and that might get in the way of what message the story is trying to convey.

On the right, because there is less visibly relatable elements, the same audience member might get the essence of what is happening a lot better. This is a version of clearing your mind. This happens when watching something fantastical.

I think this perspective on it is optimistic because that means the we're breaking down movies to their ultimate core. Being emotionally engaged. And while real life is a good platform to have people engaged because it's relatable, in the future, real life might not be as interesting enough to tell a story about it. I'm exaggerating to make a point... I do that a lot.

For fantasy to work, the emotion has to be grounded. And all I'm pointing out is that it's a cool thought that maybe in the future, that is going to be the clear standard. So clear even the business side will encourage it without feeling the need to let the decorative elements of movies take over the core.

I had worried a lot about this. wondering what the hell might happen. Up until recently, I thought we would end up killing stories ourselves with how much we're simplifying our existence. But it could very well result in the complete opposite.

There's a lot of distractions right now with our real life, and the more we simplify and break down our daily lives the more stories will be pushed tap further and further into the core of what they have always meant to do.

I'm optimistic, and excited to see where it goes.

It is impossible to run out of stories. It's might seem more limiting with how our life is changing. But in the future, it's just going to be more up to us to set up new scenarios that are considered impossible,
and making them believable. We've always done that, it's just more obviouse now.

...Just a thought.

How To Rate Something

2011-10-09T16:54:00.000-07:00

I've been thinking a lot about how different sites or systems try to rate things. Restaurants go for 5 stars, Youtube has the thumbs up or down, similar thing on rotten tomatoes for movies... etc. etc. etc.

This idea came to mind mainly after reading a bunch of reviews on rotten tomatoes recently. I'm not just talking about the way things are rated, but just generally reviewing things. This might seem like a retarded thing to talk about, but I do find it very important and key to discussing or giving your two cents in general...

Basically. One thing is saying something is shit cause you don't like it, and something is shit cause through a critical mindset you have realized it doesn't technically work. I remember coming across this on rotten tomatoes. It's a title of a review for the movie 'Kick Ass'.

Jack-Ass [left]

This makes absolutely no sense to me. What Mr. Cooper is saying is that he recognized this movie was thoroughly enjoyable, even though it wasn't his cup of tea, yet he still threw his tomato or whatever...

This is where I thank god there's blogs now. Because I think there's a difference between a movie reviewer and someone who is just pouring their thoughts. I have no problem with that (obviously). But we can't let constructive criticism be deluded in any way. Save the thoughts for the blogs and the constructive criticism for reviews. It's a precious thing, and if people start confusing good criticism over snobby cynicism, well... that's just annoying and bad.

I know that a successful movie reviewer probably has a hard time keeping it positive, I mean, to make something as magical as movies into something so routine and forced every single day. Having to pull something out of your ass to write about must be really embittering. I can understand how maybe a lot of movie critics are super destructively cynical. But they still gotta be able to differentiate that!

And I know that lots of people who follow reviewers do so because they might like what they like or at least like what they have to say about something and might want to watch what that person reviewed just to see what they think. But what you personally think has nothing to do with straight-up effective cinema.

This is where the idea I have comes in. Let's take rotten tomatoes as an example. and i'll add the extra layer I feel is needed.

Right now I feel like all reviews are just the blue. They are answering only that question. "Did you like it?"

When in fact, most things are based off these two question. I will try to explain what I mean by that. It starts off with talking about Business vs. Art.

'Show Business' is a very well known name for the entertainment industry. I think it's very suitable cause it implies the Glamor and Emotional side: "Show" and the reason behind why all of that can work: "Business". But. Because movies are stories and stories touch everyone's soul in different ways it's easy to just mention or get carried away with only answering the first question [blue]. But let's not forget, people are making these things and yes the business side is indeed taking the feedback and putting it into something a lot of creative people hate. 'Polls' and 'Statistics'. You know, it's that thing business people resort to because it's hard for them to make a leap of faith since they are only asking themselves the second question [yellow].

I think this is all very important, as an audience, to be aware of the functionality behind things. Or to at least mention it. If you are like Mr. Jackie Cooper and recognize something worked, at least give it credit even though it wasn't to your taste.

If in the future people review things the way I'm proposing, and people have a choice to answer only the first question, or only the second or both. All that info appears on their review page very simply in the corner, or at the title of their review, I can assure you the more credible reviewers will be those who use both. Because they are aware of something that everyone else trying to be a movie review isn't and they are communicating it. That would naturally divide reviewers into 3 groups:

-One kind who talked about what they liked/disliked
-One kind who talks about the technical sides and the movies functionality
-One kind who talks about both.

To be able to talk about both you have to have an open mind about movies and throw cynicism out the window. Ideally, yes, very very ideally, it'd be cool if those well respected reviewers who can talk about both would become what a well respected reviewer is. Rather than having people try to top being bitter and making the worst fucking PUNS EVER in order to become a well respected movie reviewer!

...Don't get me started on snobby, self tickling, movie reviewer puns...

I'm pretty sure one big reason why studios are progressively becoming more and more by the polls and statistics, is because we've all been a bad audience.

Movies, if you haven't noticed, seem to have become this very long checklist of things. You can really feel it. And I see a lot of people falling for it, because as snobby as a lot of people want to sound, the business still has a lot of manipulative tricks up their sleeves, and I know movies are all about manipulation, but this is like... Bad manipulation, like "let me distract you from the shit that's steaming in front of your nose" kind of manipulation. And people still eat it up. Movies would be better if we are a bit smarter about our feedback. I know it's stupid to ask something like that from people. To be smarter, but at least those people who really do care, they should step outside of their ego for a bit just to understand this. Maybe 'careful' is the better word?

The audience/movie relationship can be very much compared to the one in a broadway or theatre play. But because they are detached in movies, that process is just longer.

On stage, when something is funny, the audience bursts out laughing, the actor hears it on stage and get a rush of excitement and hell, it makes for a better performance cause you're packing this guy with emotional fuel. So therefore the audience is giving themselves a better show by participating well. Same goes for bad things. If there's some really painfully bad joke made on stage, no one laughs, the actors and directors will hear it. That night they might rework it, make it funnier for the next show.

Right now, however, movie audiences are very bitter and misguided. Maybe it's cause we're spoiled in a way. So many movies. I only recently got scared 'cause I've been watching some old Spielberg movies and realizing how some of the simplest cinematography decisions were really cool and actually helped with the tone and pacing of the movie. Now a days, those choices would have been unimaginable to do with the way the industry is working. Or at least aren't seen in movies now. Because priorities are set elsewhere in movies now. And I feel it's our fault.

Our fault because a studio just wants to make us happy enough for us to give them our money and nothing is doing it. So now it's gotten to a point of desperation with all these business type tricks to enhance movie going like 3D. That's all what I like to call Business flare, not the magical flare of the blue question. It is another technical tool but currently only being used as a selling point and that only lasts a purchase. It isn't something that becomes timeless or memorable. Anyway...

Naturally though, as a business, they keep resorting to these polls that we make up. I'm not saying it's all one's fault or that the business side is completely justified, because it is a sad thought that they have to turn to something as loose as a "poll" and consider it a concrete fact. I guess that's the only hint of stability a business mindset can cling onto in something as wild and unpredictable as show business...

So my question is, would this idea I have for rating things help us also be a better audience?

(Side Note:) I think it'd help we we are careful with our output on what these guys are doing. This also applies to daily life and socializing.

...But seriously don't get me started on snobby, self tickling, movie reviewer puns...

Ace Pilot Update

2011-10-09T11:34:00.000-07:00

About a year ago I started animated some animatics for a project I started with my friend Justin. We'd been discussing this flash game series for almost 2 years or so. We finally wanted to get the ball rolling. We put together a team consisting of Justin (Director), Josh (Programmer), Kevin (Cutscene Animator), Carlos (background artist/ 3D), and I (director). I was to focus more on the animated side and Justin more on the game side.

Ace [right] orders his mechanic Sprokit [left] to ready the ship for battle.

It's been a year now since we started the project and boy has it been a crazy ride! Right now we're in the final stages of putting it together and one of the main obstacles right now is the file size. With so many cutscenes and each packed with 3D elements, loads of layers, and png backgrounds. It's become super hard for Josh to even just open the files up. Yes... opening the files I send Josh have actually been a problem. At this point we're even considering splitting Ace pilot 1 into two parts. I guess pull off a Half-life... Although I'm sure Valve didn't have to resort to doing that, unlike us.

There's been some ups and downs, twists and turns, but I don't think I've ever learned more on any other Flash project I've worked on. We're figuring it out, and soon you'll be able to play it, hopefully enjoy and tell us what you think.

Losing My Virginity... To Blogs

2011-10-09T00:21:00.000-07:00

My name's Hans Van Harken. This is my first blog.

I like making and talking about stuff. You can see some of what I've done on my Newgrounds account. I plan on sharing what it's like working on the future projects on this blog because I always appreciate people's two cents and discussing stuff.

I'll keep it super short for now 'cause I'm mainly just writing a post to figure this site out...

(To the left is a screen grab of an idea I have for a game. I won't speak of it much for now. But I will soon!)