Thursday, October 12, 2017

'Young Sheldon' doesn't work as a comedy series.

When it comes to this season's freshman comedies, there's no doubt that one series was more anticipated than the others. Of all the new television shows that were to be aired, CBS's 'Young Sheldon' was the most anticipated one.

The reason that 'Young Sheldon' was so hyped as a series is fairly obvious. The series that it was based on, 'The Big Bang Theory', had been the most watched comedy series on television for so many years and had a huge fanbase.

So having now seen then pilot for the show, I have to say that it doesn't look like 'Young Sheldon' is going to be a success. Based on its first episode, it doesn't look like there's anything in the series that would keep the audience interested in watching it.

The biggest problem with this 'spin-off' is that it doesn't have a premise that is good enough. The premise of the show, in which the audience follows the early years of young Sheldon Cooper, simply isn't strong enough.

As unfortunate as it is, none of the elements that made the original series so good are present here. There is almost nothing in the new series that would remind you what made the original show watchable in the first place.
 
After all, the reason that the original Big Bang Theory managed to work so well is because it had a solid premise and likable characters. The show about four likable nerds and a girl next door had elements in it that kept the show going.

When it comes to this new show, it simply isn't enough to have one of the 'characters' from the original. It's not enough to transfer one popular character from the old show, give him a fresh new face and think that it's all that it takes.

Besides, we shouldn't forget that the popularity of Sheldon as a character has always been at least a bit exaggerated. He isn't actually that popular, especially when it comes to the character's likability and relatibility.
 
By that I mean that there are a lot of characteristics about Sheldon that aren't desirable at all. In most environments, his 'autism' and inflexibility as a character are things that will turn off the audience almost instantly.

In that sense, it's all the more unfortunate that the producers and the writers decided to take the absolute worst aspects of his character. All the good things about the early seasons that had to do with Sheldon's character are gone now.

Instead of making Sheldon curious about how the world works, all he does on the show is brag how much smarter he is than the rest. Instead of making us relate to him, all he does is complain and insult others like he's the only person left on the planet.

So based on all these mistakes and how badly the writers messed up Sheldon's character and the premise, it shouldn't surprise anyone that the show doesn't work. It shouldn't surprise anyone that 'Young Sheldon' is in trouble as a series.

At least in my opinion, the pilot had too many problems and there were too few, if any moments that made you smile. It didn't feel like any of the characters in the episode made sense or that the writers knew what they were doing.

As a whole, even though it is true that the kid who plays young Sheldon is a talented actor (Iain Armitage from Big Little Lies), that alone is not enough to save the show. His presence as a Sheldon is not enough to keep the series going.

In that sense, we can only hope that sooner or later CBS will do the right thing and cancel the show. There's no real reason to keep the series going, even though the first episode that aired did get somewhat decent ratings.

Saturday, September 30, 2017

Jimmy Kimmel did what journalists wouldn't do.

During the last a week or so, everyone who follows news has heard about Jimmy Kimmel. This late-night talk show host has been active in the media when it comes to the proposed new healthcare bill in the U.S. senate. 

As a host of his talk show, Kimmel has been spending his opening monologues speaking against the unpopular Cassidy-Graham bill. This legislative piece, if implemented, would hurt most americans and would make the U.S. health care system worse.

For those who haven't paid attention to the case, the whole thing started several months ago, when Kimmel talked about his newborn son's health problems. The heart defect that his son had was potentially lethal and had to be operated immediately.

Kimmel talked about how lucky he was that doctors and nurses at the hospital noticed the problem and took care of it. He talked about how deeply upsetting it was that not everyone in the country had the means to deal with healthcare issues like he did.

So not long after Kimmel's original monologue became popular, Lousiana's senator Bill Cassidy (r) thought that it would be a good thing to get free publicity. He went on the show to proclaim that every future bill would have to pass the 'Jimmy Kimmel' test. 

What this 'test' basically meant is that no child would be denied care because of a pre-existing condition like Kimmel's son had. Any bill that would replace the Affordable Care Act would have to address the issue sufficiently.

Kimmel, understandably enough, felt fairly good about these assurances. He perhaps even thought that he had made a bit of a difference and that his heartfelt speech about his son's medical problems would make politicians care.

After the publicity for the case eventually waned, it more or less looked like we were done with the whole thing. It seemed as if from now on, Kimmel's show would just try to be mindlessly funny and concentrate on comedy.

However, in late July, the republican controlled U.S senate tried to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Republicans tried to get rid of the Obamacare, which stated that no person would be denied a health insurance because of a pre-existing condition.

Even though the initial repeal effort turned out to be a failure, that wasn't the last word on the issue. It didn't take more than a month before a new, even stealthier bill was introduced, by none other than our 'Jimmy Kimmel test' senator Cassidy.

The problem with this bill was that it didn't pass the 'Jimmy Kimmel' test at all. Not only were there cuts in the bill to medicaid, but the protections for patients with pre-existing conditions were more or less thrown out too.

Once all these facts became available, it didn't take more than a day before our late-night host started going after senator Cassidy. Kimmel was merciless in the way he went after the republicans and their odious plans.

In his opening monologues, he openly called the 'honorable' senator a liar and a fraud who couldn't be trusted with this new healthcare bill. Again and again he went after the senator's empty promises and lies that he told us.

Pretty much no one else in the media was willing to say that Cassidy & Graham were completely full of it with this new bill. Almost all of the establishment media was trying to tap-dance around the fact that the legislative piece was a massive scam to hurt the poor.

In the end, Kimmel's reaction and the massive publicity that it created managed to make a difference. Kimmel's outrage and opposition is one of the main reasons that the Graham-Cassidy bill wasn't even brought to the senate floor for a vote.

In that sense, when you look at the whole thing, we can only be grateful that he was willing to talk about this issue with such honesty and integrity. We can only be grateful that he was willing to take a brave stand here.

After all, by doing what he did, he showed that just because you're a late-night host, that doesn't mean that you can't have a voice of your own. Being an entertainer doesn't mean that you can't make a difference when it comes to political matters.

On the contrary, Kimmel showed that if you have a platform like he has, there's nothing wrong with using it for a good cause. There's nothing wrong about rising up to the occasion, when no one else in the establishment media is willing to do that.

In that sense, by exposing these guys, he was clearly doing God's work here. By exposing them, he helped to make sure that millions in the U.S. are still going to keep their health insurances and that they won't get hurt for no reason at all.

Sunday, September 17, 2017

Why are so many television shows so bad?

It's not exactly a secret that when it comes to television, most of the shows that you see on tv aren't good at all. Most of the shows don't have good things going on in them and there isn't anything in them that could keep us entertained.

The biggest reason that these shows don't work is because they aren't about anything real or meaningful. The premise and the basic idea in them isn't strong enough, so that the series could have something to build on.

Especially when it comes to most comedies that are out there, it seems as if the writers behind these shows had no idea how to write good stuff. It's as if they had no clue about how storytelling is supposed to work.
 
Nevertheless, when it comes to creating good stuff, it shouldn't at least on paper be impossible to pull off. Even though it's not easy by any definition, creating good shows should be doable, as long you pay attention to the basics.

Unfortunately, when it comes to this creation process, most of the time producers and writers don't seem to pay attention to these things. It's as if they had no idea about the craft and about how they're supposed to do their jobs.

For example, when it comes to creating a solid premise, they don't spend enough time coming up with a decent idea for their series. They don't pay enough attention to their idea, so that they could have a premise that might actually work.

When it comes to creating likable characters, they don't seem to think that those things are needed either. They seem to think that you don't need to have likable, honorable characters that people could actually root for.

This same, lazy approach to the craft also applies it comes to coming up with decent storylines. These writers aren't worried about coming up with storylines that would have substance, idealism or things that mattered.

Instead, what these writers and producers try to do is to obfuscate and throw off their audience. Things like spamming weak jokes, obsessing with empty popular culture references or using ridiculous amount of swearing is the way to go.

For example, 'comedy' shows like Community, Family Guy and Rick & Morty are pretty much all about using pop culture references. They're all about catering to the lowest common denominator with their pointless references.

When it comes to the overuse of 'jokes', pretty much all the multicamera sitcoms are guilty of this. Showrunners like Chuck Lorre are known for using jokes as a crutch when they have no clue how to make their storylines work.

In order to throw off the audience, if these showrunners can't come up with a solid storyline, they try to write in as many jokes as possible. By doing this they try to confuse us, so that we wouldn't notice that there's no real story in these episodes.

Still, perhaps the most heartbreaking of these cheap stunts has to be the overuse of cursing. This kind of behavior is especially true on HBO, where there are no limits on how much profanities or cursing you're allowed to use.

In reality, the only thing that a supposed 'comedy' series like 'Veep' has going for itself, is that it's completely filled with profanities. This Emmy winning comedy series that has unlikable characters and weak storylines has nothing else going for it.

In that sense, when you consider all these things, it shouldn't really surprise anyone that there are so many bad shows out there. It shouldn't come as a surprise when you consider how disrespectful most of the writers and producers are towards their craft.

In the end, the truth is that when it comes to creating quality shows, it's about paying attention and respecting the basics. It's about having a solid premise, having likable characters and making sure that you write storylines that make sense.

It's not about ignoring the fundamentals of storytelling. It's not about ignoring the basics and thinking that as long as you just write in pop culture references, spam jokes and swear, things are magically going to work.

Unfortunately for us, as long as these writers and producers keep trashing their craft, things won't change. As long as they think that it's okay to cut corners and that you don't have to take your job seriously, we're not going to get better shows on tv.

Sunday, September 10, 2017

What should we think of the 'Zootopia' lawsuit?

A couple of weeks ago I read about a lawsuit concerning Disney's animated film Zootopia. I read about how a writer claimed that Disney had stolen his idea for the film and that the company should have to pay punitive damages as a result.

According to this writer, Disney had stolen the title of the film, 'Zootopia'. The company had also stolen the basic premise and the basic character designs in the film, which the lawyer for the plaintiff tried to argue in court.

When I started reading about the case, at first it seemed like there was a decent case against Disney. As long as you focused on the company stealing the title and you had your focus on the character design, it seemed like the writer was on to something.

However, once you dug a bit deeper and started to pay attention to the case a bit more, things started to get more complicated. Even though there are a lot of similarities, these similarities tend to be too generic and even deceptive.

When it comes to the original film, 'Zootopia' (2016) is an animation that tells a story about a hillbilly bunny called Judy Hopps. This bunny, who becomes a cop and moves to the big city of Zootopia, is what the movie is about.

When it comes to the film, at least 80-90% of its success has to do with our likable bunny. Bunny Hopps is the biggest reason that the movie works so well and that it was such a success both critically and at the box office.

Almost every emotionally meaningful story beat in the film is derived from this character. The character's idealism and her underdog situation is what makes the story work and what makes us care about what happens in the movie.

What this all has to do with the lawsuit is that in the plaintiff's treatment, 'Zootopia' apparently isn't about the 'Bunny'. In the plaintiff's version, the squirrel (that isn't even a cop) doesn't seem to be at the center of the story.

Instead, the plaintiff's version revolves more around the 'fox' character that we see in the produced film. This character (a hyena in the plaintiff's concept), isn't that likable and isn't someone that you can easily relate to.

The big problem with this is that if the plaintiff's story had a protagonist that wasn't particularly likable, that concept wouldn't have worked. There were going to be so many problems with the story, regardless of how the treatment would have looked on paper.

Incidentally, Disney admitted that they tried to write a script that revolved around the 'fox' character. They spent almost a year writing different drafts and tried everything to make the story work and to make it worth producing.

Eventually, they gave up and decided that the movie simply shouldn't and couldn't be about the Fox. They decided that they needed to start from scratch and thought that the film should instead be about the Bunny character.

What this means is that if Disney actually did steal the concept or the treatment from plaintiff, in that case they also ditched it. Even though the concept might have worked in theory, when they wrote the script, it didn't work anymore.

So as a whole, when it comes to this lawsuit, I think it's safe to say that it doesn't seem to be completely outlandish or frivolous. It seems to be likely that Disney in some ways tried to 'steal' the concept from the writer.

After all, the company is infamous for having stolen other people's material over the decades. They have clearly played fast and loose with copyrighted source material before (for example The Lion King / Kimba The White Lion).

Still, even though this wouldn't be the first time that they stole from other writers, when you consider what we know about the case so far (possibly different, unlikable protagonist / other stuff), the lawsuit is walking on a fairly thin ice.

As far as I'm concerned, even though I don't like siding with a corporation against an individual, in this case one might have to. It might be that in this case the writer didn't create a concept that was strong enough to be protected by copyright laws.

In that sense, if Disney took the idea and made it work, that isn't automatically their fault. It isn't automatically their fault if the plaintiff didn't come up with a story that was good enough and if the story didn't have merit to stand on its own.

Saturday, September 2, 2017

Why is writing movies harder than writing for tv?

A couple of days ago I read some articles, in which television writers compared movie screenwriting to television writing. They wondered why tv writers aren't usually good at writing movies and why it can be so hard to transition to films?

These writers had their own theories about why this tends to happen. According to them, writing for tv was either too lucrative, or they thought that since they had somehow 'mastered' the art of tv writing, they were now 'too good' to write movies.

Not surprisingly, I didn't find these explanations to be particularly convincing or plausible. None of these writers, in my opinion, had the insight or the courage to admit why transitioning to films is so incredibly difficult.

In reality, the biggest reason that most television writers can't switch to writing films is that most of them just aren't good enough as writers. Most of them don't have the talent to write full length movie screenplays.

As far as I'm concerned, writing film scripts is a lot more demanding than writing television scripts is. Whether we like to admit it or not, it's a lot more demanding in almost every aspect that has to do with the writing process.

For example, movie scripts require a lot more ideas than your average episode for a sitcom or for a drama series. You need to come up with a lot more ideas that have to do with your premise and your characters throughout the length of the screenplay.

With movies, you need longer arcs that require more thought than those vignettes on tv shows. A twenty minute sitcom episode or a forty minute drama episode simply isn't as demanding storywise as is a full length movie screenplay. 

When it comes to this writing process, we shouldn't also forget that most television writers in the business aren't actually that experienced either. They haven't mastered their craft, even though they might think that they have done that.

As unfortunate as it is, the truth is that most of these writers did not create the shows that they have been writing for. The overwhelming majority of these writers were not in charge of creating the characters in the pilots of their respective tv shows.

This means that there's a very good chance that most of them have no clue about creating original material from scratch. They don't know how to create original material that would be good enough to be produced on its own.

In that sense, whenever I read someone writing about how they don't write movies for this and that reason, we should take their explanation with a grain of salt. There's a good chance that the person is not being honest about the issue.

At least in my case, the reason that it took so long for me to write a movie script is that it was really that difficult to come up with one. It was that hard and I knew that there was a good chance that I wouldn't be able to write one.

It wasn't because I thought I had more important things to do than to write movies. It wasn't because I was 'too good', that I had 'mastered' the art of television writing or that I was somehow above writing film screenplays.

On the contrary, it was because I was afraid that I was going to fail as a movie writer. It was because I was scared to death that I wasn't good enough, that I didn't know what I was doing and that I wouldn't be able to take my craft to the next level.

Wednesday, August 23, 2017

What kind of screenplay did I manage to write?

Before I started writing my very first movie screenplay, I kept thinking what my strengths as a writer were. I kept thinking what are the things that I'm good at and how these qualities could be used in the writing process.

After all, if I wanted to write a quality screenplay, I would have to concentrate on my strengths instead of my weaknesses. If I wanted to write something that had any merit or value, I had to know what were the good things about me as a writer.

So when it finally came to deciding what I should write about, I knew that I would have to write something that I felt relatively good about. I had to choose a genre that would reflect my values as a person as well as possible.

Not surprisingly, since I'm a pretty big fan of animations, I thought it would be a good idea to give an animated screenplay a chance. I had been writing a lot about these movies, so I wanted to see if I could come up with a script myself. 

The decision to write an animated screenplay wasn't actually that difficult. Especially knowing that most animations manage to cheer me up and put me on a better mood, I thought it would make sense to write a script myself.

When it comes to writing the script, it shouldn't come as a surprise that I was influenced by other movies. Popular films like 'Amelie', the recent 'My Life As a Courgette' and 'Shaun The Sheep were the ones that influenced me the most.

For example, when it comes to 'Amelie', I liked how the main character in the film was so creative and proactive. I liked how Amelie was trying to do the right thing and how she was a character that you were able to root for.

When it comes to 'My Life As a Courgette', I liked the themes in the film and how well the animation in it was done. I appreciated how well the theme of being an orphan was handled and how the movie was able to convey real emotions.

When it comes to 'Shaun The Sheep', I absolutely loved how the writers were able to come up with an 80 minute movie that had zero dialogue in it. I found this to be awesome and was really impressed with how many good ideas the movie had. 

So by mixing these three movies, I wrote an 'original' script that revolves around themes and ideas that these films represented. The script, currently titled 'Valerie and The Girl', is some sort of a synthesis of these movies.

It handles themes like compassion, transformation and coming to terms with change without being judgemental and without being mean. It tries to take the best aspects of those three movies and comes up with a story of its own.

When it comes to me borrowing stuff, my script, like in 'My Life as a Courgette', is about a young child growing up. The character not having a father in her life is one of the overarching themes in the screenplay that plays throughout the script's length.

Like in 'Amelie', our main character is an active protagonist that tries her best to change things for the better. She not only wants to help others - including her new friend - but she also wants to know what happened to her father.

Like in 'Shaun The Sheep', in its current form the screenplay doesn't have any written, intelligible dialogue in the script. Every single scene in the screenplay runs on the strength of the characters and the overarching storylines that are in it.

As a whole, when it comes to the script, I'm fairly confident that the story and its characters feel authentic and respect the reader. I'm relatively confident that the story feels original and doesn't seem too much like the movies that it was 'based' on.

After all, if I managed to do those things, that would mean that I wrote something good. It would mean that I have a certain understanding of what storytelling is about and that I'm capable of writing original characters that you can relate to.

Still, regardless of how good the screenplay turned out, when it comes to this project, I did my best to come up with a good script. I tried my best to write a screenplay that would reflect my values and my strengths as a writer.  

Whether I actually managed to write a really good script, I don't know. That, after all, takes a lot of luck of and is something that cannot be controlled, no matter how hard you're willing to try and no matter how talented you are as a writer.

Saturday, August 19, 2017

'My Life as a Zucchini' is a solid animation.

Like many others, if I have to choose between watching a live action movie or an animated film, it's usually an easy decision. In most cases I'll watch the animated film, because it's much more likely to put me on a better mood.

After all, when it comes to animations, you don't judge characters in them the way you judge actors in live action movies. There's no prejudice involved with animated characters, which makes watching them so much easier.

In that sense, it wasn't a difficult decision to give a chance for a French animated film called 'My Life as a Zucchini'. This is a movie that was nominated at this year's Academy Awards in the best animated film category.

In essence, the movie tells a story about a young boy called 'Courgette' (Zucchini). Once he becomes an orphan, he is moved to an orphanage, where he meets other kids who haven't been fortunate in their lives either.

Over the course of the film's one hour length, the animation deals with all kinds of issues that have to do with the main character's situation. There's stuff about abandonment, friendship, acceptance and making the best out of what you have.

When it comes to 'My Life as a Courgette', very likely the best thing about it has to do with how simplistic and how down to earth it is. The themes in it are clear and there isn't anything in the film that doesn't belong to it or that feels forced.

Unlike in most movies, almost all the characters in it are likable and relatable. Every person in the orphanage, including the personnel, are characters that you can relate to and who are trying to work in the best interest of the kids.

When it comes to the animation in the movie, the stop motion technique works really well. It's a real pleasure to watch these characters and how the makers of the film have managed to make them so lively and full of emotion.

These high quality production values also apply to the voice acting. Especially when it comes to the original French version of the film, you can't help but to fall in love with these characters and how authentic they sound.

If there's anything in the movie that could have been better, I guess it has to be said that the ending for it was a bit lacking. The movie should have gone a bit longer so that the last fifteen minutes of the film could have had a better flow.

At least in my opinion, the last phase could have used a couple more extra scenes that would have made the ending more satisfying. There was something missing from the script that made the finale a little bit underwhelming.

Still, despite these fairly minor flaws in the film, it has to be said that I'm glad that I managed to watch 'My Life as a Courgette'. It's good to notice that movies like these exist and that they're not all the same old, same old.

As a whole, even though the film doesn't sugar coat things and doesn't shy away from real stuff, it manages to entertain. It manages to give you hope and makes you feel that just because things aren't going your way, life can still get better.

Friday, August 11, 2017

Ideas vs. execution in quality screenwriting.

When it comes to ideas and execution in screenwriting, there's an age-old saying which says that 'good ideas are a dime a dozen and it's the execution of your idea that counts' when it comes to writing a good screenplay.

According to this saying, no matter how good your idea is, your idea is just an initial premise and only the first step in the process. Executing it doesn't guarantee that your premise will necessarily lead to anything good.

I've been thinking about this idea vs. execution thing especially after managing to finish my very first movie screenplay. Why is it that the execution counts so much and why your initial idea doesn't necessarily mean that much?

Very likely the best way to answer to this question is by saying that 'a good idea' really is just the first idea that you need for your story. In order to write a solid screenplay, you need to come up with a lot more 'good ideas' before your work is done.

By that I mean that any good screenplay is going to have at least a couple of dozen solid ideas in it. These solid ideas are what keep the story and the characters going and that keep the audience interested in what's going on.

It simply isn't enough to think that one super special idea is going to be all that it takes. It's not enough to think that just because you managed to come up with a 'great' idea, you can now start slacking with your project.

On the contrary, you need to have a lot of ideas and you need to have a good judgement about how to execute them. You need to be able to figure out which of your ideas make sense and which aren't good enough as a whole.

At the same time, when we're talking about how important the execution part is, this is not to say that having a good first idea isn't important. I'm not saying that you can slack with your premise as long you're willing to execute your script well.

As unfortunate as it is, when it comes to most screenplays, the basic idea in most of them just isn't good enough. The 'ideas' that they're based on aren't solid enough and don't have enough potential to become quality scripts.

In reality, if your premise and your idea isn't good enough, no amount of 'hard work' is going to save your screenplay. These 'weak premise' screenplays are never going to work, no matter who is going to be in charge of writing them.

In that sense, even though it's true that your 'great idea' by definition isn't all there is to the process, it still counts. That's why you should always make sure that your premise does have enough merit and that it's believable enough.

After all, by making sure that you have a good premise, it's going to be much easier to start developing your screenplay. If you're willing to pay attention to the basics, it's much more likely that your script as a whole has more potential.

In the end, when it comes to this whole thing, the truth is that it pays off if you manage to come up with a solid, workable premise. It pays off far more often if you're willing to come up with a premise that people might actually get interested in.

As long as you're smart enough or lucky enough to get a solid premise, there's a much better chance that you'll create something good. It makes the writing process a lot more tolerable and a lot easier as a whole.

On the other hand, if you're not willing to pay attention to your basic story idea, you're going to be in big trouble. If you're not willing to make sure that your story idea makes sense, things are not going to work out for you.

In that case, all that hard work with the screenplay will likely be in vain. Instead of creating something solid, you'll end up working with a script that doesn't have enough merit and doesn't have what it takes to keep us entertained.

Friday, July 28, 2017

What is the most important rule in writing?

Even though there are a lot of good rules when it comes to writing, some rules are more important than others. No matter how good you are as a writer, some of these rules are so important that you should almost never break them.

For example, when it comes me, I pretty much always try to obey the rule of 'finish what you start writing'. No matter what happens, I try to get the task done, so that I could feel better about myself and that I could move on to something else.

Still, even though this 'finish what you start writing' is a super important rule, it's not the most important rule about writing. Writing and managing to finish your screenplay is only the second most important part about writing.

At least in my opinion, the most important rule about writing has to do with 'publishing' and 'rewriting'. No matter how good you are as a scribe, you should never publish stuff without rewriting it - unless you absolutely have no other choice.

By that I mean that it's almost impossible to ever get everything right in your first draft. It's pretty much guaranteed that every single time you will make some fairly big mistakes that you won't be able to pick up right away. 

When it comes to rewriting and getting things right, there are no quick fixes for it. It always takes time and you need to be able to clear your mind, get a fresh pair of eyes and more or less forget what you managed to write earlier.

Writing good stuff simply isn't about who's the fastest writer or who's the first to get certain amount of words on paper. It's not about rushing to the finish line and thinking that being fast makes you somehow special as a writer.

On the contrary, writing good stuff is always about being aware of your flaws and being aware of you making mistakes. It's about being aware of your weaknesses as a writer and knowing where you're likely going to go wrong.

Especially when it comes to me, I have too many times published scripts and articles without thinking them through enough. I have written them in a hurry and thought that there was no difference whether I gave them another look or not.

If only I had understood earlier that I didn't have to publish everything right away as a writer. If I had only understood that writing is so much more about rewriting than it's about being fast, things would have been so much better.

As a whole, even though it's obviously important that you almost always have to 'finish' your projects, that itself isn't all there is to writing. It's not the only thing that matters and counts when it comes to creating quality stuff.

On the contrary, being too content with having finished your first draft doesn't mean that your job is now done. It doesn't mean that you have figured everything out and that you can now start slacking with your project.

In reality, writing your first draft is only the first part in the writing process. It's only the first step, and in most cases you have to do a lot of rewrites before you can be certain and confident that your script is in good shape.

In that sense, there is absolutely no shame in not getting everything right the first time. There's no shame in admitting that you made a lot of mistakes in your first draft and that you still need more time to get things figured out.

Wednesday, July 19, 2017

I finally managed to write my first film screenplay.

One of the biggest fears that I've had as a writer is that I'd never be able to write an original film screenplay. I was genuinely afraid that I didn't have it in me and that the best I could do was to write scripts for existing television shows. 

After all, writing movie screenplays takes a lot of effort and hard work. It takes so much discipline, creativity and persistence that I didn't think I would be able to come up with a script that would be good enough for my standards.

Nevertheless, even though I thought I didn't have it in me, three days ago I managed to finish the first draft of my first script. I managed to overcome the odds and managed to create something that I thought would never happen.

When it comes to me writing the script, there are at least three reasons why I was being able to finish it successfully. These reasons are: 1) having the need to write 2) having the discipline to write and 3) simply getting lucky.

In my case, the first reason of 'having the need to write' meant that I was desperate to write something that would challenge me. I wasn't feeling well at all - for certain reasons in my life - so I had to find a constructive way to deal with my emotions.

If I hadn't been feeling so bad inside, there's pretty much no chance that I would have started writing the script. In that case I would still be writing this blog without having had the courage to step outside of my comfort zone.

The second crucial factor in the process had to do with having a lot of discipline and persistence. I had a fairly steady writing routine, which more or less forced me to write every day, including during the weekends.

In practice, what this meant was that every single day I needed to spend at least three-four hours writing. No matter what happened during the day, I had to get results on paper that showed that I was taking my task seriously.

It simply wasn't enough that I would just write some random nonsense and that I'd call the day after that. I had to come up with real ideas that would progress the story and that these ideas would actually have to make sense.

When it comes to the third and the 'luck' part in the process, I think I was really fortunate during the writing process. Most of the time things - with certain exceptions of course - went as well as I could have ever hoped.

By that I mean that when I kept writing the script, pretty much every day I managed to come up with stuff that kept me going and that pushed the story forward. There were no days when I felt that I didn't get further with the script.

Especially when it came to creating the second main character, which also gave me the B-story, I consider myself to be super lucky. This is what gave me the 'Eureka' moment and made me feel that I might understand how storytelling works.

When it came to me having difficulties during the writing process, the biggest 'all is lost' moment happened when I was about to start rewriting. This is when it became obvious that I had made some mistakes and that I had to think about the story again.

Especially when it came to the second half in the script, things didn't make sense and there was no flow in the story. I was genuinely desperate and felt that there's no way on earth that I would get the script fixed.

Fortunately for me, even though these mistakes seemed huge at first, in the end they weren't that hard to fix. After getting some rest, I managed to solve pretty much all the problems that had to do with the structure in just a matter of hours. 

All in all, when it comes this whole process, it has to be said that I was very fortunate and that I got lucky. I feel so fortunate that I finally managed to finish this screenplay and that despite my doubts I proved myself that I could get the job done.

Even though these were admittedly one of the hardest two weeks in my life as a writer, I have no regrets about the process. It was definitely an experience worth going through, even though there were moments when I felt like dying.

In that sense, considering how awful I was feeling and how bad shape I was in only three weeks ago, it feels almost redundant whether the screenplay is good enough to be produced and whether it's good enough to win any awards.

Tuesday, June 27, 2017

'Life is Strange' is a fairly solid interactive game.

A couple of weeks ago I noticed that there was an interesting story driven game available on Playstation Plus. Anyone who had an active subscription on the network, was able to download a PS4 version of 'Life is Strange' for free.

Naturally, since the game had received pretty good reviews, it wasn't a difficult decision to give the game a chance. I had to check how good it was and whether it was worth the praise that it had gotten from most of the critics.

Having now completed the game, I have to say that I was mostly positively surprised by how well it was made. In most aspects, 'Life is Strange' is really engaging and makes you care about its characters and what happens to them.

One of the best things about this interactive game is that it pays attention to the basics and things that matter. Its storylines revolve around themes and issues that most of us can relate to and can empathize with.

When it comes to its characters, its main protagonist is an art student called Max. She, as a female protagonist is a likable person, who tries to help others and tries to save them from getting into trouble in their lives.

What makes the story and the game so interesting and engaging, is that our main protagonist has an ability to go back in time. She has an ability that allows her to go back in time when something bad and unfortunate happens.

Over the course of the game, she finds herself in numerous situations where she tries to change things for the better. She not only tries to change people's lives and save them, but she also has to deal with something bigger too.

Trying to do all of things at once, of course, is much easier said than actually done. As we as players of the game eventually notice, for every action that she makes, there's a reaction and a consequence that has to be dealt with.

At least when it comes to me, I enjoyed playing 'Life is Strange' the most during its first three chapters. This is when the story and the characters are at their best and when the storylines feel really plausible and relatable.

Especially when it comes to what happens at the end of the second episode, I have to admit that scene is likely the most touching that I've experienced in a game. The ending to this chapter is genuinely that moving and touching.

However, when it comes to the last two chapters in the game, it has to be said that the story starts to drag a bit and doesn't always make sense. There are certain problems with the characters and their motivations that cannot be ignored.

This is especially true in the last chapter, where it becomes obvious that the main story arc isn't strong enough. The main storyline becomes a bit too muddled and the 'choices' that you can make aren't that plausible or interesting.

Still, despite these somewhat obvious flaws in the game and despite the game having some tonal and 'choice' problems, I mostly enjoyed playing it. It manages to engage you and is also surprisingly moving in certain places.

In that sense, if you're like me and enjoy playing story and character driven games that manage to be down to earth, maybe you should give it a chance. You should give the game a chance and see how much you'll like it.

After all, 'Life is Strange' - at least in my case - managed to surprise with its sincerity and honesty. It surprised me and showed that you don't always need explosions, action and gun fights to keep you entertained and immersed in the experience.

Tuesday, June 20, 2017

Oliver Stone's Putin Interviews on Showtime.

I don't know about you, but when I heard that Oliver Stone was going to make a four part interview with Russia's president Vladimir Putin, I was pretty excited. I was looking forward to learning more about what was going on in Moscow under Putin's leadership.

After all, Russia and its president have been all over the news lately. It's hard to imagine anyone not having heard about Russia's alleged election 'hack' in the United States, their involvement in Syria or their recent annexation of Krimea.

Having now seen all four parts of the documentary, I have to say that as a whole, this series about Oliver Stone talking with president Putin is pretty well made. It manages to keep you interested surprisingly well and is fairly entertaining too.

When it comes to the documentary, very likely the most interesting aspect of it has to do with its access and openness. At least seemingly, president Putin gives Stone an access to see a lot of things that are currently going on inside Kremlin.

In the film, probably thanks to Stone's reputation as a curious and an honest person, Putin gives a tour inside the executive office building. This complex, that is situated in Kremlin, has been strictly off limits for most westerners for decades.

During the visit inside the offices, Putin seems like a jovial and an every day person. He even apologizes to Stone and the crew for not having cleared the place for visitors, which gives an impression of openness and spontaneity.

Later on - while Putin and Stone discuss Edward Snowden - he himself drives Stone to his summer house, 'dacha'. This beautiful and historic place is where they continue their discussion about history and Russia's current policies.

Over the course of the documentary, Putin also invites Stone to watch himself play ice-hockey with legendary russian hockey players in an annual gala game. This is where Putin gets to show his skills, even though he isn't much of a player himself.

In order to show how trustworthy Russia is as a 'partner', Putin even lets Stone and the filming crew watch a live feed of an on going air strike in Syria (picture above). This, if anything should convince that Russia is open and can be trusted.

When it comes to this film's substance and things that matter, I guess a case can be made that the documentary isn't that hard hitting. It's fairly obvious that the purpose of the series isn't to be too hostile or confrontational towards Russia.

In fact, Stone's documentary is so Putin friendly, that it has been purchased by one of the state controlled networks in Russia. This clearly indicates that people in Kremlin are fairly happy with how the the series turned out.

Still, Stone being mostly cordial towards Putin in these discussions doesn't change the fact that the documentary has merit. At least in my view, Putin manages to make a lot of good points over the course of the film that are hard to argue against.

For example, when it comes to Ukraine and the annexation of Krimea, Putin has a relatively good explanation for it. The annexation - at least in his view - was more or less a consequence of a neocon/CIA-backed coup attempt that didn't work as planned.

When it comes to Nato, it's not a secret that the defense organization has been aggressively expanding towards Russian borders over the last 10+ years. Almost all the countries that were part of the Warsaw pact have switched sides and are now against Russia.

When it comes to Russia battling Isis in Syria, it's true that Russians are doing most of the air strikes. Even though they're also responsible for most of the collateral damage, they're the only country operating there at the behest of the Syrian government.

Naturally, the most currently 'important' aspect of the documentary has to do with the U.S presidential election and how Russia supposedly 'hacked' the election. This is what might probably interest the U.S. audiences the most.

Even though it's apparent that Putin doesn't seem convincing when he talks about the Russians not spying on the U.S. government, these hacking claims still seem far fetched. They don't seem likely considering all those other things that we know.

After all, as Putin keeps pointing, the biggest reason for the hacking claim is to distract us from what happened during the democratic primary last year. Hillary's victory against Bernie was a result of cheating and unfair electioneering.

According to Putin, even if Russia was responsible for the DNC hack, everything that was leaked was factual and correct. These leaks were truthful and showed how the fix was in for neoconservative Hillary Clinton.

Putin argues that this is one of the main reasons that the neocons and the so called mainstream media in the U.S. are so firmly against Russia. These exposes of corruption are the reason why the U.S. corporate media is all about blaming them 24/7.

At least in my opinion, these arguments that Putin makes, are mostly fairly logical and make sense. Even though one might not agree with everything that he says, I think it's safe to say that he makes at least some good points.

In that sense, if nothing else, this documentary about president Putin serves as a reminder of how little in general we know about current world affairs. It serves as counter propaganda against what we see on the news and read from the mainstream press.

As a whole, even though it's true that Stone doesn't always follow up with his questions, that doesn't mean that the documentary as a whole doesn't have value. It doesn't mean that it doesn't inform its audience or challenge our view points.

On the contrary, one of the best things about the series is that it shows how incredibly knowledgeable and informed both Stone and Putin are about history. Both clearly know what they're talking about and put us in the audience to a test.

In the end, the series leaves it up to us to decide what is true and what is not. It's up to us to decide as arm chair historians how much of it we're willing to believe and what are the views that we might and might not agree with.

In that sense, if you feel like spending time with a respected film maker and the leader of the Russia, you should probably give the film a chance. You should give it a chance and check how good the series is and how much you'll like it.

As a whole, Oliver Stone's interviews with president Putin not only is an informative documentary, but in my opinion, it's also a documentary that keeps you entertained and makes you want to learn more about history and current world affairs.

Monday, June 12, 2017

There are no shortcuts in interactive storytelling.

Anyone who knows anything about storytelling and writing, knows that it's not an easy craft. It's not easy to come up with a story and characters that your audience is going to find relatable and worth following.

This is especially true when it comes to storytelling that has to do with gaming. It's not easy to come up with a story based pc or a console game that has the ability to keep you entertained throughout its 10 hour plus length. 

So knowing that creating a story driven game isn't easy, it shouldn't come as a surprise that there have been attempts at finding new solutions to the craft. There have been attempts at finding new ways to tell a story in games.

Very likely the most 'ambitious' new approach to storytelling has had to do with 'choices' and how we as gamers are supposed to be more in charge of the story. We are supposed to be able to make decisions that affect how the game turns out.

What this basically means is that when we're playing the game, at some point we'll face situations where we get to choose what happens next. We get to choose between a couple of options that have to do with what our protagonist does.

This means that during the game, perhaps our main character wants to make a decision where he saves another character's life. Or perhaps he simply decides to take another route to a destination, thinking that it would be the best way to solve the problem.
  
When it comes to this kind of approach to gaming, it needs to be said that it hasn't been met with universal praise. Lots of gamers have pointed out how this 'let the gamers choose' doesn't work nearly as well as one might hope.
 
For example, gaming companies tend to exaggerate how much players can actually affect the storylines in their games. In most cases the important parts in the story can't be changed at all, no matter how we choose over the course the game.

Yet, a much bigger problem with this concept has to do with how the writers and the producers might get too preoccupied with the concept. They might get too invested in it and forget the basics of the game and how storytelling really works.

For example, when I played 'Quantum Break' last year, it was obvious that the producers had forgotten the basics of storytelling. They didn't pay enough attention to their story and their premise so that the characters and the storylines would have worked.

Instead of making sure that the story as a whole was coherent, the writers were too obsessed with how 'precious' their idea and concept was. They kept micromanaging their story threads and 'choices' that we as gamers would be making.

Not surprisingly, Quantum Break tanked when it came to both its critical reviews and its sales. Despite a massive push by Microsoft, the game didn't manage to sell even 10% of the copies that Uncharted managed to sell on Ps4.

In that sense, when it comes to writing and producing games that have to do with interactive 'choice' storytelling, we should be cautious about how we approach the concept. It's a challenging idea that requires a lot of effort and talent in order to work.

As far as I'm concerned, letting gamers 'choose' what happens too easily leads to writers cutting corners. It too easily leads to muddled storylines that feel derivative and contrived instead of feeling organic and natural.

Even though it's true that the concept might require a lot of effort and planning from writers, that by itself doesn't mean that much. It doesn't automatically mean that the end product is going to be any good or that it's going to make sense. 

On the contrary, we shouldn't forget that quality storytelling always has to do with simplicity and making things as easy and as enjoyable as possible. It's about coming up with storylines and characters that are clear, well motivated and relatable.

In that sense, if you're not willing to take these aspects of the craft into consideration, things aren't going to work out for you. Your 'ambitious' project won't work, no matter how hard and no matter how much you're willing to work.

Instead of creating a solid product that almost everyone can enjoy, you'll create a disappointing and a lackluster game. You'll create a game that lacks quality, because you didn't pay attention to the basics and because you didn't pay attention to things that matter.

Monday, June 5, 2017

Cursing doesn't make your show 'cool' or 'edgy'.

Even though I'm someone who's a proponent of free speech, I'm not someone who likes to read stuff that contains unnecessary bad language. I don't like when people use profanities without having a good reason for it.

This standard also applies when it comes to watching television shows and movies. Even though I do enjoy watching current shows like South Park, when it comes to entertainment, in general I'm not a fan of obscenities.

In that sense, it shouldn't really surprise anyone that I don't like watching HBO's 'Veep' at all. I have huge problems watching this series that tends to derive all of its hipness from its excessive use of bad language.

By that I mean is that whenever I try to give 'Veep' a chance, watching it more or less makes me feel physically ill. It makes me sick in my stomach to watch all those characters using foul language for no reason at all.

For example, the latest episode that aired a week ago was so full of profanities and ugly language that I had to stop watching it. I had to go for a short break before I managed to continue and finished the episode.

As a whole, this season 6 episode 6, 'Qatar' was so obscene, that I managed to count no less than 50 instances where inappropriate language was used. All those things happened during this episode that lasted 27 minutes.

Over the course of it, there were so many cases where an f-bomb was dropped for no reason at all. Curse words like f*** and s**** were used by almost all of the characters more than three dozen times during the length of the episode.

Even worse than the frequent f-bombs were the sexual references that were used to describe characters and their actions. It was simply shocking to watch Julia-Louise Dreyfus spout stuff like 'Do I need to pull out my c**t and cut it in half?'.

Needless to say, not once during the episode did I feel that the use of foul language was justified or made sense. There wasn't a single case where I felt that using these obscenities made the script or the episode better.

On the contrary, in every single instance it was blatantly obvious that the writers had absolutely no clue what they were doing. They used foul language as a crutch to fool those in the audience who didn't know any better.

As far as I'm concerned, there were no storylines or characters in the episode that held your interest. There were no redeeming qualities that would have made you think that this series and its actors were creating something that was worth your time.

As a whole, it's super embarrassing to note that Veep actually has managed to win the best comedy series Emmy two times in a row. It's so incredibly embarrassing that the academy has fallen for a show like this.

I mean, do these Emmy voters seriously think that it's awesome and cool that characters behave like they do here? Does anyone actually believe that this kind of stuff makes things better when it comes to getting quality shows and getting people to watch tv?

At least when it comes to me, there's nothing cool about using obscene language like it's used here. There's nothing funny about constantly making fun of others, cursing and humiliating them using words that would make any reasonable person blush.

In that sense, the fact that the writers and the producers on 'Veep' so willingly resort to awful stuff speaks volumes about them. It's so sad that they think that using foul language and obscenities would make them look good.

Unfortunately for them, the excessive swearing and the use of obscenities doesn't work. It doesn't work and makes it even more obvious that the series is so hopelessly toothless and that it doesn't have anything meaningful to say.

Saturday, May 27, 2017

The revival of Twin Peaks doesn't work at all.


Even though I'm someone that likes to watch tv shows and movies, I've always had problems watching stuff that is a bit out there. I've never been that big of a fan of shows or films that try to be weird for the sake of being weird.

As a writer, whenever I have my television on, I tend to watch shows that are fairly simple and that have a relatively straightforward premise. I expect that the stuff that I watch makes enough sense and that it can keep me entertained.  

Nevertheless, a couple of days ago I noticed that a somewhat 'weird' series was being revived on television. David Lynch's 'Twin Peaks' was coming back after its 25 year break, so I thought that I should give it a chance and see if it's any good.

Having now seen the first three episodes that have aired, I have to say that the relaunch for 'Twin Peaks' hasn't been worth the wait. The new series hasn't been good and the positive reviews for it seem to be based more or less on hype.

When it comes this new season, the biggest problem with it has to do with how it's written. The screenplays for the first three episodes have been incredibly lacking and haven't had almost anything interesting going on in them.

As fortunate as it is, this new Twin Peaks simply doesn't have coherent storylines that you could follow. The murder storyline and our main character (Kyle MacLachlan) being in some kind of existential limbo doesn't work at all.

As weird as it is, every episode so far has mostly consisted of scenes where almost nothing happens. There's very little dialogue, sounds, action, music or anything in any of these scenes that tend to go on forever.

For example, when it came to the latest episode that aired, the third episode had like fifty-five minutes of static nonsense and only like four minutes of actual story. This is completely ridiculous and totally unacceptable even for a weird show like this.

In comparison, the original series that aired during the early nineties wasn't this much about being weird for the sake of being weird. It wasn't this empty and so utterly lacking in content compared to this revived series.

As far as I can still remember, the original Twin Peaks was about actually having interesting characters and solid storylines. It was about a murder mystery and about who had murdered Laura Palmer in cold blood.

All those fascinating things like the haunting music, the atmosphere, the weird settings, the characters and the mysteries were just the icing on the cake. They were not the only things that mattered in the original series.

In any case, when it comes to this new series, I don't see how I could go much further with it. I don't see how I could see myself watching through all the fifteen remaining episodes that are still going to air and that haven't been shown on tv.

As far as I'm concerned, this revival is pretty big failure based on the first three episodes that have aired. It's hard to imagine how the show could start to get better and how it could start to magically make sense again.

In that sense, if you haven't seen this new season of Twin Peaks yet, I guess you have been warned. As unfortunate as it is, this new season isn't any good and is something that can't really be recommended for almost anyone.

Sunday, May 21, 2017

Hollywood's so called 'liberals' still don't get it.

Like many others, I wasn't happy at all about last year's presidential election in the U.S. There's almost nothing good or positive to say about what happened during the 2016 election cycle and how things eventually turned out.

I was especially disappointed when it came to the primaries and how Bernie Sanders got cheated out of the nomination for the democrats. It was absolutely pathetic how the 'elites' in the party and the so called 'liberal media' treated him.

Nevertheless, now that Donald Trump has been our new commander in chief for about four months, things have changed at least a bit. There are certain things that have given me hope and that make me feel optimistic about the future.

For example, senator Sanders who got cheated during the democratic primaries, hasn't given up and hasn't taken a step back. He hasn't given up his fight for a better and a more fair America for the poor and for the middle class.

On the contrary, Bernie, who has been touring the country, now has actually become the most popular politician in the country. He has a +24 favorability rating, which is huge compared to president Trump (-15) and Hillary Clinton (-20).

Not only has Sanders become even more popular, his ideas and his platform have become more popular too. His fight for single payer health care system has become so popular that even the majority of republicans are now for it.

Yet, it seems that there's one faction in the U.S. that hasn't learned anything about the election and its aftermath. The elites of the democratic party and the liberal media still don't have a clue about what's going on.

Instead of taking a good look in the mirror and trying to change the party's direction, all the democratic establishment now talks about is Russia. Whether we're talking about Bill Maher, The Daily Show with Trevor Noah or Rachel Maddow, it's all Russia 24/7.

According to them, Russia 'hacked' the election and made Clinton lose against Trump in swing states. It was the Russian influence that cost her the presidency and that Hillary's own scandals had absolutely nothing to do with how things turned out.

The only problem with this kind of rhetoric and propaganda is that it's simply not true. Whether we're talking about wikileaks or internet trolling, there's no evidence that Russia itself managed to have any kind of influence on the election.

I mean, when it comes to Trump's connections to Russia, it's probably true that he has some shady business dealings with them. These dealings that might have to do with money laundering, are probably why he fired FBI's director James Comey last week.

Still, these 'connections' have likely nothing to do with how the presidential election turned out. These murky Russian deals don't explain why the electorate decided that it was time for an outsider and why the swing states voters rejected Hillary Clinton.

In reality, the real reason that Trump won the election against secretary Clinton was that she stood for absolutely nothing. Her campaign was simply based on protecting the establishment and not changing the status quo at all.

As unfortunate as it is, Hillary and the rest of the elites lost because they didn't pay attention to the problems of the poor and the middle class. They didn't have any kind of respect for the ordinary people who are not well off and are suffering.

For her and her establishment supporters, the election was more or less a vanity run and an attempt to show how precious and wonderful the establishment is. It was about showing how they are better than the rest of us peasants.

In that sense, everytime that I turn on shows like Real Time with Bill Maher or Rachel Maddow's program on MSNBC, I can only roll my eyes. I can only laugh and feel pity when I look at their condescension for us 'purists' that didn't support their Queen.

For them, the problems with the country don't have to do with the democractic party or how deeply corrupt and bought the politicians are. None of their problems are the kinds of things that actually matter to us normal people.

For them, the only 'real' problems that exist have to do with Trump, third party voters and Russia. None of the problems that they acknowledge have to do with healthcare, education, Wall Street cronies, fracking, jobs or minimum wage increases.

In that sense, when it comes changing direction in the country, most of these media elites and career politicians don't have a clue about what the problems in the country are. They don't care because they aren't connected to reality anymore.

In the end, when it comes to this whole thing, we can only hope that honest politicians like Bernie Sanders and his progressive supporters manage to bring some change in the system. We can only hope their efforts start to pay dividends at some point.

After all, the truth is that there are so many major problems with the political system and how policies are being implemented. These are the issues that need to be addressed, before things can finally start to get better.

Unfortunately for us, as long as these liberal sellouts stay in denial, the country and its citizens will continue to suffer. Things in congress won't get any better and progressive legislation has no chance of getting passed in the house and the senate.

Saturday, May 13, 2017

How good has Prison Break's 5th season been?

Like many others, I was a pretty big fan of the series 'Prison Break' when it aired ten or so years ago. I used to love watching Wentworth Miller's main protagonist doing his best to get himself and his brother out of the prison.

During the show's later seasons, it's true that the series started to run out of organic ideas and started to get implausible. Especially when it came to its 4th season, it was a bit hard to get interested in our characters anymore. 

So in that sense, I was a bit surprised when I noticed that Prison Break was being revived as a limited series. I was a bit puzzled about getting the show back, especially knowing what had originally happened in the series finale.

In any case, having now seen the first six episodes of 'Prison Break: Resurrection' that have aired, I have to say that the relaunch has been a bit of a mixed bag. The series definitely hasn't been as good it was during its first, or its first two seasons.

By that I mean that there have been quite a few moments that haven't made enough sense or that haven't been well made. Many of the moments during the first episodes have felt forced and have felt like the writers didn't think things through first.

For example, when it comes to stuff not making sense, there's no way that Dominic Purcell's character and his companions would have been able to fly to Jemen to help Michael Scofield (Miller). There's no way this would actually be possible in real life.  

Moments like Theodore Bagwell getting a new mechanical arm have felt too convenient too. It's a bit too much to ask that our favorite anti-hero would magically get rid of his handicap that he got from the initial series.

Also, like probably many others, I haven't been a big fan of the Dr. Sara stuff. The twists and turns where we have been guessing whether Dr. Tancredi's new husband is one of the villains haven't been interesting.

Still, having said all these things, it can't be denied that the best part of the series has had to do with Wentworth Miller's character. He, as a man with a plan - who always finds ways to get himself out of trouble, is why we watch the show

At least in my opinion, Miller's protagonist is the most likable character on television. He is what makes 'Prison Break' so inherently watchable and what makes millions of us root for him and for his plight every week.

His incredible likability is why the latest episode that aired this week was so watchable. It was so utterly entertaining to watch Scofield being alone in the middle of the desert trying to come up with solutions to his problems.

Situations and moments like these - at least in my case - make me forget that this new season hasn't exactly been that well written or that plausible. All those moments where his character gets to use his genius mind make me overlook the show's flaws.

In that sense, knowing that there are still three more episodes that are about to air, we can only hope that there's going to be as much stuff as possible about Miller's character and that the series is going to keep its focus on him.

As far as I'm concerned, the more the show focuses on him, the better 'Prison Break: Resurrection' works. The more we get plotlines about Scofield figuring how to get out of harm's way, the better that is for all of us in the audience.

Friday, May 5, 2017

Don't end scenes with jokes that don't fit in.

One of the things that bothers me about comedy shows is that too many of them try way too hard to be funny. Too many of them try to make you laugh even when there's no need for that and when the situation doesn't warrant comedy.

As unfortunate as it is, a lot of producers seem to think that no matter what the situation is, you always need to have jokes. Regardless of whether they make sense or fit in, these jokes have to be in there anyway.

For example, yesterday I watched an episode of HBO's comedy series 'Silicon Valley'. This episode S4E02, 'Terms of Service', had a lot of things in it that made me scratch my head and made me wonder what the writers were thinking.

By that I mean that the episode had moments in it, where it was clear that the scenes and how they were wrapped didn't make sense. It was clear that the writers were cramming in 'funny' stuff just for the sake of it and without thinking things through first.

For instance, when Stephen Tobolowsky's character started to get serious about what to do with the company, it felt like the episode was going somewhere and had a purpose. We in the audience started to get interested in what was going on.

After all, 'Silicon Valley's' problem as a series has been that it has felt too much like a sketch show instead of a series that you could believe in. In too many cases it has been difficult to believe in the characters and the storylines on the show.

So for once we had a scene and a moment where it felt like something might actually happen and that the stuff would make sense. It was exciting to see Tobolowsky's character start talking about the 'middle-out' idea and how it would help the company.

Yet, when the scene reached its conclusion, the attention was diverted from the idea to a weird joke about Matt Ross's character wearing a wig. The writers simply moved on to stuff that made no sense, which took the energy out of the scene.

Later on in the episode, things didn't really get any better when it came to these jokes. At least in my opinion, things got even worse when it came to 'buttoning' scenes with stuff that didn't fit in and that came out of nowhere.

Especially when it came to the Indian looking guy making a fool of himself and dropping those sauces in the cafeteria, you just had to facepalm in embarrassment. It was so obvious that the writers had no clue what they were doing.

As a whole, all these things happened because the writers either didn't believe in their characters and storylines enough, or because they were too confident about their ideas and thought that it wasn't possible to make mistakes with these scenes.

Unfortunately for them, these scenes stuck out like a sore thumb to the audience. They were so easy to spot, that any reasonable person who was paying attention to the episode was probably able to pick them up without any effort.

In the end, when it comes to unnecessary jokes like these, I'm not saying that this is just a problem for a show like Silicon Valley. Having scenes that end with horrible jokes is not something that only this series does all the time.

On the contrary, this kind of writing can frequently be found on other shows too. Popular sitcoms like Modern Family and The Big Bang Theory have also been guilty of making these kinds of amateurish mistakes lately.

In that sense, I just wish that writers for comedy shows in general would take their jobs a little bit more seriously. I just wish that they would respect us in the audience a little bit more than they're currently doing.

As far as I'm concerned, all these needless jokes only hurt these sitcoms. These awful 'jokes' make these shows worse and make us in the audience feel that our needs aren't being met when it comes to getting quality entertainment.

Friday, April 28, 2017

How much do you need to 'practice' writing?


When it comes to writing, one of the most important things about being a scribe has to do with practicing. Anyone who wants to become a competent writer has to be willing to practice and has to work on his craft on a regular basis.

No matter who you are, it never hurts to spend some time writing and trying to create something worthwhile. There's no downside to practicing with your keyboard and trying to come up with something that others might want to read.

At the same time, when it comes to becoming a better writer, we shouldn't forget that 'writing' is not the only way that you can get better at your craft. There are other ways too that can help you to become a better scribe.

For example, when it comes to myself, I try to spend at least some time every day reading what others have managed to write. I try to find stuff that could be worth my time and that I could perhaps recommend for others to read too.

When I keep reading what others have written, I can always evaluate their work. Whenever I read news pieces and articles, I get to evaluate whether the stuff is well written and whether I would have written it the same way.  

When it comes to other forms of entertainment, like watching scripted shows on television, I also pay attention to how well they are made. I try to pay attention to whether these shows make sense and whether they have any value as a whole. 

In these cases, it's certainly true that I tend not to have that much patience as I have with printed stuff. I tend to give up on most of the television shows pretty easily and go do something else when I get frustrated. 

Still, whenever I'm either reading or watching anything, I almost always learn something. I learn something, even though I might not consciously realize that my brain just got more information to process and to learn from.

In that sense, it's difficult to say how much each of us have actually practiced the craft. Since the process is so intertwined with reading and following all these sources of entertainment, it's hard to say how much we have practiced over the years.

At least in my case, the fact is that I have learned a lot about writing when I watched all those tv shows and films. It's safe to say that I would never have become a writer, had I not watched quality shows like The Simpsons and Ally Mcbeal.

These are the shows that taught me about the importance of characters and the importance of plausible storylines in writing. These are the shows that taught me how important it is to be real in order to be funny.

In the end, when it comes to writing, none of us who decide to 'start' practicing are going to start from scratch. We all have read, watched and paid attention to things that have helped us to become better with the craft.

At least in my opinion, if you think that you should start writing, but don't feel that you know enough about the craft, you probably shouldn't be too worried. You shouldn't think that you're not good enough and that you don't have it in you.

On the contrary, the fact is that you have already learned a lot in your life. The fact that you have read so many books, watched so many movies and watched so many television shows counts a lot more than you might think.

In that sense, if you feel like writing, you should just give it a go. You should give it a go, because at least in my opinion, there's a pretty good chance that you'll become a solid writer and that it's going to happen a lot faster than you had thought at first.