Public Art: Bay Bridge Lights

The genius of the Bay Bridge Lights as a public Art piece is that it can be turned on, adding art/form to art/function, or off and gone.

It's generally not possible to turn off an art piece and have it be virtually unnoticeable.

Some people criticize the Bay Bridge Lights. I equate those people to the Parisians who hated the Eiffel Tower when it was first built.

Short sited. Critical without foresight.

The lights don't turn the bridge into a shadow. They add 21st century beauty and elegance to 20th century beauty and elegance that is often hidden in shadow or fog. The lights bring attention to the function and form Art can take, and the ways which technology effects us. Art and technology can build us bridges to cut travel times or light spaces to take us to places we never knew we could go. The lights helps us see the beauty of the bridge, and the simple fantastic production value of an algorithm and highly efficient light bulbs.

I'm a big fan of the lights and think the should be made permanent.

"Film Biz Feng Shui"

Fung shui, is a Chinese system of geomancy believed to use the laws of both Heaven (Chinese astronomy) and Earth to help one improve life by receiving positive qi.^[3]  -- Wikipedia

"Film Biz Feng Shui"

It's an all American system of catalyzing ideas (scripts, books, dreams) believed to use the laws of both the real world and the bizarro world, to improve the end product and receiving of positive cash flow or true world of art (ideally both).

I pride myself on being a master of it.

It's all about the little things, like setting up office furniture in just the right way, for ideal business flow.  Or a well placed plant or well timed surprise treat can pay for it's self many times over in productivity. It's about understanding the mix of personalities and how they are working or not working.  It's about connecting all the little things, the rain drops into the big things, the river, aligning your project with the right people, and with the larger patterns and movements of the Hollywood Stars and the Hollywood system as a whole.

I know how make a flow, go with the flow, and eventually guide the flow.

Film making is a very collaborative process, it takes bringing together of many different "elements" and people.  To make a feature film you need (sometimes crazy) creative Artists, unpredictable crew members, accountants, non-creative or "money" people, IP lawyers, and more...   You will need to know how to mix and blend these elements in just the right way.  It's a lot harder than it seems.  If you didn't know the proportions of the ingredients of a cake, your cake would not be edible most likely.  Sometimes, if you mix "elements" (people, energy) in the wrong way, it'll blow up in your face.  With the right FBFS, you can make a film production flow almost effortlessly... and save millions.  You can have your cake and eat it too.

It's why I know I will be a great Producer or Production consultant one day.

It's all about Film Biz Feng Shui.

Areté

Make Art with arete.

Be an Artist with areté.  

Just by saying areté you will have it.

Arete (Ancient Greek: ἀρετή), in its basic sense, means excellence of any kind. In its earliest appearance in Greek, this notion of excellence was ultimately bound up with the notion of the fulfillment of purpose or function: the act of living up to one's full potential.

Areté is explicitly linked with human knowledge, where the expressions "virtue is knowledge" and "Areté is knowledge" are used interchangeably. The highest human potential is knowledge and all other human abilities are derived from this central capacity. If Areté is knowledge and study, the highest human knowledge is knowledge about knowledge itself; in this light, the theoretical study of human knowledge, which Aristotle called "contemplation," is the highest human ability and happiness." -Richard Hooker  *** thanks Wikipedia ****

And from Areté we get Art.  Art in the purest essence of the word, in every expression.

Equity

"For every wrong there is a remedy"

In Latin, "Ubi jus ibi remedium" ("where there is a right, there must be a remedy").  It's a maxim of law >> Equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy.

"The maxims of equity evolved in Latin, and eventually translated into English, as the principles applied by courts of equity in deciding cases before them."

"Equity is commonly said to "mitigate the rigor of common law", allowing courts to use their discretion and apply justice in accordance with natural law."

"Natural law, or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis), is a system of law that is purportedly determined by nature, and thus universal.  Classically, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature -- both social and personal -- and deduce binding rules of moral behavior."

The Aristotelian approach to practical reasoning is based on the notion of a virtue, and generally avoids the separation of 'moral' considerations from other practical considerations.

Morality thus came out of the very idea (the essence) of civilization itself.  Aristotle tutored Alexander the Great, who used these principles, morality, ethics, logic, to create law -- EQUITY -- and a civilization we call "Western Civilization".  The civilization Alexander (and his wise men) created was the basis of the empires of Greece and Rome, which Europe and English are derived from, and which the American Republic was built on.

Laws are there to assure that those without morality are punished, wrongs are set right, so society/civilization can prosper.

Disruptive Innovation = Postmodernism

A friend of mine told me she wanted to find and read an article in the New Yorker.  It was the May edition, last month, so it might be hard to find a hard copy.  She Googled it, and showed me the cover.  It was a play of Magritte's surrealist faceless businessman.  I was instantly interested. Surrealist imagery and style that resonates very strongly with me, as you can tell by my avatar.  I quickly noted, "We don't need to find a hard copy.  I'm can just download it onto the iPad."

There's an app for that...

I was told the article was about "disruptive innovation", which of course also immediately sparked my interest.  First the cover I loved, and now an intellectually titillating subject like "disruptive innovation" for the article?   Disruptive innovation strikes right to the core of my two great passions, Science and Art.  I wanted to find and read the article as well.  My attention had been captured.

The article was:  "When Giants Fail:  What Business has Learned from Clayton Christensen"

Remind me to look into his books.  His ideas about the steel mill still hold value in the theory they construct, but "disruptions" are far more complicated now than the steel mill analogy can define.  I think of it as derivatives being a disruption on Wall Street... the steel mill analogy helps get the idea across, like the Bohr model of the atom, but it's only where you start your understanding, it does not account for the quantum mechanics involved and is thus difficult to produce answers from, directly.

The article was nice profile of him.  Christensen is a very interesting person, with a very good story and observation.  It got me thinking.  First, "disruption" is always relative to the disrupted.  Not everyone is disrupted, by every disruption, in fact sometimes people are better off from disruption, it is only the bottom line that is not.  Sometimes the bottom line is far better off with the disruption, it is the consumer, their health, or another specific industry that is disrupted -- starved to death and obliterated.  Manufactured food is disruptive to organic farming.  Rome was disruptive to Hellenism.  Modernism -- most explicitly in architecture, but also intellectually -- was disruptive to everything that came before it.  But...

Postmodernism is "disruptive innovation".  Postmodernism is disruptive innovation on Modernism.  It's sound onto the silent film biz, 3-D on Blockbuster filmmaking.  Postmodernism is that slight mutation of an idea or form that triggers a dramatic shift in the environment in which it operates.  When I think of disruptive innovation, I think of "Reality TV" -- disruptive innovation on traditional scripted programing.  It's an inferior technology overtaking a better one by numbers or force; market force.  It's what the invention of mp3s did to the Record Industry.  Napster brought an industry, that was over 100 years old, to it's knees in about one year's time.  Disruptions come fast and strong in Postmodernism.  Like hurricanes out of the clear blue sky, "disruptions" sweep in and the operating landscape is changed.  Facebook disrupted Myspace to death, but only distracted Google and Apple into paying attention.  Apple disrupted music, movies, books, cell-phones, computers... Silicon Valley is disrupting Hollywood, but also helping it...

Digital media is disrupting publishing, but it is also helping it.  This is when I realized to point of the article, and the idea.  Creating (your own) disruptions, ones that can help (you), is the name of the game.  Disruption can be a good thing, it doesn't have to be a bad thing, so long as you know how to use it.

***

I've been a fan of the New Yorker for a long time.  It's important to support good writers and organizations that nurture them.  "Buy writing content", I thought to myself.  Support the digital publishing model!  So, I downloaded the app and bought the magazine.  I wanted it enough to buy it, rare for me.  No need to call or drive around looking for it.  Instant readability at a nominal fee, really helped me.  

"What an age this is..."

The PHARAOH effect

The PHARAOH effect...

People learn about the story, and it interests them.

They want to know more.

Secrets, mystery, myth, legend and science... it all resonates with people.

PHARAOH has something for everyone.

Comic-book and 'superhero appeal for kids.

Religious and intellectual depth for adults.

Fast, fun and spectacular action sequences for teens.

Hollywood needs films that can tap the growing global markets.

Films that transcend cultures, and appeal to everyone on a human level.

Hollywood needs films that can really explore the potential of 3-D technology, and push it to the edge.

PHARAOH is a multi-dimesional story, that draws you in, making it perfect to explore the potential of 3-D

Sequences of dreams, where characters fall through space and time. Like a worm-hole in 3-D

Action sequences where characters are in Virtual worlds (like the Matrix) where they 'manifest' weapons and battle robot and machines.

Exploring the mind, and dreams gives it the feel of 'Inception' by Chris Nolan, but with an esoteric twist and a 3-D edge.

PHARAOH has something for everyone, and the story is so universal it penetrates the mind like a catchy-toon...

It tickles the brain, and stirs the heart. It keeps the neurons humming with wonder.

The script PHARAOH makes you think, in a fun, stimulating way...

The movie it would leave you wanting more, wanting to see it again.

It's the PHARAOH effect.

It just feels right.

Guerilla Marketing

I had some pretty "big" screenwriters offer me feedback on my script (on a screenplay forum), for which I am grateful and humbled. Not all of them liked my style, or liked me -- so they said -- but they all seemed to agree the premise of PHARAOH is solid.

They all read a script part I posted. Which is all I wanted. Some read it with the intention of trying to bring me down, or to try and make my writing look bad, but all that really matters is that they read it! They were interested enough to read it, which is what's important.

I'm not some major Hollywood insider or writer, but everyone has to start somewhere, right?

What makes me happy is that I was able to hold my own with some top screenwriters in Hollywood, and that they now know who I am. I love that they read my script, and that had interest in me. What more can you ask for?

I know my methods are unorthodox -- or unknown to some -- and sometimes I get people riled up, or upset with my *postmodern* guerilla marketing strategies, but just remember one thing:

It worked! Lot's of people -- several Pro Hollywood screenwriters -- read my script PHARAOH!

"People that like Howard Stern listen for 1 hour. People that hate Howard Stern listen for 3 hours" -- as the saying goes.

I didn't hurt anyone, or insult anyone in my marketing, as some people did me. I didn't ask or tell anyone to read it. All I did was tell people about my script, put myself and my thoughts about it out there. People could take it or leave it.

Lots of people took it, and partook. That's all that matters. Even if they say they hated it. What matters to me is that they read it. That they were interested, and that it's in their head now...

It's like selling a house. I had an open house -- open script! -- and lots of people came and looked. That's what you want! You want lots of people to come and look. Even if they aren't in the market. It's the buzz that's important! If you have an open house and tons of people roll through, that's a good thing!! That means your marketing is working!

I put my 'PHARAOH' algorithm into the Hollywood/Screenwriters 'consciousness network' and after I did, it took on a life of it's own. I quickly realized the script is far FAR bigger than me, and it's going to take someone really big to helm it.

PHARAOH is so big -- story wise, 3-D production wise -- only someone big like Chris Nolan, or James Cameron can get it made. Only someone big can do a really big story justice.

Therein lies the problem for me, because it's really hard to get someone like them interested in a script from a 'baby-writer' like me -- since they can have any script they want. I have to show them why they want PHARAOH.

All I can do hope my "ethereal algorithms" do what they are written to do. If they don't, I'll just write more, until one does!

If you are wondering how do you get people to read your script...

Be creative! Whatever works! Just be yourself and have fun!

That's what I did. That's what it's all about.

For an (unsold) writer like me, you need to get people to read your stuff. That's the only way to get someone interested in you, and wanting to buy your work. No one will buy a house/script they (or someone they trust) don't see/read. Getting people to read it and give you feedback will help/make you grow and learn. That's what I want to to do, grow and learn.

I know my script isn't perfect -- no script is -- and my formatting is avant-garde. I don't expect it to meet the wildly varied expectations of everyone, or every "Pro" or that reads it. What script could?

How many "Pros" scripts could do that? Not many.

How many of the scripts that sell every year could do that? Even fewer.

I'm not saying PHARAOH did/does, all I'm saying is let's be realistic about our expectations. Some people will tell you: "It has to be perfect or it will never sell!" -- even though they know this to be false.

Good scripts can make bad movies, and bad scripts can make good movies. There is plenty of room for excellence if the underlying story is solid, and the talent attached sees the vision.

The "bones" of PHARAOH are solid. The story is profound. The concept has universal appeal.

It just has to work. The vast majority of the movie going public just want a good story. They just want to be entertained!

And entertaining people is what I do best!

I'm obviously not the best screenwriter to enter Hollywood. I'm just getting started, after all. But at least I'm here, putting stuff out there, ready to learn, and willing to engage. Hopefully entertaining! I keep it civil and don't insult people or go around trying to tear people down. That's not my style. I want to learn, and I want to help people... or at least have fun trying!

Playing (postmodern) games, and changing/challenging perspectives, making people look at thing differently is my style. Sure I can be defensive sometimes, but that's all part of the game/fun.

If you don't think it's fun, don't play! No need to get defensive about it!

I never play anyone for a fool, and I never assumed anyone is a fool. I don't think anyone should do so with me either.

I assure you, I'm no fool. I'm simply inventing/exploring was to play the Hollywood game, which is what it's all about.

Shifting of the Hollywood Model

Re: Current Studio Model Will Fall Away (written 07-27-2010)

In one sense 'the model will fall away'. But the studios are not going anywhere, and tent-pole filmmaking is not going anywhere. They will change with the market, as all good businesses do.

'The Calculator' is on the right track, but seems to have missed the how and why.

The studios are not going to be like the Record Labels -- virtually dissolve -- they are going to be like the Networks (ABC, NBC, CBS, etc) and diversify -- embrace cable (new models), and "buy into the change."

The Studios (and networks) are all part of massive media conglomerates so they change their models/strategies often, and the media business is booming like never before. People consume more media today than imagined possible 10 or 20 years ago. Smart phones, iPads and emerging markets like China and India will provide ever increasing patrons and opportunities, which will often require ever more 'models' and strategies to tap into these markets. But the demand for big films is there.

If you ask me, looking forward, studios are better suited to look at more universal themes -- not just known American remakes -- for making tent-pole films because those will play better in a global market place.

Original ideas about science, religion, the mind, and the human experience have potential to sell in a global market, and we are fast transitioning into a totally global market place for films. America's big cities are very much 'a diverse global market' - hence a lack of interest in 'established American brands'.

The diversification of the studios into video games, web & cable programing allows for the funding of synergized 'tent-poles' projects. But idea of TV shows and video games becoming tent-poles is a model that I think is not as viable as once thought... It's already become stale. I think people prefer smart, original entertainment if they are going to pay a premium; which makes perfect sense when you think about it.

Even 3-D is in it's infancy. The recent abuse of calling films 3-D, when they really converted, not shot in 3-D, is really annoying though. It's a waste if you ask me. If it is not filmed as 3-D >> IT'S NOT 3-D.

3-D as a way of filmmaking is bursting with mind blowing potential, as the technology rapidly improves, creative geniuses will find ways to tap this and pair it with powerful stories, and thus will be able to top even Avatar - which had universal appeal - box office numbers.

Because of this, it is my belief that the 'tent-pole' box office has the potential to get even bigger.

Superhero tent-poles that tap ever improving film technology, is a model is not going anywhere either. I just hope they don't skimp on the writing. Chris Nolan can't oversee them all...

Media is one of America's largest/greatest export products. No other economy in the world is capable of funding 20-30 $200 million motion pictures a year, but even America has it's limits. Which is why the studios have cut back the 'irrational exuberance'. That should not be confused with the breakdown of the studio system. The costs are up, so fewer are made.

It cost about $30-$60 million -- so it needs to be worth it -- just to market a film these days, so it's either go all-in-big, or go the indie route. The studios are going big.

But the indie world is also going strong. Technology that was once only available to the studios is now available to anyone with a laptop. Hence the pressure for the studios to go big and make 'tent-pole'.

The markets are changing very fast, so the studios are also cutting the lag time in development so that they don't miss the market/mark. That is why the recent duds have happened. People were over the trend even before it was able to set in. The market changed before the films even came out...

Try and keep up!

The beauty is that anyone can make movies these days, and market them virtually for free on the internet. If it catches on -- Justin Beiber effect -- it can work out real nice. If not, try again!

It's an exciting time to be in media.

And if you keep up, it is very exciting.

Review: Transformers 3

Epic.

Intense action.

Digital effects indulgent.

Forty minutes too long.

Top-notch cinematography and sequences.

While it was a bit long, it was fast moving and engaging. I loved the conspiratorial angle, linking the robots to conspiracies about the Moon landing. For me that gave the movie a neo-real depth and edge that really fit perfectly into the franchise story.

If I could, I would have cut out most of the scenes with the annoying little robots -- they were like Jar Jar Binks all over again. The excessively juvenile and 'ghetto' rambling of the little robots takes away from the movie, for me. I understand what they are trying to do, I just don't think it helps the movie... Just my opinion.

While I enjoyed the film, I'm still on the fence about how I feel about Michael Bay as a Director. I actually think there are many other Directors who, with the resources available to them, could have made a much better movie.

>>> SPOILER <<<

Many parts of the film were very 'clunky' and didn't really make sense or just totally contradicted what the story had established previously. For example there is a point when the main girl, talks to Megatron and convinces him to go attack 'Sentinel Prime' the once good robot who has gone bad...

Megatron has killed every human he can for the past couple hours, but for some reason decides to not kill, and even listen to this girl? >> Forced, clunky

Also the soldiers who parachute in to the epic battle with the winged suits, and miraculously are able to avoid being shot by robots that can hit mach-3? >> poorly executed.

Obviously the producers and director know people will just get over it if they even ever catch it. I'm just being picky.

Most of the time I was marveling at the film technology available to us today. Nobody can make movies like Hollywood. It's pretty awesome.

PHARAOH Update

Today I finished my new script PHARAOH. Super excited about it.

It has been a labor of love. It pushed me to my creative edge -- consistantly, every time I worked on it.

I feel I've grown so much as a writer, a screenwriter and especially a person, in researching, and writing this script. It forced me to read and learn about so many things. Topics like: Holy Blood, Ancient Egypt, Secret Societies, Computers, Artificial Intelligence, DNA, Crop Circles, the human brain, 2012, and Hollywood...

I know there are millions of people out there, just like me, who are so interested in these things and how they fit and affect the world. They are the ideal fodder for 2012 spec feature script. This story would play well -- find an audience -- in all major film markets, foriegn and domestic. It's very exciting.

It's going to sell. I can tell.

Enlightenment: Going to the Movies

Why screenwriting? If it's writing you love, why not become a novelist, journalist, or copywriter? What is it about screenwriting that pulls you like ambrosia?

If the answer comes down to making interesting sums of money while gaining fame and glory... well, then I pity you. You will most certainly suffer. And I say, stop. Please. Do not write one more solitary script word.

But if your soul-searching answer reaches the honest conclusion that you can do nothing else but write movies – and when I say that I mean in your desire, want, and need - then you are a screenwriter. Stay the course. It takes ten years to have overnight success. So keep writing, and arm yourself with fortitude – it will be your Excalibur.

But now ask yourself: "Why is it that I can do nothing else but write movies?" And if you look deep enough, the answer will reach the root core of everything. You need to write movies because, simply put, YOU LOVE THE MOVIES.

Going to the movies – in so many ways – is your spiritual center. It's not just the visual cinematic medium you love. It's the whole package: the popcorn, the soda, the seats, the audience, the lights dimming, the previews... the entire communal experience. And you can remember times – maybe as a kid or even just last week – where the clarity of that movie experience reinforces why you do it. Why you write that screenplay, and the next one, and the next one after that.

It's true you may never be a financial success as a Hollywood screenwriter, but if you have the insight as to why you write, then you've already won.

Via:
http://thescriptlab.com/

I would just like to add to this, that going to the movies can and should be more "enlightening" as an experience. Wether it be emotionally, mentally or spiritually enlightening, it's a movie because it should "move you".

The best and most successful movies of the next decade will no doubt be the ones that are able to "enlighten" all different kinds of people, in all different parts of the world.

Movie Review: THOR

Epic. Religious. Scientific. Emotional. Fun.

I really enjoyed this movie. It was everything I hoped it would be, and maybe even a little more. Great cast. Great Art Direction. Great script. It all came together for me and worked well. And also key it left me wanting more...

I am a huge fan of this new wave of superhero movies -- specifically the ones that take the 'fantastic' elements about them, and ground them in reality. THOR takes the premise of Norse mythology (which I love) and combined it with science (worm-holes, Einstein-Rosen Bridge) for a story that truly works. Sure it has a few holes in it, but overall it worked for me. I really liked the world of the gods that Thor came from. I loved it's 'Atlantis' feel and how they even used a sort of scientific grounding for that world. I also liked the reference to "Tony Stark" a very subtle plug of Paramount's Iron-man.

What really got me about this film, was also it's emotional grounding. It set up a great dynamic between the characters, the struggle for power, and the relationships at the core of the story all really gave the story another kind of depth.

As a huge fan of Marvel, I feel this film did it great justice. It set itself up for a franchise with lots of potential.

This film is exactly the kind of thing/feeling/aesthetic I am going for with my script PHARAOH.

Well done!

Medicare and the Budget Debate

I am glad the debate over fixing Medicare has begun. It's an important debate with profound consequences for every American. But in mind, the proposal announced yesterday by Paul Ryan is just a jumping off point.

Never accept a first offer.

Medicare serves mostly people 65 and older, which is about 10%-12% of the population.

It eats up about 23-30% of the total Federal Budget. In the range of: $4,000,000,000,000 per year.

About 30% of the cost of the program is for patient care in the last year of their life: $1.33 trillion

Some people wonder if it's worth $1.33 trillion dollars to extend a terminal patient's life for a year, but it's a tricky situation that is always dealt with on a case by case basis, and people understandably always want as much care and time for/with their loved one as possible. But if you remove the personal emotion from the equation, it does not make economic sense to spend $1.3 trillion dollars on something that provides no return, and only puts of the inevitable for a very short time. It seems harsh, but it's important to understand the reality of the situation. $1.3 trillion dollars would be enough to pay the FULL college tuition of every American with billions left to spare; just to put it in perspective. Extend the life of terminal/elderly by one year, or have free college for every American?

But then again, kids don't get to vote and the elderly do...

Everyone knows its a dicey situation for politicians to tackle, which is why it has taken so long to confront. No one wants to be the one to take away benefits, or do the ACTUAL WORK of fixing the broken system. Many people that try, just end up getting "hurt" by it. But we no longer have the luxury or financial ability to not do anything...

One of the MAJOR problems with Medicare is it audits LESS than 5% of the claims. It literally pays anything and EVERYTHING no questions asked. The rampant fraud and abuse of Medicare is costing America billions, hundreds of billions. This process and way of handling claims must be corrected immediately. It's not even that hard to do.

No one in America should be allowed to suffer. There is just no reason for that. But on the other hand, it doesn't make sense and is not good for the country to spend 30% of of the revenue the Federal Gov collects on healthcare for 10% of the population. Just reducing that to 20%, and shifting that 10% to young people, maybe healthy programs to make them healthier would dramatically and profoundly change America for the better.

The idea of leaving Medicare as it is for some, but basically gutting it for the rest is an idea that does not sit well with me at all. It would also do NOTHING to correct the waste, fraud and abuse mentioned above.

The whole program, the way it is run for everyone needs to be fixed. Some older Americans might not like it, but this is about what is best for the country, FOR ALL AMERICANS. And ultimately, there is plenty of money to give people all the care they need, this is not about taking away benefits, it's about correcting inefficiency and waste.

There needs to be more involvement from people in their healthcare. I think there should be a small fee assessed for all treatments and procedures, and that people should have to sign off on all items that Medicare is billed for. This would prevent a lot of waste, and make people think about treatments, rather than have the Gov just pay them, without knowing anything.

Another idea I have is giving people a health savings account. They have a specific amount of money deposited into their healthcare account -- only for use in healthcare -- and it is up to them to save it up or spend it. If they need more money they will have to apply for it, and have it be reviewed. Again, adding personal accountability will control costs and improve care.

It's time to take the politics out of the debate, and inject real solutions. This is not about what's best for politicians, the healthcare industry, or certain demographics over others, this is about what is best for America, as a whole.

Lets keep it that way.

I also think that

Review: Limitless

Original. Fast. Smart. Cerebral. Well done.

Really enjoyed this film.

Bradley Cooper did great. The direction was great. The style was well done. The script was quality. A few plot holes, but nothing that kept me from getting into and enjoying the story.

I love the premise. "A pill that allows you to use your whole brain, to have a super-IQ"... so postmodern. It's interesting because such medications/research are no doubt in development, somewhere in the world already. Essentially, once humans link their brains with computers, it will have the same effect as the pill in this movie.

I kept thinking about it for about a week after going to see it, so that's when you know it was good.

The movie was made for under $30 million too, I heard. Very impressive.

Definitely reccommend it.

Twitter

Twitter is a very interesting social paradigm. It's more fluid and free flowing than Facebook, but not really a competitor to Facebook. Twitter and Facebook actually synergize well with each other.

Twitter is more about sharing and spreading information broadly, globally. Facebook is more about sharing private information with those you know. Twitter allows people to follow you, learn from you, without you needing to do anything in return. It ends the 'friend' connection, by letting people you don't know, or would not be 'friends' with on Facebook, get to know you.

Twitter can help you get news fast. It can help you find a job. Learn about your chosen career field. Share your thoughts, and influence the world.

The more you use it, the more you see how it can be used. It's like a game. But when you play it, it has real consequence -- good consequence if you are smart, don't tweet what you would not stand in front of a crowd and say.

When you play the Twitter game, ask yourself: What is my end game?

Then go play.

PHARAOH... the recent developments:

I have yet to approach any firms or prod-cos with the new draft, I'm actually still refining it with -- the help of my little circle. I don't actually think that any management firm or prod-co would sign any sort of confidentiality agreement from an unknown writer. I am well aware most would not find it worth the liability/risk. They would no doubt prefer to be free to share submissions they receive to whomever they choose. Often that’s how they find affirmation of it’s worthiness, or potential interested parties, as I understand it.

It's a tough place to be when you want to protect the details of your story/script and concepts, but also get it out there (to the right person)... It's a very difficult balance.

Because I am still just starting out -- still establishing myself as a screenwriter, trying to compete with the pros -- I don't really have the luxury (or ability) of keeping my script "under wraps" until it can be put into production. By the nature of the business when you are "unsold/unproven" you have to put your work "out there" before it can be bought/made. Only well established people who can set up projects based on past works, or via a studio, have the luxury of keeping projects secret until they hit the screen.

I sent out tons of queries for PHARAOH in 2009, and had interest from some major management firms, but the script just wasn't at the level, or developed enough yet. I wasn't seasoned enough yet. They all ultimately passed. But I could tell the concept and story was interesting to people; many people responded to it, some are still responding to it. So I wasn't going to give up on it, (I never will : ).

Then in 2010, I shared PHARAOH with people here on DDP and that really helped me take it to the next level. Special thanks to all of you who read it and gave me feedback, I truly appreciated it, and learned a great deal from it. Since then, I’ve met a bunch of established writers, creative execs, and film players and have been getting great advice and counsel, picking brains and really learning the craft; and the business.

Unfortunately, because I sent out early drafts, and people at firms/co’s read them, it’s definitely going to be an uphill battle to get it read again by some of them. However, I am increasingly confident in the story, and the global viability of the project. The more I talk with people in the biz about it, the more I come to see this as true. I am confident I will find the right home for it, in good time. I’m lucky that I work in the biz, and that I am able to meet new and connected people almost everyday.

A friend of mine told me the other day that John Milius was shopping around a project called "Pharaoh" -- a series -- and I sent me this article:

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118017488?refCatId=19

I would be presumptuous to say he "stole" the idea from me. I’m not the first person to write a script about a Pharaoh, obviously. So, I know it doesn't really work that way. From what I understand he doesn’t have a script, so I do worry that they will try and use subject matter I plan on using however. But our projects are very different. His project is a series like ‘Rome’ set in ancient times, mine is a feature Sci-Fi /Thriller set in modern times. It is annoying however when people latch onto a title and idea that you put out there first – I sent out tons of queries talking about the marketability and promise of Ancient Egyptian lore -- and in my mind are trying to steal/borrow or use my thunder. I know it happens all the time and is just the nature of the biz, but it’s still a bit frustrating.

Ultimately, I see it as confirmation that I am on to something; that I am right. If people are going out with, and developing projects about pharaohs, sounds like people see it as viable... I take comfort in knowing I was out there with my PHARAOH project first (a year earlier), and I have the emails and meetings to prove it. I simply do not yet have the ability to go out with my PHARAOH in the way that a well established screenwriter like Milius does/has – just yet.

I’m currently doing one more pass at on PHARAOH, and then I think I am going to post it here again, in it’s entirety, because I think it’s going to be that good. Good enough that it can stand. Good enough that it should be read and shared. No one has read the new draft yet, but I think/hope it will live up to the hype.

My PHARAOH – set in modern times and the future, part 3 of the trilogy will go into the past – is a very convoluted story, with a very deep and complex (controversial?) underpinning, so making it work, flow smoothly and easily, is difficult. But I knew it would be going into it. Recent successes like ‘Inception’ and even ‘Limitless’ & ‘The Adjustment Bureau’ have shown that there is a real market for cerebral concepts.

Because I am still growing as a writer (hopefully I will always be) I am finding that my script/story is also constantly growing with me. I have had several epiphanies as to how to improve and solidify the story. I keep finding and reading books on certain topics for research and clarification, and continue to make the story ever more simple and concise without sacrificing story. I can’t expect that someone else will understand a story that I did not fully understand myself! This is changing fast. I have come a long way already, and now I can see the light at the end of the tunnel.

PHARAOH is a massive project and would easily cost $100 million to make, which makes the task of getting it sold and green-lit by an “unknown” writer even more difficult. But certainly not impossible. If people gave up on projects they believed in so easily, nothing in Hollywood would ever get made. Right?

I know PHARAOH is great/solid concept. People are interested in it. It would play well in emerging markets (like China and India), with youth, and with older audiences. I have been developing PHARAOH for over five years now, and am finally getting it to where it needs to be:

KNOWN

Egypt

Egypt will rise from the ashes of oppression. It will eventually flower into something great. Following in the footsteps of Turkey, with the support of the US and Israel, it can become an amazing and wonderful place once more.

Egypt is filled with well educated, worldly and interesting people. I've never been, but I know people who have, and I have read a lot of articles and stories in the last couple weeks. The country is filled with potential, and promise. I look forward to going.

Change can happen fast, as is well demonstrated. The world wants Egypt to be engaged, strong, and a beautiful place to be. This is possible. This is what the people want.

It will ripple through the Middle East.

Ah, the power of social media.

Welcome to 2011.

Making it in LA

Los Angeles is certianly one of the hardest cities to "make it" in.

It's very big, very spread out, and totally decentralized. The mass transit is poor, on it's way to being 'fair'. You will need a car to have a decent quality of life in LA.

LA is also very clicky. People here are very clicky and are not easy to warm up too. Most people spend a lot of time isolated in their cars, they don't interact with strangers as much as other cities. Unlike, say New York where most people travel packed together in subways, or walk on the streets side by side. LA people are not forced to interact with anyone they don't specifically want to, unless it's at places they specifically go to.


I think this is why Europeans (at least my European friends) don't really like LA that much. They don't understand it, and have trouble navigating it. They like SF so much better because you can stay anywhere and go anywhere in the city easily. Some Europeans I met in Europe said of their time in LA, that they never met any LA/CA natives. It takes a while to find your 'spots' or your mix in LA, because it is so spread out.


People love to bash LA, and I def come from the camp of, shut up or ship out. LA is awesome. If you don't like it, or can't handle it. Leave. One less car on the road slowing everything down.

Some of my friends always say how LA is dirty, and gross. Parts are, sure, but LA also has parts that are really amazing and really nice. It's just that they are harder to find than in most cities.

I love LA, it is actually a truly amazing city. Built on dreams, full of dreamers. A truly postmodern place, on the edge of Western Civilization.

2011

What will happen in Hollywood in 2011?

The rich will get richer, but the spec (and media biz) is changed; if you don't see that, it will be far harder to crack for you in 2011 than it was in 2010. It's not going to get simpler, or go back to the way it was, that is for certain...

The rules have changed, they players have changed and the game has changed. Selling "projects" -- don't get stuck on spec screenplays, that is so 'first 10' as I call the 2000-2010 decade -- or getting them made and distributed is actually getting easier. It's getting $100 million cash to make a movie that has gotten harder in the last 5 years. This could be changing.

In my mind, social media, "crowd sourcing" and other tech driven innovations are going to make raising capital a whole lot different; in some ways, for some people/projects, a whole lot easier.

Once the studio distribution model for +$100 million Features is figured out, -- 2010 brought big changes to it -- and the Major studios find a method that works, the cash and economy of the film biz will kick into gear. 2011 will likely give rise to distribution models that can work for more than just "known brands".

2009 & 2010 was the virtual implosion of the old studio model:

Theater > DVD > HBO > TV

I'm not going to try and map what I think the new model looks like, but obviously the INTERNET has shattered the old model for good.

2011 -- as I see it -- will be about rebuilding. Better, bigger, faster, global, and more efficient means of distribution. This will free up money and a "New Wave" of cinema will be born.

That is my predictions for 2011 and 2012.

Review: Love & Other Drugs

Witty. Fun. Predictable. Sexy. Heartfelt.

I liked the story and script, both were good. I like concept of a promiscuous Drug rep, and his tribulations, and arc into a caring loving man. The idea of selling drugs and of Viagra makes for great plot devices. The story centers around a carefree man (Jake) who meets a woman (Anne) with Parkinsons, she doesn't want a relationship because she knows she will inevitably need to be taken care of, and will be huge burden as her disease worsens. But their casual sex, turns into love, which both of them struggle to deal with in their own way.

Fun insight and look/take on the Medical and Drug business.

Parts of the story seemed forced. The brother character, he's supposed to be super rich and yet he crashes on his brother's (Gyllenhaal) couch? Also some parts involving the doctor played by Hank Azaria, but all in all it worked well enough.

Jake Gyllenhaal gave an okay performance; nothing great, not bad in any particular way. Anne Hathaway had some great moments in it, but overall I found her performance unconvincing. I like her a lot, and she is great, and she pulls it out at all the right places, but I didn't really see her character most of the time, I saw her acting. I do like, and respect her desire to bare all in the film. It takes guts, but I feel like it kept her focus away from the scenes, and affected her performance somehow.

Jake, I think, likes to be naked in films. He is someone who has been working hard on his body for years now, and wants to show it off. That is how I see his performance. But he does have a good body, so it works.

A fun movie. Very watchable and warm.