Hatrack River Writers Workshop: New SciFi/Fantasy movies

This is topic New SciFi/Fantasy movies in forum Grist for the Mill at Hatrack River Writers Workshop.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/writers/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=000211

Posted by Dark Warrior (Member # 8822) on :

So I was most looking forward to James Cameron's Avatar. Probably because I am a Michelle Rodriquez and Sigourney Weaver fan. They have done some great sci-fi projects. But, I just saw the trailer for the new Clash of the Titans remake. Looks like it has promise, but I have a nagging feeling I may be let down. But then again, Liam Neeson is in it so it must be good.

Clash of the Titans
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0800320/

Avatar
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0499549/

Any upcoming SF/F movies you are looking forward to?

Posted by Pyre Dynasty (Member # 1947) on :

I hadn't heard of the new Clash of the Titans, I hope they have a little bit of the sensibility of Harry Hausen. It doesn't matter what tool you use if you use it wrong.

Avatar looks interesting, I'll wait to hear from some of my favorite reviewers.

I did have one that I was looking forward to, like really looking forward to but it has slipped my mind at the moment, sorry.

(There is always the comic book movies, Captain America, The Avengers, Deadpool, Wolverine II, Green Lantern, Iron Man II even though I am still quite pissed that they replaced Terrance Howard with Don Cheadle. I like Cheadle but I was so dearly looking forward to Howard's use of intense subtlety applied to War Machine.)

Posted by Dark Warrior (Member # 8822) on :

Talking about Avengers...Don't forget Thor starring Chris Hemsworth (George Kirk in the new Star Trek) and of all the super hero ones, yes Avengers I am most looking forward to...and I will boycott Wonder Woman if non-acting Megan Fox stays cast in that role.

Posted by InarticulateBabbler (Member # 4849) on :

[qoute]I hope they have a little bit of the sensibility of Harry Hausen[/quote]

You mean Ray Harryhausen, right?

Posted by Pyre Dynasty (Member # 1947) on :

*Slaps self in head.

Yes, I mean Ray Harryhousen, I had just gotten out of four (Or possibly five) hours of math test and was a little low on brain juice. I also forgot about Thor, actually I was thinking that it was already out and I had seen it. (Turns out it was just an old Hulk movie I was thinking about, but that was a good one.) There was a rumor that Megan Fox was in the running for CatWoman. Personally I don't believe it considering the pristine casting of The Dark Night.

Posted by Dark Warrior (Member # 8822) on :

I say this in all seriousness. There have been talks about Cher playing a past her prime catwoman.

I agree with you about Jim Rhodes. But I am looking forward to seeing Mickey Rourke as Whip Lash...all his plastic surgery seem to give him the perfect storm of villanous looks and the stills of him look great.

Posted by Teraen (Member # 8612) on :

Its based off of a video games, but Prince of Persia looks promising.

I had my doubts when Jake Glyenhall was selected to be Persian of all things, but then I saw the special effects and realized it has some potential...

Posted by Robert Nowall (Member # 2764) on :

Don't know...none of the current crop seem terribly appealing...since I had such a good experience with WALL-E and Up, I might try Toy Story 3 when it rolls around, or whatever Pixar puts up next. (Decided to pass on the current Disney traditionally-animated movie, what was it, The Frog Prince? Maybe when it rolls around on video.)

I can see remaking Clash of the Titans, since the first one wasn't particularly good...but this won't have all that Harryhausen stuff this go-round...

Posted by Dark Warrior (Member # 8822) on :

Avatar was pretty good. A couple of good sci-fi concepts. A felt like I was watching Red Prophet in space.

Posted by Robert Nowall (Member # 2764) on :

Been waiting for someone to bring this up again.

I remember I went to see James Cameron's Titanic at the movies, because the subject matter, the sinking of the Titanic, is dear to my heart and a lifelong interest...but Avatar just doesn't have that kind of resonance for me.

Besides, some of the reviews seem to indicate that Avatar lays Cameron's political beliefs onto the plot with a trowel---which would be bad enough if I agreed with them.

I'll pass.

Posted by philocinemas (Member # 8108) on :

I saw Avatar on Thursday at midnight (Thursday was an eventful day for me). I LOVED IT!

The storyline is OK - very similar to a recent animated movie, Battle for Terra, but with the addition of the actual "avatar" concept. However, I found it to be very moving and inspiring.

The visual effects were stunning. Definitely watch this one in 3-D (I don't think it's being offered any other way, but just in case it is, see it in 3-D - the glasses are polarized instead of using red/blue paper ones).

Cameron has been my favorite director since way back in 1986, after "blowing me away" with The Terminator and Aliens. Sure, there have been better movies by other directors, but Cameron is the only "old-timer" who hasn't dropped any bombs (I don't count Piranha 2 since he didn't actually finish that one).

Edited to add: I don't agree with most of Cameron's political viewe either, but that's the case with most of the directors in Hollywood - I still thought it was a very good movie.

[This message has been edited by philocinemas (edited December 20, 2009).]

Posted by philocinemas (Member # 8108) on :

Robert, Avatar wasn't any more political than Wall-e was - you should give it a chance. Visually, it is worth it!

Posted by Robert Nowall (Member # 2764) on :

I didn't go to see WALL-E at the movies, either...

Posted by shimiqua (Member # 7760) on :

I saw Avatar too, and loved it. No wait, I LOVED IT.

Beautiful movie, really cool aliens, and a brilliant magic system. The cg effect merged seamlessly with the real life stuff. Well done. I definitely think it was worth the money to see it in 3D. It felt like I was inside the story, and there were no random 3D gags. No spit takes, or arrows shot at you, kind of thing.

There was, in my opinion, a lot of politics shoveled through, but for the story and the characters it worked.

I dug it.
~Sheena

Posted by Robert Nowall (Member # 2764) on :

I've gotta say...I thought there was a fair amount wrong with Titanic. The storyline seemed contrived to put someone everywhere something happened...and the acting, particularly the leads, seemed poor. (I saw it that way, despite heaps of praise in the media for the acting couple of Leo and Kate.) It did look like they spent every cent of that two hundred million price tag on what was actually on the screen---I rate this higher than any other movie about the Titanic except A Night to Remember.

As for Avatar...well, here's a link to a review from Locus Online that, I think, addresses the science-fictiony aspects of the movie better than the other reviews (positive and negative)---and also points out what the movie rips off from SF...

http://www.locusmag.com/Reviews/2009/12/all-energy-is-borrowed-review-of-avatar.html

[hope the link works]

Posted by Dark Warrior (Member # 8822) on :

Curious on thoughts...

has anyone seen the recent movie Pandorum--a sci-fi thriller that had the feel of Resident Evil in space(Same producers)--that has also read the short story Command Transfer by Dean Spencer, published in IGMS issue # 13?

http://www.pandorummovie.com/
Link to the trailer. Mild violence warning in trailer.

[This message has been edited by Dark Warrior (edited January 03, 2010).]

Posted by Dark Warrior (Member # 8822) on :

quote:
News media reports this morning put its "take" at over one billion dollars---so I guess it doesn't matter if I spend my seven-fifty on it or not.

It's Ok Robert...I saw it twice so that made up for you.

Posted by Owasm (Member # 8501) on :

talking about SF/Fantasy, Guy Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes ended up being very steampunkish.

Posted by dougsguitar on :

The last movie I went 'out' to see was '9'...
Before that we were still waiting on Y2K. I don't get out much.

I did recently see Appleseed... very cool CG action!

Posted by Pyre Dynasty (Member # 1947) on :

Last night I woke up in the middle of the night and watched Woverine. I rarely watch a movie first run.

Posted by Robert Nowall (Member # 2764) on :

I was going to buy the "9" DVD last week, but didn't...I may pick up one in a couple of hours, along with "Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs," which is supposed to be out today.

Now that I've got a Blu-Ray player, I've got to get titles in that format---which is worth it.

Posted by Rhaythe (Member # 7857) on :

It's an older movie, but I really enjoyed "Sunshine", especially in high-def. Worth the watch for any sci-fi fans out there... though it gets wacky in the end.

The soundtrack is spectacular writing fuel, too.

Posted by Robert Nowall (Member # 2764) on :

Would you believe Best Buy was out of Blu-Ray copies of "9" this week? I might've bought it regular, but decided not to.

(Actually, right now, there are two movies floating around called "Nine" or "9" or somesuch...the other is a turkey remake of a Broadway musical of Fellini's "8 1/2"...pick up the last-named movie if you want to see it in a good version.)

Posted by Dark Warrior (Member # 8822) on :

For the Dragon and CGI lovers

http://www.howtotrainyourdragon.com/

Trailer to the new Dreamworks CGI movie How To Train Your Dragon

Posted by rich (Member # 8140) on :

I wasn't a really big fan of SUNSHINE (the "forgot" excuse that precipitated the calamities was too far-fetched for me; there were better ways to do that, though after listening to the commentary, I understand WHY Garland went that route).

However, I will watch anything and everything written by Alex Garland and directed by Danny Boyle.

Posted by billawaboy (Member # 8182) on :

Isnt Speilberg working on a movie version of blackholes and timewarp with the author Kip thorne?

Posted by LDWriter2 (Member # 9148) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dark Warrior:
For the Dragon and CGI lovers

http://www.howtotrainyourdragon.com/

Trailer to the new Dreamworks CGI movie How To Train Your Dragon

Thought there was some discussion of this movie somewhere but anyway for the Train fans here. There is a stage production by that title. It's here sometime soon. It looks like "real" dragons from the pictures advertising it.

Posted by LDWriter2 (Member # 9148) on :

And The new Star Trek movie teaser.

Not like your usual ST.

Article

Posted by Robert Nowall (Member # 2764) on :

On How to Train Your Dragon...there's a TV series on the Cartoon Network that I think is derived from the movie, but I've only seen one episode and I'm not sure...

Posted by LDWriter2 (Member # 9148) on :

Oh man, would I like to see it. It is based on the animated movie.

The dragons are as real as they could make them, there was an article about the show and a lot of it had to do with how they did the dragons. Never done before type of stuff. It takes 300 semis to move everything.

But at $51 for the cheapest ticket my wife said no way even though we really could do it. We could buy the second to lowest ticket too I'm sure but whatever it is it will be pricey.

Posted by LDWriter2 (Member # 9148) on :

Just found this on the Apple movie Trailer site "The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones" It's based on a series of books I've seen. I haven't read any even though I have come close.

A series of half angels fight evil beings: werewolves, witches, vampires etc. Some of the books seem to be a bit too much on the romance side for me, plus they seem to be written for YA. Even that last hasn't stopped me from reading something before but this series seems to be related to "Twilight" in one sense.

Offical Site

Posted by LDWriter2 (Member # 9148) on :

And this update to a Fairytale

Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters. The siblings have grown up.

Trailer

Posted by LDWriter2 (Member # 9148) on :

A Ringworld miniseries.

More info here

EW.com post.

Posted by History (Member # 9213) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LDWriter2:
A Ringworld miniseries.

More info here

EW.com post.

And Arthur C Clarke's Childhood's End!
Though I say this with gritted teeth when I remember the two good tries (3003; 2010) but failures of Phillip Jose Farmer's Riverworld.
http://www.syfy.com/riverworld/

Posted by Robert Nowall (Member # 2764) on :

I suppose it's nice that somebody is finally buying up these properties with an actual notion of making them---if I recall right, Childhood's End has been optioned, on and off, since its publication around sixty years ago.

Of course, SyFy will, likely as not, botch it if they do it. Probably drop all of Niven's "Known Space" background and make it as if some fifty-years-from-now starship has found its way there. (Was it SyFy who did Le Guin's Wizard of Earthsea?)

*****

Perusing the old 2009 posts...I note that I watched (and enjoyed) "Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs," but never got around to watching "9"...right after that, I decided to stop picking up so many of these movies I never get around to watching. Though I have bought (and not watched) a few.

Posted by LDWriter2 (Member # 9148) on :

I've seen "Childhood's End" around for a long time but I don't recall ever reading it. Of course if I read it thirty years ago or so I might not.

And I too hope they do to "Ringworld" what they have done to others. That especially includes what they did to Dresden Files. Should have called it something else.

Posted by LDWriter2 (Member # 9148) on :

My local paper came out with a list of summer movies and release dates.

Some I didn't know which surprised me.

This is one of them.

Trailer

Posted by shimiqua (Member # 7760) on :

Oblivion was lame. Lame yet expensive. So... worth seeing.

JMO, but this is why it didn't work for me, it started out as a horror movie, with creepy monsters...for like a reason, but then by the end, they bad guys were so lame, that they had to put children in harms way just so that you'd celebrate when the bad guys are conquered. Also...why did they need to show the boringist sex scene in the history of forever, but then pan away in the real love story. Also, why does a triangle need water? Also, how did the lady give birth by herself, and a million of other logic defying ridiculousness.

It was honestly like they took a Syfy channel movie script and then decided to put a hundred million dollars to make it, without fixing the script. I'm wondering if it was written by Hubbard, and scientology money funded it, honestly, it's that dumb.

But it was pretty, so I don't feel like I wasted my money. I just think they don't do enough SciFi to do SciFi stupid.

Posted by Robert Nowall (Member # 2764) on :

Pasting in after copying from the Internet Movie Database, the directing and writing credits are:

Directed by
Joseph Kosinski

Writing credits
Joseph Kosinski (graphic novel)

Joseph Kosinski (original story)

Karl Gajdusek (screenplay) and
Michael DeBruyn (screenplay)

I don't recall seeing the original graphic novel, offhand...

Posted by LDWriter2 (Member # 9148) on :

Guess what movie Harrison Ford is in.

WOW

The special effects look great.

Posted by LDWriter2 (Member # 9148) on :

There's a new Jeff Bridges movie called "Seventh Son" It's another monster fighter movie.

Lots of demons and action from the trailer. But it flashes that is it is a popular series and I wonder if it is taken for a novel series I've seen. I looked over the first one but decided for personal reasons not to get the book even though I can't recall what the reasons where. But it was a tale of a Seventh Son of a Seventh Son, in, if I remember right, an Alternate 1800s US. I know there was a second book but I don't know if there are more. It's the only Seventh son book I recall seeing.

Posted by Kathleen Dalton Woodbury (Member # 59) on :

Are you thinking of OSC's first Alvin Maker book, SEVENTH SON, LDWriter2?

Posted by wetwilly (Member # 1818) on :

Yeah, that would be the Alvin Maker books. Quite a good series, although if the Jeff Bridges movie has monsters, then it's no relation. There is a second one, and a third one, and like a bajillion after that, if I remember right.

Posted by Kathleen Dalton Woodbury (Member # 59) on :

I'm wondering if the Jeff Bridges movie is R.I.P.D.

It's about undead cops and has plenty of monsters.

Posted by redux (Member # 9277) on :

LDWriter2 is talking about "Seventh Son" based on the Spooks series written by Joseph Delaney. The movie got pushed to next January. Julianne Moore is also in it.

Posted by LDWriter2 (Member # 9148) on :

redux seems to have gotten it.

R.I.P.D. is out but this one is different even though the plot and facial hair are about the same.

And yes now I recall the writer, the series I was thinking of is the one by Alvin Marker. I didn't think it had a lot of monsters but Hollywood could have changed that.

As I said the trailer didn't say what series it was adopted from and no listed web site for the movie either.

Posted by legolasgalactica (Member # 10087) on :

First, I must say that overall I really enjoyed the following movies, but wanted to vent a few annoyances that are becoming very prevalent lately.

Has anyone noticed how a lot of new action movies have the people nearly flying and/or surfing around like in the lord of the rings and new hobbit movies and pirates of the Caribbean and on and on. Its like we're suppose to believe that anything can move like that, let alone relatively normal humanish beings.

I also tire of the endless fights between immortals that progressively become more and more ridiculous with no physical harm until finally one of them dies (how?). ie man of steel, avengers, wolverine, etc.

Posted by LDWriter2 (Member # 9148) on :

Hey, evidently they are Showing Wizard of Oz in 3-D.

But here's something a bit interesting.

[URL=][/URL] Oz here

Posted by MattLeo (Member # 9331) on :

quote:
Originally posted by legolasgalactica:

Has anyone noticed how a lot of new action movies have the people nearly flying and/or surfing around like in the lord of the rings and new hobbit movies and pirates of the Caribbean and on and on. Its like we're suppose to believe that anything can move like that, let alone relatively normal humanish beings.

I think this is probably because somebody developed the software to do such scenes, and when directors look in their CGI toolbox they see the new tool and think "Ooh, shiny!"

I appreciate what the producers have tried to do with The Hobbit, which is to connect the story with the great unpublished backstory Tolkien devised for LotR. At the same time they had to make it a blockbuster. Unfortunately I think much of the story is lost.

Like any great fairy tale, The Hobbit packs some important lessons. One of these comes in Thorin's deathbed reconciliation with Bilbo. It's a privilege to be part of someone's life; a privilege that is squandered when we only consider them according to their fitness to play the part we've chosen for them in *our* story. On his deathbed, stripped of his illusions and Earthly attachments Thorin finally can see this.

By splitting the story into multiple movies, the screenwriters are presented with a problem: how to provide the first movie with a satisfying ending. Ralph Bakshi's abortive Lord of the Rings trilogy failed because the first movie (with screenplay by Peter S. Beagle) was too true to the book, leaving moviegoers dissatisfied because the film was dramatically incomplete. They solved this problem by giving Bilbo at least a partial reconciliation with Thorin, worse, on *Thorin's* terms. Yes, it makes dramatic sense for Bilbo to win a public display of respect from Thorin, on terms that make logical sense given Thorin's character, but the screenwriters did the wrong thing by the story by doing the right thing for their movie.

Back on topic, I can think of few movies that give me a real "science fiction" experience. 2001 certainly, and Blade Runner. The Day the Earth Stood Still. But most movie "sci-fi" is more pulp adventure, less cerebral than appealing to the reptilian brain.

Posted by extrinsic (Member # 8019) on :

Film's strengths are portraying visual and aural spectacles. Film's weakness is portraying interior discourse, like thinking. A strongly appealing and clearly crafted, artful text narrative translated to film narrative oftentimes butchers the text's meaning and uses other techniques, oftentimes visual and aural "reaction shots," to express emotional thoughts. With as much investment text writers expend on watching film, no wonder writing creatively is as challenging as it is to do.

Posted by wetwilly (Member # 1818) on :

Extrinsic, I've been thinking about this lately, too. We're a generation of writers who have grown up with film as our main medium of cultural discourse. Even those of us who read compulsively (which is, I'm assuming, all or nearly all of us here) have grown up with TV and movies as the most important form of storytelling, if not to us, then at least to the society we live in. I wonder if this sometimes cripples, or at least handicaps, our ability to fully realize the advantages we have as prose writers. I think I, for one, tend to be a very visual writer, and I wonder if that is sometimes a detriment to my writing caused by TOO MANY MOVIES. I even have the habit of starting stories with scenic descriptions that essentially amount to cinematic establishing shots. Personally, I like those scenes (or maybe it would be more accurate to call them shots) in my fiction, but I also suspect they're boring, static openings. Maybe they're just an example of movies having warped my brain and damaged my writing.

This has been made very clearly to me as I have been teaching a high school creative writing class, and a lot of the kids are only really capable of writing in pictures. Granted, 90% of them have no aspirations of being writers (they just want the extra English credit), but a handful of them really want to write. The vast majority of those stories read more like screenplays than prose fiction, though.

Posted by extrinsic (Member # 8019) on :

wetwilly, I'm not visual rhetoric pro or con. I understand that Western youth are raised on graphic, television, and film's convenient entertainments. Where the Internet, iPods, and cell phones are the technologies and culture-kitsch of post 1990 youths, my generation's was auto mobility, television, and portable transistor radios. Adult prior generations of my era declaimed misspent youths immersed in and indoctrinated into self-gratifying entertainments. Their predecesors too similarly bemoaned the upcoming generation, and so on, way back through until the earliest times, I imagine.

Cinematic written word narratives are to my thinking stronger than narratives with limited or no setting emphasis, because today's audiences want visual stimuli. In fact, visual rhetoric is an access to developing creative imaginations. Cinematic or graphic devices are a pictorial shorthand that may not readily translate to written word; however, visual rhetoric has influenced written word in subtle and profound ways.

My grandfather couldn't track a film's timeline when jump transitions skipped over time and space spans. A leading lady goes into a darkened doorway wearing a red dress and comes out a second later wearing a flannel shirt and dungarees. How did she change clothes so fast? Grandpa couldn't process that the film had skipped time. Yet everyday film today does that all the time and audiences don't miss a beat.

Many audiences watch films' cinematic spectacles and ooh and ahh. The Grand Tetons are a majestic sight worthy of awe and wonder. However, such cinematic devices subtly establish exterior world relativity in terms of settings and preposition setting as a dramatis personae. They as much as declare this happens here because of this as show vivid and dramatic places. We've been taught how to interpret film's foregrounds, panoramas, and landscapes; how to interpret nonverbal expression and gesture cues, including verbal intonation; and how to interpret tangible dramatic action by filmmaking devices. Not much is taught or learned, however, about expressing or interpreting intangible meaning, not without effort.

Youths are less able than adults to interpret the intangibles of visual rhetoric. Many adults can't either and unwittingly fall prey to film and graphic persuasions. For example, the overt and often subtle persuasions of sexual appeals. I've wondered, for instance, if men like the way women wear makeup; some looking perhaps enhanced and more appealing, some looking degraded, some looking like they wear makeup like it's armor and weapon. One of my relatives claims women wear makeup to compete with each other's ability to apply makeup and look like the latest fashion models, not to appeal to men. Yet makeup and makeup advertising is a billions-of-dollars industry that drives wearing makeup. All of which thrive on visual rhetoric.

My earliest creative writing class assignment, before high school, required watching television and noting the persuasive visual appeals subliminally presented. Beer drinking is sexy, for example. Smoking. Owning a sportscar. A quadraphonic entertainment system with 8-track tape player, LP disc player, and FM stereo radio. A 27-inch color TV. A sleek slimline telephone. Yada. Yada. Yada. Kids' advertising hasn't changed either. Cool gadgets. Awesome toys. Pretty-pretty baby dolls. Neato superhero costumes and fashion-plate apparel, all to compete within each's esoteric cohort, often intra-gender and ethnicity targeted and driven.

What draws the eye, is emotionally persuasive, is dramatic, and appealing, with both tangible and accessible intangible meaning, that's about it in terms of using visual rhetoric principles for expression in written word.

[ September 26, 2013, 12:25 AM: Message edited by: extrinsic ]

Posted by Robert Nowall (Member # 2764) on :

I don't see why one shouldn't take a certain way of telling a story from the movies and use it on the written page...a certain amount of shorthand in how the story is told (ever notice how guys in movies always get a parking space right up front?) keeps things moving, and trying to explain what one sees in a split-second shot will be good exercise for a writer to find out what works in description and what doesn't.

I gather the late Fritz Leiber often structured his novels and stories as plays---The Big Time all takes place on one set---it reflects his own stage background. It makes me regret some of these haven't been filmed. (The only film from his works I'm aware of offhand is Conjure Wife, filmed twice, I believe.)

Posted by MattLeo (Member # 9331) on :

Speaking of visual rhetoric, remember the final shot of John Ford's The Searchers, where Ethan (played by John Wayne) returns the kidnapped Debbie to her parents? It's visual poetry that packs a huge amount of meaning into a few gestures and camera tricks. I don't think most people decode that meaning consciously, but they know it's there.

Of course if they made that movie today, there'd have to be a *Searchers II*, which would totally undermine the closing shot's pathos.

Posted by Robert Nowall (Member # 2764) on :

Well, we don't actually know what happened to Ethan Edwards after the door closed, so there could be a sequel in there...

There's a book out, whose exact title I don't recall (but which I read,) about the making of The Searchers, covering the real-life legend, that inspired the writing of the novel, that led to the film shoot and hit movie. Interesting stuff...

Posted by rcmann (Member # 9757) on :

I don't really think growing up with movies is the reason that so many novels start off with visual desriptions to set the scene. Take The Three Musketeers. The entire first page of my copy consists of a description of a curious crowd running to gather around an odd-looking stranger. He has just ridden into town on an old yellow horse "without a hair on its tail, but not without wind galls on its legs". He goes on at length talking about the face and figure of the unknown young man (of course, it's Da'artagnan), giving enough detail that someone from his time period could easily tell his economic and social class. All of this before the would-be musketeer draws rein and dismounts.

Posted by MattLeo (Member # 9331) on :

rcmann -- Well, the Three Musketeers does start with a street scene, but it's mostly the narrator telling us about the milieu and the characters. But essentially you're right. I think it was Flaubert (1821-1880) who really got the narrative cameras rolling.

I don't see anything wrong with opening with a scenic description; the problem is opening with a visual cliche. For example, don't open a fantasy novel with the hero on his horse surveying a smoking city or the heroine picking herbs. It might work in a movie because you can elaborate the picture to make it striking and the viewers don't have to work as hard as readers to extract that novelty.

Robert -- I don't think there's more story to tell about Ethan *after* the closing shot of *The Searchers*, because what we see in the last few minutes of the film is that it isn't about rescuing Debbie, it's about redeeming Ethan, who is every bit as cruel and pitiless as his nemesis Scar. He's not out to rescue Debbie, he's out to kill her for being polluted by living as one of Scar's wives.

The final shot is Ethan's apotheosis, after his redemption. The others are moving on with their lives and Ethan is fading into the mythic past. It's one of those elegiac western endings, and stories of Ethan's further adventures would ruin it by turning it into melodrama.

I *do* think there's a couple of interesting stories to tell from Ethan's backstory. For example, for someone with such a rabid hatred of Comanches, Ethan sure knows a lot about them. How he came by that knowledge and hatred would make an interesting story. In the movie it's also suggested that Ethan was one of the Confederate veteran mercenaries whom legend claims turned on Maximilian I of Mexico, robbing his treasury as he attempted to move it out of the country after the collapse of his regime.

So I'd envision an Ethan Edwards trilogy. The first book would be the Comanche story of Ethan's tragic fall from grace. The second would be a cynical heist comedy along the lines of *The War Wagon*. The final chapter would be *The Searchers*, in which Ethan is redeemed.

Posted by Robert Nowall (Member # 2764) on :

There is a novel...I haven't read it, but it might have more information. Or it all might have changed for the movie...Ethan Edwards has a different first name in the novel, I gather.

Posted by MattLeo (Member # 9331) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Nowall:
There is a novel...I haven't read it, but it might have more information. Or it all might have changed for the movie...Ethan Edwards has a different first name in the novel, I gather.

*The Searchers*, by Alan LeMay; it's available on Kindle for only $4.49. I think I'm going to have to read it; there's so much in the movie that's just visible under the surface, and I wonder who put it there, LeMay or Ford?

There's things about the movie which mystify me. For example, I think very few moviegoers in 1956 would be able to even entertain the notion that there could be any comparison between Ethan's final heroic assault on the Comanche camp, where he shoots down men scrambling to get out of their teepees, and Scar's terrifying attack on the Aaron homestead. Yet I'm pretty sure scriptwriter Frank Nugent means to draw parallels between them.

But if that's so, how did the writer intend for that to work? Was it just an Easter egg for the ironically gifted? Or does it somehow add texture for the majority of people who'd simply accept the righteousness of Ethan's attack as given?

It'll be interesting to see whether those same complicated moral shadings are in the original book.

Posted by extrinsic (Member # 8019) on :

MattLeo,

You're in for treat from LeMay's writing. LeMay writes stronger prose than G.R.R. Martin and in the voice manner you favor. Rare but at times awkward diction is the only noteworthy shortcoming I see with LeMay's aesthetic.

The film and the novel, too, are far apart, mostly from the novel portraying the Comanche nation and Scar in a more historically authentic light than the film.

The film was produced during the era of the House Un-American Activities Committee and McCarthyism and the Hollywood Blacklist. Filmmakers of the era toed a restrictive line that would have condemned the film and caused problems for Ford if it had been faithful to the novel's somewhat objective portrayal of Native Nation people. What, portray interior enemies of the state as sympathetic freedom fighters? Red communism!?

That's Hollywood, though; reimagine when striving for high box office numbers. Hollywood then and now, the oohs and aahs of audiovisual spectacle are its strengths.

Amos Edwards for the novel instead of Ethan Edwards for the film.

[ September 25, 2013, 01:51 PM: Message edited by: extrinsic ]

Posted by Robert Nowall (Member # 2764) on :

What works on screen and what works on paper are two different things, and when you move from paper to screen...The Lord of the Rings, book and movies, is proof of that, I think.

The "making of The Searchers" book I mentioned had more info...but some of it is in the nature of spoilers, so I won't go into it.

I just now looked that book up on Amazon-dot-com---something I should'a done in the first place---
it's The Searchers: The Making of an American Legend, by Glenn Frenkel...but there are several others around (and apparently you can get the original novel in mass-market paperback as well.)

Posted by LDWriter2 (Member # 9148) on :

This isn't TV or movies but try this Facebook or whatever Video

Harry Potter like??

It's one of a kind even though it sounds like a series.

Posted by Merlion-Emrys (Member # 7912) on :

quote:
Originally posted by wetwilly:
Extrinsic, I've been thinking about this lately, too. We're a generation of writers who have grown up with film as our main medium of cultural discourse. Even those of us who read compulsively (which is, I'm assuming, all or nearly all of us here) have grown up with TV and movies as the most important form of storytelling, if not to us, then at least to the society we live in. I wonder if this sometimes cripples, or at least handicaps, our ability to fully realize the advantages we have as prose writers. I think I, for one, tend to be a very visual writer, and I wonder if that is sometimes a detriment to my writing caused by TOO MANY MOVIES. I even have the habit of starting stories with scenic descriptions that essentially amount to cinematic establishing shots. Personally, I like those scenes (or maybe it would be more accurate to call them shots) in my fiction, but I also suspect they're boring, static openings. Maybe they're just an example of movies having warped my brain and damaged my writing.

This has been made very clearly to me as I have been teaching a high school creative writing class, and a lot of the kids are only really capable of writing in pictures. Granted, 90% of them have no aspirations of being writers (they just want the extra English credit), but a handful of them really want to write. The vast majority of those stories read more like screenplays than prose fiction, though.

Ok first let me say, your opinion is your opinion and your feelings are you feelings, so none of what I am about to say is aimed at you, only at the ideas expressed.

I couldn't possibly disagree more and find this whole concept nearly incomprehensible. Human beings are by and large strongly visual creatures-it is our primary sense and a huge amount of how we speak and think and act is based around the visual. Storytelling has set scenes and painted pictures since long before there was any such thing as movies or television.

The idea of one's writing being "damaged" by anything is hard for me to comprehend...possibly because I don't make value judgements or better/worse comparisons. Your writing is whatever it is. I guess if a particular person feels their writing is too visual than that is a problem for that person but...the whole concept to me just tends to smell of medium elitism of some kind.

Certainly there are things one can do more easily or more effectively via prose than via film, and vice versa, but I guess I just don't see or understand how this would be prevented or interfered with by taking in a lot of film media.

I guess to me the main "advantages" of prose would have to do with conveying character thoughts and also with exposition. But from what I can tell, the current trends in writing and writing "wisdom" place so much emphasis on "character penetration" that it seems unlikely for a writer to loose awareness of this...and conversely, people seem to have a hearty dislike for direct exposition (which I consider to be probably the strongest advantage of prose, especially in the speculative genres...the biggest thing I often find lacking in fantasy and science fiction movies is explanation and detail of the inner workings of their speculative elements) so, again...it just seems weird to me.

Posted by wetwilly (Member # 1818) on :

Merlion-Emrys: yeah, I'm not sure I really think that, either. More just wondering out loud than stating an opinion. "I wonder if..." not "I think that..." A lot of my students who are more familiar with movies than books seem to see their stories in their heads as movies, and then just describe what they see, so what I get feels like a summary of a movie rather than a story. That got me wondering if I am sometimes guilty of the same thing to some degree. For example, the "establishing shots" I was talking about are something I suspect work better in movies, where the shot only takes a couple seconds and you can do it while the opening credits are rolling and the viewer is waiting for the "real" movie to begin. No such luxury in prose. Just speculating off the cuff that being used to seeing stories in movie format may make my writing less effective. Maybe it's true, maybe it's not.

No worries: you can hate my musings without offending me or hurting my feelings.

Posted by Merlion-Emrys (Member # 7912) on :

Well, I have seen similar things expressed more seriously.

I enjoy descriptive writing and am a big fan of setting and atmosphere.

I also like stories that start with setup, visual or otherwise.

Also I kind of think we are...given a little to much reason to worry about things making our writing less effective. I'm a proponent of just telling our stories without worrying so much.