COMICS AND HOLLYWOOD

Bill Cunningham of DISC/ontent and I think it might be worthwhile to open up a discussion of what comics do for Hollywood in general.

The obvious benefit the movies get from comics is bridging the gap between text and vision. Most people, including studio executives, find it hard to read a script and imagine the movie. Screenwriters spend decades honing their craft to make the movie "jump off the page" into the reader's mind. But there's only so much a screenplay can do. It's extremely difficult to communicate visual style or tone in a screenplay without seeming precious. How, for example, would you communicate the cool retro-futuristic vibe of Men In Black with a page of prose and dialog? Fortunately the comic did that for you.

A comic brings you that much closer to a movie. A comic can prove the concept works. The key to the Hellboy story is that his oversized right hand is the key to opening up the gates of Hell. (More or less.) Written on the page, your reaction might be "that's gonna look dorky." Likewise the cut-off horns. You have to see Mike Mignola's comic to see how Hellboy is, yes, sort of dorky, but that's part of his charm.

I've seen Thirty Days of Night described as a "failed screenplay." I don't know in what way it fails as a screenplay; it would/will probably make a pretty good scary movie. But it certainly communicates a tone, with its scattered, impressionistic art. (A tone, incidentally, which isn't present in the script for the comic, which describes the characters in much greater detail than you can make out from the art.)

Comics aren't a panacea. Comics want to be visual; too much talk and it starts to clutter up the page. You wouldn't want to read a comic book of Clerks. At least, not the Clerks I saw. (If there is a comic book of Clerks -- and knowing what a big comics fan Kevin Smith is, I wouldn't be the least surprised -- I hope it does more visually than the movie does.) I doubt Remains of the Day would work on the page: it's all about the silences, and the minutest details of expressions. That could get precious fast in a comic book.

A lot of people seem to be drawing the obvious conclusion and trying to make comic books as a prototype of their movie. For people who actually like comic books, this must be annoying. A comic book made for a movie is unlikely to use the medium as well as possible, in the same way that a John Grisham or Tom Clancy novel "written for the screen" won't do much with the novelistic form that can't be reproduced in the eventual movie. A comic book made for the screen probably won't change the shape of the frames much. You won't have a big splash page with some inserts, for example, because the writer is thinking linearly. You'll see mostly a grid of linear moments, just like in a movie.

And then there's the habit of stopping a comic short once it's apparent Sony isn't going to buy the movie rights. That would irritate the hell out of me.

Still it's an interesting way to get your idea that much closer to the screen. If pursue it, makes sure it's a good comics idea first. Make sure you're using the medium you're in. Then if you wind up with a successful book, you can adapt it -- really, re-imagine it for the screen.

WILLOW SANCHEZ

I try to make sure my characters' names give a sense of the character. Even ordinary run of the mill names can communicate how old they are. LISA is probably in her forties. ASHLEY is probably twenty. SAM is either ninety, or nine.

You can look up the most common names for each year at the Social Security Administration. Another good place is your alumni newsletter, if you get one.

The nice thing about your alumni newsletter is you also run across some spectacular real names, like the above-mentioned Barnard alumna, Willow Sanchez. I have never met the woman, but she has a wonderful name. If I were coming up with, say, an assistant coroner, and I wanted to give her some character in very few words, I'd give her a name like Willow Sanchez. You just know there's a story there.

THE BEDFORD DIARIES...

This is just nit picking, I know. But can we all agree that introducing a character by having him wake up late and then run to class is a tired go-to?

Actually, introducing a character by having him wake up at all is a tired go-to.

Ironically, in our first version of the Naked Josh pilot, we had Josh being late to a meeting on campus. (At least we didn't have him wake up late.) Then we scrapped it. It creates a false sense of urgency, but contributes very little to character.

I tried watching the whole episode. I mean, when people borrow the basic concept of your show, you at least owe them the courtesy of watching their pilot. But it was pretty tedious.

I don't think you can get away any more in a pilot with spending most of the episode introducing characters. "Hi, I'm a freshman." "Hi, I'm the girl who jumped off a building." "Hi, I'm the editor of the paper. And you're the teacher who had an affair with a student." These days I think the audience wants you to start your characters off in motion. Just give them interesting stories as if it were a "center cut" episode. We'll pick up who they are from watching them in action.

I'm sure if I'm missing a wonderful show, you'll let me know to keep watching...

TITLE SEQUENCES

Mark Hand writes

I heard from a producer who worked with Mark Burnett that he says no matter how small the show's budget, it's worth it to spend a lot on your titles. First impressions being what they are, and all. I agree with Burnett, titles are incredibly important.

Specifically, I'm thinking about the two kinds of titles: ones that tell you what the shows are about and the ones that don't. In the old Battlestar Galactica they gave you the premise as a voice over; Fresh Prince of Bel-Air and Gilligan's Island did it in the theme song. Speaking of Burnett, Survivor does it with captions. If you think about it, those openers are like public declarations about the show's attractive fantasy: you want to watch this because...

Yet not many shows do it.

I'm wondering what you think about title sequences that tell you what the show's about as opposed to the ones that don't. Or if you have any other thoughts about titles in general.

I don't know how much money you need to spend on your title sequence. But I agree that a title sequence does a lot to set the tone. We've been watching Northern Exposure lately, and the sequence showing the town of Cicely, Alaska, with a young moose wandering around looking the place over, nicely sets the tone for the quirky show. he teaser can't be guaranteed to encapsulate the series; it's just there to hook the audience. A good title sequence tells you what the tone of the show is going to be.

I really like the title sequence to Naked Josh, and not just because my name is there under the words "Created By." It really sets the tone of the show I wanted to write. In some ways, I think it sets a better tone than we achieved in the episodes. It makes the characters feel more like a circle of friends than they actually were.

So, me, I'm in favor of title sequences. Even if I do fast-forward through the endless Sopranos titles, I at least play a few seconds of them every time to remind me of the tone they're going for.

The other nifty thing you can do with title sequences is play with the audience's expectations. If you're going to kill off a main character in your pilot, as so many do these days, be sure to put the character in the main title sequence. Then you'll really sucker the audience. (If you don't, as I gather they didn't do in the Conviction pilot, then everyone knows that character's doomed. No "player character glow" for him!) And of course there's Buffy, "Superstar," where Jonathan has so warped the world by his spell that he's become the superstar of the show in the credits.

So, class: which shows don't have significant main title sequences? If you were designing a main title sequence for them, what would it look like? What does the show lose by not having one?

SURPRISING CHARACTERS

I watched a bit of Julie Taymor's operatic Titus Andronicus adaptation, Titus. I've been pondering her choice to cast the reedy Alan Cumming as Saturninus and give him a little Hitler hair flop. As cast and played, from the git-go we know he's an evil munchkin. So it's hard to understand why Titus Andronicus chooses him over the adorable, deep-eyed Bassianus to be the next emperor.

Now the question is: would it have been better to cast someone adorable as Saturninus, or at least someone strong and leaderly, so we can understand why Titus would choose him? And then we can be with Titus's point of view as Saturninus's evil comes out.

I'm not sure if that would have been better, though. Is the point of the play that Titus makes a terrible mistake based on his blind adherence to old Roman custom, and that is his downfall -- his tragic flaw -- all through the play? He simply does not consider whether Saturninus or Bassianus would make the better Emperor, he just chooses the older son.

If you are telling the story of Hitler's rise, for example... it seems amazing that people would follow the guy. Charlie Chaplin was not the only person to see how ridiculous Hitler was, with his angry yelling and his little mustache, and yet one of the most sophisticated nations fell in love with him. Do you try to cast a charismatic actor, so we'll see what the Germans saw? Or do you cast an actor who will make the insanity clear?

In a B story that we just junked on one of our "Exposure" scripts, we introduced a woman who'd turn out to be a pathological user in the last act. In the first version, it was clear from the beginning that she was a nasty piece of work. In the second draft, we did our best to present her to the audience the way she was coming across to our main character, and only gradually reveal the nasty side.

My question to you, class is: is it always better to save the reveal? Or do you sometimes want to warn the audience in advance that the hero is making a big mistake? And if so, what do you achieve that way?

COMICS, THE BACK DOOR INTO THE MOVIES

Platinum Studios is taking submissions of comics ideas; once the comic's done they hawk it to the studios:

Platinum takes writers' pitches, pays them an up-front advance against sales of the book for writing the script and then they also get a piece of the sale to the studio.

Interesting way to get your ideas on the screen if they are more visual than verbal. And studio execs will happily read a comic themselves.

UPDATE: Here's the URL specifically for screenwriters.

FOR FRIENDS OF BILL

No, not that Bill.

Not that Bill, either. Bill Cunningham.

Dear Friends and Colleagues,

I have been selected as a panelist in the upcoming Scriptwriters Showcase to be held April 7-9th at the Universal Sheraton.

Thank you for your support -- whether you attend my panel at the showcase and say, "Hi!", publicize it on your sites/blogs or simply tell a friend.

The topic of the discussion will be DVD Extras.

To find out more information, I have a post on my blog providing several links and details.

Thanks again and I look forward to seeing you there (or at the bar afterward!)

THAT'S USING YOUR PULPIT

Eric Haney, Command Sgt. Major US Army (Ret'd), has a few things to say about the Iraq War in his interview about The Unit, which is based on his book, which I reviewed a few days back.