Comments for PAGE International Screenwriting Awards

Comment on R.I.P., Ripley by collin

collin — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 05:47:14 +0000

Good article, Stoogie Joe.

I was fortunate enough to catch the Variety Series screening of AVATAR three weeks ago (in 3D no less) at the Arclight in Hollywood. Mr. James Cameron, the wizard himself, showed up for an hour-long Q&A afterward. It was revelatory. For the purpose of full disclosure here, I loved the film. Certainly, it’s not a perfect film, and it’s nowhere near as good as ALIENS. But Cameron’s very candid Q&A shed light on a lot of unanswered questions and explained a Smurf-load of his creative choices.

Among the things we learned was that the original cut of the film was about four hours and 18 minutes long. When asked what had been cut out, Cameron said, unequivocally, that most of Sigourney’s scenes had been Ginzu’d. The reason being that “the bonehead writer didn’t realize Grace Augustine’s story wasn’t the heart of the film, and that it could be conveyed with much greater economy.”

So there you have it. And I’ve got to believe that at least a little of what was cut featured Dr. Augustine channeling the bad assery of Warrant Officer Ripley.

It wouldn’t surprise me if another whole chunk of Tsu’tey’s story was also lost. If you’ll recall, he’s the one to whom Zoe Saldana’s Ney’tiri is promised as his bride, as he’ll be the next Tribal Chief of the Na’vi when Ney’tiri’s father kicks it.

So what happens? JakeSully comes blundering in with his “Sky People” avatar, is accepted by the Na’vi, steals his girl, and we’re only granted one reaction scene from this proud warrior? I don’t think so.

I’m guessing a whole JakeSully vs. Tsu’tey battle took place somewhere in the middle of the 2nd act that Cameron jettisoned like so much Newt and Hicks flotsam to cull his movie below the deadly three hour mark.

Collin

Comment on R.I.P., Ripley by Michael Lee

Michael Lee — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 23:07:31 +0000

And the problem is Grace is probably the BEST written character in the script. Her intro is great and injects much needed humor and humanity into what is a pretty dry visual exercise. But you’re correct her part is under written as is every part in the whole script.
Why do the Na’vi take in Jake even though they know he’s one of the humans?
Why does a far future mining operation need to be right on top of the deposit before they can mine?
Nearly all the critical decisions get short shrift.

Comment on R.I.P., Ripley by Savage

Savage — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 22:44:43 +0000

“DANCES WITH SMURFS” and the even funnier “GOING ROGUE ON THE SMURFS” actually came from a South Park episode that aired ust before the release of Avatar in theaters. I’ve heard a few people call the movie AVATARDED, which I also like.

I miss Ripley a lot, but I’ll tell ya: I also miss Cameron having a solid sense of what is GRITTY AND COOL, not just profitable…

Comment on The Difference Between Persistence and Being a Dick by Dave Vaughan

Dave Vaughan — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 00:01:14 +0000

I admit that I have to agree with Stogie Joe’s article and was knocked on my butt by Josh Olsen. As a fledgling screenwriter, a term I believe no one cares to attach to themselves, it can be confusing out here in never-never land, increasing in boggle the more distant one is from LA. Of the more than 100,000 screenplays that descend upon the industry annually much can, or should be, dismissed with the wave of the hand. How do you separate the chaff from the wheat?
Enter readers throughout the industry, who wield tremendous power, second only to the dragons at the gate, the receptionists. From what I can fathom, readers, on the whole, don’t feel good about telling writer’s their scripts suck. Even Josh Olsen feels more than a twinge of guilt in having to condemn a writer and his great American screenplay to the ride with Charlie on the MTA. When is the last time you have completely destroyed someone’s dreams? How do you let them down gracefully and gently and with finality?
Readers would do all of us newbies a favor if they could be more honest. It is difficult, if not impossible much of the time, for a writer to accept that his baby will never reach maturity. Who should be saddled with the gruesome task of telling the parent?

Comment on Coming Soon to a Theater Near You: George Foreman Grill, the Movie! by Savage

Savage — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 01:50:41 +0000

I guess this would be a good time to shop around my “TINKER TOYS” vrs “LINCOLN LOGS” script, eh?

Comment on Coming Soon to a Theater Near You: George Foreman Grill, the Movie! by Jason Scoggins

Jason Scoggins — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 02:51:51 +0000

Thanks for the shout-out, Stogie Joe. Here’s the updated numbers for the stat you cited above, as of August 15: Just 2 out of the 84 scripts that went wide after May 1 have sold. That’s 2.4%. Crazy.

I’ll have the updated year-to-date numbers up at http://www.lifeonthebubble.com on Friday afternoon.

- scoggins

P.S. “Fruit Roll-Ups” - genius.

Comment on Do we still need stars? by Melody Jackson, Ph.D.

Melody Jackson, Ph.D. — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 19:36:22 +0000

Hey, Stogie Joe,
Your commentary is so rich and powerful and opens up so many great ideas, where do I begin? I’ll just pick a couple things and leave it at that.

I have long thought that many people really don’t understand why a star is a star and why they get the big paycheck. It’s not that they just got lucky and now get $25M a movie — they are providing value to the audience. While we can all speculate about what makes aspiring performers breakthrough and into stardom, there really is no question that once they have cracked the code and their brand is on the public radar, they provide “a valuable something,” and it is the Brand, as you call it, that people come to trust and like. Kinda of like how I drink Diet Pepsi, for better or worse in its own quality, because I know the brand and I trust it.

Looking at what that “valuable something” is that the star provides, it really is as you quoted Mark Harris, Entertainment Weekly: “A movie star is someone whose past work enriches your experience of, and deepens your pleasure in, his or her present work.” And as you also wrote, we watch them grow up.

Identifying and relating to these stars as we do documents our own history in a way — even more readily seen with musicians. I was a Donny Osmond fan as a child. When I see him now, I remember what I myself was doing on my 13th birthday. We do the same with the movies and movie stars.

I believe that Movie Stars should get every penny that they possibly can. When actors or writers complain about their salary, I just shake my head, because if the star doesn’t get the money — the STUDIO will, not the other actors and writers who also “deserve” more money, too.

I love that we have Movie Stars. They also represent the possibility of transcendence. Something bigger than our mundane experience of life. They represent magic. While they are still individual human beings, for the rest of us, they seem to be a conduit to the magic that we wish for in our lives. Something bigger than life.

I completely agree with you that stars are going nowhere — we needs our Stars more than ever. It’s just a question of which direction the money heads.

And yes, almost everybody knows we need them. It’s just a matter of making sure that the team of people on the star side of the deal never buy the propaganda that the studios put out about them being overpaid.

All the best to you, Stogie Joe,

Melody Jackson, Ph.D.
http://www.smartg.com

Comment on Coming Soon to a Theater Near You: George Foreman Grill, the Movie! by Glaeken Gaunt

Glaeken Gaunt — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 20:04:14 +0000

You won’t get a change in the process without a change in the culture. Therefore, to have new properties receive well-crafted attention you will need to build a new studio which has those aims as a genuine mission. However, if you look at the history of world cinema, America has always been about churning out trendy films that look great but underneath are…without substance. Now and then, a great picture gets made, which keeps hopes alive. In general though, US cinema is made like your fast food. Gross is the deemed result, not art. So, build a new studio, staffed with visionaries and skilled artists. Then find the scripts with quality. Because the writers are part of the overall process, used to turning out filler, not reaching for transcendent art.

Comment on Coming Soon to a Theater Near You: George Foreman Grill, the Movie! by lyse

lyse — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 01:13:33 +0000

The latest trend of ball-shriveled, spec-killing no-men is really getting boring. It’s a sad reflection of where we’re at as a society. Scared, looking to the past and slipping into a coma. Where’s the fire cracker energy that demands innovation? Even when a creative burst shows it’s sweet face, it’s quickly drowned in the need to make it bigger and faster and more than ever before. The efforts go into the practical how-are-we-going-to-pull-this-sucker-off-with-less-time-and-money-than-it-should-take, rather than into the joy of making something cool. Please, make it stop. Or at least, can the passionate, energetic execs, desperate to fan new life into Hollywood find their cajones and a way to side step these chickens so we can all breathe a sigh of relief.

humph.

Comment on Coming Soon to a Theater Near You: George Foreman Grill, the Movie! by Slinky Inventor

Slinky Inventor — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 21:37:56 +0000

What about my toy? I can see the movie poster blurg…”The metal monster continued it’s unrelenting approach down the stairs toward me, step by step…”