Doing it Right

"What was a little daunting," (Alex) Kurtzman said about writing Star Trek XI, "was while we were writing it, they sent over a poster with the release date on it. We hadn't written ‘fade in' yet."
I read the above in an article in the New York Times about the newest Star Trek movie. Which is, basically, a re-imagining of the franchise and all of Star Trek, which is disturbing enough—let alone forcing somewhat competent filmmakers to try and get it done by a pre-established date! Does anyone in Hollywood believe in doing things right anymore?
A delicate piece of cinematic and television history and a pop culture icon for 40 years is at play here, why not do it right instead of aiming to get it out fast. As both a Star Trek fan and cinema fan, I say do not rush things, do them properly—in the end your audience (new and old) will appreciate you.
My newest film Ashita is taking much longer than we had all hoped, and I am forced with difficult decisions in cutting out scenes and characters, but what is foremost in my mind is doing what’s right for the movie. I absolutely refuse to rush my brilliant editor (Andy Bely) into rushing a cut, just so I can appease people and show them a finished film. I am still shooting and writing some scenes, because in the end I want Ashita to be done properly. I want to be loyal to the message I want to send. And I believe that the audience will appreciate the movie because of that.

Sci-Fi Geek

For as long as I can remember I have loved science fiction. For as long as I can remember I have been made of for it. But the truth of it all, is that science fiction has helped shaped the world. Laugh at me if you will, call me a geek (though I think the picture of me sitting in Picard’s chair on the bride of the Enterprise is really cool), but read on and be enlightened if you will.
Let’s start with the classics. Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury, Brave New World by Aldus Huxley and of course Nineteen Eighty-Four (or 1984) by George Orwell. It has been translated into 62 languages and has left a profound impression upon the English language itself. Nineteen Eighty-Four, its terminology and its author have become bywords when discussing privacy and state-security issues. The term "Orwellian" has come to describe actions or organizations reminiscent of the totalitarian society depicted in the novel, and the phrase "Big Brother is watching" has come to mean any act of surveillance that is perceived as invasive.
Nineteen Eighty-Four has, at times, been seen as revolutionary and politically dangerous and therefore was banned by many libraries in various countries, even besides those countries controlled by totalitarian regimes.
The novel was chosen by TIME Magazine as one of the 100 best English-language novels from 1923 to the present.
Not bad for a bunch of geeky science fiction, huh?
What about some modern day classics, things like Blade Runner, which explores the relations between man and machine. Can man love machine? Will man one day create a machine so complex and sophisticated to match his own image? If you look at the research and achievements in the Japanese robotics industry those questions asked in the 1982 film (which by the way was listed by the American Film Institute as the 98th greatest movie ever made) or the novel it was based on: Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? Or what about The Running Man the 1987 movie with Arnold Schwarzenegger; In the year 2019, commodities like oil and food are scarce, and the world economy has collapsed. The great freedoms of the United States are no longer, as the nation has sealed off its borders and become a militarized police state, censoring all film, art, literature, and communications. With full control over the media, the government attempts to quell the nation's yearning for freedom by broadcasting a number of game shows on which convicted criminals fight for their lives. The most popular and sadistic of these programs is The Running Man, hosted by Damon Killian. This evidently shows the birth of reality television… Again, what people laughed, realize today that these post modern views are not so far away.
The work of William Gibson tells of people’s lives on the internet, look at things like Facebook or MySpace where people can forgo traditional publicity, avoid the big corporation and attract their own viewers on a free medium. YouTube does the same for visual artists. You don’t need to screen your short film anywhere, upload it on YouTube and build a fan base through Facebook… watch as you become famous.
And coming back to Star Trek, the highest selling phone in 2006 was the Motorola Razr, which a flat flip phone based on the flip-to-open communicator designed on Star Trek 40 years ago.

The Reality of Things

The first television show to incorporate a laugh track was The Hank McCune Show in 1950. TV Producers decided to bring in a laugh track because TV audiences at home felt reluctant to laugh because nobody else was laughing with them (sure laughing alone is a sign of insanity), so out came the canned laughter where if you were at home alone watching a TV show, it was now okay to laugh because some mysterious audience was also doing it. This was a key tool for the TV world because the laugh track became more important than the joke or comedy on the screen. Like Pavlov's dog, audiences at home agreed with the TV that whatever they were seeing was funny because they weren't alone. Studio audiences came along a little later to make things a little more "believable" with their giant red flashing signs that almost beg the nearly incoherent audience to applaud or laugh. But as audiences got smarter and ignored the big red flashing signs, a new trick was brought about by the TV powers, this was a process known as "Sweetening" which, basically is a laugh track or applause track when the studio audience does not react favorably. Essentially it is a laugh track for the studio audience... If you have the misfortune of being in the studio audience of a TV show and the jokes they bring forth are not funny and nobody laughs the people in the control room will pump a laugh track through studio speakers, so at least when people at home watch it they will maybe agree its funny, or more importantly the people paying for this show will undoubtedly believe their money has been put to good use because, apparently people are laughing at a funny part.
Reality TV is the one step further in the evolution of audience manipulation. The laugh track simply informed the audience as to what was funny--reality TV, disturbingly influences audiences to into gossip. Some genius somewhere analyzed North American culture and realized that most people are not content with minding their own business and are far more satisfied with minding other people's business and watching some body's downfall for their own entertainment... ladies and gentleman we are back to the days of public hangings. People are far too bored with their own lives that they seek out reality television in order to watch other people live a dream, or more interestingly get their dreams smashed and destroyed. Audiences can now take refuge in their bad days at the office, because they got off easier than that poor kid who can't sing on American Idol--who wouldn't rather be with an uncaring boss over the scowls of Simon yelling at you and telling you that you are pathetic and your dream will never come true. Surely watching someones heartbreak is much easier than dealing with your own inabilities in life... after all I may be a loser, but I am certainly not as big a loser as that guy that nobody likes on the island in Survivor, boy, I'd be in serious trouble if I were him...
A lot of people will probably go on to say that I am bitter and that reality TV is nothing more than escapism. My answer, is yes and no. Yes, television is sense of escape for your daily routine and in meant to entertain you. But when does it become poor taste? Is American Idol really in good taste? Does manufacturing a celebrity really sound like good idea. How would you, as an individual feel if you were told on live TV, with millions watching, that the company you work for did not reach its goal and there is no annual bonus this year and you cannot put the down payment on the Lexus you've been dreaming about. It would suck wouldn't it? Well think of how these subjects feel on reality TV. Yes, they maybe foolish or just naive for participating on these shows... some just want to be famous and oh what a price they pay!
I target American Idol because it is by far the most popular of all television whore festivals. People gather around and vote for the newest manufactured celebrity, who's album and t-shirts they will run to buy 3 weeks after the show is done... how special the audience is.
How very special.

Indie v.s. Pro

I had an interesting conversation the other day with an old friend. He asked me why I stopped working professionally in the film business and decided to go the route of independant filmmaker. To say working as a writer or director is whoring yourself is unfair, because the people who hire me make things clear: they will pay me so much to direct such and such a thing for which they can do whatever they please. Much like a house painter, he is hired by you and paid $300 to paint a room, which ever colour you choose. A month after the job you can smash teh walls down or repaint them or anything, the painter doesn't car (or at least he's not supposed to) because he was paid to do job the way you wanted it. Same thing, if you go to Best Buy and buy a Toshiba TV, take the TV home, grab a baseball bat and smash the TV into a million pieces will Toshiba or Best Buy care? No. You paid for it, you can do whatever you want with it. It's the same with movie studios, they pay me, they expect me to do what they want. It would be unfair for me to assume that they would give me artistic freedom or would be take "business decision" do allow me to do whatever I want with their investment. Would anybody walk into a bank and hand their banker a big pile of cash and say: "Here, do whatever you want with it" ? Surely not.
Thus by working independantly, I am an artist and have the freedom to do whatever I choose. Because show business is just that, a business it is there to make money... and I am not the type of person who handles being told how to write or how to make a film. So I do not blame the studios, I can't... they are doing what they are supposed to do. And I, as an artist, chose the freedom over the money. Becuase I do not deal well with watching some tear down the wall I just painted, I am too proud.
I am happy with my choice.