There's a lot of thoughts in my head about what the future of entertainment will be, I dont know if I can even put them together here, but I'll try:
- Technology changes everything. This is something we discussed with producer Richard Berger on the radio last sunday. The means of production of which Karl Marx once wrote about, are becoming socialized, not through politics like he meant them to, but through technology getting both more powerful and cheaper. It used to be that the dividing line between major productions and indie flicks was the size of the budget. Technology is turning the boardgame upside down: suddenly every John Doe with a desktop can make increasingly nicer-looking films with increasingly cheaper budgets. Soon, the dividing line will be about story. This is a good thing. But like every paradigm shift, it will reset all players to near zero. Bad storytellers who used to bank on the size of their budgets, will fall off the board, while good storytellers who used to dream about having big budgets, will suddenly dream no more. It'll be a slow-mo revolution. The studios are reacting to it by playing it safe: increasing the number of movies based on proven Intellectual Properties (be it other movies, comics, videogames, etc). This will not suffice in the long term. When technology allows people to have a digital Angelina in their desktop, acting at their beck and call like S1M0N3, things will get scary. Then again.. a virtual Angelina in my monitor? I may suddenly become too busy to make movies anymore.
- Mixed platforms. This is something else Richard mentioned. The studios are cutting the number of new films per year, and focusing only on huge mega-big-deal projects, but less of them. And these behemot franchises always come with the whole shebang: videogames, comics, toys, lunch boxes, collectibles, etc. Its never just a film anymore. Now its about brands, which come in many platforms, films being just the flagship. Again, the response to the democratizing effect of technology on the unwashed masses, is to go bigger, bigger, bigger to The Fiddler's Green where they may not reach us. Yet :)
Strategy: To make it in this new world that's coming, you need to be a generalist. You need to know about Videogames and Comics too, not just films. You need to be able to think in terms of marketing and branding, not just story.
Concrete steps: Something I'm making right now, and I think it'll prove to be a good move, is this: I'm writing a comic book of my screenplay first, before the screenplay. This is interesting on several fronts:
- It forces me to address my biggest weakness as a screenwriter, which is: I write too fucking much. In comic book form, there's only so many letters you can fit in a speech balloon. This is good. This teaches me discipline, forces me to keep a tight pace, and its an amazing filter for things that look good only to me, but the audience would yawn at.
- It produces something -visual- you can pitch at studio execs. They can -see- it, before they invest money in it. This counts for something. (See http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...) And later on, if you get green-light, its like a quasi storyboard the whole production team can follow. Here, proof, see the way the director and comic writer understood each other via the pages of the comic. The first 40 minutes of the movie, scene by scene is the same as the comic, panel by panel. Captions, voiceovers, everything:
- It helps me get a job later on as a comic book writer. This is the biggest "LP-gets-scratched" moment for some, because the question jumps: "why would an aspiring screenwriter want to write comics!?" Answer: cuz they pay bi-monthly man. A paycheck counts when you have a family, and comics have a bit more stability than movies. Plus, you'd be surprised how related the two skillsets are. Now if I end up making millions someday (heh!) then I'd readjust my priorities, but for now, I need paychecks. Plus, I love comics.
So there, my plan. I'm writing a comic first, then a screenplay, for a movie, which is just the flagship, of a brand that will hopefully include other platforms and other stories, maybe even my wet dream, videogames, and goes who knows where. Everything in my project is designed to accomodate growth, rather than a single story, its a whole rich world where hundreds of stories could be told under the same umbrella. I made a website for it which will be the brand central, and studio people have said it looks good. And in the meanwhile all this happens, I will try to get regular paychecks writing comics.
I've given away my secret plan! Its cuz I wuv you guys. And I'll even share the product of many hours of research, benchmarking and comparison, the easiest product for writers who want to dabble into comics: http://plasq.com/comiclife-win
There!
Lets see what happens people. I just felt like sharing this :)
Marco
Submitted by
FableForge on July 10, 2008 - 9:19am.
Homo Videns
Quoted from http://www.signsofthetimes.org.au/archives/2002/october/article6.shtm
The electronic media, with its dominating images and passive viewers, is creating a new form of human, according to a recent book. Academic Mario Pereyra tests the hypothesis.
The Bible has no problem defining the human: “In the image of God he created them,” asserts the ancient book of Genesis.
Ever since, scientists have coined phrases and constructed taxonomies in order to define who and what humans are.
In 1758, Carl von Linnaeus, a Swedish botanist, introduced the “system of human nature” that established the classification of species following an assumed evolutionary pattern. He catalogued the Homo (human) species as a branch of the Hominids, two-legged creatures.
From there the search began for our presumed remote ancestors, including homo habilis (skilful man), homo erectus and, finally, homo sapiens. Evolutionists contend that the latter continued to evolve into the various kinds of contemporary men and women.
And now comes homo videns, a discovery by Italian sociologist Giovanni Sartori. His book, Homo Videns: Teledirected Society , has been a bestseller in Latin America, and its Italian version sold out in months.
Sartori’s thesis (although based on a questionable world view), deserves attention.
He argues that evolution has turned backward since the 1950s, since homo sapiens is being dethroned by homo videns. The former is characterised by a large brain, an ability to walk perfectly on two feet and work skilfully with hands, the use of language and other cultural aspects described by anthropologists.
Sartori agrees with the philosopher Ernst Cassirer (1874-1945) in affirming that humans are characterised by their symbolising activity—“the ability to communicate by means of articulated sounds and meaningful signals,” says Sartori.* From this it can be deduced that the human’s “thinking and knowing as a symbolising being are built in language and through language.” So it is that spoken and written language are not only the base of culture but also the essence of the nature of homo sapiens.
neo-kulcha
With the appearance of TV midcentury and the establishment of the television industry, Sartori maintains, human development was interrupted and even reversed, for image perception began to replace abstract thinking. This process of “involution” was accentuated with the coming of cybernetics in the 1980s and with the appearance of the computer and multimedia technology. TV allows us to see at a distance things that are real, but the PC shows us virtual or simulated reality.
Thus, seeing is privileged above speaking—the image is affirmed above the word. And with the prevalence of vision, the symbolising creature becomes the seeing creature.
Sartori says he doesn’t seek to attack television as a means of communication or the computer as an information system.
His concern is with our dependence upon them. He argues that television impoverishes and makes us more credulous, naive and inactive. It also atrophies our gift for abstraction and understanding of problems, as it stimulates the concrete thinking linked to the image on screen.
An example is our classification of words by denotation and connotation.
The first category includes words referring to observable things such as book, house, dog etc—words that denote or point to specific objects or facts of which we have a mental image or representation. They’re the basis for concrete thinking.
Other words refer to ideas, such as nation, sovereignty, justice etc. These expressions aren’t “visible,” but rather are concepts linked to abstract mental processes.
Abstract language and thought is responsible for the development of civilisation and science over the centuries—that which characterises the human species. Sartori suggests that TV produces images and destroys concepts, and thus atrophies our capacity for abstraction.
At the core of his argument is the “video-child.” Statistics suggest TV has replaced the babysitter and become the child’s primary school. Watching TV before learning to read and write produces a negative mind-set for school learning. In addition, undue early exposure engenders a phobia against schoolbooks and a tendency to respond only to “shows,” strident music and the sensational. Children are dominated by impulse.
TV, asserts Sartori, “softens” the brain.
Reading , on the other hand, requires solitude, concentration, discriminating ability, appreciation for conceptualisation and reasoning. Homo videns “tires of reading, prefers the abbreviated flash of a synthetic image. It fascinates and seduces him. He renounces to logical links, reasoned sequence and reflection.
By contrast, he yields to the immediate, heated, emotionally involving impulse.” The TV addict rejects persistent effort, tenacious action, and research—in effect, the cultivation of one’s thoughts and actions.
Now you might be tempted to think that these ideas are exaggerated. Sartori replies: Look at places where television dominates, and what do you see? Dwindling reading scores, a scarcity of critical thinking, difficulty in comprehension and composition . . .
But, worse, this image-based thinking has increased with the introduction of the computer, the Internet and video game. As with TV, the impact of the PC depends on the use it’s put to—instrument, entertainment or mania? Generally, people who surf the Internet tend to passive dependence more than interactive, productive work and, as research has shown, increases the level of depression and loneliness.
culture of the spectacular
Homo videns dwells in the world of the spectacular, dominated by the famous.
From Tokyo to Buenos Aires, from Moscow to Washington, from Paris to Kuwait, no matter the culture, it’s popularity that dominates the market. Why is success defined in almost the same way anywhere on the planet? How do we get the impression that TV is the same everywhere? Every country in the global village has converted society into an audience, and the population into couch potatoes hypnotised by the spectacular.
There are programs, magazines and newspaper supplements devoted to promoting the spectacular. Not long ago those supplements were published only on weekends. They contain entertainment, artistic events, theatre plays, movies and the all-powerful TV programs, the stars that shine in the splendid firmament of popularity. Now it’s published every day.
The entertainment industry sells products that are the fashion of the day. The market of notoriety absorbs more time, structuring the values of homo videns.
The industry of the spectacular isn’t only omnipresent, but omnipotent. It hoards, manages, directs or manipulates everything.
The economy is dependent on the media.
A negative comment by some well-known journalist, whether or not they’re informed, will cause a fall in stock values or ruin an industry. Politicians must be good TV actors if they want votes. Everybody wants access to the wide stage of fame.
The law of the spectacular that comes to the fore in homo videns, rules at every level.
The main object is to be an actor, to be seen, to pretend, to play a role, no matter what the arena. Charisma, loquacity, the histrionic touch, the magic of collective hypnotism constitute the key to success.
The principal value is no longer morality, holiness, unselfishness, intelligence or art—but fame. The famous who shine in the powerful spotlight of popularity can taste with satisfaction the honey of glory.
In previous times, one had to do something for the public good, to discover, invent, or write something important.
One no longer needs excellence, intelligence, wisdom or even money. It’s enough to have an attractive figure, to seduce or exhibit oneself.
Hollywood was the first to discover the economic power that is built on fame, creating the celebrity industry. The fascinating power of fame transforms almost anything into something and moves fortunes.
Models on the billboards, actors, singers, sports celebrities—anyone in the “fame sphere”—has become an advertising endorsement for consumer products.
No matter the quality of the product, people will buy it because Elle McPherson, Michael Jordan or Bruce Willis or some television show personality uses it—or say we ought to. Ultimately, they themselves are the product. That’s why the famous are besieged. The TV industry, journalists and photographers pursue them mercilessly.
Industries are built on the foundation of their fame.
reversing involution
It’s evident that we live in the Age of Image, supportive of fame and the spectacular.
After rushing home from work, millions find their principal occupation in curling up on the couch and playing with the remote control. Others sit enchanted in front of their computer monitor, and surf their fantasies.
For Sartori, the most important danger in all this is that homo videns is easy prey for experts in manipulation of the collective will. Wanting in abstract and independent thinking, hindered in achieving one’s own identity, homo videns is easily seduced by the magic of the technological panoply.
The Italian sociologist is particularly alarmed by video politics, the manipulation of the power of images by politicians and government. He notes that television “strongly conditions the electoral process, whether in the election of candidates” or in “governmental decisions” by distorting the proper functioning of democratic systems.
Odina and Halevi assure us that fame is “the new gold standard by which everything can be measured” ( El Factor Fama ), reducing “our ideals to the devouring desire to be illuminated, though it be for an instant and only through simulation by the media spotlight.” Certainly the advent of the image culture has installed in today’s mentality the hegemony of seduction and simulation.
Real events and objective facts have been relegated to second place.
What has become important is their representation on the screen. Reality has shifted from the real world to the monitor screen, becoming virtual “reality.” We are now in the age of “seeing” rather than “being.”
Fame is derived from this context. It walks on the stage of appearances. It’s a luxury vehicle for transporting fascinating aesthetics, but with an ethical vacuum. It relegates one’s person to a world of simulation full of falsehood—a big lie. Dustin Hoffman, in launching one of his movies, ironically stated that politics and the movies are one and the same, causing one to believe that which is not true.
It is a glimmering mirage, a shell game, that magnifies the figure and exalts the ego to a ridiculous degree. There lies the death of certainties, of rational thinking and of eternal values of the spirit. The eager seekers after fame have lost the human aspiration for religious transcendence, because the desire for notoriety does not bring with it that kind of metaphysical profundity.
That is why, as Umberto Eco says, today more than ever we need to rediscover the sense of being over and above the fallacies and “strategies of illusion” ( Las Estrtegias de la Ilusion ) and to find the certainties of the essential values.
What are those higher goods that guarantee authentic fulfilment of one’s being? They are the courage to forge a personal identity based on the eternal values of love, faith, truth, integrity and justice. They consist in learning: To listen to the voice of God. To perceive the sublime touch of beauty, the mysterious call to a life of service. To swell into fullness the stream of vital energy and to take risks for the joy of living. To develop moderation, patience, authenticity, to not be carried away by anger. To learn that there is a place for tenderness, for hugs, for the human touch, even in small things. To open the gate to the land of hope. To lift aloft the banner of a new ideal. And so many other tangible and substantial realities of the humankind, in place of the artificial games and fatuous splendour of the famous who are at the service of homo videns.
Many who reflect seriously on contemporary cultural trends lift their voices in alarm over what they see in lost capacity for analysis, for autonomous decisionmaking.
They are frightened at a population being “tele-directed” by extravagant charlatans, people who triumph in the TV world, who lead us to lose our vision of the higher values of the mind and of the spirit.
They call us to return to books, to cultivate the habit of reading and develop critical thinking, to become not mere refractors of the screen content, but thinkers with minds of our own.
And to these, add a return to the Holy Scriptures, which not only favours thinking, but establishes those ethical principles and transcendental values so essential to real life. § Reprinted, with permission, from Dialogue magazine.
If you’d like a free introductory copy, contact the publisher: email: rodrigueze@gc.adventist.org or fax 301 622 9627.
*Giovanni Sartori, Homo videns: La sociedad teledirigida, Santillana, SA, Taurus, Madrid, 1998.
"Every deep being needs a mask to exist" - F. Nietzche
:) Best of lucks, man
Marco, you're my personal friend and I really believe you'll be a sucesfull writter, not only at Hollywood but in all over the world.
I posted this article because what you and Richard Berger talked about in the last radio show is SO true that scares me a bit. Call me hypocrit, I'm trying to launch my own projects under this etiquetes of new marketing, using movies as flags for a lot of products and stuff... but I think Sartori is right wen he mentions the danger of the audiovisual society wen the advantages are used to control the masses from a political point. We have to write a script about that! :D lol
The writters will have a HUGE responsability to keep the social values and the moral introspection using the media to transmit instead of smashing over them.
"Every deep being needs a mask to exist" - F. Nietzche
Very good article
It was a good read man!
Well, its the dark side of the responsability McKee outlines at the beginning of his book. After I read that, it dawned on me that being a screenwriter is an important job. I never saw it that way before. Like a doctor, or a priest, or fireman, a screenwriter is responsible for an important part of what makes a society, it directly shapes culture. Now, no one has gotten rich trying to change culture (well, maybe Seth McFarlane has), but most of the times a good story just resonates within people in a way their lives are subtly changed.
Its like a mirror that actually changes you back, depending on how hard you look at it.
Anyway, before we get all philosophical, thanks so much for the well wishes man, I'm working hard on this project, throwing all the science at it and let's see where it goes my friend!
P.S. I can't draw a comic to save my life. I'm only writing it. The one who will be doing the art is the artist here, Hector. One more thing in which you've made a positive difference in my life, dude :)
Write the comic book.
Not a bad strategy. I came up with the same one back in high school when I wrote a short story that was way too epic to be made into an indie movie. And since selling a screenplay to Hollywood is close to impossible and even if it was it would still more than likely never get made. I'd rather see it brought to life in graphic novel form.
hCOMICS
JUST GOT A KILLA IDEA...
you know how comics are usually CARTOONS?
Is it possible for comics to have REAL PICTURES and still shots? Say you're shooting a movie right? Actors da works... but... you only use STILL FRAMES from da shoot and incorporate it all together to present da story as a comic.
Anybody done dat before? If not, you know who came up wit it... hAhA... :)
Bradstreet done it.
Have you ever heard of the artist Tim Bradstreet? Well if not, look up his work on google. His style is that he is both a photographer and an artist. He photographs his models, then traces and inks them so the comic image is gritty and realistic. His work is all comic book covers, but I heard that he did do a whole comic book once in his own art style with the photographs. I think it was an issue of Hellblazer, but don't quote me on that.
BUT...
DA HOOK is...
Cast big time stars... like Winona Ryder... :)
It can be like a big budget movie project... but it'll be a BIG BUDGET COMIC.
It'll attract not just movie goers... but book worms... even Celebrity Magazine Fanatics... we can even get investors and sponsors like Borders and shit...
I can see da BOOK SIGNINGS now for da Premiere Release... with me in da sidelines flattered as a Muthafuck... hAhA... :)
Like A Scanner Darkly? But
Like A Scanner Darkly? But as a comic book?
BETTA...
cuz it'll actually be good enough for a sequel... just playin.
But YAh... comics usually go on as SERIES... it can go on and on... maybe even get cheaper as we learn how to make it... decreasing budget with increasing profit.
AND... it can be a good outlet for famous people who are not known for having acting skillz... like Paris Hilton... Britney Spears... Carmen Electra... Whoevaz.
We don't even need to worry about needing a good director for it... just good WRITERS and SHOOTERS.
A Celebrity Magazine/Celebrity Comic
Coming Soon to a News Stand near you... hAhA... :)
Photocomics
Well, photocomics have been around for a while, as of today there's 136 of them on the web: http://www.onlinecomics.net/pages/co...
(I recommend "Tiny Ghosts" and "Aarin's Desk". Specially Aarin's Desk, that guy is a GENIUS: http://www.onlinecomics.net/pages/in...)
Now, your angle for big budget celeb comics is fresh, for sure, but think about it this way: if anyone's going to spend tons of money in locations, makeup, name actors, and at least a little FXs, .. well, they might as well make a movie :) And then maybe make a comic out of the movie afterwards. Your only savings are audio (which is big savings, I concede) and some (not all) FXs.
It's more promising as indie work, but here's a nearly-zero budget compromise: 3D Comics:
http://www.onlinecomics.net/pages/co...
156 of them and counting, and looking better every day. This is where the future is :)
Tell Jon Brown...
to pitch it in Holly
If nobody done it, why not?
CELEBRITY COMICS
Forget Celebrities
Karma Pirates: The Comic.
Do It
Start with me drinkin' Rum.
I found my looped swish flick :)
hSkills baby!
Story
Marco, I checked out the links, the page is cool.
Good.
Post new comment