There's a potential confusion ahead - let me make it absolutely clear that when I talk about Role-Playing Games I am not talking about anything to do with attempts to spice up my married life.
I am talking about a type of game invented in the late 70s: The original Dungeon & Dragons followed closely by a whole plethora of similar games.
Just in case you don't know here's a potted explanation: Take a group of, say, 6 people. One of them runs the game, essentially creating a whole universe (using one of the aforementioned games, or out of his head) and the others become characters within that universe. Unlike other games (and especially unlike the so-called computer "RPGs") in this type of game the players can essentially do anything.
Let's get a little more concrete: the players might be a group of unwilling Assassin Hedgehogs (the result of genetic modification) that have been co-opted into an organisation called Animal Spectrum (as in "Captain Scarlet" but with animals) and go on missions to protect society from zombie terrorists.
Okay, that's a little extreme but a genuine game. Or a bunch of Samurai from medieval Japan escorting their Daimyo to Kyoto, and staying at a village plagued by demons (the Teacher likes running Japanese games).
Or Superheroes in Manchester (I first ran that game over 10 years ago). Or Victorian adventurers in the Martian Wilderness. Or outlaws in Sherwood Forest in a Babylon 5/Robin of Sherwood mash-up. Or Time Lords who have forgotten who they are. Or fighting time-travelling Nazis. Or 1960s secret agents like Austin Powers. Or Immortals who discover their world is a computer-generated illusion in a Highlander/Matrix combo. Or in the Wild West with magic.
This is a sample of the games that our group have played over the last 25 years. We take turns at running games and go for as much variety as possible. Sometimes we've even been known to play straight D&D as light relief.
Role-playing games are interesting, the role-playing itself is improvisational acting. You get some people who can only play one type of character (regardless of game) - others who are versatile and create different personas.
The person running the game, for the purposes of this blog I'll call him/her the "Referee", is responsible for the game - responsible for creating the environment in which the players can role-play. A good referee can create an excellent experience - and a good referee can do this off the top of his/her head without planning. Planning is a good thing - or at least having a plan is a good thing - being able to respond to the actions of the players is an even more valuable skill.
You want the players to follow a clue that will take them to the next set-piece. But they don't, instead they decide to go down the pub, the Referee cannot force them to follow the clue (that negates the concept of the game) instead he must adapt.
A common misconception of RPGs of this sort is that the Referee "narrates" or "tells the story" to the players. That would be a very poor game, and certainly not one I'd want to be involved with. But there is a story and the players go through it.
This is all leading somewhere and I shall explain. Prior to getting my recent contract in Sheffield and being able to live at home I was working away for nearly two years. In that time I hadn't been playing (0bviously) but that is also the time period where I began scriptwriting.
The Sheffield contract started in the Summer. Come December we finished a game and it was my turn to run a game. I decided to go for Superheroes in Manchester again with completely new characters (since it had been over 10 years).
But it also occurred to me that there must be a similarity between scriptwriting and running an RPG. Players enjoy games when they are involved with the drama, so I wondered if applying what I knew about creating drama would work.
RPGs are a very different animal to scripts for one very important reason, mentioned above, the Referee cannot tell the players what to do. Scripts are ... well ... scripted. RPGs are free-form. So it's an interesting experiment.
In Part #2 I'll describe how I constructed the opening and went about using scriptwriting drama techniques to make the game work - and what I did wrong.
What's on the turntable? "Hide in Your Shell" by Supertramp from "Crime of the Century"
Sunday, January 03, 2010
Friday, January 01, 2010
New Year Happy!
Last year I said this:
I didn't get a commission, although I got a lot of excellent feedback from various TV companies, including a promise to be considered as a writer if the series in question is renewed. (Which is about as good as it gets without actually getting a commission.)
The project entitled Traitor for which I was creating one paragraph story ideas has yet to come to fruition but the person running the project (after an email nudge) promised to take a look over Christmas. They will be commissioning this February. So that is still the most promising option.
So although I didn't get a commission this year, I have made good progress towards the goal and I'm waiting on the board to roll a 6 exactly.
As for finishing projects: There was Air, that's done and dusted and got rave reviews from the industry readers (you can read the first 10 pages). Unit X, a US TV pilot, which I finished but have put aside as needing a lot of work. Une Nuit a Paris, a feature, also finished and put aside as needing a lot of work.
And Winter which was originally a short, then became my "exciting new web project" proposal for the BBC- which they turned down, and now it's the new Web series which we'll hopefully shoot in 2-3 months. But it needs finishing. So technically it's never been finished.
I also mentioned at the end of that post last year that I needed to get a paying job fast. Which I did, and my web development contract work has been pretty good all year (after a slow start).
My current contract ends at the end of January but the agents are already ringing my phone off the hook - it's nice to be wanted. Though it's getting to the point where I'm getting picky - I want the next contract to be in Birmingham specifically (for various reasons).
Anyway, next year's goals.
The works in progress this time are:
Winter as mentioned above.
Tec which is the TV detective thingy that I've written once but needs more and lots of changes.
I do need to work on new stuff because I don't have enough on the go currently - new ideas needed.
And enter screenwriting competitions - why only 4? Well, I'm not much of a feature writer currently so I'm stuck with TV. And I need to pick and choose what I work on and submit. So just four is fine. One will be Red Planet (but I'll need Tec finished for that), one might be Screenwriters Festival (I'll need Tec for that too). And we'll see what else.
Happy New Year!
What's on the turntable? Not a thing.
- Get a commission
- Finish all work in progress
I didn't get a commission, although I got a lot of excellent feedback from various TV companies, including a promise to be considered as a writer if the series in question is renewed. (Which is about as good as it gets without actually getting a commission.)
The project entitled Traitor for which I was creating one paragraph story ideas has yet to come to fruition but the person running the project (after an email nudge) promised to take a look over Christmas. They will be commissioning this February. So that is still the most promising option.
So although I didn't get a commission this year, I have made good progress towards the goal and I'm waiting on the board to roll a 6 exactly.
As for finishing projects: There was Air, that's done and dusted and got rave reviews from the industry readers (you can read the first 10 pages). Unit X, a US TV pilot, which I finished but have put aside as needing a lot of work. Une Nuit a Paris, a feature, also finished and put aside as needing a lot of work.
And Winter which was originally a short, then became my "exciting new web project" proposal for the BBC- which they turned down, and now it's the new Web series which we'll hopefully shoot in 2-3 months. But it needs finishing. So technically it's never been finished.
I also mentioned at the end of that post last year that I needed to get a paying job fast. Which I did, and my web development contract work has been pretty good all year (after a slow start).
My current contract ends at the end of January but the agents are already ringing my phone off the hook - it's nice to be wanted. Though it's getting to the point where I'm getting picky - I want the next contract to be in Birmingham specifically (for various reasons).
Anyway, next year's goals.
- Get a commission - I really must work harder on this one.
- Finish the works in progress.
- Develop 10 new TV ideas.
- Enter four screenwriting competitions.
The works in progress this time are:
Winter as mentioned above.
Tec which is the TV detective thingy that I've written once but needs more and lots of changes.
I do need to work on new stuff because I don't have enough on the go currently - new ideas needed.
And enter screenwriting competitions - why only 4? Well, I'm not much of a feature writer currently so I'm stuck with TV. And I need to pick and choose what I work on and submit. So just four is fine. One will be Red Planet (but I'll need Tec finished for that), one might be Screenwriters Festival (I'll need Tec for that too). And we'll see what else.
Happy New Year!
What's on the turntable? Not a thing.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Boy on TV
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00pkyq6/BAMZOOKi_Series_Four_Episode_8/ (as of this posting it's not on the site yet, but should be soon).
It was just on, he's the team leader for Skorper Tank 225.
What's on the turntable? "Taschenrechner" by Kraftwerk from "Minimum-Maximum"
It was just on, he's the team leader for Skorper Tank 225.
What's on the turntable? "Taschenrechner" by Kraftwerk from "Minimum-Maximum"
Adaptations are hard
...and seldom work satisfactorily.
So, the latest "Day of the Triffids" adaptation by the BBC. As I said it seemed to get very little promotion and was buried in the back end of the Christmas schedule. I imagine the powers-that-be realised that it "wasn't very good".
John Wyndham was a phenomenal writer, leaving aside his predictions of GM crops, global warming, satellite-based weapons, and who knows what else, he had a knack for creating menace using a very matter-of-fact style. His skill was, perhaps, in plotting the behaviour of people and society when put under incredible stress.
While occasionally he would get into nasty details - the horror of the attack on the sea-coast town by the aliens in "The Kraken Wakes" really sticks in my mind. Yet it's not really gory, just matter-of-fact recording (the narrrator is a journalist).
The problem with adaptations is that novels are a very different animal to TV or film. The best recommendation for writers involved in adaptations is to capture the spirit of the novel - the intention of the original author - and not worry so much about the actual plot, though one does try to keep the same sequence and events.
Peter Jackson took huge liberties with "Lord of the Rings" (and everybody leaves out Tom Bombadil) but created something that truly carried the spirit of the original. It's a phenomenal piece of work.
*** Utter Spoilerage from here on out ***
So we have to ask: what is the spirit of "Day of the Triffids"?
John Wyndham is always making a point about the human condition - usually human arrogance and stupidity. In the book he makes the point that the blinding of the population is caused by satellite weapons, and that the triffids are completely manufactured. In other words: humans did it to themselves.
In this version the blindness is caused by a solar storm, and the triffids are natural (if slightly modified to increase their oil yield).
In other words, to my mind, the story had its heart ripped out.
Purists will complain that huge liberties were taken with the events that took place - but I'm not really complaining about that. I understand why the writer introduced Torrance from the start and had him as the leader of the Brighton group - now shifted to London. It's not what I would have done, but I understand it.
Let's look at the triffids themselves. In the original they are plants, they can move slowly and have their poison whip - and they can hear and communicate with rattles. They are a type of carnivorous plant but still plants, mostly they sit around and wait for their prey to come to them. They kill to create a richer soil to grow on. Blow its flower off and it'll grow another one eventually. Guns don't really bother them, shotguns can slow them down a bit.
In the new version they move reasonably fast and have tentacular roots that are completely controllable (so must have a complete nervous system). Obviously this new nervous system is the reason why guns have a bigger effect and they can be killed by beating their flower head to a pulp. They also want to eat people - just people. They will travel a hundred miles for a human lunch.
And, apparently, one human every couple of days is sufficient to keep dozens of them satisfied - I am referring to to the nunnery sequence here - except they don't completely absorb these ones (just to be sure they're recognisable). Yet the other triffids are not satisfied with even one dead human, kill one and then ignore it and go to kill another.
It may be just me, but I feel the originals are far scarier then these new ones. By making the triffids an obvious danger - even one being lethal - their overall menace is taken away. The fact that triffids can hear is the key point of the menace. It means that as long as people are quiet they can get away (as long as they don't get too close) but if someone starts shouting or starts a car. the audience knows what's coming - it's how you build tension: audience superiority and inevitability. All this is lost with psychotically murderous triffids that can hear and feel - and think.
There were, of course, the other obvious problems: characters wandering around alone and at night when they know there are triffids around - typical stupid schlock horror rubbish. The main character going off to capture a triffid by himself ... by himself? Yet there were three other people who could go with him (one of whom was another triffid expert). When Susan hides in his landrover (which was impossible, by the way, there was no way she could have got to it unseen) you know that either he's going to get into trouble and she'll save him, or she'll get into trouble and he'll save her. (It was the latter.)
My feeling overall is that the story completely lost the point: the title of the story is "Day of the Triffids" by concentrating on the characters and their relationships - and changing the plot to increase that interdependence the triffids became an afterthought, it was no longer about them.
In regard to other aspects: the acting was all good (Eddie Izzard makes a great villain), the actual dialogue was good, the effects certainly good enough.
I have to say that I still prefer the 70s TV version, obviously it's a bit slow by modern standards and the acting (not to mention the triffids) are a bit wooden; but it is more faithful to the original and manages to communicate the level of menace that is the essence of Wyndham, despite its handicaps.
I didn't hate this new version (no point turning my emotions up to 11, it's only TV). I liked some bits, understood why other bits were the way they were, and tutted at the TV in places at the utter stupidity of it.
What's on the turntable? "Saturday Night's Alright for Fighting" by Elton John
So, the latest "Day of the Triffids" adaptation by the BBC. As I said it seemed to get very little promotion and was buried in the back end of the Christmas schedule. I imagine the powers-that-be realised that it "wasn't very good".
John Wyndham was a phenomenal writer, leaving aside his predictions of GM crops, global warming, satellite-based weapons, and who knows what else, he had a knack for creating menace using a very matter-of-fact style. His skill was, perhaps, in plotting the behaviour of people and society when put under incredible stress.
While occasionally he would get into nasty details - the horror of the attack on the sea-coast town by the aliens in "The Kraken Wakes" really sticks in my mind. Yet it's not really gory, just matter-of-fact recording (the narrrator is a journalist).
The problem with adaptations is that novels are a very different animal to TV or film. The best recommendation for writers involved in adaptations is to capture the spirit of the novel - the intention of the original author - and not worry so much about the actual plot, though one does try to keep the same sequence and events.
Peter Jackson took huge liberties with "Lord of the Rings" (and everybody leaves out Tom Bombadil) but created something that truly carried the spirit of the original. It's a phenomenal piece of work.
*** Utter Spoilerage from here on out ***
So we have to ask: what is the spirit of "Day of the Triffids"?
John Wyndham is always making a point about the human condition - usually human arrogance and stupidity. In the book he makes the point that the blinding of the population is caused by satellite weapons, and that the triffids are completely manufactured. In other words: humans did it to themselves.
In this version the blindness is caused by a solar storm, and the triffids are natural (if slightly modified to increase their oil yield).
In other words, to my mind, the story had its heart ripped out.
Purists will complain that huge liberties were taken with the events that took place - but I'm not really complaining about that. I understand why the writer introduced Torrance from the start and had him as the leader of the Brighton group - now shifted to London. It's not what I would have done, but I understand it.
Let's look at the triffids themselves. In the original they are plants, they can move slowly and have their poison whip - and they can hear and communicate with rattles. They are a type of carnivorous plant but still plants, mostly they sit around and wait for their prey to come to them. They kill to create a richer soil to grow on. Blow its flower off and it'll grow another one eventually. Guns don't really bother them, shotguns can slow them down a bit.
In the new version they move reasonably fast and have tentacular roots that are completely controllable (so must have a complete nervous system). Obviously this new nervous system is the reason why guns have a bigger effect and they can be killed by beating their flower head to a pulp. They also want to eat people - just people. They will travel a hundred miles for a human lunch.
And, apparently, one human every couple of days is sufficient to keep dozens of them satisfied - I am referring to to the nunnery sequence here - except they don't completely absorb these ones (just to be sure they're recognisable). Yet the other triffids are not satisfied with even one dead human, kill one and then ignore it and go to kill another.
It may be just me, but I feel the originals are far scarier then these new ones. By making the triffids an obvious danger - even one being lethal - their overall menace is taken away. The fact that triffids can hear is the key point of the menace. It means that as long as people are quiet they can get away (as long as they don't get too close) but if someone starts shouting or starts a car. the audience knows what's coming - it's how you build tension: audience superiority and inevitability. All this is lost with psychotically murderous triffids that can hear and feel - and think.
There were, of course, the other obvious problems: characters wandering around alone and at night when they know there are triffids around - typical stupid schlock horror rubbish. The main character going off to capture a triffid by himself ... by himself? Yet there were three other people who could go with him (one of whom was another triffid expert). When Susan hides in his landrover (which was impossible, by the way, there was no way she could have got to it unseen) you know that either he's going to get into trouble and she'll save him, or she'll get into trouble and he'll save her. (It was the latter.)
My feeling overall is that the story completely lost the point: the title of the story is "Day of the Triffids" by concentrating on the characters and their relationships - and changing the plot to increase that interdependence the triffids became an afterthought, it was no longer about them.
In regard to other aspects: the acting was all good (Eddie Izzard makes a great villain), the actual dialogue was good, the effects certainly good enough.
I have to say that I still prefer the 70s TV version, obviously it's a bit slow by modern standards and the acting (not to mention the triffids) are a bit wooden; but it is more faithful to the original and manages to communicate the level of menace that is the essence of Wyndham, despite its handicaps.
I didn't hate this new version (no point turning my emotions up to 11, it's only TV). I liked some bits, understood why other bits were the way they were, and tutted at the TV in places at the utter stupidity of it.
What's on the turntable? "Saturday Night's Alright for Fighting" by Elton John
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
We have been watching...
What a laugh ... back in September it was the Teacher's birthday and the four of us (myself, the Teacher, the Daughter and the Boy) went out for a meal at a very nice local Indian Restaurant.
This was before we shot Monsters and before the Boy was on Bamzooki (and no, I haven't forgotten, they made rather more episodes than I expected - he hasn't been on yet, I'll let you know).
The discussion got on to the subject of shooting schedules - who was doing what and when - then we suddenly realised what we sounded like, all this TV and schedules and so forth, and burst out laughing.
However on to the main course:
We've been having a bit of a Bruce Willis Christmas.
We have a tradition: Boxing Day involves closing the curtains and watching a set of films from a series. For two years we did the entire Lord of the Rings extended - needs 12 hours - last year we did all four Indiana Jones (not entirely satisfying), and this year we did the Die Hards. (Next year we'll be doing LotR again.)
The Die Hards are good satisfying fun - you almost never see the third one nowadays since it involves bombs in New York - and we enjoyed them (the Boy had only seen 4.0 until then). EDIT: Die Hard 3 was on this very evening. Typical.
The Teacher was also very pleased with her gifts, since she got one of her all-time favourite films on DVD: Hudson Hawk. This is a very silly film and it was a box office disaster - but it has a certain charm. The Teacher loves it. And it's a Bruce Willis film. From a screenwriting viewpoint there is an awful lot wrong with this film - it doesn't know its genre for a start - and yet it still manages to please.
In the great video cull of 2008 we lost a lot of films we liked to watch - though by then we did not have a video player that worked properly (except one integral to a very small TV). So we've been replacing with DVDs - we've seen Blu-ray on a big TV and yes, it is fantastic, but we won't changing in the near future.
We have now also re-acquired The Hunt for Red October which we watched. Quality stuff. Other DVDs we've newly received but not yet re-watched: Galaxy Quest to go with our brand-new copy of Star Trek, and Practical Magic, as a family we're big Sandra Bullock fans and the Teacher and the Daughter adore this film.
TV has been mostly irrelevant, as it tends to be at Christmas. We watched Dr Who, of course, and were suitably impressed - bearing in mind it was a "part 1". I'll talk about the new "Day of the Triffids" tomorrow when we've seen part 2. However the fact that it had almost zero promotion may give you a clue - John Wyndham knows how to spin a terrifying yarn in novel/short story form, adaptations are always hard.
Oh, and the DavidTennant/PatrickStewart/RSC "Hamlet", of course. Overall we think it wasn't as good as the Brannagh one, but still damn good. Brilliant writer, of course.
And I got a telescope for Christmas, I was absolutely stunned and delighted - I've always been interested in astronomy - unfortunately there is a problem and it's not focusing. We are in discussions with the UK distributor.
What's on the turntable? "Your sister can't twist (but she can rock and roll)" by Elton John
This was before we shot Monsters and before the Boy was on Bamzooki (and no, I haven't forgotten, they made rather more episodes than I expected - he hasn't been on yet, I'll let you know).
The discussion got on to the subject of shooting schedules - who was doing what and when - then we suddenly realised what we sounded like, all this TV and schedules and so forth, and burst out laughing.
However on to the main course:
We've been having a bit of a Bruce Willis Christmas.
We have a tradition: Boxing Day involves closing the curtains and watching a set of films from a series. For two years we did the entire Lord of the Rings extended - needs 12 hours - last year we did all four Indiana Jones (not entirely satisfying), and this year we did the Die Hards. (Next year we'll be doing LotR again.)
The Die Hards are good satisfying fun - you almost never see the third one nowadays since it involves bombs in New York - and we enjoyed them (the Boy had only seen 4.0 until then). EDIT: Die Hard 3 was on this very evening. Typical.
The Teacher was also very pleased with her gifts, since she got one of her all-time favourite films on DVD: Hudson Hawk. This is a very silly film and it was a box office disaster - but it has a certain charm. The Teacher loves it. And it's a Bruce Willis film. From a screenwriting viewpoint there is an awful lot wrong with this film - it doesn't know its genre for a start - and yet it still manages to please.
In the great video cull of 2008 we lost a lot of films we liked to watch - though by then we did not have a video player that worked properly (except one integral to a very small TV). So we've been replacing with DVDs - we've seen Blu-ray on a big TV and yes, it is fantastic, but we won't changing in the near future.
We have now also re-acquired The Hunt for Red October which we watched. Quality stuff. Other DVDs we've newly received but not yet re-watched: Galaxy Quest to go with our brand-new copy of Star Trek, and Practical Magic, as a family we're big Sandra Bullock fans and the Teacher and the Daughter adore this film.
TV has been mostly irrelevant, as it tends to be at Christmas. We watched Dr Who, of course, and were suitably impressed - bearing in mind it was a "part 1". I'll talk about the new "Day of the Triffids" tomorrow when we've seen part 2. However the fact that it had almost zero promotion may give you a clue - John Wyndham knows how to spin a terrifying yarn in novel/short story form, adaptations are always hard.
Oh, and the DavidTennant/PatrickStewart/RSC "Hamlet", of course. Overall we think it wasn't as good as the Brannagh one, but still damn good. Brilliant writer, of course.
And I got a telescope for Christmas, I was absolutely stunned and delighted - I've always been interested in astronomy - unfortunately there is a problem and it's not focusing. We are in discussions with the UK distributor.
What's on the turntable? "Your sister can't twist (but she can rock and roll)" by Elton John
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)