End of Season 2: Heroes

From Best to…pretty good.

I will be the first to tell you (and to many of you I already have) that Heroes: Season 1 is the best series television has ever seen. I don’t say that lightly. TV has had some phenomenal shows, no doubt about it. Magnum P.I. CHiPs. Knight Rider. 24. Prison Break. Lost (well, the first couple seasons, at least). Oh, right, and like, The Sopranos or whatever, too.

But seriously, Heroes: Season 1 was, in my opinion, the best television series I have ever seen. Incredible action, adventure, and suspense, great and memorable characters, excellent plot twists…the list goes on. The future episode alone is worth watching the entire season for.

So, what’s my point?

The Writer’s Commentary

This season of Heroes, Season 2, has had its ups and downs. It’s still pretty good, and still my favorite show, but it’s not the same as last year. Some of the same characters are back, new characters have been added, and the world is still plugging along in need of…heroes.

The show has had guest writers and directors, and that takes away from the core somewhat, but it’s been relatively solid until the last 3-4 weeks. What happened? They tried to please the audience beyond what was necessary.

I’ll be the first to tell you, pleasing an audience is incredibly rewarding. There’s no better feeling than having someone go, “Wow, that was a cool story.” It’s fulfilling, and it’s what writers write for (most of us, anyway). So, I can’t fault the Heroes crew for their decision, but it has led to an awkward transition.

Essentially, this season, rather than end it in 18 episodes (or however many are left, but it’s a sizeable amount), they have chosen to wrap this year’s season up in just 3. Why? The writer’s strike. I can see it now. “We know there’s gonna be a strike, but what do we do?”

“I got it. Let’s end it early. That’s what the audience will want. We can’t leave them hanging. Let’s just finish up the season.”

Not a bad idea, right? I can hear the writers groaning from here. What about the build-up? What about all the storylines? Our characters can’t develop in 3 episodes!!!

And let me be the first to say that I love action-packed episodes. It’s what makes a show like 24 (link) work. Otherwise it’s a soap opera. I would even argue that the writers probably could have made it work in 9 episodes. Cut out the additional stuff. Cut out the ten minutes of Claire making out with Flyboy. Cut out Mohinder’s attitude problems. Cut out the fluff. Cut out some character development.

But 3 episodes? It isn’t enough.

Now, as we come into next week’s episode, we’re left wondering what’s going on with Parkman. We’re wondering how certain characters will play a role. The build up of this terrible act that’s about to happen seems a little undefined. It’s still good, but it’s not great.

I’m still hoping they can pull it off, or at least leave us with some crazy cliffhanger that will have us licking our chops for more. But, the writer in me is just a little disappointed. The climax is coming too quick. Instead of a horse race with multiple laps and a photo finish, we’re left with a Nascar race that turned into a drag strip.

I still love Heroes, though, so I find it tough to critique, especially after I read the article (which I strongly encourage you to read if you're a fan) that my friend sent me. The guys that make this show are cool guys (and gals). And I’m gonna keep watching until Peter Petrelli and Sylar destroy the earth in a massive Armageddon-like battle. I just wish I was watching for more than just one week, or at least that it wasn’t really ending.

What do you think? Did they rush it this year?

"I...am..BEOWULF!"

"...and my life climaxes at interesting periods."

I saw Beowulf over the weekend, and it occurred to me that it might make a decent post on this blog. Why? Well, because I think it had some interesting storytelling elements that made it worth discussing. Most bloggers will probably talking about Angelina Jolie as a naked demon with high heels (even Roger Ebert), and that's fine, but I'd like to explore the storytelling a little bit (and, yes, it has to do with Angelina, but not so much with her lack of clothing...sorry).

Oh, and there are spoilers here, so don't read if you are concerned with knowing story elements (I'll try to keep the spoilers minimal, though).

Point #1: The Setup

The way the movie starts is great. We're in the King's hall, there's a party going on, and everybody is happy. But it's eerie. We have the feeling something is going to go wrong. The cinematography here is really good, too. And then...well, then everything goes south. It's a great setup, though, and it's filled with suspense.

Point #2: The First and Second Acts

I actually thought the first and second acts were very well done. We meet the characters, we understand the dilemma, and we even get insights into the fatal flaw of our hero, Beowulf (he can't control himself around beautiful women that want him, especially if they're mythical). That's done through good storytelling and a very strong flashback sequence. Very cool.

Point #3: The Turning Point

And all of that takes us to the key turning point of the movie. And here's where the storytelling takes a slight dip in its effectiveness (in my opinion). It's about a two hour movie, and it takes about an hour and a half to get through the first portion of the movie.

So, we've seen this massive climax (battling his first monster, meeting naked Jolie, etc.), we're well past the mid-point of the movie (really closer to where plot point 2 should be), and then...there's only a half an hour to finish everything out.

The finish is very short, involves another massive battle (which is actually done very well and looks really cool), and then...it's over. We don't see a lot of Beowulf from the time of his "mistake" (you'll know what this is if you've read the book or seen the movie) to the time of his "redemption" (if you can call it that).

"...and I have a problem with clothing."

The summary, then? Well, I think it would have made more sense as a three-hour movie. Let's see more of Beowulf after his mistake and understand how it's really effecting his life. We get hints at it, but not enough. The climax for the second battle is just sort of...normal. It's a great battle, very intense, but we don't have enough emotional investment in it to care beyond, "Wow, that's cool."

The movie, overall, is good. Maybe a 6, 6.5 out of 10. The special effects are good. The action is good. There's a lot of skin (both on behalf of Jolie and our hero, who seems to hate any kind of chafing against his sensitive skin). But, it's just an "okay" film.

Switch the storyline up a bit, make it tighter, give us a sense of gravity regarding Beowulf's "mistake," and then you've got quite a story. Oh, and probably keep the main character's clothes on more. Just cause you made really cool CGI muscles doesn't mean we have to see them every second. I'm not a hater, I would just prefer not to snicker every time something is supposed to be serious...

Any other thoughts?

Spiderman vs. Fantastic 4 (Cont'd)

Pop Culture Wars

Comics usually deal with pop culture in some way. Captain America was born because the thought of an American superhero demolishing Nazi Germany is...well...pretty freakin' cool. In fact, comics tend to deal with pop culture directly, and the superheroes generally encounter present day problems that they need to solve.

But, do we really need to see Spiderman as an emo kid? I have no personal issues with emo kids (is that even how it's spelled?). And, yeah, it did get me to laugh, but it just doesn't seem to fit. It's not just Spidey, either. The Fantastic 4 are attempting to deal with their own fame and fortune (which is a pretty common problem we all encounter). In some ways we see the same thing with Spiderman.

Here's my take. Superheroes are something we all would love to become, but honestly, it's more interesting when they're dealing with our common-day problems. When Spiderman is having trouble at school because he's too busy, I can relate to that. But, when the Human Torch is deciding whether he should drive a Porsche or a Ferrari, I'm just shaking my head.

Winner: Tie. The first two Spiderman films did a better job, but the third brings it down a notch.

Overall Production Value

It's amazing what we're seeing in movies these days. One minute you're seeing Neo as Keanu Reeves, and then boom he's...a computer generated Keanu Reeves? (I'll let you decide which one was a better actor) It's pretty cool what can be done with special effects now-a-days.

The same is true of these two movies. And, before I go any farther, just let me say...I really like the way Spiderman was put together. I think it's a pretty strong franchise contender. The special effects are great. The way things move and the way the movie feels is excellent. And, as far as I'm concerned, it's a pretty accurate portrayal of the comic books. It's just a good ride.

Then there's choice of actors. Both movies have their fair share of bad acting, and even their share of good acting. But, the production values are pretty high.

Winner: Spidey

The Wrap Up

I'm not sure how many of you will disagree with me, but I find the Spiderman trilogy much more engaging than the Fantastic 4. I think the story-telling is better, the execution is better, and overall, the feeling you get when you're done watching is just...better. Is Spiderman the best comic book movie out there? Naw. I like Batman Begins and X-Men (the first one) better, but it's pretty good.

My vote goes to your friendly neighborhood guy in the blue and red tights. Where does your's go?

Spiderman vs. Fantastic 4

Clash of Titans - Battle #1

This past weekend I watched both Fantastic 4 movies, saw American Gangster, and then proceeded to watch Spiderman 3 as well. Needless to say... too many movies. And, as a writer, I have to admit that I tend to over-analyze the things that I watch. My writing professor in college told me that it would happen. I denied it, but here I am. A critic. It's a good practice, I think, for writers to analyze other works, because hopefully you can use those insights to write better stories.

Since I write adventure stories, I thought I'd share my thoughts about the comic book movies I watched over the weekend. I'd love to hear your thoughts as well.

The Characters

When I watched X-Men for the first time, I really liked it. It mainly focused on Logan's (the Wolverine) story, but branched out into others as well. It worked. But, then, in the two sequels, there were a lot of mutants running around, and no single character was the focal point. In analyzing Spiderman and the Fantastic 4 I draw the same conclusion. Stories need to be focused on just a few primary characters.

Why? Well, let's take Spiderman. We're constantly following him. We see him when he's happy, when he's sad, when he can't control his emotions, and when he rises to the occasion. The character has different sides, different moods, and different postures. Just like us. It's his story, and we can relate to that.

When you take on a story with more characters, I think it becomes very important to concentrate on a single, primary character. Sure, the other characters should be multidimensional, too, but we can really only focus on one. We can really only watch one person struggle. Spiderman does. The Fantastic 4? Well, not really. There's four of them, and for the most part they only show us one or two core emotions. They do grow, but the growth seems superficial.

Winner: Spidey

Action, Adventure, and Storytelling

To be continued next post...

With Science Fiction... The Future Looks Bleak

Don't look ahead.

If science fiction stories have taught us anything, it's not to travel to the future. Time travel can be a good thing, granted we go back in time, but we can't go forward. Bad things happen in the future. We can put money on the fact that the future won't look good. Take these stories, for example:

Terminator 2
When we get a glimpse at the future, it's definitely not going well for us. Robots (as always) have taken over us idiot human beings. Not only that, but as it turns out, our only hope is a baby that will eventually become some great leader.

Lesson: Don't build robots that have the capability of becoming smarter than us. Matrix? iRobot? Seriously, we don't stand a good chance. Robots should be dumb and just vacuum the carpet.

Back to the Future, Part II
In the past, Biff was a thug with a funny haircut. In the future, Biff is a billionaire that ruins your entire life. The future is not a good place to be for a McFly.

Lesson: Don't leave your time machine unattended. Your worst enemy will steal it and use it to ruin your life.

Heroes
In five years the world is still recovering from a catastrophe. Peter Petrelli now has a massive scar and is dating a stripper, and the president is the most evil person on the planet. Not to mention Hiro has gone from a nice guy to a character from the Matrix.

Lesson: If you can draw the future...don't. If you can travel there, grow a soul patch and carry a sword.

Time Travel with Care

So, if you're thinking about visiting the future, please reconsider. Nothing seems to go right. Instead, visit the past. Every time someone goes back in time they introduce something amazing, like a cigarette lighter, and are suddenly nominated for regional king. Generally, kingship requires that you fight off an entire army, but let's face it, you've got a lighter!

If you're considering time travel, I would advise checking out www.timeslingers.com. It's a fun little adventure that Nathan Scheck and I have put together, and the best part is...it's free! And, there's no future travel! We wouldn't want something bad to happen to our characters! (not yet, anyway)

Any other future mishaps come to mind? Let me know!

Science Fiction - It's Crowded in Here

The Market

I write science fiction stories…just like the other billion people on the planet. As science fiction writers (and sci-fi fans, too), we live in a saturated market. Look around. Books and stories pile up around us like Starbucks bistros in Seattle. They’re everywhere. Everyone seems to be interested in science fiction. It’s become such a huge market that we’ve started categorizing it. Here are just a few:

• The Scientists
• Favorite phrase: “The science better be quantifiably accurate in this manuscript or my head will rotate like Jupiter’s second moon!”
• Character profile: The Professor from Gilligan’s Island.
• This audience group likes to ponder, likes things to make complete sense (or at least function in a way that’s probable), and they like to make the rest of us look stupid (which is probably true). These guys and gals start talking and we just keep nodding our heads. Some of them even build the things they read about in their hard core science fiction books.

• The Adventurers
• Favorite phrase: “What did that scientist guy just say?”
• Character profile: Flash Gordon.
• These guys are like the Indiana Jones’ of writers and fans. They moonlight as professors, but they never teach from the textbooks. If you ask them who Asimov is they’ll give you a confused look until you remind them that he was the bad guy from Star Wars.

• The Imitators
• Favorite phrase: “May the force be with you.”
• Character profile: Dr. Spock.
• Dressing up like their favorite characters, they attend massive conventions with other people that dress up like their favorite characters. Unlike the “scientists,” they have no idea how real science relates to their universe, but they can easily rattle off the reason why a light saber never draws blood (except in the Mos Eisley Cantina scene).

• The Cool People
• Favorite phrase: “Mulder’s and Scully would be like, sooo good together.”
• Character profile: Buffy the Vampire Slayer
• The first ones to make fun of “The Imitators,” this group leeches onto popular TV shows and movies without realizing they really are science fiction geeks like the rest of us. They call us losers, but deep down, they really wish they too could build a flux capacitor, dress like a Wookie, or at least jump on the latest comic book craze.

Each one of these audience groups writes science fiction, too. The Scientists write things that the rest of us don’t understand. The Adventurers start a lot of things, but never seem to finish. Fan Fiction? You guessed it, The Imitators. And The Cool People? Well, they mostly just stick to text messages.

So, as a writer, I think about all you guys in each of the groups listed here. I try to differentiate, to tweak things and make them unique. It doesn’t always work, but it pays to try. Sometimes you hit 3 out of the 4 groups and everybody is onboard. Sometimes you hit just one.

What group do I fall under? I’m one of The Adventurers who wishes he could talk to The Cool People, but really wants to hang out with The Imitators.

Which group are you a part of?