Posts tagged as:

Books

The Future of eBook Readers

by Alex on March 28, 2010

in Featured Posts,Technology & Art

Post image for The Future of eBook Readers

Today I went to the 2010 French Book Fair in Paris which usually has great debates dedicated to new problems relating to e-publishing and eBooks.
This year was no exception with an incredible array of talks on the future of publishing (one even about Augmented Reality).
I went to a few, though the one that caught my eye and found most interesting was the last:
E-Readers, where are we now?
The panel was comprised of Jacques Angelé (Nemoptic Vice-President), Pierre Geslot (Head of E-paper and Digitization projects at Orange), Alex Henzen (R&D Vice-President at iRex Technologies), and Anthony Slack (Commercial Development Vice-President at Liquavista).
As you’d expect, it was mainly about the future of e-Readers, and as a matter of fact, not only were we able to see with our very eyes amazing prototypes (pictures below), but a couple of announcements were made.
I will go over what was discussed in a minute, but first, let’s check up on some basics.

What is not an eBook E-Reader?
I’m sorry to break it to you, but first and foremost, the iPad, and all other tablets of its kind, are not e-Readers (more on that later).
Neither is your iPhone for that matter.
If they were, then your current computer, or even your TV, would be considered eBook Readers.
The truth is they do not contain the one key component to it all: e-paper.

What is e-paper?
As the name implies, it’s basically a display imitating to the fullest and ordinary piece of paper (with ink).
That also means it does not use backlight (unlike, say, LCD/LED screens). Given that, it doesn’t strain the eye.
E-papers actually act like a normal piece of paper, meaning they reflect ambient light.
In addition, once an e-page has been set, it remains static and can’t be changed, simply because it does not at this point need any electricity to sustain (it’s in stasis).
You could set your e-Reader on a specific book page and theoretically leave it like this for months (years?), and it wouldn’t switch off.
This of course sharply contrasts with any other battery-based devices that barely can stand a day without a charge.
The only time a Reader needs electricity is when it needs to change the screen (like when you turn the page), but even then, you’d have to do about two weeks of continuous change for the battery to drain.

It might shock you to learn that not all e-papers are using E Ink (yes, it’s a brand).
Different technologies are used, each with their advantages, and disadvantages.
In fact, although last year it controlled about 90% of all sold e-Readers, it is expected that, by the end of 2011, E Ink will only be carried on 50% of displays.
As for the actual technology involved, I won’t bore you with how this stuff works, as it has been detailed much better elsewhere.


Suffice it to say that E Ink is part of a bigger group named Electrophoretic Display, or EPD. Such displays use charged pigment particles (pixels) that get rearranged based on an electric field: black or white.
The two main problems with E Ink are its response time, and its lack of color.
Ironically, E Ink was originally tested using other bi-colored pigments:

Constant R&D is able to increase each year the E Ink refresh rate by about 30%.
As for the color, that’s a different problem entirely.
iRex’s Hanzen did however announce that colored E Ink would be arriving later this year (albeit at a different company).
For now, it’s not in their priority as colors on E Ink are simply not that efficient at the moment.
At best, you would get a sombre screen, since brightness would be limited. RGB additive color uses a third of the available pixel space, so you would only get a ninth of available brightness for “true white”.
Reflectivity would also be pretty limited.

Nemoptic presented prototypes of its BiNem (Bistable Nematic) Displays (manufacturing starts at around end of 2011):


Display size: 6.1 inches (73 x 107 mm)
Resolution: 300 x 400 x RGBW (QSVGA), 100 ppi
Color depth: From top to bottom, 16 colors, and 32,768 colors (32K for real)
Contrast: 12:1

Perhaps the most promising new tech are what’s called Electrowetting Displays (EWD), represented at the panel by Liquavista.
Like E Ink, it works via electric fields. However, instead of pigment particles, it uses colored oil and water. The liquid therefore becomes wettable.
EWD has been described as “the most versatile,” with multiple use going from reflective applications to transmissive and transflective ones.
The tech can also go from low refresh rates (less than one frame per second) to super-high ones like 200 frames per second!

Liquavista presented three of these EWDs.
One was B&W:


Display size: 6 inches (92 x 123 mm)
Resolution: 800 x 600, 166 ppi
Grey levels: 16
Brightness: 60% higher than standard EPD
Contrast ratio: 2 times higher than standard EPD

The other was color:


Display size: 6 inches (92 x 123 mm)
Resolution: 800 x 600, 166 ppi
Color levels: 4,096; 30% more reflective than standard EPD

They were both announced as being released in Late May/Early June of this year (no price tag yet), and named Liquavista Pebble.

We also did get to see a prototype of a functioning touch-screen colored EWD, with such a high-refresh rate it could do video (let alone be able to handle an iPod Touch-type interface).
Although still a prototype, Liquavista’s Anthony Slack did say the touchscreen could be compatible to both Projected Capacitive Touch (fingers) and Resistive Touch (stylus).
By June, the prototype should achieve at least a 24-bit color depth.
Later this year, manufacturing will be announced, with a release date slated around mid-2011.
The presentation on the touchscreen e-Reader was not unlike the one used here (right-side; the one on the left is Sony’s PRS-600BC).

When talking about the (currently) sole competitor in the color e-Reader market (Fujitsu’s newly-released FLEPia), all the panel guests unanimously bashed the Reader, stating it was “too slow” and had “washed colors.”

The panel then shifted to the iPad, discussing if it was going to be a big e-Reader competitor.
This is when Orange’s Geslot stepped in.
He talked a bit about several focus groups his company had recently made around the iPad.
The tablet had been pitted against major e-Readers (Kindle, Nook, etc.), not for a spec comparison, rather to see which one the various users (of all ages) would feel more comfortable reading books on.
He disclosed the results which were, as he puts it, “surprising.“
The focus groups revealed that two core opposing sides were emerging:
– Half the people loved the idea of a multimedia platform that could also let you read while still being connected (therefore preferring the iPad)
– The other half, in total opposition, considered that reading was sacred and a private journey that shouldn’t be interrupted by ringtones, pop-ups, or IMs (therefore preferring a dedicated e-Reader)
Geslot was keen to point out that the latter group actually wasn’t made up of only seniors but actually youngsters too.

At the end of it all, the panel agreed that there would probably be two kinds of usage that would call for two different devices.
A dedicated e-Reader, that has perfected its sole function, will be preferred for heavy-reading. Multimedia tablets (with or without e-paper), will offer more flexible use than their counterpart, but will only be used for quick reads here and there.

The moderator concluded by asking the guests what they thought an e-Reader will be like in ten years.
One jokingly replied: “I’m betting on a flexible 3-D e-paper display that can play Avatar.“
James Cameron would be so proud.


Email This Post Print This Post

Be the first to comment

Ten Spec Writing Rules (and why you should care)

by Alex on March 20, 2010

in Featured Posts,TV Analysis,Writing

Post image for Ten Spec Writing Rules (and why you should care)

While giving her ten spec commandments in an interview a few years ago, Jane Espenson thought that “this could be a good blog entry.“
She wasn’t wrong.

Her comment made me reminisce about some of the standard spec writing ground-rules. I find that having some does not hinder creativity, but rather focuses it.
Here’s a little (albeit detailed) reminder of some of them, starting with the most obvious.

- Don’t spec a dead show
For the love of God, we don’t want to know what Carrie did with Mr. Big’s underwear or Ross’ latest honeymoon with Rachel.
If the show is buried, leave it there.

- Don’t spec a show you want to get hired on
This might sound crazy for some but if you think about it, it’s pretty logical.
Of course there are first some legal issues that might become involved, but more importantly it’s hard for an outsider to nail a spec right on the money.
As Martie Cook explains it in Write to TV:

If you are anyone on the Desperate Housewives writing staff, you know each of the characters intimately […], you know absolutely every minor detail. As a freelance writer, no matter how much you study a show before you write it, you simply won’t have the same inside track that the show’s writers and producers do. It is quite probable that here and there throughout your script you may have things that are slightly off. [The Desperate Housewives writing staff] will no doubt pick up on the flaws in your script instantly.

Go for the next-of-kin, meaning the next show closest (regarding genre/voice/stories) to the one you want to get hired on.
There have been some successful rule-breakers, but these are extremely rare cases.

- Spec a show you like
Not speccing the series you’re aiming at doesn’t mean you shouldn’t write something you don’t like (if anything, it’s gonna show in your writing).
Don’t spec a show simply because it’s hot, but also because you’re into it and have some kind of appreciation for it.
Passion is what drives you to be a writer, so why not use the same fuel for your script?

- Don’t write mythological episodes
You know these little toys you had as a kid and didn’t want anyone else to touch?
Well the characters you’re using belong to someone else.
You’re allowed to play with them a bit, but the show-runner expects you to bring them back safely to him/her.
When you spec a show, go for the memorable stand-alone episode, not the big season finale.
If House suddenly learns he has a tumor, or Meredith Grey finds out she’s pregnant, you’re doing something wrong.
You can obviously play with characters’ relationships and/or use bigger mysteries/arcs, but one of the (many) questions you should be asking yourself is if your episode can neatly fit anywhere in a given season of the show. If the answer is yes, congrats, you’ve got a stand-alone episode.
This doesn’t mean though that your script should be pointless.
You need to provide the reader with an emotional ride, and perhaps even some thought-provoking content.
Use the already-defined protagonists; they’re here just for that reason.
For overly-serialized character shows you wouldn’t be able to understand without a Previously, the WB Writers’ Workshop advises to “set up your episode:”

If you are writing a serialized show (e.g. Gossip Girl or Grey’s Anatomy) please include a “Previously On” page that lists where your main characters are within the series when we come across them in your spec. This page should come after your title page and before your teaser.

- Dont write around new characters
You’re trying to prove that you can “blend in” a writing staff, and more importantly “get” the voice of a show.
Writing the backstory of Don Draper’s hairdresser might be fun, but it certainly doesn’t show how you can write the other Mad Men characters (the ones in suits and dresses).
And in case you’re wondering, limiting the amount of screen time a new character has doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be any guest-stars.
If you’re writing a procedural, you will definitely need to introduce new people (victim, murderer, suspect, etc.), just make sure they’re not the protagonists of your episode.

- Don’t go for the obvious
If you have thought of it, chances are other writers on staff have too.
Think of why the show didn’t use that particular storyline.
The aim is to write better TV than what’s on TV. You have months, they have two weeks (at best).
Don’t be that guy/girl who throws an empty can of beer at your screen yelling “My dog can write better than that!”, and then come up with a body-switch episode.

- Don’t think too big, your spec must be realistically producible…
Jane Espenson once told the story behind a failed Star Trek spec she did:

It was all epic. And unfilmable. I had demonstrated a complete lack of ability to tell a story with an eye toward real-life budget constraints. And, as a result, I had ended up telling a story that they simply wouldn’t do on their show. Writing a filmable spec, keeping it small enough, is an important part of the process.

- ..but don’t expect it to get produced
Specs are mainly here to showcase your talent as well as show you can blend in a predetermined ensemble.
One of the greatest ironies of TV spec writing is that, even though you’re striving to prove you can successfully write a one-hour drama, your “proof” won’t be made.
You can use that to your advantage by going bigger on some of the stories.
Alex Epstein in Crafty TV Writing also makes an interesting point about censorship, and how your material can be “slightly edgier” to what’s on TV:

If you are going to push the envelope, it should be in a direction that the show would naturally take if the network censors were all on holiday that week.

With that said, don’t go too far. Although you can thematically go beyond the usual, don’t go overboard and start putting “fuck” every pages (unless it’s The Sopranos — but what the hell are you doing speccing a dead show?).
Like getting staffed on your specced show, there have been very rare instances (mostly in sitcoms) where specs ended up being made. There’s also that guy who got struck by lightning twice. You know what I mean.

- Keep it fresh
This is both about your choice of main storyline (who wants to see a rehash of a plot done to death?), as well as arcs you might have to use in your spec.
Your Grey’s Anatomy script about Izzy Stevens won’t be of much use now that Katherine Heigl is off the show.
Try to keep it updated enough so as not to make your spec stale. Doing this on a serialized show is obviously harder.
But like Botox, too much nip and tuck on your finished script, and it quickly becomes a mess.
As Jane Espenson puts it:

It’s better to let a spec show a few of the signs of aging than to keep fattening its lips and lifting its keister until even you can’t recognize it anymore.

Fellowships find that 6-month old scripts are fine as they consider it the correct amount of time for a good polish/new writing. However, if it’s a couple seasons old, cross it off.

- Watch, read, and study
Perhaps the single most important rule here.
You’re aiming to mimic an already-existing show and its format.
The best way to know how it works is to do the three things listed: watch their episodes, read their scripts, study their structure. If you can, you should definitely try to get your hands on the series’ bible (though that’s going to be a hard thing to do).
Ask yourself: What would a typical A, B, or C story be? How long are the teaser and the tag? Why are the act breaks here but not there? And for that matter, how many acts are there altogether? The list goes on. You should also have a feel of how the characters talk, and even think.
Basically know the show by heart.

Remember that this is art, not science.

You could forget about everything and write for the double-edged sword that is ‘stunt speccing.’ If you’re on top of your game and make the perfect script, kudos to you. However if not done correctly, it could bomb massively (and you’d have wasted a lot of time writing it).
Rules are meant to be broken, but some are also meant to be respected.

And since I did mention Jane Espenson’s own ten commandments of TV Spec writing, here they are:

- Don’t spec a show you don’t respect.
– Don’t make your spec about a guest character. Focus on the main character.
– Get sample scripts of produced episodes. Study them.
– Follow the show’s structure exactly.
– Find a story for your spec that plays on the show’s main theme.
– Don’t write an episode that resolves the show’s mystery or consummates its romance.
– Place the story turns at the act breaks, and give us a reason to come back after the commercials.
– In a comedy, spend time polishing the jokes, especially the last one of each scene.
– Spelling, formatting, clarity of stage directions – they really matter.
– Use strong brass brads.

Write on.


Email This Post Print This Post

1 comment

Five under-the-radar movies you should watch

by Alex on October 6, 2009

in Entertainment Talk,Featured Posts,News

Post image for Five under-the-radar movies you should watch

Many movies are made each year, a few are box-office successes, and even less garner critical acclaim. Some great movies unfortunately pass through all the cracks and are almost never heard of, let alone recognized.
This post is here to repair this terrible mistake with the five “under-the-radar” films you should check out right now.
The films are here listed alphabetically, so pay no attention to the order they’re in.

Blindness

Crew and Cast: Julianne Moore stars in a movie helmed by Cidade de Deus/The Constant Gardener’s director, Fernando Meirelles. Don McKellar adapted the José Saramago novel of the same name. Also in the cast are Danny Glover, Mark Ruffalo, Alice Braga and Gael Garcia Bernal.

IMDb’s one-line pitch: A city is ravaged by an epidemic of instant “white blindness”. Those first afflicted are quarantined by the authorities in an abandoned mental hospital where the newly created “society of the blind” quickly breaks down.

Why you should watch it: Besides the gut-wrenching performances, the movie offers a brutal (albeit allegorical) view at our society.
Says LAT’s Cristiana Ferraz Coimbra:

In both book and film, blindness is not only a physical condition but a metaphor for the darker side of human nature: prejudice, selfishness, violence and willful indifference.

Its portrayal of the blind community has on the other hand been deemed controversial. Make your own mind by seeing the film.

Brick

Crew and Cast: Rian Johnson wrote and directed this indie film starring Joseph Gordon-Levitt in the title role. He is accompanied by Nora Zehetner, Emilie de Ravin and Matt O’Leary.

IMDb’s one-line pitch: A teenage loner pushes his way into the underworld of a high school crime ring to investigate the disappearance of his ex-girlfriend.

Why you should watch it: If you like film noir or hardboiled detective fiction (such as The Maltese Falcon), this one’s for you. Brick is the kind of film you need to rewatch to start understanding what’s going on, and the dialogue is so fine-tuned it makes you wonder if those high-school characters aren’t going to suddenly transform into Humphrey Bogart or Gloria Grahame.
You can see this is a passion project of Johnson’s. He even offers on his website the shooting script annotated with footnotes!
There’s also the great Joseph Gordon-Levitt in it. As to why this should be reason enough to see the movie, that’s for another post.

Children of Men

Crew and Cast: Adapted for the screen by Alfonso Cuarón (director of Y tu mamá también) based on P.D. James’ novel of the same name. Clive Owen has the title role. Julianne Moore, Michael Caine and Chiwetel Ejiofor are also present.

IMDb’s one-line pitch: In 2027, in a chaotic world in which humans can no longer procreate, a former activist agrees to help transport a miraculously pregnant woman to a sanctuary at sea, where her child’s birth may help scientists save the future of humankind.

Why you should watch it: Where to start? First, the directing is incredible.
Talk about awe-inspiring single-shot sequences! One of them even lasts for seven minutes and a half.
As for the story, it is, in my opinion, one of the best adaptation of a novel ever done. Its depiction of this bleak future is simply astounding
To be honest, it would probably take weeks to list all the reasons why Children of Men is a science-fiction classic. Wikipedia has actually a very detailed page on the many, many themes and complex production of the dystopian film, though you should first see the movie.

Lars and the Real Girl

Crew and Cast: Written by Six Feet Under’s Nancy Oliver and directed by United States of Tara’s Craig Gillespie, the drama stars Ryan Gosling. There’s also in the mix Emily Mortimer, Patricia Clarkson, Paul Schenider, and a sex-doll.

IMDb’s one-line pitch: A delusional young guy strikes up an unconventional relationship with a doll he finds on the Internet.

Why you should watch it: Well, Ryan Gosling is great (as is the rest of the cast), and the story is atypical to say the least (a sex-doll as a central character?).
Nancy Oliver’s screenplay was actually nominated at the Oscars, WGA Awards and won a Humanitas Prize. Kudos to her.

Oldboy

Crew and Cast: Adapted for the screen by Chan-wook Park (director of Mr. Vengance, Lady Vengeance, and the recent Bakjwi a.k.a. Thirst) based on a Nobuaki Minegishi manga. South Korean actor Choi Min-sik plays the title role.

IMDb’s one-line pitch: After being kidnapped and imprisoned for 15 years, Oh Dae-Su is released, only to find that he must find his captor in 5 days.

Why you should watch it: Probably the most well-known movie on this list given its international status (it won, amongst other prizes, Cannes’ Grand Prix).
This thriller is at its core a dark and twisted tale of revenge, part of the filmmaker’s Vengance Trilogy. There’s also a live octopus being eaten whole and one of the most memorable continuous take ever made.
Unfortunately, an American remake is currently in preparation. Given its somewhat scandalous side, this doesn’t bode well for the American “reimagination.”

It’s now time for you to rent some movies out.
Enjoy.


Email This Post Print This Post

3 comments

Post image for Trailer(ing) the movies

Trailer(ing) the movies

by Alex on September 8, 2009

in Entertainment Talk,News

Trailers have always been an important part of a movie’s marketing campaign (for obvious reasons).
Even so, nowadays it’s pretty common to find unoriginal, or dare I say clichéd teasers that barely bring anything new to the table, let alone peak people’s interest.
Fortunately though, a few recent (somewhat) innovative trailers have been popping up. They also are incidentally attached to pretty cool feature films coming up this fall.

From Sept. 25 ’til Nov. 25, here are, in chronological order, all the movies you must absolutely check out, if only for their epic trailers.

Special mention to both A Serious Man and Where the Wild Things Are.

Coming out Sept. 25
Brief Interviews with Hideous Men (adapted and directed by John Krasinski)

Why should you go see this movie?
For one, it has an incredible cast.
For two, incredible is the cast.
But most importantly, it looks fun.

Pandorum (written by Travis Milloy, directed by Christian Alvart)

At first, it looks like Alien meets Resident Evil.
Turns out, it’s way more epic.

Coming out Oct. 2
A Serious Man (written and directed by Ethan & Joel Coen)

Ding, ding, ding!
Here comes the next Coen classic.

Zombieland (written by Rhett Reese & Paul Wernick, directed by Ruben Fleischer)

Woody Harrelson going on a little zombie-hunting trip.
Who doesn’t want to see this?

Coming out Oct. 16
Where the Wild Things Are (adapted by Spike Jonze & Dave Eggers, directed by Spike Jonze)

It already has one of the best movie trailer ever made, what more can you ask?

Coming out Oct 30
Gentlemen Broncos (written by Jared & Jerusha Hess, directed by Jared Hess)

Emmy-nominated Jemaine Clement stars in this (probably soon-to-be cult) movie.
I smell comic genius.

Coming out Nov. 6
The Men Who Stare At Goats (adapted by Peter Straughan, directed by Grant Heslov)

Yet again, a movie with a great cast.
Plus, there’s George Clooney staring at a goat.

Coming out Nov. 25
The Road (adapted by Joe Penhall, directed by John Hillcoat)

One year later, it’s finally here , ready for the 2010 Academy Awards.
But before you go see it, do one thing first: read the book.

This fall, there’s finally a reason (actually, multiple reasons) to go back to the movie theatre.


Email This Post Print This Post

Be the first to comment

Interview with CSI:NY’s Hill Harper

by Alex on August 13, 2009

in Featured Posts,Interviews,Technology & Art,Writing

Post image for Interview with CSI:NY’s Hill Harper

A month and a half after my interview with CSI:NY’s actor Hill Harper, here it finally is online.
Why would you care you ask?
Well, for one, he talks about online technology, and especially Twitter, in relation to TV and his show. And as you’ll see, the guy loves Twitter.
There’s also that part about the future of TV and how budgets are getting sliced.
And I don’t watch CSI.

Interview conducted on July 2nd
(Thanks to Toutelatele.com)

Can you talk a little about your atypical journey to acting?

Hill Harper (HH): When I went to college, to Brown University, I studied theatre, but I didn’t know if I was going to make a career out of it. I certainly wanted to go to grad school, so I decided to do a joint degree at the Kennedy School of Government and Harvard Law School. That is where I met President Obama, he and I were classmates. I just really felt at the time that I loved acting, and I loved being an artist. I think all of us come to a realization, maybe sometimes earlier in life, maybe sometimes later in life, that nothing else matters except following your heart. I really do believe that you’ve got to do what you love. That was reinforced when my uncle passed away when I was very young. He was 45 years old, and I was in law school. I realized that in life, nothing’s promised. Too many people I know put off saying I’m going to do this when, etc. And I’m the type of person who said: “you know what, what’s in my heart I’m going to follow.”

How do you feel about your CSI:NY character?

HH: I love that my character, Dr. Sheldon Hawkes, breaks many stereotypes. He’s the most intelligent character on the show. All the other characters have to come to my character for answers. It’s not the typical portrayal of the African American male on television and in the media in general. I like breaking stereotypes.

What do you think of the two other CSI shows?

HH: I think it’s better acted; I’m going to be honest. Not to take anything away from their shows, but I know our actors are the best, in my opinion.

In what ways did CSY:NY succeed in differentiating itself from other shows?

HH: If you look at the stories, they’re unique and interesting, and that starts with your writing. I don’t care how good your actors are, if you don’t have great writing, there’s no way you can have a good show. Really, television is all about the scripts. We’re in a wonderful time right now for American television. I call it the golden age of television. The best TV shows in the world at the moment are coming out of the US. I think that’s all about the cultivation of really good writing talent. They’ve been doing a great job. At the same time, you see the quality of American films decreasing. So it’s interesting in a time where the quality of American television is going up, the quality of American films is going down in comparison to the filmmaking around the world. I really do think the big difference has to do with the writing talent.

A lot of directors, writers, and even some actors, are moving to web-based content. Would you be interested in working on a creatively-strong web-series, even if it would mean a pay cut and reaching only a tenth of your current CSI audience?

HH: A lot of that depends on the content. I’m more of an artist who wants to do great content. If it’s great content, it doesn’t matter. I mean, I do theatre too and that’s a very small audience. That’s only the actual number of people that can actually fit in the actual seats. So, it’s not about reaching. Certainly doing a show like CSI:NY, where we reach millions and millions of people worldwide every week, that’s wonderful. But, it’s still to me about the content.

I know you use Twitter a lot, and we’re seeing a lot of celebrities now using it. What do you think is its primary appeal?

HH: Unlike Facebook and MySpace where it’s just so long, it takes time, Twitter is short-hand. With Twitter, I could literally within 30 seconds, in the middle of this interview, tweet and have responses. That’s the quickness of it. Technology is supposed to enhance your life, not detract it. You can get to a point where you feel chained to Facebook, where you have to go on, read it all. It’s just too much. With Twitter, it’s instantaneous. I’m going to be the first actor that I know of, certainly on my show, that is going to be tweeting from the set. I’m even tweeting live, asking questions to the audience: “Do you want me to wear glasses?”, or, “this is what this scene is about, do you want me to drink coffee?” I’m going to allow the audience to interact. It’s going to be three levels: my character Dr. Hawkes, me, Hill Harper, and the audience relating to both through Twitter. I’m excited about this. I want that feedback worldwide. The audience will feel they have an impact on the show, and when they see the scene, they’re like “I remember when he was tweeting about that!” I’m really interested in using technology in all ways.

Isn’t that becoming too dependent on reaction and feedback though?

HH: I think that you can pick and choose. As an artist, you need your own point of view or you’re not interesting. But we don’t do art in a vacuum. It’s meant to be seen, or else you’re masturbating. There’s always this tension. I have friends that don’t read critics or reviews, because they say, well, if I read the good reviews and I believe them, then I have to believe the bad reviews too. I think that everyone can figure out for themselves how much interaction they can have versus not. Certainly, if it s
tarts taking away from who you are, like if you’re reading reviews and it starts to change your work in a negative way, then stop. If you’re tweeting and you’re having an interaction with your audience, and it starts making yourself too self-conscious, and it’s affecting the way you do things, then stop. I think we can all find our own way. The more people you can welcome in, to who you are and the work you do, and allow them to be part of it in whatever way, can heighten the experience. Because everything that we do, I believe, should cause an experience.

Would you be interested in writing an episode for your show?

HH: The writers are so good at what they do so specifically, and it would just take me so long to write an episode, I wouldn’t be interested in that. I’d be more interested in directing an episode. I may get that opportunity to do it later on this year. I’m hoping to, but it’s very political when it comes to actors directing. Every actor wants to direct an episode and thinks they can, so it’s very political getting the opportunity. This is the last year of my contract, so we’ll see what happens.

How do you see the show’s future?

HH: I would like to stay with CSI and do a couple more seasons. But, you know, Without a Trace just got cancelled. It’s a good example of a top show that they decided was just too expensive to continue. You just don’t know what’s going to happen. The entertainment business is changing very quickly, and I think if you’re smart in the business, you have to think about other things. The days of sitting back on a show, thinking that you’re character is not getting killed off, are over. Just look at how they did the last episode of our fifth season: the entire cast was in a bar and they shot up the entire bar. You don’t know who’s going to live or die. And they’re negotiating with people. The creative and the business side are getting much more linked in a way that I don’t think is necessarily good. It’s a little manipulative. It gets negotiation advantage in a way, but at the same time that’s the reality of the business. Its called show-business not show-art, they have to make money or they can’t produce the show. And if the advertising revenues are dropping, we have to make changes. This year we’re making changes like special effects. I know we’re going to be shooting on HD digital format rather than film for the first time. They’re definitely making certain changes that are going to affect different things. But, at the end of the day, what I think has made CSI:NY so good is the writing. All television begins with the writing, period. We have the best writers in my opinion.

What other projects do you have?

HH: My third book, called The Conversation, is coming out in September. It’s my first book directed towards adults. The previous two were motivational books for teens and this book is about relationships. It’s from a single man’s perspective. It’s going to be interesting to see how it’s received. I purposely push buttons in it. It’s all about the idea of sparking conversation and communication between men and women, hopefully to make for successful relationships. I have a non-profit foundation, the Manifest Your Destiny Foundation, where I give scholarships to low-income young men and women. I also do a lot of speaking around the country, so I’ll continue doing that. The state department has sent me on two missions to speak to young people; they sent me to Italy and to Turkey. All of this because of my relationship with President Obama and because they know what I do with young people. It’s really great. That’s why I love doing a show such as CSI, it has such an international reach that it offers me a platform to speak to young people around the world that I otherwise wouldn’t have. I think that that can be a positive benefit. Any celebrities can use their platform for positive or for not so positive in a way. I personally believe that what’s the use of having a platform if you’re not going to do something good or positive with it.


Email This Post Print This Post

Be the first to comment

Post image for Adaptation(s)

Adaptation(s)

by Alex on July 21, 2009

in News

After Lordy and his Better Off Ted post, back today to our regular scheduled programming with a few news as Comic-Con nears.

To start us off, news that you probably know by now: Sean Benn is set to play the lead role on HBO’s Game of Thrones adaptation.
We talked a bit about the show when it was first picked up back in November but just to refresh your memory, the show is a fantasy series based off George R.R. Martin’s 7-book series, A Song of Fire & Ice.
THR describes the story as “a battle among seven kingdoms and between two ruling families for control of the Iron Throne, the possession that ensures survival through a 40-year winter to come”.
As for Benn, he’s set to play one of the title roles, Lord Eddard “Ned” Stark.

You may have heard as well about Futurama chainging its voice cast.
I probably won’t watch the new seasons if they do indeed replace Billy West, Katey Sagal, John Di Maggio, Tress MacNeille, and Maurice Lamarche (amongst others).
I’m still hoping though that FOX TV are only auditioning new actors as a bargaining chip. The move was previously (successfully) used on The Simpsons.

There have been a few pictures as well regarding the 2010 Prince of Persia movie based on the popular video game.
Check ‘em out:



There’s also this live-action Voltron movie that is starting to come together nicely with Charles Roven, Richard Suckle and Steve Alexander acquiring the rights.
Let’s not forget another live-action adaptation, Turtle Ninjas, which unsurprisingly nabbed John Fusco as its writer. The movie is set to come out around 2011.

I wonder what the current entertainment industry would look like without all the remakes and adaptations…


Email This Post Print This Post

Be the first to comment

Hollywood’s Trivial Pursuit of Games

by Alex on July 15, 2009

in Entertainment Talk,Featured Posts

Post image for Hollywood’s Trivial Pursuit of Games

Monopoly, Clue, Candy Land, Battleship, Ouija Board, He-Man, Hot Wheels, Asteroids, Major Matt Manson, View-Master, and now Max Steel.

What all of these games have in common is one thing: they are all being adapted into movies.
It seems as if every second now a new game adaptation is being announced.
There’s even going to be a Where’s Waldo movie.

I feel almost insulted by all these utterly pointless and ridiculous adaptations!
Are studio execs really that desperate?
Toys are meant for the playground and board games are meant to be put in a storage closet you never go to.
They are not meant for a movie theatre.

Let’s take a look at those recent horrible, horrible acquisitions.
Bare in mind: all of them will be live-action.

Starting with a weird one (aren’t they all?): the Ouija board movie!

Produced by Michael Bay’s Plantinum Dune, the film will be penned by Elf’s David Berenbaum. It shouldn’t take the route of Jumanji, meaning it won’t be about a game coming to life. Instead, the board should play an intricate part of the movie.
This sounds a lot like that 1986 movie named Witchboard.

It looks like a joke, but it’s not. View-Master will also be a movie.
All jokes aside, Brad Caleb Kane is currently at work on the screenplay. The film will be produced by the writer-producer duo that is Kurtzman and Orci.
Kane described the movie as being similar to “the old ‘80s Amblin movies: ‘Goonies,’ ‘Young Sherlock’ … in that vein.”
I’m not too sure what the point of it all is yet, but when I do, I’ll be sure to let you guys know.

Time to make room for another car movie: Hot Wheels.
I can already imagine the fast vehicles going at 200MPH in outlandish settings.
What is even more saddening (or hilarious?) is that Joel Silver is behind the movie adaptation. If you don’t get it, let me give you a clue: Silver was also the man behind the visual mess known as Speed Racer.
See any similarities between the two projects?

Ironically, the adaptation that seems the most intriguing and potentially the best of them all is the classic board-game that is Monopoly. We very quickly talked about it when it was announced back in November. The Monopoly movie has been in development since forever ago, even before Robin Hood.
The movie will be directed by Ridley Scott and the script written by Corpse Bride/Monster House’s Pamela Pettler.
Brian Goldner, CEO of Hasbro, described the story as “real people kind of playing a real-life game of ‘Monopoly,’ not the board game, although they’re icons of the game”. As for Ridley Scott, he said the following: “We have identified a pretty good story and it is fundamentally a movie, not a game, probably describing in a way the characters in the film, the passion of the game, and how the game came about.”

Now onto action figures with He-Man, Major Matt Manson and Max Steel.

I think that toy-based movies will probably never really work. If we’re being honest for a second here, Transformers (barely) only really worked because of its VFX, and I doubt I’m shocking anyone by saying the new G.I. Joe movie is probably going to tank.
Kung-Fu Panda’s John Stevenson will direct the live-action adaptation of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe (produced by Joel Silver) based on a Justin Marks screenplay (the guy who wrote the 2009 Street Fighter). Max Steel was very recently announced so no director is yet known, though Joe Roth will produce the pic for Paramount. Major Matt Manson however is being written by Boomtown/Raines’ Graham Yost and will be played by non other than Tom Hanks.

Moving on to Candy Land. The game is extremely popular amongst youngsters. Interestingly enough though, it isn’t that well-known outside of the States, so we’ll have to see how the movie fares internationally.
The film version will be written by Etan Cohen and should be directed by Enchanted’s Kevin Lima.
There isn’t much to say about the plot except that I’m sure the film will be as thought-provoking as the game itself.
A future stoner-movie classic?

Regarding Battleship, the movie will be directed by Peter Berg.
The studio wants it to be an “epic naval action adventure”.
Yet again, I don’t see the point of forcing down the Battleship name, given the plotlessness of the game.
Let’s finally round this up with what can best be describe as…what?
A board-game adaptation? A reboot? A remake? A future Razzie Award-winner?

Penning down the correct term for this piece of cinematography is as complicated as was understanding the complex relationship that lies between the new 90210 and the new Melrose Place.

I am of course talking about the upcoming movie version of Clue. The game already had a somewhat decent 1985 version starring Tim Curry. This time around though, Gore Verbinski will be directing the film after he is finished on BioShock.
This version of the game has been described as a “global thriller and transmedia event that uses deductive reasoning as its storytelling engine.”
On the other side of things, we have video-game adaptation, which until now have all proven to be huge failures.
This post isn’t about why everyone hates Uwe Boll so I’ll abstain from going into a lengthy argument on that one. I’m also not going to list all the awful video-game adaptation, there have been so many.
Some good attempts were made in the past few years regarding video-game adaptations though, the problem being none of them came into fruition.
One of the most well-known example is Halo, which has been in development-hell since 2005.
At one point, Peter Jackson was even attached as an executive producer with Guillermo del Toro as the director.
Also, Shawn Ryan wrote a Max Payne draft in 2002.
My point is this: why would you make such shitty movies if you have something worth putting your money in?
Before being acquired by Universal, Asteroids was even in a four-studio bidding war!
Are we talking about the same game here? You know, the one where you control a triangular-shaped ship rotating left and right to fire on asteroids.

Will the tag line be “In space, no one can hear you fail”?
In any case, the Lorenzo di Bonaventura-produced film will be penned by Bedtime Stories’ screenwriter, Matt Lopez.
Good luck with that.

Honestly, studios massively buying game properties to turn them into movies just shows how lazy they are.
Bet on new talent, find new ideas, or even adapt realistic stuff, but for fuck’s sake, don’t make a movie out of game pieces!
What I don’t understand is why studios seem forced to literally adapting pieces of plastic into movies?
Sure, the brands are well-known, but the end-product will be so different from the game it’s based on that ultimately it might just do the opposite and only be a drag.
View-Master: The Movie sounds more preposterous than a whole new original idea merely vaguely using an object similar to the View-Master.
An Asteroids movie? There is no plot whatsoever in the game! Armaggeddon and Deep Impact didn’t need the permission of Atari to be made, so what changed?

A naval movie need not be attached to the Battleship name either.

Same goes for Monopoly. Assuming this will be a futuristic investment/banking movie, branding it with the über-famous game board’s name is just adding unnecessary ludicrousness to the film.
Who is taking any of these projects seriously?

And since execs are so keen on the idea of adapting plotless games into motion pictures, tune in tomorrow for my Top 5 of the best (worst?) games that should have adaptations of their own.


Email This Post Print This Post

2 comments

</