facebook_pixel Press "Enter" to skip to content

Looking to start your TV writing journey?

Posts tagged as “Books”

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.

Adaptation(s)

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…

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.