Probably a few of you know that I write novels and even fewer that I’ve written a number of screenplays although I’ve never sold any. I was thinking about the changing nature of television viewing habits and how that might effect screenwriters.

Many people binge watch televisions shows these days. The industry has recognized this as far a general content goes, they release entire seasons at once and story arcs that cover multiple episodes and seasons are now common.

What I’m considering is the idea that the script itself, the order in which things are presented, the nature of the Three Act Play and the Five Act Play might be twisted to accommodate and better entertain audiences in this new era.

For example, why do we have a cliffhanger at the end of an episode? If the audience can and does immediately watch the next episode, is it necessary or even appropriate? The entire season and even the entire show run is really just one long episode. On the other hand, cliffhangers keep the audience coming back for more and if we don’t have them at the end of individual episodes and seasons but in the middle of an episode, would that cause people to not start the next episode or season?

Should there even be episodes in the traditional format? Should the season just be released as one long video with chapters like a book? Some chapters might be an hour, others might be fifteen minutes.

Perhaps the chapters could come with delineated break points with links to a website where people could post their thoughts, vote in polls, and otherwise communicate with others who have watched up until that break. If the audience doesn’t know when the episode climax is coming, because the break could be at any point, does this add to their experience?

There would be drawbacks as well. If an episode is of varying length it’s not as easy to plan a time to watch it.

Might inter-season specials be released with audience participation in mind. Perhaps you could release an episode and allow voting to determine the ending. Then go back and film said conclusion.

I’m not saying any of my ideas are good, I’m just saying that it’s worth examining.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition
Next Release: The Gray Horn

When I was younger I used to play everything to win. That was the goal and I had more than a bit of a temper when things didn’t work out. As I got older that was supplanted by a desire to simply have fun.

I’m increasingly coming to the conclusion that this attitude, while quite healthy for me, is also very annoying to some people. Let me explain.

I was invited by a friend to partake in a Trivial Pursuit, 80s version, night of game playing. We divided up into three teams and I’m happy to say that those on my team pretty much had the same attitude as me. It’s nice to win and we certainly did our best but the main goal was to banter about the strange questions, eat the delicious food, drink the nice drinks, and generally have a good time.

Members of another team were a bit more serious about winning and, unfortunately, my team was winning and their team was losing. My attempts at good humor which sometimes gave clues as to the answer to the third team did not go over well with these opponents. My team bantered about the questions and tried to deduce answers even when it wasn’t our turn and this further annoyed certain opponents.

I certainly understand their point of view. In my youth, when I thought winning was more important than having fun, such an attitude among my fellow competitors was annoying to me as well.

I’m of the opinion that our attitude is healthier. I think when it comes to games it’s better to put having fun ahead of winning. Not that you shouldn’t always do your best. I always try my best but I’m not worried about losing if things don’t go right. I’m actually of the opinion that the desire to win and the ability to have fun are inversely related. The more we make winning paramount, the less fun we have. Winning is not the fun part of the game, playing is.

That’s not the point of my blog today. I absolutely think it’s true but the question I wonder is if, perhaps, I should be more attuned to those who want to win and repress my attitude, at least a bit. If my bantering and casual regard for winning annoys those around me, am I not diminishing their fun?

Isn’t the point for everyone to have fun? I can’t be responsible for the entirety of their experience to be certain, but it is also clear my attitude does effect those around me. I was annoying several of my fellow competitors.

Should I tone it down a bit in deference to them?

As a side note I would like to point out that, contrary to popular belief, it is largely women who seem to take winning at games much more seriously than men, at least as adults. That is clearly a subjective and anecdotal opinion.

Anyway, if you have an opinion I’ve got a couple of polls for you to fill out. Let me know!

 Loading ...

 Loading ...

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition
Next Release: The Gray Horn

George Lucas claims he doesn’t want to be involved in any new Star Wars film because all he gets is criticism.

At first I wasn’t going to blog on this subject because my reply to this thought process can be summed up with four simple words: Make a good one.

Then I started thinking about Lucas’s complaint in the broader terms of what I see in the news, in my daily interactions in life, all around me, and something I myself fall into not infrequently. Perhaps it is part of being a human being.

It is a twofold issue. First there is the fear of failure. We don’t want to try something at which we’re not particularly good, simply because we know we will likely fail. Failure isn’t fun although it is a necessary building block to success. While this is true, it’s not the main focus of my blog today because I don’t think that is what is going on with Lucas.

The mentality with Lucas is, in my opinion, he thinks he has made good films but that he can’t satisfy everyone. That the criticisms of his incredibly crappy Star Wars films is unjustified and there is no point in making more. If people don’t appreciate it, that’s their fault.

I’m an abrasive person. If someone says something stupid in front of me I’m not good at hiding my contempt. When that person becomes aware that I’m calling them stupid they invariably get angry at me. I probably deserve some anger but the reality is that the person who does the stupid thing should be called a moron. The director who makes a bad movie should be told the movie sucks.

And the reaction we should all have when we’ve said something stupid or done something stupid is to get mad at ourselves. We’re the culprit. We’re the one’s who did the thing that deserves the ridicule. This is not easy. Our ego is heavily involved. But such self-examination is necessary for growth.

If we always blame other people for telling us our statement was stupid, we will never stop making stupid statements. If we always blame other people for telling us our movies are bad, we will never make a good movie. Are you listening, George?

That’s the crux of what Lucas is saying. I make fine movies but everyone hates them. If everyone hates your movies there’s a good chance they just aren’t very good.

Very few people have purchased my books but those that have generally say nice things. I’ve gotten some mild criticism in the past but nothing like the things Lucas faces. Should my books start selling by the millions I’m sure there will be people who don’t like them. They won’t hesitate to tell me and everyone else.

My job at that point will be to listen to their criticisms and, if they are valid, try to write my next book better.

I’ve done so in the past. My first book had some serious flaws and I went back and rewrote it. My third book had a bad lull spot in it that was pointed out by friends. I went back and rewrote that section.

My book The Black Sphere had a bit of a confusing ending according to the first couple of people that read it. I went back and clarified it. That’s how we get better in life, that’s how we become a better person.

When someone criticizes you, try to avoid the natural defensive tendencies and listen to what they have to say. Sometimes it’s wrong. Sometimes it’s right.

I guess the bottom line is that we shouldn’t give up. We should always try and do whatever it is we’re doing a little better.

Star Wars is an awesome movie. I’m happy to see at least someone hasn’t given up on the franchise!

May the Force be with you.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition
Next Release: The Gray Horn

They’re both jerks. I thought I’d take the suspense out of this blog right away.

Steve Williams is a caddie who worked for Tiger Woods and now selling a book about his time on the PGA Tour.

Leah Remini is an actress who was also a Scientologist and knew Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes pretty well. She’s also selling a book.

They are both making the media rounds telling anyone who will listen how horrible are Tiger Woods, Tom Cruise, and Katie Holmes. Remini tells us of a crying baby. Williams says he felt like a slave. They both have lots of horrible things to say about other people as they pursue selling their books.

Listen, I’m no fan of Tom Cruise and I’ve got not much nice to say about Tiger Woods. Scientology is just another useless religion from this Atheist’s point of view.

But what Remini and Williams are doing is nasty, mean, and, well, I won’t use the words I’d use in a private conversation. As much as I dislike Cruise, Woods, Scientology, and the rest; I have new leaders in the douchebaggery awards for 2015.

Okay, I made that up. I don’t give out any award like that but I’m thinking about it!

There are people we all dislike, even hate, but we don’t go around saying horrible things about them, at least not publicly. Why? Because it shows a complete lack of character. That and it makes us look like total … well you know.

I won’t go on here, I’ve said what I meant to say.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition
Next Release: The Gray Horn

I like to fancy myself a bit of a plain speaker and a story from the entertainment world about an actress named Gal Gadot burns my britches.

First a little background. An upcoming Batman/Superman movie will feature the iconic character of Wonder Woman. The actress chosen to play the role is Gal Gadot. Here is the result of an image search so you can peruse the pictures of this attractive woman.

I’ve also included a picture of her in the blog if you don’t want to go to the trouble of clicking the link.

People are upset because they think Gadot is too skinny to play Wonder Woman. So they say.

Now here’s my problem with that assertion.

Shhh. Make sure no one is looking. Check behind you. Is it safe?

The problem people have is not her weight, it’s that her breasts aren’t large enough. Oh my goodness! What horrors have I spoken? The delicate ears of United States citizens everywhere aren’t mature enough to hear that.

This kind of mealy-mouthed double-speak bothers me. Personally I don’t think Wonder Woman needs to have large breasts although it’s undeniable that she is generally portrayed that way in comics and the most famous Wonder Woman, Linda Carter, had a full figure.

When people say Gadot is too skinny they get to say her breasts aren’t large enough without actually saying it. If you think Wonder Woman must have large breasts then say it! I disagree with you but at least show the courage of your conviction.

This sort of pretend speak just annoys me to no end.

Too skinny? Ha.

Rant over.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Black Sphere
Next Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition

I watched a movie on Hulu last night called Shrink. It was bad. Why it was bad fascinates me.

I’ve argued on a number of occasions about the ideas of Subjective vs Objective thinking and while doing so often make reference to movies. I argue that what makes a movie good or bad is its various parts. The actors, the acting, the screenplay, the cinematography, the directing, and various other factors.

Shrink puts my logic to the test. The movie has a stellar cast who all perform ably enough. It has high production values in every regard. The dialog of the individuals when interacting with one another is largely pretty strong. Yet, it’s awful. It is terrible in the way a bad film is not. A bad film is made up of many bad parts. This is an awful film made from excellent parts. How, how, how?

Let’s examine what went wrong.

The score is good but overly repetitive when it comes to what are clearly meant to be scenes that touch our hearts. When the same piano notes again start I found myself cringing. “Oh no, here we go,” I said out loud. Out loud.

The plot relies on coincidence again and again and by the time the Keke Palmer character finds the accidentally dropped script and the Kevin Spacey character wakes up next to his drug dealer in the hospital; I had had enough. “Nooo!” I shouted. “Really?” I said shaking my head.

Dallas Roberts plays an agent and his germ-phobia is ever prevalent when useful and absent when not. In one scene he recoils from a touch and, moments later, grabs the arm of a client and drags him off for a talk. Inconsistencies. Little ones that crop up again and again. Nothing huge. No deal breakers. Just minor flaws adding and adding and then multiplying.

All of the characters are half-explained (at best) and there are too many of them. We learn about them in short bursts that are designed well but just always seem to fall short. The writer clearly understands the idea of showing instead of telling a story but it’s just too little for too many.

I could go on but the conclusion that I’ve finally reached is that an overwhelming number of little flaws destroys the product no matter how great its potential. Perhaps that is why it is so difficult to achieve greatness. It requires both broad strokes of genius and minute attention to detail.

Anyway, I’d avoid Shrink if I were you. Don’t say you weren’t warned.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Black Sphere
Next Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition