Book to Movie: Codex Alera - The Furies of Calderon

Plot: 

Cover of Furies of Calderon

In the realm of Alera, where people bond with the furies-elementals of earth, air, fire, water and metal, fifteen-year-old Tavi struggles with his lack of furycrafting. But when his homeland erupts in chaos - when rebels war with loyalists and furies clash with furies - Tavi's simple courage will turn the tides of war. (Source: Goodreads)

Could it be a good movie?

In my opinion, the "Pokemon" meets "Lost Roman Legion" Fantasy Book could translate pretty well to the big screen. A future writer would have to trim down overtly dragging scenes in the middle part of the book. I really liked the down-to-earth fantasy, which should mirror in a classic movie direction.

My best comparison would be: Avatar - The Last Airbender, both have mythical powers connected to the elements; both world take heavy influence from real history, Ancient China and Ancient Rome, respectively. 

The comparison already shows the trap of a possible film adaptation: this is not for little children. The source material, the TV show and the book, deal with adult themes and dark decisions in a light world, nonetheless should you dumb it down - the audience will punish you for it.

The Last Airbender Movie Poster

Ne Ro over at Pinterest has created a Casting Sheet; head over there and tell me if you agree or not. Some Stars include Nicole Kidman, Ellen Page, Ralph Fiennes and Gerard Butler.

Pacific Rim Box-Office Recap

Del Toro, by Gage Skidmode.

- or: The Power of the chinese movie market -

Hey,

back in May 2012 I wrote a review of the Pacific Rim Script. You might recall, that I wasn't thrilled. Now that I saw the movie I wanted to see how well it dit, box-office-wise.

My prognosis was that the movie might bomb. Well, did it?

Thanks to The-Numbers, we know that the movie earned $100mill domestically, which comes as close to bombing as possible, considering the production budget of nearly $200mill. Add to that another $200mill for Marketing and you have a real desaster. 

But why then, is there talk of "Pacific Rim 2"? Sources like Slashfilm hint at a sequel, being written right now.

We have to look overseas for an answer.

Internationally, Pacific Rim earned $300mill. The foreign box-office, especially in China, which is the strongest growing market for movies, can make or break movies nowadays. In the example of Pacific Rim, approx. a third of the foreign box-office came from China. More precisely, $111mill - according to Box Office Mojo. That is more than the domestic market!

Other movies, for example Iron Man 3 earned $120mill, starting a new trend in Hollywood. Usually, movies had to earn back their budget domestically, with the foreign box-office as a nice bonus. Now, Hollywood has to take the foreign box-office - and especially China - into account, when they green-light movies. 

The dependence might actually stem from another problem. As I analyzed in another blog post, genre movies are getting more expensive. Ten years ago, the cost for an average fantasy movie was around $60mill. Today the median budget is $120mill. This means, to break even, a movie must sell twice the amount of movie tickets. Quite impossible, I think, as the population of the USA hasn't doubled in the last 10 years.

In order to make a profit, Hollywood is dependent on the foreign market. 

And it is this foreign market, Hollywood hopes to cater to with a sequel to Pacific Rim.

See you and have a nice day!

The Rising Cost of Fantasy

Distant worlds with exotic creatures, epic battles, larger-than-life villains - all that comes to mind, when we think about fantasy movies. Fantasy - like Science Fiction - opens up a world of dreams, like a keyhole into everything imaginable.

I wondered, why are there so few fantasy movies? I took a look at the box office statistics of the last years to find a reason, and I think, I found one. The following graph shows the Median Budget of General Fiction Movies for this year (Blue) and the Median Budget for Fantasy Movies (Orange) in millions.

 

What can we see? 

The average budget of general fiction movies roughly stays the same over the last 17 years with numbers between 60 and 80 Million Dollars. But the orange line slowly rises, as we can see, from 30 Million to 120 Million. The budget of fantasy movies has quadrupled in the same period of time. 

What does that mean?

Fantasy is expensive. For the cost of one fantasy movie the studio could make two non-fantasy movies - that would mean two streams of revenue for the studio. Remember, big budget movies are not a guarantee to earn back the cash (as Disney learned once again with The Lone Ranger, after their failure with John Carter). So it's a rough game to play for every studio.

But why are studios willing to produce big budget movies?

Foremost studios want to earn money. So if they invest a lot of money, they must hope to earn a lot of money. 

In the second graph, the orange line still shows the rise of the average budget of fantasy movies. The blue line shows the share of fantasy movies in the annual box-office (in percent, see left).

What can we see?

It is eye-catching, that both lines rise in near perfect harmony. Starting with only 1 - 10 % of the box-office share, the line slowly rises until it crosses the 20% mark. In effect, the share of revenue has more than doubled in 17 years. 

That's why studios are willing to pay huge amounts of money: the market hungers for fantasy and they want their piece of the box-office pie.

Summary:

In the last decade the demand for fantasy movies slowly rose and created a new, big market for Hollywood. Consequently, studios greenlight high budgets in the hope to create a huge hit.

But studios can not produce dozens of high budget movies every year, they concentrate on a few, select tent-poles.

(all data comes from the-numbers.com, visualized by me)

Hanna - Script to Movie - Part 2

Welcome back to Part 2 of my ‘Script to Movie’ Feature of Hanna.

In the first post, I analyzed the Black List Script of 2006. In today’s post I will analyze the structure of the movie and afterwards compare that to the script. Like in the first post I will use Black Snyder's Beat Sheet as described in Save the Cat!

First Image:

Hanna hunting a dear in the lonely nature of Sweden. Key dialogue: “I just missed your heart.”

Theme stated:

Min. 6

Eric: “We have all we need right here.”

Hanna: “It’s not enough. I’m ready.”

= Hanna wants more, although the world out there is out to get her

Set-Up:

Scenes in the cabin show us the ‘family life’ of Eric and Hanna. We see pictures of her mother Johanna. Then, next morning, fight training, memorizing information and shooting exercises. This set-up is very short, as we don't need very much information and more will be reveal

Catalyst:

Eric digs up a transmitter and gives Hanna the choice to activate it. Warning her if Marissa Wiegler ever found her, “she won’t stop until Hanna’s dead. Or she is.” = In this short sentence right at the beginning of the movie, the Goal was shown very clearly!

Read further after the break to see the changes made and read my verdict on the final movie!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Looking Cool - Visuality in Comic Blockbusters

Film is a visual media. Granted, there is sound adding to it.

But foremost it is a sensational thrill for the eyes. Directors and Producers cater to that by delivering epic spectacles for the summer blockbuster crowd. But not every movie seems to hit that mark. What is the difference between an engaging and a boring blockbuster?

Premise: 'The visuality of a superhero decides over it's fate at the box-office'

I know, it sounds trivial, but let's take a closer look, alright?! 

1. Hulk / The Incredible Hulk

Both movies, enjoyed different critical success, but nonetheless both only earned around 130 million dollar in cinemas when they came out. But why did both movies hardly take in their production costs? 

As the two movies share the same superhero, we can guess it is a fault of the figure of Hulk. After-all he is green monster stomping through cities and grunting incomprehensible. 

It just doesn't look cool! Identification is really hard with this superhero. Let's take a look at another Marvel hero...

2. Iron Man / Iron Man 2

With the same production budget as the Hulk movies, the two Iron Man films managed to cash in slightly over 300 million dollar, although Iron Man 2 also fell through with the critics. 

So, why did they take in that much money? 

As above we have to blame - or rather thank - the main protagonist: Iron Man is a cool, sleek and elegant superhero. Possibly every child dreamt of donning a armor suit, flying and shooting rockets from it's arms. 

Summary:

After these short observations, I hope I made my point clearer. On paper Hulk and Iron Man are not that different, with their haunted past and dangerous 'super power'. The difference is that Hulk has not the same visual appeal like Iron Man. 

Preview:

I thought about writing this post, when I heard about some comic properties being developed right now. I don't want to criticize movies, that are not even released, I just want to voice my fears and doubts concerning some upcoming comic book movies:

1. Ant-Man

Ant-Man can shrink to the size of an ant and communicate with insects. The script has to find a enemy, that can be beaten by turning very small, which I find a strange Idea.

It was used to comedic effect in "Honey, I shrunk the kids', but in an effect-laden action blockbuster it might appear out of place.

2. Wasp

Wasp also shrinks in size, but additionally grows wings and can shoot energy blasts.

A little bit like Angel in X-Men: First Class, without the shrinking part and that already looked silly. I remember the whole audience snicker, when she spit her 'energy balls'.

That's it for today,

- Tristan

As always: the comment section below works without registration, just choose "Comment as Anonymous" - I am looking forward to your comments. And if you like my blog be sure to become my follower - Thanks

'Priest' (2011) - Atmosphere

Today InSight: Movies takes a little break from reviewing scripts and brings you something different. In this short article I want to open up the discussion about 'Atmosphere' in movies.

'Priest' (2011) is a perfect example to illustrate this topic: I found the story and characterization really underwhelming, but nonetheless I was captivated by the movie. Why is that?

The production design and sets of 'Priest' were really impressive for the moderate budget, depicting the futuristic timeline in which the movie played. Shots of the urban landscape contrasted with the wide and barren desert. The capable actors (especially Paul Bettany & Maggie Q) were able to refrain from corny over-acting, which grounded the whole film in reality (as far as this is possible in this genre). 

To sum it up: the whole movie had atmosphere! But what is atmosphere?

It is the feeling of being drawn into the movie; when rich visuals and design create a world in front of the viewer's eyes. Atmosphere means a coherent world that might be different from ours, either in time or place. Actors can create atmosphere (and easily destroy it). Perhaps it is the essence of movie making. As you can see, I can't point out a single factor in creating something like atmosphere. It is the synergy of many people doing what they love and this shows on the screen. This explains why some films have it - and some don't. You can not calculate something like movie atmosphere.


'Priest' is by far not a great movie, but the atmosphere created in this dystopian movie makes up for the lack of plot and thus creates an enjoyable film.


What atmospheres in a movie suprised you? How, in your opinion, can atmosphere be created?



As always: the comment section below works without registration, just choose "Comment as Anonymous" - I am looking forward to your comments.
And if you like my blog be sure to become my follower - Thanks

'Legend of the Guardians' - ... On Building a World

by Tristan Mahlow

Hi there,

another movie night, another movie I have to write about. Yesterday we watched 'Legends of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole'. I found it to be rather 'meh' - which is a problem of the story being rather bland and typical. 

But the topic of this blogpost is the building of worlds. Every movie creates a parallel universe with its own set of rules. The story is grounded in this reality and has to adhere to them. In my opinion, the viewer has to know theses rules before any emotional resonance can be achieved. 

One example from the movie: After being kidnapped the protagonist is forced to be a 'Picker' - there is a lot of screaming and the music swells dramaticly and we, the viewers, found ourselves to be wondering what's going on - something bad probably. Of course all characters in the movie might know what exactly a 'Picker' is, but the audience is left hanging and so instead of fearing for the protagonist, we get lost until the next scenes resolve the question why becoming a 'Picker' is so bad. There are a few other examples of this throughout the movie.

The described example is the opposite of 'Dramatic Irony", which creates tension, because the viewer knows more than the character(s) and anticipates the future outcome.

Note to myself: The viewer has to know the rules of the universe the movie is set in - only then he can fear and hope for the characters.

[Apparently, with this and 'Sucker Puncher' Zack Snyder's 'Style over Substance' - Approach comes tumbling down on him. I fear the worst for his Superman reboot.]

Have a nice day,

Tristan

References: Wiki; IMDb (7/10); Rotten Tomateos (51%);

A 'Kick Ass' Lament

by Tristan Mahlow

Hello everybody,
now something I won't do very often for this blog: a movie review. I just feel very strongly about this particular film and just want to express my opinion about it. But nonetheless I think there is something to be learned from this.

A short plot summary: The movie begins with the loser Dave, trying to fight crime. It starts as a typical High-School-Comedy - but after the first 20 minutes the movie doesn't know what to do anymore. Entrance: Hit-Girl and Big Daddy! But they are everything this movie tries to subvert. They have that tragic back-story, more than enough money, own high-end gadgets and fight harder and better than most Summer-Blockbuster-Heroes.
Alas, the movie is called 'Kick-Ass' and so the charakter Dave is dragged through the rest of the movie like dead weight. His role? Watching others fight - which is rather boring for him and the viewer.
The whole script shifts undecided between Dave and his teenage problems and the unrealistsic, over-the-top part of Hit-Girl. It seems as if the script did not trust his own hook. So over time, it just degenerates into a incoherent mess of deliberate graphic violence and nerd-fantasy.

What is the supposed meaning of the movie (every movie has one, even this one). Do you have to be crazy to be a superhero in this world? The movie doesn't care about that! Can one human being change the world? To which 'Kick-Ass' answers: ... when your gun is big enough.

Note to myself: After developing a High-Concept-Hook (a normal loser tries to be a superhero) I should stick with it; tell my story around this hook. If I can not fill a script without other characters taking over the show, I should revise my initial idea.

Excuse my rant! I am curious: Can you understand my concerns about the story of 'Kick-Ass'? Or do I see something totally wrong?

Looking forward to your comments,
- Tristan

References: IMDb (8.0/10); Rotten Tomatoes (76%); Wiki;

'The Seeker: The Dark Is Rising' - The Passive Hero

by Tristan Mahlow  


Hello everybody!

I am here to talk about another observation that has been bugging me for a while. Sometime ago I was watching 'The Seeker', which was beautifully shot, but oh so lacking in the story department. Thinking about the movie and why it fell so flat, the thing that annoyed me the most, was the protagonist.

Will is your typical Cookie-Cutter-Underdog-Hero, living with his five siblings in a small house, nobody at school takes notice of him - he is a loser. But suddenly it turns out he posses magical powers. What a surprise!

When Will gets attacked, he is saved by a group of ancient wizards protecting the world from evil. They tell him, that he is the seeker and has to find the six signs of the Light - yeah, it is that kind of story. So, before the villain finds these signs, Will starts looking for them. 

So, Will can not protect himself and depends on the help of some old wizards. Additionally, the only reason he starts looking for those symbols is to find them before the villain, not because he has some interest in them himself.

Will is The Passive Hero: he only reacts to the input from outside. The are no internal motivations at work here (and the subplot with his lost twin brother is merely a joke, right?!). I know, I know, the movie establishes from the beginning, that the Dark will rise and Evil will win - but in order to care a bit about that I need a hero who is involved in the story and not just reacting to the actions of the villain.

Note to myself: The Hero needs to need something! Only that way, the obstacles he has to overcome make us care for him. While the protagonist is actively pursuing his own goal(s), he acts - and not just reacts.

Have great day,

- Tristan

References: IMDb (4,7/10); Rotten Tomatoes (14%); Wiki

'Clash of the Titans' (2010) - The Quest Structure

by Tristan Mahlow

Greetings,
today with my last article about 'Clash of the Titans' (2010). This time another observation, I'd like to share with you.
After watching the movie I had the feeling, Perseus is not in control of the action, but rather that - like in a Roleplaying game - he stumbled from task to task.
Right now I can hear you say: 'But that's what a Hero's Journey is all about: a hero overcoming increasingly obstacles towards reaching his goal' - and you are absolutely right! But what I learned fro watching this movie: Do not make it this damn obvious! I could feel the gears of the plot grind in the background - it was like checkmarking all the steps of a Hero's Journey. This is also due to the passive nature of Perseus, who doesn't make a single decision in this movie (soon there is a post coming about that problem). All in all this made the movie feel so unnatural.

Note to myself: The development of my plots should be organic, resulting out ot the needs of my characters. (Even when following the rule book!)

 Have a nice day,
- Tristan


Other parts in this Series:
'Clash of the Titans' (2010) - Evolution of a Script Pt. 1
'Clash of the Titans' (2010) - Evolution of a Script Pt. 2
'Clash of the Titans' (2010) - Evolution of a Script Pt. 3
'Clash of the Titans' (2010) - Non-Achievement

References: IMDb (5,9/10); Wiki; Roger Ebert; Rotten Tomatoes (28%);

'Clash of the Titans' (2010) - Non-Achievement

by Tristan Mahlow 


 Every now and then I come out of the cinema with the feeling the world around me has changed. Furthermore, that I have changed. That I am stronger, greater than before. Colours are brighter, there seems to be an epic score in everything I do. It is a faint feeling, fickle and gone the second I immerse myself back into real world. But isn't this feeling the reason we want so see the big movies? They promise to be bigger than life and to let us experience things we otherwise had no chance to experience.

So when I walk out of a big Hollywood-Blockbuster and do not have this feeling something must be wrong. It feels unsatisfying, empty and to be honest: two hours seemed wasted. As you might have guessed, I felt this way after watching 'Clash of the Titans' (2010).

I like to call it the feeling of Non-Achievement. We watch our hero fighting and questing for two hours, after which the enemy, Hades, is just cast down the sea, to live for eternity in the Underworld. They stopped his attempt to destroy Joppa, but finally nothing has changed. For two hours they fought so that everything can stay the same?! 

Ends tend to be designed more open in the last few years as the danger of a sequel is always lurking around the corner, but in this case it is also the fault of a bad set-up. Hades is a rather weak and bland villain - his threat never really feels real. So in the end, his defeat doesn't come as a relieve, as the conclusion we waited and hoped for.

Take-away message: Do not dissapoint the viewer: Make your end satisfaying! The Hero should defeat Evil and get the girl (there are exceptions of course).

Have a great day,

- Tristan


Other parts in this Series:
'Clash of the Titans' (2010) - Evolution of a Script Pt. 1
'Clash of the Titans' (2010) - Evolution of a Script Pt. 2
'Clash of the Titans' (2010) - Evolution of a Script Pt. 3
'Clash of the Titans' (2010) - Non-Achievment

References: IMDb; Wiki; Roger Ebert; Rotten Tomatoes (28%);

'Salt': (Too much) Mystery ≠ Tension

by Tristan Mahlow

Recently I sat down, read the Kurt Wimmer screenplay 'Salt' and afterwards I watched the movie with a good buddy . I won't give you a plot summary as you can find this anywhere on the net (see the links down below).

SPOILER WARNING

I rushed through the script, as it was really intense, thightly written and exciting. So I was naturally wondering how it would translate to the final product. After watching the movie one big flaw stood out for us:

Most of the time the viewer was left not knowing anything about the character and her intentions.

Until the final minutes of the movie it is left unclear wether Salt really wants to kill the President or not. While reading the script it didn't matter that much to me, but while watching the film it became blatantly clear: How can the viewer relate to the protagonist? We get a glimpse of a backstory, but her lovestory - which might be one of her motivators - isn't really developed in the movie (it was clearer in the draft I read).

So while the action unfolds as the movie progresses, we, the viewers, had to take the backseat; it was unclear what we should hope for, what we should fear - we weren't emotionally invested in the movie and were only left with good-looking action sequences.

What was your impression reading the script or watching the movie? Any idea how to make your protagonist mysterious, but not a total blank for the viewer?

Have a nice day,

- T.

IMDb (6,5/10); Rotten Tomatoes (61%); Roger Ebert (4 Stars);