A great in-depth review of The Dark Knight

I'll level with you guys... I ran into post-production problems on the webseries and getting our footage into a Final Cut-friendly format turned into an issue that consumed far too much of my free time this weekend.

So I didn't have much time to compose my usual posts.  Never fear, I've found an alternative.

The Avengers opens this Friday and if you've been following my blog for a while, you probably expect that I'm pumped up for this.  I've never really be a Marvel Comics fan at all (save for Ultimate Spider-Man), but I've really enjoyed many of the movies based on Marvel Comics characters.

So as we anticipate what the hype would have us believe is the greatest Marvel movie ever made, why not take a look at a fantastic review of one of the most acclaimed and most successful comic book movies of all-time - The Dark Knight.  I recently came across a series of posts from some reviewers at Comics Alliance.  It was part of a series last year where they reviewed every Batman movie.

The Dark Knight review is a great discussion of the film's themes and structure.  They also do a fantastic job of breaking down the characters.  If you're a fan of the film, it's worth a look.

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5

One thing I really like about their series is that they attempt to put the lie to one of the popular perceptions about the Batman films - that Batman Returns is substantially better than either of the two Joel Schumacher films that followed it.  Both parts of the Batman Returns review are excellent at pointing out every last way in which the movie is terrible.

And in a move sure to infuriate most comic book fans, in both parts of another review, they assess that Batman & Robin is actually more coherent and consistent than either Burton film.  (I won't exactly say that they "defend" the film, but they make a good case for the notion that if you accept the film on its own campy terms, it holds together better than the incoherent mess that is the second film in the series.)

If you've got some time, check out my list of 10 Greatest Comic Book Movies Ever Made and its companion piece, The Worst Comic Book Movies Ever Made.  The posts are a couple of years old, but the recent entries haven't been good or bad enough to really merit displacing entries on either list.

Friday Free-For-All: Call It a Show!

My friend Rob Polonsky of Chad, Matt & Rob has started his own web talk show - Call It a Show!

The first episode debuted last night online and feature Tyler Tuione, whom you might recognize as "The Big Deal" from the Priceline Negotiator commercials as well as a number of Chad, Matt & Rob segments.

Reader questions: Diversity programs and waiting periods

Matt writes:

I love your site and I was hoping to get your opinion on something.

I've been debating entering the CBS Writer's Mentoring Program. 

I think my specs and my pilots are pretty solid but the problem is I'm white. More specifically, a straight white middle-class twenty-something male. And it seems that every program for TV writers is looking for diversity. Basically the opposite of me. 

So should I even bother applying to CBS, WB, Nickelodeon or the NBC program? Or should I save my time and money? 

I'd welcome anyone with more direct experience with these programs to weigh in, but my assumption is that any program that states in its objectives that it's looking for"diverse" applicants, you can probably count on white males being given the lowest priority.  If entry is free, I'd say you've got nothing to lose - but if there's a submission charge, your money is probably better spent elsewhere.

Amanda asks:


I've been lucky enough to have some agents and agencies respond to my queries with a request to read my work. Now I'm wondering how long this usually takes? I know it can take a while depending on the agent/agency, how much stuff they get, etc. (Someone told me that at a big agency, it's a good sign if they don't say no right away . . .) 

Anyway, I want to be polite and give them the space they need. What's fair? At what point, if ever, should I send a follow-up?

I'd say give them at least a month. Opinions vary on what's the best way to approach them after that, or if you even should.  Most of the time if you don't get a reply, you can safely assume they passed on you. 

When I've gotten reads, the responses have usually come within three or four weeks.  Usually it's either, "This doesn't suit our needs at this time" or "This isn't for me, but please send me your next screenplay."

If I don't hear back, I usually don't push it.  I just make note of it in my files so I know not to submit to that agent again.

Does anyone else have an opinion on these two questions?

Tuesday Talkback - Who are the most underrated writers?

I've seen a number of articles complaining about how "Writer so-and-so is overrated" and how "That Hack is overhyped.  So I'm curious... what writers do you think are under-recognized and underrated?

Pulp Fiction: Let reactions speak louder than actions

This weekend I rewatched Pulp Fiction for the first time in what has to be about ten years.  I tried hard just to watch it as a viewer and not get caught up in the mechanics and the "what I can learn from this" of it all.  Unfortunately, Tarantino is often so good with character work and dialogue that I can't help but marvel at how he accomplishes what he does.

I'm sure there are a few hundred essays out there about the "Royale with Cheese" dialogue, but I want to look at a scene that closely follows on that moment's heels - when Vincent and Jules pay a visit to Brett to retrieve a briefcase that Brett has taken from Marcellis Wallace.  In 9 out of 10 other movies, "enforcers" Vince and Jules would "send their message" by physically attacking and/or shouting and brow-beating their targets.

Instead that doesn't exactly happen.  In fact, Vincent says very little, while Jules is downright jovial as he makes small talk with Brett and helps himself to a bite of his burger.  And yet, the scene is incredibly tense - but why is that?  We've not seen either of these men actually be violent yet, so why are we on the edge of our seat.

Because Brett is clearly scared shitless - even before Jules moves on to overt threats and eventually violence.  And because Brett knows that, WE know that.  Brett's tension and nerves clearly convey that if Marcellis Wallace has sent these guys to deal with you, you are FUCKED.

Jules doesn't need to come in waving his gun around, shouting that everyone there is going to die.  His reputation precedes him.  And all of that is conveyed in Brett's reactions and posture throughout the scene.

So it's a good thing to remember - your characters don't always have to beat their own chests.  You can let everyone else in the scene do the work for them.

How NOT to make a good impression

From time to time, I get emails from people asking me to read their scripts.  This really, really annoys me because anyone who's paying attention can see that IMMEDIATELY below the link to my email, I've put a notice that reads: "Please NO requests to read your material. All such queries will be ignored and deleted unread."

So what's so hard about following that instruction?  I'm sure I've talked before about how when you ask someone to read your script, you're asking a huge favor.  No one owes you a read, and it's a big deal to ask even a professional with whom you are acquainted with to take a look at your work.

Pro tip: when you don't know someone you're about to ask for a favor, it's a good idea not to get off on the wrong foot with them by ignoring their specific request.

About a month or two ago, I got an email that was pretty clearly a query - what was notable about this was that there was an attachment.  We've talked about this before, people, don't do this!   For more specifics, check out this old post.

I was feeling charitable, so decided to open the email so I could send a stern response to the sender rather than just delete it.

The email opens not with an introduction, nor a polite request to read material.  No, instead the reader is immediately assulted with a logline and a long synopsis.  And that's it.  No "please read my attached script.  It would mean a lot." Just logline, synopsis, attachment.  Now I'm really annoyed, so I send back this curt response: 

Do not EVER send anyone a PDF of a script unsolicited.  It's not only rude but it puts the receiver in an awkward legal position.  I cannot read your work and as the instructions just above the link to my email explicitly state, I do not accept submissions.

Please do not make this mistake with any other bloggers or screenwriters you attempt to contact.

So if you got that reply, what would your reaction be?  Perhaps you'd be too embarassed to reply.  Or maybe you'd be so mortified at your unintentional offense that you'd write back with an apology.

Or you'd do what this guy did, writing back with this response:
 

Keep your hair on - it's only a screenplay - thought you might enjoy it!  

Awkward legal position my arse! 

If you want to read it - read it! (It's actually very good!) If you don't - don't!  

No one's going to sue you!

And that's where the writer lost any benefit of the doubt from me.  I responded thusly: 

The correct answer should have been: "I'm sorry, I didn't realize that was a breach of etiquette.  Thanks for letting me know."

No one in this town reads anything without a release.  Look at all the idiots suing people like James Cameron saying he "stole" their idea merely because they sent him a script that had elements similar to a film he made.

That and it's just plain rude to send a script without querying first.

The writer responded with a couple emails, offering explanation and rationalization more than apology.  I've since learned that this writer has submitted to other bloggers in a fairly clumsy attempt at drawing attention to their spec.

Oh, I forgot to mention that this screenplay was an unauthorized sequel to an existing film.  You all know my thoughts on playing with someone else's toys.  So if I didn't already have my doubts about this writer's ability, an Amateur Hour blunder that big would have confirmed it for me.

But more than that, this writer's blunder was in not caring at all about the person he was submitting to.  I was nothing more than a means to an end.  The writer hadn't done even the most cursory read of my blog to see what might be the best way to approach me, or even if I wanted to be approached.

Would you have been any more forgiving of someone who treated you with the same disregard?

Tuesday Talkback - Best "insider" movie on Hollywood.

It seems like "meta" is perpetually in fashion.  Heck, just last weekend the extremely self-aware horror film Cabin in the Woods came out.  As this Moviefone column points out, this year is also the 20th anniversary of Robert Altman's The Player. 

When I started working in Hollywood, I quickly came to the realization that depictions of the business in projects like The Player and Entourage are somehow simultanously exaggerated and pretty darn close to the mark.  Yeah, that's an impossibility - but what I really mean is that Entourage might not be how the business IS, but it's often somewhere between how the culture feels, and how the players see themselves.

So what's your favorite "insider" look at Hollywood?