Tuesday Talkback - Agent Coulson and Boba Fett: Inexplicably popular characters

Spoilers for The Avengers below:



I don't get it.  What's with all the love for Agent Coulson?

I'm inclined to attribute this to his being martyred in The Avengers.  (And I'll give Joss this, he gave Coulson a few nice moments that were designed to make his death sting a little more.)  But I saw the Cult of Agent Coulson springing to life in the weeks leading up to release, and I just don't get it.  The guy's barely a plot device - he's basically just there to be some connective tissue between a few Marvel films.  We barely know anything about him, and until The Avengers, he really didn't get to do anything cool.

(Even the impact of his death was blunted by the fact I saw it coming almost from the instant we met Maria Hill, who bore all the telltale signs of being groomed to be Coulson's "replacement" as the Marvel Corporation's Synergy Player.)

While I'm sure his portrayer, actor Clark Gregg, is a nice guy I never feel like he has any presence.  He's got a milquetoast voice and delivery that often threatens to send me off to Dreamland no matter what he's saying or doing.

So what do you all like about him?

This is probably a good time for me to go all-in and confess that I never got the fan obsession with Boba Fett either.  For those not in the know, Boba Fett is the "badass" bounty hunter in The Empire Strikes Back who tracks Han Solo to Cloud City, then rats him out to Vader and lets the Empire do all the heavylifting of capturing him.

I've never watched Dog the Bounty Hunter, so tell me, is it normal for these "fearsome bounty hunters" to follow at a safe distance and then call the police to make the actual arrest?

When next we see him in Return of the Jedi, this fearsome bounty hunter is hanging out in Jabba the Hutt's palace.  Because nothing says "tough guy" like hanging out in a gentleman's club, hitting on the dancers.

Yet for some reason, Fett made such an impression on Star Wars fans that they've complained since 1983 about Fett going out "like a punk."  During a battle on the Sail Barge, a blind Han Solo accidentally triggers Fett's jet pack, which results in him falling into the Sarlaac Pit to be digested over a thousand years.

Of all the minor characters to get elevated to demi-god status by the fans, why Fett?  You might as well start a fan club for Sy Snootles or Salacious Crumb!

So are any of you fellow "non-it-getters?"  Or are there perhaps other film or TV characters whose popularity astounds you?

Anthony E. Zuiker's "The Runner" - a business lesson in bad deals and attachments

I'm not able to delve into the business end of screenwriting as much as I'd like, largely because I either lack the personal experience OR could only offer examples that are so specific as to instantly earn the wrath of a former employer or two.  Sure, I could offer examples in the abstract, but I find that stories like this are more effective when specific examples are used.

I've been reading C.S.I creator/producer Anthony E. Zuiker's memoir Mr. C.S.I., and in it he discusses the complications he ran into while selling his first screenplay The Runner.  He wrote it back in the late 90s and having few other connections, managed to get hooked up with Mike Marvin.  Marvin's greatest claim to fame was as producer of a low budget teen comedy called Hot Dog... The Movie.  Marvin liked the script so much, he said wanted to direct it and he offered the struggling writer $35,000 for the screenplay.

In his book, Zuiker looks back on that offer with wiser persepective.

"That was huge money... But what sounded like a fortune would turn out to be a terrible business decision.  What did I know?  What did any of us know?  We were as inexperienced as we had been told.  Yet when I said we had a deal, not only did Ron [Moler, Marvin's financial partner] shake my hand, he had me sit at his computer and write out a simple straightforward deal memo.


"'Just say we have a deal,' he said.  'Write that you are selling me The Runner for thirty-five thousand dollars.'"

How did this come back to bite Zuiker?  I'm glad you asked.  Time passed, and The Runner was a strong enough sample to get representation at CAA.  That's when things got complicated.

Sony Pictures is so over the moon for the script that they offer Zuiker a two-picture deal - six figures for The Runner and six figures for a subsequent script to be written later.  That's basically the dream, right?

Take it from here, Tony...


"But then Ron refused to relinquish his right to direct.  He reminded everyone he had a signed contract.  He owned the project.  I saw my million-dollar fantasy disappear."


A couple lessons here:

First, don't sign anything without consulting a professional who's looking out for your interests.

Second, beware of attachments that hinder your film rather than help it.  With a director committed to the picture, the big studios had no interest in funding the film because they had no enthusiasm for working with Ron Moler.  Look at his credits - he had no directing experience before The Runner and his producing credits aren't terribly distinguished either.  An attachment like that is less a selling point and more of an anchor, dragging down your film.

Less notable talent can be a stumbling block for a sale.  If you're trying to sell a Bruckheimer-level project and somehow you got a Troma-level producer attached, that guy becomes a pain-in-the-ass whom the buyer might have to accommodate.   Even if a director on Hannah Montana might be your neighbor and your only industry contact, it might not be wise to let him attach himself as director to your erotic thriller - even if he says he can get it to the big boys at CAA.

What might have worked - and possibly may have been tried in this case - would have been to buy out Ron Moler's stake in the film.  Basically, they could have paid him NOT to direct.  That scenario would require two things:

(1) Ron's willingness to part with the film - if he was really determined to make his directorial debut with this script, it would probably cost quite a bit to meet his price.

(2)The Studio would have to be enamored enough with the script that it would be worth it for them to pay extra.

But since that series of events didn't come to pass, Zuiker's dreams of Hollywood glory ended up being deferred temporarily.  He got lucky - a second shot eventually came around.  A lot of naive writers might not have gotten that second chance.  Don't let your desire to have your script produced let you make bad snap decisions about who to get into bed with on a project.

Ideally, the Studio could have bought Ron off with an extra sum, perhaps with a producer credit.  Notice I said "credit."  When this sort of deal goes through, guys like Ron often become what we call a "PINO."  That's "Producer In Name Only."

What's a PINO?  Why don't we explore that on Wednesday.

If they were lucky

Friday Free-For-All: Spielberg watches the 1976 Oscar nominations

A friend of mine sent me this clip this week.  Supposedly, he thinks that Spielberg's mannerisms remind him of me.  I don't know if I totally see it, but I'll take it.

My parents totally used to have a chair just like the ones Steven is sitting in.



Rather interesting to see how confidant he must have been in order to invite the TV crews there.  I also have to salute his blunt candor.  If you've already shown the hubris of letting the crew film it, you might as well go all the way.  Today, I imagine most people would be more political in their reaction.  This might come as a shock, but I like people unafraid to tell it how it is.

Why not put failed pilots on iTunes?

If you follow entertainment news, you'll have noticed this week that the networks have started to announce which pilots are being ordered for next season.  Next week, each network will take its turn announcing their fall schedule.

It's an exciting couple of weeks if your show gets ordered, and an agonizing one if they've passed on you.  Some networks might pick up fewer than half of the pilots they produced.  The ones that don't make the schedule often disappear for good.  At best, they might surface around town as screeners, passed from executive to executive curious to check out a particular actor, or interested in seeing how a high-concept idea came together.

A good example is the pilot for last year's David E. Kelley Wonder Woman.  It didn't make the schedule, but it was pretty easy to find someone who had access to a bootlegged version, to the point where it eventually leaked online.  It's easy to see why there was such interest.  It's a pre-existing property and was one of the highest profile pilots of that year.  From the moment that pictures of the Wonder Woman costume leaked online, seemingly everyone who saw it had an opinion on it.  Even if the show came out terrible, it was a enough of a curiousity that fans wanted to see how it came out.

That's why it astounds me that Warner Bros and NBC didn't make the pilot available online.  Just imagine if they'd put it up on iTunes for $1.99.  They could have recouped some of the costs, and the fans would have a legitimate copy rather than resorting to piracy.  It's not as if they can do anything else with the pilot, so why not try to build some kind of revenue stream?

Why NOT put every unordered pilot online?  People worked hard on those episodes, doesn't their hard work deserve an audience?  I think it would also be fascinating to see what didn't get ordered, sort of like playing "Fantasy Network Executive."

I suppose I can see the argument that networks wouldn't want to demystify the process that much.  Then again, look at the saga of Nobody's Watching.  The pilot was produced for the WB in 2005 and after it didn't make the schedule, someone (likely executive producer Bill Lawrence) leaked it to YouTube a year later.  The show gained such a cult audience that for a time, it looked like it might get a second chance.  Maybe some network executives who passed on the show were embarrassed when reporters began running stories about how stupid it was of them to let this show get away.

Even as a type that, the excuse seems a little thin.  How about you guys?  Does anyone else feel like this is an idea who's time has come?  Are there any pilots from this year that you'd like to see, should they not get picked up?

Avengers - making introductions and re-introductions more than just exposition

It's been a while since I've discussed the importance of introducing characters in an interesting way.  I think sometimes weak openings comes as a result of the writer's inability to put themselves in the audience's shoes and recall that THIS is the moment that makes the first impression.

After all, the writer has lived with their character for weeks or months, so in their mind, this first scene just has to get the character on-screen.

I couldn't help but think of this during the opening half-hour of The Avengers, which has the task of introducing nearly a dozen major characters who have previously appeared in other Marvel films, either as headliners and supporting characters.  But the filmmakers would be wrong to assume that everyone buying a ticket to this film would have seen all or even ANY of the other movies.

And obviously, it's to the film's financial benefit that the movie appeal to audiences beyond the core Marvel fans.  So that forces the movie to introduce these characters as if it's the first time the audience has met them - without completely boring those viewers familiar with the earlier movies.

It's harder than it sounds, but I think the script did a pretty solid job of telling us everything we need to know for the sake of this movie.

First, there's a scene at a secret S.H.I.E.L.D. research center.  Here we introduce the Tesseract (previously an element in Thor and Captain America) and showcase that it's basically a mysterious and powerful form of energy.  Sure, we could trace the whole history of this thing, but it's really not that important.  In other words, screening the prior two films is unnecessary.

Loki shows up, and it's obvious that he's the villain of the piece.  He puts a few characters under his mind control spell and blows up the base, with Nick Fury and Agent Colson among those who get out in time.

So in the first few minutes we have: Villain, MacGuffin, Heroic Mastermind, Sidekick, and Brainwashed Hero.  Do we know Loki's full history or everything that Fury's got his hands in - but we know enough and they were introduced in a context that allows the audience not to feel lost.

Director Fury decides to activate the Avenger Initiative, which necessitates a series of scenes in which each member is met in turn.

- Black Widow is given a great sequence in which she appears to be a prisoner, only to turn the tables and kick ass without breaking much of a sweat.

- Then, Black Widow tracks down Dr. Banner in India, where's he's been living below the radar.  The exposition here is more dialogue-driven than visual, but the dialogue takes a turn that's either cryptic (if you're ignorant of Banner's "Hulk" alter-ego) or foreboding (if you know what they're referring to.  Either way, a couple important points are made: Banner's being recruited for his smarts, BW is very concerned about his temper, and that concern led her to bring an entire special forces team with her.

- Captain America admittedly gets one of the more mundane introductions, in addition to one of the more dialogue-laden ones.  The exposition here is more than made up for by the time we see him in action though

- And of course, Tony "Iron Man" Stark makes his debut while finishing up some technical doo-dad that we're told will turn his tower into a source of clean energy.  A lot of points are made here, including showcasing Tony's armor, reminding the audience of his relationship with Pepper Potts, and establishing both his "billionaire genius philathropist" persona.  There's also a fair amount of Tony's cocky showboating.  And of ALL the characters, I feel he's the most firmly established via just his intro scene.

Why do I say this? Because while you might argue that some dialogue given to other characters could be easily transposed to another character, there's not a single line of Tony's that could be swapped out to someone else as written.  His "voice" permeates everything he says.  If someone else would have to say something given to Tony, the rewrite would need to go further than just changing the character name above the line.

Other than Captain America, pretty much every character gets a opening scene that either conveys their function in the story, or the conflict that will define them throughout the script.  (In a few cases, we get both.)  Better still, most of those moments are entertaining scenes in their own right, either through comedy or tension.

In the wrong hands, the first half-hour could have been a bore while the viewers of previous films waited for the new audience members get caught up to speed.

Reader Question - How Will I Know If I'm a Good Writer?

I got a question from a 15 year-old reader named Valencia, who asked one of the most basic questions we each face as writers:


"How would I know if I'm a good writer?"

I struggled to find a satisfactory answer for the question, and while I did, Ken Levine gave a far better answer than I could have.  Check it out here:

How do you know if your script is any good?

Tuesday Talkback - Christopher Nolan's treatment of women

While talking about the Christopher Nolan Batman films last night on Twitter, I ended up in a long debate with a reader who asserted that "Nolan's treatment of women bothers me... just look at both Batfilms and Inception.  The women are useless devices and not characters."  This set off a long back-and-forth, during which I kept asserting that I thought Rachel was a fleshed-out character, and he asserted that she was only a plot device.

He also pointed out that she was the only [major] female character in two Bat-movies, which he equated to being a token character.  My feeling on this is that it would have been an even greater example of tokenism to make Lucius Fox or Alfred into a woman just for the sake of meeting some kind of quota.

It was also argued that Nolan "chose to write a story"  But I return to the point that Nolan's films are always incredibly focused, and like any writer, he clearly starts with the core conflict and themes and works outward from there.  In just about ALL of his films, the conflict between the protagonist and the antagonist is what drives the plot.  That doesn't mean that the other characters aren't fleshed out or that they don't have significant parts to play, but they're always in concert with the larger machine of the story.

In a Nolan film, no one is there JUST for the sake of being there.  As it should be, they always have a vital service to the story, the themes or the characters.  I point this out because if you reduce Rachel's part in the story to just a plot device, then don't Alfred, Gordon and Lucius all pretty much also fall under that category?  They don't drive the story, but surely all four of those characters are fleshed out to the point where they are more than a simple plot device.

In Insomnia, the driving core is homicide cop vs. serial killer.  In The Prestige, it's two rival magicians against each other.  Batman Begins: Batman v. Ra's Al Guhl/Scarecrow/Mob.  In The Dark Knight, it's the Batman/Joker/Harvey triangle that defines the story.  In Inception, I might argue that the DiCaprio character's most important relationship is that one with his dead wife, for it's that dynamic that gives the rest of the film its emotional resonance.

It was suggested that Nolan could have brought in characters like Harley Quinn or Oracle, but I don't see what they would add to the story that he was telling about Batman's relationship to Gotham.  Nolan's Joker didn't NEED a sidekick, so he doesn't have one, nor does his Batman need an Oracle on-call to do all his detective work for him.  (Bringing in some version of Oracle might have actually undercut the story, for she might well have rendered Batman's security system obsolete.)

So what do all of you have to say about this?  Do you take issue with Nolan's treatment of women?  Or is it just a case of this being where the story has gone.  (And let's not forget that most of Nolan's works are adaptations in one form or another.)

Before we continue, I want to lay this down - as much as it's popular to whip out the Bechdel Test, I ain't having that here.  I don't subscribe to the premise that a movie is inherently bad simply because it fails the Bechdel Test. 

After all, would any of these films have been better if they DID pass the Bechdel Test? And TVTropes does a good job of addressing how this test can be misunderstood.  I also came across this article about The Problem with the Bechdel Test.

Let's talk about context - not checklists.  It would be great if we could stick to the topic of Christopher Nolan and not turn this into a discussion about the portrayal of women in Hollywood films in general. 

Believe me, I've read plenty of incredibly sexist scripts and seen plenty of sexist films - but I don't see Nolan's films as falling into that category at all.