|
Post by jayvee on Jun 29, 2006 8:26:52 GMT -5
Never seen QUIET EARTH. It sounds interesting, though.
If you're going to narrate follow-up issues with these characters, then you may very well alleviate some of the problems I felt you had with them--particularly Will and Val. Though, if they did have arguments about it, she needs to say something more than "Are you sure?" in this first issue. And he needs to reply with something like, "We've had two years to argue," etceteras. It needs to be a more intense moment, rather than such a defeated one.
And I still think the comedy's gotta go.
|
|
|
Post by davidaccampo on Jun 29, 2006 11:52:00 GMT -5
Hmmm, that's a good point about that -- with a simple line change I can probably eliminate that. I like that. Good suggestion...I have an idea... The comedy...I don't know. I'm really partial to it. I'll consider it, but no promises there. I'll tell you this, though -- part of the impetus for the humor came from watching "Million Dollar Baby" recently. I was noting how, even though the setting was fairly dark (Freeman and Eastwood in this failing gym), they managed to have this darkly comic comraderie, trading barbs with each other, almost as a way of ignoring the gravity of their situation. I liked that, and I wanted to set up that kind of feel so that when we spend time under the ice in this really grave situation, we can work some more "gallows humor" in. It's also a lesson learned from directing our short film -- a very serious subject matter, and now I kind of wish we had a couple jokes here and there to sort of undermine the gravity of the situation. Now all of that has nothing to do with whether this works or not. I'm just giving you a little writer's background on it, so you could see where the idea stemmed from. Your comments about the comedy still stand. I just don't know if I will cut it in the end.
|
|
|
Post by jayvee on Jun 29, 2006 15:30:09 GMT -5
If you do keep the comedy, do me a favor and at least establish some sort of previous relationship or acquaintance between Val and Beck because they're just bandying about and you're really not sure what's going on because nobody's told you how well they may or may not know one another. I assumed they all trained together for the mission but don't remember reading as much. Maybe you should include some scenes somewhere from their days in training, show the comaradarie grown there and then eventually turned sour and sarcastic by the serious nature of their mission? Maybe if you just switched Val with another character, because it seems Val already has a lot going on and this exchange might be read as something more than friendly (since we don't know their backgrounds). It's kind of far out, but Val having an affair with Beck might explain her apathy towards Will coming... Trying to live while she's got time to live, I guess.
Just throwing stuff out there now, whether it's helpful or not at least the brainstorm is there from an outside party.
|
|
|
Post by davidaccampo on Jun 29, 2006 17:01:39 GMT -5
Hmm, that's a good point. Maybe I can work something in like that -- I had kinda considered that we had that tone already the way that Beck describes his team as a "Motley Crew." I'll see if I can do more. See, Val is more in acceptance of her role. Beck thinks he is. William WANTS to be. Freeman...we'll see...
There will still be stuff revealed, of course. For example, this isn't even in our full story treatment, but I have an idea that Beck was corresponding with Freeman while Freeman was in prison. So there are little back stories like that that we will get to in the course of things.
Jayvee, I want to say thanks again for your comments. Your thoughts on this stuff are actually helping my cement the ideas in my head -- and you're giving me good stuff to consider. I think I will most likely make a few adjustments based on your comments.
I know Jeremy has been to the board and read the comments as well. We were both discussing that even with good and bad comments, it has revealed that you guys are where we want you to be, in terms of how you are reacting at this point in the story. So that's good in my book.
|
|
|
Post by ipuertoricanpony on Jun 30, 2006 0:36:44 GMT -5
what made it an action set up for me is that a lot of these big, science oriented action movies of today is adding dramatic traits to the characters that aren't necessarily needed. valerie being riddled with brain cancer. even if it's a corporation funding it, i don't believe they would risk so much money and the integrity of their discovery by sending in someone in such poor health. maybe she can still have brain cancer, but maybe her having it isn't something that the company knows. it can be something that's known between just the husband and the wife, and it's a secret you find out later on.
continuing on the 'action movie' thing, as you asked me why i felt that way...which i appreciate that you're actually asking me why... i feel that you wrote what you think scientists would be like, or should be like. they don't feel like people who love science. i think it's an aspect you could take further, down a more realistic path. the resources are out there. have you ever heard or read brian greene explain physics, string theory, etc.? it's not about rivalries, it's about a pure love for exploration, uncovering the unknown. (by the way, those two brian greene books are The Elegant Universe--which covers string theory--and the Fabric of the Cosmos--which covers the history of physics but explains it in a way intended for layman, no use of mathematical equations in the process. PBS had that special, The Elegant Universe. I've got the videos saved on a cd somewhere, if you're interested.)
Now, with the depressing aspect...yes, i do understand that this team is very likely headed for their doom beneath volstok. but no one is really forcing them to. they're doing so because they are pursuing something they believe, something they love and have dedicated their entire lives to. i would think that while yes they will very likely die, that there might be some aspect of them rejoicing in what they would probably be dying for. it takes me back to Samurai and their views of death. they were honored to die for the masters, what they dedicated their very existences to. they rejoiced in it, so to speak.
you can still have a depressing outcome to this story, but you dont' have to necessarily push it so hard. it's going to come regardless.
contrary to how i might be sounding, i do actually find the idea interesting. while i was more invested in the humanities, i still have a profound respect and interest in the sciences. therefore you did peek my curiosities with the concepts of lake volstok.
on the action figure line...it can work, yes, and i will admit that it's an interesting line. but part of me feels that this would fit better in a satirical piece than in this one. it all depends on what direction you want to take this piece. do you want to take it the way of michael bay and armageddon, or do you want to take it in the direction of close encounters of the third kind or the abyss? that line wouldn't fit in with the characters in the last two of those movie, but it would in the other one. does that clarify my standpoint on the action figure line a bit more?
thanks for hearing me out.
ernesto
|
|
|
Post by davidaccampo on Jun 30, 2006 1:49:23 GMT -5
Ernesto,
Thanks for the additional comments. As I mentioned -- I do find them useful.
Actually, you're not completely wrong. While we're not really writing what we THINK scientists are like, we are writing a STORY. So while I understand what you're getting at, I'm going to stick with what i've got here because I think it's more compelling. For me, it's like this: is Lethal Weapon a bad movie because that's NOT what real cops are like? Nah, you just take it in context as a fun and/or compelling movie. So...we know we're making these guys a mess because it's interesting. Look at it this way: this is not a statement about ALL scientists. This is a statement about THESE scientists. Could Valerie want to spend her remaining years on a huge discovery? Could Beck be driven by bitterness AND the desire to finally be first? To make something "his"? Could William have this weird notion that he can't live without his wife and would choose to die young and with her than to live on without her?
I think so.
There's an old quote about writing by Flannery O'Connor that goes something like "stories are about what people WILL do."
I think that's what where we're coming from. Ultimately the story revolves around these people, and their fates will all revolve around their CHARACTER and their backstory -- Valerie and Sam both have a unique perspective, having accepted death. Beck and William are not quite the same. These are the types of character moments we'll be dealing with.
As an aside, Jeremy first pitched me the idea after reading about Vostok and the theories on how to send robots down there. What instantly intrigued me was -- who would go down there? The characters are all borne out of that. So to me, the story revolves around that. Are they a mess? Sure. Is it possible that a private corporation and NASA would risk all on an insane mission that could completely blow up? Well, businesses have taken some weird risks borne out of desperation. We're setting our story during a time when NASA needs an uplift and humanity is starting to worry about the future of the planet (thus the recent Stephen Hawking quote). A mission to Europa would be like the first mission to the moon -- it fuels a hope that anything is possible. The public opinion on this would be HUGE.
I think a good story can stretch the boundaries of plausability as long as they remain POSSIBLE.
ABout the action figure line -- I do understand what you're saying. But...I guess the honest answer is that the tone lies somewhere between all those films. Armageddon was what it was. As was the Abyss. As was Close Encounters. I'm not trying to match any of that tone -- The Walcott stuff will essential bookend the story and it does have a darkly comic stance on the media and the "politics" of science in our culture.
And -- It's actually funny that you mention Armageddon because, while I can't speak for Jeremy, I was conscious of creating a Michael Bay/Armageddon tone for the first chapter. A lot of people will assume that's a bad thing, but while I thought Armageddon was a pretty bad and cheesy movie, I later realized that it was gloriously cheesy in a fun B-movie way. So it fits our story here to pump up the momentum and get everything in play, but the goal of the story is to then yank the rug out and turn it into something completely unexpected. I mean just the concept seems like an adventure movie -- a bunch of scientists go under Antartica to the last untouched place on Earth! It almost begs to be set up, then skewered.
SIDE NOTE: Let me ask you guys this because Jeremy just pointed this one out to me (from someone else who read the script): what if I were to pitch you the treatment as "The Abyss meets Solaris." What kind of tonality would you assume then?
Oh, and one thing about Valerie: we don't have time to set it up in the first issue, but my thought on her is that NASA knows that she'll probably die in the first year or two. They're OK with this because she can set everything up, begin her analysis and study of the environment, and hopefully, she'll have something great before she dies. If not, the others can continue with the work she has set up. With a completely pristine environment, NASA doesn't believe they need 5 years of study, that's just what they can get out of the living quarters, so they figure, keep it alive as long as possible.
Again, that's stuff that will come into play as they're down there -- and we'll have much more time to focus on the characters.
So that's my reasoning behind it. I don't say this to defend it (I think you have to be careful not to get defensive about others' criticism), but rather to show you where I'm coming from, so that you guys can tell me if that would be sufficient, or if it still doesn't work for you.
And then I have to take all of that into consideration and use my own judgement to decide if I keep it or change it.
Thanks again, Dave
|
|
|
Post by ipuertoricanpony on Jun 30, 2006 18:13:16 GMT -5
well you are aware of what you're doing, so i do appreciate that.
pitching this as abyss meets solaris...i get a more innocent, wonderous, introspective tone.
i had an idea...because as you said, business men have made very weird decisions in the past. the thing is, where is lake vostok located? what country is it in? how did they get the authority to do their work there? i would think the country this all happens in would be very interested in the outcome of the events, and therefore very likely would have a strong presence there. and if there's a potential threat--not saying there is, since i'm not sure, just hyphothetical--i would definitely assume there would be a presence. remember the space race, how fast everyone raced to be the first one into outerspace and onto the moon? whatever country this is located in, if the discovery is as big as you say, i have huge doubts that the nation in question would simply let a bunch of business men send these folks down. the logic does'nt hold up for me. now, unless, and here's where my idea goes...this was a satire about how a group of people mucked up possibly the greatest discovery known to man? then the action figure line would make more sense, to me at least. and along those lines, the extreme character traits would fit in so much easier. again, for me at least.
--There's an old quote about writing by Flannery O'Connor that goes something like "stories are about what people WILL do."--
it's funny you mention that, because that's at the crux of my argument. i don't believe these events would happen, for the previously stated reasons. yes, you justify why you're doing this story the way you are. but no matter how many arguments you present to me, it doesn't add up for me.
someone already made armageddon...why would you want to make another one? you could have something great here, therefore i'm having a hard time understanding why you would simply want to go for b-rated fun? why not want to go for more?
i feel we might be beating a dead horse. we've both expressed our views, and now it's just a matter of seeing the rest. i think i might see more of what you're going for after seeing the entire big picture. thanks for expressing your views.
ernesto
|
|
|
Post by davidaccampo on Jun 30, 2006 19:14:01 GMT -5
i had an idea...because as you said, business men have made very weird decisions in the past. the thing is, where is lake vostok located? what country is it in? how did they get the authority to do their work there? i would think the country this all happens in would be very interested in the outcome of the events, and therefore very likely would have a strong presence there. and if there's a potential threat--not saying there is, since i'm not sure, just hyphothetical--i would definitely assume there would be a presence. remember the space race, how fast everyone raced to be the first one into outerspace and onto the moon? whatever country this is located in, if the discovery is as big as you say, i have huge doubts that the nation in question would simply let a bunch of business men send these folks down. the logic does'nt hold up for me. now, unless, and here's where my idea goes...this was a satire about how a group of people mucked up possibly the greatest discovery known to man? then the action figure line would make more sense, to me at least. and along those lines, the extreme character traits would fit in so much easier. again, for me at least. Well, Lake Vostok is under Antarctica. That's what makes it so unique. Antarctica is not owned by any country. Vostok is under a Russian Outpost, but there is a treaty in Antarctica that says that everyone can use Antarctica as long as it's for scientific research only. The stuff about NASA's interest in Vostok and its relation to Europa is real. The Cryobots being developed by Jet Propulsion Laboratories are real. A lot of the exposition in this issue is based on real stuff. Sure, I understand that you don't believe them. I don't believe that Die Hard is a totally realistic movie. Or Lethal Weapon. Or whatever. THey still make entertaining movies. THe only thing that I disagree with is this: it's not a matter of justification. It's showing that it's possible. And no offense, but what you've told me about why it doesnt' add up for you is based on what YOU think that scientists would be like. And that's valid because everyone has pre-conceived notions about scientists and NASA and stuff. But that's also exactly MY point. My job in writing this is to show you that these characters behave like this, for whatever their reasons, and the businesses and benefactors each behave the way they do for their own reasons. What we really tried to do was to be conscious of everyone having a motivation, and all the motivations lead to Vostok. From NASA to the private company to Beck to Valerie...they all have reasons, and I do feel that we've added them together. So I've gotta go with my gut on this one. Well, re-read my above post. I never said I wanted to make another Armageddon. In fact, I said it was somewhere BETWEEN the three movies you mentioned. All I said I was conscious of giving it ELEMENTS of that tone for the SET-UP in order to yank the rug out from under the reader. I like the idea of infusing the darkly comic essence to bookend what will ultimately be a very isolated character drama. Hey, it may be beating a dead horse, but I don't mind it. Each time I seem like I'm "defending" myself, you gotta understand that I'm really thinking about the criticism and working out my own processes. Some of the stuff that I've mentioned here has really been subconscious on my part until I actually have to type it out and think about it. And listen...don't worry, I'm not trying to bludgeon you with factoids until you finally admit that it's a good story or something. ;D It's not like that at all. All of this will help me in pitching the material and making the subsequent issues as tight and compelling as possible. So, it's all good.
|
|
|
Post by davidaccampo on Jun 30, 2006 22:38:46 GMT -5
Oh, and this is not that important, but i was thinking about it after I posted (and left work). I think the Flannery O'Connor quote was misconstrued.
The emphasis is on the "WILL" in "what people WILL do." What she means is what people will do, despite everything. What they will do to accomplish their desires, how far they will go -- and just what strange and unique reactions each person has. It's the myster of what they WILL do in any given situation.
The mystery of writing, the wonder of humanity is exploring what people WILL do, despite reason, despite obstacle, etc.
I only bring this up again because I think O'Connor's quote is very useful to writers, especially in workshops.
|
|
|
Post by nolan on Jul 1, 2006 3:21:05 GMT -5
David, i've printed it out.
Have feedback for you by Monday.
Would you rather I posted it here or gave it to you over YIM or email?
|
|
|
Post by davidaccampo on Jul 1, 2006 10:21:55 GMT -5
Hey Nolan --
Anything's fine with me. I appreciate the feedback!
Let me know if you'd like to see the full treatment as well. It's a 3-page detailed synopsis that covers the plot and character arcs of the entire story (planned as 4 22-page chapters).
Dave
|
|
|
Post by nolan on Jul 1, 2006 16:20:07 GMT -5
I don't have it wiht me. I'll bring you feedback when I find the copy I printed out and made notes on.
Overall I liked it but I wanted to see more of the rationale for why the mission is a suicide mission adn why someone would go on it. What scientific factor is worth sacrificing lives and knowing people are4 going to die.
|
|
|
Post by davidaccampo on Jul 2, 2006 1:09:41 GMT -5
I don't have it wiht me. I'll bring you feedback when I find the copy I printed out and made notes on. Overall I liked it but I wanted to see more of the rationale for why the mission is a suicide mission adn why someone would go on it. What scientific factor is worth sacrificing lives and knowing people are4 going to die. Thanks for reading it Nolan. The rationale is something that Jeremy and I are very concerned with. Basically, I think it comes down to what we felt was necessary in the first issue, combined with how much space we had. Our goal is a four-issue story. It's essentially a character drama about these four people and what happens to them under the ice, so I felt it was important to not spend more than one issue getting them down there. But now we really had to compress the storytelling and get a lot of exposition in. So let me phrase it this way. Here's the rationale: -- Melting down into the ice preserves the lake. But the tech doesn't have the power necessary to move back UP through the ice, melting it slowly while moving upwards for two miles. So, it's a one-way trip. Now, we mention this briefly in the exposition of the first issue, but it will also come into play in later issues for various plot points. -- The rationale for NASA to go now is that there is a growing concern for man to find homes on other planets. If Vostok is like Europa (and the similarities are vast), then this could be the key. Jeremy and I are basing this on Stephen hawking's recent statements (thus the quote). We're also setting this shortly in the future, where NASA really needs a boost. A manned Europa mission would be huge. As big as the moon landing, when NASA brought hope to the entire world with the feeling that we could accomplish ANYTHING. I figure this will also play out in smaller ways as the story progresses, but we do try to cover it a bit here. -- The push BY the scientists is all personal. Beck has been pushing NASA to let him go because he wants to be the first to see Vostok WITHOUT Walcott. So he actually WANTS Vostok to be a one-way trip, and he's preying on the fact that NASA wouldn't let their poster-boy go down. Valerie, Will, and Freeman all have their reasons -- we demonstrate them all a bit in the first chapter, but we'll obviously deal heavily with these four as the main focus of the story. So, now my question to you guys: NOw you know our rationale presented as plain exposition. If that's sufficient, how would you present it? Is there a way we could tighten it up in the first 22 pages? Or if I cover it all in later issues, will that suffice? If it still doesn't add up, as it didn't for ernesto in his posts, what would be enough? I would definitely take suggestions. My main concern, if we're adding MORE exposition to the first issue, is that the first 22 pages cannot be too heavy or dry. It still has to have character moments to breathe and come to life. Because the characters are the story. So keep in mind that I still need the reader who is NOT scientifically-minded to still get into the story because the characters are fascinating, even if they don't quite understand them yet. So that's where I'm at with it. Dave I'm definitely reading and considering all the suggestions. In fact, I've already made some small changes based on Jayvee's suggestions, and I think it makes the script a bit stronger.
|
|
|
Post by jrogers on Jul 2, 2006 13:52:36 GMT -5
A little late to the game, but I’m finally jumping in here. I guess I should give a brief intro first: My name is Jeremy Rogers; I’m the other writer with Dave on this project.
I’m pretty happy with the way this first issue has turned out. To me, it seems that we’ve effectively established the unique environment of Vostok, the technology needed to penetrate the lake, and the motley crew of people willing to die for a chance to study it. There was a lot to work on, so it’s all been challenging.
That said, I’ve been reading the feedback on these boards, and felt I should chime in on my thoughts.
It seems that motivation is the main issue people are having with the setup issue. This sort of perplexes me. There is a lot of info to get across in the first 22 pages, but I can’t help but wonder what’s happening to gloss over some pretty simply spoken lines about the motivation (of characters and of those funding the mission.)
Breaking this down, more for myself than anything:
- We start with a quote mentioning the serious need to explore other planets. - Leading into some facts about Lake Vostok. - NASA is funding this operation (deep sea research not uncommon) - There’s a way to get into the lake while maintaining environmental precautions - - But there will be no return for the scientists - NASA is secretly testing this facility for the Europa project, the media spin is the start of the buzz they plan to build as they get the equipment to work.
OK, so that’s the first couple pages, setting up the scenario of the lake, and why they say they’re going in, and the hint of why they’re really going in.
Next, why would the scientists commit to a suicide mission? Honestly, there hasn’t been much yet from these people about how they feel about the ecosystem they get to explore. The first issue only has time to introduce each person, and it seems to me that the first item to address is why death doesn’t matter to them. That’s the first area to work on, not their passion for their respective scientific fields.
As long as we know that Beck is determined to achieve glory, even it that means he has to die, than that, to me, is the start of a character to explore in later issues.
If we already know that Valerie is terminally ill, and that William has committed to working and dying by her side *, then this is good material setup for future issues.
Freeman, with his prison sentence, is the mysterious wild card. But knowing that he’s trading one cell for another seems appropriately fitting for why he’s on this team.
* The feedback suggesting that more is immediately shown of Will and Val’s marital issues is a good one. This has already been slightly expanded upon in the script. While these are areas we’re planning on getting to, it’s good to address the upcoming distance in their relationship early.
They way I see it, every character is right for their position on the crew, and every one of them has touched upon the reason why their acceptance of death cements their place on the Lorelei.
It’s all going to be expanded now.
As Dave has commented, this really is a story about character. Once they are isolated, what will happen to them? How will the realization of their impending deaths open and move their stories along?
I think we’ve carefully structured facts with hints and touches of characters and some of the bigger ideas running in the background in this setup issue. Right now, this is only ¼ of the story. Honestly, I think most of your questions and concerns will be remedied by the end of the second issue, when it’s clear where we’re really going with Vostok. As it stands with what’s online, we’re only revealing so much… I’m always afraid of too much too soon. Motion and litter, if that makes sense.
All of the feedback has been really helpful and has caused me to go back and look at the script, to try and remove MY understanding of it all and see it from a different perspective. There’s a lot to accomplish in a short number of pages, but as Dave has previously mentioned, based on all of your thoughts, questions, and concerns, I think we have you where we want you to be.
But is that enough to keep readers interested in what happens next?
I want to thank you guys for really taking the time to read and talk about the story. The level of intelligent feedback is impressive here.
Jeremy
|
|
|
Post by nolan on Jul 2, 2006 23:07:29 GMT -5
Thanks Jeremy. I've been trying to get as many diverse creators as I can find so, hopefully, you'll get people of every stripe eventually.
See, I understand that the technology mgiht not be able to make it back both ways. That makes sense to me but why go now and not wait to improve and refine the technology enough to be able to make it back?
I could understand the human reasons for going on what is pretty much a suicide mission (although I think you could do a better job with those) but, at the same time, WHY NOW?
I would have liked to have seen you do more iwth the characters and less with the corporate and administrative people.
|
|