For less
recent
fare,
consult the
archives
at left.

When a job is more than a job…

So JNT didn’t have a strong creative vision guiding him. Well, sure; that’s obvious, considering where the show went (or didn’t) during the ’80s, until Cartmel came around. In that sense his approach — being so hands-off — was significant. So were his ideas about casting, his ideas about presentation, his ideas about continuity, his feel for showmanship, the way he tried to spin the show for various groups (in particular the increasing fanbase and the BBC management). There’s a pretty good story to be told here, and it needn’t be altogether negative. If anything, there’s more drama here than in most earlier periods.

As with any other era, the way JNT handled the show (or didn’t!) clearly led to the way it turned out and was ultimately perceived. It’s the mechanics of this that it would be enlightening to see illustrated, especially in contrast to other production eras.

I mean, even this discussion right here has made some connections in my brain that I hadn’t made before. Yeah, of course; JNT didn’t pay much attention to the creative ins and outs, did he — though he had some vague and shaky concept of a “big picture” he wanted for the show, and he had a few arbitrary things he felt he wanted to see. That would explain why it kind of went in circles, and why it kept referring to the past so much instead of moving forward. And why he made so many apparently odd demands. And why it was so terribly uneven, jumping from brillant to questionable to conservative to oddly progressive. And it would also explain why Cartmel was able to have so much influence when he came aboard, as there were no real creative conflicts (aside from JNT’s random specific demands). The show was just something to produce, with certain production concerns, according to a form he was familiar with.

Everyone was looking to the producer as a creative force, a guiding spirit for the show — and he was just expecting everyone else to get on with their creative work, while he paid attention to the mechanics of getting the show made and selling it to his bosses, the fans, and the general audience. After season 18 and until the McCoy era, no one was really driving. The real problem in the ’80s seems like it was one of communication — with perhaps a side order of organization (though that’s kind of a facet of communication).

That right there — that’s fascinating as hell.

Or to put it another way, this was the era where the script editor became the supreme creative force over the show — whether he appreciated it or not! Both Bidmead and Cartmell had distinct ideas what to do with the series, and went about implementing them with little interference; Saward… well, I’m not entirely sure what he was doing. There was obviously a huge communication issue here, in terms of what each party expected of the other, that wasn’t present with the other two editors, that just led to escalating frustration all around. Again: drama! Needn’t be dirty; if anything, an even analysis of the situation could defuse a lot of tension and anger that still seems to lurk around this area. Clear up a lot of misconceptions, and open it up for rethinking.

Dwelling a little more, this lack of communication on JNT’s part (though again there are two sides to any exchange, and neither Bidmead nor Cartmel seemed to have all that much difficulty, comparably speaking) might to some extent explain why he was stuck with the show for so long.

It’s often struck me as odd that JNT kept asking the BBC to reassign him, yet was continually refused. Looking back, I realize in most cases the sitting producers and script editors tended to have successors in mind who they preened for the role before themselves moving on. JNT didn’t approach it this way; again, it appears he was all business. When he decided he wanted to quit, he figured he could just fill out the forms and trot along; he’d done his part of the picture. The problem was, he was leaving to other people the task of continuing the show — much as he generally left the creative duties to the script editor, writers, directors, and cast. Of course the BBC wouldn’t have that; they probably felt it was his job to get the show’s affairs in order. Indeed, if JNT didn’t do it I can’t imagine who would.

Though JNT’s approach didn’t seem a very good fit for the show, I’m not sure if he can wholly be blamed. He just seemed to have different expectations from everyone else — and in another situation, his expectations might have been essentially reasonable. And they might have worked, if everyone wasn’t looking to him to make decisions that he wasn’t prepared to make and had simply let him do what he was good at — an area where, from what I understand, he was indeed quite skilled.



More on the Hobbit

So you’ve probably heard by now that New Line has axed Peter Jackson from the project. The reason cited is that they only have the rights for a limited time, and that Peter Jackson’s demands (including a lawsuit over profits from the first Rings movie) will take too long to clear up before he can get started. MGM is appalled, as they want two Hobbit movies directed by Peter Jackson — that’s what they signed up for! They say they’re not giving up on this yet. New Line has suggested Sam Raimi as a replacement, which… doesn’t sound bad, certainly; there are a lot of parallels between the two directors. Still, awkward! Raimi apparently hasn’t even been approached, though.

Now. Thing is, New Line was right: its rights are expiring next year. And in a recent interview, Saul Zaentz — to whom the rights will default — suggested that PJ has been stalling until this happens, knowing that he can just buy the rights himself and make the movie on his own terms. If anything, Zaentz seems tickled with the idea. So no wonder New Line is in such a damned rush! And given that, whatever happens to New Line’s options, MGM will still hold its half of the rights… well, hey. No wonder they’re so much more willing to wait and negotiate.

So basically it sounds like PJ’s involvement all depends on whether New Line can force the issue within the next twelve months or so. If they do, he’s probably out and they’ll be forced to make the movie by whatever means necessary, whatever the outcome. Though I don’t know if MGM will allow that. So. Yeah, New Line’s in an unwinnable situation here. Thus, desperate inanity.



“I feel like I’m in a John Hughes rite du passage movie”

Something curious about Wayne’s World is that, whereas most movies expanded from TV shows or skits throw the main characters into a situation where the goofy yet courageous heroes have to preserve [x] from the sleazy [corporate/bureaucratic/criminal something], in this case most of Wayne’s problems are entirely his own fault. They come out of the same character traits that put him in an endless string of food service jobs, living out of his parents’ house, wishing he could make something out of his life. These in turn simply the downside of the same traits that make him so charming and fun to be around in the short term.

Which, come to think of it, is a similar situation to the one in The Big Lebowski. And collectively (both as a unit and within that unit), to the main characters in The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. And even, yes, to Charlie Kaufman’s protagonists (despite the existential crisis in Adaptation). The qualities that make the characters distinctive and interesting to watch are also those that make them vulnerable; a strong character-based plot (and every plot is to some extent character-based) explores the positive and negative qualities of those traits, first by ingratiating the characters then by showing how those qualities we admire allow them to screw up, then showing how, when applied correctly, those traits can in some way redeem the characters. It’s pretty much scriptwriting 101, of course; the nature of a character arc. Still, there you go.

On an essential level, that’s what we’re there to experience: people who are redeemable fuckups, whose power for redemption comes from the same quality that makes them weak. The question, of course, is where to draw the line: how fatal, exactly, is that fatal flaw? It all depends on the character, and the traits in question — which is basically the point. As all stories are character-based (even if that character is nonliving or even nonphysical), a satisfying story comes entirely out of those characters’ characters. And there’s very little contrived about Wayne’s World; it’s a solid, honest, well-told story. For the movie’s origin and premise, this is pretty unusual! It comes through allowing the character to indeed be fuckups, rather than putting them on a pedestal where they can do no wrong and all the world’s ills befall them in spite of their best efforts.

Then Wayne’s World 2 finds the main cast again in a rut, basically relying on the same shortcuts that got them through life last time we saw them — only now they’re a little older, and the world is a little bigger, and none of their tricks are working anymore. If anything, they’re backfiring on a basic level. Taking the whole plot into account, they’re backfiring on a scale grander and deeper than is immediately obvious — which is sort of the whole point to the movie, and the reason for most of its awkward humor. Part of the reason the movie maybe isn’t so easy to like as the first one is that it portrays its characters as even less effectual than before. None of the character traits we’re there to see are doing the protagonists much good. The movie is basically chiding them for not learning their lesson last time, and giving them one last lesson by showing them the results of their lack of development. (Sort of an Ebenezer Scrooge thing.) It’s a really good coda, though — and an appropriate one, given the characters.



Shadow People

I’ve written this up a few times before, though I can’t find it offhand.

I grew up in an at-least-hundred-year-old-at-the-time house in rural Maine, at the end of a short dead end street by a lake. Originally it was a sort of an “in patient” cottage for the doctor who lived in the big house nearby; for over a century, until Dr. Van Wart died a few years back, there was always a doctor there; originally our property belonged to Dr. Van Wart; he split it off a while before my parents bought it, resulting in a pretty big, strangely shaped piece of property and an old house that had seen many modifications since its original construction. If you wander around and look closely, you can piece together how the house must have evolved — walls getting taken out here, rooms being extended or added there, each alteration being very much of its era and not matching anything else.

For nearly the entire time I lived there — from my birth in late 1978 to when I left for San Francisco in early 2004, a little over twenty-five years — I had a history, kept wholly to myself until toward the end — of seeing, and feeling… things. Black, shadowy human forms. Usually hunched over, staring at me. Sometimes, rarely, with (yes) red glowing eyes. It’s not like they were always around; I might go years between seeing them, or I might go weeks.

There were a few particular trouble spots where I saw them more frequently, in particular the room that used to be my parents’ room when I was very small, then became “the book room” when they moved to a new bedroom they added. My father just stacked boxes and boxes of paperback novels in there, mostly sci-fi and horror, to gather dust and silverfish; the walls, typically, were lined with bookshelves filled with two layers of books per shelf. One side of the room was assorted with old dolls (which probably didn’t help in the creep factor), and in the center was an old four-poster. When I graduated from high school, and was attending the local University branch, I cleaned out that room and wholly decorated it with my own nonsense, moving out from my shoebox-sized room I’d had since I was born. The door was also repaired of its enormous hole, formed sometime before I was aware from my father punching a panel out of it.

So. There was that room, and there was the “old basement” — the section that lay under the original part of the house, as compared to the newish, kind of bland and soggy section under the kitchen. Then there was the living room, in particular the corner by a bay window; it’s become obvious that this was a different room from the back half of the living room — probably a bedroom. Finally, there’s the hallway from the kitchen, past the bathroom, to what eventually became my mother’s study and which probably started off as a separate shed.

The first time I saw one of them, that I can remember, was when I was about three; I was lying in my parents’ bed, and the door was open such that I could see though the missing panel. I lay there a long time, adjusting to the dark, when out of the corner of my eye I caught a shape; I turned to look through the frame of the panel and there was the head and torso of an adult man — or the silhouette of one, anyway — leaning forward slightly, staring at me, with somehow darker pits (despite the entire thing being shadow) for eyes. For a long time I just lay there, confused and nervous, and it just kept staring, shifting slightly. I think I asked my mother about it; she was asleep, and unreponsive aside from a mumble. Eventually I chose to ignore it and went to sleep myself.

I rarely went into that room after my parents moved out of it, as it had sort of a forbidding air. During the “book room” era it became a makeshift guest room, and in the rare occasions someone actually visited and stayed over, I would invariably hear comment about how unnerved they were by the room; how hard it was to get to sleep, as the guests felt so creeped out. Later when I moved into the room, and stayed up late at the computer in a darkened room, or entered the room in the dark (or dim; the light wasn’t very good anyway), or lay in bed thinking, I would feel something — and when I turned, there was the shape again. Sometimes its face was inches from my own. Once or twice there were the red eyes. And I was THE HELL out of my room, whenever that happened — and so went the search for someplace in the house that felt safe.

As it turned out, that usually meant the newer sections. It’s weird, as I didn’t actually work out which were the new and which were the old parts until long after I figured where the “safe” and “unsafe” parts were. Maybe it’s obvious in retrospect, though hey; I grew up there. I didn’t have the perspective to see how the place was assembled. At any rate, all the “unsafe” areas were parts of the house that were definitely there from the beginning.

Occasionally I’d get a bit of weirdness from the hallway and living room, as mentioned, though nothing quite so intimidating as the bedroom. And to be perfectly honest, I never in my life went all the way into the old cellar; it was too forbidding. It was almost like there was a physical barrier. Like the air got thicker and every step closer got smaller until I had to come to a stop. I’ve talked to my older sister; she also says she never once went in there in the years she lived in the house. On a few occasions she was asked to go in to fetch something and she outright refused.

Now. Before I get into the real story, here’s a little anecdote that might have nothing to do with anything. It was… maybe about ten or fifteen years ago; my parents and I were all sitting in the living room, on a hot summer evening. At the time I stored all of my console stuff in an old glass-doored stereo cabinet that was jammed over by the bay window I mentioned. We were watching television; I might have been fiddling with something. At any rate, none of us were anywhere near that corner of the room — and then suddenly there was a tremendous crash. The glass door to the record cabinet EXPLODED outward, apparently of its own accord. The glass pellets reached in perhaps a four-foot arc around the front, and they… fizzled. After landing, they kept popping and jumping around and settling, as if they were carbonated. We were all basically just perplexed; I was asked to clean up the glass. I have always considered this event a little peculiar.

So. Sometime not too long before I came out here — maybe 2002, 2003 — I was sitting in my room, doing something or other, when my mother came running up and banged on the door. She said she had just been in the new part of the cellar, and as she turned around to face the doorway to the old part she saw a form way at the other end — a hunched-over black shape, staring at her. She wigged out and threw something at it, then ran upstairs and locked the cellar.

She only had to explain about half of it. When she got to describing the shape, I contributed: “looks like a man? Hunched over? Feels like he’s angry at you?” And… yeah. That was exactly it. Later I realized that that part of the cellar — which, again, is the most dangerous-feeling part of the house — is immediately below the part of the living room where the record cabinet had stood back then, and that in turn is immediately below what was then my bedroom. So. Huh.

Now the thing is, this was the first time I mentioned the things to anyone; I always chalked it up to my own imagination. This, however — this was sort of interesting. She got sufficiently unnerved that she asked a priest to bless the house, in particular the “problem areas”. I admit I didn’t feel any of the weird tension that had always been in the house, or see any more of these things, before I left — though that doesn’t necessarily mean anything.



Defining the Next Generation

by Eric-Jon Rössel Waugh

This article was originally intended as a conclusion to NextGen’s 2006 TGS coverage. Then it got held back for two months as an event piece. By the time it saw publication its window had sort of expired, so a significantly edited version went up under the title “What The New Consoles Really Mean”.

So we’re practically there. TGS is well over, the pre-orders have begun; Microsoft’s system has already been out for a year (and is now graced with a few excellent or important games). The generation is right on the verge of turning, and all those expensive electronics you’ve been monitoring for the last few years, half dreading out of thriftiness and secret knowledge that there won’t be anything good on them for a year anyway, will become the new status quo. Immediately the needle will jump and point at a new horizon, set around 2011, and everyone will start twiddling his thumbs again. By the time the drama and dreams resume, I’ll be in my early thirties, another American president will have served nearly a full term – and for the first time in my life I really can’t predict what videogames will be like.

( Continue reading )