Thursday 30 July 2009

Animation Sketches


























One of the many projects I'm working on is a short animation / comic strip. I thought you might like to see a couple of early sketches.

These are only early starts but I'm working on building up a style. And this is the bad guy, or at least an early version of him...



Tuesday 28 July 2009

Watchmen Film and comic review

People probably won't like me for saying this, by people I mean Zack Snyder, but I didn't see the watchmen film in the cinema. Why you may ask, if you happen to be reading this which I don't think anyone does, it was because I didn't have the money. I knew I was going to get the DVD so there wasn't much point. I'm going to do the same thing with the GI Joe movie. I'd like to see it in the great big screen but I don't have the money or the free time.

So a quick review of the original graphic novel:- It's stunning. (Quick enough for you?)
It is well written and structured fantastically, not just from a literal standpoint but artistically. You can't just read it once, there are visual clues throughout the book that call back to previous pages. Events for one character mirror events elsewhere that have no real connection. There's a whole sub-plot revolving around pirates and a marooned cannibal that just comes out of nowhere. To be honest I don't know why I'm telling you all this, if you don't already own a copy I can't implore you enough to go out an get hold of one.
Read it, there's a good reason why it's the first "Graphic Novel" and not a comic book collection.
There are two main themes at the heart of this story. The first is reflection. Everything involved, everything you see and read, is a reflection of something else. A reflection of the past, of the future, of the script, of a blood splatter, of the cold war, of ourselves. I could just go on, but I won't, you get the message.
The second is it's moral, spoilers here but Adrian's plan is designed to save the world from itself. He does this by, believe it or not, by faking an alien invasion from another dimension on the eve of global nuclear war (this comic does not do things by halves!) He does this by getting rid of all the superheroes (or "Masks") so that they can't stop him from teleporting a genetically engineered Squid into the the centre of New York. Killing everyone there. The outrage and fear of attack unites humanity.
This plan amazingly works and we end with the moral, finally. Is it morally right to let the ends justify the means? Think about it. This guy kills millions in one fell swoop, but the result is saving billions. Did he do the right thing?
In the end this moral quandary it's far too big an issue for the surviving Masks and they just fall into shock and apathy. All but the anti-hero Rorschach, who is killed for his refusal to compromise. This is a difficult question to describe let alone answer, so it's no wonder we don't get one. Instead it's left to us to answer. A nice twist, the ending is left to us with the final frame of Rorschach's memoirs, will they reveal the truth? Do we want them to? Should they? Geeks still debate this today and while most like to think Rorschach wins you have to ask what will be the repercussions.
In all this is a stunning book and if you do own it you should re read it NOW.

So what of the movie? Well there's a large problem from the outset. There is no way you can fit everything from the book into a two and a half hour movie. You have to leave bits out. The loss of the pirates is fine, it's a narrative indulgence we can survive without. But what is lost with that is half the really good imagery, the stuff that made a movie a good idea.
Narrative short cuts are also strange, there is a lot dramatic licence taken with the original. I could buy that it was to remove some of the more graphic brutality from the film, but then there's nudity and bloodshed everywhere you turn. They also go into great detail with the rape sequence, which could have been handled with care but instead is handled with a brutality that is needless. When it's rape and I think it feels overly brutal that's worrying. compare that to editing out Hollis Mason, the first night owl. In the book he is killed by an uninformed street gang high on drugs. In the film he just vanishes.
This is my real problem with this film, too much was lost. Almost all of the more cerebral elements were also thrown out. The point of re-reading the book even years later is you see something new, or old from a new angle how it does that I don't know. I've tried watching Watchmen three times now and I don't really get anything I didn't the first time.

However there is three things that make this film bad. and I wish I didn't have to point these out. First, slap bang in the middle of the film we have President "Nixon" (who looks nothing like Nixon) in a big black studio room with a round table and giant screens around the over lit heads of government departments. Everyone has a phone and they are discussing nuclear war. Sorry that's Dr Strangelove, one of the best black comedies ever made. I don't care if it's based on actual records or a homage, use the classic people gathered around a computer screen trick. It's better for the plot and not reminding us of a much better film.
Second; the director slavishly follows the art of the comic book, going as far as to frame every shot perfectly. Sorry I've read the comic book, I know this, I've seen it before. If I wanted the Comic in video form I'd scan it into my computer and do a Powerpoint presentation (that might be fun actually). As much as V for Vendetta was unfaithful to the original comic (again by Moore, what is it with Hollywood missing the point of his comics and pissing this genius writer off?) you could separate it from the source material and call it a good movie on it's own merits. Unlike Watchmen that is far too faithful to the original, to the point that it is utterly pointless and you should just READ THE BOOK!
Third is a paradox. After slavishly following the story, what it shows of it, it's like they lost the last act and just read the end of the plot from Wiki. Making Manhattan appear to be the bad guy is just stupid. What are the governments of the world going to do? Attack a man that can rearrange matter on the atomic level? No they think he is a God and will punish them if they are bad. So they live in fear... Fear of a faceless entity that could attack anywhere... and the centre of New York is destroyed ... I can't think what that's reference to... (all right yes I can and I ain't touching that with a barge pole)

The plain fact is at the end of the day this film is just ridiculous, it could have worked. New angles and fresh perspectives years later. It wouldn't have been the original but it would have been an interesting take. This movie was made pointless because it brought NOTHING new to the story. Unlike, as I mentioned earlier V for Vendetta. If you want to see Watchmen read a graphic medium, don't spend millions recreating something that has already been done brilliantly the first time.
Did we learn nothing from the 1998 Psycho remake?

Coming soon Part 2
Why Watchmen's ending just doesn't work...

Wednesday 22 July 2009

Causing mental PAIN

Still some how better than Episode 1:

Wednesday 15 July 2009

Torchwood, review

What can one say about Torchwood? I think Charlie Brooker put it best:- "It's a school kid that's stayed up past its bed time." I agree, all the rudeness and silliness comes off like a bunch of children, choking on cigarettes behind the bike shed while flicking through their older brothers' dirty magazines.
It's obsession with being "adult" is, ironically, childish. When it does touch adult issues it's handled with comedic effect and then forgotten about a couple of episodes later. Unless it's part of the arc plot, in which case you'll never hear the end of it. Take season 2, the main arcs were "Owen's dead" and "Jack's brother is back" and we never heard the end of it. Owen whining that he was dead became more annoying than the critical character development it started off as.

This brings us to Torchwood's second problem. In the first season you really wanted Owen, Ianto and Tosh to be written out. Maybe not drastically killed but, like Martha Jones, put out to pasture. You could call on them later, but they were far too two dimensional to care about or like. I even joked about hitting them with an ice cream truck (it would have been funny... at least funnier than the "jokes" from the first year). I wasn't the only one, a lot of people called out for better characters.
So what did they do in the writers office? Listen to us of course, they developed Owen, Tosh and Ianto into people practically over night. Ianto became a wise cracking assistant who was confused about his sexuality. Owen, after having his heart broken, gave up chasing every woman he came across and became a sensitive and caring man who you actually liked. Tosh, while still chasing Owen, became more rounded. More than just "scanner girl" she became mistress of computers(!), hacking her way though government secrets with skill and when that failed cooking up plans that were almost frighteningly simple in their brutality.
Oh and then they killed the lot off as well.
When you kill a character, especially one you've spent so much effort in making us like, you want some sort of emotional impact. That's why you do it one at a time, give us chance to adjust to the new dynamic before butchering the next one. More importantly have a reason, not just angst for the main characters. A heroic sacrifice saving thousands. The death of a character is the end of a story and the start of the next one, not a obstacle to be overcome.

So we know the two biggest problems with Torchwood. Let's take a look at it's latest offering Children of Earth. The five hour long mini-series in place of the third year. In effect it was a five hour episode, a reminder of the 60's Doctor Who adventures that would go on for hours. Unfortunately those shows were better. An independent script editor could have cast a glance over Children of Earth and cut it down to three episodes, with work you might even get it down to two (at the end of a season, after dropping hints as part of an arc). That works out at about three hours worth of padding out of five in total. Painful to sit though and pumping the extremely basic story out to the EPIC length you'd expect a better one to be.
Sort of like novel-cuisine, there is so little development you think every last piece is an act of genius, wanting more because what you had was so small (sort of like the second series of Heroes, but I digress).
Eventually after three days we learn what is happening. Great in film time where days can pass in minutes not in "real time". Waiting three hours for some sort of logical story is not thrilling or dramatically interesting. It's boring.
Keeping your leads in the dark is a good way to keep things dramatically interesting. Keeping you in the dark builds tension. Both, at the same time? You end up shouting at the screen for something, anything. The smallest morsel of plot. Development, something other than the government acting like collective arseholes.
So in the last hour or so we get it. One massive roller-coaster of plot twists, life changing decisions and break neck turns. Lets look at them:-

Killing Ianto. After the most useless character (introduced as some sort of unrealised homosexual foil for Jack's libido) became one of the best and most well liked they kill him in this. I know the writer was probably aiming for a Doyle (from Angel) like sacrifice but it felt more like Tara from Buffy. I can't think of a single Buffy fan that didn't like the stuttering, shy, lesbian witch. She was brilliant and the actress pulled it off brilliantly. The same can be said for Ianto, after the first season. Everyone thought it was a bad idea to kill off Tara, despite the massive bucket load of character development you got out of it. Ianto's death did nothing, nothing that couldn't be achieved elsewhere. Slap bang at the end of episode 4 he dies from a virus. Showing us what would happen if they don't give in to the alien demands. Yes it illustrates a point, but the same could be done with the death of everyone in the building but Ianto and Jack. Jack's later angst could have been achieved with continuing development of everyone involved. Ianto's death was pointless and should never have happened. Simple as that.

Steven, Jack's grandson, again dying. In the constrains of the plot it made sense. It's a wonderfully dramatic moment and it should have been interesting. Instead it fell short on two points. The first was we've only just met this kid and there's been so little about him we don't know or care. He's been a background character all five hours and when he was on screen he was a millstone around Jack's neck. Next when you sacrifice one person for thousands, mathematically it works. This is true, however morally it is wrong. To correct this problem would have taken all of one scene. It would have been an emotional kick in the teeth and need some good acting. In summery Steven knows what is happening and what is being asked of him. With tears in his eyes he agrees to die. A willing sacrifice. All the moral problems are solved and it would resonate through out the whole dam show.

Finally Jack Harkness. This man has lived for how long now? I'm only 23 but I know that running away from your problems never solve them. Just leaves them to fester. Deal with an "issue" as soon as they come up and you can move on. Otherwise you're stuck in a never ending cycle. Or to put it simply:- 'You can't run away from your problems.' So what does Jack try and do? Run away from his problems. What a idiot.

Torchwood, like every product of a hackneyed writer in the history of speculative fiction, pulls out the death card whenever any sort of development is needed. Life is far more than that, go out live something... anything! I don't really care as long as the Grim Reaper can have a holiday.

So what did I learn from Torchwood Children of Earth. Quite a bit actually. From a writers stand point I learnt what not to do and how not to do it. From a moral standpoint I learnt all the wrong lessons and finally I learnt that if you're a government official you are selfish, egotistical and only out for your own back, but I knew all that already.

If I had to give it a score it would have to be 2 out of 5. The acting was good, the effects top notch and as always some character development. Just the over all plot and it's titanic holes that you fall through. Early on I would defend Russell T. Davis because the characters were good, they sucked you in and suspension of disbelief was easy. Unfortunately that isn't the case anymore and I'm glad he's left Dr Who. Roll on next year and it's fresh outlook.