A brief open letter concerning WATCHMEN

To the studios: please don't short your future comic-based properties based on the drop-off in WATCHMEN grosses in the second week. Those of who you thought it would pull in $70M got caught up in the excitement and forgot to factor in that it's an R-rated picture with a 2:40 run-time whose core audience are the hard-core comic book fans. The fact it pulled in $55.2M on a non-holiday weekend with those strictures is pretty cool. Between the IMAX release pulling in second-time viewers (such as myself) and the inevitable waves of DVD releases this will likely make money.

(the Fox settlement and issues with certain producers aside.)

To the hater-fanboys: Please shut up about how the movie wasn't exactly like the comic book. You finally got the most faithful adaptation of a comic book you're ever going to get. Endless anonymous online whining about how it didn't capture every nuance of the comic is pointless and ultimately self-defeating. We all know how complex and involved the entirety of the original comic is, and we all should be grown-up enough to understand there's no way a movie can accomplish everything. I flipped through my copy of the trade-paperback when I got back home on opening night, and realized just how much of that comic is really in the screen story. It's amazing, really, particularly if you know anything about the Hollywood development process. If you care about future adaptations, please shut up.

Having said that: be sure to check out the inevitable super-extended DVD which will include the screen story from the theatrical release spliced in with Tales of the Black Freighter and Under The Hood. That will be as close as any movie will ever get to capturing the entirety of that seminal work.

To the fans that enjoyed WATCHMEN: tell your friends. Let them know this is based on a comic so well-written and complex it made TIME Magazine's list of 20 greatest novels of the 20th century. It's been a major influence across the world of comics and in turn the rest of the popular media ever since it debuted in 1986. Help get them interested enough to buy the trade-paperback so we can boost comic sales. Maybe get a few folks to give comics another try.

You should probably also warn them not to take their kids. This is an R-rated movie based on a comic book written for adults with adult-themes and mature subject matter. And a glowing blue man who runs around naked for most of the movie (wearing clothes far less often than he did in the comic, I noticed).

Roy Pearson needs a PR make-over

What could possibly make you a bigger *sshole than filing a $67 million suit against a dry cleaners over a pair of pants?

An appeal.

Roy Pearson, d*ckhead emeritus, returns. From CNN.com: The $54 million pants suit unravels again.

(the initial suit was for $67M, lowered to $54M during the previous fiasco)

I love this speech

It's b een a while since I've posted. Busy with work for the day-job and rewriting the beat outline for my current feature. The story is solid, and I'm making the female lead younger, fine-tuning some logistics in the second act, and accepting the fact I'm writing an action/horror movie. I resisted calling it that for a while because "supernatural action" sounded cooler and I didn't want to think of it as a horror movie. However, focusing in on my relevant genres has proven helpful and I'm looking forward to really getting into the thick of the script.

In the meantime, I offer the following for your consideration.



(from ROCKY BALBOA, an outstanding movie I highly recommend.)

Vote No on Proposition 8

There's been quite a lot of discussion in California about Proposition 8, which is intended to alter the State Constitution to define marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman. Those of you in the audience who already know about Prop. 8 may remember its predecessor, Prop. 22, one of the so-called "defense of marriage" acts that have been on many ballots around these United States. Prop. 22 had major backing from religious groups, particularly among Catholic and Mormon voters. Prop. 22 passed, but was challenged in court and ruled unconstitutional. Predictably, these same interests opted to change the state constitution itself and thus the current Prop. 8 was born.

Prop. 8 is a crock. If you're a registered voter in the state of California, please vote "No" on it.

Here's why...

There is no rational argument to deny same-sex couples the right to marriage and all the civil and legal benefits that accompany that commitment. When approached from a rational secular perspective, it's clearly obvious that society has more to gain by accepting the idea of same-sex marriage and granting same-sex couples the same rights and protections that a mixed-gender marriage enjoys. Those who promote the family as the building block of society are correct; they also often fail to take that argument through to its logical conclusion. A same-sex marriage can also be the basis of a family which also strengthens society. They'll buy homes, appliances, cars, and send their children to schools and universities just the same as "traditional" married couples.

I have friends on both sides of this debate. Some of my friends have religious upbringings and maintain that same-sex marriage runs counter to their beliefs and the traditional definitions of marriage. On the opposite side of that argument are friends who want to get married to another consenting adult who happens to be of the same gender.

Those who oppose same-sex marriage all clearly believe that marriage should continue to be what it was: one man married to one woman. The simple and obvious counter to that argument is each and every one of the other former "traditions" which have fallen by the wayside as society advanced, ranging from slavery to suffrage. We used to be able to own other people. Now, slavery is illegal in the industrial and civilized world. Women used to not be able to own property, get a higher education, or vote. Now they can do all three in Western cultures. Therefore, the status of a pattern of behavior as "tradition" does not ensure that such behavior continues in perpetuity. Times, people, and societies change.

Today the argument of those opposed to same-sex marriage appears to have shifted. Now there is a perceived homosexual "agenda" to be considered; some vaguely defined "slippery slope" which must be avoided and denying same-sex couples the right to wed somehow stems that tide. Any slippery-slope argument is by nature a sophistic one: by elaborating what the top and bottom of said slope are you've defined the inherent dangers and in so doing established what consequences could await. By showing their is a slope, you've ensured we won't slide down it.

Ultimately, those who are in favor of Prop. 8 and against same-sex marriage fall back to a belief as to what marriage "should be" and that belief more often than not stems from a religious philosophy. This, gentle reader, is why Prop. 8 is a crock: what its proponents will not cop to is the religious component of their belief. Because if they did, they would be tacitly (and ironically) admitting they're in favor of violating the First Amendment; the same freedom of religion that they enjoy also applies to those of a different belief, or even no religious beliefs whatsoever. That's right, the First Amendment protects atheists, too. Because it protects the freedom to choose and worship as you see fit. Even if that's as a Pastafarian.

In case that explanation was too convoluted, here's an example. Let's say a coalition of Jews and Muslims got together to introduce a proposition to ban pork sales. They believe pork is bad, pigs are filthy animals, and that nobody should be eating them. The problem is that those beliefs come from their religion, and only really applies to members of that religion. I'm neither Jewish nor a Muslim, so I get to eat bacon.

So please, on November 4, vote no on Prop. 8 if you're a registered voter in California. Because it has nothing to do with the so-called sanctity of marriage. It's a religious belief being forced on those who do not follow those religions. And that is clearly against the US Constitution and common sense.

Whither hatred?

There's a very disturbing trend in our nation, particularly tied into politics, policy, and presidential campaigns. It's not enough for a lot of people to simply disagree with a candidate's position or platform, the level enmity expressed by a great many people in this nation seems to require the demonization of the perceived enemy.

I've seen quite a lot of propaganda here on the Interwebs, from both ends of the political spectrum, and am amazed the level of vitriol and sheer spite leveled at the other side. What happened to a rational intellectual discussion of the issues and policies? When did it become so invested in the absolute destruction of The Other?

I'm sightly right of Center politically, and believe in fiscal responsibility, national security, and a more socially liberal position than the average Republican (pro choice, in favor of same-sex marriage, etc). I probably won't vote for Senator Obama because I disagree with his proposed strategies and I don't think he's a sound choice when it comes to national security and foreign policy.

That's it.

I don't demonize the man. I don't vilify him. I don't post cartoons or captioned photos that lash out with a degree of dehumanization that surpasses the most loathsome examples from World War II. I just don't agree with him politically. I don't have a problem with my fellow voting Americans who choose to vote for him. I don't rip down Obama/Biden yard signs or vandalize vehicles that sport Obama bumper stickers. I don't understand the mindset of people who feel those things are appropriate, helpful, or necessary, regardless of political affiliation.

When did it come down to destroying the person you don't agree with?

Why can't we simply respect that the other person has a different opinion or vision and get on with our lives?

Where does this necessity to extirpate those not of our own views come from?

I don't ask this to embroil any of us into a lengthy political discussion unlikely to change minds at this late date. By now everyone knows who they're going to vote for and is armed to the teeth with talking points to support that position. I ask these questions to invite introspection amongst ourselves as a nation, a culture, and as a people to find the source of this internal venom and to perhaps end the sheer hatred that clearly divides us.

I don't expect this single post to change anything; it would be nice if it got people thinking.

The Matrix is always greener...

Any time I feel a little down or bummed about where I am or my perceived place in the world, I remind myself about a scene from THE MATRIX. Morpheus, Trinity and Neo enter a subway station inside The Matrix, and there's a homeless bum sleeping on a bench with a bottle tucked inside a plastic bag. The bum is soon taken over by Agent Smith who proceeds to duel Neo.

It's a small bit, easily forgotten in the fight scene that ensues. However, when you put it into the context of the Matrix itself, you gain an appreciation of your life in the real world. Not only was that guy actually hooked up in a power-plant which fuels the AI-driven robots that have enslaved humanity, which is bad enough, while he lives out his days in a digital hallucination...

His lot in that fake world: he's a bum.

So whenever you feel down, just remember that bum in The Matrix. At least you're not that guy.

---

(Yes, HBO is showing THE MATRIX again. Often.)

Long time, no post.

Worst. Blogger. Ever.

I know.

Between the day job, Comic Con, THE DARK KNIGHT (can't gush enough about that one — see it in IMAX!), things are going a mile a minute here at the ranch.

The current plan is to get back to work on my feature screenplays. One is in the outline stage, with its second act bugs worked out in theory. A rewrite of that outline and first draft are next up. After that, a period drama that I think would be a solid entry into the Nichol Fellowship next May.

I'm still also toying with TV specs. I'd love to do a "Dexter" though it won't be the same without Doakes.

Oh, and if you haven't seen seasons two of "Dexter"... sorry.

Back to the grindstone...