Telling A Story Through Birds

Birds are generally positive creatures. They symbolize things such as the connection between the sky and the land, the heaven and the earth, offering a spiritual explanation for the bird’s presence. When their wings are spread and they are soaring through the air, they also symbolize eternal life and freedom. 

But could they be used to symbolize something much more specific? Could film directors use birds as another outlet for expression? 

The answer is yes.

And I'll explain how.     

Let's refer to this symbolism through birds as "Birdolism." There are two films that stick out to me indefinitely when it comes to Birdolism. The first:

Kung Fu Panda 2

Kung Fu Panda has to be one of my favorite movies in which the protagonist is a panda. There are plenty of animals that are personified throughout the movie but one in particular sticks out to me, and that is of course, the antagonist, Lord Shen

Lord Shen is white peacock that believes he is an unstoppable force. The peacock represents divinity, rank and power, while the color white symbolizes death in Chinese culture, making him a very intimating bad guy in my opinion.

Another childhood classic:

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone

A great film that reaches out to the deepest parts of every kid's imagination. A place with magic, adventure, risks and rewards. But we can't forget about one of Harry's strongest friendships while at Hogwarts, and of course I'm talking about Hedwig:

The wise owl. Nothing embodies freedom better than the owl. A wise and majestic creature that can turn its head almost 360 degrees (270 to be exact). Although the owl seems like a bird that could never be tamed, Hedwig decides to pledge his allegiance to Harry, thus creating one of the strongest friendships Harry makes while at Hogwarts.

So I'm thinking that I would like to take some of this Birdolism and sprinkle it into The Birdwatcherwatcher. Ithaca is a great location to spot all kinds of birds.

For instance:

The Hooded Merganser, a beautiful duck. Although this is a very small species of duck. Its darkened fur on its head and back almost look like a mask, giving off a mischievous vibe maybe? Or even evil?

Or maybe we could put a Red Winged Blackbird in:

His bright red epaulettes are used to attract females and to keep his territory free of other males. Their red blotched wings could possibly birdolize aggression or perhaps even danger.

Ithaca has a great resource of birds that can definitely be utilized to our advantage. 

Coming Soon To A Theater Near You: Fantastic Beasts And Where To Find Them

This is "Fantastic Beasts And Where To Find Them," a textbook that exists in the wizarding world of Harry Potter. It was released physically to our muggle world before all seven of J.K. Rowling's famous novels were even published. More importantly, it's been known that this is becoming a screenplay for a soon to be trilogy! 

The goddess herself Ms.Rowling is the obvious trusted screenwriter for this project. The story will take place 70 years before Harry receives his Hogwarts letter. However, it's salient to mention that this is not a prequel nor sequel to the Harry Potter franchise, it simply is inspired by and branches off of the world introduced by the wizarding world. We'll follow Newt Scamander, the author of this beast book, as he is among fellow witches and wizards in a New York City underground magic community. Supposedly, three films are to come from this, below is the teaser that's been released:

Apparently, it was Warner Bros who suggested the idea in the first place. For that, I couldn't thank them more. I crave the expansion of this fictional magical world. Personally, I'm excited for the time period these films will be taking place in. The protagonist, Newt, was theoretically born in 1897. I'm interested to see Rowling write for/around this period. Assumedly, it'll be wonderfully executed. But you never know, right? 

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 

Another aspect my fingers are crossed for to be covered is Newts name appearing on the Mauraders Map in the 3rd film, Harry Potter and The Prisoner of Azkaban. (Anyone else notice that?) I can safely assume it has something to do with Hagrid and his hippogriff. Perhaps Dumbledore will make an appearance within the trilogy. Perhaps hints at familiar aspects of this world will pop up a number of times. I'm not sure what to expect, but riddle me stoked.

David Yates, a Potter alum, has confirmed to direct the first installment which is expected to be released November 18th,  2016. The rest will follow in 2018 and 2020. Buckle your seat belts folks, we're about to be hit with some history of this wizarding world that hasn't even been consumed by Hermione Granger herself. 

Movie Making On A Budget

Our first projects have been screened and submitted. Now without a blink of an eye our final films start frolicking into our field of vision. While we all viciously scramble for an idea or a crew, allow me to address the real question, is this all even possible? Perhaps I shall rephrase the concern.

Is this all even possible, on a budget?

I've asked a few of our fellow peers how they're affording their projects and... the response?
"My parents gave me five hundred dollars and the assistant directors parents gave us five hundred dollars."

I don't know about you folks, but my folks, aren't wealthy folks. I had to fight every fiber of my being not to throw my hands in the air and say, "WELL OK, THERE GOES THAT." How can I compete with that? How on Earth can no dollars make a better film than, I don't know, 1,000 of them!?
Certainly there are ways to gather green rectangles rather than calling mom and dad.

Well, well, well for those of you who's fiscal status is mutually not as trust fund-friendly let's embark on a quest entitled: "Film Making With Minimal Financing"
(Brought to you by the various movie making books I've collected and consumed throughout the years and a grand Google search.)

             DO: 

• Host A House Party
• Apply For Grants
• Have A Yard Sale
• Ask Wealthy Friends With Puppy Dog Eyes If They Truly Believe In Cinema

                                               

DON'T:

• Shoot By Yourself/Dysfunctional Crew
• Compare Your Film To Other Films In Preproduction
• I break this rule all of the time though I've read it EVERYWHERE online AND just as much in the books. It's the toughest one, I admit, but it makes perfect sense if you stop and think about it. Dig deeper and attempt to explain your specific vision. (Stay strong)
• Attempt To Do It For Free/Neglect To Fundraise

My own personal plan?

• Neglect to purchase groceries as often as possible - donate funds to feed friends who sacrificed their weekend to slave away behind viewfinders and omni-peppers
• Ask strangers if they have any change for stamps so you can mail a very important letter (this letter is a lie), repeat on multiple subjects over a course of many days - cash in coins for props
• Bike More - donate saved funds to gas money for crew (This is what I get for choosing to shoot in Philadelphia, PA)

All I can say is, I came here to make movies and I'm going to do whatever it takes to do just that. I didn't let $50,000 (or whatever repulsive amount we spend to go here) stop me from furthering my education in filmmaking, I'm not going to let a fraction of that stop me from actually filmmaking itself. So saddle up crew...

we're making a movie. 

I also stumbled upon a couple of other helpful resources of sorts that might assist others on their own "babies first movie." I shall link those below for your eyeball browsing pleasure:

Feeding Your Crew - TIPS

PreProduction Templates

Film Production "Checklist"

Movie adaptations of books: What works and what doesn't?

It seems like almost all movies these days are based on something else. In an earlier post I talked about comic book movies, but they aren't the only source material for Hollywood these days. Lots of Hollywood blockbusters are based on popular novels, especially those of the children and young adult genres. But undoubtedly some of these adaptations are better than others. So what works and what doesn't?

Let's start by looking at perhaps the most famous book series adaptation of all time, and what one could argue was the kickstart of the now extremely popular childrens/young adult book adaptation genre.

Harry Potter by J.K. Rowling

Over 400 Million Copies Sold (7 Books)

 $7,723,431,572 Box Office Gross (8 Films)

Harry Potter is without a doubt a cultural phenomena. Harry Potter is one of the most successful book series of all time, has been sold in over 200 countries, translated in 68 languages and sold over 400 copies. The film adaptations are the highest grossing film series of all time. There are few people who haven't seen a Harry Potter film, and even fewer who have never heard of the character at all. There is even a Harry Potter theme park in Universal Studios, Orlando.   

The films are mostly well reviewed, especially the final installment, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2, which has a 96% positive review rating on Rotten Tomatoes. (And is personally one of my favorite films of all time, but that's besides the point)

So what works about the Harry Potter films? Well for starters there is an extreme respect and seriousness for the source material. It would be easy to make these movies all flash, or even hokey, but there is a great respect for the characters and the world of the books. Yet Harry Potter is easy to respect. It may be a children's series about a boy wizard, but the core of the story is about the casualties of war and dealing with death and loss. 

Not all books are as profound as Harry Potter. When you don't have good source material, it's hard to make a good adaptation. Which brings me unfortunately to my next example. 

Twilight by Stephenie Meyer

Over 100 Million Copies Sold (4 Books)

 $3,345,177,904 Box Office Gross (5 Films) 

Oh god, oh god why. Why did this franchise make so much money? Okay. Alright. I have a confession to make. I have read the Twilight books. Oh god, there I said it. (I was in 7th grade don't judge me.) However, and don't shoot me here, while they are in no way good books they are still 1,000 times better than their movie counterparts. 

The first Twilight movie is literally awful, it's honestly painful to sit through. The script is awful, the acting is awful, the special effects are awful, EVERYTHING about it is awful. To give the filmmakers some credit here, they didn't have much to work with. Unlike Harry Potter, the themes of Twilight involve enteral love on a scarily codependent psychological level. 

Yet still these films were extremely successful. So if quality doesn't matter, what is it that makes people flock to see novel based films? Well, what is it that the Harry Potter and Twilight films have in common?  Not much, but one of the few things both films do is closely follow their source material. Which brings me to my next point.

Percy Jackson and the Olympians by Rick Riordan

Over 20 Million Copies Sold (5 Books)

$430 million Box Office Gross (2 Movies)

Now I personally have not read the Percy Jackson and Olympians series, nor seen the films. I do know however, that fans of the series were widely disappointed with the film adaptations of the novels. The reason for the largely negative reaction from fans being that so much of the plot and events of the books are changed in the films. As a result, while the movies weren't box office disasters they also weren't nearly as successful as the Harry Potter or Twilight films, as they might have had the potential to be.

However, one must note that critics gave the films largely negative reviews as well. The first film currently holds a 49% positivity rating on Rotten Tomatoes, while the second an even lower 41%. So perhaps there is more going on here than simply disappointed fans. 

To continue this point, there are other films that differ from their books source material that still manage to be successful. 

The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins

Over 65 Million Copies Sold in US (3 Books)

$832,678,739 million Box Office Gross (2 Movies)

The Hunger Games is one of the most successful ongoing film franchises. The series was well received by fans and critics alike, especially the second film Catching Fire which currently holds a 89% positivity rating on Rotten Tomatoes. 

There are certain things about the books that were altered for the films. Yet, unlike Percy Jackson, the fans of the Hunger Games don't seem to mind the changes. Perhaps that is because the elements of the story that were changed were changed because they simply could not work in a two hour film version, and not because of laziness or lack of respect for the source material. 

The Hunger Games films are honestly well made films, and can stand alone from their source material as just good films in general. It remains to be seen if the last two films of the franchise will be as successful as the first two, seeing as they will be based on the final book of the series which was largely the most negatively reviewed of the trilogy. 

So what do you think? What is it that makes a film adaptation of a book successful? Is it more important for the film to be good on it's own, or should it follow it's source material as closely as possible? Or does none of this matter, as there will already be a built in audience who will go to see the film regardless of quality? 

Where the Wild Things Went: The Art of Adaptation

"There is no such thing as a new idea." Mark Twain knew it, and Hollywood knows it too. The best you can do is put your own spin on an old tale. Or, you can just realize that you'll never be good enough to think of anything on your own and adapt a piece for the screen.

In all seriousness, there is a true art to adaptation. Taking someone else's work and turning it into a visual and auditory experience is extremely difficult to do successfully. For time's sake, let's talk about books and short stories specifically. There are just as many challenges as there are benefits to adapting a written work into a screenplay. Here are some of the biggest ones:

Challenges:

Condensing/Expanding - So you have a 1000 page novel and somehow you have to turn it into a 120 page screenplay. Or on the contrary, like Spike Jonze, you have a ten sentence children's book and need to pull out a feature length film.

Bye, bye Max...

Where the Wild Things Are, a classic story written and illustrated by Maurice Sendak, is a perfect example of expanding a written work into a film. Jonze had to give each of his character's their own depth, and lengthen the plot to keep the audience's interest for a longer period of time. Almost the entire first act of the film wasn't even in the book, but it was well done and implicitly supplied us with information of Max's home life, and the motivation for the rest of the film.

Externalizing the Internal -  Screenplays consist only of action, whereas novels include the interior thoughts of its characters. The job of the screenwriter is to take the emotions and internal motivations of the characters and translate them into something visual. A great example of this is Lawrence Hauben and Bo Goldman's take of another classic, Ken Kesey's One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. The entire novel is told in the first person from the perspective of one the patients, Chief Bromden. Instead of having Bromden narrate the movie, the screenwriters decided to tell it in the third person so that we can see all of the characters' experiences.

It's a third person party!

Benefits:

Insta-Plot - Most of the work is done for you. The plot, the characters, a lot of research and even some of the dialogue. Although the plot and many of the characters may have to be tweaked due to length and elements added to the story, the main concepts are there. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, the first installment of the Harry Potter film franchise, is known for its loyalty to the novel. 

The Boy Who Adapted

Although there is some criticism that it stuck too closely to the book and didn't offer anything new, it is a good example of staying true to the novel's plot and characters.

Built-In Audience -  Okay, I know I said to stick to novels, but let's consider comic books for a second (that's a book, right?). We've all seen superhero movies. Superman, Batman, Spiderman, the list goes on forever. But these were all adapted from comic books at one point or another. The great thing about producing these films is that you already have a guaranteed number of viewers. Avid comic book readers will pay money to see their favorite heroes come to life on the big screen. This applies to regular books as well. For example, The Hunger Games was extremely successful because of the giant success and following of the novel it was adapted from.

"Shout out to all my fans."

So go out there, find yourself a popular book, and adapt it into a screenplay before anyone else discovers it. Then get yourself to Hollywood and sell it for as much as you can get your hands on. It can't be that hard, right?

Movies based off books

This past weekend I had the good fortune of being able to watch Laz Burhman's version of The Great Gatsby, based off the book by F. Scott Fitzgerald. I personally loved the film because of how over the top it was. I thought the audio was unbelievable and was so well done that I don't think people even caught everything they did unless you watched it twice intentionally listening for things. The one thing that I loved was how the high pitched noise you heard whenever you saw the green light from Daisy's dock was the same exact pitch and most likely derived from the ringing bell of Gatsby's phone. They fade it  together so well at the end that they really over emphasize that it's Daisy he's waiting for to call. It's obvious in the storyline but the sound was just over the top for me. That being said I really enjoyed the movie but my little brother's reaction was completely different. He recently just read the book for his English class and his main problem with it was that it didn't match the book enough for him. Of course I told him that they are two different mediums and it's like comparing a photo to painting and not being happy with the painting because it's not identical to what was really there. This made me think of movies that were based off books and did well and why they did well.









            VS








The first one was Perks Of Being A Wallflower originally a book by Stephen Chbosky who also directed it. That I think was key for it doing so well. The guy who wrote the book was able to be there step by step to make sure the movie did the book justice. I personally thought the book and the movie were pretty similar in quality but that being said it probably isn't fair when the director was the author of the book.

The next one I thought of was the Harry Potter series based of J.K. Rowling's books which had 3 or 4 different directors. To me these movies did not capture the books at all but they weren't bad either. I mean some of them were bad but come one they had 8 movies and for all them to be pretty decent is an accomplishment in itself. I think these movies did well because they focused on the characters and the biggest and most important story in the book, to end the everlasting threat of Lord Voldemort. They did have to cut a lot of minor story lines and scenes out but after experiencing the stress of producing a 16 page fiction one film, approaching a 600+ page book and turning it into a film is daunting.

Finally I thought of the opposite situation of the Harry Potter books and looked at The Hobbit directed by Peter Jackson and based off the book the Hobbit by J.R.R Tolkien. In this movie they added completely new story lines and reasons for the treasure hunt that the book didn't have. After reading the book I completely understood why they did because to me the real reason they went after the dragon was because they wanted some gold. They weren't looking for their old home but they just wanted money and I guess that isn't a completely good moral reason for heroically fighting dragons in Hollywood. And also they added the white Orc which I thought gave a nice conflict through out the film but there was no such character in the book. If you stuck to the book, I personally don't think the story would have fit a movie screen as well because that story wasn't meant for that medium. Leading me back to my original statement in which you shouldn't think a movie is bad because it doesn't match the book it's based off of. The movie is an artistic expression inspired by the book not an identical recreation.

Marvel, The Punisher

"The Dead Can't Be Distracted" is a fan-made film based off of Marvel's character, The Punisher. Unfortunately, we'll never see this film because Marvel recently sent them a letter demanding that they cease all production and distribution:

“While we appreciate your affection for the character, we must demand that you immediately stop your unauthorized use, advertising, sale and/or distribution of any production of The Punisher or any other Marvel character-based films therefor, and any other use of the images, likenesses, artwork or other intellectual property owned by Marvel.”

“Your actions confuse consumers into believing that they are viewing an authentic Marvel production or one sponsored or licensed by Marvel, when they are not.”

“Marvel reserves the right to take whatever remedies are available to it at law and in equity, and shall do whatever best protects its interests.”

(Taken from this blog)

The creator of this film, Mike Pecci, was taken aback by this letter... many fan-made films have be released before. Wonder Woman and Judge Minty (based off of Judge Dredd), to name a couple prominent ones. Like these short films, "The Dead Can't Be Distracted"looks like an incredibly well done independent film. I mean check out this short teaser trailer:

This is no teenager-made film in a basement with a JVC 100 and flashlights. It's clear that he put a lot of time and effort into this. Mike Pecci is a big fan of Marvel and enjoys everything they've released. This made it that much harder when he received a letter from them to halt all production of the film.

On top of this he received full support from Marco Checchetto, the artist of The Punisher comic books, who said quote:

“HOLY SH$T!!!  I'm very impressed!!! I don't know how you did it, but you hit the full atmosphere of my pages!”

(taken from Mike Pecci's blog post)

So why now? 

Fan-based films have been released before, so why did Marvel choose to tackle this one? Marvel said it would confuse their audience, but Pecci clearly states in the film that it's a fan-made piece. It's possible that Marvel has it's eyes on making another Punisher movie soon and wouldn't want it to mesh with their creation. After all, the Avenger series will dry out in another 5 years or so and it seems logical they would then move on to the Marvel's Knights (which includes The Punisher). Regardless of the reason though, this brings light to a bigger issue... 

Greed.

I'm not here to go on a boo-corporate rant. That's not what this is. But recently we have seen an immense increase in audience-made content. Cameras a cheaper, and special effects programs are easier to learn. YouTube and other sites enable videos to be shared with anyone. It's inevitable that the remaking and remixing of ideas will not only continue, but increase. Why? Because people like to see content they're already familiar with. 

Everyone loves the Harry Potter Puppet Pals video because of their familiarity with the world of Harry Potter. The creators of this video didn't come up with Harry Potter but they wrote the song and created the video. Do they deserve recognition for it? I would say so. If they made a revenue, would J.K. Rowling deserve a piece of it? I would say not. I love the woman dearly, but she put in no work for the creation of this video besides providing a stigma of an idea. She wrote her books, and made money off them that she deserved. She also assisted in the creation of all the Harry Potter films produced by Warner Brothers, and I would say she deserved a piece of that revenue too. But what about a Harry Potter board game that she didn't help out with at all? Yes, she provided the idea. But I believe people deserve money for the work they do. And the creation of that board game required no extra effect on her part. 

It goes something like this:

"Hey! They're making money off my idea! I deserve some of that money too!"

It makes sense on the surface, but compared to the work the "idea stealers" put in, did you really DO anything besides come up the idea? Some might say you deserve money for that, but I say you should stop being so greedy and just let the real workers get their pay check. 

Obviously there's a big grey area. It goes on a case by case basis because some "idea stealers" are just in it for the money too. In fact, most probably are. So what we have to bank on is the work they put in for it. The creative, physical, and intellectual work. It's a rough system and it would need a lot of clarification. But the clarification is necessary because this is an issue that is not going away. Yes we are stopping the stealing of ideas with the current system, but we are also stopping a lot of genuine creative talent. That means there's room for improvement. 

Let me bring is back to Marvel real quick. Harry Potter Puppet pals was created with no problem and gained all the attention it deserved. "The Dead Can't Be Distracted", however, will not. And this film is not some cheap viral YouTube video.... there was a cast, crew, and excessive hard work. 

Of course we all understand the value of copyright. Without that protection, there could be no industry. But we're not talking about stealing someone else's property. We're talking about a cooperate machine that owns thousands of characters, most of which were bought from the original artists. This isn't necessarily a bad thing... love it or hate it, Marvel has been keeping us entertained for over 70 years. 

But fan films are important. They're important for the fans to feel like they're apart of the story and for the company's brand (in this case Marvel) to grow stronger with the audience. I would love to see "The Dead Can't Be Distracted", and if you would too then please send @Marvel a tweet and voice your support of fan-made material. 

Why I'm incredibly Excited about J.K. Rowling's New Film

I have absolutely no shame in admitting how much I love Harry Potter. It will always be an enormously important and influential part of my childhood, and I still rewatch the movies and reread the books to this day. So you can probably imagine my excitement this morning, when (while waiting to inevitably get denied for tickets to see Dave Franco and Christopher Mintz-Plasse) I discovered that J.K. Rowling would be penning a script for a brand new movie set in the Wizarding World that I know and love.

Based on Rowling's short guide (which in itself was a required textbook for students in the Harry Potter universe), "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them" will be set about 80 years prior to the events of the Potter series. The film will supposedly follow the adventures of the book's fictitious author Newt Scamander, and many people have been hypothesizing as to whether or not the movie will have cameo appearances by other iconic characters from the series, such as Albus Dumbledore. 

However, the prospect of returning to the world of Harry Potter doesn't excite me nearly as much as the fact that the woman who created the world will be taking us back into it.  Much how the newly announced Breaking Bad spinoff "Better Call Saul" would not be as exciting if Vince Gilligan wasn't attached to produce it, a new movie based on the books by J.K. Rowling would not be nearly as newsworthy if it wasn't written by....J.K. Rowling. There is nobody else that I would trust with the responsibility of bringing fans a satisfying and welcoming return to the Wizarding World. It's nice to see original creators (like Rowling or Gilligan) sticking to their roots and pleasing the fans that they've come to gain over the years. 

Which brings me to one final point: in a world where Hollywood is looking to adapt any kind of book, toy, or board game into the next huge blockbuster, it's interesting to see a mega company such as Warner Brothers take a (presumably unfinished) script from someone who has previously only written novels and turn it into a film. For the previous Harry Potter movies, the scriptwriters already had a plethora of material to adapt into a film, but now, with no source material and an obvious desire to keep the series going, Warner Brothers went straight to the source. To be blunt; I like this, and I hope it happens more in the future. Instead of making crappy summer blockbusters, give authors (people who know how to really tell stories) a chance to pen their own films. Take, for instance, the current Game of Thrones situation. With only two books left until the TV show catches up with the books, why not let author George R.R. Martin write the sixth season of the show? It would be interesting, and I think it is potentially something that we'll be seeing more and more of.

Either way, the ten year old in me was giddy with excitement when he heard that there was more to come from the Harry Potter universe, and the 19 year old pretty much felt the same way. Too bad we'll have to wait until 2015 (at the very earliest) to find out what comes next. 

A new way of looking at films

I recently discovered a new tumblr, which is often dangerous to my productivity, but I've found this one particularly interesting as it offers an interesting new way of looking at films.  It is called moviebarcode, and it posts single images, or barcodes, representing the entire course of a movie.  These images are made up of a number of still frames, evenly distributed throughout the movie, which are then stretched upward so that only the main color information remains.  It offers a very nice, birds-eye view of the art direction and overall color tones and moods of a film.  There is also an index so that you can easily look up movies you are interested in.

O Brother, Where Art Thou (2000)

For example, this is the barcode from the 2000 film "O Brother, Where Art Thou".  This was the first film to be digitally color graded in order to make an artistic choice.  In this case, much of the footage was tweaked to make the landscapes look drier and more golden, to fit the setting of the Dust Bowl in the midwest.  This is easily apparent in the barcode, which is overwhelmingly gold and beige.  You can also see, right at the very beginning, how the film starts out in black and white, before the saturation is added back in to produce the color.

The Matrix (1999)

Here's another example: The Matrix.  Almost every scene in The Matrix has a distinctive green tint to it, which is easily apparent in this image.

Harry Potter: Complete Series (2001-2011)

This is one of my favorite examples, because it shows some of the applications that these images could have.  This is all eight Harry Potter movies, sequentially, which means we can see some interesting trends.  First of all, we can see that the mood of the series gets progressively darker, until the last installment is almost entirely black.  This visual trend clearly follows the tone of the films and the stories themselves.  It also shows the differences in the styles of the directors; for instance, Chris Columbus filmed the first ones primarily inside, which is shown by all the warm tones at the beginning of the image.  When directing the third installment, Alfonso Cuarón made the conscious decision to shift to a more outdoors, location based film, which is shown in the abrupt transition to blues and greens.

By looking at multiple films at once like this, we can observe patterns, similarities, and differences that are both interesting and useful.  Using these images could be an easy way to examine multiple films by broad categories such as genre or time period, which might expose some of the stereotypes or tropes that are used in different types of filmmaking.

Yer a wizard...Cody

I don't think I mentioned this before, but in my other class with Arturo, Motion Graphics & Animation, we're working on our final projects: green screening ourselves into a film.

For my final project, I decided to use Harry Potter as my film. In this scene, Professor Umbridge's evil reign of Hogwarts is about to come to an end. Fred and George Weasley use their newest products from their company, Weasley Wizard Wheezes to cause some mayhem. 

                      

My friend Cody and I ended up being set in the background of this shot, and after a lot (and I mean A LOT) of color corrections and filters, I think the shot came out pretty good. It still needs a little work, but I think it worked out pretty well! 

Have a good weekend everyone!

Game of Thrones

This series is one of the best book to live medium translations I've ever seen, especially in the fantasy world. As a massive book reader, you would be hard pressed to find me a fantasy book series turned movie adaptation I haven't seen. As far as movies go, it's one of the few areas I'm well versed in, and if the discussion turns to books I'm more than happy to talk to you for hours on end about one book or another.

Apposed to a lot of popular belief, I generally reccommend watching a movie before reading the book that preceeded it. I've realized over the years, that if I do that, I can enjoy the movie a lot more, and still get everything out of the book. When done in the reverse, I usually come out of the theater much more upset than pleased. Example: Eragon. I'm not even going to go into details about how much of a train wreck this movie was as compared to the book it was based off of, other than to ask you to look at the movie poster. You see how above the title it says, "The First Chapter of the Inheritance Trilogy?" Note how a second chapter was never made. However, while this movie did poorly in the United States box office where the books were popular and well circulated, internationally, it did extremely well where the book wasn't read as much. People could enjoy the movie because they weren't completely focused on how it deviated from the series. And then if they wanted to afterward, they could go ahead and read the books.

After reading so many books and then watching their movie counterparts, I was tired of the disappointment. When a new one came on the scene, I would sigh, role my eyes, and then go try to find another fantasy book no one had ever heard of and was safe from Hollywood's grasp. When everyone started raving about Game of Thrones I was hesitant to joing the bandwagon. First off, the books alone are monstrous, which wouldn't usually deter me, except for the 5+ year waits between books when Martin finally decides to release the next part. I'm not good at waiting. The three years in between Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire and Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix nearly killed my adolscent self. Beyond that, it was yet another adaptation that I was going to walk out of disappointed, right?


Wrong. This summer by boss at Barnes and Noble finally convinced me that I really needed to read the books and watch the series. I decided to read the first book, watch the first season, read the second book, watch the second season, etc... I'd take my time with them, knowing full well that if I reached the end of the series, I would most likely go crazy with anticipation. And then I read the first book in four days, the first season following soon after.

By making each book into its own ten-part television series, the character, plot, and setting development that occurs in the book isn't lost in translation. Every character is given the screen time required to fully appreciate their character. The little sub-plots that all intertwine to create the bigger picture aren't forgotten to time constraints. The complex setting and world Martin created is fully explored. Even the opening theme to every episode serves as a tool to help the viewer imagine the vast landscape the story takes place over, showing the map given to readers in the book.

Beyond that, the production quality is stunning. Every scene is perfectly lit and orchestrated, not a detail is forgotten. The CGI direwolves are some of the most realistic creatures I've ever seen in any movie, television, show, etc... The acting is stunning, especially when you look at the performances of the youngest cast members. Maisie Williams, the girl who portrays Arya Stark in the television show, is extremely talented for the little experience she's had, and I can't wait to see what other roles she takes on as she gets older.

I'm reading the second book now, taking much more time with it than the first one. I'm excited to watch the second season as soon as I'm done and can only hope it will be as good as the first.

Mugglenet!

Okay, I know, dorkiest thing possible, but whatever. There's this site called Mugglenet that is a source for basically everything Harry Potter (the title is a link to it). They have news about the movies, books, video games, and actors, caption contests, Harry Potter dessert recipes, trivia- okay, basically, if it relates to Harry Potter, it's on that site.

But this isn't just a post about the site- the creators of the site have a podcast that comes out pretty frequently and has been going on for years. Because the new trailer for the last Harry Potter movie just came out yesterday (if you haven't watched it yet, stop reading and go do that right now), their podcast for this week is an analysis of the trailer. In the last "trailer talk" of theirs that I listened too, they had images from the trailer to go with it so that you could follow along with what they were analyzing. I mean, it's pretty dorky, but if you're really excited for the last movie and you want to try and make sense of some weird clips/shots that were too fast, it's fun. So if you're a Harry Potter fan and you have a few extra minutes lying around, I suggest you go listen to at least a little of Mugglenet's latest podcast. And maybe watch the trailer several more times.

Please excuse my harry potter obsession. In my defense it's been 13 years of my life.

Alright, so here comes my geek moment. HARRY POTTER 7 PART 1 IS RELEASED ON DVD TODAY. okay now that I got that out of my system, I'm going to sit here in class, then go to work, then go buy the DVD and stay up all night watching it again. Seriously though, this, in my opinion, is the first time they've gotten the movie right since the first 2 when Christopher Columbus was directing it. 90 DAYS UNTIL PART 2. There, okay I'm done being excited about this....for the most part anyway =)