A foreign film showcases great storytelling

AuthorAppleton on January 1, 2018

The best movies are backed by strong writing but some of the biggest productions have failed in this regard. Recently I discovered a little-known fantasy movie titled I am Dragon that surprised me with its straight-forward story, great acting, top-notch special effects, and satisfying conclusion. A good movie can instruct us on how to become better storytellers by reminding us to ask the right questions and deliver the right message. I am Dragon reminded me of what makes a great story.

Are you tired of movies that rely on action scenes to keep your interest? I am. Though I do appreciate action when it is applied properly, the heart of a story is never the battles, it is the soul of the characters and the arc of mystery, intrigue, or romance that they are following. You could say that the drama is the most important aspect of any good story. It grabs your attention and holds you through to the end because it gives you human elements that you can relate to. You may not understand what it is like to fight in a war, or touch a majestic beast, or be wounded in battle. But you probably do understand what its like to fall for a beautiful woman, or lose one you love, to struggle financially, or to battle physical illness or handicap.

When writing a fantasy story, ask yourself what is at the story’s heart. What elements can people relate to? What parts of the story will they aspire to live out? Everyone wants to be a hero or heroine. We all want to be loved, respected.

Much of the writing that I see in fantasy today is DARK. Dark in its mood, dark in its presentation of humanity’s flaws, dark in its outcome. What happened to HOPE? This is something essential to good storytelling. Imagine if God’s story through the gospel was to send Jesus Christ to Earth only to destroy everyone. Imagine if vanquishing Sauron’s evil in The Lord of the Rings did not return peace to Middle Earth. Picture Star Wars without a new hope, where Vader is never redeemed.

Every story that stands out in my mind has a beautiful end, an end that includes hope and, often, restoration.

I am Dragon is a Russian film production that seems to have received very little attention. The premise is, as some might say, deceivingly simple. Young brides were long offered in sacrifice to dragons until a dragon-slayer arose to free them from the beast’s reign of terror. But the slayer’s grandson uses the dragon-summoning song during his betrothal and the bride is taken by another dragon. What follows is a fantasy tale of legend and romance. This movie has the best dragon that I have ever seen on screen. Though I still love Peter Jackson’s version of Smaug, the dragon in I am Dragon is more relatable in its size and design. The facial expressions it achieves are stupendous!

What makes this movie special is its reliance on a simple story backed by minimal cast and gorgeous scenery. The story opens with dark themes, even dark cinematography. Then a shift takes place and brighter themes and scenery bring elation to the viewer.

As writers, we would do well to study the story in this film.

Q: Do you prefer dark stories, or stories of hope?

Flaming Pen Press‘s newest fantasy book release is also a story of hope. Check out Neverqueen 2.

The wizard wanted a male heir, but when he saw that the boy born to him was malformed he determined to kill him. Born into a life of cruelty, Valor could easily have fallen into his father’s darkness. Instead he set out to undo the wizard’s madness by covering those around him with the Creator’s compassion and light. The prophets are at work in the shadows, bringing forward the Neverqueen as the next prophetess whose reign will bring hope to the people of Paradon, and to her own people by the Eiderveis River. Her mysterious interactions and judgements will settle a caution and a terror in the hearts of the sorcerers and others who ignore her warnings. Unlikely alliances are formed in this story of hope that rises through adverse circumstances.

Why passion drives better stories (as Star Wars: The Force Awakens)

AuthorAppleton on December 28, 2015

There is a vast difference between a storyteller who is passionate for the story they are telling, and a writer who is simply creating something of interest to them. The case seems to be aptly demonstrated with J.J. Abrams who is famous for rebooting film franchises. Not long ago he recreated Star Trek and recently his Star Wars: The Force Awakens hit theaters with a thunderous response from critics and viewers. After watching the film myself I realized that the love of the story made a huge difference here.

Long-time Star Trek fans, almost as a whole, did not care for and some even despised Abrams’ remake. Vulcans lost their emotional control to a level not hereto seen, big bad villains ruled the screen, and action packed the screen time instead of relationships and good ol’ theoretical science. Transformers had met Star Trek. Many people speculated that the cause of this failure to catch the loyalty of long-time Trek fans was due to Abrams’ personal admittance that he was never a Trek fan himself. In addition to that it turned out that much of the cast had not even watched Star Trek, with the exception being Karl Urban who beautifully embodied the beloved Leonard McCoy also affectionately called “Bones.” Urban was himself a Trek fan and it showed in his part. The consequence was a movie that did not leave die hard Trek fans thrilled, instead it left them asking for a return to the old style of storytelling. The fans’ passion for the Star Trek universe has now successfully launched a rather impressive series called Renegades and other fan-funded projects are well on their way to success as well.

The point in all of this is that good storytelling requires a passion for the material.

As a long-time Star Wars fan Abrams’ approach to The Force Awakens has paid off. Rather than changing everything that we know and love about the Star Wars universe he has taken the look, feel, and the light and the dark again into familiar territory. While there was much good action throughout The Force Awakens, it never feels forced but rather melds with the drama each character is experiencing. Old characters are treated like old friends, with numerous hat-tipping to the original Star Wars trilogy. Quite unexpectedly (even though Disney officially declared the Expanded Universe of novels and video games irrelevant to this movie) there were several blatant steals from the EU… and they were good ones. They pulled a few choice elements that I was hoping to see carried into the new movies, though they did change it up a bit.

Writers need to be passionate for the stories they are creating, otherwise the effort leaves no lasting impact. Abrams demonstrated with this film that he truly is passionate for the Star Wars universe. What a difference it makes when a creative individual works at something because they love it!

Q: How do you see passion driving better storytelling?

Noah: the movie… Is this Noah or not?

AuthorAppleton on September 14, 2015

Noah, the movie. Have you watched it? I saw it for the first time because it popped up on Netflix. Disappointing would be an understatement of my feelings regarding this film. Warning: I’m going to discuss major spoilers because it’s necessary to the evaluation.

It seems that Hollywood took this opportunity to completely reimagine the historical story. I’m (almost) at a loss for words because this film was so bad.

It would be easier to imagine that this is not supposed to be the Biblical story but rather a straight up work of fiction. It is a poor story, over-dramatized, unbelievable, mystical, and bad character development. Here are some reasons I think this is the worst film I’ve seen in a long time:

  1. The fallen angels only fell to earth because they wanted to aid mankind. In punishment the Creator encrusts them in stone. What?! Yes, you heard right. Instead of going with the fact that there was war in heaven and God cast out the angels who joined with Lucifer, now the angels are the good guys who tenderly long to be re-admitted to paradise.
  2. Noah loves the creation and believes that God wants mankind wiped off the face of the earth. Whereas in the Biblical account God commanded them to go forth and multiply and replenish the Earth.
  3. There were seven who rode the ark… It was Noah, his wife, his three sons, one wife for one son, and of course (Hollywood’s favorite addition) a stowaway. It felt like an excuse to let Russell Crowe land punches in a death-match aboard the ark. Besides this, Ham actually found a girl but Noah purposefully leaves her behind to die. Oh, and he left Methuselah behind to die as well.
  4. Noah details for everyone aboard the ark how they are to make sure they die as the last of humanity, because the new world is not for them but for the creatures.

This is a terrible film. I was laughing at several points because it just carried everything so far overboard (pun intended). When a story is drafted from well-known source material it needs to come close to that material, otherwise it need not credit the source material. Noah has this problem to a degree I’ve not seen before.

The movie is also plumb full of plot holes. Here is a laughable example:

At the end of the film Noah is rather depressed (as he is throughout the entire film). His sons and wife have begun to build new homes for themselves. As they are building he picks grapes and makes himself wine. He gets himself drunk and naked in a cave. See the problem? They just got out of the ark and, in order to make wine, grapes have to ferment. Not gonna happen if you just crush them into a cup. That’s called grape juice and you can drink a lot of it without any problems. Trust me, I’m living proof!

My conclusion then: If you want to waste a couple of hours watching a heartless story with pointless drama that you can poke fun at, try Noah! It won’t disappoint you.

Question: Have you watched Noah?

Should any character be both villain and hero?

AuthorAppleton on December 22, 2014

Interesting things are happening in speculative fiction. New ideas are coming out and they must be analyzed to determine the validity of their argument. Today’s question: Can a fictional character be both hero and villain?

In the past I have not taken this concept seriously, but a couple of recent examples in film have made me consider this again and consider how to use this in my writing. The best example I have seen of this is in Disney’s Maleficent. Other stories have tried but most fail.

(Warning: the following material will give plot spoilers from the movie.) In Maleficent we find a startling re-imagining of Sleeping Beauty. Maleficent is not a witch. She is a fairy. A human-size fairy but a fairy nonetheless. She is pure in her heart and that purity is taken advantage of by a greedy lad who steals first her heart and later her wings. What follows is Maleficent’s transformation into a vindictive creature who places the infamous curse on Aurora. Yet Maleficent is fated it seems to watch Aurora grow up, and she, like the lonesome creature she is, ends up fully vesting herself in Aurora’s future. The ultimate and fantastic conclusion to this is that the villain seeks to undo her own curse, even throwing her life on the line to selflessly protect an innocent life.

I have seen a similar concept attempted before when Marvel showed the progression of Magneto from lone wolf to repentant ally. But Magneto’s story did not leave me fully convinced that he was ever truly a hero. Left to his own devices again (and without an enemy common to him and Professor Xavier) Magneto, I have no doubt, would fall into other dark paths.

Can a character be both hero and villain? I think so. Under the right circumstances.

If we look historically we can find some interesting examples of this. An obvious example is Saul who was blinded on the road to Damascus and thereafter was called Paul. He went from persecutor of the church of Christ to one of its most prominent leaders. A leader of the faithful and a godly man. But that sort of shift, the change from villain to hero, is made in the change of a heart. Radical conversion is one example of this, and another avenue for this shift is if the individual in question is like Maleficent. She began as a child, then her heart hardened, but another child softened it.

Question: When do you think it is ok for a villain to become the hero in fiction?

Changing the story formula with Godzilla

AuthorAppleton on October 13, 2014

Godzilla stories had an interesting angle: nature was too big for humanity to ever conquer. I remember when I was a kid riding my bicycle five miles to my grandparents’ house. My grandmother would usually offer hot chocolate and/or instant mac and cheese. My grandfather would offer snacks (often cookies) and a movie. He introduced me to the original Godzilla movies and I was hooked!

Godzilla (2014)

Mild spoilers if you didn’t see the movie: Recently I had the opportunity to watch the latest incarnation of Godzilla. It was a well-conceived story, where, just like in the old classics, nature is beyond humanity’s control. The monsters that awakened to ravage the Earth swiftly moved from Japan to Hawaii, then on to the US pacific coast. Military might and technological ingenuity proved as ineffective as flies in the monsters’ path. Godzilla figured as the balancing power, an entity whose sole purpose seemed to be destroying the indestructible.

I think there is something modern storytellers can learn from this. We have developed formulas. Big problem equals bigger or more clever response from mankind to solve it. But why not show more scenarios where world-changing events are insurmountable. The monster will ravage and cannot be stopped. The villain is so far technologically superior that no one can overthrow them. In exploring these possibilities the stories must necessarily put forth solutions other than mankind. Solutions of the supernatural.

Question: What do you think of stories that need that other-than-human solution? Have you enjoyed incarnations of Godzilla?

Authors: The Image Then and Now

AuthorAppleton on August 25, 2014

Books used to be detailed works of art, hand-crafted and extremely hard to come by . . .. And the authors back then were few and far between. Today books are mass-produced, and their design is frequently held back by budgetary considerations . . .. And authors are everywhere! But have we lost something of the writing art along the way?

My wife and I love watching old black and white movies. Truly the writing and the acting in many of those films is rarely matched in the contemporary film industry.

The other day we found a new “gem” of a film titled My Dear Secretary. The plot follows a woman who wants to be a writer as she becomes secretary to a renowned author. However this comedy quickly reveals that the author has lost his edge and has sunk himself into the life of the party and gambling debt. In the story everyone around the author puts up with his eccentricities as they wait for him to come up with the next great novel. In the story he never does produce another great literary work, but that seems beside the point.

Today authors are commonly expected, at minimum, to produce a new book every year. They are not given all the time they need to hide away and develop the next great book, it satisfies society that they do their best in the time allotted to them. But what if authors were to start acting more like the artists they used to be viewed as? What if they were allowed to explore the full range of their creativity without the pressure of mass-production? Would this lead to far better books that would stand out from the vast selection of mediocre works that are being published by the thousands every year?

We need to pull back from the mad rush of our swamped literary market and instead encourage the creation of original novels that are truly exceptional.

Question: Which books do you think would have benefited if the author had taken his time to complete it?

“Arrow” Does Hollywood’s Brand of Heroes Work?

AuthorAppleton on July 21, 2014

My wife and I have enjoyed the TV show Arrow, which follows a young vigilante hero doing his best to destroy crime in his city. Of course he is rich, handsome, etc. and every other girl seems smitten by him. But though his selfless fight against crime is admirable, his character has startling moral flaws that mar his hero image. I enjoy this show but HOLLYWOOD HAS CREATED A NEW BRAND OF HEROES AND HEROINES AND WE SHOULD CONSIDER THE CONSEQUENCES.

Oliver Queen lived a promiscuous life prior to being marooned on “the island.” This fact is emphasized in the show and the characters laugh at it sometimes. It seems that they even disapprove of how Oliver was with his lady friends. But, truth be told, nothing in that respect has changed. Oliver sleeps with several girls in the course of the first two seasons. His lack of commitment is trumped up as a “necessary” negative in his isolated, double-life. Yet sadly we the viewers are not shown a man who can rise above temptation. He repeats his old sins but this time it seems he and those around him accept it as part of life.

The Vigilante started off with a willingness to outright execute criminals if he knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that they were guilty. This aspect stood him aside from Gotham’s own Batman. Yet in season two the mood shifts and Oliver is unwilling to take a life… or so the script writers would have us believe. While this standard seems in some ways admirable, does anyone else find it odd that Oliver willingly takes out villains’ henchmen with his arrows but will not do the same to the kingpins?

Honorable? Maybe. His motivations are foggy at times, but Oliver does have a good heart. But wouldn’t it be awesome if we had portrayals of heroes who rise above their circumstances? Heroes who will not afford the temporary pleasure of a lady without genuine and lasting commitment. Heroes whose morals are not dictated by society but are ruled by the laws of God.

Question: What heroes and heroines do you love? Which ones do you despise or pity?

Movie Critic: A Plastic Legolas?

AuthorAppleton on July 14, 2014

Fantasy characters grow. They evolve or change in any well-conceived story world. But in Peter Jackson’s movies I felt a disconnect with Legolas’s introduction to The Hobbit movies. Did you notice the change?

In The Lord of the Rings movies we met an exciting Legolas, one unafraid to battle but also willing to revel in a jolly good time with his comrades. The rivalistic relationship of Legolas with Gimli the dwarf provided the movies with their strongest humor moments. (Remember how they kept track of their kills during battle in order to score who was the best?) And Legolas was intuitive and borderline wise as he assisted Aragorn in his quest.

Personally I feel that Peter Jackson’s last film in this series, namely The Desolation of Smaug, was superb. The characters were put forth with superb creativity and intrigue. But I make exception for the introduction of Legolas into the film.

The CGI work on his face made him stand out like a sore thumb (or an odd Elf in this case, LOL!) It reminded me of the way that CGI work brought back the young Flynn in Tron: Legacy and how they put Arnold Swartzenegger into Terminator Salvation. It was fun to see Legolas again, but his stiff doll face kept demanding my focus. Worse than that, he lacked expression. True, he’s an Elf, but the expression of his eyes empowered his character in TLOR movies and that was missing here.

Devoid of humor and lacking his roguish side, the new Legolas leaves a lot to be desired. Fortunately, it was Smaug the dragon that ruled the screen in this film.

Question: Did you like or dislike Legolas’s portrayal in Desolation of Smaug? How do you think it compared to the Legolas we knew in The Lord of the Rings movies?