BRAVE & THE BOLD this Friday

Thanks to Comic Book Resources, found out that they're doing a storyline this Friday following the run on Blue Beetle I did with Giffen. Specifically, our villains, the Reach, are showing up. BB fights the Green Lanterns! The Challengers of the Unknown! Batman in a space-bat suit!

Meanwhile, in the actual comics, The Rainbow Ponies Lanterns continue their year-long all-title cross-over fight with a space zombie lord who rips out heroes' hearts.

RERUNS: "Wait, Arent You Scared?"

(Conveniently enough, I'm doing hiatus reruns, and it's apparently time to drag this one out fo the closet. Originally posted August 2006, right after the Juicebox terrorists were rolled up)

"Wait, Arent You Scared?"

Errr, no. And if you are, you frankly should be a little goddam embarrassed.

No false bravado and it's not that I don't take terrorism seriously. I do, which I why I voted for the guy who believed in securing our ports and fighting terrorism with criminal investigation methods -- which is, if we may remind everybody, how this particular plot was busted.

I am just not going to wet my pants every time some guys get arrested in a terror plot. I will do my best to stay informed. I will support the necessary law enforcement agencies. I will take whatever reasonable precautions seem, um, reasonable. But I will not be terrorized. I assume that the terror-ists would like me to be terror-ized, as that is what is says on their nametag, rather than, say, wanting me to surrender to ennui or negative body image, and they're just coming the long way around.

Osama Bin Laden got everything on his Christmas list after 9/11 -- US out of Saudi Arabia; the greatest military in the world over-extended, pinned down and distracted; the greatest proponent of democracy suddenly alienated from its allies; a US culture verily eager to destroy freedoms that little scumfuck could never even dream to touch himself -- I would like to deny him the last little check on the clipboard, i.e. constant terror. I panic, they win. To coin a phrase, Osama Bin Laden can suck my insouciance.

I am absolutely buffaloed by the people who insist I man up and take it in the teeth for the great Clash of Civilizations -- "Come ON, people, this is the EPIC LAST WAR!! You just don't have the stones to face that fact head-on!" -- who at the whiff of an actual terror plot will, with no apparent sense of irony, transform and run around shrieking, eyes rolling and Hello Kitty panties flashing like Japanese schoolgirls who have just realized that the call is coming from inside the house!

I may have shared too much there.

To be honest, it's not like I'm a brave man. I'm not. At all. It just, well, it doesn't take that much strength of will not to be scared. Who the hell am I supposed to be scared of? Joseph Padilla, dirty bomber who didn't actually know how to build a bomb, had no allies or supplies, and against whom the government case is so weak they're now shuffling him from court to court to avoid the public embarassment of a trial? The fuckwits who were going to take down the Brooklyn Bridge with blowtorches? Richard Reid, the Zeppo of suicide bombers? The great Canadian plot that had organized over the internet, was penetrated by the Mounties on day one, and we were told had a TRUCK FULL OF EXPLOSIVES ... which they had bought from the Mounties in a sting operation but hey let's skip right over that. Or how about the "compound" of Christian cultists in Florida who were planning on blowing up the Sears Tower with ... kung fu?

And now these guys. As the initial "OH SWEET MOTHER OF GOD THEY CAN BLOW US UP WITH SNAPPLE BOTTLES!!" hysteria subsides, we discover that these guys had been under surveillance, completely penetrated, by no less than three major intelligence agencies. That they were planning on cell phones, and some of them openly travelled to Pakistan (way to keep the cover, Reilly, Ace of Spies). Hell, Chertoff knew about this two weeks ago, and the only reason that some people can scream this headline:

"The London Bombers were within DAYS of trying a dry run!!!"

-- was because MI-5, MI-6, and Scotland Yard let them get that close, so they could suck in the largest number of contacts (again, very spiffy police work). The fact that these wingnuts could have been rolled up, at will, at any time, seems to have competely escaped the media buzz.

This is terrorism's A-game? Sack up, people.

Again, this is not to do anything less than marvel as cool, well-trained, ruthless law-enforcement professionals -- who spent decades honing their craft chasing my IRA cousins -- execute their job magnificently. Should we take this seriously? DAMN STRAIGHT we take this seriously. Left unchecked, these terror-fanboy bastards would have gone down in history. These cretins' intent was monstrous; they should, and will, all go to jail for a very long time. This is the part where we all breathe a sigh of relief that there are some actual professionals working the job in some countries.

But God gave me a brain, and a modicum of spine. Taking something seriously, and panicking over it are two different things. I do not assign all dangers and risks equal value. Tight little freelance squads with leak-proof operational discipline, like the 7/7 guys, -- those I worry about. A nuke coming in through one of ridiculously open ports -- I am concerned. Not bio-terror so much, because it's a shitty delivery mechanism. That the Muslim population of England seems to be becoming radicalized enough to sprout up these plots, that's not a good thing to consider. al-Queda involvement -- good if true because this means their recruiting is shitty: bad if true because this means they're back in business: bad if false because it means al-Queda has indeed become a "brand": but good if false because it reinforces the idea that they're operationally crippled (and if Zwahari is involved, I personally would like a word with whatever idiot nation took their eyes of the ball and let him escape ...)

... You get the point. There are a million factors in this New World of Terror. You weigh 'em, you process, and then you move on.

You move on, building a better international society so that luddite fundamentalist criminal gangs/cults of personality are further and further marginalized.

Or, if you don't understand 4th Generation Warfare at all, you move on, bombing the shit out of nation-states and handing your opponents massive PR victories. Either way, you move the fuck on.

Maybe it's just, I cast my eyes back on the last century ...

FDR: Oh, I'm sorry, was wiping out our entire Pacific fleet supposed to intimidate us? We have nothing to fear but fear itself, and right now we're coming to kick your ass with brand new destroyers riveted by waitresses. How's that going to feel?

CHURCHILL: Yeah, you keep bombing us. We'll be in the pub, flipping you off. I'm slapping Rolls-Royce engines into untested flying coffins to knock you out of the skies, and then I'm sending angry Welshmen to burn your country from the Rhine to the Polish border.

US. NOW: BE AFRAID!! Oh God, the Brown Bad people could strike any moment! They could strike ... NOW!! AHHHH. Okay, how about .. NOW!! AAGAGAHAHAHHAG! Quick, do whatever we tell you, and believe whatever we tell you, or YOU WILL BE KILLED BY BROWN PEOPLE!! PUT DOWN THAT SIPPY CUP!!

... and I'm just a little tired of being on the wrong side of that historical arc.

This is it, folks. This is the world, from now on. Even assuming the War on Terror is a not just a bad metaphor and there is an actual measurable winning point (which is a bad assumption, by the way), even short 4GW struggles last fifty years or so. We're going to be stopping one or two of these bastard mass-murder plots a year, minimum, for the rest of our lives. Hell, the way terror tactics and tech evolve, five years from now we're going to be pining for the dudes with the flammable juice boxes.

It's now part of our life. Let's try not to hop like the trained monkeys every time it happens.

RERUNS: ADAPTATION pt. 5

The Rules of Adaptation
(originally published on this blog in 2005)

Rule 5: "This property already has millions of devoted fans!"
Rule 6: "... who HATE you."

I ruined it. I ruined it. I made all the wrong choices. That's not how the hero talks, that's the wrong part of the second book, who even cares about that character --

The point is, as we've discussed (in parts 1, 2, 3 and 4), that the sheer mechanics of Hollywood demand an enormous number of ideas, both original and adapted. The adapted properties come with some spiffy things -- ordinarily well-developed second acts, and a fan base which aids in its marketing -- and with some downfalls. Specifically, the fact that the movie already exists.

It exists in the fans' heads. That version cannot be beat. Except by Peter Jackson, but he plainly cut some sort of deal with the cinematic version of the Librarian from Gaiman's The Sandman, punched a hole into Moorcock's idea space and dragged forth each individual fan's fantasy, whereupon he burned the images onto film made from the souls of children who died because they hoped too much. So, exception that proves the rule, yada yada.

When doing an adaptation you have to settle for the fact that unless you really, really cross the strange attractor, you're going to be producing a reflection of the original material. It's even tougher if it's a property you actually love (as it should be). No, the best version is the special In-Skull Director's Cut, which clocks in at four hours and ... well, whatever the time is during red lights on the commute to work. However, what this version lacks is what makes art (and I'm hacking about above my pay grade, but coast with me for a moment) -- choice. Art is choice.

Maybe not for you, but for me. That's what a screenplay is, my friends, one gruelling choice after another, each image, each character fighting for the tiny bit of acreage on that precious whitespace. One of my favorite moments in film is in Wonder Boys, when Katie Holmes --

-- damn you Cruise, damn you monster will you LEAVE NOTHING CLEAN --

-- sorry, when Katie Holmes realizes that Michael Douglas' long awaited opus is a failure because he just couldn't make the choices necessary to elevate his scribblings from clever notes to a novel.

I recently faced this in a rewrite of a script DJ and I wrote three (EDIT: eight, now) years ago. It's our damn story. We were getting to go back and rip out all the shitty Paramount notes. It should have been a long weekend at best.

But I knew this version will probably go out essentially unchanged to the studios. I knew each choice I made would be, in essence, final as far as my piece of art goes. And so I barely dragged myself through it, agonizing over each scene. Kicked my ass.

So when looking at an adaptation, engage it in its medium. Don't just curse the abridged plots, or the missed characters. If you're a Spec Monkey, ask yourself why that choice was made. How you would have done it differently. Maybe you'll see why it had to be that way, or at least why that was the choice that made the most sense. Or, if you made a different choice, earlier, how you would have developed the movie out along different lines. At the worst it'll add another wrench in your toolbox, knowing how to recognize a mistake. At best, you've advanced your understanding of your chosen field. Produced scripts are like old chess games, in that they are theory forced inexorably to a conclusion within a specific physical framework. A fan is allowed the luxury of a raw emotional response. Your job is to pull it apart.

That's all I can contribute constructively to this topic. Hope you found it useful. As always, feel free to throw a question into the inbox. I'm never short hot air.

RERUNS: ADAPTATION Pt. 4

The Rules of Adaptation
(originaly published 2005, edited and cleaned up)

Rule 3: "Respect the source material."
Rule 4: "Don't be afraid to screw with the source material."

Even a short novel clicks in at 300 pages. A script is around 120, with lots of blank lines. Only so many people in so many locations can be paraded on the screen in two-odd hours. When a character shows up, the screenwriter can't just lay down a couple pages of backstory like the novelist can -- they have to establish character through action and dialogue. Every page spent on one plot point is a page that comes out of another. When a writer's very good, all that seems effortless. But trust me, it's all whirring away under the surface, waiting to blow a gasket.

A while ago I had a run at adapting Asimov's Foundation Trilogy. Yes, yes I am unworthy, file your complaints at the door. Anyway, fifteen hundred pages of 1950's sci fi. Stunningly cerebral and emotionally wrenching at the same time. I starter writing, well, more like transcribing like an old monastery illuminationist. Scenes transposed untouched. Whole speeches lifted ver. Just transferring the geniuis from one medium to the next.

One character, Bayta, is crucial to the arc of the second book. Her virtue inspires certain people people to fall in love with her, to change, and the fallout from this changes the course of humanity's future over a millenium. Bayta is the center of the movie.

And Bayta is, essentially, a space housewife.

Foundation and Empire was written in 1952. Oh, Bayta is a very liberated space housewife, to be sure. She worked outside the home. For 1952, Asimov was writing some pretty progressive stuff. It wasn't Mary Tyler Moore dancing in her Capri pants for Rob's drunken voyeuristic friends (what was up with that?) but it was progressive. For 1952. Yet if I transposed this character literally, I'd be making Asimov's very relevant work reek of obsolescence.

Ok, then, think. Foundation is made up of scientists. Good, let's try her as a scientist. She has a stake now, an intellect, a voice. She's not a spectator, she has an agenda with Foundation and its plans. She has personal goals LINKED to story goals. There's now a reason she seeks out Foundation's enemies -- or Enemy, if you know the book. Heresy? Maybe. Better film-making? Hell yeah. My job's to write the movie, not Xerox (tm) the book.

However, the important thing isn't to gut the source for ego's sake. I've read those scripts, where a writer's peed all over a story to make it his. That's not adaptation, that's bullying. It's usually done by someone who never solved the "why do I love this story" question we addressed earlier.

What's odd is that the one group of authors who can complain about changes to their books -- the living ones -- have never had a problem with what I've done. Because, trust me, when the script goes in, I'm sitting there wincing, waiting for the original author's feedback. Matt Wagner loved the new character in Mage. Lee Child was incredibly gracious about my adaptation of Killing Floor. Greg Rucka dug Tara's new relationship with a character who'd been a one-page cameo in the book. I had to rewrite the entire ending to Matt Reilly's Ice Station, and he was not only fine with it, he pitched out some possibilities. Hell, unless Warren Ellis lies like James Earl Ray, even he liked the Global Frequency pilot screenplay. A book' s a static thing, for better or worse. When writers get a chance to breathe some more life into the work, they tend to enjoy it. They understand that writing is all about choices. Different choices allow them to see the work that might-have-been.

(This is not always true, of course. Alan Moore hates the movie adaptations of his work. He also hates, well, all of us. Yes, you too. No, I don't know why. Just be afraid. He can smell you.)

That concept of choice leads us to the last two big rules in the art of adaptation ...

RERUNS: ADAPTATION pt. 3

(Hiatus Reruns until the New Year. Merry Christmas!! This article was originally published on this blog in 2005)

The Rules of Adaptation:
(adapted from an article for CHUD)

Rule 1: "No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money."
Rule 2: "Don't take the gig for the money."

As we've previously seen, in the last five years I've written somewhere in the vicinity of twenty-odd projects, maybe two-thirds of them adaptations. That's first draft, revisions, notes, more revisions -- Fermi it out to 17,000 PAGES of work on adaptations alone.

(EDIT: in the four years since this article was written, add six more movies, including the adaptations of Transformers, Shibumi, the unshot sequel to Thomas Crown, the adaptation of Adieu L'ami I was going to direct, and the YA novel adaptation I'm working on now. So between rewrites, development docs, etc, add another 500-700 pages of just adaptations.)

That's a whole lotta typing, never mind writing. If it were just for the money, I'd grow bored. I'd learn to hate these things. My hate would be there on the page. It's inescapable.

The first challenge in adapting something is to ask: "Why do I love this story?" You don't have to start by loving the story. Bryan Singer, as I understand it, was completely ignorant of the X-Men universe when he began his adaptation work. He grew to love it, to find the themes of alienation and acceptance he could relate to in a world of bamfing blue guys and adamantium claws.

The first adaptation I wrote was a screenplay of Matt Wagner's classic graphic novel, Mage. Strip away Matt's cool art, insanely clever Arthurian trappings and engaging characters, and the base story boils down to a familiar one: shlub - Kevin Matchstick - gets superpowers, shlub must learn to use superpowers. I was enthusiastic about writing cool fight scenes and exploring a rich fantasy world. As a fan of the series, I couldn't wait to bring Edsel and Mirth to life. I wanted the world to see Kevin's power while fighting updated evils of myth. I sat down to type.

In my first rough draft, Kevin gets his powers, is reluctant to use them, then accepts his responsibility, because with great powers comes great aggggggggggggggghhhhh...

Wait. How the hell is this not Spiderman?

Okay. I sat down. I paced. I drank. I paced. I sat back down, because I'd gotten very, very drunk while pacing. The bare framework of the story was hanging me here. I had to figure out, why did I care about this story? Slowly, I pieced it together. Kevin's not some teenager, giddy with power. He was (at the time) my age. Late twenties. I'd been thinking about that generation, an entire generation who'd never seen war, never really been tested. We're observers, keeping a sardonic distance away from clumsy emotions like faith and sacrifice and love. We're supposed to stay cool.

Kevin became that guy. Every time he succeeded, it wasn't a triumph, it dragged him deeper into a game of big damn magic-y passions he didn't want to play. He's supposed to lead a team, but he can't even run his own life. And most of all, in the end, he realizes that his attitude's crap. In the end he doesn't choose to fight and maybe die because "that's what being a hero is all about" -- he chooses to fight, knowing he'll PROBABLY die, because that's what being a man is all about. I agonized over what Mirth, his mentor and best friend, would say to push him over that final hump. I grew to love that poor, doomed bastard. I wanted him to make the speech we'd all make, do what we'd all hope we would do. I wanted to WEEP.

Annnnnnd ... it was a comic book. I mean, really, reread that last paragraph. I sound insane. But that commitment got me through the brutal notes, literally a dozen drafts, the bone-breaking stupidity on the part of executives who didn't get this whole "superpowers" thing (this was two years before the comic movie boom).

By the end of the process, I was taping sharpened spoons to my wrists like a prison fighter before I went into notes sessions. Having that story mean something to me -- even though it started out as somebody else's story, started out as an assignment -- gave my life as a writer meaning. Even as I was writing swordfights with baseball bats.

How bad did it get, by the way?

True story:

Disney Exec: "You see, our current studio head doesn't like complicated characters and stories. He likes simple stories. Simple, clear characters. A bad guy ... becomes a good guy. Just one emotion. See?"
Me: "So ... BAD WRITING. What you're looking for is BAD WRITING."
Disney Exec: "Well, if that's what you call bad writing -- yes."

If you take away one thing, from this section -- just because you get paid, doesn't mean you're for sale.

Next: Rules 3 & 4 ...

(EDIT: And again, the benefit of hindsight. I distinctly remember the meeting where someone said "Heath Ledger as Kevin and Paul Bettany as Mirth? Nobody knows who those guys are ..." Although if I remember correctly, there was a strong Joaquin Phoenix faction in there, too)

RERUNS: ADAPTATION pt. 1 & 2

(Re-running screenwriting articles during the Christmas holidays. Adapted from an article in CHUD's Movie Insider Magazine, originally published on this blog in 2005. Copy-edited and cleaned up a bit)

PART 1

TRUE STORY:
Movie Exec: They're insane. His last movie made a nickel. There's not a single star in the thing, the whole project's going to cost something like two hundred million dollars, they're shooting in New Zealand so the studio can't be down there and maintain control -- they're ruined. What the hell were they thinking?
Me: The Lord of the Rings is the most popular set of books in HISTORY.
Movie Exec: Eh. Elves. Please.

An adaptation is a movie based on source materials: a novel, a comic book, a series of newspaper articles, etc. I also count most remakes and sequels as adaptations, because what the writer's doing is taking source material -- the first movie -- and telling another story using elements from it, be they characters or actual story beats.

Reality check: if you want to make a living as a professional Hollywood screenwriter, then odds are you will wind up writing an adaptation.

Time for some Hollywood 101. Let's take a best-case scenario. Say your career begins by selling an original script, a "spec sale". In this dreamy version, a man holding an automatic office door closer (they exist) sits opposite you across a coffee table covered with art books by artists he's never actually heard of. And he says:

"Great script. Wonderful. Characters are incredible, real director-bait. We're not going to rewrite it or give you notes, we're just going to make this as fast as humanly possible. Hmm? Oh, no more than three years. Five tops."

Now let's even spot you a pretty good deal for a young writer's first spec sale -- low six figures against high six figures. You don't get the high six figures until the movie's actually produced. If the movie's ever produced. That's what the "against" means in all the movie articles you've read. And kid, trust me, that money -- my imaginary friend has an imaginary friend, and even he doesn't believe in that money.

Low six, let's say $150,000. Sweet Jesus, not bad, right? Take out taxes. $75,000 left. Commissions, that's $15-20k depending on your agent/lawyer deal. Say $60,000 left over three to five years (I'm not even counting the time it took you to write the thing and somehow get it to a Hollywood human), the value of any rewrites (if you get them, which you won't), pretty much canceled by the free "courtesy passes" you'll do for the producers and execs.

You just averaged $15,000-$20,000 a year. Congratulations. You're a feature film writer, and the guy humping the Freezie machine at the 7-11 takes home more than you.*

Even as you toil away on your next original opus -- one you're in no way sure you'll be able to sell, remember -- the bills keep coming. Your kids need food. You need health insurance. You want to write for a living? Then you need to write and get paid for it. You need to go where writing gets done. You need to go to adaptation-land.

"No WAY!" I hear the goateed ones scream. "I'm only doing my own, brilliant original material. I'm no hack!"

Well, okay. If you're going to make indies, that can be true, and good on ya. You're a god. I admire you. (You're also probably a director, so fuck off back to your Guild and cackle over your egregious "FILM BY" credit. Bastards.) That's a whole different game, one I am absolutely not qualified to write about. You know who could write that column? Kevin Smith. He's gutsy as hell, and I admire him immensely. He'd write the shit out of that column.

I also have his script for The Six Million Dollar Man on my shelf.

***************************************************

PART 2

Those Who Can't Teach, Develop.

Why are so many adaptations written? Many were born of something beautiful: passion. Somebody read the story, and it thrilled them or inspired them or terrified them. Many directors want the challenge of bringing images to the screen they'd only imagined. Sometimes writers love something, and they just want to share it with their friend sin the darkness. Adaptations like that are often nursed for years, clutched to one creative madman's chest like a baby chick with a wet cough. Some -- but not all -- adaptation jobs come about this way.

So where do the rest come from?

The real bear is the "business" side of this business we call "show." In 2002, Sony was the box-office winner, garnering 17% of total box office for a staggering 1.5 BILLION dollars. You know how many of that year's top 100 movies they released?

Thirteen.

That's right. Don't focus on the obvious win, focus on this: those poor bastards in the Sony exec offices were gambling in a billion-dollar game based on just thirteen movies.

Movie executives do not lead happy lives. If you are an executive, this is your day: a scruffy man in a Hawaiian shirt walks into your office and says, "I need you to be personally responsible for giving me one hundred million dollars so I can go to Ireland and have people who pretend for a living act like they're fighting imaginary dragons."

"Will I get to see the dragons first?" you ask hopefully.

"Oh, no the dragons won't exist until after we're done shooting. The professional pretending people will be yelling at sticks. Occasionally, they will flee from a mop."

And your job, as the exec, is to write him the check. Any sane man would break.

So, what would any sane person do? Hedge the bet. Generate as many scripts as possible, to get as many choices as possible. If I'm Joe Blow executive, I need ten movies this year. That means I need ten shooting scripts -- how many scripts are the right budgets AND attracted a director AND got the right actor involved? One in ten? So I need a hundred shooting scripts! How many scripts are far enough along to be in that pile? One out of ten? I need a THOUSAND scripts in various stages of development! How many major Hollywood studios are there? Ten. At any given time Hollywood the industry needs ten thousand scripts in development ...

I'm exagerrating, of course, but not by much. Faced with such high stakes, studios and the people who sell to them try to find an edge, any edge. This book already has an audience? Well then, hell, at least those people will come. This comic book is practically a storyboard! It's 90% of the way to being a movie! Buy it, buy it, BUY IT!

Is this insane? Yes. Is it artistic? Hell no. Will it change any time soon? I have my theories, but no, I wouldn't bet on it. In theory, pure capitalism always creates the most efficient market. But in the movie business, Adam Smith's invisible hand is giving us the finger.

So there they sit, literally vaults of stories waiting to be readied for the big screen. Somebody's gotta turn 'em into 120 pages. Might as well be us. Now, roll up your sleeves, and let's get to work ...

Next week: Rules 1 & 2 of adaptation




*("What about those million-dollar script sales?" I hear you cry. Quick hint: if you're counting on a million-dollar script sale to justify your work on breaking into the film industry, go back to the filth-encrusted messageboard from whence you came. Adults only here, please)

Breaking In: Hollywood University

My path to showrunning is essentially unique. I'm not sure that if you want to write/run a television show you should do hundreds of gigs on the road as a stand-up, get a failed sitcom pilot, then spin that into a staff position and spec feature career, all oriented solely 'round your geek identity. I mean, I can help you with some tools in the writing toolbox, but I basically backed my way through the process of building a career.

So I'll heartily recommend Hollywood University, where Jessica Butler -- former producer and newly minted writer -- attempts to run you through the basics of the business and craft. She's got a nice eye for detail, does actual research (as opposed to my anecdotal style) and has already accumulated a wide range of links over a good spectrum of resources. Warren Bell also contributes the occasional article. Considering Warren was running shows when I arrived in Hollywood (in, actually, the office two doors down from mine) that's a good ringer to have.

They've inspired me to fill the holiday schedule with reruns -- just like the networks. A lot of you started coming here years after I began writing about screenwriting. So for the next two weeks, I'm going to repost some of my old screenwriting posts while I recharge for the new year.

I'll start tomorrow with ADAPTATION. Hope you find it amusing. If there's an old post you want to see revisited, or any requests for topics in the new year, throw them into the Comments.

All I'll Say About the Blogwars

Last fall:

Republicans: Jesus, you're just voting for Hopey McChangey because he's a great speaker and he's promising unicorns and rainbows of change.

Democrats: How condescending. No, I'm voting for Obama based on his stated policy goals and his deliberative nature. We are, after all, the reality-based community.

Now:

Democrats: WHERE THE &#%&@ IS MY GODDAM UNICORN?!!


FWIW, until we rise up with pitchforks and get rid of the Senate (and, seriously, I've had my pitchfork sharpened for years), I think we got HCR about as far as it could go this round. Although I disagree with the idea we live in a center-right nation, we operate within a center-right system.

Congratulations Internet Apocalypse Lord

Release date set for a film based on Warren Ellis' Red.

And, as noted, no mention of Warren, creator and writer of the original comic, in the Variety article. It's a "DC/Wildstorm comic". Much like a movie based on a novel is always described as, say "a movie based on the Random House Book Angels and Demons." Prats.

Luckily, Variety just did a nine page interview with Mark Millar explaining how Red is just further evidence of his own coming dominance of All Media, so we have that.

Lil' Miss Grifter

Gina asked me to pass this along to the fans:



Little Miss Grifter was born November 2009. Mother and baby are both well, and itching to get back to work.

Geektastic - Parker stats

I'm finishing a movie rewrite, but to keep you amused here's Parker as I statted her out for True20, from a discussion on modern RPG systems over on the EN World Forums.

8th level Parker in True 20 would be

Parker
Expert 8

Str +2
Dex +4
Int +1
Wis +0
Con +1
Cha -1

Background: Criminal: Burglar (from Expert's Handbook)

FEATS (2 BG, 4 starting, 7 level-ups)

Second Chance (Trigger Alarms)
Talented (Disable Device & Stealth)

Talented (Acrobatics & Athletics)
Talented (Bluff & Sleight of Hand)
Benefiit (Alternate ID's)
Firearms Training

Talented (Notice & Search)
Skill Mastery Acrobatics/ Disable Device / Stealth / Sleight of Hand
Challenge: Disable Device - Fast Task
Slow Fall
Acrobatic Bluff
Sneak Attack
Challenge: Stealth - Slip between cover

SKILLS (2 BG, 9 starting, 9sp/level)

+17 Disable Device (uses Dex as she's usually lockpicking)
+17 Stealth
**************
+17 Acrobatics
+15 Athletics
+5 Bluff
+17 Escape Artist
+3 Gather Information
+12 Knowledge (crime)
+13 Notice
+14 Search
+17 Sleight of Hand

TOUGH: +1
FORT: +3
REF: +10
WILL: +2

Combat Bonus: +6
Dodge: 20
Parry: 18
Reputation: +3
Wealth: +18

Virtue: Fearless
Vice: Greedy

or, arguably

Virtue: Crazy
Vice: Crazy

Possessions: Lockpicks, specialized climbing gear, 9mm pistol (attack +10, Damage DC 18), Alternate ID documents

Parker's bright, surprisingly strong from climbing (her 6th level Att bonus went to STR) and tough from her childhood. She concentrates during heists but is otherwise easily distracted, evening out her WIS. She's attractive, but is oblivious to the fact and is really bad with people (neg CHA)

Note that I folded Climb and Jump into Athletics because, well, all right-thinking humans do so. She started with Bluff (for pickpocketing) and Gather Information (finding fences for her loot) but then never really levelled them up. I only used Talented, not Skill Focus -- I only allow one or the other in my campaigns. Also, all these feats are from the True20 core rulebook. The Expert's Splatbook has a few more tasty treats.

Geek out in the Comments.

LEVERAGE 2.5 - back on Jan 13

I like this one. We're a fun show, I like TNT's new focus on that fact. A new one hour con/heist movie every week.

Netflix Friday #6: JEKYLL

You came thisclose to a long discussion about Pamela Sue Martin as Nancy Drew. That's also streaming on Netflix Instant. You can watch it any time. Instantly. In your home.

Any. Time.

Just lettin' you know.

Juuuuuust sayin'.

...

Now, a good chunk of you may have already seen this six-hour series from our friends at the BBC. But those of you who don't torrent probably missed this when the DVD blew through your local Best Buy.

James Nesbitt is Dr. Tom Jackman, a man with a problem. Michelle Ryan, rocking some seriously kicky boots, is hired to help him. Gina Bellman is Jackman's wife. She tricks you into thinking she's just playing the aggrieved wife role, and then transforms into an unexpectedly ruthless heroine. Gina was actually hired for Leverage based on footage we showed TNT from this show. As much as I love her work in Coupling, this is my favorite thing she's done.

Steven Moffat rolls the story out flawlessly, starting with what is easily the best opening on television in years. That opening five minutes is textbook. Little clues. Momentum. An actual goddam ticking clock.

Moffat expertly toys with the meta-text here. We know it's called Jekyll. He knows we know it's called Jekyll. He knows what clues we're putting together, and what conclusions we're drawing. He plays with that extra layer of emotion, laying it into his work as a crucial part of the narrative. Letting us draw the wrong conclusions is a crucial part of the mini-series. All the while this thing hurtles along at a classic pulp breakneck pace, with gasp-inducing acting moments that sneak up on you. Jekyll has a couple scenes that are textbook examples of:

a.) something's happened.

b.) the audience has to take a moment to figure out what's happened, yet it's timed perfectly so

c.) the characters are a perfect number of beats behind the audience, so the audience gets both the thrill of recognition and a horrible frisson of anticipation.

And Moffat knows who we're waiting for.

When ... he arrives, it's a triumph. Where an American show would fuck this up by ladling on special effects, this show, um, doesn't.

While the first hour is flawless, I think the back two sometimes get a little too clever/writery for their own good, even some of the beats I adore. A lot of things blow by unexplained in the end, and I can only hope that they'll be explored -- not cleared up, but explored -- if they ever get around to doing a sequel. Unfortunately Moffat's taken over a little show called Dr. Who this year, so he's a bit busy. Bastard.

BBC's Jekyll, streaming Instantly on Netflix, is your weekend recommendation. Tag your spoilers in the Comments -- there are moments in this show I am sorry I will never get to experience for the first time ... um, again (I'm honestly not sure how to construct that sentence). I want new viewers to get on the ride clean.

BADASS at Secret Headquarters Thursday

Friend-of-Blog artist Matt Haley and author Ben Thompson will be signing and talking about their book BADASS, a collection of illustrated essays dealing with famous bad-asses from history, at The Secret Headquarters bookshop this Thursday, between 7-9:30 pm. I'm a big fan of both of them, big fan of Ben's site and I dig the book. I urge all fans of righteous bad-assery to attend.

You Wound Me, Scalzi ...

... you wound me to THE CORE. [:: dramatic music::].

The science is worse than 2012? Oh, I am coming for you, buddy.

SLINGERS!

Ahh, I've been sitting on this. Warren broke it this morning, so it looks like we're cool with throwing it up. The first guy who linked to this blog who wasn't Warren -- Mike Sizemore -- is making a TV show.

SLINGERS from Mike Atherton on Vimeo.

The link to his blog is here.

Solomon Kane *HeadDesk*

For those of you who remember that I was going to direct a movie two years ago:

Exec: We're happy with the script, your budget looks fine --
John: I had two line producers run it for me separately, they came back with estimates within fifty grand of each other ...
Exec: We just need to find a lead.
John: James Purefoy.
Exec: Who?
John: James Purefoy. He flew himself in to audition. He tore the roof off the joint. Seriously, he was so good we just sat quietly for a few minutes after he left.
Exec: He's not a movie star.
John: No, he is a movie star who just hasn't been in any movies yet. We can be his first. We will look like geniuses. And he will rip it up.
Exec: We need to find a movie star who won't cost a lot.
John: James. Purefoy.
Exec: Nah. Wonder what Macavoy's doing?
John: He just did Wanted with Angelina FUCKING Jolie, he is not going to hang out in Montreal with me for a month doing a two-hander low-budget heist flick. He. Will. Not. Take. This. Job.
Exec: We'll send it to Macavoy.




Full size here.

NOTE: I'm sorry, some people are misunderstanding. SOLOMON KANE is not my movie. SOLOMON KANE is the movie Purefoy went on to do right after my studio passed on him. My movie (a remake of Adieu L'ami) laid down and died when we couldn't get a lead actor at the price the studio would pay.

Netflix Friday #5: RED ROCK WEST

Before he slammed onto the scene with The Last Seduction, director John Dahl gave us the surreal little thriller Red Rock West. Both are late entries in the 80's/90's neo-noir wave, but while Seduction has a lot going for it -- Linda Fiorentio's legs and a surprising villain turn by Bill Pullman -- I'd argue Red Rock is the more interesting film.

Seduction, after all, plays pretty straight by noir standards. And granted Red Rock begins cleanly enough: Nicolas Cage drifts into a small desert town and finds himself in a classic noir setup. Murder for hire, mistaken identities, you know the drill. But after that familiar opening refrain, Red Rock's story roams like a sax solo around a familiar standard melody. From murderous to openly comedic to David Lynch and back again ... I'm sure the Germans have a word for "quirky, yet evoking genuine dread". Assume I used it here.

The real thrill is watching J.T. Walsh. Dennis Hopper chews scenery and Cage, well, he's busy perfecting the genial loser persona that would keep him employed for a decade. Meanwhile Walsh is calmly, malevolently centering every scene he's in. He wields a ... dark gravity. The mistake casting directors made with him later was in playing him as venal, or mad. Walsh is best here and in, say, The Grifters, where he is obviously, terribly sane. His death just five years after this movie was a real loss.

It's odd to see this flick sitting in a pack of movies like The Grifters and Last Seduction and the criminally under-rated One False Move. But while I love all of those movies for their momentum, I enjoy Red Rock precisely for its refusal to take itself too seriously. To borrow a gaming term, it's a beer and pretzels noir. Perfect for a casual Sunday download, and streaming now -- until November 30th -- on Netflix.

STARDUST

Wow, the last 15 minutes is just %$#@# AMAZING, isn't it?

Seriously, best swordfight/chandelier/true love rescue in ... I don't know how long. Plus, Mark Strong bonus points.

(I know, I know, took me long enough.)

Netflix Friday #4: THE KING OF KONG

Saying the world can seem both very large and very small is hackneyed; however, I believe we've entered a period of time when those two conditions are interdependent.

This is a discussion we have in new media all the time -- who is famous, and what use is fame now? Paul F. Tomkins (thanks Wil) is a fine comic and well-known, but I wouldn't call him famous. And yet, he manages to get enough people in major cities to pledge to see his shows that he can make a living travelling from fan-cluster to fan-cluster across North America, summoned by people's need to see him perform. He has the respect and appreciation of a large enough group of people to fill his perceptual horizon. Does anyone need more? Is it even possible to rationaly understand what more is? Is that why famous people go mad?

I'm getting to the movie, I promise.

So we have Steve Weibe, an average guy who takes to practicing Donkey Kong after he's laid off. Anyone who's spent any time hacking away at video games can understand the impetus -- you spend time, you attain a goal, and the goals come at intervals short enough to reinforce the adrenal hit. I've occassionally floated outside myself while playing a video game at 4am, asking "what are you doing?", and getting the answer "Not failing to solve that Act Two problem."

Weibe gets good enough to consider going for the world record. He needs a damn win, in a way that we all understand.

That's when we go down the rabbit hole. That's when we meet Billy Mitchell, the reigning champion of that particular 80's arcade game (among others). While Weibe comes across as a somewhat obsessed hobbyist, a character all we geeks count among our friends, Mitchell has parlayed mastery --

-- I want to back up and take a run at this. Mitchell has parlayed mastery of an thirty-year old arcade game into a business empire that has nothing to do with that arcade game. A small empire, but one that fills his perceptual horizon. He has used that arcade game world record to fuel his own confidence, his own drive, his own success. That record may only be acknowledged by a small world, but its power within that world gives Billy Mitchell the lodestone he needs to survive and thrive in a big world where others become lost. Every morning, he wakes up "Billy Mitchell, world record holder in Donkey Kong", and that sustains him with a fierce power that would shame the faith of a Jesuit priest. In a world of losers, the lost and the damned, Billy Mitchell is a winner.

And Steve FUCKING Weibe is not going to take that from him.

You know what that is? That is the recipe for great. goddam. drama.

The relentless grind of small indignities. The cumulative blessings of small victories. Honor, cheating, ego, sacrifice, suspense ... The King of Kong is available for your Netflix Streaming enjoyment even as we speak.

Percy Jackson trailer

Seriously, if I were 12, this would have melted my brain. I love this trailer.

kfmonkey1

Hey, that spiffier Gamertag is available. If you're interested in the occasional showdown, switch over to kfmonkey1 from levrunner1.

Fine, Fine, I'll Comment

I have a lovely show on right now, and although the whole GF thing was a personal heartbreak, I wish the new guy all the luck in the world and many, many residual checks for Warren with which he can buy replacement robot parts for his ailing meat-being.

Ephemera 2009 (11): L4D2-sday

Lazy tab-dumping, because I got things to kill.

-- Somewhere in heaven, PT Barnum looks down on Sarah Palin and sheds a single proud tear.

-- I can't believe I yet again missed NaNoWriMo. The Doomed Pulp Novel remains unfinished. You know, when you look at what Wil's doing with his latest book, I am tempted to go just online and POD with it. Not like the odds favor me selling any more in bookstores than online. Nicely enough, other people continue to do my conceptual work for me -- although not all of the novel occurs in flooded New York. (h/t i09)

-- I created a public Xbox 360 ID. Add levrunner1 to your friends list, and if I pop up, it's for multiplayer zombie slaughtering goodness. Or M:tG. And yes, that is a monocle.

-- Scenes From An Alternate Universe Where The Beatles Accepted Lorne Michaels’ Generous Offer

-- The web series about Superheroes in group, The Sanctum, clocks in Episode Five.

-- Terrorists are not supervillains. They are grubby little transnational criminals. Do we really have to, yet again, discuss why I'm not scared?

-- Oh, hey, this is finally up on YouTube,



-- Plus, the geek viral of the week.

Netflix Friday #3: WIRE IN THE BLOOD S1-S3

Robson Green. After a run on the early 90's British hit Soldier, Soldier -- widely considered one of the best television shows about serving in the armed forces ever made* -- Green was on the dreamboat track. His recording of "Unchained Melody" was the best selling single in Britain in '95.

He forms his own production company in '02 to leverage his fame, and what does he do? Wire in the Blood. It's as if just-post ER Clooney signed on to play Cracker, and out-Coltraned Coltrane.

Based on a series of very fine novels by Val McDermid, the series follows Green as psychiatrist Dr. Tony Hill, dragooned into helping the police catch killers by DCI Carol Jordan (Hermione Norris). Now, in the ordinary TV-land version he'd be quirky, she'd be adorably spiky -- it's Castle with psychobabble! Wheee!**

But no -- Hill's an unlikable obsessive who walks with a pre-occupied waddle, carries a battered blue plastic shopping bag as his briefcase, and has some serious sexual issues. Over the course of six seasons, his will is utterly broken by the abominations he witnesses. In the 2008 TV movie Prayer to the Bone, a suspect whom Hill believes has PTSD snaps at him: "Maybe you have PTSD." Hill considers for a moment and honestly answers: "Yes, I probably do."

Hill doesn't just catch killers -- he then often treats them. His sympathy never comes across as a TV technique of showing how sensitive he is; instead, it's a natural outgrowth of his obsessive need to understand and his basic humanity.

Some episodes do descend into high pulp (or, rather, ascend). But over the course of six seasons there are damn few clunkers, plenty of very dark moments and some great, twisty, fucked-up mysteries.

If there are six seasons, why do I only recommend S1-S3? Because if you watch all six you'll enjoy them, but those first three seasons are where you get to watch Hermione Norris break your goddam heart. No offense to her replacement, Simone Lahbib, but watching Green and Norris slowly circle in on a strangely noble co-dependency is just great, gut-level storytelling. I have had friends who wanted to quit writing after watching those first three seasons. (right, Kevin?)

Apparently, there is an American adaptation of this show being made right now. If they have the guts to do the same plotline in the pilot as Wire, I will buy every human involved a bottle of 21 yr old Macallan. Because, seriously -- yikes.

If you enjoy this selection, you can hunt down (non-streaming) Green's other series Touching Evil, the American version of which launched Jeffrey Donovan into leading man status in the TV casting club. Similar "broken leading man" conceit, lots of dark turns, and arguably the more consistent show. But for my money, Hermione Norris puts Wire over the top.







* I saw seasons 1 and 2 on bootlegs, back in the day. Great stuff.
** Full disclosure: I like Castle a lot. Perhaps too much.

LEVERAGE #209 "The Lost Heir Job" Post-Game

Posted through the wifi connection on Virgin American 30,000 feet up. Welcome to the future.

Right, so here we were. Gina was willing to work right up until the delivery date, but we realized that plot-wise a pregnancy didn't work, and shooting around her was not just getting difficult but was kind of an insult to the character and the actress. We accelerated her arc so that she left at ep #207 for good, valid story reasons -- and in a heckuva episode to boot.

But one of the things we were obsessive about -- okay, Downey was just thorough, I'm the obsessive one -- in designing the show was making sure it was a true five-hander. We didn't want Genius McCranky and the Con Sidekicks. Thankfully, in a con crew the jobs are highly specialized, leading us to very character-specific obstacles and story missions. Each Leverage character served a specific niche in the crime world job set. A very specific niche. No (or minor) crossover means we know what everyone is doing in every job in every episode.

So what happens when you lose one? You lose your grifter on a con show?

None of the other characters could fill the slot. I mean, the actors could -- each is very entertaining when running the grift. But they're entertaining in very specific, character-oriented ways.

When Parker's on the grift, the fun is in anticipating when her ability to interact with humans will break down. Nate, it's all about the Mean Guy persona. He can do the other personas, but they don't really feel like Nate. Not only that, we had a specific arc for the back half of the season for him, which involved keeping him on the Mastermind train as much as possible. Hardison's weakness is that he always goes to far in the grift, and Eliot ... well, Kane's done a fantastic job making Eliot more than we originally anticipated, but the Hitter has to stay outside, protecting the weak side and making sure there's always a clear escape route.

Complicating this was the fact we knew Sophie would be coming back. A new grifter -- female to help maintain the balance of the show -- was a substitute, not a replacement. She couldn't be too close to Sophie, or the audience might believe the change was permanent. Also, similar made the writing boring. The team was comfortable with Sophie, and if conflict is the spice of TV then we needed to ramp up the difference to ramp up the discomfort.

This lead us to design the new grifter in a very specific way: although she'd be doing Sophie's job, she'd be the opposite of Sophie's persona. Where Sophie's European and genteel, Tara's ballsy and physical. In one email I sent Downey while we were designing the character (I was up in Portland shooting #207) I wrote "While Sophie still exchanges Christmas cards with some of her marks, the end of Tara's cons involve running out of burning buildings carrying metal briefcases full of blood-stained money."

We have an entire backstory for Tara and her friendship with Sophie that you'll never see. The origin of her skills are hinted at in a few episodes, if you watch carefully. One might deduce that her education involved some of your tax dollars at work.

At the same time we were designing the character, TNT was floating names by us. As the network they have a fair amount of say in casting, and in particular replacing a show lead. Jeri's name came up, we all dug it, we talked to her on the phone and sent the character breakdown -- bang bang, done in a week.

I want to say this right now -- she's amazing. Not only is she a fine actress, she came in at a very stressful time, set everyone at ease and very quickly became part of the Portland Family. I've rarely seen a show do what we did in mid-season (only Life comes to mind). There are a lot of issues involved in bringing in a new human to an ensemble cast, particularly one with the very family-style chemistry our cast has. She's funny -- which you almost never see because of typical Hollywood typecasting -- and she hung off a roof with the best of them. I'd work with her any time, any place.

As far as the Tara character, yes, she did pull off a con on our team -- by cheating. Sophie's inside info gave her this one shot. After this, you'll see, again, Tara's skill set is precisely defined. She's got the odd surprise up her sleeve, and she can (and does) fail when things break the wrong way.

This episode is actually the second we shot with Jeri. #210 was shot first due to a script overlap. So we kind of shot the team's reaction to meeting Tara before the actual meeting. This hiccup actually gave us the inspiration for the show's con structure. So, if the team didn't react to meeting Tara until #210, that gave us the interesting idea of ending #209 with that meeting. But that meant they couldn't know Tara was the replacement ... and so the lawyer character was born, giving us a nice con to overlay on the crime story.

The plot itself is one of our most Rockford-y homages: the lost will, the Jimmie Joe Meeker style attorney, almost more detective show than con. As a matter of fact, in the first version of the story, the girl wasn't actually the Lost Heir. We just kind of fell in love with the idea of highlighting Nate Ford's detective skills over his con skills for an episode. (Playing with Nate's identity is a major part of this year, and the focus of the winter arc)

We got ridiculously lucky with the villain. This ep really put the villain and Nate head-to-head more than most. Peter Riegert's a friend of Tim's, he dug the script -- and we got one of our best villains. The fun for us in most episodes was watching the villain unravel because of our team;s machinations. The fun for this one was having an absolutely cold-blooded, dead-eyed bastard in the driver's seat. The moment where he shoots his Busey still makes me laugh on the hundredth viewing.

The episode also includes one of my favorite stand-alone sequences: Eliot and Parker vs. the cops. Kane and Beth had really advanced their characters' relationship over the year, and it was fun to watch Crazy Parker re-emerge in an adrenaline situation. She seems genuinely delighted at the prospect of watching Eliot deal peacefully with the cops ("I look forward to watching you do that"). Good lesson for writers, by the way. That line was meant to play as frustrated. Beth brought out kind of a buzzed, kinky vibe to it that was utterly unexpected, and it works 1000x better.

Hokay, to the questions:

@Taima: I do have a question though. Did Nate know from early on that Ruth was Kimball's daughter? Or did he come to that conclusion while he was in court?

He actually suspected it when he saw the mother's driver's license ("color blindness" is up there on the screen, for all to see). Even when he tumbled it, he tried to go through with the Lost Heir scam because a.) he didn't want to endanger the real daughter if he could help it, b.) he wasn;t sure about the moral ramifications of telling this woman the truth and c.) that gave him a backup he could spring when his opponent was least expecting it. Revealing the real daughter was Plan M.

@Jocelyn: Great side arm throw from Christian with the rock and according to him that was all real. How many takes do you have to do to get that just right?

First take, I think. Can't believe he kept it in frame for the whole slo-mo shot.

@ita: Are you pissed at TNT for spoiling that Jeri's character was a grifter just before the last segment? Are you allowed to say if you are?

We were ... not happy. Not angry, but not happy. To be fair, I believe the promotions people cut the promos without knowing it would run in the penultimate spot rather than before the credits. But we had a chat, and they were incredibly apologetic, so we'll just have to communicate with them better. TNT has sold the hell out of the show, and that was a pretty minor hiccup in two years of kick-assery on their part.

@Thomas: Does Beth Riesgraf do her own stunts or do you use a stunt double?

Beth does everything the insurance company will let her do. In the finale, for example, she's the one on the line rappelling, but for the feee-jump she had a double. In #205 getting hit by a car is actually a very specific skill, so it was her double. She walked the ledge in #214 though.

@Barb: If the lawyer is listed as a beneficiary, he shouldn't be legally able to be the executor of that will. ...not trying to stop the fun train, just wondering how ya'll decided to make that play

Executors can be beneficiaries in most cases. This story is actually based on a real case -- he's abusing his powers as executor in a very specific way. Annnnd I'm pretty sure if I reveal more I'll wind up getting sued. Just, ah, once again, we are as accurate with the law as House is with medicine. Take that as you will.

@Catchester: She was just too good. She can create a fake ID good enough to fool Hardison (who can create CIA level fake ID's so should know what to look for). She can grift well enough to completely fool the everyone on team. She can pick locks (i assume they didn't give her a key to the apartment). Added to that she's beautiful, confident, more skilled than Sophie (since she obviously avoided being on Nate's radar) and ends up laughing at having pulled the wool over the team's eyes. I'm just surprised you didn't have her disarm five armed thugs and mastermind the whole thing.

You're kind of looking at it backward. It's not "How is that character so superbly skilled?", it's "Why does that character seem superbly skilled, and what does that tell me about off-screen stuff?" Simply put, again, Tara cheated. Sophie helped her with the con; there's a reason her fake ID is that good; she didn't cross Nate's radar because she worked a different kind of crime, and she used Sophie's key to Nate's apartment.

But we really felt she had to prove herself. You don't get to join the Leverage team just because you asked. You gotta impress them.

And "It took you long enough", watch for that phrase to recur ...

@MelodyAnne: 3) This is doesn't really have anything to do with the episode.. but are you guys considering doing more viewing parties for the season 3 premier? I took my mom to the one in Tampa, FL for her birthday. (She is a HUGE fan and I wanted to say thank you because I totally gave her a better present than my brother. haha! And I got to ask you a question via skype! I still annoy my friends constantly with that story...)

Not for the winter premiere, but for Season 3, absolutely.

@pogo9200: I also noticed that Parker is getting sexier while crawling through air ducks. Off the shoulder top and hair down with loose braids. I kinda miss the old Parker.

@Chris Ayers: But she also seemed especially comfortable in social situations, more so than usual. While this has been a nice character progression, I kinda miss awkward, slightly "off" Parker. I hope she's not gone for good.

They were a man down, so she needed to be in civvies for backup -- which was fortunate. (Nate really does think of everything) I don't think Parker's changed that much. Look at the cop/hallway scene, and of course the fight in #211, and the truly horrible moment in #215 ... oh wait. Never mind.

And if you think "I looooove the meth" is her being comfortable in social situations, you have set a very low bar.

@SueN: Speaking of Eliot, I did have a moment of "What?" when he said he wouldn't hit a cop. It just seemed a bit … strange? Especially for a career criminal whose career is, well, hitting people (among other things). So my question is, why?

@Codger: My question has to do with Eliot refusing to hit cops, yet in the pilot episode, after the explosion and when they were handcuffed in the hospital, he suggested to Nate that he could take out all the cops so they could make their escape. Until Parker vetoed that and said that if he killed the cops it would ruin her getaway. Kill or not, he certainly didn't have any reluctance to hitting the cops then. What changed?

You have to remember, Eliot sees himself as a negotiator who is occassionally required to resolve situations with short, sharp applications of physical force. He doesn't hit people unnecessarily, and he doesn't enjoy it. Hitting some honest citizen just doing his job brings him no pleasure -- not to mention a fair amount of local heat.

Parker's the one in the pilot who assumed he meant "killed." And, to be fair, two factors: there was a big difference between handcuffed Eliot about to go down for ten years and Eliot-with-options b.) we just see the character in a slightly different light now that we've lived with him. Kind of like Nate getting into the cons. It happens as a show evolves over the years.

@Patrick: And my question: what's the secret web address for the streaming video of the remaining episodes? I mean, there is a way to see them before next year, isn't there? Tell me!

Sure, there's our editing website, where you can -- what? Oh, sorry. Never mind.

Besides, who on the internet likes spoilers, anyway? ce.

@Monica: 1.) Poor Sophie, seeing Nate outside her door and her first question is who died, kinda like that reaction you get when the phone rings at 3am. This makes me said because she's worried about her 'kids' and daddy's ability to keep them safe. 2.) My question: Any chance that you could publish some Leverage books? Imagine the cons, locations, and explosions you could do without the worry about expenseive CGI.

1.) Oh, that's a big motivator for Tara's arrival. Watch for a throwaway line in the conference call in #210, the winter season opener. 2.) we're talking seriously about Leverage tie-in novels.

@Nato: is "Tara Cole" in any way a reference to "Tara King," the replacement for Diana Rigg's inimitable Emma Peel on "The Avengers"?

Ding ding ding.

@Nicole: My other question is this: How long til you guys have to start breaking season 3? I know y'all were rushed when season 2 was announced. Will any of the writing team be working on other projects we should tune in for in the meantime?

Everyone's scurrying about on other projects until February when the writing room returns, but nothing coming up for broadcast. The exception is Berg, who is now one of the big kahunas on Eureka. Trust me, you are going to want to tune in to a Berg-toned Eureka.

Thank God we get a little breathing room this year --the last two years rolled out like one long season. Chris and I will have to start a little earlier to get the first few eps outlined in mid-January, but that's the timeline. We won't have quite as many in the can as we did first season (three scripts and three outlines) but close.

@CindyD: OK, we've had the summer finale and I still don't know the reason Eliot sawed that new door into Nate's apartment in 201. WHERE does that door lead? WHAT is inside the room through that door? WHY did Eliot need access to it? The possibilities are endless. Will my curiosity ever be satisfied?

That room is where the fanfiction comes true. You must never look in that room. DO NOT EVEN LOOK AT THE DOOR!

@buzz: Question: I didn't understand the ending. Tara gives the team an invoice for "my share of the inheritance" and then says "We're making money already!" Nate gives his incredulous team a look of resignation.What does this mean? The team doesn't charge clients for what they do, and are ot getting any of the inheritance, so why does Tara lay claim to a "share"? Is the incredulity and look from Nate more about Tara maybe not understanding that the team does not do this for the money? I just didn't get it.

Tara's a criminal. She gets a share of the score. Whether the team takes their share or not, somebody's paying her for her work. If the team wants to foot the bill instead of taking it out of the inheritance, that's their problem, not hers.

@Anonymous: 1) Sophie vouching for Tara's skills, combined with the element of surprise to pull a fast one on the team have, for now, sold me on her being able to keep up with Team Leverage. However I'm curious. Why did Sophie choose to send someone who is the complete opposite from her when she knows that they need someone who would be more open to being a team player? Of course, grifters are loners, but the way Tara conned the team was just about the worst way to build a working relationship with the team. Sophie must know from the way they called her that they need someone to hold them together not create more conflict because of differing priorities. Couldn't she have found someone with less of an antagonistic personality?
2) Since Tara's tentative acceptance on the team depends mostly on Sophie vouching for her, are we going to find out what their relationship was/is? Is this strictly a favor to Sophie or does it have more to do with Tara wanting to work with the "nastiest crew on the East Coast" and scoring really big?

1.) Sophie's concern is for her team's safety, and that means the best. Even if the best is a little .. spiky. She's trusting the team -- and Tara -- to work out the rough edges.

2.) A favor for Sophie, in return for a big, big debt and a longstanding friendship that started in a very odd fashion.

@scooter5203249: You had me worried for a bit. I thought this might be the ep where, as predicted by Sophie, Nate loses control of the situation and has a melt down. A Sophie no-show, a chaperon, an attempted hit on Parker, and Nate looked out of control running for the courtroom, but in the end he pulled it off. My hero.

Tick. Tick. Tick.

@Ashley: Quick question! Who came up with Nate's lawyer name? Another one! Will any of the old clients ever come back for blood?

Downey came up with Papa.. Papa ... the name. As far as old clients, Saul Rubinek keeps pitching his return as the Lex Luthor of the League of Evil Leverage Marks, but Warehouse 13 is keeping him busy.

@SueN: We know so much about the others' skill sets and why Nate would have chased them. But what exactly did Eliot do to have an insurance investigator come after him? Obviously not his mercenary stuff, and most likely not the hitter stuff. So, as a "retrieval specialist," what, exactly, did Eliot "retrieve" that had Nate on his tail? And how is a "retieval specialist" different than a thief? Or is it?

The first time they met, they were both chasing the same thief. After that, Eliot did occasionally "retrieve" things covered by IYS.

@Anonymous: What is up with Eliot always being all "honorable" and rescuing horses/beaten children, not using guns, not hitting cops, ect. When one works as, essentially, a walking weapon, can you really maintain intense values? It seems like Eliot would be walking off a lot of jobs when he's not working with the Leverage team.

Oh, Eliot has intense values. They just don't always coincide with society's values, and they've evolved from his early days. Even before Leverage, Eliot had some jobs he wouldn't take that he would've taken ten years earlier.

@ClynnGo: Why is the finale disc-only on Netflix? I couldn't watch the episode in real time or record it (my family preempted it with Obama's speech instead), but I was counting on the handy-dandy Netflix instant watch! Will the episode ever be included in the on demand queue?

It should be up now. There's a broadcast window we have to honor, X number of downloadables, etc.

@kresky's dame: "I hope you have a Plan B or F or something in the first half of the alphabet." A reference to the pilot and the line "In Plan M Hardison dies"? Or am I just geeking out on the show a bit too much?

Absolutely a reference. When Nate gets past Plan G, things start to get very hairy.

@pogo92000: When Parker & Nate are at the meet for the payoff - two things stuck out this time
1) How did Nate get back to the courthouse? 2) Did the dirty cop not know that Nate was supposed to be 'Jimmy'? Dont you think he would have mentioned that Eliot called out 'NATE'... perhaps he was going to do that right before he was shot.

1.) on foot. 2.) He was rattled by having Eliot beat him up with his own gun.

@CatChester: If Parker and Nate are both headed to the courthouse, why did they split up?

Nate split them into two plans. If either were caught by the cops, the other had a chance at succeeding. Also, one might suspect, if one didn't know Nate better, he was kind of using Parker and Eliot as bait ...

@Kanedoras: (various legal questions about the timeline of the hearing, edited for space)

Again --Law:Leverage as Medicine:House.

@briddie: Did Gina's pregnancy change the direction of the Nate/Sophie arc, or is that where you planned on taking it anyway, seeing as how Nate is 1) sober and b) a bigger bastard?

Accelerated, not changed, and some of the beats are moved around. But yeah, we're on track for what was planned thematically.

@Eyetee Monkey: At the end of the episode Parker (love to bits) sniffs Tara. I know that she randomly sniffs objects but this is only the second time (that I noticed) that she sniffs a person. The other being Maggie. My point being is that is this a conscious choice by Beth or just coincidence that she seems to sniff out other mother type figures?

That's Beth, all the way. I like that Parker uses her senses... oddly.

@oppisum: This doesn’t have that much to do with the episode, but about how old are each of the characters supposed to be?

Hardison and Parker: mid 20's
Eliot: early 30's
Sophie: A lady never tells.
Nate: early 40's.

It's a little annoying that standing next to Hutton, people assume I'm older than he is. Clear-eyed bastard.

@Antaeus Feldspar: If Kimball had the same kind of color-blindness his daughter does, which keeps her from correctly identifying blue, how did that get to be his favorite? Or is Kimball supposed to have had a much different form of color-blindness, so he could see and identify blue irises but his daughter couldn't?

...

... they were his favorite because of the scent. You see, they reminded him of the perfume his lost love (and the vic's mother) wore when SLEEEEP! SLEEEP NOOOOWWW!!

@msd: 1.) Since you haven't answered these questions I'm going to try and sneak another one in. On the DVD everyone talks about the insane 7-day shooting schedule. What are your schedules? Does everyone get a "weekend" off in between episodes or what? I'm just curious. 2.) If anyone hasn't listened to the commentaries on the S1 DVD - please do. There are great insights, techie stuff and y'all are very complimentary to each other and about the actors and crew. It just adds another layer to how great this show is.

1.) Shoot mon-fri, weekends off. That means the episodes stagger. We often wrap one episode on Tuesday, and at 8am Wed we're shooting an entirely different script. The actors have to work like hell to learn thier lines for each episode while performing the previous one.

2.) If you buy Season 2, you get to hear a drunken Frakes bellow "RED ALERT!"

Whew. All right, we'll see what we can do about some hiatus chats or commentaries with the actors, and we'll do some nice warm-up before the Jan 13th return (that date may shift). As always thanks for coming by and spending so much time and attention on the show. Really makes it worthwhile for us seeing you care about these little stories.

Oh, and see you at the Con Con March 19-21 -- the fan convention that you guys actually named before we even decided to do it.

50,000 MIA

Courtesy The Dark One, a great story about a historical tall tale that turns out to be true.

The remains of a mighty Persian army said to have drowned in the sands of the western Egyptian desert 2,500 years ago might have been finally located, solving one of archaeology's biggest outstanding mysteries, according to Italian researchers.

Bronze weapons, a silver bracelet, an earring and hundreds of human bones found in the vast desolate wilderness of the Sahara desert have raised hopes of finally finding the lost army of Persian King Cambyses II. The 50,000 warriors were said to be buried by a cataclysmic sandstorm in 525 B.C.

In the Comments, your favorite Fortean tale.

It Was Never Guaranteed To Be A Just Universe

What wakes liberal writers up at night -- I mean that eye-snap of soul-gnawing, nauseating dread -- is not social injustice, is not the fear of creeping fascism, is not rage against corporate greed ...

It is the haunting certainty that Jonah Goldberg will die happily in his sleep without ever comprehending that he's an idiot.

(Yeah, I tried reading Liberal Fascism. It's just that bad.)




EDIT: One of the commenters wrote:

Wow. Great way to insult half of Leverage's audience. You do realize that there are conservatives that watch and enjoy the show, don't you? This kind of commentary which spews vitriol towards a particular viewpoint only damages and taints the Leverage brand.

I'm sorry, that wasn't my intent at all. Let me clarify.

Goldberg isn't an idiot because he's a conservative. There are quite a few conservatives I both like and admire. We have many conservative fans of the show, because enjoying a good con show, or relishing watching protagonists taking down rich bad guys is neither conservative nor liberal. A fun show is a fun show.

Goldbeg's an idiot because he writes what he writes the way he writes it.

If I'm "spewing vitriol at one particular viewpoint", it's at shoddy research, childlike logic and a truly Cthulhu-level hubris. *

But if you equateGoldberg's massively awful thinking and writing with the conservative movement -- that is, if in your world-view you are OBLIGATED to admire or agree with Goldberg just because he's conservative royalty -- then that's the sort of lockstep, blind hero worship I don't respect in anyone of any ideological stripe.

If you consider an insult to Jonah Goldberg an insult to all conservatives, that's your problem. Not mine. And, frankly, an insult to thinking conservatives.









*(I also found Michael Moore's latest film an embaressment. But this post isn't about him.)

"Say it. Out Loud."

Courtesy a commenter at i09.



I hate those goddam books.

Okay, So What Does the Bill DO?

In all the sturm unt drang, easy to lose track of what got in and what didn't. Steve Benen gives you a primer. And, of course, all this has to go to the US Senate, the most undemocratic institution in America. So, you know, this is less than halfway there.

Netflix Friday #2: AUDITION

Ahhh, Takashi Miike. For a long time one could just assume that if you were a horror fan or geek, you'd already seen this. But it's been ten years now. Newer and shinier Japanese horror has come, gone, and been mulched into tweener entertainment. Newer Japanese horror conforms to standard plot structure and pacing.

Takashi Miike thinks standard plot structure and pacing are for little girls.

The first time I saw this movie was during a Japanese Horror Film Marathon on DirectTv. I'd just gotten a big-screen, my friend Mike and Lovely Wife sat down to grab some late night horror.

For a while it's ... kind of a romantic comedy. A Widower, still devastated by his wife's death a decade earlier, is urged by his teen-age son to start dating again. His cheerfully amoral TV producer friend concocts a cunning plan. They'll hold auditions for an imaginary TV series in order for our sweet, likable but socially awkward Widower to meet young women.

Hijinks ensue!

If by hijinks, you mean staring at the screen, screaming "What the fuck? WHAT THE FUCK?"

It happens in a moment, in one shot, a tectonic shift in the movie. The train goes off the rails. And the train is on fire, and full of dynamite and naked clowns who live under your bed.

Be aware -- the pacing is glacial, and this is not a shock-horror movie. It's a slow accretion of creepiness. Do not even bother to watch this while there's daylight. This is meant to be watched at midnight, uninterrupted, to let it wash over you. For a good half the viewers, it'll be a "meh." For the half who find just the right night, it's a mood, a tone poem of unease.

No spoilers in the Comments, but feel free to recommend some other horror fun.