Top 10 John Wayne Movies That Could Also Be Porn Titles*

10.) Men Without Women (1930)
9.) Rough Romance (1930)
8.) Seven Men from Now (1956)
7.) Girls Demand Excitement (1931)
6.) Maker of Men (1931) or Two Fisted Law (1932) -- tie
5.) Ride Him, Cowboy (1932)
4.) His Private Secretary (1933)
3.) The Star Packer (1934)
2.) Pals of the Saddle (1938)

And the winner is:

1.) Chisum (1970)







*(Found while tagging posts, from all the way back in 2004. Just a lazy Sat. afternoon repost.)

Labels are coming

Doing some tagging of posts during my lunch hours, by request (primarily from Waid Fans. Waidites? Waidiacs? ...). An ongoing and fluid process. Go about your business.

Conventions Strike Again

Once again, I am out of town for a convention so no guitars today. Instead, I'd like all of you to mention in comments the ONE item that you feel is essential during the Zombie Apocalypse that isn't a bladed/blunt weapon or a firearm.

Oh, and if you're in San Francisco this weekend attending Wondercon, stop by booth 619 and say hi.

LEVERAGE Season 2 SPOILERS

IF Magazine came in and did a video interview yesterday before the finale broadcast, and caught us working on Season Two.

Waid Wednesdays #12: Characters Are Not Furniture

Losing two of the next five days to cross-country flights, but no complaints from me. I’m on my way to the Orlando MegaCon this week, and while (like most of you) I’ve come to hate flying, it’s worth it: MegaCon has become one of the largest and best-run comics/anime/sf conventions in this country, and whatever fannish subgenre floats your boat, attending this show is worth the trip.

The casualty, of course, is that this post will be a bit shorter than the norm—but still valuable, I trust. It’s a bit of beginners’ comics-writing advice I don’t hear discussed much:

Everybody wants something. Or, to put it another way, characters are not furniture.

I know, I know. In a chumpish attempt at wordplay, I just lost you. “Characters want furniture?” No. Characters, from the main ones to the most incidental, need to do more than just stand around like furniture. When they exist solely to move the plot along, they stand out, and not in a good way In a kidney-shaped coffee-table sort of way. It’s an easy mistake to make: “Hey, I need to fill the readers in on my bad guy’s background. I know—I’ll have a cop at the crime scene explain the bad guy’s childhood. Or maybe a psychiatrist.” Or “I need to show what a twisted badass the killer is. I’ll put a gym teacher in here for him to kill.” Right instincts, but that’s building furniture. Furniture that solves your plot-and-exposition problems, yes, but it’s always worth the effort to turn these people from exposition machines into genuine characters. Otherwise, you’re missing some opportunities to entertain.

One way of turning your wooden puppets into real boys and girls is by giving them quirks. You could, for instance, have your crime-scene cop munching peanuts. You could give the gym teacher a stutter or ridiculous taste in clothing (even for a gym teacher). That’s one way of going about it—but it’s the cheap and obvious way.

The better way is to, as you write, always bear in mind that—just like in real life—everyone on the scene wants something. Even the admissions nurse who has no dialogue wants something—he wants to go home early because he’s tired, or he wants time off for his kid's soccer game, or he wants to ask the cute intern out, or he wants his nylon uniform to stop itching so much. That desire doesn’t necessarily have to be voiced or even obvious, and it certainly doesn’t have to be a story point, but being aware of what each of your characters longs for helps give them weight in a scene and is a more subtle but less clumsy way of making them feel real.

Concrete if inadvisable example: Having an unusually petite and feminine female light up a big, smelly cigar is certainly a way of making her more colorful, but it’s a purely arbitrary bit of business. On the other hand, deciding for yourself that she smokes cigars because she believes they draw attention to her that might otherwise go to the bigger, louder people around her...same visual, deeper character, and your having made this choice for her might further suggest some interesting way for her to interact with the other characters that doesn’t take us out of the story but does add something to the page.

In WATCHMEN, Alan Moore pulled off a much more elegant example of this. Rorschach, the moral-absolutist detective, is constantly snacking on sugar cubes throughout the novel. (It’s actually a plot point about midway through, when discarded sugar-cube wrappers become evidence that he was present at a crime scene, but for the purposes of the story, any sort of clue would have served: lozenge wrappers, cookie fortunes, footprints, whatever.) Having Rorschach constantly snacking on any one specific thing is a colorful quirk. That he hungers specifically for sugar cubes—hard-edged, simple, precise little building blocks that are pure white—tells us gobs about what this detective really craves, and once you make that connection, this bit of business doesn’t feel at all arbitrary.

In the comments, if you will, your preference for next week’s post: the Black Art of punctuation and sound effects, or the totally overlooked reason why Thor has remained a popular character for forty years?

LEVERAGE: The Second David Job

You know what I love about LA? Very few other cities, you can be walking down the street and see a naked meth-head driving a black muscle car.

The most important question, of course -- where does he keep his keys?

Right, I've been working on the season 2 premiere, so I've been tardy. I'll do my best to catch up.

Questions from "The 12 Step Job":

Rebecca: Although we've talked much about episodes being aired out of order, I don't think I've ever seen the explanation of WHY that was done. Is it always a clearance issue, or sometimes something else...like, what, for instance?

Well, the network often has a different idea, based on their knowledge of their audience, for what episodes will most effectively hook viewers. Sometimes it's tone -- they wanted "The Wedding Job" to go later, as it's an off-speed ep. Sometimes it's audience-building -- they felt "The Two Horse Job" was a more "typical" episode, and helped getting new viewers introduced to the style and content of the show, so it was moved earlier in the run. Considering our success, I'm not going to argue with TNT's judgment.

The intended air order, which should be the DVD order --

1.) The Nigerian Job
2.) The Homecoming Job
3.) The Wedding Job
4.) The Snow Job
5.) The Mile High Job
6.) The Miracle Job
7.) The Two Horse Job
8.) The Bank Shot Job
9.) The Stork Job
10.) The Juror #6 Job
11.) The 12 Step Job
12.) The First David Job
13.) The Second David Job

R.A. Porter (and others): Speaking of clearance issues...I've been trying for the life of me to figure out this song that Jack Hurley's grunting over in the opening. It sounds like Shane MacGowan to me, but it's not a Pogues song I know. I can't get a very clear listen to the lyrics and can only grab a few snippets, but when I searched based on those I came up empty.

Berg answered this in the Comments: "Since everyone and their mother keeps asking about the song from 12-Step, thought I'd chime in. Although I'm sure this info will appear in a future blog post by Rogers. In the script, Chris Downey and I indicated our desire for a Pogues-slash-Flogging Molly type tune. Because purchasing source music (prerecorded songs from established artists) isn't in our budget, we left the task in the very capable hands of our talented composer Joe LoDuca. "Can't Go Home Again" is the song he created for us. At the moment, it's not available anywhere. Will let you know if/when that changes."

Oh, and R.A. your review of The First David Job hit the character nail on the head. Nicely done.

Becky: Do the actors ever get to ad lib any of what they say or is all of that in the script?

They usually do one where it's just the script, and then play a bit. Many of my favorite bits in the show are actor improvs.

Andrew Timson: Funny as the last line was… it scares me that Nate is that clueless, if he truly was going to go get a drink. How did he rationalize the fact that he had to detox? And when he gets himself killed, who's going to run the joint? Sophie can probably handle it, I guess, but putting any of the others in the center seat is asking for disaster.

Oddly, addicts -- and Nate has several addictions -- are very good art rationalization.

Leah: Question -- is there going to be a Leverage presence at ComicCon? You have been attracting Fans (with a capital F)

I'm all for it. We'll see.

Save-vs-DM: This is probably a very geeky question, but have you actually made character sheets for the main crew, using whatever system you favor? (I know that I've done it using Spirit of the Century) I know that you mentioned that all the characters have Thief 101 skills, but in your mind do you actually prevent them from doing something because "it's not on the character sheet"?

Seriously, e-mail the SoC character builds to the kfmonkey@gmail.com account. I want to see those. SoC is really frustrating to me, actually. A lot of great stuff, but as soon as you ge tinto tagging aspects of the setting, it all goes to mush for me. A simple system that they overcomplicate a bit in the rules book. FWIW, I'd go True20 or Savage Worlds for a Leverage game.

Anonymous: just a quick question... Are all of the original cast members going to still be on board for season 2? Hate when a great show goes on but without one of my favorite actors...

Everybody's back.

Jill: One question - I know that this was the last ep written, so perhaps this will be straightened out in later (aired) episodes, but where did Hardison learn to fight? Last I saw in "Miracle," he was freaked out at the very thought of violence. Now he's an action hero?

This blows by super-fast, but if you watch Hardison fight, he gets punched early, and after that he's mainly tying the guy up with his longer reach, kind of wrestle-grappling. Aldis is very careful about making sure he's still awkward in a physical confrontation.

That said, Eliot's probably giving him some pointers.

Rob: Props, arguably mad in nature, to whoever came up with taking the Goddamned Obligatory Explosively-Propelled Flying Tire and making it relevant.

It's not like I don't KNOW TV Tropes. We read it too. We're actually stealing from an episode of Lupin 3 there...

David: Could you please write a couple sentences (or maybe even a whole post!) about taking and implementing notes from the network and how you have dealt with that through the run of the first season. What do you fight? What do you take? As an aspiring writer, taking feedback is always hard because you're not ever sure which differing opinion to trust or whether to listen to yourself. Any tips on how to weed out good vs. bad feedback and how NOT to be defensive/argumentative when getting feedback? Love to hear your knowledgeable opinion/approach.

Will do a post on this this week.

From "The Juror #6 Job":

Darkrose: That's actually one of the few things about Alec that rings geekily false to me. If he uses standard model of anything, it would be a Toshiba, since they're physically damn near indestructable. Far more likely is that he built his own and has it set up to triple-boot Linux, Hackintosh, and the Windows 7 Beta. (Vista? Please!)

Actually, our friendly hackers tell us that now they're using $300 netbooks running Linux, because they can be dumped at a moment's notice with no worry about the money being tossed.

marag: Did Parker actually have to convince someone or persaude the jury to vote the right way? Alec's speech was great, of course, but it just seemed that learning how to persuade someone was the missing thing at the end to tie up Parker's character arc in the episode.

Yes, she did have to convince the jury, to close it up, but that scene went away in the cutting of the script for time. She had the Peggy tag, so it seemed like we didn't need both.

Zifnab: I'm honestly wondering when we'll start seeing recurring villains or multi-episode plot arcs.

Rarely, if ever.

Carolyn: One dimension of the show which I had a hard time explaining in advance is WHY these (now independently wealthy) people would continue to do risky and potentially dangerous jobs. What do they get out of it? What is the thread which holds them together? Nate is a good leader, and I buy that they would let him guide them through a job. It was obvious why they sought revenge in the first ep, but it's not so obvious what is driving them now. Why did Eliot agree to go to the warehouse with Parker when he really wanted to drink beer and watch football ...

Although other commenters discussed this pretty well, the idea is that they stayed together for the thrill of being on the uber-team, and then evolved into something ... more. There's no guarantee that'll last forever, though ...

Tom Galloway: One problem with the ep; I really disliked the speech Nathan gave Hardison about how if he really tried, he could do anything, become a lawyer, surgeon, etc. Um, the man's a worldclass computer hacker and electronics whiz (not the same thing) and is expert in multiple computer areas. It came across as really condescending to tell a worldclass expert in multiple difficult and practical fields that if he really, really, tried, he might actually be able to make something of himself one day.

Interesting, because that directly addresses one of Nate's problems, one we really hammer in "The First David Job": he still doesn't respect being a thief. One can argue whether he should or not, but that was intentional. Hes grown fond of Hardison, and wants him to succeeed in the legit world where the rules work. Because to him, that place he's fallen from is still the right place to be. Second season addresses this issue.

Nate is not always a very nice person.

Sammie: I see a couple of people have already asked, but I also wanted to know how much of his own stunt work Christian Kane does? Doesn't he ever get hurt or is he really indestructable?

Kane does 99.9999999% of his own stunts. And yes he does get hurt. Don't frikkin remind me.

Maya: Nate is so often seen with a glass of scotch in his hand. I was wondering, what is in Tim's glass in reality when he's filming those scenes? I doubt it's alcohol for real.

It's tea. I'm the one with the real booze in his glass.

Pcat: One thing we loved about it is that it shows Sophie having a relationship with people other than Nate -- and it's a relationship that doesn't rely on nagging and disapproval for a change. Everyone is at the top of their game, and that's fun to see.

Pcat! Anyway, yeah, if you look at the eps in the order above, you see the Sophie arc tracks a little more evenly, and it's not so Nate-centric over the course of the season.

Annnd before we get to the questions for "The First David Job", a sidebar:

We knew it wouldn't work. The Sophie/Nate relationship. Well, not at first, but as soon as we started working with the actors (and it was really Tim and Gina who got us here), we realized:

a.) If Nate's as screwed up as we want, Sophie's a sap for putting up with it now that she's actually working with the guy on a regular basis, but

b.) if Nate's normal enough for the relationship to work -- a relationship built on the already tenuous foundation of romanticized, idealized verisons of each other -- he's not as fucked up as we want.

So we embarked on an occasionally frustrating, but to me much more creatively satisfying arc, of showing that real relationships are really, really hard. Sophie, in the arc of the season goes through:

1) this guy I've got a sexy, flirty relationship with, kind of a mutual crush based on our exotic lifestyle, is finally available ...
2.)... but neither of us are exactly who we think we are ...
3.) ... he's a drunk. A baaaad drunk ...
4.) ... who won't talk about his problem, or even what we're doing here in this weird pseuod-relationship ...
5.) ... who plainly really cares for me but that bit of vulnerability is almost worse because he ...
6.) ... won't stop drinking and is getting worse and ...
7.) ... shutting us all out and self-destructing in front of us and --
8.) -- now says, out loud, how much he despises the fact his ex-wife thinks he's a criminal. Like me.

Frankly -- fuck that. Fuck YOU, Emotionally Unavailable Guy. I'd steal the Second David too.

So basically, Nate/Sophie was always meant to stutter. We'll see what happens now that they're starting from a different place in Season Two.

The two halves of the finale should really be seen together. The first half is Action Half, while tonight, while action-riffic, is mostly Nate closing out his emotional arc for the season. For better or worse. Whether his need for vengeance finally destroys him -- well, we DID say that we closed out Season One without any idea of whether we had a Season Two ...

Okay, questions from "The First David Job":

Alex D: I really liked this, though the continuity problem around how/when Sophie hooked herself up on the roof made my head hurt. Felt like a real step up in danger and stakes, the way a season finale should.

She reached down and hooked on while we were watching Parker run across the roof. Honest.

Thomas: LASER TRIPWIRES DO NOT WORK LIKE THAT!

Do not even get me started on the laser tripwires. However, TV Tropes basically require their presence for The Big Heist. And what's that? It's the oncoming rumble of the FUN TRAIN! WOOOOOOT!! WOOOOOOT!

Brian: ... why isn't there a single closed circuit security camera? Why, when the vibration sensor went off, didn't the security guys just look at their little screens and say, "Oh, there's someone in there!"

Oddly, this one is true. Our security consultant spends a lot of his time explaining why there are no closed-circuit cameras in most of these secure areas now. Go figure.

RA Porter: My only very small complaint is that I wish you'd given Alex Carter more to do. That guy's *funny*.

We only got Alex for that small role because he's friends with Mark. And he has more to do this week. But it was totally him doing us a favor.

Maya: Oh, a question. Was it a coincidence that Nate punched Ian in the face right after he'd kissed Sophie's hand? Could it be that there was a tiny bit of jealousy on his part as well? It may be that it felt good to punch him on several levels. :-P

Oh yes. And Nate's not the only punchy one this week.

Michael Clear: I didn't quite get why Nate never told his ex that she's working for the man responsible for her son's death.

Not explained. But explained this week.

Mitchy: I have a technical question about the ear pieces the team uses - oddly, Hardison kind of addressed it tonight but I didn't quite catch all the dialogue. When the team are wearing the ear pieces, they can hear what the other members of the team are saying. So how does that work when they're seperated and may all be talking at the same time, or having conversations amongst themselves? Is it just a cacophany of noise they have to learn to tune out and pick out the important stuff from?

They are built with the same circuitry as sonic screwdrivers. Plotconveniencetonium.

Right then, this is your open thread for the Season One Finale. I'll do a wrap-up this week, and then once-weekly updates on the show. Might actually start blogging about something else, finally ...

Guitar Fridays: Ibanez JEM Series

This guitar is a little different from the previous ones I've posted about in that it's artist specific. Or at least originated that way. But before we get to that, let's look at the guitar itself.

This guitar sports an alder body, 24 frets with a rosewood fingerboard, an Edge Pro locking bridge system, DiMarzio pickups in a HSH configuration (humbucker, single coil, humbucker), and a look that beckons to be touched.

This sleek and sexy guitar is incredibly versatile. The transparency of sound from the pickups and their 5 different sonic configurations really allow for a wide range of tones, from blues to metal, to even jazz. But it's mostly known for one thing: pyrotechnics. This thing is not only designed for sonic variety, but for speed, accuracy, and whammy extravaganzas.

The JEM was born in the shred-heady days of the late 80s and came to prominence with the help of co-creator Steve Vai. It now has several iterations, including the infamous Universe seven string guitar (which single-handedly ushered in the uber-low nu-metal of the late 90s, early 00s--so if you're a fan, thank Steve). If you're looking for a versatile axe that screams sex appeal even when silent, the JEM is choice for you.

For examples of the JEM in action, I highly recommend Steve Vai's Passion and Warfare.* It is simply one of the greatest guitar albums ever made. Even though it's a shred-tastic wankfest, there are wonderful moments of soulful and emotive playing that few shredders are able to pull off. It's a virtuoso performance by one of the best players alive.

For a quick video of Steve putting the JEM through its paces, here is Tender Surrender from Alien Love Secrets. One of my personal favorites.

Tender Surrender


* The song Alien Water Kiss was purely an improvised piece used with heavy effects. So for the album's official sheet music, Steve had an artist create a beautiful representation of what the sheet music would look like, including strange notations, notes that trailed off the page, and even a puckering fish (yes, strangely enough, it worked).

Waid Wednesdays #11: More on the Comic Book Editor

Following up on some of last week's post about The Job of a Comic Book Editor....

I made several big presumptions and (at least) one ill-phrased comment, all of which sparked worthwhile discussion not only here but also on the forums over at boom-studios.com and in person over drinks. These points are well worth addressing here.

Presumption One: You can follow my Inviolable Rules because you, the editor, are working with writers and artists who have some degree of talent and are not, in fact, illiterate or anatomy-carefree hacks who you inherited because they bought drinks and/or hookers and/or drunken hookers for someone higher than you on the corporate roster who seems oblivious to their lack of talent.

That's a bigger gimme than it oughta be. Luckily, lack of talent will generally bury the unworthy, but it's an absolute fact that all comics editors and publishers, myself included, rely on at least one creator who they believe to be sublimely talented but who everyone else rightly knows should be cleaning pools for living. I don't know why this one blind spot exists so relentlessly, but it's so absolutely true that I've come to accept it as some sort of weird Necessary Impurity built into the editorial desk.

Consequently, if you have any sort of editorial workload at all--at DC, editors and their assistants handle anywhere from four to eight monthly books; at Marvel, they handle twice that; and at Boom!, it's somewhere in the middle--you're probably stuck with at least one writer or artist you yourself would not have willfully hired. If you're lucky, there's enough talent there whereby stories are being produced that, even if they're not 100% to your taste, are good stories. If you're unlucky, you're shackled to a writer who's clueless. Good luck with that. All I can tell you is, in my experience and in the long run, you'll be able to sleep better at night knowing you've argued with the guy and served the story than you will if you cave in on your instincts to follow the path of least resistance.

Presumption Two: The writer you're trying to edit is a good guy who understands concepts like "company standards," "style guide," and "Just because Grant Morrison once had Batman shoot someone with a gun doesn't mean you can do it." A lot of companies, BOOM! included, are skittish about the word "goddamn," for instance, because as unbelievable as this is to me, there are still people out there who are more offended by one word of language than they are by the entirety of Dane Cook's existence. This presumption is directly entwined with....

Presumption Two-A: Your freelancers give a rat's ass what you say and are not arrogant prima donnas who bristle every time you suggest to them that "Spider-Man" does, in fact, have a hyphen in it. It's easy for me to sit here and say "Don't pose problems without offering solutions," but there are always going to be a few writers and artists who are so sensitive/insecure/gun-shy that they're going to perceive any suggestion you make as horning in on their job. Basically, not that you needed to hear this from me, that's their problem, not yours, but your life will be easier if you learn how to handle and massage those egos on a case-by-case basis. If you're calm and level-headed with your freelancers, I promise that they will eventually learn not to flinch every time you open your mouth.

And, finally, the rule "Never point out a problem unless you have a solution to offer" was clunkily phrased and, in retrospect, should have read as "If you're gonna point out a problem with the story, have a solution to offer." I didn't mean to suggest you should ever fear pointing out problems; I was instead heavily underscoring the point that if you think in terms of solutions, that tends to turn your kneejerk reactions into articulate statements with some thought behind them.

*****
As an editor, you're certainly well within your rights and your job description to enforce whatever editorial guidelines have been laid down by your bosses, and I kinda thought that was understood, but I apologize for not making that point more explicitly. It's easy for Writer Me to forget that not everyone in comics has an "I've Read 50,000 Comics In My Lifetime" inbred understanding of basically what material is and isn't considered problematic in American mainstream comic books.

I think the toughest, most stressful part of the editor's job is that serving the material and serving the creators don't always go hand-in-hand. If you're editing someone else's creator-owned book, it's an easier gig; ultimately, you can advocate for whatever you like, but the creator generally has final say so long as the publisher's still willing to publish his or her work. If you're working at Marvel or DC or Dark Horse or wherever on corporate-owned properties, you're expected by your corporate overlords to know where to draw the line between letting these crazy freelancers have their heads and protecting these corporate assets from stories or art that might "damage" them. Worse, the placement of that line changes from hour to hour and depends not only on the ephemeral definition of "damage" but also on (a) the clout of the freelancer, (b) your clout in the company, (c) however corporate might be overrreacting on some mail they got from an aggrieved crank, (d) whether your editor in chief had a fight with his wife this morning and wants to exert some power, (e) how seriously your boss takes the comments on message boards, and (f through z) any number of other random factors.

Comics Editorial really is a complex job on a corporate level, and as I have often said, I'm lucky that I'm the E-I-C and don't have to answer to anyone who isn't in tune with my own tastes and standards of craft. If I had to get screamed at by corporate overlords who were overruling my story instincts on a regular basis, I'd be in jail now. That gives me the luxury of never really having to worry about anything other than answering the question "Does this make the story better?", but I promise you, no matter how lenient or strict your own bosses are, when you carve everything else out of the way, that remains the only important question and must always remain your North Star.

LEVERAGE: The First David Job

This will be your open thread, until air, and then after broadcast I'll EDIT the post to answer questions from the last two weeks and address some spoilery stuff.

EDIT: Screw the edit, we'll do a separate post on Wed. I just ate too much of Mark Sheppard's food and listened to his stories of his days in a band opening for U2. Bed now, dishing tomorrow.

EDIT the 2nd: The Church Girl in The Miracle Job was DB Sweeney's assistant, not a previous version of Maggie. There's no way we'd introduce Maggie and then not have a scene between she and Nate. Also, she's inappropriately young. C'mon, Nate Ford doesn't roll that way.

HEXED #1 on iPhone

Nelson's march to dominate your tiny-screen comic reading world continues -- Hexed #1 is available on iPhone.

Ephemera 2009 (6)

--Explanations in PLAIN ENGLISH. I do like Common Craft.

-- Sweet Frakkin' hotcakes 0n BSG's "No Exit" ep. I seriously look forward to the equivalent episode on Lost. Yes, sometimes you can puke up five years worth of exposition and it can be satisfying. You can also enjoy the semi-serious discussion on "why Tom Zarek was right" here. Be sure to hit the "BSG" tag for more feedback from various contributors.

-- Dear NBC: Kings is the best thing you've made in, say, five years. Please stop fucking up the marketing. It works both as sci-fi and/or biblical allegory. Seriously. You're shanking it.

-- My, that Kindle post got you riled up. I'm actually going to do a follow-up (and yes, Mike, we'll talk about the Sony Reader), but in the meantime this article is a good start. Substitute "horse" and "car", indeed.

-- And smoothly transitioning, I'm pretty impressed by the online presence of both Tor books and Subterranean Press.

-- Bought The Translated Man off Lulu, and I'm digging it immensely. There's an interesting discussion to be had (and I may have it with Lee Goldberg when I have lunch with him soon) about self-publishing. One one hand, we're pushing independent film production. On the other, we're highly ambivalent about novels that have not gone through the traditional editorial process. (Bonus points: I really can't get over how much i09 should suck, when it sucks much less than that.)

-- On the other-other hand, collections of posts & memoirs such as Wil Wheaton's Sunken Treasures fall under a different category perceptually.

-- Sure, Watchmen will be shiny. But the movie I'm most anticipating in 2009?



Go to Apple for the mind-blowing high-def.

-- The intersection of gaming and storytelling is heating up, and I have to admit that although there are tech-ier sites out there, I kind of like the noob friendly vibe at Gameplaywright.

-- All right, everyone's blogging about this ...



... and I'm pretty much in line with Bill Cunningham here. Longer Post Later -- we're due for a major review of 4th Generation Media theory, and how it now combines with open source insurgency theory -- but this is how it's going to happen. Pros dabbling, and stumbling into the new world. This is the "viability" demonstration of the insurgency. No, this is in no way a viable product. But it's the structure of a viable production.

-- In the Comments: your favorite podcast. Mine is still Planet Money. I adore people who can take complex ideas from a field I know absolutely nothing about and explain them so cleanly and entertainingly. Fiction podcasts also allowed.

LEVERAGE post tomorrow. Realized I couldn't have the discussion I wanted without spoiling.

How NOT to Pitch at a Convention

by M A N

I love working at conventions. Don't get me wrong, it's a lot of hard work that's both physically and mentally draining, but it's also genuinely fun. I sincerely enjoy getting the chance to talk with people about books (yes, mine especially) and socialize with colleagues.

What isn't quite as much fun is having to deal with a creator who has no concept of professionalism or courtesy. Fortunately, 98% of the creators that come up to the booth don't fall into this category. Most know how to present themselves. It's just that 2% leave me scratching my head in disbelief.

First off, I'm not an editor. I have zero control over what the company publsishes and who they hire (they hire me and, to be frank, that's really all I care about). Yet, surprisingly, after explaining this and then directing the creator to the person they SHOULD speak with and how best to contact her, a few still continue to pitch me the idea. I can certainly apprecaite the enthusiasm and the desire to share that excitement, but I think it's best to reserve those energies for the times when it can actually benefit the creator.

Another thing I find surprising can be summed up in the following, slightly fabricated, exchange:

Creator approaches booth, stack of samples under his arm.

CREATOR: HEY, WHO ARE YOU GUYS?

ME: WE ARE THE MOST AWESOME AND AMAZING PUBLISHING COMPANY EVER TO GRACE THE FACE OF THIS PLANET, BOOM! STUDIOS.*

A choir of angels descend from the heavens, accompanied by a chorus of golden trumpets.

CREATOR: COOL. I'VE GOT AN IDEA THAT'S PERFECT FOR YOU.

Okay, for one thing, "who we are" is plain to see just about everywhere at the booth, from the massive logos on the tablecloths to the backdrops to every book we have displayed on the tables. Granted, most conventions are textbook examples of stimulation overload so I can understand how one could miss it. If you're a customer. But if you're a creator, my sense of empathy diminishes. You should really know who you're submitting to. Even if you've never heard of the company before, at least take five minutes to peruse their booth to see what it is they publish, what styles of art they prefer. If you notice a heavy selection of faerie romance titles on the tables, perhaps your splatter-punk serial killer story might not be the best fit.

I'm not saying you should write a dissertation on the company's history before submitting to them, but you should do a minimal amount of homework. Even if it's just a quick walkthrough there at the convention.

There have been plenty of people who come up to the booth cold, but they usually ask a few relevant questions then spend several minutes looking over the books. THEN they ask about submission policies, hiring practices, etc. This is how it should be done. But if you walk up, ask me who we are, and then proceed to tell me you have something that's perfect for us, I'm going to know you're full of shit. If you don't know who we are, how could you possibly know what idea would be perfect for us? I can appreciate the confidence, but the lack of homework screams "unprofessional."

I have no problem talking with people at the booth. In fact, I love it. When I'm working at a convention, I'm there to promote myself, my books, and the other titles we publish (not necessarily in that order). Talking with customers is a big part of that, whether they buy anything or not. I'm proud of the books I write and the books BOOM! publishes and I want people to know that. So when a creator's pitch interferes with that agenda, it becomes a problem. A big fucking problem.

Recently while at a convention, a creator approached the booth with his project in hand. After I explained our submissions policy, he began to pitch me anyway by pulling dozens of sketches and scripts from a large manilla envelop and spreading them over the table, covering the books we were trying to sell.** As if that wasn't bad enough, his father then pulled out a large fold-out map of the convention floor to determine their next destination and layed it over another large section of our table.

Folks, do not do this. Ever. Especially unsolicited. When you show that kind of disregard and disrespect for a company's products, why in the world would they ever want to do business with you? That's a good way to make sure you never get published (although I must give him kudos for having a father who supported his creativity enough to play navigator).

There are, undoubtedly, numerous places on the intertubes that discuss the finer points of convention etiquette (and this goes for folks behind the booth as well as in front of). I would assume most of those points are common sense, but if you're a creator and aren't sure if some of your tactics may actually be backfiring, search them out.


*Yes, I really do say things like this.

**Honestly, there was a moment I seriously, seriously, thought he was going to break into interpretive dance.

Friday Open Thread

No guitars today as my writing energies are needed elsewhere. So consider this an open thread to chat amongst yourselves. To get it going (and remain somewhat in theme), let us know what kind of instrument(s) you play, or, given your druthers, wish you could play.

Open thread in three...

Two...

One...

And may I add...

...how honored I am that at last I can hear what my essays would sound like if they were read aloud by the dwarf from Twin Peaks. Thanks, Rogers! That gum you like is going to come back in style.

Waid Wednesdays #10: The Job of the Comic Book Editor

Look, SOMEONE's got to get this stuff out of the hands of the writers and artists and to press.

Comics editors, rumors to the contrary, are some of my favorite people, and I've always admired the good ones. In fact, when I broke into comics in the mid-'80s, I did so as an editor, at DC; I had little if any interest in being a comic book writer because I honestly thought I'd never be any good at it. That wasn't my career goal at all. I just wanted to help steer my favorite characters and work with my favorite creators. I'd read a kabillion comics, I was organized, I was excellent at punctuation and spelling, and so I thought that would be enough to conquer the job.

Oh ho ho.

I lasted just over two years that first go-around and helped produce some really good and fondly remembered comics. I found some new talent like that James Robinson kid, and I enjoyed the gig. But I also, in my youthful arrogance, made a thousand dumb mistakes (like inadvertently pissing off Will Eisner--that was a red-letter day) and was eventually thrown out into the snowy New York streets. (Luckily, I seem to have recovered reasonably well.)

As I found out when I took the Editor In Chief gig at BOOM! in 2007, the job has transformed immensely in the intervening two decades because of digital delivery. During my first tour of duty, artists and writers worked via FedEx, colorists still slapped colored dyes on paper, hot dogs were a nickel, and everything was basically hard-copy. Now, scripts are e-mailed, art is scanned and uploaded to the FTP, lettering's done with Adobe Illustrator, and in the entire time I've been at BOOM!, I've yet to have an actual, physical piece of art cross my desk.

That said, the core of the Comic Book Editor's job is essentially the same as it ever was. The editor is the supervisor. The manager. The coordinator. S/he, when the system is running smoothly:

* sets the deadlines;
* makes the initial assignment to the writer (if work-for-hire--or coordinates delivery with the writer or writer/artist if it's their property);
* reminds the writer a few weeks later that the script is running late;
* receives the script, reads it for content and continuity, and asks for rewrites if necessary, see below;
* ultimately copy-edits the accepted, final script and sends it to the artist;
* pokes a late artist about HIS deadline;
* receives the art via FTP;
* checks the art against the script to make sure they mesh and that the storytelling is clear, asking for redrawing if necessary, see also below;
* forwards the script and art FTP info to a colorist, sets a deadline, and provides him any necessary reference;
* indicates, on copies of the art, where the balloons, captions and sound effects should be placed (though if the script breaks all that down panel-by-panel well enough, most letterers today can handle that on their own);
* sends the script and the art FTP info to the letterer and sets a deadline;
* reviews the coloring for obvious errors (inconsistencies in characters or locales) and storytelling blunders (accidentally coloring night scenes as day, for instance);
* proofreads the whole project once again after the lettering's done, checking the lettering placement and reading the whole book to make sure it all works now that it's all of a piece;
* sends it out in this stage to the writer and artist for their review in case they want to tweak anything or may catch something you've missed;
* somewhere in the middle of all this, figures out what the hell the cover illustration should be;
* solicits a cover sketch (or several) from an artist to ensure that there's room for trade dress and that the illustration's not too similar to anything else in the pipeline;
* makes a final idiot check to make certain that, say, any two-page spreads fall on even-odd pages not odd-even or that the creative credits are included and accurate;
* notifies the publishing coordinator that the book's ready to be sent to the printer;
* and, finally, checks the proofs when they come in a few weeks later to make dead certain that everything's where it's supposed to be.

Rinse, repeat.

On top of all this, editors have to process and stay on top of vouchers from the creative team, write up solicitation information for the sales catalog and try to work far enough ahead so they're not having to guess or make stuff up, stay in constant phone and e-mail communication with the creative team to keep spirits up, assuage egos, manage deadlines, and more. I'm sure there're a dozen other things I and other editors have to do every day that I've overlooked, but those are the big bullet points. In some ways, I think I've made it sound harder than it is, and in other ways, I can't believe I or anyone could go through all those steps on nine or ten separate projects a month and not be driven insane.

And--AND--that's just the nuts and bolts of it all. That's a peek behind the curtain for those of you who have no inside knowledge already but are curious. Any orangutan who follows the above recipe can be an editor, but it won't make him a good editor, because what makes a good editor is nowhere on that list.

What makes a good editor is staying the hell out of the way as much as possible.

As an editor, you're there to facilitate the creative process, not impose on it. Yes, any time the writers or artists or colorists or letterers or anyone else wants to ask your advice or get a ruling on something, or anytime you feel like someone could be encouraged to do better, you have to be there for them. Have to be. That's the job, whether the project is, say, BATMAN and creative types are serving as work-for-hire, or something the creators own and you're serving them as a hired editor (as with, say, Steve Niles's 30 DAYS OF NIGHT).

That's much easier to do if the project is creator-owned and you're just there essentially to keep the trains running on time. If, on the other hand, you're a DC or Marvel or Dark Horse or BOOM! editor who's assigning work, then if you did your job properly to begin with, then the people you've hired can be trusted to do what they do without excessive meddling. The less work you have to do, the more energy you can put into the million other things you have to do that day. The ideal situation you're shooting for as an editor is to groom a collaborative creative team to the point where their work sails effortlessly through production and the most you have to do is fix the spelling and the commas.

If something bugs you at any point along the way--dialogue's not clear to you, or that girl's head looks too big, or whatever--yes, absolutely, speak up. But for the love of all that is holy, remember that the editor's primary role is to help the creative team tell their story, NOT make them tell YOUR story. The best comics editors have the smallest egos. The worst ones feel like they have to justify their salaries by making changes just so they can leave their fingerprints. Every creative medium has those guys, and they're all loathsome. If the creators don't have a clear idea of what you've commissioned them to do, that's your fault. And if they can't do it to your satisfaction, then you've hired poorly and should fish the talent pool anew. It's rare that, as an editor, you never have to step in at all to request some changes or clarifications, and that's absolutely your right to do so, but know what you're doing before you do it.

Here's Mark Waid's First Inviolable Rule For Editors, Including Himself: Never point out a problem unless you have a solution to offer. "This isn't quite working for me, try again" is insanely unhelpful. Your solution doesn't have to be "the" solution; you're gonna talk it over with your writer or artist, you're going to clearly articulate why something's not working in your eyes, and then you're going to listen to how they respond, negotiate the best fix if theirs is different, politic it out if they don't acknowledge a problem, and be ready to dismiss your concern if they make a good case that they're right and you're wrong, because if you're working with talented folks, that will happen. For years, I had a very good editor with one infamous trait: his bomb sights were off by about five pages. Without fail, every single time he'd call me up to talk about something in a script that bothered him, the problem was never exactly where he thought it was. The first few times we worked together, I'd listen to his criticisms and they wouldn't make much sense to me, but every time we'd talk it out, we'd eventually realize that the problem was with an earlier or later scene. I got used to his rhythms, I'd hear "this scene seems off," I'd think "actually, that scene's fine, but if he's bothered, that definitely means something's wrong somewhere," I'd figure out the appropriate fix, we'd both be happy. But the important point was that even though his sights were off, he was trying to articulate the problem, and that helped me zero in on it. "Eh, I don't know what's not working, take another swing" would not have been nearly as helpful.

Here's Mark Waid's Second Inviolable Rule For Editors, Including Himself: if you want something changed, it had damn well better make the story better, or else shut the hell up. "Wouldn't it be cool if...?" are five words that are almost always more destructive than they are helpful. "Wouldn't it be cool if this whole story were a flashback?" "Wouldn't it be cool if you gave him a robot dog?" "Wouldn't it be cool if you cut away in the middle of this Superman story to show Wonder Woman making a sandwich?" "Wouldn't it be cool if you made this scene more like my favorite scene from Star Wars?" Answer: no. (Sub-answer: yes, all these things, and worse, have been said to me. Okay, not the sandwich, but the actual request was even stupider.) If you're asking for changes without really, seriously understanding how those changes might affect the overall story, then stop talking. Also, if you're in that twenty percent of comics editors who didn't understand what I just said there, then please find another job. I'm not insisting that every script, every line, every drawing, every splash of color is somehow some perfect gem that can't be meddled with; everyone creative in this field needs someone looking over his or her shoulder to make sure they're not fumbling the ball, as we all do sometimes, and creators have to be willing to work collaboratively. But a good editor knows that the only changes worth championing are the ones that make the story better. If you're an editor unable to defend your editing in detail, on those grounds, then you're in the wrong line of work.

Whether they're working on something that's ultimately theirs or ultimately Time-Warner's or Marvel's, no one wants to feel like a typist or an art robot. Let them be creative; that's their job. The editor's job is to get their best work out of them or, if necessary, replace them if they're not meeting the standards of the publisher. The first, last and only question is always: does this make the story better?

A Little Self Promotion

by M A N

I recently returned from the New York Comicon, which means two things: I'm exhausted and I'm behind on scripts. Both good problems to have, as far as I'm concerned. But before I disappear from the world for the next 48 hours, I wanted to mention that Hexed #2 comes out today. If you're not sure if it will be your cup of tea, it will also be available as a free download on Myspace Comics so you can give it a read before buying.

Speaking of Hexed and downloads, I was pleasantly surprised to discover that Hexed #1 was released on Friday the 6th as the first BOOM!/iVerse Media comic available for download on Google's Android OS for mobile phones. It was downloaded over 8,000 times in the first 12 hours it was available (it's now somewhere between 10 and 50 thousand downloads). Looks like another nail in the dead tree coffin.

I'll be at signing copies of Hexed and everything else at Meltdown Comics tonight at 7:00 (their website says I'm there Tuesday, but it should be Wednesday the 11th). So if you live in the Los Angeles area, stop on by.

LEVERAGE: No Justice, No Peace

Running late again. Consider this your open thread/bitch session for the very fun "The Juror #6 Job" written by our writers' assistant Rebecca Kirsch. We'll tackle the questions from this and "The 12 Step Job" together in a mega-post later in the week, setting up the two-part season finale.

In Defense of the Kindle

"My cousin has a Kindle and loves it, but I played with it a bit and found it utterly unsatisfying as a reading device. (Part of the difference is that she tends to read very disposable literature, while I am more drawn to non-fiction and great works one might return to over and over again.) Unless there is some significant improvement in such devices, they will take my books over my dead body ..."

"... As an addendum to my previous post, I will admit that the ability to increase the font size is probably a useful selling point to people who have trouble seeing. On the other hand, I found using a Kindle to be a cold and technological experience, nothing like the warm embrace of many well-designed books I have enjoyed ..."

"... To reiterate what a poster said above, you cannot sell, trade or give away a copy when you are done with it. Consider the usefulness of a lowly paperback. After you read it, you can put it on a shelf to keep, trade it into a used book store for credit, give it to a friend, or even sell it on eBay/at a garage sale, or just donate it to any worthy charity.Most of those options gives that lowly paperback new life."

-- commenters on Kevin Drum's blog

"Warm embrace"? Jesus Murphy, am I the only person who doesn't need a goddam handjob from my reading material?

You know, it's not like Amazon needs my help, but I'm in the mood to do some anti-backlash backlash snark. In particular, the repeated "What about giving away your books? Huh?" annoys me to no end. Now, people do this, but more than, say, two a year? Seriously? And in large enough numbers to justify rejecting a new technology out of hand? Is that anything but a hassle for most people doing it?

And no one's taking away your books! Just like, if you let us build Supertrains, no one will come and take your car!

Listen, I'm a guy with a storage unit full of books. Let me re-iterate that -- a STORAGE UNIT FULL OF BOOKS. I love reading. I devour fiction and non-fiction. But I believe it's worth noting as a pre-requisite for Kindle discussion that people who fetishize books as books are just that -- fetishists. They are, in modern culture, rare and specific exceptions. I prefer tabletop dice-rolling games to video games, but I'm fully aware that makes me a.) an exception and b.) does not automatically give me any high ground or relevant insight as far as innovations in videogaming goes. Because, again, a.)I am an exception.

Again, not like Amazon needs my help, but --

1.) Currently on my Kindle: my subscriptions to Newsweek, the Atlantic, Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine (which I NEVER bothered to hunt up in print), the frikkin' New Yorker, and my old hometown paper, The Boston Globe. Delivered every day or week dead-tree-free, not cluttering up my goddam living room, and can be read at any time, on any lunch or coffee break, without a "wait, did I put the new one in my briefcase this morning ...?" At the very least, this is the future of the magazine and newspaper business.

2.) Also taking up space in the quarter-inch beast: Aspects of the Novel by E.M Forster; the 300 pound hardcover From Colony to Superpower that I can read without spraining my wrist; Cosmonaut Keep by Ken MacLeod; the Complete Sherlock Holmes; Massim Nicholas Taleb's The Black Swan; a bunch of Richard K. Morgan; Fareed Zakariah's The Post-American World. Al Gore's Assault on Reason ...

3.) All those hardcovers were roughly half-price. And no, the library is not viable for me. I work 14 hours a day. I need to be able to get back to a book when I can get back to a book. I also tend to reread non-fiction.

4.) The DRM is indeed evil, if you ever want to transfer those books to another mass-market reader. Of which there are none. I don't much care for DRM, but I make enough of a living off copyright to realize that non-intrusive -- by which I mean non-intrusive in the acqusition process or the consumption phase -- DRM in media is not a high crime.

5.) The "tiny" screen is the size of a non-trade paperback book.

6.) No, reading pdf's or free ebooks on your laptop or iPhone is not the same thing. Enjoy your retinal burn.

All that said, there are a lot of improvements that could be put into play. Bundling e-book versions with real-world purchases would be both just and smart. The bizarre inability to properly process pdf's is just plain inexcusable. There are a whackload of problems, but if ever there was "making perfect the enemy of good" in action, it's the current round of Kindle bashing. At the very least, this sort of thinking in the entertainment industry is why we let the Web catch us with our pants around our ankles.

There. I've defended my beautiful, ivory baby. Back to typing. Feel free to put the suggestions for your ideal e-reader in the comments.

Torchwood: Children of Earth

I approve. I have a perfectly irrational love for this very broken show. I would say my Gwen Cooper "issue" may officially be a "problem."

How We Were Renewed ...

Don't need to tell you the story, Dean filmed it.



Courtesy IF Magazine, the high-def version.

Hey, Piefurcation Readers ...

... the post they sent you here to read is actually this one.

Waid Wednesday #9: The Proposal, Part Two

Continuing the sample proposal from last week....

THE SERIES

ISSUE ONE: We introduce Samantha, Wolf, the concept of the Hunter-Killer squad and the Ultra-Sapiens. We OPEN with the home life of Ellis and introduce him and his kindly parents as people we genuinely like and care about. But when Ellis begins to exhibit weird powers, his parents freak. Not at him; at the realization that this is a warning, that powered Ultra-Sapiens are approaching and Ellis is inadvertently “mirroring” their powers.

Ellis is freaking, too—he has no idea what’s going on or that his parents are anything other than what they’ve always seemed. The parents quickly smuggle Ellis out of the house and order him to run as far and as fast as he can...then, in order to cover his escape, they make a stand against a marauding band of Hunter-Killers, led by Samantha, who hit the house like a tornado.

Turns out Mom and Dad are long-escaped Ultra-Sapiens who have been keeping their background secret from their son—and they won’t go down without a fight. Mom sacrifices herself, Dad goes down in battle, much action, much mayhem—and then it’s complicated by the reveal that Ellis refused to abandon his folks and doubled back to the battleground.

Ellis’ mirroring powers kick in hard, he thinks he’s saving his father—but then Dad turns on him. Better Ellis is dead, he says, than kidnapped and dissected by these monsters. Ellis is forced to kill his father in self-defense, and Samantha and her team scoops Ellis up. Issue one ends with Ellis’ parents dead after having been revealed to Ellis as Not At All What He Thought They Were; Ellis’s home and life utterly obliterated; Samantha taking him into the H-K program; and Wolf on their trail.

ISSUE TWO: More background on the Ultra Sapiens program is revealed in this issue—a little more “origin material” without giving away too much or revealing too many allegiances.

On their way back to headquarters, Ellis begins to manifest a new power. The agents assume he’s trying to escape and they move into attack-ready mode despite his protests, but it’s Samantha who realizes the significance of his power flare-up. Ellis isn’t trying to escape—what this means is that there’s another Ultra-Sapien in proximity! Sam gets a sitrep and realizes the Ultra-Sapien is way high atop their Most Wanted (and Best Hidden) List and that he’s a clear and imminent danger to his surroundings. Sam makes the hard call that there’s no time to ease Ellis into this world or “train” him—even if they’ve got a read on the rogue Ultra, by the time they get Ellis to HQ and double back without him, the trail will be cold. No, they’ve got to bring Ellis into this and hope he lives.

With Wolf still secretly trailing them (staying far enough back not to have his powers replicated by Ellis, a sure tell of his presence), the team finds the rogue Ultra. By issue’s end, Ellis has been separated from Sam and the others and is facing this guy alone—or, rather, with Wolf now reluctantly at his side (Wolf still can’t risk Ellis being captured or killed, not until he knows more about the kid.)

Note also: this issue will detail Samantha’s predicament—that the power in her weapons is actually bio-energy she herself radiates, energy for which the weapons allow safe release.

ISSUE THREE: Ellis and Wolf against the Ultra in a battle that will form the foundation of their future friendship. On the one hand, Ellis is distrustful of Wolf since he still doesn’t quite know what Wolf had to do with his parents’ deaths; on the other hand, through the action of battle, both Ellis and Wolf inadvertently demonstrate to one another how unshakeable their moral codes are, which will be a huge point of commonality between them.

Once Sam and her crew reunite with Ellis (Wolf having vanished again), they take him to Headquarters and we see the operation in action. More secrets of the Hunter-Killer program revealed: first, the headquarters doesn’t technically “exist” geographically—it’s a locale imagined by and carved out of dimensional space by The Architect, one of the Ultras who’s been co-opted by the H-K program. It’s oversimple to say that the HQ exists “in his head”; it’s more that the Architect is a quirky but insanely powerful telekinetic who can link you to a dimension in which nothing exists except what he creates mentally out of thin air. So long as the Architect is on our side, it’s the safest place for the H-K program to house itself since it cannot be accessed or even located by potential enemies. One of the drawbacks of the place is that the look and details of it tend to shift and change whenever the Architect gets a new notion or idea (meaning everyone on-site hates the day each month when his subscription copy of Better Homes & Gardens shows up).

Others introduced are Stalker, who (up until Ellis’s arrival) has been the H-Ks’ primary Ultra Sapiens tracker, and Cloaker, the single most important field agent in any mission because he has the mental power to fool observers into seeing the agents however he wants them to be seen—as Asian tourists, as a visiting swim team, as anything but Threatening Guys With Guns. Cloaker’s weird and a bit slimy—Steve Buscemi-ish—but everyone’s always nicest to him because he has the power to make bystanders “see” you in your underwear.

Ellis—who, remember, is still reeling in shock from everything that went down in issue one—gets the tour but is uneasy. He pretends to go along with Sam and the program for now, but by issue’s end, we realize that he’s keeping to himself some serious reservations and suspicions about this whole operation. He trusts no one except, potentially, Wolf—who has proven to be the only one in Ellis’s world now who is straight up and is exactly who he says he is, something not even Ellis’s parents could have claimed.

ISSUE FOUR: Take the recent “Iraq/Haliburton/oil field contracts” scandal-scenario and replaced “oil fields” with “superhumans.” The U.S. Government has uncovered the existence of a small band of Ultra-Sapiens in a war-torn, third-world country, and a high-level administration official has “arranged” for his corporation to secretly take “possession” of them for the corporation’s own ends. Ellis and Cole must get into the war zone and deal these Ultra-Sapiens out somehow before this happens.

ISSUE FIVE: An Ultra-Sapien who’s a “telemech”—able to read thoughts and transmit them as electrical impulses—is on the loose, and Ellis and Cole are dispatched to deal with him. Once they confront him, they realize he’s not a hardass criminal; he’s a poor bastard whose life was ruined by the Project, and he wants revenge. He’s gathered enough information to blow the Hunter-Killer program wide open and is about to feed it through every fax machine and modem line on Earth in one big burst of information. Do Ellis and Wolf take him down with extreme prejudice for the greater good?

ISSUE SIX: Ellis and Wolf have to shut down a full-scale riot at a prison nicknamed “Area 52”—a virtually unknown Guantanamo Bay-style facility where captured Ultra-Sapiens believed to be “hostile to the U.S.” are held and tortured in utter violation of anything resembling civil rights.

Further adventures will continue in this vein. Every mission will have a hard, character-revelatory moral choice at its center. And as we barrel into the back half of the year, Morningfrost’s relationship with the Hunter-Killers will become more antagonistic, leading to an all-out war between the H-Ks and their leader.

*************
There. A little wordy, maybe, and we changed a lot of the details as I wrote the actual series, but in answer to numerous requests--a sample Proposal.

Next: The Job of an Editor

Beaver Bigfoot: What the Security Guards Saw

Thanks, Berg.

LEVERAGE: The 13th Step is "Shut Up About It Already."

First, a lovely little article about some of the FX in this week's episode over at IF Magazine. We work our VFX guys pretty hard, and average about 300% more FX shots than the usual 1 hour show.

Tonight's episode, "The 12 Step Job" was one of the last written, a gang-bang by ... well, there were only two other writers on staff at that point besides myself, so I'm not sure that counts. More of a menage-a-trois with the script, involving Chris Downey and Amy Berg. I was off writing the first half of the season finale while they were wrestling this to the ground. We can discuss some of the funkier dynamics once you've seen it, but a.) the bad guy isn't our usual bad guy and b.) Aldis and Kane spent the week calling each other "Riggs" and "Murtaugh." We may have created a monster. This ep is a fanfic grenade. Oh, and c.) I'll show you the last page of the script, and we can discuss something that's been heating up the message boards. Let's just say -- it's been on purpose.

This was actually meant to be the last regular season ep before the two-parter finale. It's out of order, but for an interesting reason -- clearance issues for some background footage on "The Juror #6 Job" didn't come through, and we had to switch eps to buy time to yank-and-replace the background imagery. Ah, well, the best laid schemes o' mice an' men/Gang aft agley. Welcome to weekly television production.

(You know, if I had to do it again, I would name my company "Gangaftagley Productions.")

Although I like all the episodes we made this year, I will say the next four -- "12 Step", "Juror", "The First David Job" and "The Second David Job" are a straight run through what I always thought of the show becoming.

I've got two mailbags to dive into, and you people were chatty as all hell. Let's see what we've got ... oh, wait, I mentioned back here that there were a few things cut for time from "Mile High" that I really missed. Now, first, go back and watch that episode.

...

Okay. In no particular order a.) the flashback scenes from Tuscany and Paris were actually written, but not shot. b.) the scene explaining how the Security Guy was in chargeof the cover-up, so he had to die too, and most important, c.) when Hardison originally arrived at Genegrow in the morning, the security guards were distracted because they were talking to a police sketch artist who was sketching the "furry thing" based on their eyewitness testimony. I believe Berg still has that sketch around here somewhere.

Right, now the mailbag, covering "Mile High" and "Snow Job" and miscellany.

John Seavey: But the real question is, (in "Mile High") do your airplane restroom walls contain a trans-dimensional portal in the mirrors out of which zombies can inexplicably spring forth to assault the hapless occupant, as in the classic film "Flight of the Living Dead"?

Shit. That was the fourth thing we cut.

Kathryn: I have to say, what excites me most about tonight's ep is the fact y'all got Jeremy Roenick on! Yes, yes I know. Forget the con, the victims, Sophie speaking French, it's the hockey player that gets me.

You know what, Jeremy was frikkin' great, and a real pro. Apparently he wants to move into acting, his agents contacted us, and so we took a shot. He didn't let us down.

Alan Scott: (earlier post)I tend to construct the villain plan absent the heroes, then drop them in. (Alan) Is that the Dungeon Master school of writing?

Terrifyingly, yes. I've had very good experiences with characters letting me know that they had somethign much more interesting in mind than I did when I started writing the script. I tend to trust them and let them run around in the world.

R.A. Porter: What I want to know is if the causeway landing - which was ridiculously cool and looked really good considering your budget - was inspired by the urban myth about the Interstate Highway System of if it was just done because it was cool.

Necessity is ... that epsiode ended differently, and Dean came in and reminded us that we had a fully functioning VFX department in house, and we should take a run at a big action ending. The company had causeway footage, so we just used that.

We of course didn't write a water landing, because at that point, every water landing had fatalities. Didn't bank on a miracle.

On the other hand, these things are tricky. The Core opened up right after the Columbia tragedy, and of course has a big-ass sequence where the space shuttle nearly crashes, and winds up landing safely in the LA river. We waited, breaths held, as the audience watched the movie's space shuttle roll to a stop ... and then they burst into thunderous applause. People stood up and whistled. Fiction is how we work this collective id shit out, and you never know how it's going to break.

Keith DeCandido: The Doctor Who references made me jump about. The World of Warcraft bonding made me laugh loud enough to scare the cats. Bravo! (And we already know that Hardison's a Who fan, since he mentioned Torrenting Who episodes in "The Bank Shot Job," so he probably picked those aliases deliberately.) Now we just need a Farscape reference.

Berg picked the Who aliases (she's nto a fan, but knows how to make the boss chuckle), but yes, Hardison in theory builds all their fake ID's. They tend to be ... consistent. I'm shocked you haven't realized that while I say the show is based on 60's and 70's heist shows, it's plainly a Farscape rip-ioff. Hardison's laptop is even named Winona ...

Jill: Definitely a fun episode - but was there a scene cut that linked Hardison's "birthday" to getting back into the main guy's desk? Or did I look away at the wrong moment and miss it?

It was cut -- more of just an angle to establish geography, but the location didn't cooperate.

Joshua James: Question ... it seems from the sample you posted that you all use traditional screenplay formatting for your scripts, as opposed to (what I've read, anyway) TV format (with Scenes A, B, C, and action lines all in CAPS) ... true? If so, how did that come about and is that possibly a new thing (because screenplay format is more accessible, I think)?

That format you mentioned (SCENE A, ALL CAPS ACTION) is the traditonal half-hour multi-camera format. One-hours (traditonally "single camera") have generally used filmic formatting for, well, as long as I've been doing it, which is around a dozen years now. I can check with my more veteran writer friends and see if the half-hour format was ever the standard for both styles of show.

Michael Clear: When Parker was giving the instructions about water landings and the emergency exits, was it clueless insensitivity that generated the comments about drowning and burning to death or was it the puckish sense of humor of someone who isn't afraid of being fired? Also, the amount of background research the team does is amazing. How do they always know that every man Sophie meets wants to sleep with her?

Annoyance at having to play a role, along with her usual cluelessness. The lecture to Sara Rue, however ("death haunts us all") is actually pure, sincere Parker.

As for the second bit ... yeah. When we finished the first take of the pilot, with Saul Rubinek trading barbs with her face to face, he stumbled over to me after the first take. I asked him if he was okay. He smiled grimly and muttered "John, you have no idea what it's like to be the full focus of that woman's attention."

Andrew Cunningham: When it comes to snipping bits, I'd far rather you cut the client meetings. They tend to be rather dreary, with lots of concerned looks and restrained tears - and this episode had enough references to what they were up to that it would have worked just fine without the opening scene. I wonder if you haven't got into a habit where you assume you need to drive home the cause they're working for, when that side of things occasionally serves as a sour note in an otherwise terrific episode.

You know, the client scenes are tricky. We're of two minds about them ourselves, but we've found that the eps where you don't connect with the clients don't land as well. I think we found a good balance later in the season, but yeah, they're the bane of our existence. Murder shows have it easy -- the victim's dead, and they can just show up.

Richard Jensen: The plane landing at the end was a pretty spiffy bit of CGI. I was wondering if it was done in house or if you had to farm those shots out to an outside effects house?

All in-house (see above.) Welcome to the future of television. Everything under one roof. When we began working on Leverage, the Electric Entertainment offices were on a studio lot. Across the way, a giant steel and glass building was under construction - a new post house. I idly asked Mark Franco, our VFX supervisor, what they did in that building. "Everything we do on six Macs," he answered.

"So that's not the future of visual effects?" I asked.

"John, the future of visual effects is four guys in a garage with a bong."

Patrick: The twist didn't make any sense to me. Why would Haldeman send his head of security on the plane to kill the accountant if he was just going to blow up the plane, the head of security doesn't need to be around to make sure she dies ...

See above. He was in on the original cover-up, but that bit got cut for time. Ah, the bitch-goddess of pipe. You never know what people will miss ...

All right, most of the next are off the "Snow Job" open thread:

Kimm: In addition to being filmed early in the process, was it also originally scheduled earlier in the season? It sure seemed like it to me - even though that really didn't take away from the enjoyment of the show.

Should have been the third or fourth episode. It was the second shot, based on a real-life scam, and we used a returning serviceman because the fact that the 2005 Bankruptcy bill didn't protect active-duty servicemen pissed me off. The second episode aired, however, "the Homecoming Job", also had a serviceman as a vic because we were working backwards off the giant pool of cash gone missing in Iraq. But it was written sixth -- no way we could have anticipated that victim duplication. So in retrospect, we would have split up the episodes by a few anyway.

Scott Edwards: Now, when you say second episode filmed, is that "after the pilot" or "including the pilot". I was watching this and it totally felt like the third episode (after the Nigerian job and the Homecoming Job). Nate's drinking problem just felt like it was something of an early show to a season.

Filming order was "The Nigerian Job" (the pilot), then the writer's strike, then "The Bank Shot Job", then "The Snow Job" and then "The Wedding Job." "Bank Shot" was always meant for the middle, and I'd always reserved the #2 shows as a soft relaunch I'd write later, so the original ep broadcast order should go Nigerian/Homecoming/Snow Job/Wedding. I'd argue that the group belonging in the first half of the season, except "Homecoming", can probably be shuffled in that half about to no great damage to the character arcs.

On the other-othe rhand, Nate's drinking flares up in a nice place where the epsiode landed in the season. So ... there's no lesson there. Just "so."

Richard Jensen: 1) I'm curious about the discussions in the writer's room about how far to take Nate's drinking problem. You need it because it gives an emotional grounding to the character. But if it gets too heavy, it could (To use your term) derail the fun train. Can't wait to see where your going with it.

It's a constant argument. It does pay off, and I have to say I'm a bit surprised by the people who think it's gone away. Go find me the episode where he doesn't have a drink in his hand -- particularly when he's stressed.

It may just be that because I'm a high-functioning ... well, not alcoholic, but I am a writer, for chrissake -- I tend to write characters who are not obviously drunk when they are, indeed, drinking.

Laci: this doesn't relate to the Snow Job- I have it DVRed and haven't watched it yet... but, I wanted to know if any of the writers are connected to the Midwest or Kansas in general. I have noticed that the state has been mentioned a few times, and you really never see it mentioned in TV or movies. Not unless you're talking about the Wizard of Oz or tornadoes. Just curious.

Kansas is the perfect comedy name for a state. Has a "k" sound.

Caseyko74: Also, why not use the name of a real county in Mississippi? Was it a clearance issue or just not wanting to offend anyone there?

Clearance. Counties get very tetchy about shows implying they lock up heroic Iraq veterans or cut deals with con men in order to arrest contractors.

ita: How long has Nate been single? With all this history with Sophie I can't but wonder what his status with the mother of his son was.

Hi ita! Nate's been single about a year and a half -- his marriage broke up almost immediately after the death of his son. Nate and Sophie, as detailed in "The Miracle Job", had a very borderline relationship, but never slept together during Nate's marriage. Many people may find that not cool, but I think Nate's a more interesting character for having been tempted but never succumbing, rather than being so saintlike he's never been tempted.

That's why Sophie said "I knew you two years ago." Nate dropped off the face of the earth when Sam died, and started drinking (more) heavily. She's just now figuring out he's not the man she thought he was ...

Michael: I still don't get how or why ppl in the movie/tvshow biz seem to think this is irrelevant or whatever, but PLEASE OH PLEASE, if you show somebody from Germany, allegedly speaking German, why does it have to be somebody who can't and who very obviously doesn't! Would it really cost too much to find somebody for the job who could actually deliver that ONE fucking line right? And also maybe correct it from the writing, where it was obviously fucked up?

As addressed in the comments -- the line was written by a native German speaker, but delivered (very funnily) by an Austrian actress. Unfortunately, at the time, we had no idea the trouble this caused, until our intrepid assistant had to run down the version for the dubbing. The line, if you're curious, was: " "This is the only thing that belongs to me. I curse the day Father put me on a sled."

Mitchy: If I have any complaints at all, it'd be that we don't see how or why, exactly, everyone stays with Nate (Sophie excepted). Eliott had good reason to walk out, so did Parker yet they didn't. Will that get explored at some point? I know we've had eps saying "we're more than a team" but I don't really think it's been established WHY they would feel that, when they're such loners as a rule.

They don't feel that way at this moment -- that's why the next couple eps are about them forming the team they become during "Bank Shot." Nate, at this moment, has a LOT of currency to make up, and that's why Sophie gives him the warning at the end. She knows it was a near thing that everyone stayed.

Darkrose: One thing, though...I know it's just a TV show and I should really just relax, but there are a couple of things that are straining my ability to suspend disbelief. It was nice to see Jonathan Frakes notice Nate talking to himself, but it made me wonder why more people don't notice. The bit in "Mile-High Job" where Alec ducks behind the cabinet door, still talking struck me as particularly silly.

Ideally, they can whisper, almost sub-vocalize with those earbuds -- but acting in a whisper, particularly when conveying pipe, sucks. So we tend to try to block the scenes so people are clear of them. Sometimes, we screw up. I'd absolutely admit that scene is one of them. We should have blocked the actress so she crossed out fo the room, or Aldis moved farther from her.

Darkrose cont'd: The other thing I'm wondering is how the team's clients find them. Given that they work for law-abiding people who got screwed over, it doesn't seem like it would be easy for them to find a bunch of thieves. In "Snow Job", the victim apparently uses his one phone call to get in touch with Nate--how did he get their number?

The other long-running conflict in the show's development -- how to explain where the clients come from. Hardison glosses over it in "Homecoming", but assume they seek out news items that pique their interest, mixed with legitimate web links off legal aid websites, etc. It was one of those things we spent a lot of page count on in one version of the show, but nobody really missed it.

WHEW!!

All right, this is your open thread for "The 12 Step Job." Also, we're starting to put together the DVD set for Season 1, including Commentaries. We will consider all reasonable suggestions for DVD bonus features as submitted in the Comments below.

Chekov's Bullets and the Second View

by M A N

Time has not been a friend of mine this week, but I do quickly want to discuss the concept of the "gun on the mantlepiece." Playwright Anton Chekov said that if there is a gun on the mantlepiece in ACT 1, it must go off in ACT 3. This little tidbit of literary wisdom is known as (obviously) Chekov's Gun (like the Wiki article says, this concept is often confused with foreshadowing. Personally I think they are distinctly different. I see foreshadowing as more of an abstract hint of things to come whereas Chekov's gun refers to more tangible objects or events).

Chekov's adage makes perfect sense. If you're going to show your audience something as profound as a the metaphorical gun, it better have some relevance to your story. There's nothing quite so frustrating as a story that is all set-up and no payoff.

I am terribly fond of Chekov's gun. However, I tend to misuse the concept (or perhaps just misunderstand). Whereas Chekov was referring to something that is obvious to the audience, I like things that aren't immediately obvious to the audience. They're little things that read as throwaway lines or pieces of scenery solely there to decorate the background. It isn't until the climax of the story that all these little fragments come into place.

The wrtiers of Dr. Who use this to wonderful effect.

*SPOILERS BEGIN*

Take for example, Season 4. The declining bee population, the missing planets, the Medusa Cascade, even the more obvious Rose Easter Eggs. They all act as breadcrumbs throughout the season until they coalesce in the final episodes.


*SPOILERS END*

What I love about these little "bullets" is that noticing them isn't imperitive to enjoying or understanding the story, but it adds a layer of enjoyment for audience members who like to delve a bit deeper. It also increases the enjoyment of a second viewing/reading as you notice clues and hints that seemed irrelevant before. This also makes future stories more enjoyable by encouraging the parsing of scenes and language for hidden meanings.

For a brief example, watch the Alfred Hitchcock Presents episode that Mark Waid posted on his site. Then go back and watch it again, keeping an eye out for all the clues. I'm sure there will be a couple of times where you'll slap your forehead and say, "Duh!" But notice what happenes. You've just watched a show TWICE, the second time being equally enjoyable yet for a different reason. To use a bad metaphor, you already know the punchline, but you're watching it for the joke.

I've done this with my own writing, specifically with Fall of Cthulhu. There is one specific bullet that I have been leaving on the mantlepiece since the very first issue that won't go off until the very last (next month as a matter of fact). The goal is to not only make the story enjoyable during the first reading, but to compel the reader to read the story a second time. Whether it works or not is something you will have to tell me.


On a separate note, we'll be skipping Guitar Friday this week since I'll be in New York for the New York Comicon. If any of you will be there, make sure to stop by BOOM! Booth #1313 on the main floor and say hi.