3D Is the Future

I went to a 3D demo event last night through the Alliance of Women Directors at the Clarity Theater in Beverly Hills. I learned that 3D is not as cheesy as I had once thought.

Basically, according to the panelists (there was someone from Panavison there, an Avatar producer and other 3D experts), 3D is the future of filmmaking. It's not just a gimmick. I can't remember the exact numbers, but 3D films gross far more than 2D ones. You might say this is just because it's new. Not what the panelists said. They said that 3D is so popular because it creates a dreamlike state in the viewer. We already see stereo-optically; so viewing the world in 3D is already our normal state. As such, viewing a film in 3D is what a motion picture is *supposed to* look like. 3D creates depth and makes us feel like the screen is a window into which we are looking. 3D brings us into the world of the movie. We actually retain 67% more of the film when we see it in 3D. Crazily enough, they said, to film 3D best, you should actually shoot in 3D (that's what the DP and director are actually seeing) and then cut it in 3D too. Ouch, that sounds like a big headache to me. But this is because you edit differently in 3D. You don't need as many cuts, as the brain is filling in much of the info as our eyes look around at all the images. I even saw a scene that was cut too quickly, with too much movement in 3D, and, yes, it was headache-provoking. So, yes, 3D should be cut differently.

According to the panelists, 3D isn't only for action, animation or IMAX docos anymore. Dramas are going to be filmed in 3D. I even saw a trailer for one, called The Mortician. That, and you know those theaters at amusement parks, where they blow in dry ice and rock the seats while you're watching the flick? Well, that is also the future of the movie-going experience. And all this isn't just some cheesy American gimmick. Europe is actually ahead of us in the 3D revolution. Europeans use 3D to shoot sports games. Britain is especially fond of this practice, and they even have 3D home television like we have HD!

Your Character Is the Sum Total of What He Does -- or Doesn't

Everyone wants to create that wonderful screen character -- that character that people will remember long after the film has ended. But how do you do this?

According to Neill Hicks, author of Screenwriting 101, a writer shouldn't fall back on describing their characters just in terms of hair color, height, occupation, etc. Although these traits are important, far more important is what your characters DO. What your character does is what moves story -- not their hair color, height or occupation.

On the same note, Hicks, also states that if story is what a character does, then it can also be WHAT THEY DON'T DO.

Characters don't instinctively make dramatic decisions. Like everyday humans, characters take the minimum action necessary so as not to risk betrayal of their internal need [Ed. "flaw"].

Just like us regular folks, characters will almost always deny any call to action, even if taking that action is exactly what they need to become more complete, better-functioning human beings. Let's face it: all of us are afraid of change. Change disrupts our lives. This is why we so often prefer what is uncomfortable as long as it's something we're used to (therefore not disruptive). Kind of like staying in a relationship that doesn't work anymore because we don't want to rock the boat... I've heard it described once as sitting in a puddle of pee; it smells bad but at least it's warm and cozy.

It is thus the screenwriter's job to push their characters into action in a way that is credible. Your characters don't want to act, but you must make them do so, as their actions are what creates story.

To Self-Publish or Not to Self-Publish

The opinion of Kevin McLaughlin (http://kevinomclaughlin.com/) to a question I asked: "Can you self-publish and still establish yourself as a reputable author? Or do you really need to be backed by a big publisher to achieve success?"

The New York Times is not (yet) listing indie authors on their ebook bestseller list. Other newspapers are, and the scandal will probably force NYT to do so eventually. But it's a clear sign that in some quarters, at least, outselling most of the competition is not "enough success" to be considered "reputable".

Likewise, most of the major professional orgs still exclude indie authors. The Author's Guild, Mystery Writers' Guild, Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America, Novelists Inc, and other major groups exclude indies completely. Other groups, like the Romance Writers of America, allow indies in the door, but exclude them from higher tiers of membership and awards.

Of course, *readers* don't seem to care. Right now almost 40% of the Amazon ebook bestseller list is composed of indie published books. There are individual indie/self published writers selling over 10,000 copies of their books per day, more than most traditionally published books sell...ever. I have a hard time seeing that level of public readership as "disreputable", myself.

What are your goals? Whose opinion do you care about more, the publishers of the New York Times, or the readers of your work? That's up to each writer to answer.