Writing for YouTube

If you've subscribed to my YouTube channel, you are aware that I've been pretty busy making content for that site.  More so than I have been when it comes to writing print reviews (though I AM redesigning my website in the background, so that takes up a lot of time).  Most of the time I don't write my YouTube rants.  I simple turn on the microphone, say my peace, edit out parts of the argument that don't fit or get too much off topic, and then add some pictures and videos to the audio before posting it for the world to see.  On occasion though I will need to sit down and write a script for a video.  This is when I want to tackle a subject that requires many points to be made and has lots of little details I can't mess up on or else the comment trolls will jump all over you.  These videos I need to write down so I have a frame of reference when I record.  If I'm on camera I need to put them on the computer screen and move my head in a way that doesn't give off the impression I'm reading a script.

Here's the thing though... I'm not a screenplay writer.  For all the skills I have in writing, editing, and forming a proper sentence, screenplays have always given me trouble because they are too vague and brief.  You don't spend a lot of time detailing scenarios because that's what the director will be doing.  Dialog can't go on too long because there are other characters on screen.  I have written screenplays for unproduced shorts, but they were by far the most difficult things I had to write.  Yet I now find myself in a situation where writing scripts are necessary sometimes.  So how do I write them?  How do I recommend you write them?  Honestly, this is the one subject that you are on your own with.  There is no proper way to write a script for a YouTube video.  No one is going to see what you write (unless there is a cast).  The formatting doesn't matter because no one will be able to pick it out when the final video is produced and uploaded.

The way I write my scripts are very much like I would write any other blog post.  This makes sense because I write reviews and columns, and my videos consist mostly of rants and editorials.  With very few exceptions, I am simply writing a blog post that I will be reading out load.  On some pages I will make a note of certain images I need to have on screen at the time or certain sound effects I want to edit in for a humorous effect.  I don't edit them to the extent I do with my print material because I know no one will ever read them.  The thing is, I really don't like writing scripts because they are so much like blog posts that I am usually tempted to just clean them up and upload them as is.  I can sometimes forget the reason these are being written for YouTube is because a visual element is required to really drive the point home.

As much as I love the written word, we live in a generation of people who get their information visually and on little mobile devices.  I don't like to encourage that (which is why The Movie Wizard.com has not been mobile friendly up to this point), but I do have to follow the audience to a certain extent because that's where the money is.  I still update these crusty old blogs and websites because I do believe words have meaning.  Plus, when I have to write a script, I feel bad because I know the thing is just going to get tossed in the garbage once the video has been filmed.  Maybe this is an unjustified phobia, but it almost feels like I'm throwing away hard work when I do that (I wonder if that makes me a writing hoarder...).  Ultimately for me the process of writing a review and a YouTube script isn't much different, but depending on the type of video content you produce, your mileage may vary.

Religion and Reviews

Last night my parents and I went to a private screening of "The Young Messiah." While we all agreed that it was a good movie, there was much debate on the accuracy of the holy text and why certain known facts were changed when they didn't have to be (my mom took particular offense to James being a few years older than Jesus when they were the same age in the Bible).  She also mentioned that in the Bible Jesus didn't perform his first miracle until he was an adult and changed water into wine at a wedding (though, if you REALLY wanted to argue this point, I suppose you could say that was the first RECORDED miracle.... never mind, playing with fire on that one).  I commented that she was correct in this, but to make a movie about a young Jesus who didn't perform miracles wouldn't make for an interesting story.  Besides, the film was based on a novel from atheist-turned-Catholic Anne Rice, who is most famous for writing "The Vampire Chronicles" novels (which in turn inspired the short lived Elton John Broadway musical "Lestat"), so we should consider ourselves lucky it was as blasphemous as it could have been.

My family has civil conversations about these sort of things, but the bottom line is that when you go to see a religious movie - or, at the very least, a movie that uses religious writings as the foundation of the story - there is a good chance something is going to come into conflict with personal beliefs you may have.  As a Christian I am asked frequently (mostly by other church goers) whether or not I'm "writing reviews from a Christian standpoint or a secularist standpoint?" I admit to a certain extent I have no idea why this is even a question sometimes.  Critics are writing from their own standpoint.  They are writing the reviews how they view them, how the films affect them, and how they would discuss the film to the world.  Reviews are one of the most personal forms of journalism on the market.  Next to columnists, critics are the most personal writers in an industry that (in theory) largely distances personal feelings from the story at hand.

Critics have the wonderful freedom to say things like "I feel" and "this bothers me" and not get in trouble with the editors for using such terms.  If the critic is Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Atheist, or Jedi (a real religion by the way), then chances are their views will affect how they approach the film and what they take away from it.  If you need an example of this, look no further than the reviews for "The Passion of the Christ." Most people who had some belief or personal connection to the story found the movie to be deeply moving and spiritual.  Most people who had no personal connection with the story found the film to be nothing more than two hours of Jesus being tortured.  In some rare cases the feelings were reversed.  It was a great movie in my opinion, but one that was going to have to go through a filter between the person watching the film and what they believed or didn't believe.  Likewise, a movie like "American Beauty" was praised much more by people who weren't religious than by people who were.

Most of the time a critic will mention his religion (or lack therefor) when the time is appropriate.  Yes, you CAN put aside your beliefs and watch a movie about a religious subject as a way to be objective (and in cases like "Noah" it might be required), but most of the time the subject needs to be brought up so that the readers have an understanding of where you're coming from.  Obviously this doesn't mean that you need to be religious to enjoy a movie about Jesus or non-religious to enjoy a movie that is against the idea.  Certainly "Spotlight" proved that the believers and unbelievers can come together and agree that a good movie is a good movie regardless how sensitive the subject matter is.  As a critic it is best to bring up your personal views when it is appropriate.  Roger Ebert won the Pulitzer Prize but only brought it up in his reviews when the subject called for it.  Likewise, if you are reviewing a movie like "The Young Messiah," then chances are you will at least note your belief system just so that your readers have a better idea of where you are coming from.

To answer the original question that was posed though, if you are a Christian or Atheist writing reviews, then yes, you will automatically be writing reviews from those perspectives.  Those beliefs have helped mold and define your points of view over the years on every facet of your life, and that includes what you take away from film.  To emphasize your beliefs occasionally will be helpful to the reader, but if you write your reviews with enough skill, bringing this information up on a daily basis will not be necessary.  Your readers will get a sense of who you are based on what you write, how you word things, and even be able to measure who you are based on how much or how little you curse.  Reviews are a personally reflection of yourself, and that includes any religious belief you may or may not have.

Is Watching the Oscars Pointless?

I read all the time that the Oscars are pointless.  That all award shows are pointless.  That no group can safely tell people what is and isn’t the best film of the year (that’s certainly true; one year one of my cousins felt “Joe Dirt” was the best film he saw that year).  They wonder why people watch a show that is boring on so many different levels (and more often than not nominate films you have never even heard of [much less seen]).  I understand where these people are coming from on some level, but not completely.  I understand that the show is a little tedious and rarely does it make for great entertainment.  On the other hand, aren’t there other events that are just as pointless?  Events that, despite not amounting to much of anything in the long term of things, get just as much (if not more) attention as the Oscars do?  I believe there is.

It’s called the Super Bowl.

I know, I know, many of you are screaming at you’re screens right now, ready to tear me a new one and tell me why the Super Bowl matters.  I’m sure you are all thinking of making points like football is fun to watch, it’s the most important sporting event of the year (except during years where the Olympics take over the tube), and that it gets far more viewers to tune in.  I understand all of these points…and yet I don’t understand any of them at the same time.  I want to say upfront that I find no fault in you if you like sports.  At the end of the day we all have passions that are little more than glorious time wasters, and in that regard there is really no difference from movies, to sports, to video games, to sewing.  We just pick what we enjoy most and run with it.
For me, the Super Bowl is no big deal.  I don’t see how a sports team winning contributes to the world’s problems.  It certainly won’t solve any major humanity problem if your favorite team wins.  It doesn’t help you to see year favorite team winning a statue that you will likely never win yourself.  In fact, just like the Oscars, the Super Bowl isn’t important one bit when you put them up to your life.  Your marriage, religion, and career choices will affect your life much more than either of these two television events ever will.  I know it, you know it, and I’m sure deep down the people who sell the shows know it.  The only people who walk away with their life changed are the people who win, and even then they just gain some additional financial support.

In the end all games and trophies are self-worshiping things made by man.  They won’t do any good to you.  Yet people watch football because they find it fun.  I watch the Oscars because I find them fun.  Alright, the show itself is kind of boring, but it is exciting to see a movie you think genuinely deserves to be honored win an award.  The Oscars have never changed my life any more than the Super Bowl has changed yours.  Life isn’t simple enough for that to happen.  I will watch the shows that entertain me just like you will watch the shows that entertain you.  I think that is once stance we can all agree on in this crazy world.  Personally, I’m glad these things don’t depress me, as I met a Panthers fan shortly after the Big Game ended, and it didn’t look like taking these things so seriously was any fun.

What's the Deal with Shorts in Theaters?

I have had yet another sleepiness night.  I should be trying to at least sleep during the day, but the last round of Oscar nominated shorts are showing today, and I need to do my civic duty as a critic to go see them.  I was in this situation last week when my mom pointed out that many of the shorts could be streamed online for free, so why bother going to the theaters to see them.  My response is the same one I have for feature length films: Because they look better in theaters.  Look, I know shorts aren't the big deal they used to be, so let me clue you all in on why they were a mainstay in cinemas in the Golden Age of Hollywood.  See, shorts, despite their lack of big budgets, served several very practical functions.  It was a good way to discover potential stars in the making.  You could test out new directors and get an idea of how they managed a small project before putting them to work on a bigger project (AKA: Movie).

They were a great way to test new visual techniques and figure out how they could work before using them in a feature film.  In the case of animation, shorts was a way to create new cartoon characters that could be spun off into TV and merchandise later on down the road.  In some cases, certain characters were so poplar, that putting the right short before an uncertain movie could help raise the interest of it to millions of people who otherwise wouldn't have paid to see it.  There are probably a few other advantages to shorts, but I think you get my point.  So the first question that is raised is why discontinue the shorts?  Well, shorts have never had a way to be financially successful on their own terms, so there was always a question mark attached to whether or not these things were financially stable.  Also the more popular TV got, the more companies realized that making shorts for compilation programs would be much cheaper on a TV budget than a theater budget.

So then the second question that this brings up is why do you need to see them in theaters?  Again, I like to point to theatrical movies as a prime example.  You can see "The Departed," "Star Wars: The Force Awakens," "Frozen," and... alright, to be frank you can see anything that comes to theaters on home video (with the exception of "Song of the South").  Yes, these movies can be entertaining on a small screen, but they were made for the big screen and lose something when you take that away.  The same can be said for shorts.  While some are being made for the internet, the vast majority of them are still made with a big screen in mind.  The creators know that they won't spread very far in terms of how many people they will reach, but for the people who do see them they want an impression to be made.

Again, shorts are largely elaborate resumes for studios.  They are being made to prove that they have visual, acting, or writing talents to offer the big studios.  They may not be able to afford a feature film, but they may just be able to make a short.  Studio executives screen everything on a theater screen.  EVERYTHING!  If the short looks terrible on a blown up screen, the purpose behind it is completely meaningless.  So they make them with the big screen in mind.  Now that they are making these for a big screen, they figure they may as well go all out with them.  So they start to film/animate the short to be most effective when seen on the big screen.  Soon little details that are difficult to spot on a regular TV get put into the picture.  There may not be any money to be had in these things, but they are given the same amount of care and attention that the more profitable feature films receive.

For these reasons I am going to take every chance I get to see shorts on the big screen.  I would much rather lose half the previews we get for a short before every movie.  I think studios do themselves no favors by largely ignoring these (you'd think the success Pixar has had with shorts would prove just how valuable they can be).  And in a way, shorts CAN make big money!  In 1990 Disney released a movie called "Dick Tracy," which become a $100 million dollar grossing film (a much more impressive cum in those days).  The movie (which I want to mention I like) fell out of peoples memories pretty fast.  With mixed reviews the movie was targeted to lose a lot of money.  However...

...thanks to a Roger Rabbit short that was placed before the film, some industry experts believed a lot of people went to see the movie just because of the short before the feature film, and without it the movie might have struggled much more at the box office.  There are other examples like this.  Maybe we'll discuss them in a future article.

How MoviePass Can Help the Aspiring Film Critic

 

A note about the following post before we being: This is a post where I will be extensively discussing a product/service.  While at times it may seem like a paid advertisement, I don't believe in writing articles that are bought and paid for.  If you are a film critic for a living it is against your interest to do commercials, shopping network programs, or paid advertisements,  I may elaborate more in a future post, but the key thing to take away from this is that by doing this it undermines not only the reviews you write, but of any recommendation you might have for anything.  So while a post of the ethics of writing articles that are really product placement is likely needed somewhere down the line, I wanted to write about this product first, so just be assured that I'm writing this of my own free will and not being paid by the company who makes the product/service in any way.

Alright, let's get on with the show.

One of the questions I get a lot is how does one become a film critic.  Honestly, the answer is WAY too complex for just one post (that's why we have this blog here)!  Obviously to become one involves lots of writing, time, and usually more than one rejection letter to join the Online Film Critics Association (or whatever guild you attempt to join).  Graduating from college is a bonus, but speaking as a college dropout I can assure you it's not the end of the world if you don't.  One thing that is pretty obvious though is that if you are going to do this job you need to see a LOT of movie!  Not only that, you have to see as much as you can.  There is no picking and choosing specific genres to only review (unless your site is dedicated to that genre), you have to see a little bit of everything.  Another thing that is pretty obvious is that this is going to cost money, as you don't just break onto the movie scene being invited to critics screenings.

No, you have to pay for the movies yourselves.  This is where the whole "self made writer" thing becomes tricky, as it becomes much harder to justify paying for bad movies when you are doing this for free and trying to make a name for yourself.  Tickets are expensive and there are more movies than ever being released each week.  What is the solution?  Well aspiring critics, I have found a service that may not solve all your problems, but it will help with this dilemma a lot.  It's called MoviePass, and it is pretty much the Netflix for movie theaters.  It's not available everywhere, but for those who live in areas it is I can assure you it is will worth the investment.  The cost of the monthly membership varies from city to city, so we're going to use my $45 a month cost as the starting point.

While have been gifted in the sense that I do get invited to many critics screenings, there are times movies aren't screened, or I simply want to see the movie again with some friends, and thus buying a movie ticket in both these situations becomes a requirement.  In the past month I had to actually buy tickets for the following films for one of these two reasons:

Kung fu Panda 3 - $11.99
Youth - $7.50
Son of Saul - $12.99
Norm of the North - $12.99
The Forest - $6.50
45 Years - $7.99
The Hateful Eight - $13.99
The Repentant - $12.99
The Danish Girl - $7.50

Altogether it would have cost me $94.44 to see all these movies, but thanks to MoviePass it only cost me $45 to see them and I saved $49.44.  Some months I save more, others I save less.  Some months all the movies are free for me through screenings, and MoviePass finally makes some money off me. It should be noted the service does not grant you access to 3D, IMAX, XD, RPX, or D-BOX screenings, so for those you are on your own.  As you can see, if you want to be a film critic this is a logical service to sign up for.  You will need to see lots of movies.  You will have to see movies you don't want to see.  You have to put yourself in front of things you never dreamed you would ever watch, and while you can't be expected to see everything at first, eventually the public will expect that of you if you are to make a dent in this business.

I get invited to so many free screenings that sometimes I can't even remember when the last time I paid for a ticket was.  I hold onto my MoviePass though because it provides a great service for me, and if you are just getting started this is a great idea for you too.  Now, that said, I do want to mention that if you do decide to get it, you are hooked for the long term.  While I haven't heard of too many people canceling their subscription due to dissatisfaction, it should be noted that once you've been subscribed for a couple of months, you are on the hook for a whole year whether you realize it or not.  In the user agreement you will find that if you terminate the subscription before the year is up, you will pay some hearty cancellation fees, so find out what those fees are before you sign up and decide if this is something you really want to be committing to for the next year.

Even so, for me this would be a pretty easy choice if given the option years ago.  If you want to do this for a living its most likely because you love movies.  You'd probably be going to the movies once or twice a week even if you weren't thinking of getting into this business.  So on a personal level this would be a great deal since you only need to see four prime time films to break even.  If you want to do this professionally and are starting out with a personal blog or website (ha!), this may be one of the most important tools you'll have to getting your career off the ground in a stress free way!

Has "The Big Short" Already Been Crowned the Next Academy Award Winner?

There has been a rule in the last several years that the Producers Guild of America chooses the winner of the eventual winner of the Academy Award for Best Picture.  This is not because the PGA award is the most prestigious award on the planet, it is because that is usually the first claim by a movie that ends up sweeping all the major guild awards.  The Screen Actors Guild gives out their highest honor a couple weeks later, and then a week later the Directors Guild of America hands out their award to the best achievement in directing.  In the past the DGA has most matched up with the eventual Academy Award winners, but it was also during a time when the three guilds largely did their own thing.  These days with voting so close together and many members who overlap in membership, all the guilds tend to award the same film.

It was especially evident that the guilds just followed one another the year "Argo" ran away with all the awards, including the SAG award for Best Ensemble Cast, which should have logically gone to "Silver Linings Playbook" which had three acting nominations compared to "Argo's" one (which wasn't even in a lead category).  If you want more details on stats and how they match up with Oscar I (reluctantly) recommend you check out Awards Daily, as blogger Sasha Stone has become somewhat of a master at awards statistics.  My more reserved observation is that whatever has won the PGA in the past seven years has gone on to win Best Picture when Oscar time rolled around.  This weekend the PGA awarded "The Big Short" their highest honor, which officially makes that the movie to beat.

The thing about this year though is that this is the first time in a long time things don't seem so certain.  While "The Big Short" could theoretically go on to win SAG and DGA, SAG might heavily favor the acting friendly "Spotlight," while DGA is likely to honor George Miller for his crack-filled visionary masterpiece "Mad Max: Fury Road." "The Big Short" could snag the SAG award as it has a great ensemble cast, but would it really walk away with DGA?  It could, but that would be pretty disappointing when you have the aforementioned "Mad Max: Fury Road" and "The Revenant" in competition.  At the moment the race still feels very much wide open despite what the last several years have proven to be certain.  I kind of hope none of the guilds match up, because it makes for a more exciting Oscar race.

Each movie has it's supporters at the Academy.  "The Big Short" and "Spotlight" are loved by the actors.  "Mad Max: Fury Road" seems to be loved by the directors and visual artists.  Everyone seems to love "The Revenant," but with Alejandro González Iñárritu having swept up all the awards last year for "Birdman: Or the Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance" it seems to be at a huge disadvantage in terms of voters feeling compelled to vote for him again.  Then we have "Room," which could be a sleeping tiger waiting to pounce.  I mean, how else can you explain Lenny Abrahamson's Best Director nomination despite not getting any predecessor support?  I mean, he even took the nomination away from Ridley Scott for his direction in "The Martian," and this was a guy who was poised to win before the nominations were even announced.

At the moment the race is still wide open and I like it best that way.  It makes the race more interesting and it gives everyone a chance to win at the Oscar pool at the Academy Award parties I throw.  However if "The Big Short" wins SAG then I think it winning Best Picture at the Academy Awards is all but a done deal (even if Miller walks away with his much deserved DGA).  We either know everything at the moment or we know nothing at all.  Sort of exciting isn't it?  For the record, here is my review for "The Big Short." As you can see I liked it, but I wasn't floored by it.  That could potentially change with future viewings, but for the time being that would be a fairly disappointing winner compared to some of the other films nominated.  Also my favorite film of last year - "Inside Out" - wasn't even nominated for Best Picture.  Since they have a Best Animated Feature award though, I guess they can just award it there and move on with their day.

Do Critics Care When a Movie Gets Delayed?

So news broke last week that "Star Wars: Episode VIII" has been delayed.  Originally scheduled for May of 2016, the film will now bow in theaters somewhere in December of 2016.  This means that Star Wars fans will have to wait several additional months for the next installment.  This led to some people asking me if I was upset by the delay.  The honest answer is no I was not.  And this isn't because I'm NOT looking forward to the next Star Wars.  It may sound hard to believe, but I am actually very much looking forward to the next Star Wars film. Yes, I wasn't blown away by the new movie, but (if you've read my review) you'll know that I did enjoy it, and I do believe the next one will be better.  I am not disappointed by this movie being delayed any more than I was disappointed when "Kung fu Panda 3" got delayed: There are always movies to watch,

I've written about this in the past, but apparently it bears repeating.  Folks, when you do this for a living you see at LEAST a few movies a week!  Sometimes you'll see a few movies a DAY!  If a movie - ANY movie - gets delayed, you're honestly not going to notice!  Yes, there are films you look forward to seeing more than others, but you see so many movies that it's pretty easy to lose track of what is being released and when.  Also, on a personal level, I want to point out that I don't watch previews.  I've written a few posts on the subject and why I don't, but when you don't watch previews you do lose out on the all important date that movie studios want you to remember.  It gets to the point where I completely forgot that "Inside Out" existed until the week before when I saw it at a critics screening (I also want to point out I didn't know what the movie was about, which added to the surprise).

So that's one reason critics don't get too upset that movies get delayed.  A second reason I'm not particularly upset about the new Star Wars being delayed is that it was only delayed by a few months.  This isn't like when Warner Bros. delayed "Harry Potter & the Half-Blood Prince" by a whole year.  In that situation there were no movie problems, nothing to hold up production...in fact, the movie was in the can when it was supposed to be released in 2008.  However, that year Warner Bros. released a little film called "The Dark Knight," which made so much money it made more sense to delay a sure fire hit into the next year to help insure great profits the next year.  During that year I was still making a name for myself in my journalistic field (a website I ran about comic books got more traffic at the time), so I wasn't seeing as many movies as I see now.  That delay was honestly felt, and it did upset me.

However, I survived, and so did all the other Harry Potter fans survived as well (even though they claimed they would boycott the film unless the release date was moved back up).  The final reason I'm not too upset by this (and this is where you readers should take note) is that it's not like you're going to be without your Star Wars fix.  Disney XD is airing a new Star Wars cartoon that is - to be perfectly honest - pretty darn good.  Also coming out later this year is "Star Wars: Rouge One," one of the many spin-off films Disney has in the pipeline.  In fact, there is going to be a new Star Wars film every year at least until 2019.  So to all you Star Wars fans who are disappointed by the delay, please calm down and look at yourself.  Putting all this into perspective, there is really nothing to be upset about.  The delay wasn't very long and there will be more than enough supply of this franchise to meet the demand.