What I Learned This Summer

***Reminder. Tonight starts my 9k Weekend Writing Challenge. Keep up with my progress and give me a cyber kick in the pants if I'm falling behind on Twitter @FillupSeagull. You can also join the challenge. Details here.***

Who says you can't learn anything when school is out? I saw a bunch of movies this summer in lovely air-conditioned, popcorn-scented theaters across Chicago, and I learned some valuable lessons about writing that I would like to pass onto you, my casually loyal readers. Now that Summer 2011 is over (although technically it's not over until September 20th), let's look back at a summer box office filled with surprises:

Midnight in Paris = Just write!
This summer, Midnight in Paris became the highest-grossing film in writer/director Woody Allen's career. And you know how he's celebrating? By writing and directing his next film, which will be released in 2012. For the past 35 years, Woody Allen has made nearly one film a year, which is an unheard of rate. Some of his movies are hits, some are bombs. But no matter what, he keeps cranking them out. As writers, we must do the same. Always keep writing. Don't rest on your laurels. Don't wallow in your doubt. Not everything we write will be a masterpiece, but you have to write through the crap to reach the gold.

The Help, Bridesmaids = Stay true to yourself!
Both movies were humongous hits this summer, and as I said back in June, Bridesmaids, and now The Help, prove that not just teenage boys go to the movies. Both movies also featured behind the scenes talent who fought to get their vision on screen. Kristen Wiig and Annie Mumolo did not let Bridesmaids devolve into a trite, Kate Hudson-esque romcom. They fought to keep the raunchiness in there. They fought to let Wiig star. They fought to cast mostly unknown actresses. In the end, Bridesmaids shushed all doubters. Kathryn Stockett, writer of the novel The Help, said the movie could be made only if the studio let her childhood friend Tate Taylor write and direct. He had bought the movie rights to the book when it was an unpublished manuscript. (after 60 rejections!) Taylor had only one tiny independent film to his credit. He and Stockett also demanded that their close friend Octavia Spencer, the inspiration for Minnie, get to play the feisty character, too. Dreamworks, the studio, gave in and took a gamble, staying true to Taylor and Stockett's wishes. The Help has been #1 at the box office for 3 weeks running.

The Green Lantern, The Change-Up = Don't write what you think will sell!
Poor Ryan Reynolds. He was the punchline of the summer. Both of his starring films were huge bombs. A criticism of Lantern and Change-Up was that they seemed formulaic, chemically engineered to be hits, yet ultimately bland. The former had all the routine elements of a comic-book film: mythology, brand recognition, hero with inner demons, and lots of CGI. The latter came off as just another body-switch comedy that brought nothing new to the genre. They screamed "We want to make money!" which turned off audiences. When writing, don't write something just because you think it will sell. Write it because you want to. Most agents will tell you not to follow trends, and they are savvy enough to recognize a manuscript riddled with cliches.

Horrible Bosses, Bad Teacher = A great hook can go a long way!
I couldn't wait to see these R-rated comedies, and neither could millions of moviegoers. Horrible and Bad had fun, catchy titles that stood out on the marquee in a sea of sequels and nebulous titles (Super 8, I'm looking at you). The hook for Horrible Bosses - 3 men plot to kill each other's bosses - was the best of the summer. I didn't like Bosses, but the hook and title drew me in. When agents sift through thousands of queries a year, and readers scan thousands of books in stores and online, a sharp title and nifty hook can go a long way in making you stand out from the clutter. Don't just assume that your novel will speak for itself.

Transformers 3, Kung Fu Panda 2, Pirates 4, Cars 2, etc = Crap happens, get over it!
Yes, crappy movies still get made and they still make a lot of money. Crappy memoirs from "celebrities" still get published and still receive higher marketing budgets than 100 of your favorite YA books. Get over it.  There will always be lousy books and movies. This is a business after all. All you can do is focus on writing a good book. And if it has series potential, then even better.

What were your favorite movies of this summer? My favorites were Bad Teacher, Rise of the Planet of the Apes, and, despite the title, I loved Super 8.

I Fear for the Hunger Games movie

Note to Hollywood: The Hunger Games trilogy is NOT the new Twilight.

I loved the first Hunger Games book, and I'm not alone. And I'm not alone in anticipating the movie adaptation. But the more information I read about the movie, the more I worry that I'm going to be extremely unhappy with the finished product. It was fun to speculate on the director and cast. (I always imagined Lenny Kravitz as Cinna!) Yet I think the movie is getting too much exposure from the media, especially Entertainment Weekly. They've already had two covers dedicated to The Hunger Games - and the movie is still shooting! Photos from the set have trickled out to mainstream websites. It's beginning to feel like overkill. I know the movie biz has changed; fans are more invested in certain properties starting at the pre-production stage. (I don't get why people were so up in arms about a brunette being cast as Peeta. Could you not watch the film if he didn't have blond hair?) Some of us want to be surprised when we walk into theater, not know every detail of the script, story, special effects. I want small glimpses and teases, and I think The Hunger Games production is borderline guilty of oversharing.

Now, all that will be forgiven if the movie turns out to be incredible. The producers just have to remember that Hunger Games is not Twilight. I'm get the feeling that they are pushing the Katniss-Gale-Peeta love triangle. To me, that was one of the weakest parts of the trilogy. This is a series about war and man's cruelty towards each other; it's not about what boy Katniss wants to date. I am dreading the day when I see girls wearing Team Gale or Teem Peeta shirts. I get it. Twilight has been a huge success. The Hunger Games appeals to a similar audience. Lionsgate (the studio behind the movie) wants to make boatloads of money. Ergo, Hollywood is viewing Hunger Games as the new Twilight. Romance was a natural element in Twilight; it was the crux of the story. But in The Hunger Games, it's a subplot. In the first book, it's hardly developed. I don't want the director to pander to the Twilight crowd. I want them to make a thrilling, suspensful, cunning movie.

Hollywood has an obsession with franchises and pre-sold concepts. (you did hear that they're releasing a movie based on the board game Battleship starring Rihanna, right?) Now that Harry Potter and Twilight are ending, all eyes are turning to The Hunger Games to be the next big thing. I don't want the movie to carry such lofty expectations. Just because it's garnering heaps of advanced press doesn't mean it will be a blockbuster. It may not reach the heights of those two. Will that automatically make it a bomb? And just because Harry Potter and Twilight split the last books into two parts doesn't mean Mockingjay deserves the same treatment. Those books were split just to milk more money out of the series. I don't think Mockingjay has enough material to warrant two films. Let's be honest: the first half dragged. I wonder how they will make an entire movie out of it.

Do you think The Hunger Games movie is getting too much exposure? And do you want them to beef up the romance part?

***and now you can follow me on Twitter --> @FillupSeagull ***

Slumps Were Made to Be Broken

For these past few months, I've been in a writing slump. I barely wrote anything. I hit a metaphorical brick wall with my manuscript, which I then chucked at an actual brick wall. I didn't even read publishing blogs. I didn't know what I wanted to write next and how I would ever get back into the swing of things. I was slumping hard.

I'd like to think several writers go through the agony of slumps. Writing is like exercising. It's really hard to get back into it when you've been avoiding it for a while. And when you do try to write, it comes out like mush. Popular writing advice has always been "write every day," and I do think that's true. But it can take some false starts before we get ourselves to that point. And until then, we slump. The best thing about slumps is that they end. They are never permanent. Even the Red Sox won a world series after almost a century.

There are 2 stops on the road to ending your slump: the Savior and the Turnaround. The Savior is when you see the light at the end of the tunnel. It's maybe a day or late night when you get the urge again to be creative, and you scribble away for a few hours. It could be a one-time thing, like being inspired after watching a movie but then the high wears off by next morning. You know your slump isn't over yet, but you now know you have the power to break out of it. The Turnaround is when you harness that power and turn things around in successive creative sessions. A marathon weekend brainstorming your next novel maybe, or a week of hitting up a coffee shop every night after work to write.

Writers are not the only ones who find themselves in slumps.

Recently, Universal Pictures found itself in a rather enviable position: in a 6 week span, it released 3 films that crossed $100M domestically. Kiddie film Hop has earned $108M; Fast Five has sped off with $205M and counting; and Bridesmaids is at $124M with no end in sight. Reporters are claiming that Universal's slump is over. After 2 1/2 years worth of costly flops like Land of the Lost, Funny People, Duplicity, Green Zone, Robin Hood (I could go on...), Universal has come roaring back. All of the major studios have endured slumps. A few of the recent ones:

• Universal - 1998. 
• The flops: Blues Brothers 2000, Spice World, BASEketball, Meet Joe Black, Babe: Pig in the City, Primary Colors. No film grossed more than $45M.
• The savior: Patch Adams, released Christmas Day. It opened at #1, stayed there for 2 weeks, and grossed $135M. 
• The turnaround: Universal had a much better summer in 1999 with the string of hits The Mummy, Notting Hill, and American Pie. 

• Disney - 2004
• The flops: The Alamo, Hidalgo, The Ladykillers, Raising Helen, Home on the Range. Much was made about the fact that documentary Fahrenheit 9/11, which Disney refused to distribute, had grossed more than all of Disney's films that year. It was a huge comedown from 2003, when Mickey and co. had the 1-2 punch of Finding Nemo and Pirates of the Caribbean.
• The savior: The Village. Despite the critical drubbing, it scored Disney a badly needed #1 opening and $114M gross that July.
• The turnaround: That fall, The Incredibles and National Treasure cleaned up at the box office, occupying the #1 position for a combined 5 weeks in a row. 

• Fox - 2008
• The flops: Space Chimps, The Rocker, Australia, The Happening, X Files: I Want to Believe, Babylon A.D. Fox was the only studio that summer without a $100M grosser. It went 7 months without a #1 opening and 9 months without a blockbuster. 
• The savior: Max Payne. The Mark Wahlberg action film hit #1 in October, giving Fox a pulse at the box office.
• The turnaround: Marley & Me and Taken both opened at #1 in December and January and had leggy runs, ending with $140M+ each. That summer, the studio released 3 films in a row that earned $170M+ apiece.

• Paramount - 2003/2004
• The flops: The Stepford Wives, The Manchurian Candidate, Lara Croft Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life, Paycheck. Paramount had a 2 year slump without any big hits. Sure, they had minor successes like Mean Girls, School of Rock, and The Italian Job, but no blockbuster that studios need to pay for the midrange films. 
• The savior: Lemony Snicket, Paramount's only $100M+ grosser in 2004, and its highest-grossing film from the past 2 years. Though, with $119M, it was not the franchise starter the studio had hoped for. 
• The turnaround: Summer 2005. Paramount had back-to-back smashes with The Longest Yard and War of the Worlds. 

So as you can see, even multibillion dollar enterprises go through slumps. The key is working through it, rather than accepting it. Yes, the studios didn't have a choice. They had to keep making films. We don't have to keep writing. (although we should!) But if you look at the movies that got these studios out of their slumps, for the most part, they aren't risky films. They are safe bets. Proven franchises. Proven box office stars in the types of films audiences want to see them in. To help us writers get out of creative slumps, we should go back to what always inspires us. Reread a book you love, or listen to an artist that usually inspires you on repeat. Try writing something short in your favorite genre, just to get the creative muscle working again before circling back to your WIP. Have faith that your slump will end. I know for me, after a few months, the creative thoughts and ideas bubbled back up to the surface. They were always there, and they were tired of being ignored. Finally, I got myself back into a position where I could listen to them again and put pen to paper.

Have you ever had a bad creative slump? Are you in one now? How did you get out of it?

(all Box Office figures pulled from Boxofficemojo.com)

The Difference Between Teen Books and Teen Shows/Movies

When I showed my friends and beta readers the first YA manuscript I ever wrote (which shall remain in a drawer hibernating), the main criticism they had was that the MC seemed too mature and too sexual. Within the first half dozen chapters, she had already been in bed with two different guys, and she was well aware and comfortable with the friends w/ benefits status. I kept telling my critics that-

1. This book was aimed at a 16 and up audience.
2. Just look at the Gossip Girl series!

The Gossip Girl book series, of which I admit I leafed through a few volumes, contains sex and drugs, all told in a salacious, fun, and well, gossipy tone. And the Gossip Girl TV series also had a healthy dose of sex, drugs, drinking, partying. My friends, who admitted they were not well-versed in YA today, maybe just didn't understand.

But after a long talk with one of my friends, I realized that maybe they had a point. When I thought back on the storylines of the GG book series, they were not as X-rated as I remember. In the first few books I read, Blair was anxiously waiting to give her virginity to her long-term boyfriend Nate, Chuck tried to force a move on Little J but was stopped before anything happened, and Nate and Little J were caught quasi-but-not-really fooling around on a faux sex tape. While the books were by no means G-rated, they were not as jaded and overtly sexual as I remembered. The TV series, though, got into serious drugs and threesomes and teenage characters acting like adults.

TV series focused around young adults are much different than books marketed to young adults. Although most shows on the CW revolve around teenagers, they are aimed at an adult audience. The target demographic for the CW is Women 18-34. Same for ABC Family. MTV's most popular demographic is Person 12-34, teens lumped in with people old enough to be their parents. That's right -- networks aren't creating programming for teens, even if they know teens watch their shows. In order to make money, networks have to reach large audiences, even in niche targets. Millions of teens may watch Glee or 90210, but those shows ideally want to reach 20- and 30-something adults, hence the  mature characters and storylines.

Movies also want to reach large audiences because the goal of releasing movies is to make as much money as possible. That's one reason why many animated films like Shrek have jokes meant for parents that go over the kids' heads. They want to entertain the parents and they also want cross-demographic appeal. Hollywood does a better job of making product geared for teens, but they also count on adults buying tickets as well. Studios have divided all moviegoing audiences into four quadrants: men and women 25-and-under, and men and women 26-and-over. A "four-quadrant" film like Pirates of the Caribbean appealed to all audiences, theoretically. Even in these quadrants, teens are grouped in with 20-somethings. And I can tell you from personal experiences, me at 25 was vastly different from me at 15.

Movies nowadays are so expensive to make and market that it's hard to financially justify targeting a film solely to teenagers. Compared to $200M blockbusters, movies like Mean Girls and Easy A were super cheap to make. Mean Girls had a negative cost of $17M and Easy A only cost $8M, according to Box Office Mojo. However, each movie probably spent another $15-25M on prints and advertising. So that's on average $30-35M to release a teen film. Can you imagine if a publisher spent that money to release one YA novel? (A boy can dream...) The inevitably high cost means the movie studio can't rely on just teens to turn a profit.

Now, YA novels, those are aimed squarely at teens. I don't have publishing data, but I'm assuming that it costs far less to publish and release a YA novel than it does to air a TV show or release a movie. The publisher can target a sliver of the population, sell a couple thousand copies, and still make a profit. They don't have to consider pulling in different audience segments (although that's always welcome). The authors have the freedom to write specifically for -- and only for -- teen readers. Mass-market aside, books aren't trying to appeal to a broad audience; that's what makes them so special. Books are the most personal medium; all of the excitement happens in your head.

There are several YA books that deal with very mature, serious topics, but those are written through the viewpoint of a teen. (And contrary to the Wall Street Journal, they are an essential part of the YA market.) They never take on a preachy tone or step back to comment about what a struggle the MC is going through. The authors take into account their readers' limited perspective. Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire dealt with grave issues seen through the eyes of a teen, but that was marketed to adults.

Was my MC too sexual? Not necessarily. I think that the issue was in how she handled it and her attitude towards sex. Life isn't like a TV show.  And from now on, I won't be comparing what I write to what I watch.

What do you think? What differences do you notice between YA books and teen shows and movies?

Do Women Go to the Movies? For the Millionth time -- DUH!!

The biggest surprise of the summer movie season thus far has been the success of Bridesmaids. Critics love it, audiences love it. The film broke through the $100M barrier this weekend with much more to come. Hollywood is shocked – SHOCKED – that a female-driven comedy with no male leads has been such a huge hit. According to Deadline Hollywood, the film industry was watching Bridesmaids’s performance carefully before greenlighting any future comedies starring women. Funny how they didn’t feel the same way about comic book films or Seth Rogen after The Green Hornet fizzled.

It seems that this debate pops up every time a female-driven film overperforms at the box office, since women (over 50% of our population, btw) are still considered a niche audience in Hollywood. They are perpetually forced to prove their spending power to the suits in Hollywood, who immediately question it if one film bombs. Think Sisyphus pushing that rock up the mountain of box office grosses.

Over the past few years, female-driven films have had big highs and crushing lows at the box office, and almost wiped from existence at one major studio. But each time, they came roaring back. So can we please stop acting surprised when a movie is successful and it just so happens to star women? (Pretty please…)

2005 – LOW
Aside from being a weak year for movies all around, 2005 was especially hard for actresses. An Entertainment Weekly column pointed out that this genre was in dire straits. No film with a woman as the sole lead broke $100M that year. Flightplan was the closest with $90M, even though that Jodie Foster film was originally written for a man and even kept the character’s name Kyle. The 40-Year-Old Virgin and Wedding Crashers portrayed the romantic comedy from a male POV to much acclaim. They were humongous hits at the box office, showing executives that bromance could top romance. Even the Best Actress Oscar race was slim pickings that year, with Judi Dench and Cherlize Theron scoring nods with unpopular films. Has anyone even seen Mrs. Henderson Presents?

2006 – HIGH
The Devil Wears Prada saved the female-driven film. That’s all.

All the main characters were women, and yet the film did not center around a wedding or finding a husband. Hollywood was stunned. Women actually went to the movies! Prada opened against Superman Returns on July 4th weekend and earned a strong $28M. Word-of-mouth carried the film to $125M domestically. Overseas, it pulled in over $200M – more than the hyped, uberexpensive Superman. The film turned Meryl Streep into a box office star; she delivered another 3 blockbusters in 2 years. Most important, the success of Prada gave Sarah Jessica Parker the confidence to forge ahead with the Sex and the City movie.

2007 – LOW
Bromance films reigned supreme. Sausage fests 300 and Wild Hogs pulled in a combined $379M during the traditionally sleepy spring season. Summer comedies Knocked Up, I Now Pronouce You Chuck and Larry, and Superbad all grossed over $120M apiece. Meanwhile, pricey films The Invasion starring Nicole Kidman and The Brave One starring Jodie Foster flopped big time. This prompted Warner Bros. President of Production Jeff Robinov to declare, "We are no longer doing movies with women in the lead.”

2008 – HIGH
Once again, the industry was shocked – SHOCKED – that women go to the movies. Sex and the City opened in May to a record-breaking $57M – the biggest romantic comedy and R-rated comedy opening in history at that time. It was seen as the first female-driven “event” film, with women going in groups to see the movie the way fanboys attended comic book films. The film grossed $153M in the US, proving the true power of women at the movies. Again. And the fact that the film starred 4 women over the age of 40 gave Hollywood a heart attack.

That fall, another female-driven franchise opened to stellar numbers: Twilight. Need I say anymore about Twilight? To this day, it’s the most popular and highest-grossing film franchise powered predominantly by female audiences, with nearly $800M in domestic grosses thus far.

2009 – MEGA-HIGH
The weekend of November 20-22 was one for the record books. Twilight: New Moon and The Blind Side, both female-led films, gave a 1-2 punch to the box office, earning a combined $177M in just 3 days. Female audiences were the driving force behind the attendance. 80% of New Moon’s and 59% of Blind Side’s opening weekend audience were women. New Moon had the third biggest debut in history. It was the second highest-grossing weekend in history ($250M for all films), just behind the opening weekend of The Dark Knight. The dynamic duo grossed over $1 Billion internationally. The Blind Side won Sandra Bullock her first Oscar. (Don’t worry, Twihards: Kristen Stewart won an MTV Movie Award for her performance, too.) It was the highest-grossing picture to win an actor an Academy Award – male or female – since Forrest Gump in 1994.

Oh, and did I mention who released The Blind Side?

Warner Bros.

While young men may be a more reliable moviegoing demographic, that doesn't mean female-driven films should forever be an endangered species. I do understand where Hollywood is coming from. Women will watch a movie starring all men (e.g. The Departed, The Hangover) but it's tough to get men to watch a movie starring all women. But that doesn't mean they should stop making female-centric movies altogether. The reason both genders saw The Departed and The Hangover is because they were good movies. That's why they're seeing Bridesmaids. There is an audience for female-driven movies, but it's an audience that cares about quality -- no matter if it's a man or a woman on the screen.

Which Came Firster: The Prequel or the Reboot?

On the eve of X-Men: First Class’s release tomorrow, there is a question that needs to be answered once and for all: Is this a prequel or a reboot? What’s the difference?

Both genres include films that go back to the origins of characters and trace how they came to be in the current franchise. They feature actors playing younger versions. And they usually get released years after the last film. Fox is hoping First Class is considered a reboot. At the box office, the prequel genre has been littered with mostly bombs, save for the Star Wars trilogy Episodes 1-3.

Prequels seem good in theory. They can delve into histories of beloved characters and explore rich worlds and mythologies. However, they have a limited audience, primarily fans of the original franchise. People think if they haven’t seen the first one, they won’t get or care about what’s going on in this one. Prequels are viewed as flashbacks, and you need full knowledge of what went down previously to be emotionally invested. Watching a 10-year-old boy race in a pod isn’t compelling unless you know he grows up to be Darth Vader. (Even then, it wasn’t that compelling.) Going into a prequel cold is like going to party where you don’t know anyone, and everyone is telling inside jokes. The reason the new Star Wars trilogy worked was because Darth Vader is so ingrained in our culture that all moviegoers knew the backstory, even if they didn’t see the original films.

Moviegoers are savvier today. They also understand that most prequels released are desperate cash grabs for the studio – not a sincere attempt to continue the story. For one, they’re cheaper to produce. The biggest expense for a sequel is usually cast salaries. With a prequel, studios can cast younger (read: cheaper) actors but still play on the name recognition of the franchise. Most of the prequels in this decade came along unwanted by fans and years after anyone cared about the previous film. Nobody was clamoring for Dumb and Dumberer: When Harry Met Lloyd, The Flintstones in Viva Rock Vegas, Exorcist: The Beginning, Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning, or Hannibal Rising.

In turn, Hollywood also got savvier. They realized the toxic connotation the word ‘sequel’ contains. Now when they want to salvage an aging franchise by hiring young, cheap actors and going back to the beginning, they call it a reboot. Batman Begins kickstarted the trend, followed by Casino Royale and Star Trek. All 3 films scored with critics and audiences. While prequels consider the existing movies as canon, reboots start from scratch. Christopher Nolan’s Batman does not exist in the same universe as Tim Burton or Joel Schumacher’s Batman, and the Warner Bros. marketing team made sure we all knew that. Wolverine was a prequel because it continued the story of Hugh Jackman’s Wolverine from the original X-Men franchise. Reboots are usually strong enough brands where they don’t need to rely on what happened in the last movie to propel their new story. Batman and Bond have been played by multiple actors, and the previous films were self-contained. The new Jack Ryan movie Paramount trying to get off the ground falls into this category as well. The line does get blurry: technically, Star Trek is a prequel because it employs Leonard Nimoy as older/alternate universe Spock, meaning that it accepts the older Star Trek films as truth. But the writers were smart and had the character go through a wormhole/plot device spitting them out into an alternative timeline, thus preserving the original films while standing on its own. (And they did a good job of explaining this in the movie.)

So what is X-Men: First Class?  I’m going to call it a prequel because it does accept the previous trilogy as canon.  And as popular as the series is, the brand is not strong enough to stand independent of the previous movies. A casual moviegoer cannot go into the movie knowing next to nothing about the series. Finding out how Professor X and Magneto became enemies is not as broadly appealing as how Anakin became Darth. Hopefully the strong reviews of First Class will translate into word of mouth and it doesn’t fall prey to the prequel curse.

What are your thoughts on prequels and reboots?