Lady in the Water
As you've noticed, the strip is smaller today. There's a couple reasons for that:
1. I want to draw strips more frequently. That's for YOU. And a single-tiered format would allow for that.
2. This joke just worked better as a four panel comic.
Number two is the biggie, the thing that got me to try this approach. I wrote a couple versions of the script with six panels, seven panels, five . . . and all of them just seemed to explain-y. I'm good at that, you might've noticed -- using more words than I gotta.
I'm not sure where that comes from. Certainly not my father. He's one of the most impressive linguists I've ever met, but when I was a kid? I didn't realize he could speak more than one syllable at a time. He tended to -- and still does -- limit his speechifying to quick comments like, "Mm! Hot dogs!" and "Go Cubs!" But get him reading his poetry, or talking to his classes and holy cow! It's like a whole different person's taken him over. It's amazing, really. And his writing . . . so complex and eloquent and intricate and readable all at the same time. Maybe he was always that way. Maybe I just couldn't understand as a kid. Who knows?
Anyway, you'll likely get a few single-tiered PP strips here and there, but don't worry. I'll make it worth your while.
Out of curiosity, if given the choice, would you prefer LONG strips or MORE strips?
:C
P.S. - Lady in the Water was TERRIBLE.
13 Comments:
Hrm. Do you have to commit to either longer or more? (I can see how that might be necessary for the newspaper) I cast my vote for both- depending on what you have to say/how much time you have/your personal whim. But, I'm all about variety.
:( Lady in the Water didn't suck. Hahaha. Though I think I am the minority :P I just want to say, that people can take the whole best writer even in different ways. I got the distinct vibe that Story was his muse and it helped him actually write, and the idea that writers can write things when they KNOW their place. Ontop of the fact that most writers back in the day died first before they got popular :P I swear, plus, M. Night DOES read this bedtime story to his kids, it's not like he isn't far from the truth making him the main writer in the movie. Still, I didn't think it was pretentious at all, especially when he states clearly in the movie as the character that he doesn't think he is anything special.
Still, I am the minority, but I personally think this movie can be taken a lot of ways, and I don't think M. Nighti s a pretentious prick much like Paul Haggis is
Also, whichever size comics that make it so you can do more :D SMaller, is fine with me :D Your stuff is awesome!
Yes, Dakota, I think you are in the minority. That doesn't mean you're wrong; it just means the majority thinks you're wrong. It's more than possible you are the right one. That is how it often goes with the minority/majority equation, after all.
That said, I think you're wrong. No offense intended. I'm always glad for an opposing opinion and reasoning. But I'm not going to just agree with you to make you happy. I want you to be happy, but I would be a bad person if I went about it like that.
I dunno. It could have been a good movie. It had the stuff for it. But that stuff was mishandled. Paul Giamatti was badly mishandled. Where was all the stuff Paul Giamatti is so good at? And racist portrayals of Asians -- even when it comes from another Asian -- don't do anyone any good. Why did they have to be stereotypes? I mean, really! Was there an actual reason? The retarded kid in Gigli -- was there a good reason to write him as retarded? Or was it just for comedic effect?
Oh, and M. Night can SAY he doesn't think he's special as much as he likes, but if he says it while portraying himself as REALLY special? Like, um, the most special? Yeah. That kinda negates the humble-ness.
Sorry if I sound crabby. It is just how I feel about Lady in the Water. Not you. For you I feel nothing but like.
No. It's more than that. I... I like you a bunch!
No, how boring would that be if everyone agreed with eachother :P Yeah, exactly. I mean, movies are so cool because there are just so many out there and some that people see similarly, or different on, or both love, it's just what makes me love movies so much :)
Also, you bring up good points. The stereotype I do understand. That is a good point and you are right, probably didn't need to be so overtly so. THe only thing I could think was maybe he was tryign to dumb it down for his kids. I actually thought Paul was used quite well, the scene where he was acting like a kid was really neat to me. True, I still don't think he is being pretentious, BUT, I do agree with one fact that applies to all directors. Limitations makes them better directors. When directors get free reign to do the vison EXACTLY how they want, they normally aren't good. By forcing limitations it forces them to be creative. Lucas didn't get that, Jackson didn't get that for Kong, M. Night OBVIOUSLY didn't get that for this, and I know there is more, but I am spacing. Don't get me wrong, this wasn't a GREAT movie. And is not my favorite M. Night movie, but I just don't understand the utter HATRED for this movie, not liking it I get, thinking it's the worst movie to come out this year seems a bit harsh to me :P
And you aren't crabby at all! It's your opinion like this is mine. Like you said, it would be worse if you just agreed to be nice, then if you just say your opinion.
Hahahaha, well, I am glad I am not hated :) Looking forward to the next update :D
Oh, man. Speaking of disagreeing, you liked that lying on the couch scene? I thought that was ridiculous. AND that it fed into the whole racist Asian thing.
I thought it suggested that the non-english-speaking mom was also kind of an idiot, that she could be persuaded to tell the full story of the Blue World if Cleveland pretended to be childlike.
The reason I thought Giamatti was underutilized is more about what he's done in other movies than what he did in Lady in the Water. He's good in LITW, as he always is. But He was absolutely superb in American Splendor -- so rubbery and silly and sad all at once, all stuff most actors find difficult. He didn't have any of that in LITW. Why the hell not?! Why cast him if you don't want him to do what he's best at doing?
Sure, if he's gonna do something amazing that's different, that's cool. But I don't think he portrayed a particularly amazing schlub in LITW.
I do think you're totally right about limitations. A director has to be willing to listen, at least a little, if people are telling him something sucks. He shouldn't always act accordingly, but if he rules his movie set with an iron fist, why hire anyone else?
Huh, that's interesting you say that. See I took that whole idea about the whole inner child inside, they talk about the idea that man is having a harder and harder time listening, giving the idea that she only trusts children because they are open to listening to fantastical ideas and what not. It made her happy seeing him bring out his inner child to believe in something, it also proved that this was THAT important to him to act like that.
Man I want to see American Splendor, that's the Giammati movie I havve REALLY been wanting to see you know? Well, you don't want Paul to get type cast now. That would suck. I love Steve Buscemi, but the poor guy has gotten type cast like MAD. It's hard to rub that off once you get it. It's good to know your strengths, but man, you sure as hell don't want that to be your magic party trick of sorts.
True, it wasn't an amazing, and as I said, this isn't an AMAZING movie. But, going back to the whole point of it all, it's a bedtime story :P It never was meant to be complex, it was meant to have a morale easily attainable, be goofy, be fantastical, and not be a big thinker kind of movie. It's the kind of movie that if told in a story would teach kids how to find something important inside of themselves.
Yeah, directors lately just seem to be getting more and more bloated. It makes me smile when I see a movie that's and hour and a half and knows EXACTLY when to stop. Just perfectly paced and everything. Love that
Also, good discussion :D I sometimes try to initiate discussion with people on IMDB, but between trolls, and complete M. Night Pretentious jack ass's it's hard to really get a good opinion :P This is nice :) Hahahaha. I just get tired of how stupid people can get. I really like all the movie comic people, they all seem to be so level headed and what not. I respect Joe, Tom Brazelton, Gordon, and obviously yours. It's cool. I don't know. It's just nice. You guys aren't dicks :P
I seriously doubt Paul Giamatti COULD get typecast. His roles have been all over the place, and he's too good of an actor. And really, see American Splendor. It's one of those rare movies that had high potential to be a complete mess... but wasn't! It was easily my favorite movie the year it came out. 2003? 2003.
And hey . . . you liked the lying on the couch scene, I didn't. I can see your reasoning. S'cool.
But I'm right! Ta-ha!
Anyway, yes, It's been nice chatting with you. Stop by anytime, and I'll, um, continue to not be a dick.
Unless it's funny to do so.
:C
Well if it's FUNNY you have to :P Seriosuly, it's good not be a jerk, but if it's funny, by all means. It's worse NOT to take it. Hehehehe. I will make sure to put American Splendor up on my priority list.
I'm with Cosmic Amanda. Mix it up a little. I keep meaning to do more short ones, but then I draw out a stupid, little joke to the equivalent of three fucking pages. Because I'm a moron.
All right! The masses (sic) have spoken. It shall be a mix!
Though for the sake of my attempts to publish the strip in alternative papers, I'll try to always draw one two-tiered strip a week.
Or, y'know, none. Whichever's easiest.
*the masses (sic) rejoice*
Post a Comment
<< Home