I think I've finally figured it out . . .

There was a time when I really dug those block-buster films, with all the explosions and bodies flying all over the place and fight scenes that seem to go on for hours and involve dozens, if not hundreds, of people.

At some point, though, I lost my taste for those. In fact, after watching one of those now, I feel exhausted, and a bit numb on the inside. It was not usually the feeling the makers of these films wants to leave their audience with.

Starting to write screenplays myself sort of helped me to home in on my problem.

In many of these films you can tell when it's going to happen. The hero walks into a room full of bad guys and draws his guns/swords/etc., and the techno/rock/whatever music starts while he wades through acres of bad guys in a carefully choreographed fight sequence that may be at least partially shown in slow motion. Then, our hero leaves the room, usually after a witty quip, before continuing his journey, and the dead and injured left behind are seldom if ever mentioned again.

I know many--if not most--people out there love this sort of thing, and I'm not saying you are wrong for doing so. If it's your thing, if you dig it, then by all means, indulge yourself.

However, in my own screenplays, when violence happens it usually comes out of nowhere, and it is ugly, bloody, and not consequence-free. Even when the hero is the one perpetrating the act, the dead or injured are not forgotten. Even though, if the scene is ever shot, it'll be thoroughly choreographed, planned to the last detail, it shouldn't look that way. If done like I want it, most people will be cringing, looking away, or shifting uncomfortably in their seats, because even though the person getting killed or hurt may be really nasty and may have it coming, he or she is still a human being and, if I've done my job as a writer, you will be able to empathize with the pain he or she is feeling.

Because violence is like that. It isn't pretty. It isn't clean. It isn't desirable. It should be the very last thing you would ever want to happen. It should be something you want to avoid at all costs. And if you resort to it, even if you felt like you had no choice, there should be some consequences, if only inside your own conscience.

I think many people tend to forget that, and I think a lot of that is because of the way violence is portrayed in the popular media. Like it's just another option on the list of options for handling a situation. For some people, especially people who are particularly lazy or not very bright, it becomes their first option for dealing with an unpleasant situation. It's almost socially acceptable to attack somebody physically that you have a disagreement with.

Am I saying this is a problem? Maybe. I'm not really qualified to say. It's just my own opinion. Even if I'm wrong, it behooves me to stick to my own instincts and, when the situation calls for a fight of some kind, present it in a more realistic way than in most films today. Maybe if we start showing the real outcomes of violent encounters, the maimed survivors, the weeping families of the dead, some people out there would think before drawing a pistol to shoot someone who cut them off in traffic or who talked during a critical scene in a movie.

But, of course, where's the money in that? Maybe if there were money in that, we'd see it in movies more often. Just something to think about.

Analysis Paralysis and a Super Bowl prediction

It's been exceedingly difficult for me to pick and concentrate on a new project lately.

I've got three projects that are clamoring for my attention but when I start to focus on one of them it grows quiet and bashful and gives me one word answers while the other two have their hands in the air, shouting, "Me! Me! Me!" And then, of course, when I call on one of them the same thing happens.

My basic problem with all three of them is the motivations of the antagonists. This has always been a problem for me--I'm not a fan of the hand-wringing, mustache-twirling baddie who wants to "rule the world!" Mainly, what exactly does that mean? Each and every scenario I come up with to fit that objective makes the end result sound like a monumental pain the ass. I don't understand anybody who really wants that.

So, what could the bad guy want? Money and power are always good, if a bit boring, I guess. Survival--both personal and of a way of life--are even better.

To that end I've decided to let the three projects above continue to clamor for my attention while I work on a fourth project that'll be a B-grade horror movie. My reasoning? Because I understand the motives of the antagonists in this one. I've also got some characters I've been itching to use for a long time who will fit right into it. While the immediate threat in this thing is a group of monsters, the ultimate antagonists are human beings.

I do need to develop the monsters a bit more, though. I've got a basic understanding of how they'll work and what they look like but I need a little more development of their biology, something that'll make them a powerful threat to humanity at large. Their motivation is pretty basic--they want to reproduce and eat, as much as possible. What do they eat? Take a wild guess.

The humans that sort of enable the whole thing are no problem at all--I understand those people all too well.

So, I'm writing a treatment for this one and I'll probably start hammering out a first draft of the screenplay in the next week or so. I'm calling it Misery Creek. I'm stealing from myself a little bit, here, because that's also the title of the first screenplay I ever wrote, but beyond the title this one will have little to do with the earlier one. Which is a good thing, because the first one was pretty bad.

In the mean time I'll be mulling over the other projects, trying to come up with convincing antagonists.

So, that'll be the next few weeks for me, looks like. As always, I'll keep you posted as to my progress.

The Super Bowl is later today, so I'll just leave my prediction here:

Carolina 28, Denver 24