Carl S says:
What're your thoughts on modern monster movies? Good, bad, other? What was the last real "monster" movie (excluding zombies or vampires)? Was it "Slither"?
Carl S says:
Actually, Monsters was pretty cool. Two main characters... low budget but with great CGI effects. That's one way to go.
Taylor Carmichael says:
The Host is an awesome South Korean monster movie. That's fairly recent.
Carl S says:
I've heard of it and want to see that. Also, I've not yet seen the Scandinavian movie "Troll Hunter". It's supposed to be one of those "found footage" films but it looks great.
here's the IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1740707/
here's the IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1740707/
Taylor Carmichael says:
there's a found footage screenplay on A.S., with a UFO I think, can't remember what it's called.,,
Taylor Carmichael says:
I don't know if werewolves count as monsters but Dog Soldiers is pretty cool.
Taylor Carmichael says:
Eight Legged Freaks with the giant spiders had a nice B movie monster vibe.
Have you seen Them! That's a really cool B movie from the 50's.
Have you seen Them! That's a really cool B movie from the 50's.
Taylor Carmichael says:
I liked the poster for Eight Legged Freaks more than I liked the movie.
Carl S says:
Werewolves count, so I guess "The Wolfman" should have come to mind when I made this discussion. D'oh!
And B Movies are like my A Movies... ;)
And B Movies are like my A Movies... ;)
Wash Phillips says:
Here's something on my mind, Carl:
Should a monster have a name? Other than just "monster," I mean?
As memorable as GLACIER is (for a project with such a mind-blowing whirlwind pace), I don't recall The Monster having an actual NAME.
In a finished, WGA-registered monster flick Wally and I have off-site (and are novelizing), the monster is known by a generic term for his kind sometimes, but when he's finally in focus, he's named for some act he does frequently: he screams horrendously at midnight. This action identifies him as The Screamer or just Screamer, and the show title is MOUNTAINS AT MIDNIGHT. We're happy with that.
But your IMHO highly-successful script GLACIER evokes the larger question: How important is a name, per se, for such a character? I recall a driving trip to Italy a while back when a chain of gas stations I frequented had the name, "Supercortemaggiore" (sp?) whose logo on the signage was a 6-legged monster in silhouette.
[Spoiler alert@] At some point in GLACIER, The Monster has multi appendages off a bilaterally-symmetrical body, more or less. While guffawing my way through GLACIER--actually lurching between the rare comedy soft spots to rest my gut, sore from laughter--I noted this unusual configuration and immediately recalled the Italian oil company. More to the point, I recalled the name of the station and its symbol immediately, the relative cost of gas and how my wife enjoyed the trip. (This from a guy who can'td recall yesterday's lunch,)
Does that make a case for monster naming? Recall may be be one way an audience has of fixing in mind its feelings about a flick. The Thing. Terminator. Colossus:The Forbin Project, Dracula, Mothra, King Kong, Creature From The Black Lagoon, Godzilla, She Who Must Be Obeyed--all dredge up feelings for good or ill, inciting opinion and discussion. A counter example is that monster on Donald's Trump's head, only generically described as hair, and inspiring only teeth-gritting.
So I wonder what others think of the The Monster Name Controversy. Specifically, can/does the lack of a grabby handle make for a less-memorable monster experience?
Should a monster have a name? Other than just "monster," I mean?
As memorable as GLACIER is (for a project with such a mind-blowing whirlwind pace), I don't recall The Monster having an actual NAME.
In a finished, WGA-registered monster flick Wally and I have off-site (and are novelizing), the monster is known by a generic term for his kind sometimes, but when he's finally in focus, he's named for some act he does frequently: he screams horrendously at midnight. This action identifies him as The Screamer or just Screamer, and the show title is MOUNTAINS AT MIDNIGHT. We're happy with that.
But your IMHO highly-successful script GLACIER evokes the larger question: How important is a name, per se, for such a character? I recall a driving trip to Italy a while back when a chain of gas stations I frequented had the name, "Supercortemaggiore" (sp?) whose logo on the signage was a 6-legged monster in silhouette.
[Spoiler alert@] At some point in GLACIER, The Monster has multi appendages off a bilaterally-symmetrical body, more or less. While guffawing my way through GLACIER--actually lurching between the rare comedy soft spots to rest my gut, sore from laughter--I noted this unusual configuration and immediately recalled the Italian oil company. More to the point, I recalled the name of the station and its symbol immediately, the relative cost of gas and how my wife enjoyed the trip. (This from a guy who can'td recall yesterday's lunch,)
Does that make a case for monster naming? Recall may be be one way an audience has of fixing in mind its feelings about a flick. The Thing. Terminator. Colossus:The Forbin Project, Dracula, Mothra, King Kong, Creature From The Black Lagoon, Godzilla, She Who Must Be Obeyed--all dredge up feelings for good or ill, inciting opinion and discussion. A counter example is that monster on Donald's Trump's head, only generically described as hair, and inspiring only teeth-gritting.
So I wonder what others think of the The Monster Name Controversy. Specifically, can/does the lack of a grabby handle make for a less-memorable monster experience?
Carl S says:
Mothra was one of my favorite monsters as a kid. I loved the song the miniature Japanese women would sing to summon her.
Anyway, your question is an excellent one and my answer is: it depends.
In "Glacier" my monster is a manifestation on mother nature's wrath. it is, litteraly, a "force of nature". For this reason, I purposefully left it nameless. I thought naming it would rob it of its "feral", "organic" and "wild" nature. Like putting a collar on a dog.
On the other hand, creating a memorable, and even franchise-able - monster like a "wolfman" or a "Canniablistic Humanoid Undergroud Dweller" or even "Pumpkinhead" is something entirely different.
As far as naming characters, another writer recently told me I should do so. MY problem is, I get a personal kick out of coming up with silly tags for smaller character-parts that will appear in the credits at the end. As a young movie-goer, and even today, I look for great names in the credits. Like in Steven Segal's "Above the Law", we have two of my favorties: "Machete Man" and "Machete Man's Friend". I love that!
So be it the best thing to do or not, I'll probably keep naming people "Mr. Litterbug", simply as a way to amuse myself and keep this whole process fun. Let's call it one of the writing vices! ;)
Answer me this, Wash: Do you see room in the movie market these days to revive a giant monster franchise, such as a King or Godzilla? ANyone?
Anyway, your question is an excellent one and my answer is: it depends.
In "Glacier" my monster is a manifestation on mother nature's wrath. it is, litteraly, a "force of nature". For this reason, I purposefully left it nameless. I thought naming it would rob it of its "feral", "organic" and "wild" nature. Like putting a collar on a dog.
On the other hand, creating a memorable, and even franchise-able - monster like a "wolfman" or a "Canniablistic Humanoid Undergroud Dweller" or even "Pumpkinhead" is something entirely different.
As far as naming characters, another writer recently told me I should do so. MY problem is, I get a personal kick out of coming up with silly tags for smaller character-parts that will appear in the credits at the end. As a young movie-goer, and even today, I look for great names in the credits. Like in Steven Segal's "Above the Law", we have two of my favorties: "Machete Man" and "Machete Man's Friend". I love that!
So be it the best thing to do or not, I'll probably keep naming people "Mr. Litterbug", simply as a way to amuse myself and keep this whole process fun. Let's call it one of the writing vices! ;)
Answer me this, Wash: Do you see room in the movie market these days to revive a giant monster franchise, such as a King or Godzilla? ANyone?
Wash Phillips says:
Carl,
By "giant monster franchise" do you mean...
A) a monster that's huge in size, something like the StaPuff guy in GHOSTUBSTERS?
B) a monster franchise that has multiple iterations/films a la TERMINATOR?
C) A monster concept that makes lots of $$?
By "giant monster franchise" do you mean...
A) a monster that's huge in size, something like the StaPuff guy in GHOSTUBSTERS?
B) a monster franchise that has multiple iterations/films a la TERMINATOR?
C) A monster concept that makes lots of $$?
Carl S says:
Wash,
I mean a great, big, enormous monster!
I mean, they tried "Godzilla" in New York and failed. But, they stripped the mythical beast of all the cool stuff, like the radioactive breath and some giant monster from space to come down and do battle.
I wanna know what a modern, giant monster would have to be to succeed in Hollywood (and don't say Spielberg)!
I mean a great, big, enormous monster!
I mean, they tried "Godzilla" in New York and failed. But, they stripped the mythical beast of all the cool stuff, like the radioactive breath and some giant monster from space to come down and do battle.
I wanna know what a modern, giant monster would have to be to succeed in Hollywood (and don't say Spielberg)!
Taylor Carmichael says:
They had giant monsters in Cloverfield.
You know what would be kinda funny, is a found footage rom-com.
You know what would be kinda funny, is a found footage rom-com.
Wash Phillips says:
@Taylor
.a found footage rom-com.<
Brilliant idea. and I'd forgotten found footage was the graphic premise of CLOVERFIELD.
Remembered the monster, though.
.a found footage rom-com.<
Brilliant idea. and I'd forgotten found footage was the graphic premise of CLOVERFIELD.
Remembered the monster, though.
Carl S says:
@ Taylor
Yes, Cloverfield! I forgot about that.
Question, if you saw a trailer for a film, with a big budget for summer release with a couple of name stars in it and this movie was about some giant monster from space who comes down and starts rampaging across the land, would it hold interest for you?
I'm thinking of writing one but am not sure I want to invest the time/effort.
I mean, these movies ran their course from the 1950s to the 1970s, with "Them" (giant ants), "Godzilla" (giant lizard, and so many spin offs). Then we went through giant rabbits, dinosaurs, spiders, and etc. I am hoping it's time for a revitalization!
Yes, Cloverfield! I forgot about that.
Question, if you saw a trailer for a film, with a big budget for summer release with a couple of name stars in it and this movie was about some giant monster from space who comes down and starts rampaging across the land, would it hold interest for you?
I'm thinking of writing one but am not sure I want to invest the time/effort.
I mean, these movies ran their course from the 1950s to the 1970s, with "Them" (giant ants), "Godzilla" (giant lizard, and so many spin offs). Then we went through giant rabbits, dinosaurs, spiders, and etc. I am hoping it's time for a revitalization!
Carl S says:
That was an amazing movie. And I agree, if she's a monster, I wanna be menaced, too!
Taylor Carmichael says:
King Kong was awesome. You know what I couldn't believe? He didn't smell his hand. That's my favorite part!
Carl S says:
@ Taylor
Kong and the finger, yeah, that was quite a controversial thing back in 1930-something. Don't know why the modern version cut it out, it's so "primal".
And more big, outer space monsters are in order. I'm writing one! here is comes... watch the sky! It's a comedy!
Kong and the finger, yeah, that was quite a controversial thing back in 1930-something. Don't know why the modern version cut it out, it's so "primal".
And more big, outer space monsters are in order. I'm writing one! here is comes... watch the sky! It's a comedy!