But despite all that, there was one film that released recently that surpassed them all. One, low-budget, foreign movie that surpassed my already high expectations and managed to beat most movies releasing in the west, quickly becoming one of my personal favorites.

Enter Godzilla: Minus One.

Godzilla started out as a Japanese movie franchise, beginning with a thought-provoking film in 1954 about a giant, ancient monster attacking Japan. The film served as commentary on the bombing of Japan at the end of World War 2, showing how the development of new technologies by humans can unleash horrors beyond our imagination.

The success of this film spawned a lot of less-interesting sequels, in which Godzilla saves humanity time and time again by fighting a billion other monsters in cheesy action scenes. None of the sequels invoked the same feelings as the original, and they didn’t provide nearly as much thought-provoking material as the original.

Eventually, Hollywood managed to get their hands on the rights to the giant lizard, and they created their own movies that still couldn’t quite match the quality of the first.

Japan finally created another Godzilla film in 2016, many years after the last one, with fairly positive reception, but nothing super special. I have yet to see the movie, so I am unable to comment on the quality of the movie.

Finally, Japanese studios released another Godzilla movie this year titled Godzilla: Minus One. This film went back to the roots of the original, opening in 1945, when the second world war was coming to a close. The U. S. is quickly converging on Japan after the attack on Pearl Harbor, and Japan’s only hope to slowing them down is their kamikaze pilots, who fly suicide missions with the intent of dying with honor.

We meet Koichi Shikishima, a kamikaze pilot who decides he doesn’t want to die. During his mission, he turns around and lands on a small island, telling the mechanics at the airbase that his plane malfunctioned. The mechanics are less than satisfied with his answer. But before anyone can do anything about it, a massive, prehistoric, dinosaur-like monster the locals call Godzilla appears on the beach and starts destroying the airbase. Shikishima gets in his plane to shoot down the creature as he walks past, but the pilot freezes up. Everyone on the island aside from Shikishima and one mechanic are killed by the massive beast before it returns to the water.

Shikishima goes back home to find that his town has been destroyed by the Americans and his parents are dead. He is blamed for the destruction because of his failure to go through with his mission. Eventually, Shikishima runs into a girl who is taking care of a child entrusted to her. Shikishima, the girl, and the child live together, making ends meet with what little they have. Shikishima gets a job cleaning up old mines from the war on a boat to provide for the girl and the child, but he is plagued with survivor’s guilt and a feeling of shame and dishonor for not doing his duty.

Now, this might all sound like a soap opera at that point, but don’t worry. There is plenty of Godzilla to go around. Eventually, the monster reappears, wrecking every ship it finds as it wanders the sea. It becomes clear the monster is making its way towards the mainland, and it’s much bigger and more powerful than before.

I never expected a movie about a giant, nuclear dinosaur to be one of the most compelling and emotional movies I’ve ever seen, but here we are. I came for some fun monster action, and I got so much more. The themes of duty and honoring life are strong and expressed masterfully. The characters feel real, and I enjoyed watching their journeys throughout the film. They grew, changed, and were forced to make difficult decisions, which is something I unfortunately don’t see very often anymore.

The monster itself, Godzilla, is more than just a huge, lumbering lizard swatting down buildings and roaring at fleeing civilians. This rendition of the beast is a terrifying force to be reckoned with. He’s not just a big dinosaur. He’s a monster who relentlessly tries to kill the humans. The opening of the movie feels something straight out of Jurassic Park. In the scene, Godzilla is a terrifying, unstoppable menace. When we later discovered that he had grown and become more powerful, I dreaded the next meeting the characters would have with the monster.

But the best thing about this version of the iconic monster is that he was made to represent all of Shikishima’s fears. Having Shikishima freeze up during the opening sequence, causing the deaths of the mechanics, was a genius move. It takes Shikishima’s guilt and shame of not accomplishing his duty as a kamikaze pilot and puts it on Godzilla, making the monster represent his internal struggle.

Most recent movies tend to be soulless cash-grabs filled with boring CGI battles and underdeveloped plots and ideas, including several of the Warner Bros. Godzilla films. Heck, almost all of the Japanese Godzilla films were meant to be cash-grabs, coasting off the success of the first film. But this movie is a break from all that noise. It’s interesting, it’s smart, it’s deep, and it’s moving. This is currently my favorite movie of the year, and I highly recommend it to anyone looking for something a little more thought-provoking.

Thanks for reading! Have a fantastic day.

The post Godzilla: Minus One | Review appeared first on Elliot Kessler.

This is something I’ve struggled with quite a bit. I would like to write a Christian science fiction story, but I never understood how without preaching to my audience, which is one of the biggest complaints I have with most modern fiction. If I explicitly taught my readers through my stories and sold it as “fiction”, I wouldn’t be any better than the writers I complain about.

But how? If you’re trying to preach through a story, how do you do that without preaching?

The answer is simple. You don’t.

The Shift is a Christian science fiction movie created by Angel Studios inspired by the book of Job. The film is explicitly Christian. The main character prays to get out of situations, the villain is clearly the Devil, and the film communicates Christian themes of hope, light, and love.

But the film doesn’t feel preachy. It talks about biblical themes and messages without explicitly talking about those things.

But how does it do this?

Well, to answer that question, I’ll compare this film to another piece of science fiction content that also released recently and tried to teach its audience, but came across as one of the most preachiest pieces of media I’ve ever seen: Doctor Who and The Star Beast.

Of course, Doctor Who isn’t Christian. In fact, it tries to teach ideology that opposes the Bible directly. However, The Shift and Doctor Who both try to accomplish the same thing: teaching through stories.

First, let’s look at The Shift.

What’s this movie about?

After a near fatal car crash, Kevin finds himself in a strange dystopian world parallel to his own reality where a man calling himself the Benefactor reigns supreme, and everyone fears him. The Benefactor tries to recruit Kevin into his army to conquer other realities, but this version of Kevin is the first to refuse. He finds himself stuck in hiding for five years in the dystopian reality, working to find a way back to his home and his wife.

This movie never explicitly teaches anything. Sure, it is biblical and is inspired by the book of Job. But the characters don’t stop the story to vaguely talk about faith and hope. Those themes are strongly weaved into the plot. If these ideas aren’t brought up, the story wouldn’t happen. They are crucial to the plot. Without hope, Kevin wouldn’t have the drive to move the story forward. Without faith, Kevin wouldn’t have anything to fight for.

Now, let’s look at Doctor Who. What was this episode about?

The Doctor runs into an old friend, Donna, on Earth. But because of previous events in the series, Donna cannot remember the Doctor or any of their adventures together or she’ll die. Meanwhile, an alien called the Meep crashes on the planet and hides from another alien race hunting it. The Doctor helps the Meep escape only to learn that he is actually evil. Now, the Doctor must thwart the Meep’s plans before he destroys all of London.

What’s this story trying to teach its audience?

We should be accepting of people, no matter who they are or what they identify as.

As you can probably tell, this message isn’t exactly integral to the plot. In fact, it defies it. The Doctor is accepting of the Meep and helps him only for him to turn out to be evil. That doesn’t sound like the writers are trying to teach anyone about accepting people.

Yet, they constantly have the characters discussing acceptance. A trans character is… there, I guess, and the Doctor… talks to her. A woman in a wheelchair is informed several times by the Doctor and the soldiers she is in charge of that she is accepted and she can do whatever anyone else can do (except go up a staircase, which is a point that’s brought up for some reason).

So, how do you preach to your audience without preaching to your audience?

Start with your message. Don’t write the story and put the message in later. The story should be the message. My novel, Liar’s Legacy, is about redemption and guilt. It’s weaved into the plot. If Sevdis doesn’t become the person he lied about and told everyone he already was, the galaxy is doomed to another bloody war. He must deal with the consequences of his regretful actions and repent of what he’s done to save the galaxy and his new friends.

The story is the message. It’s not a megaphone to put your message in. It’s not something you write and figure out what to say later. The message is a part of the plot, whether you thought of one or not.

If you want to sound preachy, tack a message onto your story after you’ve created the plot. If you want to write a good story, make sure the themes are integral and inseparable from your story.

That’s how I try to write my stories. I haven’t written Christian science fiction (although, I would like to), but I have written science fiction with Christian values. That’s what I really want more of, and that’s what I’m going to model by coming up with themes first and plot second.

Thanks for reading! Have a fantastic day.

The post Christianity and Fiction appeared first on Elliot Kessler.

The complaint that stories aren’t original anymore has lasted for many years. It seems that anytime I talk with anyone about stories, someone brings up the topic of originality.

But the truth is these people would also rather pay to watch a sequel to something they enjoyed than go to an original movie they don’t know they’ll like.

During the marketing campaign for The Creator, an original science fiction film by Gareth Edwards, my family saw an advertisement on TV for it during a sports broadcast. My dad’s first reaction was, “That looks weird.”

My brother and I were the only ones in my family who wanted to watch the film.

See, there’s a reason that most mainstream stories released today are sequels, reboots, or remakes. It might be because they’re easier to make, but I don’t believe that’s the whole reason. I think it’s because those are the movies that make the most money.

Think about it. Would you rather watch a new science fiction movie about a war between humans and robots or the next Star Wars film? Would you rather watch a movie about a brilliant detective solving a strange case or another Sherlock Holmes movie? Would you rather read a new book about a sprawling fantasy world and a long, arduous journey with heroic characters or reread Lord of the Rings?

Everyone says they want original stories, but the numbers show otherwise. The Creator didn’t make enough money, while the new Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles film and Barbie made plenty. The truth is that original stories are seen as odd, strange, and weird.

But that’s the point.

An original story should be something we’ve never seen before. It should explore new concepts, ideas, and characters, none of which the audience is familiar with. Of course, they aren’t going to sell as well, and of course, they will be seen as strange.

Audiences would rather find comfort in something familiar than try watching something new. New stories are weird, but that’s because they’ve never been done before. They’re supposed to be odd. But it’s that strangeness that pushes audiences away. They would rather watch a terrible remake of an old classic than a brilliant new work of art.

I’m not saying this is a good thing or a bad thing. If the point of this article were to say that all sequels and reboots were terrible, then that would be a bit hypocritical. Some of my favorite films are sequels or adaptations. Some of my favorite books I only read because they’re so popular. Ready Player One is a book filled with references to nerd culture, and I enjoyed it because of that.

But the lack of originality in modern storytelling is suffocating. Some of the most popular books these days are retellings of old myths or generic fairy tale/romance novels. Those aren’t the stories I find interesting. I like the weird. I enjoy exploring the unknown. You never know what you might stumble upon.

On Instagram, I found an advertisement for an indie author who writes science fiction and fantasy. He didn’t have a lot of followers, and his books didn’t have a lot of reviews. I thought I would check him out anyway. I bought one of his books called The Gunner Chronicles. It’s a cross between a Western and a post-apocalyptic science fiction story, and I have enjoyed every second of it.

I also recently stumbled across a book in Barnes and Noble called The Day of the Triffids. I thought it looked fun and weird, so I picked it up. If I hadn’t seen the author’s name before reading the first page, I would have thought it was an H. G. Wells novel. It’s a bizarre and fun story about a meteor shower that turns humanity blind and seven-foot-tall carnivorous plants. It’s a strange one, and that’s why it’s so fun. I’ve never read anything like it, and I’m only a couple of chapters in.

There are so many other hidden gems out there waiting to be found. With everyone having easy access to self-publishing these days, authors around the globe are getting their stories out there. I understand that most of them are terrible, but that’s okay.

So, if you’re tired of watching the same stories repeatedly, look through Amazon and find something weird that piques your interest. If you only have a select few books you enjoy but don’t like the popular ones everyone else is talking about, take a look online and find something less popular that speaks to you. You never know what you’ll find. Plenty of adventures are to be had, and they all await you.

Thanks for reading! Have a fantastic day.

The post Original Stories are Weird appeared first on Elliot Kessler.

I’ve dabbled in visual effects and animation. I understand how some of the effects work and how revolutionary this film is technology-wise. However, I won’t pretend to be a filmmaker for the sake of this blog post. Instead, I will look at “Avatar: The Way of Water” from a writer’s perspective.

If you follow my Instagram account (link at the bottom of the page), you know I’ve already done this in a recent post on that account. However, that post was more of a broad overview of the film, about what I liked and disliked about the film. However, I want to focus on the characters in this post. Cameron did many things right with the characters, and I want to explain how to create good characters using this movie as an example.

Spoilers for both “Avatar” movies. Ye hath been warned.

Needs and Wants

Every character has to have motivation. If they don’t, nothing happens, or they are pulled through the story like a Disneyland tourist, neither of which are exciting options. Motivation is what gives a character purpose. It drives them to make their choices and pushes the story along. If a character isn’t actively working toward a goal and is being pushed along the plot instead, then there’s not much point to the story.

Luke would have been much less interesting if he didn’t want to learn to become a Jedi. Batman would be pretty boring if he didn’t have a quest for vengeance.

Every good character has something they want. However, every great character also has a need. In “Inception,” Cobb wants to be with his wife again, but he needs to move on and free himself of guilt. In “Avatar: The Way of Water,” Spider wants to hate his father, but he needs to make peace with him and forgive him to move on properly.

Wants and needs are the foundation for good character work. However, the best part about a character is why they can’t have both. The ending of “The Sign of The Four,” a Sherlock Holmes novel, illustrates this well because it is both a good novel and has the greatest character in all of fiction.

By the novel’s end, Watson has met a girl, and they get together, another detective must take the credit for solving the case rather than Holmes due to the circumstances explained in the novel, and Holmes is left with his bottle of cocaine. This is beautifully tragic. Holmes is a desperately lonely man. He longs for company, but instead seeks the feeling of intimacy within his drug addiction. He needs Watson’s friendship but finds it much easier to indulge in his self-destructive habit. That habit disgusts Watson, and Watson finds companionship elsewhere. Holmes was met with a choice. He could work to achieve the friendship and companionship he longs for or use drugs to simulate companionship—his need and his want, respectively. Unfortunately for him, he consistently chooses the latter.

Backstory

I have heard many people who want backstories for their favorite characters. When a movie for a popular franchise comes out and a new fan-favorite character is introduced, fans often beg for the character’s backstory in a spin-off movie or show. Sometimes, the studios indulge the fans, but rarely are the backstories as good as fans imagine they will be. That’s because fans already have expectations for character backstories. They already have a story woven in their minds that they expect to play out on the screen or the page, but this never happens.

I am not the biggest fan of backstories. Most characters are better when their creators don’t spell out every second of their lives. If the characters’ backstories were more interesting than their main story, then their main story should have been that backstory to begin with.

I experienced this recently. I won’t reveal the details here because I would spoil the story, but in my book, I realized that the story I was telling and the main character’s backstory were almost the same. Some details changed, but it explored the same aspects of the character and didn’t add anything new. I found that the character would be much better if I cut the backstory and let the story I was telling be his backstory.

This isn’t to say giving characters history is bad. It can work very well when executed properly. Look at Spider from “Avatar: The Way of Water.”

I think Spider is the most interesting character in the entire film. His situation is unique, unfortunate, and tragic. In the film, we learn that Miles Quaritch, the villain from the first film, had a son named Miles Socorro, who was given the nickname Spider. Spider had to stay behind when the RDA left Pandora in the first film because he was too young for cryostasis, and he was raised by the scientists that stayed on Pandora and Jake. He was practically part of the Sully family, but Neytiri always resented him because of his father.

His relationship with the avatar version of his father, Quaritch, is complicated because of his backstory. So is his relationship with Neytiri. The best scene in the film was when Quaritch was holding one of Jake’s daughters with a knife to her throat (I can’t remember which one, so clearly, it doesn’t matter). While Quaritch demands that Jake put his weapons down and give him what he wants, Neytiri sneaks up behind Spider, Quaritch’s son and, essentially, Neytiri’s adopted son, and holds a knife to his throat. She threatens to kill him unless Quaritch lets her daughter go free. At first, Quaritch says he doesn’t care about Spider. But after Neytiri cuts Spider’s chest and nearly slits his throat, Quaritch lets Neytiri’s daughter go.

This scene was powerful. Spider will never be the same again, and Neytiri has begun a downward spiral. The man Spider grew up believing was evil was the one that saved him, and the woman Spider grew up seeing as a mother threatened his life like the villain he thought his father was. This event is likely what leads to Spider’s choice to save Quaritch at the end of the film, which was another powerful moment, but nowhere near the level of this scene, and this scene wouldn’t be as good as it was if it wasn’t for Spider’s backstory and the backstory of his father.

While I don’t enjoy long descriptions of useless backstories that don’t come into play in the story being told, I believe that backstory has its uses. It can be used to create emotionally intense scenes and cause characters to question their identity and beliefs, which is the best use of backstory.

Flaws

Another of the best ways to craft a character is to add at least one flaw. With Neytiri, it was her perception of Spider. With Kiri, it’s her epilepsy. With Lo’ak, it’s his longing to be like his brother. These flaws create external and internal conflicts that are personal to the characters. The conflict exploits the character’s greatest weaknesses, hitting them where it hurts.

For example, look at Peter Parker from “Spider-Man 2.” He wants to live his life but can’t do that while being Spider-Man. His flaw is that he is tired of being a superhero. He must choose between being Spider-Man and being Peter Parker. Again, we come back to the concept of needs and wants, but it is seen within the flaw of the character because every aspect of the character is woven together. Everything connects, and no aspect of his character can exist without the other.

Conclusion

There are many other ways to write great characters. Everyone has unique methods, and everyone has unique preferences. But these are the traits I have seen in the most fantastic characters in fiction that make them enjoyable. Surprisingly, James Cameron used many of these aspects of great characters in “Avatar: The Way of Water.” The characters were unique and thrown into situations only those characters could be in. That scene with Neytiri holding a knife to Spider’s throat stuck out to me while driving away from the theaters, and it will continue to influence how I write characters and their relationships with one another.

Thanks for reading! Have a fantastic day.

The post How to Write Great Characters (Avatar: The Way of Water) appeared first on Elliot Kessler.

I initially wanted to write about the entire movie and discuss everything I loved about it, but I realized that it would take too long. Instead, I want to talk about a particular scene in the film that caught my attention. There were so many perfect scenes in this movie that many of them stood out to me, but there was one that said a lot about the power of storytelling and how it can be used as a tool for communication.

There will be spoilers here, and I highly recommend you experience this movie before reading ahead. It is a phenomenal film for anyone, especially artists, storytellers, and movie lovers. Check it out if you haven’t yet.

Are you back? Good. On with the article!

The Scene

In the film, there’s a scene where Sammy, the main character, is shooting a war film with his friends. He talks with one friend who is playing the main character in his film, and he says that he wants him to walk across a valley filled with fallen soldiers, and Sammy gives him the backstory for the scene. The main soldier has led his men into the valley to attack the enemy, but he is the only survivor. He won, but at the cost of his family. In the scene they are shooting, the soldier walks through the bodies, looking around at the men he could have saved, the men that were dead because of him. He had led those soldiers, his family, into the valley, and they were gone because of him.

While Sammy explains the shot to the actor, the two boys begin to tear up, Sammy because of passion and the actor because of Sammy’s authenticity. When the boys show the film to their family and friends, everyone is in awe at the cinematography, the resourceful effects, and the enticing action. The audience gasps. They give “Oos” and “Aws” as the film unfolds before their eyes.

But when Sammy’s main character turns to look at the valley filled with bodies, the audience is silent. The soldier looks at the family he could have saved, and Sammy’s mom begins crying. She might not know why she is crying, but Sammy does, and I did as I watched the scene.

Drawing From Experience

Sammy and his family went on a camping trip, bringing their family friend with them. During the trip, Sammy shot a lot of footage. After the trip, the family got home and learned that Sammy’s grandma on his mom’s side was slipping away. At his grandma’s deathbed, Sammy watched as his mother mourned, looking for any glimmer of hope to cling to.

The family returned home, and Sammy’s dad explained that he wanted Sammy to make a movie from the camping trip footage. Sammy protested, explaining that he planned to shoot his war film that weekend, but his father insisted. While editing the footage, Sammy came across several shots of his mother and their family friend, and he realized that his mother had fallen for the friend. He found a shot of them kissing, and he became angry with himself for finding the footage. He knew his discovery would tear the family apart. His passion for films led his family into the valley, where they would soon die, and it would be Sammy’s fault.

That’s what the war film was about. Sammy had drawn from his experience and put it into the movie. He communicated his feelings through a story, which made his mother tear up, even if she did not fully understand why. Sammy told his family exactly what was going to happen. He told them that he was about to destroy them because of the discovery he had made without them knowing. He communicated his guilt, his longing to go back and save his family from what was about to happen, and his sadness at the eventual loss of his family through a story.

What Should Writers Learn from This?

“The Fabelmans” is a masterclass in storytelling. Being an autobiographical film, it takes the rule of “write what you know” to a completely different level. Speilberg understood that to get a story from good to great; he had to pull from his personal experiences. After watching this film, I realized that this is precisely what Speilberg has been doing since he began making movies professionally. He may have understood this as a child as we see in the film, but while the film is based on Speilberg’s life, it is still fictional.

In an interview on “The Tonight Show,” Seth Rogan, who played the family friend named Benny in the film, said that there were many times during shooting when Speilberg had to leave the director’s chair, find a quiet place, sit down and let the tears flow. He poured his heart and soul into the story of “The Fabelmans,” and it shows. He showed the world through his lens, and it was beautiful.

Writing and other forms of storytelling is a personal craft. You can quickly write a formulaic fantasy for escapism with no exploration of theme or character, sure. But that story will die before it hits the ground. If you show the world how you see things and share your experiences through your stories, people will relate to that much more. It will show in the quality of your work. There is a little bit of us in every story we write, but there is a lot of us in the best stories we write.

Thanks for reading! Have a fantastic day.

The post The Fabelmans: Write Your Story appeared first on Elliot Kessler.

I love the “Willow” movie. When Disney Plus first launched, one of the first movies my parents spotted was “Willow.” One night, we decided to watch it during dinner, and I fell in love with it. It was fun and exciting, and the characters were fantastic. It wasn’t perfect by any means, but it was enjoyable and made many visual effects breakthroughs.

Since watching the movie, I always felt that the story wasn’t finished. I knew there was more to the story that wasn’t being told, so I got very excited when the “Willow” series was announced. I thought Disney would make Lucasfilm the “Star Wars” studio, much like Marvel Studios. I was thrilled to be proved wrong.

Then I watched these two episodes, and that thrill instantly disappeared.

After “Kenobi” and “The Book of Boba Fett,” I should have expected them to put less effort into this show. It will likely be a faster-paced version of “The Rings of Power.” It’s the same nightmare all over again. The characters are frustratingly shallow, the plot is uninspired and unoriginal, and the original characters are getting trod upon by their younger counterparts.

I’m sure there are problems with this show behind the scenes, but I’m a writer, so I’m going to take a look at the first two episodes of “Willow” from a writer’s perspective and explain what went wrong.

Unoriginal

After the prologue, I knew this would be a basic, boring, unoriginal story. It’s another fantasy story about a princess betrothed to someone she doesn’t know even though she loves someone else and wants to marry them. We’ve seen this plot a million and one times before. If you’re going to do it again, you better have a fresh, new take on the idea, and you better be a darn good writer.

After that plot is set up, the prince is captured by the bad guys, and the princess leads a quest to save her brother. Reversing the roles of this classic fairy tale is an interesting idea, but only when it brings something new to the plot. We don’t even know why the bad guys captured the prince. I’m sure we’ll find out by the end of the series, but there isn’t any mystery surrounding the prince. Nothing has been set up, making his capture feel completely random.

This story is so basic that it almost makes “Rings of Power” look like an original vision by comparison. At least that show had potential and could have been something great. This show is as basic as you can get.

Also, this looks like it’s going to be another story where the parents are wrong about everything and have to apologize to their self-righteous kids. They turned Sorsha, one of the best characters in the movie, into an old, weak, pathetic coward. She was a warrior who served her mother faithfully until she saw her mother’s true intentions. This might sound like another story about the parents being wrong, but it’s not the same. Her mom was an evil witch, and Sorsha was her evil soldier. Only when Willow and Madmartigan captured Sorsha did she begin to reevaluate her mother’s intentions. She wasn’t a whiney, spoiled jerk. She was a strong, confident, well-intended person who turned her life around.

Now, Sorsha is reduced to getting yelled at by her daughter for arranging a marriage that would unite the kingdoms of Tir Asleen and Galladoorn. On a moral level, it is messed up, sure. But that’s how the political system is set up. It was customary during history until we developed different political systems. Marriage was essential to arranging alliances and gaining allies.

This story has always frustrated me because it’s trying to throw modern ideologies into a world inspired by real history. Modern ideologies don’t belong in historical settings, whether fantasy or not. They certainly didn’t have to ruin Sorsha over it.

But, if that were the only thing they did to Sorsha, I would only be slightly annoyed. Unfortunately, they kept going.

It turns out that, after the movie’s events, Willow had a vision of the collapse of the world and said that he needed to train Elora Danan before it was too late. But Sorsha decided that Elora had to stay safe and kicked Willow Ufgood out of Tir Asleen to keep Elora from knowing who she was. She even changed Elora’s name, so she didn’t know she was called Elora. It was the worst way they could have handled her character.

The Good Stuff

Alas! The show has not been ruined yet.

The bad guys are pretty cool. They look like they came straight from “Dark Souls” and are pretty creepy. I like their design and their presentation. They feel like a real threat, which is excellent.

Willow himself is ok. He isn’t handled perfectly, but I did enjoy most of his scenes.

The dynamics within the leading group are pretty good. The two characters I’ve enjoyed the most so far are the prince of Galladoorn and Thraxus Boorman, who definitely was part of that group of raiders. Greyden, the prince of Galladoorn, is quiet but understands people. He doesn’t have very many lines, but he is a brilliant character. He just has his head in the clouds. Thraxus Boorman is a mysterious character who has a strange past. He was the squire of Madmartigan, which is interesting because Madmartigan isn’t in the movie (likely due to Val Kilmer’s health problems), and we don’t know much about his fate.

Verdict

So far, “Willow” is pretty bad. The second episode was ok, and it finally felt like “Willow” at that point, but the first episode was horrendous. It may already be too far gone to save, but maybe Disney will surprise me. But, after “The Rings of Power,” I now know not to get my hopes up when a few episodes get it right.

As it stands, I can’t recommend this show. It’s bland, unoriginal, and has terrible characters.

What are your thoughts on the first two episodes? Let me know in the comments!

Thanks for reading! Have a fantastic day.

The post Willow: Episodes 1 & 2 Review appeared first on Elliot Kessler.

The beginning of a story can be tricky to write. There are many expectations that the reader has for the first chapter. They need to be hooked, they need to have intrigue, and they need to be immersed. That’s a lot to ask the author to do in one chapter. It’s a challenge. You’re introducing the reader to a new world (whether that world is an actual world, a setting in the real world, or a historical town) and new characters, and the reader expects both of them to grab their attention by the throat.

But how does one write a beginning that gets noticed by readers? It’s challenging to stand out among the crowd with so many books saturating the market. How can you promise your audience that your book is different and something worth reading?

Here are some tips I have found helpful for writing the beginning of a story.

Start Fast, Slow Down Later

I have read too many books that show the main characters’ dull, daily lives. Part of the basic, story-circle plot structure is to show what normal looks like in your world and for your characters. But that doesn’t mean it has to be boring.

Look at “The Commuter.” The opening scene communicates to the audience that the main character leads a dull, ordinary, almost meaningless life. But it isn’t communicated by the main character going through a regular work day, complaining about how dull his life is. It’s communicated through a montage, showing days throughout the main character’s life. Everything around the main character changes, but his life remains the same.

It stands out among most beginnings because, before anything else happens, we learn about our main character and the world he lives in during a fast-paced, quick montage.

But don’t go too quickly. It can be easy to lose your audience by going too fast during your opening. Whenever I recommend the book “Dune” by Frank Herbert to any of my friends, they often reply by telling me that they tried getting into it before but couldn’t get past the first chapter.

I don’t think “Dune” has a bad opening. When I read it, I was hooked, and I couldn’t stop reading. But there were a lot of things happening that would confuse audiences. There were tons of made-up words spoken without giving the readers a definition. Characters were doing things that didn’t make sense to the readers. Everything was moving so fast that the readers felt lost.

I did not experience this with “Dune.” I thought the mystery added to the intrigue. But most readers felt confused and dropped the book after the first chapter.

Going fast is a good thing for beginning a story, but ensure your readers follow at the same speed. That doesn’t mean they need to be spoon-fed exposition. It only means that the audience shouldn’t be given too many mysteries at once.

Start in The Middle

Another tactic I see many stories use is starting in the middle and going from there. One example is “Ender’s Game.” In the book, we open with Ender getting his monitor taken out. We have no idea what the monitor is or why he had one in the first place, but that’s where we start. It’s a great first scene, giving us a character to take us through a world we didn’t know much about.

As the chapter progresses, we see Ender going through his routine at school. Orson Scott Card used the made-up term “third” in this scene to not only help us get to understand the world but also to help us understand Ender. It was a brilliant move, showing that we are set in the future where the population is peaking, laws keep parents from having more than two children unless permitted by the government, and Ender is an outcast, shunned by this future society.

It creates intrigue, a world to explore, and a character to take us through, all because we began in the middle of Ender’s life. Not when he got his monitor, but when it was taken off. It was the end of his old life and the beginning of his new one.

Begin With a Short Story

Beginning with a short story as the first chapter can also be helpful. Think of “The Batman.” Does it start with the montage of crime in Gotham on Halloween night with Bruce Wayne narrating? Does it open with Batman going about his daily routine beating up bad guys? Nope!

We open with the Riddler stalking the mayor of Gotham, waiting for the right time to strike. During this sequence, we learn about the story’s world, the city of Gotham. We learn about the Maronie drug bust, and we learn about the upcoming election. We also learn about Bella Reál and her goals for Gotham if she is elected mayor. A lot is happening in this scene, but it plays like a short film.

We get a POV of the Riddler stalking the mayor through a pair of binoculars. We then see the mayor alone in his house, watching the news. We hear about the Maronie drug bust during a debate between Bella Reál and another candidate for mayor. The mayor mutes the TV when he gets a call on his phone. As he begins to pace the room, the Riddler is revealed to be standing in the shadows, waiting silently behind him. After the mayor finishes his call, the Riddler pounces, killing his victim.

This scene alone could have been an excellent short film as it establishes Gotham, its history, and its conflict. It also shows the audience that the Riddler is a real threat who isn’t messing around. We learn more about him, but not enough. He’s going after the mayor because he is trying to send a message. That much is evident in the scene.

Short stories are challenging because they force the author to fit an entire narrative into a small space. This is precisely why they make good openings for stories. If the first chapter of your book is a short story, the readers will understand what to expect for the rest of your novel. It brings intrigue and curiosity to the reader and quickly establishes the atmosphere. Because of their small word count, short stories are forced to get the readers invested in their characters quickly. If the same goes for the first chapter of your novel, then you should have no problem bringing your readers into your narrative.

Conclusion

While writing the beginning of a story is complicated, these tips should make it much easier. However, easier doesn’t mean easy. Finding the perfect beginning to your story will still be challenging. But keep at it! You will eventually come across something that works perfectly for your story.

Thanks for reading! Have a fantastic day.

The post The Perfect Beginning appeared first on Elliot Kessler.

Making sure you’re writing your story in the correct genre is essential not only for storytelling purposes but for marketing purposes as well.

Appearances

Genre is not merely about appearances. Despite what most people say, if you set your story in space, that does not make it sci-fi. I would argue that C. S. Lewis’ “Cosmic Trilogy” is not, for the most part, sci-fi; it’s Christian fantasy. There are some sci-fi elements in the story. The spaceship is a scientific concept, and what space might look like was purely speculation. However, set the story in Narnia, not much changes except for appearances.

Another example of this is the entire subgenre of cyberpunk. When most people think of cyberpunk, they think of futuristic cities, cybernetic implants, androids, and advanced virtual reality. But that isn’t what cyberpunk is about. The core of cyberpunk is the dangers of technology, told through a character-focused story. This changes everything in the world of cyberpunk. You don’t need massive advertisements, neon lights, depressed hackers, or flying cars. All you need is to create a story that shows the possible dangers of technology and big-tech corporations through a story that focuses on character.

For example, I would argue that Christopher Nolan’s “Inception” is a cyberpunk movie. It isn’t set in a big, high-tech city. The characters aren’t living in dark, steamy alleys. It’s not even set in the future. But it has everything that is at the core of every cyberpunk story. It follows a group of hackers (or “extractors”) working against a large corporation. It uses sci-fi technology and shows its negative impact on the world. It is focused on Leonardo DiCaprio’s character, Cobb, and his struggles because of the sci-fi technology. If that isn’t the definition of cyberpunk, I don’t know what it is.

Lines and Barriers

Genres have no actual definition. They’re abstract ways that we’ve used to separate different types of stories so we can more easily find what we want. For instance, if someone is looking for a fun western read, you aren’t going to see them in the YA section. If someone is looking for a tense, mysterious thriller, you aren’t going to find them in the history section.

My point is this: genre only exists for marketing purposes. It works in the same way that social media algorithms work. It helps specific audiences find the kinds of stories they want to read or watch easily without needing to look through many other stories in many different genres. But it also keeps us from exploring other genres and expanding our horizons. Looking for new stories is more complicated with genre than without it. It’s easier to find the same stories over and over, but it’s harder to try new things.

Writing Other Genres

Because of these barriers that keep audiences from looking to other shelves, it’s harder for authors to write in multiple genres. Stephen King can easily write horror and thrillers because they can be similar. Orson Scott Card can easily write sci-fi and fantasy because they can be similar. But it is hard to be known for historical fiction and write thrillers. It’s also hard to write sci-fi and self-help books. Readers will look for your name on one bookshelf but not the other.

This is where pen names come in.

I haven’t tried this myself, and I have no idea if it would work, but if you want to write in more than one genre, you might try using a pen name for the other genre. However, for that name to be as recognizable as your original author’s name, you would likely have to double the work you are doing.

Writing in multiple genres with one name is possible, but it will likely not be easy. That doesn’t mean it’s impossible.

Conclusion

Genre is a bizarre thing. I don’t fully understand it, so I am writing this post to explore the idea further. Genres can be seen as barriers and walls, but they can also be seen as categories and types. They can be an obstacle for authors, but most authors have specific interests anyways, so it shouldn’t be too much of a problem.

The trouble comes in marketing. It would likely be challenging to market “Inception” as a cyberpunk film because it lacks the main visual appeal of cyberpunk. It would likely be challenging to market “Out of The Silent Planet” as fantasy, as most readers would see it as sci-fi because it is set in space.

That doesn’t mean your story can’t be successful in the genre you’re marketing it as, but it does mean it will be difficult. Focus on writing the best story you can and worry about marketing later.

Thanks for reading! Have a fantastic day.

The post How to Define Genre appeared first on Elliot Kessler.

We enjoy these crazy embellishments. They make our stories more entertaining, adding to the drama and the excitement. Huge, over-the-top stories are fun, but what happens when you add embellishments to an otherwise grounded story?

Look no further than “Shang-Chi” and “The Commuter.”

Shang-Chi

“Shang-Chi” is a fun movie filled with fantastic fight scenes and a remarkable story that feels similar to classic kung-fu films. I enjoyed it immensely, but it did have a problem. What began as a fun action scene always blew up into an extravagant VFX showcase. The movie was still excellent but lessened because of this issue.

The two best instances of this are the bus scene and the final battle.

In the bus scene, we see Shang-Chi attacked by his father’s men in an attempt to get his necklace. Shang-Chi fights back, and we get an incredibly choreographed scene with some fun martial arts action. It was very entertaining and also mostly grounded. It wasn’t a realistic fight by any means, but it was still simple hand-to-hand fighting. Nothing more than that. That was special.

But then, a guy with a sword for an arm cuts the bus in half, and Shang-Chi and his friend, Katie, must survive the attackers while saving everyone on the bus.

While this change to the environment is good because it elevates the stakes for the scene, it takes away from the grounded tone. It turns the scene into something it isn’t supposed to be. It was a fun, entertaining fight scene but became a mindless CGI fest.

A similar thing happened during the climax of the movie. Shang-Chi is forced to fight his father to save the world, but his father believes he has to do what he is doing to save Shang-Chi’s mom. This is a fascinating conflict filled with emotion and drama. However, in typical Marvel fashion, this conflict is ended not by answering the thematic questions but by bringing a giant CGI monster into the scene for the heroes to fight. The whole thing only escalates from there until the once-grounded fight looks like something pulled straight from an anime. (I’m not bashing anime here. But this film should not have tried to be anime.)

While adding a massive monster into the mix might seem like it would make the stakes for the scene higher, it makes them lower because the emotional weight of the film has disappeared along with Shang-Chi’s dad. Shang-Chi no longer has any personal stakes. It becomes another basic save-the-world story. It’s not exciting or inventive anymore, which is a shame because this movie could bring Marvel out of the formulaic gutter it has thrown itself into. Still, it didn’t become anything more significant than a good movie because of its insistence on over-the-top action.

The Commuter

A thriller starring Liam Neeson and released in 2018, “The Commuter” was a fun, exciting film about an ex-cop on his daily commute back home after getting fired. On his commute, a mysterious woman meets with him and tasks him to find a person on his train and plant a GPS tracker on their bag. The reward is a hundred thousand dollars. Having just been laid off and having no way to provide for his family, the ex-cop takes the job. But things quickly get out of hand as innocent civilians begin getting killed.

I enjoyed this movie. It isn’t a well-known, popular film. It’s simply an enjoyable, original thriller. It isn’t a continuation of a franchise, it isn’t a reboot, and it isn’t based on a book. It’s simply a fun, exciting experience. I am all for original films. The unfortunate truth is that most of them get thrown into the pile of average movies. I don’t think “The Commuter” was average. I believe it was slightly above that. However, there were plenty of times when the film shoved something into a scene where it didn’t belong. Mainly, the film uses humor in scenes that cannot have humor if they are going to work. But the one scene that I thought was the worst was the train crash.

In the movie, Michael, the ex-cop, convinces the remaining passengers to get to the back car so he can easily find who he is looking for. However, the train has a problem when the conductor tries to stop it, and the brakes stop working. The train is about to round a corner, and the whole thing will be derailed. Michael has the idea to disconnect the last car, where all the passengers are, before the train crashes.

The last car is disconnected just as the train begins to derail, but Michael is in the wrong car. Michael gets flung out of his car into the rear car as the train is derailed, and the rear car goes skidding, drifting along two tracks until it screeches to a halt.

I’m not sure my description was excellent, but this scene was ludicrous. It was over-the-top and absurd, with explosions and debris everywhere. I found myself laughing aloud with the rest of my family at a scene that was supposed to be tense.

I would recommend looking it up on YouTube to get a sense of what this scene was like. This was supposed to be a very grounded, realistic film. It succeeds in that throughout most of the film. This is the one scene that broke it. This shattered the illusion that the film could actually happen. It was unfortunate, and it took the movie from being great to being good. This isn’t the only problem that the film has, but it is one of the two most significant issues I found when watching it.

When Insanity Is Best

Some may wonder why I consider a simple train crash unrealistic, while there are movies about gods, aliens, and dragons. Surely a train crash isn’t a big deal when we have movies like that, right?

Wrong.

As I said in my worldbuilding post, consistency is critical. Scenes only feel unrealistic when they deviate from the previously established rules that your story has set up. If your story has a magic system, then magic feels realistic. If your story has aliens, then aliens feel realistic. So, if your story is grounded, I expect it to follow the same physical rules as the real world. I don’t expect to see trains flying off the rails and exploding extravagantly. I expect a train to come off the rails and fall on its side.

I have no problem with over-the-top scenes. I love them. But they only work in an over-the-top story. For example, look at “Clone Wars” from 2003. It has some of the most insane, crazy action scenes you can find. That’s what the show is made of. But because these extravagant scenes are woven into the story’s core, I don’t find it ludicrous. It’s exactly what I expect to find in that show.

Conclusion

If you want to have over-the-top drama, action, or comedy, then your story should be an over-the-top drama, an over-the-top action story, or an over-the-top comedy. Don’t ground your story in reality only to add aliens at the end. It might subvert expectations, but surprises aren’t always a good thing in stories. Ensure the audience gets what they came for, and make your tone consistent.

Thanks for reading! Have a fantastic day.

The post How Extravegance Can Ruin a Story appeared first on Elliot Kessler.

I loved “Shazam.” I thought it was an excellent movie with exciting ideas, fun characters, and a heartwarming story, all told with wizards, superheroes, and demons. It was fun and whacky while also having some brutal scenes. It was a fun ride I want to go back and see it again. So, when “Black Adam” was announced, I got excited.

I knew that Black Adam was a character from the Shazam comics, but I didn’t know anything about him. However, when I saw the first trailer, I was hooked. It looked like something I would love to see, and it looked like the character was going to be set up as a fantastic villain for the Shazam family to face off against. The Justice Society also looked like they were going to be very fun. I got very excited when I saw Pierce Brosnan as Dr. Fate and Aldis Hodge as Hawkman. They looked perfect for their roles. I didn’t know who Atom Smasher or Cyclone was, but they looked like fun characters that I couldn’t wait to see.

But then the movie came out, and I was very disappointed.

The story was bland, the characters weren’t very interesting, and it had some interesting questions with unsatisfying answers. The film had some good moments, but the whole thing fell flat overall. It had a lot of potential and could have been so much more than a bland CGI overload. It was better than the last two Marvel movies, but that isn’t saying much since they were awful.

The Justice Society

Hawkman and Dr. Fate worked great together. I loved the dynamic they had as old friends working side-by-side once again to stop a world-ending threat. I love that trope, and it’s done well here.

I would have enjoyed Hawkman’s character more if his beliefs had been explored further. I love that he has such a black-and-white view of the world. In his mind, there are good and bad people. There is nothing between that. It’s interesting to me because I know many people that see the world that way, and it bothers me. Everyone makes bad choices in their lives. I believe that there aren’t any “bad people.” There are simply people who choose to do bad things. If there were bad people, why would the Bible tell us to love our enemies as we love ourselves? I love this belief that Hawkman has, and I love how Black Adam challenges it. However, I don’t think it was explored as much as it should have been.

Atom Smasher and Cyclone didn’t add anything useful. They weren’t even comic relief. Atom Smasher did some funny stuff a few times, sure. But I only remember laughing out loud at one scene in the movie, and I don’t even remember the scene. Atom Smasher and Cyclone did have a nice relationship, but it wasn’t built upon at all. They would have been much more interesting if it was, but even then, they didn’t affect the plot or explore any new ideas. They were there. Nothing else. It was unfortunate, but that’s the truth.

Black Adam

Black Adam’s character was pretty good, but I wouldn’t say I liked how he was handled in the story. I like how he is forced to work with the Justice Society even though he disagrees. I also like how he and Hawkman continuously butt heads. His dynamic with the group was fun to watch.

I didn’t particularly appreciate that the movie had to tell us that he was not a good man continuously. Why not show us? For instance, during the scene where Black Adam returns, don’t show him killing all the people shooting at him and saving one random person amid the chaos. How is he supposed to know she isn’t with the mercenaries? For all he knows, she wants him dead too. If he noticed her, he should have killed her. She should have stayed hidden, and Black Adam should not have seen her until he got hurt and blacked out.

If he isn’t a good person, show it. Show the consequences of his actions. Don’t have him constantly reminding the audience.

Also, I wouldn’t say I liked that the kid survived. I know that sounds brutal, but what was the point of Black Adam’s rage destroying everything when they tried to get the crown? It doesn’t add anything unless the kid is killed because of Black Adam, which we know doesn’t happen. The kid is hurt and knocked unconscious for a little bit, but he’s fine afterward. Black Adam doesn’t have to deal with the ramifications of his actions, which would have been nice to see since he is unstoppable. The real antagonist against Black Adam should have been Black Adam. He should have had to face himself more than he did. But he doesn’t learn anything by the movie’s end and remains essentially the same.

Show, Don’t Tell

The movie did much more telling than showing, making it feel very dumbed down. I’ve already talked about how we’re told Black Adam isn’t a good person rather than shown, so let’s talk about another big problem that I have with this movie and most other modern DC movies: exposition.

DC does not do an excellent job at exposition. Especially in the DCEU. In “Justice League,” we have Bruce Wayne and Diana Prince talking to each other and exchanging information, which isn’t exciting. We get to see some pretty sweet battle scenes, sure. But, other than that, it isn’t fun to sit through.

“Wonder Woman” was even worse because we opened with the exposition. Before the hook, before the plot, before we meet the main character, we’re treated to a tedious explanation of the essential backstory of the movie. “Black Adam” opens the same way. We are treated to narration and watch as the long, boring scene unfolds. The whole scene feels like someone rambling while some cool-looking CGI floats over the scene. This is a cliche that I hate. It is such a lazy way of giving exposition that it hurts.

“Inception” does a great job of giving exposition. That might seem strange to say since, like “Justice League,” mostly consists of two characters talking. The whole purpose of one of the characters is to ask questions that the main character must answer so the audience can receive exposition and backstory. But the opening is so good that we don’t even notice. The opening throws us right in the middle of the action. We have to use context to understand what is happening rather than someone telling us what is happening. It is much more enjoyable that way. But, because the ideas and concepts of the film are so complex, we need someone to tell us what they are because, without that, we wouldn’t understand the movie.

Unsatisfying Answers

The movie asks many questions about morality and what makes a hero, but it never fully explores those questions, and the answers are unsatisfying. I fundamentally disagree with what the movie is trying to say. The movie constantly asks exciting questions that I thought were fantastic. What makes a hero? What makes someone suitable? When does someone cross the line from being good to being evil? But the answer was very strange. From what I got out of it, anyway.

We need people who are willing to do bad things to protect others.

This doesn’t make any sense. If people do bad things, doesn’t that, by definition, make them bad people? If someone is protecting people from other people doing bad things, how does doing more bad things improve the situation?

I left the theater with more questions about the themes than answers. The movie is incomplete. It’s a setup without a payoff. It’s frustrating. It had the potential to say something interesting and take Black Adam in a different direction, but it didn’t. Black Adam stays the same by the movie’s end, and I don’t fully understand the answer to the movie’s question. It was weird and unsatisfying, but I think it is mainly because I disagree with this movie. What do you guys think?

Verdict

This movie was more interesting than Marvel’s latest, but it wasn’t worth it. I didn’t enjoy it as much as I had hoped. It was a bland mess of contradicting themes and ideas. Hopefully, Black Adam evolves into a more interesting character, and I hope the next Shazam movie is better than this.

Thanks for reading! Have a fantastic day.

The post Black Adam: How to Make a Bland Story appeared first on Elliot Kessler.