James Cameron, Would You Like to Date My Avatar?

San Diego, CA

July 23rd, 2009

Convention Center

Int. Hall H

(Zoe Saldana has just introduced Felicia Day to James Cameron...)

“Hello Codex, a pleasure to meet a fan as always, and aren’t you a sprightly thing.”

“Well actually my real name is Felicia but hello King of the World, I mean Mr. Cameron. It’s an honor meeting you. Your 'Avatar' clip was quite the visceral experience.”

“Wasn’t it? Didn’t you feel completely immersed in the world of Pandorum and the Na’vi?”

“Yup, totally felt like I was right there, fluorescent plants and 10 ft. tall blue avatars and all.”

“Excellent! Plus, I’m also trying to make a meaningful film about respecting our planet.”

“Wow, really? Cool. Have you seen 'The Guild'?”

“The what? Oh is that your web show? (Felicia nods) Well no, I’m sorry but have been a little immersed in making the next earth shattering film that exceeds 'Titanic' in both emotional resonance and aesthetic achievement.”

“Wow that’s big...my cast and I just want to defeat Kael’Thas, he’s a frakking tough mob boss. And we also want to entertain our amazing fans. We made a music video about Dating our Avatar- did you hear about it? Really awesome, one of the Whedon brothers directed it and Sandeep got to rap.”

“Well that sounds lovely, look forward to checking that out one day. Maybe you’ll get a panel here next year."

“Oh we did, it was sold out.”

“Really? Well mine too of course. But great to hear and good luck to you and your show”.

“Yup, you too JC, Look forward to wearing some nifty 3-D glasses when you premiere in Dec.

By the way I think Zoe would make a great Wonder Woman..."

(Not that James Cameron has anything to do with Wonder Woman, that's Joel Silver)

Fade to Black.

Obviously this is nothing like what a meeting between James Cameron and Felicia Day would be like (or what it would look like in Final Draft). And I apologize if my description of either the Avatar screening or the WoW jargon (and Felicia’s use of ‘frakking’) was off as I a) couldn’t get into Hall H during the Con thus did not see the 'Avatar' footage and b) am not a WoW player (and googled WoW highest level and found that there are no levels?) so I used creative research to add a tinge of semi-authentic detail to the exchange. But why the fictitious exchange at all? Because it illustrates an epiphany that I had upon leaving The Con. I suddenly realized that Hollywood’s sparkling gem, their biggest spectacle teased during the convention, the future of entertainment itself, the 3-D movie, is just trying to do what 'The Guild' already does: make the audience feel like they are a part of the show.

It’s crazy when you think about it? Really good web content is such because it is interactive. 3-D movies are special because they take you out of the two dimension viewing experience and bring you into the aesthetic world of the story. Both mediums are aspiring to the same thing-to create a heightened emotional experience, thus bond, with the narrative and characters…but only one is authentic. Both are immersive, one is interactive.

What does interactive really mean? It’s such a buzz word amongst web producers as creating an immersive and permeable world around your show is the holy grail (and apparently something that is monetizable). Finding a clear, non-contested definition of the word is actually a little difficult but I like the following definitions:

-Interactional: capable of acting on or influencing each other
-Any type of media that allows the user to influence and react to it.

Another definition that isn’t pertaining to media but nonetheless has an interesting implication is this:

-Synergistic: used especially of drugs or muscles that work together so the total effect is greater than the sum of the two (or more).

Greater than the sum of the two. Isn't 'The Guild' reflective of that thought? Two Seasons of episodes + Fans doesn't simply yield the intense success that has befallen the show. Something else happened here (above and beyond favorable YouTube placement and ICM), something I can only attribute to the initial fan involvement in Season 1; the fans became veritable, vested producers. As most of you know, fan donations allowed for Season 1 production to continue; the show would have ceased production if it were not for the well clicked PayPal button. Yes, the niche fan base was already there because of the WoW tie in and Felicia’s name, but it was a good show, something not embraced by the mainstream Hollywood machine (as it originally a TV pilot) and they supported not only with their comments but with their credit cards. And Felicia and her team acknowledged these donors (both on the site and by thank you notes apparently) and thus valued them . This initial infusement of money allowed the show to continue, then flourish and finally find the wide and fervent fan base it now has. Look where the show is at- deals with Xbox/ Microsoft (which means Yahoo now too?), sold out panels and signings at Comic Con, Wil Wheaton now a cast member of the 3rd season. All because Felicia, Kim Evey and Sean Becker made a great show that fans found they could actually be an integral part of. They could comment, converse and even contribute. (The pic above can be found at this fan's blog)

Which brings us back to the 3-D spectacles of Hollywood. Competition for your entertainment dollar is at it’s peak, with the recession hitting everyone’s pocketbook and myriad narrative products vying for your attention. Plus our ability to accept visual spectacle is evolving exponentially. Our brains have adapted to processing special effects/CGI so we aren't particularly wow'ed when we see Los Angeles being destroyed by a massive earthquake due to the 2012 Mayan End Date or the Eiffel Tower crumpling to the ground because of some weird green energy lasso. But when we first saw dinosaurs in 'Jurassic Park', didn’t your jaw drop? Mine did, and my heart soared with the experience. I couldn't believe what I was seeing. Now I take it for granted. The 3-D jump aspires to put the audience back into that place of awe, where movie going is special and moving and new. 'Coraline' and 'Up' had that effect on me. But the effect will soon fade.

Wanting to connect with other fans, and with the creative product itself will not fade, however. That’s what makes Comic Con such a viable platform for Hollywood to premiere its new products on. The fans are clamouring to have an interactive piece of the movies, stars and directors that they are fans of. Comic Con is really the only chance where die hard fans will be guaranteed geographic access to their heroes, maybe even have the opportunity to engage in a quick question and answer session with. If that fan/ Hollywood star/ filmmaker interactive experience is authentic and exciting, then thousands of fans at the panel will spread the seeds and viral word of mouth takes off. But that’s where the interaction ends. Instant gratification for the fan, but short lived.

So this is our chance. This is our chance as web content creators and pioneers of the digital entertainment space to embrace the opportunity of creating stories and worlds where fans are a valued and viable component. Let's step away from producing TV lite and move towards creating the best narrative experiences that we can possibly film, and then acknowledge that that is only one part of the equation.

Be back soon,

All Things T

What's in a name...

My brain feels like a newborn solar system. I have so much flying around on different orbits and trajectories: planets, moons, sightings of an occasional gamma ray blast from afar, a solar flare and a few asteroids keeping things interesting (and dangerous) all circling the center point that is my sun. And as often happens, at least in sci fi, a comet just hit an asteroid and caused it to change course. I was going to explore my two competing interpretations of ABC (Glengarry Glen Ross reference for those of you non-Mamet peeps) stemming from a chaotic week of brain churning panels at NATPE, an unexpected (and ill-fated) audition and an important week of writing- but hold that discussion. I'm watching a battle. No, not the battle to save the earth from the Asteroid (!) but a battle between David and Goliath, the man and the machine, the indie innovator and big media. To Syfy or not to Syfy...that is the question.

A lot of discourse has flooded my twitter timelines over the past few months about the name change from Sci Fi Channel to Syfy, a transition that occurred this past Tuesday. Did it really bother me at all or give me pause during the day to reflect on it (except the ill-fated timing of the roll over being on the same day as Michael Jackson's funeral)? Nope- I am a Sci Fi Channel fan but I'm really busy trying to create my own sci fi content, so if the icon on the bottom of my screen is a bit different, I'm not going to pay much attention to it. But discussions have continued to pop up revealing that many people feel very strongly about the name change. Why? Well from some posts it looks like it is basically being taken as a 'diss' by the authentic science fiction fans. That changing the name of the channel to a word that sounds the same but looks different is straddling both sides of the fence; the channel wants to retain it's hard core sci fi fans but not be off putting to potential viewers who might shy away from such associations. Maybe it is a diss but the reasons behind, it in my humble opinion, are valid, at least from a commerce point of view. NBC/Universal, the behemoth that owns the channel, wants to be able to control the copyright to the name. When someone Googles a 'Sci Fi show', unlike a TNT show or a TBS show, the genre, not just the channel results are posted. NBC/Universal also wants to be able to own the name for purposes of branding and merchandizing. Though the idea of someone buying a Syfy t-shirt who is not a sci fi fan is befuddling, what I think this issue gives rise to, on the eve of our most hallowed of events (Comic Con), is the disenchantment and disenfranchisement of the science fiction fan. We don't have a home of our own- no planet to speak of that is just ours.

The Science Fiction Channel (later changed to it's abbreviation) was birthed as an offshoot of the USA Network when it was owned by both Paramount and Universal. Both studios had libraries of science fiction content that found a natural home on the new channel and apparently Issac Asimov was even on the board. Original scripted content on cable channels didn't exist. And check out the wikipedia entry. Do you see how many times the ownership of the channel or its parent company changed? I'm suprised that the channel lived to see today. It did continue to be a natural home for network or premium cable genre shows in their second run. Then original content started popping up and Sci Fi had first run programming though low cost productions- like 'The Invisible Man' and 'The Outer Limits'- which were produced outside 'the circle' of Los Angeles. But primarily, Sci Fi Channel was a syndication landing strip for sci fi/ fantasy/ horror series and movies that had been deficit financed by other networks so needed to recoup their costs and ultimately hope to make a profit. For us fans of sci fi, it just meant that we knew to click on the channel if we were looking for something sci fi to watch on Saturday at 3pm or 1am on a Sunday as it is now.

But then the channel was forced to grow as the TV model changed. The syndication model was no longer effective in bringing viewers, thus advertising dollars, to a stand alone cable channel. The DVD release of TV series, one not regulated in its rollout 'window' like feature films, made watching 2nd run programming practically obsolete as the content was now available, on demand, in the palm of your hand (in the form of a DVD). Channels had to create original, unique programming to catch the attention of audiences so that the channel would become a destination. A great example of that in recent years is AMC. Would you ever think to click to that channel and see what was on if it had not been for 'Mad Men'? My image of that channel was akin to that of Turner Movie Classics, old movies, in black and white, probably introduced by some old TV star. But now, because of Matthew Weiner's brilliant show, I am hyper aware of the channel and will take notice of its schedule. So, original programming became the mandate. Over a matter of the past ten years this has become the norm, over the past five years, the fare has become top notch, edgy comedy and dramas started butting heads with the likes of the 'West Wing' at the Emmys. Do you remember when you were shocked as opposed to complacent about your cable programming being as good or better than network fare? USA Today reports today that network numbers are down double digits this summer because of strong cable fare. This doesn't surprise me as shows like 'Burn Notice', 'Royal Pains', 'True Blood' and 'Nurse Jackie' are at the top of my TiVo list.

Cable has competed effectively with the networks in scripted comedy and drama fare. But how do you compete when your product is sci fi? You don't, you can't, it's too expensive to produce unless you have the support of massive ad campaign or two. And come to think of it, you aren't even competing against sci fi original fare on network TV, as it rarely survives, you are competing against movies, often hundred million dollar ones. Most great science fiction will forever stay within the pages of a book or comic as the resources are just not there to support the transference of it into a live action filmed product. So we settle for hybrids. Tried and true story and characters arcs that are set in a semi sci-fi setting, dusted with fairy dust. That way this product can someone appeal to the masses even if they have no idea who Neil Gaiman is or what the Singularity refers to.

So what does this mean for the newly rebranded Syfy channel. Apparently the image one conjures when hearing the word Sci Fi is that of a geeky, overweight fan boy who resides in his parents basement playing WoW, with no steady income. Really still? Didn't anyone read my evolution of geek post? But apparently that stereotype is still alive and well. And Syfy didn't want to be solely identified with that specific audience, even as its numbers were growing, for fear (I'm assuming) of alienating potential brand sponsors. Plus, much of their viewership growth can be attributed to the popularity of their non sci fi programming, such as 'Ghost Hunters', 'Wrestling' and 'Scare Tactics'. They also have a growing mainstream audience base (including females) that responds to it's quirkier scifi comedy fare, that of 'Eureka' (I'm a fan), it's new sister show Warehouse 13 (I'm a potential fan if they expand upon the history/ mythology of the artifacts on the website and reduce the quirk factor) and its scifi fantasy lite movies. I know they are trying to umbrella this array of content under an 'Imagine Greater' motto but it's making the mistake of trying to convince the real sci fi fans that the channel is still for them. It's not, it's kinda, maybe, partially for them, sometimes.

So, what about the real sci fi fare, the mind tingling fiction that pulls us into worlds more fantastical than our own? BSG legitimized Sci Fi for a long time. It was their network competition heavy weight show (that better frakking win an Emmy this year). But now it's over and I can only imagine how nervous the network is about the 'Caprica' and 'Stargate: Universe' launch. Mass consumption, at the levels needed by corporate America, of serialized science fiction (save for the anomaly semi sci fi 'Lost') has proven to be difficult. Why didn't Syfy pick up 'Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles'. I assume because it was simply too expensive. Look at where most of their original shows are shot? Canada. Because the production costs are cheaper and the talent is as well. Even star names make significantly less under the SAG cable contract, ask the cast of 'Mad Men' and 'Damages'; I doubt Lena Hedley would be keen to relocate to Vancouver and take a big pay cut to keep the TSCC franchise alive. The mini-series 'Tin Man' was brought up in a discussion tonight as a highlight of SciFi's original content achievement. I have to say I never watched it, mostly because I'm actually not a fan of Zooey Deschanel, but also because when I read the script in preparation for the character I had an audition for, my take on the part, as with my read on most of the script, was intense but over the top. I actually got reprimanded by the casting director for my performance. Ironically the clip I saw of Kathleen Robertson playing the role was spot on to my audition- so go figure. And in just reviewing the show online, I believe that Sci Fi's creative team didn't know what story they really wanted to tell, thus, in a small way, 'Tin Man' parallels the evolution of Sci Fi into Syfy: it's a decent idea on paper- creating an edgy, new interpretation of a classic tale ('there's no place like home'), while appealing to broad non sci fi fan base. The result just didn't fully connect with either. Thus Syfy's name did catch up with its programming- it reflects an identity crisis.

There is a light at the end of the tunnel, however. Syfy has a strong online presence and web platform. The ancillary Syfy websites like Scifi Wire (sci fi news) and Dvice (tech) add authenticity to the sci fi portion of the brand and Syfy.com's new MMO game is ground breaking for a channel. The SVP, GM of Syfy's digital arm has a history rich in science fiction in the digital space. Craig Engler, someone I do follow on Twitter, founded Science Fiction Weekly, the first sci fi internet magazine (that was ultimately purchased by SciFi.com) and worked extensively with NBC/Universal on Sci Fi's cross platform digital programming, including the BSG webisode series 'Face of the Enemy' (which *sigh* beat 'After Judgment' for the Streamy). Craig is doing a noble job of connecting with viewers through Twitter during the channel re-branding period, being accessible, answering questions and spreading news, even if it is along the party line. From his previous experience and recent achievements I think he has the goods to help shape the future of Syfy via the online community. But because the programming on Syfy is not going to change unless 'Caprica's' numbers beat 'Ghost Hunters' and Wrestling- consistently -no matter how vocal authentic sci fi fans are to bring 'Firefly' to the channel, it's an uphill battle.

What's the solution? I have an idea. Let's relaunch SciFi.com. When you click on the site now it autodirects you to Syfy.com (this is expected of course). Why not re-establish it as a separate site that is rich with JUST sci fi content, thus providing a strong online community platform and destination site for sci fi fans. You can watch old episodes of 'Firefly' AND watch original sci fi content, that which is already being produced for the web. I just happen to know of a lot of really great made for web content in the sci fi genre. How great to have a destination where you can watch 'After Judgment', 'The Crew', 'Galacticast', 'Afterworld', and even the premiere of 'Artemis Eternal' on one portal solely geared towards the sci fi fan. For once, we can mobilize and show our strength as a viable, brand consuming community to the sponsors while supporting independent, sci fi content.

The Sci Fi Channel was never really ours to begin with people- we've been holding on to the name as much as we held on to BSG. We didn't want it to end, but it is time. Much like the 13 colonies survivors, we don't have a home, at least on TV...but we do have the Internet, a vast domain that we all have strong, creative influence over. We just have to mobilize... and maybe Syfy.com can lend a hand.

So say we all?

Be back soon.

All Things T

A Life Worth Living

It's my birthday tomorrow. This morning I found myself overwhelmed and moved to tears. No, not because I'm getting older. I actually couldn't give a rats ass about that, except for the whole biological clock thing, and that my frown lines may benefit from a touch of Botox. But regardless, I believe that if I don't care about getting older, nobody else should care. I guess that's a pretty novel idea considering I work in Hollywood. Plus I honestly feel like I'm 25, fresh out of college with the world awaiting my thumbprint. No, I didn't cry about my birthday. I watched the You Tube video of the young woman bleeding out, to her death, on the streets of Tehran. It was one of the most moving, ethereal, horrific things I have ever scene. Even though there were people screaming around her, shouting, "NO! Why?!" it was an oddly silent experience. She just lay there, looking at the camera with a sad, peaceful expression, her spirit leaving her body as rivers of blood streamed out her nose and ears. At first it didn't affect me. More like I was watching a war movie filmed indie style with no steadicam; we are so conditioned now to view graphic, horrible things with a sense of detachment. But a few minutes later, it seeped into my consciousness and I understood what I had witnessed. That's when the tears came. I couldn't figure out what to do or what to say. I just wanted to reach out and share what I had witnessed, but I didn't WANT to share it. I didn't want to link to the video as I just found it just too opportunistic to share. God forbid someone ReTweet me. And furthermore, how do I properly articulate in 140 characters how the video really made me feel, yet at the same time acknowledge that my experience from it in the grand scheme of things means absolutely nothing- as I sit in my swivel chair in front of my almost new MacBook Pro. Or does it.

A visiting friend last night talked about a conversation she had with her old boss, how she had been passionate about developing a serious film about the Middle East. Her boss apparently shook his head and said, to loosely paraphrase, that those stories were too depressing and that no one would want to see it. That memory made me think about our role here in Los Angeles, here in the entertainment capital of the world (though I think India has the money now). If Art is supposed to imitate Life, how do these momentous events affect our storytelling? The beauty of this country is that it is up to you. You can make a war movie based on a real life story, a metaphorical, scifi movie ripe with current themes, set in a dystopic future. You can make a heartfelt, quirky movie that celebrates the complexity of love, family and life ('Away We Go' sounds much like that and 'UP' was certainly effective in illuminating those themes as well). And you can just make pure entertainment, something that relieves the burden of real world trouble in a two hour time out. Regardless, you storytellers and non-storytellers alike, let it AFFECT you. Let it make you think and feel. Capture this moment where people are dying for their freedoms in moments of clarity. Do not turn your back or think that it is beyond your control. Your mere awareness will change the paradigm. And for you storytellers, take up the torch and let this changing, troubled world color your creations, augment the way your publish and share your art, as this conflict once again showcases the powerful tool that is the internet and Twitter.

For myself, I give myself the birthday present of free speech. Speech free of fear of what the other person will think, of what the ramifications will be if I believe that it should be said. Not that I won't think before I speak, the contrary would be indulgent and potentially hurtful, but I would like to embrace the gifts and freedoms that my North American upbringing has afforded me. Power and prayers to those, however, who protest in silence. May they find their way out of the dark and discover the peace and change they seek.

All Things T

The Trade-Off

I came up with a pretty nifty catch-phrase this morning: Hollywood is Hell's Greenroom...with really good snacks.  I don't know, do you like it?  Do you get it?  If you don't know what a greenroom is, google it please.  It's rarely green, but it always has snacks. 

The observation stemmed from reading Josh Friedman's blogpost about his nerve wracking and random spurts of yelling/nausea inducing experience of waiting to see if his TV show, 'Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles' was cancelled (which it was).  I follow Josh on twitter (and saw him on a panel at Comic Con) so am cognizant of his special brand of self-depreciating humor, but the post really got to me.  Here's a talented writer (and creator of a terrific scifi show) being reduced to shreds by the process of his show getting cancelled.  It almost wasn't because his show GOT cancelled, but the de-humanizing way in which it was.  The Hollywood Way.  

Then there was part of an email exchange this morning that I had from a friend who is a multi-hyphenate creative (like me) who has a deal for his series at a major studio (unlike me).  He was responding to my question of how things were going and, in a very positive tone, said it was ridiculously challenging.  That now that he was beholden to the studio (and their money), all he and his partner were doing were re-writes, pass after pass.  This frustrates me as I read his scripts, saw the spec-pilot, all amazing!  The first 5 episodes should be shot already, not being re-written for the twelfth time. But what choice does he and his partner have?  I know them, they don't want to be couped up in an office, they want to be shooting...but they are now at the mercy of the force that is corporate Hollywood, and it's grip is deadlier than Spock's.

This is what we dream of though, no? For our work to be recognized by the power's that be, those able to pay us large sums of money to relay our creative vision to the masses?  We dream of bungalow offices and reserved parking spaces on the lot, of a tentative production start date in fall 2009.  What we don't dream of is the reality.  That reality is too dark and complex to relay in my post (especially as I'm trying to keep it short this time) so if you want the reality of Hollywood, watch 'Swimming with Sharks', read The Mailroom, Easy Riders Raging Bulls, The Kid Stays in the Picture, Bernie Brillstein's book, even (actually definitely) Valley of the Dolls...but I always think of Marilyn Monroe (or was it another actress as I can't find the source) who said it best: the dream of being famous was so much better than the reality.  And that's not even taking into account when your star is falling.  

Are you the master of your dreams only until the studio buys them?  

I was lucky enough to be able to give John August, yes John friggin' August, notes on his recently published short story called 'The Variant'.  Eleven of us basically won a twitter reply contest to read and comment on the short.  After a few of us had already commented in detail within the hour, John posted that our notes were better and more quickly delivered than 90% of development execs.  You may be saying, 'oh, how cool, congrats!', but it didn't surprise me.  Why? Because I know development execs.  Contrary to some people's beliefs they generally aren't bad or untalented people (usually quite the opposite), but the passion they had for movies and storytelling has long since dried up because of the pressures of corporate Hollywood.  The easiest thing for them to say is 'No' (but after making sure no one else can say 'yes').  Why? Because they have bosses to answer to, who in turn have studio heads to answer to, who answer to Chairmans who answer to the Boards of Corporations...all who have (very) angry shareholders.  It's all about the almighty dollar, deciding what makes that dollar flow in tomorrow and not spending it today.  Nothing personal Josh, but if you're not making Fox's advertising partners excited about buying ad time on the network because your numbers are low, regardless of how rabid and passionate your existing fan base actually is (because there's no way to quantify the quality of viewership just the quantity, how wonderful), Fox is going to can you.  It's all about money.  That's why William Morris and Endeavor can send letters out to competing agencies to cease and desist from trying to hire their agents even though most of them are getting laid off anyway, it's all about money (actually not really a good example but I think it's disgusting that they did that and representative of how ignoble Hollywood can be).  

So if it's all about money and the Hollywood machine is cracked and broken (though even in it's best state it had faulty parts), leaking out all the creative and passionate fuel it once had, letting quality projects and creatives get their spirit squashed once the studio and or the network control their destiny, what about John's new short?  What happened with 'The Variant?'  It rose to the top tiers of paid downloads for Kindle on Amazon.  Not only did John derive creative help from the collective on twitter but promoted it through his followers.  Did they get paid- nope- just felt part of the process.  And that's what's beautiful about this growing creative community that is strengthening online- the collective spirit.  I have never felt more honest, sincere desire to help a fellow creator than in this space.  In Hollywood, never, ever did I ever feel that it was anything other than a competition, and if someone did help you, you knew you owed them. Read this article in Wired- seriously.  It articulated a lot of what I have been feeling.  

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not positing that an online magic potion exists that will get 'Sarah Connor' resurrected and reverse Josh's experience of being terminated (yes I had to say it), or one that halts the unnecessary re-writes that my friend is toiling through.  At this point, the studios still control the keys to producing and distributing large scale entertainment products.  I just am trying to show that good content can be cultivated, supported and ultimately be made to thrive through a collaborative and supportive community that happens to exist online.  "The Variant" should be the first marker for the road that we all need to go down.  Because the big Hollywood machine is ultimately going to come tumbling down, either when Fox falls because its new blockbuster has been illegally downloaded for the umpteenth time or the government has had to rescue General Electric from bankruptcy so NBC shuts down.  Let's all please think of a way to merge the current resources of Hollywood with the spirit of the online creative community.   Because when the masses are seeing a show that I created, I want the reality to be as good as the dream, even if I have to share a parking spot.

Be back soon...All Things T

Renovating Geekville: Part 2

I'm assuming that you were around for last week's post? Of course you were and thus have been waiting patiently for the continuation of my epic voyage into the land of Geek. What does it means to be a geek, who can honestly call themselves one, and were celebrities wrongly included in a video that celebrated geek culture?

Lights are flickering, cash bar is closing

Part 2 begins:

Did you know that the original meaning of geek, according to wordnet.princeton.net, is a carnival performer who performs disgusting acts? Not only is a geek a carny but he/she does something utterly grotesque (apparently it was in reference to a performer biting off the head of a live chicken- in all seriousness). The Germanic root of the word geek is geke (foolish) and the Dutch root is gek (crazy). What an auspicious start. I connect with this next definition a tiny bit more: a person who is single minded or accomplished in scientific or technical pursuits, but is felt to be socially inept. That definition is pretty inter-changeable with the one for nerd, except that nerd covers all different academic fields and has an even more pejorative tone to it. But the most significant definition that I keep finding is more of a reference point than a definition: See 'computer geek'. That instruction often manifests in my geek Google searches. And to compound this observation, if you type in computer geek in a Google search field, geeks.com comes up. What is this site? It's an online computer store. And the cartoon logo of 'the geek' is highly stereotypical: glasses, messy red hair, big nose, beady eyes. Geeks and computer geeks are more often than not interchangeable...at least on Google. I wonder why that is? (#sarcasm).

This parallel sheds some light on the celebrity Geek backlash. Is being an authentic geek contingent on an affiliation with computing? And I'm not talking about owning a MacBook Pro and having a Twitter account, I'm referring to serious programming skills. So how much is needed? If this quiz that I found really does establish who is and is not a geek, then I better travel back in time and yell at my Comp Sci teacher. No celebrity, save Bill Gates could call himself a real geek (he's known as the alpha geek actually), nor could, I'm assuming, 90% of the people showcased on the I Am A Geek video. But I know that this must be an outdated definition as the very purpose of this post is to address the evolution of the term geek, thus I rejoiced when I landed on this great passage from Julie Smith:

"He was the very personification of a 'geek', a bright young man turned inward, poorly socialized, who felt so little kinship with his own planet that he routinely traveled to the ones invented by his favorite authors, who thought of that secret, dreamy place his computer took him to as cyberspace -- somewhere exciting, a place more real than his own life, a land he could conquer, not a drab teenager's room in his parents' house."

Sigh. Eyes almost welling with nostalgic tears. In my reality, I used books and my imagination to escape to non-Earth planets as a youngster, but the image above still hits home. Here is someone who would hard wire his brain to his computer's mainframe had he the chance and escape into world of limitless possibilities, built on 1's and 0's. I think this passage sums it up perfectly: geeks turn to technology for escape from the regular world.

This passage illuminates three important points about geeks: an affinity for technology, a need for escapism and an inception at youth. How does escapism go hand in hand with an obsession with computers, you ask? Why the escapism? Let me ask you a question first...if you do consider yourself a geek: Were you popular in school? Don't give me the, "yes I had lots of friends in band and one really close buddy that lent me his dad's Playboys and who I went to see 'Return of the Jedi' with". We're you popular? Were you part of 'that crowd' that ruled the school and was filled with stereotypes from a John Hughes movie? If you consider yourself a geek and were popular, I really want to know so I can put you in a room and study you.

Throughout school, I resided on the fringes of popularity. I was a cute girl and was friends with one of the popular girls, probably because I lived in a nice house, but did I feel liked and more importantly understood by my popular peers? No...Definitely not. When I was a younger, even as a teen, I felt horribly different and alone. Having panic attacks about the sun going supernova on the Earth and trying to understand the probability of random accidents befalling me and my family were common occurrences by age nine (not that my parents knew or to the shrink would I have gone!). 

Beyond the chaos of my tortured brain, however, I simply wished that I had a super duper group of best friends who liked me. Unfortunately, the world around me just didn't seem all that accommodating...so I got got lost in stories. I couldn't seem to digest enough of them- in fables, Greek Mythology, Nancy Drew and Chose Your Own Adventures and in Roland Dahl's worlds of peaches and witches. Then in Betty and Veronica comics and 'He-Man' cartoons. My favorite stories were actually ones that my father and my grandmother would make up on the spot, about Sinbad the Sailor and about a brave young girl lost in the woods trying to find her way home. Because they were told instead of read, I became enamored with the power to create a multi- dimensional image with just words. I didn't know it at the time (as all I would envision was the day when I was finally an adult and free of 'mean girls'), but those hours of storytelling coaxed my brain to become idea generator that it is today. I was reading an article on one of the co-founders of the internet, Leonard Kleinrock, who credited his obsession with Superman comics with inspiring him to build his first radio, at age six. No wonder children have an easier time crossing over into the parallel universe on 'Fringe', their minds have the opportunity and the willingness to go anywhere and do anything. 

So my thought is that if our childhood reality was fairly miserable, our instinct to survive compelled us to create a new one. For some of us, that was in our heads through an active imagination, for others it was vis a vi Dungeons and Dragons. How can it change our lives? Well for me, I dreamed of experiences far past the boundaries of my hometown and my creative essay secured me a spot at a top university (I know this for a fact). I have held on to the idea (albeit naively) that if I can envision it, and I work hard enough, it is possible. For others still, it was looking at a computer terminal and dreaming what the potential of such a device was, of actually teaching one to speak and think. Hello technology, good bye status quo and the popular crowd that embraces it.

What about geek culture and the fact that it is becoming more mainstream? All I have to say is Comic Con and even the least geeky person has heard of it, and might even be trying to get tickets. Geek is chic now...which aligns with the whole celebrity aspect of my post…but why? Because the geek culture represents a passionate, supportive community. The sense of community in society today is practically non-existent; do you know all your neighbors or go to Town Hall Meetings? Didn't think so. You probably don't go to church anymore either (I certainly don’t). 

We as human beings need companionship, a community, we need a tribe (as Seth Godin explores in his TED speech). If we are ones who don't align with the status quo, we definitely need to find our tribe. How do we do that? If you weren't popular and didn't feel accepted by the popular kids in school and turned to comics, or 'Star Wars', or 'Buffy', how did you find like-minded devotees? Technology, as Seth Godin pointed out, solved that problem. The internet didn't create one large homogeneous community, it allowed countless smaller ones, tribes as he calls them, to form. These communities don't care about where you live, your dress size or your paycheck, just your passion for the topic. As these online communities strengthened, so did the technological platform that they were built on. You can now connect and play against million of people on 'World of Warcraft' and then watch a webseries about fictional WoW players! Soon, you will be able to become part of a Star Trek online gaming experience if you chose to put your Trekkie knowledge to the test and subscribe to the MMORPG.

These type of online communities have of course now spilled into the mainstream. Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, these are all social networking platforms that could be seen as mass derivatives of online communities originally founded by ‘geeks’ looking to connect. Though created by geeks, technology has become a device of the popular. What do you do when the popular even want to call themselves geeks?

Let them. Let popular people be exposed to the subjects, gadgets and stories that have long dominated the lives of us here down in the sub-cultures. We all need a little escapism these days and as geeks we need to be welcoming, not cliquee. Because, can we honestly say that Shaq was part of the status quo as a kid? No, he was a 7 foot alien to his peers. Or Oprah? Talk about bashing down the status quo! And she didn’t have Twitter to help her during her early years. Or even Ashton...he was a model and a sitcom star who has made a respectable career for himself as a producer. Look at what he’s done- it’s pretty innovative. He’s definitely an idea guy and he challenges the mainstream’s idea of entertainment all the time. I have no idea what their childhoods were like but somewhere there was the impetuous for them to create change, so they might be the geekiest peeps amongst us.

Do you see why geeks can't just be computer geeks anymore, though there is a direct correlation between the original term and the more evolved one? I don't believe there is one set of parameters that defines who is a geek in today's times. I definitely agree that it shouldn't just be because someone uses Twitter, but then again, maybe that someone joined Twitter because they wanted to expand their perspective on life and be exposed to new minds, new ideas. If no one desired change, no one would challenge the status quo, thus no evolution would occur. In a nutshell, I believe a bunch of geeky, unpopular kids paved the way for life as we know it today. They dreamt big because they had to. So during these days economic and social strife, head to Star Trek for two hours of fantastic escapism, turn off your phones out of respect now matter how much you want to twitter, and let's just support all those who don't quite fit in and want to dream of something better.

Phew!

Be back soon...All Things T

Renovating Geekville

Grrr....Arrggg! I've been away from my blog for far too long! For those of you who are subscribers or regular readers, I'm sorry about that - my time just got eaten up by the career monster (grrr...arrggg) that's the sound he makes - yup, just like Joss Whedon's cute little Mutant Enemy guy- our monsters are friends, or at least my little guy follows the little mutant on Twitter and I hope they'll be friends one day...along with JJ's Bad Robot.

'Star Trek' rocks!!! (thanks @bonniegrrl for the fab Bones pic) 'Dollhouse' gets renewed!!! 'After Judgment' is now sponsored by Microsoft!! (well 2 out of 3 ain't too shabby)

So, what's new? Besides that you loved 'Star Trek' and want to see it again? (yup me too!) Have you been discovering your creative voice? Been mulling over the social ramifications of para-social relationships? Or have I just created a 'Twilight'/ Robert Pattinson fan out of you? 'New Moon' is almost done shooting...I won't be able to hold off blogging about that for long...though I really should (note to self: find new pale, lanky actor with accent, who stars in films that are indie art house hits, thus blog worthy, to fixate on). Wow, It's kinda freeing being able to write again like this. Ironically one of the numerous things that kept me away from this little creative outlet of mine for the past few months was a fashion writing gig that required me to be entertaining (while writing about tiered mini dresses), but still grammatically correct, plus I could only use one space between sentences (huh?). But that gig is already over (a little prematurely I might add), but I've also been up to a lot of other good things that hopefully won't have a premature ending, ie. lots of usage and reruns! I shot two national commercials - one directed by the Coen Bros. (you can see the behind the scenes footage here) and a Clairol campaign directed by Barry Levinson also starring Angela Kinsey from 'The Office'. I did a small spot on 'Lie to Me' and a few print jobs. I also shot a festival caliber short called 'Beaverton' that is a passion piece for a bunch of people and had amazing, top level crew and talent involved including Peter Jason and 'Gentleman' Jim Planette because of it. Valesca Cnossen directed it and Keri Smith wrote it and I am honored to have been able to bring such a beautiful role to life. I felt like all the 'trauma drama' scenes that I had done over the years in acting class prepped me for being an veritable open wound for three days (doesn't that sound pretty!?). 

Then there's 'After Judgment' - that difficult, demanding and draining child of mine that I love with all of my heart, like any good parent. We were nominated for 5 Streamy Awards as well as being named a finalist for the Audience Choice Award! I was even nominated in the Best Actress category whoo hoo!! We didn't win anything! Whoo hoo! Great experience though, especially being able to experience my first red carpet with the cast and presenting an award (to Neil Patrick Harris no less). I thought things would settle down after the awards but how wrong was I. No heaps of money or network deals fell on our lap, just a few more doors that were left slightly ajar. Needless to say we (my partners Mike and Stephanie and I) have been working tirelessly to keep 'After Judgment' going, raise money for Season 2 and get our other brilliant ideas into script form so that we can continue down the road to web TV domination with new projects as well. We have some really great ideas too so I better get to the point of this blog post fast as I have to get back to work on one of the treatments!

Becoming truly immersed and even having my work recognized in the Web TV/ digital landscape has presented an interesting opportunity. I can validate my inner geek. Now, if you've read my musings before you already know that I've talked about my geekdom a lot (I'm not just jumping on the bandwagon): from holiday thoughts in A Holiday in Geekville to wondering if I can still have geek street cred if I'm not a gamer (unless karaoke on Playstation counts). As many of you readers know, there's been a bit of a kerfuffle over the I Am A Geek video in the past week. Because of the Twitter revolution, some mainstream celebs have embraced the microblogging tool that were initially, solely used by early adopter folks already invested in the online space. Jeff MacPherson, aka Dr. Tiki used Twitter long before I had ever heard of it, and when he tried to explain it to me a full year before I started using it, my response was 'but I don't have a Blackberry.' ? Needless to say, he's a pioneer in Web TV and embraced the digital space as a new platform for video content, before YouTube even existed, and is an active Twitter user...but he wasn't on the I Am A Geek video. Shaq, MC Hammer and Ashton were. They are all on Twitter and they all have hundreds of thousands of followers, even a million in Ashton's case. They are seen as mainstream media successes. So why were they in a Geek video? Because they like and use Twitter? Does utilizing a social media application that connects you to adoring fans make you a geek? Probably not. It makes you a narcissist with an iPhone. Maybe. And that's what I sensed a lot of people on Twitter were thinking; that it was a joke that those celebs were included in a Geek video, that the makers behind the video were just looking for added publicity. So GeekDad quickly followed up with a list of top 100 geeks to follow on Twitter, because we have to get a hold of Geekville and make sure that the borders are patrolled! But, whoa....hold on there you geeky minuteman! Just because someone happens to be a celebrity, who might be a narcissist with a good PR rep, doesn't mean that they aren't still a geek. They just might be a well paid and an often photographed one. Does the fact that someone really not know the ins and outs of Linux and wordpress mean that they can't be classified as a geek? Does geek really have to mean computer geek? So don't go getting your panties in a bunch over a few B-List celebs involved in a random video celebrating geek culture which ultimately benefited a literacy charity. Why don't we, instead, step back and realize in a time when a re-booted 'Star Trek' can kick butt at the box office, a low-rated 'Dollhouse' can get renewed, and a strange little 140 microblogging tool can suddenly connect millions of people and their inner monologues, that the term geek actually needs to be addressed and redefined in this day and age?

Hi, it's future Taryn (I feel like I've gone through a worm hole and done a Star Trek/Lost time travel thing). I've been writing for many hours now and I've decided to end this part of the post here as I am diving into some pretty crazy waters below (of which you obviously can't see yet but you will), and it deserves its own separate post. So think about what geek means to you and I will be back with Part 2 before you know it!

Rom-halan! Be back soon...

All Things T

Another Thing 'T'

I'm writing a new post! But who knows how long it will take me as I'm a little rusty...so in the mean time, I'm obsssed with capturing moments on my iPhone so will start posting my shots here from time to time...

This set is called...'RED LIGHT/GREEN LIGHT'

I wonder why...(they were taken during some really cool fog down by my house). These are the original pics taken from my iPhone (not touched up or color adjusted), and yes, I was behind the wheel...holding up traffic because I thought the three staggered cars and the rest of it looked so cool. 

What are your coolest iPhone shots?  Link to them in a comment and I'll post them if I love them. 

Be back soon...All Things T