Side-Project

3 Free Applications for Screenwriting

Alan — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 19:02:38 +0100

Celtx

The New Haven project uses Celtx for screenwriting. I was all set help out in some other areas of production, when I received a warning from the project-lead. Essentially, although Celtx allows for multi-user collaboration, it doesn't facilitate it at all. In fact, it gets in the way.

One person creates a project file, uploads for sharing within the project team. Another team member downloads the project. Both update the project. The last one to sync the project overwrites the work of the other. Bad move.

It's a shame. Celtx has a lot of potential. If it weren't for the multi-user issues, it would be ideal for independent movie-making. It includes tools for capturing scripts, characters, locations, settings as well as props, CGI, vehicles, etc. Most (I'd say all, but I haven't confirmed that) are cross-referenced. I like the ability to be able to add a character in one scene, use the same character in a few other scenes, then run a report showing all the scenes that the character appears in. That's useful.

Zhura

I noticed a reference to Zhura when looking at the Celtx forum about multi-user issues. The interface looks a bit simpler than Celtx's and it doesn't look to have the depth of functionality. On the plus side, it's reputed to have much better multi-user functionality. On the negative side, it's currently a web-only application. So you can't add to your script while you're off-line. The team behind it are testing off-line access.

Any others?

Plotbot is another free application. Not one I've used, but I'll give it a go at some point.

Updates

If I find any more information, I'll update this page. If Celtx adds multi-user access, then please let me know if I haven't already written about it. That'll be the key for me to get involved and use it more.

New Haven

Alan — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 18:26:37 +0100

I've been on the look-out for a Sci-Fi movie series a to get involved with. I wanted a side-project and after coming across a few old books I read and a few movies, I decided on the Space Opera theme. Lots of scope for over-the-top thematic music, a bit of rock and some atmosphere.

New Haven

I picked the New Haven project (previously known as Ticonderoga) as it fitted everything I was looking for out of a side-project. This had to fit alongside the normal jobs and projects.

New Haven's a good project. They had a gap for a composer, partly because the full feature's a long way off. That means there's a lot of other work to be done. The concept is original with a fresh perspective on sci-fi in space. It has potentially similarities with other sci-fi series (it's based around the military in space - hmm sound familiar?). It's difficult not to make comparisons really.

Fortunately, there are easily enough differences to make it stand out.

Firstly it's set in our own system, secondly there's no FTL travel, thirdly no aliens. Those three features alone set it apart from almost every other space opera. Add in a few other differences and it's easily headed to sit apart from the rest of the sci-fi series crowd.

What else?

I'm still looking out for other projects. Currently New Haven isn't taking up that much time. There's a long gap before I need to compose music for the soundtrack.

A more sci-fi oriented showreel

Alan — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 20:45:02 +0100

Another Showreel - this time for sci-fi projects

A short collection of mp3s forming the basis of several sci-fi themes.

Status

Just a short note. These tracks are currently unfinished. If a client decides they're the right style for their project, then they'll move up the list and become a much higher priority. Until then, I'll move them along in line with other priorities.

1. A space opera theme tune. It starts orchestral, ends up with rock. Not sure I'd ever use the two sequentially like that, but I can see a place to have both in the same movie/series

2. This one's more atmospheric. I imagine a typical moving shot as the camera viewpoint increases in altitude and/or distance, perhaps panning over to a more detail towards the end.

3. More ethnic than straight rock. Very fun to compose and record. Lots of potential, just depends on what it needs to sync to.

4. Indie Rock track with full-on guitars and drums. No bass in this version. I'm undecided whether it needs any. Usually I'd bass in for a rock track, but in this case the guitar parts fill the gap nicely.

5. Heavy, slow and moody. Imagine the main protagonist scanning a bar/gambling den. Could easily lead into a more violent or humourous ending.

6. A brief look into a modernised version of 80s sci-fi themes Synths, drums and heavy guitars bring cult sci-fi soundtrack into this century.

Licensing

Top 10 Space Opera Flaws

Alan — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 16:19:04 +0100

The vast majority of Space Operas have the same flaws. A moment's reflection and they seem obvious.

1. Lightyear is a measurement of distance, not time.

Although it could be considered colloquial hyperbole nowadays, like saying some car is lightyears ahead of another in its technology, would it still be colloquial in the same sense when there is a more basic need to space-faring humans for measuring distance in terms of lightyears?

2. Advanced technology is out of context

You can see some technologies that are lightyears ahead - see 1 above ;-) - of where we are nowadays (FTL drives), but others are barely a decade away (e.g. tv screens as part of a wall, upgraded electrical sockets, fluorescent strip lights). I'm surprised I don't see a normal 13A socket or whatever the US equivalent is for the North American series/Hollywood movies. At least the characters aren't dialling 555 in scifi movies when they need to speak to someone.

3. Historical context suits the plot, not reality

A character will introduce 20th Century music as rock'n'roll in one episode suggesting to the viewers that it's rare and largely unheard of in that century. Other characters in the same society talk about Hitler, Stalin or the politics of American Indians without explaining them to each other, suggesting to the viewer that knowledge of these historical people and their respective histories is common in that century. I find it difficult to understand a world that can remember one part but forget the other. Saying that if I think back through the histories of the 1600s, I can probably remember more about the historical events than I can the music. But the knowledge of the music isn't lost, few of us would be shocked to hear that Bach or Handel existed even if we can't name the music.

So which part of history has been forgotten or which part is taught less in the schools?

What made it even worse was that the series is set only a century away so how could they have forgotten rock'n'roll so quickly?

The saving grace for that series is that it's not alone in this using this warped concept. There are numerous other examples.

4. Time distorts

The time that it takes characters to travel from one place to another changes to suit the episode end or the length of a movie. A whole fight sequence can take 20 minutes of movie time, but only take 2 minutes of character time. It may take another set of characters two hours to get to their objective. But they arrive at the same time. How's that?

Watch the time it takes characters to travel between planets. That really does get distorted even after taking into account the time stated in the plots. This becomes worse in the scenarios where direct planet-to-planet travel isn't possible between solar systems and instead the ships have to pass at FTL speeds through gateways further out in the systems, then travel at slower-than-light speeds in the system.

Some of this could be put down to lack of continuity when reading through scripts, sometimes down to laziness but mainly I think it's so that the story fits better.

5. Non-caucasian Warrior

This is a delicate one to talk about. I guess the issue is down to stereo-typing at the casting stage and I can only applaud series like the reimagined Battlestar Galactica for bucking the trend somewhat, but unfortunately not far enough. That's a guess, it could well be that the author/scriptwriter wrote the character descriptions stating race.

There are two angles on this that bug me:

a) If the Earth is to have united under a single Government, wouldn't the race ratio for the people that were starbound be different to what we see on TV? Perhaps more Chinese, more Indian, to pick two obvious origins, than the typical western caucasian that we do see on our screens. I'd like to watch some non-Western and non-Japanese Space Operas to see if the same or reverse ratios apply.

b) Assuming we have to accommodate the lack of non-caucasian actors for some reason (why? I can guess it's down to the networks and production houses rather than the writers), then why do the non-caucasian male actors have the same roles across the different series? The male non-caucasian actor tends to be a warrior; think Lt Worf or Tyr Anasazi. To some extent even the character Ronon from Stargate: Atlantis. I admit it's not always the case, but the percentages do seem to bear it out.

6. Computer Displays

No imagination. Even the display sequence at the start of the Minority Report gives some insight into how the line between display and interface could be used in the relatively near future compared to the scale used in Space Operas. Even now, we're able to see some of that technology, witness Jeff Han's demonstration and the touch interfaces becoming more prevalent.

I can understand how displays were block graphics back in 60s tv series. The world of computers was new and the rate of advancement in the field wasn't as visible to the average member of the public (or at least to screenwriters and fx designers). However now that we've had 4 or 5 decades of living with computers, we should have a better idea of where the technologies are going. It seems wrong for a Space Opera to have more backward technology than we can find in current research papers.

I've been trying to avoid picking on any one movie or series so far, but in this case I'm going to break that rule. I have no idea why the screens flicker during the identity checks in Gattaca. Either the signal's there or it isn't. Flickering implies that the signal is only partially being received and is an analogue signal in the first place. Is the technology that bad in the future that displays flicker?

7. Childish/Idiotic Characters

Why bother? I think anything by Gene Roddenberry suffered from this, but he's not alone. Trance-Gemini in Andromeda annoyed me a lot and almost made me stop watching it. I'm glad the character was changed after the first series making for a more relaxed viewing experience.

Think of the outcry against Jar-Jar Binks. There are other examples (Dagobot) where the main cast is human and then there are one or two aliens or robots that would be more apt on childrens tv than in a serious Space Opera.

I think the scriptwriters in Farscape managed to avoid this flaw most of the time, ensuring that the alien characters were a full part of the plot with their own character development, despite having a few monomaniacal traits.

8. Infodumps/Expositions

Seems to be a major flaw in sci-fi writing in general of which very few authors, if any at all, have escaped it completely. The better authors manage to weave it into dialogue, the worst authors deftly weave it into dialogue with the agility of a wrecking ball against a concrete dam.

It is a challenge to do do properly and probably a bigger challenge for sci-fi than most. That means the writers have to step up their game. Some present a short intro, show someone reading a story, animate the pages of a book or show some history. All are forms of getting a lot of information about the world in which the series is set. I'd prefer to have a narrator (whether in type or spoken) than have bad infodumps in speech. It's why I'll always give a series a few episodes. In the first couple, the scriptwriters are trying to set the scene and just because they're no good at that, doesn't mean that the rest of the series will be bad although it does make me cringe. That does make it more awkward for feature-length films where you have to figure out how much time to spend informing the audience of the world.

So far there are a few series that I just haven't got past that stage despite there having been several seasons on release. I would've missed out on the better plots of Andromeda if I'd left after the first few episodes (those were very bad, but not because of infodumps).

9. Dirt

Why is Earth called Dirt? One Space Opera (or indeed any sci-fi tale) using the word Dirt is fine, but for other authors to use it is just plain non-originality. I'd say it's plagiarism, theft and/or copying, but it's so prevalent that would be difficult to prove. Sadly, it's become a trope. If future humans were going to forget the word, but still have enough knowledge of what the other senses of the name meant, then why isn't it called Soil, Peat, Ground or, my favourite, Humus. No, not Houmous (ah, the original planet of houmans, consisting of an oily garlic mush), but Humus.

We even have different senses for the word Earth, it can also be in an electrical context. Again, Ground could come in useful.

The use of Dirt is especially abundant in any of the series where the origin of mankind has been lost.

Beyond the multiple senses of the word Earth, isn't it more likely that the planetary government will have changed the name. How many countries now can keep a name for more than a few centuries without changing it? Add in a few annexations, formations of federations and falling empires, then there is a lot of potential for the name to change.

And what happened to Gaia?

10. Not enough thought to the culture and society

The great science fiction writers were (and are) great for a reason. When they created a world, they thought it through, specifically they thought through the implications of the technology on the society. The also thought through how society handled itself. For instance, in a cashless society, how does money-laundering occur? What are the benefits of stealing something if you can't sell it for cash?

Why?

For the side-project I'm setting up, I want to avoid a lot of the cliches and mistakes. Can't avoid them all or it may be a boring waste of time to watch, but I'd at least like to get some concepts straighter than they are in a lot of series. Some of these are tropes, some aren't (yet). I was part way through writing this and a few other articles when I came across tvtropes.org. A lot of work already exists there, all amateur (no offence) but very interesting.

Production Company Structure Options - Page 2

Alan — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 20:12:49 +0100

In Page 1, I introduced a few organisations structure and my thoughts on the advantages and disadvantages of each.

Preference

My current preference is for something like Option 4. I don't actually care whether a person is a "professional" in the field or not, after all a professional is just someone who earns money from their chosen activity. There are enough professionals in the world that give the rest of them a bad name, especially as technologies becomes easier to use. Look at the plethora of wedding videographers backing in the early 90s. There were a lot of bad wedding videos then.

I'm happy to accept that people are happy to get involved whatever their professional status. Just because they're pro, doesn't mean they'll get a bigger share.

Other issues

a) How much is loaned kit worth?

If I'm the director, composer, producer, sound designer, then I'd expect the shares associated with those roles. More problematic is that if I can bring in a camera, microphones, etc should they be worth a share as well? If I didn't provide them, the production company would have to so they're not losing out. Same questions apply to the animator who uses their own workstation and software, the actor who obtains appropriate costume and props.

If this were a contracted-out world, then you'd contract the role and expect them to provide their own equipment. Only works so far, until you find the contractor uses different software or a different format to the rest of the production house.

I think there's an idea there, if it's to be given a share, then it's got to be worth something, e.g. over £500. That would stop people at the other extreme saying that the pen and paper they're supplying should count. Again more complicated than at first glance.

If it's based on Option 8 above, then maybe there's a case for percentage points for loaned kit.

I'm against procedures going to this level of detail for a start-up based on people volunteering, so I tempted to say it's the people that count, not the equipment. I like nice, clear and simple rules that everyone can adhere to. So no shares for loaned kit. May have to change that if a sponsor donates kit, but that's another story.

b) How good is good enough?

This is an issue for every production house but has some quirks when people have less expectation of being paid. In my case, I've stated the level of quality I'm looking for. If it's my own production, then in the first instance, I'll be the judge and either accept or reject the products. The counter-side here is that if I reject, then I won't use the product unless it's resubmitted for approval.

This will probably result in a few upset submitters. But that's a fact of life. My view is that it's better to hear constructive criticism now than live in the belief that everything's acceptable.

As the production company grows in size, I'll probably expand the number of reviewers. Think of how many of the micro stock photography sites work at the moment with numerous reviewers. In the end though, it'll mainly be down to the director to review and pass judgement on quality.

If I'm signing up to someone else's production, then I'll only look for projects that look like they'll be of good enough quality. They also have the right to confuse me.

c) Licensing

I've mentioned something similar before. If you submit and we accept, then the submitter agrees to the appropriate licence whether they back out later or not.

d) How much is talent worth?

Same as no talent in my opinion. This is where I would differ from a professional production company. I'm aware there's a difference, but I choose not to recognise it. What I'm interested in is what the person delivers to the project. If that is of sufficient quality, then that's good enough.

e) How much is each role worth?

Is an actor worth more than a cameraman? I don't know where to start here. One part of me says start with everyone equal. Another says focus on the time that people. I may base the percentages on a typical Hollywood breakdown.

f) How long should it take?

Think about an experienced pro creating a product in 2 hours. It may take a less experienced person 5 hours to achieve and the quality may not quite be there. So when members say that they've spent 3 hours on a product, should you take into account how efficient they are. Now that's a minefield. Imagine telling someone who's spent a week on something that you'll only give them a share based on 1 day. This issue smacks of bureaucracy to me. I'm very keen to avoid this one. I'm curious if you've any tales about this issues arising.

Why bother?

I know that a lot of what I'm writing may seem overly formal. I've had a bit of time where I've had nothing else to do other than write or read (no internet connection either) so I decided to write down my thoughts about setting up the production company so I can complete the Space Opera project that I want to.

Whatever the organisation format, I fully believe in being upfront, honest and clear. It may mean reading a bit more, but there's fewer chances of arguments later. I don't want people getting involved in the project only to take offence at a later decision.

Production Company structure options - Page 1

Alan — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 20:06:44 +0100

I mentioned some ideas about setting up a production company in order to complete the Side Project that I want to do.

In this article, I'll expand on those ideas and document a few issues that will have to be handled at some point in the organisation's lifetime.

Background

For a start, I don't intend to set up a traditional production company that has access to typical funding, equipment, etc. Instead it will be largely based on people being involved on a voluntary basis and rewarding involvement if the money's there to do so. Unfortunately this is as far as many get. Read around on a variety of creative sites and you'll see a number of projects that either remain a pipedream, are based on dodgy foundations (e.g. one person could scupper the organisation) or revert back to one person, perhaps involving a couple of close friends.

I want to move beyond that. It works in other industry sectors so it should be able to work in this sector with some modification.

The main issue I see again and again relates to how much time people put in and what they expect to get out of it. In the back of my mind, I'm always curious about the legal structure and implicit contracts between the people that are involved.

Here are some options:

Option 1) Everybody receives a share of the profits

Once a group figure out they need a structure other than working as friends, this seems to be the logical first step. It's a common set-up, but relies a lot on trust and assumptions. It has some issues with investment within the organisation and from without. A lot of people may sign-up to what looks to be a good organisation (and still may be a good organisation) only to find that the profits don't materialise despite some people making money out of it.

Benefits:

Fair
Looks good on paper
If the movie or series of movies don't make a profit, then neither do those involved, so no expectation of payout
Should help motivate members into pushing distribution
Can apportion the share according to the effort/talent involved

Concerns:

Accounting can find ways so that the movie never makes a profit.
What happens when the production company makes more than one movie, how to allocate funds, accrue debt accordingly?
The first production will get hit with a lot of the cost (e.g. buying cameras, editing suites, etc), so profits will be a long way off
How to accommodate external investment

Option 2) Some roles are salaried, everybody receives a share of the profits

A step up from option 1, this usually entails the main people who drive the project forwards recouping a small salary or fixed payments out of the organisation before profits are calculated. Again, it appears to be a logical step forwards, ensuring that those that put most in receive an fixed payment for their efforts. If the organisation returns a profit, then I guess it works. Do you have an example of this structure working successfully?

Benefits:

Fair for the people who are putting a lot of time in
Looks good on paper
Means that the salaried members are protected from the lack of effort/talent by the non-salaried members
Should help motivate members into pushing distribution
Offers an incentive for non-salaried to find salaried positions
Can apportion the share according to the effort/talent involved
Creates continuity in the organisation

Concerns:

Creates a divide between the salaried and non-salaried
The non-salaried may give up earlier
Accounting can find ways so that the movie never makes a profit.
If the project doesn't make a profit, then the non-salaried members are working to pay the salaries of the salaried members
What happens when the production company makes more than one movie, how to allocate funds, accrue debt accordingly?
The first production will get hit with a lot of the cost, so profits are a long way off

Option 3) Everybody receives a share of the revenue

By saying that the share is out of revenue, it reduces the risk of the production company accounting classing the project as a loss and the members receiving nothing. It means that anybody who contributes receives a share. It still may be a small amount, especially for the projects being funded by add-on advertising. It may be good to provide small shares with this model so members get paid, but get paid less (for the advantage of getting paid earlier).

Benefits:

Even if the movie makes a loss, members will get paid
Earlier payout for members
Better motivation for members

Concerns:

Production company will quickly end up in debt paying out from revenue without recouping costs
Less money for the production company to reinvest in future projects
Members do the minimum to get their share and no more (isn't that a potential risk in any structure though?)
How can the organisation afford to purchase kit?

Option 4) Split the revenue into 50% going to costs, 50% to share

A variation on option 3 where the production company has a better control over what comes in and what goes out. The 50% figure is arbitrary for this, but initially seems a good place to start. Your experience may suggest a different figure. This mitigates some of the risk that the company has in paying out from revenue (e.g. also having to pay tax, costs, debts).

Benefits:

Even if the movie makes a loss, members will receive some payment
Earlier payout for members
Better motivation
Production company receives revenue to pay off costs

Concerns:

Production company may still end up in debt paying out from revenue without recouping costs, but is less likely
Members do the minimum to get their share and no more (isn't that a potential risk in any structure though?)

Option 5) Everyone salaried or contracted

Perhaps the most typical professional setup where the production company cover the costs of hiring staff or contractors to do the jobs.

Benefits:

Control over professionalism and quality of products due to contractual nature
Very early payouts for staff/contractors, regardless of project's profit
Clearer ownership and copyright position
Greater potential for profit for the production company

Concerns:

Way beyond the reaches of startup companies due to the funding required
Payouts for members may be less than a percentage share if the production becomes a success
Less feeling of membership

Option 6) Everyone salaried or contracted, 3rd party funding

Benefits:

Control over professionalism and quality of products
Very early payouts for staff/contractors
Continuity of payments due to 3rd party

Concerns:

Way beyond the reaches of startup companies due to the funding required
Potential lack of control as the 3rd party encroaches on decisions (in case of investors)
Less feeling of membership
Direction set by 3rd party fund directors (in case of investors)
Someone has to be responsible for pay back the funds (in case of loans)

Option 7) Full co-operative

I really don't know much about formal co-operatives. I'll have to have a look into this more. I'll post updates to this as I find out more.

Option 8) Purchase

An option is that everyone has to become a partner where they invest an amount to become a partner. Provides the organisation with capital to purchase equipment and service. However, it's probably a bad idea to set-up a true partnership due to the equal liabilities involved unless you know the other partners very well. Look elsewhere for advice for benefits and pitfalls of legal partnerships.

I can see some benefits to members having to invest. Let's say that each member had to invest a few hundred pounds. That'd mean that you should only get people who are more committed, believe it will work and the organisation would have some initial capital. If it doesn't return a profit, it makes it more awkward and how do people leave the organisation, etc.

A better idea may be that a person buys the equipment, e.g. a microphone, a camera. They retain ownership of that equipment and can take it with them when they leave, no matter what it is. By default they probably become the operator of that equipment as well, although there may be a good case for others using it (depends on how well people get on).

Benefits:

provides well-needed equipment to the project
flexibility
new kit provides stimulation for new ideas

Concerns:

Avoids pitfalls of joining and complex leaving
If a person leaves and takes a necessary piece of kit with them, then it will need to be replaced
Can't really do this with services
need to understand who maintains the equipment (the person or the organisation)
different current and future values of kit: electronic equipment/software will be worth less in 3 years than a camera lens
organisation will still probably require capital
if the owner is no good at operating the equipment, who's going to tell them and what's the solution?

Continue to Page 2

Creating the outline of a Space Opera

Alan — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 20:21:31 +0100

Science-fiction is heavily laden with context rather than plot. Those series that feature good plot and good, well-thought out character stand out from the crowd, even when the cinematography and set are not up-to professional standards.

I like the idea of something that stands out. Think BSG (either actually, but more the reimagined series), Lexx, Firefly, Red Dwarf.

Rather than coming up with a central concept, I'm thinking of approaching it from the top down instead. So for this series, I'm going to write the rules first and then see what the series or the movie could look like. I don't want to choose opposites for all the stock characters, plot devices, etc. Lexx already mixed a lot of those up, providing the viewers with 4 different major characters:

a cowardly anti-hero
a dead assassin
a sex-slave who's now half-lizard
a robot head infatuated with the sex-slave

The Rules

Here are some of the rules that I've been thinking about setting up for a series:

1) Plot Immunity

Characters will have plot immunity for a maximum of one series. This can be renewed per series, but viewers should not expect a character to last throughout. This fits with actors committing for a series and also allows for actors to break-off after a series for other commitments.

2) No time-travel

I don't want any time-travel plots. They reek of lack of creativity. I'll listen if anybody comes up with a great script involving time-travel but the odds are stacked against me accepting it in the first series. I'd prefer the focus of writers to be on other plots.

3) Multi-planet Galaxy

The series will involve travel between planets under a variety of governments and alliances.

4) FTL

Faster than light travel will exist. Ok, perhaps it isn't hard sci-fi but for a first sci-fi series that doesn't really bother me too much.

5) No Aliens

There will be alien life-forms, but no aliens. Where do I draw the line? Well, I expect plants and small animals to exist on other planets. I just don't want any dodgy alien characters or humans with knobbly heads.

6) No Reset Button

Characters may end up better or worse than they were at the end of an episode. They may affect their environment detrimentally.

7) Sequence

If it's a movie, then I like the idea of the Sequence Writing. It allows for short episodes to have their own internal structure and also fit into a full feature-length movie.

8) Narrator

I like the idea of a narrator, even one that's involved in the on-screen action as well as sitting outside of it. The closest I can think of is Che in Evita. This concept would require some more thought but I am attracted by the idea.

9) Non-US-centric

A lot of the series out there are based too much on the US. That's understandable when you think where the bulk of the series are made. Maybe I've seen too much Space: Above and Beyond recently :-)

10) Plot Generator

I'm undecided on this. It does make for easier script writing in the longer term. It would have to be more original than what's currently around. Space Opera in itself is a plot generator including different planets and technologies.

a) Some ideas for a plot generator that fit the bill:

Bounty hunter - been done as major character in Space Hunter and episode characters in Firefly, BSG, Star Wars. I didn't think it was done well enough in Space Hunter so there's still opportunity there.
Trader - been done as major character in Star Wars, Firefly/Serenity
Smuggler - been done as major character in Star Wars, Firefly/Serenity
Soldier - been done in Space: Above and Beyond, Star Wars, BSG
Detective - Dr Who
Mercenary - in lots of books Janissaries or Hammers Slammers
Thief

Those are all a bit macho and male-oriented. Even if the character is played by a woman, the role would probably appeals to male viewers. They also allows for lots of action in each episode.

b) Service Sector

Maybe we should look more at the service sector for a different role, after all many of those roles should still exist in the future. These would be less likely to act as a plot generator though.

Teacher
Nurse
Therapist
Civil Servant
Facilitator/Mediator - just writing what I know about, no ego.
Trouble Shooter
Priest
Scientist
Professor

c) Other roles

And again there are other jobs and roles in the world

Janitor
Traffic Warden
Dinner lady (is there a PC term for this?)
Security Guard (done in Lexx albeit being a cowardly security guard)

11) No Faith

I'm not interested in getting involved in the concept of faith. That doesn't mean that religion won't exist in the series nor will the series deny existence of any gods. But in as much the same way as Friends or Neighbours aren't spiritual, there's no reason this series will be either.

12) Space Warfare doesn't need to be Naval

I like the carrier concept in BSG and a few other series but space warfare doesn't have to be based on naval warfare. It could be made more interesting if there was a limit to the size of spaceship so that carriers couldn't exist. Alternatively the series could focus on the smaller scale of warfare (think the ground units in Hammers Slammers). Or better still, not focus on war at all.

13) Space Opera Noir

I like the distinction of Space Opera Noir. It's a new one on me. I like the idea that you don't have to have heroes who are god through and through or evil villains who are thoroughly evil. People are human complete with their failings.

Plot Resources

Some other resources for developing plots (I've ignored the multitude of sci-fi plot generators)

Ansible's always a good place to look at for what not to do.

Raygun Revival

Basic plots in literature

Information for formatting screenplays.

Or a comparison for Hard Sci-fi, there's Orion's Arm Universe Project

Starting up a Production Company

Alan — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 21:17:58 +0100

I've been starting up a Space Opera side project; it's part hobby, part ambition, part potential company. I haven't figured out how I'll set the body up, I'd like it to be close to a co-operative whatever the formal structure is. The principle is that everybody can get a share based on what they put into it. I've using the phrase "production company" loosely since it may not actually be a company.

I'd like all roles to be based on people receiving a percentage share of the profits. Profits are unlikely to be achieved in the first few attempts, so I'm looking for people who are committing to a year or more of part-time involvement. Less involvement, less percentage share, more involvement, more percentage share. It's nice and simple at that level, gets more complicated the deeper you delve. It's similar to what's going on at Spinneyhead Presents, especially Venn.tv, but I'm likely to be more formal about what people are getting themselves into.

1 Who are we looking for

Compositors, 3d modellers, animators, script-writers, "set" designers, costume designers, legal advisors

It will be based in Manchester, UK because that's where I am, but we should be able to accommodate remote involvement if we have the right tools and the right approach.

2 My Roles

As I'm driving this forward, I'm happy taking on the following roles:

Director*, Producer, Composer, Sound Designer, Accounts, Website Designer+, Website Administrator+

*I'm happy to share direction if the right person wants to get involved.

+I can provide hosting and let someone else design if needs be. Otherwise if I end up doing it, it'll be a Drupal site, a bit simpler to this one though and probably more community-oriented. I may look further into Filmforge, a version of Drupal for filmmaking communities.

3 Extra needs

Hardware, tech and props, we'll need:

greenscreen/blue screen background
lighting
props
costumes
editing software
camera or two
microphones

These can either be bought, cobbled together or sourced from donations/sponsorship. Depending on how we progress, I may have access to some of it.

4 Editing Software

As for editing software, I've tried a few of the freeware/open source offerings and there's nothing suitable from my perspective. So we'd have to pick up something. Possibly FCP. As for modelling and animation, I quite liked Blender especially the rate at which it's progressing and increasing in functionality.

5 Licence

I'll have to get my head around this part. The short answer is that everyone has a right to what they create. I like the idea of it being upfront and fair.

However, the creator would have to provide a licence to the organisation to use and modify their creation. It will have to have some obligations in the licence, e.g. if you decide to get involved and create something, then if you back out after a couple of months, the organisation should still have the right to use your creation. I'd like it if the organisation would let people leave nicely, always better that way, but I'm aware that if a costume has been filmed, then the actor, director, cameraman, etc have already put effort into that shot so it would be awkward to remove it. So there you go, the organisation would have a right to use the creation, but may not exercise it.

Same goes for scripts, audio, video, models, etc.

We'll get some legal advice before going too far down this route. Mainly what I don't want is for someone to back out, then claim after 5 years (e.g. when it's published on network tv) that they have a right to more profits than the share that they originally signed up to. It's a matter of protecting everyone's investment (investment of time, creativity and money).

6 No Copying

Similarly, I don't want to infringe on anyone else's copyright. So this will not be a piece of fan fiction nor will it feature 3D models of ships that we don't have a licence for. Original content only, through and through.

By adhering to this, we should have a greater distribution potential.

7 Production values

"As good as it can be and that little bit better"

I want to find something between a good tv series and a quality movie out of Hollywood.

I know that we're likely to be deficient in a few areas, especially equipment, experienced actors, experienced modellers/animators, but there are a lot of aspiring people in this world. Just because they don't have the high-paying studio job doesn't mean they can't produce the quality. It does mean that there is increased risk in that they're unproven. But let's take that risk. Worst comes to the worst, we don't use their input and we get someone else in. It's a delay. It happens even with professionals. It'll be frustrating but it won't stop the project dead.

I also know we won't be using massive rendering farms running the most up-to-date software. We'll have to make do. But if it takes a week instead of a few hours to render a sequence, then we will live with that.

Organisation Structure
I referred to a typical issue with start-up production organisations in an earlier article. It revolves around trying to be fair to all involved, but acknowledging the worth of every input.

For instance, if one member has spent a year creating a product, how does another member get a share of the profits if they're only adding in a few hours worth? That doesn't allowed for the skewed financing and earnings in typical movies. For instance, on big budget movies, actors end up with a lot of the money, but the time they spend on a project isn't as much as a composer. That's assuming they have equal talent as well. How can a young 21 year old actor have as much experience and talent as a 50 year old composing veteran. What it doesn't take into account is the ability to pull in the public. Very few soundtrack composers have world-wide stature and I can't remember anybody saying they wanted to go and see a movie that night because of who scored the soundtrack.

The counter-side to this is that actors who will get involved in the startup projects are less likely to be major Hollywood players and so shouldn't be able to command the higher shares.

I'm half-tempted to try a few different but openly-declared ways of funding this.

I'll address them in another article. If you've got any information on your own organisation structure, let me know or post it in a comment. I'm interested to hear how others have done it.

Recruiting members

Alan — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 21:13:22 +0100

I'd figured that with the amount of people trying to get into the movie industry as animators, compositors, etc plus those who are just involved as a hobby, there must be many sites about 3d modelling. Expect to find me on a few as I look to recruit members to my current Space Opera side project. The side project is becoming more major the more I think about it. Ideally I'll find a site or two that I can become a longer-lasting, active member on rather than the type of visitor who only registers in order to leech people away.

I think I should talk about the word "recruit". It's a bit of a dirty word if there's no upfront money involved. Everyone wants to get paid for what they do. Why shouldn't they? The issue that most projects have is that there's no funding. In other cases, it's that the organisation structure is non-existent, ill-defined and probably not suitable.

Whatever organisation I get involved in - whether it's one I set up myself or one I join - it has to be fair to the people who are in it. That means being upfront about the payment, and more likely whether there's going to be any payment, the effort involved, the rights of ownership and the licensing involved.

Star Wreck

Alan — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 20:18:53 +0100

I've been thinking a bit more about the Space Opera side-project. Although I expected to have to leave this for a few months while I'm completing a consultancy project instead, I've found my mind playing around with a few ideas.

Partly, I've been trying to figure out how possible is it? It's the sheer technical scale that causes the problems. Set design, costume design, modelling, animation and then having enough computer power to render and edit it. All that's without thinking of the more major issues of plot, characters, etc.

And then I saw Star Wreck: In the Pirkinning. Ignore the fact that it's a parody and a fan film of Star Trek and Babylon 5. Look at the production qualities. Not perfect but incredibly good for a budget movie. I said not perfect, but actually they're better than a lot of sci-fi Space Operas that have tried appearing on our tv screens. This is from a small team over 7 years. I'm very impressed. The kit used wasn't brilliant, they used similar ideas to what I've been thinking about with large durable greenscreen/bluescreen and DIY worklamps and yet they still made a feature-length movie. I'm still impressed.

I'm looking forward to Iron Sky for that the fact that they've learned more, it's not a parody and it's not a fan film.