July 25, 2015

Eyes of the Dragon: How I Would Have Written It

I just finished and reviewed Stephen King's novel, The Eyes of the Dragon.  Much unlike the man's previous works, it's far less about horror or the macabre, and much more of a fantasy adventure.  It has some dark moments, but the prose has a strong flair for the storytelling, which makes it read like a fairy tale.  And it's a good in its own right; I would not be presumptuous to assume that I could have done anything better with this story.

It is still fun to consider though; the book has a good, simple plot with a group of decent characters.  I couldn't help but to find myself wishing that I could have thought up of this plot.  If I did, what would I do with it?

I've dabbled with fantasy stories before.  In fact, reading The Eyes of the Dragon, I wondered if King's experience mirrored my own when I wrote The Garrison, which was my first foray into the fantasy genre.  It also has a pretty simple plot.  Even the character archetypes are similar, especially in regards to the classic good-vs-evil setup.

From my own experiences and the way my imagination bends, here's  how The Eyes of the Dragon would have probably been if I had written it.  I would never suggest that I could make it a better book than King did; it's purely a fun thought exercise, thinking about how I'd handle the plot and characters.

Spoilers for the book are ahead.

Original Synopsis:  In the kingdom of Delain, an evil magician named Flagg plots to murder King Roland.  Roland is a rather crude man, but he married a lovely woman and they had two sons.  At some point, Queen Sasha died.  Roland took a great liking to his son Peter, and Peter was sizing up to become the next best choice to be heir to the throne.  Thomas, however, felt shunned, and every attempt he made to win his father's affections failed.  One day, Flagg showed Thomas a secret area behind a stuffed dragon's head, allowing him to spy on the King's chambers through the eyes of the dragon.  Inevitably, Flagg manages to poison Roland, and Peter takes the blame for it.  Peter is imprisoned in the Needle (a tall stone tower) for life.  Thomas becomes the new King, and he sucks at it.  For the next so-many years, Delain goes through a troubled time, full of awful taxes, endless executions, and misery.  For the whole time, Peter sets up an elaborate plan to escape from the Needle by convincing the higher-ups to give him napkins with every meal (which is important to him, because Sasha taught him the importance of civility through the use of napkins), and a dollhouse which has an actual working loom.  It takes Peter years to gather enough thread and spin it through a really tiny loom to make a thin rope, which he can use to climb down from the tower (and the rope is made of tough stuff).  Meanwhile, Peter's best friend, his butler, and an exiled lady with an awesome dog figure out the truth of what happened, and conspire to free Peter.  After a lot of running around, they eventually coordinate with Peter to rescue him.  Flagg figures out what's happening, and starts a rampage up the tower to slay Peter.  Peter makes his escape; Flagg busts into the cell all Jack Torrence style, and sees that the rope won't hold.  He sits there and lets Peter fall, not realizing that Peter's buddies were at the base of the tower with a huge pile of napkins ready for him.  Peter lands safely.  Everybody heads to the king's sitting room to grab Roland's bow and arrow, and are confronted by Flagg, who turns out to be some kind of wicked demon.  Thomas confesses that he saw Flagg kill Roland, and uses the bow and arrow to shoot the bad guy.  Flagg vanishes, Thomas and Peter make up, Peter becomes the rightful king, and it's a right happy ending.  Thomas leads a party to confront Flagg, but the narrator doesn't get into what happens, leading us all to wonder when the sequel will be made.

What Would I Have Done?
  • First and foremost, the prose of The Eyes of the Dragon is very unique.  King words everything in the book as if he's the storyteller telling you a story before you go to bed or something.  Thus, he addresses himself in first-person, he addresses the readers at times, and he's able to draw comparisons between real-world modern things and things in Delain.  Personally, I found a few parts to be a bit awkward because of this, although it does have the merit of matching up with the story's content well.  If I wrote the book, my prose would probably be more straightforward, omitting anything that says "I" or "you." There wouldn't be a storyteller's voice to guide the readers; I prefer to let the story and scenery speak for itself.
  • One of my complaints about King in general is that he sometimes describes things in too much detail, and the trend occurs in this book sometimes, often because of the prose described above.  With his storyteller's voice, he dives into great detail about how people in Delain do certain things, or what the significance of other things are.  Some of the asides are important for the plot and themes, but there are instances where it's not necessary.  I don't think I'd go into nearly as much detail or digression as King does; I'd describe something once, then move on.
  • Flagg is pretty much revealed to be the villain from the start; the book makes no pretense about who he is.  He becomes a villain we can love to hate, but the disadvantage I see is that there's missed potential for suspense and mystery.  I believe the book could have left Flagg's involvement with Roland's murder a secret up until the end, which would leave the characters/readers to wonder more about who it could have been.  Flagg's interactions with Thomas could have painted him as a seemingly good-natured fellow, but it could have been quite the twist to reveal that he's really a demonic, immortal puppet-master.  There might even be a chance to mess around with reader's heads by focusing on Peter's thoughts; suppose he has a guilt complex, which would lead readers to think he really did murder Roland, which would make the twist around Flagg more surprising.  As it is, there is no twist; you know Flagg did it the whole time, and I feel it's a little less interesting that way.
  • Knowing me, Flagg would probably have some kind of crazy magic that allows him to summon fireballs in his hands and throw them at people.  Or lightning.  Or maybe he could levitate stones and hurl them.  Maybe he has astral projection powers, or can shapeshift, or something else cool.  The man's a demon, after all, the possibilities should be endless.
  • One of the biggest things about Flagg, however, is that his motivation was always ambiguous.  Without motivation, Flagg never becomes much more than a one-dimensional evildoer.  I believe the book suggests that Flagg wants to control the way the country's being run, maybe to spread evil around and stuff, but the question of "why" never does get answered.  If it was me, I'd like to answer the "why," perhaps by suggesting that Flagg wants power of his own, or maybe he wants a country of his own, or maybe he gets pleasure from spreading misery, or (what I might do to broaden things up) maybe he's working for someone or something else (like, the Devil perhaps?).  In any case, there could have been more to him.
  • I'd prefer to keep the narrative linear.  For the first chunk of the book, King doesn't just tell the story, but diverges into multiple flashbacks to explain how the two princes grew up, what they learned, what their experiences with their parents were, and so on.  Because he revealed that Flagg was evil and Roland dies, there's no build-up to the regicide; the story seems to meander up to that point.  In fact, as the first huge plot twist, I think it might be better to start with the regicide, as the story's hook, and then use flashbacks through Peter's or Thomas' thoughts to reveal all the necessary details.
  • At some point, it looks like Delain has a resistance movement, because people can't put up with Thomas' s&#t forever.  It never materializes into full-blown conflict.  If I wrote this story, it probably would have; if there's a chance to show some street-level strife and misery, I could have the unrest slowly reach a boiling-point until full-blown revolution happens.  I think these types of scenes would be exciting, especially in the midst of Peter's escape.
  • Peter's actual escape is whimsical, but it's probably not the route I would have taken.  Possible alternatives to creating a rope from the threads of thousands of napkins could be:
    • Peter got to beat the snot out of Beson expertly; with those skills, Peter probably could have lured a guard in, beat him up, dressed up in his armor, and walked out like he owned the place.
    • Peter did find a loose brick in the floor of his cell, which had some hidden stuff in it.  Who's to say that he couldn't have found other cool stuff behind the bricks in his cell? What if Peter pulled out some more bricks and found the skeleton of somebody who was bricked in, with maybe a possible way out?
    • If there is a stronger resistance movement, and they become dedicated to freeing Peter, they could start finding ways to communicate with Peter discretely (as some characters did in the book anyway for certain things).  They could organize a daring breakout operation.
    • Classic prison break scenario:  Peter find a tool (like a spoon) and digs his way out little by little. 
  • The book ends happily enough, but doesn't really provide closure in regards to Flagg, who just escapes and is said to be confronted later on by Thomas and the gang, but no details are given.  We don't even know if Thomas was successful.  In the Stephen King universe, you can assume that maybe something happened that caused Flagg to be banished from Delain to either our world (as he did in The Stand, and was nuked in the end) or in the world of the Gunslinger..  If I was writing this story, I would be compelled to write the full Thomas-vs-Flagg journey and battle; it could be enough to constitute a whole new novel (and maybe that was King's intention at first), but I see the potential for a lot of peril, more worldbuilding, and the possibility of having a grand finale as the climax.

First-Person POV Alternative
I could also see the book working in the first-person point-of-view, most likely from the perspective of Peter.  Writing in first-person will limit the scope greatly - I wouldn't have been able to write scenes with Flagg or Ben or the other characters when they're alone - but this does have the advantage of getting inside Peter's head, and emphasizing the breakout from the Needle as the source of all the conflict.  The book could be engaging if it dwelled on Peter wondering who was responsible for Roland's murder and why he was wrongfully imprisoned.   Once he makes his escape, there could be a whole new act to the story where he has to find out the truth, and possibly evade authorities.  I could even see such scenes emphasizing other aspects of the story; Peter's interaction on the street could show how kingly he can be, while his observations could hint at how bad of a ruler Thomas is.  The story's conclusion would still work well in Peter's perspective.

Conclusion
If I wrote The Eyes of the Dragon, chances are that it would be vastly different than what King wrote.  By my hand, the prose would be totally different (for better or for worse, you decide), and above all, the narrative and the way the story unfolds would be different.  I'd be more interested in trying to keep the reader invested by mixing up the timeline a little, so that the reader would be hooked by a more fast-moving plot, and would have to keep reading to get the details and answers to any unanswered questions.  In spite of that, I probably would have focused a lot more on Peter's imprisonment and escape, and probably a bit more on Thomas' and Flagg's oppression and their effects on the kingdom.  Chances are that I'd pump it up with more fighting and combat, especially if I were to make the people of Delain revolt.  And, I'd be interested in writing what happens to Flagg after all this.

I see a lot of exciting potential in such a project, but as it is, King's final product is perfectly fine as it is; the man excelled by focusing not on the plotting and conflict as I would have, but through characterization.  He was clearly most interested in giving a strong motivation and background to his characters - so much so that it sucks up half the book.  Even though it may have stalled the plot a little, he made a fine story as it is.  It's fun to think about the alternative directions, but there's no beating Mr. King.

July 22, 2015

Book Review: Eyes of the Dragon (Stephen King)

Stephen King may be best known for his plethora of quality horror writing, but with his early novel The Eyes of the Dragon, the man attempted to deviate into the realms of high fantasy.  The book takes place in a kingdom of King's own making, complete with legends of dragons and magic.  Some things remain dark and wicked, but it's hardly scary; this is fantasy of the purest sort.

Most of the book is breezy and easy to digest, thanks mostly to King's own ethos.  He tells the story quite literally in a storyteller-type of voice, leading the reader headlong into the lore and details of the world of Delain.  I wouldn't say it's a perfect experience though; as common with King's stories, he sometimes spends pages and pages describing minute details, and it can be a bit tiresome in some scenes.  Fortunately, it's not quite as laborious as other books I've read of his, and it is perfectly-readable all the same.

The story is a simple one:  it focuses on two princes, whose father is slain under diabolical circumstances, which causes one prince to become wrongfully imprisoned and the other to become an inept king against his will.  With this setup, the book has plenty of thrilling parts, as Peter is forced to stage a daring escape from prison, and other characters gather to confront the story's villain.  There are a few things I could nitpick about; the story goes through a pretty long and random introduction, and thanks to King's narration, he tends to spoil the plot twists well in advance.  You'll always know who the villain is and you'll always know that King Roland dies eventually, and I believe it kills some potential suspense.  However, King does lay out this story with a lot of nuance and attention to thematic detail, going so far as giving significant meaning to a lot of different elements (including napkins, of all things).

As I mentioned repeatedly, King uses a pretty blatant storyteller's voice in this book, and I believe it's a hit-and-a-miss.  The wording is often good, but I find it weird how he occasionally breaks the fourth wall by referencing himself as the storyteller (in our world nonetheless, causing him to draw parallels between modern things and fantasy things, which I found a bit distracting), and by addressing the reader directly (which I'm not necessarily a fan of).  However, I can't deny that the prose does lend the book a level of authenticity that befits the story, and it is elegant most of the time.  Quality illustrations add to the experience pretty well.

The Eyes of the Dragon is a simple story, but it is elegant and told in an interesting way.  It's clear to me that it's an experimental work, featuring some elements (and even characters) that would influence other works (such as my favorite, The Stand, and The Dark Tower series).  For such an experiment, I think King handled the fantasy storytelling pretty well, and fantasy fans should find this rewarding.

4/5 (Experience:  Good | Story:  Good | Book:  Pretty Good)

July 18, 2015

Film Review: Inside Out

"Do you ever look at someone and wonder, 'What is going on inside their head?'" - Amy Poehler
--------------------
The human mind is a complex labyrinth of mental processes, conscious and unconscious thoughts, emotions, memories, and more. It's a muscle that's always working in complicated ways to ensure our survival in day-to-day interactions, and for human beings in particular, this extends to emotional well-being, socializing, rationalizing, communicating, and more. Few people, if any, fully understand how the human brain fully works; it's just always there, and the voices in our heads are always there to guide us through life. With Pixar's film Inside Out, filmmakers cleverly interpret neuroscience into a whole new universe where emotions are characters, memories are objects to be stored and used, and their interactions are what cause people to act the way they do.

In spite of the premise, the film definitely employs some imaginative world-building, featuring visually fantastic scenes where a person's mind is a surreal fantasy world akin to Alice in Wonderland (which in itself could be interpreted as a mental thing anyway). Within the mind of one little girl, there are "personality islands" that represents Riley's values; there's a literal "train of thought" that appears; there's a zone where "abstract thought" turns the characters into literally abstract figures; there's a film studio that makes dreams; and so much more. It's a clever way to translate what we know of the brain into literal places that are visually impressive and sometimes funny. What brings the mental landscape to life will be the characters though - the interaction between all the emotions creates plenty of hilarious comedy between themselves, and causes people to react in funny ways too. Altogether, the movie is just as cute, funny, and imaginative as Toy Story and Monsters Inc. were.

The story has two different narratives working for it. On one level, it's the simple story about Riley, the girl who has to move from rural Minnesota to San Francisco, and has to cope with all the stress of leaving behind home and living in a new place. In her head is where the bulk of the film's adventure takes place, in which Riley's Joy and Sadness both go missing and have to find their way back to headquarters before the other emotions mess up Riley's life for good. It's a pretty lightweight story on both accounts, with subtle levels of conflict. What makes the film compelling will be the characters, both external and internal. It is consistently fun to watch the emotions, for even though they are one-dimensional, their personalities clash and react in dynamic ways. Thanks to their relationships, Riley and her family are brought to life in a perfectly lovable way as well. Their struggles are struggles that we can all relate to though; the film underscores the turmoil around life changes and maturity that we all face at some point, and through those fundamental conflicts, the film reaches an emotional resonance as the characters straddle the threshold of maintaining psychological stability.

This film is crafted with top-notch animation quality. It's a bright and colorful film with plenty of imaginative designs. Lighting, textures, and rendering are all great. Movements are very lively and smooth. In some areas, it is genuinely impressive as to how big in scale some of the settings and locales are. Voice-acting is great from the whole cast, the writing is good, and the music score is appropriate.
Inside Out is cute, funny, and pretty clever, much like the other films Pixar is best known for. It deserves a look.

4/5 (Experience: Good | Content: Good | Film: Good)

July 17, 2015

Film Review: Terminator: Genysis

"Old...not obsolete." - Arnold Schwarzenegger
--------------------
For over 30 years, James Cameron's The Terminator has relentlessly entertained with its punchy visual flair and its elegant narrative. It presented an iconic franchise, and it did so telling a great story with time travel that actually made sense. With three sequels of varying quality and substance, the series became rather convoluted. With Terminator: Genysis, filmmakers decided to "hit the reset button" and set a new direction for a potential new Terminator saga.

To be honest, I expected Genysis to be a horrid mess. There might be some who will label Genysis as such a mess, but personally, I was pleasantly surprised by the film's earnestness.  Make no mistake though, the film does have its share of humorous banter and over-the-top action. Chief among the action setpieces, there are a lot of Terminator brawling scenes, where machines fight each other and destroy just about everything in their wake. There are car chases, and there's even a helicopter chase. The firepower is more explosive, the fights are at their most hard-hitting, and the experience as an action film is satisfying.

As with any film, it's the story that will either make it or break it. Even with a cursory glance, viewers can nitpick about plot holes and contrivances with Genysis, given the fact that all Terminator movies mess up the timeline more and more. In this case, the film takes after the first film and neglects the rest, before presenting a number of twists that splinters the plot into an alternate timeline. This time, Kyle goes back in time to find Sarah is already protected by a T-8-800, and is armed to the teeth. There are already T-1000s lurking around 1984, and everything the characters thought they knew becomes irrelevant. In spite of this, the film does one thing that the other sequels never could: it liberates itself from the original formula of The Terminator and opens up the possibilities to any number of directions. Kyle and the Connors are no longer bound to a singular timeline and forced to fulfill their established destinies; as they journey through a new and uncertain future, they confront threats old and new, and once again prove that anything is possible. Because of the way the film remixes aspects of the original film, it slickly utilizes a few scenes from the first film, and is loaded with references and familiar lines. The film adheres closely to ideas and concepts introduced in the first two films. Thus, it feels like a natural extension of the first film, and in all respects, it's a pretty fun alternate sequel.

If there is anything that hampers the storytelling, it would be the characters. They aren't terrible by any means - Kyle Reese and Sarah Connor are as great to watch as ever - but their relationship takes on a totally different dynamic, and the way it turns out in the end could have been refined more (the romance felt forced; I actually question if it's even necessary in the alternate timeline). More screen time for "Pops," John Connor, and O'Brien would have helped tremendously. Danny Dyson appears in just one scene, but I wish he could have had a much bigger role in the film.

The film is made with decent, but rarely memorable or great, photography. The camera work can be a little shakey in a few scenes, but a lot of the imagery is solid. Editing is not bad. Acting is fine for what it is: Arnold Schwarzenegger returns as the iconic Terminator, and he's still a blast to watch. I felt that Emilia Clarke's performance as Sarah Connor was appropriate. I can't say I like Jai Courney as an actor, but I have to admit that him playing Kyle Reese wasn't terrible; he looked the part, and was appropriately stoic. Jason Clarke is decent. Writing is okay, but I felt it could have used a lot of refinement, especially in defining the villains' intentions and fleshing out character relationships. Plenty of exposition is delivered regarding the various plot twists, and even though it often feels forced, it helps make sense of what could have been a screwed-up plotline. This production has pretty good-looking sets, props, and costumes. Some special effects are great, others not so much. The music score reprises a few of the classic themes in an elegant manner, and it is really nice.

Terminator: Genysis is not nearly as bad as I expected; it won't top the first two films, but it's certainly superior to the last two. There are a few things I wish could have been better, but the film does promise a thrilling new direction for the series' future, and it promises to be quite the explosive ride.

3.5/5 (Experience: Good | Story: Okay | Film: Okay)

July 16, 2015

Film Review: Jurassic World

"You didn't ask for reality, you asked for more teeth."- BD Wong
--------------------
Dinosaurs were resurrected with the miracle of genetic manipulation on Jurassic Park, but all attempts to control them ended in chaos and bloodshed. The pattern persisted through two more movies, and now it persists through another. This time, in the fourth film of the series, the park is finally open. Tourists flock to Isla Nublar to see living, breathing dinosaurs on exhibit. Something's bound to go wrong...

True to the formula of the series, the film starts off slow, establishing a few key characters (including kids for the narrative to anchor onto, again) before things start to go wrong. From the halfway point onwards, the film unleashes all kinds of hell when the dinosaurs inevitably break free and start wreaking havoc across the park. There are plenty of spectacular scenes in which dinosaurs stomp their way through entire crowds of hapless humans. It eventually builds up to a huge showdown between the classic dinosaurs we all know and love, and the menacing Indominous Rex.

Other things that make the film interesting will be its revamped setting - a fully working amusement park - and a few cool ideas, including the possibility of using Velociraptors in combat. You know what you're getting with the plot; it follows in the same pattern as the first film, complete with the recurring theme of chaos theory and humanity's inability to control nature. It reaches a pretty bizarre climax where the films seems to emphasize the dinosaurs in a heroic light, and it becomes a bit cheesy.  What makes the film lovable will be its characters, who aren't terribly deep, but are often colorful and charming most of the time. Some of them make some pretty dumb moves, but for this series, it's to be expected.  There are a couple of kids in the mix, to give us the familiar family-esque dynamic.  Watching the leads comes together proves to be charming and enjoyable, thanks to their personalities.

This film is made with good photography and editing. The cast is a pretty colorful bunch: I enjoyed watching Chris Pratt, Bryce Dallas Howard, and the kid characters. Other players are not bad. Writing is pretty lightweight, but it gets the job done. This production uses good-looking sets, props, and costumes. Special effects offer plenty of incredible sequences, and are fun to watch. The music score brings back some of the classic themes, and is pretty good.

Of the Jurassic Park movies, I value Jurassic World for finally pushing the series into interesting new territory, rather than rehashing territory already explored in the other two sequels. It doesn't quite surpass the first film by any measure, but I find its characters and action more likable than the other sequels, and the film is worthwhile for any series fan.

4/5 (Experience: Good | Story: Pretty Good | Film: Pretty Good)