• Inception by Christopher Nolan – Head-scratcher case-in-point.  I loved the film.  Loved nearly everything about it – the visuals, the music, the action, the directing, Joseph Gordon Levitt, etc. – but it really wasn’t a good script.  Actually, it gives you a headache to read.  Also, while the visuals of the film help wash the exposition down, when it comes to the script you’re left to choke down paragraph after paragraph.  I’m pretty sure this was nominated because people liked the movie and not because it was once of the five best screenplays.
• 127 Hours by Simon Beaufoy and Danny Boyle – Head-scratcher number two.  This is, again, a film that plays well on screen, but not on paper.  I mean, it’s a guy, all alone, stuck against a rock.  That isn’t a recipe for a fun read.  I think the people that nominated it because some Slumdog Millionare love got slopped onto it because of the Danny Boyle connection.
• The King’s Speech by David Siedler – Awesome script and totally deserving.  It’s tough to pull off a great read when the setting is stuffy early 1900′s England, but it was a success.  I give this a puncher’s chance of winning.
• The Social Network by Aaron Sorkin – Aaron Sorkin, despite his political views, is an amazing writer.  I think this script is almost guaranteed a win here.
• The Kids Are All Right by Lisa Cholodenko – Awesome script.  Wonderful characters, warm tone, life affirming story, every good thing you want to see in a script.  Big underdog, but maybe it could pull an upset.

But, what if Zuckerberg reacted differently and used his $7 billion war chest to come out against the film with guns, and lawyers, blazing?  Could he sue?  Well, of course he could.  The real question would be, could he sue and win?  That answer is a little more elusive.

THR, Esq. just came out with an article discussing the issue.  Most people would have the knee-jerk reaction of lodging a libel claim; however, First Amendment attorneys would be quick to point out that in order for that claim to be successful, Zuckerberg would have to prove that, since he is a public figure, the filmmakers were reckless and acted with actual malice.  Since the script was based on court documents and the filmmakers gave Zuckerberg and Facebook executives opportunities to give their thoughts on the script, the claim would more than likely be a non-starter.  So, in libel and defamation cases, being a public figure actually makes your case more difficult to win.

However, there still could be a way Zuckerberg could turn his public stature into an advantage.  Recently, a man named Sam Moore sued the producers of Soul Men.  In this case, Moore argued his publicity rights were violated.  This is interesting because, again, with this perspective his public stature would actually play into his advantage.  In May, the judge in the case rejected the defense’s motion to dismiss and the case is set to go to trial in December.

So, the Moore case will likely give more light on this issue and whether this creative legal recourse will actually end up being a legitimate recourse for public figures against potentially damaging projects.

The FURY feature film script has been pitched to a major studio and is currently being considered for acquisition.  The FURY board game has garnered some industry attention and we are simultaneously developing a soundtrack, an ARG and a graphic novel.

This is where you come in!

We are looking for an enthusiastic, hard-working artist with strong sequential storytelling skills.  Published works are not required, but a professional work ethic and attitude are a must.

In the interest of finding the right artist for the project, we have triggered an open competition.  Here are the rules:

1. Download the Competition Packet of reference material for the universe and setting;
2. Draw the three, pre-determined comic pages from a short comic script we provide;
3. Submit the artwork to us by October 8th.

The winner will have their work shown to major studios and be first in line for the full graphic novel job.  Remember, we want to see how well you capture our vision, but we also want to see how you make your own personal style shine through.

Interested?  Visit http://tinyurl.com/furyartistsearch for more info.

If you have any questions, email us at artistsearch@one3productions.com.

First of all, let’s start with the premise.

When the Mycenaean army surrounds Jerusalem, a young shepherd must accept his divine destiny as king if he wants to save not only his family, but the nation of Judah. But first, he must defeat the elemental force of violence known as Goliath.

Now, I’ve probably read the story a hundred times, but that log line makes it seem fresh and truly excites me to see more.  Well played, sirs.

But what about the script itself?  Well, immediately the writers establish that this isn’t your mama’s Christian film.  This thing boldly opens. It feels like a movie with no credits. Just the sickening crunch of bone and a body hitting the ground and being dragged to a mass grave full of dead gladiators. There’s a scarred behemoth responsible for all these deaths, and we meet this war machine as he makes quick work of three of the ancient world’s most bloodthirsty combatants.

Having the title, Goliath means that much of the perspective is going to be on and through, well, Goliath.  This, I think, was a smart move.  Films like The Dark Knight and No Country For Old Men made the inwardly complex, but outwardly singular-purposed villain very, very cool with the Joker and Anton Chigurh respectively.  They are personifications of violence that we can’t stop watching and end up stealing the show from the protagonists.  It seems as if the writers of Goliath have done just that.  By making Goliath a monstrous giant whose flesh is marred with tally marks of all his worthy kills (singular-purposed villain) as well as archaicly philosophical (inwardly complex), I believe they’ve made this Biblical villain much more interesting.

Here’s the tough part of adapting Biblical text: the lack of back stories forces the writers to fill in the blanks, which typically is a minefield of trouble.  On one hand, you don’t want to distort the Bible or the truth, but then again, no one knows exactly what the truth is so in order keep the script from being superficial, they are forced to take some sort of creative license.  Carefully done, this can be a nice vehicle for revelatory truth.  Recklessly done, it can be blasphemous.  So there you go.

In Goliath, it seems that this came into play when developing Goliath’s backstory.  Where did he come from?  Why is he so violent?  What motivates and drives him to destruction?  Is it just because he’s a big, ugly Philistine (which is where most Christian films would have stopped) or is it something more.  Well, here’s the twisted, mythic, supernatural, revenge-driven backstory, these writers gave Goliath:

“Goliath is more a curse than a man. One created by our people.  During the Judean conquest of Canaan, a rogue regiment of soldiers defiled the sole survivor, a beautiful woman. Eight months later, she died in child birth, bearing a son three times the size of a normal child.  Goliath had not one father, but a hundred. He was forged with their hatred in his mother’s womb, and he lives his life as an honorable killer, preparing.

Preparing to exact justice for her dishonor.

And the ultimate target for his revenge?

The future king of Judah.

David.”

Holy slingshot that sounds awesome, but at the same time, weird and too off-base.

Is it true?  Probably not.  Could it be?  Technically, yes.  Will it be interesting to see it play out?  I think so.

The plot, as a whole, deviates from the Biblical text in order to build action and character development, but at the end of the day, it’s obvious these guys can write.  Here’s the thing, though.  The more you deviate from the Word, the less powerful the film is going to be.  Sure, it may be fun.  Sure, it may be interesting.  But how much are you distorting the Truth?  Will this intrigue people to learn the real story?  Will it give people the impression that this is, in fact, the real story?  If so, that’s not a good place to be in as a writer.  These are the questions that you encounter when endeavoring to write a Biblical/historical film.

Here’s what I like about it:

• It uses the Bible as a source text.
• It’s building interest in Biblical stories.
• The plot seems fun, and dark, and crazy and exciting.
• It gives this story a fresh face by shifting perspectives.
• At the end of the day, it tells the same core message of the original David and Goliath story: “God can use the least likely of heroes to triumph over evil.”

Here’s what I don’t like:

• Too much deviation from the source text.  Couldn’t you use what you do know to be true in the Bible as the fence posts for the film and then fill in the blanks rather than actually changing the fence posts?

Ultimately, this film would be really cool if it were about a young, chosen king who is being hunted by a malevolent giant who is stalking the land looking for revenge.  But, the fact that this is altering the Biblical story too much probably ruins an otherwise cool film.

1. Kurt Sutter (@sutterink) - ”Sons of Anarchy”
2. Dan Harmon (@danharmon) – “Community”
3. Carter Bays (@CarterBays) – “How I Met Your Mother”
4. Bill Prady (@BillPrady) – “The Big Bang Theory”
5. Josh Schwartz (@JoshSchwartz76) - ”Chuck,” ”Gossip Girl”

Any notable snubs?  How about Shawn Ryan (@ShawnRyanTV) – “The Shield,” “Terriers”  Joss Whedon?  Aaron Sorkin?

Amongst the winners: Christopher Nolan and Netflix

Amongst the losers: Jerry Bruckheimer and Edward Norton.

Thoughts on the list?

It’s a fine line between “just far enough to make an impact” and “that’s gone too far.” Whether it’s brutal violence, explicit sex, language or just a general thematic fixation on nihilism and despair, there is certainly a line that can be crossed—a line Christians must take seriously and seek to understand in mature and nuanced ways.

Sometimes the line can be clearly agreed upon. Most everyone can agree the brutality of Schindler’s List is worth watching, while that of Hostel 2 is probably excessive and needless. We can probably all agree that Shakespeare in Love is worth seeing, even if we might see some nudity in the process. Other times, the question gets a little fuzzier. Is it good to watch The Hangover as a fun, escapist film? What about Watchmen? What is and isn’t harmless in the experience of films like this? More often than not, these “lines” are subjectively drawn … rendered visible in one’s conscience when that inner monologue speaks up and says, “This is disgusting” or, “You should probably look away now.”

By the end of the article, the writer boils the issue down to one interesting question.  Do you agree with the approach?

“Hollywood still has the most mystifiying accounting system on the planet. Check out this net profit statement for Harry Potter and The Order of the Phoenix, the 2007 Warner Bros sequel. Though the film grossed $938.2 million worldwide, the accounting statement conveys that the film is still over $167 million in the red. It’s a good education on how Hollywood studios really work.”

The calculation of net profits is the most litigated issue in the Hollywood so this seems par for the course.  It seems pretty obvious the studio is trying their best to cut out the back-end participants.

Great show this week featuring a variety of lively discussions and call-in guest, Mark Stevenson. Topics this week: Bouncing to the NBA – The College One and Done Rule | Start Your Engines – A Mille Bornes Review | An Examination of Spielberg’s Duel | Daytripper by Fabio Moon and Gabriel Ba | Our Favorite Decade of Music

You can listen to it by going to our home page or by going to the Greatest Podcast Ever Recorded iTunes page. Don’t forget to comment!