Why "Pan" Didn't Fly

I am continuously baffled by Hollywood's insistence upon turning children's stories into "action" films that repel their target audiences. The recently released "Pan" is no exemption.

"Peter Pan" is a classic children's character. His dedicated audience tends to run under 10 years old. Maybe 11 at best. The movie was advertised before summer Disney flicks and animated features aimed at the grade school set. Yet Sony thought it sane to deliver a dark, semi-violent film that was anything but the happy fairy tale "Peter Pan" has long been to readers and film audiences both young and old.

Aside from being yet another incomprehensibly non-kid-friendly origination tale, the story itself inexplicably twisted the mythology and character relationships until it was almost unrecognizable. Sure, the Lost Boys being orphans kidnapped by pirates almost makes sense, but pretty much nothing else did after that. Here's the short list of questionable choices the "Pan" team tossed into this visually stunning train-wreck of a kid film that isn't okay for kids:

1. Blackbeard mining pixie dust to maintain his youth. This doesn't jive with Barrie's story at all. If Jason Fuchs needed to give the pirates a reason for their bad behavior, he should've taken note of the midi-chlorian debacle in the second round of "Star Wars" films. Pixie dust is magical enough without making pirates instantly young while sniffing it like hard-core cocaine addicts. MYTHOLOGY FAIL
2. Tiger Lily: They blew it on every level with how Tiger Lily was treated. In the original tale, she is roughly Peter's age and a member of the native American tribe that inhabits Neverland. I'm still completely confused about how Tiger Lily is suddenly a full-grown adult white woman with green eyes and a crush on Captain Hook. Does she age backwards after this origination story? Was her dad also dabbling in dating the Londoners who seem to visit on occasion? INEXPLICABLE CHARACTER CHANGE
3. Cowboy Captain Hook - a good guy? Really? Why? He speaks with the worst Southern accent I've heard in years and shows no signs of becoming Peter's mortal enemy. If there was a sequel being set-up to explain the turn in their relationship, there's no inkling of it in this film. Sure, TV's "Once Upon a Time" has done an excellent job of taking Hook and turning him into an almost good bad-boy, but it doesn't fit this version of Peter Pan's tale whatsoever. Again: INEXPLICABLE CHARACTER CHANGE
4. The tribe of natives looks more like the U.N. than a tribe. The chief seems to be the only discernible "native" in the group. The current "Pan Warrior" is clearly from Asia (and Cirque du Soleil), while the rest are a hodgepodge of every race and color on the planet. Yeah, that makes perfect sense on an isolated island where the only imports are orphaned boys stolen by pirates to work mines until they die of injury or old age. ILLOGICAL CASTING
5. Peter's ability to fly is due to his being half fairy. Okay, so let's completely toss the pixie dust mythology created by J.M. Barrie out the window. So how do the new kids learn to fly, then, if it isn't pixie dust and happy thoughts? MYTHOLOGY FAIL
6. Why do we end up with a small family of Lost Boys rather than the hundreds Peter inevitably freed from the mines after defeating Blackbeard? What happens to all those boys in the mines? MYTHOLOGY FAIL
7. Smee: Again, nothing works here. The new Smee is a British-accented man clearly of Middle Eastern descent. (Sure, Adeel Akhtar is a funny, talented actor, but Smee? Why?) Oh, wait, he's not "Smee" but now Smiegel. Yes, pronounced just like the Hobbit better known as Gollum in "Lord of the Rings." Intentional? Accidental? Hard to tell since this Smiegel also seems to change loyalties every time the wind blows. He betrays Hook in this version of the Peter Pan story, so it's again difficult to understand how he later becomes Hook's first mate. You guessed it, we're tagging this one another INEXPLICABLE CHARACTER CHANGE
8. Mermaid triplets. Yes, ALL of the mermaids are played by the gorgeous Cara Delevingne. I'm not even going to try to guess at the logic behind this INEXPLICABLE CHARACTER CHANGE

The list could go on but none of us really have all day. The lesson here is, when creating an origins story about one of the world's most beloved fairy tale characters, it helps to know the original story and the characters. If you plan to take creative license, you either need to stay within a logical distance of what is familiar or jump completely off the cliff. "Pan" failed because the filmmakers couldn't decide if they were making a fairy tale origin story for kids or a completely-off-the-cliff action movie for adults, leaving little for either audience. Lesson #2: if you plan to market a film to kids, it should neither be dark no violent, and "Pan" is both. Sure, it's not Tarantino-violent, but it's still too violent for kids under 12, and too fairytale for kids over 13. The film itself is beautiful with gorgeous effects, but that's just not enough to hold the attention of even very young audiences today.

Biting the Hand

Ah, film students. Like any college kid - ahem - "young adult," they know it all. They've spent a semester or two under the skillful tutelage of a sage-but-untenured professor and now are ready to show the world they're in charge.
     Snark is often the first skill we'll see leveraged by these lovely young up-and-coming film moguls. First, they will troll social media and fire off shots at everyone who expresses anything to which they do not agree with sniper-like accuracy. Seriously, didn't you know that those 524 Twitter followers, 387 of which are spam accounts, and that project film they shot in six weeks qualify them as experts? Second, they will blog, expounding at length why the producer with thirty years of experience working with big Hollywood studios is completely clueless when it comes to modern filmmaking. Oh, and those well-known but sketchily documented industry standards mean nothing since our young upstart has plans to prove them irrelevant.
     Tsk-tsk, sweet babies, did no one tell you in your six months of collegiate enlightenment that the use of snark is a privilege earned through vast experience and a proven track record of success? Unless you need only be mentioned by one name for the A-listers to jump onto your latest project, you should probably leave the snark buried in the bottom of your sock drawer.
     I'll probably never fully understand why the current generation thinks being cocky and obnoxious will get them anywhere. Although I guess one could say they're right: it will get you to the exit door faster than a pair of well-greased roller skates and a turbo jet strapped to your butt. Somewhere along the line most of the people currently under the age of thirty got brainwashed into thinking that being disrespectful will gain them respect. (I suspect this has a lot to do with the continued over-indulgence and current cultural wave of demanding everyone bend to children's every whim, but who am I to say?) Here's a fine example for you:
     I recently forwarded a tweet recommending an article describing how one well-experienced filmmaker applied the first 10-minute rule to his own personal viewing of films released in the past year. (If you're not familiar, this rule is commonly applied by readers in evaluating new screenplays, but is also commonly used in evaluating film festival submissions as well.) "Get an attention span," another user replied, as if this 10-minute thing was my idea. (Should I have been flattered that he thought it was?) He doesn't know me. He obviously doesn't know the industry well enough to realize that understanding this little rule will be critical to his future success. I hovered over his name to find the title "Film Student." Ah. I was no longer surprised. Film school may teach you processes and technique but only experience or a really well-aged mentor will enlighten you to the realities of the film industry. This young man probably thought that his snarky response would catch my attention and convince me to change my stance.
     Sadly, what really ends up happening in these situations is that those of us who have tread the long hard road before the cocky film student (or recent grad) smile quietly and nod our heads while the youngster in front of us lambasts everything we learned and accomplished before him. We listen politely as he insults the rules we all must play by and the methodology we all know works, having already tried and proven lacking many other ways of getting things done. If he shows promise, we MIGHT feel compelled to take him aside and guide him to try a different approach when speaking to people he may not know well but who likely can make or break his film career before it has even started. Given the number of hateful know-it-all twenty-somethings out there today, that's rarely going to happen. Instead, the group of older, more experienced filmmakers will shake their heads after he walks away and make a mental note to avoid hiring his obnoxious ass in the future.
     So, listen up film school kid! If you want to make it in film, the first thing you need to accept is that you don't know jack, and won't for many more years. Whether you like it or not, there are people out there who have forgotten more about making films than you will ever learn, no matter how pioneering your professors proclaim you to be. Your best bet is to learn to replace that cocky attitude with a whole lot of humility, a healthy dose of respect and just the right amount of confidence. You will get much further by listening and asking questions than by flatly rejecting the advice of your predecessors. Watch what you post, tweet, pin or whatever. When your name appears on a producer's desk for a critical position on a project, rest assured that producer will search the Twitter-verse and all related digital entities before he or she waists their limited budget on you. That blogger you slammed on Facebook just might turn out to be the producer's favorite niece.
     Now, zip it and go share this advice with your friends before they accidentally bite the hands that may soon be feeding them, too.

Talent Agent or Scam?

The digital world has been a powerful enabler for everyone who ever dreamed of a career in film. Would be film makers and future stars are no longer beholden to the behemoth studios that seem to own Hollywood. Thanks to the power of the internet, anyone with an idea and a great camera phone can produce a film and get it seen by thousands, even millions of viewers. Use the right streaming service and you might even make a buck or two in the process.
     But thanks to the complete lack of regulation and the truly global nature of the internet, for every positive there are negatives. These normally take the form of charlatans and scammers who prey on the gullibility of those who dream of a career in film but have no idea how to start. Today, let's focus purely on the so-called "Talent Agents" out there who fall into this category. Whip out that notepad and pencil - here's how you can tell the real agents from the fake.

1. Money: The most common scam out there is designed to part you from your hard-earned cash with little to no service provided in return. You'll see this in the form of talent "sites" that promise you access to acting/modeling/voice over opportunities in exchange for an up-front or monthly fee. Real talent agents work for a portion of your earnings, not for excessive up-front fees.
2. Advertising: Incredibly, the scam artists and sham talent agencies do the most advertising. Your radio and TV blare out opportunities to work with top studios and even throw out a few star's names to add to their credibility. Usually they have nothing to do with any of the shows, people or studios they talk about. Most real talent agents do little more than maintain a small web presence and an ad in the trades. They almost never offer to take the inexperienced and turn them into an overnight star.
3. Headshots: Scam artists will charge you hundreds for mandatory photography fees and even offer comp cards as part of this bargain basement package. Show up at a real talent agency without your own headshots and you're not likely to make it past the receptionist.
4. Audition Listings: Real talent agencies don't charge you for access to a list of available auditions. A quality agent knows their talent pool and matches you with viable auditions rather than expecting you to figure it out on your own. Why? Remember, they only get paid if you do. Casting directors will also stop calling them if they don't produce viable candidates for auditions, which means they're going to pre-screen both you and the listings to ensure they keep credibility with the C.D.s out there.
5. SAG/AFTRA Affiliation: Union affiliation isn't easy to obtain. If the agency isn't listed on the SAG website, they're probably not worth your time. There are some exceptions as independent filmmakers have begun to rely upon some trusted talent listings online, but these are few and far between. If you want to get paid for your acting, SAG/AFTRA franchises are a no-brainer.
6. "No Experience Necessary:" Ha ha ha ha ha! Okay, if you're under 10 years old this might be true. Otherwise, no self-respecting agency is going to talk to you if you have zero experience. What you WILL find with these "no experience needed" agencies is the opportunity to drop 4-figures on mandatory training before they'll represent you. Now, there are a handful of well-known, semi-respectable agencies that offer training courses to youngsters. Just beware and do your research. If you get invited to a large group "audition" where everyone there gets an offer to attend class, it's safe to assume the agency is more interested in milking you for cash than helping you get started.
7. No Audition: Real talent agents will require a portfolio for models and/or an audition "reel" for actors. REAL talent agents do not create these for you but instead require you provide said portfolio or reel before they will agree to meet you in person for an interview/audition. They may assist you in producing higher quality audition screening materials, but only AFTER you've provided your own and they've decided to represent you. If you get invited to meet without providing your headshot, resume, portfolio and/or reel first, respectfully decline.
8. Cattle Calls: Open auditions are commonly held for extras near the location of the expected opportunity. (I.e. The C.D.'s for "Any Given Sunday" held an open call for football player extras near the stadium where the scenes were to be shot.) These open calls are almost never for a principal/lead role and inevitably require you show up prepared to work within a day or two of being accepted. (Sometimes on the spot.) A common scam is to hold "open auditions" for "new talent." You will spend hours sitting in a waiting room, may even get interviewed and asked to do a cold read. You are then offered positive feedback and invited to attend some very expensive industry event. This will get you nowhere 99.9% of the time except less rich.

If you REALLY want to become a paid actor or model, you need to first learn the trade and second get some experience. If you've never acted before or never done so on camera, attend a workshop or two. Plenty are generally offered by local colleges and industry professionals. You'll probably have to do some work for free before an agent will show any interest in representing you, so connect with your local independent film community and audition, audition, audition. Working for nothing more than SAG and IMDB credit is the most common way to get started.
     Attend local film festivals, media (headshot, resume or business card) in hand. Rub elbows with filmmakers and casting directors so you can get your name out there. Once you've built a little bit of credibility into your resume, start sending requests to talent agencies, but keep working for free in the indie world until you find representation. There is no EASY way into a film career, and you certainly can't buy your way in with a low monthly fee. It won't likely happen overnight, but if you're serious about your career, talented and persistent, odds are good you'll at least work enough to feed the need.