貓爪。創作。白日夢-論文

蔡明欽導演訪談逐字稿

Thu, 12 Mar 2009 11:55:40 +0800

本文受到密碼保護，需要輸入密碼才能觀看！

WALL-E Andrew Stanton Interviews

Tue, 03 Mar 2009 10:20:54 +0800

Another Interview
Interview: Wall-E's Writer and Director Andrew Stanton

Interview: Wall-E's Writer and Director Andrew Stanton
June 23, 2008
by Alex Billington
Andrew Stanton

I have always dreamed of stepping inside the walls of Pixar. A week ago that dream came true. Disney invited me out to San Francisco to interview Andrew Stanton, the writer and director of Wall-E, at Pixar Studios. I am a true dedicated Pixar fan, from Toy Story all the way to The Incredibles and it's breathtaking to be sitting inside of Pixar with the man who has been a part of some of the greatest films in history. Stanton worked with John Lasseter on A Bug's Life and eventually went on to bring us the wonderful Finding Nemo, easily one of my Pixar favorites (although it's impossible to truly rank them). And now it's a great honor to present my interview with the mind behind Pixar's latest film, Wall-E.

Being inside of Pixar was like being a kid in a candy store. Everywhere you turned, a Pixar memory could be found. There hand-drawn were sketches of Remy from Ratatouille and Wall-E on the walls inches from the ground; concept art, sculptures, and storyboards filled every open square inch in every hallway; life-size figures from Monsters Inc., The Incredibles, and even Finding Nemo welcomed you to the studio. It was a surreal experience but one where I finally got to see where it all happened. Talking with Andrew Stanton to me was much more of an opportunity to talk to someone who had, indirectly, changed my life and inspired me in so many ways - a true honor. It was one of the most unforgettable experiences I've ever had.

I decided to focus my interview not on the obvious questions, but on the more intricate details of Pixar and the development of Wall-E. If you're curious to hear about how Stanton was inspired by binoculars or the basics of the story, you can read our coverage from WonderCon. If you're already familiar with the background story of Wall-E and are curious to hear more, then read on and enjoy!

Alex and Andrew Stanton

To start off, can you tell us the story of how Wall-E went from the idea in your mind with the binoculars to actually becoming a film here at Pixar?

Andrew Stanton: Well, actually, I'm sorry, there's no short answer to this, but in '94 we were having a lunch about what to do next because we were finishing up Toy Story and we realized we were already behind schedule-wise if we were going to make another movie soon. So we came up with A Bug's Life from that lunch, but before we got to that, we threw out a bunch of other sort of half-baked thoughts. Some of them just were settings, like an ocean, some of them were your fears, and that's – it's fascinating to see later that they became Finding Nemo and Monsters Inc. But then we just had a character we came up with. We came up with the last robot on Earth, this robot that just keeps doing the same thing, that got left on for whatever reason, and it's just doing the same job. And I just thought that was the saddest character I had ever heard of and I just loved that and I remember Pete Docter and I couldn't drop it for a couple of weeks. We said, wouldn't it be cool if it was sort of like R2D2, you sort of had to infer based on how it was engineered how it — it would almost be a movie about Luxo Jr. through the whole thing.

And then the very next thing we said is nobody will ever let us do it, because we hadn't even proven ourselves as filmmakers, hadn't proven Toy Story yet and it just seemed so out there. But as filmgoers, as geeks, we were like, I would go see a movie like that! So that just stuck up there for a long time and we got completely swept up in all these other movies and so it wasn't until Finding Nemo that I was having to do rewrites, so about 2002, so we're jumping to eight years later, almost a decade later, and I couldn't stop — so I started thinking about this little guy again, and I said, he's so lonely, it's such a great character, I don't even know what he's called, I don't why we've left Earth…

And I just started to answer all that. I found myself very quickly writing the first act of the movie, which is not that different then what you have here. Then I couldn't stop. Then, I was like, by the time Nemo came out, this is what I want to do next, and I was definitely emboldened by the idea that Nemo was so huge. I mean, I had gone with my gut on so many things on Nemo that seemed iffy and not so sure. The whole time I was working on them here that it kind of threw me for a loop that it went over so well and it gave me a lot of confidence to just stick with my gut. So I said, well, my gut is telling me to do this movie, so I'm going to do it. So it was in 2003 near the end of the year, Nemo was already out, that I was really thinking seriously about design and stuff like that. And I knew the design of him was going to be crucial to how engaging he was and how much you wanted to follow him and how much you wanted to infer personality on him and the big epiphany was definitely late 2003. I was at a baseball game and I got the binoculars and I think the rest is known. So it had a long gestation period, a long time sitting on the stove, simmering.

And were the higher ups here at Pixar receptive to the original idea?

Stanton: They were receptive to the concept, the idea, but like anybody else, they were a little like, how exactly is that going to work. So I had a lot of leeway because of Nemo. I definitely leveraged off that, because it was so huge, I was sort of like — this is what I want to do next. And they were like okay. And so I could tell there would be a lot of debate going on about how to do it, not whether we should do it, but how to do it. I didn't want to waste time debating that, so the year that Nemo was out, 2004, people expected me to be on vacation and just slowly research what I may want to do next, so I knew I would be under the radar.

So I actually stayed at work, got three of my favorite board artists and an editor, so I was completely under the radar with nobody paying attention and was able to, without any pressure, just completely free associate how I would want a movie like this to be like. We boarded and put on reels, with scratch voices and stuff like that, the first act, the first 20 minutes of the movie. I figured that I will prove to myself, without any pressure, that I can do something like this and that something like this is possible. If I don't, then I'll just stop and nobody will know and it won't matter, but if I do feel like I've cracked it, then I can just show it to anybody that's skeptical and that will answer it. I won't have to debate it. And that's exactly what happened after about four hard months, we got something that feels very much like what we've watched here and I showed it to John Lasseter and Steve Jobs at the time, who were the biggest guns then, and they said, 'oh, I get it!' And I could tell that when they walked in, they were skeptical. And when they walked out, they weren't, so it worked.

Is technology a limitation at Pixar in terms of building story ideas?

Stanton: No, not at all. Honestly, I've gotten asked that by some people like, where is technology going? I honestly sit there and go, you know what, I kind of think it's here, I think it's been here since Lord of the Rings, I kind of feel like – all the paint and brushes and canvas that you need to realize what you've been imagining are there, now it's just more of a reflection of how good you are with the technology and how good of an artist and visionary are you to use it. But there's the paint, there's the brush, there's the canvas. You can paint whatever you want and I think that's been possible for at least the last five or six years.

To come back to Wall-E, how did you come up with Hello, Dolly! as the film Wall-E watches in his truck?

Stanton: I know, it's bizarre isn't it?

Yeah! I mean, I love the choice–

Stanton: I know, and I love the choice, too, and I couldn't explain it at first. I just knew I wanted an old-fashioned song against space, and I just loved the future against the past, but I thought that's millions of songs. Which one do I pick? And so I started going into standards and a lot of standards come from musicals, and that sort of led me to musicals, and I did musical theater as a kid, so I knew a lot of them. I got to Hello, Dolly!, and I was just hittin' songs on iTunes, and you're just hearing the beginnings and I hear 'Out there…' and I loved it! I was like, that just works, I can't even explain, it just works, with the stars and what a great way to kick off the movie. It kind of propels you into it and it was a great juxtaposition to such a dire background. I loved the two together. I thought it really balanced the movie and it really, in a weird way, helped you meet Wall-E before you meet him.

Then when I thought about the song, I said, why do I like this so much and then I realized not only is it catchy and it has this sort of naiveté to it, but it's about these two guys that have never left their small town and they want to go out into the big world and kiss a girl. And I thought — that's Wall-E, that's it! So I started looking at other songs, just to see if there would be any other epiphanies, and I got this huge one from watching the movie and seeing 'It Only Takes a Moment' with the two lovers and when I saw them hold hands, it was like, that's exactly it, that's how we will convey that the phrase 'I love you.' When you get that much back from research, you just take it as fate, you just go — I know and I'm running with it. I know I will be answering this question for the rest of my life, but it's a price I'm willing to pay because it just works.

Did you have any trouble getting the rights to it?

Stanton: No, fortunately we got a lot of cooperation from Fox. We knew enough people that knew each other, we could get past all the red tape, talk to the right people.

How do you go about developing a story, like in Wall-E, that really doesn't have a lot of dialogue. How do you go about writing that?

Stanton: Here's my argument. There's dialogue from frame one. Each of those beeps and those squawks and those whirrs mean something and they're trying to convey a specific thing, so I actually wrote the script with dialogue – wrote it just like a regular script. I would just put the dialogue in brackets. So if he says 'hey, come over here,' I wrote 'hey, come over here' and I put it in brackets. Now it was a map for me and for anybody else, for Ben Burtt, whoever. When you put in a sound, it's got to convey that. And so it was actually very conventional how I wrote it.

The only thing I did that was a little unconventional, is the manner in which I formatted the script. I was very inspired by Dan O'Bannon's script for Alien. His description paragraphs were not your typical paragraphs, they were actually small phrases that were all left justified, almost like a haiku, and they created this rhythm of just being in the moment of quiet and visual. And you found yourself reading the descriptions much more than you normally do a script because of that form, instead of just skipping to the dialogue. It really kind of paced you as a reader and gave you the much more visceral feel of what it will be like to watch that movie. So I used that for Wall-E — it really helped.

Wall-E

I was very curious about that. And talking about Ben Burtt, I also recently heard that Roger Deakins was involved as a visual consultant on this as well.

Stanton: For a short while, yeah.

Which to me – both of those people are incredible to have on a film like this.

Stanton: And Dennis Muren we had for a couple of months, which was huge. Those three really, really – well Ben, he was the actor. I was casting the character and I was casting all these other characters, so to me that was like two-thirds of my casting. Dennis and Roger were, for more similar reasons, that we wanted to crack the conventionalities of integration, like how to make you truly feel like you're really there. Dennis Muren is the master, and has been for decades now, of integrating the latest in effects into live action and how to make it just feel seamless. Roger Deakins is one of the best cinematographers and so he has a real association with how to light and how to use the camera. And we really wanted both the sense of believability, it wasn't – even though I know it really dips into photorealism, I wasn't trying to trick you into thinking you were there, I just wanted you to believe you were there as much as possible. So much of that was what you were truly seeing in the background, which Dennis was a help on, and what the camera was doing, which Roger was a help with.

We actually had a lot of stuff that wasn't correct in our software. The math wasn't doing the right thing, so all the subtle imperfections that you're used to, that you don't pay attention to that happen with the camera lens — the way things go distorted in the background, when they do it, how the plane of focus works, what things do in the foreground — all that was either slightly or majorly incorrect with our software, and had always been. I wanted to use the camera much more directly as a tool for intimacy in the film. I mean, I got a metal box falling in love with a metal box and a dystopian background, where am I going to get the intimacy? I'm going to use it with the camera by how shallow of a lens we use and how shallow the focus is, how narrow the lens is. So fixing all that and having Roger there to sort of confirm that we were in the right ballpark with it visually was just key to getting a lot of what comes, I think, unconsciously when you're watching the film.

You were one of the first hired at Pixar in the animation department and I'm interested in how you've seen Pixar grow over the years.

Stanton: What's fascinating about it is that in a weird way it's never been the same place for more than a year and a half, it's always changed. It's interesting for me to see people panic when we get to a certain size or Disney bought us or whatever and then they all have legitimate concerns but the sense of the act of just the fact that we're changing has never worried me because that's all I've ever known. It's almost this consistent rhythm of change. The thing that's never changed that amazes me, is that if you were to go back and sort of gauge the atmosphere and the sensibility of the ten of us when I was first on, and then gauge it now with a thousand, it's no different. It's fascinating, it's a real experiment.

When we were really small, no matter what the job was, you got interviewed by everybody that was in the group because we cared more about what it was like to work with you late into the night than whether you were qualified for the job. So almost who you were mattered more than what your skills were and that in a weird way has not changed. It's almost like, if you get enough good apples in a barrel, the bad apples just can't stay and they just outnumber the bad apples. So it's sort of this positive form of attrition that's just sort of happened over the years and it's not a perfect place and nobody's perfect, but the reason everybody works so hard– Somebody had an interesting point the other day, they said, we never get any leaks out of Pixar and yet we do nothing to be tight with our security about it and I think it's because everybody's happy and everybody loves this place and nobody wants to see it go away or falter. They don't want to contribute to putting a chink in the wall, so everybody keeps their mouth shut, which I think is more of a testament than anything to how happy people are working here.

I actually read a quote of yours recently that said, "the day we start thinking about what the audience wants we're going to make bad choices." I love that quote and I wanted you to elaborate more on that and how it plays into the way films get made here.

Stanton: Yeah. I've been saying that since Toy Story. Honestly, we were so driven on Toy Story, we just knew we wanted to make this kind of a movie and nothing was going to stop us no matter what anybody said. When the dust settled and the film came out and it was so well received, we realized so much of that was because we listened to our gut, and I would say the filmgoer part of our gut, not just the filmmaker.

We're all film geeks, we all go and see more movies than you guys ever could and we're all out-geeking each other and out-quoting each other. We love the movies and we are just as disappointed, just as frustrated, just as excited by all the same things. So we feel like that's the part of the film audience to trust — the audience in ourselves. We don't need to guess what other people want. I don't go to see another filmmaker's movie hoping he's guessed what I want. I go to see it because I like his sensibility and I want to see what he wants to do next, or she wants to do next. Because that was such a direct reason Toy Story worked, because we just finally got to this point of crisis and said, let's just go with what we want, we've been trying to please people for all this time, that we just know that that is the way to stay from here on out, no matter what people say or do.

I think even if we had a film that didn't do well, that wouldn't stop us. I don't see any good from trying to second guess – that just feels like you'll be spinning in a circle for the rest of your life because there'll always be somebody that likes something that you don't or doesn't like something that you do. You'll always find something to derail yourself so why listen to that. You can't please everybody.

That makes a lot of sense… You're writing John Carter of Mars, right?

Stanton: I am. Me and Mark Andrews.

Is it going to be CGI or live action or a mix?

Stanton: We don't know. We honestly don't know, because it's clearly got to be a hybrid of some sort and we're going to basically spend the first — this year for sure — just worrying about the story. That's one thing I've learned working on all these movies, is there's plenty of time and very quick ways to answer what way you're going to make something look and you can use it as a crutch to distract yourself from the hard work of making your story work. So we're just completely not even thinking about that stuff. This year is just about writing the script to make it as good as it can possibly be.

And are you worried about the violence in the books?

Stanton: No, no. We'll find the proper venue to put the movie out.

So is this still going to be in the Pixar vein?

Stanton: Who knows? Honestly, this is the pollyanna year where you're just like, let's just make it the movie it should be and then everybody can wring their hands and figure out how the best way is to show it, rate it, distribute it, all that stuff. That should all be decided on based on the story, so it's just about the story now.

Last question: What are your five favorite films? Not to put you on the spot…

Stanton: Really? Films in general?

Yeah.

Stanton: Lawrence of Arabia. Lion in Winter. Cool Hand Luke. Gallipoli. And a toss up between, for number five, is Close Encounters or Cinema Paradiso.

Those are two you can't compare!

Stanton: I know!

Thanks to both Andrew Stanton at everyone at Disney for one of the most amazing interviews I've ever had. It has always been a dream of mine to interview one of the brilliant minds from Pixar and it was an honor to see it come true. Wall-E arrives in theaters this coming weekend and is definitely a film you do not want to miss!

Wall-E

電影與導演辭典

Tue, 03 Mar 2009 10:15:14 +0800

電影導演辭典
IMDB
Mtime 時光網

Brad Bird Interview-RATATOUILLE

Mon, 02 Mar 2009 16:39:15 +0800

Brad Bird Interview-RATATOUILLE

畢製女主角～小米誕生！

Wed, 18 Feb 2009 15:15:56 +0800

小米的部份包含了要做五面圖、骨架圖、表情圖、動作圖、色指定等等。
其實我有點擔心作品進度有點緩慢，自己對於上色圖不是很滿意，總覺得拿掉鉛筆線後，有失真的感覺Orz
小米設定

好萊塢的“劇本醫生”

Sun, 01 Feb 2009 12:40:55 +0800

好萊塢的“劇本醫生”
11/04/2003/14:20
轉自華夏經緯網

如果你自認為是當大文豪的材料，那你千萬別產生客串一把好萊塢編劇的荒唐念頭。不錯，你可以得到比寫小說、寫專欄高得多的報酬，但你的人格尊嚴、你的作品獨立性會被視作路邊小草一般遭到踐踏。想當年，田納西·威廉斯和F·斯格特·費茨傑羅等美國大作家都有“觸電”不成反被“電擊”的慘痛遭遇。

“劇本醫生”高價治百病

好萊塢編劇是一個非常特殊的職業，與我們想像中的作家完全是兩碼事。說形象點，他們就是流水線上的一道程式、大機器裏的幾個螺絲釘，會被隨時替換。但這工種卻又高度發達，分工細緻，如他們當中有些只管寫對白，有些負責編情節，有些著重人物勾畫等等。

一部好萊塢大片，其起源往往不是一部完整的劇本，而是某人或某群人的—個構思。當這個構思得到實權人物的認可和支援後，它才會擴展成一個“處理”（treatment)。通常“構思”只有半頁或l頁，而“處理”則可能長達5頁至10頁。走完這一步，製片人才會雇來編劇。

你可能以為劇本寫完初稿後，編劇根據製片和導演的意見進行修改，直至通過，然後進行拍攝。這可能是我們熟悉的製作程式，但好萊塢往往不這麼做。原因是：在劇本完稿時，某些該片的“大腕”很可能還未選定或未進駐劇組，如主演、甚至導演都可能沒著落。而他們的駕臨意味著劇本會遭到新的審視。而這時，“劇本醫生 ”（scriptdoctor）便前來排憂解難。通俗地說，他們是來幫助修改初稿的，而且往往是在開拍前的最後一刻，甚至開鏡後。

好萊塢的“劇本醫生”有幾個顯著的特點：首先，他們的要價非常高，而且按周索價，約每星期二三十萬美元與其次，他們一般都資歷雄厚，很多都拿過奧斯卡最佳編劇獎或提名；第三，他們往往像走馬燈似地被換個不停，難得有—個“醫生”能“治療”到底。

毫無疑問，金錢是吸引“劇本醫生”的主要動力。從製片方來說，一部大片成本動輒上億元，似乎不在劇本上花上幾百萬會問心有愧，因此不少業內人士認為聘請“ 劇本醫生”的主要功能是消除製片方心理上的不安全感。在一些情況下，“劇本醫生”是為了幫助“實現導演的藝術感覺”，有些則是高價明星爭奪戲份的折中結果，甚至是為了滿足大腕們的虛榮心。

很多大牌電影編劇都抽空“治療”得病的劇本，如創作《唐人街》的羅伯特·唐恩、《辛德勒名單》的編劇斯蒂芬·哉聯、《通俗小說》的編導塔倫蒂諾等，都曾為動作片做修補工作。但你若仔細搜索《紅潮風暴》片尾的劇組名單，你絕對不會發現那些影片中有他們的大名。說來奇怪，美國電影連端茶送飯等小廝工種都照單羅列，偏偏這幾十萬請來的高手卻不署名。

有些編劇把這種工作看成類似名人走穴，他們衝著錢而來，但不想被這些低智商的商業片玷污自己高雅的名聲，因此他們樂得不署名。如果拍出來的影片得到眾人叫好，他們仍可沾沾自喜，或在圈內吹噓一番；但若是爛片，那就絕對不關他們的事，其事業更不會受到傷害。這種伸縮自如的位置無疑是一大長處。

“劇本醫生”的工作像接力賽

“劇本醫生”的工作與其說是會診，不如說是接力賽。我們在銀幕上看到的編劇名單也許只有1至3名，但參與修改的人士有時多達數十人，如《查理天使》共有 17名“劇本醫生”，而《石頭族樂園》更有32人之多。羅森伯格是《絕世天劫》的第9位“劇本醫生”，也是該片的最後—位編劇，他說：“預算那麼高，花這點錢對他們算不了什麼。再說原本只有五六個像樣的笑話或場景，我即便只多貢獻一個，那他們也值得花這個錢。要是《英國病人》那樣的作品就不會採用集體創作的方法了。”

的確，你若稍微留意的話，會發現這些高價治療過的劇本大多是沒有什麼藝術價值的爆米花電影。為什麼花大把銀子、請最頂尖的編劇高手點鐵成金的劇本反而流於平庸呢？難道是這些寫手都缺乏職業精神、純粹來大撈一把？

“劇本醫生”主要是來修修補補，而不是另起爐灶的，他們的任務是發掘現有劇本中的漏洞，並加強薄弱環節的整治。試想，多少個回合下來，特噁心的對白、特白癡的情節一般都會被改過來；但從另一個角度看，特別出彩的細節往往也會成為犧牲晶，因為一個編劇以為很有原創性的內容，在另一個人看來很可能荒誕不經。於是，就產生我們熟悉的好萊塢產品——中庸、無過、成分組合恰到好處，仿佛是麥當勞快餐。

當然，並非所有好萊塢劇本都經過這—道道名人掌刀的手術。很多低成本的獨立片由於沒有鉅額投資的壓力，反而能充分體現原創作者的意圖。像《記憶碎片》、《穆荷蘭道》等作品，顯然沒有經過一輪輪醫生的折磨，它們保持了作者的奇思異想，加上編導由同一人兼任，完全沒有文字形象和銀幕形象錯位的不幸。

順便提一下，美國主流電視劇的編劇方式既不同於好萊塢商業電影，也不同於小眾藝術片。它一般採取長期雇傭、邊拍邊寫的方法，一集戲由幾位作者共同創作，通過“腦力激蕩”，編寫出最精彩的橋段。為什麼電視劇的“集體創作”不像電影的“劇本醫生”那樣磨平藝術的棱角呢？這是—個很複雜的問題。竊以為，美國電視劇一般由原創者搭好框架，後來的編劇如同寫古典詩詞，明白自己工作時哪些是禁區、哪些必須時時創新。電影的“劇本醫生”多采用接力方法，而且他們多半是名家，因此誰都不服誰，後參與者經常推翻前面的方案，但又不可能完全推倒重來，於是很可能造成缺乏協調的中和效應。

“劇本醫生”的窘境

若說起“劇本醫生”的貢獻，支援者都會舉《教父》的例子。該片中白蘭度向帕西諾交接權力那場戲，不是署名編劇寫的，而出自編劇高手唐恩的手筆。尤其是那句 “邁克，我從來沒想讓你幹這行”，被公認為經典臺詞。當初科坡拉問他想不想要署名權，唐恩回答：“別開玩笑了，我才寫了幾場戲。你要是得奧斯卡，在臺上謝我就行了。”科坡拉沒有食言，而唐恩也根本不在乎他只賺了3000美元（20世紀70年代的行情）。像唐恩這樣妙筆生花的寫手在好萊塢極受歡迎，如今他成了湯姆·克魯斯的“御用”編劇，《律師事務所》和《碟中諜》等影片都有他功勞，當然現在人家更樂意給他署名權了。

說起署名權，那是一樁可大可小的事，一直是編劇行會的心病。根據行會規定，如果劇本屬於原創（即並非改編自小說等），第二名作者（如大刀闊斧加入新內容的 “劇本醫生”）必須有超過50％的附加內容，才能有資格署名；如果是改編劇本，則需要寫33％的新內容。據業內透露，好萊塢作品約有30％會發生編劇署名的糾紛，最終需要行會裁決。為什麼會這樣？首先文藝創作是一項極富創造性的工作，當很多人參與同一項目時，誰貢獻了多少有時很難界定，比如，改編者只增加了20％的新內容，但全部是影片的精華，那麼，以篇幅論英雄似乎不公平；其次，根據行規，只有署名的編劇才有資格參與影片的分成，而像《侏羅紀公園》那樣的超級賣座片，如果有幸榮登編劇榜，你這一輩子都不愁吃喝了。

這些行規也造成了改編者故意大幅刪減初稿的現象，因為只有原來的內容少了，新的東西才能舉足輕重。但是，在通常由3位匿名裁判所作的裁決中，原作者勝訴的可能性仍然較大。

—般認為，“劇本醫生”的活只有大牌編劇才能攬到，他們以自己的名望索取高額報酬，但跟他們的貢獻往往不成比例，有時他們甚至只提供自己的大名，實際工作由他人代勞。對那些高價醫生，一週賺25萬美元只是啤酒錢。反之，那些辛辛苦苦構思初稿的人，由於缺乏地位，反而得不到應有的尊重和足夠的酬勞。這是反映好萊塢貧富兩極化的又—例證（在演員那裏這種現象表現得更為嚴酷無情）。

反對“劇本醫生”的人還指出，該行業實際上降低了編劇的地位，因為它給人們一種印象，似乎編劇誰都能當，可以像手套那麼隨時替換。另外，由於劇本的最終署名者不一定是對該劇本貢獻最大的人，因此有人認為“劇本醫生”可能造成合法化的剽竊。近期好萊塢編劇行會正在考慮修改署名標準，但究竟結果對誰更有利還很難說。反正總有一方會覺得吃虧。

不願署名的“劇本醫生”也有他們的理由。有人說這是代筆，跟創作是兩碼事；也有人覺得，“劇本醫生”的實質就是不計較名分，這跟替不會唱歌的明星代唱是—個概念。

對於那些手握小金人的筆桿子，當“劇本醫生”就像是明星拍廣告，是生財的捷徑。但是，光拍廣告顯然不能提升自己的地位，他們需要隔段時間推出一部自己原創的大作，以顯示自己寶刀未老，藝術靈感尚未被商業氣息熏跑。歸根結底，你自己的劇本是你的孩子，而改稿是為他人當保姆；如果當保姆當上了癮，連自己孩子都不要了，那就未免本末倒置。(看世界)

http://big5.huaxia.com/zk/tx/00140933.html

digimax 楊德泰導演訪談後續之二

Wed, 21 Jan 2009 11:26:33 +0800

本文受到密碼保護，需要輸入密碼才能觀看！

作品分鏡文本

Fri, 16 Jan 2009 15:45:13 +0800

本文受到密碼保護，需要輸入密碼才能觀看！

論文大綱與作品預告

Fri, 16 Jan 2009 14:56:12 +0800

暫時分這四部份

摘要
大綱
論文預告
故事與創作預告
(繼續閱讀...)

digimax 楊德泰導演訪談後續之一

Wed, 14 Jan 2009 20:56:49 +0800

今天為了論文拜訪楊德泰導演，是低！就是Teddy大人>W<，整個就是酷斃了，導演見多識廣，讓我自形慚愧阿。導演很親切的分享了許多他個人的觀點和經驗，預計要在一個禮拜內整理出逐字稿，已徵得導演同意會放在論文附件內，所以這邊也會整理一些放上來！恩，人果然是要督促自己的，對，這是預告...應該算是吧！！

一整個很慚愧的論文...

Sun, 04 Jan 2009 23:14:48 +0800

今天翻著認識電影突發奇想...會不會有本書叫做認識動畫？答案是有的！，Google有部份可預覽。

Understanding Animation
作者：Paul Wells
http://books.google.com.tw/books?id=G6IUoo_haJEC

而本校，哈哈很奇妙的又出現在神奇的系，這樣的書不在圖傳，不在美術，更不在設計系...他在英文系的圖書館裡...，整個就是莫名其妙阿>"<，又是一本想看卻不能帶回家看的書。我們學校很奇妙的跟動畫相關的書籍都會出現在別的系所裡，目前看過國文系、科技系、英文系，還有社會學系..等等，反正就是不會在藝術相關系所找到它們，然後為了要弄個論文，就得想辦法四處巡迴去看各系所的借書規則，看看人家肯不肯借你，讓不讓你進去看...明明是同一個學校，搞得比館際借書還麻煩!

然後，這邊是本文了拉！今天在找認識動畫相關的書，發現了下面這個網站，

維愛迪
http://www.chinavid.com/

看了幾篇文章就覺得自己的碩士論文初稿應該全部丟掉重寫，而且我想像中像個樣子的東西，說不定得花一整年的時間才寫的出來！對，這是理論上論文應該要花的時間，但是我們沒有..我們只有一個月多一點點的時間寫論文初稿50頁要寫到第三章，口試過後，剩下的五個多月內，還有半份的論文配上重口味而且是黃金傳說級的挑戰-個人3-5分鐘動畫（沒有前置那種東西），一整個覺得開始想把東西丟掉作創作論文就算了，要寫一份我認為過的去的論文，我缺乏的資料還太多了，而且很多東西得從各處蒐集來，所謂的各處，包括國內、國外，甚至是台灣沒有翻譯或代理進來的書，以及大部分國外的相關文章，為什麼呢？因為台灣太不重視這塊的教育了，好吧！也許我不是本科系出身的才這麼認為，但，我現在也算是半個本科生了，卻發現資源跟自己想像的差好遠阿，以我現在手邊的資料，寫出來的東西我自己都不想承認吧，是不是乾脆改寫創作論文好了一一？反正大綱口試過了也可以全部重來，會犯的毛病大概也差不多？明明就在關節點上要完成大綱的ｐｐｔ阿...我哪來這麼多時間胡思亂想阿，看得越多越覺得自己的不足，雖然有些結論是自己已經得出的，但缺乏理論支撐，要把這些弄完，我總覺得時間不夠阿....Orz...