3 Reasons I Wanted to See The Theory of Everything and 5 Things I Came Away Loving


Over the weekend I finally got a chance to see The Theory of Everything. I’ve been dying to see it for a while now but my schedule and the winter holiday season has kept me pretty busy, which is great, but on Sunday I was able to get together with one of my college friends, have brunch, and go see the movie.

My Pre-viewing Thoughts

I can’t say that I am a science person at all. The last time I took Physics was senior year of high school, and I still believe that the only reason I did well in the class was because I took extremely neat notes (I knew it wasn’t my subject so I was ready to tackle it head on) and I had a really great teacher. But still I actively avoided a lot of science in college, despite the number of friends I have who are into the subject. I’m not the type of person who would leap at a chance to see a Stephen Hawking movie. But I did. So here’s why.

1) Eddie Redmayne

Screen Shot 2014-12-16 at 8.23.02 PM

I have been a huge Eddie Redmayne fan for years, mainly because of his performance in Les Mis (which I am also obsessed with), but I was also sort of aware of who he was a little before then. So when I heard that he was going to be in this, my interest was piqued. Also he is married now, and I am happy for him, but also a little more sad than I really should be…

2) The Trailer I think first saw the trailer for The Theory of Everything a few months ago when I was looking up something on imdb, and I was instantly intrigued. Since then I have watched the trailer more times than I would care to admit in anticipation for the movie. Just something about the music overlaying the voice overs with their selection of scenes and the story as a whole really got me.

3)  David Thewlis aka Remus Lupin


I only really know David Thewlis as Remus Lupin, one of my favorite characters from Harry Potter, and I don’t think i have ever seen him in anything else, so that also got me interested as well. I must say part of me wanted him to offer chocolate to Eddie Redmayne at some point in the movie to help him along (it works wonders against Dementors).

My Post Viewing Thoughts

So here are my thoughts after watching the movie. It wasn’t exactly what I expected, but then again I’m not entirely sure what that was. And if it had ended up being entirely what I thought, I don’t think it would have been as good. They do cover a good portion of the movie in the trailers, but since it is a true story, and Stephen Hawking’s life and work is so well known, it doesn’t give away as much as if this had happened with a fictional story. I thought there was still enough that wasn’t shown in the trailer to make it interesting. I felt like I needed a day or two to fully process what I saw, so here are my somewhat processed thoughts.

1) Eddie Redmayne (again)


Portraying Stephen Hawking on screen is a huge challenge because of his fame and body of work alone, not to mention ALS, which he was diagnosed with while he was in graduate school at Cambridge. In interviews Redmayne talks about the work and research that went into him learning both about Stephen’s theories and ALS as a whole.

They had to chart what muscles were still working at what points in the film, primarily from photographs, and then Redmayne had to learn how to accurately portray that on screen. Plus, since films aren’t shot in chronological order, he had to be able to jump around to different points in Stephen’s life within the same day. There is some serious acting talent and dedication needed to pull that off well.

I’ve found that I really enjoy hearing about “behind the scenes” stuff like this, whether it is in movies, tv shows or books, so I really appreciated how honest Redmayne was about the work and dedication he needed to put into this job. The other challenge that comes with playing Stephen Hawking is his voice machine.

Since Theory of Everything covers a long span of Hawking’s life, his voice machine isn’t introduced until about the last third of the movie, but it was well into his time in the new wheel chair that I realized that Eddie Redmayne as a actor had no more lines in the movie. And yet his role was far from being over. That just meant that he had to find a way to express himself, whether it was through the pauses in conversation, or expression and eyebrow movements. That is a whole other challenge for him as an actor, which he tackled head on.

I saw this when I was watching interviews about Les Mis, but it was just emphasized even more here – I really enjoy the challenges that Eddie Redmayne goes after as an actor, and the amount of work he does for them. He also has had such a variety of roles that he won’t be type cast any time soon. The other actor that I think of with challenges in roles is Jennifer Lawrence. There are obviously more, but I’ve just seen Jennifer Lawrence and Eddie Redmayne talk more about the behind the scenes preparation that goes on for a role, and they both go after really varied and challenging parts. The third person i think of with this is Daniel Day Lewis. I still haven’t seen Lincoln, but I really want to. I just really like hearing about actors, and authors for that matter, pushing themselves and trying out new things.

No one wants to see your homework,

Redmayne has said in multiple interviews when asked about the research he had to do for the role. The results should be there, but it is not the main focus of the plot. Which leads me to

2) The Story


While I have read reviews that say there should be more science in the film, I personally like the way they showed the story. I knew the very very basics about Stephen Hawking before this movie, and I didn’t know who Jane was at all.

Stephen is such an icon that I liked that the story focused on the more personal relational side of his life. It  fleshes out his character more than if they had just focused on his fame and theories. They focused on him as a person rather than him as a legend. There is one scene where Hawking’s father reminds him that he is world famous, but it is set in a garden with his family around him – a very private scene compared to a very public fact.

The other thing that the story covers well is Stephen’s humor throughout the movie, which also expanded his character even more. Here is this guy who is going through so much, much more than most other people go through in their lifetimes, and his sense of humor stays with him throughout the film and throughout his life. That is something that Redmayne commented on when he met Stephen Hawking a few weeks before filming began, and the writers and James Marsh, the director, really worked to emphasize. Reedmayne also talked about this in an interview. He said,

Stephen lives with such optimism that there was a sense of optimism that ran through [the movie].

3) Felicity Jones

The Theory of Everything 2014 www.downloadgamess.net sc1

I must say I hadn’t seen a movie with Felicity Jones in it before watching this (I am a little hopeless when it comes to celebrities), but this was a great role for me to be introduced to her in. A lot of her character was split between being a young girl in school infatuated with a boy, and caring for him while he has the disease, raising three kids, and doing her own work. I thought she portrayed these two sides of the role really well, and I the stress and the nitty gritty details of dealing with ALS were all shown realistically. While I have heard that there are some parts of the story that aren’t exactly true to life, I think she did a great job emoting her character and really showing it on screen. All in all both she and Eddie Redmayne deserve those Golden Globes they have been nominated for.

4) Science vs. Religion

This was another theme that was slipped in at various points throughout the movie. I wasn’t expecting it, but it makes sense with the themes of the film, and with Stephen’s interest in time and space and the beginning of time that religion would find a way to slip in one way or another. Jane is a Catholic I believe, and that was how that thread started, but it could have been very easy for the science vs. religion debate to become too heavy handed and overdone which didn’t happen, so I appreciated that, and I thought it was well executed.

5) The Cinematography

I am in no way a film student, and usually things like cinematography go over my head, but I really enjoyed a lot of the shots in Theory of Everything. Bits of the more cinematic scenes can be seen in the trailer, but there are more in the film as a whole. There is a lot of spinning and circles throughout the film, but it is all done in a beautiful artistic way that again isn’t overly stated I thought. And the circle motif goes well with time and “winding back the clock” and all that. I also liked the artistic bits because it went well with the “Science?” “Arts” conversation that Stephen and Jane had at the beginning of the movie when they first met, and the cinematography is a good way to fit the arts into a “science movie” (I use quotes because really it’s not a science movie but you know what I mean).

The Theory of Everything is up for 4 Golden Globes including Eddie Redmayne and Felicity Jones for Best Male and Female in a Drama respectively, Best Motion Picture, Drama, and Best Original Score. But even if it wasn’t up for four awards, and I’m sure more when Oscar season fully rolls around, Stephen Hawking has said that he enjoyed Eddie’s performance, and at time he forgot that Eddie wasn’t himself. If that isn’t the highest praise then I don’t know what is.

Well, this has turned out to be a pretty long post because I have a lot of feelings about this movie, and I knew I wanted to post about it before even watching it, but I would love to hear anyone else’s thoughts on the movie so please leave comments below! I also am planning on seeing The Imitation Game soon, which is also up for a number of Golden Globes, and I’m really interested to see how that all pans out. My bet is on this, but I also love Benedict Cumberbatch, so we’ll just have to wait and see…

Screen Shot 2014-07-21 at 9.46.01 PM


The Giver Movie

This week the first trailer for The Giver was released. The movie is set to come out this August, and it stars people like Meryl Streep, Jeff Bridges, and Taylor Swift.

I first read The Giver early on in my school career and then again for my Children’s Literature class in college. It seems like people have one of two opinions on The Giver – either they hate it or they love it – there doesn’t seem to be much in between. Although we did talk about some of the issues with the book during Children’s Lit (I think the numbers in the community didn’t quite add up or something like that), I still really enjoyed the book both times I read it.

I find it interesting that a movie for The Giver is coming out now. The Giver was written as a dystopian YA novel long before dystopian YA novels were cool. Of course there were other dystopian books out there like 1984 and Brave New World, which I still want to read, but The Hunger Games was far from being a thing in the ’90’s when Lois Lowery wrote The Giver.

I was interested to see how they showed Jonas’s world in the trailer. It is a futuristic society, but I always pictured it as being more idyllic as opposed to futuristic. Maybe that’s because I was just learning what dystopian and utopian were at the time. In my mind Jonas’s house, family, and world was very traditional. They had a round, wooden table where they ate (I don’t know if that was in the book or just in my mind), and I pictured a lot of grass everywhere – maybe because of the final scene in the book, if I am remembering that correctly.

SPOILERS in the next paragraph:

It looks like the movie is in color when in fact a lot of the book was in black and white, although they didn’t really emphasize that too much, if I remember correctly, until the end. But I feel like they could do kind of drab colors vs. vivid colors or something like that to show a contrast there. I’m not sure how that will play out, but I am kind of interested to see what they will do.

Also in the book Jonas and all his friends are twelve, while actors such as Brenton Thwaites and Taylor Swift are in their twenties. This is also understandable when compared to The Hunger Games or Divergent movies, and I don’t think that in itself would stop me from seeing the movie. I might just have a book Giver and movie Giver distinction in my head.

So it looks like my image of The Giver world and the movie do not line up, but that is understandable. I wonder if my image of it would have changed had I read something like The Hunger Games, Matched, or Divergent before reading The Giver.

I also think it is interesting that The Giver movie is coming out now. If I remember correctly, it is a pretty visual book, which would lend itself to a movie. I always saw it as the precursor to the dystopian trend in young adult books, so in a way it makes sense to come out now. But it also seems like the dystopian trend is slowing down a bit in the book world, or at least that’s how I feel.

Of course, the movie industry and the book industry are two different things, but they connected with things like this. I just thought the timing was interesting, but I also don’t necessarily think that will harm the movie too much in itself. All in all, I’m interested to see how the movie does, and I guess I’m going to be rereading The Giver sometime before August.

Here is the youtube link to the trailer.

Also, I am going to see the Divergent movie tonight, and I am pretty excited.

Screen Shot 2014-07-21 at 9.46.01 PM

Frozen on a Snowy Day


This past weekend I went to see Frozen, and I figure the best time to write about it is during a snowstorm, right? I kept on hearing about Frozen for a while before it came out, but it was never in too much detail so I didn’t really know what the movie was about for a long time. All I knew about it was it was about sisters and the snowman was the comic relief character. But as I heard more and more about it after it came out I decided that it was something I wanted to see.

So on Friday I went to see it. I have gone to see a lot of movies recently which is kind of nice because for a while over the summer and fall there wasn’t a whole lot I was interested in seeing. But Frozen was so good! I really enjoyed it. It kind of reminded me of Brave  in that it reimagined the traditional Disney princes
s story.

Frozen, which is based on Hans Christen Anderson’s The Snow Queen, focuses on the relationship between two sisters rather than one princess finding true love. Elsa even says to Anna that “You can’t marry someone you just met” as a kind of nod to Cinderella, Snow White, The Little Mermaid etc.

Also I found the emotion behind Anna and Elsa’s relationship very real and pretty complex which was nice to see in a Disney movie. Elsa has the power to create snow and ice but her parents hide her away from Anna and the rest of the world for her own protection. It’s not in a Rapunzel way where Mother Gothel hid Rapunzel and her hair away for her own gain. It is clear from the movie that Elsa’s parents love her and care about her, but it is also clear that their actions and decisions did leave serious consequences both for Anna and Elsa.

All Anna wants is to play with her sister when she is younger and Elsa wants that too but as she gets older and her coronation day draws nearer, she sees that she really doesn’t know how to control her powers and ends up freezing the town and sending the whole area into an eternal winter in the middle of summer. She ends up fleeing and Anna runs after her to convince her to come back and not hide away anymore.

So that’s a bit of a recap, but I found the characters to be more complex that that, especially when it came to Anna and Elsa. Anna has spent her whole life in an empty castle but always manages to see the good in things. She is very chipper but she is also hugely naive as is seen throughout the movie. But it is after all a coming of age story, and a bit of naiveté is to be expected. She had flaws and weaknesses but is still portrayed as a strong character, which is pretty realistic and nice to see in movies.

Elsa is also going through a lot of her own issues – many of which have to do with essentially being shut out from the world and hiding this huge part of herself from everyone she knew including her sister. Her mantra growing up was “Conceal it. Don’t feel it. Don’t let it show.” There is a lot of anxiety and loneliness in her character and it would have been easy for Disney to make her the villain of the story but they don’t which I really liked. Instead they went into more of Elsa’s character rather than making her a stereotype as she grew up and accepted herself (Let It Go) and then was faced with new challenges like returning to her old home. And she also deals with issues a lot of people deal with all the time which made the movie all the more real.

Frozen doesn’t really have a central villain the way that Aladdin, or The Little Mermaid does throughout the majority of the movie. Yes there are bad people, especially towards the end, but the focus is mostly on Elsa and Anna and their relationship. Also I have been pretty obsessed with Idina Menzel ever since I saw Wicked when I was 16 (I didn’t see it with the original cast but I bought the cd immediately after the performance and have loved it ever since) so this has just reaffirmed my obsession with her and her voice. I had Let It Go running through my head all weekend.

Also there is talk of bringing Frozen to Broadway, which I am super excited about. I read in a comment section of a different article that based on other Disney movie musicals and their timelines of getting shows on Broadway that it could take up to four years but I will definitely go see it whenever it comes out. And I really hope Idina Menzel comes back for Elsa because that would be amazing. I’m also curious to see how they do the magic/snow sequences on stage as well. But it is definitely something to look forward to.

Screen Shot 2014-07-21 at 9.46.01 PM

Catching Fire is on Fire


Well, I finally did it! Last weekend I finally went to see Catching Fire! I was away when  it came out and then there was Thanksgiving and all. Everyone I was going to go see it with had seen it already by that point but they all assured me that they would be happy to go see it for a second (or third) time in theaters.

So last Sunday after church a friend and I were trying to figure out what to do for the rest of the day before watching Downton Abbey that night (!) and we decided on Catching Fire.

It was rainy and gross outside so it wasn’t like we were missing out on anything else we could have done really, and watching the movie gave us a chance to dry off. And for me it was a chance to finally catch up with The Hunger Games franchise. Plus we ended up using our free movie passes we got after the projector for The Hobbit broke at the midnight premiere, so we didn’t have to pay for the movie itself.

I was determined to reread Catching Fire before watching the movie, which also added to my delay in seeing it. I had first read it two years ago, but it took me about a day and a half to read it. Since it took me such a short time, I don’t think I remembered many of the smaller details of the book so it was nice to go back to it again before watching the movie.

I am one of those people who will point out inaccuracies in a movie if it is based on a book to anyone who will listen (you have been warned). This is also true about anything that is filmed in New York. But I was really pleasantly surprised at how accurate it was to the book.

So many movies that are based on book series cut things for time or try and add their own spin on the plot or characters. I love both the Harry Potter books and the movies but I have come to view them as two separate entities because in a way, they are. And I don’t really like talking about the movie version of Half-Blood Prince since they slimmed it down so much. So while I love movie franchises based on books, I am also a little hesitant around them and I try not to rant about inaccuracies too much.

But with Catching Fire it was different. Yes, there were a few things that were slimmed down (I would have liked to see the scene with Plutach Heavensee’s watch at the ball while he dances with Katniss) and they did add a few small things here and there but I was surprised at how accurate it was. Many of the actor’s lines even came straight from the dialogue in the book and the scenery was really accurate as well.

The three Hunger Games books are so visually written that they really lend themselves well to a movie franchise, especially the arena for the Quarter Quell. I heard so many people say the way it was portrayed in the movie was exactly how they saw it because that’s exactly how it is described in the books. And the ridiculous outfits and parties at the Capitol lend themselves well to the big screen as well.

But I also think that the plot of Catching Fire translates well into a movie as well, even more than The Hunger Games. In The Hunger Games, Katniss is alone most of the time, and a lot of the narrative is internal dialogue, which can be a challenge to translate into a movie. But in Catching Fire she finds herself in a completely different situation.

During the games she is surrounded by people the whole time, which adds more conflict, action, and dialogue to the movie, not to mention what’s happening outside the Games themselves with all the rebellions spreading around Panem. All in all it was a much faster paced movie with more intrigue and action than its predecessor. I really like the first Hunger Games movie, but I this one is definitely my favorite so far.

Also, I love Jennifer Lawrence, and watching Catching Fire has gotten me excited about her again. It blows my mind that she is my age and has a Golden Globe, an Oscar, and is nominated for another Golden Globe this year. And she’s such a real, down to earth person off the screen. She really isn’t afraid to be herself in front of the press and I just find that really refreshing. Not to mention that she’s a great actress on screen as well. She has great facial expressions, and Catching really shows that well throughout the movie (see the following gifs).

Anyway, I can see why so many people I talked to were willing to go see it again in theaters. And the DVD comes out in March! 😀




                                                                                                                               Screen Shot 2014-07-21 at 9.46.01 PM                                                                                                                                                                                 

On Self Doubt

This past Sunday I curled up on my couch to watch The Golden Globes. I always seemed to miss The Golden Globes in the past, and just read about them online or in the paper after the fact. So I was pretty excited that I knew when they were this year. I also seemed to be more invested in them than in years past, because of the current Les Mis obsession I am going through (mentioned here). I was also hit pretty badly with the flu this weekend which left me asleep in bed for about two days straight, so watching The Golden Globes gave me something to do. I am feeling much better now, thanks, and I am happy to say that Les Mis came out on top with both Anne Hathaway and Hugh Jackman winning awards for their perspective roles, as well as a win for best musical/comedy. I wasn’t too worried.

There were a lot of good quotes from the night, mostly from Tina Fey and Amy Poehler’s banter, but my favorite quote, or at least the one that I remember the most comes from Anne Hathaway’s acceptance speech when she said,

Thank you for this lovely blunt object that I will forevermore use as a weapon against self doubt.


The quote made me think of Anne Hathaway using her Catwoman skills and new Golden Globes award to fight intruders, murderers, thieves, and general evil doers in the world. It was nice to know too that the princess of Genovia, Catwoman, and Fontaine have self doubt as well.

This made me think of my story. A few weeks ago everything was going swimmingly. The antagonist, Augustus Moragin, practically created himself with motivations and all. The whole “the key to beating writers block is to keep writing” was working like a charm. For a while. But then I didn’t do anything with it for a few days and working on it became very hard.

In my list of questions and notes, I started jumping ahead and worrying about things that will come together as the story continues to develop – things that I really didn’t need to focus on right now. Like what is the genre of the story. It seems to fit in well to the YA genre. If it is YA does that mean that there has to be a love triangle? I don’t really want there to be a love triangle. Romance maybe, but I feel like love triangles are overdone now a days in YA fiction, and I would rather work on some other aspect of the story. These are not important questions for where I am in the story. If I don’t want a love triangle – there will not be a love triangle. It’s my story  that I am in control of.

That is one of the reasons I like writing – its like a puzzle. You make a character do something and then you have to go back and fill in things like motive or what happens next. Everything fits together somehow the way you want it to, things happen that you didn’t plan on, and then it becomes a story. That you yourself create. It is yours and yours alone.

Another hurdle I had to deal with was the fact that my story takes place at a school. Probably a college, although possibly a grad school. It is still in the works (and this would affect the genre mentioned before). My first thought on writing a “school story” was that it shouldn’t look like Hogwarts. What? This isn’t even a magical story. There is time travel and fantasy, but not magic. No wizards. No wands. It’s not even in England. Scenes might take place in England as they time travel back to World War I, but the school itself is in America. None of the schools that I went to looked like Hogwarts, so what am I so worried about? I am writing this for me, not for anyone else. I can make it what I want it to be – that whole complete control idea again. It’s a nice feeling. And its much easier to create a world when you are not worried about it looking like anything else. Just make it your own. I don’t know what their school is going to look like, but I can make it whatever I want it to be.

To counteract my bouts of self doubt that are not conducive to story writing, I started making a list of good quotes to go back to when I am stuck. Things like Hemmingway’s ever famous “Write drunk, edit sober.” I keep them in my notebook along with the few scenes and lots of notes that I have. I don’t see myself winning a Golden Globe that I can use against self doubt, so in the mean time I will use the quotes of others to get me through and to keep me original. I’m pretty excited to see how everything turns out!

Thoughts on Les Mis: Amazing Movie; To Read the Book or Not To Read the Book?

This past weekend I went with a friend of mine to see Les Mis. I had seen the play while I was in London for a semester in college, and was familiar with the music. I have always thought it was an amazing play, but I never got too immersed in it. Well, seeing the movie blew me away and now I consider myself completely obsessed. I haven’t really discussed movies on my blog before, and I thought I could give it a try now and again.

I saw the movie on Saturday night, and since then have bought many of the songs that I did not previously own, and have had them continually running through my head. I have also been looking at interviews on youtube from the actors etc., and seriously debated the best version of each song to get on itunes. What can I say – when I get into something I really get into it. I would watch it again, and I do want to eventually, but I’m not sure if I have the emotional capacity for two viewings so close together. I didn’t cry during the movie, but it was hugely emotional which came across very powerfully on screen.

I was impressed with the camera angles, especially during solos when the camera was right in an actor’s face. In interviews Eddie Redmayne who plays Marius, talked about how each actor had intensive voice lessons, not only to improve their singing voices, but also to develop specific muscle control in their throats to sustain the amount of singing they had to do. The whole thing is singing after all, which is hugely impressive in the first place as a play, and even more impressive when you think about all the different cuts and takes that a movie goes through before the final product is put together. Especially when the singing is being done live while filming, rather than having it prerecorded to play back during the filming. That is a lot of singing, and a lot of work for one person’s voice. They also had to learn how to sing while showing intense emotion. There was one shot of Anne Hathaway while she is singing “I Dreamed a Dream” where she looks absolutely terrible after being thrown out on the street. She looks terrible, but the fact that there was so much emotion in the scene (where her face took up most of the screen) was really beautiful. There were tons of scenes like this throughout the film, and the same could be said of any of the actors. The emotion just came off the screen really well, and the extreme close ups made the songs and scenes much more personal. Both Hugh Jackman and Anne Hathaway lost 25 for their roles so they would look drawn, thin, bedraggled, and like a prisoner or a prostitute. But that is a lot of work and dedication within itself. Also, I was not really aware that any of the actors in the film could sing to the extent that they can before I saw it, and they all were amazing. I later found out that Samantha Barks, who played Eponine, was also Eponine in the London production of the play, and was in the 25th anniversary concert of Les Mis as well. (I did think that her voice sounded familiar at one point – On My Own is one of the songs that I owned before seeing the movie) Eddie Redmayne also took singing lessons when he was younger, and Hugh Jackman has been in musicals before.

Anyway, since I am now completely obsessed with all things Les Mis, I have been debating reading the book. Of course it is hugely long and rather intimidating, and the play/movie is a much abbreviated version of the book, but I feel like it is something I want to do eventually. Once again, I’m not sure it is something I have the emotional capacity for, but it is worth thinking about. The friend that I went to go see it with starting reading Les Mis in August with the intention of finishing it before the movie came out on Christmas, which she was able to do. I have read the first page or so and it is well written, which I knew already. It is also dense at times, and I have heard that Victor Hugo likes to go on and on about details in the book, such as a minor character and why he is there at that particular moment doing what he is doing, or the Battle of Waterloo. That sort of thing is interesting if you are in the right mood for it, or tiring if you aren’t.

There is also a version of Les Mis on sale at Barns and Nobles at the moment for $5. The only problem is that it is a rather large hard cover book, and although it is surprisingly light will I want to carry it around with me on the subway etc? These are the things I need to think about. If I do read it, I might read it while reading something else as well – maybe something lighter and cheerier. Les Mis is also available through Goodreads, which is probably the most convenient method of reading such a hugely long book, but I prefer not to read things on a screen. I am willing to try it though. I feel like I have a lot of thinking to do before I embark on this project. In the meantime, I think I will listen to some more songs from the play, and wait for Les Mis to win lots of Oscars come February.


Writerly Thoughts and Pixar

It is late and I have to be up early tomorrow. I also won’t be able to post for the next 2 weeks because I will have limited access to a computer and no time. I am going to be a camp counselor for high school and middle school students. Tons of fun but not much down time. So I wanted to put this out there before I go.

This is another Tumblr find. I did not make it myself. It’s Pixar’s Rules of Storytelling via Legos. Some of them are basic story telling/writing “rules” and some are not. But in my opinion they are still important, and everything is cooler with Legos!

Image Image

Image Image

Image Image

Image Image

Image Image

Also I’m kind of obsessed with Pixar. That might be my inner five year old letting itself loose but they really do tell amazing stories. I mean Wall-E and Up, both are love stories – one was told using something like four words (Wall-E, Eeeva, directive, plant, woah – am I missing any?) and one was told in eight minutes without any dialogue. (Up is one of the more emotional movies I have watched lately, and not just because of the beginning sequence). Honestly if I could draw (which I can’t) I think I would hang out in the Pixar’s offices all day and just be a fly on the wall. Or sit in on meetings, and hang out and go to lunch with the people that work there because I bet they are pretty awesome!