Let me get this straight? You write screenplays? You know what every book says? You do what they say to the best of your ability?Are you boring and lifeless and predictable and the same as every other hack in Hollywood?
I'm sorry if that came off as arrogant and hackish to you. What I meant to get across is quite simple. All books on screenwriting say many different things, but when you look at them all, they say the same basic thing. Present the same basic recommendations.
In fact, EVERY book or article on any type of creative writing will tell you: beginning, middle, end.
Here's the proof. I'm going to tell you a funny joke, okay? Are you ready? It's really hilarious! Check it out:
A penguin chewing bubble gum in tennis shoes walks into a bar with a bowling ball. He sits at the bar and puts the bowling ball on the bar. Knowing it will roll off, the penquin removes his gum and puts it on the bar. Then, he positions the bowling ball on it and- yes- it stays in place. Placing his tennis shoes on the bar, he asks for a cold one.
Well, what did you think? Did you like my joke! Isn't that great?!?
Wait, you didn't like it?!? Why not?!? Oh come now, don't tell me all jokes must have a beginning, middle, and end?!? What kind of boorish hack are you?!? Just because every other joke in the world has a beginning, middle, and end-- that doesn't mean they should!
Are you boring and lifeless and predictable and the same as every other hack in Hollywood? Well?
Actually, I just wrote a script that breaks many steadfast rules. The protoganist dies on page 60, a rarely pulled off trick, which requires a keen understanding of plotting and story to pull off.
So you're saying, and not very well for a writer
Perhaps I'm not saying it well, or perhaps you're not a good listener. Yes, many writers are more interested in how they say things versus what they're saying, which is your tragic affliction if you wish to exchange barbs Chumly.
So you're saying, and not very well for a writer, , that in order for a film to be good.. it must make nice sense to the audience who know what is going to happen for them because it's a story and all stories are told in the way that your precise books tell you that they should be and so on and so forth?
Firstly, that's one mess of a run on, and so I wouldn't be criticizing the writing style's of others until YOU learn how to write. Secondly, that's NOT what I said, proving you don't listen. I said a story must make 'nice' to the audience who doesn't know what is going to happen.
Firstly. Let's discussing beginnings
Damn, I can not only learn how to write better than you, but grammar as well! How lucky I am!
It's the same with screenwriting books. It's an art for Christsake. Not a law.
That's the gospel of people who don't know how to write, or have written bad scripts. Yes, screenwriting is an art, but it is the art of a.) following the storytelling formula and then b.) knowing when to adhere to it and when to drift from it... ever so slightly.
You mention Memento as an example of a movie that doesn't use the formula. I haven't seen it, so I can't tell you that it actually does and you just wouldn't know it. However, I'd bet it follows the formula, despite outward appearances of not doing so.
When Pulp Fiction came out, people like yourself praised it for being innovative and formula crushing. It isn't. You were had. It does follow the formula- to the letter- only in an innovative way. PSYCHO is one of the famed 'who needs a formula?' debates as well. It follows the formula to the letter as well, even though it ices it's protagonist on page 20.
You could say that Life of Brian ends, and quite abruptly so, halfway through one of your precious "middles", with a death and a song.
Wrong. There once was a guy Brian. He was mistaken for the messiah. Many complications ensue. Then, he was crucified, like Christ. Beginning, middle, end. Did you miss it?
Meaning of Life has no middle and no end. It's various things floating around in space. The "end" is a sudden musical number when some rich folks go to heaven.
Wrong again! Wow, are you facing forward when you go to the cinema, or do you see this shaft of light projecting out of a hole the entire time?!? MOLife BEGINS with a bunch of fish seeking the meaning of life. DURING the movie, a series of skits chronicle life from birth to death. In the middle, the fish remind us that they haven't heard much about the meaning of life. The end ISN'T a dance number. It's Palin in drag reading to us the meaning of life.
There are lots of films that end of cliffhangers and sudden surprises and questions flying out of it's every crevice and Lord of the Rings is a mere one.
End OF? Again, such great writing. You must send my a private email with as many tips as possible..
1.) A good film might end with a great cliffhanger, but a great story doesn't. A great story ends. It doesn't have to completely end, all nice and neat as you fail to infer I'm suggesting.
2.) Yes, many great stories end with great surprises, like the Sixth Sense. This, of course, is irrelevant, but since you're not listening to what I'm saying, you thought you'd educate us all anyhow. Know any good quiche recipes while you're at it?
3.) If a story ends with questions flying out of every crevice, it is incomplete, as my penquin joke, which based on your logic, must be hilarious indeed.
[i]And then I'll bring up Mulholland Drive.
Save your breath. If you're ignorant enough to present Mul as an excellent example of how story telling doesn't need to follow rules, you are more clueless than words can express.
MULHOLLAND DRIVE is THE ALL-TIME BEST EXAMPLE of how stories need a reasonable ending. How can I state this as fact?!? It was a PILOT for an extended TV series. When the pilot was rejected, Lynch slapped together a stupid ending and pretended it was a movie.
You ever see Bergman's PERSONA? It's the type of style you're actually trying to praise but failing miserably to do so. It's story is odd and twisting and seems to leave you in the dust. That is, if you weren't paying attention. If you were, you'd find it was following the very formula I'm referring to.
Look, beginnings, middles, and ends are allowed to be cryptic. I'm no Nazi that way. In fact, LOST HIGHWAY holds together much better than MUL in this manner, as wacked a movie as that is.
But none of this evasive argument of your's proves that it's okay for LOTRs to start a story and simply leave you hanging. As cliffhangers go, it blows. It wasn't even an exciting what will happen next, edge of the mountain cliffhanger.
It was an-- okay, our times up, see you next time- non-ending. Although the movie collected an interesting enough series of characters, I've got news for you rabid Hobbitfreaks: they weren't THAT interesting. They were poor graphic novel characters, for the most part. The characters in MULHOLLAND DRIVE were about ten times more interesting, since they weren't all based on stereotypes.
So, you give an only okay lead character a ring, he rounds up a bunch of okay characters to go on an exciting quest, and after many, repetitive ensuing complications (fun visual battles), they simply stop telling the story.
Not a great story. At best, it's only the beginning of a great story, and I think that's be generous..
Tell me how THAT is wrong, and stay ON TOPIC this time if you can manage it. And let's leave our criticism of each other's writing behind, "Or I shall taunt you a second time.."
I'm sorry if that came off as arrogant and hackish to you. What I meant to get across is quite simple. All books on screenwriting say many different things, but when you look at them all, they say the same basic thing. Present the same basic recommendations.
In fact, EVERY book or article on any type of creative writing will tell you: beginning, middle, end.
Here's the proof. I'm going to tell you a funny joke, okay? Are you ready? It's really hilarious! Check it out:
A penguin chewing bubble gum in tennis shoes walks into a bar with a bowling ball. He sits at the bar and puts the bowling ball on the bar. Knowing it will roll off, the penquin removes his gum and puts it on the bar. Then, he positions the bowling ball on it and- yes- it stays in place. Placing his tennis shoes on the bar, he asks for a cold one.
Well, what did you think? Did you like my joke! Isn't that great?!?
Wait, you didn't like it?!? Why not?!? Oh come now, don't tell me all jokes must have a beginning, middle, and end?!? What kind of boorish hack are you?!? Just because every other joke in the world has a beginning, middle, and end-- that doesn't mean they should!
Are you boring and lifeless and predictable and the same as every other hack in Hollywood? Well?
Actually, I just wrote a script that breaks many steadfast rules. The protoganist dies on page 60, a rarely pulled off trick, which requires a keen understanding of plotting and story to pull off.
So you're saying, and not very well for a writer
Perhaps I'm not saying it well, or perhaps you're not a good listener. Yes, many writers are more interested in how they say things versus what they're saying, which is your tragic affliction if you wish to exchange barbs Chumly.
So you're saying, and not very well for a writer, , that in order for a film to be good.. it must make nice sense to the audience who know what is going to happen for them because it's a story and all stories are told in the way that your precise books tell you that they should be and so on and so forth?
Firstly, that's one mess of a run on, and so I wouldn't be criticizing the writing style's of others until YOU learn how to write. Secondly, that's NOT what I said, proving you don't listen. I said a story must make 'nice' to the audience who doesn't know what is going to happen.
Firstly. Let's discussing beginnings
Damn, I can not only learn how to write better than you, but grammar as well! How lucky I am!
It's the same with screenwriting books. It's an art for Christsake. Not a law.
That's the gospel of people who don't know how to write, or have written bad scripts. Yes, screenwriting is an art, but it is the art of a.) following the storytelling formula and then b.) knowing when to adhere to it and when to drift from it... ever so slightly.
You mention Memento as an example of a movie that doesn't use the formula. I haven't seen it, so I can't tell you that it actually does and you just wouldn't know it. However, I'd bet it follows the formula, despite outward appearances of not doing so.
When Pulp Fiction came out, people like yourself praised it for being innovative and formula crushing. It isn't. You were had. It does follow the formula- to the letter- only in an innovative way. PSYCHO is one of the famed 'who needs a formula?' debates as well. It follows the formula to the letter as well, even though it ices it's protagonist on page 20.
You could say that Life of Brian ends, and quite abruptly so, halfway through one of your precious "middles", with a death and a song.
Wrong. There once was a guy Brian. He was mistaken for the messiah. Many complications ensue. Then, he was crucified, like Christ. Beginning, middle, end. Did you miss it?
Meaning of Life has no middle and no end. It's various things floating around in space. The "end" is a sudden musical number when some rich folks go to heaven.
Wrong again! Wow, are you facing forward when you go to the cinema, or do you see this shaft of light projecting out of a hole the entire time?!? MOLife BEGINS with a bunch of fish seeking the meaning of life. DURING the movie, a series of skits chronicle life from birth to death. In the middle, the fish remind us that they haven't heard much about the meaning of life. The end ISN'T a dance number. It's Palin in drag reading to us the meaning of life.
There are lots of films that end of cliffhangers and sudden surprises and questions flying out of it's every crevice and Lord of the Rings is a mere one.
End OF? Again, such great writing. You must send my a private email with as many tips as possible..
1.) A good film might end with a great cliffhanger, but a great story doesn't. A great story ends. It doesn't have to completely end, all nice and neat as you fail to infer I'm suggesting.
2.) Yes, many great stories end with great surprises, like the Sixth Sense. This, of course, is irrelevant, but since you're not listening to what I'm saying, you thought you'd educate us all anyhow. Know any good quiche recipes while you're at it?
3.) If a story ends with questions flying out of every crevice, it is incomplete, as my penquin joke, which based on your logic, must be hilarious indeed.
[i]And then I'll bring up Mulholland Drive.
Save your breath. If you're ignorant enough to present Mul as an excellent example of how story telling doesn't need to follow rules, you are more clueless than words can express.
MULHOLLAND DRIVE is THE ALL-TIME BEST EXAMPLE of how stories need a reasonable ending. How can I state this as fact?!? It was a PILOT for an extended TV series. When the pilot was rejected, Lynch slapped together a stupid ending and pretended it was a movie.
You ever see Bergman's PERSONA? It's the type of style you're actually trying to praise but failing miserably to do so. It's story is odd and twisting and seems to leave you in the dust. That is, if you weren't paying attention. If you were, you'd find it was following the very formula I'm referring to.
Look, beginnings, middles, and ends are allowed to be cryptic. I'm no Nazi that way. In fact, LOST HIGHWAY holds together much better than MUL in this manner, as wacked a movie as that is.
But none of this evasive argument of your's proves that it's okay for LOTRs to start a story and simply leave you hanging. As cliffhangers go, it blows. It wasn't even an exciting what will happen next, edge of the mountain cliffhanger.
It was an-- okay, our times up, see you next time- non-ending. Although the movie collected an interesting enough series of characters, I've got news for you rabid Hobbitfreaks: they weren't THAT interesting. They were poor graphic novel characters, for the most part. The characters in MULHOLLAND DRIVE were about ten times more interesting, since they weren't all based on stereotypes.
So, you give an only okay lead character a ring, he rounds up a bunch of okay characters to go on an exciting quest, and after many, repetitive ensuing complications (fun visual battles), they simply stop telling the story.
Not a great story. At best, it's only the beginning of a great story, and I think that's be generous..
Tell me how THAT is wrong, and stay ON TOPIC this time if you can manage it. And let's leave our criticism of each other's writing behind, "Or I shall taunt you a second time.."
__________________
You may say that I'm a dreamer, but I'm...
You may say that I'm a dreamer, but I'm...
Last edited by NotTheOnly1; 04-28-02 at 03:22 PM.