Central Dramatic Argument

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Central Dramatic Argument

    I think it was Molly Ringwald. It's been a long time. It might be time to watch it again.
    Standing on a hill in my mountain of dreams telling myself it's not as hard, hard, hard as it seems.

    Comment


    • Re: Central Dramatic Argument

      Just for kicks, check this out. I'm sure some might have been aware of this, but just in case. Thought it might raise some interested eyebrows.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing...r_(1979_novel)

      Not that it changes the debate in any way. It's just sideways information.

      Comment


      • Re: Central Dramatic Argument

        Originally posted by Craig Mazin View Post
        Closing this thread would be nuts, because this is the first thread I've read in this place where I can actually see people starting to realize something very very very important about screenwriting.

        Keep going.
        No one wants to close this thread. I promise you. Could possibly be the most productive thread on DD. Ever.
        sigpic

        Website
        Tweets
        Book

        Comment


        • Re: Central Dramatic Argument

          Ending voice over:

          Dear Mr. Vernon,

          We accept the fact that we had to sacrifice a whole Saturday in detention for whatever it is that we did wrong. But we think you're crazy to make us write an essay telling you who we think we are. You see us as you want to see us: in the simplest terms and in the most convenient definitions.... But what we found out is that each one of us is a brain. And an athlete. And a basket case. A princess. And a criminal. Does that answer your question?
          The most important word in the above is "ENDING". As in... that's not something they understood when they walked in. In fact, I suggest that the characters thought the OPPOSITE when they walked in the room.

          In the beginning, they see each other as a brain, an athlete, a basket case, a princess and a criminal.

          What's worse, that's how they see THEMSELVES as well.

          By the end, they have embraced the opposite.

          I am not a type. I am something much more complicated, and so are all the "types" around me.

          That's a great argument. And the characters move from "I am a type" to "I am not a type", and that's what fuels the drama, the conflict, the romance... all of it.

          Comment


          • Re: Central Dramatic Argument

            Originally posted by emily blake View Post
            Good example, Sara.

            It's one of those quotes that has always stuck with me, when Ally Sheedy says "When you get old your heart just dies."

            And one of them - which one was it? - goes "Not me, ever."

            Not me, man.
            I feel like it was Emilio Estevez.

            I can just see The Jock saying, "Not me, ever."

            Could be wrong, but my memory's adamant about this.

            Comment


            • Re: Central Dramatic Argument

              Originally posted by Shari Hari View Post
              Agreed. No doubt.

              But ask yourself this... exactly *how much* of its essential, thematically satisfying "Die Hardness" would be lost if you watched a cut without the above dialogue?

              If you never knew it existed in the first place, I'd say not much.
              I agree. Those of us who recall it on first release will remember it being a game changer it terms of action and excplosions. Unprecedented levels of awesomeness and the average Die Hard fan (or target demographic) was male, 18 - 35 and who loved all those one-man-army, straight to video films that ATB refers to. And the majority of the fans comment on the action, never his dynamic with his wife.

              I'm not saying to ignore CDA and arcs but to say Die Hard was memorable for the husband/wife dynamic, or that it would be straight to video without it is highly fallacious.
              M.A.G.A.

              Comment


              • Re: Central Dramatic Argument

                Originally posted by SundownInRetreat View Post
                I agree. Those of us who recall it on first release will remember it being a game changer it terms of action and excplosions. Unprecedented levels of awesomeness and the average Die Hard fan (or target demographic) was male, 18 - 35 and who loved all those one-man-army, straight to video films that ATB refers to. And the majority of the fans comment on the action, never his dynamic with his wife.

                I'm not saying to ignore CDA and arcs but to say Die Hard was memorable for the husband/wife dynamic, or that it would be straight to video without it is highly fallacious.
                It's a game changer because of ALL the elements.

                We can tear this poem apart all day and never come to an agreement, but the CDA about a husband and wife and their relationship is there throughout the whole flick. It's an entire movie about relationships, and the consequences of those relationships, and THAT'S what makes this movie a classic.

                You want to say the "majority" of the fans talk about the action, fine. But as a writer, one has to realize that a lot of a movie's "classicness" is the stuff playing underneath (the husband/wife dynamic; bad guy/good guy; Karl/his brother, etc.) Hell, the audience may not even realize it when they're watching it, but the writer better have a damn good idea of what's playing underneath, or what the "glue" is that makes the movie something better than the direct to video release, if they want to be a good writer.

                HH

                Comment


                • Re: Central Dramatic Argument

                  Yup, all the elements as one whole enchilada.
                  Standing on a hill in my mountain of dreams telling myself it's not as hard, hard, hard as it seems.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Central Dramatic Argument

                    I agree with everything you said. I've been reading this thread over a few days and started today on pg 24 and agreed with Shari. Others have commented since then, particularly ATB with his comments re: the producer vs the writer, that clarified his perspective whilst also acknowledging my point. I just started today on a misunderstanding but hey, I've slept since I last checked this thread.

                    Edit: I would've deleted my message had you not quoted me.

                    it'd be interesting to look at - though not this thread - how come this CDA strikes such a chord with people but other CDAs in similar movies do not. These type of action movies always have a personal agenda and it's why the tough guy goes it alone.
                    Last edited by SundownInRetreat; 01-30-2012, 06:28 AM.
                    M.A.G.A.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Central Dramatic Argument

                      Originally posted by haroldhecuba View Post
                      The CDA about a husband and wife and their relationship is there throughout the whole flick. It's an entire movie about relationships, and the consequences of those relationships, and THAT'S what makes this movie a classic.
                      There is a DA (dramatic argument) concerning Holly and McClean, but is it the Central DA? It's also a movie about one cop/cowboy against many villians (well armed terrorists we learn to hate) and few allies to help him.
                      A dramatic argument about one against many?

                      Which is the CDA the writer used? How do we determine that? Is there an objective measure? Number of scenes, lines of action, lines of dialogue, etc. that relate to the argument?



                      Originally posted by haroldhecuba View Post
                      But as a writer, one has to realize that a lot of a movie's "classicness" is the stuff playing underneath (the husband/wife dynamic; bad guy/good guy; Karl/his brother, etc.) Hell, the audience may not even realize it when they're watching it, but the writer better have a damn good idea of what's playing underneath, or what the "glue" is that makes the movie something better than the direct to video release, if they want to be a good writer.HH
                      Without a doubt, we cared about every character, felt something about every one of them. What CDA was underneath the development of every character?
                      If McClean wasn't put in that situation we wouldn't have a chance to meet such well developed antagonists, the terrorists, the L.A.P.D brass, the F.B.I. clowns, Holly's boss, the newsman. And the good guys, like Sgt. Powell, the good cop with issues about shooting a gun, McClean, the well trained cop, and Holly the strong woman.

                      What did McClean's being a jerk with Holly have to do with any of that?

                      If the movie was MAINLY about proving McClean was or was not a jerk (or about his character arc) would we have most of what was going on? Perhaps that was the SDA (Secondary Dramatic Argument).
                      Last edited by jonpiper; 01-30-2012, 06:48 AM.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Central Dramatic Argument

                        Originally posted by jonpiper View Post
                        What did McClean's being a jerk with Holly have to do with any of that?

                        If the movie was MAINLY about proving McClean was or was not a jerk we would't have most of what was going on. Perhaps that was the SDA (Secondary Dramatic Argument).
                        Because his behavior and actions outside of the main conflict informs us of what he's made of, gives us insight on how he will react in pressure situations with others. Will he lie, cheat, double-cross, etc. You know what they say about people who are cruel to animals, right?

                        Comment


                        • Re: Central Dramatic Argument

                          Originally posted by bioprofessor View Post
                          Because his behavior and actions outside of the main conflict informs us of what he's made of, gives us insight on how he will react in pressure situations with others. Will he lie, cheat, double-cross, etc. You know what they say about people who are cruel to pets, right?
                          Good morning Bio.

                          So you agree that the conflict, one man against many, informs us of his character? I am arguing that that is the main conflict, the CDA.

                          P.S. His relationship with Holly is another issue.

                          P.P.S. McClean's internal conflict, his issues with Holly, are only part of his character. Are we watching him resolve this inner conflict throughout the story? Is that what the movie is about? Just asking.
                          Last edited by jonpiper; 01-30-2012, 07:12 AM.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Central Dramatic Argument

                            I'm confused. For those who believe the CDA is not related to the McClane marriage issues, then what is the CDA in Die Hard?
                            Last edited by sc111; 01-30-2012, 07:20 AM.
                            Advice from writer, Kelly Sue DeConnick. "Try this: if you can replace your female character with a sexy lamp and the story still basically works, maybe you need another draft.-

                            Comment


                            • Re: Central Dramatic Argument

                              Originally posted by SundownInRetreat View Post
                              it'd be interesting to look at - though not this thread - how come this CDA strikes such a chord with people but other CDAs in similar movies do not. These type of action movies always have a personal agenda and it's why the tough guy goes it alone.
                              i agree, it would be interesting to know. i think what the film says overall, my takeaway, is that a marriage is hard work; some days you'll feel like you're taking on a tower full of terrorists to make it happen, but it's worth it in the end.

                              is that the cda? i dunno, i've come up with a couple for this film but in retrospect they've been too loose. i think there's a slight range that can fit a film's cda, but i think it should fit all of the film, not just the parts i can subjectively rationalize.
                              life happens
                              despite a few cracked pots-
                              and random sunlight

                              Comment


                              • Re: Central Dramatic Argument

                                Originally posted by jonpiper View Post
                                If McClean wasn't put in that situation we wouldn't have a chance to meet such well developed antagonists, the terrorists, the L.A.P.D brass, the F.B.I. clowns, Holly's boss, the newsman. And the good guys, like Sgt. Powell, the good cop with issues about shooting a gun, McClean, the well trained cop, and Holly the strong woman.

                                What did McClean's being a jerk with Holly have to do with any of that?

                                If the movie was MAINLY about proving McClean was or was not a jerk (or about his character arc) would we have most of what was going on? Perhaps that was the SDA (Secondary Dramatic Argument).
                                Mclane and his wife - set up in Act I.
                                Mclane confession to Powell is in Act II.
                                Mclane and wife kiss and make up is in Act III.

                                The whole John-Holly dynamic runs through the entire film like a piece of rock. And every action we see him take against the baddies - from stubborness to back down, bullishness to continue regardless of the pain he's causing (to the hostages and to himself re: bloodied feet) and his sarcastic comments and arrogance - are all the traits that summised - and ultimately ended - his marriage. You can see how Holly must have suffered,


                                Originally posted by sc111
                                I'm confused. For those who believe the CDA is not related to the McClane marriage issues, then what is the CDA in Die Hard?
                                You can see what you want - as ATB pointed out - but to me, I prefer a CDA that is an argument and one that can be applied to a number of areas. Thus however you want to word the CDA it will be just as applicable to Hans Gruber as Mclane's domestic situation. So it could be something like "anything you really want is worth risking everything for" - and this can be applied to Mclane, Gruber, Powell and that really annoying limo driver.

                                To assume insist the CDA is solely for a marriage - and in an action film - is something I can't understand.
                                Last edited by SundownInRetreat; 01-30-2012, 08:10 AM.
                                M.A.G.A.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X