Page 14.

Collapse

Announcement

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

  • #16
    Re: Page 14.

    Originally posted by Ronaldinho View Post
    Here's the thing:

    The opening of Die Hard isn't slow.

    And it isn't slow for one, simple reason: We see character revealed by conflict.

    I feel like "you have to start with a big action scene" is a mis-translation of the original aramaic which would be more properly read: "You have to start with conflict."

    That conflict can be a big action scene, but it doesn't have to be. It has to be conflict: want meeting obstacle.

    You feel the story moving forward.
    I think you're all way over-analyzing it. When I was 10 and watched Die Hard for the first time, I wasn't glued to the screen because of subtle conflict and minute character reveals. There were two reasons A) Bruce Willis' face was fu*kin' amazing / lovable -- Like H. Ford's -- and B) I knew some insane, wild action was coming up soon. So there was a lot of nerves, anticipation.

    Now, had Burt Reynolds and his mustache starred -- he turned down the role. The whole film would've imploded. And this thread would be about forgotten action flicks from 1988.
    I'm never wrong. Reality is just stubborn.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Page 14.

      Burt Reynolds was way down the list for DIE HARD. First choice was Sinatra, then Mitchum. The film is a sequel to a Sinatra movie.

      Bill
      Free Script Tips:
      http://www.scriptsecrets.net

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Page 14.

        From what I've read in interviews of writers and some books on the craft, the first ten minutes of the story it is important to make a statement as to what kind of genre the following story will be told in.

        Obviously ten pages in a broad timeline, that principle alone is saying it does not have to be page 1 or the first beat. That event the writer chooses to really brand the story needs to make a statement. Like the opening scene of Seven at the murder scene of the fat guy. From that point on we are pretty clear as to what kind of movie this will be.

        And I am one of those writers that fully believe in writing a really rough draft from the gut that is not worried about character arcs and plot points. No censorship. No judgment. Forget about all techniques and principles and just go, put yourself on a daily page count and do it. Story first and craftsmanship later.

        I heard John Truby say in an interview once that the art of writing was the most difficult discipline of the arts to master. There are literally hundreds of story techniques that need to be mastered by the writer before they could be on the same playing field as someone who is a professional writer. I don't know if that is true or not, but scary thought if it is.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Page 14.

          Originally posted by Eric Boellner View Post

          P.S. Can I call you Ronald? I feel like Ronaldinho is short for Ronald in Hollywood, but if I'm wrong that's cool too haha
          Just call me Ron. That's what most people actually call me.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Page 14.

            Originally posted by Eric Boellner View Post
            Well said. It's highly possible that I jumbled a bunch of advice together and simplified it in my mind to become what I've been calling "pressure." I didn't mean that I agreed with that pressure at all - I think you have a great way of putting it: there needs to be conflict early on.
            Well, I think this is one of many areas where good advice has gotten watered down and simplified to the point where it becomes bad advice.

            And the problem is that you sometimes then hear that bad advice coming out of development exec's mouths. One of my most frustrating development experiences was trying to get someone to understand Ripley's non-arc in Alien, because "characters have to arc." They agreed that Alien was the model we were using, but they couldn't understand how a lead could not arc.

            Originally posted by Cyfress View Post
            From what I've read in interviews of writers and some books on the craft, the first ten minutes of the story it is important to make a statement as to what kind of genre the following story will be told in.
            One game I like to play, sometimes, is to watch the opening of a movie and ask myself, "What do I know about this story and how do I know it?"

            And it's worthwhile doing that with a bunch of films you love. It's certainly more valuable than taking anyone else's word for it. And Bill pointed out, we get a fairly classic Chekhov's gun in the first scene. And in Die Hard there are some tonal clue which wouldn't make it in a script (e.g., the score).

            But one of the interesting things about DH, to me, is that so many of those early scenes could work in a drama. They all have very clearly conflict. There's still a movie here if Hans and his buddies don't show up - it's a very different movie, but its still a movie.

            That, to me, is why this opening works. You trust the storytelling because you have character being revealed by conflict and the story is clearly moving forward.

            Remember that Willis wasn't an action star when this was made, too. He was known mostly for Moonlighting.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Page 14.

              Even in the Gruber-less Drama version of Die Hard Ellis still gets killed for being a complete *******.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Page 14.

                Die Hard indicates an action movie because the plane is landing. Now if the plane were taking off it would be a journey of self discovery movie.

                So... plane lands. Action.

                Puts it out there in two seconds.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Page 14.

                  Originally posted by wcmartell View Post
                  Burt Reynolds was way down the list for DIE HARD. First choice was Sinatra, then Mitchum. The film is a sequel to a Sinatra movie.

                  Bill
                  Ya, I know, but Sinatra was 73 at the time. Either way, the movie would never have reached its epic, blockbuster status.
                  I'm never wrong. Reality is just stubborn.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Page 14.

                    Originally posted by wcmartell View Post
                    Burt Reynolds was way down the list for DIE HARD. First choice was Sinatra, then Mitchum. The film is a sequel to a Sinatra movie.

                    Bill
                    Sequel to which Sinatra movie?

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Page 14.

                      The Detective (kinda)

                      http://www.todayifoundout.com/index....role-die-hard/

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X