Structure vs. Substance: The Armageddon

Collapse

Announcement

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

  • #76
    Re: other movies that disprove the theory

    By the way, the end of act two in MINORITY
    REPORT is NOT when Tom Cruise is "haloed."

    Act two culminates with the "low point" when
    Tom learns that "Leo" is not his son's killer -
    and Leo, in turn, is killed - making the precog's
    prediction (of Tom being a murderer) appear
    accurate.

    Ahh. Good point. I totally misidentified where that halo beat happened.

    At least you said it interrupted the dramatic tension so I only have to write "I will not spout off when I am wrong" on the black board a hundred times instead of a thousand.



    I need one of those music class line making five chalk holder things to make this go faster

    Comment


    • #77
      ,

      Whatever happened to that classic MINORITY REPORT thread? Is it lost forever?

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: ,

        I thought this thread was about the classic "asteroid about to destroy earth" film starring thespians Bruce Willis and Ben AFLAC

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: ,

          No you didn't.

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: ,

            I think Zooey has hit on something that makes less than structually perfect scripts and films work: heart.

            It's one of those nebulous things that can't be taught or studied. Sure, a writer can hit a 'stock' emotional button but I think audiences today are more likely to resent it after years of exposure to film. More likely than a movie-viewer in, let's say, 1950.

            To keep in line with the original question - - a script can be structurally perfect and even have a commercial hook, yet lacking heart it also fails.

            Then there's the actor factor - - maybe on the page a character seems only thinly sympathetic, but some actors, just by their look and nature, are inherently sympathetic.

            Zooey gave the example of the Royal Tannenbaums. Structure was really loosey-goosey, but the actors were so much fun to watch, I forgot about it.

            I try really hard to 'forget' what I've learned about structure because it can really kill the film-watching experience for me as a movie lover.

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: ,

              Looking back over this thread I think I may have communicated the wrong idea about my position on theory.

              I was not trying to suggest that my theory was the only theory and all others were wrong.

              I was trying to say that ALL theory (Aristotle, Campbell, Propp, etc...) should not be ignored just because they are called "theories".

              Hope that clears it up.

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: ,

                What about a different analogy?

                I like to think of screenwriting as somewhat akin to archetecture.

                We all need shelter. We'd like windows, doors, rooms. Heat would be nice, as would AC in hotter climes.

                In architechture, the needs are the same; the means to fulfill those needs are infinite.

                I can build a cob house, with mud and straw and my own two hands.

                I can build a space-age dome structure out of neoprene and velcro.

                I can build a traditional craftsman home, circa 1917, with exposed beams and a brick driveway.

                There are "rules" in architecture, and they mostly have to do with geometry and physics.

                How one uses those "rules" and builds the house to ones own specs is up to the architect.

                It seems to me that screenwriting is nearly the same; We operate with a number of givens, those that seem to have a proven impact on an audience, then taylor those givens for the story being told.

                Make sense?

                I was a long-time resister of "the rules", until I realized that even my most independent, esoteric works were immensely helped by an underlying structure.

                Now, I love to work within the framework of universally accepted structures in order to decorate and design my "houses".

                Apologies for my rough analagies.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Floating

                  Looking back over this thread I think I may have communicated the wrong idea about my position on theory.

                  I was not trying to suggest that my theory was the only theory and all others were wrong.

                  I was trying to say that ALL theory (Aristotle, Campbell, Propp, etc...) should not be ignored just because they are called "theories".

                  Hope that clears it up.
                  This debate began once I said that what you were posting was an opinion. I never once "dismissed' or "ignored" the theory you were speaking of, and several times I reminded you that I agree with the theory.

                  Yes, there are many theories regarding structure, which proves that they are opinions, not facts.

                  As I sit and type this, I'm noticng that I am not floating around in my room. And neither are any of the objects in my room. I wonder why that is.

                  Aren't the theories concerning gravity meant to explain how it works, not that it does in fact exist? Because it does.

                  I'm not floating.

                  And neither is this dead horse that I'm beating.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: Floating

                    It's your opinion that what Deus posted was opinion.



                    ... pondering the worth of making such an statement.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: Floating

                      It's your opinion that what Deus posted was opinion.
                      It's your opinion that what I posted about Deus is an opinion...

                      ...this could go on forever.

                      Someone else said it earlier - gravity is a matter of physics and structure theory is a matter of psychology.

                      Subjects of physics, such as gravity - you can scientifically prove or disprove their existence. It's either gonna fall or float. It's that simple.

                      Theories of structure arise as conceptual thought from the brain of humans.

                      Gravity is an immediate and observable phenomenon that does exist, regardless of your interpretation of it. If you're sitting in your chair right now, you are experiencing gravity. That's a fact.

                      This is way beyond apples and oranges, but entertaining nonetheless.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        garden state

                        just a quick answer to an earlier question, about whether or not zach braff had been in scrubs / whether or not that had any influence.

                        i think he was in scrubs, it was not noted. only thing noted was that natalie portman was attached (and i believe he actually said he had a hard time finding funding until she got involved)

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: garden state

                          That makes sense. She was/is a bigger star than him.

                          Thanks for the info.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: not an exact science

                            As soon as the hero is caught and imprisoned, all dramatic momentum stops
                            I think the movie should have ended right there. That would have been a great ending.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X