An interesting take on "formulaic" writing

Collapse

Announcement

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

  • An interesting take on "formulaic" writing

    There is now a lot of hand-wringing among Hollywood studio executives and producers about why so many major movies are failing at the box office. Here is an interesting article from SLATE on the fact that virtually all Hollywood movies today follow the Blake Snyder "beat sheet" structural model from SAVE THE CAT.

    http://www.slate.com/sidebars/2013/0...the_movie.html

    The question, of course, is whether the studios and prodcos will change course at all -- or stick with formulaic writing.
    AND: Perhaps the many pros who have posted at DD and denied there was ever a "formula" for successful writing will provide their take on/response to this article. Could make for an interesting and timely debate.

  • #2
    Re: An interesting take on "formulaic" writing

    Most of those "beats" existed before Snyder. I agree that stories are not best served when "reverse engineered," but a vast majority of films prior to Save The Cat fit the same structure.

    I don't think that's "why so many major movies are failing at the box office."

    I think there are just so many fvcking movies at the box office, now. Audiences just can't support them all. It's a competitive industry. And failure is part of competition.

    I don't think The Lone Ranger bombed because it followed a beat sheet. I think it was a 200 million dollar western.

    I don't think White House Down was a bad movie because it followed a beat sheet. I think it was a 150 million dollar mistake to release it only months after Olympus Has Fallen. Audiences felt they'd already seen that movie.

    And I don't think After Earth was bad because it followed a beat sheet. I think it was a 150 million dollar bet that people would embrace Will Smith's son the same way they have embraced him. They didn't.

    These aren't films that followed too closely to a formula. These were films with bloated budgets and impractical expectations.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: An interesting take on "formulaic" writing

      ATB: It is an indisputable fact that total U.S. box office grosses are down 19% from last year -- in the middle of summer blockbuster/tentpole season. You can easily confirm that statistic yourself. That is a SERIOUS problem for Hollywood, especially since production and marketing costs are INCREASING.
      If you know anything at all about business (industry) in general, you understand that declining revenues combined with rising costs are a death knell. Period. And studio executives and the entities that fund Hollywood (capital markets) absolutely understand that.
      It is also an indisputable fact that young, tech savvy people -- the same audience Hollywood covets now over all other demographics -- are increasingly getting their entertainment from mobile devices, NOT cineplexes.
      Please feel free to dispute any of those facts. It makes no difference to me at all.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: An interesting take on "formulaic" writing

        Shagbark?

        In the 100th episode of their Scriptnotes podcast, the taping of which I had the great pleasure of attending, John August and Craig Mazin discuss this with their guests. Stay tuned. It will be "as if an explosion ripped through Hollywood," only without the cake and champagne to follow.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: An interesting take on "formulaic" writing

          Originally posted by jtwg50 View Post
          ATB: It is an indisputable fact that total U.S. box office grosses are down 19% from last year -- in the middle of summer blockbuster/tentpole season. You can easily confirm that statistic yourself. That is a SERIOUS problem for Hollywood, especially since production and marketing costs are INCREASING.
          If you know anything at all about business (industry) in general, you understand that declining revenues combined with rising costs are a death knell. Period. And studio executives and the entities that fund Hollywood (capital markets) absolutely understand that.
          It is also an indisputable fact that young, tech savvy people -- the same audience Hollywood covets now over all other demographics -- are increasingly getting their entertainment from mobile devices, NOT cineplexes.
          Please feel free to dispute any of those facts. It makes no difference to me at all.
          Your post confuses/conflates many things and is wrong in many, many ways. But since you say it makes no difference to you if anyone disputes your "facts" (it's not so much the facts that you have wrong, it's their meaning), I won't expend any time or energy to explain.

          Oh, except for this: Hollywood is not in the movie theater business; it's in the entertainment production business. One of its retail channels is not doing so well, and that's a problem (for the industry, for some companies, but not for all companies); but again, that is not their business, and so a drop in BO, while painful, is in no way a "death knell" (as you say) for Hollywood. There would only be a "death knell" for Hollywood if/when people stopped consuming moving-picture entertainment.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: An interesting take on "formulaic" writing

            BS is just a guideline, like using three acts. What is more concerning is the USE OF COMPUTER MODELS. Non- models should be labeled as such, like the MPAA ratings before a trailer, "This is a non-computer model production." Think "Non-GMO"

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: An interesting take on "formulaic" writing

              Originally posted by jtwg50 View Post
              ATB: It is an indisputable fact that total U.S. box office grosses are down 19% from last year -- in the middle of summer blockbuster/tentpole season. You can easily confirm that statistic yourself. That is a SERIOUS problem for Hollywood, especially since production and marketing costs are INCREASING.
              If you know anything at all about business (industry) in general, you understand that declining revenues combined with rising costs are a death knell. Period. And studio executives and the entities that fund Hollywood (capital markets) absolutely understand that.
              It is also an indisputable fact that young, tech savvy people -- the same audience Hollywood covets now over all other demographics -- are increasingly getting their entertainment from mobile devices, NOT cineplexes.
              Please feel free to dispute any of those facts. It makes no difference to me at all.
              Where are you getting the 19% figure? Went and looked for it - and while I see a lot of articles mentioning a 19% drop - couldn't find the actual numbers. I went and looked at Box Office Mojo and YTD grosses seem to be only down 1.2%.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: An interesting take on "formulaic" writing

                Don't you guys know that jtwg50 is a world-famous journalist with hundreds of years of experience in all things written? Though I'm still waiting to see his movie or documentary or slide show or whatever he's working on now...

                By the way, someone posted this on FB, and I agree with it:

                http://goodinaroom.com/blog/real-rea...es-bad-movies/

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: An interesting take on "formulaic" writing

                  Originally posted by jtwg50 View Post
                  ATB: It is an indisputable fact that total U.S. box office grosses are down 19% from last year -- in the middle of summer blockbuster/tentpole season. You can easily confirm that statistic yourself. That is a SERIOUS problem for Hollywood, especially since production and marketing costs are INCREASING.
                  If you know anything at all about business (industry) in general, you understand that declining revenues combined with rising costs are a death knell. Period. And studio executives and the entities that fund Hollywood (capital markets) absolutely understand that.
                  It is also an indisputable fact that young, tech savvy people -- the same audience Hollywood covets now over all other demographics -- are increasingly getting their entertainment from mobile devices, NOT cineplexes.
                  Please feel free to dispute any of those facts. It makes no difference to me at all.

                  Other than getting the percentage wrong as pointed out above (per box office mojo, unless you have a more reliable undisputable source), are we to assume that this to the beat sheets causing all the issues only started in the last year, since takings are up on 2011?

                  Could it be that last year the Avengers was out. The equivalent film this year is Iron Man 2, which is several hundred million behind in box office takings. Switch the release years of these two and 2013 is up on 2012.

                  I couldn't find the worldwide stats, but we're always hearing about how important China is becoming, anyone know if worldwide takings are up or down?

                  If we do go with your undisputable facts, that costs are up and takings are down it's a death knell, well lots of businesses do survive when this happens - could be they were making huge profits to begin with and can get by making less, maybe they cut costs, maybe they evolve and change the way they do things. So, to basically say it's all Blake Snyder and beat sheets fault is incredibly simplistic, may as well blame for the cavemen for inventing the 3 act structure.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: An interesting take on "formulaic" writing

                    Is it just me or did this conversation suddenly go from the topic of "formulaic writing" to box office and statistics...

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: An interesting take on "formulaic" writing

                      Originally posted by ATB View Post
                      I think there are just so many fvcking movies at the box office, now. Audiences just can't support them all. It's a competitive industry. And failure is part of competition.
                      You're spot on. I remember back in 1996 when ID4 was slated to come out. There was so much hype. It was all I or anyone else could talk about. In fact, it and Twister were the only blockbusters from March to August -- THE ONLY ONES! -- Unless you count "Meteor Man"

                      Now look at 2013. Look how many blockbusters we've had since March: Olympus, Oblivion, Iron Man, Star Trek, Fast 6, After Earth, Man of Steel, WWZ, White House Down, Lone Ranger, Pacific Rim, Wolverine, Elysium.

                      Modern audiences can't tell left from right. It's basic economics. When you only have two products to choose from, everyone buys them. When you flood the market with 13, people get very picky. The end result: some big winners and some big losers at the Box Office.
                      I'm never wrong. Reality is just stubborn.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: An interesting take on "formulaic" writing

                        Box office is down 1.2% from last year's **record** box office and **record** ticket sales. Last year (and STC existed last year as well) sold more *tickets* than any year since the mid-1980s.

                        Here's the thing: I write a script using STC as my absolute guide. A million rewrites later by a dozen different writers following the notes of a half dozen studio execs who don't even know what STC is, plus movies stars and directors and all of the others who have never heard of STC... how does the resulting movie (flop or hit) have anything to do with STC?

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

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: An interesting take on "formulaic" writing

                          Originally posted by wcmartell View Post
                          Box office is down 1.2% from last year's **record** box office and **record** ticket sales. Last year (and STC existed last year as well) sold more *tickets* than any year since the mid-1980s.

                          Here's the thing: I write a script using STC as my absolute guide. A million rewrites later by a dozen different writers following the notes of a half dozen studio execs who don't even know what STC is, plus movies stars and directors and all of the others who have never heard of STC... how does the resulting movie (flop or hit) have anything to do with STC?

                          - Bill
                          I think people who aren't screenwriters (like the Slate journalist) are looking at the finished product and saying that they all have almost all of the same beats and pointing to Snyder's formula as the root of the problem.

                          Which is mostly true. They also get tested the same way and go through the wringer the same way, so it's inevitable.

                          But its mostly because massive corporations are making massively expensive movies and are only going on a guide of what was profitable before, just like McDonalds makes hamburgers. Sure they could make a Spiderman movie like Pulp Fiction with heroin and no 3 act structure, but they're not willing to risk profitability for any artistic value...because corporations don't care about artistic value they care about one thing...MONEY

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: An interesting take on "formulaic" writing

                            Originally posted by ATB View Post
                            These (box-office failures) aren't films that followed too closely to a formula. These were films with bloated budgets and impractical expectations.
                            Which speaks to a flawed development process, plus out-of-control egos, far more than 3-act structure to STC.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: An interesting take on "formulaic" writing

                              Originally posted by FoxHound View Post
                              Now look at 2013. Look how many blockbusters we've had since March: Olympus, Oblivion, Iron Man, Star Trek, Fast 6, After Earth, Man of Steel, WWZ, White House Down, Lone Ranger, Pacific Rim, Wolverine, Elysium.

                              Modern audiences can't tell left from right.
                              I certainly feel that way. And none of them look special...they're all interchangeable. Hell, the two White House siege movies were the same darn story...or looked that way.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X