quote:

ORIGINAL: Harry Tuttle

Why have you used 3 posts to answer one post?

Why requote bits of a post when you've already quoted it all but 2 posts previously?

Why not just break the original post down into multiple points in one post?

Plus IMO only one person on this thread is displaying troll like tendencies and it ain't Prophet.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MonsterCat

I don't know if I should laugh or cry at this thread.

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

 

Twice in two days. Can you guess which post you should have thought and not hit post on?

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

 

Twice in two days. Can you guess which post you should have thought and not hit post on?

I think, again, you're defining arguments that no-one is really having. I haven't even got a clue what your response to me means as it's got nothing to do with what I actually posted. You are the one that first brought up the idea about 'objective' criteria, e.g., Prophet just said criteria

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

The Three Act Struture is king in big studio films. It isn't the only stuture, and some big hits have used different ways, but it is struture by which big blockbusters tend to be formed. It is tried and tested and is just the way the studios works.

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49


So, again, quit calling troll

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

The Three Act Struture is king in big studio films. It isn't the only stuture, and some big hits have used different ways, but it is struture by which big blockbusters tend to be formed. It is tried and tested and is just the way the studios works.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prophet_of_Doom

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

The Three Act Struture is king in big studio films. It isn't the only stuture, and some big hits have used different ways, but it is struture by which big blockbusters tend to be formed. It is tried and tested and is just the way the studios works.

This is something of a myth though. The three act structure is the basic foundation of screenwriting 101, regardless of whether you're making a $60m film in Hollywood or a $1000 independent film in Lyon. Yes, there are exceptions, and I'm not saying it's a 'rule' but it's like French cuisine.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prophet_of_Doom

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

The Three Act Struture is king in big studio films. It isn't the only stuture, and some big hits have used different ways, but it is struture by which big blockbusters tend to be formed. It is tried and tested and is just the way the studios works.

This is something of a myth though. The three act structure is the basic foundation of screenwriting 101, regardless of whether you're making a $60m film in Hollywood or a $1000 independent film in Lyon. Yes, there are exceptions, and I'm not saying it's a 'rule' but it's like French cuisine. You don't have to use oil, but everyone does, because it works! And if you're discussing a script with some cigar chewing producer in LA, an upcoming European director at a tiny film festival, or with a development head at the BBC, they'll still focus on the first and second turning points/plot points. It's the universal language for a reason. It might sound like I'm lecturing my first class at film school, but it really is that simple. You do get films that break that form and if they succeed they stand out. But there are many, many, many more who try and fail (you only have to spend your time at the numerous film festivals to witness some of the atrocities to cinema which have resulted in those 'cleverly' attempting to break from the guiding principles of the medium).

quote:

ORIGINAL: cerebusboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

The Three Act Struture is king in big studio films. It isn't the only stuture, and some big hits have used different ways, but it is struture by which big blockbusters tend to be formed. It is tried and tested and is just the way the studios works.

Right. It is not a 'Rule' i.e. something Movies Must Have to Be Good. C.f. also prophet's tick-box invocations of 'Character' and 'Story'.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prophet_of_Doom

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

The Three Act Struture is king in big studio films. It isn't the only stuture, and some big hits have used different ways, but it is struture by which big blockbusters tend to be formed. It is tried and tested and is just the way the studios works.

This is something of a myth though. The three act structure is the basic foundation of screenwriting 101, regardless of whether you're making a $60m film in Hollywood or a $1000 independent film in Lyon. Yes, there are exceptions, and I'm not saying it's a 'rule' but it's like French cuisine. You don't have to use oil, but everyone does, because it works! And if you're discussing a script with some cigar chewing producer in LA, an upcoming European director at a tiny film festival, or with a development head at the BBC, they'll still focus on the first and second turning points/plot points. It's the universal language for a reason. It might sound like I'm lecturing my first class at film school, but it really is that simple. You do get films that break that form and if they succeed they stand out. But there are many, many, many more who try and fail (you only have to spend your time at the numerous film festivals to witness some of the atrocities to cinema which have resulted in those 'cleverly' attempting to break from the guiding principles of the medium).

I think we are mixing up to things here -

Every film has a beginning, a middle and an end. Three acts.

But the Three Act Struture is different. In that it is

Act 1: Set up hero and problem
Act 2: Hero acts to resolve problem, but ends up in a worse situation
Act 3. Hero finally wins the day

It is a much more specific and about conflict/resolution.

So in a way...you are both kinda right.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prophet_of_Doom




This is something of a myth though. The three act structure is the basic foundation of screenwriting 101,

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

quote:

ORIGINAL: cerebusboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

The Three Act Struture is king in big studio films. It isn't the only stuture, and some big hits have used different ways, but it is struture by which big blockbusters tend to be formed. It is tried and tested and is just the way the studios works.

Right. It is not a 'Rule' i.e. something Movies Must Have to Be Good. C.f. also prophet's tick-box invocations of 'Character' and 'Story'.

And as Rgirvan said - there are two things being conflated here. Something I didn't help by using the term classical narrative instead of saying what I meant.

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

If you want pick at a phrase like that and discuss a philsophy of life, I'd suggest an off-topic thread. Philosophy guff tends to go in there. Kilo's probably already started a thread on it though.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cerebusboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

quote:

ORIGINAL: cerebusboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

The Three Act Struture is king in big studio films. It isn't the only stuture, and some big hits have used different ways, but it is struture by which big blockbusters tend to be formed. It is tried and tested and is just the way the studios works.

Right. It is not a 'Rule' i.e. something Movies Must Have to Be Good. C.f. also prophet's tick-box invocations of 'Character' and 'Story'.

And as Rgirvan said - there are two things being conflated here. Something I didn't help by using the term classical narrative instead of saying what I meant.

It's also worth noting that some of my replies were in the context of prophet saying stories , like "everything in life", has beginnings, middle and ends. I'd think most people would say that their latter years are more like epilogue then ending in the Hollywood sense. I'd maintain that the Three Act Structure is a construct imposed *on* experience, not a neutral understanding of it, making it needlessly limiting to assume that film makers must slavishly follow it (and you'll note that I supported Malick and Kubrick to support my argument).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Writing-Movies-Fun-Profit-Billion/dp/1439186758/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1345464715&sr=8-1

Best book about Hollywood screenwriting in recent years.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

quote:

ORIGINAL: cerebusboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

quote:

ORIGINAL: cerebusboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

The Three Act Struture is king in big studio films. It isn't the only stuture, and some big hits have used different ways, but it is struture by which big blockbusters tend to be formed. It is tried and tested and is just the way the studios works.

Right. It is not a 'Rule' i.e. something Movies Must Have to Be Good. C.f. also prophet's tick-box invocations of 'Character' and 'Story'.

And as Rgirvan said - there are two things being conflated here. Something I didn't help by using the term classical narrative instead of saying what I meant.

It's also worth noting that some of my replies were in the context of prophet saying stories , like "everything in life", has beginnings, middle and ends. I'd think most people would say that their latter years are more like epilogue then ending in the Hollywood sense. I'd maintain that the Three Act Structure is a construct imposed *on* experience, not a neutral understanding of it, making it needlessly limiting to assume that film makers must slavishly follow it (and you'll note that I supported Malick and Kubrick to support my argument).

The three act struture forms naturally from the fact that narrative has to start, and then stop.

It can be an emotional three acts, it can even have little mini acts within each part (2001 has this) but the form dictates the struture.

So PoD is right in the sense that every movie has those blocks. But the traditonal narrative cinema takes it futher with guidelines (set up in first ten pages. Hero doesn't step up straight away etc end of second act dumps hero in worse situation etc and so on) which some directors don't do...but even there a three act struture exists.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cerebusboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

quote:

ORIGINAL: cerebusboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

quote:

ORIGINAL: cerebusboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

The Three Act Struture is king in big studio films. It isn't the only stuture, and some big hits have used different ways, but it is struture by which big blockbusters tend to be formed. It is tried and tested and is just the way the studios works.

Right. It is not a 'Rule' i.e. something Movies Must Have to Be Good. C.f. also prophet's tick-box invocations of 'Character' and 'Story'.

And as Rgirvan said - there are two things being conflated here. Something I didn't help by using the term classical narrative instead of saying what I meant.

It's also worth noting that some of my replies were in the context of prophet saying stories , like "everything in life", has beginnings, middle and ends. I'd think most people would say that their latter years are more like epilogue then ending in the Hollywood sense. I'd maintain that the Three Act Structure is a construct imposed *on* experience, not a neutral understanding of it, making it needlessly limiting to assume that film makers must slavishly follow it (and you'll note that I supported Malick and Kubrick to support my argument).

The three act struture forms naturally from the fact that narrative has to start, and then stop.

It can be an emotional three acts, it can even have little mini acts within each part (2001 has this) but the form dictates the struture.

So PoD is right in the sense that every movie has those blocks. But the traditonal narrative cinema takes it futher with guidelines (set up in first ten pages. Hero doesn't step up straight away etc end of second act dumps hero in worse situation etc and so on) which some directors don't do...but even there a three act struture exists.

Yeah, but even talking of a 'hero' suggests another 'rule' that is no such thing (who's the 'hero' in Magnolia?). All narratives technically 'start' (when you open the book, the opening scene of the film rolls) and end (when you reach the last page, credits) but I don't think you can say that that necessarily implies validation of the presuppositions behind the Three Act Structure.

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

There are plenty of films where the push to action, the conflict event doesn't occur - films that just start then stop. Films that not only ignore classical narrative but flout the reductive 3 act. But the classical narrative is normally the classical Hollywood narrative for a reason.

None of which is remotely relevant to whether Expendables 2 is less shit than last time or not. PoD's original point of looking at stuff like story, dialogue and character hardly justified all this.

So - back to Expendables 2. If you want to discuss Filmmaking 101 then do as PoD suggested earlier - go to Filmmaker's Workshop. This is off-topic for this thread so be nice and leave it to people wanting to discuss the actual film.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prophet_of_Doom

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

There are plenty of films where the push to action, the conflict event doesn't occur - films that just start then stop. Films that not only ignore classical narrative but flout the reductive 3 act. But the classical narrative is normally the classical Hollywood narrative for a reason.

None of which is remotely relevant to whether Expendables 2 is less shit than last time or not. PoD's original point of looking at stuff like story, dialogue and character hardly justified all this.

So - back to Expendables 2. If you want to discuss Filmmaking 101 then do as PoD suggested earlier - go to Filmmaker's Workshop. This is off-topic for this thread so be nice and leave it to people wanting to discuss the actual film.

Yes, sorry, kind of my fault for continually dragging the fetid carcass of this thread into inappropriate places. Expendables 2 related comments only henceforth!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

quote:

ORIGINAL: cerebusboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

quote:

ORIGINAL: cerebusboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

quote:

ORIGINAL: cerebusboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

The Three Act Struture is king in big studio films. It isn't the only stuture, and some big hits have used different ways, but it is struture by which big blockbusters tend to be formed. It is tried and tested and is just the way the studios works.

Right. It is not a 'Rule' i.e. something Movies Must Have to Be Good. C.f. also prophet's tick-box invocations of 'Character' and 'Story'.

And as Rgirvan said - there are two things being conflated here. Something I didn't help by using the term classical narrative instead of saying what I meant.

It's also worth noting that some of my replies were in the context of prophet saying stories , like "everything in life", has beginnings, middle and ends. I'd think most people would say that their latter years are more like epilogue then ending in the Hollywood sense. I'd maintain that the Three Act Structure is a construct imposed *on* experience, not a neutral understanding of it, making it needlessly limiting to assume that film makers must slavishly follow it (and you'll note that I supported Malick and Kubrick to support my argument).

The three act struture forms naturally from the fact that narrative has to start, and then stop.

It can be an emotional three acts, it can even have little mini acts within each part (2001 has this) but the form dictates the struture.

So PoD is right in the sense that every movie has those blocks. But the traditonal narrative cinema takes it futher with guidelines (set up in first ten pages. Hero doesn't step up straight away etc end of second act dumps hero in worse situation etc and so on) which some directors don't do...but even there a three act struture exists.

Yeah, but even talking of a 'hero' suggests another 'rule' that is no such thing (who's the 'hero' in Magnolia?). All narratives technically 'start' (when you open the book, the opening scene of the film rolls) and end (when you reach the last page, credits) but I don't think you can say that that necessarily implies validation of the presuppositions behind the Three Act Structure.

But Magnolia is the sort of thing I am refering to when it comes to emotional three acts.

Each of those characters is at a certain point of their life. Something happens to shift their emotional state, and then finale is catharsis for the characters.

The "hero" is a reference to Hollywood, studio based films. That is the point I am making. The is a basic three act built within film, which is brought out more in blockbusters.