Register  |   Log In  |  
Sign up to our weekly newsletter    
Follow us on   
Search   
Forum Home Register for Free! Log In Moderator Tickets FAQ Users Online

RE: The Expendables 2

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> RE: The Expendables 2 Page: <<   < prev  6 7 8 [9] 10   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: The Expendables 2 - 20/8/2012 12:02:38 PM   
MonsterCat


Posts: 7934
Joined: 24/3/2011
From: St. Albans, Hertfordshire
I don't know if I should laugh or cry at this thread.

_____________________________

"I am a writer, a doctor, a nuclear physicist and a theoretical philosopher. But above all, I am a man, a hopelessly inquisitive man, just like you."

Films watched in 2013

(in reply to Harry Tuttle)
Post #: 241
RE: The Expendables 2 - 20/8/2012 12:03:10 PM   
Rgirvan44


Posts: 19049
Joined: 10/3/2006
From: Punishment Park
You are one post away from 6666 Tuttle.

Use it well.

< Message edited by Rgirvan44 -- 20/8/2012 12:04:30 PM >


_____________________________

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.


(in reply to Harry Tuttle)
Post #: 242
RE: The Expendables 2 - 20/8/2012 12:03:21 PM   
cerebusboy


Posts: 1552
Joined: 1/5/2006

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.



I was unaware that there were any rules on these things. You can appreciate that there might be legitimate reasons for not posting in such a way. If there WERE any rules in this area then I would, of course, endevour to comply fully with them.

(in reply to Harry Tuttle)
Post #: 243
RE: The Expendables 2 - 20/8/2012 12:04:32 PM   
cerebusboy


Posts: 1552
Joined: 1/5/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: MonsterCat

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


You can do both.

Expendables 2 is great though, excellent action movie that does all the things the first movie tried and failed to do.

(in reply to MonsterCat)
Post #: 244
RE: The Expendables 2 - 20/8/2012 12:09:04 PM   
elab49


Posts: 54599
Joined: 1/10/2005
 

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. I don't agree with Prophet on the absolutism of the 3 act structure, but then I think that's normally seen as synonymous and confused with the classical narrative a la Hollywood. But there are ways and means of having a discussion and disagreeing without making it sound like a playground spat.

So, again, quit calling troll and if you think you've got a valid argument to make that someone is one - PM a Mod and leave it off the Board please.

_____________________________

Lips Together and Blow - blogtasticness and Glasgow Film Festival GFF13!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation] LIKE AMERICA'S SWEETHEARTS TOO. IT MADE ME LAUGH A LOT AND THOUGHT IT WAS WITTY. ALSO I FEEL SLOWLY DYING INSIDE. I KEEP AGREEING WITH ELAB.


Annual Poll 2013 - All Lists Welcome

(in reply to cerebusboy)
Post #: 245
RE: The Expendables 2 - 20/8/2012 12:11:22 PM   
cerebusboy


Posts: 1552
Joined: 1/5/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

 

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



All of them?

To be honest, I found your own reply a bit curious - I wasn't referring to members' posting habits on sites outwith here, I was talking specifically about a Five Star member HERE objecting to newbs/irregular posters starting up old threads.

But, point taken. Sorry.

(in reply to elab49)
Post #: 246
RE: The Expendables 2 - 20/8/2012 12:12:55 PM   
Rgirvan44


Posts: 19049
Joined: 10/3/2006
From: Punishment Park
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.


_____________________________

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.


(in reply to elab49)
Post #: 247
RE: The Expendables 2 - 20/8/2012 12:13:40 PM   
cerebusboy


Posts: 1552
Joined: 1/5/2006

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



He then tried to elevate the criteria in a supposed 'Rule', which are indeed supposed to be 'objective' (otherwise you couldn't really measure anything against it could you!) . I cited Kubrick and Malick. He unsurprisingly resorted to name-calling as a 'rule' that has so many and so significant disproofs of its claims is no such thing.

And I'd maintain that his Enlighten the Masses (does he really believe that I've not heard of the three-act structure? Jesus Christ) was far more patronising than anything I posted.

That said, sorry, point taken.

(in reply to elab49)
Post #: 248
RE: The Expendables 2 - 20/8/2012 12:14:50 PM   
cerebusboy


Posts: 1552
Joined: 1/5/2006

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'.

(in reply to Rgirvan44)
Post #: 249
RE: The Expendables 2 - 20/8/2012 12:23:02 PM   
cerebusboy


Posts: 1552
Joined: 1/5/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49


So, again, quit calling troll


That was in response to prophet gloating about getting under my skin i.e. celebrating winding people up. That's trollish behaviour. Some of my comments might have been unfairly perceived as belligerent, which I obviously regret, but it's still true that I'm certainly not here to wind anyone up or provoke needless arguments.

(in reply to elab49)
Post #: 250
RE: The Expendables 2 - 20/8/2012 12:26:13 PM   
Rgirvan44


Posts: 19049
Joined: 10/3/2006
From: Punishment Park
I think maybe because I saw this myself, and sober, it wasn't quite as fun for me as the first one.

These movies will never be the classics of their genre, but will make for decent rainy Sunday afternoon fare.

_____________________________

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.


(in reply to cerebusboy)
Post #: 251
RE: The Expendables 2 - 20/8/2012 12:42:03 PM   
Prophet_of_Doom

 

Posts: 756
Joined: 15/2/2006

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).

(in reply to Rgirvan44)
Post #: 252
RE: The Expendables 2 - 20/8/2012 12:43:36 PM   
cerebusboy


Posts: 1552
Joined: 1/5/2006

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.



Except that's exactly what you were doing, like, a couple of pages ago.

(in reply to Prophet_of_Doom)
Post #: 253
RE: The Expendables 2 - 20/8/2012 12:47:50 PM   
Rgirvan44


Posts: 19049
Joined: 10/3/2006
From: Punishment Park
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 two 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.



< Message edited by Rgirvan44 -- 20/8/2012 1:04:24 PM >


_____________________________

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.


(in reply to Prophet_of_Doom)
Post #: 254
RE: The Expendables 2 - 20/8/2012 12:54:22 PM   
elab49


Posts: 54599
Joined: 1/10/2005
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.

_____________________________

Lips Together and Blow - blogtasticness and Glasgow Film Festival GFF13!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation] LIKE AMERICA'S SWEETHEARTS TOO. IT MADE ME LAUGH A LOT AND THOUGHT IT WAS WITTY. ALSO I FEEL SLOWLY DYING INSIDE. I KEEP AGREEING WITH ELAB.


Annual Poll 2013 - All Lists Welcome

(in reply to cerebusboy)
Post #: 255
RE: The Expendables 2 - 20/8/2012 12:56:56 PM   
Prophet_of_Doom

 

Posts: 756
Joined: 15/2/2006

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.




But that three act structure still applies, regardless of the kind of film. Anyway, this is probably more suitable for the film makers forum!

So, back on topic, Expendables 2. I enjoyed it. But couldn't help thinking ... you're all rather old aren't you? Sly is starting to look like his mother. Van Damme too. And I don't even know what Van Damme's mother looks like, but there was something strange going on with his makeup.

(in reply to Rgirvan44)
Post #: 256
RE: The Expendables 2 - 20/8/2012 1:07:05 PM   
cerebusboy


Posts: 1552
Joined: 1/5/2006
quote:

ORIGINAL: Prophet_of_Doom




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


101 being basic, elementary college classes imparting "knowledge" that is supplanted by more advanced and complex information later? Your analogy has merits, but not in the way you think.


(in reply to Prophet_of_Doom)
Post #: 257
RE: The Expendables 2 - 20/8/2012 1:10:44 PM   
cerebusboy


Posts: 1552
Joined: 1/5/2006

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).


(in reply to elab49)
Post #: 258
RE: The Expendables 2 - 20/8/2012 1:12:42 PM   
Rgirvan44


Posts: 19049
Joined: 10/3/2006
From: Punishment Park
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.

_____________________________

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.


(in reply to cerebusboy)
Post #: 259
RE: The Expendables 2 - 20/8/2012 1:14:56 PM   
elab49


Posts: 54599
Joined: 1/10/2005
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.

_____________________________

Lips Together and Blow - blogtasticness and Glasgow Film Festival GFF13!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation] LIKE AMERICA'S SWEETHEARTS TOO. IT MADE ME LAUGH A LOT AND THOUGHT IT WAS WITTY. ALSO I FEEL SLOWLY DYING INSIDE. I KEEP AGREEING WITH ELAB.


Annual Poll 2013 - All Lists Welcome

(in reply to cerebusboy)
Post #: 260
RE: The Expendables 2 - 20/8/2012 1:17:08 PM   
cerebusboy


Posts: 1552
Joined: 1/5/2006

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.



Thanks for that - I'm sure there's lots of excellent threads on general topics elsewhere on the forum, but I don't really have time to comment on non-movie review discussions. Appreciate the heads up though

(in reply to elab49)
Post #: 261
RE: The Expendables 2 - 20/8/2012 1:17:58 PM   
Rgirvan44


Posts: 19049
Joined: 10/3/2006
From: Punishment Park

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.

_____________________________

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.


(in reply to cerebusboy)
Post #: 262
RE: The Expendables 2 - 20/8/2012 1:20:13 PM   
Prophet_of_Doom

 

Posts: 756
Joined: 15/2/2006

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.


That's a great book. My favourite bit is their section on 'what to do when you move to LA' or whatever it's called. That's optimism for you!

(in reply to Rgirvan44)
Post #: 263
RE: The Expendables 2 - 20/8/2012 1:21:56 PM   
cerebusboy


Posts: 1552
Joined: 1/5/2006

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.

(in reply to Rgirvan44)
Post #: 264
RE: The Expendables 2 - 20/8/2012 1:22:09 PM   
elab49


Posts: 54599
Joined: 1/10/2005
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.

< Message edited by elab49 -- 20/8/2012 1:23:31 PM >


_____________________________

Lips Together and Blow - blogtasticness and Glasgow Film Festival GFF13!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation] LIKE AMERICA'S SWEETHEARTS TOO. IT MADE ME LAUGH A LOT AND THOUGHT IT WAS WITTY. ALSO I FEEL SLOWLY DYING INSIDE. I KEEP AGREEING WITH ELAB.


Annual Poll 2013 - All Lists Welcome

(in reply to Rgirvan44)
Post #: 265
RE: The Expendables 2 - 20/8/2012 1:25:00 PM   
Rgirvan44


Posts: 19049
Joined: 10/3/2006
From: Punishment Park
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.

< Message edited by Rgirvan44 -- 20/8/2012 1:26:11 PM >


_____________________________

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.


(in reply to cerebusboy)
Post #: 266
RE: The Expendables 2 - 20/8/2012 1:27:08 PM   
Prophet_of_Doom

 

Posts: 756
Joined: 15/2/2006

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!

(in reply to elab49)
Post #: 267
RE: The Expendables 2 - 20/8/2012 1:28:16 PM   
cerebusboy


Posts: 1552
Joined: 1/5/2006

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!


Who are you calling a fetid carcass?! Mod!


(in reply to Prophet_of_Doom)
Post #: 268
RE: The Expendables 2 - 20/8/2012 1:29:26 PM   
cerebusboy


Posts: 1552
Joined: 1/5/2006

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.


The Tree of Life?

I don't think saying that something happens then something else happens necessarily implies validation of the three act structure. By their nature films will have to cover SOME period of time.

(in reply to Rgirvan44)
Post #: 269
RE: The Expendables 2 - 20/8/2012 1:33:15 PM   
Rgirvan44


Posts: 19049
Joined: 10/3/2006
From: Punishment Park
Creation
Life
Death

Anyway!

One of the questions I have about the Expendables - just where did all those bad guys come from to be shoot by the heroes? Not that I minded.

Still wish they had gone for blood squibs.

_____________________________

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.


(in reply to cerebusboy)
Post #: 270
Page:   <<   < prev  6 7 8 [9] 10   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> RE: The Expendables 2 Page: <<   < prev  6 7 8 [9] 10   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


 
Movie News  |  Empire Blog  |  Movie Reviews  |  Future Films  |  Features  |  Video Interviews  |  Image Gallery  |  Competitions  |  Forum  |  Magazine  |  Resources
 
Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.125