Slashdot Mirror
The Book That Is Making All Movies the Same
Bruce66423 writes "This Slate story explains how a 2005 book has led to all Hollywood movies following the same structure — to a depressing extent. From the article: '...Summer movies are often described as formulaic. But what few people know is that there is actually a formula—one that lays out, on a page-by-page basis, exactly what should happen when in a screenplay. It’s as if a mad scientist has discovered a secret process for making a perfect, or at least perfectly conventional, summer blockbuster. The formula didn’t come from a mad scientist. Instead it came from a screenplay guidebook, Save the Cat! The Last Book on Screenwriting You’ll Ever Need. In the book, author Blake Snyder, a successful spec screenwriter who became an influential screenplay guru, preaches a variant on the basic three-act structure that has dominated blockbuster filmmaking since the late 1970s.' I've always known we could be manipulated — but this provides a segment by segment, almost minute by minute, guide how to do it."
No wonder most movies seem like derivative things you can predict what will happen ... because they apparently are.
Still, keep making the superhero movies, and I'll keep going. =)
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Good luck getting funding for a unique motion picture when the studios not only know what makes a profitable film, they can prove it. And because the average moviegoer could not care less, this is not going to change until the sun burns out. What makes matters worse is that each successive generation grows up watching these movies and will never know that there used to be something better -- which makes this approach even more profitable.
Read a recent best-seller thriller or crime novel. It follows the same formula.
Sad, isn't it?
This was the book that inspired Micheal Bay's mother to conceive.
'Cause movies weren't formulaic before 2005.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dramatic_structure Essentially, the book described here strikes me as nothing more than a derivative of the accepted formula of ancient Greek drama. From Wikipedia: In his Poetics the Greek philosopher Aristotle put forth the idea that "A whole is what has a beginning and middle and end" (1450b27).[1] This three-part view of a plot structure (with a beginning, middle, and end – technically, the protasis, epitasis, and catastrophe) prevailed until the Roman drama critic Horace advocated a 5-act structure in his Ars Poetica: "Neue minor neu sit quinto productior actu fabula" (lines 189-190) ("A play should not be shorter or longer than five acts").[2] Renaissance dramatists revived the use of the 5-act structure. In 1863, around the time that playwrights like Henrik Ibsen were abandoning the 5-act structure and experimenting with 3 and 4-act plays, the German playwright and novelist Gustav Freytag wrote Die Technik des Dramas, a definitive study of the 5-act dramatic structure, in which he laid out what has come to be known as Freytag's pyramid.[3] Under Freytag's pyramid, the plot of a story consists of five parts: exposition, rising action, climax, falling action, and revelation/catastrophe.[4]
I'm part of an award-winning writer's group, and several of the members swear by this book. They follow it meticulously--and it isn't even the first to do this. The Warrior's Journey describes how Disney and Pixar created all their big masterpieces, and then takes that technique and applies it to novel writing. And then there's the Nora Roberts/James Patterson formulaic ghost-writers, plus the Harlequin series, any of Dan Brown's books; heck 90% of the entire fiction market follows a formula similar to Save The Cat. Formulaic writing is nothing new. Authors and screenwriters follow this like it's a religion--they cling to to the formula because they fervently believe it's the best chance they have of getting their work published. Fortunately, there are two mitigating factors that I've found: 1) a good idea is a good idea and even a plot-writing formula won't ruin it; and 2) good writing is good writing.
Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
Formulaic isn't always bad. For example, TFA would have been better if it had followed a formula for conveying information in a shorter space, instead of droning on and on.
Overall the article reads like an author's lament that she doesn't have as much freedom as she used to (or wouldn't, if she were a screenplay writer). It's not like movies have gotten noticeably worse in the last 7 years......
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Formula for chic flicks:
1. Eye contact. They play coy for a while. He makes a buffoon of himself. She likes him, because he's a little shy.
2. Connection. She hides her innermost feelings from him, while he opens up.
3. Conflict. He either screws up somehow to make her unhappy, or she just can't get over some painful memory from her past.
4. Separation. The relationship falls apart, for whatever idiotic reason.
5. Resolution. Days, weeks or months later, they make contact. They either get together and everything's peachy, or they realize it was never meant to be and end up happy with someone else.
And, #3 always ALWAYS ends up being something so idiotic and petty that nobody with any kind of rational thought process can relate. This is called the estrogen phase.
Damn, I hate chic flicks.
sig: sauer
This is the method, but it's the sheer horror of marketing the stuff that makes it the bible.
“The closer you get to (or the farther you get from) your thirtieth birthday, the more likely you are to develop things like taste and discernment, which render you such an exhausting proposition in terms of selling a movie that, well, you might as well have a vagina.”
http://rocknerd.co.uk
One point for each beat present, with a bonus point for being in the right place
Then we can easily tell how generic the structure is...
Please remain calm, there is no reason to pani... wait, where are you all going?
Yes, there's also a formula for the perfect +5 Slashdot post too.
Always start by "I know this will get modded down into oblivion, but..."
Then bash Google, Apple, Facebook, or Microsoft, no matter what the subject is.
Make a car analogy.
Br a grmmer Nazi.
Insinuate all /. are virgins who live in their parents' basement.
Use Simpsons, TBBT, Star Wars/Trek references whenever possible.
Link to XKCD.
Label someone's facts as opinions simply because the guy didn't post a Wikipedia link, and say "oh, don't let facts get in the way of your biased argument."
I can hardly wait for the Hollywood blockbuster movie version of this book.
Me, I tired of "hollywood formula" a long, long time ago.
Sounds to me like someone needs to check out the canon of work by hollywoods greatest story teller of all time, Michael Bay.
Looking at the article, and the actual structure as it seems to have been laid out, it basically seems like its just an application of the hero's journey to screenplays, with some additional timing help. This isn't really something new, although the hard-line 'here's-exactly-when-each-thing-should-happen' might be. You never really know though -- the hero's journey is incredibly precise as well. The main reason that this structure is used is because it tends to work -- it gives you a nice plot that will typically make a modicum of logical sense, with opportunities for various emotional states. Honestly, it just seems like this is a standard story structure, and for movies that don't want to tell an experimental story, this structure works fine for them.
Unless you have a collection of older films
I thought one of the selling points of Netflix and foreign counterparts was older films.
All literature (and for the purposes of this post, movies are a form of literature) can be broken down into formulas. The book in this article breaks down plot structure, but there is also a formula for the actual plot. As to the plot structure there are only two choices, the three act plot, or the five act plot. The three act plot structure is the beginning, the middle, and the end. In this structure, the beginning introduces the characters and sets the stage for what happens. The middle is where the main conflict of the plot plays out. The end is where the conflict reaches its resolution. The five act plot is a more granular approach to the same way of viewing story-telling (and screen writers would probably do well to adopt the five act approach, at least for a few years).
As to plots, there have been several studies which show that there are only seven plots. Every story falls into one of these seven plots.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
No, I'm pretty sure that Joseph Campbell published The Hero With A Thousand Faces in 1959, and Christopher Vogler wrote the seven page summary that was the closest thing to a book that anyone in Hollywood had ever read in 1985.
So what explans JJ Abrams latest products that seem to be random action scenes edited together, is this the next evolution? Who needs a complex plot or any kind of plot at all?
Don't the Art Houses have a Porn formula?
That was established long before this... all straight porn follows this pattern (no exceptions!):
BJ, sex, anal sex, facial.
Why is this modded down? Movies were formulaic and not worth watching well before 2005.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
What joke?
Cop Show: follow the wrong lead - commercial - follow the wrong lead - commercial - follow the wrong lead - commercial - arrest the bad guy.
Doctor Show: wrong diagnosis - commercial - wrong diagnosis - commercial - wrong diagnosis - commercial - save the patient.
Home Improvement Show: find problem that changes the project - commercial - find problem that changes the project - commercial - find problem that changes the project - commercial - finish the project.
Home Buying Show: show perfect home that's over budget - commercial - show crappy home that's in budget - commercial - show good-enough home that's in budget - commercial - completely random decision by homebuyer.
.
.
.
You never really know how close to the edge you can go until you fall off.
Chick: a baby chicken, or a young woman
Chic: Pronounced like "sheek". French for "fashionable."
And that's why you don't get laid, you pansy-ass metrosexual sitzpinkler PUSSY.
"Mon dernier souffle" - 'My last breath' in English. ;-)
He explains what he 'learned' while being on a sponsorship in Hollywood. He wrote this story around 1980. He had but acquired one item on top of what he had already known and done before he arrived: Setting up a geneology of all American movies. One night someone dropped in and told him of a new movie with a totally unexpected, novel and revolutionary line. He wanted to hear of the first minutes, and then he said, he'd be able to construct the rest. And that actually worked!
Actually, Bunuel was a trainee of Charly Chaplin in the thirties. I always consider it the wrong way round in who should have been the person to be the supervisor.
I mean, you can complain all you want about formulaic content but the reality is society has regressed into an idiotic stupor that allows this type of movie making to succeed.
Look at CSI and all its derivatives. Its the SAME EXACT SHOW week after week. Then look at ALL the crime investigation shows and realize, its the SAME PLOT over and over again. Yet these shows consistently rank in the top 10 because viewers do not want to be challenged with new plot devices. Its why any even remotely unique show is usually cancelled because the idiot masses don't like watching it because its not like CSI or some other derivative tripe.
All movies are coming out the same? Realize that the major demographic for movies are teenagers and early 20 somethings and you understand that this demographic has not yet developed the maturity or patience for investing any thinking power into changing their derivative lifestyles. Eat, sleep, party, fuck, get a tattoo, is about all they can handle so taking 90 minutes out of their "busy" schedule can't be over-complicated by something that challenges or inspires an actual original thought.
So you can blame Hollywood all you want but the reality is that Hollywood makes a product, and the product only sells if consumers want the product, and consumers want this derivative bullshit, period.
We are firmly in the era of the Stupocalypse. Mankind has entered a zombie state where originality, rational thought and common sense are thrown out the window and replaced with a need for immediate entitled gratification with a minimum investment of effort.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
It is modded down for being a "subtle brag".
"(not so) subtle EURO brag"
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Personally, I thought people had given up doing the "movie thing" as a social escape for the most part... but I guess the current set of teens is getting reeled back into it again, at least in some places.
Are you sure you aren't just projecting?
Michael Bay has more of a "cannon" of work. He needs the extra n to pack in more EXPLOSIONS!
Wait, I think you've been watching old movies for too long....
These days the protagonist has to be rescued by the leading lady with arms the size of pipe-cleaners and melons on her chest, who somehow kicks the shit out the the Third Reich and saves the day for their bumbling male partners.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
You don't KNOW what's going to happen in them. Seriously- there is no "chekov's" gun in Bollywood films. You may see 3 guns on the wall and only 1 of them will be used. You may have an entire subplot which is just interesting but doesn't mean go anywhere.
It's fantastic. When I go to a hollywood film- I can often guess the ending within the first 30 minutes. And it LOWERS the value I place on hollywood films by a couple bucks. I might pay 9-10 bucks to see a genuinely interesting surprising film. But only about 6 to 7 bucks for a mildly entertaining predictable film with a manipulative soundtrack (they tell you how to feel about the actions taken basically-- making the same action "good" or "bad" based on the accompanying soundtrack.)
I noticed several years ago that R rated films which are not "sex" films (like betty blue) have their first nude scene at 40 minutes into the movie (sometimes 39, sometimes 41 but you get the idea). Probably sets unrealistic expectations for dating people.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Let's everybody calm down. Nearly all drama follows a very small set of dramatic structures. Just like there are one act plays, movies tend to follow a three act structure. That's all this book is.
Just because there is a structure does not mean it's all derivative. The idea is that the story lives on top of the structure. It isn't the structure itself. I see people citing movies like "Back to the Future" as examples that do not follow this structure. It does. Almost everything does. I took classes at one of these types of places for about two years. One thing we used to do was analyze films and try to find their structure. Amazingly, even the most seemingly unstructured movies followed the three act structure. There are exceptions, but they are rare. One notable exception might be the movie "I am curious yellow." But it's also highly experimental.
Or to put it another way: structure is the bones, story is the skin.