Comments on: 10 Reasons why movies aren’t novels

By: Bernard Lau

Bernard Lau — Wed, 02 Jun 2010 06:59:40 +0000

In reply to Karel Segers. I haven't analyzed Inglorious Basterds, but thinking about it quickly, even though the film is told in broken sequences, there is an overall arc in the film and goal of the characters. So it is pretty much a 3 act structure... or multi acts.

By: Karel Segers

Karel Segers — Sun, 30 May 2010 21:36:52 +0000

In reply to Bernard Lau.

Thank you for your comment, Bernard.

I dont’ believe anyone restricts anyone else. The audience just decides whether it works or not, that’s all.

“As long as the film’s plot and characters are interesting” seems to work for novels but not for movies. They follow a structure that is more stringent.

When novels have interesting stories, it is EXACTLY the plot and its structure that need to be adapted for the screen.

I believe Tarantino’s successful films are used by quite a few teachers to demonstrate their traditional 3-act structure.

Have you analyzed Inglourious Basterds? I’m tempted to look at it as it feels very classic in its structure.

By: Bernard Lau

Bernard Lau — Sun, 30 May 2010 15:01:59 +0000

There’s always going to be some compromises for novels to be adapted into films. However, I don’t think writers should be restricted to following the traditional story structure. As long as the film’s plot and characters are interesting, it can be enjoyed by the audience. Some films that breaks some of Michael’s points would be Tarantino Films, ensemble films and films that follow a character’s major events in life (eg, Forrest Gump, Benjamin Button).

Albeit, following conventional story structure is more likely to be taken up by producers.