Comments on: The 3 P’s Of A Screenplay Disaster [beyond structure]

By: Hamy

Hamy — Wed, 09 Dec 2015 12:46:46 +0000

In reply to Karel Segers. Ahhhhh... :)

By: Andrew Slattery

Andrew Slattery — Thu, 30 Jun 2011 11:56:56 +0000

thanks Karel – very helpful.

By: Ed Love

Ed Love — Sat, 25 Jun 2011 10:09:49 +0000

Thanks for this excellent reminder. Anytime someone puts into words what I probably already unconsciously understand as a viewer, my writing improves.

By: Karin Altmann

Karin Altmann — Fri, 24 Jun 2011 17:42:32 +0000

Absolutely right, Karel. Good on you for saying it.

By: Karel Segers

Karel Segers — Fri, 24 Jun 2011 14:03:20 +0000

In reply to Hamy.

Point taken.
(actioned, too)

Thanks for the comment. :)

By: Hamy

Hamy — Fri, 24 Jun 2011 08:02:26 +0000

I take the point… but, shouldn’t someone writing a writing blog know that the letter P is conventionally written ‘P’… a Pee is something quite different.
While the points made are valid, if personal, they are imo undermined by a trite attempt at a weewee joke in the subject title.
Ho-Hum…

By: Graham Storrs

Graham Storrs — Fri, 24 Jun 2011 01:01:50 +0000

You know, this is why I hate modern films. Most of them are empty and predictable because they don’t deal with 99% of what’s real – the waiting, the being pushed around – and you know just what the protagonist is going to do; “act, struggle, fight, to achieve that goal.”

Having said that, this post is great. It explains clearly and concisely just what makes a film – or book – saleable these days. Thanks for that.

By: Dave Morris

Dave Morris — Thu, 23 Jun 2011 14:53:06 +0000

In reply to Karel Segers.

I’m with you. As Tom Noonan’s character says in Bullet To The Brain: “Picasso can’t sell us Cubism, or the Blue Period, or any of that shit, without the base, without the ability to tell it how it really is first.” So nobody should try breaking any rules until they know them inside out.

It strikes me your original example of the photographer reads like it could be a novel. Often, novels can get away with softer hooks because there’s a lot more in the texture. Novels, of course, usually make for lousy movies…

By: Karel Segers

Karel Segers — Thu, 23 Jun 2011 13:24:20 +0000

In reply to Dave Morris.

Thank you Dave. Excellent analogy.

However…

Yep, the movies have changed. Talk to a few people in the industry and they’ll have some stories for you about how the game has completely transformed, even over the past decade.

But there is more, if you want to look at those loglines specifically:

1. Kane was man of mythical proportions at the beginning of the movie. The man guy in this story is a photographer. Big difference.
2. W.R. Hearst was the Murdock of his time. Langford: never heard of him.
3. That old movie was made by Orson Welles.

In terms of the rules (or techniques, principles) it appears to me that the screenwriters of these flawed stories aren’t even aware of them, let alone of the fact that they are breaking any.

Sure, you can just ignore what has worked before and go by your gut. That’s called trial and error – and a ridiculous waste of resources. Surely not ‘art’ in my books.

By: Dave Morris

Dave Morris — Thu, 23 Jun 2011 12:58:04 +0000

Very good points. Though how about this?

“When Charles Foster Kane, a reclusive and fabulously wealthy media mogul, dies at his private estate, the myths surrounding him have grown to obscure the man himself. A journalist’s investigation reveals the personal highways that led to Kane’s success and his withdrawal from public life, hoping to uncover what drove him.”

Does that not work because movies have changed? Or does it reveal that the very best movies are the ones that break all rules?