Hollywood Slump
- Thread starter NicklausLouis
- Start date
...well, if there's a slump, somebody ought to look at what is being offered. I personally don't want to pay to see: Charlie's Angels, Starsky and Hutch, Dukes Of Hazzard, Bewitched or any of the 'warmed over had their time on tv' fare that is being put out. (of course, that is just me) One good 'Resevoir Dogs' would beat these films to hell.
...if the phrase 'I'll wait for the video' is any indication, it says that what is being offered may not be what people are looking for anymore and how do we know that? Because people are waiting for the video. People are willing to pay for what they want, if they aren't putting their money down, someone more connected than little ol' me ought to be trying to find out why instead of serving up more of the same...
--spinner
...if the phrase 'I'll wait for the video' is any indication, it says that what is being offered may not be what people are looking for anymore and how do we know that? Because people are waiting for the video. People are willing to pay for what they want, if they aren't putting their money down, someone more connected than little ol' me ought to be trying to find out why instead of serving up more of the same...
--spinner
Great post... We should ALL ponder this...
I think I might look at the article a little differently... It simply solidifies my thinking that there aren't enough good stories (which = screenplays which = films) being written and, of the ones that are being written, they contain poor structure.
Structure is a real hard thing to come by these days... I'm finding out more and more wannabe screenwriters don't even realize what it is and screenwriters that do, barely use it in fear of being formulaic. I've had a lot of conversations about this lately with lots of people in the business... Most everyone agrees that 95% (or more) of the movies that get released these days just basically SUCK.
I think when enough product (released movies) sucks for an extended period of time, people vote with their wallets.
This last year, I taught a high school filmmaking class at a local Native American school and really tried to figure out what kind of film the kids in my class liked... Which, I kind of did find out however, I also found out that even THEY are constantly getting tired of the crap formulaic, predictable movies that keep coming out. Many of these kids even told me that they walked out on film after film during the school year... I think when a person (no matter how old they are) develops the habit of walking out on a film, they eventually find something better to do... i.e., vote with their wallets...
Of some of the recent films I've personally seen lately, I've seen structure but the events themselves are predictable and bland... Not nearly magnified enough to keep up with current audiences.
I think screenwriters are the current SHAMANS of our time... We need to constantly strive for the ultimate way to tell our stories.
The ones at the top right now are making money. It almost seems like THAT is MORE IMPORTANT than the story itself these days.
But back to structure...
If you look at the top grossing films of all time, most (if not all) follow a fairly rigid structure (I know, because I've broken them down). Along this line of thinking, it seems when films veer away from a certain kind of structure, they certainly don't do as well at the box office.
Of course that's simply an observation and not researched based at all.
It does seem interesting to me that when story structure sucks, box office receipts dwindle.
So here's how it affects me...
It makes me go back to structure... It makes me go back to the basics. It makes me write lean and mean. No fluff. No steering off the path. It makes me want to concentrate more on STORY.
filmy
I think I might look at the article a little differently... It simply solidifies my thinking that there aren't enough good stories (which = screenplays which = films) being written and, of the ones that are being written, they contain poor structure.
Structure is a real hard thing to come by these days... I'm finding out more and more wannabe screenwriters don't even realize what it is and screenwriters that do, barely use it in fear of being formulaic. I've had a lot of conversations about this lately with lots of people in the business... Most everyone agrees that 95% (or more) of the movies that get released these days just basically SUCK.
I think when enough product (released movies) sucks for an extended period of time, people vote with their wallets.
This last year, I taught a high school filmmaking class at a local Native American school and really tried to figure out what kind of film the kids in my class liked... Which, I kind of did find out however, I also found out that even THEY are constantly getting tired of the crap formulaic, predictable movies that keep coming out. Many of these kids even told me that they walked out on film after film during the school year... I think when a person (no matter how old they are) develops the habit of walking out on a film, they eventually find something better to do... i.e., vote with their wallets...
Of some of the recent films I've personally seen lately, I've seen structure but the events themselves are predictable and bland... Not nearly magnified enough to keep up with current audiences.
I think screenwriters are the current SHAMANS of our time... We need to constantly strive for the ultimate way to tell our stories.
The ones at the top right now are making money. It almost seems like THAT is MORE IMPORTANT than the story itself these days.
But back to structure...
If you look at the top grossing films of all time, most (if not all) follow a fairly rigid structure (I know, because I've broken them down). Along this line of thinking, it seems when films veer away from a certain kind of structure, they certainly don't do as well at the box office.
Of course that's simply an observation and not researched based at all.
It does seem interesting to me that when story structure sucks, box office receipts dwindle.
So here's how it affects me...
It makes me go back to structure... It makes me go back to the basics. It makes me write lean and mean. No fluff. No steering off the path. It makes me want to concentrate more on STORY.
filmy
Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the Indie Explosion of the early to mid '90s preceded by just this sort of slump?
Poke
Poke
Check out these numbers....
Tickets for Mom, Dad
and two children.............................$26
Two Large sodas............................$8
Two medium sodas.........................$7
One Large popcorn.........................$4
Twizlers and Milkduds......................$7
Obnoxious couple in front
of you sucking face through
the whole film; crying babies; bad
parking; sticky floors; wretched soda,
jean and car commercials................ Priceless
VS
New release DVD from local SMart
that can be viewed from the comfort
of your own home over and over
again on a reasonably priced home
theater system..................................18.99
While I can not disagree that there is a current slump in the quality of story telling, the changing dynamics of the market place must be taking into account when looking at revenue earned by any film.
Tickets for Mom, Dad
and two children.............................$26
Two Large sodas............................$8
Two medium sodas.........................$7
One Large popcorn.........................$4
Twizlers and Milkduds......................$7
Obnoxious couple in front
of you sucking face through
the whole film; crying babies; bad
parking; sticky floors; wretched soda,
jean and car commercials................ Priceless
VS
New release DVD from local SMart
that can be viewed from the comfort
of your own home over and over
again on a reasonably priced home
theater system..................................18.99
While I can not disagree that there is a current slump in the quality of story telling, the changing dynamics of the market place must be taking into account when looking at revenue earned by any film.
I think that is probably the best sentence I've ever read about screenwriting. Thankyou. And, so true.
I have always thought of Hollywood now as being in the same place that Harley Davidson was in the 1950's, a huge company that made almost everyone's motorcycle until the Japanese started making these quirky little bikes that everyone laughed at, at first, and then suddenly Harley's market share is minimal and everyone is riding a Honda. Hollywood is too sure of itself and its position, it no longer tries that hard.
I think the box office slump reflects a growing refusal by audiences to pay good money to watch badly constructed and emotionally sterile films.
I was watching "House of The Flyiing Daggers " this week, a marvellous film, and throughout I was constantly thinking "Hollywood used to make beautiful epics like this and now they don't."
I think part of the problem is that the industry is currently run by people with no magnicence, no sense of awe and therefore the current trend in film is for the clever and the quirky, neither of which live up to the trancendence of the cinema. The eye is on profit and the figures say DVD sales and so the film becomes more and more about accomodating home viewing.
These fallow periods often lead to studio execs trawling round the festivals looking for a quickfix of indie talent, so I guess now would be a good time to have a breakout home made indie movie hit the circuit.
Last edited:
I apologize if I'm taking this thread a little to the side of the road, but I have some questions for Filmy.
I took a screenwriting workshop and we were given several pages of 'rules' on structure. I'm just wondering if these are similar to your (Filmy) propositions on structure. I realize these examples are classic and lifted from monomythic and Aristotelian models, but is there something you're referencing (when you talk 'structure') that I'm missing. Thanks.
Here is what we were presented:
Act 1 The Motivational Act
Exposition
Collision
Decision
Act 2 The Conflict Act
Cinflict/Obstacles
Crisis
Recognition
Act 3
Climax
Resolution
Primary Structural Question: What does your character want in specific, tangible terms and how does he/she go about getting it.
Obstacles are manifestations of the character's greatest fear.
Gorgeous Incongruity-traits of a character which allows them to move from the disgusting to the sublime, from the petty or mundane to the wide shores of human sensibility.
Rules for Scene Composition:
1. What is the purpose of scene?
2. How does the scene move the story forward. (No matter how exceptional the purpose, if it does not move the story forward, it is not generally appropriate)
3. Whose scene is it?
4. Come late and leave early.
5. Show it don't tell it.
6. Less is more.
7. Take it one scene at a time
I know this is simplified and condensed, but is this the structural skeleton you're talking about or is it even more streamlined than this?
Thanks Filmy!
I took a screenwriting workshop and we were given several pages of 'rules' on structure. I'm just wondering if these are similar to your (Filmy) propositions on structure. I realize these examples are classic and lifted from monomythic and Aristotelian models, but is there something you're referencing (when you talk 'structure') that I'm missing. Thanks.
Here is what we were presented:
Act 1 The Motivational Act
Exposition
Collision
Decision
Act 2 The Conflict Act
Cinflict/Obstacles
Crisis
Recognition
Act 3
Climax
Resolution
Primary Structural Question: What does your character want in specific, tangible terms and how does he/she go about getting it.
Obstacles are manifestations of the character's greatest fear.
Gorgeous Incongruity-traits of a character which allows them to move from the disgusting to the sublime, from the petty or mundane to the wide shores of human sensibility.
Rules for Scene Composition:
1. What is the purpose of scene?
2. How does the scene move the story forward. (No matter how exceptional the purpose, if it does not move the story forward, it is not generally appropriate)
3. Whose scene is it?
4. Come late and leave early.
5. Show it don't tell it.
6. Less is more.
7. Take it one scene at a time
I know this is simplified and condensed, but is this the structural skeleton you're talking about or is it even more streamlined than this?
Thanks Filmy!
This is the exact reason I don't go to the theatre anymore. I'll wait for DVD.Mikey D said:
Oh yeah, lets not forget the "laughing woman in front of you who cackles like the Wicked Witch of the West".
Last night, I watched Casablanca on TCM from the comfort of my own bed, undisturbed. I enjoyed every minute of it because I could HEAR the movie.
clive said:
...I agree with you on this. Sometimes it seems as though there is no story just pretty faces. I tend not to go to action films because the dialogue is so bad, that when there is a action film with an actual storyline its a treat. (though, I personally liked Unleashed.) Most of these films just want the one-liners, which isn't especially smart or interesting. There's nothing new or innovative
...about the sense of awe, I had that during 'Hero' for the beautiful color, during Sin City for the incredibly interesting comic book style, (very different from the 'Dick Tracy' look) it drew me in; during Crash for the ideas and the way they folded back upon themselves and how everyone was right to an extent. (that's how stereotypes are perpetuated, btw.)
...I've never been a person who wants to be passive when I see a film. I don't want the movie to be 'watching me'
and there I am uninvolved and uninterested......the challenge should be to create something that has all the excitement, the dialogue, the awe so that going to a film is an event. (Can you imagine being the first people to ever see Gone With The Wind or Wizard of Oz)... When all that is there, people will totally pay for it....
--spinner
Structure...
bird,
I have my own 4 Act Structure theory that I've developed over the last 5 or 6 years... Some of what you have in your 3 Act Structure definitely applies but several years ago, I read a book that had absolutely nothing to do with screenwriting or structure...
The name of the book:
THE HERO WITHIN --by Carol S. Pearson.
In her book, she discusses the SIX Archetypes we, as people go through during our lifetime:
Innocent
Orphan
Wanderer
Warrior
Martyr
Magician
So, while reading through this book, I realized that the BEST MOVIES seem to have their main character go through FOUR of these archetypes and more importantly, in a specific order:
ORPHAN -- The main character becomes orphaned... Either literally or figuratively.
WANDERER -- The main character becomes a wanderer... In Wanderer mode, he or she finds allies, obstacles, tools, learns clues, etc...
WARRIOR -- The main character goes into warrior mode where he or she becomes an activist in achieving his or her goal/answering/solving the main question of the story.
MARTYR -- The main character must be willing to sacrifice themselves in order to achieve his or her goal. Again, this can be literally, figuratively, or metaphorically.
This is the basis of my 4 Act Structure. My main character moves through all these modes throughout the story.
Of course, under each mode, I also have a ton of information that needs to be explored. What areas need to be covered and made clear. In other words, you must take your main character through each archetype's obstacle course. I've actually taught this structure to quite a few writers. The nice part about it is that it totally fits into the normal 3 Act Structure that a lot of writers are used to i.e., simply put WANDERER and WARRIOR into its own Act (Act 2). I like 4 Acts because it makes more sense to me however, when I have a meeting with an executive, I usually talk 3 Act Structure...
I like to keep it as simple as possible which I think I've achieved. I don't really want to reveal a lot of it right here because I've actually been asked to write a book about it and I've taught it to quite a few people.
The real beauty of my own structure technique is that once you know it, the problems with a script seem to literally JUMP out at you which, makes it easier to fix.
The main difference between my own 4 Act Structure and the 3 Act Structure that is taught to most everyone is that my 4 Act Structure takes the protagonist through a lot more events which usually means a much less boring story.
Hope that answers your questions... Feel free to PM me if you have more...
filmy
bird said:
bird,
I have my own 4 Act Structure theory that I've developed over the last 5 or 6 years... Some of what you have in your 3 Act Structure definitely applies but several years ago, I read a book that had absolutely nothing to do with screenwriting or structure...
The name of the book:
THE HERO WITHIN --by Carol S. Pearson.
In her book, she discusses the SIX Archetypes we, as people go through during our lifetime:
Innocent
Orphan
Wanderer
Warrior
Martyr
Magician
So, while reading through this book, I realized that the BEST MOVIES seem to have their main character go through FOUR of these archetypes and more importantly, in a specific order:
ORPHAN -- The main character becomes orphaned... Either literally or figuratively.
WANDERER -- The main character becomes a wanderer... In Wanderer mode, he or she finds allies, obstacles, tools, learns clues, etc...
WARRIOR -- The main character goes into warrior mode where he or she becomes an activist in achieving his or her goal/answering/solving the main question of the story.
MARTYR -- The main character must be willing to sacrifice themselves in order to achieve his or her goal. Again, this can be literally, figuratively, or metaphorically.
This is the basis of my 4 Act Structure. My main character moves through all these modes throughout the story.
Of course, under each mode, I also have a ton of information that needs to be explored. What areas need to be covered and made clear. In other words, you must take your main character through each archetype's obstacle course. I've actually taught this structure to quite a few writers. The nice part about it is that it totally fits into the normal 3 Act Structure that a lot of writers are used to i.e., simply put WANDERER and WARRIOR into its own Act (Act 2). I like 4 Acts because it makes more sense to me however, when I have a meeting with an executive, I usually talk 3 Act Structure...
I like to keep it as simple as possible which I think I've achieved. I don't really want to reveal a lot of it right here because I've actually been asked to write a book about it and I've taught it to quite a few people.
The real beauty of my own structure technique is that once you know it, the problems with a script seem to literally JUMP out at you which, makes it easier to fix.
The main difference between my own 4 Act Structure and the 3 Act Structure that is taught to most everyone is that my 4 Act Structure takes the protagonist through a lot more events which usually means a much less boring story.
Hope that answers your questions... Feel free to PM me if you have more...
filmy
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks Filmy!
Yes, I have read some Jung and see the parallels with characterization in scripts.
That is really fascinating...in terms of narrative, I've heard two and three act structure but not a 4-act. But it seems to make sense ...your model is, literally, 'character-driven'.
You know, as I was reading your outline, I thought....I hope I'm not asking Filmy to reveal too much, cause I think he's got a book here
.
I'm almost done with the first draft of my first live-action script. I am going to try your technique out on my second draft...your 4 -act/archetype prototype has got me thinking of new circumstances for my main character.
Thanks very much Filmy! You've been a great help.
Yes, I have read some Jung and see the parallels with characterization in scripts.
That is really fascinating...in terms of narrative, I've heard two and three act structure but not a 4-act. But it seems to make sense ...your model is, literally, 'character-driven'.
You know, as I was reading your outline, I thought....I hope I'm not asking Filmy to reveal too much, cause I think he's got a book here
.I'm almost done with the first draft of my first live-action script. I am going to try your technique out on my second draft...your 4 -act/archetype prototype has got me thinking of new circumstances for my main character.
Thanks very much Filmy! You've been a great help.
Last edited:
Respect Filmy
Filmy, I'm just completely blown away by your four act structure. It is sensational.
You MUST write that book.
I've always felt profoundly uncomfortable with the three act structure feeling that it constrictive and that it often cuts against good character development. Instead I've always worked from the premise that if you take three characters at turning points in their lives and then let them interact interesting stuff happens, especially if their desires and needs are conflictual.
Your four act structure works with what I'm already doing, but adds to it a way of looking at the individual character's journey's which is mythic and therefore good storytelling, in the traditional sense of the word.
What fasciantes me now is the idea that each character is travelling through four stages (Or Acts), but not at the same speed. So I can have a separate four act structure for each character.
I think this is important, because I think it's important that that antagonist as well as the protagonist should be undertaking a journey, otherwise we just end up with the simplistic "good guy" "bad guy" senario and there is no moral ambiguity for the audience to engage with.
As you can probably tell, I'm quite excited about this concept, I am going to mull this over and come back to it.
Filmy, I'm just completely blown away by your four act structure. It is sensational.
You MUST write that book.
I've always felt profoundly uncomfortable with the three act structure feeling that it constrictive and that it often cuts against good character development. Instead I've always worked from the premise that if you take three characters at turning points in their lives and then let them interact interesting stuff happens, especially if their desires and needs are conflictual.
Your four act structure works with what I'm already doing, but adds to it a way of looking at the individual character's journey's which is mythic and therefore good storytelling, in the traditional sense of the word.
What fasciantes me now is the idea that each character is travelling through four stages (Or Acts), but not at the same speed. So I can have a separate four act structure for each character.
I think this is important, because I think it's important that that antagonist as well as the protagonist should be undertaking a journey, otherwise we just end up with the simplistic "good guy" "bad guy" senario and there is no moral ambiguity for the audience to engage with.
As you can probably tell, I'm quite excited about this concept, I am going to mull this over and come back to it.
4 Act Structure...
clive and bird,
Aw shucks...
Thanks for the kind words...
I can probably talk about this all day long and then some... LOL.
And, if you think these 4 Archetypes are nice and character driven, you would really like the rest of the 4 Act Structure. As I said before, I think I've kept it fairly simple so that the average screenwriter can RUN with it without having to learn too much theory. No formula -- simply structure.
I would be happy to reveal the rest of the 4 Act Structure with you two (and anyone else who might be interested) as long as you're willing to keep the information to yourself and only share it with my permission. I ask this because I am in the middle of a book and a web site that will be up and running within a year's time...
I am, in fact in Los Angeles today -- turning in a "fix" of a draft of someone else's work and this fix was made so easy because of my 4 Act Structure. And, as I said, when you come head to head with someone in the industry who can only talk 3 Act Structure (there's a ton of them) -- all you have to do with my 4 Act Structure is combine acts 2 and 3 into a longer Act 2.
Having said that...
I've got some really simple graphs, charts, and cheats that I've made over the years that, when printed and laid out in front of you while writing, make the writing a lot easier...
I've also got a very interesting process for fixing any 4 Act Structure scene... Takes much of the guesswork out of it.
At the end of your first draft, there are a series of questions I've developed NOT from 4 Act Structure but from mostly industry executives who purchase scripts. These are the same questions you'll get asked by these executives. If you know them up front, you will be able to answer them immediately as well as making sure your script answers them too.
I won't be back in New Mexico until Friday so I can't do much till then...
But let me know if you're interested...
Again, thanks for the kind words...
filmy
*EDIT: I should make note that my 4 Act Structure method is really for those that already know how to write a screenplay. Those that already have a reasonable handle on 3 Act Structure, character development, etc. If you don't know any of that, my 4 Act Structure will be NO HELP to you at all... If you've already written a script, written at least a half a script, then this might just help you...
clive said:
Filmy, I'm just completely blown away by your four act structure. It is sensational.
You MUST write that book.
I've always felt profoundly uncomfortable with the three act structure feeling that it constrictive and that it often cuts against good character development. Instead I've always worked from the premise that if you take three characters at turning points in their lives and then let them interact interesting stuff happens, especially if their desires and needs are conflictual.
Your four act structure works with what I'm already doing, but adds to it a way of looking at the individual character's journey's which is mythic and therefore good storytelling, in the traditional sense of the word.
What fasciantes me now is the idea that each character is travelling through four stages (Or Acts), but not at the same speed. So I can have a separate four act structure for each character.
I think this is important, because I think it's important that that antagonist as well as the protagonist should be undertaking a journey, otherwise we just end up with the simplistic "good guy" "bad guy" senario and there is no moral ambiguity for the audience to engage with.
As you can probably tell, I'm quite excited about this concept, I am going to mull this over and come back to it.
clive and bird,
Aw shucks...
Thanks for the kind words...
I can probably talk about this all day long and then some... LOL.
And, if you think these 4 Archetypes are nice and character driven, you would really like the rest of the 4 Act Structure. As I said before, I think I've kept it fairly simple so that the average screenwriter can RUN with it without having to learn too much theory. No formula -- simply structure.
I would be happy to reveal the rest of the 4 Act Structure with you two (and anyone else who might be interested) as long as you're willing to keep the information to yourself and only share it with my permission. I ask this because I am in the middle of a book and a web site that will be up and running within a year's time...
I am, in fact in Los Angeles today -- turning in a "fix" of a draft of someone else's work and this fix was made so easy because of my 4 Act Structure. And, as I said, when you come head to head with someone in the industry who can only talk 3 Act Structure (there's a ton of them) -- all you have to do with my 4 Act Structure is combine acts 2 and 3 into a longer Act 2.
Having said that...
I've got some really simple graphs, charts, and cheats that I've made over the years that, when printed and laid out in front of you while writing, make the writing a lot easier...
I've also got a very interesting process for fixing any 4 Act Structure scene... Takes much of the guesswork out of it.
At the end of your first draft, there are a series of questions I've developed NOT from 4 Act Structure but from mostly industry executives who purchase scripts. These are the same questions you'll get asked by these executives. If you know them up front, you will be able to answer them immediately as well as making sure your script answers them too.
I won't be back in New Mexico until Friday so I can't do much till then...
But let me know if you're interested...
Again, thanks for the kind words...
filmy
*EDIT: I should make note that my 4 Act Structure method is really for those that already know how to write a screenplay. Those that already have a reasonable handle on 3 Act Structure, character development, etc. If you don't know any of that, my 4 Act Structure will be NO HELP to you at all... If you've already written a script, written at least a half a script, then this might just help you...
Last edited by a moderator:
I think the current Box Office Slump is happening because of a director that last yeat took and indie approach to his film. I'm talking about Mel Gibson and his Passion of the Christ. No studio wanted to touch it, so he did it his own way and ponied up his own money to shoot it.
The "slump" is in week #17, and if you count backwards on the calendar, it ends up being right around the time when Passion was released last year, and all of the numbers are being compaired to last year on a week by week basis. Passion last year inflated the Box Office during the time of the year that Hollywood normally dumps out all of it's crap, Feb-April. There were other high grossing films out around that time last year, but Passion was pulling in an additional, untapped audience, and I think that is the difference.
Really, should everyone be in a panic when there are 7 Movies, and after this weekend 8, that are over $100 million? It seems like it was just 10 years ago when $100 was an almost unreachable number, reserved only for mega blockbusters. Now, everything seems to break $100 million. Even The Pacifier
The "slump" is in week #17, and if you count backwards on the calendar, it ends up being right around the time when Passion was released last year, and all of the numbers are being compaired to last year on a week by week basis. Passion last year inflated the Box Office during the time of the year that Hollywood normally dumps out all of it's crap, Feb-April. There were other high grossing films out around that time last year, but Passion was pulling in an additional, untapped audience, and I think that is the difference.
Really, should everyone be in a panic when there are 7 Movies, and after this weekend 8, that are over $100 million? It seems like it was just 10 years ago when $100 was an almost unreachable number, reserved only for mega blockbusters. Now, everything seems to break $100 million. Even The Pacifier