Knowing the backstory is essential when fleshing out your characters. A good backstory can spark your imagination when deciding on action for the actual story. I think, and maybe what BPeas was getting at, is that backstory is not story. Many beginning scriptwriters spend half their script with backstory before getting to the inciting incident. Or, the whole story is really hinting at a really interesting backstory, but maybe the actual story is lacking.
STORY IS KING...
- Thread starter Unknown Screenwriter
- Start date
The story is the thing...
One of the best things you can do is get an outside opinion.
In addition to the feedback, you may consider playing in the horror genre. I think those types of stories, if done well, find an audience. They are fun and if you run out money half way through production (speaking from experience) and you can't replace imperfect scenes - if the story is good, your audience will forgive you.
Coming off the festival circuit, I now know the market is flooded with character driven dramatic comedies. So unless your story is SUPER compelling, you may consider sticking with comedies.
There is a good book worth reading by Roger Corman, called: How I made a hundred movies in Hollywood and never lost a dime. The distribution methods are a little dated, but his business philosophy is conveyed very well and is also worth considering.
I say all of this to sound redundant... If you story is good and you believe in the project, it doesn't matter what anyone says!
One of the best things you can do is get an outside opinion.
In addition to the feedback, you may consider playing in the horror genre. I think those types of stories, if done well, find an audience. They are fun and if you run out money half way through production (speaking from experience) and you can't replace imperfect scenes - if the story is good, your audience will forgive you.
Coming off the festival circuit, I now know the market is flooded with character driven dramatic comedies. So unless your story is SUPER compelling, you may consider sticking with comedies.
There is a good book worth reading by Roger Corman, called: How I made a hundred movies in Hollywood and never lost a dime. The distribution methods are a little dated, but his business philosophy is conveyed very well and is also worth considering.
I say all of this to sound redundant... If you story is good and you believe in the project, it doesn't matter what anyone says!
Another good article about this...
The Big Lebowski, at Sundance, on how filmmakers can abide in this economy
filmy
The Big Lebowski, at Sundance, on how filmmakers can abide in this economy
filmy
Exactly.
I hate seeing Matrix like special effects promos on tv. When I see one, I just know that's not a movie I want to see. They always have some big star(s), but for me, I think "so what?" There are 1,000 movies just like it, all sound and fury, but in the end, signifying nothing.
There have always been tons and tons of bad movies, throughout the age of film. Our time is no exception, although some periods have better quality and others have worse. The first films weren't great, but nobody cared because it was new. Eventually, the silent films got to be very good. Then soundtracks came along, and again film quality deteriorated because nobody cared about it, everyone just loved that people were talking in the movies.
Same thing happened with color...same thing has happened with new special effects that have came out in the last decade or so. The quality of movies I've seen the last few years just isn't as good as it was 10 years ago or when I was a kid. Maybe I'm seeing things with bias, but that's my opinion.
I think there is one other thing we need to consider here. That is life conditions. We, in the U.S., live comfortably and perhaps with excess. IMO, this doesn't lead to great stories as a people, with one exception, domestic case-studies. These are some of the very best films I've seen in the last 10 years. Also stories with conflict between subgroups of society. These are genuine conflicts that are archetypal. On the other hand, the age of excess brings about a lot of bad, contrived writing. Writers who have nothing to say, and instead of writing conflict because of how they can see it in the world genuinely, they instead contrive it. And those movies almost always suck.
This will sound a little out there, but I'll make a prediction. We all know the economy is going in the tank right now. But you know what? I think it will produce better stories in a few years and/or in the next generation. That's my belief anyways.
You'd be surprised at how many people I meet trying to do filmmaking who get tunnel vision with equipment.
By that I mean, they are so obsessed with having the best camera, a great 35mm adapter, and all kinds of other doodads, that they completely forget about a solid story to tell.
I've seen people who I've thought were great writers pick up an HVX200 and a Letus and start shooting, and show me footage. I'm like, "Yeah, that's some incredibly shallow depth of field. Oh, great colors. So, uh... what's happening in the film again? I don't get it"
I'd rather watch an amazingly written screenplay filmed on a handycam than something shot on a high end prosumer with 35mm that is flat out boring.
By that I mean, they are so obsessed with having the best camera, a great 35mm adapter, and all kinds of other doodads, that they completely forget about a solid story to tell.
I've seen people who I've thought were great writers pick up an HVX200 and a Letus and start shooting, and show me footage. I'm like, "Yeah, that's some incredibly shallow depth of field. Oh, great colors. So, uh... what's happening in the film again? I don't get it"
I'd rather watch an amazingly written screenplay filmed on a handycam than something shot on a high end prosumer with 35mm that is flat out boring.
Here here.
filmy
filmy
In the age of short attention spans and instant gratification, I think good story telling has taken a back seat to SFX and CGI. I'll take a well crafted and interesting story over whiz bang, boom effects any day. To me if you can tell a good story and evoke real emotions from the viewer, you have suceeded. To me that is a very powerfull thing to do.
I think the main reason why micro-budget film makers stories lack, is because they don't know they lack.
I would put my screenplays up on trigger & zoet and the feedback most people give is beyond awful. I put up a horror script, and had reviewers saying, "That's gross" "How you can do that? That's beyond the norm". It's a horror movie! Or my absolute favorite Charles Manson makes a phone call from prison, and I actually had people saying "Charlie's in solitary he can't make phone calls. Or why would you put a serial killer in your movie? Like I was actually going to get Charles Manson to be in my movie.
What do friends know about screenplays? Actors will tell you the script is great because they want a part. There's very few people a novice screenwriter can turn to and get the feedback needed to improve their writing skills.
One of the main reasons I made my movie was to see if I had a clue about writing a decent story. And I have to be honest, I'm 50/50 on it. The movie is good, but if you dissected it to a 3 act structured narrative screenplay, it would be sorely lacking. NO ONE that read the script told me this. As a matter of fact, the problems I found while watching it, no one informed me of any of them. When I point them out, they all say "Yeah, but".
The micro-budget film makers that annoy me are the ones that use exposition everywhere. They forget action and have the characters tell you everything. That's inexcusable on any level.
Hollywood doesn't care about story anymore. Explosions, crashes and chases fill the seats. The costs of making these flicks has skyrocketed so they don't make the profits they used to. But, they still gross more then the majority of excellent dramatic stories.
I would put my screenplays up on trigger & zoet and the feedback most people give is beyond awful. I put up a horror script, and had reviewers saying, "That's gross" "How you can do that? That's beyond the norm". It's a horror movie! Or my absolute favorite Charles Manson makes a phone call from prison, and I actually had people saying "Charlie's in solitary he can't make phone calls. Or why would you put a serial killer in your movie? Like I was actually going to get Charles Manson to be in my movie.
What do friends know about screenplays? Actors will tell you the script is great because they want a part. There's very few people a novice screenwriter can turn to and get the feedback needed to improve their writing skills.
One of the main reasons I made my movie was to see if I had a clue about writing a decent story. And I have to be honest, I'm 50/50 on it. The movie is good, but if you dissected it to a 3 act structured narrative screenplay, it would be sorely lacking. NO ONE that read the script told me this. As a matter of fact, the problems I found while watching it, no one informed me of any of them. When I point them out, they all say "Yeah, but".
The micro-budget film makers that annoy me are the ones that use exposition everywhere. They forget action and have the characters tell you everything. That's inexcusable on any level.
Hollywood doesn't care about story anymore. Explosions, crashes and chases fill the seats. The costs of making these flicks has skyrocketed so they don't make the profits they used to. But, they still gross more then the majority of excellent dramatic stories.
Last edited:
I think that's a valid point, but I think that could go into a whole other discussion as how society in general has become desensitized and now demands to see explosions, gunfire, nudity, etc in order to keep their attention. Now, if you could combine the two worlds, like they did in Saving Private Ryan, then you have a blockbuster and a great film. There is a small minority, like those of us on this forum, who enjoy a good film for it's story. I still enjoy silly movies like the Tranporter and I'll go watch Transporter 23 if they make that many, but I also like moving stories like The Wrestler, Schindlers' List, etc. I like movies that make me think. There are also times I simply want to watch things blow up for no apparent reason, but in the end, I prefer a good story-there's just not that many out there anymore.
Unless you're living under a rock (and many are, but they don't watch movies, listen to music or drink) we beome immune to everything. If you've been drinking for twenty years, it takes a lot more alcohol to get you drunk. If you have a new playstation (is that what it's called) Atari isn't going to cut it for you.
If you're old enough to remember, Bullitt and French Connection were the action movies with extra long chase scenes. Then came Towering Inferno and Earthquake... Die Hard... Bigger and badder, bigger and badder. But when you spend so much time thinking about FX story just gets lost in the mix.
"Usually their script sees one revision, even if that"
That just blows my mind. I re-wrote my script 7 times (a 25 page short). The other demands (hiring a crew, etc... etc... stopped me from re-writing it more than that, but that anybody would even consider filming a script not re-written a MINIMUM of 3 or 4 times is just nuts.
That just blows my mind. I re-wrote my script 7 times (a 25 page short). The other demands (hiring a crew, etc... etc... stopped me from re-writing it more than that, but that anybody would even consider filming a script not re-written a MINIMUM of 3 or 4 times is just nuts.
Story is king
I have to agree with everyone here. Now I am new at the part of making films and I have gone to many film fests in my local area and have found that the shorts that I have seen have no meaning no substance nothing! My first film fest I was very saddened by that fact and wanted to know why they were just filming for filming sake. At one of the fest I wondered why a film was picked as a winner and the coordinator said it was because it was art. To me art has to have all the elements to become art. Feeling, sight, sound. Even an artist of paint can give you that when you look at his/her artwork. I understand the fact of not having the money to do a production but when you do get to start it it should have a beginning, a middle and an end. Short indie films or even a feature length film can say something, mean something, be something!
I have a short film that will start production in June. But I want to make sure it has all the elements of a great story, a beginning, a middle and the end. So before the camera starts to roll and I say action 90% of my time has been spent on the story. I guess by watching and listening to other film makers I did pick that much up. Good thing too, I guess!
Oh, Hi I am new here hope you guys don't mind I put my two cents worth in!
Glad to be here!
Zonmae
I have to agree with everyone here. Now I am new at the part of making films and I have gone to many film fests in my local area and have found that the shorts that I have seen have no meaning no substance nothing! My first film fest I was very saddened by that fact and wanted to know why they were just filming for filming sake. At one of the fest I wondered why a film was picked as a winner and the coordinator said it was because it was art. To me art has to have all the elements to become art. Feeling, sight, sound. Even an artist of paint can give you that when you look at his/her artwork. I understand the fact of not having the money to do a production but when you do get to start it it should have a beginning, a middle and an end. Short indie films or even a feature length film can say something, mean something, be something!
I have a short film that will start production in June. But I want to make sure it has all the elements of a great story, a beginning, a middle and the end. So before the camera starts to roll and I say action 90% of my time has been spent on the story. I guess by watching and listening to other film makers I did pick that much up. Good thing too, I guess!
Oh, Hi I am new here hope you guys don't mind I put my two cents worth in!
Glad to be here!
Zonmae
story is king
One of the early questions that was posed by one of our experienced members here, was "who is your target audience ?"
While I would relish the thought that teens and twenty something viewers would appreciate my film, I aimed my story / film at a more cerebral herd.
I could either write a comic strip or an in depth editorial. I chose (to some degree) the latter.
That does not mean my next project will not be a pie throwing, eye poking yarn. I can appreciate those as well and the next Moe, Larry or Curly. (talk about your quality film shorts !)
One of the early questions that was posed by one of our experienced members here, was "who is your target audience ?"
While I would relish the thought that teens and twenty something viewers would appreciate my film, I aimed my story / film at a more cerebral herd.
I could either write a comic strip or an in depth editorial. I chose (to some degree) the latter.
That does not mean my next project will not be a pie throwing, eye poking yarn. I can appreciate those as well and the next Moe, Larry or Curly. (talk about your quality film shorts !)
I just have to comment on this discussion.
I've noticed a lot of the same things already mentioned: lack of story, overfocus on the technical, etc.
A lot of the films I've seen even at recent festivals (not that festivals in any way, shape, or form denote a mark of quality) are exercises of technical imitation. The no/low-budget indie filmmakers are trying to imitate the filmic qualities of the Hollywood films they wish they could produce, and the mid/high-budget indie filmmakers try to imitate the styles/conventions of older films they idolize (for example: Q. Tarintino). Story merely becomes an intended vehicle, in either case, to propel the technical prowess of the filmmaker.
I've found that aside from directors/producers ignoring story, directors of no/low-budget fare typically ignore, well, directing.... directing the actors, I mean. I've seen what should have been great dialogue or memorable moments butchered by really, really, really good actors (I know they're good because I've seen them do better!). The only explanation is that the director either didn't focus on performance or didn't know how to communicate with the actors. I've heard horror stories where auditions were videotaped, and the only actual direction from the director's mouth was to "take a step left to stay in frame" (in other words: only direction from the outside-in instead of from the inside-out).
Also, many filmmakers have a good story and the tools to tell it, but whether from a faulty blue-print (the screenplay), emphasis on the wrong parts of the actual story (too many pointless/overly technical shots, scenes that go nowhere, or segments of fluff dialogue, no matter how clever) or the inability to edit (not the technical ability, but the art/craft), the story gets lost somewhere.
Like everyone has said before me, I tell everyone that works with me at my company: "story trumps all" (just a slight variation on the title of this thread).
I've noticed a lot of the same things already mentioned: lack of story, overfocus on the technical, etc.
A lot of the films I've seen even at recent festivals (not that festivals in any way, shape, or form denote a mark of quality) are exercises of technical imitation. The no/low-budget indie filmmakers are trying to imitate the filmic qualities of the Hollywood films they wish they could produce, and the mid/high-budget indie filmmakers try to imitate the styles/conventions of older films they idolize (for example: Q. Tarintino). Story merely becomes an intended vehicle, in either case, to propel the technical prowess of the filmmaker.
I've found that aside from directors/producers ignoring story, directors of no/low-budget fare typically ignore, well, directing.... directing the actors, I mean. I've seen what should have been great dialogue or memorable moments butchered by really, really, really good actors (I know they're good because I've seen them do better!). The only explanation is that the director either didn't focus on performance or didn't know how to communicate with the actors. I've heard horror stories where auditions were videotaped, and the only actual direction from the director's mouth was to "take a step left to stay in frame" (in other words: only direction from the outside-in instead of from the inside-out).
Also, many filmmakers have a good story and the tools to tell it, but whether from a faulty blue-print (the screenplay), emphasis on the wrong parts of the actual story (too many pointless/overly technical shots, scenes that go nowhere, or segments of fluff dialogue, no matter how clever) or the inability to edit (not the technical ability, but the art/craft), the story gets lost somewhere.
Like everyone has said before me, I tell everyone that works with me at my company: "story trumps all" (just a slight variation on the title of this thread).
From Page 1:
I see the arguments both VP and Bpeas made.
Here is my perspective:
There is a big difference between amateur and professional.
I try to look at it from a sports angle.
If you are at a little league or high school or college game, it's ok to try your hardest.
It's ok to show too much emotion, make rookie mistakes, etc.
Pro sports are much different. Professional. That's the key word.
A pro athlete does not go out to try their hardest. They don't get too up or too down (if they are good).
They are like an assassin. They just go out and do their job, with only one goal in mind.
To win.
The same things apply to filmmaking.
The amateur is someone who films or writes as a hobby.
If that's the case, keep their feelings in mind when giving constructive criticism.
If someone is a pro (or I'm guessing on here wants to be a pro), treat them like one.
There isn't room to worry about feelings or that they tried their best, etc.
They should only have one job in mind...to win.
If their work needs to be ripped apart, then do it. If there is praise to be given, give it.
Most importantly, all criticism must always be constructive.
I see the arguments both VP and Bpeas made.
Here is my perspective:
There is a big difference between amateur and professional.
I try to look at it from a sports angle.
If you are at a little league or high school or college game, it's ok to try your hardest.
It's ok to show too much emotion, make rookie mistakes, etc.
Pro sports are much different. Professional. That's the key word.
A pro athlete does not go out to try their hardest. They don't get too up or too down (if they are good).
They are like an assassin. They just go out and do their job, with only one goal in mind.
To win.
The same things apply to filmmaking.
The amateur is someone who films or writes as a hobby.
If that's the case, keep their feelings in mind when giving constructive criticism.
If someone is a pro (or I'm guessing on here wants to be a pro), treat them like one.
There isn't room to worry about feelings or that they tried their best, etc.
They should only have one job in mind...to win.
If their work needs to be ripped apart, then do it. If there is praise to be given, give it.
Most importantly, all criticism must always be constructive.
I think there are two reasons why story is such a problem in film:
1. Society
The society one lives in can be a problem. I think it was Aristotle who said that decadence is the first sign of a civilization's decline. Here in the U.S., we've lived in a debt fueled consumption based economy for a quarter century, and the result has been exactly decadence. Not everyone, but there are an awful lot of people out there who only want to see more gunshots, more sex, more reality tv, etc. And if that's what they want to see, that's what studios and indie filmmakers and anyone who wants to make a living in filmmaking has to film.
If the audience wants to watch crap, you can't be successful unless you show them crap.
2. Filmmakers who don't understand the principles behind story.
I read in McKee's book that there no rules to storytelling, only guidelines. If there were rules, anyone could follow them and write a perfect script. Instead you have to understand what has worked before.
I also read a general statement on a screenwriting blog once that had to do with the inciting incident. Something to the effect of "an incident that makes your protagonist get up off his ass to do something, but it can't be anything. Just having someone die like most people do isn't good enough. It might work in some movies, but in most scripts it just comes off flat."
That random statement came back into my mind when I was watching the Godfather one day. Why is Vito Corleone getting shot a good inciting incident when Michael is the protagonist in the story? And then it dawned on me. Vito is essentially the protagonist up until he gets shot. If the camera had followed Michael from fade in, Vito getting shot wouldn't have connected with the audience nearly as much. Instead, he was the bigshot for a half hour or so, and bam. He gets shot. Much more impact. Then the story shifts to Michael.
It was a big thing for me to figure out that principle behind the inciting incident, and led me to figure out a lot more about story. So many times you hear about the inciting incident "it's something to get your protagonist off his ass to go and do what the story is about". But that only tells you what the inciting incident is, it doesn't tell you how to create one effectively. I hope my example above is a good insight into how to create one effectively.
That extra dimension seems to be lacking in most bad films.
1. Society
The society one lives in can be a problem. I think it was Aristotle who said that decadence is the first sign of a civilization's decline. Here in the U.S., we've lived in a debt fueled consumption based economy for a quarter century, and the result has been exactly decadence. Not everyone, but there are an awful lot of people out there who only want to see more gunshots, more sex, more reality tv, etc. And if that's what they want to see, that's what studios and indie filmmakers and anyone who wants to make a living in filmmaking has to film.
If the audience wants to watch crap, you can't be successful unless you show them crap.
2. Filmmakers who don't understand the principles behind story.
I read in McKee's book that there no rules to storytelling, only guidelines. If there were rules, anyone could follow them and write a perfect script. Instead you have to understand what has worked before.
I also read a general statement on a screenwriting blog once that had to do with the inciting incident. Something to the effect of "an incident that makes your protagonist get up off his ass to do something, but it can't be anything. Just having someone die like most people do isn't good enough. It might work in some movies, but in most scripts it just comes off flat."
That random statement came back into my mind when I was watching the Godfather one day. Why is Vito Corleone getting shot a good inciting incident when Michael is the protagonist in the story? And then it dawned on me. Vito is essentially the protagonist up until he gets shot. If the camera had followed Michael from fade in, Vito getting shot wouldn't have connected with the audience nearly as much. Instead, he was the bigshot for a half hour or so, and bam. He gets shot. Much more impact. Then the story shifts to Michael.
It was a big thing for me to figure out that principle behind the inciting incident, and led me to figure out a lot more about story. So many times you hear about the inciting incident "it's something to get your protagonist off his ass to go and do what the story is about". But that only tells you what the inciting incident is, it doesn't tell you how to create one effectively. I hope my example above is a good insight into how to create one effectively.
That extra dimension seems to be lacking in most bad films.
So the topic is again alive.getting some good info....i just want to give my point of view (it might be wrong so forgive me for that)
i think that the way we present our film (or the treatment of film) is important too. I will give the example of Indian FILm GHAJNI which has a common story that the lead female charachter was killed and the Main lead charachter took the revenge. The story is simple but the way it has been presented it made the film a big HIT. so apart from the story the way we tell our story that also matters a lot.
What do you say?
i think that the way we present our film (or the treatment of film) is important too. I will give the example of Indian FILm GHAJNI which has a common story that the lead female charachter was killed and the Main lead charachter took the revenge. The story is simple but the way it has been presented it made the film a big HIT. so apart from the story the way we tell our story that also matters a lot.
What do you say?