What makes a good story good?

[TheNoob]

I would like to share some information with all of you. But before we go any further, you must know, I am no professional, or amateur screenwriter, I'm actually a terrible writer. I lack a certain inherent talent for creating stories.

Simplified:

People need to be able to relate to the story through a simple, and a deeper meaning.

Logic behind simplified answer (below):

I'll keep this short. English is a high level language as opposed to a low-level language, A-B-C-D..., the alphabet, consisting of small values which string together to form higher language, words.

Manipulating small bits of information at a low-level can create complexity i.e, A-B-C-D... can be stringed together to form sentences, which form ideas. Computers use 1's and 0's, or on and off switches, which when stringed together form an intricate application, language is no different.

Simple ideas are more effective and basic. Lower-level units in language like the word "loss" a simple word, can create a story about a man who had it all but lost everything and much, much more. Or a story about a troubled man who lost his way in the world.

So to effectively utilize complex ideas we must work on a lower level as higher language cannot create simplicity, only complexity. Or we must find a middle ground between complexity and simplicity.

Thoughts? None? Had to get this off my chest. w/e blah

 

[ItDonnedOnMe]

I would say a good story is one an audience can relate to or empathize with. A story isn't the words but rather what the words communicate - so complex or simple isn't about the language but the symbolism.

I'm not entirely clear on what you're getting at but I think you may have it backward. 'Loss' is a generalized concept, and the word itself can't create the stories you describe - the stories create a complex set of symbols which convey to an audience the simple concept of loss in a way that they can empathize with on a personal level.

 

[Ziggy]

95% of the time I ignore "screenwriting gurus", but the most pithy of answers has to "What makes a good story?" is CONFLICT.

 

[Feutus Lapdance]

Indeed.........and some good twists.

Jou know wat good story telling is? Sponge Bob......jou know, kids see Sponge bob and the see the lvl1 jokes(sily voices and fart jokes), older kids see sponge bob and the see the lvl2 jokes ....and I see spongebob and I can see the lvl 3 jokes (sarcasm, characters way beyond character, modern and old pop culture and a complex vocabulary). Its awsom how much layers this smal 15b min cartoon has. The cartoon where spongebob learns about art is one of the best, there are jokes jou can only understand if jou learnt some basic art history.

 

[rayw]

Something that makes sense is good.
You/I don't sit there and b!tch at the screen for more than one unforgivable stupid thing.

Bat Boy meets Bad Man.
Bad Man makes the people decide between themselves & Bat Boy
Bat Boy protects the people from themselves.

Fine.
Cool.
Great.

Man sends friend back in time.
Friend saves man's mother.
Friend doinks mom to produce son which becomes the man.

Cool.
Great.


Gimpy man is given a blue alien body - sorta.
Gimpy becomes disinfranchised with the guys that gave him the blue alien body.
Gimpy leads rebellion & keeps blue alien body.

Cool.
Great.

Now, what are some stupid films:

Girl goes to prison.
Girl's amazing dancing (which is never seen) is really fighting to acquire tools to escape the prison.
In fact, the girl is just a figment of another girl's AFU imagination, so none of any of this was even remotely real and we really don't know WTH was going on or with whom.
(SUCKER PUNCH)

Loser takes drugs.
Drugs make him smarter than non-druggies regular people.
Druggie outwits the also-on-drugs-cabal wanting to control him (instead of just doing it themselves).
(LIMITLESS)

Loser inheirits toys.
Loser acquires sidekick who does all the superhero work.
Name the movie after the loser who pretty much does nothing.
(GREEN HORNET)


Sh!t's gotta make sense.
And it helps if we laugh at the jokes rather than at the filmmaker.

 

[rayw]

Additionally, don't ever think that a great story will equate to a sucessful film, financially or critically.
And the inverse.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...EJVYzZYNEZla05DelphZGo4ckRsQ1E&hl=en_US#gid=8
Goto the 2nd & 3rd pages, Return Over Budget & Audience Rating.

Plenty of loved films made bank bunny farts.
Plenty of loathed films were blockbusters.

People are nucking futz.


Now, from that little investigation I did, what stuck out to me the most was the impact of (reported) budget to profitability ratios.

Lettuce just say any given premise + execution has a finite/quantifiable chance in hades of making any revenue.
WELCOME BACK TO THE SUGAR SHACK - (PG-13 RomCOM), Rezoning threatens a joint sorority/fraternity beach house, newly divorced alumni are in charge of saving it. (I just made that up. Whatever).
Maybe it could generate $50m in revenue.
Now, if you write a story that's guranteed to cost $50M to film, then... that was pretty stupid.
P&A are gonna totally FUBAR that.
Even if you write a darling peach of a story that'll likely cost $30M to put in the can, P&A costs are gonna chew into any notion of profit.
Understanding this, a film crafted with a $10M budget might have a rat's chance in hades of being picked up by a producer/studio/distributor.


Now, if you're going to try to write an action adventure that'll cost only $10M, then... good luck.
It'll probably look like sh!t and no theater owner will pick it up despite what your distributor peddles to them.

It's good to know what genre's pull in what kind of revenues and write accordingly.
http://www.the-numbers.com/market/Genres/
But then we get into the whole "fine art" vs. "commercial art" aspect of filmmaking, I being of the latter ilk, and prejudiced accordingly.

 

[FantasySciFi]

Good Story = Emotional engagement of the audience and Relationship resolution of the characters

If I don't care about the characters or the plot--if I can't be engaged as a viewer--it doesn't matter how well written, logical, or relevant the topic. You've lost me.

I need to be interested in the characters and plot. Really the plot is the evolving dynamics of the characters interactions. The boy gets the girl or the boy loses the girl. But if you show me the boy and the girl and they interact, there has to be a reason and a resolution.

Movies have two stories--the objective (what we see and hear) and the subjective (what we feel). You can leave the objective open-ended but you need to resolve the subjective.

Even if the boy doesn't get the girl in the end, we need to know they want each other and that drives what happens after the end (or into the sequel). Asking the audience to be involved emotionally then jerking them at the end (then s/he woke up, it was a dream, etc.) might be 'anti-storytelling'. It can really turn an otherwise decent idea very sour in the audience's mind.

If you hit those three elements, you tell a good story. Add on twists and other features (symbolism, memorable scenes/lines, etc.), you create a great story.

 

[TheNoob]

I would say a good story is one an audience can relate to or empathize with. A story isn't the words but rather what the words communicate - so complex or simple isn't about the language but the symbolism.

I'm not entirely clear on what you're getting at but I think you may have it backward. 'Loss' is a generalized concept, and the word itself can't create the stories you describe - the stories create a complex set of symbols which convey to an audience the simple concept of loss in a way that they can empathize with on a personal level.

The two examples on loss, there meaning escapes you, although I did present it very poorly; I concede that point. But you've reached a correct answer with incorrect reasoning. I agree with your answer, somewhat, although your reasoning I believe to be incorrect.

The whole point of this thread is that simplified concepts seem to go unnoticed, people begin with complexity instead of simplicity.

 

[rayw]

Another element set to some "good stories" is when the protagonist has two goals to satisfy.

Typically there's an overt personal growth, self interested goal that most any individual would believably want for themselves and a more covert altruistic, self sacrificing, adaptation into a greater tapestry of society or family goal.

The bulk of the story is spent trying to achieve the self interested goal only to eventually understand that self sacrificing for the greater good is a better goal.

"I want to be a rock star, but... I don't want to lose my family doing it".

Internal conflict can be powerfully done well.

 

[TheNoob]

Another element set to some "good stories" is when the protagonist has two goals to satisfy.

Typically there's an overt personal growth, self interested goal that most any individual would believably want for themselves and a more covert altruistic, self sacrificing, adaptation into a greater tapestry of society or family goal.

The bulk of the story is spent trying to achieve the self interested goal only to eventually understand that self sacrificing for the greater good is a better goal.

"I want to be a rock star, but... I don't want to lose my family doing it".

Internal conflict can be powerfully done well.

I hardly ever contemplate narrative structure, but I would imagine the story's framework changes depending on the story being told. The self interest vs self sacrifice seems like a great tool, as is any contrasting concept when utilized correctly, as someone stated before, in this thread, conflict is important.

 

[ItDonnedOnMe]

The whole point of this thread is that simplified concepts seem to go unnoticed, people begin with complexity instead of simplicity.

Do you mean specifically in storytelling? Again, I would say it's the opposite. A writer may want to write a story about loss - that's a starting point of simplicity. However they can't just write something simple to convey that point or it won't engage an audience; it'll be considered bad writing, transparent, obvious. An audience doesn't like to be told how to feel. Instead a writer builds a complex narrative from which the audience can infer the simple - loss - in a way that they can identify with personally, a way that feels as if it comes from within and not from the author. This only happens when the audience finds the simplicity hidden within a story themselves.

 

[TheNoob]

Do you mean specifically in storytelling? Again, I would say it's the opposite. A writer may want to write a story about loss - that's a starting point of simplicity. However they can't just write something simple to convey that point or it won't engage an audience; it'll be considered bad writing, transparent, obvious. An audience doesn't like to be told how to feel. Instead a writer builds a complex narrative from which the audience can infer the simple - loss - in a way that they can identify with personally, a way that feels as if it comes from within and not from the author. This only happens when the audience finds the simplicity hidden within a story themselves.

Yes, I agree.

 

[cjnixon]

Gratitous violence and sexy sex.

No really just conflict is all you need and a little dazzle.

 

[PassionPulp]

Watched Eraserhead the other day.
Had very little conflict, made pretty much no sense, but was very creative and aesthetically pleasing.
One of my favorite films.
Next to 2001: A Space Odyssey, which had little conflict (up to a certain point), made very little sense, but was creative and aesthetically pleasing.
This just shows there is a very big difference between a 'story' and a 'film'.

 

[TheNoob]

Watched Eraserhead the other day.
Had very little conflict, made pretty much no sense, but was very creative and aesthetically pleasing.
One of my favorite films.
Next to 2001: A Space Odyssey, which had little conflict (up to a certain point), made very little sense, but was creative and aesthetically pleasing.
This just shows there is a very big difference between a 'story' and a 'film'.

Hmmm, I'll re-watch 2001 today, but I'm pretty sure you're wrong.

We will see muahaha! Anyways, I remember 2001 had loads of symbolism, which was already stated in this thread to be important. Although I don't remember it's conflict (contrasting elements) very well. It's been a while since I've seen the movie.

EDIT: I'll watch Eraserhead too, I guess, never seen it.

 

[PassionPulp]

Hmmm, I'll re-watch 2001 today, but I'm pretty sure you're wrong.

We will see muahaha! Anyways, I remember 2001 had loads of symbolism, which was already stated in this thread to be important. Although I don't remember it's conflict (contrasting elements) very well. It's been a while since I've seen the movie.

EDIT: I'll watch Eraserhead too, I guess, never seen it.

It does have a bit of conflict between HAL and Dave, but that's a very small part of the film. Also there is conflict in the beginning between the two groups of man-apes.
But, for me at least, the reason 2001: is so good is because it is extremely visually pleasing.

And with Eraserhead, I warn you, is just horrifically beautiful.
Watch it late at night. It doesn't creep you out any more or less. It just adds to the ambiance.