tragabigzanda wrote:What's the narrative of Boyhood, Joey?
(And I'm heading out for the day, will check back later).
Um... are you serious?
Oh my god, Joey, I had the longest day and I couldn't wait to get home and continue this conversation about one of my most favorite films of all time, and this is the post you had waiting for me? I'm not mad, just disappointed...
Yes, my question was totally serious. But fuck it, the moment has passed. I guess it's my fault for expecting some sort of gratification to be found in a Star Wars thread.
LoathedVermin72 wrote:Name one great movie that is great only because of its story
Well, plot and story are different things. Every great movie is great because of its story. Not every great movie is great because of its plot.
That is absolutely ridiculous. No great movie is great because of its story. Not a single one.
Untrue.
Name one.
All of them. I can't name a single great movie that doesn't have a great story.
That isn't what he's saying, though, Joey. Great story alone does not make the great movie
Of course. But I can't think of a movie, a truly great movie that doesn't have a great story. That doesn't mean there aren't some terrible movies with good stories, too.
Late to the topic, but there's a whole swath of great films that exist without any discernible story. Boyhood, Gummo, Baraka, etc...
First of all, Boyhood has a very clear and discernible story.
Secondly, Boyhood isn't a great film.
Thirdly, Gummo has no discernible plot and is a atrocious, ignorant, amateur, and fucking stupid movie.
It boggles your mind? Really? Actually, I guess that makes sense. I suppose it's obvious, but you don't consume movies the way most people do. You don't seem to require much persuasion to accept a movie. It seems that most people require a... different level of immersion. I'm not sure if it's a shallower or deeper level, but it's definitely different.
Anyway...
It's not so much about great story than bad story. Bad story breaks immersion. Bad story breaks the psychic link between the artist and viewer, and the art is rendered ineffective. If a film cannot even justify its viewpoint within its own carefully constructed world, a world SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to express that viewpoint, then why would a viewer buy into it? If it doesn't make sense in its own universe, then its poorly designed. It's false. Perhaps other elements can make up for minor flubs in plotting or even redeem a movie altogether (I couldn't think of one), but its certainly more difficult.
Story matters when there is a story present. Plot holes matter. Bad character motivation matters. A story that fails to engage the viewer matters. If the director is trying to use traditional storytelling techniques to express his vision, then his execution of those techniques matters. Other aspects of a film will not be as effective because of the bad story.
We have defined a story as a narrative of events arranged in their time-sequence. A plot is also a narrative of events, the emphasis falling on causality. ‘The king died, and then the queen died’ is a story. ‘The king died, and then the queen died of grief’ is a plot. The time-sequence is preserved, but the sense of causality overshadows it. Or again: ‘The queen died, no one knew why, until it was discovered that it was through grief at the death of the king.’ This is a plot with a mystery in it, a form capable of high development. It suspends the time-sequence, it moves as far away from the story as its limitations will allow. Consider the death of the queen. If it is in a story we say ‘and then?’ If it is in a plot we ask ‘why?’ That is the fundamental difference between these two aspects of the novel.
or:
A story is a series of events recorded in their chronological order.
A plot is a series of events deliberately arranged so as to reveal their dramatic, thematic, and emotional significance.
or:
A story is a series of events recorded in their chronological order.
plot is the order of events as they are presented by the writer.
BurtReynolds wrote:It boggles your mind? Really? Actually, I guess that makes sense. I suppose it's obvious, but you don't consume movies the way most people do. You don't seem to require much persuasion to accept a movie. It seems that most people require a... different level of immersion. I'm not sure if it's a shallower or deeper level, but it's definitely different.
Anyway...
It's not so much about great story than bad story. Bad story breaks immersion. Bad story breaks the psychic link between the artist and viewer, and the art is rendered ineffective. If a film cannot even justify its viewpoint within its own carefully constructed world, a world SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to express that viewpoint, then why would a viewer buy into it? If it doesn't make sense in its own universe, then its poorly designed. It's false. Perhaps other elements can make up for minor flubs in plotting or even redeem a movie altogether (I couldn't think of one), but its certainly more difficult.
Story matters when there is a story present. Plot holes matter. Bad character motivation matters. A story that fails to engage the viewer matters. If the director is trying to use traditional storytelling techniques to express his vision, then his execution of those techniques matters. Other aspects of a film will not be as effective because of the bad story.
tragabigzanda wrote:What's the narrative of Boyhood, Joey?
(And I'm heading out for the day, will check back later).
Um... are you serious?
Oh my god, Joey, I had the longest day and I couldn't wait to get home and continue this conversation about one of my most favorite films of all time, and this is the post you had waiting for me? I'm not mad, just disappointed...
Yes, my question was totally serious. But fuck it, the moment has passed. I guess it's my fault for expecting some sort of gratification to be found in a Star Wars thread.
Okay. My bad. I just didn't think you could possible be serious. I thought you were poking at me, poking at me.
BurtReynolds wrote:It boggles your mind? Really? Actually, I guess that makes sense. I suppose it's obvious, but you don't consume movies the way most people do. You don't seem to require much persuasion to accept a movie. It seems that most people require a... different level of immersion. I'm not sure if it's a shallower or deeper level, but it's definitely different.
Anyway...
It's not so much about great story than bad story. Bad story breaks immersion. Bad story breaks the psychic link between the artist and viewer, and the art is rendered ineffective. If a film cannot even justify its viewpoint within its own carefully constructed world, a world SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to express that viewpoint, then why would a viewer buy into it? If it doesn't make sense in its own universe, then its poorly designed. It's false. Perhaps other elements can make up for minor flubs in plotting or even redeem a movie altogether (I couldn't think of one), but its certainly more difficult.
Story matters when there is a story present. Plot holes matter. Bad character motivation matters. A story that fails to engage the viewer matters. If the director is trying to use traditional storytelling techniques to express his vision, then his execution of those techniques matters. Other aspects of a film will not be as effective because of the bad story.
See, I would say what you're describing is bigger than "storytelling;" it's filmmaking. Cohesive filmmaking is important. Following the internal logic your movie creates is important. Coherence matters. That does include a film's narrative, sure, but includes a lot of other stuff, too. I just find it odd that people so obsessively focus on only the story element. Especially stuff like people questioning whether audiences will be able to be invested in Rogue One because they know the ultimate outcome. I mean, really? That's what matters in a movie, or even in a story?
BurtReynolds wrote:It boggles your mind? Really? Actually, I guess that makes sense. I suppose it's obvious, but you don't consume movies the way most people do. You don't seem to require much persuasion to accept a movie. It seems that most people require a... different level of immersion. I'm not sure if it's a shallower or deeper level, but it's definitely different.
Anyway...
It's not so much about great story than bad story. Bad story breaks immersion. Bad story breaks the psychic link between the artist and viewer, and the art is rendered ineffective. If a film cannot even justify its viewpoint within its own carefully constructed world, a world SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to express that viewpoint, then why would a viewer buy into it? If it doesn't make sense in its own universe, then its poorly designed. It's false. Perhaps other elements can make up for minor flubs in plotting or even redeem a movie altogether (I couldn't think of one), but its certainly more difficult.
Story matters when there is a story present. Plot holes matter. Bad character motivation matters. A story that fails to engage the viewer matters. If the director is trying to use traditional storytelling techniques to express his vision, then his execution of those techniques matters. Other aspects of a film will not be as effective because of the bad story.
See, I would say what you're describing is bigger than "storytelling;" it's filmmaking. Cohesive filmmaking is important. Following the internal logic your movie creates is important. Coherence matters. That does include a film's narrative, sure, but includes a lot of other stuff, too. I just find it odd that people so obsessively focus on only the story element. Especially stuff like people questioning whether audiences will be able to be invested in Rogue One because they know the ultimate outcome. I mean, really? That's what matters in a movie, or even in a story?
I'm with you on this, Verm. I can understand why that kind of thing is important to people. But it isn't as important to me. Especially if all the other elements are clicking and engaging. But even then.
For me it's especially odd with Rogue One because we don't actually know the outcome. Not really. We know plans get stolen and land in the hands of the Rebellion. That's really it. Big goddamn deal. People knew how WWII ended and that didn't mean a fucking thing regarding how Saving Private Ryan played out.
BurtReynolds wrote:It boggles your mind? Really? Actually, I guess that makes sense. I suppose it's obvious, but you don't consume movies the way most people do. You don't seem to require much persuasion to accept a movie. It seems that most people require a... different level of immersion. I'm not sure if it's a shallower or deeper level, but it's definitely different.
Anyway...
It's not so much about great story than bad story. Bad story breaks immersion. Bad story breaks the psychic link between the artist and viewer, and the art is rendered ineffective. If a film cannot even justify its viewpoint within its own carefully constructed world, a world SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to express that viewpoint, then why would a viewer buy into it? If it doesn't make sense in its own universe, then its poorly designed. It's false. Perhaps other elements can make up for minor flubs in plotting or even redeem a movie altogether (I couldn't think of one), but its certainly more difficult.
Story matters when there is a story present. Plot holes matter. Bad character motivation matters. A story that fails to engage the viewer matters. If the director is trying to use traditional storytelling techniques to express his vision, then his execution of those techniques matters. Other aspects of a film will not be as effective because of the bad story.
See, I would say what you're describing is bigger than "storytelling;" it's filmmaking. Cohesive filmmaking is important. Following the internal logic your movie creates is important. Coherence matters. That does include a film's narrative, sure, but includes a lot of other stuff, too. I just find it odd that people so obsessively focus on only the story element. Especially stuff like people questioning whether audiences will be able to be invested in Rogue One because they know the ultimate outcome. I mean, really? That's what matters in a movie, or even in a story?
Thats a lot of words for "its not the destination, its the journey."
My wife and I just finished watching Breaking Bad (her first time, my second time). We each have different favorite episodes of the series. But I think it's no small coincidence that each of our respective favorite episodes was directed by Rian Johnson.
BurtReynolds wrote:It's not so much about great story than bad story. Bad story breaks immersion. Bad story breaks the psychic link between the artist and viewer, and the art is rendered ineffective. If a film cannot even justify its viewpoint within its own carefully constructed world, a world SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to express that viewpoint, then why would a viewer buy into it?
And this is precisely my problem with the "celebrity eclipse" phenomenon of Ben Affleck, Tom Cruise, and others that you guys got such a kick out of. If an actor's public persona is both wildly inflated and vastly different from a character they're playing, I'm unable to become immersed in the story.
Hey if you can't get passed it, you can't get passed it.
I thought I'd have that problem with Cruise, but he's so good with the action star thing and I've seen him in that role so many times I still forget about the Scientology stuff. There are probably actors I couldn't do that with though. Jennifer Lopez comes to mind.
LoathedVermin72 wrote:I should remind myself that me made Brick and The Brothers Bloom. Looper and TFA have left a bad taste in my mouth.
I've only seen Brick, which I wasn't crazy about. But I admit I wasn't really in the mood for what it was and I need to give it another shot. The dialogue was soooooooooooo hard-boiled. Which, I get was kinda the point but it rubbed me wrong at the time.
BurtReynolds wrote:It's not so much about great story than bad story. Bad story breaks immersion. Bad story breaks the psychic link between the artist and viewer, and the art is rendered ineffective. If a film cannot even justify its viewpoint within its own carefully constructed world, a world SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to express that viewpoint, then why would a viewer buy into it?
And this is precisely my problem with the "celebrity eclipse" phenomenon of Ben Affleck, Tom Cruise, and others that you guys got such a kick out of. If an actor's public persona is both wildly inflated and vastly different from a character they're playing, I'm unable to become immersed in the story.
Hey if you can't get passed it, you can't get passed it.
I thought I'd have that problem with Cruise, but he's so good with the action star thing and I've seen him in that role so many times I still forget about the Scientology stuff. There are probably actors I couldn't do that with though. Jennifer Lopez comes to mind.
Yeah, I understand what trag is saying but I can't get on board with it. It's not something I have an issue with.
LoathedVermin72 wrote:I should remind myself that me made Brick and The Brothers Bloom. Looper and TFA have left a bad taste in my mouth.
I've only seen Brick, which I wasn't crazy about. But I admit I wasn't really in the mood for what it was and I need to give it another shot. The dialogue was soooooooooooo hard-boiled. Which, I get was kinda the point but it rubbed me wrong at the time.
Anyway, it was really beautifully shot, though.
You might dig The Brothers Bloom. It's probably better than Brick.
