DC Tom Posted June 30, 2011 Posted June 30, 2011 I actually think I messed it up in my post (which is funny for numerous reasons). I went back and searched through my books and found out it is 36. This according to Georges Polti. Of course, this is from 1916, but it still holds (in my opinion) -- every story ever told is basically one or a combination of several of these 36 situations. So, if you buy Polti's argument that there are a limit to the types of stories you can tell, you start to see why storytellers (in all forms) struggle to find that "original" idea. Truth is, everything has already been done. It's just about finding a new hook or angle to tell a familiar story and write it well enough that the audience (who has become far more astute and knowledgeable due to the the popularity of film and tv in the past 100 years or so) can't see the strings. Here are Polti's 36 "Dramatic Situations" (sorry for the list!) -Supplication (Basically a situation where someone in power makes a dubious decision which affects someone without power) -Deliverance (rescue, in all its forms) -Crime Pursued by Vengeance (Direct revenge) -Vengeance taken for Kindred upon Kindred (Family revenge) -Pursuit (Punishment & Fugitive) -Disaster -Falling Prey to Cruelty or Misfortune -Revolt -Daring Enterprise (a goal with a bold leader and adversary) -Abduction -The Enigma (interrogator, seeker, and problem) -Obtaining (A solicitor and an adversary who is refusing) -Enmity of Kinsmen -Rivalry of Kinsmen -Murderous Adultery -Madness -Fatal Imprudence -Involuntary Crimes of Love -Slaying of a Kinsmen Unrecognized (Slayer & Unrecognized Victim) -Self Sacrifice for an Ideal -Self Sacrifice for Kindred -All Sacrifice for Passion -Necessity of Sacrificing Loved Ones -Rivalry of Superior and Inferior -Adultery -Crimes of Love -Discovery of the Dishonor of a Loved One -Obstacles to Love -An Enemy Loved -Ambition -Struggle Against God -Mistaken Jealousy -Erroneous Judgment -Remorse -Recovery of a Lost Loved One -Loss of Loved Ones That's interesting. I would have thought it was more...but honestly, I can't think of a movie that can't be categorized by one or a combination of those (hardest I could think of was The Usual Suspects.) And keep in mind: "one of a combination of 36..." is a hell of a lot of combinations (mathematically, about three hundred million trillion trillion combinations - and I don't want to see or read the story that combines all 36, it'll suck; realistically, probably on the order of a million).
CosmicBills Posted June 30, 2011 Posted June 30, 2011 That's interesting. I would have thought it was more...but honestly, I can't think of a movie that can't be categorized by one or a combination of those (hardest I could think of was The Usual Suspects.) And keep in mind: "one of a combination of 36..." is a hell of a lot of combinations (mathematically, about three hundred million trillion trillion combinations - and I don't want to see or read the story that combines all 36, it'll suck; realistically, probably on the order of a million). Yeah, the permutations are indeed endless, but I agree with you. The most I've EVER tried to do with my own stuff is 3 and THAT became tricky. Of course, if you read the book (which references a slew of plays that I've never read making it a bit difficult and dense) each of the 36 situations have variations listed under them with examples. So there's a lot to mine here as a writer. To me, when I see a movie that feels derivative, it's usually a product of being able to see the strings. I think the great films (or books/plays/shows) all have pretty common and well worn structures/concpets/conceits but what makes them work is that the writer/director/actors found a new way to tell an old story. Usual Suspects is a GREAT one to analyze for this ... if I had to guess, I'd say it's a combination of: The Enigma, Pursuit, and Obtaining ... (there's a mystery, a heist and somewhat of a chase). Right? Maybe I'm wrong.
DC Tom Posted June 30, 2011 Posted June 30, 2011 (edited) Yeah, the permutations are indeed endless, but I agree with you. The most I've EVER tried to do with my own stuff is 3 and THAT became tricky. Of course, if you read the book (which references a slew of plays that I've never read making it a bit difficult and dense) each of the 36 situations have variations listed under them with examples. So there's a lot to mine here as a writer. To me, when I see a movie that feels derivative, it's usually a product of being able to see the strings. I think the great films (or books/plays/shows) all have pretty common and well worn structures/concpets/conceits but what makes them work is that the writer/director/actors found a new way to tell an old story. I agree. But the original post (and intent behind this thread) was less about "derivitave" than it was about the lack of creativity in direct copy: it's not that they're recycling dramatic concepts, or even recycling stories. They're simply remaking whole movies, for little more reason than technological update. There's that monster movie from a few years back...the one where some big lizard-alient thing terrorizes Manhattan, "Cloverfarm" or something...was it simply a derivitive of Gojira? No...they shared the same dramatic situations (Disaster, Falling Prey, Obstacles to Love, maybe even Struggle Against God), but were distinctly different movies. That's qualitatively different from a carbon-copy of Wargames? or Red Dawn - those aren't derivitive, they're direct remakes, for little sake other than to update the tech in them. Which illustrates Hollywood's real problem: gizmo-obsession. Easier and less risky to recycle a story (or, if you're Michael Bay or Roland !@#$ing Emmerich, not even tell one) with lots of gizmos in it. Usual Suspects is a GREAT one to analyze for this ... if I had to guess, I'd say it's a combination of: The Enigma, Pursuit, and Obtaining ... (there's a mystery, a heist and somewhat of a chase). Right? Maybe I'm wrong. The Enigma, Pursuit, Obtaining...Crime Pursued By Vengeance (twice over - the crew and the snitch on the boat, both pursued by Soze), Falling Prey, Ambition, Struggle against God, Remorse, All Sacrifice for Passion...I could make a case for all of those. Enigma's really the only obvious one...my second would be Struggle Against God, given Keyser Soze portrayed as the arch-mastermind controlling everything, and then maybe Daring Enterprise, and Rivalry of Superior and Inferior (think about it, the whole Verbal/Keyser interplay with everyone else). Edit: by the way...if I think "Match the Movie to Polti's Dramatic Situations" would make a great party game, does that indicate there's something seriously wrong with me? Edited June 30, 2011 by DC Tom
CosmicBills Posted June 30, 2011 Posted June 30, 2011 I agree. But the original post (and intent behind this thread) was less about "derivitave" than it was about the lack of creativity in direct copy: it's not that they're recycling dramatic concepts, or even recycling stories. They're simply remaking whole movies, for little more reason than technological update. There's that monster movie from a few years back...the one where some big lizard-alient thing terrorizes Manhattan, "Cloverfarm" or something...was it simply a derivitive of Gojira? No...they shared the same dramatic situations (Disaster, Falling Prey, Obstacles to Love, maybe even Struggle Against God), but were distinctly different movies. That's qualitatively different from a carbon-copy of Wargames? or Red Dawn - those aren't derivitive, they're direct remakes, for little sake other than to update the tech in them. Which illustrates Hollywood's real problem: gizmo-obsession. Easier and less risky to recycle a story (or, if you're Michael Bay or Roland !@#$ing Emmerich, not even tell one) with lots of gizmos in it. The Enigma, Pursuit, Obtaining...Crime Pursued By Vengeance (twice over - the crew and the snitch on the boat, both pursued by Soze), Falling Prey, Ambition, Struggle against God, Remorse, All Sacrifice for Passion...I could make a case for all of those. Enigma's really the only obvious one...my second would be Struggle Against God, given Keyser Soze portrayed as the arch-mastermind controlling everything, and then maybe Daring Enterprise, and Rivalry of Superior and Inferior (think about it, the whole Verbal/Keyser interplay with everyone else). Edit: by the way...if I think "Match the Movie to Polti's Dramatic Situations" would make a great party game, does that indicate there's something seriously wrong with me? No, it's a GREAT game! Good idea, it certainly is fun -- well for nerds like me I guess. No, you're right about your first point. I hijacked the thread a bit (blush) ... though, I'm holding out hope that the remakes of War Games and Red Dawn have little in common with the originals outside of the title. I hated the shot-for-shot Psycho remake (and will feel the same about Footloose). But I didn't mind True Grit or Let Me In since they brought something different to the story. But again, I'm way more forgiving about that sort of thing than most of the people I know who work in the biz. Which is strange since SO many of them get made. But I think that has more to do with Risk Management and the Studios now being nothing more than parts of a larger conglomerate. It makes it more about money than telling the best stories possible. Though, despite everything I've seen since being out here (which isn't all that long, just about 4 years), I will say that no one ever sets out to make a ****ty movie. Even the most bottom line thinking producers I've worked with all want nothing more than to make something awesome ... at least until the budget comes out:)
\GoBillsInDallas/ Posted July 1, 2011 Posted July 1, 2011 This isn't really true. There are plenty of original ideas in Hollywood this very moment. And some of them are amazingly awesome. But sadly, there's far less risk in betting 150 million dollars on an existing property than there is in betting on something unknown. It's silly when you think about it logically -- but that's sometimes the sad reality of the business side of Hollywood. The problem is, 99% of the "original ideas" that they come up with are incredibly stupid. For example, here is the upcoming movie called "horrible bosses": http://horriblebossesmovie.warnerbros.com/index.html#/trailer One of the "horrible bosses" is played by Jennifer Anniston, who plays a dentist who "sexually harasses" one of her dental technicians, played by Charlie Day. First, how many people believe that there are male dental assistants out there (sound of crickets chirping). Second, how many of you would complain if Jennifer Anniston sexually harasses you (sound of crickets chirping). Third, how many of you out there believe that there are smoking hot female dentists out there who are single and unattached and like to sexually harass their male co-workers (sound of crickets chirping). http://horriblebossesmovie.warnerbros.com/index.html#/meet_maneater And just think, people actually get paid money for dreaming up stuff like this.
CosmicBills Posted July 1, 2011 Posted July 1, 2011 The problem is, 99% of the "original ideas" that they come up with are incredibly stupid. For example, here is the upcoming movie called "horrible bosses": http://horriblebossesmovie.warnerbros.com/index.html#/trailer One of the "horrible bosses" is played by Jennifer Anniston, who plays a dentist who "sexually harasses" one of her dental technicians, played by Charlie Day. First, how many people believe that there are male dental assistants out there (sound of crickets chirping). Second, how many of you would complain if Jennifer Anniston sexually harasses you (sound of crickets chirping). Third, how many of you out there believe that there are smoking hot female dentists out there who are single and unattached and like to sexually harass their male co-workers (sound of crickets chirping). http://horriblebossesmovie.warnerbros.com/index.html#/meet_maneater And just think, people actually get paid money for dreaming up stuff like this. I mean ... it is a comedy. And purposefully outlandish. That's kind of the point. It's not like they're trying to make a serious movie. Are you saying that we can only tell stories grounded 100% in reality? Don't you think that defeats the purpose of movies -- escapism? Can you imagine what your favorite movies would look like if they adhered strictly to that rule?
\GoBillsInDallas/ Posted July 1, 2011 Posted July 1, 2011 I mean ... it is a comedy. And purposefully outlandish. That's kind of the point. It's not like they're trying to make a serious movie. Are you saying that we can only tell stories grounded 100% in reality? Don't you think that defeats the purpose of movies -- escapism? Can you imagine what your favorite movies would look like if they adhered strictly to that rule? No - I just think think that there is a big difference between "good" and "bad" comedy. This movie strikes me as being very "lazy", as if they're using marketers and a checklist to come up with a series of sketches that are connected together to form a movie.
DC Tom Posted July 1, 2011 Posted July 1, 2011 No - I just think think that there is a big difference between "good" and "bad" comedy. This movie strikes me as being very "lazy", as if they're using marketers and a checklist to come up with a series of sketches that are connected together to form a movie. I have a hard time thinking of a comedy that isn't just "a series of sketches that are connected together to form a movie." Young Frankenstein, Dr. Strangelove, A Fish Called Wanda are very good comedies that certainly meet that description.
CosmicBills Posted July 1, 2011 Posted July 1, 2011 I have a hard time thinking of a comedy that isn't just "a series of sketches that are connected together to form a movie." Young Frankenstein, Dr. Strangelove, A Fish Called Wanda are very good comedies that certainly meet that description. Yeah, I agree ... I get it if you don't like the set up or actors, Dallas. I do. Everyone has their own tastes and I'm never one to judge (I like WAY too many bad movies to ever judge anyone's taste lol). In the case of Horrible Bosses, I think what sold it isn't a marketing checklist, but the actors playing different roles. We've never seen Aniston as a man-eater, Colin Ferrel as a balding douche bag, Kevin Spacey as ... well, we've seen him as a psycho. But Charlie Day (Aniston's employee) is AMAZING. He's one of my favorite new actors (though I guess he's not all that new, just in features) and that situation is going to be hilarious because of the juxtaposition from how we're accustomed to seeing both him and Aniston. (I think). I'm not sure if I am too high on the SNL guy who, to me, is too similar to Ed Helms (which is really unfair to say). But the rest of the cast makes me want to see this movie BECAUSE they are being absurd and playing against type (for the most part).
DC Tom Posted July 1, 2011 Posted July 1, 2011 We've never seen [...] Colin Ferrel as a balding douche bag Well, not balding...
Spun Posted July 3, 2011 Posted July 3, 2011 Cinema is like beer in that if you keep buying the common denominator, that is mostly what you will be offered. Before micro-beers what did we have? A lot of mediocre beer. Then when more and better choices came on the market, the big breweries had a hole in their business model. I agree that there are most likely many, very creative ideas that won't end up in Hollywood projects. Go out of your way to see the indies and foreign films. Ignore the remakes, sequels, superhero fiascos and top-heavy special effects. I get the part about Jennifer Aniston. She has some powerful allure! But Hangover 2? By the way, I did see a couple of good documentaries last week: City of Life and Death http://movies.nytimes.com/2011/05/11/movies/city-of-life-and-death-from-lu-chuan-review.html My Perestroika http://movies.nytimes.com/2011/03/23/movies/my-perestroika-about-growing-up-in-russia-review.html
shrader Posted July 6, 2011 Posted July 6, 2011 First, how many people believe that there are male dental assistants out there (sound of crickets chirping). Second, how many of you would complain if Jennifer Anniston sexually harasses you (sound of crickets chirping). Third, how many of you out there believe that there are smoking hot female dentists out there who are single and unattached and like to sexually harass their male co-workers (sound of crickets chirping). I have no idea if she's single, but I wish my dentist would sexually harass me.
/dev/null Posted July 9, 2011 Posted July 9, 2011 Space Invaders the movie http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/space-invaders-video-game-headed-208968
Just Jack Posted July 9, 2011 Author Posted July 9, 2011 No, you're right about your first point. I hijacked the thread a bit (blush) ... though, I'm holding out hope that the remakes of War Games and Red Dawn have little in common with the originals outside of the title. I hated the shot-for-shot Psycho remake (and will feel the same about Footloose). But I didn't mind True Grit or Let Me In since they brought something different to the story. Don't worry about the hijack. This is the way I view it. To remake WarGames, Red Dawn, etc makes me think there is no creativity if someone wants to take an older movie and simply update it, or as you mention with Psycho, a shot for shot remake. Especially when you look at some other recent movies, for instance . Now on the other hand, there have been, for lack of a better term, copycat movies. In '98, we had Armageddon and Deep Impact. In 2000, there was Mission To Mars and Red Planet. In each case there was the action movie and the deep thinker movie. And in each case, I liked each movie based upon what my mood is to see. Then this year we got No Strings Attached and Friends With Benefits. (Neither of which I've seen) I guess I'm rambling and lost my point.
Kiwi Bills fan Posted July 10, 2011 Posted July 10, 2011 That's because it was made in New Zealand and not Hollyood! LOTR is one of the few examples of Hollywood actually doing something right this century
Recommended Posts