 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/21/10 17:09, Warp wrote:
> I have seen much worse movies in terms of scripting, though. Much, much
> worse.
Sure - it wasn't a crappy movie. It's just not particularly good.
--
Such is life, and it is getting sucher and sucher.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/21/10 17:12, Warp wrote:
> I wouldn't say it was *completely* bereft of original ideas. Can you name
> another movie where people interact with other sentient beings through
> genetically engineered avatars? (The Matrix doesn't count.)
I consider those as irrelevant in terms of originality. It didn't
really add much to the basic plot. The idea of living through an
external body - including for handicapped folks - isn't original.
--
Such is life, and it is getting sucher and sucher.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieee org> wrote:
>> Agreed. Not an ounce of originality in the story.
>
> I wouldn't say it was *completely* bereft of original ideas. Can you name
> another movie where people interact with other sentient beings through
> genetically engineered avatars? (The Matrix doesn't count.)
No, but there are lots of books and short stories like that. It wasn't
original - it was just the first *movie* with that, per se.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> >> Agreed. Not an ounce of originality in the story.
> >
> > I wouldn't say it was *completely* bereft of original ideas. Can you name
> > another movie where people interact with other sentient beings through
> > genetically engineered avatars? (The Matrix doesn't count.)
> No, but there are lots of books and short stories like that. It wasn't
> original - it was just the first *movie* with that, per se.
Speaking of which, when was the last time you saw a movie which had
something *genuinely* original, something which hadn't been put into any
form of storytelling before (and self-pretentious incomprehensible cheap
art films don't count because that's not storytelling, it's randomness)?
Every story is always based on what was before. There's rarely anything
truly original and innovative.
It's the execution that counts.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Neeum Zawan" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message
news:4b58ecf0@news.povray.org...
> On 01/13/10 22:11, Darren New wrote:
>> Pretty but cliche.
>
> Agreed. Not an ounce of originality in the story.
>
I've always been a big fan of the "seven basic plots" idea. I note, for the
record, that this is neither an absolute nor an accepted theory in all
circles, but I think the concept has merit.
Also, a film is not just a story, although I think a compelling story is
important. This one has the classic
"boy-meets-girl-boy-loses-girl-boy-does-something-heroic-boy-gets-girl",
which is one of my favorites. But, to each his own.
A film is, or should be, a kind of art that is a balancing act. Art is a
communication method; it communicates emotions the way that words
communicate ideas. The balancing act comes in unifying the emotional message
from the hundreds (in this case, close to 3,000 according to the best
estimates I could find) people.
To me, a compelling story is not just one that's interesting, it makes me
wonder, "what happens next?" My favorite novels always leave me wanting to
know more about the lives of the characters. That certainly happened for me
with this film.
As an aside, I must say that I'm enjoying the fact that, in a space occupied
by so many technical people as in this group, that so much of the discussion
of this film has been focused on the story and the visual look of the film.
There is some amazingly odd and hard to validate science going on in this
movie. Most of the time, when that happens in a movie (Armaggedon, anyone?)
I find the film unwatchable. I was so caught up in Avatar that it didn't
even register with me until later, and even then, I shrugged it off with a
"who cares, it was great" attitude. :-)
--
Jack
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Captain Jack" <Cap### [at] comcastnet> wrote:
> There is some amazingly odd and hard to validate science going on in this
> movie. Most of the time, when that happens in a movie (Armaggedon, anyone?)
> I find the film unwatchable. I was so caught up in Avatar that it didn't
> even register with me until later, and even then, I shrugged it off with a
> "who cares, it was great" attitude. :-)
Cameron is good at that. Aliens (and to a lesser degree, Terminator) also manage
to get enough detail right, in a well-paced story, that you don't mind (or
indeed notice) the potential problems.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/22/10 01:33, Warp wrote:
> Every story is always based on what was before. There's rarely anything
> truly original and innovative.
>
> It's the execution that counts.
And if they hadn't made the characters so one dimensional, then I'd
have liked the movie more.
I actually like unoriginal movies that were made really well (e.g. A
Simple Plan). This won points on the effects front, but little else.
--
If you think nobody cares, try missing a couple of payments.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/22/10 06:39, Captain Jack wrote:
> Also, a film is not just a story, although I think a compelling story is
> important. This one has the classic
> "boy-meets-girl-boy-loses-girl-boy-does-something-heroic-boy-gets-girl",
> which is one of my favorites. But, to each his own.
Oh, I don't mind it either. I just wish it was a bit different in
execution, though. Did they really need that jealous guy, for example?
It was as if the writer was following some recipe book to the letter.
> To me, a compelling story is not just one that's interesting, it makes me
> wonder, "what happens next?" My favorite novels always leave me wanting to
> know more about the lives of the characters. That certainly happened for me
> with this film.
Not for me. Some of the (human) characters were so heavily stereotyped
that there was little left to wonder about them after you'd seen each of
them for a few minutes.
I'd say it was a pretty good movie if they'd just had better characters
- even if the plot was completely unoriginal.
--
If you think nobody cares, try missing a couple of payments.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Speaking of which, when was the last time you saw a movie which had
> something *genuinely* original,
I think that the cost of a movie prevents you from doing something *really*
original. Some of the stuff like Total Recall or Jumper would have been a
pretty original story had it not come from a book. But I don't think you'll
find too many people spending $200million on a completely new and untested
story.
Books? Lots of books with genuinely original stories out there.
> Every story is always based on what was before.
It's easy (so to speak) to do completely original short stories, for
example. That's one of the hallmarks of science fiction.
Of course, you can always generalize a story to the point where it's no
longer original. You can take something like Jumper and say "there are lots
of stories where someone with something special is fleeing from those who
fear him" or dismiss Total Recall with "it's a boy-meets-girl romantic
comedy". There's some level of detail you have to retain for a story to be
unique, as every story has a beginning, a middle, and an end.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Captain Jack wrote:
> I've always been a big fan of the "seven basic plots" idea. I note, for the
> record, that this is neither an absolute nor an accepted theory in all
> circles, but I think the concept has merit.
You should note that the original formulation was that there were only seven
basic plots that work well in a theater play.
Movies? Books? Lots more than seven. Stories you can tell with live actors
on a stage? OK, maybe 7 counts, if you lump all of comedy as one plot and
all of tragedy as another.
To some extent, there's only so much you can do in a movie, too, as movies
are very expensive to make and you still can't learn stuff except by seeing
it happen. Altho "flashbacks" and voice-over narration can help, you still
can't get as much of that in as you can in a novel.
> There is some amazingly odd and hard to validate science going on in this
> movie.
It wasn't really a science fiction movie, unlike Armaggedon was. Hence,
since the science wasn't really driving the movie per se, the fact that the
science was bogus didn't hurt the story.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
> Did they really need that jealous guy, for example?
I suspect he comes up in the part of the story that was cut from shooting
because the movie was already too long. :-)
> It was as if the writer was following some recipe book to the letter.
Indeed. There's *always* a rejected and hence jealous boyfriend, even when
completely unnecessary.
> I'd say it was a pretty good movie if they'd just had better
> characters - even if the plot was completely unoriginal.
I understand much of the complexity was cut. There were scenes on earth
motivating the need to attack the planet, drug abuse amongst the marines,
marine leaders taking bribes (altho for what I don't remember), etc etc.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 04:33:08 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Speaking of which, when was the last time you saw a movie which had
> something *genuinely* original, something which hadn't been put into any
> form of storytelling before (and self-pretentious incomprehensible cheap
> art films don't count because that's not storytelling, it's randomness)?
It doesn't count because you don't understand it?
That's kinda like asking:
When's the last time you counted to 10 and didn't use odd numbers? Oh,
and you can't use even numbers, because they don't count.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/22/10 09:23, Darren New wrote:
> I think that the cost of a movie prevents you from doing something
> *really* original. Some of the stuff like Total Recall or Jumper would
> have been a pretty original story had it not come from a book. But I
> don't think you'll find too many people spending $200million on a
> completely new and untested story.
Timely. I was just watching the Fawlty Towers DVD's, and in the
interview section, John Cleese said that a marketing person told him the
most difficult thing to sell is something original. People are too
worried it will fail. Cleese's perspective was that original material
takes time to become popular (Fawlty Towers wasn't a great hit until its
reruns), so it's better for TV series than movies.
--
If you think nobody cares, try missing a couple of payments.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/22/10 09:30, Darren New wrote:
>> I'd say it was a pretty good movie if they'd just had better
>> characters - even if the plot was completely unoriginal.
>
> I understand much of the complexity was cut. There were scenes on earth
> motivating the need to attack the planet, drug abuse amongst the
> marines, marine leaders taking bribes (altho for what I don't remember),
> etc etc.
Sigh. Guess I'll suspend judgment till the director's cut comes out.
--
If you think nobody cares, try missing a couple of payments.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> And if they hadn't made the characters so one dimensional, then I'd
> have liked the movie more.
Btw, I have always wondered exactly what is it meant by "one dimensional
character". I assume it's something related to character development,
but maybe concrete examples of "one-dimensional" characters and
"non-one-dimensional" characters in some movies (and why they are
considered such) could help understanding better.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:4b5a0d93@news.povray.org...
> Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> > And if they hadn't made the characters so one
dimensional, then I'd
> > have liked the movie more.
>
> Btw, I have always wondered exactly what is it meant by
"one dimensional
> character". I assume it's something related to character
development,
> but maybe concrete examples of "one-dimensional"
characters and
> "non-one-dimensional" characters in some movies (and why
they are
> considered such) could help understanding better.- Warp
Pretty good article here:
http://www.authorsden.com/visit/viewarticle.asp?AuthorID=10109
~db
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> If you think nobody cares, try missing a couple of payments.
I think it's sad if the only thing people care about you is that you pay.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 04:33:08 -0500, Warp wrote:
> > Speaking of which, when was the last time you saw a movie which had
> > something *genuinely* original, something which hadn't been put into any
> > form of storytelling before (and self-pretentious incomprehensible cheap
> > art films don't count because that's not storytelling, it's randomness)?
> It doesn't count because you don't understand it?
No, it doesn't count because it's not storytelling, but randomness.
I could make a random number generator create an image full of noise
and claim "this is a completely original image, never seen before". That
might be technically true, but it isn't saying much.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 15:47:30 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 04:33:08 -0500, Warp wrote:
>
>> > Speaking of which, when was the last time you saw a movie which had
>> > something *genuinely* original, something which hadn't been put into
>> > any form of storytelling before (and self-pretentious
>> > incomprehensible cheap art films don't count because that's not
>> > storytelling, it's randomness)?
>
>> It doesn't count because you don't understand it?
>
> No, it doesn't count because it's not storytelling, but randomness.
Just because you aren't seeing a story doesn't mean there isn't one
there. It just means that for you, the method by which the story is
being told is incomprehensible. Doesn't mean it's that way for everyone.
> I could make a random number generator create an image full of noise
> and claim "this is a completely original image, never seen before". That
> might be technically true, but it isn't saying much.
But what you're saying is in fact a true statement.
What you're doing is constraining a set using a subjective definition
(that subjectiveness is "if I don't understand it, then it doesn't
count", and is implied in the way you stated the condition).
You've done this in a couple of recent posts, which is why I mentioned
it. My example of counting to 10 was taking it to an absurd level to
make a point about it.
In other news, did you know that no resistor has an orange band, if you
exclude resistors that have orange bands? Wow, that's amazing isn't
it! ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:4b5a0d93@news.povray.org...
>
> Btw, I have always wondered exactly what is it meant by "one dimensional
> character". I assume it's something related to character development,
> but maybe concrete examples of "one-dimensional" characters and
> "non-one-dimensional" characters in some movies (and why they are
> considered such) could help understanding better.
In acting classes that I have attended as well as taught, we talk about "two
dimensional characters", "cardboard cutouts", and "characters with no
depth", all referring to the same thing. When I see a performance (and it's
fifty fifty whether it's the actor's fault or the writer's fault) and the
character doesn't change or always reacts the same way to differing stimuli,
I use one of those terms. Real people act in different ways at different
times, and performances by an actor should show that, unless the character
is intended to be ignored or lack of depth is a stylistic choice for some
reason (for example, cartoons targeted at children are usually populated
with characters with no depth, although they're often brightly colored and
say, "Zowie!" a lot).
Sometimes what is considered "depth" is a matter of opinion, and sometimes
the depth of a character is subtle (as in real life). Back to the topic, I
think the character of Colonel Miles Quaritch in Avatar has a great deal of
depth, although I know lots of people who disagree. The character has an
incredibly rich back story, but it's revealed in such an undertone that it
takes some thought to see it.
A lot of people look at characters who are so focused on a goal or obsessed
with something and say the character lacks depth. Quaritch is suffering from
an obsession and a fear of losing control, and he is on the verge of sinking
in to madness, but his own obstinance won't let him. What we see in this
film is the tip of an awfully big iceberg, and it's hard to see past it, but
it's there.
--
Jack
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
An unusually positive review of the movie:
http://thecinemasnob.com/2009/12/19/avatar-review.aspx
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Captain Jack <Cap### [at] comcastnet> wrote:
> In acting classes that I have attended as well as taught, we talk about "two
> dimensional characters", "cardboard cutouts", and "characters with no
> depth", all referring to the same thing.
Btw, was the original expression "two-dimensional character" (meaning a
character with no depth), after which some people started using an
exaggerated version of the expression, "one-dimensional character" in
their desire to say "a really, really flat character", and after years
of using that, it has basically replaced the original expression and thus
everybody nowadays says "one-dimensional character" when they really mean
what "two-dimensional character" meant originally?
Do I understand correctly that when a character in a story exists basically
for one single purpose (eg. to be a jerk, a greedy executive, a naive
Mary Sue, or such) with no other personality traits or history, and when
this character maintains the role in its purest form throughout the entire
story, it's usually a bad case of two-dimensionality?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> You've done this in a couple of recent posts, which is why I mentioned
> it.
The The Matrix reference was a joke, mind you.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/22/10 12:41, Warp wrote:
> Neeum Zawan<m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>> And if they hadn't made the characters so one dimensional, then I'd
>> have liked the movie more.
>
> Btw, I have always wondered exactly what is it meant by "one dimensional
> character". I assume it's something related to character development,
> but maybe concrete examples of "one-dimensional" characters and
> "non-one-dimensional" characters in some movies (and why they are
> considered such) could help understanding better.
One dimensional typically means that they're very simple.
My use of the phrase is probably problematic/invalid. By 1-D, I meant
so strongly stereotyped. People like the jealous friend, military
commander, the corporate guy were all fairly simple characters, some of
whom were taken to silly extremes. The romance was also fairly
stereotyped, as was the response of the natives to the main character, etc.
--
If you think nobody cares, try missing a couple of payments.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 17:02:27 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> You've done this in a couple of recent posts, which is why I mentioned
>> it.
>
> The The Matrix reference was a joke, mind you.
Well, I suspected it was. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Captain Jack wrote:
> I've always been a big fan of the "seven basic plots" idea.
Which of those would The Dark Knight fall under, I wonder.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 08:19:07 +0100, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Captain Jack wrote:
>> I've always been a big fan of the "seven basic plots" idea.
>
> Which of those would The Dark Knight fall under, I wonder.
That would be "Overcoming the monster".
--
FE
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Captain Jack <Cap### [at] comcastnet> wrote:
>> In acting classes that I have attended as well as taught, we talk about "two
>> dimensional characters", "cardboard cutouts", and "characters with no
>> depth", all referring to the same thing.
>
> Btw, was the original expression "two-dimensional character" (meaning a
> character with no depth), after which some people started using an
> exaggerated version of the expression, "one-dimensional character" in
> their desire to say "a really, really flat character", and after years
> of using that, it has basically replaced the original expression and thus
> everybody nowadays says "one-dimensional character" when they really mean
> what "two-dimensional character" meant originally?
>
That is probably it, yeah. Though extending the metaphor in that way
does yield some useful ideas.
That the character lacks all dimensionality except as a single thrust,
or file. Hints at the
possibility of a no-dimensional character, a single point, useful as a
reference, a position, and that is all.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fredrik Eriksson wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 08:19:07 +0100, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Captain Jack wrote:
>>> I've always been a big fan of the "seven basic plots" idea.
>>
>> Which of those would The Dark Knight fall under, I wonder.
>
> That would be "Overcoming the monster".
I disagree that covers it. If it does, then the categories are so broad as
to be meaningless. When your seven plots are "funny", "sad", "conflict",
"romance", ..., I think the analysis is pointless. It's like saying "All
programs fall into only a few categories: GUI, CLI, Server, ..." It tells
you nothing useful about the program itself.
Which one is the monster? The city? The mob? The joker? Two-face? Crane?
Batman's own fear?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> > That would be "Overcoming the monster".
> I disagree that covers it.
Movies rarely fall into one single category.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> No, but there are lots of books and short stories like that. It wasn't
> original - it was just the first *movie* with that, per se.
Not even the first that year.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0986263/
Surrogates. The whole point of the movie is that people experience the
real world through fake bodies.
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> I understand much of the complexity was cut. There were scenes on earth
> motivating the need to attack the planet, drug abuse amongst the
> marines, marine leaders taking bribes (altho for what I don't remember),
> etc etc.
While those things could have made the movie better, I doubt they would
have. Seeing how the material that's there was handled, I don't think
adding more material (that's handled just as poorly) would have been the
answer.
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>> That would be "Overcoming the monster".
>
>> I disagree that covers it.
>
> Movies rarely fall into one single category.
Sure, but I think the idea that all movies can be categorized into only
seven basic plots makes those plots too general to really be of much use
analyzing movies.
Maybe in writing a play, you are better off sticking to one of those seven
main themes, but I think there's a lot more you can do with books and movies
than you can with plays. I can see where in a play you wouldn't want to
combine a comedy with an overcoming-the-monster per se, for example.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Sure, but I think the idea that all movies can be categorized into only
> seven basic plots makes those plots too general to really be of much use
> analyzing movies.
I believe that the whole point of that book was to give seven extremely
broad categories under which the vast majority of stories can be categorized.
In other words, "any movie can be classified as one of these" is the main
idea.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> I believe that the whole point of that book was to give seven extremely
> broad categories under which the vast majority of stories can be categorized.
Vast majority I'll go with, sure. And "if you're a beginning playwrite,
stick with these themes" makes sense, as in "make sure you have an
antagonist if the protagonist just sits in the same place without changing"
and so on. But I'm not sure what's useful about a classification system
where Frankenstein, The Matrix, and Hamlet can all be categorized in the
same pile. :-)
"Here's seven ways to add something interesting to your story" or "seven
ways to turn a situation into a story" I can see, yes. Otherwise it's just
an essay about the situation.
How about "The Cube", the one with the guy trapped in the white cube with
all the visitors, not the one with the rooms with a door on each side?
The *innovative* movies are the ones that don't match one of those seven
plots, methinks. The *good* innovative movies are rare, yes. :-) But I
think a lot of (for example) PKDick stories don't fall into those categories.
Not that I really care. It's just that the topic has come up in three
different online places I hang out in the last couple of weeks, so I've
thought about it more than I should. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Avatar has been compared to Dances with Wolves, Pocahontas, Ferngully,
> The Last Samurai and even Atlantis: The Lost Empire, but In Space. So yeah,
> it's not like it's the most original and innovative story in existence.
Speaking of which... http://failblog.org/2010/01/10/avatar-plot-fail/
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Speaking of which... http://failblog.org/2010/01/10/avatar-plot-fail/
Yep. That was the one. :-)
I saw a fascinating lecture a couple decades ago where someone from MIT has
written an AI program that would read scripts and summarize them into
relationship diagrams. I forget the exact examples used, but the lecturer
put up an overhead slides with Hamlet's characters (Hamlet kills King, King
kills Ghost, Ophelia loves Hamlet, etc) and he lifted off the names and laid
down some other popular story with names, just like that, and it fit
exactly. An amusing concept.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Charter wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> Captain Jack <Cap### [at] comcastnet> wrote:
>>> In acting classes that I have attended as well as taught, we talk
>>> about "two dimensional characters", "cardboard cutouts", and
>>> "characters with no depth", all referring to the same thing.
>>
>> Btw, was the original expression "two-dimensional character" (meaning a
>> character with no depth), after which some people started using an
>> exaggerated version of the expression, "one-dimensional character" in
>> their desire to say "a really, really flat character", and after years
>> of using that, it has basically replaced the original expression and thus
>> everybody nowadays says "one-dimensional character" when they really mean
>> what "two-dimensional character" meant originally?
>>
> That is probably it, yeah. Though extending the metaphor in that way
> does yield some useful ideas.
>
> That the character lacks all dimensionality except as a single thrust,
> or file. Hints at the
> possibility of a no-dimensional character, a single point, useful as a
> reference, a position, and that is all.
Would that no-dimensional character be the guy that a main character
bumps into on a street, calls the main character a jerk, and then is
never seen again? Those characters show up all the time in comedies, but
I am having trouble thinking of any in a drama that did not end up so
simply because of editing.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sabrina Kilian <ski### [at] vtedu> wrote:
> Would that no-dimensional character be the guy that a main character
> bumps into on a street, calls the main character a jerk, and then is
> never seen again?
I would call that a "one-dimensional character" because that character
serves a role. One single extremely narrow role, but a role nevertheless.
You could have different types of such characters. Someone could eg.
aplogize instead of getting angry (an extreme case would be a Japanese
tourist who apologizes very profusely).
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> You could have different types of such characters.
I read a fascinating book full of short stories called something like "tales
from the catina." It took all the zero-dimensional characters from Star
Wars and wrote short stories/novelettes about each one. It also seemed like
they were interconnected, as if each author was given the end of the
previous story to start from.
So there's a story about the guy playing keyboard in the Catina band, and
how he's down on his luck, so he sells a blaster to the jawa who was
cleaning up the dead bodies at the attacked jawa transport, who takes it and
tries to get revenge on the empire by shooting the guards who believed these
aren't the droids they were looking for, who go rough up the pig-faced guard
to get an audience with Jaba the Hutt, who is in the process of talking to
the monster trainer to get a new monster of the type Luke dropped the door
on, etc etc etc.
A very fun concept. I think they actually made two books full of such stories.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> You could have different types of such characters.
>
> I read a fascinating book full of short stories called something like
> "tales from the catina." It took all the zero-dimensional characters
> from Star Wars and wrote short stories/novelettes about each one. It
> also seemed like they were interconnected, as if each author was given
> the end of the previous story to start from.
>
> So there's a story about the guy playing keyboard in the Catina band,
> and how he's down on his luck, so he sells a blaster to the jawa who was
> cleaning up the dead bodies at the attacked jawa transport, who takes it
> and tries to get revenge on the empire by shooting the guards who
> believed these aren't the droids they were looking for, who go rough up
> the pig-faced guard to get an audience with Jaba the Hutt, who is in the
> process of talking to the monster trainer to get a new monster of the
> type Luke dropped the door on, etc etc etc.
>
> A very fun concept. I think they actually made two books full of such
> stories.
>
lol that's great. Yes I am also reminded of the bass player in the
movie "Nashville" who keeps backing up different stage shows throughout
the movie.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:4b5a1ffb@news.povray.org...
>
> Do I understand correctly that when a character in a story exists
> basically
> for one single purpose (eg. to be a jerk, a greedy executive, a naive
> Mary Sue, or such) with no other personality traits or history, and when
> this character maintains the role in its purest form throughout the entire
> story, it's usually a bad case of two-dimensionality?
>
Not necessarily bad... as a character goes through his story and he meets
people, he may only see them for a moment. His first impression may be his
only impression. If we are seeing the story through his eyes, the character
will seem to lack depth, because the protagonist never sees it. Learning a
lot about characters which do not advance the plot would slow the pacing of
the story, and pacing is very important.
IMO, Avatar has excellent pacing. The energy of the story ebbs and flows
very nicely, and I felt very engaged by the whole thing. The story of Avatar
wouldn't work very well as a novel, unless they added an awful lot to it
(more about life on Earth, more about the side characters, and so on), but I
think it worked really well as a film. In a good film, the story is always
competing with the visual, and, to a lesser extent, with the music and
sound. A simple story is sometimes best in that kind of mix.
One of the things I do before an acting performance is to write a backstory
for my character. I list facts that happened in the character's life, even
if they have nothing to do with the story and they'll never come out in the
performance. What it does is to remind me that they character isn't just
words on a page, but a representation of a real person. It helps me to
understand why the character does what he does, and, I think, adds to the
performance, even for a minor character. I'd be willing to bet a large chunk
of change that Stephen Lang, as one of the artistic directors for the
Actor's Studio, did that before he did this movie.
--
Jack
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:4b5aa2ed$1@news.povray.org...
> Captain Jack wrote:
>> I've always been a big fan of the "seven basic plots" idea.
>
> Which of those would The Dark Knight fall under, I wonder.
>
The idea of there being a basic number of plots for story telling predates
motion pictures, by a long shot. Script writing for (American) film is
usually done under the "three act" formula, where characters are introduced,
a problem is introduced, the protagonist goes on a quest, there is a trial
by fire, there is a redemption, the hero wins and learns something, and
there is an epilogue. The plot is often subjugated to this, because
formulaic scripts get the money, so the plot will be twisted a lot.
Around the nineteenth century or so, it became popular in western literature
to have parallel stories, where the same basic plot happens in the story at
the same time, on different scales. This has carried over into modern film
making, which complicates the issue.
Add to that, with Dark Knight you're talking about a "franchise" series, so
the main character isn't really allowed to change. Change in the main
character is essential to traditional story telling, so, again, the plot has
to be twisted.
More to the core, though, Batman stories in general are not about
good-versus-evil or boy-meets-girl, which are the classic story elements of
western literature. They are more about the conflict inherent between
Jungian archetypes, down below the goofy tech and the glitzy special
effects. It has much more to do with Greek tales of Zeus defeating the
Titans than it does with the concerns of us mere mortals. It sells because
we all want to see the bad guys go down in as spectacular a way as possible,
but that's not really what it's about. Batman is about angst and anger and
happiness and depression and despair; this body of work is, at its heart,
more allegory or tone poem than it is plotted stories.
--
Jack
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
This won't change anyone's mind about the movie, but if you're interested in
the nuts-and-bolts, this is a pretty good "making of" video (about 20
minutes long):
http://seqmag.com/2010/01/making-of-avatar/
--
Jack
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And our favorite YouTube critic is back:
http://www.wired.com/underwire/2010/02/phantom-critic-reams-avatar/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wired%2Findex+%28Wired%3A+Index+3+%28Top+Stories+2%29%29
Or, alternatively:
http://tinyurl.com/yzdccqv
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> And our favorite YouTube critic is back:
This one wasn't nearly as good a criticism. He really didn't make any points
that everyone wasn't aware of, methinks.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> This one wasn't nearly as good a criticism. He really didn't make any points
> that everyone wasn't aware of, methinks.
I haven't realized all the "looks like a cat with human lips" thing before.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> I haven't realized all the "looks like a cat with human lips" thing before.
Fair enough. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Neeum Zawan" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message
news:4b58ecf0@news.povray.org...
> On 01/13/10 22:11, Darren New wrote:
> > Pretty but cliche.
> Agreed. Not an ounce of originality in the story.
Just saw it. Visuals are very impressive (although flora and fauna were not
imaginative at all, execution was great). In fact, I was wishing the entire
time that there were no storyline, no actors, no dialog (all of which
sucked) - just the CGI tour de force and some good classical music in the
background. It would have made a much more enjoyable experience.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"somebody" <x### [at] ycom> wrote in message news:4b68e922@news.povray.org...
>
> Just saw it. Visuals are very impressive (although flora and fauna were
> not
> imaginative at all, execution was great). In fact, I was wishing the
> entire
> time that there were no storyline, no actors, no dialog (all of which
> sucked) - just the CGI tour de force and some good classical music in the
> background. It would have made a much more enjoyable experience.
>
Do I hear a mash-up coming on? :-D
--
Jack
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
