Slate published an article today complaining that the plot structure described in the 2005 book "Save the Cat" has been turned by Hollywood into a rigid formula that is now followed to the letter in nearly every major release (you can refer to many recent films as a "formulaic" and mean it quite literally).
The article names several of the prescribed "beats", but doesn't give the full list. You can see that here.
It would be interesting to look at how well each of the three Hobbit films conforms to this structure, and also how well the three do so together when taken as a single, long film.
Speaking of Screenwriting 101...
-
Passdagas the Brown
- Posts: 3154
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 9:31 pm
For me, it's not structure
In my mind, it is not a "formulaic structure" that is the primary sin of PBJ. It is the execution of that structure which they are really bad at.
Their sins lie in the incredibly amateur, tired, boilerplate and "sign-posting" way that they do character development, for example, which is part of the execution of a story structure - formulaic or not.
They do the character-conflict, reversal of fortune thing in such a thin, and insulting to the intelligence, manner, that it simply comes off as written by someone who is just throwing in stuff from character-development 101.
Remember Gandalf's "Who did you tell???" rant in AUJ to Thorin? What in the what was that all about? It was a half-baked attempt to sow some character-conflict in the scene, it had no basis in prior scenes, and it goes nowhere later in the movie. And it is very uncharacteristic of Gandalf to make such a blatant accusation, and it is uncharacteristic of the quite perceptive Gandalf to think Thorin is the type of dwarf that would be loose-lipped about a secret quest (as he is certainly portrayed as a rather stern and quiet leader).
So, it is an example of the screenwriters being flat out LAZY, or just not very intelligent. There are numerous instances of such bad story-telling execution in both LOTR and AUJ.
I don't think AUJ's, and LOTR's, flaws are at all due to following the prevailing trends of story structure. A really great director can make a film work brilliantly, even if it follows the familiar beats. The execution is key, and here PJ and company are simply awful.
It takes artistic vision, and great creativity, to make the formulaic seem sublime and wonderful.
Tolkien himself pulled that off as a writer. As filmmakers, PJ and company don't even come close.
Their sins lie in the incredibly amateur, tired, boilerplate and "sign-posting" way that they do character development, for example, which is part of the execution of a story structure - formulaic or not.
They do the character-conflict, reversal of fortune thing in such a thin, and insulting to the intelligence, manner, that it simply comes off as written by someone who is just throwing in stuff from character-development 101.
Remember Gandalf's "Who did you tell???" rant in AUJ to Thorin? What in the what was that all about? It was a half-baked attempt to sow some character-conflict in the scene, it had no basis in prior scenes, and it goes nowhere later in the movie. And it is very uncharacteristic of Gandalf to make such a blatant accusation, and it is uncharacteristic of the quite perceptive Gandalf to think Thorin is the type of dwarf that would be loose-lipped about a secret quest (as he is certainly portrayed as a rather stern and quiet leader).
So, it is an example of the screenwriters being flat out LAZY, or just not very intelligent. There are numerous instances of such bad story-telling execution in both LOTR and AUJ.
I don't think AUJ's, and LOTR's, flaws are at all due to following the prevailing trends of story structure. A really great director can make a film work brilliantly, even if it follows the familiar beats. The execution is key, and here PJ and company are simply awful.
It takes artistic vision, and great creativity, to make the formulaic seem sublime and wonderful.
Tolkien himself pulled that off as a writer. As filmmakers, PJ and company don't even come close.