Film-Tech Cinema Systems
Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE


  
my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Ground Level   » Are there too many "tentpoles?" (Page 2)

 
This topic comprises 8 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8 
 
Author Topic: Are there too many "tentpoles?"
Terry Lynn-Stevens
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1081
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Dec 2012


 - posted 07-20-2013 10:20 PM      Profile for Terry Lynn-Stevens   Email Terry Lynn-Stevens   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Marcel Birgelen
This is were Digital has an "advantage", because you can now retake almost as much as you want, without running out of film. Although there are other things involved too: With digital you can have almost instant playback of the material you acquired, so if it is good, there is no reason to do five different retakes.

But anyway, this doesn't really impact the studios decision how much movies get made.

Well, I beg to differ. While film vs digital has no affect on whether a tentpole gets made or whether more tentpole movies get made, it certainly will have a affect on the studios or the person who is financing the movies decision when it comes to budgeting.

There is a substantial cost of film, dailies, converting the film to DI etc when shooting on film.

Marcel, do you happen to know how much it will cost for an average movie to be filmed in 35mm?

 |  IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004


 - posted 07-21-2013 03:31 AM      Profile for Monte L Fullmer   Email Monte L Fullmer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
No matter if film or digital is presented, for the public really doesn't notice the difference.

We got a big signage on the building with the words: "All Digital Cinema".

Nobody notices it.

Sadly, these 'tentpole' films are geared for the young people since they're the ones with the money to burn and "Hollyrock" doesn't really care on stories, just the explosions and CGI "eye candy" - being related to the video games these kids play.

And we all know that digital makes the "eye candy" comes to life quite easily since all of it is created on the computer.

But, in a nutshell... :
quote: Robert E. Allen
Perhaps if Hollywood would concentrate on telling good stories rather than trying to feed the appetites of specific groups they've created more people would come to the theatres and both the studios and the theatres would benefit
This says it all.

 |  IP: Logged

Jock Blakley
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 218
From: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Registered: Oct 2011


 - posted 07-21-2013 03:57 AM      Profile for Jock Blakley   Email Jock Blakley   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
There is a substantial cost of film, dailies, converting the film to DI etc when shooting on film.
While that is indisputably true, there can be just as big a cost to shooting digital. All of that data has to go somewhere, especially as >4K acquisition becomes more common, and somebody has to manage all of that data. Not even an hour of shooting compressed REDCODE RAW can fill a 128 GB SSD, and so unless you want to keep three dozen of them handy, somebody has to be on set ingesting the data and making sure its ending up in the right place without being corrupted on the way.

With film, even though the DI process will also create a lot of bits and bytes that need to have homes found, that's happening further down the road in the post-production environment where its easier to do (plus, depending on the on-line process being used, only the actual good takes might end up being scanned at full resolution and colour depth).

And given the cost of archiving on digital, it can swiftly become a false economy (I recall an SMPTE study from a few years back that found archiving a finished picture digitally cost around ten times as much as making preservation masters and sticking them in a vault).

I'm by no means saying that shooting film isn't an expensive process, but it is a relatively fixed cost in that per minute of shooting it doesn't really cost much more or less in a hundred-million-dollar budget picture than it does in a ten-thousand-dollar budget picture.

I can see an argument though the perceived cheapness of digital acquisition has changed has changed how film-makers view the craft and how they act on set - after all, knowing that every minute that film is rolling through the camera is costing more than $100 does tend to make one very conscious of a) how much shooting one is doing and b) how ready they are to commit to shooting in the first place.

 |  IP: Logged

Mark Ogden
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 943
From: Little Falls, N.J.
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 07-21-2013 06:26 AM      Profile for Mark Ogden   Email Mark Ogden   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Jock Blakley
(I recall an SMPTE study from a few years back that found archiving a finished picture digitally cost around ten times as much as making preservation masters and sticking them in a vault).
It wasn't an SMPTE study, it was a study commissioned by the Motion Picture Academy, and it was a case of making the numbers do what you want them to do. Basically, the author of the study based the cost of storing digital on the absolute most expensive scenarios he could dream up. For instance, he priced the cost of keeping every single take of a film shot, every single frame photographed, storing it onto an expensive hard drive, and THEN added in the projected cost of transferring all of it onto a successor format whenever it materialized (arguing that such a thing would have to occur every five years or so, for every piece of digital material in the vault), and THEN, after that, tried to break down these projected future costs as current charges. In other words, the study tried to say that if it would cost $250,000 to migrate and store a digital film over 50 years, then it amounts to $50,000 a year of storage costs. It was with such accounting practices that Enron nearly sank California. As I pointed out at the time, no-one in their right minds would actually do such a thing, there are much less expensive digital storage formats than hard drives. Most studio digital archiving is to LTO drives, 3TB for about $30.00. He also said in the study that "digital material has already been lost!", but when pressed, he couldn't actually name any of it.

 |  IP: Logged

Mark Ogden
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 943
From: Little Falls, N.J.
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 07-21-2013 10:10 AM      Profile for Mark Ogden   Email Mark Ogden   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Of course, that line should be "it amounts to $5,000 a year in storage costs".

 |  IP: Logged

Terry Lynn-Stevens
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1081
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Dec 2012


 - posted 07-21-2013 12:10 PM      Profile for Terry Lynn-Stevens   Email Terry Lynn-Stevens   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Mike Blakesley
Time was when a movie had a chance to build an actual audience.
I think you are making the mistake of thinking all movies need to build an audience for a good run. There is nothing wrong with a successful three week run of a movie. Man of Steel had a decent 3-4 week run that was heavily front loaded, nothing wrong with that, to me that is a successful picture.

Movies or tentpole movie for the summer generally have a built in audience and will be front loaded. There is nothing wrong with this.

However, a very good movie will generally build an audience over time and spread world of mouth. This is not always the case but it does still happen.

 |  IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999


 - posted 07-21-2013 12:36 PM      Profile for Steve Guttag   Email Steve Guttag   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I'm amazed that there is even a discussion going on here about the "COST" of film versus digital in a HOLLYWOOD picture. The cost of the film in the camera is near the bottom of the list of things that cost money on a live set. All of those people on the set, from the actors to the crew are where the money is on a live set/location. It isn't the medium. Adding takes, digital or film, FAR out paces the cost of the film. The longer it takes a feature to complete, the more expensive it is, irrespective of medium.

Now on a low-budget non-hollywood movie where people wear many hats and are not paid scale...and so forth...digital provides a means to make movies where film would be too prohibitive due to costs and the time it takes to go from shooting to knowing that you have the shot. The reason you have a Director of Photography and why they are paid well in a Hollywood movie is because they KNOW what the shot is going to look like...it isn't a surprise in dailies. Now out-of-focus shots or other human mishaps can be caught then.

I think you'll find a lot of directors like being able to have instant dailies and you can't get that with film.

As for archiving...there is no digital archive means at this time that compares to film. And those that are archiving Hollywood motion pictures, are doing so on film.

 |  IP: Logged

Marcel Birgelen
Film God

Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012


 - posted 07-21-2013 08:01 PM      Profile for Marcel Birgelen   Email Marcel Birgelen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I agree 100% with Steve on this one...

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Marcel, do you happen to know how much it will cost for an average movie to be filmed in 35mm?
No, because the costs will be different for each and every movie... Last time I've checked, 35mm film was about USD 500 per 10 minutes*. Obviously, this tells you NOTHING about the actual cost of shooting on 35mm. But as you can see, even if you're Stanley Kubrick's nephew the cost of raw film will always just be a bottom line to the whole story.

But this thing has been taken from a discussion about the increase in tent-pole productions this year to a general discussion about how crappy many movies are nowadays and how the digital shooting process is being part of it.

Let's be clear here: I'm not claiming in any way that the whole digital shooting process didn't impact movie making process as a whole, because it obviously did. But I'm not convinced that it had any impact on story or movie quality in general. It might have had a negative impact on image quality in certain cases...

Now let's go back about 15 years or so, just before George Lucas made shooting with video cameras "acceptable". Was the quality of the movies being released really so much better back then?

Furthermore, I also happen to agree with Mike in his first post:

quote: Mike Blakesley
Here's the take-away, studio suits: THERE ARE 12 MONTHS in the year. Use them all for Pete's sake.
I'm pretty sure that simple advice could save some of those suits from explaining to their shareholders where those few hundred million bucks went.

* Disclaimer: Kodak amongst others have stopped or are in the process of stopping mass production of 35mm film, so prices might actually skyrocket in the foreseeable future.

 |  IP: Logged

Justin Hamaker
Film God

Posts: 2253
From: Lakeport, CA USA
Registered: Jan 2004


 - posted 07-21-2013 09:04 PM      Profile for Justin Hamaker   Author's Homepage   Email Justin Hamaker   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
The number of tent-pole releases this year is just a continued evolution which is seeing far more releases every year. When I first started in the industry in 1996, it was normal to see only one, or maybe two, new movies in a given week. But now it's not uncommon to see three to four in any given week.

I think there are a number of factors contributing to this - primarily being the shortening of the home video window and the ever increasing emphasis on seeing it opening weekend. This results in front loading and prevents a movie from having legs. This is exacerbated by a crowded release schedule which forces us to turn over screens sooner than would otherwise be necessary. And shorter legs can be linked back to the the shorter home video window, which minimizes the drive to see movies in theatres.

With productions costs continuing to increase, I don't think the cost of making a movie is much of a factor in the equation. And the overall lack of quality of many movies would appear to be tied to Hollywood's perception that there is greater demand. They are green lighting too many movies which would have never been made 15-20 years ago.

 |  IP: Logged

Mike Heenan
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1896
From: Scottsdale, AZ, USA
Registered: Mar 2000


 - posted 07-21-2013 09:06 PM      Profile for Mike Heenan   Email Mike Heenan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I got this list from Reddit, so I don't know how accurate it is, but this is supposedly what's coming out in 2015

2015: Man of Steel 2, Avengers 2, Star Wars 7, Avatar 2, Pirates 5, Terminator 5, Die Hard 6, Jurassic Park 4, Independence Day 2, Finding Nemo 2, Mission: Impossible 5, Hunger Games 4, Ant-Man, Fantastic Four, Tintin 2, Bond 24, Bourne 5, Snow White 2, Tron 2...

If these are all released around summer time, I suspect this'll be the year of Spielberg's "implosion" prediction.

 |  IP: Logged

Terry Lynn-Stevens
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1081
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Dec 2012


 - posted 07-21-2013 10:04 PM      Profile for Terry Lynn-Stevens   Email Terry Lynn-Stevens   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Mike Heenan
I got this list from Reddit, so I don't know how accurate it is, but this is supposedly what's coming out in 2015

2015: Man of Steel 2, Avengers 2, Star Wars 7, Avatar 2, Pirates 5, Terminator 5, Die Hard 6, Jurassic Park 4, Independence Day 2, Finding Nemo 2, Mission: Impossible 5, Hunger Games 4, Ant-Man, Fantastic Four, Tintin 2, Bond 24, Bourne 5, Snow White 2, Tron 2...

If these are all released around summer time, I suspect this'll be the year of Spielberg's "implosion" prediction.

Looks like a record breaking year to me.

 |  IP: Logged

Marcel Birgelen
Film God

Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012


 - posted 07-22-2013 02:33 AM      Profile for Marcel Birgelen   Email Marcel Birgelen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Record breaking in what way? Boredom and lack of originality?

If this trend of sequels upon sequels upon reboots continues, I can only hope Steven Spielberg's predicted implosion comes early...

 |  IP: Logged

Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"

Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002


 - posted 07-22-2013 03:03 AM      Profile for Manny Knowles   Email Manny Knowles   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Too many tentpoles? Is there such a thing as too many?

Innuendo aside, I agree with Mike H. -- This may indeed be what Steven Spielberg was referring to when he predicted that Hollywood is headed toward implosion :

"There's going to be an implosion where three or four or maybe even a half-dozen megabudget movies are going to go crashing into the ground, and that's going to change the paradigm."

quote: Monte L Fullmer
"Hollyrock" doesn't really care on stories
Hollyrock? Really?

 |  IP: Logged

Marcel Birgelen
Film God

Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012


 - posted 07-22-2013 04:24 AM      Profile for Marcel Birgelen   Email Marcel Birgelen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
You might remember that other discussion that you started yourself. [Razz]

 |  IP: Logged

Frank Cox
Film God

Posts: 2234
From: Melville Saskatchewan Canada
Registered: Apr 2011


 - posted 07-22-2013 12:02 PM      Profile for Frank Cox   Author's Homepage   Email Frank Cox   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2013/07/hollywood_and_blake_snyder_s_screenwriting_book_save_the_cat.sin gle.html
quote:
Save the Movie!
The 2005 screenwriting book that’s taken over Hollywood—and made every movie feel the same

If you’ve gone to the movies recently, you may have felt a strangely familiar feeling: You’ve seen this movie before. Not this exact movie, but some of these exact story beats: the hero dressed down by his mentor in the first 15 minutes (Star Trek Into Darkness, Battleship); the villain who gets caught on purpose (The Dark Knight, The Avengers, Skyfall, Star Trek Into Darkness); the moment of hopelessness and disarray a half-hour before the movie ends (Olympus Has Fallen, Oblivion, 21 Jump Street, Fast & Furious 6).

It’s not déjà vu. Summer movies are often described as formulaic. But what few people know is that there is actually a formula—one that lays out, on a page-by-page basis, exactly what should happen when in a screenplay. It’s as if a mad scientist has discovered a secret process for making a perfect, or at least perfectly conventional, summer blockbuster.

The formula didn’t come from a mad scientist. Instead it came from a screenplay guidebook, Save the Cat! The Last Book on Screenwriting You’ll Ever Need. In the book, author Blake Snyder, a successful spec screenwriter who became an influential screenplay guru, preaches a variant on the basic three-act structure that has dominated blockbuster filmmaking since the late 1970s.

When Snyder published his book in 2005, it was as if an explosion ripped through Hollywood. The book offered something previous screenplay guru tomes didn’t. Instead of a broad overview of how a screen story fits together, his book broke down the three-act structure into a detailed “beat sheet”: 15 key story “beats”—pivotal events that have to happen—and then gave each of those beats a name and a screenplay page number. Given that each page of a screenplay is expected to equal a minute of film, this makes Snyder’s guide essentially a minute-to-minute movie formula.

Snyder, who died in 2009, would almost certainly dispute this characterization. In Save the Cat!, he stresses that his beat sheet is a structure, not a formula, one based in time-tested screen-story principles. It’s a way of making a product that’s likely to work—not a fill-in-the-blanks method of screenwriting.

Maybe that’s what Snyder intended. But that’s not how it turned out. In practice, Snyder’s beat sheet has taken over Hollywood screenwriting. Movies big and small stick closely to his beats and page counts. Intentionally or not, it’s become a formula—a formula that threatens the world of original screenwriting as we know it.

---

Screenplay gurus like Syd Field and Robert McKee touted the essential virtues of three-act structure for decades. For Field and McKee, three-act structure is more of an organizing principle—a way of understanding the shape of a story. Field’s Story Paradigm, for example, has just a handful of general elements attached to broad page ranges.

Field and McKee offered the screenwriter’s equivalent of cooking tips from your grandmother—general tips and tricks to guide your process. Snyder, on the other hand, offers a detailed recipe with step-by-step instructions.

Each of the 15 beats is attached to a specific page number or set of pages. And Snyder makes it clear that each of these moments is a must-have in a well-structured screenplay. The page counts don’t need to be followed strictly, Snyder says, but it’s important to get the proportions fairly close. You can see the complete beat sheet, with page numbers and a summary of each beat, in a sidebar here.

Let’s take a journey through this year’s blockbusters and blockbuster wannabes and see the big trailer-ready ways in which Snyder’s beat sheet pops up over and over again. Look at January’s Gangster Squad. After an opening image that sets up the conflict between Josh Brolin’s hard-charging cop, Sgt. John O’Mara, and the criminal forces of mob boss Mickey Cohen (Sean Penn), O’Mara is called in to see his gruff police superior. “We got rules around here, smartass,” the chief growls. “Do yourself a favor. Learn ’em.” That’s Snyder’s second beat, theme stated. And it’s right at the seven-minute mark, almost exactly when it’s supposed to happen in a 110-minute movie. The rest of the Snyder playbook is there, too: a story-starting catalyst midway through the first act, a shootout at the midpoint that ups the ante, an all-is-lost moment—including a death—between the 75- and 80-minute mark, and a concluding final act in which the baddies are dispatched in ranking order, just as Snyder instructs.

Or look at March’s Jack the Giant Slayer. There’s an opening image that sets up each of the young protagonists’ problems and states the theme at the five-minute mark, a catalyst at the 12-minute mark, an act break between the 25- and 30-minute mark when Jack climbs the beanstalk, and a false victory 90 minutes in, when it looks as if the evil giants have been definitively defeated.

Oz the Great and Powerful is a fun riff on director Sam Raimi’s quirky early horror films. But check your watch a quarter of the way through and you’ll find a tornado that whisks Oz, and the movie, into its first act. Once Oz has landed, he meets Theodora, the love interest—and the B-plot. Baz Luhrmann’s The Great Gatsby adaptation was reorganized to fit the formula, with a party-filled fun and games second quarter that leads to the decline of the third, in which tragedy looms as the bad guys close in.

Field and McKee were obsessed with the theoretical underpinnings of storytelling. But Snyder’s book is far more straightforward. And that’s why it’s conquered the big screen so thoroughly. Indeed, if you’re on the lookout, you can find Snyder’s beats, in the order he prescribes, executed more or less as Snyder instructs, in virtually every major release in theaters today. Even the master storytellers at Pixar stick quite close to Snyder’s playbook: Watching Monsters University this summer, I loved the way it toyed with underdog sports and college movie conventions. Yet the story hits every one of Snyder’s beats, including an opening image that’s mirrored in the final scene, an act break when Mike and Sully reluctantly join forces to compete in the Scare Games, a false victory about three-quarters of the way through when (spoiler!) they “win” the final Scare Games challenge, and an all-is-lost moment followed by an emotionally charged dark night of the soul next to a moonlit lake afterward.

Yet once you know the formula, the seams begin to show. Movies all start to seem the same, and many scenes start to feel forced and arbitrary, like screenplay Mad Libs. Why does Kirk get dressed down for irresponsibility by Admiral Pike early in Star Trek Into Darkness? Because someone had to deliver the theme to the main character. Why does Gina Carano’s sidekick character defect to the villain’s team for no reason whatsoever almost exactly three-quarters of the way through Fast & Furious 6? Because it’s the all-is-lost moment, so everything needs to be in shambles for the heroes. Why does Gerard Butler’s character in Olympus Has Fallen suddenly call his wife after a climactic failed White House assault three-quarters of the way through? Because the second act always ends with a quiet moment of reflection—the dark night of the soul.

And if the villain of the past few years of movies is the adolescent male for whom it seems all big-Hollywood product is engineered, Snyder’s guidelines have helped that bad guy close the door to other potential audiences. Save the Cat! doesn’t go so far as to require that protagonists be men. But the book does tell aspiring screenwriters to stick to stories about the young, because that’s “the crowd that shows up for movies.” Following this advice to its logical conclusion means far more stories about young men—since that’s who shows up at the multiplex the most. It’s not an accident that the chapter on creating a hero is called “It’s About A Guy Who … ” not “It’s About A Person Who … ” And with a young male protagonist, women are literally relegated to the B-plot—the love interest, or “helper,” who assists the male protagonist in overcoming his personal problems. It’s not an accident that Raimi’s megabudget Oz movie featured not Dorothy but a male protagonist.

Watching poorly executed movies with Snyder’s formula in mind can become a tiresome and repetitive slog. How many times can you watch a young man struggle with his problems, gain new power, then save the world? It’s enough to make you wonder: Is overreliance on Snyder’s story formula killing movies?

If so, then all is lost. The major studios increasingly rely on a small number of megabudget blockbusters for their profits. But big budgets mean big risks. And the only way to mitigate those risks is to stick with what’s been known to work before. In other words, formula—and the more precise the formula, the better. America’s greatest art form is headed straight, as the Snyderized Star Trek sequel notes, Into Darkness.

---

It’s not that the formula can’t produce good, fun movies: Monsters University is very enjoyable. Star Wars, Die Hard, The Matrix, and The Avengers all follow something like the story path that Snyder laid out. But it does mean that Hollywood produces way too many movies about adolescent men coming to grips with who they are (think John Carter, Battleship, The Bourne Legacy, Tron: Legacy, Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter, virtually every superhero movie, and the entirety of the J.J. Abrams canon).

It also means that there’s far less wiggle room for even minor experimentation. Think of a classic popcorn flick like Jurassic Park. It’s a pretty classic three-act story, and it includes virtually all of the elements found in Snyder’s beat sheet. But they are out of order and out of proportion. Now compare that to a modern megablockbuster like The Amazing Spider-Man, which follows the Snyder structure beat by beat. There’s a reason that even Steven Spielberg is complaining that Hollywood is too reliant on formulaic blockbusters.

We can appeal to screenwriters to buck the trend. But why would they? The formula is incredibly useful. Indeed, I relied on Snyder’s beat sheet to write this piece, using every beat, in the order he lists. (Try reading this piece from the beginning and see if you can spot all the beats. Or click here to see a version of the essay in which they are all labeled.)

I could see the advantages of the beat sheet. It helped me order my thoughts and figure out what I should say next. But I also found myself writing to fit the needs of the formula rather than the good of the essay—some sections were cut short, others deleted entirely, and other bits included mostly to hit the beat sheet’s marks. It made writing easier, in other words, but it also made me less creative.

That’s why you’ve got that strangely familiar feeling at the movies. Hollywood needs to learn a screenplay style life-lesson of its own: Sure, sometimes you can let the formula guide you. But that shouldn’t be the only thing you know how to do.

quote:

The Save the Cat! Beat Sheet

Opening image (p. 1): Sets the tone for the story and suggests the protagonist’s primary problem.

Theme is stated (p. 5): A question or statement, usually made to the protagonist, indicating the story’s main thematic idea.

Set-up (p. 1-10): An introduction to the main characters and setting—the background.

Catalyst (p. 12): A major event that changes the protagonist’s world and sets the story in motion.

Debate (p. 12-25): A question is raised about the choice now before the protagonist. Often this section lays out the stakes for the journey ahead.

Break into Act II (p. 25-30): The hero definitively leaves his old world or situation and enters a strange new one.

B-story (p. 30): A secondary plotline that often fleshes out side characters—frequently a mentor or a love interest—who assist the hero on his journey.

Fun and games (p. 30-55): Snyder says this section offers “the promise of the premise.” It’s an exploration of the story’s core concept that gives the story its “trailer-friendly moments.” It’s usually lighter in tone, and it typically builds to a big victory at the midpoint.

Midpoint (p. 55): The A and B stories cross. The story builds to either a false victory or (less often) false defeat. New information is revealed that raises the stakes.

Bad guys close in (p. 55-75): After the victory at the midpoint, things grow steadily worse as the villains regroup and push forward.

All is lost (p. 75): Mirroring the midpoint, it’s usually a false defeat. The hero’s life is in shambles. Often there’s a major death or at least the sense of death—a reference to dying or mortality somehow.

Dark night of the soul (p. 75-85): A moment of contemplation in which the hero considers how far he’s come and all he’s learned. It’s the moment in which the hero asks, “Why is all this happening?”

Break into Act III (p. 85) A “Eureka!” moment that gives the hero the strength to keep going—and provides the key to success in Act III.

Finale (p. 85-110) Relying on all he has learned throughout the story, the hero solves his problems, defeats the villains, and changes the world for the better.

Final image (p. 110). A mirror of the opening image that underlines the lessons learned and illustrates how the world has changed.


 |  IP: Logged



All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
This topic comprises 8 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8 
 
   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic    next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:



Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.

© 1999-2020 Film-Tech Cinema Systems, LLC. All rights reserved.