Too much story? Not enough?

ever underworld associared film lot of story but who gives a **** about anyof them underworld 1 2 the covanent and blood and chocolate lot of **** story . again beckinsales husband is the director of the UW films and he basically just trying to make his wife look cool on film.
 
Brandon Rice said:
Pirates 2... totally.
Click to expand...

I'll agree on that one.

I gotta go old because thats what I've been watching lately. How about The Towering Inferno? Or for that matter the vast majority of disaster films? Way too many people and way too much going on to care about.

Or 1941. Although a screwball comedy is going to be disjointed anyway.

Independence day!!!!! Too much crap! Do we care about the first lady and the stripper girlfriend? And the guy's smart aleck father. Nope! Stick with the interstellar war please!

There I feel better now.
 
Last edited:
1941 is awful, and awful because it's disjointed...

I'll have to disagree about ID... I loved that film, and felt it flowed well.
 
one of the worse director ever, emmerich he shouldnt have been able to make big flops anymore... but i think ID worked. day after tomorrow didnt. nor godzilla.
 
MojoTrancer said:
Independence day!!!!! Too much crap! Do we care about the president's wife and the hooker girlfriend? And the guy's smart aleck father. Nope! Stick with the interstellar war please!
Click to expand...

Totally disagree, but that's an interesting take on that movie. I think it's definitely an example of how each character informs the story, and counts. From Will Smith's characters efforts and choices to The President's choice to override command and fire employees on the spot.
 
Kholi said:
Totally disagree, but that's an interesting take on that movie. I think it's definitely an example of how each character informs the story, and counts. From Will Smith's characters efforts and choices to The President's choice to override command and fire employees on the spot.
Click to expand...


Don't get me wrong, I used to love that flick. think I saw it three times in the theater. But each time I got more impatient with everything else going on. Now I think sticking with one of the sets of characters the whole film would have worked better. not that the film did so bad for itself.

And I changed my previous post to the stripper girlfriend and the First Lady. I should be accurate. :)
 
It's the dialogue that is missing. Not enough ORIGINAL dialogue and I really don't expect filmmakers who are not screenwriters to get this because as screenwriters we struggle like Hades to sound and feel original. Each character then has to have his/her own voice and it's the dialogue in which most short films are going to falter.

One of the reason, "Where Silence Falls" did so well is that they kept the dialogue in the "everyday" which made the short flow smoother than most.

For a warlike movie, the dialogue has to be interesting, that's how we get involved with the characters, by what comes out of their mouth. Not meaning, mind you, that a person needs to talk for us to root for them, but when you choose your words well, it does make it easier.

D I A L O G U E

is key.
 
MojoTrancer said:
Don't get me wrong, I used to love that flick. think I saw it three times in the theater. But each time I got more impatient with everything else going on. Now I think sticking with one of the character groups the whole film would have worked better. not that the film did so bad for itself.

And I changed my previous post to the stripper girlfriend and the First Lady. I should be accurate. :)
Click to expand...

Oh dude, not telling you that you have to like it. I've got quibbles and qualms about it as well. But, I can honestly say that I believe each character played a part in the story told. Which ties to the original discussion, not about directors, but how much story is too much or when is it not enough?

Whether the focus of the story was or was not where we think it should have been, where it WAS is still valid. Even the crazy guy who swore by being kidnapped by aliens has his own tale.

Kidnapped by aliens, living his life as an outcast because nobody believes him, he gets his chance to pay them back for what they did and delivers our hero's their mystical weapon: the knowledge they need to take down the fleet of aliens insurging upon our green planet.

I cared that he sacrificed his life. No offense to Ruari and his beautiful movie (I wish I could do it), I don't care that the unnamed soldier got his legs blew off on the tail end of a war.
 
but its the same movie just stuck with one set of characters. i hated that movie now i loved the host though.

main.jpg


alot of story drama good writing black comdey and sad drama and cgi all over the place. essential a movie that has alot of stuff and it works.
 
Last edited:
Charli said:
It's the dialogue that is missing. Not enough ORIGINAL dialogue and I really don't expect filmmakers who are not screenwriters to get this because as screenwriters we struggle like Hades to sound and feel original. Each character then has to have his/her own voice and it's the dialogue in which most short films are going to falter.

One of the reason, "Where Silence Falls" did so well is that they kept the dialogue in the "everyday" which made the short flow smoother than most.

For a warlike movie, the dialogue has to be interesting, that's how we get involved with the characters, by what comes out of their mouth. Not meaning, mind you, that a person needs to talk for us to root for them, but when you choose your words well, it does make it easier.

D I A L O G U E

is key.
Click to expand...

Agreeing on several levels. IN a short like Ruari's, I could see Dialogue having a massive impact on why we care if they get killed or not. The guy with the glasses might've been the bigger brother to those other two guys, and watching them die like that could've stricken him paralyzed. Now, if that's how it was, we don't know that because there wasn't enough there to tell us that.
 
Charli said:
It's the dialogue that is missing. Not enough ORIGINAL dialogue and I really don't expect filmmakers who are not screenwriters to get this because as screenwriters we struggle like Hades to sound and feel original. Each character then has to have his/her own voice and it's the dialogue in which most short films are going to falter.

One of the reason, "Where Silence Falls" did so well is that they kept the dialogue in the "everyday" which made the short flow smoother than most.

For a warlike movie, the dialogue has to be interesting, that's how we get involved with the characters, by what comes out of their mouth. Not meaning, mind you, that a person needs to talk for us to root for them, but when you choose your words well, it does make it easier.

D I A L O G U E

is key.
Click to expand...

Very good point. If you take the well-written dialogue out of Pulp Fiction that movie would have veered into Smokin' Aces territory.
 
i consider everyo movie mila is in (besides 5th element, and zoolander but she didnt have to much or say much in any of them) the worst films ever.
 
MojoTrancer said:
Very good point. If you take the well-written dialogue out of Pulp Fiction than that movie would have veered into Smokin' Aces territory.
Click to expand...

Oh dang. That was a straight Tarantino dis.
 
I wonder if people miss what the real story is. The basic stripped bare skeleton that holds the movie. Most of the time it's not about the place they are trying to reach too or the object they are trying to find but the character in that quest and how they change.

Take Children of Men for example (spoiler's ahead), to me (and I could be wrong), the story was about Clive Owen's character and how he went from, I could care less about much of anything to caring and even dying for someone... it wasn't about the Human Project, that was just a McGuffin.

Sometimes I think people spend too much time on their amazing world, explain everything around the actors and don't spend enough time with the human drama side of it (me included sometimes).
 
jeremytuttle said:
Sometimes I think people spend too much time on their amazing world, explain everything around the actors and don't spend enough time with the human drama side of it (me included sometimes).
Click to expand...

I had to learn this, and I'm STILL learning it. Sometimes, I really want to just do COOL stuff, but I know that I can't get away with that.

I tried explaining this to someone else, but they really didn't want to hear that. I think they referred to it as being "artsy".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top