Too much story? Not enough?

I could be wrong but isn't the story all about the characters? Whether they be people, group, city, or even the earth as a whole, doesn't what the story needs or doesn't need, large or small depend on what the characters require? If my story doesn't satisfy the characters within then theres no story. Its all about what you relate to, if the character is supposed to be a single person yet you dont get into them enough, it wont work. The story and its needs should be based around what the characters require.

Thats my take.

- Kyle
 
KyleProhaska said:
I could be wrong but isn't the story all about the characters? Whether they be people, group, city, or even the earth as a whole, doesn't what the story needs or doesn't need, large or small depend on what the characters require? If my story doesn't satisfy the characters within then theres no story. Its all about what you relate to, if the character is supposed to be a single person yet you dont get into them enough, it wont work...
Click to expand...
Kyle, you post made me think about 'Memento'. I think it's because with that story, we really only learn and get to know 'one' character. We don't know the truth about any other character, we only know about Leonard and Leonard shapes our perceptions on the other characters in the film. I think it serves your point well.
 
MojoTrancer said:
But aren't there some films that have way too much going on? too many characters. too many plot points? Wouldn't that be too much story? Not sure if I'm wording that right. But I hope you get my drift.
Click to expand...

It would be distraction from the story. Too many tangents. You should have a single throughline, and anything that gets in the way of it should be cut.

Doesn't mean you can't have subplots. It only means that you should keep your eyes on the prize.
 
MojoTrancer said:
that doesn't let me off the hook unfortunately. There wasn't too much story in that one. There was just enough crappy story.

I still want to give you an example of a movie that has way too much going on.
Click to expand...



Here's a possible one: I was recently reading a book on screenwriting and the author was talking about having different characters and plots, but still keeping them tied to a main storyline. One of his bad examples of this is Grand Canyon. Decent cast, decent acting, but there were so many characters doing so many different things that didn't tie together or follow a main story that the viewer loses interest. It's basically just a peek at the lives of all kinds of different people, and it kinda just floats around with no real purpose.
 
But then there are those rare movies...like Magnolia...where there's tons of stuff going on with tons of people, and in the end everything is all tied together neatly - one major storyline throughout. It's not the best movie, but you can't say it failed because of the story or script...or even the execution.

IMHO, the argument is more about the ratio of what's TOLD/SHOWN. 'Shallow' movies tell the viewer quite a bit about the story. Whereas I would rather watch a movie that SHOWS the story, and then I interpret from what I'm being shown.

You could also get into the rhetoric of closure...but I'll spare you.
 
Ruairi Robinson said:
Wow - I've created a monster.
Click to expand...

Not at all, there's some good learning to be had on this thread. I for one need to spend more time away from the tech aspects. The tech is just a facilitator for the important elements.

Nice post Kyle...good angle.
 
Too many things going on at once with not much explanation? Can I think of an example. Hmm, I'm not sure, I'm guess I'm LOST for words......
 
MiataFilmSomething said:
Too many things going on at once with not much explanation? Can I think of an example. Hmm, I'm not sure, I'm guess I'm LOST for words......
Click to expand...

lol. Nice one. And Grand Canyon was a great example too.
 
Mike McNeese said:
But then there are those rare movies...like Magnolia...where there's tons of stuff going on with tons of people, and in the end everything is all tied together neatly - one major storyline throughout. It's not the best movie, but you can't say it failed because of the story or script...or even the execution.

IMHO, the argument is more about the ratio of what's TOLD/SHOWN. 'Shallow' movies tell the viewer quite a bit about the story. Whereas I would rather watch a movie that SHOWS the story, and then I interpret from what I'm being shown.

You could also get into the rhetoric of closure...but I'll spare you.
Click to expand...

I think a really good example of that (and a big influence on me as a writer) is "snatch" or "lock stock & two smoking barrels" (I can't remember which). It's got the two guys with the pitbull that swallowed the diamond, driving frantiically around town before they accidentally drive into the main characters from the rest of the story.

A good story is always moved along by the action - so if you have side stories that don't advance the main story, then you're not doing it right. Every little thing doesn't have to move the main story, but the conclusion of the subplot should definitely tie in to the main story and move it along.
 
Mike McNeese said:
IMHO, the argument is more about the ratio of what's TOLD/SHOWN. 'Shallow' movies tell the viewer quite a bit about the story. Whereas I would rather watch a movie that SHOWS the story, and then I interpret from what I'm being shown.

You could also get into the rhetoric of closure...but I'll spare you.
Click to expand...
Film is a VISUAL medium. PLAYS are a literary medium.
The axiom in film is "show don't tell".
As for as how much you show and or tell either in images or in words. There's the phenomenon which McKee refers to as "the gap" this is the neseccary and good jump in sequence of events or left out detail or as yet unanswered question that keeps us engaged. Basically to fill in the gap as an active participant rather than have it fed to us.

Slightly different, but there is some overlap here, is what Willian Ball calls a Dramatic Foreward. This is an unswred question that the audience watches to have answered.

I saw a test screening of a Movie that was later ruined by "telling to much" rather than just showing and letting us fill in the gap when it was released.

I saw Dark City as a test audience in 97 I think. Lots of the VFX were just green wire frames at the time but the art direction was there in the pracitical sets etc.

Now when you rent it, or when you watch it in theaters it begins with Keefer Southrland's V.O. This was not in the test print we saw.

If you have not seen this movie, or have friend who have not seen it, I advise that you watch it in the following way. Turn down the sound until you see Rufes Sewell wake up in a bathtub full of blood. (at the beginning of the movie)

SPOILER ALERT
In the test screening we watched Sewell wake up in the bathtub full of blood and there was a dead hooker in the hotel room and he had no memory. Did he do it? He didn't even know and neither did we. As the story progressed one of two answers asserted themselves. Either gray men were coming out at night and rearranging everyone's lives, or our hero was a stark raving homicidal lunatic. We were right there in his shoes as he tried to put the clues together to discern what was reality and what was not (kind of like the Matrix).

BUT g@dmamnam7$^!%@$^@!%! NOw there is VO by Keifer that says "little men come out at night and rearrange everyone's life" Now interstingly - AT THAT POINT the film really just becomes a series of pretty images, because he told too much of the story. There is no longer anything active for us to do as the audience. The onlt thing to do is sit back and look at the cool art direction.
 
OMG Jack. I agree. That VO at the beginning of Dark City is so WEAK. Totally uneeded. That's dope that you got to see it at that point. It is VERY funny that you mentioned that movie because I just watched it on Encore not to long ago and thought "That VO just screwed the movie." And then, I related that to the Matrix and thought just how little an effect The Matrix (the first one) would've had if they dumbed it down in the beginning for everyone.

Not to mention, I hardly ever like ANY VO at the beginning of a movie, short, etc. There is definitely a point where we don't need to be told things. At the moment, I'm trying to think of a movie that kicked off with a VO that really worked.
 
spidey said:
terminator 2?
Click to expand...
THere's a difference, in that, to me. It's going over the first one. Even then, I still think it could go without being said. Then again, I'm just not a Voice OVer fan at all, I think. Edit: I obviously wasn't thinking clearly. Too much CS on the brain.

I love Sin City though!
 
Last edited:
i like Vo's... but it starts out he talking about judgement day then the war of the machinese then the foot smashes a skull then all hell breaks loose i think thats one the best beinging scenes ever.
 
Kholi said:
Not to mention, I hardly ever like ANY VO at the beginning of a movie, short, etc. There is definitely a point where we don't need to be told things. At the moment, I'm trying to think of a movie that kicked off with a VO that really worked.
Click to expand...


The Right Stuff. Begins and ends with great voiceovers and then leaves the rest of the movie alone to tell its story.
 
Alright Spidey helped me clear it up. I hate beginning VOs that give away too much. Sorry about that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top