Experience or Story in feature films - Vote Time

[Kholi]

I think story is the major reason. For me the most recent example of a film where the audience experience made a really terribly written film enjoyable was BRIDESMAIDS.

No, not know story, I'm not saying that. I think it's more so nothing special? They're sound examples of the typical hero's journey structure, they both excel at the experience. Or, neither are Shawshank.

Which, to me, is a haunting experience, AND an awesome story. I'll re-watch that'n over and over.

 

[Batutta]

The problem is that it's all a matter of degree as to what's a bad story. If you're talking about a movie that's just a rollercoaster and nothing more, I think of films like Transformers, or 2012, where the plot barely functions and is just an excuse to string some FX set pieces together. Avatar and Titanic had more thought and emotion put into it than those films. Where the writing is weak for me is in the execution of certain parts like dialogue, and material that's not wholly original. But again, it's a subjective matter of degrees.

 

[Doc Bernard]

Why are all of you slamming films I LIKE? 2012, the Transformers franchise. Fine, y'all wouldn't know a good movie if it bit you in the hindquarters. Keep your artsy stuff. I like action and heavy VFX.

LOL, see? Beauty (and liking of a film) is in the eye of the beholder. One persons flop is another person's hit. You see it in critic reviews all the time.

My feeling: Make it as best as you can, both stylistically and technically, and you will have fans that love your work and those that hate it.

 

[Batutta]

Why are all of you slamming films I LIKE? 2012, the Transformers franchise. Fine, y'all wouldn't know a good movie if it bit you in the hindquarters. Keep your artsy stuff. I like action and heavy VFX.

I'm not slamming them as much as categorizing them for what they are. You don't watch Transformers or 2012 expecting an amazing, moving story. You expect to see sh*t blowed up real good, and on that count, they deliver. Even the biggest fan of those movies would admit the stories are pretty thin...and I liked Transformers 1, but I have no delusions about what kind of movie it is. 2012 I was able to enjoy on a destruction-porn level and that's about it. That's what this thread was about, wether story really matters to the success of a film, or is a fun, visceral ride all that matters...I think you can succeed being just one or the other, but the aim should always be to do both. I personally think too many filmmakers, especially in the action-blockbuster realm, look at stories as filler between set-pieces and the film's suffer for it.

 

[Kholi]

I'm not slamming them as much as categorizing them for what they are. You don't watch Transformers or 2012 expecting an amazing, moving story. You expect to see sh*t blowed up real good, and on that count, they deliver. Even the biggest fan of those movies would admit the stories are pretty thin...and I liked Transformers 1, but I have no delusions about what kind of movie it is. 2012 I was able to enjoy on a destruction-porn level and that's about it. That's what this thread was about, wether story really matters to the success of a film, or is a fun, visceral ride all that matters...I think you can succeed being just one or the other, but the aim should always be to do both. I personally think too many filmmakers, especially in the action-blockbuster realm, look at stories as filler between set-pieces and the film's suffer for it.

Destruction-porn. That's a good word for it.

I certainly didn't go into Transformers expecting to be moved, but entertained? Yeah. And, I was. At least 1 and 2... but 3? Errrrr. I guess even then experience couldn't save that movie.

 

[David Jimerson]

I still take issue with people who say Titanic and Avatar had no story. They had clear stories that were assembled with a base level of competence. They work as stories.

Well, I wasn't one saying anything about Avatar; Avatar was just entirely unoriginal and beat-for-beat the same as several other movies.

But Titanic really didn't have a story so much as it had a series of events which made it convenient to show as much of the ship to the audience as possible. I would actually say as a "story" it would have been unbearable if not for the visuals and experience.

 

[Drew Ott]

But Titanic really didn't have a story so much as it had a series of events which made it convenient to show as much of the ship to the audience as possible. I would actually say as a "story" it would have been unbearable if not for the visuals and experience.

It's worth mentioning that Syd Field uses Titanic as a template for good screenplay structure. I'd argue that Titanic is an example of a film that successfully makes the experience part matter by framing it within a good story. The millions of people who cry like babies while watching aren't crying because of the VFX, they're crying over the story.

 

[David Jimerson]

Well, Syd Field is entitled to his view, of course. I just don't see it. Not to mention that the dialog is terrible, the characters are cliche', etc.

I would suggest that the "experience" plays into the crying a lot more than you think.

 

[David Jimerson]

(Hey, appropos of nothing other than it's really interesting, the latest research into the Titanic disaster suggests that 1) they actually got underway again, briefly, after hitting the iceberg, and 2) they very nearly saved the ship, and would have if not for a really dumb design flaw other than what's usually cited. Back to topic. )

 

[Batutta]

Well, I wasn't one saying anything about Avatar; Avatar was just entirely unoriginal and beat-for-beat the same as several other movies.

But Titanic really didn't have a story so much as it had a series of events which made it convenient to show as much of the ship to the audience as possible. I would actually say as a "story" it would have been unbearable if not for the visuals and experience.

Well I wasn't bowled over by the story for Titanic either but, I don't think either of us is a teenage girl or a lovelorn housewife. Alot of women saw that film dozens of times and it wasn't for the special effects. The story really worked for them, as Twilight does today.

 

[Jimmy Pierce]

Some films don't have an "experience", especially the heavily character driven films. I saw Roman Polanski's "Carnage" fairly recently, and it has no distinct atmosphere. I didn't have a distinct experience watching it. I found it to be entirely pure character and story. Films like these provide little atmosphere and pay the most attention to moments that relate to the characters we are following or observing. But then there are also character/story driven films which have a lot of atmosphere. "The Others" comes to mind. Here we have a intelligent story with intelligent characters, but the film is very atmospheric, as it should be. Along with the lack of music throughout, under the right circumstances, for example, sitting in a dark room viewing the film, it is an eerie experience.

But then there are films like Sofia Coppola's "Somewhere", which is story and character driven, but I found the atmosphere to be driving the film more than the characters. Also some great films are told visually. Fritz Lang's "M" is an experience, but the dialogue is sparse. There are several moments that are told without a word of dialogue. Perhaps it is a product of it's time period in cinema, just as we were leaving the silent film era into the talkie era, some film makers combined elements of the two. People still do combine those elements.

I agree that Shawshank Redemption is an experience and has a rock solid story. That's a film I want to see in a theater someday.