The new Star Wars movies...it's all about characters and story!

G

Gillvane

Veteran
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1711405/star-wars-episode-VII-script.jhtml


It's not rocket science to say that a good movie needs a good story. Just FX won't get you there as we found out with John Carter, Pacific Rim, The Lone Ranger, and the list goes on. It's not like Hollywood doesn't know you need a good story and that's what the producers of the new Star Wars trilogy are saying. And it's something you hear over and over again. We know we need a good story and without that FX are meaningless...

It's nice to hear, but why then do we get so many crappy stories that are all over the place with plot holes, no real main character, or characters we don't care about? Look at Prometheus, or Dark Shadows. Really bad writing, at least the part that made it to the screen.

And the latest Star Wars movies. Wow, the stories are so awful and the characters are so bland.

Anyway interesting article. I do hope they manage to come up with a good script before they put the FX houses to work on all the CGI.
 
I think you may mean "script" and not "story." The story of the Star Wars prequels was as strong as anything. It was the actual execution of the story which fell short.
 
Barry_Green said:
Answered in one long blog post that is perhaps the most illuminating thing about today's Hollywood you will ever read:

http://sex-in-a-sub.blogspot.com/2010/05/robbing-from-poor-writer.html
Click to expand...

But in the case of "Robin Hood"(2010), the film used by Martell in that piece, was a 'spec script' that eventually through the 'Hollywood Development' process came out completely different from the original spec, and perhaps because of that process was turned into junk (I've not seen it... so who knows it could be a diamond in the 'rough'...).

In the case of Star Wars... the only 'development' that was done was in the Mind of George Lucas. And so one can not lay blame on an army of termagant bean counting studio execs for the problems found in 'most of the prequels'.
 
Gillvane didn't mention the prequels. That's a whole different subject. The prequels are solely and entirely the product of, and therefore the fault of, George Lucas. They are independent films made and financed outside the studio system, conceived and directed by George Lucas. Any and all blame for them goes directly to George.

But that was not the question of this thread. The question of this thread was -- why do people start with the right intentions, and end up with such horrible schlock? And the journey of "Nottingham" is pretty much exactly why.
 
Barry_Green, thanks for the Nottingham link, fascinating read (probably explains how Prometheus ended up so f***ed up too)
 
The Nottingham story seriously makes me mad! So frustrating. Also, I would have loved to see the original screenplay.

As for Star Wars, it's all talk at this point but if I had to put money down, I would say these films will turn out well now that they are out of Lucas' hands. Seems like they are really serious about doing it right.
 
Interesting read, thanks for sharing. As for bad stories coming out, it's important to understand that your tastes are not universal. I, and a lot of other people, though Prometheus was brilliant. I also saw Pacific Rim last night and thought it was great. I didn't go to that one expecting to see brilliant character development. I wanted to see well designed giant robots punching giant sea monsters. And that they delivered flawlessly. Maybe you aren't interested in that; that's fine, but it doesn't make a movie universally bad. I don't know what you thought was wrong with Prometheus, but I'm sure a similar argument can be made. That one featured some great writing, direction and performances, and I could go on for a long time about what makes that movie stand out and what makes Ridley Scott stand out so much from the crowd. But if it wasn't for you, that's fine. The Transformers movies got some great reviews for being piles of eye vomit with some of the most half assed and broken writing I've ever seen; but they weren't made for me. I don't know why they made the money they did, but whatever these marketing guys and EPs are doing seems to work. I'm sure your list of great movies includes things I hated. There are some movies that no one could love, certainly, but that's not what we're talking about.

As for Star Wars, I definitely agree that the prequals were failures. I couldn't make it through the last two, despite being a nerd who watches anything with a spaceship. But that's not a systemic problem. That's a successful business person letting people's misunderstanding of roles on a film set go to his head, leading him to try taking more of a hands on approach than he should have. And that same business person seeing a big market for children's toys. It was made to have enough colors and silly voices that little kids would go nuts and run to the toy stores. And in that way it worked flawlessly. He can't be faulted for that. I don't know any media creators that can say everything they've made is gold. Sometimes it doesn't work, and that's something that has to be accepted. It's not the end of the world. It's just a few films you don't have to watch. I definitely think the new ones will go in a different direction, and I'm optimistic (cautiously) thinking about what they might come up with. I do think it will still be more CGI and things in general than I want, but that's what the market is responding to, and again- it isn't meant for me in particular. People vote with their dollars on these things.
 
Cassius - I'm presuming the 1st paragraph is directed at me, but if it isn't then ignore the following 2 points.
1.Don't take my comments about a film I didn't enjoy personally, and don't patronise me by assuming that I think my tastes are universal, it's insulting.
2.Don't make assumptions about the type of films I like based on my dislike for Prometheus, I really enjoyed Pacific Rim.
 
Barry_Green said:
Answered in one long blog post that is perhaps the most illuminating thing about today's Hollywood you will ever read:

http://sex-in-a-sub.blogspot.com/2010/05/robbing-from-poor-writer.html
Click to expand...

"And draft after draft, they script changed - evolved - twisted - becoming something completely different. The way the most expensive meal you have ever eaten turns into something else when it goes through the digestive process."

I agree with the article that many really good scripts don't make it to the screen. They are mangled to the point of crap by producers, directors, actors, and who knows who else that gets a chance to try and put their "stamp" on the movie.

I think I would put a lot of blame on the producer. That's your job as producer to put together the money, the script, the director, and the actors. ONce you have a great script you should tell your director shoot it or I'll find another director, and same to the actors.

I know, you can't really do that because it's all politics. You won't get this actor if you don't make this director happy, and so on and so forth.
 
Cassius said:
Interesting read, thanks for sharing. As for bad stories coming out, it's important to understand that your tastes are not universal. I, and a lot of other people, though Prometheus was brilliant .
Click to expand...


The script that made it to the big screen is bad. I think the argument can be made that the script is objectively bad, not just a matter of opinion.

Now, you're entitled to like a bad script or think the movie was brilliant even though it had a bad script, but I think the plot holes in Prometheus are indefensible.

Rather than point them out or point you towards a specific list I'd say just google "plot holes in Prometheus". You can drive a tractor through them. There's no artistic justification or reason for the plot holes to exist. There's plenty of behind the scenes information about the original script and how major portions were cut from the script by the director, or cut in editing until these gaping plot holes were created in the finished movie.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/31/guy-pearce-prometheus-deleted-scene_n_1846214.html

As for the objective part, google other movies for plot holes and compare.
 
Last edited:
Cassius said:
I, and a lot of other people, though Prometheus was brilliant I also saw Pacific Rim last night and thought it was great. I didn't go to that one expecting to see brilliant character development. I wanted to see well designed giant robots punching giant sea monsters. And that they delivered flawlessly. Maybe you aren't interested in that; that's fine, but it doesn't make a movie universally bad..
Click to expand...

I LOVE giant robots and went to see Pacific Rim just because there were going to be giant robots fighting giant monsters! I thought, how could you go wrong?

But then I was bored to death by the poorly structured story. Who is our protagonist? The guy or the girl? The script never makes up it's mind about that. Why do we care about them? Is the scene with the little girl crying moving? Yes, of course it is, there's a child in distress. But this would be a moving scene in a dog food commercial. It's just a set piece that ads nothing to the flow of the story as a whole. There's nothing organic about it.

And they break the rules of good writing over and over as the actors tell each other important facts and backgroundso that the audience can hear it. Bad writers! Bad!

For example, how do I know the Russians are a bad ass drifting team? Because teh head ranger guy tells our protagonist (or is he?) so that the audience can know that. It's sloppy writing.

http://movieline.com/2010/03/23/david-mamets-memo-to-the-writers-of-the-unit/

If you read this and disagree with Mamet, then ok. But if you think Mament is spot on, and I do, then it's pretty obvious the script in Pacific Rim needed a lot of work.

Again, I think there's an argument to be made that objectively Pacific Rim is a bad script.
 
Last edited:
Here's an example of good script writing. What do we know from the opening scene in Star Wars? The rebels are on the run and the Empire has the upper hand. The Empire has a lot more resources and vastly superior fire power compared to the rebels.

OR, you could have one character stand there and tell another character "As you know, the Empire has us poor rebels on the run. They have a lot more resources and vastly superior fire power..."

 
Okay, about the Nottingham screenplay...

First off, I haven't read it, but I will once my schedule clears up.
Second, about the story about how that screenplay was changed around so much, how is that unlike any other screenplay ever written?

A first draft tends to be very different from the shooting script for all the obvious reasons, and while it may be a good read, it might not make a film that would recoup the costs of having been made and marketed.

Has anyone here actually read this screenplay? Or are we just crucifying the producers, and the entire system that is very proven when it comes to getting films made and successful (or "liked" or "good" or whatever term you want to put on it).

Seriously, how many here would say they've both read the screenplay and have produced a commercially distributed feature film?
 
Jawa Ex Machina said:
Okay, about the Nottingham screenplay...

First off, I haven't read it, but I will once my schedule clears up.
Second, about the story about how that screenplay was changed around so much, how is that unlike any other screenplay ever written?

A first draft tends to be very different from the shooting script for all the obvious reasons, and while it may be a good read, it might not make a film that would recoup the costs of having been made and marketed.

Has anyone here actually read this screenplay? Or are we just crucifying the producers, and the entire system that is very proven when it comes to getting films made and successful (or "liked" or "good" or whatever term you want to put on it).

Seriously, how many here would say they've both read the screenplay and have produced a commercially distributed feature film?
Click to expand...

I think the point is whether the original script was good or not, at least it was something fresh, Robin Hood told from the perspective of the Sheriff. the director got rid of all the freshness and turned into just another Robin Hood retelling. And it's a pretty boring movie.

I don't think you have to be a chef to say if a particular dish is delicious or not. Just because you can't make it in the kitchen doesn't mean you don't have taste buds. There's quite a difference between saying this tastes awful, and I can cook better than this.
 
Gillvane said:
I think the point is whether the original script was good or not, at least it was something fresh, Robin Hood told from the perspective of the Sheriff. the director got rid of all the freshness and turned into just another Robin Hood retelling. And it's a pretty boring movie.

I don't think you have to be a chef to say if a particular dish is delicious or not. Just because you can't make it in the kitchen doesn't mean you don't have taste buds. There's quite a difference between saying this tastes awful, and I can cook better than this.
Click to expand...
Well yeah, but the difference here is that unlike a meal at a restaurant, ROBIN HOOD cost $200,000,000 to make and was finished four year after the first draft was dated.

It may have been the freshest screenplay in the world, but freshness in itself doesn't have mass appeal the way familiarity does. You can't spend millions of dollars on a film and not go for mass appeal, that's suicide.

My point about producer is, anyone who has produced and sold a feature film will probably agree that the majority of indie films are really fresh but that doesn't help them get sold.
People want familiarity. That's what most people think is good. That's why branding, franchising, well known actors and genres are so important. With familiarity, they can connect with what they're seeing in a relaxed way so that they can focus on enjoying themselves. If freshness was what people wanted, every single studio in Hollywood would work their asses off to make all their films as different from eachother as they possibly could.

Like I said, I haven't read the screenplay and it's perfectly possible that maybe Ridley Scott was just the wrong director for that material. Maybe it was great, and it had all the familiarity that was needed already. Still though, the director has to make the film he wants to make.
 
Jawa Ex Machina said:
Second, about the story about how that screenplay was changed around so much, how is that unlike any other screenplay ever written?
Click to expand...

It's different and baffling because the original concept they bought was taking something familiar and flipping it upside down. They just flipped it back around to make it familiar again. They didn't even need to spend the money on the original script if that's what they were going to do. It would be like buying the rights to Wicked, and then remaking The Wizard of Oz. In most script development, even if the screenplays are changed considerably, the core concept remains the same. For example, Hancock was completely different from the original script Tonight, He Comes. Not a word was kept, the plot is totally different, and most of the characters changed. But the core concept is basically the same. Nottingham was a unique and extreme case, so extreme that it's probably not a good example of what usually happens to a script when it goes through the development meat grinder.
 
Jawa Ex Machina said:
Well yeah, but the difference here is that unlike a meal at a restaurant, ROBIN HOOD cost $200,000,000 to make and was finished four year after the first draft was dated.

It may have been the freshest screenplay in the world, but freshness in itself doesn't have mass appeal the way familiarity does. You can't spend millions of dollars on a film and not go for mass appeal, that's suicide.

My point about producer is, anyone who has produced and sold a feature film will probably agree that the majority of indie films are really fresh but that doesn't help them get sold.
People want familiarity. That's what most people think is good. That's why branding, franchising, well known actors and genres are so important. With familiarity, they can connect with what they're seeing in a relaxed way so that they can focus on enjoying themselves. If freshness was what people wanted, every single studio in Hollywood would work their asses off to make all their films as different from eachother as they possibly could.

Like I said, I haven't read the screenplay and it's perfectly possible that maybe Ridley Scott was just the wrong director for that material. Maybe it was great, and it had all the familiarity that was needed already. Still though, the director has to make the film he wants to make.
Click to expand...

Who isn't familiar about Robin Hood? Fresh doesn't mean unfamiliar. It means a new take on a familiar subject.

http://www.wordplayer.com/columns/wp42.Mental.Real.Estate.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top