The Story Department - Latest Comments

Re: The Hero Must Change!

Karel Segers — Wed, 31 Jul 2013 06:09:23 -0000

Whoa. Val...
Ante said "IMHO". He didn't ask for a rant.

You're saying 'change is predictable'. So 'no change' is not? LOL

"Change is the foundation of any story"
ABSO-FUCKING-LUTELY.
If the hero doesn't change, you better make sure the world does.

I like how Martin put it: "Either the main character changes, or s/he changes the world. For no change is no story, and no story is just chat…"

(BTW: Nobody in this thread struck me as being 'full of themselves'.)

Re: The Hero Must Change!

Val — Wed, 31 Jul 2013 06:09:23 -0000

Change isn't the foundation of every story. You're only saying that because that's what you've been told. Quit reading so many books on how to be a writer and JUST FUCKING WRITE ALREADY! That's like asking a christian why they're christian and they say, "Because that's the way i was raised." They don't know WHY, they just believe because that's always what they were told to believe.

The only 'change' Indiana Jones takes is overcoming his fear of snakes. BUT it's not even a change because a TRUE change would be him not simply overcoming that fear for one moment but him liking being around snakes afterwards. Indiana Jones is NOT change, it's him momentarily overcoming his fear of snakes, but that fear still remains after that moment. Just because you do something once doesn't mean you are then changed by it.

Most horror movies don't have character change, unless you consider the Pro's instinct to survive being normal at the beginning compared to it simply being stronger at the end a 'change.'

Mostly Comedies use the change gimmick, but that's because it's an easy gimmick that helps them near instantly develop characters and plot before they even start writing the story down on paper, and it's also very predictable. A PERFECT example is Liar, Liar. Initial idea: a guy can't lie for 1 day. Then expand it: make the guy a LAWYER (who are known for lying) who can't lie for 1 day. WHY can't he lie? Let's give him a reason people can relate to: family ties. TThen throw Jim Carrey into the role, an actor known for making people laugh, and that'll put the target demographic into those theater seats. But again, very predictable. We know instantly from the very beginning that Jim is a liar and before we even leave the gates we know that by the end the opposite of him will be true. Personally, and i don't know about you, but i prefer to NOT know the ending to a story until i get there.

BUT the whole 'change is necessary' thing is just a bunch of bullshit that has been overused. Doing something and preaching something simply because you are told that's how it is is just plain stupid. If character change is essential to every story as you've stated, that would make every story predictable and boring. Give the Pro a trait at the beginning and we'll instantly know that the opposite will be true of them at the end. Therefor we can basically predict the story and what will happen to the Pro. And why? Because the author thinks change is the foundation of every story simply because that's what they were always told, so every Pro they make in every story they write will be predictable. Look at their Pro at the beginning and we'll know they'll be the opposite at the end BEFORE we even read that far. The only other equation to that supposed 'necessary' change is Tragedy stories, and thus if your story is a Tragedy we'll know that the defining trait of the Pro at the beginning will be intensified by the end instead of turning into its opposite.

Did Russel Crowe in Gladiator change? Nope. He was an efficient soldier and leader of men at the beginning, and he was still one at the end.

Does Rocky change in Rocky? Nope. Rocky was a fighter at the beginning and he was still one at the end. Yes, you can say, "Oh, Rocky thought he was a loser at the beginning and did not at the end. That's how he changed." Yeah, sure, if you consider every training montage of every Rocky movie a character change. But the truth is it's a character who was a fighter at the beginning, he's put through training to increase his fighting skills, then he used the those skills at the end. Physical change? Yes. Character change? No. Character change would be Rocky becoming a pacifist by the end of the movie and refusing to fight because he was a fighter at the beginning. Turning a fighter into a stronger fighter isn't change, it's GROWTH. There IS a difference.

And i can't think of a single Conan story i've ever read where Conan has character change (and i should know, Howard is my favorite writer and i own every scrap of his writing i can get my hands on). Conan starts out as he is, deals with his problems as he does, and by the end he's the same person. Yes he may have learned something new about such and such wizard or supposed ally or land or people, but learning something new doesn't change WHO you are. It changes your skill set, but not your personality.

You can preach how much change is necessary all you want, but all that does it end up making VERY PREDICTABLE characters and stories. At the beginning your character doesn't take life seriously, so we know they'll take it seriously by the end. Same with a dumb character turning smart. A loner into a social person. A pushed-around geek into a confident and strong leader. You can take ANY trait, apply your supposed essential method of change, and predictably know how the character is going to turn out without even bothering to read the friggin' story at all.

How many times have we seen the movie or read the story of the poor, battered housewife who finally kicks her abusive husband to the curb after she 'grows' more confidence??? Exactly. it's been overdone to hell, and it's cliche and boring as all hell.

Just because a few good books have used the character change arc well in their story does NOT mean it instantly becomes a rule that change is now the foundation of every story. Most 'change' is simply training a character undergoes, nothing more. Luke's 'change' in the original Star Wars was simply that he trained to use the force, a skill he already possessed yet simply made stronger. A PHYSICAL skill. It doesn't have to be some deep, underlying truth of life meaning so you can feel like the most intelligent, genius writer in the world...because you're not and i'm not. Get over yourself, drop your ego and accept that being a writer doesn't elevate you onto some higher plateau above everyone else where you are aware of some higher truth most others are not.

And i hope this offends you, because that way maybe, just maybe, you'll get over yourself long enough to write a good story and worry about how much you are impressing everyone with your 'genius' writing theories later :-/

Re: Structure: Heat

Stephane — Wed, 24 Jul 2013 15:54:35 -0000

This is an awesome breakdown and analysis of a true masterpiece, the best I found in my research! Thanks so much for your work and dedication Karel!

I have a comment about your analysis: you mention that Neil's goal is open-ended in contrast to Hanna's which is very clear, catching Neil and his team. The more I look into this film, the more it appears to me that Neil has a clearly defined goal. He wants a new life, away from all this with Eady.

His ordinary world is the world of scores. Externally he's looking for big scores. But internally he's looking for something else: his house is near the ocean and he watches this 'somewhere beyond the sea' when he finish his 'job'. Meeting Eady is his call to adventure that confronts him to his life's discipline to leave everything in 30 seconds when the heat shows up.

When he has coffee with Hanna at the midpoint, he shares his fear of not having enough time to do what he wants and when asked if he's doing what he wants now, his answer is 'Not yet'.

At the end of Act II, he's offered a way out of it, 'Home Free', and live a different life, that he discovered he longs for in Eady. There's literally light in the tunnel but not at the end of it: he chooses to take revenge on Waingro instead and takes a path that will lead prevent him from living this other life and ultimately to his own downfall.

In an interview, Michael Mann talks about the essence of his film: "that basic contradiction of two people who are not protagonist-antagonist, but 2 protagonists who have a deadly moral conflicts with each other but at the same time have a high regard for each other is the nucleus of the whole film".

Anyway, this film is such a masterpiece that I keep seeing new things each time I watch it. Thanks again for your wonderful work and website, it's a great discovery!

Re: Breaking Bad Has The Best Scene On Television – Ever

Rahul — Tue, 23 Jul 2013 07:04:02 -0000

This was my favorite scene until a scene from 11th episode of Season 4 when a frenzied Walter asks Skyler where's the money and she says she's given it to Ted. and then Walt starts laughing hysterically as Skyler gets a call from Marie. Goosebumps. :)

Re: Writing Drama (3)

ozzywood — Tue, 16 Jul 2013 02:53:00 -0000

Great, Shaula. Let's keep plugging the book! :)

Re: Writing Drama (3)

The Black Board — Tue, 16 Jul 2013 02:44:00 -0000

I'm so happy to you reviewing the book here, Karel. It's one of my favorite writing books--I recommend it at The Black Board all the time. I'm shocked how few people in North America have ever heard of it. It's clearly one of Europe's best kept secrets. I purchased my copy direct from the publisher as well and found the staff delightful to deal with. I hope your series of excerpts helps connect writers with an outstanding book. I'd selfishly love more people to read it so I have someone to discuss it with!

Shaula

Re: Writing Drama (3)

ozzywood — Mon, 15 Jul 2013 22:53:48 -0000

Great, Shaula. Let's keep plugging the book! :)

Re: Writing Drama (3)

The Black Board — Mon, 15 Jul 2013 22:44:10 -0000

Shaula

Re: 40 Years of The Exorcist

ozzywood — Tue, 02 Jul 2013 09:27:00 -0000

Thank you. I've fixed it.

Re: 40 Years of The Exorcist

Karel Segers — Tue, 02 Jul 2013 09:25:59 -0000

Thank you! Will be fixed soon.

Re: 40 Years of The Exorcist

ksr — Tue, 02 Jul 2013 09:21:00 -0000

Thank you for this article, The Exorcist was really ground-breaking!
Small correction: The Exorcism of Emily Rose is from 2005.

Re: 40 Years of The Exorcist

ozzywood — Tue, 02 Jul 2013 05:27:53 -0000

Thank you. I've fixed it.

Re: 40 Years of The Exorcist

ksr — Tue, 02 Jul 2013 05:21:33 -0000

Thank you for this article, The Exorcist was really ground-breaking!
Small correction: The Exorcism of Emily Rose is from 2005.

Re: Mini Review – Fast & Furious 6

Paul Garnsey — Sat, 29 Jun 2013 15:31:00 -0000

Great review. Thanks. Made me chuckle which is more than the film did.

Re: Mini Review – Fast & Furious 6

Paul Garnsey — Sat, 29 Jun 2013 11:31:53 -0000

Great review. Thanks. Made me chuckle which is more than the film did.

Re: [Video]: Why we fail, unless…

Steven Fernandez — Fri, 28 Jun 2013 14:13:00 -0000

Brilliantly witty and very wise/insightful. Yours Truly relates very much to the need to constantly challenge and wrestle with fear - the great blocker of life satisfaction and fulfillment.

Re: [Video]: Why we fail, unless…

Steven Fernandez — Fri, 28 Jun 2013 10:13:55 -0000

Brilliantly witty and very wise/insightful. Yours Truly relates very much to the need to constantly challenge and wrestle with fear - the great blocker of life satisfaction and fulfillment.

Re: A Journey in Distribution: Part 2

Steven Fernandez — Fri, 21 Jun 2013 08:05:00 -0000

Quite an informative, very readable, and insightful article from someone who has actually gone out and done it. Great work. This is the kind of standard bloggers should be writing at.

Re: A Journey in Distribution: Part 2

Steven Fernandez — Fri, 21 Jun 2013 04:05:31 -0000

Quite an informative, very readable, and insightful article from someone who has actually gone out and done it. Great work. This is the kind of standard bloggers should be writing at.

Re: Introduce the Hero on Page One!

CelticBearWoman — Wed, 19 Jun 2013 01:54:00 -0000

I noticed while reading Armageddon that the (Bruce Willis) character wasn't intro'd until very late, or even mentioned. Once he was intro'd, they knocked it out of the park, and he never left the screen after that.

Re: Introduce the Hero on Page One!

CelticBearWoman — Tue, 18 Jun 2013 21:54:41 -0000

Re: Structure: Michael Clayton

paul graunke — Mon, 10 Jun 2013 22:39:00 -0000

Re the criticism: "Michael’s relationship with his family, both as an irritated brother and a single dad — occupy time at the outset but really don’t lead
anywhere."

I demur. It dramatizes another aspect of Michael's failed life. He's failed professionally (to make partner), in business (the restaurant went belly up) and his personal life has gone to hell in a hand basket (wife divorced, got the kid, etc.)

In terms of his personal life, he and his corporate adversary Karen share a secret symmetry in the sense of their hollowed out personal lives. They made a Faustian bargain with the corporate world for the sake of their careers. In Act 1, it's been a the bargain that has paid off for Karen. Not so for Michael.

And the connection with his irritated cop brother does lead somewhere. It's who he needs to get into Arthur's apartment, to get sprung from jail, to get his revenge on Karen (and redeem himself).

Re: Structure: Michael Clayton

ozzywood — Mon, 10 Jun 2013 22:23:00 -0000

Thank you Paul, you're spot on. I need to rework this one (and some of the others published here before).

Re: Structure: Michael Clayton

paul graunke — Mon, 10 Jun 2013 22:15:00 -0000

The "Ordinary World" at the FADE IN: is anything but. It's a teaser, a flash forward, to grab viewer interest with a (literally) explosive hook. Repositioned chronologically, it comes around 90 minutes into the story --- the pivot into Act 3.

(For another example of a flash forward teaser see the pilot episode of Breaking Bad. Same plotting technique.)

After the explosion, the the story commences in the ordinary world (4 days earlier) and moves forward chronologically.

Subtract about 15 minutes from all the time stamps after the teaser, and l the plot beats unfold like a conventional plot.

Re: Structure: Michael Clayton

Guest — Mon, 10 Jun 2013 18:39:46 -0000

Re the criticism: "Michael’s relationship with his family, both as an irritated brother and a single dad — occupy time at the outset but really don’t lead
anywhere."

I demur. It dramatizes another aspect of Michael's failed life. He's failed professionally (to make partner), in business (the restaurant went belly up) and his personal life (wife divorced, got the kid, remarrried.)

As if often the case, Michael and his corporate adversary, Karen, share a secret symmetry:r hollowed out personal lives. They made a Faustian bargain with the corporate world for the sake of their careers. In Act 1, the bargain has paid off for Karen. Not so for Michael.

And the connection with his irritated cop brother does lead somewhere. It's who he needs to get into Arthur's apartment, to keep him out of jail, to get his revenge on Karen (and redeem himself).