The script of doom

[TheSaintofKillers]

One very simple question here. If any of you were in a cinema class, and you would give as a final exam a script like spider-man 3, do you really think you'd even have a remote chance of not failing the class ?

I was thinking about that. I know some people did enjoy the movie, we all have different backgrounds and so it is quite a normal event that some do and some don't. But putting that aside, the answer to my question is quite easy, and kind of speak volume to the status of hollywood's big blockbusters. The same thing could apply to FF2, or many of the other big events of this summer.

I am of those that do not consider the script the most vital part of a movie (the visual is, imo), but it is the FIRST thing that shapes the movie, which, in those superhero movies, is more than just vital to their quality.

 

[matthooper]

Did this spam need a new thread?

What kind of idiotic debate did you expect? There is no answer. No one can submit a Spider-Man 3 script and find out if they fail or pass a course, so you will get no real answer. What's the point.

You didn't like the movie, fine. There are 100 other topics where people with no lives can complain about SM3.

 

[webhead731]

Um...wow you make this movie out to be a Batman and Robin.

 

[ThatDamnNinja]

One very simple question here. If any of you were in a cinema class, and you would give as a final exam a script like spider-man 3, do you really think you'd even have a remote chance of not failing the class ?

I was thinking about that. I know some people did enjoy the movie, we all have different backgrounds and so it is quite a normal event that some do and some don't. But putting that aside, the answer to my question is quite easy, and kind of speak volume to the status of hollywood's big blockbusters. The same thing could apply to FF2, or many of the other big events of this summer.

I am of those that do not consider the script the most vital part of a movie (the visual is, imo), but it is the FIRST thing that shapes the movie, which, in those superhero movies, is more than just vital to their quality.

Spider-Man 3 didn't have a script on par with Spider-Man 2, but it was sure as hell better than the crap your average film student will shovel out.

 

[TheSaintofKillers]

Sure, whatever. I though it was something interesting to note, especially since it was rather true that a script with so many plot holes and problems would be weirdly received in a class. I wasn't here to insult anyone who liked the movie (heck, I even told in my first post that we all had reasons to like or not like the movie, and I respected whatever sides people were), but it seems I might have judge the people here wrong. The boards are just as bad as I remember them being some years ago. Oh well. Back to having a "life", I guess, and letting "people with no lives rejoice about SM3". Geez.

 

[chaseter]

^"We don't like your kind around here..."
"Settle down Skeeter"

 

[dodus]

Sure, whatever. I though it was something interesting to note, especially since it was rather true that a script with so many plot holes and problems would be weirdly received in a class. I wasn't here to insult anyone who liked the movie (heck, I even told in my first post that we all had reasons to like or not like the movie, and I respected whatever sides people were), but it seems I might have judge the people here wrong. The boards are just as bad as I remember them being some years ago. Oh well. Back to having a "life", I guess, and letting "people with no lives rejoice about SM3". Geez.

Yeah, if it's not a glowing endorsement, don't even bother voicing it, let alone starting a thread.

 

[TheSaintofKillers]

Yeah, if it's not a glowing endorsement, don't even bother voicing it, let alone starting a thread.

I can see that. I've been kind of away for a long time now, and i'm quite surprised by how rude these posters are. Surprised, and disappointed I guess.

 

[Blader5489]

Turning in the SM3 script as a final exam would be a terrible idea - how could the teacher have any idea what it was about without knowing about SM1 and 2?

 

[TheSaintofKillers]

Turning in the SM3 script as a final exam would be a terrible idea - how could the teacher have any idea what it was about without knowing about SM1 and 2?

Heh. But jokes aside, you do have something here. A movie script should stand on his own, and not on the shoulders of past movies. If someone is lost while reading it, then there is definately something wrong in here. But that's another matter, I guess.

 

[DACrowe]

Well I don't think one would fial a class if the screenplay was written in the correct format and few mistakes were made from a technical aspect. Points might be reduced for the overabundance of coincidences (Gwen in danger, Eddie likes Gwen, the symbiote lands right next to Peter, Eddie and Pete go to the same church, albeit the last one is in the comics, etc.) and I also think lazy plot devices may be frowned upon (the butler for example) but not a failing grade. They are not graded like that in film schools (at least the media writing early levels of which you are talking about).


But a curve would put SM3 near the top if the same class saw screenplays for Shrek the Third, POTC:AWE, FF:ROTSS and most likely The Transformers which are all much worse and failed screenplays than SM3.

Albeit Knocked Up and Mr. Brooks would have the highest grades in that class.

BTW it is completely ridiculous and a bit pretentious and snobby to say a screenplay in A SEQUEL is a failure if it cannot stand by itself. I would say just the opposite. It should be an extenstion or an expantion on what came before it to justify its existence while exciting and new directions. Otherwise its validity for being made does not exist.

By your logic there, episodic sequels like Jaws 2, Jurassic Park III or Batman Forever are well crafted sequels. While movies that rely on you seeing previous installments like The Two Towers and Return of the King in the LOTR trilogy, or ESB and ROTJ or IMO one of the greatest films ever made that surpassed the original in film and script, The Godfather Part II....were failures because they relied on previous knowledge of the first movie and went from there.

I disagree strongly with that logic. Really.

 

[hammerhedd11]

Hey saintofkillers did u like Pirates 3 or Spiderman 2?

 

[TheSaintofKillers]

Hey saintofkillers did u like Pirates 3 or Spiderman 2?

Never really cared about any of the pirates movie. Heck, i've never understood the appeal, but well, i guess it's just not for me.

As for spider-man 2, I loved it. Wasn't perfect, but it was easily one of the strongest superhero movies of the last few years. Why ?

 

[TheSaintofKillers]

Well I don't think one would fial a class if the screenplay was written in the correct format and few mistakes were made from a technical aspect. Points might be reduced for the overabundance of coincidences (Gwen in danger, Eddie likes Gwen, the symbiote lands right next to Peter, Eddie and Pete go to the same church, albeit the last one is in the comics, etc.) and I also think lazy plot devices may be frowned upon (the butler for example) but not a failing grade. They are not graded like that in film schools (at least the media writing early levels of which you are talking about).


But a curve would put SM3 near the top if the same class saw screenplays for Shrek the Third, POTC:AWE, FF:ROTSS and most likely The Transformers which are all much worse and failed screenplays than SM3.

Albeit Knocked Up and Mr. Brooks would have the highest grades in that class.

BTW it is completely ridiculous and a bit pretentious and snobby to say a screenplay in A SEQUEL is a failure if it cannot stand by itself. I would say just the opposite. It should be an extenstion or an expantion on what came before it to justify its existence while exciting and new directions. Otherwise its validity for being made does not exist.

By your logic there, episodic sequels like Jaws 2, Jurassic Park III or Batman Forever are well crafted sequels. While movies that rely on you seeing previous installments like The Two Towers and Return of the King in the LOTR trilogy, or ESB and ROTJ or IMO one of the greatest films ever made that surpassed the original in film and script, The Godfather Part II....were failures because they relied on previous knowledge of the first movie and went from there.

I disagree strongly with that logic. Really.

I guess it might be a matter of opinion. Mind you, a movie like the two towers might be just as good as the third indiana jones movie. But, how many times will you go and decide to watch two towers by itself, without watching the other two movies in the trilogy ? That's my point right here. It's a great movie, but it needs the rest of the franchise to stand on his legs. While I can just decide to watch indiana jones 3 without having to rewatch the first two. Same with the aliens movies, and many other franchise. Doesn't make these movies any better than strongly linked franchises movies, but it does make them stand on their own much more easily. Put these trilogy movies alone, and they just do not work by themself. Imo, while it makes them great trilogies, it does not make them great individual movies (by individual I do not mean it isn't of any qualities by itself, but rather that it is much harder to watch them by themself)

I still think you might agree with that. I probably didn't explain myself well enough in my other post. Heck, I probably said it wrongly, and I should have rephrased earlier.

Oh, and I still do think that a movie with that many cliches, "accidents" and plot holes as spider-man 3 would have led to a failed exam. At least, by my old teachers' standards.

Do I think the movie is absolute crap ? No. Do I think the reason it failed and got so many people disappointed is because of the script ? Yes. Even a good director like Raimi couldn't overcome the shooting script. Heck, so-so scenes like the sandman awakening got to look great on screen because of his vision and his people.

 

[hammerhedd11]

Never really cared about any of the pirates movie. Heck, i've never understood the appeal, but well, i guess it's just not for me.

As for spider-man 2, I loved it. Wasn't perfect, but it was easily one of the strongest superhero movies of the last few years. Why ?

Well I think you saying that a sequel should stand by itself is a little hypocritical if you like Spiderman 2.

 

[Frodo]

Do I think the movie is absolute crap ? No. Do I think the reason it failed and got so many people disappointed is because of the script ? Yes. Even a good director like Raimi couldn't overcome the shooting script. Heck, so-so scenes like the sandman awakening got to look great on screen because of his vision and his people.[/QUOTE]

I agree . I think the producers and the writers problem was they misjudged the audience in general. They thought that people wanted More villians, more special effects, More characters , More action scenes , More toys etc. What they didn't realize is all people wanted was a good story like the first two.

They wanted to see what was gonna happen next to the characters the audience cared about : Peter, MJ, Harry and Aunt May. Yeah a kickass villian like Venom or Sandman could be added, but they expected more from SM3 then from F42.

Raimi had set a higher standard in terms of storytelling and character devolpment . It'd be like if you got A's in everyclass and then you suddenly start getting C's and D's. Your parents are gonna be like ," What's this about ?". That was basically peoples reaction.

From what I've read they were off to a good start in terms of script devolpment. I think had the Raimi brothers crafted their original vision of the story of Peter, MJ, Harry,and Sandman. I think once they came up with the concept of a third villian i.e Vulture the story become crowded. After that they chose Venom which meant you had to do the alien saga. Then the role of some girl who just said hello to Pete turned into Gwen , which meant you had make her part bigger and so on.

 

[dodus]

Well I think you saying that a sequel should stand by itself is a little hypocritical if you like Spiderman 2.

SM-2 passes that test with flying colors (literally).

 

[Infinity9999x]

Does it really matter if you'd pass a cinema class? I mean honestly, does the general public give a damn if a cinema class teacher thinks a script sucks? No, they don't. What it all comes down to at the end of the day is, the cinema teacher isn't making millions, and the Spider-man script is.

 

[DACrowe]

Well I would agree that TTT is a movie that needs to be watched with the other two. But I think ESB, ROTJ, T2 and The Godfather part II are sequels that depend heavily on knowing hte previous films that stand up well in their own rights. In ESB and GFPII I'd say they even surpass.

Sure episodic can be fun and for some material neccesarry (I think the Pirates movies are too thin to have one overarrcing storyline and making two and three one large paper thin storyline that tried to wedge into the plot of Pirates 1 killed those movies). Indiana Jones 3 (The Last Crusade) was VERY GOOD.

But for every Crusade you get a Temple of Doom. there have been some great Bond movies, but a lot of average ones and quite a few terrible ones. Aliens was a terrific sequel to Ridley Scott's film (which I still prefer, however), but the series ran out of steam and Alien 3 did a poor job justifying continuing from "The End" of Aliens. And the less said about Alien: Ressurection or AVP the better.

I think a sequel that expands on previous characters and deepens those stories while covering new ground works well. Episodic ages faster and you can see between the lines and see when itk only becomes about making money (Alien 3, Batman Forever, Jaws 2, The Lost World, etc, etc).

Oh well.

 

[TheSaintofKillers]

Well I would agree that TTT is a movie that needs to be watched with the other two. But I think ESB, ROTJ, T2 and The Godfather part II are sequels that depend heavily on knowing hte previous films that stand up well in their own rights. In ESB and GFPII I'd say they even surpass.

Sure episodic can be fun and for some material neccesarry (I think the Pirates movies are too thin to have one overarrcing storyline and making two and three one large paper thin storyline that tried to wedge into the plot of Pirates 1 killed those movies). Indiana Jones 3 (The Last Crusade) was VERY GOOD.

But for every Crusade you get a Temple of Doom. there have been some great Bond movies, but a lot of average ones and quite a few terrible ones. Aliens was a terrific sequel to Ridley Scott's film (which I still prefer, however), but the series ran out of steam and Alien 3 did a poor job justifying continuing from "The End" of Aliens. And the less said about Alien: Ressurection or AVP the better.

I think a sequel that expands on previous characters and deepens those stories while covering new ground works well. Episodic ages faster and you can see between the lines and see when itk only becomes about making money (Alien 3, Batman Forever, Jaws 2, The Lost World, etc, etc).

Oh well.

I think my problem isn't necesarry with a sequel like spider-man 2 or terminator 2, which, yes, do follow a previous movie, but does not depend on it (well, on most levels). My problem goes more with movies like the last 2 matrix, or the 3 lord of the rings, or the last 2 pirates. These movies are so connected to each others that they cannot be viewed separately. They feel more like short mini series than like individual movies. I'm not sure if it should be noted as huge script problems, or interesting takes, but I much prefer what you describe in your previous post (a sequel that stand on his own but acknowledge his previous entries).

 

[TheSaintofKillers]

Does it really matter if you'd pass a cinema class? I mean honestly, does the general public give a damn if a cinema class teacher thinks a script sucks? No, they don't. What it all comes down to at the end of the day is, the cinema teacher isn't making millions, and the Spider-man script is.

And i'm sure you're very happy about it and that's all fine and dandy. Yet, most big time filmmakers have indeed went through film school. So, yes, it is a rather important process.

 

[TheSaintofKillers]

Do I think the movie is absolute crap ? No. Do I think the reason it failed and got so many people disappointed is because of the script ? Yes. Even a good director like Raimi couldn't overcome the shooting script. Heck, so-so scenes like the sandman awakening got to look great on screen because of his vision and his people.

I agree . I think the producers and the writers problem was they misjudged the audience in general. They thought that people wanted More villians, more special effects, More characters , More action scenes , More toys etc. What they didn't realize is all people wanted was a good story like the first two.

They wanted to see what was gonna happen next to the characters the audience cared about : Peter, MJ, Harry and Aunt May. Yeah a kickass villian like Venom or Sandman could be added, but they expected more from SM3 then from F42.

Raimi had set a higher standard in terms of storytelling and character devolpment . It'd be like if you got A's in everyclass and then you suddenly start getting C's and D's. Your parents are gonna be like ," What's this about ?". That was basically peoples reaction.

From what I've read they were off to a good start in terms of script devolpment. I think had the Raimi brothers crafted their original vision of the story of Peter, MJ, Harry,and Sandman. I think once they came up with the concept of a third villian i.e Vulture the story become crowded. After that they chose Venom which meant you had to do the alien saga. Then the role of some girl who just said hello to Pete turned into Gwen , which meant you had make her part bigger and so on.

I think that's why spider-man 3 feels so damn weird as a movie. When you watch a movie like fantastic four 2, (or x-men 3, or the first fantastic four for that matter), you ONLY feel the hands of the producers behind these movies, and nothing else. So when you watch those, you know exactly what to expect, nothing new, sure, but it will keep most of the regular viewers entertained. (I loath all of these 3 movies, but I can understand why others do enjoy them). But spider-man 3 is a whole different beast. It is mixed by both the same greedy producers hands the Fox superhero movies suffers, but at the same time it had so much more potential because of the great artistic crafters behind the movie. And the whole thing just does not mix. Either you get the entertaining yet crappy blockbuster movie you'd expect from those kind of producers, or you get a well crafted Raimi and co. movie. Yet both are mixed, and so we are left, as an audience, unable to understand how such a thing can be so badly unbalanced. From great scenes to godawful ones, it is one of the most inconsistent big movie of the last few years.

 

[Frodo]

That's true. Superhero flicks are usually Bad (Batman and Robin) or Good (Batman Begins). They usually don't go from extremes of Good moments(the crane sequence ) to a bad moments(Peter dancing ) all in the same film.

 

[TheVileOne]

Time for the film student to give the FINAL word.

I'm a film student and I took screenwriting classes at UT Austin. And I was required to write a feature script at one point in addition to short film scripts, outlines, and single act scripts.

No, this script would not have gotten a failing grade by the way in which the course was laid out and how our instructors guided us for the format.

There are rules in narrative and screenwriting but they are not absolute. They are more like guidelines as Cap'n Barbossa would say. Creativity in getting around the rules is what gets good marks and comments.

 

[dodus]

^(serious question) Did the course deal with "convenience/contrivance/lazy writing" aspects of plot? I keep arguing that those are technical observations which should take a backseat to *what* the narrative is doing, but I'm interested to hear if they speak to that in the professional realm.