Which do you prefer; Formula or Style?

[CConn]

It seems like, for most people - both here even in the old real world - the story is the major focus point of a movie. A good plot, an engaging story, a well written script is the most talked about aspect of film. People to on and on about plot holes, and realism, and boring plots, and lack of action, etc., etc.

But as more and more time go by, I'm starting to find myself caring less and less about about those particular details of a film. I find myself gravitating and appreciating more stylistic and artistic elements of a film; great cinematography, art direction, and the internal character progression. Acting, of course, plays a major part.

I find myself going more and more against the grain with what movies I like; Superman Returns, War of the Worlds, There Will Be Blood are slowly becoming favorites of mine, while I start to lose interest over other, more formulaic movies.

I find myself growing more and more enamored with an expressionist style of filmmaking: espousing moralistic and philosophical statements through characterization and visual aesthetics rather than spoken dialogue or plot-based explainations.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying a good story is unimportant. Movies like the Brothers Grimm have a ton of style but are ruined by poor screenplays. But, all things considered, I find myself appreciating the subtle aspects of filmmaking more and more.

Does anyone else feel this way too?

 

[Ultimatehero]

I may be bias because I'm a writer out in Hollywood with backing - but, I truly believe mostly everything comes from writing. Those stylistic films? A lot of it is that way because it's also that way on the page. A lot of those formulaic films? A lot of it is that way because it's also that way on the page. Think of a screenplay as the basic building block from which everything else is built around. The director is a HUGE part as well - but the script? Really dictates what the director can do with the material.

That said, as a writer - I don't believe in formula. If it was formula, it'd be boring lol. I want style, I want something different - I want a VOICE behind the work. And this can be found in both expressionistic and simple means on the screen. If you're asking philosophical or character analytical - character analysis (people analysis, going into the fundamentals of what makes us who we are) - definitely character. For example 'Contagion' is excellent in my opinion due to all of the strong characters and reflection on what we as humans would do.

 

[CConn]

Well, obviously writing is the genesis of it all, but at the same time, I find great direction, acting, and visual style can overcome the shortcomings of a mediocre script.

Like, I really liked Captain America, but looking back on it, the script is actually that of a pretty simplistic and nondescript action film. The villain isn't inventive, the plotting is nothing new, and the romance is almost non existing.

But due to the director and cast, he was able to breath a monumental amount of life and vigor into the film. Evens and Atwell made the love story work, Joe Johnston made the film visually inventive and beautiful, and the entire cast interjected a humor and liveliness that wasn't 100% the script's doing.

Conversely, I don't so much see it the other way around happening. You could have the best written story in the world, if it's made by an mundane director and doesn't feature anything visually or thematically to engage the audience, my enjoyment of it will be greatly diminished.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Yeah, all those elements helped - BUT the very tone of the film? Was established in the script. The reason, to me, Captain America works very well is because it was a lot like an old Indiana Jones film. If you look at the script - you'll see actual traces of that. That's all on the page. That comes off in the writing. Also to tell everyone the truth - superhero films don't work like other films. It's rare that these big blockbusters are placed onto a writer directly.

With Captain America, it started off with a director going to the studio saying "I want this, this, and that in this movie - that's my take on it." Then they hire the writer who can bring that director's vision to life on the page. Which the director then goes through various other drafts with the writers on. And THAT is how you get the finished product for big Hollywood films. I've seen this first-hand. They go to a director FIRST.

But, still - as said - all of that can be found on the page. With Captain America the script shines through in the tone of the film. Wherever direction you go in, the script is the basic building block from which everyone works off of.

As a writer our jobs often switch between bringing a director or studio's vision to life or bringing our own visions to life.

This is, I'm betting, why some directors get really into the writing too - like Nolan, to secure his stamp 100% on it.

The best script to get a clear sense of this from is 'Stay' - in case your interested, to me it demonstrates the kind of impact a writer should make on the page in effecting a film visually. And this film has some crazy visuals in it, so it's a lot more noticeable.

 

[CConn]

You're being way too writing-centric, man. You're missing my point.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Of course, I'm writing-centric - I'm a screenwriter. And your point was way off with Captain America. If you say the whole tone of the film that made it entertaining - which was a whole Indiana Jones vibe - that was on the page. But, even then that wouldn't be an accurate example since a lot of that is thanks to the director who was in there from stage 1 and may have even hired those writers. Writing, to me, is where everything branches off from. The egg rarely comes before the chicken unless it's a really rare big time blockbuster.

As to what I gravitate towards - I've already answered that. Character dramas and analysis of human beings over philosophy.

Or 'Contagion' > 'The Fountain' (although I liked both)

 

[CConn]

And your point was way off with Captain America. If you say the whole tone of the film that made it entertaining - which was a whole Indiana Jones vibe - that was on the page. But, even then that wouldn't be an accurate example since a lot of that is thanks to the director who was in there from stage 1 and may have even hired those writers..

But that was my point exactly; the director's vison drove the film. Obviously, the writing is a part of it. I'm not arguing against writing. I'm arguing against a style of writing; formulaic writing. Which you do get, and also dislike. So that's okay.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Captain America is a very rare example, that's what you are missing. If you look at any other film - just like everything else - the chicken (the writer) comes first and then the egg (the director). With Captain America, X-Men, etc. you have the DIRECTOR entering a film and HIRING or SUGGESTING the writers with his vision ALREADY in mind. Thus, yes - big time hollywood spectacles it does work like that. But those are the ONLY cases where the egg comes first. Everything else? No, it doesn't and most of it is on the page.

Basically if you say a director's vision dictates a film he was involved in from the ground-floor, yeah that's true. But, if you say a director is mainly responsible for everything in something a writer is involved with from the ground-floor? I'd say that's incorrect, the writer is more responsible there. But, still - from that ground-floor it's a collaboration between the two for the best possible outcome of getting their vision onto the page so they have something to film on the screen. So, even then it's all - still in the shooting draft of the script. An incomplete shooting script without that? Is like entering a war zone without the proper ammunition. These scripts are gone over and over and over again just to ensure that.

And yeah, formulaic writing does suck. That's why films like CHRONICLE are awesome to me. And what execs/VPs see in my own writing. Rules exist to break them. You follow them directly? All you get is paint-by-numbers and that doesn't really interest me. It's not challenging.

Writers DO take 'style' into account when writing. We create the beats, the moments, the ambiance and just hope that a director can translate them to screen like they're meant to be seen and add something new and exciting to it as well. Same hopes with actors elevating the material.

It would be hard pressed to hear from the director, actors, art designers, etc. saying they came up with that all by themselves. Rather, instead, they all say the same thing over and over again "I just took my cues from the page to try to visualize what was already there" or "the words were already there." And being a writer? It's essential to know that and understand that responsibility - that not only are you telling a story, you also have to provide a blue-print for all those people to act off of and elevate. If it's not on the page, everyone's jobs are going to be made harder. Like special effects, on the screen - we should be mostly invisible to viewers because that means we've done our jobs.

 

[CConn]

Another good example of what I mean is the movie Drive.

Great movie, don't get me wrong, but I MUCH preferred the first half of the movie that was really nothing more than character exposition and setting up the common themes of the film.

Once the second half rolled along with increased focus on the plot and story and bringing everything full circle...I actually enjoyed it less.

 

[Mandalore464]

Edit : Deleted

 

[Ultimatehero]

Not saying that the story's completely useless. But it's HOW you put that story into images and sounds that's really important. Just like it's how you put a story into words that makes a good novel.

The script GIVES YOU the images. People only see screenplays as the story - the plot, the characters, etc. But all those images? Come directly off of the page. If there was no script, there would be no images.

Note - I'm not saying all other departments are useless at all or not important at all. Just without words - there would be no images. It just, this feels like you guys are shafting the writers for the images he or she puts onto the page and giving the credit solely to someone who brings what's on the page to life.

Writers do A LOT more than just coming up with plot, characters, and dialogue. A lot of those visuals unless it's some camera trick or etc. are all on the page. I'd say visuals and etc. are shared across the board visually and all spring to life FROM THE PAGE.

That's why more and more pathetic films see the light of day : they're all about entertaining, telling a story, BUT they have nothing that justify them being FILMS, which is a lot more than just getting a story from point A to point B.

True, that's what some writers forget. But others are purely motivated by having a message they want to send out there. I think that's partly what caught the attention of the company I'm at in me, and it's a high up company, is that I'm driven by more than just entertaining and following paint-by-numbers. I believe in the whole catharsis notion of storytelling.

 

[Mandalore464]

Edit : Deleted

 

[Ultimatehero]

So I disagree with you to some extent, the screenplay doesn't give you the images.

But, to an extent, it also does. If the director likes the source material and really wants it to be faithful - then yeah, a lot of it is from the page. If the director wants to do his own thing and replace some of the things on the page - then, yeah, as a writer you have to get used to that. I actually see that as a positive thing getting as many heads involved for the best product. Visuals are still on the page though.

Basically a feature length screenplay - especially the shooting script - when you have MANY people relying on the same source - is:

Note - not saying in spec or first draft form cause that always changes, I'm saying when it gets down the wire and you need something for HUNDREDS of people to read and be on the same page with. The actual shooting script. Some of which go in-depth even on camera angles.

From which the builders then bring their own ideas to to bring that fully to life. Will it look completely like that? No. But would the builders say they could have done it without that? Not a chance. Even in interviews EVERYONE says "from this script, I was able to build this." It's never going to look like it originally did, but the images come from the same area - same things happens between animatics and shooting it - for real.

 

[CConn]

Ultimate, I don't mean to be a dick - cause I really do respect your thoughts on writing - but can we not just turn this into a conversation about the merits of screenwriting? That's a separate conversation. I'm trying to address filmmaking as a whole, at the moment.

 

[SuperFerret]

The story is everything. The story is what entertains me, everything else is just frosting.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Ultimate, I don't mean to be a dick - cause I really do respect your thoughts on writing - but can we not just turn this into a conversation about the merits of screenwriting? That's a separate conversation. I'm trying to address filmmaking as a whole, at the moment.

All I'm doing is replying and showing why a script is a lot more than just - plot, characters, and dialogue which the first post seemed to infer it was only good for. The script also contains camera angles, montages (sometimes down to a very specific song), clear detailed descriptions of some of the major set pieces, locations, and even COSTUMES from which the artists work off of and everything in-between. So, when talking style, the reason why the script is gone into - especially in hollywood films - is because all of what's on screen has to be on the page. Without it the style is like trying to draw something without a canvass or building a house without a blueprint telling you where everything goes - it just wouldn't be possible.

 

[CConn]

I'm right behind you CConn.

Cinematography (and sound to some extent, some will say 50%, I say a bit less) is the most important part of a film. If the cinematography is brilliant and the rest is all sh... I'll still enjoy the film and will probably buy it on Blu Ray.

But really, it's all logical when you think about it. Cinema is all about images in motion, if they're a blast, then your movie's a blast.

Not saying that the story's completely useless. But it's HOW you put that story into images and sounds that's really important. Just like it's how you put a story into words that makes a good novel.

If the story was all that mattered, how would you judge a film against a book that both tell the same story? You couldn't : same story.

Randomly venting here, but I think it's a bloody shame that movies have become a substitute for literature, because people are lazy when it comes to reading a book, and would rather sit on their butts for a couple of hours and have the story played out in front of their eyes without making any effort in imagining what's behind the words.

How many people go into a film to pay attention to what's behind the images and sounds? They don't care, they just want a story to be told to them.

That's why more and more pathetic films see the light of day : they're all about entertaining, telling a story, BUT they have nothing that justify them being FILMS, which is a lot more than just getting a story from point A to point B.

Exactly. I see a film as a immersive artistic experience. Everything from the cinematography, to the costuming, to the interior design of the sets...everything should be at the height of its artistic medium to be a truly great film.

It's not necessarily about dissing story or plot - I love Inception, a very densely written and plotted film. But, at the same time, I love it because of the philosophical ideas it expresses, the style and color palette of the actors' wardrobe, the style inherent in the locations and design of the film...it's a complete immersive experience. There's art to be found everywhere.

In comparison, I'm less enthusiastic about movies like Mememto - that are phenomenally written, but really don't put much thought or effort into fully fleshing out the scenery or style of the world presented in the film.

 

[Tanin]

I prefer style. I can enjoy a horrid movie such as Ghost Rider and not even be ashamed of it because it just doesn't bother me.

It has gotten to the point where I don't really give my reviews out because I know my taste is so different.

 

[Ultimatehero]

It's not necessarily about dissing story or plot - I love Inception, a very densely written and plotted film. But, at the same time, I love it because of the philosophical ideas it expresses, the style and color palette of the actors' wardrobe, the style inherent in the locations and design of the film...it's a complete immersive experience. There's art to be found everywhere.

Then this isn't script/screenplay you're referring to. You're solely talking about the plot/story within said script - because everything else: philosophical ideas, locations, settings, technology, wardrobe, were all at one point in the script. Just terminology usage is off. Some writers have small descriptions, but others? I've seen whole paragraphs in professional Hollywood films just about the set design.

Going with Memento - it was that stale in locations on page. Going with... Inception - it was that vast on page.

This is especially the case in Hollywood since you need to hand out a single manuscript (shooting script) to about a thousand people that has them thinking in the same direction. And trust me, that thing is gone over again and again and again with a finely tip comb to make sure.

Scripts out there are.... extremely detailed blue-prints, ESPECIALLY in final form.

 

[CConn]

Dude, I already said that three days ago; I'm talking about a type of writing, not writing itself.

You really need to cool out.

 

[Destructus86]

I may be bias because I'm a writer out in Hollywood with backing - but, I truly believe mostly everything comes from writing. Those stylistic films? A lot of it is that way because it's also that way on the page. A lot of those formulaic films? A lot of it is that way because it's also that way on the page. Think of a screenplay as the basic building block from which everything else is built around. The director is a HUGE part as well - but the script? Really dictates what the director can do with the material.

That said, as a writer - I don't believe in formula. If it was formula, it'd be boring lol. I want style, I want something different - I want a VOICE behind the work. And this can be found in both expressionistic and simple means on the screen. If you're asking philosophical or character analytical - character analysis (people analysis, going into the fundamentals of what makes us who we are) - definitely character. For example 'Contagion' is excellent in my opinion due to all of the strong characters and reflection on what we as humans would do.

I agree. Style is very important, but only so much as the story is interesting. You can have great cinematography, but still bore the audience simply because they don't care about the characters. And I think that's the real key. Your story doesn't need to be deep and thought-provoking to be good. If the characters are interesting, the audience will be drawn into the characters and follow along with the story. In some ways the characters themselves can be the story.

As a screenplay writer myself, I find formular to be offensive. It's really a huge issue in Hollywood more so now than ever before. So many writers/studios/whoever are afraid to step too far out of the basic forumla and story conventions. They just want to get something out there. Formula to me is just another word for BOX. You keep everything, the story and the characters all in a neatly wrapped little box. There's no surprises, you know pretty much what's going to happen. It's safe writing. I hate safe writing.

On the other hand I think some people take style a bit too far. They turn the film into a thesis on the human condition. In some cases that might be ok if that's really what you are going for...but again, if people don't like the characters they are not going to care about anything, let alone what's in the mind of the cookie-cutter cardboard hero that goes through the motions.


Oh and...I really like stylistic films a lot. As long as the characters are interesting.

 

[CConn]

And that's what I mean too; character interaction can be a ton more interesting to me than compelling plotting.

 

[Ultimatehero]

As a screenplay writer myself, I find formular to be offensive. It's really a huge issue in Hollywood more so now than ever before. So many writers/studios/whoever are afraid to step too far out of the basic forumla and story conventions. They just want to get something out there. Formula to me is just another word for BOX. You keep everything, the story and the characters all in a neatly wrapped little box. There's no surprises, you know pretty much what's going to happen. It's safe writing. I hate safe writing.

Now, I can't say for Hollywood as a whole. But I'm at one of the top companies where the execs were HIGHLY interested in 'Chronicle' before Fox got it's hands on it. I'm a rule breaker. I throw the rule book out. It just - isn't challenging. And I think that's what caught their attention in me too.

So at least one major studio IS trying to deviate from the usual "what's out there" mode. We'll always have those paint-by-number films. But, if that studio is any indication of Hollywood as a whole it's more the scripts that keep on being submitted that have grown stale rather than what Hollywood (or at least this studio) is looking for. As said, my breaking the rules, is part of what stands out to them. Ever since they read one script, they've been "on me" 24/7 to see what I'm working on. And I'm only 23 lol - thought that'd take a while.

 

[Max J Power]

And that's what I mean too; character interaction can be a ton more interesting to me than compelling plotting.

That's usually how I am too. I like all sorts of movies, but the ones i love most have great characters, even if they have minimal or simplistic plots.

 

[Incrediblejeff]

I think the best movies use Visuals to their advantage.Take Rise of the Planet of the Apes for example.It realizes that film is a visual medium,and that you should use it fully.They go hand in hand.Cool visual techniques are cool,but if yore story sucks who cares?You might as well be watching random images on the screen saying ooh look at the pretty colors.
Or you could be watching to people sitting at a table explaining things for 2 hours.Both are necessary if you ask me.