Which do you prefer; Formula or Style?

[kedrell]

The age old debate of style-vs-story is not one that can really be definitively settled. It's like a sliding scale and everyone has their own personal tastes as to where on that scale seems best to them. I tend to lean more toward a good story over style but I would never dismiss style as unnecessary. I enjoy style best when it has a strong story backing it up.

 

[Punisher Rising]

It really depends on the writing and script of the movie more than anything. Style and formula work well if they have good writing to make them work.

 

[CConn]

I think I realized why I appreciate style - and more technical aspects of film - more than writing.

Because style can be learned from, translated, and adapted into better things. It's like the science of the art of film.

Like I'm watching Haywire right now, and while the story and acting is nothing memorable, I can't help but find myself enthralled by the cinematography, fight choreography, and score. Because if I were a creator myself, I could take those elements, pair them with a better story and better actors, and make something truly great out of them.

Great stories, I feel, are a whole lot less translatable. They're their own creation, and it's a lot easier to perform plagiarism, and create something that lacks originality and excitement.

So, to me, filmmaking optimally is the art of extremely original stories, paired with technical qualities that are highly influenced by previous works and artistic development.

 

[Thundarr]

I'm of the thought of both aspects of film making are equally important. Great visuals and cinematography are great, but with a lackluster script you're gonna wind up with a subpar product. Like the saying goes, "You can polish a piece of crap all you want, in the end what you wind up with is just a shiny piece of crap".

However, I will admit that great visuals can take a mediocre film and make it watchable. Like someone mentioned earlier, Ghost Rider wasn't very well written. It wasn't poorly written either. It just kinda "was". But the visuals made the film rather enjoyable to watch, if you're willing to overlook a merely mediocre script.

On the other hand, the Star Wars prequels, and the remakes of all the classic horror films of the 1970s and 1980s, are perfect examples of style being no substitute for a good story. Putting three actors in front of a green screen and adding everything else through CGI does not a movie make. And when retelling a beloved story, you don't f**k with the original. Change the way the story is told, not the story itself.

So a 50/50 split between the two. Or maybe even a 30/70 split, depending on the genre. But both are important. Without one, the other is useless. Like a rifle with no bullets, or a box of bullets with no rifle.

 

[Ultimatehero]

I'm of the thought of both aspects of film making are equally important. Great visuals and cinematography are great, but with a lackluster script you're gonna wind up with a subpar product. Like the saying goes, "You can polish a piece of crap all you want, in the end what you wind up with is just a shiny piece of crap".

Exactly! The 'Transformers' films comes to mind with that quote. Are they entertaining films? Yes, I think so, but because of the technical details that go into making them while the story itself is really weak and all over the place. Any one of you guys, I'm betting, could write a better 'Transformers' movie. It has style and technical grace, but lacks in the story department thus bringing it down a couple notches to me. I think that's why some Michael Bay and Rolan Emerich movies work and others don't. The ones that do have an interesting story behind them, the ones that don't usually don't.

Yeah, 'Independence Day' is corny as hell. But, I think the reason it's remembered so highly is because we got to know all of these characters. I have yet to see an alien invasion movie match it. Other movies of the sort mainly just have random soldiers we hardly get to know. Here we had a core crew all of which had interesting and connected back stories. To me the scenes that stand out are non-action related and more character-related scenes. So to me, that's why I think for what it was - it was a well written film because it was able to strike a chord with the audience probably because of the characters being relatable even the President here is seen far more human than a lot of other films. I also think that's what's lacking in most of his other movies. The story just isn't quite there despite the 'voice' of the director still being there.

For Michael Bay, I'd say his films such as 'The Island,' 'The Rock,' and 'Bad Boys' similarly stand out for story over style. 'Bad Boys II,' at least for me was a major step down from the first film - but that's because the first film seemed to have a much better story despite BBII being more stylized. 'The Island' and 'The Rock' similarly seem to stand out more than say 'Transformers' because those movies had more interesting and clever plots than the 'Transformers' films. Beyond great movies? Nope. But it does show style vs. story.

 

[CConn]

Now, I like Transformers for what it is, but if you think that's a good representation of great cinematography, art design and music, then you know shockingly little about any of those three things.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Not really those three things, but 'Transformers' - and any Michael Bay films - do have style. If you see a film, pretty quickly you'll be able to judge that it's a Michael Bay film. Some directors fade into blending in with each other, even if they are better films, while other directors you can easily see their "voice" or "style" within it. He basically only focuses on the technical, but that's basically the guy's background.

I also say this because there is a clear distinction between story and style in their works, especially Bay's. Whereas a lot of the top brass directors that have notable style, their focus is also on a very strong and poignant story. You mentioned 'Haywire,' now as a writer - what I loved about that film was the script - it was basically a silent film and seemed old fashioned especially towards the ending. It kept things simple and that's a lot harder than it may seem. So, yeah that was a remarkably well written script due to everything new it brought to the table. It may go unnoticed by a lot of audiences. But that's the main thing that stands out about it to me. The style helped elevate it, but a lot of that was already in the style of the script.

Basically singled Bay and other directors of the like out because they lose focus on the story and focus just on style to dazzle the audience. Whereas a lot of the other stylistic directors or those with their personalized stamps, they also have remarkably well-written stories. It was to show what would happen if you throw the story/script element out and only had style. You could do the same with films that only have story and character, but seem bland because they don't immediately jump off the screen in any particular way.

 

[CConn]

No, not at all.

A great example of style over story would be Burton's Batman. That film had a tremendously simple and at times absurd plot structure that - if when viewed as its own entity - is a pretty wholly unimpressive piece of writing. IMO, at least.

However, due to Burton's stylistic direction, the actors' performances, the score, art direction, costuming, and subtle, emotional beats and subtext intertwined throughout the film, it overcame and transcended its simple, unimpressive plot.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Batman actually has a classic superhero structure and one that has remained ever since then if I'm remembering it right. To me the scenes that stand out is Joker seeing himself for the first time, Bruce scaring the Joker by his own rage and insanity, and Vicki Vale entering the bat cave all of which have to do with character (yes, in addition to the action scenes). Is it cheesy? Yes. But at the time, for it's genre it was very impressive. To me I view it as going back and reading a comic book from the 1960s. They are incredibly different than how they are today.

Also the same thing could be said for Burton, especially as he has gotten older. His films that do only have style over story aren't that great and as memorable as his films that do have a good story. Unless you're going to tell me 'Alice in Wonderland' and 'Charlie the Chocolate Factory' are better than say 'Big Fish,' 'Beetlejuice' and 'Edward Scissorhands'? All have wacky visuals - but what stands out about the later three is the story aided by the visuals.

 

[CConn]

Batman actually has a classic superhero structure and one that has remained ever since then if I'm remembering it right.

No, the classic superhero plot stucture is the one that's appeared in Superman: The Movie, Spider-Man, Batman Begins, Iron Man, etc.

And it's quite different from Batman's plot structure.

To me the scenes that stand out is Joker seeing himself for the first time, Bruce scaring the Joker by his own rage and insanity, and Vicki Vale entering the bat cave all of which have to do with character (yes, in addition to the action scenes). Is it cheesy? Yes. But at the time, for it's genre it was very impressive. To me I view it as going back and reading a comic book from the 1960s. They are incredibly different than how they are today.

You're not comprehending my point.

If you put Batman's script in the hands of a less talented, less stylistic director, it wouldn't be half the film it ended up being. And a lot of those great character moments (even the fabled "who are you?!" "I'm Batman!") we're rewritten and ad libbed by Burton and the actors on set. Hell, due to the writers' strike, there was never even a final draft of the script turned in. If that evidence of the movie's success not being due to the screenwriter, I don't know what is.

Also, the movie isn't corny. You should be ashamed for suggesting it.

Also the same thing could be said for Burton, especially as he has gotten older. His films that do only have style over story aren't that great and as memorable as his films that do have a good story. Unless you're going to tell me 'Alice in Wonderland' and 'Charlie the Chocolate Factory' are better than say 'Big Fish,' 'Beetlejuice' and 'Edward Scissorhands'? All have wacky visuals - but what stands out about the later three is the story aided by the visuals.

Um, Big Fish and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory were made two years apart. Burton didn't just up and lose his talent in 2004.

And personally, I do like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory quite a bit due to the subtext that Burton interjected into the work. He picks up on the same societal morals and character philosophies that he laid the groundwork for in Edward Scissorhands and Batman Returns. To me, CATCF is just another chapter in the semi-autobiographical multi-film subplot that Burton's weaved through the vast majority of his films.

And generally, the films where he doesn't incorporate that subplot - Mars Attacks!, Planet of the Apes, and Alice - are his worst efforts.

 

[Ultimatehero]

I'd say Superman and Spider-Man are the same, but they are not like Batman Begins or Iron Man. Batman still stands out as a comic book movie and one that many have brought up over the years due to how the characters and everything was presented - not just because of the style of it. It may not seem like a lot now, but the years in which it came out in and for that genre? The script was without a doubt remarkably well done. And yeah, the film is corny in comparison to what we have now - no Adam West - just not as gritty and realistic or more grounded as most superhero films today (for example - Joker dancing to Prince & the makeup infomercial). ADDING - as said, I don't think the writing behind old comic books were that great, but for the time and genre? They definitely were. I view superhero films the same way. For their time they were really well done and pushed the envelope - without those films, we wouldn't be where we are today. And without Burton's 'Batman' and the dark approach the story took (for it's time) we wouldn't have darker superhero films today or maybe we would - unsure - but Burton is definitely partly responsible for that.

The focus only now seems to have been improved by Burton knowing the character and the story he wanted to tell. Usually with these films the director is just hired on board and instructs the writer in what he wants. Basically in story-regards, Burton is the one responsible for most of it. Sometimes a writer enters first, but with blockbusters generally the director is hired first and directs the screenwriter as to what he wants. And I'm pretty sure that's how Batman worked too.

I didn't say he just upped and lost his talent. But it did go into a downward slide for a while it seemed like. As someone who has no idea what that is, C&CF just seemed to fall apart for the same reasons Alice & Mars Attacks did. I can account that knowing a writer or director's background significantly aids how one looks at some of their films. For me it's for Ditto Montiel - all independent movies, but his work is undoubtably his and autobiographical (actually same goes for most if not all writers and directors, just his background (and Spielberg's) are the ones I really know).

And jw, what is the autobiographical nature in those films?

 

[8wid]

I like formula better than style because at least there is a set and predictable manner to interpret and analyze the work rather than simply to go through the process of learning everything possible about the director and writer of the movie just to understand what they were trying to get across.

 

[CConn]

I'd say Superman and Spider-Man are the same, but they are not like Batman Begins or Iron Man.

Okay, I'm trying not to be disrespectful, but how can you be a professional writer and not know that all of those movies follow the same plot structure? It was covered in a writing class I took last summer (at the collegiate level).

For all of them, it's the same formula: the first act shows the origin, the second act is the transitional period where the hero is introduced into the movie's world at large, and the last act features the culmination of a villainous plot that's been slowly brewing throughout the film.

All four of those films have that element. As apposed to Batman, X-Men, X2, X-Men First Class, etc. which prescribe to different plot formulas.

It's not an opinion, and it's not a criticism. It's a legitimate plot structure.

Batman still stands out as a comic book movie and one that many have brought up over the years due to how the characters and everything was presented - not just because of the style of it. It may not seem like a lot now, but the years in which it came out in and for that genre? The script was without a doubt remarkably well done. And yeah, the film is corny in comparison to what we have now - no Adam West - just not as gritty and realistic or more grounded as most superhero films today (for example - Joker dancing to Prince & the makeup infomercial). ADDING - as said, I don't think the writing behind old comic books were that great, but for the time and genre? They definitely were. I view superhero films the same way. For their time they were really well done and pushed the envelope - without those films, we wouldn't be where we are today. And without Burton's 'Batman' and the dark approach the story took (for it's time) we wouldn't have darker superhero films today or maybe we would - unsure - but Burton is definitely partly responsible for that.

Again, you're not getting my point. I'm not criticizing Batman at all or trying to diminish its importance. I'm not saying the story was campy or bad or cheap, or anything like that. But it was simple. The plot was merely that Batman creates the Joker, and the Joker tries to poison all of Gotham. That's not a bad thing, it's just what the plot was. All of the goodness that you just described (all of which I totally agree with) was due to how that story was presented. It was Burton doing a phenomenal job at helming the film and giving it a great vision. That wasn't what I was talking about at all.

The focus only now seems to have been improved by Burton knowing the character and the story he wanted to tell. Usually with these films the director is just hired on board and instructs the writer in what he wants. Basically in story-regards, Burton is the one responsible for most of it. Sometimes a writer enters first, but with blockbusters generally the director is hired first and directs the screenwriter as to what he wants. And I'm pretty sure that's how Batman worked too.[/quote]That's neither here nor there, really.

And jw, what is the autobiographical nature in those films?

Burton has interjected a very strong subtext in most of his movies regarding societal mores, characters who don't subscribe or exist outside of those societal mores, and the (wrongly) negative consequences of not abiding by those mores. It's a theme most evident in Edward Scissorhands (that's what the whole movie is about), but it's also tucked into Batman, Batman Returns, Beetlejuice, Sleepy Hollow, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Big Fish, Ed Wood, etc.

And - quite obviously given his peculiar appearance, it's all very much related to Burton's own upbringing and struggles with being a societal outcast at various points of his life.

 

[Ultimatehero]

They are all origin stories. Yes. But they are obviously not all the same. Superman and Spider-Man you have the elderly figure passing away, a leaving from one place and returning a hero (Kansas & Fortress/Queens & College --> Metropolis / New York City), a news reel proclaiming them a hero or a nifty montage of some kind, the villain's plan hatches, the character is further brought into that particular world (Planet, Bugle), while the love interest is further established, and in the end the hero has to defeat him.

Batman Begins and Iron Man you could say are sort of the same. They both feature billionaires who go to a different land, are captured, then meet an elderly mentor who guides them to a new form of understanding, their escape or break back to the regular world, seeing that the world they thought they once knew is dramatically different and that they must set out to find a way to set things right. Although off-note you also have a certain mentor returning that is now a bad guy. Ras and War Monger.

Basically anyone looking at those films can tell you that they are formed differently. If looking at the big picture of A-B-C yes. If looking at A-B-C-D-E-F-G no, in that sense you could see the similarities between 'Superman' and 'Spider-Man' while those not being the same as 'Iron Man' and 'Batman Begins.'

As a writer I don't like viewing things that simplistically, I view all the individual pieces that go into it. Thus, to me 'Superman' is very similar to 'Spider-Man,' yet not similar to 'Iron Man' or 'Begins.'

Hell, a lot of films ranging from genre to genre are remarkably similar in that a lot follow Joseph Campbell - just the audience doesn't really see this as easily or readily.

Burton's 'Batman' almost reminds me more of superhero sequel forms where the hero is already established, the love interest finds out, the villain takes primary stage or seems more interesting unfortunately, amongst other things. If you want to be simplistic about it.

At that time? It wasn't goofy - it was dark. That's why I said look to comic books of yesterday compared to comic books of today. Look at the tone of Superman, now look at Batman. Batman is MUCH darker in EVERY regards. Also keep in mind Batman was the SECOND main superhero entity to come about on the silver screen. So yes, a lot of that film inspired what came after it. And if it was Burton's "style"? Believe me, we would be seeing a lot of gothic architecture in these films which we are not. Instead they are much darker than 'Superman' just like 'Batman' was. I'm not saying without Burton we wouldn't have gotten to this point, be he definitely lent a hand to it. The story, the characters, how it unfolds - all his - he was brought on first then brought in the writer to do as he wanted; very similarly to how a lot of these big budget blockbusters work.

----------------------------------

The script is more than just plot. That's the thing. Again - the script is more than just about plot. It establishes the tone of the characters, the world those characters inhabit, the personality quirks those characters have. Basically a script is a blue-print. You can have the greatest architect in the world, but give him a different blueprint (which a script is) the finished product is going to look much much different. It seems like you're only looking at a screenplay as a plot rather than everything else it... okay... here's a couple lines from 'The Avengers.'

INT. OUTER SHELL/CHAMBER - CONTINUOUS

They fall in as Fury proceed through the doorway, the camera moving with him into the CHAMBER, which is, to put it mildly, vast. Eighty feet high, gleaming and domed like the inside of a bullet. The room is empty but for a receptor platform that faces a small machine glowing blue in the center.

Now take that and look at all of the style elements in the finished film. Art design. Cinematography. EVERYTHING! All of which is laid out IN THE SCRIPT! Hell, just reading that? I'm pretty sure you know what that scene is in the trailers. And there it is laid out before production has even began.

Anyone looking at a script as "just plot" shouldn't be a writer because that is not the job at all. It is one aspect of the job. Our job is to create characters and the world they live in and inhabit. To set a certain tone whatever tone that may be to better help the director bring the vision to life. Basically saying a script is "just plot" is really underscoring everything about it.

Neither here nor there? Explain what you mean exactly lol. That's the process. With these films - that's how it works. So you saying all those things Burton came up with. Well, the whole story - Burton came up with. On these projects a writer is just hired to fulfill a director's vision, rarely his own so he always had a better notion of the story than the writer who was just doing what he wanted. Other times this is not the case. Regardless you would still find passages, as in the above quote, in professional studio-level screenplays by established writers who know their craft.

I was actually asking how it relates to Burton's up-bringing. Spielberg's father left them leaving him to telling stories of estranged families reuniting, and he has accredited his Jewish historical films to having grown up in an anti-semetic neighborhood and the difficulties that that presented. In Ditto's work, he grew up in a very poor ran down tenement of New York City and that's the lifestyle he is always portraying in his films.

EDITING TO ADD:

For all of them, it's the same formula: the first act shows the origin, the second act is the transitional period where the hero is introduced into the movie's world at large, and the last act features the culmination of a villainous plot that's been slowly brewing throughout the film.

Let's re-word that simplistic approach, shall we?

The first act shows the ordinary world and something taking the protagonist out of the ordinary world, the second act is the transitional period in the new world that the protagonist is presented with and an antagonistic force setting this off course, the last act features the cumulation of the antagonist force that's been brewing the whole the film and the protagonist having to overcome it to seize the sword or win back the girl.

Now why did I do that? Go back and watch every film in your film library, chances are 75% of them adhere to this formula whether intending to or not and no matter the genre whether it be superhero, action, romance, anything and you'll find this. As easily pointed out by Joseph Campbell. Why? It's the natural direction most stories if not all go in. Thus to me looking at simplification is way too easy - to me it's the A-B-C-D-E-F-G that distinguishes films apart while a superhero films if looking at things can be just as similar as a chick flick just substitute powers for meeting the girl, the antagonist force as an aspect of their personality, and the final showdown them having to overcome this to save the girl/get her back. Basically ALL superhero films when looking at it that way - are the same - looking at the details, they're actually not - but Spidey and Superman really are for a large part.

To take a huge leap forward, with that quote you could include 'The New Guy' as having a superhero plot.

1) Origins of a nerd taking on the disguise to appear popular for a new school.
2) The new guy is introduced to the high school.
3) The cumulation of the jock's plan of revealing who the new guy really is.

It's just a hilarious example and why your quote just doesn't work for me because you could fit a large number of non-superhero related films into it.

Or, more serious, the 'Recruit':

1) Origins of a fatherless bark keep who is brought into the farm to become an agent.
2) The bar keep becomes a CIA agent and is introduced to the world of the CIA.
3) The cumulation of his recruiter's villainous plans and how the recruit played right into his hands.

Basically, to me that's not a "superhero" formula - that's just a standard film formula overall. As said, to me, that's why I compare with the minor details or else everything's the same. Structure was the wrong word with Burton's 'Batman,' that I'll readily say, I should have went with "staples" because being the second of only at that time TWO major superhero franchises? Yeah, I'd say it made a dent and it wasn't in gothic architecture or how the camera was used.

So, to me, filmmaking optimally is the art of extremely original stories, paired with technical qualities that are highly influenced by previous works and artistic development.

On that note I can say I agree however. Just for me it's seeing all of these rules being broken that inspires me, while what inspires you is the technical side. For example - you liked Haywire for the technical. For me I liked it because of how interesting all of those silent scenes were and it was an epitome of "show don't tell" philosophy on film.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

I'm trying to understand what you're going after, CCon. A formulaic story does not equal bad, but at the same time a writer should avoid being formulaic.

As for filmmaking, I just think you're stating the obvious. Of course great filmmaking can lift up a formulaic script. It's a given.

Drive has a very formulaic script. It doesn't mean its bad. It just doesn't make any attempt at reinventing the wheel. But what makes it amazing is Refn's directing, and the acting performances. I enjoyed the movie as a whole, but if it was only one half, I wouldn't have fully enjoyed either. The full movie is what love most about it.

And with screenplay, it can gives you the best potential for images.