| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| swifty |
Posted - 06 Mar 2009 : 23:01:22
read on youtube that dreamworks are behind new film with wesley snipes.is it s**t or some truth in it. |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Faraer |
Posted - 28 Apr 2009 : 23:21:41
quote:
Originally posted by Inaubryn
Any screenwriter worth his salt writes this way. Any screenplay that makes it to an agent, producer, or studio would be thrown out if it were not written in this fashion.
That says something about stories, but also about Hollywood formula.
Cinematic and fictional structure has been discussed entertainingly of late on both Robin Laws's and Todd Alcott's blogs. Of course, recognizing such patterns in other people's stories isn't the same as consciously writing according to the same structure, which is quite another thing from imposing it on someone else's material. Or take the gap between Joseph Campbell's monomyth writings and the crass formula misinterpreted from them by Disney and other screenwriters.
The Realms, in particular, isn't neatly divisible into discrete stories that begin and end and all's done. It has a Weave, instead, and I think short stories work a lot more naturally in it than novels (at least the to-the-point 320-page ones TSR and Wizards like) do. |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 28 Apr 2009 : 21:47:03
Okay, which was worse? The Dungeons & Dragon Movie, or it's sequel?
On the pro side, the first had some 'named' stars (Jeremy Irons, Thora Birch) and an actual budget. On the down side, it had some 'named stars' that should never have been in a D&D movie (Marlon Wayans, Jeremy Irons and <sigh> Tom Baker as a 'old' elf) and it didn't use it's budget wisely. Sure, the beholder was cool, but it didn't *do* anything!
The second had people in it that understood the game and setting more and Bruce Payne returning as Damodar was pretty cool. The down side was it was a Sci-Fi Channel movie. I think that is a brand new category of movie. Somewhere waaaay below 'B' movie status. I always thought it was ironic when Sci-Fi picked up MST3k and used them to show their movies...
Edit: I suppose, I should explain how this ties into the topic... I'd rather see a 'good' movie made than one that does well at the box office. I'm a fan of cheese (Buckaroo Banzai is the greatest movie ever made), but if a limited budget means that you can't crawl out of the Sci-Fi production quality, then hold off and save up until you can. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 28 Apr 2009 : 21:23:04
quote:
Originally posted by Tyr
true, but another thing to consider with Realms films would be that they don't end up looking like LotR clones. You also have to remember that the D&D movie was quite bad, which is another reason why it didn't do so well.
a smaller scale film could work, but it'd need to be more than just a realms primer.
And the fact that the D&D movie was bad is another point against the success of a Realms movie. If a movie for all D&D players stunk on ice, then why should a smaller subset of D&D players expect any better?
I'm not saying that I think a Realms movie is a bad idea, or that it would draw vacuum. I'm just saying that A) it's not a guaranteed success, no matter what the plot, and B) it would be better to do something new and fresh rather than spin an existing tale into yet another format. |
| Tyr |
Posted - 28 Apr 2009 : 20:13:37
true, but another thing to consider with Realms films would be that they don't end up looking like LotR clones. You also have to remember that the D&D movie was quite bad, which is another reason why it didn't do so well.
a smaller scale film could work, but it'd need to be more than just a realms primer.
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 28 Apr 2009 : 19:43:06
quote:
Originally posted by Eye of Hores-Re
I dont know if it would be a good idea making a Realms movie with new, unfamous heroes. I am sure I would like it, but it would probably not draw crowds. And if they dont make the money, then they dont make any more movies :( Also, dont think Hugh Jackman would be a good Entreri. I think he is too muscular. I picture Artemis being more wirery and dextrous. I think I could pull it off well, but thats my pipe dream....
A Realms movie isn't guaranteed to draw crowds, period. Role-players are a small subset of the movie-going populace, and Realms fans are a small subset of that small subset. If the D&D movie couldn't draw crowds, how is something that only appeals to a small portion of D&D players going to draw crowds?
And as for using new characters... Why not? We've had hundreds of new stories set in the Realms, and there will undoubtedly be hundreds more (assuming WotC doesn't tank). Every single Realms character, no matter how big they are now, was once a totally new, unknown person. |
| Tyr |
Posted - 28 Apr 2009 : 19:35:08
nah, he's a great actor but he's probably a bit old for entreri, unless its set during the period where he know's he getting older and slower but Drizzt isn't.
You'll probably be wanting someone around the characters age, like Christian Bale, if you're going feature film.
imo it'd probably work better as a tv series |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 28 Apr 2009 : 19:01:12
Willim Dafoe as Entreri. |
| Eye of Horus-Re |
Posted - 28 Apr 2009 : 18:59:32
I dont know if it would be a good idea making a Realms movie with new, unfamous heroes. I am sure I would like it, but it would probably not draw crowds. And if they dont make the money, then they dont make any more movies :( Also, dont think Hugh Jackman would be a good Entreri. I think he is too muscular. I picture Artemis being more wirery and dextrous. I think I could pull it off well, but thats my pipe dream.... |
| Stranjer |
Posted - 28 Apr 2009 : 07:16:38
You know, after seeing the graphic novels turn out extremely mediocre, the "Official" Twinkle and Icingdeath replicas look almost identical(and most will say the script is dark elven which makes no sense in either, and apparently icingdeath was made in zakhara and enchanted by a Netherese, which makes any elven somewhat dumb), and the Reader's Guide to Drizzt fail really badly(still bought it, it did have some nice pictures aside from the reprints of various DnD sourcebooks pics being thrown in for minor characters, even if they made no friggin sense, like Maya, Triel(WTF, seriously?), and Jaka, as well as Gromph distincly having no robe...), I'm really not sure I want a Drizzt movie. I do really enjoy RAS's books, but it seems everything he endorses, even though he always says what a good job they did, is absolute crap. |
| Alisttair |
Posted - 06 Apr 2009 : 14:29:42
As has been proven time and time again, fame and popularity, be it a person (movie celebrity), a fictional character (Drizzt) or a popular game (WoW), it always comes with a price. |
| Jorkens |
Posted - 06 Apr 2009 : 14:09:04
quote:
Originally posted by bishopssix
I don't see why everyone wants to hate on drizzt for being popular, it's not like RAS brainwashed us or anything.........right?
I don't care much about Drizzt one way or the other, but I am not all that enamoured with Salvatores take on the Realms. |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 06 Apr 2009 : 01:51:48
Ah, but to be fair, dear Sage, it's not always RAS' decision to write about Drizzt. I, for one, believe he had to push back to get the Sellswords trilogy out the door. And that was after Servant of the Shard proved itself on the bestseller's lists. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 06 Apr 2009 : 00:38:35
Well, that's not really my issue with RAS's works. And I don't hate Drizzt because he's popular. I dislike Drizzt because he's almost always the focus of RAS's books.
I find this distracting, especially since RAS has proven in the past, that he can write entertaining stories with interesting characters that are completely divorced from the events/situations surrounding the Companions of the Hall.
It's truly a shame that these characters have been often neglected in favour of telling stories about the famous dark elf. |
| bishopssix |
Posted - 05 Apr 2009 : 21:49:27
I don't see why everyone wants to hate on drizzt for being popular, it's not like RAS brainwashed us or anything.........right? |
| Lady Fellshot |
Posted - 28 Mar 2009 : 04:53:46
I just had a stupid idea. What about a TV mini series? The Scifi channel, oops sorry... the Syfy channel seems like a likely canidate. It would certainly be a step up from their usual fare.
Like I said, 'twas a silly idea. Feel free to ignore it.  |
| Inaubryn |
Posted - 26 Mar 2009 : 16:39:18
*nods to Ashe* Hey, let's all write us up an FR movie on the forums. Drizzt or no Drizzt. ;) |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 26 Mar 2009 : 16:29:33
Sorry about that, Wooly. And don't worry about PM'ing me on the subject, Inaubryn. Not really that worried about film structure, just wanted to add my 2 cents.  |
| Inaubryn |
Posted - 26 Mar 2009 : 15:58:29
I was just about to post about PMing me and getting back on topic. And, come on, Wooly. Make the joke. But, seriously to anybody else, we can continue the discussion in PMs if you like. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 26 Mar 2009 : 15:52:32
Okay, folks, enough. Get back on the topic, please. I'm so irked at this continued discussion on film structure that I'm passing on the opportunity to make a joke out of part of a prior post.  |
| Inaubryn |
Posted - 26 Mar 2009 : 15:31:30
Trust me when I say, I'm not confusing anything. Do a simple search on screenwriting, and screenwriters who teach (Syd Field, J. Michael Straczynski), and/or Aristotle and three-act structure. I understand how acts break down in a stageplay and what they're for (intermissions). However, in a film/screenplay of roughly two hours it's divided into three acts, beginning, middle, and end. Or...
Act One: Setup (of the location and characters)
Act Two: Confrontation (with an obstacle or obstacles)
Act Three: Resolution (culminating in a climax and a dénouement).
Now can you break the above down into as many elements as you want? Sure. You can break it down into 100 elements if that's what you wish to do. It still doesn't take away the fact that you have a beginning, middle, and end. And, that's what three-act structure is based on. It was when Aristotle popularized it, it is now in the motion picture industry.
Again, acts, in this instance, are used to refer to feature length films and stories in general. However, acts don't make the story. As a matter of fact they have nothing to do with your overall story. It's just a way of saying beginning, middle, and end. That's really it in a nutshell. When writing a screenplay you don't say to yourself, "Hmm. Ok, my first act is this, starts here and ends here." Well, some do. But, if you know how to tell a story, that part works itself out naturally. The three-act structure is not something to be heholden to as a writer/screenwriter, you just tell the best story you can tell. However, your story will have a beginning, middle, and end no matter how you tell it, or how good, or how bad it is.
And, considering it was a motion picture, the above for Wizard of Oz would be grouped as:
1 and 2, the Beginning
3-7, the Middle
8-9, the End. |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 26 Mar 2009 : 14:22:12
Ah... Now I see the problem. You're confusing 'Acts' with Dramatic Structure.
Acts are specific sections of a story that help 'break' the story into more digestible parts. LotR is actually three volumes that consist of a prologue, six books and an epilogue. Each book could be considered an act of the story (although you could also consider each chapter an act as well). In playwrighting, an Act was constructed so that, when the act was completed, the production could take a brief intermission, allow for costume/set changes and letting the audience 'soak in' the story and, of course, bathroom breaks. Using your example above, the Acts of The Wizard of Oz break down (roughly, I don't have the official script) into:
Act 1: Dorothy in Kansas up to and including the tornado.
Act 2: Starts with Dorothy awakening in Oz and the transition to color, continues until she leaves the Munchkins on the yellow brick road.
Act 3: Meets up with Scarecrow
Act 4: Meets up with Tin Man
Act 5: Meets Cowardly Lion
Act 6: Arrival in Emerald City and receives quest to get WWE's broom
Act 7: Capture by Flying Monkeys
Act 8: Rescue and defeat of WWE
Act 9: Return to Emerald City and exposure of Wizard
Act 10: Return to Kansas |
| Inaubryn |
Posted - 26 Mar 2009 : 13:57:41
I'll do the Wizard of Oz because most people here have probably seen that one and this is a Dungeons and Dragons board so wizards are apropos. Plus, no spoilers on the others. ;) However, before I do, let me see if I can adjust some notions you may have. Three-act structure and Hollywood budgets have nothing to do with each other. The three-act structure existed well before Hollywood or movies ever did. This has been the way stories have been told for ages and was codified by Aristotle over 2000 years ago.
Hollywood couldn't possibly make a two act movie. Because, a movie or story can't have just a beginning and a middle, or middle and end, or beginning and end. You'd be missing an essential piece of your story thus the story would be incomplete.
Now to the Wizard of Oz. I'll make this brief.
Beginning: We are introduced to all of the characters, those in Kansas, and those in Kansas we'll see later in Oz. The tornado comes and sweeps Dorothy, the dog and the house away. Boom! It comes crashing down in Oz. Dorothy steps out into Munchkin Land to find that her house has landed on top of the evil Wicked Witch of the East, killing her. The munchkins thank her, Dorothy is remorseful, etc. The good Witch of the North arrives and grants Dorothy the Ruby slippers. The Wicked Witch of the West shows up and tries to take the slippers but fails. She vows vengeance and bamf! Dorothy just wants to go home. The munchkins tell her about The Wizard and Oz. And to get there she needs to follow the yellow brick road. She starts off down the road and with that we end act one.
Middle: Dorothy meets three companions along her journey and encounters various obstacles devised by the witch and others. Each companion needs something and Dorothy believes the wizard can help them too. So, off they go and finally after a long journey, arrive in Oz. But, once they get there they're almost turned away. However, the doorman takes pity on them and lets them in. They make their way down a long, dark corridor toward the wizard's abode. They arrive to a booming voice and giant image of a head. The wizard chastises them for bothering him and declines to aid them but then makes a deal. Bring him the Wicked Witch of the West's broomstick and he'll grant them what they need. They head toward the witches castle. The witch sends her winged monkeys (why isn't this a DnD monster by the way? Or, is it?) after them and manage to capture Dorothy and Toto. The witch tries to take the slippers again but can't as long as Dorothy is alive. So, she sets an hour glass and says Dorothy will die when it runs out. End Act Two.
End: Toto escapes and goes and gets the others who come up with a plan to infiltrate the castle and rescue Dorothy. Ultimately, they get inside, free Dorothy but get cornered by the witch. The scarecrow is set on fire and in her attempt to put him out, Dorothy throws water on the witch who melts away. A moment of silence and then songs are sung that the witch is dead. They return to Emerald City, the wizard bah humbugs 'em until Toto pulls back the curtain exposing him as a fraud. He then goes on to tell them that they've all had exactly what they came for. He decides to take Dorothy back to Kansas in his balloon and puts the other three in charge of Oz. But, Toto runs away as the balloon sails into the sky leaving Dorothy stuck. Glinda returns and tells Dorothy to click her heels three times and say, "There's no place like home," She does this and wakes up in her bed to Auntie Em and Uncle Henry. Her three companions from Oz come by as does the Wizard, and of course Toto is there in her arms. End of Act Three.
This story, like all stories, has a beginning, middle, and end no matter how you break them down or break them up. When writing, this is not something you attempt to adhere to, it just happens. You tell your story from beginning to end and it's just what happens. |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 26 Mar 2009 : 13:00:44
quote:
Originally posted by Inaubryn
Ashe, not sure if you're implying that these films were exceptions to the three act rule of thumb or not. If so, I can play out all three acts of each of the above movies, if you'd like.
Go for it. They are exceptions because those films have at least 4 or more acts to them.
Movies are based off plays and plays are not restricted to a simple 'three acts'. I admit, most of the tripe that comes out of Hollywood is three acts because it's the cheapest method to do (if they could figure out how to make a two-act movie, they would). |
| Inaubryn |
Posted - 26 Mar 2009 : 12:12:41
What, Jorkens said. ;) And, yes we've veered a bit off-topic. So, as requested, Lady Fellshot, you've been PM'd.
I also agree with Lady Fellshot. A Realms film written specifically for the big screen as opposed to shoe-horning a book into 2 hours (not that this hasn't been done as we all know) would work better in my opinion. Because inevitably, you'll have to leave something in the book out. Drizzt and Realms fanboys will be in an uproar should this happen. But, start anew, establish new characters, a new story, a new franchise and see where it goes.
What you get with Icewind Dale, Wulfgar, Bruenor, Drizzt, and the others is established names and an established property. And, for a lot of studios, this is big. This means less risk and initially more money.
As far as putting Ed and Salvatore in a room together... many novelists don't like to write the way screenplays are written. They consider it a type of short-hand. Some even go so far as to look down on screenwriters. Not saying that's the case with either of the two aforementioned gents. Just saying this may not be their territory. Often times you see screenwriters hired to adapt the novels of others.
In addition to that, you have to wonder why WotC has yet to license a setting specific film. Hmmm. |
| Jorkens |
Posted - 26 Mar 2009 : 07:57:32
I mostly agree with Inaubryn here. The same rule goes for most non-experimental books and stories, the tree acts can be divided into multiple parts and be as complex as you want, but they are still there. This has been standard since oral myths had a monopoly on storytelling and has nothing to do with quality.
Structures and set patterns are a way of explaining and working within the story, not a way of limiting it. No matter how much you think you divert from a established structure, you are really just establishing/reworking others, usually within the larger set patterns. |
| Lady Fellshot |
Posted - 26 Mar 2009 : 06:16:00
quote:
initially posted by Inaubyrn
Ok. This isn't my opinion on movies. This is how it's done. It doesn't matter how complex or simple the movie is. Lord of the Rings, Porky's, The Last Emperor, Toy Story, Singh is King, Amelie, Die Hard, Lethal Weapon, what the movie is doesn't matter.
Sure, you come into the theater, things happen on the screen, you leave. Are these the "three acts" you refer to? Or do you mean actual narrative structure? And please cite your source on this a la PM. I fear this will wander very far from the original topic, very quickly.
As for this all encompassing narrative structure you seem enamoured of, I challenge you to apply it to the following films: Ritual in Transfigured Time, Un Chien Andalou, Meshes of the Afternoon, Couch and Monty Python's The Meaning of Life.  
quote:
The plot, story, characters, twists, turns, complexity or lack thereof, has nothing to do with the structure. Again, this is not my opinion, this is a fact. Trust me when I say this. It doesn't make a movie bad to have a beginning, middle, and end. It makes it a story.
And I still say you are confusing the act of viewing with narrative structure to oversimplify it so. The plot twists, plot points, characters, climax and underlying themes are what makes a story, not this "structure" you seem bent on lauding. By your own post, a film version of Hamlet (5 acts) departs from the "all encompassing" 3 acts.
And no, it isn't clear when you decide to ignore everything that happens in the middle of a story. The unravelling should be half the fun of any good yarn. Again, this should really be taken to PM.
And now to attempt to steer this somewhat back to topic...
I would much rather see a Realms story written specifically for the big screen, rather than trying to force a fit with an existing novel. Why not lock RAS and Ed in a room together and see what awesomeness comes of it? |
| Inaubryn |
Posted - 26 Mar 2009 : 01:09:33
Ok. This isn't my opinion on movies. This is how it's done. It doesn't matter how complex or simple the movie is. Lord of the Rings, Porky's, The Last Emperor, Toy Story, Singh is King, Amelie, Die Hard, Lethal Weapon, what the movie is doesn't matter.
Screenplays are written in three act structure. There is a beginning, a middle and an end. Thus the final film that you walk into a theatre to see is in the same above three acts, beginning, middle, end. There's no getting around that. Live action dramas for television are an exception. These are usually 6 acts broken up into some combination of Cold Opens, Teasers, Acts, and Tags (tags aren't used much anymore in dramas but are now more common in sitcoms). This is due to having commercials. Also, many stage plays are broken into several acts. These too are exceptions.
The plot, story, characters, twists, turns, complexity or lack thereof, has nothing to do with the structure. Again, this is not my opinion, this is a fact. Trust me when I say this. It doesn't make a movie bad to have a beginning, middle, and end. It makes it a story. Any screenwriter worth his salt writes this way. Any screenplay that makes it to an agent, producer, or studio would be thrown out if it were not written in this fashion. Yes, the story will break down into several twists, and character plotlines, but this doesn't change the overall act structure. I hope this lends some clarity to what I'm saying. |
| Lady Fellshot |
Posted - 26 Mar 2009 : 00:26:52
And to do so to those movies would be a criminal oversimplification of them.
While a simple "three act" formula might work extremely well for simple formulaic films (romantic comedies and sports films are the first two genres that spring to mind), you might want to consider a more complex set of "three acts" for more thought out films. Maybe a set of "three acts" for each major character instead. |
| Inaubryn |
Posted - 25 Mar 2009 : 19:14:09
Ashe, not sure if you're implying that these films were exceptions to the three act rule of thumb or not. If so, I can play out all three acts of each of the above movies, if you'd like. |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 25 Mar 2009 : 19:08:44
Of course, every rule has exceptions and it's the exceptions (Lord of the Rings, Godfather II, Gone with the Wind, Wizard of Oz) that usually stand out as being better films that the formulaic ones. |
|
|
