| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Drizztsmanchild
Learned Scribe
USA
228 Posts |
 Posted - 22 Mar 2009 : 09:13:21
|
Ok here's how I see it. A half live action half CG movie with the following
Director: Peter King/Zack Snyder a co-op. Peter has done the best transition from novel to movie with a D&D type settin and Zack awesome special effects.
Producer: James Cameron. With having a few of the highest grossing fillm of all time I think he knows a thing or two about blockbusters
Cast:Main
Drizzt:? ( I can't think of the Japanese action star.)
Bruenor: Rhy-Davies did such a great impersonation of Gimli I swear I was watching Bruenor with a black beard
Wulfgar: Conan Stevens, a 7ft ripped action star enough said
Cattie-brie: Diane Kruger, If she can be cast as "The face that launched a 100 ships" then she surely can be "The fairest lady in all the northlands".
Regis: Sean Astin, See above for Bruenor
Artemis:Hugh Jackman, He just seems as if he was born to be a true villian
|
 |
|
|
Apex
Learned Scribe
USA
229 Posts |
Posted - 23 Mar 2009 : 17:23:22
|
| They are having trouble with the rating. The movie is looking at an NC-17 rating due to the fear of fanboys rubbing one out in theaters. |
|
|
|
swifty
Senior Scribe
United Kingdom
517 Posts |
Posted - 23 Mar 2009 : 21:15:34
|
| ive heard jackman mentioned a few times but to me hes too big.for entreri it could only be christian bale. |
go back to sleep america.everything is under control.heres american gladiators.watch this.shuttup. BILL HICKS. |
|
|
|
Inaubryn
Acolyte
40 Posts |
Posted - 24 Mar 2009 : 04:39:36
|
On the Wizards Boards:
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1161482
I said:
"If it were me, I'd most likely start fresh. FR still has a decent fanbase and there are those who will come back if it were the right film. The Drizzt stories are great stories and I've mostly enjoyed the ones I read. But, trying to introduce your audience to a character with such a complex history as well as trying to introduce them to a setting, that likewise has a complex history, is asking them to digest too much at once in one film."
|
|
|
|
Herkles
Seeker
82 Posts |
Posted - 24 Mar 2009 : 10:47:48
|
Personally I wouldn't actually want to see a movie of the drizzt books made. Yes, they are good books, but they are books that aren't really good for movies, nor tv adapations. I myself like them staying in the realm of books.
One of the things that probaly would be hard, is the evil drow. We all know just how evil they are, and the books do describe some of the various acts of evil they do. I know that there are people who would take offense at a scene of say, the graduation scene in homeland. you can't really fade to black for the fact it is part of the plot.
Another thing that is a reason not to make a movie is the number of the number of books. It isn't easy to make a movie out of a book series that has the number of books that the Drizzt books do. There is just so many that is a bad thing for them to be made into a movie.
so all in all I personally don't wish to see them be made into a moive. |
|
|
|
BEAST
Master of Realmslore
USA
1714 Posts |
Posted - 24 Mar 2009 : 14:25:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by Herkles
Personally I wouldn't actually want to see a movie of the drizzt books made. Yes, they are good books, but they are books that aren't really good for movies, nor tv adapations.
I disagree. I think they're so chock-full of epic action scenes and warm buddy moments that they'd make great SFX B-action movies. At least as good as comic book superhero movies.
quote:
I know that there are people who would take offense at a scene of say, the graduation scene in homeland. you can't really fade to black for the fact it is part of the plot.
You can show a female drow with a partially open robe and provocative facial gestures in close-up, and then zoom out to a wide shot that is somewhat vague with the sounds of the graduation orgy, with Drizzt scurrying away, and I think that would still be very clear. That's really all RAS gave us in the book, too.
quote:
Another thing that is a reason not to make a movie is the number of the number of books. It isn't easy to make a movie out of a book series that has the number of books that the Drizzt books do. There is just so many that is a bad thing for them to be made into a movie.
I think they would be perfectly fine in just doing "The Icewind Dale Trilogy", but ending it with the re-conquest of Mithral Hall and Drizzt on the mountaintop, surmising how far he's come. That would make for a quaint close to the whole adventure. No need for the The Halfling's Gem book's cliffhanger ending.
If those three films brought in enough money, and market research showed that there was still enough demand, then they could go back and do "The Dark Elf Trilogy", a few years later. It could even be marketed as being darker, edgier, rated R, etc., in order to drum up interest again.
That would make for a six-film franchise, and that would tell a significant part of Drizzt's life. I think it's perfectly feasible, too. |
"'You don't know my history,' he said dryly."
--Drizzt Do'Urden (The Pirate King, Part 1: Chapter 2)
<"Comprehensive Chronology of R.A. Salvatore Forgotten Realms Works"> |
|
|
|
Inaubryn
Acolyte
40 Posts |
Posted - 24 Mar 2009 : 20:29:31
|
You're looking at a very difficult prospect jumping into the middle of Drizzt. If you start with the Icewind Dale Trilogy, you leave your audience going, huh. You've done nothing to establish the character, or the world. You've got way too many questions that will exist and not enough backstory. That leaves you with exposition to try and explain everything your audience needs to know, which is bad.
Action scenes, and warm buddy moments will not sustain a movie. As you may know, movies are built on a three act structure like most stories. You can't just dump people into the middle of the story and expect them to get it. The IWD trilogy would certainly be in the middle of Drizzt's story. If your principal character was human, you'd have a better chance of getting away with this, as your audience can easily relate to a human (because they are).
You'd be be better off starting with the Dark Elf trilogy which would introduce your character, provide you with his backstory, and give you a reasonable chance of understanding who and what he is, as well as the race. This still presents the problem of not introducing the world to your audience.
As an excercise, do this. Think of action movies, or a fantasy/sci-fi films which are not set on Earth.
Now name as many of them as you can that either:
A.) Have no backstory for the principal character(s).
B.) Have no explanation of the world their set in.
For every one anybody names, I'll name 10 that have those elements. |
Edited by - Inaubryn on 24 Mar 2009 20:32:14 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36804 Posts |
Posted - 24 Mar 2009 : 21:30:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by Inaubryn
You're looking at a very difficult prospect jumping into the middle of Drizzt. If you start with the Icewind Dale Trilogy, you leave your audience going, huh. You've done nothing to establish the character, or the world. You've got way too many questions that will exist and not enough backstory. That leaves you with exposition to try and explain everything your audience needs to know, which is bad.
Really? Then how did we get the backstory that was present in IWD expanded upon? The audience of one book was enough to blow it up into WotC's biggest cash cow. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!  |
|
|
|
Inaubryn
Acolyte
40 Posts |
Posted - 24 Mar 2009 : 22:58:54
|
Apples to Oranges. Movies and books are extraordinarily different mediums. In the latter you have 300-500 pages or more to explore your characters and tell your story. In the former you have two hours give or take to do the same thing. That's why you hear the oft uttered phrase, "Well, the book was better than the movie." This is an inherent problem with adapting a pre-existing work (book/comic book). Again, if you used the IWD trilogy to adapt a movie from, without the use of extensive exposition, it's quite difficult to give your audience your principal character's backstory. Good movies make you care about the characters involved and show you their backstory in some form or fashion. William Wallace as a child and his relationship with his father, as an adult and his relationship with his wife. Bourne Identity and its allusions to his mysterious background. Any "good" super-hero movie (though most of them do) begins with the hero's origin. Almost any sci-fi/fantasy movie you can name takes on this same formula. Very few start in the middle and tell you nothing.
In Star Wars Phantom Menace, who really cared when Qui-Gonn died? You knew nothing about his character, no background, and no emotional setting was established. Did you care when you weren't introduced to Anakin until almost 30 minutes in and he chose to up and leave his mother to go with Qui-gonn and Obi-wan? Nothing was really set up as to who the character was. And, these were human characters. Imagine trying to do this for a character who is a race that requires a certain understanding and that many people may know nothing of.
Second, where as you have a built in core of fans in which they are the specific targets of the material (book), movies like this tend to serve a broader audience or at least attempt to, not just the fanboy. Studios and producers look at something like this for its ability to appeal to fans and non-fans alike in order to maximize profit. Trust me... this is how they look at things.
Who is this character? Where did he come from? In the case of Drizzt... What is he? A dark elf? What the hell is that? The ones Santa Claus banned for making the toys with small parts for kids to swallow? (ok, that's a bad joke) Anyway, Why do I care about him? What is this world, this Faerun? Now elves, haflings, and dwarves, are all known so no problem with them as secondary characters. But, asking an audience of non-fanboys to latch onto a non-human character that they have no explanation of without heavy exposition is asking a lot. Is Drizzt marketable? Yes. But, it needs to be under the right circumstances. Beginning in the middle of his story isn't it.
Did anybody see the movie Interview with a Vampire? That was a good example of starting at the beginning and introducing Anne Rice's vampires. Did anybody see the sequel Queen of the Damned, where they mashed the second book "Vampire Lestat" into the third, "Queen of the Damned"? This was terrible. They took two 400 page books and crammed them into a two hour film. You knew very little about who Lestat was and even less about the secondary characters. I'm not saying movies like this don't get made, because obviously they do. What I am saying is many movies like this are less than stellar. |
Edited by - Inaubryn on 24 Mar 2009 23:01:13 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36804 Posts |
Posted - 25 Mar 2009 : 01:42:27
|
| Bah. In the entire IWD trilogy, Drizzt had maybe an entire page worth of backstory. And that was more than enough, since the story wasn't initially about him. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
Edited by - Wooly Rupert on 25 Mar 2009 01:43:25 |
|
|
|
Inaubryn
Acolyte
40 Posts |
Posted - 25 Mar 2009 : 03:16:30
|
| And that's the nail on the head, Wooly. The story isn't about Drizzt, so since he's relegated to a support role, you don't have to get into too much detail. However, the OP is talking about a Drizzt film in which Drizzt is the central character. Now, I think the IWD trilogy in and of itself can make a decent film. You focus on the party of characters as a whole and not the dark elf ranger alone. I can certainly see that. Although, it's been some time since I've read the thing and don't outright recall the story in its entirety. |
Edited by - Inaubryn on 25 Mar 2009 03:25:21 |
|
|
|
Drizztsmanchild
Learned Scribe
USA
228 Posts |
Posted - 25 Mar 2009 : 03:25:57
|
| For us old fans of Drizzt who read the IWD trilogy because we had to(published first) It definately wouldn't matter if IWD or the first chronological trilogy was made into a movie first. However for the newer fans the Homeland trilogy was prob the first trilogy that they read so they would need to have those made into films first. Similar to the star Wars saga the old fans would say watch Episodes 4-6 then watch Episode 1i3 but the new fans getting into star wars would watch 1-6 in chronilogical order. In my opinion they should do an HBO series or a DvD set Cg or Animated. |
|
|
|
BEAST
Master of Realmslore
USA
1714 Posts |
Posted - 25 Mar 2009 : 13:13:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by Inaubryn
You're looking at a very difficult prospect jumping into the middle of Drizzt. If you start with the Icewind Dale Trilogy, you leave your audience going, huh. You've done nothing to establish the character, or the world. You've got way too many questions that will exist and not enough backstory. That leaves you with exposition to try and explain everything your audience needs to know, which is bad.
Action scenes, and warm buddy moments will not sustain a movie. As you may know, movies are built on a three act structure like most stories. You can't just dump people into the middle of the story and expect them to get it. The IWD trilogy would certainly be in the middle of Drizzt's story.
I've heard the "three-act structure" cliché spoken about enough to be sick of it. There's nothing wrong with four acts, or five. What's wrong is to be more focused on fitting your story to a formula, than to just let the story flow. And Drizzt stories definitely flow well enough on their own.
RAS has explained that this works because he writes characters first and foremost, rather than plotlines. He lets the characters develop in his mind, and that dictates how the story gets to its destination. His characters don't do things because some writing textbook, rigid outline--or game manual--says that they must. Drizzt himself was originally so noteworthy precisely because RAS went so far off-script (read, off-formula).
It is my understanding that modern screenwriting manuals written by established, successful writers like J. Michael Straczynski and Joe Eszterhas pooh-pooh the notion of giving lots of backstory. The point of a movie is the current conflict--not past ones. With today's attention-deficit audiences, big backstories are probably largely wasted, anyway.
The long intro to New Line's The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring was done primarily to satiate the fanboys of the books, rather than for the general viewing audience. Most watchers were probably checking the clocks on their phones for the first 10 or 15 minutes, there. They just wanted to get on with the action and the suspense.
And as Wooly pointed out, "TIDT" worked well with very little backstory on Drizzt. I was introduced to the Realms entirely through RAS's books. I've only really started getting serious about the gaming sourcebooks in the last three years.
And that miniscule backstory on Drizzt and the drow was plenty enough to turn me into a fanboy, since the very first edition of the very first book of the series. There's a lot to be said about creating a sense of mystique and intrigue and anticipation, rather than blowing your entire wad the first chance you get.
Actually, RAS's failure (or otherwise) to initially provide much of a backstory on Drizzt worked out very well, both thematically and commercially, for both him and the publisher. It left readers wanting more, and that ensured RAS job security. It netted him the "The Dark Elf Trilogy" gig. His keeping hush-hush, at first, on Drizzt's history eventually allowed him to give us Homeland.
This could very well be a selling point to a big movie studio, too: who wouldn't want a six-blockbuster franchise, if they could virtually be guaranteed it?
I think that, for the moviemaker who's just bubbling over with the desire to tell more backstory than RAS himself did in "TIDT", there's always the option of DVD "extras", interviews, reference documentaries, etc. Put some of that backstory into the mouth of your token big-name actor/actress for the flick, and you've got a marketing piece, too. And these would make excellent opportunities to push products dealing with the rest of the Realms, too. |
"'You don't know my history,' he said dryly."
--Drizzt Do'Urden (The Pirate King, Part 1: Chapter 2)
<"Comprehensive Chronology of R.A. Salvatore Forgotten Realms Works"> |
|
|
|
Inaubryn
Acolyte
40 Posts |
Posted - 25 Mar 2009 : 17:48:25
|
Beast, I think you misunderstand about three act structure. That is, Beginning, Middle, End. You may be sick of hearing it but there are no feature length films that have ever been made that don't use it. Most stories use it. Your exceptions come in the form of some stage plays and hour long television dramas (due to commercials). Since we're talking feature length film here, it's going to use a three act structure. It's not explicitly stated, nor is it written into an actual screenplay. It's just how most stories are laid out.
Act One or the "Beginning" will be roughly 25-30 minutes long. Characters are introduced, as well as the initial conflict. You either get their entire backstory at this time, or you get hints to set something up for later. Act Two or the "Middle" will be roughly 45-60 minutes long and goes through how the protaganist(s) deals with the conflict and also serves to set up a secondary conflict, if any. Act Three or the "End" will be roughly 20-30 minutes and is the resolution to all or most conflicts that exist in the film. That's the basics of it. So, whether you like it or not, that's how it has been in motion pictures, that's how it is, and that's how it will be, unless something really drastic occurs. You can't name a feature length film that isn't set up like this.
And, writers like J.M. Straczynski rail against backstory in the form of long-winded exposition, or lengthy narration, not it being part of the story itself. If you wanted to make a movie completely about Drizzt and began with Homeland to show his origins, that's how you do it. You don't have Drizzt talk and talk and talk about his past. Show don't tell, is the number one rule of screenwriting.
As I said above, a story in which Drizzt is a support character, like IWDT, is fine and works. You can explain to your audience just enough for them to get the picture. Showing the various reactions of people to the dark elf, the mention of the underdark, etc. He's Hamish in Braveheart, Rogue in X-Men, Brad Pitt in Ocean's 11, etc. But, as soon as you make Drizzt the central focus of his own movie, well that's when you have to lay it out a bit more.
If I knew nothing of FR and decided the trailer makes this movie look interesting. Or, perhaps I was dragged along to see it with someone. I'd need to know what the Forgotten Realms is, what a dark elf is, why are they feared by everyone, where are they from, why is this particular one on the surface wandering about, etc. It's rare you can just throw a non-human character from another, world, a fantastical one at that, have it take place in that world, and have an unfamiliar audience simply buy it. That's a bit much. Find me a non-sequel film that has those elements and that character and explains nothing about either. You don't go through an unrelated film and shovel backstory at people. You make the film the backstory as in Homeland. Otherwise, you do a movie in which characters are a greater part of the whole. |
Edited by - Inaubryn on 25 Mar 2009 18:06:00 |
|
|
|
BEAST
Master of Realmslore
USA
1714 Posts |
Posted - 25 Mar 2009 : 18:31:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by Inaubryn
Beast, I think you misunderstand about three act structure. That is, Beginning, Middle, End. You may be sick of hearing it but there are no feature length films that have ever been made that don't use it. Most stories use it. Your exceptions come in the form of some stage plays and hour long television dramas (due to commercials). Since we're talking feature length film here, it's going to use a three act structure. It's not explicitly stated, nor is it written into an actual screenplay. It's just how most stories are laid out.
What often happens in actuality is that a nominal "Act Two" is comprised of many different twists and turns, which could be further broken down into individual "acts". It's tempting to contrive the whole into three neat, tidy little segments. (Perhaps it's a residual of the Holy Trinity notion from religion?) But there is nothing inherently true or necessary about it. It reeks of "formula-ism".
And I would hope that theoretical moviemakers would let a Drizzt movie tell the story that RAS has already told, rather than twisting it to tell the story that they want it to tell, because they have been taught that some formula dictates it.
quote:
And, writers like J.M. Straczynski rail against backstory in the form of long-winded exposition, or lengthy narration, not it being part of the story itself. If you wanted to make a movie completely about Drizzt and began with Homeland to show his origins, that's how you do it. You don't have Drizzt talk and talk and talk about his past. Show don't tell, is the number one rule of screenwriting.
They also rail against it taking much of the precious limited running time at all--not just against the medium through which it is presented. Just tell enough of a character's backstory to clue viewers in--don't try to tell two stories in one (both the past and the present). Showing rather than telling is best done when it involves quick, succinct images that speak for themselves. Often mere glimpses are sufficient for the purpose.
RAS accomplished this effect with "TIDT". He gave just enough of Drizzt's backstory to establish the drow as a tortured soul from a bad "neighborhood", lending the dark elf the necessary gravitas to serve as a decent fighting mentor for young Wulfgar. Perhaps intentionally, as RAS has indicated, or perhaps completely by accident, those mere hints at Drizzt's backstory also left readers' mouths watering for more books, which gave birth to the prequel trilogy.
And I distinctly remember that phenomenon, since I experienced it real-time. I remember feeling that sense of wonder at this unfolding, developing character. And I'd like to see them preserve it on the screen, rather than sloppily rushing past it because they're in too much of a hurry to tell the whole story, too early on.
quote:
As I said above, a story in which Drizzt is a support character, like IWDT, is fine and works. You can explain to your audience just enough for them to get the picture. Showing the various reactions of people to the dark elf, the mention of the underdark, etc. He's Hamish in Braveheart, Rogue in X-Men, Brad Pitt in Ocean's 11, etc. But, as soon as you make Drizzt the central focus of his own movie, well that's when you have to lay it out a bit more.
Agreed. This is precisely why I think they should start with the ensemble-based "TIDT", and if the moviegoing audiences responded to the bites of Drizzt there as well as the reading audiences have, there would then be grounds to follow up with that Drizzt-centric "TDET". |
"'You don't know my history,' he said dryly."
--Drizzt Do'Urden (The Pirate King, Part 1: Chapter 2)
<"Comprehensive Chronology of R.A. Salvatore Forgotten Realms Works"> |
|
|
|
Inaubryn
Acolyte
40 Posts |
Posted - 25 Mar 2009 : 19:06:32
|
Looks like we agree on everything but act structure of features. Regardless of how many plot twists and turns the second act may have, it's still one act. JMS will tell you that much. Many screenwriters since the 80s have used his book as a bible. Again, this is not something you explicitly spell out. It's just there. There aren't 4 or 5 or 6 acts to a feature film. There's only a beginning (one), middle (two), and end (three). It's not formulaic in a negative sense. For example, when you relate a story about something to someone, this is how you naturally tell a story.
Beginning, introduction of characters, set up conflict:
Man, I was in the store the other day and I was waiting in line behind this one big ass dude. I mean dude was like a good 400 pounds. He had two grocery carts full of stuff. And, I was like, "Yo, is that all for you?" He turned around, right. And, was like, "Whatcha tryin' say? Imma kick ya ass."
Middle: How the conflict is dealt with, possible introduction of other characters, possible secondary conflict:
He started comin' for me, right? So, I hit him in the head with a package of oreos I had and cookies went everywhere! Then the security guard seen that and started rushin' at me. So, I was like, I need to get the hell outta here. I tried to run, but the fat dude was blockin' the aisle, so I turned around. The security guard was like, "Hey! Stop!" etc...
End, climax and resolution to all or most conflicts:
The fat dude was still coming at me from one side, and the security guard from the other. So, I jumped over the counter, and the fat guy tripped and fell when he tried to grab me and fell on the security guard. I banged my knee on the cash register, fell off of the counter and hit my head on the floor. In the end, somebody called the police, they came and took me in the fat dude to jail. Long story short, his name is Herman and I invited him to my poker game next week.
|
Edited by - Inaubryn on 25 Mar 2009 19:10:38 |
|
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3243 Posts |
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. |
I actually DO know everything. I just have a very poor index of my knowledge.
Ashe's Character Sheet
Alphabetized Index of Realms NPCs |
|
|
|
Inaubryn
Acolyte
40 Posts |
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. |
|
|
|
Lady Fellshot
Senior Scribe
USA
379 Posts |
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
Acolyte
40 Posts |
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. |
Edited by - Inaubryn on 26 Mar 2009 02:17:46 |
|
|
|
Lady Fellshot
Senior Scribe
USA
379 Posts |
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? |
|
|
|
Jorkens
Great Reader
Norway
2950 Posts |
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. |
|
|
|
Inaubryn
Acolyte
40 Posts |
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. |
Edited by - Inaubryn on 26 Mar 2009 12:20:25 |
|
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3243 Posts |
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). |
I actually DO know everything. I just have a very poor index of my knowledge.
Ashe's Character Sheet
Alphabetized Index of Realms NPCs |
|
|
|
Inaubryn
Acolyte
40 Posts |
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
Great Reader
USA
3243 Posts |
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 |
I actually DO know everything. I just have a very poor index of my knowledge.
Ashe's Character Sheet
Alphabetized Index of Realms NPCs |
Edited by - Ashe Ravenheart on 26 Mar 2009 14:23:08 |
|
|
|
Inaubryn
Acolyte
40 Posts |
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. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36804 Posts |
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.  |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Inaubryn
Acolyte
40 Posts |
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. |
|
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3243 Posts |
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.  |
I actually DO know everything. I just have a very poor index of my knowledge.
Ashe's Character Sheet
Alphabetized Index of Realms NPCs |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
is drizzt film gonna happen
