Movie reality V real uh, well reality

[scripter1]

Face it, there are just some things that movies HAVE to do differently.
IF they were totally realistic they wouldn't be interesting.

SO, what kinds of things as writers do we need to have happen in our scripts that fit MOVIE reality but wouldn't be believed in normal reality.

And dialog as well.
We all strive for natural dialog BUT there is movie dialog as well.
How many of us, REALLY, when face to face with Jaws would have stepped backwards and then cooly delivered the line "You're gonna need a bigger boat."

Let's discuss creating that balance between what has to happen to make a movie work and not taking it too far.

[jonpiper]

Face it, there are just some things that movies HAVE to do differently.
IF they were totally realistic they wouldn't be interesting.

Let's discuss creating that balance between what has to happen to make a movie work and not taking it too far.

Great topic. How far should we go in piling problem uopn problem on the protag in Act 2 of the screenplay? I though of this when watching Mel Gibson's Apocalyptco as the protag ran from the pursuers through the forest after being shot through the chest with an arrow. HIs problems became greater and greater, unbelievable in the real world that a human being could survive such obstacles, but somehow believable in the movie, for me at least.

[scripter1]

about Apocalyptco. (haven't seen it.)
I think you CAN do things like that BUT you need to work the story around it. There has to be some kind of believable affect. Whether the audience can chalk it up to adrenelin, or luck that it didn't hit vital organs, or whatever, I think the crafty writer really makes these kinds of things all work together.

[Plot Device]

Convenient timing (or insane coincidences). These are the lifeblood of all scripts.

[Plot Device]

There has to be some kind of believable affect.

One of my film proferssors told the class you can ask the audience to suspend only a certain amount of disbelief only so many times in one film before they start to stand back from your movie and say "This is just dumb!" And we all know that once the audiecne detatches itself from the movie, you're done!

It's like you start off with a limited, pre-measured ration of rationality (heh! I only just made that up!) and you have to be very frugal with your coincidences and your convenient bits of dumb luck, as each improbability uses a little more of your ration. Comedy films make for extra allowences, especially farces and fantasies. Adventure films also have more tolerances for unlikelihoods, but only if they lean off in the realm of either comic book or outright camp. One you've exhausted the whole ration, if you still have more movie left to cover, you've quite sadly bankrupted the believability of your film.

One rare exception to this is a film like Magnolia which was a sort of "meta-rationlism" film, where irrationality and the occurance of utter unlikelihoods, was itself the thematic driver of the whole plot.

[Bmwhtly]

One of my film proferssors told the class you can ask the audience to suspend only a certain amount of disbelief only so many times in one film before they start to stand back from your movie and say "This is just dumb!" And we all know that once the audiecne detatches itself from the movie, you're done! That's exactly how I see it.
If you need something that may border on unbelievable as a catalyst for the story, fine. But make a habit of slightly unbelievable events, the doubt will build up in the audience's mind until it reaches critical mass and then *poof* they're all going to the lobby telling everyone else how lousy your script is.

I had a really good example of this on the tip of my tongue but... can't... quite... remember.

Ah well, a not-quite-so-good example. The Prestige. Given that the film is about magicians, most of it is actually believable. Towards the end little plot twists come up (I'm not going to spoil them for you) and, although they are a bit of a stretch, I accepted them. When THE big twist is revealed it was one step too far, my disbelief won't suspend that far and I leave the cinema with the final 'cheat' foremost in my mind.

[NikeeGoddess]

i'm not so sure you all really know what's what about this.

If you need something that may border on unbelievable as a catalyst for the story, fine. But make a habit of slightly unbelievable events, the doubt will build up in the audience's mind until it reaches critical mass...

24, Mission Impossibles, all the James Bond flicks, alien, monster and superhero flicks, etc...

most of these have events that is so unbelievable but we love 'em just the same as if they were real. no one goes to the movies to see a documentary of life stories. suspension of disbelief and artistic embellishment is the lifeblood of the movie industry.

i listed 24 first b/c this season is the absolute most ridiculous. way too much going on in that 24 hours. in seasons past they had CTU take 20 minutes to get from one section of LA to another which is a stretch even with no traffic and the sirens going. but, this year people have gotten from Cuba to LA in 10 minutes and from LA to DC in 30 minutes. LOL!!!! yet we still watch it. go figure!

[scripter1]

going too far this side of reality isn't really what I intended to be the subject of the thread.

I was thinking more along the lines of movies being real life BUT on steriods.
How do we as writers stretch reality BELIAVABLY so that our stories pack more punch and seem bigger then life. And maybe actually happen. We wouldn't HAVE a story if something slightly unbelievable happened.
For most of us in reality our biggest conflicts are what ever is going on with our families, maybe the drive to work, maybe some type of clash with another person BUT they would hardly make a watchable movie ..... UNLESS

We amp them up. To do that we have to cross over into unreality.
AND we have to create unrealistic real dialog. Dialog that makes a point, tells our story, BUT that isn't one the nose or feel forced.

Going back to my example with Jaws. ANYONE I know who saw what Brody saw would have either just swore and madly scrambled for safety.
Maybe babled something about if being huge, Take me home. G$#D%$#@ take me the bleep bleep home NOW!!

BUT instead we have a writer who gives us one of the greatest movie lines of all time.
MOVIE dialog v reality dialog.

And just once I'd like to see a Protag NOT take the one last job and have a movie stop at ten minutes.:tongue

[NikeeGoddess]

Going back to my example with Jaws. ANYONE I know who saw what Brody saw would have either just swore and madly scrambled for safety.
i disagree. you pick an obvious response yes but, i do have experience to prove that people do have vastly different responses to something like this. i've got two great danes who relax quietly in the front yard. when an unsuspecting pedestrian walks near (my low fence) sometimes da danes go balistic and the peds either:
- freak out and run into the street screaming obscenities
- freak out and run away laughing at themselves for being so scared
- bark back at the dogs and tell them to sit down or shut up
- stick their arm across the fence taunting

anyhoo - that may have been a great line in Jaws but it was realistic in my eyes. ;)

[Boo_Radley]

I tend to subscribe to the notion that if I want to see reality, I'll look out the window; if I want some escapism, I'll watch a movie. So when I write, even things "based in reality," I tend to push things ever-so-slightly into the realm of over-the-topness. Kind of a -- pardon the oxymoron -- "subdued exaggeration."

Kind of hard to explain.

[Bmwhtly]

24, Mission Impossibles, all the James Bond flicks, alien, monster and superhero flicks, etc...

most of these have events that is so unbelievable but we love 'em just the same as if they were real. no one goes to the movies to see a documentary of life stories. suspension of disbelief and artistic embellishment is the lifeblood of the movie industry.I still believe there is a point when the ridiculousness of the events causes the audience to decry the product.
The obvious example (to me, at least) is the James Bond franchise.

The films have always had gadgets. After a few films, they had gadget-infested cars. To many people, this is what the films were about so they go along with it.

Because of the genre, the point at which the audience disassociates the film with reality id pushed further away. But the point is still there.
In fact the point is about two thirds of the way through Die Another Day.
MI6-Issue surfboards, Watch-Triggered Explosives, Gunfights on Hovercraft, North Korea dealing in conflict diamonds? these are all accepted because it's a bond film; they're supposed to be faintly ridiculous.
But when Gene Replacement Therapy gives new faces, bodies and voices.
When Invisible cars roam around hotels made of ice.
The line is crossed.

The critics slam it as ridiculous, the audience views it as mildly entertaining nonsense.

And so, the franchise is taken back to basics with Casino Royale.


At least, that's the way I see it.

[clockwork]

I still believe there is a point when the ridiculousness of the events causes the audience to decry the product.
The obvious example (to me, at least) is the James Bond franchise.

The films have always had gadgets. After a few films, they had gadget-infested cars. To many people, this is what the films were about so they go along with it.

Because of the genre, the point at which the audience disassociates the film with reality id pushed further away. But the point is still there.
In fact the point is about two thirds of the way through Die Another Day.
MI6-Issue surfboards, Watch-Triggered Explosives, Gunfights on Hovercraft, North Korea dealing in conflict diamonds? these are all accepted because it's a bond film; they're supposed to be faintly ridiculous.
But when Gene Replacement Therapy gives new faces, bodies and voices.
When Invisible cars roam around hotels made of ice.
The line is crossed.

The critics slam it as ridiculous, the audience views it as mildly entertaining nonsense.

And so, the franchise is taken back to basics with Casino Royale.


At least, that's the way I see it.

They really crossed the line (for me) with that dumb invisible car. It's one of those universe-changing technologies because if it works, why on Earth wouldn't Bond's car, Bond's watch, Bond's absolutely anything feature the same invisible technology in that and every other film to come?

But really I'm just glad scripter quoted the Jaws line correctly. It's easily one of the most mis-quoted lines in movie history. I've even heard Roy Scheider himself say, "We're gonna need a bigger boat." The whole point of the line is to reflect and reinforce Brody's character. "I hate the water and this ain't my problem pal, so you're gonna need a bigger boat."

[Bmwhtly]

It's easily one of the most mis-quoted lines in movie history.That and "Play it again, Sam"

[jonpiper]

They really crossed the line (for me) with that dumb invisible car. It's one of those universe-changing technologies because if it works, why on Earth wouldn't Bond's car, Bond's watch, Bond's absolutely anything feature the same invisible technology in that and every other film to come?



I agree. I believe some writers, directors, and producers REALLY cross the line because they believe high octane action entertainment will draw an audience no matter how bad the story or acting.

Apparently this kind of thinking proves successful at the box office, sometimes. Especially when huge promotional budgets precede the release.

BUT the public doesn't always pluck their money down on big budget line crossers. Look at the recent box office flops. Something else is at work here.

[scripter1]

this season's 24. LOVE all the other seasons though.

And I guess the zipping around from one point to another is what I'm talking about.
If you went with reality here and kept Jack stuck in traffic for the real 45 minutes it takes then that would be boring. It would create dead space in the pacing.

Just like someone waiting for the elevator when leaving a building is dead space. So, you don't write it, you don't film it. It happens off the page.

In reality most car chases don't end in vehicles overturned or rammed through buildings. That happens so rarely it still makes National news when it does.

YET, it is a staple of movie reality.

And the line from Jaws and many others are written to match the theme and point of the film, just as was indicated. Brody said the line in character NOT in reality.


Nikee, people stick their arms over your fence?
You live around some dumb people. Hope you know a good lawyer.

[WarrenP]

Movie reality = everyone is prettier.
Movie reality = main characters have witty or interesting friends.
Movie reality = all dialogue has meaning (can we just stop at this one!)

[zahra]

Sorry to defy you, Warren, but no.

I was passing the Tv yesterday and saw some female character seducing a guard or something from his post. As I slunk back into the study, I remember thinking that no woman in the history of the world has ever behaved with such writhing, pouting, glistening sexual un-subtlety outside of a pole-dance. Faced with a woman behaving that way with no pole in sight, the man would probably call for the white coats (and his mum).