Film Courage have you won an Award yet? . please don't go too commercial love, love the organic authenticity of this channel. Keep up the great work! Go Shane!
Back in my 20's when i wanted to be a film maker (still do at 51, it doesn't go away just in case you're in your 20's reading this) but back when i would make DV films ( pretend film making in the early 2000's, you had to be there XL1 was king ) But we would hear advice like "Horror films don't need to look expensive so let's mostly do that" and over the years i found the quality of the work being done now today is excellent on most fronts so if you want to make an engaging movie you're literally competing against very well done productions and these days very pretty thumbnails. On TOP of that the distractions as the interviewee mentioned above BUT,...This should not be translated to "make higher concept situations earlier or faster, see the truth is it is indeed a business but it is primarily an Art form and the further we draw talented writers away from that the more Shite star wars reboots we're gonna see, If you're a talented film maker you could lock your audience with a 4 minute scene of a guy buying milk at a store. That's the reality, Don't let interviews like this drag you (a talented writer) away from the moments that you want to explore. Just be you, Now get writing and turn off youtube please, we need your voice.
What does this have to do with what was said in the interview? I know you're in your 50s but if you have kids then you know with snap chat and tik tok he's absolutely right in saying that people won't watch a 50 minute scene about a walk in a park that has nothing to do with the film. I love Stanley Kubrick but 2001 Space Odyssey was a nightmare to watch during my film class and was actually my least favorite. Sorry, if you try and make that today you're gonna be doomed for failure.
Yes and No. The best films prove themselves within the first 5 minutes, no matter what. That includes things like Citizen Kane, Casablanca, Close Encounters, The Black Stallion (btw: it's about the horse, so your protagonist does show up from the get-go), and so on. It's not that you have to have "a hook" in the first 11 minutes, but that you have to prove that you know what you're doing, that this is going somewhere, and that the reader/viewer will probably not regret giving their attention and focus.
I agree with you.. its nt 11 minute its about giving strong point of no return.. n especially in india due to movie break n stuff things cn take time n hooks are more important..
Yes, this is correct. I can know I won't like a film after three shots. Quality of filmmaking has to be in everything including the writing, but if the quality of the rest of the filmmaking is there from the get go, it can make people stick around for the "hook" or the "ten page rule" or the "twist." It's more important to know the story you want to tell and tell it well, than to focus on arbitrary industry rules. If it's good, it's good.
I suppose this is why I will miss going out out to see a film (if Coronavirus kills off the big screen), because it's an experience that forces me to pay attention, with no distractions.
We are missing it too. Last movie we went to was the Ben Affleck movie The Way Back right before shutdown. We were the only two people in a 500 seat theater for a 7pm showing. Will never forget that.
right. i paid $13 for this, i BETTER pay attention lol but some movies are so boing even that doesnt help, like when "A Simple Favor" put me to sleep right in the theatre.
Is it possible that the “new” edgy stand out of the crowd approach would be to return to the traditional form of storytelling with a longer deeper opening?
He's not wrong. But I would add that just because the industry is leaning on fast storytelling... doesn't mean you can't buck the trend and try to write that one slow burn that people gravitate to. Just understand that everyone will be rushing in another direction than your story. If food on your table depends on selling your screenplay or landing a position in a writer's room, then maybe you're not the one to go this way. But if you're doing this for the love of storytelling, tell the story you want to tell. And tell it the way it deserves to be told. If it has a voice that speaks, it can find an ear. And the evolution of cinema is not necessarily linear. It is always changing. It doesn't have to be a direct path toward the immediate. It may turn out to be an ebb and flow, in which the kinds of movies you love come back into demand. Wouldn't hurt to be the forefront of that turn. Just write your story. Don't overthink it. And don't mold yourself to the ideas of people's suggestions. It's information to process and incorporate into your approach, not an instruction manual.
A great filmmaker can really draw an audience in with promise and foreshadow. That is, in the first act, they flirt with mystery of what the film is going to be about while allowing the characters to show their world. Hereditary is a great example, the first threshold and conflict doesn’t really come into play until the 35 minute mark - that’s when stuff is moving, but the audience STILL doesn’t quite know what the film is about, and the full nature of the conflict isn’t revealed until after an hour: 1:05 to 1:15 mark (that’s 1 hour 15 minutes). Hereditary will inevitably be counted as one of the top 5 greatest horror films of all time. Hereditary has a layered conflict, the first act is the flirt - grandmother dies, and it’s all about the indifference and looking back on how little they care, but the film makes the viewer think the family should care more. One character is concerned. 34 minutes in there is an absolutely brutal event which was so shocking that I literally felt sick to my stomach. I don’t think any film has viscerally impacted me like that before. Anyway, that throws the family into chaos. To deal with the chaos, the mother looks for a friend from her grievance councillor group earlier on, and she reveals something terrifying that might be a cure to her pain. That’s at 1 hour 5 minutes. At 1 hour and 15 minutes she and the family do what she was taught, and then it becomes clear what the conflict is. (Sorry for being vague, I wanted to avoid spoilers).
My wife and I watched Lawrence of Arabia again the other night and it was the most immersive things I've seen in ages. It was refreshing not to have a edit cut every second. We tried watching Red Wall a few nights ago, but just couldn't manage it. I felt like the director (John Woo?) was scared we'd look away if the camera wasn't moving.
More often than not a very heavy cut style of editing is a show of creative weakness and lack of ideas. Trying to obfuscate the lack of interesting things being shown with different constantly changing camera angles, camera movement, etc.
Content is king. A good story won't need the "11 minute rule." This guy has sacrificed any artistic integrity to be financially successful. Good for him. You other young filmmakers out there, take some advice from an Indie filmmaker who has been doing it almost 10 year now - tell the story YOU want to tell. If the content is compelling, people will watch it. Most filmmakers are too worried about "selling" their project instead of writing a good story, getting the right talent, shooting it properly, lighting it well, and editing it so it brings the vision to life.
I'm with you on this one. I do think this guy brings up an interesting point but overall if a film is good then its good lol (doesnt matter if it takes longer than 11 minutes to "get to the point"). I think he's talking more about the spoon fed type people out there who watch films to pass time and be entertained by content that just does everything for them. Like he said a baby is crying, you're checking your twitter, etc.. There are 2 kinds of people of there, those who take the time and give films their full undivided attention because they want to be stimulated/challenged, and those who just throw a movie on in the background so they have something to "distract" them and pass the time. Although i partially agree with this man (very little) i think cinema has kinda always been the same. There are people who just want anything that's gonna entertain them quickly and others who are watching for the love and appreciation of cinema/good stories. Not everything is about MASS PRODUCTION and HIGHEST PROFITS. Most times those things are garbage or mediocre, and most people know it they just dont care. But overall all there will always be audiences out there for good well made cinema. Plus this guy acts like no movie has a description of the film or a trailer attached to it. No one really just blindly puts a movie on and sees how it is (some do but thats not the point). Everyone always sorta knows what theyre about to be investing time in to. Movies shouldn't have to have a "MTV style" pacing/cutting to keep people ingaged. Those people who want that style like i said before are not invested or that interested. I follow and read lots of different film related pages/articles and it seems to me that the majority of people are sick of these fast paced mindless films being pumped out. So what does this all boil down to? It comes down to the same thing its always been really... good cinema/stories. People will watch if its done right. Just because theres a phase right now for films with quick cuts and 11 minutes or less explanations does not mean that that's the norm and every filmmaker should stick to that. That's bull shit. Make the film that you want to make. If its good then its good. If it's not then it just wasnt the right time and it will eventually be appreciated or it actually just isn't very good and you do need to do better. That's it. People know when something is good. Sometimes its a slow realization but it inevitably always happens. Make the film you want to make, dont compromise for people who are only gonna half watch your film to begin with... Eventually all those people who "half pay attention " will come around, they already are starting to. Cinema isnt going anywhere. You either have a compelling story that's well made or you don't.
I like both, the slow burn and the rapid engagement in storytelling. I think distilling stories to their essence and getting to the point faster it a test of skill, how to capture the audience without gimmicks or flashy imagery to trick them into thinking something is happening, while at the same time establishing characters that they would want to follow.
That's how real life is, slow burn, then something dynamic happens. These days, the dynamic is happening a lot. It does take skill to catch the audience's attention. If you disappoint them, it takes your portfolio down a few notches.
@@lorrismalls4736 It's almost like storytellers are refineries, processing the crude oil of life experiences into a host of different products (aka stories). If the refinery fails, it affects the whole system.
I love the "get to the point" pacing when it makes sense, doesn't feel rushed, or tacked on. Especially when the actors are unknown. You don't have the privilege of taking your time if I don't know your work. This is a great lesson for newcomers trying to captivate strangers of their work.
Same. Although i'm only 33yo. I love 80's and 90's movies. There's just that "magic" in them that unfortunately it lacks on some of today's movies. Although I understand exactly what Shane is saying, here. A few days ago I rewatched "Meet Joe Black", a lenghty 3-hour movie that I haven't watched in decades. I turned off the lights, picked the Blu-Ray disc, turned on my 4K TV, put on the headphones and watched the whole thing without interruptions. It was a blast, literally. And both Anthony Hopkins as well Brad Pitt are just great, in this one. Sure, it could've been easily cut down to a 2-hour movie, if it was filmed today. But I like the way it is. Same with "TITANIC" by James Cameron. I like how the story develops in both of them. And I also liked that Cameron split "TITANIC" onto 2 VHS/DVDs/Blu-Ray 3D for home viewing. That way one could easily either watch just the sinking part, or how the love story develops, or just take a break in between. Whatever floats your boat, so to speak. I heard that the original cut of AVATAR was a lenghty 300 or so pages. Can't imagine what Cameron wrote.
He's right. Hereditary is one of the most successful horror films and almost nothing happens for the first thirty minutes and that's why it has mixed reviews. People don't have the patience anymore to fully commit for two hours unless they're in a movie theater. Ari took a risk to fully develop characters for a better pay off for later. The moviegoers who were stuck inside the theaters loved it so much that the word of mouth advertisement worked in Ari's favor. If Hereditary was straight to VOD, it most likely wouldn't have this success and would be an underappreciated gem instead. I bought the book through your affiliate link and can't wait to read it. As a film producer and writer, you can never get enough solid advice.
I can kind of agree. Yes, if you’re not a film buff you’re less likely to want to sit through a movie that has 20 to 30 minutes of build up. But does that mean we should be encouraging that behavior? Because that’s what the interviewee here is saying: since many people people don’t want to watch a slow opening, just pander to them. I think that’s a flawed way of thinking, because if you keep pandering to audiences who have short attention span‘s, their attention spans will only get shorter and shorter and shorter until, at that point, it’s not even a movie-it’s a trailer. Filmmakers should be going against the grain in this regard, which is why I love art house films so much as they challenge what is “entertaining”. Wonder why people aren’t reading books anymore? Because it’s not “entertaining”. People need to stop making movies that revolve around being entertaining, we should be making movies that have strong messages. Because if we don’t, movies will become how books are today, and that would be a very, very sad future.
Yes, it si frustrating. We should produce things, that bring pace, that help people to calm down and learn something. Don’t change your script because of Twitter.
Why not? He is making the point that the likes of Twitter are changing people's tastes - reducing their attention spans. If he doesn't make movies which take that into consideration, then his movies won't sell and he's out of a job.
I think if you have a strong opening, a prologue of sorts, you can get away with a more in-depth, slower first act until your inciting incident or first act break. Jaws opens with a shark attack until the Kitner kid gets killed (15 min mark?). A History of Violence opens with the motel shooting, and it isn't until like minute 25 or so until the diner attack. During the intervals, we get to meet the characters and the setting. But I can't think of too many films, past or present, where almost nothing happens in the first 15 min or so to move the story forward, unless we're talking experimental stuff. Even in 2001 the monolith shows up in the first 15 min.
@@SchmokinJoe After the opening crawl the prostitute is attacked as the film's first narrative scene. Dean Brooks could've even mentioned Jurassic Park, dinosaur kills a guy in the opening sequence, but the reveal of an actual dinosaur is - I don't know - *45min* into the movie!
Try watching IDA.....the polish oscar winner. I'm not sure anything happens the whole way through. Probably one of the best films ever made. Sick and tired of endless, meaningless action sequences that "drag" the audience in.
"You're trying to do something that will please everybody" In consequence you will not break any barriers. I understand the point, it's a competitive industry and a global market but having that ethos will just contribute further to the continuing homogenisation of culture and film.
That reminds me of Rod Serling, I can't remember if it was one of his producers or Gene Roddenberry who was like "We're not trying to make everybody happy, in fact we're trying to make certain people very mad." But these days if you're as socially progressive as they were for their time you'll get your head handed to you by keyboard warriors.
I think it's become kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy though. The industry assumes the audience wants stories structured that way that just "get to the point" after 10 pages, but I think audiences have more patience than we give them credit for and could use some variety. Moonlight for instance or Blade Runner 2049. I think there's room in the market for both styles that allow audiences the freedom of choice. I find myself revisiting a lot of pre-streaming films for this very reason and miss it.
I think films just need to be interesting and promise the audience something to look forward to. Look at Mulholland Drive, the opening is odd but it keeps you engaged and keeps you curious. This is the extreme opposite of explicitly telling the audience what the film is about. Active vs passive audience imo
Lynch is one of the kings of that. Super unconventional writing that usually works in ways that contradict what a lot professional screenwriters propose it seems.
David Lynch was the first person I thought of when I saw this video. Other than the Elephant Man, I don't believe ANY Lynch film or project follows this rule. Of course, his work isn't exactly mainstream.
What bores me is to know too much right from the start. I watch Onibaba and it took me a while to figure out what genre it was, where it took place, when it took place and what the story would be. A true adventure.
They don't go to Willy Wonkas factory until 36 minutes in. It has fascinated me for like the past 10 years and I think it is what makes the movie so special
Yeah but the fascination, mythos, and flashbacks of the wonderful stuff about what happens in the factory is shown much earlier. Everything in between is just characterization of Charlie, and a quick showing of how awful the other 4 kids are.
I hope great writers aren't discouraged by this. I think to make the movies you want you need to make the quick action movie, the easy to sell horror film or the easy to digest comedy. You need to establish yourself as someone who can make movies for a profit, then you can start making the movies you want to make.
Hmm I agree, but at the same time in today's movies I don't get attached to the characters because everything is happening fast. That's why a lot of the films shown today aren't that great (same with shows).
The narrative is gone. These days it's all one liners, lots of noise, darkness and superheroes. Filmmakers quote old movies, but new movies are nothing like the old movies
"Appealing to a wide audience" means catering to the lowest common denominator. While there is nothing inherently wrong with that, it does mean movies are popcorn entertainment instead of high art.
I don't know what you're on (about) when it comes to television. TV is way more focused, slower burn and of much higher quality all around than it was in the past, or at least has been recently enough for me to question this supposed downturn. People got really pissed off when Game of Thrones started moving at a faster clip to get to the end, even before the quality of the overall show had begun to struggle against that race to the finish line. I've been on a steady diet of nothing but TV shows for an extended period now (seriously it's probably hazardous to my health) and from what I can tell your assessment is the opposite of what I'm seeing. I mean, television is slower paced and more focused on character development as a matter of course, because if you _can't_ do that you don't _have_ a show.
@@futurestoryteller quality of the way everything looks doesn't count for quality of characters and story. And personally I don't get much from a lot of American shows. If you like them good for you. You have more to watch. For me, I rather stick to anime because they know how to do it :D
Some old movies are excruciating pacing wise, even though they were often shorter. Other times the pacing while sometimes slow, paints an overall story that is more coherent than many modern films, with their sometimes excessive twists and reveals.
He is so right about twitter... I don't think it's where we are though, I think it's where 'the powers that be' are trying to take us. The world better be in the mood for some retro, because that's what I'm writing.
Getting to the point is a style of writing or story telling that is more of a masculine way of communicating. Men communicate with a content based style, women communicate with context based style. And with the entertainment business so focused on producing stuff aimed at women, it follows that it produces stuff that fits with their communication styles. Men tell a story of what happened. Women tell a story of how what happened made them feel.
@@hmvideos3601 Men and women are different. So it's them being them. Even male feminist are going to be male feminist despite biology proving them wrong at every virtue signaling turn.
It's definitely true, but It can be dangerous to just get to the point. There are so many movies that get to the point, but they fall short because you don't care about the characters and you're not invested. It's a balance for sure, but that's the whole art of writing for you. If you aren't getting to the main point of your story fast, at least make sure that interesting things are happening and the drama is building up. This is why a lot of the great movies that take a minute to get to the point "The Patriot" for example, open with a hint, or a promise, of what is to come. A short clip of drama, action, or a literal hint scene of putting away a hatchet and a rifle, can keep the audience watching because they know something is going to happen sooner or later.
I think Shane’s advice works for precisely the sort of movie he’s describing: a transparent action/thriller movie that easily translates overseas. “Kids find treasure on an island” is a premise you could explain to a kindergartener lol But the true eureka-moment to me for screenwriting was Todd Philips’ Joker. That movie had NO right to exist if comparing it against the “Hollywood studio template”, and yet because true quality simply speaks for itself, it went on to become literally the most profitable rated-R film of all time 🤷♂️
One of the best examples of how to do this well was The Omega Man. It begins with the hero in the situation the movie is about, a destroyed, deserted world, shooting at evasive figures. It escalates fast to the night time action when he is under siege in his home. Then it integrates flashbacks to show how this situation happened, while still keeping the plot moving. You're about two thirds of the way through the movie before it changes to a more typical storytelling style and by then you're well and truly involved.
I think that the most important part of a story is the character's dilemma. That it's true and compelling for them. This dilemma creates the struggle that they have to work out. The character is flawed, their journey incomplete and we the audience reader/viewer/listener participate in that and see a little bit of ourselves through that experience.
Rhythm and timing is definitely what can make or break a film. I usually think of this more in the sense of what Jay Whistler said, "A problem that a character can walk away from is a book a reader can walk away from."
Not sure about this. What about character development? This doesn't really drive plot but develops relationships between the characters and the audience. Your plot can be tight but if the audience don't care about the characters you're dead in the water.
The 'Get to the point' isn't only in movies but EVERYWHERE. Honestly it's good to watch/be in the moment, but this mentality is draining our patience and only degrading our brains. Even I at times feel restless to get to the point. I guess we have to learn to find balance between Getting to the Point & Slowly introducing other things.
I think the problem with some of the lesser movies that attempt a slower pace, is that the slower pace isn't justified. Slow pacing should be used to give us time to fully absorb something, but that assumes that there is something to absorb. The real problem with ultra fast shots and short scenes imo, is that there really isn't much meaning to be had. A guy hitting someone, is nothing more than a guy hitting someone, and that lasts like 0.5 seconds. If the wife of the guy is in the room, as well as the kid, we might want to hold that shot for a bit longer to get the fullness of their reactions, perhaps showing the person doing the assault walking away without caring etc... With older action films, it just felt like the deaths and punches and shootouts mattered more. Now it's just a superhero in a shooting gallery.
I don't know sometimes a movie or a book is just too laughably paced and it deserves to be roasted for it. 'Eye of the World' is easily the worst book in 'The Wheel of Time' series and it's the *first* !!! It has a great prologue, and it gets to its inciting incident fast enough, but it just meanders and navel gazes too much, way too reliant on novelistic exposition. It pumps the breaks on its story *constantly* to explain things inorganically through *walls* of text. 'Dune' demands you flip to an appendices! That is, objectively, abysmal exposition; when compared to 'Game of Thrones' which just throws you in an intimate situation, Night Watchmen hunting wildlings beyond the wall who stumble on White Walkers You're getting a sense of the story's setting and tone and a digestible trickle of exposition, because the scene is simple: it's three guys on a scouting expedition that goes horribly wrong; and that's it. This is the first scene in the books and in show does in , because Martin was a screen writer; he knows the value of "the hook". You can get to the point and slowly introduce things, you just have to be a good writer and writing is hard.
@@IggyTthunders You can read Dune without ever flipping to an appendix and understand everything. With some depth, flavor, additional details, etc., there in appendices ,but without missing any of the story beats
This is a great video. It’s definitely important to remember attention spans have changed. I try to remember something my lecturer said, ‘Make sure you’re doing something with every single line.’ Another very helpful tip to remember ‘Show, don’t tell.’ These videos are all amazing!
Most people you interview seem to be giving advice from their Ego’s POV, Shane here is giving it from his heart. Care of the Indy Filmmaker’s struggles... best advice to Indy filmmakers and writers I have heard on this channel!
There are some movies that still keep the slow pace and are absolutely amazing. Burning (2018) is a thriller where the "mysterious character" isnt introduced until 35 minutes in, and until the halfway point the movie is just a love triangle with some uncertanties about the characters. The movie spends 1 hour and 20 minutes just building characters and their dynamics before anything "interesting" happens, but when it does it becomes one of the most memorable movies you can watch.
Flipping through Netflix I give two seconds. What makes me stay: actor owning the screen with their presence, intelligence is evident, I connect with energy exuded, script that isn’t stupid, hollow, unrelatable, tone and tempo of voice, not using tempo of speaking to cover for lack of meaningful words. Depth/substance of character/s. Intelligent or subtle humor. Drawn in when allowed into the inner world of opening character/s. I'll wait for crux of movie if these other things are there. Music used sparingly and thoughtfully is a plus. Turn-offs opening scenes: chase scenes, long drives. You can tell right away if the movie is chintzy.
For 15 years I have been doing the 48 hour film project - all short films under 7 minutes long - In those if you have not hooked the audience in the first minute - you're done - So yes I agree - how much of a cut do you get for your Amazon imbedded links? - that is a side hustle I never knew about until recently -
You can make every story interesting. When you apply the fundamental truth of the story. The trick is to compounds those truths into a few minutes of dialogue. Added with the physical action that will keep you intrigued. The main question is: Can you tell a fundamental truth to the world? Without the world being hostel about a truth it does not want to face. One of my favorite sayings, " It is hard for any human being to look themselves in the mirror. And be totally honest about their mistakes. With the consequences that came from those mistakes. Now multiply that by a nation centuries old". We live in a time in human history. Where so much information it given to everyone with the means. That fundamental truths that are not openly practice. Are not taken seriously nor believed that it is real. Can a story writer actually tell the objective truth of the story that everyone recognize immediately?
I think the gist is that while you need to get people hooked in the first 11 minutes, this just means to get them hooked on your first chapter. The best example I can give is The Dark Knight. It starts out with Batman and he's fighting the mafia. It is a very grounded premise about a man who dresses as a bat. They sell you on this. Then the movie shifts as the Joker comes into focus. Now in the second story the film is a story about ethics and escalation and the limits of what Batman is and isn't. This is the primary movie, and it doesn't begin before we are a a good while into the film. Because this is a very good film it does hint about his existence very early on, it establishes this person as an antagonist but then the movie forgets about him until the first story has run its course. The same thing is done masterfully with Harvey Dent and his arc through the movie, leading into the personal showdown at the very end, that also deals with the legacies of Batman and the Joker. The movie thus consists of three bits, the introduction to a concept (vigilantism, the Batman) then escalates that with the Joker and the conflict between their competing views and objectives, until finally we address the legacy left behind by this struggle. These are thee separate stories, with each leading into the next. So if you visualize your film as just being one story, then you will make a fairly boring film. Say that your movie is about a guy who gets into debt in the first 11 minutes and decides to rob a laundromat poker game to break even, that's one story. Your movie still needs at least two more stories. Otherwise it's a very uneventful movie. By wrapping your movie in a sequence of rooms, each after the next with their own goals and objectives you can tell much more compelling stories. The hero can fail in one room, the villain can succeed. Anything can happen because the outcome of any one room in the story is not the end point, the story will continue. This way a movie of 90-120 minutes will feel dense, while a movie that takes place in just the one room will be very uneventful.
I agree! It's the same with writing. If you don't capture the readers with the first few pages, then they *will* stop reading. No matter how compelling the middle may be, you need to dazzle or at least capture the readers' attention. It doesn't necessarily mean you need to have big explosions or murder at the start, you just need to have intrigue. Amour (2012) makes use of this with showing us the ending at the start. Come and See (1985) does this subtly, with them finding guns. Slow burns also does this, even though it's not big explosions or whatnot. The Before movies capture the attention of the viewers through dialogue.
I disagree when it comes to filmed narratives and I agree when it comes to books. As I noted in a previous comment, most people don't condemn older movies for a slower pace, to me this dispels this notion that people have substantially lowered attentions spans when it comes to film viewing. I *have* heard people condemn classic literature as "unreadable" for being too slow in pace, or for going "nowhere."
Yeah! Excellent points! I write for kids and kids like STORY. I find lots of aspiring kidlit novelists tap dance around the actual story. I often advise them to cut the first chapter-and condense the second to a paragraph!
Generally I agree that the first 11 minutes is crucial, but not every movie needs the same solution to this problem. ROCKY takes 40 minutes for the actual plot to start, but we don't mind because we're watching it for Rocky's character and just soaking in the vibes of the city, and the sudden turn of events with Apollo Creed coming in with an offer is a pleasant surprise addition to the character story we were enjoying. We walk in to see the big fight, but pretty soon we realize it's actually about him getting a girlfriend and realize that we're OK with that.
Great points. I think that the difference is that before streaming, you wouldn't buy a ticket and then walk out of the theater in 5 mins if you weren't feeling it. Today, I'll jump ship in the first ten mins to try something else on my watch list.
My perspective has always been on time because I saw my own life didn't make time for films/shows for various reasons in addition to limited attention spans. This is encouraging and reminds me of Scott Meyers' New 4 Quadrant.
On the contrary, I can't take this thrown together stuff from today. Movies are just like todays music, they all look and sound the same. All is green screen and blah blah blah.
The 10 minutes rule holds true for scripts because most spec scripts aren't vetted or reviewed, if you're reading someone else's unpurchased script YOU are the test group, and if nothing is happening in those first 10 pages then it needs work. You can't afford to waste time unless you're established and getting the benefit of the doubt from your reader. You have 120 pages, make every page count.
I don't think 'get to the point quickly' has ever not been good advice, even for movies from the silent era, but that doesn't mean the whole film needs to have the rhythm of a music video, regardless of the audience's attention span. As others have said, watch most well-made movies from any decade and you'll usually find something grabbing you in that time-frame - whether it's Rita Hayworth throwing her hair back provocatively, a little girl disappearing with a serial killer, or a ghost scaring the hell out of a librarian in the New York Public Library - but there are always exceptions. eg. Clouzot's 'The Wages of Fear' has a pretty slow start and introduces us to a miserable, unsympathetic bunch of characters, but then the rest of the movie makes up for it by having you on the edge-of-your-seat with some of the most tense pacing you'll ever see. As for Close Encounters, some scenes might play out more slowly than if they were made today, but Spielberg obviously knew exactly what he was doing, and grips us right from the beginning - 1st scene: 'how the hell did these WW2 planes show up in the desert?'; 2nd scene: Air traffic control tracking what looks like UFOs on radar, which immediately sets up the suspense for both the little boy's and Richard Dreyfus's first encounters, which kick in at approx... 11 mins. Well-told stories will never get old or have to follow an exact formula, just give the audience a good reason to keep on watching and listening as early as possible. Thanks @FilmCourage for all the great content! :)
everything always comes back around. we'll end up at a point where people are going to miss the slow burning stuff because we'll be so deprived of it. Just make whats true to you. If you make it because you truly believe in it and it's honest, thats the true reward.
You always have to keep the audience in mind when making a film. That’s the whole point. You use audio and visuals in order to manipulate the audiences emotions and feelings and specifically show them certain things to make them think a certain way. To make a great film, you have to think about the audience. So it’s very important to keep this 11 minute rule in mind.
He claims it's frustrating. Yet, he's going with the flow. It's just a job to him. If people are impatient to simply have a story spoonfed them......they need to stick to tiktok videos
Totally agree with you. The sad part is, the likelihood of a feature film getting made depends entirely on if it will make a profit. And although this guy is treating it like a job, the reality is today's younger generations have only ever known getting what they want instantly. Social media platforms like TikTok are successful because they both deliver this experience and reinforce it. Unfortunately, even a low budget movie cost millions to make, social media videos - nothing but a phone. It's also why we occasionally see "influencers" appearing in film and TV shows - a desperate attempt to appeal to those audiences. Maybe our best chance as writers is to create stories that are specifically aimed to be marketed at people who lived before the social media age. That way we have the space to be creative, properly develop characters and spend some time warming the audience up. If there is still a commercial market among those aged 30+ for these stories, we might stand a chance of writing something good and meaningful that gets produced, rather than just bending to the will of those that are conditioned to be spoon-fed.
Precisely. Though I do consider this advice useful. I think it's about finding a balance of techniques; using everything available in the craft of storytelling to tell a compelling and meaningful story while also keeping an audience hooked from the get go. Writers need to be wizards now more than ever. Think of the rules established in The Prestige.
He's a professional who makes his living making movies. You can still make a great movie and use a formula. It's all about the creativity you bring to the table.
It depends on your genre; if you're making an action movie, yeah: yuh better get to movin' by about page 15/minute 15 of the story. That said, some films, like 'Gone with the Wind' do not make *any* pretensions about being full-throttle thrill rides. The introduction is slow and atmospheric, it's nesting your sensibilities for an experience that requires time and attention to the story. It's offering you its leit motifs with allusions to its themes, scenery and set pieces in the first five minutes, it's not throwing them at you. But that's 'Gone with the Wind', a four hour long movie!' If you're doing a noir, a crime story shot like a horror film, well, how long is a horror film? Not long! Not as a rule. 'The Third Man' gives you a main character and an inciting incident, a dead body, inside of five minutes; 'Murder my sweet' gives you a "meet cute" with Moose in less than two! By then, thanks to inner monologue, you know a bit about Phillip Marlowe's personality and the initial case is such low-hanging fruit it's believable Marlowe would get sucked down a rabbit hole. It really depends on your genre, but I was taught in film school that you need to get to your inciting incident pretty early on; there are exceptions, like 'The Godfather' and 'Fellowship of the RIngs', but that's generally a good rule of thumb.
I can know I won't like a film after three shots. Quality of filmmaking has to be in everything including the writing, but if the quality of the rest of the filmmaking is there from the get go, it can make people stick around for the "hook" or the "ten page rule" or the "twist." It's more important to know the story you want to tell and tell it well, than to focus on arbitrary industry rules. If it's good, it's good.
C'mon people. All he is doing is making the valid point that the movie industry exists to serve people what they want. It's very simple: slow movies -> no profit -> no industry -> no movies. If you want slow burn, artistic movies then you AND EVERYONE ELSE needs to start paying for them.
I agree with the 11-minute rule. I admit to having a bit of impatience with movies that don't set up who? what? and why? by the time I'm 15 minutes into the watch. In writing, I won't say that I wasn't given a chance to make that first impression/connection. I say, I'm given an 11-page chance, and I'm going to make the absolute best of it.
Amen. I think the films he’s describing are mostly action/CGI stuff which sell easily overseas, like this whole “kids find treasure” premise he mentioned But something a bit more nuanced can afford the time to stretch its legs. Look at Joker, according to “studio logic” that movie had no right to exist whatsoever
If you really love writing, then rules like this really shouldn't apply. If you have your story, you know why you love it, you know what draws you to it, you know what you're saying, then thats more important than any "rule" of storytelling out there. Break the rules, remake the industry, follow your bliss. Think about every director/writer who ever makes an impact - that's different than being financially succesful mind u; would you rather be Paul Feige or paul thomas anderson? Anderson gets less money for his films but his legacy and contribution to the form are infinitely more valuable than money. Thats the way I see it at least. Make the movie that only you can make, whatever that is. If its good then people will get to it. People forget that movies like uncut gems, parasite, first reformed, etc. make money and are viable. Its not all tik-tok thats just being intentionally cynical. If you're making movies for a career, there's a lot more jobs you can do to make easier money. if you need to tell your stories than tell your stories, rules don't apply.
It sounds like he's succumbing to the same mentality of TV executives back when I was a young whippersnapper, that the audience operates at a 5th grade level and you have to dumb down everything to that level. And yet, when well-done sophisticated shows were produced, most of them became massively popular, beginning with things like "All in the Family." Rather than the audience being put off by it, they were relieved to stop being treated like imbeciles. I'm subscribed to about 50 different reaction channels on RUclips, almost exclusively operated by younger people. It's no accident that they overwhelmingly love older films, especially from the 1980s, and lament that today's Hollywood fare just doesn't live up to them. "Why can't they make movies like that anymore?" is often the cry they make. Good storytelling will always be good storytelling and will impact every generation. The medium of film has always been a compressed medium and requires a more streamlined approach, and you certainly need some kind of hook in the beginning to answer the question on everyone's mind in the audience, "Why should I watch this film?" In fact, I and my circle of storytelling colleagues even insist it come as soon as 3-5 minutes in. But it only has to be SOMETHING that makes the audience perk up and want to keep watching to see what that was all about, not necessarily the essence of the whole film. And I have no idea why he thinks "Close Encounters" wouldn't play well today.
What he's talking about - the "inciting incident" in a screenplay/film that propels the real story forward - used to be at 17 minutes (17 pages, since 1 screenplay page = 1 film minute). Then it was 15, and now 10-11 because we all have attention deficit. There's going to be few films that break this rule these days.
S-o-o-o you introduce a compelling character during the opening credits. Get the audience involved. Then at about the 10 minute mark you kill them off. Then you have met the criteria and can get on with your story.
So heres what happens. Write great script. Sold, 3 new writers hired to edit it (you are out of the picture). Budget restrictions. Change script. Change in cast. change script. Actor only does feel good. Change ending. deadline change. Change ending. Focus group. Reshoot. Focus group. Reshoot. Look at your target audience. Cut out tons of stuff to get rating. Make trailer by other company that doesn't match movie. Release. There are a million ways a movie will suck, but only way one it will be good.
I agree with him, but I would word things differently: GOOD films, no matter how old, always "get to the point"---I just think that "the point" today is different than before. But no matter when in history, bad films are always unfocused and inconsistent---they deviate and unnecessarily delay to get to their point. If a the film as a whole is like a painting on a canvas that's chaotic, confusing, unfamiliar and/or a blurry painting that takes too much effort to figure out or is impossible to figure out, it's a bad film. The good film is always like a relatable, clear, harmonic, consistent, and focused painting that is powerful and immediately produces impact and awe.
I agree with the rule --- but think there are multiple ways to draw the viewer in (to stay with the story). I would include in the "multiple ways": creating suspense (so we want to see how things turn out), creating strong characters at least one of which we enjoy identifying with (even a horse), and so on. Clearly writers need to somehow address the implicit question "Where are we going with this?". Even if there is a mish-mash of razzle-dazzle (fast, exploding cars) there is a risk of shallowness that will lose most-maybe-all of the target audience (or "awedience" as I like to think). Finding the magic that draws in the audience --- well that's what we screenwriters get paid to do!!! :-)
One of the few people on this channel, or well anywhere on the internet, whose comments I really enjoyed. It's obvious he's not happy with the '11 minute rule'. Faster isn't always better and this MTV/Twitter mentality has truly made us dumber. To feed information and entertainment faster and faster has not really increased the quality of it. In fact, the opposite. But that's what works today. That's why I think films by Lynch and Tarkovsky and Bergman move me today even more than contemporary cinema (with some exceptions, of course). Great video, Film Courage. Thanks.
We appreciate your feedback. This video segment barely scratches the surface of what is now the longest interview we have ever done. Keep an eye for upcoming clips with Shane. He knows the business and he knows the craft. We are excited to share more.
I think you can see the contrast of what he's talking about with the first and second Sam Raimi Spider-Man films vs the first and second Marc Webb Spider-Man films. The first two Sam Raimi Spider-Man films are really well paced and take their time telling a story that takes you on a journey with it's characters. Neither of the Marc Webb films are paced well, the first is way too slow and didn't understand the "popcorn nature" of a superhero film, it was like 500 days of summer but with a guy in a costume. The second Marc Webb film went deep into the popcorn bucket, but the pacing went something like "I'm really sorry, I don't wanna waste your time, here's some fast pace stuff, some quick corny jokes, I'll getcha in and getcha out in no time, really sorry if this takes too long." It seems like only Quentin Tarantino can get away with the slow burn stuff, with a film like Once upon a time in Hollywood, which really doesn't get to the point until the end.
have been seeing a lot of movies lately with the ending first and then what led up to it after. I can say while i was distracted with other things my attention was definitely kept. i guess it gives you the feeling of not wanting to miss anything
I’m sorry, I think this 11 minute rule is ridiculous. I understand if a film is lacking pace and is dull because it’s moving too slow, but I can name countless films that have either are slow burns, or have very gradual slow openings. This idea that people won’t be immersed unless you’re not shining strobe lights at them in the first few minutes defeats the purpose of story altogether. If everything was about “getting to the point,” stories and films would be obsolete, the entire point of story is to be an experience, no matter how long. He also mentions how this is also necessary as it gets your film sold/made, which if you’re making money more of a priority over your artistic vision, then why are you making movies?
I agree with you about films not being about getting to the point. I think people who are overly concerned with pacing, run time and the point should just watch trailers instead. Those trailers that basically spoil the entire plot of the film and show every major scene except the ending in 2 mins is basically what these people want. They are just junkies for the dopamine hit of the emotional rollarcoaster ride. Just make a fan edit of the trailer where you slap the ending scene on and then just watch the trailer.
Gotta find the balance is what he said, and he's right. If you're not Quentin, Spielberg those guys, you gotta find the balance. Once you do and people know beforehand they're in good hands, they'll sit down ... Which is why I think that Spielberg opinion of his is wrong, even though I believe that Spielberg himself would've probably moved faster. On top of that, that kids story. It does start from the 50 million, or a few minutes prior, if you're opting for cinema. Especially with kids, we don't need thirty minutes to know who they're. A few lines usually do the trick... And they're on an island alone? No way they're delivering anything other than exposition. Of course, you can never be sure with story ...
Normal Name I do agree that that advice is applicable for some films, but it certainly shouldn’t be used as a blanket guideline for all. Let’s take a look at There Will Be Blood for instance (without a doubt an amazing movie), where the first 10-15 minutes revolve around Daniel Day Lewis slowly and monotonously building up his oil infrastructure. By your logic it serves no purpose and should be cut as we could fill in the gaps ourselves as the audience. But the reason why that would actually detract from the film is that that slow build up adds tension and sets the mood for the story. I think what you and the interviewee may have confused is that slow=bad pacing/no hook. Slow pacing may actually be essential for some films, films like Burning for example, where, no pun intended, the entire film is a slow burn. And just because we don’t know what the story is yet, doesn’t mean we cannot already be hooked in to it as it’s building up. Again, this is exactly what was done in There Will Be Blood, it acts as a prologue, if you will. See, it’s not that I have a problem with the advice on its own, I have a problem with him saying that that advice should be expanded to all corners of storytelling because money’s gotta be made at the box office and that people nowadays have brains made of Jell-O and can’t concentrate on something for more than ten minutes unless laser beams and explosions haven’t flooded the screen by then. I say it’s ridiculous, because there is literal evidence that goes against that point, since I’ve watched many movies that are largely successful and do the exact opposite of his preachings.
Because if you're having to pay people to participate in your movie and hope to get some of that money back so you aren't at a loss, by definition it becomes a commercial venture. You personally may be in it for the art but unless you're a trust fund baby, you have to go hat in hand to the people who finance movies in order to get your projects made. They might not share your doing it for art's sake aspirations. They want their money back and hopefully more. Ergo, if they think your project would be more commercial if you got to X turning point 11 minutes in as opposed to 40 then you have to decide if you're willing to walk away even if it means the movie will go unmade.
Normal Name I think we could both correct in this instance, since it’s more of how you perceive Daniel’s arch. Since it does indeed start off slow without little information, but it also gives you the main idea. It does set up the main idea of the film, but I don’t think that’s what the interviewee was saying. Rather, the goals INCLUDING characters, and plot should be made clear by 11 minutes in. This does not happen in the film, and it’s essential that it doesn’t because it shows how he adopted his son-or how Daniel would put it: “BASTARD IN A BASKET!” 😂 And also, like I said, there can be a hook before having the entire goals of the plot having been established. Either way, I don’t think it retracts from my point that this advice is anecdotal and that there isn’t one divine technique that will work for every story. Especially since this advice is mostly reliant for the support of producers and an audience. And though I agree those are important to an extent, but if you give them exactly what they want, you’ll make mediocre films (unless the producers are A24). Buttons have to be pushed, people will only have to endure 20 minutes-really not at all a long time, and the story can still be entertaining between all of that-story structures are helpful but never should they be classified as the rule. It restricts story telling.
As opposed to the 3-episode rule in streaming tv shows. Makes me crazy when people say "You gotta give it 3 episodes!" The most absurd sell I've heard is, "You've gotta watch the first season!"
That's why nowadays I don't watch series week by week. I start watching only if I know it's worth watching at least half the episodes. Entertainment media competes with other entertainment media. A Netflix series is competing with Beethoven's 5th, Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket, the big sports game on that day, and everything else going on in your life. If it only 'gets good' ten hours in, don't watch. Ten hours is a very long time, and a lack of respect for the viewers time if deliberately done that way to stretch out the meager content they came up with. Of recent memory The Walking Dead series. Killer first episode, fairly good first season. Season 2 was so bad I stopped watching after a couple of episodes and never went back.
Although his argument is quite convincing it is far from the truth. There are also people who say, audience tastes have changed. Nothing has actually changed, only that newer versions of storytelling have come with passage of time. The old classics are even today utterly riveting. The best examples are Clint Eastwood directed films like The Bridges of Madison County or Invictus which are made excruciatingly slow but every frame is captivating. Even some of the camera movements and acting in Grand Torino are worth watching again and again in spite of the slow pace. Most importantly the subtext is so powerful in Eastwood movies. The point is, the movies directed by Eastwood are exactly the opposite of his Dirty Harry kind of thrillers, yet they are huge hits. I guess what the writer in this video wants to say is that make every scene interesting, but that does not mean reveal the murder plot in the first 11 minutes.
You're talking and thinking like a filmmaker. Audiences aren't filmmakers. That's why you (and everyone else in the comments) disagree with him and dislike his take - because he brings a perspective which we don't like but is ultimately true. Cut the shit - put the point of your film early and fast and people will stick around for the next 1:30hr.
I always like in media res. When a project starts in the action or after the “point” IE reservoir dogs. And it’s great because it’s page 1-3 when we discover the insuring event
As a reader and coverage writer for NYISA, I can back what he says. Get to the point. Scripts must be marketable. Most scripts we read and that are submitted everywhere else do take too long to get to the point. Also, too many stories are STILL about shallow ideas and alot of writers are too in love with their own voice that they haven't learned that not every word they write is great. A studio no longer wants to make a movie about teens partying like they did in the '80s, or how a death in the family brings a weird one together to bitch about their life choices, or the aftermath of a breakup or other stuff that belonged 20-30 years ago when these ideas weren't explored to death yet. Look at the movies we watch now. Most get right to the point. Also, they are culturally, socially and politically relevant in many ways. My advice: suck it up and get feedback on your scripts. I did too late, and let me tell you: no matter how talented you may be, you have things to learn. Don't worry about getting your feelings hurt. This business is not about your feelings, it's about your work. Feedback will help you improve. Even the managing director of NYISA told me to be more positive in the feedback because "apparently, writers just submit to be told they're great and not change a thing." I said "We offer a service, one that's crucial for writers' development and our future media. I need to be encouraging, but always honest." So when I see cynical writers complaining about the business side of it rather than understanding and adapting their process to it, I sense the kind of scripts they might be submitting, and they're usually rejected within 10 pages. Stop writing in the vein of Kubrick, Tarantino, or some slow European indie. If American film is your goal, adapt to that style. Don't make scripts to personal. Make them universal. No, you don't need a superhero story. You don't even need many feature scripts (2-3 great ones is solid). Write some shorts or pilots. MAKE some shorts and stand out like I did. And crucially, don't compete and get jealous; support and learn from successful writers and filmmakers constantly. Look at yourself and admit any hard truths before adapting and improving for your benefit. This brings with it good karma, if you are not faking it. You gotta strike the balance between intriguing, refreshing material and marketable material. And we all can do that, once you realize $20 million to film a guy moping about his ex is not a good sale anymore.
Nobody take this guy's advice if you're interested in great cinema. You can make a good enough living making arthouse films if they're great. (I live in a very expensive city, yet I make enough to support my wife and two young children.) No need to be greedy. And actual great cinema will outlast all of the pandering shit.
Producer means involve money time and he doesn't want to waste while director means vision direction view who can see unseen points which producer can't.
You mentioned Spielberg's "Close Encounters" taking its time getting started. What about Spielberg's and Tobi Hunter's "Poltergeist?" The build up to the first ghostly happenings in the house take a few minutes. Spielberg and Hunter take their time getting you to know and care about the family. So you're saying that wouldn't fly today. I should re-watch the Poltergeist remake to see why you're right and why the remake is mostly forgettable. Another good example: Wolgang Peterson's "Poseidon" verses Irwin Allen's campy "Poseidon Adventure" original. Whatever else people think about the original, they admit that Allen's version gave audiences time to get to know the main characters before the tidal wave hit. That is one the major complaints against Peterson's remake: the characters have no depth, the ship is turned upside too quickly. No time to care about the characters or their travails in their efforts to escape the doomed ship-- even if their escape is more believable (through one of the forward thrusters shafts as opposed to Allen's version where the characters reach the propeller shaft and HOPE someone on the exterior arrives with cutting torches to free them.) Allen's version is remembered fondly, Peterson's version is looked upon as an utter waste.
Sadly, this interview was more of a point by point explanation of why most movies made today are quite shallow and formulaic precisely because they're being formatted for the broadest possible commercial appeal instead of focusing on what the movie should be. You know....good and making the audience think, feel, experience something, even if ends up not being everyone's cup of tea, which inevitably no movie is anyway.
This is very much a business minded approach to filmmaking, which is needed! However film is not one size fits all. Film is an organic beast that no one has control over, especially Hollywood. For every film that gets made using this formula there's a first time filmmaker (without this knowledge) making something great, something that'll stand the test of time.
What do we think about the 11 minute rule?: In music we're done telling the whole story and sharing all the feelings involved in under 4 minutes. Better if under 3. The first few stories in Genisis are more succinct than anything else I've read (Also coming from a music & poetry perspective). ... The most massively enthralling & longest lasting literature is still the best. ..at exactly that; getting to the point (in both accuracy and articulate fullness) with the swiftest jott. So, yeah, I'll agree. Seems like a tight ethos for doing good work. A pyramid, or paragon, of good work. ...one might say.
A lot of filmmakers make the mistake though of breaking into 2 a mere 15min in, and not taking the time in their first act to build character. So make sure you take your first act to build character. And yeah, with his example, yeah, INCITING INCIDENT is 12min in, but then you do a DEBATE stage for another 15-18 pages until you break into 2. And many bad filmmakers never do the debate.
And NOWADAYS, with the way technology has changed us, 7-8 minutes may be safer. 11 may not hold them. I use to write something happening every 10-12, no more.
I think the 11-minute mark is random. I hate the idea of trying to fit a story into a page-based formula. But I agree that getting to the point right away is key.
Word of mouth matters more now than ever. A completely new franchise will not get that sort of response in its first week. If you release a film to theatre, your audience will not walk out. You may have difficulty getting them in in the first place. Maybe run times are not long enough for the modern audience. Maybe you need time to let enthusiasm grow. That does not mean the usual marketing strategies are not important, and word of mouth is faster and easier when you have an established franchise. PS I am so hyped for Dune!
I'm 45 years old. If I turn on a program on Netflix and it isn't clicking by around 10 minutes I start zoning out. I've been accused of having a short attention span. But this is a fundamental reality. You may not like it but good luck getting my attention (or others like me) otherwise.
What happened to the 10-minute rule? Inflation is not dead! Also from David Mamet: story structure is "once upon a time" ... "years pass" ... "then one day".
Here is our full interview with Shane - ruclips.net/video/VBcQVQ2ZaMI/видео.html
Film Courage have you won an Award yet? . please don't go too commercial love, love the organic authenticity of this channel. Keep up the great work! Go Shane!
Foreal
Back in my 20's when i wanted to be a film maker (still do at 51, it doesn't go away just in case you're in your 20's reading this) but back when i would make DV films ( pretend film making in the early 2000's, you had to be there XL1 was king ) But we would hear advice like "Horror films don't need to look expensive so let's mostly do that" and over the years i found the quality of the work being done now today is excellent on most fronts so if you want to make an engaging movie you're literally competing against very well done productions and these days very pretty thumbnails. On TOP of that the distractions as the interviewee mentioned above BUT,...This should not be translated to "make higher concept situations earlier or faster, see the truth is it is indeed a business but it is primarily an Art form and the further we draw talented writers away from that the more Shite star wars reboots we're gonna see, If you're a talented film maker you could lock your audience with a 4 minute scene of a guy buying milk at a store. That's the reality, Don't let interviews like this drag you (a talented writer) away from the moments that you want to explore. Just be you, Now get writing and turn off youtube please, we need your voice.
Damn thanks for this reassurance. I'll turn off youtube now lol. But seriously, this is great advice.
@@mysticfellow9843 put the work in, get the life you want. :)
Basically don’t betray your writer intuition for faux approval.
What does this have to do with what was said in the interview? I know you're in your 50s but if you have kids then you know with snap chat and tik tok he's absolutely right in saying that people won't watch a 50 minute scene about a walk in a park that has nothing to do with the film.
I love Stanley Kubrick but 2001 Space Odyssey was a nightmare to watch during my film class and was actually my least favorite. Sorry, if you try and make that today you're gonna be doomed for failure.
@@noteem5726 none of this opposes my comments or even the video, your absolutely right, but so am I.
Yes and No. The best films prove themselves within the first 5 minutes, no matter what. That includes things like Citizen Kane, Casablanca, Close Encounters, The Black Stallion (btw: it's about the horse, so your protagonist does show up from the get-go), and so on.
It's not that you have to have "a hook" in the first 11 minutes, but that you have to prove that you know what you're doing, that this is going somewhere, and that the reader/viewer will probably not regret giving their attention and focus.
I agree with you.. its nt 11 minute its about giving strong point of no return.. n especially in india due to movie break n stuff things cn take time n hooks are more important..
Yes, this is correct. I can know I won't like a film after three shots. Quality of filmmaking has to be in everything including the writing, but if the quality of the rest of the filmmaking is there from the get go, it can make people stick around for the "hook" or the "ten page rule" or the "twist." It's more important to know the story you want to tell and tell it well, than to focus on arbitrary industry rules. If it's good, it's good.
Eh, that's a bold statement, I'm not sure how true it is. Good stories have something interesting by the first 5 minutes.
TheNthMouse+ It's true- you can always feel the tone in the first 5 mins.
Most the movies you mentioned got a cult audience and did shit on release. Citizen Kane destroyed Orson Wells career.
I suppose this is why I will miss going out out to see a film (if Coronavirus kills off the big screen), because it's an experience that forces me to pay attention, with no distractions.
We are missing it too. Last movie we went to was the Ben Affleck movie The Way Back right before shutdown. We were the only two people in a 500 seat theater for a 7pm showing. Will never forget that.
right. i paid $13 for this, i BETTER pay attention lol but some movies are so boing even that doesnt help, like when "A Simple Favor" put me to sleep right in the theatre.
Is it possible that the “new” edgy stand out of the crowd approach would be to return to the traditional form of storytelling with a longer deeper opening?
Amen lol
Sometimes the best way to stand out is to not try standing out at all 🤷♂️
Basically, if everyone is running around frantically, the one person who's just standing still, doing nothing, is going to stand out the most.
For me, even as a kid, it was weird to follow any trend because I would be just like everyone else.
yeah, like inglorious basterds
It will come back. The fact there are large audiences for 2 hour plus podcasts are evidence of this. Its just the times we are in.
He's not wrong. But I would add that just because the industry is leaning on fast storytelling... doesn't mean you can't buck the trend and try to write that one slow burn that people gravitate to. Just understand that everyone will be rushing in another direction than your story. If food on your table depends on selling your screenplay or landing a position in a writer's room, then maybe you're not the one to go this way. But if you're doing this for the love of storytelling, tell the story you want to tell. And tell it the way it deserves to be told. If it has a voice that speaks, it can find an ear. And the evolution of cinema is not necessarily linear. It is always changing. It doesn't have to be a direct path toward the immediate. It may turn out to be an ebb and flow, in which the kinds of movies you love come back into demand. Wouldn't hurt to be the forefront of that turn. Just write your story. Don't overthink it. And don't mold yourself to the ideas of people's suggestions. It's information to process and incorporate into your approach, not an instruction manual.
The story you're telling should dictate the pace. The trick is discerning the story's need from your writer ego.
A great filmmaker can really draw an audience in with promise and foreshadow. That is, in the first act, they flirt with mystery of what the film is going to be about while allowing the characters to show their world. Hereditary is a great example, the first threshold and conflict doesn’t really come into play until the 35 minute mark - that’s when stuff is moving, but the audience STILL doesn’t quite know what the film is about, and the full nature of the conflict isn’t revealed until after an hour: 1:05 to 1:15 mark (that’s 1 hour 15 minutes). Hereditary will inevitably be counted as one of the top 5 greatest horror films of all time.
Hereditary has a layered conflict, the first act is the flirt - grandmother dies, and it’s all about the indifference and looking back on how little they care, but the film makes the viewer think the family should care more. One character is concerned.
34 minutes in there is an absolutely brutal event which was so shocking that I literally felt sick to my stomach. I don’t think any film has viscerally impacted me like that before. Anyway, that throws the family into chaos. To deal with the chaos, the mother looks for a friend from her grievance councillor group earlier on, and she reveals something terrifying that might be a cure to her pain. That’s at 1 hour 5 minutes. At 1 hour and 15 minutes she and the family do what she was taught, and then it becomes clear what the conflict is. (Sorry for being vague, I wanted to avoid spoilers).
My wife and I watched Lawrence of Arabia again the other night and it was the most immersive things I've seen in ages. It was refreshing not to have a edit cut every second. We tried watching Red Wall a few nights ago, but just couldn't manage it. I felt like the director (John Woo?) was scared we'd look away if the camera wasn't moving.
More often than not a very heavy cut style of editing is a show of creative weakness and lack of ideas. Trying to obfuscate the lack of interesting things being shown with different constantly changing camera angles, camera movement, etc.
@@AppleSauceGamingChannel I wholeheartedly concur
Content is king. A good story won't need the "11 minute rule." This guy has sacrificed any artistic integrity to be financially successful. Good for him.
You other young filmmakers out there, take some advice from an Indie filmmaker who has been doing it almost 10 year now - tell the story YOU want to tell. If the content is compelling, people will watch it.
Most filmmakers are too worried about "selling" their project instead of writing a good story, getting the right talent, shooting it properly, lighting it well, and editing it so it brings the vision to life.
I'm with you on this one. I do think this guy brings up an interesting point but overall if a film is good then its good lol (doesnt matter if it takes longer than 11 minutes to "get to the point"). I think he's talking more about the spoon fed type people out there who watch films to pass time and be entertained by content that just does everything for them. Like he said a baby is crying, you're checking your twitter, etc.. There are 2 kinds of people of there, those who take the time and give films their full undivided attention because they want to be stimulated/challenged, and those who just throw a movie on in the background so they have something to "distract" them and pass the time. Although i partially agree with this man (very little) i think cinema has kinda always been the same. There are people who just want anything that's gonna entertain them quickly and others who are watching for the love and appreciation of cinema/good stories. Not everything is about MASS PRODUCTION and HIGHEST PROFITS. Most times those things are garbage or mediocre, and most people know it they just dont care. But overall all there will always be audiences out there for good well made cinema. Plus this guy acts like no movie has a description of the film or a trailer attached to it. No one really just blindly puts a movie on and sees how it is (some do but thats not the point). Everyone always sorta knows what theyre about to be investing time in to. Movies shouldn't have to have a "MTV style" pacing/cutting to keep people ingaged. Those people who want that style like i said before are not invested or that interested. I follow and read lots of different film related pages/articles and it seems to me that the majority of people are sick of these fast paced mindless films being pumped out. So what does this all boil down to? It comes down to the same thing its always been really... good cinema/stories. People will watch if its done right. Just because theres a phase right now for films with quick cuts and 11 minutes or less explanations does not mean that that's the norm and every filmmaker should stick to that. That's bull shit. Make the film that you want to make. If its good then its good. If it's not then it just wasnt the right time and it will eventually be appreciated or it actually just isn't very good and you do need to do better. That's it. People know when something is good. Sometimes its a slow realization but it inevitably always happens. Make the film you want to make, dont compromise for people who are only gonna half watch your film to begin with... Eventually all those people who "half pay attention " will come around, they already are starting to. Cinema isnt going anywhere. You either have a compelling story that's well made or you don't.
I like both, the slow burn and the rapid engagement in storytelling. I think distilling stories to their essence and getting to the point faster it a test of skill, how to capture the audience without gimmicks or flashy imagery to trick them into thinking something is happening, while at the same time establishing characters that they would want to follow.
That's how real life is, slow burn, then something dynamic happens. These days, the dynamic is happening a lot. It does take skill to catch the audience's attention. If you disappoint them, it takes your portfolio down a few notches.
@@lorrismalls4736 It's almost like storytellers are refineries, processing the crude oil of life experiences into a host of different products (aka stories). If the refinery fails, it affects the whole system.
That's deep, dude
I love the "get to the point" pacing when it makes sense, doesn't feel rushed, or tacked on. Especially when the actors are unknown. You don't have the privilege of taking your time if I don't know your work. This is a great lesson for newcomers trying to captivate strangers of their work.
I think he's right about how things have changed, but I love the older movies that develop slowly and create atmosphere. And yes, I am an old guy.
Same. Although i'm only 33yo.
I love 80's and 90's movies. There's just that "magic" in them that unfortunately it lacks on some of today's movies. Although I understand exactly what Shane is saying, here.
A few days ago I rewatched "Meet Joe Black", a lenghty 3-hour movie that I haven't watched in decades.
I turned off the lights, picked the Blu-Ray disc, turned on my 4K TV, put on the headphones and watched the whole thing without interruptions.
It was a blast, literally. And both Anthony Hopkins as well Brad Pitt are just great, in this one.
Sure, it could've been easily cut down to a 2-hour movie, if it was filmed today.
But I like the way it is. Same with "TITANIC" by James Cameron.
I like how the story develops in both of them. And I also liked that Cameron split "TITANIC" onto 2 VHS/DVDs/Blu-Ray 3D for home viewing.
That way one could easily either watch just the sinking part, or how the love story develops, or just take a break in between. Whatever floats your boat, so to speak.
I heard that the original cut of AVATAR was a lenghty 300 or so pages.
Can't imagine what Cameron wrote.
He's right. Hereditary is one of the most successful horror films and almost nothing happens for the first thirty minutes and that's why it has mixed reviews. People don't have the patience anymore to fully commit for two hours unless they're in a movie theater. Ari took a risk to fully develop characters for a better pay off for later. The moviegoers who were stuck inside the theaters loved it so much that the word of mouth advertisement worked in Ari's favor. If Hereditary was straight to VOD, it most likely wouldn't have this success and would be an underappreciated gem instead. I bought the book through your affiliate link and can't wait to read it. As a film producer and writer, you can never get enough solid advice.
I can kind of agree. Yes, if you’re not a film buff you’re less likely to want to sit through a movie that has 20 to 30 minutes of build up. But does that mean we should be encouraging that behavior? Because that’s what the interviewee here is saying: since many people people don’t want to watch a slow opening, just pander to them.
I think that’s a flawed way of thinking, because if you keep pandering to audiences who have short attention span‘s, their attention spans will only get shorter and shorter and shorter until, at that point, it’s not even a movie-it’s a trailer. Filmmakers should be going against the grain in this regard, which is why I love art house films so much as they challenge what is “entertaining”. Wonder why people aren’t reading books anymore? Because it’s not “entertaining”. People need to stop making movies that revolve around being entertaining, we should be making movies that have strong messages. Because if we don’t, movies will become how books are today, and that would be a very, very sad future.
@@jameswalker9626 he wasn't describing boring films. Boring films are the ones with predictable plot points and underdeveloped characters.
Yes, it si frustrating. We should produce things, that bring pace, that help people to calm down and learn something. Don’t change your script because of Twitter.
Why not? He is making the point that the likes of Twitter are changing people's tastes - reducing their attention spans. If he doesn't make movies which take that into consideration, then his movies won't sell and he's out of a job.
@@dwbrownlaw4218 the problem is the lack of attention. People has to change. Not films.
I think if you have a strong opening, a prologue of sorts, you can get away with a more in-depth, slower first act until your inciting incident or first act break. Jaws opens with a shark attack until the Kitner kid gets killed (15 min mark?). A History of Violence opens with the motel shooting, and it isn't until like minute 25 or so until the diner attack. During the intervals, we get to meet the characters and the setting.
But I can't think of too many films, past or present, where almost nothing happens in the first 15 min or so to move the story forward, unless we're talking experimental stuff. Even in 2001 the monolith shows up in the first 15 min.
How's about Unforgiven? Its the king of the slow burn. Almost nothing happens in that movie until the end but its soooo good.
You're still comparing to OLD movies though when he already said the old way doesn't work anymore.
@@SchmokinJoe After the opening crawl the prostitute is attacked as the film's first narrative scene.
Dean Brooks could've even mentioned Jurassic Park, dinosaur kills a guy in the opening sequence, but the reveal of an actual dinosaur is - I don't know - *45min* into the movie!
Try watching IDA.....the polish oscar winner. I'm not sure anything happens the whole way through. Probably one of the best films ever made. Sick and tired of endless, meaningless action sequences that "drag" the audience in.
"You're trying to do something that will please everybody"
In consequence you will not break any barriers. I understand the point, it's a competitive industry and a global market but having that ethos will just contribute further to the continuing homogenisation of culture and film.
That reminds me of Rod Serling, I can't remember if it was one of his producers or Gene Roddenberry who was like "We're not trying to make everybody happy, in fact we're trying to make certain people very mad." But these days if you're as socially progressive as they were for their time you'll get your head handed to you by keyboard warriors.
I think it's become kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy though. The industry assumes the audience wants stories structured that way that just "get to the point" after 10 pages, but I think audiences have more patience than we give them credit for and could use some variety. Moonlight for instance or Blade Runner 2049. I think there's room in the market for both styles that allow audiences the freedom of choice. I find myself revisiting a lot of pre-streaming films for this very reason and miss it.
I think films just need to be interesting and promise the audience something to look forward to. Look at Mulholland Drive, the opening is odd but it keeps you engaged and keeps you curious. This is the extreme opposite of explicitly telling the audience what the film is about. Active vs passive audience imo
Lynch is one of the kings of that. Super unconventional writing that usually works in ways that contradict what a lot professional screenwriters propose it seems.
David Lynch was the first person I thought of when I saw this video. Other than the Elephant Man, I don't believe ANY Lynch film or project follows this rule. Of course, his work isn't exactly mainstream.
@@joeyday576 but he's known as a true artist. his legacy lives on forever
What bores me is to know too much right from the start. I watch Onibaba and it took me a while to figure out what genre it was, where it took place, when it took place and what the story would be. A true adventure.
Yeah, slow burn movies are still good, to some extent.
They don't go to Willy Wonkas factory until 36 minutes in. It has fascinated me for like the past 10 years and I think it is what makes the movie so special
Yeah but the fascination, mythos, and flashbacks of the wonderful stuff about what happens in the factory is shown much earlier. Everything in between is just characterization of Charlie, and a quick showing of how awful the other 4 kids are.
Also, they set up the factory existance in the first eleven minutes, so basicaly you can tell what the film Will be about
It's part of the reason so many movies suck today.
I hope great writers aren't discouraged by this. I think to make the movies you want you need to make the quick action movie, the easy to sell horror film or the easy to digest comedy. You need to establish yourself as someone who can make movies for a profit, then you can start making the movies you want to make.
Hmm I agree, but at the same time in today's movies I don't get attached to the characters because everything is happening fast. That's why a lot of the films shown today aren't that great (same with shows).
The narrative is gone. These days it's all one liners, lots of noise, darkness and superheroes. Filmmakers quote old movies, but new movies are nothing like the old movies
"Appealing to a wide audience" means catering to the lowest common denominator. While there is nothing inherently wrong with that, it does mean movies are popcorn entertainment instead of high art.
I don't know what you're on (about) when it comes to television. TV is way more focused, slower burn and of much higher quality all around than it was in the past, or at least has been recently enough for me to question this supposed downturn. People got really pissed off when Game of Thrones started moving at a faster clip to get to the end, even before the quality of the overall show had begun to struggle against that race to the finish line. I've been on a steady diet of nothing but TV shows for an extended period now (seriously it's probably hazardous to my health) and from what I can tell your assessment is the opposite of what I'm seeing.
I mean, television is slower paced and more focused on character development as a matter of course, because if you _can't_ do that you don't _have_ a show.
Wow! You nailed it.
@@futurestoryteller quality of the way everything looks doesn't count for quality of characters and story. And personally I don't get much from a lot of American shows. If you like them good for you. You have more to watch. For me, I rather stick to anime because they know how to do it :D
Some old movies are excruciating pacing wise, even though they were often shorter. Other times the pacing while sometimes slow, paints an overall story that is more coherent than many modern films, with their sometimes excessive twists and reveals.
I just watched original Fahrenheit 451° for the first time.
Pacing was terrible. It was a chore to watch.
He is so right about twitter... I don't think it's where we are though, I think it's where 'the powers that be' are trying to take us. The world better be in the mood for some retro, because that's what I'm writing.
Getting to the point is a style of writing or story telling that is more of a masculine way of communicating. Men communicate with a content based style, women communicate with context based style. And with the entertainment business so focused on producing stuff aimed at women, it follows that it produces stuff that fits with their communication styles.
Men tell a story of what happened. Women tell a story of how what happened made them feel.
@@gregorylagrange and in this comment you’ve told the story of what a self involved knob you are
@@hmvideos3601 some things are better left unvideoed.
Nah, go ahead and video them. You're just being you.
@@gregorylagrange and I guess the baseless, sweeping gender-specific statements you make are just you being you
@@hmvideos3601 Men and women are different. So it's them being them. Even male feminist are going to be male feminist despite biology proving them wrong at every virtue signaling turn.
It's definitely true, but It can be dangerous to just get to the point. There are so many movies that get to the point, but they fall short because you don't care about the characters and you're not invested. It's a balance for sure, but that's the whole art of writing for you. If you aren't getting to the main point of your story fast, at least make sure that interesting things are happening and the drama is building up. This is why a lot of the great movies that take a minute to get to the point "The Patriot" for example, open with a hint, or a promise, of what is to come. A short clip of drama, action, or a literal hint scene of putting away a hatchet and a rifle, can keep the audience watching because they know something is going to happen sooner or later.
I think Shane’s advice works for precisely the sort of movie he’s describing: a transparent action/thriller movie that easily translates overseas. “Kids find treasure on an island” is a premise you could explain to a kindergartener lol
But the true eureka-moment to me for screenwriting was Todd Philips’ Joker. That movie had NO right to exist if comparing it against the “Hollywood studio template”, and yet because true quality simply speaks for itself, it went on to become literally the most profitable rated-R film of all time 🤷♂️
One of the best examples of how to do this well was The Omega Man. It begins with the hero in the situation the movie is about, a destroyed, deserted world, shooting at evasive figures. It escalates fast to the night time action when he is under siege in his home. Then it integrates flashbacks to show how this situation happened, while still keeping the plot moving. You're about two thirds of the way through the movie before it changes to a more typical storytelling style and by then you're well and truly involved.
I think that the most important part of a story is the character's dilemma. That it's true and compelling for them. This dilemma creates the struggle that they have to work out. The character is flawed, their journey incomplete and we the audience reader/viewer/listener participate in that and see a little bit of ourselves through that experience.
Have movies gotten better or worse over the years? It may be a "new/different era" but that doesn't make it a "new/better era."
Rhythm and timing is definitely what can make or break a film. I usually think of this more in the sense of what Jay Whistler said, "A problem that a character can walk away from is a book a reader can walk away from."
"If it doesn't work to advance the plot, CUT IT OUT" -David Mamet
@@twothousandwordpictures9612 this was needed. Thanks
Not sure about this. What about character development? This doesn't really drive plot but develops relationships between the characters and the audience. Your plot can be tight but if the audience don't care about the characters you're dead in the water.
@@twothousandwordpictures9612 yup & thats the key word: "entertaining."
i think the real golden rule should be: "dont bore your audience."
The 'Get to the point' isn't only in movies but EVERYWHERE. Honestly it's good to watch/be in the moment, but this mentality is draining our patience and only degrading our brains.
Even I at times feel restless to get to the point. I guess we have to learn to find balance between Getting to the Point & Slowly introducing other things.
I think the problem with some of the lesser movies that attempt a slower pace, is that the slower pace isn't justified. Slow pacing should be used to give us time to fully absorb something, but that assumes that there is something to absorb.
The real problem with ultra fast shots and short scenes imo, is that there really isn't much meaning to be had. A guy hitting someone, is nothing more than a guy hitting someone, and that lasts like 0.5 seconds. If the wife of the guy is in the room, as well as the kid, we might want to hold that shot for a bit longer to get the fullness of their reactions, perhaps showing the person doing the assault walking away without caring etc... With older action films, it just felt like the deaths and punches and shootouts mattered more. Now it's just a superhero in a shooting gallery.
I don't know sometimes a movie or a book is just too laughably paced and it deserves to be roasted for it. 'Eye of the World' is easily the worst book in 'The Wheel of Time' series and it's the *first* !!! It has a great prologue, and it gets to its inciting incident fast enough, but it just meanders and navel gazes too much, way too reliant on novelistic exposition. It pumps the breaks on its story *constantly* to explain things inorganically through *walls* of text. 'Dune' demands you flip to an appendices!
That is, objectively, abysmal exposition; when compared to 'Game of Thrones' which just throws you in an intimate situation, Night Watchmen hunting wildlings beyond the wall who stumble on White Walkers You're getting a sense of the story's setting and tone and a digestible trickle of exposition, because the scene is simple: it's three guys on a scouting expedition that goes horribly wrong; and that's it. This is the first scene in the books and in show does in , because Martin was a screen writer; he knows the value of "the hook".
You can get to the point and slowly introduce things, you just have to be a good writer and writing is hard.
@@IggyTthunders You can read Dune without ever flipping to an appendix and understand everything. With some depth, flavor, additional details, etc., there in appendices ,but without missing any of the story beats
This is a great video. It’s definitely important to remember attention spans have changed. I try to remember something my lecturer said, ‘Make sure you’re doing something with every single line.’ Another very helpful tip to remember ‘Show, don’t tell.’ These videos are all amazing!
Most people you interview seem to be giving advice from their Ego’s POV, Shane here is giving it from his heart. Care of the Indy Filmmaker’s struggles... best advice to Indy filmmakers and writers I have heard on this channel!
An Indy filmmaker takes a risk very much like a self-published author in a way. It's not easy going against the grain.
This 8 minutes video is too long for me! Can you guys apply the 11 seconds rule on this channel?
Oh my .
There are some movies that still keep the slow pace and are absolutely amazing. Burning (2018) is a thriller where the "mysterious character" isnt introduced until 35 minutes in, and until the halfway point the movie is just a love triangle with some uncertanties about the characters. The movie spends 1 hour and 20 minutes just building characters and their dynamics before anything "interesting" happens, but when it does it becomes one of the most memorable movies you can watch.
Flipping through Netflix I give two seconds. What makes me stay: actor owning the screen with their presence, intelligence is evident, I connect with energy exuded, script that isn’t stupid, hollow, unrelatable, tone and tempo of voice, not using tempo of speaking to cover for lack of meaningful words. Depth/substance of character/s. Intelligent or subtle humor. Drawn in when allowed into the inner world of opening character/s. I'll wait for crux of movie if these other things are there. Music used sparingly and thoughtfully is a plus. Turn-offs opening scenes: chase scenes, long drives. You can tell right away if the movie is chintzy.
For 15 years I have been doing the 48 hour film project - all short films under 7 minutes long - In those if you have not hooked the audience in the first minute - you're done - So yes I agree - how much of a cut do you get for your Amazon imbedded links? - that is a side hustle I never knew about until recently -
I have a few stories I'd like to write and hopefully make them into screenplays. I find this information very useful. Thank you for your honesty.
You can make every story interesting. When you apply the fundamental truth of the story. The trick is to compounds those truths into a few minutes of dialogue. Added with the physical action that will keep you intrigued.
The main question is: Can you tell a fundamental truth to the world? Without the world being hostel about a truth it does not want to face. One of my favorite sayings, " It is hard for any human being to look themselves in the mirror. And be totally honest about their mistakes. With the consequences that came from those mistakes. Now multiply that by a nation centuries old".
We live in a time in human history. Where so much information it given to everyone with the means. That fundamental truths that are not openly practice. Are not taken seriously nor believed that it is real. Can a story writer actually tell the objective truth of the story that everyone recognize immediately?
I think the gist is that while you need to get people hooked in the first 11 minutes, this just means to get them hooked on your first chapter. The best example I can give is The Dark Knight. It starts out with Batman and he's fighting the mafia. It is a very grounded premise about a man who dresses as a bat. They sell you on this. Then the movie shifts as the Joker comes into focus. Now in the second story the film is a story about ethics and escalation and the limits of what Batman is and isn't. This is the primary movie, and it doesn't begin before we are a a good while into the film. Because this is a very good film it does hint about his existence very early on, it establishes this person as an antagonist but then the movie forgets about him until the first story has run its course. The same thing is done masterfully with Harvey Dent and his arc through the movie, leading into the personal showdown at the very end, that also deals with the legacies of Batman and the Joker. The movie thus consists of three bits, the introduction to a concept (vigilantism, the Batman) then escalates that with the Joker and the conflict between their competing views and objectives, until finally we address the legacy left behind by this struggle. These are thee separate stories, with each leading into the next.
So if you visualize your film as just being one story, then you will make a fairly boring film. Say that your movie is about a guy who gets into debt in the first 11 minutes and decides to rob a laundromat poker game to break even, that's one story. Your movie still needs at least two more stories. Otherwise it's a very uneventful movie. By wrapping your movie in a sequence of rooms, each after the next with their own goals and objectives you can tell much more compelling stories. The hero can fail in one room, the villain can succeed. Anything can happen because the outcome of any one room in the story is not the end point, the story will continue. This way a movie of 90-120 minutes will feel dense, while a movie that takes place in just the one room will be very uneventful.
I agree! It's the same with writing. If you don't capture the readers with the first few pages, then they *will* stop reading. No matter how compelling the middle may be, you need to dazzle or at least capture the readers' attention. It doesn't necessarily mean you need to have big explosions or murder at the start, you just need to have intrigue.
Amour (2012) makes use of this with showing us the ending at the start. Come and See (1985) does this subtly, with them finding guns. Slow burns also does this, even though it's not big explosions or whatnot. The Before movies capture the attention of the viewers through dialogue.
I disagree when it comes to filmed narratives and I agree when it comes to books. As I noted in a previous comment, most people don't condemn older movies for a slower pace, to me this dispels this notion that people have substantially lowered attentions spans when it comes to film viewing. I *have* heard people condemn classic literature as "unreadable" for being too slow in pace, or for going "nowhere."
Yeah! Excellent points! I write for kids and kids like STORY. I find lots of aspiring kidlit novelists tap dance around the actual story. I often advise them to cut the first chapter-and condense the second to a paragraph!
Generally I agree that the first 11 minutes is crucial, but not every movie needs the same solution to this problem. ROCKY takes 40 minutes for the actual plot to start, but we don't mind because we're watching it for Rocky's character and just soaking in the vibes of the city, and the sudden turn of events with Apollo Creed coming in with an offer is a pleasant surprise addition to the character story we were enjoying. We walk in to see the big fight, but pretty soon we realize it's actually about him getting a girlfriend and realize that we're OK with that.
Great points. I think that the difference is that before streaming, you wouldn't buy a ticket and then walk out of the theater in 5 mins if you weren't feeling it.
Today, I'll jump ship in the first ten mins to try something else on my watch list.
My perspective has always been on time because I saw my own life didn't make time for films/shows for various reasons in addition to limited attention spans. This is encouraging and reminds me of Scott Meyers' New 4 Quadrant.
Close Encounters is not a slow burn, it's packed with great storytelling and a pay off that is rich and satisfying.
slow burn doesn't mean there's not great storytelling
On the contrary, I can't take this thrown together stuff from today. Movies are just like todays music, they all look and sound the same. All is green screen and blah blah blah.
It is a slow burn. It takes a long time before you get to the point.
slow burn is not a negative thing
The 10 minutes rule holds true for scripts because most spec scripts aren't vetted or reviewed, if you're reading someone else's unpurchased script YOU are the test group, and if nothing is happening in those first 10 pages then it needs work. You can't afford to waste time unless you're established and getting the benefit of the doubt from your reader. You have 120 pages, make every page count.
I don't think 'get to the point quickly' has ever not been good advice, even for movies from the silent era, but that doesn't mean the whole film needs to have the rhythm of a music video, regardless of the audience's attention span. As others have said, watch most well-made movies from any decade and you'll usually find something grabbing you in that time-frame - whether it's Rita Hayworth throwing her hair back provocatively, a little girl disappearing with a serial killer, or a ghost scaring the hell out of a librarian in the New York Public Library - but there are always exceptions. eg. Clouzot's 'The Wages of Fear' has a pretty slow start and introduces us to a miserable, unsympathetic bunch of characters, but then the rest of the movie makes up for it by having you on the edge-of-your-seat with some of the most tense pacing you'll ever see.
As for Close Encounters, some scenes might play out more slowly than if they were made today, but Spielberg obviously knew exactly what he was doing, and grips us right from the beginning - 1st scene: 'how the hell did these WW2 planes show up in the desert?'; 2nd scene: Air traffic control tracking what looks like UFOs on radar, which immediately sets up the suspense for both the little boy's and Richard Dreyfus's first encounters, which kick in at approx... 11 mins.
Well-told stories will never get old or have to follow an exact formula, just give the audience a good reason to keep on watching and listening as early as possible.
Thanks @FilmCourage for all the great content! :)
everything always comes back around. we'll end up at a point where people are going to miss the slow burning stuff because we'll be so deprived of it. Just make whats true to you. If you make it because you truly believe in it and it's honest, thats the true reward.
thank you for interviews these topics very good information.
We really appreciate these interviews.
You always have to keep the audience in mind when making a film. That’s the whole point. You use audio and visuals in order to manipulate the audiences emotions and feelings and specifically show them certain things to make them think a certain way. To make a great film, you have to think about the audience. So it’s very important to keep this 11 minute rule in mind.
He claims it's frustrating. Yet, he's going with the flow. It's just a job to him. If people are impatient to simply have a story spoonfed them......they need to stick to tiktok videos
Sean Fisher
Exactly how I feel. That passion of storytelling almost seems lost to him over the money monster that is Hollywood.
Totally agree with you. The sad part is, the likelihood of a feature film getting made depends entirely on if it will make a profit. And although this guy is treating it like a job, the reality is today's younger generations have only ever known getting what they want instantly. Social media platforms like TikTok are successful because they both deliver this experience and reinforce it. Unfortunately, even a low budget movie cost millions to make, social media videos - nothing but a phone. It's also why we occasionally see "influencers" appearing in film and TV shows - a desperate attempt to appeal to those audiences. Maybe our best chance as writers is to create stories that are specifically aimed to be marketed at people who lived before the social media age. That way we have the space to be creative, properly develop characters and spend some time warming the audience up. If there is still a commercial market among those aged 30+ for these stories, we might stand a chance of writing something good and meaningful that gets produced, rather than just bending to the will of those that are conditioned to be spoon-fed.
I was going to write something similar, but you made my point for me.
Precisely. Though I do consider this advice useful. I think it's about finding a balance of techniques; using everything available in the craft of storytelling to tell a compelling and meaningful story while also keeping an audience hooked from the get go. Writers need to be wizards now more than ever. Think of the rules established in The Prestige.
He's a professional who makes his living making movies. You can still make a great movie and use a formula. It's all about the creativity you bring to the table.
It depends on your genre; if you're making an action movie, yeah: yuh better get to movin' by about page 15/minute 15 of the story. That said, some films, like 'Gone with the Wind' do not make *any* pretensions about being full-throttle thrill rides. The introduction is slow and atmospheric, it's nesting your sensibilities for an experience that requires time and attention to the story. It's offering you its leit motifs with allusions to its themes, scenery and set pieces in the first five minutes, it's not throwing them at you.
But that's 'Gone with the Wind', a four hour long movie!'
If you're doing a noir, a crime story shot like a horror film, well, how long is a horror film? Not long! Not as a rule. 'The Third Man' gives you a main character and an inciting incident, a dead body, inside of five minutes; 'Murder my sweet' gives you a "meet cute" with Moose in less than two! By then, thanks to inner monologue, you know a bit about Phillip Marlowe's personality and the initial case is such low-hanging fruit it's believable Marlowe would get sucked down a rabbit hole.
It really depends on your genre, but I was taught in film school that you need to get to your inciting incident pretty early on; there are exceptions, like 'The Godfather' and 'Fellowship of the RIngs', but that's generally a good rule of thumb.
I can know I won't like a film after three shots. Quality of filmmaking has to be in everything including the writing, but if the quality of the rest of the filmmaking is there from the get go, it can make people stick around for the "hook" or the "ten page rule" or the "twist." It's more important to know the story you want to tell and tell it well, than to focus on arbitrary industry rules. If it's good, it's good.
I am at a loss as the world leaves me behind. But I am in no hurry (got alot of classics to rewatch)
C'mon people. All he is doing is making the valid point that the movie industry exists to serve people what they want. It's very simple: slow movies -> no profit -> no industry -> no movies. If you want slow burn, artistic movies then you AND EVERYONE ELSE needs to start paying for them.
I agree with the 11-minute rule. I admit to having a bit of impatience with movies that don't set up who? what? and why? by the time I'm 15 minutes into the watch. In writing, I won't say that I wasn't given a chance to make that first impression/connection. I say, I'm given an 11-page chance, and I'm going to make the absolute best of it.
You lost me at "You want to try to do something that's going to appeal to everybody." lol
Sell a screenplay. Sell a film.
Then judge.
Amen. I think the films he’s describing are mostly action/CGI stuff which sell easily overseas, like this whole “kids find treasure” premise he mentioned
But something a bit more nuanced can afford the time to stretch its legs. Look at Joker, according to “studio logic” that movie had no right to exist whatsoever
Thanks man. It's the proverbial going back to the drawing board.
If you really love writing, then rules like this really shouldn't apply. If you have your story, you know why you love it, you know what draws you to it, you know what you're saying, then thats more important than any "rule" of storytelling out there. Break the rules, remake the industry, follow your bliss. Think about every director/writer who ever makes an impact - that's different than being financially succesful mind u; would you rather be Paul Feige or paul thomas anderson? Anderson gets less money for his films but his legacy and contribution to the form are infinitely more valuable than money. Thats the way I see it at least. Make the movie that only you can make, whatever that is. If its good then people will get to it. People forget that movies like uncut gems, parasite, first reformed, etc. make money and are viable. Its not all tik-tok thats just being intentionally cynical. If you're making movies for a career, there's a lot more jobs you can do to make easier money. if you need to tell your stories than tell your stories, rules don't apply.
It sounds like he's succumbing to the same mentality of TV executives back when I was a young whippersnapper, that the audience operates at a 5th grade level and you have to dumb down everything to that level. And yet, when well-done sophisticated shows were produced, most of them became massively popular, beginning with things like "All in the Family." Rather than the audience being put off by it, they were relieved to stop being treated like imbeciles.
I'm subscribed to about 50 different reaction channels on RUclips, almost exclusively operated by younger people. It's no accident that they overwhelmingly love older films, especially from the 1980s, and lament that today's Hollywood fare just doesn't live up to them. "Why can't they make movies like that anymore?" is often the cry they make.
Good storytelling will always be good storytelling and will impact every generation. The medium of film has always been a compressed medium and requires a more streamlined approach, and you certainly need some kind of hook in the beginning to answer the question on everyone's mind in the audience, "Why should I watch this film?" In fact, I and my circle of storytelling colleagues even insist it come as soon as 3-5 minutes in. But it only has to be SOMETHING that makes the audience perk up and want to keep watching to see what that was all about, not necessarily the essence of the whole film.
And I have no idea why he thinks "Close Encounters" wouldn't play well today.
Studio executives are afraid for their own significance. Give them a way to feel important and you have an in.
Thumper+ Excellent insight. Most young people are too full of themselves to understand it's NOT about them.
Wow...that "Break Even" movie sounds amazing!!! It's like "The Goonies", but without all the annoying story stuff.
There will be many rules 11 minute and otherwise if you want to cut one film for the mass appeal of 170 countries. Cheers Film Courage!
What he's talking about - the "inciting incident" in a screenplay/film that propels the real story forward - used to be at 17 minutes (17 pages, since 1 screenplay page = 1 film minute). Then it was 15, and now 10-11 because we all have attention deficit. There's going to be few films that break this rule these days.
Just make your synopsis fit in a Tweet and your movie in a TikTok video if that's where the US cinema market is going.
This is why series are so popular now. Get to the point, but make the rest of the ride worth it.
S-o-o-o you introduce a compelling character during the opening credits. Get the audience involved. Then at about the 10 minute mark you kill them off. Then you have met the criteria and can get on with your story.
That's what 'Scream' did
So heres what happens. Write great script. Sold, 3 new writers hired to edit it (you are out of the picture). Budget restrictions. Change script. Change in cast. change script. Actor only does feel good. Change ending. deadline change. Change ending. Focus group. Reshoot. Focus group. Reshoot. Look at your target audience. Cut out tons of stuff to get rating. Make trailer by other company that doesn't match movie. Release. There are a million ways a movie will suck, but only way one it will be good.
this idea is very similar to how producing pop music feels. "Don't bore us, get to the chorus"
I agree with him, but I would word things differently: GOOD films, no matter how old, always "get to the point"---I just think that "the point" today is different than before. But no matter when in history, bad films are always unfocused and inconsistent---they deviate and unnecessarily delay to get to their point. If a the film as a whole is like a painting on a canvas that's chaotic, confusing, unfamiliar and/or a blurry painting that takes too much effort to figure out or is impossible to figure out, it's a bad film. The good film is always like a relatable, clear, harmonic, consistent, and focused painting that is powerful and immediately produces impact and awe.
Shakespeare like opening with a fight scene to catch the audience's attention from the beginning.
I agree with the interviewer, now that I’m older, I miss the long introduction with the visuals and the music. No reason for me to watch TV anymore.
There's no reason for you to watch TV anymore... even though shows frequently have extended opening sequences with visuals and music?
I agree with the rule --- but think there are multiple ways to draw the viewer in (to stay with the story). I would include in the "multiple ways": creating suspense (so we want to see how things turn out), creating strong characters at least one of which we enjoy identifying with (even a horse), and so on. Clearly writers need to somehow address the implicit question "Where are we going with this?". Even if there is a mish-mash of razzle-dazzle (fast, exploding cars) there is a risk of shallowness that will lose most-maybe-all of the target audience (or "awedience" as I like to think). Finding the magic that draws in the audience --- well that's what we screenwriters get paid to do!!! :-)
One of the few people on this channel, or well anywhere on the internet, whose comments I really enjoyed. It's obvious he's not happy with the '11 minute rule'. Faster isn't always better and this MTV/Twitter mentality has truly made us dumber. To feed information and entertainment faster and faster has not really increased the quality of it. In fact, the opposite. But that's what works today.
That's why I think films by Lynch and Tarkovsky and Bergman move me today even more than contemporary cinema (with some exceptions, of course).
Great video, Film Courage. Thanks.
We appreciate your feedback. This video segment barely scratches the surface of what is now the longest interview we have ever done. Keep an eye for upcoming clips with Shane. He knows the business and he knows the craft. We are excited to share more.
I agree. We were taught on our screenwriting course back in 2008. Your first 10 pages had to grip the reader.
Ah, the incomparable, tyrannically-talented Shane Stanley. Love this dude.
Recommended reading: "Life: The Movie: How Entertainment Conquered Reality," by Neal Gabler.
I think you can see the contrast of what he's talking about with the first and second Sam Raimi Spider-Man films vs the first and second Marc Webb Spider-Man films. The first two Sam Raimi Spider-Man films are really well paced and take their time telling a story that takes you on a journey with it's characters. Neither of the Marc Webb films are paced well, the first is way too slow and didn't understand the "popcorn nature" of a superhero film, it was like 500 days of summer but with a guy in a costume. The second Marc Webb film went deep into the popcorn bucket, but the pacing went something like "I'm really sorry, I don't wanna waste your time, here's some fast pace stuff, some quick corny jokes, I'll getcha in and getcha out in no time, really sorry if this takes too long." It seems like only Quentin Tarantino can get away with the slow burn stuff, with a film like Once upon a time in Hollywood, which really doesn't get to the point until the end.
have been seeing a lot of movies lately with the ending first and then what led up to it after. I can say while i was distracted with other things my attention was definitely kept. i guess it gives you the feeling of not wanting to miss anything
Pets and kids have been around for a bit. However, those phones are quite the distraction. Great video!!
I would love to learn more! This was great, thank you! Keep up the good work!
you're welcome
I don't write scripts, but I really get what you are saying. I try to get straight to the crux of my story.
I’m sorry, I think this 11 minute rule is ridiculous. I understand if a film is lacking pace and is dull because it’s moving too slow, but I can name countless films that have either are slow burns, or have very gradual slow openings. This idea that people won’t be immersed unless you’re not shining strobe lights at them in the first few minutes defeats the purpose of story altogether. If everything was about “getting to the point,” stories and films would be obsolete, the entire point of story is to be an experience, no matter how long. He also mentions how this is also necessary as it gets your film sold/made, which if you’re making money more of a priority over your artistic vision, then why are you making movies?
I agree with you about films not being about getting to the point. I think people who are overly concerned with pacing, run time and the point should just watch trailers instead. Those trailers that basically spoil the entire plot of the film and show every major scene except the ending in 2 mins is basically what these people want. They are just junkies for the dopamine hit of the emotional rollarcoaster ride. Just make a fan edit of the trailer where you slap the ending scene on and then just watch the trailer.
Gotta find the balance is what he said, and he's right. If you're not Quentin, Spielberg those guys, you gotta find the balance. Once you do and people know beforehand they're in good hands, they'll sit down ... Which is why I think that Spielberg opinion of his is wrong, even though I believe that Spielberg himself would've probably moved faster. On top of that, that kids story. It does start from the 50 million, or a few minutes prior, if you're opting for cinema. Especially with kids, we don't need thirty minutes to know who they're. A few lines usually do the trick... And they're on an island alone? No way they're delivering anything other than exposition. Of course, you can never be sure with story ...
Normal Name
I do agree that that advice is applicable for some films, but it certainly shouldn’t be used as a blanket guideline for all. Let’s take a look at There Will Be Blood for instance (without a doubt an amazing movie), where the first 10-15 minutes revolve around Daniel Day Lewis slowly and monotonously building up his oil infrastructure. By your logic it serves no purpose and should be cut as we could fill in the gaps ourselves as the audience. But the reason why that would actually detract from the film is that that slow build up adds tension and sets the mood for the story. I think what you and the interviewee may have confused is that slow=bad pacing/no hook. Slow pacing may actually be essential for some films, films like Burning for example, where, no pun intended, the entire film is a slow burn. And just because we don’t know what the story is yet, doesn’t mean we cannot already be hooked in to it as it’s building up. Again, this is exactly what was done in There Will Be Blood, it acts as a prologue, if you will.
See, it’s not that I have a problem with the advice on its own, I have a problem with him saying that that advice should be expanded to all corners of storytelling because money’s gotta be made at the box office and that people nowadays have brains made of Jell-O and can’t concentrate on something for more than ten minutes unless laser beams and explosions haven’t flooded the screen by then. I say it’s ridiculous, because there is literal evidence that goes against that point, since I’ve watched many movies that are largely successful and do the exact opposite of his preachings.
Because if you're having to pay people to participate in your movie and hope to get some of that money back so you aren't at a loss, by definition it becomes a commercial venture. You personally may be in it for the art but unless you're a trust fund baby, you have to go hat in hand to the people who finance movies in order to get your projects made. They might not share your doing it for art's sake aspirations. They want their money back and hopefully more. Ergo, if they think your project would be more commercial if you got to X turning point 11 minutes in as opposed to 40 then you have to decide if you're willing to walk away even if it means the movie will go unmade.
Normal Name
I think we could both correct in this instance, since it’s more of how you perceive Daniel’s arch. Since it does indeed start off slow without little information, but it also gives you the main idea. It does set up the main idea of the film, but I don’t think that’s what the interviewee was saying. Rather, the goals INCLUDING characters, and plot should be made clear by 11 minutes in. This does not happen in the film, and it’s essential that it doesn’t because it shows how he adopted his son-or how Daniel would put it: “BASTARD IN A BASKET!” 😂
And also, like I said, there can be a hook before having the entire goals of the plot having been established.
Either way, I don’t think it retracts from my point that this advice is anecdotal and that there isn’t one divine technique that will work for every story. Especially since this advice is mostly reliant for the support of producers and an audience. And though I agree those are important to an extent, but if you give them exactly what they want, you’ll make mediocre films (unless the producers are A24). Buttons have to be pushed, people will only have to endure 20 minutes-really not at all a long time, and the story can still be entertaining between all of that-story structures are helpful but never should they be classified as the rule. It restricts story telling.
As opposed to the 3-episode rule in streaming tv shows. Makes me crazy when people say "You gotta give it 3 episodes!" The most absurd sell I've heard is, "You've gotta watch the first season!"
That's why nowadays I don't watch series week by week. I start watching only if I know it's worth watching at least half the episodes.
Entertainment media competes with other entertainment media. A Netflix series is competing with Beethoven's 5th, Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket, the big sports game on that day, and everything else going on in your life.
If it only 'gets good' ten hours in, don't watch. Ten hours is a very long time, and a lack of respect for the viewers time if deliberately done that way to stretch out the meager content they came up with.
Of recent memory The Walking Dead series. Killer first episode, fairly good first season. Season 2 was so bad I stopped watching after a couple of episodes and never went back.
Although his argument is quite convincing it is far from the truth. There are also people who say, audience tastes have changed. Nothing has actually changed, only that newer versions of storytelling have come with passage of time. The old classics are even today utterly riveting. The best examples are Clint Eastwood directed films like The Bridges of Madison County or Invictus which are made excruciatingly slow but every frame is captivating. Even some of the camera movements and acting in Grand Torino are worth watching again and again in spite of the slow pace. Most importantly the subtext is so powerful in Eastwood movies. The point is, the movies directed by Eastwood are exactly the opposite of his Dirty Harry kind of thrillers, yet they are huge hits. I guess what the writer in this video wants to say is that make every scene interesting, but that does not mean reveal the murder plot in the first 11 minutes.
You're talking and thinking like a filmmaker. Audiences aren't filmmakers. That's why you (and everyone else in the comments) disagree with him and dislike his take - because he brings a perspective which we don't like but is ultimately true. Cut the shit - put the point of your film early and fast and people will stick around for the next 1:30hr.
I can honestly tell within about 10% margin of error whether or not a film is worth watching within the first 10 shots, let alone 10 minutes.
I think an idea for when you can't work the "Point" to be early enough, you could use a "Flashforward" right at the beginning.
Its a cliche but it does work indeed
I always like in media res. When a project starts in the action or after the “point” IE reservoir dogs. And it’s great because it’s page 1-3 when we discover the insuring event
As a reader and coverage writer for NYISA, I can back what he says. Get to the point. Scripts must be marketable. Most scripts we read and that are submitted everywhere else do take too long to get to the point. Also, too many stories are STILL about shallow ideas and alot of writers are too in love with their own voice that they haven't learned that not every word they write is great.
A studio no longer wants to make a movie about teens partying like they did in the '80s, or how a death in the family brings a weird one together to bitch about their life choices, or the aftermath of a breakup or other stuff that belonged 20-30 years ago when these ideas weren't explored to death yet. Look at the movies we watch now. Most get right to the point. Also, they are culturally, socially and politically relevant in many ways.
My advice: suck it up and get feedback on your scripts. I did too late, and let me tell you: no matter how talented you may be, you have things to learn. Don't worry about getting your feelings hurt. This business is not about your feelings, it's about your work. Feedback will help you improve. Even the managing director of NYISA told me to be more positive in the feedback because "apparently, writers just submit to be told they're great and not change a thing."
I said "We offer a service, one that's crucial for writers' development and our future media. I need to be encouraging, but always honest."
So when I see cynical writers complaining about the business side of it rather than understanding and adapting their process to it, I sense the kind of scripts they might be submitting, and they're usually rejected within 10 pages.
Stop writing in the vein of Kubrick, Tarantino, or some slow European indie. If American film is your goal, adapt to that style. Don't make scripts to personal. Make them universal.
No, you don't need a superhero story. You don't even need many feature scripts (2-3 great ones is solid). Write some shorts or pilots. MAKE some shorts and stand out like I did.
And crucially, don't compete and get jealous; support and learn from successful writers and filmmakers constantly. Look at yourself and admit any hard truths before adapting and improving for your benefit. This brings with it good karma, if you are not faking it.
You gotta strike the balance between intriguing, refreshing material and marketable material. And we all can do that, once you realize $20 million to film a guy moping about his ex is not a good sale anymore.
Nobody take this guy's advice if you're interested in great cinema. You can make a good enough living making arthouse films if they're great. (I live in a very expensive city, yet I make enough to support my wife and two young children.) No need to be greedy. And actual great cinema will outlast all of the pandering shit.
Producer means involve money time and he doesn't want to waste while director means vision direction view who can see unseen points which producer can't.
You mentioned Spielberg's "Close Encounters" taking its time getting started. What about Spielberg's and Tobi Hunter's "Poltergeist?" The build up to the first ghostly happenings in the house take a few minutes. Spielberg and Hunter take their time getting you to know and care about the family. So you're saying that wouldn't fly today. I should re-watch the Poltergeist remake to see why you're right and why the remake is mostly forgettable.
Another good example: Wolgang Peterson's "Poseidon" verses Irwin Allen's campy "Poseidon Adventure" original. Whatever else people think about the original, they admit that Allen's version gave audiences time to get to know the main characters before the tidal wave hit. That is one the major complaints against Peterson's remake: the characters have no depth, the ship is turned upside too quickly. No time to care about the characters or their travails in their efforts to escape the doomed ship-- even if their escape is more believable (through one of the forward thrusters shafts as opposed to Allen's version where the characters reach the propeller shaft and HOPE someone on the exterior arrives with cutting torches to free them.) Allen's version is remembered fondly, Peterson's version is looked upon as an utter waste.
Sadly, this interview was more of a point by point explanation of why most movies made today are quite shallow and formulaic precisely because they're being formatted for the broadest possible commercial appeal instead of focusing on what the movie should be. You know....good and making the audience think, feel, experience something, even if ends up not being everyone's cup of tea, which inevitably no movie is anyway.
This is very much a business minded approach to filmmaking, which is needed! However film is not one size fits all. Film is an organic beast that no one has control over, especially Hollywood. For every film that gets made using this formula there's a first time filmmaker (without this knowledge) making something great, something that'll stand the test of time.
What do we think about the 11 minute rule?:
In music we're done telling the whole story and sharing all the feelings involved in under 4 minutes.
Better if under 3.
The first few stories in Genisis are more succinct than anything else I've read
(Also coming from a music & poetry perspective).
...
The most massively enthralling & longest lasting literature is still the best. ..at exactly that; getting to the point (in both accuracy and articulate fullness) with the swiftest jott.
So, yeah, I'll agree.
Seems like a tight ethos
for doing good work.
A pyramid, or paragon, of good work.
...one might say.
believe in life and say so
A lot of filmmakers make the mistake though of breaking into 2 a mere 15min in, and not taking the time in their first act to build character. So make sure you take your first act to build character. And yeah, with his example, yeah, INCITING INCIDENT is 12min in, but then you do a DEBATE stage for another 15-18 pages until you break into 2. And many bad filmmakers never do the debate.
And NOWADAYS, with the way technology has changed us, 7-8 minutes may be safer. 11 may not hold them. I use to write something happening every 10-12, no more.
What is your reaction to the 11-minute rule? Do you agree?
I try to keep only what is necessary in order to build a compelling setup for the rest of the film.
I think it is possible to make a successful slow-burn movie that sells, but that movie better have some names attached on both sides of the camera.
I think the 11-minute mark is random. I hate the idea of trying to fit a story into a page-based formula. But I agree that getting to the point right away is key.
Word of mouth matters more now than ever. A completely new franchise will not get that sort of response in its first week. If you release a film to theatre, your audience will not walk out. You may have difficulty getting them in in the first place.
Maybe run times are not long enough for the modern audience. Maybe you need time to let enthusiasm grow. That does not mean the usual marketing strategies are not important, and word of mouth is faster and easier when you have an established franchise.
PS I am so hyped for Dune!
I'm 45 years old. If I turn on a program on Netflix and it isn't clicking by around 10 minutes I start zoning out. I've been accused of having a short attention span. But this is a fundamental reality. You may not like it but good luck getting my attention (or others like me) otherwise.
Great incite! Makes sense. Thanks!
What happened to the 10-minute rule? Inflation is not dead!
Also from David Mamet: story structure is
"once upon a time" ... "years pass" ... "then one day".