Hey Top Development, can you explain in your upcoming videos about; • What is a Plot Device? How to write a Plot Device? How to make them thematically relevant to the story? Do all plot devices need to be thematically relevant? How many types of plot devices are there? ( A complete, comprehensive theory on Plot Device) • What is a Subtext? How is it different from Text & Context? How to write Subtext? (A complete theory on Text, Subtext & Context)
@@adajesus9575 Yeah, it gets difficult to understand that when I'm writing too. You have a random storyline and you wanna work on it. But it gets hard to muscle out the philosophical conflict out of it. A lot of writers like us suffer from that.
Ah. So this is why Toy Story is a timeless classic. It avoids the pitfalls you mentioned. Toys + friendship, conflict is mainly about trust, and plays with the concept of toys "raising" kids(and being father allegories), with various set pieces only possible because they're toys. Likewise, the Mummy or Indiana Jones. Adventure + Archaeology. both even have the same philosophical conflict (don't play with things you don't understand). They both play with their respective myth of choice, which sets them apart from each other.
Hey Top Development, can you explain in your upcoming videos about; • What is a Plot Device? How to write a Plot Device? How to make them thematically relevant to the story? Do all plot devices need to be thematically relevant? How many types of plot devices are there? ( A complete, comprehensive theory on Plot Device) • What is a Subtext? How is it different from Text & Context? How to write Subtext? (A complete theory on Text, Subtext & Context)
some films with no "CLEAR" philosophical meaning are good. The Lobster is great. The philosophical conflict is arguable. My perception is: "Does society have the right to dictate the terms of interpersonal relationships?" but my wife perceived it as "What is companionship worth?" etc.
I love how you ended the video with "write many loglines" It reminds me of this saying I've heard somewhere that you'll get better at storytelling if you write 100 loglines as apposed to writing 10 screenplays.
How to you plan to produce it? I ask because its easy to get a “concept high” where you focus on perfecting it as opposed to producing it because As a fellow writer I just want to encourage you to keep going forward
As someone who has been trying to figure where his entire writing career is going now that he's lived 30 years on this earth. I'd say write what you want to write, but there is a difference between just doing it for the money and doing it to show your vision. As someone who grew up with Troma, After Dark Horrerfest, and any kind of things that were straight to video about zombies, killer dolls, or a Halloween clown at my local video store and when Netflix was just a DVD mailing service, I understand those were just shlock that was made for shlock's sake. Even though if your idea doesn't have a philosophical dilemma, it's your job to know the basics now and break the rules later. ( I may be paraphrasing Tyler's own words, so don't came at me) Everyone has to start somewhere, but we all build up to something we will enjoy making regardless of what the various faceless critics will say. Get it out, rewrite, polish, repeat.
Some people in this comments section are arguing that not every story needs a philosophical conflict. This is my counterargument: This is like saying that not every story needs to be a good story. A good story without philosophical conflict would be a suboptimal story. Do we need suboptimal stories? Why write a suboptimal story when you could use philosophical conflict to write the best story you could possibly write? Do you need to be a less successful writer? Is success itself unnecessary? Is satiety for hungry artists unnecessary? You don't need to use both feet to run a marathon. You can finish a marathon by hoping on one foot, but why would you deliberately sabotage your own efforts? Why would you make a conscious decision to not do your best as a writer? If not every story needs a philosophical conflict, then not every story needs to be a good story. Which stories are made worse by having a well-executed philosophical conflict? Why not also say that not every story needs conflict? Perhaps not every story needs a consistent plot or consistent character development. If we keep lowering the bar, perhaps we'll reach a point when we won't need stories at all. Why be a suboptimal writer when you could be the best possible writer you could be? If you're making a financial argument, then why write a movie script without a philosophical conflict that's worth $1 million, when you could write a script with philosophical conflict that's worth $1.2 million. If you disagree, then under what circumstances would a script be less valuable or a movie earn less money at the Box Office by having a well-executed philosophical conflict? Which movies are made or were made better by being meaningless i.e. having no philosophical conflict whatsoever? Why would you deliberately and consciously write a meaningless story? Would you deliberately write a nonsensical and incomprehensible story?
Its a case of do you want to touch people on a deeper level? Do you want your work resonate with a broad audience and be remembered because it offers meaningful catharsis? If not, then ignore everything in this video. It’s pretty simple.
@@knaylormovies It's not just about whether or not somone wants their story to resonate with a broad audience. Stories that don't resonate with a broad audience make a lot less money than those that do. For some authors adding a meaningful philosophical conflict to their stories might mean the difference between becoming a full-time author and remaining employed while writing part-time for the rest of their lives. Tyler Mowery has identified The Dark Knight, The Tree of Life, and Captain America that are very popular that have some kind of philosophical conflict. Even James Cameron's Avatar, one of the most profitable movies of all time, has a philosophical conflict. Other highly profitable movies that Tyler Mowery didn't mention include Braveheart, The Avengers: Infinity War, The Godfather, and The Matrix. There may well be more highest grossing movies that have no philosophical conflict than those that do, but why would any rational fiction writer choose to decrease their chances of obtaining financial freedom through their creative writing? I think money is more important than having one's story achieve a broad level appeal for most authors. I tend to think that most authors write to boost their egos and their incomes rather than to touch the hearts of millions across the world. Regardless of which category of author you fall under, why sabotage your own efforts by deliberately writing meaningless stories? Tyler criticizes some authors for not understanding how money works when they expect riches for low-effort work. But I think he's taking the wrong approach and misunderstanding the mindset of some the authors he has interacted with online or met in person. They want to make money without having their egos bruised along the way, which is practically impossible. It is the fear of criticism that creates the impression that some authors expect riches for low-effort work. But the truth is that someone's work ends up being low-quality low-effort work because of one's irrational fear or irrational dislike of criticism. Authors who reject the idea of philosophical conflict also reject all fiction writing standards that are not already part of their own personal standards for fiction writing. In other words, authors who are comfortable writing meaningless stories reject all external standards and only care about their personal intuition and their own personal standards for the quality of their work. They argue that storytelling standards are "subjective" so that they can be held to no other creative writing standard but their own. They pretend that they actually want to know how storytelling really works, but the truth is that they are just seeking out external validation and looking to confirm their personal biases from how-to-write fiction books and how-to-write fiction RUclips Channels. I've spent many hours of my life interacting with this kind of author. I think Tyler just doesn't take the time to argue with and really debate those with opposing views to his own. It's an emotionally exhausting and sometimes physically draining experience, and I understand why he wouldn't bother doing this if he has never done such a thing.
@@behindthepageaudiobooks I don’t disagree your overall sentiment. I do however think you’re splitting hairs; I believe its inferred that reaching more people = making your work more appealing = making more money.
Actually, it's better this way than too fast and having to slow it down. It's better to speak slowly and, therefore, clearly than to speak at "normal" speed but speak poorly. I thought it was just right, the you didn't. That's absolutely fine
I wonder how this works for other mediums that don't depend on literary elements. Like painting or music can be good based off of beauty alone, without philosophy as an element.
I think a movie can be good without philosophy but it wouldn't be deep, so to speak. Philosophy in your movie stimulates the minds of your viewers, which makes them remember it far longer.
Top Development, One question for pitfall #6. I already wrote a first draft of my feature-length script of a concept for a major film or streaming show from my country. But I found out the concept of mine is quite similar to a Hollywood film that already exists(released worldwide in 2021). However, I know it is similar but not totally the same and I'm certain I can develop it more unique and original by rewrites. And also I told acquaintances about the logline of mine and they all liked it and took it as something original except for one working in film business who mentioned the similarity to the preexisting movie which was mentioned above and failed a big time). So, what would I do about this screenplay of mine? Should I give up on it? I will be really grateful if you appreciate my concern profoundly and give me your advice or opinion or whatever you think that might be of help to me. Always admire your videos.
Agents are interested in talent, Hollywood is desperate for it, there are never enough good writers. They won’t care if it’s similar. It just won’t get made, especially if another similar movie failed. It will instead be a portfolio piece for you. My advice is to polish this current work into something that’s unbelievably good and then move onto the next project. The best thing you can do is to start listening to the Scriptnotes podcast. Mazin, one of the co-hosts is the showrunner for The Last of Us and they’ve been giving advice and dispelling myths for a decade on a weekly basis. You will never find a more life-changing source of information as a writer than these guys.
@@knaylormovies Oh my god, man. You are the best giving me real practical opinions of yours. I totally get what you mean and accept it perfectly! And thank you for sharing the podcast channel as well! I won't hesitate to take a step and listen to the channel. My best regards!
Very nice video overall, but I don't think it's pertinent to include the Ghibli movies. They were made for a very specific market (although they got successful worldwide later), and "slice of life" has an audience in Japan, in manga and anime. It's just a cultural thing. For example, Whisper of the heart was a successful manga before it was adapted to cinema. There are entire anime series of slice of life stories. Mokke, the flying witch, cat + gamer... This idea that a story has to have a concept is very much specific to Hollywood.
This is mostly fair, but you missed the point of "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes". It's a genre parody along the lines of "Airplane!", and a very funny one.
I don't agree with almost 80% of this video,each concept has its own audience ,at the end of the day its about what one wants to write, the story getting made or not isn't in their control eitherway. I personally love Snakes on a plane, some people love OLD for what it is (it grossed 100 million dollars),sure every movie can be better but criticixing a concept for infusing two completely unrelated things is discouraging,if that was the case there wouldn't be something like Adaptation or something like Cocaine bear (I loved it).
Start with an argument and build a concept that externalises this. For example, “it’s better to love and suffer loss than never love at all”. Following this you could come up with a concept such as a sci fi world where people avoid love because they don’t want to experience loss.
Worth noting there is definitely a thirst for dumb content so if you enjoy making it and people respond to it, don’t stop yourself because you saw a RUclips video !!!
a group of power plant workers trying to get the code into a room to shut down the plant because it is about to explode. however everybody is stupid except for one member. does this sound like a good concept to you? do you have any tips?
Yes. If the two beliefs being explored are using knowledge for the good of all vs using knowledge for self interest only Then you make the stupid people the reason the plant is about to explode and why they got locked out of a room and don't know the code. Then you have the smart person be too busy cleaning everyone's messes all the time so he's always playing catch-up and never gets a break. And then you show the people that hired the stupid people are moles from another power plant(or another group with their own agenda) that wants to sabotage this one to eliminate competition, so that stupid people in power plant makes sense. Not the best advice, but better to work with something than nothing.
One flaw i see with this is how would they be plant workers in the first place if they’re stupid? you could change it instead to a different obstacle for them
@@snorlaxdayo the plant owner would also be a doofus. but to be fair i came up with the idea at 2 am i never wanted it to make sense. i just tried to add any type of substance to the story 😂
Or the plant manager has a personal grudge against the town, goes into deep cover and purposely hires idiots for this pivotal moment. Then there is one smart man inside the group that is trying to prevent doomsday and later discovers the evil intentions of the plant manager. Props if you give the plant manager a compelling reason for destroying the town.
Okay, hear me out, if you have time, in the movie why did the people were stuck there, because of night shyamalan character got them in, which later discover that he is in group where they are using visitor with purpose, so they can solve many disease that haven't found the cure yet, which lead to shows the philosophical meaning of evolution in pros - where evolution is analysed and worked upon, for ex in real life - anthropologist who looks and sees dinosaur in the ground, where they analyse, right, so that's evolution comes in, and fluidity comes in beach, which bring the meaning of FLUIDITY - that flow easily, shown through beach but also finding out that fluidity don't mean as good thing seen in beach where people try to get out but beach waves become so stronger (represent fluid can be strong and can't be broken) couldnt let them out or even get them to location the tourist were trying to get out, so in this I am thinking that night shyamalan use the pros and cons on both side, showing the win of evolution by them getting out of fluidity and showing that how evolution always grows and can't be stopped just like FLUIDITY, in which FLUIDITY remains grounded as evolution keeps growing and mostly getting out of situation, that flow can't stop, shown in this old movie, which that's why I loved the movie and that why I think night shyamalan is one of the greatest experiment creator in our generation.
@@ritamacwan5351 i tried to decipher this and to some extent I understand what you mean but its quite convoluted which is think is the point, even it you can draw a comparison, if its not clear most people wont dig to deep to find it
@@ritamacwan5351 this is literally one of the most convoluted, incomprehensible, obscure messages I've ever read on RUclips... can you explain the concept in a simpler and more understandable way? :')
Dogs and b. Ball certainly. The others, i havent seen then, so I wont apriori claim you can or cant make a plausible connection to tomatos and murder. Do U think it could work as a comedy and hough?Absurd jaxtipositions, in this context are good. Snakes on a plane apears to be less of a stretch. Isnt that part of the creative process, finding a dramatic and thus a plausible connection.
When you attack movies and say they’re not very good, you’re implying, you could do better. And somehow these movies that you are talking about are cult Classics and sometimes blockbusters, like I’ve heard you doing other videos. you must truly be incredible. Please tell me of the movies you have written… I am waiting….
He's breaking down why they're not popular movies. Is Killer Tomatoes your favourite film? I hadn't heard of it until this video. The point he makes is although the movie at face value is watchable and entertaining, it doesn't mean that the story/plot/concepts work together or have a philosophical meaning behind them. Making deeper connections makes the movie seem more relatable and realistic, that's why character building is important, but so is the overall story.
Just because the word philosophy is in term doesn't make it pretentious, a philosophical conflict can (and probably should) be something extremely simple (i.e. build vs. destroy, old vs. new, fantasy vs. reality). It's a framework to help write compelling stories, if you can write a story without it, that's fine as well.
Yeah I felt that the same, but as some people commented it does need to have a least some concept, but yeah some people do take it to the extreme with their “philosophizing” instead of just simply clarifying the concept
@@ShimonLikesPancakes This is like saying that not every story needs to be a good story. A good story without philosophical conflict would be a suboptimal story. Do we need suboptimal stories? Why write a suboptimal story when you could use philosophical conflict to write the best story you could possibly write? Do you need to be a less successful writer? Is success itself unnecessary? Is satiety for hungry artists unnecessary? You don't need to use both feet to run a marathon. You can finish a marathon by hoping on one foot, but why would you deliberately sabotage your own efforts? Why would you make a conscious decision to not do your best as a writer? If not every story needs a philosophical conflict, then not every story needs to be a good story. Which stories are made worse by having a well-executed philosophical conflict? Why not also say that not every story needs conflict? Perhaps not every story needs a consistent plot or consistent character development. If we keep lowering the bar, perhaps we'll reach a point when we won't need stories at all. Why be a suboptimal writer when you could be the best possible writer you could be? If you're making a financial argument, then why write a movie script without a philosophical conflict that's worth $1 million, when you could write a script with philosophical conflict that's worth $1.2 million. If you disagree, then under what circumstances would a script be less valuable or a movie earn less money at the Box Office by having a well-executed philosophical conflict? Which movies are made or were made better by being meaningless i.e. having no philosophical conflict whatsoever? Why would you deliberately and consciously write a meaningless story? Would you deliberately write a nonsensical and incomprehensible story?
@@behindthepageaudiobooks hah you brought the passion, which is apparently not suboptimal. I agree that If we were trying to make a product, optimal effort will get the best return, but if youre just talking to the crew about some weirdo screaming at starbucks and you all get a laugh, i doubt even the most intellectual of the group wouldn’t necessarily demand to hear the philosophy. I think this is the level they were speaking from, however considering this is a channel about writing development, the above statement is considerably lowbrow
@9ojira How can it fall apart if you have a storymap? You write the best first draft as possible, not just vomit it out. Then get coverage. I've never had a story fall apart. Could it be better after a few or more drafts? Yes. This whole just get it out that is taught without being shown step by step is the biggest problem with books and so-called gurus
@@XxSEETH3RxX Yes Yes, structured story writing is key to a concise story but writing for some is cathartic, so some people need to vomit out pages of nonsense just to see what their story is actually about.
In case of superheroes, you could put their philosophical ideas being rejected by villanis, anti heroes or society itself. Or made the weakness more emotional than physical.
1) Work out what argument you’d like to to give about how one should live their life 2) Give one side of the argument to the MC and the other to most of the characters they interact with, especially in their day to day life at the start of the story 3) Decide whether the MC is correct and the world around them is wrong, or vice versa 4) The struggle between these two perspectives is your conflict - the action is an externalisation of this argument, the character interactions are soaked in it 5) Build a central relationship for your MC and another character - this character is the most die hard proponent of the other perspective, this is usually the villain, however it doesn’t even have to be a sentient character, it could be a location or society at large for example - something that reminds them of the conflicting argument and whose presence provokes them because of it. Because of this, interacting with this relationship character challenges their own perspective 6) If their perspective is wrong, they should come across an example of someone who believes the same thing they do but is older and miserable - like a future look at themselves. We will expect this weigh on their mind and help explain why they change, if they do 7) All their misfortune throughout the story is due to them doing things that align with the wrong side of the argument. They may be stubbornly sticking to their beliefs but they should be showing evidence of consideration for the other perspective even if they’d never admit it. All their small victories and moments of happiness are when they are in line with the correct side. 8) At the end of the climax, the MC either adopts the perspective of this relationship character or they stick to the perspective they had at the beginning of the story - this choice is what decides the final blow so to speak, how the climax ends 9) Show whether they’re happy in life or unfulfilled, this will tell us whether they chose the correct perspective or not Now you have a story where everything fits together because its in service of an argument and you have something which has the ability to deeply impact people and help them reconsider their own lives. Aside from those that are superficial but groundbreaking, these are the works that leave an impression and last.
@@knaylormovies My favorite move and the best movie No country for old men. Breaks all these rules. Like the title says the old man is useless I allways skip his scenes. The story of Lewlyn is so enjoyable and good. Hard to quantify what its so good. The is no character arc, no hero winning, no phlisophical battles.
![Why Plot Doesn't Help Writers Finish A Story - Alan Watt [Founder of L.A. Writers' Lab]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/slXr17m4YUg/mqdefault.jpg)
Get Practical Tools to Write Your Great Screenplay: www.practicalscreenwriting.com
Hey Top Development, can you explain in your upcoming videos about;
• What is a Plot Device? How to write a Plot Device? How to make them thematically relevant to the story? Do all plot devices need to be thematically relevant? How many types of plot devices are there? ( A complete, comprehensive theory on Plot Device)
• What is a Subtext? How is it different from Text & Context? How to write Subtext? (A complete theory on Text, Subtext & Context)
but how does one find a Philosophical conflict?
@@adajesus9575 Yeah, it gets difficult to understand that when I'm writing too. You have a random storyline and you wanna work on it. But it gets hard to muscle out the philosophical conflict out of it. A lot of writers like us suffer from that.
Ah. So this is why Toy Story is a timeless classic. It avoids the pitfalls you mentioned. Toys + friendship, conflict is mainly about trust, and plays with the concept of toys "raising" kids(and being father allegories), with various set pieces only possible because they're toys.
Likewise, the Mummy or Indiana Jones. Adventure + Archaeology. both even have the same philosophical conflict (don't play with things you don't understand). They both play with their respective myth of choice, which sets them apart from each other.
Hey Top Development, can you explain in your upcoming videos about;
• What is a Plot Device? How to write a Plot Device? How to make them thematically relevant to the story? Do all plot devices need to be thematically relevant? How many types of plot devices are there? ( A complete, comprehensive theory on Plot Device)
• What is a Subtext? How is it different from Text & Context? How to write Subtext? (A complete theory on Text, Subtext & Context)
I would love to see this!! Let's get your comment to the top!
@@Monsoon41 Thanks man! Appreciate the help. 🙌🤝
some films with no "CLEAR" philosophical meaning are good. The Lobster is great. The philosophical conflict is arguable. My perception is: "Does society have the right to dictate the terms of interpersonal relationships?" but my wife perceived it as "What is companionship worth?" etc.
I love how you ended the video with "write many loglines"
It reminds me of this saying I've heard somewhere that you'll get better at storytelling if you write 100 loglines as apposed to writing 10 screenplays.
I have written a short script with a pretty solid concept. Still needs its subtext polished, but overall one of my best.
And?
Cool
@@MrShanester117 With a little more work, it might be able to gain recognition, and possibly win in online film festivals.
@@joaquinhernandez6940 Best of luck, Joaquin!
How to you plan to produce it? I ask because its easy to get a “concept high” where you focus on perfecting it as opposed to producing it because As a fellow writer I just want to encourage you to keep going forward
As someone who has been trying to figure where his entire writing career is going now that he's lived 30 years on this earth. I'd say write what you want to write, but there is a difference between just doing it for the money and doing it to show your vision.
As someone who grew up with Troma, After Dark Horrerfest, and any kind of things that were straight to video about zombies, killer dolls, or a Halloween clown at my local video store and when Netflix was just a DVD mailing service, I understand those were just shlock that was made for shlock's sake.
Even though if your idea doesn't have a philosophical dilemma, it's your job to know the basics now and break the rules later. ( I may be paraphrasing Tyler's own words, so don't came at me)
Everyone has to start somewhere, but we all build up to something we will enjoy making regardless of what the various faceless critics will say.
Get it out, rewrite, polish, repeat.
Some people in this comments section are arguing that not every story needs a philosophical conflict. This is my counterargument:
This is like saying that not every story needs to be a good story. A good story without philosophical conflict would be a suboptimal story. Do we need suboptimal stories? Why write a suboptimal story when you could use philosophical conflict to write the best story you could possibly write? Do you need to be a less successful writer? Is success itself unnecessary? Is satiety for hungry artists unnecessary?
You don't need to use both feet to run a marathon. You can finish a marathon by hoping on one foot, but why would you deliberately sabotage your own efforts? Why would you make a conscious decision to not do your best as a writer? If not every story needs a philosophical conflict, then not every story needs to be a good story. Which stories are made worse by having a well-executed philosophical conflict?
Why not also say that not every story needs conflict? Perhaps not every story needs a consistent plot or consistent character development. If we keep lowering the bar, perhaps we'll reach a point when we won't need stories at all. Why be a suboptimal writer when you could be the best possible writer you could be?
If you're making a financial argument, then why write a movie script without a philosophical conflict that's worth $1 million, when you could write a script with philosophical conflict that's worth $1.2 million. If you disagree, then under what circumstances would a script be less valuable or a movie earn less money at the Box Office by having a well-executed philosophical conflict? Which movies are made or were made better by being meaningless i.e. having no philosophical conflict whatsoever? Why would you deliberately and consciously write a meaningless story? Would you deliberately write a nonsensical and incomprehensible story?
I totally agree with you
Its a case of do you want to touch people on a deeper level? Do you want your work resonate with a broad audience and be remembered because it offers meaningful catharsis?
If not, then ignore everything in this video. It’s pretty simple.
@@knaylormovies It's not just about whether or not somone wants their story to resonate with a broad audience. Stories that don't resonate with a broad audience make a lot less money than those that do. For some authors adding a meaningful philosophical conflict to their stories might mean the difference between becoming a full-time author and remaining employed while writing part-time for the rest of their lives.
Tyler Mowery has identified The Dark Knight, The Tree of Life, and Captain America that are very popular that have some kind of philosophical conflict. Even James Cameron's Avatar, one of the most profitable movies of all time, has a philosophical conflict. Other highly profitable movies that Tyler Mowery didn't mention include Braveheart, The Avengers: Infinity War, The Godfather, and The Matrix.
There may well be more highest grossing movies that have no philosophical conflict than those that do, but why would any rational fiction writer choose to decrease their chances of obtaining financial freedom through their creative writing?
I think money is more important than having one's story achieve a broad level appeal for most authors. I tend to think that most authors write to boost their egos and their incomes rather than to touch the hearts of millions across the world. Regardless of which category of author you fall under, why sabotage your own efforts by deliberately writing meaningless stories?
Tyler criticizes some authors for not understanding how money works when they expect riches for low-effort work. But I think he's taking the wrong approach and misunderstanding the mindset of some the authors he has interacted with online or met in person. They want to make money without having their egos bruised along the way, which is practically impossible.
It is the fear of criticism that creates the impression that some authors expect riches for low-effort work. But the truth is that someone's work ends up being low-quality low-effort work because of one's irrational fear or irrational dislike of criticism.
Authors who reject the idea of philosophical conflict also reject all fiction writing standards that are not already part of their own personal standards for fiction writing. In other words, authors who are comfortable writing meaningless stories reject all external standards and only care about their personal intuition and their own personal standards for the quality of their work. They argue that storytelling standards are "subjective" so that they can be held to no other creative writing standard but their own. They pretend that they actually want to know how storytelling really works, but the truth is that they are just seeking out external validation and looking to confirm their personal biases from how-to-write fiction books and how-to-write fiction RUclips Channels.
I've spent many hours of my life interacting with this kind of author. I think Tyler just doesn't take the time to argue with and really debate those with opposing views to his own. It's an emotionally exhausting and sometimes physically draining experience, and I understand why he wouldn't bother doing this if he has never done such a thing.
@@behindthepageaudiobooks I don’t disagree your overall sentiment. I do however think you’re splitting hairs; I believe its inferred that reaching more people = making your work more appealing = making more money.
the narrator talking so slowly i had to play the video on 1.25 for it to sound normal
I did the same
ok zoomer
You could not have listened to it then. No one forced you... as well as no one forced me to comment your comment...
OMG! I did this at 1.5 speed and it worked 😂😂😂
Actually, it's better this way than too fast and having to slow it down. It's better to speak slowly and, therefore, clearly than to speak at "normal" speed but speak poorly.
I thought it was just right, the you didn't. That's absolutely fine
If you want to talk about a film that didn’t live up to its logline, you could do an entire episode on the movie “You People.” What a let dow lol
I wonder how this works for other mediums that don't depend on literary elements. Like painting or music can be good based off of beauty alone, without philosophy as an element.
I think a movie can be good without philosophy but it wouldn't be deep, so to speak. Philosophy in your movie stimulates the minds of your viewers, which makes them remember it far longer.
I would consider MY GIRL a good "slice of life" movie.
I love the movie Old!
I hope you guys still do "why you should study" videos, because we never got a "why you should study the Coen brothers" video.
Great video, thank you!
Top Development,
One question for pitfall #6.
I already wrote a first draft of my feature-length script of a concept for a major film or streaming show from my country. But I found out the concept of mine is quite similar to a Hollywood film that already exists(released worldwide in 2021). However, I know it is similar but not totally the same and I'm certain I can develop it more unique and original by rewrites. And also I told acquaintances about the logline of mine and they all liked it and took it as something original except for one working in film business who mentioned the similarity to the preexisting movie which was mentioned above and failed a big time).
So, what would I do about this screenplay of mine? Should I give up on it?
I will be really grateful if you appreciate my concern profoundly and give me your advice or opinion or whatever you think that might be of help to me.
Always admire your videos.
Agents are interested in talent, Hollywood is desperate for it, there are never enough good writers.
They won’t care if it’s similar. It just won’t get made, especially if another similar movie failed. It will instead be a portfolio piece for you. My advice is to polish this current work into something that’s unbelievably good and then move onto the next project.
The best thing you can do is to start listening to the Scriptnotes podcast. Mazin, one of the co-hosts is the showrunner for The Last of Us and they’ve been giving advice and dispelling myths for a decade on a weekly basis. You will never find a more life-changing source of information as a writer than these guys.
@@knaylormovies Oh my god, man. You are the best giving me real practical opinions of yours. I totally get what you mean and accept it perfectly! And thank you for sharing the podcast channel as well! I won't hesitate to take a step and listen to the channel.
My best regards!
Hey, I don't understand the absurdity in 'Air Bud' concept?
Put this at 1.5 speed ! You’re welcome
What happen to Tyler Mowery? Is he okay?
He is creating his new company / writer studio, there are a few videos about it on his channel :)
This^^ 🔝
Very nice video overall, but I don't think it's pertinent to include the Ghibli movies. They were made for a very specific market (although they got successful worldwide later), and "slice of life" has an audience in Japan, in manga and anime. It's just a cultural thing. For example, Whisper of the heart was a successful manga before it was adapted to cinema. There are entire anime series of slice of life stories. Mokke, the flying witch, cat + gamer...
This idea that a story has to have a concept is very much specific to Hollywood.
I recommend watching this at 1.25x. This VO is slow...
This is mostly fair, but you missed the point of "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes". It's a genre parody along the lines of "Airplane!", and a very funny one.
very nice!
Thanks!
I don't agree with almost 80% of this video,each concept has its own audience ,at the end of the day its about what one wants to write, the story getting made or not isn't in their control eitherway. I personally love Snakes on a plane, some people love OLD for what it is (it grossed 100 million dollars),sure every movie can be better but criticixing a concept for infusing two completely unrelated things is discouraging,if that was the case there wouldn't be something like Adaptation or something like Cocaine bear (I loved it).
Can you make a concept into philosophical conflict
Start with an argument and build a concept that externalises this. For example, “it’s better to love and suffer loss than never love at all”. Following this you could come up with a concept such as a sci fi world where people avoid love because they don’t want to experience loss.
Worth noting there is definitely a thirst for dumb content so if you enjoy making it and people respond to it, don’t stop yourself because you saw a RUclips video !!!
That’s true. People like Sharknado.
Definitely true!!!
a group of power plant workers trying to get the code into a room to shut down the plant because it is about to explode. however everybody is stupid except for one member. does this sound like a good concept to you? do you have any tips?
Yes. If the two beliefs being explored are using knowledge for the good of all vs using knowledge for self interest only
Then you make the stupid people the reason the plant is about to explode and why they got locked out of a room and don't know the code. Then you have the smart person be too busy cleaning everyone's messes all the time so he's always playing catch-up and never gets a break. And then you show the people that hired the stupid people are moles from another power plant(or another group with their own agenda) that wants to sabotage this one to eliminate competition, so that stupid people in power plant makes sense.
Not the best advice, but better to work with something than nothing.
One flaw i see with this is how would they be plant workers in the first place if they’re stupid? you could change it instead to a different obstacle for them
@@snorlaxdayo the plant owner would also be a doofus. but to be fair i came up with the idea at 2 am i never wanted it to make sense. i just tried to add any type of substance to the story 😂
Or the plant manager has a personal grudge against the town, goes into deep cover and purposely hires idiots for this pivotal moment. Then there is one smart man inside the group that is trying to prevent doomsday and later discovers the evil intentions of the plant manager. Props if you give the plant manager a compelling reason for destroying the town.
@@kitfairchild9784 i was never expecting an actually good plot for a horrible idea i had. thank you
Relief. I didnt like the beach. Maybe theres hope for me after all
Speed Up to 1.5x for normal Tyler speed!
The philosophical CONFLICT of old for me is FLUIDITY VS EVOLUTION
That's still very unclear, evolution and fluidity are not in opposition
@@diemes5463 so what did you find, need to hear your opinion, so I can say my behalf
Okay, hear me out, if you have time, in the movie why did the people were stuck there, because of night shyamalan character got them in, which later discover that he is in group where they are using visitor with purpose, so they can solve many disease that haven't found the cure yet, which lead to shows the philosophical meaning of evolution in pros - where evolution is analysed and worked upon, for ex in real life - anthropologist who looks and sees dinosaur in the ground, where they analyse, right, so that's evolution comes in, and fluidity comes in beach, which bring the meaning of FLUIDITY - that flow easily, shown through beach but also finding out that fluidity don't mean as good thing seen in beach where people try to get out but beach waves become so stronger (represent fluid can be strong and can't be broken) couldnt let them out or even get them to location the tourist were trying to get out, so in this I am thinking that night shyamalan use the pros and cons on both side, showing the win of evolution by them getting out of fluidity and showing that how evolution always grows and can't be stopped just like FLUIDITY, in which FLUIDITY remains grounded as evolution keeps growing and mostly getting out of situation, that flow can't stop, shown in this old movie, which that's why I loved the movie and that why I think night shyamalan is one of the greatest experiment creator in our generation.
@@ritamacwan5351 i tried to decipher this and to some extent I understand what you mean but its quite convoluted which is think is the point, even it you can draw a comparison, if its not clear most people wont dig to deep to find it
@@ritamacwan5351 this is literally one of the most convoluted, incomprehensible, obscure messages I've ever read on RUclips... can you explain the concept in a simpler and more understandable way? :')
Isn’t the BEACH’s concept “isolation or abandonment”? Haven’t seen the film but that was my idea while watching this.
That’s not an argument, that’s a word
Dogs and b. Ball certainly. The others, i havent seen then, so I wont apriori claim you can or cant make a plausible connection to tomatos and murder. Do U think it could work as a comedy and hough?Absurd jaxtipositions, in this context are good. Snakes on a plane apears to be less of a stretch. Isnt that part of the creative process, finding a dramatic and thus a plausible connection.
"Jebli"
Uh. It’s pronounced: Air. Bud. Not Airbud. And it’s beyond reproach
When you attack movies and say they’re not very good, you’re implying, you could do better. And somehow these movies that you are talking about are cult Classics and sometimes blockbusters, like I’ve heard you doing other videos. you must truly be incredible. Please tell me of the movies you have written… I am waiting….
He's breaking down why they're not popular movies.
Is Killer Tomatoes your favourite film? I hadn't heard of it until this video. The point he makes is although the movie at face value is watchable and entertaining, it doesn't mean that the story/plot/concepts work together or have a philosophical meaning behind them.
Making deeper connections makes the movie seem more relatable and realistic, that's why character building is important, but so is the overall story.
Is this video at 0.5 speed ?
Immediately turned this video off when you started with the Airbud slander.
First
Not every story needs a philosophical concept. That’s how you get a bunch of pretentious bull crap
Just because the word philosophy is in term doesn't make it pretentious, a philosophical conflict can (and probably should) be something extremely simple (i.e. build vs. destroy, old vs. new, fantasy vs. reality). It's a framework to help write compelling stories, if you can write a story without it, that's fine as well.
Yeah I felt that the same, but as some people commented it does need to have a least some concept, but yeah some people do take it to the extreme with their “philosophizing” instead of just simply clarifying the concept
Skinamarink has no philosophical conflict and is pretentious. Every GREAT story (movie) has philosophical conflict in my opinion.
@@ShimonLikesPancakes This is like saying that not every story needs to be a good story. A good story without philosophical conflict would be a suboptimal story. Do we need suboptimal stories? Why write a suboptimal story when you could use philosophical conflict to write the best story you could possibly write? Do you need to be a less successful writer? Is success itself unnecessary? Is satiety for hungry artists unnecessary?
You don't need to use both feet to run a marathon. You can finish a marathon by hoping on one foot, but why would you deliberately sabotage your own efforts? Why would you make a conscious decision to not do your best as a writer? If not every story needs a philosophical conflict, then not every story needs to be a good story. Which stories are made worse by having a well-executed philosophical conflict?
Why not also say that not every story needs conflict? Perhaps not every story needs a consistent plot or consistent character development. If we keep lowering the bar, perhaps we'll reach a point when we won't need stories at all. Why be a suboptimal writer when you could be the best possible writer you could be?
If you're making a financial argument, then why write a movie script without a philosophical conflict that's worth $1 million, when you could write a script with philosophical conflict that's worth $1.2 million. If you disagree, then under what circumstances would a script be less valuable or a movie earn less money at the Box Office by having a well-executed philosophical conflict? Which movies are made or were made better by being meaningless i.e. having no philosophical conflict whatsoever? Why would you deliberately and consciously write a meaningless story? Would you deliberately write a nonsensical and incomprehensible story?
@@behindthepageaudiobooks hah you brought the passion, which is apparently not suboptimal. I agree that If we were trying to make a product, optimal effort will get the best return, but if youre just talking to the crew about some weirdo screaming at starbucks and you all get a laugh, i doubt even the most intellectual of the group wouldn’t necessarily demand to hear the philosophy. I think this is the level they were speaking from, however considering this is a channel about writing development, the above statement is considerably lowbrow
Sometimes I think M. Night Shyamalan is not really smart. All his movies are shallow. He knows how to direct scenes.
My stories don't. You write and rewrite.
Your stories don’t fall apart because you’re constantly improving?
@9ojira How can it fall apart if you have a storymap? You write the best first draft as possible, not just vomit it out. Then get coverage. I've never had a story fall apart. Could it be better after a few or more drafts? Yes. This whole just get it out that is taught without being shown step by step is the biggest problem with books and so-called gurus
@@XxSEETH3RxX Yes Yes, structured story writing is key to a concise story but writing for some is cathartic, so some people need to vomit out pages of nonsense just to see what their story is actually about.
Any tips on writing superheros films ? Like I have problems figuring out what each characters emotional problem should be
In case of superheroes, you could put their philosophical ideas being rejected by villanis, anti heroes or society itself.
Or made the weakness more emotional than physical.
1) Work out what argument you’d like to to give about how one should live their life
2) Give one side of the argument to the MC and the other to most of the characters they interact with, especially in their day to day life at the start of the story
3) Decide whether the MC is correct and the world around them is wrong, or vice versa
4) The struggle between these two perspectives is your conflict - the action is an externalisation of this argument, the character interactions are soaked in it
5) Build a central relationship for your MC and another character - this character is the most die hard proponent of the other perspective, this is usually the villain, however it doesn’t even have to be a sentient character, it could be a location or society at large for example - something that reminds them of the conflicting argument and whose presence provokes them because of it. Because of this, interacting with this relationship character challenges their own perspective
6) If their perspective is wrong, they should come across an example of someone who believes the same thing they do but is older and miserable - like a future look at themselves. We will expect this weigh on their mind and help explain why they change, if they do
7) All their misfortune throughout the story is due to them doing things that align with the wrong side of the argument. They may be stubbornly sticking to their beliefs but they should be showing evidence of consideration for the other perspective even if they’d never admit it. All their small victories and moments of happiness are when they are in line with the correct side.
8) At the end of the climax, the MC either adopts the perspective of this relationship character or they stick to the perspective they had at the beginning of the story - this choice is what decides the final blow so to speak, how the climax ends
9) Show whether they’re happy in life or unfulfilled, this will tell us whether they chose the correct perspective or not
Now you have a story where everything fits together because its in service of an argument and you have something which has the ability to deeply impact people and help them reconsider their own lives. Aside from those that are superficial but groundbreaking, these are the works that leave an impression and last.
@@knaylormovies My favorite move and the best movie No country for old men. Breaks all these rules. Like the title says the old man is useless I allways skip his scenes. The story of Lewlyn is so enjoyable and good. Hard to quantify what its so good. The is no character arc, no hero winning, no phlisophical battles.
POOP WINDS
First