This Year's Superstar Flops (http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/forbes-superstar-flops.html)

Interesting article and I think worth reading to anyone trying to make their own Indie film...

Why?

What's not written in this article but immediately came to my mind was that STORY IS KING. STORY WILL ALWAYS BE KING.

Unfortunately, STORY seems to be the most lacking part of the majority of Indie films especially NO-BUDGET and MICRO-BUDGET films.

filmy

I totally agree, which is why I am spending 90% of my spare time studying story and writing and 10% studying filmmaking.

I must concur...great movies are always, above anything, great stories well told. This is true regardless of budget. The best filmmakers are also film's best storytellers; they are able to transcend the language of film and utilize it to tell great stories, no matter how large or how small. But it all starts with story.

What I have noticed from fellow film students is story is essential. You can make a great film from a great script, but it is IMPOSSIBLE to make a great film from a bad script. Your script provides all the potential to a movie. I've seen some amazingly edited and shot films, but lack an interesting story with strong conflict.

The sad thing is, even a lot of hollywood productions lack story, some really shouldn't even be called films, but more like special effects projects.

great article i will read it in detail.but no doutb the stars in the modern world do not attract audience the way they used to...in todays world when the world has become global village public wants to see a great story rather than watching any BIG celebrity...ny the way the shocking thing is as

FILM JUMPER said
Unfortunately, STORY seems to be the most lacking part of the majority of Indie films especially NO-BUDGET and MICRO-BUDGET films.

i want to know why and how indie filmmakers can overlook this main aspect of a mvoie? I mean it is a very very comman sense thing that we indie filmmakers need the best story to make our film good so how indie filmmakers can over look this issue??

Or should we say that majority of the indie filmmakers are young and have no experience so they remain unable to get the best story? i mean fails to select the best story according to the market?

Regards

_____________________________
www.indie-filmmaking.blogspot.com

i want to know why and how indie filmmakers can overlook this main aspect of a mvoie? I mean it is a very very comman sense thing that we indie filmmakers need the best story to make our film good so how indie filmmakers can over look this issue??
_____________________________
www.indie-filmmaking.blogspot.com

It's probably because indie filmmakers try to do everything themselves and the importance of a good story gets lost in the mix. Most are too eager to start filming and don't spend the proper time on story development in pre-production.

weightonwheels
i agree as you said Most are too eager to start filming and don't spend the proper time on story development in pre-production.


but i dont agree that the reaon for overlooking is that filmmakers try to do everything themselve because obviously they are indie so they have to perform in every department of filmmaking so this cant be an excuse.



Hey sorry for not agreeing a senior

No problem AD.:)

I meant trying to do everything all at once. They start filming without a complete story.

I also believe in delegating as much work as possible during principle photography so YOU as a filmmaker can concentrate more on directing/story. I understand this my be hard, but there are people willing to work hard on a movie set for free. You just have to take the time to find them and find the right ones.

weightonwheels
i agree as you said

but i dont agree that the reaon for overlooking is that filmmakers try to do everything themselve because obviously they are indie so they have to perform in every department of filmmaking so this cant be an excuse.



Hey sorry for not agreeing a senior

My experience in the past and even now is that most no/micro/low budget Indie filmmakers feel like they need to capture the best visual image possible RATHER than concentrate on their story.

When you read stuff here on IndieTalk about story being important -- TRUST ME -- this is an idiosyncrasy of IndieTalk which is one of the many reasons this is the best filmmaking forum on the web...

Most Indie filmmakers however (the level of filmmaker that uses this forum), do not concentrate on their story... Plain and simple.

filmy

I agree that story seems to be lacking in other no budget indies. I think my fellow students and indie filmmakers should start giving story a lot more thought. It is by far the most enjoyable part of filmmaking, imo. Why? Because it is so easy.

I always loved creative writing because I loved to create stories. What I didn't like was the tedium of grammar, prose; creating a setting with flowery language. Scriptwriting is so awesome because you strip a story down to the bare bones of a story: action and dialogue. With my mind free of the clutter of writing, I could focus more clearly on creating stories.

Here's the beauty of storytelling: everything is highly structured. When you follow the 3 structure format to a T (something that is really easy in short films), it is like the story writes itself. You know where you need to go. You know where obstacles need to arise. You know when the story should take off. You know to put your character at the lowest of lows before the climax. Where's the midpoint reversal? You start looking for potential conflict in every character interaction. This focuses your imagination, because you have something concrete to think about.

I tried to follow narrative structure perfectly for my film Party Hearty (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZJvDAyBjUw&feature=channel), and it is by far the best script I have ever wrote, and became the best film I've ever made. Give in to the rules, and your scripts will be better.

The other thing people need to remember is to keep the action visual. Show, don't tell. Scrap the V.O.'s. Give your protagonist a goal that he can actively pursue and push the story. This is nothing new, you will read this is every scriptwriting book you pick up. These rules aren't restrictions, but building blocks.

I think story is so important, because it is the foundation for the rest of the film. Every aspect of film, be it directing, acting, cinematography, editing, producing, draws inspiration from the story. Every decision should be motivated by the story you are telling. So how can you have a good film without a coherent story? You can't. All this technical prowess on display in these films is directionless and cliched.

I think a perfect example of this is that "very high end" zombie thriller that just got posted here. The film is crap because it takes nearly every lazy, cliched route to take in screenwriting. The result is an unimaginative film, that no one can get excited over.

Why are most Indie Films terrible in my opinion?

Most Indie Filmmakers, at least when it comes to story (in my opinion) are not self objective. Whenever I speak with fellow film students about their script and ask them why? A concrete answer is usually never produced and "You just don't understand" is a common response. That's a problem. At that point the filmmaker is now making the film for themselves and not for an audience (which is great if that is their goal, have fun starving). When the opportunity for change is knocking on the door, Don't fucking lock the door. When it comes time to screening, they always wonder why their film doesn't go over well.

Usually their script sees one revision, even if that. Scripts are never perfect! When it comes to features, Conflict should be on every page. Shorts, every line. Like MacV says, use story structure as the building blocks. Know the rules before you break them.

It seems a lot of indie filmmakers will not listen to critiques from past films, or even search out advice during the pre-production stage. In film school I've noticed, those who made shitty films the first year, make the same shitty films the next year, except longer.

In my opinion, you should be your greatest critic. Rip your films apart. For instance look at my 5 min short (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVyqDs8-sxQ) I posted it earlier for criticism, I received a lot of good jobs (which don't get me wrong...I LOVE) But I was looking for some strong critiques on the story itself (disregarding the performance of my main actor) . Their are tons in my opinion. A protagonist who the audience can't feel for. (with shorts you don't always need one, however this one did) The main question is raised, will the relationship work out? That being said the protagonist seems to be working the least towards that goal. And much more...

If you have to explain it before watching the movie, then you've done something wrong. What ends up on screen is all your audience knows, be able to tell a good story from just that. Filling a movie with backstory seems to be the number one problem amongst films. Don't put a feature in a 5 min. margin

With my rant nearing the end, what can we learn? I should overview sentence structure, before story structure when writing on a forum. You can review your films and really pick them apart, admit you did something wrong. We can overview our story structure books in order to better ourselves with what works. (and then, hopefully, this post wasn't a waste)

Bpeas, the type of feedback you're requesting is difficult to give. I've tried in the past to pick things apart and felt bad because most of what I see from those starting out (including me) is just horrible. And my momma taught me that if you don't have anything nice to say, best not to say anything at all. I don't ever want to be accused of dashing one's hopes and dreams or else I invite that same fate upon myself. I didn't respond in your thread for that very reason; I came away with a negative impression.

But if you really want me to publicly shred it, I will. Just say the word. :)

Honestly, publicly shred it. People can have their hopes and dreams, but to me its important to base them in reality. If people never said anything because it wasn't nice, then it would be a waste giving awards and praising films. Everyone would be in a comatose from believing their film was good and would inevitably never improve. When critiquing a film, the point is not to rip it apart, but rather help the filmmaker. Tell them where they went wrong, why it was wrong, and what could be done for improvement. Otherwise, they are living with the fantasy that everything they are doing is great.

I guess it is more important to narrow this down when critiquing. You should be critiquing someone who sees a future in what they are doing. Why? Because if they want to reach their highest potential they should be aware of what they excel in and what they don't. This way you are increasing their chances of actually making it in the field.

Then the question arises, Who should I sugar coat my criticism for. Obviously not for the person who wants to make it in the film industry. It's better to fall down one step in the beginning than the whole flight of stairs when you've really invested yourself. You can say criticism for youtube shorts, such as a guy getting hit in the balls with a bat, America's home video type shorts, is unnecessary. They are obviously making this video for fun without caring about visual structure and character arch. Their audience doesn't care either. But if you're making films for a smarter audience, especially when filmmakers are watching, you should already be prepared for real criticism.

In another post I wrote of how I thought one should go about making it in the film industry.

Learn the basics - Buy a book off of amazon with some good reviews, read it.
Practice - Practice Practice Practice, make films as much as possible, with the intent of making them as professional as possible.
Confidence/Openness - Have confidence in your abilities but don't confuse that with arrogance. Take as much as you can from other people. Their input matters. Even if you don't agree with it, chances are someone else does.

With all that being said, rip it apart.

I think we've veered away from the whole "Story is King" topic.

Honestly, publicly shred it. People can have their hopes and dreams, but to me its important to base them in reality. If people never said anything because it wasn't nice, then it would be a waste giving awards and praising films. Everyone would be in a comatose from believing their film was good and would inevitably never improve. When critiquing a film, the point is not to rip it apart, but rather help the filmmaker. Tell them where they went wrong, why it was wrong, and what could be done for improvement. Otherwise, they are living with the fantasy that everything they are doing is great.

Giving an award and praising films is not what we're talking about. We're talking about films that would never win anything except, perhaps, adulations from friends and family members who wouldn't know a good film if it bit them in the butt. I don't know if I just had my finger on the right button or what, but I was pretty darned accurate predicting the outcome of On the Lot. But I'm sure there are those who would look at my thoughts and my opinions and laugh.

To give a good, constructive review requires that a work be ripped open and autopsied. But there's also the artistic aspects of the craft where only the filmmaker can decide whether or not it is representative of his or her vision. As such, opinion comes into play, not just simple mechanics. My opinion may be very different from someone else's. You can slap plastic boobies on a canvas, paint them purple and call it "art". People will come to see it out of morbid curiosity. One might even buy it. And who am I to judge he who created it and he who consumed it gleefully?

I guess it is more important to narrow this down when critiquing. You should be critiquing someone who sees a future in what they are doing. Why? Because if they want to reach their highest potential they should be aware of what they excel in and what they don't. This way you are increasing their chances of actually making it in the field.

And how do you determine who's who without asking? Now that I know where you stand and where your aspirations lie, I will happily offer my thoughts. When in a room full of new faces, you don't immediately walk up and start telling dirty jokes to someone you've never met. You first need to get a feel for the room and the individual. Most regulars here know that I want harsh criticism. Need it. Because I, too, am serious about pursuing a career somewhere in this industry. My aspirations are leaning toward writing. It's where I have the most experience and where I've spent most of my time studying.

Then the question arises, Who should I sugar coat my criticism for. Obviously not for the person who wants to make it in the film industry. It's better to fall down one step in the beginning than the whole flight of stairs when you've really invested yourself. You can say criticism for youtube shorts, such as a guy getting hit in the balls with a bat, America's home video type shorts, is unnecessary. They are obviously making this video for fun without caring about visual structure and character arch. Their audience doesn't care either. But if you're making films for a smarter audience, especially when filmmakers are watching, you should already be prepared for real criticism.

Women and children. The rest can take it like a man (well, so can some women, I suppose). :lol:

It's not easy to climb stairs when you have a gorilla sitting on your shoulders. Better to gently pull them up the stairs than to knock them back down. Better yet, walk down to their level and escort them to the top one step at a time. Be a mentor.

In another post I wrote of how I thought one should go about making it in the film industry.

Learn the basics - Buy a book off of amazon with some good reviews, read it.
Practice - Practice Practice Practice, make films as much as possible, with the intent of making them as professional as possible.
Confidence/Openness - Have confidence in your abilities but don't confuse that with arrogance. Take as much as you can from other people. Their input matters. Even if you don't agree with it, chances are someone else does.


You forgot one very important requirement to getting where you want to be in any career. Find a mentor. I wouldn't be where I am today in my day job without them. School can only teach you so much. You really need to walk with those who've been in the thick of it and can speak from experience.

With young ones, many can't tell the difference between confidence and arrogance. I used to be one of them. I confidently flogged a script in my early twenties that I thought was a masterpiece and later in life pulled it out of the closet only to finally realize how bad it really was. It took more than knowledge of the craft; it took maturity and a multitude of life's experiences. And I'm still learning (both about life and about visual storytelling). I learn something new every day. Sometimes I don't realize how far I've come until I see some very basic, beginner mistakes (which I occasionally still make, but at least I can recognize them now after scrutiny). And then I read a script from a master and realize how far I have yet to go.

With all that being said, rip it apart.

To the best of my ability and within the limits of my experience and personal insight, sure.

well...i think everthing i have read here has merit...but there are many types of films to be made....

but for the most part..i will say that Story Telling is the downfall of most small and large films today...it seems no one really writes dialoge that truely lets us know someone...i want to feel what they feel..i want to know more about characters in a film...i want to become a part of it..

you can have great actors, but without a great script...they are lost...and they need direction...they need to know why they are saying these things and why they might be feeling thing...the more beleiveable their feelings are the more i believe them...and this only comes from good writing and directing...

i find many people have a good idea, but as soon as they get someone involved that likes this idea...they rush to get it on film, in fear that they might lose this funding...

some people are closed to a re-write...they think everything is good...just as it is. instead of listening to other ideas from outsiders...REMEMBER...these are the people that will see your film...listen to them...they are your TEST MARKET...

i have worked on many a re-shoot to fix a film that was shot earlier..to change an ending or whatever...usually because after the film was locked and test screened...people had better ideas of how to fix what would of been a soso film into a better film...

sometimes what is written on paper..doesnt work in real life, so to say...so script changes are made all the time...an actor may get into a part and say, "i wouldnt say that..i would say this" listen to them...if at worst..shoot and alternate with thier words in it...when you edit your film..you might like it better when seeing it put together...and usually a better performance from the actor as well...because he/she believes what they are saying...

i could go on and on, on this subject...but a lot of you already have said many things that i agree with....

good storytelling makes for a good film...End of Story! haha

Storytelling reaches for popular appeal, near everyone loves a good story.

Basing a film entirely around technical aspects is only of interest to an elite crowd who wishes to be challenged. Independent film seems to be an arena which invites this type of person.

BPEAS


your these words are golden words:

Whenever I speak with fellow film students about their script and ask them why? A concrete answer is usually never produced and "You just don't understand" is a common response. That's a problem. At that point the filmmaker is now making the film for themselves and not for an audience (which is great if that is their goal, have fun starving). When the opportunity for change is knocking on the door, Don't fucking lock the door. When it comes time to screening, they always wonder why their film doesn't go over well.

By the way when you said

Filling a movie with backstory seems to be the number one problem amongst films

can you tell me what is this backstory?

Adeel,

"Backstory" is everything that took place in the lives of your characters before the start of the film. Knowing your backstory is essential to knowing your characters.

I think the downfall of many an indie filmaker is that they get distracted and caught up in portraying and delivering a series of emotions, rather than story. They will direct actors, fuss over lighting, angle, and soundtrack, all to show a particular emotion, whether it be specific to that character, scene, or overall movie. They confuse powerful emotions with good story. Emotions help tell the story, but if the story isnt there, I wont care how a specific character is feeling, no mater how well you portray it.

CommonpassthekleenexHighrise

Knowing the backstory is essential when fleshing out your characters. A good backstory can spark your imagination when deciding on action for the actual story. I think, and maybe what BPeas was getting at, is that backstory is not story. Many beginning scriptwriters spend half their script with backstory before getting to the inciting incident. Or, the whole story is really hinting at a really interesting backstory, but maybe the actual story is lacking.

One of the best things you can do is get an outside opinion.

In addition to the feedback, you may consider playing in the horror genre. I think those types of stories, if done well, find an audience. They are fun and if you run out money half way through production (speaking from experience) and you can't replace imperfect scenes - if the story is good, your audience will forgive you.

Coming off the festival circuit, I now know the market is flooded with character driven dramatic comedies. So unless your story is SUPER compelling, you may consider sticking with comedies.

There is a good book worth reading by Roger Corman, called: How I made a hundred movies in Hollywood and never lost a dime. The distribution methods are a little dated, but his business philosophy is conveyed very well and is also worth considering.

I say all of this to sound redundant... If you story is good and you believe in the project, it doesn't matter what anyone says!

Another good article about this...

The Big Lebowski, at Sundance, on how filmmakers can abide in this economy (http://www.walletpop.com/blog/2009/01/16/the-big-lebowski-at-sundance-on-how-filmmakers-can-abide-in-th/)

filmy

The sad thing is, even a lot of hollywood productions lack story, some really shouldn't even be called films, but more like special effects projects.

Exactly.

I hate seeing Matrix like special effects promos on tv. When I see one, I just know that's not a movie I want to see. They always have some big star(s), but for me, I think "so what?" There are 1,000 movies just like it, all sound and fury, but in the end, signifying nothing.

There have always been tons and tons of bad movies, throughout the age of film. Our time is no exception, although some periods have better quality and others have worse. The first films weren't great, but nobody cared because it was new. Eventually, the silent films got to be very good. Then soundtracks came along, and again film quality deteriorated because nobody cared about it, everyone just loved that people were talking in the movies.

Same thing happened with color...same thing has happened with new special effects that have came out in the last decade or so. The quality of movies I've seen the last few years just isn't as good as it was 10 years ago or when I was a kid. Maybe I'm seeing things with bias, but that's my opinion.

I think there is one other thing we need to consider here. That is life conditions. We, in the U.S., live comfortably and perhaps with excess. IMO, this doesn't lead to great stories as a people, with one exception, domestic case-studies. These are some of the very best films I've seen in the last 10 years. Also stories with conflict between subgroups of society. These are genuine conflicts that are archetypal. On the other hand, the age of excess brings about a lot of bad, contrived writing. Writers who have nothing to say, and instead of writing conflict because of how they can see it in the world genuinely, they instead contrive it. And those movies almost always suck.

This will sound a little out there, but I'll make a prediction. We all know the economy is going in the tank right now. But you know what? I think it will produce better stories in a few years and/or in the next generation. That's my belief anyways.

You'd be surprised at how many people I meet trying to do filmmaking who get tunnel vision with equipment.

By that I mean, they are so obsessed with having the best camera, a great 35mm adapter, and all kinds of other doodads, that they completely forget about a solid story to tell.

I've seen people who I've thought were great writers pick up an HVX200 and a Letus and start shooting, and show me footage. I'm like, "Yeah, that's some incredibly shallow depth of field. Oh, great colors. So, uh... what's happening in the film again? I don't get it"

I'd rather watch an amazingly written screenplay filmed on a handycam than something shot on a high end prosumer with 35mm that is flat out boring.

Here here.

filmy

Would you really say the movies from the 90's are better than the movies now?

For me at least, cgi is getting old. No matter how good it is, I notice it immediately. Takes me out of the immersion. I love Pixar though, Wall-E was Art.

In the age of short attention spans and instant gratification, I think good story telling has taken a back seat to SFX and CGI. I'll take a well crafted and interesting story over whiz bang, boom effects any day. To me if you can tell a good story and evoke real emotions from the viewer, you have suceeded. To me that is a very powerfull thing to do.

Hey, Hey, Hey! Easy on the SFX stuff, bad story lines are what keeps us VFX and CGI folk employed! LOL! HA-Ha!

I think the main reason why micro-budget film makers stories lack, is because they don't know they lack.

I would put my screenplays up on trigger & zoet and the feedback most people give is beyond awful. I put up a horror script, and had reviewers saying, "That's gross" "How you can do that? That's beyond the norm". It's a horror movie! Or my absolute favorite Charles Manson makes a phone call from prison, and I actually had people saying "Charlie's in solitary he can't make phone calls. Or why would you put a serial killer in your movie? Like I was actually going to get Charles Manson to be in my movie.
What do friends know about screenplays? Actors will tell you the script is great because they want a part. There's very few people a novice screenwriter can turn to and get the feedback needed to improve their writing skills.

One of the main reasons I made my movie was to see if I had a clue about writing a decent story. And I have to be honest, I'm 50/50 on it. The movie is good, but if you dissected it to a 3 act structured narrative screenplay, it would be sorely lacking. NO ONE that read the script told me this. As a matter of fact, the problems I found while watching it, no one informed me of any of them. When I point them out, they all say "Yeah, but".

The micro-budget film makers that annoy me are the ones that use exposition everywhere. They forget action and have the characters tell you everything. That's inexcusable on any level.

Hollywood doesn't care about story anymore. Explosions, crashes and chases fill the seats. The costs of making these flicks has skyrocketed so they don't make the profits they used to. But, they still gross more then the majority of excellent dramatic stories.

Hollywood doesn't care about story anymore. Explosions, crashes and chases fill the seats. The costs of making these flicks has skyrocketed so they don't make the profits they used to. But, they still gross more then the majority of excellent dramatic stories.

I think that's a valid point, but I think that could go into a whole other discussion as how society in general has become desensitized and now demands to see explosions, gunfire, nudity, etc in order to keep their attention. Now, if you could combine the two worlds, like they did in Saving Private Ryan, then you have a blockbuster and a great film. There is a small minority, like those of us on this forum, who enjoy a good film for it's story. I still enjoy silly movies like the Tranporter and I'll go watch Transporter 23 if they make that many, but I also like moving stories like The Wrestler, Schindlers' List, etc. I like movies that make me think. There are also times I simply want to watch things blow up for no apparent reason, but in the end, I prefer a good story-there's just not that many out there anymore.

I think that's a valid point, but I think that could go into a whole other discussion as how society in general has become desensitized and now demands to see explosions, gunfire, nudity, etc in order to keep their attention. Now, if you could combine the two worlds, like they did in Saving Private Ryan, then you have a blockbuster and a great film. There is a small minority, like those of us on this forum, who enjoy a good film for it's story. I still enjoy silly movies like the Tranporter and I'll go watch Transporter 23 if they make that many, but I also like moving stories like The Wrestler, Schindlers' List, etc. I like movies that make me think. There are also times I simply want to watch things blow up for no apparent reason, but in the end, I prefer a good story-there's just not that many out there anymore.

Unless you're living under a rock (and many are, but they don't watch movies, listen to music or drink) we beome immune to everything. If you've been drinking for twenty years, it takes a lot more alcohol to get you drunk. If you have a new playstation (is that what it's called) Atari isn't going to cut it for you.

If you're old enough to remember, Bullitt and French Connection were the action movies with extra long chase scenes. Then came Towering Inferno and Earthquake... Die Hard... Bigger and badder, bigger and badder. But when you spend so much time thinking about FX story just gets lost in the mix.

"Usually their script sees one revision, even if that"

That just blows my mind. I re-wrote my script 7 times (a 25 page short). The other demands (hiring a crew, etc... etc... stopped me from re-writing it more than that, but that anybody would even consider filming a script not re-written a MINIMUM of 3 or 4 times is just nuts.

I have to agree with everyone here. Now I am new at the part of making films and I have gone to many film fests in my local area and have found that the shorts that I have seen have no meaning no substance nothing! My first film fest I was very saddened by that fact and wanted to know why they were just filming for filming sake. At one of the fest I wondered why a film was picked as a winner and the coordinator said it was because it was art. To me art has to have all the elements to become art. Feeling, sight, sound. Even an artist of paint can give you that when you look at his/her artwork. I understand the fact of not having the money to do a production but when you do get to start it it should have a beginning, a middle and an end. Short indie films or even a feature length film can say something, mean something, be something!
I have a short film that will start production in June. But I want to make sure it has all the elements of a great story, a beginning, a middle and the end. So before the camera starts to roll and I say action 90% of my time has been spent on the story. I guess by watching and listening to other film makers I did pick that much up. Good thing too, I guess!

Oh, Hi I am new here hope you guys don't mind I put my two cents worth in! :D :D :D
Glad to be here!

Zonmae

One of the early questions that was posed by one of our experienced members here, was "who is your target audience ?"

While I would relish the thought that teens and twenty something viewers would appreciate my film, I aimed my story / film at a more cerebral herd.

I could either write a comic strip or an in depth editorial. I chose (to some degree) the latter.

That does not mean my next project will not be a pie throwing, eye poking yarn. I can appreciate those as well and the next Moe, Larry or Curly. (talk about your quality film shorts !)

I just have to comment on this discussion.

I've noticed a lot of the same things already mentioned: lack of story, overfocus on the technical, etc.

A lot of the films I've seen even at recent festivals (not that festivals in any way, shape, or form denote a mark of quality) are exercises of technical imitation. The no/low-budget indie filmmakers are trying to imitate the filmic qualities of the Hollywood films they wish they could produce, and the mid/high-budget indie filmmakers try to imitate the styles/conventions of older films they idolize (for example: Q. Tarintino). Story merely becomes an intended vehicle, in either case, to propel the technical prowess of the filmmaker.

I've found that aside from directors/producers ignoring story, directors of no/low-budget fare typically ignore, well, directing.... directing the actors, I mean. I've seen what should have been great dialogue or memorable moments butchered by really, really, really good actors (I know they're good because I've seen them do better!). The only explanation is that the director either didn't focus on performance or didn't know how to communicate with the actors. I've heard horror stories where auditions were videotaped, and the only actual direction from the director's mouth was to "take a step left to stay in frame" (in other words: only direction from the outside-in instead of from the inside-out).

Also, many filmmakers have a good story and the tools to tell it, but whether from a faulty blue-print (the screenplay), emphasis on the wrong parts of the actual story (too many pointless/overly technical shots, scenes that go nowhere, or segments of fluff dialogue, no matter how clever) or the inability to edit (not the technical ability, but the art/craft), the story gets lost somewhere.

Like everyone has said before me, I tell everyone that works with me at my company: "story trumps all" (just a slight variation on the title of this thread).

From Page 1:

I see the arguments both VP and Bpeas made.
Here is my perspective:

There is a big difference between amateur and professional.
I try to look at it from a sports angle.
If you are at a little league or high school or college game, it's ok to try your hardest.
It's ok to show too much emotion, make rookie mistakes, etc.

Pro sports are much different. Professional. That's the key word.
A pro athlete does not go out to try their hardest. They don't get too up or too down (if they are good).
They are like an assassin. They just go out and do their job, with only one goal in mind.
To win.

The same things apply to filmmaking.
The amateur is someone who films or writes as a hobby.
If that's the case, keep their feelings in mind when giving constructive criticism.

If someone is a pro (or I'm guessing on here wants to be a pro), treat them like one.
There isn't room to worry about feelings or that they tried their best, etc.
They should only have one job in mind...to win.
If their work needs to be ripped apart, then do it. If there is praise to be given, give it.

Most importantly, all criticism must always be constructive.

I think there are two reasons why story is such a problem in film:

1. Society

The society one lives in can be a problem. I think it was Aristotle who said that decadence is the first sign of a civilization's decline. Here in the U.S., we've lived in a debt fueled consumption based economy for a quarter century, and the result has been exactly decadence. Not everyone, but there are an awful lot of people out there who only want to see more gunshots, more sex, more reality tv, etc. And if that's what they want to see, that's what studios and indie filmmakers and anyone who wants to make a living in filmmaking has to film.

If the audience wants to watch crap, you can't be successful unless you show them crap.

2. Filmmakers who don't understand the principles behind story.

I read in McKee's book that there no rules to storytelling, only guidelines. If there were rules, anyone could follow them and write a perfect script. Instead you have to understand what has worked before.

I also read a general statement on a screenwriting blog once that had to do with the inciting incident. Something to the effect of "an incident that makes your protagonist get up off his ass to do something, but it can't be anything. Just having someone die like most people do isn't good enough. It might work in some movies, but in most scripts it just comes off flat."

That random statement came back into my mind when I was watching the Godfather one day. Why is Vito Corleone getting shot a good inciting incident when Michael is the protagonist in the story? And then it dawned on me. Vito is essentially the protagonist up until he gets shot. If the camera had followed Michael from fade in, Vito getting shot wouldn't have connected with the audience nearly as much. Instead, he was the bigshot for a half hour or so, and bam. He gets shot. Much more impact. Then the story shifts to Michael.

It was a big thing for me to figure out that principle behind the inciting incident, and led me to figure out a lot more about story. So many times you hear about the inciting incident "it's something to get your protagonist off his ass to go and do what the story is about". But that only tells you what the inciting incident is, it doesn't tell you how to create one effectively. I hope my example above is a good insight into how to create one effectively.

That extra dimension seems to be lacking in most bad films.

So the topic is again alive.getting some good info....i just want to give my point of view (it might be wrong so forgive me for that)
i think that the way we present our film (or the treatment of film) is important too. I will give the example of Indian FILm GHAJNI which has a common story that the lead female charachter was killed and the Main lead charachter took the revenge. The story is simple but the way it has been presented it made the film a big HIT. so apart from the story the way we tell our story that also matters a lot.

What do you say?

As ussinners said:

The micro-budget film makers that annoy me are the ones that use exposition everywhere. They forget action and have the characters tell you everything. That's inexcusable on any level.

Well i think he right. Our teacher (and GURUS here) also said that a film is in which you show people , not speak so try to avoide dilogues maximum until they arent very essential.

i just wrote a thing on "story" over in another thread....

http://www.indietalk.com/showpost.php?p=90348&postcount=4


and before you bash what i said... i do love a good story... and i think weak stories and weak scripts are a huge problem in hollywood today... so many movies would have benefited from another re-write or two... but, as you'll read in that post i linked to... i don't think that story is "everything"... i think it is merely one of the tools of filmmaking... a very important and often overlooked one, i agree... but just one of the tools, nonetheless...