The basic modern epic tale storyline

[Trapezoid]

Well, his budgets kept getting bigger, for one thing. I don't know, his earlier films seemed a lot less concerned with the "rules" of film and storytelling and were wilder excersizes in cult cinema. They were sort of anti-films.
I think his progression has more to do with growing up and getting older, actually. He was probably a bad example. All of his films are really creative, just in different ways.
Anyway, I agree that education is something you need to properly express your creativity. But I also think it can kill your soul if it doesn't rub well with you. So it all depends on HOW you learn.

[DGMacphee]

I agree -- you must use education as a basic guide only and not the be all and end all.

Even academics make mistakes, though most won't admit it.

I remember when I was studying filmmaking in Uni (and this story also applies to any subject in Uni), I was like "Why are we studying all this Welles and Hitchcock stuff? Why don't we study other things?"

Then I realised you must treat Uni lessons not as gospel, but a smorgasboard of ideas -- pick the ones you like the best and incorperate them into your own ability.

Not everything they say is the truth.

I also later realised that they were teaching us Welles and Hitchcock so that we had an understanding of basic rules and thus learn how we could go in a different direction to Welles and Hitckcock.

[Ryukage]

Masters need not even think about the rules, they can operate on instinct alone.

But you forget: Most masters had to learn the rules first before they could break them.

You see, you seem to think that masters need not think about rules, when the opposite is true.

Masters need to learn the rules as much as anyone and keep them constantly in mind so they know how to break them the right way

No, I don't forget.  I described in my own post that mechanically choosing to break rules or not to is the intermediate step between novice and master.

Yes, masters need to learn the rules... when they're still novices.  They become masters when they don't need the rules anymore.  You yourself gave examples of people who learned the rules and then discarded them when they no longer needed them.

To put it in more metaphoric terms, the rules are training wheels, you don't need them anymore once you learn to balance the bicycle on your own.  The bicycle still needs to be balanced, of course, but it can be done without the crutches once you reach a certain level of proficiency.  The other side of this metaphor is that once you take the training wheels off, it becomes perfectly natural to do things that the training wheels would have gotten in the way of, like leaning into turns and popping up and down curbs.  Some people never reach the point where they can take off the training wheels without wiping out, but those that do are what I consider Masters.

I agree -- you must use education as a basic guide only and not the be all and end all.

Considering that this is exactly the point I've been trying to make, our disagreement is clearly stemming from some kind of misunderstanding.

[DGMacphee]

Yes, masters need to learn the rules... when they're still novices. They become masters when they don't need the rules anymore. You yourself gave examples of people who learned the rules and then discarded them when they no longer needed them.

But they don't discard them -- that's my point.

A master keeps these rules in mind so they can achieve what hasn't been achieved.

You seem to think that once you master something, you can easily shrug off thew rules and do your own thing.

I'm saying that's not true -- masters still need the basics as much as a novice.

A master needs the rules when they are both a master and novice.

They just use the rules in different ways.

It's essentially a small difference in our argument, but it's still a difference.

Besides, would you can Ed Wood a true master, as he ignored most rules of filmmaking? (even though he made essentially crap movies)

That's what separates Ed Wood from, say, Martin Scorsese or Francis Ford Coppola.

Also, I'm not one for metaphors about bicycles and such -- Usually they cloud real facts. (No offense, mind you -- It's just I prefer actual examples of masters who "ignore" the rules completely)

But to also put it in metaphorical terms, yes you wouldn't need the training wheels -- But you'd need to keep in mind the most important (and most basic) rule: If you pedal in one direction, you'll go forward.

And the breaks make you stop -- that's second-most important rule that master bicycle riders never forget.  

[Nacho]

Michael Chrichton said once that when he was younger he believed that he was the best writer ever. Nowadays he thinks that he is just average, and everyday he learn something new, even he sees a lot of mistakes when he reads again his first books.

And that´s true. There are two ways to learn, by commiting mistakes and redoing, or by learning the basis from a very start (and adding something new after, if you´re talented enough).

I attempted to write something when I was in high school, my literature teacher was quite happy about the result, but he gave some tips... When he finished, I realised that all was bad, the paragraph were too big, I took no attention to the rythim, and I went too fast to the action without giving deep to the plot and character to the characters.

I finally rewrote the narration and I won a quite important local literature contest.

Breaking rules is cool when they are old fashioned and restrict the creativity of the new generations of creators, but we can´t confuss this with making bad creations. DG and Ryu can be both right, as they can be talking of "different" rules, IMO.

[Ryukage]

You seem to think that once you master something, you can easily shrug off thew rules and do your own thing.

No, what I'm saying is that for example a master writer doesn't need to have the Chicago Manual of Style open on their lap for constant reference, nor do they even need to consciously think about the rules, they can simply trust their skill and instinct and write.

I'm saying that's not true -- masters still need the basics as much as a novice.

A master needs the rules when they are both a master and novice.

They just use the rules in different ways.

It's essentially a small difference in our argument, but it's still a difference.

Yes, the master needs the basics, but the rules are not the basics.  Understanding the rules leads to an understanding of the basics, but the rules are not themselves the basics.

There are savants who can become masters with no formal training at all; they have an intuitive notion of how to work their medium, and produce results that have the appearance of following the rules even though the creator never even knew what the rules were.

That's what I'm saying, that the novice consciously follows every rule to the letter, the intermediate consciously decides where to follow rules and where not to, and the master puts the rulebook away and works from their intuitive understanding of the deeper truths that the rules were derived from to begin with.  The master needs the deeper truths that underlie the rules, the true basics; but they don't need the rules themselves, which are actually a complication.

Besides, would you can Ed Wood a true master, as he ignored most rules of filmmaking even though he made essentially crap movies?

Well, I have no idea who he is, but based on your descriptions I'm guessing he's one of those people who took off the training wheels off before he was ready.

I'm not saying that throwing the rules away makes someone a master; I'm saying that developing an intuitive understanding of why the rules exist makes someone a master.  Once you understand what's behind the rules, the rules themselves are no longer needed.

In grade school arithmetic, they teach us to always subtract the smaller number from the larger number.  That's a rule.  A rule that becomes obsolete and needlessly restrictive once you understand the concept of negative numbers (which in my case was about five minutes after being told to always subtract the smaller from the larger).  A very similar effect occurs with the rules for good art: once you understand why a rule was given, the rule itself becomes obsolete and even needlessly restrictive.  But that understanding can't be taught, so they teach the rules and hope the students can come to true understanding on their own.

[Peter Thomas]

As interesting as this thread be, and as out of place as this post might seem, I feel compelled to type it anyway.

I think this whole 'Hey! This author stole That Idea' concept needs to be dropped. I mean, sure, it was funny reading that Luke/Harry thing, but it's getting so hard to come up with NEW plots these days.

Even authors who convince themselves that their latest book is original find out two months later that it's being compared to a similar book written 50 years beforehand. I mean, I'm writing a novel at the moment which I think is one of my best efforts yet (not perfect, of course :'(), but if I wanted to, I could list about 20 other stories which I could have ripped off.

And as 'shocking' as these similarities are, I don't recall ONE person walking out of the cinema (after watching H.P) saying "I should have just watched Starwars again!" Because really, the minor plot details are varied enough to keep you from dwelling on the larger similarities. Someone please give me a GENERAL storyline (as these examples have been) that is COMPLETELY original, and I will revoke every single word of this thread.

Oh, and Bill Gates munching on Michael Jackson's balls after losing a poker game to a field mouse does NOT count as plot. Sorry.

[Nacho]

That´s your oppinion, and we can go on the discussion with that... But I don´t see it as a "definitive" reply.

The questions are clear: Why orphans? I think that since the Grimm bross compiled their tales everybody is killing some (Or both) of the parents of the hero... Poor hero! Relationship between heroes and their parents are a world to explore, IMO (I.E. Indy 3)

There are some other examples... the wise old master who teaches the hero is becoming old fashioned, in fact, I think it was in the first low Middle Age revisiting of King Arthur´s history when that character was born in the shape of Merlin (and yes, I know that the first mentions of Merlin were made in VIth century by Gildas, but Merlin was not mentioned till the "Y Goddodin" in the XIIth century, ok? ) This character could be changed, or even avoided, don´t you think so?

I am not talking of inventing totally new histories... but some sort of. Do you remember "Die Hard"? It was about a man facing terrorists in a big skycrapper... Well, let´s change the skycrapper for a warship, a plane, an airport, a bus... And you have material for doing films during the next 10 years. When the material is over... think in something else.

That´s what  I was talking about. the classical modern adventure tale is close to its end, I think.

[Las Naranjas]

Well, for a why Orpahns's comment, I can easily anser that in the context of LOTR. For a looong period of writing, the character of Frodo was actually taken over by one called Bingo, who was Bilbo's son. However, it just didn't reconcile in the mind oif the author that Bilbo would have a child. An heir, and child by proxy was still required [else the whole shebang fails to click], so a nephew was developed whose status as a somewhat foster child could be allowed by a lack of genuine parents.

So in this case at least, it is internal rather than external dynamics that created the orphan element.

And you can note how, unlike Harry Potter and Star Wars, it was not made crucial plot and character element. An element of convenience rather than necssity. After all, the fate's of Harry's and Luke's parents [true or aledged] make up a large portion of their character and motivation. The same can't be said for Frodo.

[Peter Thomas]

To farlander: Absolutely. I agree with just about everything you said. That whole 'master teaches follower' concept is very old, although I would maybe disagree that it is TOO repetitive. Did you read H.P and think "Bah! Humbug! Harry is just sooooooo completely Luke with a scar on his head!"? Probably not, because although the BROAD concept is old, the finer points make it less noticable.

I mean, there's a big difference between being taught by a true master of the force, and a wizard that breaks all the rules, and doesn't even KNOW all the rules to begin with, and has pet dragons and three-headed dogs. But some will insist that it's plagarism. And I suppose that's okay, as long as they don't try to downplay the ingenuity of the book (movie... blah blah) while doing so.

[Nacho]

No, Peter, I won´t never accuse genious like Lucas and Ron Gilbert of plagiarism, of course...  

(And I said Ron Gilbert because Monkey Island has some of the main shoots of the modern epic tale storyline, IMO... )

But some of the main arguments are similar... The goal is that they introduce little changes that give deep to the chartacter and make them totally different.

Frodo could have been Bilbo´s son... his orphanity (sp?) has not a lot to see with the history. The death of Luke´s aunts is crucial in his history, and the past of his father will be revealed as a VERY IMPORTANT fact , Harry Potter has been trated awfully by his aunts... They´re variations of the same concept..., they´re orphans who have grown with his aunts.

I just wanted to express my admiration for this creators, and point the similarities, I never intended to say "They suck!!11! They´re making the same history again and again...!!1!"  

[DGMacphee]

No, what I'm saying is that for example a master writer doesn't need to have the Chicago Manual of Style open on their lap for constant reference, nor do they even need to consciously think about the rules, they can simply trust their skill and instinct and write.

I've heard a lot of master writers still use style manuals.

Yes, the master needs the basics, but the rules are not the basics.  Understanding the rules leads to an understanding of the basics, but the rules are not themselves the basics.

I disagree with this -- I think that "the basics" are rules.

There are savants who can become masters with no formal training at all; they have an intuitive notion of how to work their medium, and produce results that have the appearance of following the rules even though the creator never even knew what the rules were.

But this is an extremely rare thing.

And even then, such savants are no always highly regarded.

That's what I'm saying, that the novice consciously follows every rule to the letter, the intermediate consciously decides where to follow rules and where not to, and the master puts the rulebook away and works from their intuitive understanding of the deeper truths that the rules were derived from to begin with.  The master needs the deeper truths that underlie the rules, the true basics; but they don't need the rules themselves, which are actually a complication.

But, by that logic, I could throw away the all the rule books right of writing right now (including style mannuals and dictionaries, etc) and become a master.

Here we go:

teh qucki bowrn fex jumeopd ovre teah lazie deog

There -- I've purposely broken all the rules of writing, grammar and spelling.

And I don't make a great deal of sense.

Well, I have no idea who he is, but based on your descriptions I'm guessing he's one of those people who took off the training wheels off before he was ready.

He was the one who directed Plan Nine From Outer Space, considered the worst film in history.

And he'd already directed several films before that.

And he directed several films after that.

Every one was a stinker.

His life was made into a film by Tim Burton called "Ed Wood" and starred Johnny Depp.

I'm not saying that throwing the rules away makes someone a master; I'm saying that developing an intuitive understanding of why the rules exist makes someone a master.  Once you understand what's behind the rules, the rules themselves are no longer needed.

I only half agree here.

Yes, it's important that you understand why rules exist -- I think that's vital.

But I don't think you should turn your back on rules.

In grade school arithmetic, they teach us to always subtract the smaller number from the larger number.  That's a rule.  A rule that becomes obsolete and needlessly restrictive once you understand the concept of negative numbers (which in my case was about five minutes after being told to always subtract the smaller from the larger).  A very similar effect occurs with the rules for good art: once you understand why a rule was given, the rule itself becomes obsolete and even needlessly restrictive.  But that understanding can't be taught, so they teach the rules and hope the students can come to true understanding on their own.

But such rules aren't exactly obsolete -- they're just modification of rules.

I look at rules as not seperate entities, but as play-doh -- I can mold them the way I want to.

And people can always go back to those obsolete "grade school" rules and still succeed.

For example, read what I wrote about Picasso in my first post.

Someone please give me a GENERAL storyline (as these examples have been) that is COMPLETELY original, and I will revoke every single word of this thread.

How about: a bunch of American army medical officers pull a bunch of crazy pranks to survive the horrors the Korean War.

I don't think I've read any other story that's the same, unless someone else can provide one?

[Peter Thomas]

How about: a bunch of American army medical officers pull a bunch of crazy pranks to survive the horrors the Korean War.

Damn... I wonder what you could call that book??

Maybe M*U*S*H?


teh qucki bowrn fex jumeopd ovre teah lazie deog

LMFAO! Sometimes I love DG... other times I love him more...

[DGMacphee]

How about: a bunch of American army medical officers pull a bunch of crazy pranks to survive the horrors the Korean War.

Damn... I wonder what you could call that book??

Maybe M*U*S*H?

Yeap, now name another book with the same general storyline as M*A*S*H.

And no, you can't say Catch 22, cause it follows a different narrative structure and the themes are way different.

teh qucki bowrn fex jumeopd ovre teah lazie deog

LMFAO! Sometimes I love DG... other times I love him more...

Thank you for your love!  

[Goldmund]

Frodo MUST be an orphan.
The protagonist of a magical tale has to be put in a special situation, has to be touched by something that makes him stand outside the society.

[Las Naranjas]

Couldn't he have been touched by a dirty old guy instead?

[Goldmund]

Couldn't he have been touched by a dirty old guy instead?

Bah, of course he could!
But, as a result, you'd get one of Socrates' dialogues, not an epic tale storyline.

[DGMacphee]

Then again, think about why they called it "Lord of the Rings".  

[Fuzzpilz]

Then again, think about why they called it "Lord of the Rings".  

Well...

[DGMacphee]

I prefered the gay subtext.