situational and structural storytelling

[kalbashir]

It's important to get away from this idea that all stories are different.

On a situational level all stories are. For example, Gladiator (2000), Alien (1979) and The Godfather (1972) all are situationally very different.

But on a structural and subconscious level, they're all the same.

And I don't mean basic structure, like three act structure (of course stories have a beginning, middle and end). And I don't mean plot points etc either (Plot Point 1 and 2, Midpoint etc).

I mean, sequence by sequence, the vast majority of successful stories [we haven't found one that doesn't] follow the same process that pushes the Hero and Major Characters through the process of Transformation and Challenge Resolution.

What this means is that you, as a writer, must confidently understand this structure / process and use it to establish your structural outline and then superimpose your situation over it.

See the research at:

http://www.clickok.co.uk/index4.html

[Ronaldinho]

"I mean, sequence by sequence, the vast majority of successful stories [we haven't found one that doesn't] follow the same process that pushes the Hero and Major Characters through the process of Transformation and Challenge Resolution. "

This is the sort of thing that only applies to every film if you make the terms so broad as to be meaningless to a writer.

If anybody feels compelled to read Vogler (which I don't recommend) or Campbell (which I don't find parituclarly useful, but clearly some do) then go right ahead. It's obvious from the way this guy is writing that he's parroting their stuff.

[kalbashir]

You don't get it. You don't understand what a story IS.

http://www.clickok.co.uk/index4.html

[inglourious basterd]

After I saw the flame on Ronaldinho, I bit and I clicked on the link.

I smiled a bit when I saw the following image. I can't say that I read anything else on the page, though:

[XvoorheesX]

Originally posted by kalbashir
You don't get it. You don't understand what a story IS.

http://www.clickok.co.uk/index4.html

This reminds me of that guy who tried to pick a barfight with Mike Tyson.

*grabs popcorn, sits, waits with gleeful anticipation*

[Ronaldinho]

You don't get it. You don't understand what a story IS.

That's interesting. I've been making my living for over a year with my screenplays.

You're spamming bulletin boards to make your living. If you're making a living off this, that is.

I've torn apart the Star Wars/Harry Potter thing before. I'm going to do it again (hopefully for the last time) because it makes my point: to describe these stories as having identical steps, you need to define each step so broadly that they could apply to almost anything.

Harry Potter isn't living in the "wilderness of Suburbia." As far as he knows, that's what the world is. Luke Skywalker, on the other hand, knows that he's on the outskirts of a galaxy where exciting things are happening. Harry just wants to be left alone.

Luke is in immediate jeopardy from the sand people, who are trying to kill him. Harry is merely living an unhappy and uncomfortable life. To use the verb "rescue" to apply to both of them is to define the word very broadly. Certainly, it's not wrong to apply to the word "rescue" to Harry's situation, but it's also clearly a different use of the word than describing what happens between Obi Wan and the Sand People.

Harry has many adventures in Hogwarts. And Luke has many adventures in the Galaxy. For starters, you really can't describe Star Wars as "many adventures." It's a single adventure - rescuing leia from the Death Star. Harry, on the other hand, does have a variety of different adventures, many unrelated to the main story of the book (the Philosopher's Stone). This is a HUGE difference between the two, and to gloss over it displays a huge amount of ignorance about story.

And, of course, "The Galaxy" is a very large area, whereas "Hogwarts" is a small one. That's like saying that a story set in Butte, Montana, is equivalent to one set in Europe - because they're both set in places.

Next, the "new friends" sentence. Hermione and Ron are clearly Harry's friends from the beginning of the story. Han and Leia, on the other hand, are not Luke's friends. These are people who don't particularly like each other who are thrown together in face of a common enemy. While they become friends (and more) in the later films, in the first film they are clearly NOT friends.

On the other hand, Ron, Hermione, and Harry genuinely are friends, and the reason that their adventures happen to all of them is primarily because their friendship keeps them together. Only once - at the very end of the film - does Han or Luke make a choice to join the others.

Again, this is a HUGE difference which anybody with any understanding of story would immediately recognize. It only makes sense in this (admittedly jokey) graphic because the term "friends" is defined very broadly - but Han, Leia, and Luke are clearly NOT friends in the sense that Harry, Ron, and Hermione are.

And, of course, while Lord Voldermort did kill Harry's parents directly, Vader did not. Owen and Beru were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. Also note, here, how in this sentence the text makes an analogy between Harry's parents and Owen and Beru, whereas a few sentences further up it makes a comparison between Harry's parents and Luke's father!

That's a nice bit of slight of hand, but which is it? Who's the analog to Harry's parents? Owen and Beru, or Vader? You can't have it both ways.

In other words, to the extent that there are story points which appear in both stories, they are given to different sets of minor and/or offscreen characters. This, again, is not a trivial difference.

Lastly, of course, the "medals of valor" are basically irrelevant to the plot of star wars. They're never an objective during the film, and, in fact, we don't know they exist until they're shown, in a coda, being awarded.

The house cup, on the other hand, is one of the main dramatic engines driving "Harry Potter." You're aware of it throughout the whole film. You're constantly being reminded of the house cup standings, which change to reduce or increase the dramatic tension of the film. It is, in fact, probably the second most important goal for Harry in the whole film.

Making an analogy from that to the medals of valor makes, well, absolutely no sense.

If these kind of comparisons interest you, the very least you should do is go to the original source: Joseph Campbell's "Hero with a Thousand Faces." This guy Kalbashir is more or less Cambell's B- student. Actually, that's being too generous. He's Campbell's B-student's (Vogler's) B-student.

There's value in looking at classical story archetypes, which is what Campbell does.

Lastly, let me add that this little comparison does make me smile. It's amusing. But it's also revealing. In particular, it reveals how Kalbashir is glossing over major differences in stories to make his point.

[inglourious basterd]

Ronaldinho:

Is this something that you've seen a lot? It almost seems as if this issue is an old hat for you. This was the first time I've seen this and I couldn't even imagine that it is a serious argument -- the way its presented here is almost as if its intentionally humorous flamebait in order to get money off the many ads on his webpage.

[NobodySpecial]

#1, Why hasn't kalbashir been banned yet?

#2, Harry Potter, particularly the first one, is nothing if not incredibly derivative. Yes, there's a big spoonful of Star Wars in there.

#3, With all due respect, validating the nonsense that oozes out of kalbashir is idiotic. He's a douche bag, leave it at that.

[Ares2907]

Originally posted by psudoazn
Ronaldinho:

Is this something that you've seen a lot? It almost seems as if this issue is an old hat for you.

He's been here a while, always with the same lame shite. I'm surprised you don't have a mailbox full of complaints about it.
You can bring yourself up to speed with these:

kalbashir
is
a
worthless
spammer

[inglourious basterd]

On that note, this thread is locked.

Thanks for the input.