The screenplay is the most important thing in a movie

If you want your audience to know your character has depression, you're not going to have him saying it directly, instead, have him alone in his kitchen table, drinking alone for instance.
Let's make an example of how NOT to do it, using something you normies love, capeshit, in "Spiderman, far from home" you see the villain explaining his hole motivations and plans in one big sitting, destroying completely the subtlety and feeling more like an NPC than a human being, it doesn't help his characterization is almost nonexistent, so you have a very boring character with no profound human emotions at all

Attached: spidercrap.jpg (1000x667, 77K)

Bullshit.

You're always welcome to refute with actual arguments

t. reddit """movie buff""" who thinks nitpicking "plot holes" counts as film criticism

Stick to comic books and video games. I don't think you're very good at understanding actual art.

My hidden desire is to become a screenplay writer. But then again you would have to live in LA so that's a big yikes.

You probably dislike Only God Forgives then, Retro Screenplayfag

>Namecalling
>No arguments at all
Yeah, nothing more than I expected from a butthurt normie, don't worry, you can always improve, you just have to listen

sneed

Next, your character most develop, he needs to end up with a different view of his thoughts, for example, let's imagine our character things life is meaningless, but through the story he starts understanding life's fragility and beauty, of course (and like I said before), you don't have to overexaggerate it and make him extremely happy, his personality will change, but not as extreme as a cartoon character would

>Implying Hollywood would take any screenplay other than capeshit, hedonism or propaganda
Yeah, nothing to do there, m8

That's just the surface of something bigger, but I'll let you digest this first, we're just starting. It's a very short lesson but I don't want to bore you with big chunkis of text, I'll leave that for another day, for the next thread: "Types of characters and their dimensions".
Feel free to ask questions

OP is a faggot lmao. Anyone on this board who cares knows how a film is made and what role the screenplay is. We even have a screenwriting general sometimes. Don't act all high and mighty just because you went to film school or more likely, stay at home and watch video essays all day. Board culture is centered around memes, join or die.

>Don't act all high and mighty just because you went to film school
Didn't went to that shit, it's a waste of money
>Board culture is centered around memes
This board is for the discussion of movies, "sneed", "cast him", "what did he mean by this?", and "what is this expression trying to convey", etc are nothing but bullshit we have everyday, so no, the average Yea Forums poster doesn't care how movies are made and their backbone, sorry

Here is my latest screenplay masterpiece

imgur.com/a/lykUaTy

>"By Yea Forums"
Yeah... nice quality there... kek, don't worry, I'll read to the end anyway

what did he mean by this?

what's ya favorite movie bucko
give me that list

That you're a normie

"Not a single movie can match my highest criteria!"

what if i want to adapt a novel into a screenplay

You need to own the rights to the novel.

You're a faggot man, while movies are for telling stories, you can't tell a film is good because it has a good screenplay, nor you can tell a film is bad because it has a bad screenplay, movies are about conveying emotions and telling stories.
your example about a depressed man drinking alone is retarded, and shows you have no idea how to film anything, not because you didn't went to film school, but because you never thought about how movies work.
What proves me that you don't know what you're talking about is the fact you didn't once wrote the word "editing", which is (arguably, true) the only specificity movies have over any other piece of art, and that has nothing to do with the quality of the stories told, but rather with the quality of the way you tell it.

i know that, how i write a screenplay of a novel?

>The screenplay is the most important thing in a movie
Are you implying that both the original and the remake of Psycho are just as good as each other? They have the same script afterall

Look up the format of screenplays and then basically translate it into that form.

It's not rocket surgery.

>Look up the format of screenplays

which are????

How mandatory is a character arc? Escape from Alcatraz was a decent flick, and had zero character development. What movies do and don’t require them? My problems with the Punisher show was the overt reliance on character drama and arc to get by.

If you think most people on this board wouldn't consider a 2 well photographed video of a man taking a shit the greatest kino in years then you're sadly mistaken, user
idk why you'd waste your time on this shitheap actually trying to talk about making good films, I mostly come here to look for rumours and announcements, the humanities boards are the only decent boards

Adapting books is a very hard task, in a book the character's thoughts can be plasmed into words, but you can't do that in a movie, you have to take creative liberties if something that would fit in the book wouldn't in a movie, for example, in LOTR they removed Tom because most of his part was spending the night in his house with nothing but songs and poems, something that wouldn't be fit for the movie. It's better to make your own story that is made specifically for that medium, nowadays you have a shit ton of movies that are adaptations of comic books and teh results are shit

Wrong. Terrence Malick works without a script. Mike Leigh also has a different process. Hong Sang soo just writes script the morning before he shoots. Film is a visual medium you dumb nigger. You don't need to have a conventional story.

Disregard this thread my antipsychotics just kicked in and I'm all better now

kek

>you can't tell a film is good because it has a good screenplay
"You can't tell a building is good because it has a nice archistecture", see how retarded you look?
>movies are about conveying emotions and telling stories
Emotions won't lead you to success, only hard work and discipline
>your example about a depressed man drinking alone is retarded, and shows you have no idea how to film anything, not because you didn't went to film school, but because you never thought about how movies work.
Explain, otherwise you're nothing but a pretentious faggot
>What proves me that you don't know what you're talking about is the fact you didn't once wrote the word "editing", which is (arguably, true) the only specificity movies have over any other piece of art
Publishers make writers edit some parts of his book, so no, it's not the only art that has "editing"

>What movies do and don’t require them?
Every movie requires it, otherwise you have don't have something of nice quality

Movies should be art, but the concept of art has been altered by postmodernist faggots, film is very related to humanities, but sadly the movies that are coming out are everything but the potential humans can have

>They have the same script afterall
The difference here is "freshness", of course by today standards is shit, but people have respect for Psycho because of the "tropes" it riginated, in this case, it's like comparing a baby shitting his diaper vs an adult man shitting his pants, of course the second one is stupi because, he's not a baby anymore, he should act like an adult

>Terrence Malick
>Mike Leigh
>Hong Sang
Yep, just what I said at the beginning:
>" there are movies that didn't have a written work behind, and all of them ended up being pretentious bullshit."
Thanks for proving my point, normie

But no. People still genuinely love the original Psycho. The reason the remake is shit is because of the acting and directing. The script matters, but there's a reason the director is often given the most credit for a film

>but there's a reason the director is often given the most credit for a film
It's the most overrated part, the screenwriter is actually the most important, without him, there's no content
>People still genuinely love the original Psycho
Just like I wrote before, "people like it because of the tropes it originated"

How do you sell a script?

Should you copyright a script prior to having someone look at it?

>How do you sell a script?
Agents, but they will take a nice portion of your money, you can also send your screenplay to a studio, but the waits are long and the probabilities low
>Should you copyright a script prior to having someone look at it?
Sure, otherwise you can get ripped off, however, the moment you sell it, you lose the right to it, the producer can hire anyone to rewrite it if he thinks it won't sell, you can get really dissapointed. Also, if a big studio likes the idea but doesn't accept your script, they'll most likely make another screenplay with a similar premise, it's you vs a big corporation, so the chances of winning in court are low. In the end, it's better to produce it yourself

>people like it because of the tropes it originated
This is not true, though. I guess it's true to some people, but a lot of people still genuinely love it.
>the screenwriter is actually the most important
No. Think of a play. The playwright is important, however not every production of Hamlet is equally good

>but a lot of people still genuinely love it.
Let's say I don't, how do you reply to that?
>No. Think of a play. The playwright is important, however not every production of Hamlet is equally good
And in the end, no matter how many people direct Hamlet, it will always say: "Hamlet, by William Shakespeare", however, when a movie is made, they discard the writer and put the name of the director first, makes no sense

>Let's say I don't, how do you reply to that?
You have shit taste, and no one should take your advise when it comes to film and filmmaking

>You have shit taste, and no one should take your advise when it comes to film and filmmaking
If I say a baby is not capable of making the same as an adult, am I someone with "shit taste?", no, I'm just being objective, I can recognize his merits, but it's totally outdated, you're just another example of an NPC: "Psycho movie classic good, people who don't like it bad"

>Publishers make writers edit some parts of his book, so no, it's not the only art that has "editing"
Are we playing a game of "who's the most retarded ?" ? Editing is the process of arranging lapses of film to make a coherent "it"
>Emotions won't lead you to success, only hard work and discipline
So there's no emotions in movies ?
>>your example about a depressed man drinking alone is retarded, and shows you have no idea how to film anything, not because you didn't went to film school, but because you never thought about how movies work.
Explain, otherwise you're nothing but a pretentious faggot
When you'll film a man drinking alone at a table its most likely gonna be two shots : one of the man, one of the drink, its not just the idea of "a man is drinking alone at a table as you seem to think it is, it is, for the filmmaker, a matter of conveying this information, using EDITING, which is the process of creating fiction using the very process that occurs when you try to recall an event in your brain

>it's totally outdated
No. You're retarded if you think film was a baby then and an adult now. As a medium, film is still a baby. Really, the only movies that you can say are outdated are silent films, and maybe a few early talkies. Film really hasn't changed that drastically since the 40s

That is to say, connecting logically two events while maintaining coherence, you don't remember things like tiny movies in your head, you remember bullet points, and your brain connects them naturally because it can't stand to have stories that don't make sense

retroman you know shit about screenplay and how to write interesting characters, i´ve come across way better advice on the Yea Forums board

>Are we playing a game of "who's the most retarded ?"
Ad hominem
>Editing is the process of arranging lapses of film to make a coherent "it"
And it follows the script
>So there's no emotions in movies ?
There are, but they're delivered with a structure and discipline, I can't film a 5 minute take of an empty forest and call it "art" because I "feel" it is
>When you'll film a man drinking alone at a table its most likely gonna be two shots : one of the man, one of the drink, its not just the idea of "a man is drinking alone at a table as you seem to think it is, it is, for the filmmaker, a matter of conveying this information, using EDITING, which is the process of creating fiction using the very process that occurs when you try to recall an event in your brain
What if I do it in one take? Not to mention the edition would be following the script anyway

>You're retarded if you think film was a baby then and an adult now.
Yeah, clearly movies nowadays are totally the same as 1920s movies, right?
>As a medium, film is still a baby.
And is dying due to commercial and bad progaganda purpuses
>Film really hasn't changed that drastically since the 40s
The messages trying to transmit went to shit

You are free to have a discussion on writing, but if all you do is claim without evidence, it's nothing but words to the air

I honestly think one take would be better.

A very quiet scene with a character slouched over, glass in hand, sitting there as a clock tics away. You wouldn't need two shots, one shot could do it. A second shot maybe for a close up on his face at the end of the scene, but really one shot works.

BUT that's the directors job, not the screen writer.

>clearly movies nowadays are totally the same as 1920s movies
I literally said
>the only movies that you can say are outdated are silent films, and maybe a few early talkies
I'm well aware that films from the 20s are quite different than the ones today. But the films from 40s on really aren't different. There's been some aesthetic trends and some technical innovations, but they're not all that different

>BUT that's the directors job, not the screen writer.
And everything is based on the writer's words
>But the films from 40s on really aren't different
"The messafes they're trying to transmit are shit nowadays", not to mention there's pretentious movies

We all know this shit already dude

Hey Retro Man who's your favorite screenwriter?

Maybe you, but take a look at the replies and you'll se that's not clear to a lot of people

>"The messafes they're trying to transmit are shit nowadays", not to mention there's pretentious movies
I have no idea what you're trying to say here. I get that "messafes" was supposed to be "messages", but it still makes no sense

Today's movies are nothing but nihilism, hedonism, and being pretentious

Nope. Lots of shitty scripts were saved by the director and editor and sometimes acting performances.
It is pretty important but not the most important thing.

Name three (3) pretentious films

It isn't the writers job to dictate camera angles and shots unless he is doing the directing.

The writer can hint at it, but in the end it is the directors decision.

Except for the ones that aren't. Also, there are a lot of films made before 1940 that are nihilistic, hedonistic, and/or pretentious

Don't have one
>Lots of shitty scripts were saved by the director and editor
Basically they rewrote it
>Name three (3) pretentious films
Raw, Salo, Naked Lunch

>It isn't the writers job to dictate camera angles and shots
Technical/shooting screenplays tell otherwise
>Also, there are a lot of films made before 1940 that are nihilistic, hedonistic, and/or pretentious
Most of them started in the shitty 60s, where the West started to decline

Don't bother explaining that. Retro Man clearly knows nothing about how a film is made

Don't need to get mad

What about your favorite script then?

Don't have one, no one has matched my criteria, but from the 20 screenplays I've read the most decent would be Synechdoche New York

Please tell us more about your criteria. Spare no detail.

I'm confused. You think new movies have bad messages, and you think old movies are outdated. What movies do you like?

>And it follows the script
It doesn't. You have no idea how a movie is made.
>There are, but they're delivered with a structure and discipline, I can't film a 5 minute take of an empty forest and call it "art" because I "feel" it is
You could, you said emotions won't lead you to success tho, not "there can't be any emotion in movies" As to the 'hard work' part, its true if you're david fincher not if you're christopher doyle, emotion can and does sometimes comes candidly.
>What if I do it in one take? Not to mention the edition would be following the script anyway
You're missing the point, it doesn't matter if you do one take for this scene, as you'd need to link this scene to another one using another edit, which is going to be even harder since there is nothing going on on screen, to your 'i could do just one shot' I say 'are you going to have one shot in your entiere movie ?'

>Please tell us more about your criteria
I judge character development, verisimilitude, characterization, worldbuilding, execution, if it's edgy or not, the amount of dialogue, theme exploration, I'll talk about enventually in another thread

>What movies do you like?
Mostly animated, but animation and film are diffent art forms so naming them is useless here

>It doesn't
Yeah, that's why you have clapboards telling the editor the scene that follows the script, right?
>You have no idea how a movie is made.
Are you sure about that?
>You could
and I would be wrong, a landscape of a forrest is cute and all, but that's what it is, it's not a movie
>not "there can't be any emotion in movies"
Never said that, I said emotions should be delivered in a structural and disciplined way
>As to the 'hard work' part, its true if you're david fincher not if you're christopher doyle, emotion can and does sometimes comes candidly.
If I film my ex girlfriend's tantrum, is that a movie? After all, she's having emotions, right?
>You're missing the point, it doesn't matter if you do one take for this scene, as you'd need to link this scene to another one using another edit,
And you need page numbering and stapling for books in order to get the story, that doesn't mean shit
>are you going to have one shot in your entiere movie
Of course not, but every shot would be following my script

Mr Turner is pretty good film m8, and that's a Mike Leigh project. Not sure if he went in without a script though.

>Yeah, that's why you have clapboards telling the editor the scene that follows the script, right?
you (intentionnaly because you're dishonest, or by mistake, because you don't know shit) seem to confuse the screenplay with the technical breakdown, or storyboard, a writer does not write any of those, he writes the screenplay.
>Are you sure about that?
See above.
>and I would be wrong, a landscape of a forrest is cute and all, but that's what it is, it's not a movie
we agree on that, the best screenplay, with the best possible wordbuilding, character development... etc. is not a movie either, its a screenplay.
>If I film my ex girlfriend's tantrum, is that a movie? After all, she's having emotions, right?
are we discussing what is a movie or what is a good
>Of course not, but every shot would be following my script
Are you a director or a writer in this LARP ? if you are a writer then no, if you are a director maybe, if the production studio doesn't get the final cut.

>seem to confuse the screenplay with the technical breakdown, or storyboard, a writer does not write any of those, he writes the screenplay
They technically do a breakdown and storyboard the entire script.
>we agree on that, the best screenplay, with the best possible wordbuilding, character development... etc. is not a movie either, its a screenplay.
And is the base for everything, withoutit, you don't have a story
>are we discussing what is a movie or what is a good
Tell, me, is my ex girlfriend tantrum a movie?
>Are you a director or a writer in this LARP ? if you are a writer then no, if you are a director maybe, if the production studio doesn't get the final cut.
In the end, all the edit goes to follow the script, I don't know what's so hard to understand about it

even though you're naming yaself op (thats really not necessary since ya often can tell by the language which user is whom, whenever they arent trollin), I approve of your effort

whats your top 5 movies?

whats your top 5 screenplays?

which director was the best writing new screenplays? why?

whos the best adapter of novell/plays? kubrick?

what director is best at making others writing vision come to screen?

Are documentaries movies?

Attached: 1.png (585x71, 4K)

>They technically do a breakdown and storyboard the entire script.
And ? Is that supposed to prove me that the writer of the screenplay controls the editing ? Because I feel like you admitted that the TD IS in fact, different from the screenplay
>And is the base for everything, withoutit, you don't have a story
So without the story you don't have a story ? Thanks you Andre Bazin, we needed you here.
>Tell, me, is my ex girlfriend tantrum a movie?
I guess if you decided to film it and show it as it is it could be considered as a documentary on crazy people, I don't see why it couldn't be a movie.
>In the end, all the edit goes to follow the script, I don't know what's so hard to understand about it
In the end all the edit goes to follow the technical breakdown, not the screenplay, I don't think you understand the difference.

DISREGARD THAT
I SUCK COCKS

You don't know what you are talking about you retard. They made better films that your script writing garbage directors could accomplish.
Also calling other people normies when you are talking like a dumb plot point mental midget nigger. Kys.

A hot actress is the most important thing in a movie
/thread

(You)

Not really
>And ? Is that supposed to prove me that the writer of the screenplay controls the editing ?
Yes, since all the clips need to be arranged to fit what the screenplay tells you
>So without the story you don't have a story ?
Pretty obvious, isn't it? But still, you keep sucking editing's dick without being the most important part, I can go on and say audio is the most important thing on a movie because otherwise you won't get what the characters ar saying, but both know that's a lie
>I guess if you decided to film it and show it as it is it could be considered as a documentary on crazy people, I don't see why it couldn't be a movie.
It's not, it would be just a video, that's how sperficial you are, I better start calling my ex so you can have your top movie, kek
>In the end all the edit goes to follow the technical breakdown, not the screenplay
Yeah, the technical breakdown of the screenplay

>They made better films that your script writing garbage directors could accomplish.
Waaaaaaaaa
>Also calling other people normies when you are talking like a dumb plot point mental midget nigger.
Without a structure, you have nothing but emptiness

Not really, except by all definitions of the word besides the one you made up in your head, right?

Attached: 1.png (633x218, 78K)

A "movie" is basically images put together to simulate movement, so by that standards, even a youtube vlog can be considered a movie, but we both know you're playing stupid, of course you know what I mean by movie

>Yes, since all the clips need to be arranged to fit what the screenplay tells you
the clips need to be arranged to fit what the director tells you.
>Pretty obvious, isn't it? But still, you keep sucking editing's dick without being the most important part, I can go on and say audio is the most important thing on a movie because otherwise you won't get what the characters ar saying, but both know that's a lie
I could suck audio, cinematography, editing's dicks, I wouldn't do it because I believe they are more important than the screenplay, but that they are as important, because you don't need cinema if all that matters in your film is the story, you need any media that lets you tell stories.
>It's not, it would be just a video, that's how sperficial you are, I better start calling my ex so you can have your top movie, kek
It would be a video if you filmed it on video, if you filmed it on film it would be a film, either way its a movie, as a previous user said "a story or event recorded by a camera as a set of moving images and shown in a cinema or on television" Chosing to use the term video proves further my point that you don't know what you're talking about. And as for the 'top movie' I repeat my question, are we discussing what is a movie or what is a good movie ?
>Yeah, the technical breakdown of the screenplay
Once the screenplay left the writer's desk its over for him tho, his contribution to the movie is over. The director can chose to film it however it pleases him.

The consensus is that documentaries count as films. Therefore, there's no reason why a documentary of your girlfriend can't count as a short film, or, if the appropriate length, a feature film. No, I don't know what (you) mean by movie.

>Without a structure, you have nothing but emptiness
You really are retarded.

>Since this board has gone to the shitter, I'm here
to educate you on movies as an art form
Rarely does this board made me genuinely laugh anymore. Thank you sincerely. I love your post.

>Disproves your entire point.

Attached: David.jpg (780x520, 28K)

>the clips need to be arranged to fit what the director tells you.
And the director wants you to follow the script
>I could suck audio, cinematography, editing's dicks, I wouldn't do it because I believe they are more important than the screenplay, but that they are as important, because you don't need cinema if all that matters in your film is the story, you need any media that lets you tell stories.
The story can be told in certain amount of media, if your story isn't that long, hell, make it a movie, if it's longer than that, make it a tv show
>It would be a video if you filmed it on video, if you filmed it on film it would be a film, either way its a movie, as a previous user said "a story or event recorded by a camera as a set of moving images and shown in a cinema or on television"
Yeah, that doesn't mean it's "film", that's what I mean by "movie" you utter imbeciles, it's simple, I can film my dog shitting in the backyard but it won't be projected at a theather or a festival, because it's nothing than a fucking video
>Chosing to use the term video proves further my point that you don't know what you're talking about.
You don't know anything about me
>And as for the 'top movie' I repeat my question, are we discussing what is a movie or what is a good movie ?
Both, and a "movie" as we all know it, it's the fictional work that has a structure, I already told you, you know what I'm talking about when I say "movie"
>Once the screenplay left the writer's desk its over for him tho, his contribution to the movie is over. The director can chose to film it however it pleases him.
and it will follow the words, even if another person rewrites it, they will still follow a screenplay

Ackshually if it doesn't have a complicated lorebook and clever quippy dialogue and deviates from what is the norm in any capacity it's pretentious, user.

>The consensus is that documentaries count as films.
So do youtube videos, that doesn't mean they're art
>there's no reason why a documentary of your girlfriend can't count as a short film
Because it would be just a tantrum, by the same dumb logic, is criminal footage recorded by the security cameras art? Of course not
Explain
Poves it further

>Rarely does this board made me genuinely laugh anymore. Thank you sincerely. I love your post.
You're welcome, normie pleb

>thread started by a college sophomore who just started his "screenwriting 101" course
>thread is nonsensical jerking off over "muh scriptz"
>nothing of value happens, as expected

>No explanation
>No refuttal
>Nothing but tantrums
Yeah, nothing else I expected fro a normie

>whats your top 5 movies?
Casablanca, Taxi Driver, Adaptation, The Godfather, Jurassic Park

>whats your top 5 screenplays?
Casablanca, 8½, Scarface, Heaven's Gate, Barry Lyndon, Interstellar

>which director was the best writing new screenplays? why?
Tarkovsky, and it's not even close

>whos the best adapter of novell/plays? kubrick?
No, it's either Godard or Hitchcock (who was Kubrick b4 Kubrick became Kubrick)

>what director is best at making others writing vision come to screen?
Bergman, easily

Who are you and why do you use a name?

why is op spamming his own thread? is that even allowed?

Kek, fuck off, faggot

The last 2 is not me

Lmao, didn't even notice that, what a cunt.

>his
how can you be so sure OP is a man and not a tranny?

the questions OP!
Answer my god damn questions!

>That doesn't mean they're art
I said they were films. You're moving the goalposts.
>Is criminal footage recorded by the security cameras art? Of course not
Oh boy, I can't wait to start a dialogue on the true essence of art with a guy that doesn't even know what a movie is. Here's a counter-question for you: Is an improvised narrative film art? Is a screenplay a requisite for art? If so, explain why, oh great arbiter of what is and isn't art.

it doesn't matter what name he uses, no one else knew who I was until I became a tripfag

tell me about art. who told you documentaries weren't art?

Don't have favorite movies
Don't have favorite screenplays
Most directos are shit for writing
No one
No one

Pretty good lists, though iirc Bergman was notorious for writing his own materials so you may be wrong at that point

>And the director wants you to follow the script
The director wants to film pretty actresses, or the director wants to make cool images, the director wants to do whatever the fuck he wants to do
>The story can be told in certain amount of media, if your story isn't that long, hell, make it a movie, if it's longer than that, make it a tv show
If it is relevant to tell your story in a moving images format (that is to say a short film, a feature film, or a tv show, btw there is a word for it its called 'movie'), hell, make it a movie, if its not write a fucking book, because the feature film format (which is what I think you're referring to by 'movie' but i could be wrong since i'm not a retard) has certain rules, less than a book for example.
>Yeah, that doesn't mean it's "film", that's what I mean by "movie" you utter imbeciles, it's simple, I can film my dog shitting in the backyard but it won't be projected at a theather or a festival, because it's nothing than a fucking video
I think its your fault for putting such a specific definition of the word movie, you seem to believe it's a live action fictionnal feature film but its just some moving images.
>Both, and a "movie" as we all know it, it's the fictional work that has a structure, I already told you, you know what I'm talking about when I say "movie"
Is koyaanisqatsi a movie ? if not why does your definition of a movie is so narrow ? what is koyaanisqatsi then ? where is the frontier between a movie and a non-movie ? What are movies that barely passes as movies ?
>and it will follow the words, even if another person rewrites it, they will still follow a screenplay
And the cases of re-editing a movie after its release ? where does it come from, do you think someone wrote the editing changes ?

>Thinks this is an argument
>College neckbeard confirmed

Go cry to your failed screenwriter professor, faggot.

In my opinion they are. I'm guessing Retro Faggot disagrees.

>I said they were films
Even youtube videos are
>Is an improvised narrative film art?
No
>Is a screenplay a requisite for art?
For film, yes
>what is and isn't art
Art requires discipline and hardwork while looking at the future of humanity, all that while expressing yourself
Now, answer my question, Is criminal footage recorded by the security cameras art?

Imagine thinking “what does he like” is a more central aspect to a character than “what are his motivations”
Absolute charlatan

Lot of loyalty for a named faggot!

What's the next step of your argument?

I am not a professor, who said that?

There's another user pretending to be me so I'm forced to use a trip so you guys can distinguish me from my copycat

Sneed

Please don't derail my thread with your hip memes and silly trolling, contribute with real questions or solid arguments, if not then get outta here

>The director wants to film pretty actresses, or the director wants to make cool images, the director wants to do whatever the fuck he wants to do
All while following the script
>If it is relevant to tell your story in a moving images format (that is to say a short film, a feature film, or a tv show, btw there is a word for it its called 'movie'), hell, make it a movie, if its not write a fucking book, because the feature film format (which is what I think you're referring to by 'movie' but i could be wrong since i'm not a retard) has certain rules, less than a book for example.
Still, every movie needs to folow a script
>I think its your fault for putting such a specific definition of the word movie, you seem to believe it's a live action fictionnal feature film but its just some moving images.
That's the keyword for it, teher are words that have multiple meanings, but in this board, which is for the discussion of movies, of course I'm talking about "fictional feature film" you idiots, it's pretty obvious
>What are movies that barely passes as movies ?
Does it have a well structured story? It's a movie, is it some ramdom footage of a tree or your dog shitting? It's not
>And the cases of re-editing a movie after its release ?
they edit the existent product, still having to maintain the key elements of the screenplay

>Even Youtube Videos are
Yes, short films are sometimes uploaded as Youtube videos. This doesn't invalidate my argument at all.
>Art requires discipline and hardwork while looking at the future of humanity, all that while expressing yourself
Says you. And this can't be achieved without a screenplay?
>Is criminal footage recorded by the security cameras art?
In my opinion it can be. Security footage could be considered a form of documentary shooting, and can show us glimpses into a variety of real-life stories and real interesting occurrences. What is terrorism if not political performance art? All these things can be really fun and interesting to appreciate or analyse as art if you remove the screenplay-shaped stick from your ass.

>Implying I like film school
It's a place where they """teach""" the same faggot things you believe, so no, I avoid it
What? I said his motivations are a most important element, where am I wrong?

Faggot

OP is the most arrogantly ignorant poster I’ve ever seen on this board.

I would take 20 Sneed threads over this retard talking about things he doesn’t know about.

Screenwriters have ZERO involvement in the production of their own script - at studio level, anyway. I assume you’re struggling to enter the industry since you’re posting random bullshit on a meme board, so I direct you to the words of an actual professional - Max Landis. Despite being a fag, he’s had more experience than you, and has a lot more insight into the industry as a one of its most successful writers.

Actors will deliver lines differently. Actors will add performance nuances not indicated in the script. Costume designers will do their own thing. Cinematographers will do their own thing. Editors will remove entire sequences that have been shot.

A film requires millions of dollars in budget, requires extensive logistical undertaking, requires thousands of individuals spread across a multitude of different departments, just to get even one scene shot. And you’re genuinely telling me, and everyone here, that all of these factors, all of these cogs in the machine, are slaves to what some words in the script says? Fuck off.

I’ve made my own short film, on a $0 budget, and the deviation between final product and script is enormous.

what are your credentials?

>Yes, short films are sometimes uploaded as Youtube videos
And they're pretentious crap that will never be in theathers
>Says you. And this can't be achieved without a screenplay?
In the movie format, it can't
>In my opinion it can be.
It's not, it's just evidence of a crime so police can take a veredict on the accused
>Security footage could be considered a form of documentary shooting, and can show us glimpses into a variety of real-life stories and real interesting occurrences.
Documentaries are not "movies" (just to avoid your pseudo intellectual confussion, yes, I mean """"fictional feature film""""), I can go to the shittiest place in the world and say, "wow, this place is very shitty", that's not art, that's jut info
>What is terrorism if not political performance art?
An act of violence
>All these things can be really fun and interesting to appreciate or analyse as art
Me taking a shit is art now as far as is recorded it seems, kek, and am I supposed to be the problem here?

>what are your credentials?
ID, drivers license, credit card, chuck e cheese playing card when I was 7

I am interested in asking - what gives you, over the hundreds of philosophers who have asked the question, the right to define what art is?

what are some great movies that didn't have a solid script?

>Woman under the influence
thats a shitty movie
>bloodrayne
uwe boll sucks

it's my thread, my rules

>All while following the script
And if, while filming, realize something's wrong with the story at some point ? do you just freeze ?
>Does it have a well structured story? It's a movie, is it some ramdom footage of a tree or your dog shitting? It's not
Could you give me an example of a movie that barely passes as such ? Have you seen The Limits of Control by Jim Jarmusch ? Is it a movie by your standards ?
>they edit the existent product, still having to maintain the key elements of the screenplay
Key element, so not all of the screenplay, so a movie is not a shot-by-shot equivalent of a written story ? Wow.

what's your definition then?

kek

>they're pretentious crap that will never be in theathers
Lmao. I hate short films as much as the next guy, but you're quite literally wrong. Whiplash, Saw, Lights Out etc. all started as short films before they were adapted for the screen.
>In the movie format, it can't
Explain why not.
>It's not, it's just evidence of a crime
Explain why not.
>Documentaries are not "movies"
Explain why not.
>An act of violence
Real interesting analysis you got there user, boy do I feel culturally enriched right now.
>Me taking a shit is art now as far as is recorded it seems
It would be, but your shit-art would be shit art. This is just a hyperbolic counter-example of something purposefully shallow. That's because you lack the creativity to envision a film without a screenplay that actually meets your criteria for art.

You’ve responded to me twice, yet you still haven’t given an answer even remotely valid.

I don’t have a definition of art, because I don’t believe in a definition of art, but that’s irrelevant - I’m not the one masturbating in front of this whole board with my pretentious crap.

>OP is the most arrogantly ignorant poster I’ve ever seen on this board.
Thanks
>I would take 20 Sneed threads over this retard talking about things he doesn’t know about.
shitposting won't stop my greatness
>Screenwriters have ZERO involvement in the production of their own script - at studio level, anyway.
And still, they all work together in order to see the screenplay come true
>I assume you’re struggling to enter the industry
Implying I want to be around pedos, sluts that would give her pussy for a role and drug addicts, kek
>A film requires millions of dollars in budget, requires extensive logistical undertaking, requires thousands of individuals spread across a multitude of different departments, just to get even one scene shot. And you’re genuinely telling me, and everyone here, that all of these factors, all of these cogs in the machine, are slaves to what some words in the script says?
Basically, I mean, you can't waste millions of dollars on a production that doesn't even have a base, can you imagine studios saying, "hey, let's take millions of dollars and scramble a story at day 1 and see how it goes!", of course not, they would waste million on some stupid nonsense, even blockbuster shit as Harry Potter wasted millions of dollars just to make Hogwarts, something written, into reality
>I’ve made my own short film, on a $0 budget
Bullshit, the camera costs, the camera costed, you name it
>and the deviation between final product and script is enormous
You still had a base

I'm just a man who has actually read about art, not your postmodern definition and "rules" made by kikes

>And if, while filming, realize something's wrong with the story at some point ? do you just freeze ?
There's multiple screenplay revisions and they make the actors read the screenplay out loud, that way they can detect if something sounds off, everything before production
>Could you give me an example of a movie that barely passes as such ?
Yeah, all those cat videos on youtube are neither "movies" nor art
>Key element, so not all of the screenplay
They still need to follow it, or are you going to mess around with millions of dollars at random, of course not

He's not me you dumbass, but let me reply to you, art does have a definition, and it requieres discipline, the Mona Lisa is art because it has discipline and rules and hard work put into it, a shitty canvas with paint ejaculated isn't art because it doesn't follow any rules, hence, is just paint all over a canvas

He's still running his mouth? LOL

Okay, who have you read? What were their thoughts? Why are their thoughts more valid than others?

I assume you’ve read “What Is Art?” by Leo Tolstoy, what’s your opinion? Do you agree with him? Or do you agree with the German aestheticians of the 19th century, who Tolstoy criticised?

No you started out with looks, likes and dislikes

>Yeah, all those cat videos on youtube are neither "movies" nor art
No no, I asked you what are movie that 'are' movies but its arguable, or some that could be but lacks something, I'm asking you about the frontier between not a "movie" and a "movie".

holy mother of god, how long have u been here?

>I saw the sneeds chuck the get, I watched sheevpost after sheevpost fall during the darth sidious era of memes and of course I was here for the greatest post of them all, .

This thread is nothing compared to the true shitpostingparties Yea Forums has had. Op is nothing compared to ovaldude or the french TDKR-spammer

>Lmao. I hate short films as much as the next guy, but you're quite literally wrong. Whiplash, Saw, Lights Out etc. all started as short films before they were adapted for the screen.
they didn't projected the original shorts in the theather though, again, shitty shorts on youtube will never be on theathers
>Explain why not.
Because the screenplay contains the whole story, you can't go wasting millions of dollars just to improvise shit that won't make sense in the end, you need a backbone
>Explain why not.
I can go out in the wild, see an African tribe, film it and say they live different than us, that's not art, that;s just info, and it's hilarious trying to compare that with the work of a man that spended months or even years thinking of a story and write it
>Real interesting analysis you got there user, boy do I feel culturally enriched right now.
It is, there's no art in terrorism
>It would be
The ultimate state of post modernism
>That's because you lack the creativity to envision a film without a screenplay
>Film
>Without a screenplay
Bascially a video?

>159 replies
>of anons arguing with a tripfag
Just when you think this board couldn't sink any lower

I ain't op, would u recommend tolstoy? I only read his first book about that ww1, thoughts it was stupid. do russians really have 5 different names for each person? why?

tbf OP isn't a tripfag, it is I (her greatest nemesis) that is the true tripfag of this thread, please help me combat the op by pretending to be her

its that or a marvel thread

I’m not a big fan of Tolstoy personally - if you’re looking for a Russian writer who doesn’t have 17 names for each character, I’d recommend Chekov’s plays. They’re pretty kino.

Want to join?

whats the best book about art?

>op by pretending to be her

is she cute?

>Okay, who have you read?
The Greeks
>What were their thoughts?
Discipline, hardwork, trascendency
>Why are their thoughts more valid than others?
Because the other were lazy fags that wanted an easy out and money, you have pretentious things like raw where a stupid girls dances at a mirror with shitty music for 2 minutes, and when you criticize that garbage, pseudo fags will tell you "you don't understand art", "art" being the post modern definition, which is shit

“What Is Art?” is a great entry-point, I think, but really, there’s no point in reading about art unless you are personally really interested in a painter/movement.

For instance, I love reading about Caravaggio and the Baroque artists, as well as modernist movements such as Bauhaus, but books about Impressionism would just send me to sleep because I really couldn’t give a shit about Impressionist art.

Yes, then motivations, which are more important
Sorry, but, care to explain better?, I couldn't get your point due to grammar

do u not enjoy impressionism? why not?

>shitty shorts on youtube will never be on theathers
No shit, dipshit, they're not feature length. Your point is fucking what?
>you can't go wasting millions of dollars just to improvise shit that won't make sense in the end, you need a backbone
But with a story (not a script), why couldn't an improvised film hypothetically make sense and be art?
>that's not art, that;s just info
Documentaries are so much more than just info. There's a reason they have directors. With all the creative possibility an editing suite allows you, there's no reason you can't draw the same wisdom out of a real-life story as you can a fictionalized one. Many documentary-makers do spend months and even years on it for that very reason. You have such narrow scope.
>there's no art in terrorism
It's more interesting when you view it through that lens, but if that's also out of your scope, your loss.
>Bascially a video?
All digital films are basically video, nobody but you uses this screenplay definition, even those who agree with your definition of art.
>Everything before production
Wrong, they often make revisions on set, not to mention on-set improv.

why do u spend time arguing with op?

It's fun and I need something to do while I wait for my minecraft orchard to re-grow.

the fifth rule of Yea Forums is
>there are no women on Yea Forums

fun in what way? Does he provide with challenging arguments? Is he hard to convince? have he made u reflect of things and made ya learnt new stuff?

It’s just something that’s never really engaged me, as opposed to Caravaggio’s paintings which are so dramatic and forceful in their presentation I find a theatrical quality to them. With a lot of mediums I really enjoy “heightened” emotions, which Impressionism doesn’t really offer for me.

But, I would by no means try to discredit Impressionism as a “lesser” form of art, if other people find something compelling in it, then power to them.

I save my serious critique and contempt for the films of Michael Cimino.

Op, how did it feel when someone pretended to be you?
Why do u use a name, and why retro man?
are u old? whats retro to you? and why do u have to use "man" in your name? to convince yourself that you are a man?

He's hard to convince despite the fact he's so obviously out of his depth, and that takes discipline and hardwork while looking at the future of humanity, all that while expressing yourself

>Your point is fucking what?
That videos will never be "movies"
>But with a story (not a script), why couldn't an improvised film hypothetically make sense and be art?
An hour and a half story needs to be written in order to be remembered, so even if you don't have a full screenplay, you do have a written work to go with it, but there's not a single non screenply movie that has been good, it's all nonsense crap shit
>Documentaries are so much more than just info. There's a reason they have directors. With all the creative possibility an editing suite allows you, there's no reason you can't draw the same wisdom out of a real-life story as you can a fictionalized one.
Effort is the key, I can take out a camera and film the growing process of lettuce, that doesn't mean is art or the next Godfather part 2
>Many documentary-makers do spend months and even years on it for that very reason
Mostly because of the travel and research, something they can't come up with their own, the screenwriter needs to make fiction seem real, needs to spend months thinking of characters, that's not the same as just saying "this part of the world sucks", again, just info
>It's more interesting when you view it through that lens, but if that's also out of your scope, your loss.
Tell me why terrorism is art
>All digital films are basically video
Yes, but not movies
>Wrong, they often make revisions on set, not to mention on-set improv
This is not Star Wars or any other movie that thought it would flop, in fact, after episode 4 there were not as much of the everyday screenplay changes, and see, even then they rewrote the script, they didn't say, "let's just fim random shit in the desert"

kek

>Op, how did it feel when someone pretended to be you?
Meh
>Why do u use a name, and why retro man?
So you could know who was answering you, if me or other user
>are u old?
Kind of
>whats retro to you?
1950s and behind
>and why do u have to use "man" in your name?
Because "Retro" alone doesn't say much

What about writers that don’t make fiction seem real? Writers like Tarantino, Lynch, hell, even Shakespeare, Kafka - are we to deny them praise because of a lack of “realism”? Why is realism so lauded? 8 1/2 is a piece of surrealism, yet still delivers emotional weight and poignancy.

>are we to deny them praise because of a lack of “realism”?
That's were "verisimilitude" comes into place, also, Tarantino is a faggot

aren't impressionistic paintings dramatic and forceful in their use of technique such as colors and pensel moves?
I havent studied art anything, but looking closer on a Renoir or a Monet and seeing their distinct brushes and brilliant use of colors, its kind of hard for me to believe that any true lover of art can't be moved by it . I mean how can u not look at a piece of Turner and just stare in awe at the light that comes through it?

Yea so start with them

wow, If I were OP I'd admit my defeat by now

>predictable script, good movie
Has it been done before? Eventually a traditional story has to be perfected, right?

youtube.com/watch?v=hC0HdfCgeAQ

I'm 40 pages into a script, how do I finish it?

>so even if you don't have a full screenplay, you do have a written work to go with it
Moving the goalposts, again are we?
>there's not a single non screenply movie that has been good
And you've seen all of them, have you? How many?
>Effort is the key
So a high-effort documentary can be art?
>I can take out a camera and film the growing process of lettuce
You're really obsessed with creating hypothetical pieces of shallow artwork, because you can't envision anything more.
>this part of the world sucks
If that's all you're getting out of the documentaries you watch, you're either refusing to/incapable of drawing more depth out of them, or you seriously need to watch better documentaries.
>Tell me why terrorism is art
Well it involves discipline and hardwork while looking at the future of humanity, all that while expressing yourself, for one. In all seriousness it's a motivated expression created with the intention of eliciting responses in an audience. Terrorism requires an "audience". It's a form of shock art. Wouldn't it be fun to analyse it as that? Wouldn't that be interesting, and help us better understand the society in which we live? Or should we limit our scope for arbitrary reasons?

What message do you want to achieve with it?

subtle antisemitism

IIRC I don’t think Turner is considered to be of the Impressionist movement, but I may wrong - I am however, a fan of Turner.

I think a lot of Impressionism tries to capture the ephemerality of life - soft, bright colours, relaxed postures, attention to naturalistic detail, which while I do find compelling to some degree, it’s not the kind of art that really “stays” with me. There are some paintings that you see and they never leave you.

>Moving the goalposts, again are we?
Not really, why?
>And you've seen all of them, have you? How many?
400
>So a high-effort documentary can be art?
no, they're just making info, not thinking about characters, motivations, goals, etc
>You're really obsessed with creating hypothetical pieces of shallow artwork, because you can't envision anything more.
I'm just pointing out the simplicity of documentaries, a movie can't be about anything and be considered good, however, a documentary can be about anything and be good, the process of lettuce, the crimes of a town, who caes? After all, that's just info
>If that's all you're getting out of the documentaries you watch, you're either refusing to/incapable of drawing more depth out of them, or you seriously need to watch better documentaries
Of course not, I watch every topic
>Well it involves discipline and hardwork while looking at the future of humanity, all that while expressing yourself, for one
Not really, how is there a discipline in killing? How are you "expressing ypourself"? Are you gonan change a terrorist act in the editing? Kek
>it's a motivated expression created with the intention of eliciting responses in an audience.
So are protests, but they're not art
>Terrorism requires an "audience"
So does football matches, but that's not art

Tie it to the beginning

Just point out kike tricks and make the characters understand

Gusto! You like William Hazlitt user?

>Turner
he isn't but he impressed the impressionist to start their thingy

>There are some paintings that you see and they never leave you.
name names please

thats done
what kind of tricks are we talking about and how could I point them out while still selling the script to hollywood?

>while still selling the script to hollywood?
You're fucked, these Jews dominate Hollywood, just produce it yourself

it's unproducable since it builds heavily on copyrighted material

F then

I think you assume I want you to lower your standards. I don't. I want you to broaden your scope.
>Not really, why?
We were talking about screenplays, not story maps. You've already conceded.
>they're just making info, not thinking about characters, motivations, goals, etc
They absolutely ARE thinking about this. Watch better documentaries. Ones which seek to understand real-life characters, motivations and goals.
>a documentary can be about anything and be good, the process of lettuce, the crimes of a town, who caes? After all, that's just info
You wouldn't prefer to watch the latter? I'd much prefer to watch the latter. It is the job of an editor to assemble info in a way which forms a narrative, even a real-life or ideological one.
>how is there a discipline in killing
Discipline to an ideology in the form of an ultimate sacrifice
>How are you "expressing ypourself"?
Do you really need me to explain how school shooters are expressing themselves?
>Are you gonan change a terrorist act in the editing?
No, because it's performance art, not a film.
>So are protests, but they're not art
Yes they are. A very simple form of art called propaganda. They are judged based on their aesthetics/optics, and attempt to convey a message and emotion to an audience.
>So does football matches, but that's not art
Football is a story. That's why fans get so engrossed in it and all the characters playing it. They want their team to overcome hardship and defeat the enemy. Do you not consider stories art?

Based.

Based schizo.

>We were talking about screenplays, not story maps
No, you're talking about terrorist acts and editing
>They absolutely ARE thinking about this.
they do, but they're not creating, they're just compiling existent evidence
>You wouldn't prefer to watch the latter? I'd much prefer to watch the latter. It is the job of an editor to assemble info in a way which forms a narrative, even a real-life or ideological one
And in movies, they need to follow the script
>Discipline to an ideology in the form of an ultimate sacrifice
So no discipline in the act of killing itself? Thanks
>Do you really need me to explain how school shooters are expressing themselves?
They're just being violent due to "muh bullying", they're not esculpting or writing, even we're expressing ourselves here and that dosn't make Yea Forums an art
>No, because it's performance art, not a film
Film has performance
>Yes they are. A very simple form of art called propaganda
Propafanda is not art, it uses it, which is different, propaganda was included in illustrations (art), movies (art), cartoons (art), but propaganda itself, is not art, otherwise commercials would be art since they're trying to convince you of buying shit
>Football is a story. That's why fans get so engrossed in it and all the characters playing it. They want their team to overcome hardship and defeat the enemy. Do you not consider stories art?
It's a sport, football is just a bunch of men kicking a ball, that's not art, it's just a discipline, that's all

Ultimately you have think holistically. The Matrix isn't good because of the script, it's good because of very deliberate choices in how they told that script. However a Bergman movie is 90% script and the rest is tying it together into a movie. Ghost in the shell is 5% percent script and the rest of the movie is about mining that 5% for maximum effect.

>The Matrix isn't good because of the script, it's good because of very deliberate choices in how they told that script
Matrix is a shit movie
>Ghost in the shell is 5% percent script and the rest of the movie is about mining that 5% for maximum effect.
Ghost in the shell is shit

>they do, but they're not creating, they're just compiling existent evidence
Screenwriters aren't creating, they're just compiling existent words. Compilation is creation, no idea is ever truly original.
>And in movies, they need to follow the script
Many parts of the script will end up on the cutting room floor. They need to follow the director.
>the act of killing itself
An act which guarantees the end of the killer's life in one way or another.
>that dosn't make Yea Forums an art
Oh I ABSOLUTELY beg to differ. That's why it's screencapped so damn often.
>commercials would be art
Correct, but they're exploitative and tacky and insincere and horrible which is why they're the lowest form of art ever conceived.
>football is just a bunch of men kicking a ball
That's why it has so many fans, not because humans love story, but because we just love to see balls get kicked.

Add both Blade Runners on the crap pile

Attached: HardEighttt.jpg (951x511, 33K)

Because you're a film illiterate, you can't pinpoint potent film-making if your life depended on it. Synecdoche new york is quintessential anemic garbage for film grads

since alien it's the story board you faggot

Attached: brainlet.png (817x443, 34K)

>Screenwriters aren't creating, they're just compiling existent words. Compilation is creation, no idea is ever truly original.
You're going full pseudo there, I can do a google search of South America, pay a plane ticket, go there and document, that's all, a screenplay is a totally different thing, you require literature knowledge
>Many parts of the script will end up on the cutting room floor
Most scenes are still taken from the screenplay
>An act which guarantees the end of the killer's life in one way or another.
not an art, otherwise killing a cow to feed myself is art, but it's not
>Oh I ABSOLUTELY beg to differ. That's why it's screencapped so damn often.
Yeah, not art, but an imageboard
>Correct, but they're exploitative and tacky and insincere and horrible which is why they're the lowest form of art ever conceived.
Not art, m8, there's nothing of value
>That's why it has so many fans, not because humans love story, but because we just love to see balls get kicked.
Exactly, same way why you normies watch capeshit and dislike the written form: You don't like to think

>South America

what if live there?

>Because you're a film illiterate, you can't pinpoint potent film-making if your life depended on it. Synecdoche new york is quintessential anemic garbage for film grads
Never said I liked the movie, not to mention that I've provided more evidence than all of you combined, again, you're just NPCs who like the movies the media want you to like,
>Matrix
Pretentious movie made by 2 faggots
>Ghost in the shell
Pretentious movie that doesn't go anywhere
And still, the media tells you they're the epitome of creation, kek

Then good for you

ok

what are some good screenwriting books

>I can do a google search of South America, pay a plane ticket, go there and document, that's all
You would be an absolutely atrocious hack of a documentary maker if you went in with that work ethic.
>you require literature knowledge
lol
>Most scenes are still taken from the screenplay
And yet editing can make or break a film. Actually, coupled with your misunderstanding of how documentaries are made, I'm starting to think you just don't understand the power of editing.
>killing a cow to feed myself is art, but it's not
Not if you don't have an audience.
>there's nothing of value
Except you can actually read into a lot about a society from how it markets its products. Sex appeal, lifestyle glorification. It's trash, but sometimes unashamed trash reflects and exposes the mechanisms of society more nakedly than any other artform can. But besides that, I agree with you.
>Exactly
lol

None, read books written by famous authors about how they write their novels intead, screenwriting books are written by people who haven't sold a single script

>You would be an absolutely atrocious hack of a documentary maker if you went in with that work ethic.
That's how they start tough
>lol
Prove me otherwise
>And yet editing can make or break a film
The remaining scenes are still taken from the script
>Not if you don't have an audience.
Even if, they're not
>Except you can actually read into a lot about a society from how it markets its products. Sex appeal, lifestyle glorification. It's trash, but sometimes unashamed trash reflects and exposes the mechanisms of society more nakedly than any other artform can. But besides that, I agree with you.
Same can be said about cuisine, but that's not art
>lol
Is that the best you can do?

Explain then.

Yeah OP you stupid retarded faggot screenwriters imagine exact locations, actors, shot compositions of every shot, every cut........ Have you ever even read ascreenplay? Most of the time it's just dialogue with vague descriptions of where it's happening.... If you don't care about audio-visual side of films I don't understand why you watch them........ If directors and editors input is so irrelevant you'd be reading screenplays and not watching their vision be inevitably tainted by the hands of a director..... Either way you're an embarressing anti intellectual pseud faggot stick to a medium youre up to task with like comic books

Once again, you like the script because it's meta-textual and anxiously looking around its shoulder, making sure it's stacking up to big boy literature. It's too literal because everything meaningful is implied in the text and the actual movie suffers from it. A good script needs cracks for the film to slip through and spirit it away. That's why it's always easier to make a good movie out of bad literature than to make a good movie out of classic lit. The Godfather is the best example of this.

The Matrix is good because it's a dense amalgam of an entire intellectual and cultural milieu, a maximalistic fever dream of countercultural repurposing of oppressive technology and a last-ditch effort of retaking the realm of hyperreality. It doesn't exist in the script as can be clearly seen in the following movies which are worthless.

Ghost in the shell is simply said the most potent meditation on trans-humanism ever put to film. The lingering shots of the city better encapsulates the *meaning* of shedding your human past than any lengthy monologue on neurohacking or quantified self

>And still, the media tells you they're the epitome of creation, kek
The "media" is often concerned with making sure that whatever middlebrow or slightly debasing spectacle people are watching is critic-approved; superhero movies are cool, for example. Serious critics (the ones you should care about) consider the extravagance of the matrix or ghost a bit too low art. They sneak into a few canons but further down the list. The best of them will begrudgingly admit their merit which is why I chose them as examples; they're difficult to think of as fine art because they don't market themselves as such.

>edition

Kek OP is a pajeet

>Once again, you like the script because it's meta-textual and anxiously looking around its shoulder, making sure it's stacking up to big boy literature. It's too literal because everything meaningful is implied in the text and the actual movie suffers from it. A good script needs cracks for the film to slip through and spirit it away.
It just needs to be well estructured, have nice written characters and be subtle
>That's why it's always easier to make a good movie out of bad literature than to make a good movie out of classic lit
Classic literature made sure to be it's unique form, that's why it's almost impossible to adapt, unlike today's shitty books like Harry Potter
>The Matrix is good because it's a dense amalgam of an entire intellectual and cultural milieu, a maximalistic fever dream of countercultural repurposing of oppressive technology and a last-ditch effort of retaking the realm of hyperreality
It's shit because the characters don't make sense and lack real motivations, it's world is not explained in a decent way, it has an out of nowhere romance, it's crap
>Ghost in the shell is simply said the most potent meditation on trans-humanism ever put to film.
It's just random crap until reaching the "final boss"
>The lingering shots of the city better encapsulates the *meaning* of shedding your human past than any lengthy monologue on neurohacking or quantified self
You're overthinking
>The "media" is often concerned with making sure that whatever middlebrow or slightly debasing spectacle people are watching is critic-approved; superhero movies are cool, for example.
Super hero movies are shit that's spawned every year to make more money, hence it's poorly written
>they're difficult to think of as fine art because they don't market themselves as such.
going mainstream kills art

Not an argument

I would also like everyone to know that I am a huge faggot

now i know why he doesn´t know what he´s talking about

No need to put the same name to disguise your insecurities, m8

>Is criminal footage recorded by the security cameras art?

mubi.com/films/stopover-in-dubai

Yes. You are a pleb.

POO IN LOO
O
O

I
N

L
O
O

no, you're a normie

I'm an Aryan in a castle

>It just needs to be well estructured, have nice written characters and be subtle
Once again, the Godfather book is pulp trash. The movie makes it into a great multi-generational epic with depth and complexity. The magic lies in the interpretation, in a coherent vision

>Classic literature made sure to be it's unique form, that's why it's almost impossible to adapt,
It's impossible to adapt because there are no "cracks", it's self-contained. A good script needs wriggle-room, it needs cracks, it needs someone who understands its potential. It can't be understood by a critic but by an artist.

>It's shit because the characters don't make sense and lack real motivations, it's world is not explained in a decent way, it has an out of nowhere romance, it's crap
This is not good enough. By simply seeing what's not there according to some uninspired standard (synecdoche new york?) you're missing the point. Life and culture is passing you by and you can't see what's happening. The Matrix will inspire sci-fi for decades to come and your insipid interpretation of it is not even useful as a devastating critique

>going mainstream kills art
Bringing in the money kills art but it also creates art. That's life, man. The Godfather movie wouldn't exist if someone didn't decide to write a trashy crime novel because it was profitable

>Once again, the Godfather book is pulp trash. The movie makes it into a great multi-generational epic with depth and complexity.
Movie is also simplistic crap
>It's impossible to adapt because there are no "cracks", it's self-contained. A good script needs wriggle-room, it needs cracks, it needs someone who understands its potential
It needs good writing fit for the format
>This is not good enough. By simply seeing what's not there according to some uninspired standard (synecdoche new york?) you're missing the point. Life and culture is passing you by and you can't see what's happening. The Matrix will inspire sci-fi for decades to come and your insipid interpretation of it is not even useful as a devastating critique
The Matrix was a ripoff of ghost inthe shell but shittier, and made by 2 literal faggots, I don't know a pseudo intellectual telling me it's a good movie just because of some NPC mainstream opinion
>Bringing in the money kills art but it also creates art.
Not really, I can produce a movie and even if I don't make a cent out of it, it's ok, as long as it doesn't kill the creativity

Whatever you say Pajeet

Thank you, spic

>Movie is also simplistic crap
Asinine comment.
>It needs good writing fit for the format
Nonsensical comment. Qualify good, so far you've shown that you don't know what good is, synecdoche new york is not it
>The Matrix was a ripoff of ghost inthe shell but shittier, and made by 2 literal faggots, I don't know a pseudo intellectual telling me it's a good movie just because of some NPC mainstream opinion
Another useless review. Consider instead Baudrillard's comment: "The Matrix is surely the kind of film about the matrix that the matrix would have been able to produce." Incidentally, while this is an critique of the movie, it also allows for a richer understanding of the movie and its handling of hyperreality.
>Not really, I can produce a movie and even if I don't make a cent out of it, it's ok, as long as it doesn't kill the creativity
You kill creativity by not championing a positive cosmology and your only affirming piece of art is fucking synecdoche new york

>Asinine comment.
Huh?
>Nonsensical comment. Qualify good, so far you've shown that you don't know what good is, synecdoche new york is not it
Never said I like it, I don't know where you're getting that
>Another useless review. Consider instead Baudrillard's comment: "The Matrix is surely the kind of film about the matrix that the matrix would have been able to produce." Incidentally, while this is an critique of the movie, it also allows for a richer understanding of the movie and its handling of hyperreality.
not really, it's just overthinking, I can point out that a video of a cat eating a watermelon represent the love humans have for the absurd, the simpliciy of life and the love a human shares with a pet, but all that would be pretentious bullshit such as the matrix
>You kill creativity by not championing a positive cosmology and your only affirming piece of art is fucking synecdoche new york
How many times do I have to tell you I do not like the movie?