Sam wrote:I'm actually the guy who wrote and directed it, and I love discussing story and plot structure, etc., which is why I'm glad you had something to say about it. I was nowhere near happy with the way this cartoon turned out. I'll probably re-edit it, but I won't change the end. Jokes end on the punch line. After the climax and resolution, there's no point in hanging around for an epilogue. The explosion of the earth was the payoff, whether it was a good one or not. This was actually a very conventionally told story. The protagonist is introduced, then the problem, then the antagonist, then the peripheral characters, the plot is pencilled in a bit more, a bit of misdirection (the mucus) followed by the climax (race to the button / power company). And the resolution is, of course, the explosion of the earth. Whether or not it was a satisfying payoff is debatable, but it was definitely woven as a traditional story structure. Too traditional, if you ask me.
How does the old saying go? Movies are never finished, only abandoned. There are a lot of people who are upset that George Lucas went back and made changes to the original Star Wars for the Special Editions. It's his movie, he can do what he wants. And while you may feel like you "own" Stars Wars as a part of your childhood, it does indeed belong to George Lucas.
This is not just true of movies or animation - it's also true of the theater. A show may start in a regional theatre, move to off Broadway, and then maybe, if lucky, move to Broadway. And after the previews, it can change and be tweaked even after it opens. How many times have you seen a show and noticed changes in lyrics in a touring show after listening to the original cast album? The changes (at least to me) are always to the better.
And it's not only a modern phenomenon. Xray and other photographic techniques show how the classic artists changed their pantings, started out one way, and even "finished" it, only to be painted out and gone a completely different direction.
Some may see a production, whether it's a movie, an animation, a show, or even a painting as a static, finished masterpiece. However, the creator rarely sees it that way.
Sam wrote:Stephens King and Spielberg would debate me on this, but I think the art of storytelling lies in telling the story without making it so bloody obvious that that's what you're doing. Stephen King and Stephen Spielberg have both said that story is everything, which is fine, I suppose, if you would like to write a movie or novel that emulates either of their styles. But look at their style. 90% of the dialogue is expository. 100% of the dialogue in the latest Star Wars movie was expository, which is one of the reasons it fell so short of the original trilogy. But then take a movie like Napoleon Dynamite. The characters are so big and well-sculpted, you don't even realize you're being told a story. And it's a very traditional, formulaic story. The characters, though, are so big and dynamic that our attention is diverted from the whole man-vs-man, man-vs-self thing going on underneath them. Most of the dialogue just paints the characters and ignores the story completely.
In my creative writing classes, the mantra was always "show, don't tell". I haven't seen Napoleon Dynamite, but I have to agree with your assessment of the relative virtues of Episode I-III vs. 4-6. Case in point, the relationship between Han and Leia vs. the relationship between Annakin and Padme.
I am reading an interesting book right now, called "The Art of Dramatic Writing" by Laos Egri. Does plot come from character? Or does character come from plot? All I know is that I am a storyteller. A lot of the people on this board are animators. I don't want to be an animator, I want to use moho to tell stories. There are people here who argue that you cannot tell a story without 3D. I would argue you can tell a story in 2D. I would argue that you can tell a convincing and emotional story with stick figures! Characters can be motivated and sympathetic regardless of the style. Adding technology can make shallow characters even more shallow! Of course, there are masterpieces such as The Incredibles or Shrek that are excellent in character development and plot that also excel and push the 3D envelope.
Sam wrote:Thank you for your comments, jorgy. I really hope if you don't agree with me on this whole storytelling thing that we can start discussing it. It's something that really interests me.
I think we agree more than we disagree, but I am certainly willing to get into an active discussion about storytelling, nature of plot, characters, and traditional and non-traditional molds.
The one thing that is common to different mediums, 2d, 3d, etc. is timing. Being able to develop a character you care about, and a plot that is interesting but not too predictable, in a visually interesting way, all in 2 minutes is a very challenging task!!! There is a very scarce amount of time - how much do you devote to each character or part of the narrative? And as I mentioned in a previous post, I agree that a quick ending is far better than an extended "Saturday Night Live Please Shoot Me It's Past Its Prime" ending.
Looking forward to a discussion of storytelling, characters, plot, and other topics.
jorgy
