3 ms·

And, according to Robert Ben Garant and Thomas Lennon's screenwriting book, a successful movie should abide by a very simple 3 Act formula (paraphrased): Act 1

And, according to Robert Ben Garant and Thomas Lennon's screenwriting book, a successful movie should abide by a very simple 3 Act formula (paraphrased): Act 1: Introduce Nice Guy Act 2: Get Nice Guy stuck in a tree, throw rocks at him Act 3: Get him down from the tree Or, in other words, just watch Die Hard enough to get the idea.

thaumasiotes 11y ago
Channeling the other comment tree, Groundhog Day never introduces any Nice Guy. The idea is that Phil develops into one over the course of the movie, although it's only apparent in the last (!) scene.
- vacri 11y ago
  "Nice guy" just means "person the audience can relate to". Phil isn't nice, but he's definitely relatable (if that's a word). This struck me in particular with Gilliam's The Zero Theorem which I saw recently. I generally really like Gilliam films, but I struggled with Zero Theorem precisely because the main character was so unrelatable.
  - thaumasiotes 11y ago
    People differ. I tried to watch the Sopranos on the strength of many glowing reviews along the lines of "the apex of television". That failed. I can't stand the show because it has no sympathetic characters. Everyone is horrible to everyone else and in general. I agree about Phil though.
    - ghaff 11y ago
      My general impression, based on the success of shows like The Sopranos (and Breaking Bad--although that's more complicated) is that at least a significant slice of the US audience is more willing to tolerate unsympathetic protagonists than was historically the case. Films have always been more varied but they don't require the ongoing commitment that a TV series does.
      - TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
        Aristotle said that the basis of interesting writing is conflict, and writers have been copying him ever since. A plausible character with believable internal conflict is more interesting than a plausible character with external conflict - although ideally you want plenty of both. Audiences like a certain amount of ambiguity, especially if they sympathise with the challenges a character faces. But the old formulaic plot books are largely nonsense. I have a version from the late 19th century which predates silent movies by a few decades, but still claims to reduce drama to the same tropes. It doesn't work - except maybe as light entertainment. The book is full of references to plays that have been almost entirely forgotten now. Really good writing - Shakespeare, ancient Greek comedy/tragedy, a few more modern examples - works on a much deeper level than a trivial plot taxonomy.
    - aidenn0 11y ago
      I feel the same way about Seinfeld as you do about the Sopranos.

thaumasiotes 11y ago

Channeling the other comment tree, Groundhog Day never introduces any Nice Guy. The idea is that Phil develops into one over the course of the movie, although it's only apparent in the last (!) scene.

vacri 11y ago
"Nice guy" just means "person the audience can relate to". Phil isn't nice, but he's definitely relatable (if that's a word). This struck me in particular with Gilliam's The Zero Theorem which I saw recently. I generally really like Gilliam films, but I struggled with Zero Theorem precisely because the main character was so unrelatable.
- thaumasiotes 11y ago
  People differ. I tried to watch the Sopranos on the strength of many glowing reviews along the lines of "the apex of television". That failed. I can't stand the show because it has no sympathetic characters. Everyone is horrible to everyone else and in general. I agree about Phil though.
  - ghaff 11y ago
    My general impression, based on the success of shows like The Sopranos (and Breaking Bad--although that's more complicated) is that at least a significant slice of the US audience is more willing to tolerate unsympathetic protagonists than was historically the case. Films have always been more varied but they don't require the ongoing commitment that a TV series does.
    - TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
      Aristotle said that the basis of interesting writing is conflict, and writers have been copying him ever since. A plausible character with believable internal conflict is more interesting than a plausible character with external conflict - although ideally you want plenty of both. Audiences like a certain amount of ambiguity, especially if they sympathise with the challenges a character faces. But the old formulaic plot books are largely nonsense. I have a version from the late 19th century which predates silent movies by a few decades, but still claims to reduce drama to the same tropes. It doesn't work - except maybe as light entertainment. The book is full of references to plays that have been almost entirely forgotten now. Really good writing - Shakespeare, ancient Greek comedy/tragedy, a few more modern examples - works on a much deeper level than a trivial plot taxonomy.
  - aidenn0 11y ago
    I feel the same way about Seinfeld as you do about the Sopranos.