Obviously I don't what?
I hope Discovery places "plot" first, avoids melodrama
- Thread starter INACTIVEUSS Einstein
- Start date
Obviously I don't what?
Good Star Trek has always been about exploring Sci-Fi ideas, while the human drama aspect could have been replaced with any other cliche conflict, it's usually not as engaging as the actual scenario being played out.
Granted good Trek has never exceeded 25% of total episodes, it's still the best we've ever had factoring in the quality/quantity balance.
JMS says he was, and well I'm going to believe him over you.
Nope.
I'm not going to delve into O'Hare's personal troubles--let the poor man rest in peace. But JMS has made it pretty clear that he didn't see a need to make a change until the gravity of the situation was brought to his attention.
My Babylon 5 Directors Commentary DVD's and Babylon 5 JMS script books disagree with you.
The DVD from 13 years ago?
Reading page 2, I think some of the disagreement here is just that we have a completely different understandings among us of what plot actually is.
Take post 23, where plot is something devoid of meaning, and is just a series of events - literally like a shopping list. Or post 25 where plots being executed well, is attributed to the other three things - rather than being a function of plot itself; how it would cause tension, etc.
If we look at the example that article about Aristotle:
In that context, the plot is the part about some people "wanting to keep the shark thing quiet" vs. "thinking tourists will be upset anyway" - in other words it sets up character conflict and tension - that isn't characterization, its plot.
At least when I am talking about it, I see plot as being fundamental to the other three in this way - not something that can be separated and cast away, but absolutely intrinsic. It's no wonder we are horrified by each other's attitudes to plot, if we are thinking of different things.
Note that unlike some people who are claiming plot is of no importance, I am not saying the same thing about characterization - Aristotle placed it at number 2 for a reason - its barely less important than plot, how a character reacts and why - but earlier in the thread, despite this, there was already a false equivalence drawn - "if you put plot at number 1, you must think characterization is unimportant". Au contraire. My favorite film makers do both well.
If character conflict is earned by being logically tied to a plot, it is all the more powerful. If the next piece of melodrama comes out of some contrived situation however... No arc, no direction, no resolution, just endless melodrama, is horrible.
Take post 23, where plot is something devoid of meaning, and is just a series of events - literally like a shopping list. Or post 25 where plots being executed well, is attributed to the other three things - rather than being a function of plot itself; how it would cause tension, etc.
If we look at the example that article about Aristotle:
Jaws was released on 20 June 1975, and the central tension of the early part of the movie is between those who want to keep the whole killer shark thing quiet in case it upsets the tourists at the start of the summer season, and those who think that the tourists will be pretty upset anyway when they see a disembodied head bob out of a boat.
At least when I am talking about it, I see plot as being fundamental to the other three in this way - not something that can be separated and cast away, but absolutely intrinsic. It's no wonder we are horrified by each other's attitudes to plot, if we are thinking of different things.
Note that unlike some people who are claiming plot is of no importance, I am not saying the same thing about characterization - Aristotle placed it at number 2 for a reason - its barely less important than plot, how a character reacts and why - but earlier in the thread, despite this, there was already a false equivalence drawn - "if you put plot at number 1, you must think characterization is unimportant". Au contraire. My favorite film makers do both well.
If character conflict is earned by being logically tied to a plot, it is all the more powerful. If the next piece of melodrama comes out of some contrived situation however... No arc, no direction, no resolution, just endless melodrama, is horrible.
Here is the article:
What I take this to mean is that "spectacle" without reason why, is hollow. But by implication, the other things on Aristotle's list are also hollow experiences too without plot. All that TV has done, by removing plot, is turn more and more drama into soap opera. We should all be familiar with how soaps work, and how they repetitively try to draw people along, by the time we are an adult. By having villains endlessly come back from the dead, or people endlessly forgive and betray each other, or endlessly come close to revealing a secret, it reveals to he audience that the drama is just trying to cash in on their initial interest, loyalty or attention to a character - like selling loot crates in a sequel to a game you liked, to cash in on your initial interest, only to reveal it has a shit open ending and they want you to buy the next to (perhaps) find out what happens.
If we look at say Jurassic World as a random example, (because I saw it the other day) - it's a pretty decent adventure movie - like jaws in a few ways - its not soapy - the plot, is basically a one of a natural disaster happening due to lack of care and appreciation for the danger of a given situation - characterization then occurs in how the individuals deal with their situation, revealing things about themselves, their view of the world, etc, or of human nature more generally - within the context of the situation.
The plot consists of a dangerous dinosaur escaping and causing havoc, and the attempts of a cynical group of military industrialists to use it for profit. Simon Masrani, for example, is a flawed but likable character, earnest, reflective where one might expect a cynical profit-driven executive cashing in on dinosaurs, he isn't above having someone double check a dangerous decision, displaying control of his pride - but even so, out of fear of his investment, he wavers, perhaps reacts too slowly when advised to evacuate the park - nevertheless, displaying courage and concern for life, as well as a good nature, optimism born of his world view, and ability to take risks - he chooses to fly a helicopter and attempt to solve a problem himself, shows good humor with people who are his subordinates - I enjoyed him as a character. It's not that he defied expectations, its that he displayed his believable uniqueness. He reveals himself through adversity, but the adversity is something you can believe might happen to a man like this.
This is why plot and character are like yin and yang; the character revealing himself would not be half as interesting, if it was just a reaction to an unearned piece of soapy melodrama (maybe being trapped on the other side of a door from a loved one by chance, and thus emotionalism being forced) - when you can accept the disaster as believable however, the people's reactions to it feel earned and not contrived. This basically involves realism (obviously within context of whatever setting is chosen - military fiction, historical fiction, fantasy fiction, science fiction - but fundamentally avoiding dogmas).
Rebooting the blockbuster, who ya gonna call? Aristotle
Suicide Squad, Star Trek and Bourne suggest big-budget film-making needs a shot in the arm – the ancient-Greek philosopher offers the perfect fix
What has gone wrong with summer this year? Depending on your interests (political immolation, untrammelled doping in sport, insect-borne viruses), you may feel the answer is obvious. For those of us who prefer films to real life, it’s more opaque.
Usually, the summer months offer big-budget extravaganzas, in which assorted superheroes do battle for the city, planet or universe, but this year has seen the wheels come off the Batmobile. Suicide Squad has been flayed by the critics, and neither Star Trek Beyond nor Jason Bourne has lived up to expectations. Blame has been laid on the sheer quantity of big-budget films released this year. And the weather has actually been quite nice, so plenty of us have chosen to spend evenings away from the multiplexes.
I wonder if studios have forgotten that summer films used to feel summery: Jaws was released on 20 June 1975, and the central tension of the early part of the movie is between those who want to keep the whole killer shark thing quiet in case it upsets the tourists at the start of the summer season, and those who think that the tourists will be pretty upset anyway when they see a disembodied head bob out of a boat.
Would the film have been as successful if Steven Spielberg had been able to use more footage of the mechanically temperamental shark? Probably not: it’s the fact that we scarcely see it that gives it such a terrible menace. If we can’t see it, it could be anywhere. Worse, it feels like it’s everywhere.
It’s hard to dispute the wisdom of Aristotle. In The Poetics, he lists the elements a drama requires in order of importance. Plot is first, then character, then dialogue, right the way through to the least important element: spectacle. This is the opposite way round to the priorities of film production studios, who routinely specify the action sequences they require (for merchandising purposes) before the script is even begun. In other words, spectacle dictates plot. No wonder the blockbuster needs a reboot.
Suicide Squad, Star Trek and Bourne suggest big-budget film-making needs a shot in the arm – the ancient-Greek philosopher offers the perfect fix
What has gone wrong with summer this year? Depending on your interests (political immolation, untrammelled doping in sport, insect-borne viruses), you may feel the answer is obvious. For those of us who prefer films to real life, it’s more opaque.
Usually, the summer months offer big-budget extravaganzas, in which assorted superheroes do battle for the city, planet or universe, but this year has seen the wheels come off the Batmobile. Suicide Squad has been flayed by the critics, and neither Star Trek Beyond nor Jason Bourne has lived up to expectations. Blame has been laid on the sheer quantity of big-budget films released this year. And the weather has actually been quite nice, so plenty of us have chosen to spend evenings away from the multiplexes.
I wonder if studios have forgotten that summer films used to feel summery: Jaws was released on 20 June 1975, and the central tension of the early part of the movie is between those who want to keep the whole killer shark thing quiet in case it upsets the tourists at the start of the summer season, and those who think that the tourists will be pretty upset anyway when they see a disembodied head bob out of a boat.
Would the film have been as successful if Steven Spielberg had been able to use more footage of the mechanically temperamental shark? Probably not: it’s the fact that we scarcely see it that gives it such a terrible menace. If we can’t see it, it could be anywhere. Worse, it feels like it’s everywhere.
It’s hard to dispute the wisdom of Aristotle. In The Poetics, he lists the elements a drama requires in order of importance. Plot is first, then character, then dialogue, right the way through to the least important element: spectacle. This is the opposite way round to the priorities of film production studios, who routinely specify the action sequences they require (for merchandising purposes) before the script is even begun. In other words, spectacle dictates plot. No wonder the blockbuster needs a reboot.
If we look at say Jurassic World as a random example, (because I saw it the other day) - it's a pretty decent adventure movie - like jaws in a few ways - its not soapy - the plot, is basically a one of a natural disaster happening due to lack of care and appreciation for the danger of a given situation - characterization then occurs in how the individuals deal with their situation, revealing things about themselves, their view of the world, etc, or of human nature more generally - within the context of the situation.
The plot consists of a dangerous dinosaur escaping and causing havoc, and the attempts of a cynical group of military industrialists to use it for profit. Simon Masrani, for example, is a flawed but likable character, earnest, reflective where one might expect a cynical profit-driven executive cashing in on dinosaurs, he isn't above having someone double check a dangerous decision, displaying control of his pride - but even so, out of fear of his investment, he wavers, perhaps reacts too slowly when advised to evacuate the park - nevertheless, displaying courage and concern for life, as well as a good nature, optimism born of his world view, and ability to take risks - he chooses to fly a helicopter and attempt to solve a problem himself, shows good humor with people who are his subordinates - I enjoyed him as a character. It's not that he defied expectations, its that he displayed his believable uniqueness. He reveals himself through adversity, but the adversity is something you can believe might happen to a man like this.
This is why plot and character are like yin and yang; the character revealing himself would not be half as interesting, if it was just a reaction to an unearned piece of soapy melodrama (maybe being trapped on the other side of a door from a loved one by chance, and thus emotionalism being forced) - when you can accept the disaster as believable however, the people's reactions to it feel earned and not contrived. This basically involves realism (obviously within context of whatever setting is chosen - military fiction, historical fiction, fantasy fiction, science fiction - but fundamentally avoiding dogmas).
Any plot must be organically motivated by decisions based how characters react to situations. If the plot fails that test, then the characters are simply interchangeable pawns in a game. That might be fine in an actual game, but it doesn't work in a non-interactive story. I think I'd replace the word plot with the word arc. The plot is a vehicle to transport the characters on their inevitable paths, which make up their arcs.
And dialogue and spectacle are the real-world things that sell the show and keep the audience engaged. If it's not entertaining, then the show will stop getting made.
So, I'd say that the order is something like:
1) Character
2) Dialogue/Spectacle (tied)
3) Arc
4) Plot
It's interesting that the article uses Jaws as an example, because they use a formula similar to what I've outlined above. It's got an unusual structure for a film, two acts instead of three. The first act is Brody trying to convince the local politicians, and their constituency, to take the threat seriously, and the second is the action on the boat.
But all of that is motivated by character. Brody is already an outsider, more used to city policing than the more small-town nature of Amity. There's already a reason for him to be suspicious of the townsfolk, and for them to be suspicious of him. When the shark attacks happen, it exacerbates that level of mistrust, making it harder for Brody to do what he feels is necessary. The mayor and the town prioritize tourist season above safety because they don't take the threat seriously. But they don't take the threat seriously because the only one talking about it is the one least experienced in the ways of Amity.
More attacks happen, including the death of a young boy. This is a piece of plot. But it's the reaction by the characters that moves the story forward. Only when the boy's mother slaps Brody, and when Brody's son is in danger, does he have a stronger case to take to the town and is he more motivated to take care of the situation once and for all.
Enter the second act with Quint and Hooper. The three of them form a triumvirate, with Brody the relatively modest straight man, Hooper the confident rich scientist with all the toys, and Quint, the confident old seaman with stories to make one's hairs stand on their neck.
The rest of the film takes place on that boat. Not much happens plot-wise, but we do see those stories told, and the bonding of those characters through great dialogue. Every once in a while, the shark rears its head, and the finale is a thrilling piece of action and plot. But there would be little there in the second half of the movie without the character and dialogue. And arguably, the plot in that section of the film shares its screen time with the spectacle. So, the plot is the relatively weak link.
Even when that finale happens, it's the culmination of the three of them learning from each other and teaming up. Quint sacrifices himself, and the boat is lost, but Hooper and Brody have grown and experienced enough to finish the job and get to shore.
And dialogue and spectacle are the real-world things that sell the show and keep the audience engaged. If it's not entertaining, then the show will stop getting made.
So, I'd say that the order is something like:
1) Character
2) Dialogue/Spectacle (tied)
3) Arc
4) Plot
It's interesting that the article uses Jaws as an example, because they use a formula similar to what I've outlined above. It's got an unusual structure for a film, two acts instead of three. The first act is Brody trying to convince the local politicians, and their constituency, to take the threat seriously, and the second is the action on the boat.
But all of that is motivated by character. Brody is already an outsider, more used to city policing than the more small-town nature of Amity. There's already a reason for him to be suspicious of the townsfolk, and for them to be suspicious of him. When the shark attacks happen, it exacerbates that level of mistrust, making it harder for Brody to do what he feels is necessary. The mayor and the town prioritize tourist season above safety because they don't take the threat seriously. But they don't take the threat seriously because the only one talking about it is the one least experienced in the ways of Amity.
More attacks happen, including the death of a young boy. This is a piece of plot. But it's the reaction by the characters that moves the story forward. Only when the boy's mother slaps Brody, and when Brody's son is in danger, does he have a stronger case to take to the town and is he more motivated to take care of the situation once and for all.
Enter the second act with Quint and Hooper. The three of them form a triumvirate, with Brody the relatively modest straight man, Hooper the confident rich scientist with all the toys, and Quint, the confident old seaman with stories to make one's hairs stand on their neck.
The rest of the film takes place on that boat. Not much happens plot-wise, but we do see those stories told, and the bonding of those characters through great dialogue. Every once in a while, the shark rears its head, and the finale is a thrilling piece of action and plot. But there would be little there in the second half of the movie without the character and dialogue. And arguably, the plot in that section of the film shares its screen time with the spectacle. So, the plot is the relatively weak link.
Even when that finale happens, it's the culmination of the three of them learning from each other and teaming up. Quint sacrifices himself, and the boat is lost, but Hooper and Brody have grown and experienced enough to finish the job and get to shore.
I never read that bit from Aristotle but it absolutely rings true with me and is what I have an issue with so much with TV and movies now.
Those who say plot doesn't matter - would you watch a TV show with some interesting characters but they did nothing all day? Such as literally, they wake up, brush their teeth, go to work at an everyday job, go home, watch some TV and go to bed.
That's a TV show with no plot. Sure maybe something interesting happens once in a while like they get in a car accident or they start a relationship.
Reality TV is a show with no plot and lot's of spectacle. So if you are a huge Big Brother fan then I guess you do like shows with no plot.
Anyway, OP thanks for the read it was very informative.
Those who say plot doesn't matter - would you watch a TV show with some interesting characters but they did nothing all day? Such as literally, they wake up, brush their teeth, go to work at an everyday job, go home, watch some TV and go to bed.
That's a TV show with no plot. Sure maybe something interesting happens once in a while like they get in a car accident or they start a relationship.
Reality TV is a show with no plot and lot's of spectacle. So if you are a huge Big Brother fan then I guess you do like shows with no plot.
Anyway, OP thanks for the read it was very informative.
Seinfeld?
I would watch a show with engaging characters that has great dialogue, even if it had very little or no plot. Look at the great sitcoms of the 1970s like All in the Family and Barney Miller, or the shows that were their descendants like The Carmichael Show. What drove those shows was not the plot but the fireworks between the characters.
Hell, Seinfeld based its philosophy on being a show that could be absent a story, if it needed to be. Sure, they definitely had plots in most episodes, but many of the memorable ones were simply the characters reacting to their situation, as with The Chinese Restaurant and The Parking Garage.
Hell, Seinfeld based its philosophy on being a show that could be absent a story, if it needed to be. Sure, they definitely had plots in most episodes, but many of the memorable ones were simply the characters reacting to their situation, as with The Chinese Restaurant and The Parking Garage.
I agree with Aristotle. I've been disappointed by the number of shows/movies that have moved more towards melodrama and spectacle. This isn't an either/or situation. Of course, after a strong plot you need great characters. But, a show with great characters put in melodramatic situations without much actual plot is just crap. Too soap opera-ish for my tastes.
There's a distinction between comedy and drama. We're talking about drama here. I'd say that different rules apply to comedy. As long as you're laughing, you've got good comedy.
While Seinfeld claimed to be a show about nothing, it was in fact about something and did have a plot. It was just unique in that it took everyday things and managed to make a story out of them. The lack of "plot" was due to every sitcom having some hook, like a someone being sentenced by a judge to being someone else's Butler.
One of the most popular shows of all time.
But so many dramas revolve around simple everyday things. Hill Street Blues and ER are two prime examples.
Setup is important, but how the characters react to the setup is the payoff.
Plot isn't just setup. It's the story and the framework for what is happening. And, as I mentioned, characters are of course important too.
I don't care for drama that doesn't have much plot. YMMV. But, I don't like the trend of moving away from plots.
Which shouldn't be an issue for Discovery, as it sounds like the ignition and fighting of a war with the Klingons is the plot. Maybe not the plot I want, but still a plot.
Last edited:
Not that much of one. I mean All in the Family and Barney Miller, in particular, were basically dramas that happened to use the sitcom format, mostly because it was the closest television gets to stage plays.
I mean so many of the great plays of all time are basically people in a room talking. There are even thrilling adaptations on film of dramas for the stage, some clearly dramas, some blurring the line between comedy and drama.
Look at Educating Rita, Doubt, Frost/Nixon, the works of Tennessee Williams, The Philadelphia Story, You Can't Take it With You, The Petrified Forest, Key Largo, Proof, Rope, the works of Anton Chekhov.
Hell, actual films like My Dinner with Andre are potent dramas without any plot.
There are no rules, except what works.
Similar threads
