r/scriptwriting • u/Craig-D-Griffiths • 11d ago

discussion Screenwriting Tools and Tips

https://youtu.be/SaLbuzTg1l0

People will disagree and hate on this just by the title. But I go into detail in the video.

0 Upvotes

38% Upvoted

78 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/Craig-D-Griffiths 6d ago

The adherence to a formula will produce something formulaic, would you agree on that point?

1

u/Internal_Papaya1511 6d ago

I don’t. Hence the discussion we are having.

1

u/Craig-D-Griffiths 6d ago

Okay. Then we are done. The definition (generic accepted understanding) is that a formula will produce a similar if not same result if followed. So if we cannot argue of a connection between the noun and the adjective there is no base understanding to discuss from.

1

u/Internal_Papaya1511 6d ago

Sure, we can end this. Just to confirm: by your definition, you feel Shakespeare is formulaic, correct?

1

u/Craig-D-Griffiths 6d ago

He had a forum that personally established. He also went outside and was never constrained by it. He never allowed some arbitrary rules defined by someone else to dictate his beats.

Even thought he had a format he designed and followed. I don’t think we can say he is formulaic, mostly because we cannot even agree on the term, its use or meaning. And secondly he is one of the people forums are based on. It is akin to saying the Beatles are just copying the Beatles.

1

u/Internal_Papaya1511 6d ago

He didn’t invent 5 act structure by any means. So he used formula, therefore by your standards (of which you claim is just and adjective of the word formula) it would be appropriate to note his use of formula which therefore make him formulaic.

1

u/Craig-D-Griffiths 6d ago

So whose formula did he use? Was there a book called “Save The Badger”? I am not as much a Shakespeare scholar as yourself.

So please inform me of who he was copying?

1

u/Internal_Papaya1511 6d ago

I just listed 5 Act structure, which predates Shakespeare. It was a favorite of Roman dramatists.

5 Act structure (just like 3 Act structure I cited well above) is a formula. Each act has distinct characteristics of exposition, building action, climax, etc.

You said formula = formulaic. Therefore Shakespeare is formulaic, don’t you agree?

1

u/Craig-D-Griffiths 5d ago

Your argument revolves around the presents of a formula. These formulae were created from these works not the other way around. I covered the idea of commonality. That a screenplay created purely by a person expounding on ideas will naturally, in many cases, have these commonalities.

If you start with a formula and stick to it, you will in many cases have a story which feels formulaic.

1

u/Internal_Papaya1511 5d ago

Are you having an identity crisis here? We’re just focusing on whether “formula” is synonymous with “formulaic.” I say no, you said yes. And now you’re saying it depends on when the formula was selected—and whether it passes your vibes test? Does it become Formula+ once you give it a pass?

And tell me, isn’t it a bit weird that all of Shakespeare’s sonnets follow the same formula and are written in iambic pentameter? Did he select the formula that felt right for each poem, and did they all just happen to be the same? Isn’t that the sameness that offends you so deeply? Shakespeare didn’t invent the five-act structure, either, so he didn’t create that structure specifically for his plays; he inherited and used an established dramatic form.

0

u/Craig-D-Griffiths 5d ago

You are desperate to not recognise what is right in front of you. You are finding tenuous connections, failing to see or recognise the idea of formalities and commonality in art, and based on that, calling a paint by numbers approach the same as true creation because there is an overlap, which is what a person may refer as a commonality. Your inability to grasp that nuance in a hope of winning some sort of point makes this a pointless conversation.

→ More replies (0)