Importance of Plot

The year 2011 will go down in history for the year of the most sequels, 27 to be exact. Although not all of them are actually sequels per se, like “The Muppets” or “Puss in Boots” but they are part of a franchise.

So why all the sequels? Is Hollywood running out stories? It seems to me that Hollywood cares more about making money that creating a good story and sequels are easy money makers.

People go to sequels because they know the story, the actors and character. Not only is it familiar but big names are involved. Everyone knows that it fails to matter how good or bad the story is as long as it contains big name actors or directors. People attend those movies in crowds, especially if the actor/actress is “hot” and spends the majority of the movie modeling in front of the camera for the audience to ogle at.

Another story killer is special effects. Now don’t misunderstand me, I’m not against special effects, but nowadays special effects deter from the story more often than they add to it. As long as a movie has entertaining, convincing special effects it doesn’t matter how muddled the story is, people will stay in the theater (like “Tron Legacy”). If it’s bright and shiny or explosive audiences ooh and aah even though they have no clue what the story is about.

The reliance on special effects not only kills the story, it also kills the acting. Actors don’t have to actually be able to act as long as they effectively scream and run away (or towards) danger. Even when the acting is awful, the audience barely notices because, oh look a giant robot! Distraction! The visual effects cover up the bad plot and acting and the audience is passively unaware.

The new phenomenon of 3-D fails to help this area at all. Once again I am not completely against 3-D, but only if it adds to the story or film experience (like “How to Train Your Dragon”). However, my experience has been that 3-D once again is used as a diversion so audiences fail to notice the terrible story and acting. Also, 3-D can make cinematographers sloppy because they stop relying on over-the-shoulder camera angles to give the third dimensional effect on screen, instead they depend on the 3-D to do the job for them.

Audiences simply forgot that a story should drive a movie, not how many cars can we explode. The story is responsible for moving the plot, which allows for interesting characters which enables to actors to do their job at the best of their ability. If one took a look at actors that win Oscars (and other awards) it rarely is action-centered or sequels, it’s usually when the story provides dynamic characters. Same with screenplays, screenplays win awards when the writers create bold, driven characters, engaging stories and effective dialogue.

Syd Fields who wrote the book “Screenplay” says this, “Without conflict you have no action; without action you have no character; without character you have no story; and without story you have no screenplay.” It’s still true if you reverse it. Without story, you have no character; without character, you have no action; without action, you have no conflict; without conflict you have an uninteresting screenplay; with an uninteresting screenplay you have a boring, plotless, characterless movie that needs to use other means of making an entertaining movie and money.

There are films being made that do have story and character, it’s just not the big box office draws that the other movies are, and they don’t usually make it to Lewiston. Thankfully there’s Netflix. Once you experience a story-centered film versus a whatever-else-centered movie, it’s like the difference between processed turkey meat and real turkey meat. The processed meat tastes fake and you know it’s missing something, whereas the real turkey tastes delicious. Once you have a taste of the real stuff you’ll never go back. Just remember this: the story is the meat, the life, the taste of the film sandwich. Maybe Hollywood needs the reminder too.