Core creativity = the whole movie?
Movies always have a selling point before anyone pays attention. This can be done with special effects, epic scenes or off-set right and wrong. This also makes it harder and harder to survive relatively quiet life romantic movies. Such movies tend to have a medium investment, and there will be audiences who buy the star's face, but in general they still rely on the attractiveness of the story to maintain the box office. Despite being criticized by countless people, in order to cater to the tastes of the public, the plot routines of Hollywood romantic films are still extraordinarily conservative. It is an inevitable rule that lovers will eventually become married. However, we are no longer satisfied with simple love stories, but we have to constantly see fresh gimmicks. So I have Holiday’s girlfriend exchange, Click’s universal remote control, 50 times first date’s constant amnesia, and of course stranger than fiction’s survival. The screenwriters are eager to win by surprise, so the protagonists encounter all kinds of weird things, even if they are ridiculous or supernatural.
It is not difficult to see this trend. More and more commercial romance movies rely on one idea to prop up the entire story, and then all the plots are based on this unique premise or background.
This is what I said, a core idea, and then the story develops as usual. The core idea of survival under the screenwriter's pen came out. Crick started running around his fate.
This is a very natural trend, and we have also seen the "endless imagination" of the screenwriters.
However, this model started to go wrong.
When the core idea is equal to a movie, we find that the story of the entire movie is more than enough to summarize in one or two sentences. Stranger than fiction is very typical. "A person's life is becoming the plot of a novel. When the protagonist finds that the author wants to write himself to death, he abandons the rigid life and strives to change the novel. This is also the end of his life." Although this sentence is very wordy, but Except at the end of the film, all the plots are clearly stated in one sentence in the introduction. Before we watch the movie, we can clearly know the direction of the whole plot and the fate of the characters with a fairly little background understanding. When creativity changes from an attractive tool for watching a movie to the entirety of a movie, the two hours before the screen is very likely to become quite boring. Will you watch a movie that you know where to go? That's why I don't want to watch Just my luck when I'm bored.
I don't deny that these ideas themselves are very imaginative, and they are amazing. But after the eyes shine, do we still need to watch the actors go through this cutscene? I believe that many people, like me, follow the film selection model of understanding the plot and then deciding whether to watch it. It is often difficult to have an audience with a film conceived as a frame.
Moreover, in many cases, underneath the gorgeous appearance of creativity, the old-fashioned plot is often hidden, and the hero and heroine change their backgrounds directly...
After the banquet, it was once thought that Feng Xiaogang's next movie would be the comedy "Nobles". ". This seems to be a Chinese version of the story similar to "The Dream of the Kings and Suns", and it can be said clearly in one sentence. Later, Director Feng took over the shooting of Yahoo Search Star's commercial short film, and finally used this idea, so the shooting plan of the former was naturally cancelled. A short film of tens of minutes, a movie of two hours, all have the same meaning in their bones.
Core idea = whole movie? The screenwriters are being lazy...
About stranger than fiction
,
it gives a very complete feeling after reading it. The use of the director's technique is very skillful, the reality and the novel are self-confidently fused, intersected, integrated and well-defined. If there are shortcomings, as I said before, a more balanced idea will always be a little bit tedious to take two hours.
The theme of the film is thought-provoking. Crick's mechanical life makes him not think about the meaning of life, and he does not pursue love and happiness. The threat of life and death makes him re-recognize life.
I am a staunch supporter of human beings, so I have tried to find this trend since the beginning of the film. Let's just count it as having it. People can control their own lives, and Crick's efforts are precisely to change destiny. He looked around for the source of the strange sound and saved himself. Of course, the movie is more than that. Later, Crick read Karen's novels, was infected by the power of literature and art, and was even willing to sacrifice for the immortal works. The crash is willing, so why is it that he is in control of his own destiny? He could ask Karen to let him live, which is understandable, but he chose to follow the plot and become a classic. Not to mention that this plot is a bit awkward to find, Crick has been controlling his life from the beginning. I always want to believe that Crick is deciding how many times he brushes his teeth, and Karen's words are just a mischievous coincidence... The
ending of the sentient beings probably means this, everyone is running their own lives.
I remember that when Karen showed the final draft to the professor, facing the pity of the latter, she said that the reason she changed the ending was that Crick was a good person, and a good person should live. This is very sincere, but it is ignored by us. Kind people should be rewarded, they are altruistic, they are noble souls, they are noble, they should be protected and respected. We always emphasize self-confidence, bravery, integrity, that, kindness... In the
film, Crick chose to trade his life for a great work, but the writer Karen chose to sacrifice his work for Crick's life instead. Who is more important than literature and life? This, it's really hard to say...I ca
n't help but add a few words about the performance of the actors. Comedy often has relatively low requirements for actors, and the big names often show their faces, without real swords and spears acting.
Farrell's dullness always feels unnatural, just like watching Li Yapeng play Guo Jing (actually much better than that). The heroine was very tender at first...
Emma Thompson's hysteria seems to me to be in place (too few literary films), and the characters are more reasonable overall. Dustin Hoffman is a bit old-fashioned. A lot of literary knowledge and swimming coach details are reduced to labels, and the characters are not impressive.
View more about Stranger Than Fiction reviews
