I've never been all that blown away by the end of Se7en, though I think the David Fincher cut would have been even worse. This ending essentially proves John Doe correct, that people are built evil, and can't escape their programming. That's it, there's nothing more to it. The ending we got adds something crucial: grace. It said that, though humanity has all these sins built in, we still deserve forgiveness. It was grace that John Doe was missing, grace that gave Somerset some semblance of peace. Without grace, we can only see the bad in humanity. It allows us to see the good. It redeems the entire film. And without it, Se7en would just be a self-indulgent hate-fest on humanity, which frankly, wouldn't have been worth my time. But I feel like the fact that this ending was basically tacked on undercut the point it made. It felt like an addendum, rather than the point of the film. Most of the film still felt like not just an indictment of human failings, but almost a glorification of it, a bit of emotional masochism. "Look how irredeemable we are, isn't it just shameful? Ooh Daddy, hate me more!" I mean, Fincher makes no apology for being a pervert, and that's fine, but it doesn't mean his particular kinks are universal. Personally, I need a bit more aftercare.
Thank you for your considered comment, and I cannot disagree. Much of what I get to see these days is darkness dressed-up in hyper-aesthetic. I found BABY REINDEER to be a glorification of human failings, too. Have you seen it?
@@TheStoryDepartment I haven't, so I can't really comment on it, but in general, that's not really my jam. I get why people like it. There's a sort of catharsis, I think, that people can draw from art that just acknowledges the negative of life. I certainly don't think I'm in a position to judge. Though sometimes I can't help it. My own failing, I suppose. But I do think there's a line between acknowledging human failings and indulging/celebrating them. And I think a lot of media straddles that line in order to appeal to a wider audience. There seems to be a lot of complaining that some fans misunderstand The Boys, thinking the villain is the hero. But the show kinda encourages that confusion, I think. You can only spend so much time lingering on horrible behavior before you have to admit it's the feature entertainment.
I'm reluctant jump on the bandwagon singing the praises of Back to the Future, as its overcrowded, and I think there's not enough discourse mentioning the ways it's aged a bit poorly. But it struck me watching that opening sequence how it reflects the theme of the story. All these mechanical apparatuses work in perfect harmony, but there' one missing piece: life, as represented by the absent Einstein. Without life, not only does the whole process lose its elegant perfection, but its purpose as well. Without life, it just makes a mess. I think this feeds into the larger theme around the mechanics of the universe, and Doc Brown's relationship to it. He thinks the machinery flowing smoothly is the highest good, and is even willing to potentially sacrifice his own life to ensure that flow. But without life, the universe is just rocks and gasses moving around one another in curves through nothing. Why does that clockwork entropy matter more than Doc's life? Without life, it's like the machines built to feed Einstein, without Einstien. It just makes a mess. Life matters more than mechanics. I took that as the theme of the film.
Hey Renato, Thank you for the comment. Totally in agreement with you. What I didn't sufficiently emphasise is the need for continuity, and the importance of continuity in the transition. Have you seen the latest video? Your comment would have applied in that context, too. ;) Cheers, Karel
It's adapt or die. It comes down to storytelling - humans will always find new ways to tell stories. Just keep capturing the moment, and you'll weather it!
You mentioned a line of dialogue in the film that's not in the script. Why does this happen in script vs. screen? Do the actors improvise and add these extra lines or are they added at some other kind of final draft of the script (or by the director perhaps)?
I wonder what credentials he has? Cause what he says counters what Media AI researcher Yves Bergquist and Ai researchers like Gary Marcus and more. Which stress that we are in or near the peak of so called generative AI. That the limitations of the tech will not be overcome by scaling and using even more data, resources and energy. Scaling them only increases the statistical possibilities but does not make the tech more cognitive complex. It does not then understand. They still just predict based on internal biases and training dataset the statistically most likely word or phrase or in image pixels to follow. And no, I do not see why I should add hallucinating stochastic parrots in my work flow, and I think it is unethical to use models made by scraping peoples private data and copyrighted work without consent or compensation for commercial ends. Hence I say no to using anything made by Open AI.
In 10 to 15 years, I expect to see the commercial film industry bifurcated. Studios will churn out AI-generated content that is intelligently cut-and-pasted to appeal to the widest possible audience. At the same time, independent studios will produce original, lower-cost fare to appeal to niche markets. The difference will be the same that differentiates "skill" from "art."
The fearmongering "Get your script out before it's too late" messaging is a bit ridiculous. I understand wanting to be curious about A.I. advancements, but using it to stoke anxiety or some sort of ticking clock is counter-productive.
That comment about the course was obviously tongue-in-cheek but I do believe that many people are in denial about what is really happening. Fear can be a motivator. And great storytellers will continue to find work, but that doesn't mean that the majority of jobs will likely disappear.
@@TheStoryDepartment It didn't sound tongue-in-cheek, it sounded like fear mongering you were pushing in order to sell more of whatever you're selling. Just another leech scrambling for the wanna-be screenwriter's wallet. You're blocked.
nice, another daily dose of fearmongering! don't you have feelings i doubt you got a million dollar to save you so why are you not hoping for a better future also you're **expert** just seems like a random dude experimenting with ai and giving his opinion like it's fact.
Wow! A lot of bitter writers on here. If you’ve got a great script, it will be recognized. If you suck, then it’s on you. A negative attitude gets you nowhere!
I love how they treat the reveal of the teacher in THE WHALE like it's some big reveal. In reality, they'd be shocked for like 7 seconds and then they'd be like, "Oh. Our teacher's fat. Moving on." It really wouldn't be a big, epic revelation like they treat it in the movie.
Hi Paul, Thanks for your comment! I hadn't thought about it that way but it makes perfect sense. It also reflects the teacher's own anxiety about it. The tension in his mind is expressed on the screen through the tension created by the black screen. The obvious irony here is that in the real world, often the teacher's screen is one of the few that has the camera on. If they can, students often leave their cameras off. Cheers, Karel
The age difference would reflect that this scene is more about the teacher’s anxiety about it, not the students. He’s had years of intolerance and jeers and all that. Yes the kids likely wouldn’t care but it’s a lot for someone to overcome after that kind of conditioning.
Does it matter? Great analysts don't have to be (successful) writers. I was a successful teacher for many years before I applied my theory. Cheers, Karel
Dude - you have no idea the stuff I get to read... Sometimes I'm thinking no matter what people pay to get notes, it's worth more to just put the damn thing down...
This movie sucked. Don't care about the characters, don't care about the war, we're never told why it's happening which lends to the two former complaints, wrote by a Brit who is fccking clueless on American politics, filled with woke bullshht, and the premise of "celebrating journalists" falls flat after nearly every news company in America have engaged in censorship. These so-called heroes of journalism were lock-step with the orders to filter news and stories to achieve a political agenda. We don't have journalists here, we have woke activists. So Alex Garland should stick to zombie movies and stay the fcck out of American politics. Maybe we should write a movie about how woke UK should be named "Britainistan" with the capitol of "Londonabad". Maybe Alex would love to see us making movies about how Britain all been taken over by terrorists and woke ideology. Fcck Alex Garland. Fcck Civil War. Lmao
Hey Cody - It was my first RU-vid video, and obviously I was an ignorant noob. It just so happens that I'm working on a new version of this video, which is 2000% better in terms of examples and production values. Sorry about the trouble with this one! The text is in the video description, if you can be bothered... ;) If I remember, I'll post a link here once the new video is live. Thanks for your feedback! Cheers, Karel
Productivity, not quality. The whole creative market needs to be tested. No point in frequent films if no one watches, and there will need to be a human aspect or no one will care. Plus age ratings still need to be adhered to across a global market. The people will decide this one, but my main issue is that the children will be the test base because they won't know any better. Scary.
Thanks for your note. 100% with you on the age ratings. How children are 'left to their devices' is scarier than the power of tech in itself. Cheers, Karel
The bottom line is if you’re already very good at something then AI will make you an expert. If you’re okay at something the AI will make you very good at it and eventually you can become an expert. But the more you know about the subject the better you can prompt the AI. For instance if you’re an accomplished writer and you’re talking to your editor about rewriting a chapter, you may discuss creating more tension or conflict or changing the POV or doing some foreshadowing. Well that’s how you have to talk to the AI. You can’t just tell it to write a scene about a guy walking into a bar and getting into a fight with the bouncer. It’s not going to give you much in its first response. But I think the people who are critical about AI writing capability are missing the point. The AI can take you from a blank page to first draft in a couple of days. And then you start editing and using your experience to turn it into something. Using AI is like having a team or writers that you can collaborate with. I think it would be foolish for a writer to ignore this breakthrough in technology.
Tylor Sheridan hates notes. Specially when it’s an original script. He says none can give notes to an original script. I don’t think he’s 100% right on that.
Where did you found out about Sheridan's attitude to notes? I'm not surprised, as it is consistent with everything else I've heard him say. Did you see my Sicario series? I think Villeneuve made some significant changes for the better.... Cheers, Karel
@@TheStoryDepartment been watching a lot of videos on Sheridan. And in one of those videos, might have been on DP/30 , or at a Q/A at a festival, he says he doesn’t take notes on original. Sicario and Hell or high water were both original and he didn’t do notes or rewrites on those. The movies were shot based on the first draft. Now I also heard that Deni and Del toro made changes to the shooting script, removed almost 90% of Del toros dialogue in Sicario.
So great he answered this bc hollywood is the one job you really have no idea or way to really break in. It’s like a club and the only invite is through a lucky connection.
Immersion Script is a great starter. But if you have more time and want to go deeper, Immersion Film & TV are longer running courses, so you'll have even better training.
Exactly. Great concept, some great imagery (some bad CGI) but horribly executed. A lot of cliche conflict and on the nose dialogue early on. Then the second act meandered without understanding the stakes
I wasn't bothered by the CGI. But someone told me some of it was created using A.I. And while I didn't mention this in the video, I'm with you on the dialogue issue. Cheers, Karel
One specific image made me laugh out loud. The Lincoln Memorial. That rocket and explosion shot was almost cartoonish. I enjoy the videos from here in the Midwestern US. Usually during my morning caffeinating session before I write. Thanks for the reply
The greatest irony of our times is that you( a human) have to verify with a computer that you are not a robot by selecting few random pics. But the thing is AI or a robot or computer or whatever it is can put forward an answer or a line or a script by scouring through the data but whereas we humans can write a whole damn script just by starting with a single picture as a plot point. So no fucking hell no! AI can be used instead of a human but can never replace a human.
It can never replace a human. But the real question is: how many writers' jobs will A.I. obliterate. And from my conversation with Oren, I'm afraid the answer is: most. Cheers, Karel
This was superb. I love the hero’s journey and thought I really knew it until this talk. I’m right in the middle of my third act in a current screenplay and this helped light the way in a big way.
The idea of copying a screenplay to learn from it is so interesting and I'm definitely going to try it! How do I choose which screenplay to copy? (One of my favourite films is "Half Nelson" and I was thinking about copying that..)
Half Nelson is amazing. The Immersion training provides a selection of perfect scripts. It also explains what scripts are suitable for this method. I had a quick glance at the shooting draft (share.zight.com/YEuwy28L). Except for a few long-ish description paragraphs and unorthodox use of parentheticals, it looks like an excellent script to copy. Have fun! Cheers, Karel
Hey Karel, thanks! I noticed a lot of deleted scenes and dialogue in the script of Half Nelson (seems like this happened during editing and because of the film's editing style?) and also, to my understanding, a lot of stuff was improvised and given more depth by the actors. Why are there so many differences from script to screen (particularly since it's the white script)? Is it because of the independent cinema style? Thanks again! I think I have so much to learn from copying this script!
@@TheStoryDepartmentHello again Karel! I've already started copying the script I chose (for me, it was Half Nelson) and I'm on page 24 now. The whole process is very enjoyable and, most of all, it's a really valuable lesson in screenwriting. Thanks so much for recommending this technique!
I agree, he is one of my favorites too. Wind River and Sicario are are couple of the most impactful films I've watched more recently. I read sicario but not wind river (yet). I just checked out his IMDB... the man is a beast!
