Click the link to get your FREE SKILLSHARE: skl.sh/savagebooks Come check out the writing behind Rick and Morty! SUPPORT THE CHANNEL ON PATREON! / savagebooks Music: Tycho- Send And Receive
Hey guys! If this one seems familiar, it is because it is a re-upload from a earlier video, just with the new and improved editing style. I will periodically upload older videos with this new format. My next upload will be completely new content though! Hopefully I can have that done in 1-2 weeks!
Doctor Who also has Infinite-Premises. Hey, if anyone's interested, I'm reviewing all the Doctor Who stories on my channel, with me just having uploaded my review of: 'Carnival Of Monsters (1973)!' No pressure, of-course, just if you're interested! :)
For some reason hearing Evil Morty explained as someone who outsmarted a whole space station filled with super geniuses sent chills down my spine. I had always just assumed all other versions of Rick were morons, but when I consider the other perspective it means Evil Morty is far more powerful than I had ever imagined.
Masked Badass well across infinite timelines there are infinite ricks of all kinds. So there has to be a universe where a morty can out smart a citadel of ricks. It MUST exist
if i ever write a piece of literature i would consider it the greatest honor possible to have it broken down in a just-less-than-15-minute youtube video by savage books
The Ricks of the Citadel are interesting, because when you put a million versions of a man who's practically god in a regular society, you just get a regular society and none of the Ricks are more special than normal people. Evil Morty getting the upper hands against a society of Ricks isn't that impressive because after so long those Ricks forgot what makes them the gods of their respective universes/timelines, and I think that's why C-137 hates them and the Citadel.
The dynamic you're describing here is shared by Dr Who. Similarly there is no limit (either by time or space) to the story premises that the characters can be dropped into. The Doctor is godlike, theoretically immortal and therefor theoretically existing in all places at all times (eventually), and his companions are the normal people interacting with a godlike, enigmatic figure.
I was thinking that as well. And the interesting variant there is the regenerations - each iteration of the Doctor is different, and they and the audience have to wait to see what they do to confirm that, yes, this is still the same person in some way.
With Dr who both monomyths (character and premise) can change every so often, however it is restricted as it’s a family friendly show so it can’t use this to its full potential.
Except the relationship between the 'god' and their 'companion/s' is reversed. Morty learns from Rick, but the Doctor learns from their companions. Vindicators 3 is proof for Rick and Morty, and Waters of Mars is proof for Doctor Who, of this premise.
I get what you're saying but honestly it isn't all that impressive that rick and morty have the ability to have the show take on any premise, any cartoon can. In fact you can almost make the point that using dimensions is somewhat lazy compared to how other writers do it. Look at South Park and The Simpsons. Both shows have done absolutely crazy things with their characters while still managing to keep the monomyth of 4 young kids in a small american town and the average american family. In South Park you have characters like towelie and mr Hankey who feel like an organic part of the show. Simpsons have done everything from homer being in space to a genuinely gripping murder mystery when Mr Burns gets shot. Don't get me wrong, I love Rick and Morty and it certainly is well written (except most of season 3...), however I always feel like it gets way to much credit for what it does.
Still season 3 has two of the best episodes in the series. one of them being discussed here. and the other is the first episode of the season. That's my opinion though, I wouldn't say it's factual.
The Hunter x Hunter 2011 Dickriding Association idk why this video is literally just his video about the tales of the citadel with a different title and a sponsor
@@brianlowe904 yeah pretty sure I said something Similar last time (too lazy to check so feel free to call me out if wrong). The new editing style helps too
Your opening animation is somehow soothing, satisfying, serene. Okay; perhaps not _serene_ but I’m a big fan of alliteration in threes. Yes, I’m aware the S-words in that first sentence are a quartet. I’m not counting somehow, as it doesn’t fall under the same Part of Speech (that old English class staple,) as do the others. I digress. The sound of the pencil gliding along fresh paper. The triple-tap on the punctuation, as though the wielded of said pencil were forced to satiate some form of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. The simplistic, yet at the safe time refined art style of the graphics, reminiscent of both 90s ClipArt, and grade school power point slideshow animations. That, my dear sir, is some good *[Insert An S-Word Of An Entirely Different Sort Here]* Some good *[Insert An S-Word Of An Entirely Different Sort Here]* indeed.
Doctor Who does a similar thing with a straight “man” (though usually woman) tagging along into infinite adventures anywhere in time and space with a god-like being who can do anything. Obviously there are differences in theme and tone but the similarities are striking
Very insightful video! Joseph Campbell's books are literally how-to's on writing interesting and incredible characters, and it's such a shame they aren't utilized in a lot of the modern movies/shows. The Hero With a Thousand Faces is one of the most influential books I have read.
@@Ignasimp well like I mentioned, Joseph Campbell's other books are really good too, like The Power of Myth and The Hero's Journey. They are all pretty dense books in terms of content, but they're rich with great ideas and concepts. Save The Cat was pretty good too, though it's more geared towards screenwriting, but the principles are still valid. It basically blueprints out story beats and arcs. While not an absolutely amazing book IMO, it did have some pretty good insights. I believe there's a version of on writing novels too if I'm not mistaken.
I'm curious about where did you learn all of this about good writting. Did you study it at college? Did you learn it from reading books about it? Or in a complitelly different way? Because I'm learning it from watching videos on youtube, but they didn't exist until a few years. I'd also like to have different sources to get my knowledge from, and not rely only on what I find in youtube, even if it is amazing.
I had a dream about writing about an alien parasite called a wood worm, a creature that can devour anything by turning it into wood. They are intelligent and give humans a way to ward them off by handing them a paragraph of words which gets translated so humans can read it, it is two pages long so everyone has a copy. They also avoid certain things they have a weakness to like fire and tree roots, they infect only what they turn into wood.
That may be precisely what makes it horrifying, is our expectations of seeing this nice familiar feel-good story structure are thrown out the window as we watch the characters struggle through the environment and often fail to overcome it or die. Part of what makes horror effective is a feeling of powerlessness, and the monomyth's cycle ends with a character being "the master of both worlds"; subverting that expectation of eventual mastery helps create that feeling of powerlessness.
He probably does. But doesnt focus on that and more on "the hero's journey" wich is something cambel is know for and is basically his biggest contribution to the monomyth. Its not who did it first, its who did it better :)
Careful dude, I don’t think you want suggest that Campbell “did it better” than Jung... haha. And I’m sure Savage knows this. Which is why I commented, he can be a little more careful. Especially as he adopts a somewhat “more informed than you” sort of RU-vid persona.
You know... what’s funny is that if rick surpassed God and became a or The God and Evil Morty surpassed him then he became a or The God right? So really what did it matter what Rick became. He just got dethroned by someone else. Kinda funny if you really think about it
Doctor Who also has Infinite-Premises. Hey, if anyone's interested, I'm reviewing all the Doctor Who stories on my channel, with me just having uploaded my review of: 'Carnival Of Monsters (1973)!' No pressure, of-course, just if you're interested! :)
"Everything he says is the right thing, except he said it to manipulate... Evil Morty outsmarted a whole society of Ricks." Why does Evil Morty remind me of Trump all of a sudden?
You seem to throw about the word monomyth without actually understanding what it means. Which is kinda crazy seeing as you literally give us the definition at the start of the video. However besides this huge mistake the video was very interesting.
This seems to explain why season 3 was, at least for me, so bad. Down to earth mundane, everyday problems a demi god like Rick wouldn't normally deal with. Also very predictable.
@@telltellyn None. The thing I find the most odd about his opinion is the "so bad" part, as if season 3 was somehow terrible. I always find it strange when someone enjoys 1 and 2 but claim to dislike 3. They're all the same. They're all great.
@@buckaroobanzai7063 I've rewatched season 3 this week, there's probably 1 below average and the rest incredible. Consistently some of the best Rick and Morty episodes. I mean how much better is Morty's Mindblowers than Interdimensional Cable? I heavily suspect people dislike season 3 because they spent years hyping themselves beyond belief.
I think this is making a mountain out of a mole hill to be honest. The reason they're the same characters but different is because they have the same voice acting and cartoon characterisation. I don't think it's really anything more than that.
I'm so sick and tired of formulaic storytelling. As if, we, human beings, are not more sophisticated than that to enjoy a work of art/cinema. The cinematic masterpieces that have stand the test of time don't rely on the Hero's Journey: - 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968, Stanley Kubrick) - Citizen Kain (1948, Orson Welles) - Mulholland Drive (2001, David Lynch) (was recently crowned best film of the 21st century in BBC poll of critics) - The Tree of Life (2011, Terrence Malick) - Taxi Driver (1976, Martin Scorsese) - The Mirror (1975, Andrei Tarkovsky) ...
So I think you misunderstand the Hero's journey and what the video is saying. The hero's journey is not supposed to be taken as a literal step by step guide on how to write a story, it's instead meant to offer a universal theory on what makes a story a story. Think of it like math, where we know that 1+1=2 and that forms the basis of all advanced calculations like multiplication, subtraction, division etc. In the same way the hero's journey forms a basis upon which we build and further develop/modify to create more advanced story telling. A space odyssey for example uses the Hero's journey . Bowman is called to action by the monolith (even if at this time he doesn't realize it); the rising action is Hal's actions and immediate threat, the revelation/mid-point is the true mission revealed, Bowman is literally transformed and changed by the Monolith before finally returning to earth, his home, a change man. Now does this fit exactly with the Hero's journey; no it does not, but it's not supposed to, the hero's journey is written to be vague and broad. Countless others have expanded upon it and modified it but you can still see it as the common theory/link that all stories possess. The basis for all story telling and that's not a bad thing any more than saying 1+1=2 is formulaic and predicable; and that human's are so much more sophisticated with their math and that (A+A=B) has nothing to do with 1+1=2.
@@alexblake5369 I understand your point. But where I'm coming from, art is not math. Art only become interesting when it moves as far away possible from any formulaic approach, inclusively the Hero's Journey. 2001: A Space Odyssey, as an example you gave, is far removed from the Hero's Journey. The part you are taking about only happens in the 4th part of the movie, approximately in the last 40 minutes. The further removed from any formula a work becomes, the more interesting it becomes, and the more its artistic merits rise to the surface.
The Tree of Life is provably the worst film I have ever seen. It's obiouslt my oppinion only but just because you like this films a lot doesn't mean they are objectively better. And my question is, do this films really "stand the test of time"? How many 20 year olds have seen A space Odyssey? how many of them would acually like it if they saw it? There are plenty of films I find much better than the ones you feel are the best.
@@samuelfaict5755 But saying art only becomes interesting when it moves as far away possible from any formulaic appoach is just your oppinion. And I disagree. And I also dislike formulaic story-telling a lot. But this is like music theory. Knowing about it helps you do what you want by telling you what can be done. You can always move away from it. But doing it on purpous, by knowing the theory, usually gives you much better results that moving from it without knowing.
@@Ignasimp Art that stands the test of time is usually a work that scholars analyze to this day. For example, Marvel movies are already starting to fade away and will be forgotten in about 10 years. No scholar will ever talk about them, unless it is to analyze how not to make art.
