Screenplay Structure

Continuing with another Quentin Tarantino production, I will be exploring how Deathproof follows the classic screenplay structure.


Act 1
Introduction of characters -- Three girls in their twenties - Arlene, Shanna, and Jungle Julie. Julie hosts a radio show and is famous town-wide. Shanna and Arlene are her friends.

Imbalance -- An unidentified character, later turning out to be "Stuntman Mike", mysteriously tailing the three girls.
All of these characters, plus a new character called Pam (Jungle Julia's childhood adversary), meet up at a bar. Everyone gets trashed. Stuntman Mike agrees to give Pam a lift home.

Imbalance tipping point -- Stuntman Mike kills Pam.

Plot point 1 -- Stuntman Mike rams his "deathproof" stunt car into a car carrying Arlene, Shanna, and Jungle Julie, killing all occupants. Only he survives.


Act 2
The new world/Introduction of characters -- Fourteen months later, in another town, we are introduced to four new girls - Lee, Abernathy, Kim, and Zoe. Lee and Abernathy are models, and Kim and Zoe are stunt women.
Again, Stuntman Mike is seen mysteriously watching the women.
Zoe wants to drive a 1970 Dodge Challenger, and knows of a man in this small town that is selling one. Arriving there, she convinces the man to let her take it for a test drive. Eventually her true motives are made clear -- she wishes to do an incredibly dangerous stunt involving her riding on its bonnet while it speeds around winding country roads!
Leaving Lee in the "care" of the perverted car seller, Zoe, Kim and Abernathy go for a cruise.

Failing tests/obstacles -- Stuntman Mike, coming out of nowhere, repeatedly bashes the car as Zoe is lashed to the bonnet. Eventually the car crashes.

Belly of the beast -- Kim shoots a gloating Stuntman Mike. Things are turned on their head as Mike becomes the hunted, and the girls the hunters. We are treated to fifteen minutes of crazy stunt driving as the girls chase and ram Stuntman Mike's "deathproof" car.

Passing tests/Plot point 2/Climax -- The girls kill Stuntman Mike.


Act 3

We dont really "see" this -- it is simply assumed that everything ends up A-OK.
Cut to credits.

Enlightenment Quotes/Web 2.0 Characters

I'm hitting this one head on. My next blog post will look at capturing the story sequences of a movie. So stay tuned!
First -- quotes that denote character development. For the first quote, I'm going with Battlestar Galactica, the 2004 remake of some terrible hack of a show. Luckily this time around we've got a killer cast of characters, great lines, and fantastic special effects. BSG is often touted as a 'character based sci-fi', because that's what it is.

Lt. Thrace: I never wanted this kind of responsibility.

Commander Adama: The Cylons never asked us what we wanted. Welcome to the big leagues.

Background: Thrace is about to organize an incredibly dangerous mission. The Cylons are the evil robotic enemies, but in every other way, this exchange really speaks for itself.
This second example is from Pulp Fiction. For some more background info: Butch, although in a position to escape from his mortal enemy Marsellus, has had a change of heart. Instead he decides to save his life.

Butch: You okay?
Marsellus: Nah man, I'm pretty fucking far from "okay".

(Marsellus has conceded, believe it or not!)



Ok, question two: How are characters defined in Web 2.0?
Well, going off the example of the avatar -- very differently than in the real world. How one presents oneself online defines one's personality. That includes carefully staged (or fake!) photos, how one talks to others, and so on.
But with Web 2.0, the key word is "social dynamics". Once one is in, they are stuck. In Facebook, how one reacts to a situation is immediately published. Everyone knows what everyone else is doing. So the "veil" between one's true self and one's published personal thins. Only so much can be controlled!

The Meddling of Publishers

NOTE: Spoilers ahead! If you haven't played Bioshock before, look away now!
Bioshock. The spiritual sequel to System Shock 2, a game critically lauded for its scary mechanics and interesting (and well written!) story. So this spiritual sequel, Bioshock, had a lot to live up to.
Most reviewers agreed that Bioshock lived up to the hype. Great story. Fantastically written dialogue. Intriguing levels of morality woven into it all. Etc.
But there were two major narrative problems: First of all, the morality 'system' hyped before release was a simplistic 'press A for good/B for evil' type device. Second -- the final boss was a stupid by-the-numbers 'blast the big guy till he falls over' experience.
Later on, months after release, it would leak that the writer of Bioshock had a much more entertaining and very much 'alternate' style of video game ending that completely differed from the norm. You wouldn't just be blasting away a huge baddie. And the morality system? Lack of time money likely helped in the shelving of any complexity in this particular system.
We will never really know what Bioshock's writer and lead designer, Ken Levine, had in mind for this game.
Damn publishers!!

My very first blog entry (that's not a test)

Here are some definitions. By me, of course.
Web 2.0: "A series of Internet technologies that are primarily designed to enhance the social and creative possibilities and capabilities of the World Wide Web."
Widget: "An application for any interactive device that offers niche capabilities."

I'm very excited by the possibilities presented by this unit. Script writing for a game? Making a proposal for a revolutionary video game? Pretty cool stuff.
"Historically", story has always been the weak point of the new narrative genre that is the video game. I mean, games often have really cool premises. And frequently really damn cool plots. But the actual storytelling? Structure, characterization, lines of dialogue?
So here's the less acerbic and more hopeful perspective: We've got nowhere to go but up at this point!

Test post

Hi! This is a test.