The number of basic story lines varies depending on who does the categorization (ranging between 7 and 80, depending on the level of detail and distinction), but they definitely exist. However, employing them in storytelling isn't a hackneyed exercise - it's an appeal to human nature. Movies that discard the basics in favour of a post-modern patchwork of jarring images tend not to do as well. It's akin to saying "all music is organized sound - how boring...I wish someone would come out with an album full of disorganized sound and show these hacks what's what!".
Having said that, there are notable exceptions, although not as many as you would think (the departures usually come from the manner of storytelling, as opposed to the nature of the story itself). Jarring images and puzzling details can tickle the senses in new ways, which can be especially refreshing after being stimulated in the same way for so long, but unless they tap into something deeper in the human psyche these types of movies are destined for the novelty bin.
Of course we want directors and writers to push the boundaries of human expression and understanding in their movies, and I don't think we could stop them from doing it if we wanted to. But to say that movies that rely on the basic plots are boring out of hand is an incomplete analysis to say the least. And remember, the devil (and the fun!) is in the details.
Originally posted by PBE6I'd agree with most of that.
The number of basic story lines varies depending on who does the categorization (ranging between 7 and 80, depending on the level of detail and distinction), but they definitely exist. However, employing them in storytelling isn't a hackneyed exercise - it's an appeal to human nature. Movies that discard the basics in favour of a post-modern patchwork of jarr ete analysis to say the least. And remember, the devil (and the fun!) is in the details.
But consider the following:
Movies have been getting made for the last say 80 years or so. The only real difference between them is in how the story is told. At what point in the future do the different ways of a telling the same basic stories get used up and become boring? Have we reached that point yet? I think that can only be answered by the movie watcher themself and that its largely dependant on how many movies that person has seen.
A young person who hasn't seen many films will enjoy new films telling old stories because they never heard those old stories so, to them, the story appears to be new and appealing.
The older person however, can get into a "been there done that" reference point watching the same movie as the younger person.
At least, that's how I view things when I see them. My original question was in asking if other people get tired of the same old thing too or do they still like watching the same basic thing because they just like an old story that is presented well?
From your post, i think you fall into the latter?
Originally posted by PalynkaIt's very similar to Bergman's "Persona". Don't know if I'd call it a "tribute" though.
Mulholland Drive is a criticism of the Hollywood industry. It's not a tribute to any particular film, although any reference to other films can be explained in the light of this criticism.
Originally posted by uzlessI think if you watch movies not as movies, but as examples of themes, then yes you'll get bored pretty quickly. The range of human passions isn't that large. But as I said, the devil and the fun are in the details.
I'd agree with most of that.
But consider the following:
Movies have been getting made for the last say 80 years or so. The only real difference between them is in how the story is told. At what point in the future do the different ways of a telling the same basic stories get used up and become boring? Have we reached that point yet? I think that c e an old story that is presented well?
From your post, i think you fall into the latter?
There are lots of details that go into a movie. Acting, scripting, direction, set design, costume design, music and sound, camera work, editing, etc... Some of these elements are directly related to plot exposition, some are not. If you make a movie about a tried and true theme (like the Quest) with bad acting, poor scripting, uninspired direction, design and music, static camera work and choppy editing, you end up with a bad movie (like "The Quest" starring Jean Claude Van Damme - oooo what a stinker!). However, if you make a movie with great acting, clever scripting, inspired direction, detailed, beautiful and evocative design, good camera work, and smooth editing, you end up with a wonderful movie (like "The Wizard of Oz" starring Judy Garland).
My guess when you see a movie that bores you, it's not because of the plot but because the movie plods.
EDIT: Ah! I didn't actually answer your question. Yes, I fall into the later category, I like stories presented well.