Wouldn’t it be useful to contrast/compare with the storyform of the incredibles (in addition to the fugitive)? It’s a superhero action movie with its OS Domain in Psychology/Manipulations, so not Mind/Fixed Attitude, but still something other than Physics/Activities.
2 Likes
By Author, I mean:
- Hi, I have an idea for a story
- I want to write some words to communicate this story to someone
- Hey, I put some words together to illustrate conflict in this scene
- the conflict in this scene is a bunch of problematic Activities like punching and kicking
- great, i’m finished with that scene. now i’ll write another one.
- in this scene I’m going to have a big bomb blow up a building. another problem Activity.
- in this scene I’m going to have the supposed good guy punch his way through a bunch of police in order to extricate a villain. More problematic Activities.
- in this scene i’m going to have two groups of superheroes square off against each at an airport–
- –you know what, let’s make this all about their Fixed Attitudes and how they’re unwilling to consider a different approach.
- oh wait, the entire momentum of the story came to a screeching halt
- oh that’s right, they were squaring up against each other to fight. OK, cool. More problematic Activities.
They would, I’m almost positive, tell you that the conflict is over their different positions over the essential thematic question: should superheroes be allowed to operate freely or not?
Yes, and as I said before, the reason behind these positions is covered in the Main Character and Influence Character Throughlines.
It’s like you’re using Fixed Attitudes to describe how a story works – how Main Character is positioned against Influence Character. And that’s not what Dramatica means by Fixed Attitude within the context of a Throughline’s Domain.
Not to completely derail the conversation, but this once again is looking at the storyform from the character’s perspective. It’s not about what situation the Marshals are in or what situation the killer is in. The entire film is about a man unjustly accused of his wife’s murder. It’s the same exact Overall Story Throughline found in Shawshank Redemption.
The Princess Bride has the overall story in an internal domain (Manipulation) but still has a lot of great action. When you look at it objectively though, you can see how the action (climbing, sword-fighting, etc.) is not the root source of conflict. You can kind of feel it too – the action somehow feels different than most action movies.
I’ve had trouble with The Fugitive myself; Jim has helped me on that. I think what makes it tricky is that the “stuck external thing” is not a physical location but a fixed state of affairs – an innocent man has been found guilty (and is on the run). That situation affects everyone, including the marshals and the real killer. They can’t escape that situation without catching Dr. Kimble. (Technically the marshals could quit their jobs and move to Australia, but that’s outside of the context of the movie as presented.)
Anyway, thanks for this debate guys, it’s been very informative so far! 
2 Likes
This is the most fun thread in a while. Two great giants having a friendly go at their storyforms. I’m a novelist (almost completed my fantasy novel) and I understand where Sébastien is coming from so intimately and at the same time I co-own a little animation studio so I also get Jim’s POV from a screenwriters perspective. The Storymind is fascinating. It’s like the whole self organizing phase Mel’s always talking about. Soon a unanimous voice will emerge. Best thread EVER!
What is likely needed is more of a subjective perspective towards the storyform itself (like my series on Generating Dramatic Tension was all about).
In fact, if you look at the Plot Sequence Report–the closest thing we have to a subjective view of the storyform–you’ll note that the Issues within the Overall Story Throughline source from the Psychology Domain. Not quite the Fixed Attitudes Sebastien calls for, but close enough to what the characters themselves are dealing with…while they engage in ACTIVITIES 
In act one, “appreciating the meaning of something” (Understanding) is explored in terms of Permission, Need, Expediency, and Deficiency.
Act two concentrates on “gathering information or experience” (Gathering Information) and is explored in terms of State of Being, Situation, Circumstances, and Sense of Self.
Act three focuses on “engaging in a physical activity” (Doing) and is explored in terms of Knowledge, Ability, Desire, and Thought.
And act four illustrates “achieving or possessing something” (Obtaining) and is explored in terms of Commitment, Responsibility, Obligation, and Rationalization.
What do you know…the first sequence is all about PERMISSION…lol.
How insanely prescient are these sequences? They read like a Beat Sheet for the entire film. Ending in Rationalization??? They’re all justifying their actions during that closing sequence.
2 Likes
OK @jhull. You brought out the big guns! Never seen u do that. “Jim referring to the PSR?!” I’m just geeking out about the whole thing really! You both are amazing. Jim is a master of Story, Sébastien is also a master storyteller(his Greatcoats series is one of the best in Fantasy). Like I said earlier, Best Thread EVER!
This gets down to whether you think the source of the conflict is manipulation and the action merely the result of it, or whether – per Jim’s point – all the conflict is, in fact, manifesting through sword fights, chases, duels, murders . . . etc.
I’d also have to disagree with the notion that the action is different than in most action movies. It almost perfectly parallels that of all of its antecedents from The Sea Hawk, Captain Blood, Robin Hood, Scaramouche . . . etc (essentially, almost anything with Errol Flynn in it.) Like those films, Princess Bride is a Romance (not in the sense of romance movie or romantic comedy, but in the classical sense of a story of romantic idealism – Three Musketeers was a Romance, despite having relatively little romance in it, if you get my drift.) The Princess Bride was both written as, and executed as, an homage to those earlier films and novels.
1 Like
Except that in the case of The Fugitive the entire movie is about the efforts to capture the main character and his efforts to escape. In The Shawshank Redemption, the entire story is about the nature of being incarcerated – how people deal with it, how sometimes they can’t deal with it. So for me, the OS being in situation makes sense.
Except that as far as a storyform is concerned its not what the story is about, but rather how the problem in the story manifests itself. Both Fugitive and Shawshank share the same problem of an innocent man unjustly labeled (external fixed) guilty of his wife’s murder.
@mlucas is the expert on The Princess Bride and spent a considerable amount of time actually defining all the story points for that storyform. His complete analysis of the film is a remarkable achievement and a great place to start if you’re trying to understand what conflict looks like from an objective Author’s point-of-view.
1 Like
That’s just the problem: to me, those sequences don’t make any sense at all. The second act of that movie (breaking into four rather than three here), everyone is concerned with capturing (obtaining) Winter Soldier. They spend almost no time trying to figure out where he is: that information gets handed to everyone involved. The final act is all about Gathering Information: they travel to that remote location to find the truth about what happened. Tony finds out how his parents died.
You have to really stretch events to force them into those four boxes in that sequence.
Only if you don’t understand what conflict looks like in that film from an Author’s point-of-view:
1- Understanding - understanding that the Avengers have gone too far without supervision, misunderstanding their intentions
2- Learning - gathering information about Bucky, disinformation about who was behind the murder of Panther’s dad
3 - Doing - the entire airport sequence
4 - Obtaining - exacting revenge and splitting apart the Avengers
In each of these Signposts, those sequences from the PSR read like tea leaves!
Those two paragraphs contradict each other: if the story form is concerned with “how the problem in the story manifests itself” (and thus Civil War is in Activities), then you really can’t try to argue away the almost non-stop action in Princess Bride as being manipulations. I’ve read @mlucas’s analysis of the film and there’s lots to commend it, but it’s a swashbuckling movie – as much or more focused on activities than any superhero movie.
Well at least now you agree with me that the Overall Story is in Activities (since in order for the final act to be all about Gathering Information it needs to be in Activity).
Traveling to the Siberian Hyrda facility to find the truth about what happened does not describe the PROBLEMS in that Act. Obtaining, i.e. ending, destroying…does.
No they don’t.
It’s super clear to me that the problems that manifest in Princess Bride are the manipulations and dysfunctional relationships between the characters.
You’ve categorized it as a swashbuckling movie. Dramatica does not have a category for swashbuckling movie as that is a predominantly subjective viewpoint. Personally i wouldn’t cateogrize the film as swashbuckling, but then again I prefer to look at conflict objectively rather than subjectively as an experience.
Which is how Dramatica sees conflict.
We might be hitting the limit on the utility of me arguing these points, so I’m happy to back off on this topic, but with those four concerns you’re absolutely stretching the language to fit:
How does Act 1 begin? With the Avengers chasing down terrorists to stop them from using a WMD. Things blow up. It then transitions (journeys) into Understanding when they’re told about the Accords.
There’s a relatively brief period in Act 2 where they’re wrestling with understanding why things are happening (mostly Cap trying to reconcile his beliefs about Bucky with the evidence against them.) We spend almost no time gathering information: the answer is literally handed to the characters in one scene.
The airport sequence is one scene within the third act. It is, by the way, a desperate attempt by Tony’s side to capture Bucky and by Steve to escape with Bucky in tow.
The final act contains several key scenes – all of which deal with learning. Tony gets information that indicates Bucky didn’t set off the bomb. Cap leans about the use of the Winter Soldier compound. Tony learns that Winter Soldier killed his parents. Black Panther learns that Winter Soldier didn’t kill his father. Everyone learns why Zemo did all these things.
I don’t see how you can privilege one scene in an act above all others and say, “ah, see? There – he learned something. The act must be in Gathering Information.” Virtually all the conflict in act 4 comes from learning.
I’m agreeing that if you define a domain as the things the actors are doing on screen, then all action movies are in Activities.
What I’m not on board with is the notion that there’s an objective standpoint from which to say the problems in the 4th act are from obtaining.
Definitely an awesome thread. Super informative AND super entertaining! But clearly there’s only one way to solve this. (Opens Dramatica Story Engine) I’m setting Jim as the MC. Are these guys in a Fixed Attitude RS, or…?
1 Like
I’m pretty sure I’m the Influence Character here…
1 Like
Actually, I think this is very useful. Many writers new to Dramatica misunderstand Domains and Throughlines, so the clearer I can explain it to you the more time I’ll save myself in the long run. So I appreciate you continuing to present your point-of-view.
I’m agreeing that if you define a domain as the things the actors are doing on screen, then all action movies are in Activities.
I never once said that. In fact, I’ve presented many action films that aren’t in Activities. But I am saying that in Civil War presented conflict as a series of problematic Activities
Tony gets information that indicates Bucky didn’t set off the bomb.
There is nothing inequitable about this from an objective point-of-view. An inequity exists between things and the story point defines the nature of that inequity. From a subjective perspective yes this appears to be inequitable, but the storyform is not subjective. This is also an example of using the appreciation as subject matter.
Getting bad information is not an inequity. Difficulty getting that information is.
Cap leans about the use of the Winter Soldier compound.
This is not an inequity. This is Gathering Information as subject matter as seen from a subjective point-of-view.
Tony learns that Winter Soldier killed his parents.
This is not an inequity. This is Gathering Information as subject matter as seen from a subjective point-of-view.
Black Panther learns that Winter Soldier didn’t kill his father.
This is not an inequity. This is Gathering Information as subject matter as seen from a subjective point-of-view.
Everyone learns why Zemo did all these things.
This is not an inequity. This is Gathering Information as subject matter as seen from a subjective point-of-view.
exacting revenge and splitting apart the Avengers
This is an inequity. Cap wants to leave with Bucky, Iron Man wants to kill Bucky. Both can’t exist at the same time. Therefore, conflict.
The airport sequence is one scene within the third act
All you need is one scene. In Star Wars Luke bemoans the loss of Obi-Wan, a sign of Ben’s Influence Character Signpost of Memories triggering Luke’s eventual growth.