6:45 "The destruction of the ring is a philosofical triumph of good over evil..." Well, not really. Frodo (good) didn't throw the ring (evil) into Mordor (he bowed to its power), the corrupted Gollum (evil) did. LOTR's philosofy is more like "Good will not always prevail, but evil will always destroy itself."
I believe he's talking about what the destruction of the One Ring MEANS philosophically, not what actually happens. I agree that Tolkien's message is more complex than that (particularly when you take the Scouring of the Shire into account). The fact that the Ring is destroyed and evil still manages to reach the Shire tells you much about how Tolkien really felt about Evil, and about War.
@2003leonard If that's really the message, then shouldn't we just let 'evil takes its course' into destroying itself? And I guess "good" just kinda have to fend off the chances of being 'collateral damage'?
It was Bilbo's pity of Gollum that ultimately led to the destruction of the Ring, Bilbo overcoming his own inner conflict was a triumph of good over evil.
This video was very timely for me. I'm in the middle of a screenplay, and I've been thinking about the importance the role conflict plays in story to no end. But, could never come to a solid conclusion as to why that is, other than it being "more interesting than no conflict." This gives me a better understanding of where the source of conflict in a good story flows from, and is actually a pretty great litmus test in and of itself as to whether you have a good story on your hands. Thanks for uploading!
Thank you for offering your views on this. They resonate far more with the process of writing I'm hoping to develop/find than many other interpretations I've seen.
Thank God we are finally getting good videos on the depth BEHIND the concepts. This is a great step for youtube screenplay type advice in general as rather than just relating popular fiction to common storytelling concepts, the concepts themselves are being broken down and analysed. This kind of ask questions mentality makes things soooo much more understandable. Bravo.
Jesus Christ, this video just gave me a whole new perspective on not just on why stories are fundamentally told but just about morality and the values of it.
Thanks to this video, whenever I talk about themes, I will always talk about how the main thematic message is called the philosophical conflict. Because a story CAN have multiple themes, but usually those themes have to be intertwined into a web that is driven by the philosophical conflict. Like, my favorite book series is _"Percy Jackson & The Olympians"_ and that series displays themes on family, friendship, loyalty, perception, war, identity, morality, faith, and hope. And the perceived philosophical conflict is the debate on whether or not you are willing to support your family, even if you feel they have dishonored you.
The quality of your videos skyrocketed in recent times. It was already very good, but now it's amazing. I also feel that the lack of the knowledge you presented here is why the recent huge screenwriting phenomenon was received so badly. The great story of our time basically went out and said to us that fighting, sacrificing for freedom of others will result in you going batshit insane and getting killed by your loved ones. Great.
I like the idea. Also, the conflict will be resolved either in a tragic way or a happy ending way, and it will depend on wether the character follows the moral principle or succumbs to the conflicting force
Good. I've been trying to write screenplays. Just starting, but not as a writer overall. I keep hearing "conflict." And I think, "OK. Conflict. Action. But where is the deeper meaning?" Excellent video. Thanks for sharing it!
Well said! Thanks for sharing this. I'm often annoyed, when a film has too much of what I call "filler action": action (chase, fight...) which adds nothing to the story - except work for stunts and FX team etc. That is probably because such action has no value for the philosophical question or for the character growth etc., which gives meaning to the story
Great video! What you talked about reminded me of the dinner scene in Jurassic Park. Each character has a different worldview and are arguing over what to do with the dinosaurs.
I'm writing a story that has a definitive outcome Without need for conflict and I have to put conflict into it to make it more interesting according to what your saying
16:40 is so true. I get so tired of people complaining about the supposed “preaching” of a film when there isn’t anything wrong with the writing, it’s the audience member just not liking the ideas presented. It bothers me when people dishonestly present their complaints by pretending to be rationalists who have an objective problem with the film writing or structure when in reality they just have a subjective distaste for the ideas presented. Right wingers complaining about the supposed “left leaning preaching” coming from the new Star Trek series is a great example of this. It’s like they didn’t watch the old Trek series or saw them but didn’t understand them enough to realize that the older Trek series were just as left leaning as the new ones in the ideas they present.
He said it himself "BAD WRITING causes preachy films" 16:45 The message was not the problem, the terrible writing was. People (not right wingers) complained because the way the ideas were presented was dogshit.
Conclusion : While the more peripheral characters have less of an impact on the philosophical conflict. They still stand as a point of conflict that challenges or affirms what the main characters believe. The characters in these films don't just exist to make the world more interesting and they don't simply exist to be allies or to simply create roadblocks for the main character. Their purpose in the story is deeper than that, each of the characters push the other characters and the audience deeper into the philosophical conflict at the core of the story. The philosophical conflict at the center is what gives the story its meaning. The characters internal struggles and external plot may be interesting but it is only engaging because of the deeper conflict happening on the philosophical level. Writing teachers might tell you that you need conflict in every scene, and while you do need conflict in your scenes. This type of advice is missing the point of how stories actually work and what makes them great. Sure scenes need conflict but what kind, a story filled with simple external conflict in every scene will be unengaging. All of the external and internal conflict exists under the umbrella of the ultimate conflict which is the philosophical or moral conflict. Doesn't this cause stories to be preachy or bash you over the head with a worldview, no bad writing causes preachy films. All great films quote-unquote preach at you in the sense that they deal with philosophical conflict just may not realize it at the time. Write stories with deep meaning Find the Meaning in the Deep Conflict Between Differing Philosophies and Worldviews. That is the purpose of story and That is the purpose of conflict.
I think sometimes movies get the status of masterpieces because zhe philisophical conflict is predominant in that special era to many viewers, and twenty years later society has completely other problems or values.
@@TylerMowery The films I dig are often lacking a few of the qualities you speak of - yet do something special, twang the odd Non Sequitur .. Traditionalists might include 'Citizen kane' there -for me its gotta be 'Buckaroo Banzai'
Tyler, this video is amazing. I would like to know whether the philosophical conflict is still applies to short film. If so what is the philosophical conflict in "Stutterer" short film, you used in one of your videos.
This is so hard to actually understand for me. I keep watching it over and over again but it's never fully clear in my mind. Now there I have a conflict...
Hi, I would really appreciate if you could explain the difference between conflict and adversary in a story ? I am having a hard time to differentiate the two. Thanks
the purpose of conflict is to show conflict of values, ok. love this clever smart simplicity. although the fire from the stove may be the transformative energy that bakes the cake, the purpose of the cake... it is not to be cooked, but eaten. hence the purpose of storytelling is a wee-beet beyond conflict. so the conflict may reveal values but the story character is not only a list of values entrinched in a philosophical ideology amalgama. flavour, emotional and kinetic forces also enhance storytelling for the audience. thanks ! cheers from Rio.
I don't think people realize that the ending of Snowpiercer (intentionally or not) is a lot bleaker than it first seems, the appearance of a polar bear is supposed to somehow suggest that life is returning to the frozen world and that's supposed to be a good thing (it's a running side-plot in the movie), but as a matter of fact polar bears are predatory carnivores and they would surely attack and eat humans, which means the two surviving kids are as good as dead (and if you think about they are dead even if there wasn't a hungry polar bear nearby) ... considering the views of the movie director i'm not sure what he is trying to say here, this ending makes it look like "destroying the system" is a terrible idea, whether that was his intention or not I can't really tell especially since some people still seem to think that it's somehow a positive ending.
There are a few things I agree with Sacario and many things I don't agree with. I wouldn't mind taking justice into my own hands, but I ONLY destroy those who have wronged people and not the families of my enemies who have done no wrong.
Fantastic. I can apply everything you've layed out here on paper, creatively. Which should be the point of such videos. Those who speak in vague and generalised terms don't seem to realise this. Thank you.
Without conflict, you have no story. Every story consists of binary opposites. Even if you don't have good Vs evil, there is still have a variation of this opposition in any story.
Regarding the McKee quote that "to be alive is to be in seemingly perpetual conflict", I wonder if there has been any theory on storytelling for those who do NOT see life as conflict?
Good channel, but I'm not as impressed by your argument in this one. It seems like you're saying stories need to tell you how to live your life to be good, but plenty of horror movies have no such message and are still great (Scream comes to mind- I guess the message is 'don't get killed by a serial killer'?), likewise you're putting a big emphasis on conflict while many shows in the slice of life genre purposely avoid conflict as much as they can (usually they have conflict episode by episode, but it's often trivial and the characters aren't particularly motivated by it). I feel like you should have prefaced by making it clear that this video is for Hollywood blockbusters, which became clear when you were talking about hero's journey stuff (e.g. Gandalf as mentor).
I would argue that slice of life stories are still presenting arguments about how life should be lived. Though the conflict seems trivial, it is trivial conflict within a story world that focuses on elements such as friendship, love, community, etc etc. (Friends, Big Bang Theory, The Office, Parks and Rec, Community all deal with these sort of ideas.) And I am arguing that stories should be examining life for them to be good. I would argue many horror films have more in common to riding a roller coaster than a great story. Enjoyable, but vapid. And while there is a place for those stories, that's not what I'm focusing on in these videos. I'm focused on creating great stories, no matter if they fit into Hero's Journey archetypes or not. My goal is to get at the core elements of why stories exist and what makes the great ones great.
Hi Tyler, Your explanation of conflict has transformed the way I talk with my writing students about character and story. QUESTION FOR YOU: towards the middle of this video a trailer plays promoting the movie Gender Transformation: Untold realities. This film is affiliated with Exodus Institute that promotes Christian values which target trans people. The trailer is really alarming for those of us who care about the safety of all people, including queer and transgender people. My question is whether you share these values, and if not, is there something you can do to remove it. Thanks for your efforts.
What about movies that are often hailed as great works of cinematic storytelling and yet have no deep philosophical conflict underlying them? Movies like Raiders of the Lost Ark or Jaws come to mind as possible examples of what I mean by this. Certainly, one could argue that there are some philosophical messages beneath the surface of these seemingly simple, action-filled stories. But ultimately, those messages don't have enough depth in them to develop a full philosophical conflict that plays out throughout the whole story. There are no deep philosophical or moral dilemmas at the heart of Indiana Jones, Jaws, and other similar "B movies". They're mostly just pure fun and entertainment with lots of great moments of tension and excitement. So what are we to think about movies of this kind? Are they really as great as people say? Or does this lack of philosophical content harm the quality of these films in a significant way? I honestly don't know what the answer to that question is, so I'd be curious to know Tyler's thoughts on it.
I like to think that sometimes a story doesn't need things like a philosophical message or a super insightful theme if it's fun enough. Though video games get away with this much easier, I don't see why people shouldn't be allowed to enjoy a film purely for dumb-fun.
Jaws is about a man wondering if he can conquer evil and save his town against all odds. is the risk worth it? for most of the film no one believed him or took him seriously. the risk of going out there with only two people, meant that his wife could lose her husband, his son could lose his father and the town would lose its sherif. that’s a big risk. and IMO, a big moral dilemma. the internal conflict of chief brody is very apparent in the movie. the external conflict is obvious. and the two serving under this philosophical conflict mentioned above.
Very cool story, but do these kinds of ideas work toward book writing as well as screen writing? or is there a different sent of principals to bring to writing a story
i think it works. Characters are characters and conflicts are conflicts, regardless of medium and length. In a book, you have a longer time and more pages to flesh out the world views and values of characters. In film, you have a cap on time and sometimes film writers rely on formulas to efficiently tell the story in the allotted time with good pacing.
Very helpful, thanks. Could you please watch your sound levels? Your voice is low, the clips are much higher. It's jarring. If you have a Mac, and record your track as an mp3, you can use the free program "Levellator." Just run your track through it and all will be the same level. Voila!
Additionally, I want to point out that LOTR didnt have just good and evil. A large part of the conflict was how evil and/or chaotic someone could be while still fighting for the side of good. Only two character were 100% extreme - gandalf and sauron. The rest were in some ambiguous limbo between good and evil. My favorite example of this ambiguity is boromir. He started off arrogant, but righteous. By the time he died, he had realized that some of his actions had been less than desired. So he redeemed himself in the most "good" way possible. He saved everyone's lives.
@@synthwolfe8906 barely... what was legolas' flaw? hating dwarves? what about aragorn's conflict? love or duty? not really... there's not much complex conflict in LOTR. It's very simple and good for what it is but the inner conflicts are either very weak or nonexistent. compare that with Game of Thrones which is a true study on complex characters who must work through their very detailed flaws and inner conflicts.
@@watchedbyadrien never watched or read game of thrones. As for legolas? All elves were arrogant. Maybe not really a character flaw, but a racial flaw. He still worked through it. And aragorn had a near crippling fear. He was afraid of being more than just a ranger, as his ancestor had failed and doomed the world. If you read tolkiens expanded universe (including the silmilarion, his letters, etc.) It opens up the conflicts and flaws. It really explains some deeper aspects that some might not see in just the trilogy.
@@synthwolfe8906 that's true but that's the problem. it relies too much on other books. I don't see what you just said about aragorn in the movies. we don't feel that when we watch his character. we just see a lone wolf who quickly gives his life duty to a cause. I'm only basing myself on the films as that was what the video was talking about. I'm sure the universe as a whole is much more complex and I don't doubt that there is more conflict when you've read it all. but does that mean that you've read all of the silmarillion? it was always said that no mortal man could finish it.
Okay I disagree about the internal conflict I think it has nothing to do with relationships more like doubting yourself or putting your self or etc. just stuff that make feel bad
Get Practical Tools to Write Your Great Screenplay: www.practicalscreenwriting.com
Genius. When it comes to the purpose of conflict, I am no longer conflicted.
Haha I'm glad!
That is a very well made pun
6:45 "The destruction of the ring is a philosofical triumph of good over evil..."
Well, not really. Frodo (good) didn't throw the ring (evil) into Mordor (he bowed to its power), the corrupted Gollum (evil) did. LOTR's philosofy is more like "Good will not always prevail, but evil will always destroy itself."
Have you seen Hello Future Me's video essay on LOTR
I believe he's talking about what the destruction of the One Ring MEANS philosophically, not what actually happens.
I agree that Tolkien's message is more complex than that (particularly when you take the Scouring of the Shire into account). The fact that the Ring is destroyed and evil still manages to reach the Shire tells you much about how Tolkien really felt about Evil, and about War.
@2003leonard If that's really the message, then shouldn't we just let 'evil takes its course' into destroying itself? And I guess "good" just kinda have to fend off the chances of being 'collateral damage'?
It was Bilbo's pity of Gollum that ultimately led to the destruction of the Ring, Bilbo overcoming his own inner conflict was a triumph of good over evil.
No reason not to hurry the process along.
This feels like it applies to much more that screenwriting
Absolutely.
I use these videos to help me write my game story
@@darencolby1916 Eyyy!! Great minds think alike
😎 👉 👉
@@TylerMowery Yes... Thanks, sir... You good good legend... Thank you for creating these kinds of video
My notes:
4:28
4:38
The purpose of story is to give you an understanding of a possible way to live life.
Meaning produces emotion
Purpose of story is perspective.
The writer's perspective about life expressed through characters.
You're the mentor figure
Hahaha
Keep on pumping out this type of content. Great stuff.
This video was very timely for me. I'm in the middle of a screenplay, and I've been thinking about the importance the role conflict plays in story to no end. But, could never come to a solid conclusion as to why that is, other than it being "more interesting than no conflict." This gives me a better understanding of where the source of conflict in a good story flows from, and is actually a pretty great litmus test in and of itself as to whether you have a good story on your hands. Thanks for uploading!
Glad it was helpful!
Dude how does this only have like 2k views,,,,, it’s amazing
This is amazing stuff! I am working on a 7 book series and this helped me a lot.
I've been using your videos to help aid in writing, thank you.
You're a wonderful teacher. Thanks for putting these videos together.
Thx Tyler, i am in the middle to writing a story, and this video bring knowledge for me.
Really Appreciate this 🤝
This is the best Video on conflict I ve ever seen. You always have such great multiple examples to illustrate the point!
Clarifying and very engaging. Thanks so much for that!
Thank you for offering your views on this. They resonate far more with the process of writing I'm hoping to develop/find than many other interpretations I've seen.
Thank God we are finally getting good videos on the depth BEHIND the concepts. This is a great step for youtube screenplay type advice in general as rather than just relating popular fiction to common storytelling concepts, the concepts themselves are being broken down and analysed. This kind of ask questions mentality makes things soooo much more understandable. Bravo.
Ooh, really nice video. Thanks for this - it helped me understand conflict more than before, in addition to the many aspects of conflict
Glad it was helpful!
Jesus Christ, this video just gave me a whole new perspective on not just on why stories are fundamentally told but just about morality and the values of it.
Thank you for bringing more current movies to explain the conflict, especially, mentioned in John Truby books which used old movies to describe it.
Pretty good video, very clear and straightforward. Thank you. Cheers form Brazil
Thanks to this video, whenever I talk about themes, I will always talk about how the main thematic message is called the philosophical conflict. Because a story CAN have multiple themes, but usually those themes have to be intertwined into a web that is driven by the philosophical conflict.
Like, my favorite book series is _"Percy Jackson & The Olympians"_ and that series displays themes on family, friendship, loyalty, perception, war, identity, morality, faith, and hope. And the perceived philosophical conflict is the debate on whether or not you are willing to support your family, even if you feel they have dishonored you.
The quality of your videos skyrocketed in recent times. It was already very good, but now it's amazing.
I also feel that the lack of the knowledge you presented here is why the recent huge screenwriting phenomenon was received so badly.
The great story of our time basically went out and said to us that fighting, sacrificing for freedom of others will result in you going batshit insane and getting killed by your loved ones. Great.
Glad you're enjoying the new videos!
I like the idea. Also, the conflict will be resolved either in a tragic way or a happy ending way, and it will depend on wether the character follows the moral principle or succumbs to the conflicting force
Great video. As a novice writer, I found your video very helpful in my writing journey. Thank you. 😊
Good. I've been trying to write screenplays. Just starting, but not as a writer overall. I keep hearing "conflict." And I think, "OK. Conflict. Action. But where is the deeper meaning?" Excellent video. Thanks for sharing it!
Very well explained. Thank you for this.
This is so good. Very clear and helpful, thank you
Well said! Thanks for sharing this.
I'm often annoyed, when a film has too much of what I call "filler action": action (chase, fight...) which adds nothing to the story - except work for stunts and FX team etc. That is probably because such action has no value for the philosophical question or for the character growth etc., which gives meaning to the story
Great video.
Thank you!
Very well made and thoughtful video~ This was something I felt about conflict in movies but couldn't put into words before this. :)
oh wow this video is eye-opening. Looking forward to seeing the next video!
Glad it's helpful!
Great video! What you talked about reminded me of the dinner scene in Jurassic Park. Each character has a different worldview and are arguing over what to do with the dinosaurs.
This is tremendously insightful. Kudos.
I'm writing a story that has a definitive outcome Without need for conflict and I have to put conflict into it to make it more interesting according to what your saying
Really learned a lot from this content. Thanks Tyler and keep 'em coming!
Glad it was helpful!
Hey dude your playlist is really helpful and interesting
16:40 is so true. I get so tired of people complaining about the supposed “preaching” of a film when there isn’t anything wrong with the writing, it’s the audience member just not liking the ideas presented. It bothers me when people dishonestly present their complaints by pretending to be rationalists who have an objective problem with the film writing or structure when in reality they just have a subjective distaste for the ideas presented.
Right wingers complaining about the supposed “left leaning preaching” coming from the new Star Trek series is a great example of this.
It’s like they didn’t watch the old Trek series or saw them but didn’t understand them enough to realize that the older Trek series were just as left leaning as the new ones in the ideas they present.
brabbit330 thank you
He said it himself "BAD WRITING causes preachy films" 16:45
The message was not the problem, the terrible writing was.
People (not right wingers) complained because the way the ideas were presented was dogshit.
Great video, Tyler! Keep up the great work.
More learned in 17 minutes then my whole Autumn term on my MA
Conclusion : While the more peripheral characters have less of an impact on the philosophical conflict.
They still stand as a point of conflict that challenges or affirms what the main characters believe.
The characters in these films don't just exist to make the world more interesting and they don't simply exist to be allies or to simply create roadblocks for the main character.
Their purpose in the story is deeper than that, each of the characters push the other characters and the audience deeper into the philosophical conflict at the core of the story.
The philosophical conflict at the center is what gives the story its meaning.
The characters internal struggles and external plot may be interesting but it is only engaging because of the deeper conflict happening on the philosophical level.
Writing teachers might tell you that you need conflict in every scene, and while you do need conflict in your scenes.
This type of advice is missing the point of how stories actually work and what makes them great.
Sure scenes need conflict but what kind, a story filled with simple external conflict in every scene will be unengaging.
All of the external and internal conflict exists under the umbrella of the ultimate conflict which is the philosophical or moral conflict.
Doesn't this cause stories to be preachy or bash you over the head with a worldview, no bad writing causes preachy films.
All great films quote-unquote preach at you in the sense that they deal with philosophical conflict just may not realize it at the time.
Write stories with deep meaning
Find the Meaning in the Deep Conflict Between Differing Philosophies and Worldviews.
That is the purpose of story and That is the purpose of conflict.
This is an amazing video and an underrated one, it deserves more than 1M of views. Thanks man, i learned a lot.
Awesome video! I've watched it 4 times, as I work to develop some basic writing skills.
It doesn't help my understanding that I've had that "So what" feeling after seeing several "classic, masterpiece" films...
Maybe they simply weren’t good. Or weren’t for you.
Sometimes predominant film thought is wrong. Always question what the pseudo-intellectuals say.
@@TylerMowery Fair. Thanks.
I think sometimes movies get the status of masterpieces because zhe philisophical conflict is predominant in that special era to many viewers, and twenty years later society has completely other problems or values.
@@TylerMowery The films I dig are often lacking a few of the qualities you speak of - yet do something special, twang the odd Non Sequitur .. Traditionalists might include 'Citizen kane' there -for me its gotta be 'Buckaroo Banzai'
Excellent video. I am going to cite this in a class presentation! :D
Great video!
I feel like I've seen a few art-house films that wouldn't agree with this video. (All joking aside, this was a great video).
Well Done, Tyler Mowery!
Here for my uni paper
thank you. just thank you
Glad you enjoyed it!
AmZING WORK, WHAT YOU ARE DOING. kEEP IT UP MAN. It helps a lot
Tyler, this video is amazing. I would like to know whether the philosophical conflict is still applies to short film. If so what is the philosophical conflict in "Stutterer" short film, you used in one of your videos.
Thank you so much for your analysis, great job !!!
This is so hard to actually understand for me. I keep watching it over and over again but it's never fully clear in my mind. Now there I have a conflict...
a very well earned thumbs up
This is such a great video! Thank you!!!!
You're welcome!
Your videos are amazing. Subscribed!
I proud to have seen this video!
Great point not often heard about philosophical conflict informing the internal and external conflicts.
Jason Beever i disagree because he says relationships are internal conflict when it is not
@@bullrun2772 a relationship can be involved in an internal conflict.
Thank you.
Conflict is also a context delivery mechanism
Well done.
Thank you for the video
This is good shit. Thanks
Hi, I would really appreciate if you could explain the difference between conflict and adversary in a story ? I am having a hard time to differentiate the two. Thanks
on point
the purpose of conflict is to show conflict of values, ok. love this clever smart simplicity.
although the fire from the stove may be the transformative energy that bakes the cake,
the purpose of the cake... it is not to be cooked, but eaten.
hence the purpose of storytelling is a wee-beet beyond conflict.
so the conflict may reveal values but the story character is not only
a list of values entrinched in a philosophical ideology amalgama.
flavour, emotional and kinetic forces also enhance storytelling for the audience.
thanks ! cheers from Rio.
I'm trying to find the quotes you used from Robert Mckee but can't find them, what chapters or page numbers did you get them from?
Loved the analysis of the Lord of the Rings. Maybe you could do something to do with Harry Potter next. :P
I don't think people realize that the ending of Snowpiercer (intentionally or not) is a lot bleaker than it first seems, the appearance of a polar bear is supposed to somehow suggest that life is returning to the frozen world and that's supposed to be a good thing (it's a running side-plot in the movie), but as a matter of fact polar bears are predatory carnivores and they would surely attack and eat humans, which means the two surviving kids are as good as dead (and if you think about they are dead even if there wasn't a hungry polar bear nearby) ... considering the views of the movie director i'm not sure what he is trying to say here, this ending makes it look like "destroying the system" is a terrible idea, whether that was his intention or not I can't really tell especially since some people still seem to think that it's somehow a positive ending.
It's most likely ambiguous.
GREAT VIDEO!!!!
There are a few things I agree with Sacario and many things I don't agree with. I wouldn't mind taking justice into my own hands, but I ONLY destroy those who have wronged people and not the families of my enemies who have done no wrong.
You forgot about Frodo and Sam's love conflict.
I was really loving the video ,then the spoilers started coming in and I had to stop.I guess I am off to watch 5 movies.Be rights back!
So...desirability draws us near, conflict keeps us captivated, and we are satisfied by seeing the change from state A to state B realised...
You are the best
Wow, at the end I understood
well done!
thank you!
Good video! It helps!
I can't find the link to go in the facebook group
Fantastic. I can apply everything you've layed out here on paper, creatively. Which should be the point of such videos.
Those who speak in vague and generalised terms don't seem to realise this.
Thank you.
Glad it was helpful!
Without conflict, you have no story. Every story consists of binary opposites. Even if you don't have good Vs evil, there is still have a variation of this opposition in any story.
Regarding the McKee quote that "to be alive is to be in seemingly perpetual conflict", I wonder if there has been any theory on storytelling for those who do NOT see life as conflict?
I like where this is going
Instead of conflict, maybe another word would be “choice”? People are to make choices all the time, what they choose reveal who they are
Great video!
Was it voluntary to have different sizes at 9:01?
Good channel, but I'm not as impressed by your argument in this one. It seems like you're saying stories need to tell you how to live your life to be good, but plenty of horror movies have no such message and are still great (Scream comes to mind- I guess the message is 'don't get killed by a serial killer'?), likewise you're putting a big emphasis on conflict while many shows in the slice of life genre purposely avoid conflict as much as they can (usually they have conflict episode by episode, but it's often trivial and the characters aren't particularly motivated by it).
I feel like you should have prefaced by making it clear that this video is for Hollywood blockbusters, which became clear when you were talking about hero's journey stuff (e.g. Gandalf as mentor).
I would argue that slice of life stories are still presenting arguments about how life should be lived. Though the conflict seems trivial, it is trivial conflict within a story world that focuses on elements such as friendship, love, community, etc etc. (Friends, Big Bang Theory, The Office, Parks and Rec, Community all deal with these sort of ideas.)
And I am arguing that stories should be examining life for them to be good. I would argue many horror films have more in common to riding a roller coaster than a great story. Enjoyable, but vapid. And while there is a place for those stories, that's not what I'm focusing on in these videos. I'm focused on creating great stories, no matter if they fit into Hero's Journey archetypes or not. My goal is to get at the core elements of why stories exist and what makes the great ones great.
Very epic
Hi Tyler, Your explanation of conflict has transformed the way I talk with my writing students about character and story. QUESTION FOR YOU: towards the middle of this video a trailer plays promoting the movie Gender Transformation: Untold realities. This film is affiliated with Exodus Institute that promotes Christian values which target trans people. The trailer is really alarming for those of us who care about the safety of all people, including queer and transgender people. My question is whether you share these values, and if not, is there something you can do to remove it. Thanks for your efforts.
✌✌
What about movies that are often hailed as great works of cinematic storytelling and yet have no deep philosophical conflict underlying them? Movies like Raiders of the Lost Ark or Jaws come to mind as possible examples of what I mean by this. Certainly, one could argue that there are some philosophical messages beneath the surface of these seemingly simple, action-filled stories. But ultimately, those messages don't have enough depth in them to develop a full philosophical conflict that plays out throughout the whole story. There are no deep philosophical or moral dilemmas at the heart of Indiana Jones, Jaws, and other similar "B movies". They're mostly just pure fun and entertainment with lots of great moments of tension and excitement. So what are we to think about movies of this kind? Are they really as great as people say? Or does this lack of philosophical content harm the quality of these films in a significant way? I honestly don't know what the answer to that question is, so I'd be curious to know Tyler's thoughts on it.
I like to think that sometimes a story doesn't need things like a philosophical message or a super insightful theme if it's fun enough. Though video games get away with this much easier, I don't see why people shouldn't be allowed to enjoy a film purely for dumb-fun.
Jaws is about a man wondering if he can conquer evil and save his town against all odds. is the risk worth it?
for most of the film no one believed him or took him seriously. the risk of going out there with only two people, meant that his wife could lose her husband, his son could lose his father and the town would lose its sherif. that’s a big risk. and IMO, a big moral dilemma.
the internal conflict of chief brody is very apparent in the movie. the external conflict is obvious. and the two serving under this philosophical conflict mentioned above.
Matt believes the ends justify the means... just like someone we know. **wink**
Very cool story, but do these kinds of ideas work toward book writing as well as screen writing? or is there a different sent of principals to bring to writing a story
i think it works. Characters are characters and conflicts are conflicts, regardless of medium and length. In a book, you have a longer time and more pages to flesh out the world views and values of characters. In film, you have a cap on time and sometimes film writers rely on formulas to efficiently tell the story in the allotted time with good pacing.
@@raini0705 thank you for your response. I greatly appreciate it :)
Replace “conflict” with “theme” and everything still fits.
I don't really think so.
Very helpful, thanks.
Could you please watch your sound levels? Your voice is low, the clips are much higher. It's jarring.
If you have a Mac, and record your track as an mp3, you can use the free program "Levellator." Just run your track through it and all will be the same level. Voila!
Additionally, I want to point out that LOTR didnt have just good and evil. A large part of the conflict was how evil and/or chaotic someone could be while still fighting for the side of good. Only two character were 100% extreme - gandalf and sauron. The rest were in some ambiguous limbo between good and evil. My favorite example of this ambiguity is boromir. He started off arrogant, but righteous. By the time he died, he had realized that some of his actions had been less than desired. So he redeemed himself in the most "good" way possible. He saved everyone's lives.
no, just boromir and frodo. the rest was good or evil.
@@watchedbyadrien nah. They all had their flaws that they had to work through. And notice how I said that they could be evil or chaotic.
@@synthwolfe8906 barely...
what was legolas' flaw? hating dwarves?
what about aragorn's conflict? love or duty? not really...
there's not much complex conflict in LOTR. It's very simple and good for what it is but the inner conflicts are either very weak or nonexistent.
compare that with Game of Thrones which is a true study on complex characters who must work through their very detailed flaws and inner conflicts.
@@watchedbyadrien never watched or read game of thrones. As for legolas? All elves were arrogant. Maybe not really a character flaw, but a racial flaw. He still worked through it. And aragorn had a near crippling fear. He was afraid of being more than just a ranger, as his ancestor had failed and doomed the world. If you read tolkiens expanded universe (including the silmilarion, his letters, etc.) It opens up the conflicts and flaws. It really explains some deeper aspects that some might not see in just the trilogy.
@@synthwolfe8906 that's true but that's the problem. it relies too much on other books. I don't see what you just said about aragorn in the movies. we don't feel that when we watch his character. we just see a lone wolf who quickly gives his life duty to a cause.
I'm only basing myself on the films as that was what the video was talking about. I'm sure the universe as a whole is much more complex and I don't doubt that there is more conflict when you've read it all.
but does that mean that you've read all of the silmarillion? it was always said that no mortal man could finish it.
COOL VIDEO
:)))))
Agree and disagree about the point of Philosophical and conflict
1
Okay I disagree about the internal conflict I think it has nothing to do with relationships more like doubting yourself or putting your self or etc. just stuff that make feel bad
Ok, but HOW? How to figure out the different views.
Maybe with the point of s Sicario