Love Edson's style and manner of breaking down structure in layman's terms. A big heap of gratefulness to Film Courage for giving us videos and for all their efforts too!!
Thanks for your support star seed. We were lucky enough to have Professor Edson invite us to his first two classes of the semester. We're happy to share his teachings.
What I Like is an Overpowerd, smart Antagonist with style, who has a GOOD Goal, but can only be reaching if he does HORRIBLE Things like sacreficing 1000 or millions of People to save for Example the whole World. 2 Things are certain: 1. His done Damage and Reputation as Antagonist is MORE than succeful 2. It makes him controverse, and that is one of the best things you can create
Eric you are my hero! Thank you for this wonderful peek into your classroom and all your wisdom. Your book THE STORY SOLUTION: 23 ACTIONS ALL GREAT HEROES MUST TAKE is the best thing I ever bought 🥰
I believe that Miles was the Protagonist and Antagonist. The ex wife is there to represent His shortcomings. He realizes that he needed to grow, and didn’t grow enough to hold up his end of the marriage.
Antagonist can not be the protagonist. Just like with A Brilliant Mind, even if the protagonist is there own “adversary” in reality, the story still needs a separate and clear adversary.
This appears pretty formeulic. I can think of several films off the top of my head that don't adhere to these rules. The Martian, Inside Out, Once Upon a Time in America, Castaway, The Innocents, Green Mile, A Tale of Two Sisters, The Haunting, The Lighthouse, Hereditary.
It seems like he's quite literally just breaking down what "THE FORMULA" is (that he has put together) that movies seem to follow (from his perspective) and is sharing his observation of the formula in a class format. In classic tradition of formulas, it's quite easy to view things through the lens you have crafted and make sense of anything from your perspective, with biases finding the obvious matches and conveniently seeming to just bypass the things that don't quite fit the template. Another might create a different "formula" and be able to look at the same data and find their own sorts of correlations and matches. It's a class so, people taking a class are going to feel they got something more out of the class if there's some kind of seemingly tangible, quantifiable learning. It's much harder to be enthused about classes when the learning is "feel it and find your own method." My college days were spent mostly with classes in the latter format, where we went out and tried things and got very little 'quantifiable' education. But after the entire program was done we somehow had learned quite a lot through the more abstract methods employed. But I still struggle to say what formulas or methods I learned or how I could quantify what we actually learned. What was the value of that learning? Impossible to say. Some people respond to that sort of education, others need something more quantifiable, and, these sorts of formulas get them on the right track. So yes this is Formulaic and it seems that's the point. Is it true? It's one interpenetration of a truth I suppose.
Yes, an antagonist (properly speaking) only appears in character vs. character conflicts. Castaway and The Martian would be examples of character vs. environment conflicts; Inside Out and A Beautiful Mind would be examples of Character vs. Self.
To be fair, he's not saying all great movies, or every movie ever made have to follow his rules. He's talking about how the majority of successful, and popular, Hollywood movies have very precise rules. It would be quite pointless to take all the outlier movies that do different things, and individually explain how they work. Now, yeah, any writer can do whatever the hell they like, but if they want to sell a script in Hollywood, or get the backing to make their own script, they're probably going to need a fairly 'formulaic' script, unless they happen to be a genius who can break the rules. Writers following Edson's principles can still put their own spin on it, as all individuals will. It's better than saying to a new writer; "Screw the rules! You'll figure it out. Do what you want, like all the experienced writers that came before you did."
It really depends on what formula the film takes- whether the film is plot driven or character driven. The movies you have listed are primarily character driven. A great example is Forrest Gump. There is no plot. There are no definitive acts. There is no "ticking time bomb" for accomplishing an agenda. It is the audience taking a journey with a character, and the resolution is the personal conclusion the character has come to through the sum of his experiences. In Forrest's case, the conclusion is "destiny", in that fate can be both predetermined, and serendipitous at the same time.
Even he specifically pointed out that not all movies are going to tick every box... His own top choice of adversary (Victoria in "Sideways") didn't... or he wouldn't have pointed out the may wear a mask of friendship point as irrelevant. The point is probably that while there are exceptions in "Big budget" movies, they're rare enough to consider that they also serve to prove the rules... You can manage to sell a script (or get backing for it) well outside the rules, too. You just probably shouldn't be told to expect to do it that way. Movie and Studio exec's... you know... those people that move mountains of money to get films from script to silver-screen? They're taking fewer risks on fresh and experimental material with every passing day. It's Hollyweird's formula... and this guy's only trying to decode the entertainment's formula so you can acquire a skill like writing... rather than deep dive on your own and hope to land a deal by miracle somehow before you starve to death. ;o)
The writer of little Miss Sunshine talks about the Antagonist aria. The Graduate. Prelude. His Father: " plastics". Mr. Robinson the full course. His philosophy of life. Get it while you can or something.
Cheers Nolan Braun! We were fortunate to be able to sit in on two of Professor Edson's classes. Look forward to continuing this lecture in upcoming videos.
Who was the nemesis in Dances with Wolves? It wasn’t one person. There were several, I believe. There was a Pawnee warrior. There was the US Army who captures Costner at the end. And what about Glory with Matthew Broderick? Who was the one person nemesis in that Oscar winning movie? They were both Oscar winners. “Who” was the single person nemesis?
Charles Cordaro Yeah, my thought was Macbeth. He has competitors whom he takes out, fine, but isn’t the foremost candidate to be called adversary Lady Macbeth? Yet, they’re largely on the same team.
Charles Cordaro If you’re asking these questions you will never get it
2 ปีที่แล้ว
He is teaching a single method of storytelling. No one should expect anyone to teach every nuance, exception, formula, etc. in a single 30 minute class.
I wish he'd go a bit deeper into why the adversary needs to be personified. Why can't the adversary be time, like in Apollo 13, approval like in Kiki's Delivery Service, or an iceberg, like in A Night to Remember?
iceberg or time has no characteristics of their own, so there is no clash of values or beliefs against the hero/main character, and all those you mentioned are opposing the goal of the hero but it usually is an unseen or accidental obstruction which happens in the climax of the story, so it cannot be accounted as an antagonist as it is not either questioning or challenging any moral, psychological need. But it can be designed to be one of the antagonist by giving it a need or a purpose in the story design itself. For example, in titanic as well as Once upon a time in Hollywood , you know what is going to happen, so in this case, it's not about the event but what happens until then and after the incident and how it changes the course of the story.
The adversary doesn't NEED to have "a personification." Many Hollywood stories *tend* to have a personification of the adversary, but it's not a hard-and-fast rule to the degree this guy claims it is. What you listed are either a) antagonistic forces, or b) characters having goals that take work to achieve. Both are PERFECTLY valid to make a satisfying story.
For instance, most political movies and anti-utopias must *not* have personified adversary. There may be a person who's advocating for adversarial system. There may be a person in charge. But social orders don't rise up because of one person, unless it's a story about a warlord or a prophet in a scarcely populated world. Blaming single person for a social order is cartoonish. It's a common thing in modern movies. Even in a simple tale, like Avatar, effective human chief is the antagonist. He was just an employee. He didn't even have his own resources, he was only a manager (and a war criminal). Locals for some bizarre reason lacked any collaborationists (some leaders of colonized nations tend to seek diplomatic ways to settle conflicts when they face overwhelming force. Regular people too). I mean, populous is treated as an unconscious blob with several good and bad heroes. Actual complexity and tragedy of social conflicts is often reduced to a fight with a villain
You can have a group who are on the side of the bad guy who are under the bad person's power like the Hobbit or Star Wars. Maybe for beginners you might want to stick to one baddie but if you know what you're doing...go for it.
I really appreciate these classes and such but what they really do for me is they have shown me why I keep reading the same book or watching the same movie over and over. Not only are the offices looking for manuscripts and screenplays that touch on each of these "beats", today's writers are all following them like an artist painting by numbers. There is no doubt that you're all going to have to follow these "rules" to get published but me, the audience, the person wanting to be entertained and/or surprised, are not getting that payoff. At about a quarter way through most movies, aside from maybe an early Tarantino, I'm telling myself what is coming next and I mean it sincerely, 99% of the time I'm correct. It is such a drag.
I despise reverence. He is a mere mortal and most of his advice is entirely derivative. Stop with this unqualified praise nonsense or you shall feel my indignation. Seriously, people were writing scripts before Eric Edison was born and they did a pretty good job at it. (I don't like reverence)
If Eric reads this could he answer a question for me please, or if anyone else can do that then great! I tend to use films as studies for these teaching points (and I watch a lot of different teachers) - the antagonist personified has me stumped with the movie Groundhog Day. I cannot identify the antagonist, particularly not the antagonist personified. Is this the case of a blockbuster movie that doesn't even have an antagonist? My theory is that this is a 'conflict with a god' story where the god is the unspoken, unspecified reason the day keeps repeating itself. My other theory is that the day itself or the town is the antagonist, but that's not personified in any way.
Rutty stepped into the CHURCH and said , RUTTY: I'm tired of giving this damn preacher my hard earned money! He drive a Lamborghini! Shit , gas or weed!? I chose weed today because I'm stressed! You ain't God!
is this what film skool is like? the education seems so vague and generalized. why do ppl bother with it, just practice it and read up on the art urself
![14 Movie Characters Writers Should Know - Eric Edson [Full Version - Screenwriting Masterclass]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/d85qzE6V38E/mqdefault.jpg)
![14 Movie Characters Writers Should Know - Eric Edson [Full Version - Screenwriting Masterclass]](/img/tr.png)
![Writing The Love Interest Character - Eric Edson [Screenwriting Masterclass]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LlF1Ls-GGMg/mqdefault.jpg)
![Stunning Surprise Two In A Screenplay - Eric Edson [Screenwriting Masterclass]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/W6tXEwqkSnc/mqdefault.jpg)
Here is the full lecture, "14 Movie Characters Writers Should Know" - th-cam.com/video/d85qzE6V38E/w-d-xo.html
He's the best teacher I've found on screenwriting, thank you!
That’s good advice because there are so many on TH-cam now. My fiend I met at a writers group agreed.
The best in the west
Love Edson's style and manner of breaking down structure in layman's terms. A big heap of gratefulness to Film Courage for giving us videos and for all their efforts too!!
Thanks Damacles9! This was a great time for us. Love to see others getting something out of it.
I love the way he teaches... Thank you for posting this for free I'm grateful for you all
Thanks for your support star seed. We were lucky enough to have Professor Edson invite us to his first two classes of the semester. We're happy to share his teachings.
What I Like is an Overpowerd, smart Antagonist with style, who has a GOOD Goal, but can only be reaching if he does HORRIBLE Things like sacreficing 1000 or millions of People to save for Example the whole World.
2 Things are certain:
1. His done Damage and Reputation as Antagonist is MORE than succeful
2. It makes him controverse, and that is one of the best things you can create
Eric you are my hero! Thank you for this wonderful peek into your classroom and all your wisdom. Your book THE STORY SOLUTION: 23 ACTIONS ALL GREAT HEROES MUST TAKE is the best thing I ever bought 🥰
I ve seen Michael Clayton like three times One of my favorites also I saw Waiting for Godot
I believe that Miles was the Protagonist and Antagonist. The ex wife is there to represent His shortcomings. He realizes that he needed to grow, and didn’t grow enough to hold up his end of the marriage.
Antagonist can not be the protagonist. Just like with A Brilliant Mind, even if the protagonist is there own “adversary” in reality, the story still needs a separate and clear adversary.
@@DillonChichester yea i believe it's necessary to have someone who physically can represent their internal challenges for the sake of conflict
i never thought i'd hear such an excellent story lecture that included talking about a super shark.
This appears pretty formeulic. I can think of several films off the top of my head that don't adhere to these rules. The Martian, Inside Out, Once Upon a Time in America, Castaway, The Innocents, Green Mile, A Tale of Two Sisters, The Haunting, The Lighthouse, Hereditary.
It seems like he's quite literally just breaking down what "THE FORMULA" is (that he has put together) that movies seem to follow (from his perspective) and is sharing his observation of the formula in a class format.
In classic tradition of formulas, it's quite easy to view things through the lens you have crafted and make sense of anything from your perspective, with biases finding the obvious matches and conveniently seeming to just bypass the things that don't quite fit the template. Another might create a different "formula" and be able to look at the same data and find their own sorts of correlations and matches.
It's a class so, people taking a class are going to feel they got something more out of the class if there's some kind of seemingly tangible, quantifiable learning. It's much harder to be enthused about classes when the learning is "feel it and find your own method." My college days were spent mostly with classes in the latter format, where we went out and tried things and got very little 'quantifiable' education. But after the entire program was done we somehow had learned quite a lot through the more abstract methods employed. But I still struggle to say what formulas or methods I learned or how I could quantify what we actually learned. What was the value of that learning? Impossible to say. Some people respond to that sort of education, others need something more quantifiable, and, these sorts of formulas get them on the right track.
So yes this is Formulaic and it seems that's the point. Is it true? It's one interpenetration of a truth I suppose.
Yes, an antagonist (properly speaking) only appears in character vs. character conflicts. Castaway and The Martian would be examples of character vs. environment conflicts; Inside Out and A Beautiful Mind would be examples of Character vs. Self.
To be fair, he's not saying all great movies, or every movie ever made have to follow his rules. He's talking about how the majority of successful, and popular, Hollywood movies have very precise rules. It would be quite pointless to take all the outlier movies that do different things, and individually explain how they work. Now, yeah, any writer can do whatever the hell they like, but if they want to sell a script in Hollywood, or get the backing to make their own script, they're probably going to need a fairly 'formulaic' script, unless they happen to be a genius who can break the rules. Writers following Edson's principles can still put their own spin on it, as all individuals will. It's better than saying to a new writer; "Screw the rules! You'll figure it out. Do what you want, like all the experienced writers that came before you did."
It really depends on what formula the film takes- whether the film is plot driven or character driven. The movies you have listed are primarily character driven. A great example is Forrest Gump. There is no plot. There are no definitive acts. There is no "ticking time bomb" for accomplishing an agenda. It is the audience taking a journey with a character, and the resolution is the personal conclusion the character has come to through the sum of his experiences. In Forrest's case, the conclusion is "destiny", in that fate can be both predetermined, and serendipitous at the same time.
Even he specifically pointed out that not all movies are going to tick every box... His own top choice of adversary (Victoria in "Sideways") didn't... or he wouldn't have pointed out the may wear a mask of friendship point as irrelevant.
The point is probably that while there are exceptions in "Big budget" movies, they're rare enough to consider that they also serve to prove the rules...
You can manage to sell a script (or get backing for it) well outside the rules, too. You just probably shouldn't be told to expect to do it that way. Movie and Studio exec's... you know... those people that move mountains of money to get films from script to silver-screen? They're taking fewer risks on fresh and experimental material with every passing day.
It's Hollyweird's formula... and this guy's only trying to decode the entertainment's formula so you can acquire a skill like writing... rather than deep dive on your own and hope to land a deal by miracle somehow before you starve to death. ;o)
The writer of little Miss Sunshine talks about the Antagonist aria. The Graduate. Prelude. His Father: " plastics". Mr. Robinson the full course. His philosophy of life. Get it while you can or something.
He makes it fun I wish I could go back to school and take his class.
“Sideways” going to check this out and study these storytelling components, Thankyou Eric and FC !
Love "Sideways." Fun movie.
Fabulous inside Eric, thank you
New video on writing the sidekick coming tonight!
Thank you for posting!
Cheers Nolan Braun! We were fortunate to be able to sit in on two of Professor Edson's classes. Look forward to continuing this lecture in upcoming videos.
Film Courage damn i love this channel
Sideways is one of my favorite movies..
I agree, share your sentiment and can relate to the main character on far too many levels.
The loneliest cowboy zombie says I created an emotional roller coaster ride that becomes the adversary to the main character in action poetry
i'd be interested in film courage doing a video of a villain lead character and how they can work for example American Psycho
Who was the nemesis in Dances with Wolves? It wasn’t one person. There were several, I believe. There was a Pawnee warrior. There was the US Army who captures Costner at the end. And what about Glory with Matthew Broderick? Who was the one person nemesis in that Oscar winning movie? They were both Oscar winners. “Who” was the single person nemesis?
Charles Cordaro Yeah, my thought was Macbeth. He has competitors whom he takes out, fine, but isn’t the foremost candidate to be called adversary Lady Macbeth? Yet, they’re largely on the same team.
Charles Cordaro
If you’re asking these questions you will never get it
He is teaching a single method of storytelling. No one should expect anyone to teach every nuance, exception, formula, etc. in a single 30 minute class.
What about organizations as adversaries? Maybe a series focuses on a different member of said organization?
Great lesson!
Nice video and breakdown of Sideways
Great video 🙌 Thanks
Thanks for this gem!
I am writing the hero to become the antagonist but adding it through kind of like a lot of movies have done
I really love antagonists ^_^
Amazing stuff! 🙏🙏🙏
I wish he'd go a bit deeper into why the adversary needs to be personified. Why can't the adversary be time, like in Apollo 13, approval like in Kiki's Delivery Service, or an iceberg, like in A Night to Remember?
iceberg or time has no characteristics of their own, so there is no clash of values or beliefs against the hero/main character, and all those you mentioned are opposing the goal of the hero but it usually is an unseen or accidental obstruction which happens in the climax of the story, so it cannot be accounted as an antagonist as it is not either questioning or challenging any moral, psychological need. But it can be designed to be one of the antagonist by giving it a need or a purpose in the story design itself. For example, in titanic as well as Once upon a time in Hollywood , you know what is going to happen, so in this case, it's not about the event but what happens until then and after the incident and how it changes the course of the story.
The adversary doesn't NEED to have "a personification." Many Hollywood stories *tend* to have a personification of the adversary, but it's not a hard-and-fast rule to the degree this guy claims it is. What you listed are either a) antagonistic forces, or b) characters having goals that take work to achieve. Both are PERFECTLY valid to make a satisfying story.
For instance, most political movies and anti-utopias must *not* have personified adversary. There may be a person who's advocating for adversarial system. There may be a person in charge. But social orders don't rise up because of one person, unless it's a story about a warlord or a prophet in a scarcely populated world. Blaming single person for a social order is cartoonish.
It's a common thing in modern movies. Even in a simple tale, like Avatar, effective human chief is the antagonist. He was just an employee. He didn't even have his own resources, he was only a manager (and a war criminal). Locals for some bizarre reason lacked any collaborationists (some leaders of colonized nations tend to seek diplomatic ways to settle conflicts when they face overwhelming force. Regular people too). I mean, populous is treated as an unconscious blob with several good and bad heroes. Actual complexity and tragedy of social conflicts is often reduced to a fight with a villain
These sound like obstacles of adversity but not adversaries
@@aaronblaylock2092 OK, well what was the adversary in, say, Apollo 13 then?
Does every movie have a person as an antagonist?
What about comedy? Who is the Antagonist in something like Knocked Up?
Is an adversary necessary? Would Brad Pitts character Tyler be considered an antagonist in fight club, for instance?
What about in marriage story?
Thanks Eric...
Thanks Film Courage
brilliant
“It wasn’t me!” Said Kimble, “It was the one-armed man.”
“It puts the lotion on it’s skin or it gets the HOSE!"
You should watch watchmen 2010
Telemundo series have multiple antagonists. The sibling, the ex lover, the police officer getting revenge...and other films too but I got something
They have multiple stories.
The second I saw that Paul Giamatti was in the movie "Sideways", I knew I was going to watch it.
Love that movie!
Thank you.
Love it
Thanks for watching!
You can have a group who are on the side of the bad guy who are under the bad person's power like the Hobbit or Star Wars. Maybe for beginners you might want to stick to one baddie but if you know what you're doing...go for it.
Good insight
I really appreciate these classes and such but what they really do for me is they have shown me why I keep reading the same book or watching the same movie over and over. Not only are the offices looking for manuscripts and screenplays that touch on each of these "beats", today's writers are all following them like an artist painting by numbers. There is no doubt that you're all going to have to follow these "rules" to get published but me, the audience, the person wanting to be entertained and/or surprised, are not getting that payoff. At about a quarter way through most movies, aside from maybe an early Tarantino, I'm telling myself what is coming next and I mean it sincerely, 99% of the time I'm correct. It is such a drag.
The 99% of screenplays that fail by page ten, are crafted by people who haven't learned from this man. #scriptgod
I despise reverence. He is a mere mortal and most of his advice is entirely derivative. Stop with this unqualified praise nonsense or you shall feel my indignation.
Seriously, people were writing scripts before Eric Edison was born and they did a pretty good job at it. (I don't like reverence)
In the Fugitive, is Tommy Lee Jones the Contagonist or Deuteragonist?
If Eric reads this could he answer a question for me please, or if anyone else can do that then great! I tend to use films as studies for these teaching points (and I watch a lot of different teachers) - the antagonist personified has me stumped with the movie Groundhog Day. I cannot identify the antagonist, particularly not the antagonist personified. Is this the case of a blockbuster movie that doesn't even have an antagonist? My theory is that this is a 'conflict with a god' story where the god is the unspoken, unspecified reason the day keeps repeating itself. My other theory is that the day itself or the town is the antagonist, but that's not personified in any way.
It's a romance. Andy McDowell is the Antagonist.
How can characters be assigned Antagonist in a true story . Does it fall by it's own weight?
Huh. The thing I hate about zombie movies is that break verisimilitude by inserting conflict where none would obtain. Now I know why.
bro teaches me better than my dad lmao
Also, wine is stored sideways
In Brit English sideways does not mean drunk. Knocked sideways means to be startled and confused.
@@thumper8684 Yes, very insightful. Thank you
Rutty stepped into the CHURCH and said , RUTTY: I'm tired of giving this damn preacher my hard earned money! He drive a Lamborghini! Shit , gas or weed!? I chose weed today because I'm stressed! You ain't God!
5:03 Welp... This is now dated.
It's all old school of thoughts 😕hero is not real.we want fantasy hero fantastic heroine 🤭🤑👏
Got this character named Rutty and his words are vulgar .
This video needs a major spoiler warning! :D
Michael Clayton was a terrible movie. Poke your eyes out!
is this what film skool is like? the education seems so vague and generalized. why do ppl bother with it, just practice it and read up on the art urself
He's not teaching, he's just naming a bunch of examples.
And you are not writing a comment, you’re just putting letters after each other.