Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [biopoet] Re: An agent-based-model of the Feature Film System (An explication)

Expand Messages
  • JT Velikovsky
    Hi Mike Thanks again, all very helpful and stimulating - Replies below... ... Well, I have 2 *very big* problems with the above... (1) No -- Syd Field actually
    Message 1 of 2 , Sep 15, 2013
      Hi Mike

      Thanks again, all very helpful and stimulating -

      Replies below...

      On 15/09/2013 8:02 PM, tintner michael wrote:
      1) You're not telling me anything *new* about the movie production business.. Syd Field told us something new about movie structure -  fairly simple, not that remarkable, but a new, useful way to think about movies and indeed drama. There is nothing new here about what is "good","creative", "novel" etc.

      Well, I have 2 *very big* problems with the above...

      (1) No -- Syd Field actually did not tell us anything new. - He said: `Use a 3 Act structure'... Which, he also says, Aristotle once said. And - which Aristotle never did say.
      (ie - Read any translation of Poetics. I've read many... He never once said 3 Acts. Not once. He actually said 12 Acts. See my blog for more.)
      - If you read any of my doctoral research (ie - on the blog: http://storyality.wordpress.com/an-index-to-this-blog/) and in my StoryAlity book (either will do) - you'll see that I contend (with: overwhelming evidence) that the existing 8 `biggest' screenplay `gurus' (of which, Syd Field was the first - in 1979) are all deeply problematic. Seriously.

      I should also point out, I've read over 100 screenplay books... (see my 1-page Summary of all of them here, The Screenwriter's Workbook: http://uws.academia.edu/JTVelikovsky/) And as a professional script reader (for major film studios - and countless other film prod cos) - for 20 years, *very few people I ever meet*, are more familiar with `the rules of screenplay structure' than I am...  ie - Try also, over about 20 years, writing about 1000 x 4-page script `Coverage' reports, for film studios. (meaning: you read over 1000 film scripts, in very close detail.)
      - You soon get very familiar with (a) the 10 or so `major screenwriting books' that the `inner circle' at film studios - the `field of experts' - the `industry gatekeepers' - the ones who decide which movies (scripts) get made, and which movies don't - use, as their `Bibles'...

      And (b) -- as all my research points out -- there are *massive* problems with Field and all 8 major gurus' work - it is *not* empirical or scientific. - Check all this. It is all true.
      This was in fact, the whole reason I undertook the research...
      Someone needed to do what EO Wilson, and Gottschall, Carroll, Boyd, suggest - use some Science. Get some *real* results.
      This is why I did the research. Nobody else is (yet) doing this. It is all brand new. I am not making this up.

      Also once again - Field's big contribution? "3 Act structure" -
      Now, read this article: (which is even: BY one of the 8 major screenplay `gurus') http://www.raindance.co.uk/site/index.php?aid=184

      And now, read this: http://www.prlog.org/11909861-shocking-syd-field-failed-980000-aspiring-scriptwriters.html

      Please note: I have worked with most of the major screenplay gurus... I know `what they know', (as, I have picked their brains, and purposely `tested their knowledge'  when I was working with them, as I was suspicious of their methods) and I know, from first-hand experience, exactly what methods they each use. And: they are not: empirical - nor scientific.
      This fact has bugged me - horribly - for 20 years.
      This is in fact why I came back to study - to do a doctoral research study... To actually: start to fix this problem. See: my blog. In its entirety.

      Ok - now, on to part 2 of the above: `There is nothing new here about what is "good","creative", "novel" etc.'

      Of course there is.
      The model itself is: brand new.
      Nobody - apart from Peter Bloore (in a book that was first released, this year) has applied the Scientific Research on Creativity to Film.
      And certainly - *NONE* OF THE `SCREENPLAY GURUS'!!!

      So, what is new is a detailed application of Creativity - and How it really works, in the Domain of Film, and Screenwritng and Film Storytelling. That's actually *new.*
      Please stop saying, that: it isn't...?

      Like I have said before, so many (incorrect) `myths' abound about Creativity (many of them, are actually in the screenplay guru `manuals'-! See: McKee!)
      And that is why: 98% of screenplays do not get made.
      It is also why: 7 in 10 movies lose money.

      ...If you don't think these are *the most important* real-world problems in Film, then - you don't understand the reality of: Creativity in the Movie business...

      Also for a whole lot more on: "new stuff, about what is "good","creative", "novel" etc."

      See: all my doctoral research on the top 20 RoI films, on my blog...

      Nobody has *ever* looked at that data set before.

      It is all new knowledge.

      The agent-based model shows how the bigger system behind it works.

      The top 20 RoI films are 20 of the ones in the center of the model - the inner green ring, the "domain of works judged creative by the field."

      This is all: new.

      And -- it is all counter-intuitive, and furthermore, is in direct contradiction to: the old `wisdom' on what is: "good","creative", "novel" etc.

      Ergo - I don't know how much `newer', new knowledge can actually, ever get...(??)

      2) Your attempt to model the system is stimulating but the results aren't.

      Why call it, an `attempt'? I've modelled, what we now know, about: How the film system works.

      - This is an educational tool -- for people who read `the words' on my blog, and who look at 2-D diagrams and the flowcharts, but still (somewhat oddly) "just don't get it".
      The agent-based model works, and - it achieves its purpose.
      The result is: people then understand `the film system' that they are (trying to be...) a part of.
      Screenwriters and Filmmakers also understand: What they need to do, and Why.
      So - sorry, but I can't agree with this, either...?
      - The model works, and people have thanked me for it. (That, is all the `result' that was required..?)

      3) Nothing in movies or the arts is like an algorithm - writing the script, changing the script, casting/producing, distributing, marketing etc.

      Mike -
      (a) What exact evidence can you provide, to support that above claim in any way?

      Also, may I ask -

      (b) Have you ever written a film script yourself? (Not that it matters, but I've written over 30, and - over 100, if you also count my short films and TV work...)
      (c) Have you ever changed a script yourself? (I've also been: a professional Script Editor for over 20 years... I have `changed' many.)
      (d) Have you ever Cast a film? (I've cast many. And have been cast in films...)
      (e) Have you ever done those other aspects, either? (Marketing, Distribution, etc) ?

      ...I only ask as -- you don't sound to me, like, you know what you are talking about, in very much depth, there. (That's not meant to sound rude... just: honest.)

      But - given that every one of the above is a Creative Process, they all involve the evolutionary algorithm:
      Selection (eg - Casting: You audition a whole bunch of people - and then you PICK/ SELECT one of them - for the role)... Variation - Each and every actor brings their own personal acting skills and `schtick' and vibe and `look' to the role. This VARIES what is written in the script. Then their acting performance is TRANSMITTED into the film - and, ultimately into the minds of people who experience that film story.

      I could go through every one of the above things you mention (> writing the script, changing the script, casting/producing, distributing, marketing etc.) and show how SLECTION, VARIATION and TRANSMISSION (ie the evolutionary ALGORITHM) applies... in each and every case. I just don't have the time...

      Here is one though -
      Consider: How a film script (or a novel or anything creative) is written:

      A writer SELECTS ideas, then, VARIES them (combines them, with other ideas) and then: TRANSMITS then into the script (onto the page).

      If they don't do this, the result is not: Creative.

      ...Why are you still not getting it-?

      Creativity *IS* an algorithm.
      It is the evolutionary algorithm.
      Read every single post here: http://storyality.wordpress.com/an-index-to-this-blog/
      - Until you do, you will keep asserting stuff, that's: completely incorrect.

      Only actually running the movie on a screen is really comparable to executing an algorithm.

      Mike, can I please hear your own definition of: an algorithm?
      ie - Like in The Princess Bride: (Inigo Montoya) - RE: Algorithm -
      "You keep usin' that word.. I do not think it means... what you think it means...?"

      Pace Koestler, algos only model the lower level - the routine levels - of human activities, not the higher levels..

      First you would need a model of the higher level of algorithms/programming  -  how ALGORITHMS are created and evolve  - not a single evolutionary algorithm - but a model of how ALL evolutionary elgos, or all algos in any field of programming have been created and evolved.  How are algos written, produced, selected, distributed.?

      Not sure quite what this means... it's all too vague...? I really don't understand what you mean here.

      The creation of algos is NOT algorithmic - routine. Ditto the creation of new formulae in maths is NOT formulaic - routine.

      I am not sure - but - I think maybe you are getting way too complicated, for the subject at hand, here...
      You seem to be talking about: the algorithmic creation of algorithms - or, something...(???)
      I'm just not sure, what all that has to do: with my agent-based model, or with Film, or with Creativity.
      (All of which definitely involve `algorithms' -- by any definition of `algorithm', that I know of.)

      To really understand programs/algos you have to look at the WHOLE business - not just the routine running of individual algorithms, but the whole business of creating them and producing them etc .

      And - to really understand `understanding', you have to look at how `understanding' is understood by understandability, on the corner of Understanding Street, while drinking some Understanding Juice.
      And, while that sentence was fun - it doesn't solve any problems.
      And, I suspect, neither does yours...?

      And then you can apply your model to how movies are created.

      Ok maybe I will, but first you will have to explain what this all has to do, with anything.
      - The model works.
      It shows: how the film system works.
      It is new. ie - Nobody has ever done that, before - modelled the film system with an agent-based model. (To: my current knowledge.)

      And - I'm sorry Mike, you seem to want someone to: go and build an agent-based model, of, how an agent-based model might be built, by an agent-based model. Or, something.
      Whatever it is you're trying to get at, I don't think that (can't see how) it changes, anything I've ever done, said or thought.

      But it will be a loose model, not a rigid algo.

      4) No algorithm - and there are billions - has ever adapted to or produced a SINGLE new element. They only create variations on OLD elements - old boxes of chocolates. They can't incorporate a single new kind of chocolate. Look at the actual products of so-called "evolutionary algorithms" - they are mind-blowingly same-y mixes of the same old chocolates - not truly evolutionary at all..

      This is wrong.
      Mike - the problem here is - you clearly don't understand: the evolutionary algorithm.
      Selection, then Variation, and then Transmission.

      And - example:
      Take 2 old pairs of genes.
      Take 50% of each - and combine them.
      That *new* resultant gene - has instructions for building an organism (eg - a person) - that combines/mixes some traits of the 2 old ones.
      Therefore, it is new. Novel. Fresh. Original.
      If it `works' (if the resulting new organism survives - and also reproduces): then - it is also `Creative'.

      Now - do the same with 2 old ideas (memes).
      Take 2 old ideas. (Selection)
      Mix them together. (Variation).
      Put them back in the (eg: Film) system (Transmission.)

      Take the movie JAWS, and add it to 2001: A Space Odyssey.
      The (new) Result? ALIEN.
      ...It's not that hard...?

      But every movie - every work of art - continually incorporates new elements into the mix. Movies continually evolve - pace my shark example.

      No - You're wrong there Mike.
      Your `shark movies' example showed: 2 old ideas being added together -- in every single case.
      Go back and check 'em all.
      Or, ok - I will:

      (1) `Creature' (1998 TV movie) - amphibious shark-like monster -
      (So - this was based on Benchley's novel... ie - the JAWS guy... (the original novel of JAWS is: genius, brilliantly well written, as: he was a journalist) - and it's not a new idea to `cross 2 animals', eg - a shark and a dolphin, in this instance...
      See: THE FLY (1958) --
      and the idea is certainly not `new' in novels/literature/myth... ie - see:

      (2) Sand Sharks (2012) -
      see: BLOOD BEACH (1981)

      (3) Snow Shark (2011) -
      So - what is the first movie about a monster, frozen in the ice?
      See:  THE THING (1951, Howard Hawks)
      See also: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/snow_shark_ancient_snow_beast/
      (and note how -- the poster is an *exact ripoff* of the `JAWS' 1975 poster... now, again tell me, there is something `new' here...)

      (4) Mega Shark (Megalodon) (2002)  -
      So a shark meets THE LOST WORLD (1925 movie, and even older book, ie Arthur Conan Doyle, 1912)
      and see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Dinosaur_films

      (5) Red Water (2003) - freshwater shark
      (Ashark meets fresh water... So - how `new' is the idea of: `fresh water'... hmmmm, circa, the Pleistocene Era, maybe?)

      (6) Ghost Shark - (2013) -
      So, a shark becomes a ghost and kills folks.
      How new is that idea?
      For a biological entity that becomes a ghost and then kills people: see Tormented 1960, The Innocents 1961, and obviously see the Henry James novel that it was based on, The Turn Of The Screw (1898)...
      So, 1898 - and for film, from 1960 (Tormented) till 2013, check how many `murdering ghost' movies there are here:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ghost_films

      Mike wrote:

      and I'd add:

      (7) Piranha - How old is the idea of Piranhas in film? See the Tarzan series. Not a new idea.

      (8) Anaconda - How old is the idea of an anaconda in film? See the Tarzan movies.

      So, I rest my case... quite contrary to this assertion:
      > But every movie - every work of art - continually incorporates new elements into the mix. Movies continually evolve - pace my shark example.

      - Every `new' movie is: a blend of old ideas.
      I can't speak for `every work of art' as I haven't seen every work of art... but: it's the same idea.
      Certainly every famous work of art: is `new' combinations of old art ideas/concepts (ie Selection, Variation, Transmission...)

      And - Why are you now telling me, that "Movies continually evolve"

      That is exactly what I've been saying all along?
      Biological - and Cultural - Evolution work: in exactly the same way.
      Selection, Variation, and Transmission.
      Some of those `new' hybrid-genes (people) turn out to be Olympic athletes, or creative geniuses.
      Some of those new' hybrid-memes (movies) turn out to be high-RoI films, or Oscar-winners.

      But 99.999999999999999% of them don't... in both cases.
      (Most people are not Olympic athletes; and most films are not: incredibly-viral. Most are the opposite, as 7 in 10 films lose money.)
      So -- if you want to be in the Olympics, then study what Olympic athletes have in common: (1) The person, (2) the process, (3) the product
      (Their (1) biological predispositions, (2) their training routines & diet, their (3) historical record-breaking Olympic performances)

      And -- if you want to make a highly Creative film, then study the Top 20 RoI films. (Person, Process, and Product. And note: they have loads of things in common. And if you want to be creative, you should do those things too. See: Creative Practice Theory, which totally `underpins' (using computer algorithms): the agent-based model.)

      And -- don't ever expect to win an Oscar with your first *produced* film... (as only 3 screenwriters in the entire history of film have done so, and they also had a lot of secret help... ie William Goldman actually did an uncredited rewrite on Good Will Hunting, and Diablo Cody, I havent researched yet - but am sure there's a logical explanation - and anyway - the Oscars selection process is not based purely on merit, look exactly at: How the Oscars are `voted for'... and who actually gets to vote... seriously.)

      Algos don't - individually - although the **fields** of algorithms do.; Obviously, only a field of algorithms model is applicable to fields of moves.

      As a v. wise man once told me, "Li-i-i-i-fe is li-i-i-ke a [NEW] box of chocolates. You never know what you're going to find." And the movies are like li-i-i-fe. (Koestler would totally agree with me).

      (Well, I am pretty sure Koestler would ask you to: please step away from his ideas, and never misuse any of them like you are doing, again.)

      Anyway sorry to disagree so much Mike. - I don't mean to. But - this stuff is super-important.

      -- If you can understand something, then you can control it...

      Currently - nobody much, seems to understand why: some movies go viral (are: super-creative) and - others don't (are: uncreative).
      - If we can understand why some movies go viral in the culture -- we can make more of them.
      We can actually shape human history - in a positive way...
      EO Wilson (the genius) calls this `directed cultural evolution'.
       And -- then, we can actually stick worthwhile messages in viral movies, (eg like: conservation, and combatting global warming, and beating world poverty and inequality, etc)
      and not: messages/themes like the stupid, vacuous ones (like `Transformers 4' or whatever) that: Hollywood keeps on throwing out at us.

      See: the movie `The Ledge' by Michael Chapman...
      Now, THERE's a worthwhile movie...

      ...All just my 2c...

      And anyway Mike - thanks (sincerely) for the feedback on the model.
      As a result of our conversation here - I've added loads more stuff to that blog post -- and, it is actually, vastly the better for it...



      JT Velikovsky
      Film/Story/Screenplay/Transmedia Analyst
      and Transmedia Writer-Director-Producer: 
      Movies, Games, TV, Theatre, Books, Comics
      Transmedia Writing Blog: http://on-writering.blogspot.com/
      Free Screenwriting TextBook: http://www.lulu.com/shop/joe-velikovsky/feature-film-screenwriters-workbook/ebook/product-20376941.html
      Transmedia Comic-Fantasy Novel: http://am-so-as.webs.com/
      Email: joetv@...
      Also: joetv@...
      Skype: joe.tee.vee
      Twitter: @joeteevee
      Imdb: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2853350/
      Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Velikovsky
      YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/joeteevee
      aka: JT Velikovsky
      Research Student & Filmmaker 
      Doctorate of Creative Arts - Feature Film / Screenwriting
      School of Humanities and Communication Arts
      University of Western Sydney
      This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. 
      If you have received this email in error please notify joetv@...
      This footnote also confirms that this email message has been checked for known viruses
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.