Sav C wrote:That's a good point about Ghostbusters being more than just the simplistic set of screenwriting rules. Oftentimes I use it as a baseline; for instance when I used to read about character arcs in screenwriting books it always seemed like they were saying that the arc had to be noticeable, even obvious really, and I would always think "well, there weren't any arcs in Ghostbusters, so character arcs are not crucial." I don't think I realized Venkman's arc until you pointed it out to me, Juror, and then it finally sunk in how subtle the arc can be. It doesn't have to be some huge, spot it from a mile away change in character, just a subtle difference. I also typically feel whenever writing a screenplay that it needs an opening scene along the lines of Ghostbusters, that is almost like a short in itself; that the characters need to display their personality in the first scene we meet them; that the ending must wrap up quickly.
While all of those are good tips, it's probably not the best when I start to think of them as rules. The mind should be allowed to run free, and then the script should be tuned up once a draft has been laid down. It also applies to editing, they say to alternate shot lengths between short and long for each sequence, yet I've found that it's best to edit to the natural pace since it will likely balance out naturally. No need to force anything until everything is laid out first, and it's easy to see what needs improvement and what works fine. But anyway, it's probably best to approach it the Venkman way--they aren't so much rules as they are guidelines.
You know it's funny, I was just watching a Star Trek: Voyager episode the other day where Torres becomes the inspiration for an alien's play. And at one point, the playwright is advised to avoid the usual writing "tricks" the audience has already seen so many times. That stories were about the emotion, not just twists, or mistaken identities, or reversals.
Also, I came across a very good essay once about Blues Brothers. Now that's a movie that follows no rules whatsoever! Consider, our two heroes have their big character arc right at the start of the story! After that, we're treated to 2 hours of what your Screenwriting professor would call falling action! A typical screenplay would have had Jake and Elwood get into a fight somewhere around the bar scene, separate, and then reconcile in time for the concert. But none of that happens. Our heroes are a unit, they don't exist apart. It's weird, but we feel the strength of their connection, and they never feel flat. We don't need some plot contrivance to "make" us care about their relationship. Their relationship IS the movie. The obstacles they do run into are pretty random (some of them of their own making!). This essay pointed that Aykroyd's background was in improv, where you don't have a lot of time to build character development, yet you still have to create characters and scenarios that live and make the audience believe, no matter how odd and random they may seem.
And it's the same with Ghostbusters. There is a bit more conflict between Peter and Ray, but again, no cliche break up or reunion is required for us to care. Peter is changed from his separation from Dana, this is true. But as you point out, Sav, you're not hit over the head with it.
Tying this back to ATC, I like that Erin and Abby sort of follow this tradition in that they aren't hating each other for half the movie. They fall back easily into their old roles and that's how we learn about their friendship and previous breakup.
"You forgot the first rule of fanatics. When you become obsessed with the enemy...you become the enemy."