_Story_ is quite possibly the only book on writing--besides some of Mamet's essays--that I couldn't read. There are so many better writing books out there, maybe not as informative, but well-written, leagues above McKee.
@@theexpresidents Mainly cause McKee had one major success, Trophy, and has sat on that as his example of how to write any movie ever for the rest of time.
“Don’t you dare bring a deus ex machina”. With this, McKee gives Kauffman the solution for his script. But McKee himself, giving the solution, is the deus ex machina for the film.
Mckee got Kaufman to rewrite the final act. Kaufman wrote the Mckee character and asked if they could put him in it, Mckee read the script and only agreed if he could make suggestions and meet with Spike and Kaufman. He also didn't like the 3rd act and gave them notes for a re-write.
I'm so glad I pushed for Charlie's screenplay to be made by the studio. They were almost not going to make the film, but luckily I helped sell it by saying the ending was really, really cool.
Couldn’t recommend Antkind enough, amazing book. I sincerely doubt I’ll ever read a funnier novel in my entire life, I’m not exaggerating when I say something on just about every page made me laugh out loud. And my copy is 700 pages long!!
I'm a huge CK fan and this thread finally convinced me to check out Antkind (I'd rather watch movies than read novels but CK ain't making many of the former).
He is so believable as the two different twins that it was only after a few viewings that I started to ask how they did FX, like him throwing the telephone book to himself. I was so wrapped in the story of these two brothers. Cage can seem like an odd, over-acting actor to me plenty of time, but then he has roles he is so powerful and amazing in. He should have won an oscar for this film.
Isn't Adaptation basically saying McKee is full of BS? and that in then end, you just need to write for yourself and not worry about what the audience or Critics may think of it.
Well he actually put a climax in the film and a character arch. Lol. Also McKee has said You can write whatever you want but don’t expect anyone else to want to read or make it. There’s exceptions to every rule of course.
@@PauseFilms Thats the whole point of the film though and what Charlie Kaufman was saying in Adaptation, that by listening to False prophets like McKee you will never be true to yourself as an Artst. Kaufman himself attended some McKee classes and said they were useful up to a point but then he realised he had to stay true to his work and went back to writing what he wanted, not what others advised him to do.
@@exittored Those are good points. I don't think he's a false prophet though. I love movies/shows that use narration in a clever way. (Mr.robot, fight club and so on) I think that you can and should break the rule if you want to tell your story, but you should know what the rules are.
No … that’s not what these scenes are about. They are about the struggle anyone has about trying to being different, or original … and not listening to teachers. In the end … Adaptation follows the flow of a typical archplot/multiplot film. Kaufman and McKee present that you can follow whatever you wish ….. but doesn’t mean you’ll get a paid movie out of it.
Some people may disagree with me on this but I never took this character of Robert Mckee seriously, either in the movie or in real life. What he writes about are things we're all already aware of by the time we're 14, it's common sense. He's kind of a scammer, who sells this dream while pointing out obvious things about screenwriting. It's not that he's wrong necessarily, but he's very shallow in how he perceives the art of cinema, and always ends up circling around certain stereotypes, like saying "Casablanca is one of the finest scripts ever written". Which is exactly the sort of thing that someone who only understands cinema on a shallow level would say. It pisses me off how he's a bully to this poor guy who is 100% right in how he sees things as well. Meanwhile despite being a bully, Mckee himself isn't a successfull screenwriter, one of the telltale signs of a "scammer". Much like the fake gurus we find all over the internet these days saying they can make millions in a few hours, then why would they need to be selling courses if they can make that much money? Why would Mckee be writing about writing if he knows so much about it, why not do the writing himself? I love this film so much because it shows this struggling writer caving in on his own insecurities, and being manipulated by the world around him, into going against what he really believes in artistically, which may give someone a temporary feeling of relief, but will undoubtely not satisfy him artistically in the long run. Not that many films can portray this kind of dilemma as well as this one.
Agreed, but I also think there's something to what he says about a final act changing a film. There is a lot of annoying truth in what McKee says, which is difficult for 'experimental' amateur screenwriters to handle, let alone an absolute intuitive screenwriting genius like Kaufman. If anyone knows how to transcend the art form it's Kaufman, but even with this film he needed grounding. McKee did that for him.
It's definitely not common sense. Even though we may know these story things unconsciously, it is a whole different task of putting the words on paper. Also Robert Mckee gave Kaufman notes to re-write the third act, and met with the director and Kaufman for notes in general.
The sad thing is that nowadays, there are more movies, TV shows, comic books and novels that don’t have characters who struggle and don’t have anything that happens to them, and it shows their creators need to read the real McKee’s book, or at least sit in on his seminar.
@The Eye Creature you clearly haven't read the book. Story is way different than the paint-by-numbers screenwriting guides of Syd Field and the likes. It is one of the few useful ones because it specificly doesn't push writers toward a generic normative screenplay with a dogmatic approach to act structure and tensionbuilding.
@@xiolared123 name a mckee script that's worth taking seriously? I could name a large sum of films where McKee's point is moot. You should watch Being There, Spirited Away, Back to the Future, Paterson, The Big Lebowski, Ferris Bueller, etc. I could go on. Character's changing is a lot less important than a good story/situation. The greatest misconception in the screenwriting world is that things need to follow a structure, or that there are requirements needed to make a film good. It's all bullshit - it's a crutch that not-so-great filmmakers need to give them a chance at making something decent. What a film needs to be good is a good director, captivating performers, a vision, pacing. Everything else is is meh.
@@macandcheese4Lno, structure works and for hundreds of years it kept working, especially for a beginner screenwriter you cant just ignore that part, a good structure is what makes a good movie
@@solidbhatt you're missing the point. this guy is saying that characters need to change. or suggesting that there is "a structure" . It's not in any way true. There is no absolute truth the way he is suggesting there is. Not only because there are a myriad of structureless films that have inspired generations of filmmakers, but also because structure can be innovative. There is no one way to go about things. We could be here for hours talking about films who did the opposite of what he is suggesting a film must do. We aren't talking about structure in general - we are talking about the clip above
Brian Cox here is just phenomenal
He was perfect in this movie
Should've been nominated
As Mckee stated in an interview, he was involved in the movie production at some point and was the one who insisted on casting Cox.
Guy needs an Oscar at some point. Tremendous actor
That "I need more." is sublime.
A lovely movie about screenwriting and the deconstruction of screenwriting.
It's about life, man. Haha. Writers of course love writing about writers but he made this so relatable on so many levels.
Watching this while procrastinating and McKee’s Story lies in front of me
_Story_ is quite possibly the only book on writing--besides some of Mamet's essays--that I couldn't read. There are so many better writing books out there, maybe not as informative, but well-written, leagues above McKee.
@@theexpresidents Mainly cause McKee had one major success, Trophy, and has sat on that as his example of how to write any movie ever for the rest of time.
Did you turn to the back and thumb through all the movies that McKee got made?
@@j.goebbels2134 How many children does a teacher need to have raised to be a good teacher?
@@memento81 I at least hope they went to school.
ironic, adaptation might be one of the finest screenplays ever written when it all comes down to it
“Don’t you dare bring a deus ex machina”. With this, McKee gives Kauffman the solution for his script. But McKee himself, giving the solution, is the deus ex machina for the film.
I mean, and also the crocodile
Can you explain more to me
This shot of Charlie in the crowd is one of my favorites ever
People don’t seem to get that the film is satirising Mckee’s screenplay fomula.
If anything I think it's showing how important those principles really are.
Mckee got Kaufman to rewrite the final act. Kaufman wrote the Mckee character and asked if they could put him in it, Mckee read the script and only agreed if he could make suggestions and meet with Spike and Kaufman. He also didn't like the 3rd act and gave them notes for a re-write.
This is his redemption scene:)
I'm so glad I pushed for Charlie's screenplay to be made by the studio.
They were almost not going to make the film, but luckily I helped sell it by saying the ending was really, really cool.
One of my favorite movies ✨
Cool, I've been waiting for this. _Adapation_ is one of the first screenplays I ever bought.
I wish Kaufman had more of an output, though....
"it's quality not quantity, man" -slater
have you read antkind? It's a big output
Couldn’t recommend Antkind enough, amazing book. I sincerely doubt I’ll ever read a funnier novel in my entire life, I’m not exaggerating when I say something on just about every page made me laugh out loud. And my copy is 700 pages long!!
Most laughs I've ever gotten out of a novel. Parts of it hit me in really right ways. It satisfied a craving I didn't even know I had.
I'm a huge CK fan and this thread finally convinced me to check out Antkind (I'd rather watch movies than read novels but CK ain't making many of the former).
A great sequence in a great movie.
Mckee is so true ❤ he is so real
Great scene, thanks for sharing!
Such a good movie 🍿
I need more.
When he talks about the last act, he isn't talking about movies anymore.
Very cool, bro 🔥
Great!
What a goddamn actor
I don't know why but, this movie is so good. I did not like the flower part, but the acting, the mood of the film was very
Pleasant
FlOwEr BaD
nice
Please make a video on Martin mcdonagh
...I feel attacked
Cage looks absolutely haggard here. It's my favorite role of his.
He is so believable as the two different twins that it was only after a few viewings that I started to ask how they did FX, like him throwing the telephone book to himself. I was so wrapped in the story of these two brothers. Cage can seem like an odd, over-acting actor to me plenty of time, but then he has roles he is so powerful and amazing in. He should have won an oscar for this film.
only screenwriters get why this scene is so great
✅🙌💟💯
@@OutstandingScreenplays which film it is?
@@Shirish-1998 Adaptation
@@wahtalelz6131 Adaptation of what?
I'm just messing with you🤣🤣🤣
Isn't Adaptation basically saying McKee is full of BS? and that in then end, you just need to write for yourself and not worry about what the audience or Critics may think of it.
Well he actually put a climax in the film and a character arch. Lol. Also McKee has said You can write whatever you want but don’t expect anyone else to want to read or make it. There’s exceptions to every rule of course.
@@PauseFilms Thats the whole point of the film though and what Charlie Kaufman was saying in Adaptation, that by listening to False prophets like McKee you will never be true to yourself as an Artst. Kaufman himself attended some McKee classes and said they were useful up to a point but then he realised he had to stay true to his work and went back to writing what he wanted, not what others advised him to do.
@@exittored Those are good points. I don't think he's a false prophet though. I love movies/shows that use narration in a clever way. (Mr.robot, fight club and so on) I think that you can and should break the rule if you want to tell your story, but you should know what the rules are.
No
No … that’s not what these scenes are about. They are about the struggle anyone has about trying to being different, or original … and not listening to teachers. In the end … Adaptation follows the flow of a typical archplot/multiplot film. Kaufman and McKee present that you can follow whatever you wish ….. but doesn’t mean you’ll get a paid movie out of it.
ok thanks
nick cage KILLED introvert kaufman role. peopme dont like him. damn he was Oscar on this
Some people may disagree with me on this but I never took this character of Robert Mckee seriously, either in the movie or in real life. What he writes about are things we're all already aware of by the time we're 14, it's common sense. He's kind of a scammer, who sells this dream while pointing out obvious things about screenwriting. It's not that he's wrong necessarily, but he's very shallow in how he perceives the art of cinema, and always ends up circling around certain stereotypes, like saying "Casablanca is one of the finest scripts ever written". Which is exactly the sort of thing that someone who only understands cinema on a shallow level would say. It pisses me off how he's a bully to this poor guy who is 100% right in how he sees things as well. Meanwhile despite being a bully, Mckee himself isn't a successfull screenwriter, one of the telltale signs of a "scammer". Much like the fake gurus we find all over the internet these days saying they can make millions in a few hours, then why would they need to be selling courses if they can make that much money? Why would Mckee be writing about writing if he knows so much about it, why not do the writing himself?
I love this film so much because it shows this struggling writer caving in on his own insecurities, and being manipulated by the world around him, into going against what he really believes in artistically, which may give someone a temporary feeling of relief, but will undoubtely not satisfy him artistically in the long run. Not that many films can portray this kind of dilemma as well as this one.
Agreed, but I also think there's something to what he says about a final act changing a film. There is a lot of annoying truth in what McKee says, which is difficult for 'experimental' amateur screenwriters to handle, let alone an absolute intuitive screenwriting genius like Kaufman. If anyone knows how to transcend the art form it's Kaufman, but even with this film he needed grounding. McKee did that for him.
It's definitely not common sense. Even though we may know these story things unconsciously, it is a whole different task of putting the words on paper. Also Robert Mckee gave Kaufman notes to re-write the third act, and met with the director and Kaufman for notes in general.
The sad thing is that nowadays, there are more movies, TV shows, comic books and novels that don’t have characters who struggle and don’t have anything that happens to them, and it shows their creators need to read the real McKee’s book, or at least sit in on his seminar.
@The Eye Creature you clearly haven't read the book. Story is way different than the paint-by-numbers screenwriting guides of Syd Field and the likes. It is one of the few useful ones because it specificly doesn't push writers toward a generic normative screenplay with a dogmatic approach to act structure and tensionbuilding.
What are the fuck are you even talking about?
Well, I must say McKee is completely wrong
Riiiiiiiiiiiiight. That's why he's McKee and you are?
@@xiolared123 name a mckee script that's worth taking seriously? I could name a large sum of films where McKee's point is moot. You should watch Being There, Spirited Away, Back to the Future, Paterson, The Big Lebowski, Ferris Bueller, etc. I could go on. Character's changing is a lot less important than a good story/situation. The greatest misconception in the screenwriting world is that things need to follow a structure, or that there are requirements needed to make a film good. It's all bullshit - it's a crutch that not-so-great filmmakers need to give them a chance at making something decent. What a film needs to be good is a good director, captivating performers, a vision, pacing. Everything else is is meh.
@@macandcheese4Lno, structure works and for hundreds of years it kept working, especially for a beginner screenwriter you cant just ignore that part, a good structure is what makes a good movie
@@solidbhatt you're missing the point. this guy is saying that characters need to change. or suggesting that there is "a structure" . It's not in any way true. There is no absolute truth the way he is suggesting there is. Not only because there are a myriad of structureless films that have inspired generations of filmmakers, but also because structure can be innovative. There is no one way to go about things. We could be here for hours talking about films who did the opposite of what he is suggesting a film must do. We aren't talking about structure in general - we are talking about the clip above
1st viewer