“Plot is conflict.” He answers the question succinctly and follows with such an educational explanation. The first part of this video really appealed to my particular understanding of the writing process.
"Alright, class. The character wants a stick of gum. What can we do to make it harder for him to get that stick of gu-" "Break his f**king kneecaps!" "Ok, great, Jimmy. Great. Let's ease into it though. That's quite an escalation."
The best year of writing instruction I had was when I made all my fourth graders use either astonished or stupefied in their stories. I thought I was building vocabulary but what it really did was get them to think in terms of astonished and stupefied characters and situations that would provoke those reactions.
I love how he listened so intently when she brought a new piece to the plot. You can see the vision of a story that could have been nothing more than a forethought unfolding in a way they can both see.
Great video! Imagine a man dressed in a business suddenly wakes up in the middle of a jungle, surrounded by bamboo. All bruised up, in pain, bleeding at his side....vague recollection of being on a plane over the ocean, the plane hitting massive turbulence, splitting in half mid air....LOST
Ah! This made me have such a eureka moment. I was struggling with plot until said that not only is it conflict but the characters goal. I wasn’t connecting the concepts, and now ideas are flowing again. Thank you!
I clicked because it’s a video under 30 min and it was the answer I needed ! Keep it up film courage All your videos should be less than one hour it’s ok to have part 1&2 ,,,
Plot is solving problems. How does the character solve problems? By making the correct decisions in the face of adversity. Using the chewing gum idea. The guy gets to the store and discovers his pockets are empty. So rather than walk all the way back home for a lousy nickel, he scrounges around in the bushes for a few discarded pop bottles he can turn in for a penny each and get his pack of Juicy Fruit. Under a bush, he discovers a wallet stuffed with cash. The wallet belongs to a mobster who was rubbed out on that very street corner a couple weeks prior. In the wallet is a key to a safe deposit box. Or a locker at the bus station. Or a ticket to a hotel security box. What's in the box? Write it and you'll find out!
This is why I love the Cohen Brothers films. They break all the conventional rules of plot and structure so there movies are so refreshing. In 90% of mainstream films I find them generic and predictable but the Cohens are so random which makes them so fun.
When I procrastinate too long, I watch this interview and I think I'm alone on the train from Oslo to Bergen, looking out the window at the march of the penguins… it encourages me. Good work!
I agree that plot is essentially a goal and obstacles, and sure it's a fun exercise to play with wild ideas that escalate, but if you want the audience to *really care* then you need a *dilemma* and those obstacles *reveal* details about the character(s) (with consequences) that *matter* and each obstacle tests the character(s) in *different* ways. Otherwise we end up with the episodic, derivative, predictable movies, covered in CGI candy/A-list stars/cheap jokes that Chris Gore rants about.
Like Luke's journey: (Who)4: Learning your true nature (What)5: Overcoming traumatic events (Why)6: Rescuing the father from the bottom of the ocean It always addresses different aspects of his journey
I think you're confusing inner conflict (dilemma) w external conflict. While he didn't mention inner dialogue or self-doubt, I would certainly question whether the risk of such violence is worth it for a piece of gum. The core problem in many episodic shows is they rehash the same characters w the same inner conflict w a tweaked external conflict as though last week's episode where she learned to overcome her fatal flaw never happened and she's doing it all over again. This is why death has become meaningless in the MCU. If they actually kill the character, they can't spinoff his own movie or show.
@@theTeslaFalcon I'm not confusing anything. Tony gives the broadest definition of what could be called 'plot'. And I said that story won't resonate unless there's a dilemma, and the character is revealed through how they face obstacles. So why define plot so loosely that it leaves out the elements that make it compelling, unless you want to make a dull story? Without dilemmas external goals usually get solved very quickly, either by being easily achieved or giving up. It's a good exercise to think of more and more absurd things to happen to them in pursuit of this goal, but just throwing more and more absurd obstacles at a character with no dilemma will probably become episodic and ridiculous. We frequently see this in derivative movies with big action set pieces that alter very little, and resolve very little (TLJ battle on Crait being a good example). It comes down to why we read/watch stories. It's not to learn more about external conflicts, it's about how and why characters act, and what that teaches us about life. Things become 'episodic' in a movie where the same idea/pattern is repeated (typically because there's no real progression with the character, just more chasing/fighting/explosions). Episodic TV on the other hand, could be intentionally episodic. Comic books have killed off characters only to bring them back for decades. It has nothing to do with the MCU, and everything to do with selling comics. And after exhausting all the ideas they have a for a character, they can jump through time/reality and start all over.
@@Ruylopez778 We're saying the same thing. What you're calling "dilemma", I'm calling "inner conflict". (I have no idea what a TLJ or Crait is.) Take the plot of MC1 who freezes every time he gets scared. The primary conflict is all in his dilemma. If MC1's just sitting in his house, there's nothing interesting worth retelling. It's as uninteresting as MC2 being beaten while trying to get gum. If MC1's crossing the train tracks when he freezes, now we have an interesting story. His dilemma (inner conflict) is about to get him run over by the oncoming train. He either overcomes his paralysis or he will die. If MC2 is buying the gum because that's the sign to the mob that he has the money and save his daughter's life, we now have a compelling inner conflict working w the external conflict. So the core of plot IS conflict, the only question is where the primary conflict lies (inside his head or externally) and to what extent.
@@theTeslaFalcon Thanks, again, for trying to tell me what I think. No. I very specifically use the word "dilemma", because if there isn't a dilemma at the heart of the goal, it is easily resolved or abandoned. And the only way to extend the story is another obstacle. And it just goes nowhere. Things happen but nobody cares. Just like having an external goal can create "conflict", yeah, but if there isn't any character progression or dilemma, the audience isn't going to care. So, as I said in my first post, giving a fast and loose definition of plot doesn't help make anything good. If anything, such a loose definition just encourages slop. Your example of a MC on train tracks makes no sense at all. That is not a dilemma. That is a character flaw. Your second example is also an absurd story idea. A dilemma can involve two external conflicts. For example, Spider-Man 2. Peter wants to be with MJ, but he also wants to fight/stop/save Octavius. Both of these external goals are important to the character because of his internal motives and desires, but they are external goals, just like going to buy gum. He can't have MJ and fight crime. "I have no idea what a TLJ or Crait is" Star Wars sequel. Since you started talking about the MCU, I mentioned a derivative Disney sequel. Please stop. If you don't like my comment, have your own opinion, but stop trying to tell me what my comment means/meant/should be.
In French, a "plot" is those little orange cones you use to signal something. Yes, exactly, like the one used as an icon by VLC. We use them on the road or for football practise. Now that I think of it, this is probably not what you asked.
I'd say "personal conflict" as "plot" is a crutch. It's just drastically more difficult to keep two people talking and keep things interesting. If you took Ralph Fiennes' subplot out of In Bruges, you'd still have a very watchable, very entertaining film. Just Brandon Gleeson and Colin Farrell, two hitmen, hiding out in Bruges. Pay attention to the meter and the timing of dialogue as you would a song and I think you could still make a great film without the need for artificial resolution. Honestly, dialogue keeps the ears interested, the other half is "action". But action could be a person deftly using their hands. I think a good experiment would be two chefs running a kitchen. Punch up the dialogue with commands to the staff, flashy shows of knife skills and maneuvering between staff. Or say, father and son talking over life while building a house. Funny, sad, whatever emotion you want to go with. But don't just pour out words to fill time.
Dialogue can be conflict though. If two people are just agreeing that’s not hugely interesting. In the same way an ‘action finale’ can be a meal at a table depending on the film
In 1966, Tony Dushane escaped from Shawshank prison. All they found of him was a muddy set of prison clothes, a bar of soap, and an old rock hammer, damn near worn down to the nub. I remember thinking it would take a man six hundred years to tunnel through the wall with it. Old Tony did it in less than twenty.
I’ve been struggling for months with developing plots, and I think this just made some things click. Hopefully the next chance I get to get back to brainstorming I’ll be a little more successful.
creating plot is like playing a piano. one hand plays internal conflict while the other hand plays external conflict. if the two harmonize, then the plot works. too much internal or external conflict feels flat. this man appears to be heavily pushing external conflict without talking about internal conflict at all.
But as he said the gum plot was a simplistic idea to build an internal conflict on. And as the titel suggest it's just a work out guide to a quick simple plot. However I do agree, internal conflict has to harmonize with the external conflict.
Ur internal comes from external in a way now joe cheated on his wife. Oh that's bad but wait his wife found out ok now I got conflict now I can create internal conflict how does Joe feel about this what is he thinking does he think he messed is he filled with regret or is he done with his wife and just doesn't care thru external I was able to create internal
@@tylerriddle7748 respectfully, i see it the other way around. if i don’t know joe, then why do i care if he cheated on his wife? external leading internal is a much less interesting story, in my opinion. maybe it works as an exercise to flesh out the characters, then a rewrite puts it in a different order? but, i do appreciate your comment.
It's really about staying true to the character, their world, and the situation that creates "meaningful" conflict, imo. Putting more focus on internal and external conflict compared to the characters when writing is like a chore for me, so I just usually think about them in revision as they are organically present even though I didn't put it there "intentionally".
@@ch355_ I’m starting to understand why some of the comments I saw that tried this guide weren’t all that interesting for me. I’m heavy on stuff like how the person feels or what they’re thinking, so I really needed this.
"It was the pivotal teaching of Pluthero Quexos, the most celebrated dramatist of the Second Dominion, that in any fiction, no matter how ambitious its scope or profound its theme, there was only ever room for three players. Between warring kings, a peacemaker; between adoring spouses, a seducer or a child. Between twins, the spirit of the womb. Between lovers, Death. "Greater numbers might drift through the drama, of course-- thousands in fact-- but they could only ever be phantoms, agents, or, on rare occasions, reflections of the three real and self-willed beings who stood at the center. And even this essential trio would not remain intact; or so he taught. It would steadily diminish as the story unfolded, three becoming two, two becoming one, until the stage was left deserted.” - Clive Barker, _Imajica_
Okay, I'm now going to write a story about a guy who wants to cross the street to get a sick of gum, but the obstacle in his way is a guy who wants to take over the world.
@@TheNorthernDane lol I wasn't serious about that. But hey, if you want to write it, then go for it. Or maybe I WILL write it and make a little no-budget short out of it. :-)
The guy had his identity stolen by the store owner across the street. The owner hides the gum when he sees the guy, a regular customer, walking up to the store.
So many of my fav movies people say “have no plot.” I adore My Dinner With Andre and it’s just as you say, it doesn’t have to be action. The conflict is there in the way both men have wildly different perspectives on life.
I feel like My neighbour Totoro doesnt have plot. Its just kids having fun with a forest spirit and exploring their new home. Yes, their mother is sick, but that has nothing to do with the kids and the spirits. Also some Nichijou episodes dont have plot... its more like bizarre situations happening, and the characters reacting.
It's more like Kishotenketsu. ki= intro, sho = development, ken = turn/twist/complication (but not a "twist" as such) and ketsu = reconciliation/resolution. This is a Japanese storytelling form based on Chinese poetry. There isn't necessarily "conflict" in the western world sense, the story 'tension' comes from how the turn and reconciliation are connected.
My view is different (and in accord with TheReecher's comment). Plot is simply a sequence of events that the characters encounter --- generally putting up obstacles that make it difficult to reach their goal with high stakes. The key issue isn't whether or not a film has a plot --- it's whether or not it has a good or bad plot. A good plot has characters we care about, that we care what happens to them, and we feel some suspense when we don't know just what will happen next. In a good plot (I claim) what happens next has to have a strong causal connection to the characters' actions --- otherwise they're just in a kaleidoscopic world in which their choices are rendered meaningless (and thus we can't get invested) -- and thus it's a bad plot.
I saw Stranger Than Paradise in a film class circa 1995. I was one of the few people in that class that enjoyed the film. There was a lot of grumbling afterward. It was divisive to say the least. It answers the question of if a story needs plot but it's not a simple yes or no. If you were wanting to appeal to that entire audience, then the answer is probably yes. But if you have other interests and you can make the business math work -- as Jarmusch has -- then do whatever you want. Just understand that the reason there's only one Jarmusch is because that slot within the industry's business model has already been filled. The problem then is most everyone else saying "plot doesn't matter" is doing so because they don't want to put in the work of figuring things out. It’s easier to declare that the thing they don't understand is bullshit and then fight with everyone who doesn't like their work.
What about a movie like Hereditary? Who's the protagonist? What are their wants and obstacles? I get confused when it comes to movies like these. Can someone explain? Thank you!
Napoleon Dynamite's plot is thin (please tell me if I'm wrong), but it is such a delightful slice of small town life among the less-than-intellectual that it keeps me riveted.
I thought My Dinner With Andre was about a guy that was kind of lost and came to understand himself. The film begins with Wally pining about not being happy with his life or who he seems to have become. His voiceover is a sin in film while he traipses through boring New York. This environment is also a metaphor for how this actor and screenwriter is locked away from doing the things that would fulfill him. He isn't even being rejected, but bustling place to place on a subways and streets. New York is locked away from the magic of the real world. Wally's light in dark New York is this magical Andre character. They meet and Andre reveals Wally's fault at the same time as healing it. Wally hasn't had all these magical experiences to transform him into what he should be: living. But through Andre's telling, he gets to experience all those things. Then Andre leaves with all his magical stories. It feels like a let down and we have to leave the theater. The tension is that Andre is going to fix Wally's life, to fix this film, but he is always getting there. Then it's over and whether he succeeded is personal.
thank you for this, after watching this video my mind think film is a also independent art, we can do something with experimenting like, no plot theory
waiting for godot is really the only narrative i can think of that contain literally no plot whatsoever, but that's the point, and you need to be Beckett to pull it off
@@insanejughead In spite of me thinking that film was interminably boring, it is sort of the inspiration for the two-person movie I'm planning on making. Watching it convinced me not only that a mostly two-person movie is possible, but that I could do it with a better plot. We'll see...
6:06 The gum rips out a filling and the character now has to run across the city to the only dentist free to take him, but he has to make it to the appointment in 20 minutes on the other side of a congested city.
The character: a man on a mission for a stick of gum. By _Undefined Variable_ The character gets tripped up by the cat. Almost gets run over crossing the street to the store. Gets there. Realises he's forgotten his wallet. Goes back. Almost gets run over crossing the street. Can't find wallet. Grabs some change from the petty-cash tray where he keeps his spare keys. Looks both ways, thrice, before crossing the street. Makes it across with no incident. Enters store. There it is: the last packet of his favourite flavour of gum, Blueberry Crush. he purchases gum. THE EN- - masked men barge in, they're armed. The character reaches for his gum, spooks one of the burglars. The burglar smacks him. With a bat. In the knees. They rob the cashier and make off, with the last packet of Blueberry Crush. The cashier looks over the counter at the character lying on the floor in pain. The character reaches up to the cashier, "So, how about that gum?"
It’s like if you spawn an npc in a map and put a flag on that map which is where it wants to go. You give the map some obstacles, and make that npc being able to overcome those obstacles to get to the checkpoint.
For me plot is the underlying cause and effect that propels a character through the story. It must unify the story, otherwise you just get a series of conflicts with no purpose.
If I was giving a lecture I'd describe story as the four walls of a house and plot as every other wall within the house. The plot could be complex like the Winchester House or it could be a simple open plan plot. It's only limited by the size of the story. Also I'm on a flight right now so...pay no attention to my nonsense.
Plot is more than just conflict, I would say. Just throwing rocks at a character isn’t very interesting inherently, because it can be utterly disjointed and make no sense. Stuff happens all throughout Quantum of Solace, but “stuff happening” is a very low bar. Compelling plot needs to have some coherence, and probably needs to be married to character growth or rising stakes or something similar. When a lot of things happen, but the status quo is entirely unchanged afterward, I call that “running around.” It’s really easy to accidentally send your story onto the path of running around if you are thinking of plot before characters. The writers who say plot doesn’t matter say that because it’s the change in character over time that an audience invests in.
The most important part of this - in my opinion - is the statement that while you're throwing obstacles at the protagonist, you have to let them have victories too. I stopped watching Ozarks because it just felt miserable. There was never any light at the end of the tunnel. It just felt like the writers were torturing the characters endlessly. That wasn't compelling.
Hmm, I don't know. There is conflict. And each gag had some sort of setup, trial, and resolution; a goal, progress, and resolution. And the last thing of the movie was a moral of "You never know the other guys story unless you ask." So the whole movie was about showing a man's life in order for you to understand the moral more deeply.
People today just do not understand DRAMA. This is the perfect example of what is killing writing, and in particular the writing of plots. It is the malign influence of Hollywood and the tyranny of the Aristotelean Arc. This kind of interpretation of plotting, which is entirely about writing the sterile kind of non-drama found in Hollywood films, has a number of misunderstandings of what really makes drama, which causes it to be so impoverished and sterile in recent decades. 1) Plots should be character driven, not characters plot driven. In other words the plot is NOT something external which happens to the character, it is something which the character causes to happen because of their internal characteristics. 2) Plot is not about "conflict" in a narrow sense, it is about characters having different sets of values and world views based on their personalities and life experiences. These characters are probably NOT in conflict with each other, they might not have conflicting interests, on the contrary they may be working towards a common goal but have entirely different ideas of how to achieve those goals, against a common, shared 'challenge'. It is the chemistry of the different 'well drawn characters', which shapes the plot. NOTE - The concept of well drawn characters is either dead or has got stuck in a limited series of stereotypes. The idea of well drawn characters is that each character is distinct, notable and memorable. In great writing there is a theme, and the characters represent different values or aspects of that theme. I always think of star trek the original series. You have Kirk the man of action who seeks a military solution, and who also might be flawed in allowing his passions to seduce him away from his goal. You have Spok who believes in rational analysis as the solution to every problem. You have Dr. McCoy who has a humanist perspective and tries to moderate the extremes of the other two. Really what makes this series so watchable is less the arc of overcoming the shared challenge and more the way the characters navigate their different perspectives in trying to work together against it. There is Drama in almost anything, it does not have to be a life and death situation. Something as simple as planning a holiday or running a dinner party can turn into compelling, absorbing drama. What matters is the conflicting world views exploring and exposing each other, a kind of dialectic. The most important feature of Drama is truth. In other words the revelation of something that makes you go "that's so true!". At the end of the day the biggest factor in the success of a story is whether or not people enjoy spending their time in the company of your characters. Your characters must have some compelling quality, are they intriguing, funny, honest, wicked, or in some other way just interesting or entertaining to spend time with? If not plot will always come second and will not compel readers etc., to stay with your story. On the other hand people just might stick with a lousy plot if they like the company of the characters.
There's a movie called "Slackers" and I would argue that it has no plot as it is just a disjointed amalgamation of random people doing daily things. This was also the movie Kevin Smith watched and thought to himself "I can do better than that"😂
I think it's a matter of measure. The plot is very important, but we must not overdo it. Otherwise we get a comedy. However, what has been accepted throughout history as masterpieces of literature are neither comedies nor Hollywood action films. Like I said, it's a matter of measure.
You need a goal, but you also need a plan. Then you can throw an obstacle. (Which might change the plan) With gum the plan is not visible, but imagine throwing obstacles at someone trying to rule the world, but that wannabe dictator doesn't have a plan. What obstacles could you throw at them? As soon as they have a plan---let's say they want to start by robbing a bank and getting four million dollars---it is much easier to come up with obstacles for that.
See that’s one thing I don’t get about other writers. Plot is important but people act like its not as important as characters, theme, and dialogue, but a could plot is what makes a character shine a theme resonate or dialogue meaningful. I feel like people need to stop treating plot as something to get the character moving and get it to actually change the character; make them smarter, stronger, and the theme of story relevant. Simple plots like lotr and rocky work because their set up for their theme and characters. You can have a simple plot but the simplicity is what brings out the elements of characters and world. I feel like more writers should learn the type a plot that benefits a story character and world and brings them all together not just create conflict.
My hierarchy is characters, setting/situation, and plot. Why? Because plot comes out of the characters actions towards situations that is intertwined by the world in which they live in (setting). When approaching stories in a writing sense, plot cannot exist without character and setting. As for theme, I also don't think about it when it comes to creating stories because it really just comes out of the character, setting, and plot. It is however one of the most important things I look for when breaking down a story. My point is, character and setting (because characters are born from their setting) are the most important parts when WRITING a story because the other stuff emerges from them. The reason why Lotr is so good isn't necessarily because of plot, it's because Tolkien writes his character and their world with authenticity. And as with theme, I remember him saying that his stories aren't about anything other than the characters and their world. It's hard to argue with the guy lol.
While discussing whether plot is necessary in a film there wasn't exactly a bunch of examples given - so I guess it's not a pressing issue. No slate of scripts without a plot that people are dying to make. And the one example given of a movie without a plot - My Dinner with Andre, never saw it but one of the reviews in Rotten Tomatoes was "My favorite movie and convesation of all time." Thanks for the spoiler alert .... no point watching it now: I know the plot - they talk ... profoundly.
What happens when the character just gets the gum and it turns out that the gum sucks? She hates it and people are after her for going for it? What happens when she finds out the gum was a bad thing all along and she has to make amends for even wanting it? People probably have to pay thousands for that take.
It is manufactured. It is fake. Go ahead and feel awkward. Such great advice. It was only when I started "going over the top" that my stories became interesting.
Beginning writers hear "conflict, conflict conflict" so often that I think they mistake intense conflict for just "more" conflict. Everyone is fighting. Everyone has a problem with everyone else. All the characters have a mental hurdle. There's a betrayal. A twist. Loss. Death. A through Z, all of the above and it's so silly and preposterous by the end.
That gum story is the plot of Postal. He just wanted to buy milk and go to the post office. But then a bunch of terrorists attacked and cats started impailing themselves onto the barrel of his rifle with their anuses.
@@NewGoalsNewDreams Lord of the Rings though had a terribly simple plot, take a ring to a mountain. The characters were so good though, well at least I felt in the books they were.
@@mulashivajikumar7029 I think its underestimated how important dialogue is, and as a writer how limiting dialogue is like strangling the human-ness out of characters and makes for a terrible story. There are stories with hardly any plot but it's what the characters are saying that's making the show.
Wrong. Plot is the series of events. A movie can have tons of conflict and no plot. For example, a movie with just two people arguing about what sponge to buy for their new kitchen for two hours would be a plotless movie with tons of conflict.
Sorry, but plot is not conflict. That's just wrong. It's like saying wardrobe is conflict. Characters can change clothes and it doesn't change the story. Unless the clothes are awful and you stop watching.
“Plot is conflict.” He answers the question succinctly and follows with such an educational explanation. The first part of this video really appealed to my particular understanding of the writing process.
Plot is a character with a goal that has obstacles in the way.
What is plot?
"Plot is conflict"
What is conflict?
"Conflict is a character working towards a goal with obstacles big and small in the way"
😊
😊
4:09 r
“we’re creating plot by just throwing, essentially, rocks at this character.”
good word. need to make sure i’m throwing enough rocks.
alhamdulilah brother. more rocks is good.
"Alright, class. The character wants a stick of gum. What can we do to make it harder for him to get that stick of gu-"
"Break his f**king kneecaps!"
"Ok, great, Jimmy. Great. Let's ease into it though. That's quite an escalation."
The best year of writing instruction I had was when I made all my fourth graders use either astonished or stupefied in their stories. I thought I was building vocabulary but what it really did was get them to think in terms of astonished and stupefied characters and situations that would provoke those reactions.
I love how he listened so intently when she brought a new piece to the plot. You can see the vision of a story that could have been nothing more than a forethought unfolding in a way they can both see.
He is so nice and I love how they are both so nice to each other
Great video! Imagine a man dressed in a business suddenly wakes up in the middle of a jungle, surrounded by bamboo. All bruised up, in pain, bleeding at his side....vague recollection of being on a plane over the ocean, the plane hitting massive turbulence, splitting in half mid air....LOST
Ah! This made me have such a eureka moment. I was struggling with plot until said that not only is it conflict but the characters goal. I wasn’t connecting the concepts, and now ideas are flowing again. Thank you!
I clicked because it’s a video under 30 min and it was the answer I needed ! Keep it up film courage
All your videos should be less than one hour it’s ok to have part 1&2 ,,,
Plot is solving problems. How does the character solve problems? By making the correct decisions in the face of adversity.
Using the chewing gum idea.
The guy gets to the store and discovers his pockets are empty. So rather than walk all the way back home for a lousy nickel, he scrounges around in the bushes for a few discarded pop bottles he can turn in for a penny each and get his pack of Juicy Fruit. Under a bush, he discovers a wallet stuffed with cash. The wallet belongs to a mobster who was rubbed out on that very street corner a couple weeks prior. In the wallet is a key to a safe deposit box. Or a locker at the bus station. Or a ticket to a hotel security box. What's in the box? Write it and you'll find out!
Great Answer
Wow
I love the Gum explanation.
I feel like if he went off on a journey to find out what’s in the box it would be really satisfying when he came back for tht gum
So this a plot or atleast starting a plot
Thanks!
Hi Malachi, thank you so much! We appreciate you supporting this channel!
This is why I love the Cohen Brothers films. They break all the conventional rules of plot and structure so there movies are so refreshing. In 90% of mainstream films I find them generic and predictable but the Cohens are so random which makes them so fun.
When I procrastinate too long,
I watch this interview and I think I'm alone on the train from Oslo to Bergen, looking out the window at the march of the penguins… it encourages me. Good work!
I agree that plot is essentially a goal and obstacles, and sure it's a fun exercise to play with wild ideas that escalate, but if you want the audience to *really care* then you need a *dilemma* and those obstacles *reveal* details about the character(s) (with consequences) that *matter* and each obstacle tests the character(s) in *different* ways. Otherwise we end up with the episodic, derivative, predictable movies, covered in CGI candy/A-list stars/cheap jokes that Chris Gore rants about.
Like Luke's journey:
(Who)4: Learning your true nature
(What)5: Overcoming traumatic events
(Why)6: Rescuing the father from the bottom of the ocean
It always addresses different aspects of his journey
I think you're confusing inner conflict (dilemma) w external conflict. While he didn't mention inner dialogue or self-doubt, I would certainly question whether the risk of such violence is worth it for a piece of gum.
The core problem in many episodic shows is they rehash the same characters w the same inner conflict w a tweaked external conflict as though last week's episode where she learned to overcome her fatal flaw never happened and she's doing it all over again. This is why death has become meaningless in the MCU. If they actually kill the character, they can't spinoff his own movie or show.
@@theTeslaFalcon I'm not confusing anything. Tony gives the broadest definition of what could be called 'plot'. And I said that story won't resonate unless there's a dilemma, and the character is revealed through how they face obstacles. So why define plot so loosely that it leaves out the elements that make it compelling, unless you want to make a dull story? Without dilemmas external goals usually get solved very quickly, either by being easily achieved or giving up. It's a good exercise to think of more and more absurd things to happen to them in pursuit of this goal, but just throwing more and more absurd obstacles at a character with no dilemma will probably become episodic and ridiculous. We frequently see this in derivative movies with big action set pieces that alter very little, and resolve very little (TLJ battle on Crait being a good example).
It comes down to why we read/watch stories. It's not to learn more about external conflicts, it's about how and why characters act, and what that teaches us about life.
Things become 'episodic' in a movie where the same idea/pattern is repeated (typically because there's no real progression with the character, just more chasing/fighting/explosions). Episodic TV on the other hand, could be intentionally episodic. Comic books have killed off characters only to bring them back for decades. It has nothing to do with the MCU, and everything to do with selling comics. And after exhausting all the ideas they have a for a character, they can jump through time/reality and start all over.
@@Ruylopez778
We're saying the same thing. What you're calling "dilemma", I'm calling "inner conflict".
(I have no idea what a TLJ or Crait is.)
Take the plot of MC1 who freezes every time he gets scared. The primary conflict is all in his dilemma. If MC1's just sitting in his house, there's nothing interesting worth retelling. It's as uninteresting as MC2 being beaten while trying to get gum.
If MC1's crossing the train tracks when he freezes, now we have an interesting story. His dilemma (inner conflict) is about to get him run over by the oncoming train. He either overcomes his paralysis or he will die.
If MC2 is buying the gum because that's the sign to the mob that he has the money and save his daughter's life, we now have a compelling inner conflict working w the external conflict.
So the core of plot IS conflict, the only question is where the primary conflict lies (inside his head or externally) and to what extent.
@@theTeslaFalcon Thanks, again, for trying to tell me what I think. No. I very specifically use the word "dilemma", because if there isn't a dilemma at the heart of the goal, it is easily resolved or abandoned. And the only way to extend the story is another obstacle. And it just goes nowhere. Things happen but nobody cares.
Just like having an external goal can create "conflict", yeah, but if there isn't any character progression or dilemma, the audience isn't going to care. So, as I said in my first post, giving a fast and loose definition of plot doesn't help make anything good. If anything, such a loose definition just encourages slop.
Your example of a MC on train tracks makes no sense at all. That is not a dilemma. That is a character flaw. Your second example is also an absurd story idea.
A dilemma can involve two external conflicts. For example, Spider-Man 2. Peter wants to be with MJ, but he also wants to fight/stop/save Octavius. Both of these external goals are important to the character because of his internal motives and desires, but they are external goals, just like going to buy gum. He can't have MJ and fight crime.
"I have no idea what a TLJ or Crait is"
Star Wars sequel. Since you started talking about the MCU, I mentioned a derivative Disney sequel.
Please stop. If you don't like my comment, have your own opinion, but stop trying to tell me what my comment means/meant/should be.
In French, a "plot" is those little orange cones you use to signal something. Yes, exactly, like the one used as an icon by VLC. We use them on the road or for football practise. Now that I think of it, this is probably not what you asked.
Well ,fellow Frenchman you could use a string of "Plot" to signal a road full of conflict that fuel your " intrigue".
That's an interesting metaphor if you think about it.
"What is plot? Baby, don't hurt me!"
What is Plot?
Obstacles, conflicts.
Conflicts
till growth!
@@ramasassi Exacteru!
I'd say "personal conflict" as "plot" is a crutch. It's just drastically more difficult to keep two people talking and keep things interesting. If you took Ralph Fiennes' subplot out of In Bruges, you'd still have a very watchable, very entertaining film. Just Brandon Gleeson and Colin Farrell, two hitmen, hiding out in Bruges.
Pay attention to the meter and the timing of dialogue as you would a song and I think you could still make a great film without the need for artificial resolution. Honestly, dialogue keeps the ears interested, the other half is "action". But action could be a person deftly using their hands. I think a good experiment would be two chefs running a kitchen. Punch up the dialogue with commands to the staff, flashy shows of knife skills and maneuvering between staff. Or say, father and son talking over life while building a house. Funny, sad, whatever emotion you want to go with. But don't just pour out words to fill time.
Dialogue can be conflict though. If two people are just agreeing that’s not hugely interesting. In the same way an ‘action finale’ can be a meal at a table depending on the film
In 1966, Tony Dushane escaped from Shawshank prison.
All they found of him was a muddy set of prison clothes, a bar of soap, and an old rock hammer, damn near worn down to the nub.
I remember thinking it would take a man six hundred years to tunnel through the wall with it.
Old Tony did it in less than twenty.
I love the Community parody of My Dinner with Andre.
I’ve been struggling for months with developing plots, and I think this just made some things click. Hopefully the next chance I get to get back to brainstorming I’ll be a little more successful.
Loved the convenience store part she added haha, I'm like waiting to hear what happens when she told it then remembered it was just an example.
creating plot is like playing a piano. one hand plays internal conflict while the other hand plays external conflict. if the two harmonize, then the plot works. too much internal or external conflict feels flat. this man appears to be heavily pushing external conflict without talking about internal conflict at all.
But as he said the gum plot was a simplistic idea to build an internal conflict on. And as the titel suggest it's just a work out guide to a quick simple plot. However I do agree, internal conflict has to harmonize with the external conflict.
Ur internal comes from external in a way now joe cheated on his wife. Oh that's bad but wait his wife found out ok now I got conflict now I can create internal conflict how does Joe feel about this what is he thinking does he think he messed is he filled with regret or is he done with his wife and just doesn't care thru external I was able to create internal
@@tylerriddle7748 respectfully, i see it the other way around. if i don’t know joe, then why do i care if he cheated on his wife? external leading internal is a much less interesting story, in my opinion. maybe it works as an exercise to flesh out the characters, then a rewrite puts it in a different order? but, i do appreciate your comment.
It's really about staying true to the character, their world, and the situation that creates "meaningful" conflict, imo. Putting more focus on internal and external conflict compared to the characters when writing is like a chore for me, so I just usually think about them in revision as they are organically present even though I didn't put it there "intentionally".
@@ch355_ I’m starting to understand why some of the comments I saw that tried this guide weren’t all that interesting for me. I’m heavy on stuff like how the person feels or what they’re thinking, so I really needed this.
And you can't have conflict without at least 3 characters. (Note not all characters have to be human. One can be a park bench.)
"It was the pivotal teaching of Pluthero Quexos, the most celebrated dramatist of the Second Dominion, that in any fiction, no matter how ambitious its scope or profound its theme, there was only ever room for three players. Between warring kings, a peacemaker; between adoring spouses, a seducer or a child. Between twins, the spirit of the womb. Between lovers, Death.
"Greater numbers might drift through the drama, of course-- thousands in fact-- but they could only ever be phantoms, agents, or, on rare occasions, reflections of the three real and self-willed beings who stood at the center. And even this essential trio would not remain intact; or so he taught. It would steadily diminish as the story unfolded, three becoming two, two becoming one, until the stage was left deserted.” - Clive Barker, _Imajica_
I liked the lighting & background color choice.
Thanks Chris!
I'm so glad that I watched this video!
Okay, I'm now going to write a story about a guy who wants to cross the street to get a sick of gum, but the obstacle in his way is a guy who wants to take over the world.
Update?
@@TheNorthernDane lol I wasn't serious about that. But hey, if you want to write it, then go for it. Or maybe I WILL write it and make a little no-budget short out of it. :-)
Lol
The guy had his identity stolen by the store owner across the street. The owner hides the gum when he sees the guy, a regular customer, walking up to the store.
Haha this sounds like a Douglas Adams kind of plot
So many of my fav movies people say “have no plot.” I adore My Dinner With Andre and it’s just as you say, it doesn’t have to be action. The conflict is there in the way both men have wildly different perspectives on life.
Beard is on point!
Plot is key. Helps out with the story. Btw, I watched those train videos in Norway too! Guilty as charged! 🤣
I feel like My neighbour Totoro doesnt have plot. Its just kids having fun with a forest spirit and exploring their new home. Yes, their mother is sick, but that has nothing to do with the kids and the spirits.
Also some Nichijou episodes dont have plot... its more like bizarre situations happening, and the characters reacting.
It's more like Kishotenketsu. ki= intro, sho = development, ken = turn/twist/complication (but not a "twist" as such) and ketsu = reconciliation/resolution. This is a Japanese storytelling form based on Chinese poetry. There isn't necessarily "conflict" in the western world sense, the story 'tension' comes from how the turn and reconciliation are connected.
@@Ruylopez778 oh i didnt know that! Its very interesting, thank you for the information!!
00:45
02:19
03:27
05:25 Small victories...
06:35
09:15
10:45
12:12
13:35
My view is different (and in accord with TheReecher's comment). Plot is simply a sequence of events that the characters encounter --- generally putting up obstacles that make it difficult to reach their goal with high stakes. The key issue isn't whether or not a film has a plot --- it's whether or not it has a good or bad plot. A good plot has characters we care about, that we care what happens to them, and we feel some suspense when we don't know just what will happen next. In a good plot (I claim) what happens next has to have a strong causal connection to the characters' actions --- otherwise they're just in a kaleidoscopic world in which their choices are rendered meaningless (and thus we can't get invested) -- and thus it's a bad plot.
I never thought I'd be so invested in a story about a dude getting some gum!
this guy must be the coolest teacher
can you bring in aspects of your world really late into the story or do you need it right away
I saw Stranger Than Paradise in a film class circa 1995. I was one of the few people in that class that enjoyed the film. There was a lot of grumbling afterward. It was divisive to say the least.
It answers the question of if a story needs plot but it's not a simple yes or no. If you were wanting to appeal to that entire audience, then the answer is probably yes. But if you have other interests and you can make the business math work -- as Jarmusch has -- then do whatever you want. Just understand that the reason there's only one Jarmusch is because that slot within the industry's business model has already been filled.
The problem then is most everyone else saying "plot doesn't matter" is doing so because they don't want to put in the work of figuring things out. It’s easier to declare that the thing they don't understand is bullshit and then fight with everyone who doesn't like their work.
What about a movie like Hereditary? Who's the protagonist? What are their wants and obstacles? I get confused when it comes to movies like these. Can someone explain? Thank you!
Thanks for this..
Hope it is helpful Mandeep!
@@filmcourage definitely it is
Napoleon Dynamite's plot is thin (please tell me if I'm wrong), but it is such a delightful slice of small town life among the less-than-intellectual that it keeps me riveted.
I've seen a video that analyzes the plot and it is the same plot as the first Rocky movie.
My Dinner with Andre.
On the surface, a reference to cinematic drivel, but on the inside, empty.
I thought My Dinner With Andre was about a guy that was kind of lost and came to understand himself.
The film begins with Wally pining about not being happy with his life or who he seems to have become.
His voiceover is a sin in film while he traipses through boring New York.
This environment is also a metaphor for how this actor and screenwriter is locked away from doing the things that would fulfill him.
He isn't even being rejected, but bustling place to place on a subways and streets.
New York is locked away from the magic of the real world.
Wally's light in dark New York is this magical Andre character.
They meet and Andre reveals Wally's fault at the same time as healing it.
Wally hasn't had all these magical experiences to transform him into what he should be: living.
But through Andre's telling, he gets to experience all those things.
Then Andre leaves with all his magical stories.
It feels like a let down and we have to leave the theater.
The tension is that Andre is going to fix Wally's life, to fix this film, but he is always getting there.
Then it's over and whether he succeeded is personal.
Plot is forward momentum.
Plot is change.
I am cool with the above two written sentences.
thank you for this, after watching this video my mind think film is a also independent art, we can do something with experimenting like, no plot theory
Films like Baraka and Samsara come to mind
waiting for godot is really the only narrative i can think of that contain literally no plot whatsoever, but that's the point, and you need to be Beckett to pull it off
Спасибо, очень интересно)
I was SO hoping we could talk about My Dinner with Andre here.
Let the fun begin!
@@chrisd7733 A mutual appreciation for the differences each man has sought and experienced in life.
@@insanejughead In spite of me thinking that film was interminably boring, it is sort of the inspiration for the two-person movie I'm planning on making. Watching it convinced me not only that a mostly two-person movie is possible, but that I could do it with a better plot. We'll see...
@@chrisd7733 I wholeheartedly believe that you can, my dude!
@@chrisd7733 Let's keep in touch, dude. I have editing, audio, and acting experience. You have a discord?
6:06 The gum rips out a filling and the character now has to run across the city to the only dentist free to take him, but he has to make it to the appointment in 20 minutes on the other side of a congested city.
a good movie without much of a plot is Dazed n Confused
BARAKA is a film with little to no plot. And it’s one of my favorites.
THE BEFORE TRILOGY is a perfect example of a movie without plot.
Wonderful topic.
The character: a man on a mission for a stick of gum. By _Undefined Variable_
The character gets tripped up by the cat.
Almost gets run over crossing the street to the store.
Gets there. Realises he's forgotten his wallet. Goes back. Almost gets run over crossing the street.
Can't find wallet. Grabs some change from the petty-cash tray where he keeps his spare keys.
Looks both ways, thrice, before crossing the street. Makes it across with no incident.
Enters store. There it is: the last packet of his favourite flavour of gum, Blueberry Crush. he purchases gum.
THE EN-
- masked men barge in, they're armed.
The character reaches for his gum, spooks one of the burglars.
The burglar smacks him. With a bat. In the knees.
They rob the cashier and make off, with the last packet of Blueberry Crush.
The cashier looks over the counter at the character lying on the floor in pain.
The character reaches up to the cashier, "So, how about that gum?"
I went -after he said absurd- the shop disappeared. I don't know where or how but it just varnished, you know.
It’s like if you spawn an npc in a map and put a flag on that map which is where it wants to go. You give the map some obstacles, and make that npc being able to overcome those obstacles to get to the checkpoint.
For me plot is the underlying cause and effect that propels a character through the story. It must unify the story, otherwise you just get a series of conflicts with no purpose.
If I was giving a lecture I'd describe story as the four walls of a house and plot as every other wall within the house. The plot could be complex like the Winchester House or it could be a simple open plan plot. It's only limited by the size of the story. Also I'm on a flight right now so...pay no attention to my nonsense.
Plot is more than just conflict, I would say. Just throwing rocks at a character isn’t very interesting inherently, because it can be utterly disjointed and make no sense. Stuff happens all throughout Quantum of Solace, but “stuff happening” is a very low bar.
Compelling plot needs to have some coherence, and probably needs to be married to character growth or rising stakes or something similar. When a lot of things happen, but the status quo is entirely unchanged afterward, I call that “running around.”
It’s really easy to accidentally send your story onto the path of running around if you are thinking of plot before characters. The writers who say plot doesn’t matter say that because it’s the change in character over time that an audience invests in.
The most important part of this - in my opinion - is the statement that while you're throwing obstacles at the protagonist, you have to let them have victories too.
I stopped watching Ozarks because it just felt miserable. There was never any light at the end of the tunnel. It just felt like the writers were torturing the characters endlessly. That wasn't compelling.
Jerry Lewis 'The Bellboy' has no plot, but ironically was one of his biggest (and funniest) movies.
Hmm, I don't know. There is conflict. And each gag had some sort of setup, trial, and resolution; a goal, progress, and resolution. And the last thing of the movie was a moral of "You never know the other guys story unless you ask." So the whole movie was about showing a man's life in order for you to understand the moral more deeply.
Baraka and Samsara have no plot but are amazing films.
And Chronos
…Then the protagonist, angry after failing to get the bubblegum he wanted to chew, goes into a bank, and all he can do is kick ass.
People today just do not understand DRAMA. This is the perfect example of what is killing writing, and in particular the writing of plots. It is the malign influence of Hollywood and the tyranny of the Aristotelean Arc. This kind of interpretation of plotting, which is entirely about writing the sterile kind of non-drama found in Hollywood films, has a number of misunderstandings of what really makes drama, which causes it to be so impoverished and sterile in recent decades. 1) Plots should be character driven, not characters plot driven. In other words the plot is NOT something external which happens to the character, it is something which the character causes to happen because of their internal characteristics. 2) Plot is not about "conflict" in a narrow sense, it is about characters having different sets of values and world views based on their personalities and life experiences. These characters are probably NOT in conflict with each other, they might not have conflicting interests, on the contrary they may be working towards a common goal but have entirely different ideas of how to achieve those goals, against a common, shared 'challenge'. It is the chemistry of the different 'well drawn characters', which shapes the plot. NOTE - The concept of well drawn characters is either dead or has got stuck in a limited series of stereotypes. The idea of well drawn characters is that each character is distinct, notable and memorable. In great writing there is a theme, and the characters represent different values or aspects of that theme. I always think of star trek the original series. You have Kirk the man of action who seeks a military solution, and who also might be flawed in allowing his passions to seduce him away from his goal. You have Spok who believes in rational analysis as the solution to every problem. You have Dr. McCoy who has a humanist perspective and tries to moderate the extremes of the other two. Really what makes this series so watchable is less the arc of overcoming the shared challenge and more the way the characters navigate their different perspectives in trying to work together against it. There is Drama in almost anything, it does not have to be a life and death situation. Something as simple as planning a holiday or running a dinner party can turn into compelling, absorbing drama. What matters is the conflicting world views exploring and exposing each other, a kind of dialectic. The most important feature of Drama is truth. In other words the revelation of something that makes you go "that's so true!". At the end of the day the biggest factor in the success of a story is whether or not people enjoy spending their time in the company of your characters. Your characters must have some compelling quality, are they intriguing, funny, honest, wicked, or in some other way just interesting or entertaining to spend time with? If not plot will always come second and will not compel readers etc., to stay with your story. On the other hand people just might stick with a lousy plot if they like the company of the characters.
I can imagine a movie of an indie director trying to make a movie without a plot.
There's a movie called "Slackers" and I would argue that it has no plot as it is just a disjointed amalgamation of random people doing daily things. This was also the movie Kevin Smith watched and thought to himself "I can do better than that"😂
Hahah I watch those Norwegian train channels too 😂😂😂
I think it's a matter of measure. The plot is very important, but we must not overdo it. Otherwise we get a comedy. However, what has been accepted throughout history as masterpieces of literature are neither comedies nor Hollywood action films. Like I said, it's a matter of measure.
Alright I’m turning this story about a guy wanting gum into a movie.
Story is "The King died. And then the Queen died." Plot is "The King died. And then the Queen died because of grief." (Edward Morgan Forster)
Name a movie that doesn't have any plot?
Borat? 🤔 Maybe I just don't remember the plot.
The grandaddy of them all. Waiting for Godot. Movies are just stories in cinematic form. So I'd throw in any shaggy dog stories. The Aristocrats.
How about your favorite? Boyhood. Seeee... I pay attention.
'Koyaanisqatsi'
@@scotlandtheinsane3359 Yup that's the one.
You need a goal, but you also need a plan. Then you can throw an obstacle. (Which might change the plan)
With gum the plan is not visible, but imagine throwing obstacles at someone trying to rule the world, but that wannabe dictator doesn't have a plan. What obstacles could you throw at them?
As soon as they have a plan---let's say they want to start by robbing a bank and getting four million dollars---it is much easier to come up with obstacles for that.
I thought plot was just synopsis in form of points telling the flow of the story...
I think if this dude watches back this video he'll realise he didn't answer your VERY good question about side bar 😆
Tell him.
See that’s one thing I don’t get about other writers. Plot is important but people act like its not as important as characters, theme, and dialogue, but a could plot is what makes a character shine a theme resonate or dialogue meaningful. I feel like people need to stop treating plot as something to get the character moving and get it to actually change the character; make them smarter, stronger, and the theme of story relevant. Simple plots like lotr and rocky work because their set up for their theme and characters. You can have a simple plot but the simplicity is what brings out the elements of characters and world. I feel like more writers should learn the type a plot that benefits a story character and world and brings them all together not just create conflict.
My hierarchy is characters, setting/situation, and plot. Why? Because plot comes out of the characters actions towards situations that is intertwined by the world in which they live in (setting). When approaching stories in a writing sense, plot cannot exist without character and setting. As for theme, I also don't think about it when it comes to creating stories because it really just comes out of the character, setting, and plot. It is however one of the most important things I look for when breaking down a story. My point is, character and setting (because characters are born from their setting) are the most important parts when WRITING a story because the other stuff emerges from them. The reason why Lotr is so good isn't necessarily because of plot, it's because Tolkien writes his character and their world with authenticity. And as with theme, I remember him saying that his stories aren't about anything other than the characters and their world. It's hard to argue with the guy lol.
So writing plot is another word being a sadist. Wink😉
The gum cartel threatens and pushes me to keep me from getting the gum. So, I disguise as a gum cartel muncher to scare them away and get my gum.
While discussing whether plot is necessary in a film there wasn't exactly a bunch of examples given - so I guess it's not a pressing issue. No slate of scripts without a plot that people are dying to make. And the one example given of a movie without a plot - My Dinner with Andre, never saw it but one of the reviews in Rotten Tomatoes was "My favorite movie and convesation of all time." Thanks for the spoiler alert .... no point watching it now: I know the plot - they talk ... profoundly.
What happens when the character just gets the gum and it turns out that the gum sucks? She hates it and people are after her for going for it? What happens when she finds out the gum was a bad thing all along and she has to make amends for even wanting it? People probably have to pay thousands for that take.
It is manufactured. It is fake. Go ahead and feel awkward. Such great advice. It was only when I started "going over the top" that my stories became interesting.
Beginning writers hear "conflict, conflict conflict" so often that I think they mistake intense conflict for just "more" conflict. Everyone is fighting. Everyone has a problem with everyone else. All the characters have a mental hurdle. There's a betrayal. A twist. Loss. Death. A through Z, all of the above and it's so silly and preposterous by the end.
lol yes I agree. I think that the final point to be taken is... there has to be some sort of goal, progress, and it has to grab the audience.
A movie (perhaps) without plot : "2001 : A Space Odyssey".
OK i just finished my script, who had 25 million dollars to chip in? Lets do this.
Plot is Not strictly conflict. I mean can’t a plot be to solve a conflict? To avoid a conflict?
That gum story is the plot of Postal. He just wanted to buy milk and go to the post office. But then a bunch of terrorists attacked and cats started impailing themselves onto the barrel of his rifle with their anuses.
Characters are more important than plot __b
Indeed you are right. All great filmmakers seem to understand that point but the mediocre ones don't.
There’s no such thing as character without plot. Character is defined by actions taken, the plot.
@@NewGoalsNewDreams Lord of the Rings though had a terribly simple plot, take a ring to a mountain. The characters were so good though, well at least I felt in the books they were.
Obviously, Characters actually create the plot.
@@mulashivajikumar7029 I think its underestimated how important dialogue is, and as a writer how limiting dialogue is like strangling the human-ness out of characters and makes for a terrible story. There are stories with hardly any plot but it's what the characters are saying that's making the show.
Does he have a sibling named Beimir? ^_^
Why have a long conversation about something that doesn’t exist…a plotless movie?
I think I’d rather watch this gum movie over Thor Love and Thunder.
Baby don't hurt me, no more...
Plot: guy helps another guy get a Twinkie.. BTW there's a zombie apocalypse going on
Logistics? The world's longest movie. It doesn't have a plot?
Plot is a slot which is entirely not
Baby don't hurt me
Does Coffee and Cigarettes have plot?
Slacker - no plot?
Cigarettes and Coffee...
Stage Manager.
Wrong. Plot is the series of events. A movie can have tons of conflict and no plot. For example, a movie with just two people arguing about what sponge to buy for their new kitchen for two hours would be a plotless movie with tons of conflict.
According to Tik tok … that’d fetch millions of views and be very successful
Sorry, but plot is not conflict. That's just wrong. It's like saying wardrobe is conflict. Characters can change clothes and it doesn't change the story. Unless the clothes are awful and you stop watching.
Wtf are you even saying?