tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13294573.post7563109811830045671..comments2024-03-29T04:56:23.027-04:00Comments on Cockeyed Caravan: How to Re-Write, Part 5: Don’t Paper Over the ProblemMatt Birdhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07319984238456281734noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13294573.post-20262768334366866602012-05-17T13:00:01.819-04:002012-05-17T13:00:01.819-04:00Basically, this was just a bad note from the produ...Basically, this was just a bad note from the producer: if the audience didn't understand this by now, there was no point in stopping an action sequence to explain it.<br /><br />I think one reason that movie was so exposition-heavy was that too much of the plot didn't flow naturally enough from the premise. "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" was just as bizarre of a concept, but it required much less exposition because we instantly recognized the "dream logic" that was involved. "Inception" was also set in the world of dreams, but didn't follow any sort of dream logic that I recognized, so they kept having to explain what was going on.<br /><br />And yes, the Matrix did it better. We knew the rules pretty well before we went into the new world.Matt Birdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07319984238456281734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13294573.post-66938160669092904312012-05-17T10:06:48.596-04:002012-05-17T10:06:48.596-04:00Alright, could you indulge me with a quick Meddler...Alright, could you indulge me with a quick Meddler(tm) on the INCEPTION problem? How do you let audiences know that Leo's not killing real people without resorting to an "explainer"? <br /><br />Followup Q's: Is solving this problem more than a matter of timing one's exposition? Did THE MATRIX do it better?Jonathan Auxierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05606169740102716981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13294573.post-60964922454055017232012-05-17T09:19:39.713-04:002012-05-17T09:19:39.713-04:00No no no, those two examples are next to each othe...No no no, those two examples are next to each other on the "bad" side of the ledger. I approve of neither.<br /><br />I'd actually say the "Inception" example was not a plot problem but an empathy problem-- some producer was worried that we'd disapprove of our characters for killing those guys. <br /><br />SPOILER: One of the big problems with "Source Code" was empathy-based as well: the fact that he flat-out killed that innocent guy by refusing to give his body back, which everybody figured out about two hours after they left the movie theater!Matt Birdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07319984238456281734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13294573.post-88784352736122443652012-05-17T08:53:02.464-04:002012-05-17T08:53:02.464-04:00Not sure I agree with the ranking of your solution...Not sure I agree with the ranking of your solutions. You identify the INCEPTION tactic as the "worst" way to solve a problem, but its crime is simply bad timing: the question of killing is legitimate and deserves to be answered in a satisfying way -- maybe even at the expense of pacing. With SOURCE CODE, however, you're talking about an actual plot problem -- one that hurts the movie in hindsight. Sure, maybe the story was moving too quickly for audiences to really consider the issue, but after the fact, it sours the entire experience. <br /><br />I wonder if our disagreement about those two solutions betrays our different priorities as audiences? I prefer a movie that is clunky in the theatre but satisfying upon reflection (INCEPTION), whereas you seem to argue for a movie that is satisfying in the theatre but falls apart afterward (SOURCE CODE). <br /><br />It's also interesting that these first two examples deal with plot problems, while your other solutions deal more with emotional/motivation problems. Apples and oranges, perhaps?Jonathan Auxierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05606169740102716981noreply@blogger.com