The film nerd in me is trying very hard not to go crazy mad over this statement, since I am a HUGE Alfred Hitchcock fan. First, if you took away that "Rear Window" was just about a guy looking out a window, you clearly missed the deeper value of the film. Second, maybe you need to see more Hitchcock movies or watch them more closely because there is drama everywhere. "Rear Window," "Psycho," "Vertigo," "North by Northwest," "Shadow of a Doubt," "Rebecca," "Rope," "The Man Who Knew Too Much," even "Birds," and much more. Every single one. Throw in some thrilling scenes and suspense, and you just have a better entertainment experience. Third, as Zeppo mentioned, Hitchcock didn't advertise his movies as drama because he was always known as "the master of suspense." However, that doesn't mean that they didn't have elements of drama in them.
1. By all means, go crazy. It's a perfectly reasonable reaction to someone not immediately agreeing with anything Hitchcock says. I don't mind.
2. The comment in regards to Rear Window was based on Zeppo's second comment.
3. As someone who first thought about cinematography for school, I've seen all of Hitchcocks films before.
4. "Elements of drama" is not the same as being a drama.
5. Simply being from Hitchcock doesn't make the statement any less of an over simplified comment.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
I knew this would come in eventually, but.... no one is worried about anyone's opinion about who likes what. We are talking about technical aspects of writing, not who and what likes what and why.
I never said that Plot, setting, characterization, internal logic, narrative are rendered non-existent by a medium. Why are movies based on books so different from there source material, because some things work better on page than they do on screen.
That is precisely what you've done. You've argued that every single point Icarium and I have made about the technical lapses in writing for season six don't count cause it is on TV. As I said, that's ridiculous.
I'm coming from a point of screenwriting experience and study. You're completely rejecting the process of it. I've explained it many times but you're taking all fiction (as their wholes) as having one formula as to how it's to be done. STORY has a set blueprint that is constant to ALL fiction (plot, setting, etc.) but the wiring is different in TV fiction, as it is in short story, as it is in a novel, as it is in a movie. Again, that's why most movies based on books are not complete copies of page to screen. So when you're saying I'm not arguing the point at hand it's actually exactly what I'm doing, just from an unfamiliar perspective to you.
Oh sweet...
No, not at all. You are arguing exceptionality without proving that any exists. Furthermore, you aren't even trying to argue that the basic concepts are different, merely that
writing for different
mediums are different. Wonderful, grand, amazing. You still haven't done a single thing to try to explain how internal logic doesn't apply to season six. Oh, because it is TV? Yeah, right.
I did like the excuse of movies to books, though. I mean, cause obviously, when translating books to movies, they lose their sense of internal logic, right? C'mon.
They were teenagers, afterall, how much money troubles can they get into?
Again, you are being overly literal.
In screen, the SCREENwriter doesn't need to build a world cause, guess what, it's a literal moving picture in right front of an audience's eyes. I know you'll disagree with me on this but you need to get that authors and screen writers are not the same.
I am sorry, but again, you are so far off the point it is really jarring. Um.... of course screen writers are world building... they are creating the world from their writing!!! DO you think the set designer was the guy who guided the concepts beyond the show?! For someone claiming to have a background in such writing, you really aren't doing a lot for me to want to put faith in that.
Don't mistake that for me saying they don't need to create a world for these characters, that's not what I'm saying.
But that is what you just said! Look, I'll bold it for you:
In screen, the SCREENwriter doesn't need to build a world cause, guess what, it's a literal moving picture in right front of an audience's eyes.
Again, I apologize in advance, but at this point, it just feels like you are being willfully obtuse. That is a definitive statement. You can't walk that back. Furthermore, you actually prove what we've been saying by saying the need to create a world for the characters. That's the point!
As for the many times you claim there is action that is not relevant to anything in an episode I guarantee you it's either to reveal character, develop character or cultivate a mood or emotional release (like humor). All not meaningless.
Anything can be designed that way. By this definition, we could include a scene of Buffy going to the bathroom, putting make up on, and popping a zit as having some sort of relevant necessity. It's a joke. A definition so broad as to be rendered meaningless.
Look, I know that screenwriters feel the need to justify everything they do as writing for them is a zero sum game (they deal with a finite amount space for story telling) but that does not give them carte blanche to reinvent concepts of writing on a whim. Nor does it mean the meaningless becomes meaningful simply by it's existence.
Which is why if it's not relevant, it's out. If it's not being used, it's out. I've heard this from industry professionals so I"˜m just pulling this outta no where (by the way, I hate bringing that up but I'm tired of it being glazed over in this topic, it's not BS or preposterous or without merit)
I'm sorry you're wrong and pointing to unverifiable experience you claim to have doesn't change that. I can give you an easy, off the top of my head example. During a particular episode of Star Trek Deep Space Nine, the characters of Julian Bashir (Alexander Siddig) and Kira Nerys (Nana Visitor) have an argument about her pregnancy, wherein she eventually blames him for it. The reasoning for this was simply because the two actors are married and the fans got a laugh out it. It had zero relevance to anything. It was still in the episode.
Oh, I'd also point out that the sentence "If it's not being used, it's out" is a tautology. Of course something not being used is out, cause it is being used, etc.
Again, I understand that screenwriters have an innate need to justify everything they write, as they write in a zero sum game with time,
but that does not mean the most basic concepts of writing don't apply to them. They are not special snowflakes that can write internal inconsistencies then claim they don't matter cause they are on TV. The rules still apply to them.
Sure, I could see how that creates plotholes and you're right that good writing can fix that.
Then what, in the name of Jaffa cakes, is your issue here? If you, yourself, agree that this made up formula you swear is intrinsic to writing on TV can create obvious plot holes... than what are you arguing about? Are you arguing that the plot holes we've pointed out in season six no longer exist, or are you arguing that they don't matter cause TV writers aren't to be held accountable for their plot holes sometimes?
I'm saying that I think you've way over analyzed it like you've over analyzed some of my posts.
I'm over analyzing by expecting internal logic to remain consistent? Whatever.
Even those shows you've listed - which, thanks for that - have inconsistencies as well, guaranteed.
Then by all means, find them and argue how they deter the writing. Cause unless you do, simply asserting, sans evidence, that they exist is irrelevant and without merit. You can't just assume your argument exists, you actually need to make it.
This just doesn't seem like a big deal to me because of how the process of television is done.
See, really, this... this is the core of your argument. It's not that you actually think the various errors we are pointing our aren't there, its that you somehow think that it doesn't count because its
on TV.
And that's just
not an argument towards what is being said. Television is still subservient, as all writing is, to things like plot, internal logic, characterization, and setting structure. Just because they don't mimic, verbatim, the concepts as applied to, say, a novel, does not mean they do not exist and do not operate under the guidelines. As I said before, if Jimmy McNulty showed up on Battle Star Galactica, it would be a pretty big gap in internal logic. Just cause it happened on TV doesn't mean it doesn't count. You haven't really done anything to prove this exceptionality for television you appear to be claiming it has.
Take everything I say as literal here. You say I took things too literal, maybe I did. But here, I'm telling you to take it all literal. As it is, no dissection
What does this even mean? "Literal" with "no dissection"? That's not what literal means.
If you still disagree, well, I really dunno what else there is to be said from me on this topic.
Honestly, the only thing I want to know at this point is why it is you think TV is so exceptional that the decorum of story telling doesn't apply to it. Cause this seems like a very odd wrinkle and I go back to my comment on an entertainment based confirmation bias as a result.
Side note: I dislike Smile Time. I find it totally opposite of everything that Angel built itself up to be. It felt left field and a mockery of everything. That whole season leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Something like that is how I can relate to what is being said in here. There needed to be change as the characters had a mager change at the end of season 4 but it was a hard pill for me to swallow.
Hmmmm....
Smile Time, though, is a one off episode clearly designed for humor purposes, not too unlike Once More with Feeling (which you will notice, I haven't said anything about). I can understand people coming down all over the spectrum on that for just that reason. What's more, Angel and company running Wolfram and Hart makes sense in as much as it follows the moral ambiguity that was integral in the show since the beginning. That is an interesting plot twist.
I am not sure it is comparable to the complaints about season six though, as those complaints are about a sudden shift in the internal logic of the television show, not so much about the strangeness of character actions.
For fun. For fun is what I watch TV for and I'm not alone. I feel like you're trying to belittle me and it's not cool.
Again, with all due respect, you just violated one of the most basic rules of internet etiquette by claiming anonymous experience in a subject field in order to claim authority. If you think he is belittling you, than it is safe to say you are condescending by assumed knowledge.
---------- Post added at 02:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:36 PM ----------
"This world is older than you realize" is setting the stakes, EXTREMELY important.
Yes, it is very important. You are correct. It is also the kind of world building you just got done saying they don't need to do. So, which is it? Is it important or something unnecessary?
