Storytelling pet-peeves

yagfxg33k

yagfxg33k

Well-known member
I see a lot of this stuff and it always bugs me. My perspective is this: Get on with it.

That being said, some of my issues are these: Don't show me an insert unless it's going to give me some information that I cannot deduce on my own. I don't need an insert on a guy putting his key in a doorlock. Even if that is pertinent to the story (i.e. his key does not fit) - You can show me that just by the actor's frustration or whatever. Just get on with it.

I don't need to see a guy getting into his car and driving down the street and then riding along with him unless he is going to have something happen along the way to his destination. Show me that he got into his car and started to leave. Then cut to the destination - I don't need to see him drive up the driveway for that matter unless it's adding something to that master shot.

OK, I am done ranting...for the moment :)
 
yagfxg33k said:
I don't need to see a guy getting into his car and driving down the street and then riding along with him unless he is going to have something happen along the way to his destination. Show me that he got into his car and started to leave. Then cut to the destination - I don't need to see him drive up the driveway for that matter unless it's adding something to that master shot.
Click to expand...

You're going to hate The Brown Bunny.
 
Billy Pilgrim said:
You're going to hate The Brown Bunny.
Click to expand...
And you might also hate Never Quite The Same.

But it's a fair point. Someone once said to me, "If it doesn't need to be in the film, don't put it in."

I think I agree with that, but then again, I supppose it depends on the kind of film, and the impression you want to create.
 
It's up to the director and his style. Did we need to see the Terminator's feet as he steps on the roses, whipping out a shotgun and shooting T1000? Did we need to see Leon drinking milk in The Professional? How about the shot of the coastline and the dialog about sharks in Blackhawk Down?

Where are the payoffs in those examples? It's called painting a picture. These little elements are things the director puts in for absolutely no reason other than art. So if James Cameron, Luc Besson, and Ridley Scott want to show me a doorknob, I want to watch it.
 
The excessive use of voice over is one of my pet peeves. If it can't be told with dialog and pictures, maybe it shouldn't be told. Films like Goodfellas are the exception and it can be use affectively in comedy for the purpose of punch line but too many films use it as a crutch. I saw "Brooklyn Rules" recently and it really became distracting.
 
I don't hate voice-over, just when it's used to fill in holes. But there's a lot of films that use voice-over brilliantly. It's kind of a lost art and throughly mis-used art. There's a thread somewhere on this board about the best films with the best voice-over narrations.

The only real filmmaking pet peeves I have are with cliches and plot contrivances. And obviousness.
 
taormina said:
It's up to the director and his style. Did we need to see the Terminator's feet as he steps on the roses, whipping out a shotgun and shooting T1000? Did we need to see Leon drinking milk in The Professional? How about the shot of the coastline and the dialog about sharks in Blackhawk Down?

Where are the payoffs in those examples? It's called painting a picture. These little elements are things the director puts in for absolutely no reason other than art. So if James Cameron, Luc Besson, and Ridley Scott want to show me a doorknob, I want to watch it.
Click to expand...

I agree that if a director actually knows what they are doing they can use carefully crafted visuals to (such as taormina's examples) show the audience information about their characters are foreshadow future events. But directors who don't know what they are doing end up creating boring sequences like yagfxg33k mentioned.

bosindy said:
The excessive use of voice over is one of my pet peeves. If it can't be told with dialog and pictures, maybe it shouldn't be told. Films like Goodfellas are the exception and it can be use affectively in comedy for the purpose of punch line but too many films use it as a crutch. I saw "Brooklyn Rules" recently and it really became distracting.
Click to expand...

This is probably my pet peeve as well. I can't tell you how many scripts I read that start out with CHARACTER NAME (VO). That usually turns me off right away.
 
Something that has always bothered me is when a filmmaker decides to explain a mystery at the end by suddenly adding new information that wasn't revealed earlier. IMO, all of the pieces should be available to the viewer to figure out on their own and up front.

I once read a comment by Billy Wilder who said something to the effect that you want to show the audience 2 and 2 and let them add it up to 4. If you do that, they will love you for it.
 
TSS I agree - Examples of that are The Usual suspects, The Prestige and the Illusionist. As for Leon drinking milk - That action revealed character. As it should.
 
Voice over... The last refuge of the hack storyteller? Sometimes, but not always. Goodfellas is a great example. So is Double Indemnity and Sunset Boulevard. As well as (let the hate begin) Blade Runner. Since Blade Runner is a neo-noir, I have always felt that the VO on this worked.
 
yagfxg33k said:
That being said, some of my issues are these: Don't show me an insert unless it's going to give me some information that I cannot deduce on my own. I don't need an insert on a guy putting his key in a doorlock. Even if that is pertinent to the story (i.e. his key does not fit) - You can show me that just by the actor's frustration or whatever. Just get on with it.
Click to expand...

This I agree with. Spot-on. I think a lot of people use inserts as filler for time.

I don't need to see a guy getting into his car and driving down the street and then riding along with him unless he is going to have something happen along the way to his destination. Show me that he got into his car and started to leave. Then cut to the destination - I don't need to see him drive up the driveway for that matter unless it's adding something to that master shot.
Click to expand...

I don't necessarily agree with this. It depends on the emotion and what's happening in the story. This could easily be a time for the audience (through the character) to reflect. For example, in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, there's the scene where Nicholson's character leans against the window and falls asleep while Billy Bibbit is losing his virginity. This is a scene where you could very much "get on with it," but the point isn't to cut to the next morning, it's to reflect on the character's decision to sacrifice his opportunity for escape in favour of being there for Bibbit. Since we can't get into his head (or hear a VO, thank goodness), you instead get a chance for the audience to reflect. This kind of downtime and break in the rhythm of the film can be absolutely essential for the upcoming climactic buildup (which happens immediately after).
 
In your example, there is story information being conveyed - Character is revealed. That is not what I mean.
 
I usually hate montages. They seem like a cheap way out of telling you what happened.

The exception being the montages in The New World....which i love.
 
TeamSeaShanty said:
Something that has always bothered me is when a filmmaker decides to explain a mystery at the end by suddenly adding new information that wasn't revealed earlier. IMO, all of the pieces should be available to the viewer to figure out on their own and up front.
Click to expand...
That seems to describe the end of Smokin' Aces.

yagfxg33k said:
Voice over... The last refuge of the hack storyteller? Sometimes, but not always. Goodfellas is a great example. So is Double Indemnity and Sunset Boulevard. As well as (let the hate begin) Blade Runner. Since Blade Runner is a neo-noir, I have always felt that the VO on this worked.
Click to expand...
I couldn't agree with you more on Blade Runner. The VO in that movie added to the Noir feel. (If they could have just left off the "happy ending.")
 
yagfxg33k said:
That being said, some of my issues are these: Don't show me an insert unless it's going to give me some information that I cannot deduce on my own. I don't need an insert on a guy putting his key in a doorlock. Even if that is pertinent to the story (i.e. his key does not fit) - You can show me that just by the actor's frustration or whatever. Just get on with it.
t
Click to expand...

Why so impatient?
 
The key is aleways to ensure that every scene, shot, frame has useful information...even if it is a cutaway...everything has to support the theme, sub-text, and flow of the story...all the techniques work if this exists, otherwise the scene, shot, montage, cutaway doesn't belong there....This is why storytelling is the most important skill a filmmaker can learn...then you can learn how to tell your story through the images...not the other way around...

just my opinion,

Stan Harrington
www.xristosproductions.com
www.igfdb.com
 
Weston said:
I usually hate montages. They seem like a cheap way out of telling you what happened.
Click to expand...

Montages I really hate are ones with footage that has already been scene. If you are going to use a montage, have it be new information (Rocky, Godfather) not a recap of events (see Kevin Bacon films in the 1980's). Do they forget a movie is only 90-120 minutes long. Snoop Dog doesn't have that bad of a short term memory.
 
yagfxg33k said:
Voice over... The last refuge of the hack storyteller? Sometimes, but not always... As well as (let the hate begin) Blade Runner. Since Blade Runner is a neo-noir, I have always felt that the VO on this worked.
Click to expand...

No hate here. I like the Blade Runner VO! Whether or not the story about Harrison Ford deliberately trying to do a bad VO so the studio wouldn't use it is true, I don't know. But even if it was, the fact he sounds pissed off and weary fits the mood perfectly.

Not actually that bothered about the happy ending either! :thumbsup:
 
Insert shots, montages, and VO aren't bad just because of what they are. The problem with them is only when they're poorly used. I think they just stand out to most people is because they're harder to use well than other techniques.

Bad lighting, framing, or even acting to an extent can be called good or bad according to taste. Other topics in this thread are more easily spotted as crutches for the movie. So, my opinion to those reading this is that none of these are to be avoided if you think it's right, but know that it could potentially show others a weak sense of judgement if it's not right. And I think to have a future in film, you have to take risks and put yourself out there, otherwise what could you possibly ever add to the film industry?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top