How deep does backstory need to be?

memento515 said:
"a writer needs to know the answers to those questions.."

are you sure?

Im not trying to win an argument here, I just wouldn't want some poor hapless young writer reading this thread to think he should know why ET landed on earth, or where Freddy got the red and green sweater or got the idea to make claws (he loves cats)?
Click to expand...

Understood...but I don't want some poor hapless writer thinking they can get away with paper thin characterization either. You're confusing what 'the audience' needs to know with what the writer needs to know. I'm sure Melissa Mathison knows why ET is on earth very clearly. Just looking at the visual details (that are in the script), and ET's actions in the opening, one can surmise that he is some kind of interplanetary botanist collecting samples. It's never spelled out for the audience, but it is there subtly, and it's evidence the creators do know why he landed on earth. It's kind of irrelevant to the audience and the story, although it does show up front that he is a somewhat benevolent creature.
 
shallow.

shallow.

yes, meaning the backstory amounts to. "They are botanists collecting plants, when ET gets accidentally left behind". Its barely "backstory" cause it all happens onscreen (we see plants, ET running etc).

Its just one "event", really. One idea. "Benevolent Botanist aliens"- more character, than a list of events. (they are on the planet to heal the their leader on planet XYZ and only earth has the daisy to make the potion that he needs to drink on the full moon of the fifth cycle and ET also is gonna marry his daughter but has always been clumsy and needs to learn to use his finger and when he does he'll be champion botanist"

I just wanna make sure ppl know how little "back" you should go, because bad writers always think the story is "back there" somewhere.

I had the issue when I was learning, and Ive seen it a common mistake:

I dont think most ppl get how simple most stories are.

Lucas be damned.
 
If you are working with actors who can read your mind then you don't need back story.

For everyone else - backstory is a good thing - it shortens rehearsal time, helps communicate and establish bridges between the director and the actors and in between actors. I find it a very very useful tool.
 
If you find you stumble when writing because you don't know how your characters should respond to a situation, you don't have enough of their back story. Motivation is driven by it. If you're the kind of writer that doesn't work this way, then back story may be irrelevant for you.
 
Batutta said:
I think once you're dealing with ghosts you've jumped the shark of credibility, so anything goes. In my opinion, things like magic and the supernatural are more effective the LESS you explain them. Try and explain it too much, it takes away the mystery, as well as raising the possibility that the audience will just yell 'BALONEY!' at the screen, which it actually is when you get down to it.
Click to expand...

I largely disagree...

In "The Sixth Sense", the backstory was (for me anyway) the make/break aspect of it...and it made it. Many of the backstor(ies) in it (there are several), were key to the main story - Willis's ambiguous murder leading to his surprise (for most of us anyway) reverse-revealed ghost-status throughout the film, the backstory on the little girl's murder by her mother... All beautifully tied together in what was (IMHO) a masterpiece of a ghost film.

"Ghost" (Moore, Swayze) also made great use of backstory IMO with the antagonist/Swayze's 'old buddy'/Moore's new boyfriend and other threads. I also think Goldberg's character was pretty nicely rounded out for a secondary character with her own quirky backstory.

And in non-ghost films, "Casablanca" is an all-time classic in no small part because of its master-class level application of deep backstory.

For me, the question is much easier to look at in the negative - what's NOT enough backstory? Easy - when plot and character threads are simply tacked on to solve story problems. Need a main character to die in the end? No problem - just write in a psycho-killer drifter type and...boom - dead guy delivered, right on schedule. Never mind if that character has *no relation* to the rest of the story or any of the other characters until he does his 'plot solving' thing. This kind of lazy writing is a lot like the 'Deus Ex-Machinas' that early theater relied on to its great detriment.

To be sure, backstory needn't be overdone - we didn't really need to know how long Wills (or Swayze) had been marrried, what their favorite books were, etc. Which is not to say that these types of things when used well can be highly effective, as they were (for me anyway) in "Sleepless In Seattle" and "You've Got Mail". But backstory done right (particularly when it's *on screen* rather than told in dialog), is a huge part of the connective tissue that makes for great stories as opposed to weak, contrived 'easy way out' ones. A good deal of the difference between great screenwriters and hacks is found right in this area...

So my oversimplified answer to Randall's original question is:

Deep enough...
 
Last edited:
Ted Spencer said:
I largely disagree...

In "The Sixth Sense", the backstory was (for me anyway) the make/break aspect of it...and it made it. Many of the backstor(ies) in it (there are several), were key to the main story - Willis's ambiguous murder leading to his surprise (for most of us anyway) reverse-revealed ghost-status throughout the film, the backstory on the little girl's murder by her mother... All beautifully tied together in what was (IMHO) a masterpiece of a ghost film.
Click to expand...

I was referring to an explanation of the ghost's "powers", not backstory for the character in general. I think once you start explaining how magic and the supernatural "work" you run the risk of making it seem mundane. I prefer it not make sense, as it's more unsettling. But that's separate from how fleshed out a character's backstory should be.
 
Last edited:
Well, the simple, implicit phenomenological 'explanation' for almost all ghost stories (fictional, or purportedly not) is that the ghost is the disembodied spirit of a formerly living person. That's pretty much the deal - it's in deeply historic cultural iconography - no additional 'backstory' needed, really. Which sort of renders your point moot, if you don't ming my saying... : )
 
I think Randall was asking how tied into the ghosts backstory should it's environmental influence be. I was saying my preference would be as vaguely as possible, so I think my point had relevance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top