Is this poor writing in thrillers?

H

harmonica44

MINOR SPOILER FROM SUDDEN IMPACT


In a lot of thrillers the hero, or villain, will show up to intercept his counterpart. But they don't have any explanation as to how they knew, their counterparts would be. The best example is Sudden Impact, where they villains kidnap the woman and take her to an amusement park. They don't explain how Dirty Harry knew she was there or why they were going to bring her there. They left no trail of evidence that would lead him to know to go there.

Some movies even though they don't explain how they know, you can still think of a logical explanation. But some movies have nothing logical as to how they knew, and just have it happen. What do you think poor writing, or does it heighten the tension?
 
Quit watching these thirty year old films.

The audience has grown considerably more sophisticated in the intervening DECADES!
You can't get away with that sort of rubbish anymore.

Model your work off of material maybe no older than about five or six years old.
http://www.the-numbers.com/market/Genres/Suspense.php

2010 http://www.the-numbers.com/market/2010/Suspense.php
2009 http://www.the-numbers.com/market/2009/Suspense.php
2008 http://www.the-numbers.com/market/2008/Suspense.php
2007 http://www.the-numbers.com/market/2007/Suspense.php
2006 http://www.the-numbers.com/market/2006/Suspense.php
 
It may very well have nothing to do with the writing of the film at all, as it's a common practice in the film world for the studio to designate the length the film must be, and in some cases, if the film goes over that time length, the studio may step in themselves, and decide what will be cut from the film to shorten it.

I disagree that it was simply something you could get away with "back in the day" because their are numerous other films that suffer this discrepencies such as this.
 
Ah, you two are couple of comedians.

Yeah, I guess that's why they're all selling so well at the cinema.
Folks still just can't get enough of them guys.
Sell out theaters.
Every one of 'em.


There's a reason why they're classics.
Things change.


Tell me, regarding story constructs, is there still a bunch of stage play theatrical exposition?
Has the pacing remained the same?
Is a single twist sufficient these days?
How do you maintain an engaging "WTH is going on?" interest throughout the story without losing the audience?


How about you two crows help Monica instead of spending effort griping at me.
 
Did you, as a viewer, care? Did you think the movie was good or bad? When you saw it did you care how he got there or did you just want to see what happened when he did? Where was the meat of the story? There's a reason action movies rarely have people using the bathroom or sitting down for a quick lunch.

As an aside, Wombat, dig the new profile pic! Always been one of my favorite Louis Wain pictures (and has turned up on more album covers than any others!)
 
rayw said:
Yeah, I guess that's why they're all selling so well at the cinema.
Folks still just can't get enough of them guys.
Sell out theaters.
Every one of 'em.
Click to expand...
You... do realize how absurd this point is, correct?

There's a reason why they're classics.
Things change.
Click to expand...
The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Tell me, regarding story constructs, is there still a bunch of stage play theatrical exposition?
Has the pacing remained the same?
Is a single twist sufficient these days?
How do you maintain an engaging "WTH is going on?" interest throughout the story without losing the audience?
Click to expand...
Yes, the film industry was completely stagnant until five or six years ago. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire was the first film to feature actors talking!

How about you two crows help Monica instead of spending effort griping at me.
Click to expand...
You were on the right track with giving him advice to not think too hard about action movies from decades ago given that in general the faceless public has grown more sophisticated. But then you fumbled the ball when you made a statement that completely discounts Hitchcock, the undisputed master of the thriller, and that just don't go 'round these parts. Not while I'm around.

JoshL said:
As an aside, Wombat, dig the new profile pic! Always been one of my favorite Louis Wain pictures (and has turned up on more album covers than any others!)
Click to expand...
The eyes. The eyes.

.

(Note: I haven't seen this movie in years.)

It's bad writing or editing, depending. Ol' Clint might've filmed a small scene that showed how he had knowledge of where they were and the editor left it on the floor, or it really was bad writing. As for whether or not it impedes my enjoyment of the film depends on how big the error is. If it's a critical error (anti-Chekhov's gun, for example) it would bother me because it would break the fragile suspension of belief I had built up.
 
Wombat said:
... and that just don't go 'round these parts. Not while I'm around.
Click to expand...
Just bored today and wanna pick strawman fights, eh?
Free country and all.

All that typing and STILLLLL! not a useful bit of info.
Energy well spent.


Quit complaining.
Start helping.
 
rayw said:
Just bored today and wanna pick strawman fights, eh?
Click to expand...
Every time I hear someone accuse someone else of a strawman and not specify exactly what they're referring to I just laugh and laugh.

Quit complaining.
Start helping.
Click to expand...
Criticism is helping, provided all parties involved are mature enough to discuss things like adults.

Speaking of helping, what do a bunch of statistical figures have to do with the point of this thread?
 
blah blah blah blah

you give what you got

blah blah blah


have a day
sorry we had to meet this way
C ya!
 
rayw said:
Quit watching these thirty year old films.

The audience has grown considerably more sophisticated in the intervening DECADES!
You can't get away with that sort of rubbish anymore.

Model your work off of material maybe no older than about five or six years old.
http://www.the-numbers.com/market/Genres/Suspense.php

2010 http://www.the-numbers.com/market/2010/Suspense.php
2009 http://www.the-numbers.com/market/2009/Suspense.php
2008 http://www.the-numbers.com/market/2008/Suspense.php
2007 http://www.the-numbers.com/market/2007/Suspense.php
2006 http://www.the-numbers.com/market/2006/Suspense.php
Click to expand...


I think this is HORRIBLE advice. If you are ONLY modeling your work after other material that is only 5-6 years old, you will be BEHIND the curve. This industry is all about trends. If you are modeling 5-6 year old stuff then you are more than likely going to have a film that is behind the trend. What is hot one minute may not be hot the next (that includes writing style, genres, etc). However, trends recycle so a 30 year old style may be big next year.

My last piece of advice is to do what you want. Make a movie how you want. Put your own style on it.
 
DeJager said:
I think this is HORRIBLE advice... However, trends recycle so a 30 year old style may be big next year.

My last piece of advice is to do what you want. Make a movie how you want. Put your own style on it.
Click to expand...

Alrighty, Harmonica

There you go.
- One suggestion for ditching old, plot hole riddled works for more contemporary pieces.
- One suggestion that no matter how well you write your story the studio may force you to cut out parts that make it coherent.
- One suggestion that it doesn't really matter if it has holes just so long the story is good.
- One suggestion that... I'm not sure that contributor provided any actual suggestions.
- One suggestion that you should do your own thing + 30yo styles might be big next year.

:lol:
 
Okay thanks, but there are movies in the past five or six years that do the same thing though. In The Dark Knight (2008), they never explain how the Joker, new that the bank he was robbing was owned by the mob. The movie just starts out with him already knowing that.

In The Chaser (2008), the cops bust into where the killer was hiding out, to arrest him, but they never explain how the cops found out where the killer's hide out is. All of a sudden they bust in, without any prior scenes of them finding out about the place.

So it seems that it's still being used in movies of today, hit movies, too.
 
harmonica44 said:
Okay thanks, but there are movies in the past five or six years that do the same thing though. In The Dark Knight (2008), they never explain how the Joker, new that the bank he was robbing was owned by the mob. The movie just starts out with him already knowing that.

In The Chaser (2008), the cops bust into where the killer was hiding out, to arrest him, but they never explain how the cops found out where the killer's hide out is. All of a sudden they bust in, without any prior scenes of them finding out about the place.

So it seems that it's still being used in movies of today, hit movies, too.
Click to expand...

I think it's just a judgement call. If there's a reasonable way that the cops could figure out, then the filmmakers decided not to show it in lieu of showing other more interesting scenes. I haven't seen The Chaser, so I might be totally off. If a big part of the movie is figuring out where the killer is (and if it is clearly a big mystery - something nearly impossible to figure out) then I would say that it was a bad judgement call. Overall just keep in mind what the audience is thinking throughout your script and try to tune the script to those needs.

For the Dark Knight, we don't really need to know how the Joker found out that information. He is a sneaky guy and perfectly capable of bribing/tricking/killing his way to the information he wants. That's not the story we paid to see.
 
Most of the thrillers & action movies I've seen in the past few years have plot holes you could drive an illegal Russian convoy through. To suggest that recent movies are somehow more credibly plotted is nonsense. If anything, they're getting more ludicrous as they compete for ever more amazing spectacle at the expense of depth of character & plot.

Better advice would be to study films that you don't think suffer this problem. See how they introduce the information the viewer needs without resorting to clunky exposition. (You always know a writer's in trouble when a new character is introduced just so someone can explain to them what's happened so far.)

For some reason, the film that comes most immediately to mind is The Conversation - which, of course, is not a recent film but set a standard that few others achieve.
 
Okay thanks. Do you think that that's always the case though, when introducing a new character? In the Hunt for Red October, one guy kept asking questions about how the submarine combat technology and sonar works, and had it explained to him. This was not a necessary character, and was just put in so the audience would understand the submarine technical stuff, which the plot heavily relies on. Was that a bad thing?

Speaking of movies where characters find the antagonists, without explanation, I watched The Skin I Live In, and the main character follows, has all of a sudden found out where his enemy works, and follows him from there, but they showed no previous scenes as to how he found that out, since he didn't even know who the guy was at all. Was that sloppy storytelling?
 
There's always a difficult balance to be struck between exposition and baffling the audience. And it's especially difficult when plot/action relies in some way on technical issues. You constantly need to ask yourself:

* What does the audience need to know?
* Can I do this some way other than plain exposition?

I haven't seen The Skin I Live In, but if you noticed, and were concerned about, the fact that a character suddenly and inexplicably came into some crucial knowledge, then I'd definitely say that's sloppy storytelling. But it's not rare. You see this all the time in action movies and on TV shows.

Or there's some other kind of Deus Ex Machina - these days, you so often see hacking used to allow characters to get knowledge they need or gain access to places that would be otherwise impossible (the X-Files was terrible for this). As a Certified Ethical Hacker and editor of two cyber-security journals, I can assure you that the vast majority of screenwriters know less than zip about hacking, but just use it as a cheap fix for a story problem. -=sigh=-
 
For the current script I am writing, I also used the hacking plot device as well. The main character blackmails a hacker to break into some bank records, to find a trail of transactions that will lead to the who the villain is. Is this sloppy writing, or a cliche too much? It was the only thing I could think of to use, other than torturing someone for information, but torture has become an even bigger cliche, since I didn't want to use it. Do you think the hacking this is poor, even if I have a clear explanation as to what the hacker is doing, bank wise?
 
Banks, for obvious reasons, are some of the hardest places to hack into. It happens, but it's not a trivial job. The idea of someone sitting at a computer and, after a few minutes' tapping, managing to exploit a bank's computers is pure fiction - and yes, sloppy writing. Hacking attacks against banks (and other large companies) often take months, and will typically involve phishing as a first step, and sometimes large Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks to cover their tracks. (I did an interview for a forthcoming podcast on this subject only yesterday.)

Does it have to be a bank? Plenty of other organisations leave trails. How about hacking a retail organisation and maybe correlating this data with social network data (people expose all kinds of sensitive information, such as where they were at specific dates and times) via Facebook, Twitter, Instagram etc.

The main thing, if you want the hacking to be anywhere near accurate, is to give the hacker time. A few days at least (and that's still pushing it with a bank).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top