In this installment, Xenu talks about modern storytelling.
In general he covers the overall laziness of filmmakers and other outlets for storytelling that are intended for little more than mass consumption.
These themes will be further expanded in future installments of Xenu Sez, as well as the Reggie and Calvin Show....especially when I start talking about movies....
Xenu Sez: Episode 2
--Reggie
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
ya, like, i totally effin' agree, xenu.
Wow, I didn't even know this one was up, glad I checked.
I agree with you that story telling has hit bottom, but as a writer, let me explain why. It's really not our fault!!! First of all, the reason nothing makes us think anymore, is because people DON'T think, and therefore don't understand. A writer has to dumb stuff down, or they won't have a big audience, because people don't want to think while being entertained. Also, being able to predict, makes them feel smart, and they like that. In all honesty, the general public is too busy discussing the stars' personal lives to discuss and think about the actual film. It's not so much the creators being lazy, it's the audience being lazy. That's why all the characters connect in everything too. Everyone has to know everyone, or people don't understand how they can be a part of the story. Also, people like familiarity, so if there's a prequel, they want to see the same characters. It's all about demand.
As far as trilogies go, there's a reason they are how they are as well. Some people plan on making them a trilogy, some don't. In either case, they make one first (which needs to be a complete story on it's own) to make sure it sells. Once the first one sells, those who wanted to make a trilogy can continue on their merry way. They can leave it unfinished now at the end of the second, because they know they'll get a chance to finish it. Or, and more often, they leave it unfinished on purpose to make sure people come to the third one. I mean, let's face it, isn't the second one always the crappy one? Only time that's not true is in comic book movies, but those all tend to stand alone anyway (so they can always make more). But getting back to those people who didn't start out with three, their first goes so well, they simply HAVE to make more because the money's so good. I think that's what happened with Pirates of the Caribbean, whether they admit it or not. There was nothing gained by adding the second two, it's almost the same ending as one would have left.
Last, you forgot one thing, what's up with happy endings? The reason I have so much trouble with my writing (besides it sucking, I mean, look at this mess), is it's dark, and people die. Oh no, not the MAIN character getting off-ed. The hero? This can't be!!! Nope, won't sell. I guess real life is too much thought and unhappiness for people, so fiction has to be unrealistic to even it out. Lame.
Speaking of lame, of course you agree with yourself. Come on. ;) Actually, that's how you know you're either very creative, or totally crazy, when you start arguing with yourself....So stick to agreeing, and keep up the good work.
i wrote that because i'm gonna comment on everything, and i didn't really have to add anything to what i already said. i get teh loneliez.
i know the audience is lazy, but i am of the opinion that it's on the author's shoulders. people have been giving us easier, spelled out stories, and now, if they're not, it's "pretentious," then "boring," and eventually, "gay". i'm not saying you shouldn't reach for a broad audience, i just don't believe in sacrificing integrity of the story for the lowest common denominator.
regarding trilogies. i'm totally aware that stuff like that happens. A New Hope wasn't A New Hope until 1981. the issue i have here is what i mentioned in the podcast-- the 2-parter in a three episode story. i know people plan for one and find out they have time for three. but it shouldn't be fragmented like that. take Indiana Jones. each story is separate, but all about him. they are all their own adventure and stand soundly on their own, not to mention they weren't even released in chronological order. what i want out of trilogies in the future is either an Indiana Jones set up, or more graceful, cohesive segue between each part, instead of the first installment being a preamble to the next two. those have a sense of "GAME OFF" and "GAME ON" that i don't appreciate as part of the audience.
I need to chime in on this one, so here goes.
I agree with both of you, it's the fault of the audience as well as the people responsible for getting this stuff out there.
I hesitate to say it's the writers specifically, though, because yes, they are trying to make money, and agents and producers and whatnot will buy whatever sells, which unfortunately, is not going to be anything too....deep.
So that's what they'll write.
I hear this debate all the time about how we miss out on all these cool things from other countries (like TV and movies) because it just won't sell here because Americans are too dumb.
I want very much to agree, but I think (I hope) that's starting to change.
If you look at the chances that networks like NBC are taking with Heroes and Journeyman, and even ABC with Pushing Daisies, someone somewhere has heard the voices of those of us who look for quality in our entertainment...maybe not many voices right now, but with the huge popularity of Heroes...you can start to see that viewers....maybe even the "dumb" ones are starting to realize that there is room for deep entertainment and that it's not so scary.
Of course, this whole debate will be completely moot next month when the writers go on strike.
That being said, I have absolutely no sympathy for the writers' guild or for the studios and producers and networks that are going to suffer as a result of it.
That's why we're hearing about and seeing all this remake bullshit, stock up on crap now because for the next couple of years that's all you're going to get.
That being said, in a perfect world, the writers strike will finally push the public over the edge. They'll stop paying ridiculous prices for worthless movies, they'll stop watching TV because it'll be a wasteland of gameshows and reality TV and commercials....you know...even more so.....
But then, there will be a ray of hope. Young writers, or people with otherwise new ideas will have the freedom to get their work out to the world. It'll be rough at first but those who want it will see...those you are not yet blind or jaded by the utter commercialization of society...they will notice. They will stand up and their numbers will grow. We will see the return of the golden age when actors acted, directors directed and writers.....writted....and all of those studio execs and greedy guild members will come crawling back begging for the scraps.....
We here at Something, Something Productions will be there to guide you every step of the way....
--Reggie
oh, speaking of sacrificing integrity....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7053982.stm
^THAT sucks. it's like, in her haste to get even richer and smash book sales records previously set by herself, she neglected to mention the potentially alienating fact that Dumbledore was gay. it's not even alluded to in the slightest in the series. such bullshit. did she really NEED to sell 11 million books in a day? sure, a lot of crazy ass conservatives already hated Harry Potter, but had people known the gay thing earlier, some of the slightly less radical among them may have rethought their purchase.
i don't care if Dumbledore's gay. it's how Rowling said it, like we should have known. there are internet communities that have guessed key plot points and obscure crap correctly, and i've never seen ANYTHING about this. ya know what the hint was? he's mentioned as being dressed "flamboyantly" a couple times in one book. he had a robe with stars and moons on, stereotypical wizard garb, and that was the tipoff? fuck that. while i don't hate that Dumbledore's gay, however, i WILL kill anyone applauding the fact that he is. it's nothing to be commended or criticized for. oh, and JK Rowling's a coward.
Okay, not to be mean or anything, I kinda gotta laugh that you're upset about her being subtle, when you'll whole rant was about how writer's have lost that.
Anyway, I hate the fact that that Tatchell guy said she should have made it obvious. I hate that so much about people who are "different." Why do you have to rub it in that you are different? If you stopped shoving it in people's faces, they'd stop making fun of you! It's like those government surveys, they always end with asking your gender and race. Why? So they can point out that this percentage of this people are this or that? WHY!?! All that does is separate people into groups. And then they turn around and talk about equality and being "color blind." Yeah, whatever. And why is it always "select only one?" Unless you or your parents were born in another country, chances are, you're a mix. And for all of us born here, shouldn't we select "Native American?" I knew a tribal leader once who loved pointing out what "native" meant when he would do stuff in elementary schools. It's true enough.
Anyway, I kind of went my own direction with that one, getting back to the matter at hand...I think you misunderstood. I wasn't defending writers so much as explaining their view point. I think it's a lot of money making BS, and like I said, I'm not making much money. And as far as the cliffhanger trilogies go, I admit I was whole heatedly cursing the end of the second pirate movie. It almost felt like I was being forced to see a third one. I'm a curious person, I like to know what happens, but after sitting through that POS (I think I fell asleep during part of it), a third was the last thing I wanted. So, there again, I was just explaining why it is what it is, not necessarily agreeing with it.
she wasn't being subtle, she was changing the answers after the fact. the whole relationship between Dumbledore and Grindelwald read more like a best-friendship than a gay one. hell, it smacked more of Obi-wan and Anakin than boyfriends. his "great tragedy" led Grindelwald to be the most dangerous Dark wizard of that time. familiar, no? so, to convince me that Dumbledore was gay based on that "hint" and the flamboyant remark, two things have to be true;
1) everyone who has ever worn a robe with moons and stars on it is gay.
2) Kenobi and Skywalker were holding each others' "lightsabers".
the way it was WRITTEN is entirely different from what she's saying now. his "great tragedy" was the fight between them and Aberforth that got his sister killed needlessly and senselessly... until now. now it's because he loved a straight guy who became the Harry Potter equivalent to Darth Vader? the logic just breaks down, because she never clarified anything of this, she's just adding retroactive continuity (or, in the future, she's "retconning" it. comic term). there may have been subtext, but "Albus Dumbledore loves the cock," was not there at all.
If you rearrange the letters in subtext you get buttsex.
Thanks to Eliza from Wingin' It for that one.
--Reg
Nice one, Reggie, I like how that just slid right in there...to the debate I mean... <<._<<. .>>_.>>
The point is, SHE thought she was being subtle. Like with any situation in life, assumption leads people astray at times. Someone may think they are being obvious, and may think they make perfect sense, but someone else might be left clueless as to what that person meant. Yet another reason to be overly clear, and explain things to death.
But yeah, I think I've beaten it to death now..so how about football??? Yeah! Let's debate something that's REALLY important.
..I do believe I just said football is more important than intelligent thought..Guess I don't need to prove your point with bad argument, I AM your point...
Post a Comment