Telegraphing and Red Herrings

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Telegraphing and Red Herrings

    We have all seen the flick where you know the outcome a mere three minutes into it. This character and that character are gonna lock horns and the good one is going to win.

    How he or she wins is the story.

    In the film A Knight's Tale (one of my all-time faves) the outcome is clear the minute we meet Count Adhemar, and I have to admit, the meeting in prison where he says 'In what world could you ever beat me', or something to that effect, pretty much telegraphed that the ending would be William beating him in the jousting tourney. To me, there was no other logical conclusion.

    This film is about as linear as it gets, but nonetheless not at all disapointing.

    At what point do you guys and gals decide to spill the beans, and leave a popcorn trail right to the end? There is always the red herring to what-if/what-if-not the audience, but even those cannot entirely cover up the ending. Even a small bit of dialogue in passing can give it away.

    Do you plan these from the beginning, try to keep it a secret, or go for those ever-popular twists that mess up the clean ending - though still as expected? Do you set out to write linear because it is the method of least resistance?

    Rare is the film I say to myself - 'I didn't see that coming'.


    a

  • #2
    Re: Telegraphing and Red Herrings

    there are different types of stories(mysteries and thrillers should, for the most part, not be predictable). most have an inciting incident that must deliver(or else people would feel cheated). anticipation is something the audience want. but it must always have a degree of uncertainty, usually rising at certain points. the audience want to feel like they are smart, like solving the story(like "i knew it all along"), because a film experience is a learning experience. a twist must therefore have a learning element to it, it has to make sense and make the audience feel intelligent.

    i remember watching the latest batman movie(spoiler), i thought the girl in the well was catwoman. so when it turned out to be some woman out of the blue i felt cheated. because as i watched, i thought "who is this catwoman and what is her place in this story?". it turned out she had no meaning to the story, neither woman had. bain was sort of meaningless too. it turned out that catwoman was batman's love interest, but for no reason.

    or in city slickers 2 they set out to find curly's gold. but then when they find the treasure it is fake gold. i realised it was supposed to be about the journey with the retarded brother, like the first one was about the journey of life. but the first one wasn't set up to find an actual treasure. i felt cheated as hell. but then a twist comes, as my dissappointment was setting in, curly's brother shows up with a real gold bar, and the film totally redeemed itself. genius.

    i feel like the best twist comes when improvising. allthough i have to then change alot of the story because of it.
    Last edited by Bananos; 10-13-2012, 05:59 AM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Telegraphing and Red Herrings

      For me personally I think it's about understanding convention and knowing how and when to break it. Movies like THE DEPARTED did that well.

      When the through-line to the story's goal isn't obvious to the audience, it creates a level of uncertainty and intrigue.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Telegraphing and Red Herrings

        Originally posted by Bananos View Post
        i remember watching the latest batman movie(spoiler), i thought the girl in the well was catwoman. so when it turned out to be some woman out of the blue i felt cheated. because as i watched, i thought "who is this catwoman and what is her place in this story?". it turned out she had no meaning to the story, neither woman had. bain was sort of meaningless too. it turned out that catwoman was batman's love interest, but for no reason.
        I always work endless hours to ensure these kinds of dangling elements are either eliminated, or somehow connected. It could be the original script was clear as to why these characters were there, but all was lost in the production and editing. Happens. It shouldn't, but alas, there it is.

        I'm of the school where even red herrings should somehow be resolved.

        a

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Telegraphing and Red Herrings

          More TDKR spoilers for the one tenth of one percent of people who haven't seen it:

          Originally posted by Bananos View Post
          i remember watching the latest batman movie(spoiler), i thought the girl in the well was catwoman. so when it turned out to be some woman out of the blue i felt cheated. because as i watched, i thought "who is this catwoman and what is her place in this story?". it turned out she had no meaning to the story, neither woman had. bain was sort of meaningless too. it turned out that catwoman was batman's love interest, but for no reason.
          The stories are completions of arcs from the previous two Nolan films.

          1) Talia al Ghul is not "some woman" and certainly not "out of the blue". She is there to complete the work the LoS and her father left undone from the first film.

          2) The Joker's entire motivation was to refute the philosophical thesis of Batman's existence -- the idea that self-discipline and adherence to a moral code can redeem a fallen world. His plan was still coming to fruition during DKR when Gordon's coverup of Two-Face was exposed, and again when Alfred's coverup of Rachel's letter was exposed. In both cases, Batman/Gotham wins in the end by learning how the human spirit can return (or, "rise") even when all is lost.

          Plus, catsuits are sexy.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Telegraphing and Red Herrings

            Originally posted by Staircaseghost View Post
            More TDKR spoilers for the one tenth of one percent of people who haven't seen it:
            I'm in that one-tenth of one percent, so none of this makes sense to me anyways!!


            a

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Telegraphing and Red Herrings

              "Lost in Translation" was brilliant in not having Bob Harris and Charlotte hook up at the end of the movie.

              It went against our expectations and everything the movie seemed to be leading up to.

              It's only in retrospect when you realize the solution to Bob Harris's guilty conscience is not having an affair or leaving his wife. It's stepping up, being an adult rather than the spoiled movie star he is, and going home to his family.

              A movie which makes the distinction between what a protagonist wants and what they need is in my book more compelling than when those two goals are one and the same.

              Indy wants to possess the Grail. He needs to let it go.

              Unlike Nicholas Cage in "National Treasure" who wants a treasure and at the end attains it. Not much sacrifice there and a pretty unfulfilling experience ultimately.

              Indy surprised us by rising above his selfish need in lieu of a greater good. Cage got a sportscar and mansion out of the deal ( maybe tax free even ) sacrificing nothing.

              It's a tricky thing to learn especially when you have screenwriting gurus lumping goals stakes and urgency together.

              As if a characters goal is the only consideration a writer needs to address.

              Teaching a character a lesson for their flaws or weaknesses is also a goal, the goal of the screenwriter. They are often goals which seem diametrically opposed to one another.

              The last thing Ripley wants to do is face a colony overrun by the giant insects that terrorized and slaughtered the crew of the Nostromo. What she NEEDS to do is just that in order to be able to sleep soundly again.

              Blondie in the Good the Bad and the Ugly has a goal of personal enrichment. Only he found out the hard way what happens when you get too greedy and leave desert rats like Tuco alive and stranded, while taking 100% of the money.

              That led to his own ordeal , nearly dying in the desert with Tuco riding along under an umbrella.

              At the end he changes. He could take all the gold found in the unmarked grave and leave Tuco hanging,surely to die, but being The Good, this time he doesn't. He shares half the gold and shoots his rope in half.

              That illustrates an arc. That single act. If he rode off with all the money what kind of message would that send the audience? Take anything you want if you have the gun? He tried that, the first plot point and look what happened. The rat tracked him down and nearly killed him out of vengeance.

              He needed to learn to share his good fortune with the rat who helped him get it.

              What characters want to do and what they need to do are sometimes two different things. Laying clues to the latter is one of the real tricks to great stories.

              Doing the right thing sometimes requires sacrifice. Morris Buttermaker putting the scrubs into the little league championship wasn't what he wanted to do. But to teach them the difference between the win at all costs mentality of rival coach Vic Morrow and himself he had to let every one of those kids learn that they all could step up to the plate in their lives.

              A much more valuable lesson than a baseball game win. Buttermaker did what he needed to do.

              One of the problems today I think is a failure of stories to make the distinction between what a character wants and what they need, treating them as synonymous.
              Last edited by halloweenjak; 10-13-2012, 11:23 AM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Telegraphing and Red Herrings

                I think people hold out on reveals WAAAY too long, WAAAY too often.

                Frequently, in my own work I have to resist holding onto reveals be they plot or character.

                In general I remind myself, "if you're not revealing that Bruce Willis is dead, just let it come out at the moment it wants to come out."

                The negatives to holding on are pretty big: A) You do narrative contortions to try to delay the reveal. Scenes and plot are compromised for something that inevitably isn't as big as the writer thinks. Sure, "she's my sister she's my daughter" in China town and the (above mentioned) Bruce Willis reveal are worth it, but that's rare. B) by building up the reveal--in holding off on it--you're gonna let people down.

                I had more to say but I got bored with myself after the second paragraph so I quit.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Telegraphing and Red Herrings

                  This is one of the main reasons I outline - to make sure I have enough twists and diversions to keep the audience from guessing the end...

                  Well, actually we can all guess the end. What we can't guess is exactly how it happens. So we can use diversions to make the audience jump to the wrong conclusion and twists to knock them on their butt every once in a while. But even if we know the ending, we want to make sure the audience fears that the protagonist will fail. They need to get in over their head - and then you keep piling the crap on... and make sure the protag's flaw keeps tripping them up. They *can't* solve the problem until they get their **** together... and they are actively avoiding doing that.

                  For me a twist is not adding something, but *revealing* something that was always there. This is where diversions come in. You need to be a magician and do the flourish with one hand while the other is hiding the coin.

                  BDZ mentions SIXTH SENSE - and that film does a great job of focusing the audience on the troubled kid who sees dead people and whether Bruce will be able to help him... or whether he will become suicidal like that patient in the opening scene who shoots Bruce and then kills himself. Though Bruce is dead in every scene from page 7 on, we're so worried about the kid that we don't really have time to think. And when Bruce believes that the kid sees dead people - we are now in a world of dead people and murdered little girls and focused on *that*... not that Bruce takes the bus instead of driving. The diversion works pretty well (though some still figured it out - some always will).

                  For a great diversion, watch the 3rd version of THE MALTESE FALCON - the mystery is who killed Spade's partner, but the whole film seems to be about the Maltese Falcon... with the clues to Archer's murder sprinkled throughout. You never notice those clues, because the Falcon is a great diversion.

                  - Bill
                  Free Script Tips:
                  http://www.scriptsecrets.net

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Telegraphing and Red Herrings

                    Originally posted by alex whitmer View Post
                    We have all seen the flick where you know the outcome a mere three minutes into it. This character and that character are gonna lock horns and the good one is going to win.

                    How he or she wins is the story.

                    In the film A Knight's Tale (one of my all-time faves) the outcome is clear the minute we meet Count Adhemar, and I have to admit, the meeting in prison where he says 'In what world could you ever beat me', or something to that effect, pretty much telegraphed that the ending would be William beating him in the jousting tourney. To me, there was no other logical conclusion.

                    This film is about as linear as it gets, but nonetheless not at all disapointing.
                    I think the key to this specific example at least is that the JOURNEY itself is entertaining.

                    I just saw Chronicle some day ago, and yeah, it was SUPER obvious from the beginning that Andrew was going to be the one who would flip out and go all Akira. Even so, I really enjoyed the story. Because I thought the whole ride itself was pretty sweet.
                    I learned to write by writing - Neil Gaiman

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Telegraphing and Red Herrings

                      The key to avoid giving things away early is to make sure they serve a specific function before paying-off later on.

                      In TOY STORY, Sid puts a match in Woody's pocket, signifying that he's going to set him on fire very soon. Woody and Buzz escape, and when they need a boost to catch up with the moving van, Woody thinks of the match and the rocket. However, a passing car puts out the match. It seems as if that was their last hope, but Woody decides to use Buzz's helmet to focus the sunlight into a dot to light the fuse. And what did Sid do earlier while torturing Woody? Use a magnifying glass to burn his forehead.

                      Two for the price of one.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Telegraphing and Red Herrings

                        One way of looking at art is that there's 2 kinds: one that provides comfort and one that provides stimulus or challenge.

                        A KNIGHT'S TALE provides comfort with its predictability, pretty actors, Queen songs, and the hero winning everything.

                        NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN and REQUIEM FOR A DREAM-- to pick 2 at random-- are examples of the other, more subversive kind.

                        So, how you handle reveals depends on what kind of story you're telling. How uncomfortable are you willing to let the audience get? What kind of emotional impact are you looking to create?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Telegraphing and Red Herrings

                          It wasn't a twist per se, but one of the best endings I've seen recently was Young Adult's. The funny thing is it ended in a way that was perfectly consistent for the character, rather than consistent to 'what happens in films.' It was unpredictable for being true to life.
                          My stuff

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Telegraphing and Red Herrings

                            Originally posted by Biohazard View Post
                            The key to avoid giving things away early is to make sure they serve a specific function before paying-off later on.

                            In TOY STORY, Sid puts a match in Woody's pocket, signifying that he's going to set him on fire very soon. Woody and Buzz escape, and when they need a boost to catch up with the moving van, Woody thinks of the match and the rocket. However, a passing car puts out the match. It seems as if that was their last hope, but Woody decides to use Buzz's helmet to focus the sunlight into a dot to light the fuse. And what did Sid do earlier while torturing Woody? Use a magnifying glass to burn his forehead.

                            Two for the price of one.
                            What bio said. (It pains me to say that. I think my left nut just vanished.)

                            And I think SIXTH SENSE gets trotted out too much as a way to deal with red herrings. As Bill mentioned, the movie was never about Bruce Willis and whether or not he was dead. It was always about the kid. The Bruce Willis reveal was just gravy, and if you took it away, you'd still have a good movie.

                            HH

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Telegraphing and Red Herrings

                              Originally posted by haroldhecuba View Post
                              What bio said. (It pains me to say that. I think my left nut just vanished.)

                              And I think SIXTH SENSE gets trotted out too much as a way to deal with red herrings. As Bill mentioned, the movie was never about Bruce Willis and whether or not he was dead. It was always about the kid. The Bruce Willis reveal was just gravy, and if you took it away, you'd still have a good movie.
                              To restore balance to the universe, I agree with what you said.

                              It's a lot harder to hide something that is the primary focus of the story than a simple subplot.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X