First, I apologize for the length of this post and completely understand not wanting to dredge through it, but I am truly interested in getting your opinion on the topic, so I hope that a few might have the patience to finish the post and offer their experience and/or opinion.
I'm rewriting a spec that utilizes pseudo-science in the story telling. I have to admit, I believe I misjudged the importance to explain 'how' the technology worked- unfortunately drawing more attention to it than desired and am now force to work my way back OUT from that corner.
What I've learned, undeniably the hard way, is to keep it as simple as possible and do not get caught in the trap of trying to explain everything. When I put it up on The Black List a few of the comments mentioned that I did not adequately explain 'why' the technology requires TWO participants.
I thought, "that's a fair comment,- and set out to answer that question only to find myself caught up in spending (acknowledging that now) way to much time and worse, too many pages devoted to answering this question.
Always considering, "the note behind the note,- I do realize that the question might also be coming from other aspects of the story, in which I believe I have summarily addressed as I've been rewriting.
But I'm not so certain that I have to, or more importantly should, explain as much as I may have initially thought.
Like everyone else in the world, I've watched hundreds, if not thousands of films in my life. I love the high concept, but with high concept is there always an inherit need to answer questions that may naturally rise from introducing the concept itself?
Jurassic Park was one of the first (as I can recall) that took it to a new level beyond just the 'talking heads' exposition into a scene that was more entertaining to establish the suspension of disbelief- an animation of ancient mosquitos sucked the blood of dinosaurs and found themselves 'stuck' in the natural preservative amber. Great, bought it- I'm in.
As I've been working my way toward what is the appropriate approach, I keep finding examples of KISS over and over again. Keeping it simple and avoid explaining too much, which can get you in deep water, if not actually back you into a corner that seems impossible to escape.
Granted, some genres are more prone to suspension of disbelief without explanation- for example, supernatural, horror, fantasy, and time travel.
So, I started looking for examples in film and in specs that could 'direct' me, if you will, to finding a satisfying resolution to this 'note.' And what I've found, more so it seems in recent films, is the obviously conscious choice of NOT explaining- the whole less is more option.
The Cell
We see JLo suspended by tiny wires. She's given a chemical dose and has a magic 'safe' button on her hand. With no explanation she can create a world in her mind and bring another mind into her dream world by what seems sheer will. They don't ever explain how it's possible. They just show her doing it.
Minority Report I think MR was a little different since the concept of pre-crime did have to be explained in order to establish the world rules. But I don't think a lot was really explained up front to allow us to suspend our disbelief. What worked well was seeing the technology in action. Which brings me to why the next one works as well. With that said there's a lot that isn't explained- the maglift, the cryo storage facility, the eyesight advertising, the surveillance spiders- of course all this is a beautifully crafted story world. I think the initial set up for MR was like 40 minutes.
Inception Again, we show the technology in action at the onset, and I do think this works miracles- though not every story may be able to utilize this technique- it is probably the best way to get the audience engaged. We believe it works because we actually see it work. But when they wake up all we see is several people tied to a case with clear tubes and an IV in each one of them.
The only real explanation that's given is the sedative and it's importance to how the technology works- but it seems that it's building story rules, too, because we need to understand that the stronger the sedative the deeper into the subconscious you can go, that is until you reach the dreaded 'limbo.'
If you remember, they don't even show (or explain) how Ariadne can actually construct the levels of the dream world. There's never any mention of 'the construct' that she's designing the maze in (I guess it's supposed to be HER mind?)- all we see is she's playing with big styrofoam blocks as if they were Legos- and in doing so she is creating the rich texture of the levels we see in the back half of the film.
Deja Vu They open a time window that shows us the past as it unfolds with a two day delay (something like that). Again, we see it while it's working. No one explains how they discovered the time window or how the window can actually see into the past. We know it's impossible, and yet we are willing to suspend our disbelief.
And then suddenly they send our hero back in time through the window.
In several of these films they employ the HERO who gets the answers for the audience, so the HERO kind of gets us up to speed. Maybe the fact that the Hero's on board it allows the audience to suspend easier?
Constantine He dips his shoes in a bucket of water while holding a cat- he can travel to hell unabated and return at will with what I imagine is a glass globe filled with holy water.
Source Code The subconscious mind of a blown apart human being is able to transcend the same 22 minutes over and over and over again, finally ending with the 'mind' of this soldier REPLACING the subconscious of the man our hero actually saved. When he replaced him, what actually happened to that guy?
Looper "Time travel hasn't been invented yet, but in thirty years it will have been.- The voice over device that frames Looper is a very good one. That, coupled with the amazing world building that's going on, makes it very easy for us to suspend our disbelief. And the fact that they show us the 'alternate future' FIRST is, I think, key to suspending our disbelief when we later experience the first timeline where our hero wastes his life on a path of self-destruction. We don't even question HOW (or maybe we do a little but give it a pass) is this diverging future even possible because the story world rules do not allow for it.
Edge of Tomorrow Another case where we're TOLD that it's possible because it's aliens. You've tapped into their collective hive mind where they can control time dimension, so until you have a blood transfusion where your blood is contaminated by another human being's blood you will relive the same day, every day, and die every day until a blood transfusion breaks the spell.
Divergent
Four gives Tris an injection with 'receptors' suspended in a solution and suddenly they can share their worst fears, and have it broadcasted, in a test to pass the initiation of Dauntless in order to become a full fledged faction citizen.
2014 Black List script
I read this script last night. The premise is that in the near future, the law has the ability to listen to the past in any location in the world to discover evidence to solve violent crimes. It's a cool idea and equally cool script, but the writer explains nothing about how the technology works.
The lawman walks onto the scene, opens a case and sets up 'speakers' and suddenly they can dial back in time, to any time in the past at that location and listen to every single sound. But that's it- the writer doesn't explain anything- doesn't even try to, and the character who first uses it IS the person who discovered the technology. He opens the case, sets up the speakers and BAM- we're listening to the past, no questions asked.
Now Interstellar, as much as I enjoyed the film, and I honestly did, had a few rather glaring moments where I was like, What the ****? Are you serious? I'll list four where I could not suspend my disbelief because there was insufficient information/proof provided:
1) Love transcends time and space- right? Like, what?
2) A mile high wave caused by gravity, but the wave troughs were only 2' deep
3) We're in the ice clouds, but trust me, there's a green planet down on the surface and I'm (Kevin Bacon) not going to kill you and steal your ship
4) That you can pass through a black hole, communicate with your loved ones across space with morse code in what appears to be a construct behind real time and then return from the black hole with nothing wrong with you- having not aged a day.
So, there are a few things I'm wondering, and I honestly do think there is a difference between reading it and watching it happen on film, but maybe I'm wrong. For my project I think I've figured out what is the best route.
Are we naturally more inclined to allow for suspension of disbelief by the simple fact of getting our asses into the theater seat?
What are your thoughts? Has this happened to you? If so, what choices did you make and why? How did you resolve the issue? When do you ignore a note? When do you pay attention to it? When do we make the conscious choice in the 'written' word to tell the story with less? When do we go too far? When do we not go far enough? When is it easier for you to suspend and when has it been impossible?
Best,
FA4
I'm rewriting a spec that utilizes pseudo-science in the story telling. I have to admit, I believe I misjudged the importance to explain 'how' the technology worked- unfortunately drawing more attention to it than desired and am now force to work my way back OUT from that corner.
What I've learned, undeniably the hard way, is to keep it as simple as possible and do not get caught in the trap of trying to explain everything. When I put it up on The Black List a few of the comments mentioned that I did not adequately explain 'why' the technology requires TWO participants.
I thought, "that's a fair comment,- and set out to answer that question only to find myself caught up in spending (acknowledging that now) way to much time and worse, too many pages devoted to answering this question.
Always considering, "the note behind the note,- I do realize that the question might also be coming from other aspects of the story, in which I believe I have summarily addressed as I've been rewriting.
But I'm not so certain that I have to, or more importantly should, explain as much as I may have initially thought.
Like everyone else in the world, I've watched hundreds, if not thousands of films in my life. I love the high concept, but with high concept is there always an inherit need to answer questions that may naturally rise from introducing the concept itself?
Jurassic Park was one of the first (as I can recall) that took it to a new level beyond just the 'talking heads' exposition into a scene that was more entertaining to establish the suspension of disbelief- an animation of ancient mosquitos sucked the blood of dinosaurs and found themselves 'stuck' in the natural preservative amber. Great, bought it- I'm in.
As I've been working my way toward what is the appropriate approach, I keep finding examples of KISS over and over again. Keeping it simple and avoid explaining too much, which can get you in deep water, if not actually back you into a corner that seems impossible to escape.
Granted, some genres are more prone to suspension of disbelief without explanation- for example, supernatural, horror, fantasy, and time travel.
So, I started looking for examples in film and in specs that could 'direct' me, if you will, to finding a satisfying resolution to this 'note.' And what I've found, more so it seems in recent films, is the obviously conscious choice of NOT explaining- the whole less is more option.
The Cell
We see JLo suspended by tiny wires. She's given a chemical dose and has a magic 'safe' button on her hand. With no explanation she can create a world in her mind and bring another mind into her dream world by what seems sheer will. They don't ever explain how it's possible. They just show her doing it.
Minority Report I think MR was a little different since the concept of pre-crime did have to be explained in order to establish the world rules. But I don't think a lot was really explained up front to allow us to suspend our disbelief. What worked well was seeing the technology in action. Which brings me to why the next one works as well. With that said there's a lot that isn't explained- the maglift, the cryo storage facility, the eyesight advertising, the surveillance spiders- of course all this is a beautifully crafted story world. I think the initial set up for MR was like 40 minutes.
Inception Again, we show the technology in action at the onset, and I do think this works miracles- though not every story may be able to utilize this technique- it is probably the best way to get the audience engaged. We believe it works because we actually see it work. But when they wake up all we see is several people tied to a case with clear tubes and an IV in each one of them.
The only real explanation that's given is the sedative and it's importance to how the technology works- but it seems that it's building story rules, too, because we need to understand that the stronger the sedative the deeper into the subconscious you can go, that is until you reach the dreaded 'limbo.'
If you remember, they don't even show (or explain) how Ariadne can actually construct the levels of the dream world. There's never any mention of 'the construct' that she's designing the maze in (I guess it's supposed to be HER mind?)- all we see is she's playing with big styrofoam blocks as if they were Legos- and in doing so she is creating the rich texture of the levels we see in the back half of the film.
Deja Vu They open a time window that shows us the past as it unfolds with a two day delay (something like that). Again, we see it while it's working. No one explains how they discovered the time window or how the window can actually see into the past. We know it's impossible, and yet we are willing to suspend our disbelief.
And then suddenly they send our hero back in time through the window.
In several of these films they employ the HERO who gets the answers for the audience, so the HERO kind of gets us up to speed. Maybe the fact that the Hero's on board it allows the audience to suspend easier?
Constantine He dips his shoes in a bucket of water while holding a cat- he can travel to hell unabated and return at will with what I imagine is a glass globe filled with holy water.
Source Code The subconscious mind of a blown apart human being is able to transcend the same 22 minutes over and over and over again, finally ending with the 'mind' of this soldier REPLACING the subconscious of the man our hero actually saved. When he replaced him, what actually happened to that guy?
Looper "Time travel hasn't been invented yet, but in thirty years it will have been.- The voice over device that frames Looper is a very good one. That, coupled with the amazing world building that's going on, makes it very easy for us to suspend our disbelief. And the fact that they show us the 'alternate future' FIRST is, I think, key to suspending our disbelief when we later experience the first timeline where our hero wastes his life on a path of self-destruction. We don't even question HOW (or maybe we do a little but give it a pass) is this diverging future even possible because the story world rules do not allow for it.
Edge of Tomorrow Another case where we're TOLD that it's possible because it's aliens. You've tapped into their collective hive mind where they can control time dimension, so until you have a blood transfusion where your blood is contaminated by another human being's blood you will relive the same day, every day, and die every day until a blood transfusion breaks the spell.
Divergent
Four gives Tris an injection with 'receptors' suspended in a solution and suddenly they can share their worst fears, and have it broadcasted, in a test to pass the initiation of Dauntless in order to become a full fledged faction citizen.
2014 Black List script
I read this script last night. The premise is that in the near future, the law has the ability to listen to the past in any location in the world to discover evidence to solve violent crimes. It's a cool idea and equally cool script, but the writer explains nothing about how the technology works.
The lawman walks onto the scene, opens a case and sets up 'speakers' and suddenly they can dial back in time, to any time in the past at that location and listen to every single sound. But that's it- the writer doesn't explain anything- doesn't even try to, and the character who first uses it IS the person who discovered the technology. He opens the case, sets up the speakers and BAM- we're listening to the past, no questions asked.
Now Interstellar, as much as I enjoyed the film, and I honestly did, had a few rather glaring moments where I was like, What the ****? Are you serious? I'll list four where I could not suspend my disbelief because there was insufficient information/proof provided:
1) Love transcends time and space- right? Like, what?
2) A mile high wave caused by gravity, but the wave troughs were only 2' deep
3) We're in the ice clouds, but trust me, there's a green planet down on the surface and I'm (Kevin Bacon) not going to kill you and steal your ship
4) That you can pass through a black hole, communicate with your loved ones across space with morse code in what appears to be a construct behind real time and then return from the black hole with nothing wrong with you- having not aged a day.
So, there are a few things I'm wondering, and I honestly do think there is a difference between reading it and watching it happen on film, but maybe I'm wrong. For my project I think I've figured out what is the best route.
Are we naturally more inclined to allow for suspension of disbelief by the simple fact of getting our asses into the theater seat?
What are your thoughts? Has this happened to you? If so, what choices did you make and why? How did you resolve the issue? When do you ignore a note? When do you pay attention to it? When do we make the conscious choice in the 'written' word to tell the story with less? When do we go too far? When do we not go far enough? When is it easier for you to suspend and when has it been impossible?
Best,
FA4
Comment