Comment by mpalmer
7 days ago
This applies to most modern scripts. Writers/studios have largely decided people don't care about detailed, reasoned-out worlds with unspoken "show-don't-tell" internal logic. Are they wrong? I shudder to consider.
Shows like Better Call Saul and Andor are the most recent high-profile counter-examples. So detailed and lived-in, because the writers wanted to ask interesting questions:
How does the Empire do what it does?
What does a career striver look like in the imperial ranks? What internal forces help/hinder them? Do they struggle with the ethics? Is there even time/opportunity for that?
Was the Rebel Alliance really that organized from the start, or were there growing pains?
Asking and attempting to answer questions like these lays the groundwork for telling interesting character-driven stories that are grounded in the reality of the fictional world.
Neglect to do that, and you generally end up with a bloodless theme park ride with no emotional stakes.
Andor succeeded despite the bureaucracy porn. Good stories are universal. You need to care about the protagonists.
The exposition is important, but doesn’t drive success. The best example of that is the original Star Wars. Contrast Star Wars to Kurosawa’s The Hidden Fortress — which inspired many aspects of Star Wars. Essentially the same story with different framing. Both are still excellent films.
Shitty sequels or in-universe works focus on the exposition. The Book of Boba Fett is probably the best example of this. Watching some dude slow walk through the desert to waste my time and engage in some inane plot that made no sense made me actively not give a fuck and turn it off. Cool universe. Bad TV.
> Good stories are universal. You need to care about the protagonists.
This believe in one script that rules them all is why writing in American movies became boring and predictable. They did found that universal script with predictably likable protagonists that always win. It just got repetitive and boring.
Andor succeeded BECAUSE of the bureaucracy porn.
“Thesis?”
is one of the best quotes from that show, and could occur only because of the bureaucracy porn. It wouldn’t be the same show if it didn’t show the impersonal system talking about rebels like they’re maths problems to solve, to eliminate like an unnecessary variable from an equation.
A big reason BoBF is so bad is because the exposition it focuses on is fucking lame as hell. It was also contradictory to the character's premise, a bounty hunting nomad deciding to settle down and become crime lord of bumfuck nowhere is the opposite of what his character arc should be.
Different points of comparison though. I'm not trying to hold up Andor against its betters, but its contemporaries.
> Andor succeeded despite the bureaucracy porn.
I am not sure what specifically you're referring to, but take this scene: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKl0F640914
A master class in gripping tension, moreover one that--like Breaking Bad--puts you in the awkward position of rooting for the bad guy. Because, as you say, we care about the protagonists, and in a way she is one.
And then in Season 2 when Krennic is talking to Meero? (towards the end - I am deliberately keeping it vague for those who haven't watched yet)
Meanwhile I thought the beginning of Season 2 was by far the weakest.
But yeah. Book of Boba Fett was bottom of the barrel. It feels like in an alternate universe he would have been the main character of The Mandalorian, and BoBF would not have existed.
I'm not sure just why it was so bad, maybe like late Game of Thrones it's obviously lazy, but contrasting with the scene above, at some level you have to care about the character and start to identify with them, insomuch as you become invested in them succeeding in their task: their goals become your surrogate goals. What was Boba Fett's goal and why should we care?
Contrast with Meero the spy hunter. Meanwhile Boba Fett was a crime lord who didn't do crime and constantly changed his mind to whatever the other person suggested instead of his original thoughts and plans.
I come back to this one too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5qs5tOkGTQ (very mild S2 spoiler). There's so much going on in Anton Lesser's performance.
And then of course later on in the season (much bigger S2 spoilers): https://youtu.be/KWYE1vp4xEw, https://youtu.be/I6SZ--qibXM (I can't find a singular video containing the whole sequence)
And finally: https://youtu.be/mMoAf9xeZNI (also big S2 spoiler)
> unspoken "show-don't-tell" internal logic
This is another axis separate or orthogonal to worldbuilding.
Recent Marvel and Disney films, the Jurassic Park and Star Wars sequels, and most Godzilla / Kong slop doesn't build believable worlds. The writers don't spend any time writing the universe that the story takes place in.
Lord of the Rings (the theatrical film trilogy), Game of Thrones (save for the last seasons), and Jurassic Park (1993) all build vast and credible worlds. Intricately detailed, living and breathing universes. Backstories, histories, technologies, warring factions, you name it. They then create believable characters that occupy those worlds and give them real character arcs within which they suffer, rise to prominence, grow, and die. Multiple heroes with multiple journeys. You're fully immersed in the fictional world, watching characters you care about occupying it. It's masterful storytelling.
Villeneuve's Dune has the same vast world and literature to draw upon as many of the other great epics, but he makes the rare mistake of not communicating anything to you about it. If you haven't read the books, much of the story is easily lost. He doesn't spend time on character arcs or even as much as dropping hints to what the subtitles of the world are. It's a super rare misstep, because most bad storytelling is from under baking the fictional world.
Then there's the mistake of sequels that try to expand on the mystery of the original world. The Matrix films and countless others have over-illuminated the mystery of their stories in trying to build universes. In doing so, the magic has been lost.
> [Dune] makes the mistake of not communicating anything to you about it. If you haven't read the books, much of the story is easily lost.
Counterpoint: my wife. I took her into Dune knowing nothing at all about it, besides how excited I was to see it, and she got everything. Like, seriously, everything. She's a super intelligent and intuitive person, and Villeneuve is one of her favorite directors so she's maybe the ideal audience member.
It might be fair say that the exposition is too subtle for a general audience to pick up, but it's certainly there. I refuse to hold that against the film, though. The usual state of Hollywood movies is to browbeat an audience with heavy-handed explanations, so I love it that Villeneuve makes you pay attention and think and remember and put together clues to understand everything that's going on. It's sophisticated filmmaking, dammit, and there's not enough of that around - especially in big-budget / sci-fi / franchise films.
In my opinion that's what makes Villeneuve's so great. For example, I think almost any other director would have had an info dump about what Mentat's are in the Dune universe, motivations and they they are important. Instead in Villeneuve's version, you simply see the results. For those watching the film without the context you simply chalk it up to a weird and wonderful way that the universe works. For those that have read the book, you get to do the information dump about Mentat's on your poor unexpecting wife who's watching the film with you.
This embodies show don't tell and it works amazingly.
> This embodies show don't tell and it works amazingly.
That's not "show, don't tell". That's "you need the companion book".
A masterclass in "Show, don't tell" is the intro to Pixar's "Up". If you haven't seen it, you absolutely must.
"Show, don't tell" isn't stuff that is lost on the uninitiated. It's stuff that is masterfully communicated without the need for corny expository dialogue.
Villeneuve's mentats are like an adult joke in a kid film.
3 replies →
Lord of the Rings doesn't dwell on the day-to-day details of how the various kingdoms functioned, and yet it's still a great story.
I disagree. It does not dwell on economy, or technology, but at least we have pretty good overview of social fabric and power structures: how kings get to power, how they make decisions, how they raise armies, how they deal with allies, etc.
Another thing: Bret Devereaux has some very detailed analysis on his blog ([1],[2]) of various LOTR battles/war campaings and it seems that Tolkien was meticulous about getting details of the warfare right, like how far and how fast can army move, what the commander can and cannot know at given time, and how medieval style battles are actually won/lost (including the impact of morale). Compare that with the mess that are two last seasons of Game of Thrones...
[1] https://acoup.blog/2019/05/10/collections-the-siege-of-gondo...
[2] https://acoup.blog/2020/05/01/collections-the-battle-of-helm...
The book and movie didn’t (and was better for it - The Annualized Return of The Kings Fields would be dry reading) but Tolkien clearly did (both in his notes and in his thoughts). If I want these people to live here and go to the bar here, where would they have to work, and what kind of work would it entail?
“Real world” stories don’t need to dwell on it much because you can just use history and real life - if you base a story in 50s Detroit it’s going to be much different than 2020s Detroit. And if you mess it up and claim 2020s Detroit is a bustling hub of automobile manufacturing it’s going to feel off.
But fiction, especially fantasy and sci-fi, needs a lot of these details to be at least thought about. Then the references and glimpses will feel correct and real.
> The book [...] didn’t
You mean the book that has a 40(?)-page chapter in which characters you never hear from before or afterwards describe what's happening in their home lands didn't go into the day-to-day? :)
Lord of the Rings (the book) is obsessed with this kind of detail to the point that many people find it difficult to read.
5 replies →
It didn't dwell on it, but Tolkien was incredibly meticulous about consistency, distances, travel times, how politics works in his universe, and logistics.
And the films, for the most part, stuck very close to the source material.
... And then you get The Hobbit.
> And the films, for the most part, stuck very close to the source material.
Although when they depart, they swung for the fences. Multiple times Peter Jackson felt the need to throw out Tolkien's central theme (that the Ring isn't all powerful, and there are stronger forces like virtue or friendship), just to get cheap drama when characters act out of character under the influence of the Ring. It was really aggravating.
2 replies →
It loses it at some key points to aid visual clarity (and I guess cut the CGI costs), like Minas Tirith being on a featureless plain rather than surrounded by farmland.
The Hobbit was more of a Disney theme park ride than a story.
2 replies →
I highly disagree that Andor feels highly detailed or lived-in; it's like acting school charades level depictions of rural people, imperial bureaucrats, high society parties, etc. This is especially bad in season 2.
I agree from a writing standpoint these are very interesting lines to follow, but the execution is just severely lacking. I don't think the writers have really ever met or spent time with farmers, infantrymen, tech bros, politicians hicks, tough guys, pilots, etc.
While I agree with you somewhat on the bucolic Vichy-Resistance of Ghormann, the realisation of the Civil Service danse macabre as per Le Carre is beautifully realised - just so long as you realise it takes the 'House of Cards' lense rather than the 'Yes Minister' one.
Even from the first episode you can see where they strive to portray realistic scenarios setpieces; particularly the first exchange between Hyne and Karn, contrasting the ideological and the real politik - "They were in a brоthеl, which we're not supposed to have, the expensive one, which they shouldn't be able to afford, drinking Revnog, which we're not supposed to allow."
It's Partagaz though who really hammers home the mundane grimness of the vocation. While best known for his snappy-rejoinder based management style - "It’s an assignment. Calibrate your enthusiasm" - it's in his measured belicoise jingoism that you get a sense of the true appetites of the Imperium, and the mandate which they see as distinguishing themselves - "Security is an illusion. You want security? Call the Navy. Launch a regiment of troopers. We are healthcare providers. We treat sickness."
The High-Society parties thing is more a Chandrillan society thing - hyper-ritualistic aristocrats eking out their existence in dinner parties and charitable trusts, while trying to both publicly endorse and privately mitigate the new-found adherence to traditional values that typify the generation in ascent. The stilted conversation, the reserved displays of emotion, the proportioned but spartan architecture, all speak to the gilded cage in which they reside - culturally, socially, and politically.
As for the infantrymen, 'tough guys' etc... I can immediately reference one of the most nuanced and best portrayed characters in the whole canon - Alex Ferns' depiction of Sergeant Linus Mosk, which almost matches his Coal Miner in Chernobyl in terms of sheer celluloid plausability.
It's the 'Don't trouble yourself writing the memorandum' school of control and intimidation, utterly distinct from the previous iteration of the antagonist and his 'I find your lack of faith disturbing' scenery-chewing which may make these hard to bridge.
The portrayal of farmers, soldiers, and politicians were fairly realistic based on the hicks, farmers, soldiers, and politicians I have met.
I can't comment on the tough guys or pilots though.
Season 2 was let down by compressing 4 seasons of material in to 12 episodes. They did this because (a) Disney wasn't willing to give more money for more seasons and (b) Diego Luna would have been too old to credibly play Andor in a season or two.