A rant and a (lot of) question(s).

[walkin jack]

I have always believed that a story is best told by starting at the very beginning, maybe even having a foreword at the front to give the reader/audience a little tidbit to help them get into the story. A lot of the best writers (like Stephen King) do this, and keep to the time line as the characters are fleshed out and the plot evolves. It makes the entire story easy to follow and understand.

Here lately there is a new production design that is growing in popularity and use and it is killing me. You are moving along in the story and a screen pops up "3 years ago" or 2 days later etc, etc, etc. I'll admit that some of these are not too bad but some are awful.

Last night was the worst!!!!! We are watching the 2020 version of Stephen King's The Stand. They start off with the first scenes that are deep into the story. You have no idea who the characters are and no context for any of the dialogue or actions/events. I have read the book 3 times and watched the original movie I don't know how many times. That helped me hang in there somewhat.

And they kept going back and forth #### ago and then #### later and back and forth. Events take place in a straight time line. So why would anyone want to TELL the story in any other way? It would be like reading the first chapter in a book and then skipping to chapter 13 and then back to chapter 5 and.....

iT IS A LOT MORE INTERESTING AND EASY TO UNDERSTAND AND ENJOY IF YOU DON'T HAVE TO WORK TO FIGURE OUT WHAT IS GOING 0N AND/OR WHO EVERY ONE IN THE SCENE IS.!!!

Am I alone here? Does anyone enjoy movies or books like that? Does it make the story more entertaining?

Let me know y'alls opinion please.

 

[drumminor2nd]

It can be well done -- look at Quentin Tarantino's Pulp Fiction. But so often it's just hack trend following...

 

[Hair Trigger]

I have always believed that a story is best told by starting at the very beginning,

Am I alone here? Does anyone enjoy movies like that?

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drnBMAEA3AM[/ame]

 

[ameridaddy]

....
iT IS A LOT MORE INTERESTING AND EASY TO UNDERSTAND AND ENJOY IF YOU DON'T HAVE TO WORK TO FIGURE OUT WHAT IS GOING 0N AND/OR WHO EVERY ONE IN THE SCENE IS.!!!

Am I alone here? Does anyone enjoy movies or books like that? Does it make the story more entertaining?

Let me know y'alls opinion please.

I'm with you 100%. Too many directors try to go all artsy and end up being all fartsy.

I recently read a biography of Thomas Edison by a writer who previously did wonderful can't-put-it-down works I've read, and he started the book with Edison on his death bed??
Well, I figured he'd flash back to the beginning in the next chapter. Nope. The entire book was in reverse chronological order. After fighting it for a few chapters, I started over with the last chapter and proceeded through it backwards.
I wonder what on earth the author, editor and publisher were thinking?

 

[UncleEd]

In writing novels, it's a good
idea to begin in the middle of
the story. Any background can
be made in brief references or
hints about the past.

When it comes to movies, same
deal. In the case of Westerns,
very much so where stock
heroes and villains are used.
No need for any real backgrounds.
I'd call this the basic formula
John Wayne film.

And it doesn't hurt for reader or
movfie watcher to have to put some
effort into the work. That can be
very entertaining.

It's sometimes called the "hook" in
getting readership or movie watching.

 

[waffles]

If it makes you feel better, there's an internal movement simplify a lot of what you're describing. While a lot of people on the creative side aren't thrilled with it, there's an understanding that most people are watching movies at home and now almost always playing on their phone during some part of it. As a result, I've heard both in public discussions and from some friends in the entertainment industry that there is a push to dumb things down a bit so a person playing on their phone or otherwise disinterested can still follow along. I hope that doesn't gain too much traction, but it makes a certain amount of sense.

Starting at the end or in the middle and returning isn't a new thing, and can be done really well, or poorly. As an example, taking a quick look at the AFI's top 100, three of the top ten movies (and regardless of how you feel about that list, these in particular are excellent) begin this way. Citizen Kane has Kane on his deathbed uttering the cryptic "Rosebud" line, Raging Bull's first scene is Jake, well past his prime, getting ready to deliver a comedy routine, and Lawrence of Arabia has T.E. Lawrence crashing his motorcycle, followed by his funeral. Flashbacks and other out of continuity elements are common in storytelling and can be as good or bad as the rest of the production. I didn't stick with much of the 2020 The Stand miniseries, I didn't really note issues with the time elements but it just wasn't very good overall. I'm currently watching "We Own This City" which uses alternating past/present scenes very well to hold interest in an otherwise fairly simple corruption story.

 

[walkin jack]

If it makes you feel better, there's an internal movement simplify a lot of what you're describing. While a lot of people on the creative side aren't thrilled with it, there's an understanding that most people are watching movies at home and now almost always playing on their phone during some part of it. As a result, I've heard both in public discussions and from some friends in the entertainment industry that there is a push to dumb things down a bit so a person playing on their phone or otherwise disinterested can still follow along. I hope that doesn't gain too much traction, but it makes a certain amount of sense.

Starting at the end or in the middle and returning isn't a new thing, and can be done really well, or poorly. As an example, taking a quick look at the AFI's top 100, three of the top ten movies (and regardless of how you feel about that list, these in particular are excellent) begin this way. Citizen Kane has Kane on his deathbed uttering the cryptic "Rosebud" line, Raging Bull's first scene is Jake, well past his prime, getting ready to deliver a comedy routine, and Lawrence of Arabia has T.E. Lawrence crashing his motorcycle, followed by his funeral. Flashbacks and other out of continuity elements are common in storytelling and can be as good or bad as the rest of the production. I didn't stick with much of the 2020 The Stand miniseries, I didn't really note issues with the time elements but it just wasn't very good overall. I'm currently watching "We Own This City" which uses alternating past/present scenes very well to hold interest in an otherwise fairly simple corruption story.

You do make some good points. One thing I neglected to factor in is that some movies/books lend themselves to this style of story telling better than others.

And, importantly, how it is done will make a huge difference.

Note to Uncle Ed: Respectfully, I don't want to have to "put some effort into it". I want it to be an entertainment not a challenge. If I want a challenge I'll do a crossword puzzle.

 

[Absalom]

Although I generally enjoy King’s earlier works, I just found “The Stand” too unwieldy, both as a book and as a show (which I admittedly didn’t make it through).

But if well-done, having writers/directors playing with time and place can be fun. “Pulp Fiction” was already mentioned. “Dunkirk” annoyed a lot of traditionalists who just wanted a straight-out shoot-em-up war movie, but I thought it brilliantly integrated story arcs of different lengths all of which made up the Dunkirk experience.

For graduate-level confusion, try the German Netflix series “Dark”. Starting from 2018, there is time travel both for- and backward to times 33 years apart, so you get to keep track of several characters in three versions, as kid, middle-aged, and old person, and at times they run into themselves at a different age. One woman finds out that her daughter is actually also her mother. And I haven’t mentioned the alternative world yet …

 

[Onomea]

There was a recent movie, last five or ten years, wherein the entire movie was chronologically backward. Don't recall the title, who was in it, or what it was about. Just recall that it was backwards.

This probably means that I am with Walking Jack and prefer my movies to be chronological.

Was also considering recently that nowadays movies just start with action, then after a few minutes the title screen, etc., come up. Most of the info — third back up deputy grip man, etc. — is listed at the end of the movie after everyone is long gone. Used to be first up was the production company, then the title, then the actors, etc.

Ho hum.

I do think Pulp Fiction is a terrific movie.

 

[tops]

Great minds think alike. Larry

 

[sigp220.45]

The movie told in reverse order was Memento. I loved it - the main character couldn’t form short term memories, so the format put the audience in the same “what is happening?” situation. My sister absolutely hated it - she is definitely in the spoon feed category.

“Irreversible” is told the same way, for a similar reason.

“Dunkirk” was told chronologically, but in three different timelines: A week on the beach, a day on the little boats, an hour in the Spitfire. The movie requires a viewer to pay attention or it doesn’t make sense.

I like having to invest some thought in a movie. There are plenty of movies that don’t require it at all.

 

[S42N8]

Word of warning: don’t try Star Trek: Discovery. Much jumping around multiple timelines, and general mucking about canon. And those Dr Strange movies? Pretty much a tossed salad of storylines. (the Marvel “What If…” series is nicely done, IMO.)

Let’s face it: linear storytelling is always subjective, by generation, genre, and medium. Wuthering Heights, Arabian Nights, the Citizen Kane example, It’s A Wonderful Life, The Thin Blue Line all use interrupted storylines. The whodunnit genre is beholden to flashbacks; sci-fi time travel is legion. Nothing new here: in medias res is as true today as it is in the original Latin. Some is art (A Christmas Carol, Rashomon) while a lot is not. Filmmaking for today’s generation is contemporary… grab hold, it’s gonna be a ride!

 

[Grayfox]

Its an attention grabber. Several shows on TV now open with a shoot out or other extremely tense scene. but before it finishes, they flash to something like 24 hours earlier. I hate it!

 

[Rustyt1953]

I let the author/screenwriter take me where they will. I'm just along for the ride.

 

[jeffrefrig]

I'm not a big reader unless it's something I give a care about.
One book I've read, "Cosmic Dancer. The Life & Times of Marc Bolan" by Paul Roland, (Tomahawk Press) Starts out at the end of Marc Bolan"s (T.Rex) life with the car crash that killed him. Then it re-starts with his childhood, etc. It worked well with this story. People smarter than me can throw in the important parts from the past, but not too much in one story/movie/book.
Now Alfred Hitchcock can blow us away now, and many years later, with good old fashioned melodramatic storylines. I wish I knew how to like to read. Just don't have time for it.

 

[coltle6920]

Reminds me of phone conversations with my mother.

I could set the phone down for 10-15min and then pick it up in time to hear what she was actually calling about.