Exposition
is vital. It can be a real pain to sit through sometimes, but it is
still important. The audience doesn't know the rules and details, and
the only way to solve that is to tell them. If the storyteller is on
point, the information will be dropped naturally and in appropriate
places. There are a few different ways to go about it.
Voiceovers are sometimes used to clue people in on the score, but that device doesn't work for every film. Dialogue is a reasonable substitution, but you have to make sure that the characters are talking normally. A related way, is to film someone in the role of a newscaster. However you do it, it has to be done and if you don't do enough, we'll be mired in confusion.
Voiceovers are sometimes used to clue people in on the score, but that device doesn't work for every film. Dialogue is a reasonable substitution, but you have to make sure that the characters are talking normally. A related way, is to film someone in the role of a newscaster. However you do it, it has to be done and if you don't do enough, we'll be mired in confusion.
Classic Movie Trailers - A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge (1985)
I've
overheard plenty of frustrations from fans, that have watched origin stories
in multiple remakes. It is annoying sometimes, especially when the
character is well known. The inescapable truth however, is some
viewers don't know backstories by rote. Sure, you can glance over
them, but you risk losing those that wouldn't be distant
otherwise.
With a sequel, you can justify the use of visual CliffsNotes, at least to a point. I think it's tricky to draw a line, between things that explain themselves and things you have to take some time with. Fantasy stories can get away with a little bit, but worlds with fictional rules generally need explaining. If the property in question is very well established, you also have to be careful when breaking its tenets.
Looking at the second "Nightmare" here, it really doesn't take time to tell us enough. To be fair, there were some scenes in the original, that also left me scratching my head. All the issues involved the waking world and what normally happens in that setting. Dreams can be used to break the rules, but we have to know what those rules are.
Can Krueger make a phone call in the real world? Can he cause people to hallucinate? If the temperature rises, is it his fault? Does Freddy haunt houses like a ghost?
When stories are really good, plot holes sail by me unnoticed. I'll often check YouTube later, to see channels dissect film and point out flaws. It's fun to look at that stuff after the fact, and I'm pleasantly surprised when I miss something. I don't want to question a movie I'm watching though, and if I am doing that I'm not entertained.
Here, I didn't have the slightest clue about what was happening. Objects were flying around by themselves. The heat kicked into overdrive for no apparent reason, and Fred was doing a cowboy switch with the protagonist. If everything was in a dream I could have just rolled with it, but I couldn't even tell when the nightmares stopped.
Someone, at some point, has to explain certain things. I've written about the importance of illusion in films before and the audience's need for immersion. Unanswered questions can pull you out of a story, just as sure as bad acting can. The former issue can at least be solved, if it's tackled within a reasonable time. I wouldn't let a big problem linger too long though; we should be thinking about the wonderful plot.
If it wasn't for the unexplained, I would have enjoyed this sequel a lot more. The basis for the story is a really good idea and Englund's Krueger is great. I was hoping that the ending would solve the conflicts, but I question whether it matters at that point. I don't even like beginning credits, so any barrier to engagement is something I view suspiciously.
Exposition can also get in the way, if too much is dumped on us too soon. At some point, characters will be blatantly serving the story, instead of talking in a natural way. If all else fails though, put it in there. Risk is a part of the production and you can't please everyone, but there's no excuse for leaving us in the dark.
Trailer Here.
-------------
@ChannelSeals
See "A Nightmare on Elm Street 2" on Netflix!
Next Monday: "High Noon"
With a sequel, you can justify the use of visual CliffsNotes, at least to a point. I think it's tricky to draw a line, between things that explain themselves and things you have to take some time with. Fantasy stories can get away with a little bit, but worlds with fictional rules generally need explaining. If the property in question is very well established, you also have to be careful when breaking its tenets.
Looking at the second "Nightmare" here, it really doesn't take time to tell us enough. To be fair, there were some scenes in the original, that also left me scratching my head. All the issues involved the waking world and what normally happens in that setting. Dreams can be used to break the rules, but we have to know what those rules are.
Can Krueger make a phone call in the real world? Can he cause people to hallucinate? If the temperature rises, is it his fault? Does Freddy haunt houses like a ghost?
When stories are really good, plot holes sail by me unnoticed. I'll often check YouTube later, to see channels dissect film and point out flaws. It's fun to look at that stuff after the fact, and I'm pleasantly surprised when I miss something. I don't want to question a movie I'm watching though, and if I am doing that I'm not entertained.
Here, I didn't have the slightest clue about what was happening. Objects were flying around by themselves. The heat kicked into overdrive for no apparent reason, and Fred was doing a cowboy switch with the protagonist. If everything was in a dream I could have just rolled with it, but I couldn't even tell when the nightmares stopped.
Someone, at some point, has to explain certain things. I've written about the importance of illusion in films before and the audience's need for immersion. Unanswered questions can pull you out of a story, just as sure as bad acting can. The former issue can at least be solved, if it's tackled within a reasonable time. I wouldn't let a big problem linger too long though; we should be thinking about the wonderful plot.
If it wasn't for the unexplained, I would have enjoyed this sequel a lot more. The basis for the story is a really good idea and Englund's Krueger is great. I was hoping that the ending would solve the conflicts, but I question whether it matters at that point. I don't even like beginning credits, so any barrier to engagement is something I view suspiciously.
Exposition can also get in the way, if too much is dumped on us too soon. At some point, characters will be blatantly serving the story, instead of talking in a natural way. If all else fails though, put it in there. Risk is a part of the production and you can't please everyone, but there's no excuse for leaving us in the dark.
Trailer Here.
-------------
@ChannelSeals
See "A Nightmare on Elm Street 2" on Netflix!
Next Monday: "High Noon"
No comments:
Post a Comment