- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Convoluted Plots: Abrams and Modern Film and LOST
Posted on 1/27/14 at 2:02 pm to Freauxzen
Posted on 1/27/14 at 2:02 pm to Freauxzen
This article would have been penetrating if Abrams hadn't already laid out his entire approach to media creation in his TED Talk "The Mystery Box".
It always seemed to me like for Abrams, a plot device itself is a character and the characters are devices with their sole narrative functions being to "undress" The Box and show us the core of its contents.
It could be seen as a near-exact reverse of what you might call more standard storytelling fare, where the contents of the plot device box are only important to the extent that they inform something about the walking and talking characters' behavior.
I don't know if it's fair to say that Abrams isn't interested in character study, so much as his own experiences with media dictate that when there is a mystery, the mystery should be front and center in the narrative rather than an excuse for some rag-tag group to go on an adventure and learn about itself.
The latter is still possible, but I don't think it's instrumental in the kind of movie or show he wants to make. The author of the article wants to call Abrams's style mechanical by stripping it of its pathetic validity (pathetic referring to pathos), and I think that's fine. But I also think for Abrams it is a deliberate task rather than a case of "Me no understand how write humans".
It always seemed to me like for Abrams, a plot device itself is a character and the characters are devices with their sole narrative functions being to "undress" The Box and show us the core of its contents.
It could be seen as a near-exact reverse of what you might call more standard storytelling fare, where the contents of the plot device box are only important to the extent that they inform something about the walking and talking characters' behavior.
I don't know if it's fair to say that Abrams isn't interested in character study, so much as his own experiences with media dictate that when there is a mystery, the mystery should be front and center in the narrative rather than an excuse for some rag-tag group to go on an adventure and learn about itself.
The latter is still possible, but I don't think it's instrumental in the kind of movie or show he wants to make. The author of the article wants to call Abrams's style mechanical by stripping it of its pathetic validity (pathetic referring to pathos), and I think that's fine. But I also think for Abrams it is a deliberate task rather than a case of "Me no understand how write humans".
2
Posted on 1/27/14 at 2:06 pm to Muppet
quote:
Muppet
I think I agree with almost all of that. Especially these:
quote:
It always seemed to me like for Abrams, a plot device itself is a character and the characters are devices with their sole narrative functions being to "undress" The Box and show us the core of its contents.
quote:
But I also think for Abrams it is a deliberate task rather than a case of "Me no understand how write humans".
Do you have a link to this:
quote:
his TED Talk "The Mystery Box".
?
Posted on 1/27/14 at 2:19 pm to Muppet
You mean you don't want to talk about ALL CAPS, or Fringe, or other non-relevant things!??
Eh, he mentions it briefly.
Which isn't really a story and isn't really revolutionary. We as people don't connect to plot points, we shouldn't.
Just because something is "cool," doesn't mean it's worthwhile. If being cool is all that matters then Michael Bay= J.J. Abrams and we should all worry for Star Wars.
But then the characters have no agency.
But I think the assumption is that if the mystery is front and center, then the characters must suffer. Look at something like Double Indemnity. The mystery is front in center, but the characters still have agency.
Probably a fair assessment of both. I think Abrams can write good characters (or create them, as you will), he's done it before. And sometimes his characters can move beyond the mystery focus (see: Desmond/Sawyer, Jack Bristow, Sloan (>Linus), Walter Bishop, Peter Bishop).
That's why I dislike Lost as much as I like it. I think it's a good show that gets in the way of itself, because of the convoluted plot.
I don't think Hulk's argument is that "JJ ABRAMS< BAD CHARACTERS BAD AT WRITING." I think it's more "ABRAMS TALENTED. NEED FOCUS MORE ON CHARACTERS WITH AGENCY, NARRATIVE CLEANLINESS."
quote:
This article would have been penetrating if Abrams hadn't already laid out his entire approach to media creation in his TED Talk "The Mystery Box".
Eh, he mentions it briefly.
quote:
It always seemed to me like for Abrams, a plot device itself is a character and the characters are devices with their sole narrative functions being to "undress" The Box and show us the core of its contents.
Which isn't really a story and isn't really revolutionary. We as people don't connect to plot points, we shouldn't.
Just because something is "cool," doesn't mean it's worthwhile. If being cool is all that matters then Michael Bay= J.J. Abrams and we should all worry for Star Wars.
quote:
It could be seen as a near-exact reverse of what you might call more standard storytelling fare, where the contents of the plot device box are only important to the extent that they inform something about the walking and talking characters' behavior.
But then the characters have no agency.
quote:
I don't know if it's fair to say that Abrams isn't interested in character study, so much as his own experiences with media dictate that when there is a mystery, the mystery should be front and center in the narrative rather than an excuse for some rag-tag group to go on an adventure and learn about itself.
quote:
I don't know if it's fair to say that Abrams isn't interested in character study, so much as his own experiences with media dictate that when there is a mystery, the mystery should be front and center in the narrative rather than an excuse for some rag-tag group to go on an adventure and learn about itself.
But I think the assumption is that if the mystery is front and center, then the characters must suffer. Look at something like Double Indemnity. The mystery is front in center, but the characters still have agency.
quote:
The latter is still possible, but I don't think it's instrumental in the kind of movie or show he wants to make. The author of the article wants to call Abrams's style mechanical by stripping it of its pathetic validity (pathetic referring to pathos), and I think that's fine. But I also think for Abrams it is a deliberate task rather than a case of "Me no understand how write humans".
Probably a fair assessment of both. I think Abrams can write good characters (or create them, as you will), he's done it before. And sometimes his characters can move beyond the mystery focus (see: Desmond/Sawyer, Jack Bristow, Sloan (>Linus), Walter Bishop, Peter Bishop).
That's why I dislike Lost as much as I like it. I think it's a good show that gets in the way of itself, because of the convoluted plot.
I don't think Hulk's argument is that "JJ ABRAMS< BAD CHARACTERS BAD AT WRITING." I think it's more "ABRAMS TALENTED. NEED FOCUS MORE ON CHARACTERS WITH AGENCY, NARRATIVE CLEANLINESS."
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News