![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Constructive Criticism and Narrative Structures...Revolution, Revenge, Arrow & OUAT
Work gave me a headache. Was fine for about three-four hours though...sick co-worker was back today and thanked me for her Mickey Mouse toy. Least I could do. Sick co-worker has done more for my career than anyone. We are not related. She was merely a former boss and gained nothing from helping me. People like that are one in a million.
After a bit of thought, I've been able to figure out the problem with Revenge, Arrow, OUAT, and Revolution...and why I struggle with an emotional connection. It's the narrative structure, it's unfortunately at times jarring and disconnecting.
You have to work too hard to follow it. Of the four Arrow works the best because the flashbacks consistently just focus on Oliver Queen and his time on the island, they are also told in chronological order.
Lost was also more consistent - the flashback's focused on the central character in that episode. So we had the A storyline regarding what was going on on the island in the present day with John Lock, and B storyline why John Locke was doing what he was doing on the island due to past events. B was a moment in John Locke's past, A was John Locke's present. Next week it might focus on Sawyer or Kate or Jack.
The problem with Revolution and OUAT and Revenge is they aren't consistent in their flashbacks. There's no discernible pattern, so it is jarring to the audience attempting to follow the narrative. In order to sympathize or empathize with the characters you have to be able to follow their narrative arcs without too much concentration. Revenge was great in the first season, A story arc was the present Revenge, B story-arc was why Emily was seeking revenge in the present day in the A story line. In S2, we jumped to other characters, and away from Emily, also the A story wasn't always about Emily revenge. They tried to do diverse serial arcs in both threads - this confuses the audience and they stop caring. Same deal with OUAT - we had the A arc in Storybrook, but B was either in FTL in the present or FTL in the past, or Worldwithoutmagic or Neverland. It varies. Also it didn't always focus on the character whose pov we were in in A story-arc. As a result you have to keep track of five things watching OUAT - the A story-arc, and when, where, and who the B story arc and sometimes C story arc (which they felt a need to add) are doing all within a 43 minute episode. Revolution made the same mistakes - in A story-arc it jumps from pov to pov, and in B story-arc it jumps from pov to pov all within the same 43 minute period. This is simply asking too much of a tired audience who just wants to be entertained.
BTW I rip apart tv shows, books, music, art and movies for myself. Don't really care if the creator is reading my critique, actually it works better for me if they aren't. I hate to interact with the original creator - you get stuck. Do you stroke them, critique, or what? Also it's highly embarrassing. It can also be difficult if you are critiquing things in "fandom" because 50% of fans react towards criticism of their fannish love the same way a mother reacts when someone criticizes her baby. Critiquing or analysis in fandom can be a dicey business.
I like to critique art as an artist in order to figure out what worked and didn't work for me and why. Why did this bug me? Why didn't I like it? What didn't work exactly? Why am I still watching or reading it? What did I like? Because as a writer/artist, I like to know what works and what doesn't in a story or narrative. It's a way for me to improve, to learn as an artist. So that when I write and/or create something myself...I can do better, improve on what has been done before or learn from others' mistakes. I happen to be a crappy plotter, so love ripping apart plots and narrative structures.
I call it constructive criticism. Non-constructive critism is when you tell someone something just sucked or it is dumb or badly written, but you do not take the time to explain why or you do explain why but it is all so subjective and emotional - ie. you just happen to hate stories about anti-heroes or despise melodramas or think soap operas are silly or don't like romance novels with alpha heroes. This sort of criticism is pointless and grating. Not to mention a waste of time. I tend to respond to this type of criticism with the phrase..."eh, mileage, it varies." (anything else would be mean and undiplomatic).
After a bit of thought, I've been able to figure out the problem with Revenge, Arrow, OUAT, and Revolution...and why I struggle with an emotional connection. It's the narrative structure, it's unfortunately at times jarring and disconnecting.
You have to work too hard to follow it. Of the four Arrow works the best because the flashbacks consistently just focus on Oliver Queen and his time on the island, they are also told in chronological order.
Lost was also more consistent - the flashback's focused on the central character in that episode. So we had the A storyline regarding what was going on on the island in the present day with John Lock, and B storyline why John Locke was doing what he was doing on the island due to past events. B was a moment in John Locke's past, A was John Locke's present. Next week it might focus on Sawyer or Kate or Jack.
The problem with Revolution and OUAT and Revenge is they aren't consistent in their flashbacks. There's no discernible pattern, so it is jarring to the audience attempting to follow the narrative. In order to sympathize or empathize with the characters you have to be able to follow their narrative arcs without too much concentration. Revenge was great in the first season, A story arc was the present Revenge, B story-arc was why Emily was seeking revenge in the present day in the A story line. In S2, we jumped to other characters, and away from Emily, also the A story wasn't always about Emily revenge. They tried to do diverse serial arcs in both threads - this confuses the audience and they stop caring. Same deal with OUAT - we had the A arc in Storybrook, but B was either in FTL in the present or FTL in the past, or Worldwithoutmagic or Neverland. It varies. Also it didn't always focus on the character whose pov we were in in A story-arc. As a result you have to keep track of five things watching OUAT - the A story-arc, and when, where, and who the B story arc and sometimes C story arc (which they felt a need to add) are doing all within a 43 minute episode. Revolution made the same mistakes - in A story-arc it jumps from pov to pov, and in B story-arc it jumps from pov to pov all within the same 43 minute period. This is simply asking too much of a tired audience who just wants to be entertained.
BTW I rip apart tv shows, books, music, art and movies for myself. Don't really care if the creator is reading my critique, actually it works better for me if they aren't. I hate to interact with the original creator - you get stuck. Do you stroke them, critique, or what? Also it's highly embarrassing. It can also be difficult if you are critiquing things in "fandom" because 50% of fans react towards criticism of their fannish love the same way a mother reacts when someone criticizes her baby. Critiquing or analysis in fandom can be a dicey business.
I like to critique art as an artist in order to figure out what worked and didn't work for me and why. Why did this bug me? Why didn't I like it? What didn't work exactly? Why am I still watching or reading it? What did I like? Because as a writer/artist, I like to know what works and what doesn't in a story or narrative. It's a way for me to improve, to learn as an artist. So that when I write and/or create something myself...I can do better, improve on what has been done before or learn from others' mistakes. I happen to be a crappy plotter, so love ripping apart plots and narrative structures.
I call it constructive criticism. Non-constructive critism is when you tell someone something just sucked or it is dumb or badly written, but you do not take the time to explain why or you do explain why but it is all so subjective and emotional - ie. you just happen to hate stories about anti-heroes or despise melodramas or think soap operas are silly or don't like romance novels with alpha heroes. This sort of criticism is pointless and grating. Not to mention a waste of time. I tend to respond to this type of criticism with the phrase..."eh, mileage, it varies." (anything else would be mean and undiplomatic).
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
I think it works better when the flashback is done more sparingly, like in Fringe, or in Buffy. And/or with one character telling the other a story - you see the other character's reactions and are watching the flashback in part through the point of view or learning of it at the same time. Or when it is more centralized - like Lost did, one flashback per character per episode, and the flashback focused on a problem that character was struggling with in the present. It has to have a focal point. Or it becomes too defused.
Revenge is a good example - first season focused more on Emily. Second is all over the place. OUAT focused on FTL, second jumped around.
Whenever the story gets too strung out...I think it begins to lose its emotional center. Another example is Buffy S7 with the influx of slayers - the action/focus was taken away from the central characters, the characters the audience was invested in.
no subject
For example, Continuum uses flashbacks, but they're mostly there to serve in giving deeper meaning to the present storyline, like in this week's ep, explaining why Kiera is so upset that it's her son's birthday and her missing him is so particularly strong on that specific day, or in other weeks explaining why the members of liber! joined the organization to begin with.
no subject
I watched the first series of OUAT on DVD in a concentrated burst. I'm enjoying the second series, but I think I might enjoy it more without the wait from episode to episode when my memory of all the details in the different arcs fades slightly.
no subject
Arrow - the flashbacks work and are well down. And for the most part they work in OUAT.
Revenge...not so much any longer, feel jarring, and in Revolution the same - distances the viewer.
I think like the "mystery of the week" it depends on how organic the flashback is to the story and characters, and whether it feels like a retcon or out of the blue.