Posts on Current Forum | Archived Posts
|
|
|
||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
| Frequently Asked Forum Questions | |
|||
|
||||
|
|
|||
| ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| Search Older Posts on This Forum: Posts on Current Forum | Archived Posts | ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymore | |
| Posted By: Narcogen <narcogen@rampancy.net> | Date: 5/22/11 11:33 p.m. |
In Response To: Re: Why retcons don't bother me anymore (Stephen L. (SoundEffect)) : To impose a silly stance, some of what you've been arguing against being able
I'd probably accept the count but not, say, a height estimation. I can imagine examples where I'd accept neither-- such as these below. Let's presume, for the sake of argument, that a supernatural thriller needs a building with 13 floors for both interior and exterior shots. The plot centers around ghosts on the building's 13th floor that are there because it is the thirteenth floor (and is labeled as such) despite long-held traditions in some areas of not having a labeled 13th floor (much as buildings in China don't have fourth floors). In locations where they are able to shoot, no such building is available. In addition, they are unable to use the same location for both interior and exterior shots. This often leads to continuity errors-- think of the differences between interior and exterior shots on The Shining, for example. So let's say there's an establishing shot in the film. It clearly shows that the building has the wrong number of floors. The fictional building needs 13, but the shot shows 12 or 14 or some other number. This is clearly a continuity error. There are two ways to resolve this: 1) The shot is the error, and the building actually has the number of floors fictionally required. 2) The building is in error, and the shot accurately shows the number of floors that are really present. Either way is valid, but which you choose probably depends on how important the number is. Since I've already established that this is a supernatural thriller in which the number of floors is relevant, we probably resolve using the first method. However, if it were not-- I'd likely to resolve using the second method. If the number of floors is either never mentioned, or is mentioned and is of no significance, then I'm likely to resolve any errors on screen in favor of what's on the screen. Of course if they have shots that confllict, that brings up another problem, but that probably only involves the compromise value in the second case, but not the first. Let's pose another problem. Our film ends with a character taking a swan-dive from the top floor. On the ground, some other characters-- perhaps cops or a medical examiner-- make a mention of the height from which the jumper leapt, and the speed they hit the pavement. Except that the height number is clearly off. For any acceptable range of possible floor heights, the number cited is impossible to reconcile with the building having 13 floors, which we've already established is important to the film. We could write this off as that character just being wrong-- but what if the number on the height is being given by the star investigator, who happens to have a reputation for being right about everything, is a math whiz, and has shown a demonstrated, uncanny ability to accurately count and measure, in a manner similar to certain savants? (Yes, this is a stretch, I know.) Now we've got a real dilemma. Either the building has the wrong number of floors (meaning any association with the number 13 gets thrown out, likely ruining a key plot element) or our protagonist is wrong, and doesn't actually have any of the exceptional attributes given to him. Either ruins the film completely. We can certainly say that there's some bad filmmaking going on here in general, and some bad continuity work in specific. However the film might be otherwise well-written, well-shot, and well-performed, and worthy of consideration. How do we resolve these conflicts now? Either of the previous first two solutions diminishes the film in a way that is disproportional to the specific technical flaws. (Let's assume a low budget as well.) Lucky for us, there is a third option. 3) Suspend disbelief, and accept two facts that would otherwise be in conflict. If the building needs to have 13 floors for the plot to work, I can accept that it does even if they show me 12 or 14. If the final suicide jump needs to happen from a different height that can be established by 13 floors, I can believe that even though it's physically impossible. Why? Because continuity is a technique for realizing a goal; it's not an end in itself. The end goal of continuity is to establish verisimilitude, not realism. If this were a documentary film we don't have this option; one of the things the film has shown us is wrong, and we should identify which one and point out the error. If the film's conclusion hang on these details, it should vacate them. If our hypothetical thriller depends so heavily on the above-mentioned details, and repeatedly shows me frames that clearly show the error, or are inconsistent with other frames, verisimilitude is going to be harder and harder to achieve. The less I believe in the plausibility of the world the film shows me, the less likely I am to accept the dangers it presents as real, but only insofar as those details are relevant. I think what you've established is that for yourself, any inconsistency, no matter how small or inconsequential, breaks verisimilitude for you, and this is motivation for cataloging the inconsistencies and arriving at a compromise value that you consider authoritative. My standard, and probably the standard for most viewers, is a bit lower than that, at least for details that are usually not plot-centric, such as the number of floors on a building or the number of decks on a spaceship. The Enterprise example shows that you come down on the opposite side of the debate in both our hypothetical examples. When the number of decks is inconsequential, but can be determined by observation of the model on screen, or through ancillary materials, you feel a need to establish our fictional fact with specificity, and arrive at a compromise value of 24 decks that you wish continuity on the show to enforce. Then, when there's an explicit reference to an "impossible" deck 30, you want to dismiss it. However, this could go to character. If Picard is talking about a deck 30, either it exists or it doesn't. If it doesn't, Picard is no longer a competent character; he's an idiot who has been captaining the same ship for decades and yet in a crisis can't remember how many decks it has. The problem is that being competent and experienced are two of the pillars on which Picard's character was built-- in a way, say, that Kirk's was not. There are also ways to resolve this, of course. We can stick to 24 and pretend that nobody ever said 30, but I'd say this doesn't help the viewer accept verisimilitude at all; now we've got to pretend an on-screen character said something different from what the actor actually said. We can imagine the celluloid Star Trek as a mere approximation of the 'real' Star Trek universe, and dismiss this inaccuracy as one would a lens flare (ha ha) or other artifact of the film-making process. We can also just accept all facts without reconciliation; Picard is a good captain, the Enterprise has 30 decks when referred to, but in other shots *appears to have* 24. I'd resolve in favor of what characters tell me rather than what appears to be true if what characters tell me is even slightly more important to the plot and characters of the work than what otherwise inconsequential details appear to be telling me.
| |
|
| Replies: |
The HBO Forum Archive is maintained with WebBBS 4.33. |