36 hours ago...

, Writing , C. David Dent ,

Last night's episdoe of Fringe opened in media res with an action-packed teaser.  Heather turned to me and said "I hope this isn't one of those 20 hours ago things."  I had to agree with her.  Cue the credits, a commercial break and then 36 hours ago caption on the screen.

Once upon a time, the flash-forward teaser was cutting-edge.  Few people were doing it and it made for compelling TV.  It allowed you to start in the middle of something and then fill in the story.  But frankly, it has become lazy storytelling of late.

Case In Point:

A recent episode of V featured a thrilling adventure with this opening scene:

Kyle Hobbes takes aim with a stinger missile launcher. He fires. KABOOM! It’s a direct hit! A V shuttle explodes in the sky. Jack realizes something isn’t right. He races to the scattered wreckage. The shuttle was supposed to be filled with V trackers sent by Anna to hunt down those responsible for stopping her soldier. But there weren’t any trackers onboard. No, this shuttle was carrying humans.

 The show then jumps backwards to show the progression of the story then shows us a recap of the opening scene and then continues the story.  It was clear what had happened in the opening.  I saw only a few lines of dialog that needed to be added to the opener to expand on what had happened up to that point.

It would have been so much more compelling if we had just kep going from the opening scene.  Then, we could have had real emotional dialog as they run over what they had planned looking for where it could have gone wrong.  They could have had real tense investigation as they track down the possible leak.

We could have completely avoided going over the same thing we'd already seen and gotten right to the gripping revelation that they unintentionally and innocently did it to themselves. We might have even seen some real acting and growth in these characters.

In the Fringe episode it was less egregious.  I understand the desire to make the body found to be unexplained which added tension. I can see how there was a need to explain the presence of the other characters (even though they didn't last long) but I am not sure that I needed to see it presented that way.  The cancer-ridden body wasn't identifiable and so it could have been cut in a way to eliminate the flash-forward in favor of a cut placed just after they are in a circle and the one character falls down.

Then we cut to Twolivia (clever, eh?) with infected!Charlie arriving on the scene...more or less what we saw in the teaser. I think it would have been more compelling and certainly less jarring.

And less jarring is my point. It sort of takes the wind out of our sails to have an action-packed opener followed by a milquetoast lead-in. I understand that the teaser+three-act structure doesn't leave you alot of leeway for plot but the "N-hours before" storytelling pattern is getting tiresome. It is robbing your shows of energy.

I suspect this is some sort of network inititive to try to catch viewers in the first few moments of a show.  Those precious seconds of slop-over when their DVR catches the beginning of the next show or that they come back from the toilet break during the credits and have yet to change the channel.

And while it might grab a couple of hundred viewers for a few seconds they'll be completely lost again when it hits them with "N-hours before".  The energy is gone. 

                                                                   __Finale__
TEASER_____                                __Act III___/
                  |n-hours later           /
                  |              __Act II__/
                  |__Act I__/ 

Compare that to this

                                                                              __Finale__
                                                              __Act III__/ 
                                               __Act II__/
TEASER___                  __Act II__/
               \ __ACT I__/

What happens in the first is that you have to kill all the momentum of your story and hope that the anticipation of what has been seen will hold to fuel that extra jump in intensity between Act II and Act III.  That is needed to make the viewer feel like they've had a good ride on the show with an energy level at the end abovethe energy level at the beginning.

It can be done, but as the structure gets overused the anticipation gets lessened until that boost isn't realized.

By sticking to the more traditional second structure the energy level is an extra degree higher at the end leaving viewers feeling excited at the end of the hour. The slow build asks less of your audience to bring to the process.

I think it is time to give "N-hours before" a rest for a while. It isn't as edgy as it used to be and in the long run you are going to hurt your shows by over-using it.

Care to Comment?

In Response to a discussion thread.

, Opinion , C. David Dent ,

Amanohyo, I teach Bible study courses and have taken many college-level course myself on Biblical analysis, interpretation, history, philosophy and comparative religion.

The Bible is, and always was until very recently, myth. A myth is a template for how humans deal with the divine.  It frames our relationship with it and defines the expectations of both sides of that relationship.

When the myth ceases to be a guideline, example, or expectation and becomes fact, historical record (as opposed to cultural history, which is something completely different) it distorts people's perception.

It would be as if someone watch 80 hours of classic western movies in order to prepare themselves for living on a ranch. Rather than treating them as a guideline of the sorts of behaviors they might find or be expected to learn on that ranch, a fundamentalist treats it as the reality they expect to find.  Some of them are so deluded as to perhaps expect the land out there to be in black & white.

Real-world Biblical scholars "beleive" the Bible is divinely inspired (not the words of God placed on paper...people wrote the Bible). They believe the events portrayed in the Bible to be a template for how to live our lives in harmonious connection to God.  They know that culturally the Bible contained the written law of the Tribe of Israel and so they treat that portion with respect, but don't count on it as the source of their law (unless they are of the tribe of Israel). The read the accounts of the Bible knowing that time, perception, dogma, politics, and just plain human error has distorted the pure message that inspired it.

Ultimately, any statement of belief (Creed) will be made based on a personal understanding of the Bible and not the understanding that comes from someone else.

Who am I to denounce a fundamentalist? i'll tell you what I have told many others.  I believe in God.  I believe in a God who lives inside and around the reality we've been able to decipher for ourselves. Any time I hear a scientist say "I don't know", I can confidently say "God" until that scientist says he does know.  There's a lot more that we don't know than what we do.  I am confident that my answer of "God" will be sufficient for a long, long time.

Once we understand everything and there are no mysteries left, then, and only then, woill I be willing to forego my faith.  However, I am more than willing to accept a rational, scientific explaination in favor of my faith if you have one to present. All I ask is that it be rational and scientific.

And this is the rub, there is no rational or scientific explaination for things you don't understand or else there wouldn't be a lack of understanding.  I am not denying demonstrable realities like evolution or theBig Bang, here.  I am talking mysteries such as life after death or an eternal soul.  I am talking about the moments before the Big Bang and the ultimate fate of the Universe.  My God lives there.  I use my Bible as a guideline for how pwople who have unanswerable questions get answqers from that God.  I use their (usually successful) strategies much as I would any book of stories to help me deal with my questions and doubts.

If I deny reality (defined as rational and scienntific) then i am a fool.  If I substitute an easy explaination for the unexplained I am a fool.  If I  accept that there are things I don't know and may never know then I am a realist.  If I place God in thoseholes as a way to help me rationalize reality then I am an optimist atworst.

Care to Comment?