←back to thread

The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

(www.newyorker.com)
231 points frogulis | 5 comments | 15 Jul 25 03:52 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
oDot ◴[15 Jul 25 04:25 UTC] No.44567816[source]▶
There's a disconnect somewhere in the industry, because as I writer I can guarantee you one of the things readers get most annoyed with is on the nose dialogue.

My screenplays are heavily influenced by Japanese Anime (which I have researched to a great degree[0]). Some animes have _a lot_ of that kind of dialogue. Sometimes it's just bad writing, but other times it is actually extremely useful.

The times where it is useful are crucial to make a film or show, especially live-action, feel like anime. Thought processes like those presented in the article make it seem like all on-the-nose dialogue is bad and in turn, make my job much harder.

[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igz7TmsE1Mk

replies(4): >>44567919 #>>44568222 #>>44568750 #>>44571231 #
gamblor956 ◴[15 Jul 25 04:51 UTC] No.44567919[source]▶
Readers actually enjoy "on the nose" dialogue...depending on the genre.

A drama? Biography? Subtlety is desired.

Action? Comedy? Streaming? On the nose dialog is not only enjoyed, but in many cases required. (For non-prestige shows and movies, Netflix strongly encourages the character dialog state the actions/emotions the actors are visually portraying on screen, with the understanding that much of their lower-tier content is watched in the background while people are doing something else.)

replies(1): >>44568786 #
1. burnt-resistor ◴[15 Jul 25 07:23 UTC] No.44568786[source]▶
> watched in the background while people are doing something else.

There are these devices called "radios"* and this stuff called "music."

There's no point to "watching" a show if it's not being watched, it sort of ruins the whole purpose of it. Dividing attention lessens almost everything. It's like "reading" a book while moving your eyes over the words faster than you can read them. SMH. It's kind of like the cliché of the Banksy couple staring into their screens across from each other, or people who have intercourse while staring at their phones.

* That have been replaced with apps like Spotify and Tidal.

replies(2): >>44571315 #>>44572160 #
2. wat10000 ◴[15 Jul 25 14:06 UTC] No.44571315[source]▶
It's a bit odd to declare that there's no point in doing something a lot of people do, especially if it involves entertainment where the only possible point is the enjoyment of the person doing it, and not any sort of objective outcome.
3. andelink ◴[15 Jul 25 15:25 UTC] No.44572160[source]▶
> people who have intercourse while staring at their phones

This can’t be real. Surely no one does this. Do people do this?

replies(1): >>44574056 #
4. BobaFloutist ◴[15 Jul 25 18:02 UTC] No.44574056[source]▶
I doubt it. Though, amusingly, people notoriously put on Netflix with the intention of having sex. Though the general expectation is that they're focusing on the sex to the detriment of the Netflix, not the other way around.
replies(1): >>44590066 #
5. burnt-resistor ◴[17 Jul 25 05:43 UTC] No.44590066{3}[source]▶
Yup, it was artistic license. It only happens in all of the terrible porn scenes and with people who are really bad at sex but too clueless to notice.

"Congress" is another vintage word for it. It's apropos given how the COTUS fucks around (in the present), and probably also did so 249 years ago being an inadvertent double entendre then given the making laws was and is also a contentious dance.