As I enjoyed my shows this week, no less than 3 of them started with this device. We're shown a brief flash of our heroes in some unexpected or dangerous situation and then in the next scene is the caption that makes my blood boil:
13 Hours Earlier ...
This is a fairly common hook. Lots of writers use it. I hate it.
To me, it's a cheap tactic, one aimed squarely (but not terribly effectively) at the unfamiliar viewer. Regular viewers/readers are already invested in a series' characters. We don't need to see them in danger to be drawn in to this week's episode.
The purpose is to draw in the new viewer/reader. They become intrigued and curious about the flash and then settle in to watch the episode. Since they don't know who the main characters are, then it is presumed they will believe anyone is in jeopardy. Of course, it becomes difficult for most of them to remember who was in the initial flash, lessening the impact.
It isn't just TV shows which do this. Stephanie Meyer's Twilight series also starts with a flash of the book's climatic scene. It is distorted, of course, so the uninformed reader believes he or she knows what is happening but when they get there it is still a surprise. In the first book, the opening refers to Bella giving up her life for someone she loves. Since we know she is going to fall in love with a vampire (the back cover makes this part clear) we think she's sacrificing herself for Edward. In fact, she is sacrificing herself for her mother. (More on Bella's apparent suicidal drive in another post ... and believe me, I actually love the Twilight series but that part bothers me.)
I don't like obvious hooks like "little did he know he had just set in motion a chain of events which would lead to his death" or "She was safe ... or was she?". I love stories, I love reading them. I don't like it when I can see the manipulation.
The DaVinci Code is a fabulous example of a book with great (but not obvious) hooks. Every chapter, every scene propels a reader forward, desperate to find out more. But not once does the reader feel manipulated into reading more.
To me, it boils down to respect. A writer should have respect for his or her readers or viewers. Give us a little credit and let your work stand on its own merit without the razzle-dazzle of cheap tricks. Most of the time, the cheap tricks aren't necessary.
Showing posts with label Writing Business. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Writing Business. Show all posts
Tuesday, 3 December 2013
Tuesday, 26 November 2013
The Last Unicorn: A Study in Corporate Stonewalling
The Last Unicorn was a popular
book and the movie has become a cult favourite, with multiple releases in VHS
and DVD. It has been released in
multiple countries.
Yet apparently, it never made any money.
Fans were surprised when pleas appeared on the internet, asking them not to buy the 25th anniversary special edition. We discovered that Peter S. Beagle had not been paid any royalties since Granada International, the company which released the movie, claimed it had never had any profits.
The sheer ballsiness of this claim is astounding. The company kept releasing more and more copies despite the fact that no one was apparently buying them? It was beyond ridiculous.
The company used a variety of accounting tricks, shell corporations and multiple ledgers, to hide the fact that The Last Unicorn was doing quite well, thank you. They sold it for a pittance to a subsidiary, who could then release it without paying any royalties to the author. Foreign sales weren’t being tabulated properly. It was a mess and the paperwork was almost impenetrable.
Luckily, there is a happy ending to this tale. In 2011 (and remember the original movie was released in 1982), the new CEO of Granada agreed to pay Beagle back royalties. When the new CEO, Adam Crozier, came in, Beagle and his representatives took a chance. They knew he would have no reason to continue to perpetuate a cover up since he had been hired with a mandate to clean house.
Crozier quickly agreed that Beagle had not been paid his due and wanted to work together to increase profits from this very successful story.
It took a lot of persistence and if the film had only been a moderate success instead of a decades-long favourite, it might have been far more difficult. But I give full credit for Crozier doing the right thing.
Yet apparently, it never made any money.
Fans were surprised when pleas appeared on the internet, asking them not to buy the 25th anniversary special edition. We discovered that Peter S. Beagle had not been paid any royalties since Granada International, the company which released the movie, claimed it had never had any profits.
The sheer ballsiness of this claim is astounding. The company kept releasing more and more copies despite the fact that no one was apparently buying them? It was beyond ridiculous.
The company used a variety of accounting tricks, shell corporations and multiple ledgers, to hide the fact that The Last Unicorn was doing quite well, thank you. They sold it for a pittance to a subsidiary, who could then release it without paying any royalties to the author. Foreign sales weren’t being tabulated properly. It was a mess and the paperwork was almost impenetrable.
Luckily, there is a happy ending to this tale. In 2011 (and remember the original movie was released in 1982), the new CEO of Granada agreed to pay Beagle back royalties. When the new CEO, Adam Crozier, came in, Beagle and his representatives took a chance. They knew he would have no reason to continue to perpetuate a cover up since he had been hired with a mandate to clean house.
Crozier quickly agreed that Beagle had not been paid his due and wanted to work together to increase profits from this very successful story.
It took a lot of persistence and if the film had only been a moderate success instead of a decades-long favourite, it might have been far more difficult. But I give full credit for Crozier doing the right thing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)