I think your points are all valid. For me it still works since I love Fallout and Lucy for me is the player character which always had a lot of problems once you tried to make it make sense. Maximus still rubs me the wrong way - never before have I seen a retar**d psychopath. Doctor Who though, oooh boy. I‘ve long let go of my seething hatred for what they started doing with the female „Doctor“ and as far as I can tell the current incarnation is even more braindead. They successfully disneyfied DW: Diversity & Inclusion is the only thing that matters. Coherent story, character development, interesting ideas or talent are not being taken into consideration making the show. Ah, well, still got 10 new Who seasons worth of great stuff ❤
For real. I have always wondered why modern entertainment felt so off, like “over-produced” is what usually comes to mind but that isn’t really it. It’s that before, entertainment was entertaining and had substance. Now it’s a bunch of filmmakers going “Look ma, I made a show!” and forgetting to actually make a show
And the opposite is what defines some of the greatest Filmmakers; In my opinion Stanley Kubrick was the greatest of all time, he cared far more about his projects than any accolades that he might get. Peter Jackson is similar, you can really see his joy and passion for his projects.
@@DeathnoteBB The starwars film producers and directors nowadays don't even like starwars. How insane is that. People should at least enjoy media that they are creating for.
All goes back to Jurassic Park. The most important shot of the movie is not the dinosaurs, it's not being chased by a T-Rex, it's not "dino DNA", it's not Nedry stealing embryos... it's the goddamn low-angle hero shot of Grant, Ellie, and Malcolm stopping their jeep and staring out into the distance absolutely awestruck for practically half a minute before we even see what they're looking at. Because THAT'S when everyone in the audience collectively straps on their Disbelief Suspenders and they don't even consciously realize it.
My favorite part about Jurassic Park is the part where first they tell us "hey, the dinos are safe because they can't breed." Smuggling in the info about frog DNA, just as a hint for later and so that the kids who paid attention in biology class can go "hang on, wasn't there a funny fact about frogs-" Then they keep hammering the "nature finds a way" button, until finally - dino eggs! Impossible! How?! - The important part here is not that they explain it, it's that they _understand why it's necessary_ to explain it. A simpler movie would think that the *eggs themselves* were the scary part. Nono, what makes this a great, thrilling moment is that - having _set up_ the pieces of the breeding restrictions and the frog dna, they can now _pay it off_ with the sequential hermaphrodism, which is a _believable_ thing to miss. The fact that we _understand the mistake that has been committed_ *deepens* the horror, because we relate to the people in the movie, we see their misstep and in it we recognize our own foibles. It increases our immersion because it feels like we could have made _the same mistake,_ and the writing chops that got into creating that moment are key to making that movie one of the all-time greats. In Jurassic Park 2, conversely, I was cheering for the dinosaurs from the first minute. Nobody was making believable errors ever. It felt like fanfic from some kid who really liked the dinosaurs in that movie and understood nothing else about it.
Disney doesn't actually produce Doctor Who by the way. The BBC still produces it, but outside of the UK and Ireland broadcast rights have been sold to Disney.
@rustledjimmz8967 Disney also invested in the show itself, so they had a say. Plus I would be surprised if they didn't have a say when they're the one broadcasting it outside of the UK, they'd want to make sure that it fits their needs and brand.
@@charlestownsend9280 Except they have no idea what Doctor Who is. It's weird that massive companies want a part in the success of something, but they also want to remove what makes it successful. They care so much about money that they make stupid decisions that make them lose money...
The characters on modern shows ARE reacting, they just aren't reacting the way normal human beings would react. They are reacting the way the writers think they should act---in a cool way, an ideal way, or a quirky way. But the audience needs at least one person to react as a normal person would. The example of this that comes to mind is Bill Paxton's character in ALIENS. He's all gung-ho at the start of the mission, but when the aliens are mutilating people he just flips out. "That's it! We're dead! Game over, man!" (As much as I'd like to be brave, if faced with the ALIENS, I'd s*** myself)
Yeah, I honestly don't understand why it's so hard to write characters who act like humans. It was bad enough when that seemed like mainly an anime issue, because then I could at least tell myself that it might be a culture barrier thing, but now it's everywhere, and it ruins my suspension of disbelief every damn time.
Nah, þat's too specific. Most countries don't put people's faces on coins, but a symbol þat represents þe nation. So instead of a heads side, we have an emblem side, which is usually cooler, but it does depend a lot on execution.
@cohobast5263 even worse where I live, we have the face of an unelected person who only has their wealth, power and position due to an accident of birth and for some bizarre reason everyone loves them for being born into it.
@@e1123581321345589144 Unrelated, but if you're doing þe þorn þing, might I embolden you to go full Anglish and boot those outland loanwords altogether?
@@DeathnoteBB I think he was literally just making a meta joke. He's talking about the rule about not adding anything that doesn't serve the larger narrative while he literally does and says something that's completely unrelated to the rest of the entire video. If he was really just thirsty, he could have just taken a drink, thrown away that take and refilmed another one. The fact that it's the only shot where he has the water bottle in camera and takes a drink right when he's talking about the rule of not having anything unrelated to the larger narrative just reinforces the point, while simultaneously humanizes him for the fact that he's a person who needs to drink. He's breaking the normal illusion of videos for hiding imperfections because they usually detract from the quality of the video. In this case, it actually adds to it, demonstrating how to successfully break that rule.
I noticed this trend with writing advice in general, where people are always talking about cutting everything to be as efficient as possible. You need to let people breathe and take things in though. On screen reactions are especially important because there is almost never any internal thoughts for the characters given, so you literally have nothing to go off if they don't react.
Yeah a lot of writing advice these days has become “Efficiency is required and if your writing is inefficient it’s bad.” It’s really confusing to me as a writer. I write things in just because it’s immersive. Yeah if we just went “They did this. Then they did that. The enemies did this so they countered and won.” it would be efficient but that’s… not a story. It’s a checklist of story beats.
@@DeathnoteBB Efficiency applied to writing sounds so weird... Granted, you don't put out of place stuff in a story, but it's not out of place if it actually serves a purpose.
@@wandy8842 Exactly. The thing is people at some point forgot “Just being there to make the world seem lived in” is a purpose. Now everyone insists “But it doesn’t serve the plot so it’s bad”. Like part of why writing is so hard for me nowadays is because a lot of writing advice recently is just “If it’s not relevant to the story, cut it.” which as I said earlier just leaves a bare bones explanation of the beats in the story. Which you know, isn’t a story, it’s an outline.
It's especially weird because there isn't really a standardized method of making a story, honestly. I've always see people shouting about efficient writing, being to the point, but what for? A story is not a textbook, so why the obsession with efficency of feedin information to the consumer? Long-winded descriptions have their place, as does flowery language, yet some see them as the ultimate sin of writing. Things should have a reason to be in a story, of course. However, who said that the reason shouldn't be immersion? Most things aren't stageplays - we don't need the actors to trip over Chekov's guns all the time. The best stories have times of low tension, where we see characters in their private spaces, or just watch them do anything else other than progress the story, and these are some of the most important parts of the story. If you make a graph of the tension, and its a straight line going up the entire time, then that's just bad pacing.
One quick point on your Fallout critique and its probably born from expectations and only watching 2 episodes but they don't drop the vault from the story after Lucy leaves, Norm remains a secondary POV character back home.
Yeah his whole Fallout thing was crazy to see after watching the show and him not watching it - Lucy goes through a lot and characters react to an awful lot of things. Case and point, The Ghoul killing his friend after tricking him into having a happy memory, Lucy is awe struck by the weight of the moment. It could be said that it's undercut by the "ass jerky" choice of wording, but that further cements how fucking twisted and irreverent The Ghoul is while Lucy is still reeling from the unbelievable lack of morals this world has.
He is just totally wrong about her character too: she is objectively naive, being terrified by everything. She goes on about the golden rule as though that would help and clings (at first) to the inherent goodness of humanity
I never realized how ironic that in the very first reboot episode the Eccleston Doctor says "all that counts is here and now" as the guy/gal that can and will go any time any place... and yet it makes perfect sense for the Doctor in general and this one in particular.
This is honestly top notch writing advice. People confuse show don’t tell by thinking it only means showing things happening, when you’re right that showing reactions is perhaps more important. Looking forward to more of your long form thoughts on story telling, even if there is a raid shadow legends plug at the end! Just blink twice.
There's a writing craft book called The Emotional Craft of Fiction by Donald Maass that goes into this exact thing. You can't just throw a scene or a character at the audience expect them to magically emotionally connect with your story. You need to build audience emotion through sympathetic reaction within the scene. In a movie that means you don't just show a character in a traumatic event, you show how it effects and changes them from that point on and how the people around them react to it. In a novel you can't expect to make someone scared just because you said the monster is scary, you need to build the feeling with both environmental detail, action, AND emotional reaction from the characters.
"Show, don't tell." really has got to be one of the most misunderstood and overly used bits of advice out there. Sometimes it's perfectly valid to tell and let the audience fill in the blanks. Sometimes it's more ominous to not be shown something. Sometimes it can be used to great thematic effect that you're only told of a great plot point.
I don't think this is particularly "fantastic", more like people are ALL THE TIME misunderstanding what "show don't tell" means. And it seems most take it as literally "visual, no text", which they then take into practice as "descriptions, no dialogue".
@@Momo_Minomothis is the key. These high impact moments are the result of careful setup, they are the punchline. Then the money people and the focus groups come in and demand more of those moments that people liked, and less of that boring stuff that came before it.
Writing feels like it's got the same problem machine floors used to and still are having. The old guy who's been working there for his entire life and knows everything about the tools and the secrets of the trade is retiring. The company didn't decide to train a replacement, so an apprenticeship is just shoved in who doesn't really know what they're doing. The old guy had a connection with the machine and was an artisan, but the new kid doesn't know the intricacies of the job yet. The product is in theory okay, but never as good as what people expect.
We do have loads of hobbyists looking over the machine and drawing up new tools from the sidelines. Maybe in a while when that apprentice finally gets kicked out, there'll be more machine shops than we thought in this wonderful extended metaphor.
@@localhearthian2387 I guess in this metaphor the true artisans who are the hobbyists become the people on CZcams, while the "real" products are made in the Chinese Disney factory.
@@localhearthian2387 we also have more hobbyists than ever looking over the shoulder of the apprentice and constantly telling him they could do better.
I disagree, I think the issue they have is exactly what Kyle said, they want to be filmmakers/series leads without the drive and desire and passion for making film and tv and stories. I look at the old BTS of the lord of the rings trilogy and remember Peter Jackson doing 7 day weeks, 20 hour days for months on end before, during and even after filming. I can’t say for certain modern writers do that or are even allowed to do that anymore because they have to look for the next gig to come along. It’s factory filmmaking at its worst.
I wish it was that. No, they're deliberately hiring people who are incompetent now because they will do what they're told. How else do you think two guys who essentially have never had a script accepted in a decade ever got Ring of Power? AKA the most expensive TV show in history.
Back in February when I tried to switch plans, there was somehow always an error occuring. This wasn't just once, I tried it a week later and it still happened. But today things worked just fine. It might have to do something with yearly vs monthly billing? My personal theory is that the yearly billing thing wasn't available for Klubbhus (I think that was the case, at least), and I had it in Tillgang, and Patreon didn't know what to do in order to switch.
I totally agree about Ruby. All of the companions in RTD’s first era were lovable because they felt like genuine human beings with complex emotions and believable reactions. In comparison, Ruby just seems so weirdly unfazed by literally everything.
The problem with modern movies for the mythical "modern audience" is that their mindset is "you cannot identify with anyone who isn't exactly like you."
There are so many series that I have been a fan of which I have dropped because of these basic reasons. It's particularly big for female characters. They want them to start out perfect and have nothing they can't do, and it seems to stem from fear of the perception of being weak or rather, a fear or any of the audience being able to claim that women are weak. It just ends up making the characters flat and uninteresting.
I don't think it's just one thing, but this is on the top of the list. Another could be power fantasy, like self-insert for the authors. Another could be very weak "genderbend" shenanigans, where people will write female characters just as male ones and then swap the gender. Many gives this exact advice for writing GOOD female characters, but there are real differences between how men and women act and what is more desirable and reasonable between them. A stoic man might be cool and their coldness excused, while a stoic woman comes out as rude and selfish. Or a man who stammers and cries all the time as weak and pathetic while a woman like that as endearing and cute. Are these double standards? Kinda yeah. But they reflect reality. If one wants to "subvert" the gender roles, it should also come with some kind of commentary on how people are expected to behave and how that is cringe. But it seems nowadays it's almost solely about "women should never be expected to do anything" and "men should be expected to do this and that and not this and not that". And then a third one: It's this weird attempt to... Wash of any accountability and responsibility female characters should have, but still get all the power and fame and money and love interests by just being a strong woman with agency because that's enough...? That the world is happening TO them, instead of them making things happen. Yet it's also then spun as them somehow being super important and changing the world by just... existing? And proving that they have a chip on their shoulder. It's super weird and hard to verbalize, but so many stories just revel in this... Participation trophy entitlement.
I don't have a direct problem with the new female, black and LGBT characters in modern media. I have a problem with incompetent writers using race, gender and sexuality as a last minute shield to declare any criticism of their characters to be bigotry and not their inept butchering pre-existing characters.
i mean, to put this in even clearer terms, i personally think it's most heartbreaking when nowadays, every instance of potentially good representation is just brutally butchered by terrible writing. the actors behind the characters in the current season are good actors, particularly the doctor. but whatever on earth disney is doing makes it feel so inauthentic, which is just crushing, because the casting and costuming is genuinely delightful.
i don't think the writers purposefully use their casting as a shield; i think some people are legitimately directing bigotry at actors instead of rightfully slinging their complaints at the writing quality and production choices. actors are people with lines who, yes, can absolutely add or detract from their characters - but what the writers tell them to do definitely has the largest impact on the outcome.
@@nobodyimportant1968 I don't think they are intentionally using their casting as a shield. They think that giving a male character boobs, making a white character black, or making someone LGBT inherently improves a character so they don't need things like nobility, humility or any character trait that could be perceived as good. This is while at the same time giving a female character feminine traits = all women belong as subservient to men, a black character doing something naughty = all black people are criminal scum, a gay man having a masculine trait = denial of their existence and other bull like that. Simply put they don't write a character, they write an identity and due to the fact that they could only see their identity that must be the only thing anyone else can see. In summary, the writers are racist, sexist, homophobic bigots but think they are champions because that is all they see and they portray those traits as inherently positive to the point of absurdity.
"It'd be so cool if her brother was the main character" ........I'm glad you've decided to finish Fallout because, he *is* a main character, increasingly so as the series progresses. Hes my favorite character, too, cause he actually does stuff instead of have stuff happen to him.
Doesn't the stuff happening around the other 3 main characters make sense tho? All this stuff is happening because the 3 main characters are willingly trying to go after the artifact that many factions want, sure you could say how some of them actually survive in the wasteland is because of bs dumbluck but luck is a literal stat in the games so I don't really mind it.
@@Razumen We follow his perspective as to what's happening back at the vault and he singlehandedly figures out what the experiment of their vault is, which ties in other characters' stories. That makes him more than a side character. He's not the lead character, but he's definitely one of the main characters that we see the story through.
@@aiedenoldstien9751 I think you are missing some points though. There are a lot of subtle shifts, when she accepts human meat and contaminated water for instance, or realises peace and diplomacy were never an option against ghouls and organ traffickers... She even forgoes her "Vaults will rebuild America" idea in the monster/human hybrid vault. I think it's simply that she was more of a comedic device for the writers than anything, by sending her happy-go-lucky self into a dystopian future
@@turoni314 Because the outcome of the trolley problem wasn't a character moment for any of the vault people. It was character development for Moldaver. But you have to finish the show to realize that.
The problem is that by the end of episode one you are so over the concept of caring for any of those one dimensional caricatures of characters that they could do something amazingly impactful later on and it would not do anything.
25:50 This idea that all dialogue must serve the main plot being what makes good cinema is dead wrong. Proof of this is Stephen King and his works, which are deeply character driven. He puts so much focus on characters that are sometimes used for less than a narrative scene, that it lets you understand the impact of main characters actions much more deeply. In king's works, nobody is just an npc, they are written as people. That is largely why his works are so compelling
Yeah like, not everything in a story, whether it be a movie, book, game, etc, has to be big and important and plot focused. Sometimes, especially if you want to, in some ways, worldbuild, things such as referencing books, foods, events, etc, can help ,make the world feel more alive
It's as same as wrong as the modern idea of filler episodes being wrong. I just watched the Star Trek Next Generation Episode with Picard on the vacation planet. It didn't serve anything really, it was just a silly Episode centered around Picard who just wanted to relax. Or there this X-Files Episode about a disfigured character and genetic experiments. Or pretty much any sitcom episode. No it does not enhance some grand plot where something threatens mankind, it doesn't serve a purpose of defeating the Borg or a bunch of guys conpsiring with aliens - but it does not have to. When I hear that people are bored of Andor or annoyed at an Episode of Game of Thrones or some other show because it does not advance the plot, i roll my eyes. The plot is important but all this stuff mentioned is fun and watching a movie or a tv series should be fun (or entertaining). Personally as a reader or viewer or player I want to have the possibility to know more about the world and characters. I would even go as far as to say, that it is more important to have unnecessary stuff, because it shapes world/characters. If a villain does not want to drink alcohol but specifically orders milk it shows us an invidual with principles, with things they like and dislike, maybe even a history attached to it. As chris said, the world feels more alive. Yes some people might find it boring but I say: So what? I liked it more when TV shows had 20+ episodes then 8 episodes, because these characters today feel a lot closer to me simply because I got to know them better and I rather watch a random old episode of Stargate then of a lot of modern series.
@@valeriacaissa4552 Thank you, but yeah, it makes a world feel more alive. Like not everything has to serve the plot. Like, have characters be people, rather than like, super plot heavy NPCs and PCs and whatever. And better yet, it gives viewers, players, readers, etc, time to breathe, absorb info, and just give them a respite
I think you're missing the point. You say King's dialog often doesn't serve the main plot. That's not at all true. The Stand as an example is 98% about the characters. There kind of isn't a plot. It's a situation, an inciting incident. King often has terrible endings for this reason. Characters can kind of only wrap up when they die. Anything else is just not the end for them. This can be fine, but it hinges on the characters being likeable or interesting or different. Imagine a King book about GirlBoss, who is perfect and has no flaws except that she's just so good at everything. Bo-ring. Novice writers should cut the fluff, because if you can't write a woman to begin with, at least don't constantly assault us with your lack of ability. Or your James Gunn dialog. Oh my god did I just say that? What am I even doing right now? This is crazy! (Runs around giving strangers high fives.)
@@valeriacaissa4552TNG doesn't really count because it was trying to fill a network schedule. Every story had to be able to be bottled because it would re-run endlessly on broadcast television out of order. You had to be able to watch any episode without much context. This is a weakness to the show that nobody is really defending. The writers though were smart and worked with it. Like you watch some episode about Picard having a side quest where he learns to play a flute. And it seems like a throwaway episode. But then maybe five episodes later someone is poking around his office and they're like wtf is this flute. You saw that episode, so you have context other viewers don't. It's not perfect. If you want something a little less episodic try Babylon 5. Literally things in the first episode don't pay off until Season 5.
Seriously. If i had a choice between this and nearly any Marvel movie i'm choosing this. It's an incredible deconstruction, and he crammed like 5 of them in one video.
>Seeing righteous Neil critique. YEAH We are an AMY HENNIG HOUSEHOLD. I hope the Captain America game she's working on goes well, seeing T'challa's father as the Black Panther (+sick cape) seemingly going to beef over the shield looked promising.
Okay the water jug gag at 25:45 is probably the best-balanced meta-joke I've ever seen, because I feel like exactly 50% of people will get it and the other 50% won't. Gave me a good laugh and appreciation for your skill at this!
@@ethanwells7856 he was just commenting on unneccassary things occasionally being good to make the scene/world seem more 'real' and less like actors just reciting lines at you. Hence, an unneccasary scene of him drinking water is an example of that type of thing. (at least thats my understanding🙂)
@@Pasta_Pirate That makes a lot of sense. I thought there was some long-standing jug-of-water bit that I wasn't in on, which would be weird because I feel like I've seen like, *most* Doormonster stuff.
@@Pasta_Pirate I didn't even catch that he was making a point in that bit, I was just watching a guy get a drink because he got thirsty while he was talking and being a tad funny about it. Which I guess actually hits home his point pretty well.
It’s a really weird point because he says unnecessary things should be in stories before immediately explaining how examples of “unnecessary” things are necessary for the plot.
The bad side of the coin is the 'edge' side, so when you clap your hand to catch it on the fall of the coin you jam it into your soft and sensitive flesh. :
Or it's the good side because you gain the ability to read people's thoughts, feel like you're on top of the world, realize there are unexpected complications from being fundamentally set apart from others, and find yourself grateful to return to your natural state, having grown as a person. THAT'S RIGHT, TOP-TIER WRITING IN 30 MINUTES FROM THE TWILIGHT ZONE
1:19 this is what Dr Who has become for me because I slowly felt myself becoming less and less entertained or invested in it and thought exactly that, it was ME becoming too short attention-spanned or too snobby and some old grouchy "back in my day" person who hates the newer series because i'm some racist sexist and a terrible human... so I rewatched the older series and I can guarantee it wasn't 100% nostalgia because there were plenty of cringy moments and boring or useless plot lines but it was so FUN. Watching the older series from Eccleston, Tenant and the start of Matt Smith were genuinely entertaining in a way shows don't do for me anymore. I enjoyed them as much if not more now as an adult as I did then, probably because I understood more, related to more as i've experienced more etc and it was good! Same with Sherlock and Merlin, greta BBC shows which seem to be lost to time in their 'faith' knowing there would be another series and more to see of these characters and settings so we can mess around a little bit and have fun.
My two points here: 1) I think we never fully understand what "era" we are in as things are happening. But this detached style of character feels like it somehow makes sense with the rise if doomerist philosophy among many of the target demographics, the don't want to take things seriously and "be a main character" so it makes sense that idea would birth characters that are detached and just "along for the ride" and maybe (for better or worse) that's what defines this era of entertainment 2) I also haven't watched Fallout (just haven't had the chance to do so) but from the way people have described it to me, i was told the MC was designed with a sense of detachment to mimic the video games to create a specific style for the show. I'll eventually get around to watching it and judging it myself
A detached character works for a video game because you, as the player, have the option to make choices for the character so it is good for immersion if your own character does not disagree with you. That, however, does not work for non-interactive media like TV series or movies.
Regarding the second point: In my opinion, the detachment is the only logical outcome from a serious lack of world-building on the surface. The sets all look really, really good, but the internal logic behind them is never explained, and this inherently causes a sense of detachment. For example, the first town on the surface that the protagonist visits has a ton of people roaming through it, with lots of little storefronts available. But why? Is it actually a large urban center? And if so, what is so special about it that made people live there? Does it have access to clean water or agriculture? If so, we never see or hear any evidence of this. Is it just a large trading center in the middle of a trade route between larger towns? No clue, because they never explain anything about it. We get a name for the town, and a pretty cool looking set, and that's about it. It just exists as a place for a scene to happen in the narrative, and then serves no other purpose. It's not expanded upon in any way, and nothing is ever offered to allow it to make sense in the fictional universe in which it exists. And this happens all the time throughout the series. The Vaults get explained fairly well, but nothing on the surface has any real substance to it, and basically only exist as set-pieces for a scene to occur. So how can characters appear to be logically consistent in a setting wherein there is no logic? The show generally looks good, but it all falls apart as soon as you stop and think, and when you start asking questions. And you might be right that it's done so in order to mimic a video game - because these are the same criticisms that people complained about in Fallout 3. (Why would people live next to an atomic bomb? Where does Megaton get food? How does Rivet City get enough clean water to supply its population and run a hydroponics lab, in a game wherein the entire plot revolves around a lack of clean water? How does Little Lamplight or the Republic of Dave maintain a sustainable population across multiple generations? All these places look cool and make very memorable locations, but also make no sense in-universe.) But if that's the case, I would have hoped that they would mimic the good parts of a game, and not the uncanny valley aspect of poor writing within a game.
@@vdt952 Its very simple. People that have a creative personality tend to go to university and then work in entertainment. Rarely have they ever seen a farm, or a coal mine, or water plant, or oil rig. Because of that theyre not conscious of how society is sustained. Electricity comes from a socket and food comes from groceries. Thats the depth of appreciation people have for their modern lifestyle.
@@zztopz7090Is this really a creative person thing or are you just talking down the industry of entertainment?You think a retail worker or any common worker knows more about how the world is ran than people like those? Especially when one motivating factor to pursue art in any form is because of first-hand life exprience? Farmers and coal miners can easily be as creative. It's not exclusive to just those creatives, especially when those kinds of people aren't always guaranteed success.
Something I think about alot is the original stargate series and how they tried to handle adding more to a universe that was really only meant as the movie.
This actually gives me some interesting ideas for a story I'm working on. I'll be vague because it's a CZcams comment but basically I have three main characters traveling through an unfamiliar environment. One character is someone who's already seen it all but been gone so long he doesn't know what's changed and he needs to relearn it. One character hasn't seen it but has prepared themselves with a bunch of training and research, and one character is going into everything with no experience and preparation but cares about the journey more than the other two. This video helped me realize that I can probably add a lot of depth to my story by emphasizing those differences so thanks this video is good brainstorming.
MLP FiM S4 E6 has a moment that made me realize something similar: at the end of the episode, after everyone escapes the enchanted comic book, Twilight asks "Where exactly did you get that comic book?" There's a joke about how the name of the store "House of Enchanted Comics" is literal, but that reaction of "that's way too dangerous for something so mundane, I need to learn more so I can be prepared" stuck with me. It's a very episodic show so I don't expect this to be setting up anything for the future, but the fact it's not for the plot makes it easier to see as a character moment.
@@Kalightortaio I'd recently finished a D&D comic that used screencaps from the show, and decided to try watching it. Honestly, some of the stuff they get up to makes it feel exactly like a D&D setting.
@@valdonchev7296they actually made roleplay books based off of the series! i looked into it since i enjoy FiM and was wondering about systems/settings to run for possible future children.
@@valdonchev7296Friendship is Dragons? (Which, I just learned, only ended THIS YEAR. Which is wild. I became a fan like 10 years ago, then gave up a couple dozen pages in.)
Speaking of the MCU and writing convenience the... I think they're calling it the blip (unsnap)? It's convenient to solve the big plot thing at the end of infinity war with a snap and does track as possible but like did nobody think of the ramifications of bringing everyone back? We see in one of the Spiderman movies a whole ass marching band pops back in the middle of a basketball game. So like did thousands of people who were on planes rain from the sky? Were the highways painted red? The oceans filled with stranded souls? Then we have the societal implications. The huge hit to production of food and water that'd follow from losing half of all life must have been devastating and the world likely adapted to only feeding half the population and now there's double the people with half the food. Like there are so many implications that just don't get addressed.
They do touch on the double displacement somewhat in the Falcon and Winter Soldier series. They also directly show the shock of coming back for multiple characters like Yelena and Monica Rambeau... but they could definitely have done more with it.
For sure, I've been thinking this as well. After five years it feels almost more unethical to bring everyone back and let chaos ensue instead of leaving it as is, but none of that is ever addressed and everything almost continues like half the population was never actually gone 😅
You're not alone in feeling 'weird' about a lot of modern movies and shows. The feeling is dissected excellently in Emperor Lemon's video "The Matrix: De-booted" where he goes over some of the stuff you mentioned and highlights how the original creators of the matrix were pressured into making a soulless, sequel/reboot which they filled with criticisms about modern studio filmmaking.
Taking it since two month and I'm already at 130% of the daily maximum dosis, but so far it works as good on me as globules :D But good to see that it helps some people to relief their symptoms :)
The fallout part... come on you can't assume things! That's literally the mistake most writers make when doing a sequel/reboot of a loved franchise. In Obi wan's words: You have becomed the very thing you swore to destroy.
Prediction what happens in a show without watching it is something only a fool would do. Reminds me of Critical Drinker predicting what happens in Prey based off of the trailer and getting everything completely wrong. Don't be like him. He's a moron.
@@Taladar2003There’s far too many shows that start out that way for that to be true, cmon man. Was ATLA, or hell Morel Orel shit just because of their first few episodes were "meh"?
9:20 dude great summary of the issue I have felt with many new shows. No character respresents the 'normal' perspective with understandable fear and surprise and anger etc. Everybody is already 'in on it'
So uh fun fact Kyle Disney didn't reboot doctor who and Disney doesn't have any power in the series what so ever there just a distributor every decision that was made was made by Russel T Davis the only thing we know Disney added was a scene in the church on Ruby road that being the snowman head scene
Yeah a lot of people see Disney and assume they bought doctor who like they do with everything else but in actuality they consider it a low budget investment and only paid for 2 seasons.
Yeah. Disney is just functioning as the distributor, and that’s great because it has been difficult to watch Doctor Who outside of England for like a decade now.
The fact that Disney was to distribute DOES mean the creator's decisions may have been influenced. We know Disney had at least one direct meddle, which means they also had uncountably many indirect meddles
@@lazydroidproductions1087If Disney were purely distributing it they would have just licensed the existing series. They might not own the underlying IP but they've still paid for their own series to be made under that IP, and they'll get at least some influence over it as a result (if nothing else they would have specified which parts they wanted remade in what timeframe, which indirectly dictates a lot of the pacing decisions).
Well well well, it’s been a while. Edit: Tails, in my opinion Tails is the bad side of the coin because we all collectively choose Heads for some reason. Not to mention I live in Canada and the Canadian one dollar coin has a Canadian goose on the tails side. Edit2: It apparently isn’t a goose, it’s a different bird, that bird is named a loon according to @Gemma-Majoran (thank you for reminding me). It’s still a bird though which can still be considered evil. Therefore it’s still the bad side of the coin in my opinion.
@@Gemma-Majoran Wait really, I’ve been lied to, Or I forgot. One of those two. It’s still a bird though and it reminds me of those damn menaces, so my opinion on the bad side of the coin remains unchanged.
Yeah, I am struggling a lot with the whole Chekhov's gun idea, that everything introduced needs to be significant or it shouldn't have been introduced in the first place. Casual mentionings, red herrings, character introductions for characters that end up not really mattering. That's stuff that builds the world creates context and distracts you into getting invested. I am not saying you should always stick a bunch of unnecessary stuff into every scene or even every movie, in fact that would just be annoying. Like Han Solo's dice is a great example, did they put them there because they're a significant part of the story in any way? No, they put them there because Han Solo is a person and people like decorating their areas. If you think about it, his line of work makes him basically a space truck-driver, and spend most of his time in the cockpit of his truck. With that being such a big part of his life, of course he decorates it, most truckdrivers do as well if they're allowed to.
Yeah same. I think the issue is people took a solid piece of advice “A gun presented in the first act must be fired in the third” and extrapolated that to *everything a story can include.* Like it’s called Chekov’s *gun* not Chekov’s Everything for a reason There’s a reason “sometimes the curtains are just blue” is a popular saying these days. Because it is true. Sometimes something is just there. It doesn’t always have to come back around, sometimes it’s set-dressing. Imagine a play with no backgrounds because it’s “not relevant to the plot”?
It sounds like this is one part, 'Kyle makes really valid points about the modern landscape of television and cinema,' and one part, 'Kyle only had the time and energy to watch the first two episodes of television shows which ironically have pretty good third episodes'.
Yeah. It was frustrating, since those were good points he was making but it takes away some credibility when he's using shows as examples that he gave up on after 2 episodes. The middle stretch of that season of Who had some truly excellent episodes that absolutely knew what they were doing artistically. (Note, when I say he loses credibility I don't mean he's being dishonest or he wouldn't have admitted to only watching that far, just that the opinions carry less weight as a result.)
@@darlhiatt8136I mean in his defense, the *point* of the first episodes is to hook you and showcase what the rest of a series will be. The fact that he gave up after two episodes shows they failed to hook him
@@darlhiatt8136Exactly, personally if you cant finish a show you or at the very least one season of it, you aren't really qualified at all to critique it from a reviewing pov. Especially under the guise of an informative video.
Ok. I'm going to argue that the little robot spider who presses the button that incinerates everything in the room is a little contrived, as is the Doctor's random time slow power and pretty much all of the plot now that I think about it, but Rose's story in it was great, and it's still better than like all but 5 of the episodes since The Doctor Falls.
Another problem is that a lot of things are designed for the audience to react and not the characters. Zooming in on some random item that means pretty much nothing to the characters but is a reference for the crowd to freak out and throw their popcorn on the floor over is one of the worst tropes in movies right now
It sounds like the Fallout show perfectly adapts the writing of Bethesda NPCs where you try to think they're people but they are so stubbornly dead inside it's like they're spiting your immersion. Snarky comments and jokes aside, this was a very interesting watch and very likely part of why I have been watching almost no movies. We have so many grand and epic plots in media where nobody ever takes a second to act like anything remotely relatable that it all just breezes past us without any impact and it definitely happens a lot in games as well.
13:05 There's no way Disney or Amazon is going to portray a woman as "Soft and Naive" even if that's what any normal person would be regardless of gender. The Disney Dr Who girl doesn't flinch because the man next to her didn't and that might make the woman look weaker or not as smart, even though anyone would be confused and overwhelmed. They're so obsessed with making "strong females" the characters end up coming across as unrelatable or even disconnected. I never felt that way with Ellie in fallout but the little girl in Last of Us came across as a psycho.
This is quite a great video highlighting a problem I've noticed in a lot of shows and movies. It always takes you out of a film or show when the characters show little reaction to things that most normal humans would react to, especially grief.
18:55 “Why undo all that? She’s leaving; they aren’t even preserving these characters or location for later, they’re out of the story. Why not give us all that extra motivation?” Because writers can no longer think about scenarios beyond they personal experiences. When someone writes a character, that character is them or the writer’s idealized version of themselves and because the writer is more than likely nepo-baby, they have failed to learn what emotions they’re are beyond their shallow existence. Writing a character who has lost everything they have ever known as a result of a morally screwed up experience is not capable in the writer’s imagination
I didn't know I need Kyle in my life to do deep dives of media to make me feel complete. This is scratching. Such an itch right now. I didn't realize I had.
Oh, and you're actually alright at this. Keep doing it a little, it's not a bad video. I think this would be a good way to keep variety on the channel and, at least, I hope most of us would enjoy both and it wouldn't create separate audiences.
Didn't realize I was here so soon, I'm 10 minutes in and this released almost right before I started watching. Been a Door Monster fan for years and I'm enjoying the rant about writing so far.
@@OtakuNoShitpost No you are the unfettered capitalism side where the rich and corporations have all the power, switching from rulers ordained by "god" for ones who have the most money inherited from parents.
I think 12th doctor does the whole new person very well as the companion and the doctor have to deal with young Matt smith turning into old Peter Capaldi
I'd like to say with your discussion about fallout that they do continue the story with the vault, and Norm and I'd say that you should give the show another chance... or don't idk 😅
It's not difficult to understand the state of modern Hollywood, and how it got this way. Steve Jobs made an astute observation about institutional rot in the technology industry, and it applies *perfectly* to the current condition of massive studios like Disney: czcams.com/video/NlBjNmXvqIM/video.html Now in the case of Xerox, he blames the rot on "sales and marketing people" getting into leadership and driving creative people who actually make good products. In the case of Hollywood, however, at some point in the early 2000s, a bunch of media consolidation took place, and the people who wound up with the big chairs in Hollywood were the merger and acquisition finance types. Think about Disney buying out Marvel and Lucasfilm, for example. A creative leader who wanted to make great movies wouldn't pay billions of dollars to buy someone else's IP. They'd try and make their *OWN*. And people used to do that. When Star Wars was a huge hit in '77, we got a flurry of other science fiction projects: Alien, The Last Starfighter, The Black Hole, Battlestar Galactica, and the Star Trek movies Now you just get reboots and remakes, greenlit by the suits who spent billions buying the rights to produce reboots and remakes.
imagine if the other vault dwellers were scared of Lucy bc of her weird natural talents and disregard to violence bc something about her is just -wrong. Like if a real fallout game player started playing her
I agree wholeheartedly. I love characters that are characters. I want personality. I want people to root for even if they aren't the best people. Because its *interesting*. Because when characters are felly fleshed out it makes any kind of media so much more fun to watch since there's an actual character to be invested in. All of this is of course to say: GIVE ME MORE DUMPSTER FIRE CHARACTERS HOLLYWOOD. I WANT TO WATCH NONREALITY TRASH PEOPLE TRYING THEIR BEST. IT GIVES ME LIFE. Thank you for reading.
Kyle, first things first, I am glad you are sleeping -At least, I think you are? I got kinda confused-, and secondly, I am thoroughly enjoying this more relaxed, long form video format, and how it feels somehow like a chill conversation more than anything else, which I don't understand how that is the case, but meh, it works. Not that I haven't already been thoroughly enjoying you guys' sketches, because I have, but this is really great too. Anyway, basically, I hope you and the rest of monster door are doing well, and this was an incredibly enjoyable episode of "The Opinions of K-Corp".
Hey Kyle, I don't know how much effort this video took to make, but holy cow you are so good at the whole video essay format. Would so fucking love to see more of this
yeeeaaahhh i suggest you keep watching fallout cause they do go back to the vault for a plotline and that brother character is the main character in that plotline.
@Wesley-1776 widely considered great and completely revived the Fallout game series, which lost fans after Fallout 76. But I'm sure your opinion is correct and everyone else is wrong.
@@AleksandrStrizhevskiy yes. Also the good games were fine. We want Bethesda to hurt or even close down so someone else gets the IP. Plenty of people agree with me. Tourist
@@AleksandrStrizhevskiyif in 2 hours (ya know, the length of a whole movie) you haven't sold me, I'm nit going to spent 3x more hoping it gets more.interesting. majority rule is never a valid argument by itself anyway
@@malachilining2730 Sure, thats is a valid point. But the criticism he gave of the show were things that were answered later. If he said "the show failed to hook me, thats an opinion that makes sense". But he criticized the story of the vault for things that were actually addressed in the show.
Hey, it's okay. Getting help and meds later is normal, and then you look back and are like "wow, all these things I thought were my personality were really just symptoms and rationalizations?" It changed everything for me. You'll do well, you still have all the superpowers you just have to relearn how to access them, safely.
What you said about having fun making a movie really strikes a chord with me. The best Marvel movies are movies where I felt like everybody was having a really good time making it, like the Deadpool movies and Thor Ragnarok. They seemed like the people making the movie were really into making the movie
I feel like you need to finish Fallout - Lucy's desires and intentions are really contextualized within the broader narrative of the rest of the season. Returning the original vault periodically is also really important to the story.
20:00 - This is actually a complaint I have about a bunch of media criticism I've heard recently. People seem to have developed a complete aversion to scenes that do not advance the plot directly, even if they do develop characters or set the tone. Like, a 30s shot of a character just looking at something might do nothing for the plot, but their expressions and reactions can tell you a lot about who that character is, *which is often later relevant for the plot to make sense!*
Just take the sponsorship, only a minute of our time (which people uniterested in the sponsorship can skip through) but a lot of help for you. Also, loving the long form video content!
@@DeathnoteBB That's just how advertising works in our climate. If I got such an offer I would also be questioning it morally but nowadays most consumers are used to ignoring such advertisments anyway. If he's struggling and there's a lot to gain I say go for it.
@@igorkonys1006 The issue is many do know by now to just skip, but many still have faith in what someone they trust endorses. Sometimes it’s whatever, like Raycon sucks but it’s just earbuds (though they are expensive earbuds, despite their ad script’s claims). But some things are Betterhelp, which preys on vulnerable people who are desperate and seeking help. Not everyone is savvy enough to know a CZcams sponsor is almost always a bad product or service, so people take their favorite CZcamsr’s word for it (which unbeknownst to them is just the ad-read script) and then get ripped off.
"story economy" is such a boring concept in the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly pretty much the story doesnt start until ONE HOUR into the movie, and it's one of the best movies ever made
It's these small little moments characters experience that make a story. Not the overarching events that occur that just progress the plot along. Becuase, at the end of the day, the purpose of a story is to examine what certain individuals will do when faced with these situations.
On Fallout: Kyle, sweaty, you needed to wait and *everything you complained about* would have been addressed, with *maybe* the exception of the Trolley Problem Incident. That one was kind-of weird but, knowing more about the antagonist of that scene, I think it's possible infer a reasonable explanation for what happened. I *guess* I can agree with you that I found the first couple of episodes a little flat in their characterization at points, but it gets WAY better by the end.
I think we were intentionally supposed to misunderstand the choice Lucy's Dad was being given. I think the choice was whether they would take Lucy or take him. And he chose for them to take him because he wanted to protect Lucy. Or at least keep her safe in the Vault. I would like to know how what's-her-name managed to stay looking young and healthy for so long. And I have my suspicions that the weird potion the Ghoul drinks might not be doing what he (and all the other ghouls) thinks it's doing - as in it might be more of an addictive placebo with some rather detrimental withdrawal effects.
@@SadisticSenpai61 Given they were highlighted in the end credits my guess for Moldaver staying young is that she was in a cryosuite at The Tops, Las Vegas.
@@Taladar2003 Early episodes generally aren't as good as later episodes cuz the writers and actors are still getting used to the characters and figuring them out. This is true for almost every series. That said, it's not the TV series writers saying "it gets better" here, it's ppl who've watched the series. Maximus kinda remains a bit of a cringe character IMO. And Norm is actually a main character, even if he doesn't get the fancy scene change card. The ghoul just keeps getting more interesting as a character and I feel like his character development is the most fascinating. Lucy, ofc, is the "player character" and as such, has to be able to fill that role. That's why she's so good at everything - because the player character is always good at everything. But she does have her own personality and quirks which really show themselves as she makes decisions that players wouldn't make because she doesn't actually know anything about the world outside the vault.
I feel like I'm the only one, who actually remembers RTD episodes of doctor who. You know ones with: farting aliens taking over London, suicidal larpers on a space titanic, alien that feed on love and turns people into drawings, Doctor turning from Dobby to Jesus and blasting Master with a faith beams, living face in a stone slab with an active sex life and so on. "Turn left" is fantastic, and I like "Midnight" was fun, but other then this two, RTD was consistently bad at writing the show. All good episodes were written by someone else during his run. And that "someone else" was often called Moffat. So hearing that RTD is going back to show and he's bringing Tennant back had more red flags for me then a victory parade in USSR. Both were a blatant fan service, not done out of creativity, but in an attempt to lure in people who left during Chibnal"s reign. So I didn't saw the specials, and I didn't saw the season. From what I could hear, I from people who did, I made the right decision.
'RTD was consistently bad at writing the show. All good episodes were written by someone else during his run. And that "someone else" was often called Moffat' quotes like these is where people take it way too far. Is Russell a perfect writer? No. Are the weaker parts of his first era often ignored? Yes. Is he consistently bad at writing the show? Fuck no. If you read the book the Writer's tale, you'll discover that Davies rewrote, and had a major hand in almost all his episodes (The only people he wouldn't need to do that for was Moffat and Chibnall). Episodes like the impossible planet/satan pit, human nature/family of blood, the Fires of Pompeii, and Dalek are all fan favorites and heavily rewritten by Davies. 'hearing that RTD is going back to show and he's bringing Tennant back had more red flags for me then a victory parade in USSR. Both were a blatant fan service, not done out of creativity, but in an attempt to lure in people who left during Chibnal"s reign. So I didn't saw the specials, and I didn't saw the season. From what I could hear, I from people who did, I made the right decision.' This is also wrong. Tennant was not brought back to lure people in who left during Chibnall's run. Russell got the idea for the specials in lockdown when Catherine Tate and David Tennant both expressed interest in returning to the show. With the 60th coming up, Russell pitched the specials as a lost story with the 10th Doctor taking place during series 4. It wasn't until Chibnall announced that he was leaving that Russell became showrunner, and decided that the story would have the 14th Doctor due to there being no incumbent Doctor. Also whether Chibnall's era was super popular or not I can say with 100% certainty that David Tennant would've been back for 2023. It was the 60th anniversary, and there was no way the bbc was not going to capitalize on that by bringing back their most popular actor.
How’s Rose, End of the World, Boom Town, Bad Wolf/Parting of the Ways, Smith and Jones, Utopia + Sound of Drums, and Waters of Mars bad episodes? Like ye, he doesn’t write well 100% of the time. Neither does Moffat. Neither does any other Doctor Who writer not named “Paul Cornell” or “Robert Shearman”. That’s not being consistently bad at running the show, that’s you having bad taste lol
I won't list a bunch of good episodes that RTD wrote, because someone else already has, but if you want to play this game, how about I list off some bad Moffat episodes? The Beast Below, The Pandorica Opens/The Big Bang, Let's Kill Hitler, The Wedding of River Song, The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe, the Angels take Manhattan, The Bells of Saint John, The Name of the Doctor, The Caretaker, Death in Heaven, and The Pyramid at the End of the World. Taking the worst of any writer's career and using it to say that they were bad in general is incredibly disingenuous and makes me think that you just googled "worst Doctor Who episodes written by RTD", because anyone who has seen the show knows that you are lying when you try and portray those 6 episodes as the whole show when Davies wrote 31 episodes in total across 4 seasons, most of which were good
The thing is being a writer and being the showrunner are actually different skills. Yes, the showrunner writes episodes, but that isn't all they do. I absolutely think most of the best episodes of the show are Moffat episodes--during RTD's run. For whatever reason, Moffat couldn't capture the same magic during his time as the showrunner. Sure, some of his episodes as showrunner were good, but none of them were his best. There was plenty of reason to believe that RTD as showrunner could work if he had a strong writing team alongside him. Admittedly also reason to be skeptical. I'll admit I fell out of love with the show during Moffat's time as showrunner so I haven't watched the show in a long time so I was never going to check it out without a lot of really positive word of mouth, but I don't blame people for being optimistic.
I have a higher opinion of rdt era doctor who than you, but I also saw the announcement of the return of RTD and Tennant as signs of the further downfall of dw.
@@the_nerd5976 they have more of a budget without a straight-man, look at the acolyte, 180 million dollars for what exactly, they ticked all the boxes to get as much financing as possible...THEN the ceo can get another yacht
Honestly I think it’s more they merged the funny man and straight man and now it’s just “snarky man rolls eyes at everything yet also takes things super seriously”
Dunno about everything else, but my favourite part of a lot of stories revolves around a character trying to figure out how to do stuff they need to do. Like a shipwrecked survivor trying to build a shelter without tools. Or trying to adjust to a new situation. Not knowing what to do. Failing, getting frustrated, and then starting over again. In Fallout, that would be interesting - how the hell does somebody adjust to a whole new unknown world? Psychologically, physically, socially, intellectually? You could spend 40 minutes on that easily, and I'd love every second of it.
00:40 alright so, pateron isn't working well enough. It seems we may need to apply advanced hobo technology to exploit lightspeed's relation to time travel to create gold that will decay into tachyons and decay by traveling back in time: thus multiply in an infinite recursive loop. Or, and here me out, we go graverobbing for fillings.
honestly really good writing advice. Obviously it's highly subjective and tailored towards your preferences. maybe hollywood has seen the stats and killing mass murdering an entire vault of incestuous people drops viewer retention by 10%, so they just left them alive, or girl power speeches make more money overall with their investors or whatever, but I can see where you're coming from. So much media I've consumed within the last 10 years just has reactionless actors (probably directed that way too), but then I watch older stuff and the actors are so animated and eccentric, it's just way more interesting to watch, but also way easier to get invested in. like a comedy routine, a straight man always makes it so much funnier and helps setup the jokes, and while he's the least funny person on stage, the act wouldn't work without him
Its A. Producers do not and have never had a damn idea of what makes art enjoyable or sell well. They just make stupid decisions that sometimes work. B. Writers not realizing that what Kyle is talking about is not an example of 'trim this cause its pointless' its not recognizing what has a point. You absolutely can have something that derails the plot slightly, if it adds to the characters. Especially if you're trying to be character driven, which as a rule, you should basically be always trying to do to some degree. Because then you aren't derailing anything. The plot itself is the derailing when its not character driven.
I think part of it is that with streaming and DVD sales basically no longer being anthing, anything that's made HAS to be a hit from the get go or it's a waste of money. A lot of old movies and shoes would slowly make money from DVDs but do horrible at the box office. Which made it okay to still make those. However Netflix (and others) dont really care what you watch, they care what gets you to subscribe and stay subscribed. Thats usually the 10 out of 10s. Where as a lot of movies and shows used to be almost intended to be 5 - 8 out of 10's. If everything on Netflix was a 7 out of 10 that'd be a GOOD deal, but if Disney+ has a couple of 10's and everything else is a 4. Well people will probably subscribe to Disney+ over Netflix. which just sucks so much.
i found it so odd that they k*lled off the old lady in the 60s music themed episode. i was expecting there to be a comedic bit where the doctor breaks in through the pianist's kitchen window, stops the maestro, and then makes some lie up about being a repair person before asking the old lady whether she knows what's been happening with the whole no music thing lately - that's what i'm used to the doctor doing, after all, no matter what they look like. but no - i was shocked by the fact that, wholesome disney, of all things, sort of just made a bunch of random side characters perish violently - and then added no catharsis to this scenario, followed by a _musical number for no reason??_ i don't get it - whatever happened to the "900 years of time and space, and i've never met someone who wasn't important?"
like, maybe i'm biased and just don't like seeing seniors perish on television in general, but cmon. the doctor loves old ladies. but he runs away from danger instead? he doesn't go looking for musicians in town? his sonic doesn't work, but not in the usual "oh woops wood door" way? russell t davies wrote some of my favourite doctor who episodes w/ 9 and 10... how on earth did he manage to get this season wrong this year?
Holy shit this video just made me realise exactly what made me love Wild Blue Yonder so much (the second David Tennant special), it's the fact they're actually reacting to situations properly. It's The Doctor and Donna in a fucked up situation, stranded on a drifting spaceship beyond the edge of the universe. I mean the TARDIS is all broken, they have a realistic argument, they reconcile, they decide to have a wander around for old times sake, the TARDIS leaves, Donna starts freaking out, I'll stop there but yoy get the point. A situation happens, people react realistically to how their characters would react, the situation changes due to their reaction, they react etc etc. The episode is just so damn good
Alright, I hear you, I'll finish Fallout.
Kyle I just watched ghost dog way of the samurai and it was epic!
Good to know the comments beat me to it
Good to know I'm watching this section now going please for the love of God finish it 😅
Yeah, was going to say, I ended up not liking it either, but... you need the whole picture to dislike it for the right reasons.
I think your points are all valid. For me it still works since I love Fallout and Lucy for me is the player character which always had a lot of problems once you tried to make it make sense. Maximus still rubs me the wrong way - never before have I seen a retar**d psychopath.
Doctor Who though, oooh boy. I‘ve long let go of my seething hatred for what they started doing with the female „Doctor“ and as far as I can tell the current incarnation is even more braindead. They successfully disneyfied DW: Diversity & Inclusion is the only thing that matters. Coherent story, character development, interesting ideas or talent are not being taken into consideration making the show. Ah, well, still got 10 new Who seasons worth of great stuff ❤
"Filmmakers like being filmmakers more than they like filmmaking"
OH MY GOD SOMEONE FINALLY PUT IT INTO WORDS
"Everybody wants to be an filmmaker, but don't nobody want to make no good ass film." -Ronnie Kyleman
For real. I have always wondered why modern entertainment felt so off, like “over-produced” is what usually comes to mind but that isn’t really it. It’s that before, entertainment was entertaining and had substance. Now it’s a bunch of filmmakers going “Look ma, I made a show!” and forgetting to actually make a show
In the words of the great Rich Evans:
"It is not fun to make movies."
And the opposite is what defines some of the greatest Filmmakers; In my opinion Stanley Kubrick was the greatest of all time, he cared far more about his projects than any accolades that he might get. Peter Jackson is similar, you can really see his joy and passion for his projects.
@@DeathnoteBB The starwars film producers and directors nowadays don't even like starwars. How insane is that. People should at least enjoy media that they are creating for.
All goes back to Jurassic Park. The most important shot of the movie is not the dinosaurs, it's not being chased by a T-Rex, it's not "dino DNA", it's not Nedry stealing embryos... it's the goddamn low-angle hero shot of Grant, Ellie, and Malcolm stopping their jeep and staring out into the distance absolutely awestruck for practically half a minute before we even see what they're looking at. Because THAT'S when everyone in the audience collectively straps on their Disbelief Suspenders and they don't even consciously realize it.
I like jurassic park
My favorite part about Jurassic Park is the part where first they tell us "hey, the dinos are safe because they can't breed." Smuggling in the info about frog DNA, just as a hint for later and so that the kids who paid attention in biology class can go "hang on, wasn't there a funny fact about frogs-" Then they keep hammering the "nature finds a way" button, until finally - dino eggs! Impossible! How?!
- The important part here is not that they explain it, it's that they _understand why it's necessary_ to explain it. A simpler movie would think that the *eggs themselves* were the scary part. Nono, what makes this a great, thrilling moment is that - having _set up_ the pieces of the breeding restrictions and the frog dna, they can now _pay it off_ with the sequential hermaphrodism, which is a _believable_ thing to miss. The fact that we _understand the mistake that has been committed_ *deepens* the horror, because we relate to the people in the movie, we see their misstep and in it we recognize our own foibles. It increases our immersion because it feels like we could have made _the same mistake,_ and the writing chops that got into creating that moment are key to making that movie one of the all-time greats.
In Jurassic Park 2, conversely, I was cheering for the dinosaurs from the first minute. Nobody was making believable errors ever. It felt like fanfic from some kid who really liked the dinosaurs in that movie and understood nothing else about it.
@@FeepingCreature It's baffling that Jurassic Park II had the same writer and the same director as the first movie.
@@Veylon What? How?!
@@Veylon There was more than one writer... the actual Author of the book co wrote the first film, but not the second.
The bad side of the coin is the side where some of the foil has come off and the chocolate ends up touching the dirt when I drop it
the good ending
And the fact it's now dirty totally 'foils your plans.'
Disney doesn't actually produce Doctor Who by the way. The BBC still produces it, but outside of the UK and Ireland broadcast rights have been sold to Disney.
The show runners said Disney had high levels of involvement in the production and development
@rustledjimmz8967 Disney also invested in the show itself, so they had a say. Plus I would be surprised if they didn't have a say when they're the one broadcasting it outside of the UK, they'd want to make sure that it fits their needs and brand.
@@testtest648 Source?
@@blinky101Everywhere.
It's Disney +. Of course they hace involvement un production.
@@charlestownsend9280 Except they have no idea what Doctor Who is. It's weird that massive companies want a part in the success of something, but they also want to remove what makes it successful. They care so much about money that they make stupid decisions that make them lose money...
Could you imagine going into Target and just seeing Kyle at a checkout stand?
I would have sworn it was a copy.
Person: Man, I love your stuff!
Kyle: Oh nice!... It's going to be $14.45
That would require going to Texas and even Door Monster isn't worth that trip.
@@bdletoast09Kyle lives up in New York now
@@spritemon98 You say that like it makes it any better
The characters on modern shows ARE reacting, they just aren't reacting the way normal human beings would react. They are reacting the way the writers think they should act---in a cool way, an ideal way, or a quirky way. But the audience needs at least one person to react as a normal person would.
The example of this that comes to mind is Bill Paxton's character in ALIENS. He's all gung-ho at the start of the mission, but when the aliens are mutilating people he just flips out. "That's it! We're dead! Game over, man!" (As much as I'd like to be brave, if faced with the ALIENS, I'd s*** myself)
Yeah, I honestly don't understand why it's so hard to write characters who act like humans. It was bad enough when that seemed like mainly an anime issue, because then I could at least tell myself that it might be a culture barrier thing, but now it's everywhere, and it ruins my suspension of disbelief every damn time.
The head side of the coin is the bad side because it has presidents on it, whereas the tails side usually has a cool bird or other symbol.
This is the correct answer. Someone said it.
Nah, þat's too specific. Most countries don't put people's faces on coins, but a symbol þat represents þe nation.
So instead of a heads side, we have an emblem side, which is usually cooler, but it does depend a lot on execution.
@cohobast5263 even worse where I live, we have the face of an unelected person who only has their wealth, power and position due to an accident of birth and for some bizarre reason everyone loves them for being born into it.
@@e1123581321345589144 Unrelated, but if you're doing þe þorn þing, might I embolden you to go full Anglish and boot those outland loanwords altogether?
@@e1123581321345589144
I still love þat letter
"Don't add anything that doesn't serve the larger narrative. Anyway, I'm gonna take a drink from this giant water bottle"
Sam CriticalRole?
@@DeathnoteBB I think he was literally just making a meta joke. He's talking about the rule about not adding anything that doesn't serve the larger narrative while he literally does and says something that's completely unrelated to the rest of the entire video.
If he was really just thirsty, he could have just taken a drink, thrown away that take and refilmed another one. The fact that it's the only shot where he has the water bottle in camera and takes a drink right when he's talking about the rule of not having anything unrelated to the larger narrative just reinforces the point, while simultaneously humanizes him for the fact that he's a person who needs to drink. He's breaking the normal illusion of videos for hiding imperfections because they usually detract from the quality of the video.
In this case, it actually adds to it, demonstrating how to successfully break that rule.
That was a fuckin rollercoaster cold open
The one person who should've self diagnosed himself,really showed there ;p
The begging was off the scale
@@billnyethescienceguy9918 I don’t want to be rude but “self-diagnosed himself” is so redundant I can’t ignore it
I noticed this trend with writing advice in general, where people are always talking about cutting everything to be as efficient as possible. You need to let people breathe and take things in though. On screen reactions are especially important because there is almost never any internal thoughts for the characters given, so you literally have nothing to go off if they don't react.
Yeah a lot of writing advice these days has become “Efficiency is required and if your writing is inefficient it’s bad.” It’s really confusing to me as a writer. I write things in just because it’s immersive. Yeah if we just went “They did this. Then they did that. The enemies did this so they countered and won.” it would be efficient but that’s… not a story. It’s a checklist of story beats.
Hey I got to the part of the video this is relevant to 25:43
@@DeathnoteBB Efficiency applied to writing sounds so weird... Granted, you don't put out of place stuff in a story, but it's not out of place if it actually serves a purpose.
@@wandy8842 Exactly. The thing is people at some point forgot “Just being there to make the world seem lived in” is a purpose. Now everyone insists “But it doesn’t serve the plot so it’s bad”. Like part of why writing is so hard for me nowadays is because a lot of writing advice recently is just “If it’s not relevant to the story, cut it.” which as I said earlier just leaves a bare bones explanation of the beats in the story. Which you know, isn’t a story, it’s an outline.
It's especially weird because there isn't really a standardized method of making a story, honestly. I've always see people shouting about efficient writing, being to the point, but what for? A story is not a textbook, so why the obsession with efficency of feedin information to the consumer? Long-winded descriptions have their place, as does flowery language, yet some see them as the ultimate sin of writing. Things should have a reason to be in a story, of course. However, who said that the reason shouldn't be immersion? Most things aren't stageplays - we don't need the actors to trip over Chekov's guns all the time. The best stories have times of low tension, where we see characters in their private spaces, or just watch them do anything else other than progress the story, and these are some of the most important parts of the story. If you make a graph of the tension, and its a straight line going up the entire time, then that's just bad pacing.
One quick point on your Fallout critique and its probably born from expectations and only watching 2 episodes but they don't drop the vault from the story after Lucy leaves, Norm remains a secondary POV character back home.
thank you. it always annoys me when people make wild assumptions for the future of a story based on minimal knowledge
Not only is he a pov character but he’s probably the most interesting as he unravels the mystery behind the vault.
Yeah his whole Fallout thing was crazy to see after watching the show and him not watching it - Lucy goes through a lot and characters react to an awful lot of things. Case and point, The Ghoul killing his friend after tricking him into having a happy memory, Lucy is awe struck by the weight of the moment. It could be said that it's undercut by the "ass jerky" choice of wording, but that further cements how fucking twisted and irreverent The Ghoul is while Lucy is still reeling from the unbelievable lack of morals this world has.
I would even add that Norm becomes more of a main character than most of the main characters.
He is just totally wrong about her character too: she is objectively naive, being terrified by everything. She goes on about the golden rule as though that would help and clings (at first) to the inherent goodness of humanity
I never realized how ironic that in the very first reboot episode the Eccleston Doctor says "all that counts is here and now" as the guy/gal that can and will go any time any place... and yet it makes perfect sense for the Doctor in general and this one in particular.
It makes perfect sense for a character who is trying to forget the horrible things they had to do in their past.
The bad side of the coin is the one with all the scratches on it; forcing me to shoot the guy in front of me.
"Can you imagine him as a main character?" HE *IS!!* HE IS YOU GOTTA FINISH IT
This is honestly top notch writing advice. People confuse show don’t tell by thinking it only means showing things happening, when you’re right that showing reactions is perhaps more important. Looking forward to more of your long form thoughts on story telling, even if there is a raid shadow legends plug at the end! Just blink twice.
There's a writing craft book called The Emotional Craft of Fiction by Donald Maass that goes into this exact thing. You can't just throw a scene or a character at the audience expect them to magically emotionally connect with your story. You need to build audience emotion through sympathetic reaction within the scene.
In a movie that means you don't just show a character in a traumatic event, you show how it effects and changes them from that point on and how the people around them react to it. In a novel you can't expect to make someone scared just because you said the monster is scary, you need to build the feeling with both environmental detail, action, AND emotional reaction from the characters.
"Show, don't tell." really has got to be one of the most misunderstood and overly used bits of advice out there. Sometimes it's perfectly valid to tell and let the audience fill in the blanks. Sometimes it's more ominous to not be shown something. Sometimes it can be used to great thematic effect that you're only told of a great plot point.
I don't think this is particularly "fantastic", more like people are ALL THE TIME misunderstanding what "show don't tell" means.
And it seems most take it as literally "visual, no text", which they then take into practice as "descriptions, no dialogue".
@@Momo_Minomothis is the key. These high impact moments are the result of careful setup, they are the punchline. Then the money people and the focus groups come in and demand more of those moments that people liked, and less of that boring stuff that came before it.
Writing feels like it's got the same problem machine floors used to and still are having. The old guy who's been working there for his entire life and knows everything about the tools and the secrets of the trade is retiring. The company didn't decide to train a replacement, so an apprenticeship is just shoved in who doesn't really know what they're doing. The old guy had a connection with the machine and was an artisan, but the new kid doesn't know the intricacies of the job yet. The product is in theory okay, but never as good as what people expect.
We do have loads of hobbyists looking over the machine and drawing up new tools from the sidelines. Maybe in a while when that apprentice finally gets kicked out, there'll be more machine shops than we thought in this wonderful extended metaphor.
@@localhearthian2387 I guess in this metaphor the true artisans who are the hobbyists become the people on CZcams, while the "real" products are made in the Chinese Disney factory.
@@localhearthian2387 we also have more hobbyists than ever looking over the shoulder of the apprentice and constantly telling him they could do better.
I disagree, I think the issue they have is exactly what Kyle said, they want to be filmmakers/series leads without the drive and desire and passion for making film and tv and stories. I look at the old BTS of the lord of the rings trilogy and remember Peter Jackson doing 7 day weeks, 20 hour days for months on end before, during and even after filming. I can’t say for certain modern writers do that or are even allowed to do that anymore because they have to look for the next gig to come along. It’s factory filmmaking at its worst.
I wish it was that.
No, they're deliberately hiring people who are incompetent now because they will do what they're told.
How else do you think two guys who essentially have never had a script accepted in a decade ever got Ring of Power? AKA the most expensive TV show in history.
Goblin dance numbers just don't work without David Bowie.
Wow, we still haven't made Kyle sleep?!?!!!!
Back in February when I tried to switch plans, there was somehow always an error occuring. This wasn't just once, I tried it a week later and it still happened. But today things worked just fine. It might have to do something with yearly vs monthly billing? My personal theory is that the yearly billing thing wasn't available for Klubbhus (I think that was the case, at least), and I had it in Tillgang, and Patreon didn't know what to do in order to switch.
I feel bad but also I'm poor
I spat out my rice laughing at the second "And he's Jack Black now". I'm sooo ready for the full series on Doctor Who. 😂
We called that you had ADHD cause we recognize our own 😅
peer reviewed diagnosis
seems like everyone has ADHD
@@PrintScreen. hiiiii
@captainnossi6547 the secret third thing, my favorite
@@PrintScreen. It's almost like they just wanna sell you pills or something.
I totally agree about Ruby. All of the companions in RTD’s first era were lovable because they felt like genuine human beings with complex emotions and believable reactions. In comparison, Ruby just seems so weirdly unfazed by literally everything.
I haven’t seen any door monster for ages, and what I watch is just Kyle sitting here talking, and I love it.
And tails is the bad side
You're wrong about the coin thing. Fight me irl.
The problem with modern movies for the mythical "modern audience" is that their mindset is "you cannot identify with anyone who isn't exactly like you."
There are so many series that I have been a fan of which I have dropped because of these basic reasons.
It's particularly big for female characters. They want them to start out perfect and have nothing they can't do, and it seems to stem from fear of the perception of being weak or rather, a fear or any of the audience being able to claim that women are weak. It just ends up making the characters flat and uninteresting.
I don't think it's just one thing, but this is on the top of the list. Another could be power fantasy, like self-insert for the authors.
Another could be very weak "genderbend" shenanigans, where people will write female characters just as male ones and then swap the gender. Many gives this exact advice for writing GOOD female characters, but there are real differences between how men and women act and what is more desirable and reasonable between them. A stoic man might be cool and their coldness excused, while a stoic woman comes out as rude and selfish. Or a man who stammers and cries all the time as weak and pathetic while a woman like that as endearing and cute.
Are these double standards? Kinda yeah. But they reflect reality. If one wants to "subvert" the gender roles, it should also come with some kind of commentary on how people are expected to behave and how that is cringe. But it seems nowadays it's almost solely about "women should never be expected to do anything" and "men should be expected to do this and that and not this and not that".
And then a third one: It's this weird attempt to... Wash of any accountability and responsibility female characters should have, but still get all the power and fame and money and love interests by just being a strong woman with agency because that's enough...? That the world is happening TO them, instead of them making things happen. Yet it's also then spun as them somehow being super important and changing the world by just... existing? And proving that they have a chip on their shoulder. It's super weird and hard to verbalize, but so many stories just revel in this... Participation trophy entitlement.
I don't have a direct problem with the new female, black and LGBT characters in modern media. I have a problem with incompetent writers using race, gender and sexuality as a last minute shield to declare any criticism of their characters to be bigotry and not their inept butchering pre-existing characters.
i mean, to put this in even clearer terms, i personally think it's most heartbreaking when nowadays, every instance of potentially good representation is just brutally butchered by terrible writing. the actors behind the characters in the current season are good actors, particularly the doctor. but whatever on earth disney is doing makes it feel so inauthentic, which is just crushing, because the casting and costuming is genuinely delightful.
i don't think the writers purposefully use their casting as a shield; i think some people are legitimately directing bigotry at actors instead of rightfully slinging their complaints at the writing quality and production choices. actors are people with lines who, yes, can absolutely add or detract from their characters - but what the writers tell them to do definitely has the largest impact on the outcome.
@@nobodyimportant1968
I don't think they are intentionally using their casting as a shield. They think that giving a male character boobs, making a white character black, or making someone LGBT inherently improves a character so they don't need things like nobility, humility or any character trait that could be perceived as good. This is while at the same time giving a female character feminine traits = all women belong as subservient to men, a black character doing something naughty = all black people are criminal scum, a gay man having a masculine trait = denial of their existence and other bull like that. Simply put they don't write a character, they write an identity and due to the fact that they could only see their identity that must be the only thing anyone else can see.
In summary, the writers are racist, sexist, homophobic bigots but think they are champions because that is all they see and they portray those traits as inherently positive to the point of absurdity.
"It'd be so cool if her brother was the main character"
........I'm glad you've decided to finish Fallout because, he *is* a main character, increasingly so as the series progresses. Hes my favorite character, too, cause he actually does stuff instead of have stuff happen to him.
All of the characters in this show does stuff proactively its just more noticeable in said character who originally wanted to not do stuff
Doesn't the stuff happening around the other 3 main characters make sense tho? All this stuff is happening because the 3 main characters are willingly trying to go after the artifact that many factions want, sure you could say how some of them actually survive in the wasteland is because of bs dumbluck but luck is a literal stat in the games so I don't really mind it.
He's a side character.
@@Razumen We follow his perspective as to what's happening back at the vault and he singlehandedly figures out what the experiment of their vault is, which ties in other characters' stories. That makes him more than a side character. He's not the lead character, but he's definitely one of the main characters that we see the story through.
@@chaotic-goodartistry3903 No, he's a side character. You can remove him from the show and it wouldn't change the main story.
About fallout Norm does become the character telling the story of the 3 connected vaults and Lucy does expierence a lot of hardship.
Yea, but it really feels like Lucy doesn't change till the end of the season. It's not even a gradual change. It's just an abrupt one.
The story indeed does get a lot better but I do think it was fair criticism that a trolley problem was set up with absolutely no consequence at all.
@@aiedenoldstien9751 I think you are missing some points though. There are a lot of subtle shifts, when she accepts human meat and contaminated water for instance, or realises peace and diplomacy were never an option against ghouls and organ traffickers... She even forgoes her "Vaults will rebuild America" idea in the monster/human hybrid vault. I think it's simply that she was more of a comedic device for the writers than anything, by sending her happy-go-lucky self into a dystopian future
@@turoni314 Because the outcome of the trolley problem wasn't a character moment for any of the vault people. It was character development for Moldaver. But you have to finish the show to realize that.
The problem is that by the end of episode one you are so over the concept of caring for any of those one dimensional caricatures of characters that they could do something amazingly impactful later on and it would not do anything.
25:50
This idea that all dialogue must serve the main plot being what makes good cinema is dead wrong. Proof of this is Stephen King and his works, which are deeply character driven. He puts so much focus on characters that are sometimes used for less than a narrative scene, that it lets you understand the impact of main characters actions much more deeply. In king's works, nobody is just an npc, they are written as people. That is largely why his works are so compelling
Yeah like, not everything in a story, whether it be a movie, book, game, etc, has to be big and important and plot focused. Sometimes, especially if you want to, in some ways, worldbuild, things such as referencing books, foods, events, etc, can help ,make the world feel more alive
It's as same as wrong as the modern idea of filler episodes being wrong. I just watched the Star Trek Next Generation Episode with Picard on the vacation planet. It didn't serve anything really, it was just a silly Episode centered around Picard who just wanted to relax. Or there this X-Files Episode about a disfigured character and genetic experiments. Or pretty much any sitcom episode. No it does not enhance some grand plot where something threatens mankind, it doesn't serve a purpose of defeating the Borg or a bunch of guys conpsiring with aliens - but it does not have to. When I hear that people are bored of Andor or annoyed at an Episode of Game of Thrones or some other show because it does not advance the plot, i roll my eyes. The plot is important but all this stuff mentioned is fun and watching a movie or a tv series should be fun (or entertaining). Personally as a reader or viewer or player I want to have the possibility to know more about the world and characters.
I would even go as far as to say, that it is more important to have unnecessary stuff, because it shapes world/characters. If a villain does not want to drink alcohol but specifically orders milk it shows us an invidual with principles, with things they like and dislike, maybe even a history attached to it. As chris said, the world feels more alive. Yes some people might find it boring but I say: So what? I liked it more when TV shows had 20+ episodes then 8 episodes, because these characters today feel a lot closer to me simply because I got to know them better and I rather watch a random old episode of Stargate then of a lot of modern series.
@@valeriacaissa4552 Thank you, but yeah, it makes a world feel more alive. Like not everything has to serve the plot. Like, have characters be people, rather than like, super plot heavy NPCs and PCs and whatever. And better yet, it gives viewers, players, readers, etc, time to breathe, absorb info, and just give them a respite
I think you're missing the point. You say King's dialog often doesn't serve the main plot. That's not at all true. The Stand as an example is 98% about the characters. There kind of isn't a plot. It's a situation, an inciting incident. King often has terrible endings for this reason. Characters can kind of only wrap up when they die. Anything else is just not the end for them. This can be fine, but it hinges on the characters being likeable or interesting or different. Imagine a King book about GirlBoss, who is perfect and has no flaws except that she's just so good at everything. Bo-ring. Novice writers should cut the fluff, because if you can't write a woman to begin with, at least don't constantly assault us with your lack of ability. Or your James Gunn dialog. Oh my god did I just say that? What am I even doing right now? This is crazy! (Runs around giving strangers high fives.)
@@valeriacaissa4552TNG doesn't really count because it was trying to fill a network schedule. Every story had to be able to be bottled because it would re-run endlessly on broadcast television out of order. You had to be able to watch any episode without much context. This is a weakness to the show that nobody is really defending. The writers though were smart and worked with it. Like you watch some episode about Picard having a side quest where he learns to play a flute. And it seems like a throwaway episode. But then maybe five episodes later someone is poking around his office and they're like wtf is this flute. You saw that episode, so you have context other viewers don't. It's not perfect.
If you want something a little less episodic try Babylon 5. Literally things in the first episode don't pay off until Season 5.
Nothing better than listening to the kids rant about how things were better when THEY were young.
It wasn't just any planet they were marveling at.
It was a space planet.
Why is 30 minutes of mostly Kyle just talking into the camera so damned entertaining?
Seriously. If i had a choice between this and nearly any Marvel movie i'm choosing this. It's an incredible deconstruction, and he crammed like 5 of them in one video.
Kyle is simply an entertaining guy.
Charismatic, likable people relating their sincere opinions is entertaining. Turns out it doesn't take much for us monkeys to have fun.
Because ADHD people talking about something we’re passionate about is entertaining
Because, unlike his subject matter, HE can write
>Seeing righteous Neil critique.
YEAH
We are an AMY HENNIG HOUSEHOLD.
I hope the Captain America game she's working on goes well, seeing T'challa's father as the Black Panther (+sick cape) seemingly going to beef over the shield looked promising.
i know i had good reason not to watch the tv show
Okay the water jug gag at 25:45 is probably the best-balanced meta-joke I've ever seen, because I feel like exactly 50% of people will get it and the other 50% won't. Gave me a good laugh and appreciation for your skill at this!
What am I missing with the water jug? It sounds vaguely familiar but I'm not sure
@@ethanwells7856 he was just commenting on unneccassary things occasionally being good to make the scene/world seem more 'real' and less like actors just reciting lines at you. Hence, an unneccasary scene of him drinking water is an example of that type of thing.
(at least thats my understanding🙂)
@@Pasta_Pirate That makes a lot of sense. I thought there was some long-standing jug-of-water bit that I wasn't in on, which would be weird because I feel like I've seen like, *most* Doormonster stuff.
@@Pasta_Pirate I didn't even catch that he was making a point in that bit, I was just watching a guy get a drink because he got thirsty while he was talking and being a tad funny about it. Which I guess actually hits home his point pretty well.
It’s a really weird point because he says unnecessary things should be in stories before immediately explaining how examples of “unnecessary” things are necessary for the plot.
The bad side of the coin is the 'edge' side, so when you clap your hand to catch it on the fall of the coin you jam it into your soft and sensitive flesh. :
Or it's the good side because you gain the ability to read people's thoughts, feel like you're on top of the world, realize there are unexpected complications from being fundamentally set apart from others, and find yourself grateful to return to your natural state, having grown as a person. THAT'S RIGHT, TOP-TIER WRITING IN 30 MINUTES FROM THE TWILIGHT ZONE
1:19 this is what Dr Who has become for me because I slowly felt myself becoming less and less entertained or invested in it and thought exactly that, it was ME becoming too short attention-spanned or too snobby and some old grouchy "back in my day" person who hates the newer series because i'm some racist sexist and a terrible human... so I rewatched the older series and I can guarantee it wasn't 100% nostalgia because there were plenty of cringy moments and boring or useless plot lines but it was so FUN. Watching the older series from Eccleston, Tenant and the start of Matt Smith were genuinely entertaining in a way shows don't do for me anymore. I enjoyed them as much if not more now as an adult as I did then, probably because I understood more, related to more as i've experienced more etc and it was good! Same with Sherlock and Merlin, greta BBC shows which seem to be lost to time in their 'faith' knowing there would be another series and more to see of these characters and settings so we can mess around a little bit and have fun.
My two points here:
1) I think we never fully understand what "era" we are in as things are happening. But this detached style of character feels like it somehow makes sense with the rise if doomerist philosophy among many of the target demographics, the don't want to take things seriously and "be a main character" so it makes sense that idea would birth characters that are detached and just "along for the ride" and maybe (for better or worse) that's what defines this era of entertainment
2) I also haven't watched Fallout (just haven't had the chance to do so) but from the way people have described it to me, i was told the MC was designed with a sense of detachment to mimic the video games to create a specific style for the show. I'll eventually get around to watching it and judging it myself
A detached character works for a video game because you, as the player, have the option to make choices for the character so it is good for immersion if your own character does not disagree with you. That, however, does not work for non-interactive media like TV series or movies.
Regarding the second point:
In my opinion, the detachment is the only logical outcome from a serious lack of world-building on the surface. The sets all look really, really good, but the internal logic behind them is never explained, and this inherently causes a sense of detachment. For example, the first town on the surface that the protagonist visits has a ton of people roaming through it, with lots of little storefronts available. But why? Is it actually a large urban center? And if so, what is so special about it that made people live there? Does it have access to clean water or agriculture? If so, we never see or hear any evidence of this. Is it just a large trading center in the middle of a trade route between larger towns? No clue, because they never explain anything about it. We get a name for the town, and a pretty cool looking set, and that's about it. It just exists as a place for a scene to happen in the narrative, and then serves no other purpose. It's not expanded upon in any way, and nothing is ever offered to allow it to make sense in the fictional universe in which it exists. And this happens all the time throughout the series. The Vaults get explained fairly well, but nothing on the surface has any real substance to it, and basically only exist as set-pieces for a scene to occur. So how can characters appear to be logically consistent in a setting wherein there is no logic? The show generally looks good, but it all falls apart as soon as you stop and think, and when you start asking questions.
And you might be right that it's done so in order to mimic a video game - because these are the same criticisms that people complained about in Fallout 3. (Why would people live next to an atomic bomb? Where does Megaton get food? How does Rivet City get enough clean water to supply its population and run a hydroponics lab, in a game wherein the entire plot revolves around a lack of clean water? How does Little Lamplight or the Republic of Dave maintain a sustainable population across multiple generations? All these places look cool and make very memorable locations, but also make no sense in-universe.) But if that's the case, I would have hoped that they would mimic the good parts of a game, and not the uncanny valley aspect of poor writing within a game.
@@vdt952 Its very simple. People that have a creative personality tend to go to university and then work in entertainment. Rarely have they ever seen a farm, or a coal mine, or water plant, or oil rig. Because of that theyre not conscious of how society is sustained. Electricity comes from a socket and food comes from groceries. Thats the depth of appreciation people have for their modern lifestyle.
@@zztopz7090Is this really a creative person thing or are you just talking down the industry of entertainment?You think a retail worker or any common worker knows more about how the world is ran than people like those? Especially when one motivating factor to pursue art in any form is because of first-hand life exprience? Farmers and coal miners can easily be as creative. It's not exclusive to just those creatives, especially when those kinds of people aren't always guaranteed success.
Something I think about alot is the original stargate series and how they tried to handle adding more to a universe that was really only meant as the movie.
This actually gives me some interesting ideas for a story I'm working on. I'll be vague because it's a CZcams comment but basically I have three main characters traveling through an unfamiliar environment. One character is someone who's already seen it all but been gone so long he doesn't know what's changed and he needs to relearn it. One character hasn't seen it but has prepared themselves with a bunch of training and research, and one character is going into everything with no experience and preparation but cares about the journey more than the other two. This video helped me realize that I can probably add a lot of depth to my story by emphasizing those differences so thanks this video is good brainstorming.
It seems cool
That sounds like a good story premise.
MLP FiM S4 E6 has a moment that made me realize something similar: at the end of the episode, after everyone escapes the enchanted comic book, Twilight asks "Where exactly did you get that comic book?" There's a joke about how the name of the store "House of Enchanted Comics" is literal, but that reaction of "that's way too dangerous for something so mundane, I need to learn more so I can be prepared" stuck with me. It's a very episodic show so I don't expect this to be setting up anything for the future, but the fact it's not for the plot makes it easier to see as a character moment.
Glad to see FiM still discussed.
@@Kalightortaio I'd recently finished a D&D comic that used screencaps from the show, and decided to try watching it. Honestly, some of the stuff they get up to makes it feel exactly like a D&D setting.
@@valdonchev7296they actually made roleplay books based off of the series! i looked into it since i enjoy FiM and was wondering about systems/settings to run for possible future children.
@@valdonchev7296Friendship is Dragons? (Which, I just learned, only ended THIS YEAR. Which is wild. I became a fan like 10 years ago, then gave up a couple dozen pages in.)
@@TheDanishGuyReviews Yup!
Speaking of the MCU and writing convenience the... I think they're calling it the blip (unsnap)? It's convenient to solve the big plot thing at the end of infinity war with a snap and does track as possible but like did nobody think of the ramifications of bringing everyone back? We see in one of the Spiderman movies a whole ass marching band pops back in the middle of a basketball game.
So like did thousands of people who were on planes rain from the sky? Were the highways painted red? The oceans filled with stranded souls?
Then we have the societal implications. The huge hit to production of food and water that'd follow from losing half of all life must have been devastating and the world likely adapted to only feeding half the population and now there's double the people with half the food. Like there are so many implications that just don't get addressed.
They do touch on the double displacement somewhat in the Falcon and Winter Soldier series. They also directly show the shock of coming back for multiple characters like Yelena and Monica Rambeau... but they could definitely have done more with it.
For sure, I've been thinking this as well. After five years it feels almost more unethical to bring everyone back and let chaos ensue instead of leaving it as is, but none of that is ever addressed and everything almost continues like half the population was never actually gone 😅
You're not alone in feeling 'weird' about a lot of modern movies and shows. The feeling is dissected excellently in Emperor Lemon's video "The Matrix: De-booted" where he goes over some of the stuff you mentioned and highlights how the original creators of the matrix were pressured into making a soulless, sequel/reboot which they filled with criticisms about modern studio filmmaking.
Vyvanse is the most helpful ADHD medication for me, I'm glad it seems to be helping you.
Taking it since two month and I'm already at 130% of the daily maximum dosis, but so far it works as good on me as globules :D But good to see that it helps some people to relief their symptoms :)
The fallout part... come on you can't assume things! That's literally the mistake most writers make when doing a sequel/reboot of a loved franchise.
In Obi wan's words: You have becomed the very thing you swore to destroy.
I mean the assumption "The first episodes are shit so the rest is probably shit too" is not that much of a stretch.
@@Taladar2003very few shows get their footing on the first episode, especially if they’re built to have a full season without the need of a pilot.
Prediction what happens in a show without watching it is something only a fool would do.
Reminds me of Critical Drinker predicting what happens in Prey based off of the trailer and getting everything completely wrong. Don't be like him. He's a moron.
@@Taladar2003There’s far too many shows that start out that way for that to be true, cmon man. Was ATLA, or hell Morel Orel shit just because of their first few episodes were "meh"?
"Ruby Sunday, a character who they named that," brutal man. lol
9:20 dude great summary of the issue I have felt with many new shows. No character respresents the 'normal' perspective with understandable fear and surprise and anger etc. Everybody is already 'in on it'
So uh fun fact Kyle Disney didn't reboot doctor who and Disney doesn't have any power in the series what so ever there just a distributor every decision that was made was made by Russel T Davis the only thing we know Disney added was a scene in the church on Ruby road that being the snowman head scene
Yeah a lot of people see Disney and assume they bought doctor who like they do with everything else but in actuality they consider it a low budget investment and only paid for 2 seasons.
Yeah. Disney is just functioning as the distributor, and that’s great because it has been difficult to watch Doctor Who outside of England for like a decade now.
The fact that Disney was to distribute DOES mean the creator's decisions may have been influenced. We know Disney had at least one direct meddle, which means they also had uncountably many indirect meddles
@@lazydroidproductions1087If Disney were purely distributing it they would have just licensed the existing series. They might not own the underlying IP but they've still paid for their own series to be made under that IP, and they'll get at least some influence over it as a result (if nothing else they would have specified which parts they wanted remade in what timeframe, which indirectly dictates a lot of the pacing decisions).
I doubt they won’t edit things, they changed a lot in Bluey (not a lot a lot, but little changes here and there adds up)
Or, as I read the title, "I'm scared doctor, who is going to become a musical?" 🤣 Ok, on to the video!
Well well well, it’s been a while.
Edit: Tails, in my opinion Tails is the bad side of the coin because we all collectively choose Heads for some reason. Not to mention I live in Canada and the Canadian one dollar coin has a Canadian goose on the tails side.
Edit2: It apparently isn’t a goose, it’s a different bird, that bird is named a loon according to @Gemma-Majoran (thank you for reminding me). It’s still a bird though which can still be considered evil. Therefore it’s still the bad side of the coin in my opinion.
Well well well well well well well if it isn’t Stanley pines.
yeah i thought that too as a canadian
turns out the canadian loon
for which the loonie is named
ISNT A CANADIAN GOOSE
@@Gemma-Majoran Wait really, I’ve been lied to, Or I forgot. One of those two. It’s still a bird though and it reminds me of those damn menaces, so my opinion on the bad side of the coin remains unchanged.
Heads is the bad side. It's covered in imperialist colonizers
fun fact: the loon is Minnesota's state bird
Yeah, I am struggling a lot with the whole Chekhov's gun idea, that everything introduced needs to be significant or it shouldn't have been introduced in the first place. Casual mentionings, red herrings, character introductions for characters that end up not really mattering. That's stuff that builds the world creates context and distracts you into getting invested.
I am not saying you should always stick a bunch of unnecessary stuff into every scene or even every movie, in fact that would just be annoying.
Like Han Solo's dice is a great example, did they put them there because they're a significant part of the story in any way? No, they put them there because Han Solo is a person and people like decorating their areas. If you think about it, his line of work makes him basically a space truck-driver, and spend most of his time in the cockpit of his truck. With that being such a big part of his life, of course he decorates it, most truckdrivers do as well if they're allowed to.
Yeah same. I think the issue is people took a solid piece of advice “A gun presented in the first act must be fired in the third” and extrapolated that to *everything a story can include.* Like it’s called Chekov’s *gun* not Chekov’s Everything for a reason
There’s a reason “sometimes the curtains are just blue” is a popular saying these days. Because it is true. Sometimes something is just there. It doesn’t always have to come back around, sometimes it’s set-dressing. Imagine a play with no backgrounds because it’s “not relevant to the plot”?
Yes, the first season of Westworld did this so well.
The bad side of a coin is the scratched out head where you give in to the urge to attack batman
It sounds like this is one part, 'Kyle makes really valid points about the modern landscape of television and cinema,' and one part, 'Kyle only had the time and energy to watch the first two episodes of television shows which ironically have pretty good third episodes'.
Yeah. It was frustrating, since those were good points he was making but it takes away some credibility when he's using shows as examples that he gave up on after 2 episodes. The middle stretch of that season of Who had some truly excellent episodes that absolutely knew what they were doing artistically.
(Note, when I say he loses credibility I don't mean he's being dishonest or he wouldn't have admitted to only watching that far, just that the opinions carry less weight as a result.)
@@darlhiatt8136I mean in his defense, the *point* of the first episodes is to hook you and showcase what the rest of a series will be. The fact that he gave up after two episodes shows they failed to hook him
@@DeathnoteBB sure, it's fine to drop a show anytime. But doing so leaves him less qualified to comment on the quality and plot of those shows.
@@darlhiatt8136Exactly, personally if you cant finish a show you or at the very least one season of it, you aren't really qualified at all to critique it from a reviewing pov. Especially under the guise of an informative video.
I just gotta say it: End of the world was such a good episode. That's it. That's the whole comment.
Ok. I'm going to argue that the little robot spider who presses the button that incinerates everything in the room is a little contrived, as is the Doctor's random time slow power and pretty much all of the plot now that I think about it, but Rose's story in it was great, and it's still better than like all but 5 of the episodes since The Doctor Falls.
Another problem is that a lot of things are designed for the audience to react and not the characters. Zooming in on some random item that means pretty much nothing to the characters but is a reference for the crowd to freak out and throw their popcorn on the floor over is one of the worst tropes in movies right now
Goddamn memberberries...
It sounds like the Fallout show perfectly adapts the writing of Bethesda NPCs where you try to think they're people but they are so stubbornly dead inside it's like they're spiting your immersion.
Snarky comments and jokes aside, this was a very interesting watch and very likely part of why I have been watching almost no movies. We have so many grand and epic plots in media where nobody ever takes a second to act like anything remotely relatable that it all just breezes past us without any impact and it definitely happens a lot in games as well.
13:05 There's no way Disney or Amazon is going to portray a woman as "Soft and Naive" even if that's what any normal person would be regardless of gender. The Disney Dr Who girl doesn't flinch because the man next to her didn't and that might make the woman look weaker or not as smart, even though anyone would be confused and overwhelmed. They're so obsessed with making "strong females" the characters end up coming across as unrelatable or even disconnected. I never felt that way with Ellie in fallout but the little girl in Last of Us came across as a psycho.
This is quite a great video highlighting a problem I've noticed in a lot of shows and movies. It always takes you out of a film or show when the characters show little reaction to things that most normal humans would react to, especially grief.
18:55 “Why undo all that? She’s leaving; they aren’t even preserving these characters or location for later, they’re out of the story. Why not give us all that extra motivation?” Because writers can no longer think about scenarios beyond they personal experiences. When someone writes a character, that character is them or the writer’s idealized version of themselves and because the writer is more than likely nepo-baby, they have failed to learn what emotions they’re are beyond their shallow existence. Writing a character who has lost everything they have ever known as a result of a morally screwed up experience is not capable in the writer’s imagination
I didn't know I need Kyle in my life to do deep dives of media to make me feel complete. This is scratching. Such an itch right now. I didn't realize I had.
Oh, and you're actually alright at this. Keep doing it a little, it's not a bad video. I think this would be a good way to keep variety on the channel and, at least, I hope most of us would enjoy both and it wouldn't create separate audiences.
Didn't realize I was here so soon, I'm 10 minutes in and this released almost right before I started watching.
Been a Door Monster fan for years and I'm enjoying the rant about writing so far.
The bad side of the coin is the one with a monarch on it
Based
So what I'm hearing is that America is all good sides 😎
@@OtakuNoShitpost
No you are the unfettered capitalism side where the rich and corporations have all the power, switching from rulers ordained by "god" for ones who have the most money inherited from parents.
The teleprompter ended?! Everyone, don't blink! Blink and you're dead.
Suppose that means we can't sleep either.
I think 12th doctor does the whole new person very well as the companion and the doctor have to deal with young Matt smith turning into old Peter Capaldi
I'd like to say with your discussion about fallout that they do continue the story with the vault, and Norm and I'd say that you should give the show another chance... or don't idk 😅
As a hardline royalist I have to say unequivocally that tails is the bad side of the coin and any suggestion otherwise is tantamount to treason.
It's not difficult to understand the state of modern Hollywood, and how it got this way. Steve Jobs made an astute observation about institutional rot in the technology industry, and it applies *perfectly* to the current condition of massive studios like Disney:
czcams.com/video/NlBjNmXvqIM/video.html
Now in the case of Xerox, he blames the rot on "sales and marketing people" getting into leadership and driving creative people who actually make good products. In the case of Hollywood, however, at some point in the early 2000s, a bunch of media consolidation took place, and the people who wound up with the big chairs in Hollywood were the merger and acquisition finance types.
Think about Disney buying out Marvel and Lucasfilm, for example. A creative leader who wanted to make great movies wouldn't pay billions of dollars to buy someone else's IP. They'd try and make their *OWN*. And people used to do that. When Star Wars was a huge hit in '77, we got a flurry of other science fiction projects:
Alien, The Last Starfighter, The Black Hole, Battlestar Galactica, and the Star Trek movies
Now you just get reboots and remakes, greenlit by the suits who spent billions buying the rights to produce reboots and remakes.
They totally missed the Normal person vs omnipresent space alien time lord dynamic
imagine if the other vault dwellers were scared of Lucy bc of her weird natural talents and disregard to violence bc something about her is just -wrong. Like if a real fallout game player started playing her
I agree wholeheartedly. I love characters that are characters. I want personality. I want people to root for even if they aren't the best people. Because its *interesting*. Because when characters are felly fleshed out it makes any kind of media so much more fun to watch since there's an actual character to be invested in. All of this is of course to say:
GIVE ME MORE DUMPSTER FIRE CHARACTERS HOLLYWOOD. I WANT TO WATCH NONREALITY TRASH PEOPLE TRYING THEIR BEST. IT GIVES ME LIFE.
Thank you for reading.
Kyle, first things first, I am glad you are sleeping -At least, I think you are? I got kinda confused-, and secondly, I am thoroughly enjoying this more relaxed, long form video format, and how it feels somehow like a chill conversation more than anything else, which I don't understand how that is the case, but meh, it works. Not that I haven't already been thoroughly enjoying you guys' sketches, because I have, but this is really great too. Anyway, basically, I hope you and the rest of monster door are doing well, and this was an incredibly enjoyable episode of "The Opinions of K-Corp".
Hey Kyle, I don't know how much effort this video took to make, but holy cow you are so good at the whole video essay format. Would so fucking love to see more of this
yeeeaaahhh i suggest you keep watching fallout cause they do go back to the vault for a plotline and that brother character is the main character in that plotline.
I wouldn’t. The show is complete ass.
@Wesley-1776 widely considered great and completely revived the Fallout game series, which lost fans after Fallout 76. But I'm sure your opinion is correct and everyone else is wrong.
@@AleksandrStrizhevskiy yes. Also the good games were fine. We want Bethesda to hurt or even close down so someone else gets the IP. Plenty of people agree with me. Tourist
@@AleksandrStrizhevskiyif in 2 hours (ya know, the length of a whole movie) you haven't sold me, I'm nit going to spent 3x more hoping it gets more.interesting. majority rule is never a valid argument by itself anyway
@@malachilining2730 Sure, thats is a valid point. But the criticism he gave of the show were things that were answered later. If he said "the show failed to hook me, thats an opinion that makes sense". But he criticized the story of the vault for things that were actually addressed in the show.
Hey, it's okay. Getting help and meds later is normal, and then you look back and are like "wow, all these things I thought were my personality were really just symptoms and rationalizations?" It changed everything for me. You'll do well, you still have all the superpowers you just have to relearn how to access them, safely.
Dear Lord, it's almost two decades since Doctor Who came back to TV. How?! How does so much time fly by so quickly?! 😨
Memory compresses time.
What you said about having fun making a movie really strikes a chord with me. The best Marvel movies are movies where I felt like everybody was having a really good time making it, like the Deadpool movies and Thor Ragnarok. They seemed like the people making the movie were really into making the movie
I feel like you need to finish Fallout - Lucy's desires and intentions are really contextualized within the broader narrative of the rest of the season. Returning the original vault periodically is also really important to the story.
20:00 - This is actually a complaint I have about a bunch of media criticism I've heard recently. People seem to have developed a complete aversion to scenes that do not advance the plot directly, even if they do develop characters or set the tone. Like, a 30s shot of a character just looking at something might do nothing for the plot, but their expressions and reactions can tell you a lot about who that character is, *which is often later relevant for the plot to make sense!*
Just take the sponsorship, only a minute of our time (which people uniterested in the sponsorship can skip through) but a lot of help for you.
Also, loving the long form video content!
Eh, it feels unethical since it’s basically the content creator endorsing said sponsor, and 99% of them are scams or misleading
@@DeathnoteBB That's just how advertising works in our climate. If I got such an offer I would also be questioning it morally but nowadays most consumers are used to ignoring such advertisments anyway. If he's struggling and there's a lot to gain I say go for it.
@@igorkonys1006 The issue is many do know by now to just skip, but many still have faith in what someone they trust endorses. Sometimes it’s whatever, like Raycon sucks but it’s just earbuds (though they are expensive earbuds, despite their ad script’s claims). But some things are Betterhelp, which preys on vulnerable people who are desperate and seeking help.
Not everyone is savvy enough to know a CZcams sponsor is almost always a bad product or service, so people take their favorite CZcamsr’s word for it (which unbeknownst to them is just the ad-read script) and then get ripped off.
"story economy" is such a boring concept
in the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly pretty much the story doesnt start until ONE HOUR into the movie, and it's one of the best movies ever made
I thought Ethan already taught you the lesson about half-binging a show!
It's these small little moments characters experience that make a story. Not the overarching events that occur that just progress the plot along. Becuase, at the end of the day, the purpose of a story is to examine what certain individuals will do when faced with these situations.
As someone who works at Target... Help
Every day, spend 20 minutes on a job website like indeed. Apply for 4-5 jobs per day. Good luck.
On Fallout: Kyle, sweaty, you needed to wait and *everything you complained about* would have been addressed, with *maybe* the exception of the Trolley Problem Incident. That one was kind-of weird but, knowing more about the antagonist of that scene, I think it's possible infer a reasonable explanation for what happened. I *guess* I can agree with you that I found the first couple of episodes a little flat in their characterization at points, but it gets WAY better by the end.
I think we were intentionally supposed to misunderstand the choice Lucy's Dad was being given. I think the choice was whether they would take Lucy or take him. And he chose for them to take him because he wanted to protect Lucy. Or at least keep her safe in the Vault.
I would like to know how what's-her-name managed to stay looking young and healthy for so long. And I have my suspicions that the weird potion the Ghoul drinks might not be doing what he (and all the other ghouls) thinks it's doing - as in it might be more of an addictive placebo with some rather detrimental withdrawal effects.
@@SadisticSenpai61 Given they were highlighted in the end credits my guess for Moldaver staying young is that she was in a cryosuite at The Tops, Las Vegas.
I am also sweaty
TV series makers have done the "Trust me, it gets better later on" routine for too long now and never really delivered on that.
@@Taladar2003 Early episodes generally aren't as good as later episodes cuz the writers and actors are still getting used to the characters and figuring them out. This is true for almost every series.
That said, it's not the TV series writers saying "it gets better" here, it's ppl who've watched the series. Maximus kinda remains a bit of a cringe character IMO. And Norm is actually a main character, even if he doesn't get the fancy scene change card. The ghoul just keeps getting more interesting as a character and I feel like his character development is the most fascinating.
Lucy, ofc, is the "player character" and as such, has to be able to fill that role. That's why she's so good at everything - because the player character is always good at everything. But she does have her own personality and quirks which really show themselves as she makes decisions that players wouldn't make because she doesn't actually know anything about the world outside the vault.
I feel like I'm the only one, who actually remembers RTD episodes of doctor who. You know ones with: farting aliens taking over London, suicidal larpers on a space titanic, alien that feed on love and turns people into drawings, Doctor turning from Dobby to Jesus and blasting Master with a faith beams, living face in a stone slab with an active sex life and so on. "Turn left" is fantastic, and I like "Midnight" was fun, but other then this two, RTD was consistently bad at writing the show. All good episodes were written by someone else during his run. And that "someone else" was often called Moffat.
So hearing that RTD is going back to show and he's bringing Tennant back had more red flags for me then a victory parade in USSR. Both were a blatant fan service, not done out of creativity, but in an attempt to lure in people who left during Chibnal"s reign. So I didn't saw the specials, and I didn't saw the season. From what I could hear, I from people who did, I made the right decision.
'RTD was consistently bad at writing the show. All good episodes were written by someone else during his run. And that "someone else" was often called Moffat'
quotes like these is where people take it way too far. Is Russell a perfect writer? No. Are the weaker parts of his first era often ignored? Yes. Is he consistently bad at writing the show? Fuck no. If you read the book the Writer's tale, you'll discover that Davies rewrote, and had a major hand in almost all his episodes (The only people he wouldn't need to do that for was Moffat and Chibnall). Episodes like the impossible planet/satan pit, human nature/family of blood, the Fires of Pompeii, and Dalek are all fan favorites and heavily rewritten by Davies.
'hearing that RTD is going back to show and he's bringing Tennant back had more red flags for me then a victory parade in USSR. Both were a blatant fan service, not done out of creativity, but in an attempt to lure in people who left during Chibnal"s reign. So I didn't saw the specials, and I didn't saw the season. From what I could hear, I from people who did, I made the right decision.'
This is also wrong. Tennant was not brought back to lure people in who left during Chibnall's run. Russell got the idea for the specials in lockdown when Catherine Tate and David Tennant both expressed interest in returning to the show. With the 60th coming up, Russell pitched the specials as a lost story with the 10th Doctor taking place during series 4. It wasn't until Chibnall announced that he was leaving that Russell became showrunner, and decided that the story would have the 14th Doctor due to there being no incumbent Doctor. Also whether Chibnall's era was super popular or not I can say with 100% certainty that David Tennant would've been back for 2023. It was the 60th anniversary, and there was no way the bbc was not going to capitalize on that by bringing back their most popular actor.
How’s Rose, End of the World, Boom Town, Bad Wolf/Parting of the Ways, Smith and Jones, Utopia + Sound of Drums, and Waters of Mars bad episodes? Like ye, he doesn’t write well 100% of the time. Neither does Moffat. Neither does any other Doctor Who writer not named “Paul Cornell” or “Robert Shearman”.
That’s not being consistently bad at running the show, that’s you having bad taste lol
I won't list a bunch of good episodes that RTD wrote, because someone else already has, but if you want to play this game, how about I list off some bad Moffat episodes?
The Beast Below, The Pandorica Opens/The Big Bang, Let's Kill Hitler, The Wedding of River Song, The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe, the Angels take Manhattan, The Bells of Saint John, The Name of the Doctor, The Caretaker, Death in Heaven, and The Pyramid at the End of the World. Taking the worst of any writer's career and using it to say that they were bad in general is incredibly disingenuous and makes me think that you just googled "worst Doctor Who episodes written by RTD", because anyone who has seen the show knows that you are lying when you try and portray those 6 episodes as the whole show when Davies wrote 31 episodes in total across 4 seasons, most of which were good
The thing is being a writer and being the showrunner are actually different skills. Yes, the showrunner writes episodes, but that isn't all they do. I absolutely think most of the best episodes of the show are Moffat episodes--during RTD's run. For whatever reason, Moffat couldn't capture the same magic during his time as the showrunner. Sure, some of his episodes as showrunner were good, but none of them were his best. There was plenty of reason to believe that RTD as showrunner could work if he had a strong writing team alongside him. Admittedly also reason to be skeptical. I'll admit I fell out of love with the show during Moffat's time as showrunner so I haven't watched the show in a long time so I was never going to check it out without a lot of really positive word of mouth, but I don't blame people for being optimistic.
I have a higher opinion of rdt era doctor who than you, but I also saw the announcement of the return of RTD and Tennant as signs of the further downfall of dw.
so one of the problems is a lot of modern media is a straight-man, funny-man act but they cut the straight-man for budget reasons?
It’s not for budget reasons my dude
@@Scruffynerfherder10 of course it is, ceo couldn't fit both another yacht and a straight man in to the budget
@@the_nerd5976 they have more of a budget without a straight-man, look at the acolyte, 180 million dollars for what exactly, they ticked all the boxes to get as much financing as possible...THEN the ceo can get another yacht
Honestly I think it’s more they merged the funny man and straight man and now it’s just “snarky man rolls eyes at everything yet also takes things super seriously”
@@DeathnoteBB correction "snarky woman who rolls eyes at everything yet also takes things super seriously”
I honestly, like these videos more than your skits. Keep writing these, you’re a man of many talents.
These are a lot of things I feel like I have been feeling about media for a while now too, I'm glad you were able to articulate it so well
Donate now to the “Kyle Sleep Fund”
Dunno about everything else, but my favourite part of a lot of stories revolves around a character trying to figure out how to do stuff they need to do. Like a shipwrecked survivor trying to build a shelter without tools. Or trying to adjust to a new situation. Not knowing what to do. Failing, getting frustrated, and then starting over again. In Fallout, that would be interesting - how the hell does somebody adjust to a whole new unknown world? Psychologically, physically, socially, intellectually? You could spend 40 minutes on that easily, and I'd love every second of it.
00:40 alright so, pateron isn't working well enough. It seems we may need to apply advanced hobo technology to exploit lightspeed's relation to time travel to create gold that will decay into tachyons and decay by traveling back in time: thus multiply in an infinite recursive loop. Or, and here me out, we go graverobbing for fillings.
Man, I need more of these videos in my life. I need this video on loop on max volume to play outside every major movie/show company forever.
the left side of a coin is the bad side, No questions!
16:20 "Could you imagine HIM as a main character?"
Not as much as I could imagine him as the manager of a concession stand.
Kyle worked for target? I would have expected IKEA.
nah he's not allowed within 500 feet of an Ikea.
The transitional form between this quality in filmmaking now vs 20 years ago is Rouge One.
honestly really good writing advice. Obviously it's highly subjective and tailored towards your preferences. maybe hollywood has seen the stats and killing mass murdering an entire vault of incestuous people drops viewer retention by 10%, so they just left them alive, or girl power speeches make more money overall with their investors or whatever, but I can see where you're coming from. So much media I've consumed within the last 10 years just has reactionless actors (probably directed that way too), but then I watch older stuff and the actors are so animated and eccentric, it's just way more interesting to watch, but also way easier to get invested in. like a comedy routine, a straight man always makes it so much funnier and helps setup the jokes, and while he's the least funny person on stage, the act wouldn't work without him
I love your comedy routine analogy
Its A. Producers do not and have never had a damn idea of what makes art enjoyable or sell well. They just make stupid decisions that sometimes work.
B. Writers not realizing that what Kyle is talking about is not an example of 'trim this cause its pointless' its not recognizing what has a point.
You absolutely can have something that derails the plot slightly, if it adds to the characters. Especially if you're trying to be character driven, which as a rule, you should basically be always trying to do to some degree. Because then you aren't derailing anything. The plot itself is the derailing when its not character driven.
I think part of it is that with streaming and DVD sales basically no longer being anthing, anything that's made HAS to be a hit from the get go or it's a waste of money.
A lot of old movies and shoes would slowly make money from DVDs but do horrible at the box office. Which made it okay to still make those.
However Netflix (and others) dont really care what you watch, they care what gets you to subscribe and stay subscribed. Thats usually the 10 out of 10s. Where as a lot of movies and shows used to be almost intended to be 5 - 8 out of 10's.
If everything on Netflix was a 7 out of 10 that'd be a GOOD deal, but if Disney+ has a couple of 10's and everything else is a 4. Well people will probably subscribe to Disney+ over Netflix.
which just sucks so much.
i found it so odd that they k*lled off the old lady in the 60s music themed episode. i was expecting there to be a comedic bit where the doctor breaks in through the pianist's kitchen window, stops the maestro, and then makes some lie up about being a repair person before asking the old lady whether she knows what's been happening with the whole no music thing lately - that's what i'm used to the doctor doing, after all, no matter what they look like. but no - i was shocked by the fact that, wholesome disney, of all things, sort of just made a bunch of random side characters perish violently - and then added no catharsis to this scenario, followed by a _musical number for no reason??_ i don't get it - whatever happened to the "900 years of time and space, and i've never met someone who wasn't important?"
like, maybe i'm biased and just don't like seeing seniors perish on television in general, but cmon. the doctor loves old ladies. but he runs away from danger instead? he doesn't go looking for musicians in town? his sonic doesn't work, but not in the usual "oh woops wood door" way? russell t davies wrote some of my favourite doctor who episodes w/ 9 and 10... how on earth did he manage to get this season wrong this year?
Holy shit this video just made me realise exactly what made me love Wild Blue Yonder so much (the second David Tennant special), it's the fact they're actually reacting to situations properly. It's The Doctor and Donna in a fucked up situation, stranded on a drifting spaceship beyond the edge of the universe. I mean the TARDIS is all broken, they have a realistic argument, they reconcile, they decide to have a wander around for old times sake, the TARDIS leaves, Donna starts freaking out, I'll stop there but yoy get the point. A situation happens, people react realistically to how their characters would react, the situation changes due to their reaction, they react etc etc. The episode is just so damn good
The bad side of the coin is the side you don't want to land face up.