You are a hidden gem. You deserve a much larger audience. And this video was so right. Remakes are seldom worth the time or effort. Thank you. Please don't get discouraged. Better times are ahead!
The kid flying through the windshield kind of unintentionally funny. His body was so like board like. Like an arrow or like a football someone just threw.
This video is smart, hilarious, tightly edited, and flew by despite its length. You're doing everything right. I think it's just a matter of keeping on and waiting for the recommendation system to get more data on what your channel is so it can start suggesting you more, and to the right people. But you're already growing at an above-average rate. Just keep an eye on your click-through-rate in your analytics and make sure people are clicking. If they're not, it's never too late to try different titles and thumbnails. I'd also experiment with scooping some of the midrange out in your EQ to make your vocals sound more clear (your voice is excellent by the way), but otherwise, yep. Just don't stop. And thank you for leading me here. -Danny
@@Moviewise I read CinemaStix's comment about how it "flew by despite its length" and I would say it felt like somewhere between 7 and 12 minutes to me. I was very surprised to see it was 18 minutes! Masterful! Well done!
James Cameron is on record saying that for Titanic Leonardo wanted to add some tragic backstory but James shut it down. Saying he better figure it out.
I laugh at those who criticize Avatar’s villains for coming to Pandora just for money. They call it “childish” “lack of motivation”. What the hell would a corporation want except for money?!… That’s how real world works.
I'm not sure if it's meant as a subversion of this trope, but it's interesting how Saving Private Ryan is constantly hinting at some mysterious backstory for Tom Hanks' character, only to reveal that he's just some regular guy. Maybe it does not really fit the actor, since Tom Hanks has made a career out of playing relatable people, but it's nice that he's not some tragic character who turned his grief into badassery. In fact, his big speech pretty much comes down to: "Okay, I'm a teacher. Can we move on now?"
I love that you made this video. My friend and I are always griping about "well, here comes the useless backstory scene" when watching what is supposed to be an action movie.
I don't remember having this much fun while watching movie analysis, all your videos are extremely well edited, fun, smart, original, just keep at it man, you're awesome!
Reminds me of America Got Talent where every (and I mean every) contestant has a sad story. I sometimes think that the producer will pass on a very talented person without a sad story to put on a mediocre talent with a "great" sad story.
When you announced The Taking of Pelham 123 I almost cheered! An action masterpiece, criminally overlooked. All the hostage/heist flicks from the 80s and 90s owe a great deal to this gem.
I kind of liked Bullet Train, which is an insane caper movie and has great difficulty ultimately making any sense, but has likeable characters who happen also to be killers and spies and are all working at cross-purposes, not aware enough of each other. The point is that the film actually stops at various points to literally say, "Now, here's the backstory on this guy/gal/dudes". And that backstory works, every time. Every one of the flash backs is actually vital to the narrative (and sometimes make the action even funnier than it already is). I recommend it.
I think therapy culture has invaded the screenwriting courses and guides, and therefore the movies. We're just told to find some psychobabble backstory (trauma, grief, daddy issues, etc), just cram it in there whether the story is about that or not. (BTW, I'm both a writer and a therapist and I cringe when I hear recent movies recite their obligatory dead child cliches and so on.)
One of the classic lessons on backstory is from Syd Field (edit: whoops, it was Richard Walter), using Escape from Alcatraz (1979) as the example. Some shrink asks Clint Eastwood's Frank Morris about his childhood, i.e., "what was your childhood like?" -- and while the script had a monologue with a sob story -- the scene was infinitely improved by cutting that long dialogue to a single word: "Short."
This actually super helpful because I’ve been writing an action story and I thought I need to add emotional backstories but it seems that is just making the story messier and messier.
I just remembered a film that Nicholas Cage made back when he would accept almost any role to pay his back taxes. It was a low budget horror story. Originally his character had almost no dialogue so he suggested that his character not speak at all. He fights monsters without emotion, and stops at regular intervals to drink soft drinks and play pinball. No back story mentioned at all. No explanation of why he doesn't speak, or how he became such a bad arse, or why he has to stop at regular intervals when his watch alarm goes off. In my opinion this really made a cheap horror film into something quite interesting.
ty! some of his low budget stuff is pretty cool imo. Some isn't. But then his hollywood films include some actual turds too so .. yeah. :) @@berserkasaurusrex4233
I have just discovered your channel and watched almost all your videos. I am completely at awe as to how you only have 1k subscribers, you deserve much more. I'm eager to see how your channel grows and your content evolves!
I remember a Star Trek TNG episode wherein Picard was trapped in a room with three strangers. No backstory. Just relevant species, emotional traits, and motivations. I still want to see more of those other characters. That is all you need.
As you said, the backstory has to make sense inside the story itself. It has to reveal something about the characters, like a strength or a weakness that is important in the story, or the past of the relationship to another character.
Yesterday my wife asked me at the dinner table what the highlight of my day was. When I had seen the Useless Bullshit ident at 6:29 in this video earlier on, I really did laugh and enjoy myself, so that's the answer I gave her - that was the highlight of my day, and it was a good day too.
Have been watching your vids for 2 days. Excellent content. You need more subs. Cheers and good luck. Love this particular video. Also loved the one about Bridge over River Kwai.
Speed's background story adds an extra dimension of puzzle solving competition and explains why the bomb is in the bus. Sometimes the backstory elevates action movies to better action movies. My only slightest disagreement is this, after watching all your videos. 💚
I lost my shit when nobara started her sob story in a middle of a fight scene & took almost 20 mins of episode to go over her backstory in latest season of JJK, basically in jesse's voice "he (anime) can't keep getting away with these"
You're absolutely right. I also didn't need to hear about James Bond's childhood. Some things should just be left a mystery and your film will be better for it. Let's just live in the moment. I don't need to hear about your brother since I'm dealing only with you. I don't even care if you had a brother.
The additional thing that I hate in terms of Hollywood is how revenge is the only motivation for anything. Nobody, especially superheros, never are motivated by ideals, only revenge.
The tragic car accident at the beginning of the film is not random. One of the women's friends is having an affair with her husband, as shown by their talking privately right before the accident. The husband causes the accident because he's distracted by the conversation with his lover. The main plot then takes place because his lover, his wife's friend, arranges the caving trip. She wants to make sure it's the most amazing trip they've ever done together so she chooses an extreme cave location. Based on how guilty and shifty she looks in the early scenes, I think she felt guilty about the affair and the accident, so she was trying to make up for it by creating this unforgettable experience.
I think the problem is she could have just gone to the cave trip anyway. The conflict between the two women could be introduced early into the trip so it builds up over the course of the story instead of just being a surprise near the end that we don't care about.
Heroes used to present themselves by acting, by doing things! Nowdays we have to psychoanalyse them, to learn everything about their past, their family, their relationship with their parents/kids/shiblings etc.! One good example of a contemporaty movie that went against this lousy trent is "All is lost", where we know nothing about R.Redford;s character (not even his name!) throughout the movie!
I disagree with the Dead Calm example. That backstory was relevant IF you infer from it that the marriage of the parents was in great jeopardy because of the child’s death (which is a very real phenomenon). The drama then is symbolic of two people fighting for each other and this for their marriage. I thought it really worked. And it’s one of the greatest thrillers I’ve ever seen.
Isn't 'Dead Calm' an allegory? Isn't that the reason for the backstory? The couple have lost their child; now they must contend with the grief (symbolised by Billy Zane) that threatens to destroy their relationship. Zane's ship is clearly meant to be the Vessel of Death, and he its Saturnine Captain. He, as Grief, separates the couple, trapping Sam Neill. He then takes over Kidman's life. Kidman uses drugs to anesthetise the Grief. She even makes love to the Grief. Eventually, the Grief oversteps the bounds and gets blown away. Read it as an allegory, and it's a much more interesting film.
"Unresolved grief" leads the protagonist to begin the journey. In the climax of the journey the protagonist resolves their grief and change. We, the audience, are supposed to empathize with the protagonist and when they change we achieve catharsis (emotional release). Rick in Casablanca has unresolved grief over losing Elsa. Batman's parents were murdered when he was a child. So the problem isn't really the "dead kid" trope so much as is lazy and cliched writing becoming melodrama. Great video, as usual.
It could be implementation. Reminds me of how the screenwriter channel Tyler Mowery hates flashbacks and understandably feels they drag down the story. So it sorta suggests people have to be clever and brief with background (lore context and exposition) and find ways to imply them in smaller ways through artifacts, body language, tone & motif etc.
I definitely take your point, and your probably right that dead children are over used, as are dead wives, but I think thrillers can be a bit forgetable without that emotional hook. I enjoyed the original Pelham 123, but I don't remember much about it or anyone in it. But just from your video, I'm going to remember Denzel Washington carrying a gallon of milk. What's more, I think that shot would be a good one for your beautiful shots video! On its own, it's very banal, but when you know what it is, it brings back the whole film. I also think you're confusing sarcasm with character. By that definition the Transformers films are full of 'characters'.
What I love is when in 1 or 2 lines you learn all you need to knoe about a character's backstory. No stopping the plot or unnaturally dumping your life story, just enough to extrapolate the rest. I have 2 examples. The first is Treasure Planet. When Jim asks how Silvers ended up a cyborg he simply replies "you loose a few things chasing a dream", bam thats all you need to know hut tells you so much. He is so commited to his goals that even his own body parts are acceptbale losses. But whats even better is the realization that he wasnt always like this, he wa sprobably just like Jim, a body chasing his dreams. My second example is Predators. The yakuza guy whos not spoken anything in the entire movie remarks at the age of a samurai sword they find. When another character is surprised that he can speak he basiclaly says, yeah, too much and holds out a hand thats missing finger. Bam, immediately you get if not specifics, a general idea whats happened ti this guy and why he prefers stoic silence. You dont always need a massive paragram, sometimes one or two lines leaves a much bigger impact anyway.
I just rewatched Deadwood for the first time since it aired. No tragic backstory as in the examples here. You do get occasional references by Swearengen to him being abused as a child, but then again, it would be amazing if he hadn't had a trauma. But for the vast number of characters, I don't recall anyone telling sob stories, and these were characters living in the 1870s who had lived through the Civil War!!!!! Also, in Deadwood, unlike many modern shows (Wheel of time, Witcher), when a character appears you just know what their character is, what they do, what they want, etc., and that's even with the fact that David Milch's dialog inverts the syntax and word order so much that even the actors didn't understand a lot of it! Maybe I'm just annoyed by this trope because my home town was destroyed by a chemical leak and everyone I knew died and it gave me the sads.
Great video. Missed opportunity to not also mention how Dead Calm is a remake of Knife in the Water, but Knife in the Water has no BACK STORY! They arrive at the Dock. That's the back story. The rest of the film is a taught thriller.
So glad you highlight Taking of Pelham 123. What a great film from the 70's with Robert Shaw and the criminally underrated Walter Matthau (Bad News Bears was the bomb when I was a kid!! Another potential remake analysis for you [Billy Bob Thornton] :-). I agree with everything you say about the P-123 remake. Too full of wife & husband chatter. 2009 was the in-between stage of cinema switching over to female-led dramas. Now, a remake would have Jennifer Lawerance as the protagonist.
As a horror movie fan, this helped me understand why I was underwhelmed by The Decent, despite how it's often touted as one of the best horror movies of this century. It was all the backstory. The love triangle was also unnecessary. The conflict between the MC and the woman who led them down there was justified by the discovery that the latter had lied about where they were going and how well mapped the tunnels were. The situation was scary and dramatic enough by itself. I like Marshall's earlier effort, Dog Soldiers. Backstory was all relevant to the situation, and the central human/human conflict was set up right in front of us at the beginning.
I agree in general, but not about The Descent particularly. It's been a couple of years since I saw it, but didn't that backstory actually effect the dynamic in the group. One of the women wasn''t supportive of the woman who lost her daughter, there was an affair with the husband. The descent is into the relationship of the group of women that becomes visible in the extreme situation they find themselves in and that situation in turn represents that relationship. I understood that was what the movie was really about. Most of the time, if you want to understand what the supernatural/horror part of a horror movie "is about" you can look at what the movie would be about without the horror stuff, and that's your key. Viewers of horror movies pick up on that dimension, even if it's not fully conscious. Without that dimension all the monsters would be pointless and kinda boring.
I would have liked to see examples of thrillers that DID use the dead child trope in a way that was part of the story. I mean, we have movies like "Don't Look Now".
I halfway expected you to mention Rosie Perez’s character Carla Rodrigo (Fearless, 1993) because of the dead children motif. I’m glad you didn’t because her baby’s death isn’t just backstory. It’s Carla’s despair, survivor’s guilt, and anger. This particular backstory was heartbreaking, but it gave Rosie an amazing opportunity to show depth and ability. She was nominated for Best Supporting Actress, and it was much deserved. (Of course I realize that Fearless is 30 years old and doesn’t qualify as current.)
Granted, Fearless is a serious drama about survivors of accidents dealing with this fact. (I still remember the scene where Jeff Bridges drives his car against a concrete wall in order to show Rosie Perez that she couldn't have saved her child by holding it in her arms.) That's something different than what our Host is talking about here.
Chinatown has the best back story of all. "Forget it, Jake, it's...." Honestly, that's all you need to know about Gittes something musta happened backstory.
But The Descent's backstory _does_ relate to the cave. In fact, it relates to the horror, because everything about the cave is a metaphor for the female reproductive system, and everything that _happens_ in the cave is a metaphor for sex and motherhood. All the anticipation, the fun of adventure, the darkness, the curling tunnels, the icky sticky, the danger, the excitement, the pain, the blood, the seemingly infinite number of bald and white things coming for them, the death, the mountain of bones the protagonist has to climb over in order to pull herself through a tiny hole into the light, gasping and gulping the air like it's her first breath, still covered in the blood and tears and grimy fluids of the Earth. It's not "rediscovering the will to live". It's as close to a rebirth as can be achieved without being literal. Like, I guess if you watched the European release, then the "ambiguous" ending does completely undermine and erase all the work done by nearly every minute of the screenplay until that point. That's why you watch the American release and ignore the pseudointellectuals who think ambiguity signals depth. They're not much different, after all, from the ones who think letterbox=cinematic.
So you think the American ending where she gets jumpscared by a ghost of her friend is better? What the hell does that represent? Interesting interpretation about the caves being a metaphor for re-birth; but they are also a metaphor for depression and the seemingly endless, helpless path it can bring you down to, so the ambiguousness of the European version is there to represent how even when doing better one might find themselves sucked back in all of a sudden.
@@R0CKDRIG0 No, I'm referring to this: m.ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-714fcdTKGYA.html . The jump-scare-and-we're-back ending is as irritating as any jump scare ending. While I certainly can see reading the tortuous and terrifying caves as a physical mirror of our protagonist's grief-addled psyche, I don't think it's the most elegant interpretive move we have. Ideally, our reading should keep mental state, physical location, and plot progression aligned, but that would mean having the protagonist descend from serenity (the wide open surface) into depression (the caves). But she's already overwhelmed by depression _before_ entering the cave, so she's descending from her depression into her depression? Hm. It'd work better if she were descending into someone else's mind-cave and gaining understanding from that experience, I think. Descent into the underworld is a motif that's been used across cultures since humans told each other stories in caves, and the role it almost always plays is transformational catalyst. Falling downward into death and returning upward into life, reborn as someone different from the one who entered. The depths are the chaos of liminality, the transitional space between here and there, the time between tick and tock. The underworld shatters your identity so you can build it anew. If we view the narrative through this framework, we get to maintain narrative-meaning alignment. Our protagonist begins grief-stricken and stuck, unable to progress and move forward in her life. She descends into an underworld perfectly suited to breaking her, because it echoes the form of her original wound: motherhood. It severs all her ties (in the form of her companions) to who and what she was. In order to earn her ascent to new life, she has to literally and figuratively climb over the bones of the dead and leave them behind her in the dirt. And our final shot is of her driving forward on an empty road, symbolism obvious.
I think they are all trying to copy the Indianapolis speech from JAWS but of course that is one of the greatest scenes in cinema history and Quint was already a defined and magnetic character before he revealed his backstory.
The writers are not the problem, its producers and the business people who believe that adding this trope makes it easier for the audience to understand and sympathize. This trope is useless but like the estranged father one, it is a fixture for characterization and plot and shows why movies are second rate art.
Well i think i would have to watch this again. But to sum up this talks about how people are not as spontaneous in difficult situations and the lack of it makes up for the backstory so it can act as a filler for the plot. It's fear for being spontaneous and direct in our approach. We like to venture the unknown and sometimes dont need a reason why we want to. What according to you is a good application of backstory?
In my neck of the movies, a lot of people seem to have a problem with Shin-Gojira (2016) because the characters aren't well-developed... But that's a good thing. I don't care about the backstories of random Japanese bureaucrats. The POINT is that they're in a crisis situation. We know everything we need to know about them through their actions. The plot doesn't need to get bogged down in backstories when Godzilla is attacking Tokyo.
World Building! ...It's to give you the idea these characters haven't merely sprung into existence, the real reason why Star Wars was renamed Episode IV A New Hope after it's initial release... You were never actually supposed to see The Clone Wars, it was just to give that universe some sense of history.
dude take this for dissection shin godzilla - entire movie focuses on people and their struggle to deal with the monster it just appears and japan is fucked, they need to work together and they freeze the monster something something divided we fall american godzilla: some bullshit about accident on an island that only sets up a worthless backstory big kaiju fight ugh... something something... big monster
10:55 - I am like 80% sure that the same question is in the original as well. (I've only seen the original and I knew this question and answer before).
You have to understand that filmmaking is not just an art. It’s a business. There’s only one reason for the backstories. Actors love backstories. They love them. And so to get a top actor, filmmakers include a backstory. It’s business. James Cameron added a backstory to Aliens in the screenplay. Sigourney Weaver has said it was the one reason she agreed to make the movie. The scene was cut out of the final film because it slowed the film down.
Comment below says that Leonardo wanted a backstory for his character in Titanic, but Cameron shut it down, told him to figure it out for himself. Having read that, I'm wondering if he gave Sig her backstory knowing he would cut it anyway.
Moviewise, you completely ignored the 1998 made-for-TV movie production starring Edward James Olmos and Vincent D’Onofrio called…let’s see, what was the name of that again…oh yes, “The Taking of Pelham One Two Three”. Inflation had only crept up to a $5 million ransom at this point.
Perfect choice of movies to compare. The original is so great, so entertaining and gripping. The remake relies entirely on Washington and Travolta. Otherwise it’s standard modern movie schlock.
As I write this comment I notice a blue car out the window, and my neighbor taking out their garbage, and then a bird passes overhead, and I think to myself, "Yes, I must share all of this because it's so relevant to the comment I'm typing about your video being good."
A backstory if done well can give us context for why a character acts or thinks the way he or she does. I think is much better for long running stories like shows for example. But today I feel like modern writers do write backstories for cheap drama. I know amazing people who think backstories are esencial, but I disagrre. There are lots of characters that people love, like: Jack Torrance, Alex DeLarge, Travis form "If...." or McMurphy. Those are characters which details from their past are simply mentionated or simply uninportant.
cannot emphasize how much I hate a hero with a sad back story or some emotional drama that comes out at some point or anxiety attack or some bullshit.. all part of the plan to do away with manliness
I get what you're saying here, but I unlike with your other essays, I disagree. I *want* complex motivations in characters I watch try to survive. I *want* to see people overcoming (or succumbing to) their psychological barriers and trauma in an extreme situation. Many films and stories in general are like fairy tales - they serve a societal purpose where they allow us to process our experiences and build empathy for others' experiences in a safe environment with no real world consequences. This is no less true for genre stories and films. I want to see characters overcome their trauma and mental illness because it helps me hope that I can overcome mine. I believe that although character backstories and emotional depth aren't a requirement for a good film, I don't think I've ever seen a GREAT film that bypassed that aspect of filmmaking.
Great video and especially like your comparison of Taking Pelham 123. I watched the original as a kid and really liked it and appreciated it even more as a grown up, but was disappointed with the remake. Will disagree with one small point though. It seems that the heroine in 'The Descent' actually went mad and killed her friends in the caves and is imagining it all in her head.
That is just a fan theory for The Descent.” It’s not a bad theory and considering there are two endings for that film I don’t know if the creators even knew what truly happened. Personally, I take the monsters at face value.
I sent a thriller screenplay out for "pro" coverage. The reader wanted to know why I didn't include the villain's backstory. What? Why? It's not his story. Is anyone worried about Buffalo Bill's backstory? Or even Hannibal Lecter's, for that matter?
