Moon Falling Down, TV Disaster
June 22, 2009 on 7:21 pm | | In General Musing, MoviesI would not have subjected myself to the ABC mini-series disaster that is “Impact” had it not been for the incredible synchronicity factor: The release of a movie about the moon falling down the same week as the release of my CD Moon Falling Down.
Before I comment, let me torture you with the trailer.
I hardly know where to begin. I’ve watched some really horrible disaster flicks. But this one made me wish the moon actually would annihilate the Earth if that’s what it would take to wipe it from my brain. I could start listing the occurrances of blitheringly bone-headed Bad Movie Science, but I have a life and others will surely do it for me.
Instead, let me talk about the art of telling a story. To illustrate I will compare Impact with another movie currently in theaters: Up.
One challenge that faces scriptwriters is the lack of exposition. How do you explain important concepts and fill in back story?
Elmore Leonard wrote his great essay 10 Rules of Writing to help him remain invisible when he’s writing a book, to help him show rather than tell what’s taking place in the story. “If it sounds like writing, I rewrite it.”
The opening few minutes of Up show an entire life story with hardly a word. I was so drawn into the arc of these two lives that I couldn’t stop my tears at the conclusion. They didn’t need to explain everything. An entire tale can reside in a few small details.
Impact is filled with endless lectures thinly disguised as dialogue. You can tell when they’re doing it: Any time you’re watching a movie and a conversation suddenly makes you want to cram popcorn in your ears so you don’t have to hear it, chances are it’s not really a conversation but a writer shoving his big fat writing into the story. I keep hoping the characters will rebel.
Here’s an example: At one point two scientists and a bright astrophysics grad student have just learned that the meteorite that plowed into the moon was no ordinary rock, but a fragment of a brown dwarf. The bright astrophysics grad student says, “What’s a brown dwarf?” whereupon one of the scientists launches into a textbook explanation of a neutron star. (To say the moon was struck by a piece of a brown dwarf is like saying the moon was struck by a piece of Jupiter’s atmosphere.)
The only reason the grad student (who apparently slept through Astronomy 101) existed was to cue the exposition.
Do these people not read their own scripts? If it doesn’t sound like something a person would say, rewrite it until it does.
My only cynical hope is that it was calculatedly bad so that people would stay tuned out of sheer stunned amusement at the absurdity. (”Sporadic reverse gravity! Martha, they can’t possibly top that one! Wait…”)
Nah.
See more like that one:
3 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Entries and comments feeds.
Valid XHTML and CSS. ^Top^
33 queries. 0.165 seconds.
Powered by WordPress with jd-nebula theme design by John Doe.
Thank you for watching it so that I didn’t have to. So, not only does he have to explain a brown dwarf to an astronomy grad student, but he got it wrong?
Ach!!
Comment by Dreah — June 23, 2009 #
Here’s the dilemma that faced the writers: A fragment of ultra dense material twice the mass of Earth was “hidden” behind a cloud of meteors. (As if an object twice the mass of Earth in the neighborhood would go undetected simply because it couldn’t be seen visually, but lets not go there) If they’d made it something actually that WAS that dense, such as say, a WHITE dwarf, it would be visible because it was, you know, WHITE. So they needed something dark, see?
Comment by Eva Moon — June 23, 2009 #
OMG… And I thought that mini series about the huge earthquake in CA was bad! This is like a whole new category of badness. I’m not sure it CAN be topped! I actually found the trailer hilarious. It might have been fun to watch in a large group just for the limitless mocking potential.
Comment by Pam East — June 24, 2009 #