I think you nail it here, especially in discussing the emotional throughline of a piece.
I think a lot of this "watching for the plot holes" has also sort of de-matured audiences. You can almost feel movies that are afraid of allowing the audience to infer motivation because of the eventual Honest Trailer video, and so each and every action needs to be spelled out as clearly as possible, the director holding our hand for the entire movie or TV show.
And because this handholding has become so common, now audiences expect it and even think of that as the *right* way to tell a story.
But the audience needs space. I was thinking about this when I watched A Silent Voice the other day. The movie gives a lot of space to the audience and its characters, which is what helps build the emotional core of the movie.
It's difficult to get emotionally attached to something when someone is telling you exactly how to feel every step of the way.
I hadn't thought of the handholding part. I think it's an interesting possibility.
But everything I learned about film and TV writing over the years suggests that handholding used to be the default even before the rise of the internet, especially in TV. Like, you needed artificial exposition to underline, spell out and reiterate stuff so that, if audiences tuned into an episode late, they would also be able to follow the story.
I'd say audiences have been de-matured in terms of their engagement with the text. Like, what they talk about and the way they talk about it after watching.
I generally agree with you. People will forgive logical plot errors if you give them the emotional focus they want. Though I would come about it slightly differently. My focus is on if they get the philosophy right. If you get the lesson at the end because all the story elements make sense for the emotional end of the story, that is what makes the best story.
Just to use an example, Maleficent had trouble because it tried to make the main character both a hero and a villain at the same time. Yet people generally don't like that as a final message. Plus the main character was clearly a villain. They cursed a small child for what their parents did and went about torturing an innocent child. That's not the actions of a hero, even an anti-hero wouldn't necessarily do that.
oh my gosh what a great read - I love giggling at a plot hole as much as the next person, but I will forgive anything if I love the characters. With a Signs reference? amazing post!
Thanks! The 'Signs' example kinda came out of my experience of interacting with people online. Honestly, pretty much every Night movie has folks hung up too much on plot details.
Love this post. Couldn't agree more! You trace the ideas really well for us with Emotional Realism especially and I enjoy the sources you quote from. I actually have something scheduled this weekend called "Make your reader work for it" about writing instead of film/tv and the way leaving gaps in your writing is sometimes better. Great minds...
Love this! Your piece from this week (not yet read) brought me to this older piece, and I couldn't help but think about LOST while reading. Ultimately, I think that the loving and hating of The End probably comes down to differences in how viewers watched the show - with some focused on plot 'answers' and others focused on emotional throughline. [Then again, I do think there's a lot to dig into with LOST in particular. I forgive LOST for a lot, including some character arcs affected by production challenges, but the way some of those arcs were explicitly tied to bad plot mechanics and worldbuilding, like Sayid and Claire and the Sickness in S6, didn't work for either kind of viewer.]
Thank you so much! Yeah, I think Lost is a great example of this. There were many instances of when timelines didn't match up or plotlines were dropped or there were contradictions in the lore and logic that the show managed to get over through sheer character work. I loved the way S6 ended but I do think one of its major issues that it started off in a bunch of narrative directions that were then clearly forgotten about. Not to mention, it didn't know what to do with a third of its extended ensemble of characters.
And yeah, definitely some bad plot mechanics there. Like the writers couldn't make up their minds with what exactly the infection was or what it meant or how it worked.
Another excellent essay, Mikhail! I too care about characters' development much more than plot holes. Emotional realism is important to me far more than anything else in a film or show. If that makes no sense, them I'm disengaged. On a funnier note, check out the YouTube channel Good Bad Flicks. This channel makes funny videos on terrible films. It compelled me to watch several of those bad ones, and I enjoyed them wholeheartedly and laughed a lot because of their videos.
I think plot holes shouldn't be a major problem in a good film or series. But if too many people find them, it can mean there is something wrong. Personally, I don't care too much if they are small and if I understand the intent of the filmmaker. Most of the time, plot holes are not really plot holes anyway. Not everything being explained doesn't mean it needs to be.
But sometimes, plot holes are not holes, they are giant craters. Just saw the recent "The Boogeyman" yesterday. What a shitty film. I don't even understand such a script could be approved. The creature is physical and there's only one, but, somehow, it can travel during the day (despite needed to stay in shadows) from one house to the other and follow people without nobody noticing.
I already thought Signs was a dumb film that only religious people or Americans can appreciate. Now that you pointed out this water thing, I think it's even worse than I thought. The beginning of the end for Shyamalan.
I think you nail it here, especially in discussing the emotional throughline of a piece.
I think a lot of this "watching for the plot holes" has also sort of de-matured audiences. You can almost feel movies that are afraid of allowing the audience to infer motivation because of the eventual Honest Trailer video, and so each and every action needs to be spelled out as clearly as possible, the director holding our hand for the entire movie or TV show.
And because this handholding has become so common, now audiences expect it and even think of that as the *right* way to tell a story.
But the audience needs space. I was thinking about this when I watched A Silent Voice the other day. The movie gives a lot of space to the audience and its characters, which is what helps build the emotional core of the movie.
It's difficult to get emotionally attached to something when someone is telling you exactly how to feel every step of the way.
Great to hear you like it!
I hadn't thought of the handholding part. I think it's an interesting possibility.
But everything I learned about film and TV writing over the years suggests that handholding used to be the default even before the rise of the internet, especially in TV. Like, you needed artificial exposition to underline, spell out and reiterate stuff so that, if audiences tuned into an episode late, they would also be able to follow the story.
I'd say audiences have been de-matured in terms of their engagement with the text. Like, what they talk about and the way they talk about it after watching.
I generally agree with you. People will forgive logical plot errors if you give them the emotional focus they want. Though I would come about it slightly differently. My focus is on if they get the philosophy right. If you get the lesson at the end because all the story elements make sense for the emotional end of the story, that is what makes the best story.
Just to use an example, Maleficent had trouble because it tried to make the main character both a hero and a villain at the same time. Yet people generally don't like that as a final message. Plus the main character was clearly a villain. They cursed a small child for what their parents did and went about torturing an innocent child. That's not the actions of a hero, even an anti-hero wouldn't necessarily do that.
oh my gosh what a great read - I love giggling at a plot hole as much as the next person, but I will forgive anything if I love the characters. With a Signs reference? amazing post!
Thanks! The 'Signs' example kinda came out of my experience of interacting with people online. Honestly, pretty much every Night movie has folks hung up too much on plot details.
Love this post. Couldn't agree more! You trace the ideas really well for us with Emotional Realism especially and I enjoy the sources you quote from. I actually have something scheduled this weekend called "Make your reader work for it" about writing instead of film/tv and the way leaving gaps in your writing is sometimes better. Great minds...
Wow, thank you so much! I really appreciate it. Look forward to your piece.
Love this! Your piece from this week (not yet read) brought me to this older piece, and I couldn't help but think about LOST while reading. Ultimately, I think that the loving and hating of The End probably comes down to differences in how viewers watched the show - with some focused on plot 'answers' and others focused on emotional throughline. [Then again, I do think there's a lot to dig into with LOST in particular. I forgive LOST for a lot, including some character arcs affected by production challenges, but the way some of those arcs were explicitly tied to bad plot mechanics and worldbuilding, like Sayid and Claire and the Sickness in S6, didn't work for either kind of viewer.]
Thank you so much! Yeah, I think Lost is a great example of this. There were many instances of when timelines didn't match up or plotlines were dropped or there were contradictions in the lore and logic that the show managed to get over through sheer character work. I loved the way S6 ended but I do think one of its major issues that it started off in a bunch of narrative directions that were then clearly forgotten about. Not to mention, it didn't know what to do with a third of its extended ensemble of characters.
And yeah, definitely some bad plot mechanics there. Like the writers couldn't make up their minds with what exactly the infection was or what it meant or how it worked.
The infection was the character journey we didn't know how to motivate well enough all along!
Another excellent essay, Mikhail! I too care about characters' development much more than plot holes. Emotional realism is important to me far more than anything else in a film or show. If that makes no sense, them I'm disengaged. On a funnier note, check out the YouTube channel Good Bad Flicks. This channel makes funny videos on terrible films. It compelled me to watch several of those bad ones, and I enjoyed them wholeheartedly and laughed a lot because of their videos.
Thank you so much for the kind words! I'll check out Good Bad Flicks if I have the time.
I think plot holes shouldn't be a major problem in a good film or series. But if too many people find them, it can mean there is something wrong. Personally, I don't care too much if they are small and if I understand the intent of the filmmaker. Most of the time, plot holes are not really plot holes anyway. Not everything being explained doesn't mean it needs to be.
But sometimes, plot holes are not holes, they are giant craters. Just saw the recent "The Boogeyman" yesterday. What a shitty film. I don't even understand such a script could be approved. The creature is physical and there's only one, but, somehow, it can travel during the day (despite needed to stay in shadows) from one house to the other and follow people without nobody noticing.
I already thought Signs was a dumb film that only religious people or Americans can appreciate. Now that you pointed out this water thing, I think it's even worse than I thought. The beginning of the end for Shyamalan.