Jump to content

Season two ending

Rate this topic


TheAngel

Recommended Posts

I think Morgan and Wong themselves concluded that the montage was a failed experiment but what bemuses me the most is why they devote such a vast portion of the episode to a relatively minor element of the plot. The duration of the montage would be forgiveable if it dealt with something of magnitude such as the demise of Catherine, the disolution of the group, the worldwide pandemic et. al. but to credit Lara's descent into psychosis with 25% of the episodes time seems somewhat self induglent and misguided. There are aspects of the montage that work extremely well though much of it is pointless filler and Lara's story would have been enhanced by giving her swansong a more cogent and befitting depiction. I too agree that it was lazy, with this episode being Catherine's last the time should have been spent in scripting a suitable epitaph for one of the shows most endearing characters and not merely surrender the screen time in an effort to give your girlfriend something interesting to do. Whilst I am Lara's biggest fan I am the first to assert that her end was not the character's finest moment.

Edited by ethsnafu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Jim McLean
I think it is lazy. Put it this way, an act is a quarter of an episode. By taking out all dialogue and handing it all over to a montage of psychedelic images, they effectively spend 25% less time at their keyboards. Lazy.

It really depends on the writers. If you are running a two hour finale that is to play out a complicated conspiracy, losing 25% of your runtime can be a problem. If you want my unfounded opinion, I reckon this was driven on their indulgence, not laziness. They wanted this cool, wacky act because it just is so "out there", not because they wanted to kill 25% of their keyboard time. In fact, I could foresee a situation where they double their keyboard time trying to shift their exposition and drama into a 75% space to make room for an extensive play of pop art.

As a writer, you know that its not always as clear cut as having less dialogue or drama making a story easier on the writer. It can be completely the other way round. I reckon they will have pulled out all the stops to jusitfy this scene by working harder in making the rest of story work legitimately; if the rest of the story wasn't tight, they would be hard pushed to validate a whole act to superfluousness.

From what I've read, this was an arty scene they were very keen to do, not one I feel the story was naturally lent to have.

Edited by Jim McLean
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Laurent.
But that's nothing to do with the writer. All that extra work is for the director and the guys on set and in post.

Hahaha right.. but still; they must have contributed to some extent to the making of the scene. It was their show afterall and they wanted to end it with something brilliant. The montage was their idea, they chose the song and probably helped in choosing the symbolism and imagery... I can't believe that they would intentionally give the rest of the crew more work just because they didn't want to write one or two plot-driven scenes or character development dialogues that would have made the episode so much better. I really due hope that it was their choice to give Lara psychoses more importance. And it's a choice that, even though it may have taken away some valuable time to the main story, gave a very unique and artistic moment to an episode that will always be remembered as a "one of a kind" moment on television.

Edited by Laurent.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ZeusFaber
I too agree that it was lazy, with this episode being Catherine's last the time should have been spent in scripting a suitable epitaph for one of the shows most endearing characters and not merely surrender the screen time in an effort to give your girlfriend something interesting to do.

Indeed, I feel you could largely apply this sentence to the season as a whole, with the character of Lara usurping the character of Catherine in more ways than one.

I reckon this was driven on their indulgence, not laziness. They wanted this cool, wacky act because it just is so "out there", not because they wanted to kill 25% of their keyboard time.

I agree that it is certainly as much indulgence as it is laziness. But I do think it can be called both at the same time.

As a writer, you know that its not always as clear cut as having less dialogue or drama making a story easier on the writer.

But that's not what I'm saying. Now, I haven't seen the script (though that would be interesting), but you could basically get away with scripting this sequence in just a few lines, saying, cue up Patti Smith's "Horses" and insert montage of images to match every other line of the song. Of course, I'm not saying that was the case by any means. But the point still remains, you have to expend a lot more thought and energy on an act of dialogue, character actions, motivations, subtext and scene juxtapositions than you do on an act of nothing but an MTV music video.

I can't believe that they would intentionally give the rest of the crew more work just because they didn't want to write one or two plot-driven scenes or character development dialogues that would have made the episode so much better.

I'm not saying that the primary intension of this decision was to save writing work, and I agree that the main factor was artistic indulgence, but nonetheless I think it can be described as creatively lazy, owing to the points above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Laurent.

To be honest, and I said it before, I thought the montage was a bit too long. After maybe 50% of the scene,there was really nothing more to add to it than just sequence that are "cool just to be cool". So in that sense I can admit that you can consider it "creatively lazy". It would have been better for the episode if they had moved on to something about the main characters or the main storyline. But I really think that the real original purpose of the scene still gets through. After all, it really was an innovative and interesting way to end Lara's constant descent into insanity.

Like I said a few posts ago, it was a risky decision (that brought something completely new to the episode), but the execution of the scene could have been better if they didn't fell into "creatively laziness".

(This looks like a fair middle ground of all opinions. :clapping::fool: )

Edited by Laurent.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Jim McLean

I don't want to disagree with this too much, because I don't really think we're on opposite sides of the spectrum on this. From what I see we are both into creative narrative processes. I'm always reluctant about using what often become hack buzz words, which is possibly why I'm dancing around "lazy". :)

I agree that it is certainly as much indulgence as it is laziness. But I do think it can be called both at the same time.

I'm not sure I totally agree. I think they can be very different. This didn't strike me as lazy writing, I would say it was an indulgent act more for the sake of art than the actual story, which is a risk worth taking if you do it right. I think the mistake here, based on their budget, was to try and fire out an idea which sounded and probably conceptually seemed cool, but didn't have the budget, time or experience to pull off what they wanted, and even then - as you said - I question whether any montage should take such priority in a finale. The audience just aren't geared up for that shift in pace.

But that's not what I'm saying. Now, I haven't seen the script (though that would be interesting), but you could basically get away with scripting this sequence in just a few lines, saying, cue up Patti Smith's "Horses" and insert montage of images to match every other line of the song. Of course, I'm not saying that was the case by any means. But the point still remains, you have to expend a lot more thought and energy on an act of dialogue, character actions, motivations, subtext and scene juxtapositions than you do on an act of nothing but an MTV music video.

That's a fair enough point. So far as the practical method goes, I imagine the script hit the note you suggest (though I also agree its worth underpinning the point we're speculating here.

I'm not saying that the primary intension of this decision was to save writing work, and I agree that the main factor was artistic indulgence, but nonetheless I think it can be described as creatively lazy, owing to the points above.

You could write a whole essay on the approaches to unorthodox act writing, and I'm reluctant to say it was creatively lazy, more because we have so little information to really pin such a comment on them. Something went wrong down the line to find they had a scene which took a whole act and it wasn't budgeted or allocated time to shoot. You'd think somewhere in pre-production this issue would come up; that pulling off a full length music video scene that covers an entire act and thereby very hard to cut away from, is a risk because its so restrictive. The plan is to come in, and go out on that scene, that the beginning and the end are the narrative markers. So this really was a big risk. You could really cut into it without losing the pace and mood of the montage and you could shorten because the act break is on the resolution.

I think whoever made the error in presuming it was a strong enough idea - and I'd think unless there was some armlocks going around, there is more than one of the core production elements in agreement that this will work - took a risk which was broader than the value of the scenes success.

No series writer risks being lazy - particularly on their finale. This is their resume. You give it your best on your finale because that could potentially be your final note of the series. A bad finale will be remembered far more than a bad episode. So no one gets lazy - even creatively. What does happen is people do have to make choices which don't always work as planned. I think at the early stages of this episode there was really a choice: shorten the scene so it either comes in later (or finishes) earlier and change the act in/act out to some other scene, or risk running the duration and basking in the original intention and the audacity of such a trendy piece of pop art. Seems to me the production took the gamble and it didn't pay off for the reasons stated in the show's limitations and IMO, the relevance to this episode.

I think Morgan/Wong were convinced this would visually blow people away and be seen as sooo cool, that the fact the narrative comes to a halt for the suggestive imagery, cool tune, and wacky effects, will be forgiven by the audience. However the end product was too repetitive, too long and simply lacking the immediacy the episode demanded as it built to its crescendo.

If you all want to ignore my waffle and get a simple bottomline: no matter how much you love music videos, leave it to the professionals who can afford it. If you are writer - be a writer, don't try and cross genre your role into another industry because you'd love to give it ago. The outcome can not only be a little disappointing, it can really damage your finale product as a whole.

Interesting debate, and as I said, I don't really disagree with you on your statements, but I think there nuances of this choice are quite fascinating

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before everyone jumps on the bandwagon of denouncing zeus as a heretic surely consideration must be given to the role of the montage not merely its inventiveness? Whether you subscribe to opinion that an exploratory art moment is profound or otherwise my contention lies with the notion that Lara's descent into psychosis demanded this degree of attention and treatment. Whether it was lazy writing or a skillful depiction of the hallucinatory experience surely such a moment could have been depicted with more sensitivity and realism with less than half of the images paraded before us. No one this is board is more a fan of Lara but I was thoroughly dismayed to see her story treated as blatant experiment. The moments you note, both before and after the montage give credence to the power of the writers and for those of us who gave respect to Lara's story it certainly demanded a more coherent narrative than a badly executed experiment. Catherine was to die only moments later with barely an ounce of the screentime devoted to this indulgence and whilst the montage did give flavour to the apocalyptic ambience of the season's closing it generally feels like a moment to be endured before the intelligent narrative resumes. Not only does the montage jar with the intelligence afforded the seasons conclusion but it contradicts the whole journey Lara's character has engaged us with. My belief is that the montage, brave though it may be, was a wasted opportunity to offer an effective conclusion to Lara Means. A much reduced visionary experience coupled with the excellent dialogue the episodes showed they were capable of would have sufficed.

Edited by ethsnafu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Jim McLean

I did appreciate MIB' point; this was contextually a most unusual show which defied TV expectation, but that said, I don't think every risk and choice it made was right, and from what I've read and what I saw, I think this was a failed experiment driven from a more personal desire than its definitive need.

As E said, there were other ways that Laura's pain and disorientation could have been defined, or at least, ones more satisfactory to the audience who have, quite frankly, been plagued with symbolism and imagery rather than answers throughout the season. Sure, there are some obvious images in there (the Four Horses), and maybe a couple of questions one could pull from the sequence (Laura seeing Legion instead of Frank), but overall, for 7 minutes in a pretty complex storyline, this just didn't benefit the story. I think for me that's the bottomline. An interesting experiment weakened by lack of budget and time, sure I can forgive such shortcomings to some degree. TV is not always a stable medium for ideas; there are many elements to a show which can mean some ideas lose their sharpness, and this was one of them. Maybe if the idea had been realised as they had intended (rather than having to work on a tighter budget and timeslot to generate the sequence), maybe there would have been more symbolism relevant to Laura and Millennium rather than the same images repeated ad infinitum. Maybe it would have told us more about Laura Means. But the end result did not, and because they'd taken the risk of running this as act in and act out, there was no way to move or mix this into a shorter sequence. They created a monster which would sit in that slot, no matter how good or bad.

And in the end it was bad, and yes, it certainly spoilt The Time Is Now for me, compared to the excellent Four Horseman, I thought I was going insane myself at the duration of this experiment. If it had been done right, maybe it would have been en par with the rest of this fine episode and offered a final mix of symbols, images and ideas that was worthy of the show. If it had been done right, maybe we'd be chatting about the variety of themes and ideas that were included within. Unfortunately, nothing was realised in this montage and it ends up being as vapid and pointless as the MTV videos that inspired it.

An interesting segment of failed TV which I think is worth the candid talk and by no means disrespects the rest of the episode or maybe even the idea behind the mistake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ZeusFaber
No offense intended here, as I respect everyone's opinion, but I would like to say, in fairness, that the negative feedback we are seeing here contradicts 99.9% of what I have read and heard about the episode and the "montage", both here and from people I know outside the board.

But weight of numbers doesn't really matter. There's all sorts of stuff we could start calculating about the demographics groups that are likely to post online and those that aren't, fan groups with allegiances to this, that and the other, but it's all pointless. It's not an election where the side with the most numbers behind it gets to "win" and be appointed champion. The fact will always remain that there are those who will feel differently.

I don't mean for that to sound too accusatory though, because I realise that you respect all opinions. It's just that whenever I start to hear this invocation of numbers about a subjective issue, whatever it may be, it rings alarm bells.

there are a small number of people here who are very vigilant when it comes to presenting a negative opinion of all things S2 and all things Morgan and Wong, and few who chime in with the opposing point of view, which is representative of just about everything I have see and read from fans, who, from my experience, generally don't divide the seasons up and label two of them great and one of them an abomination.

But I feel I ought to point out, a couple of years back, you would log in to the board and find that it was S2 that was being hailed as fantastic while S3 was being derided as an abomination.

Vigilant presentation of the things fans perceive wrong with S2 is probably reactionary against that, and attempt to redress the balance if you will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using our website you consent to our Terms of Use of service and Guidelines. These are available at all times via the menu and footer including our Privacy Policy policy.