Jump to content

Season two ending

Rate this topic


TheAngel

Recommended Posts

But all of this is perfunctory since the most prominent complaint lies not in the quality of the montage but in the duration of it and more importantly the need for it. It is wastefull to fancifully explore what might have been and I supply the assertion that Lara (not Laura) did not require such a vast portion of the narrative to resolve her story. Before we again soar the heights of artistic speculation let us look at what Lara's story actually demanded. The narrative states that Lara is not experiencing a psychotic episode, an error even I subscribe to due to common usage, but she is experiencing a common transcendental experience native to the initiatory process. Much is made of Lara's apparent irresponsibility but reassurance is given by Watts that this is nothing aberrant, simply a moment of profundity that eases. The conflict lies not in her descent into any alleged delirium but that the common praxis requires the patron to guide the neophyte through this psychic experience. The insidious events surrounding the resurgence of Marburg and Peter's foolhardy decision to initiate Lara without a Group mandate prevent him from affording her the due attention this event demands. Her delirious experiences are not indicative of psychosis but of an ambivalent moment of gnosis, profound yet benign. The montage seeks to usurp this by suggesting an antithesis. As a Lara devotee it has always been my malady that she bears the stigma of the character who succumbed to insanity and yet the narrative suggests something entirely different. If your own work depicts a stark contradiction of what you actually mean to imply then you have failed. The sheer truth is that the montage had less character relevance to Lara's story than the casual viewer would perceive.

I wholly agree with Zues that producing something simply to satiate a need within the writer, be it devoid of appeal, point or even accurate characterization is not worthy of polish or even due consideration. Lara remains the character who's sanity dissolved and yet her story indicated that something much more interesting occurred. Add as much glitz as you like but this montage did the character a disservice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Jim McLean
I wholly agree with Zues that producing something simply to satiate a need within the writer, be it devoid of appeal, point or even accurate characterization is not worthy of polish or even due consideration. Lara remains the character who's sanity dissolved and yet her story indicated that something much more interesting occurred. Add as much glitz as you like but this montage did the character a disservice.

I have to disagree. Not that I think the montage was the best process to take this act, but as a preferred tool by the writers to envisage this act, there is more substance that could have been rolled into this montage, and I do honestly suspect that was the original intention.

Again, I have only my cinematic gut and own personal writing experience, but I get the impression that the two elements that we have in that montage relate to the current events beyond her room and the problems going on inside her head. Neither are really explored in the montage, just highlighted via the use of MM stock footage and some quirky set shots of the cabin. This would have been the point in the story where the epic nature of the drama were unfolding externally while the truth that Laura was digesting internally would have come to bear and my opinion is that these elements were intended to play off each other in a way that told two arcs by interweaving them into something more unusual. With extra money and time would have come extra shots, extra symbollic imagery, even maybe new scenes, interwoven into this video. I think that would made seven minutes more relevant to the show rather than what we got which was a few dusty images and silly camera angles, a bare budget attempt to fill allotted time.

To be fair to Morgan and Wong, I've never seen them excessively indulge in their professionalism. While I do feel this was an indulgence, I don't think they would indulge to the detriment of their painstakingly crafted story. This seven minutes IMO was meant to mean more to the story and character presented IMO, and I think they failed to pull the rabbit out of the hat and had to run with a fairly ordinary "music" video in a cabin with a few pieces of stock to show how the current drama (the monkeys, blood) mixed with the revelations she had come to understand (apocalypse stock) with the internal conflicts (Legion). To me, they are the very basic components of what I think this act was meant to delve into in a way which was different, certainly a little artistically indulgent and arguably effiecent - if the price had been right. A montage is a great way of weaving plot strands you don't have time to focus on in 7 minutes. Rather than run 2-3 shot scenes, the montage can give a flavour you have neither the time or money to do otherwise.

I think its ironic that time and money were precisely the problems at hand and stopped them playing a simple way to cover many elements from the standpoint of Laura Means in a tight slot. In fact, it made that tight slot seem long and vacuous. What could have been a simple way of glossing over three major components in their big epic story which they might have found hard to fit in otherwise, was lost through the process.

That's how I see it. I don't like montages, be they standard or pop video, so I do stand with Zeus and E'snafu on the preference to something with substance, but the more I watch it, the more I think I "get" what the purpose of this video was - and one could suggest it was indeed creatively lazy; a short cut to quickly gloss over the wider elements the show hadn't really had time to - as all montages tend to be. In this case, the window dressing of a wacky music video would hide this narrative trick. Unfortunately, no money and time meant none of the themes were explored in anything but the bear minimum which didn't help the story or entertain the people. In the end, a very bad call.

More money and time doesn't mean more "glitter". I don't think they were referring to editing time, they wanted more to go into that sequence, but didn't have time to shoot it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Elders (Moderators)

Moderator's message:

Just a reminder that it is expected that Members should treat each other with respect and politeness, whether publically in the forum or by PM or email.

It is also generally regarded as bad manners to post in public anything that was sent privately, and I have deleted one such post in this thread.

If there is a specific posting that you think should be brought to the attention of the moderating team, please use the "report" feature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ZeusFaber
Again, I have only my cinematic gut and own personal writing experience, but I get the impression that the two elements that we have in that montage relate to the current events beyond her room and the problems going on inside her head ... With extra money and time would have come extra shots, extra symbollic imagery, even maybe new scenes, interwoven into this video. I think that would made seven minutes more relevant to the show rather than what we got which was a few dusty images and silly camera angles, a bare budget attempt to fill allotted time.

I strongly disagree here. You're suggesting that a lack of budget precluded them from incorporating other points of the narrative and events of the episode, but that can never be the case. It does not cost any more money to make the act relevant to events in the wider context of the episode. It was a conscious choice to devote the entire segment to Lara's breakdown montage. They could have made the choice in the scripting stage to cut back and forth between other elements of the story, to touch base with other characters or the Marburg outbreak, but they made a firm and deliberate decision not to for creative reasons, not for budgetary reasons.

You can certainly make the argument that more money could have made for a montage that looked better, which is what M&W allude to, but when the fundamental decision to devote an entire act to such a thing is a mistake (in my opinion), then no amount of polishing or visual splendour can change that. It's in the idea stage and the decision-making stage that made the difference, not in the production stage.

A montage is a great way of weaving plot strands you don't have time to focus on in 7 minutes. Rather than run 2-3 shot scenes, the montage can give a flavour you have neither the time or money to do otherwise.

Again, they made a conscious decision to have the act run for 7 minutes, because of the duration of the song, whereas a standard act runs for 11 minutes. They could have had other action at other scenes either before, during, or after the montage, but they deliberately chose not to long before the script went before the cameras.

What I'm basically getting at is that while it is certainly true that more money could have made for a better and more attractive montage/music video -- and that may have been enough to make it more palatable to some, which is fine -- it can't be used as an excuse for conscious creative decisions. Responsibility has to be taken for those things, that it is either a good call or a bad call. For some, it was a good call, and more money would have done the idea justice, but for me it was a bad call, and no amount of extra money could make a difference tot that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Laurent.
What I'm basically getting at is that while it is certainly true that more money could have made for a better and more attractive montage/music video -- and that may have been enough to make it more palatable to some, which is fine -- it can't be used as an excuse for conscious creative decisions. Responsibility has to be taken for those things, that it is either a good call or a bad call. For some, it was a good call, and more money would have done the idea justice, but for me it was a bad call, and no amount of extra money could make a difference to that.

Ok I have been skipping a few posts in this discussion because it felt too much like a matter of taste since we're basically arguing to see if the primary idea was good or not. Concerning the budget of the scene, I have to agree with Zeus. More money and time could have pleased people like me who felt it was a unique and original idea but was lacking some good creative execution. But it is clear that if you didn't want to see some kind of long music video in the middle of you favorite drama show... no amount of money or special effects put into the scene can make you change your mind.

I think we should rather be discussing what they could have done better with the montage (given the money and time constraints they had to deal with). If I had been in the director's or producer's chair, I would have tried to make the montage more relevant to the show and particularly to The Time Is Now. I think it started pretty well, Lara playing dice to check what the probability of "The Time Being Now" were, then some wires disconnect in her head when she sees her angel dying from the Marburg Virus (kind of a "no hope for you" sign). I also enjoyed the space-portion of the scene, although it was brought on in a rather cheesy way as some member here have said before (the singer talks about space and what do we see? space.) The image of the comet voyage coming to an end by falling into the Yellow Sun echoed the very first scene of season two when Frank wonders what direction is journey (and humanity's journey as a whole) will take. But then it kind of centered too much on Lara and not enough on the event of the episode. I'll have to rewatch the episode to be able to discuss more precisely what worked for me and what didn't. But I'd like to know your opinions, especially from those who didn't like the montage?

@Zeus: You said it was creatively lazy; yet do you think something could have been done, like changing the subject matter of the montage, to make it more meaningful to you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ZeusFaber
@Zeus: You said it was creatively lazy; yet do you think something could have been done, like changing the subject matter of the montage, to make it more meaningful to you?

I'm sure the montage itself could have been improved, especially with a less literal-minded interpretation of the lyrics, but that would just be polishing the chrome of a car without an engine.

It would have been better if this was a scene, rather than an act, with precious screen time devoted to the story and the other characters instead. That would have improved things for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest SouthernCelt

I'm one of those on the side of the S. 2 double episode being about as good as it could have been for what I think was intended, Lara's "Horses" scene/act included. Upon subsequent rewatching after the DVD was issued, I didn't change my opinion but did perceive that this was intended to give Lara as much screen time as the show could afford given the point of mental chaos that she had reached and that replacing this montage with other character interaction probably would have meant writing "filler" dialog that the viewer might tend to perceive as talking down to them as though they weren't "getting it" up to that point. I think they did want to leave a bit of mystery about whether the Group was all together in the Marburg business or whether the schism of Roosters and Owls had fully developed. Unfortunately, the change in personnel for the third season never really gave the story lines enough detail for that issue to be fully answered.

Like I said, I love this double ep. and when someone who's never seen the show but doesn't want to get into the whole thing by watching the show from S.1, ep.1 on through, I recommend this double ep. (and Luminary) as two limited viewing options that show the range of the series.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Jim McLean
I strongly disagree here. You're suggesting that a lack of budget precluded them from incorporating other points of the narrative and events of the episode, but that can never be the case. It does not cost any more money to make the act relevant to events in the wider context of the episode. It was a conscious choice to devote the entire segment to Lara's breakdown montage. They could have made the choice in the scripting stage to cut back and forth between other elements of the story, to touch base with other characters or the Marburg outbreak, but they made a firm and deliberate decision not to for creative reasons, not for budgetary reasons.

I disagree strongly myself. You have a choice in such an edit. You either have the luxury of new interesting material to help invoke a space of events and issues, or you play it down. Somewhere in the middle and it will REALLY look like a bad cheap montage. Start filling that sequence with filler footage from the last few episodes and it looks desperate and filler. If you break it down to basic symbols and keep it focused on one point - because you haven't the cash to do anything better, it looks more integral; it may hold more artistic value - even if its now more narratively weak.

Again, this is all speculative, but if you are to film special scenes to flow in with a sequence like that, it will cost. And again, as soon as you then have to look at splicing those into a richer, deep content of material, el music video style, you post production goes up. Why? Because as it is, there is no real "footing" to that sequence. It's fairly arbitary; you could swing things around and people wouldn't really notice anything. It's just a matter of what preferably looks cool. Editing is still a bugbear, but certainly far less complicated than rolling in maybe movement in the overall storyarc into the sequence or even trying to bridge the overall arc with Laura's personal trail of pain.

I maybe utterly wrong in this context. Maybe M&W didn't have any intention as to what I suggest. But I do know that to do what I'm suggesting would cost more - definitely, in production and post.

You can certainly make the argument that more money could have made for a montage that looked better, which is what M&W allude to, but when the fundamental decision to devote an entire act to such a thing is a mistake (in my opinion), then no amount of polishing or visual splendour can change that. It's in the idea stage and the decision-making stage that made the difference, not in the production stage.

I totally agree, as we both said a page back. This was a call that once acted on locked up an entire act, they should have seen that risk from the get go and realised that potential costs of making a music video on top of a show.

Again, they made a conscious decision to have the act run for 7 minutes, because of the duration of the song, whereas a standard act runs for 11 minutes. They could have had other action at other scenes either before, during, or after the montage, but they deliberately chose not to long before the script went before the cameras.

I agree, which again is where I think they made the mistake because they locked down that act by doing so. Once it looked dicey as to how it would visualise compared to the conceptual stage, there was no way they could move anything around in post. That was the big mistake. If they'd just decided to run the montage in an act, and not to be the beginning and end, they would have had flexibility to shorten the scene and cut in another, but as soon as you plan an act to revolve around that one restrictive conceptual, you really are relying on the success of that concept.

Again, I think it was a bad call. All I am saying is I would like to have scene where they could have gone with this, and given the placement of the scene, the narrative point in the story and the fact that M&W aren't amateur enough to feel that 7 mins of pretty images will hold an audience tight through a finale, I think they had some stronger ideas planned. I just don't buy they simply had planned more pretty images. I think it was meant to be a deeper sequence. But that's my opinion - no facts to built that case, just gut. Either way, I'd like to have seen what they were, but in a perfect world, given the production risks, we should never have seen such a dicey choice played out in the finale of a series which was already taking a ratings beating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's going to take seven years to discuss this seven minutes! I love Laura Means, and though I wished the writers would have played up Frank resisting the temptation she might have offered. Yet, I still am not convinced the seven minutes could not have just as easily have been two minutes. It would have been nice if she could have revealed more of the group's inner workings to Frank, or if she could have given us insight into the conflicts within the group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ZeusFaber
You either have the luxury of new interesting material to help invoke a space of events and issues, or you play it down. Somewhere in the middle and it will REALLY look like a bad cheap montage. Start filling that sequence with filler footage from the last few episodes and it looks desperate and filler ... if you are to film special scenes to flow in with a sequence like that, it will cost. And again, as soon as you then have to look at splicing those into a richer, deep content of material, el music video style, you post production goes up.

I think you have misunderstood me on this point. I'm not saying it should have incorporated wider events or recaps scenes from the previous episode(s) within the montage, I'm saying that it would have been better to move on away from the montage and on to other scenes. I'm not advocating the inclusion of the filler footage that you mention, not by any means.

What I am advocating is that it would have been a better choice to limit the music-video/montage stuff to a few minutes, then end it and move on to new scenes as part of the regular episode. Stuff with Frank and Catherine, stuff about the Marburg plot, stuff that returns to the central narrative. Not spliced into the montage or anything like that, not part of the musical sequence, just regular scenes instead of some of the music video, not as well as. Consequently, that would not have required any greater budget. You simply spend less on the montage stuff and use that cash on the standard scenes instead.

As for everything else, it seems we are mostly in agreement. So I will just close by pointing out one thing that I think everyone should bear in mind when dealing with questions of budget and time. The budget and production schedule for "The Time Is Now" would have been the same as every other episode in the season. Whatever choices they made, they made them with their eyes open as to exactly how much time and money they would have to spend.

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.