3 ms·
Right there with you. A coincidence to kick the action off at the very beginning can be cool. Using it as glue leads to really awkward transitions, but I'll for
by MrLeap 9y ago
Right there with you. A coincidence to kick the action off at the very beginning can be cool. Using it as glue leads to really awkward transitions, but I'll forgive it once. More than 2 uncanny coincidences in a season? No longer uncanny, I often stop watching.
Dexter became a coincidence parade after the first season. But I couldn't keep watching once he became bad at murder. Relatability isn't a virtue if your character starts with a premise of prenatural skill, power, emotional baggage or any other attribute. I do not want to see dexter leave his wallet at a crime scene, let alone over and over again.
I stopped watching Arrow after it became clear that every single villain was going to be related to him in some way. "A-ha, what you didn't know is that I was your father's limo driver!"
I stopped watching True Blood when Bontemps started running out of citizens without a mystical hidden identity. If that show had been given another season the sherif would have been revealed a water elemental.
I could go on.
- morley 9y agoRule 19 reads: > 19. Coincidences to get characters into trouble are great; coincidences to get them out of it are cheating. The rule means basically what you said. "To get characters into trouble" means basically the first third of a movie or so, or the point in the movie that "kicks the action off". So I'm not sure what in that rule can be reasonably disagreed with.
- MrLeap 9y agoI feel like a reasonable man. I was writing about a nuance, a restraint on the unqualified use of the word "great". Now you've given me a thought experiment. How to give a treaty of versailles treatment to a rant about TV shows.