Write a controversial opinion

[AwkwardlySet]

The non-religious are often the most fanatical believers, and they can be quite dangerous, especially when they’re not nearly as clever as they think they are.

Well, that's totally not me. I'm every bit as clever as I think I am.

This heaven could’ve not been hell if it weren’t infested with so many morons.

Fixed that for you.

 

[MelissaBaby]

except for the wish-fulfillment part.

I ignored that part because it just seems like nonsense to me. What? So Davis Simon wrote all that snappy dialogue for The Wire because he wished he was a drug dealer?

And why is wish fulfillment a negative thing anyway?

 

[AwkwardlySet]

Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall. Humpty Dumpty had a great fall. All the king's horses and all the king's men couldn't put Humpty together again.

Those seem like appropriate lyrics for one of Bruckner's symphonies.

 

[jhealy55]

Adam Yauch should have won the Oscar for his work in "Sabotage" based solely on his portrayal of Cochese/Nathan Wind.

The fact that he also played Sir Stewart Wallace is an embarrassment of riches.

 

[Britva415]

why is wish fulfillment a negative thing anyway?

For me, when I read one of those stories I described, the wish is fine but the author’s imagination about how they’re going to either fulfill it or get it fulfilled just doesn’t ring true.

They say “write what you know” and I don’t feel like they know what kind of banter would actually achieve their wish or what kind of banter the wish-person would ever actually utter.

And that leaves aside the absence of emotion. There’s a lot of talking and you’re just supposed to understand that it’s resulting in attraction, but the attraction isn’t present in the written story or the quoted, ostensibly-clever dialog. Neither are any of the feelings around the attraction.

Wish fulfillment isn’t objectionable. Ham-fisted execution is.

Maybe a way to explain it is, a good writer can make me share the wish and believe in it. I’m talking about stories which don’t, and have the additional flaw of implausibility and unnatural scripts.

 

[MelissaBaby]

For me, when I read one of those stories I described, the wish is fine but the author’s imagination about how they’re going to either fulfill it or get it fulfilled just doesn’t ring true.

They say “write what you know” and I don’t feel like they know what kind of banter would actually achieve their wish or what kind of banter the wish-person would ever actually utter.

And that leaves aside the absence of emotion. There’s a lot of talking and you’re just supposed to understand that it’s resulting in attraction, but the attraction isn’t present in the written story or the quoted, ostensibly-clever dialog. Neither are any of the feelings around the attraction.

Wish fulfillment isn’t objectionable. Ham-fisted execution is.

Maybe a way to explain it is, a good writer can make me share the wish and believe in it. I’m talking about stories which don’t, and have the additional flaw of implausibility and unnatural scripts.

So, basically, good writing is better than bad writing.

Sad to say, that is sort of a controversial opinion around here.

 

[Britva415]

So, basically, good writing is better than bad writing.

Sad to say, that is sort of a controversial opinion around here.

Heh

I mean, I don’t take it personally, but I don’t have to like reading it.

 

[Britva415]

Witty reparte seems like a minor stretch of plausibility compared to ninety nine percent of the plot devices here

The stretch is when it isn’t witty but the author thinks it is

 

[iwatchus]

The stretch is when it isn’t witty but the author thinks it is

That goes for almost anything a writer does poorly though, doesn't it?

 

[Britva415]

That goes for almost anything a writer does poorly though, doesn't it?

Sure, I guess?

 

[PennyThompson]

in the "Nostalgia ain't what it used to be" thread, @Off_base said:

After watching Netflix for a bit tonight, I was reminded that I miss the days when they didn't show actual puking in movies and tv shows. It's unnecessary. The suggestion was always enough, until it wasn't.

My controversial opinion is that I kind of respect it when movies and tv show a proper puke when a character is sick or traumatized or something, and I think it's a weak copout when they just have the actor spit out a mouthful of vegetable soup or something...

Either get into character and vom, have props rig up a hidden tube for a good realistic spew, or don't bother filming it at all

 

[Off_base]

Where do you stand on

in the "Nostalgia ain't what it used to be" thread, @Off_base said:



My controversial opinion is that I kind of respect it when movies and tv show a proper puke when a character is sick or traumatized or something, and I think it's a weak copout when they just have the actor spit out a mouthful of vegetable soup or something...

Either get into character and vom, have props rig up a hidden tube for a good realistic spew, or don't bother filming it at all

Bleah. No thanks. And I don't need to see anyone taking a dump, either. I want to be entertained, not grossed out!

 

[PennyThompson]

Where do you stand on

Bleah. No thanks. And I don't need to see anyone taking a dump, either. I want to be entertained, not grossed out!

I do not need to see poop or pee

BUT if filmmakers choose to include a bio scene, peeing on a pregnancy test, throwing up in a toilet, cleaning up after sex... I'm going to judge them on how realistic they choose to be!

 

[Britva415]

in the "Nostalgia ain't what it used to be" thread, @Off_base said:



My controversial opinion is that I kind of respect it when movies and tv show a proper puke when a character is sick or traumatized or something, and I think it's a weak copout when they just have the actor spit out a mouthful of vegetable soup or something...

Either get into character and vom, have props rig up a hidden tube for a good realistic spew, or don't bother filming it at all

Amen!

 

[Britva415]

I do not need to see poop or pee

BUT if filmmakers choose to include a bio scene, peeing on a pregnancy test, throwing up in a toilet, cleaning up after sex... I'm going to judge them on how realistic they choose to be!

Season 1 of The White Lotus had a pretty good poop. I found out that the actual turd was CGI. Pretty convincing.

Except for it not being smelled for a long time. That part wasn’t realistic.

 

[TheRedChamber]

Symphonies don’t have lyrics, except for Beethoven’s Ninth. But I wouldn’t expect the residents of hell to know that.

https://wiki-gateway.eudic.net/wikipedia_en/List_of_choral_symphonies.html

 

[windycityman]

Thinking about gold rush, great show for me.

 

[Off_base]

I do not need to see poop or pee

BUT if filmmakers choose to include a bio scene, peeing on a pregnancy test, throwing up in a toilet, cleaning up after sex... I'm going to judge them on how realistic they choose to be!

I never wondered what was happening, when they just used to show someone running towards the bathroom gagging, then playing sound effects from behind the door that they slammed shut on their way in. What fueled the change amongst producers? Shock value? Either way, ewwww.

 

[StillStunned]

The stretch is when it isn’t witty but the author thinks it is

My complaint controversial opinion was about writers who get too caught up in it and write dialogue for the sake of it. When it doesn't further the story, but only serves as a way for the writer to say, "Boy, I love these characters! Look how witty I am they are!"

 

[Bramblethorn]

Adam Yauch should have won the Oscar for his work in "Sabotage" based solely on his portrayal of Cochese/Nathan Wind.

The fact that he also played Sir Stewart Wallace is an embarrassment of riches.

Excuse me, this thread is for controversial opinions, not obvious truths.

 

[TheLobster]

Witty reparte seems like a minor stretch of plausibility compared to ninety nine percent of the plot devices here.

But a witty repartee every time, in any decently sized story, is less believable than love potions, 12” dicks, and all incest tropes combined.

 

[TheLobster]

As for plot twists, I recently watched this great video where it’s explained how to write one that works:

She specifically discusses an example where the twist is not at the end of the story, like everyone here seem to imply it should be, but in the middle, and how it retroactively shapes the audience’s understanding of the story so far while still allowing it to move forward.

 

[realitycheck701]

But a witty repartee every time, in any decently sized story, is less believable than love potions, 12” dicks, and all incest tropes combined.

Is it though? I know some people who are a sharp and always have a line in the chamber, ready to go at an instant. Like, proper "perfect line a day later in the shower" type answers, only in the moment every time. Maybe it's an Irish thing, I dunno. I realize we don't all live in an Aaron Sorkin play, but the idea that there aren't witty people out there is "nothing ever happens" terrirtory.

 

[alohadave]

As for plot twists, I recently watched this great video where it’s explained how to write one that works:

She specifically discusses an example where the twist is not at the end of the story, like everyone here seem to imply it should be, but in the middle, and how it retroactively shapes the audience’s understanding of the story so far while still allowing it to move forward.

I like her videos.

When I watched this one:

I wanted to both read the demonstration story, and write it myself. She set it up really well.

 

[alohadave]

Is it though? I know some people who are a sharp and always have a line in the chamber, ready to go at an instant. Like, proper "perfect line a day later in the shower" type answers, only in the moment every time. Maybe it's an Irish thing, I dunno. I realize we don't all live in an Aaron Sorkin play, but the idea that there aren't witty people out there is "nothing ever happens" terrirtory.

Are they always like that, or do you just remember the zingers that land?