indeed

@Corpsefoot Gaming "Rapist tendencies"? If you don't mind would you care to expand on your comment please.

He is Genius!

Hollywood doesn’t. Kinda why Hollywood relies on jumpscares. Hollywood chooses the first example Hitchcock gives.

that’s why his films were so good, they are a representation of how he can speak in a room and take you somewhere, just through the medium of film

An alternative step three: Give no relief to the audience, and have something bad happen.

That is exactly what Tarantino did for the bar scene in “Inglorious Basterds”!

@@jamesmoyner7499 He does it in everything.

@Sam What do you mean? It works perfectly. When the suspense does not give any positive relief for the audience, we are introduced to the fact that bad things can ultimately happen in the story, and therefore makes things more intense and horrifying as a result. An example of this would be in The Fellowship of the Ring. (Spoilers below) When Gandalf fights the Balrog, the ensuing battle leads to Gandalf holding on for dear life on the edge of a staircase. The suspense is whether or not he will fall off the staircase, and at first, it appears he will survive, and then the Balrog’s yellow tail whiplashes Gandalf’s back, which weakens Gandalf’s strength and makes him fall off the cliff. I can give you more examples if you want.

@Sam That’s a really good example you used actually, although the shot from Touch of Evil could also be argued that it is meant to establish the mortal danger that the characters were up against as well, especially considering that this shot you mentioned is the opening shot of the film. Not to mention that the film kills off the characters. Hitchcock’s logic is that the film should not have the characters die in the explosion, but survive it instead.

Excellent idea

He does it well in every single one of his pictures

Rope absolutely had me clawing into my couch ... The loooong, drawn out, unbroken shot after dinner, when the chest the body is in is being cleared off, and the characters are just chatting off camera...

WaldronicTomotron f

more or full ?? Please,

No

+savedfaves LOL

savedfaves Actually, they're quite accurate

"The bum must never go off" lol

He's not talking about characters at all in this video. it's all about about raising tension to the climax of a film. Like he said at first if a bomb goes off without you knowing there is a bomb under the table there is no tension. is just a quick shock. But if you knew there was a bomb under the table counting down to 0:00, as every second goes by the tension would build and you'd be saying, "why the fuck are you talking about pointless shit! get the fuck out of the room!!" within those last seconds when those ppl realize there is a bomb under the table and get out of the room(that's the climax of the film). Everything he talks about in this short video, great filmmakers like Christopher Nolan, James Cameron, Steven Spielberg, Quentin Tarantino, Martin Scorsese use in their filmmaking.

Hafidha Sofia wow!

+Ross Cicero sure because youre wondering where did the bomb come from but in the space of the 5 minutes its very dull and boring... let me put it this way the first scenario is kind of a mystery and the second is suspense

Ross Cicero intersting yes, but we talk about suspense here

Yeah, but less, in my opinion. I really dislike the ending of the second scenario though. Being able to throw the bomb out the window is way too convenient for me. I'd say a better alternative is to have moments within that scenario where the people at the table excuse themselves to the bathroom, or say they have to go home (bonus: the other guests ask them to stay, and they do). That way some "escape" the scenario without even knowing it's an escape, and others.. don't. After the first character leaves the table, the audience wonders if they'll come back before the bomb explodes, or if other guests will leave too.

I thought this as well, and I think it comes from the overuse of this style of storytelling from Hollywood. The bomb never is allowed to go off so the audience never gets paid off so we just don't react emotionally regardless of the information we're given

Uhh, it wasn't film of any type, it was videotape.

What's behind that? I'm not much into Rian Johnson so could you please?

Yeah. 'Die Hard 3' that bomb worked! Different scenario though. I suppose we didn't really care about any of those affected, because it was just a faceless crowd of people - beginning of the film. The lovely tune, 'Summer in the City' by the Lovin' Spoonful, lulled us into a false sense of security. The bomb did its job in that film.

Remakes can be good. The problem is that Hollywood so often just lazily throws them together. A remake should be handled with attention and care, not just slapped together with Elmer's glue hoping it will stick.

@Sammy R. You raises a very valid point. Sometimes, it’s okay to do that in your stories too. But if the characters are constantly avoiding danger one after the other, it drastically reduces the tension, because you know that they are going to survive. Additionally, character deaths can also help propel the arcs of other characters, be it using their death as a source of revenge or an opportunity to progress in the story. It’s one of the reasons I love Game of Thrones, because you don’t know whose going to die in the next episode or even the next scene, and the mystery of it all helps keep the show going. Ultimately, if you have other characters that support the main character’s goals, then rationalizing their deaths (if they happen) would be easier, because you know that their legacy will live on, even if they won’t.

@Sammy R. Agreed. Although it depends on what kind of story you are making. A singular, stand-alone movie has more of a justification for a character to survive than if you had 30 seasons of the character in constant danger, and no casualties or wounds even come of it. And I have not seen Supernatural, but goddamn! How the hell are we supposed to care now that’s it’s an established rule that characters can willingly choose between life and death if they want to?! Defeats the sacredness of death in the first place. It’s also one of the pet peeves I had with Game of Thrones. When Jon Snow was resurrected because some ‘prophecy’ demanded it, I became a little irritated, especially since we do not know (or I don’t remember it properly) the rules or guidelines that make up a character being worthy of Azor Hai status (sorry if I am butchering the spelling). It feels like the writing equivalent to nepotism!

@Sammy R. I actually would watch Lindsay Ellis’s video, but she spoils The Sopranos, and I am in the middle of watching it at the moment. Don’t want it spoiled for me just yet.

@Sammy R. And yeah, T’Challa’s father was dead, so his passing was still valid in the context of the film.