Movies that explain stuff you already knew.

[The Eye]

So have you guys ever watched a movie that explained to you something that was obvious to you?

Like in Harry Potter when he goes to Albus Dumbledore office and see a Phoenix?

I was like “Oh a red bird? I bet it’s a Phoenix.” *Bird explodes* “I knew I it was a phoenix!” *Harry starts to freak out explaining it wasn’t him who killed the bird and then Dumbledore explained to him that the bird was a phoenix* “WTF? You are in a wizardry schools and don’t know what a phoenix is??? WTH? I’m a muggle and I know it!”

Then I realized the movie was explaining to the audience that may not know what a phoenix is but still it was so obvious to me I felt like the movie was underestimating me.

Have you guys ever felt that? Or is it just me?

[Dienekes]

About 90% of anime does this.

It is a very big reason why I dislike most anime.

[Gnoman]

Given that any given concept is likely to change significantly between works (compare Harry Potter goblins and dragons to D&D ones for a perfect example), this rarely bothers me even when it is exactly the same as what I expect. This is a thing even with real-world things, as they often get their research wrong or use a real thing as a stand-in for a fictional one (for example, the VP70 and P90 both stood in for a lot of fictional guns due to their futuristic appearance), and the explanations keep me from getting the real world and the fictional one confused.

[Velaryon]

About 90% of anime does this.

It is a very big reason why I dislike most anime.

It's much less common than it used to be, especially outside the shonen genre. But I totally know what you mean.


*Character A does action X to Character B, resulting in effect Y*

Character A: "And now I am doing action X to you, which will have effect Y! BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!"

Character B: "Oh no, he has done action X! Now I am under effect Y!"

Character A: "And now I shall action X again, resulting in even more effect Y!"

*Character A proceeds to do action X again, resulting in either effect Y being done again, or Character B resisting it through pure force of will.*

[Darth Ultron]

Have you guys ever felt that? Or is it just me?

This is often called the Cabbage head Syndrome (or the Idiot Ball)...

But it does have a good reason, as get this, a good half of the people watching don't know. You might think say ''knowing what a Phoenix is'' might be ''common knowledge'' or like a ''DC 10 check''.....but it is not.

And when you have a movie, book, TV show or such....you have to assume nobody knows anything about anything. You can't just name drop , ''something X'' and roll the story on using ''X''. A lot People won't be able to follow the story then, and that is bad all around(and worst of all it might make less money).

And, of course, Harry Potter is a bad example as it is made for kids. So not only does the story ''teach'' everything, but it also makes no sense. Though that is true of a lot of modern movies, shows and such too....

[Dienekes]

It's much less common than it used to be, especially outside the shonen genre. But I totally know what you mean.


*Character A does action X to Character B, resulting in effect Y*

Character A: "And now I am doing action X to you, which will have effect Y! BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!"

Character B: "Oh no, he has done action X! Now I am under effect Y!"

Character A: "And now I shall action X again, resulting in even more effect Y!"

*Character A proceeds to do action X again, resulting in either effect Y being done again, or Character B resisting it through pure force of will.*


You forgot character C in the background who then says "Oh my stars and garters! Character B resisted action X through sheer force of will!"

[Dr.Samurai]

A friend of mine had this complaint with Nolan's Interstellar. He felt there was too much explanation of the physics involved. I thought the difference in time was so integral to the plot that they had to go into it. I guess he felt they overdid it.

[JoshL]

Futurama, as usual, has a brilliant subversion of this, with something the audience would not know, but people in-universe would:

Farnsworth: I'm sure I don't need to explain that all dark matter in the universe is linked in the form of a single non-local meta-particle.
Amy: Guhh! Stop patronizing us.

[Yora]

The scene where one of the scientists explains to the pilot what a wormhole is and why it is a sphere did feel very obvious as a lecture to the audience, not something that the character would need explained.
Talking about it right before they enter it after already being months into their journey seems way too late to go over such basics, but it was probably done for pacing reasons and to make sure the audience doesn't forget the explanation by the time the thing appears on the screen.

While I like the movie, all the physics explanations are obvious lectures to the audience that make little sense for the characters, which I think would have been much better handled if they talked about it more casually. That's certainly one of the movies weak points.

Inception is also full of lectures but does it much better by making them appear in moments when the characters themselves first learn about those things or when they are updating each other on what new plans they just came up with.

[Dr.Samurai]

@Yora: I agree. I think you can't assume most people will understand why his daughter is aging so much relative to him, or why the astronaut left on the ship aged rapidly relative to them. Many people will, but not all viewers. That said, yes, the explanation has to make sense in the movie.

[Vogie]

That's one of my main issues with comic/character movies in general. That's why we're still seeing Bruce Wayne's parents' death, even though he's been popular in ever expanding circles since 1939, in every Batman movie. On the other hand, I remember remark by a friend of mine's little sister after seeing Batman Begins - "I thought it was previews until he put the suit on".

They have to walk a fine line in movies and other mass media where they introduce something. Sometimes it's a decided choice - for example, Not calling the infected "zombies" in certain media such as "28 Days Later" (because in that universe, they're not actually dead, just living things infected with a rage virus) or in the Walking Dead (Explained by the creator Kirkman as "This isn't a world the (George) Romero movies exist, for instance … because we don't want to portray it that way, we felt like having them be saying 'zombie' all the time would harken back to all of the zombie films which we, in the real world, know about.").

[Peelee]

Futurama, as usual, has a brilliant subversion of this, with something the audience would not know, but people in-universe would:

Farnsworth: I'm sure I don't need to explain that all dark matter in the universe is linked in the form of a single non-local meta-particle.
Amy: Guhh! Stop patronizing us.

Heh. I came in here to say nearly the same thing, but with a different line.

Robot Devil: "Your lyrics lack subtlety! You can't just have your characters announce how they feel! That makes me feel angry!"

[Leewei]

The phoenix was something most people would know of. The subsequent mention of its tears and lifting capacity were both Checkhov's guns which were not at all common knowledge.

[Rynjin]

Remember that everything that exists is somebody's "first". Particularly for children's series like Harry Potter. For many people, Harry Potter was the first time they'd ever heard of a phoenix. Any given issue of Batman might be someone's first issue, which is why periodically the backstory is regurgitated. And so on, and so on.

If you accept that, a lot of this becomes less troublesome.

The anime thing (though that's more an 80's anime thing, with some poorly written kid's anime remaining holdouts) is a different matter, because it's explaining something that IS self-evident. The name of a phoenix is not something that is self-evident, nor are any of its powers that aren't shown. It's a dfferent thing entirely when the bad guy paralyzes the hero and then it gets explained "Haha! I have paralyzed you! Now you can't move!" "Oh no! I've been paralyzed! I can't move!".

The former is just exposition. The latter is assuming your audience is dumb.

[Eldan]

Futurama, as usual, has a brilliant subversion of this, with something the audience would not know, but people in-universe would:

Farnsworth: I'm sure I don't need to explain that all dark matter in the universe is linked in the form of a single non-local meta-particle.
Amy: Guhh! Stop patronizing us.

Double subversion in that Amy is Professor Farnsworth's grad student in physics. Probably just about everyone else in universe wouldn't know either.

[veti]

*Harry starts to freak out explaining it wasn’t him who killed the bird and then Dumbledore explained to him that the bird was a phoenix* “WTF? You are in a wizardry schools and don’t know what a phoenix is??? WTH? I’m a muggle and I know it!”

Remember, Harry has had a somewhat... deprived childhood. It's a good bet that his adoptive parents have never read books of mythology, or even fairy tales, to him. He's quite possibly never even seen a movie. It's not surprising he's got a lot of catching up to do.

To the question: well, I see that all the time, but with fantasy/sf topics I don't really mind because every universe has its own version of these things, and it's worth confirming that they do, indeed, work like that. What bugs me slightly more is when characters react "whoa, mind blown!" at quite a commonplace idea. Like Neo in The Matrix - I was thinking "seriously, dude? Did you not sit around talking about this kind of stuff to your friends when you were a teenager?"

And then there's "when they explain real life stuff but get it hilariously wrong"...

[hamishspence]

Remember, Harry has had a somewhat... deprived childhood. It's a good bet that his adoptive parents have never read books of mythology, or even fairy tales, to him. He's quite possibly never even seen a movie. It's not surprising he's got a lot of catching up to do.


There were some references to him occasionally watching TV (or listening to the Dursleys watching TV) - but I'd agree that the Dursleys would have consciously avoided books that mentioned magic.

[Vinyadan]

I don't remember if it was in the movie too, but the Da Vinci Code had the two professors unable to decipher Leonardo's specular writing, and even ignored its existence. I thought that Dan Brown had some low standards for university teachers.


"I'm astonished," he said.
"This language looks like nothing I've ever seen!"

[An Enemy Spy]

This is often called the Cabbage head Syndrome (or the Idiot Ball)...

But it does have a good reason, as get this, a good half of the people watching don't know. You might think say ''knowing what a Phoenix is'' might be ''common knowledge'' or like a ''DC 10 check''.....but it is not.

And when you have a movie, book, TV show or such....you have to assume nobody knows anything about anything. You can't just name drop , ''something X'' and roll the story on using ''X''. A lot People won't be able to follow the story then, and that is bad all around(and worst of all it might make less money).

And, of course, Harry Potter is a bad example as it is made for kids. So not only does the story ''teach'' everything, but it also makes no sense. Though that is true of a lot of modern movies, shows and such too....

Who on earth would think the meaning of DC 10 Check is common knowledge. You do realize the vast majority of people on earth don't play D&D, right?

[Kitten Champion]

I don't really see how it's a problem. Writing exposition dialogue where both characters gain no information from the exchange for the sake of the audience is a pretty ubiquitous contrivance, but something that the audience would know and the other character(s) reasonably wouldn't? I have no issue with.

The phoenix example -- even if we assume Harry likely knows the phoenix myth, that's far from understanding the creature and its rules within his universe. He - and most of the Wizarding world - have no practical experience with phoenixes given their extraordinary rarity and presuming Harry does have sufficient knowledge based off of muggle fairy tales would seem a bit unreasonable from his perspective. Also, he'd have to know what muggles know, and Wizards in general are apparently pretty underwhelming in that area.

Particularly when Fawkes looks rather unlike the mythic phoenix when they first meet.

[veti]

I don't remember if it was in the movie too, but the Da Vinci Code had the two professors unable to decipher Leonardo's specular writing, and even ignored its existence. I thought that Dan Brown had some low standards for university teachers.

Yeah, Dan Brown is the Supreme Eternal Champion of Explaining Simple Stuff And Getting It Wrong. Or Explaining Simple Stuff And Blowing The Minds Of People Who Were Supposed To Be Clever.

Anyone up for a thread of "books you regret reading"? I've read two Dan Browns - the first because I kept expecting it to get better, the second because it was a gift and I felt obliged. Gods, what a waste of my life.

[Fri]

Who on earth would think the meaning of DC 10 Check is common knowledge. You do realize the vast majority of people on earth don't play D&D, right?

I guess you failed a DC 10 comprehend language check :smallbiggrin:

He means knowing what a phoenix is a DC 10 check, that is, something people should know without rolling.

(Of course as evidenced you do can fail DC 10 check! Because you're in distress and can't take 10, or you decide to roll unimportant rolls and got natural 1 instead :smalltongue:)

[Darth Ultron]

Inception is also full of lectures but does it much better by making them appear in moments when the characters themselves first learn about those things or when they are updating each other on what new plans they just came up with.

Inception, at least, has the new character of Ellen Page who does not know all the information, so as she is told and explained things the audience gets to listen in....

I lot of movies do he ''new character'' idea to explain everything to the audience. Harry Potter is a great example. It is clear in universe that Harry has had a bit of a sheltered childhood, one where he got to watch little TV or read many books...and definitely no real magical/fantasy books. Hermione and even Ron, for two examples, have no doubt known about real magic/fantasy from age zero. Ron's family has no doubt mentioned everything magical under the sun even just as gossip, while Hermione's comes from more book learning.

And Harry is not all that fictional, as there are plenty of parents that shelter their children and think even Disney stuff is ''too weird''...

[Knaight]

First things first - if we're ragging on anime for excess exposition, then linking "If UNO Was an Anime" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1XQduS6IfA) is practically obligatory. Beyond that I mostly don't have an issue with this - stuff that I'm familiar with comes up often, but that doesn't mean that it isn't at least somewhat esoteric, and as such warrants explanation, particularly in a case like Harry Potter which is explicitly children's literature, featuring a child protagonist in a fish out of water role. What can be irritating is when writers are particularly sloppy about what characters they assign exposition to - if you're going to have a scientist explain a concept, maybe have an audience that isn't another specialist in the field who would know the basics. There are other cast members who are believably ignorant of the subject; use them.

[Kitten Champion]

First things first - if we're ragging on anime for excess exposition, then linking "If UNO Was an Anime" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1XQduS6IfA) is practically obligatory. Beyond that I mostly don't have an issue with this - stuff that I'm familiar with comes up often, but that doesn't mean that it isn't at least somewhat esoteric, and as such warrants explanation, particularly in a case like Harry Potter which is explicitly children's literature, featuring a child protagonist in a fish out of water role. What can be irritating is when writers are particularly sloppy about what characters they assign exposition to - if you're going to have a scientist explain a concept, maybe have an audience that isn't another specialist in the field who would know the basics. There are other cast members who are believably ignorant of the subject; use them.

Reminds me of one of SF Debris' Voyager reviews, "The 37's". Where they kept using Harry Kim as the character ignorant of "Ancient Earth history" like who Amelia Earhart was (which was genuine exposition for the audience's sake I believe, for all the significance she had in the episode) or what a truck is (because it's funny?), despite the fact that the writers have got numerous aliens in the cast who legitimately should be ignorant of such esoteric Earth trivia and could've naturally required such exposition rather than further humiliating Harry.

[Metahuman1]

@Veti: I love when they do real world stuff and get it hilariously wrong.

Like there being a real P90 that is made by FN corporation and if one wanted to go to there Website they could see it. (I'd link but I'm at work and I'm certain if I checked a gun website at work my employer's would loose there minds and become convinced I was planning to do something utterly awful, and refuse to ever be convinced otherwise and act along those lines. )


Or The Walking Dead. A world were military rifles don't have rear sights even when they should, and Glocks have manual safety's when the lack of them is and has for some time been a major selling point for the company.






Also, yeah, Books I Regret Reading would be something I could make a post or two for.

[Rynjin]

Reminds me of one of SF Debris' Voyager reviews, "The 37's". Where they kept using Harry Kim as the character ignorant of "Ancient Earth history" like who Amelia Earhart was (which was genuine exposition for the audience's sake I believe, for all the significance she had in the episode) or what a truck is (because it's funny?), despite the fact that the writers have got numerous aliens in the cast who legitimately should be ignorant of such esoteric Earth trivia and could've naturally required such exposition rather than further humiliating Harry.

Poor, dumb Harry.

[Darth Ultron]

Reminds me of one of SF Debris' Voyager reviews, "The 37's". Where they kept using Harry Kim as the character ignorant of "Ancient Earth history" like who Amelia Earhart was (which was genuine exposition for the audience's sake I believe, for all the significance she had in the episode) or what a truck is (because it's funny?), despite the fact that the writers have got numerous aliens in the cast who legitimately should be ignorant of such esoteric Earth trivia and could've naturally required such exposition rather than further humiliating Harry.

This is not that bad, for a 24th century human to know what a ''truck'' is or who Amelia Earhart was is a huge stretch. Four centuries is a lot of time....how many people in the 20th century can name and know a lot of 16th century stuff? Even Amelia Earhart is not quite the ''legend'' this episode makes her out to be.

But Star Trek has always had the problem of the ''24th century people obsessed with 20th century and older stuff''. Oddly we just about never see any character that likes anything from the 21st to 24th centuries. Guess not a single good book, song, play, poem, or anything else was done in the Star Trek timeline after 1950, or so.

Though, over all, Star Trek is famous for the Idiot Ball trope. Just about every episode has a highly trained Starfleet officer that does not know unbelievable basic things....just so another character can explain it to them...and the viewers. Even more funny is that the ball gets passed around, often several times during a single episode.

[solidork]

It's much less common than it used to be, especially outside the shonen genre. But I totally know what you mean.


*Character A does action X to Character B, resulting in effect Y*

Character A: "And now I am doing action X to you, which will have effect Y! BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!"

Character B: "Oh no, he has done action X! Now I am under effect Y!"

Character A: "And now I shall action X again, resulting in even more effect Y!"

*Character A proceeds to do action X again, resulting in either effect Y being done again, or Character B resisting it through pure force of will.*


Reminds me of this hilarious tumblr post:

Kaiba: i play pot of greed which allows me to draw 2 cards from my hand
Yugi: *gasp* he just played pot of greed, which means he can draw two cards off the top of his deck, oh no
Kaiba: ive drawn 2 cards, placing them in my hand thanks to pot of greed
Joey: guys what the heck does that freaky lookin card do i am so Lost
Yugi: kaiba drew the magic card pot of greed, which means he gets to draw 2 new cards from his deck
Kaiba: yes, and with the 2 cards that i drew from my deck using pot of greed, im one step closer to winning this duel that we all know is to determine who gets to move forward in the tournament and get the chance to save their respective loved ones
Yugi: thats right, im not letting you beat me, im fighting for my grandpa, who was kidnapped
Kaiba: yes, your grandpa who was kidnapped april 8th 2004 from your home in domino city, thats who youre fighting for isnt that right
Yugi: yes, thats right im dueling to win back the soul of my elderly grandfather who's soul was stolen 9 episodes ago in our home that we live in
Kaiba: yes, anyway
Kaiba: after playing pot of greed i drew all 3 of my blue eyes white dragons so say goodbye to exodia

[Hunter Noventa]

But Star Trek has always had the problem of the ''24th century people obsessed with 20th century and older stuff''. Oddly we just about never see any character that likes anything from the 21st to 24th centuries. Guess not a single good book, song, play, poem, or anything else was done in the Star Trek timeline after 1950, or so.

Oh that's easy to explain. It's called 'Public Domain Art/Music is cheaper than licensing more contemporary art/music, and easier than making up our own.'

[LughSpear]

Reminds me of this hilarious tumblr post:

Kaiba: i play pot of greed which allows me to draw 2 cards from my hand
Yugi: *gasp* he just played pot of greed, which means he can draw two cards off the top of his deck, oh no
Kaiba: ive drawn 2 cards, placing them in my hand thanks to pot of greed
Joey: guys what the heck does that freaky lookin card do i am so Lost
Yugi: kaiba drew the magic card pot of greed, which means he gets to draw 2 new cards from his deck
Kaiba: yes, and with the 2 cards that i drew from my deck using pot of greed, im one step closer to winning this duel that we all know is to determine who gets to move forward in the tournament and get the chance to save their respective loved ones
Yugi: thats right, im not letting you beat me, im fighting for my grandpa, who was kidnapped
Kaiba: yes, your grandpa who was kidnapped april 8th 2004 from your home in domino city, thats who youre fighting for isnt that right
Yugi: yes, thats right im dueling to win back the soul of my elderly grandfather who's soul was stolen 9 episodes ago in our home that we live in
Kaiba: yes, anyway
Kaiba: after playing pot of greed i drew all 3 of my blue eyes white dragons so say goodbye to exodia


http://i.imgur.com/mWUInQN.png

[Kalmageddon]

Anyone up for a thread of "books you regret reading"? I've read two Dan Browns - the first because I kept expecting it to get better, the second because it was a gift and I felt obliged. Gods, what a waste of my life.

Yes please, I got plenty to contribute.

[Pex]

Who on earth would think the meaning of DC 10 Check is common knowledge. You do realize the vast majority of people on earth don't play D&D, right?

That explains a lot.

[2D8HP]

...You do realize the vast majority of people on earth don't play D&D, right?


:confused:

They don't?

Well what do they do than?

oWOD?

Warhammer?

[Dr.Samurai]

Does "Lucy" count if it is explaining something to us that we already know to not be true?! (That humans only use 10% of their brain.)

[Yora]

Poor, dumb Harry.
At least he's not constantly tortured like O'Brien.

[Rodin]

But Star Trek has always had the problem of the ''24th century people obsessed with 20th century and older stuff''. Oddly we just about never see any character that likes anything from the 21st to 24th centuries. Guess not a single good book, song, play, poem, or anything else was done in the Star Trek timeline after 1950, or so.


I found this to be particularly weird in Babylon 5, where there's this constant stream of aliens reading out pre-20th century human literature for dramatic effect. Or Londo trying to make sense of the Hokey Pokey.

[Leewei]

I found this to be particularly weird in Babylon 5, where there's this constant stream of aliens reading out pre-20th century human literature for dramatic effect. Or Londo trying to make sense of the Hokey Pokey.
I see the Centauri in a situation where their greatness is ebbing, and Earth is the next big thing. ("Nice shark, pretty shark ...") Learning Earth's culture and traditions, especially if you're a diplomat, is very sensible. I don't recall much aside from Western culture and traditions being mentioned in the show. This could be for a couple of reasons. First, the technologically-advanced, dominant global influences in B5 could well be very Westernized. Second, the spacefarers of Earth could be largely Western. (Garibaldi, Sheridan, Sinclair, Franklin, and many other ranking officers were certainly descended from modern North Americans.)

[Aedilred]

The otherwise unremarkable (though admittedly entertaining) Layer Cake had and exchange that stuck with me for this reason.

Michael Gambon: Do you know what a remora fish is?
Daniel Craig: *thinks for a second* Yes.

Gambon goes on to explain that Kenneth Cranham is like a remora fish. The context probably makes it clear what he's talking about to anyone who doesn't know, but I was impressed that the film went for that approach rather than the more conventional:

Michael Gambon: Do you know what a remora fish is?
Daniel Craig: No.
Michael Gambon: Well it's a fish that (etc.)

No patronising of the audience and it also serves as a nice titbit of characterisation for Daniel Craig's character.


I found this to be particularly weird in Babylon 5, where there's this constant stream of aliens reading out pre-20th century human literature for dramatic effect. Or Londo trying to make sense of the Hokey Pokey.

This perhaps isn't entirely surprising, as it does have some real-world parallels. Educated people will readily quote from a group of Greek and Roman writers from the 5th century BC to 2nd century AD but you almost never hear anyone referencing any literature or culture from after that point until Chaucer. And while after that point things get more consistent, there are still dark patches where relatively little gets referenced outside relatively specialist circles. Was anybody writing music between Beethoven and Wagner? How many playwrights can anyone name between Shakespeare and Sheridan? Admittedly that doesn't explain the complete absence of anything from the 21st-24th centuries in that sort of context, but the classics are likely to stay classic, while there might be any number of reasons why stuff written in the next couple of hundred years doesn't get remembered in the same way. (There's also an element of pretentiousness about it: the older something is, often, the more people like to go on about it to show how cultured they are. Bach is the subject of much more pretentious waffle even today than the Beatles or Radiohead).

[An Enemy Spy]

That explains a lot.

We all roll a one every now and then.

[Darth Ultron]

Admittedly that doesn't explain the complete absence of anything from the 21st-24th centuries in that sort of context, but the classics are likely to stay classic, while there might be any number of reasons why stuff written in the next couple of hundred years doesn't get remembered in the same way. (There's also an element of pretentiousness about it: the older something is, often, the more people like to go on about it to show how cultured they are.

Also, most writers are ''old'', at least 30 or so, and more so they grew up ''before'' modern times. Take like Babylon 5, if a writer was 35 in 1994, they were born in 1959. So by the time Star Wars came out they were an adult, so they missed the whole ''star wars kid phase''. But anyone born after 1970 or so, Star Wars had a huge impact on...from just about birth. But to that old writer, it was ''just a space movie''. But, as we have seen, Star Wars is still popular....even with people born say after 2000 or so. So it might be safe to say that even in 100 years, Star Wars will be remembered. And you can be sure any ''30 something writer'' in 2017 (if they worked for Disney and could mention it with no legal problems, wink wink) would ''bump'' having their ''24th century character gush over how great Shakespeare was, and put in Star Wars, instead.

[Fri]

Also, most writers are ''old'', at least 30 or so, and more so they grew up ''before'' modern times. Take like Babylon 5, if a writer was 35 in 1994, they were born in 1959. So by the time Star Wars came out they were an adult, so they missed the whole ''star wars kid phase''. But anyone born after 1970 or so, Star Wars had a huge impact on...from just about birth. But to that old writer, it was ''just a space movie''. But, as we have seen, Star Wars is still popular....even with people born say after 2000 or so. So it might be safe to say that even in 100 years, Star Wars will be remembered. And you can be sure any ''30 something writer'' in 2017 (if they worked for Disney and could mention it with no legal problems, wink wink) would ''bump'' having their ''24th century character gush over how great Shakespeare was, and put in Star Wars, instead.

Actually, isn't the usual Rule of Three in Star Trek is "I'm going to listen to earth's legendary composer. Mozart, Tschaikovsky, and Tupac." or "Let me show you famous earth classic literature. Shakespeare, Chaucer, JK Rowling"

Basically they always put some modern pop culture creator there in between what we consider classic creator.

[An Enemy Spy]

Actually, isn't the usual Rule of Three in Star Trek is "I'm going to listen to earth's legendary composer. Mozart, Tschaikovsky, and Tupac." or "Let me show you famous earth classic literature. Shakespeare, Chaucer, JK Rowling"

Basically they always put some modern pop culture creator there in between what we consider classic creator.

Typically, they list two real world composers, and then a fictional futuristic one. Star Trek almost never references contemporary people. Which is smart, because you don't want to sound hopelessly dated by listing some flavor of the month pop artist who will be forgotten in five years. Star Trek deals with the classics because they have a timeless quality to them. If Shakespeare is well known four hundred years after his death, it isn't hard to believe that he'd still be well known seven hundred years after his death.

[Velaryon]

First things first - if we're ragging on anime for excess exposition, then linking "If UNO Was an Anime" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1XQduS6IfA) is practically obligatory. Beyond that I mostly don't have an issue with this - stuff that I'm familiar with comes up often, but that doesn't mean that it isn't at least somewhat esoteric, and as such warrants explanation, particularly in a case like Harry Potter which is explicitly children's literature, featuring a child protagonist in a fish out of water role. What can be irritating is when writers are particularly sloppy about what characters they assign exposition to - if you're going to have a scientist explain a concept, maybe have an audience that isn't another specialist in the field who would know the basics. There are other cast members who are believably ignorant of the subject; use them.

Oh my gosh, that's brilliant! Thank you for linking that.

Even though I did rag on anime for changing "show, don't tell" to "show and tell, then tell again a couple more times just to be sure they got it," I have to say that they've got nothing on old-school comic books in that department. It seems like every other panel, when they were using their powers they would describe in their speech and thought bubbles exactly what they were doing with their power. I wanted to link a particular panel from X-Men #1 where Cyclops blasts away a bunk of junk Magneto has thrown at the X-Men, but I can't seem to find it online.



But Star Trek has always had the problem of the ''24th century people obsessed with 20th century and older stuff''. Oddly we just about never see any character that likes anything from the 21st to 24th centuries. Guess not a single good book, song, play, poem, or anything else was done in the Star Trek timeline after 1950, or so.

One of the things that I think DS9 did right was avoid leaning too hard on some of the tropes of the first two shows. One example is how they subverted this, where Sisko's favorite "old-time" baseball player was Buck Bokai (http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Buck_Bokai), who wasn't even born yet at the time the show was airing (though he'd be 18 or so right now, according to his bio on Memory Alpha).

[Aedilred]

Actually, isn't the usual Rule of Three in Star Trek is "I'm going to listen to earth's legendary composer. Mozart, Tschaikovsky, and Tupac." or "Let me show you famous earth classic literature. Shakespeare, Chaucer, JK Rowling"

Basically they always put some modern pop culture creator there in between what we consider classic creator.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlfE_IplWAU

Of course, Futurama's a comedy - and Fry is from the 20th century anyway.

[Shoreward]

I don't have much issue with fiction explaining things I already know, because most of the time those explanations aren't for me, they're for people who don't know or aren't following properly. What I have issue with is "as you know".

Sometimes you need to tell the audience something all the characters know but the viewers/readers don't. It's a tricky situation to deal with. You pull out your hair trying to figure out how to convey the information, and you find yourself writing the words "as you know" into your dialogue.

Stop.

If everyone knows, there's no friggin' reason to say it. This is why so many stories add in outsider characters, people who aren't in the know, or Watsons for the Sherlock to explain things to. If everyone in the room already knows something, they're not going to explain it to one another. It's even worse if I already know as a viewer, too.

I can deal with pretty much any other near-identical form of clumsy exposition, but this one is inexcusable for anyone who's taken even a level one writing class.

[Knaight]

I don't have much issue with fiction explaining things I already know, because most of the time those explanations aren't for me, they're for people who don't know or aren't following properly. What I have issue with is "as you know".

Sometimes you need to tell the audience something all the characters know but the viewers/readers don't. It's a tricky situation to deal with. You pull out your hair trying to figure out how to convey the information, and you find yourself writing the words "as you know" into your dialogue.

Stop.

If everyone knows, there's no friggin' reason to say it. This is why so many stories add in outsider characters, people who aren't in the know, or Watsons for the Sherlock to explain things to. If everyone in the room already knows something, they're not going to explain it to one another. It's even worse if I already know as a viewer, too.

There's a niche application still - the reason to say it can be as a preamble to something more complex that people don't know, while serving a double purpose in introducing the audience to the concept. This is especially true if it's in the form of explaining that the "as you know" is wrong in some way, that there's an oversimplification there that's usually fine but that matters for this particular case.

[Darth Ultron]

Typically, they list two real world composers, and then a fictional futuristic one. Star Trek almost never references contemporary people. Which is smart, because you don't want to sound hopelessly dated by listing some flavor of the month pop artist who will be forgotten in five years. Star Trek deals with the classics because they have a timeless quality to them. If Shakespeare is well known four hundred years after his death, it isn't hard to believe that he'd still be well known seven hundred years after his death.

Well, except Star Trek only references things and people that your typical art or music graduate from a university thinks are better then everything else. And such things are only 'timeless' to them. And they are just about always very centric on America.


One of the things that I think DS9 did right was avoid leaning too hard on some of the tropes of the first two shows. One example is how they subverted this, where Sisko's favorite "old-time" baseball player was Buck Bokai (http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Buck_Bokai), who wasn't even born yet at the time the show was airing (though he'd be 18 or so right now, according to his bio on Memory Alpha).

This is what made DS9 my favorite Trek show.

[Shoreward]

There's a niche application still - the reason to say it can be as a preamble to something more complex that people don't know, while serving a double purpose in introducing the audience to the concept. This is especially true if it's in the form of explaining that the "as you know" is wrong in some way, that there's an oversimplification there that's usually fine but that matters for this particular case.

As with all things narrative, if you understand what you're doing and why you're doing it, it can still be used effectively.

The thing which prompted this, however, was a line in Telltale Batman in which Lucius Fox says something to the effect of "As you know, WayneTech is a giant in the field of telecommunications." To Bruce Wayne. With no one else in the room.

Sure, it's a preamble to explaining that some stuff's pretty hackable, but I feel like it could easily have been explained without awkwardly telling Bruce what his own company does. Not to mention he probably knows it's hackable.

In any case, yes, it can be done, but it should probably be avoided.

[Darth Ultron]

In any case, yes, it can be done, but it should probably be avoided.

Well, see I can excuse it if it makes sense in-universe. Like a bad guy taunting a good guy. Like an evil Luddide kidnaps Mark Zuckerbeg and is like ''haha, I will now make a post on my Facebook page that I have you at my mercy!. Oh, Facebook, the most popular social media site...have you heard of it...hahahahah!''

[thompur]

Well, except Star Trek only references things and people that your typical art or music graduate from a university thinks are better then everything else. And such things are only 'timeless' to them. And they are just about always very centric on America.



This is what made DS9 my favorite Trek show.

I can think of a of Classic Trek incident of a character referencing (for him) a contemporary artistic endeavor: Namely, Dr. Elizabeth Dehner in the episode "Where No Man Has Gone Before", when she's testing Gary Mitchell's memory, and he recites "Nightingale Woman", "one of the most passionate love sonnets from the last couple of centuries."

On the other end, there's Kirk in Star Trek 4, referencing Harold Robbins & Jacqueline Suzanne. (Ah, the giants!!)

[Darth Ultron]

I can think of a of Classic Trek incident of a character referencing (for him) a contemporary artistic endeavor...

I'm sure a lot of this is just for the legal reasons....that have only gotten worse over the years.

Like ''Elementary, Dear Data'' has Data do a Sherlock Holmes holodeck program......but, oops, after the episode aired, the estate of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle notified Paramount that they still retained a percentage of the rights to the character, and would require a usage fee if the character was used again.

[Yora]

The thing which prompted this, however, was a line in Telltale Batman in which Lucius Fox says something to the effect of "As you know, WayneTech is a giant in the field of telecommunications." To Bruce Wayne. With no one else in the room.

There just is no reason to ever use the phrase "As you know". Even if you keep the rest of the line unchanged, it's still going to be not as bad as when you open with this.

[Aedilred]

There just is no reason to ever use the phrase "As you know". Even if you keep the rest of the line unchanged, it's still going to be not as bad as when you open with this.

While the specific phrase "as you know" may not see use in real life, I think that the phenomenon is not actually that unrealistic if you substitute a few words. Instead of "As you know, x", try "You know how x?"

This happens all the time in everyday conversation. Although the person you're talking to probably does know what you're talking about, it gives them a chance to calibrate their thinking for the forthcoming conversation, can remind them of details that might not be to the forefront of their mind, and ensures that even if they've otherwise forgotten the details, their memory is now jogged.

And in a legal/diplomatic context, the phrase "as you know" or its wordier counterpart "as you are no doubt aware" is used all the time - you don't want to suggest that you're more knowledgeable in a certain subject than your addressee, but equally you want to be sure that they are aware of this subject and will take it into account.

So while its use in fiction is often clumsy, I don't think it is by default unforgiveable.

[Knaight]

While the specific phrase "as you know" may not see use in real life, I think that the phenomenon is not actually that unrealistic if you substitute a few words. Instead of "As you know, x", try "You know how x?"

This happens all the time in everyday conversation. Although the person you're talking to probably does know what you're talking about, it gives them a chance to calibrate their thinking for the forthcoming conversation, can remind them of details that might not be to the forefront of their mind, and ensures that even if they've otherwise forgotten the details, their memory is now jogged.

Exactly. On top of that, "You know how x" is almost always used as a preamble to communicate something other than just x, which is where the trope gets irritating. The example with Batman upthread is a pretty good one for this being used with startling ineptitude, but it can work just fine.

[BeerMug Paladin]

I think a slight rejiggering of the phrase "As you know..." can see some pretty good use. Just make it, "As you should know..."

There's certain topics I find innately memorable and easy to recall. In fact, I find them so simple and memorable that I typically operate under the assumption that it is common knowledge among my peers. This is often not the case. So sometimes I end up thinking someone should know about something even when they don't.

It typically doesn't happen with a peer who is specifically knowledgeable about a related field of knowledge, though. I would expect a good programmer (specifically one who is supposed to be talented) to have some basic knowledge about quadratic roots and complex numbers, for example. An inept programmer could not know very much about those topics, and there's two directions to go with there: ("Of course I know about it all!" Or: "Umm, actually no, I don't really know what that's about.") These two nuanced things can reveal important traits of a character.

"As you should know..", would denote the relative importance of understanding the topic. All programmers should know basic facts about quadratic roots and complex numbers. The real world doesn't always bear that out.

The phrase could also see some good usage to denote arrogance or insufferability. If that's intentional, it's a good use of the approach, but if so the character being talked down to ought to express boredom and try to leave. Unless they're exceedingly polite, or have some legitimate fuzzy memory of the thing in question and wouldn't mind the general refresher.

Recall how the geneticists and paleontologist characters in Jurassic Park got bored with the cartoon explaining how the dinosaurs were made, and the narrated rides set to pass by things they would rather get out and gawk at.

With all that said, in the vast majority of cases this is probably due to lazy writing instead of clever construction of a scene and characters. Sturgeon's Law and all that.

[2D8HP]

Well, see I can excuse it if it makes sense in-universe. Like a bad guy taunting a good guy. Like an evil Luddide kidnaps Mark Zuckerbeg and is like ''haha, I will now make a post on my Facebook page that I have you at my mercy!. Oh, Facebook, the most popular social media site...have you heard of it...hahahahah!''


I suppose it should go into the "Confessions" thread that this sounds cool to me.

[Brother Oni]

Particularly when Fawkes looks rather unlike the mythic phoenix when they first meet.

The problem is that there are at least two types of phoenixes - the better-known-in-the-West Greek one that is reborn with fire and the Chinese phoenix (fenghuang) that shares the name only.

Like anything it depends on how well it's done. In the original cinema release of Bladerunner, they have Deckard voicing over all the various in-universe terms like skinjob and replicant, which detracts from the movie.
The other extreme is not to explain anything - the movie Night Watch (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_Watch_(2004_film)) has an excellent scene where the protagonist is fighting a vampire that can only be seen in reflections and resorts to using a broken mirror shard to see it coming. I worked out what was going on very quickly, but I had to explain it to my non-gamer wife.

The problem is that you can't assume the background knowledge of a global audience - for example, the mythology of Chinese ghosts aren't widely known in the West (hands up those who know that you can shame them into fleeing with a correctly prepared mirror or hit them physically with jade or fresh blood?), so something obvious to the audience of one country can't be assumed for another.


With all that said, in the vast majority of cases this is probably due to lazy writing instead of clever construction of a scene and characters. Sturgeon's Law and all that.

In some cases, it's more the dialogue of experts being written and spoken by non-experts, who therefore wouldn't know what is and isn't common knowledge or the standard jargon.

The outright getting things wrong and reverting back to stereotypes is most definitely lazy writing (see any plot involving pharma companies and dodgy medicines).

[Shoreward]

Yeah, a huge problem comes down to presentation. It's why I recommended choosing a different avenue to dispense information whenever it was available. Sometimes that's too slow, though, and you need to dump some information all at once. In those cases I'd try to come up with a plausible reason why it would need to be explained - usually in the form of a character who doesn't know the details - and do it that way.

There's a lot of good reasons to avoid the "as you know" exposition dump and similar "board room meeting" scenes, the least of which being that they tend to be a bit clunky and boring, but you absolutely can make it work. What I was calling for in my original post was a sort of "stop and think about if this actually makes sense in the universe or if there's a better way you can do it" response if you ever found yourself falling into the cliche.

[Vogie]

Yeah, a huge problem comes down to presentation. It's why I recommended choosing a different avenue to dispense information whenever it was available. Sometimes that's too slow, though, and you need to dump some information all at once. In those cases I'd try to come up with a plausible reason why it would need to be explained - usually in the form of a character who doesn't know the details - and do it that way.

There's a lot of good reasons to avoid the "as you know" exposition dump and similar "board room meeting" scenes, the least of which being that they tend to be a bit clunky and boring, but you absolutely can make it work. What I was calling for in my original post was a sort of "stop and think about if this actually makes sense in the universe or if there's a better way you can do it" response if you ever found yourself falling into the cliche.

The only time I could possibly think that "As you know" would be okay would be either 1) in a press briefing scenario, where it's indicated that the journalists should know something, but wants to dissuade them from asking questions about it, as the phrase would make them look dumb, or 2) as a reminder of a very recent change, as a polite way to say "are you serious" or "don't you remember".

[huttj509]

The Batman one I can actually excuse as Fox teasing Wayne. "As you know...maybe...when was the last time you were in the office? Do you even know what we do here? I've been effectively running R&D for you, you know."

[Shoreward]

The Batman one I can actually excuse as Fox teasing Wayne. "As you know...maybe...when was the last time you were in the office? Do you even know what we do here? I've been effectively running R&D for you, you know."

This is sort of what people mean when they say you can do it well... though if the scene were written with this intention in mind it would have been a lot more palatable. The "do you even do anything around here?" ribbing toward Bruce is a pretty solid tongue-in-cheek joke compared to rote recitation of the usual 'as you know' scene.