The Regression of Storytelling

Two massive IPs dropped new content (er, movies) recently – “Jurassic World: Rebirth” and James Gunn’s reboot of “Superman.” Now I haven’t seen either of these films… and I probably won’t. I suffer from a terrible malady – bad movies and TV shows make my BLOOD BOIL and leave me angry for days. My cardiologist makes enough money. So in light of the awful reviews of the new Jurassic World, and the mostly negative reviews of “Superman” from Fandom Menace YouTubers I trust, I’ll probably just say no thanks.

But this all points to a larger issue that’s been going on for some time now which only seems to keep getting worse: the replacement of engaging, well-written entertainment with content.

Jason Hellerman wrote about this in 2021 in his article for No Film School: “You Should Be Worried About Cinema Becoming Content, and Here’s Why.” He said, “Cinema is pretty much gone, and content is king. This may sound hyperbolic, but as I see titles like West Side Story falter, as I read that audiences are scanning movie length and making choices based on it, and as I see Netflix’s Top Ten crushing online, with no one questioning the box office—I think content is here to stay.”

Yeah, content may be king, but I contend it’s also destroying our brains. We’ve all heard about how Netflix and other streamers anticipate that their programming will be watched on a cell phone by a distracted teen who may be doing homework and group-chatting at the same time. As a dad, I’ve seen this with my own eyes. Yet somehow, quality entertainment always seemed to rise above, to engage and captivate. Distracted viewing may be the norm, but my kid always paid attention to “The Office” – because the characters were rich and the writing was sharp.

Now you could certainly argue that there have always been brainless, popcorn summer movies and TV shows, and this is very true. But apart from maybe “Sinners” this year, it looks like that’s pretty much ALL we’re getting nowadays. As Marco Neves, Creative Director of the Pasadena International Film Festival, just posted on Facebook:

“This new Superman film is the spiritual opposite of Richard Donner’s verisimilitude-based movie, in terms of heart, character, and storytelling. It’s shallow in story and character arcs, overstuffed in all aspects, disjointed in the editing, and it commits the worst sin of all: it constantly tells me instead of showing me. In the entire two hours and nine minutes of this movie, there is only one single serious scene that is allowed to breathe. Literally every other scene in this film is undercut by a silly, Marvel-like quippy joke. And most of them do not land. If I had to summarize, the operating words are “superficial” and “content”.

A bit disappointing to hear, not just as a Superman fan, but also as a fan of Gunn’s “Peacemaker” and a writer. Sure, I had concerns about the baggy costume, and the trailers didn’t exactly get me pumped, but I was rooting for Gunn to finally give us a decent Superman film after suffering through the putrid Zack Snyder years.

Maybe it’s overreaching to lump together “Superman” and “Jurassic Park: Rebirth” – different writers, studios, and creators, after all – yet the patterns with these movies and indeed most of the big studio releases of late–from the latest Marvel atrocities to “Mission Impossible: Enough Already,” to Netflix’s appalling “The Electric State” and “Rebel Moon” movies (Snyder again)–are clear: story is dead. Dimensional characters are not desired. Remember how brilliant the first “Jurassic Park” movie was? How intelligently written, how relatable the characters, how the tension escalated masterfully?

Now it’s all about “Ooh, shiny.”

Film Threat’s Alan Ng, reviewing “Jurassic World: Rebirth,” said, ”This movie shows the regression of storytelling that is happening in Hollywood right now,” he opined. “No one knows how to tell stories anymore, how to create characters that are compelling. This movie lacks so much depth. It is an incredibly shallow film. Today, all Hollywood wants to do is throw flashy images in front of us, to make this a roller coaster ride that means nothing.“

Oof.

So where does this leave us as writers? Should we dumb down our work? Eschew dimensional characters? Tell, don’t show, in anticipation that the audience may not be paying attention and thus may miss a key piece of information? I just rewatched the “Breaking Bad” Season 5 episode ”Blood Money” (I’m always rewatching “Breaking Bad,” and you should, too.) A masterpiece of visual storytelling. But if it were created today for, say, Netflix, would Vince Gilligan & co. be able to get away with simply showing Walter in the cancer ward getting his chemo, to clue the audience in that his cancer is back?

I don’t know, and I don’t want to know. I’m not going to do anything differently, and I advise you don’t either. In fact, I’m going to double down on character depth and visual storytelling and plots that you (hopefully) not only need but want to pay attention to.

Because eff that sh*t.

We’re writers because we want to tell stories. When the movie gets made, changes and rewrites are inevitable, and as long as I am attached, I will fight for the project’s integrity (while still being a team player, of course.) I’m never going to deliberately write something for short attention-span theater. No way, no how.

Now if you do go see either of these movies this weekend, let us know!

Now get back to writing.

“Do not go gentle into that good night. Old age should burn and rave at close of day; Rage, rage against the dying of the light.” — Dylan Thomas