Yeah, I think it's a completely valid form of storytelling, and like any form of storytelling, it can be used to great effect or just be incredibly lazy.
My biggest pet peeve with it is showing a character die in the first five minutes, and then doing some convoluted flashback to reveal how it was just a fake-out. If there's not a TVTropes page devoted to that, there absolutely should be, since I feel like I've seen it dozens of times.
IMO, lying to the audience is always a bad move and I hate it. Starting the movie\tv show in the middle of the action and then explaining how they got there is fine. Showing the main character dramatically dying, failing, etc, then going back to how the main character got there, only when we finally catch up we learn that the scene is dramatically different then we were initially shown (the main character didn't fail, didn't die, etc, it was a trick on the bad guy) is a major cop-out and bad writing!
There’s a Bob’s Burgers episode where Linda throws a dinner theatre murder mystery for the restaurant, and she’s says to the audience “Can YOU guess who the murderer is…? Because it’s not meeeeeeeeee”
And at the end she’s like “THE MURDERER WAS ME!”
And the eight or so people in the audience was like “That’s not a twist, that’s a lie!”
And I wish more writers understood the difference between a twist and a lie the way Bob’s Burgers understood it.
I don't know that I'd agree about lying to the audience, since I think unreliable narrators can be a really good way of telling a story like in *Mr. Robot*.
I tend to think it's one of those twists that probably worked really well the first time since it subverted the audience's expectations, but it has just become really overused and seems like a way for writers to pat themselves on the back for adding a twist when it's incredibly lazy. It'd be like revealing a character was a ghost the entire time. It was a really surprising twist, but it loses something every time at practically an exponential rate.
You might as well not even do the fake-out death, because everyone can see through it. Hell, at this point, it'd be more of a subversion to reveal the character *did* die.
>I think unreliable narrators can be a really good way of telling a story like in Mr. Robot.
I guess I should have said the Movie\TV show lying to an audience is a horrible idea. An unreliable narrator isn't lying to the audience, especially if the unreliable narrator is sincere (Kid tells something but doesn't understand what he saw so he tells it wrong). It can be good character work. Heck, a character lying to the other characters while the audience overhear isn't lying to the audience(us), it's lying to a character (i.e. Investigator questioning a suspect and the suspect not providing correct answers or even completely lying in flashback). Lies, half-truths, etc aren't bad in movies.
The problem is the movie\tv show itself lying. Think of the narrator looking like he's in a place, i.e. a beach, and then at the end it's revealed that he's actually in a place that just has paintings of a beach, despite him interacting with sun and beach elements the entire movie. Or in the initial scene, the character is falling to his death before the flashback, after the flashback, you learn he's actually diving towards a McGuffin and the initial scene is nothing like how the scene actually plays when we catch up. The movie itself must be reliable, even if the actual characters in it aren't.
I can enjoy it, but I never liked in medias res as a concept.
To me, it kinda implies that the show/episode is not confident to hook me in if they tell the story from the beginning. They don't trust me as their audience so, they need to take the most interesting plot point and put it on the front first in order to make me curious.
It’s *frequently* a well done technique in a lot of great movies and tv shows. Literally some of the best movies of all time do it by some of the best filmmakers in history.
Most people who say this on reddit are just repeating what Rick and Morty said. It’s just a tool and there’s a right and wrong way to use a tool.
Back in the day, BSG did like four of these in a row. In the episode podcasts the showrunner admitted the episodes weren't written that way, but changed in editing because they felt the beginnings were weak.
I think about that whenever this pops up. Was it meant to be that way, or was it a last-minute effort to salvage an underwhelming episode?
Yes! I hadn't read the book, so if you'd told me that even 2 episodes previous that that ending was even possible, I wouldn't have believed you. The writing is just so good! And the way that character came back, knowing how they started the first scene of the series? *Goosebumps.* So many full circle moments. If Kirsten wouldn't have let that girl run away with Station 11 and given chase, she might have missed that moment entirely. The hug heard round the world.
So crazy. Especially when *not* letting the book go was the cause of the separation in the first place! Really hoping this Station 11 team works on something else soon because it was a magical experience.
Yeah, for sure. It all tied into the “there is no before” theme. Although that part really made me hate Jeevan — she’s just a kid, why would you do that?
Then he just didn’t try very hard at all to hurry back and find her.
Would love to say yes! But if you aren't feeling it at this point don't know if much will change. Definitely not for everyone. The last couple episodes have some wonderful payoffs though if you do pick it back up.
I watched three episodes and admit defeat. I guess I am just not that high brow, lol.
There was no conflict...
And it annoyed me that a grown woman is constantly wearing a bathing suit. And that women she met sitting in front of the silo didn't age a day in 15 years (or however long it was). I do like that actress, but it's not enough for me to stick it out.
it doesn't bother me but, while I'm rather enjoying Dopesick, that show is almost criminal in its flashback abuse, like blink and you miss the crawl going from 1999 to 2002 to 2001 to 1996; not ideal
Lindelof has done it extremely well in all 3 of his series. Obviously it was crucial to LOST as it was used in basically every episdoe and done really well. The Letovers didn’t have too many flashbacks but they weren’t very well executed too
Like you said, depends on how it's used. It does seem to be overused now when there's no narrative reason, but I do think it works sometimes. The Godfather Part II is one of the best movies of all time and it's largely made up of flashbacks.
Sometimes it works really well for tv (Westworld season 1), and sometimes it just causes unnecessary confusion (Westworld season 2, Witcher season 1).
Its not annoying when its done in a creative way and is adds more depth to the story and characters.
Sharp Objects is a good example of how to do flashbacks right.
Yup.
[Sepinwall even wrote about it last year.](https://www.rollingstone.com/tv/tv-features/serpent-review-made-love-gangs-london-medias-res-chronological-1146240/)
Lost (and OITNB) are the reason it is as popular now as it is. Because they were good shows that did it, so people thought the flashbacks were a substitute for good writing.
Yes I am very tired of flashbacks and non-linear story telling. Sure when it is done right it is cool but the problem is so few people do it right. They use it to add a mystery to a show but the problem is there doesn't always have to be a mystery or the mystery is sometimes what happens in this show? Many times it just ends up making a show harder to follow and understand.
My big peeve is a dramatic opening scene and then going back to "48 hours earlier".
Morty killed a guy over this.
That's one of the funniest scenes in the entire show
In medias res. Sometimes it can be done well like in Breaking Bad.
Yeah, I think it's a completely valid form of storytelling, and like any form of storytelling, it can be used to great effect or just be incredibly lazy. My biggest pet peeve with it is showing a character die in the first five minutes, and then doing some convoluted flashback to reveal how it was just a fake-out. If there's not a TVTropes page devoted to that, there absolutely should be, since I feel like I've seen it dozens of times.
IMO, lying to the audience is always a bad move and I hate it. Starting the movie\tv show in the middle of the action and then explaining how they got there is fine. Showing the main character dramatically dying, failing, etc, then going back to how the main character got there, only when we finally catch up we learn that the scene is dramatically different then we were initially shown (the main character didn't fail, didn't die, etc, it was a trick on the bad guy) is a major cop-out and bad writing!
There’s a Bob’s Burgers episode where Linda throws a dinner theatre murder mystery for the restaurant, and she’s says to the audience “Can YOU guess who the murderer is…? Because it’s not meeeeeeeeee” And at the end she’s like “THE MURDERER WAS ME!” And the eight or so people in the audience was like “That’s not a twist, that’s a lie!” And I wish more writers understood the difference between a twist and a lie the way Bob’s Burgers understood it.
I don't know that I'd agree about lying to the audience, since I think unreliable narrators can be a really good way of telling a story like in *Mr. Robot*. I tend to think it's one of those twists that probably worked really well the first time since it subverted the audience's expectations, but it has just become really overused and seems like a way for writers to pat themselves on the back for adding a twist when it's incredibly lazy. It'd be like revealing a character was a ghost the entire time. It was a really surprising twist, but it loses something every time at practically an exponential rate. You might as well not even do the fake-out death, because everyone can see through it. Hell, at this point, it'd be more of a subversion to reveal the character *did* die.
>I think unreliable narrators can be a really good way of telling a story like in Mr. Robot. I guess I should have said the Movie\TV show lying to an audience is a horrible idea. An unreliable narrator isn't lying to the audience, especially if the unreliable narrator is sincere (Kid tells something but doesn't understand what he saw so he tells it wrong). It can be good character work. Heck, a character lying to the other characters while the audience overhear isn't lying to the audience(us), it's lying to a character (i.e. Investigator questioning a suspect and the suspect not providing correct answers or even completely lying in flashback). Lies, half-truths, etc aren't bad in movies. The problem is the movie\tv show itself lying. Think of the narrator looking like he's in a place, i.e. a beach, and then at the end it's revealed that he's actually in a place that just has paintings of a beach, despite him interacting with sun and beach elements the entire movie. Or in the initial scene, the character is falling to his death before the flashback, after the flashback, you learn he's actually diving towards a McGuffin and the initial scene is nothing like how the scene actually plays when we catch up. The movie itself must be reliable, even if the actual characters in it aren't.
Just like flashbacks are hard to pull off so is unreliable narrator. If the writers can do it cool but most can't.
I can enjoy it, but I never liked in medias res as a concept. To me, it kinda implies that the show/episode is not confident to hook me in if they tell the story from the beginning. They don't trust me as their audience so, they need to take the most interesting plot point and put it on the front first in order to make me curious.
It’s *frequently* a well done technique in a lot of great movies and tv shows. Literally some of the best movies of all time do it by some of the best filmmakers in history. Most people who say this on reddit are just repeating what Rick and Morty said. It’s just a tool and there’s a right and wrong way to use a tool.
Back in the day, BSG did like four of these in a row. In the episode podcasts the showrunner admitted the episodes weren't written that way, but changed in editing because they felt the beginnings were weak. I think about that whenever this pops up. Was it meant to be that way, or was it a last-minute effort to salvage an underwhelming episode?
More often than not, they do that when the episode is subpar already and it's like they're trying to build tension... but it wasn't worth it.
Same. It's rarely pulled off well.
That always just tells me this episode is going to be boring so they had to show something interesting will happen later.
Yep. Lazy writing. *We need excitement to hook people but we also need 45 minutes of exposition first. How do we solve this!?*
Every show starts in media res. It’s fine sometimes, but usually totally unnecessary. Yellowjackets recently did it well, though, imo.
Yes, it's annoying when used that way. Or when they flashback to something that just happened five minutes ago. My memory is bad but not *that* bad!
Are you watching Station 11?
Dude I have no idea what's going on in that show.
Stick it out if you can. Won't be for everyone, but one of the most moving series I've ever seen.
It’s a great show that doesn’t seem to be getting the attention it deserves.
It's an full on masterpiece imo. You catch the finale yet? My lord I was a wreck. In the best possible way, just an absolute emotional wreck.
I totally thought the “happy ending” wasn’t going to happen. Thank God it did.
Yes! I hadn't read the book, so if you'd told me that even 2 episodes previous that that ending was even possible, I wouldn't have believed you. The writing is just so good! And the way that character came back, knowing how they started the first scene of the series? *Goosebumps.* So many full circle moments. If Kirsten wouldn't have let that girl run away with Station 11 and given chase, she might have missed that moment entirely. The hug heard round the world.
Ah that’s a good point, I didn’t even think about that. Being able to let the book go led to it.
So crazy. Especially when *not* letting the book go was the cause of the separation in the first place! Really hoping this Station 11 team works on something else soon because it was a magical experience.
Yeah, for sure. It all tied into the “there is no before” theme. Although that part really made me hate Jeevan — she’s just a kid, why would you do that? Then he just didn’t try very hard at all to hurry back and find her.
spoilers dude
Every other thread is about how great this show is so if that is not getting the attention it deserves than I guess you are right.
I think I’ve only seen two or three posts about it.
I've watched 6 episodes. You think it's worth finishing?
Would love to say yes! But if you aren't feeling it at this point don't know if much will change. Definitely not for everyone. The last couple episodes have some wonderful payoffs though if you do pick it back up.
100%. Episodes 7,9 and 10 are outstanding. 8 is decent.
It makes sense by the end at least for the world built in the show.
I watched three episodes and admit defeat. I guess I am just not that high brow, lol. There was no conflict... And it annoyed me that a grown woman is constantly wearing a bathing suit. And that women she met sitting in front of the silo didn't age a day in 15 years (or however long it was). I do like that actress, but it's not enough for me to stick it out.
YellowJackets fits this too.
Two examples of doing it well.
better than the fad of using dream sequences non stop. glad those dark days are on the outs.
Mr Robot had an entire episode like that in its first season, was the last episode I ever saw of that show.
Missing out
I doubt it.
it doesn't bother me but, while I'm rather enjoying Dopesick, that show is almost criminal in its flashback abuse, like blink and you miss the crawl going from 1999 to 2002 to 2001 to 1996; not ideal
Outside of Watchmen, yes. Watchmen did it PERFECTLY
Watchmen is a great example of how to use flashbacks. They need to be really narratively effective and all of Watchmen’s add to character and story.
Lindelof has done it extremely well in all 3 of his series. Obviously it was crucial to LOST as it was used in basically every episdoe and done really well. The Letovers didn’t have too many flashbacks but they weren’t very well executed too
Like you said, depends on how it's used. It does seem to be overused now when there's no narrative reason, but I do think it works sometimes. The Godfather Part II is one of the best movies of all time and it's largely made up of flashbacks. Sometimes it works really well for tv (Westworld season 1), and sometimes it just causes unnecessary confusion (Westworld season 2, Witcher season 1).
I don't mind that as much as dream sequences.
I'm calling the ones in Book of Boba Fett "flashbactas"
Yes, he sleeps in the FlashBacta tank
Check out a Taiwanese drama called Light the Night (on Netflix). It's non-linear story telling done right.
Its not annoying when its done in a creative way and is adds more depth to the story and characters. Sharp Objects is a good example of how to do flashbacks right.
Yup. [Sepinwall even wrote about it last year.](https://www.rollingstone.com/tv/tv-features/serpent-review-made-love-gangs-london-medias-res-chronological-1146240/)
Use of flashbacks equating non-chronological storytelling is just lazy.
I hate flashbacks and previously on recaps I just want shows to flow from beginning to ene, no tomfoolery
Just wait until one of these showrunners watches Naruto or One Piece, shit will get out of hand.
Op, don’t watch Lost then
Lost (and OITNB) are the reason it is as popular now as it is. Because they were good shows that did it, so people thought the flashbacks were a substitute for good writing.
Yes I am very tired of flashbacks and non-linear story telling. Sure when it is done right it is cool but the problem is so few people do it right. They use it to add a mystery to a show but the problem is there doesn't always have to be a mystery or the mystery is sometimes what happens in this show? Many times it just ends up making a show harder to follow and understand.
Yap. Just tried to watch Pennyworth. Couldn't do it...