Session 2.16 for S2E12

Well, here's the thing. To address your first two examples: Out of Gas (my favorite Firefly episode, by the way) is told from the point of view of the wounded Captain Reynolds, letting us see the whole picture through his fractured perspective. (Lighting and camera work go a long way to tip us off to when we are, but that's a separate issue.) In Star Trek, we are getting different time periods because of events in the story. In both cases, however, we are not just seeing events concurrent with a previous episode told from another perspective, but self-contained stories. (Yes, one of the timelines in "All Good Things" is concurrent with the pilot episode, but it doesn't follow the events of that episode, but tells a completely different story.)

In all of these cases, the structure is part of the story.

I'm ok with a certain level of flashback or what not, but in this case, linear is far tigher story-telling.
 
Ender's Shadow is Ender's Game told from a different perspective. There is precedent for doing that. If we let Quentin Tarantino guest-direct one of our episodes, we're going to get out-of-sync storytelling, I think. :p [He did that with one of the CSI episodes, and it was an odd one - the corpses in the morgue sit up and start talking to each other, and are basically narrating their own stories for the other dead bodies...I think.]

There has to be a reason for doing it, and you have to visually cue the audience into the switching timelines, but I do not think it is by any means impossible to have limited perspective in Episode 11 and then reveal some other perspectives in Episode 12.

But my suggestion for non-linear storytelling was in Episode 11, starting in media res at Formenos, and then unraveling how they got there.
 
Last edited:
Other examples of non-linear storytelling would be Resevoir Dogs or Pulp Fiction from Tarantino. Both stories actually suffer when you present them in a linear fashion because you lose a lot of the drama. That being said, I don't think that's a road that we want to travel down too terribly far, if at all. Game of Thrones does a lot of following one story line to its conclusion, then jumping back to another story line at an earlier date than the preceding episode. So it's possible to have the Formenos arc reach a conclusion (or cliffhanger) and then the next episode jump back in time to follow the Valar as their storyline moves through the same time period that the Formenos arc is travelling through. Just need to be sure to note when the separate arcs 'synch' up again.

The asynchronous storytelling will have to become a regular feature from here on out as we start following multiple storylines that are taking place in the same time period. For example, we are going to tell the story of Beren and Luthien in one long story arc without cutting back and forth to everything else that is happening in the world, correct?
 
I'm not saying it's impossible to work with, I'm just saying that it's unnecessary. We are departing from the text, and making the story more difficult to tell all for the purpose of accomplishing something that could be easily be accomplished without making the change.
 
The problem isn't so much the order of the storytelling. It's the explanation of motivations. The audience will draw conclusions about character actions based on what we show their experience to be. We will then ask them to remember those actions and adjust their conclusions based on new information about the characters' experience.
 
In Star Trek, we are getting different time periods because of events in the story. In both cases, however, we are not just seeing events concurrent with a previous episode told from another perspective, but self-contained stories. (Yes, one of the timelines in "All Good Things" is concurrent with the pilot episode, but it doesn't follow the events of that episode, but tells a completely different story.)

In all of these cases, the structure is part of the story.

Oh, certainly, I wasn't advocating just throwing a bunch of events on screen out of order for the fun of it - it would have to be for story-telling reasons, and the structure would be significant there. ('Out of Gas' is elegantly crafted, and I imagine it would be difficult for amateurs to pull that off...but, hey, I *like* when stories do that well, so I'm willing to at least try a little bit of re-arranged storytelling, if necessary.)

But I did recall the Star Trek episode that most does the 'let's look at this from another point of view': Deep Space 9's "Trials and Tribble-ations" takes place concurrently with The Original Series' "The Trouble with Tribbles," even using footage from the original episode intercut to suggest that the characters are interacting. It is meant to be humorous, of course:


Each episode should have it's own individual story, but we do have room for story arcs that are longer than a single episode - such as what Sauron was doing in Angband, and Ulmo's plan for elves going back and forth between Valinor and Middle Earth.

IF Episode 11 creates the question, 'What are the Valar up to?' and Episode 12 answers that question, I don't think we're doing anything too unwieldy.
 
Of course it isn't _too_ unwieldly. But it is unwieldly, and the benefit of this alteration from the text does not outweigh the cost. Well known is my willingness to depart from the text for the benefit of the story, but doing so to its detriment does not make sense to me.
 
Concurrent events need not be shown concurrently. In fact, I would argue that in most cases, it's not shown that way on television and in movies.

If we start Episode 11 with, say, Feanor storming out of the meeting with Valar and the door closing and then run through the Formenos arc through the end of the episode, we can then start the Valar arc with the image of Feanor leaving the meeting and then move through the Valar arc. It is a bit of a conceit, but one that I think the viewer, who has seen this time and time again, will understand.
 
Honestly, the only argument I'm getting for deviating from the text is that it isn't inpossible. I'm still hazy on why we should, what we gain.
 
Corey Olsen wanted to avoid two things. One, having the Valar look stupid for (for instance) trusting Melkor. And two, having the Noldor look like complete idiots for mistrusting the Valar. What, they've been living here in Valinor for hundreds of years, and Melkor says *one* thing about the 2nd Children, and suddenly they go into full-scale rebellion mode?

The advantage of delaying the Valar plotline is to give time for the Noldor suspicions to grow before they are answered.

Sure, Fëanor has not been a fan of the Valar since they made that rule with the stipulation that his mother would never ever be reincarnated again. He resents that, and has the type of personality that would chafe at any authority, no matter how benign. And he just got banished, so he feels singled out and wronged. We can see his trajectory, no matter what the Valar do here. That's not the problem.

The problem is that 90% of the Noldor are going to join him in his rebellion after the darkening of the Trees and the murder of Finwë. Fëanor is going to say a lot of bitter things blaming the Valar for that, and accusing them of doing nothing (either to prevent it or in retaliation). And so, it is to be assumed that a good chunk of the Noldor buy into that interpretation - yeah, the Valar aren't doing anything, we need to take matters into our own hands - back to Middle Earth! An end to thralldom!

So, we need time in our story for that suspicion and bitterness to grow. Melkor reveals the 2nd Children secret at the midpoint of Episode 10 (Kinstrife). If we see the Valar deciding to chase after Melkor and laying the blame for the Noldor's unrest on his meddling at the opening of Episode 11...the Noldor look like they haven't even given the Valar a chance to do anything, and the accusations of their secrecy and idleness seem completely unfounded. It would be a better method of storytelling to allow the confusion of what the Noldor don't know to allow this bad blood to develop, and for the audience to see the Noldor's point of view, they're going to have to remain ignorant for at least a little bit. Asking for *one* episode to develop the theme 'the Valar are doing nothing and treating the Noldor unfairly; they are incompetent and heavy-handed rulers' is not asking for very much time at all. Especially if Episode 11 (Formenos) is an intentionally isolated and limited viewpoint episode with things clearly going on in the wider world that the inhabitants of Formenos are ignorant of. And then we clear that up, showing that the Valar are not idle, in Episode 12, now that the audience is actually curious about what the Valar have been doing.


Obviously, this is not the only way to tell the story. We don't *have* to split out the viewpoints like this. But that is the explanation for why the Execs have requested that Episode 11 remain strictly Noldor viewpoint. I realize you don't buy that, and that's fine, but it's not just a whim, either.
 
Last edited:
And, as I've said before, this will not be the last time that we will have to adopt a non-linear framework in order to tell the story. The three major stories: Beren and Luthien, Turin Turambar, and Gondolin, all take place with other events of note taking place as well (including events that overlap from story to story). But in order to maintain a cohesive story, I'm pretty sure that we'll be allowing the entirety of the story to be told in one dramatic arc and not take time to 'fill in' the blank spots as to what's happening in the rest of Beleriand.
 
Agreed. While it has been made clear to us over and over again that Season 5 is the Beren and Luthien story, what comes next is a bit...hazier. We will need the Battle of Unnumbered Tears (which should be a big deal!), but before that we need teenage Hurin and Huor in Gondolin. And then after that, we have the stories of Turin and Tuor happening at the same time. Are we going to intercut them, or are we going to have a 'Turin season' followed by a 'Tuor season' that leads into the fall of Gondolin? And yet Turin's story ends with Hurin throwing the Nauglamir at Thingol's feet, which leads fairly directly into the fall of Doriath story. There are a lot of choices that need to get made there about which part of which story we tell when. It's probably going to require some intercutting, and also some stepping back in time. The scene in the book where Tuor catches a glimpse of Turin, but doesn't know it's his cousin is great...but more poignant because the reader already knows about where Turin's story is going. So, no matter how we do this, I will want to see Tuor and Voronwë secretly observing Turin....*after* the audience has already seen that scene from Turin's viewpoint in his story.
 
Whether or not we do this linearly or not (and I agree that's probably the biggest question right now) we still need to think about the characters. Regardless of what the audience sees/knows, what do Feanor and Fingolfin think they know? Why does Feanor even agree to return? How selfless/sincere is Fingolfin here? We could have him saying it, swallowing his pride, to appease his father and the Valar but not really committed to following Feanor until he gets swept up in the emotion of the Darkening of Valinor.
 
Last edited:
While I agree that having Fingolfin become awesome instead of just being awesome is a better character arc and makes the actions of other characters more believable, I think that the story of Fingolfin:the Birth of Awesome should happen much earlier than the Helcaraxe. My personal launch point would be when Feanor draws his sword on Fingolfin and Fingolfin's reaction. I think at that point, we see that Fingolfin has matured to the point where he now displays true leadership qualities and refuses to rise to the bait. And then, the 12 years of being the ruler of the Noldor in Tirion would also have given him the experience and cache to, if he's not 11 on the Fingolfin Awesome Scale, he's 10 with a bullet. So, when the Feast of Reconciliation is called, Fingolfin responds not just as brother to brother, but as a statesman making a measured attempt to heal a rift that has torn his people apart. To me, Fingolfin's act of contrition and swearing of fealty is the first truly kingly action by a Noldor for far too long.

In the same breath, I also think that this is a good time to remind the audience that Fingolfin does allow his emotions to overcome his good sense and will make rash decisions because of it. So we see good Fingolfin in the degree to which he personally steps back to try and bring peace to the Noldor. And we see the bad Fingolfin as he reacts rashly to the emotions of the moment, both from Feanor's inflammatory speech and the loss of his father.
 
Regarding Ungolie I think we should portray her as spider as much as possible. Perhaps when Melkor arrives she initially tries to assume her earlier humanoid form as a way to communicate on his level (and that would help viewers connect to her season one appearance as well) but she should either fail to maintain this or give it up or feel that assuming spider form serves her purposes better and then stay that way. This is the way she's remembered and keeping the humanoid form too long is potentially confusing I believe.
 
Racnoss.jpg Something like this?
This is from the relatively low budget Doctor Who, so assuming that we have an unlimited budget, we could make Ungoliant really impressive.
 
I am fine with her just being a giant spider (of varying sizes) in Season 2. I think that she's abandoned the pretense of mimicking the Ainur's shapes by now. But we do want the audience to recognize her, or at least eventually figure out, 'ooh, ooh, that's that weird villain from last season who disappeared!' IIRC, we had her transform into a spider at the end of the fight with Tulkas and Nessa. So, I think her reveal should be gradual. Melkor should be standing in the mouth of a dark cave, and her voice should come from inside the darkness. And then we should hear some skittering noises...and eventually see the movement of large spider legs.

Which means, of course, that this scene only works if the first we see of her is him meeting her in the cave.

So, I say we save the appearance of Ungoliant for episode 13. In episode 12, I would like to have the location of Melkor be a mystery throughout, with the Valar not knowing what happened to him (and the viewers being no wiser). Then we have the Feast. And, at the very end of the episode, a final shot of Melkor standing on the peaks of the Pelori looking down on Valinor. And from behind him, a sound of a fall of rocks, so we know someone/something else is there, and he turns to look past the camera (at something we cannot see) and says something like, 'Well then?' and the scene ends.

Episode 13 would then begin with Melkor's visit to Ungoliant's lair, and the slow reveal of her giant spider form, and then have the two of them travel to the Pelori and look down on Valinor (but this time we can see her standing behind him), and we then go on to the Darkening.

Objections?
 
Personally, I would be fine if we don't reveal the full shape of Ungoliant until her and Melkor attack the Trees. I think that if we make the voice recognizable, the fact that, initially, all we 'see' of the character is the voice makes the reveal that much shocking. Then again, if we establish early that Ungoliant is, roughly, the same size as Melkor, it makes when she swells into immensity after eating the light of the Trees that much more ominous. We will see Ungoliant for two (?) episodes, so her appearance should be memorable (unless we have her slain by Earendil in Season 10).
 
I am fine with her just being a giant spider (of varying sizes) in Season 2. I think that she's abandoned the pretense of mimicking the Ainur's shapes by now. But we do want the audience to recognize her, or at least eventually figure out, 'ooh, ooh, that's that weird villain from last season who disappeared!' IIRC, we had her transform into a spider at the end of the fight with Tulkas and Nessa. So, I think her reveal should be gradual. Melkor should be standing in the mouth of a dark cave, and her voice should come from inside the darkness. And then we should hear some skittering noises...and eventually see the movement of large spider legs.

Which means, of course, that this scene only works if the first we see of her is him meeting her in the cave.

So, I say we save the appearance of Ungoliant for episode 13. In episode 12, I would like to have the location of Melkor be a mystery throughout, with the Valar not knowing what happened to him (and the viewers being no wiser). Then we have the Feast. And, at the very end of the episode, a final shot of Melkor standing on the peaks of the Pelori looking down on Valinor. And from behind him, a sound of a fall of rocks, so we know someone/something else is there, and he turns to look past the camera (at something we cannot see) and says something like, 'Well then?' and the scene ends.

Episode 13 would then begin with Melkor's visit to Ungoliant's lair, and the slow reveal of her giant spider form, and then have the two of them travel to the Pelori and look down on Valinor (but this time we can see her standing behind him), and we then go on to the Darkening.

Objections?
I'm ok with this. I see the shot of Melkor standing on the peaks of the Pelori with some kind of shadow pressing around him. Perhaps it isn't clear if he's alone or if someone else is with him. Maybe we could even have him look past the camera but so close that he almost but not quite looks into it, and he say's 'Are you ready?' almost to the viewers. That'd be cool I think.
 
I'm ok with this. I see the shot of Melkor standing on the peaks of the Pelori with some kind of shadow pressing around him. Perhaps it isn't clear if he's alone or if someone else is with him. Maybe we could even have him look past the camera but so close that he almost but not quite looks into it, and he say's 'Are you ready?' almost to the viewers. That'd be cool I think.
Or you could go all the way and have him break the fourth wall ala Deadpool.

That could be a little comedy.
 
Back
Top