predictable?

[jetboy]

There is nothing wrong with predictable if its done right I dont think. I have more of a problem with people who try to reinvent the wheel. Predictability done right means you are going with the flow and letting the story naturally go where it wants to go. Just like a good pop song is better than a progressive classical rock acid free jazz fusion song. Sure its unpreditable but does it move you.

Love stories with happy endings will never die. Thats a good thing.

I don't disagree. Everyone is entitled to a little escapism. I never felt this predictability as a serious fault of the movie (though it would be a serious fault in a serious film), but I noticed this point when Wolfchild mentioned that none expects that Oskar will let Eli die rather than invite her in the bleeding scene. Now, when you think about it this way, no one expects Eli to kill Oskar in their meeting scenes, no one expects Hakan to seriously harm Eli or Tommy or Oskar in the book, no one expects Lacke to kill Eli and so on and so on. Each of these things is thoroughly predictable in the film and the novel, but they would not be in real life. In real life each of these things could, of course, well have gone the other way.

In serious realistic films you can never be sure the way you can in in LTROI.

Your right it is quite predictable in these ways. Thats one of the reasons I love it. Part of my early thoughts when I saw it was that it was like a nursery rhyme. The book was less so with more grit and realism but yes both predictable.

[chuck_u._farley]

by jetboy » Sat Jan 09, 2010 3:12 am

There is nothing wrong with predictable if its done right I dont think. I have more of a problem with people who try to reinvent the wheel. Predictability done right means you are going with the flow and letting the story naturally go where it wants to go. Just like a good pop song is better than a progressive classical rock acid free jazz fusion song. Sure its unpreditable but does it move you.

Love stories with happy endings will never die. Thats a good thing.

I agree, there is nothing wrong with predictability. I would go even further, a good story is always somewhat predictable, because the plot, the setting and the characters create a coherent and consistent whole. Of course these elements may change at some degree (and they should as well, because if not, then the story might succumb to boredom and banality), but not beyond a point. When a writer creates his universum and characters, he gives them motivation, moral, goals, etc, in short laws. From this on even the writer should obey these laws, or the story may become unplausible, or even hilarious. Characters may evolve and their circumstances may change, but in my opinion only to a certain extent. I never liked to much, when a writer solves his characters’ problem with deus ex machina, i considered this either as lack of idea, or lack of bravery. A good story can tolerate a decent amount of radical changes/events out of nowhere, but not more. In LTRIO were these unpredictable events for me that Eli used to be a boy, the other that Hakan nearly raped her to death, and the final one that Eli returned to save Oskar. And they were quite enough.

I think there are relative few works, which are really good with radical changes in the story or characters (in films maybe „The usual suspect”, "Blade Runner", the early works of M. Night Shyamalan, or David Fincher and of course Tarantino, and in books… well at this moment pops up only the name of P. K. Dick in my mind).

[Mr.Sample]

I agree, there is nothing wrong with predictability. I would go even further, a good story is always somewhat predictable

That's how it is, in my opinion. To solve the puzzle set up by the stride of acts and turns in the plot is a routine that every viewer with any brain cells does. The ability to sort the enigmatic threads out is a factor of our simphaty for a movie. So, in some extent, every film should be predictable to gain our emphaty. (As long as we're talking about non-surreal movies; anyway, watching them presents a totally different experience.)

Hakan nearly raped her to death

Ouch! Boy, that was really soulless! There wasn't even an actual rape.

[chuck_u._farley]

Ouch! Boy, that was really soulless! There wasn't even an actual rape.

Well, she nearly died on the spot, she almost could not make it to safety, so i dont consider that as a warm and hearty welcome from Hakan. Rather as an attempted murder in his madness.
But imagine you are a girl, and someone would do the same thing to you what Hakan did to Eli. I guess you would just slap those in the face who would tell you "why the worry, that wasn't even an actual rape". And some harsh langauge could be heard as well, i guess.

[Mr.Sample]

Ouch! Boy, that was really soulless! There wasn't even an actual rape.

Well, she nearly died on the spot, she almost could not make it to safety, so i dont consider that as a warm and hearty welcome from Hakan. Rather as an attempted murder in his madness.
But imagine you are a girl, and someone would do the same thing to you what Hakan did to Eli. I guess you would just slap those in the face who would tell you "why the worry, that wasn't even an actual rape". And some harsh langauge could be heard as well, i guess.

I'm afraid you misunderstood me. Justifying Zombie Hakan and the levity of his acts is the last thing I would ever do. I regarded that phrasing as soulless because of my concern/'love' for Eli. It is exasperating to read something like "Hakan nearly raped her to death". That scene was relentlessly disturbing and sweltering even inspite the fact that - thank God - it was 'only' an attempted rape, so the mere vision of it being referred to in such an indiscreet way makes me utterly upset.
It is the infectors' fault that I am such a sentimental, sensitive pile of fragile human components. I used to have a heart made of stone.