• Wondering which camera, gear, computer, or software to buy? Ask in our Gear Guide.

Why don't people understand my film?

sfoster

Staff Member
Moderator
I'm getting a little frustrated at how many people don't understand the storyline of my film. People do not understand the characters motivations, they don't understand why it's all happening.

I've been told the second script is more complicated but easier to follow, so that's good that episode 2 won't have this problem. But even if I were to try and re-work episode 1 I still don't think everyone would understand it.

The only solution I can think of is to have a character straight up explain exactly why everything has happened at the end, but that seems so dumb.


When the car pulls over and the captive is threatened, the correct response from him would have been "You'll have to kill me, I'm not telling you anything" at which point he would have been promoted and sent to baltimore. Instead he succumbs to fear and gives up the location of the mob boss, sealing his fate to be murdered.

With the captive now revealed as a snitch, the enforcer will have to go to baltimore in his stead.

Nothing is decided at the start of the story. He is given every chance to prove his loyalty, all the way up until the last minute when he opens the door.
 
Last edited:
The only solution I can think of is to have a character straight up explain exactly why everything has happened at the end, but that seems so dumb.
Add a scene in the beginning where the enforcer is given the assignment by the mob boss?
Edit: or to the end and make it a flashback while the enforcer is driving off to Baltimore or something.
(I haven't watched it yet so I don't know if these will fit into the story.)
 
Last edited:
Add a scene in the beginning where the enforcer is given the assignment by the mob boss?

Yeah that's true, that would do it.
It seems less cool because it wouldn't have a twist anymore.. I like that there is a little bit of a twist. But at least then people would understand it.
 
at which point he would have been promoted and sent to baltimore.
I actually watched it now.

The quoted part was was the only thing I didn't get and I don't think getting it is really relevant to the story. It's quite clear that the boss is testing his loyalty. IMHO it's fine the way it is.

Edit: I guess this could have been conveyed by adding some dialogue to the last scene. Something like: "I need someone there I can trust. And it obviously isn't going to be him anymore."
 
Last edited:
I actually watched it now.

The quoted part was was the only thing I didn't get and I don't think getting it is really relevant to the story. It's quite clear that the boss is testing his loyalty. IMHO it's fine the way it is.

Edit: I guess this could have been conveyed by adding some dialogue to the last scene. Something like: "I need someone there I can trust. And it obviously isn't going to be him anymore."

Is the quoted part you're referring to from my spoiler in the first post, about what the proper response would have been?

I'm glad that you understood it and found it quite clear. It seems that a good 30-50% of my audience was confused.

This was one response that I got

Your editing is good, sound is good, music is good, camera work is EXCELLENT...but your story doesn't make any sense to me. The closing dialogue indicates that Mob Boss already knows and trusts Dog the Bounty Hunter, so having him murder this guy in the foyer doesn't seem like a test of loyalty.

It also seems like a ridiculous way to go about killing the kidnap victim. Why go to all that trouble? And why try to guilt trip him before you murder him? It would have been easier to just shoot him and dump the body in the woods rather than bring him to the house, wrap him in plastic, then move the body elsewhere for easy disposal.
 
These kind of sequences are my favorites. You have almost nailed it, but not quite. The traitor guy needs to say "He'll kill us both" in the car. And as the boss walks out from the shade he needs to say "We had a deal that you never bring anyone here. You failed the test."
 
Without reading your “spoiler” tag I watched it. I still haven't read
it.

The response you quoted seems accurate to me. I don't agree with
that persons opinion, but it's an accurate opinion. Do you feel the
motivations of both men are clear in this three minute piece? I got
no clear motive other than the obvious: loyalty. I think I understand
the storyline; guy shows loyalty to boss and it works.

Is that your storyline?

I don't know why he did things the way he did them. Do you feel you
have shown us why? If you feel you have, point me to the time in the
movie where the “why” is made clear.
 
I don't agree with "adding explanation". As a person who has just watched a first episode of a supposed TV series (?), I must say I'm intrigued. It looks like an interesting start point, leaving me with a question, - "What is that important mission that the boss wanted to give to a loyal guy?".

But I do suggest the boss to say that. Just make him say, - "I need someone I can trust to give him my next job... ", - something like that. And then they shake hands or something.

You don't wanna reveal everything at the beginning. See the "Prison Break" series. I didn't understand a shit while watching the first 10 minutes of the first chapter. I didn't understand the hero motives. But it was intriguing.
 
I understood the movie, it's like testing the loyalty of the guy. I think you just should have put more info as to how it got to that point, is he a new guy to be initiated (what I first thought) or a guy who double crossed the boss? but then if he did double crossed the boss then his loyalty is already known. I think it's a good short but you have to give the whole story not just parts of it.
 
I'm getting a little frustrated at how many people don't understand the storyline of my film. People do not understand the characters motivations, they don't understand why it's all happening.

Storytelling is simple, if you're one of those rare people who are just born naturally gifted storytellers. The rest have to work extremely hard to develop storytelling abilities and just as there are those who are naturally gifted, there are also those who will never be good storytellers no matter how hard they work. In my experience, those who have had to work to develop their abilities sometimes have an advantage, in that they have had to learn the how and why of good storytelling which might provide options or alternatives which the naturally gifted, "just being able to do it without thinking about it", storyteller might not have been able to come up with. BTW, I'm not making any judgement as to which group you fall into, just putting it "out there".

It's not uncommon to loose some of your audience. Some just might not be capable of understanding a complex story (or simple story told in a complex way). Others might not understand a simply told story, thinking that the story is more complex than it appears and that they have missed or misunderstood something. I personally would consider 30-50% to be unacceptably high though. I wasn't confused by your film but I did have to accept that the "why" directorik refers to simply wasn't explained, which I felt was rather unsatisfying.

I've always felt that the art of storytelling is really the art of NOT telling the story! By this I mean that many of the best films seem to provide the audience with a set of details, a set of details which only the audience is privy to, as the main characters only ever get smaller sub-sets of details. This makes the audience feel they know something none of the other characters in the film knows, and there we have it, the audience is now feeling like a character in the film rather than just a casual observers! Just as importantly though, even the set of details presented to the audience is NOT the story, these details just provide all the clues necessary so that the audience can work out the story for themselves. This again makes the audience feel part of the story rather than just passive listeners to a story being reported.

G
 
Last edited:
I have no problems as is.

I see it in two parts, first the dude that got killed was having his loyalty tested. Perhaps because of some past indication that he may be a leak in the criminal organization or what have you. Not really important to this point of the story.

The second part was the loyalty of the heavy who put down the disloyal man. He could be a trusted Lt. in the criminal organization, or a new man. Not know at this point but it doesn't ruin it for me. I too am intrigued as to where this will go.
 
Without reading your “spoiler” tag I watched it. I still haven't read
it.

The response you quoted seems accurate to me. I don't agree with
that persons opinion, but it's an accurate opinion. Do you feel the
motivations of both men are clear in this three minute piece? I got
no clear motive other than the obvious: loyalty. I think I understand
the storyline; guy shows loyalty to boss and it works.

Is that your storyline?

I don't know why he did things the way he did them. Do you feel you
have shown us why? If you feel you have, point me to the time in the
movie where the “why” is made clear.

The big dude is supposed to be already known and trusted, but that's not revealed until the end as a twist.

The whole thing is a set up to test the loyalty of the other guy, to see if he would betray the boss in order to try and save his own skin. I had originally thought it was explained with 'I had high hopes for you in this family, then you lead a dangerous man into my home' but it doesn't quite work for everyone
 
By this I mean that many of the best films seem to provide the audience with a set of details, a set of details which only the audience is privy to, as the main characters only ever get smaller sub-sets of details. This makes the audience feel they know something none of the other characters in the film knows, and there we have it, the audience is now feeling like a character in the film rather than just a casual observers!

This is more my approached for the second episode, but episode 1 is so short there's not a lot of other details to give besides telling the audience that the whole thing is a test before it happens and that takes away some of the steam
 
Again, my opinion, is that except that small dialogue line I've offered, I would keep it as it is. Don't tell anything at the beginning. Leave it unknown and intriguing. Give more information at the next episode. Giving the information bit by bit is what keeps the audience asses on their chairs and their eyes on the screen.
 
Again, my opinion, is that except that small dialogue line I've offered, I would keep it as it is. Don't tell anything at the beginning. Leave it unknown and intriguing. Give more information at the next episode. Giving the information bit by bit is what keeps the audience asses on their chairs and their eyes on the screen.

I hope you're right :)
Part of me was concerned that people might not bother to watch episode 2 because they were confused and that's generally not an enjoyable feeling + a failure on the part of the film maker.

I did decide to open up episode 2 with a phone call from the boss, which is essentially just him doing a pseudo narration of the current situation
 
You've jumped straight into the action without introducing the characters. This is a case that I've discussed in terms of scriptwriting. Your clip shows how it appears when translated to the the screen. A bit of set up of characters in the beginning before launching into the action is all that's needed. Who are they? It doesn't require giving anything away. The audience has to be interested in what's happening with the actors and have a sense of who and what they're about. It doesn't need to be clear who is the protagonist immediately but you need some quick intro to develop the characters.

The quoted confusion arises from inadequate character development. It was assumed the big guy was already trusted. It was thought that the victim was an unknown. A little bit of intro sets up for the action in the car and mansion. Then there's no confusion why it's going down. And it can be done without immediate reveal. In the scenario suggested below, the big guy doesn't even know he's on the payroll yet while the victim is shown to be on the payroll but not up to the task.

What if you had a short segment where you had the victim talking to the boss on the phone just before he's 'kidnapped'. The boss could be saying something about "I have a job. Another boss is jockeying to move in on my turf. Be alert, he's sent an enforcer. Take him out. If you do, there's a promotion in Baltimore." The victim may come across as bold just before being nabbed.

The big guy might say something like, "My boss doesn't like being double crossed. I'm here to give yours a message. Take me to your boss." He proceeds to beat the guy. Cut to the car. Now we have some sense of who these two are and how they end up in the car.

The big guy arrives and calls his "boss" while the victim's boss stands there. The victim's boss's cell phone rings and picks it up. They're both be surprised that each "boss" is the same, a test. The boss gives his speech and the victim is killed. He was unconcerned which died, only which would prevail. Now you've shown the nature of the enforcer and the boss. The roles are resolved. You've planted the hook for episode two--the mission in Baltimore.

In shorts especially, don't jump into the action until you've established your characters. It can often be done with a simple visual or one line of dialogue. But without the audience interested in the character(s) and some sense of the role(s), it creates confusion which can be bad if not resolved.

Act 1 - Set Up (introduce the characters and situation)
> Victim possible promotion by boss
> Enforcer protecting his boss' turf

Act 2 - Formulate a Plan of Action to Succeed (character throws self in headlong)
> Enforcer kidnaps Victim and forces him to take him to his boss
> Enforcer threatens to kill victim

Act 3 - Suspenseful moment/Climax and Resolution
> Boss revealed to be the same person
> Victim killed for lack of loyalty

Cliffhanger: "Mission in Baltimore"

Overall, the picture quality was good. I think the actors helped maintain the interest and action.
 
Last edited:
Personally, what's to be confused about? I think it's fine. But I alone am not not going to make you financially successful.

Let's face it, filmmaking is a business...for most. So, just consider the suggestions above, if you want to make it clearer for your would-be paying audience. Art, or what's aesthetically right, is secondary. Making the audience happy is paramount.
 
I'm not much of a diplomat...

There's gotta be a compilation video of that line, from hundreds of films, somewhere out there. I've done it too. Gah :lol:

As far as story? I didn't have any problem with it; there's not a lot to follow. There's a bit of ambiguity about whether or not the one fellow was actually *the* snitch mentioned, or if he'd just failed a loyalty test from a paranoid boss taking precautions - but yeah, that didn't really matter in the end.

I think you need to work more on the technical issues, tbh, if each episode is going to be similarly bite-sized pieces.

Oh, and the first minute was essentially filler. Our characters are introduced, not necessarily by name but through relationship, very quickly after that - and quickly set up the intro to next week's (?) episode. Very fast, once it gets going. I ge tthe feeling there will be nods to tonnes of your fave films, as this progresses. :)
 
I'm not much of a diplomat...

There's gotta be a compilation video of that line, from hundreds of films, somewhere out there. I've done it too. Gah :lol:

As far as story? I didn't have any problem with it; there's not a lot to follow. There's a bit of ambiguity about whether or not the one fellow was actually *the* snitch mentioned, or if he'd just failed a loyalty test from a paranoid boss taking precautions - but yeah, that didn't really matter in the end.

I think you need to work more on the technical issues, tbh, if each episode is going to be similarly bite-sized pieces.

Oh, and the first minute was essentially filler. Our characters are introduced, not necessarily by name but through relationship, very quickly after that - and quickly set up the intro to next week's (?) episode. Very fast, once it gets going. I ge tthe feeling there will be nods to tonnes of your fave films, as this progresses. :)

The very first shot is just to look fancy, because it's on the internet and people need to immediately be made aware that they're not watching a home movie. It sets up anticipation for what's to follow.

Episode 2 ( casting this sunday - finally with real actors that have been on television and in films ) has a script that is 4x longer. The other problem with internet videos, as I see it, is that it's hard to get people watch something that has a long running time. If people see something is only 3 minutes, you have a real shot at getting them to watch it.

So episode 1 introduces people to the world and the characters.

Episode 2 has a script that is four times longer. It does have some nods to 24, so you've got me there :lol:

I started writing software code when I was 12, making games for fun, etc. I love how 24 manages to integrate computer nerds into an action thriller environment. I'm going to have a computer hacker with that sexy librarian thing going on. And definitely not in the makeup that chloe is wearing this season 9.
 
Back
Top