Is The 180 rule and other continuity techniques dumbing down the collective audience?

[skicoak]

My wife and I have completely different tastes in popular culture. She really isn't a fan of being "challenged" by content. So as a result, I end up half heartedly perusing a bunch of her shows while drawing.

But I was resting my hand this week, so I paid more attention to a couple of them.

Without pointing direct fingers, (folks tend to get protective of their favorites) I binged watched a CBS procedural drama and a CW teen drama with her. I wouldn't call the shows themselves stupid because they use a bunch of well thought out techniques to make themselves as simple and easy to follow as possible. It's more like they assume their audience is comprised of morons.

Some of the techniques...

Strict compliance with the 180 rule. In general, the camera never wandered or challenged the spatial relationship to the characters . Conversations were almost always filmed with the viewer as a passive person in the scene and at direct eye level. Everyone spoke in scene, nobody spoke off camera.

Casting was like basic level character design ( more so in CW show but still evident on CBS show). Of the female leads on one show...we had a blond, a brunette, and a red head. They were dressed in three distinct styles that didn't really reflect the characters as far as I could tell. Despite a sub-plot of wealthy VS common folk...everyone was a fashion plate.

Exposition was repeated ad nauseum. Something happens and then scene after scene of the cast repeating verbally what happened and reacting to it. On the CW, these were lightening fast cuts which gave the illusion of forward momentum but hardly anything happened from the opening scene that wrapped up a cliff hanger until the final scene.. Which was a cliffhanger.

I'm not saying techniques like these aren't effective as much as questioning if an over reliance upon them hasn't created a lazier audience that doesn't like to be pushed.

Aren't the remakes and reboots symptoms of an audience unprepared for new things?

[Iris-Grimoire]

GOD I thought that was just me with the camera. The more I study composition, the less I can stand the basic camera or talking heads that soap operas have all the time and I have to see every now and then because of the people at home.

Well, it's probably exactly because it's cheap that it can be marketed more and get a bigger audience that doesn't want to be challenged. It's not okay, the camera isn't just part of the wall, but it explains a bit.

[darthmongoose]

Personally I don't think trying to follow the 180 degree rule in my work or making my characters easily differentiated is pandering to some kind of lazy audience. To me, it's doing my job properly so that they can follow the actually complex stuff in my work.

The things I actually WANT my audience to devote braincells to in my work:

• The commentary on toxic masculinity and the corrupting nature of power as well as how marginalised groups like women, LGBTQIA+ people and PoC are exploited, tone policed and subjected to gaslighting.
• The emotions of the scenes created by the interactions of the characters.
• Who is hitting whom in fight scenes and how this changes the scenario.

Things I don't want them to waste braincells on:

• Who the hell is talking to whom and where are they in the scene.

Like yeah, if the characters are dressed in ways that don't actually reflect the characters, that's bad costuming/character design, but that's a totally different problem from characters being designed or dressed to be as visually distinct from each other as possible. In fact, if the costume designer was doing their job well, the characters should look very different AND it should show something about their personalities.

And again, with things like shot composition, following the 180 degree rule and doing interesting shot compositions aren't mutually exclusive. Hell, Mad Max Fury Road was shot in such a way that in every scene the most important thing in the shot is always right slap bang in the middle of the screen, which made it super easy for the editor to work with the footage and also makes it really easy for the audience to follow the action. Is Mad Max Fury Road a stupid movie that doesn't challenge the audience? No, it's a bloody great movie with fantastic setup and payoff, great themes, strong character development and clear action sequences.

I want to challenge my audience, sure, but to do that effectively, I want to make sure that I'm not making it hard to follow the stuff that shouldn't be challenging at all. If every scene is putting characters all over the place, crossing speech bubble tails, weird panel layouts, having people talk from off-camera and similar-looking characters, that's not me being clever and my audience being lazy in my opinion; that's me being lazy and not putting in effort to make sure my story reads well and blaming it on my audience for not devoting massive cognitive load to scenes that ought to be straightforward.

[DokiDokiTsuna]

if an over reliance upon them hasn't created a lazier audience that doesn't like to be pushed.

See, I'm wary of statements like these that allude to the "dumbing down" of the viewing public, because they seem to imply that the viewing public actually knows the difference (or at least, can tell when things are different) and actively shuns products that make use of more complex techniques.

Like, just because you prefer media that doesn't challenge you, doesn't mean you will never watch something that CAN challenge you. It simply means that, if you do, you will appreciate it for its more surface-level qualities.
For example, Romeo and Juliet is one of the most famous plays in the world. It contains a lot of deep metaphors and interesting dialogue and character dynamics that maybe most people aren't aware of, but just because the only theme they can recognize in it is "forbidden love" doesn't mean they will avoid the play. It can cater to the tastes of both those who choose to look deeply and those who do not.

Basically what I'm saying is, if simple, "dumbed-down" techniques are proliferating through out the media landscape, it's probably more the fault of the media producers who choose to use them than the consumers who probably aren't even aware of those choices.

I, for one, have never really thought about the camera work in prime-time TV and I don't even know what the 180 rule is. '_' If a show I liked adhered or didn't adhere to it, it probably wouldn't bother me that much.

And although more down-to-earth concepts like how the characters look and speak and whether or not they rehash the plot 5 times every episode (that actually DOES get on my nerves) would be more likely to affect my viewing experience...if there's something that draws me in to the show regardless (the plot, the humor, even the sfx) I'm not gonna drop it on principle alone.

I really think it's the responsibility of content creators, if they care, to weave interesting and challenging techniques into their work, rather than to call out the audience for liking the work of those that don't care. People will like what they like, the best thing you can do is try to improve the quality of the things they have to choose from.

[skicoak]

Personally I don't think trying to follow the 180 degree rule in my work or making my characters easily differentiated is pandering to some kind of lazy audience.

If it's not that...then you're saying your audience is possibly incapable of interpreting characters moving in space without a fixed camera.

It's a very strange position to take as a creator.

It goes hand and hand with the other elements ...if all the characters are distinct and the dialogue is unique to each character ...why do we worry about the reader/viewers ability to follow spatial changes ?

sub-note: Crossing word ballons isn't a 180 issue, it's script to image management problem .

[ratscout]

Hmmm... It depends on the move/TV show. There are some moveis/TV shows that I feel should really dedicate time and attention to interesting camera angles, interesting lighting, interesting blocking, etc. And then there are others that I think work fine with the 180 degree rule. I feel like action/fantasy/sci-fi movies with a higher budget should be more creative with the camera while I feel like movies like dramas or plain ole fiction stories can be a little more conventional with the camera. I also feel like lower-budget movies should be allowed to have simpler camera techniques due to having a smaller budget.

I also don't necessarily think that movies/TV shows that utilize the 180 degree rule need to treat the audience like they're morons. One of my favorite movies, for example, 'Night, Mother, is a very intelligent movie. It has simple camera angles and all takes place in one house between two characters, but it's a movie that expects you to pay attention so you can absorb all the rich details of the characters' lives. It has amazing dialogue and amazing acting, too, and the characters feel completely real. It also utilizes a lot of creative blocking so that the viewer doesn't get visually tired of watching it since it does utilize very simple camera techniques and is essentially a dialogue-driven movie. This is a good example of some of the great blocking the movie has:

I do understand what you're saying about audiences not liking to be pushed, however. Audiences will always be attracted to the most crowd-pleasing, simplest movies because humans are creatures of habit and they don't like to expend too much brain power on complex movies/forms of art because they would rather spend that brain power on work/other activities. XD

[HGohwell]

Thing like the 180 rule seem like common sense though. I mean, my understanding of the 180 rule is if you have 2 characters in a scene they stay on their separate sides unless you move the camera 180 degrees. Now, I don't know about you guys, but when I'm having a conversation with someone I'm not constantly moving around the room and changing my position. And honestly, I often think never knock a simple job done well, especially given how many people do it wrong. And making your characters distinct is no different to how you're supposed to make your characters in your comic different looking. I don't want to spend five minutes going "which on is she?" that completely distracts from the plot and other important things.

I think the probably is more a culture that hates failure and is afraid of failure rather than dumbing down. Reboots and remakes are a symptom of companies going "well it was popular the first time it can't fail a second". To be different you have to be afraid not to fail, but different doesn't always work. You need a lot of money and/or confidence to go "I'm going to try and be challenging and different and I don't mind if it fails".

Anyone looking for something that pushes the boundaries (particularly as an anime) Occultic;Nine tries some really interesting things with camera and spacing, throws out basic rules of composition in places and honestly made me feel dizzy the way they moved the camera in places, but that was the goal, to make you feel uncomfortable. And tbh, it bombed. But it was allowed to try all this stuff, because it's from the same creator as Steins;Gate and Chaos;Child. Not every creator is so lucky to have that backing to try something different and take that chance.

[skicoak]

Basically what I'm saying is, if simple, "dumbed-down" techniques are proliferating through out the media landscape, it's probably more the fault of the media producers who choose to use them than the consumers who probably aren't even aware of those choices.

I don't agree.

Most of these techniques started as crutches to cover other issues but now the legs are atrophied from using the crutches too long.

Content is being prepared now to reach the maximum consumption levels and therefore it's aimed at the lowest common denominators.

[skicoak]

To clarify about the actress statement, I meant instead of allowing the actresses or the character's dialogue create distinctive differences between the characters. Instead the show treated the hair colors as the PRIMARY distinction.

Sorry if that was unclear.

[JRHoch]

If your wife is watching the CW, you need to divorce her.

[LCT_m_a_d]

I think it's a bit of both. I always feel like change is a marriage of producers and consumers taking a chance on exiting the status quo. If either party doesnt really support ideas that challenge or expand the convention, safe hard and fast rules will just monopolize content till the dark ages.

[skicoak]

If your wife is watching the CW, you need to divorce her.

[JRHoch]

You're an educated man of culture, insightful and wise, so...if...she's...the CW...no, no, no.

Please tell me she's 15 years younger than you. I'll give allowances for that.

[Eightfish]

I don't like the idea that it's somehow bad to watch simple entertainment.

Soap operas and the like were historically made for housewives to play in the background while doing chores. Their repetitiveness and simplicity is on purpose, because the target audience is only supposed to be half paying attention to them, just like you were doing when watching them while drawing. They have a different purpose from, say, a Great American Novel, and it's possible for someone to enjoy both.

It's also not a bad thing if someone wants to only consume simple entertainment, because it's not a bad thing to want to relax. Maybe she's challenged enough by her daily life and doesn't need it in her entertainment.

When you're with your friends, do you always talk about deep philosophical questions and hard scientific problems? I don't, and if I had a friend that did I would find them obnoxious. I want to sometimes talk about complicated issues and sometimes talk about our lives and make dumb jokes. That doesn't make me a "dumbed down" person.

[JRHoch]

Yes @skicoak always has those kinds of conversations, and his friends do find him obnoxious.

[Kura]

I think the 180 rule for sitcoms and a lot of tv shows actually have to do with the set construction and equipment set up more than that 180 rule.

[skicoak]

I don't like the idea that it's somehow bad to watch simple entertainment.

Inherently isn't there a difference in simple entertainment and the poorest execution of it handicapping other types of entertainment?

My wife is not an unintelligent woman but a diet of dumbed down TV has left her unable to follow the higher end productions because they don't do enough hand holding. She's trained to expect if something is important ...they'll repeat it over and over.

[skicoak]

I think the 180 rule for sitcoms and a lot of tv shows actually have to do with the set construction and equipment set up more than that 180 rule.

This is inherently true.

But there are sub categories on even how those scenes are staged. A classic like FRAZIER was very kinetic in how it set scenes.. Frequently centering the character Frazier himself and having other characters "orbit" him in the scene. It let the dialogue bounce in other directions than just stage left or stage right.

[skicoak]

Please tell me she's 15 years younger than you. I'll give allowances for that.

If she WAS 15 years younger than me when we first hooked up, the only allowance I would be getting is a Prison allowance

and his friends do find him obnoxious.

I can not argue with this factual statement .

[JRHoch]

Oh, so you're still just a baby. I thought you were up there in years like yours truly.