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

JRHoch 2020-01-07 15:22:07 UTC #53

@skicoak hasn't had someone to really argue with in a long time. You are doing him and us a public service.

JRHoch 2020-01-07 15:41:22 UTC #54

This is a parallel point, but you can see a variation of what I think @skicoak is talking about in a lot of Webtoon comics where they start with long, wordy, dull preludes. Somehow this became the norm, and a whole bunch of new creators started to mimic the behavior, thinking that's what good comics were about, when it's just a lazy way to impart information.

AVXP 2020-01-07 17:30:22 UTC #55

You guys are confusing me. lol
I thought the Topic's title was more like....

Since people have been eating fast food so much, they can't stomach or properly enjoy a well-cooked meal.

Fast food is quick and simple and cheap. Satisfies a CRAVING and is not very filling or nutritious.
We know that -you can't have it all.

If I've eaten a good steak, I don't know if I suddenly lose the ability to discern or rate the taste of a cheap burger patty.
If I've NEVER had a good steak, I don't know that I would STILL prefer junk food after the FIRST time I tried one.

I think the angle in this is....
We are CHEFS and we (for the most part) spend a lot of time and effort preparing our meals. And when someone chooses a quicker or "dumbed down" meal, it's almost an offense. In turn we insult their palette. Almost literally, in a way.

82% (Oh, I love percents this week) of this forum's (more serious) posts are about being smarter or wiser as creatives - passing off our collective judgement as guides - hence all the What You Should Do and Not Do themes.

I say don't insult the customers and accept what kind of eatery you are.

The restaurant owner doesn't get mad when the lunchtime line doesn't go around the corner.
And the fast food joint understands why they need a drive through and why no one calls for reservations.

ratique 2020-01-07 18:55:05 UTC #56

Let's calm it down a bit or I'll be forced to close down this topic simply because someone wants to start an argument.

Jenny-Toons 2020-01-07 19:06:34 UTC #57

Isn't all of this no more different than using cliches and tropes within our stories? I'm always of the opinion that it's the execution, not the method, that makes a show/movie enjoyable.

Take for example, this scene from The Thing (always my favorite example to use~):

Now, this it the scene where Windows found Bennings being absorbed by the creature. He dropped the keys and ran. In a future scene, the doctor suggests doing blood samples to see who's been changed. But someone ruined those samples:

Now, people are pointing the fingers at Gary and the Doctor, but remember the first scene? WINDOWS was the last person to HAVE the key -- and he dropped them.

But the camera never panned down to those missing keys. They never showed them. You just hear them being dropped. The camera never wandered because if it did, the execution wouldn't have worked and the feel of suspense wouldn't have been the same.

Sometimes, it's all about the execution that plays out rather than the way the camera zooms in.

skicoak 2020-01-07 20:14:16 UTC #58

It is a parallel point but it can still apply in the same way.

When that variation gets repeated enough, irregardless of the quality of the execution, then it becomes a crutch for some of the readers as well. They've become dependent on that initial word dump to explain everything versus an approach where things unfold more slowly.

I follow what your saying and conclusions you draw from this metaphor but that's still derived from quality and preferences in some ways. My point is more about if the repetition of a daily diet of fast food flat grilled hamburgers numbs your palate to even the possibility of a flame grilled fast food hamburger. And an implied rational of palate limitations and traditional fast food production was used to justify that.

Yes, More like THIS in terms of not using multiple camera shots to the keys and ominous music to establish their importance in a sequence of events.

The repetition of other directors and productions to spotlight important objects can create an inability to recognize a more subtle variation. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts to justify planting "flags" besides all your important items/events/conversations in a narrative so viewers don't get lost...because you're training them to look for the flags not the important parts themselves.

nathanKmcwilliams 2020-01-07 20:18:53 UTC #59

I kind of see it as the various TV\media corporations using these "dumbing down methods" to keep people returning to an easy source of mindless entertainment.
More money in their pockets as the people line up for their daily intake of factory churned drudgery.

Croik 2020-01-08 02:19:51 UTC #60

Pushed in what way?

I think it needs to be pointed out that following the 180 rule is not the same as boring cinematography. You can absolutely change angle and depth without confusing the spatial positioning of characters within a set. If the shows you watched were boring to watch, that's not the fault of right vs left, that's a different problem.

The 180 rule exists so that it's easy for the audience to identify characters and props within a space. Characters are cast and dressed in a way so they're easy for the audience to tell apart. Presumably, the point of the show--the message the writers/directors/actors etc are trying to convey--has to do with plot, and emotion, and character arcs. If they shot it in a less structured way, presumably those things would remain the same, the viewer would just need to devote a few nanoseconds of brain time to figuring out where people are in the space whenever the camera shifts, because the person who was looking right a second ago is now looking left.

Because you're right, audiences are smart enough to figure it out. But that's the thing--there is still something there that needs figuring. You're giving the brain a little extra work. And that sounds like a good thing, but all recent science has shown that multi-tasking HARMS intelligence. The more things your brain has to focus on, the less it's able to focus on any one thing. It dampens comprehension.

So when someone talks off screen, and my animal brain has a fraction of a second pause of "wait who was standing there a second ago?" that's focus taken away from the part of the show that matters. Does that really benefit the viewer? What argument is there in favor of making it harder for the viewer to follow, unless the point is for the viewer to feel disoriented? (Which is totally valid, too, and people are still making those kinds of stories.)

As for the rest of the stuff I can't comment, because endlessly repeating exposition is something I also hate. But I can't say it's dumbing audiences down, because all of these things have existed since the beginning of storytelling as we know it, and yet people still ARE creating unique, challenging media alongside it. There's plenty of room for all kinds of stories, and the ratio of "fast food media" to "high art" really hasn't changed over time, as much as it seems otherwise.

If more challenge is needed, I'd much prefer if people told complex stories with clear, effective tools, than trying to tell a simple procedural story with artsy ones.

TAMAnnoying 2020-01-08 02:48:51 UTC #61

I need a heavy citation for this because “intelligence” is an interesting catch all term. If you just mean focus- well of course major amounts of multitasking can be harmful if you need to pay attention to things like driving or knowing what time it is- but for comprehension? That seems strange, as micromanaging games are not only fun for most people but also help them learn things like writing, math or other mechanics that they might not be able to learn normally through hands on experiences.

Now If you mean “having everything in your life causing you to use 100% of your brain is harmful” I agree completely, but anything Can be bad for you if there’s too much of it- but isn’t it nice that- using the food analogy from earlier- you have McDonalds to go to when your having a busy day and you just don’t feel like cooking, but shouldn’t we have a half an half of shows be dumb down easy to consume while others ride with complicated morals and make you think?

My question is: por que los nos dos?

Kura 2020-01-08 02:57:25 UTC #62

Though the 180 rule is present in comics, I think the easiest way to compare this to comicking would probably be in regards to story-boarding, panelling and lettering.

There are a lot of rules or guidelines that are in place to make comics readable, that can be broken depending on the scenes, characters and even origins of the comic (right to left reading flow instead of left to right is perfectly normal for translated manga, even though back in the day it got flipped when getting translated because it went against English reading rules, and it was thought that English readers would not be able to follow that change in reading rules)

Reading flow in regards to where artists can attempt to determine how where a readers eyes will go when going through a page or strip is a really important thing. Not one that we'll always be able to predict, but one that we can generally try and control through the way we present the panelling and flow in the text and visuals.

For artist, this can sometimes be irritating. 'Why can't reader figure out on their own how to navigate through this detailed full page image spread, why do I have to guide them through it? Why can't they just sit back, enjoy and discover everything on their own." this even more irritating when the guidelines you are giving the readers to follow feel like they interfere with or take away from your work.

A huge example that I think a lot of people who draw comics can relate to. Sound effects.

Does the reader REALLY need sound effects on a page to show that this character is walking or has snapped his fingers or are the visuals enough? Is this explosion enough for the reader to see that something is exploding or do they need a sound affect to accompany it to help with the effect? We want to expect that most readers are smart enough to figure what's going on without the need of words hanging in the air over the art, but it's just not going to be that way with all readers. With television, they are trying to appeal to as large a demographic as possible, so almost any rule to make it easier for more people will be followed.

I don't think this is done with the intention of dumbing down the audience or anticipating that everyone that watches it is dumb. It just trying to appeal to as many people as possible.

burginlewis 2020-01-08 03:14:13 UTC #63

trying to appeal to as large a demographic as possible

Yes. This is it in a nutshell, and the money behind it. But I agree it can feel like (if everyone will pardon the simile) how highway traffic always moves at the speed of the handful of slowest drivers on the road. And I too want more Sherlocks to choose from and fewer The Witchers. Maybe that's the real problem... too many "shows one can watch while playing Polytopia, petting the dog, and asking about my partner's bad day all at once, yet still totally follow it," and too few things for people who want to immerse themselves and activate all the gray matter.

skicoak 2020-01-08 06:24:11 UTC #64

Okay, bear with me here as I try to explain...which I think will be easier to do with you since you're acknowledging that the 180 rule isn't an absolute.

Agreed. And for our own purposes here I will try to focus primarily on it in terms of cinematography... in this response.

But let's focus for a second on creators who adopt the 180 rule as a practical absolute because of the belief in clarity and making it easier for the audience. Depending on how much that creator prioritizes making it easy for the audience (or distrusts the audiences ability to follow along otherwise) can easily effect the artistry of the cinematography.

I watched these shows and the filmed conversations were reduced to eye level medium close ups, or cowboy shots, on only the individual currently speaking, only cutting to the other person when it was their turn to read the dialogue. Dialogue that focused on telling the character's reaction instead of showing it because the camera wasn't on them at natural points of reaction. The camera never lingered, it never shifted in perspective to create an emotional weight or add mood. It only focused directly on the individual speaking...eye level.

Establishing shots, camera center and eye level at CBS. The CW did a little more with it's transitions and establishing shots but the actual scenes were the similar banal pattern.

It was my conclusion that this wasn't artistry, it was repetitiously adhered to, across multiple episodes, for the sake of some determined level of clarity that needed to be constantly held to by someone in the creation process.

And to use my wife as my control subject, it's her fairly steady of diet of these shows, that simplify and simplify, in pursuit of easy to watch goal, that means she can't enjoy an episode of something like Mr.Robot or Hannibal because the camera is actively doing more than she's accustomed to.

She's been doing the visual equivalent of sitting and now she is being asked to jog a bit. Her animal brain isn't trained to quickly recognize/focus on a shot of a cutting board for 30 seconds as the camera milks a Dutch angle.

It isn't that she doesn't understand the perspective tilt, her language of cinema is reduced so she can't attach a short hand to the effect.

It's a dumbing down of the visual language.

In my opinion, the argument is basically a variation of the "show don't tell." mantra.

If the adherence to clarity means a scene where a principal takes a student in the hall to tell them their mother died in a car wreck is filmed in cowboy shot/close up with the camera only on the person speaking. It can only have one type of visual effect, even if it was well wrote and well acted. We're being told the narrative thread.

However, if the scene starts and the camera pans backwards and away from the two before the conversation really starts, we can make out nothing but the opening phrase " I'm truly sorry to ..." We hear nothing the farther we get. The camera stops 100 feet away and lingers until a locker shuts loudly off camera . Then the students body language reflects the news they're being given.

The second one is more visually challenging and requires more interpretation from the viewer but I argue that as simplistic as it was, it shows the narrative.

I hope this elaborates more on what I mean by "pushing". It's not letting the short hand of storytelling get so simplified/dumbed down that it reduces our possibilities as creators.

Croik 2020-01-08 12:25:14 UTC #65

Research also shows that, in addition to slowing you down, multitasking lowers your IQ. A study at the University of London found that participants who multitasked during cognitive tasks experienced IQ score declines that were similar to what they'd expect if they had smoked marijuana or stayed up all night. IQ drops of 15 points for multitasking men lowered their scores to the average range of an 8-year-old child.

Now, granted these studies are looking at "can you work well while also being on your phone" or "can you watch Netflix and Youtube at the same time" so the impact of multitasking on watching a TV show that has bad editing is doubtlessly far less. But the science is there: the brain focuses best when it has fewer things to focus on.

If the viewer is thinking "Who is Anne talking to? OH right it's Jake," that's a microsecond they spend not focusing on Anne's emotional confession to having murdered their children....!! (or whatever). And it's not much but those things add up, they make the show more tiring to watch, so unless "who is she talking to?" is something the director WANTS you to wonder, like it's part of a misdirection or a reveal or something, there's no compelling reason to make things harder on the audience.

It's like someone said above: you could shoot your movie in very low lighting. In some cases, that's the perfect choice (like horror). But if it's not tied into the intent, don't do that, because people want to be able to see, and there's no reason you should deprive them of that. And "challenge the audience" isn't a compelling reason because you're actually saying "I want my audience to have a harder time focusing on the things the show is about."

Though let me be clear, I'm talking about continuity breaking things like 180 rule, not "make the shot interesting to look at."

None of that has anything to do with the 180 rule and I think you should separate them if "boring cinematography" is what you mean.

In the opening scenes of Midsommar, there's an incredible shot of two people talking. They're totally static, facing each other, but one of them is shot through a mirror while the other is at the end of a hall and out of focus. If shot in shot/reverse shot at eye level, this scene would be boring AF. But in the frame they appear to be side by side, far apart, and talking past each other. It creates emotional distance between them and carries on for long enough to be unsettling and uncomfortable, which perfectly supports the conversation about their relationship that's going on. It's unique, it holds your attention, and as the scene shifts to a more natural angle, it preserves the visual positions of right v left. A visually striking sequence that adheres to the 180 rule.

Law and Order could easily mix up their shots while preserving 180, but that's not part of their stated intent, so they don't. It's a totally valid choice even if it's a safe (possibly a boring) one.

As for the idea that consuming easy media makes it harder to enjoy more complex media, I want your wife to come testify. There are any number of reasons why someone wouldn't like Mr. Robot (I didn't) or Hannibal (visually incredible, yes, but also pretentious as all get out and borderline nonsensical in places, with heapings of gore). "The DONK DONK prevents people from appreciating GOOD crime drama" is the same argument that "people watch so many MCU movies that they refuse to watch SMART movies" or "People who listen to pop can't appreciate classical music!"

Something that requires more effort to consume is not automatically smarter, if both are accomplishing exactly what they set out to do.

Darth_Biomech 2020-01-08 17:28:48 UTC #66

Care to test your claim?

skicoak 2020-01-08 17:31:22 UTC #67

It absolutely is related if the creator's goal for making it as "easy" for the audience as possible bleeds over from strict adherence to the 180 rule and into static cinematography. These networks are not hiring legions of directors in love with "boring cinematography", they're mandating its usage.

And that's JUST visually, if all other aspects of the production are similarly geared towards "easy" and "easier", it just snowballs and snowballs.

Let's compare box office champions to the Oscar's, an award voted on by their peers.

(for those scoring at home, those last three blips are 94's Forrest Gump, 97's Titanic and 03's Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King)

Then please, can you provide an explanation? Why are the movies being voted the most well crafted by people who make them not making money?

Side note: 2009's Avatar was the last time box office champion was even nominated for a best cinematography Oscar, it won. 2008's The Dark Knight nominated but did not win. 1997 Titanic was nominated and won. Oscars for Direction are similar , in 2009 Cameron gets a nod for Avatar but not the win, 2003's Jackson get a nod and win...then we're back to Titanic.

skicoak 2020-01-08 17:45:01 UTC #68

It's a fun video but it's like saying this experiment with a 50% fail rate is a damnation of the 180 rule.

They're both consciously designed to produce failure so they use techniques AGAINST cognition.

TAMAnnoying 2020-01-08 19:33:38 UTC #69

I’m just glad that lots of people here seem to think the human brain is incompetent

Yes: it’s bad to text and drive- it’s hard to watch two shows at once. These are just simple facts. That dosnt mean multitasking reduces intelligence. It’s just like working any other muscle you should take care of it but you should work out for 24 hours. If you work out 24 straight hours prior to taking a physical test- of course your gonna perform worse because euphoria haven’t RESTED

Tell me can people not text and drive because they can’t comprehend language while driving or is it because we only have one pair of eyes and we’re not chameleons that can move them independently?

What about the people with ADHD like me who genuinely cannot comprehend what they are studying In a matter that will stay unless they are listening to music or have a movie on in the background?

The studies show nothing conclusive and even if they are correct in some way how the hell is Trying to watchTWO shows the same as just paying attention to one show?

The fact is the 180 rule is a basic rule that everyone knows and everyone learns immediately- there is nothing inherently wrong with this rule on its own however just like anything else- too much of it can be a bad thing- it means your not striving to put your own flavor into your work- it means there’s nothing that makes it stand out to anyone else’s camera work- and really it just means your prob not passionate if every single take is a 180 take. It feels much more like your a director that comes into work and just wants to go home at the end of the day- not someone who wants to put their name on the final product

And this dosnt mean that people are asking for shaky cam or some David Lynch esk type of in-depth analysis of something- they prob want something more in between. They prob want something that is easy on the eyes but that will also make them flex their brain a little bit- cause you know your brain also needs to go to the gym just like your body does. They both should be fit and healthy and not only eating junk food.

I’m just really sad that people seem to be treating the human brain as if it’s an expired cupcake and not a marvel of nature.

Edit: replied to the worng person, fml

Croik 2020-01-08 19:38:29 UTC #70

Oh gosh you want to use the Oscars as a barometer for best crafted. That's not relevant with what we're talking about but okay.

The Oscars are 100% politicized. Many people voting admit they don't even watch most of the entries, because that would be a lot of work.

The Oscars are chosen by people within Hollywood who are highly motivated to appear "smart" which is why it was considered pandering when they gave nods to Black Panther and other blockbuster films. Return of the King is definitely worse than The Two Towers but IT won the Oscar, can you explain that!? (spoilers I don't need you to explain that, TTT was against A Beautiful Mind that year and the academy wanted to toss LOTR a bone for what they accomplished overall).
Diversity in the Oscar's voting pool is atrocious and does not reflect the people buying tickets so they can watch movies for fun, not because it's literally their job.
May movies that win Oscars set out specifically to win Oscars, because there's a formula to that too, so it's not useful to compare them to movies that set out to make money and care less about Oscars. The intent is totally different.

Plenty of movies have won Oscars over movies that deserved it more, because the Oscars are political, release dates are a thing, blah blah can we PLEASE not pretend that the Oscars matter.

PS all these Oscar winners know exactly how and when to apply the 180 rule.

The REAL question is, does watching "cheap" media make people less interested in "smart" media? If your wife watched less L&O, would she be more likely to watch Hannibal, because her viewing palette would be broader or more ~experienced~ or something?

I propose the answer is no. People like what they like. If you took away Independence Day, you wouldn't get more people watching The English Patient - you'd just get a smaller box office overall. If I grew up listening to classical music instead of my dad's 80s rock, I might enjoy classical more, but so what? What inherit value does that have? It really, literally doesn't matter. And I can still enjoy a piece of classical music if it stirs me, just maybe not exactly the one piece of classical music that...won the equivalent of an Oscar. Know what I mean?

So, no, watching lots of CSI might make you more inclined to watch...even more CSI, I guess, because you have found a style of thing that you enjoy. But that's not "dumbing down" that's just people having tastes and preferences.

tl;dr The 180 rule is not boring and audiences can't be "dumbed down" by enjoying things because art is subjective and people's tastes are valid.

EDIT: lol autoformatting messed up my list numbers and wont let me change them, oh well.

Croik 2020-01-08 20:33:30 UTC #71

I'm sorry, I really don't want to come across as condescending right now, but that's literally not what the 180 rule means. If in my comic I have a character talking to his friend while looking to the right, then when the shot pulls back and we see that second character, he had better be on the right. It's a question of continuity, not style or flavor.

It can be a close up, a chest up, a top down view - those things are irrelevant. It has to do with where the eye places its focus on the screen with regards to right vs left, and there are lots of ways to handle that creatively. Literally every skilled director does this (though yes of course it can also be broken with intent, like when someone posted Gollum upthread).

Since @darthmongoose was talking about Mad Max earlier Imma drop this youtube which talks about continuum of movement which is highly relevant to the 180 rule, and also is a fun watch:

skicoak 2020-01-08 20:52:55 UTC #72

No worries. It's just, for the most part, a friendly discussion /debate amongst fellow creatives.

Nobody is keeping a tally (despite an earlier baseball joke about box scoring at home).

I accept all of your criticisms against the Oscar process but to illustrate a distinction between high levels of craft versus mass popularity, you sort of have to pick a governing body voting on the distinction.

Would you accept The American Society of Cinematographers awards?

A greater diversity of nominees and winners but similarly not reflective of the winners of mass consumption.

The pattern repeats itself in their televised categories as well if you care to peruse them as well.

If the people making the product see a distinction in the production they celebrate that differs from overall popularity...something IS occurring.

And they also know when to break, bend, and ignore as well. I would suggest to anybody that instead of seeking media/sources that reiterate the 180, look for stuff on breaking it. It's a whos' who of cinema manipulating the camera for a variety of reasons.

None of it is an argument for breaking it at all times, that'd be silly.

Just as silly as anyone suggesting it should be followed at all times.

That's probably where we differ the most, I guess.

I don't see the style of CSI (or similar programs) being the allure as much as it's the simplification/ease being the selling point.

Oh, That's gonna cost you 15 points on the scoreboard