*** Contains minor spoilers for the film "Hostel". And I suppose very minor spoilers for "Children of Men", although not anything you can't learn from the back of the box, which is kind of the point of the post. ***
So, I watched the horror film "Hostel" on DVD last night. It was disappointing. There's no blood or actual 'horror-stuff' for the first 50 minutes. During that time, it's basically a numb travelogue about a couple buddies in Europe getting drunk and having sex.
There's a slim subplot about a missing friend, but that's it - and he's just 'missing', not found bloody and mutilated or something. For the first 50 minutes, there's no evidence that you're watching a horror film at all.
It seems to me that the filmmakers were relying entirely on assumptions about what the audience already knows to provide the foreshadowing. Basically, they know you read the box, saw the trailer, etc. You know it's a horror film; you know there's blood coming.
It's kind of the ultimate form of dramatic irony (those idiots didn't even realize they're in a horror flick!).
I also watched "Children of Men", which was NOT disappointing. But after "Hostel", I was still thinking about the dramatic irony thing. The shock of the girl in COM being pregnant was ruined by the fact that I knew from box that she's knocked-up.
So...
As screenwriters, is it fair game to assume that the audience knows the gist of the concept? I would guess that 95% of the time, I know the basic idea of any film I see. Are we allowed to play with that?
As spec writers, it might be riskier, since the initial readers won't have any idea what the script is about, but still. It seems like something to consider.
I have a script about a rebel angel*. Some of my crits have bagged on me for revealing that she's an angel too soon. But, if it were a movie, nobody's would make it into the theater without knowing the movie's about an angel. So, I might as well get the reveal out of the way, right?
Is 'prior knowledge' something we have to take into consideration in our writing?
*Yes, I know. Angels are overdone. Thank you. Move on.
So, I watched the horror film "Hostel" on DVD last night. It was disappointing. There's no blood or actual 'horror-stuff' for the first 50 minutes. During that time, it's basically a numb travelogue about a couple buddies in Europe getting drunk and having sex.
There's a slim subplot about a missing friend, but that's it - and he's just 'missing', not found bloody and mutilated or something. For the first 50 minutes, there's no evidence that you're watching a horror film at all.
It seems to me that the filmmakers were relying entirely on assumptions about what the audience already knows to provide the foreshadowing. Basically, they know you read the box, saw the trailer, etc. You know it's a horror film; you know there's blood coming.
It's kind of the ultimate form of dramatic irony (those idiots didn't even realize they're in a horror flick!).
I also watched "Children of Men", which was NOT disappointing. But after "Hostel", I was still thinking about the dramatic irony thing. The shock of the girl in COM being pregnant was ruined by the fact that I knew from box that she's knocked-up.
So...
As screenwriters, is it fair game to assume that the audience knows the gist of the concept? I would guess that 95% of the time, I know the basic idea of any film I see. Are we allowed to play with that?
As spec writers, it might be riskier, since the initial readers won't have any idea what the script is about, but still. It seems like something to consider.
I have a script about a rebel angel*. Some of my crits have bagged on me for revealing that she's an angel too soon. But, if it were a movie, nobody's would make it into the theater without knowing the movie's about an angel. So, I might as well get the reveal out of the way, right?
Is 'prior knowledge' something we have to take into consideration in our writing?
*Yes, I know. Angels are overdone. Thank you. Move on.
Last edited: