It is a fairly standard trope in mysteries these days
Well, it's a standard trope, full stop. Letting the viewer know something the character does not is one of the textbook ways to create suspense. I think every single Hitchcock movie uses this technique to one degree or another. And not just in mystery either - it crops up all over the place. To be fair, I don't think it's as effective when the author leads the audience to feel like they figured something out, rather than just coming out and telling them (as Hitchcock does). Like, maybe that guy feels like he's doing his audience a favor, making them feel involved by leaving them clues to unravel? But I think that kind of involvement is too close to the feeling of when you're reading something that telegraphs an obvious plot twist. Not fun.
A world without Batman where a morally ambiguous Riddler battles the Gotham villains would be...pretty great
You could do this with pretty much any Batman villain - since his rogues' gallery are all basically weird mirror images and distortions of Batman himself. Every Batman rogue is basically just another kind of Batman in a way that isn't like pretty much any other cast of villains. Except maybe Spider-Man.
Right, I guess I'm not talking about full fledged dramatic irony where the irony is explicit. You say telegraphs an obvious plot twist...but there are two of those things. Two kinds. The story that awkwardly telegraphs a plot twist & then is like "well ain't I clever!" & the story that telegraphs the plot twist & is like "ohhhh you figured that out all by yourself, aren't you clever!" Sherlock is the latter & I feel frustrated. That is what Watson is for! We feel smarter than Watson, but want Holmes to be smarter than us!
I said Riddler because I feel like that is the best comparison for Cumberbach's Sherlock, & because the Riddler hasn't been tainted (or I should say coloured) by unbridled malice. Like, The Joker as hero? Two-Face? Those are less ambiguous & more monstrous. Making the Riddler "good" is a slight twist...isn't he "good" for the last few years, anyhow?
I guess. Maybe I'm getting old, but I think of the man dressed like a bat more as an amoral vigilante force than as "good" per se. Maybe I'm just in a bad mood.
I think that question violates the internal logic of...like, comic books? Just as well ask why Superman doesn't eradicate energy concerns by shooting eyelasers into a battery for five minutes each morning. Because of the laws of capes & cowls!
I mean, yes, it does basically negate the rules of the genre. Also I do think a lot that it's immoral for Superman to even allow himself to have any kind of life as Clark Kent. Really, dude? You're going to sit in and have Chinese with Lois tonight? Fuck you. With say, an EMT or a neurosurgeon, you can make the argument that there is a finite amount of good they can do in the world, so they can't be blamed for taking personal time, but when you are capable of an infinite amount of good (or as close to an infinite amount of good as can be attained by any being in the universe), you are maybe not a person but a public utility.
Right, but again, that violates the rules of the genre. & some writers might take that violation & make a story out of it-- "sure, 6 hours a day Superman doesn't save lives, but if he didn't take those 6 hours to be a person...HE WOULD STOP BEING A PERSON OH GOD NO WHY!"
Well, it's a standard trope, full stop. Letting the viewer know something the character does not is one of the textbook ways to create suspense. I think every single Hitchcock movie uses this technique to one degree or another. And not just in mystery either - it crops up all over the place. To be fair, I don't think it's as effective when the author leads the audience to feel like they figured something out, rather than just coming out and telling them (as Hitchcock does). Like, maybe that guy feels like he's doing his audience a favor, making them feel involved by leaving them clues to unravel? But I think that kind of involvement is too close to the feeling of when you're reading something that telegraphs an obvious plot twist. Not fun.
A world without Batman where a morally ambiguous Riddler battles the Gotham villains would be...pretty great
You could do this with pretty much any Batman villain - since his rogues' gallery are all basically weird mirror images and distortions of Batman himself. Every Batman rogue is basically just another kind of Batman in a way that isn't like pretty much any other cast of villains. Except maybe Spider-Man.
Reply
I said Riddler because I feel like that is the best comparison for Cumberbach's Sherlock, & because the Riddler hasn't been tainted (or I should say coloured) by unbridled malice. Like, The Joker as hero? Two-Face? Those are less ambiguous & more monstrous. Making the Riddler "good" is a slight twist...isn't he "good" for the last few years, anyhow?
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment