The general rule for plans is: if it's explained beforehand, it will appear to work until something goes wrong. If the plan is unexplained, it will appear not to work until it's revealed it went all according to plan
There is another version. You hear the plan explained, step by step _while_ watching it take place _exactly_ the way it's supposed to happen. This is often used to show just how competent the thieves are early on in the film.
@@simonmacomber7466 There's also the evil twin version of it : you hear the plan explained step by step while watching it taking place and going wrong. This one is mostly used for comedic effect.
A good example of the unexplained con is honestly the ending of Better Call Saul. We think Jimmy is trying to take Kim down with him, but then we realize he was just lying to get her in the same room as him so he could confess everything. The only thing left for him to want was her respect and forgiveness.
Heist movies are my favourite type of movies. They have the same effect on me as watching dominoes fall. It's just incredibly satisfying to watch a group of likeable characters stand around in a room and say, "Here's what we're going to do," and then watch them do it. When it works, it feels really simple, although when I try to write one myself, I realize there are a lot of moving parts hidden underneath the surface to make it feel engaging.
Yea a tangent but i thought the transparency of the click scene was the point. We knew chuck was scamming jimmy, but somehow jimmy didnt. He's been a conman his whole life but didn't see through chucks because he actually cared about him, felt bad. I feel like we were supposed to have seen through the lie. The audience was in on it but the irony is that jimmy wasn't.
9:19 funny thing is, he did this exact same thing when trying to get reinstated as a lawyer earlier in the show.. he was completely honest for the most dishonest reasons lol
Breaking bad and Better call saul is all about details,as a viewer when i watched those 2 scenes (mentioned in the video) it got me smilling because you can see where this is going 2 steps ahead and you can't wait them to go there, you are thinking to yourself this is soo good everything is done to the small detail, and then it gets even better with un a unexpected twist where you can't predict only writters can because they control all the previouse details perfectly
Better Call Saul is genius in every way! Cinematography, dialog, character arcs... Everything! That mall heist goes so much deeper than just a funny heist scene. It tells A LOT about Saul. I think he believes in the devil! Watch this: When I saw that speech in that legendary Pimento-episode, where Mike tells Pryce that he's a criminal by definition and it's up to him if he is a bad guy or an honest thiev, I wondered: What kind of criminal is Saul? There are all kinds of criminals: Werner, who did very good precise german engineering, just for the wrong cause. Two cops, who killed Mike's son. Mike himself, who seems to have morality and rules (like not killing Tuco and getting him arrested instead). Lalo, who seems supernatural like a deamon (the way he drops from the air vent and rose from the ground like a soulless undead). The Salamancas kill people randomly. They don't follow any rules at all! So, what's up with Jimmy? Does he know rules? Doesn't matter, because there is one rule, one consequence, they all have to face: Everything has its price. And you have to pay it. Mike made that very clear: If you're a criminal, do your homework. Keep your word. Agreed amount or no deal! Everyone has to follow this rule. Werner got killed by Mike. Jesse had to kill Gale. Hank accepted death ("he made up his mind 10 minutes ago, you sussy baka!"). Lalo accepted the consequences of his action with laughter. Even Walt kept his word by killing his first victim in Jesse's basement. Funny: The only guy, who snitches and doesn't want to pay the price, is called "Pryce". Unbelievable. He is so ignorant! So, how does Jimmy face the enescapable consequences? He bargains. He negotiates. That's what he is as a criminal. He is a laywer! He turns a death sentence into two broken legs (one for each skater boy). He negotiates with Mike about the parking stickers. He even fights with his own car, when it didn't want to take his #1 mug into its cup holder. But he always pays the price. He threw away that cup. And I'm sure he gave his assistant a raise after the incident at the private domicile, bitch. I don't know if he believes in god. But I think he believes in fate. The way he looks so disgusted when he saw his ice cone got infested by ants. He seems to interpret it like a devine message. A sign from his destiny. His soul is decaying. So, let's see what happened in the heist. He tries to swap shoes and clothes. He pulls off an other scam. But it backfires badly! It's so ironic, because he got played by a slippery floor like his victims got played when he was "Slippin' Jimmy". But this time it's real! His mate isn't acting. So, how does he get out of this? How is he able to beat his bad luck? He needs to negotiate. T But telling a funny story about shitting through a sunroof? No, that's not real enough to mirror his fate. Faking a heart attack? No, that isn't right either. His mate suffered a real heart attack while scamming innocent people. Then Saul comes up with a solution: He becomes as real as the slippy floor. He is lying while being honest. He pays the price to the devil: agreed amount of honesty or no deal. Am I over-analysing it? Maybe. But Saul could have come up with this solution. He is quick-witted and did all the math in his mind while watching the survaillance screens. Think about the watch he dropped immediatly in Gus' trash. Thank's for reading this. tl,dr: He believes in fate and negotiated with the devil.
Great video, but I was actually fooled by the thing with Chuck hiding the tape recorder. I don't try to predict what's happening next while I'm watching something, so unless it's stupidly obvious, I usually won't see it coming. Even if I had seen it coming, I don't think it ruins the scene. There's still so much to enjoy there, the conflict between the brothers is reaching a climax so it's very tense, the performances are incredible. That scene feels true to the characters, it feels like what they would do, and I think if you refuse to write something that feels true to what your characters would do because someone might be able to see where it's going, you run the risk of your story feeling contrived and obnoxiously subversive. To sum up my thoughts, I think when you're talking about heist scenes specifically I'd agree that they should be held to a higher standard for predictability, but then using that scene with Jimmy and Chuck as an example of a scene being too predictable doesn't work for this video, because it's not a heist scene.
Yeah I get what you're saying. I guess for me I almost always root for the protagonist, even if they don't deserve it. So when it's clear they're about to get tripped up it's hard for me to enjoy. But you're right, their relationship and how different they were was one of the best parts of the show
For me, the bigger problem with the Rogue One heist was that anyone who knows Episode 4 basically knows the ending throughout almost the entire movie (the heist is successful but they all die) since we already know that the plans were successfully stolen but none of the characters appear in Episode 4 (despite the successful heist making them giant heroes). Sure, we can usually assume the heist to be ultimately successful, but it is rarely as obvious as here ... and in the cases where we are told the ending ahead of time, the inventive process is what makes it interesting or at least the final outcome for the characters comes with plot twists, neither of which is the case in Rogue One.
Some points of contention for both your take on the Chuck scene and Rogue One: BCS, being a prequel, does an excellent job in making you care as to HOW something happens and leads to an outcome you know instead of making you guess what's the outcome in the first place. You know Jimmy will become Saul, you know Mike will be working with Gus, you know many very important BCS characters are not in BB, so BCS is a story on how we reach that. That scene with Chuck was obviously going to be a setup for 'Chuck vs Jimmy' in Season 3, but it was about HOW Chuck was going to get that. You might have predicted the trick, but Chuck knows Jimmy still cares about him one way or the other. That's what Jimmy has that we viewers don't have, years of brotherly love that their drama (at least up to S3) still can't separate. Plus, it also goes to show that Chuck, whether he's aware of it or not, is very much the same as Jimmy; willing to do something dirty to get what he thinks is right. Chuck might not call what he did as that, but Chuck just basically pulled off a scam. As for Rogue One, it's a heist movie in such a way that you find out their plan as it goes along. Them not talking about the plan is purposeful. Many heists in BCS are exactly like that too, meant to keep the viewer blind as the heist plan slowly reveals itself. But even before the explosions happen, they do hint on what their plan is. "Make 10 men feel like a hundred", which is why their explosions were scattered in the first place. Plus, they went into this plan expecting to be on their own, the arrival of the rebel fleet was what caused the gateway to be closed. Ironically, further support of their cause was what ultimately killed them, which I think just highlights the tragedy where everyone in Rogue One dies. I do agree about everything being so far apart, but it didn't bother me too much since it reminded me of how video games work. Think it fits how Star Wars feels honestly, it's meant to be fantastical and follows a rule-of-cool (unless it's Andor, of course, where it's more realistic and gritty).
Great video! One of my favorite shows for the storytelling, characters, and incredible acting. Wanted to add my interpretation of the Chuck and Jimmy scene you used in the video. As the audience, knowing that something is gonna happen doesn't necessarily ruin the scene. Jimmy confessing to Chuck had me on edge because I was shaking my head the whole time going, "NO, JIMMY. HE'S BLUFFING. DON'T TALK." And then seeing Chuck pull out the recorder later sent me into a fit of anxiety of what was to happen next. To me, the scene wasn't to con the audience, because it was far enough into the show for the audience to understand that it's not that simple due to character's previous behaviors and motives--that Chuck has GOT to have something up his sleeve if Jimmy confesses. It even turned it around in a way for me to ask the question, "Wait... does JIMMY have something up his sleeve? Or was this an honest confession?" I think it pulled off a nice drama to give the audience anxiety. lol
I don't know to what degree the BCS writers may be Sherlock Holmes fans, but that whole sequence with Chuck is very similar to one of the classic stories "The Dying Detective". Holmes puts on an insanely elaborate performance for several days straight that he's ill to the point of being on the brink of death all for the purposes of extracting a confession from a killer, like even Watson and Mrs Hudson didn't know it was all fake until after the reveal (in fact this story was repurposed for an episode during the final series of the BBCs Sherlock show)
That's done for storytelling efficiency. You narrate the plan as it happens right up until the unexpected moments start. Overlapping the "Tell the plan" stage with the first parts of the plan leaves more time for hijinks
4:45. I understand your point of reason and that to tie the twist into your video’s argument you pulled on an unsurprising development within a scene in a show that should like, know better. But it’s strange to me that you’ve chosen to take that scene’s predictable turn as unintentional, or if it is unintentional, then still yet as scene ruining. Cue me arguing for otherwise: At the point of the tape reveal Chuck and Jimmy’s relationship had been well established as always showing the same pattern and outcome. Pattern: conflict between Chuck’s rule-abiding, cruelty, and callousness vs Jimmy’s law-skirting, compassion and remorse. Outcome: that Jimmy’s compassion folds to Chuck’s cruelty. And so whether Jimmy believed Chuck or not , whether he’s a chump or it’s just his compassion, his folding is very much a deliberately unsurprising outcome within the pattern of their relationship. And is only obvious to us that Chuck would do something like that because Jimmy’s our protagonist and we’ve witnessed Chuck’s antagonism through his eyes the entire run of the show. That scene was not, I think, meant to in and of itself be surprising, first of all we know that Michael McKean is a fantastic and subtle actor (I mean we both watched the show) and wouldn’t’ve hammed it up as he did had the scene not been asking for it. But I’m arguing that that precedes the real twist and also functions as just part of the pattern leading to its conclusion and final break of it in “Chicanery”. The twist of the tape I’m saying is whether Kim believes Chuck or not- which is important for us and for Jimmy because Chuck’s cruelty and callousness isn’t so readily apparent for the characters outside of Jimmy. And part of their ongoing conflict is the perception of the two, that someone rule-abiding could be the least compassionate seems totally absurd and so Jimmy’s looking like a criminal is part of the reason why he feels he’s destined to BE a criminal. His compassion and remorse is negated simply because he is not strictly adherent to the rules like his brother, but it’s then presumed that Chuck is compassionate and remorseful because he IS rule-abiding, and so a good person. Not a criminal. But so I think the real point of the tape, is not its creation but in Kim’s reaction to it; if she’d turn from Jimmy due to his criminality, really believe that he is lacking in goodness, and then, if so, would she abandon him? The tape here either acts as definitive proof of Jimmy’s badness or definitive proof of Chuck’s badness. And coincides with Kim’s personal arc: whether she’ll skirting or abiding by the rules. That she didn’t abandon Jimmy and chose to fool Chuck, abandoned the figurehead of the law-abiding lawyer and embraced the figurehead of criminal behaviour, is imo, the twist of the tape. Only revealed to us afterwards in the car. And I mean that’s why I think Rhea Seehorn’s performance is as subtle as it is when she fools Chuck, we don’t know Kim’s inner world as much as Jimmy’s and she’s more of a mystery to us as viewers than Jimmy and Chuck’s patterns of behaviour. I’m not saying all this to act like some kind of smartypants and make you feel bad, I just think the show is a lot smarter than just here’s a twist and it’s the cliché: it was being taped all along. Like I do think the writers are smarter than that and I personally would rather you had more faith in that scene than you seem to. Forgive my over-explaining and proclivity for repetition I’m a convoluted writer and obviously no expert essayist, I just wanted to offer up an alternative viewing of the scene. (p.s. didn’t read your comment section till after I wrote this. I don’t think noahmarshall6435’s comment is as complete an argument for the scene’s transparency and so am going ahead with posting this anyways.) (p.p.s. wonderful video and analysis, I feel I’ve not given heist scenes as much thought as I should have and now have much more of an appreciation for their mechanics thanks to the obvious passion you have for them in your video. I think I was having like a mental crisis during that final BCS heist it set me so on edge. No room for appreciation, just the horror of what could go wrong absolutely going really badly and also super goddamn embarrassingly wrong.)
Loved the video Dave. Your deep understanding of logical narratives is useful to storytellers such as myself :). Anyways I was wondering if you could do a plot twist video,?
My favorite heist movies: Where Eagles Dare with Clint Eastwood, Thief by Michael Mann with James Caan, The Wild Geese by McLaglan, The Getaway with Steve McQueen, Heat by Michael Mann
Good video. If you love a good heist, you must have seen the old Mission: Impossible TV series. The pacing is really slow by today’s standards, but the planning, execution and improvisation are fun.
About the Rogue One: You seemly fail to understand is they have all gone on a suicide mission, up front agreed upon. All we see afterwards are the actions of people already dead, or about to die. They have nothing to lose anymore, so anything, most illogical even, is possible and they are ready for it. They are martyrs, they are the gladiators of the liberation - Morituri te salutam (you should read the speech of late major Dragutin Gavrilović, it paints the perfect picture of what I am speaking). These scenes are the turning point of entire Star Wars story. The excerpt inside the excerpt of everything to come after - remember the New Hope, when the Empire is struggling to find the plans and whomever stole it? It was a smack in the head and groin to it - this, the great shame and they (the Emipre) cannot abide. It's the greatest fear of both communism and fascism, to be seen as flawed, in any circumstance. Flawless victory, perfect score, the flaws of these disorders. Therefore, this, THIS, is the answer to the narcissism and machiavellianism of ALL the antagonists of the plot and all the adversaries of Reason and Peace. Defiance. 😊
A recent heist movie I really enjoyed was The Instigators with Matt Damon and Casey Affleck. I believe it had all your requirements. It was really well done, and so funny.
You got to the essence of why I hate super hero films here. The get out is always some arbitrary invoking of their abilities in a way that is not clearly explained or defined. I just spend the whole time watching them with no tension as they will just use some random magic power to suddenly win.
Yeah. That's why Chekhov's Gun is an important tool for storytelling. We need setup and payoff. Their abilities and powers must follow certain rules and need explanation first. If they face a problem and the solution is some deus ax machina magic power we don't know yet it's a bad story. The audience feels tricked. But not in a good way like watching a magic trick. More like a player noticing another player using a cheat code in a video game.
I agree with basically everything in this video - including your criticisms of Rogue One - except... Rogue One isn't a heist movie and that's not a heist scene. It's a war movie and that's a battle with a non-combat objective Could they have done it better? Sure. They could have done a bunch of stuff in Rogue One better. But you're judging it by the wrong standard (Also, for the record: It's still an extremely good movie and undeniably the best of the Disney Star Wars films)
Does the bank heist in The Dark Knight meet any of the requirements? The object of desire is just money which is a pretty poor object. The heist is never explained. And nothing really goes wrong.
That’s the trick of it - Rogue One isn’t actually a heist movie. It’s a war movie serving as a prologue to A New Hope. The goals it has are fundamentally different as a story from the heist model.
Imma give a TTTINY nitpick since you seemed to love em yourself; i dont think Mike's turning down of Jimmy's heist in S4 is purely out of a sense of honour. Mike's not a terrible person, but id never go so far as to call him a good dude either, and ripping off innocents doesnt seem that far beyond him, especially since Jimmy's scheme is by nature pretty morally neutral (in a very specific sense of morals at least. Its wrong to steal obviosuly). I think Mike balking at th opportunity is more out of a survival instinct for what's a solid, well-thought-out plan by an experienced crook and what's not. Mike is, over anything else, very particular about who he associates with throughout both shows. And jimmy, even being no slouch, doesnt quite have th skillset to plan idiot-proof heists
I think the Star Wars franchise went down hill due to having way too many writers pitch in with very little continuity or care for the original source material.
The general rule for plans is: if it's explained beforehand, it will appear to work until something goes wrong. If the plan is unexplained, it will appear not to work until it's revealed it went all according to plan
There is another version. You hear the plan explained, step by step _while_ watching it take place _exactly_ the way it's supposed to happen. This is often used to show just how competent the thieves are early on in the film.
@@simonmacomber7466 There's also the evil twin version of it : you hear the plan explained step by step while watching it taking place and going wrong. This one is mostly used for comedic effect.
A good example of the unexplained con is honestly the ending of Better Call Saul. We think Jimmy is trying to take Kim down with him, but then we realize he was just lying to get her in the same room as him so he could confess everything. The only thing left for him to want was her respect and forgiveness.
Heist movies are my favourite type of movies. They have the same effect on me as watching dominoes fall. It's just incredibly satisfying to watch a group of likeable characters stand around in a room and say, "Here's what we're going to do," and then watch them do it. When it works, it feels really simple, although when I try to write one myself, I realize there are a lot of moving parts hidden underneath the surface to make it feel engaging.
Yea a tangent but i thought the transparency of the click scene was the point. We knew chuck was scamming jimmy, but somehow jimmy didnt. He's been a conman his whole life but didn't see through chucks because he actually cared about him, felt bad.
I feel like we were supposed to have seen through the lie. The audience was in on it but the irony is that jimmy wasn't.
Interesting take. I can roll with that
I felt the same
9:19 funny thing is, he did this exact same thing when trying to get reinstated as a lawyer earlier in the show.. he was completely honest for the most dishonest reasons lol
Breaking bad and Better call saul is all about details,as a viewer when i watched those 2 scenes (mentioned in the video) it got me smilling because you can see where this is going 2 steps ahead and you can't wait them to go there, you are thinking to yourself this is soo good everything is done to the small detail, and then it gets even better with un a unexpected twist where you can't predict only writters can because they control all the previouse details perfectly
Better Call Saul is genius in every way! Cinematography, dialog, character arcs... Everything!
That mall heist goes so much deeper than just a funny heist scene.
It tells A LOT about Saul.
I think he believes in the devil!
Watch this:
When I saw that speech in that legendary Pimento-episode, where Mike tells Pryce that he's a criminal by definition and it's up to him if he is a bad guy or an honest thiev, I wondered:
What kind of criminal is Saul?
There are all kinds of criminals:
Werner, who did very good precise german engineering, just for the wrong cause.
Two cops, who killed Mike's son.
Mike himself, who seems to have morality and rules (like not killing Tuco and getting him arrested instead).
Lalo, who seems supernatural like a deamon (the way he drops from the air vent and rose from the ground like a soulless undead). The Salamancas kill people randomly. They don't follow any rules at all!
So, what's up with Jimmy? Does he know rules?
Doesn't matter, because there is one rule, one consequence, they all have to face:
Everything has its price. And you have to pay it.
Mike made that very clear: If you're a criminal, do your homework. Keep your word. Agreed amount or no deal!
Everyone has to follow this rule. Werner got killed by Mike. Jesse had to kill Gale. Hank accepted death ("he made up his mind 10 minutes ago, you sussy baka!"). Lalo accepted the consequences of his action with laughter.
Even Walt kept his word by killing his first victim in Jesse's basement.
Funny: The only guy, who snitches and doesn't want to pay the price, is called "Pryce". Unbelievable. He is so ignorant!
So, how does Jimmy face the enescapable consequences? He bargains. He negotiates. That's what he is as a criminal. He is a laywer!
He turns a death sentence into two broken legs (one for each skater boy). He negotiates with Mike about the parking stickers. He even fights with his own car, when it didn't want to take his #1 mug into its cup holder.
But he always pays the price.
He threw away that cup.
And I'm sure he gave his assistant a raise after the incident at the private domicile, bitch.
I don't know if he believes in god. But I think he believes in fate. The way he looks so disgusted when he saw his ice cone got infested by ants. He seems to interpret it like a devine message. A sign from his destiny. His soul is decaying.
So, let's see what happened in the heist.
He tries to swap shoes and clothes. He pulls off an other scam.
But it backfires badly! It's so ironic, because he got played by a slippery floor like his victims got played when he was "Slippin' Jimmy".
But this time it's real! His mate isn't acting.
So, how does he get out of this? How is he able to beat his bad luck? He needs to negotiate. T
But telling a funny story about shitting through a sunroof? No, that's not real enough to mirror his fate. Faking a heart attack? No, that isn't right either. His mate suffered a real heart attack while scamming innocent people.
Then Saul comes up with a solution: He becomes as real as the slippy floor. He is lying while being honest. He pays the price to the devil: agreed amount of honesty or no deal.
Am I over-analysing it? Maybe.
But Saul could have come up with this solution. He is quick-witted and did all the math in his mind while watching the survaillance screens. Think about the watch he dropped immediatly in Gus' trash.
Thank's for reading this.
tl,dr: He believes in fate and negotiated with the devil.
Great video, but I was actually fooled by the thing with Chuck hiding the tape recorder. I don't try to predict what's happening next while I'm watching something, so unless it's stupidly obvious, I usually won't see it coming.
Even if I had seen it coming, I don't think it ruins the scene. There's still so much to enjoy there, the conflict between the brothers is reaching a climax so it's very tense, the performances are incredible. That scene feels true to the characters, it feels like what they would do, and I think if you refuse to write something that feels true to what your characters would do because someone might be able to see where it's going, you run the risk of your story feeling contrived and obnoxiously subversive.
To sum up my thoughts, I think when you're talking about heist scenes specifically I'd agree that they should be held to a higher standard for predictability, but then using that scene with Jimmy and Chuck as an example of a scene being too predictable doesn't work for this video, because it's not a heist scene.
Yeah I get what you're saying. I guess for me I almost always root for the protagonist, even if they don't deserve it. So when it's clear they're about to get tripped up it's hard for me to enjoy. But you're right, their relationship and how different they were was one of the best parts of the show
I feel like another thing that sells a heist for me is personal stakes. Like knowing what’ll happen to the characters if they fail or succeed
Ironic tht andor has a perfect heist scene
I love this guys videos. I cannot get enough. Give me moar!
For me, the bigger problem with the Rogue One heist was that anyone who knows Episode 4 basically knows the ending throughout almost the entire movie (the heist is successful but they all die) since we already know that the plans were successfully stolen but none of the characters appear in Episode 4 (despite the successful heist making them giant heroes).
Sure, we can usually assume the heist to be ultimately successful, but it is rarely as obvious as here ... and in the cases where we are told the ending ahead of time, the inventive process is what makes it interesting or at least the final outcome for the characters comes with plot twists, neither of which is the case in Rogue One.
Some points of contention for both your take on the Chuck scene and Rogue One:
BCS, being a prequel, does an excellent job in making you care as to HOW something happens and leads to an outcome you know instead of making you guess what's the outcome in the first place. You know Jimmy will become Saul, you know Mike will be working with Gus, you know many very important BCS characters are not in BB, so BCS is a story on how we reach that. That scene with Chuck was obviously going to be a setup for 'Chuck vs Jimmy' in Season 3, but it was about HOW Chuck was going to get that. You might have predicted the trick, but Chuck knows Jimmy still cares about him one way or the other. That's what Jimmy has that we viewers don't have, years of brotherly love that their drama (at least up to S3) still can't separate. Plus, it also goes to show that Chuck, whether he's aware of it or not, is very much the same as Jimmy; willing to do something dirty to get what he thinks is right. Chuck might not call what he did as that, but Chuck just basically pulled off a scam.
As for Rogue One, it's a heist movie in such a way that you find out their plan as it goes along. Them not talking about the plan is purposeful. Many heists in BCS are exactly like that too, meant to keep the viewer blind as the heist plan slowly reveals itself. But even before the explosions happen, they do hint on what their plan is. "Make 10 men feel like a hundred", which is why their explosions were scattered in the first place. Plus, they went into this plan expecting to be on their own, the arrival of the rebel fleet was what caused the gateway to be closed. Ironically, further support of their cause was what ultimately killed them, which I think just highlights the tragedy where everyone in Rogue One dies. I do agree about everything being so far apart, but it didn't bother me too much since it reminded me of how video games work. Think it fits how Star Wars feels honestly, it's meant to be fantastical and follows a rule-of-cool (unless it's Andor, of course, where it's more realistic and gritty).
Funny you would use Rouge one when the Andor show has one of the best heist arcs I’ve ever seen.
Great video! One of my favorite shows for the storytelling, characters, and incredible acting.
Wanted to add my interpretation of the Chuck and Jimmy scene you used in the video. As the audience, knowing that something is gonna happen doesn't necessarily ruin the scene. Jimmy confessing to Chuck had me on edge because I was shaking my head the whole time going, "NO, JIMMY. HE'S BLUFFING. DON'T TALK." And then seeing Chuck pull out the recorder later sent me into a fit of anxiety of what was to happen next. To me, the scene wasn't to con the audience, because it was far enough into the show for the audience to understand that it's not that simple due to character's previous behaviors and motives--that Chuck has GOT to have something up his sleeve if Jimmy confesses. It even turned it around in a way for me to ask the question, "Wait... does JIMMY have something up his sleeve? Or was this an honest confession?" I think it pulled off a nice drama to give the audience anxiety. lol
I don't know to what degree the BCS writers may be Sherlock Holmes fans, but that whole sequence with Chuck is very similar to one of the classic stories "The Dying Detective". Holmes puts on an insanely elaborate performance for several days straight that he's ill to the point of being on the brink of death all for the purposes of extracting a confession from a killer, like even Watson and Mrs Hudson didn't know it was all fake until after the reveal (in fact this story was repurposed for an episode during the final series of the BBCs Sherlock show)
I like heist movies where the go over the plan as the plan plays out. kinda like a play by play
That's done for storytelling efficiency. You narrate the plan as it happens right up until the unexpected moments start. Overlapping the "Tell the plan" stage with the first parts of the plan leaves more time for hijinks
4:45. I understand your point of reason and that to tie the twist into your video’s argument you pulled on an unsurprising development within a scene in a show that should like, know better. But it’s strange to me that you’ve chosen to take that scene’s predictable turn as unintentional, or if it is unintentional, then still yet as scene ruining. Cue me arguing for otherwise:
At the point of the tape reveal Chuck and Jimmy’s relationship had been well established as always showing the same pattern and outcome. Pattern: conflict between Chuck’s rule-abiding, cruelty, and callousness vs Jimmy’s law-skirting, compassion and remorse. Outcome: that Jimmy’s compassion folds to Chuck’s cruelty. And so whether Jimmy believed Chuck or not , whether he’s a chump or it’s just his compassion, his folding is very much a deliberately unsurprising outcome within the pattern of their relationship. And is only obvious to us that Chuck would do something like that because Jimmy’s our protagonist and we’ve witnessed Chuck’s antagonism through his eyes the entire run of the show.
That scene was not, I think, meant to in and of itself be surprising, first of all we know that Michael McKean is a fantastic and subtle actor (I mean we both watched the show) and wouldn’t’ve hammed it up as he did had the scene not been asking for it. But I’m arguing that that precedes the real twist and also functions as just part of the pattern leading to its conclusion and final break of it in “Chicanery”.
The twist of the tape I’m saying is whether Kim believes Chuck or not- which is important for us and for Jimmy because Chuck’s cruelty and callousness isn’t so readily apparent for the characters outside of Jimmy. And part of their ongoing conflict is the perception of the two, that someone rule-abiding could be the least compassionate seems totally absurd and so Jimmy’s looking like a criminal is part of the reason why he feels he’s destined to BE a criminal. His compassion and remorse is negated simply because he is not strictly adherent to the rules like his brother, but it’s then presumed that Chuck is compassionate and remorseful because he IS rule-abiding, and so a good person. Not a criminal.
But so I think the real point of the tape, is not its creation but in Kim’s reaction to it; if she’d turn from Jimmy due to his criminality, really believe that he is lacking in goodness, and then, if so, would she abandon him? The tape here either acts as definitive proof of Jimmy’s badness or definitive proof of Chuck’s badness. And coincides with Kim’s personal arc: whether she’ll skirting or abiding by the rules. That she didn’t abandon Jimmy and chose to fool Chuck, abandoned the figurehead of the law-abiding lawyer and embraced the figurehead of criminal behaviour, is imo, the twist of the tape. Only revealed to us afterwards in the car. And I mean that’s why I think Rhea Seehorn’s performance is as subtle as it is when she fools Chuck, we don’t know Kim’s inner world as much as Jimmy’s and she’s more of a mystery to us as viewers than Jimmy and Chuck’s patterns of behaviour.
I’m not saying all this to act like some kind of smartypants and make you feel bad, I just think the show is a lot smarter than just here’s a twist and it’s the cliché: it was being taped all along. Like I do think the writers are smarter than that and I personally would rather you had more faith in that scene than you seem to. Forgive my over-explaining and proclivity for repetition I’m a convoluted writer and obviously no expert essayist, I just wanted to offer up an alternative viewing of the scene.
(p.s. didn’t read your comment section till after I wrote this. I don’t think noahmarshall6435’s comment is as complete an argument for the scene’s transparency and so am going ahead with posting this anyways.)
(p.p.s. wonderful video and analysis, I feel I’ve not given heist scenes as much thought as I should have and now have much more of an appreciation for their mechanics thanks to the obvious passion you have for them in your video. I think I was having like a mental crisis during that final BCS heist it set me so on edge. No room for appreciation, just the horror of what could go wrong absolutely going really badly and also super goddamn embarrassingly wrong.)
Jeez man no need for the essay
@Mauldrom Jeez man no need for the Joss Whedonesque quippy reply
@Mauldrom don't like it? Don't read it.
Just found my new favorite channel
Your vids are great, looking forward to more!
Thx!! Working on it!
Loved the video Dave. Your deep understanding of logical narratives is useful to storytellers such as myself :).
Anyways I was wondering if you could do a plot twist video,?
My favorite heist movies: Where Eagles Dare with Clint Eastwood, Thief by Michael Mann with James Caan, The Wild Geese by McLaglan, The Getaway with Steve McQueen, Heat by Michael Mann
Good video.
If you love a good heist, you must have seen the old Mission: Impossible TV series. The pacing is really slow by today’s standards, but the planning, execution and improvisation are fun.
Great video!
Fore-foreshadowing in Nippy - anyone remember Slippin' Jimmy. This was actually a legitimate case for a lawsuit barring the theft.
About the Rogue One:
You seemly fail to understand is they have all gone on a suicide mission, up front agreed upon. All we see afterwards are the actions of people already dead, or about to die. They have nothing to lose anymore, so anything, most illogical even, is possible and they are ready for it. They are martyrs, they are the gladiators of the liberation - Morituri te salutam (you should read the speech of late major Dragutin Gavrilović, it paints the perfect picture of what I am speaking).
These scenes are the turning point of entire Star Wars story. The excerpt inside the excerpt of everything to come after - remember the New Hope, when the Empire is struggling to find the plans and whomever stole it? It was a smack in the head and groin to it - this, the great shame and they (the Emipre) cannot abide.
It's the greatest fear of both communism and fascism, to be seen as flawed, in any circumstance. Flawless victory, perfect score, the flaws of these disorders. Therefore, this, THIS, is the answer to the narcissism and machiavellianism of ALL the antagonists of the plot and all the adversaries of Reason and Peace.
Defiance.
😊
Time to rewatch BCS again
A recent heist movie I really enjoyed was The Instigators with Matt Damon and Casey Affleck. I believe it had all your requirements. It was really well done, and so funny.
I'll have to check it out thx:)
You got to the essence of why I hate super hero films here. The get out is always some arbitrary invoking of their abilities in a way that is not clearly explained or defined. I just spend the whole time watching them with no tension as they will just use some random magic power to suddenly win.
Yeah. That's why Chekhov's Gun is an important tool for storytelling. We need setup and payoff. Their abilities and powers must follow certain rules and need explanation first.
If they face a problem and the solution is some deus ax machina magic power we don't know yet it's a bad story. The audience feels tricked. But not in a good way like watching a magic trick. More like a player noticing another player using a cheat code in a video game.
Goated UA-camr 🫡
🫡🙏!
Yo I love the Renegade Alliance!
I agree with basically everything in this video - including your criticisms of Rogue One - except... Rogue One isn't a heist movie and that's not a heist scene. It's a war movie and that's a battle with a non-combat objective
Could they have done it better? Sure. They could have done a bunch of stuff in Rogue One better. But you're judging it by the wrong standard
(Also, for the record: It's still an extremely good movie and undeniably the best of the Disney Star Wars films)
id love to hear your opinon on the heist in Grifiting 101 from community
Does the bank heist in The Dark Knight meet any of the requirements? The object of desire is just money which is a pretty poor object. The heist is never explained. And nothing really goes wrong.
That’s the trick of it - Rogue One isn’t actually a heist movie. It’s a war movie serving as a prologue to A New Hope. The goals it has are fundamentally different as a story from the heist model.
Neither is better call Saul a heist show, this video is about breaking down heist scenes, which rogue one has.
Imma give a TTTINY nitpick since you seemed to love em yourself; i dont think Mike's turning down of Jimmy's heist in S4 is purely out of a sense of honour. Mike's not a terrible person, but id never go so far as to call him a good dude either, and ripping off innocents doesnt seem that far beyond him, especially since Jimmy's scheme is by nature pretty morally neutral (in a very specific sense of morals at least. Its wrong to steal obviosuly). I think Mike balking at th opportunity is more out of a survival instinct for what's a solid, well-thought-out plan by an experienced crook and what's not. Mike is, over anything else, very particular about who he associates with throughout both shows. And jimmy, even being no slouch, doesnt quite have th skillset to plan idiot-proof heists
I think the Star Wars franchise went down hill due to having way too many writers pitch in with very little continuity or care for the original source material.
A really good heist also needs a reason other than money. BSL doesn't have that.
I think it does, I think it's reasonable to say that Saul is not doing the heist for money.
No he is.
@@capnmnemo well I disagree. It is within the show that mischief is irresistible to him in an important way, this motivates him too.
@@TheSwordfish-g3r That is not the sort of reason that makes a heist great. Even The Italian Job understood that.
@@capnmnemowrong