Trope Talk: Noodle Incidents

Overly Sarcastic Productions
22 Mar 202417:23

Summary

TLDRThe video script discusses the storytelling trope known as 'The Noodle Incident,' where characters reference an off-screen event that hints at a shared history without explaining the details. This technique allows for efficient characterization and maintains audience interest by implying a punchline through jokes or horror elements, rather than showing it. The trope is effective because it leverages the audience's imagination, as seen in examples from 'Calvin and Hobbes' and TV shows like 'Leverage.'

Takeaways

  • 🍜 A 'Noodle Incident' is a storytelling trope where characters reference an offscreen event that is left unexplained, creating intrigue and leaving the audience to fill in the gaps with their imagination.
  • 🎭 The Noodle Incident is effective in characterization, providing insights into a character's past and personality through their reactions and descriptions of the unexplained event.
  • 🤔 The trope is used to imply a shared history between characters, often as an inside joke that isn't fully shared with the audience, enhancing the sense of their long-standing relationship.
  • 📚 The origin of the term 'Noodle Incident' comes from the comic strip Calvin and Hobbes, where the creator chose not to explain the incident, believing the audience's imagination would be funnier.
  • 🧐 The effectiveness of a Noodle Incident lies in the implications and the emotional reactions it elicits, rather than the specific details of the event itself.
  • 📺 The trope is narratively efficient, allowing writers to quickly convey a lot of information about characters and their histories without needing to delve into lengthy exposition.
  • 🎬 Examples like Leverage use Noodle Incidents to suggest a rich backstory and complex lives for characters, making them feel more real and engaging to the audience.
  • 🚫 Over-explaining Noodle Incidents can diminish their impact; the mystery and speculation are often more entertaining than a clear-cut explanation.
  • 🌟 The Noodle Incident can be both a comedic and tragic device, depending on how it's framed and the emotional response it's intended to evoke.
  • 🎥 The trope highlights a counterintuitive aspect of storytelling: sometimes, not explaining something can be more powerful and maintain the audience's interest.
  • 📖 The concept extends to horror, where the fear of the unknown is more terrifying than any specific reveal, and to character development, where leaving some mysteries unexplained can add depth and intrigue.

Q & A

  • What is a Noodle Incident in storytelling?

    -A Noodle Incident is a storytelling trope where characters reference an offscreen event or adventure that is left unexplained, allowing the audience to use their imagination to fill in the details. It's a way to imply a shared history or past experiences between characters without explicitly detailing the event.

  • Why are Noodle Incidents effective in characterization?

    -Noodle Incidents are effective in characterization because they provide insight into a character's past and personality through their reactions and the way they discuss the event. This can suggest their level of experience, their relationships with other characters, and their emotional responses to past events, without needing to explain the event in full.

  • How does the concept of a Noodle Incident relate to the horror genre?

    -In the horror genre, the concept of a Noodle Incident is similar to the principle of not showing the monster. The fear and terror that the audience imagines from the hints of danger are often scarier than any visual representation could be. It's a form of storytelling by implication, where the unknown is more frightening than the known.

  • What was Bill Watterson's approach to the Noodle Incident in Calvin and Hobbes?

    -Bill Watterson, the creator of Calvin and Hobbes, repeatedly implied that Calvin did something horrible involving noodles but decided against ever explaining what 'The Noodle Incident' was. He believed that whatever he came up with would not be funnier than what the audience imagined.

  • How does the Noodle Incident trope play out in the show Leverage?

    -In Leverage, the Noodle Incident trope is used by leaving many of the characters' adventures offscreen, suggesting complex lives beyond what is shown. The show often references past events in quick, out-of-context flashbacks or dialogue, which adds to the characters' backstories without needing to delve into detailed explanations.

  • What was the impact of explaining Noodle Incidents in Solo: A Star Wars Story?

    -In Solo: A Star Wars Story, the attempt to explain every Noodle Incident from the original Star Wars trilogy resulted in a movie that was seen as lacking the mystery and intrigue of the original character of Han Solo. The explanations were seen as average and unexciting, removing the appeal of the unknown and the character's complex past.

  • How does the Noodle Incident trope contribute to the audience's experience?

    -The Noodle Incident trope contributes to the audience's experience by inviting them to speculate and imagine what happened during the unexplained events. This engagement with the story allows the audience to feel more connected to the characters and their histories, enhancing the overall narrative experience.

  • What is the significance of not explaining certain story elements in storytelling?

    -Not explaining certain story elements can be more impactful than providing a clear explanation, as it allows the audience to engage with their imagination and fill in the gaps with their own interpretations. This can create a more memorable and personal experience with the story and its characters.

  • How does the Noodle Incident trope differ between comedic and tragic storytelling?

    -In comedic storytelling, a Noodle Incident might be used to create humor by implying absurd or ridiculous situations without needing to explain them, whereas in tragic storytelling, a Noodle Incident might hint at serious or horrifying events that are left to the audience's imagination, adding emotional depth to the characters and their pasts.

  • What is the 'uncertainty principle' as it relates to storytelling?

    -The 'uncertainty principle' in storytelling refers to the intentional ambiguity left in a narrative, such as the ending of The Thing, where the audience is left to speculate on the fate of the characters. This lack of explanation can be more effective in creating a lasting impact than a definitive resolution.

  • Why is it important to maintain some level of ambiguity in character backstories?

    -Maintaining ambiguity in character backstories allows for a more nuanced and engaging narrative experience. It encourages the audience to engage with their imagination and form their own interpretations of the characters, which can lead to a deeper and more personal connection with the story.

Outlines

00:00

😄 The Concept of the Noodle Incident

This paragraph introduces the concept of the 'Noodle Incident,' a storytelling trope where characters reference an offscreen event that is left unexplained, allowing the audience to use their imagination. It is named after a running joke in the comic strip Calvin and Hobbes and is used to imply a shared past or history between characters without detailing the actual events. The paragraph discusses how this trope is effective in characterization and narrative efficiency, as it provides information about the characters and their pasts without needing to delve into specifics.

05:02

🎬 The Narrative Efficiency of Noodle Incidents

The second paragraph delves into the narrative efficiency of Noodle Incidents, using the TV show Leverage as an example. It explains how the show implies a rich backstory for its characters through brief, out-of-context flashbacks and dialogue, making the characters feel more real and complex. The paragraph also contrasts the use of Noodle Incidents in comedy and horror, highlighting how the unknown elements can be more engaging for the audience than a clear explanation. It concludes by discussing the potential downsides of explaining Noodle Incidents, as it can remove the mystery and reduce the entertainment value.

10:05

🚀 The Risks of Explaining Noodle Incidents

This paragraph discusses the risks associated with explaining Noodle Incidents, using the Star Wars film Solo: A Star Wars Story as a case study. It argues that by explaining every reference made by the character Han Solo in the original trilogy, the film removed the mystery and intrigue that made those references compelling. The paragraph emphasizes that the essence of a Noodle Incident lies in the character's feelings and reactions to the event, rather than the event itself. It also touches on the broader principle that sometimes, not explaining elements of a story can be more impactful than providing a detailed explanation.

15:06

📚 The Power of Unresolved Story Elements

The final paragraph explores the power of leaving certain story elements unresolved, using the ambiguous ending of the horror film The Thing as an example. It argues that the lack of a clear explanation can be more effective in creating a lasting impact on the audience. The paragraph also addresses the challenge of crafting stories where a lack of explanation is more satisfying, contrasting it with the traditional mystery storytelling where resolution is key. The video concludes with a call to appreciate the storytelling potential in the unknown and the power of audience imagination.

Mindmap

Keywords

💡Noodle Incident

The term 'Noodle Incident' refers to a storytelling device where characters reference an event that happened off-screen, which is left unexplained to the audience. It is used to imply a shared history or past adventures between characters, often serving as a running gag or a means to quickly establish a character's backstory without detailed exposition. In the video, it is explained as a way to intrigue the audience by leaving room for their imagination to fill in the gaps, making the characters feel like they have a rich history beyond what is shown directly.

💡Characterization

Characterization is the process by which a writer creates and defines the personalities, traits, and backgrounds of characters in a narrative. In the context of the video, it is highlighted that 'Noodle Incidents' serve as a form of characterization by providing insights into the characters' pasts and personalities through their reactions and discussions about these off-screen events.

💡Implied Storytelling

Implied storytelling is a technique where the narrative suggests events or details without explicitly stating them, allowing the audience to use their imagination to fill in the gaps. This technique is central to the concept of the 'Noodle Incident', where the mystery of an event is preserved to maintain audience interest and to add depth to the characters and their histories.

💡Hijinks and Shenanigans

The terms 'hijinks' and 'shenanigans' refer to playful or mischievous behavior, often resulting in amusing or chaotic situations. In the video, these words are used to describe the types of events that are typically referenced in a 'Noodle Incident', suggesting that the unexplained events were filled with fun, adventure, or mischief.

💡Running Gag

A running gag is a recurring joke or humorous situation that is repeated throughout a narrative, often to create a sense of familiarity or to build on the comedic effect. In the context of the video, a 'Noodle Incident' can become a running gag if it is frequently mentioned by different characters, each time adding to the intrigue and humor without explaining the event.

💡Emotional Reactions

Emotional reactions refer to the feelings and responses that characters exhibit in response to events or situations. In the video, it is emphasized that the 'Noodle Incident' often focuses on the characters' emotional reactions rather than the specific events themselves, providing insight into their personalities and past experiences.

💡Leverage

In the context of the video, 'Leverage' refers to a TV show that makes use of 'Noodle Incidents' to suggest a rich history of adventures and character development outside of what is shown on screen. The show leaves many of the characters' past adventures unexplained, instead focusing on their current activities and reactions to past events.

💡Narrative Efficiency

Narrative efficiency refers to the effective use of storytelling techniques to convey information or develop characters with minimal effort and maximum impact. The 'Noodle Incident' is an example of narrative efficiency because it allows for quick characterization and the suggestion of a larger story world without the need for extensive exposition.

💡Fanservice

Fanservice in the context of storytelling refers to content that is specifically designed to please the audience, often by addressing their questions or speculations about a narrative. The video discusses how the 'Noodle Incident' trope can be used as a form of fanservice, but also warns that explaining these incidents can sometimes disappoint fans, as the mystery can be more appealing than the actual explanation.

💡Uncertainty Principle

The uncertainty principle, as applied to storytelling, suggests that leaving certain elements unexplained or ambiguous can be more impactful than providing a clear resolution. This principle is used to discuss the effectiveness of 'Noodle Incidents' in maintaining audience interest and character intrigue by preserving the mystery.

💡Campfire

Campfire is mentioned in the video as a sponsor and is described as a platform for authors to create and share their writing and worldbuilding, as well as a mobile app for readers to enjoy exclusive content and support their favorite authors. The platform offers additional storytelling elements like short stories, world lore, interactive maps, and character profiles, enhancing the reading experience.

Highlights

The concept of a 'Noodle Incident' is introduced as a storytelling trope where characters reference an offscreen event that implies a shared history.

Noodle Incidents are characterized by their vagueness, leaving the audience to fill in the gaps with their imagination.

The trope is used to show characters have a storied past without needing to explain the details, making characters feel more alive and complex.

The name 'Noodle Incident' comes from a running joke in the comic strip Calvin and Hobbes, where the punchline is left to the reader's imagination.

The effectiveness of Noodle Incidents lies in the reactions and emotional responses of the characters when they are mentioned, providing insight into their personalities.

Noodle Incidents can serve as a characterization tool, offering a dense chunk of character information through subtle hints and reactions.

The trope is narratively efficient, allowing writers to quickly convey a character's backstory and experiences without lengthy exposition.

The show 'Leverage' uses Noodle Incidents to suggest a rich history of adventures for its characters, enhancing the sense of a complex and exciting life offscreen.

In contrast to horror's reliance on the unknown, comedic Noodle Incidents thrive on the absurdity and hilarity of the audience's imagination.

Tragic Noodle Incidents invert the horror-to-comedy dynamic, using vague references to emotionally nuanced backstory elements that may require explanation.

The principle of not explaining everything can be a powerful storytelling tool, as the audience's speculation is often more entertaining than a clear explanation.

The Star Wars film 'Solo' is cited as an example of over-explaining Noodle Incidents, which can lead to audience disappointment.

Characters like Han Solo benefit from a sense of mystery and a storied past, which is diminished by explaining every detail of their history.

Noodle Incidents are a form of narrative misdirection, appearing to offer a hint of an adventure while actually revealing character depth.

The impact of leaving certain story elements unexplained can be more effective than providing a definitive answer, as seen in the ending of the horror film 'The Thing'.

The art of storytelling sometimes benefits from leaving things unresolved, especially when it comes to character backstories and mysteries.

The video discusses the nuanced use of Noodle Incidents in storytelling, highlighting the balance between what is shown and what is left to the audience's imagination.

The赞助商Campfire及其新的Reader移动应用程序被介绍,该应用程序为读者提供了一个平台,可以阅读作者们辛勤工作的故事,并解锁独家奖励。

Transcripts

00:00

This video was sponsored by Campfire!

00:02

No relation to The S'mores Incident.

00:03

Okay, I can explain.

00:06

This is one of the tropes with a weirder name, but as soon as I start describing it, you're

00:09

gonna get the picture.

00:10

You know that thing, where in order to show that two characters have a storied history

00:14

together packed with Hijinks and Shenanigans, they'll start talking about some thing that

00:18

happened offscreen.

00:19

And they'll be vague about it, because they were both there and know what happened so

00:22

they aren't just going to drop any convenient "as you know"s for the audience's benefit,

00:25

so it's basically like an in-joke they aren't sharing with us.

00:28

You've 100% seen this before.

00:30

This is the "you and I remember Budapest very differently" thing.

00:33

A Noodle Incident is a wacky hijink that the characters reference but do not explain, and

00:37

often if pressed for explanation they get defensive or change the subject so the mystery

00:41

is preserved.

00:42

A Noodle Incident might even become a running gag if enough characters bring it up - but

00:46

it'll always be through hints and tidbits, usually focused on the characters' emotional

00:50

reactions and not the specific events they're reacting to.

00:52

In general, all we know about the noodle incident is how the characters feel about it and one

00:56

or two pertinent details about the most relevant nouns in the key event.

01:00

This trope is very widespread, and it's an interesting little nugget, because it's storytelling

01:04

by way of implication.

01:06

And on paper it feels a little bit wrong, or empty, to have a character hint at some

01:10

exciting past adventure and then not show it.

01:12

It's a joke that implies a punchline rather than having a punchline.

01:15

And I've previously complained about stories that imply they're doing something exciting

01:19

or clever and then fail to live up to it, like implying they've plotted out some grand

01:23

and complicated mystery that ends up not having a grand resolution.

01:26

And when laid out in the broadest strokes, this feels like another case of that.

01:30

But it isn't, because in this case the fact that the Noodle Incident is never explained

01:33

is the entire point of the bit.

01:35

The trope is called The Noodle Incident because of a running joke in Calvin and Hobbes, where

01:39

it is repeatedly implied that Calvin did something horrible involving noodles that had the potential

01:43

to get him put on Santa's naughty list.

01:45

Bill Watterson decided against ever explaining what "The Noodle Incident" was, because nothing

01:48

he came up with would be funnier than what the audience imagined.

01:51

This principle of comedy is basically the funny ha-ha version of the horror movie principle

01:55

of not showing the monster.

01:56

The terror the audience imagines from the tiny hints of danger and the overwhelming

01:59

power of the unknown is always scarier than whatever the special effects department could

02:03

rustle up, and the Noodle Incident is the comedy invocation of this same idea.

02:07

The line between comedy and horror is… thinner than either genre would like it to be, and

02:11

this means that if a writer plants the right set of hints, they can cue the audience into

02:14

entertaining themselves by contemplating the implications of what the story is hiding from

02:18

them.

02:19

In the case of horror, the hints are danger and fear - unexplained noises, movement in

02:23

dark corners, threats in places you thought were safe.

02:25

In comedy, the hints are absurdities.

02:27

The phrase "the noodle incident" tells you nothing except that it was an incident that

02:30

involved noodles.

02:31

We can put on our Sherlock Holmes deerstalkers for a minute and infer that whatever role

02:35

noodles played in the incident was more prominent than any other participating element in order

02:38

to get the incident named after noodles, but really all that tells us is the incident was

02:42

probably food being used in a manner inappropriate for food.

02:45

"Calvin made a mess" is nowhere near as funny as contemplating the implied horror of what

02:49

he could've possibly done that could only be described as "The Noodle Incident."

02:53

Noodle Incidents are very efficient at communicating information, but it's pointedly not the information

02:57

about what the noodle incident was.

02:59

Noodle Incidents are not about what happened, it's the way they are talked about and described

03:03

that's basically a characterization speedrun.

03:06

For one thing, they flesh out a character's backstory and make it clear to the audience

03:09

that they have adventures and a life offscreen and aren't just chained to the camera 24/7,

03:13

which does a lot to make them feel more alive.

03:15

But the bulk of the information the audience gets from a noodle incident comes from how

03:18

the characters act when they're talking about it.

03:21

The way they react to the sparse, vague hints we get gives us a ton of information about

03:24

the character.

03:25

They describe or briefly flash back to an unknown incident in their past, and how they

03:29

choose to describe it or not describe it tells us something about them.

03:33

Maybe they're speaking really casually about something that's implied to have been a very

03:36

dangerous scenario, implying that they are ridiculously badass and blasé about the dangers

03:40

in their life; or maybe they're bragging about something they pulled off in a very self-aggrandizing

03:44

way that sounds suspiciously exaggerated, implying that they're kind of a glory hound;

03:48

or maybe they're acting very mildly annoyed about some vaguely-defined grievance that

03:52

sounds absolutely bizarre, which tells us that they're way too acclimated to some really

03:56

weird shit.

03:57

Or maybe they keep starting a story they're clearly passionate about and getting shut

04:00

down, making it clear that the people around them aren't being particularly considerate

04:04

of them right now.

04:05

And on that note, the way their fellow characters react to them referencing the noodle incident

04:08

gives us even more information.

04:10

A character who reacts to a noodle incident reference with extreme defensiveness was probably

04:13

the butt of the joke, whatever the joke was.

04:15

A character might shut down the conversation because they've heard about the noodle incident

04:18

too many times, making it clear that somebody in the group really likes talking about it.

04:22

This kind of thing can play out in so many different ways, and because it's basically

04:26

just freeform dialogue that the writer can drop in anywhere there's a quiet moment, it's

04:30

really narratively efficient for getting across characterization in a very short span of time.

04:35

One show that does this a lot is Leverage, which seems to have gone out of its way to

04:38

deliberately leave a lot of the characters' adventures offscreen to make them feel like

04:41

complex people who've lived exciting lives.

04:44

In the very first episode it's mentioned that former-insurance-investigator Nate has personally

04:48

chased down every other main character at least once, and those adventures are never

04:52

ever shown in anything more than a few seconds of out-of-context flashbacks.

04:56

You'd think the first time the characters met back when they were still on opposite

04:59

sides would be a kind of important story beat, but it… isn't.

05:02

None of the characters care to bring it up when they could be focusing on new adventures

05:05

instead.

05:06

Showing a flashback to a first meeting wouldn't really add anything to the story.

05:09

And the formula for later episodes follows a similar principle of only hinting at events

05:13

between episodes or backstory bits by showing or telling us out-of-context goofs.

05:17

We'll get little bite-sized flashbacks of Parker throwing Hardison off a building or

05:21

Eliot getting waterboarded or something, and when it flashes back to the present, the way

05:24

the characters react makes it pretty clear that all of these things are very normal for

05:27

them and not really worth dwelling on - although their friends might disagree.

05:30

And it might sound like these are stories an audience might be curious about seeing

05:34

in the actual show, but what makes the balance of Leverage work is that these noodle incidents

05:38

are pretty much par for how the actual episodes go.

05:40

We never really feel like we're being cheated out of the "Parker steals the Stanley Cup"

05:44

episode because we've got like seven seasons of stuff exactly like that.

05:47

The noodle incidents just make it feel like there's more show happening in the background

05:51

of the show.

05:52

In horror movies, the scariness of the story often takes a rapid downturn after the monster

05:56

is fully revealed for the first time.

05:58

Sometimes this has to do with special effects not holding up, but mostly it's just from

06:00

the simple fact that almost all fear is grounded in the unknown, and once the audience gets

06:04

a clear, good look at the danger, it's not unknown anymore.

06:08

It can still be scary, but it won't be as scary as it was when the audience was imagining

06:11

it as their own personal worst nightmare.

06:14

Alien is straight up terrifying until the very last scene, which is also the first time

06:17

we get a clear, bright shot of the alien in question and it becomes very apparent that

06:21

it's a guy in a well-made suit.

06:23

Thankfully the reveal is saved til the very end, and on rewatches the movie still holds

06:27

up if you know what the alien looks like, but it takes away some of the highly specific

06:30

horror of how well it blends into the environment and how the characters have no idea what to

06:34

look for when it gets big.

06:36

And noodle incidents face the comedy equivalent of the same thing, because despite the fact

06:40

that Noodle Incidents are entirely built on not explaining the joke, some stories do anyway,

06:44

and this explanation usually happens because not all noodle incidents are actually funny.

06:48

For instance, sometimes characters reference serious Noodle Incidents to highlight how

06:52

badass they are, either by bragging about some vaguely-defined accomplishment or referencing

06:56

some vaguely horrifying element of their formative tragic backstory.

06:59

A character with a storied and exciting past full of too many adventures to ever show can

07:03

pretty much always allude to some exciting and cool thing they did one time, and as long

07:07

as it lines up with the competence the audience has actually seen from them in the episodes

07:10

that did get made, it feels like a plausible noodle incident without needing clarification.

07:15

Of course you also get cases where a character brags about stuff they did offscreen that

07:18

doesn't really line up with their actual onscreen characterization, which might indicate that

07:22

this character is lying or exaggerating, or that the writers are hiding all the exciting

07:25

adventures in the offscreen zone for some reason.

07:27

But tragic backstory noodle incidents are in kind of a weird zone.

07:31

Comedic noodle incidents, as discussed, are basically a funny invocation of a horror trope,

07:35

storytelling by implication to let the audience fill in the gaps with their own imagination

07:38

without bogging down the story with too many lengthy explanations.

07:41

In fact, since a lot of comedy is built on characters being distressed, a comedic noodle

07:45

incident might be played for laughs but actually be describing an event that sounds unpleasant

07:49

at best and horrific at worst.

07:51

And if a writer takes those implications and plays them straight they get tragic noodle

07:54

incidents which invert that horror-to-comedy inversion and loop back around to just being

07:57

horror tropes.

07:58

If a character briefly and vaguely alludes to something they went through that sounds

08:02

tragic or nightmarish, it serves the same purpose as a typical noodle incident - providing

08:06

a highly dense chunk of characterization just through the way the character refers to the

08:09

event without ever having to specify what went down.

08:12

And it signals to the audience how this character feels about their backstory and how much they

08:15

want to share - for instance, in typical Noodle Incident fashion, if they never clarify or

08:19

they shut down follow-up questions it might indicate that this slice of backstory is,

08:23

rather reasonably, a sore spot they don't wanna talk about too much.

08:26

But unlike a typical comedic noodle incident, these more serious teases of emotionally nuanced

08:30

backstory elements might actually invite a clear explanation.

08:33

A dark or upsetting element of somebody's backstory could potentially be important and

08:37

require that the character actually tell the audience what specifically happened.

08:41

Sometimes these reveals even reframe a noodle incident that previously seemed light-hearted

08:44

and comedic by revealing that the vagueness of the references to it were concealing the

08:48

real emotional weight of what went down.

08:50

If a noodle incident is hiding an actual plot-relevant event, it kind of has to eventually get cracked

08:55

open and explained.

08:56

But this is pretty rare; most noodle incidents are jokes that don't need to be explained,

09:01

and like all jokes, would be less funny if they were explained.

09:03

This actually segues into an interesting tangential principle that applies to a lot of stories,

09:07

which I like to call "fans don't actually know what they want from their stories."

09:10

The entire core principle of a noodle incident is that it gives the audience just enough

09:14

information for them to speculate and extrapolate what might've happened.

09:17

Whether that extrapolation is in the dimension of comedy or horror depends on the planting

09:21

and how the characters frame it.

09:23

By its very nature, a noodle incident piques the audience's interest and makes them wonder

09:26

what happened.

09:27

But foundational in the trope is the simple fact that the audience's loose speculation

09:31

is more entertaining for them than a clear explanation would be.

09:34

Essentially, this trope entertains an audience by making them wonder what happened, but if

09:38

the audience then asks the storyteller what really happened and the story decides to tell

09:43

them, the wave function collapses into certainty and all that fun speculation and comedic vagueness

09:47

goes away.

09:48

The noodle incident just becomes a little flashback within the story.

09:51

And this has confused storytellers.

09:54

The fans spent so much time clamoring to know what happened, and then we showed them, and

09:59

they seemed disappointed!

10:00

This is kind of what screwed over Solo: A Star Wars Story, a completely passable movie

10:04

whose entire purpose was explaining every single noodle incident Han Solo referenced

10:08

in the original trilogy.

10:10

It lays down in canon exactly what he was talking about when he said they did the Kessel

10:13

run, or that Chewie hangs out with him cuz he owes him a life debt, or that he won the

10:16

Falcon from Lando in a game.

10:18

And you can almost hear the writers room clapping themselves on the back because they've figured

10:22

out how to give the audience the fanservice they demand, because fans have been speculating

10:26

about the kessel run for decades!

10:27

Won't it be so good for them to finally see it?

10:30

And we can finally stick it to those people who keep pointing out that a parsec is a unit

10:33

of distance by explaining how that actually made sense all along!

10:37

People are gonna love this movie!

10:38

After all, it's what they've been asking for for years!

10:41

Solo kinda heralded the current era of Star Wars content where everything feels pretty

10:46

intensely focus-grouped to give fans what they think fans want from playing to the averages,

10:50

and that means every time they explain a noodle incident, it ends up being basically the average

10:55

explanation.

10:56

Solo is a movie with no surprises except for how good that one explosion looked.

11:00

And I probably liked that movie more than most people.

11:03

I mean, for one thing I actually watched it, which is already kind of a big step.

11:05

And for ages, the best thing I've had to say in its defense is that it's exactly what I

11:10

expected it to be.

11:11

It hits every beat you'd expect from a Han Solo origin story.

11:15

He checks off every box from his backstory, has a gunfight where he shoots first, gets

11:19

all his equipment in order and flies off into the sunset with all the stars going whoosh.

11:23

We even get to see Chewie rip a guy's arms off.

11:25

On paper this is a nice and tidy way to give fans the answers to every question they've

11:29

been asking since Han first rocked up on the silver screen in 1977.

11:33

There's only one problem.

11:34

A gold-hearted street-smart scoundrel like Han Solo should not be a character with all

11:38

his questions answered.

11:39

He's had a long and complicated life causing problems and getting into scrapes.

11:42

The reason he has so many noodle incidents in the first trilogy is because he's had the

11:46

most convoluted life out of our trio of protagonists when contrasted with "princess on a mission"

11:51

and "farmboy who's never left his zipcode", and this is signaled by him constantly referencing

11:55

things he and Chewie have done in a way that implies he's been doing a lot of stuff.

12:00

The fact that we don't know his whole story and he's been up to a lot of sketchy shenanigans

12:03

is kinda foundational to his vibes, and it makes the twist of his character work where

12:08

he shockingly does not abandon the good guys and instead gets himself in a lot of trouble

12:12

doing the right thing for once.

12:13

Han is a pretty simple character and he's written pretty efficiently in the original

12:17

trilogy, and the fact that there's a lot of vagueness in his backstory is a feature of

12:20

his archetype, not a bug to be corrected.

12:23

Now when Han mentions the kessel run, the audience doesn't go "ooh, the Kessel Run,

12:26

that sounds interesting and space-related, he must've gotten up to a lot of fun high-speed

12:30

adventures", they go "oh yea, I remember that part of the movie with the thing that lives

12:34

near black holes but isn't immune to black holes."

12:36

The Noodle Incident trope illustrates one of the more counterintuitive parts of storytelling,

12:40

and one of the parts that I personally have had the most trouble internalizing: sometimes

12:44

it's better to not explain something.

12:46

The bones of the story need to be pretty solid - setup, payoff, key backstory elements, explanations

12:52

to hyped-up mysteries - but outside of that core space there's a lot of room for vagueness

12:56

and flexibility and implication.

12:58

Noodle Incidents are characterization tropes.

13:00

What happens in them almost never matters, it's how the characters feel and talk about

13:04

them that's the real meat of this trope.

13:06

To drop in a quick MCU example, one of Nick Fury's most interesting lines back in the

13:10

earlier phases was "Last time I trusted someone, I lost an eye."

13:14

Nick Fury's eyepatch is an iconic part of his character design, but up to this point

13:18

it's never really been focused on or addressed directly in the movies, and Nick Fury is not

13:21

the kind of person to volunteer information that isn't need-to-know.

13:24

So when he drops that little tidbit, the takeaway isn't "oh man, I wonder what specifically

13:29

happened to make him lose that eye," it's "oh man, so Nick Fury has been profoundly

13:33

betrayed by somebody he trusted in a way that literally scarred him for life, which is probably

13:37

part of why he is so ridiculously cautious and overprepared, he sure has been through

13:41

a lot of stuff that tempered him into the ludicrous badass he is today - somebody who

13:44

would never make that mistake again."

13:46

It's a characterization cue.

13:48

No explanation for his missing eye was going to have the same impact on the audience as

13:52

just hearing him talk about it.

13:54

And especially…

13:55

especially not the explanation they actually gave us.

13:58

And that is actually pretty illustrative of this point!

14:00

When they finally showed us How Nick Fury Lost That Eye, it was a joke, and it tacitly

14:05

disproved all those juicy characterization implications we'd inferred from that first

14:09

reference.

14:10

Profound betrayal shaping the young Nick Fury, a reminder of his own past weakness staring

14:13

him in the face every time he looked in the mirror - now all we get from it is that he

14:16

probably doesn't like cats very much.

14:18

A noodle incident is basically narrative sleight of hand.

14:21

It looks like it's showing the audience a fun hint of a hidden adventure, but through

14:24

the execution of that hint it's actually teaching the audience what kind of person the character

14:28

is.

14:29

And then, if the writer decides they wanna show how the trick was done, the trick stops

14:33

working.

14:34

There's a lot of merit to leaving things loose and unresolved when it comes to character

14:37

backstories.

14:38

If it's not foundational to the comprehension of the story, it doesn't need to be set in

14:42

stone.

14:43

We don't need to see exactly what Han Solo did to piss off Jabba the Hutt, the only part

14:46

that matters for the story is that he did piss off Jabba the Hutt and now our heroes

14:49

need to deal with the consequences.

14:51

And when we examine this uncertainty principle - a term that definitely has no other, more

14:55

confusing meanings - we can loop this back to horror again.

14:58

At the end of the horror movie The Thing, when the arctic base has burned down and the

15:01

creature has theoretically been destroyed, there are only two survivors left - protagonist

15:05

MacReady and engineer Childs, who had previously disappeared and was presumed dead but claims

15:10

to have just gotten lost in the storm.

15:11

Given the whole conceit of The Thing, it is entirely possible that that is not Childs.

15:16

Hell, if you squint, it's technically also possible that that's not MacReady.

15:19

The ending is brutally ambiguous - maybe our two human survivors have a chance of making

15:24

it, or maybe the only human survivor is about to die in some horrible way and the Thing

15:28

in question is just gonna freeze itself into hibernation again.

15:30

There's tons of theories and speculation about it - but fundamentally it doesn't have an

15:35

answer.

15:36

That's what makes it work.

15:37

No explanation would be as effective as the impact of not having an explanation.

15:41

I do feel the need to go off-script and clarify just a little bit that it takes work to create

15:45

a story wherein no explanation would be as satisfying as the impact of not having an

15:50

explanation.

15:51

Because this is like the root of that mystery-box form of storytelling that I think is absolute

15:55

bullshit, because it's like - if you're telling a mystery, the entire point of the story is

15:59

the resolution of the mystery.

16:00

That is pointedly not a case where a lack of explanation is more impactful than an explanation.

16:05

If it's a mystery, we wanna see it solved.

16:07

Okay, that's it, I'm done, we're good, bye.

16:09

So yeah!

16:10

And thanks again to Campfire for sponsoring this video!

16:12

If you’ve ever read a book and thought “man, I wish there was more book in this book,”

16:15

then I have excellent news about Campfire’s new Reader mobile app!

16:18

You may be familiar with Campfire for their writing and worldbuilding software for authors,

16:22

but now they’re bringing all those bells and whistles to readers, too, in a platform

16:25

where anyone can go to read all that good writing the writers have worked so hard on!

16:29

Fans of all genres can find stories they’ll love, and with 80% royalties going to the

16:33

writers, Campfire is a very good way to support your favorite authors.

16:36

As you read through a story on Campfire, you’ll unlock exclusive bonuses like short stories

16:40

and world lore fleshing out the broader space of the story, and immerse yourself in a panoply

16:43

of bonus content like interactive maps, character profiles, family trees, story timelines and

16:48

all the and behind the scenes insights you could want from the writers!

16:50

That’s significantly more book per book!

16:52

And on top of all that, since Campfire just released a mobile app, readers can get to

16:55

all that goodness while on the go!

16:57

So if all that sounds interesting, check out the link in the description to find your next

17:00

read on Campfire and have a grand old time!

Rate This

5.0 / 5 (0 votes)

Etiquetas relacionadas
StorytellingNoodle IncidentCharacterizationComedy & HorrorNarrative TechniqueCalvin and HobbesLeverage TV ShowSolo MovieFan ExpectationsWriting & Reading
¿Necesitas un resumen en español?