Screenwriting : Something I’ve been thinking about after watching Michael… by Abhijeet Aade

Interesting question.

I think a lot of films today are very effective at creating an immediate experience — they’re well-crafted, engaging, and often emotionally responsive in the moment.

But they can also feel a bit more cautious when it comes to exploring the deeper, more uncomfortable sides of human conflict — the things that don’t resolve easily or neatly.

Part of that might be tied to the level of financial risk involved. The bigger the investment, the more pressure there is to make something that connects broadly and safely.

And sometimes, that comes at the expense of the kind of emotional complexity that lingers.

For me, it really depends on the mood — sometimes I want the immediate experience, other times something that lingers.

Kjell Hammerø That’s a really well put point especially about films being effective in the moment but sometimes holding back from deeper, more uncomfortable truths.

I agree, the scale and financial pressure probably play a big role in that. The safer a film needs to be, the less room it has to explore those messy, unresolved emotions.

And yeah, it really does depend on mood but I feel like the films that stay with me are usually the ones that take that risk, even if they’re not as immediately “accessible.”

Curious do you think audiences are becoming more open to that kind of complexity, or still leaning toward safer storytelling overall?

Great question, Abhijeet. Honestly I don’t think there’s a simple answer.

Audiences have always been diverse. Some are looking for immediate entertainment, others are open to more layered or challenging storytelling. That hasn’t really changed.

What might have changed is the way we consume films. With streaming, everything is constantly available, and it’s very easy to move on if something doesn’t grab you immediately. That could potentially make it harder for slower, more reflective films to find and hold attention, at least in terms of visibility.

That said, I’m not sure it necessarily means audiences are less open — perhaps it’s more about how films are distributed now compared to before.

Curious what others think about that :)

Kjell Hammerø That’s a great point especially about access and how easy it is now to move on if something doesn’t grab you right away.

I agree, it doesn’t necessarily mean audiences are less open it might just be that the environment rewards immediacy more than patience.

And yeah, distribution feels like a big part of it. A slower, more reflective film might still resonate deeply, but it needs the right context to be discovered and appreciated.

Maybe it’s less about what audiences want, and more about how and where those films are being presented to them.

I think it comes down to how the film/show sticks in your head afterwards. I loved the show DTF St Louis, but felt the ending was a bit weak & predictable for me. As much as I enjoyed the show, that ending made me immediately forget about it & I didn’t recommend it to anyone afterwards. I was the same way with the Sopranos ending. It immediately made the entire show forgettable for me. Never recommended it to anyone, even though I really enjoyed the show before that ending. When a film/show ends on a really high note, it makes you want to celebrate it with everyone you see. It’s a psychological thing for sure, one way or the other.

Giving up one or two hours of your time has to deliver something.

I always enjoy being surprised in movies. The more surprises the more the movie often lingers with me long after!

Absolutely. But for many audiences, an entertaining film without deeper meaning is still "something", as long as it entertains for an hour or two. It's not easy to deliver good entertainment on the screen :)

One Thing I can say is that This Michael Film describe deeper issues we never knew. For example the way he treated Bubbles was I believe a metaphor of how a Father takes Cares of his son, and Michael to Bubbles the Monkey was that Father he never had. American Dream movie still sticks with me after all these years.

I think the problem is when a movie only focused on delivering high stakes, and performance, rather than actual connection with the character itself. In my opinion Michael was a good movie, but it struggles to tell us more of his character rather than his childlike personality or his relation with Joseph and his family. There are a lot of aspect for Michael to explore, his perfectionism for example, we see how harsh his life it but we don't see how it turns him into difficulty feeling satisfied at what he do, and his full artistic control. When a movie focused on hype especially for a biopic that explore the life of one of the most famous person on earth, focusing on hype is a good strategy, but making it stays with you gonna be hard especially if you struggle to show his true character and his private life. When I'm watching a biopic I want to focus on what he or she is not just what he or she do.

Wade Taylor That’s a really interesting take and I get what you mean about the ending shaping the aftertaste of the whole experience.

I do think it’s fascinating how much weight we give to the final note. Sometimes it reframes everything that came before, for better or worse.

With something like The Sopranos, I’ve seen people have completely opposite reactions some feel exactly like you, and others feel that ambiguity is what keeps it alive in their mind.

Maybe it comes down to what kind of emotional closure we’re looking for as viewers resolution vs. reflection.

David Taylor That’s a fair point and I think that “something” is exactly what defines how we remember a film.

It doesn’t always have to be big or dramatic, but it has to feel earned. Whether it’s an emotion, an idea, or even just a question that stays with you.

When that payoff is missing or doesn’t land it can make the whole experience feel lighter than it actually was.

Pat Alexander Same here surprise definitely plays a big role in what sticks.

I think it’s not just what surprises us, but how it’s set up. The best ones feel inevitable in hindsight, like it was always there but we just didn’t see it.

Those are the moments that tend to stay with me the longest.

Kjell Hammerø Absolutely and honestly, delivering pure entertainment that works is harder than it looks.

If a film can hold attention for two hours and genuinely engage the audience, that is a real achievement.

I think the difference comes down to what happens after some films satisfy in the moment, while others stay with you. Both have value, just in different ways.

Rafif Ramadhan That’s a really solid point and I think you’re getting at something important about biopics in general.

It’s easy for them to lean into moments, milestones, and spectacle, especially with someone as iconic as Michael Jackson. But those things don’t always translate into understanding the person.

The perfectionism you mentioned is a great example that internal struggle is often what makes a character feel real, and when that’s underexplored, the film can feel a bit surface-level despite everything happening on screen.

I like how you put it: focusing on who they are, not just what they do. That’s usually what makes a biopic actually stay with you.

Derrick Vernon That’s an interesting way to read it the Bubbles dynamic as a kind of emotional substitute for what he didn’t receive growing up. It adds a layer that goes beyond the surface moments.

I think that’s where biopics become more compelling when specific details start to feel symbolic of something deeper, especially with someone like Michael Jackson.

Also agree on American Dream. the projects that stay with us usually tap into something human beneath the story, not just the events themselves.