Rapid Firing Stupidity
I have written four articles based on the YouTube channel The Critical Drinker. He is a snarky individual with a dark take on the movie industry. So, it was no surprise that one of his offhand comments again rattled around my bonkers mind.
The Critical Drinker was discussing director/writer JJ Abrams and his resurrection of the Star Wars and Star Trek movie franchises.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ax8U...
To rewind the clock, both beloved science fiction series began with powerful characters, great stories, and space travel. They were revolutionary when they first appeared, and audiences widely approved.
Over many films, science fiction tropes have become dated, and characters have been watered down. Plus, the plots are predictable, and no new storylines or science fiction themes are explored. This combination led to the end of commercial success.
What the movie companies needed was a shakeup, and JJ Abrams knew the winning formula. Action! However, not any action, JJ injected so much action that every corner of the screen was hit with over-the-top excitement, like a machine gun.
Movie fans loved the intensity, and the large box office numbers wowed movie studios. This was an outstanding success, but the shift from science fiction to action caused a massive problem. “Where do we go from here?” There is only so much action that can be pumped into a film, yet audiences demand more in the next installment. When this does not occur, bad reviews follow.
That was not the only problem that the Critical Drinker pointed out. The latest Star Wars and Star Trek movies were not classic films to be cherished. Instead, they became popcorn action movies, which were quickly forgotten. Here is his quote:
“The idea that you can get away with the most awful writing imaginable if you just keep everything constantly moving, constantly bombarding the audience with more noise, more yelling, more running, and more lens flare. They get so overwhelmed by it all that they cannot even stop to think about how none of it makes any sense. It was dumb, it was exploitative, and it turned Star Trek into generic sci-fi action slop. But, boy howdy, was it successful.”
I wanted to focus on the writing aspect of his snarky comment. Specifically adding action to pump up a story. I recall doing this to a story, which yielded a similar poor result.
The year was 2005, and my company laid me off one fine Thursday morning. I did not take this lying down. So, in my nice work clothes, I went to the beach to take a walk. The whole thing angered me something fierce, and I tried my best to vent my thoughts.
On my angry walk, I thought up a story about a man undergoing an ugly divorce who was also wildly upset on this same beach. He met two women who were also undergoing horrific divorces. They began talking, which led to a new banking business. My idea flourished into a complicated romance. For some strange reason, this big sidetrack helped get me through that awful time. Thanks, story-inventing brain!
That evening, I thought more about my creation and understood it had many deep flaws. How can I improve it? Over the coming months, I took the story in many directions to amuse myself before going to sleep.
Of the many ideas, adding action triggered the most benefits. Now, the three main characters experienced a lot of excitement, conflict, and intrigue. Women beating up bank thieves? Sounds great!
Alas, no. Like JJ Abram’s attempts to freshen up old franchises, my efforts made me realize the story core was worthless. At the time, I was not an author and had no intention of ever letting anybody know about my silly creation. So, I stopped thinking about it and instead came up with three new storylines, which eventually became my first three books.
Fortunately, this time was not wasted. I learned many valuable lessons in plot development, which I continue to apply. Specifically, adding action does not always lead to a better story. The Critical Drinker video brought a lot of focus to the downside of adding needless action, and it made me recall an old story and how I had attempted to improve it.
There is a second aspect of JJ Abrams pumping up technique that also affects my writing—the “now what?” part.
One of my core writing themes is to begin a story with average characters and subject them to extreme circumstances. I believe this approach yields a more realistic plot that readers can relate to. “That could be me.” However, this leads to a problem as I write multiple books with the same characters.
Like the JJ Abrams up-actioned films, there is a limit to what readers/viewers will tolerate. In one of three upcoming books I am working on, I hit that limit.
Right now, I am in the outline stage and have developed a solid story. In Chapter Two, the main character faces a challenge. Knowing it is essential for readers to understand what is happening, I plan to describe the main character’s feelings. “This is the scariest thing ever!!!”
Umm, that is a problem. Over the last three books, I have put this character through every possible terrifying circumstance my writing brain could invent. If I am being realistic, this is going to be a four out of ten in the three-book series. So… How do I describe what the main character is feeling? “This is the fourth scariest thing!” Lame.
To circumvent the issue, my character will come to an epiphany and acknowledge that they have reached their mental fear threshold. “This is really scary, but I cannot get any more frightened.”
Does that seem a little familiar? “Rapid firing stupidity.” Dang. It appears that I am setting myself up to disappoint readers just like JJ Abrams let down two cherished movie franchises.
I need more noodle time to re-evaluate my story before I start writing. Thanks, outline for revealing this problem! This effort will include determining whether the action scenes are necessary, how the characters will convey their feelings, and what the readers want in this story. Stay tuned to see what I come up with.
I want to conclude by thanking the Critical Drinker for inspiring me to take a closer look at my outline.
You’re the best -Bill
October 08, 2025
The Critical Drinker was discussing director/writer JJ Abrams and his resurrection of the Star Wars and Star Trek movie franchises.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ax8U...
To rewind the clock, both beloved science fiction series began with powerful characters, great stories, and space travel. They were revolutionary when they first appeared, and audiences widely approved.
Over many films, science fiction tropes have become dated, and characters have been watered down. Plus, the plots are predictable, and no new storylines or science fiction themes are explored. This combination led to the end of commercial success.
What the movie companies needed was a shakeup, and JJ Abrams knew the winning formula. Action! However, not any action, JJ injected so much action that every corner of the screen was hit with over-the-top excitement, like a machine gun.
Movie fans loved the intensity, and the large box office numbers wowed movie studios. This was an outstanding success, but the shift from science fiction to action caused a massive problem. “Where do we go from here?” There is only so much action that can be pumped into a film, yet audiences demand more in the next installment. When this does not occur, bad reviews follow.
That was not the only problem that the Critical Drinker pointed out. The latest Star Wars and Star Trek movies were not classic films to be cherished. Instead, they became popcorn action movies, which were quickly forgotten. Here is his quote:
“The idea that you can get away with the most awful writing imaginable if you just keep everything constantly moving, constantly bombarding the audience with more noise, more yelling, more running, and more lens flare. They get so overwhelmed by it all that they cannot even stop to think about how none of it makes any sense. It was dumb, it was exploitative, and it turned Star Trek into generic sci-fi action slop. But, boy howdy, was it successful.”
I wanted to focus on the writing aspect of his snarky comment. Specifically adding action to pump up a story. I recall doing this to a story, which yielded a similar poor result.
The year was 2005, and my company laid me off one fine Thursday morning. I did not take this lying down. So, in my nice work clothes, I went to the beach to take a walk. The whole thing angered me something fierce, and I tried my best to vent my thoughts.
On my angry walk, I thought up a story about a man undergoing an ugly divorce who was also wildly upset on this same beach. He met two women who were also undergoing horrific divorces. They began talking, which led to a new banking business. My idea flourished into a complicated romance. For some strange reason, this big sidetrack helped get me through that awful time. Thanks, story-inventing brain!
That evening, I thought more about my creation and understood it had many deep flaws. How can I improve it? Over the coming months, I took the story in many directions to amuse myself before going to sleep.
Of the many ideas, adding action triggered the most benefits. Now, the three main characters experienced a lot of excitement, conflict, and intrigue. Women beating up bank thieves? Sounds great!
Alas, no. Like JJ Abram’s attempts to freshen up old franchises, my efforts made me realize the story core was worthless. At the time, I was not an author and had no intention of ever letting anybody know about my silly creation. So, I stopped thinking about it and instead came up with three new storylines, which eventually became my first three books.
Fortunately, this time was not wasted. I learned many valuable lessons in plot development, which I continue to apply. Specifically, adding action does not always lead to a better story. The Critical Drinker video brought a lot of focus to the downside of adding needless action, and it made me recall an old story and how I had attempted to improve it.
There is a second aspect of JJ Abrams pumping up technique that also affects my writing—the “now what?” part.
One of my core writing themes is to begin a story with average characters and subject them to extreme circumstances. I believe this approach yields a more realistic plot that readers can relate to. “That could be me.” However, this leads to a problem as I write multiple books with the same characters.
Like the JJ Abrams up-actioned films, there is a limit to what readers/viewers will tolerate. In one of three upcoming books I am working on, I hit that limit.
Right now, I am in the outline stage and have developed a solid story. In Chapter Two, the main character faces a challenge. Knowing it is essential for readers to understand what is happening, I plan to describe the main character’s feelings. “This is the scariest thing ever!!!”
Umm, that is a problem. Over the last three books, I have put this character through every possible terrifying circumstance my writing brain could invent. If I am being realistic, this is going to be a four out of ten in the three-book series. So… How do I describe what the main character is feeling? “This is the fourth scariest thing!” Lame.
To circumvent the issue, my character will come to an epiphany and acknowledge that they have reached their mental fear threshold. “This is really scary, but I cannot get any more frightened.”
Does that seem a little familiar? “Rapid firing stupidity.” Dang. It appears that I am setting myself up to disappoint readers just like JJ Abrams let down two cherished movie franchises.
I need more noodle time to re-evaluate my story before I start writing. Thanks, outline for revealing this problem! This effort will include determining whether the action scenes are necessary, how the characters will convey their feelings, and what the readers want in this story. Stay tuned to see what I come up with.
I want to conclude by thanking the Critical Drinker for inspiring me to take a closer look at my outline.
You’re the best -Bill
October 08, 2025
No comments have been added yet.
