The lights dim in the theatre, and you settle back in your seat, tossing a few pieces of popcorn into your mouth for good measure. The movie is about to begin. But first...trailers. A slew of trailers keen to throw everything but the kitchen sink at you: noise, action, screams, explosions, teeth rattling bass drops, more action, smash cuts, actors staring wide-eyed at some vast monstrosity that couldn’t possibly be defeated (spoilers: it will). Come see, this movie, it roars in your face, you won’t see a bigger movie with bigger stakes than this. Until the next trailer declares the same, that is. Rinse and repeat. We’ve spoken about this before, in a couple of posts about “Stakes Creep”. The idea that, in order to inflate the sense of peril in a story, one has to up the ante for what is at stake if our heroes lose. What’s bigger than your protagonist losing a loved one? Well, how about their whole city being threatened by a calamity? And from there, where else to go but to the end of the world? Now, that is in of itself not a bad thing. As long as you remember that increased spectacle does not equal increased dramatic tension, that the true emotional connection your audience has is with the characters and not with the action around them, then it can work and work well. Trouble is, stories, movies especially, don’t exist in their own bubbles any more. The fight for your attention is fiercer than ever. People only have so many hours per day and only so much spare money to sink on their entertainment, and there seems to be an ever-increasing number of movies, games, books and TV shows out there. The battle for your eyes and ears is intense. This is in of itself not really a problem - better have too many options to have fun than too few - the issue is how most purveyors of big-ticket content will try to make themselves stand out amongst all the noise. That is, with more noise. And it’s not just movies that compete with one another, either. Even complementary stories exist within tension of one another. The idea of the “integrated universe” is bigger than ever, with the current ruler of roost being the MCU (aka. Marvel Cinematic Universe”. Before that, trilogies were the big thing. A trio of movies which saw growing stakes, growing peril for our heroes, the climax of each movie being bigger than the last. Some trilogies pulled this off successfully (The Lord of the Rings) while some didn’t (The Matrix, arguably). But at least you could say these trilogies got their endings. Whether the story could match the growing spectacle with deeper dramatic tension or not, at least a conclusion lay at the end of it. With the MCU, there is no such end in sight. An endless web of intertwined movies, characters and story threads. How can the story be sustainable? By definition, stories must have an arc, where conflict ratchets up, is resolved, and reaches a conclusion. How can each consecutive movie build upon the previous one in perpetuity, with no end in sight? After all, we can go all the way back to the first Avengers film to when we reached a spectacular peak: the threat of an alien invasion and, potentially, a nuclear bomb on New York. The bubble should have popped already. So how have Marvel managed to keep their stable of intertwined stories sustainable? How have they avoided “Stakes Creep” when it should have jumped the shark long ago? There’s a number of reasons: 1. The "Eras" For those of you who don’t know, the MCU is broken down into Eras, separated by the Avengers movies. If each movie is its own self-enclosed story while containing elements that nudge the wider, multi-movie arc along. That wider story arc reaches its climax in the Avengers movie, allowing just enough conflict that has been building up to be resolved and emerge into a new era having performed a semi-reset of sorts: most major characters are still here and the big MCU-wide themes and plot points remain, but individual arcs have evolved enough to enter their next stage. 2. The Stories are still Quite Separate Integration has become closer recently, but by and large the MCU movies are still their own enclosed story (if we count sequels to singular characters as one story, eg. Iron Man 2 and 3, Winter Soldier, Guardians 2 etc). The MCU can still keep the lid on rising stakes getting out of hand because each story bubbles away in its own pot. Well...it used to be that way. Recent outings such as Civil War and Infinity War, and to a lesser extent Ragnarok, are direct continations of the overarching story, and it’s no coincidence that these movies contain a lot more character combos. By drawing all of these stories together, it brings the focus onto the wider story which has been, among other things, Thanos and the infinity stones. This in turn develops and advances the major arc story, thus meaning the major story is going to draw to a conclusion pretty soon. This is in line with what many theorize, that the MCU will look pretty different after the next Avengers movie. Which makes sense: the infinity stone arc couldn’t go on forever. Not only will the make-up of characters in the MCU be different, expect to be introduced to a brand-new major plot arc post-Avengers: Endgame. 3. Marvel doesn't take itself too Seriously Ask yourself this question: which universe would you prefer to live in? The MCU, or the DCU, populated by Batman, Superman and the like? I imagine most people would say the MCU, because even though there is just as much danger and serious moments as any other fictional universe, at least the MCU looks fun to be in. There’s colour. There’s humour. Childlike wonder. Variety. The DCU is too po-faced and grim for its own good at times (though it has made recent changes to lighten up a bit). It’s this slightly lighter touch that gives the MCU its longevity. It recognizes that it is a comic-book, Sci-Fi-Fantasy universe, and it finds humour in the absurd moments. One of best examples of this was from Hawkeye in Age of Ultron: “The city is flying. We're fighting an army of robots. And I have a bow and arrow. None of this makes sense.” It’s this willingness to recognize its own silliness and laugh at itself that takes the heat off of the MCU stakes before they get too swollen, making it easier to keep it from getting out of hand. 4. The Novelty Factor of Character Combos Let’s face it: who didn’t get a thrill out of the first Avengers movie from the simple fact that it bought our heroes together? I expect that, for many like me, that was the main draw: seeing the Marvel characters interact, bicker and even fight. What would win: Cap’s shield, or Thor’s hammer? This movie was wish fulfillment of the highest order. The climactic battle was less about the resolution of the story and more about seeing them work as a team. It provided a certain endorphin rush. This helps to keep the stories from running away with themselves: these larger-than-life characters aren’t about to get swept away in an over-egged story when they’re the main draw. Again, it will be interesting to see how long this lasts. The thrill of seeing the Avengers assemble is wearing off. What will happen when nobody whoops at the sight of Spider-Man and Thor standing shoulder to shoulder? My guess is the focus will turn more into character and relationship development. We’re seeing hints of this in Iron Man and Captain America’s current falling-out. This is a healthy development: up until now, interactions between the Avengers have been pretty shallow. I expect the MCU at the end of 2019 to be less quippy, less noisy, and generally go deeper with its characters. Speaking of which... 5. The Main Conflict is Internal, not External One common criticism leveled at MCU movies is the lack of convincing villains (a big exception being Thanos). The bad guys are either overly simplistic, or no match for our heroes (Loki vs the whole Avengers team, for example). There’s also the issue of generic bad-guy-army fodder. Again, the alien swarm attacking New York was pretty forgettable, as were the creatures that attacked Wakanda in Infinity War. Make no mistake, stories without an effective antagonistic force are bloodless stories, simple as that. And yet, the MCU movies continue to enthrall and achieve critical acclaim ranging from decent to excellent. So what’s going on? How is the MCU getting away without having having a foil for our heroes? Well...they’re not. They do, in fact, have excellent antagonistic forces for our protagonists to bounce off. Except you won’t find them in the literal villain, but within. Yep, in most Marvel movies, the main battle our superhero fights is not the literal bad guy, but their own doubts, their own fears. We can go all the way back to the first Iron Man outing for a great example. While well received, many found Obadiah and the climactic battle with him to be too simplistic and underdeveloped. And on the surface, they’re right. But one has to look deeper to understand what’s really at play here, what Obadiah represents to Tony Stark’s character and it’s development. This is a man who is trying to move away from his weapons manufacturing past, while Obadiah is trying to pull him back into it. Obadiah isn’t so much an actual character as he is a devil on Tony’s shoulder, a caricature of his past and his doubts. Same goes for Ultron. If the villain isn’t necessarily a warped reflection of our heroes’ darker parts, they act as a device for our heroes to bounce off of and explore themselves. True, you could make an argument that the villains could be better developed, given more screen time etc. but in a way it’s actually a smart move. High-quality villains equals higher external stakes, which for a shared universe as extensive as the MCU would not be sustainable. After a few movies of increasingly competent and dangerous bad guys, we’d quickly run out of road and the spectacle would become overinflated. Internal conflict, however, is an almost endless well of potential. You can introduce further complications and crank up the tension without resorting to tiresome CGI-riddled battles. Two people arguing, or a character fighting with themselves, can be just as intense as a real fight. In short, you can heighten the dramatic tension without resorting spectacle, which has a limited shelf life. The MCU is a fascinating case study of the expanded universe, a fairly new concept to the world of cinema. It is impressive how deftly it has been handled so far to keep the enthusiasm high for such a high-volume output and avoid fatigue setting in. It will be fascinating to see how it continues to evolve and grow, especially after the conclusion of Endgame. The MCU and Thanos alike may have achieved perfect balance, but let’s see how long it will last.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Off the ShelfHere I share my ideas, musings and advice on the writing process. I also analyse some of my own writing for examples to show how I work. ShowcaseHere I will show off of some of my favorite good and great stories, gushing lovingly over why I adore them and why you should too. I will also show you the other side of the spectrum: bad examples of stories and what we can learn from them.
Archives
January 2019
Categories |