why can't the invasion be the climax?
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
Smogon Forums
GatoDelFuego
Hulavuta
In theory, an invasion climax can be good. But in practice it can't be because it's overdone. It's just kinda the cycle, you know?
You know how people complain that each Avengers movie has a climax of an impersonal fight against a million faceless soldiers? Or that X-Men Apocalypse had a "standard" end of the world villain plot. Then people were very happy that Civil War ended with a fight between just three characters, and that Spider-Man Homecoming was just a personal "stop this guy from stealing stuff" conflict. Very small. People like that now.
I think there's that factor of how big invasions are very impersonal and also tensionless, because you know there is no way they are gonna lose, therefore making it just tedious. I'd add to that that there is a real lack of consequences
Keeping in mind the idea of consequences, I think the invasion cannot be the climax, because the climax should be the victory over in the invasion in the long-term. Because then you can actually build consequences of it.
I was happy to find out that's what's going to happen in the next Avengers, like it's going to be split up into two films. I really like that idea. That way Thanos can actually deal some consequences from his invasion.
I guess this is all boiling down to the fact that films follow a 3 act structure. Usually, consequences are in the middle of the story, right? And then the 3rd act is resolution.
Sorry if this is really scattered hopefully you understand.
You know how people complain that each Avengers movie has a climax of an impersonal fight against a million faceless soldiers? Or that X-Men Apocalypse had a "standard" end of the world villain plot. Then people were very happy that Civil War ended with a fight between just three characters, and that Spider-Man Homecoming was just a personal "stop this guy from stealing stuff" conflict. Very small. People like that now.
I think there's that factor of how big invasions are very impersonal and also tensionless, because you know there is no way they are gonna lose, therefore making it just tedious. I'd add to that that there is a real lack of consequences
Keeping in mind the idea of consequences, I think the invasion cannot be the climax, because the climax should be the victory over in the invasion in the long-term. Because then you can actually build consequences of it.
I was happy to find out that's what's going to happen in the next Avengers, like it's going to be split up into two films. I really like that idea. That way Thanos can actually deal some consequences from his invasion.
I guess this is all boiling down to the fact that films follow a 3 act structure. Usually, consequences are in the middle of the story, right? And then the 3rd act is resolution.
Sorry if this is really scattered hopefully you understand.
GatoDelFuego
Ok sure, but I don't think people liking small personal villains "now" versus 5 years ago is proof that an invasion climax doesn't work. And yeah maybe a movie franchise is tensionless but I don't think that means "stories" can't include an invasion in the end, for example a book could do it pretty well I guess! Or it could be an anti-end.
Like idk, what about the body snatchers? That's not in two parts.
Like idk, what about the body snatchers? That's not in two parts.