The scene in Incredibles when Dash realizes he's running on water and lets out this huge giggle really jumped out to me when considering body-to-body empathy. Superpowers are a fantasy to us. How would you feel if you were so powerful you could run on water? Or fly? Or lift a truck? It would be awesome. There's a lack of awe on the part of the superheroes themselves-- "Hey this is so cool that I can stick to walls!"-- that I think is a missed opportunity.
There's a moment in one of the new Superman movies, where he gets punched through SEVERAL buildings. Then he gets up, and is able to CONTINUE FIGHTING. I remember thinking... This is ridiculous. I have no idea just how much that hurt. What's the human equivalent? Being kicked by a donkey, maybe? Falling for about 3 stories onto a lawn? They went too far. WAY too far. at that point, you can do nothing but sit back, turn off your brain, and passively let the movie wash over you. There are many similar moments in One Punch Man. He gets punched so hard, he ends up smashing into the moon. And it's GREAT. Because it's supposed to be over-the-top ridiculous. Saitama is still a relateable character, because even though he's the most powerful being on Earth, he still has a lot of normal problems, like wanting to be accepted by people, and getting upset when he misses a sale at the supermarket.
Dragon Balls handles this well because no matter how strong they get - they get surprised by a new trick - and they feel pain as well as anguish which helps you engage your feelings and vicariously enjoy the narrative being presented - plus it isn't always fighting
I feel like there are a lot of great fights in Boku no Hero Academia because the fights are gorgeous yes, but the major and important fights are always used to develop the characters, themes, narrative, and motives. The physical fight is always secondary to the inner battle which is given more importance, and then it culminates into one glorious spectacle and ends. Usually the end is a moral clash with one moral point overpowering the other, even if they lose the physical fight (i.e. Todoroki vs Midoriya: Midoriya loses the physical fight, but wins the moral battle)
I have not seen La La Land, so I can't speak to that musical. But from my theatre background I can say that a good musical number is certainly NOT a pause in the narrative. Every song should either advance plot or convey character, and have an arc in doing so. But when talking about spectacle, I certainly agree that musical numbers for the sake of entertainment alone are incredibly boring. Overall, this was a great video. I am guessing the rip on musicals was mostly a wording error.
Maybe that is why I'm so-so on musicals in general. I tend to enjoy good dancing and I enjoy the music part of a song, but I usually couldn't care less about the words, so I rarely even listen to the text (too many times have awareness of what a song is really about ruined it for me). Clearly that will not do me any favors when a song is supposed to advance plot.
Historically in theater musicals that wasn't always the case. They had two pauses in westide side story. Ex. In America it starts out in am argument with words then they sing that same argument then dance that argument. After wards the narrative continues. That was pretty typical for murcials for a long time. Have the dancing and singing advance the plot came much later and in the big picture is kinda still relatively new
I loved Guardians Vol. 2 but I see your point. It's hard for there to be any kind of tension in moments of spectacle when you know that the main cast is bulletproof. In a way, I'm surprised you didn't bring up The Walking Dead and Game of Thrones. As crappy as the former show's become, the reason the world became hooked to both is because anyone could be killed at any moment. I think the latest Blade Runner is a fantastic example of a great balance. That movie overall is a fucking masterpiece (pardon my language).
Let's not kid ourselves, Game of Thrones has become pretty crappy for the reasons described in video. Sure, the first few seasons there was subversion with main characters dying and traumatic things happening to the characters, but now, pretty much all the mains have plot armor and the series is more concerned with showing you the Blue Eyes White Dragon shoot lasers at the wall than it is giving consequence to violence; consequence to violence is what has always set this series apart. It's very hard not to be a "in the book" guy here, but this change did come as the show wen't off book. The writing and characters are more generic and the story arcs are more contrived. Characters don't wear trauma anymore, they revel in it. The trauma of earlier seasons, that initially offered character growth, have been replaced with character codification, ei: Theon learned the same damn lesson three times, across multiple seasons, because the writers turned his character into his trauma rather then letting him be a character. Jon Snow died, and came back to life and, at this point, does anybody care? Was there any tension when Jon stood with his sword in that iconic shot from the Battle of the Bastards? It's great spectral, but it's cheap narrative. This is doubly frustrating because of how good the narrative was for the first half of the series' run, but I think this initial quality has put blinders on a lot of people. We saw characters we like develop so organically that when they started to stagnate we were already invested in where they stagnated. In a series where death once had a lot of consequence, death has no consequence. It's assumed people are going to die, and dramatic tension has been replaced with making the deaths pretty. Compare Tyrion killing his father on a toilet during the emotional nadir of his life, with Cercei blowing up the Sept of Baelor: one of those is an intimate moment, the other is awesome.
Am I the only one who prefers the original one over the new one, and just finds the new one to be so artificial built up to meet viewers expectation with cheesy motives of many characters. (Well okay I pretty much loved the main character in the latest blade runner and his arc, but that is about every character I really enjoyed in that movie).
This video was brilliant but I have to half-disagree with one thing. No one important getting hurt in marvel movies is usually a big problem but the way I think GotG2 made it work - for me at least - is that the characters were emotionally vulnerable. Not physically. And I even think that's even more interesting than bullets or punches being dangerous. (sidenote: what I think about GotG2 is basically same as what Lindsay Ellis think, check out her video "The Complex Feels of Guardians of the Galaxy v.2" on this, it's great)
That video is amazing, I completely agree about the theme of the movie be about "a father figure o parental figure" and that's why the first scene of the movie has the fight at the background, because the core is how everyone feels responsible for little Groot, until the end with Cat Stevens and everyone sharing a caring moment with Groot. That was amazing for a blockbuster Marvel movie
I feel like the original spider-man 2 had a great climactic fight scene because Peter has to fight doc but also wants Mary Jane and it is also a inward battle as the doc was his friend, there is a real purpose to it
The only time I've ever had a "oh no no no no" moment in a marvel film is recent. In Spider-Man homecoming, Peter gets trapped underneath rubble. Now normally I would brush this off, but because he's meant to be some inexperienced kid, I truly emoted with him. When he overcame his mental block of his identity, I felt it. I almost stood up with him. I think it's because the menace comes from something instead of someone. The genre expectation is for the hero to fight the villian blow to blow and just about win. In this scene, the menace is uncontrolled. Something you can't just defeat with a punch. It was both the physical and mental struggle in one. I believe this is an example of Narrative Slow-mo.
Interestingly enough, I loved but Guardians 2 when I first saw it, but was relatively underwhelmed by Homecoming. Yet over time, the more I think about each film, I've cooled considerably towards Guardians while warming up a great deal towards Spiderman. Every time I go back to Homecoming, I notice things about it that I just took for granted before. It becomes richer and more enjoyable every time I watch it. Meanwhile Guardians has only grown more shallow. It brandishes its themes right in your face and takes every opportunity it can to undercut a dramatic scene with a joke. I still love the finale with the Cat Stevens number, but while that one scene brings tears to my eyes every time, that doesn't change the fact that everything else is just light entertainment with some catchy retro music and *very* heavy handed themes of fatherhood. Ultimately, I thought Homecoming was the candy bar, while Guardians was a full meal. Turns out I had it all mixed up.
TheDMLO I think another good example would be Thor Ragnarok. I haven't watched any teasers and trailers so when Mjolnir got destroyed that hit me. I mean a god lost his weapon and than was banished and than imprisoned. Also the moment when Banner said he may never get back after he turns into Hulk again made him really vulnerable and his decision to actually risk loosing his identity to help others was much more important.
Great summary why I watch almost no action movies at all anymore. Especially the bit about imperfection got me. Older action movies were often so poorly acted that they got fun again. They had this human element to them. The perfection of most modern productions (say, The Avengers) takes that out completely and it becomes only the bland script that feels so artificial. The vicarious living is also gone. A story like Star Wars IV still introduced relatable protagonists, but now it seems that the biggest movies all don't even try that anymore. Superheroes can be so boring. The 2002 Spiderman was probably the last pure superhero movie I enjoyed because it spends just enough time with a somewhat believable protagonist before taking us on the heights of superpowers. It's also interesting how anime found its niche by connecting spectacle and narrative. They fill action with long thoughts and monologues in a way that would be virtually impossible to make work in an acted movie. It may be less subtle and artful than some of the examples of good connection between development and spectacle mentioned here, but it certainly works for many viewers.
Pretty much everything you guys discussed here relates to *writing* not editing. As editors, we may bring the story together and shape it into something great, but we do not create the moments. The moments were already there on the page, and are brought to life by production. We don't create the empathy that connects us to the characters. We don't create the action sequences that have stake and make us feel the character's pain. We may be the last line of defense, but more often than not we are working on *other people's ideas.* It's a team effort and therefore it is important not to forget what our role really is. It's like the expediter in a restaurant taking credit for the quality of the food, rather than the service. Perhaps I misinterpreted the point of this video, but what I saw was 2 editors romanticizing narrative and in the end taking too much credit for it. Not once did you mention how performance brings the characters to life, how the director is responsible for bringing those performances out, how the cinematographer is our window into the world, how production design physically brings that world to life, or most importantly: *how that world would not exist without the writer.*
Thank you for writing this. I understand that directors, writers, actors, dp's play a tremendous role in shaping story and emotion. That's why they get paid big salaries and are celebrated by the audience. This is the place to celebrate editors for their contribution. It is often under-appreciated because it can be "invisible". I think it was Kubrick who said that editing has a bigger impact on the performance of the actors than the actors themselves. I personally think writing and editing are very similar in terms of shaping story, character and emotion.
This Guy Edits I'm all for celebrating editors. I love editing and agree it can be under-appreciated. However, I still don't see how most of what you discussed pertains to editing (which is totally fine but I don't feel that the "Science of Editing" title is appropriate). For example, the opening scene of Guardians 2 was not the way that it was because it was a one take and was cut to a cheap nostalgic track. That was just a bad idea on the page. I also agree that writing and editing are similar, but the difference is that editing is more like a re-write. You can't just edit a film into existence. There has to be something there first. That's my point. Anyway, even though we may disagree on some things I do appreciate that you responded. Most UA-camrs would not do the same so I really respect that about you.
I just discovered your channel and I cannot imagine my life without this channel ever again. you’re brilliant and you make me want to hone in my skills for editing. i’m a beginner and literally JUT starting in my journey, but you make me feel that the journey is not a daunting/scary thing but exciting and possibly fun. like now I WANT to mess up just so I can try a bunch of new things that i’ve learned here
It's not pretentious or stupid. What it means is the movie being an action movie is not the problem. Instead what you don't like is something (like a problem) that most action movies have, but still isn't what defines it as an action movie. I recommend watching a video essay called "Why Action Movies Are Spectacular And Boring" by This Guy Edits. You might understand what kind of problems Daniel is talking about.
+Randy Monster Let me take what +MariWakocha says a bit further. Take horror for example. Tons of movies sold as horror are shallow jump scare fests. Not enjoying these movies doesn't make you any less of an actual horror movie fan, the reality there is that most "horror" movies aren't aimed at people who actually want full-on horror. This is an easy example, but this goes for about every genre. To appeal to a wider audience a lot of movies are going to be rather shallow and apologetic in a lot of areas.
I think you're way off base on GotG2. The initial credits fight scene had no stakes for the characters, but challenging the characters during the fight wasn't what the initial fight scene was doing. It wasn't even providing the spectacle of the fight because all it concentrated on was Groot dancing, and not the fight with the monster…which had no stakes because it wasn't supposed to. Because it had no stakes, we're free to watch baby Groot go and have child/parent moments with each of the cast members. And that's how it introduced the theme of the movie. Parent/child relationships. (Realization of that reality courtesy Lindsay Ellis's excellent video.) Most of the other fights and action scenes in GotG2 advanced the plot or helped define or progress the characters and their arcs. There are plenty of fights done only for spectacle's sake in the DC adaptations. If there, you compared it those musicals where the plot stops while the characters fight (sing), then I'll go along with it. But Marvel movies don't do that nearly as much, and as such, are much more successful and well-regarded as movies.
One thing that's weird is that I wholeheartedly agree with your point, but the examples you guys used I actually had opposite feelings on. As a viewer, I actually watch for the characters more than the story. I actually tend to like movies that change up the structure more because they're harder to predict. I get pulled out of caring about the characters when I know exactly what's going to happen. In guardians, I actually really like the characters and while the fight scene at the beginning didn't progress the story at all, it served as a great introduction to Baby Groot and totally engaged me in learning his personality. With the matrix, on the other hand, I HATE the whole movie. The plot is fine but I could not care even slightly about the characters, I found the long monologues to be a highly pretentious load of nothing. While the action scenes helped to drive the story, I couldn't care about the story in the first place because everything about the characters felt stale, monotone, and forced. Watching the Matrix for me as a viewer was just as bad as watching the Star Wars Prequels. I generally agree that a lot of action scenes in superhero movies lately tend to bring the story to a halt. I actually prefer these scenes to teach us more about the characters over progressing the story because of how I process these movies as a viewer. In that aspect, some of these action scenes work for me. The examples you guys used in passing I agreed with far more. The DC movies especially were probably the worst offenders. It's weird to me that you singled out a scene that really worked for me in character development, as a negative example for story development. It's an opener so at this point you're probably focused more on Character introductions than you are plot development anyway. Then you proceeded to single out a scene from a movie that for me gets an F in anything Character related basically as a gold standard for developing a plot with action scenes. You guys are absolutely right, but in these cases, I tend to value character development far beyond plot development.
That's not entirely true. I remember there were parts of Venom that I enjoyed, but there was loooooong painfully boring fight at the end that was supposed to be a climax. If that fight was structured differently, it could have been watchable. But I was in literal, actual pain being forced to sit through it. Scripts usually don't "script" action scenes. They'll say something like "they fight." or "[character] leaves in car, with [other character] in pursuit", etc. Making that compelling is largely on the execution.
Just watched Wind River for the second time. I think that movie is a good example of what you talk about. It's a slow burner, but when the action ramps up, you definitely feel it in your body. And the moments of high intensity serve a greater purpose than mere spectacle. Can't wait to see another project from Taylor Sheridan. Also can't wait to see another This Guy Edits video! Thanks a lot for this one. It was fantastic :)
Kind of reminds me of when an Apatow movie stops in its tracks to do five minutes of improv whereas something like The World's End makes the jokes PART of the story.
I like the format of discussion. Great stuff. When I got my bachelor's degree I was really contemplating doing a master on the relationship between editing, dance, choregraphy and the meaning of rythm. In a larger sense rythm is fascinating and can be plotted onto the road to success, may it be sports, comedy, art, conversing, seduction or music of course. Glad I stumbled here. You've got a new subscriber.
Oh my... I can't believe how much this video jives with what I've been thinking lately. I've been thinking about it, using the term "Graphic Noveling" of film making, where the film makers assume you've already read the graphic novel, so they don't bother pacing anything in a way that lets you connect with the characters. It's been depressing to watch movie after movie where I don't connect with anyone. This video really hits the nail on the head for me. Thanks!
I'd just like to mention Star Wars here. I think the fights (well, the good ones) in those movies are a prime example of how winning and losing certain fights have to do with characters. I think the strength of "the force" in those movies isn't because of cool space magic, but to have a narrative reason why characters can win fights by overcoming emotional conflicts rather than simply physical ones.
PauLtus B yes like the last 2 films with Rey vs Ben. You don’t actually know which one is going to win because the outcome keeps changing. The fighting creates suspense, that although you know they won’t die, the narrative is still moving.
PauLtus B A friend of mine I was having a conversation with about why people like those books, her from the perspective of liking it and myself not having read it, offered to let me borrow it so that we were more on the same page and that I might better come to some understanding of fans of the book. I could hardly get through the first chapter and I ended up skipping around the book, marveling at the poor writing which would get a kindergartner an F. I do however feel I understand the motivation of its readers better, thanks mostly to the conversation I had.
+Alex Caffrey I think it's a case of something just happening to end up popular and making it a rare case where an "erotic" book became more socially acceptable to be read. I'm all for eroticism getting a bit more mainstream, the Handmaiden recently was my favourite movie in a long time and that's definitely erotic (as well as having thing to say about these stories, I still have to read the book it's based on), but when it comes to fifty shades... aside from it being poorly written, the sex in there isn't even consensual making it a terrible flagship.
PauLtus B I can't truthfully say that the main character wasn't a willing participant in everything that took place, though the relationship depicted was not a healthy one and I definitely agree that it's not the kind of fantasy that would be good to popularize. I haven't seen the Handmaiden, But I remember watching a film called the Secretary which was pretty good, it was much more obvious that it was not supposed to be taken as a viable model for a relationship, and it had far better writing and acting. I would actually like to see more full on porn with well thought out characters and meaningful dialogue, though I'm aware from the brief experience I've had directing porn actors that it's very difficult to get a performance from most adult actors in an acting scene that's worth showing to an audience. But that's neither here nor there.
+Alex Caffrey Considering there's a character called Mr. Grey in secretary can we say fifty shades of grey ripped that off? I haven't seen it to be honest, and should I? "I would actually like to see more full on porn with well thought out characters and meaningful dialogue" I guess then it wouldn't be porn. There's Shortbus, which has a ton of sex and is a good movie, but I actually wouldn't call that erotic. Honestly, the Handmaiden might be a pretty good go-to then in a way, but there's not that much sex in there. But what's there is definitely made in a way where it's supposed to be beautiful to look at, erotic, romantic and fun in a way (it's not realistic or subtle, which you shouldn't expect if you know the director), next to that, it drives character development and doesn't just stop the plot to have a sex scene, but the movie is also a lot more things than that, and I might have my biases because I really love it. "though I'm aware from the brief experience I've had directing porn actors" How did you get in that situation? and I guess they are porn actors for a reason.
PauLtus B Just took a look at your channel, some pretty interesting stuff man. You should post more often. On my experience directing porn actors. I got brought into an independent film that a buddy of mine was writer, director, producer etc for, to help with lighting because he knew I had some pretty good lights from my photography stuff. Long story short, I ended up as an acting coach for the two leads. My friend would brief me on what he wanted from the scene then as we would shoot I would go through it with the actors. He had apparently cast them because they were trying to establish themselves as real actors, I don't think they made it. Short bus is definitely not a very erotic film but I guess that's the difference between a movie that contains some sex scenes and a movie that's sole purpose was to be erotic. I just wish there was more effort put into it even just the cinematography. I have to admit I have personal aspirations of directing, directing erotic films specifically, and I'd like to think that people would appreciate seeing good actors, nice lighting and smooth editing, but maybe that's why it hasn't happened yet, people just don't care. I'll have to watch Hand Maiden, I am familiar with the director though I'm not sure why I haven't seen this movie yet, you make it out to be pretty good.
You guys both hit the nail on the head of all I've been thinking, but haven't been able to put my finger on, as I'm watching all these big budget films as of late. Bladerunner 2049 reminded me that you can have somewhat of a thought provoking story amongst all the big set pieces and effects.
Blade Runner 2049 was more of an engaging mystery film than it was an action film. There WAS great action, but very little of it, but YES, it did move the narrative forward and had you on the edge of your seat. Especially at the end between K and Love.
Now that is a great clip! I just subscribed. I really like dialogue as a means to convey information, and i really liked you sourcing your work the way you did. Obviously, the tough hero, impervious to pain both physical and emotional is pure wish-fulfillment for the audience. Nobody likes to have problems, negative emotions; most people would like to have the ability to kick large amounts of arse (and those of us who have that ability do sometimes yearn a reason good enough to justify using it). Unfortunately, this kind of catharsis has to be earned. I am not interested in people who overcome problems if those problems never made them struggle in the first place, because those people are not like me. I struggle. As an audience, i like to see strugglers who overcome. This gives me hope. And yeah, that those action scenes tend to lose all impact on the narrative does not help either. Jackie Chan found out 1970 that it is not the fight choreography, but the objective that makes us stay interested. Most set-up action setpieces of his have some kind of gimmick. A teacher teaching the student by making him catch a bowl. Not a punch thrown, but it is clearly a struggle, and it has impact in the story. These gimmick-laden scenes make it fresh and interesting when in the final fight there is no gimmick used. And Jacky gets hit all the time, and he feels it. It is somewhat disheartening that so many modern movies have forgotten everything people knew 1970 and replaced it with wild camera movement. Obviously not everything from 1970 was gold, and not everything from today is crap, but I sometimes think action direction has taken a big step backwards.
I think there’s an analogue to spectacle in what Hitchcock called “pictures of people talking.” The way a hero or villain throws or takes a punch can be as character building as a look or line of dialogue. What separates great film from good or outright bad film is how articulate the filmmakers are in their various crafts and using them to tell the story without either pausing for spectacle or cramming in exposition
as a huge fan of old kung fu movies, of musicals, and of chase sequences, the spectacle is of paramount importance, but lack of narrative within it robs it of meaning. a fight scene where a character is grabbing props around them to use as weapons can show desperation and lack of confidence, and punching someone through a wall to fight in a new location can be used to show a change in the paradigm of the fight. where perhaps at first they were fighting over some immediate transgression, but now they're fighting their own unwillingness to let the past die... something like that. chase sequences are easy to rip on, because ultimately if you do it wrong, the narrative is simply, "they get chased, but then they escape." mission impossible 6 does a good job of keeping elements in play during the chase sequences to keep the sequence exciting. (who is that mystery 3rd party, firing from the motorcycle?) altogether, great video.
I think when you go into a guardians of the galaxy movie, you go in for the spectacle. When a character dies, you are sad, not because of an emotional connection you had with them, but because they were badass and fun to watch, and you are disappointed you won’t get to see them again.
This is EXACTLY why I was lukewarm about The Dark Tower movie. The book series is my absolute favorite book series, by far. I was very excited for the movie, but somewhat disappointed with it. There was never a question of whether Roland would succeed, or even how he would. It was just one big spectacle. In the movie they made him way too much of a bad a**. I constantly go back to a quote from a friend of mine on story, "Why should we care?". Great series of episodes. I love hearing Karen's perspectives. Hopefully there are more coming.
The other problem is that they got the tone completely wrong. Most of the series is a slow, hypnotic Western epic. There is no way a loyal adaptation (especially if you start with The Gunslinger) would ever succeed with general audience. It's too damn weird for them and way too damn slow and methodical and meditative for them to stomach.
There are many reasons for a film and you have verbalized a good one. I think what you have summarized, which I believe whole heartedly, action that moves character development forward is best for movies that promises that for the viewer. Matrix One did that and then just abandoned that in the final two. The Terminator delivered on that wonderfully in one and two. BUT, and here is my but, there are action movies where all I care about is the execution of the fight scene. That is a genre like a Van Damme or Expendables movie. CGI has killed this genre because there is no feeling of danger that your hero might get hurt, unlike a Bruce Lee movie.
I hate James Bond films but I watched O.H.M.S.S and there was one of the best fight scenes I have seen in any movie, very realistic and nasty. You knew Bond would win but he gets punished for being so smug as well.
Very interesting discussion, brilliantly illustrated throughout by your visual style - incredibly engaging - I agree with the comments on the first Matrix film - pity they decided to cash in on it with those redundant sequels - but we still have the original - that will stand up for years to come - just as the first Die Hard stands up after so many years- because of the narrative structure, the character development and the skill with which the stories are depicted. Nice to have these thought provoking essays, please keep them coming!
Don't see how it's a pity that they decided to cash in on the first matrix film with sequels. If they didn't do that, then everybody at that studios in charge of green lighting movies should be fired, strung, and quartered. That'd be an incredibly poor business decision not to make sequels. And the only reason that the first film was so good was because of studio interference. Once they let the Wachowskis have full creative control, it was redundant bullshit.
Hi, I take your point about the sequels being green lit for business reasons - and I agree, not really valid to regret that given, how much risk is bound up with these huge budgets - but what is you evidence of studio interference on the first one? Do you mean more editorial oversight? I would call that control rather than interference. Interference usually means changes that alter the original intention of the filmmakers, and I was not aware this happened.
I think you're missing the wow factor. Sometimes when I watch a film like GotG I want to see a massive spectacle, a moment for my brain to shut off and to be wow'd, almost like going on a rollercoaster, but you're going on the rollercoaster with a bunch of superheroes you've grown to love. Now if I'm watching a film like Paterson, I don't want that, I've sat down to watch a film I'm invested in. I think what you're saying makes a whole lot of sense, but I wouldn't dismiss a big silly spectacle because it doesn't move the narrative forward.
This is interesting. And funnily it answers a question that have always been in my mind. I have always loved The Exorcist. I have never felt more scared watching any other horror movie. But I never kind of figured out why. So I think the thing that works for The Exorcist is that all the horror scenes or the horror elements have a sense of continuation related to the narrative. They are not standalone horror/scary scenes. The narrative doesn't pause. Rather those moments carry it forward and we as audience reach to the 'next level' of horror narrative. There are hardly any jump scares. But the way that little girl behaves or the things that happen to the priests are all very creepy and help reach the climax.
Jackie Chan’s mid and late 80s films, and early to kid 90s films are great examples of how action sequences move the story ahead: - Police Story (both parts) - Project A (both parts) - Armor of God 2 - Drunken Master 2 It is immensely difficult to stage spectacle and story progression as a combination. Yet, the above films have examples of how it can work.
3:10 Agreed wholeheartedly. The humor escape keeps the audience entertained, but doesnt fix the vulnerability problem, which is why more serious moments dont land as well. Tolkien actually has a great comment in "On Fairy Stories" about immersion in imaginary worlds. He makes the case that he is against the phrase "suspension of disbeleif" in the sense that some claim that you have to convince people of this first, and then theyll embrace the work, when in reality most are rather willing to embrace your narrative, they just may have taken it more seriously than you do. Tolkien makes the case for rules. He claims that the problem with some works isnt that some people arent willing to embrace your narrative so they arent immersed in it. Instead he claims that you established rules and you didnt follow through with them. So with gaurdians of the galaxy, and in my opinion many of the marvel movies, they try to establish that the characters are in serious danger, and yet can also have comedic fight scenes where they cant be touched. They created the rule that these characters can be hurt and broke it by letting them dodge it.
This reminds me of horror movies where one or maybe two people die in the entire movie, it’s hard to find the monster intimidating when everyone seems to have such an easy time escaping it.
In action scenes, when values clash against values, (like when Frodo is deciding whether to destroy the ring or keep it; or when Captain America in Winter Soldier is deciding whether to continue to fight Bucky or let Bucky kill him), that is when action spectacle comes alive for me. It’s when the hero’s ideals are being put to the test, and we wonder which ideal will come out on top.
Your theory on how the narrative stops, how the viewer disconnects because we see no emotion from the character or empathise with what is happening because either we lack that emotional experience or the character isn’t portraying a relatable emotion or feeling, to me sounds spot on. That for example I found Dr. Strange engaging because we were taking this journey and learning new things with the protagonist. It could well be that now Dr. Strange has learned his craft we may feel very disengage from the character in the next Avengers movie.
I think action movies need more plot. Good back story is what keeps my attention. No matter how many spectacular special effects, they loose me if there is not a good strong story.
I noticed that too, the montage really wants us to connect with Groot more than anyone I think. If I didn't have other priorities, I wouldn't mind viewing it again and analyzing the various scenes with that flow in mind and form a more full opinion to move the conversation forward.
I know it has been a long ago since this video was made, but we must admit that Marvel saw their flaws within the Infinity war's narrative: making every hero get vulnerable, so the audience get the same. Maybe it could have been luck for them having the plot based on the comics, but they made it right.
Ah, yes! You have put into words exactly my reactions to the Matrix trilogy. I loved the first one. Lukewarm about the second one and got annoyed with the third one. Origin stories of (super) heroes are so much more interesting because as a viewer I empathise with their quest to find themselves, just as I - dear human - am on my own quest to better become myself. Any fighting that occurs in well written origin stories can be seen as more of a metaphor for the character's internal struggle. If the super heroes are already "whole", we're just watching a video fighting game and without the fun of playing it. Neo did all of his character growth in the first Matrix, and there was no where to go after that, or at least, the subsequent scripts failed to find his vulnerabilities that could have allowed for further growth when confronted with the new situation of the existence of "Zion". They could have looked at his struggle to balance his identity as "the one" with his membership in the larger community, ie: individualism verses society. In other words, they could have dived much more deeply into the flaw of his ego when confronted with the fact that he was one of many "the ones"; perhaps coming to his realisation that his life still matters even if its not the be-end all. They could have even explored the "origin story" of Zion...examining its own flaws and obstacles on a societal level, with the antagonist being "the system". Instead it was presented as if it was perfect from the beginning of episode 2, which made the struggle, well... boring.
"A screenwriter comes to a producer in hope he will turn it into a movie. The producer goes: love the story, love the characters but I think we should lose the building-tall gorilla." A joke from the documentary "Who killed the idea?" Who knows how many films suffered from interference from people who just wanted to sell a product.
I was entertained by Guardians but the spectacle example to which i take exception is Civil War. There are a lot of character beats playing out in the airport scene shown. Even though the fight itself is divided into two sides, a lot of people are there for reasons unrelated to Cap's goal to escape with Bucky and Tony's goal to bring everyone into line. Those motivations, in turn, drive them not only to one side of the other but also, simultaneously, into a number of the moments shared between various characters. Panther's thirst for revenge. Peter's desire to be like the people he idolizes. Vision's developing affection for Wanda. Hawkeye and Widow serving as a microcosm of how these are friends who shouldn't fight, and don't want to, but are caught up in something bigger than themselves. Civil War isn't Citizen Kane but i think the Russo's actually do a good job of having their action move the story and characters forward, and making it consequential even without killing off their beloved characters (and there's even an in-world reason super powers don't bring those fights to a bloody end ten seconds in).
People always give me shit for not liking Marvel movies anymore and it finally came to a head with GOTG2. I just couldn't stand the boring humor. You mentioned you'd like us to voice our disagreement, hopefully for a discussion. I don't think that La La Land just stops to sing and dance, I feel that's part of your narrative slow-mo. It tells it's story, moving forward, and I feel the singing and dancing is a physical conversation (if that's a thing) where we're seeing them communicate much like a repeat after me. But hell, I'm just some guy on the internet. You guys know what you're talking about but I don't think that means I'm necessarily wrong.
Basically you are implying that action Hollywood filmmakers should watch more Martial Arts films, because that is what The Matrix and Star Wars have in common... Althought in the extreme. In Martial Arts movies, the narrative is driven by fights. Everything is mediated by a good fight: the problems, the philosophy, the growth of the characters, and all is only solved through fights. Even more, when the characters are not fighting is when the plot don't move. Martial Arts films are lovely.
This video sums up my thoughts exactly. Narrative/empathy just screeches to a halt every time a big action scene happens. Excessive visual stimuli is still boring.
One thing that I find interesting was in hearing someone say that they find Superman stories boring because he's all powerful and doesn't have good enemies that could keep a story interesting. My thoughts are that in those situations it's moreso either the writers or the directors if it's one and the same that their own creativity being the issue because if they do not know the characters or not knowing for example the rich history of the tales going back to the golden age of comic's up to now. Or knowing the various things that he cannot be impervious to. For example magic or dark arts. In one area in fighting vampires the real danger was if he was bitten by a Vampire or given a vampires blood there would be a superman vampire.
I'm so glad I didn't see this two years ago when I began editing - I wouldn't have understood. Dr Karen Pearlman is super. I'd love to see another current video with her ideas.
Thanks for this. This is why ive always catagorised films into 3 catagorys -good, bad, and fun. Blockbuster action movies are alwats in the fun catagory.
You've put words to my inner feelings. I watch marvel movies not because I want to see a story, but I want to be visually entertained for two hours. People often mistake a movie with high entertainment value for a movie with a great story.
I agree with everything that was covered in this video. I recently saw Thor Ragnorok and I just couldn't place myself in the story and it made it unappetizing to me. Marvel tells their stories on the big screen the same way they do in comics. They add no depth and they add no real ability to connect with the viewer nor really utilize editing strategies. Even if they do use an interesting edit or way of framing, it's to make the scene funny.
Would love to hear more discussions from you and Dr. Pearlman! I am definitely going to look into buying her book now. But damn do I want to hear you both talk together a lot more!
Great evaluation of the problem with "spectacle" purely for spectacle. I agree 100% but there are people who enjoy the spectacle. Some enjoy the spectacle in musicals and some hate musicals. Same goes with action movies. I have long thought this about Matrix 1, but never been able to express the idea so well as you have in this video! There is one point where spectacle seems to be more acceptable, that is when it is new, something never seen before like 3D animation, the car chase scene from blues brothers which was the longest chase scene, etc... but it is rare and subjective.
But GotG has action progress the story loads of times, the opening action scene happens as a direct result of Rocket's reckless nature, the action of the Guardians being pursued emphasizes how much of a stupid thing that was to do, the movie then also blends the narrative into the action when Rocket and Starlord fight over who should be flying the ship establishing the ego that both characters must overcome before the end of the film, and this is done through an action scene. Also the part at the beginning with Groot is establishing all of the Guardians as parental figures of the baby, pretty much setting up the entire theme of the film. I get what you're talking about, but Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 was a terrible example if you were looking for a movie that does action wrong. You should have gone for Man of Steel or something.
Sorry, but I don't think you got the point. Yes, there's a reason behind the action: the narrative led to those specific points. The problem is that the narrative doesn't continue *during* the action. Whenever the characters argue during an action scene, the action basically stops and becomes background fodder that we're suddenly whipped back into when the arguing is abruptly cut off. These movies use action as a *consequence* of the narrative, not as part of the narrative itself.
4:20 you talk about musical numbers being a pause to the narrative. I guess that's true in Western movies but plenty of Bollywood movies push the narrative during musical segments.
+Nicholas Stop Motion Although I think I agree, that would probably mean most western musicals are simply bad. I actually feel like a lot of musicals are movies where the story serves essentially as a vehicle to get from song to song. Now I'd actually be sort of fine with that, I'm actually fine with it in several action movies. The issue then tends to lie more with the fact that I think most of these songs are pretty terrible.
Not to be nitpicky, since you make a good point, but I don't quite think it's fair to say "bad" musicals... The point is more that there are exceptions to all the points they're making, some of which (like the Matrix) they call out. They're making a general point about most action movies, and the way they're told, which prioritizes spectacle at the expense of story or character progress or emotion. But even action movies that fail at generating empathy are sometimes really fun and worthwhile, as are musicals that have wonderful song-and-dance spectacle scenes that don't move the story forward. Doesn't mean they're bad, necessarily, but still proves their point. They're targeting some movies that seem boring because of this lack of empathy, but not all movies that suffer this issue are boring. That said, I think Nightmare Before Christmas is a great example of a musical done well, in which the music is part of the narrative. The songs don't pause the story; instead, the filmmakers have chosen certain parts of the story to be communicated through song. If you removed the songs, the story would be unintelligible.
Bad musicals pause the narrative. There are many musicals in which musical numbers are the main source of narrative (Hamilton). Her point is that when narrative and spectacle are separate, the spectacle fails.
I think that also goes for action movies. A good action scene will propel the story forward, not halt it. Take Raiders for example. The chase scene is Indy going after the ark. The whole movie is about going after the ark, so the action is a part of that. If you take something like Return of the Jedi, where Luke and Vader are locked in an emotional duel that ends with a release and Luke gaining the upper hand, so to speak. Same with Captain America Civil War between Cap and Stark. What does happen very often, as is the case with Matrix Reloaded for example, the spectacle gets in the way of the plot moving forward because they just wanted to show off what they could do with evolving technology, whereas in the first movie it was more controlled. It doesn't follow for all of them. And it really depends if you enjoy that sort of thing as well. But it really is a case of "done well" or "done badly". My eyes glaze over during CGI fests like Independence Day 2, where the action is hollow and has no narrative or emotional drive whatsoever. But the opening chase of Casino Royale tells you a lot about the new version of the character and is also great fun. Depends.
Love this series. You really nail so many great truisms about editing. I was struck by your opening statement and thought that you should know this word: wabi sabi. It is Japanese for something imperfect where the imperfections make it better than if it was pure. Here's a link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wabi-sabi
What a coincidence, I literally just watched Guardians of the Galaxy 2 before I saw this and I thought the same thing. I thought the opening scene was really trite, even though I did like the later narrative parts of the film. I also totally had that same experience during the spectacle where I felt like I could safely check out and just look at my phone for a few minutes because I wouldn't really miss anything. I completely agree, the problem is that you just don't feel the characters' pain for the most part. Like you take that opening sequence as an example, it just feels like a dance. There's neither any sense of danger that the characters might have something to lose, nor any feeling that the fight is actually progressing. The duration and end of these events feels completely arbitrary. They just harmlessly punch, stab and/or shoot at each other until the narrative decides the fighting is over. When you have no sense that anyone important on either side will die or even be seriously hurt, it just feels pointless.
I've just re-watched this and I would not have coined why, but it makes a lot of sense to me. I think the perfect balance that I've seen in "narrative slo-mo" would be the Cowboy Bebop show (and maybe the movie, I can't remember as well). The action always seems motivated and consequential and maybe even touching at some point, because there's no pause in the narrative to show us the choreography as a standalone.
One of the most perfect balances of story and action is Terminator 2. Every turning point in the story is an action scene, and every action scene furthers the plot.
Movie musicals I believe do follow that formula of "here's the narrative and now here is your spectacle. Enjoy.", but good stage musicals, if they aren't musicals trying to play on its awareness of tropes, use their spectacle as a narrative device. This is lost in most movie musicals or adaptations of musicals from stage to film. I love theatre and film and the two often misunderstand each other. I hope one day that gap between the two mediums really is bridged in a successful way where both are represented properly.
Great analysis. Would you (both Karen and Sven) consider the action scene, according to the 'Slo-Mo' proposal, as fraction of the feature film, meant to slowly advance the plot and character's ark (and the overall speech); or a separate fragment, meant to work through the premises (narrative, logical, that build the cinematic universe and its inhabitants) set up through the previous sequences? Like a trail of breadcrumbs, leading to the loaf where it all makes sense, generating both a climax and a sense of accomplishment, by having the audience understood all these pieces and hints, which make the action scene(s) filled with emotion, empathy and so on. Just a thought. Maybe it was already studied in the book, or mentioned by any other YT user. My mistake then.
I actually really loved that intro with Groot. I see where you're coming from. I also saw it on TV and not a huge screen so that might have had a big impact on my experience. When things are blowing up on screen and moving left to right it can get very overwhelming and make me lose interest.
I think now I understand why I didn't like episode 7 of Stranger Things 2. Although the episode by itself was fine, it cut away from the main narrative, which was happening in Hawkins, not Chicago. I also think this is why I personally avoid musicals. I even remember as a kid complaining when they would start singing in movie. I probably wasn't upset about the singing, I was probably more upset that they are cutting away from the story. If I'm engaged in the story, if I really want to find out what happens next (or what happens when the demodogs come out of the hole), don't cutaway from the story - keep it going. Just shows story is king. Thanks!
It makes sense as to the difference between Justice League and Avengers: Infinity War. In Justice League, the characters are all bulletproof. The only faults they seem to have are the mental blocks of Cyborg and Flash. Meanwhile in Avengers, each character has flaws and weaknesses. Plus the end was a gut punch, realizing how vulnerable these heroes and gods are, to the snap of a finger.
Sven, I would love if you did a video about starting out as a freelance editor. I just finished my first gig, and I ended up overcharging them. They weren't happy at all. I ended up lowering the price to their liking, but the damage was done. I looked like I was gouging them, and they'll never recommend me to anyone. If you can make a video about all the stuff beginners should do outside of the actual editing. Thanks! Love your videos!
Thank yo very much for this awesome episode! I still have to digest all the information and thoughts you discuss, but that’s what makes great content. Please keep up your work!!! Cheers Jan ☺️🙏
I come with that in mind for superhero movies. It's just to enjoy the action and disconnect about caring for the character. In a way you connect with the character because it's a comic superhero and you feel invincible like hin along the movie. Cool video.
You are both saying that there 'should' be a good balance between action and narrative and that the action sequences 'should' still be in line with the goals of the character, but you completely neglect how action sequences work so well in movies. The movies with many action sequences (for example Marvel) are multi million dollar films and are usually quite successful. So it is fun and all that you talk about how things 'should' be in a movie, but apparently they don't work as well. All my criticism aside, this was an excellent video and was very well put together.
Couldn't agree more. My eyes glaze over during most action scenes. I can't help agonizing over how many opportunities Marvel directors are missing. Super powers are such a fantasy! And they make them look so mundane. Only Marvel movie that came close was Iron Man 1.
I feel like you’re going a little hard on Guardians of the Galaxy in terms of narrative vs spectacle. The majority of the set pieces in Vol 2 heavily involve narrative momentum. Quill and Rocket struggle with their egos in the asteroid field, Gamora struggles with her relationship with her sister on Ego, and Quill struggles with his relationship to his father during the climax. There may be some narrative flow lacking during these events (and this doesn’t get into the body empathy which is lacking in Guardians) but it’s not as if the narrative spectacle balance is nonexistent.
I wouldn't say I'm bored during a movie like Guardians Vol. 2, but this kind of narrative inclusion in the fights is what distinguishes a good movie like guardians 2 with a truly great film
Thinking about this in the context of the horror genre and a lot of the comments hit the same. Probably one of the best videos on editing I've ever seen.
Love your channel, very inciteful. I wonder why when this is the criticism do writers/directors/studios not change? Action scenes are boring and you hit the nail on the head as to why.
When Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 came out I went with a friend to see it in the cinema. I hadn't loved the first one but thought it'd be fun; that was the first time I've ever fallen asleep at the cinema, I just didn't care what so ever about the characters or what would happen and just wanted the movie to end. I've noticed that it's big action films like that, superhero ones in particular, that I just don't care for. Saw Ready Player One last week, heard really good things and when it was over I wished I'd gone to see Isle of Dogs instead. Logan is the only 'action/superhero' film that I've enjoyed in the past few years.
I had the same question. This biopic with Rebecca Hall, for me, was one of the most overlooked gems in recent years. She deserved an Oscar nod for her work.
I love the Antonio Campos film with Rebecca Hall, even if it's his most accessible film (Afterschool and Simon Killer are his previous films, easily recommended to Michael Haneke fans).
Sometimes it is useful and educational to study a movie style and technique without the sound first to help digest just the visual content. ....works for me.
Interesting discussion, I would be interested to learn your views on Bollywood counterparts to Hollywood movies. They often used to stop the narrative with songs which was the spectacle element. One director however, interweaves the songs into the narrative which is why its done him much better. But i love his editing and i would love your analysis on his movie PK, even if it was only the first chapter (or first 15mins or so). He does an amazing job of reeling people in with every movie, and I’d love to understand the secret sauce.
I found Guardians vol 2 deeply engaging, but I think you definitely have a point there. It was an interesting discussion, I'd love to see more of that. Also, A+ editing. Great job
What was great about Guardians is the James Gunn wasn't afraid to make these characters extremely flawed. The action was lacking a bit, but he can always improve on that for 3, anyway. Fans have sent him links to this video on twitter, so maybe he watches it and learns something and moves forward. There were things that worked and things that didn't work in Guardians 2, like most movies. Figure out which is which and make the next one. That's all a filmmaker can do, really.
again Wow, I find this series a great help as I am cutting my first documentary and am looking for ways to craft it, these videos with the info about editing help me a lot. Much appreciated. Thank you.
The fights in Matrix are symbolizing that Neo, like everyone, has his story interrupted. With Neo, agent Smith is "life" just stopping him, yet he fights and and continues to try to understand his purpose.
I disagree I mean I see your point however they are guardians so the majority of they’re film is going to be about fighting or resisting I feel the narrative still moves. Its like watching 2012 and expecting something the power of Schindler's List. For example the narrative is not paused when Peter shots Ego. I’d even go as far as to say they done a great job unlike the matrix 2-3 in tying in there first movie to the second. I mean I was rooting for him to blast that dude to ( a Body to body empathy ), after he said what he did. (Trying to avoid spoilers here). I see your point however I though it was a great movie not an A plus but a solid B and I’d watch it again where as I would not watch Matrix 2 or 3 again. Unless I was studying what not to do. Thanks for video very cool and I really like it I will be sharing with my screen writing friends, keep up the great work!
The scene in Incredibles when Dash realizes he's running on water and lets out this huge giggle really jumped out to me when considering body-to-body empathy. Superpowers are a fantasy to us. How would you feel if you were so powerful you could run on water? Or fly? Or lift a truck? It would be awesome. There's a lack of awe on the part of the superheroes themselves-- "Hey this is so cool that I can stick to walls!"-- that I think is a missed opportunity.
My man Owen, I didnt see you in long time, how is Karen doing ? Is she alright ?
There's a moment in one of the new Superman movies, where he gets punched through SEVERAL buildings.
Then he gets up, and is able to CONTINUE FIGHTING.
I remember thinking... This is ridiculous. I have no idea just how much that hurt. What's the human equivalent? Being kicked by a donkey, maybe? Falling for about 3 stories onto a lawn?
They went too far. WAY too far. at that point, you can do nothing but sit back, turn off your brain, and passively let the movie wash over you.
There are many similar moments in One Punch Man. He gets punched so hard, he ends up smashing into the moon. And it's GREAT. Because it's supposed to be over-the-top ridiculous. Saitama is still a relateable character, because even though he's the most powerful being on Earth, he still has a lot of normal problems, like wanting to be accepted by people, and getting upset when he misses a sale at the supermarket.
Dragon Balls handles this well because no matter how strong they get - they get surprised by a new trick - and they feel pain as well as anguish which helps you engage your feelings and vicariously enjoy the narrative being presented - plus it isn't always fighting
The whole point of MAN OF STEEL WAS " GOD AMONG US "..... I guess now you would get it.
@@bleuthaidesigns3799 great point!!!!
Superman's supposed to be a god among men. the movies shit but his invincibility isn't the reason the film sucked.
I feel like there are a lot of great fights in Boku no Hero Academia because the fights are gorgeous yes, but the major and important fights are always used to develop the characters, themes, narrative, and motives. The physical fight is always secondary to the inner battle which is given more importance, and then it culminates into one glorious spectacle and ends. Usually the end is a moral clash with one moral point overpowering the other, even if they lose the physical fight (i.e. Todoroki vs Midoriya: Midoriya loses the physical fight, but wins the moral battle)
I have not seen La La Land, so I can't speak to that musical. But from my theatre background I can say that a good musical number is certainly NOT a pause in the narrative. Every song should either advance plot or convey character, and have an arc in doing so.
But when talking about spectacle, I certainly agree that musical numbers for the sake of entertainment alone are incredibly boring. Overall, this was a great video. I am guessing the rip on musicals was mostly a wording error.
Maybe that is why I'm so-so on musicals in general. I tend to enjoy good dancing and I enjoy the music part of a song, but I usually couldn't care less about the words, so I rarely even listen to the text (too many times have awareness of what a song is really about ruined it for me). Clearly that will not do me any favors when a song is supposed to advance plot.
I hope youve seen La La Land by now. Its truly one of the great musicals of this decade imo
It's why Disney musicals are so clever because they combine the story with the songs
Historically in theater musicals that wasn't always the case. They had two pauses in westide side story. Ex. In America it starts out in am argument with words then they sing that same argument then dance that argument. After wards the narrative continues. That was pretty typical for murcials for a long time. Have the dancing and singing advance the plot came much later and in the big picture is kinda still relatively new
Can you make how to pace, workflow, and scheduled feature, and short films
I loved Guardians Vol. 2 but I see your point. It's hard for there to be any kind of tension in moments of spectacle when you know that the main cast is bulletproof. In a way, I'm surprised you didn't bring up The Walking Dead and Game of Thrones. As crappy as the former show's become, the reason the world became hooked to both is because anyone could be killed at any moment.
I think the latest Blade Runner is a fantastic example of a great balance. That movie overall is a fucking masterpiece (pardon my language).
Let's not kid ourselves, Game of Thrones has become pretty crappy for the reasons described in video. Sure, the first few seasons there was subversion with main characters dying and traumatic things happening to the characters, but now, pretty much all the mains have plot armor and the series is more concerned with showing you the Blue Eyes White Dragon shoot lasers at the wall than it is giving consequence to violence; consequence to violence is what has always set this series apart.
It's very hard not to be a "in the book" guy here, but this change did come as the show wen't off book. The writing and characters are more generic and the story arcs are more contrived. Characters don't wear trauma anymore, they revel in it. The trauma of earlier seasons, that initially offered character growth, have been replaced with character codification, ei: Theon learned the same damn lesson three times, across multiple seasons, because the writers turned his character into his trauma rather then letting him be a character. Jon Snow died, and came back to life and, at this point, does anybody care? Was there any tension when Jon stood with his sword in that iconic shot from the Battle of the Bastards?
It's great spectral, but it's cheap narrative. This is doubly frustrating because of how good the narrative was for the first half of the series' run, but I think this initial quality has put blinders on a lot of people. We saw characters we like develop so organically that when they started to stagnate we were already invested in where they stagnated. In a series where death once had a lot of consequence, death has no consequence. It's assumed people are going to die, and dramatic tension has been replaced with making the deaths pretty. Compare Tyrion killing his father on a toilet during the emotional nadir of his life, with Cercei blowing up the Sept of Baelor: one of those is an intimate moment, the other is awesome.
Am I the only one who prefers the original one over the new one, and just finds the new one to be so artificial built up to meet viewers expectation with cheesy motives of many characters. (Well okay I pretty much loved the main character in the latest blade runner and his arc, but that is about every character I really enjoyed in that movie).
+William Arnold
Have you seen that wonderful video called "Blame of Thrones" by MrBTongue?
Only a paid shill would describe blade runner 2 (most boring sequel ever) as a masterpiece.
+Dan Everton
Have you even seen the original Blade Runner?
This video was brilliant but I have to half-disagree with one thing. No one important getting hurt in marvel movies is usually a big problem but the way I think GotG2 made it work - for me at least - is that the characters were emotionally vulnerable. Not physically. And I even think that's even more interesting than bullets or punches being dangerous.
(sidenote: what I think about GotG2 is basically same as what Lindsay Ellis think, check out her video "The Complex Feels of Guardians of the Galaxy v.2" on this, it's great)
That video is amazing, I completely agree about the theme of the movie be about "a father figure o parental figure" and that's why the first scene of the movie has the fight at the background, because the core is how everyone feels responsible for little Groot, until the end with Cat Stevens and everyone sharing a caring moment with Groot. That was amazing for a blockbuster Marvel movie
@@MarcoBayod_MB Agree...I guess This Guy edits just don't understand lot of SHmovies and why peoples around the world likes these characters.
I feel like the original spider-man 2 had a great climactic fight scene because Peter has to fight doc but also wants Mary Jane and it is also a inward battle as the doc was his friend, there is a real purpose to it
The only time I've ever had a "oh no no no no" moment in a marvel film is recent. In Spider-Man homecoming, Peter gets trapped underneath rubble. Now normally I would brush this off, but because he's meant to be some inexperienced kid, I truly emoted with him. When he overcame his mental block of his identity, I felt it. I almost stood up with him. I think it's because the menace comes from something instead of someone. The genre expectation is for the hero to fight the villian blow to blow and just about win. In this scene, the menace is uncontrolled. Something you can't just defeat with a punch. It was both the physical and mental struggle in one. I believe this is an example of Narrative Slow-mo.
Interestingly enough, I loved but Guardians 2 when I first saw it, but was relatively underwhelmed by Homecoming. Yet over time, the more I think about each film, I've cooled considerably towards Guardians while warming up a great deal towards Spiderman. Every time I go back to Homecoming, I notice things about it that I just took for granted before. It becomes richer and more enjoyable every time I watch it. Meanwhile Guardians has only grown more shallow. It brandishes its themes right in your face and takes every opportunity it can to undercut a dramatic scene with a joke. I still love the finale with the Cat Stevens number, but while that one scene brings tears to my eyes every time, that doesn't change the fact that everything else is just light entertainment with some catchy retro music and *very* heavy handed themes of fatherhood. Ultimately, I thought Homecoming was the candy bar, while Guardians was a full meal. Turns out I had it all mixed up.
TheDMLO I think another good example would be Thor Ragnarok. I haven't watched any teasers and trailers so when Mjolnir got destroyed that hit me. I mean a god lost his weapon and than was banished and than imprisoned. Also the moment when Banner said he may never get back after he turns into Hulk again made him really vulnerable and his decision to actually risk loosing his identity to help others was much more important.
MrGreenAKAguci00 I thought Thor ragnarok was waaaay to much humor, you just said the only 2 things they were serieus
that is a bad movie, the mcu is disney bullshit
Agreed
Great summary why I watch almost no action movies at all anymore. Especially the bit about imperfection got me. Older action movies were often so poorly acted that they got fun again. They had this human element to them. The perfection of most modern productions (say, The Avengers) takes that out completely and it becomes only the bland script that feels so artificial.
The vicarious living is also gone. A story like Star Wars IV still introduced relatable protagonists, but now it seems that the biggest movies all don't even try that anymore. Superheroes can be so boring. The 2002 Spiderman was probably the last pure superhero movie I enjoyed because it spends just enough time with a somewhat believable protagonist before taking us on the heights of superpowers.
It's also interesting how anime found its niche by connecting spectacle and narrative. They fill action with long thoughts and monologues in a way that would be virtually impossible to make work in an acted movie. It may be less subtle and artful than some of the examples of good connection between development and spectacle mentioned here, but it certainly works for many viewers.
Pretty much everything you guys discussed here relates to *writing* not editing. As editors, we may bring the story together and shape it into something great, but we do not create the moments. The moments were already there on the page, and are brought to life by production.
We don't create the empathy that connects us to the characters.
We don't create the action sequences that have stake and make us feel the character's pain.
We may be the last line of defense, but more often than not we are working on *other people's ideas.* It's a team effort and therefore it is important not to forget what our role really is. It's like the expediter in a restaurant taking credit for the quality of the food, rather than the service.
Perhaps I misinterpreted the point of this video, but what I saw was 2 editors romanticizing narrative and in the end taking too much credit for it. Not once did you mention how performance brings the characters to life, how the director is responsible for bringing those performances out, how the cinematographer is our window into the world, how production design physically brings that world to life, or most importantly: *how that world would not exist without the writer.*
Thank you for writing this. I understand that directors, writers, actors, dp's play a tremendous role in shaping story and emotion. That's why they get paid big salaries and are celebrated by the audience. This is the place to celebrate editors for their contribution. It is often under-appreciated because it can be "invisible". I think it was Kubrick who said that editing has a bigger impact on the performance of the actors than the actors themselves. I personally think writing and editing are very similar in terms of shaping story, character and emotion.
This Guy Edits I'm all for celebrating editors. I love editing and agree it can be under-appreciated. However, I still don't see how most of what you discussed pertains to editing (which is totally fine but I don't feel that the "Science of Editing" title is appropriate). For example, the opening scene of Guardians 2 was not the way that it was because it was a one take and was cut to a cheap nostalgic track. That was just a bad idea on the page.
I also agree that writing and editing are similar, but the difference is that editing is more like a re-write. You can't just edit a film into existence. There has to be something there first. That's my point. Anyway, even though we may disagree on some things I do appreciate that you responded. Most UA-camrs would not do the same so I really respect that about you.
I just discovered your channel and I cannot imagine my life without this channel ever again. you’re brilliant and you make me want to hone in my skills for editing. i’m a beginner and literally JUT starting in my journey, but you make me feel that the journey is not a daunting/scary thing but exciting and possibly fun. like now I WANT to mess up just so I can try a bunch of new things that i’ve learned here
I love action movies, but can't stand 99% of them. This is why.
I thought I didn't like action and then I found out most action movies are simply bad.
if you can't stand 99% of something then you don't like it. Don't say "oh i like action movies but not 99% of it" Sounds pretentious and stupid.
It's not pretentious or stupid. What it means is the movie being an action movie is not the problem. Instead what you don't like is something (like a problem) that most action movies have, but still isn't what defines it as an action movie. I recommend watching a video essay called "Why Action Movies Are Spectacular And Boring" by This Guy Edits. You might understand what kind of problems Daniel is talking about.
+Randy Monster
Let me take what +MariWakocha says a bit further.
Take horror for example. Tons of movies sold as horror are shallow jump scare fests. Not enjoying these movies doesn't make you any less of an actual horror movie fan, the reality there is that most "horror" movies aren't aimed at people who actually want full-on horror. This is an easy example, but this goes for about every genre. To appeal to a wider audience a lot of movies are going to be rather shallow and apologetic in a lot of areas.
Black panther was cool
i came expecting a good video essay but received an ASMR masterpiece
I think you're way off base on GotG2. The initial credits fight scene had no stakes for the characters, but challenging the characters during the fight wasn't what the initial fight scene was doing. It wasn't even providing the spectacle of the fight because all it concentrated on was Groot dancing, and not the fight with the monster…which had no stakes because it wasn't supposed to. Because it had no stakes, we're free to watch baby Groot go and have child/parent moments with each of the cast members. And that's how it introduced the theme of the movie. Parent/child relationships. (Realization of that reality courtesy Lindsay Ellis's excellent video.) Most of the other fights and action scenes in GotG2 advanced the plot or helped define or progress the characters and their arcs.
There are plenty of fights done only for spectacle's sake in the DC adaptations. If there, you compared it those musicals where the plot stops while the characters fight (sing), then I'll go along with it. But Marvel movies don't do that nearly as much, and as such, are much more successful and well-regarded as movies.
I watch matrix since 1999 at least once a year... I still have vhs with it... probably demagnetized already but well.
Thank you so much for posting this video. It must have taken you a lot of work. I would love to see more video essays like this from you!
One thing that's weird is that I wholeheartedly agree with your point, but the examples you guys used I actually had opposite feelings on. As a viewer, I actually watch for the characters more than the story. I actually tend to like movies that change up the structure more because they're harder to predict. I get pulled out of caring about the characters when I know exactly what's going to happen. In guardians, I actually really like the characters and while the fight scene at the beginning didn't progress the story at all, it served as a great introduction to Baby Groot and totally engaged me in learning his personality. With the matrix, on the other hand, I HATE the whole movie. The plot is fine but I could not care even slightly about the characters, I found the long monologues to be a highly pretentious load of nothing. While the action scenes helped to drive the story, I couldn't care about the story in the first place because everything about the characters felt stale, monotone, and forced. Watching the Matrix for me as a viewer was just as bad as watching the Star Wars Prequels. I generally agree that a lot of action scenes in superhero movies lately tend to bring the story to a halt. I actually prefer these scenes to teach us more about the characters over progressing the story because of how I process these movies as a viewer. In that aspect, some of these action scenes work for me. The examples you guys used in passing I agreed with far more. The DC movies especially were probably the worst offenders. It's weird to me that you singled out a scene that really worked for me in character development, as a negative example for story development. It's an opener so at this point you're probably focused more on Character introductions than you are plot development anyway. Then you proceeded to single out a scene from a movie that for me gets an F in anything Character related basically as a gold standard for developing a plot with action scenes. You guys are absolutely right, but in these cases, I tend to value character development far beyond plot development.
This isn't under the editor's control. The problems of action movies is built in the script.
That's not entirely true.
I remember there were parts of Venom that I enjoyed, but there was loooooong painfully boring fight at the end that was supposed to be a climax. If that fight was structured differently, it could have been watchable. But I was in literal, actual pain being forced to sit through it.
Scripts usually don't "script" action scenes. They'll say something like "they fight." or "[character] leaves in car, with [other character] in pursuit", etc. Making that compelling is largely on the execution.
Just watched Wind River for the second time. I think that movie is a good example of what you talk about. It's a slow burner, but when the action ramps up, you definitely feel it in your body. And the moments of high intensity serve a greater purpose than mere spectacle. Can't wait to see another project from Taylor Sheridan. Also can't wait to see another This Guy Edits video! Thanks a lot for this one. It was fantastic :)
LOVE your quality! Please keep up the work. It’s rare to see both quality video production AND research in a UA-cam channel. Wow.
Kind of reminds me of when an Apatow movie stops in its tracks to do five minutes of improv whereas something like The World's End makes the jokes PART of the story.
I like the format of discussion. Great stuff. When I got my bachelor's degree I was really contemplating doing a master on the relationship between editing, dance, choregraphy and the meaning of rythm. In a larger sense rythm is fascinating and can be plotted onto the road to success, may it be sports, comedy, art, conversing, seduction or music of course. Glad I stumbled here. You've got a new subscriber.
Oh my... I can't believe how much this video jives with what I've been thinking lately. I've been thinking about it, using the term "Graphic Noveling" of film making, where the film makers assume you've already read the graphic novel, so they don't bother pacing anything in a way that lets you connect with the characters. It's been depressing to watch movie after movie where I don't connect with anyone. This video really hits the nail on the head for me. Thanks!
I'm so glad I have been able to watch this channel grow. Nice work Sven! Keep it up.
I'd just like to mention Star Wars here. I think the fights (well, the good ones) in those movies are a prime example of how winning and losing certain fights have to do with characters. I think the strength of "the force" in those movies isn't because of cool space magic, but to have a narrative reason why characters can win fights by overcoming emotional conflicts rather than simply physical ones.
PauLtus B yes like the last 2 films with Rey vs Ben. You don’t actually know which one is going to win because the outcome keeps changing. The fighting creates suspense, that although you know they won’t die, the narrative is still moving.
There weren't any lightsaber duels in Last Jedi
+a crowbar
It sorta doesn't matter anyway, especially since there seems to be a lot of interesting force use anyway, which still plays by those rules.
at least thats true for the original trilogy. not so much for the prequels or the new series imo
8:40 I'm not sure if that book is good enough to be considered erotic.
PauLtus B A friend of mine I was having a conversation with about why people like those books, her from the perspective of liking it and myself not having read it, offered to let me borrow it so that we were more on the same page and that I might better come to some understanding of fans of the book.
I could hardly get through the first chapter and I ended up skipping around the book, marveling at the poor writing which would get a kindergartner an F.
I do however feel I understand the motivation of its readers better, thanks mostly to the conversation I had.
+Alex Caffrey
I think it's a case of something just happening to end up popular and making it a rare case where an "erotic" book became more socially acceptable to be read.
I'm all for eroticism getting a bit more mainstream, the Handmaiden recently was my favourite movie in a long time and that's definitely erotic (as well as having thing to say about these stories, I still have to read the book it's based on), but when it comes to fifty shades... aside from it being poorly written, the sex in there isn't even consensual making it a terrible flagship.
PauLtus B I can't truthfully say that the main character wasn't a willing participant in everything that took place, though the relationship depicted was not a healthy one and I definitely agree that it's not the kind of fantasy that would be good to popularize.
I haven't seen the Handmaiden, But I remember watching a film called the Secretary which was pretty good, it was much more obvious that it was not supposed to be taken as a viable model for a relationship, and it had far better writing and acting.
I would actually like to see more full on porn with well thought out characters and meaningful dialogue, though I'm aware from the brief experience I've had directing porn actors that it's very difficult to get a performance from most adult actors in an acting scene that's worth showing to an audience. But that's neither here nor there.
+Alex Caffrey
Considering there's a character called Mr. Grey in secretary can we say fifty shades of grey ripped that off? I haven't seen it to be honest, and should I?
"I would actually like to see more full on porn with well thought out characters and meaningful dialogue" I guess then it wouldn't be porn. There's Shortbus, which has a ton of sex and is a good movie, but I actually wouldn't call that erotic.
Honestly, the Handmaiden might be a pretty good go-to then in a way, but there's not that much sex in there. But what's there is definitely made in a way where it's supposed to be beautiful to look at, erotic, romantic and fun in a way (it's not realistic or subtle, which you shouldn't expect if you know the director), next to that, it drives character development and doesn't just stop the plot to have a sex scene, but the movie is also a lot more things than that, and I might have my biases because I really love it.
"though I'm aware from the brief experience I've had directing porn actors" How did you get in that situation? and I guess they are porn actors for a reason.
PauLtus B Just took a look at your channel, some pretty interesting stuff man. You should post more often.
On my experience directing porn actors. I got brought into an independent film that a buddy of mine was writer, director, producer etc for, to help with lighting because he knew I had some pretty good lights from my photography stuff. Long story short, I ended up as an acting coach for the two leads. My friend would brief me on what he wanted from the scene then as we would shoot I would go through it with the actors. He had apparently cast them because they were trying to establish themselves as real actors, I don't think they made it.
Short bus is definitely not a very erotic film but I guess that's the difference between a movie that contains some sex scenes and a movie that's sole purpose was to be erotic.
I just wish there was more effort put into it even just the cinematography. I have to admit I have personal aspirations of directing, directing erotic films specifically, and I'd like to think that people would appreciate seeing good actors, nice lighting and smooth editing, but maybe that's why it hasn't happened yet, people just don't care.
I'll have to watch Hand Maiden, I am familiar with the director though I'm not sure why I haven't seen this movie yet, you make it out to be pretty good.
You guys both hit the nail on the head of all I've been thinking, but haven't been able to put my finger on, as I'm watching all these big budget films as of late. Bladerunner 2049 reminded me that you can have somewhat of a thought provoking story amongst all the big set pieces and effects.
Blade Runner 2049 was more of an engaging mystery film than it was an action film. There WAS great action, but very little of it, but YES, it did move the narrative forward and had you on the edge of your seat. Especially at the end between K and Love.
Now that is a great clip! I just subscribed. I really like dialogue as a means to convey information, and i really liked you sourcing your work the way you did.
Obviously, the tough hero, impervious to pain both physical and emotional is pure wish-fulfillment for the audience. Nobody likes to have problems, negative emotions; most people would like to have the ability to kick large amounts of arse (and those of us who have that ability do sometimes yearn a reason good enough to justify using it).
Unfortunately, this kind of catharsis has to be earned.
I am not interested in people who overcome problems if those problems never made them struggle in the first place, because those people are not like me. I struggle. As an audience, i like to see strugglers who overcome. This gives me hope.
And yeah, that those action scenes tend to lose all impact on the narrative does not help either. Jackie Chan found out 1970 that it is not the fight choreography, but the objective that makes us stay interested. Most set-up action setpieces of his have some kind of gimmick. A teacher teaching the student by making him catch a bowl. Not a punch thrown, but it is clearly a struggle, and it has impact in the story. These gimmick-laden scenes make it fresh and interesting when in the final fight there is no gimmick used. And Jacky gets hit all the time, and he feels it.
It is somewhat disheartening that so many modern movies have forgotten everything people knew 1970 and replaced it with wild camera movement. Obviously not everything from 1970 was gold, and not everything from today is crap, but I sometimes think action direction has taken a big step backwards.
I think there’s an analogue to spectacle in what Hitchcock called “pictures of people talking.”
The way a hero or villain throws or takes a punch can be as character building as a look or line of dialogue. What separates great film from good or outright bad film is how articulate the filmmakers are in their various crafts and using them to tell the story without either pausing for spectacle or cramming in exposition
as a huge fan of old kung fu movies, of musicals, and of chase sequences, the spectacle is of paramount importance, but lack of narrative within it robs it of meaning. a fight scene where a character is grabbing props around them to use as weapons can show desperation and lack of confidence, and punching someone through a wall to fight in a new location can be used to show a change in the paradigm of the fight. where perhaps at first they were fighting over some immediate transgression, but now they're fighting their own unwillingness to let the past die... something like that.
chase sequences are easy to rip on, because ultimately if you do it wrong, the narrative is simply, "they get chased, but then they escape." mission impossible 6 does a good job of keeping elements in play during the chase sequences to keep the sequence exciting. (who is that mystery 3rd party, firing from the motorcycle?)
altogether, great video.
Amazing work! Thanks for the time and love you guys spent on making and sharing this piece with us. 🙌🏻🤘🏼
I think when you go into a guardians of the galaxy movie, you go in for the spectacle. When a character dies, you are sad, not because of an emotional connection you had with them, but because they were badass and fun to watch, and you are disappointed you won’t get to see them again.
This is EXACTLY why I was lukewarm about The Dark Tower movie. The book series is my absolute favorite book series, by far. I was very excited for the movie, but somewhat disappointed with it. There was never a question of whether Roland would succeed, or even how he would. It was just one big spectacle. In the movie they made him way too much of a bad a**. I constantly go back to a quote from a friend of mine on story, "Why should we care?".
Great series of episodes. I love hearing Karen's perspectives. Hopefully there are more coming.
The other problem is that they got the tone completely wrong. Most of the series is a slow, hypnotic Western epic. There is no way a loyal adaptation (especially if you start with The Gunslinger) would ever succeed with general audience. It's too damn weird for them and way too damn slow and methodical and meditative for them to stomach.
There are many reasons for a film and you have verbalized a good one. I think what you have summarized, which I believe whole heartedly, action that moves character development forward is best for movies that promises that for the viewer. Matrix One did that and then just abandoned that in the final two. The Terminator delivered on that wonderfully in one and two. BUT, and here is my but, there are action movies where all I care about is the execution of the fight scene. That is a genre like a Van Damme or Expendables movie. CGI has killed this genre because there is no feeling of danger that your hero might get hurt, unlike a Bruce Lee movie.
I hate James Bond films but I watched O.H.M.S.S and there was one of the best fight scenes I have seen in any movie, very realistic and nasty. You knew Bond would win but he gets punished for being so smug as well.
Very interesting discussion, brilliantly illustrated throughout by your visual style - incredibly engaging - I agree with the comments on the first Matrix film - pity they decided to cash in on it with those redundant sequels - but we still have the original - that will stand up for years to come - just as the first Die Hard stands up after so many years- because of the narrative structure, the character development and the skill with which the stories are depicted. Nice to have these thought provoking essays, please keep them coming!
Don't see how it's a pity that they decided to cash in on the first matrix film with sequels. If they didn't do that, then everybody at that studios in charge of green lighting movies should be fired, strung, and quartered. That'd be an incredibly poor business decision not to make sequels. And the only reason that the first film was so good was because of studio interference. Once they let the Wachowskis have full creative control, it was redundant bullshit.
Hi, I take your point about the sequels being green lit for business reasons - and I agree, not really valid to regret that given, how much risk is bound up with these huge budgets - but what is you evidence of studio interference on the first one? Do you mean more editorial oversight? I would call that control rather than interference. Interference usually means changes that alter the original intention of the filmmakers, and I was not aware this happened.
I think you're missing the wow factor. Sometimes when I watch a film like GotG I want to see a massive spectacle, a moment for my brain to shut off and to be wow'd, almost like going on a rollercoaster, but you're going on the rollercoaster with a bunch of superheroes you've grown to love. Now if I'm watching a film like Paterson, I don't want that, I've sat down to watch a film I'm invested in.
I think what you're saying makes a whole lot of sense, but I wouldn't dismiss a big silly spectacle because it doesn't move the narrative forward.
This is interesting. And funnily it answers a question that have always been in my mind. I have always loved The Exorcist. I have never felt more scared watching any other horror movie. But I never kind of figured out why. So I think the thing that works for The Exorcist is that all the horror scenes or the horror elements have a sense of continuation related to the narrative. They are not standalone horror/scary scenes. The narrative doesn't pause. Rather those moments carry it forward and we as audience reach to the 'next level' of horror narrative. There are hardly any jump scares. But the way that little girl behaves or the things that happen to the priests are all very creepy and help reach the climax.
Jackie Chan’s mid and late 80s films, and early to kid 90s films are great examples of how action sequences move the story ahead:
- Police Story (both parts)
- Project A (both parts)
- Armor of God 2
- Drunken Master 2
It is immensely difficult to stage spectacle and story progression as a combination. Yet, the above films have examples of how it can work.
3:10
Agreed wholeheartedly. The humor escape keeps the audience entertained, but doesnt fix the vulnerability problem, which is why more serious moments dont land as well.
Tolkien actually has a great comment in "On Fairy Stories" about immersion in imaginary worlds. He makes the case that he is against the phrase "suspension of disbeleif" in the sense that some claim that you have to convince people of this first, and then theyll embrace the work, when in reality most are rather willing to embrace your narrative, they just may have taken it more seriously than you do. Tolkien makes the case for rules. He claims that the problem with some works isnt that some people arent willing to embrace your narrative so they arent immersed in it. Instead he claims that you established rules and you didnt follow through with them.
So with gaurdians of the galaxy, and in my opinion many of the marvel movies, they try to establish that the characters are in serious danger, and yet can also have comedic fight scenes where they cant be touched. They created the rule that these characters can be hurt and broke it by letting them dodge it.
This reminds me of horror movies where one or maybe two people die in the entire movie, it’s hard to find the monster intimidating when everyone seems to have such an easy time escaping it.
In action scenes, when values clash against values, (like when Frodo is deciding whether to destroy the ring or keep it; or when Captain America in Winter Soldier is deciding whether to continue to fight Bucky or let Bucky kill him), that is when action spectacle comes alive for me. It’s when the hero’s ideals are being put to the test, and we wonder which ideal will come out on top.
Your theory on how the narrative stops, how the viewer disconnects because we see no emotion from the character or empathise with what is happening because either we lack that emotional experience or the character isn’t portraying a relatable emotion or feeling, to me sounds spot on. That for example I found Dr. Strange engaging because we were taking this journey and learning new things with the protagonist. It could well be that now Dr. Strange has learned his craft we may feel very disengage from the character in the next Avengers movie.
I think action movies need more plot. Good back story is what keeps my attention. No matter how many spectacular special effects, they loose me if there is not a good strong story.
I noticed that too, the montage really wants us to connect with Groot more than anyone I think. If I didn't have other priorities, I wouldn't mind viewing it again and analyzing the various scenes with that flow in mind and form a more full opinion to move the conversation forward.
I never considered that the narrative had to slow for great spectical but thinking about it, its so true. Great video.
I know it has been a long ago since this video was made, but we must admit that Marvel saw their flaws within the Infinity war's narrative: making every hero get vulnerable, so the audience get the same. Maybe it could have been luck for them having the plot based on the comics, but they made it right.
Your videos have improved so much wow
Ah, yes! You have put into words exactly my reactions to the Matrix trilogy. I loved the first one. Lukewarm about the second one and got annoyed with the third one.
Origin stories of (super) heroes are so much more interesting because as a viewer I empathise with their quest to find themselves, just as I - dear human - am on my own quest to better become myself. Any fighting that occurs in well written origin stories can be seen as more of a metaphor for the character's internal struggle. If the super heroes are already "whole", we're just watching a video fighting game and without the fun of playing it.
Neo did all of his character growth in the first Matrix, and there was no where to go after that, or at least, the subsequent scripts failed to find his vulnerabilities that could have allowed for further growth when confronted with the new situation of the existence of "Zion". They could have looked at his struggle to balance his identity as "the one" with his membership in the larger community, ie: individualism verses society. In other words, they could have dived much more deeply into the flaw of his ego when confronted with the fact that he was one of many "the ones"; perhaps coming to his realisation that his life still matters even if its not the be-end all. They could have even explored the "origin story" of Zion...examining its own flaws and obstacles on a societal level, with the antagonist being "the system". Instead it was presented as if it was perfect from the beginning of episode 2, which made the struggle, well... boring.
Enjoying this series thoroughly. letting this run until the very end hopefully it improves your analytics as you deserve more viewers :)
"A screenwriter comes to a producer in hope he will turn it into a movie. The producer goes: love the story, love the characters but I think we should lose the building-tall gorilla." A joke from the documentary "Who killed the idea?" Who knows how many films suffered from interference from people who just wanted to sell a product.
I was entertained by Guardians but the spectacle example to which i take exception is Civil War. There are a lot of character beats playing out in the airport scene shown.
Even though the fight itself is divided into two sides, a lot of people are there for reasons unrelated to Cap's goal to escape with Bucky and Tony's goal to bring everyone into line. Those motivations, in turn, drive them not only to one side of the other but also, simultaneously, into a number of the moments shared between various characters. Panther's thirst for revenge. Peter's desire to be like the people he idolizes. Vision's developing affection for Wanda. Hawkeye and Widow serving as a microcosm of how these are friends who shouldn't fight, and don't want to, but are caught up in something bigger than themselves.
Civil War isn't Citizen Kane but i think the Russo's actually do a good job of having their action move the story and characters forward, and making it consequential even without killing off their beloved characters (and there's even an in-world reason super powers don't bring those fights to a bloody end ten seconds in).
People always give me shit for not liking Marvel movies anymore and it finally came to a head with GOTG2. I just couldn't stand the boring humor.
You mentioned you'd like us to voice our disagreement, hopefully for a discussion. I don't think that La La Land just stops to sing and dance, I feel that's part of your narrative slow-mo. It tells it's story, moving forward, and I feel the singing and dancing is a physical conversation (if that's a thing) where we're seeing them communicate much like a repeat after me. But hell, I'm just some guy on the internet. You guys know what you're talking about but I don't think that means I'm necessarily wrong.
I'd trade the whole of La La Land for any Fred and Ginger dance number in terms of drama.
Basically you are implying that action Hollywood filmmakers should watch more Martial Arts films, because that is what The Matrix and Star Wars have in common... Althought in the extreme. In Martial Arts movies, the narrative is driven by fights. Everything is mediated by a good fight: the problems, the philosophy, the growth of the characters, and all is only solved through fights. Even more, when the characters are not fighting is when the plot don't move.
Martial Arts films are lovely.
This video sums up my thoughts exactly. Narrative/empathy just screeches to a halt every time a big action scene happens. Excessive visual stimuli is still boring.
Really nice video.
I wonder, what was your opinion on Wonder Woman and, for example, the No Man's Land scene?
One thing that I find interesting was in hearing someone say that they find Superman stories boring because he's all powerful and doesn't have good enemies that could keep a story interesting. My thoughts are that in those situations it's moreso either the writers or the directors if it's one and the same that their own creativity being the issue because if they do not know the characters or not knowing for example the rich history of the tales going back to the golden age of comic's up to now. Or knowing the various things that he cannot be impervious to. For example magic or dark arts. In one area in fighting vampires the real danger was if he was bitten by a Vampire or given a vampires blood there would be a superman vampire.
I'm so glad I didn't see this two years ago when I began editing - I wouldn't have understood. Dr Karen Pearlman is super. I'd love to see another current video with her ideas.
Great video, Sven and Dr. Pearlman. 👍
yeah i didnt like a video as much as you do. lol . have a nice day
Thanks for this. This is why ive always catagorised films into 3 catagorys -good, bad, and fun. Blockbuster action movies are alwats in the fun catagory.
You've put words to my inner feelings. I watch marvel movies not because I want to see a story, but I want to be visually entertained for two hours. People often mistake a movie with high entertainment value for a movie with a great story.
I agree with everything that was covered in this video. I recently saw Thor Ragnorok and I just couldn't place myself in the story and it made it unappetizing to me. Marvel tells their stories on the big screen the same way they do in comics. They add no depth and they add no real ability to connect with the viewer nor really utilize editing strategies. Even if they do use an interesting edit or way of framing, it's to make the scene funny.
So go watch DCEU movie then.
The more serious Marvel movies are the best, with a few exceptions of course. Guardians 1 is great to for example
Rjkz ,bkfy Did this have to be brought up? Its not like the dceu is shit
Hey comics can be great
I think the best example of Narrative action is The Raid movies.
Would love to hear more discussions from you and Dr. Pearlman! I am definitely going to look into buying her book now. But damn do I want to hear you both talk together a lot more!
I don't really remember subscribing but this is amazing. BELL ICON BOIS
Great evaluation of the problem with "spectacle" purely for spectacle. I agree 100% but there are people who enjoy the spectacle. Some enjoy the spectacle in musicals and some hate musicals. Same goes with action movies. I have long thought this about Matrix 1, but never been able to express the idea so well as you have in this video! There is one point where spectacle seems to be more acceptable, that is when it is new, something never seen before like 3D animation, the car chase scene from blues brothers which was the longest chase scene, etc... but it is rare and subjective.
But GotG has action progress the story loads of times, the opening action scene happens as a direct result of Rocket's reckless nature, the action of the Guardians being pursued emphasizes how much of a stupid thing that was to do, the movie then also blends the narrative into the action when Rocket and Starlord fight over who should be flying the ship establishing the ego that both characters must overcome before the end of the film, and this is done through an action scene. Also the part at the beginning with Groot is establishing all of the Guardians as parental figures of the baby, pretty much setting up the entire theme of the film.
I get what you're talking about, but Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 was a terrible example if you were looking for a movie that does action wrong. You should have gone for Man of Steel or something.
Sorry, but I don't think you got the point. Yes, there's a reason behind the action: the narrative led to those specific points. The problem is that the narrative doesn't continue *during* the action. Whenever the characters argue during an action scene, the action basically stops and becomes background fodder that we're suddenly whipped back into when the arguing is abruptly cut off. These movies use action as a *consequence* of the narrative, not as part of the narrative itself.
4:20 you talk about musical numbers being a pause to the narrative. I guess that's true in Western movies but plenty of Bollywood movies push the narrative during musical segments.
I would say it's more true of bad musicals. Off the top of my head, The Nightmare Before Christmas has great, motivated songs that tell the story.
+Nicholas Stop Motion
Although I think I agree, that would probably mean most western musicals are simply bad. I actually feel like a lot of musicals are movies where the story serves essentially as a vehicle to get from song to song. Now I'd actually be sort of fine with that, I'm actually fine with it in several action movies.
The issue then tends to lie more with the fact that I think most of these songs are pretty terrible.
Not to be nitpicky, since you make a good point, but I don't quite think it's fair to say "bad" musicals...
The point is more that there are exceptions to all the points they're making, some of which (like the Matrix) they call out. They're making a general point about most action movies, and the way they're told, which prioritizes spectacle at the expense of story or character progress or emotion. But even action movies that fail at generating empathy are sometimes really fun and worthwhile, as are musicals that have wonderful song-and-dance spectacle scenes that don't move the story forward. Doesn't mean they're bad, necessarily, but still proves their point. They're targeting some movies that seem boring because of this lack of empathy, but not all movies that suffer this issue are boring.
That said, I think Nightmare Before Christmas is a great example of a musical done well, in which the music is part of the narrative. The songs don't pause the story; instead, the filmmakers have chosen certain parts of the story to be communicated through song. If you removed the songs, the story would be unintelligible.
Bad musicals pause the narrative. There are many musicals in which musical numbers are the main source of narrative (Hamilton). Her point is that when narrative and spectacle are separate, the spectacle fails.
I think that also goes for action movies. A good action scene will propel the story forward, not halt it. Take Raiders for example. The chase scene is Indy going after the ark. The whole movie is about going after the ark, so the action is a part of that. If you take something like Return of the Jedi, where Luke and Vader are locked in an emotional duel that ends with a release and Luke gaining the upper hand, so to speak. Same with Captain America Civil War between Cap and Stark. What does happen very often, as is the case with Matrix Reloaded for example, the spectacle gets in the way of the plot moving forward because they just wanted to show off what they could do with evolving technology, whereas in the first movie it was more controlled. It doesn't follow for all of them. And it really depends if you enjoy that sort of thing as well. But it really is a case of "done well" or "done badly". My eyes glaze over during CGI fests like Independence Day 2, where the action is hollow and has no narrative or emotional drive whatsoever. But the opening chase of Casino Royale tells you a lot about the new version of the character and is also great fun. Depends.
Love this series. You really nail so many great truisms about editing. I was struck by your opening statement and thought that you should know this word: wabi sabi. It is Japanese for something imperfect where the imperfections make it better than if it was pure. Here's a link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wabi-sabi
What a coincidence, I literally just watched Guardians of the Galaxy 2 before I saw this and I thought the same thing. I thought the opening scene was really trite, even though I did like the later narrative parts of the film. I also totally had that same experience during the spectacle where I felt like I could safely check out and just look at my phone for a few minutes because I wouldn't really miss anything. I completely agree, the problem is that you just don't feel the characters' pain for the most part.
Like you take that opening sequence as an example, it just feels like a dance. There's neither any sense of danger that the characters might have something to lose, nor any feeling that the fight is actually progressing. The duration and end of these events feels completely arbitrary. They just harmlessly punch, stab and/or shoot at each other until the narrative decides the fighting is over. When you have no sense that anyone important on either side will die or even be seriously hurt, it just feels pointless.
That wasn’t the point of the opening scene. It wasn’t to feel danger. It was to be a thematic statement.
I've just re-watched this and I would not have coined why, but it makes a lot of sense to me. I think the perfect balance that I've seen in "narrative slo-mo" would be the Cowboy Bebop show (and maybe the movie, I can't remember as well). The action always seems motivated and consequential and maybe even touching at some point, because there's no pause in the narrative to show us the choreography as a standalone.
One of the most perfect balances of story and action is Terminator 2. Every turning point in the story is an action scene, and every action scene furthers the plot.
Movie musicals I believe do follow that formula of "here's the narrative and now here is your spectacle. Enjoy.", but good stage musicals, if they aren't musicals trying to play on its awareness of tropes, use their spectacle as a narrative device. This is lost in most movie musicals or adaptations of musicals from stage to film. I love theatre and film and the two often misunderstand each other. I hope one day that gap between the two mediums really is bridged in a successful way where both are represented properly.
Great analysis. Would you (both Karen and Sven) consider the action scene, according to the 'Slo-Mo' proposal, as fraction of the feature film, meant to slowly advance the plot and character's ark (and the overall speech); or a separate fragment, meant to work through the premises (narrative, logical, that build the cinematic universe and its inhabitants) set up through the previous sequences? Like a trail of breadcrumbs, leading to the loaf where it all makes sense, generating both a climax and a sense of accomplishment, by having the audience understood all these pieces and hints, which make the action scene(s) filled with emotion, empathy and so on. Just a thought. Maybe it was already studied in the book, or mentioned by any other YT user. My mistake then.
I actually really loved that intro with Groot. I see where you're coming from. I also saw it on TV and not a huge screen so that might have had a big impact on my experience. When things are blowing up on screen and moving left to right it can get very overwhelming and make me lose interest.
I think now I understand why I didn't like episode 7 of Stranger Things 2. Although the episode by itself was fine, it cut away from the main narrative, which was happening in Hawkins, not Chicago. I also think this is why I personally avoid musicals. I even remember as a kid complaining when they would start singing in movie. I probably wasn't upset about the singing, I was probably more upset that they are cutting away from the story. If I'm engaged in the story, if I really want to find out what happens next (or what happens when the demodogs come out of the hole), don't cutaway from the story - keep it going. Just shows story is king. Thanks!
Great video...and I laughed out loud at the topic of empathy when you cut to the hand smash in Casino. Perfect.
I always waiting for your videos and you are getting better and better and i liked it. do more like this ones. 🤗😊
It makes sense as to the difference between Justice League and Avengers: Infinity War.
In Justice League, the characters are all bulletproof. The only faults they seem to have are the mental blocks of Cyborg and Flash. Meanwhile in Avengers, each character has flaws and weaknesses. Plus the end was a gut punch, realizing how vulnerable these heroes and gods are, to the snap of a finger.
Sven,
I would love if you did a video about starting out as a freelance editor. I just finished my first gig, and I ended up overcharging them. They weren't happy at all. I ended up lowering the price to their liking, but the damage was done. I looked like I was gouging them, and they'll never recommend me to anyone.
If you can make a video about all the stuff beginners should do outside of the actual editing.
Thanks! Love your videos!
great idea.
Love this. Please more of this in terms of approach, content and partnership.
Thank yo very much for this awesome episode! I still have to digest all the information and thoughts you discuss, but that’s what makes great content. Please keep up your work!!! Cheers Jan ☺️🙏
I come with that in mind for superhero movies. It's just to enjoy the action and disconnect about caring for the character. In a way you connect with the character because it's a comic superhero and you feel invincible like hin along the movie. Cool video.
You are both saying that there 'should' be a good balance between action and narrative and that the action sequences 'should' still be in line with the goals of the character, but you completely neglect how action sequences work so well in movies. The movies with many action sequences (for example Marvel) are multi million dollar films and are usually quite successful. So it is fun and all that you talk about how things 'should' be in a movie, but apparently they don't work as well. All my criticism aside, this was an excellent video and was very well put together.
Couldn't agree more. My eyes glaze over during most action scenes. I can't help agonizing over how many opportunities Marvel directors are missing. Super powers are such a fantasy! And they make them look so mundane. Only Marvel movie that came close was Iron Man 1.
I feel like you’re going a little hard on Guardians of the Galaxy in terms of narrative vs spectacle. The majority of the set pieces in Vol 2 heavily involve narrative momentum. Quill and Rocket struggle with their egos in the asteroid field, Gamora struggles with her relationship with her sister on Ego, and Quill struggles with his relationship to his father during the climax. There may be some narrative flow lacking during these events (and this doesn’t get into the body empathy which is lacking in Guardians) but it’s not as if the narrative spectacle balance is nonexistent.
This is a great mix of film theory, psychology, and great editing. Nice work- it’s given me a lot to think about!
I wouldn't say I'm bored during a movie like Guardians Vol. 2, but this kind of narrative inclusion in the fights is what distinguishes a good movie like guardians 2 with a truly great film
Thinking about this in the context of the horror genre and a lot of the comments hit the same. Probably one of the best videos on editing I've ever seen.
Love your channel, very inciteful. I wonder why when this is the criticism do writers/directors/studios not change? Action scenes are boring and you hit the nail on the head as to why.
When Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 came out I went with a friend to see it in the cinema. I hadn't loved the first one but thought it'd be fun; that was the first time I've ever fallen asleep at the cinema, I just didn't care what so ever about the characters or what would happen and just wanted the movie to end. I've noticed that it's big action films like that, superhero ones in particular, that I just don't care for. Saw Ready Player One last week, heard really good things and when it was over I wished I'd gone to see Isle of Dogs instead. Logan is the only 'action/superhero' film that I've enjoyed in the past few years.
I just watched Christine. You can learn a lot about filmmaking from that movie. Brilliant.
The Stephen King adaptation, or the biopic about the reporter who committed suicide?
I had the same question. This biopic with Rebecca Hall, for me, was one of the most overlooked gems in recent years. She deserved an Oscar nod for her work.
I love the Antonio Campos film with Rebecca Hall, even if it's his most accessible film (Afterschool and Simon Killer are his previous films, easily recommended to Michael Haneke fans).
Sometimes it is useful and educational to study a movie style and technique without the sound first to help digest just the visual content. ....works for me.
Another great set of insights. My key take-away: cut to “keep us aligned to a character’s goals and feelings.”
Interesting discussion, I would be interested to learn your views on Bollywood counterparts to Hollywood movies. They often used to stop the narrative with songs which was the spectacle element. One director however, interweaves the songs into the narrative which is why its done him much better. But i love his editing and i would love your analysis on his movie PK, even if it was only the first chapter (or first 15mins or so). He does an amazing job of reeling people in with every movie, and I’d love to understand the secret sauce.
I found Guardians vol 2 deeply engaging, but I think you definitely have a point there. It was an interesting discussion, I'd love to see more of that.
Also, A+ editing. Great job
Oh my god, sensei liked my comment!
What was great about Guardians is the James Gunn wasn't afraid to make these characters extremely flawed. The action was lacking a bit, but he can always improve on that for 3, anyway. Fans have sent him links to this video on twitter, so maybe he watches it and learns something and moves forward. There were things that worked and things that didn't work in Guardians 2, like most movies. Figure out which is which and make the next one. That's all a filmmaker can do, really.
"you said tou are her to help people, but you can't feel their pains, their mortality"
again Wow, I find this series a great help as I am cutting my first documentary and am looking for ways to craft it, these videos with the info about editing help me a lot. Much appreciated. Thank you.
The fights in Matrix are symbolizing that Neo, like everyone, has his story interrupted. With Neo, agent Smith is "life" just stopping him, yet he fights and and continues to try to understand his purpose.
This. Was. Awesome. I’m a film rookie, and this opened my eyes to so many new things! Seriously, thank you.
I think it would be nice to mention some brilliant action movies like Mad Max: Fury Road to compare with.
I disagree I mean I see your point however they are guardians so the majority of they’re film is going to be about fighting or resisting I feel the narrative still moves. Its like watching 2012 and expecting something the power of Schindler's List. For example the narrative is not paused when Peter shots Ego. I’d even go as far as to say they done a great job unlike the matrix 2-3 in tying in there first movie to the second. I mean I was rooting for him to blast that dude to ( a Body to body empathy ), after he said what he did. (Trying to avoid spoilers here). I see your point however I though it was a great movie not an A plus but a solid B and I’d watch it again where as I would not watch Matrix 2 or 3 again. Unless I was studying what not to do.
Thanks for video very cool and I really like it I will be sharing with my screen writing friends, keep up the great work!