I think that's part of why Joe Abercrombie's The Devils works so well. It's definitely a high-stakes fantasy adventure, and ends in the massive, sprawling battle we've come to know and love (and sometimes hate), but it works because he keeps everything rooted in his characters, and the horror most of them feel at what's happening to them. They never stop being themselves, and so we *care* about what happens
Another thing LotR does really well is establish what the characters are defending and then show them carrying a small piece of the Shire within them, even in the darkest moments. I think Sam's line in the Two Towers sums it up best:
"What are we holding on to, Sam?"
"That there's some good in this world, Mr. Frodo. And it's worth fighting for."
The characters carry that fragile goodness within them, and the Shire makes it manifest. Honestly, it's masterful. But then, I guess we knew that already!
Also, as a small note for future reference: I use they/them rather than she/her
Thanks so much for sharing this, and for tagging me in. It was a great read!
Exactly: the establishing of 'the stakes' isn't done cynically, or as a throwaway bit at the start. It's something the story (and characters) return to repeatedly. The 'fridging' trope could probably be applied here, in a way: just as a female character being killed is often used as lazy motivation for a male character's revenge story, so can the 'status quo' world be used as a crutch - used at the beginning to kickstart the story, and then swiftly forgotten or ignored.
Glad you enjoyed it, and thanks for the thought-provoking note in the first place! And noted on the pronouns: have updated in the article.
Although I disagree on Die Hard. McClain may keep his motivation throughout the movie, but he absolutely becomes a superman during film. As I've joked for almost 30 years, there's a shot at the end of the film of McClain -- who has been beaten, burned, and, oh, yes, walked barefoot on broken glass, before climbing an elevator shaft -- where the camera, at a low angle, trucks in (FYI, moving SIDEWAYS is a "dolly," moving forward/backward is a "truck," and "dolly in" is incorrect terminology) on McClain, tilting up as it does, while he gleams in his sweat and rim lighting. And I hate it. It's his "Superman" shot. You wanna convince me Die Hard stays grounded, show me the version of that shot where his adrenaline buzz fades during the truck, and he passes the fuck out.
Of course, sometimes spectacle slop happens in Act II. I'm thinking of Indiana Jones and the Nuked Fridge Aliens here. There's a moment where Shia LeBeouf is straddling two jeeps on a greenscreen stage and he's hit once-twice-three times in the crotch by plants. It's the exact moment when I stopped caring about the movie and muttered to my date, "This movie needs to have some character scenes soon, because I just don't give a crap about anyone." There was no character scenes until after the aliens do whatever they do, by which point it was too late. No, wait, I did muster up one moment of regard for a character after the crotch shots. Shia swinging with the monkeys. That's when I wanted his character to get killed off.
Sometimes one goes the other way -- not enough spectacle, too many character endings. While Peter Jackson did as well as anyone could do with LotR he really drags the ending out (and cuts the "Scouring of the Shire," but that's a different rant.
Babylon 5 also spends interminable episodes dragging out all the character resolutions, with interruptions for occasional action beats as demanded by the show formula.
Now Simon Jones has, so far, nailed his endings, so I have faith in Triverse.
I don't remember that shot! I'll look out for it this Christmas.
I'm still surprised at how poorly conceived Indy 4 was - very unlike Spielberg. Not all of his films are classics, but the mis-use of CG in particular was unexpected, especially on an Indiana Jones project.
We've been watching the Arrow and Flash TV shows with our son, and I *also* watched the Ezra Miller Flash movie with him. It's actually been very educational and enlightening: the contrast is a really good demonstration of how it's not about whether CG is good or bad, but about how you use it. The Flash movie had a huge budget, massively over-uses its CG and incorporates it into the story in really inept ways; the Flash TV show had a comparatively tiny budget, was made 10 years earlier with much less time, and yet is far more successful - because the creators better understood what they had, and how to make use of it.
Anyway, bit of a tangent there. But it comes down to the same thing as Indy 4, and to the original discussion here about why some action finales work and others don't.
Ok, I must be conflating Die Hard with one of its sequels, because I've just watched the last 6 minutes of Die Hard and the shot I'm thinking of doesn't exist (Although the cop gets a low angle, slow motion truck in and tilt).
So I'm probably remembering a shot from whichever Die Hard has him ejecting from an exploding plane and screaming into camera over a bad composite.
Indy 4... A lot of the use of compositing over practical comes from Cate Blanchett being pregnant. Spielberg chose to do more green screen to not take Cate out on location.
Also, Spielberg suffered something common at the time with very skilled filmmakers who were used to mostly practical setups the first time they went mostly virtual -- over indulgence in wacky "impossible" moves and setups. Indy 4 is an example, and so is "Return of the King!"
Compare the battle for Minas Tirith with the Battle for Helm's Deep. Helm's Deep still has a lot of digital assist, but it's still grounded in sets since Helm's Deep is a choke point, while Minas Tirith has a huge open field and a big mountain. You start getting a few shots which are, not to express a strong opinion, or anything, just stupid! (Remembering Jackson, overall, did about as well as is possible with the trilogy...) Like a sequence of the Gondor defenses firing debris via trebuchet and the debris bouncing and rolling through orc soldiers... Except the one piece which approaches the Orc general who steps to the side and dramatically sweeps his cape aside as the chunk of building lands with a thud and doesn't bounce like everything else. It's just a dumb shot. That and Legolas sliding down mammoth trunk.
Jackson got indulgent. RotK's virtual work it's far less grounded than the other two in the trilogy, and less grounded than his King Kong. He had one movie where he dialed it up to 12, then pulled it back later.
Spielberg did the same thing with Indy 4 and "War of the Worlds." War has that scene with Tom Cruise running across the bridge as the alien heat ray moves in a perfect circle around Tom killing everyone else in proximity, and I just laugh. Too much.
Two examples from insanely gifted filmmakers who just went OTT for a couple of films. Both examples of miraculous escapes which just don't land.
Now compare to, say, Robert Rodriguez with "Sin City," or Zach Snyder with "300." Both almost 100% virtual, both comic book films, both extremely stylized, yet both more grounded than the Spielberg and Jackson films discussed above.
That’s the thing with Die Hard: simply by having sequels it undermines the sense of McClane being an everyman-type character. Repeatedly being involved in these massively high stakes situations, and winning out, goes against the original premise.
This is such a thoughtful breakdown of why so many “big finales” fall flat. I think you nailed it with the idea of Fantasy Drift! That creeping loss of connection to what made the story matter in the first place.
Your reminder to “embrace the mundane” really resonated with me. The Shire in Tolkien, McClane crawling through vents muttering to himself, even Spider-Man worrying about homework—those quiet, ordinary details are what make the big moments hit harder. Without them, spectacle is just noise.
I also like your point about keeping characters fallible. Perfect heroes are boring. The best stories let their characters doubt, fail, and flinch, even while doing extraordinary things.
I’m curious how you handle this in your own serial. Do you actively build in “quiet beats” to counterbalance the escalation, or do they emerge naturally in drafting?
In my current serial it's been important to avoid the main characters thinking of themselves as Action Heroes. They're very capable people, one way or another, but the situations they've been forced into are dangerous and frightening and uncomfortable, so the trick there has been in remembering that.
It might be in a brief thought or a more extended conversation, recalling where they've come from and how their current situation is not where they want to be. I suppose having a range of responses is important, too, at least in an ensemble piece: everyone is going to react differently to any given situation, and that can be a useful way to ground the events.
When I first heard about Judgement Day (thanks for spelling "judgement" with an e, like Gillen had wanted 😆), I had dismissed it as another Avengers VS X-Men VS Eternals brawl that I thought would fall into the same traps you mentioned.
But now that you put it like that, I feel like I should give it (and the preceding Eternals run) a try!
I only read it because Gillen was doing it. I’d been reading his Eternals comic out of curiosity, which had been weird and fascinating. I was rather disappointed when I heard he was doing the A.X.E. thing as it just sounded a bit generic and corporate-mandated.
But, it was KG, so I gave it a try, and it turned into quite a remarkable thing. I’m still amazed Marvel was OK with letting him get so strange. :)
His most standout work for Marvel seems to be the stranger stuff, I think - I believe he was the one who wrote the Kid Loki run for Journey into Mystery as well!
I'm glad to hear that his Eternals run was fascinating too! And apparently his Immortal X-Men run ties into A.X.E. as well?
Yeah, I've not read any of his X-Men stuff as it was simply Too Much Marvel at the time (and wasn't really necessary to understand the crossover stuff). All the way back to his Young Avengers run he's been doing excellent work within the Marvel frame.
KG strikes me as a writer who loves puzzles, and his work is often an intricate game of sorts - I get the feeling he enjoys the challenge of working within the creative constraints of big franchises. That's part of the fun, of figuring out how you can do that while retaining your own sensibilities.
To be additive, I'm convinced a reason that the MCU has fallen so far is because the stories have no consequence. They've created a universe that's rich with shareholder-incentivised merchandising deals, so of course they can really never kill of [insert your favourite character]. There's a multiverse! And the good guys become bad guys and vice versa! Audiences just don't care about this stuff - if Frodo must ultimately sacrifice his sense of self/identity for the Shire by accepting the One Ring, we need to feel it. If he can just walk that off, well: no. No one cares. It's why the Rings ending (where he nopes out to Valinor, arguably because he's lost the thing most important to him). We suffer with him, while we celebrate his sacrifice. You just don't get that in the MCU anymore - Disney is addicted to sequels and selling Black Widow merch (which is why we have a new paper-thin Widow).
This is the inherent problem with ongoing serials that don’t have end points. They turn into soap operas, with revolving plots that never really finish anything.
It’s why the MCU period up to Endgame was so much better received: it felt like it was building to something, and then felt like a proper ending. If Disney had never mad another Marvel film (or had waited a decade) it would have been considered a very successful experiment.
In this regard, the movies have successfully adapted the comics, I suppose. :)
A wonderful read, and perfect timing as the action in my own work is ramping up precisely to this danger zone. Thank you for sharing your perspective :)
Such good points here!
I think that's part of why Joe Abercrombie's The Devils works so well. It's definitely a high-stakes fantasy adventure, and ends in the massive, sprawling battle we've come to know and love (and sometimes hate), but it works because he keeps everything rooted in his characters, and the horror most of them feel at what's happening to them. They never stop being themselves, and so we *care* about what happens
Another thing LotR does really well is establish what the characters are defending and then show them carrying a small piece of the Shire within them, even in the darkest moments. I think Sam's line in the Two Towers sums it up best:
"What are we holding on to, Sam?"
"That there's some good in this world, Mr. Frodo. And it's worth fighting for."
The characters carry that fragile goodness within them, and the Shire makes it manifest. Honestly, it's masterful. But then, I guess we knew that already!
Also, as a small note for future reference: I use they/them rather than she/her
Thanks so much for sharing this, and for tagging me in. It was a great read!
Exactly: the establishing of 'the stakes' isn't done cynically, or as a throwaway bit at the start. It's something the story (and characters) return to repeatedly. The 'fridging' trope could probably be applied here, in a way: just as a female character being killed is often used as lazy motivation for a male character's revenge story, so can the 'status quo' world be used as a crutch - used at the beginning to kickstart the story, and then swiftly forgotten or ignored.
Glad you enjoyed it, and thanks for the thought-provoking note in the first place! And noted on the pronouns: have updated in the article.
Thanks for fixing the pronouns!
And you’re so right about fridging, and how this is a similar problem. Ultimately, it’s lazy writing at worst, and careless writing at best
If we want our readers to care about something, we can’t just paint it by numbers. We have to care about it first
Well reasoned points as always.
Although I disagree on Die Hard. McClain may keep his motivation throughout the movie, but he absolutely becomes a superman during film. As I've joked for almost 30 years, there's a shot at the end of the film of McClain -- who has been beaten, burned, and, oh, yes, walked barefoot on broken glass, before climbing an elevator shaft -- where the camera, at a low angle, trucks in (FYI, moving SIDEWAYS is a "dolly," moving forward/backward is a "truck," and "dolly in" is incorrect terminology) on McClain, tilting up as it does, while he gleams in his sweat and rim lighting. And I hate it. It's his "Superman" shot. You wanna convince me Die Hard stays grounded, show me the version of that shot where his adrenaline buzz fades during the truck, and he passes the fuck out.
Of course, sometimes spectacle slop happens in Act II. I'm thinking of Indiana Jones and the Nuked Fridge Aliens here. There's a moment where Shia LeBeouf is straddling two jeeps on a greenscreen stage and he's hit once-twice-three times in the crotch by plants. It's the exact moment when I stopped caring about the movie and muttered to my date, "This movie needs to have some character scenes soon, because I just don't give a crap about anyone." There was no character scenes until after the aliens do whatever they do, by which point it was too late. No, wait, I did muster up one moment of regard for a character after the crotch shots. Shia swinging with the monkeys. That's when I wanted his character to get killed off.
Sometimes one goes the other way -- not enough spectacle, too many character endings. While Peter Jackson did as well as anyone could do with LotR he really drags the ending out (and cuts the "Scouring of the Shire," but that's a different rant.
Babylon 5 also spends interminable episodes dragging out all the character resolutions, with interruptions for occasional action beats as demanded by the show formula.
Now Simon Jones has, so far, nailed his endings, so I have faith in Triverse.
I don't remember that shot! I'll look out for it this Christmas.
I'm still surprised at how poorly conceived Indy 4 was - very unlike Spielberg. Not all of his films are classics, but the mis-use of CG in particular was unexpected, especially on an Indiana Jones project.
We've been watching the Arrow and Flash TV shows with our son, and I *also* watched the Ezra Miller Flash movie with him. It's actually been very educational and enlightening: the contrast is a really good demonstration of how it's not about whether CG is good or bad, but about how you use it. The Flash movie had a huge budget, massively over-uses its CG and incorporates it into the story in really inept ways; the Flash TV show had a comparatively tiny budget, was made 10 years earlier with much less time, and yet is far more successful - because the creators better understood what they had, and how to make use of it.
Anyway, bit of a tangent there. But it comes down to the same thing as Indy 4, and to the original discussion here about why some action finales work and others don't.
Ok, I must be conflating Die Hard with one of its sequels, because I've just watched the last 6 minutes of Die Hard and the shot I'm thinking of doesn't exist (Although the cop gets a low angle, slow motion truck in and tilt).
So I'm probably remembering a shot from whichever Die Hard has him ejecting from an exploding plane and screaming into camera over a bad composite.
Indy 4... A lot of the use of compositing over practical comes from Cate Blanchett being pregnant. Spielberg chose to do more green screen to not take Cate out on location.
Also, Spielberg suffered something common at the time with very skilled filmmakers who were used to mostly practical setups the first time they went mostly virtual -- over indulgence in wacky "impossible" moves and setups. Indy 4 is an example, and so is "Return of the King!"
Compare the battle for Minas Tirith with the Battle for Helm's Deep. Helm's Deep still has a lot of digital assist, but it's still grounded in sets since Helm's Deep is a choke point, while Minas Tirith has a huge open field and a big mountain. You start getting a few shots which are, not to express a strong opinion, or anything, just stupid! (Remembering Jackson, overall, did about as well as is possible with the trilogy...) Like a sequence of the Gondor defenses firing debris via trebuchet and the debris bouncing and rolling through orc soldiers... Except the one piece which approaches the Orc general who steps to the side and dramatically sweeps his cape aside as the chunk of building lands with a thud and doesn't bounce like everything else. It's just a dumb shot. That and Legolas sliding down mammoth trunk.
Jackson got indulgent. RotK's virtual work it's far less grounded than the other two in the trilogy, and less grounded than his King Kong. He had one movie where he dialed it up to 12, then pulled it back later.
Spielberg did the same thing with Indy 4 and "War of the Worlds." War has that scene with Tom Cruise running across the bridge as the alien heat ray moves in a perfect circle around Tom killing everyone else in proximity, and I just laugh. Too much.
Two examples from insanely gifted filmmakers who just went OTT for a couple of films. Both examples of miraculous escapes which just don't land.
Now compare to, say, Robert Rodriguez with "Sin City," or Zach Snyder with "300." Both almost 100% virtual, both comic book films, both extremely stylized, yet both more grounded than the Spielberg and Jackson films discussed above.
That’s the thing with Die Hard: simply by having sequels it undermines the sense of McClane being an everyman-type character. Repeatedly being involved in these massively high stakes situations, and winning out, goes against the original premise.
This is such a thoughtful breakdown of why so many “big finales” fall flat. I think you nailed it with the idea of Fantasy Drift! That creeping loss of connection to what made the story matter in the first place.
Your reminder to “embrace the mundane” really resonated with me. The Shire in Tolkien, McClane crawling through vents muttering to himself, even Spider-Man worrying about homework—those quiet, ordinary details are what make the big moments hit harder. Without them, spectacle is just noise.
I also like your point about keeping characters fallible. Perfect heroes are boring. The best stories let their characters doubt, fail, and flinch, even while doing extraordinary things.
I’m curious how you handle this in your own serial. Do you actively build in “quiet beats” to counterbalance the escalation, or do they emerge naturally in drafting?
In my current serial it's been important to avoid the main characters thinking of themselves as Action Heroes. They're very capable people, one way or another, but the situations they've been forced into are dangerous and frightening and uncomfortable, so the trick there has been in remembering that.
It might be in a brief thought or a more extended conversation, recalling where they've come from and how their current situation is not where they want to be. I suppose having a range of responses is important, too, at least in an ensemble piece: everyone is going to react differently to any given situation, and that can be a useful way to ground the events.
That’s great advice! I’ll make sure to keep that in mind. I’m on a writing sprint at the moment so this is very relevant right now.
When I first heard about Judgement Day (thanks for spelling "judgement" with an e, like Gillen had wanted 😆), I had dismissed it as another Avengers VS X-Men VS Eternals brawl that I thought would fall into the same traps you mentioned.
But now that you put it like that, I feel like I should give it (and the preceding Eternals run) a try!
Oh, also, some great insights here - thank you! 😄
I only read it because Gillen was doing it. I’d been reading his Eternals comic out of curiosity, which had been weird and fascinating. I was rather disappointed when I heard he was doing the A.X.E. thing as it just sounded a bit generic and corporate-mandated.
But, it was KG, so I gave it a try, and it turned into quite a remarkable thing. I’m still amazed Marvel was OK with letting him get so strange. :)
His most standout work for Marvel seems to be the stranger stuff, I think - I believe he was the one who wrote the Kid Loki run for Journey into Mystery as well!
I'm glad to hear that his Eternals run was fascinating too! And apparently his Immortal X-Men run ties into A.X.E. as well?
Yeah, I've not read any of his X-Men stuff as it was simply Too Much Marvel at the time (and wasn't really necessary to understand the crossover stuff). All the way back to his Young Avengers run he's been doing excellent work within the Marvel frame.
KG strikes me as a writer who loves puzzles, and his work is often an intricate game of sorts - I get the feeling he enjoys the challenge of working within the creative constraints of big franchises. That's part of the fun, of figuring out how you can do that while retaining your own sensibilities.
To be additive, I'm convinced a reason that the MCU has fallen so far is because the stories have no consequence. They've created a universe that's rich with shareholder-incentivised merchandising deals, so of course they can really never kill of [insert your favourite character]. There's a multiverse! And the good guys become bad guys and vice versa! Audiences just don't care about this stuff - if Frodo must ultimately sacrifice his sense of self/identity for the Shire by accepting the One Ring, we need to feel it. If he can just walk that off, well: no. No one cares. It's why the Rings ending (where he nopes out to Valinor, arguably because he's lost the thing most important to him). We suffer with him, while we celebrate his sacrifice. You just don't get that in the MCU anymore - Disney is addicted to sequels and selling Black Widow merch (which is why we have a new paper-thin Widow).
This is the inherent problem with ongoing serials that don’t have end points. They turn into soap operas, with revolving plots that never really finish anything.
It’s why the MCU period up to Endgame was so much better received: it felt like it was building to something, and then felt like a proper ending. If Disney had never mad another Marvel film (or had waited a decade) it would have been considered a very successful experiment.
In this regard, the movies have successfully adapted the comics, I suppose. :)
OTOH, you never want to undermine the character development from the last story. Or anything else, either. But character development is important.
Some good series have the main character static, and act as a mentor (and catalyst) toward the ever shifting secondary characters.
Wow!
I'm not normally into this genre and I didnt expect to read the whole thing - but damn. Loved it! So many nuances that never occured to me.
A wonderful read, and perfect timing as the action in my own work is ramping up precisely to this danger zone. Thank you for sharing your perspective :)