Directors and Writers Might Be Sacrificing Plot for "Epicness"

Directors and Writers Might Be Sacrificing Plot for "Epicness"

After reading many of the articles recently posted about X-Men: First Class; and having witnesses many comic book inspired movies myself, it is beginning to scare me that the new trend in CBM making is to overembelish on casting and appearance at the expense of a good plot.

Editorial Opinion
By CallMeSnake - Jan 22, 2011 06:01 PM EST
Filed Under: Other
Source: Comicbookmovie.com

Is it our extreme need for continuation? Or our need for supreme visual effects? Either way, the past decade has seen a number of CBM's made, released, and enjoyed (or hated). However, while many of us will argue that there was an enormous gulf in the class of the movies, I'm going to (attempt) to argue that minor improvements and maybe more time devoted to the films plot/execution of the plot instead of what I call visual "epicness" are all that separate this past decade's Iron Mans from the X-Men Last Stands.

Let's start with the two mentioned films.

Iron Man: The first of what was (and hopefully will be) Marvel's golden generation of movies is probably the best example of the perfect balance between visual and plot balance. The plot was simple and many of us recognized it as an updated version of the original Iron-Man origin story. There was only one arc, and that was to show a spoiled, ignorant billionare make the transition from a merchant of death to ultimately fight what he would have become, a war monger (Incidently, I beleive IMDB had Bridges character in the suit named 'Iron Monger'). Simple, and well executed by a rejuvenated Robert Downey. The visual effects were amazing, and I loved how there was a progression of suits that made the story progress visually as well as mentally.

Now lets take a look at X-Men 3: The Last Stand: After the first two movies, things were looking great (My personal favorite part was towards the end of X2 when we saw the lead-ins to two origins (Pheonix and the Brotherhood). Come Last Stand, we saw the additions of beast, arclight, juggs, angel, yada-ya...maybe some promise - right? Here is a perfect example of directors and writers trying to make things super elaborate. In my opinion, everything went downhill with the opening scene. I don't think script-writers should try to re-write the previously engaged stories and that is exactly what happened. In fact, I think the script writers were so psyched about the possibility of how epic they could have made a "Pheonix Saga" that they forgot how complex that kind of thing would be. The Pheonix thing should have been its own movie entirely. X3 might have been a great movie if they had just focused on the "Mutant Cure" plot. It would have been the perfect way to progress the story which was progressing since the first movie (XMen v Brotherhood) and it would have been great to see a much larger brotherhood take on a more mature XMen squad (Pyro v Iceman, Cyclops v. Multipleman - perhaps, Colossus v. Juggs, etc.). They could have even had Rogue defer and come to blows with Shadowcat. Big upgrade from the first XMen v. Brotherhood fight in X1. Either way, we would still have Cyclops, Prof. X, and Jean for the next movie. Wouldn't we all love to see an XMen 4 with maybe the Jean and Cyclops Sinister Saga or maybe even a Pheonix/Hellfire Club Saga thing? It would have definately saved us from Wolvie's Origins and a potential stinker in First Class...Instead, we got a ridiculous visual spectacle with Pheonix desinigrating everyone and a massive brawl with a mass cluster of weird mutants who we will never relate with.

The thing is, if you keep the plot simple and execute it well, then you will most likely have a chance to make another movie. I know that the reboot is a popular thing these days, but how many of us are tired of rotating actors and starting from scratch less that a few years removed from the originals. I wish I could blame movies like X3, Spidey 3, Transformers 2, etc. on the 3d craze but most of those came out before Avatar.

I'm not saying that we need to sacrifice the visual aspect of movies. I love a great spectacle myself being in the media industry, but I think directors and writers shouldn't skimp on plot just to fit all these characters, visual effects, etc. in. On the reverse, a good plot needs to have stimulating visual aspects that keeps peoples imaginations in awe. Iron Man two...a lot of story, only a few crazy action scenes (A lot of posters to this site complained about the lack of Stark in the Iron Man suit for example). There needs to be a balance. If the movie is a success, it'll help the franchise expand and you'll be asked back to make the next installment.


I'm looking forward to Thor, GL, Cap and especially Avengers.

I like that each Avenger character has their own separate movies with their own separate plots, so that when the Avengers Movie comes out, the back story won't need to be included (simplifying plot execution). I'm sure it will be a visual spectacle, but if they balance it with a well thought out story, it WILL be what X3 could have been and more.

Does anyone agree? Disagree?

This is my first editorial, but I've been visiting this for a while now. Sorry if this article is a bit long, I'm an old english major.

THE 4:30 MOVIE Interview: Filmmaker Kevin Smith On How His Passion For The Theater Shaped New Film (Exclusive)
Related:

THE 4:30 MOVIE Interview: Filmmaker Kevin Smith On How His Passion For The Theater Shaped New Film (Exclusive)

THE FRANCHISE: Trailer For Max Series Starring Daniel Brühl Reveals Chaos Inside World Of Superhero Filmmaking
Recommended For You:

THE FRANCHISE: Trailer For Max Series Starring Daniel Brühl Reveals Chaos Inside World Of Superhero Filmmaking

DISCLAIMER: ComicBookMovie.com is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and... [MORE]

ComicBookMovie.com, and/or the user who contributed this post, may earn commissions or revenue through clicks or purchases made through any third-party links contained within the content above.

PaulRom
PaulRom - 1/23/2011, 6:30 AM
Honestly, as much as I loved the Iron Man movies, I think IM2 focused a little TOO much on story. Enough action to keep interest, but I would've like a little more. And I know some movies focus too much on action (such as X-Men Origins: Wolverine) and not enough story.
I thought The Dark Knight, the Spider-Man series (except for #3; that needed a little bit of fresh air), X-Men, and Iron Man 1 had the perfect balance of action and story.
golden123
golden123 - 1/23/2011, 7:55 AM
Actually, that was not too long what so ever. that was a decent size. Mst writers of Editorials on here don't make their editorials long enough. Also, What annoyed me most about X-men 3 was the fact that Rouge had very little screen time. Rouge was a main character for the first two X-men movies then when the 3rd comes she barley appears. You can't just do that without a good explanation and the explanation that was given quite frankly sucked.
cyclopstb
cyclopstb - 1/23/2011, 8:23 AM
X3 is not the movie I always wanted. I still believe Jean and Cyclops still alive because there's not proof Cyclops died and Jean is not dead because the Phoenix can still be alive in her.

I pray for an X4 to come. I'm not ready for another reboot.
CallMeSnake
CallMeSnake - 1/23/2011, 8:34 AM
@ golden: that was one of my qualms with x3 too. I don't see why the rogue story arc they created in the first movie wasn't examined more. Paquin is a great actress and they really hit the jackpot with her signing on for 3 movies.

@ Paul: agreed. Though I understand what they were trying to do in building and bridging the Avengers franchise...I could have use a bit more action too ( though the whiplash scene at the track had me hopeful until the very end)

@ fangz: Thanks and agreed, at least Marvel is taking a long long look at what they want to do in the future. Hopefully this will create more future oriented movies by other studios.

@ all CBMers: spiderman 1 and 2 did have a great balance, and the dark knight is currently my fav CBM. what movies do u think fit the balanced perspective and which ones do u think don't?
golden123
golden123 - 1/23/2011, 3:44 PM
@callmesnake: Spider-man 3 had a great balance, too. You just don't want to admit it because you think it sucks. The only reason 3 is considered bad is because of the singing and dancing and Venom. Those points don't affect the movie's plot or epicness badly enough to mess up the balance. I actually liked the movie: I'm not a fan of venom and I clearly see he was just trying to impress a girl with his voice and moves. I'm not an music hater like it seems everyone on this site is. Even if you despise those two oints it's no reason to say it's not balanced in the two areas mentioned in this article.
golden123
golden123 - 1/23/2011, 5:30 PM
@fangz: No I don't think Spider-man 3 was imbalanced. Venom was put in the end which didn't make the rest of the movie rushed. I think Sand-man works best as just a crook and I didn't think that melo-drama felt weird.
CallMeSnake
CallMeSnake - 1/23/2011, 8:08 PM
@golden: I never said I hated spider 3, I only said that I thought 1 and 2 had the most balance. I felt much like fangs in that 3 tried to rush venom in while trying to make Harry take his fathers mantel AND have uncle bens killer unmasked...it was just too much, especially if they had planned on making a 4th film. I didn't mind emo-dancing spidey, but venom is big enough to require his own movie.

But like I said, I never said I hated spidey 3, gave it a 6 of 10...but that was well off the mark from the first 2: solid 8s or 9s the both of them.
View Recorder