What do The Matrix, Equilibrium, V for Vendetta and the Book of Eli have in common? All four movies have a dystopian setting, where the protagonist has to constantly face either violence or oppression if not both. Yet once determined, the protagonist has the power to kick everyone's ass at will, do it with foes simultaneously attacking and often even against guns - all this to a supernatural extent.
Does it always make sense? No. Is it entertaining? It can be. Should they be like this? It depends.
Despite their similarities, the movies differ a lot from one another. The plots are very different for example. But that's not the point here. In Matrix, the superiority of Neo was a key factor to the whole plot: the whole story couldn't really exist without it, or at least it would have been very different from what it is. But this really doesn't apply to the three following movies.
In the three later movies the stories could be told even if the protagonist wasn't practically invincible. So basically this superiority boils down to two things. First, it's a matter of style: you get cool or otherwise entertaining fighting scenes, which you might even enjoy watching again. On the other hand it kind of takes away the suspense. When the viewer knows about the skills of the hero, the question on the viewer's mind is more like "how does he kick their asses this time" instead of "how can he make it"?
I watched the Book of Eli a week ago, but for the others it's been a few years. However, if I remember correctly, Equilibrium took the omnipotence of the protagonist to the most ridiculous level - without explaining it in the way Matrix does. Thus, Equilibrium also serves as the best example. I think the basic premise of the movie showed much promise to all those interested in sci-fi. However, had it taken a more realistic approach, it would have had a lot more potential. With a good script and proper realization the story could have been much more powerful.
All in all, the over-the-top superiority can be seen as taking the easy road. First of all, it requires much less from the script. Secondly, it serves as effective trailer material for certain audiences. Third, it can be less risky: even though a movie with emotionally convincing characters, a credible setting in a fascinating world, a lot of suspense and a plot that is engaging from beginning to the end, would probably be preferred even in an action-loving audience, that can be much harder to reach. The cool action on the other hand is more guaranteed to gather at least some kind of an audience, even if the movie would partially fail plotwise.
Sure, I can also enjoy the kind of action that we see in these movies, even if it's usually more silly than exciting. Regardless I'm sometimes left with the feeling that it would be nice to see more of all those Hollywood millions invested in magnificent scripts rather than spectacular visuals. Come to think of it, one of the best examples of this in the sci-fi genre is a story about not a superior, but rather an inferior man, in a movie named Gattaca. Now there's a sci-fi movie I can highly recommend even for those who don't usually like sci-fi.
In the three later movies the stories could be told even if the protagonist wasn't practically invincible. So basically this superiority boils down to two things. First, it's a matter of style: you get cool or otherwise entertaining fighting scenes, which you might even enjoy watching again. On the other hand it kind of takes away the suspense. When the viewer knows about the skills of the hero, the question on the viewer's mind is more like "how does he kick their asses this time" instead of "how can he make it"?
I watched the Book of Eli a week ago, but for the others it's been a few years. However, if I remember correctly, Equilibrium took the omnipotence of the protagonist to the most ridiculous level - without explaining it in the way Matrix does. Thus, Equilibrium also serves as the best example. I think the basic premise of the movie showed much promise to all those interested in sci-fi. However, had it taken a more realistic approach, it would have had a lot more potential. With a good script and proper realization the story could have been much more powerful.
All in all, the over-the-top superiority can be seen as taking the easy road. First of all, it requires much less from the script. Secondly, it serves as effective trailer material for certain audiences. Third, it can be less risky: even though a movie with emotionally convincing characters, a credible setting in a fascinating world, a lot of suspense and a plot that is engaging from beginning to the end, would probably be preferred even in an action-loving audience, that can be much harder to reach. The cool action on the other hand is more guaranteed to gather at least some kind of an audience, even if the movie would partially fail plotwise.
 |
| Ethan Hawke in Gattaca |
No comments:
Post a Comment