I love how Bloopus uses a sword, a simple but very straight and effective weapon, reflecting his straight no-BS true-seeking nature, while Bleepus has a nunchakus, a flexible but powerful and difficult to control weapon, reflecting her passion to protect her friends no matter what. Great characterization.
I think it was written like that because with nunchakus, the most important part is the CONNECTION between the two end things. This represents Bleepus's world view. Whereas a sword's strength lies in it's purity, and like you said, it's strait edged, no BS nature. Just like Bloopus. I could write a lot more about the wealth of depth in those two characters, but I wont.
one usues an actual weapon, the other uses a terrible imitation of a weapon that requires 10 times the training but is half as useful as a regular stick
“‘It’s a movie’ (story) isn’t your free pass to treat everything as unimportant, but it is your free pass to decide what’s important.” I love this quote so much.
I have a feeling that at some point, some studio-head was like, "What do you mean she's just called 'the lady'? Who ever heard of a main character without a name? You will lose the audience; the character has to have a name to be relatable! What? What does Clint Eastwood and some Italian guy have to do with this? We're selling Western films here, not some Spaghetti-loving art house film: I'm talking AMERICAN WESTERN. Give the broad a name by next week or lose her, I don't care which!" And that's how I imagine Sharon Stone came to be credited as 'Ellen.'
I think probably the best example of this principle is martial arts films. No one ever wins just because they're better, everyone is good at fighting so there has to be some reason your protagonist is gooder. Usually there's the premature showdown to demonstrate the protagonist isn't ready yet and gets their but kicked, then they learn and grow and because of that growth they win
@@noahwilliams8996 Nothing is truly random. We can't predict the dice because of the complex nature of physic. But, the dice followed the law of physic. Same thing for atom. It gives the most random motion in the universe and yet it has a mechanic underneath it. Something no computer could generate.
When "making characters fight" it's important to create a situation that is impossible for both characters to benefit from. Only one character will succeed and that's what creates the conflict, otherwise they'd just compromise and avoid a fight.
Sometimes it's even better if there was in fact a way for both characters to benefit, but for some way or an other they don't manage to reach it. It makes the fight and the subsequent destruction all the more tragic
@@guil7290 sure there just can't be an "obvious" way for both of them to benefit or they won't fight and if it's a physical fight then stakes should be very high.
I’d argue there is also the case where they just wouldn't compromise. It’s entirely plausible there is a situation where both sides could compromise and benefit but one or even both sides are either to stupid, pig headed, or just don’t care to back down. It’s not just potential gain that drives conflict. Sometimes people do things simply because they want to based on various less quantifiable motivations.
@@CeliriaRose because comprimises mean you will loose something inevitably. Some people prefer to fight than to give up what they believe is rightfully theirs. That's why humans are so agressive and wage so many wars
Like the old saying goes, “Early bird catches the peak writing advice to propel the, past the competition, securing their future as the best writer on the face of the planet. Be on the lookout for INFINIUM.” Thanks Local script guy 👍🏾
Where most would just shrug or lie awake one random night feeling anxious about the video essay that didn't live up to its full potential, this guy puts his money where his mouth is and DOES OVER, like he promised he would. Outstanding. The rigor, ethics and dedication to your craft is a goddamn example to us all and I shall never again clash my character action figures randomly together - unless that's somehow a selfaware plot point. Also did you just call me a fornicator?!
My only counter-point to this really good essay is that the 'winner' of a fight isn't always the character who's still alive by the end of it. If a good action scene is one that's linked to the psychological development of the characters involved, then so is the determination of who the victor and the loser are in that action scene as well. While the tile-shard-thingy is definitely a convenience, Rick dies firmly believing in his ideals while Peacemaker's conviction in his own ideals weakens, resulting in his inevitable fuckening. There's also the possibility that both sides in an action scene can 'lose' the fight, regardless of the physical outcomes. If a story's theme is 'A' (what the writer/god believes is 'right') and the two characters whacking each other over their heads believe in 'B' (what the writer/god believes is wrong), then the winner would have to deal with consequences that mimic the pain that the loser experienced. A good example of this would be *(spoilers for The Last of Us Part II)* Ellie killing Nora. Nora gets tortured to death and Ellie gets the information she wants from her, but Ellie's actions result in her own mental torture.
The video is great, but I'm especially glad because you BROUGHT UP THE PEACEMAKER FIGHT AGAIN! I've been wanting to respond to that shit in a way that works with the emotional variables in this video. The Suicide Squad doesn't actually use conviction as the primary variable, it's actually the value of action in the face of death. And in this way Rick losing because of luck is thematically sticky to how the others die in the film, but Rick's death actually has meaning in driving Peacemaker reflect on his convictions and its possibility of being wrong, in spite of his victory.
@@BigToody Rick Flag is a side character, so him dying allows Bloodsport to win his fight with Peacemaker from him deciding to be a hero (his arc). The big part of suicide squad is that characters lives are thrown away, as they are expendable, so Rick just dying fits with it. It's not meant to be a big character moment, just another tragic death because he's a part of the squad
But I think if it's meant to be because of luck you don't need a fight tho, you could write it like flag gets injured because of the ceiling crumbling or like It knocks him out just enough for peacemaker to have his gun painting at, or like he breaks his leg or something so he has no chance, peacemaker he hesitates and maybe tries once again to discuss It but rick doesn't budge, so he ends up killing him, and then he takes a moment to reconcile with his decision before being interrupted by ratcatcher
Peacemaker can still reflect on what happened if Rick just says “This isn’t justice, this is a joke” and then peacemaker puts him down and Idris Elba shoots him, same outcome.
Action scenes in action movies are like songs in musicals. It's not just "if you take the song/action scene out, you miss something" - no, the song/action scenes *are* the cruxes of the whole story, the part where you see the epitome, the incarnation of what's going on in the plot and characters. The non-action stuff, the few lines that aren't sung - those are just the tissue that connects the songs/action scenes where we really see the characters. The classic Disney 'I Want' song that sets up everything important you expect from the main character. The climactic battle that shows you that, now that your previously solo protagonist is willing to accept help, your hero *with his friends* defeats the main villain in a way he wouldn't have if it weren't for the unique tactics, talents, whatever of those friends he tried to fight without. If it's a key inner conflict an important character, have them sing it. If there's a conflict between the protagonist and his lancer, have them fight it out in the ring. If the action or the songs are what drives your audience to experience your story, make the action or songs the place where the 'juice' is in the story. Then, it's not just cinematic junk food.
I want to point out the John Wick movies as a popular example of action movies that get to have their cake and eat it too in this regard. All four movies are, cover to back, a series of action scenes where John Wick & friends tear through legions of bad guys because they're built different and it's awesome to watch. However, when it really counts at the end of each movie, the final conflict comes down to more than that. In the first movie, John gets the obvious motivation of his dog being killed, which is a stand in for his dead wife and his memory of her. He uses this willpower to tear through armies of dudes in suits until he's captured, which is the first scene where he wins not because he's better, but because he has friends and people he relies on, which is a recurring theme, that no man is an island. Willem Dafoe helps him out, and he confronts the big bad Russian, who he forces to give up his son. John gets his revenge, and big bad Russian has to come to terms with the fact that he sold out his son to save his own life. Willem Dafoe is caught and murdered, and we fast track to the final confrontation. Big bad Russian is now exposed, having given up his son and being driven to insane action. He sends his right hand man out to die, and he loses the final fight with John Wick not just because he's better, but because he has literally given up everything he had (his son mostly), while John still has everything he was fighting for. Okay, onto the second movie. The second movie is pretty simple. Just when John thought he was out, they pulled him back in, and the guy who pulled him back in is obviously the antagonist. In the first half of the movie, John is basically working on autopilot, not really certain what he's fighting for, and is forced to kill a friend. However, when the dude that hired him inevitably turns on him, he is given a proper revenge motivation and is again forced to turn to his friends for aid, which is the only reason he makes it out, again. The bad Italian man gets cocky and thinks he's safe inside the hotel, only for John Wick to shoot him in the end and break the hotel's rules ("Jonathan, no. No, Jonathan, don't do it. If you shoot him, we'll take away all your gold doubloons, Jonathan, I swear.) The guy loses to his hubris, and John wins because there's nothing left for him to lose by breaking the rules. This one is barely a fight at the end and all comes down to the themes. Okay, so the third movie is long and has a ton of final fights, but really it hinges on John figuring out what the hell he's actually fighting for. He's basically just in survival mode, but now that he's excommunicado, he decides his best bet is to get himself reinstated, and when he meets the French dude from La Haine, he says outright that he's living to remember his wife. However, when he is told to kill Winston in order to be reinstated, he gets close, but refuses, showing that his loyalty to his friends is really what's keeping him around. The final fight really is just a slog that John wins because he's built different, but it involves others fighting alongside him to win, for the most part, which is cool. Then, the ultimate betrayal happens when Winston shoots him off the building. Also, I should mention that the movie has been showing the consequences of John's actions on his friends the whole time, with his Russian posse, Winston, and Larry Fishburne being punished for his actions. Finally, the fourth movie kinda rolls back the ending of the third by making John Wick friends with Winston again, but it keeps his ending motivation to tear down the Table. This is because they are the ones punishing his friends, but also it is the only way he could ever really be free. Lots of shit happens with lots of characters, and it finally comes to a head with Bill Skarsgard. John loses the fight with his blind friend because, for the first time in the series, he has more of a reason to win than John (protecting his daughter) and John more or less lets him win. Bill Skarsgard then loses due to his hubris (again, always happens with these villains) and John frees his friends, plus himself by dying. So yeah, in conclusion, you can have the most action-heavy, pew pew movies ever and still end them off with a satisfying, meaningful final conflict that addresses the themes of the movie. They're not perfect, but damn are they good.
When making action scenes for my comics, I start from "moments" first to create structure. Think about your "big panels" first, which are the equivalent of a big, panning slo-mo shot or a pause in the action for speech, rest or tension. Then run in these staccato small panels/shots/ moments that build the tension up to them (side note: modern long scroll comics are often bad for action because they don't use small panels effectively, everyshot is a big full-bleed panel and it just drags). I find that showing the emotional reaction to every action really helps add narrative power and ground the fight, stopping it being like watching action figures bashed together. Rhythm and emotional payoff are key!
That character sheet has been helping me a bunch in realizing my two main characters wouldn't act like I had planned for the story, so I'm really looking forward to a second version that goes into more detail!
@@samant7101I believe it was the last video posted that our man left a character sheet pdf for you to look at. Something like that. Might have to look in the comments.
@@samant7101A couple weeks ago Lucas shared a PDF on his consulting website under a new "Resources" tab. It's based largely on his Arcs and Act Structures video about core and false beliefs. You don't need to pay anything to access it, and he made a version with and without examples.
Your videos are insanely helpful man. I've been trying to flesh out the main character in the comic I'm starting but I was struggling to tie his detachment due to his fear of death and suffering into the overall plot. This video helped me to not only tie this struggle of his into the ultimate conflict of the story, but also immediately allowed me to flesh out his relationships with both his romantic interest and friend in a way that is not just likely to be more engaging but also really drives home the themes of the story. The story's themes focus on how different people respond to suffering and cruelty, specifically the main character and his fear of those things, and with this one video you've helped me make sense of the way in which every aspect of this world I'm making relates to each other haha. You're doing great work, thanks a million.
Hey, don't underestimate the quality of the original script for this video. It was head and shoulders above other such content and instantly earned you a subscriber. Big fan keep it up dude.
Obviously hard agree. What's baffling to me is how many people don't actually get that. There is so many action movies that are praised, yet this doesn't exist there at all.
I certainly hope the end of this channel doesn’t come any time soon (save out of necessity, life gets trying, I’m savvy), I genuinely don’t think there is or can be another ‘LocalScriptman’
Not just fight scenes but also all other action too. Why can they suddenly perform the cool trick? Because they overcame their mental block and so complete their arc by being able to do it onstage. Why did they win the big race? Why did they figure out how to fly or use magic again at last minute? Etc.
3:48 hot take this is why I really don't find John Wick that interesting, its just power stats, John Wick is the best just because he is, he avoids getting shot fatally because, and even if he seemingly fights just as well as every other dude he wins because you know. And sure that seems like every action movie, or like 80s action flicks with super-powered dudes, but those had some actual story/narrative, one that connected villain and hero, or had some motivation for the hero, instead of random assassins being pulled out of a hat that are apparently 'the best assassins ever' just to fight our hero just because they have to. Please correct me if I'm wrong or generalising a deeper underlying story here because all I'm seeing is dude lost wife, dude lost dog, one of which is completely unconnected to any villain or larger narrative, and the dog death was the only thing driving the first movie, every movie since just rides on that premise with no real emotional stakes or motivation for the hero. When James Bond had to kill his villain he was ofc like every hero protected by plot armour, but he had to pull out some clever thinking to do defeat them, he doesn't defeat a villain by just marching up some steps and one-shotting every goon, he did it by figuring out the plan, figuring out the weakness, figuring out SOMETHING about the plot, or if he was in a car chase there's always some clever move that he pulls out, not just shooting every person in the head. I don't know i just really can't grasp there being anything clever about John Wick except the brilliant stunt choreography, the writing just seems so dull.
I don't think this is a hot take at all. John Wick is awesome, and is by far one of my favourite movie franchises, but there really isn't a whole lot going on until the 4th one. John Wick 4 is really the only movie that plays with the idea of what being John Wick is, ie: Wick is so good that he keeps surviving, but his friends he requests to help him not die die in his place because they're not as nasty as he is. I think John Wick is really engaging, and I'm always sitting there with a smile on my face as I watch it, but it's not an emotionally deep tale at all. And I totally don't fault people for simply not giving af about John Wick for what in my opinion are very valid reasons. People get different things out of their media consumption and it's important to take good advice for what it is while realising that some of the most successful stories out there can really have little to no meaning at all.
I wanna argue that the Rick Flagg/Peacemaker fight was less about the actual fight. like Peacemaker winning the brawl wasn't the end of the conflict, because in the process of protecting the mission- which PM has convinced himself is The Right Thing- he kills one of the only morally unambiguous characters in the movie, and that fucks with him after the fact, which possibly contributed to him losing the final showdown against Bloodsport. he wins the fight but loses the battle, if that makes any sense
So, essentially what I am hearing here and please correct me if I am wrong... is that action scenes/fights are just as much about the exchange of blows as they are about CHARACTER, why they fight, how they fight, why they are fighting NOW and not 30 minutes ago. What I am learning here is that you need to understand the reasons your characters would fight, the reasons behind them, and the differences or contrast between two characters that would MAKE them fight, the resolution of the fight sending some sort of message about the characters themselves. Booboo has his opponent, Bibi, on the ropes. Booboo has a strict code of honor. When Bibi gets his weapon knocked out of his hand and Booboo has the chance to go in for a killing blow and doesn't, it shows us his willingness to live by his code of honor. And when the fight gets harder as Bibi, who has no such code, fights dirty/efficiently, what will happen? Will Booboo break his code in order to save himself or the person he's fighting for? Will Bibi continue to exploit this code because he is that desperate for victory? These are all just fascinating! Thank you for teaching me so much, I really appreciate your advice! I will be sure to put it into practice in my future work!
I put aside time and watched the quick and the dead before watching this video, and while I loved the movie I must say the little scream and backwards flip the bad guy did when he died totally killed any kind of tension for me, it was SO FUNNY
(Short version of my comment from the previous upload): Disagree on the TSS take. Rick Flag can lose the fight and his arc still be satisfying. His fate (death) does hinge on his choice (going against his orders), and the outcome is no more or less a coinflip than which gunslinger is a better shot. That said, love your stuff man!
On the one hand, I absolutely love these videos as they're invaluable pieces of advice from an industry professional that will help me elevate my craft and produce more meaningful works of art. On the other hand, I can almost see a percentage bar reading _"how much of my manuscript I have to redraft"_ slowly filling up as i watch...
Love this channel. I feel like we have similar perspectives on what is important in a story and how stories work (at least from our perspectives) and you sometimes help me better understand my own perspectives and how to implement them, with your clear and concise, yet funny monotone. Thank you!
From a writing standpoint I have to disagree with the central thesis here. The Peacemaker example is not really a good example to use as an example of this kind of thing being done poorly, because in that example you're not *supposed* to get the good ending, the morally correct one isn't *supposed* to win. I'm not going to pretend it's high cinema, but reducing it to absolutely nothing is just kind of unhelpful. There's plenty of ways to write meaningful action scenes where the morally just person doesn't win--that's why things like GoT are so popular, because people enjoy writing like that--and the Peacemaker thing is one of them. I think you're mistaken in thinking that the fight with Peacemaker and Flag (i think that was his name i honestly don't remember) was supposed to be the big dramatic moment where the arc is concluded. If that *was* the conclusion, sure, it would be a little unfulfilling, but in exactly the scene you talk about with the death from the sharp thing we see Peacemaker be pretty conflicted about it, and there's still more movie to go where he has ANOTHER fight which ends differently, and that fight WAS the dramatic ending of using conflict to symbolize action scenes. The Peacemaker Flag fight wasn't *trying* to be a dramatic ending, so of *course* it's not going to stand up to scrutiny, it's supposed to be a dramatic middlepoint to further set up the dramatic ending later down the line. I mean, come on, I'm sure plenty of scenes in the other movies you mentioned as positive examples would fare pretty poorly if we analyzed them like that. What about that scene where the villain in the western shoots his own kid? That wasn't some big dramatic character conflict that the whole movie rested on where both sides won and lost because of their conflicting morals--it was *setup*, and we'd rightfully call anyone who tried to say it was a bad scene because of it insane. There's just so many better examples of actually poor writing out there to look at and learn from, but this is the one example that was given that actually gives the entirely wrong idea.
This. I think he's married to a slightly sub par take he had a while ago, where he's half correct. He's right that a conclusion to a movie shouldn't hinge on purely "who's better at fighting", but wrong that every action scene has to be like that. Still, one miss in a series of bangers.
Agree with this, though also the Suicide Squad scene muddies it a little by having Flagg nearly win only for Peacemaker to win moments before suffocating. It reduces Peacemakers decision to kill Flagg because in that moment he had no choice but to act out of self defence. The fight should have ended with Peacemaker winning in a fight and Flagg no longer being a threat, only for Peacemaker to murder him anyway. This would then set up Peacemaker doing the same with Ratcatcher, only to hesitate due to his regret, allowing Bloodsport time to arrive.
Would you consider that perhaps the fight in the Suicide Squad IS determined by thematic progress? I SWEAR I'm not trying to claim this movie is better than it is or anything, and it has been a while since my last viewing, but I got the impression that there was more going on with it the first time I watched it, and I think I might have figured it out: Up until this point, both characters were unstoppable because both of the characters were all-in for the mission and doing whatever they needed to do to get through it. After Rick learns the truth, his morality gets the better of him and he can't keep the same single-minded focus on getting the job done, whereas Peacemaker has no such qualms or hesitation. This translates on a micro scale in the fight, where both characters are evenly matched for most of the altercation, but in the final moments, Rick is so focused on doing what he thinks is right (killing Peacemaker as proxy for taking down Amanda Waller) that he fails to take in the threat of the environment and neutralize it before proceeding. It seems to me that if Flagg was better at playing poker/chess, he wouldn't have tipped his hand regarding not wanting to follow through with destroying the information (I might be misremembering this part), he wouldn't have had to fight Peacemaker in the first place. Likewise, if he had been looking for the most efficient way to kill his adversary, he wouldn't have been trying to strangle someone whose hands were free around shattered tile. He lost sight of the bigger picture when he thought he would be the hero. Rick Flag's problem is that he changed, but the world didn't change with him, so when he decides to be a hero, he is punished severely for it. Could it be that this frustrated you because the character who loses does so BECAUSE of his arc, rather than a failure to grow? The 'rules' of the Suicide Squad's narrative universe/genre seem to be that the characters have to stay the same or they will die; the moment Polkadot-man begins to feel like he can do good in this world is the moment that he is crushed. No one who survives to the end of the film has learned anything, and that is the secret to their success (before you tell me anything about Harley, bear in mind that all of her growth happens before film begins, as she has already made several resolutions with herself, including not to ignore any red flags, so to speak - we simply get to witness her ongoing struggle with trying to live her ideals as previously determined).
@@Fudobi my argument would be that Bloodsport doesn't grow; he adapts. From beginning to end, his motivation is to keep his daughter out of trouble while staying alive, if possible, and that doesn't change at any point. He consistently demonstrates a preference for following a code and doing what he considers to be the right thing, but he is always strategic and pragmatic about when he makes a stand. To be clear, I realize that Gunn states that Bloodsport learns a lot and is a better character by the end, but I really don't believe that is true. The entire reason he isolates himself from others in the first place is that he has a tendency to care about people he gets close to, and that complicates things for him; he prefers things to be black and white so his way forward is clear. And, lest anyone say that he learns the value of friendship, please remind me how upset he is over the death of Polkadot-man - does he have any reaction deeper than being startled? He is a more effective leader by the end because he learns how to be supportive and influence his teammates, but I wouldn't count skills as character growth if they don't change his perspective.
@@M4TCH3SM4L0N3 i feel like his skills as a leader are reflective, of how he changed, he wants his daughter to say out of trouble but he doesn't know how to connect with her and doesn't know how feels or what she needs so he just stays away, and that's part of what he learns he knows how to connect with his teammates to speak on their level, like with polkadot and king shark in how he gets them to fight, and that's because he took the time to let them in instead of distancing himself from the problem, similar to his fear of rats he opens up and tries to face it to overcome it
@@Fudobi that's certainly a fair take on the matter, and if you do take that angle, it would make my first point invalid. I personally still take it the other way, and I say that because I don't think that he would be any quicker to let anyone else in after this experience, and I don't get the impression that he's going to go reconnect with his daughter, either. Put another way, I don't think that any progression we witnessed in the film is going to translate to future scenarios. Maybe I am being too rigid with my definition of character growth, but I'm cool with that if you are. 😉
In defense of the Rick flag vs peacemaker fight, the way I see it is that one massive reoccurring thing in the movie is about the characters having someone by their side, whether it is just a someone or it’s a group or even a country. Rick lost because he lost his loyalty to America with no one with him to back him up and be there for him (he and ratcatcher were not close at all. She even seemed emotionally against him defecting up until he was killed) but peacemaker still had his iron strong loyalty and so he, the one backed by America in his heart, of course beat Rick who in his heart was betrayed by the country he gave all of his support to. Peacemaker then went on to try and kill rat catcher and then “died” to bloodsport, who seeing the girl he had solidified a connection mutually, being held at gunpoint by the guy who was now abandoning his team and severing a group of people he had at his side, locked in and popped his ass. Because American never really was on peacemakers side, they did not give a fuck about him, but ratcatcher and bloodsport had a real connection, which is something Rick didn’t have at all at that point. So Rick lost because he had no connections while peacemaker had at least a one sided fake connection. Then peacemaker lost because his fake connection didn’t stack up to the real connection formed between bloodsport and ratcatcher, he lost to the power of friendship, and Rick’s death was. NOT random, or even for the sake of the plot. At least that’s what it is to me
I think it deserves mention that the reason lady was so good at shooting is cuz her useless with a gun in her flashback prevented her from saving her father. Not just cuz she had the moral high ground. I think it also adds depth to the villain guys death who caused the one who killed him to get that skill in the first place because of his messed up games.
I personally prefer when the outcome of a fight comes down to who understands the other and the world rules better. Like in the Sanji ( A SIMP who never skips leg day) vs Bon Clay ( who can copy others appearances) fight, in One piece, in which Bon Clay starts off winning by shapeshifting into a beautiful woman and abusing Sanji's morality. Only for the cook to realize fighting in another person's body is hard, so Bon Clay always changes back to the original body right before attacking, wich opens a tiny window. Same thing with Spiderman across the spiderverse, where nobody mentions to Miguel that Miles has a shocking personality, but Miguel isn't shy to show miles that his suit is full of electronics.
Solid video, my man. I’m fairly good with doing this. Making sure a fight scene is important to the story and characterization. Im also a bit of a power scaler haha. Not an annoying one but I make sure every fight scene or battle action a character takes is either within their power and character limit, or if it’s not, there’s built up/in circumstances or reason they can do what they did. My issue comes from describing it, at least when I’m not writing it in my usual comic book script format. The monotonous blurb is me Fr Fr. I don’t even mean to intentionally write this way, but often in my English paper for schools I be going in tryna write it like a colorful action book (a comic lol), so I be writing it monotonously. I go overboard on that too so I need to find my balance.
Thanks LocalScriptDarkCornerMan. Yesterday, when I had to leave to some friend place, i just wanted to watch your video before. Half way through I had an epihany about your story and completely revamped my final fight scene! Went to my friends 1 1/2 hours late, because I couldnt stop working on it an it made it 10 times better and more importantly, made me care about my story so much more! :) thanks again
As a comic book fan, I feel like different superhero stories are actually good examples of this. The daredevil season 1 finale just ends with a fighty fight and it’s unsatisfying. But in the season 3 finale he beats up the villain because the villain no longer cares and even then there’s still character choice. The conflict of the season in the question of whether or not Matt Murdock is going to kill the villain and in the end he has the chance to kill the villain but chooses not to and finds another way to stop him. It’s a good example of the two versions of a climatic end in the same show.
I sometime ask myself when I am writing my action sequence, “What makes this action scene better than going to a park and flip a stone to see ants fighting?” And if I cannot answer, there is a problem with that scene.
I gotta say you’re missing all the nuances in the suicide squad scene. Peacemaker and Rick flags fight is symbolic. The movie revolves around the ideas of black ops and shady imorral operations carried out by the American government. Rick flag is a dutiful soldier who believes he’s doing what he has to for America where as peace maker is an extremist criminal who uses patriotism as a scapegoat. When the squad finds the info Rick flag takes his stand because he believes in the principles of America but peace maker is loyal to the institution of America. The reason peacemaker wins the fight is literally because Rick flag takes the high ground and is ontop of him. Peacemaker then uses a dirty piece of porcelain and literally stabs it into the heart of a man named FLAG. To which Rick flag utters the words “Peacemaker. What a joke.” Rick lost because of his ideals his heart. Meanwhile peace maker destroys the figurative heart of America to ensure the peace of the institution and he was only able to do it because he was down in the dirt and used dirty means. In the next fight between peace maker and blood sport peacemaker looses because he uses hollow point rounds. Hollow points are excessive because they shatter in their victim resulting in more pain and injury. Peacemaker literally looses because he is mercilous where as blood sport wins because he was more professional. The fights are much deeper then the quick and the dead in my book.
At long last I have an excuse to share my thoughts on The Quick and the Dead. Lol. Sorry it's so long. Bear with me because I'm going off memory here. My interpretation of The Quick in the Dead: It's about being true to who you are. Being true to who you are really are empowers the characters. Faking it, trying to be something you're not, means you lose. Herod says he "hates liars." That's the first clue. The liars are the fakers. Like Ten Bears. Ten Bears says he cannot be killed. Then he gets killed. That's the most straightforward example in the movie. I think it's also the first duel. It sets up the pattern to come. The Fancy Dan, showman character who does tricks gets called out by Herod as a liar. He cites at least one story about how the guy was showing off for a crowd, then wounded someone by mistake because he missed. He's dressed up like a showman and has the fancy facial hair to look the part. But he isn't so good as he pretends. When Herod kills him, the town descends upon the guy and strips away all his fancy clothes. The veneer of the fancy sharpshooter is gone. Now he's just some dead guy in long johns in the dirt. Herod has his men bring in the preacher, Cord. But Cord isn't a preacher. Not really. He's a gunfighter at heart who is *trying* to be a preacher to make amends for his past. When he sees the revolver the kid pulls out, Cord's hand moves as if he's already holding it. Despite his moral reservations, he wants that gun. When the Kid puts the revolver in his hands, Cord can't help himself. He starts trying it out, flipping it over in his hand like an expert. Like a gunfighter would. We've seen movies where a gunfighter is the good guy before so being a gunfighter doesn't mean he has to be a bad guy. He finally embraces his true self and takes out Herod's men later in the movie. Clearing the path for Lady to do her job. Lady is trying to be a gunfighter. But she's a protector. A sheriff. Like her father. Similar to a gunfighter, yes. Close enough that she has the power to defeat her opponents. But not Herod. She tries to Kill Herod but fails to kill him each time until the end of the movie. Even when she has him dead to rights at dinner, she can't shoot. Only when she embraces her true self, as a sheriff who delivers justice, does she gain the power to defeat Herod. She's even carrying her father's badge when she shoots him at the end. Yes, she avenged her father. But she also saved the town from Herod. Justice was served. The Kid is more interesting. Either he is truly Herod's son and Herod knows it OR he is like a son to Herod. Either way, Herod's denial takes some of his power. But the kid is being true to himself. He's a gunfighter, like Cord. This gives him the power to wing Herod, almost killing him but coming up just a little bit shy.
maybe its kinda like the Disney thing of talk your feelings until you sing those feelings, then sing those feelings until you have to dance them. So for conflict, it would be, to discuss ur conflict until you have to argue it, then argue your conflict until you have to fight it.
I'm not sure where to put suggestions for future writing tips, but I'm hoping you could do an analysis of approaching writing, storytelling, and/or themes from within a video game. Unless you're going for a one-to-one representation of a movie as a game, there's plenty you can do in a game to add depth to a narrative or characters, and I'm interested to see your take on what ways there are to do that
your insights on different elements of story are so helpful, I would love a video about the role of sex/intimacy to a narrative. how do you make it flow in a plot and not feel gratuitous or out of place? that sort of thing
I absolutely hate the "gun falls between two characters x mad scramble for it" trope and the "A chokes B, B stretches for a weapon" trope, cheap ways to add tension to fight scenes.
Tl;dr Insane ChainSaw Man fangirl rant 6:10 I could be wrong with this observation, ...but I kind of noticed this in Chainsaw Man. The manga, at least. I can't think of too many "fights" that last more than a chapter. And, while the action is always a thrill, it always feels like a tool for the story, never the attraction. The greatest example is probably the "Snowball fight", so heavy spoilers for Chainsaw Man Part 1: The protagonist, Denji, is forced to fight his brother-like friend, Aki. They'd come a long way from despising eachother, to practically being family, even if there's obvious tension at points (of course that's a watered-down summary). In this instance, Aki is basically possessed, and unaware that he's hurting Denji while they fight. The audience is probably twisted between the weight of the situation, and the tense action, so what does the author do? Give us a heart-wrenching summary on their developed relationship, by portraying the action as a SNOWBALL FIGHT from Aki's POV...WHICH, IS THE LAST THING HE DID WITH HIS ACTUAL LITTLE BROTHER, BEFORE HE DIED. So, in a nutshell, the author visualized the weight of the scenario, the emotional impact on both characters, and where they stand from the other's point of view. In two chapters. That's my observation, anyway.
I would argue that Rick did win his argument with Peacemaker even though he died based on Peacemaker's character arch in the spon off show. Rick may have reached him but only after the fact
I think Rick Flags' death is very meaningful because it paves the way for Peacemakers arc in his own show, and I would love to see your thoughts on the matter after you've seen Peacemaker
It's like sex scenes. Most of time, sexes on screen are emphasizing the real body part, but characters's movements have no characteristics. It serves no narratives. It's just meat pounding or grinding each other. To write a good sex scene, it might risks losing the appeal of sexy bodies while your characters are struggling.
I love how Bloopus uses a sword, a simple but very straight and effective weapon, reflecting his straight no-BS true-seeking nature, while Bleepus has a nunchakus, a flexible but powerful and difficult to control weapon, reflecting her passion to protect her friends no matter what. Great characterization.
I think it was written like that because with nunchakus, the most important part is the CONNECTION between the two end things. This represents Bleepus's world view. Whereas a sword's strength lies in it's purity, and like you said, it's strait edged, no BS nature. Just like Bloopus. I could write a lot more about the wealth of depth in those two characters, but I wont.
Should’ve used a 3 section staff instead
I’m a nunchaku hater
I liked when Bloopus said "Never compromise, not even in the face of Armageddon"
one usues an actual weapon, the other uses a terrible imitation of a weapon that requires 10 times the training but is half as useful as a regular stick
@@Uhhhi-ih8bb Skill Issue
“‘It’s a movie’ (story) isn’t your free pass to treat everything as unimportant, but it is your free pass to decide what’s important.”
I love this quote so much.
Possibly the best, most versatile writing advice I've ever heard.
what does it mean tho ?
@@Idk_bro12340focus on what you should focus instead of what you should not focus on.
Bloobus LOSES A POUND OF FLESH.
I have a feeling that at some point, some studio-head was like, "What do you mean she's just called 'the lady'? Who ever heard of a main character without a name? You will lose the audience; the character has to have a name to be relatable! What? What does Clint Eastwood and some Italian guy have to do with this? We're selling Western films here, not some Spaghetti-loving art house film: I'm talking AMERICAN WESTERN. Give the broad a name by next week or lose her, I don't care which!"
And that's how I imagine Sharon Stone came to be credited as 'Ellen.'
I think probably the best example of this principle is martial arts films. No one ever wins just because they're better, everyone is good at fighting so there has to be some reason your protagonist is gooder. Usually there's the premature showdown to demonstrate the protagonist isn't ready yet and gets their but kicked, then they learn and grow and because of that growth they win
"god doesn't play dice. And as a writer, you are god."
_Christopher Nolan has left the chat._
wtf i watch ur Wynncraft videos, i was wondering where i'd seen your name LMAO
Spoiler: God actually does play dice with the real world. :(
@@noahwilliams8996false, the devil does
@@noahwilliams8996 Nothing is truly random. We can't predict the dice because of the complex nature of physic. But, the dice followed the law of physic.
Same thing for atom. It gives the most random motion in the universe and yet it has a mechanic underneath it. Something no computer could generate.
When "making characters fight" it's important to create a situation that is impossible for both characters to benefit from. Only one character will succeed and that's what creates the conflict, otherwise they'd just compromise and avoid a fight.
Or seemingly impossible
Sometimes it's even better if there was in fact a way for both characters to benefit, but for some way or an other they don't manage to reach it. It makes the fight and the subsequent destruction all the more tragic
@@guil7290 sure there just can't be an "obvious" way for both of them to benefit or they won't fight and if it's a physical fight then stakes should be very high.
I’d argue there is also the case where they just wouldn't compromise. It’s entirely plausible there is a situation where both sides could compromise and benefit but one or even both sides are either to stupid, pig headed, or just don’t care to back down. It’s not just potential gain that drives conflict. Sometimes people do things simply because they want to based on various less quantifiable motivations.
@@CeliriaRose because comprimises mean you will loose something inevitably. Some people prefer to fight than to give up what they believe is rightfully theirs. That's why humans are so agressive and wage so many wars
Like the old saying goes, “Early bird catches the peak writing advice to propel the, past the competition, securing their future as the best writer on the face of the planet. Be on the lookout for INFINIUM.” Thanks Local script guy 👍🏾
Damn that's a good saying.
Godzilla had a stroke and died trying to read this....
@@Lets_Get_This_Bread hope he gets better
@@TemporaryTown1744 He's dead lmao
@@williord3050damn 😔wishing him a fast recovery
This is so good I'm gonna put an action scene in my romantic drama, can't wait for my female lead to go to battle with an alien invader.
I'd read that story
I love your channel description
I just went to read it 😭@@Uhhhi-ih8bb
Where most would just shrug or lie awake one random night feeling anxious about the video essay that didn't live up to its full potential, this guy puts his money where his mouth is and DOES OVER, like he promised he would. Outstanding. The rigor, ethics and dedication to your craft is a goddamn example to us all and I shall never again clash my character action figures randomly together - unless that's somehow a selfaware plot point.
Also did you just call me a fornicator?!
My only counter-point to this really good essay is that the 'winner' of a fight isn't always the character who's still alive by the end of it. If a good action scene is one that's linked to the psychological development of the characters involved, then so is the determination of who the victor and the loser are in that action scene as well. While the tile-shard-thingy is definitely a convenience, Rick dies firmly believing in his ideals while Peacemaker's conviction in his own ideals weakens, resulting in his inevitable fuckening.
There's also the possibility that both sides in an action scene can 'lose' the fight, regardless of the physical outcomes. If a story's theme is 'A' (what the writer/god believes is 'right') and the two characters whacking each other over their heads believe in 'B' (what the writer/god believes is wrong), then the winner would have to deal with consequences that mimic the pain that the loser experienced. A good example of this would be *(spoilers for The Last of Us Part II)* Ellie killing Nora. Nora gets tortured to death and Ellie gets the information she wants from her, but Ellie's actions result in her own mental torture.
"Funko pop people" got me rolling on the floor. Thank you.
The video is great, but I'm especially glad because you BROUGHT UP THE PEACEMAKER FIGHT AGAIN! I've been wanting to respond to that shit in a way that works with the emotional variables in this video. The Suicide Squad doesn't actually use conviction as the primary variable, it's actually the value of action in the face of death. And in this way Rick losing because of luck is thematically sticky to how the others die in the film, but Rick's death actually has meaning in driving Peacemaker reflect on his convictions and its possibility of being wrong, in spite of his victory.
Can you elaborate?
@@BigToody Rick Flag is a side character, so him dying allows Bloodsport to win his fight with Peacemaker from him deciding to be a hero (his arc).
The big part of suicide squad is that characters lives are thrown away, as they are expendable, so Rick just dying fits with it. It's not meant to be a big character moment, just another tragic death because he's a part of the squad
But I think if it's meant to be because of luck you don't need a fight tho, you could write it like flag gets injured because of the ceiling crumbling or like It knocks him out just enough for peacemaker to have his gun painting at, or like he breaks his leg or something so he has no chance, peacemaker he hesitates and maybe tries once again to discuss It but rick doesn't budge, so he ends up killing him, and then he takes a moment to reconcile with his decision before being interrupted by ratcatcher
Peacemaker can still reflect on what happened if Rick just says “This isn’t justice, this is a joke” and then peacemaker puts him down and Idris Elba shoots him, same outcome.
Action scenes in action movies are like songs in musicals. It's not just "if you take the song/action scene out, you miss something" - no, the song/action scenes *are* the cruxes of the whole story, the part where you see the epitome, the incarnation of what's going on in the plot and characters. The non-action stuff, the few lines that aren't sung - those are just the tissue that connects the songs/action scenes where we really see the characters. The classic Disney 'I Want' song that sets up everything important you expect from the main character. The climactic battle that shows you that, now that your previously solo protagonist is willing to accept help, your hero *with his friends* defeats the main villain in a way he wouldn't have if it weren't for the unique tactics, talents, whatever of those friends he tried to fight without. If it's a key inner conflict an important character, have them sing it. If there's a conflict between the protagonist and his lancer, have them fight it out in the ring. If the action or the songs are what drives your audience to experience your story, make the action or songs the place where the 'juice' is in the story. Then, it's not just cinematic junk food.
I thought I had hallucinated this upload when I went to watch it last night. Good to know that my brain is functioning perfectly in every way.
I want to point out the John Wick movies as a popular example of action movies that get to have their cake and eat it too in this regard. All four movies are, cover to back, a series of action scenes where John Wick & friends tear through legions of bad guys because they're built different and it's awesome to watch. However, when it really counts at the end of each movie, the final conflict comes down to more than that.
In the first movie, John gets the obvious motivation of his dog being killed, which is a stand in for his dead wife and his memory of her. He uses this willpower to tear through armies of dudes in suits until he's captured, which is the first scene where he wins not because he's better, but because he has friends and people he relies on, which is a recurring theme, that no man is an island. Willem Dafoe helps him out, and he confronts the big bad Russian, who he forces to give up his son. John gets his revenge, and big bad Russian has to come to terms with the fact that he sold out his son to save his own life. Willem Dafoe is caught and murdered, and we fast track to the final confrontation. Big bad Russian is now exposed, having given up his son and being driven to insane action. He sends his right hand man out to die, and he loses the final fight with John Wick not just because he's better, but because he has literally given up everything he had (his son mostly), while John still has everything he was fighting for. Okay, onto the second movie.
The second movie is pretty simple. Just when John thought he was out, they pulled him back in, and the guy who pulled him back in is obviously the antagonist. In the first half of the movie, John is basically working on autopilot, not really certain what he's fighting for, and is forced to kill a friend. However, when the dude that hired him inevitably turns on him, he is given a proper revenge motivation and is again forced to turn to his friends for aid, which is the only reason he makes it out, again. The bad Italian man gets cocky and thinks he's safe inside the hotel, only for John Wick to shoot him in the end and break the hotel's rules ("Jonathan, no. No, Jonathan, don't do it. If you shoot him, we'll take away all your gold doubloons, Jonathan, I swear.) The guy loses to his hubris, and John wins because there's nothing left for him to lose by breaking the rules. This one is barely a fight at the end and all comes down to the themes.
Okay, so the third movie is long and has a ton of final fights, but really it hinges on John figuring out what the hell he's actually fighting for. He's basically just in survival mode, but now that he's excommunicado, he decides his best bet is to get himself reinstated, and when he meets the French dude from La Haine, he says outright that he's living to remember his wife. However, when he is told to kill Winston in order to be reinstated, he gets close, but refuses, showing that his loyalty to his friends is really what's keeping him around. The final fight really is just a slog that John wins because he's built different, but it involves others fighting alongside him to win, for the most part, which is cool. Then, the ultimate betrayal happens when Winston shoots him off the building. Also, I should mention that the movie has been showing the consequences of John's actions on his friends the whole time, with his Russian posse, Winston, and Larry Fishburne being punished for his actions.
Finally, the fourth movie kinda rolls back the ending of the third by making John Wick friends with Winston again, but it keeps his ending motivation to tear down the Table. This is because they are the ones punishing his friends, but also it is the only way he could ever really be free. Lots of shit happens with lots of characters, and it finally comes to a head with Bill Skarsgard. John loses the fight with his blind friend because, for the first time in the series, he has more of a reason to win than John (protecting his daughter) and John more or less lets him win. Bill Skarsgard then loses due to his hubris (again, always happens with these villains) and John frees his friends, plus himself by dying.
So yeah, in conclusion, you can have the most action-heavy, pew pew movies ever and still end them off with a satisfying, meaningful final conflict that addresses the themes of the movie. They're not perfect, but damn are they good.
Dude ur vids are great
Thanks! Your channel is awesome, the analyses and presentation of information is spot-on, humorous, and infinitely useful.
So nice, I'll watch it twice.
You're a hero
When making action scenes for my comics, I start from "moments" first to create structure. Think about your "big panels" first, which are the equivalent of a big, panning slo-mo shot or a pause in the action for speech, rest or tension. Then run in these staccato small panels/shots/ moments that build the tension up to them (side note: modern long scroll comics are often bad for action because they don't use small panels effectively, everyshot is a big full-bleed panel and it just drags). I find that showing the emotional reaction to every action really helps add narrative power and ground the fight, stopping it being like watching action figures bashed together. Rhythm and emotional payoff are key!
So like key-framing, but for emotional beats.
@AlfredEiji good way to describe it, yeah!
That character sheet has been helping me a bunch in realizing my two main characters wouldn't act like I had planned for the story, so I'm really looking forward to a second version that goes into more detail!
What character sheet are you talking about?
@@samant7101I believe it was the last video posted that our man left a character sheet pdf for you to look at. Something like that. Might have to look in the comments.
@@samant7101A couple weeks ago Lucas shared a PDF on his consulting website under a new "Resources" tab. It's based largely on his Arcs and Act Structures video about core and false beliefs. You don't need to pay anything to access it, and he made a version with and without examples.
Your videos are insanely helpful man. I've been trying to flesh out the main character in the comic I'm starting but I was struggling to tie his detachment due to his fear of death and suffering into the overall plot. This video helped me to not only tie this struggle of his into the ultimate conflict of the story, but also immediately allowed me to flesh out his relationships with both his romantic interest and friend in a way that is not just likely to be more engaging but also really drives home the themes of the story. The story's themes focus on how different people respond to suffering and cruelty, specifically the main character and his fear of those things, and with this one video you've helped me make sense of the way in which every aspect of this world I'm making relates to each other haha. You're doing great work, thanks a million.
keep it up mate, hope what you're writing pans out to be really fun to work on and successful!
@@thisrandomdude_ Thanks dude, me too👍👍
Crazy how I was in the middle of writing a fight scene and this video came up
What a happy coincidence
same lmao
Hey, don't underestimate the quality of the original script for this video. It was head and shoulders above other such content and instantly earned you a subscriber.
Big fan keep it up dude.
I liked when Bloobus was bloo and then Bleebus was blee. This was true kendo.
Obviously hard agree. What's baffling to me is how many people don't actually get that. There is so many action movies that are praised, yet this doesn't exist there at all.
I certainly hope the end of this channel doesn’t come any time soon (save out of necessity, life gets trying, I’m savvy), I genuinely don’t think there is or can be another ‘LocalScriptman’
Mom! Dad! Get in here!
LocalScriptMan uploaded another banger!
Re-uploaded
@@gordon13344
IT'S ALWAYS A BANGER EVEN RE-UPLOADS
@@videonmode8649 Me and mom are here.
Dude your channel is such a gem
man you never fail to inspire new ideas
Bloopus and Bleepus are in my heart forever
Not just fight scenes but also all other action too.
Why can they suddenly perform the cool trick? Because they overcame their mental block and so complete their arc by being able to do it onstage.
Why did they win the big race? Why did they figure out how to fly or use magic again at last minute? Etc.
3:48 hot take this is why I really don't find John Wick that interesting, its just power stats, John Wick is the best just because he is, he avoids getting shot fatally because, and even if he seemingly fights just as well as every other dude he wins because you know. And sure that seems like every action movie, or like 80s action flicks with super-powered dudes, but those had some actual story/narrative, one that connected villain and hero, or had some motivation for the hero, instead of random assassins being pulled out of a hat that are apparently 'the best assassins ever' just to fight our hero just because they have to. Please correct me if I'm wrong or generalising a deeper underlying story here because all I'm seeing is dude lost wife, dude lost dog, one of which is completely unconnected to any villain or larger narrative, and the dog death was the only thing driving the first movie, every movie since just rides on that premise with no real emotional stakes or motivation for the hero. When James Bond had to kill his villain he was ofc like every hero protected by plot armour, but he had to pull out some clever thinking to do defeat them, he doesn't defeat a villain by just marching up some steps and one-shotting every goon, he did it by figuring out the plan, figuring out the weakness, figuring out SOMETHING about the plot, or if he was in a car chase there's always some clever move that he pulls out, not just shooting every person in the head. I don't know i just really can't grasp there being anything clever about John Wick except the brilliant stunt choreography, the writing just seems so dull.
I don't think this is a hot take at all. John Wick is awesome, and is by far one of my favourite movie franchises, but there really isn't a whole lot going on until the 4th one. John Wick 4 is really the only movie that plays with the idea of what being John Wick is, ie: Wick is so good that he keeps surviving, but his friends he requests to help him not die die in his place because they're not as nasty as he is.
I think John Wick is really engaging, and I'm always sitting there with a smile on my face as I watch it, but it's not an emotionally deep tale at all. And I totally don't fault people for simply not giving af about John Wick for what in my opinion are very valid reasons. People get different things out of their media consumption and it's important to take good advice for what it is while realising that some of the most successful stories out there can really have little to no meaning at all.
you always singlehandedly inspire me. i think your videos always provide the motivation i need to improve my storytelling.
Oops No Soul: Lemme use a real example
This video: Lets use a fake example
I'm excited to see where this character arc goes. Yes, still.
Not ready for this channel to end tbh
I wanna argue that the Rick Flagg/Peacemaker fight was less about the actual fight. like Peacemaker winning the brawl wasn't the end of the conflict, because in the process of protecting the mission- which PM has convinced himself is The Right Thing- he kills one of the only morally unambiguous characters in the movie, and that fucks with him after the fact, which possibly contributed to him losing the final showdown against Bloodsport.
he wins the fight but loses the battle, if that makes any sense
Your sense of humor is impeccable.
Rest in peace, Bloobus's lard flap.
So, essentially what I am hearing here and please correct me if I am wrong... is that action scenes/fights are just as much about the exchange of blows as they are about CHARACTER, why they fight, how they fight, why they are fighting NOW and not 30 minutes ago. What I am learning here is that you need to understand the reasons your characters would fight, the reasons behind them, and the differences or contrast between two characters that would MAKE them fight, the resolution of the fight sending some sort of message about the characters themselves. Booboo has his opponent, Bibi, on the ropes. Booboo has a strict code of honor. When Bibi gets his weapon knocked out of his hand and Booboo has the chance to go in for a killing blow and doesn't, it shows us his willingness to live by his code of honor. And when the fight gets harder as Bibi, who has no such code, fights dirty/efficiently, what will happen? Will Booboo break his code in order to save himself or the person he's fighting for? Will Bibi continue to exploit this code because he is that desperate for victory? These are all just fascinating! Thank you for teaching me so much, I really appreciate your advice! I will be sure to put it into practice in my future work!
I put aside time and watched the quick and the dead before watching this video, and while I loved the movie I must say the little scream and backwards flip the bad guy did when he died totally killed any kind of tension for me, it was SO FUNNY
(Short version of my comment from the previous upload):
Disagree on the TSS take. Rick Flag can lose the fight and his arc still be satisfying. His fate (death) does hinge on his choice (going against his orders), and the outcome is no more or less a coinflip than which gunslinger is a better shot.
That said, love your stuff man!
I think it's less about who won and why they won
^ yeah at that point it would be more satisfying to just skip the fight
"Who wins, who loses, who tells your story"
These videos are so helpful and so inspiring, thank you so much for putting this much effort and knowledge in them
Thanks!
Your videos have helped me to truly understand what I'm trying to write so much more effectively.. thank you my friend.
On the one hand, I absolutely love these videos as they're invaluable pieces of advice from an industry professional that will help me elevate my craft and produce more meaningful works of art.
On the other hand, I can almost see a percentage bar reading _"how much of my manuscript I have to redraft"_ slowly filling up as i watch...
localscriptman my beloved
"Right makes might" is such a good quote.
The king is back again?
so good it deserves to be seen twice
Again an awesome video, I saw your first video before the others came out, so it is awesome to see an updated version like this.
Love this channel. I feel like we have similar perspectives on what is important in a story and how stories work (at least from our perspectives) and you sometimes help me better understand my own perspectives and how to implement them, with your clear and concise, yet funny monotone. Thank you!
This is quite convenient since the story I’m working on is going to have an important fight scene that I’m currently obsessed with making right now.
My first time watching this so I gotta lock in before it gets removed again
this channel needs more views why is yt algorithm like this
From a writing standpoint I have to disagree with the central thesis here. The Peacemaker example is not really a good example to use as an example of this kind of thing being done poorly, because in that example you're not *supposed* to get the good ending, the morally correct one isn't *supposed* to win. I'm not going to pretend it's high cinema, but reducing it to absolutely nothing is just kind of unhelpful. There's plenty of ways to write meaningful action scenes where the morally just person doesn't win--that's why things like GoT are so popular, because people enjoy writing like that--and the Peacemaker thing is one of them. I think you're mistaken in thinking that the fight with Peacemaker and Flag (i think that was his name i honestly don't remember) was supposed to be the big dramatic moment where the arc is concluded. If that *was* the conclusion, sure, it would be a little unfulfilling, but in exactly the scene you talk about with the death from the sharp thing we see Peacemaker be pretty conflicted about it, and there's still more movie to go where he has ANOTHER fight which ends differently, and that fight WAS the dramatic ending of using conflict to symbolize action scenes. The Peacemaker Flag fight wasn't *trying* to be a dramatic ending, so of *course* it's not going to stand up to scrutiny, it's supposed to be a dramatic middlepoint to further set up the dramatic ending later down the line. I mean, come on, I'm sure plenty of scenes in the other movies you mentioned as positive examples would fare pretty poorly if we analyzed them like that. What about that scene where the villain in the western shoots his own kid? That wasn't some big dramatic character conflict that the whole movie rested on where both sides won and lost because of their conflicting morals--it was *setup*, and we'd rightfully call anyone who tried to say it was a bad scene because of it insane. There's just so many better examples of actually poor writing out there to look at and learn from, but this is the one example that was given that actually gives the entirely wrong idea.
This. I think he's married to a slightly sub par take he had a while ago, where he's half correct. He's right that a conclusion to a movie shouldn't hinge on purely "who's better at fighting", but wrong that every action scene has to be like that. Still, one miss in a series of bangers.
Agree with this, though also the Suicide Squad scene muddies it a little by having Flagg nearly win only for Peacemaker to win moments before suffocating. It reduces Peacemakers decision to kill Flagg because in that moment he had no choice but to act out of self defence. The fight should have ended with Peacemaker winning in a fight and Flagg no longer being a threat, only for Peacemaker to murder him anyway. This would then set up Peacemaker doing the same with Ratcatcher, only to hesitate due to his regret, allowing Bloodsport time to arrive.
Would you consider that perhaps the fight in the Suicide Squad IS determined by thematic progress? I SWEAR I'm not trying to claim this movie is better than it is or anything, and it has been a while since my last viewing, but I got the impression that there was more going on with it the first time I watched it, and I think I might have figured it out:
Up until this point, both characters were unstoppable because both of the characters were all-in for the mission and doing whatever they needed to do to get through it. After Rick learns the truth, his morality gets the better of him and he can't keep the same single-minded focus on getting the job done, whereas Peacemaker has no such qualms or hesitation. This translates on a micro scale in the fight, where both characters are evenly matched for most of the altercation, but in the final moments, Rick is so focused on doing what he thinks is right (killing Peacemaker as proxy for taking down Amanda Waller) that he fails to take in the threat of the environment and neutralize it before proceeding.
It seems to me that if Flagg was better at playing poker/chess, he wouldn't have tipped his hand regarding not wanting to follow through with destroying the information (I might be misremembering this part), he wouldn't have had to fight Peacemaker in the first place. Likewise, if he had been looking for the most efficient way to kill his adversary, he wouldn't have been trying to strangle someone whose hands were free around shattered tile. He lost sight of the bigger picture when he thought he would be the hero.
Rick Flag's problem is that he changed, but the world didn't change with him, so when he decides to be a hero, he is punished severely for it. Could it be that this frustrated you because the character who loses does so BECAUSE of his arc, rather than a failure to grow? The 'rules' of the Suicide Squad's narrative universe/genre seem to be that the characters have to stay the same or they will die; the moment Polkadot-man begins to feel like he can do good in this world is the moment that he is crushed. No one who survives to the end of the film has learned anything, and that is the secret to their success (before you tell me anything about Harley, bear in mind that all of her growth happens before film begins, as she has already made several resolutions with herself, including not to ignore any red flags, so to speak - we simply get to witness her ongoing struggle with trying to live her ideals as previously determined).
What about bloodsport
@@Fudobi my argument would be that Bloodsport doesn't grow; he adapts. From beginning to end, his motivation is to keep his daughter out of trouble while staying alive, if possible, and that doesn't change at any point. He consistently demonstrates a preference for following a code and doing what he considers to be the right thing, but he is always strategic and pragmatic about when he makes a stand.
To be clear, I realize that Gunn states that Bloodsport learns a lot and is a better character by the end, but I really don't believe that is true. The entire reason he isolates himself from others in the first place is that he has a tendency to care about people he gets close to, and that complicates things for him; he prefers things to be black and white so his way forward is clear.
And, lest anyone say that he learns the value of friendship, please remind me how upset he is over the death of Polkadot-man - does he have any reaction deeper than being startled? He is a more effective leader by the end because he learns how to be supportive and influence his teammates, but I wouldn't count skills as character growth if they don't change his perspective.
@@M4TCH3SM4L0N3 i feel like his skills as a leader are reflective, of how he changed, he wants his daughter to say out of trouble but he doesn't know how to connect with her and doesn't know how feels or what she needs so he just stays away, and that's part of what he learns he knows how to connect with his teammates to speak on their level, like with polkadot and king shark in how he gets them to fight, and that's because he took the time to let them in instead of distancing himself from the problem, similar to his fear of rats he opens up and tries to face it to overcome it
@@Fudobi that's certainly a fair take on the matter, and if you do take that angle, it would make my first point invalid. I personally still take it the other way, and I say that because I don't think that he would be any quicker to let anyone else in after this experience, and I don't get the impression that he's going to go reconnect with his daughter, either. Put another way, I don't think that any progression we witnessed in the film is going to translate to future scenarios.
Maybe I am being too rigid with my definition of character growth, but I'm cool with that if you are. 😉
In defense of the Rick flag vs peacemaker fight, the way I see it is that one massive reoccurring thing in the movie is about the characters having someone by their side, whether it is just a someone or it’s a group or even a country. Rick lost because he lost his loyalty to America with no one with him to back him up and be there for him (he and ratcatcher were not close at all. She even seemed emotionally against him defecting up until he was killed) but peacemaker still had his iron strong loyalty and so he, the one backed by America in his heart, of course beat Rick who in his heart was betrayed by the country he gave all of his support to. Peacemaker then went on to try and kill rat catcher and then “died” to bloodsport, who seeing the girl he had solidified a connection mutually, being held at gunpoint by the guy who was now abandoning his team and severing a group of people he had at his side, locked in and popped his ass. Because American never really was on peacemakers side, they did not give a fuck about him, but ratcatcher and bloodsport had a real connection, which is something Rick didn’t have at all at that point.
So Rick lost because he had no connections while peacemaker had at least a one sided fake connection. Then peacemaker lost because his fake connection didn’t stack up to the real connection formed between bloodsport and ratcatcher, he lost to the power of friendship, and Rick’s death was. NOT random, or even for the sake of the plot. At least that’s what it is to me
I think it deserves mention that the reason lady was so good at shooting is cuz her useless with a gun in her flashback prevented her from saving her father. Not just cuz she had the moral high ground. I think it also adds depth to the villain guys death who caused the one who killed him to get that skill in the first place because of his messed up games.
the last 20 seconds really helped me just now lmao thanks
I personally prefer when the outcome of a fight comes down to who understands the other and the world rules better.
Like in the Sanji ( A SIMP who never skips leg day) vs Bon Clay ( who can copy others appearances) fight, in One piece, in which Bon Clay starts off winning by shapeshifting into a beautiful woman and abusing Sanji's morality. Only for the cook to realize fighting in another person's body is hard, so Bon Clay always changes back to the original body right before attacking, wich opens a tiny window.
Same thing with Spiderman across the spiderverse, where nobody mentions to Miguel that Miles has a shocking personality, but Miguel isn't shy to show miles that his suit is full of electronics.
didn't even realise this was re-upload
I know this is old, but... more like this one, please.
Solid video, my man. I’m fairly good with doing this. Making sure a fight scene is important to the story and characterization. Im also a bit of a power scaler haha. Not an annoying one but I make sure every fight scene or battle action a character takes is either within their power and character limit, or if it’s not, there’s built up/in circumstances or reason they can do what they did. My issue comes from describing it, at least when I’m not writing it in my usual comic book script format. The monotonous blurb is me Fr Fr. I don’t even mean to intentionally write this way, but often in my English paper for schools I be going in tryna write it like a colorful action book (a comic lol), so I be writing it monotonously. I go overboard on that too so I need to find my balance.
What a great video. Thank you!
Thanks LocalScriptDarkCornerMan.
Yesterday, when I had to leave to some friend place, i just wanted to watch your video before. Half way through I had an epihany about your story and completely revamped my final fight scene! Went to my friends 1 1/2 hours late, because I couldnt stop working on it an it made it 10 times better and more importantly, made me care about my story so much more! :) thanks again
Literally just doing the chapter outline for like 2 weeks I took a break, but definitely much needed! So same girl. Same. Lol
As a comic book fan, I feel like different superhero stories are actually good examples of this. The daredevil season 1 finale just ends with a fighty fight and it’s unsatisfying. But in the season 3 finale he beats up the villain because the villain no longer cares and even then there’s still character choice. The conflict of the season in the question of whether or not Matt Murdock is going to kill the villain and in the end he has the chance to kill the villain but chooses not to and finds another way to stop him. It’s a good example of the two versions of a climatic end in the same show.
I sometime ask myself when I am writing my action sequence, “What makes this action scene better than going to a park and flip a stone to see ants fighting?”
And if I cannot answer, there is a problem with that scene.
Keep up with the damn good writing advice! Thanks
I thought this video was a fever dream for a good chunk of my day yesterday
I gotta say you’re missing all the nuances in the suicide squad scene. Peacemaker and Rick flags fight is symbolic.
The movie revolves around the ideas of black ops and shady imorral operations carried out by the American government.
Rick flag is a dutiful soldier who believes he’s doing what he has to for America where as peace maker is an extremist criminal who uses patriotism as a scapegoat.
When the squad finds the info Rick flag takes his stand because he believes in the principles of America but peace maker is loyal to the institution of America.
The reason peacemaker wins the fight is literally because Rick flag takes the high ground and is ontop of him. Peacemaker then uses a dirty piece of porcelain and literally stabs it into the heart of a man named FLAG. To which Rick flag utters the words “Peacemaker. What a joke.”
Rick lost because of his ideals his heart. Meanwhile peace maker destroys the figurative heart of America to ensure the peace of the institution and he was only able to do it because he was down in the dirt and used dirty means.
In the next fight between peace maker and blood sport peacemaker looses because he uses hollow point rounds. Hollow points are excessive because they shatter in their victim resulting in more pain and injury. Peacemaker literally looses because he is mercilous where as blood sport wins because he was more professional.
The fights are much deeper then the quick and the dead in my book.
Excellent. Great work on the update.
You and Jacob Geller both made videos about using fight scenes to tell stories in the same week. Boxing match when?
another great one
At long last I have an excuse to share my thoughts on The Quick and the Dead. Lol. Sorry it's so long. Bear with me because I'm going off memory here.
My interpretation of The Quick in the Dead: It's about being true to who you are. Being true to who you are really are empowers the characters. Faking it, trying to be something you're not, means you lose.
Herod says he "hates liars." That's the first clue. The liars are the fakers. Like Ten Bears. Ten Bears says he cannot be killed. Then he gets killed. That's the most straightforward example in the movie. I think it's also the first duel. It sets up the pattern to come.
The Fancy Dan, showman character who does tricks gets called out by Herod as a liar. He cites at least one story about how the guy was showing off for a crowd, then wounded someone by mistake because he missed. He's dressed up like a showman and has the fancy facial hair to look the part. But he isn't so good as he pretends. When Herod kills him, the town descends upon the guy and strips away all his fancy clothes. The veneer of the fancy sharpshooter is gone. Now he's just some dead guy in long johns in the dirt.
Herod has his men bring in the preacher, Cord. But Cord isn't a preacher. Not really. He's a gunfighter at heart who is *trying* to be a preacher to make amends for his past. When he sees the revolver the kid pulls out, Cord's hand moves as if he's already holding it. Despite his moral reservations, he wants that gun. When the Kid puts the revolver in his hands, Cord can't help himself. He starts trying it out, flipping it over in his hand like an expert. Like a gunfighter would. We've seen movies where a gunfighter is the good guy before so being a gunfighter doesn't mean he has to be a bad guy. He finally embraces his true self and takes out Herod's men later in the movie. Clearing the path for Lady to do her job.
Lady is trying to be a gunfighter. But she's a protector. A sheriff. Like her father. Similar to a gunfighter, yes. Close enough that she has the power to defeat her opponents. But not Herod. She tries to Kill Herod but fails to kill him each time until the end of the movie. Even when she has him dead to rights at dinner, she can't shoot. Only when she embraces her true self, as a sheriff who delivers justice, does she gain the power to defeat Herod. She's even carrying her father's badge when she shoots him at the end. Yes, she avenged her father. But she also saved the town from Herod. Justice was served.
The Kid is more interesting. Either he is truly Herod's son and Herod knows it OR he is like a son to Herod. Either way, Herod's denial takes some of his power. But the kid is being true to himself. He's a gunfighter, like Cord. This gives him the power to wing Herod, almost killing him but coming up just a little bit shy.
Love your stuff man, please keep making videos
Thank you voice in my head.
bro i love your videos so much
maybe its kinda like the Disney thing of talk your feelings until you sing those feelings, then sing those feelings until you have to dance them. So for conflict, it would be, to discuss ur conflict until you have to argue it, then argue your conflict until you have to fight it.
0:29 woah dude, I had no idea you were a movie star 😮
I'm not sure where to put suggestions for future writing tips, but I'm hoping you could do an analysis of approaching writing, storytelling, and/or themes from within a video game. Unless you're going for a one-to-one representation of a movie as a game, there's plenty you can do in a game to add depth to a narrative or characters, and I'm interested to see your take on what ways there are to do that
I'm going to assume there was an avoidable copyright claim either with footage or music.
I just hope that Bloobus finds a way to move on and live without his upper lard flap. Tragic, man.
Glad to see this back 👍
your insights on different elements of story are so helpful, I would love a video about the role of sex/intimacy to a narrative. how do you make it flow in a plot and not feel gratuitous or out of place? that sort of thing
0:00 My recommended has been nothing but the prisoner locking in.
This is a sign of God.
love that like reminder
❤❤❤❤
Love the Megatron is that you sound 😂
I absolutely hate the "gun falls between two characters x mad scramble for it" trope and the "A chokes B, B stretches for a weapon" trope, cheap ways to add tension to fight scenes.
and its back!
commenting for the algorithm (and my undying love of the former alien script man)
Tl;dr Insane ChainSaw Man fangirl rant
6:10 I could be wrong with this observation, ...but I kind of noticed this in Chainsaw Man.
The manga, at least.
I can't think of too many "fights" that last more than a chapter. And, while the action is always a thrill, it always feels like a tool for the story, never the attraction.
The greatest example is probably the "Snowball fight", so heavy spoilers for Chainsaw Man Part 1:
The protagonist, Denji, is forced to fight his brother-like friend, Aki. They'd come a long way from despising eachother, to practically being family, even if there's obvious tension at points (of course that's a watered-down summary). In this instance, Aki is basically possessed, and unaware that he's hurting Denji while they fight.
The audience is probably twisted between the weight of the situation, and the tense action, so what does the author do? Give us a heart-wrenching summary on their developed relationship, by portraying the action as a SNOWBALL FIGHT from Aki's POV...WHICH, IS THE LAST THING HE DID WITH HIS ACTUAL LITTLE BROTHER, BEFORE HE DIED.
So, in a nutshell, the author visualized the weight of the scenario, the emotional impact on both characters, and where they stand from the other's point of view. In two chapters.
That's my observation, anyway.
I would argue that Rick did win his argument with Peacemaker even though he died based on Peacemaker's character arch in the spon off show. Rick may have reached him but only after the fact
I think Rick Flags' death is very meaningful because it paves the way for Peacemakers arc in his own show, and I would love to see your thoughts on the matter after you've seen Peacemaker
NO! I WANTED TO BE HERE FOR THE UPLOAD!! I HAD MY NOTIFICATIONS ON AND EVERYTHING!! STUPID DEBATE COMPETITION
Is the super video in the future of the reupload and so in the past for us or in our actual future and so something to be excited about
I thought I was going crazy because I wanted to re-Watch it as I work on my script 😂
It's like sex scenes. Most of time, sexes on screen are emphasizing the real body part, but characters's movements have no characteristics. It serves no narratives.
It's just meat pounding or grinding each other.
To write a good sex scene, it might risks losing the appeal of sexy bodies while your characters are struggling.