Robert N EmersonHas the potential defeat from victory twist become overused?
September 9th 2008 01:07
Once a staple exclusive to slasher and monster horror films, the potential defeat arise from a supposed victory has become more common in our twist rich environment. What was once a unique way to end a movie, the twist, has become more and more cliché.
How often has a movie had the hero or heroine survive extreme odds, insurmountable foes, only to have the audience see a chance for the evil to continue? Or, with a mounting foreboding, does the protagonist realize that this might not be the end?
Be it a viral outbreak, a creature menace, aliens unknown, or the spawn of a demon or devil, there is always that twist of the impotent victory.
Is it the studios forcing the producer, directors, and writers to leave any movie, all movies, open for potential sequels, even if they are direct-to-video? Or are writers simply thinking that they will turn the cliché on its head and use it in a unique manner?
It is as if the writer thinks that the pseudo victory makes their work darker, grittier, and more mature than if the ending was actually a victory. Instead of using a Pyrrhic Victory to show the edgy cost to the protagonist, we are instead shown their impotence in the antagonist actually surviving, hence why some of those villains become cult anti-heroes (Hannibal Lector, Jason, Freddy Kruger, and many James Bond foes).
So, is the impotent victory twist being overused or is it simply a misuse of the twist all together?
How often has a movie had the hero or heroine survive extreme odds, insurmountable foes, only to have the audience see a chance for the evil to continue? Or, with a mounting foreboding, does the protagonist realize that this might not be the end?
Be it a viral outbreak, a creature menace, aliens unknown, or the spawn of a demon or devil, there is always that twist of the impotent victory.
Is it the studios forcing the producer, directors, and writers to leave any movie, all movies, open for potential sequels, even if they are direct-to-video? Or are writers simply thinking that they will turn the cliché on its head and use it in a unique manner?
It is as if the writer thinks that the pseudo victory makes their work darker, grittier, and more mature than if the ending was actually a victory. Instead of using a Pyrrhic Victory to show the edgy cost to the protagonist, we are instead shown their impotence in the antagonist actually surviving, hence why some of those villains become cult anti-heroes (Hannibal Lector, Jason, Freddy Kruger, and many James Bond foes).
So, is the impotent victory twist being overused or is it simply a misuse of the twist all together?
| 37 |
| Vote |
Shared on
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by jon
Orble News
Urban Hint
Blog Adviser
Jon's Bookmarks
Debate Battle
Orblepedia
Orble Notes
Sydney WeekendNotes
You may also need to add the email address admin -at- orblemail.com to your address book in order to receive Orble admin emails in the future.
Thanks,
Jon.
(Orble Admin)