'Save the world/save X' movies/stories - the scaling of X

  • 6 Replies
  • 5231 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Callan S.

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Warrior-Profit
  • Posts: 671
    • View Profile
    • Philosopher Gamer
« on: November 08, 2013, 08:56:14 am »
Does anyone have a chart of how many movies are 'save the world' type movies?

I'm wondering if over time what is to be saved has gotten bigger and bigger?

I'm wondering it in regard to the idea of the erosion of meaning. That for something to be a big deal to save, it has to get bigger and bigger to escape the erosion of meaning for anything smaller?

Francis Buck

  • *
  • Guest
« Reply #1 on: November 10, 2013, 08:18:07 pm »
It would be interesting to see some hard data. While I suspect the stakes may have raised over the last century or so, as far as modern fiction goes (especially genre fiction), if one goes back to the epics and myths, the stakes were often as high as they could be (essentially the entire universe, or at least what was considered the entire universe by the peoples who those myths belonged to). Of course there's a bit of a difference between looking at fiction with the intent of being fiction, and myths that retroactively became fictional (or semi-fictional) tales.

Somewhat of a tangent, but one thing that I think is the mark of a good storyteller is the ability to make any stakes seem like the biggest thing in the world. It definitely takes a certain talent to pull that off, and just ratcheting up the physical stakes in-story rarely works in an of itself. I mean look at the drama in something like, say, Fargo, where they're really quite small, compared to the run-of-the-mill superhero movie where the whole world is in danger. Fortunately Bakker manages to make them both work very well -- insane stakes that actually feel insanely huge, bordering on insurmountable (which is something I think LOTR did very well too, and I suspect that may have been part of the inspiration -- though Bakker probably wanted to top it in every way imaginable).

Cüréthañ

  • *
  • Moderator Extraordinaire
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Pendulous Fallacy
  • Posts: 772
  • Wizard IRL
    • View Profile
« Reply #2 on: November 11, 2013, 12:13:14 am »
I'd say it depends on the type of movie you like to watch.  If you name the movies with 'save the world' plots I think you will find yourself in a certain genre more often than not.
I guess with better special effects and CGI there is a current trend towards that type of large cast/high stakes movie.
I think the majority of movies made are still primarily concerned with smaller human dramas.
Is the fate of the world really any more compelling than the fate of a character that you can empathize with anyway?
Retracing his bloody footprints, the Wizard limped on.

Callan S.

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Warrior-Profit
  • Posts: 671
    • View Profile
    • Philosopher Gamer
« Reply #3 on: November 11, 2013, 07:11:28 am »
Quote
I think the majority of movies made are still primarily concerned with smaller human dramas.
This will probably end up with me looking low brow, but can you name a number of them (to stack up against the 'iron man's and 'pacific rim's and 'die hard CXX's)? That did reasonably well, profits wise (don't have to be block buster - just don't have to 'bomb'. Assuming sales equal viewers)

Cüréthañ

  • *
  • Moderator Extraordinaire
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Pendulous Fallacy
  • Posts: 772
  • Wizard IRL
    • View Profile
« Reply #4 on: November 11, 2013, 12:01:24 pm »
Currently?  Gravity, Captain Phillips, the Butler, Fast & Furious 6 etc etc.
Like I said, you're really consigned to the action/sci fi genre with your examples. 
Even the first Iron Man and Die Hard films were not 'save the world' scenarios - the sequels are really a result of wanting to top the stakes.

As an aside, were the stakes in Pacific Rim really any more compelling than those in Saving Private Ryan?
Retracing his bloody footprints, the Wizard limped on.

Madness

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Conversational Batman
  • Posts: 5275
  • Strength on the Journey - Journey Well
    • View Profile
    • The Second Apocalypse
« Reply #5 on: November 11, 2013, 03:00:59 pm »
In trying to bend the internet to your topic, I found this interview with Damon Lindelof (as well as an awesome breakdown of Cabin in the Woods, which will probably have me watching it at some point now).

Quote
“Once you spend more than $100 million on a movie, you have to save the world,” explains Lindelof. “And when you start there, and basically say, I have to construct a MacGuffin based on if they shut off this, or they close this portal, or they deactivate this bomb, or they come up with this cure, it will save the world—you are very limited in terms of how you execute that. And in many ways, you can become a slave to it and, again, I make no excuses, I’m just saying you kind of have to start there. In the old days, it was just as satisfying that all Superman has to do was basically save Lois from this earthquake in California. The stakes in that movie are that the San Andreas Fault line opens up and half of California is going to fall in the ocean. That felt big enough, but there is a sense of bigger, better, faster, seen it before, done that.”

“It sounds sort of hacky and defensive to say, [but it’s] almost inescapable,” he continues. “It’s almost impossible to, for example, not have a final set piece where the fate of the free world is at stake. You basically work your way backward and say, ‘Well, the Avengers aren’t going to save Guam, they’ve got to save the world.’ Did Star Trek Into Darkness need to have a gigantic starship crashing into San ­Francisco? I’ll never know. But it sure felt like it did.”

Another favorite: "more digital demolition per square foot."

But really, isn't the trend covarient (rising and falling alongside) with a sense of global-consciousness (non-mystical). I mean, I'm not (people aren't) necessarily thinking about what's happening at the local pub in Angola or in some back alley of Toronto but we're born into a world that understands an interacting, global presence, more and more. And I'm sure the sense of disaster isn't titillating enough for everyone since we maintain this kind of ironic 'refugee bias;' we (consumers of entertainment) have a greater chance of personally escaping cataclysm, if it doesn't threaten the very world.

It's psychologically axiomatic. Death, Sex, and Food. Nothing saps our attention more.

Paraphrasing Bakker, the world ended at the mountains not so many years ago.
The Existential Scream
Weaponizing the Warrior Pose - Declare War Inwardly
carnificibus: multus sanguis fluit
Die Better
The Theory-Killer

jamesA01

  • *
  • Guest
« Reply #6 on: November 11, 2013, 09:59:13 pm »
They will look back on Western fiction in the late 20th century and be embarrassed/amused at the utterly absurd and ridiculous "near death but look back from the brink just in time" tropes that were so common and so utterly beyond realistic. I think this will be remembered as our cultures inability to deal with death, and our fervent denial of it. How many times did the fucking stupid protagonist come back from the dead in the nick of time, or about 10 stupid things that would actually kill the characters happen but they just survive by a hairs breath. Yeah. If this is how you generate tension in your fiction, you're an idiot. Game of Thrones was so popular because Martin deliberately decided to deliberately break this rule. He has stated that in his fiction, you are supposed to feel like ANY character could get killed and noone is going to be spared because of their status as protagonist or relationship to him.

Some shitty writers have tried to do something LIKE Martin but not quite - dramatically killing off seemingly unkillable characters to shock us. Lost did this when it killed Libby and the cop woman, and it stank. A uk tv series called Skins did it the worst out of everyone ever, they killed off one of the main characters in order for his friend to kill the murderer. It was the most transparent, shitty 'twist' I've ever seen. Basically the show was a teen drama about hedonism, and after a few seasons they decided to introduce a murderous doctor which was just NOT permissible in the fiction world of the show. Kind of like an old timey cowboy showing up in a futuristic space story.

Anyway - saving the world - I don't think we really need to spell it out - its America and Americas denial of the existence of the rest of the world (it has to not really exist properly, or in a fallen state, since America has the right to murder it in order to liberate it). Noone really cares about this crap anymore because noone believes America is going to do anything to save them, apart from some aid work maybe. It's just as likely to destroy and plunder it.

That's why these narratives to have started to recede in the past few years and been replaced with apocalypticism - or rather - an inability to depict ANY end to the world, which is what people REALLY fear but can't consciously face. After Iraq the fucking end of the world american fiction industry went into overdrive.

Saving the world/destroying the world - how boring can you get? Primitive omnipotence fantasies should be something fiction aims to DISPEL and HUMILIATE not bolster.

I'm not saying that narratives about the end or salvation of the world are themselves unacceptable, it's just that this is the most played out trope currently in existence. If you want to save or end the world, making the world itself revolve around the drama or journey of a few characters, so that it lives or dies depending on what needs to happen to them, is IMO not particularly interesting.