Worth noting that the Boromir plot is not at all the only character plot to be resolved at the end of FotR. Who could forget Sam, once afraid to step out of one bucolic field and into another because it was "farther from home than he'd ever been," now chasing Frodo into the lake, risking death by drowning to follow his friend into a dangerous and unknown future? There are smaller moments too, like Merri and Pippin drawing their swords in an attempt to make a stand, where they were once carefree rascals. Even Boromir referring to Aragorn as "king" begins to solidify for that character (and the audience) that there is a greater destiny awaiting him- one which he is beginning to step into.
I also think the FotR ending actually DOES do a good job with plot resolution. The film sets up the Fellowship, and the ending destroys it, informing both the audience and the characters that Frodo must go alone. At once, this concludes the events of the first film, sets up the second film, and resolves Aragorn’s, Frodo’s, and Sam’s character arcs in addition to Boromir’s, as you described.
Also Aragorn getting his test moment and passing. He was tempted by Frodo, who straight up offers the ring to test him, and he courageously turns it out, proclaims his love and devotion to Frodo, and protects his back while he flees. *Sniffle* Beautiful.
Yeah. Aragorn keeping Boromir's greaves is meant to represent that he is taking up his word that he will not let "our" people fail and is finally ready to step into kingship. Merry and Pippin being captured is a perfect resolution to the fellowship as the remaining members have nothing left to do but follow them so it starts a new thread straight off the bat. And finally, Frodo has his resolution as the entire movie has been building to him finishing the task alone but Sam doesn't allow it and he subverts this expectation by staying with Frodo no matter what with the argument of keeping Gandalf's word which Frodo wasn't about to disagree with oh no.
Andy Zhang animated movies are usually pretty good at this. Maybe because they mostly don’t clutter themselves with pointless sub-plots that need to be resolved, i think.
Mono Flax well, there were quite a few subplots, but none of them were pointless. Namely, the main plots were learning and accepting his traumatic past, gaining inner peace, and defeating a warlord that uses an "unstoppable" weapon. And it was all geniusly tied together in a brilliant climax and an amazing ending tease. I would say it's on par with the matrix ending, and personally I like it even better than the Matrix ending.
I always thought KFP2 would have ended better if it ended with Shen's ships getting out into the harbour as the heroes looked on helplessly. Considering how much of a big deal everyone made about China being lost if Shen did this, to see this ultimate barricade fail sets up a phenomenal task for the heroes in the next film, most likely having to fight all over China. I'd also save the 'I have a son' thing for the start of the 3rd, since it seemed utterly shoehorned in to the ending at the last minute.
That would make KFP2 the Empire Strikes Back of the series, which isn't bad per se. But those movies are, or atleast try to be contained within themselves, which makes the actual ending the better one after all.
This analysis of Casino Royale really shows why movies shouldn't always follow "the rules". If Casino Royale had followed those rules the film would not have been as good. Its true the ending drags a bit before your brain realizes there's more but the fact that the film ended with the romantic plot works best for the character of Bond and his progression and arc. Personally I feel "the rules of writing" should be more like suggestions than actual rules. If more films deviated from them in more creative ways then I think we would have much better films.
@Movie Man Reviews: Newsflash: rules aren't really rules. Also, you seem confused about how opinions work and why two people can both be right. Like if one person likes chocolate ice-cream and the other vanilla they can both write essays about why it is the best taste. Is one of them more correct than the other? (sigh) There is no such thing as objectivity. It's just people stating what they think and explaining why. The use of the word 'objective' has really been bastardized. So, objectively we can discuss camera work, angles, framing etc. what it means/communicates and what emotional effect it has is subjective. True, if you participate in a culture then you have most likely internalized certain responses to things. So you watch a video about how tension in movies works; you agree with what you hear, but it's still not objective. Meaning people from a different culture would not have the same associations/responses (not necessarily). My point is: just because something is true to you and many others does not make it objective. It's rather a result of shared culture, which is rather amazing, but still not objective (if you get my drift). Diverging opinions are fine, really.
What are you rambling on about? No one said anything about "objectivity". You seem a little confused about opinions yourself. Uploader states opinion, gives reasons. Commenter disagrees mildly, gives reasons. Both people are perfectly respectful. It's a wonderful if not uncommon example of reasonable expression of disagreement. And then AnHeC comes along trying to play comment police...
Casino Royale actually follows a typical 3 act structure remarkably closely. People just misinterpret the movie and think that the poker game is the climax, which it very much isn't. It's actually just the second act. The true climax is Vesper's death. Also, the betrayal is very much tied into the main conflict.
Hi, I just want to say as an young, aspiring filmmaker, your videos have taught and inspired me. Your content is always quality and thought provoking... I just wanted to thank you, keep doing what you're doing :)
Jerome D. Riggs Well in my case, it's "17-year-old guy with a passion for writing and filmmaking about to study film and hopefully launch his career afterwards".
I'd also add that Boromir's character resolution means more to the movie because it serves the theme of the Fellowship: It was all about reluctant heroes finally learning that they want to take on this mission and do whats right. By having Boromir die a hero who puts the lives of the rest of Fellowship ahead of himself, the theme of taking on the responsibility of saving middle earth is fully realized.
To be fair to Casino Royale, your criticism is valid only if the actual climax or goal is beating Le Chiffre in the poker game, but it's not. Bond's actual goal is discovering what being a 00 agent actually entails. Sure, one of those aspects is beating the villain and finishing the mission, but it's also about detachment from emotion and learning distrust of everyone, M even touches on it in the first scene. Bond learns this not from beating the villain, but being betrayed by Vesper. Vesper was working with Bond the whole time in order to betray him, so in subverting the expectation of the audience, it gives an even greater emphasis to Bond's arc. Bond becomes the classic Bond because of this "subplot". That's because it was really the main plot the whole time, and the audience was only fooled into believing otherwise. Bond was being played and therefore will never be played again. So the structure was actually done this way intentionally. As Vesper's betrayal and death is the actual climax for Bond's character, it makes sense. Taking it from this perspective, the end of the movie comes less than ten minutes after this scene, negating your argument that it suffers from ending fatigue. I usually agree with your analyses, but I felt that you misunderstood the character and plot purposes of Casino Royale and Bond's goals in it.
Sitting there listening to his interpretation of Casino Royale just made me cringe and I was going to elaborate with my own thoughts. And then I look at one of the first comments and am met with my exact thoughts. Damn.
Casino Royale's main plot is the romance plot. This is Bond's origin story, and his origin is defined by the loss of Vesper. It's a character based resolution. It's why at the very end, Bond announces himself to Mr White.
Casino Royale introduces Le Chifre in its second scene. Vesper is introduced after act one. I agree the story is about Vesper, but the movie lacks focus. On Her Majesty's Secret Service introduces Tracy in it's intro! She dies after 10 minutes of the movie's climax with Blofeld. OHMSS, to me, is not only a better film, but a more effective film.
I am 14 years old about to turn 15 and I have wanted to be a filmmaker for a while, your video's have taught me a lot and I am so glad to have found them. You can easily tell that you take your time on videos and put quality before quantity. Great channel thanks
I usually agree with you, but here I couldn't disagree more. Casino Royale has the opposite of "sloppy story structure". It purposefully plays with the expectations of the genre and the series about the bad guy (it's no coincidence that Bond doesn't even get to stop/kill him himself). I think you look at it from the opposite perspective. The movie doesn't drag after Le Chiffre's death: Le Chiffre's death comes "early" in the film. Without the resolution at the end, all hints at Vesper being a double agent would be hanging in the air, Bond would be a totally different character (romantic rather than womaniser etc.) than the one they set out to show from even the B/W intro, and the storyline would be generic. It's the resolution that makes Bond, well, Bond, and informed the character in rest of the movies with Daniel Craig (despite QoS being horrible and Spectre changing him quite a bit). Also, I am rarely absolute when it comes to stuff like this, but you are 100% wrong at 2:00. "The viewer should have a correct sense as to when the movie is about to end"? Seriously? Then every movie would be predictable, structure-wise, and you would get movies like Power Rangers or even Justice League, with story beats happening right when you expect them to. That's the opposite of what a film should do. A film should be immersive (unless it's meta, but still) and if it's immersive, you feel like you are IN its world, and if you are in its world, you don't see your watch and think "Ah yeah, it's close to the time that we will win over the antagonist, nice!".
I can see what you're saying with this, but I think Casino Royale just did it poorly. I haven't seen the movie in a while, but from my memory it really did drag terribly after the villain's death. I don't think what it was going for was altogether bad, but the execution was poor. The betrayal should have happened before the villain's death so the end felt like a final resolution, not a completely different story they tagged in at the end, also the betrayal wasn't foreshadowed enough and the love interest/chemistry wasn't that great anyway, the romance didn't sell me personally. A story that does the same thing but does this well is The Dark Knight, where we see Two Face's descent as a villain from the very beginning and his final fall before the Joker is captured, not after, so it doesn't feel like a whole separate plot just tagged on at the end when Batman has to save the Commissioner's kid from him after what we would have expected to be the final act.
This a better analysis at Casino Royale than the one in the video. No offense to the guy cause he has made good videos before, but the analysis in this essay is quite amateur and poorly researched. The good part about this video is that its flaws showed me how far I've come in terms of cinematic knowledge from where I was 4 year ago. I say that because, back in 2014, I would've agreed with him.
I haven't seen Casino Royale and I don't really have an interest in watching it, but I have to agree with Wainwright. Less importance should be put on how a film is structured and more on how it is executed. For example, when watching Star Wars: A New Hope, you know when the film is about to end, but most people still greatly enjoy the film, and that's because it's excellently done. Also, you can know when a film is about to end without knowing how it'll end. I'm not trying to defend what was said in my video, just sharing my opinion, although he did note that a lot of what he said was as a "general rule".
Great comment! I also think that a story becomes more believable and affecting if it feels spontaneous (yet is coherent), by doing something unexpected. I think The Dark Knight does something similar with its plot structure: Batman starts to think that he's not needed anymore, decides to reveal his identity, but then realizes that he IS still needed and goes on to capture the Joker with the help of his friends. This of course is just a fake ending that makes all the suspense that comes after feel more surprising and "real" and the final conflict (whether the people of Gotham are worth saving or not) is resolved. Ratatouille also has somewhat similar structure where the main characters beat the bad guy, we have a "happy ending moment" but the movie keeps going with new conflicts (or conflicts we didn't pay too much attention earlier) that, when resolved, give us the true lessons of the movie. Imo capturing or killing an all-bad antagonist in a movie is not an interesting ending. Resolving an internal conflict usually gives us something to think about and makes the movie feel more meaningful. That's why Casino Royale ended on the right note.
Rule #1: The shorter the amount of time between the climax and the ending the better Rule #2: End with a final note of uncertainty (A question) Rule #3: The closer the plots are resolved to one another the better
You talk about the importance of not having the end take too long after the climax, but I would argue it is also very important to not end it too quickly after the climax, which can leave the audience feeling cheated and asking "oh, that's it?" See Unbreakable.
Dear Friend, I belive that there are two climaxes for every movie, the plot and story climax. In some movies, such as the matrix both of them come at the same time, but in others like lotr the return of the king and cassino royale, the are not even close to each other, in terms o f time. Cassino royale, I belive is a story about Bond becoming 007, and for that he must give up life's luxuries, so in Cassino royale his biggest obstacle in the way of reaching his goal, taking up the mantle of 007, is not a villain, it is a normal life with love and someone that he loves. Amd the reason I love that ending so much is because the chance of a normal life gets back on him and show him the frustrations of a normal way to live and in regards to that conflict Bond looses, but that loss is important for him to become who he must be, 007. So the plot climax I belive is when LeChifre dies, but there is still a vibe of uncertanty and Bond hasn't yet become who he is, in regards to his development as a character, and at the end on the story climax Bond is hardened by life and completes his journey as a character, that why I think it works. But I still agree that the structure could be improved. I still love your channel, great video overall, and I wish you the best on your new channels and decisions in your life. If I misspell something I'm sorry, because I am from Brazil and am still practising English. Great video.
I think The Dark Knight has quite the amazing ending It’s closes with joker left hanging upside down to be arrested and then batman finding Two Face and saving Commissioner Gordon and His Kid , It fully closes with commissioner Gordon talking to his son about how they have to chase batman and how he’s the hero we deserve “but not the one we need right now” batman is chased by the cops and left on the run.. Batman Begins also had a great ending with the death of Ral Al Goul and Hints to the joker The dark knight rises ending was alright aswell with the closure to the hole story
4:41 Love this type of framing. Using objects in the foreground, in this case the subway trench's threshold, highlighted by the thick shadow, to make the shot wider. So organic.
I completely disagree with your view on Casino Royale. The point of this film is exactly to crush Bond's faith and trust in anyone else but himself. It's an origin story on why Bond is a detached alcoholic who can't have deep meaningful relationship with women. Having the film end after Le chiffre dies and Bond recover in Switzerland is too hopeful ending to create the Bond we all know.
Why can't that character development happen elsewhere in the film without negatively impacting the pace? Nothing had to be sacrificed, simply rearranged.
...i dont think the purpose of an ending should be to put all the characters on the path to what the audiance should think they should be, it should be to end when all the plot threads tie up
Dude I watched 2 minutes of his video and already thought to write exactly what you just wrote. He does not understand casino royale and definitely chose the wrong example to compare to the matrix
I love your video essays and I think this is a well argued video. However, I have to slightly disagree on the ending of Casino Royale. I believe the overextended ending was done intensionally by the director to establish Bond's character. After the death of the villain, we seemingly get a happy ending with Bond choosing to retire with the love interest(basically resolving the love plot). But then after she betrays him, Bond realizes his mistake and becomes the cold hearted killer, 007. I believe the love plot was the "main" plot of the movie since it is what changed/developed the protagonist. While the other plots resolving quicker could have been better, I don't find myself having a problem with the ending.
The Romantic subplot (or perhaps even main plot, the justification of which you gave is adequate) is tied to the main plot becuase she was a double agent which is what allowed Bond to lose the money. They set up that Vesper was a double agent earlier in the film, it didn't come out of nowhere.
I think the main focus of Casino Royale was Bond's character arc from hopeful young agent to the cynical, cold-blooded killer he later becomes. Which is reinforced by the fact that the first few scenes don't have anything to do with le Chiffre at all.
There's a difference between a cliffhanger and an ending that suggests there is a future to the story. A cliffhanger leaves the audience with unanswered questions. Usually questions that should have been answered within the film's length. Whereas, an ending with an implied future more closely resembles real life. When you go to sleep at night, your day doesn't end with a cliffhanger, there is a story that will continue when you awake in the morning. Hence, an ending that only completes the current story and character arc and leaves the future open to more experiences.
some of those endings are not necessarily a cliffhanger though , it is more of a thought provoking end, in inception it doesn't really matter whether the top is gonna continue spinning or whether it will stop the matter is that cobb has accepted that here is where he wants to live and doesn't care whether it is the dream world or the real world it has to be to be presented subtly and not of a matter of great importance for example , if the whole movie is about staying alive and defeating the villian and then ending it one a cliffhanger pisses people off
i kinda fundamentally disagree with his second point too yeah lol. your ENDING should END your story. you can insist there is a future yes most certainly, but questions should be answered and satisfied. be definite with your work.
This is a really good essay. Another movie that serves as a good example of wrapping your character and plot threads at once is the original Star Wars. Luke's character arc, Han's character arc, and the main plot of destroying the Death Star are all concluded in the span of 40 seconds of screen time. Also, something to consider re The Fellowship of the Ring: there is a main plot thread that is resolved at the end, namely how the characters will deal with the Ring's effect on their party, and how they will get it to Mount Doom. How the Fellowship is going to get the ring to Mordor is an issue in flux throughout the story, but at the end, because of Boromir's sacrifice, we get a resolution: Frodo and Sam will take it, alone. It's a very satisfying ending that wraps up major character arcs, answers a question that was looming over the story throughout, and opens up new questions about what will happen to the members of the Fellowship in the next movie. It hits all of the marks that you talked about.
The Silence of the Lambs and Inception are good examples of a great ending but you forgot to mention David Fincher's Se7en. I think that it has one of the greatest endings of all time if not the greatest. Good video as always. Thanks.
Nameless Monster Se7en is one of my favorite movies. It's a beautiful example of the villain winning but the movie ends well. Also up there, a tiny movie came out last year called Wind River. The movie was good but the ending was perfect, if you ask me.
As amazing as your analysis is, i think the end of LotR I has unresolved questions... What is the fate of a seemingly defeated fellowship? That's why i think the LotR trilogy is one of the (if not THE) best trilogy ever made. The character development plus the great story-telling is unmatched. I've seen a lot of good movies that have either really good characters OR a really good way of telling the story, but to do both at such a level is rare. One of my favourite thing about LotR is, that it breaks your first rule of ending fatigue. The ending in the last movie is extremely long, but it still gives me satisfaction every time i watch it.
I often see people comment that movies are predictable and unoriginal so when Casino Royale breaks the convention and tries something new, it gets labelled as having 'Ending Fatigue'? Movies should continue to break conventions and never adhere to the audiences expectations. So while I usually agree with your analysis this is one thing I cannot abide. When you get a movie that plays with its own tropes and turns them on their heads, they shouldn't be labelled as bloated. It is almost as bad as when people complain about a movies run time being too long. You just binged watched 10 episodes of something on Netflix but an extra half hour ruins a film... Nonsense. Take for example the ending of LOTR - Return of the King. It has a long-winded ending that has already wrapped up the plot but hasn't yet finished with the character development arc of its main character until the very final scene. Every second of the space in between is still needed in order to convey how much the main character has changed ever since he began his journey two movies previous to the life he used to live. Not every story has to adhere to the three act structure in fact a lot of great tales are told in four acts allowing time after the climax in order for the audience to see the effects of said events. My personal opinion is that if the ending is too short after the climax, I often feel cheated. I just spent an hour and a half watching a story unfold only to get robbed with a five minute ending. Nothing is worse than sequel bait or an annoying cliffhanger.
The first Matrix movie remains one of my favorite movies to this day. It blew my 11-year-old mind when it first released, and now that I'm older I can appreciate the nuance and craftsmanship that went into making it as a whole. A shame that the sequels didn't measure up. Any thoughts on weighing in on those particular things, Henry?
It is very strange because the first was so well made in so many ways yet the two that followed were not bad but they were just mediocre. I think the soul reason is the wachowskis put huge love and time into the first script and less so for the others.
I think the Fellowship of the Ring's ending is more than that. The group is split and Frodo decides that he should go farther without them. And Sam follows him and almost drowns, Aragorn and the rest go save Merry and Pippin, plus Boromir redeeming himself and calling Aragorn his King. The plot exploads in multiple storylines because of a bad event but there's hope sprinkled all over, which I think makes everyone so exited for the next film.
I may disagree that knitting the climax and resolution closely together is necessary for a great ending, but I do love that you included an addendum about Fellowship of the Ring where you explained an alternative path where the plot is cut short but it still works. Where, in the past, such an inclusion would’ve been absent because it was an example which countered your point (on the surface), you instead used it to address both sides of your argument. Which, in the end, helped to create a fuller picture of your view on endings and what you find essential for a satisfying conclusion; the payoff. I really respect that. It made your point even stronger overall, in my opinion. Story is a strange alchemy, and the more we dive into the anomalies, the better a perspective we tend to have. Good work.
You have really improved your narration incredibly well. I will surely be watching this video again. That being said I hope people do understand that some movies don't follow the Three Act Structure strictly as in case of Casino Royale so even though the conflicts are not resolved at once it gives this movie a lot of emotional weightage which Bond films have lacked before Casino Royale. Anyways loved the video😍
I disagree with your comments that about Casino Royale. They set up in the film that Vesper was a double agent and therefore both the Romantic AND the main plotline remained unresolved. Afterall, the money won by Bond in the Poker game is stolen by Vesper and finds its way to Mr White. The film even ends on a "question" as you state with the audience wondering "What is Bond going to do to Mr White?" The climax of the film is definitely in Venice.
Casino Royale was a bad example. It's perfectly fine if you don't follow the traditional film structure. Sometimes ignoring the traditional structure makes for a much better film. And in the case of Casino Royale, it did make for a better film. A great one actually. You should have used some other movie that tried to break the traditional structure but couldn't manage to be good instead of Casino Royale.
It seems like tying all of your plot threads into one climax, and resolving them in as few distinct moments as possible, is the critical bit. It might not be the most important "rule," but it makes the other "rules" _much_ easier to follow.
Omg i heard the inception song playing and i was reminded of how spectacular the ending is. Inception has the best ending I’ve ever seen. There’s so much closure and yet the movie ends on uncertainty
I'm pretty sure that Casino Royale did a similar thing to lord of the rings in that after the main conflict was over it focused on the character conflict of a bond who genuinely cares about a person and watching this be destroyed and seeing him become who we all know James bond to be, it is the definitive point of the movie because it tackles what made bond who he is today, this is the whole point of the movie.It's not the cars or the girls he gets but the cold reservation he has due to a loss that changed him to his core. the main plot of this movie is a vehicle to get James into the situation where he well remain for the rest of the movies in the series. The first 3 quarters introduces the lifestyle of bond but his attitude doesn't change until the death of his love. I find this to be a great character moment and a poignant ending to a great movie.
You’re so spot on about Casino Royale...that ending after he won the poker game and then was just recovering would’ve been perfect, but maybe it was extend as the director thought that the film would’ve been too short
I think Casino Royale was a bad example to use in an otherwise good analysis. Love or hate how it is structured, it was intentionally designed to be surprising, to be more than a generic Bond film. Part of the reason it is one of the best Bond movies is because of this unconventional structure where the romantic subplot is for more than just a generic sex scene payoff. Edit: I also think Frodo goes through a good arc in Fellowship.
Ninja-Turtle Man i think the romantic subplot was not that interesting for a big part of the viewers. The most tense part was the confrontation with the villain, and that's what most of us were waiting for. Even if the romantic subplot was good, i have to admit i had almost no interest in the film anymore at that point, because i already had the resolution i wanted. The last part seemed to me quite unrelated to the rest of the movie, and a bit unnecessary. I think a good amount of the viewers thought the same thing.
I'm not saying it was well executed, I'm just saying that if it had been well executed, it could have been a really exciting mix up of the traditional formula. And I respect that they went there, even if it was not perfect, partly for reasons pointed out in this video essay, but partly because the romance was underdeveloped. It fell prey to its Bond cliches in the end, didn't it?
Wow a first video essay you've done which I for the most part disagree with you on! Regarding Casino Royal-it's based on a book. Absolutely Martin Campbell/the filmmakers don't have to follow the book/any source material to a T-but for the most part the film is extremely faithful to the Fleming novel. Le Chiffre was killed on page 119 of 178-not even 70% of the way through the film. Le Chiffre may have been the villain but it wasn't about him. This was a Bond origin film-it's all about Bond: how Vesper's betrayal molded Bond into the man/secret agent we all know him to be. So her death-being her betrayal comes full circle. In the film it's clear that she has "no tell" that Bond fell for her even though she had her own agenda, "I'm the money"-since Bond fell for her-she became the mission. Obviously she fell in love with him too, but her death is the climax, not Le Chiffre's death. And her death is only mere minutes/5 pages to the actual end of the film/book.
I didn't read the book but the movie felt like a regular Bond. So maybe it’s the book or maybe the movie but the ending sucked. A Bond movie is about defeating the villain and he did that long before the movie ended.
I agree! I didn't know it was based on a book but really I think Casino Royale is a perfect movie that shows why not ALL movies need to follow the same "rules of writing" or structure bc not all work that way. If it had followed the generic structure he mentions in the video the film wouldn't have been as good. It would have messed with the character of bond and his arc. Rocky is another movie that deviates from the typical story structure and its all the better for it!
icegamer Not all Bond movies have to be about that. This one was more about Bond himself and really exploring that character. There's a reason this is one of the most favorite bond films amongst bond fans.
LOTR the return of the king has an ending of more than 20 minutes but honestly it's one of the best endings I've seen. Everything felt complete and finished, and never felt more satisfied after watching it.
The extended edition of Fellowship of the Ring had a slightly different take on Boremir. Instead of being a completely bad person, the ring used his desire to save his city to corrupt him. He wasn't necessarily bad, but rather his good intentions were exploited. The ending's still a good one, but I prefer the context given...even if you have to sit through ten extra minutes of useless Shire shenanigans.
The Shire shenanigans makes me care for the place and its inhabitants even more. So when we see Shire burnt in Galadriel's mirror it has an extra punch.
I agree with all of your points concerning Casino Royal but, the ending with vesper is one of the most iconic bond moments and was always going to happen, I’m not sure it could have been handled any better
Love this series, but I completely disagree with your opinion about Casino Royale. The story and character wouldn't make any sense had it ended. There was a tension there after LaChifre was killed that had been telegraphed built up there the whole film. The movie still had a unresolved tone and momentum after this. If anything, I would argue that Casino Royale is a great example of the contemporary interpretation of the five act structure.
In addition I would not consider the Vesper plot a subplot at all. I'd consider it the main plot. The plot with Vesper is the most important to James Bond as a character and his origin story, and this was essentially an origin story.
The problem with that is it vesper was introduced at the 40 minute mark while the villain was in the first couple minutes. If vesper was the primary plot why was it introduced after the first act was over?
The Closer Look I can think of a handful of villains that aren’t introduced until near the midpoint of the second act. That’s not always a dead giveaway. I don’t think Casino Royale is by any stretch the best counter example to the Matrix available.
On the subject of lord of the rings what are your thoughts on the ending of the last lord of the rings? That had a incredibly long ending but it had many plot threads to tie up. Also it saved the most potent ending, Frodo's character ending, for last. I would love to know what you thing about this one.
The Closer Look I fail to see how it could have been any shorter while still being satisfying. It had to show Aragorn's coronation cause the film is called return of the king. It has to show them returning to the shire cause that's what they've been fighting for the whole time. The scene in the pub is necessary as it shows how changed they are. Without it you'd have to assume they've integrated back into life before as though nothing had happened which would just be hard to believe. Sam's wedding was also necessary cause that was another thing he had been fighting for and finished his arc. The only scene I could maybe understand cutting is frodo in his house finishing his book off, although I think that is a really beautiful moment personally so I'm glad it's there. and then obviously the grey havens is 100% uncuttable.
The David Fincher Girl with Dragon Tattoo film and the book itself break rule 1 hard but is still a fantastic film and has a great ending even with a tidy resolution it still sets up the second novel/film that never was with a great ending shot of Salander walking in to the night. The 3 part resolution of Martin Vanger, Harriet Vanger and the Wennerström affair occur very far apart yet the movie is great.
I think for casino royals, the story wasn't in the casino plot, rather it the development of bond and Vesper's relationship, and the creation of 007 as a cold killer. I wonder what the structure would look like if you examined the film through the development of this "subplot".
If casino royale were a romance then yes, the romantic plot would have been the primary. However because it is a Bond film obviously there will be a big spy scheme with an evil villain that takes centre stage. the romantic element only got introduced halfway through the movie.
The Closer Look The Closer Look aye I agree with you. Just entertaining the idea that the structure is bound to some other theme or idea, rather than the casino plot. I'm surprised you didn't use LOTR Rotk as your example for ending fatigue. Maybe that might've been a bit overdone. But I think it's an interesting case.
Ya but Bonds romantic subplot had action in it It still performed like a Bond film, because the love interest betrayed him... I really don't get what you mean when you say there is a problem with the structure of the film tbh
There can be Only One Potato the film progresses from bond having nothing to lose, therefore being reckless, to having something to lose, and then losing everything.
I think the fact that in Casino Royale that the villain dies with 20 mins left is meant to make you go ohhh shit and subvert your expectations. Normally in bond films bond kills the villains saying a quip but in this film the villain dies with 20 mins left and bond doesn’t even kill him and that’s the whole point. They wanted to get as far away from the bond formula as possible in this film so that’s why they chose to do that
The problem with that is while in the cinema, no one has a clue how many minutes are left in the movie. There was no problem with the fact bond didn't kill the villain it's just at that point every plot thread was resolved and the movie could have ended right there and it would have worked.
But then not only would you have a generic, predictable happy ending, but also it would not make sense for the James Bond character we've seen in the B/W intro and in the novels. He is, by definition, not a relationship guy, so ending it there would feel lacking something... Almost as if the film was actually building up for the climax.
1:56 Ever heard of a "fake ending"? That's what makes it so good: Make the audience think that the hero is safe, and the enemy has been defeated. Then turn everything upside down, dragging them back into the horror.
Eh, no. Personally, I really love long and conclusive endings. The Matrix is fine, and its ending works for it, but is far from the only or best option.
Just a point on inception, the question isn't actually the point. It's there, but it's a red herring. The point is that cobb no longer cares. So it leaves the audience with a question, that is unimportant. Which is kind of neat. Also, I disagree on casino royale. The winning of the poker game is sort of the end of act 3, but then there's an act 4. It's a common thing, happens in all sorts of things, even games such as bioshock. Any film that uses a "they weren't the bad guy, it was this guy all along" then goes for the new guy. Where it goes wrong is where you build the original up to be the big ending. In casino royale the big ending is nailing le chiffre. Not beating him in poker. It was beating him in general. So the real ending is when he dies. I agree on the final, say, 10 minutes being a bit unnecessary. But that's it. If you look at the last jedi for instance, snoake is dead, first order fleet is annihilated, everyone gets away... Then we get another ending on top. That's ending fatigue, as the whole film was focused around this chase, rei meeting kylo etc. To then go "oh don't worry they're still being chased" after we see that first climax, is a step too far.
Casino has a perfect ending and it's not extra it's part of the plot somethings just don't need sequel or 10 min ending it not a thumb rule method for a great ending it's a creative choice
An ending is much more nuanced topic than most people realized, I think. One thing I found lacking in this video is that there are 2 kinds of ending to the narrative. An ending to the PLOT; and an ending to the STORY. I found an ending can be any length, without suffering from ending fatigue, as long as it delivers an ending to those two things. Most of the time, the end of a plot would coincide with the end of the story, and the best way is to end it immediately as to not overstay the welcome of the narrative. But there are instances where the end of the plot would be so removed from the overarching story, that in order to finish it, a writer would need more time to come to a fulfilling end. Just my 2 cent, and always a great video 😊
I would argue that The Fellowship of the Ring is a key example on how to create proper sequel-bait because each of the sub-plots are ended in a manner where you would properly end a first act. The sub-plots don't simply end, nor is it a cliff-hanger type ending, instead they act as set-up for even more to come and because the characters's journeys aren't finished just yet. A great ending both finishes a character's arc, but can also offer a sensation of more to come.
Not to mention the ending of the Fellowship of the Ring also has the character resolution of Frodo: he accepts that he needs Sam with him after believing for so long that he can't trust anyone and that he has to destroy the Ring alone.
Very good, The closer look . I would characterize Rule 2 a little differently. I would call it "Every Ending is a new Beginning". All of what you describe is the the seed, or germ, of the beginning of something new. The idea that although the film finishes, the characters in the film continue.
Imagine how boring it would be if every movie followed the same pattern. Partly reason why casino royale is so great is because of the unexpected twist at the end. It is great it shocks, surprises and bring strong emotions. Also, how long the ending is and should be depends on a thousand things this RUclips doesnt take in to account. Shit video, thumbs down.
Everything you said could be said about the ending to On Her Majesty's Secret Service, except the unexpected twist end that shocks and surprises happens like 5-10 minutes after the climax of the film. It's much more satisfying.
You'd be surprised by how similar everything actually is when we break it down. You have assimilated certain expectations and patterns as a kid. You cannot view things without your cultural lens. When you really get down to it all movies have 3 act structure. ALL of them (I think someone made a video about that). But most importantly, it's ok for people to like different things. Really. True story. You can totally do it! (shocking, I know). People can feel differently about stuff. However, I think the point this video made stands (in a sense that it is logical). You feel differently? Guess what, you are both correct in a funny way.
I do like your video and I see your point, Henry, but I'm not sure I agree. Sometimes the viewer needs to be surprised - Casino Royale did so very well with Vesper Lynd, and if you watch the earlier Casino Royale (a bizarre romp at the best of times) the structure is similar with Le Chiffre being killed at around the same part of the film. It also explained clearly why Bond is the way he is...
The greatest ending in the history of concluding a story was Blue's line in SaGa Frontier. He defeats (or is defeated by) his twin Rouge in the mind's eye, the winner absorbing the looser and gaining their magic, which is diametrically opposed and thus should be impossible, making him the greatest sorcerer ever. He then invades hell by himself to fight the Devil in a protracted boss battle in multiple configurations before cutting to end credits (the implication being he is fighting the devil forever in hell to stop his evil plans from furthering). Sheer, perfection.
I just wanted to say... I love your movie analysis... They really help in me taking notes to learn film development as I am doing this all on my own... My heartfelt gratitude towards you.
Found your channel today, binge watched a bunch of your videos. You've got a pleasant voice and explain things well. Also, it's a nice touch quietly having the thematic music change depending on the film as you continue talking about the topic. Looking forwards to seeing more from you. Cheers.
Honestly, when there will be no more sequel, I think a movie ending should wrap up everything nicely. At least if it's a film series; standalone films have slightly different rules, of course. I was about to write about me disagreeing that subplots should be resolved before the main plot, that I think it was better to resolve everything at the climax, but then you went ahead and corrected that for me. xD Another great video. Out of the many RUclipsrs on movies, you might be the one I learn the most with. As usual, there were several things here I already knew, but also plenty of new information, a far bigger amount than usual. The ending is one of the most important parts of a story to me, and as such I love learning new things on how to improve it. Could you eventually make a video about the climax proper, my most important part of a story? I spend hours and hours thinking about the climax to each of my books, way more than what comes after it. It's also my favourite part of each movie.
Hey gui, thanks for the feedback and it means a lot to hear you find these essays useful. I don't know if I want to make a video on the climax itself as I feel I really touched on that in this video and I don't like to tackle the same subject twice.
The Closer Thank you for answering! You did touch on the subject, but there's still loads of important stuff to say about it. But of course, just do whatever videos you want! ;-)
I'm definitely starting to get this stuff thanks in no small part to you! Something I'd like to add about the Fellowship of the Ring is that the theme exemplified by Boromir's arc is also reinforced twice in rapid succession: when Sam joins Frodo on the boat, and when Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli decide that the fellowship isn't broken as long as they stay together. The Fellowship of the Ring is a movie where you know what it's about, with or without sequels, and even if you can't articulate it.
the definitive ending is Robocop, goes full circle just by him saying his name. It makes you cheer loudly and it payed off the agonizing the journey Murphy had
It's quite ironic, that a video that is all about how to make a great ending, ends with an ad.
this comment was sponsored by squarespace
For real
haha
Whilst you seat on the comfort at your parents expenses, people are actually working for a living.
@@RedPilgrim. what mate
This video's climax ends at 9:09, after that it suffers from ending fatigue!
Yeah but it wasn't over 10 minutes so it was fine ;D
Still watched it, I like your voice!
What is the song in 4:48?
@@Martin-xm7gf Time
I like ur dp ;)
do a how to write a beginning next time.
Arvids Hand I wanna see that
He can use the Matrix for that as well.
Look I'm in your PFP
This man predicted the future
@@And-Or101 he can and he did
Worth noting that the Boromir plot is not at all the only character plot to be resolved at the end of FotR. Who could forget Sam, once afraid to step out of one bucolic field and into another because it was "farther from home than he'd ever been," now chasing Frodo into the lake, risking death by drowning to follow his friend into a dangerous and unknown future? There are smaller moments too, like Merri and Pippin drawing their swords in an attempt to make a stand, where they were once carefree rascals. Even Boromir referring to Aragorn as "king" begins to solidify for that character (and the audience) that there is a greater destiny awaiting him- one which he is beginning to step into.
Nicely done!
Even just you describing all these character arcs made me tear up, that movie is absolute perfection.
I also think the FotR ending actually DOES do a good job with plot resolution. The film sets up the Fellowship, and the ending destroys it, informing both the audience and the characters that Frodo must go alone. At once, this concludes the events of the first film, sets up the second film, and resolves Aragorn’s, Frodo’s, and Sam’s character arcs in addition to Boromir’s, as you described.
Also Aragorn getting his test moment and passing. He was tempted by Frodo, who straight up offers the ring to test him, and he courageously turns it out, proclaims his love and devotion to Frodo, and protects his back while he flees. *Sniffle* Beautiful.
Yeah. Aragorn keeping Boromir's greaves is meant to represent that he is taking up his word that he will not let "our" people fail and is finally ready to step into kingship. Merry and Pippin being captured is a perfect resolution to the fellowship as the remaining members have nothing left to do but follow them so it starts a new thread straight off the bat. And finally, Frodo has his resolution as the entire movie has been building to him finishing the task alone but Sam doesn't allow it and he subverts this expectation by staying with Frodo no matter what with the argument of keeping Gandalf's word which Frodo wasn't about to disagree with oh no.
With this video, I can safely say that the video itself didn't had a very good ending.
hahaha so true xD but a man has gotta earn his bread....
Nah, the ending wasn't over 10 minutes so it's fine ;D
Have*
The Closer Look since a movie is anywhere from 1-2 hours, converting that into a RUclips video means the ending needed to be :30s - 1m
@@nachochips8090 that's very big brain
Kung Fu Panda 2, one of my favourite animated movies, has a phenomenal ending that follows all those rules.
Andy Zhang animated movies are usually pretty good at this. Maybe because they mostly don’t clutter themselves with pointless sub-plots that need to be resolved, i think.
Mono Flax well, there were quite a few subplots, but none of them were pointless. Namely, the main plots were learning and accepting his traumatic past, gaining inner peace, and defeating a warlord that uses an "unstoppable" weapon. And it was all geniusly tied together in a brilliant climax and an amazing ending tease. I would say it's on par with the matrix ending, and personally I like it even better than the Matrix ending.
I always thought KFP2 would have ended better if it ended with Shen's ships getting out into the harbour as the heroes looked on helplessly. Considering how much of a big deal everyone made about China being lost if Shen did this, to see this ultimate barricade fail sets up a phenomenal task for the heroes in the next film, most likely having to fight all over China. I'd also save the 'I have a son' thing for the start of the 3rd, since it seemed utterly shoehorned in to the ending at the last minute.
That would make KFP2 the Empire Strikes Back of the series, which isn't bad per se. But those movies are, or atleast try to be contained within themselves, which makes the actual ending the better one after all.
Glad to see that movie getting some love!
This analysis of Casino Royale really shows why movies shouldn't always follow "the rules". If Casino Royale had followed those rules the film would not have been as good. Its true the ending drags a bit before your brain realizes there's more but the fact that the film ended with the romantic plot works best for the character of Bond and his progression and arc. Personally I feel "the rules of writing" should be more like suggestions than actual rules. If more films deviated from them in more creative ways then I think we would have much better films.
Movie Man Reviews
More like guidelines, really :p
@Movie Man Reviews:
Newsflash: rules aren't really rules. Also, you seem confused about how opinions work and why two people can both be right. Like if one person likes chocolate ice-cream and the other vanilla they can both write essays about why it is the best taste. Is one of them more correct than the other?
(sigh) There is no such thing as objectivity. It's just people stating what they think and explaining why. The use of the word 'objective' has really been bastardized. So, objectively we can discuss camera work, angles, framing etc. what it means/communicates and what emotional effect it has is subjective. True, if you participate in a culture then you have most likely internalized certain responses to things. So you watch a video about how tension in movies works; you agree with what you hear, but it's still not objective. Meaning people from a different culture would not have the same associations/responses (not necessarily). My point is: just because something is true to you and many others does not make it objective. It's rather a result of shared culture, which is rather amazing, but still not objective (if you get my drift). Diverging opinions are fine, really.
What are you rambling on about? No one said anything about "objectivity". You seem a little confused about opinions yourself. Uploader states opinion, gives reasons. Commenter disagrees mildly, gives reasons. Both people are perfectly respectful. It's a wonderful if not uncommon example of reasonable expression of disagreement.
And then AnHeC comes along trying to play comment police...
@@gmmay70 not to mention, when the video's given REASONS for that opinion are rather false then why wouldnt someone correct the record?
Casino Royale actually follows a typical 3 act structure remarkably closely. People just misinterpret the movie and think that the poker game is the climax, which it very much isn't. It's actually just the second act. The true climax is Vesper's death. Also, the betrayal is very much tied into the main conflict.
Hi, I just want to say as an young, aspiring filmmaker, your videos have taught and inspired me. Your content is always quality and thought provoking...
I just wanted to thank you, keep doing what you're doing :)
No problem, good luck with the career :)
Chinook Productions couldn’t agree more. Thank you Henry
As another young aspiring filmmaker, I can only repeat your words!
Same
Jerome D. Riggs Well in my case, it's "17-year-old guy with a passion for writing and filmmaking about to study film and hopefully launch his career afterwards".
I'd also add that Boromir's character resolution means more to the movie because it serves the theme of the Fellowship: It was all about reluctant heroes finally learning that they want to take on this mission and do whats right. By having Boromir die a hero who puts the lives of the rest of Fellowship ahead of himself, the theme of taking on the responsibility of saving middle earth is fully realized.
Ironic. Hugo Weaving stars in LOTR and The Matrix
To be fair to Casino Royale, your criticism is valid only if the actual climax or goal is beating Le Chiffre in the poker game, but it's not. Bond's actual goal is discovering what being a 00 agent actually entails. Sure, one of those aspects is beating the villain and finishing the mission, but it's also about detachment from emotion and learning distrust of everyone, M even touches on it in the first scene. Bond learns this not from beating the villain, but being betrayed by Vesper. Vesper was working with Bond the whole time in order to betray him, so in subverting the expectation of the audience, it gives an even greater emphasis to Bond's arc.
Bond becomes the classic Bond because of this "subplot". That's because it was really the main plot the whole time, and the audience was only fooled into believing otherwise. Bond was being played and therefore will never be played again. So the structure was actually done this way intentionally. As Vesper's betrayal and death is the actual climax for Bond's character, it makes sense. Taking it from this perspective, the end of the movie comes less than ten minutes after this scene, negating your argument that it suffers from ending fatigue.
I usually agree with your analyses, but I felt that you misunderstood the character and plot purposes of Casino Royale and Bond's goals in it.
Amazing Alec! I only hope the writer of The Closer Look saw this and understood his misconception of the story.
Sitting there listening to his interpretation of Casino Royale just made me cringe and I was going to elaborate with my own thoughts. And then I look at one of the first comments and am met with my exact thoughts. Damn.
Thank you I felt alone on his analysis
Alec Plumley That’s exactly what I was thinking.
Well said.
Casino Royale's main plot is the romance plot. This is Bond's origin story, and his origin is defined by the loss of Vesper. It's a character based resolution. It's why at the very end, Bond announces himself to Mr White.
exactly, this guy has missed the entire point of Casino Royale!
Casino Royale introduces Le Chifre in its second scene. Vesper is introduced after act one. I agree the story is about Vesper, but the movie lacks focus.
On Her Majesty's Secret Service introduces Tracy in it's intro! She dies after 10 minutes of the movie's climax with Blofeld. OHMSS, to me, is not only a better film, but a more effective film.
@@Bloggerboy1000 I agree. It's why it's one of my favorites.
I am 14 years old about to turn 15 and I have wanted to be a filmmaker for a while, your video's have taught me a lot and I am so glad to have found them. You can easily tell that you take your time on videos and put quality before quantity. Great channel thanks
Great to hear you like them :)
I usually agree with you, but here I couldn't disagree more.
Casino Royale has the opposite of "sloppy story structure". It purposefully plays with the expectations of the genre and the series about the bad guy (it's no coincidence that Bond doesn't even get to stop/kill him himself). I think you look at it from the opposite perspective. The movie doesn't drag after Le Chiffre's death: Le Chiffre's death comes "early" in the film. Without the resolution at the end, all hints at Vesper being a double agent would be hanging in the air, Bond would be a totally different character (romantic rather than womaniser etc.) than the one they set out to show from even the B/W intro, and the storyline would be generic. It's the resolution that makes Bond, well, Bond, and informed the character in rest of the movies with Daniel Craig (despite QoS being horrible and Spectre changing him quite a bit).
Also, I am rarely absolute when it comes to stuff like this, but you are 100% wrong at 2:00. "The viewer should have a correct sense as to when the movie is about to end"? Seriously? Then every movie would be predictable, structure-wise, and you would get movies like Power Rangers or even Justice League, with story beats happening right when you expect them to.
That's the opposite of what a film should do. A film should be immersive (unless it's meta, but still) and if it's immersive, you feel like you are IN its world, and if you are in its world, you don't see your watch and think "Ah yeah, it's close to the time that we will win over the antagonist, nice!".
Constantinos Stylianou damn turn that into vid
I can see what you're saying with this, but I think Casino Royale just did it poorly. I haven't seen the movie in a while, but from my memory it really did drag terribly after the villain's death. I don't think what it was going for was altogether bad, but the execution was poor. The betrayal should have happened before the villain's death so the end felt like a final resolution, not a completely different story they tagged in at the end, also the betrayal wasn't foreshadowed enough and the love interest/chemistry wasn't that great anyway, the romance didn't sell me personally. A story that does the same thing but does this well is The Dark Knight, where we see Two Face's descent as a villain from the very beginning and his final fall before the Joker is captured, not after, so it doesn't feel like a whole separate plot just tagged on at the end when Batman has to save the Commissioner's kid from him after what we would have expected to be the final act.
This a better analysis at Casino Royale than the one in the video. No offense to the guy cause he has made good videos before, but the analysis in this essay is quite amateur and poorly researched. The good part about this video is that its flaws showed me how far I've come in terms of cinematic knowledge from where I was 4 year ago. I say that because, back in 2014, I would've agreed with him.
I haven't seen Casino Royale and I don't really have an interest in watching it, but I have to agree with Wainwright. Less importance should be put on how a film is structured and more on how it is executed. For example, when watching Star Wars: A New Hope, you know when the film is about to end, but most people still greatly enjoy the film, and that's because it's excellently done. Also, you can know when a film is about to end without knowing how it'll end.
I'm not trying to defend what was said in my video, just sharing my opinion, although he did note that a lot of what he said was as a "general rule".
Great comment! I also think that a story becomes more believable and affecting if it feels spontaneous (yet is coherent), by doing something unexpected.
I think The Dark Knight does something similar with its plot structure: Batman starts to think that he's not needed anymore, decides to reveal his identity, but then realizes that he IS still needed and goes on to capture the Joker with the help of his friends. This of course is just a fake ending that makes all the suspense that comes after feel more surprising and "real" and the final conflict (whether the people of Gotham are worth saving or not) is resolved.
Ratatouille also has somewhat similar structure where the main characters beat the bad guy, we have a "happy ending moment" but the movie keeps going with new conflicts (or conflicts we didn't pay too much attention earlier) that, when resolved, give us the true lessons of the movie.
Imo capturing or killing an all-bad antagonist in a movie is not an interesting ending. Resolving an internal conflict usually gives us something to think about and makes the movie feel more meaningful. That's why Casino Royale ended on the right note.
Rule #1: The shorter the amount of time between the climax and the ending the better
Rule #2: End with a final note of uncertainty (A question)
Rule #3: The closer the plots are resolved to one another the better
You talk about the importance of not having the end take too long after the climax, but I would argue it is also very important to not end it too quickly after the climax, which can leave the audience feeling cheated and asking "oh, that's it?" See Unbreakable.
i actually felt that after the first matrix LMAO
Wangtorio Jackson I love Unbreakable
I get that feeling from each of the Karate Kid films. I love them but find it jarring how suddenly each of those end!
Dear Friend, I belive that there are two climaxes for every movie, the plot and story climax. In some movies, such as the matrix both of them come at the same time, but in others like lotr the return of the king and cassino royale, the are not even close to each other, in terms o f time. Cassino royale, I belive is a story about Bond becoming 007, and for that he must give up life's luxuries, so in Cassino royale his biggest obstacle in the way of reaching his goal, taking up the mantle of 007, is not a villain, it is a normal life with love and someone that he loves. Amd the reason I love that ending so much is because the chance of a normal life gets back on him and show him the frustrations of a normal way to live and in regards to that conflict Bond looses, but that loss is important for him to become who he must be, 007. So the plot climax I belive is when LeChifre dies, but there is still a vibe of uncertanty and Bond hasn't yet become who he is, in regards to his development as a character, and at the end on the story climax Bond is hardened by life and completes his journey as a character, that why I think it works. But I still agree that the structure could be improved. I still love your channel, great video overall, and I wish you the best on your new channels and decisions in your life. If I misspell something I'm sorry, because I am from Brazil and am still practising English. Great video.
THIS^
Neither did I until some months ago, and it has radically changed the way I watch films since.
I think The Dark Knight has quite the amazing ending
It’s closes with joker left hanging upside down to be arrested and then batman finding Two Face and saving Commissioner Gordon and His Kid , It fully closes with commissioner Gordon talking to his son about how they have to chase batman and how he’s the hero we deserve “but not the one we need right now” batman is chased by the cops and left on the run..
Batman Begins also had a great ending with the death of Ral Al Goul and Hints to the joker
The dark knight rises ending was alright aswell with the closure to the hole story
Anson Whole
4:41 Love this type of framing. Using objects in the foreground, in this case the subway trench's threshold, highlighted by the thick shadow, to make the shot wider. So organic.
I completely disagree with your view on Casino Royale. The point of this film is exactly to crush Bond's faith and trust in anyone else but himself. It's an origin story on why Bond is a detached alcoholic who can't have deep meaningful relationship with women. Having the film end after Le chiffre dies and Bond recover in Switzerland is too hopeful ending to create the Bond we all know.
Why can't that character development happen elsewhere in the film without negatively impacting the pace? Nothing had to be sacrificed, simply rearranged.
Besides, it's (more or less) how the book ends as well.
...i dont think the purpose of an ending should be to put all the characters on the path to what the audiance should think they should be, it should be to end when all the plot threads tie up
IT still shouldve been rearranged, even if certian plot points would need to be rewritten to make sense. The payoff is more important.
Dude I watched 2 minutes of his video and already thought to write exactly what you just wrote. He does not understand casino royale and definitely chose the wrong example to compare to the matrix
I love your video essays and I think this is a well argued video. However, I have to slightly disagree on the ending of Casino Royale. I believe the overextended ending was done intensionally by the director to establish Bond's character. After the death of the villain, we seemingly get a happy ending with Bond choosing to retire with the love interest(basically resolving the love plot). But then after she betrays him, Bond realizes his mistake and becomes the cold hearted killer, 007. I believe the love plot was the "main" plot of the movie since it is what changed/developed the protagonist. While the other plots resolving quicker could have been better, I don't find myself having a problem with the ending.
The Romantic subplot (or perhaps even main plot, the justification of which you gave is adequate) is tied to the main plot becuase she was a double agent which is what allowed Bond to lose the money. They set up that Vesper was a double agent earlier in the film, it didn't come out of nowhere.
I think the main focus of Casino Royale was Bond's character arc from hopeful young agent to the cynical, cold-blooded killer he later becomes. Which is reinforced by the fact that the first few scenes don't have anything to do with le Chiffre at all.
A movie can be amazing but if it has a cliffhanger that usually pisses people off
There's a difference between a cliffhanger and an ending that suggests there is a future to the story. A cliffhanger leaves the audience with unanswered questions. Usually questions that should have been answered within the film's length. Whereas, an ending with an implied future more closely resembles real life. When you go to sleep at night, your day doesn't end with a cliffhanger, there is a story that will continue when you awake in the morning. Hence, an ending that only completes the current story and character arc and leaves the future open to more experiences.
some of those endings are not necessarily a cliffhanger though , it is more of a thought provoking end,
in inception it doesn't really matter whether the top is gonna continue spinning or whether it will stop
the matter is that cobb has accepted that here is where he wants to live and doesn't care whether it is the dream world or the real world
it has to be to be presented subtly and not of a matter of great importance
for example , if the whole movie is about staying alive and defeating the villian and then ending it one a cliffhanger pisses people off
VFX Todd I ain't about to read that whole paragraph! hell no! lol
i kinda fundamentally disagree with his second point too yeah lol. your ENDING should END your story. you can insist there is a future yes most certainly, but questions should be answered and satisfied. be definite with your work.
VFX Todd Well said
Yes! Yes! Yes! I'm learning so much from your videos, so much that I am actively implementing in my screenplays! This is such a treasure! Thank you!
One does not simply write a great ending
One does not simply end a movie by killing Sean Bean. Oh wait, that's exactly how you do it.
One does not simply use stale memes.
It's not stale; its classic!
The Closer Look one does not simply use a meme and simultaneously call it stale
@@monty3916 lol
This is a really good essay. Another movie that serves as a good example of wrapping your character and plot threads at once is the original Star Wars. Luke's character arc, Han's character arc, and the main plot of destroying the Death Star are all concluded in the span of 40 seconds of screen time.
Also, something to consider re The Fellowship of the Ring: there is a main plot thread that is resolved at the end, namely how the characters will deal with the Ring's effect on their party, and how they will get it to Mount Doom. How the Fellowship is going to get the ring to Mordor is an issue in flux throughout the story, but at the end, because of Boromir's sacrifice, we get a resolution: Frodo and Sam will take it, alone. It's a very satisfying ending that wraps up major character arcs, answers a question that was looming over the story throughout, and opens up new questions about what will happen to the members of the Fellowship in the next movie. It hits all of the marks that you talked about.
The Silence of the Lambs and Inception are good examples of a great ending but you forgot to mention David Fincher's Se7en. I think that it has one of the greatest endings of all time if not the greatest. Good video as always. Thanks.
Nameless Monster Se7en is one of my favorite movies. It's a beautiful example of the villain winning but the movie ends well.
Also up there, a tiny movie came out last year called Wind River. The movie was good but the ending was perfect, if you ask me.
WATS IN DA BOOOOOOOXXXXXX
WATS IN DA FUCCCCIN BOOOOOOOOXXXXXX
Nameless Monster American films definitely Se7en. Foreign films best ending I’ve ever seen is Memories of Murder. Masterpiece
this guy does the best filmmaking break down. learned so much. now I know how to end my short films!!!
As amazing as your analysis is, i think the end of LotR I has unresolved questions... What is the fate of a seemingly defeated fellowship? That's why i think the LotR trilogy is one of the (if not THE) best trilogy ever made.
The character development plus the great story-telling is unmatched. I've seen a lot of good movies that have either really good characters OR a really good way of telling the story, but to do both at such a level is rare.
One of my favourite thing about LotR is, that it breaks your first rule of ending fatigue. The ending in the last movie is extremely long, but it still gives me satisfaction every time i watch it.
Favorite detail of this movie. You say "Weave In" and show a clip of Hugo Weaving.
I often see people comment that movies are predictable and unoriginal so when Casino Royale breaks the convention and tries something new, it gets labelled as having 'Ending Fatigue'? Movies should continue to break conventions and never adhere to the audiences expectations. So while I usually agree with your analysis this is one thing I cannot abide. When you get a movie that plays with its own tropes and turns them on their heads, they shouldn't be labelled as bloated. It is almost as bad as when people complain about a movies run time being too long. You just binged watched 10 episodes of something on Netflix but an extra half hour ruins a film... Nonsense.
Take for example the ending of LOTR - Return of the King. It has a long-winded ending that has already wrapped up the plot but hasn't yet finished with the character development arc of its main character until the very final scene. Every second of the space in between is still needed in order to convey how much the main character has changed ever since he began his journey two movies previous to the life he used to live.
Not every story has to adhere to the three act structure in fact a lot of great tales are told in four acts allowing time after the climax in order for the audience to see the effects of said events. My personal opinion is that if the ending is too short after the climax, I often feel cheated. I just spent an hour and a half watching a story unfold only to get robbed with a five minute ending. Nothing is worse than sequel bait or an annoying cliffhanger.
The first Matrix movie remains one of my favorite movies to this day. It blew my 11-year-old mind when it first released, and now that I'm older I can appreciate the nuance and craftsmanship that went into making it as a whole.
A shame that the sequels didn't measure up. Any thoughts on weighing in on those particular things, Henry?
It is very strange because the first was so well made in so many ways yet the two that followed were not bad but they were just mediocre. I think the soul reason is the wachowskis put huge love and time into the first script and less so for the others.
Well, after watching this video I've watched all of your videos in about 3 days, really amazing channel, good job and keep it up! :)
I was struggling with my writing. Thanks for these insights. I needed them. Solved my problem.
Oh man!!! You've finally uploaded a new video!!! And one that involves The Matrix, no less!!! I'm so happy right now!!!
Good to hear :)
I think the Fellowship of the Ring's ending is more than that. The group is split and Frodo decides that he should go farther without them. And Sam follows him and almost drowns, Aragorn and the rest go save Merry and Pippin, plus Boromir redeeming himself and calling Aragorn his King. The plot exploads in multiple storylines because of a bad event but there's hope sprinkled all over, which I think makes everyone so exited for the next film.
"As a general rule, it's better to resolve the secondary plot before the primary one."
Screams in Game of Thrones Season 8
TBF They did wind up ALL the other arcs before the long night.
I may disagree that knitting the climax and resolution closely together is necessary for a great ending, but I do love that you included an addendum about Fellowship of the Ring where you explained an alternative path where the plot is cut short but it still works. Where, in the past, such an inclusion would’ve been absent because it was an example which countered your point (on the surface), you instead used it to address both sides of your argument. Which, in the end, helped to create a fuller picture of your view on endings and what you find essential for a satisfying conclusion; the payoff. I really respect that. It made your point even stronger overall, in my opinion. Story is a strange alchemy, and the more we dive into the anomalies, the better a perspective we tend to have. Good work.
Thanks for the detailed feedback, when it comes to creative writing there are no rules, only guidelines :)
You have really improved your narration incredibly well. I will surely be watching this video again.
That being said I hope people do understand that some movies don't follow the Three Act Structure strictly as in case of Casino Royale so even though the conflicts are not resolved at once it gives this movie a lot of emotional weightage which Bond films have lacked before Casino Royale.
Anyways loved the video😍
Thanks, yeah I don't really think much of the 3 act structure, many good films don't use it :)
I disagree with your comments that about Casino Royale. They set up in the film that Vesper was a double agent and therefore both the Romantic AND the main plotline remained unresolved. Afterall, the money won by Bond in the Poker game is stolen by Vesper and finds its way to Mr White. The film even ends on a "question" as you state with the audience wondering "What is Bond going to do to Mr White?"
The climax of the film is definitely in Venice.
Casino Royale was a bad example. It's perfectly fine if you don't follow the traditional film structure. Sometimes ignoring the traditional structure makes for a much better film. And in the case of Casino Royale, it did make for a better film. A great one actually. You should have used some other movie that tried to break the traditional structure but couldn't manage to be good instead of Casino Royale.
Oh Boromir. Still my favorite “review?” Type channel on here. You are a better story teller than 99% of Hollywood
It seems like tying all of your plot threads into one climax, and resolving them in as few distinct moments as possible, is the critical bit. It might not be the most important "rule," but it makes the other "rules" _much_ easier to follow.
3:25 that applies PERFECTLY to Rogue One´s last 40 minutes, specialy the Vader Hallway scene
Funny thing is the first time I saw Casino Royale the movie fatigue twist actually made the watching experience much better for me.
Omg i heard the inception song playing and i was reminded of how spectacular the ending is. Inception has the best ending I’ve ever seen. There’s so much closure and yet the movie ends on uncertainty
I'm pretty sure that Casino Royale did a similar thing to lord of the rings in that after the main conflict was over it focused on the character conflict of a bond who genuinely cares about a person and watching this be destroyed and seeing him become who we all know James bond to be, it is the definitive point of the movie because it tackles what made bond who he is today, this is the whole point of the movie.It's not the cars or the girls he gets but the cold reservation he has due to a loss that changed him to his core. the main plot of this movie is a vehicle to get James into the situation where he well remain for the rest of the movies in the series. The first 3 quarters introduces the lifestyle of bond but his attitude doesn't change until the death of his love. I find this to be a great character moment and a poignant ending to a great movie.
You’re so spot on about Casino Royale...that ending after he won the poker game and then was just recovering would’ve been perfect, but maybe it was extend as the director thought that the film would’ve been too short
I think Casino Royale was a bad example to use in an otherwise good analysis. Love or hate how it is structured, it was intentionally designed to be surprising, to be more than a generic Bond film. Part of the reason it is one of the best Bond movies is because of this unconventional structure where the romantic subplot is for more than just a generic sex scene payoff.
Edit: I also think Frodo goes through a good arc in Fellowship.
Ninja-Turtle Man i think the romantic subplot was not that interesting for a big part of the viewers. The most tense part was the confrontation with the villain, and that's what most of us were waiting for. Even if the romantic subplot was good, i have to admit i had almost no interest in the film anymore at that point, because i already had the resolution i wanted. The last part seemed to me quite unrelated to the rest of the movie, and a bit unnecessary. I think a good amount of the viewers thought the same thing.
I'm not saying it was well executed, I'm just saying that if it had been well executed, it could have been a really exciting mix up of the traditional formula. And I respect that they went there, even if it was not perfect, partly for reasons pointed out in this video essay, but partly because the romance was underdeveloped. It fell prey to its Bond cliches in the end, didn't it?
Just because something is intentional doesn't mean it's good.
Also, enjoyment is subjective, so love it or hate it, you are still right.
Inception has a literally perfect ending!
If we were to exclude the "chance for a sequel" area of film. I believe that Inception is the best example. Do any of you agree?
I think inception is perfect without the sequel. It would be worse with one.
Played this for Creative writing club helped alot thank you
2 of my favorite movies of all time. Fellowship and the Matrix.
I'm writing an ending to a story right now and I found this very helpful. Thank you.
Wow a first video essay you've done which I for the most part disagree with you on!
Regarding Casino Royal-it's based on a book. Absolutely Martin Campbell/the filmmakers don't have to follow the book/any source material to a T-but for the most part the film is extremely faithful to the Fleming novel. Le Chiffre was killed on page 119 of 178-not even 70% of the way through the film. Le Chiffre may have been the villain but it wasn't about him.
This was a Bond origin film-it's all about Bond: how Vesper's betrayal molded Bond into the man/secret agent we all know him to be. So her death-being her betrayal comes full circle. In the film it's clear that she has "no tell" that Bond fell for her even though she had her own agenda, "I'm the money"-since Bond fell for her-she became the mission. Obviously she fell in love with him too, but her death is the climax, not Le Chiffre's death. And her death is only mere minutes/5 pages to the actual end of the film/book.
I didn't read the book but the movie felt like a regular Bond. So maybe it’s the book or maybe the movie but the ending sucked. A Bond movie is about defeating the villain and he did that long before the movie ended.
icegamer
Only a Sith deals in absolutes
I agree! I didn't know it was based on a book but really I think Casino Royale is a perfect movie that shows why not ALL movies need to follow the same "rules of writing" or structure bc not all work that way. If it had followed the generic structure he mentions in the video the film wouldn't have been as good. It would have messed with the character of bond and his arc. Rocky is another movie that deviates from the typical story structure and its all the better for it!
icegamer Not all Bond movies have to be about that. This one was more about Bond himself and really exploring that character. There's a reason this is one of the most favorite bond films amongst bond fans.
The Lemming You really like quoting movies as your response don't you? Lol
LOTR the return of the king has an ending of more than 20 minutes but honestly it's one of the best endings I've seen. Everything felt complete and finished, and never felt more satisfied after watching it.
The extended edition of Fellowship of the Ring had a slightly different take on Boremir. Instead of being a completely bad person, the ring used his desire to save his city to corrupt him. He wasn't necessarily bad, but rather his good intentions were exploited. The ending's still a good one, but I prefer the context given...even if you have to sit through ten extra minutes of useless Shire shenanigans.
The Shire shenanigans makes me care for the place and its inhabitants even more. So when we see Shire burnt in Galadriel's mirror it has an extra punch.
True that. I hadn't thought of it that way.
I just wanna say I love the content of your channel
I agree with all of your points concerning Casino Royal but, the ending with vesper is one of the most iconic bond moments and was always going to happen, I’m not sure it could have been handled any better
I really like these breakdowns, will definitely be watching more
Love this series, but I completely disagree with your opinion about Casino Royale. The story and character wouldn't make any sense had it ended. There was a tension there after LaChifre was killed that had been telegraphed built up there the whole film. The movie still had a unresolved tone and momentum after this. If anything, I would argue that Casino Royale is a great example of the contemporary interpretation of the five act structure.
In addition I would not consider the Vesper plot a subplot at all. I'd consider it the main plot. The plot with Vesper is the most important to James Bond as a character and his origin story, and this was essentially an origin story.
The problem with that is it vesper was introduced at the 40 minute mark while the villain was in the first couple minutes. If vesper was the primary plot why was it introduced after the first act was over?
The Closer Look I can think of a handful of villains that aren’t introduced until near the midpoint of the second act. That’s not always a dead giveaway. I don’t think Casino Royale is by any stretch the best counter example to the Matrix available.
The conflict between his inability to control his emotions (the one Vesper’s plot is associated) is introduced from the beginning.
Love the choice of putting Hans Zimmer's Time as the background music!
On the subject of lord of the rings what are your thoughts on the ending of the last lord of the rings? That had a incredibly long ending but it had many plot threads to tie up. Also it saved the most potent ending, Frodo's character ending, for last. I would love to know what you thing about this one.
I personally think it was ok as the story was about 12 hours in total however I totally empathise with people who say it was too long because it was.
The Closer Look wow, thanks for replying!
The Closer Look I fail to see how it could have been any shorter while still being satisfying. It had to show Aragorn's coronation cause the film is called return of the king.
It has to show them returning to the shire cause that's what they've been fighting for the whole time. The scene in the pub is necessary as it shows how changed they are. Without it you'd have to assume they've integrated back into life before as though nothing had happened which would just be hard to believe. Sam's wedding was also necessary cause that was another thing he had been fighting for and finished his arc. The only scene I could maybe understand cutting is frodo in his house finishing his book off, although I think that is a really beautiful moment personally so I'm glad it's there. and then obviously the grey havens is 100% uncuttable.
I am not sure about rule no 1.
Avangers Endgame and Return of the King have really satisfying endings and they seem to go on forever.
Make it like this: "THIS IS THE END!" =)
The David Fincher Girl with Dragon Tattoo film and the book itself break rule 1 hard but is still a fantastic film and has a great ending even with a tidy resolution it still sets up the second novel/film that never was with a great ending shot of Salander walking in to the night. The 3 part resolution of Martin Vanger, Harriet Vanger and the Wennerström affair occur very far apart yet the movie is great.
I think for casino royals, the story wasn't in the casino plot, rather it the development of bond and Vesper's relationship, and the creation of 007 as a cold killer. I wonder what the structure would look like if you examined the film through the development of this "subplot".
If casino royale were a romance then yes, the romantic plot would have been the primary. However because it is a Bond film obviously there will be a big spy scheme with an evil villain that takes centre stage. the romantic element only got introduced halfway through the movie.
The Closer Look The Closer Look aye I agree with you. Just entertaining the idea that the structure is bound to some other theme or idea, rather than the casino plot. I'm surprised you didn't use LOTR Rotk as your example for ending fatigue. Maybe that might've been a bit overdone. But I think it's an interesting case.
Ya but Bonds romantic subplot had action in it
It still performed like a Bond film, because the love interest betrayed him...
I really don't get what you mean when you say there is a problem with the structure of the film tbh
There can be Only One Potato the film progresses from bond having nothing to lose, therefore being reckless, to having something to lose, and then losing everything.
Can you give an example of this
I don't think that's how the film played out
Gotts love that he plays the breaking of the fellowship in the bsckground whiøe taking about the end of teh fellowship of the ring
I think the fact that in Casino Royale that the villain dies with 20 mins left is meant to make you go ohhh shit and subvert your expectations. Normally in bond films bond kills the villains saying a quip but in this film the villain dies with 20 mins left and bond doesn’t even kill him and that’s the whole point. They wanted to get as far away from the bond formula as possible in this film so that’s why they chose to do that
The problem with that is while in the cinema, no one has a clue how many minutes are left in the movie. There was no problem with the fact bond didn't kill the villain it's just at that point every plot thread was resolved and the movie could have ended right there and it would have worked.
But then not only would you have a generic, predictable happy ending, but also it would not make sense for the James Bond character we've seen in the B/W intro and in the novels. He is, by definition, not a relationship guy, so ending it there would feel lacking something... Almost as if the film was actually building up for the climax.
1:56 Ever heard of a "fake ending"? That's what makes it so good: Make the audience think that the hero is safe, and the enemy has been defeated. Then turn everything upside down, dragging them back into the horror.
They followed the simple rule of the universe to make a good film, hired keanu reeves.
Inception's Time is running in the background of this video. Absolute beauty
Eh, no. Personally, I really love long and conclusive endings. The Matrix is fine, and its ending works for it, but is far from the only or best option.
Just a point on inception, the question isn't actually the point. It's there, but it's a red herring.
The point is that cobb no longer cares. So it leaves the audience with a question, that is unimportant. Which is kind of neat.
Also, I disagree on casino royale. The winning of the poker game is sort of the end of act 3, but then there's an act 4. It's a common thing, happens in all sorts of things, even games such as bioshock. Any film that uses a "they weren't the bad guy, it was this guy all along" then goes for the new guy. Where it goes wrong is where you build the original up to be the big ending. In casino royale the big ending is nailing le chiffre. Not beating him in poker. It was beating him in general. So the real ending is when he dies. I agree on the final, say, 10 minutes being a bit unnecessary. But that's it.
If you look at the last jedi for instance, snoake is dead, first order fleet is annihilated, everyone gets away... Then we get another ending on top. That's ending fatigue, as the whole film was focused around this chase, rei meeting kylo etc. To then go "oh don't worry they're still being chased" after we see that first climax, is a step too far.
Casino has a perfect ending and it's not extra it's part of the plot somethings just don't need sequel or 10 min ending it not a thumb rule method for a great ending it's a creative choice
The Squarespace epilogue was one of the best plot twists I've ever witnessed
Upon first viewing of Casino Royale, I thought the ending was Bond recovering, only to find out that I had never seen the ending months later.
An ending is much more nuanced topic than most people realized, I think. One thing I found lacking in this video is that there are 2 kinds of ending to the narrative. An ending to the PLOT; and an ending to the STORY. I found an ending can be any length, without suffering from ending fatigue, as long as it delivers an ending to those two things.
Most of the time, the end of a plot would coincide with the end of the story, and the best way is to end it immediately as to not overstay the welcome of the narrative. But there are instances where the end of the plot would be so removed from the overarching story, that in order to finish it, a writer would need more time to come to a fulfilling end.
Just my 2 cent, and always a great video 😊
Does this apply to Tv-series? I want to show this video to my friends, their names are David Benioff and D.B Weiss
Thank you so much man! Great thoughts, great movies and great endings! Thank you so much for our work!
Casino royale was terrible example of a "bad" ending.
I love how you used Time by Hans Zimmer, the soundtrack fits Inception and this video extremely well.
7:32 "It was actually a pack of the advanced group of Orcs, Uruk hai". - He says trying not to sound like a massive Tolkien nerd. :-)
I apologise, I hope you can find it in your heart to forgive me :(
I would argue that The Fellowship of the Ring is a key example on how to create proper sequel-bait because each of the sub-plots are ended in a manner where you would properly end a first act. The sub-plots don't simply end, nor is it a cliff-hanger type ending, instead they act as set-up for even more to come and because the characters's journeys aren't finished just yet. A great ending both finishes a character's arc, but can also offer a sensation of more to come.
Many films suffer from ending fatigue... except the return of the king!!!
You know in the book the ending is even longer.
Not to mention the ending of the Fellowship of the Ring also has the character resolution of Frodo: he accepts that he needs Sam with him after believing for so long that he can't trust anyone and that he has to destroy the Ring alone.
My favorite ending is Good Will Hunting.
Very good, The closer look . I would characterize Rule 2 a little differently. I would call it "Every Ending is a new Beginning". All of what you describe is the the seed, or germ, of the beginning of something new. The idea that although the film finishes, the characters in the film continue.
Imagine how boring it would be if every movie followed the same pattern. Partly reason why casino royale is so great is because of the unexpected twist at the end. It is great it shocks, surprises and bring strong emotions. Also, how long the ending is and should be depends on a thousand things this RUclips doesnt take in to account. Shit video, thumbs down.
Everything you said could be said about the ending to On Her Majesty's Secret Service, except the unexpected twist end that shocks and surprises happens like 5-10 minutes after the climax of the film. It's much more satisfying.
You'd be surprised by how similar everything actually is when we break it down. You have assimilated certain expectations and patterns as a kid. You cannot view things without your cultural lens. When you really get down to it all movies have 3 act structure. ALL of them (I think someone made a video about that).
But most importantly, it's ok for people to like different things. Really. True story. You can totally do it! (shocking, I know). People can feel differently about stuff. However, I think the point this video made stands (in a sense that it is logical). You feel differently? Guess what, you are both correct in a funny way.
If you think about the ending and break down everything, movies are already extremely similar to one another. :/
@@AnHeC Pulp Fiction does not have a 3 act structure bro
I do like your video and I see your point, Henry, but I'm not sure I agree. Sometimes the viewer needs to be surprised - Casino Royale did so very well with Vesper Lynd, and if you watch the earlier Casino Royale (a bizarre romp at the best of times) the structure is similar with Le Chiffre being killed at around the same part of the film. It also explained clearly why Bond is the way he is...
Terminator 2 has a better ending than The Matrix
The greatest ending in the history of concluding a story was Blue's line in SaGa Frontier. He defeats (or is defeated by) his twin Rouge in the mind's eye, the winner absorbing the looser and gaining their magic, which is diametrically opposed and thus should be impossible, making him the greatest sorcerer ever. He then invades hell by himself to fight the Devil in a protracted boss battle in multiple configurations before cutting to end credits (the implication being he is fighting the devil forever in hell to stop his evil plans from furthering). Sheer, perfection.
Infinity war had a great ending
I just wanted to say... I love your movie analysis... They really help in me taking notes to learn film development as I am doing this all on my own... My heartfelt gratitude towards you.
Thanks :)
oi m8
I love how you show your rules and points in written sentences, that way I can write them down in my notebook! : ) Your helping me so much!!
No problem :)
SPOILERS WHAT THE FFFFFF!!!!!
Found your channel today, binge watched a bunch of your videos. You've got a pleasant voice and explain things well. Also, it's a nice touch quietly having the thematic music change depending on the film as you continue talking about the topic.
Looking forwards to seeing more from you. Cheers.
Thank you - this is a really great analysis
Honestly, when there will be no more sequel, I think a movie ending should wrap up everything nicely. At least if it's a film series; standalone films have slightly different rules, of course.
I was about to write about me disagreeing that subplots should be resolved before the main plot, that I think it was better to resolve everything at the climax, but then you went ahead and corrected that for me. xD
Another great video. Out of the many RUclipsrs on movies, you might be the one I learn the most with. As usual, there were several things here I already knew, but also plenty of new information, a far bigger amount than usual. The ending is one of the most important parts of a story to me, and as such I love learning new things on how to improve it.
Could you eventually make a video about the climax proper, my most important part of a story? I spend hours and hours thinking about the climax to each of my books, way more than what comes after it. It's also my favourite part of each movie.
Hey gui, thanks for the feedback and it means a lot to hear you find these essays useful. I don't know if I want to make a video on the climax itself as I feel I really touched on that in this video and I don't like to tackle the same subject twice.
The Closer Thank you for answering! You did touch on the subject, but there's still loads of important stuff to say about it. But of course, just do whatever videos you want! ;-)
I'm definitely starting to get this stuff thanks in no small part to you!
Something I'd like to add about the Fellowship of the Ring is that the theme exemplified by Boromir's arc is also reinforced twice in rapid succession: when Sam joins Frodo on the boat, and when Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli decide that the fellowship isn't broken as long as they stay together. The Fellowship of the Ring is a movie where you know what it's about, with or without sequels, and even if you can't articulate it.
the definitive ending is Robocop, goes full circle just by him saying his name. It makes you cheer loudly and it payed off the agonizing the journey Murphy had