[…] Another example: “I’ll catch you, I promise,” Tony Stark says to Pepper Potts, as she dangles precariously from a crane in “Iron Man 3.” Stark breaks his …read more […]

The funny thing about Artax the Horse is how soon that happens in the movie! And as bad as it was in the movie, seeing that horse sink into the mud, the book was worse because he was TALKING the whole time about how he couldn't go on, couldn't take it anymore, he didn't care if he lived or died, and all the while he's sinking further and further into the muck.

As other folks on the internet say: THIS!!! There is no more death in mainstream film anymore. Kirk dies on the Enterprise and we don't feel bad because we know that 20 minutes later he'll be alive and back to quipping. Last year (about the time that STID premiered) the Hollywood Prospectus podcast mentioned something along those lines and mentioned the phrase (paraphrasing here) "we can't ruin a $2 Billion dollar franchise, and make kids cry" meaning that our heroes are invincible. I think this is dangerous, and it even opens up a further fear of mine: The villian can't die either. I hate, beyond all things, either the fake death (STID) its lazy writing and often leads with not being honest with your audience or opens a gaping hole in the logic of you universe that just becomes a throwaway (the Federation has solved death and nobody cares?) It also means that we have characters motivated by revenge or vengeance, we don't see often see the process of the passage of time dealing with death (I'll even take the "beard of sorrow" trope over just "I will avenge my [insert person/place/thing"]) leading to an easy association: All of these characters are the same. I think that the movies are borrowing this trope from comics, the idea that death isn't permanent, but there's a difference: A comic is monthly, has a smaller audience and fewer limitations. Movies are once (on average) every 2 years, are trying to appeal to 4 quadrants and have every limitation under the sun. If movies are going to learn death from a comic, think less Jean Gray and more Barry Allen. Barry Allen's death is still a unifying touchstone for the DC universe, and the best thing about it: The audience is fine with him dead and (hearing that feedback) the writers seem fine to keep him that way. To finish off the rant I think that also the filmmakers and audience missed the point of the death in Wrath of Kahn and Resurrection in Search for Spock. The death was a noble sacrafice that made the characters reflect on heroism and the mission they undertake. The resurrection (2 years later) was about the lengths people go to for absolution and closure for the people the love, also there was time to absorb the death people had to WAIT and then (aside from the possible title giveaway) got REWARDED with Spock's return and the emotional happiness. Bottom line, filmmakers shouldn't have to elicit a response through a cheap trick and audiences need to cool their heels and let an event mean something.

If I wanted to double down on the "This" thing, would I say about your post writerhaha, "This This"? Because your sentiments are precisely where mine are. These Cheap Deaths (trademark pending) smack of typical Hollywood development notes: What can we do to ratchet up the emotion here? Make the character die. But again, if sufficient work has not been done to create an AUTHENTIC CONNECTION to the character before the death, their demise likely will not evince emotion. And, as you note, because audiences are hip to the faux death trick now, it's even worse: We begin to RESENT this particular plot twist. There's a similar issue: The idea that if it's a big blockbuster movie with lots of aliens, apes, Godzilla, whatever, it's perceived the audience wants, even NEEDS massive destruction on screen. We saw some backlash re Man of Steel and its whole third act. I would argue why not do something REALLY edgy? Don't focus on wanton destruction, but rather the intimate relationship between the characters. I thought The Dark Knight did this well with the Joker and Batman, the Joker and Harvey Dent, Harvey Dent and Gordon, Harvey Dent and Batman. We got to know those people as characters, they were interesting because of the layers of their being. So the fact the big event with the two boats set to explode did not in fact go BOOM, which seems counterintuitive per the theory the movie HAS to go over the top with destruction on screen, worked precisely because we were so involved with the individual characters. Marvel's The Avengers came closest to working for me because Whedon constructed a set of relationships between the heroes as if they were a dysfunctional family when they first got together. We could RELATE to that, their bickering and self-doubts. And there was a philosophical question in play: Would their individual ego-needs override their ability to come together as a team? Pixar nails this dynamic on a regular basis: There's a Substantial Saga (Big Story) and a Small Story. The latter carries the emotional heft. Without it, the former is just noise. And no matter how many Cheap Deaths filmmakers squash into the plot, it won't make a difference because we still won't care.

Scott, To piggyback, pixar does it great. The most meaningful death would probably be Ellie in "Up" however, they're able to do it with just one mention. Maybe because it's the line reading from Tom Hanks, but there's such a sadness when he says "Bo" in Toy Story 3. Another interesting fact (possibly hazy on my end) the story about there supposing to be a pilot flying a jet in The Incredibles, I want to say on a DVD commentary there was discussion that this was to be added so that Parr kids could see the consequences and danger of what they could be up against, however it was nixed because it would either turn off viewers or would seem strange to introduce a character just for the sake of death. Pretty much Pixar has a good handle on the whole "story" thing.