"Hwood's current CW suggests that movies can't just have emotional resonance, that connection has to be deeply personal."

Imo, it's always been like that.

The only difference is audiences don't have the patience they did prior to the 80s. This means, as a writer, we have to move more plot and character development within the same 100 pages or so.

But take, The Godfather, which predates faster paced movies. It still has a deeply personal resonance. "I want something better for my son, than the life I led."

Star Wars, which arguably started film of today -- "I want to be a Jedi Knight, like my father" only to find out your father is the most evil dude in the galaxy.

Even Clerks has a personal connection -- "I'm not even supposed to be here, today."

Imo, movies are about relatability to an audience. They don't necessarily have to have been in those exact experiences, but something about the experience should get a reaction similar to "That is so true," regardless of how out-there it may be.

TRUE LIES is a great example. Husband missing his own b-day party for some killer action scenes. Wife, looking for a little excitement, dates a "spy," while she's unknowingly already married to one. It's about the "wanting a little excitement" that audiences can relate to. Movies themselves are an exaggeration -- and thus the plot takes things to an extreme -- her husband really is a spy.

I thought the trailer for TAKEN (the first one) was also excellent, and that a lot of adults went to the film because that trailer was so good (it had, remember, Liam talking his daughter through what was about to happen, and nothing else) ... it gave a great idea of the film ... and it helps that the film satisfied enough people that the word of mouth was good.

What's CW? As in hollywood's current CW?

If we look at the top ten movies of 2008, I'm not sure what deeply personal connection I have with Batman or James Bond. I guess Indy kinda had a family theme, but it wasn't really that predominant. Hancock, kind of a love story in there somewhere, but not deeply personal. I guess Tony Stark kinda felt bad for running the industrial-military complex, but it's hard to identify with an international playboy.

I guess I'd say Wall-E and Kung Fu Panda had heavy personal elements.

I actually thought Taken was a pretty terrible movie. I don't think it did well because it had personal relevance. I think it did well because it looked like Liam Neeson was going to beat some major ass. Which he did.

I doubt people went to see AtPM because back then they were smarter and more passionate about the Constitution back then. More likely, they were effing pissed about Nixon. Pissed is an emotion, a strong one. ;)

Also, I've seen the trailer for State of Play probably twenty times on TV and I couldn't tell you what it's about. So there's no chance I'm going to see it. Fire the marketing team.

"With Taken, the audience's resonance is personal:"

Yes, and the audience's resonance is personal because -- this is the key -- the protagonist's struggle is personal to the protagonist.

The comment above mentions Star Wars, and that Luke wanted to be like his father. This wasn't what made it personal for Luke, though. Luke didn't get involved in the Jedi struggle until his aunt and uncle were slaughtered by the Empire. That was the trigger, that's when it became personal to Luke, and that's when our involvement with Luke as a protagonist became personal. Without his aunt and uncle getting killed, I don't think we would have gotten involved as an audience.

Just saving the world is not a sufficient motivation for the protagonist. Saving the world because his daughter (or whatever) is in jeopardy is sufficient.

This is what has always baffled me about the appeal of Lord of the Rings. Frodo goes on this big quest to return the ring why? To save the world, I guess. But I never gave a damn. If they had made it personal -- let's say, the evil one wiped out Frodo's village -- it would have worked much better. But I guess the rest of the movie was so well done no one seemed to care that the protagonist's journey was not personal. That was a major flaw with the screenplay, I feel.

David makes a really good point, one I had never thought about: What is Frodo's "personal" connection to his goal of destroying the ring? Yes, now that he carries the ring, his life will always be in danger, and I guess you can argue that is a strong motivator, but I never once remember Frodo saying anything about the potential of his death as a reason to keep slogging on toward Moria.

I think the key with the success of "Taken" is not only that there was a personal resonance, but that the movie's theme was very primal. It goes back to our animal instincts -- the mama bear protecting her cubs. Any time a story appeals to an audience's basic human nature, they can't help but be hooked and carried along to root for the protagonist. Even if you're not a parent it resonates -- because we are all somebody's child. If I were taken, I'd want my daddy to come get me too and make them pay in the process.

Even if the movie had its issues (I haven't seen it yet), I think the timing really helped that film. In our current world, a lot of us feel helpless amidst the conditions that are battering us. So we really want to see someone taking bold, decisive, unwavering action even in the face of fear and successfully reaching the goal in the end. The vicarious experience of emotions is what it's all about, right?

David, your comment about Lord of the Rings and not giving a damn about the quest was a spot on statement, in my opinion. The first movie was particularly bad about that... We watched some cool scenes and bad-assery but, as far as Frodo -- his character was damned near impossible to empathize with...

This plagued part 3 for me... Part two worked better, but the main thrust seemed to be the castle siege...

Obviously, lets look to the personal motivation -- remember the first time you watched Braveheart and that ruthless mother 'effer just walks up and slices Wallace's wife's throat?

Talk about finding a way for an audience to connect to the character...

I guess a very important aspect to take away from all these cases, is that we as an audience CAN easily identify with issues whereby our immediate family are threatened harmed.

TAKEN. STAR WARS. BRAVEHEART.

Trina0623, you also make a good point about the "primal" nature of the movie Taken: parent protecting their child. There's another level of emotional subtext, too, in that a child being kidnapped / lost is one of the most frightening aspects of being a parent. I remember when Ransom came out, some people wondered why in the world any parents would willingly go see a movie about a child being kidnapped. But that's precisely the point: We went to see it because the movie theater is a safe place place in which to experience those awful feelings of fear, those questions, "What in the world would I do if my child was kidnapped?"

It reminds me of the criticism Roald Dahl received for his stories early on in his career. Aren't they too scary and violent for young children? His response: That's the function of stories, to provide a place where they can experience 'scary' things.

It's an important part of the psychological function of stories. And one of the reasons why Ransom and, I suspect, Taken did as well as they did.