“What makes a better climax?” Or: “The mental anguish of changing your ending"

It's kind of hard to vote on without knowing the full plot of your film, but from what I do know of it it does seem pretty epic. So I voted for number 2 because it's quite Shakespearan, reminded me also of Othello. And maybe it's just because I'm a girl, but I'm more curious about how that's going to affect a relationship I've presumably grown to root for -- it's a real conflict -- than simply seeing my main character knocked down. The latter gives me nothing to chew on.

But I do hope that along with your surprise ending you will still have some kind of resolution. And the death of the MC's brother can lead to that. A graveyard scene or something similar where she realizes the scope her actions/the situation/life or some other thing.... It's fine to leave us hanging, but you have to give us some closure. The MC clinging to life doesn't leave a lot of closure. Death is closure, the hero's success is closure. The hero's coma leaves me angry and unfulfilled.

My opinion is that the first one certainly will not fly. Hollywood or whoever is producing the story would have you rewrite it in a second. I am guessing it would not test well with audiences if the main hero dies.

The 2nd one has the most potential and the least impact. I would say if the brother died it would have no real impact, especially if the audience hadn't had some sort of connection by the end of the film. It would have to have the surprise impact.

Don't really care for either but probably wouldn't mind the 2nd of the least.

Option number 1 is quite "Kill Bill"-y- which is peachy if you're Quentin. Otherwise, stick with Shakespeare. However, like zepro, it's hard to tell which will work better with your story. Does it help the MC's development if she has a near-death experience, or would she move off in the direction you want her to if her brother died instead? So, neither, I guess- not that I necessarily want a "happy ending", but just because I don't know where your MC would go with the 2 options presented.

the climax has to be born from your plot.

its impossible to say which one will be better w/out knowing your plot.

whichever one you choose, make sure that the series of events preceding it make it the best option.

good luck

What makes a better climax?

I'd say play w/ her nipples first.

ShawnW said:

I want to climax on a down note with an open ending.

Option 1 (as is is written now): For once the villain - when given the opportunity to just shoot the hero in the head - does. Right before the credits roll we see her in critical condition, so she survived, but she’s in bad shape.

Option 2: Our protagonist’s brother dies instead, and stays dead - killed not by the villain, but by her love interest who’s been manipulated by the villian. Something akin to Mercutio’s death in R&J.

If you were watching the first film in a trilogy which ending would you rather see?

Click to expand...

Remember the credo, a movie should provide a meaningful emotionl experience for its audience.

In Hollywood pictures, we have these kinds of endings:

+ Happy
+ Sad
+ Ironic
+ Tragic
+ Bittersweet

These endings all have to do with whether the hero achieves his/her goal,

+ Happy ending: they do.
+ Sad ending: they do not.
+ Ironic ending: they do/don't but with a twist.
+ Tragic ending: they do not and die.
+ Bittersweet ending: they do but die.

I'm not sure where you see "climax on a down note with an open ending." falling in these categoies.

You have to be careful with an "open ending" because that implies a lack of complete resolution, and audiences really don't like that; they feel cheated, even if they know a sequel is to follow. Movies must stand on their own, even when part of a trilogy or some other form of "series."

Tragic endings are when the hero fails. The variations include "why" they fail, their own demons get them or they go down by dint of circumstance.

To bring your story to a full resolution when you are consciously writing a trilogy you have to think episodically, like an episodic drama on television; the first film is one episode, the second another, and the third another. You may have some subplot carry throughs but each episode must end with a complete resolution vis-a-vis the main characters and do so in a manner that allows for the next picture to be logically propagated.

Think about those in the audience who don't see the first pic but attend the second one, or see the first, miss the second, and catch the third. These folks pay $10 just like everyone else and you can't cheat them out of their "meaningful emotional exprience," no more than you can with a single picture.

Hollywood can handle a sad ending and while not many are made some indeed are and some are even incredibly successful, e.g., "Midnight Cowboy." Some love story movies have sad endings too, "Bridges of Madison County" for example.

Seems to me you have to resolve things no differently, or very little differently, than you would if this script was gonna be it, with no more to follow, and, you have to arrange things so that you get one of the above listed types of endings ... and, to top all that off, you have to arrange things so that your second pic can be logically propagated from the first.

A very tough assignment ... but, do-able.

Dont forget to pull her hair, and talk dirty in spanish to her...
works like a charm for me...

for her... EH!

Some predictable replies here.

I voted they both suck. They don't feel like climactical events. The fact you can flip a coin and go either way supports this. I don't think you've got your memorable ending figured out yet. A "memorable ending" is Luke, Leia and Han surviving to celebrate their total victory over the obviously evil bad guys.

-Derek
My Web Page - shameless vampyre fiction & other shameless writings.
Take the critiques you get with a grain of salt. Invariably, some of the critics will be kooks, bitter curmudgeons, or complete fools. ~odocoileus

dpaterso said:

A "memorable ending" is Luke, Leia and Han surviving to celebrate their total victory over the obviously evil bad guys.

Click to expand...

And that satisfactory ending, coupled with the smash hit that it was, gave Lucas the green light to carry on and also play around with more open endings in subsequent eps. It's hard enough to sell a screenplay as it is, without boxing yourself into a corner with an ending that almost guarantees rejection.

ETA: I'm not trying to discourage innovation, but if you ever did get any interest in your script the first thing they would ask you to change would be that first ending.

dpaterso said:

Some predictable replies here.

I voted they both suck. They don't feel like climactical events. The fact you can flip a coin and go either way supports this. I don't think you've got your memorable ending figured out yet. A "memorable ending" is Luke, Leia and Han surviving to celebrate their total victory over the obviously evil bad guys.

-Derek
My Web Page - shameless vampyre fiction & other shameless writings.
Take the critiques you get with a grain of salt. Invariably, some of the critics will be kooks, bitter curmudgeons, or complete fools. ~odocoileus

Click to expand...

We've become predictable? Omigod!

I couldn't even bring myself to vote, for the very reasons you cite.

Luke, Leia, and Han's "total victory" means the story was completely resolved and that means we were afforded the "meaningful emotional experience" promised us in our ticket to see the picture. It also illustrates how this did not prevent Lucas from doing a sequel, and another, and another.

I think we have to be careful about how much we bite off, so that we don't end up biting off more than we can chew, so to speak. I think the issue points to the need of careful planning and story crafting going in so that we don't paint ourselves into a corner and end up with a dilemma that's gonna drive us batty trying to find a solution. The criteria that guides us in this direction is "know your ending before you start."

We've become predictable? Omigod!

Click to expand...

Only to the extent that any thread with climax in the subject line is likely to elicit a certain response.

I tried the hair/Spanish thing but she did not like it. My scalp's still throbbing.

-Derek
My Web Page - shameless vampyre fiction & other shameless writings.
Take the critiques you get with a grain of salt. Invariably, some of the critics will be kooks, bitter curmudgeons, or complete fools. ~odocoileus

The best explanation I have seen of the trilogy arc:

The first one should end on a happy note, with hope. Using Star Wars as an example or even Lord of the Rings is applicable.

The first one Luke was found, there was hope, there was a forward position, he also lost his mentor, so it wasn't all sunshine, but there was a level of victory at the end.

Same with Lord of the Rings, everyone had been united, they knew what they had to do, they were on their way to triumph over evil.

The second one can be tragic, because the audience is already vested in the story.

Han solo is frozen, there is a lot of pain and suffering, Luke is nearly caught, and they narrowly escape with their lives. Their next step is clear, retrieve Han. Luke also finds out that his enemy is his father and his father is evil, he loses his hand, another city falls to the empire.

In the Lord of the Rings, the party is broken to pieces, they are scattard. war has begun they lose the wizard (if the sequence of events are off I apologize, I need to watch it again.) and their situation is dire, frodo is losing himself to the ring, everyone knows it.

The third one has to have some kind of change, usually for the dire. This is when you can have a tragic ending, Luke's father turns good but sacrifices himself for his son, so Luke has lost just about everyone he cared about and knew. All of his family save Leia, both of his mentors and teachers, but they also had some celebration of triumph over the empire.

Lord of the Rings, Frodo chooses not to throw in the ring, and instead tries to escape, the group is nearly obliterated, making a final stand, and the forces of evil nearly triumph. But the desire of the ring is so great is ends up being it's own downfall and even after the triumph frodo is never innocent again, the marks of his journey weigh heavily on him and he ends up leaving with his uncle to the unknown. The king does get to marry the girl he loves, but they both also know that it will be a bittersweet life, she will watch her husband grow old and die while she remains the same, and left alone in this world where most if not all other elves have traveled to the east or west, wherever they went.

You don't have to have a sappy ending to be a triumph, but do remember you are writing one large story with three smaller self contained stories within. If you don't have that satisfaction and leave it on a cliff hanger chances are people won't go back for the second and you will have a failure on your hands. Big overall story arc, rebels against the evil empire, good guys against an evil overlord, carrying a cursed ring to it's destruction, but within that you have smaller very real stories that have their own beginning, their own middle, and their own endings.

Good luck and sorry for rambling.

ETA you can also look at failed trilogies for what not to do.

IE The Matrix.

Over all story arc began as humans struggling for escape from machines and a war against the machines. Tool = Neo. In the second one the main bad guy started to shift from machines to Smith (Very bad to shift your overall story arc at any point!) Final one, Neo vs Agent Smiths = Major Suckage and no story line, lost plot, multiple plot holes. Also they eliminated some of the surviving characters from each one and they are never heard or seen from again, don't drop main characters who your audience knows and loves just because.

I'll start a new message because the other one is rather long.

My suggestions are this:

Post your over all story arc, what is the main goal/conflict in your entire trilogy.

Then post your three smaller arcs, the individual story arcs, perhaps writing them out will help you to see where you are having trouble and what needs to be done.

You can write this as briefly or longwinded as you wish. Just make sure you get the feeling and point across, make sure you know the why's and the circumstances of how this happens in your story. If you don't have the why's you don't have a substantial story.

Why should she die, or be seriously injured, why should her brother die? And it has to be more than shock, much more, and it has to be more than just because, there should be an inately woven reason as to why this would happen and it needs to show in your story.

I wuz just thinkin', we're quoting obvious big epic blockbuster examples whose first chapters end on a high note, but the other kind exist too.

In Resident Evil -- not everybody's cup of tea, but DVD sales make this a respectable franchise -- Alice has survived with her boyfriend, but they're both injured and are separated and taken away by guards. What will happen to them at the hands of the sinister Umbrella Corporation? We don't know, the film ends on this off-note.

Resident Evil: Apocalypse takes this ending and uses it to set up big reveals that run through the zombie outbreak story. And R.E.A ends on an off-note too, Alice's pals rescue her but there's still something sinister going on that will run into the next film.

Those two films delivered climaxes that satisfied the audience's emotional journey requirements, but there's no happy denoument scene where medals and treasure are awarded, the characters are still in trouble.

So I don't think it's a case of "you shouldn't do this" -- it's maybe a case of, judge the balance and timing carefully, get it wrong and it could fall flat, with no incentive for the audience to want to see the next film in the franchise.

...All of which could be a rehash of what's already been said above, shrug.

-Derek
My Web Page - shameless vampyre fiction & other shameless writings.
Take the critiques you get with a grain of salt. Invariably, some of the critics will be kooks, bitter curmudgeons, or complete fools. ~odocoileus

I'll repeat what's been said: make sure the first script is self-contained. Treat it like it isn't part of a trilogy. Give that story a resolution. Star Wars and The Matrix are good examples of self-contained first films. They both would have been fine if no sequels were ever made.

LOTR isn't a great example, because we knew from the get-go that there would be two sequels. There was no mystery of "Oh my god, how does it end? They'd better made a sequel and tell me if Frodo succeeds!" Not to mention the fact that if you really want to know, go read the books.

So unless you are Peter Jackson, the first movie has to stand alone. There can be a residual feeling of "Gee, I'd like to see more of *insert heroine's name*," but not a "Crap, I can't believe they almost killed her off and the villian is still running loose!" I'd come out of the theater cursing the director (because, let's be honest, who besides screenwriters usually notices who wrote every movie we watch?).

leaving the protag. in trouble--definitely

I'd go with option 1....people care the most about the protaganist so if you leave them in dire shape, but alive then people who love the story have to come back to get the rest of it!

How about "Star Trek 2: the wrath of khan" for an example. Do you think people weren't going to come back and see "Search for Spock"?

Things that happen to sideline characters won't bring the kind of result you appear to be looking for.


--James

dpaterso said:

I wuz just thinkin', we're quoting obvious big epic blockbuster examples whose first chapters end on a high note, but the other kind exist too.

In Resident Evil -- not everybody's cup of tea, but DVD sales make this a respectable franchise -- Alice has survived with her boyfriend, but they're both injured and are separated and taken away by guards. What will happen to them at the hands of the sinister Umbrella Corporation? We don't know, the film ends on this off-note.

Resident Evil: Apocalypse takes this ending and uses it to set up big reveals that run through the zombie outbreak story. And R.E.A ends on an off-note too, Alice's pals rescue her but there's still something sinister going on that will run into the next film.

Those two films delivered climaxes that satisfied the audience's emotional journey requirements, but there's no happy denoument scene where medals and treasure are awarded, the characters are still in trouble.

So I don't think it's a case of "you shouldn't do this" -- it's maybe a case of, judge the balance and timing carefully, get it wrong and it could fall flat, with no incentive for the audience to want to see the next film in the franchise.

...All of which could be a rehash of what's already been said above, shrug.

Click to expand...

Well, not quite, you seem to be adding the idea of creating an "opening" in the first pic that leads to the second. But don't you think that direct-to-cable or direct-to-DVD pics can be treated differently than theatrical releases? Can't producers use these venues to develop franchises, whereas in theatrical features this is more a matter of either capping on some preexisting character, e.g. Superman, Spiderman or possessing the supreme skill to pull it off (and perhaps enjoy a bit of luck in the process)? How did the very first Bond film end? Didn't Eastwood's "Dirty Harry" pics all end with complete resolution?

I think you're dead right about "you shouldn't do this" and instead "judge the timing carefully ..." and I say this in light of my thought that there are two different kinds of situations in which sequels work: 1) where they are planned form the outset, and 2) where the popularity of the charfacter in the first potentiates a second, regardless of a complete resolution in he first. The former is episodic, the latter is simpy a series. LOTR and "Star Wars" was the former, James Bond the latter.

"Pirates of the Caribbean" solved this by using subtitles in the sequel, so that each pic takes on the air of being a stand alone story much as each segment in a television series is a stand alone story, with subplots that cross the boundaries and run through.

I do agree with your notion that a writer could do a whole bunch of things throughout the course of a first picture that would form the basis of spawning new stories in sequels.

Who the heck ever thought this topic would warrant so much discussion? In any case, it certainly it seems warranted.

So many questions, so little time (!).

;-)

james1611 said:

I'd go with option 1....people care the most about the protaganist so if you leave them in dire shape, but alive then people who love the story have to come back to get the rest of it!

How about "Star Trek 2: the wrath of khan" for an example. Do you think people weren't going to come back and see "Search for Spock"?

--James

Click to expand...

And if it completely bombs? Studios very rarely, if ever, take those sort of risks. Option 1 leaves any new writer with a mountain to climb to sell his/her screenplay. The story might be fantastic - the money men will decide on the ending, and IMO option 1 just won't stand an earthly.

Star Trek is a totally different animal. It already had a solid fan base, a ready market.

james1611 said:

How about "Star Trek 2: the wrath of khan" for an example. Do you think people weren't going to come back and see "Search for Spock"?

Click to expand...

Star Trek is a bad example, because those movies come with a built-in audience. Undiscovered Country and Nemesis proved that Trek fans will watch anything.*

*Not a dig, because I'm a huge Trek fan. But some of the films were truly awful.


Let's say Shawn's movie gets bought, and the first one is produced. Let's say it doesn't do the numbers its producers expected, and there is no way they'll pony up the budget for sequels.

Then you end up with another Dungeons and Dragons. It featured a talented cast, an okay story, and pretty good effects. But it bombed. It also ended with the Protag's best friend "dead," but wait! His name just disappeared from his gravestone, and a little light is beckoning them all forth for another adventure!

It set itself up for a sequel that never got made (because from what I've read, the lastest D&D movie from Sci Fi Pictures is a completely different story), and I felt let down.

But again, if you can't sell the first script as a stand-alone, chances are you'll never sell it as a trilogy. Unless, as someone upthread mentioned, it gets bought for a direct-to-DVD release with cheap budgets.

(Just noticed that xhouseboy posted similar advice. I guess you have faster keyboard fingers ).