I've recently been thinking again about some things which have been on my mind in the past, regarding the skillful construction of action-adventure blockbuster entertainment films. Specifically, some plot elements which used to be fairly standard in those big films, primarily because they were so effective, but seem to show up less often these days, possibly just because they represent an old-fashioned screenplay formula that younger creators are trying to subvert and evolve past. All of which is fine; there is no one right way to make a film, and I've seen and enjoyed plenty of modern blockbusters, this is just something on my mind.

1. The Demonstration Of The Antagonist's Awesome Power And Capability.

This would be the Death Star blowing up Alderaan halfway through "Star Wars", so the audience gets a prima facie example of the scope of the threat, and the doom which awaits our heroes should they fail. I first really noticing the absence of this kind of story beat in the otherwise fantastic "Guardians Of The Galaxy"; I figured the story would've been lent deeper weight, had we seen Ronan easily destroy some other planet on the way to Xandar, to heighten the stakes for the conclusion. This the filmmakers obviously felt they had no need to do, and hey who am I to argue with James Gunn and a billion-dollar box office?

2. The "All Hope Is Lost" Moment.

This would be the moment in "Toy Story" when the match blows out. The plot of the film had gathered in its entirety to rest on the plan, the hope, the promise to the audience, that the match would light the firework. Then the match blows out, and the enormity and impossibility of their situation is suddenly laid bare; they are just a couple of tiny plastic toys lost and alone, with their one hope dashed. Obviously this kind of hopeless moment can be overused, rendered formulaic, and extended far too long until nailbiting tension becomes eyerolling impatience. But when executed with deft precision, giving the hero(es) a completely hopeless dark moment can be amazingly effective, making the audience sit up and pay attention to "okay how in the world will they think their way out of THIS one?"

I'm not in any way saying films HAVE to have both or either of these plot elements in them; I'm just saying there are very old and reliable reasons why they can be super-effective in film storytelling. And I remain surprised by many modern films which avoid either or both, or wave at them halfheartedly, or worst of all try to execute them and fail spectacularly. Films commonly set up their geography early on; an expositional character walks the audience through the setting, alighting upon this or that important element which will come back into play later. It's odd to see screenwriters try out story structures which do not set up equally effective emotional geography; here are the stakes and here are the people you love who will suffer a fate worse than death should things go wrong. I mean it's often IN there somewhere, but I find more and more the structure of the film doesn't land anywhere near as hard on those long-established shorthand moments to effectively manipulate the audience's emotions and expectations.

Anyway. I liked "Dune 2: Dune Harder" just fine, hence the four stars. But even enjoying it a lot as is, I was left wondering what exactly might've been the Death Star and/or Extinguished Match moments, or whether they're there at all, and whether that is a conscious choice, or just the current evolutionary state of modern screenplays. Sorry, this is just the kind of stuff I think about, and have for thirty years now.