4 ms·
>Most action movies don't require you to think too much about what's going on, and that's fine, imo. I beg to differ. If your hero is vulnerable, then the stak
by ChuckNorris89 4y ago
>Most action movies don't require you to think too much about what's going on, and that's fine, imo.
I beg to differ. If your hero is vulnerable, then the stakes are high and you're always on the edge of your seat throughout the fights as you don't know whether he'll make it out alive or not. But when your hero has some magic bullshit armor that makes him invulnerable, then the audience stop caring about his fights because you know for sure he's invincible anyway and the fights just seem pointless and forgettable no matter how flashy they are.
Take the first Matrix movie of 1999 also with Keanu Reeves. When Neo was fighting Agent Smith in the subway, the whole theater was dead silent because Neo was just a man going up against an invulnerable foe, and that was exciting, but in the sequels when Neo became this invulnerable Superman, people were much less invested even though the fights were flashier, because the stakes were much lower since he's now basically invincible so nobody can hurt him anyway.
It's like playing videogames with God mode on. Nobody cares if you win.
- hgsgm 4y agoPlot armor is as strong as a bulletproof suit.
- ChuckNorris89 4y agoIt is, but good film making is not making the plot armor obvious to the audience.
- Zababa 4y agoI think the issue with Matrix is that going from vulnerable to invulnerable is a downgrade. However, if the invulnerability is "part of the contract", then you don't have this downgrade. You can also have low stakes with a vulnerable hero if you don't care about him.