Ian Dawson's Blog - Posts Tagged "kingsman-the-secret-service"
Writing Tip of the Week: Upping the Stakes
Whether it's a Marvel movie or a Hallmark Channel movie, stakes for your protagonist and what they mean for the story matter. Your main character needs to have a goal, have a plan, and for there to be dire consequences for the main character if the goal isn't achieved. This is where stakes come into play; making sure your hero – and the reader/viewer – know that what they are about to work toward won't be a cakewalk.
Let's talk about stakes!
Stakes in Perspective
What's at stake in your story? Will the world be destroyed if the main character doesn't win the day? Will grandpa lose his rose garden to evil developers if $50,000 isn't raised in a week? It's crucial to look at what's at stake in your story to make sure they are realistic and proportional to the world you have created.
Whatever the level of stakes, they should be a logical extension of the world you have introduced to the audience. If we are in a small town and you plan to tell a story that revolves around the small town, then the stakes should be things that could threaten the stability of someone's world in a small town.
If you're doing a larger-scale story, the stakes for the main character could have statewide, nationwide, or global implications.
Take the time to examine the stakes in your story and if they fit the overall narrative arc.
What is the Goal or Objective?
The inciting incident of a story rips the main character out of their calm, ordinary existence. It sets them on a new course toward a goal that hopefully will bring peace and a return to a possibly better status quo.
So, what is that goal or objective for your protagonist? What do they want to accomplish, need to achieve, need to stop, need to conquer?
What's the Opposition?
The opposing force to the main character's goal should be seemingly insurmountable and a definite problem that the hero must face and overcome. There needs to be a reason why the main character can't just make a quick phone call, drive to a location, get a loan, pay the back taxes, or some other easy-to-solve problem.
Opposition must make the protagonist's life harder, and ignoring it or running away from it will only make things worse for them or those around them.
While a Thanos or James Bond-level supervillain may be too big in your story, there are other types of antagonists in real life that can make your character's life and their desire to achieve their goals harder and more frustrating.
Who or what is the opposing force in your story? Is it strong enough to cause hardship and struggle for your main character?
Inactions Have Consequences
What does the hero lose if the main character doesn't take on the needed goal or objective? Do the consequences of their failure have a ripple effect that harms others in their life?
While most of us avoid conflict and opposition, your main character cannot. The protagonist is an active participant in the story and must act upon their impulses to solve the problem set before them, even reluctantly.
This is where the question of What's at stake? comes into play. If Thanos gets all the Infinity Stones and snaps his fingers, half the universe's population turns to dust. If grandpa loses his rose garden, he'll be homeless or thrown in jail.
These possible outcomes motivate and drive the main character forward toward defeating the opposition and achieving their goal.
Life or Death: Literal vs Figurative
The stakes should be big enough that if the main character fails, bad things will happen. This doesn't have to mean millions will die. This can be a figurative life or death struggle for your main character, resulting in them achieving a goal that others doubted. To them, it's personal and internal, not external, but the idea of them failing must feel like the end of the world.
If Elle Woods in Legally Blonde doesn't graduate law school and become a lawyer, the world won't end; but in her mind, it does. Again, it's a matter of stakes perspective within the world of your story. Elle has something to prove to herself and those around her. She has a goal; she has opposition. If she doesn't reach her goal, she will look foolish to herself, to those around her, and she'll be – as she says in the film – "a joke."
On the other side of the stakes spectrum, if Eggsy in Kingsman: The Secret Service doesn't stop Valentine from activating his free SIM cards in phones worldwide that cause people to violently attack and kill each other, millions could die.
Both are life and death stakes for their respective main characters, but Elle's are figurative, while Eggsy's are quite literal.
What happens to your main character or their world if the stakes aren't overcome? Will they alone suffer the consequences, or will others as well? Will people literally die, or are the deaths more internal and personal?
Many Roads
We are storytellers. Storytellers have a powerful gift to create and invent worlds, characters, stories, and stakes. Along with that power comes our ability to change things, add, subtract, multiply, and even divide stakes and consequences for our main characters.
As you work on your story, think about other possible stakes and challenges your main character could face. Don't limit yourself, just see where your imagination and creativity take you. Too often we can become confined in a box of possibilities that can be very limiting when making the best creative choices for our story.
The sky's the limit here. In the end, you'll want to then go over the list and find the stakes that a) fit your story, and b) are big enough to seem impossible to achieve, and use those in your story.
Have fun with this. Whatever the stakes are should be big enough, dire enough, and challenging enough to motivate and drive your protagonist forward in their pursuit of their goal and the defeat of their opposition.
Don't Make It Easy
Never give the hero an easy out. There must be a clear reason why these stakes must be confronted, and the goal must be achieved. It has to be tough, and there have to be setbacks, doubts, frustrations, and thoughts of giving up.
But a hero never does.
In the battle against Thanos in Avengers: Endgame, all hope seems lost as Thor, Iron Man, and Captain America are pummeled mercilessly by Thanos. But even with his shield shattered, his face bloodied, and his uniform ripped apart, Captain America tightens his shield around his arm and stands back up to face his seemingly unbeatable foe.
The stakes of not fighting back are too high.
This leads me to my final point…
Make Us Root for the Protagonist
Audiences want to see or read a good story, and they are looking for a strong main character to follow and root for. Most of the time, we know that the main character will win by the end of the story, but we are there for the ride.
The trials and tribulations, wins and losses, ups and downs. We are present and committed to seeing how the protagonist faces the stakes before them.
Our job as writers is to create a main character that the audience will root for throughout the story. This is why it's important to craft a narrative that isn't easy for the hero to traverse; the stakes have to feel like they might just be big enough to take down our main character.
Have you ever been in a full movie theater where everyone is so focused on what's happening on-screen you could hear a pin drop? Or stayed up way too late to finish a book because you had to see what happened next? Substantial stakes lead to these moments. They are an essential tool that writers need to use to create strong, effective stories that suck people in and make them want the hero to succeed.
Final Thoughts…
This week, take some time to look over your story's outline or your latest draft. What are the stakes for your main character? Are they big enough? Strong enough? What impact will these stakes have on your main character or those around them if they aren't overcome? Are your main character's goals and the opposition to their goals clear?
Happy Writing, and I'll see you next time!
Let's talk about stakes!
Stakes in Perspective
What's at stake in your story? Will the world be destroyed if the main character doesn't win the day? Will grandpa lose his rose garden to evil developers if $50,000 isn't raised in a week? It's crucial to look at what's at stake in your story to make sure they are realistic and proportional to the world you have created.
Whatever the level of stakes, they should be a logical extension of the world you have introduced to the audience. If we are in a small town and you plan to tell a story that revolves around the small town, then the stakes should be things that could threaten the stability of someone's world in a small town.
If you're doing a larger-scale story, the stakes for the main character could have statewide, nationwide, or global implications.
Take the time to examine the stakes in your story and if they fit the overall narrative arc.
What is the Goal or Objective?
The inciting incident of a story rips the main character out of their calm, ordinary existence. It sets them on a new course toward a goal that hopefully will bring peace and a return to a possibly better status quo.
So, what is that goal or objective for your protagonist? What do they want to accomplish, need to achieve, need to stop, need to conquer?
What's the Opposition?
The opposing force to the main character's goal should be seemingly insurmountable and a definite problem that the hero must face and overcome. There needs to be a reason why the main character can't just make a quick phone call, drive to a location, get a loan, pay the back taxes, or some other easy-to-solve problem.
Opposition must make the protagonist's life harder, and ignoring it or running away from it will only make things worse for them or those around them.
While a Thanos or James Bond-level supervillain may be too big in your story, there are other types of antagonists in real life that can make your character's life and their desire to achieve their goals harder and more frustrating.
Who or what is the opposing force in your story? Is it strong enough to cause hardship and struggle for your main character?
Inactions Have Consequences
What does the hero lose if the main character doesn't take on the needed goal or objective? Do the consequences of their failure have a ripple effect that harms others in their life?
While most of us avoid conflict and opposition, your main character cannot. The protagonist is an active participant in the story and must act upon their impulses to solve the problem set before them, even reluctantly.
This is where the question of What's at stake? comes into play. If Thanos gets all the Infinity Stones and snaps his fingers, half the universe's population turns to dust. If grandpa loses his rose garden, he'll be homeless or thrown in jail.
These possible outcomes motivate and drive the main character forward toward defeating the opposition and achieving their goal.
Life or Death: Literal vs Figurative
The stakes should be big enough that if the main character fails, bad things will happen. This doesn't have to mean millions will die. This can be a figurative life or death struggle for your main character, resulting in them achieving a goal that others doubted. To them, it's personal and internal, not external, but the idea of them failing must feel like the end of the world.
If Elle Woods in Legally Blonde doesn't graduate law school and become a lawyer, the world won't end; but in her mind, it does. Again, it's a matter of stakes perspective within the world of your story. Elle has something to prove to herself and those around her. She has a goal; she has opposition. If she doesn't reach her goal, she will look foolish to herself, to those around her, and she'll be – as she says in the film – "a joke."
On the other side of the stakes spectrum, if Eggsy in Kingsman: The Secret Service doesn't stop Valentine from activating his free SIM cards in phones worldwide that cause people to violently attack and kill each other, millions could die.
Both are life and death stakes for their respective main characters, but Elle's are figurative, while Eggsy's are quite literal.
What happens to your main character or their world if the stakes aren't overcome? Will they alone suffer the consequences, or will others as well? Will people literally die, or are the deaths more internal and personal?
Many Roads
We are storytellers. Storytellers have a powerful gift to create and invent worlds, characters, stories, and stakes. Along with that power comes our ability to change things, add, subtract, multiply, and even divide stakes and consequences for our main characters.
As you work on your story, think about other possible stakes and challenges your main character could face. Don't limit yourself, just see where your imagination and creativity take you. Too often we can become confined in a box of possibilities that can be very limiting when making the best creative choices for our story.
The sky's the limit here. In the end, you'll want to then go over the list and find the stakes that a) fit your story, and b) are big enough to seem impossible to achieve, and use those in your story.
Have fun with this. Whatever the stakes are should be big enough, dire enough, and challenging enough to motivate and drive your protagonist forward in their pursuit of their goal and the defeat of their opposition.
Don't Make It Easy
Never give the hero an easy out. There must be a clear reason why these stakes must be confronted, and the goal must be achieved. It has to be tough, and there have to be setbacks, doubts, frustrations, and thoughts of giving up.
But a hero never does.
In the battle against Thanos in Avengers: Endgame, all hope seems lost as Thor, Iron Man, and Captain America are pummeled mercilessly by Thanos. But even with his shield shattered, his face bloodied, and his uniform ripped apart, Captain America tightens his shield around his arm and stands back up to face his seemingly unbeatable foe.
The stakes of not fighting back are too high.
This leads me to my final point…
Make Us Root for the Protagonist
Audiences want to see or read a good story, and they are looking for a strong main character to follow and root for. Most of the time, we know that the main character will win by the end of the story, but we are there for the ride.
The trials and tribulations, wins and losses, ups and downs. We are present and committed to seeing how the protagonist faces the stakes before them.
Our job as writers is to create a main character that the audience will root for throughout the story. This is why it's important to craft a narrative that isn't easy for the hero to traverse; the stakes have to feel like they might just be big enough to take down our main character.
Have you ever been in a full movie theater where everyone is so focused on what's happening on-screen you could hear a pin drop? Or stayed up way too late to finish a book because you had to see what happened next? Substantial stakes lead to these moments. They are an essential tool that writers need to use to create strong, effective stories that suck people in and make them want the hero to succeed.
Final Thoughts…
This week, take some time to look over your story's outline or your latest draft. What are the stakes for your main character? Are they big enough? Strong enough? What impact will these stakes have on your main character or those around them if they aren't overcome? Are your main character's goals and the opposition to their goals clear?
Happy Writing, and I'll see you next time!
The Naked Gun (2025) – Spoiler-Filled Review
In 1994, I had the exciting experience of seeing Naked Gun 33 1/3: The Final Insult at the dollar theater in Redding, California. This was a significant rite of passage for me; it was the first movie I had ever seen by myself. In fact, I quite literally saw it by myself since I was the only person in the theater.
Prior to this, the first two Naked Gun films and the Police Squad! TV series held a special place in my comedy heart, along with Airplane!, the Hot Shots! movies, and the many Mel Brooks spoofs that had been released up to that point. I had grown up with this style of humor, and am still a die-hard fan of it today.
When I initially heard that they were making a fourth Naked Gun movie, I was extremely skeptical. I honestly couldn’t see how you could make a movie in this series without Leslie Nielsen, a man who carved a lucrative comedy career playing straight-laced characters who were on their own special level of incompetence. What was even more baffling was the casting choice for Frank Drebin, Jr.: Liam Neeson.
One of the obvious issues is the age disparity between Frank Drebin, Jr.’s age and Neeson’s. Given that Frank and Jane had their son at the end of the 1994 film, it stands to reason that he would be 31. Neeson is 73. For some context, Leslie Nielsen was only 68 when Naked Gun 33 1/3: The Final Insult was released. Given one of the blink-and-you’ll-miss-it cameos in the film, it’s clear this movie doesn’t take place in the future.
Again, this isn’t an ageist screed against Liam Neeson. I’m merely pointing out my initial thoughts upon hearing him cast in the role.
And he does a damn fine job playing this style of comedy.
Liam Neeson embraces the role of Frank Drebin, Jr., and provides the deadpan incompetence required for this type of character. While he may not be Leslie Nielsen, he does honor his style and his character in his performance while making the character his own.
Within the Naked Gun universe, there are always levels of stupidity that are dialed up and down as the story unfolds. In the previous trilogy, the villains were always the smartest characters, followed by whatever authority figure was tasked with dealing with Police Squad, followed by Jane, then Captain Ed Hocken, then Frank, and finally, Nordberg, the dumbest of the dumb.
In this movie, most of the characters are on the same level of stupidity, which causes some frustration since you need those differences to add conflict, keep the story humming along, and give the main character a chance to evolve as the story unfolds. And you definitely want the villain to feel like they are not only smarter than Frank, but that they are a real threat.
This comedy style and the Naked Gun franchise are fairly sacred to those who grew up with those comedy films, and I totally understand the hesitancy to want to support or even watch The Naked Gun. But the filmmakers did a pretty decent job capturing the essence of the Naked Gun world, even if there are plenty of missed opportunities, several jokes that fall flat, and even some gags that go on for one cycle too many.
However, there are more hits than misses, and there are some inspired one-liners and sight gags that will make you laugh out loud if you keep your eyes glued to the screen. It’s clear that there was a strong attempt to honor the legacy of the franchise, but also take things in a new direction to avoid being handcuffed by the past. For the most part, they succeeded in making it work by keeping fans of the old engaged while bringing in new viewers.
One of my main gripes is the absence of the classic police car bubble light driving through absurd locations at the start of the film. It was sorely missed, and even though they do pay homage to it at the end of the movie with footage from the original trilogy, it would have been nice to see an updated version. I could imagine the car driving through a supermarket during the early days of COVID, or through a random protest march, or through Comic-Con. Again, another missed opportunity.
The film score is excellent. Lorne Balfe does a fantastic job updating elements of Ira Newborn’s original score, while adding an epic feel to other moments in the film. It’s definitely a highlight for me.
Another highlight, along with Neeson, is the cast, which includes a hilarious Pamela Anderson, who plays the femme fatale role with gusto and has some of the funniest one-liners in the movie. Paul Walter Hauser plays Captain Ed Hocken’s son, Ed Hocken, Jr. He and Frank are partners in this film, and they have solid chemistry throughout. CCH Pounder, a staple in police procedurals, does a great job as Police Squad’s Chief Davis. Our villain, the megalomanic tech billionaire, Richard Crane, is played with gusto by Danny Huston.
Speaking of the villain, let’s talk about his evil plan. Spoiler Alert: If you’ve seen Kingsman: The Secret Service, you already know his plan since it’s the same plan Valentine has in that film. As Crane unveiled his plot, I found myself thinking I had heard it before. As he continued speaking, I was struck by the fact that no one working on the film, including Paramount executives, had noticed the striking similarities between Crane’s plan and Valentine’s.
The plan? In The Naked Gun, tech billionaire Richard Crane has a device (literally called the P.L.O.T. Device) that, when it emits a signal, causes those impacted to lash out violently against those around them. Meanwhile, the wealthy, elites, and celebrities will be out of harm’s way, hidden in bunkers carved into the mountains.
In Kingsman: The Secret Service? Tech billionaire Valentine has a phone SIM card that, when it emits a signal, causes those impacted to lash out violently against those around them. Meanwhile, the wealthy, elites, and celebrities will be out of harm’s way, hidden in bunkers carved into the mountains.
I would have understood if The Naked Gun had spoofed Kingsman in some capacity, but the movie doesn’t fall into the lazy trope of spoofing other movies to get through the story. But this was such a glaringly obvious copy-and-paste situation that I’m amazed I haven’t seen others comment on it.
Despite this oddly specific villain motivation, it didn’t detract from my overall enjoyment of the movie.
I was also happy that the humor wasn’t topical, political, or dated. There was a Cosby-related joke, but other than that, the jokes don’t take you out of the film and toss you back into the real world. It’s a nice 85-minute comedy escape with enough going on to hold your attention and keep you waiting for the next gag.
Overall, I give The Naked Gun a B. Everyone involved had some huge comedy shoes to fill, and they did a solid job making it work. If they do a sequel, I’m sure it will be even stronger, and hopefully they won’t lift the villain’s plot again from another movie.
What did you think of The Naked Gun? Leave a comment and let me know!
Prior to this, the first two Naked Gun films and the Police Squad! TV series held a special place in my comedy heart, along with Airplane!, the Hot Shots! movies, and the many Mel Brooks spoofs that had been released up to that point. I had grown up with this style of humor, and am still a die-hard fan of it today.
When I initially heard that they were making a fourth Naked Gun movie, I was extremely skeptical. I honestly couldn’t see how you could make a movie in this series without Leslie Nielsen, a man who carved a lucrative comedy career playing straight-laced characters who were on their own special level of incompetence. What was even more baffling was the casting choice for Frank Drebin, Jr.: Liam Neeson.
One of the obvious issues is the age disparity between Frank Drebin, Jr.’s age and Neeson’s. Given that Frank and Jane had their son at the end of the 1994 film, it stands to reason that he would be 31. Neeson is 73. For some context, Leslie Nielsen was only 68 when Naked Gun 33 1/3: The Final Insult was released. Given one of the blink-and-you’ll-miss-it cameos in the film, it’s clear this movie doesn’t take place in the future.
Again, this isn’t an ageist screed against Liam Neeson. I’m merely pointing out my initial thoughts upon hearing him cast in the role.
And he does a damn fine job playing this style of comedy.
Liam Neeson embraces the role of Frank Drebin, Jr., and provides the deadpan incompetence required for this type of character. While he may not be Leslie Nielsen, he does honor his style and his character in his performance while making the character his own.
Within the Naked Gun universe, there are always levels of stupidity that are dialed up and down as the story unfolds. In the previous trilogy, the villains were always the smartest characters, followed by whatever authority figure was tasked with dealing with Police Squad, followed by Jane, then Captain Ed Hocken, then Frank, and finally, Nordberg, the dumbest of the dumb.
In this movie, most of the characters are on the same level of stupidity, which causes some frustration since you need those differences to add conflict, keep the story humming along, and give the main character a chance to evolve as the story unfolds. And you definitely want the villain to feel like they are not only smarter than Frank, but that they are a real threat.
This comedy style and the Naked Gun franchise are fairly sacred to those who grew up with those comedy films, and I totally understand the hesitancy to want to support or even watch The Naked Gun. But the filmmakers did a pretty decent job capturing the essence of the Naked Gun world, even if there are plenty of missed opportunities, several jokes that fall flat, and even some gags that go on for one cycle too many.
However, there are more hits than misses, and there are some inspired one-liners and sight gags that will make you laugh out loud if you keep your eyes glued to the screen. It’s clear that there was a strong attempt to honor the legacy of the franchise, but also take things in a new direction to avoid being handcuffed by the past. For the most part, they succeeded in making it work by keeping fans of the old engaged while bringing in new viewers.
One of my main gripes is the absence of the classic police car bubble light driving through absurd locations at the start of the film. It was sorely missed, and even though they do pay homage to it at the end of the movie with footage from the original trilogy, it would have been nice to see an updated version. I could imagine the car driving through a supermarket during the early days of COVID, or through a random protest march, or through Comic-Con. Again, another missed opportunity.
The film score is excellent. Lorne Balfe does a fantastic job updating elements of Ira Newborn’s original score, while adding an epic feel to other moments in the film. It’s definitely a highlight for me.
Another highlight, along with Neeson, is the cast, which includes a hilarious Pamela Anderson, who plays the femme fatale role with gusto and has some of the funniest one-liners in the movie. Paul Walter Hauser plays Captain Ed Hocken’s son, Ed Hocken, Jr. He and Frank are partners in this film, and they have solid chemistry throughout. CCH Pounder, a staple in police procedurals, does a great job as Police Squad’s Chief Davis. Our villain, the megalomanic tech billionaire, Richard Crane, is played with gusto by Danny Huston.
Speaking of the villain, let’s talk about his evil plan. Spoiler Alert: If you’ve seen Kingsman: The Secret Service, you already know his plan since it’s the same plan Valentine has in that film. As Crane unveiled his plot, I found myself thinking I had heard it before. As he continued speaking, I was struck by the fact that no one working on the film, including Paramount executives, had noticed the striking similarities between Crane’s plan and Valentine’s.
The plan? In The Naked Gun, tech billionaire Richard Crane has a device (literally called the P.L.O.T. Device) that, when it emits a signal, causes those impacted to lash out violently against those around them. Meanwhile, the wealthy, elites, and celebrities will be out of harm’s way, hidden in bunkers carved into the mountains.
In Kingsman: The Secret Service? Tech billionaire Valentine has a phone SIM card that, when it emits a signal, causes those impacted to lash out violently against those around them. Meanwhile, the wealthy, elites, and celebrities will be out of harm’s way, hidden in bunkers carved into the mountains.
I would have understood if The Naked Gun had spoofed Kingsman in some capacity, but the movie doesn’t fall into the lazy trope of spoofing other movies to get through the story. But this was such a glaringly obvious copy-and-paste situation that I’m amazed I haven’t seen others comment on it.
Despite this oddly specific villain motivation, it didn’t detract from my overall enjoyment of the movie.
I was also happy that the humor wasn’t topical, political, or dated. There was a Cosby-related joke, but other than that, the jokes don’t take you out of the film and toss you back into the real world. It’s a nice 85-minute comedy escape with enough going on to hold your attention and keep you waiting for the next gag.
Overall, I give The Naked Gun a B. Everyone involved had some huge comedy shoes to fill, and they did a solid job making it work. If they do a sequel, I’m sure it will be even stronger, and hopefully they won’t lift the villain’s plot again from another movie.
What did you think of The Naked Gun? Leave a comment and let me know!
