Hello,

I just rewatched the final boss fight of the spectacularly amazing 2010 movie Kickass, and I remembered something I've been meaning to float by movie-knowers...

As I see it, this boss fight is the reason this movie exists. The way I picture how "hollywood"-movies are made is that there is a writers room or producers meeting where nothing happens until someone brings out the weed, schrooms and/or coke which lets real brainstorming take place. And suddenly BAM! You have a single amazing thing happen: the Event.

Once that is settled they work backwards to building a believable story that leads up to that event.

The Event for Kickass is having a grown man beat the pulp out of a young girl without anyone really noticing or making a big deal out if it.

This creates some constraints (remember its 2008/9 at the time of writing), for example:

• the girl can not be seen as a helpless victim.
• the man can't win in the end.
• the beating must be reasonably justified within the story and not just pure sadism/misogyny.
• the beating must look very unrealistic.

From those premises they created a a scenario that would make it possible and wrote out a whole film.

I often find myself having an A-ha!-moment when I find the Event in movies, it's one of the reasons I watch them.

This is in my view one of the biggest reason why sequels are bad: the Event has already been had in the first movie so there isn't really anything of value left to the story.

I'm up for talking about things like:

• how far away I am from the real method of making films
• what defining Events you see in this or other movies
• how and why sequels in general or particular are good/bad
• who went as Kick-Ass or Hit-Girl for Halloween
• ....

I'm here watching Furiosa which has noticeable CGI. So noticeable in fact that my partner, who doesn't give a second thought to the technicalities of movie making commented on it. Painted backgrounds, obvious green screen and so on.

What is also noticeable is that the movie wasn't cheap to make. It has also excellent, energetic direction, camera work and action set pieces and the character design has the same care as Mad Max Fury Road.

The movie also has this cooky, kinda goofy tone from the get go. Stylistically the CGI doesn't really get in the way because there's a real distinct step between our reality and this crazy world on screen. It serves its purpose.

So what's y'all's thoughts about this? I think with money and time (I guess they're the same thing) the movie could've looked a lot better and avoided the paintbrushly fogginess that comes with the green screen -- but would've that actually been worth it?

(There's also a lot of stunts, real handcrafted care and crazy, inspired camera movement. The movie's good, you should probably consider seeing it.)