In my story, the MC wants revenge on a gang of crooks, because too many innocent people have been killed by them and they keep getting away it. So he feels that the only solution is to kill them all, since the law cannot touch them. Kind of like a lot of revenge stories in the thriller genre.
However, he only knows who three of the gang members are and does not know the rest, so by the time the climax comes, I was thinking of how he could get too the rest. One movie with a similar, although different premise is Tombstone (1993).
That movie ended it's climax with a montage Wyatt Earp declared revenge on the gang who shot his brothers, and killed one of them. However, after he declares revenge, they don't really explain how he found out who all the other gang members were, or where they were.
It showed a montage of him going to several places and shooting them all, not explaining how he got there or found out they were there.
I wonder if I can do something similar.
Another movie that did this was The Battle of Algiers (1966). Colonel Mattieu is explaining how they cannot find any of the terrorists cause they work in cells, and they do not know who many of them, but they also do not know each other. Yet later, they skip ahead in the end, and the army has surrounded the hide out of the last remaining terrorists. But they did not explain how exactly they found out or got there originally.
The Skin I Live In (2011), also has a story about a man wants revenge for his daughter's rape. He doesn't know who the culprit is, all he saw was a man on a motocycle, leaving the area, with a helmet covering his face.
In the next scene, several days later, we see the man on the motorcycle leave work and the main character is following him. The MC already found him without explaining how. It's not a montage in this case, since he just had to find one guy, but it's still skipping ahead and not filling in all the blanks as to how he got there.
I am wondering if skipping ahead, and using a montage like in Tombstone, for a climax though, is a good idea, since it's almost never done and could be a risky move for the thriller genre.
What do you think?
However, he only knows who three of the gang members are and does not know the rest, so by the time the climax comes, I was thinking of how he could get too the rest. One movie with a similar, although different premise is Tombstone (1993).
That movie ended it's climax with a montage Wyatt Earp declared revenge on the gang who shot his brothers, and killed one of them. However, after he declares revenge, they don't really explain how he found out who all the other gang members were, or where they were.
It showed a montage of him going to several places and shooting them all, not explaining how he got there or found out they were there.
I wonder if I can do something similar.
Another movie that did this was The Battle of Algiers (1966). Colonel Mattieu is explaining how they cannot find any of the terrorists cause they work in cells, and they do not know who many of them, but they also do not know each other. Yet later, they skip ahead in the end, and the army has surrounded the hide out of the last remaining terrorists. But they did not explain how exactly they found out or got there originally.
The Skin I Live In (2011), also has a story about a man wants revenge for his daughter's rape. He doesn't know who the culprit is, all he saw was a man on a motocycle, leaving the area, with a helmet covering his face.
In the next scene, several days later, we see the man on the motorcycle leave work and the main character is following him. The MC already found him without explaining how. It's not a montage in this case, since he just had to find one guy, but it's still skipping ahead and not filling in all the blanks as to how he got there.
I am wondering if skipping ahead, and using a montage like in Tombstone, for a climax though, is a good idea, since it's almost never done and could be a risky move for the thriller genre.
What do you think?
