Skip to main content

Indie game storeFree gamesFun gamesHorror games
Game developmentAssetsComics
SalesBundles
Jobs
TagsGame Engines

You know, I was really thinking about this one but it just occurred to me that, even in spite of the fact I'm bringing up a Christmas film with some minor religious tones I feel like Frank Capra's "It's a Wonderful Life" might actually capture the tone of reminding people that it's better to be alive than dead, let alone not exist at all.

And honestly you could make the argument that there is some existential tone to that  film for one reason by the time it reaches the third act where  George Bailey actually considers jumping off a bridge to kill himself only to find his guardian angel nearly drowning, goes into save him, and then his angel shows him what his life would be like if the world existed without him and his hometown would turn into a literal shit hole filled with vice, the many people who he changed for the better would be miserable, and the very man that he sought to keep from owning the town would have allowed the ruin to begin with.

I don't think this moment would have been referenced later on in popular culture like say... Rugrats, Simpsons or Tiny Toons. There's a reason why that film had such an impact on everyone at the time and still does to this day since it's such a timeless classic.

As for the situation OP speaks of... suppose that you have a Wonderful Life scenario where even if the character sees this vision and goes through with the act. You have two hypothetical scenarios that could happen after the fact:

1) The antagonist of the Wonderful Life plot gets his way, and the characters who have been impacted by the main character would be forced to move out of the town and yet, still be better people and have a downright bittersweet ending.

Or 2) Because of the protagonist's actions, influences the very people he has saved come together to fight against the antagonist of the Wonderful Life scenario and save the very life that he built up for them and honor the very values that he has upheld.

Personally, if it were me being the writer... I'd probably pick the latter outcome. Even without the religious or holiday tones you still have the positive outcome at the end of all the insanity that would ensue after the character's suicide and ultimately he would leave behind a legacy and the antagonist still loses. I feel like this outcome was also played out in a slightly different way in One Piece as well with Chopper's mentor poisoning himself and willingly ending his own life against a tyrant who ended up controlling the town's doctor's as well, only for Luffy and the Straw Hats be moved by Chopper's back story to fight for him and the impact was not only felt within the arc but the overall story due to Chopper's decision to join with the Straw Hats.

That's my two cents on this scenario and I think as long as this formula is kept in mind, then you could take it in a couple different routes.

The mentor did not willingly end himself. He was terminally ill in his last days, probably with pain to go along. That does not count. Also, he did not actually do the deed, he naivly fell for the trap of the tyrant. Even if he suspected a trap, he was compelled by his principles as a healer.

But he was a short sighted coward. If not for the trap,  things would have played out quite badly for Chopper. The mentor did drink the medicine obviously to not hurt Choppers feelings, cowardly avoiding to tell him the truth. But the effect of the plant would have showed up  eventually, making Chopper feel very guilty.

One could argue that he sacrificed himself to teach the tyrant a lesson. It did work on one of his minions. But sacrifice is something completely different from the cowards way out.

Even if it is about    a legacy. George in    It's a Wonderful Life was literally told, he was worth more dead than alive and he was facing arrest. He did not contemplate jumping from the bridge to achieve anything, he was seeking a way out.

But in both cases, the thing with the legacy is not tied to how the characters died or would have died. It is about how they lived. They could have been struck by lightning, or actually not die at all,   and nothing would have changed about their legacy.

In other words, people (and their legacy) is not worth more, because said people die. Uhm. Ok. Some famous painters might differ on that - and I have even seen that one used as a plot device in crime stories.

That people do have a legacy is used as a consolation, to comfort the viewer. But in every such scenario, try to take a step back and think about how the story would unfold, if the character would not die. Are the works  and the impact of that character any less, just because he lived? The moral of the Wonderful Life story, in my view, is, that he was confronted with his legacy, while still living; making him appreciate life and giving the story it's name.