Current Events > "The hero was too untouchable..."

(+) Yeah! (+)

It's a unique criticism. For starters, it's indirect. It can mean "I was bored with the lack of competition" or "I was annoyed with the ego(s)."

Second, it's odd in terms of how vague a hypothetical solution is. Suppose the hero is "too untouchable" in the sense that she is unchallenged in three out of four fights and only endures offense in the final contest. Would the film have been that much improved if she'd caught a stray kick in the second fight? Or maybe our hero got 80% of the offense in his fight with his nearest rival. Is there a cutoff point for a minimum acceptable amount of offense for the bad guy? And if so, is it measured in number of moves or in percentage of the offense? Is there any such thing as a film in which a hero was one strike away from being in a good movie?

It's one thing to look at a movie and say, "That was boring. He was untouchable." It's another to trace back to where the film first started to lose your interest and offer criticism on where they could've corrected that mistake.

---

Action that has characters that don't struggle is often not very interesting

---

Doe posted...

Action that has characters that don't struggle is often not very interesting

I agree. But it still makes for an interesting situation in trying to correct a movie which doesn't have enough of a struggle.

Struggle usually has to do with framing. A western or a war movie can potentially have the protagonist emerge unscathed, but still create tension because of the looming danger of being gunned down (or blown up). When it comes specifically to a scenario where the film lacks excitement because of a lack of competition, such as in a bad martial arts movie, it becomes a challenge to say when and where the issue could've been resolved.

It's impossible to demonstrate proficiency if every contest is a struggle. But if a character succeeds without a struggle, the film can become boring. It can be tricky to pin down where the balance should lie.

---

Doe posted...

Action that has characters that don't struggle is often not very interesting

then why do u like jojo hmmMMMMmmMmMMMMm?

Was this topic made in response to anything in particular? >_>

I don't think there's a one-size-fits-all answer. I think people say things like this to describe how they felt about the stakes, or the tension, in the story. I don't feel that fight choreography alone is enough to manipulate tension.

I know Superman Returns gets a lot of flak, but I absolutely adore the airplane scene early in the movie, and Superman isn't even trying in that scene. <_<

Granted the "bullet to the eyeball" scene was really goofy and only elicited excitement from me for its meme value. >_>

---

Bruce Lee had a formula going in that his characters were often prevented from fighting back when pushed or struck (The Big Boss, Fist of Fury, Way of the Dragon). Once allowed to fight back, he'd clear those same antagonists unscathed. By film's end, he'd have an opponent who could give him a challenge. It allowed a good fight at the end, it kept him from being too untouchable through the film, and it still highlighted his proficiency throughout. All in all, a win/win scenario.

In my opinion, Steven Seagal is a very dull protagonist. He sleepwalks through fight scenes, effortlessly blocking strikes and breaking limbs, with a cocky smirk on his face. Would the Bruce Lee formula have helped him? Would his movie have been better if one guy pointed a gun at him while another punched him in the stomach only for him to disarm and defeat both of them moments later? Or would that smug Mona Lisa smile of his still have gotten in the way of things? What if fights against fellow martial artists remained 80% in his favor, but that smirk had been replaced by a look of determination or even concern?

---

FortuneCookie posted...

He sleepwalks through fight scenes,

Stumbling and uncoordinated?

Sounds right.

---

Doe posted...

Action that has characters that don't struggle is often not very interesting

This.

Typically you jeed need to make it such a visual spectacle or with some sort of horror/comedy/subversion to it that it makes up for the lack of tension/suspense to make the fight engadging or entertaining if there is no challenge.

---

AlisLandale posted...

Was this topic made in response to anything in particular? >_>

I'm rewatching a 1978 kung fu movie called Lady Constables. It was meant as a star vehicle for Judy Lee and Angela Mao.

The film has some artistic touches to it and some good interactions between the three protagonists -- the third hero being a silent male bodyguard. But the movie is brought down slightly by the fact that none of the three heroes take any offense until the final fight. It really makes me wonder where in the story that could've been remedied. I definitely think the bad guy's second-in-command should've gotten offense. But that fight is so late in the film that it would not have have piqued the viewer's interest if they had grown bored with how untouchable the three heroes are.


---