Logic in Fantasy Action Movies (Spoilers!)

crashfrog writes:

quote:

---

3) Superhuman, heroic feats of strength, cleverness, endurance, or other traits

---

Excuse me? Saving Private Ryan is an action movie and it has absolutely no superhuman, heroic feats of strength, cleverness, endurance, or other traits.Action movies do not require the bending of any laws of physics. They merely require lots of physics to happen.

quote:

---

Ergo, my singular hypothesis - action movies are fantasy movies.

---

But there are too many exceptions to this claim to justify it. Action movies are action movies. Fantasy movies are fantasy movies. They often go together, but they are not connected in the way that science fiction and fantasy are (any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic...ergo, scifi is just fantasy with tech-based magic. Take a look at Star Wars: It's a classic fairy tale set in space. The farmboy, with the aid of the pirate and under the tutelage of the wizard, goes off to rescue the princess being held by the evil witch.)

quote:

---

Consider the movie Dungeons and Dragons.

---

No, let's not. That movie was such a disaster that even it didn't know what it was about. I'm absolutely positive that there was a whole sequence shot of the two inside the map that got cut.

quote:

---

If you had the script on your word processor, and you did a find-and-replace on all the "flavor" aspects - if you changed all the macguffins into things you could find in New York City, it would work.

---

But it's the MacGuffins that define it as a fantasy movie. You seem to be forgetting that a movie can be multiple genres all at the same time (and indeed, Dungeons and Dragons is listed in IMDB as Adventure/Fantasy/Action). The question is not whether or not you can have a movie with both but whether or not you can have a movie that is only one and none of the other. If so, then the two really are separate genres.You can have an action movie with no fantasy (Saving Private Ryan) and a fantasy movie with no action (Practical Magic). Ergo, they are separate genres.You can have romances (West Side Story) and you can have comedies (Dr. Strangelove) and you can have romantic comedies (Working Girl). The existence of romantic comedies and the fact that the two often go together does not make one a sub-genre of the other.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

If genres are so well-defined, then why have the several sources you all have presented disagree on exactly what genres exist, and what genres are actually sub-genres? There's a remarkable lack of consistency among the sources you guys are presenting, and I think that speaks volumes. Yes, because like your source, they're not "sources" of anything but an opinion on how to classify movies. Well, I have a different opinion, and I believe my opinion brings certain phenomenon into clarity, like why people don't expect action movies to adhere to real-world physics.You seem to have this idea that genres are discreet, non-overlapping groupings. This is obviously a load of bunk. It's considerably more accurate to think of them not as groupings, but as points on a very large, multi-dimensonal continuum. All I'm saying is that the distance between an action movie and a fantasy movie isn't very far at all. Given that genres are not defined by experts but percieved by communities, no such expert could possibly exist.You don't have to like my opinion, or consider it useful. But it blows my mind that you'll accept the opinion of any person on the internet without question, so long as that source isn't me.

I disagree completely. Saving Private Ryan is a drama, not an action movie. The lack of clearly defined moral roles is the tipoff - the world of Saving Private Ryan is a world of moral ambiguity, unlike action movies.It's not an action movie. Anyone who sees Saving Private Ryan has nowhere close to the experience they have seeing Die Hard, or Hard Target, or any John Woo movie. It's much more like Shindler's List than anything else. Ludicrous. S-f is one of the most rigidly percieved genres, and the rubric is very clear - science fiction exclusivly deals with works for whom extrapolation from scientific reality is the prime source of plot. That's not the case in Star Wars, nor many other movies that wind up on the "science fiction/fantasy" shelf.Star Wars isn't science fiction. It's a fantasy movie. "Space fantasy", if you wanted to get specific about it. Of course not. Genres aren't defined by the props you use. If they were you'd be in a pretty ridiculous position - are Die Hard and Hard Target different genres because they use different kinds of guns?You can split as many hairs as you like if you're going to characterize genre by prop. Clearly that's not a particularly insightful nor intelligent way to define genre.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 05-29-2004 07:08 AM

Well, again I don't agree. I think there are plenty of people out there I would consider experts in this matter(Roger Ebert, Scorcese, any number of film professors, etc), but had you expressed that you did not believe any expert existed whose authority you would consider earlier, we could have come to this point earlier. I suppose I could have asked that question earlier. I don't like or dislike your opinion on this subject, I just disagree with it. If you honestly take the position that film genres, as I have seen them defined, should be defined differently, I can't really argue with you. I think you are an iconoclast in this regard, but if that doesn't bother you, it certainly shouldn't bother me. Hmm. I was under the impression you were just being stubborn for the sake of being stubborn. I actually did think you knew that film has distinctly defined genres, and that action and fantasy are, for the most part, separate genres; and I believed that knowing these things you were simply trying to be difficult. My mistake.As for the source, I just used the first one that popped up out of expediency. It clearly explained the genre as I am familiar with them and I saw no need to gather additional examples - which I now understand wouldn't have mattered to you anyway.So your home video collection is arranged differently from mine. No worries.

Well, as long as we're clear, I guess.What I really find interesting is that the really good movies don't usually fit into one genre, or are themselves a sort of hybrid genre. Part of the reason Dungeons and Dragons is such a spectacular crapfest is that it brings absolutely nothing besides swords and sorcery to the mix.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 05-29-2004 07:13 AM

crashfrog writes:

quote:

---

If genres are so well-defined, then why have the several sources you all have presented disagree on exactly what genres exist, and what genres are actually sub-genres?

---

Um, they haven't. Not really.Crash, you are making an argument that is amazingly like a creationist: That because there is some disagreement on the details, that must mean that the entire thing is a house of cards. That because there are discrepancies at the smallest level, that means there are discrepancies at every level.Custard's web site claims that science fiction is a main genre...and then immediately says that it is a version of a fantasy film.If we agree that action and science fiction are different genres (Gattaca was not an action film and neither was A.I., E.T., Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, A Clockwork Orange, etc.), then we have to agree that action and fantasy are different genres as scifi and fantasy are two aspects of the same concept.In going through the lists of genres, I'm sure you can find differences (is anime a genre on its own or a sub-genre of animation? Should romantic comedies be their own genre or if we claim them a sub-genre, are they a sub-genre of romance or comedy?) But you find some very strong distinctions that never seem to waver: Action and fantasy never get lumped together.How else to explain movies like The Princess Bride, The Wizard of Oz, The Green Mile, Harvey, Oh, God!, Big Fish, Being John Malkovich, and all the rest of the fantastical movies that are not action-filled?How else to explain Saving Private Ryan, Braveheart, The Wild Bunch, Glory, Spartacus, Platoon, Ben-Hur, and all the rest of the hyperactive movies that are not fantasies?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Now you are confusing me. This is why I think you are being argumentative. First you claim that genres are arbitrary (previous post)and not discreet groupings, then you claim that sci-fi is a rigidly perceived genre? Uh, by whom? Because you seem to imply it is perceived that way by more people than just you.Now it appears you are using the same argument against Rrhain that you claimed was full of holes when I used it against you.This is schizophrenic.

No I'm simply examining the consequence of a statement that apparently everyone accepts - film genre, like all genres, is a perception of the film community, not a measurable quantity of a movie.Genres are defined by the perception of the film community, which includes the audience. Since I'm a part of that community, I get to have an opinion on how genres are broken down. How else to explain the fantasic elements of these movies without proposing that the distance between action and fantasy isn't so great?

By a rabid sci-fi fandom that'll sooner put a boot up your arse than countenance the suggestion that a work of science fiction can be anything but a work where extrapolation from scientific reality is the main plot element.Are they right? I dunno. But they certainly think they are, and sci-fi fandom is very picky about what is science fiction and what merely has the trappings.

You are driving me insane.This message has been edited by custard, 05-29-2004 07:22 AM

---

8 tablespoons unsalted butter;2 cups milk;1 cup all-purpose flour;1 cup sugar;3 large eggs, separated;Fresh berries, for serving

Sorry, I hadn't realized there was a gun to your head forcing your participation here.

*BANG*

---

8 tablespoons unsalted butter;2 cups milk;1 cup all-purpose flour;1 cup sugar;3 large eggs, separated;Fresh berries, for serving

crashfrog responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Saving Private Ryan is an action movie

---

​

I disagree completely. Saving Private Ryan is a drama, not an action movie.

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?Do you not remember the opening half hour? What about the battle scene where the guy gets shot and they pump him full of morphine but can't get the bleeding under control? The battle scene in the bombed out building? The entire ending sequence regarding keeping the bridge and destroying the tank? Fully half of this movie is people shooting at each other and you say it isn't an action movie?What more do you need?Are you seriously saying that it is impossible for this movie to be both a drama and an action movie?

quote:

---

The lack of clearly defined moral roles is the tipoff

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?Did we see the same movie? The moral roles are absolutely defined: Hanks is miffed because he wants to be fighting the war and not chasing down some kid in order to send him home: The war is too important. Damon, when found, doesn't want to go: The war is too important.

quote:

---

quote:

---

any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic...ergo, scifi is just fantasy with tech-based magic.

---

​

Ludicrous.

---

Um, you do realize that I was quoting Arthur C. Clarke. When even science fiction writers understand that they are writing fantasies, I think it's safe to say that you are simply wrong.

quote:

---

S-f is one of the most rigidly percieved genres, and the rubric is very clear - science fiction exclusivly deals with works for whom extrapolation from scientific reality is the prime source of plot.

---

"Tech-based magic."FTL drive? Tech-based magic. Replicators? Tech-based magic. Androids and robots? Golems. What is a transporter if not a technical way to cast a teleport spell?

quote:

---

Star Wars isn't science fiction.

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?Star Wars is not a science fiction film? Then why does every single resource I can find declare it to be one? What is it about FTL drive, ray guns, light sabers, robots, and androids that makes it something other than science fiction?

quote:

---

quote:

---

But it's the MacGuffins that define it as a fantasy movie.

---

​

Of course not. Genres aren't defined by the props you use.

---

They certainly are. It's not the only way in which a genre is defined, but it's one of the ways.How do you have a western? You set it in the west. That's it. That's all you need to do. It can be a comedy or a drama, a romance or an action flick, gangster film or surrealistic cine. Set it in Tombstone, Arizona circa 1800s, put cowboy hats and six-shooters on the players, and you've got yourself a western.The fact that the typical western has certain icons associated with it (the sherriff and the villain having a showdown, lots of horses, the lack of any centralized law agency) doesn't mean that that's the only way to have a western. The defining characteristic of a western is the setting.The defining characteristic of science fiction is being at a higher tech level.

quote:

---

are Die Hard and Hard Target different genres because they use different kinds of guns?

---

Of course not. You're mired in too much granularity. The defining line isn't the number of lead bullets but rather whether you're shooting lead or lasers. Change the guns from revolvers to phasers and suddenly you've got yourself a sci-fi movie (in addition to whatever the movie was before).

quote:

---

You can split as many hairs as you like if you're going to characterize genre by prop.

---

No, you can't. One grain of salt is the same as any other and whether you are using Morton's salt, popcorn salt, or kosher salt, whther you're using pre-granulated salt or are grinding it yourself, adding salt will make it salty. But salt is not sugar despite the fact that sugar is granulated, too. Change the prop and what you're doing becomes something different.

quote:

---

Clearly that's not a particularly insightful nor intelligent way to define genre.

---

And yet clearly, that's exactly how it's done.How else to explain why movies are broken down into these categories specifically because of the props used?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

crashfrog responds to me:

quote:

---

film genre, like all genres, is a perception of the film community, not a measurable quantity of a movie.

---

Just like taxonomy.And yet, independent people overwhelmingly land on the same distinctions:Action and fantasy are different genres.

quote:

---

quote:

---

How else to explain Saving Private Ryan, Braveheart, The Wild Bunch, Glory, Spartacus, Platoon, Ben-Hur, and all the rest of the hyperactive movies that are not fantasies?

---

​

How else to explain the fantasic elements of these movies

---

There are no fantastic elements of those movies. That's why I mentioned them.Did you not read my post before responding, crash?What did you think I meant when I said "are not fantasies"? It would seem that I was saying that they have no significant content that could be called "fantastical."

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Oh yeah? Who are the good guys? Who are the evil guys? The movie does it's level best to suggest that the Germans aren't faceless evil orcs, they're real men with real lives, doing their jobs, just like the Allies.You remember that part where they can't figure out what to do with their prisoner? Do you remember any prisoner discussions in Lord of the Rings? I sure don't. That's what I mean about well-defined moral roles - the good guys are beyond reproach, and the evil guys are beyond repentance. When they meet, the only outcome is death for one side. Because they all have a different opinion than I do. You don't have to take my opinion over yours, but there's no way you can try to argue my opinion with the opinions of others. I don't break down the movies that way. You may choose to, but why should I follow suit when my way suits me better?