Logic in Fantasy Action Movies (Spoilers!)

Yeah the ad hom jabs and snide remarks sprinkled throughout your posts appear to me that you are taking it personally. How can you possibly come to that conclusion? I'm the last person who would ever claim I knew enough about physics to take the position you have thrust upon me. Regardless, object to my tone all you want, in my opinion Van Helsing and Hellboy were garbage movies. If that makes me a snob, so be it.Guess you and I won't be sharing popcorn anytime soon. So much for my trip to the midwest.

crashfrog writes:

quote:

---

I know that's what you're saying, and you're wrong.

---

No I'm not. This is why 90% of action movies aren't worth a crap except to genre fans. This is probably also why these pictures rarely win any awards.

Off topic, but thought you might want to know, it's not 'Deux ex machina' it's 'Deus ex machina.' I only point that out because you've used it twice and wasn't sure if it was a typo.Cheers.

By all means, if you can show me the authority that defines genre, I'd be happy to address this.I don't think I'm the only person who assumed that when you used Blockbuster as the source of genre classification, you intended to offer them as an authority. But since you deny doing that, exactly what authority is defining these genres that you claim are so clear?Anyway, I've already done this - I've identified a few of the fantasy tropes that movies like Die Hard incorporate. Like I said, just because there's no elves or dwarves doesn't mean it's not a fantasy movie. Die Hard, like all action movies, incorporates enough fantasy tropes to be a fantasy movie. Action movies are fantasy movies, and the fact that Blockbuster's flat shelving scheme doesn't easily represent hierarcheal classifications is hardly a refutation of this.

A) Your repeated criticisms of the physics of these movies.B) Your repeated, condecending assumption that your average movie-goer knows less about science than you do.That's how I come to that conclusion. It's not so much that it makes you a snob, it's that you're willfully closing your mind to taking these movies on their own merits.You lose out on nothing except the ability to enjoy certain movies. If that's what you want, that's fine. I just don't understand what you think you get in return that makes it worth it. Trying to find out is the general point of the thread, I guess.

Meh, they're laughing all the way to the bank. Clearly they're doing something right.

My mistake. Thanks; I appreciate it.

'The' authority? How about popular opinion? Would that be enough? If not, and we are only using the CrashFrog dictionary, then this is pointless. If blockbuster, hollywood video, and Joe's Local Video isn't enough for you, here is one of MANY, many examples showing that 'action' is a seperate genre of film from 'fantasy.'In fact, in this example, fantasy is a sub-category of action which would infer that while fantasy movies can be action movies, the reverse is not necessarily true. My point with Die Hard holds true. Here is the definition of a fantasy film. Pay special attention to the bold text. Wow, Video stores, websites, film reviewers, other movie goers...looks like you are the only one with the action movies = fantasy movies position.Since you seem to be the only one out there that has trouble distinguishing between the different types of accepted film genres, I've done your homework for you this time. If you still feel unfullfilled, please feel free to do a little research yourself.Hope this helps!This message has been edited by custard to make the link more visible, 05-28-2004 03:40 AMThis message has been edited by custard, 05-28-2004 07:17 AM

Not for Van Helsing and Hellboy. They have yet to break even.From IMDB website:

Movie----------Budget:----------Gross to date:
Hellboy--------$66mil-----------$59mil
Van Helsing----$160mil----------$100mil This message has been edited by custard, 05-28-2004 12:39 AM

crashfrog writes:

quote:

---

Meh, they're laughing all the way to the bank. Clearly they're doing something right.

---

Oh, you're absolutely right about that. I never said these films don't make money - if they didn't no one would make them. The audience for action pictures is huge; no one disputes that. I'm only saying that when they break the rules they don't appeal to anyone but genre fans.

crashfrog writes:

quote:

---

But here again you physics nazis show your inconsistency. Did you bitch and moan when they jump to lightspeed in Star Wars? Yes or no?

---

Interstellar science fiction requires FTL drive. Unless you're willing to wait thousands of years to get from one star to another, there's no way to get from here to there without saying, "Screw you, Mr. Einstein!" and going faster than light.At Mudd, we would do our best to come up with the most inventive methods to explain the tech (hell, if they can wrap an entire plot around a pathetic new molecule they invented in order to cause the tension as well as solve the dilemma, we can do the same thing.) My favorite was the transporter using the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (which received vindication in The Next Generation). You see, the transporter calculates the precise momentum of every single particle in your body. Due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, it now has absolutely no idea where you are. It then searches the entire universe for you except the place where you're supposed to be and lo and behold, there you are.This is different from The Matrix which clearly points out that the "real world" is the real world we see around us where things like the second law of thermodynamics still apply. In fact, the energy dynamics of The Matrix simply cannot be accounted for: The sun has been turned off (from the cloud cover) and the earth has gone cold (how far into the future are we?)...and the surface is still warm enough for someone to walk around wearing a raggedy shirt?

quote:

---

but lord forbid 6 horses be allowed to jump a gap that might not be as wide as the movie makes it look...

---

When you've made it perfectly clear that the horses can't jump that far and that the chariot would explode upon impact, having the horses jump that far and the chariot survive the impact is, well, illogical.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

crashfrog writes:

quote:

---

Spelling them out and adhering to them are two different things, though.

---

Yes. Failing to do the latter is automatically illogical.Failing to do the former can lead to illogic since there is no reason to consider that the violation is "natural." This is especially annoying when the violation happens only to extricate the plot from the impossible position it has found itself in.

quote:

---

showing us that they are is enough.

---

But that's just it. Van Helsing didn't show it. In fact, it directly stated otherwise and then violated its stated rules.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

crashfrog writes:

quote:

---

But both you and Rrhain project an air of elitism - "our opinions, by virtue of our knowledge of physics, is superior to the average uneducated movie-going boob"

---

Bullshit.It isn't that I'm some great physicist. I'm a horrible physicist...that's why I went into mathematics.It's that I pay attention to the details. Physical scenarios and setups established in one scene have their implications carried over into later scenes.If I specifically tell you that these horses are normal and if I go out of my way to show that this carriage is somewhat rickety and falling apart, that is inconsistent with this horse-and-carriage setup suddenly being able to jump a gorge and not shatter upon impact.Dirty Harry pointed it out well: "Did he fire six shots or only five?" Well, the editors of the movie had better make sure that if, indeed, another bullet comes out of that gun, then fewer than six shots were fired previously.Yeah, action guns seem to have an infinite supply of bullets (thus, Loaded Weapon 1's spoof line, "Did he fire a hundred and seventy-three times or a hundred and seventy-four?") but if you're going to make the point that in this movie they don't, then you need to count your bullets and make sure that the gun doesn't fire more than it has.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

You did, after all, describe the genres as "clearly defined." But when asked to pony up those definitions, you start to backpedal.Moreover, if you're going to retreat from the original claim and maintain that genres are community-defined, then they get a lot more fuzzy, don't they?All I'm telling you is that action movies incorporate enough fantasy tropes to be considered fantasy movies. Nothing you have said yet refutes that. An argument from anonymous authority? Why would that help anything?

What part of "filmsite.org" is anonymous to you? Want to check the post again?Not at all. You are the one who seems to have a problem with the way 'fantasy' and 'action' genres are defined. I have provided several examples supporting my definition of these genres, you have provided nothing but hot air and conjecture. I see all that exposure to YEC debating tactics has rubbed off.This message has been edited by custard, 05-28-2004 07:26 AM