Logic in Fantasy Action Movies (Spoilers!)

Who the hell is "Tom Dirks" supposed to be? What are his credentials? Since genres are community-defined, what communities did he talk to? In short, if he's claiming to speak for all people related to films, exactly why should we believe him?When people talk about "argument by anonymous authority", this is what they're talking about - presenting a webpage as an authority with no explanation of the writers qualifications, methodology, or evidence. I have no such problem. I've already demonstrated that actions movies share a majority of genre features with fantasy movies. You, on the other hand, have offered no rebuttals, only smokescreens. No, you've presented one person's opinion of genre definitions that happens to agree with your own. I'm certain that I could do the same thing, but why bother? That would still be an argument from anonymous authority, and it proves nothing. ... on you, obviously. After all I'm not the one committing a famous fallacy of informal logic.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 05-28-2004 01:48 PM

Dodging having to support your position again. Rather than provide evidence to support your position you take the lazy way out and just continue to deny that any evidence is good enough.I provide examples such as blockbuster, hollywood video, etc. etc. and your response is that they aren't qualified to define genre thereby:1-entirely missing the point that they didn't define the genre, they merely categorize their product by genre so people can actually find it.
2- being arrogant enough to think you know more about film genre than the film industry (yes BBuster is part of the industry) itself.At the CrashFrog video store we'd have to go to the sword and sorcery section to find Die Hard. This demonstrates you, not everyone else, is out of synch with the definitions of genre. I can keep repeating it for you, but after three times I'm not certain that it is sinking in. Wrong again. You would have to provide evidence other than your personal dissatisfaction that my sources are not authoritative. You don't like sources you think are over exposed (block buster, viacom, etc) and you don't like sources you think are too obscure.You don't like my sources, fine, provide one of your own and prove your point. But you continue to demonstrate that you will not. You seem to think that since your own authority is enough for you, it should be for everyone else. That's called arguing from ignorance. Wrong again. You've 'demonstrated' nothing. You have only conjecture and your unsubstantiated opinion. Worthless really. Ha ha, wrong AGAIN! Your inability to admit you are wrong is absolutely remarkable. Concede your point or provide evidence. Not conjecture, EVIDENCE. You know, like you demand from everyone else? You up to adhering to your own standards? Let's see it. Put up or shut up.This message has been edited by custard, 05-28-2004 07:46 PM

Evidence for what, exactly? You don't seem so sure. On one hand you're certain that genres are defined by community, but on the other, you present one person's definitions as a perscriptive authority.Which is it? It can't be both. If your source gets to define terms, I want to know why. If your source speaks for a community, I want to know why.You accuse me of dodging, but you're the one who still - after several posts - hasn't refuted my argument - that action movies and fantasy movies share a significant number of tropes. Sorry, you're the one making the positive claim - that your source is authoritative. Therefore the onus of proof is on you. I've already done so. I've shown that action movies and fantasy movies share a number of siginificant tropes that they don't necessarily share with other genres. I'll admit I'm wrong when you've proven so. But unsubstantiated authorities prove nothing. And ignoring arguments just makes you look foolish.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 05-28-2004 08:30 PM

Your logical error here is equivocation, and it betrays what I suspected all along - you don't know much about genres."Sword and sorcery" is not synonymous with "fantasy".

You are dodging because you keep changing the topic of debate. I am not arguing that they don't share tropes; even a cursory reading of my posts would have made that apparent to you. I am arguing this statement: Remember that one? That's your claim. Back it up.This message has been edited by custard, 05-28-2004 08:46 PM

Ha ha ha! More ad hom attacks. Well, I suppose that's easier than providing evidence for your position.

Why bother? It's obvious that no evidence could convince you. How can I be expected to reason you out of a position that you didn't arrive at via reason in the first place?I know that to be true, after all, because when Tom Dirks made assertions, you accepted them unquestioningly - not because he provided any sort of evidence or is any sort of credible authority, but because he told you what you wanted to hear.If you'll accept statements from Tom Dirks simply because they're what you want to hear, why should I expect I'll be able to provide evidence that would suffice to convince you of something you don't want to hear?You've made a lot of ad hom, accusing me of being YEC-like in my argumentation. You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but hear mine - there's nothing more typical of YEC mentality than the tendancy to accept statements not based on evidence, but based on their agreement with preconceptions.Moreover, I've presented evidence that action movies are a kind of fantasy movie, because action movies have no tropes that fantasy movies don't. Some fantasy movies have tropes that action movies don't, of course - like magical or mythical settings - but plenty of fantasy movies have contemporary settings as well.It's pretty simple logic. If set A has no elements that set B does not, but B has elements that A does not, then we know A is a subset of B. I don't know how else to explain what is essentially a self-evident proposition, as far as I can tell.

That's an easy assertion to test: provide some. What evidence was that? Your opinion? That's not evidence and you know it.

Boring, C.Your position looks pretty hollow indeed when the best you can do is simply ignore my argument.

This thread is beginning to remind me of The Twilight Zone. Are you two (crash and cus) really that obsessed with this topic?It's really very simple. LOTS of movies ignore logic to one degree or another. For some people, logical lapses are irritating. For others, particularly genre fans, they are tolerable so long as the film delivers on other counts. In the case of action genre fans, logical lapses might be tolerable if the action scenes are well done or if, as some of my redneck freinds would say, they "blow things up real good".There's nothing more to it than that. Action fans will shell out money to see a film with great action almost regardless of plot consistency. Likewise, many romance fans or musical fans will pay for a good laugh/cry or some catchy production numbers. They don't always care if the plot is believable at all. Even Shakespeare fans will shell out money to watch a play that leaps back and forth 1400 years in time without ever mentioning or acknowledging in any way that time travel is taking place. We are all genre fans of one stripe or another and we all have our own level of tolerance for logical inconsistency. Thus, this is an entirely subjective matter than cannot be settled in the manner that you two are trying to settle it.

At this point I suspect it's just a pissing contest.

Yeah pretty much berberry. I don't think either of really give a crap about the position at this point.I would have let it go a while back, but I got caught up in it. Plus, since this, and perhaps politics, might be the only thing I disagree with CF about (from what I have read of his posts) it was interesting to see where it would go.This was probably predictable considering the banality of the topic (not intended as a slam to CF).This message has been edited by custard, 05-29-2004 03:07 AM

Realizing that this isn't the most scientific of surveys, I went to every single movie categorization group I know and I found that every single one of them separated "action" from "fantasy."The Internet Movie Database, All Movie Guide, Rotten Tomatoes, Amazon, and Metacritic all distinguish action from fantasy. Every single categorizer of movies I have ever seen have always separated "action" from "fantasy." The two can often go together (Lord of the Rings) but the pure action movie does not require any fantasy elements.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

I realize the perception, but that's exactly my point: the pure action movie always has a number of elements:1) Polarized moral lines - clearly defined "good guys" and "bad guys";2) Violence as the solution to moral conflicts with evil;3) Superhuman, heroic feats of strength, cleverness, endurance, or other traitsand etc. that are most strongly associated with fantasy movies.Ergo, my singular hypothesis - action movies are fantasy movies. Your statement that "the two can often go together" obscures the fact that fantasy movies always contain action elements.Consider the movie Dungeons and Dragons. 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. Without changing a single plot element you would have a pretty basic action movie.You see an action movie? I see a fantasy movie with cops instead of guards, thugs instead of orcs, guns instead of swords, and set in Chicago, not Middle Earth.

and If all action movies are fantasy movies why are they separate genres? Why does anyone bother to differentiate between the two if they are the same?Look, I'll grant you your 'action physics' position since it is true that most action movies don't have any concept of real world physics - which is why I don't like most action movies but I won't start that again- but this action=fantasy thing? Come on. You have no leg to stand on. Are you going to argue that all Rrhain's sources are invalid as well?If so, what source would you accept as an expert in this area? At this point I will happily dredge up the information to help you understand why your position is incorrect.This message has been edited by custard, 05-29-2004 06:33 AM