Saint said:
I never said otherwise. Like I keep saying: physical conflict is an extention of a more substantial conflict.
As for use on film... the problem with film is that the vast majority of directors are unimaginative, cowardly, and dominated by a stigma that film most be based on some level of reality. My dissapointment that film has not surpassed this is immeasurable. People say that this or that from comics won't work on film, but that's only because we have this ridiculous idea imprinted in our mind of what film "should be." Why can't we have stylized, fantastical films like we have stylized, fantastic comicsc? We need more LOTRs, Sky Captains, and Star Wars. We need more people who have the balls to take something like Superman and say "You know what, it's time somebody made Darkseid believable on film. It's time for somebody to make the Flash WITH his crazy, impossible villains. It' time for somebody to do something NEW."
Wait a second. You're against realism portrayed in movies, and yet you use LOTR and Star Wars as examples? The reason those movies worked so well is that they used a high degree of realism to portray these fantastic events.
Verisimilitude is necessary for EVERY SINGLE STORY ever created. If you are telling a story, you have to make the reader/viewer/listener BELIEVE IN THE WORLD before they will believe in the characters.
And when I say won't work, I always mean won't work for
me. Do I want to see Gorilla Grodd on the big screen, when Lex Luthor is the much more interesting villain? Do I want to see Darkseid on the big screen, when I have no interest in that character or his story? Nope. And when I say easily transferred to film, I mean having enough time in a 2-hour movie to give the faithful backstory of these villains and their history. Darkseid would be tough to do for ANY live-action movie. Unless you set him in WarWorld, New Jersey or something.
Why? As I have said before, I think there is something fundamental and primal about people willing to come to blows. It's especially compelling when we're talking about a pacifist like Superman. It evokes drama, it evokes emotion, it evokes and entire RANGE of things when done well. As I said, it is an EXTENSION of other conflicts.
When done well, somebody clipping their toenails does the same thing. There are many ways to go about it.
Additionally, yeah, it looks cool. But that's just a bonus. I am not adverse to sometimes having something cool for the sake of having something cool.
And this is the reason you want the way that involves physical combat. Because it looks cool. Nothing wrong with it, I like stuff that looks cool. But I'm also not going to be satisfied with physical combat as the resolution of conflict in a Superman movie. Superman didn't beat Zod by beating him down. He out-smarted him. That was way more satisfying.
Of course we always know the hero will win, but that doesn't affect the excitement.
It doesn't affect the excitement when the story is done well. When the conflict compells the audience and does not devolve into standard resolution. There's a reason Cinderella Man tanked at the box office.
Consider this: Superman fighting a group of ninjas isn't exciting, but Batman doing the same is. This is because, despite the fact that we know otherwise, in the world of the film, danger is involved for Batman. EFFORT is involved.
Batman fighting ninjas isn't particularly exciting to me. Sorry. Now, showing Batman ATTACKING ninjas in a new, compelling way, striking from the shadows and never quite seeing the actual combat, is exciting and emotionally involving. We know Batman will beat them, but the way it is shot evokes a certain feeling that adds to the understanding of the character.
And, the ending to Batman Begins underscores my point extremely well. The ending to Batman Begins is a derailment of the atmosphere of the film. Because it devolves into standard, boring old action and physical confrontation. But it gives us two equally skilled, emotionally invested unarmed combatants who come to physical blows. No emotion was invoked by me, except disbelief that the movie would end like
that.
Please tell me where I said otherwise. You can't, because I never did. To the contrary, I have echoed your very words in saying character conflict (of the psychological, emotional nature) is ALWAYS the most important and rewarding part of any work. I can't believe I'm saying this AGAIN, but physical conflict is an EXTENSION used to ENHANCE these conflicts.
You keep saying it, and I'll keep qualifying it.
We fundamentally disagree on the nature of hand-to-hand combat and its portrayal on film. While you see it as an enhancement, I see it as a traditional path down which every conflict must go in an action film. I don't see any enhancement, because I simply have seen it all before. It is rote. It's like a path worn down by so many feet.
Physical combat
can be used to enhance emotional conflict. The problem is we, the audience, have to not be bored by it for it to have any effect. When filmmakers try hard to make it look amazing and visually exciting, the conflict almost always loses its emotional resonance and simply Looks Cool. And physical combat simply to look cool is not a satisfactory resolution to the emotional conflict driving the combat. In my experience, physical combat portrayed in movies has only been effectively resonant when it was extremely short and extremely violent. The Bourne movies fit into that realm. Superman, as a property, would not work well with that kind of combat.
In Spider-man 2, the fights with Doc Ock
looked cool, but they didn't have ANY emotional impact. But Spider-man convincing Ock to save the city, and the conflict resolution underscored there, was emotionally resonant and satisfying.
You will come back with, "I KNOW combat just to look cool is bad, I've SAID that..."
And yet, I believe that if you were presented with a choice between watching a deathly quiet personal exchange between Lex and Supes, and Supes getting beaten by and beating on Doomsday, you would choose Doomsday. That's simply my impression.
