Writing action sequences, without characters defying logic, just to have them?

[harmonica44]

When it comes to writing action scenes, in a thriller, I feel I have to make characters behave illogical in order for the desired action sequence to happen.

Like if you want a chase, or a hide and seek scene, they have to do things that are not the most plausible in order for the chase to continue rather than not begin at all.

Since I am into writing screenplays, I watch and use a lot of movies as examples. In the movie Die Hard for example, there is the scene where John McClane, his hiding and evading Kristoff.

Kristoff is looking for him and comes around a corner. John points a gun at Kristoff's head and tells him to drop his machine gun. Kristoff does not. Now the most realistic thing a cop would do here is shoot him after he doesn't drop it.

But John decides to pistol whip him, get on top of him, and wrestle the gun out of his hand, while Kristoff is trying to shoot him in the process.

The reason why they had it happen this more illogical way, is so that they could have a fight scene.

Another movie example is Internal Affairs (1990). Avilla (Andy Garcia), predicts that Peck (Richard Gere), will go to his house and come after his wife, as his next move.

But instead of calling for police back up, Avilla decides to go his home, all by himself, logically prolonging the rescue of his wife, should she be in likely danger.

He could have just picked up the phone and had other cops go there before he could get there, bu the chose to go there by himself to add suspense.

In Point Break, when Utah and his partner predict where the bank robbers will strike next, they were right. But they also did not call for back up and decide to chase them all by themselves, in order for them to have a longer more exciting chase, between hero and villain.

In Lethal Weapon, Riggs arrest the villain, but instead of slapping the cuffs on his he decides to give his gun to his partner, so he can have a long elaborate martial arts fight with the villain.

You get the idea. However, I been told by readers that it's not good to defy logic just for the sake of having an action scene. If an action scene does not naturally fit, don't force it. But if this is the case, then I cannot really find any action scenes naturally fit, without defying logic in order to force action into it.

In The Dark Knight, Batman is chasing after The Joker on his Batpod and takes a short cut by firing .50 caliber bullets through the windows of the mall, and riding through them. But if he had those guns all along, then why did he go for five minutes of a chase with the police and everyone without using them, by shooting out The Joker's tires right at the start of the chase?

Is their a way to have logical action scenes, where you do not have to do this? Some movies do this but it is rare, and if I look for an illogical move, in order for the action scene to continue, I can often find it. What do you think? Is it possible to write it so it doesn't bother reader's?

 

[Sweetie]

When it comes to writing action scenes, in a thriller, I feel I have to make characters behave illogical in order for the desired action sequence to happen.

Let me stop you there. If they are behaving illogical, then you've made a mistake, plain and simple. Either in your setup up to that point or in the scene in question. You've screwed up. You need to identify the screw up and fix it.

Now the most realistic thing a cop would do here is shoot him after he doesn't drop it.

So, to clarify, you're saying that the logical thing is for the cop to perform cold blooded murder? How is that logical? Do I need to note that in itself is an illegal act and establishes that the John character, while flawed is a good guy? Please for the sake of my sanity, stop toddler logic. Stop coming up with these stupid, incorrect premises.

In Lethal Weapon, Riggs arrest the villain, but instead of slapping the cuffs on his he decides to give his gun to his partner, so he can have a long elaborate martial arts fight with the villain.

Context in stories is everything.

As for Lethal Weapon, did you watch the movie? Taken out of context it would appear illogical, but the context is Riggs is a formerly suicidal rule breaker. The scene in question is an important to both wrap up the competitive nature between both characters and is also an important part of character development for Riggs. Without it, the story doesn't work as well as it does.

I cannot tell you about the other ones as I either haven't seen them or I don't remember the particular scenes you're talking about, but I think it's safe to assume you're flat out wrong.

Taken out of context, any dumb thing is possible. Take for instance: "At any rate, if there is any movie less likely to win an Academy Award, I would rather spork out my eyeballs than ever see it." can be taken out of context to be: "Likely to win an Academy Award." This is exactly what you do with every example. Hell, I'm sure you'll be able to take this forum out of context to make it seem like you're a successful experienced filmmaker and we're just haters.

I repeat, context is everything. If you fail to frame the context correctly, it'll come off poorly.

This is why you really need to read, read, read and continue reading books on writing. It might start to sink in and you'll get to the point where beginner writers begin. Your dumb ass thought patterns are screwing your ability to write. "You must unlearn what you have (mis)learned"

I been told by readers that it's not good to defy logic just for the sake of having an action scene.

Let me interpret them for you: "You have the logic sense of a toddler."

Is their a way to have logical action scenes, where you do not have to do this?

Ignoring the idea that you wish to be a writer and don't know the difference between their and there (wait, wasn't I going to ignore that. Damn. Must be a plot hole)... Sure there is a way. Good movies setup and then maintain their logic. Bad movies don't. Come to grips that you won't grasp the concept of logic. Let me reiterate. Logic is weak in you. At the same time, accept that you're going to write bad movies and you'll be good to go. There's no shame in writing bad films.

I hope that helps.

Is it possible to write it so it doesn't bother reader's?

For most writers, yes. For you, no.

 

[WalterB]

...............However, I been told by readers that it's not good to defy logic just for the sake of having an action scene................

So, your solution for this advice is trying to proof other writers do the same as you?

That defies logic for sure.
As if pointing to other murderers justifies murder.
I'm not even talking about how you take things out of their (emotional) context.
(Although, yes: Batman could just have fired those guns, but he doesn't want to kill people. I guess you missed that little detail. He even tried to save the Joker.)

Human logic it not math.

Btw, great title for a thread... it contains it's own universe

 

[harmonica44]

Yeah that's true for Lethal Weapon.

As for Die Hard, if someone is coming to kill you with a loaded machine gun, you tell them to drop it, and they do not, then a cop can shoot him. He didn't drop the loaded gun. Is it cold blooded if the guy has a machine gun and he tried to shoot you once already, like Kristoff did, and he disobeys your commands to drop it?

As for the Dark Knight, Batman is perfectly okay with flipping the truck upside down, but shooting the tires, is going too far. Plus he fires those bullets through the glass doors of a mall with people walking around in. So the collateral damage is just as risky. Where's the logic in that?

 

[Sweetie]

As for Die Hard, if someone is coming to kill you with a loaded machine gun, you tell them to drop it, and they do not, then a cop can shoot him. He didn't drop the loaded gun. Is it cold blooded if the guy has a machine gun and he tried to shoot you once already, like Kristoff did, and he disobeys your commands to drop it?

So if I scream at you to stop being stupid, I can shoot you? Of course not. It's murder. It's not the end all of the conversation but you either need to be in imminent danger of your own life or in defense of others for it to be anything short of murder in what you're describing.

Not sure about you, but I don't think murder isn't a great thing for the hero of your story to be performing.

...Lets put this into another light. Lets say he's carrying a bucket of water. You point your gun at him, commanding him to drop the bucket of water. He refuses. It's logical to shoot him right? Water is dangerous. Many people each year drown in water. He's a bad guy. He's obviously going to attempt to drown you in it, right? That's H44 logic for you.

a cop can shoot him.

That's one of the great things about the human condition. People possess free will. Yes, they can shoot someone. You can go on a rampage down the street. It's still murder no matter how many times you yell, "It's coming right for me". By the way H44, "You're coming right for me" (oh so I wish)

Let me reiterate: "You have the logic sense of a toddler."

It's up to you to prove otherwise. Go.

 

[Sweetie]

Seems appropriate for this thread:

 

[AudioPostExpert]

Is their a way to have logical action scenes, where you do not have to do this?

No!

Is it possible to write it so it doesn't bother reader's?

Yes!

When you can fully understand how and why these two answers can both be correct at the same time, you will have gone a long way to improving one of the fundamental problems which is holding you back from progressing with your filmmaking!

For a long time now I have told you that looking for black and white answers, a simple rule or set of rules which always apply will stop you dead in your tracks from progressing much beyond a beginner and here we are, year/s later with you still asking beginner questions! Filmmaking and all the crafts which comprise filmmaking are all, at least in part, arts. An art, by definition, cannot be reduced to a set of logical rules which always apply, at most they are loosely based on "rules of thumb", meaning rules which apply some/most of the time but not always.

In this thread, you are doing the same as you always do, looking for logic, for relatively simple to define rules where there are none. I could easily answer your question/examples by stating that: "Whether the character's actions are logical or not is completely irrelevant!! The only thing which is relevant, is whether or not their actions are believable!". The problem with this answer, as far as you are concerned, is that we would then have to define "believable", reduce it to a logical rule, and that's where we'd get unstuck! Human beings are NOT robots, they are not logical and furthermore, "character" can be defined as personality traits/behaviours which are even more illogical than other humans! Are you trying to write a screenplay without any characters? Is it a fly on the wall documentary of a group of robots? Even in films which do contain a significant role for robots, those robots are either used to juxtapose the illogicality of the "characters" or are themselves developed into "characters". Are John McClane's actions (or any other example you've given) logical? No! Going a step further than this simple answer, we could say that John McClane's actions are logical within the illogical world of his character. In other words, his actions are consistent with his character and this is why, even though they are illogical, they are still believable. This is how both the answers above can be correct at the same time!

Filmmaking and the filmmaking crafts are largely, if not entirely, based on what is believable (rather than what is logical). Believability cannot be simply defined, it is a human opinion, not a precise, measurable logical quantity or rule. Filmmakers therefore often get it wrong and cross that line of believability or rather, as believability is just a subjective opinion, they cross that line for some people. It's "wrong" or a filmmaking "error" when they cross that line for too many of their target audience. In practice therefore, filmmaking is largely/entirely about whether you can make people believe (or suspend their disbelief) and the skill to accomplish this is based on "feel", "intuition" and subjective opinion, it is NOT based on a set of simple or logical rules. Until you understand this and then actually develop this feel/intuition you have pretty much zero chance of ever making even a watchable film.

I know you'll say something like "yes, thanks for that, I'll try in future" but in practice nothing will change and you'll still be here in 5 years time asking the same beginner questions, still looking for absolute rules/logical answers, still missing the fundamental philosophy of filmmaking and still not getting anywhere/progressing. Maybe, as appears to be the case, you are simply incapable of understanding/embracing this fundamental philosophy of narrative filmmaking. In which case; you are still young, you've still got time to go and find something else to which your mentality is suited, something else which your mentality will actually help you to excel at, rather than hinder you. If you love film that much, excel at something else and then make films purely as a hobby and/or, if you're successful enough at that something else, retire early and maybe join a film investment syndicate. IMHO, unless you can significantly change your mentality and begin to understand the fundamental philosophy of filmmaking, you are in serious danger of wasting your life or at least, a rather large part of it!!!!

G

 

[Sweetie]

you'll still be here in 5 years time asking the same beginner questions

I'm going to have to correct you here. He's regressed. He's no longer at the beginners stage.

 

[harmonica44]

Okay thanks. Perhaps logical is not the right word, and believable is. I feel that sometimes the audience might not believe the characters if they have to perform certain actions for action scenes to happen, that may not be believable. So if readers tell me that they do not believe the action of the characters in order to get the suspense started, like if they say something, like why didn't this person shoot this person, it is bothering them. They say it's illogical, but if logic is not suppose to apply, but they say it's a problem, could something else be then?

 

[Sweetie]

Okay thanks. Perhaps

they say it's a problem, could something else be then?

 

[Theauteur14]

That's one of the great things about the human condition. People possess free will.

Not really. Predetermination does exist (but that is a deeper subject for some other time).

H44 Your questions are weird. You need to keep in mind that film is meant to be an emotional medium. If you are constantly looking to explain things logically then there is another medium for you, books.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

Okay thanks.

I feel that sometimes the audience might not believe the characters if they have to perform certain actions for action scenes to happen, that may not be believable.

Great, thanks for playing along, so precisely!

To answer your quoted point: "the problem, as far as you are concerned, is that we would then have to define "believable", reduce it to a logical rule...." - Doesn't this answer sound familiar? Did you actually read my post or are you just incapable of understanding it? Honestly H44, I can't see a happy ending anywhere in your future. I very sincerely hope I'm wrong or that you can wake up and do something about it!!

G

 

[WalterB]

H44 tries to apply logic to human nature, as if it is math.
It is like trying to apply calculus to write the perfect valentine's letter: it doesn't add up.

Believable can be defined as a concept, but you can't define what action or story is believable.
To some it is believable that the earth is less than 6,000 years old, while others can't believe anyone would think that.
You can only create a context in which something is or seems believable.

Besides that: people tend to make illogical decision when under great pressure.

 

[Sweetie]

H44 tries to apply logic to human nature, as if it is math.

I believe it's something you can do. The variables are a little different and more complex from what you'd be used to seeing, but it's still a possibility. Whether it'd be able to accurately predict the outcome is another question

Math problems in H44's head could look like this: 7 * Car != 1/Angry Planet = ??
Except in his head, cars fly, 7 is a color, 1 is a location and Angry Planet is lost.

people tend to make illogical decision when under great pressure.

I'll disagree. People often make less than perfect decisions when under pressure, but that's a discussion for later if you really want to delve deeper.

I can't see a happy ending anywhere in your future.

It might not be happy ending for him, but I foresee potential satisfaction in one lucky persons future.

 

[WalterB]

.............

I'll disagree. People often make less than perfect decisions when under pressure, but that's a discussion for later if you really want to delve deeper.
...............

There is research about this topic: stress reduces bandwidth in the brain. But it is indeed off-topic

 

[AudioPostExpert]

It might not be happy ending for him, but I foresee potential satisfaction in one lucky persons future.

Sweetie, personally, in this particular case, I don't share your position. Particularly your relating of H44 with someone like davidevans10, who is a supercilious, racist, bigot of a troll. There's no doubt that many of H44's questions and responses demonstrate such a profound misunderstanding of the issues that they could only come from a troll. So there's certainly a good chance that H44 is a troll but if he is, at least he's not a supercilious, bigoted troll! Personally, I'm not 100% convinced H44 is a troll, I think it's fairly likely he just has a mentality so unsuited to filmmaking as to give that impression. I still occasionally respond to him/his threads, if I feel my response could provide some useful info/insight to others who might be reading. So even if he is a troll, with absolutely no interest in my responses, that still doesn't entirely invalidate my spending the time to respond.

G

 

[FantasySciFi]

When it comes to writing action scenes, in a thriller, I feel I have to make characters behave illogical in order for the desired action sequence to happen.

Like if you want a chase, or a hide and seek scene, they have to do things that are not the most plausible in order for the chase to continue rather than not begin at all .... However, I been told by readers that it's not good to defy logic just for the sake of having an action scene. If an action scene does not naturally fit, don't force it. But if this is the case, then I cannot really find any action scenes naturally fit, without defying logic in order to force action into it. ...

Is their a way to have logical action scenes, where you do not have to do this? Some movies do this but it is rare, and if I look for an illogical move, in order for the action scene to continue, I can often find it. What do you think? Is it possible to write it so it doesn't bother reader's?

There is reason and there is emotional logic.

A man with a knife faces a sheriff with a gun and slowly approaches. There sheriff tells him to stop. The man hesitates then starts his approach. The gun is pointed at the man and the sheriff is insistent. The man nears and they end up fighting instead.

It could be the man was a brother, family member or a close personal friend. The reasonable action is to shoot. The emotional thing is to not shoot but neutralize the threat. Was this an illogical lead up to an action scene or one based on emotional logic? Here context is important. If the audience knows that the man has a strong connection to the sheriff, the action scene 'makes sense'. There can be other reasons too.

If the sheriff is alone and he knows the the gunshot would alert others, he might choose to trick the man first. Especially if he'd have to shoot his way out.

The action in a film should always make sense based on the context that appeals to reason or the emotional logic. If you cannot come up with either, you should cut the scene or re-write it.

 

[maz]

So if I scream at you to stop being stupid, I can shoot you? Of course not. It's murder. It's not the end all of the conversation but you either need to be in imminent danger of your own life or in defense of others for it to be anything short of murder in what you're describing.

Not sure about you, but I don't think murder isn't a great thing for the hero of your story to be performing.

...Lets put this into another light. Lets say he's carrying a bucket of water. You point your gun at him, commanding him to drop the bucket of water. He refuses. It's logical to shoot him right? Water is dangerous. Many people each year drown in water. He's a bad guy. He's obviously going to attempt to drown you in it, right? That's H44 logic for you.



That's one of the great things about the human condition. People possess free will. Yes, they can shoot someone. You can go on a rampage down the street. It's still murder no matter how many times you yell, "It's coming right for me". By the way H44, "You're coming right for me" (oh so I wish)

Let me reiterate: "You have the logic sense of a toddler."

It's up to you to prove otherwise. Go.

I don't think murder would apply to an obviously armed person approaching a policeman and refusing to comply with requests to drop a projectile weapon. Obviously the policeman would be the subject of an investigation, but I don't think any court/internal affairs investigation would consider that set of circumstances to be murder. The bucket of water analogy is irrelevant, but you knew that

 

[Sweetie]

I don't think murder would apply to an obviously armed person approaching a policeman and refusing to comply with requests to drop a projectile weapon.

Perhaps you don't remember the scene we're talking about? The case we're talking about is a man who has a cop behind him. The cop is holding a gun to the perpetrators head. Shooting the perpetrator for refusing to drop the weapon which is pointing away from any people AND without further aggression in this case, at least in my opinion would be murder. It's an execution. There's no longer imminent danger, even with prior intent.

Whether the cop would be found guilty? That's a different conversation, no?

While in your case, the aggressive action can be seen as the guy approaching a cop with a weapon. In your case, it does happen. It's just not what we're talking about.

 

[maz]

Perhaps you don't remember the scene we're talking about? The case we're talking about is a man who has a cop behind him. The cop is holding a gun to the perpetrators head. Shooting the perpetrator for refusing to drop the weapon which is pointing away from any people AND without further aggression in this case, at least in my opinion would be murder. It's an execution. There's no longer imminent danger, even with prior intent.

Whether the cop would be found guilty? That's a different conversation, no?

While in your case, the aggressive action can be seen as the guy approaching a cop with a weapon. In your case, it does happen. It's just not what we're talking about.

Got you. My mistake, I thought you were talking generally, and I agree with you that specific scenario would be entirely different.