Muogin
In fact for me, a man who loves action but frankly is bored to tears with the what seems to be the only outlet for action, extreme hollywood bullet showers and blood gushing horror and war and blah blah blah,
I submit this challenge to this board and to any of you here who are professional writers.
What could you have a hero do that is action packed but without a focus on violence?
I have several ideas on this but would like to see what other can come up with.
Name as many concepts of how you could create a heroic action packed adventure without hardly any violence created by your lead hero or heroine!
The Challenge is on!
Muogin
About your topic, my response is Eh. Plenty of good writing is violence free. I don't really see any challenge at all in creating an "action packed" work without violence.
I don't know. I feel like it's not so much that they can't create interesting things without violence as it is that people like the violence for itself, would miss the violence for itself. I tend not to write violence, personally, but by extension to sex scenes of whatever degree of explicitness: it's entirely possible to write a romance without them, and I'd personally probably choose to err to the far less explicit; but judging by the fact that there are entire romance subgenres and imprints that by default contain explicit content, I'd say people would miss the sex scenes for themselves. My guess is that violence would be the same way, although entertainment isn't categorized quite as strictly as to violent content as it is with sexual content.
I frankly prefer "violent" action in which people get shot/sliced/chopped/mashed/etc. by their opponents. I think that "non-violent" action is a fine leavening, but let us face facts. In real life, most real "action" involves violent interpersonal conflict. Even in the real lives of people that make a point of avoiding violence.
This isn't to say that you can't make movies about natural disasters and so forth (and people already make such movies). But let us be realistic. Muggings are far more common than housefires. Shootouts are far more common than earthquakes. Wars are much more common than plague outbreaks. Genocide is much more common than ice ages. We've had more near misses with nuclear annihilation than we've had with extinction level kinetic bolides.
Man vs Man is simply a lot more common than Man vs anything else.
I will definately side with Survivor. Action needs consequence, and climax. That is why the A-Team came off as corny after a while. I know that the A-Team is probably not a great example, but it came to mind first. Oh yeah, Rambo III, need I say more?
Ok, a serious example, one FOR your arguement. THE FUGITIVE. Low violence, high action. He ran, dodged traffic, jumped off of a spillway etc... good movie.
But how about THE BOURNE IDENTITY. Better movie,(IMHO) and had a good balance of action and violence. It showed consequence and climax to the action.
Those are just a couple of examples, from the library in my head.
Man Robs 7-Eleven at gun point
Newspaper headlines---
Bet I know which one more people read.
There are good action films without man vs man violence. But in a Man vs Man I think the violence (conflict) is going to come out in more violent forms. How far will that violence go--shrug. I write some violent stuff. One editor had me tone the scene down to the point of (what's the point of the scene?) and then my agent asked what the heck happened to the good stuff?
We want to make the reader feel, but not make them loose their breakfast and toss the book into a wall.
Shawn
[This message has been edited by srhowen (edited June 22, 2004).]
quote:
We want to make the reader feel, but not make them loose their breakfast and toss the book into a wall.
Shawn in right on. Violence is often quite appropriate because it is a symptom of the human condition. But to use violence simply for the sake of sensationalism is a lame excuse for good entertainment in any medium.
quote:
But to use violence simply for the sake of sensationalism is a lame excuse for good entertainment in any medium. (italics are mine)
Hee...seriously, I know what you mean.
Action is presented for its entertainment value. Action (of several types) occurs much more often on TV than in real life. Violence should only be there for the sake of realism. We shouldn't be entertained by it, if we find the violence entertaining, then it hasn't been well presented.
Consider A-Team (or was it The A-Team?). Loads of explosions and running about frantically and so forth, nobody ever got killed (occasionally, for a very special episode, somebody would actually get shot). Consider Pokemon. Things blow up, lightning bolts and fire balls fly about, people get dumped in the bottomless pit or the ocean blue all the time and yet nobody ever gets hurt.
Of course, these are still violent. The thing missing is the blood. But the same principle applies. You don't splash blood on the screen for its entertainment value (except for sickos). You do it so that the violence has a realistic consequence.
For the same reason, you don't include interpersonal conflict as the driving force for action merely because it is entertaining. You do it because it is more realistic.
In real life, most action arises from violent interpersonal conflict. Often, action has real consequences.
But in real life, action may be pretty sparse. I've done the life-or-death thing now and then, but I don't do it every day. Nobody does. Maybe the thing should be to simply cut down on the level of action we put into stories.
Of course, books can do this much more easily than primarily visual media like movies and graphic novels. But even with movies, there are plenty of movies that are pretty much action free. From what I can tell, they hardly suffer for it (okay, maybe they suffer a bit at the box office--I meant I don't usually find them any less entertaining than action packed movies).
What's begun to bother me sometimes is the predictability of the hero/badguy fight at the end of the movie where the "head" badguy has to have some kind of spectacular death/downfall fight scene. Why does this always have to happen?
1. good guy and bad guy fight.
2. they lose their guns and resort to hand-to-hand fighting.
3. the bad guy beats the good guy senseless.
4. the bad guy insults or threatens the good guy's girl.
5. The good guy finds a new reserve of strength he never knew about and outdoes bad guy.
:1. Good girl and bad, sexist guy fight.
2. They lose their guns and resort to hand-to-hand fighting.
3. The bad guy beats the woman senseless.
4. The bad guy makes sexist remarks.
5. The good woman finds a new reserve of strength she never knew about and outdoes bad guy.
Modern girl/girl fight
1. Good girl and bad girl fight. They are wearing incredibly tight outfits that should by all account hinder their fighting abilities.
2. They never had guns, they start kicking each other and doing crazy kinds of fake jumping moves.
3. The bad girl beats the good girl senseless.
4. Plenty of shots of T&A.
4. The good girl finds a new reserve of strength she never knew about and outdoes bad girl.
1. Good guy and bad guy fight.
2. Bad guy beats snot out of good guy. Sweet karate.
3. Good guy beats snot out of bad guy. Sweet karate.
4. Bad guy beats snot out of good guy. Explosions.
5. Good guy beats snot out of bad guy. Explosions.
6. Bad guy beats snot out of good guy. More explosions.
7. Good guy beats snot out of bad guy. More explosions.
8. Bad guy beats snot out of good guy. More sweet karate, mixed with explosions.
9. Break for sophomoric philosiphizing.
10. Good guy beats snot out of bad guy for real. Sorry, no sweet karate or explosions.
Steps 1 through 5 of good guy bad guy fight followed by the bad guy falling so that you think he's dead but then he shows up AGAIN in a few minutes NOT DEAD and they repeat the process.
On the other hand, you have to admit that such a ploy only works once. In the third movie, they had him reach for a gun to do the same thing and found it missing. I found that to be pretty good too.
Especially if you had to go to the a-team concept LOL you must not have read my post.
About the closest concept understood was the indiana jones thing.
Bullets in an attempt to kill to me is almost worse than an actual kill, especially in the lopsided message that sends kids...
"Play with guns, shoot like crazy and as long as your target does a dive roll or cartwhell you'll be safe... yeah kid you'll be safe..."
-Muogin
quote:
Name as many concepts of how you could create a heroic action packed adventure without hardly any violence created by your lead hero or heroine!
quote:
About the closest concept understood was the indiana jones thing....
Bullets in an attempt to kill to me is almost worse than an actual kill, especially in the lopsided message that sends kids....
"Play with guns, shoot like crazy and as long as your target does a dive roll or cartwhell you'll be safe... yeah kid you'll be safe..."
Your challenge did state to avoid "violence created by your lead hero or heroine," not to avoid any violence at all (my italics). Even in Indiana Jones, the message was never 'play' with guns. He was fighting for his life.
The world is not a safe place, with or without guns. Three recent beheadings proved that rather graphically.
Fiction encompasses different levels of truth, among them different levels of violence. I thought Indiana Jones went a bit overboard visually, and I haven't and probably won't see The Passion of the Christ. I don't read a lot of fiction for the same and similar reasons.
But "Bullets in an attempt to kill me is almost worse than an actual kill" is too much fiction even for me.
But then, they never hit a thing. Is anyone else confused by this, or is it just me?
Sorry, your firing bullets that never hit anything reminded me of imperial troops....don't know where I'd make that connection.
Ok, ok, off topic, I know. done now.
Apollo 13 and [/i]The Perfect Storm[/i] come to mind as true-story examples. The Fugitive, cited previously, is a good ficticious example with many scenes that qualify. If you prefer man-vs-man, I recommend The Thomas Crown Affair (Pierce Brosnan version) for its great action-packed but non-violent climax.
As for the original example you requested: how about a scene in which the protagonist must ellude pursuers on a college campus just before Spring Break? There are numerous parties going on, bags being packed, cars being loaded, etc. The setting includes chemistry labs and human anatomy labs . . . all sorts of possibilities there.
Just a few seconds ahead of his pursuers, our hero dashes uninvited into a sorrority party, where he is immediatley beset by angry sisters. The pursuers watch the hero pretend to struggle as the sisters drag him to an unknown fate. The pursuers surround the building, and one of them does a double-take as an ugly sister leaves the house. It is the hero, forced by the sisters to wear a baggy dress!
The chase is on again, now our hero, looking awful in drag, makes for the street where he will try to flag down a car.
Do you think he will be successful?
Now I want to barf.
Eh, probably NOT what you were looking for.
quote:
"These blast marks....only imperial troops are that accurate." -- Obiwan.
That is the defining characteristic of Legions of Terror/Doom/etc. as opposed to heros, who can only shoot at things after being shot at first.
I have to admit, now that Doc's hero has been turned into snow cones, I feel my appetite returning to normal.