Action/Adventure Aficionados discussion
General A&A Discussion
>
How do you like your action sequences?
Love some John Woo!As for reading, it depends on the author. Child makes Reachers scenes both very detailed and, usually, pretty short. Almost more the mechanics and math of a fight rather than the gory details (although those are there too).
Most of the time I enjoy a more fast paced action sequence. Really gets the heart pumping. That's why I love Reilly.
Mod
I love the way Reilly is so fast paced. He's a bit gory for me at times, though.
*ponders*I think I like them more stylistic, in general. If it's a book which calls for gruesomeness, though, then I'm ok with it, as long as it's not gratuitous.
I think I like action sequences in which you get a really good sense of the action/fighting, but not necessarily an overly detailed one. I read this one book where the action bits went into names of moves and techniques, but if you're not familiar with the moves then it's a total "wtf" moment.
I don't need every punch and parry and whatnot drawn out. But I don't like it when I can't follow what's going on at all, either. So a middle ground for that.
But since I'm a character reader I think I get the most impact when it follows how the character(s) are feeling and acting and thinking and whatnot through the fight, as opposed to just the details of the fight itself.
message 5:
by
Danielle The Book Huntress , Literary Adrenaline Junkie
(last edited Sep 23, 2011 07:00AM)
(new)
Mod
I've noticed that some authors aren't very good at writing action scenes, in my opinion.
I agree. I think action sequences are probably really hard to write, especially if you're not familiar with actual fighting or fencing or whatnot. (I read a book recently which had fighting and I think the author actually did a decent job of getting the feel of the fencing down without being overly detailed or technical with it. I definitely got the impression that he was a fencer and understood it both on a mechanical and emotional level.)
Mod
I have a friend who contacted a fencing expert when she was writing her book to make sure she got a certain aspect right.
As an unpublished writer, I would say that you do about ten hours of research and only use about fifteen minutes of that subject matter knowledge.
Lady Danielle "The Book Huntress" wrote: "As an unpublished writer, I would say that you do about ten hours of research and only use about fifteen minutes of that subject matter knowledge. ."Yeah. It's funny you say that - it reminds me of another book I read where I felt like the author had done all this research (history, geography, etc) and just HAD to include every tidbit of information she'd gathered into the book. It was so tedious. (Not action related - just a general note.)
Mod
Shameless Plug Alert!http://www.hell-and-gone.com/readexce...
An action sequence (1st firefight from Hell & Gone) spread out over a few web pages.
In books and movies I like action sequences to be as smooth as a dance. The weapons, the amount of gore, even the style of writing doesn't matter. I have to be able to read it without breaking, without being taken away from the action by bad or unclear writing. Although it's hard to put words to I know what I like when I see/read it.
Mod
I prefer Jet Li to Jackie Chan- he has a more serious style. The Bourne scenes were really good, very gritty.
Mod
I just find him so creative it's amazing. I like Jet Li too. Both are better than "Don the Dragon Wilson."
Mod
Mod
And I like The Dragon's movies, but the fight choriogrpaphy is not as strong as Jet Li and Jackie Chan. He also moves slower (though more realistically for us mere mortals).
The out takes at the back of Jackie Chan's films are fun to watch. How many times he's knocked himself out or broken a bone trying to launch a motorcyle off a ramp onto the top of a train and stuff.
Chan's best movie may have been "The Forbidden Kingdome" though it's a later film, not an earlier one for him.
I like clarity. Short sentences that go light on description. No "where did that gun come from?" moments.Personally, I hate it when authors pull punches. If the scene would have been gory, tell me. I do not always need tons of detail, but don't treat me like my sensibilities are too fragile to deal with some blood.
Splitter
message 18:
by
Danielle The Book Huntress , Literary Adrenaline Junkie
(last edited Nov 09, 2011 12:08PM)
(new)
Mod
I like multiple points of view. Some of Clancy's close in gun fights do this well, though his detail can be excruciating...especially in the middle of a running gun battle. In my writing, I use multiple points of view for close in gun battles, even if the fight is more or less one sided. I agree that smooth action is key. A few startling descriptions of blood, but I don't like to experience buckets of blood with every gunshot or knife slash (like the latest John Rambo movie...OMG that was excessive.)Michael Mann does a great job with the epic running gun battle. HEAT and MIAMI VICE (ending scene). I could watch two hours of just his gunfights.
I have to really think on this, I'm not sure what I like. I just finished The 6th man and I enjoyed the scene in Central Park and also the end sence on the Mall in DC. It was a little detailed, but there were a lot of people involved. I started the Gray Man and had to give up my need to know clearence. He grabs you with the hellicopter crash and the killings aferward. He just kept adding more and more detail. In one scene someone is looked at one of the victims and he is being held together by his shirt. If it wasn't on him he would be in different pieces. Too much info, I still can't get it out of my head. Is the whole book that way or was he just going for the quick grab you intro? In my opinion he had it, if he would have left it alone. I'm sure that it is realiams but I being a gentel female - LOL! - don't need that much realisiam. Sorry my first post to these boards went so long, I will try and watch how winded I get. I can't spell and already lost this once so didn't want to keep looking words up. I will type in word and paste in the future. Too late for this one.
Hi, Marge! I didn't think it was winded at all.
Mod
Kyle, I love John Woo movies.
The Bourne scenes are probably the best I've seen. Did anyone see Haywire? That was a little too realistic -probably more so because the acting was poor. It was almost disturbing.
Mod
I think she should stick to ringfighting, LOL.
Just watched the trailer for Haywire and the cast is full of some good actors.
MacGregor, Banderas, and Fassbender were all good. Of course, I'm a big fan of Fassbender.
Mod
He's starring in the coming alien flick Prometheus (trailer), which really confused me because the first teaser I saw for that film featured a robot, so I thought it was about AI. LOL.
Mod
Mod
Yea, she's always been more fun to watch with the volume off. (Cept whey she was fighting that "big Bully" Chris Cyborg.)
Traci wrote: "In books and movies I like action sequences to be as smooth as a dance. The weapons, the amount of gore, even the style of writing doesn't matter. I have to be able to read it without breaking, wit..."I could not of said it better, Traci. You're a poet.
I prefer my scenes to be clear, vivid. Well-written and within the confines of actual physiology and anatomy - there's nothing worse to me than an author who either doesn't know how to fight (all swordfights, I'm lookin' at you), gets their info from Hollywood (UGH!), or just plain ol' doesn't do their freakin' homework.It's not like I'm "OMGTHEBESTEVAR" when it comes to fight scenes, but I've been told more than once that they're fairly vivid, and entertaining. Above all, a good fight scene SHOULD have the required amount of slick style to it, y'know?
I groaned about Hollywood fight scenes, but if you ARE going to base your fights on movies, then at least let it be from Bollywood or good ol' Wire-Fu asian cinema. ESPECIALLY if it's old-school Shaw Brothers-dubbed stuff.
With all that stated, I find that I often have to view it in my head before I write it out, and (above all) I sometimes have to dial it back, simply 'cuz I've been a little TOO influenced by video games and movies.
....then I go and do scenes like these:
An excerpt from the current episode - http://www.thepenismysword.com/2012/0...
The infamous Battle at Brownstone that I posted before I launched fully into The Generalist - http://www.thepenismysword.com/2012/0...
By now I've already expanded greatly on the first battle, and the second one is an example I wrote up to generate a little hype amongst my readership concerning The Generalist. By the time I get to it (Taboo 4: The Angle of the Angels), I won't have to remind people what Holy Diver or Benediction is, and the little details will be ironed out.
But that's pretty much what I expect when I read a action scene, depending on the universe it's in. It's either going to be incredibly realistic (think Eric Von Lustbader, Robert R. McCammon, or even Steven Barnes) or it's going to be as Street Fighter versus Marvel versus Capcom Ultimate Deathmatch versus Microsoft Kombat as possible. So long as it's written properly, I'm completely cool with it.
And sometimes the Rule of Cool and the Rule of Badass SHOULD prevail!
~Thomas Duder
David Gemmell writes some of the best fight scenes ever. I love his stuff.
Mod
I see this is a dead thread, but since I'm a newbie, I'm allowed to resurrect it. :-)Personally, while I enjoy a brisk, rapid action scene, my preference is for the blood-and-guts to be there, without overpowering the narrative flow. Firefights and fisticuffs are not blood-free events and I kind of get annoyed when an author keeps these scenes sanitized. I want R-rated violence, not PG-13.
In my own writing, I strive to find the delicate balance between briskness and brutality, though at times I will gustily go for the gore.
Any kind of scene -- including sex and violence -- should be in keeping with the tone of the rest of the story. You don't want a cozy to suddenly turn into Saw, for instance.Beyond the blood, I like to see writers acknowledge physical realities. In firefights, far more rounds miss than hit their intended targets; this is how you get real-world police shootouts in which a hundred rounds go downrange and the opposing shooter gets hit three times. When a character in a book or film gunfight fires fifteen rounds and gets sixteen hits, in my mind I change the genre to "fantasy."
I've done the tactical simulator thing, and even fake firefights are confusing, frightening and blindingly fast-moving; the real thing must be many times so. Even people who are trained in tactical operations can get confused, make bad decisions, freeze up, or go bonkers with adrenaline. I don't see that portrayed very often in books or films. Our Hero always seems to be perfectly in control, have total situational awareness, and always knows where the bad guys are (even when they're completely hidden from view).
A gunshot in an enclosed space, like a room, is incredibly loud, especially if you're the one firing the weapon. Without hearing protection (which Our Heroes never seem to wear), you'll be mostly deaf after a couple rounds. Yet we always see Our Heroes firing dozens of rounds in the Big Bad's concrete bunker, maybe blowing up stuff, then afterwards having perfectly normal conversations or even whispering.
I try to keep track of these things when I write action scenes. I don't go to extremes to describe the blood, but I make it clear that it's there and there's an appropriate amount of it.
Of the action books I've read lately, very few have paid much attention to any of this. One that comes to mind is Seeley James' The Geneva Decision , which got the more-misses-than-hits thing down pretty well.
Lance wrote: " When a character in a book or film gunfight fires fifteen rounds and gets sixteen hits, in my mind I change the genre to "fantasy."..."I laughed out loud at that.
Thanks for mentioning the Geneva Decision. I have to warn you though, I have several reviews, both good and bad, that complain, "the main character can't even shoot straight. She should go back to basic training."
For my subsequent books, I've decided to shunt reality. Apparently people don't like it :)
Your safehouse-shootout in South is still the most realistic firefight I've ever read. Come to think of it, I'm going to re-read that bit (I marked it) before I write another scene.
I'm looking forward to seeing Hornet's Nest later today, the last embedded reporter (he had to quit NBC to the embed for two years). It's supposed to be the scariest documentary ever made.
Peace, Seeley
In general, I write action scenes to be fast. Too many details and you have a slow-moving scene.However, there might be certain instances when you want to slow it down -- say a major character is being killed, or someone who is important to the protagonist. In that case, you might want to slow things down to stress the impact of that scene. That can be done by giving a lot of detail -- the facial expression of the character as they're being hit, as they realize their fate, etc.
Of course, that only works if the rest of the scene moves fast -- it's all about contrasts.
I remember reading in a writing book a long time ago that if the action and tension skyrocketed, most authors started getting choppier, shorter sentences. After reading that point, then reading books afterward, I saw they were right. Most start getting shorter sentences because they're speeding up the tension, which works greatI don't think the action scenes should be too carried out. People only hold up adrenaline so long before it gets tiring. It's like going to a movie and if it's almost non-stop fighting or action scenes, it starts to blend together and get a little dull. Break it up and it's more interesting when it happens.
Adam wrote: "However, there might be certain instances when you want to slow it down -- say a major character is being killed, or someone who is important to the protagonist. In that case, you might want to slow things down to stress the impact of that scene. That can be done by giving a lot of detail -- the facial expression of the character as they're being hit, as they realize their fate, etc.Great point - scenes should always be slowed down for something like that. I hate when an author doesn't given enough pause during a big moment/character death
Lance, Adam, Me, other writers: I know the moderators on AA/A are a bit leery of writers talking about their work (slippery slope) but this conversation is a good one. I've a Google+ community called "Thriller Writers" where we specifically discuss things like this among writers (and we have a few readers who like to watch). A little bragging, a bit of feedback, a lot of fun.
Join me over there before the moderators take a rolling pin to our heads :)
Peace, Seeley
John Woo's action sequences are among the best ever made, in terms of shootouts. Frankly, any action scene that can manage to be drawn out and keep moving at a breakneck pace at the same time is a masterpiece in my book. Woo's succeeded and failed with those. Another example could be the convoy sequence in Raiders of the Lost Ark. Classic.Written action sequences, I think I like them best when the sentences are short and punchy when need be, though without sparing the details or a sentence dedicated to stylizing or visualizing. Dancing shell casings, cascade of brains--that sort of thing. LOL. I like when they make sense. What I hate--and unfortunately I'll have to name names here--is when an action scene is stopped because the author would like to touch on the backgrounds, motives, and firearm preferences of every hitman who's trying to kill the main character. It turns a three-page action sequence into a 16-page chapter, and I just hate those. The Mack Bolan books, The Executioner, did this all the time, which probably contributed to why I've only read three of them (at least they were short).
I like the choppiness. I like when authors go, "Windows exploded. The ceiling crumbled over their heads. Bullets devoured everything. Plaster sprayed." Or you know, that sort of thing. Not just focusing on the characters but what's going on around them without losing momentum. I love that kind of stuff.
I find movie scripts are good reference material for this sort of thing.
I like literary action scenes to be quick and economical, but not overly drawn out (as in blow-by-blow)--this is the way I like to write them in my novels. Short and to the point, but descriptive. I don't mind a little blood and guts, but too much can be over-the-top.I think Ian Fleming did a good job with this excerpt from "Casino Royale":
When, dazed and half-conscious, he raised himself on one knee, a ghastly rain of pieces of flesh and shreds of blood-soaked clothing fell on him and around him, mingled with branches and gravel. Then a shower of small twigs and leaves. From all sides came the sharp tinkle of falling glass. Above in the sky hung a mushroom of black smoke which rose and dissolved as he drunkenly watched it. There was an obscene smell of high explosive, of burning wood, and of, yes, that was it - roast mutton. . . . Bond felt himself starting to vomit.
Brian January
http://brianjanuary.blogspot.com/
Hmmm. Tough question. Large scale and fast paced I suppose. But I have my own hard-to define point on where my suspension of disbelief snaps. An action scene for me must balance between providing an impact and holding the readers attention while trying to retain realism to a modest degree.
It depends on the fights context. For example, if a story is about a wronged person, man whose wife was murdered say, seeking revenge on the killer, then the fight will be the the stories finale, it should be lengthy, especially with the feelings of the combatants. In a crime story where cops have multiple fights with crooks, most should be short, or it'll be repetitive, the sort of thing that you skip read.'Course there's always unusual fights, like the girl fight in From Russia with Love. Worth reading!
Mod
Then I realized it was a hockey game. Stanley Cup Playoffs... Caps vs . Flyers... Yeesch... who knew?
Sometimes realistic, sometimes over the top. For me, there's the 'Michael Mann' school (realistic, somewhat down to earth, but pulled off with such aplomb that your jaw drops), the John Woo school (kick reality in the teeth and unload dual Taurus PT92s into its still quivering corpse) And in the middle, the film!Jason Bourne school (somewhere in the middle). For novels, my bookshelf appears to lean more towards the Bourne/Mann side of things. I've only got one action thriller novel that decisively puts itself in the "John Woo" section,
(Ben Coes Eye For An Eye)
Mod
Then I realized it was a h..."
My sister is knee deep in the Playoffs fever. She's rooting for the Blackhawks.
Mod
I love the John Woo/Hong Kong action type setups. I plan to watch a couple of Korean actioners soon, No Tears for the Dead and The Man from Nowhere.
Action/Adventure Aficionados
Books mentioned in this topic
South (other topics)The Geneva Decision (other topics)
As far as movies, I think that John Woo directs the best action scenes on the planet.