"But if he just killed them, then the movie would be over." Then maybe they shouldn't have written a situation where the bad guy has his hands on the good guy and doesn't kill them right away even though he has every reason to.
I mean, I suppose that's a pretty brutal way to die. Just endless minor concussions and bruises until your body goes out. Suppose if you're lucky you'd pass out quickly from a mix of the head trauma and disorientation as you're flipped around repeatedly, because it may take a while before any vital processes are ceased as you suffer painful impact after painful impact. But damn, the Terminator that kills its victims that way may indeed be the cruelest model but would surely be discontinued because Skynet doesn't have time for that shit.
The plot of the next Terminator is the Terminator grabbing John Connor at the beginning of the movie and tossing him so that he spends the two hours of the movie flying back in time. In the end he hits a wall, spots the Terminator that threw him and destroys it. It's really exiting!
Some other ridiculous overused tropes: Not confirming the kill on the main bad guy, even after a long and fierce battle. Hero tends just to bump the villain with a board or something and call it a day, instead of smashing his brains out. Especially frequent in horrors / thrillers. The villain >always< gets up. Notable exception: Johnny Mnemonic makes fun of this at the end. Another one: the hero gets upper hand over the bad guy during the final fight and spares his life. The bad guy obviously makes one more attempt at hero's life, thus causing his own death or forcing the hero to kill him. Cheap, overused and completely unnecessary way of establishing moral high ground of the main hero, showing the kill as a pure self defense, regardless of the whole previous story / conflict between them. This mandatory absolution is frequently nullifying any depth and nuance from the story and / or the protagonist.
Hero is being strangled while trying to reach weapon. How surprising that he made it (or that his previously useless sidekick picked up said weapon and saves the day). Crouching slightly while running has you dodge any bullet coming your way, as well as any debris from explosions. Footsoldiers die from mere punches. Random sidekicks get shot 5 times but have time to impart wisdom/have heartfelt goodbye. Bandages on recent gun shot wounds restore athletic skills like outrunning enemies and climing (save some added grunts)
Here's another one: when somebody gets hit with something so hard that it sends them flying across the room, and then they just get back up like it's nothing. The amount of force it takes to send somebody flying like that is like getting hit by a bus. Their ribs would have shattered, their spine would have snapped in half, and their head would have splattered like an egg. Aside from straining the suspension of disbelief, it kills the tension when we see the hero is basically indestructible and we know there's no possibility they can lose.
There's also the scene where someone drives a hero or villain someone THROUGH a wall while clinging to the front of a car. In "Breaking Bad" (spoiler alert) there is a scene where it shows what something like that would do in real life when Hank Shrader uses his car like a weapon against one of the "twins." The twin is almost killed and ends up paralyzed in the hospital. In action movies they get right up like nothing happened.
I've noticed the Protagonist Throw but I hadn't really noticed noticed it, in the sense that you've just explained, and you're so right. Watching them back to back like that you can really see how ridiculous it is. I'm going to find myself shouting at the TV next time I'm watching something and see The Throw
Another point (for me, at least). When you showed the clip in Prometheus, I realized that I had ZERO recollection of that scene...further, I realized I could remember almost NOTHING of that entire movie, let alone a cogent plot. What I'm saying is that such movies like these ruin themselves to the point of being erased from our memories--the mistakes they make (eg, protagonist toss) causes our minds to erase all memory of them as a WHOLE. And isn't a major underlying goal of movie-makers...to create an immortal piece? They are doing the opposite--they're inputting mechanisms that cause us to block the entire thing, thus destroying a major reason for making the film in the first place. Thank you for this video--it's fantastic and thoughtful. Hope you continue to produce, and even more (hopefully) Hollywood will pay attention to these ERRORS and start fixing their shit...immediately.
There is a tendency to forget uninspiring content. Basically it comes from the way memory works in the brain. The more an idea or memory is repeated in your memory, by thinking about it, talking about it, etc. the more redundant that memory becomes in your mind, each reminiscing of the event effectively creates a back-up copy in another moment in time in your memory. So things which are more striking to you, in a good or bad way, will gain repetition in your memory, and you're far more likely to recall it well. Unfortunately for me, I found Prometheus to be bad enough to burn its way into my memory quite clearly. And I get plenty of repetition of the memory of the movie by explaining to people who like the music and mountains and lens flares, exactly why it's such a rotten script. I'll admit it didn't do a neck throw... it does get several things 'right' even if i think the end result is a fundamentally broken film.
I think this is just a symptom of a bigger problem, the exaggeration of action and heroes who are too tough. If you look back at those older action films, even though the heroes are much tougher than real people, they still get injured, they're still vulnerable. In the first Terminator film, Kyle Reese gets shot and he can barely stay conscious, and Sarah couldn't stand up after having shrapnel embedded in her leg. Compare that to Terminator Genisys where Kyle and Sarah get run over by a car on the highway and they're fine, they're in a bus that crashes and flips over and they're fine, they're able to survive ridiculous amounts of punishment without injury. There's never a sense of danger because the heroes never get hurt and you feel like they could actually die.
Christopher Ver Hoef, James Bond losing badly to Oddjob until he manages to electrocute him, or Indiana Jones getting his butt kicked by that Nazi aircrew mechanic, and only surviving because said mechanic got chopped up by the aircraft prop. It made the movies better that the heroes were sometimes barely able to survive.
If you haven't watched it already, I would recommend you watch Chris Stuckman's The Problem with Action Movies Today here on UA-cam. He also does a breakdown of the Horror Genre in another video that is spot on. You'd like them.
how about that bullshit moment in every movie before delivering the final blow to the protagonist, the antagonist is holding its weapon or fist high up for what seems like a minute just to have something stop it predictably
Yeah, the Protag Throw is the writer trying to have it both ways -- trying to put the character in "danger", but w/out actually risking the character's life -- it's a cheap ploy, the sign of weak writing &, for me, it really damages the suspension of disbelief...
I don't think I've ever been annoyed by "The throw" specifically. But I know I have shouted at my TV, "Stop screwing around and kill him already!" A variation on the throw is the "punch so hard it knocks the protagonist away but somehow miraculously doesn't cause so much blunt force trauma that he dies from internal injuries." I've always had a huge problem with that. I'm sorry, if you get punched hard enough that you're lifted off your feet, fly 50 feet through the air, and collide with a brick wall? You're not getting up from that.
Unless you're Wolverine or Iron Man. In which latter case, your armour may be trashed (happened a few times in the comics), but the wearer walked away. Well, staggered away with a few broken bones, but you get the idea.
On the note of Iron Man, though, every Avengers fight is kind of baffling. I mean, I guess they're consistently always baffling, so it's okay, I don' go into them expecting consequence anymore, but still: the biggest example of this is Civil War, the fight at the end between Cap and Iron Man. Picture the hits those two are getting on one another: even with super strength, Cap is bare-fisted punching a metal man hard enough to knock him down, when in the past Iron Man has withstood trucks. I know Cap's strong, but I don't know how that doesn't break his hand. Likewise, Iron Man is punching Cap in the face with his metal hand, and there's no sign of even a bruise. It makes you wonder what's even at stake.
Add the Villain charge to the list. The moment in a showdown (often the final showdown) where the villain is dominating the fight at the hero has little going for him. Then suddenly the bad guy makes a huge telegraphed attack, like a charge or a double-hand over the head sword chop. The hero takes the opportunity to strike before the villain finishes his incredibly unwise attack and the day is saved. See The Final Fight of Highlander as an example. The Kurgan has all-but-won his fight, Connor is injured and tired - So the Kurgan smiles, poses for a couple of seconds before charging across 10-15 foot gap. This is the attack of a desperate person who's doomed to loose and it taking a big hail-mary chance, not of a skilled calculated warrior already dominating the fight. So, of course, Connor has plenty of time to ready himself and strike at the Kurgans exposed body. Pfffft. Such a let down (well not as much of a let down as all the sequels...)
well, qui Gon was dead enogh so there was no necessity for doing the obvious. And I think It is possible, that Maul in the last scene was surprised enough to get himself killed by Obi Wans coemback. I've seen plenty opponents get hit by the slowest and most telegraphed unblockable move in fighting games AND have been plenty guilty of that myself. So, is it really that improbable?
Exactly this! Darth Maul was fast enough to fight TWO jedi at once but then he just sits there while Kenobi somersaults in the air then stabs him? He would have blocked that easily.
The single worst thing about modern villains; they don't seem dangerous. That's why Heath Ledger's Joker works so well, he's the only modern supervillain that genuinely feels dangerous to be around. When he comes near somebody, they are not going to walk away unharmed (except for Rachel at the party, but not for lack of effort, he *did* toss her out a window so if *you are* going to do the toss that's how you do it).
Samuel Wallace And the thing about dangerous villains is that they come back and clean up their unfinished business. Rachel survived him at the party, but she still dies at his hand later. Once he realized how much Batman loved her, he put in even more effort. There's a certain extra threat to villains like that.
Nick R; I never said Ledger's Joker was the *best Joker,* I said he was the closest any modern supervillain has come to being legitimately imposing on a film. Loki is entertaining but he doesn't get any shit done. Joker at least makes a good attempt to *destroy* things in the film; the biggest bummer is that he never channels that will to destroy towards Batman, so you end up with "bored troll" vs "sjw dipshit" who both refuse to end the comment thread because it'd hurt their ego. But put Joker in a room with ... *literally any other character* and suddenly things are guaranteed to happen. If any other villain actually comes close to attempting to be imposing then I'll gladly cite them as the prime example next time; but you gotta' concede, there is not a lot of good villains to choose from. Hell, the other day I was watching The Incredibles and I kid you not Syndrome is seriously more intriguing AND scary than Ronan the Accuser and the Dark Elf combined; and the entire point of Syndrome is that he's supposed to be kind of a joke. In my opinion, we have yet to see any supervillain be truly great. Nolan came the closest to making good villains ... and then he wrote each of them into a convoluted plotline that explicitly prohibits them from *trying* to kill Batman. If Bane like actually WANTED Batman DEAD, like *DEAD-dead* , he'd easily be the best villain, hands down, cookie-monster accent and all; but that damn story-line absolutely ruins him.
Samuel Wallace Most imposing modern depiction of a supervillain for my vote has to go to Vincent D'Onofrio, for his role as Wilson Fisk in Netflix's Daredevil. Now, I get that that kinda breaks the "Movie" rule, but I still found his character more intimidating and dynamic than any other recent villain on screen.
I've been meaning to watch that show but haven't yet; I've heard nothing but great reviews for Fisk though; if what I've heard is correct he might just break the curse I've described.
At least in The Mummy is you have a very comedy/action romp, not meant to be taken totally seriously. When it happens in more serious action, drama, suspense, or horror films, it's far worse. Coupled with this, toying with the protagonist while divulging the entire reason for why the antagonist did all he/she did for the entire movie. Or, the reveal of the bag guy's plan. Like Tuco said in The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly, "If you have to shoot, shoot! Don't talk."
Tuco was a simple man with simple ambitions though. Some characters are more complex. Tuco also doesn't take his own advise when he leads Clint into the desert.
I've noticed it, yes, although I likely equated it with a director's want to needlessly prolongue a fight scene (and inadvertedly make it very boring). I find your perspective to be more on point: it does eliminate any sense of threat (and makes a scene even more boring) in a movie. Interesting.
Yes. This is part of a larger problem with action movies. Consequences of mortality and injury are greatly reduced when the action becomes unrealistic and cartoonish. This is particularly true when there are no established rules to explain the heightened action. It seemed to start after The Matrix. However, the Matrix explained the reasons for heightened action within its universe. Many movies post-Matrix do not. Action without context or consequence ruins the action, and the dramatic impact.
I have been looking for someone else talking about this. This exact issue has ruined many movies for me for a LONG time. So lazy! Thanks for making this.
Wow, I forgotten how bad Terminator Salvation was now that I rewatched that tossing game. Terminators are supposed to be "effective" killers. Use any weapon available like firearms and vehicles. If it runs out of ammo use it as a melee weapon if target is in close range or discard it like 1984 final motorcycle chase. Bare hands too and confirm a kill immediately. The only time Terminators shown its passive side is when it tells you to "get out" of a vehicle it wants to commander.
Passive aggressive Terminator: IF you don't give me your clothes I'm going to mope and throw mean quips at you. It's your choice and I don't mind which ever way you choose!
I have only noted that heroes (even the non-super version) do survive the most ridiculous shit. The Hobbit was extremely guilty of this. Gandalf surviving a fall through an ork infested cave? Ok, maybe ... if it happens offscreen ... and he's gone for a while. Bilbo? Nope-di-nope. Everybody is made from steel, a punch that would break your rips at least just throws them back, and so forth. Even old Schwarzenegger movies were more realistic. Also, Villains are overly stupid (ok, they always were, but now even more so). I just want to see a villain, for once, who is introduced as super-strong or super smart or just super bad to really BE that. Got one of the good guys in your sights? Just pull the trigger. For once I want to see a movie were the heroes run into the villain lair (can be a crime-film, with the detective running into the house), just to see one of them get shot/torn to pieces instantly. Make me doubt for a moment that the heroes will survive. And the next time our hero is thrown 20 meters trough the air into something, and lands just on the middle of his spine - drive him out in a wheelchair, please.
Yes - I particularly noticed this in The Hobbit escape/chase scenes where the hobbits and dwarves survive ridiculous falls without any apparent damage. They are not magical beings, falling over a cliff should kill them - but they just bounce.
I think that's a real issue with CGI in films. With practical stunts there's at least a limit to what can be performed with minimal risk, whereas with CGI you can have the protagonist bouncing off solid surfaces in instances that would severely injure, if not kill, a real person.
That's a thing, yes. Compare Casino Royale (the first Craig Bond) to Quantum of Solace. The former is purely old-school stunt work, with the only CGI in the title sequence, the latter features the most annoying parachute jump in movie history. If they'd tried waiting that long to pull the cord in real life, they'd be a stain on the ground.
One potential exception is Civil War where they show some gruesome falls & hits on the way down, and the effect is to show that Captain America is NOT a normal human.
I have indeed noticed it. And you're right. It bugs me. I want my protagonist to win, but I don't want my antagonist to hold back for no reason at all. Their job is to make things as difficult as they can. They might screw up, or even have actual personal reasons for not finishing the job quickly, but when they literally have no reason at all to spare these fools... DON'T SPARE THEM! Kick the shit out of them. Kill them! Or- if your a hero antagonist- ACTUALLY TRY TO WIN! Rather than what's typical where the cop antagonist decides he respects the shady thief protagonist and lets him go despite spending the entire film being a rules stickler.
This is EXACTLY what made X24 in Logan so fucking terrifying. You knew that if he got close to Logan, he wasn't going to punch him, or hit him with the butt end of a rifle, or throw him twenty feet. He was going to open up Logan's torso or stab him through the armpit or try to take his head off. That thing scared the shit out of me every time it was on screen.
Apart from the ludicrous number of bullets trope in a gun, the even more annoying one for me is where man with gun has run out of bullets but doesn't realise and pulls the trigger and gun clicks, which is even more frustrating due to the writers complete lack or awareness of how firearms work, this could only possibly occur with a revolver, or some models of shotgun.
For me, the most memorable necklift is in Rocky IV when Drago grabs that politician guy and says that he fights for himself. It's really intense and has that original necklift purpouse you were talking about. Anyway - I'm really glad I have stumbled upon this channel - keep up the good work!
One thing I've noticed a lot in a fight involving an enemy wielding some kind of blade, the good guy/s never ever seem to try to disarm this blade, rather they go for body hits or head punches, and the antagonist only ever drops the weapon once they are thoroughly defeated in every other way. There really should be a name for that.
And 99% of the time you see a sword fight on the screen, the fighters are clearly trying NOT to hit each other. (Yeah, safety rules, but it still looks stupid.)
Personally - and this is a question of the style you train - I, too, will favour a killing shot over a disarm. For that matter, I favour breaking a knee over a disarm. Because my opponent can still fight barehanded, but with a broken knee? Not so much, and with a broken neck, not at all. Sword through armour is indeed annoying, though, unless you're on a horse and use it as a short lance. Which was actually a thing.
This isn't in every single action/martial arts film, though. Even Bruce Lee back in the Big Boss kicked the knife out homeboy's hand in the first scene of the movie. And there's plenty of other good knife disarms in other movies. I don't think that's as big of an offender as this throat-lift throw.
"I, too, will favour a killing shot over a disarm." That's a good way to get yourself killed in real life. If a person has a lethal weapon and you are within range of it, it is extremely unlikely that you will be able to incapacitate him before he can follow through. Unless you mean kill him before he can even begin his attack, you're talking nonsense. Then again it's not at all clear what you're talking about.
i notice it alot, that's why i like the super serum-ed Blonsky vs hulk scene in the incredible hulk. Blonsky have to dodge all attacks. once the hulk touches him the battle is over. no throwing around toying.
Another thing is when the villain has some kind of weapon, like a gun, but instead of shooting with it he decided to hit the protagonist with the gun when it is clearly established that he is trying to kill him.
3:47 it actually works here because the T-800 is struggling between his Resistance programming and the T-X hack. Tossing John is the result of his conflicting directives. Salvation has no excuse tho
That's an interesting take- I'd buy it IF it was the only time it happened in the movie, but it happens more than once. It's just evolved into something far worse by Salvation LOL!
Hehe I notice these throws all the time. And nearly every time, I recall Captain Picard saying, "Don't let them touch you!" There is something to be said about a high-speed impact into a wall or what not. But securing a kill even with hands, or limbs, is faster. Anyone who has taken self-defense knows not to let the big guy get a hold of you. heheh I rewatched the Jon vs Whitewalker fight just to be sure cuz I think I noticed one in there, but it's not the blunt weapon strike referred to here. That that end is being used to knock him down a floor is fine as the blade had just been used to block/shatter Jon's own strike. But when Jon is searching for the Dragon Glass to begin with the walker has a bead on him, closes the distance and...grabs him. The walker is carrying a bladed staff with at least a 4' reach and he just grabs Jon. After the throw the fight is fine. Even shows Jon trying a punch & getting thrown after dodging a lunge. Ok, that one makes sense though.
Agreed, I let the Jonsnow fight off, as it was cool to see him fighting a white walker, but I was shocked to see it in GOT considering it had never used the protag throw until that point.
It should also be noted that while the throw tainted the show's excellent score, they did show JS getting the air punched out of him upon landing, which is at least a small improvement on a trope that arguably should die ASAP.
What makes a good adventure movie for me? An unpredictable order of character deaths. It's one of my favorite facets of the recent Kong: Skull Island. It makes a movie more suspenseful when you don't know who's going to be killed next. One of the worst that comes to mind is Sphere, not one character is killed off out of the obvious sequence you've reasoned ten minutes into the film.
Deep Blue Sea kind of does this for most characters, but it's ruined by the incredible plot armor of LL Cool J's character. The otherwise vicious sharks turn into overgrown sardines whenever he's in danger, despite being an underdeveloped comic relief and not the protagonist.
A Terminator was built up to be an un-corruptable killing machine that will reach down your throat and tear your heart out with no hesitation to complete it's mission. In one and two it never touches Sarah or John, in 3 and 4 and even 5 (only seen that terrible movie once) they get touched several times and greatly diminishes the threats of the Terminators, so yes it bothers me. Poor writing to put your titular creations in such a situation and make them feel less threatening.
This is really insightful. I knew that in the newer Terminator movies, the Terminators were never quite as scary or menacing as they were in the first two, but I couldn't really say why. I think this is a big part of the reason.
@HyperDrive I actually know of a much earlier Protagonist Throw (probably not 1st one but in a major film YES). It's in "The Spy Who Loved Me" which is a Bond film made in '77, so 8 years before the example you had. Jaws overpowers Bond whilst strangling his neck and then pushes against the ceiling. Then he throws him against the wall. That's textbook. I think it'd be great if you'd correct this with a comment because it's a great film and deserves some praise :) . *Just google: Jaws train fight* Edit: I just thought about Goldfinger and Oddjob launches Bond around Fort Knox. This was filmed in 1964! It isn't as great an example as in TSWLM but it does show thee character's physical superiority compared to Connery. He has to outsmart him, just as Moore did with Jaws in '77.
This is sadly also very common in slasher movies. Someone like Jason Voorhees will slash, impale, decapitate, and mutilate the characters one by one, but will throw the final girl.
All I can say is excellent. I always say old action movies might not have the money or effects of today but they are more entertaining and try to be as realistic as possible without compromising too much on quality’s and storyline. Most modern movies suck and with audiences getting dumber and dumber there is no hope. Bravo!
I would say it works in the original predator because it doesnt happen until the end when it's savoring the hunt and essentially playing with it's food
Wow...this is exactly what I have been saying for years!! I called it "Here - let me throw you to safety" throw. In a fight, when things get heated, the bad guy grabs the good guy and apparently "throws him to safety" !!! - because that is exactly what it is. The good guy is being thrown from where the danger is to where the danger is not. I fucking hate the throw. Why would you chase your target - reach them, but then throw them away. Specially when you see that throwing does nothing to injure the good guy.
Goons are a dime a dozen. Good villains on the other hand are a rare commodity, so they should only be discarded after careful deliberation has determined it to be the best course of action.
Great video mate. I had noticed this trend but couldn't pinpoint what bothered me about it. Now seeing it back to back makes sense thanks. Seriously you deserve more subscribers.
I hate anything that should kill a person being passed off as part of a fight. That is why I like superhero movies better than regular action. It makes sense more if they have abilities. I think it is funny how the action in Jessica Jones is so much better than the action in Agents of SHIELD. The difference is simply that I believe the fight, and allow it to happen as reasonable. In SHIELD, you have regular people flipping around and punching each other in ways that are stupid. Tension can be built in very realistic ways. I think the best way is just to use non-physical dynamics of power, which is why dramas are better than action films. Die Hard is a great exception, watch it and notice how John McClane does fantastic things, but only once in the film do you really say to yourself... no way he could beat the other guy. If they edited it a little more, just showed him hang the guy because the character rather torture him than just kill him, then it would have been perfect. The rest of hte movie uses action just to forward the plot. Brillant.
Great video. Some movies make the same mistake in the other direction, too, by having their heroes happily waste henchmen only to knock down the villain and save him for the end. If you have a chase, better to keep them in vehicles or something, because I think you're right that if the characters physically touch each other too much, it loses its magic. Having the hero and villain not meet until the end is fine, and more movies should do it. Another possibility is to have them meet once and seriously injure each other, then meet again later and fight until one or both are dead. This worked well in No Country for Old Men, for example, and in Logan.
I tend to laugh. Or cry out loud "Snap his neck before throwing him, you f*ing moron!". A serious film can turn into a comedy with total idiots, when they keep doing moves, which no rational person would ever do.
Lazy writing and lack of respect for the audience. This whole throwing trope has been bothering me for years, thanks for articulating it so well. The Terminator one was the worst offender, but one which really bothered me was Grievous in Episode III. Not the best film to begin with, but him having hold of Obi Wan and easily able to break him in half, then for no reason whatsoever throwing him 20 yards away and getting blasted for it made me hate the rest of the movie.
Absolutely! Good call I didn't actually notice this but now I wont be able to not notice it lol. For me it's almost as bad as the Sky Scream, when the hero has to display his overwhelming emotion by futilely screaming at the air!
(Some) Things That Ruin Action Scenes; - Throwing the opponent instead of just killing them - Having a McGuffin item in the breast pocket to block a shot - Throwing away an advantage to have a “fair fight” - A character’s aim/skill suddenly being bad after being good for the rest of the film - Too much shaky cam - Choreography that looks like choreography and not a fight - Bad sound mixing - Literally no emotional tension, just dumb punches being thrown.
This is an interesting dissection. However, in response to the title of the video, I happen to think action movies are very much back on the rise after a several-years slump. Mad Max: Fury Road, John Wick, and even more recently with Baby Driver, have all been indicative of an action movie renaissance. No cheap blows or copouts, all deliberate rule-following action that (and here's the kicker) IS IN SERVICE OF THE PLOT. Good action isn't just mindless flailing limbs. It's a means to a further a character's motives. For so long we've been in a rut of what I like to call Bay-hem (referring to Transformers) where it's all visual spectacle and no substance. Movies like the ones I've listed show that action CAN and should have characters with nuance, complexity, and motive. And with Atomic Blonde almost in theaters, I'm looking forward to another potential hitter in this renaissance.
This points to an over-arching problem with action genre: Directors having no faith in the audience 'getting' what a scene is about. Manufactured tension is being forced down our gullets: the ridiculously telegraphed attack from the baddie that our hero neatly counters, for example. Today, audiences are being 'told' how to feel about a scene..."Look out, Hero! Bad guy is playing dead!", "Baddie is monologueing, time for Hero to find/use/break X to save the day!" Or my favorite: 'Bad guy who seems to be more aware than the Heroes about some looming crisis and has come up with brutal but effective solution that is unacceptable for philosophical/legal/moral reasons leading to a life or death battle. Heroes defeat(?) baddie, only to acknowledge that the only thing wrong with baddies approach was that 'the people' wouldn't like it.' Movies are a business investment; you don't deliberately make movies that lose money, so movies are made that will sell. That means movies are going to be designed to appeal to the widest possible audience. That means movies are gonna be dumb, violent, sexy, loud, fun, funny and stupid. Just like the crowds that attend. Make a movie that is deeply thought provoking and makes people argue after the film is over, and you have a commercial flop on your hands! Don't blame Hollywood when the ticket buying public makes the choices they do.
The other suspension of belief are the martial arts movies that have people fly across a room, or courtyard, (obviously suspended on invisible wires) as part of their fight scene. Presumably because being a martial arts expert gave them . . . magical powers? Can you please give that a name too?
This is so spot on. The throw in films drives me nuts particularly while i was eatching salvation. It seems to come from having the villian more powered than the hero. I think salvation would have benefitted from by doing an 'aliens' and putting the hero in some sort of exo suit. Cameron had the right idea because it took 2 opponents with vastly different power levels and equlled them so they could duke it out.
Great vid man! Never realized that was part of why some of the movies I watch sucked. I know I would ask myself the same question is why is everyone dying, but the main person the antagonist is after gets away. You would think that if you're trying to get rid of a nuisance you would "take the shot" any time you got close to them, not wait until you got a few words in first.
Yes, finally someone speaking right from my heart, thanks man. It is always painful when a movie breaks it's own rules, another thing i dislike is when Superhero's and their powers are unconsistent.
I'm glad you talked about this. It's something I noticed all the time. Like "why not just crush his neck then if u got him in your hands?!!" unless they really thought the throw would kill the character.
100% agree. Also, I hate all situations where the protagonist is beaten with a gun or blade to the throat. They always are miraculously saved after the bad guy gloats or explains his evil plan, but to me the story arc is over. The protagonist has been beaten. The fact they survive is just dumb luck, and rings hollow to me.
man its not fair!! every time I watch one of your videos I learn stuff and things like the protagonist throw come to my attention!!! ... is why I love your channel!!!
I thought that this would be over the top negative and really harsh, but you know what. Those were solid points. I never noticed the amazing use.. or lack there of in older movies about the protagonist throw, and the modern use with reckless abandon. With obvious caveats here and there in some cases. Good video! Really insightful.
More broadly speaking, directors choose action rather than suspense. The throw is a violent action, whereas reaching out to grasp the person would be suspense. This is illustrated perfectly in the Terminator comparisons. As a man who likes action and cool things happening, I can sympathize, but I think HyperDrive is absolutely right that this choice ends up decreasing the tension rather than increasing it. The best of both worlds can be achieved by letting the action happen in a way that doesn't diminish suspension of disbelief, and doesn't sacrifice tension for action.
I had never noticed before, but I totally agree with you. It is a big part of what makes our brain tick: "oh, that's not so big of threat". I can't imagine jurassic park raptors throwing people around...
and btw, to paraphrase something you said: "The movie doesnt have to make sense, but, it needs to be internally consistent." I can't stress how strongly I agree with that! Thank you!
You are very correct here, and there are other, similar tropes that are annoying. Any time a character has an ability that they only use sometimes, but suddenly forget about during a crucial scene or fight. For example, a villain who can turn invisible, but for some reason never turns invisible to sneak up and kill the hero. Or Hiro, from Heroes, who can pause time, but is for some reason incapable of thinking to use that power to easily kill Sylar. The list goes on. Also, the "I have my gun pointed directly at you, but I'm going to throw it down so we can have a fist fight duel"...yeah, that really annoys me. I highly doubt that would happen nearly as frequently in real life as it does in movies.
Thaaaaank you for making this video. This has infuriated me for forever, its why the Borne fight scenes will forever be the best in modern fight scenes.
Regarding Terminator 3, I can understand. TX threw Kathreen out the car and pinned her so she could tell her where Connor was. When she reprogrammed the T-101 he was fighting the re-programming thereby tossing him around with a chance to get away from him or till he can overcome it
I like that you included a spoiler warning! I have never seen like that. There are channels that spoil several movies in a single video with a clickbait title (eg. Whatculture)
100% agree! It's poor or lazy writing to try to make a scene more exciting. Anyone with any fighting skills would not throw a person away from them if they had the power to crush them in their hands.
I had noticed the problems with the throw before, but your Prometheus example really made me realise how being thrown around takes away a lot of the fear factor of a character. Would you be as scared of the xenomorph if it just started throwing Ripley around?
thank you so much! I've been saying this for years to my friends now! I simply can't enjoy a movie if it has no internal logic. IDK if the reason of this is to show off special efects or something like that, but I hate this trowing thing, specially because even if they thow them really hard the protagonist just shows a little pain, but no skull, ribs or back fractures
Another thing I hate about this trope (and every scene that involves a character chocking another character) is how you can clearly see the actor is not aplying any pressure and is just pretending. And then they put that sound of the throat crushing. Actors can punch and slap each other but they're not allowed to slightly choke their partner? Come on... In Inglorious Basterds, for example, when Hans Landa is chocking Bridget Von Whateverthehellhernameis, that was actually Tarantino himself chocking Diane Kruger. That's why that scene looks so believable. They were actually chocking the poor woman XD
I have never noticed that until now, but now that I have seen it, I think I won't be able to unseen it :( Personally, I don't think this is not the worse problem with action movies and sometimes is justified(when the foe doesn't have weapons and have a legitimate advantage, the throw seems to be as dangerous as a punch or a kick), I think there are 3 main problems: 1. Don't being able to see what's happening (shaky cameras instead of clear action) 2. Lack of emotional weight/context during the action (the action should be used for character development and the observer should care about the consequences of the action sequence instead of just having an action scene for spectacle). 3. Don't being able to understand what's happening (It order to build tension the observer should be able to see the advantages or disadvantages of every character and why they perform each one of their moves. If the film fails on delivering this, the scene would see as a choreography instead of a conflict).
I've never noticed this until now, like with the terminator explanation. It might actually be one of the biggest reasons why the terminators in the first two movies felt so threatening, while the later movies felt like action toys. I'm gonna keep an eye out for this now though, so thanks
When the too much throwing around happens I just have to convince myself that the villain want to slowly kill the protagonist, play with him/her before the final kill
FINALLY someone has articulated this. I am exactly the same way. I enjoy a movie until the mega powerful villain starts to throw the protagonist around. When am I supposed to get scared? The answer is never because you've ruined that effect for me. And the Terminator 1 vs Terminator Salvation was a good comparison. I stopped enjoying the movie when the Terminator started throwing around John Connor.
Well for one- I like surprises. The Decoy Hero trope is one of my favorites though I've seen that one used more in horror than in action though I'm sure action does have examples. Take The Blob (1988): The character Paul starts out in spot that we associate the usual "hero" as having. Then he is brutally killed at the hospital and the character of Brian steps into the role. At the time, it was rare but I loved it. There are others but that's just one of my favorites.
"But if he just killed them, then the movie would be over."
Then maybe they shouldn't have written a situation where the bad guy has his hands on the good guy and doesn't kill them right away even though he has every reason to.
Dr Shaym good to see you here mate, love your videos and of course your bloody yard.
Dr Shaym aye it's you
Plot armor 101 ... ;-)
Daddy Shaym
Dr Shaym just make the characters regenerate so they can repeatedly punch holes through each other
I hadn't noticed before, but MAN! Terminators are programmed to kill, not toss!
Tossinators!
It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop tossing you around, ever, until you are dead.
Daniel Lau made me chuckle 👍
I mean, I suppose that's a pretty brutal way to die. Just endless minor concussions and bruises until your body goes out. Suppose if you're lucky you'd pass out quickly from a mix of the head trauma and disorientation as you're flipped around repeatedly, because it may take a while before any vital processes are ceased as you suffer painful impact after painful impact.
But damn, the Terminator that kills its victims that way may indeed be the cruelest model but would surely be discontinued because Skynet doesn't have time for that shit.
The plot of the next Terminator is the Terminator grabbing John Connor at the beginning of the movie and tossing him so that he spends the two hours of the movie flying back in time. In the end he hits a wall, spots the Terminator that threw him and destroys it. It's really exiting!
Some other ridiculous overused tropes:
Not confirming the kill on the main bad guy, even after a long and fierce battle. Hero tends just to bump the villain with a board or something and call it a day, instead of smashing his brains out. Especially frequent in horrors / thrillers. The villain >always< gets up. Notable exception: Johnny Mnemonic makes fun of this at the end.
Another one: the hero gets upper hand over the bad guy during the final fight and spares his life. The bad guy obviously makes one more attempt at hero's life, thus causing his own death or forcing the hero to kill him. Cheap, overused and completely unnecessary way of establishing moral high ground of the main hero, showing the kill as a pure self defense, regardless of the whole previous story / conflict between them. This mandatory absolution is frequently nullifying any depth and nuance from the story and / or the protagonist.
"Shoot him again. In the head. Several times. Use all the bullets. No, don't turn your back. Ok, you deserve this. Yup, you're dead."
Scream did that really well, actually.
As the rule in Zombieland went: "double tap". I think its rule 3 or 4. I'm not a huge fan, but I remember that rule.
Hero is being strangled while trying to reach weapon. How surprising that he made it (or that his previously useless sidekick picked up said weapon and saves the day).
Crouching slightly while running has you dodge any bullet coming your way, as well as any debris from explosions.
Footsoldiers die from mere punches. Random sidekicks get shot 5 times but have time to impart wisdom/have heartfelt goodbye.
Bandages on recent gun shot wounds restore athletic skills like outrunning enemies and climing (save some added grunts)
NiekGAE in real life a choke can be hard to get, it is plausible someone holds it off long enough to grab a weapon or escape it in anyway.
Here's another one: when somebody gets hit with something so hard that it sends them flying across the room, and then they just get back up like it's nothing. The amount of force it takes to send somebody flying like that is like getting hit by a bus. Their ribs would have shattered, their spine would have snapped in half, and their head would have splattered like an egg. Aside from straining the suspension of disbelief, it kills the tension when we see the hero is basically indestructible and we know there's no possibility they can lose.
There's also the scene where someone drives a hero or villain someone THROUGH a wall while clinging to the front of a car. In "Breaking Bad" (spoiler alert) there is a scene where it shows what something like that would do in real life when Hank Shrader uses his car like a weapon against one of the "twins." The twin is almost killed and ends up paralyzed in the hospital. In action movies they get right up like nothing happened.
It depends. I once got hit by a car, flew a couple of metres and ended up only with bruises.
I've noticed the Protagonist Throw but I hadn't really noticed noticed it, in the sense that you've just explained, and you're so right. Watching them back to back like that you can really see how ridiculous it is. I'm going to find myself shouting at the TV next time I'm watching something and see The Throw
LoL oh yes, I've just wrecked all modern movies for you!!
Another point (for me, at least). When you showed the clip in Prometheus, I realized that I had ZERO recollection of that scene...further, I realized I could remember almost NOTHING of that entire movie, let alone a cogent plot. What I'm saying is that such movies like these ruin themselves to the point of being erased from our memories--the mistakes they make (eg, protagonist toss) causes our minds to erase all memory of them as a WHOLE. And isn't a major underlying goal of movie-makers...to create an immortal piece? They are doing the opposite--they're inputting mechanisms that cause us to block the entire thing, thus destroying a major reason for making the film in the first place.
Thank you for this video--it's fantastic and thoughtful. Hope you continue to produce, and even more (hopefully) Hollywood will pay attention to these ERRORS and start fixing their shit...immediately.
You really did! HAHAHA but you're right
There is a tendency to forget uninspiring content. Basically it comes from the way memory works in the brain. The more an idea or memory is repeated in your memory, by thinking about it, talking about it, etc. the more redundant that memory becomes in your mind, each reminiscing of the event effectively creates a back-up copy in another moment in time in your memory. So things which are more striking to you, in a good or bad way, will gain repetition in your memory, and you're far more likely to recall it well.
Unfortunately for me, I found Prometheus to be bad enough to burn its way into my memory quite clearly. And I get plenty of repetition of the memory of the movie by explaining to people who like the music and mountains and lens flares, exactly why it's such a rotten script. I'll admit it didn't do a neck throw... it does get several things 'right' even if i think the end result is a fundamentally broken film.
They did a perfectly good job at that on their own. You just told us exactly how they wrecked it. :P
I think this is just a symptom of a bigger problem, the exaggeration of action and heroes who are too tough.
If you look back at those older action films, even though the heroes are much tougher than real people, they still get injured, they're still vulnerable.
In the first Terminator film, Kyle Reese gets shot and he can barely stay conscious, and Sarah couldn't stand up after having shrapnel embedded in her leg.
Compare that to Terminator Genisys where Kyle and Sarah get run over by a car on the highway and they're fine, they're in a bus that crashes and flips over and they're fine, they're able to survive ridiculous amounts of punishment without injury.
There's never a sense of danger because the heroes never get hurt and you feel like they could actually die.
Die Hard. McClane dragging himself into the bathroom after running across broken glass. Ouch.
Even in older movies this is incredibly rare.
Christopher Ver Hoef, James Bond losing badly to Oddjob until he manages to electrocute him, or Indiana Jones getting his butt kicked by that Nazi aircrew mechanic, and only surviving because said mechanic got chopped up by the aircraft prop. It made the movies better that the heroes were sometimes barely able to survive.
If you haven't watched it already, I would recommend you watch Chris Stuckman's The Problem with Action Movies Today here on UA-cam. He also does a breakdown of the Horror Genre in another video that is spot on. You'd like them.
how about that bullshit moment in every movie before delivering the final blow to the protagonist, the antagonist is holding its weapon or fist high up for what seems like a minute just to have something stop it predictably
i call it "the protagonist stall"
Yeah, the Protag Throw is the writer trying to have it both ways -- trying to put the character in "danger", but w/out actually risking the character's life -- it's a cheap ploy, the sign of weak writing &, for me, it really damages the suspension of disbelief...
I don't think I've ever been annoyed by "The throw" specifically. But I know I have shouted at my TV, "Stop screwing around and kill him already!" A variation on the throw is the "punch so hard it knocks the protagonist away but somehow miraculously doesn't cause so much blunt force trauma that he dies from internal injuries." I've always had a huge problem with that. I'm sorry, if you get punched hard enough that you're lifted off your feet, fly 50 feet through the air, and collide with a brick wall? You're not getting up from that.
lol 100% agreed, it's really irritating!
actually if the punch can throw you 50feet up...it will most probably go through you! like a huge hole! so damn stupid
Unless you're Wolverine or Iron Man. In which latter case, your armour may be trashed (happened a few times in the comics), but the wearer walked away.
Well, staggered away with a few broken bones, but you get the idea.
On the note of Iron Man, though, every Avengers fight is kind of baffling. I mean, I guess they're consistently always baffling, so it's okay, I don' go into them expecting consequence anymore, but still:
the biggest example of this is Civil War, the fight at the end between Cap and Iron Man. Picture the hits those two are getting on one another: even with super strength, Cap is bare-fisted punching a metal man hard enough to knock him down, when in the past Iron Man has withstood trucks. I know Cap's strong, but I don't know how that doesn't break his hand.
Likewise, Iron Man is punching Cap in the face with his metal hand, and there's no sign of even a bruise. It makes you wonder what's even at stake.
I think logic goes out of the window the second you're dealing with super heroes, doesn't it? :)
Add the Villain charge to the list. The moment in a showdown (often the final showdown) where the villain is dominating the fight at the hero has little going for him. Then suddenly the bad guy makes a huge telegraphed attack, like a charge or a double-hand over the head sword chop. The hero takes the opportunity to strike before the villain finishes his incredibly unwise attack and the day is saved.
See The Final Fight of Highlander as an example. The Kurgan has all-but-won his fight, Connor is injured and tired - So the Kurgan smiles, poses for a couple of seconds before charging across 10-15 foot gap. This is the attack of a desperate person who's doomed to loose and it taking a big hail-mary chance, not of a skilled calculated warrior already dominating the fight. So, of course, Connor has plenty of time to ready himself and strike at the Kurgans exposed body.
Pfffft. Such a let down (well not as much of a let down as all the sequels...)
Interesting idea. Reminds me of Maul in the Phantom Menace.
Why didn't Maul pull his lightsaber out of Qui-gon sideways? Just kill the Jedi scum, look at the consequences of not doing so!
;D
well, qui Gon was dead enogh so there was no necessity for doing the obvious.
And I think It is possible, that Maul in the last scene was surprised enough to get himself killed by Obi Wans coemback.
I've seen plenty opponents get hit by the slowest and most telegraphed unblockable move in fighting games AND have been plenty guilty of that myself. So, is it really that improbable?
Exactly this! Darth Maul was fast enough to fight TWO jedi at once but then he just sits there while Kenobi somersaults in the air then stabs him? He would have blocked that easily.
The simplest and most probable explanation people have come up with are more or less a combination of arrogance and/or surprise.
The single worst thing about modern villains; they don't seem dangerous. That's why Heath Ledger's Joker works so well, he's the only modern supervillain that genuinely feels dangerous to be around. When he comes near somebody, they are not going to walk away unharmed (except for Rachel at the party, but not for lack of effort, he *did* toss her out a window so if *you are* going to do the toss that's how you do it).
Samuel Wallace And the thing about dangerous villains is that they come back and clean up their unfinished business. Rachel survived him at the party, but she still dies at his hand later. Once he realized how much Batman loved her, he put in even more effort. There's a certain extra threat to villains like that.
Nick R; I never said Ledger's Joker was the *best Joker,* I said he was the closest any modern supervillain has come to being legitimately imposing on a film. Loki is entertaining but he doesn't get any shit done. Joker at least makes a good attempt to *destroy* things in the film; the biggest bummer is that he never channels that will to destroy towards Batman, so you end up with "bored troll" vs "sjw dipshit" who both refuse to end the comment thread because it'd hurt their ego. But put Joker in a room with ... *literally any other character* and suddenly things are guaranteed to happen.
If any other villain actually comes close to attempting to be imposing then I'll gladly cite them as the prime example next time; but you gotta' concede, there is not a lot of good villains to choose from. Hell, the other day I was watching The Incredibles and I kid you not Syndrome is seriously more intriguing AND scary than Ronan the Accuser and the Dark Elf combined; and the entire point of Syndrome is that he's supposed to be kind of a joke. In my opinion, we have yet to see any supervillain be truly great. Nolan came the closest to making good villains ... and then he wrote each of them into a convoluted plotline that explicitly prohibits them from *trying* to kill Batman. If Bane like actually WANTED Batman DEAD, like *DEAD-dead* , he'd easily be the best villain, hands down, cookie-monster accent and all; but that damn story-line absolutely ruins him.
Samuel Wallace I must concede the argument. you are correct. I dug for some better modern day examples and couldn't find any.
Samuel Wallace Most imposing modern depiction of a supervillain for my vote has to go to Vincent D'Onofrio, for his role as Wilson Fisk in Netflix's Daredevil. Now, I get that that kinda breaks the "Movie" rule, but I still found his character more intimidating and dynamic than any other recent villain on screen.
I've been meaning to watch that show but haven't yet; I've heard nothing but great reviews for Fisk though; if what I've heard is correct he might just break the curse I've described.
At least in The Mummy is you have a very comedy/action romp, not meant to be taken totally seriously. When it happens in more serious action, drama, suspense, or horror films, it's far worse. Coupled with this, toying with the protagonist while divulging the entire reason for why the antagonist did all he/she did for the entire movie. Or, the reveal of the bag guy's plan. Like Tuco said in The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly, "If you have to shoot, shoot! Don't talk."
Tuco was a simple man with simple ambitions though. Some characters are more complex. Tuco also doesn't take his own advise when he leads Clint into the desert.
Tuco is anything but simple. Tuco led Blondie through the desert to pay him back like he promised for any who double cross him.
Everybody in The Mummy could have just put a cat in a snugli and been safe.
I've noticed it, yes, although I likely equated it with a director's want to needlessly prolongue a fight scene (and inadvertedly make it very boring). I find your perspective to be more on point: it does eliminate any sense of threat (and makes a scene even more boring) in a movie. Interesting.
Everything must be un-threatening in today's movies. Kids' movies of the past are more frightening than horror movies of today.
If you're strong enough to lift someone up by the throat, you're strong enough to squeeze said throat into mush. Damnit, bad movies!
uhm no, ive faced somone who could do it before (granted he had to use 2 hands) but he didnt have the grip strength to do that
Hey, no need to be rude.
Rory Stockley i wasn't talking to you. mind your own biz buddy
thank god someone finally pointed this out, annoys the shit out of me when i see this in films
Yes. This is part of a larger problem with action movies. Consequences of mortality and injury are greatly reduced when the action becomes unrealistic and cartoonish. This is particularly true when there are no established rules to explain the heightened action.
It seemed to start after The Matrix. However, the Matrix explained the reasons for heightened action within its universe. Many movies post-Matrix do not. Action without context or consequence ruins the action, and the dramatic impact.
I think the throw is the symptom rather than the cause. I think the cause is writers putting the characters in these situations in the first place.
Disthron "Lack of Imagination"
It is the lack of a vulnerable action character that makes action movies suck. This throw thing is on point tho with your analysis in question
I have been looking for someone else talking about this. This exact issue has ruined many movies for me for a LONG time.
So lazy! Thanks for making this.
You're very welcome. It still trolls me to this day lol!
Wow, I forgotten how bad Terminator Salvation was now that I rewatched that tossing game. Terminators are supposed to be "effective" killers. Use any weapon available like firearms and vehicles. If it runs out of ammo use it as a melee weapon if target is in close range or discard it like 1984 final motorcycle chase. Bare hands too and confirm a kill immediately. The only time Terminators shown its passive side is when it tells you to "get out" of a vehicle it wants to commander.
IMDRanged if you give them your clothes they might not kill you. Problem is people always try and resist.
Ah, I missed that.
Passive Terminator: "Before you GET....OUT, I need your clothes, your boots, and your motorcycle......please??"
Passive aggressive Terminator: IF you don't give me your clothes I'm going to mope and throw mean quips at you. It's your choice and I don't mind which ever way you choose!
Commandeer dude. Commander is a rank :)
Insanely underrated channel. Subscribed.
Thanks, I really appreciate it!
More like Overrated
Camp Argyll how?
I know, I'm not quite sure how I'm overrated lol? I don't have enough haters yet!
I have only noted that heroes (even the non-super version) do survive the most ridiculous shit. The Hobbit was extremely guilty of this. Gandalf surviving a fall through an ork infested cave? Ok, maybe ... if it happens offscreen ... and he's gone for a while. Bilbo? Nope-di-nope. Everybody is made from steel, a punch that would break your rips at least just throws them back, and so forth. Even old Schwarzenegger movies were more realistic. Also, Villains are overly stupid (ok, they always were, but now even more so). I just want to see a villain, for once, who is introduced as super-strong or super smart or just super bad to really BE that. Got one of the good guys in your sights? Just pull the trigger. For once I want to see a movie were the heroes run into the villain lair (can be a crime-film, with the detective running into the house), just to see one of them get shot/torn to pieces instantly. Make me doubt for a moment that the heroes will survive. And the next time our hero is thrown 20 meters trough the air into something, and lands just on the middle of his spine - drive him out in a wheelchair, please.
Yes - I particularly noticed this in The Hobbit escape/chase scenes where the hobbits and dwarves survive ridiculous falls without any apparent damage. They are not magical beings, falling over a cliff should kill them - but they just bounce.
I think that's a real issue with CGI in films. With practical stunts there's at least a limit to what can be performed with minimal risk, whereas with CGI you can have the protagonist bouncing off solid surfaces in instances that would severely injure, if not kill, a real person.
That's a thing, yes. Compare Casino Royale (the first Craig Bond) to Quantum of Solace. The former is purely old-school stunt work, with the only CGI in the title sequence, the latter features the most annoying parachute jump in movie history. If they'd tried waiting that long to pull the cord in real life, they'd be a stain on the ground.
One potential exception is Civil War where they show some gruesome falls & hits on the way down, and the effect is to show that Captain America is NOT a normal human.
Filmwriters should read the Evil Overlord List before coming up with a villain
I have indeed noticed it. And you're right. It bugs me.
I want my protagonist to win, but I don't want my antagonist to hold back for no reason at all. Their job is to make things as difficult as they can. They might screw up, or even have actual personal reasons for not finishing the job quickly, but when they literally have no reason at all to spare these fools... DON'T SPARE THEM!
Kick the shit out of them. Kill them!
Or- if your a hero antagonist- ACTUALLY TRY TO WIN! Rather than what's typical where the cop antagonist decides he respects the shady thief protagonist and lets him go despite spending the entire film being a rules stickler.
This is EXACTLY what made X24 in Logan so fucking terrifying. You knew that if he got close to Logan, he wasn't going to punch him, or hit him with the butt end of a rifle, or throw him twenty feet. He was going to open up Logan's torso or stab him through the armpit or try to take his head off. That thing scared the shit out of me every time it was on screen.
TheMythof Feminism - What the fuck. The movie is amazing.
Apart from the ludicrous number of bullets trope in a gun, the even more annoying one for me is where man with gun has run out of bullets but doesn't realise and pulls the trigger and gun clicks, which is even more frustrating due to the writers complete lack or awareness of how firearms work, this could only possibly occur with a revolver, or some models of shotgun.
For me, the most memorable necklift is in Rocky IV when Drago grabs that politician guy and says that he fights for himself. It's really intense and has that original necklift purpouse you were talking about.
Anyway - I'm really glad I have stumbled upon this channel - keep up the good work!
One thing I've noticed a lot in a fight involving an enemy wielding some kind of blade, the good guy/s never ever seem to try to disarm this blade, rather they go for body hits or head punches, and the antagonist only ever drops the weapon once they are thoroughly defeated in every other way. There really should be a name for that.
And 99% of the time you see a sword fight on the screen, the fighters are clearly trying NOT to hit each other. (Yeah, safety rules, but it still looks stupid.)
brok2 Or the sword through armor trope, because kleenex manufactures steel plate armor.
Personally - and this is a question of the style you train - I, too, will favour a killing shot over a disarm. For that matter, I favour breaking a knee over a disarm. Because my opponent can still fight barehanded, but with a broken knee? Not so much, and with a broken neck, not at all.
Sword through armour is indeed annoying, though, unless you're on a horse and use it as a short lance. Which was actually a thing.
This isn't in every single action/martial arts film, though. Even Bruce Lee back in the Big Boss kicked the knife out homeboy's hand in the first scene of the movie. And there's plenty of other good knife disarms in other movies. I don't think that's as big of an offender as this throat-lift throw.
"I, too, will favour a killing shot over a disarm."
That's a good way to get yourself killed in real life. If a person has a lethal weapon and you are within range of it, it is extremely unlikely that you will be able to incapacitate him before he can follow through. Unless you mean kill him before he can even begin his attack, you're talking nonsense.
Then again it's not at all clear what you're talking about.
i notice it alot, that's why i like the super serum-ed Blonsky vs hulk scene in the incredible hulk. Blonsky have to dodge all attacks. once the hulk touches him the battle is over. no throwing around toying.
Another thing is when the villain has some kind of weapon, like a gun, but instead of shooting with it he decided to hit the protagonist with the gun when it is clearly established that he is trying to kill him.
or throwing it away to use a melee weapon.
3:47 it actually works here because the T-800 is struggling between his Resistance programming and the T-X hack. Tossing John is the result of his conflicting directives.
Salvation has no excuse tho
That's an interesting take- I'd buy it IF it was the only time it happened in the movie, but it happens more than once. It's just evolved into something far worse by Salvation LOL!
@@Hyperdriveuk Terminator 3: Tossment Day
Hehe I notice these throws all the time. And nearly every time, I recall Captain Picard saying, "Don't let them touch you!" There is something to be said about a high-speed impact into a wall or what not. But securing a kill even with hands, or limbs, is faster. Anyone who has taken self-defense knows not to let the big guy get a hold of you. heheh
I rewatched the Jon vs Whitewalker fight just to be sure cuz I think I noticed one in there, but it's not the blunt weapon strike referred to here. That that end is being used to knock him down a floor is fine as the blade had just been used to block/shatter Jon's own strike. But when Jon is searching for the Dragon Glass to begin with the walker has a bead on him, closes the distance and...grabs him. The walker is carrying a bladed staff with at least a 4' reach and he just grabs Jon. After the throw the fight is fine. Even shows Jon trying a punch & getting thrown after dodging a lunge. Ok, that one makes sense though.
Agreed, I let the Jonsnow fight off, as it was cool to see him fighting a white walker, but I was shocked to see it in GOT considering it had never used the protag throw until that point.
It should also be noted that while the throw tainted the show's excellent score, they did show JS getting the air punched out of him upon landing, which is at least a small improvement on a trope that arguably should die ASAP.
Punched out of him, that's great. In the US we say "air knocked out". I've had the air knocked out of me a few times.
k.
PsychoZulu in Australia it's"wind knocked out" or just "winded"
What makes a good adventure movie for me? An unpredictable order of character deaths. It's one of my favorite facets of the recent Kong: Skull Island. It makes a movie more suspenseful when you don't know who's going to be killed next. One of the worst that comes to mind is Sphere, not one character is killed off out of the obvious sequence you've reasoned ten minutes into the film.
Deep Blue Sea kind of does this for most characters, but it's ruined by the incredible plot armor of LL Cool J's character. The otherwise vicious sharks turn into overgrown sardines whenever he's in danger, despite being an underdeveloped comic relief and not the protagonist.
A Terminator was built up to be an un-corruptable killing machine that will reach down your throat and tear your heart out with no hesitation to complete it's mission. In one and two it never touches Sarah or John, in 3 and 4 and even 5 (only seen that terrible movie once) they get touched several times and greatly diminishes the threats of the Terminators, so yes it bothers me. Poor writing to put your titular creations in such a situation and make them feel less threatening.
Ha I'm the original writer of the Neck lift page on TV tropes :D
yay
Completely agree. Action movies have strayed so far from reality that they are completely unbelievable.
This is really insightful. I knew that in the newer Terminator movies, the Terminators were never quite as scary or menacing as they were in the first two, but I couldn't really say why. I think this is a big part of the reason.
@HyperDrive I actually know of a much earlier Protagonist Throw (probably not 1st one but in a major film YES). It's in "The Spy Who Loved Me" which is a Bond film made in '77, so 8 years before the example you had.
Jaws overpowers Bond whilst strangling his neck and then pushes against the ceiling. Then he throws him against the wall. That's textbook. I think it'd be great if you'd correct this with a comment because it's a great film and deserves some praise :) .
*Just google: Jaws train fight*
Edit: I just thought about Goldfinger and Oddjob launches Bond around Fort Knox. This was filmed in 1964! It isn't as great an example as in TSWLM but it does show thee character's physical superiority compared to Connery. He has to outsmart him, just as Moore did with Jaws in '77.
This is something that's irritated me for years. I love the term the Protagonist Throw. Great video.
My favorite is where literally all the Terminators throw the good guys around instead of just punching the good guys in the head.
This is sadly also very common in slasher movies. Someone like Jason Voorhees will slash, impale, decapitate, and mutilate the characters one by one, but will throw the final girl.
All I can say is excellent. I always say old action movies might not have the money or effects of today but they are more entertaining and try to be as realistic as possible without compromising too much on quality’s and storyline. Most modern movies suck and with audiences getting dumber and dumber there is no hope. Bravo!
I would say it works in the original predator because it doesnt happen until the end when it's savoring the hunt and essentially playing with it's food
Through I was the only one who knew that throwing a person you want to kill staggers the realism.
Thank you for making this video. I've been thinking this for years, I'm so glad someone has articulated it in visual form.
CHOKESLAM BY THE TERMINATOR!! BAH GAWD HE'S BROKEN IN HALF!
Wow...this is exactly what I have been saying for years!! I called it "Here - let me throw you to safety" throw. In a fight, when things get heated, the bad guy grabs the good guy and apparently "throws him to safety" !!! - because that is exactly what it is. The good guy is being thrown from where the danger is to where the danger is not.
I fucking hate the throw. Why would you chase your target - reach them, but then throw them away. Specially when you see that throwing does nothing to injure the good guy.
One thing that bugs me is when the hero spares the villain at the end despite having killed tons of goons
Goons are a dime a dozen. Good villains on the other hand are a rare commodity, so they should only be discarded after careful deliberation has determined it to be the best course of action.
THANK YOU! I always get annoyed when the villain doesn't kill the hero for plot convenience.
I never notices this. Thanks for pointing it out.
Great video mate. I had noticed this trend but couldn't pinpoint what bothered me about it. Now seeing it back to back makes sense thanks. Seriously you deserve more subscribers.
I hate anything that should kill a person being passed off as part of a fight. That is why I like superhero movies better than regular action. It makes sense more if they have abilities. I think it is funny how the action in Jessica Jones is so much better than the action in Agents of SHIELD. The difference is simply that I believe the fight, and allow it to happen as reasonable. In SHIELD, you have regular people flipping around and punching each other in ways that are stupid.
Tension can be built in very realistic ways. I think the best way is just to use non-physical dynamics of power, which is why dramas are better than action films.
Die Hard is a great exception, watch it and notice how John McClane does fantastic things, but only once in the film do you really say to yourself... no way he could beat the other guy. If they edited it a little more, just showed him hang the guy because the character rather torture him than just kill him, then it would have been perfect. The rest of hte movie uses action just to forward the plot. Brillant.
Great video. Some movies make the same mistake in the other direction, too, by having their heroes happily waste henchmen only to knock down the villain and save him for the end.
If you have a chase, better to keep them in vehicles or something, because I think you're right that if the characters physically touch each other too much, it loses its magic.
Having the hero and villain not meet until the end is fine, and more movies should do it.
Another possibility is to have them meet once and seriously injure each other, then meet again later and fight until one or both are dead. This worked well in No Country for Old Men, for example, and in Logan.
I have literally thought about all of this ive just never heard someone else say it.Its the DUMBEST thing ever I HATE IT.Great video
Between you well reasoned main point, and, importantly, putting spoiler warnings AHEAD of said spoilers, this was an exceptional video. Subscribed.
What do you think? Has the Protagonist Throw made action movies worse? Want to support my channel, please go to www.patreon.com/user?u=5540784 Cheers!
Absolutely. Movies today are full of poor writing, bad action and plots that do not make sense. These days I tend to yawn during "action" scenes
I tend to laugh. Or cry out loud "Snap his neck before throwing him, you f*ing moron!". A serious film can turn into a comedy with total idiots, when they keep doing moves, which no rational person would ever do.
Lazy writing and lack of respect for the audience. This whole throwing trope has been bothering me for years, thanks for articulating it so well. The Terminator one was the worst offender, but one which really bothered me was Grievous in Episode III. Not the best film to begin with, but him having hold of Obi Wan and easily able to break him in half, then for no reason whatsoever throwing him 20 yards away and getting blasted for it made me hate the rest of the movie.
Supernatural says hi.
Absolutely! Good call I didn't actually notice this but now I wont be able to not notice it lol. For me it's almost as bad as the Sky Scream, when the hero has to display his overwhelming emotion by futilely screaming at the air!
(Some) Things That Ruin Action Scenes;
- Throwing the opponent instead of just killing them
- Having a McGuffin item in the breast pocket to block a shot
- Throwing away an advantage to have a “fair fight”
- A character’s aim/skill suddenly being bad after being good for the rest of the film
- Too much shaky cam
- Choreography that looks like choreography and not a fight
- Bad sound mixing
- Literally no emotional tension, just dumb punches being thrown.
This is an interesting dissection. However, in response to the title of the video, I happen to think action movies are very much back on the rise after a several-years slump. Mad Max: Fury Road, John Wick, and even more recently with Baby Driver, have all been indicative of an action movie renaissance. No cheap blows or copouts, all deliberate rule-following action that (and here's the kicker) IS IN SERVICE OF THE PLOT. Good action isn't just mindless flailing limbs. It's a means to a further a character's motives. For so long we've been in a rut of what I like to call Bay-hem (referring to Transformers) where it's all visual spectacle and no substance. Movies like the ones I've listed show that action CAN and should have characters with nuance, complexity, and motive. And with Atomic Blonde almost in theaters, I'm looking forward to another potential hitter in this renaissance.
I completely agree, thank god action movies are getting better. Now to work on the other genres lol
This points to an over-arching problem with action genre: Directors having no faith in the audience 'getting' what a scene is about.
Manufactured tension is being forced down our gullets: the ridiculously telegraphed attack from the baddie that our hero neatly counters, for example.
Today, audiences are being 'told' how to feel about a scene..."Look out, Hero! Bad guy is playing dead!", "Baddie is monologueing, time for Hero to find/use/break X to save the day!"
Or my favorite: 'Bad guy who seems to be more aware than the Heroes about some looming crisis and has come up with brutal but effective solution that is unacceptable for philosophical/legal/moral reasons leading to a life or death battle. Heroes defeat(?) baddie, only to acknowledge that the only thing wrong with baddies approach was that 'the people' wouldn't like it.'
Movies are a business investment; you don't deliberately make movies that lose money, so movies are made that will sell.
That means movies are going to be designed to appeal to the widest possible audience.
That means movies are gonna be dumb, violent, sexy, loud, fun, funny and stupid.
Just like the crowds that attend.
Make a movie that is deeply thought provoking and makes people argue after the film is over, and you have a commercial flop on your hands!
Don't blame Hollywood when the ticket buying public makes the choices they do.
The other suspension of belief are the martial arts movies that have people fly across a room, or courtyard, (obviously suspended on invisible wires) as part of their fight scene. Presumably because being a martial arts expert gave them . . . magical powers?
Can you please give that a name too?
Let's call it the Hidden Dragon.
This is so spot on. The throw in films drives me nuts particularly while i was eatching salvation. It seems to come from having the villian more powered than the hero. I think salvation would have benefitted from by doing an 'aliens' and putting the hero in some sort of exo suit. Cameron had the right idea because it took 2 opponents with vastly different power levels and equlled them so they could duke it out.
Great vid man! Never realized that was part of why some of the movies I watch sucked. I know I would ask myself the same question is why is everyone dying, but the main person the antagonist is after gets away. You would think that if you're trying to get rid of a nuisance you would "take the shot" any time you got close to them, not wait until you got a few words in first.
Yes, finally someone speaking right from my heart, thanks man.
It is always painful when a movie breaks it's own rules,
another thing i dislike is when Superhero's and their powers are unconsistent.
I'm glad you talked about this. It's something I noticed all the time. Like "why not just crush his neck then if u got him in your hands?!!" unless they really thought the throw would kill the character.
Now everytime a murderous scary enemy throws someone rather than killing them instantly, im going to be pissed...
I noticed this too, but you pointing it out in movies I've never seen somehow makes it more frustrating
100% agree. Also, I hate all situations where the protagonist is beaten with a gun or blade to the throat. They always are miraculously saved after the bad guy gloats or explains his evil plan, but to me the story arc is over. The protagonist has been beaten. The fact they survive is just dumb luck, and rings hollow to me.
man its not fair!! every time I watch one of your videos I learn stuff and things like the protagonist throw come to my attention!!! ... is why I love your channel!!!
I thought that this would be over the top negative and really harsh, but you know what. Those were solid points. I never noticed the amazing use.. or lack there of in older movies about the protagonist throw, and the modern use with reckless abandon. With obvious caveats here and there in some cases. Good video! Really insightful.
Excellent theory and support for hypothesis, I agree. Brilliant use of Grieg in the 1st montage, glad this popped up in recommended.
Great videos! I love the terminator salvation mashup!
I complete agree. I hate any time a villian can kill the protagonist and for what ever reason just doesn't. It drive me insane
I have never considered this before but you are 100% correct. Thanks for opening my eyes on this.
I'm glad you pointed this out since it's something that's annoyed me alot in movies where it cuts any really threat to the main characters.
More broadly speaking, directors choose action rather than suspense. The throw is a violent action, whereas reaching out to grasp the person would be suspense. This is illustrated perfectly in the Terminator comparisons. As a man who likes action and cool things happening, I can sympathize, but I think HyperDrive is absolutely right that this choice ends up decreasing the tension rather than increasing it.
The best of both worlds can be achieved by letting the action happen in a way that doesn't diminish suspension of disbelief, and doesn't sacrifice tension for action.
Easiest way to spot the dumbest people: "But if he just killed them, then the movie would be over."
I had never noticed before, but I totally agree with you. It is a big part of what makes our brain tick: "oh, that's not so big of threat".
I can't imagine jurassic park raptors throwing people around...
YES YES YES! i've been feeling this way for years! Finally someone talks about it.
and btw, to paraphrase something you said: "The movie doesnt have to make sense, but, it needs to be internally consistent."
I can't stress how strongly I agree with that! Thank you!
You are very correct here, and there are other, similar tropes that are annoying. Any time a character has an ability that they only use sometimes, but suddenly forget about during a crucial scene or fight. For example, a villain who can turn invisible, but for some reason never turns invisible to sneak up and kill the hero. Or Hiro, from Heroes, who can pause time, but is for some reason incapable of thinking to use that power to easily kill Sylar. The list goes on.
Also, the "I have my gun pointed directly at you, but I'm going to throw it down so we can have a fist fight duel"...yeah, that really annoys me. I highly doubt that would happen nearly as frequently in real life as it does in movies.
I can't unsee this now, thanks.
Thaaaaank you for making this video. This has infuriated me for forever, its why the Borne fight scenes will forever be the best in modern fight scenes.
I have ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS noticed the stupid throw. I am glad you called attention to it. Thank you
Thank you for pointing this out. I've seen it many times, but never really realized the significance of it and how it cheapens a story.
The perfect example of a thrilling fight scene (to me) is Achilles vs. Hector in Troy.
Interesting video. Subscribed.
Ha, this protagonist throw was driving me crazy for years and years! Good thing you decided to talk about it!
Regarding Terminator 3, I can understand. TX threw Kathreen out the car and pinned her so she could tell her where Connor was. When she reprogrammed the T-101 he was fighting the re-programming thereby tossing him around with a chance to get away from him or till he can overcome it
I like that you included a spoiler warning! I have never seen like that. There are channels that spoil several movies in a single video with a clickbait title (eg. Whatculture)
Ive been soooo distracted by the superhero landing that I never noticed the protaganist throw! LoL
that's true, when a villain kills everyone in his path but never touches the protagonist, it feels far more tense as if he gets close to him he'd die.
100% agree! It's poor or lazy writing to try to make a scene more exciting. Anyone with any fighting skills would not throw a person away from them if they had the power to crush them in their hands.
I had noticed the problems with the throw before, but your Prometheus example really made me realise how being thrown around takes away a lot of the fear factor of a character.
Would you be as scared of the xenomorph if it just started throwing Ripley around?
thank you so much! I've been saying this for years to my friends now! I simply can't enjoy a movie if it has no internal logic. IDK if the reason of this is to show off special efects or something like that, but I hate this trowing thing, specially because even if they thow them really hard the protagonist just shows a little pain, but no skull, ribs or back fractures
Another thing I hate about this trope (and every scene that involves a character chocking another character) is how you can clearly see the actor is not aplying any pressure and is just pretending. And then they put that sound of the throat crushing. Actors can punch and slap each other but they're not allowed to slightly choke their partner? Come on...
In Inglorious Basterds, for example, when Hans Landa is chocking Bridget Von Whateverthehellhernameis, that was actually Tarantino himself chocking Diane Kruger. That's why that scene looks so believable. They were actually chocking the poor woman XD
I have never noticed that until now, but now that I have seen it, I think I won't be able to unseen it :(
Personally, I don't think this is not the worse problem with action movies and sometimes is justified(when the foe doesn't have weapons and have a legitimate advantage, the throw seems to be as dangerous as a punch or a kick), I think there are 3 main problems:
1. Don't being able to see what's happening (shaky cameras instead of clear action)
2. Lack of emotional weight/context during the action (the action should be used for character development and the observer should care about the consequences of the action sequence instead of just having an action scene for spectacle).
3. Don't being able to understand what's happening (It order to build tension the observer should be able to see the advantages or disadvantages of every character and why they perform each one of their moves. If the film fails on delivering this, the scene would see as a choreography instead of a conflict).
I love this!!!! I'm glad you commented on my channel, so I got to find yours!!
lol oh yes!
Good video. This throwing around indeed irritates like hell!
I've never noticed this until now, like with the terminator explanation. It might actually be one of the biggest reasons why the terminators in the first two movies felt so threatening, while the later movies felt like action toys. I'm gonna keep an eye out for this now though, so thanks
When the too much throwing around happens I just have to convince myself that the villain want to slowly kill the protagonist, play with him/her before the final kill
FINALLY someone has articulated this. I am exactly the same way. I enjoy a movie until the mega powerful villain starts to throw the protagonist around. When am I supposed to get scared? The answer is never because you've ruined that effect for me. And the Terminator 1 vs Terminator Salvation was a good comparison. I stopped enjoying the movie when the Terminator started throwing around John Connor.
Well for one- I like surprises. The Decoy Hero trope is one of my favorites though I've seen that one used more in horror than in action though I'm sure action does have examples.
Take The Blob (1988): The character Paul starts out in spot that we associate the usual "hero" as having. Then he is brutally killed at the hospital and the character of Brian steps into the role. At the time, it was rare but I loved it.
There are others but that's just one of my favorites.