Do you get irritated with "fair fights" in movies?

In most movies the good guy obviously has to behave in a certian way to as to distinguish himself from the bad guy.
This I have no problem with. The irritation begins when the good guy must act like a total idiot in order to be seen as “good”. For example, the (cliche’d) “You wouldn’t shoot an unarmed man?” part. I’d like to create a more realistic code of ethics, sort of the flip side of the Conquerer’s Handbook someone made up a while ago, for these guys. What do you think?

  1. You can cheat when fighting the bad guy. Giving him a “fair fight” (a phrase I hate), is both suicidally naive and counterproductive. You want to win? Cheat, and worry about the ethics later.

  2. You’re up against a really bad enemy. Don’t yell “Stop” or something similar if you have a gun. Shoot him in the knee, then yell.

  3. Don’t try to reason with the looney. Your two minutes of debate are not going to make him a useful member of society.

I love the * Get Smart * version.

Max disarms some villain who was supposed to be one of Europe’s greatest swordsmen. He says he won’t kill an unarmed man, slips his sword (rapier?) tip in the guard and flips his opponent the sword.

::accidentally it goes point first into the man’s belly::

“Sorry about that…”

As I recall, this cliche was effectively mocked in A Fish Called Wanda. Bad Guy Otto (Kevin Kline) knocks out a random passenger in order to steal his airline ticket; while he’s stashing the body in a closet, good guy Archie (John Cleese) happens by and picks up Otto’s gun. Otto, with his hands in the air, says something about a fair fight, and Archie accepts, putting down the gun and raising his fists. They circle each other for a moment, until Otto is suddenly able to bend down and pick up the discarded gun.

Yeah, it’s an annoying cliche. One would hope that any writer who descends to using it might put a clever spin on it, as above, but we all know cleverness is a rare commodity in Hollywood.

I thought that the “good good guy” has more or less been replaced by an anti-social “action hero” who spends two hours making one-liners as he blasts bad-guys left and right.

The only thing I never understood was why it was “not worth it” to simply kill the main bad guy since he’s going to do something stupid to make the hero shoot him anyway. Besides the fact that the good guy has probably already killed 50+ people and caused thousands of dollars in property damage. What’s one more?

From ‘Bad Boys’
(They have just killed a dozen drug dealers, blown up an airplane hanger and driven the bad guy, who is now on the ground, into a wall at 120 mph)

Martin Lawrence: Naw man, his shit aint worth it.
Will Smith: <something something whatever>
Bad guy: (Pulls out tiny pistol to shoot Will Smith)
Will Smith: (Empties clip into bad guy)

For a funny take on this, go rent “Rustlers Rhapsody”. Tom Berrenger is a ‘good guy’ cowboy who only shoots people in the hand and always wins because hes the ‘good guy’. To stop him, the evil cattle barons hire their own ‘good guy’ with hilarious results.

Yeah, but the good guy’s compulsion to fight fair is usually nicely offset by the bad guys’ insistence, no matter by how many they have the good guy outnumbered, to attack one at a time.

Don’t forget Indiana Jones and the scimitar-wielding bad guy.

OK, it was spur of the moment improv because Harrison Ford wasn’t feeling well, but it worked.

It was a TERRIBLE movie (don’t watch it under any circumstances), but there was a brilliant scene toward the end of Andrew Dice Clay’s “Ford Fairlane.”

An evil, British psychopathic killer (played by Robert Englund) has agun pointed at Fairlane. Fairlane challenges the creep to put down the gun, to slug it out with him, “one on one, mano a mano.” The creep agrees, and drops the gun.

Immediately, Fairlane says, “You make me laugh, you know that?” He pulls out his own gun and shoots the Englishman on the spot. He then mocks the dying man, saying “What are you, an idiot? You NEVER put down your gun! I mean, come on! Mano a mano? What the hell does THAT mean?”

Great scene. Too bad I had to endure 90 minutes of boring crud to see it.

I wouldn’t be surprised to see the good guy being even more P.C. in the future.

What does political correctness have to do with this?

Not shooting someone in the back is the equivalent of saying “African-American” instead of “black”?

Butch Cassidy & The Sundance Kid:

At the beginning of the movie when Butch & Sundance get back to The Hole In The Wall and find out Harvey Logan has taken over and Logan says, "Guns or knives?

Butch: Neither?

Logan: Pick.

Butch: I don’t wanna shoot with you, Harvey.

Logan: Anything you say Butch. (Pulls out a long and evil looking knife.

As Butch moves towards Harvey, Butch says: No, not 'till we get the rules straight.

Logan (incredulously): Rules?!? In a knife fight?!?

At which point Butch kicks him in the balls.

There was this great HBO movie about ten years back called El Diablo starring Anthony Edwards as an Eastern tenderfoot and Louis Gosset Jr. as the hardened gunfighter trying to help him survive in the West. Early in the film, Gosset shoots a bandit in the back. Edwards is shocked. “You shot him in the back!” Gosset looks confused, “Well, his back was to me.”

And excellent scene is in “Saving Private Ryan” when the Jewish soldier from New York and the Nazi battle it out with a Hitler youth knife. I was screaming my head off in anger. The bad guy one. What a crock!

‘Good, Bad, I’m the guy with the gun.’

Best take on that, ever, IMO.

How true. When the ‘bad guys’ are zombies that wouldn’t know a fair fight if it struck them in the brainpan, all ‘rules’ go out the window. Chainsaws, machetes, woodchippers, flamethrowers… all fair for use on any side of the enemy that happens to be closest.