Yeah, I saw *Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon *in its first fun with another doper, who pointed out it was pretty much a musical, structurally, and I think most films in the Action genres–and any subgenre–shares that structure.
Where would you place the two *Charlie’s Angels *films? The action is as cartoony as anything mentioned in this thread, but are they too chick-oriented?
Hmm. Not sure. That’s definitely a genre straddler. Probably the hot chick factor gives it a foot in the mantasy camp, but the tough-broad aspect probably takes it back out again.
Oh yeah. I’d love to have them straddle *my *genre…
High five!
(Sorry. Good points, BTW).
I’m not seeing any difference between the proposed Man Fantasy and just regular old Action. They both break the laws of physics left and right; that’s what separates Action from Suspense. Man Fantasy seems like a pointless distinction just to try and be clever, IMO, with a side helping of condescension. (Post 39.)
I thought I’d toss in the Bourne series, though, since nobody has yet.
Actually, after thinking about it for another, er, six minutes, I actually agree that there is such a thing as a Man Fantasy based on the definition given upthread, but I think most of the nominees in this thread don’t qualify. Movies that would qualify would be:
Comic book movies
The Matrix trilogy
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
Shoot Em Up
Old Shao Lin Monk movies from the 70s that ran on Saturdays late morning / early afternoon after cartoons
Movies like Crank are totally, 100% believable in comparison to movies like the above, where humans can friggin fly, or stop bullets with their mind.
Wow. Way to mine a perfectly innocuous thread for an extremely tenuous excuse to drag it into the dirt of personal insult. Impressive.
This is not a GD discussion on tolerance of political disagreements. This is CS, where we discuss personal opinions on artistic matters. Tolerance is not required in such matters; everyone is a snob about something in art or music or movies, that’s just how we are. It’s a necessary component of artistic awareness. You tolerate others’ rights to express their views on art, but you don’t have to personally “tolerate” bad art.
Not that that actually applies in this instance, but it’s related somehow.
Here’s the thing: couples come into my video store all the time. When the female half chooses a movie that contains the traditional elements of fantasy, the male half’s reaction tends to fall somewhere along the scale from veto, to whiny complaint, to patronizing acquiescence. Nowhere on this scale will you find enthusiastic agreement. When he comes in alone, I can usually bet you dollars to Doritos that he’s gonna go straight for one of the movies described and discussed in this thread. If you don’t recognize my description of this guy as a deliberately cartoonish jab at the secret hypocrisy of his renting a fantasy while maintaining a macho exterior, and you want to instead turn this thread into another personal attack thread about me, please take it elsewhere.
(ETA: It’s one thing to be “condescending” to a fellow Doper engaged in the discussion with you; it’s entirely another to be “condescending” to a cartoonishly drawn representative of an abstracted anthropomorphized artistic taste. You’d have some reason for calling me out on the former; for the latter your reason can only be hijack, threadshitting, or personal insult.)
I stand by my interpretation of post 39.
I love the idea of action films as musicals. Perhaps an over-arching category of “movies with stylized set-pieces often involving complex choreography.” 
Let’s leave the personal sniping out of this, thanks.
This year’s best entries in the genre:
Punisher: War Zone
and the aforementioned 12 Rounds
What others?
> KA-BLAM!! < ::: Moderator blows up building to get attention :::
Cool it, guys. lissener, you need to take a deep breath and accept that someone doesn’t like your idea of genre, and thinks ill of your tone. That’s not personal insult.
Ellis Dee, I think one can read “condescension” in anything if one puts one’s mind to it. There was no need to make such a comment, and I frankly see nothing “condescending” in lissener’s post. I do see you as baiting him, knowing how he can react to criticism.
So, let’s everybody cool, it can we?
And a reminder: “Genre” classification is never an exact science, there are always sub-genres and grey-fuzzy areas between genres. So it’s not like there’s right or wrong answers here, there’s just different ways of classifying and viewing large groups of similar movies. Right?
(((Oops, sorry, Marley, I didn’t see that you were already there.)))
Right. Pretty much exactly what I said above. I haven’t reacted negatively to anyone who doesn’t agree that this is a distinct (or rather indistinct) subgenre. Those who disagree it’s a subgenre I have engaged with as an expected part of the discussion. I’ve only reacted to unfounded personal accusations that have no place in this discussion.
((Posting as poster, not moderator, just in case there’s any doubt))
I agree that DIE HARD set a new standard for action movies, and that stunts/actions have become more and more extreme in efforts to out-do the prior… and, of course, now aided by computer graphics. However, I’m not sure that there’s really a “different” genre here so much as a sub-genre. Action movies have always pushed the impossible, going back to Douglas Fairbank’s silent ZORRO and others. Yes, without CGI there was always some correspondance to the laws of physics, but only nominally: outrunning explosions, OK, maybe that’s new, but even back in silent days, the hero could outrun a horse, car, or train.
Physical stamina beyond credibility? James Bond was slightly more realistic in the earliest ones, but even in the books in the 1950s, he survived massive injury (including having his shoulder bitten off by a barracuda, IIRC) and yet was still fit enough to continue fighting in the next chapter.
Defying physics? Well, there were the space ships from the Flash Gordon serials back in the 1930s that involved (my favorite) Flash throwing a lasso from his spaceship to the nearby bad-guy ship and then climbing across the rope to get into the other ship. (And don’t tell me that audiences of the 1930s thought that was possible.)
So, I’m not really sure that this is “new” or just “more so.”
Mod mode: Just to clarify. In post #39 above, you were making condescending remarks about the people who rent macho videos. That’s perfectly reasonable. Ellis Dee’s comment is that your remarks about those people were condescending; that’s also a reasonable comment. I apologize for my earlier mis-reading, I thought Ellis was accusing you of being condescending toward posters. That’s not what he was accusing you of; he was saying your comments were condescending towards those who rent such videos, and I think you’d be the first to agree.
So, no harm, no foul. There’s been no personal accusations here.
Yes, I agree that I was condescending to a non-existent person that I created as a cartoon character to add some hyperbolic humor to the proceedings. To suggest that I was “making condescending remarks about the people who rent macho movies,” however, is ridiculous; where have I left any room for doubt that I am one of the people who loves these movies? Ellis Dee knows that “condescending” is a loaded word into which he can pack a lot of historical personal insult when lobbed at me, but still maintain a wide-eyed stare of false innocence.
CKD, please close this thread and score one for Ellis Dee: he successfully manipulated me into imploding my own thread and you into doing his dirty work for him. All while maintaining plausible deniability.
I’d prefer the thread not be closed, actually. Lissener, just ignore the drama, and let the interesting thread continue!
Seconded. If I admit that I love this thread, does that make me a “Mantasist”?
I know you’ve been pitted for being prickly in the Cafe Society, but I have no knowledge of “condescending” being a buzzword. Frankly, I thought most of the problems arose from debates about Paul Verhoeven flicks, or rather people making fun of his films to get a rise out of you. I have no desire to do that.
Back on topic, just because you dig these movies doesn’t make it right to beat macho renters in the head with a genre definition you know they’ll perceive as an attack. That was your stated purpose. But enough of that hijack.
The question I have is, What differentiates Man Fantasy from Action flicks?
Also, I thought the primary market for fantasy was men. Not macho guys, certainly, but males. So I’m thinking “Man Fantasy” is like saying “Woman Romance.” Kind of redundant.
ETA: I too find the topic interesting, which I had hoped would be clear from my second post in the thread, where I listed a bunch of movies I though fit the genre.