I think character is extremely important for an action movie if it hopes to be taken seriously or have a lasting impact.

Die Hard is a great example, but so is First Blood. Though First Blood is not as much of an action movie as Die Hard and its imitators, the reason it is such an engrossing and influential film is because you understand John Rambo's plight and sympathize with him. A Green Beret hiding from cops in the woods is not nearly as interesting if you don't see Rambo speaking with a family member of his former colleague, getting arrested and mistreated by cops, and the visual shot of his scars from being tortured.

A lot of action movies are hard to enjoy or take seriously because the audience may not want to root for an angry, macho meathead performing unbelievable feats of strength, stealth, or cunning. However, scenes that show the character's humanity are vitally important.

It's probably also worth noting that neither Die Hard nor First Blood opened with a big action sequence. Both were very patient in setting up characters and motivations before breaking into the more memorable action scenes.

Darren said, "It's probably also worth noting that neither Die Hard nor First Blood opened with a big action sequence. Both were very patient in setting up characters and motivations before breaking into the more memorable action scenes."

Same thing with Taken, which doesn't crank up the action until 20 mins at least IIRC. Movie spends a lot of time setting up its characters so that you care about them.

Scott - do you think the reason that so many recent action films have decided to open with huge multi-million dollar action sequences is because of the pressure on screenwriters to set the tone and grip the reader within the first 10 pages?

Darren, the concept of starting an action movie with a big Opening Incident has been around for a long time. For example, it became almost a kind of joke to see how big and crazy the next James Bond movie's opening would be; could it top the previous movie?

From a screenwriting perspective, setting aside the pyrotechnics of the OI, a big opening does several things:

* Immediately identifies the story's genre

* Gets the reader immediately charged up

* But perhaps most important, you buy yourself some time for set up in the story's first act. In other words, if you start off a script with a bunch of exposition, that can be boring. If you start off a script with a big opening sequence, then go through some exposition heavy scenes, the action opener has bought you some good will with the reader, and they are more likely to 'put up with' the requisite exposition.

Just wanted to point out, I am not denouncing character in action films by any means. I was just stating that there is more importance to the setup of the initial problem, than there is to resolve it in any real world manner.

There's a ton of character development in DIE HARD and TRUE LIES. But beating up the bad guys tends to be the manner in which relationship problems are solved.

There's no real assurance that things won't simply go back to being exactly the same five minutes after the movie ends.

In Dramas and Thrillers things seem to be changed on a more permanent level.

@James: I don't think people would take your comments as "denouncing character in action films," so no sweat on that. What intrigued me, as I noted in the post, was your point and perhaps you're right: Maybe there is by and large more of an emphasis on the set-up of character's issues / internal world, and less of a payoff.

And per your point here, that perhaps in other genres, the Protagonist transformation is more substantive - and permanent - in nature.

All interesting stuff. Thanks for the comments.

I think it's the metaphor of story combined with the function of genre.

For the action genre, resolving the plot resolves the internal conflict.

And I'm not even saying it has to work like that. That's just the pattern I see in the more successful action movies.

Maybe that's why action is so successful globally. A couple doesn't need to say they love each other, when the husband just jumped off a high rise building bare foot and shot a horde of terrorists dead because she was being held hostage.

But that is exactly why it is important to set up the relationships early. It's really where DIE HARD 4 messed up.

Don't know about you, but I don't care about Justin Long, nor do I care that the bad guys kidnapped John's daughter.

I never really saw any connection between the characters.

Compare that to TAKEN. Early on you know just how much Liam Niesson (and even his wife, in very little screentime) cares for their daughter. And the rest of the movie is just proof.