John Hyams explains why Luc's daughter was not involved

[Bolo]

Originally Posted by Time Cop

Not in general, I understand there are many exceptions.

Also, I am not referring to movies that kill people or have shootouts.

I am referring to Sheldon's point about lack of character development and focusing on the pure action.

There is definitely a link there as I am totally aware there are many online shooter games where the objective is simply run and kill someone without a story or progession.

I am just discussing the similarity between that and movies that have a very thin story and driven mainly by the action and killing.

Well then i missed something.. Luc made some developments in the movie
and got enough explaination..

[Nofear]

The way I see it, US3 didn't need much in the way of character development. It was not supposed to be like US1 or 2. It was straight up action. Luc needed some development and we got it.

If we focussed too much on the characters, I think we would have lost John's vision for the film

[giaimom]

Originally Posted by Nofear

The way I see it, US3 didn't need much in the way of character development. It was not supposed to be like US1 or 2. It was straight up action. Luc needed some development and we got it.

If we focussed too much on the characters, I think we would have lost John's vision for the film

[Sheldon Lettich]

Originally Posted by Nofear

This is nothing like a video game comparison.

OK, 'Taken' for example, no character development in that film, that's a great film

Huh? There sure was character developement and character growth in "Taken." Not just for Liam Neeson's character -- who rectifies a bad judgement call he made at the beginning of the movie when he allows his daughter to go -- but also for the ex-wife and especially for the daughter. There's a much-stronger father-daughter bond at the end of the movie, and the ex-wife, daughter, and the wife's new husband no longer take Neeson's character for granted.

There was just enough character developement to make you actually give a shit about the characters, to make you care whether or not the daughter was rescued, and to make you want Neeson to kill all the bad guys. That's why this movie has done so incredibly well: the audience actually cared.

Take another look at that movie and you'll notice that it doesn't start off with a wham-bam action opener. The filmmakers take their time setting up the characters and the situation before they bring on all the whoop-ass. That scene at the new husband's mansion, where Neeson feels humilated by the meager gift he's brought? That's character & story set-up -- emotional non-action stuff -- which pays off later, in spades.

[Shepka-3000]

Originally Posted by Sheldon Lettich

Huh? There sure was character developement and character growth in "Taken." Not just for Liam Neeson's character -- who rectifies a bad judgement call he made at the beginning of the movie when he allows his daughter to go -- but also for the ex-wife and especially for the daughter. There's a much-stronger father-daughter bond at the end of the movie, and the ex-wife, daughter, and the wife's new husband no longer take Neeson's character for granted.

There was just enough character developement to make you actually give a shit about the characters, to make you care whether or not the daughter was rescued, and to make you want Neeson to kill all the bad guys. That's why this movie has done so incredibly well: the audience actually cared.

Take another look at that movie and you'll notice that it doesn't start off with a wham-bam action opener. The filmmakers take their time setting up the characters and the situation before they bring on all the whoop-ass. That scene at the new husband's mansion, where Neeson feels humilated by the meager gift he's brought? That's character & story set-up -- emotional non-action stuff -- which pays off later, in spades.

I would have been inclined to put Taken's success down to the fact it was a welcome return to a no-nonsense straight up action movie devoid of the usual over-blown CGI and containing more realistic/kick ass violence. I think the actors played the characters well though and Neeson's character was fleshed out more than your average "father out for revenge" type.

[vanberch]

Originally Posted by Nofear

The way I see it, US3 didn't need much in the way of character development. It was not supposed to be like US1 or 2. It was straight up action. Luc needed some development and we got it.

If we focussed too much on the characters, I think we would have lost John's vision for the film

you are right as usual. every director can dream these days to make a DTV low budget action film like US3. i can see why this project turned out like that. TALENT!

btw, it was john hyams idea to hire those sound designers for US3. he knows what is good. those people are not known. check their reels. this speaks for him that he knows unknown people who bring up quality because of talent.

[Jizzle4050]

Originally Posted by Nofear

The way I see it, US3 didn't need much in the way of character development. It was not supposed to be like US1 or 2. It was straight up action. Luc needed some development and we got it.

If we focussed too much on the characters, I think we would have lost John's vision for the film

Like Vanberch said its a DTV action film but the talent working on the film was superior to most action drivel released nowadays. John gave us some solid character development in Luc and the leader of the rebels at least enough to get their motivation for their actions. This movie is deeper than most think. Its layered quite well but its subtle. The scene with Luc being captured had some serious symbolism with the monkeys on television. When Luc is being held down his character is represented in its most primitive form. Humans evolved and I love the way John zoomed the camera in on the monkey to show how at that very moment Luc is no longer this man in charge of his own actions. His humanity is all but stripped from him after all his rehabilitation. Its his devolution as he is now a slave to the military to perform whatever mission given to him.

If Im able to interpret something like that then that means that either Im insane or there are things in the movie that require you to think and not just watch the fights.

[T100]

Originally Posted by vanberch

you are right as usual. every director can dream these days to make a DTV low budget action film like US3. i can see why this project out like that. TALENT!

btw, it was john hyams idea to hire those sound designers for US3. he knows what is good. those people are not known. check their reels. this speaks for him that he knows unknown people who bring up quality because of talent.

The sound was unbeilievable. there wasnt musch of a score but the sounds of the bulletrs made u fell like u were there. I also loved the sound of the breaking through the wall and pots and pans during the dolph van damme fight

[Kyokushin_Karate_Master]

man,Shenmue is one of the greatest games of all time.i love it even years later.im still waiting for Shenmue 3,it pisses me off no sequel has been made,the cliff-hanger ending kinda left me bitter.great game though,and most rpg's have a gripping story.alot of video games do have better storys then movies this is true,ecspecially as of late.other games with good story's are Legend of Zelda games,any Final Fantasy game,Blazblue to name a few.

[Lionheart351976]

Originally Posted by Sheldon Lettich

US-3 and the "Crank" movies are shining examples to me of Post-VG movies, and they seem to work just fine for folks who've grown up playing and enjoying these games. Videogames did not really become a worldwide societal obsession until I was in my 40's. Maybe that's why US-3 didn't do anything for me emotionally, because videogames themselves have never caught my interest either. The same certainly cannot be said for the majority of folks who are on this forum. Maybe that's why I'm so out-of-step with most of you regarding this movie, and why I prefer character and plot driven movies like UD and JCVD over this one.

Sheldon, do you not think US:R told its story well enough visually? What elements could Hyams have included visually that would have made it a more fulfilling experience? For me, this had a basic plot that has been used in many movies...bad guys kidnap someone, bad guys plant explosives, bad guys demand ransom, bad guys get defeated by good guys. So many action movies follow this or a similar formula. I almost appreciated this movie NOT trying to be an intellectual movie and having the characters express more with their actions. Now I would have liked "Luc" to have said more, particularly something when he encounters "Scott."

EDIT--since others mention video games with deep plots or solid storytelling, I have to say, "Bioshock" and "Bioshock 2" have some scripts that rival movies. In fact, the last 5 years has seen an increase in the number of talented scriptwriters that video game companies hire for their games.