That's a good question. I can tell when its too long but don't know where the cut-off point is. For example THEY LIVE had a fight scene that went on too long so that it became almost comical. MATRIX 2? had one that was just dull with Neo vs a billion Mr Smith's.

RJSchwarz
San Diego, CA

Too true. A repeat of 'The Matrix: Reloaded' is exactly what I didn't want to create!

___________________________________
You can't keep 'em out, they're already in!

I would suggest the PHANTOM MENACE style of mixing at least one other plot-line so that you can cut back and forth and releave our build tension in editing.

Another thing you might consider is ROCKY which was basically one long fight scene with a montage and brief pauses between rounds. Why did that one work and Matrix not? I'd suggest one reason is there was little risk that Neo would fail, he never broke a sweat, while we felt the blows landing on Rocky and when they cut his eye it seemed impossible he could win. Rocky put us there while Matrix was more of a computer game.

RJSchwarz
San Diego, CA

I agree that Rocky is an excellent example of a long fight scene. One of the things I always notice about the Rocky fights are that the camera cuts away to mini-reaction scenes of other characters -- particularly with Adrian watching/listening to the fight. These reaction shots give the viewer context and heighten the emotional concreteness of the scene (as well as prolong it) because the other characters show what?s at stake. David Fincher talks a little bit about this on the Fight Club commentary track.

I recently saw Cinderella Man and one of the clever things the film did was to convince the viewer that the hero was most likely going to lose the fight, so the win/lose wasn?t the focus. Instead the audience was emotionally involved in the larger stakes of survival for the husband and father. I think it?s often a good idea to shift the audience into an unexpected place and make a fight/battle something different than the surface conflict.

Deliverance did this well by knocking out the top-dog early and making him an liability for the reluctant hero played by John Voight. If the Burt Reynolds character had remained the leader and faced the same tribulations, the movie wouldn?t be nearly as interesting because we already KNOW he can handle it because he?s a classic hero. But for Voight?s character, the challenges seem way out of his league and that makes the extended struggle interesting.

Dan Rahmel
Author: "Nuts and Bolts Filmmaking"
Free scripts, templates, film glossary, and know-how,
check out: http://www.cvisual.com

I think the real issue is that the hero needs something to lose, the audience have to care if they lose, and the audience have to believe there's a good chance they will lose. If you achieve that, then the scene just has to run as long as is required.

And that's precisely where Matrix 2 went wrong: I never thought for a moment that Neo would lose, I didn't care if he did, and the fight on the freeway was so bloody long and so obviously blue-screened that it just became incredibly boring.

So bad, in fact, that I never even bothered watching the third movie.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MarkG

And that's precisely where Matrix 2 went wrong: I never thought for a moment that Neo would lose, I didn't care if he did, and the fight on the freeway was so bloody long and so obviously blue-screened that it just became incredibly boring.

So bad, in fact, that I never even bothered watching the third movie.

---

You didn't miss out on anything, that's for sure. The Matrix: Revolutions (which I always say should be called The Matrix: Resolved) was just mindless violence. In my battle scene it starts right at the beginning and so you know next to nothing about any of the characters, and there are a few of them, I was just wondering how I could keep the fighting interesting and mellifluous so that it keeps the audience hooked.

___________________________________
You can't keep 'em out, they're already in!

quote:

---

I was just wondering how I could keep the fighting interesting and mellifluous so that it keeps the audience hooked.

---

Difficult one. I had that problem with 'Saving Private Ryan': people talked about how emotional the first scene was, but I really didn't care much about it because I knew nothing about the characters other than that one was Tom Hanks. People I don't know anything about were being killed all over the place, but so what?

If it was me, I'd try to set up at least something about the characters for the audience to hang on to before having a battle scene.

Interesting Mark, I wonder if your reaction would have been different if it was one of the British beaches. I felt an immediate connection with the Yanks running into the machineguns despite knowing nothing about them. They became everyman.

The other thing is by not giving us more of the characters I felt I was in the middle of it all, more as if I was in jeopardy as well.

The movie had other flaws but I didn't have a problem with the beginning.

RJSchwarz
San Diego, CA

No, in my eyes the beginning scene is a masterpiece. I have seen that twice but never the end of the film. I have to say that it didn't upset me but I found it more thrilling. I also think there was a bit of black humour hidden there when the guy took his helmet off and got shot. In my beginning scene you aren't really meant to feel for any of the characters. It's supposed to be more of an exciting beginning than an emotional one. Although, I'd also like it if it had that factor where you could watch it all again and recognise the characters' personalities and wonder why you did not feel for them then.

___________________________________
You can't keep 'em out, they're already in!

quote:

---

Interesting Mark, I wonder if your reaction would have been different if it was one of the British beaches.

---

Doubt it. It just didn't connect with me at all.

It's an interesting point actually - SPR was a very American film, completely ignoring "The Allies" altogether. It doesn't directly affect me as a New Zealander (like I'd expect a bunch of ANZACS in the picture), but for American's it's all an exercise in Patriotism.

I really liked the film overall, but that whole first scene I was in awe of the scope and laughing at guys like the one with his helmet, and the other picking up his own dismembered arm!

Back on topic, it really depends - how many people are fighting? What are they fighting for? How are they fighting?

You could potentially have it go on for quite a while, depending on the circumstances, and of course - depending on what else needs to happen later in the movie!

Morgneto, Master of Morgnetism

The rebels are ambushing a group of soldiers who have been brainwashed by a corrupt dictator. They are fighting with guns and traps they have made earlier. They are also fighting to protect their home and dtroy the King, who is the dictator.

___________________________________
You can't keep 'em out, they're already in!

Consider making it two fights. The first one the rebels fail and are forced to withdraw. Added tension, will they survive. The bad guys follow up only to run directly into the real ambush!

RJSchwarz
San Diego, CA

?I like that idea!

Hmm, there's quite a bit of plot in there that I think you'd need to have explained concurrently with the fight, so it actually has meaning. Look at it this way:

Scenario 1:
The fight rages on for a while, and when it's over the winners explain why they were fighting.

Scenario 2:
During the conflict, both the rebel leader and the King have breif 'action' conversations with their men, about what their current goals are. Rebel says something like "if we don't succeed here today, all hope is lost for those poor bastards", and the King would be rambling about how great his plan was, how he's not going to lose all that hard work brainwashing over this.

Morgneto, Master of Morgnetism