When it comes to writing action scenes, I find that sometimes I have to get in the way of character logic just so the action scenes can happen. But I find this happens in other movies as well.

For example, in The Dark Knight (2008), when Batman is chasing the semi truck that Joker is in while Joker is trying to kill Harvey Dent, during the chase, Batman decides to take a short cut through a mall by firing bullets from guns on his vehicle. Well if Batman had these guns on his vehicle the whole time, then why didn't he just use them to shoot out the Joker's tires in the first place, instead of allowing the chase to continue for so long and risk firing the bullets at civilian's while shooting his way through the mall? Cause then there would not be much of a chase... They had Batman defy logic so more of a chase could happen.

Or how in Die Hard (1988) for example, Kristoff is looking for McClane while armed with a submachine gun and McClane is hiding. When Kristoff gets close enough McClane comes out of hiding and presses his pistol against Kristoff's head and tells him to drop the gun.

Kristoff doesn't drop the gun. Realistically a police officer would tell him again, and if the man doesn't drop it, the cop would shoot him, or at least shoot his arm to get him to drop the gun, since he is close enough that he is touching him with the gun, in order to shoot the arm successfully.

But McClane decides to hit him over the head with the gun, get on top of him, drop his gun and try to wrestle the machine gun out of Kristoff's hands. This is of course illogical cause it's a good way to risk getting shot a lot more, compared to shooting him which is what a cop would logically do... especially if read real police stories. No cops jump on top of a guy armed with a machine and drop their pistols to try to wrestle the gun out of his hands.

They wrote it this way in Die Hard so a fight scene could occur, cause if McClane didn't do the logical thing, then there would be no fight.

Another example is 3:10 to Yuma (2007), where Russell Crowe is a prisoner being transported and he gets loose and overtakes his captors three times, if I recall correctly, and these three escapes lead to fight scenes.

But they reason why Crowe was able to escape and overpower them over and over, is because they handcuffed his hands in front of him instead of behind his back, and after Crowe kills the first guy, they still don't learn their lesson. The reason why they don't is to have him overpower his captors more times, for more fighting and suspense.

Or how in The Thing for example, the characters know they are dealing with a monster than can perfectly imitate any living organism including people. The logical thing to do would be to stick together and not separate to make sure none of them go off alone, and are taken over. However, they keep constantly go off in different directions all the time, for the sake of creating suspense, as to who is real or not.

Or how in Internal Affairs, Andy Garcia's character is trying to predict where the villain will strike next, and he thinks that the villain will come after his wife. However, instead of getting to nearest payphone and calling for police that are closer to his wife than he is, to go there and protect her, he decides not to call for help, and go there all by himself, hoping to get there in time, and take on the villain all by himself.

They did this for the sake of a one one one stand off of course.

But how do I write it like that, where you can have characters make illogical decisions for the sake of suspense, and have the audience suspend disbelief, and not let it bother them, if that makes sense?

Related Topics: