History Main / Flynning

23rd Jun '17 4:01:43 AM jormis29
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* Exception: Unlike modern performers, many actors from UsefulNotes/TheGoldenAgeOfHollywood, such as Basil Rathbone and Tyrone Power, were actually champion swordsmen in RealLife. Combined with a very active fencing scene in Hollywood at the time, this led to superb fights in films where all of the male leads knew what they were doing.

to:

* Exception: Unlike modern performers, many actors from UsefulNotes/TheGoldenAgeOfHollywood, such as Basil Rathbone Creator/BasilRathbone and Tyrone Power, were actually champion swordsmen in RealLife. Combined with a very active fencing scene in Hollywood at the time, this led to superb fights in films where all of the male leads knew what they were doing.



* In ''VideoGame/PrinceOfPersia1'', the sword fighting animations were rotoscoped from Errol Flynn and Basil Rathbone's duel in ''Film/TheAdventuresOfRobinHood''.

to:

* In ''VideoGame/PrinceOfPersia1'', the sword fighting animations were rotoscoped from Errol Flynn Creator/ErrolFlynn and Basil Rathbone's Creator/BasilRathbone's duel in ''Film/TheAdventuresOfRobinHood''.
16th Jun '17 8:01:27 PM TheBigBopper
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* Crops up on occasion in Wrestling, where the wrestlers will do this, usually with steel chairs or kendo sticks. Professional Wrestling in general could be considered a form of Flynning, but with amateur wrestling and martial arts instead of swords.

to:

* Crops up on occasion in Wrestling, where the wrestlers will do this, usually with steel chairs or kendo sticks.''shinai'' ("kendo sticks"). Professional Wrestling in general could be considered a form of Flynning, but with amateur wrestling and martial arts instead of swords.



** Kendo has similarly developed into a de-fanged version of its martial ancestor ''UsefulNotes/{{Kenjutsu}}''. Around the beginning of the 18th century, practitioners began making various concessions to safety: the lighter and more flexible bamboo practice sword (''shinai'') replaced the solid hardwood ''[[WoodenKatanasAreEvenBetter bokuto]]'' formerly used in sword practice, and protective armor (''bogu'') started to be worn. Especially since its revival after World War II it has been explicitly defined as an activity for self-cultivation rather than training for combat, while ''kenjutsu'' and other forms of ''koryuu'' carry on the older martial legacy. In modern kendo, there are four designated target areas: cuts may be made to the wrists, head, or body, and thrusts may only be aimed at the throat.

to:

** Kendo has similarly developed into a de-fanged version of its martial ancestor ''UsefulNotes/{{Kenjutsu}}''. Around the beginning of the 18th century, practitioners began making various concessions to safety: the lighter and more flexible bamboo practice sword (''shinai'') replaced the solid hardwood ''[[WoodenKatanasAreEvenBetter bokuto]]'' formerly used in sword practice, and protective armor (''bogu'') started to be worn. Especially since its revival after World War II it has been explicitly defined as an activity for self-cultivation rather than training for combat, while ''kenjutsu'' and other forms of ''koryuu'' carry on the older martial legacy. In modern kendo, there are four designated target areas: cuts may be made to the wrists, head, or body, and thrusts may only be aimed at the throat. Also, because of the specific rules, the guards ''chudan'', ''jodan'', and ''seigan'' dominate while ''hasso'', ''gedan'', and ''waki'' have fallen out of use.
16th Jun '17 7:52:11 PM TheBigBopper
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** Kendo has similarly developed into a de-fanged version of its martial ancestor, ''UsefulNotes/{{Kenjutsu}}'', replacing the solid ''[[WoodenKatanasAreEvenBetter bokuto]]'' with the lighter and more flexible ''shinai'', implementing the use of protective armor, mandating four legitimate target areas, and other changes to practice and competition that began in the 18th century. Especially since it's revival after World War II it has been explicitly defined as an activity for self-cultivation rather than training for combat, while ''kenjutsu'' and other forms of ''koryuu'' carry on the older martial legacy.

to:

** Kendo has similarly developed into a de-fanged version of its martial ancestor, ''UsefulNotes/{{Kenjutsu}}'', replacing ancestor ''UsefulNotes/{{Kenjutsu}}''. Around the beginning of the 18th century, practitioners began making various concessions to safety: the lighter and more flexible bamboo practice sword (''shinai'') replaced the solid hardwood ''[[WoodenKatanasAreEvenBetter bokuto]]'' with the lighter formerly used in sword practice, and more flexible ''shinai'', implementing the use of protective armor, mandating four legitimate target areas, and other changes armor (''bogu'') started to practice and competition that began in the 18th century. be worn. Especially since it's its revival after World War II it has been explicitly defined as an activity for self-cultivation rather than training for combat, while ''kenjutsu'' and other forms of ''koryuu'' carry on the older martial legacy.legacy. In modern kendo, there are four designated target areas: cuts may be made to the wrists, head, or body, and thrusts may only be aimed at the throat.
16th Jun '17 7:37:36 PM TheBigBopper
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** The Olympic sport of fencing has steadily evolved away from its origins in dueling, to the point where it can no longer be said to teach you how to properly defend yourself with a sword. While it can be a good foundation for learning historical or classical fencing later on because it teaches many important fundamentals, and saying it isn't a martial art isn't meant to deny the athleticism and skill involved, you won't learn how to avoid injury if you're just training for the Olympics. In order to make practice safer, the weapons have become much lighter and more flexible so that they no longer behave like the weapons they were originally supposed to simulate. The "[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flick_(fencing) flick]]" in foil is basically flicking your blade so that the tip curves around your opponent's parry and touches them at an angle, a move which is impossible using a real, stiff sword and which is highly controversial because some consider it cheating. A similar phenomeonon in saber is called "whip-over", and these days because of electronic scoring a sabreur can hit with the flat of the blade rather than the forward or reverse edge and it still counts. There are also various rules that in theory are supposed to ensure that the fencers use sound principles of defense and need to score clean hits that would draw blood if the swords were real, but in practice the need to score points creates perverse incentives for all kinds of behavior that would be suicidal in a real fight. Right of way is supposed to encourage fencers to attack first instead of just cowering at each other, and to make sure that the fencer being attacked has to successfully defend before launching the attack on his own (in order to avoid double-hits), but this can lead to attackers becoming reckless in a way they wouldn't be if there wasn't right of way. Electronic scoring, which we've already mentioned, was introduced in order to prevent the subjectivity of the judges from messing up a call, and in that regard it was definitely an improvement. However, this has made the distinction between square and glancing hits with the thrust weapons harder to measure, and introduces the problem of cut-out times. The cut-out time is the maximum time between hits for the scoring mechanism to register them as simultaneous, and if that time is exceeded then only the first hit to land will count. In ''épée'' this cut-out time is a mere 40 milliseconds, meaning that a second hit landing even a little outside this window would still appear to be practically simultaneous with the first. In 2004-5, the foil cut-out time was reduced to 350 milliseconds and saber to 120 milliseconds. The cut-out time results in a lot of double-hits and difficulty for the referees, and an unreasonable advantage for the attacker. This is a grossly oversimplified look at complex problems which are SeriousBusiness to people in the fencing world, and they are unlikely to ever be solved to everyone's satisfaction since any attempt to correct a problem seems to create a problem of its own.

to:

** The Olympic sport of fencing has steadily evolved away from its origins in dueling, to the point where it can no longer be said to teach you how to properly defend yourself with a sword. While it can be a good foundation for learning historical or classical fencing later on because it teaches many important fundamentals, and saying it isn't a martial art isn't meant to deny the athleticism and skill involved, you won't learn how to avoid injury if you're just training for the Olympics. In order to make practice safer, the weapons have become much lighter and more flexible so that they no longer behave like the weapons they were originally supposed to simulate. The "[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flick_(fencing) flick]]" in foil is basically flicking your blade so that the tip curves around your opponent's parry and touches them at an angle, a move which is impossible using a real, stiff sword and which is highly controversial because some consider it cheating. A similar phenomeonon in saber is called "whip-over", and these days because of electronic scoring a sabreur can hit with the flat of the blade rather than the forward or reverse edge and it still counts. There are also various rules that in theory are supposed to ensure that the fencers use sound principles of defense and need to score clean hits that would draw blood if the swords were real, but in practice the need to score points creates perverse incentives for all kinds of behavior that would be suicidal in a real fight. Right of way is supposed to encourage fencers to attack first instead of just cowering at each other, and to make sure that the fencer being attacked has to successfully defend before launching the attack on his own (in order to avoid double-hits), but this can lead to attackers becoming reckless in a way they wouldn't be if there wasn't right of way. Electronic scoring, which we've already mentioned, was introduced in order to prevent the subjectivity of the judges from messing up a call, and in that regard it was definitely an improvement. However, this has made the distinction between square and glancing hits with the thrust weapons harder to measure, and introduces the problem of cut-out times. The cut-out time is the maximum time between hits for the scoring mechanism to register them as simultaneous, and if that time is exceeded then only the first hit to land will count. In ''épée'' this cut-out time is a mere 40 milliseconds, meaning that a second hit landing even a little outside this window would still appear to be practically simultaneous with the first.first, yet only the first hit would register. In 2004-5, the foil cut-out time was reduced to 350 milliseconds and saber to 120 milliseconds. The cut-out time results in a lot of double-hits and difficulty for the referees, and an unreasonable advantage for the attacker. This is a grossly oversimplified look at complex problems which are SeriousBusiness to people in the fencing world, and they are unlikely to ever be solved to everyone's satisfaction since any attempt to correct a problem seems to create a problem of its own.
16th Jun '17 7:31:53 PM TheBigBopper
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** The Olympic sport of fencing has steadily evolved away from its origins in dueling, to the point where it can no longer be said to teach you how to properly defend yourself with a sword. While it can be a good foundation for learning historical or classical fencing later on because it teaches many important fundamentals, and saying it isn't a martial art isn't meant to deny the athleticism and skill involved, you won't learn how to avoid injury if you're just training for the Olympics. In order to make practice safer, the weapons have become much lighter and more flexible so that they no longer behave like the weapons they were originally supposed to simulate. The "[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flick_(fencing) flick]]" in foil is basically flicking your blade so that the tip curves around your opponent's parry and touches them at an angle, a move which is impossible using a real, stiff sword and which is highly controversial because some consider it cheating. A similar phenomeonon in saber is called "whip-over", and these days because of electronic scoring a sabreur can hit with the flat of the blade rather than the forward or reverse edge and it still counts. There are also various rules that in theory are supposed to ensure that the fencers use sound principles of defense and need to score clean hits that would draw blood if the swords were real, but in practice the need to score points creates perverse incentives for all kinds of behavior that would be suicidal in a real fight. Right of way is supposed to encourage fencers to attack first instead of just cowering at each other, and to make sure that the fencer being attacked has to successfully defend before launching the attack on his own (in order to avoid double-hits), but this can lead to attackers becoming reckless in a way they wouldn't be if there wasn't right of way. Electronic scoring, which we've already mentioned, was introduced in order to prevent the subjectivity of the judges from messing up a call, and in that regard it was definitely an improvement. However, this has made the distinction between square and glancing hits with the thrust weapons harder to measure, and introduces the problem of cut-out times. The cut-out time is the maximum time between hits for the scoring mechanism to register them as simultaneous, and if that time is exceeded only the first hit to land will count. In ''épée'' this cut-out time is a mere 40 milliseconds, meaning that a second hit landing even a little outside this window would still appear to be practically simultaneous with the first. In 2004-5, the foil cut-out time was reduced to 350 milliseconds and saber to 120 milliseconds. The cut-out time results in a lot of double-hits and difficulty for the referees, and an unreasonable advantage for the attacker. This is a grossly oversimplified look at complex problems which are SeriousBusiness to people in the fencing world, and they are unlikely to ever be solved to everyone's satisfaction since any attempt to correct a problem seems to create a problem of its own.

to:

** The Olympic sport of fencing has steadily evolved away from its origins in dueling, to the point where it can no longer be said to teach you how to properly defend yourself with a sword. While it can be a good foundation for learning historical or classical fencing later on because it teaches many important fundamentals, and saying it isn't a martial art isn't meant to deny the athleticism and skill involved, you won't learn how to avoid injury if you're just training for the Olympics. In order to make practice safer, the weapons have become much lighter and more flexible so that they no longer behave like the weapons they were originally supposed to simulate. The "[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flick_(fencing) flick]]" in foil is basically flicking your blade so that the tip curves around your opponent's parry and touches them at an angle, a move which is impossible using a real, stiff sword and which is highly controversial because some consider it cheating. A similar phenomeonon in saber is called "whip-over", and these days because of electronic scoring a sabreur can hit with the flat of the blade rather than the forward or reverse edge and it still counts. There are also various rules that in theory are supposed to ensure that the fencers use sound principles of defense and need to score clean hits that would draw blood if the swords were real, but in practice the need to score points creates perverse incentives for all kinds of behavior that would be suicidal in a real fight. Right of way is supposed to encourage fencers to attack first instead of just cowering at each other, and to make sure that the fencer being attacked has to successfully defend before launching the attack on his own (in order to avoid double-hits), but this can lead to attackers becoming reckless in a way they wouldn't be if there wasn't right of way. Electronic scoring, which we've already mentioned, was introduced in order to prevent the subjectivity of the judges from messing up a call, and in that regard it was definitely an improvement. However, this has made the distinction between square and glancing hits with the thrust weapons harder to measure, and introduces the problem of cut-out times. The cut-out time is the maximum time between hits for the scoring mechanism to register them as simultaneous, and if that time is exceeded then only the first hit to land will count. In ''épée'' this cut-out time is a mere 40 milliseconds, meaning that a second hit landing even a little outside this window would still appear to be practically simultaneous with the first. In 2004-5, the foil cut-out time was reduced to 350 milliseconds and saber to 120 milliseconds. The cut-out time results in a lot of double-hits and difficulty for the referees, and an unreasonable advantage for the attacker. This is a grossly oversimplified look at complex problems which are SeriousBusiness to people in the fencing world, and they are unlikely to ever be solved to everyone's satisfaction since any attempt to correct a problem seems to create a problem of its own.
16th Jun '17 7:30:58 PM TheBigBopper
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** The Olympic sport of fencing has steadily evolved away from its origins in dueling, to the point where it can no longer be said to teach you how to properly defend yourself with a sword. While it can be a good foundation for learning historical or classical fencing later on because it teaches many important fundamentals, and saying it isn't a martial art isn't meant to deny the athleticism and skill involved, you won't learn how to avoid injury if you're just training for the Olympics. In order to make practice safer, the weapons have become much lighter and more flexible so that they no longer behave like the weapons they were originally supposed to simulate. The "[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flick_(fencing) flick]]" in foil is basically flicking your blade so that the tip curves around your opponent's parry and touches them at an angle, a move which is impossible using a real, stiff sword and which is highly controversial because some consider it cheating. A similar phenomeonon in saber is called "whip-over", and these days because of electronic scoring a sabreur can hit with the flat of the blade rather than the forward or reverse edge and it still counts. There are also various rules that in theory are supposed to ensure that the fencers use sound principles of defense and need to score clean hits that would draw blood if the swords were real, but in practice the need to score points creates perverse incentives for all kinds of behavior that would be suicidal in a real fight. Right of way is supposed to encourage fencers to attack first instead of just cowering at each other, and to make sure that the fencer being attacked has to successfully defend before launching the attack on his own (in order to avoid double-hits), but this can lead to attackers becoming reckless in a way they wouldn't be if there wasn't right of way. Electronic scoring, which we've already mentioned, was introduced in order to prevent the subjectivity of the judges from messing up a call, and in that regard it was definitely an improvement. However, this has made to the distinction between square and glancing hits with the thrust weapons harder to measure, and introduces the problem of cut-out times. The cut-out time is the maximum time between hits for the scoring mechanism to register them as simultaneous, and if that time is exceeded only the first hit to land will count. In ''épée'' this cut-out time is a mere 40 milliseconds, meaning that a second hit landing even a little outside this window would still appear to be practically simultaneous with the first. In 2004-5, the foil cut-out time was reduced to 350 milliseconds and saber to 120 milliseconds. The cut-out time results in a lot of double-hits and difficulty for the referees, and an unreasonable advantage for the attacker. This is a grossly oversimplified look at complex problems which are SeriousBusiness to people in the fencing world, and they are unlikely to ever be solved to everyone's satisfaction since any attempt to correct a problem seems to create a problem of its own.

to:

** The Olympic sport of fencing has steadily evolved away from its origins in dueling, to the point where it can no longer be said to teach you how to properly defend yourself with a sword. While it can be a good foundation for learning historical or classical fencing later on because it teaches many important fundamentals, and saying it isn't a martial art isn't meant to deny the athleticism and skill involved, you won't learn how to avoid injury if you're just training for the Olympics. In order to make practice safer, the weapons have become much lighter and more flexible so that they no longer behave like the weapons they were originally supposed to simulate. The "[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flick_(fencing) flick]]" in foil is basically flicking your blade so that the tip curves around your opponent's parry and touches them at an angle, a move which is impossible using a real, stiff sword and which is highly controversial because some consider it cheating. A similar phenomeonon in saber is called "whip-over", and these days because of electronic scoring a sabreur can hit with the flat of the blade rather than the forward or reverse edge and it still counts. There are also various rules that in theory are supposed to ensure that the fencers use sound principles of defense and need to score clean hits that would draw blood if the swords were real, but in practice the need to score points creates perverse incentives for all kinds of behavior that would be suicidal in a real fight. Right of way is supposed to encourage fencers to attack first instead of just cowering at each other, and to make sure that the fencer being attacked has to successfully defend before launching the attack on his own (in order to avoid double-hits), but this can lead to attackers becoming reckless in a way they wouldn't be if there wasn't right of way. Electronic scoring, which we've already mentioned, was introduced in order to prevent the subjectivity of the judges from messing up a call, and in that regard it was definitely an improvement. However, this has made to the distinction between square and glancing hits with the thrust weapons harder to measure, and introduces the problem of cut-out times. The cut-out time is the maximum time between hits for the scoring mechanism to register them as simultaneous, and if that time is exceeded only the first hit to land will count. In ''épée'' this cut-out time is a mere 40 milliseconds, meaning that a second hit landing even a little outside this window would still appear to be practically simultaneous with the first. In 2004-5, the foil cut-out time was reduced to 350 milliseconds and saber to 120 milliseconds. The cut-out time results in a lot of double-hits and difficulty for the referees, and an unreasonable advantage for the attacker. This is a grossly oversimplified look at complex problems which are SeriousBusiness to people in the fencing world, and they are unlikely to ever be solved to everyone's satisfaction since any attempt to correct a problem seems to create a problem of its own.
16th Jun '17 7:27:50 PM TheBigBopper
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* Any sword fight that has rules to prevent injury or is scored as a competition is almost flynning by definition; the only question--and it is a controversial question--is to what degree it does or doesn't simulate a real sword fight. Obviously, even students training for real combat cannot learn or practice under the same conditions as an actual bloody fight, or else they would get maimed or killed before they even attained proficiency. You have to watch their practice and make sure they aren't trying to kill each other, that they learn to respect the blade and aren't doing things like eye-gouging and biting. In that sense, the first defense against injury is voluntary restraint and control. Blunt and foiled swords were the first compromise in equipment to improve safety, and already this creates a huge difference in how the fencers will behave in sparring, because they will be a ''heck'' of a lot more cautious and less prone to being LeeroyJenkins if they know their opponent's sword can wound them. Then you introduce things like masks and padded armor, which almost inevitably lead to more reckless tactics since the fear of injury is lessened--although the [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation#Peltzman_effect Peltzman effect]] can ironically lead to ''more'' injury when the fighters learn to rely on the armor instead of self-control and start hitting each other as hard as they can. Add rules against grappling, right-of-way, designated target areas, and before you know it it's a slippery slope.

to:

* Any sword fight that has rules to prevent injury or that is scored as a competition is almost flynning by definition; the only question--and it is a controversial question--is to what degree it does or doesn't simulate a real sword fight. Obviously, even students training for real combat cannot learn or practice under the same conditions as an actual bloody fight, or else they would get maimed or killed before they even attained proficiency. You have to watch their practice and make sure they aren't trying to kill each other, that they learn to respect the blade and aren't doing things like eye-gouging and biting. In that sense, the first defense against injury is voluntary restraint and control. Blunt and foiled swords were the first compromise in equipment to improve safety, and already this creates a huge difference in how the fencers will behave in sparring, because they will be a ''heck'' of a lot more cautious and less prone to being LeeroyJenkins if they know their opponent's sword can wound them. Then you introduce things like masks and padded armor, which almost inevitably lead to more reckless tactics since the fear of injury is lessened--although the [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation#Peltzman_effect Peltzman effect]] can ironically lead to ''more'' injury when the fighters learn to rely on the armor instead of self-control and start hitting each other as hard as they can. Add rules against grappling, right-of-way, designated target areas, and before you know it it's a slippery slope.
16th Jun '17 7:27:09 PM TheBigBopper
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* Any sword fight that has rules to prevent injury or is scored as a competition is almost flynning by definition; the only question--and it is a controversial question--is to what degree it does or doesn't simulate a real sword fight. Obviously, even students training for real combat cannot learn or practice under the same conditions as an actual bloody fight, or else they would be get maimed or killed before they even attained proficiency. You have to watch their practice and make sure they aren't trying to kill each other, that they learn to respect the blade and aren't doing things like eye-gouging and biting. In that sense, the first defense against injury is voluntary restraint and control. Blunt and foiled swords were the first compromise in equipment to improve safety, and already this creates a huge difference in how the fencers will behave in sparring, because they will be a ''heck'' of a lot more cautious and less prone to being LeeroyJenkins if they know their opponent's sword can wound them. Then you introduce things like masks and padded armor, which almost inevitably lead to more reckless tactics since the fear of injury is lessened--although the [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation#Peltzman_effect Peltzman effect]] can ironically lead to ''more'' injury when the fighters learn to rely on the armor instead of self-control and start hitting each other as hard as they can. Add rules against grappling, right-of-way, designated target areas, and before you know it it's a slippery slope.

to:

* Any sword fight that has rules to prevent injury or is scored as a competition is almost flynning by definition; the only question--and it is a controversial question--is to what degree it does or doesn't simulate a real sword fight. Obviously, even students training for real combat cannot learn or practice under the same conditions as an actual bloody fight, or else they would be get maimed or killed before they even attained proficiency. You have to watch their practice and make sure they aren't trying to kill each other, that they learn to respect the blade and aren't doing things like eye-gouging and biting. In that sense, the first defense against injury is voluntary restraint and control. Blunt and foiled swords were the first compromise in equipment to improve safety, and already this creates a huge difference in how the fencers will behave in sparring, because they will be a ''heck'' of a lot more cautious and less prone to being LeeroyJenkins if they know their opponent's sword can wound them. Then you introduce things like masks and padded armor, which almost inevitably lead to more reckless tactics since the fear of injury is lessened--although the [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation#Peltzman_effect Peltzman effect]] can ironically lead to ''more'' injury when the fighters learn to rely on the armor instead of self-control and start hitting each other as hard as they can. Add rules against grappling, right-of-way, designated target areas, and before you know it it's a slippery slope.
16th Jun '17 7:22:02 PM TheBigBopper
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Flynning exists, in live-action at least, so that non-expert actors can put on an entertaining show without causing RealLife injuries. The first problem is that most actors can't fence, and most fencers can't act. Neither skill is something you can teach someone properly in a short amount of time, and audiences are generally better at detecting wooden acting than unconvincing swordplay, so in most cases choreographers must try their best to teach people who already know how to act how to ''pretend'' they know how to fence. Usually the actors learn the sequence of moves in a fight by rote memorization without a good understanding of the underlying principles behind it. There is usually not much time to rehearse fights before filming, and with the number of behind-the-scenes moving parts that go into filming it's not uncommon for some last-minute problem to make them throw out the choreography and fall back on improvisation. This leads into the second problem: most stage and screen fights are done without face protection, and the risk of accidents is compounded when everyone is an amateur. Actors make their living with their bodies, and any injury that forces them to take time off to recover or blemishes their appearance can be ruinous for their career. The more famous a star, the more expensive they are to insure, and both the insurance companies and the actors' managers will throw a fit if you let them do something too dangerous. There are stunt doubles for productions that can afford it, but with the amount of dialogue and acting that goes into these scenes there's only so much an impostor can get away with. With all of these things in mind, it's all too understandible that the choreographer would sacrifice realism in order to minimize the risk of injury. Awkward prop weapons and costumes can be hard to work with too, and sometimes an important actor has some injury or disability that has to be covered up with flynning.

to:

Flynning exists, in live-action at least, so that non-expert actors can put on an entertaining show without causing RealLife injuries. The first problem is that most actors can't fence, and most fencers can't act. Neither skill is something you can teach someone properly in a short amount of time, and audiences are generally better at detecting wooden acting than unconvincing swordplay, so in most cases choreographers must try their best to teach people who already know how to act how to ''pretend'' they know how to fence. Usually the actors learn the sequence of moves in a fight by rote memorization without a good understanding of the underlying principles behind it. There is usually not much time to rehearse fights before filming, and with the number of behind-the-scenes moving parts that go into filming it's not uncommon for some last-minute problem to make them throw out the choreography and fall back on improvisation. This leads into the second problem: most stage and screen fights are done without hand or face protection, and the risk of accidents is compounded when everyone is an amateur. Actors make their living with their bodies, and any injury that blemishes their appearance or forces them to take time off to recover or blemishes their appearance can be ruinous for their career. The more famous a star, the more expensive they are to insure, and both the insurance companies and the actors' managers will throw a fit if you let them do something they consider too dangerous. There are stunt doubles for productions that can afford it, but with the amount of dialogue and acting that goes go into these scenes there's only so much an impostor can get away with. With all of these things in mind, it's all too understandible that the choreographer would sacrifice realism in order to minimize the risk of injury. Awkward prop weapons and costumes can be hard to work with too, and sometimes an important actor has some injury or disability that has to be covered up with flynning.
16th Jun '17 7:17:42 PM TheBigBopper
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Flynning exists, in live-action at least, so that non-expert actors can put on an entertaining show without causing RealLife injuries. The first problem is that most actors can't fence, and most fencers can't act. Neither skill is something you can teach someone properly in a short amount of time, and audiences are generally better at detecting wooden acting than unconvincing swordplay, so in most cases choreographers have try their best to teach people who already know how to act how to ''pretend'' they know how to fence. Usually the actors learn the sequence of moves in a fight by rote memorization without a good understanding of the underlying principles behind it. There is usually not much time to rehearse fights before filming, and with the number of behind-the-scenes moving parts that go into filming it's not uncommon for some last-minute problem to make them throw out the choreography and fall back on improvisation. This leads into the second problem: most stage and screen fights are done without face protection, and the risk of accidents is compounded when everyone is an amateur. Actors make their living with their bodies, and any injury that forces them to take time off to recover or blemishes their appearance can be ruinous for their career. The more famous a star, the more expensive they are to insure, and both the insurance companies and the actors' managers will throw a fit if you let them do something too dangerous. There are stunt doubles for productions that can afford it, but with the amount of dialogue and acting that goes into these scenes there's only so much an impostor can get away with. With all of these things in mind, it's all too understandible that the choreographer would sacrifice realism in order to minimize the risk of injury. Awkward prop weapons and costumes can be hard to work with too, and sometimes an important actor has some injury or disability that has to be covered up with flynning.

to:

Flynning exists, in live-action at least, so that non-expert actors can put on an entertaining show without causing RealLife injuries. The first problem is that most actors can't fence, and most fencers can't act. Neither skill is something you can teach someone properly in a short amount of time, and audiences are generally better at detecting wooden acting than unconvincing swordplay, so in most cases choreographers have must try their best to teach people who already know how to act how to ''pretend'' they know how to fence. Usually the actors learn the sequence of moves in a fight by rote memorization without a good understanding of the underlying principles behind it. There is usually not much time to rehearse fights before filming, and with the number of behind-the-scenes moving parts that go into filming it's not uncommon for some last-minute problem to make them throw out the choreography and fall back on improvisation. This leads into the second problem: most stage and screen fights are done without face protection, and the risk of accidents is compounded when everyone is an amateur. Actors make their living with their bodies, and any injury that forces them to take time off to recover or blemishes their appearance can be ruinous for their career. The more famous a star, the more expensive they are to insure, and both the insurance companies and the actors' managers will throw a fit if you let them do something too dangerous. There are stunt doubles for productions that can afford it, but with the amount of dialogue and acting that goes into these scenes there's only so much an impostor can get away with. With all of these things in mind, it's all too understandible that the choreographer would sacrifice realism in order to minimize the risk of injury. Awkward prop weapons and costumes can be hard to work with too, and sometimes an important actor has some injury or disability that has to be covered up with flynning.
This list shows the last 10 events of 249. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Main.Flynning