Why does some old martial arts movies have odd fight scenes?

moonhill99

Brown Belt
Joined
Mar 5, 2015
Messages
445
Reaction score
18
Why does some old martial arts movies have really odd fight scenes that look like an almost a dance when fighting.

Like this one that looks more like a dance. This would never get passed today in the modern would a fight scene like this. It just bad compared to like today standard it looks like a dance.

Why did some of the fight scenes and seems to be more so kung fu fight scenes look like that back in those old movies like almost dance?

I don’t know what is worse now like some of those old odd fight scenes or the new modern fight scenes now in hollywood with the shaky camera and really ultra close up shots and jump cuts.
 
It is an art style.like any sort of movie.

Ip man is probably the same sort of thing unless I have missed some sort of nuanc. . And a modern movie.

 
The public knew little about MA, especially in the 60s/70s still believing it was all about esoteric ‘leverage’ techniques that could propel an opponent at high velocity through the air, or even Eastern spiritual magic powers, forged by meditating under freezing waterfalls by robed warrior monks. It was an enticing notion and that’s what film makers presented to their audiences, already familiar with Chinese opera, acrobats and the like…give them what they want!

Today, film combat it equally florid and unrealistic with telegraphed, big techniques, high kicks and the ability to effortlessly take multiple devastating blows with seemingly little effect. They're just as ridiculous but entertaining: film is….🤔…theatre!
 
It is an art style.like any sort of movie.

Ip man is probably the same sort of thing unless I have missed some sort of nuanc. . And a modern movie.


There is little bit of dance in that video but not as extreme as the above video. This video has lot of ultra close up shots and jump cuts and I hate hollywood that does this with so many movies as it is worse than seeing really ultra light sparring where they pull back and not really striking the person. The ultra zoom in close up shots and jump cuts are just extensive now in so many movies these days.
 
Last edited:
The public knew little about MA, especially in the 60s/70s still believing it was all about esoteric ‘leverage’ techniques that could propel an opponent at high velocity through the air, or even Eastern spiritual magic powers, forged by meditating under freezing waterfalls by robed warrior monks. It was an enticing notion and that’s what film makers presented to their audiences, already familiar with Chinese opera, acrobats and the like…give them what they want!

Today, film combat it equally florid and unrealistic with telegraphed, big techniques, high kicks and the ability to effortlessly take multiple devastating blows with seemingly little effect. They're just as ridiculous but entertaining: film is….🤔…theatre!

People memories fight moves in layout order you strike me here and I will than block your second strike here and I will hit you here and you than strike me here and I will block your number three strike here and than you kick me here and I will fall back here and than you strike you here and you do a flying kick here and so on and so on is just memories a fight moves for the hollywood viewer.

This is well one thing but ultra zoom in shots and jump cuts hollywood seems to loves this now because they don’t have to film the fight scenes 10 times or more if you slipped up on your 32 strike and used block and it was suppose to be strike or you strike here and it was suppose to be higher up. The ultra zoom in shots and jump cuts is really big in the number two video above. As they don’t have to film the from start to end the fight scene only part they messed up on.

It seems with the matrix movie hollywood really seems to go all out with jump cuts and ultra zoom in shots now. The shaky camera is other thing hollywood is doing now with a lot of movies.
 
Last edited:
Most things in movies are not shown as they are, but as people think they should be, or what people will accept.
(And by "people," I mean their target market, which is as broad as possible, to make as much money as possible.)

So, the martial arts style in a given film suits the target market of the time and place, as seen by the specific filmmakers. It has nothing to do with what would happen in a real fight. Other factors are budget, what the actors can actually do, how much time is dedicated to rehearsal, and how much importance is given to the fight in the greater context of the film.
 
The purpose of martial arts scenes in movies, just like swashbuckling movie swordfights, is to be exciting, not accurate. Also, each part of a movie fight has to be choreographed so the scene can be "blocked" for camera angles, sound, prop setups, etc. It's only been recently that some movies have tried to introduce some realism, like in the John Wick movies, even though those fights are still drawn out fantasies of how a real fight would go. Another recent development is long, single shot fight scenes with no cuts, which are very hard to film. They have to be extensively rehearsed and then shot in one take.

I found a study, linked below, where 200 real life H2H fights caught on video were analyzed. The average length of the fights was 47 seconds. And that only varied slightly between one-on-one and multiple opponent fights. Also, most fights studied did not have a clear winner. If a knockout or TKO occurred, it was generally in the first 10 seconds. So a real fight would not make good fodder for an action movie.

 
Last edited:
The purpose of martial arts scenes in movies, just like swashbuckling movie swordfights, is to be exciting, not accurate. Also, each part of a movie fight has to be choreographed so the scene can be "blocked" for camera angles, sound, prop setups, etc. It's only been recently that some movies have tried to introduce some realism, like in the John Wick movies, even though those fights are still drawn out fantasies of how a real fight would go. Another recent development is long, single shot fight scenes with no cuts, which are very hard to film. They have to be extensively rehearsed and then shot in one take.

I found a study, linked below, where 200 real life H2H fights caught on video were analyzed. The average length of the fights was 47 seconds. And that only varied slightly between one-on-one and multiple opponent fights. Also, most fights studied did not have a clear winner. If a knockout or TKO occurred, it was generally in the first 10 seconds. So a real fight would not make good fodder for an action movie.

The choreographing is not really the problem the problem is shaky-cam/quick-cuts and jump cuts now. And some older kung fu movies that look like almost a dance.

There are short martial arts demo choreographing youtube videos nicer looking and put together then a million dollar budget movies. Even if it not really fight scene.



Even older steven seagal movies are better than this ultra zoom in close up shots and shaky-cam/quick-cuts and jump cuts.

Well steven seagal older movies did have some of this not any where like the second view posted.

When steven seagal tries to fight mostly using wing chun it looks more of than just using hard aikido and a bit wing chun here and there.


Hollywood will never be like street fight or MMA as people would get hurt so they go for choreographing. Also street fights and boxing is less flashy than some one doing flashy moves. The belief a kung fu fighter can do spinning jump kick or flying kick is more flashy than lower kicks below the chest even if most of the time works better for fighting or self defence.

Even if self dense or cage fight spinning jump kick or flying kick are much harder to pull of and more likely you could fall down if not done right and time right it is still more flashy in the public eye.

I’m not sure why some of those old kung fu movies had odd fighting almost like a dance may be like poster above said the general public had no idea what fighting was like and on an old VHS tapes looks like they are making contact than pulling back. Now those odd dance like fighting scenes would not be allowed now because people know what fighting is now.

But in 2000s hollywood gone all in with those really close up shots and shaky-cam/quick-cuts and jump cuts.
 
Why does some old martial arts movies have really odd fight scenes that look like an almost a dance when fighting.

Like this one that looks more like a dance. This would never get passed today in the modern would a fight scene like this. It just bad compared to like today standard it looks like a dance.

Why did some of the fight scenes and seems to be more so kung fu fight scenes look like that back in those old movies like almost dance?

I don’t know what is worse now like some of those old odd fight scenes or the new modern fight scenes now in hollywood with the shaky camera and really ultra close up shots and jump cuts.
What's wrong with those scenes. Nobody said they are real, neither are those newer ones from today. These are from 75 to 79 era, I am very familiar with these. Then all of a sudden, they started using speeded up fighting scenes in the 80s. I stopped watching all the fighting stuff since.

I never like Jackie Chan, to me, that's really acrobat than MA. Is Chan even a real martial artist?

These are almost right after Bruce Lee. Bruce Lee was impressive, at least this style acknowledged they are not as fast, they more put in the kung fu moves. The worst is the speeded up stuffs in the 80s.

After watching UFC and MMA, none are realistic anyway, at least these are more artistic.
 
Last edited:
Why does some old martial arts movies have really odd fight scenes that look like an almost a dance when fighting.

Like this one that looks more like a dance. This would never get passed today in the modern would a fight scene like this. It just bad compared to like today standard it looks like a dance.

Why did some of the fight scenes and seems to be more so kung fu fight scenes look like that back in those old movies like almost dance?

I don’t know what is worse now like some of those old odd fight scenes or the new modern fight scenes now in hollywood with the shaky camera and really ultra close up shots and jump cuts.
Traditionally Martial arts sequences were Choreographed for the stage , Live performance, they were supposed to be fantastic and larger than life NOT Real. Check out Wushu Connection to Chinese Opera, Japanese theatre , Okinawan Theatre . It looked like dance because that is what it was . Many Okinawan Master believe that there is a strong connection between Traditional cultural dances and the Martial art of the culture.
 
One thing to keep in mind is that movies aren't about accuracy or realism. They're about telling a compelling story and/or the visual spectacle. Michael Jai White recently did a video with Jesse Enkamp (youtube's "Karate Nerd") discussing the difference between effective technique and fight choreography. You see this in WWE. It's a principle we used in my demonstration team. The audience needs to see, hear, and feel the techniques more than the other person does. This requires a bit of telegraph and showmanship to make work effectively.

And it's not just martial arts. Take any show or movie that covers military intelligence, like 24 or NCIS. There's inevitably going to be a scene where there are active hacks going on in the CTU or NCIS system, and we'll get a chance to see how clever the bad guys are, but that Chloe and Abby are even faster and more clever. There's going to be someone saying to just cut the network, but "No, that's the last resort!"

In reality, if you are getting hacked, the first thing you do is unplug from the network. Just like in reality, if you're in danger of getting into a fight, the first thing you do is deescalate. A good exception is in a film like The Matrix, where just unplugging actually kills a human being.
 
Is Chan even a real martial artist?
According to his bio, apparently he wasn't originally. He learned his "martial arts" and acrobatics at a Chinese opera school that was also attended by actor Sammo Hung. So his martial arts were probably stage martial arts. However, after moving to LA, he apparently earned a legitimate black belt in Hapkido from a major instructor.
 
According to his bio, apparently he wasn't originally. He learned his "martial arts" and acrobatics at a Chinese opera school that was also attended by actor Sammo Hung. So his martial arts were probably stage martial arts. However, after moving to LA, he apparently earned a legitimate black belt in Hapkido from a major instructor.
I have not really pay attention of his later years, just from the 70s and 80s, I just didn't feel he was doing MA, just acrobatics. Thanks for the clarification.
 
The clip shown in the first post belongs to later 70s with a lot of acrobatic stuff. This is about the first one of that era Shaolin Martial Arts. This is the movie that made some big name stars. Friends that was into MA thought this is very good movie at the time. I like movies of this era.

I personally only learn WC for little while, so I don't want to comment on the different styles, my friend said this are very real kung fu. From the movements, look to me so too. Nothing acrobatic. Later in 1975 or 76 when Jackie Chan became famous, they started to add acrobatic stuffs which ruin the simple but more real kung fu.

But still nothing is worst to me when they try to fight like Bruce Lee but too slow. They had to speed up the fighting scene starting from early 80s. Never watch any MA movie since.
 
Last edited:
Most things in movies are not shown as they are, but as people think they should be, or what people will accept.
(And by "people," I mean their target market, which is as broad as possible, to make as much money as possible.)

So, the martial arts style in a given film suits the target market of the time and place, as seen by the specific filmmakers. It has nothing to do with what would happen in a real fight. Other factors are budget, what the actors can actually do, how much time is dedicated to rehearsal, and how much importance is given to the fight in the greater context of the film.

The thing is we have big studios spending millions on movies and we have people making home videos, martial arts demo and even martial arts sparring better looking than the million dollar budget movie with all those very ultra super close up shots and jump cuts because hollywood is to cheap to film the fight scenes 4 or 8 times to get the choreographing right if they make mistake on the choreographing.
 
The public knew little about MA, especially in the 60s/70s still believing it was all about esoteric ‘leverage’ techniques that could propel an opponent at high velocity through the air, or even Eastern spiritual magic powers, forged by meditating under freezing waterfalls by robed warrior monks. It was an enticing notion and that’s what film makers presented to their audiences, already familiar with Chinese opera, acrobats and the like…give them what they want!

Today, film combat it equally florid and unrealistic with telegraphed, big techniques, high kicks and the ability to effortlessly take multiple devastating blows with seemingly little effect. They're just as ridiculous but entertaining: film is….🤔…theatre!
Also the public that did not know much about martial arts and fighting at the time is probably why some of those old kung fu fighting scenes had dance like fight to them.

And also the fact that they did not want to make contact that could cause injuries and when the public started to learn martial arts and see fighting they gone with very super ultra close up shots and jump cuts to save cost of filming the fight scenen 4 to 8 times to get it right.
 
Back
Top