Why Is The Big Boss Always The Toughest?

[ToddRH]

I'm referring to the main villain of most movies that have a team of henchmen that the hero wades through (seemingly without a problem) but then the main guy, who is usually the nerdy/businessman type, beats the hero to an inch of his death. The hero wins but why was the main guy so tough but his henchmen weren't.

Case in point: "Walking Tall" with The Rock. Yea, he gets cut up but he makes mincemeat of all of the bad guys through the movie but then has a huge battle with the amin douche at the end.

Another case in point: "Quantum Of Solace". James Bond (almost) gets his ass handed to him by the nerdy villain at the end of the movie.

[LordSimen]

It's called a climax. Without a trial, or opposing force equal or greater that of the hero, there is no suspense nor will it feel like the hero really had to work for his victory, which leaves an unsatisfying ending.


That's not to say you couldn't do it where the villain is dispatched easily, I'm sure there are a number of films where they end with a quick villain death after whatever situation or trial the hero endures throughout the film. You could work it. Sometimes it also works on an ironic level. But the above reasons are pretty much why the villain is usually the toughest.

[Reigh Kaufman]

I loved the end of Zatoichi precisely because of the way it undermines the conventions of a showdown.

No, not the dance sequence.


*SPOILERS*


The climactic sword fight is over in one deadly stroke. No Errol Flynn ridiculousness, lasting ten minutes.

The point being: a realistic depiction of how deadly sword fighting actually is, and what it takes to be a true Samurai warrior.

I was flummoxed after the final showdown precisely because my anticipation of what a climactic fight scene usually is had been well and truly undermined.

Classic.


*End SPOILERS*

[Abbie Normal]

It's called a climax. Without a trial, or opposing force equal or greater that of the hero, there is no suspense nor will it feel like the hero really had to work for his victory, which leaves an unsatisfying ending.

Hmm. Good thought. That might explain why Superman movies are so anti climatic. Lex is not an equal or greater force.

[Badbird]

I'm referring to the main villain of most movies that have a team of henchmen that the hero wades through (seemingly without a problem)...

Well, there's the reason. He has to be the toughest. All his henchmen are incompetent.

Except for the one good henchmen who manages to give the hero's partner some trouble. You can tell he's the best henchman because he usually has the nicest boots, or best haircut, or something.

[Cop No. 633]

I loved the end of Zatoichi precisely because of the way it undermines the conventions of a showdown.

No, not the dance sequence.


*SPOILERS*


The climactic sword fight is over in one deadly stroke. No Errol Flynn ridiculousness, lasting ten minutes.

The point being: a realistic depiction of how deadly sword fighting actually is, and what it takes to be a true Samurai warrior.

I was flummoxed after the final showdown precisely because my anticipation of what a climactic fight scene usually is had been well and truly undermined.

Classic.


*End SPOILERS*

Good point. I also really enjoyed how fast the climax was. And who doesn't love that dance number at the end of the film? I'm not even keen on musicals, but that was very enjoyable!

[adamjohnson]

It's called a climax. Without a trial, or opposing force equal or greater that of the hero, there is no suspense nor will it feel like the hero really had to work for his victory, which leaves an unsatisfying ending.


That's not to say you couldn't do it where the villain is dispatched easily, I'm sure there are a number of films where they end with a quick villain death after whatever situation or trial the hero endures throughout the film. You could work it. Sometimes it also works on an ironic level. But the above reasons are pretty much why the villain is usually the toughest.


The Joker is typically like this. As is Lex Luthor. And let us not forget Mr. Glass himself, Elijah Price, probably the weakest of all archnemisees.

I think, as a whole, the fistful of dollars trilogy is kind of like that. But that may simply be a case of Clint Eastwood being too much of a badass.

[bigred760]

Plus this isn't always the case. In Fast & Furious, the main villain is not the "badass" that the protagonist(s) face/off against. Another example that I can think of is Brandon Lee's Rapid Fire. Quantum of Solace was mentioned, though I don't think Bond got his ass that kicked by Mr. Green, but other Bond movies don't follow that suit: Goldfinger, any of the movies with the Jaws character, Tomorrow Never Dies.

[Spidey]

That's why I hate all those Steven Seagal movies, all the henchmen and even the big boss are no match for him.

Wasn't there a Bruce Lee movie called Game of Death where he enters a house and on each floor he has to fight a 'Big Boss' ?

[adamjohnson]

That's why I hate all those Steven Seagal movies, all the henchmen and even the big boss are no match for him.

Wasn't there a Bruce Lee movie called Game of Death where he enters a house and on each floor he has to fight a 'Big Boss' ?

Yes and the Big Boss was Kareem Abdul Jabaar. :D

[Ratlehed]

Except for the one good henchmen who manages to give the hero's partner some trouble. You can tell he's the best henchman because he usually has the nicest boots, or best haircut, or something.


Ha, thats so true. Brion James in Tango & Cash comes to mind. He had an accent AND a ponytail.


Most of Arnolds Big Boss's where never that tough. They just had alot of hired muscle. The Big Boss's themselves got offed pretty easily. This happens in both Conan films, Commando, Running Man, and Total Recall. Once it came to to Arnold and the main villian. The main villian didnt last long.

I think thats why most of the Superman movies are lame as well. A really smart human is no match for a superhuman. The supersmart baddie has like 1 or 2 tricks up his sleeve. But after that they are finished. Thats why Superman 2 was the best of the bunch.

[Weapon X]

The concept can work both ways depending on the film. Offing the Boss in a second after slaughtering through an army of henchpeople can either illustrate how badass the hero is (i.e. Clint Eastwood, Dollars Trilogy), or be used to comedic effect (Christopher Walken, The Rundown).

On the other hand, a long, drawn-out fight can lead to an action's film's most badass moment when the hero offs the Boss, whether by mere actions (Chronicles of Riddick: Lord Marshall owns Riddick for most of the fight, then BAM! Knife to the head), or with the addition of a wicked one-liner (like Ninja Scroll's "Burn in your golden hell!").

[rilocay]

Wasn't there a Bruce Lee movie called Game of Death where he enters a house and on each floor he has to fight a 'Big Boss' ?


Thanks to Lee's height, that's a big boss if i've ever seen one. Looks like a giant in comparison, wow.


Agent Smith from the Matrix series, you could argue he's not a big boss or a boss at all, but for a boss in terms of 'antagonist', him and his battle's are very well built and and excecuted, constantly challanging the humans, the matrix system itslef and obviously his parrallel Neo.

[Potter82]

I'm referring to the main villain of most movies that have a team of henchmen that the hero wades through (seemingly without a problem) but then the main guy, who is usually the nerdy/businessman type, beats the hero to an inch of his death. The hero wins but why was the main guy so tough but his henchmen weren't.

Case in point: "Walking Tall" with The Rock. Yea, he gets cut up but he makes mincemeat of all of the bad guys through the movie but then has a huge battle with the amin douche at the end.

Another case in point: "Quantum Of Solace". James Bond (almost) gets his ass handed to him by the nerdy villain at the end of the movie.

Climax.

In the example you used though it was lazy writing. It's almost like a video game when you think about it (final boss is always the toughest). Sometimes it makes sense, say in the case of Batman Begins or The Dark Knight given the nature of the villian.

It is just bad writing when a seemingly weak character becomes like a judo champ in the last second where before this point, there was no indication that he/she possessed such abilities.

[Kain424]

Most of Arnolds Big Boss's where never that tough. They just had alot of hired muscle. The Big Boss's themselves got offed pretty easily. This happens in both Conan films, Commando, Running Man, and Total Recall. Once it came to to Arnold and the main villian. The main villian didnt last long.

Well, in COMMANDO, Arni actually fights with Bennett for quite some time. Only when Bennett gives up trying to fight him and decides to shoot him does Arnie finally dispatch the guy.

It is just bad writing when a seemingly weak character becomes like a judo champ in the last second where before this point, there was no indication that he/she possessed such abilities.

Not necessarily. This can be used to great effect like in Eastern Condors, where the main baddie seems weak and fragile, not participating in any of the fighting. When it finally comes down to the main hero of the piece and him, it is revealed that he is a Kung Fu master of sorts. It's a very cool surprise.

[Ratlehed]

Well, in COMMANDO, Arni actually fights with Bennett for quite some time. Only when Bennett gives up trying to fight him and decides to shoot him does Arnie finally dispatch the guy.




Bennet wouldn't be considered the Big Boss though. Dan Hedaya as Arius was the evil mastermind. He had the money, guns, soliders, etc. Bennet was just the top goon. Arius only has a quick shoot out with Matrix and ends getiing blown out the window.

[g1ng3rsnap9ed]

I do believe that the scientific term for all of this is: Cinematic conventionalism.

[Palazerne]

Sounds like a tough job. Seems you are qualified for other jobs working with youth. But it seems you always have to have that piece of paper that says your qualified.
Its rather weird I worked as a volunteer at a place for about five years and I did a great job. They couldnt hire me to do the exact same job because I didnt have that little piece of paper to say I was qualified. Of course it was quite alright to do it for free. How stupid I would have to go back to college no less, to do what I had been already doing for 5 years. There is stupid and then there is stupid.

[Palazerne]

Sounds like a tough job. Seems you are qualified for other jobs working with youth. But it seems you always have to have that piece of paper that says your qualified.
Its rather weird I worked as a volunteer at a place for about five years and I did a great job. They couldnt hire me to do the exact same job because I didnt have that little piece of paper to say I was qualified. Of course it was quite alright to do it for free. How stupid I would have to go back to college no less, to do what I had been already doing for 5 years. There is stupid and then there is stupid.