MovieChat Forums > Speed (1994) Discussion > Great movie with poor characterization

Great movie with poor characterization

posted 9 years ago by successor13326
21 replies | jump to latest

So-called experts say you need great characterization to make a memorable book or movie. But look at Speed. What do you learn about Jack Traven? Almost nothing. He likes football, is a member of SWAT, is friends with Harry and that's about it.

Are Traven's parents still alive or is he an orphan? Where'd he go to school and did he go to college? What are his likes and dislikes? How long has he been a cop (a short time, I imagine, since Harry mentioned thirty more years of this)? What is his greatest fear? Has he ever had a girlfriend before Annie? Does he own any pets? We don't know and we never find out. He's so one-dimensional and generic that the writers may as well have named him John Smith.

Strangely enough, you learn more about the villain than you do the hero, and he's a better-developed character. Payne was a member of the Atlanta PD bomb squad, he has a house in Sun Valley, he's a bomb expert, he's sadistic but not without a sense of morbid humor.

Yet the story works superbly, despite the distinct lack of well-developed characters. So I guess the experts are wrong. You can have a great story even with poorly-developed characters. And I'd even argue that more characterization with Traven would've just wasted valuable story time.

[–] stevekaczynski 8 years ago

Interesting points. But with a film like this, the pacing and momentum are all important, and too much character exposition would have slowed it down.

"Chicken soup - with a *beep* straw."

[–] DracTarashV 8 years ago

Frankly, I don't think it does since it isn't really necessary in a movie like this - or most actions movies, for that matter. The main criticism I see about this movie is this exact one, and while there's nothing wrong with wanting to see developed characters (I myself wouldn't have mind to learn more about Jack), I feel spending some extra time learning details about the passengers and Jack would have unnecessarily slowed the movie. Speed just focuses on showing us what's important in the story, and it does so wonderfully.

You want something corny? You got it!

[–] Stratego (30511) 6 years ago

I'm not sure what more we needed to know about Jack. I think that what we see of him is exactly the way he is. He's doing his job, only he is more determined than usual because he takes it personally. He tries to stay a pro, but it's difficult because he's also just a human being with emotions. This movie was about the action, I don't know what character development would've added.

[–] FredBurroughs (21474) 6 years ago

If I could pin a gold star on your forehead, Stratego, I would probably have a hard time finding free space on account of your countless other terrific posts. You correctly suggest that what makes Speed so enjoyable is that it doesn't stop for excessive character exposition. It manages to squeeze in enough background details in the scenes between the big action sequences without lowering the tension to the lulls of the contemporary trend where the character pauses and delivers some sleepy sob story about orphans or whatever else. Homer Simpson once mistakenly called it "The Bus that Couldn't Slow Down". He wasn't too far off.

[–] Stratego (30511) 6 years ago

Thank you, Fred!😘 And I totally agree with ya!

[–] Drooch (5333) 4 years ago

I broadly agree but there needed to be some extra quirks, details, imperfections to flesh him out - think John McClane. Hell even Al Powell was more rounded than ‘Jack Travern’ 🙄

In fact, Harry would probably have been a more compelling hero because he was something of a reluctant curmudgeon days from retirement, played by a skilled actor. His death was surprising and sad, which is more than can be said for air-headed dude-bro Jack blowing up.

[–] Stratego (30511) 4 years ago

"In fact, Harry would probably have been a more compelling hero because he was something of a reluctant curmudgeon days from retirement"

I think that part of the character was a leftover from a previous draft where he turned out to be the villain.

What kind of quirks or imperfections could they have added without it becoming too forced and unrealistic? Unlike Annie, he has to stay a pro. It's not like the Jack we do see is a perfect human being. He's initially shown to be a rather laid back guy, but emotions take over when it becomes too personal and he even loses composure several times. Sure, a lot of action movie heroes are like that, but the casting of Keanu already gives it a different vibe.

[–] Drooch (5333) 4 years ago

I go back to John McClane - bad husband, hates flying, hates California, hates technology, loves cigarettes, likes Westerns, is clever, irreverent, mistrusting of authority, is working class and prefers to ‘sit up front’. All these details make McClane memorable and the lack of them makes ‘Jack Travern’ forgettable.

I didn’t know Harry was originally going to be the villain, that would be an awesome twist given how well Jeff Daniels played him, but we’ve seen that kind of thing before and I think it worked better making him a sacrificial lamb.

[–] Stratego (30511) 4 years ago

McClane has the advantage that he is part of a franchise that started years before. Die Hard was something different, which is a big reason he's so memorable (I honestly don't recall any of those details, though). Speed is basically Die Hard on a bus, only way more of an adrenaline ride.

[–] Drooch (5333) 4 years ago

McClane has the advantage that he is part of a franchise that started years before.

What do you mean by this?

[–] Stratego (30511) 4 years ago

That his character has made more of an impact, making him more memorable. Speaking as a non Die Hard-fan, I agree McClane is way more memorable, but not for any of the things you mentioned. It's his attitude and the one-liners and the fact that there are multiple movies starring him. And it's not like Alan Rickman was memorable because he took time to reminisce on his childhood in rural Bavaria.

Also, Die Hard is a different movie that puts a lot of focus on the main character. There are more moments that allow for exposition. I mean, sure, there are a few moments Jack could've mentioned that he goes surfing in the weekend or visits his grandmother in the hospital, but like I said before, I'm not sure what that would've added.

[–] Drooch (5333) 4 years ago

I’m referring only to the first Die Hard film. John McClane resonates because of the reasons I mentioned, especially because he is a flawed everyman who reluctantly does the right thing.

In point of fact, Rickman as Hans Gruber does refer to his childhood ‘I loved to make models when I was a boy, the exactness, the attention to every conceivable detail - it’s beautiful’. It are these details that make Die Hard the king of action movies.

Jack Travern? There’s nothing there. Sure, Speed succeeds as a vapid adrenaline shot and Keanu & Bullock have undeniable charm together, but it has none of the depth of classic thrillers like Die Hard, which put characterisation first and action second.

[–] Stratego (30511) 4 years ago

Again, I don't recall those details about McClane. Just like Gruber, I think they're memorable characters for other reasons.

Let's also not forget Die Hard was based on a novel, which provided the very personal story of McClane you also see in the movie. Nothing wrong with character exposition like that, but we'll have to agree to disagree how much an action movie really NEEDS of that.

As for Die Hard being the king of action movies, we also have to agree to disagree on that. For all the rudiculousness that happens in Speed, the characters and violence in Die Hard are just too over-the-top for my taste.

[–] Drooch (5333) 4 years ago

Sounds like you’re in a niche group of action movie lovers who doesn’t consider Die Hard to be the gold standard of the genre. Fair enough.

[–] Stratego (30511) 4 years ago

I don't care about being in a niche group. I have to admit I'm not a big fan of the action genre, but I prefer if the focus isn't on over-the-top violence. But obviously I recognize the huge influence Die Hard has had.

[–] acidraindrop (3055) 3 years ago

It's why it annoys me when ppl bring up generic storytelling rules when critiquing a book or a movie. There are never hard and fast rules when it comes to a good story. It's always gonna be a case by case basis.

[–] MavKilledGoose (859) 3 years ago

This is why Keanu's casting works perfectly. Why his stoicism works perfectly. He's playing a character that has no depth.

[–] filmschooldegree (350) 3 years ago

It's an Action film structured around high-tension setpieces, the genre is sculpted around visual construction rather than character building - if so-called experts want to experience how a character takes a shit in the morning they should watch a Bergman movie (or alternatively watch Chloe Zhao write a screenplay).

[–] Jones70 (6535) 3 years ago

Yeah but what can you expect from an action movie?

[–] TroyB (164) 3 years ago

The OP doesn't understand what the meaning of character development is.

[–] Andomando (29) 3 years ago

Agree with the original post, here. Watched this last night for the first time in around 13 years and so much of Jack Travern lacks any back story or anything. Why did he even become a cop? Look at Lethal Weapon and Die Hard. The sequels had to have McClean and Riggs in them. Speed 2 abandoned Travern and although it sucked, it didn't matter. Annie had more depth. Riggs was a widower who was suicidal. McClean was a family man whose marriage was on the rocks. Speed offer nothing.