<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"><channel><title>John Hawkins Unrated.com - Latest Comments in A western and a shooter</title><link>http://jhu.disqus.com/</link><description></description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Sun, 10 Feb 2008 22:36:15 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: A western and a shooter</title><link>http://johnhawkinsunrated.com/a-western-and-a-shooter#comment-2511111</link><description>I think one answer to your question is:  the story wouldn't be worth telling if the drama didn't involve some sort of tale-telling technique that made the unbelievable palatable.  Besides, if the hero was nicked (in the general run-of-the-mill good-guy case), he would be disabled and that would slow him down, then he'd be found by the bad guys, and/or ultimately be tracked and killed ruthlessly: he wouldn't be a "hero": he'd be a "dead hero."&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;I just watched Live Free or Die Hard - talk about a hero that gets nicked, brutalized and down right abused (as a character) and stays alive to claim the title.  16 Blocks (again with the ultimate beat-me-up good guy actor, Willis) is another example of the hero getting the better of a beating/bullet.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Heroes are those characters that achieve a level of greatness through the lucky/skilled shot or effective "drop" on the bad guy, against all odds and for a good cause in the eye/ear of the viewer/listener.  Heroes are just "good guys" until they survive the story and claim the title, of course, bestowed on them by the viewer/listener.  Especially in action flicks.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">David</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 10 Feb 2008 22:36:15 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>