How do you determine live action character's skill ?

What to look at to determine specific character skill ?

Character statements and backstory are the most important thing to consider when it comes to skill. Actual feats are also important, but statements are what give context to the feat in a way that they don't for most other areas. You can plainly tell how strong a character is by their lifting and striking feats, but just seeing a guy beat another guy doesn't tell you anything about their relative skill unless you know how skilled the guy being beat is.

Accolades are the bedrock of all skill feats because fodder feats are the foundation a character's skill level is built on. Almost every character in fiction can trace their skill feats back to how many fodder they beat or someone they defeated was able to beat, and fodder almost never have feats themselves.

What fodder almost always has are statements detailing how competent they are meant to be. It is the difference between Robin beating 12 street thugs and Batman beating 12 elite assassins. Accolades and backstory inform us that the elite assassins are far superior to the street thugs, which is how we know Batman is more skilled than Robin. Later on Green Arrow beats Batman in a fist fight, so now we know Green Arrow is superior to Batman who is superior to 12 elite assassins or Robin.

The hard part is figuring out who's statements to take as fact and who is just boasting. Feats usually help clear this up.

By repeating whatever@anthp2000 says imo

well first you ask "is this CW Green Arrow?" if the answer is no then they are shit tier skill wise and no one cares.

Fodder feats.

Everything in here is either bait or a lie.

Fodder feats.

Training and knowledge.

Feats while debilitated.

Looking at official win/loss records.

Physical stuff that showcases training, like catching an arrow or showing honed senses.

Feats.

There's no single right way.

It all depends on what company is making the said film.

1. How many styles they’re proficient in

2. The degree at which they’re proficient in those styles

3. Their adaptability for style to environment, e.g capoeira being silly to use in a hallway against 6 guys

4. The practicality of their moves

5. If they’re proficient in pressure points

6. Using their eyes to check to search for openings like if they have small calves compared to yours, then sweep their leg

7. Weapons

Etc

Feats AND very importantly choreography.

You cannot claim an opponent is skilled if he fights like a drunk

@richubs:

Unfortunately choreography tells us absolutely nothing about how good a character is supposed to be. Action scenes are strongly divorced from authorial intent and are designed from the ground up to look cool over looking like actual martial arts.

Pretty much. In fact, we can see characters that look sloppy but because implications and scaling of in-universe skill, move on an destroy characters that seem to look much better in choreographed fights. Granted, it doesn't happen that often as they try to show good character to the better ones, but it isn't always the case.

So in the end, it doesn't mean much.

@theonewhopullsthestrings: I know and that's why I think choreography is important.

Just because a character is stated to be skilled but fights like a dumb ass we cannot just say yeah they're skilled.

The SHEILD agents that fought Thor showed absolutely no skill at all. Nothing about them said they were skilled.

However people still rank that feat high because Coulson claimed they were good.

The quality of fodder matters and if the choreography is bad then the fodder is terrible and the frat shouldn't be ranked high.

@richubs:

I was actually trying to point out the opposite sometimes happen. People who look like they should be much better - but lose to people in a class of 'skill' enough where it seems they just aren't it. Going by looks alone isn't a full story, and can be misleading.

@theonewhopullsthestrings:

I'm not saying they have to go by looks alone in saying that if a character clears fodder and wins against them we have to look at the quality of fodder and the only way to do that is by the choreography.

And even when two characters are fighting if the choreography is terrible but we have seen them both perform incredible feats before then choreography can be ignored since it can be called a one off.

Which one spins more while the fodder refuse to dogpile them.

First you ask "is this DCEU Batman"? If the answer is no, then you're automatically highly skilled.

On-Topic:

I'm iffy on choreography. People with few fight scenes, imo, should have it used because we have little else to base it on. For a great example, check out this post by @anthp2000 on Gazelle, from Kingsman: Secret Service. Other characters who have dozens upon dozens of fight scenes don't really need it, because their feats speak for themselves. The question becomes less how they did it, but moreso that they did it. Sure, it's still useful to know that you fought 6 people coming at you from all sides at the same time, but that's really where the explanation should end.

Speaking of feats, they take the table. I personally give maybe 2 shits worth to things like statements and accolades. If they have the statements, they should be backed by feats. Simple as that. Fodder feats are great, but if that's all you have, it doesn't really help. We have no way to know how you'd fight someone worth their salt in a one-on-one. From there, fighting superhumans is the step up. But not just superhumans, unskilled superhumans. After that, it's fighting skilled named characters with feats under their belts, and then fighting skilled superhumans. The last two are a bit interchangeable. For the most part, I'll take fighting and beating a supremely skilled human over a decently skilled high level superhuman, though.

Fodder having accolades and statements is fine and dandy, but most happen to have feats anyways. It's why, for instance, MCU Hand Ninjas who beat two security guards in seconds are superior to like MCU SHIELD fodder who have no feats. A lot of fodder in live action have their own feats to be judged off of. The accolades themselves are what should be used to supplement the feats IMO, not the other way around.

Fighting knowledge, as in knowing multiple styles, is overrated as hell. If you're high level at a lot of styles, odds are, you're still gonna lose to a bona fide master of a few, or even one style. It tells us that you know a lot of stuff, but it doesn't help you win any fights. From there, smaller factors take precedent. Environmental usage and awareness, their overall effectiveness, wins and losses, etc.

The in-betweens include physical stats (most importantly combat speed) and things like specialized feats (i.e at an insane disadvantage, weakened, hurt, etc.).