The problem with modern action movies

[Saelune]

I love Marvel movies. Those are my action movies. Most others I dont care about though cause they are well...generic. Or they try so hard to make their characters so unreasonably 'cool'. Ya know, like Borne Identity and John Wick.

Atleast make it weird with what Marvel does.

I also love Tarantino, but he is his own genre of movies.

John Wick and Jason Bourne aren't unreasonably cool. Their feats are far more grounded in reality than Marvel heroes, most of whom, let me remind you, have super powers.

Clearly defined and acknowledged super powers. John Wick is a super hero too they just dont put it in the title.

Nothing he does is anywhere near as over the top as superheroes. Sure there are some breaks from reality but not to such a high extent.

But Superheroes dont pretend to not be superheroes...atleast to the audience. The breaks from reality for things like John Wick and Jason Bourne are ABSURD.

They are stupid.

Oh and...Fast and the Furious too. Cause that series fucking exists.

Could you list the things in John Wick and Jason Bourne you find so absurd? Because I feel this something of an exaggeration here. Yes there are breaks from reality but calling them absurd seems disenginous. And I don't see how they're pretending to not be superheroes. They don't wear brightly coloured costumes, don't fight for some vague definition of justice, don't use technology that might as well be magic etc. Superheroes don't have a patent on unrealistic feats.

I'll give Fast and Furious but those movies are in a class on their own.

For one, you have a way too literal interpretation of super hero.

John Wick and Jason Bourne do not live in a feasible reality. Most action heroes dont. The least offensive example I can think of is maybe the first Die Hard and even that pushed it. The later ones however, wow.

But really I could just post the Cinemasins videos of the films and much of my point will be made.

They are Blackwidow and Hawkeye and Captain America.

 

[Cicada 5]

I love Marvel movies. Those are my action movies. Most others I dont care about though cause they are well...generic. Or they try so hard to make their characters so unreasonably 'cool'. Ya know, like Borne Identity and John Wick.

Atleast make it weird with what Marvel does.

I also love Tarantino, but he is his own genre of movies.

John Wick and Jason Bourne aren't unreasonably cool. Their feats are far more grounded in reality than Marvel heroes, most of whom, let me remind you, have super powers.

Clearly defined and acknowledged super powers. John Wick is a super hero too they just dont put it in the title.

Nothing he does is anywhere near as over the top as superheroes. Sure there are some breaks from reality but not to such a high extent.

But Superheroes dont pretend to not be superheroes...atleast to the audience. The breaks from reality for things like John Wick and Jason Bourne are ABSURD.

They are stupid.

Oh and...Fast and the Furious too. Cause that series fucking exists.

Could you list the things in John Wick and Jason Bourne you find so absurd? Because I feel this something of an exaggeration here. Yes there are breaks from reality but calling them absurd seems disenginous. And I don't see how they're pretending to not be superheroes. They don't wear brightly coloured costumes, don't fight for some vague definition of justice, don't use technology that might as well be magic etc. Superheroes don't have a patent on unrealistic feats.

I'll give Fast and Furious but those movies are in a class on their own.

For one, you have a way too literal interpretation of super hero.

John Wick and Jason Bourne do not live in a feasible reality. Most action heroes dont. The least offensive example I can think of is maybe the first Die Hard and even that pushed it. The later ones however, wow.

But really I could just post the Cinemasins videos of the films and much of my point will be made.

They are Blackwidow and Hawkeye and Captain America.

Most fictional characters don't live in a feasible reality. That doesn't mean their isn't a clear difference between action heroes and super heroes. By your definition the Looney Tunes are superheroes.

 

[Saelune]

I love Marvel movies. Those are my action movies. Most others I dont care about though cause they are well...generic. Or they try so hard to make their characters so unreasonably 'cool'. Ya know, like Borne Identity and John Wick.

Atleast make it weird with what Marvel does.

I also love Tarantino, but he is his own genre of movies.

John Wick and Jason Bourne aren't unreasonably cool. Their feats are far more grounded in reality than Marvel heroes, most of whom, let me remind you, have super powers.

Clearly defined and acknowledged super powers. John Wick is a super hero too they just dont put it in the title.

Nothing he does is anywhere near as over the top as superheroes. Sure there are some breaks from reality but not to such a high extent.

But Superheroes dont pretend to not be superheroes...atleast to the audience. The breaks from reality for things like John Wick and Jason Bourne are ABSURD.

They are stupid.

Oh and...Fast and the Furious too. Cause that series fucking exists.

Could you list the things in John Wick and Jason Bourne you find so absurd? Because I feel this something of an exaggeration here. Yes there are breaks from reality but calling them absurd seems disenginous. And I don't see how they're pretending to not be superheroes. They don't wear brightly coloured costumes, don't fight for some vague definition of justice, don't use technology that might as well be magic etc. Superheroes don't have a patent on unrealistic feats.

I'll give Fast and Furious but those movies are in a class on their own.

For one, you have a way too literal interpretation of super hero.

John Wick and Jason Bourne do not live in a feasible reality. Most action heroes dont. The least offensive example I can think of is maybe the first Die Hard and even that pushed it. The later ones however, wow.

But really I could just post the Cinemasins videos of the films and much of my point will be made.

They are Blackwidow and Hawkeye and Captain America.

Most fictional characters don't live in a feasible reality. By your definition the Looney Tunes are superheroes.

Again, getting too literal.


My definition of super heroes is not 'unreal reality'. But then you must think I think post-its are books because I think books have paper in them, and post-its are made of paper.

 

[Cicada 5]

I love Marvel movies. Those are my action movies. Most others I dont care about though cause they are well...generic. Or they try so hard to make their characters so unreasonably 'cool'. Ya know, like Borne Identity and John Wick.

Atleast make it weird with what Marvel does.

I also love Tarantino, but he is his own genre of movies.

John Wick and Jason Bourne aren't unreasonably cool. Their feats are far more grounded in reality than Marvel heroes, most of whom, let me remind you, have super powers.

Clearly defined and acknowledged super powers. John Wick is a super hero too they just dont put it in the title.

Nothing he does is anywhere near as over the top as superheroes. Sure there are some breaks from reality but not to such a high extent.

But Superheroes dont pretend to not be superheroes...atleast to the audience. The breaks from reality for things like John Wick and Jason Bourne are ABSURD.

They are stupid.

Oh and...Fast and the Furious too. Cause that series fucking exists.

Could you list the things in John Wick and Jason Bourne you find so absurd? Because I feel this something of an exaggeration here. Yes there are breaks from reality but calling them absurd seems disenginous. And I don't see how they're pretending to not be superheroes. They don't wear brightly coloured costumes, don't fight for some vague definition of justice, don't use technology that might as well be magic etc. Superheroes don't have a patent on unrealistic feats.

I'll give Fast and Furious but those movies are in a class on their own.

For one, you have a way too literal interpretation of super hero.

John Wick and Jason Bourne do not live in a feasible reality. Most action heroes dont. The least offensive example I can think of is maybe the first Die Hard and even that pushed it. The later ones however, wow.

But really I could just post the Cinemasins videos of the films and much of my point will be made.

They are Blackwidow and Hawkeye and Captain America.

Most fictional characters don't live in a feasible reality. By your definition the Looney Tunes are superheroes.

Again, getting too literal.


My definition of super heroes is not 'unreal reality'. But then you must think I think post-its are books because I think books have paper in them, and post-its are made of paper.

What exactly is your definition of superheroes then? Because frankly, you seem to be claiming that I'm being too literal with my definition when that is what you're doing when you claim Jason Bourne and John Wick are superheroes that pretend not to be superheroes. Not to mention you still have yet to list actual scenes from these movies that put them on par with superheroes.

Actually, I think you're the type of guy who'd say post its are books that pretend not to be books.

 

[Saelune]

I love Marvel movies. Those are my action movies. Most others I dont care about though cause they are well...generic. Or they try so hard to make their characters so unreasonably 'cool'. Ya know, like Borne Identity and John Wick.

Atleast make it weird with what Marvel does.

I also love Tarantino, but he is his own genre of movies.

John Wick and Jason Bourne aren't unreasonably cool. Their feats are far more grounded in reality than Marvel heroes, most of whom, let me remind you, have super powers.

Clearly defined and acknowledged super powers. John Wick is a super hero too they just dont put it in the title.

Nothing he does is anywhere near as over the top as superheroes. Sure there are some breaks from reality but not to such a high extent.

But Superheroes dont pretend to not be superheroes...atleast to the audience. The breaks from reality for things like John Wick and Jason Bourne are ABSURD.

They are stupid.

Oh and...Fast and the Furious too. Cause that series fucking exists.

Could you list the things in John Wick and Jason Bourne you find so absurd? Because I feel this something of an exaggeration here. Yes there are breaks from reality but calling them absurd seems disenginous. And I don't see how they're pretending to not be superheroes. They don't wear brightly coloured costumes, don't fight for some vague definition of justice, don't use technology that might as well be magic etc. Superheroes don't have a patent on unrealistic feats.

I'll give Fast and Furious but those movies are in a class on their own.

For one, you have a way too literal interpretation of super hero.

John Wick and Jason Bourne do not live in a feasible reality. Most action heroes dont. The least offensive example I can think of is maybe the first Die Hard and even that pushed it. The later ones however, wow.

But really I could just post the Cinemasins videos of the films and much of my point will be made.

They are Blackwidow and Hawkeye and Captain America.

Most fictional characters don't live in a feasible reality. By your definition the Looney Tunes are superheroes.

Again, getting too literal.


My definition of super heroes is not 'unreal reality'. But then you must think I think post-its are books because I think books have paper in them, and post-its are made of paper.

What exactly is your definition of superheroes then? Because frankly, you seem to be claiming that I'm being too literal with my definition when that is what you're doing when you claim Jason Bourne and John Wick are superheroes that pretend not to be superheroes. Not to mention you still have yet to list actual scenes from these movies that put them on par with superheroes.

Actually, I think you're the type of guy who'd say post its are books that pretend not to be books.

Inhumanly powerful people doing (generally) heroic things.

Actual scenes? Now I got to be giving you time stamps for movies I dont care for? Yeah uh, about 30 minutes in, when he did that thing and it was like, WOAH!.

How about when they did all those jumps and shot all those people and didnt get shot or break their legs?

Im not going to waste my time coming through movies I dont care for just to satisfy your own issues with me not liking these movies you seem to care so much for.

And is it really so insulting to compare them to superheroes?

 

[FalloutJack]

Snip

What is it with people who take the most extreme and over-the-top interpretation or nothing at all? Is this the 'Go big or go home' line of reasoning at work? Because it doesn't work. Go to an episode of Mythbusters where they're testing the physics of movies and shows. Count all the Busted myths you find. Characters in movies can do things that are not strictly possible. That's why they're movies.

 

[Hawki]

Also, as much as I enjoyed Rogue One, it annoyed me because it basically rewrote that whole Dark Forces, Kyle Katarn timeline. That shit was a part of my childhood. I thought there was a massive database somewhere manned by a team of nerds to prevent that from happening.

Wookiepedia is Alderaan compared to Disney's Death Star. Nice, pretty, well maintained, but it can be obliterated at a moment's notice.

Rogue One is not something that is meant to be viewed in isolation. It's there to bridge the gap between Revenge of the Sith and A New Hope and establish the need for everything in a New Hope. The need for a Rebel Alliance, the need to stop Tarkin, the need to destroy the Death Star, the need for a good counterpart to Darth Vader. Better yet, let's think of the original trilogy as a single story. Rogue One is the prologue to that story, setting the stage for A New Hope.

Playing semantics, did we actually need Rogue One? Taking A New Hope in isolation, everything's pretty self-explanatory. The Empire is bad, and we know it's bad because of that scary space samurai guy, and they shoot farmers and jawas, and blow up planets, and it's up for our heroes to stop the Empire and the scary black guy. If you needed further context, there's still the prequels. Rogue One doesn't really fill any major gap that needs filling, it just builds a story around an established event. If anything, I'd argue it kind of diminishes A New Hope in that it reveals that the Death Star's weakness was built in intentionally, rather than being exploited by the Rebellion.

Many older action movies - like Jurassic Park, The Matrix, Gladiator, Terminator - spent a a large chunk of the the movie getting us to care about the characters and the steaks involved.

"Steaks?" Is that meant to be some metaphor for the people who are eaten by dinosaurs in Jurassic Park?

Also wouldn't consider Gladiator to be an "action film" (it's mainly a character drama with only a few scenes of action in it), and I feel even Jurassic Park is stretching it as an "action film." There isn't any actual action till the T-Rex shows up, and that's about halfway through the movie.

Critiquing Rogue One in isolation is as impossible as The Force Awakens (almost all the major criticisms of that arise out of its retreads of the original trilogy - a criticism that could not exist had it been the first entry).

Y'know, I kind of wonder about that. I have a strong, though unproven suspicion that TFA will be a lot of people's first introduction to Star Wars, especially young children. It's riding off the coat trails of A New Hope, but if someone watched this film with no prior Star Wars knowledge, I think they could get the gist of it for the same reasons one can quickly pick up on A New Hope. Past events are referenced a lot, but we see the old characters through the eyes of Rey and Finn for instance.

Clearly defined and acknowledged super powers. John Wick is a super hero too they just dont put it in the title.

Can't comment on John Wick, but Bourne doesn't have those. Like, at all. He's very intelligent and very strong, but his actions don't require suspension of disbelief to anywhere near the same scale as a superhero.

But Superheroes dont pretend to not be superheroes...atleast to the audience. The breaks from reality for things like John Wick and Jason Bourne are ABSURD.

Superheroes don't 'pretend' to be superheroes, because there's nothing to pretend - their premises are inherently absurd. Every so often we get a low-tier 'superhero' where the line tends to blur a bit (the Batmans and Punishers of the world), but for the most part, you know what you're getting with these kinds of characters. Characters like Bourne don't fit the bill.

I'll put it this way - within the MCU, in Phase 1, we have to accept that mechanized suits exist, that green hulks exist, that the Norse gods exist, that super soldier serums exist, and that aliens exist, and invaded New York that one time. The highest thing the Bourne film series have ever done has been to establish that gene therapy exists to increase operatives' intelligence (and maybe strength, I don't remember), and even then it tries to convey it as being realistic (the idea of using a virus to alter the host's genetic sequence - there's some level of biological basis for that).

Let's just say there's a reason that the MCU is known for being absolutely bonkers, while Bourne is known for being a more grounded take on the spy genre (with Bond in a middleground, and Kingsman on the bonkers end).

John Wick and Jason Bourne do not live in a feasible reality. Most action heroes dont. The least offensive example I can think of is maybe the first Die Hard and even that pushed it. The later ones however, wow.

But really I could just post the Cinemasins videos of the films and much of my point will be made.

They are Blackwidow and Hawkeye and Captain America.

What's unfeasible about Bourne? It's clearly taking place in 'the real world,' in that there's nothing in said world that's explicitly outside the realm of existing possibilities. This is in contrast to stuff like the MCU which is effectively in an alternate reality, and has been since it established that a good chunk of WWII was fought with laser guns.

Bourne is hardly on the level of those characters. Certainly not CA, and hardly Blackwidow or Hawkeye, who can perform all kinds of athletic feats and go through conflict unscathed. As in, Black Widow has access to some kind of electric wrist gizmo thing, and Hawkeye fires arrows at aliens. Bourne, in contrast, is a character who spends a good portion of his second film staggering through the streets of Moscow dealing with a bullet wound.

Inhumanly powerful people doing (generally) heroic things.

Again, Bourne barely fits into this category. His strength isn't outside the levels of believability, and he's hardly a hero. Not in the same way those other characters you mentioned are. His motivations are primarily based around his own vendettas and desire to stay alive.

 

[dscross]

"Steaks?" Is that meant to be some metaphor for the people who are eaten by dinosaurs in Jurassic Park?

Also wouldn't consider Gladiator to be an "action film" (it's mainly a character drama with only a few scenes of action in it), and I feel even Jurassic Park is stretching it as an "action film." There isn't any actual action till the T-Rex shows up, and that's about halfway through the movie.

We?ll just pretend the steaks thing was a pun and not a typo... I agree it?s debatable about gladiator. You could call it a drama first and an action movie as a secondary title - action-drama maybe. However, it is listed in some categories as an ?action and war? film so I?m justified. Jurassic Park the entire second half is action, which was sort of the whole point of this thread - that you need that level of character building prior to the action scenes. It was definitely marketed as an action movie when it was first released... I remember. I think the parameters for ?action movie? have changed since then, and not for the better, in my opinion. My OP sort of tells you why I think that.

 

[Hawki]

Jurassic Park the entire second half is action, which was sort of the whole point of this thread - that you need that level of character building prior to the action scenes. It was definitely marketed as an action movie when it was first released... I remember. I think the parameters for ?action movie? have changed since then, and not for the better, in my opinion. My OP sort of tells you why I think that.

I'm mixed on this. The second half is where the action begins (per the T-Rex and whatnot), but I can't call it constant action. There's plenty of slow sequences, such as Grant and the kids in the tree, Ellie and Hammond in the visitors centre, etc. Even the raptors in the kitchen is based more on suspense than action per se. Thing about Jurassic Park, when you look at it, action is rarely the solution to the protagonists' woes. They spend a lot of time simply evading the dinosaurs, and when they do try to take direct action (both Grant and Muldoon wield shotguns), they fail miserably in that regard (neither manage to ever hit a single raptor).

As for being marketed as an action movie, well, a lot of movies are marketed as action movies, because you're going to get more people into the seats by doing so. Blade Runner 2049 was marketed as an action movie, but while it has short, intense moments of action in it, it's hardly an action movie.

I guess if I had to define an action movie, it would be based on the idea of action taking up a large portion of the run time, and perhaps more categorically, being the solution to the problems the protagonist(s) face. Terminator 2 is an action movie in my eyes, because it doesn't take long for the action to start (excluding the opening scene, it isn't that long before we get the bike chase, though there's good buildup to it), and action is the solution to the protagonists' woes (use action to take out Cyberdyne and the T-1000). Jurassic Park, if I was playing semantics, is "action-adventure." There's action in it, but it's not the driving force of the plot. Rather, mere survival is.

 

[dscross]

I'm mixed on this. The second half is where the action begins (per the T-Rex and whatnot), but I can't call it constant action. There's plenty of slow sequences, such as Grant and the kids in the tree, Ellie and Hammond in the visitors centre, etc. Even the raptors in the kitchen is based more on suspense than action per se. Thing about Jurassic Park, when you look at it, action is rarely the solution to the protagonists' woes. They spend a lot of time simply evading the dinosaurs, and when they do try to take direct action (both Grant and Muldoon wield shotguns), they fail miserably in that regard (neither manage to ever hit a single raptor).

As for being marketed as an action movie, well, a lot of movies are marketed as action movies, because you're going to get more people into the seats by doing so. Blade Runner 2049 was marketed as an action movie, but while it has short, intense moments of action in it, it's hardly an action movie.

I guess if I had to define an action movie, it would be based on the idea of action taking up a large portion of the run time, and perhaps more categorically, being the solution to the problems the protagonist(s) face. Terminator 2 is an action movie in my eyes, because it doesn't take long for the action to start (excluding the opening scene, it isn't that long before we get the bike chase, though there's good buildup to it), and action is the solution to the protagonists' woes (use action to take out Cyberdyne and the T-1000). Jurassic Park, if I was playing semantics, is "action-adventure." There's action in it, but it's not the driving force of the plot. Rather, mere survival is.

I think we are both getting rather pedantic here now. You could tag other suitable genres on to any action-based film and vice versa. The point I was trying to make in this thread is that films which contain a lot of action sequences need a decent amount of character building and other types of build up before they mean anything to me. Otherwise I don't care much about what is happening onscreen.

 

[Darth Rosenberg]

Braindead box marked action movies? Bit harsh. How do you suggest humans label things? You have to do it somehow. We'll get into a philosophical debate about the subjectivity of words instead of talking about films if we don't watch it.

Heh, your original two-line post was quite different to the edited one.

I do feel 'action movie' is a horribly reductive, braindead title that throws me back to the bad ol' days of the '80's and '90's. Or I think of guff like ID4; blockbusters of an older, cheesier, less intelligent era, before stuff like the MCU, Potter, Apes, and Logan were possible.

It's also such an unhelpful term, given the colossal variety of 'films with quite a bit of action in'.

I've never watched Harry Potter because I didn't like the first book (I read a bit of it) so I wouldn't know, but from what I've seen they are less action heavy.

Some of them likely have more 'action' than The Terminator, I'd wager, so they certainly qualify.

...and even if they do not, they certainly qualify as spectacle films which ensure character narrative makes the action truly connective to an audience, ergo they fulfill exactly what you seem to suggest is lacking.

Not seen Doctor Strange or MCU either.

MCU = Marvel Cinematic Universe. If you've not seen the Potter series (one of the finest franchises of all time [once 1 and 2 are out the way], with an obscenely consistent level of quality across seven films that most series can't match in a conventional trilogy), or anything from the MCU (Guardians 1 and 2?), then no wonder your contemporary 'action' movie quota is so low...

You can't claim there's a problem if you ignore much of what's on offer. If they don't appeal to you subjectively, then fair enough, but that's not the same thing as there being a 'trend'.

What about The Hunger Games films?

Yes apes I would class as action. Personally, I don't think there's enough time spent on the characters - unbalance there I felt but it didn't suffer as much as some. However, I haven't seen it for a long time (I've only watched the first and 2nd), so I don't have any strong feelings on these and it's not worth the debate with me on it because I can remember very little.

See, this seems inconsistent. Apes 1 and 2 do not feature that much action, though you class them as 'action movies' - but they probably do feature as much as something like Gladiator and probably even The Terminator. And yet there's not enough time spent on characters? What were they doing all that time when action wasn't taking place? Twiddling their thumbs? Landscape shots? If the first two Apes films spent even more time on character narrative, you'd then say they didn't have enough action to qualify...

Either way, the Apes trilogy refutes the trend you refer to just like Potter, the MCU, and the other films I mentioned.

Fury Road (very very action heavy) I didn't like at all for the exact reasons I stated initially - but I know a lot of people did.

As a masterpiece of intelligent auteur spectacle it's--- well, a masterpiece... A cast-iron action movie classic already.

Explicit character narrative was not its main concern, but narrative isn't just confined to plots or people - you could call Mad Max a loosely affiliated series that tell stories about a place and time. And in that it does it exceptionally, particularly in Fury Road which has an endearingly rather feminist edge to it, ergo there is thematic and personal depth to go along with the stunning visuals and stunts.

Doesn't heart, humanity, and soul count for anything? Fury Road had that in spades.

What about Logan?

Y'know, I kind of wonder about that. I have a strong, though unproven suspicion that TFA will be a lot of people's first introduction to Star Wars, especially young children. It's riding off the coat trails of A New Hope, but if someone watched this film with no prior Star Wars knowledge, I think they could get the gist of it for the same reasons one can quickly pick up on A New Hope. Past events are referenced a lot, but we see the old characters through the eyes of Rey and Finn for instance.

Yes, newcomers and kids could probably get on board the story just fine, but almost nothing about TFA really has any authorial context - narrative, lore, or more importantly culturally - without a degree of understanding about the original trilogy.

And I was referring to detailed critique of TFA and Rogue One (not whether someone could understand or enjoy/dislike them), i.e. no in depth, actual deconstruction can be achieved without the decades worth of context. It was not created in a vacuum, so cannot be critiqued in one.

The primary avenue most detractors - or even full on haterz - took was dismissing it as a retread of not just ANH, but elements of the whole trilogy. It's impossible not to concede the similarities, and arguably also that it was too similar, but for me and many others what it achieved beyond its running time was what really counted; it gave SW its soul back. The Hall H-baiting trailer line of "Chewie, we're home" was pretty much the mission statement of the studio and of JJ, so to me what it accomplished - in the context of decades worth of pop-culture - was what really mattered. As imperfect as it was, SW was 'home' again, in safe hands, and everyone could relax and enjoy the ride from hereon in.

Disney are then to be commended for the experiment that was Rogue One - but arguably an equal amount of criticism can be leveled at their interference which resulted in a film that's as conceptually and structurally muddled as it is gorgeous to look at and admirably gritty/dark/mature in tone.

Oh, and apropos this thread: I'd say TFA was a good enough example of a character driven 'action movie', even if it could've done with a handful of added scenes that were allowed time/space to breathe (and an axing or complete reworking of the daft pirates'n'monsters sequence). Instead of two idiot Jedi taking on an identity-free rando in black, TFA at least ensures the principle protagonists and antagonist have history, where their conflict is ultimately character driven. I was surprised how Ren was characterised, and definitely in a good way.

 

[Ogoid]

Explicit character narrative was not its main concern, but narrative isn't just confined to plots or people - you could call Mad Max a loosely affiliated series that tell stories about a place and time.

Eh, no. Mad Max was originally a series about the moral descent and eventual redemption of a man, Max Rockatansky, as a result of, and played against the backdrop of, general societal collapse owing to scarcity.

As far as Fury Road is concerned, though, the only reason I can see for a character named "Max Rockatansky" to be in it is the same as for there being a black V8 Interceptor in it - to wit, cashing in on whatever brand recognition the IP might've still had after 30 years.

 

[Darth Rosenberg]

Eh, no. Mad Max was originally a series about the moral descent and eventual redemption of a man, Max Rockatansky, as a result of, and played against the backdrop of, general societal collapse owing to scarcity.

Er, yes? Unless "Explicit character narrative" - the thing I was refuting - can be done with as few lines as Max typically spoke?

As far as Fury Road is concerned, though, the only reason I can see for a character named "Max Rockatansky" to be in it is the same as for there being a black V8 Interceptor in it - to wit, cashing in on whatever brand recognition the IP might've still had after 30 years.

Doesn't Miller himself refute any real canon, and see them as disparate legends? If there's a cash-in in the series, it's the rather awful Beyond Thunderdome, not Fury Road (not seen the very original, but it looks/seems/sounds kinda terrible).

Even if Fury Road could be construed to be a cash-in, being as ridiculously good as it turned out rather gives it a free pass.

 

[Ogoid]

Er, yes? Unless "Explicit character narrative" - the thing I was refuting - can be done with as few lines as Max typically spoke?

It absolutely can, yes. And Road Warrior - which I assume is the one you're thinking of, considering the first is more or less unarguably about Max, and Thunderdome... well, Thunderdome just sucks - is in fact rife with it.

The moment the movie opens, we see Max outpiloting and killing two raiders and injuring a third - Wez - and the moment they pose him no more of a threat, he proceeds to loot them for all they're worth (mostly, but not only, gasoline). One of them dies screaming in his presence, and he doesn't bat a literal eyelid at it.

Then, finding a hurdy-gurdy mechanism on the bloated corpse of the truck driver, he winds it, and upon hearing such a simple rendition of "Happy Birthday to You", he clearly reminisces; he lets his mind wander to happier, more innocent times, and almost smiles, almost allows himself to feel... but right back up come his defenses, and instead, he just pockets it, finishes pillaging the possessions of the men he just killed, and simply drives away.

That very same hurdy-gurdy mechanism he later makes a gift of to the Feral Kid, who clearly reminds him of his own son (and is probably the same age he would have been if he'd lived), in the only non-self-interested human contact he makes in the film until the point in which he insists on driving the truck; a clear offer of friendship, one which he later reneges on, coldly and callously sending the poor kid away when he expresses a desire to join him.

Really, I could do a scene-by-scene of the whole movie this way.

And I could do that because those movies were about Max, as opposed to just cool cars, post-apocalyptic tribal getups, and explosions.

Even if Fury Road could be construed to be a cash-in, being as ridiculously good as it turned out rather gives it a free pass.

It was, I think, as much as a cash-in as a failure on Miller's part, as an artist, to know when to stop. Given what we got when his co-creator Byron Kennedy was involved (Mad Max, Road Warrior) as opposed to when he wasn't (Thunderdome, Fury Road), it's clear he was an essential part of the process at the very least.

As for it being "good", well, it bored me out of my mind, precisely because of the reasons dscross already outlined - it never stopped with the green-screened gymnastics and CGI explosions for long enough to make me give a single shit about any of the people appearing in it; and when it did, it was simply cringeworthy. Kneeling and muted screaming overlapped with sad music? Seriously?

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

Fighting via editing and not choreography is my biggest pet peeve of modern action movies. There are exceptions but...

Ugh.

 

[Hawki]

Some of them likely have more 'action' than The Terminator, I'd wager, so they certainly qualify.

T1 or T2? I'd argue that T1 is more an action-horror movie, whereas T2 is more conventional action.

...and even if they do not, they certainly qualify as spectacle films which ensure character narrative makes the action truly connective to an audience, ergo they fulfill exactly what you seem to suggest is lacking.

If you've not seen the Potter series (one of the finest franchises of all time [once 1 and 2 are out the way], with an obscenely consistent level of quality across seven films that most series can't match in a conventional trilogy),

A "consistent level of quality." Yeah, okay, if the level of quality is "average." The only truly good Potter film I can name is Deathly Hallows pt. 2, because while every film prior to it has been a shell of the book it was based on (least since Azkaban)*, Pt. 2 at least has the benefit of using spectacle. That, and I'd argue that Deathly Hallows is the weakest book outside Cursed Child, so there is that.

*I'll admit that Azkaban and its successors are arguably better movies than the first two, but the first two are at least better adaptations.

The primary avenue most detractors - or even full on haterz - took was dismissing it as a retread of not just ANH, but elements of the whole trilogy. It's impossible not to concede the similarities, and arguably also that it was too similar, but for me and many others what it achieved beyond its running time was what really counted; it gave SW its soul back. The Hall H-baiting trailer line of "Chewie, we're home" was pretty much the mission statement of the studio and of JJ, so to me what it accomplished - in the context of decades worth of pop-culture - was what really mattered. As imperfect as it was, SW was 'home' again, in safe hands, and everyone could relax and enjoy the ride from hereon in.

Disney are then to be commended for the experiment that was Rogue One - but arguably an equal amount of criticism can be leveled at their interference which resulted in a film that's as conceptually and structurally muddled as it is gorgeous to look at and admirably gritty/dark/mature in tone.

Oh, and apropos this thread: I'd say TFA was a good enough example of a character driven 'action movie', even if it could've done with a handful of added scenes that were allowed time/space to breathe (and an axing or complete reworking of the daft pirates'n'monsters sequence). Instead of two idiot Jedi taking on an identity-free rando in black, TFA at least ensures the principle protagonists and antagonist have history, where their conflict is ultimately character driven. I was surprised how Ren was characterised, and definitely in a good way.

Okay, I'll play.

First, I was never aware that Star Wars lost its soul. I figured that we had a good deal, with six main movies ranging from "excellent" to "average" in quality that easily stood on their own, while if you wanted more, there was the EU. Then Disney comes along, retcons the entire EU, and starts making films that no-one asked for. Maybe someone somewhere wanted Episode VII, but I rarely, if ever saw that desire. But hey, I figure if the new movies are at least good, I can bear with that.

So far, I can't call either of them "good," and TFA being so pleased with itself (with lines like "we're home" and "this will begin to make things right") only adds salt to the wound. It's one thing for a film to be average, it's another for an average film to have delusions that it's above average. TFA is still a net positive, and is still character driven, and is still above Phantom and Clones (if not Revenge), but it's arguably the most 'soulless' of the films so far. A sort of "Star Wars greatest hits" rather than doing anything new. It riffs off A New Hope the most, but let's face it, it's arguably OT 2.0. Empire vs. Rebellion, down to the very ship design.

Then we have Rogue One, which for me, is even worse - a muddled mess of a film that has a very solid third act, but even so, it gets an extremely low ranking from me.* Also really not a fan of its tone and aesthetics, which is of course subjective, but again, if Disney gave Star Wars back its 'soul,' what have they done with it? Make one film that's a riff of what's come before, and one film that's worse than most of what came before.

*In case you're wondering, I rank the SW films as thus:

9) The Clone Wars
8) Attack of the Clones
7) Rogue One
6) The Phantom Menace
5) The Force Awakens
4) The Empire Strikes Back
3) Revenge of the Sith
2) Return of the Jedi
1) A New Hope

(And wherever the second ewoks film features in, been so long since I've seen it I can't rank it.)

 

[dscross]

Fighting via editing and not choreography is my biggest pet peeve of modern action movies. There are exceptions but...

Ugh.

I do agree with this as well to an extent. Which do you think are the worst offenders for it?

I love how in some older films, like the first matrix movie, the actors trained really hard for the fights. There?s something great about that. Not sure how many did it then and do it now though.

 

[Yuli Ban]

I've noticed what OP mentioned, and it's due to a variety of things.

Shaky-cam and fight-by-edit are definitely two big reasons why action movies aren't as good as they could be, but there's also another reason? China.

No, I'm not being racist. I'm actually pinning the blame on Hollywood more or less, because here's the thing: China's middle class is huge. Stupid huge. The myth is that there's more Chinese bourgeois than there are Americans in general, but I believe the actual number is somewhere between 150 million and 200 million. Which is still a stupefyingly large number of people.

If Hollywood wants to maximize profits, they need to make movies as culturally diffuse as possible to appeal to as large a consumer base as possible, and if China has as many movie-goers as America (I'm unaware on the percentage of China's middle class that does watch the movies), that means you're gonna want to make sure you don't make movies so culturally unpleasant as to destroy a whole demographic.

Let me put it this way: imagine if someone made a movie that was meant to be a hit in America, though they themselves are not American. The cultural attitudes present in the film are collectivist, focusing away from visual masculinity, and is a pro-authoritarian kind of deal. But it's still aimed at the American action movie crowd. It'd have good explosions and chase scenes, but the message being broadcast might as well be "Stop being beer drinking meat eating dullards and go submit to your social superior!"

There's a better than average chance that such a movie would flop. I'm not saying China's like that (though perhaps a bit more antsy on submitting to the whims of the CCP than Americans would be towards the Democrats or Republicans), but it's something you have to consider. So you're gonna want your characters to be as universal as possible, catering to as many sensibilities as you can. We often champion universal character tropes that reoccur in just about all human societies regardless of those societies' actual historical connection, but if you created a story based off these universal tropes and did nothing more to make it appealing to one group's sensibilities over another's, you're going to have a pretty bland story that everyone will feel like they've heard many times before. Except there's explosions, which may be real or may be CG but are still explosions. So woo?

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

Fighting via editing and not choreography is my biggest pet peeve of modern action movies. There are exceptions but...

Ugh.

I do agree with this as well to an extent. Which do you think are the worst offenders for it?

I love how in some older films, like the first matrix movie, the actors trained really hard for the fights. There?s something great about that. Not sure how many did it then and do it now though.

Taken serves as a good quick example but this editing style is EVERYWHERE.

 

[Squilookle]

Just popping in to say r.e. Mad Max

(not seen the very original, but it looks/seems/sounds kinda terrible).

It's worth it for the opening chase, which is incredible because it was done for real, but the pace of the first Mad Max is almost identical to The Terminator, so be warned. It's not so much an action film as a man being pushed to the edge, and finally pushing back. Fairly simple 70's revenge stuff.

As for whether an action movie can still be an action movie if it doesn't 'action' until the second half, of course it is. Titanic is all mushy romance in the first half and keeps that going even after the action starts, yet to this day people classify it as action. Most great horror films don't kick in the actual horror until the second half either. Doesn't matter. Still Horror.