The problem with modern action movies

[TheMysteriousGX]

Methinks you misunderstand the point of Rogue One. This is a movie made for a target audience who already know how it ends. Not why it ends that way, but successfully retrieving the Death Star plans is a foregone conclusion for almost anyone who has even heard of Star Wars.

Yep. The narrative heavy lifting was already done. I enjoyed it immensely, in a "day in the life of the Rebellion" sort of way. A big day, sure, but it was The Dirty Dozen IN SPAAAACE! And the Dirty Dozen spent a lot less time building up its base premise, because it didn't have to. Bad guys were Nazis, Nazis are bad, let's go commit a war crime.

I don't actually know if it would have been a better story or not if Rouge One set the story the same way.

There was a bigger problem than affects just action movies these days though: how many movies just take a moment to breathe anymore? If Rogue One just had an extra ten minutes to let the characters just...hang out at some point? If it got the extra 15 minutes Dirty Dozen had for character interaction?

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

I think part and parcel of the problem with action flicks is the idea that it's simply not enough to have stuff happen on screen. When I was a young guttersnipe, the general paucity of releases, and the fact that back then Australia had roughly 5-6 free tv channels and a lacklustre budget for most, meant that you got the most adventure-y things like classic Doctor Who (reruns mostly).

You had cartoons, you had news, you had some low or moderate budget British and Australian tv shows, then you had primetime American trash. The usual staple.


The thing is that was considered 'enough'. Themoney to provide more or raise people's expectations of both the marriage of cerebral exploration and high budget, meant that ifyou were to produce a high budget film it had to make money. Which meant appealing to as many people as possible. Often hunky death machines facing off against other death machines.

The fact that VHS dominated the only form of portable media also meant action films could do more by showing less. Explosions could seem bigger because, frankly, it's amazing what you can do when you cut off what is now a third of all widescreen tvs. This is what I like to call 'gun show cinematography', where you had entire seconds dedicated to focussing on biceps holding guns and apparently shooting up people that perhaps were happening off-screen, how could you ever tell until the camera finally pans?

The differential between cinema release and home viewing created different experiences and changed our relationship to the protags. Given that as kids you wouldn't often have the money to see those big, high budget action flicks ... but you could afford to rent them on VHS or see them on television.

Action movie producers were acutely aware of how much money they made from this exploding market, and how even lower budget action movies could 'ape' some of the more spectacular cousins.

The thing is that philosophy didn't translate well into the world of widescreen, digital releases and wide-use of the internet. Now we want action movies to have plot and scope, have sweeping vistas... minimalizing the protagonist to less a deity of carnage to some extraordinarily lucky person fortunately not absorbed wholly into all elements of the environments that we can now see.

You can sorta see this legacy still, take the Jason Bourne films ... they want to portray this ideaof the perfect warrior ... so how often does it include panoramic views of the environment itself? Not often. Almost spending 70% of all scenes trying to show every crease on Damon's rapidly aging face.

Take the flipside of this, however. Polar opposite. San Andreas ... how often do you think of Dwayne Johnson as 'powerful' in that flick? You don't ... 'resourceful' comes to mind. 'Dedicated', maybe. Not powerful ... and the only times that youget a sense of his strength is in those intimate close up scenes such as at the start with the car... but the movie is quite clever to have any intimate camera angles juxtaposed near immediately with sweeping vistas that easily dwarf any capacity for human fortitude to find any real answers or innately be able to deal with.

To put it bluntly, San Andreas wouldn't work well in the 1980s/early-mid 90s.

No more cutaway shots of 'guy posing with gun, shooting with a fierce grimace', and then another cutaway of multiple guards/soldiers/whatever falling over bullet-ridden.The staple of the low-medium budget 80s action flick.

 

[jklinders]

My biggest beef with some action movies these days is the camera work. Stop hiding your inability to choreograph and shoot a fight scene by shoving the camera right in the stunt man's face and shaking it around. If you can't competently film a fight scene so that the viewer can see what is going on, then please find some other genre to film, like Rom Coms or something. Way too many directors are using quick cuts and close-ups all wrong in this shit and it is not fun to watch. Since escapism is the name of the game with these flicks it is self-defeating.

Another trend that needs to die in a tire fire is too many named characters on screen for too long at a time. The Hobbit was a good though not perfect example of this. It was a book adaptation and there were 13 dwarfs but most of them had little personality in the movies (three of them even, long ones too) and they simply didn't matter. Cram too many named characters in a movie with little time to digest their traits and you simply stop caring. When you stop caring, it makes the inclusion of the character pointless.

Point 2 is really for all movies, but the need to make action movies more epic and shit has them being bigger offenders than most right now.

 

[dscross]

I can appreciate a well thought out post, but I kinda feel you're drastically overthinking this and missing an essential element... something that can be summed up in a single word.

Spectacle.

Did I? I thought it I pretty much covered the spectacle aspect in the sentences before the bit you quoted.

Cinema has never lost - and will never lose - that vital spark that ostensibly gave life to it all. I enjoy the first and third Transformers films, and you know what I see when a whacking great skyscraper gets cut in half by a colossal Decepticon? What am I really connecting to? The silhouette of a horse galloping endlessly in a zoetrope - or a soundless train coming towards the screen in black and white. All the thousands of hours of work on all those digital pieces of urban sci-fi carnage was affecting the same response to the simple, illusory thrills people experienced at the birth of the medium.

Haha - and you said I overthink? It sounds like you are a cinema buff - I can appreciate this. However, in the same way that people listen to music differently if they play an instrument, I think the majority of people, aren't looking at films this way.

Cinema - like any medium - can be so many things. But being a quintessentially visual medium it will never lose that simple, pure element of sheer spectacle (no other medium scratches the itch like bigscreen cinema). And spectacle never needs to be meaningful or consequential.

People can argue about the finer points of contemporary high tech spectacle, but in terms of the mass market appeal it's just a fancier magic lantern or zoetrope, and regardless of what else cinema can or may be, that simple appeal is never going anywhere. Character defining action/action-as-character is the ideal (Joss Whedon has a knack for that) - but it has never been necessary, and no one should be surprised by its lack in modern spectacles.

I understand what you are saying in terms of cinema being a lot of things to different people, and always being, to a degree, about spectacle. However, spectacle comes secondary to plot and characters, in my opinion. What I was trying t communicate, maybe unsuccessfully, is that action scenes don't mean anything if you don't care about what's going on - the characters, the steaks or the situation.

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. I'm not saying newer films which are purely spectacle are entirely without any merit. But it is a big problem for me because they would be soooooo much more interesting if I actually cared about the characters and outcomes. Often, they don't spend enough time on them anymore for me.

I also feel Rogue One was a bad individual film to look at, because its flaws are almost exclusively tied to it existing in a franchise - and not just any ol' franchise.

I don't think I agree here. For me, it's flaws are a basic narrative problems which I outlined. The characters are brand new, and therefore I need to care about them for the movie to feel worthwhile for me. I expect the same of any movie that isn't a direct sequel in which I already know the characters. Also, the characters are always acted upon in Rogue One, they never seem to make any decisions that have consequences. That's a problem in any film, irrespective of the franchise it's tied to.

Personally, I see this as a bit of a golden age of mainstream action films, certainly where the MCU's concerned (as woeful as their approach to villains/antagonists tends to be, they get the importance of having characters we can connect to. even the most generic like Ant-Man and Doctor Strange have genuine heart/soul). I have absolutely no nostalgia for any of the older 'action films', which is a term that still tends to make me think of the banal hyper masculine violence of the '80's. Or stuff like Jurassic Park and ID4, neither of which I cared for on release, and both of which I see as inferior to today's best.

I mean, jeese, Chris Nolan's an incredible gift to mainstream spectacle cinema; Batman Begins/TDK, Inception, Interstellar to name four (not seen Dunkirk yet, but I gather that's another good'un). To me that's evidence of a medium maturing, and evolving beyond the simplistic trappings of the past.

And surely The Harry Potter series adds to that? The first two were really just kids films, but by Azkaban one of the most consistent and character rich 'action/spectacle' franchises of all time hit a stride few others have matched.

I'd add Twilight to the list of cinematic evolution/growth, too, as unpopular as it'd sound... I felt they were--- er, 'lacking' in quality for the most part (I still like most of the first one, though partly that's to see a curious, Volvo sponsored retelling of Buffy S2. I also like Stewart and Pattinson), but it's proof of mainstream cinema's real diversification, i.e. catering to more niches/demographics (it's not like Hollywood hadn't been pandering to adolescent boys for decades, so pandering to girls and younger women made for a positive change of pace/tone).

Ditto The Hunger Games. And at least two-thirds of the mainline Bourne series.

You might try to say most of these examples aren't 'action movies', but you didn't really define precisely what you meant by that - and you seem to be focusing on narrative and characters, which all of these films deliver on. I'd argue the tastes of modern audiences have become broader and more refined; the mass market has never been smarter (it's also, at its worse, never been dumber... but I see that as fine so long as the spectrum develops at both ends). Hell, even in the one negative example you cited, Rogue One, we have a quite nuanced antagonist played by Ben Mendelsohn, as well as certain protagonists who are morally grey (at best).

Flawed - and arguably 'lost' in editing - as that film may've been, it's still an intellectually broader cut above the majority of spectacle froth of bygone eras. It certainly explores a rather unpleasant, uncomfortably realistic underbelly of the romanticised rebels of the original trilogy.

I have nothing against modern cinema. There are some films I really like which aren't action movies. AND I didn't say EVERY SINGLE ACTION FILM suffers from what I said.

You have correctly pointed out that I don't see some of the films you point to as 'action movies'. Films like Twilight, for example, aren't action films - and it's a bad movie for other reasons in my opinion - so I don't know why that's being brought into it at all. I would class Batman as action, obviously, but I don't think in that particular case it suffers from it the things I outlined as much as many others.

I know you said you didn't like Jurassic Park, but I do, and it's critically acclaimed, so I'm going to use an example vs it's modern counterpart Jurassic World - both action films.

Jurassic Park - The entire first half of the film is spent getting you to care what happens to the characters and plot building. By the time the T-Rex breaks free there is lots of tension because you don't want them to die - you know them. Every subsequent action scene is tense because they spent time setting the scene and building the characters.

Jurassic World - This movie consists of lots more action sequences and very little character building. Yes, CGI dinosaurs fight in this movie, but that novelty wears off after a minute or two. Not a single character is the least bit interesting. You know exactly who in the movie will live and who will die. Even worse, chances are you won't care. A lot of people say that found it 'entertaining', but that is an incredibly low standard for 'entertaining'. It's like saying 'Wow, I was entertained by all the guns being fired in that movie'.

Now, I realise spectacle, as you've said, plays a part - but geez, why can't we have both? I also realise there are some great action movies still being made, but there are a lot more that are forgettable for the reasons I've outline, in my eyes.

I also see TV as relevant to this; how tastes have shifted, and - I feel - become richer and more diverse. Daredevil S1 and 2 were pretty much Marvel's The Dark Knight, in terms of a very grounded genre narrative/world building married to genuine thematic depth and complexity (incredibly dark, but not grimdark). One of TDK's best and most tense scenes is pretty much just three guys shouting at each other... as themes and plot points finally come to a head. Daredevil S2 at its best, for me, matched that, and also paired it with action worth a damn (as great as Nolan's trilogy is, action wasn't a strong point).

I can't really comment on the shows you mention (I haven't watched them) and I'm reluctant to bring TV shows into the discussion because, usually, TV shows are more intensely character driven. Plus, you see them week in week out so you are bound to feel a connection to them over time and therefore the the steaks and consequences are implicit. You don't have that luxury in a 1.30-3 hour film. One of my favourite old action shows is Buffy, but that is HEAVILY character driven.

...my overly long point being; if classic/older action films have died off - good? Because what's ostensibly replaced and/or diluted it is so much more diverse and engaging.

Thanks for the long well thought out post. Even though I don't agree with a large portion I can see you put time and effort into it. I can't agree with you on the main point though, as I've made clear.

 

[DrownedAmmet]

The one thing I've noticed about old action movies vs modern ones is that the protagonists don't seem to struggle as much. Look at Die Hard vs Taken. Jack McLane is just some washed up cop who barely survives his fights, and his toughest opponent is an Australian guy with an Aug.
Whereas Liam Taken is an old retired dad who just happened to be the greatest soldier who ever lived and can take out twenty guys with no issue even though he's been sitting on his ass watching football for twenty years

I haven't seen an action movie with as good a climax as the likes of Die Hard, Robocop, or even Total Recall in a while

 

[Darth Rosenberg]

Did I? I thought it I pretty much covered the spectacle aspect in the sentences before the bit you quoted.

Not really, because you still seemed to phrase it in terms of characters overcoming things as well as the "engaging excitement". All true, but the DNA of visual, technological spectacle requires no engagement, and nothing about character.

However, in the same way that people listen to music differently if they play an instrument, I think the majority of people, aren't looking at films this way.

I think that's exactly what they're connecting to, given a conscious awareness, or a basic critical perspective on film history, isn't required in the slightest for mass market punters to be wowed and dazzled for two hours in a theatre. Most people do not think about the technical aspects, themes, or character arcs.

That's not me belittling the mass market, btw, because mainstream films fulfill a given social/cultural requirement, and that'll always be the case - just as artier films exist to fulfill their collective 'purpose' or need.

However, spectacle comes secondary to plot and characters, in my opinion. What I was trying t communicate, maybe unsuccessfully, is that action scenes don't mean anything if you don't care about what's going on - the characters, the steaks or the situation.

Action scenes don't mean anything if you don't care about the steaks? That's--- very specific.. ;-)

Surely your own non-food related phrasing says it all, though; "in my opinion". That's fine, and I'd personally generally agree with you (or, rather, it's the ideal), but in terms of what mass market spectacle represents, character-before-spectacle has never been the case. It's never needed to be the case.

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.

Hm, not sure I remember any steaks being in The Matrix or Gladiator...

I don't think I agree here. For me, it's flaws are a basic narrative problems which I outlined. The characters are brand new, and therefore I need to care about them for the movie to feel worthwhile for me. I expect the same of any movie that isn't a direct sequel in which I already know the characters. Also, the characters are always acted upon in Rogue One, they never seem to make any decisions that have consequences. That's a problem in any film, irrespective of the franchise it's tied to.

It did have some basic issues, absolutely, but it cannot be compared to the those others you namechecked because they were the first - sometimes only - entries in a series. Rogue One is the product of arguably the most high profile global pop-culture phenomena stretching back almost forty years, encompassing seven films.

Every fiber of its being is defined by those decades and those other films. 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).

The entire plot is in service of the '77 original, its tone is in service to an experiment in crafting a much darker, Jedi/Force-free Star Wars story on the big screen (something I never thought I'd live to see after the garbage, infantile prequels). None of the Vader scenes could've existed without the shadow cast by one of the greatest pop-culture icons of cinema history. The single lightsaber scene was a bone thrown to fans (incredibly cynical, but still awesome... ). Were it not for the IP's legacy, would a new film's company have needed to obsessively digitally recreate two iconic actors/roles? Rogue isn't any ordinary film, regardless of genre.

In one sense - from a mass market POV - we don't need to know anything about the characters, as the whole project is an odd mash-up of conceptual experiment and franchise micro-management. It was a fascinating misfire, though one I still enjoyed; it's easily one of the best photographed Star Wars films of the series (as senseless as the 'long walk' at the beginning is, it's an incredible shot), there's a sense of scale and - ahem... - spectacle that's almost unique in the series, and I loved its morally grey, gritty tone. I felt Felicity Jones was a bit dull, performance wise and character wise, but I liked Luna's Cassian Andor, and the finale actually did provoke a few tears. So I, at least, was moved enough to care about the characters.

The performances are so good that, for me, they all managed to impart a sense of who they were in the scenes they had. Could've done with a little less snark from K2SO, then maybe that was a compromised bone thrown to try to keep the younger kids onside given it was an admirably bleak Star Wars film [with a really shitty last shot/scene].

I reckon Mendolsohn's performance is also one of the best of the whole series; a sympathetic yet snidely egotistical Empire technocrat, essentially being marginalised by upper management... In the original trilogy the Empire officers were lackeys or caricatures. Cushing gave a damn fine villainous performance, but it had none of Krennic's humanity, flaws, and endearing mundanity. Pairing him in scenes with Mads Mikkelson was a bit of a masterstroke, too.

So I'd refute your critical use of Rogue One on the grounds of it being the product of forty years and seven films, but also simply in terms of quality. Massively flawed as it was, there was still more than enough to make it a worthwhile addition to the series and to pop-culture in general.

I have nothing against modern cinema. There are some films I really like which aren't action movies. AND I didn't say EVERY SINGLE ACTION FILM suffers from what I said.

You seem to see it as a trend, though, and from where I'm looking I see a large amount of greatness and either a typical, or irrelevant, amount of wholly soulless, characterless spectacle.

A focus on character's also obviously quite meaningless if it fluffs its own lines; I'd rather Pacific Rim skipped the bad soap-opera scenes entirely and had more Jaegers punching things.

You have correctly pointed out that I don't see some of the films you point to as 'action movies'. Films like Twilight, for example, aren't action films - and it's a bad movie for other reasons in my opinion - so I don't know why that's being brought into it at all.

Because it relates to how mainstream cinema has diversified, and perhaps how that quite reductive label may've simply bled into other genres, e.g. a teen romance about vampires including tree hopping antics and CG wolf packs. CG - 'pure' spectacle - is servicing world building and character narrative, as opposed to always having to take center stage.

(one could possibly, simplistically, say that given fancier spectacle is now more convincingly spread across the many genres, the few films truly pushing the technical envelope often overcompensate to distinguish themselves. Batman v Superman was appalling in almost every possible way, but it had fancy spectacle and still did well enough at the box office)

I'd argue you picked out the cream of the crop of mainstream cinema in general, not 'action movies'; I personally don't like Jurassic Park or The Terminator, but I'll concede they're at least well crafted films, which span from '84 to 2000. You're effectively holding up some of the most iconic films of all time, and that's your decades-spanning yardstick? Isn't that a tad unfair or misguided?

I would class Batman as action, obviously, but I don't think in that particular case it suffers from it the things I outlined as much as many others.

See, I wouldn't particularly class it as an action film at all. Again, diversification of genres and demographics; it's on the grittier end of the comicbook narrative spectrum. It has spectacle, sure (lots of it poorly shot or clumsily staged, frankly), but 'comicbook drama' suffices better than 'action movie'.

Jurassic World - This movie consists of lots more action sequences and very little character building. Yes, CGI dinosaurs fight in this movie, but that novelty wears off after a minute or two. Not a single character is the least bit interesting. You know exactly who in the movie will live and who will die. Even worse, chances are you won't care. A lot of people say that found it 'entertaining', but that is an incredibly low standard for 'entertaining'. It's like saying 'Wow, I was entertained by all the guns being fired in that movie'.

Firstly, I didn't care about any of the characters in the original, as I found them variously boring or irritating. I quite fancied Laura Dern, but that's about it...

Given my apathy towards the franchise I have no intention of seeing World or its inevitable sequel/s, but I do know one fairly major thing; Jurassic World was a huge hit, and evidently scratched the mass market itch for spectacle. It's doing what it was genetically engineered to do.

Now, I realise spectacle, as you've said, plays a part - but geez, why can't we have both? I also realise there are some great action movies still being made, but there are a lot more that are forgettable for the reasons I've outline, in my eyes.

As an aside, I do rather hate the term 'action movie'. How much action does a film have to have to qualify for that bland title?

Anyhoo, yes, we can - and do - often get both. Apropos the pros and cons of modern franchises; Guardians Of The Galaxy 2 was rather wonderful, as was the original, in terms of character narratives with plenty of spectacle, flair, and oodles of heart (took me two or three viewings, but I'd probably say 2 trumps 1 - it's definitely more ambitious and far less formulaic, and pretty much every single thing is driven by characters).

And that's the thing; something like Harry Potter did deliver on spectacle and character narrative, and it was more or less one of the biggest IP's on the planet for much of its duration. The MCU has its detractors, but it is always grounded in character narrative; The Winter Soldier was a bit of a revelation for me, as I never thought I'd get to see that good an expression of that character done in such a way. Civil War pivoted on character narrative spanning across multiple films.

The Hunger Games spawned a slew of angsty dystopia-lite films/wannabe series', but across its four entries it had a lot of action, and it was massively focused on character interactions.

What about Mad Max:Fury Road? Surely that's the equal to those four classics you mentioned? If you can cherry pick across several decades, then I'd say I'm consistently picking damn fine contemporary films featuring lots of action which also celebrate characters (not seen Wonder Woman yet, but that's been more or less universally praised).

Oh yeah, then there's Logan, proving modern mainstream cinema can generate ferociously dark, intelligent character driven 'action' films of the kind that's not really been seen before.

Ditto the Planet Of The Apes trilogy. I didn't like where War ultimately went (not to a war, that's for damn sure), but that was a nearly uniformly superb trio which married brilliantly detailed character narrative with real spectacle (in this case the realisation of the world, and of the astonishingly lifelike apes).

I can't really comment on the shows you mention (I haven't watched them) and I'm reluctant to bring TV shows into the discussion because, usually, TV shows are more intensely character driven.

I feel it's incredibly relevant because a common thing to see and hear is the notion that the small screen is where the more ambitious character narrative stuff's done - which ties straight in to my angle that what you're looking for hasn't gone anywhere, and that pop-culture's simply become more compartmentalised; more complicated, more nuanced, more diverse (Daredevil biases towards drama, sure, but it does not scrimp on some incredibly complex, prolonged, and grueling action sequences. S1's sadly a bit better in that respect, I reckon, but S2 has a few great moments).

Plus, you see them week in week out so you are bound to feel a connection to them over time and therefore the the steaks and consequences are implicit.

Either you're a huge meat eater, or you're a vegetarian in denial...

Actually, no, seeing them week in, week out isn't the only way 'TV' is consumed (like a steak!) these days, given the bizarre popularity of binge watching. Blitzing genius art/entertainment in a matter of days or hours seems to be the done thing these days. I digress...

You don't have that luxury in a 1.30-3 hour film. One of my favourite old action shows is Buffy, but that is HEAVILY character driven.

Eh, see I wince at anyone calling it an 'action' show. It was a character drama - with some action, as all Joss's shows have been. Nuff said. Buffy's action was, for the most part, dreadful, and no one remembers it fondly - let alone loves it, as I still do - for that component (she was a 'bad ass', sure, but they don't remember the obvious stunt double stand-ins and flimsy kicks'n'punches).

I can't agree with you on the main point though, as I've made clear.

I'm not sure what you actually want, though, other than 'more films like four wildly different iconic classics spanning several decades', particularly given how many contemporary films can more than hold their own against them (I'd say Fury Road and Logan were better than JP and The Terminator. more interesting and profound as character narratives, and with spectacularly staged action).

Could you honestly say there isn't some nostalgia in your gripes with modern films?

 

[dscross]

snip

Dude there?s far too much for me to deal with here. My head?s going to pop. I know my initial post was fairly long but these replies are getting too big for me now. I?ll just answer a tiny bit because I disagree with you on so many things in that post, including our different film tastes from the examples you mentioned as well as definitions of things like ?action films? etc, that it would take me much longer than I?m willing to spend typing it all out. Maybe we should just take small bits out? I?ll answer...

Could you honestly say there isn't some nostalgia in your gripes with modern films?

No. I don?t have a gripe with modern films. Just action films with little or no character building, which I think I?ve made clear and of which I think there have been a lot of late. You obviously don?t think that.

By the way, I don?t get why you would bring up Chris Nolan in the first place if you are then going to say Batman isn?t an action film. I only mentioned it in reply because you mentioned him. I thought you were on about Batman. Were you talking about different ones? Because otherwise why bring it up?

 

[Darth Rosenberg]

No. I don?t have a gripe with modern films. Just action films with little or no character building, which I think I?ve made clear and of which I think there have been a lot of late. You obviously don?t think that.

I've cited a decent amount of recent, excellent character driven films with a hefty dose of action in, so nope. Hell, I think TV and videogames are vastly superior now than they've ever been, so I'm definitely Team Contemporary Pop Culture (don't forget there's always a boatload of crap in every medium - that's never changed, nor will it).

As for textwalls: fair enough, but this is a big, sprawling, complicated subject. And given all (I think?) the films you mentioned positively are reasonably old, it does seem a tad tied to personal nostalgia.

By the way, I don?t get why you would bring up Chris Nolan in the first place if you are then going to say Batman isn?t an action film. I only mentioned it in reply because you mentioned him. I thought you were on about Batman. Were you talking about different ones? Because otherwise why bring it up?

I brought it (or, rather, two thirds of 'em. I think Rises is a fairly bad film, comparatively) as consensus might view it as an 'action' film. I can't stand that reductive a label, so I'd personally refute the term, but I feel - with your apparent definitions - it'd fit your bill, ergo add to the 'things are better now' perspective.

I think at this point superhero/comicbook film is its own genre, and that encompasses something like Civil War with a ton of action in, and Logan with a fair bit less. Nolan's Batman trio's at the more thoughtful end of the CBM/superhero spectrum, but it generally comes at the cost of some ropey action and set-pieces. For me The Winter Soldier's a much better compromise, though it obviously yields some thematic depth (it's one of my favourite comicbook or blockbuster films ever, but I tend to refute the notion that it has much to say about surveillance states and wotnot. that's mostly just text, not subtext).

 

[Ogoid]

I see the topic of Fury Road has come up, and while I could probably write a considerably-sized novel's worth on that one, instead I'll limit myself to link to this three [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_2sPkfPKwc] part [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggkyN6pmVEg] video [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWfFpdI4aaU] comparing it to The Road Warrior, which I think is quite apropos of this discussion.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

I'm a pretty hardcore fan of action movies and I really don't think having stakes is the key to a good action movie or action scene. Come on, we know the main character is at least going to make it to the end battle, that doesn't nullify all other action scenes besides for the last one. Even in say Logan we know Wolverine is going to make it to the end battle whether he gets killed off or not. In a Jackie Chan movie, we know he's going to save the day, it's the how that makes it special. Characters are always the most important aspect of a movie and that is still key for an action movie because you have be interested or like the characters because most of the runtime of an action movie isn't action so a movie with amazing action scenes still isn't a good movie because over half the movie isn't entertaining. Learning something about a character from an action scene can be instrumental in making the scene that much better. However, in the end, the construction is the most important element of an action scene. That fight scene between Michelle Yeoh and Zhang Ziyi in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon is amazing just as a standalone piece; the choreography, how it's shot, and the music is all amazing.

America has always been behind with regards to action movies because the time required is just not taken to properly construct and shoot an action scene. That's one reason you see over-reliance on quick-cuts because the director doesn't know how to properly shoot an action scene and the editor has to piece together the scene as best as possible. It also didn't help that the whole quick-cut thing become an actual style. Liam Neeson jumping over a fence with a million cuts [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCKhktcbfQM] is the epitome of Hollywood sucking with regards to action. Even in the height of the action hero, the action was lazy and of poor quality. Hong Kong was totally demolishing pretty much everything done in Hollywood, both fight choreography and stunts.

With that said, action quality in Hollywood is probably the best it's ever been really. The advent of amazing CGI actually helps in the regard of having long, wide shots in superhero movies. The recent renaissance from movies like The Raid and John Wick is definitely helping in getting rid of that Paul Greengrass shaky cam, quick cut Bourne shit (the 1st one is good because it's not Greengrass directing) that became a style.

 

[Casual Shinji]

I'm a pretty hardcore fan of action movies and I really don't think having stakes is the key to a good action movie or action scene. Come on, we know the main character is at least going to make it to the end battle, that doesn't nullify all other action scenes besides for the last one. Even in say Logan we know Wolverine is going to make it to the end battle whether he gets killed off or not. In a Jackie Chan movie, we know he's going to save the day, it's the how that makes it special. Characters are always the most important aspect of a movie and that is still key for an action movie because you have be interested or like the characters because most of the runtime of an action movie isn't action so a movie with amazing action scenes still isn't a good movie because over half the movie isn't entertaining. Learning something about a character from an action scene can be instrumental in making the scene that much better. However, in the end, the construction is the most important element of an action scene. That fight scene between Michelle Yeoh and Zhang Ziyi in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon is amazing just as a standalone piece; the choreography, how it's shot, and the music is all amazing.

Yes, we know the hero will probably survive, but we still need to feel their struggle against the odds. We need to be made aware of what will happen should they lose, what will happen to them or their loved ones if they don't conquer whatever threat they're confronted with. You take the '100 mile dash' scene from The Incredibles, and the reason it's so effective is because the henchmen are presented as having no qualms shooting and killing Dash if they get the slightest oppertunity, and showing them relentlessly pursuing him to do so.

 

[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.

 

[dscross]

I've cited a decent amount of recent, excellent character driven films with a hefty dose of action in, so nope. Hell, I think TV and videogames are vastly superior now than they've ever been, so I'm definitely Team Contemporary Pop Culture (don't forget there's always a boatload of crap in every medium - that's never changed, nor will it).

Without going into all the movies you mentioned, I think our disagreement lies, in part, in definitions and generalisations, which I feel are necessary for more succinct and easier to read posts unfortunately. For example, I could have labelled the thread 'My problem with a certain type of modern film which seems to prioritise action scenes over character building (which I think is necessary for building tension)', but that wouldn't have been a very good headline would it?

 

[Darth Rosenberg]

Without going into all the movies you mentioned, I think our disagreement lies, in part, in definitions and generalisations, which I feel are necessary for more succinct and easier to read posts unfortunately. For example, I could have labelled the thread 'My problem with a certain type of modern film which seems to prioritise action scenes over character building (which I think is necessary for building tension)', but that wouldn't have been a very good headline would it?

It seems incredibly vague yet incredibly hyper specific at once... I'm not sure what the real difference between the old films you picked out and the many contemporary ones I picked.

Does Harry Potter fit into the braindead box marked 'action movie'? If not, then you surely shouldn't count any of the Batmans as they'd broadly feature similar amounts and scales of action. Hell, the actual action - when it happens - in Potter trumps pretty much anything in Nolan's trilogy. Dumbledore vs Voldemort in the Ministry of Magic's an incredibly staged confrontation (superb use of music, i.e. not using music during key stretches).

What about the Apes trilogy, or the MCU? Doctor Strange may've been a little disappointingly formulaic as far as origin stories go, but everything was in service of character, and it managed to offer up genuine spectacle.

By your own definition there seems to be no 'problem with modern action movies'. If you don't personally like Potter, Apes, or the MCU (or Fury Road, or Logan, etc), then that doesn't change the fact that character-and-narrative spectacle films absolutely exist.

 

[dscross]

Without going into all the movies you mentioned, I think our disagreement lies, in part, in definitions and generalisations, which I feel are necessary for more succinct and easier to read posts unfortunately. For example, I could have labelled the thread 'My problem with a certain type of modern film which seems to prioritise action scenes over character building (which I think is necessary for building tension)', but that wouldn't have been a very good headline would it?

It seems incredibly vague yet incredibly hyper specific at once... I'm not sure what the real difference between the old films you picked out and the many contemporary ones I picked.

Does Harry Potter fit into the braindead box marked 'action movie'? If not, then you surely shouldn't count any of the Batmans as they'd broadly feature similar amounts and scales of action. Hell, the actual action - when it happens - in Potter trumps pretty much anything in Nolan's trilogy. Dumbledore vs Voldemort in the Ministry of Magic's an incredibly staged confrontation (superb use of music, i.e. not using music during key stretches).

What about the Apes trilogy, or the MCU? Doctor Strange may've been a little disappointingly formulaic as far as origin stories go, but everything was in service of character, and it managed to offer up genuine spectacle.

By your own definition there seems to be no 'problem with modern action movies'. If you don't personally like Potter, Apes, or the MCU (or Fury Road, or Logan, etc), then that doesn't change the fact that character-and-narrative spectacle films absolutely exist.

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.

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. I haven't seen it so there's no point in saying anything to me about this one. Not seen Doctor Strange or MCU either. Yes Batman I would class as action - I like those films and think there's a lot of time spent on Bruce Wayne in the first film.

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.

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.

Edit: And yes, I personally think there is a problem with a large majority of 'what I class' as modern action movies. I think we'll just end up going around in circles with this now though which is why i tried to bring up the fact that we are having some trouble with each others definitions to find some common ground between us.

I was trying to communicate that I used a generalisation, as everyone does when discussing broad topics - but it doesn't apply to every single one, so you can name some which don't fit 'what I see' as 'the trend' (although I may disagree with your choices) and they may well not fall into the category. That's all really.

 

[hermes]

The one thing I've noticed about old action movies vs modern ones is that the protagonists don't seem to struggle as much. Look at Die Hard vs Taken. Jack McLane is just some washed up cop who barely survives his fights, and his toughest opponent is an Australian guy with an Aug.
Whereas Liam Taken is an old retired dad who just happened to be the greatest soldier who ever lived and can take out twenty guys with no issue even though he's been sitting on his ass watching football for twenty years

I haven't seen an action movie with as good a climax as the likes of Die Hard, Robocop, or even Total Recall in a while

To be fair, Die Hard was one of a kind in how much punishment the protagonist took. In most action movies at the time, the protagonist were immaculate: Bruce Lee was capable of cleaning a warehouse of grunts without a single one laying a hand on him, Charles Bronson would kill the equivalent of a small neighborhood without shedding a single drop, and John Wayne would barely even got dirt on his clothes during his adventures...

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.