dscross said:
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?