Old action fims v new ones
Discussion
I 've watched new Predator(s) yesterday and it got me thinking again
Basic question is - why the hell new filmmakers can't do anything comparable to the old ones - Terminator, Robocop, Aliens etc etc including such masterpieces as Blade runner, Total recall. I hope you know what i mean. To my mind the last proper action movie that was 1997 Starship Troopers.
On the other hand there is the Avatar, which is only interesting because of new CGI and so on. Can't remember anything else for the moment. But no real deal for the last decade or more.
I mean there are lots of action films for the moment, but they are all based on an older characters. Nothing new since then.
I'm not moaning or anything - just confused. Proove me wrong please.
Basic question is - why the hell new filmmakers can't do anything comparable to the old ones - Terminator, Robocop, Aliens etc etc including such masterpieces as Blade runner, Total recall. I hope you know what i mean. To my mind the last proper action movie that was 1997 Starship Troopers.
On the other hand there is the Avatar, which is only interesting because of new CGI and so on. Can't remember anything else for the moment. But no real deal for the last decade or more.
I mean there are lots of action films for the moment, but they are all based on an older characters. Nothing new since then.
I'm not moaning or anything - just confused. Proove me wrong please.
It's much easier to use existing IP than find new IP. A sequel usually makes less at the box office than the original film, but the return is much safer than a new and untested story. Hollywood is now owned by massive media conglomerates, and it's even less about the art now than it was.
Morningside said:
Overuse of computers as a main prop / Story mover.
Lack of substance and background to character.
Massive overuse of CGI (when not needed) and therefore requires less dialogue.
Boring female 'interest'.
I think the new Star Wars films are an excellent case in point - along with King KongLack of substance and background to character.
Massive overuse of CGI (when not needed) and therefore requires less dialogue.
Boring female 'interest'.
davepoth said:
A sequel usually makes less at the box office than the original film, but the return is much safer than a new and untested story. Hollywood is now owned by massive media conglomerates, and it's even less about the art now than it was.
This. The same reason why so many "horror" and "action" movies are now 15's or even PG's instead of 18's- bean counters know it makes more money if you have a whole middle class family being dragged along to watch the latest Terminator than it does if you market the film to early-twenties males.Stallone said in an interview that it was actually harder to get Rocky Balboa off the ground than it was the original Rocky- simply because film companies these days are far less willing to take risks, and the dismal performance of Rocky V and a mooted plot revolving around a 59 year old Rocky getting back in the ring scared the marketing and accounting deps.
Basically- Hollywood is going to be almost always s
t for a long time. Though I thought Predators wasn't actually bad at all- certainly better than the AvP dross.Squabbler said:
I mean there are lots of action films for the moment, but they are all based on an older characters. Nothing new since then.
Actually, on this point- it might just be that the Fit Guy thing is yesterday's fad. These day's it's 3D & amazing, or cheap CGI. Back in the 70's & 80's, guys like Bruce Lee, Van-Damme, Ahnold & Stallone and ridiculously homoerotic camera shots were all very new and exciting. These day's they're seen as something to parody, and we want our action more "gritty" and realistic, Like Jason Bourne, or Liam Neeson in Taken.On this subject- my drunken pal was last night describing a film in the making featuring Arnie, Sly, Jet Lee and VanDamme- was he talking crap, or is there some last-hurrah kickass movie being dreamed up?
glazbagun said:
Squabbler said:
I mean there are lots of action films for the moment, but they are all based on an older characters. Nothing new since then.
Actually, on this point- it might just be that the Fit Guy thing is yesterday's fad. These day's it's 3D & amazing, or cheap CGI. Back in the 70's & 80's, guys like Bruce Lee, Van-Damme, Ahnold & Stallone and ridiculously homoerotic camera shots were all very new and exciting. These day's they're seen as something to parody, and we want our action more "gritty" and realistic, Like Jason Bourne, or Liam Neeson in Taken.On this subject- my drunken pal was last night describing a film in the making featuring Arnie, Sly, Jet Lee and VanDamme- was he talking crap, or is there some last-hurrah kickass movie being dreamed up?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6RU5y2fU6s
There were hundreds of duff action films released in the 70's and 80's as well. It also normally takes time for something to be appreciated as a classic. For example Predator was critically panned at the time but is now loved. That said, it's not without flaws and out of the that ear I'd say only Terminator and Alien come close to flawless
glazbagun said:
Actually, on this point- it might just be that the Fit Guy thing is yesterday's fad. These day's it's 3D & amazing, or cheap CGI. Back in the 70's & 80's, guys like Bruce Lee, Van-Damme, Ahnold & Stallone and ridiculously homoerotic camera shots were all very new and exciting. These day's they're seen as something to parody, and we want our action more "gritty" and realistic, Like Jason Bourne, or Liam Neeson in Taken.
Action films still exist, it's the actors themselves that don't. The likes of Arnie, Sly, Dolph, Jean-Claude-Van-Damme-I'm-Good, have been replaced by "less likely" action actors like Matt Damon, Christian Bale, Hugh Jackman, Tom Cruise, Robert Downey Jr in Iron Man.
I'm sure I've read something recently that made a link (whether you believe it or not) between the films of the 80's and the Cold War (a Hollywood, chest beating, propaganda type thing), then the subsequent ending of the Cold War and a more thoughtful "action heroes" appearing.
Depends what you mean by action film but I guess you're right on the "dumbass action films" .
The 80s action film with it's overblown kill rate and simple performances was a by product of the cold war as said. Look at He-Man cartoon
We have gritter stories now, though the violence is usually not as extreme due to the lower ratings, as also said.....Predator/Terminator/Robocop/Alien...all 18s.There was no let up or sacrifices, conciliations..saying that ALien was from the 70s which has been the grittiest decades for films yet I think, which turned into the black and white view of the 80s.
We have gritter stories now, though the violence is usually not as extreme due to the lower ratings, as also said.....Predator/Terminator/Robocop/Alien...all 18s.There was no let up or sacrifices, conciliations..saying that ALien was from the 70s which has been the grittiest decades for films yet I think, which turned into the black and white view of the 80s.Dakkon said:
glazbagun said:
Squabbler said:
I mean there are lots of action films for the moment, but they are all based on an older characters. Nothing new since then.
Actually, on this point- it might just be that the Fit Guy thing is yesterday's fad. These day's it's 3D & amazing, or cheap CGI. Back in the 70's & 80's, guys like Bruce Lee, Van-Damme, Ahnold & Stallone and ridiculously homoerotic camera shots were all very new and exciting. These day's they're seen as something to parody, and we want our action more "gritty" and realistic, Like Jason Bourne, or Liam Neeson in Taken.On this subject- my drunken pal was last night describing a film in the making featuring Arnie, Sly, Jet Lee and VanDamme- was he talking crap, or is there some last-hurrah kickass movie being dreamed up?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6RU5y2fU6s
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff