ShogunRua wrote:You're suffering from Stockholm Syndrome, my friend.
The shaky cam in the Bourne Identity made the action scenes worse than unwatchable.
That's 2-1 just here alone, but I'll accept other references on your side if you can produce them.
Oh, I didn't realize we were exclusively discussing 2012 films. Frankly, Hollywood films in 2012 have been an atrocious disaster, and I don't believe I missed anything particularly good.
I'm going by other posts of yours besides these.
You should know by now how tiers on this site work. I ranked it T9, you ranked it T10.
Yes, and I've only regarded them as secondary references--and I assume you do the same since you used its ranking not its tier to begin with.
You really should read my posts more carefully before firing off a response. As noted by others, I was discussing "The Bourne Identity", and that since I thought it was garbage, I have no interest in watching the rest of the series. Even if they did cast Renner in the last one.
It was an understandable mistake, responding to my exhortation to see the BL by comparing it, the 4th in the franchise, to the first, particularly with a criticism which was a first in my recollection.
Okay then, name me a single big-time Hollywood action star under the age of 40? (For the record, even Statham is 45)
So you at least admit they have been making good action films, but only with 40+ actors.
I don't see how that's relevant. That said, men usually come into fame later than women and stick around longer once they do become popular. That was even more true during the "golden" age of Hollywood. Maturity adds to a man's charisma, right or wrong, and most achieve fame in their 30's, so the A list has peaks and valleys. So what? It keeps stunt men (er, dodos) busy, and I'd like to know what makes you think they aren't busy, if not busier than ever. And, what better credential can an action actor have than doing a majority of his own stunts a la Steve McQueen or (ahem) Jeremy Renner.
As for drawing the line at about 40, you've got, Joseph Gordon-Levett, Ryan Gosling, Channing Tatum, Leo DiCaprio (who's in a lot of action movies if not an action star), Tom Hardy, Jeremy Renner, Jake Gyllenhaal and Matt Damon. I'd also include Shia LaBeouf who many people don't like but I think a lot of that is due to his youth (26), and he has a baby face to boot. They used that disarming asset well in
Lawless, particularly playing with Hardy.
Tell me what the hell happened to Stallone, Arnie, Willis, etc? Why they haven't been relevant in a decade?
Stallone and Willis particularly are as busy as ever, (I liked
Rambo as one of the best action movies of the last decade) and Arnold was (a bad) governor for 8 years as you should know and should have stayed in private life once he left.
Tell me what the hell happened to Jackie Chan, Jet Li, Donnie Yen, and the martial arts genre in Hollywood?
Throw in Van Damme, Chuck Norris and Dwayne Johnson
and they couldn't put together a good movie in a hundred years--and I can't think of a martial arts movie that's above a 30 anyway. Hell tv's
Kung Fu was the best martial arts entertainment I can remember. I can't remember, did it use the swoosh sound ad nauseum as well?
When is the last time you saw a major martial arts film even distributed by Hollywood? And when is the last time you saw one that was actually a hit, and didn't lose money hand over fist?
Well, you played right into my hand with that one. OK, I'll bite, when? Ever??? There's probably been some good ones but they get lost in the genre like vampire/teen slasher movies. Crouching Tiger was supposed to be good, but......
Tell me why there are five times fewer films that even loosely have the tag "action" nowadays as opposed to 20 years ago?
Probably because they've developed and used a lot more tags, and if an action movie has drama or comedy as well, it usually gets tagged with that. And people have become more demanding with action movies, which inherently cost more to begin with, much less the modern action movie, than rom-coms, or the cheapest of all, horror. Follow the money and quality to see where the emphasis is, not the number of films. If quantity was the gage, horror would win hands down, and worldwide, maybe martial arts.
Tell me why most of the ones today are dominated by CGI? Tell me why none of the ones today star action stars, but actors famous for other works?
They certainly use it, and a lot of times to good effect, even in artistic films like
Life of Pi. It looks like action goes out of its way for realism in the better films, again, like
The Bourne Legacy. I'm sure Renner would have appreciated them GCIing the ice in the opening scene, or used a stuntman/GCI for a lot more of the other action. Why do you suppose they didn't? BTW, you do know there've been three directors in the series.
