Nostalgia or truth: The 80s had the best action movies

Nostalgia or truth: The 80s had the best action movies

  • Totally true, Arnold is the best

    Votes: 11 61.1%

  • Bah, nostalgia, and you have no movie taste

    Votes: 5 27.8%

  • Downtown is my biggest action hero

    Votes: 2 11.1%
  • Total voters
    18
invusa.jpg


How do we have an '80s action movie thread without Invasion U.S.A.? This is the movie of the decade, bar none.
  • released in 1985
  • patriotic
  • I mean really, just the whole movie actually
 
I sometimes wonder how it is possible to have a large, generally serious country (USA) produce so lowly mass culture. I mean, if your country is virtually a continent by itself, and has hundreds of millions of people, one would expect mostly the talented enough to rise to the top and create something more notable than "martial arts guy kicks his way through and destroys evil".

Then again, in smaller countries (including most european ones) the film sector requires patronage from national art organizations or similar. It seems to be the case even in most of the more populous euro countries, such as Britain and Spain.
 
Kyriakos said:
I sometimes wonder how it is possible to have a large, generally serious country (USA) produce so lowly mass culture. I mean, if your country is virtually a continent by itself, and has hundreds of millions of people, one would expect mostly the talented enough to rise to the top and create something more notable than "martial arts guy kicks his way through and destroys evil".
Click to expand...
That depends on one's personal taste and their expectations for a movie where the poster is a dual Uzi-shooting Chuck Norris.
 
Traitorfish said:
I think it's partly a question of budgets.

The films you list either had relatively modest budgets, or were made by people who got their state in films with modest budgets. Terminator 2 was a big-budget blockbuster, but The Terminator was a weird genre film with a tenth of the budget of its sequel. This created the space for ideas and talent to find recognition without being held to the expectations of major studio shareholders, which carried over to higher-budget features. There was space for directors and actors and producers and set designers to do weird, potentially unsuccessful things, and if those found an audience, they could be reproduced with bigger budgets.

That space doesn't really exist in modern cinema: action films are almost exclusively high-budget tent-poles, so they tend to be studio-driven and effects-intensive, and lack the flair or enthusiasm that older films had. There are exceptions, like Guardians of the Galaxy and Fury Road, but these were tellingly made by people who had a background in the sort of mid-budget action films which are no longer made. This is reflective of a broader trend within the film industry, of the polarisation between big-budget studio films and low-budget indie films; mid-budget films only really exist as comedy vehicles and Oscar-chasing prestige pieces. The space for film-makers to be weird and risky doesn't exist, so this energy isn't carried over to big-budget films.
Click to expand...
This, a thousand times this. For example, Conan the Barbarian was a fairly large production, $20 million at the time (about $50 million now). Looking at 2008's Iron Man, which was a fairly niche action movie, had a budget of $150 million. Smaller budgets for even fairly involved shoots in the 80s permitted studios to experiment with some niche projects and staff. Sometimes it created cult classics (like Conan), legitimate blockbusters (like Terminator), and frequently junk that was forgotten about once it was out of theater. If a $50 million project fails, that's an annoyance for the studio but not a make-or-break thing. If a $150 million film, or a film somewhere north of $275 million like John Carter flops, its a much bigger problem for the studio.
(Indeed, I think I read that after John Carter and Lone Ranger flopped, Disney took a serious look at killing off their action/adventure pictures.)
 
Kyriakos said:
I sometimes wonder how it is possible to have a large, generally serious country (USA) produce so lowly mass culture. I mean, if your country is virtually a continent by itself, and has hundreds of millions of people, one would expect mostly the talented enough to rise to the top and create something more notable than "martial arts guy kicks his way through and destroys evil".

Then again, in smaller countries (including most european ones) the film sector requires patronage from national art organizations or similar. It seems to be the case even in most of the more populous euro countries, such as Britain and Spain.
Click to expand...

It's because most countries can't even afford to do the reasonably cheap dumb 80s action movies.

The ye ha american type ones haven't aged well. Some are stupidly violent but still kinda fun ,(Rambo).

A few are genuinely clever and often crossover with other genres often sci fi.

Would be surprised to see studios return to making more if them. Something like John Wick can turn a profit, no movie costing 200 million dollars can turn a profit atm.

I think Tenet gas pulled in $200 million but needs double that to break even.
 
Zkribbler said:
For the record: In the first Rambo movie, Rambo killed no one. :please:
Click to expand...

Idk I can't remember it that well. Wasn't even a massive Rambo fan as a kid/teenager.

I did like the Rambo movie from 10-12 years ago.
 
Kyriakos said:
I sometimes wonder how it is possible to have a large, generally serious country (USA) produce so lowly mass culture. I mean, if your country is virtually a continent by itself, and has hundreds of millions of people, one would expect mostly the talented enough to rise to the top and create something more notable than "martial arts guy kicks his way through and destroys evil".

Then again, in smaller countries (including most european ones) the film sector requires patronage from national art organizations or similar. It seems to be the case even in most of the more populous euro countries, such as Britain and Spain.
Click to expand...

The US has also produced filmmakers like the Coen brothers and David Lynch who are talented enough to not be considered lowly mass culture, have done so without subsidies, and reach a large audience.
 
Unpopular opinion: Western action movies absolutely pale in comparison to eastern ones, especially Hong Kong cinema. Also, Terminator 2 is from 1991 and Starship Troopers from 1997. 90s action movies have something going for them.

I guess RoboCop is a cool 80s action movie.

MaryKB said:
I mean, recent Marvel movies are pretty much the best action movies ever.
Click to expand...

Which ones do you like particularly? Lately I've been watching a lot of contemporary action flicks and they're all unequivocally bad, with the exception of Mad Max Fury Road (and non-American movies).

AmazonQueen said:
The US has also produced filmmakers like the Coen brothers and David Lynch who are talented enough to not be considered lowly mass culture, have done so without subsidies, and reach a large audience.
Click to expand...

True that. Some people spend more on a single vacation than David Lynch did for the entirety of Eraserhead!

EgonSpengler said:
Hey, you don't need to sell me on the '80s. I think Aliens is probably still my favorite action movie, and there's nothing objective about it. Just a feeling, as you say, and because I was right in that movie's bulls-eye when it came out. I do wonder how that movie holds up to a first viewing today, especially for someone who's seen some of the recent movies that have Alien DNA. The Descent; the recent Invisible Man; A Quiet Place; Captain Marvel a bit. I'm sure I'm forgetting some.
Click to expand...

What, in your opinion, makes Alien an action movie? To me, it ticks all the boxes of a horror movie, quite like "The Thing".

Maybe Alien vs. Predator could be seen as action, but Alien is imho very, very clearly body horror, I mean it was foundational for the genre itself. (Other contenders imho are "Shivers", "The Fly", "Akira", "Videodrome", "The Thing", "Altered States" and friends).

One could then again say that horror movies are just a subgenre of action movies, to which I would politely but firmly disagree, since Horror definitely came first.
 
Last edited:
Ajidica said:
This, a thousand times this. For example, Conan the Barbarian was a fairly large production, $20 million at the time (about $50 million now). Looking at 2008's Iron Man, which was a fairly niche action movie, had a budget of $150 million. Smaller budgets for even fairly involved shoots in the 80s permitted studios to experiment with some niche projects and staff. Sometimes it created cult classics (like Conan), legitimate blockbusters (like Terminator), and frequently junk that was forgotten about once it was out of theater. If a $50 million project fails, that's an annoyance for the studio but not a make-or-break thing. If a $150 million film, or a film somewhere north of $275 million like John Carter flops, its a much bigger problem for the studio.
(Indeed, I think I read that after John Carter and Lone Ranger flopped, Disney took a serious look at killing off their action/adventure pictures.)
Click to expand...
I think that there's a perverse dynamic at play were studios are hyper-sensitive to opportunity-cost, so prefer to funnel funds into major productions that promise high-returns (in part because of their greater international appeal and the potential for merchandising, theme park attractions, and other spin-offs), but in doing so are making a bigger gamble with every new project, and so try to play it as safe as possible. This leads to the emergence of very safe and formulaic films built around proven franchises and CG set-pieces.
 
Another thought: Where do action movies really begin for you guys? Imho Kurosawas "7 Samurai" invented so many tropes, techniques, camera tricks and others which are still today seen in action movies so that it could easily be called the grandfather of action movies. Other sources name "The Great Train Robbery" from 1903 (which sounds like a mix of action and adventure, two things hard to keep apart). Another clear source of inspiration is western movies, which definitely cross over with action. Some of Hitchcocks influence can definitely be seen in Horror movies imho.
 
yung.carl.jung said:
Which ones do you like particularly?
Click to expand...
I really like the first two Captain America movies, the last Thor one, the Guardians of the Galaxy, Captain Marvel, Black Panther, both Ant Man movies, and most of the ensemble ones (especially Endgame). I really like some of the characters, especially the paragons (like Cap), and the emotional satisfaction of good triumphing over evil, which you don't get a lot these days. I find there's heart in it too, it's not just about endless fighting.

My husband made me watch a few weeks ago this Netflix original called "Extraction," which was basically non-stop military-style fighting. He loved it, but I was bored out of my mind. I actually got up to do the dishes during the movie (I can still see and hear from the kitchen) because really, I'd rather be doing chores than sitting there watching that.

One thing I don't understand, is the obsession with martial arts, and also stunts being "real." I just don't get it, to me that makes absolutely no sense.
 
Last edited:
Kyriakos said:
I sometimes wonder how it is possible to have a large, generally serious country (USA) produce so lowly mass culture. I mean, if your country is virtually a continent by itself, and has hundreds of millions of people, one would expect mostly the talented enough to rise to the top and create something more notable than "martial arts guy kicks his way through and destroys evil".

Then again, in smaller countries (including most european ones) the film sector requires patronage from national art organizations or similar. It seems to be the case even in most of the more populous euro countries, such as Britain and Spain.
Click to expand...
For one, we're not a generally serious country. Second, we have tons of great mass culture. Three:
one would expect mostly the talented enough to rise to the top and create something more notable than "martial arts guy kicks his way through and destroys evil".
Click to expand...
What? Take a break from your Kafka and Lovecraft for a few hours and watch some damn movies.
 
Truthy said:
For one, we're not a generally serious country. Second, we have tons of great mass culture. Three:

What? Take a break from your Kafka and Lovecraft for a few hours and watch some damn movies.
Click to expand...

I can't afford to take a break from serious culture (of which Lovecraft isn't a part, btw).
It's not like it matters, I am just one person and the movie industry certainly won't care.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom