Movies:Technology As the New Superhero 78
Until recently, the cinematic Superhero has been a major cultural force: Swarzenneger, Stallone, Seagal, Gibson, Van Damme. Although they vary in style -- Swarzenneger likes millenial, biblical and apocalyptic backdrops for his movies, while Seagal is always playing the Lone Ranger surrounded by a sea of corruption -- they have common characteristics. They are anti-authoritarian loners (women love them, but they can't seem to keep any around for long); they carry a lot of hardware, usually 9mm Glocks they can ram clips into and then spew smoking, clinking shells all over.
Things tend to catch fire and explode all around them. The Hollywood Superheroes have little of the nuance or complexity of the comic-book variety. They aren't torn about their roles or identities, they don't have complex histories. Their power comes from muscles and hardware.
They're tough on vehicles, racking up scores of cars, trucks, buses, trains and planes in whatever hapless city they happen to be shooting their way through. They are unabashedly out-of-touch. And they're dinosaurs, fading relics of another time.
Maybe, like Stallone's Rambo, they were post-Vietnam guys who stood in for America's sense of shame and failure, or antidotes to the age of sensitivity and political-correctness.
This genre seems outmoded. Whatever reason the Action/Superhero had for existing seems murky now. Teens are flocking to dumb teen flicks rather than dumb action movies, maybe because they get to watch cheerleaders getting dressed. The Net generation favors a new kind of superhero. Neo (Matrix), Vincent Freeman (Gattaca), and for that matter, the Skywalker gang, none of whom are muscle-heads. They're more likely to use low-tech forms of combat, like martial arts and quick wits. Unlike the massive, thick-necked behemoths above, they're slight and vulnerable, neurotic and brooding.
Perhaps most interesting about these new Superheroes is that they really aren't Superheroes. To younger filmgoers, technology is the hero, not some pumped dumbell with a machine gun. Those guys seem clunky, outdated, overtaken. It's never quite clear what they're fighting for -- ancient warrior notions of bravery perhaps.
Contemporary movie heroes win with superior technology or, at least, superior techno-thinking. They have a spiritual side. The good guys of today's movies don't win by being quick on the draw, but fast on the keyboard.
Technology is surfacing as a character in itself, one which has captured the imagination of younger moviegoers. It was the unheralded star in movies like Titanic and Saving Private Ryan. And Tomb Raider's Lara Croft, a literal creation of technology, is about to get her own movie, starring Angelina Jolie. (The buzz is good). Two of the best moments in The Matrix are when Neo smiles as martial arts tricks are downloaded into his brain, and when he's able to move faster than a speeding bullet (or virtually conjure up some impressive old-Superhero style gunpower). But it's technology that drives him, saves him, and lets him defeat the bad guys. Technology was also the star of Gattaca one of the other prescient techno-theme movies in recent years. Ethan Hawke's prescient character fights the gene fascists by using their own technology against them. As the gene map makes its way to bio-tech companies, this is a good video to keep.
Technology was the hero in Antitrust. In part, it's what made The Blair Witch Project. That wasn't much of a movie, scary or otherwise, but it was crafted and shot (and hyped) with the skitzy, edgy style familiar to anybody who spends much time on the Web.
This summer, Spielberg is expected to take technology to another cinematic level with his much-touted AI, the story of a young boy who isn't a young boy. Nobody's seen the movie, but there's no doubt that technology is literally the hero, as well as the theme.
But in Exit Wounds, Seagal still sticks to the familiar Hollywood Superhero role. He's a loner who's given it all to the job, and gotten no thanks for it. His personal life has gone to hell; he's brave and incorruptible despite living and working in a sea of wusses, back-stabbers and thieves. Seagal has chosen Detroit as the backdrop for this yarn, which has him playing Orin Boyd, the stand-up renegade cop nobody can control, who gets exiled to the city's most corrupt precinct after single-handedly rescuing the Vice President of the U.S. from assassins. Unfortunately for him, he did it without going through channels. There were enough flying bullets and blown-up cars and choppers in the first five minutes to account for a small-scale war. Boyd discovers something is rotten in the Detroit PD and sets out -- with the help of co-star DMX -- to set it right.
He's the perfect anti-technology hero in a technological age, but like this movie, and like others in the genre, isn't blowing up box offices.
There's no good reason to go see Exit Wounds unless you're bored or a true movie junkie (or into car chases, which it does with flair), other than to mark the passing of a breed of cinematic dinosaurs, about to march into Hollywood history and be replaced by a new generation with completely different heroic sensibilities.
My favorite part of the preview (Score:1)
This is a departure from the Hollywood norm. (Score:2)
Good way to spend a afternoon. (Score:1)
oi! (Score:3)
He's a loner who's given it all to the job, and gotten no thanks for it. His personal life has gone to hell; he's brave and incorruptible despite living and working in a sea of wusses, back-stabbers and thieves. Seagal ... playing Orin Boyd, the stand-up renegade cop nobody can control, who gets exiled to the city's most corrupt precinct after single-handedly rescuing the Vice President of the U.S. from assassins. ...Boyd discovers something is rotten in
the Detroit PD and sets out -- with the help of co-star DMX -- to set it right.
What happened to the SPOILER WARNING tagline? Now I know the whole plot! Have some mercy please Jon...
Re:oi! (Score:1)
Re:oi! (Score:1)
-Stype
Haven't we already Seen technology as the hero? (Score:1)
Huh? (Score:1)
As for replacing movie tough guys, I don't think so. Like Jon Katz pointed out himself, movies like The Matrix still have their share of guns and ass kicking. What does annother bad segal movie have to to with Swarzenneger, Stallone, and the other true action heros? If you ask me, not a whole lot.
This Is Not Permanent (Score:4)
It seemed that during the 80's, all we could got was the action movie. How many Sly Stallone, Dalph Lungren, Chuck Norris, so on, so forth movies were made during that time period. Sure, the stories varied in plot, but overall the movies were the same thing over and over again. This continued for quite some time.
Flash forward to the late 90's and early 00's. People felt that the action movie required a message. Look at Sixth Day or End of Days which were both message ridden or biblical in scope. (As a side, I know both were Arnold flicks, but those popped in my head the quickest.) Both bombed. His last big hit was Eraser which was mindless and made $100 million in the US alone.
Where am I going with this? I am not quite sure. I have been up for the last 48 hours with little sleep. I think I am trying to say that the American movie going audience is finicky. It takes a lot to hold attention. If it is story driven, it had better be damn, DAMN good. For example, a great action movie that was primarily story driven was The Usual Suspects, but, if you also want to rake in the money, dumb it down enough and put so much action in that the audience doesn't have time to think. I saw Exit Wound. It was fun. Typical roller coaster analogy. I wouldn't see it again or even rent it, but it was fun.
The action star dead? Nah, just keep it dumb
Bryan R.
Is there anything.... (Score:2)
This was yet another rant from Katz under the guise of movie review. Don't you dare tell me to turn him off.
Christ, I suppose *THAT* is his justification for this movie reviews? This one's whole jist was the exit of the typical superhero with that of the hacker via the general public's preference. Baloney. Katz, care to tell us any major groundbreaking movies vested in technology that weren't shit? The movies he mentions are very weak for this argument.... Antitrust was poorely rated, Blair Witch was a low budget film (infact, mentioning technology helped the blair witch project is absolutely deeiving! WWW, TV commercials, press is press.... SGI's weren't doing any rendering for this flick, and I wouldn't consider the video camera enough to justify calling this movie technology related. Even if it was, technology probably couldn't save it...) and the Matrix wasn't particulary impressive. Hackers, The Net.... Hollywood isn't very big on technology related movies, mabye because they're self-aware they fail to do them well.
Anyway, my conclusion/point: To automatically dismiss the blow-'em-up-killing-frenzy action movie as a dying element in American culture whilist hero's working with technology rather then weapons are the new breed of movies is hogwash; we haven't seen any proof of this thus far!
Katz, get off it. (Score:1)
You need to just move to salon.com or msnbc.com, at least there when they do movie reviews of lame movies, they don't try and justify it talking about technology.
Almost sounded like a Katz article. (Score:1)
but... of course (Score:1)
Re:Good way to spend a afternoon. (Score:1)
sheesh (Score:1)
i've finally figured out Katz's methodology for stories: he has an idea and then works backwards to try and explain his hypothesis. synthesis before thesis + antithesis. that explains why his writing is so impossibly hard to understand.
how, precisely, does going to see Exit Wounds "mark the passing of a breed of cinematic dinosaurs"? i still don't get it. it just. . .it just doesn't make sense to me. i don't always expect to agree with a film critic, but i like for his writing to be at least lucid enough for me to understand what he's saying.
"He's the perfect anti-technology here in a technological age, but like this movie, like others in the genre, isn't blowing up box offices."
had to read that one a few times to get past the spelling errors and poor english. so. . .Katz is saying that Exit Wounds isn't making money? isn't $26 million [showbizdata.com] in ten days pretty darn good?
Re:This is a departure from the Hollywood norm. (Score:2)
Tron... really had nothing to do with technology other than the backdrop. It could have been in pretty much any setting and the plot would have been the same. It was more of a 'man against society' idea like THX-1138.
--
Neo and Freeman (Score:1)
I have always noticed that there has always been a subculture that upheld the values of a simpler hero over the ideal warrior. I just find it easier to relate to and more believable.
OK, I give up (Score:2)
does andover know (Score:1)
Just some comments on the essay (Score:1)
Did you forget Costner? Each time I see him in a new film, he plays EXCActly the same character. I actually think it's rather funny. He's becoming a parody of himself (something he has in common with those already mentioned, but much more in my opinion)
"This summer, Spielberg is expected to take technology to another cinematic level with his much-touted AI, the story of a young boy who isn't a young boy. Nobody's seen the movie, but there's no doubt that technology is literally the hero, as well as the theme. "
Sounds like "Lain" [animefu.net] to me. Is this going to be another Lion King/White Lion [indiana.edu] case?
I think Katz has a point about the change in hero type thing. I don't think this necessarily mean more intelligent movies, but hey, variation is always welcome.
It's not the genra that is over... (Score:2)
It is like somebody took a perl bot, and added the vars $JACKET_TYPE, $DEAD_FREINDS_NAME, $TOWN, $WORTHY_CAUSE_TO_SAVE, $BOSS_BAD_GUY_NAME. Poof, it can put out 50 scripts per minute!
-Spackler
-If you mod me, do I not sink?
he is called Schwarzenegger (Score:1)
Arnold (Score:1)
Allow me a little joke... (Score:2)
(Which Vintermann Was Not Terribly Impressed By)
Ok, so they made a horror movie without special effects or spooky soundtrack.
Now please make a scary movie without special effects, spooky soundtrack or people hyperventilating into a microphone.
Out of Touch, By Any Chance? (Score:1)
Venyce
technocybercompumegahypergolbalneted movies (Score:1)
Re:Haven't we already Seen technology as the hero? (Score:1)
"A young boy is found wandering without any memory of who he is. A family takes him in and begin to look for clues to help him find his way home. In the meantime, they notice that the boy seems to have certain special abilities, not usually found in kids his age, or even fully-grown adults."
Sounds more like he's a child prodigy or something.
Now the movie Josh and S.a.m. [imdb.com] stars two kids. One of them, Josh, is a human who can't drive a really nice sports car (From what I remember). He has a younger brother named Sam. In the movie Josh convinces Sam that he, Sam, is a robot or something to that equivialent. Mostly Josh and S.a.m. is about the two brothers trying to get back home and they find the blonde chick [imdb.com] from The Goonies [imdb.com] along the way.
Anyways, D.A.R.Y.L. was cooler because he steals and flys a jet plane and puts gum over the camera inside the cockpit which was "totally tubular" back in the mid 1980's.
In the end both kids were human. So neither had much to do with them robot wise...
...but remember... Johnny 5 is Alive!
-PovRayMan
----------
Steven Segal Runs Like A Girl. (Score:1)
No one ever said he was a good actor. They all like the action in his films. Who's the chick who popped out of the cake when he was supposedly a Navy Seal turned cook? Now that's worth eight bucks right there.
There is such a thing as co-existence, Jon (Score:5)
Teenspoitation movies (bring it on, save the last dance, other lame cheerleader/high school T&A movies)
Violent action, "dinosaur hero" movies (shaft, gladiator)
Fantasy/Sci-fi/Techie movies (matrix, crouching tiger)
OK Jon, there has never been just one type of movie. And there aren't just three, contrary to your article. What about dramas? There's about a dozen different genres, and as many types of heroes, in dramatic films alone.
By your reasoning, you might as well say that with the release of "The Brothers" that movies with caucasian leads is "antiquated". The simple truth is that they've got different markets. They can coexist and flourish quite will independently. Maybe within the confines of the people you associate with, the "outated brawny superhero" is passe, but there are plumbers and salesmen and housewives and retirees out there, not just 24 year-old dot commers. And they must have missed the newsflash you saw about the old "solving problems through violence" hero, because Segal and everyone else in that movie are laughing all the way to the bank.
Oh, and the technology hero? He's not that new anyway. The first techie hero was Noah. Think about it.
Jon, this is tiresome. You take one small trend in one demographic in the U.S. over a short period of time (i.e., the popularity of a nerdy hero -- which, by the way is not all that new -- Wargames, anyone?) and extrapolate it to suddenly cover global society in perpetuity.
-----------
You should write that program... (Score:1)
Ok, I'm too lazy to give a link for that. Do a seach yourself
Re:sheesh (Score:1)
It's definitely good for a Steven Seagal movie. Not so good for a movie with a real star, but okay.
Josh Sisk
Re:sheesh (Score:1)
Well, when you consider the amount of money that goes into special effects and the actor's payrolls, it's not much at all.
$26 million will probably allow them to break even with production costs and not much else.
--
Re:Haven't we already Seen technology as the hero? (Score:1)
hello?? (Score:1)
is anyone surprised he's beyond learning how to do a new type of movie?
Re:Good way to spend a afternoon. (Score:1)
Re:sheesh (Score:1)
The IMDB lists the budget [imdb.com] of Exit Wounds as $25 million (this probably doesn't include things like marketing). For argument's sake, let's say they break even (I'm ignoring the cut the exhibitors get of the box office). This is not bad at all, actually.
You see, movies rarely make all their money at the American box office. The rest of the money is in overseas showings as well as video sales (and of course merchandising when it comes to big movies). Action movies traditionally play well in other countries because there's less dialogue, and it's not that important anyway.
With how well Exit Wounds is performing, I think it's safe to say Seagal is (sadly) still going to be making movies. Ugh.
Re:Steven Segal Runs Like A Girl. (Score:1)
Re:Haven't we already Seen technology as the hero? (Score:1)
Re:There is such a thing as co-existence, Jon (Score:2)
I'm not sure which Katz post you are referring to, since nowhere did he say only 3 genres exist. He does talk about the various types of modern action films and how they seem to have evolved. It's an interesting commentary if you use your own critical thinking to try and extract value from it.
Oh, and the technology hero? He's not that new anyway. The first techie hero was Noah. Think about it.
The post was about FILMS, not about "biblical action techno geeks." Citing Noah as a contradiction to Katz's modern Hollywood action genre is just broken. Leave out the literature and historical references and you'll be better prepared to deal with this post.
I can see what Katz is getting at, though I don't agree with all of his commentary. Newer action movie templates are being developed, but that doesn't mean that the old ones will go away. There will always be a place for the "old school" asskicking hero. Jon, this is tiresome.
KatzBashing (tm) is so 20th century. If you are going to follow the KatzBashing herd, at least try to be on target.
All I want (Score:1)
Some of the fight scenes I've enjoyed most were out of The Matrix, Rocky IV, and the Phantom Menace (amazing correography!). I was personally disappointed in Crouching Tiger. I have been told of some good Bruce Lee flicks, and will check them out.
Fight Club sounded like it had a good chance to be what I wanted -- but failed miserably. The fight scenes were mediocre, and the lame plot twists had nothing to do with fighting :)
Any recommendations?
Mike Roberto
- GAIM: MicroBerto
Schwarzenegger (Score:1)
Anybody can confirm or deny this?
say what? (Score:1)
Huh? I don't understand your comment about the box offices, considering this. [imdb.com] (as an aside for people who might read this weeks or months from now -- the link goes to last week's box office returns which right now has Exit Wounds at number 1).
Oh for heaven's sake (Score:1)
If I want to cool down by watching 90 minutes of brutal violence, I go see a Arnold or Steven Seagal movie, and don't expect much of a plot except gloating over big guns and a huge ammo budget.
If I want to see an opera, I go to the opera house, and expect to see people sing "I'm Dying" for five minutes. This is what I pay for and expect, regardless of level of realism.
If I want to see a porn flick, I rent one and don't expect a much of a plot at all except depictions of people working out in the nude.
If I feel like seeing that drama everybody is talking about, I may expect something of a plot, but I would not choose that type of entertainment if I wanted big guns or cool technology gloating.
What is supposed to be new?
Re:Just some comments on the essay (Score:1)
Can't intellectualize all the time (Score:2)
Last night my wife and I watched the video of Jackie Chan's "Drunken Master," in which the highest tech shown was a steam-powered locomotive, and we liked it fine.
This afternoon or evening or later this week we'll probably go see "Exit Wounds," and chances are that we'll like it, too. There won't be a single plot surprise, and we already know the Seagal character (there's only one) inside and out, but so what?
Seagal movies are not meant to be taken seriously.
They're mindless escapism.
- Robin 'deserves a mental break today' Miller
Re:This is a departure from the Hollywood norm. (Score:1)
Isn't that pretty much the definition of technology-as-villain?
Technology as SuperHero? Don't forget the writer! (Score:1)
Of all the movies mentioned, what truely made them good was not the effects, but the writing. Technology is just a means to attempt to bring to life what a writer imagines when they draw up a script.
But here is an interesting and really cool thought. As technology becomes more accessible, imagine how the world of visual entertainment will change for the better!
Say you were an artist and writer, and wanted total creative control over a project, your best bet would be in a comic or graphic novel format, since you could do all the work yourself if you really wanted to. But if that comic became popular and turned into a movie or animated movie or series, heaven help you! A thousand people with their own ideas step in and chances are you end up with a disaster.
Now, concider CGI. In time, anyone will be able to make whatever kind of movie they want themselves, given enough time they could possibly do everything, including voices. Yes, there is a balance here, because enough time as to pass that the technology is cheap and user friendly enough for one person to do it. Long time.
But when it happens, a single writer with a single vision can create a movie exactly the way they want it, and I think the industry will be better off for it. Too many cooks truely do spoil the broth.
The Matrix...shrug (Score:1)
Re:All I want (Score:1)
-Stype
Re:Almost sounded like a Katz article. (Score:1)
Re:oi! (Score:1)
A Brave New Katzworld (Score:1)
The Katz Formula is pretty straightforward: "I'm a techno-journalist who finally gets the Geek community." And then there is the corollary: "Everything that occurs in the universe can only be properly understood from the techno-Geek perspective." How typical then to see Exit Wounds pigeon-holed as the harbinger of technologies ascension to the position of Most Important Plot Element in an Action Film.
I really enjoyed Exit Wounds and I liked the plot twist that connected one of the characters to the .Com technology craze, but Katz' perspective is predictably unbalanced. He seems to imply that the only interesting aspect of the movie is the technology focus and also that this is an entirely new area of interest for filmmakers and moviegoers alike.
That is idiotic.
Probably the most powerful use of technology in Exit Wounds is the use of surveillance technology. This is nothing new. Espionage has been a cornerstone of the action film genre for decades. "My name is Bond. James Bond." And if you want to see a movie that really focuses on technology as the linchpin of the plot, consider watching Sneakers, an excellent movie released nearly a decade ago. And yes, it even contains exciting "action" scenes!
It certainly would not be very hard to continue ripping apart the premise of Katz' article, but it seems almost unfair. It isn't hard to push someone off a building when they are leaning out over the edge of the roof. What I will respond to is the claim by Katz that the only good reason to watch Exit Wounds is for the technology.
I'll call the rest of this posting: "Why Exit Wounds is Worth Watching (A Non-Katz Retrospective)".
I've seen all of Seagal's movies. Not all of them are good, but I can say that Seagal is a very competent martial artist (He studied the Japanese martial art, Aikido, for years.) If you speak with someone who trains in this art, they will tell you that on-screen, his movement is very good. As a martial artist, he is interesting to watch. In Exit Wounds there are some nice scenes that exhibit his martial arts ability.
Another distinguishing quality of this movie is that Seagal is moving away from the idea of a superhuman protagonist. Katz said this, but then he said that this was done because technology is usurping the role of protagonist. That is just not correct. What Seagal is moving away from in this movie is the idea of a superhuman protagonist.
In this movie he faces some very difficult opposition. He takes more than a few good shots both physically and emotionally. In several fights, he does not win and takes some pretty good knocks. And then there are the--to me--very amusing scenes where he takes some decent emotional shots as well. Sending him to "Anger Control" counseling was particularly amusing.
Of course, the counseling sessions also introduce Tom Arnold who does--in my opinion--a decent job of being funny. Perish the thought!
This leads to the observation, that the character development in this movie is actually quite good. The best developed character in the movie isn't even Seagal. DMX' character has far greater depth and his story is quite compelling. I'll omit the details to avoid spoiling the plot.
Note that the previous paragraphs say absolutely nothing about technology and yet, they also describe what I liked most about the movie. Not everyone will share my perspective on the movie, but clearly, Katz' perception of this movie as nothing more than a vehicle for technology as superhero is just completely ridiculous. There was much more to this movie than Katz' disparaging commentary would lead one to believe.
I imagine if Katz wrote a review of Jaws when it came out, it would only have said, "'You're going to need a bigger boat.' See? This movie is all about technology."
A very sarcastic, Elo
like from MadTV last night (Score:1)
"The hardest part of a role like this is being able to fly up the walls without wires"
-----------
MOVE 'SIG'.
Uh.. sounds like a dot.com werker (Score:1)
He's a loner who's given it all to the job, and gotten no thanks for it. His personal life has gone to hell; he's brave and incorruptible despite living and working in a sea of wusses, back-stabbers and thieves.
Sounds like everyone who has worked for a dot.com
Re:Arnold (Score:1)
katz, turn off your selective data filter (Score:1)
Obligatory Katz Flame (Score:1)
Birds of a feather do indeed flock together...
The irony...
--
The Truth (Score:1)
What on earth are you talking about? (Score:1)
Yeah, it's familiar to patrons of film festivals, and just about anyone who owns a camcorder, too. It's called "poor quality of equipment and lack of a steadycam" and YOU TOO can replicate it in your own home.
I hate to break it to you, but technology has been king in movies as long as there's been movies; Cars, computers (when they hit the scene), crypto machines in war movies, these are all examples of the "current trend" you're citing. How about the cool disguises on the A-Team? Those count. Or Knight Rider! While they're fairly current, they're not exactly the curve today.
My dad used to tell me, "Pay attention!" Best advice I ever got. I pass it on to you.
--
ALL YOUR KARMA ARE BELONG TO US
Why? (Score:1)
Re:All I want (Score:1)
Seriously, if you want good fighting movies check out some Jackie Chan. Off the top of my head I'd recommend Drunken Master (1 and 2), Who Am I, Rumble in the Bronx, Police Story (1-4, 2 being my favourite.) Take a peek at IMDB as well, most of them have different titles in the US/Europa/Asia.
I actually prefer his movies to Bruce Lee's. BL's movies are too much like Segals. Bruce walks around, someone gets beaten, Bruce kicks the bad guys asses. Jackie OTOH use a combination of flashy moves, martial arts and really stupid stunts. (The failed stunts are traditionally shown at the end of the movie, only those parts are generally worth the watch.)
If you just want action look for John Woo (director) and Chow Yun Fat(actor). Hard Boiled is the movie to see with them.
Unfortunately you will not appreciate any Segal/Van Damme movies afterwards. (But that's pretty much a 'good thing' anyways.)
Maturing Genres (Score:1)
From what little I know of the subject, the original comic book superheros had little of the complexities they do now. They were originally similar muscle bound, shallow characters that appealled for a limited time. As their popularity decreased they were rewritten with darker more vulnerable sides to increase popularity.
The hollywood muscle hero seems to be undergoing a similar loss of popularity as it ages. Likewise it is being replaced by more vulnerable, more flawed characters who still achieve the same feats. The only difference is that single movie characters do not evolve over years as their lifetimes are as short as a movie or two - instead they evolve through new generations. Neo is not a new genre, he's simply an evolution of the same in much the same way that the original superman and today's superman are two totally different entities.
Re:The Matrix...shrug (Score:1)
I agree on your analysis of The Matrix's themes & predictability. However, I found it fabulous from the point of view of implementation and how Morphius et al. cracked it mobile telephones, jacking in, encoded simulation, etc. (though, for some of it, you couldn't look too closely). I also liked it visually, including effects (martial arts, bullet time, rain-of-.50-shells). I saw it a second time months later (in the theater) & it held up.
The real question for me is what will happen in the sequel especially now that Neo is (essentially) a matrix god. In the science fiction (and action) genre I can only think of Terminator II that successfull expanded on the themes of the original, while simultaneously going over the top on action & effects.
import [python.org] standard.disclaimer
Action films still in, just a bad crop (Score:3)
The reason, as already stated, that action films are not as popular right now is because there really isn't much variance in an action film's plot from one film to the next, and Hollywood is running (or has run) out of ideas. And just because there's a crop of bad 'big tough guy' action films of late, doesn't mean that they're on their way out. People actually like that cheezy one-line, in-your-face, completely improbable action - it's why these movies do so well. I mean, Terminator 1 or 2 - completely improbable, even for scsi. Indiana Jones or James Bond as well. I mean, one guy, no matter how buff, suave, skilled, or intelligent, couldn't take out that many Nazis/spies. But it's an 'action' movie, it's supposed to be like that.
Let's take Duke Nukem as an example. The guy's a freaking pimp. He 'kicks ass and chews bubble gum, and he's all out of gum' in the style of Ash. That's some funny crap. He's able to manage a woman and at the same time shoot down a whole squadron of aliens. That would be an excellent action film. Even if you took out the women, guys (and some gals) would go to it in groves. Jon might say, 'the aliens are the technology, really!' but come now. Aliens and technology have been around forever in movies. Deal.
This is just yet Another Example of Jon Sucking Up To Slashot Teens. He's kept the same theme since he arrived with the Hellmouth - free the oppressed geeks of our day, up with technology, down with stupidity and jocks! Just go back and read his stuff, the recursive theme is there. Not necessarily too terribly strong with each article, but it is indeed there.
-------
CAIMLAS
Flashback to the good 'ol days! (Score:1)
c'mon. technology has been the hero in TV shows and movies for decades:
D.A.R.Y.L.
WarGames
MacGuyver
Small Wonder.....my personal favorite =)hehe.
Re:Haven't we already Seen technology as the hero? (Score:2)
Classic line: "A robot becomes human when you can't tell the difference any more". I first heard that about 15 years back, and it still sends chills down me.
There's been any number of dodgy films about robots wanting to become human - usually they go mad and kill ppl. DARYL is the only film I can remember which assumed the robot would be able to fit in, and the implications of it (the boy/cyborg in question was part of a super-soldier research program, and that part of the plot was fairly standard stuff, but the way it was all handled was just great).
Grab.
Re:There is such a thing as co-existence, Jon (Score:1)
Re:first techie hero was noah? (Score:1)
Re:This is a departure from the Hollywood norm. (Score:1)
Technology as the hero? (Score:1)
The Schwarzenneger and Stallone characters may be neolithic in behavior, but they are actually much more technology driven (in the sense that technology is almost always good and that technology is _always_ useful to them).
How does Steven Seagal and Exit Wounds fit in? I have no idea, but then again, I didn't write this article.
Re:Steven Segal Runs Like A Girl. (Score:2)
I'm certainly not going to defend his "acting", and he comes across as something of a jerk in the interviews I've seen and read, but Segal has genuine martial arts credentials - he's a sichi-dan (7th degree black belt) in aikido. (It's alleged that there may be some politics involved in such a high ranking (nothing to do with the movie stuff, some family business), but that's not uncommon in the martial arts.)
Van Damme, while he's very graceful and atheletic, had a few months of karate training (Shotokan, IIRC) and that's about it.
I have met some extremely competent martial artists over the years. They generally have not been "tough looking" people; in fact, some of them you might have mistaken for soft little wimps...until you see them in action.
Hmm, I think you've got a point there. B-)Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
Matrix (Score:1)
That would explain why the matrix was such a success. It is the best of both worlds.
Re:Almost sounded like a Katz article. (Score:1)
Re:sheesh (Score:1)
With how well Exit Wounds is performing, I think it's safe to say Seagal is (sadly) still going to be making movies. Ugh.
What? As along as we have Seagal, the world is safe from Van Damme... oh... er... mebbe not... he's still making movies...
heroes are still the same (Score:1)
The audience is never rooting for the "tech" to win, but for the hero who cleverly uses the tech. The difference between the "action" movies and the "tech" movies is that the hero's mastery lies in muscles vs. brains; the old jocks/geeks thing.
trish
This is a troll. Mod me down. (Score:1)
not quite... (Score:1)
Actually, the point of seeing something other than an action movie is getting to watch your date get undressed afterwards.
Re:Allow me a little joke... (Score:1)
I saw it the night that damn black crystal feel out of my halogen lamp (you know, the Saucer ones) and touched my cut forefinger. It was *perfect* element for
horror; I was convinced I had been exposed to an element that would give me cancer (i'm not kidding! the bulb NEVER needing changing, and I think it might have been a disgruntled Taiwainese worker trying to take someone out.) In defense of my line of thoughts, I noticed a bad burning sensation in my hand and arm for weeks, along with black dust spots appearing randomly in my finger throughout that time, and the thing wasn't that hot; there was also a reddish like pattern of rough skin up my arm, but I was also on Accutane (tm) at the time. Boy, was that ever frightening. I was convinced it was some sort of a conspiracy agaisnt me. I debated making it into an amulet for magical power but decided agaisnt it; I [purposedly!] don't need the devils gifts to get the eye of someone I'd like to fuck.
There was such an abundance of loud young people in the theater (never, never, NEVER see a movie during it's popularity boom -- rule of the thumb for me from now on
Out of the few people I once knew, no one really believed me on the lamp bit being carcinogenic. I've since dropped it.