Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Narzack
Sep 15, 2008
Are there any action directors you guys will watch anytime? I'll watch most anything from John Woo, Jackie Chan, Stanley Tong, Sammo Hung, Neil Marshall, Joe Carnahan, or Martin Campbell.

And making that little list, it seems to me that there aren't too many 'action' directors in the west, apart from the DTV guys.

Why is that, do you think? Horror has genre directors, as does sci fi, and comedy, but it seems like there aren't that many strong action directors.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

mobby_6kl
Aug 9, 2009

Maybe Johnnie To as well, I guess? I think you got almost everyone, as you say there aren't many genre directors that come to mind.

I watched the original Kickboxer yesterday and it was kind of a disappointment. I din't expect miracles obviously but I loved Bloodsport and this felt way weaker, probably because it's a more cliche revenge quest instead of the ridiculous kumite setup, and less runtime is spent on JCVD kicking people in the face in favor of a extended training montages. The fights that were there also didn't feel as good as the ones in Bloodsport, although it's been a while since I watched that.

WeedlordGoku69
Feb 12, 2015

by Cyrano4747

Narzack posted:

Why is that, do you think? Horror has genre directors, as does sci fi, and comedy, but it seems like there aren't that many strong action directors.

I feel like a lot of this is that Hollywood action is very star-driven, rather than being auteur-driven. Commando, Terminator 2, and Total Recall are all totally different movies by totally different directors, but they're typically talked about as being of a piece with each other, due to the shared factor of Schwarzenegger. Stallone's movies get similar treatment.

Narzack
Sep 15, 2008

mobby_6kl posted:

I watched the original Kickboxer yesterday and it was kind of a disappointment. I din't expect miracles obviously but I loved Bloodsport and this felt way weaker, probably because it's a more cliche revenge quest instead of the ridiculous kumite setup, and less runtime is spent on JCVD kicking people in the face in favor of a extended training montages. The fights that were there also didn't feel as good as the ones in Bloodsport, although it's been a while since I watched that.

You're right; Bloodsport is a better movie, but I think Kickboxer has better music. Also Van Damme dancing.Van Damcing? Van Dancing?

LORD OF BOOTY posted:

I feel like a lot of this is that Hollywood action is very star-driven, rather than being auteur-driven. Commando, Terminator 2, and Total Recall are all totally different movies by totally different directors, but they're typically talked about as being of a piece with each other, due to the shared factor of Schwarzenegger. Stallone's movies get similar treatment.

Yeah, you're probably right. I think the 80's action star trend really did a number on Hollywood. Sorta like how Saving Private Ryan and the Matrix ruined action movies from the 2000's till pretty recently.

Although, that reminds me to add John McTiernan to the list, criminal though he is.

Wheat Loaf
Feb 13, 2012

by FactsAreUseless

Narzack posted:

And making that little list, it seems to me that there aren't too many 'action' directors in the west, apart from the DTV guys.

I suppose there's always Michael Bay. :v:

brocked
Oct 25, 2005

All shall love me and despair!
Who's the director for the last 3 Liam Neesons movies?

Wheat Loaf
Feb 13, 2012

by FactsAreUseless
Jaume Collet-Serra.

HUNDU THE BEAST GOD
Sep 14, 2007

everything is yours
Who came from horror films, just to bring it full circle.

Neo Rasa
Mar 8, 2007
Everyone should play DUKE games.

:dukedog:
Bloodsport just has so much energy and the pacing is great, it's impossible to not watch and enjoy on some level.

Narzack
Sep 15, 2008

Wheat Loaf posted:

I suppose there's always Michael Bay. :v:

Yeah, I just thought of that. And, I know he's pretty easy to hate, but I believe he has his strengths, particularly lighting and composition. And when he's on, he's very good, such as the highway chase in Bad Boys 2. And when he's off, he's pretty terrible, such as most of the Transformers movies.

Sir Kodiak
May 14, 2007


Zack Snyder

Narzack
Sep 15, 2008
If this was 2010, then, yeah, I'd add him to the list of action directors I'd watch. But, as with a lot of Hollywood, once he got huge budgets, his movies became pretty soulless and empty. Just loud, chaotic cartoons. I mean, I should have suspected something was up when he shot nearly all of 300 on a green screen with a rock.

I reallydo believe that large budgets hurt the actiongenre. It thrives in the 20-80 million range, ala the Joel Silver and Simpson/Bruckheimer movies. They could also afford to be R-rated. With the budgets now so high, they're all chasing that lovely pg-13 demo.

You say, but Bay has enormous budgets! And, yes he does, but so much of his mayhem is done in-camera, with practical effects and real stuntmen and real pyro.

Basically, we are in need of a mid-budget savior.

Tart Kitty
Dec 17, 2016

Oh, well, that's all water under the bridge, as I always say. Water under the bridge!

Neo Rasa posted:

Bloodsport just has so much energy and the pacing is great, it's impossible to not watch and enjoy on some level.

It's insane that we got the Street Fighter movie we did, what with Bloodsport providing the perfect blueprint for a martial arts tournament movie six years before hand. And I say that as someone who loves Street Fighter as the top-tier guilty pleasure fondu pot that it is. But still.

Small Strange Bird
Sep 22, 2006

Merci, chaton!

Wheat Loaf posted:

I suppose there's always Michael Bay. :v:
Bay's an oddball because he's done one genuinely all-round good action movie (The Rock), and both Bad Boys were solid during the actual action sequences, but he just can't stop himself from bloating things out with stupid, pointless, irrelevant poo poo because it appeals to his Beavisian sense of humour. The first Transformers actually had some pretty decent action, but the movie as a whole could have been at least half an hour shorter - and undoubtedly better - if he'd restrained himself when the robots weren't on screen (and sometimes when they were; pissing scene, anyone?)

But his movies have made a quadrillion dollars even with all the screaming comic relief characters and pee-pee jokes, so what do I know?

Wheat Loaf
Feb 13, 2012

by FactsAreUseless

Narzack posted:

Basically, we are in need of a mid-budget savior.



(Edit: What exactly qualifies as "mid-budget" in 2018?)

Wheat Loaf fucked around with this message at 23:03 on Feb 4, 2018

Snowman_McK
Jan 31, 2010

LesterGroans posted:

As much as I'm a huge fan of the entire Fast & Furious franchise, I'm weirdly down on the idea of a 9th film. I'm into the idea of the Hobbs & Shaw spinoff, for sure, but rewatching Fate of the Furious made me realize how integral Paul Walker ended up being to the team. He was kind of a humbling presence.

I think Justin Lin is back for 9 though, so I'm sure the first trailer for it will suck me back in.

I think 8 had a few more problems than that. The action scenes were big, for instance, but never clicked and never felt as big as they were, the way the big scenes in 5 and 6 did. It's probably as simple as Justin Lin spent 4 films fine tuning exactly where the line between stupid and awesome was, Wan understood it pretty quickly, but Gray didn't.

Yaws
Oct 23, 2013

Are the Fast and Furious movies worth watching? I saw the first one in like 2002 and hated it but everyone is constantly singing the praises of the series.

Narzack
Sep 15, 2008
From 2 on, they're great fun. I also hated the first movie, but, on a whim, watched the second on cable some ten years ago and became a fan of the world in which all problems can be solved by driving.

Big Bad Voodoo Lou
Jan 1, 2006

Yaws posted:

Are the Fast and Furious movies worth watching? I saw the first one in like 2002 and hated it but everyone is constantly singing the praises of the series.

I'm with you. I know people sing their praises now, but I never went back to the series after hating the first one so much in the theater.

Lobok
Jul 13, 2006

Say Watt?

Watch Fast Five and take it from there. If you dont like that one a lot then the franchise probably won't be for you. Don't watch the whole series up to that point simply hoping it will be enough to wow you because it might not. Five is also where the series changes into its current incarnation so you might like it but not the earlier movies.

After seeing the first two in theatres originally I checked out and then only when I kept hearing such good things about Five did I watch it. Then after 6 I decided to go back and catch up on what I'd missed.

Lobok
Jul 13, 2006

Say Watt?

:rice:

Quote is not edit.

Lobok fucked around with this message at 00:07 on Feb 5, 2018

muscles like this!
Jan 17, 2005


The first movie is an alright action movie but kind of dated.

The second one doubles down on the car stuff but loses what made people like the first one.

The third one was a clearly abortive attempt to turn the franchise into an anthology after everyone else walked.

The fourth one has the seeds of what turned the series into a mega hit but is hurt by a ludicrously stupid plot.

The fifth one is where everything finally gels and it becomes a great action movie, using all of the cast well.

The sixth one isn't quite as good as five but continues the bonkers over the top action.

The seventh one is hard to pin down as the entire production has a pall over it with obvious CG replacements mixed in with real Paul Walker.

The eighth one brings most everyone back but doesn't really give them much to do and is a pretty big example of why Vin Diesel hasn't had the best track record with his solo action films. It is buoyed by Statham's best performance in years as well as giving the Rock something to actually do (unlike 7 where he gets sidelined for most of the film.)

Halloween Jack
Sep 12, 2003

La morte non ha sesso

Wheat Loaf posted:



(Edit: What exactly qualifies as "mid-budget" in 2018?)
Anything between $5 and $100 million, I guess.

Neo Rasa
Mar 8, 2007
Everyone should play DUKE games.

:dukedog:

Fart City posted:

It's insane that we got the Street Fighter movie we did, what with Bloodsport providing the perfect blueprint for a martial arts tournament movie six years before hand. And I say that as someone who loves Street Fighter as the top-tier guilty pleasure fondu pot that it is. But still.

I had the same thoughts, like when the Street Fighter movie was coming out I just figured it was going to be Bloodsport but with people in Street Fighter costumes and so be the best movie ever. I love what we got because it's completely idiotic in the best ways but what could have been. Then they made Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li which was ten thousand times worse except for NASH.

WeedlordGoku69
Feb 12, 2015

by Cyrano4747

Wheat Loaf posted:



(Edit: What exactly qualifies as "mid-budget" in 2018?)

I would say between 20 and 80 mil. Below 20 mil you're in indie/DTV territory, above 80 mil you're in A-list Hollywood territory.

Tart Kitty
Dec 17, 2016

Oh, well, that's all water under the bridge, as I always say. Water under the bridge!

Neo Rasa posted:

I had the same thoughts, like when the Street Fighter movie was coming out I just figured it was going to be Bloodsport but with people in Street Fighter costumes and so be the best movie ever. I love what we got because it's completely idiotic in the best ways but what could have been. Then they made Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li which was ten thousand times worse except for NASH.

Street Fighter: The Movie is a terrible Street Fighter, but a fantastic G.I Joe Movie. You even have Sagat playing Destro!

But in all sincerity, Raul Julia’s balls-to-the-walls bonkers performance is unironically one of my favorite villain performances in film.

HUNDU THE BEAST GOD
Sep 14, 2007

everything is yours

Fart City posted:

Street Fighter: The Movie is a terrible Street Fighter, but a fantastic G.I Joe Movie. You even have Sagat playing Destro!

To this point, Hasbro put out Street Fighter 2 toys (with the SF Movie designs) out in the GI Joe line.

thatfuturekid
Jan 5, 2014
Mission Impossible Fallout trailer!!!!!

https://youtu.be/wb49-oV0F78

So yeah, this looks like it may the best one yet. That bathroom fight scene looks dope as hell

Snowman_McK
Jan 31, 2010

muscles like this! posted:

The sixth one isn't quite as good as five but continues the bonkers over the top action.

Nah, the sixth one is the best.


thatfuturekid posted:

Mission Impossible Fallout trailer!!!!!

https://youtu.be/wb49-oV0F78

So yeah, this looks like it may the best one yet. That bathroom fight scene looks dope as hell

This looks loving great, and McQuarrie is awesome.

CeeJee
Dec 4, 2001
Oven Wrangler

thatfuturekid posted:

Mission Impossible Fallout trailer!!!!!

https://youtu.be/wb49-oV0F78

So yeah, this looks like it may the best one yet. That bathroom fight scene looks dope as hell

Who is the guy fighting both Superman and Cruise and holding his own ? On IMDB I see no one who it could be.

Neo Rasa
Mar 8, 2007
Everyone should play DUKE games.

:dukedog:

Fart City posted:

Street Fighter: The Movie is a terrible Street Fighter, but a fantastic G.I Joe Movie. You even have Sagat playing Destro!

Speaking of G.I. Joe the animated movie of course rules because of Nemesis Enforcer/etc. but are Rise of Cobra and Retaliation any good?

Wheat Loaf
Feb 13, 2012

by FactsAreUseless
I'm not a GI Joe fan so I don't know how they succeed/fail on those terms, but the first one is odd because Christopher Eccleston plays Destro but doesn't have his mask until right at the very end of the movie.

The second one is also odd because it's as much a reboot as a sequel: they kill off most of the Joes off-screen at the start so the movie can be about Roadblock (Dwayne Johnson) and his team joining up with the original Joe (Bruce Willis).

It's especially odd because there was loads of publicity before the sequel was released making much of how it was being rewritten/reshot to give Channing Tatum a larger role as Duke, but he's killed off in the opening scenes as well.

Neo Rasa
Mar 8, 2007
Everyone should play DUKE games.

:dukedog:
Oh yeah I remember people were super hyped for Retaliation because it was going to have Willis and Johnson in it, then it kept getting re-shot forever. IIRC it even had an Annihilation-like release in that it came out on some VOD services at the same time as/like a month after it was in theaters.

Big Bad Voodoo Lou
Jan 1, 2006
I was a huge G.I. Joe fan as an '80s kid, and they could have been amazing action movies instead of whatever we got. Both movies had potential, but were deeply flawed. G.I. Joe should have been able to blend war movie action, cool vehicles, tank battles, aerial dogfights, sci-fi weapons and technology, martial arts and ninja combat, Mission Impossible-style espionage, teams of characters with their own specialties, all fighting supervillain-like terrorists. And it seems like they were made by people who thought all that stuff together would have been stupid.

It was never completely clear whether G.I. Joe was the ultimate Reagan-era jingoism or almost a satire of the same. The cartoon was much more straight-faced, but there were more subversive elements in the Marvel comic, written by creator Larry Hama. Regardless, they established a surprisingly deep mythology that would have been enough for a series of movies, but everyone involved dropped the ball, thinking the source material was too juvenile or dated or silly. I think they could have been late-period Fast and the Furious-level hits if they were just better movies that got as crazy as they should have been.

Neo Rasa
Mar 8, 2007
Everyone should play DUKE games.

:dukedog:
I saw the GI Joe episode of The Toys That Made Us on Netflix and, while I knew the comic was getting written first, I was surprised how basically everything about the setting besides the name Cobra came from Hama. But Hama mentions on it how he thought it was morally bankrupt to have a cartoon with that much action and violence but have it all conveniently never have it actually hurt anyone and it was cool that he could do more in the comics.

But even the idea of making a comic was something they pulled out of their rear end just to convince investors that the toy would be highly visible. So I guess it really was a perfect balance of Reagan jingoism and wanting to lots if distinct characters for toy purposes and stuff but guided by Hama's voice just enough too.

Though in some cases those limitations made them really go outside the box like the episode where Shipwreck wakes up in a brainwashed dream reality or whatever or the episode where Lowlight has that Nightmare on Elm Street 3-esque scene in a junkyard.

Neo Rasa fucked around with this message at 15:42 on Feb 5, 2018

Wheat Loaf
Feb 13, 2012

by FactsAreUseless

Neo Rasa posted:

But Hama mentions on it how he thought it was morally bankrupt to have a cartoon with that much action and violence but have it all conveniently never have it actually hurt anyone and it was cool that he could do more in the comics.

Not surprisingly, of course. Hama was a Vietnam veteran and as far as I'm aware has always had fairly strong views about how violence should always be shown to have real consequences.

Halloween Jack
Sep 12, 2003

La morte non ha sesso

Big Bad Voodoo Lou posted:

It was never completely clear whether G.I. Joe was the ultimate Reagan-era jingoism or almost a satire of the same. The cartoon was much more straight-faced, but there were more subversive elements in the Marvel comic, written by creator Larry Hama. Regardless, they established a surprisingly deep mythology that would have been enough for a series of movies, but everyone involved dropped the ball, thinking the source material was too juvenile or dated or silly. I think they could have been late-period Fast and the Furious-level hits if they were just better movies that got as crazy as they should have been.
I'm not an expert on Hama, but the editorial direction during that era of Marvel comics was pretty liberal progressive. Gruenwald wrote Captain America as a more socially liberal New Deal Democrat, and a lot of what Hama did with COBRA is in keeping with Gruenwald's depiction of the Red Skull and his minions.

So as for the movies...uh, you should definitely watch the ninja mountain climbing fight scene in the second movie, and also all of the parts with The RZA, who is such a phenomenally awful actor he wraps back around to being really funny. The rest is a confusing mishmash, because they re-shot and re-edited it a great deal when Channing Tatum's profile was suddenly raised. I literally don't remember anything about the first one except that I liked Destro and hated the Baroness, because to be frank, Sienna Miller as the Baroness is less attractive than the first 20 Google results for "Baroness cosplay."

Tart Kitty
Dec 17, 2016

Oh, well, that's all water under the bridge, as I always say. Water under the bridge!

There’s a very interesting concept in the first movie that never gets capitalized on, and it’s that Channing Tatum starts as a regular-degular army soldier, and is happy to be so until his caravan is attacked in the desert by laser firing space ships. Like there’s this implication that this whole secret arms race with future tech has been happening behind the scenes of “real” warfare in Afghanistan and Iraq and so forth. It’s a really fertile bit of worldbuilding that ultimately comes to nothing.

In any case, I don’t think either of the movies are particularly good (or really even worth a mercy watch). They’re too unfocused and incoherent to really be enjoyable as anything other than background noise. You know, I’ve mentioned it before, but the first flick was directed by Stephen Sommers, who has a long history of creature feature stuff with movies like The Mummy and Deep Rising. I truly do wonder what we would have gotten if he and Michael Bay had swapped their toy franchise adaption duties. Sommers seems much more suited for giant robots, and hell, just imagine the lunatic military love letter we would have gotten from a Michael Bay G.I. Joe Movie.

Tart Kitty fucked around with this message at 16:05 on Feb 5, 2018

X-Ray Pecs
May 11, 2008

New York
Ice Cream
TV
Travel
~Good Times~

Fart City posted:

But in all sincerity, Raul Julia’s balls-to-the-walls bonkers performance is unironically one of my favorite villain performances in film.

“But to me... it was Tuesday” is an all-timer line reading.

Wheat Loaf posted:

I'm not a GI Joe fan so I don't know how they succeed/fail on those terms, but the first one is odd because Christopher Eccleston plays Destro but doesn't have his mask until right at the very end of the movie.

The second one is also odd because it's as much a reboot as a sequel: they kill off most of the Joes off-screen at the start so the movie can be about Roadblock (Dwayne Johnson) and his team joining up with the original Joe (Bruce Willis).

It's especially odd because there was loads of publicity before the sequel was released making much of how it was being rewritten/reshot to give Channing Tatum a larger role as Duke, but he's killed off in the opening scenes as well.

If memory serves, they pushed it from a summer release to February the next year, with the official reasoning that they needed the extra time to post-convert it to 3D. It’s especially funny because thy paid for a drat Super Bowl ad for the summer release date, then pushed it back a month or so later.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Wheat Loaf
Feb 13, 2012

by FactsAreUseless

Fart City posted:

Sommers seems much more suited for giant robots, and hell, just imagine the lunatic military love letter we would have gotten from a Michael Bay G.I. Joe Movie.

I was going to mention when Bay and The Rock were brought up earlier that although I knew Bay had this proclivity for indulging in a wee bit of hero worship for the US armed forces, The Rock is where it felt most pronounced to me.

On one hand, it's fine that Ed Harris isn't really all that villainous, to the point where he goes out of his way to avoid killing anyone for most of the movie. I think he's more interesting than other action movie bad guys; he doesn't really want the money, he's just sick of politicians starting stupid, pointless wars and getting his men killed. At the same time, the two psycho officers who kill him and David Morse and hijack the plot aren't very interesting as bad guys.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply