Are video games the new action movies?

[Poet_and_Gentleman.598]

Are video games the new action movies?

Going into the years 2000s, I wondered where action movie flicks went. In my book,

Jason Statham is cool, so is the Rock, but they had nowhere near the charisma of Schwarzenegger, Bruce Willis, Stallone, Bruce Lee et al in their prime

Then I was swamped by school and work, and so had less time to play games. I played RE6 and CoD recently, and then it kind of hit me how similar they were to the action flicks of old.

And yet not quite. There's no clever one-liners like in Die Hard. Unlike McLane, both Leon and the silent protagonist of CoD, HL and countless other shooters lack a great deal of personality.

So did action flicks really die or are video games the new action movies?

 

[Calistarius]

I don't think they died compleatly... it's more that they ended up almost dying out, and to survive they had to adapt to the times, and to the peoples... I don't know... "intelligence"... or... maybe taste... or just a general "Well that does not look realistic at all!" I mean I think I watched Blood Sport last year, and even though I still liked it, I still felt my self cringe at a lot of the fighting in it (heck I even think I felt it was a bit cringworthy when I first saw it back in the very early 90's). :laughing:

They do still make a lot of pretty good action movies, and some are just plain awesome as well. But yeah, they are to some extents a different kind of action. I think that you need to look outside of the western world for movies that harkens back to a time of the 70's, 80's and the 90's... especially towards the eastern world of action movies. But even there the action has evolved, in some cases less, and in other cases more. I would also say that the Expendable movies are a pretty successful return to the old, but I doubd that todays audience will really be able to take all to many more of those movies... seeing as a lot of people already dropped out of wanting to watch Expendables 3. I have heard though that Stallone might be making a new Rambo movie.

So action movies as such has survived, just without a lot of the one-liners and other action movie tropes from those eras, etc. The type of action genre I feel has close to died out though is the Martial Arts Action specific movies. Partly because basicly almost every action movie out there, these days, almost always contains martial arts in hand to hand combat... and also because there has basicly not been a new Martial Arts actor who could take over the mantle from Jean-Claude Van Damme. There has been/are a few who tried/tries... but nobody has caught the attention of the world during the last 10 or so years.

As for games being the new action movie. I guess to some degree that could be said yes. But ultimatly the fact that what you do when you play effects the game pulls a bit away from it being the new action movies. I think that is a pretty importent distintion there, that one you only watch, where as the other one you watch and take part in. There are some games I have played that to some extent felt like I was watching a movie that I had contol over... but for me that tends to be games like Mass Effect where there is a lot of cinematics and what not. But I never forget that I am playing a game.

As for the Rocks charisma vs the old warhorses. The Rock almost litterally oozes charisma, it's like the fibers of his massivly muscular body was made from pure charisma! :blink: I would say that he is at the very least on par charisma wise vs all those old warhorses... if not exceeds them on it! :happy: Does that mean his movies are better or something? Of course not... some might be, but others not.

Anywho... if you have not seen them I would like to point you towards two Martial Arts movies which has been hailed as a possible return of Martial Arts movies of old... where it seems like they have done almost everything right to make it work in todays harsh world when it comes to Martial Arts based action movies. Their names are "The Raid: Redemption" and "The Raid 2: Berandal". The movies language are in Indonesian how ever, so if you do not know the language your going to have to eaither get one with English subtitles (or which ever language you prefer)... unless there is a English dub one or somehting out there (not that I have heard of such a thing excisting... besides, movies like this are much better in their original language with subtitles on it instead). For being Martial Arts based action movies they have scored unusualy high compared to most recent such movies out on the market... I don't think there was any one-liners in them though, it was a bit more serious of a movies then that. But fighting in general in the movie is very enjoyable (be it the martial arts stuff, melee weapons combined into the MA stuff... or the bits where ranged weapons are used). There are some new things here and there that I have not seen befor (as far as I can remember). There is also some of the oldtime stuff off "I'm not sure that is even possible to do!" kind of things here and there, but not to the extent that you feel it would actually be compleatly impossible. My favorit guy is in both movies, but he played two compleatly different characters (the main character is still the same guy and actor in both). In the first one he is called "Mad Dog", you will recognize him as basicly the shortest guy in the movie... anyway... he's awesome! :lol:

Anyway, I don't know if these movies will actually be what you are looking for, the kind you feel that is missing today, but if you have also been missing some good old Martial Arts based action movies then the Raid 1 and 2 might just fill some of that void for you. I know they did for me.

 

[dragonbird]

I think it's too soon to know. There's definitely cycles in movies, it was pretty bad during the '60s but it came back, and everything is in a state of flux right now.

I also think that TV is still the biggest movie-killer, there seem to have been an awful lot of really good action series and mini-series over the last few years.

 

[Calistarius]

I think it's too soon to know. There's definitely cycles in movies, it was pretty bad during the '60s but it came back, and everything is in a state of flux right now.

I also think that TV is still the biggest movie-killer, there seem to have been an awful lot of really good action series and mini-series over the last few years.

Yeah, there are a lot of TV-series that are really good these days. I mean sure there has been good ones in the past to, but not to this level, not to this amount, and not at this amount at the same time... or atleast it feels that way for me. I am a hugh TV-series watcher... I mean that is partly the reason why I prefer Star Trek over Star Wars, more so then movies, because there was always more content, more hours, of things to watch for ST over SW. And especially during the last 10 or so years TV-series has taken most of my watching time. And during that time it feels like the amount of really good TV-series has just gone up and up.

Of course, I would have to say that it feels sort of the same for movies. That during the last 10-15 years there have been more and more movies I wanted to see more so then there ever was befor... but most of the time I have rather waited for them to come out on DVD or Blu-ray or something befor doing so. Usually it's less then a handful of movies I feel like watching in the cinema.

Maybe it's because during these 10-15 years I have had a bigger chance to actually know what tv-series and movies are out there, and actually have the ability to watch these things that never normally would have come to Swedish TV. I don't know... it just seems that there is more of everything.

 

[Suhiira]

Yeah stuff like Game of Thrones and Spartacus are every bit as good (in fact better) as anything you'll see in a movie theater. And since they don't really have a time-limit (like a movie) they can do MUCH deeper plots.

 

[Calistarius]

Yeah stuff like Game of Thrones and Spartacus are every bit as good (in fact better) as anything you'll see in a movie theater. And since they don't really have a time-limit (like a movie) they can do MUCH deeper plots.

Although... I don't know how deep one could claim Spartacus was, deep enough to keep it going, but... yeah. I still enjoyed it a lot though!^_^

 

[Suhiira]

Although... I don't know how deep one could claim Spartacus was, deep enough to keep it going, but... yeah. I still enjoyed it a lot though!^_^

The subplots in season one were pretty good.
Season two wasn't nearly as deep.

 

[Calistarius]

The subplots in season one were pretty good.
Season two wasn't nearly as deep.

I liked the entire thing, really liked it, all 4 seasons. I was the only one of my friends who did though. Most of my friends just thought it was totally shallow, and thought it was silly with it's body emptying plumes of blood spraying all over the place from even the weakes and shallowest hits. I think even one of my friends watched the first 10 mins of the first episode and went "Yeah this is crap" and turned it of to never return ot it. XD I did think that maybe they did use a bit to much blood, but I could suspend my disbelife of that and just enjoy the story of the series, and especially the fights them selves. Gladiator fight movies/series, and simmilar types of combat oriented movies/series... or even just combat oriented movies in general (be it with or without weapons), has always been something I liked.

I have always had a much, MUCH, higher tolerance for "things" in general when it comes to me and my friends... or the world in general. Of course there are certain things where I have virtually no tolerance for it, for what ever reason (like for example horror movies etc... I find them boring in general, with a very select few exceptions (usually in sci-fi)), but in general the "high jump bar" I have to jump over to like something is much lower then most... I usually don't even have to jump. XD

 

[dragonbird]

I also saw all four seasons, and enjoyed it, but I felt that especially in Season 2, there was a quota of sex and gore they had to shoehorn into each episode. I almost gave up on it during that season, but I'm glad I didn't because it did improve again.

Anyway, back to the death of films, I saw Godzilla today (at home), and was thinking about this thread while watching it (mainly because most of it was pretty boring). It felt like a good example of the way that TV is better than Movies. A lot of impressive FX, no story. Which seems like a summary of so many action movies nowadays, and I think we've definitely reached a point where a story-driven action video game is actually better story-telling than a typical action movie.

 

[Calistarius]

Well... it's not like action movies ever really had that deep of a story or anything. Sure, there are some with a bigger emphasis on story and what not... but that has never really been what action movies where really about. What they are about is give you a somewhat belivable story that does not fall apart... to much... and then give you buckets of gratuitous violance... be it martial arts, your average brawling, melee weapon combat, various ranged weapons type of combat, and possibly some/alot of explosions... maybe some one-liners for good measure. To expect more of an action movie is partly fooling one selves.

Granted, as mentioned, there are a lot of action movies with really good story, but they are few compared to the average action movie. The Matrix for example, that is a movie (movie series) with a pretty darn good story... but they are movies which has sort of "ruined" the action genre to an extent... because it gave the viewers expectations on action movies that "Great story or GTFO!". And I guess the same goes for all other action movies which had a great story to it (no matter if that good story happend to have been there on purpous or not... I am sure some just accidentally stumbled on to it). And also, a lot of those action movies with a good story tend to be atleast somewhat straddling multiple film genres as well.

I just think that people expect to much of the Action film genre, expect that "Well this movie had a great story, why does this simmilar kind I really wanted to like not have that?!". Not to mention I also have a feeling that a lot of people might remember "the good old days" a bit wrong, nostalgia and all that. Because most of the action movies you watched in the 70's 80's and 90's did not have great story either. And the ones that actually did... again, they are/where in the minority. It's almost like someone watching a love story focused WWII movie, where the person comes out of the movie going "Well that was crap, where's the damn blitzkrieg I was expecting?!"

Of course we are entitled to atleast expect some levels of quality... within limits though, and towards the right movies as well... expecting it from every single one is not realistic. Especially not in this day and age where the marketing departments do everything they can to hype up a movie to such levels that even if the movie was great, people are going to be disapointed because it was not as good as the trailers made them out to be or something.

And... in general... I think people need to curb stomp their expectations, and go in and look at movies for what they are, not what they think they should be.

 

[dragonbird]

Not to mention I also have a feeling that a lot of people might remember "the good old days" a bit wrong, nostalgia and all that. Because most of the action movies you watched in the 70's 80's and 90's did not have great story either. And the ones that actually did... again, they are/where in the minority.

I don't think that action movies were better in the 20 or 30 years ago, I just think that action TV has improved, and now passed movies.
Until the last few years, there was very little TV that could manage decent special effects, CGI was definitely out of the running, both of which are usually important on action genre, and the whole "second-class" attitude towards TV work would have discouraged the best talent from working in that genre. So even though action movies weren't strong on story, they made up for it in other ways.

But now, TV has all of the FX too, talent is willing to work in it, and it has that big advantage over movies in that there's time to tell a story and to have character development as well as the action. I think that's why it's losing out.

Games do compete, but I think that at the moment it's still competing for use of leisure time, rather than competing in terms of direct comparison. If someone wants something to do when they have free time, they're as likely/more likely to pick up a controller rather than the remote, but the two forms or entertainment aren't competing directly, any more than TV competed against radio, or radio against sitting around the piano or reading a book.

 

[Sardukhar]

, but the two forms or entertainment aren't competing directly, any more than TV competed against radio, or radio against sitting around the piano or reading a book.

I find for my limited fun time, this is what happens, though. Right now, I'm here, enjoying myself and threatening the nearly-naughty. Soon, some Wasteland 2. Then, my book - Tad Williams' urban fantasy, which so far is weaker than my preferred Kadrey Sandman Slim novels - and after that....no idea. Bed,perhaps. If Breaking Bad were still on, Or game of Thrones or, sigh, the Wire, they would hop to the top of my list instead.

I could put netflix or radio or movie time in there, but I prefer to spend the time on these other activities. In my life, those forms of entertainment are competing directly.

Sometimes, convenience changes the ratio - I listen to a lot of radio while driving, so radio still has that edge. I can read my book in bank lineups, so there's that - but if I have a good book it jumps to the top or just under anyway. Hey, anyone read Red Rising yet? Great stuff.

Action movies....well. I liked Guardians of the Galaxy - but that's it recently. I'd rather play Risen 3. And did.

 

[dragonbird]

OK, I'm going to have to try to restate this in less fuzzy language.

"Video games are better than action movies" is a subjective opinion that is neither true nor false, except for the person giving the opinion. It has no more validity than "Action movies are better than video games".

When digging down into the reason why someone says "Video games are better than action movies", it will eventually break down into a set of what may appear to be objective comparisons, such as "Video games provide more entertainment per dollar", "Video games allow interaction and user-control of the story", or "Video games are longer, thus allowing deeper story-telling and character development".

But even then, some are still really subjective (like the last one), and the objective comparisons magically BECOME subjective because different people place different values on them. Hours of entertainment per dollar may not be of value to someone who has limited free time. Interaction may not be important to someone who just wants to be entertained. Deeper story-telling may be a theoretical benefit that doesn't actually exist in practice for most games.

For as long as a wide range of opinions exists, and customers have widely-varying needs, then both forms of entertainment will co-exist. We still have both books and TV. Two competing forms of entertainment will result in a clear winner only when the objective measures of comparison are so strong that an overwhelming majority of the customers agree on the superiority of one over the other.

I don't think we're anywhere near that point on a comparison of games to movies, and it may never happen. I think we may be approaching that point on a comparison of TV to movies, but I could be wrong.