Is it just me or were the 90s an especially creative era for action movies?

[Nik123]

The 90s were a truly special age...the movies, the music, the memories..

 

[moreorless87]

Running Man also campy enough to lack bite. It's been years, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was a laugh track in there..

The Running Man TV show is shown as camp but the film takes itself reasonably seriously(for an action film), Death Race 2000 is more like the 60's Batman.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

The Running Man TV show is shown as camp but the film takes itself reasonably seriously(for an action film), Death Race 2000 is more like the 60's Batman.

Sure, Running Man isn't as goofy. Seemed like it was going for more laughs than tension though.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

Seeing is believing.

When I run "Best action movies of the 90s" through Google, this is what I get:

And then the 00s:

And finally the 10s:

Fucking discuss!

If Gladiator is considered action, then Braveheart would have to be as well.

That quartet of Total Recall, Terminator 2, Braveheart, and The Matrix gives the 90s the edge.

 

[Guestx]

You're exactly right.

The 90's was peak time for action movies, culturally and technologically - the melding of these making the golden era of action movies.

Now, all the best ideas have been done (nothing lasts forever, everything is finite) and Hollywood is no longer interested in true creative minds, just profit makers.

In terms of quality, it's all downhill from here.

It was a good run lads, just be glad you lived through it.

I would like to think that you're wrong that "all the best ideas have been done." After all, is our creative reserve such that the best shit has already been used up within just a few decades?

After all, I have no idea how technology will change in the coming ages, but I have to think that we still have at least a few hundred--if not thousands or even millions--of years left in which movies will be a premiere entertainment source.

 

[TheRuthlessOne]

I would like to think that you're wrong that "all the best ideas have been done." After all, is our creative reserve such that the best shit has already been used up within just a couple of decades?

After all, I have no idea how technology will change in the coming ages, but I have to think that we still have at least a few hundred--if not thousands or even millions--of years left in which movies will be a premiere entertainment source.

The 90's never had Rock jumping from a skyscraper

 

[Jack Reacheround]

I agree ts. Lotta good action movie concepts in the 90's

Ok, why do they do this? Why do they have the wrong name over each of their pictures. Any time there is a movie with two or more big stars, they do that.

 

[Jimmy Jazz]

I would like to think that you're wrong that "all the best ideas have been done." After all, is our creative reserve such that the best shit has already been used up within just a few decades?

After all, I have no idea how technology will change in the coming ages, but I have to think that we still have at least a few hundred--if not thousands or even millions--of years left in which movies will be a premiere entertainment source.

I think he's just talking about the limitations of the action genre, not movies themselves.

 

[Chesten_Hesten]

Last night I watched Hard Rain for the first time. It was okay, I didn't love it. Best things about it were Morgan Freeman as a villain, Betty White being bitchy, and remembering better days for Christian Slater when he was still headlining theatrical films.

But it made me think of something about 90s action movies and how, in a lot of ways, the 90s felt like a special decade for action movies and I think it's because the IDEAS because the action films of that decade were pretty awesome, whereas today's action films often feel quite generic.

Think about something like Face/Off:



Or The Rock:



Or The Matrix:



The list goes on and on, from Total Recall to Demolition Man to True Lies.

All of these films have some unique idea that sets them apart from the standard "spy thriller" or "military man" or "guy out for revenge" kind of plots (even though they may include these elements).

Basically, when I think of 90s action movies, I think of brainstorming sessions that probably went something like this:





Even Hard Rain had an interesting idea behind it, but only disappointed in the execution. In that way, it's a really solid example of what the 90s did for us on the action movie front. It was clever and innovative. But today? Eh. Everyone's like, hey, let's just stick to formula and do what has always worked before.

The line-up of great 90s action films is truly excellent and I'm not sure that the 00s or 10s can compete.

What's everyone else think? Is it just me? Or from a conceptual perspective, do a great many of today's action films feel like weaksauce compared to the 90s?

80s were pretty bitchin for Horror:

 

[MikeMcMann]

Do you agree with me then that, on a conceptual level, today's action movies often feel kind of generic in comparison?

how old where you in 1990?

 

[Guestx]

how old where you in 1990?

In 1990? Either eight or nine, depending on when in the year we're talking about.

Why do you ask?

 

[MikeMcMann]

In 1990? Either eight or nine, depending on when in the year we're talking about.

Why do you ask?

because the action genre tends to appeal to young males the most who are age 10-25.

So i don't think it should be surprising that at the very start of a typical males love affair with action movies you found the first ones you saw in theatres with a specific bias and love for them.

 

[DM1982]

I would like to think that you're wrong that "all the best ideas have been done." After all, is our creative reserve such that the best shit has already been used up within just a few decades?

After all, I have no idea how technology will change in the coming ages, but I have to think that we still have at least a few hundred--if not thousands or even millions--of years left in which movies will be a premiere entertainment source.

Technology isnt what makes a great action film:

Narrative, characters, unique set pieces are what make the greats.

Compare die hard and avatar,,

Hans down die hard is technologically weaker, avatar was technologically groundbreaking... And a massive turd of a movie.

Weve peaked.

Super gigabots is not gonna make great action films

 

[I Am Legion]

I love 90s action flicks but the 80s were sick, maybe better:

Die Hard is the GOAT action, 1988.
Predator
Aliens
The Terminator
Rambo
Robocop
Lethal Weapon
Commando

Omg, it’s a KO for the 8os just off the top of my head

 

[Guestx]

because the action genre tends to appeal to young males the most who are age 10-25.

So i don't think it should be surprising that at the very start of a typical males love affair with action movies you found the first ones you saw in theatres with a specific bias and love for them.

I'm sure that has something to do with it. But even now, giving what I think is a pretty objective look at the situation, it really does seem to me like the story ideas in the 90s (and 80s as well, as some have mentioned) for action films were more imaginative than most of the story ideas for contemporary action films.

Every once in a while someone will come along and do something that really feels out-of-the-box, such as Inception (if we want to call it an action movie), but all too often modern action movies just feel like more of the same.

I'm just like, "Look, in the 90s some writer decided it would be a cool idea to take a dude and have his face surgically removed and put on another dude, and then have those dudes fight." Where's our shit like that today?

 

[Zer]

Ok, why do they do this? Why do they have the wrong name over each of their pictures. Any time there is a movie with two or more big stars, they do that.

iirc there's a pecking order where certain actors negotiate top billing in their contract. So in Con Air, Nic Cage probably got top billing so his name has to appear first on the poster. Then when it comes to the design of the poster they obviously want the biggest star front and center to sell the film, and they don't care if the faces don't correspond with the names. And since Nic Cage has top billing, maybe they're obligated to feature his face more prominently in the poster anyway so he has to be in the center.

It bugs me too. I don't know why they can't have Nic Cage's name above his head, but with lightning bolts or some shit around it to emphasize that's he's the main man

I remember reading about some incident where two major actors were fighting over who should get top billing in the film they were starring in and they had to fuck about with the poster to keep both of them happy.

 

[Guestx]

Technology isnt what makes a great action film:

Narrative, characters, unique set pieces are what make the greats.

Compare die hard and avatar,,

Hans down die hard is technologically weaker, avatar was technologically groundbreaking... And a massive turd of a movie.

Weve peaked.

Super gigabots is not gonna make great action films

None of this has anything to do with what I said.

Did books peak in the third century or some other ancient time? People have been writing stories since the dawn of time and that art form continues to evolve.

I think that if you feel like action cinema has already peaked in what is still damn near the infancy of the genre, then that just might be shortsighted.

 

[DM1982]

None of this has anything to do with what I said.

Did books peak in the third century or some other ancient time? People have been writing stories since the dawn of time and that art form continues to evolve.

I think that if you feel like action cinema has already peaked in what is still damn near the infancy of the genre, then that just might be shortsighted.

Isnt that exactly the point of your thread, proposing the 90s as a peak for action movies.

And my post directly dealt with youes, making out that technology will be the key to greater action movies.

It wont.

We peaked with arnold.

Im fine with this.

Life is finite

 

[ZOD66]

90s movies are the best

 

[Jack Reacheround]

iirc there's a pecking order where certain actors negotiate top billing in their contract. So in Con Air, Nic Cage probably got top billing so his name has to appear first on the poster. Then when it comes to the design of the poster they obviously want the biggest star front and center to sell the film, and they don't care if the faces don't correspond with the names. And since Nic Cage has top billing, maybe they're obligated to feature his face more prominently in the poster anyway so he has to be in the center.

It bugs me too. I don't know why they can't have Nic Cage's name above his head, but with lightning bolts or some shit around it to emphasize that's he's the main man

I remember reading about some incident where two major actors were fighting over who should get top billing in the film they were starring in and they had to fuck about with the poster to keep both of them happy.

Well, they need to fuck about with the poster some more so that the names and pictures line up. It’s god damn annoying.