Yes. I don't think anyone credible argues that before CGI action films were realistic. The whole point of most action films is to provide unbelievable sequences that appear plausible. Certainly many 1980's action films failed this challenge and as a consequence I tended to avoid the Stallone, Arnie films for the most part. Die Hard got away with it and really it was this kind of action film that made the Bond films of the period look camp, dull and kitsch.
Someone with some spare time and critical acumen needs to do some thinking about all this but I would argue that a brilliant action film is almost as hard to make as a brilliant comedy. Both genres are tough to do well. For me Raiders of the Lost Ark (for instance) works incredibly well and feels plausible because of its sober tone and way it is filmed, while the later Indy films became less and less interesting and plausible, the tone became camp and knowing and the effects stupid.
What CGI has done for me is make scripts less interesting because much of the filmmaker's thinking seems to be based around the action choreography. And that action has become so OTT and ridiculous that it is very hard for me to connect with characters or story (such as they are). It's almost as if superhero films (to take one example) are just a form of ritualistic action choreography where the plot is incidental because the battle is everything.
Last edited:
