So, the Die Hard thread made me think about it. The 80's seemed like the decade which broke the action movie into the front of the field and spawned at least some formulas which would see endless reuse in the two decades to follow. I mean, look at the line ups. You have Die Hard, Lethal Weapon, Alien, Terminator, Beverly Hills Cop, Top Gun, Commando, Rambo, Raiders of the Lost Ark... This seemed like the era of not simply the modern action movie, but the birth of the action franchise. You have Military action, Sci-fi action, Action-comedy... You have the birth's of so many visual styles which you really didn't see in action films prior to the decade. What do you think, was the 80's the decade of the action movie? Or, was it more that that and it was simply a decade of film, a time when the conditions were right to see the birth of a disproportionate amount of feature classics?
I grew up in the '90s. However, I'd agree that the '80s was a much more memorable decade for films, especially action films. It seems like there weren't many action movies prior to the '80s. More recently, it feels like action movies have been squeezed to one extreme or the other of the cinema spectrum. Either you have the insanely expensive special-effects blockbusters with SF/F elements, like Pirates of the Caribbean, Spider-Man, & Transformers; or you have the cheap, direct-to-video stuff like The Marine 2. But damn, did the '80s have a great line up. You've already mentioned Aliens, Die Hard, Raiders of the Lost Ark, & The Terminator. I'd also add Batman, Escape from New York, Highlander, Indiana Jones & the Temple of Doom, Indiana Jones & the Last Crusade, The Living Daylights, Star Trek II, Star Trek III, Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back, Star Wars: Return of the Jedi, and the last half-hour of Ghostbusters. For my money, no action sequence will ever quite top the truck chase from Raiders of the Lost Ark. Especially when I watch it today with my trained, critical eye, I'm very impressed by the palpable danger involved in those stunts. There's a lot of risky stuff in there that not even many stuntmen would attempt nowadays. They'd just do it with computers.
I agree. It's really too bad that action movies became, well, not as big as before. We still have the Bourne movies and Bond, but I miss the bigger than life stuff that only Arnold could pull off. The Rock tried but too bad it just didn't work out. I guess we've got 24 on TV, but that's not too over the top, action-wise.
Despite being a bit of a movie snob who loves flicks that go back as far as the 20s and has enjoyed his fair share of arty, superserious flicks, I've always had a soft spot for ridiculously over-the-top action movies, as long as they've got some wit and cleverness to them. I think both the 80s and 90s had some really clever ones. Some of the stupider '90s action movies that I consider guilty pleasures are "Universal Soldier", "Timecop", "Con Air", and "Deep Blue Sea". Not all '90s action was dumb, though. I think "Terminator 2: Judgment Day", and "True Lies" were the pinnacle of action movies. I only saw "Lethal Weapon" and "48 Hours" for the first time recently and was blown away by not only how awesome the action sequences were in both, but also how witty and hilarious their scripts were. The same goes for "Speed", "The Rock", and "Face/Off". "The Rundown" was the only movie of the 2000s that I thought came even close to matching the quality of those, and that's why I'm so disappointed that The Rock's career since that movie has gone in the direction of lame kids' movies. I guess you can't blame the guy since those are making more money, but it still makes me sad that his potential to be the star of some excellent movies that could lead an action movie resurgence was squandered after that one brief flash of what could have been.
I think I may like the 90s even more for action movies because I just didn't like a lot of those movies. The only ones on that list that I didn't have problems with were "Die Hard", "Star Trek II", "The Terminator" and "Ghostbusters" I don't see what the big deal about "Escape from New York" was, besides Snake being a great character. I think I'm the only person in the world who likes the sequel better. I don't care much for Star Wars either and I absolutely loathe "The Temple of Doom", although I think my all time favourite action sequence is that mine cart sequence at the end of it. It was almost enough to redeem the rest of the movie. The other two "Indiana Jones" movies were fine, but not nearly as enjoyable to me as the 90s action movies I've mentioned. Indy never did much for me as a character until his father was introduced in his third movie, bringing a much needed new dimension to the character through their banter. This I totally agree with. I may like more 90s action movies, but looking back from the 20s to the present, no decade has more movies I love than the 80s.
"Blue Thunder" is constantly overlooked, isn't it? HUGE action film--I saw a 5000-seat theater filled at 2 sneak previews. "Filled" as in 'Please move to the center seats. We are sold out." That was a great theater. 5000 seats (50 seats across, 100 rows), no center aisle. And ramped so it was high in back, our favorite seats.
The only movie(s) from the 80's I really care about is the Back To The Future Trilogy. I can't say I go out of my way to watch anything else from the 80's as often.
The 80's was the best decade for the Action film, and I don't see that changing. Less R-rated films are being released now for one thing, and we certainly don't have the same quality of action stars we had then.
Five Thousand seats? Where was this, a stadium? I am dubious if this were even in the US considering the fire codes.
I know it was 50 seats across. I counted one time, sitting in the back. I know that when they split the theater in two, there were two theaters facing the same direction. They had to remove rows for the new screen, the mechnicals, and the room between the first row and the screen. I figure 20 row, give or take. Each "new" theater held over 2000 people (I read a posted maintenance schedule while waiting one day). That'd be 4000 right there, plus the removed seats. So maybe NOT 5000, maybe "only" 4800. That's still big. It was a great theater. Now closed. It was sold out for "Blue Thunder" and for "Time Bandits." For "Time Bandits," the line for the next show went all the way around the theater. Now THAT was impressive. And this was 1981.
I am dubious of all of your claims, especially if said theater is located in California. Perhaps the entire complex could hold 2,000 people, but not one screen room.
Data Holmes is right mentioning that 80s...best decade for action movies, going for all those movies, and they were really popular ones....the actors who went for these movies have became an icon in themselves...post 90 i think they were just copying whatever 80s has done...