Stallone blames Batman for the decline of 80s action heroes

[Doc Ock]

80s action heroes became dull, thats why they declined. At least IMO. Batman saved us.

 

[The Executioner]

^
Diaz has had at least the Charlie Angels films and now Knight and Day, so I've got to put her on the list. They don't all have to be successful films but she does have an action resume.

Well movies being good helps out alot though.

 

[Catman]

I would throw in the Indiana Jones films and other Harrison Ford fare

Indiana Jones is technically considered an adventure story. And what Stallone and Schwarzenegger offered was an alternative to that. Star Wars and Indiana Jones were the biggest films and franchises of the decade. Harrison Ford, next to Eddie Murphy, was the biggest star. It's no different than nowadays with the Jason Bourne franchise being the alternative to all the superhero flicks. The `80s was the best decade for action movies, but they didn't dominate. If you look at the most successful films of the era it was sci-fi, fantasy and adventure. Movies like Star Wars, Indiana Jones, E.T. Back to the Future, and Batman.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Love the Black Dynamite avatar and that scene too with him "smiling" too. The waffles scene was also classic.

 

[lespaul59]

My guess as to the reason of the action hero decline is over saturation of the market with less than steller action movies from the late 80's and early 90's. I can't name any movies off the top of my head other than like Stone Cold starring Brian Bozworth(spelling). I mean I liked it when I was little but now I probaly couldn't sit through half of the movie. Die Hard and Lethel Weapon as movies that hurt the 8's action movie but I'll arguee that even thought Bruce Willis is a regualr guy cop he's still a bad a** and Mel Gibbson is a bad a**in LW.

But how do you guys feel about Predator 2 hurting the 80's action movie. I mean you have a segual to one of the best sci-fi/action movies ever in my opinion that has a alien hunting a Special forces team(maybe even a black ops team) and killing everybody except Arnold. Then in Predator 2 you have a Predator hunting gang memeber wwhile regular guy cops get caught in the middle with Danny Glover taking out the Predator. Yes I know there is more to the movie than that but the point I'm trying to make is that in P1 you have a group of soilders that are the best of the best with only making it out alive, then in P2 a cop takes the Predator out.

 

[CGHulk]

You know what killed the action hero, political correctness! The whole macho guy persona died. Even Bond had to evolve, even M gave Brosnan's Bond a pep talk in Goldeneye about being pc!

 

[Leenie]

Give me movies like First Blood and Commando over stupid Avatar ANYDAY. Just sayin'. I'm also extremely excited about The Expendables.

Has Stallone released some crappy, crappy movies? You betcha. Those crappy movies will never erase his good ones though. I still think that Rocky is a cinematic classic, and it breaks my heart when I hear people not giving the amount of credit it once had.

Anyway, you know what I think killed those "muscle flicks"? I think it started with action movies like Die Hard (one of my favorite film franchises EVER), but it was solidified with movies about monsters/aliens/creatures/other things that needed CGI. I don't think that Stallone was incorrect when he "blamed" Batman. The big action flicks nowadays involve superheros (like Batman) and robots (like Transformers).

 

[baerrtt]

Give me movies like First Blood and Commando over stupid Avatar ANYDAY. Just sayin'. I'm also extremely excited about The Expendables.

Has Stallone released some crappy, crappy movies? You betcha. Those crappy movies will never erase his good ones though. I still think that Rocky is a cinematic classic, and it breaks my heart when I hear people not giving the amount of credit it once had.

Anyway, you know what I think killed those "muscle flicks"? I think it started with action movies like Die Hard (one of my favorite film franchises EVER), but it was solidified with movies about monsters/aliens/creatures/other things that needed CGI. I don't think that Stallone was incorrect when he "blamed" Batman. The big action flicks nowadays involve superheros (like Batman) and robots (like Transformers).

Given the underperforming RAMBO III back in 88 (the same summer when DIE HARD was released) what really helped kill the more OTT elements of the 'muscles, jingoistic and kill 100 guys single handed' aspect of the genre that Stallone practically created was the simple fact that audiences wanted genuine tension and suspense in the genre again in that they simply got tired of their action heroes being presented as completely invincible.

Watching DIE HARD back on release you get the feeling that Mclane may die even if he stops the bad guys and the fact that LW2 originally ended with Riggs dying(they actually shot it) speaks volumes.

Arnie's career thrived during the late 80s/early 90s more consistently than Stallone's largely because he accepted scripts where his heroes were, in some shape or form, underdogs. Watch the climax of PREDATOR where he's literally dwarfed physically by the title character or T2 where his Terminator is unsuccessful fighting a superior machine in hand to hand combat. That's why ALIENS, LETHAL WEAPON, DIE HARD and yes the casting of Michael Keaton as Batman succeeded in that era. Make the heroes more physically and believably vulnerable and the audience will root for them more.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I'm not a fan of Live Free or Die Hard. The series felt too kiddified and I never felt McClane could die, because he was surrounded by terrible CGI.

 

[El Payaso]

You know what killed the 80s action heroes?

THE ICE AGE!!!

 

[Leenie]

Given the underperforming RAMBO III back in 88 (the same summer when DIE HARD was released) what really helped kill the more OTT elements of the 'muscles, jingoistic and kill 100 guys single handed' aspect of the genre that Stallone practically created was the simple fact that audiences wanted genuine tension and suspense in the genre again in that they simply got tired of their action heroes being presented as completely invincible.

Watching DIE HARD back on release you get the feeling that Mclane may die even if he stops the bad guys and the fact that LW2 originally ended with Riggs dying(they actually shot it) speaks volumes.

Arnie's career thrived during the late 80s/early 90s more consistently than Stallone's largely because he accepted scripts where his heroes were, in some shape or form, underdogs. Watch the climax of PREDATOR where he's literally dwarfed physically by the title character or T2 where his Terminator is unsuccessful fighting a superior machine in hand to hand combat. That's why ALIENS, LETHAL WEAPON, DIE HARD and yes the casting of Michael Keaton as Batman succeeded in that era. Make the heroes more physically and believably vulnerable and the audience will root for them more.

Um, yeah ... That's why I said I think the decline of Stallone-esque heroes started to end when action flicks like Die Hard came about.

But to ignore the fact that CGI-ridden movies aren't a factor is absurd (in my opinion). I mean, look at Transformers. Love it or hate it, those movies make a TON of money. It's the special effects action stuff that's making the money right now.

 

[Mace Bloodstone]

Low budget Cable B movies killed the buff action hero. Especially the karate type action movies, just overkill during the early 90's.

 

[Gabe99]

Is the Superhero Craze Destroying the Movies?

Are Blockbusters Destroying the Movies?

The Superhero Franchise: Where Traditional Movie Stardom Goes to Die

 

[Rowsdower!]

Yes, superhero films are destroying the world.

 

[David H.]

They certainly killed action heroes like Stallone. When we watched those movies we weren't thinking of Rocky, Rambo or whoever. Same with Schwarzenegger. They were the heroes, not the character.

It's the other way around today. There are no movies stars left.

 

[Tilapia]

Yes, superhero films are destroying the world.

This is an old discussion but one that's been ongoing for the last 10-15 years. Hollywood needs franchises. For franchises, you need content and IP, and years of source material. It's not easy coming up with a new idea that isn't some kind of rehash of something previously made.

That's why directors have their hands tied. Auters may have a great film idea that isn't based on anything, but they don't have 3-4 films worth initially. In the event the first movie is a hit, the sequels tend to suffer because the creators can't maintain that level of creativity to sustain a novel concept. They go out of business pretty fast.

Most of the Oscar bait is based on historical characters or period pieces or contemporary social commentary. This will always be the case. No need to franchise those stories and characters that can be told in a single film.

But to pay the bills, things have to be franchiseable. Otherwise Hollywood ain't going to green light it. They need a hit every quarter to recoup the losses on other pictures.

In short, if it's not Batman, it's going to be something else. Obviously a series of novels. Comics will be exhausted. Then you have to look at video games, which we are beginning to see this summer. Fairy Tales will be a large part of the Disney slate. Remakes of franchises from yesteryears. Cartoons and toy lines have and will continue to be franchised.

The next step is franchising virtual reality. You want to create films and stories that the individual can partake in. The new approach in film, say 2050's, are those catered to the individual in the living room wearing a helmet that stimulates sensory experiences in addition to visual information. Theaters will be obsolete. You will buy a film and star in it yourself. It will initially be a Total Recall, but the true test will be to not only be mentally conscious of the story but to physically interact within the virtual world as well (wield a prop, run and jump, and have ability to make decisions within the story). If you are interested in film but can't produce anything of note, I'd suggest looking at investing opportunities there. Disney, Apple, Google, and Facebook have started investing in preliminary stages of that.

 

[:eek:]

. It's not easy coming up with a new idea that isn't some kind of rehash of something previously made.

I'd say that's near impossible. Everything is inspired by something. Not even Shakespeare got his ideas out of nowhere.

 

[Tilapia]

The only original mainstream film I can think of in recent years is Inception. Matrix 1999 comes to mind. I'm sure I'm missing a few. But yeah, I guess I'm leaning mostly toward sci-fi, but throw out some other titles if one feels free. Interstellar which was alright. That's why I think the Nolan team has been the best productive talent to come into Hollywood since Memento. Too bad the DCEU was too great a challenge for him, but we've gotten some good films instead.

 

[MadVillainy]

I'd say that's near impossible. Everything is inspired by something. Not even Shakespeare got his ideas out of nowhere.

Exactly. Which is why I always thought the complaint about Hollywood not being original is crap and silly.

 

[NotSoLongAgo]

The only original mainstream film I can think of in recent years is Inception. Matrix 1999 comes to mind. I'm sure I'm missing a few. But yeah, I guess I'm leaning mostly toward sci-fi, but throw out some other titles if one feels free. Interstellar which was alright. That's why I think the Nolan team has been the best productive talent to come into Hollywood since Memento. Too bad the DCEU was too great a challenge for him, but we've gotten some good films instead.

Even inception has clear inspirations

 

[elgaz]

I don't think anything killed anything. Certain genres of film become hugely popular for a while, then they fade and something else takes over. It's just the natural cycle of what is popular amongst audiences, and Hollywood trying to capitalise on the trend.

Westerns ruled the roost for a long time - it seemed at one point that every other film was a Western, especially round the John Wayne era. The 80s action movies were hugely popular, and in the 90s and early 00s the big blockbusters were delivered in the form of a succession of big spectacle disaster movies - Armageddon, Independence Day, Deep Impact, Twister, Titanic, etc - backed up by an equally long succession of rom-coms.

There's little that has to be said about the superhero genre then growing into the billion-dollar industry it is now, something that arguable only happened because Hollywood finally had the digital technology and means to do the characters justice.

So I think genres just become popular, pass, and something else takes over. What it will be after superhero films is anyone's guess.

 

[Elevator Man]

"It was the first 'Batman' movie," Stallone told the Times, in reference to the 1989 movie adaptation starring Michael Keaton as the Caped Crusader. He went on to say, "The action movies changed radically when it became possible to Velcro your muscles on," a clear dig at how the trim Keaton was encased in a sculpted Batsuit for the film. Stallone joked, "I wish I had thought of Velcro muscles myself... "I didn't have to go to the gym for all those years."

Stallone adds that the director Tim Burton's stylish take on the superhero story changed what audiences expected from an action flick: "It was the beginning of a new era. The visual took over. The special effects became more important than the single person. That was the beginning of the end."

Ironic coming from the guy who attended the LA premiere of Batman '89'.
[YT]REdle370kFg[/YT]

 

[Teelie]

Every few years it's [this] is killing [this] kind of movie or just movies in general and then we all forget about it because it's all a load of crap (as we saw six years ago when Stallone made this remark). The only thing that changes is that which always changes: the people who star in the movies.

There will always be movie stars but their prominence might diminish at least in the context of superhero movies because the actors can be replaced while their characters live on. And it's not like superheroes are the first to do it. James Bond says hello (just take your pick of which Bond actor you prefer).

Superhero movies are just an easy target. They are newly successful after years of hit and miss (for ever Superman or Batman we had a Howard the Duck or DareDevil) and bring a lot of people to the theater. That I think is what scares the more traditional actors or those who can't break into the genre. They fear it will make them irrelevant. But we all know who plays the characters and that isn't going to go away.

To me there is ironically nothing new to the comments about the industry dying or that it is being destroyed because you're suddenly not as relevant as you used to be. The silent film era suffered from "talkies" and then black and white movies suffered from color... the innovations and evolution just keeps going and nothing is or should try to stop it.