Talk:Action film/Archive 1

No subject
I just made a distinction between fighty action movies and explody action movies. Could we start a list of subgenres like the two above and with others like the racy action movie (Ronin), and the dramatic action movie (Way of the Gun), etc? I'd also love to see more trends and conventions listed and detailed.

Also, isn't the list of stars a little out of date? Those guys haven't made a decent flick in a long time. There's a new round of action heroes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tubby (talk • contribs) 03:22, October 18, 2002


 * But those guys define the genre. Nowadays there are no real action heroes, although Vin Diesel may belong on the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.48.30.244 (talk • contribs) 08:50, October 31, 2005

Less famous films but still fun
What are these 'Less famous films but still fun'? Looks like a Steven Seagal shrine to me! Pcb21 10:08 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Seven Samurai
I've removed the section about Seven Samurai. Sorry to whoever wrote this because it's well-written and interesting, but I think there's a problem in including it mainly because this article is really about modern Hollywood action films, and Seven Samurai doesn't seem to have much relation to them at all. If we're going to include it we'd have to start including war films, westerns, adventure films, the lot. This article would really have to be massively expanded and the whole focus changed. But if anyone violently disagrees they can always put it back in:

One of the most influential early films of the genre was The Seven Samurai, directed by Akira Kurosawa. Although the plot is more complex than many action movies today, the premise was very simple: set in Feudal Japan, the basically good, weak villagers are about to be attacked by a large horde of bandits. So, the villagers hire seven samurai to protect their village and train their people for the upcoming onslaught. This movie introduced basic, recurrent action film themes such as good vs. evil, sacrifice, the vigilante spirit of the protagonists, and the use of an action climax (which until then had been restricted to westerns). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay-W (talk • contribs) 11:43, June 6, 2005


 * well isnt the first i suppose "modern" action movie goldfinger? no mention of james bond here but it pioneered everything from quick cuts and speed ramping in the editing to the sly one liners when he dispatches the villain and trademark catchphrases. ive seen everyone including arnie, willis, stallone, murphy, diesel etc ALL say at some point in an interview that bond is granddaddy of the action movie (as well as the spy genre). "Explosions, gunfights, car chases, and the hero either killing the main badguy or giving him a severe beating in personal combat" id say that describes a bond film pretty well. lol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.166.23 (talk • contribs) 23:09, April 23, 2006


 * The Seven Samurai is sort of an action movie, and it was an early movie to use slow motion. Yojimbo501 (talk) 00:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

clear bias
if anyone looks at the Feminist theory part, its clearly totally biased...totally..this is my first wikipedia thingo so sorry in advance for anything and everything i did wrong —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.162.236.154 (talk • contribs).


 * I'm not sure that I see the bias. Feminist theory is what it is, and while the field of study might be biased, mentioning its focus on action films here seems reasonable. There's one item that I placed a tag on because I'm honestly not sure that it's supportable, and at the very lease needs a citation. -Harmil 16:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If you look at the wording, its obvious(well to me) it was written by a feminist, not really a bad thing, but feminism isnt generally considered NPOV.
 * "female characters in most action films are nothing more than objects, a prize for the winner"
 * The words have a connotation that isnt NPOV, its very hard to explain, im sure theres a word for it but i dont know it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.162.236.154 (talk • contribs) 01:36, May 8, 2006

Sub-genres
I'm a bit uncomfortable about adding Resident Evil under Action-Horror because it didn't feel like a horror-movie to me (though it definitely classifies as such according to the description). I feel that Doom would almost be better but perhaps I'm not the best judge (I thought The Exorcist was a boring movie). Any comments on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HannuMakinen (talk • contribs) 11:49, April 29, 2006

Giving the sub-genres a second look, if it were me I'd class RE as an Action-Thriller and RE: Apocalypse as SciFi-Action (perhaps Doom as well). But I dunno. If a movie has zombies does that automatically make it a horror film? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HannuMakinen (talk • contribs) 11:52, April 29, 2006


 * I've re-written the whole section. When speaking about popular topics such as movies, Wikipedia tends to have a short memory. I've tried to correct this by focusing on fewer, and earlier examples of each sub-genre which either started or revitalized the form. -Harmil 16:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

What the f...?!?!
"Femenine values have begun to influence the movie industry so much that it is now commonplace for a 90 pound woman in high heels to beat the hell out of 50 heavily armed 300 pound men who are not only stereotypically agressive, but as dumb as a brick wall. This is a much more realistic representation of the roles of women and men in society then the afore mentioned scenarios which are sexist and completely false."

Yeah...I'm taking this out for so many reasons. Twin Bird 19:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Citations needed
This article definetly needs citations, but I wont delete anything because it seems to have a good grasp on things. I also think this is close to Start or B class but should be a stub untill it has citations. Other things include the fact that only one man is in the "crewmembers" section. Besides all that I think it is a good article. Yojimbo501 (talk) 00:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello. To whom it may concern, I'm new to Wikipedia, and not sure if I'm leaving this message in the right place. I wrote the "citationless" article "History" on the Action Film page (if that's what's being discussed here), and I added to what little was there already, using the four or five sentences that previously existed as a framework around which I added the bulk of what you presently see in that section (as of 03-06-11 anyway). Months later- today in fact- I realized my mistake. My most recent contribution, added just a while ago under the section "Sub-genres", was swiftly removed (despite adding clarity, depth, and if I must say, rather useful information). My attempt to undo the undoer led to my being informed of my embarassing mistake- Wikipedia only allows information from published sources. In a word... whoops! (You can't always tell from reading the information. A-hem.)  But since that is apparently the case, I see no need to allow my previous contribution- a rather large percentage of the History section- to stay either. I admit that I re-wrote and/or added to what little was there out of pride- and stunning failure to read Wikipedia's simple instructions- but mainly because (as Ybimbo501 may have said about what I wrote) I do feel that I have a "good grasp on things" relating to the subject. I don't know what "close to Start or B class" means, nor do I know anything about the "crewmembers" section. But having tried to research the history and diversity of the action film genre, I know that there isn't a great deal of useful, comprehensive information available at the moment. I sincerely thought that my research (and humble skills where words n stuff are concerned) could make for an informed and better-written contribution. Again, my apologies. I am not a published source- merely a schmuck what likes action films- and I hope that someone as bright, knowledgable, well-spoken (and attractive, frankly) comes along and eventually fills in the blanks as thoroughly and as eloquently as I did... with the added bonus of citations and references from the necessary published material... (whatever or wherever that may be). Until then, I'll be glad to see that at least some of my work is still posted, until someone decides to take it down. I would do it myself, but as I mentioned, some 5-10% was already there, and I don't remember the date (months ago) when I added to and modified it. Sorry if that makes someone's day on the job more miserable, but there it is, as clear as I can possibly make it. Crying shame too- I wrote some good shit. Sounded erudite; and it was. My apologies again for my ignornace, ego, and adherance to the usage of foul language. "John Spartan you are fined one credit for violating the verbal moralities statute." Can you guess the sub-genre where I got that line? Nevermind. Its a no-brainer. Good luck with the rest of the site, and thanks for your own contributions. Sincerely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.185.137.25 (talk • contribs) 12:55, March 6, 2011

Action-comedy
Action comedies should have their own page...right now it just diverts right to this one. Is anyone very knowledgeable about them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.241.129.214 (talk) 02:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

XXX
--213.6.106.159 (talk) 17:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

First Blood
I've removed the highlighted section from the following sentence: "However, the action film did not become a dominant form in Hollywood until the 1980s and 1990s, when it was popularized by actors such as Arnold Schwarzenegger, Bruce Willis, Mel Gibson and Sylvester Stallone, whose film First Blood in 1982 is considered to be the beginning of the modern day action film." The only source I have found states Dirty Harry as the beginning of the modern action film. I've moved the line here, however, just in case a reference can be found to back up the First Blood claim (which I privately feel has some merit but can't back up with a source at the moment.) - AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Proper action movies
The entire idea of "proper action movies began with _____" is silly and pointless. There are boatloads of movies pre-1970 with oodles of guns, fights, car chases, etc. Hell, the original "The Fast and the Furious (1955)" isn't much more than a 75 minute car chase, and it pretty much nails most of the other current action movie conventions as well. This entry is titled "Action Film", not "Cool movies most of us grew up with, so we can't be bothered to look any further back than Arnold Schwarzenegger and Clint Eastwood". I realize that citations might be a little hard to come by, but that's no excuse to offer up one measly reference as fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.177.118.154 (talk • contribs) 22:17, November 1, 2008