Slashdot Mirror
Movies:Technology As the New Superhero
Until recently, the cinematic Superhero has been a major cultural force: Swarzenneger, Stallone, Seagal, Gibson, Van Damme. Although they vary in style -- Swarzenneger likes millenial, biblical and apocalyptic backdrops for his movies, while Seagal is always playing the Lone Ranger surrounded by a sea of corruption -- they have common characteristics. They are anti-authoritarian loners (women love them, but they can't seem to keep any around for long); they carry a lot of hardware, usually 9mm Glocks they can ram clips into and then spew smoking, clinking shells all over.
Things tend to catch fire and explode all around them. The Hollywood Superheroes have little of the nuance or complexity of the comic-book variety. They aren't torn about their roles or identities, they don't have complex histories. Their power comes from muscles and hardware.
They're tough on vehicles, racking up scores of cars, trucks, buses, trains and planes in whatever hapless city they happen to be shooting their way through. They are unabashedly out-of-touch. And they're dinosaurs, fading relics of another time.
Maybe, like Stallone's Rambo, they were post-Vietnam guys who stood in for America's sense of shame and failure, or antidotes to the age of sensitivity and political-correctness.
This genre seems outmoded. Whatever reason the Action/Superhero had for existing seems murky now. Teens are flocking to dumb teen flicks rather than dumb action movies, maybe because they get to watch cheerleaders getting dressed. The Net generation favors a new kind of superhero. Neo (Matrix), Vincent Freeman (Gattaca), and for that matter, the Skywalker gang, none of whom are muscle-heads. They're more likely to use low-tech forms of combat, like martial arts and quick wits. Unlike the massive, thick-necked behemoths above, they're slight and vulnerable, neurotic and brooding.
Perhaps most interesting about these new Superheroes is that they really aren't Superheroes. To younger filmgoers, technology is the hero, not some pumped dumbell with a machine gun. Those guys seem clunky, outdated, overtaken. It's never quite clear what they're fighting for -- ancient warrior notions of bravery perhaps.
Contemporary movie heroes win with superior technology or, at least, superior techno-thinking. They have a spiritual side. The good guys of today's movies don't win by being quick on the draw, but fast on the keyboard.
Technology is surfacing as a character in itself, one which has captured the imagination of younger moviegoers. It was the unheralded star in movies like Titanic and Saving Private Ryan. And Tomb Raider's Lara Croft, a literal creation of technology, is about to get her own movie, starring Angelina Jolie. (The buzz is good). Two of the best moments in The Matrix are when Neo smiles as martial arts tricks are downloaded into his brain, and when he's able to move faster than a speeding bullet (or virtually conjure up some impressive old-Superhero style gunpower). But it's technology that drives him, saves him, and lets him defeat the bad guys. Technology was also the star of Gattaca one of the other prescient techno-theme movies in recent years. Ethan Hawke's prescient character fights the gene fascists by using their own technology against them. As the gene map makes its way to bio-tech companies, this is a good video to keep.
Technology was the hero in Antitrust. In part, it's what made The Blair Witch Project. That wasn't much of a movie, scary or otherwise, but it was crafted and shot (and hyped) with the skitzy, edgy style familiar to anybody who spends much time on the Web.
This summer, Spielberg is expected to take technology to another cinematic level with his much-touted AI, the story of a young boy who isn't a young boy. Nobody's seen the movie, but there's no doubt that technology is literally the hero, as well as the theme.
But in Exit Wounds, Seagal still sticks to the familiar Hollywood Superhero role. He's a loner who's given it all to the job, and gotten no thanks for it. His personal life has gone to hell; he's brave and incorruptible despite living and working in a sea of wusses, back-stabbers and thieves. Seagal has chosen Detroit as the backdrop for this yarn, which has him playing Orin Boyd, the stand-up renegade cop nobody can control, who gets exiled to the city's most corrupt precinct after single-handedly rescuing the Vice President of the U.S. from assassins. Unfortunately for him, he did it without going through channels. There were enough flying bullets and blown-up cars and choppers in the first five minutes to account for a small-scale war. Boyd discovers something is rotten in the Detroit PD and sets out -- with the help of co-star DMX -- to set it right.
He's the perfect anti-technology hero in a technological age, but like this movie, and like others in the genre, isn't blowing up box offices.
There's no good reason to go see Exit Wounds unless you're bored or a true movie junkie (or into car chases, which it does with flair), other than to mark the passing of a breed of cinematic dinosaurs, about to march into Hollywood history and be replaced by a new generation with completely different heroic sensibilities.
I think my favorite part of the preview is when the guy gets thrown into the back window of the car, and the window breaks before he hits it. Quality movie ... quality movie.
Before, technology was the villain. Remember films such as "2001: A Space Odyssey" and "Tron"?
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
I liked it, it was Segals best movie in years.
He's a loner who's given it all to the job, and gotten no thanks for it. His personal life has gone to hell; he's brave and incorruptible despite living and working in a sea of wusses, back-stabbers and thieves. Seagal ... playing Orin Boyd, the stand-up renegade cop nobody can control, who gets exiled to the city's most corrupt precinct after single-handedly rescuing the Vice President of the U.S. from assassins. ...Boyd discovers something is rotten in
the Detroit PD and sets out -- with the help of co-star DMX -- to set it right.
What happened to the SPOILER WARNING tagline? Now I know the whole plot! Have some mercy please Jon...
--- Hot Shot City is particularly good.
What about the movie D.A.R.Y.L.? If I remember the plot from it correct ly, the kid was actually a robot, and the hero in the film. The idea isn't new, but it Is being brought to th surface much more now.
Of course Technology is featured more and more in movies nowadays. It is more popular and talked about everywhere.
As for replacing movie tough guys, I don't think so. Like Jon Katz pointed out himself, movies like The Matrix still have their share of guns and ass kicking. What does annother bad segal movie have to to with Swarzenneger, Stallone, and the other true action heros? If you ask me, not a whole lot.
There should be a moderation category "Dumbest Comment EVER"
I find it interesting that, even though critics have ripped Mr. Seagal a new hole over this movie, it still was number one at the box office. This is definately not a sign that the action movie is back in force, but more that the movie going populace is not worn out by this sort of thing, yet.
;-).
It seemed that during the 80's, all we could got was the action movie. How many Sly Stallone, Dalph Lungren, Chuck Norris, so on, so forth movies were made during that time period. Sure, the stories varied in plot, but overall the movies were the same thing over and over again. This continued for quite some time.
Flash forward to the late 90's and early 00's. People felt that the action movie required a message. Look at Sixth Day or End of Days which were both message ridden or biblical in scope. (As a side, I know both were Arnold flicks, but those popped in my head the quickest.) Both bombed. His last big hit was Eraser which was mindless and made $100 million in the US alone.
Where am I going with this? I am not quite sure. I have been up for the last 48 hours with little sleep. I think I am trying to say that the American movie going audience is finicky. It takes a lot to hold attention. If it is story driven, it had better be damn, DAMN good. For example, a great action movie that was primarily story driven was The Usual Suspects, but, if you also want to rake in the money, dumb it down enough and put so much action in that the audience doesn't have time to think. I saw Exit Wound. It was fun. Typical roller coaster analogy. I wouldn't see it again or even rent it, but it was fun.
The action star dead? Nah, just keep it dumb
Bryan R.
Bryan R.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, or $12.50 as seen on eBay.....
Katz believes technology doesn't reign over?
This was yet another rant from Katz under the guise of movie review. Don't you dare tell me to turn him off.
Christ, I suppose *THAT* is his justification for this movie reviews? This one's whole jist was the exit of the typical superhero with that of the hacker via the general public's preference. Baloney. Katz, care to tell us any major groundbreaking movies vested in technology that weren't shit? The movies he mentions are very weak for this argument.... Antitrust was poorely rated, Blair Witch was a low budget film (infact, mentioning technology helped the blair witch project is absolutely deeiving! WWW, TV commercials, press is press.... SGI's weren't doing any rendering for this flick, and I wouldn't consider the video camera enough to justify calling this movie technology related. Even if it was, technology probably couldn't save it...) and the Matrix wasn't particulary impressive. Hackers, The Net.... Hollywood isn't very big on technology related movies, mabye because they're self-aware they fail to do them well.
Anyway, my conclusion/point: To automatically dismiss the blow-'em-up-killing-frenzy action movie as a dying element in American culture whilist hero's working with technology rather then weapons are the new breed of movies is hogwash; we haven't seen any proof of this thus far!
mwtr / THIS SIG HAS BEEN PRAYED OVER AND MAY BE USED AS A POINT OF CONTACT (ACTS 19:12)
You tried to work in a review of a Seagal movie, that is totally lame. In retrospect, rugrats in paris or say it ain't so or heartbreakers would have been better oriented towards this crowd.
You need to just move to salon.com or msnbc.com, at least there when they do movie reviews of lame movies, they don't try and justify it talking about technology.
I agree with everything he stated in the article, however; just because we're surrounded by technology, doesn't mean that movies that don't rely on technology suck. Gladiator was brought to us by technology, but the 'Hero' Maximus was a warrior; a brute force kindof guy. Yes, he was a thinker, and yes, he was emotional, but he was still a killer. To me, Gladiator was an AWESOME movie. One reason people will end up seeing this movie is just for DMX, because he's basically a 'pop-culture icon.'
F-18's --- Gear Up, Flaps Up, Nozzle OUT baby!
But, like who could ever please a critic. It's always sub par, the actors stink, or the plot had no meaning. Ever think about just watching and enjoying a movie rather than analysing it. You might be surprised.
i've finally figured out Katz's methodology for stories: he has an idea and then works backwards to try and explain his hypothesis. synthesis before thesis + antithesis. that explains why his writing is so impossibly hard to understand.
how, precisely, does going to see Exit Wounds "mark the passing of a breed of cinematic dinosaurs"? i still don't get it. it just. . .it just doesn't make sense to me. i don't always expect to agree with a film critic, but i like for his writing to be at least lucid enough for me to understand what he's saying.
"He's the perfect anti-technology here in a technological age, but like this movie, like others in the genre, isn't blowing up box offices."
had to read that one a few times to get past the spelling errors and poor english. so. . .Katz is saying that Exit Wounds isn't making money? isn't $26 million in ten days pretty darn good?
I have always noticed that there has always been a subculture that upheld the values of a simpler hero over the ideal warrior. I just find it easier to relate to and more believable.
This sig intentionally left blank.
If Katz wants his geek revolution, I think he should have it. It is a far far worse article than has ever been written before.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
that jon katz is down to watching movies all the time and probably on their dime. the dude's totally flaked out. the least he could do is go back to bs'ing about technology like he usually does.
"Swarzenneger, Stallone, Seagal, Gibson, Van Damme. " :-)
Did you forget Costner? Each time I see him in a new film, he plays EXCActly the same character. I actually think it's rather funny. He's becoming a parody of himself (something he has in common with those already mentioned, but much more in my opinion)
"This summer, Spielberg is expected to take technology to another cinematic level with his much-touted AI, the story of a young boy who isn't a young boy. Nobody's seen the movie, but there's no doubt that technology is literally the hero, as well as the theme. "
Sounds like "Lain" to me. Is this going to be another Lion King/White Lion case?
I think Katz has a point about the change in hero type thing. I don't think this necessarily mean more intelligent movies, but hey, variation is always welcome.
xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
It's not the genra that is over. The superhero flick is formula that can still work. Unfortunately, the drivvel they are putting out in that genra sucks. The only way to tell one Steven Segal movie from another is by what jacket he is wearing. Everyting else is the same!
It is like somebody took a perl bot, and added the vars $JACKET_TYPE, $DEAD_FREINDS_NAME, $TOWN, $WORTHY_CAUSE_TO_SAVE, $BOSS_BAD_GUY_NAME. Poof, it can put out 50 scripts per minute!
-Spackler
-If you mod me, do I not sink?
Well, it must be hard for english speakers to write his name correctly. Schwarz means black.
Jan
Schwarzenegger.. Please, I know it's a tricky one - but if you're going to take the effort and time to write an article, why not spend the few seconds to get the names right?
...About Blair Witch, Much Hyped Low Tech Phenomenon
(Which Vintermann Was Not Terribly Impressed By)
Ok, so they made a horror movie without special effects or spooky soundtrack.
Now please make a scary movie without special effects, spooky soundtrack or people hyperventilating into a microphone.
xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
I saw this film. So did about 200 other people when I did. And the next time was packed too. Most of the people I work with (at a technology firm) have seen it. They all liked it. The usual comments about the urealistic fights and way bullets never find good guy targets but what of that? You didn't question why Neo could rise from the dead cause Carie Ann Moss said she loved him (Good incentive to live) It's impossible, kinda lame but we wanted it to happen so we just rolled with it. You really need to get in touch with the people you claim to write for.
Venyce
Venyce
remove all references to 007 to email me
since no one has mentioned wargames, i think i will.... so now that that's over... many people have brought up the past run of 'techno' movies (and lest we not forget Hackers - cheezy, but johnny lee miller and angelina jolie - how can you go wrong) anyway - the technocyber movies of yester-decade and today are for a different audience. suspense and action to your average lunkhead american means 'when is that car going to blow up' or 'i wonder if the police will catch them' of course it always blows up and the police never catch them (if you're supposed to like the police, then they always do catch them). regardless, suspense for the more tech savy is aparently ryan fillipe sitting infront of a monitor, wondering if he can code/hack fast enough....'can he get that IP?' two different audiences, two different movies (one with a plot and one without... i'll let you decide). apples and oranges. In another 20 years when (perish the thought of being that old) the kids (10-20) of today are older, the real popular action movie will be the techo type...most of the lunkheads will be dying out - but there will still always be some around. and as long as they are, and someone has more money than they know what to do with, there will be the classic blow'em'up movie. over the next decade+ you will see more of these techno movies, and less of the vandamme etc... remember also - movies: 50% business, 50% "i have enough money to do whatever i want i don't care if it sucks, i want to play!"
-deuxdrop
At least Jan Claude Van Damme looks the part. SS is a sissy! Segal with the ponytail, the soft face. He'd be someone's bitch in 5 seconds in prison!
No one ever said he was a good actor. They all like the action in his films. Who's the chick who popped out of the cake when he was supposedly a Navy Seal turned cook? Now that's worth eight bucks right there.
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain with all your metadata.
Teenspoitation movies (bring it on, save the last dance, other lame cheerleader/high school T&A movies)
Violent action, "dinosaur hero" movies (shaft, gladiator)
Fantasy/Sci-fi/Techie movies (matrix, crouching tiger)
OK Jon, there has never been just one type of movie. And there aren't just three, contrary to your article. What about dramas? There's about a dozen different genres, and as many types of heroes, in dramatic films alone.
By your reasoning, you might as well say that with the release of "The Brothers" that movies with caucasian leads is "antiquated". The simple truth is that they've got different markets. They can coexist and flourish quite will independently. Maybe within the confines of the people you associate with, the "outated brawny superhero" is passe, but there are plumbers and salesmen and housewives and retirees out there, not just 24 year-old dot commers. And they must have missed the newsflash you saw about the old "solving problems through violence" hero, because Segal and everyone else in that movie are laughing all the way to the bank.
Oh, and the technology hero? He's not that new anyway. The first techie hero was Noah. Think about it.
Jon, this is tiresome. You take one small trend in one demographic in the U.S. over a short period of time (i.e., the popularity of a nerdy hero -- which, by the way is not all that new -- Wargames, anyone?) and extrapolate it to suddenly cover global society in perpetuity.
-----------
-----------
If you ever drop your keys into a river of molten lava, forget 'em, because man, they're gone. -- Jack
...and sell it to Hollywood. I hear there's a scriptwriter's strike coming.
:-)
Ok, I'm too lazy to give a link for that. Do a seach yourself
xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
steven seagal is almost 50 years old.
is anyone surprised he's beyond learning how to do a new type of movie?
Some of the fight scenes I've enjoyed most were out of The Matrix, Rocky IV, and the Phantom Menace (amazing correography!). I was personally disappointed in Crouching Tiger. I have been told of some good Bruce Lee flicks, and will check them out.
Fight Club sounded like it had a good chance to be what I wanted -- but failed miserably. The fight scenes were mediocre, and the lame plot twists had nothing to do with fighting :)
Any recommendations?
Mike Roberto
- GAIM: MicroBerto
Berto
Interestingly enough, this name appears to mean "The Black Nigger", Schwartze-negger, in German (which is spoken in Austria where he was born).
Anybody can confirm or deny this?
Huh? I don't understand your comment about the box offices, considering this. (as an aside for people who might read this weeks or months from now -- the link goes to last week's box office returns which right now has Exit Wounds at number 1).
My Greasemonkey scripts for Digg &
If I feel geeky and want to see a techno-geek movie, I go see a techno-geek movie, and don't expect much of a plot except gloating over cool tech.
If I want to cool down by watching 90 minutes of brutal violence, I go see a Arnold or Steven Seagal movie, and don't expect much of a plot except gloating over big guns and a huge ammo budget.
If I want to see an opera, I go to the opera house, and expect to see people sing "I'm Dying" for five minutes. This is what I pay for and expect, regardless of level of realism.
If I want to see a porn flick, I rent one and don't expect a much of a plot at all except depictions of people working out in the nude.
If I feel like seeing that drama everybody is talking about, I may expect something of a plot, but I would not choose that type of entertainment if I wanted big guns or cool technology gloating.
What is supposed to be new?
I'm about as immersed in philosophizing, technology, and tech journalism as it's possible to be, but now and then I like a nice, predictable, no-brainer action movie.
Last night my wife and I watched the video of Jackie Chan's "Drunken Master," in which the highest tech shown was a steam-powered locomotive, and we liked it fine.
This afternoon or evening or later this week we'll probably go see "Exit Wounds," and chances are that we'll like it, too. There won't be a single plot surprise, and we already know the Seagal character (there's only one) inside and out, but so what?
Seagal movies are not meant to be taken seriously.
They're mindless escapism.
- Robin 'deserves a mental break today' Miller
....but superheroes still need good writers.
Of all the movies mentioned, what truely made them good was not the effects, but the writing. Technology is just a means to attempt to bring to life what a writer imagines when they draw up a script.
But here is an interesting and really cool thought. As technology becomes more accessible, imagine how the world of visual entertainment will change for the better!
Say you were an artist and writer, and wanted total creative control over a project, your best bet would be in a comic or graphic novel format, since you could do all the work yourself if you really wanted to. But if that comic became popular and turned into a movie or animated movie or series, heaven help you! A thousand people with their own ideas step in and chances are you end up with a disaster.
Now, concider CGI. In time, anyone will be able to make whatever kind of movie they want themselves, given enough time they could possibly do everything, including voices. Yes, there is a balance here, because enough time as to pass that the technology is cheap and user friendly enough for one person to do it. Long time.
But when it happens, a single writer with a single vision can create a movie exactly the way they want it, and I think the industry will be better off for it. Too many cooks truely do spoil the broth.
Fuzzy Knights: New RPG Strips Tuesday and Friday!:
http://www.fuzzyknights.com
Am I the only one who found The Matrix rather predictable and not terribly interesting? Basically a high-tech version of a classic teen-angst theme. I and a few of my compadres are the only ones who see reality as it really is. Everybody else is living an illusion. Yawn. Nice effects though.
Hiawatha Bray
Tech Reporter
Boston Globe
The Katz Formula is pretty straightforward: "I'm a techno-journalist who finally gets the Geek community." And then there is the corollary: "Everything that occurs in the universe can only be properly understood from the techno-Geek perspective." How typical then to see Exit Wounds pigeon-holed as the harbinger of technologies ascension to the position of Most Important Plot Element in an Action Film.
I really enjoyed Exit Wounds and I liked the plot twist that connected one of the characters to the .Com technology craze, but Katz' perspective is predictably unbalanced. He seems to imply that the only interesting aspect of the movie is the technology focus and also that this is an entirely new area of interest for filmmakers and moviegoers alike.
That is idiotic.
Probably the most powerful use of technology in Exit Wounds is the use of surveillance technology. This is nothing new. Espionage has been a cornerstone of the action film genre for decades. "My name is Bond. James Bond." And if you want to see a movie that really focuses on technology as the linchpin of the plot, consider watching Sneakers, an excellent movie released nearly a decade ago. And yes, it even contains exciting "action" scenes!
It certainly would not be very hard to continue ripping apart the premise of Katz' article, but it seems almost unfair. It isn't hard to push someone off a building when they are leaning out over the edge of the roof. What I will respond to is the claim by Katz that the only good reason to watch Exit Wounds is for the technology.
I'll call the rest of this posting: "Why Exit Wounds is Worth Watching (A Non-Katz Retrospective)".
I've seen all of Seagal's movies. Not all of them are good, but I can say that Seagal is a very competent martial artist (He studied the Japanese martial art, Aikido, for years.) If you speak with someone who trains in this art, they will tell you that on-screen, his movement is very good. As a martial artist, he is interesting to watch. In Exit Wounds there are some nice scenes that exhibit his martial arts ability.
Another distinguishing quality of this movie is that Seagal is moving away from the idea of a superhuman protagonist. Katz said this, but then he said that this was done because technology is usurping the role of protagonist. That is just not correct. What Seagal is moving away from in this movie is the idea of a superhuman protagonist.
In this movie he faces some very difficult opposition. He takes more than a few good shots both physically and emotionally. In several fights, he does not win and takes some pretty good knocks. And then there are the--to me--very amusing scenes where he takes some decent emotional shots as well. Sending him to "Anger Control" counseling was particularly amusing.
Of course, the counseling sessions also introduce Tom Arnold who does--in my opinion--a decent job of being funny. Perish the thought!
This leads to the observation, that the character development in this movie is actually quite good. The best developed character in the movie isn't even Seagal. DMX' character has far greater depth and his story is quite compelling. I'll omit the details to avoid spoiling the plot.
Note that the previous paragraphs say absolutely nothing about technology and yet, they also describe what I liked most about the movie. Not everyone will share my perspective on the movie, but clearly, Katz' perception of this movie as nothing more than a vehicle for technology as superhero is just completely ridiculous. There was much more to this movie than Katz' disparaging commentary would lead one to believe.
I imagine if Katz wrote a review of Jaws when it came out, it would only have said, "'You're going to need a bigger boat.' See? This movie is all about technology."
A very sarcastic, Elo
"Steven Segal in Crouching Cop, Hidden Badges" or something to that effect.
"The hardest part of a role like this is being able to fly up the walls without wires"
-----------
MOVE 'SIG'.
"I would say that 99 per cent of what my father has written about his own life is false." - L. Ron Hubbard Jr.
He's a loner who's given it all to the job, and gotten no thanks for it. His personal life has gone to hell; he's brave and incorruptible despite living and working in a sea of wusses, back-stabbers and thieves.
Sounds like everyone who has worked for a dot.com
"He's the perfect anti-technology hero in a technological age, but like this movie, and like others in the genre, isn't blowing up box offices. " http://www.canoe.ca/JamMoviesBoxOffice/us.html It premiered at #1 in the US last weekend, grossing $19million US. I think it has had a relatively good start (haven't seen it myself and probably won't). Compare this to one of the movies that Katz highlights - Gattaca. It only grossed $12.34million US in 1997 (the year it was released). (Source http://www.boxofficereport.com/ybon/97gross.shtml)
Birds of a feather do indeed flock together...
The irony...
--
--
You sure got a purty mouth...
The truth is this movie is one of the most ass-kicking movies I've seen in a long time, the movie was great, and Katz is a bunghole, oh yeah, and DMX's acting sucked. He didn't act at all, I thought Seagal was a horrible actor, but then I saw DMX juxtaposed to Stevie, and I near puked. The movie was great if people can get over the fact that Seagal is a moron, that's not what the movie's about, and did I mention that DMX's acting sucked?
Yeah, it's familiar to patrons of film festivals, and just about anyone who owns a camcorder, too. It's called "poor quality of equipment and lack of a steadycam" and YOU TOO can replicate it in your own home.
I hate to break it to you, but technology has been king in movies as long as there's been movies; Cars, computers (when they hit the scene), crypto machines in war movies, these are all examples of the "current trend" you're citing. How about the cool disguises on the A-Team? Those count. Or Knight Rider! While they're fairly current, they're not exactly the curve today.
My dad used to tell me, "Pay attention!" Best advice I ever got. I pass it on to you.
--
ALL YOUR KARMA ARE BELONG TO US
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
What in god's name compelled you to see Exit Wounds, instead of an actually interesting new movie like Memento? You had another movie review due and the only movie you had seen was one that you had taken your 11 year old son to? And then you have to fit technology in somewhere, even though it had nothing to do with the movie and, in fact, the existence of the movie and its popularity discredits your statements?
From what little I know of the subject, the original comic book superheros had little of the complexities they do now. They were originally similar muscle bound, shallow characters that appealled for a limited time. As their popularity decreased they were rewritten with darker more vulnerable sides to increase popularity.
The hollywood muscle hero seems to be undergoing a similar loss of popularity as it ages. Likewise it is being replaced by more vulnerable, more flawed characters who still achieve the same feats. The only difference is that single movie characters do not evolve over years as their lifetimes are as short as a movie or two - instead they evolve through new generations. Neo is not a new genre, he's simply an evolution of the same in much the same way that the original superman and today's superman are two totally different entities.
The reason, as already stated, that action films are not as popular right now is because there really isn't much variance in an action film's plot from one film to the next, and Hollywood is running (or has run) out of ideas. And just because there's a crop of bad 'big tough guy' action films of late, doesn't mean that they're on their way out. People actually like that cheezy one-line, in-your-face, completely improbable action - it's why these movies do so well. I mean, Terminator 1 or 2 - completely improbable, even for scsi. Indiana Jones or James Bond as well. I mean, one guy, no matter how buff, suave, skilled, or intelligent, couldn't take out that many Nazis/spies. But it's an 'action' movie, it's supposed to be like that.
Let's take Duke Nukem as an example. The guy's a freaking pimp. He 'kicks ass and chews bubble gum, and he's all out of gum' in the style of Ash. That's some funny crap. He's able to manage a woman and at the same time shoot down a whole squadron of aliens. That would be an excellent action film. Even if you took out the women, guys (and some gals) would go to it in groves. Jon might say, 'the aliens are the technology, really!' but come now. Aliens and technology have been around forever in movies. Deal.
This is just yet Another Example of Jon Sucking Up To Slashot Teens. He's kept the same theme since he arrived with the Hellmouth - free the oppressed geeks of our day, up with technology, down with stupidity and jocks! Just go back and read his stuff, the recursive theme is there. Not necessarily too terribly strong with each article, but it is indeed there.
-------
CAIMLAS
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Jon,
c'mon. technology has been the hero in TV shows and movies for decades:
D.A.R.Y.L.
WarGames
MacGuyver
Small Wonder.....my personal favorite =)hehe.
Surprised! I though the Sumerians were the people who came up with those myths, but here it turned out to be the Akkadians! Wow...I wonder what the Sumerians believed for that first millenium?
I don't think that this thesis is particularly well developed. In fact, the counter-thesis could be equally, if not better, defended by each of teh examples you chose. The real heroics in The Matrix and in Gattaca are triumphs of humanity over technology. This is not a new trend either, Star Wars and Blade Runner fit right in, as does 2001, Dune, and nearly any Isaac Asimov theme.
The Schwarzenneger and Stallone characters may be neolithic in behavior, but they are actually much more technology driven (in the sense that technology is almost always good and that technology is _always_ useful to them).
How does Steven Seagal and Exit Wounds fit in? I have no idea, but then again, I didn't write this article.
That would explain why the matrix was such a success. It is the best of both worlds.
The audience is never rooting for the "tech" to win, but for the hero who cleverly uses the tech. The difference between the "action" movies and the "tech" movies is that the hero's mastery lies in muscles vs. brains; the old jocks/geeks thing.
trish
I was going to post my best attempt at a well thought-out reply, but then I scrolled up and saw Jon Katz and said "Fsck it".
-Billco, Fnarg.com
Actually, the point of seeing something other than an action movie is getting to watch your date get undressed afterwards.