What happened to the Action Hero? (1 Viewer)

[DaveF]

It recently dawned on me that the solitary Action Hero has been supplanted by the Ensemble Heroes in recent years.
I grew up with primarily the lone heroes e.g Arnie, Sly Stallone, Harrison Ford. Each one was an army unto himself. But over the past several years, the Action Hero has fallen into disfavor, while the group hero has risen. Now, I'm seeing more movies like X-Men, Matrix, Fast and the Furious, and Armageddon.
I'm not complaining. I enjoy both sorts of heroes and movies. But I'm wondering why the shift?
Am I correct; has there been a shift in hero types in recent years?
Was there a specific movie or year that signaled the shift?
Why did this happen?
What other periods of movie history has this shift been seen (either to, or from, the solitary hero)?
I look forward to your comments and insights

 

[Kenneth]

Interesting observations. I hadn't really thought that much about it previously but here are a few ideas for the shift:

Economics: Movies cost a lot of money now. More than ever before. I would suspect that an ensemble cast makes people more confident about the box office because they are not dependent on the draw of any single individual.

Suspension of Disbelief factor: Not that this has ever been a major driving factor for Hollywood but your superhuman feats might become more paletible if they are perpetrated by a group.

Buddy factor: There are a lot of big name draws in Hollywood now and many of them know each other. I think they may get together to make buddy pictures (and action is a good genre for this). Ocean's 11 might fit this catagory.

Broader story concepts: A story involving a lone hero has a limited number of possibilities (and Hollywood was pretty good at exhausting most of them). Adding the group dynamic opens a plethora of alternatives.

That's as far as my thinking take me.

Kenneth

 

[TimW]

I think it all started way back when with those darned Smurfs.

 

[Darren H]

Perestroika

 

[bill lopez]

Those movies with Sly,Arnie & Bruce had Right Wing story in their movies. But then Bill Clinton was elected and Hollywood got rid of the Right Wing Patriot hero for a more sexy,Left Wing action hero. You'll notice on t.v. as well we got all those trashy sex talk shows also.

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

I reject the thesis and offer up as evidence the Mission Impossible films. They jettisoned the premise of the series to make Hunt a loner hero. Also, the ultimate loner super hero, Spiderman, is coming this summer. w.r.t. the Matrix, it is really about one character (he is, after all, "the one") in the same sense that Predator was about Arnie despite the presence of his team.

As far as the political stuff in Bill's response. Uh...I don't get it.

Regards,

 

[TheLongshot]

I think it is pretty simple: There hasn't been any new action stars that can bring people just on their name alone. Of the old guys, only Arnold can still do it. All the others make bad movies (Sly, Van Damm), are doing other types of roles (Willis), or are too old (Ford). I mean, when the biggest action stars out there are Kenau Reeves, Tom Cruise, and Ben Affleck, you know you are in trouble.
There are some out there who have potential. Jet Li is always good, but he has yet to make a good American film and is not yet a bankable star in this country. I think Vin Diesel has a lot of potential. I'm interested to see how XXX does. Heath Ledger might be a possibility if he picks the right roles.
Jason

 

[DaveF]

I reject the thesis and offer up as evidence the Mission Impossible films

I reject your rejection , and claim that M:I, while a Tom Cruise vehicle, is still an ensemble movie. M:I2 -- I think it sucks too much to even acknowledge.
The Matrix, IMO, is an ensemble film. Neo is the focus, but the group remains important until the very end. Whereas, in Predator, the group is the people who die, so Arnie can then go it alone.
There are still movies with the solo hero, but I think they are the minority. Even the new wave of fantasy movies follow this trend: Harry Potter and LOTR are definitely "heroic party" stories, even though they have a primary protagonist.
Re: Economics -- With what Jason said, I would agree. The studios have no qualms about paying stars $20M - $30M for a movie, but that's happening as much with action movies.
As for the lack of bankable action stars -- is this the cause, or the effect? Was the decline of the Hero caused by the lack of popular action actors? Or did studios shift away from the Hero movie, and thus quit cultivating (or looking for) performers that could play those roles?
Had Jackie Chan gained US popularity earlier, he might be a contender, but I think he will remain a more niche player, overall. Jet Li - the one movie I saw him in was truly horrendous. So, yeah, he needs better movies to gain popularity.
I think the litmus test will be T3 -- if it succeeds, then there will a push for finding new Hero actors. If it tanks, we'll stay with heroic parties for a while more.

 

[Ash Williams]

Was there a specific movie or year that signaled the shift?

It all started with Arnold's 1993 bomb "Last Action Hero".
I have also noticed a trend away from the one man army theme that was so dominant in the 80's and 90's. I think it is just Hollywood trying to come up with new ideas. They have basicly done the lone action hero to death with titles to numerous to mention, and it might have finally caught up with them (ie; poor box office numbers).

 

[Andy Sheets]

As far as the political stuff in Bill's response. Uh...I don't get it.

I think the point was that in the 80's it was all about the one man army with the big guns righteously shooting the hell out of everyone that messed with him, including Vietnamese people and Islamic terrorists among others. Not the kind of hero that appeals to liberals Look at True Lies. In the 80's it would have simply been a bloody great Arnold flick. But because it came out in the 90's critics attacked it for being racist (Arab villains) and misogynist (Arnold psychologically tortures his wife because he thinks she's having an affair).
In the 90's, however, society became more sensitive and politically correct and the action heroes reflected this: much more vulnerable, physically (hero usually gets his ass kicked all the way through the movie before making the miraculous comeback at the climax) and emotionally (more likely to shed tears and actually give a crap about people in general). (It probably shouldn't be surprising that many of the toughest people in Hollywood now are women. I mean, I'd like my chances against Ben Affleck or Matt Damon but I don't know if I'd want to mess with Angelina Jolie ) And that would contribute to a more team-based approach - there just aren't any more one man armies...we need to respect and value our fellow human beings and work together because we all have our own unique talents
Personally, I don't think this had anything specifically to do with Clinton, though. I think Bruce Willis was the key. When he played that poor bastard in Die Hard who got his feet all torn up and still managed to save his wife, it showed that people would buy an action hero that wasn't a bulldozer with a funny accent. And it just developed from there. Willis and Harrison Ford had the acting ability to adjust with the times that Arnold and the other muscle guys lacked.

 

[Josh_Hill]

They are still there. They are Arnold, Jackie Chan, Chow-Yun Fat, and Jet Li. But I think Tom Cruise and Keanu and Ben are good action heroes.

 

[DaveF]

They are Arnold, Jackie Chan, Chow-Yun Fat, and Jet Li

Yes, but they don't have nearly the same presence or number of movies in the US as did e.g. Arnie and Stallone back in the 80s.

The arguments based on social shifts are interesting -- and probably part of the shift. It would be interesting to see how action/adventure movies changed over movie history (say, the past 50 yrs), and how that corresponds to social attitudes.

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

Jackie Chan is and has always been much different than the one man army concept described above. The appeal of Jackie is that no matter how skilled the character he is playing may be, he always gets hurt or hurts himself in a way that makes him endearing to the audience.

That is also why the Arnie movies such as Predator, Terminator 2, and Total Recall where he is evenly matched or the underdog are the most appealing whereas a true one man army film such as Commando is not, IMHO. I will grant the exception of True Lies, where he was more or less a one man army spy, but even then, his vulnerability through and to his family was what made it entertaining. The Terminator does not count because he was not an "action hero" in that one.

Regards,

 

[TheLongshot]

I don't define Jackie Chan as an "Action Hero". He's more like the modern version of Buster Keaton. Tremendously outrageous stunts combined with comedy.

Chow Yun Fat has the same problem as a lot of the aging US stars. He's starting to get too old for this crap. To his credit, he's always been more than just an "Action Hero".

Jason

 

[Josh_Hill]

I dont think Chow-Yun Fat is getting to old. He can still kick ass with the best of em.

And Jackie is the best action hero today. He is an action hero, but yes he uses comedy.