MovieChat Forums > The Adventures of Tintin (2011) Discussion > I've realised what's wrong with modern H...

I've realised what's wrong with modern Hollywood action/adventure films

posted 11 years ago by Gwasgray
8 replies | jump to latest

The action set pieces are just too far-fetched. I know you have to expect a certain degree of far-fetchedness in this genre, but now there's just so much swooping through the air and grabbing onto different things and jumping between collapsing buildings, you know?

I suppose if you were too faithful to the original Tintin books it would be too tame for modern audiences, but I feel they maybe went a bit too far the other way and made it like most other action adventures we get now.

It's like Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull (I'm sure that's not the only example but it's the first one that springs to mind) all that jumping between speeding Jeeps and thumping each other in the face without causing a single bloody nose, there's no real feeling of danger, that one of the heroes could actually fall off and get splattered. Too cartoonish, even for a cartoon.

[–] I_Am_The_Captain 11 years ago

See, here's the thing:
Indiana Jones are "pulp adventure" stories. That Means, they're based on how the pulp genre of adventure stories played out. In that kind of stories, people DO incredible stuff like jumping between jeeps, riding a mototcycle handlebar upside Down on a clothing line or punching eath other without a bloody nose. That's how the genre Works. When you go see an Indiana Jones film at this point - you know what you're going to get! It's hardly a surprise.
Tintin is based on comics from the 30's and forward - up until the 80's actually - and the style of the original comic was extreem escapism. Tintin falls out of an airplane in one, landing in a haystack without a scratch. He fights of hordes of bad Guys with just his fists. Heoutwits kidnappers, angry Incas, gangsters, and pretty much every bad guy on the planet. That's the kind of story, Spielberg wanted to make, so that's what he did.
I don't think that's wrong with Hollywood at all - I think there's something wrong with the people WHO go see a movie like that and expect realism! If you want realism, go Watch a realistic movie. If you want escapism, stay here in this Theater.
Don't tell me that NeXT you are going to complain about the dead pirates in "Pirates of the Caribian"?

Who am I to argue with the captain of the Enterprise?

[–] ChrisTreborn 11 years ago

"Indiana Jones / tintin are pulp adventure characters" whatever, but the audience are more matured or changed, especially after POST - Bruce willi's DIE HARD - benchmark films.
-
Maybe that's the reason with guys like Spileberge n Lucas, they didn't get to see that change. They are still in their 60s pulp era, and audience who are into Ps3, xbox geeks find that too hard to grasp, because those audience are entitled into REALITY/ EXTREM DETAIL REALITY.
-
If Spielberge had done some recent action movie maratone, to get to know the young audience, he might have made a decent IDY4, AND THIS TINTIN MOVIE. Action sequences of these movies are a joke, I don't know who approves these kind of nonsense. (even those storyboard artists, maybe they are blinded by Speilberge's Legacy).
-
And about "Pirates of the Caribian" movies, those are fantasy movies based on walt disney theme park property. So no wonder it has 'tom n jerry' styled action physics.
-
I don't think Dr. Jones, Tintin belonged to a 'tom n jerry' movie physic world.
The bottom line is Lucas n Speilberge are aged directors who can't connect to new audience.
These aged directors who lost their touch should be fired.
-
my list on DIRECTORS WHO LOST THEIR TOUCH
-
http://www.imdb.com/list/sXqnBfPK4cE/

If we stay the course, we are dead! WE ARE ALL DEAD!

[–] mrrockey 11 years ago

I gotta ask, are audiences today REALLY that *beep* cynical? Sure, they nitpick all the time online about plot holes and unrealistic moments in certain films(Skyfall, The Dark Knight Rises, The Avengers) but they still seem to overall, enjoy fun, escapist cinema like this. I don't know, I just don't feel Spielberg is really losing his audience with these sort of films. I mean, the critics enjoyed it, the fans seemed to mostly enjoy it, and it's made a decent enough profit to garner a sequel.

Also, isn't film SUPPOSED to be escapism in the first place? So why is it a big deal when you have to suspend your disbelief a little when watching an action film? Oh, and by the way, even the supposedly "realistic" action films made today are pretty unrealistic actually, both in plot and action set pieces, when you think about it.

I think you're being a little too harsh on Spielberg just for not being realistic with his action. Come on, he needs to be FIRED for that *beep* Even if he is a bad action director(I personally don't think so), he can still do solid dramas these days.

[–] Gwasgray 11 years ago

Obviously I realise things like the old Indiana Jones films had all those stunts and they were great, but now we've got CGI where anything's possible, things have perhaps gone a little too over-the-top. It's also about coherence, so much stuff going on at once in these sequence it can get hard to keep track of the action.

[–] The-last-to-know 11 years ago

I really got bored halfway through the Baghar action sequence.

Now before i continue, i almost qualified as a CG artist, obviously i have some passion for it but I despise the way it is being used by some. Just because its possible doesn't mean its desirable, the Baghar sequence is everything that's wrong with CGI action sequences. If a real camera cant do it, so you use a CG camera instead you are going to be stretching peoples tolerance. If you then go and make a 5 minute swooping and swooshing unbroken shot you will sever almost everybody's connection to the action.

Just because it's a cartoon doesn't mean you can get along without people suspending their disbelief and being absorbed in the scenes. Too many directors seem to think that they can ignore these factors. They can not.

You call that a cameltoe? Put your cheeks into it!

[–] A-Rey-of-Light 11 years ago

Don't think I agree with you. I loved this film, and the action and the 3D effects kept on the edge on my seat.

[–] ComicNerd 10 years ago

I think the advent of CGI has allowed directors far less limitations then were ever possible. The problem with this is that the normal rules of physics and camera movements get thrown out the window.

You get cameras swooping through buildings, doing 360 degree pans. So not only are we getting characters doing stunts that lack a sense of danger and are over exaggerated because of CGI but the way the scenes are filmed are done in a way that the audience can't connect to.

The Crystal Skull example is a good one, no one seems to get hurt but it also looks filmed in front of a green screen so any sense of danger is taken out of the sequence.

[–] HuGoL1101 10 years ago

Example: The scene where Captain Haddock have to get out from the flying plane throught a storm to put alcohol in the engine.

LOL this is pure suicide... from the moment he open the door to the moment he move so near of the damn propeller and bent to burp !!!

This is ridiculously suicidal!!!