Did Michael Keaton kill the 80's action hero
I've heard in interviews that Sylvester Stallone said that once they put Keaton in a suit with muscles added into it, that was a death nail in his career knowing that an ordinary guy could be put in a suit with muscles and play an action star. Now we know this is questionable because Sly saved his magnum opus for Demolition Man but this seems a fair question to ask, Was he right or wrong in saying Batman was the death of the 80's action star?
|
Re: Did Michael Keaton kill the 80's action hero
Rock 'The Dwayne' Johnson seems to be doing ok
|
Good question.
I'm inclined to disagree, if only because you'd think a power fantasy would benefit more from seeming like an ordinary guy could inhabit those kinds of roles. I also think it's really easy to look at what happens to be the last example of something and conclude that it's the reason the thing ended, even though maybe it was ending already and something had to be last. |
I think people got tired of 80’s action heroes and moved on to 90’s-style action like The Matrix. Kind of like 80’s stadium rock getting replaced by alt rock.
As The Rock and Momoa have shown us, there’s always a place for big beefy action stars. |
Re: Did Michael Keaton kill the 80's action hero
Yeah disagree as well.
Both Stallone and Arnie carried on the muscles-out thing for years after 1989. I think the only thing Batman did when it comes to heroes, is maybe change-up the spandex clad superhero to something more akin to the armoured, practical suit that came afterward. If anything, I'd say it was Die Hard that ended the brainless explosions carried out by the body-building infallible hero on an endless march of victory. McClane is the everyman, who gets hurt, feels fear, bleeds, and can even be killed. That being said, the 80s style infallible action hero did make a comeback in the most recent Die Hard sequels where McClane somehow rides on the back of a jet plane, then survives both the crash and the ensuing jet fuel explosion... and can also somehow be thrown by a helicopter through plate glass at 200mph... and suffers nothing but having to ninja-roll his way out of it. |
Originally Posted by Jackie Daytona (Post 2354366)
I think people got tired of 80’s action heroes and moved on to 90’s-style action like The Matrix. Kind of like 80’s stadium rock getting replaced by alt rock....
|
Die Hard was not a deviation from 80s action template. Sorry not going for that. As for The Rock, don't agree with that one either. Never bought him as an industry level star, like Sly and Arnold.
|
Hong Kong did it first, with their heroic blood shed films. Their action films were obviously different, using gun fu style combat, rather than martial arts. These heroes looked nothing like Arnold or Sylvester, but more like Keaton and Willis. That is, less muscles, more agility.
Now, Batman is nothing like heroic bloodshed films, obviously, but Diehard takes a lot of inspiration from it. And it showed actions stars didn’t have to be martial artists (in Hong Kong’s industry) or muscular (in Us industry). Eventually, the US started to turn back towards martial artists at the end of the 1980’s with JCVD and Seagal, and neither looked particularly muscular, either. Maybe it had more to do with with their emergence then anything else. |
Re: Did Michael Keaton kill the 80's action hero
JCVD was pretty ripped back in the day. Maybe not so much as Arnold and Sly tho.
|
Re: Did Michael Keaton kill the 80's action hero
The same could be said of Peter Weller (as of Keaton).
He was a skinny guy who got famous as an action hero by wearing a suit. Granted, it was only for two movies (but same for Keaton). And while Robocop was a new franchise compared to the decades-old Batman, he still made quite an impact on 80's cinema. |
Re: Did Michael Keaton kill the 80's action hero
The 80s offered steroidal-stuffing of human skin with chemically enhanced meat as a new aesthetic. This change was downstream of trends in body building in earlier decades (and the chemicals that made the new mass monsters possible). This was a BIG cultural "blip" that resulted in smaller cultural wave. We are much more advanced now as a culture and are more worried with stuffing implants into our asses to meet the Mix-a-Lot Ratio of big-buttness. Ever since, there has always been a role for the "tank" body, but the dominance faded with our interest in the new curiosity.
|
Originally Posted by John W Constantine (Post 2354412)
Die Hard was not a deviation from 80s action template. Sorry not going for that.
|
Originally Posted by ScarletLion (Post 2354361)
Rock 'The Dwayne' Johnson seems to be doing ok
Originally Posted by John W Constantine (Post 2354412)
Die Hard was not a deviation from 80s action template. Sorry not going for that. As for The Rock, don't agree with that one either. Never bought him as an industry level star, like Sly and Arnold.
|
Originally Posted by Iroquois (Post 2354672)
Eh, that's debatable. He's never really had any iconic characters or classic films of his own compared to the likes of Sly or Arnold (what is his most famous role? Hobbs? Maui from Moana? The guy from Jumanji?)
Dwayne Johnson has a massed a huge fortune in Hollywood. I'd say he's had a pretty good career, rendering Stallone's point absolutely invalid. |
Originally Posted by Captain Steel (Post 2354458)
The same could be said of Peter Weller (as of Keaton).
He was a skinny guy who got famous as an action hero by wearing a suit. Granted, it was only for two movies (but same for Keaton). And while Robocop was a new franchise compared to the decades-old Batman, he still made quite an impact on 80's cinema. Plus, Weller had martial arts training and worked with mime artist Moni Yakim. This was why Verhoeven and Arnie teamed up on Total Recall instead (at Arnie's request)... and why Ironside was cast in Total Recall as well because he was another actor that Verhoeven had considered for the role of RoboCop, but again, Ironside was too large framed for a clunky suit. |
Originally Posted by ScarletLion (Post 2354361)
Rock 'The Dwayne' Johnson seems to be doing ok
|
Originally Posted by John McClane (Post 2354711)
He might be doing ok financially, but his acting and role choices leaves a lot to be desired. Dude kinda has a messiah complex and it shows.
|
Originally Posted by ScarletLion (Post 2354715)
That's the point though isn't it. The guy landed huge films that make billions because of his physique. If Dwayne Johnson had the same acting skills but the physique of a twig, he'd have no career. Rendering Stallone's point invalid.
The Rock was not just hired for his figure, but for his following. He is not an actor the Broadway sense of the word, but he is charismatic. He has an accessible ethnicity. Just as SNL has been an entry point for comedians into film, pro-wrestling has been an entry point for giants like The Rock and John "The Manchurian Apologist" Cena. |
Originally Posted by Corax (Post 2354738)
The Rock was not just hired for his figure, but for his following. He is not an actor the Broadway sense of the word, but he is charismatic. He has an accessible ethnicity. Just as SNL has been an entry point for comedians into film, pro-wrestling has been an entry point for giants like The Rock and John "The Manchurian Apologist" Cena. |
You have to have a stage presence to be a WWE guy, The Rock has always had a kind of charm that translates well into the kinds of roles he plays. If anything, I’m surprised more of those guys haven’t jumped from wrestling to cheesy action movies.
|
All times are GMT -3. The time now is 06:30 AM. |
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright, ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
User Alert System provided by
Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © Movie Forums