0
All a matter of perspective. At my age, a 30-year-old movie made in 1983 doesn't seem all that "old" at all. But I suppose as a kid watching movies in 1970, something made in 1940 would have indeed seemed old. Funny how that works.
Regarding Stallone and Schwarzenegger: good in their time, but I don't agree they have no equal these days. Jason Statham for one.
Errol Flynn: To me he was always epitomized the difference between a "star" and an "actor." Great star. Mediocre actor. Even when he was trying to give a serious performance, there always seemed to be the ghost of a smirk on his face, as if he could never really take acting seriously.
Comparing action of yesterday with action of today: filmmakers of today reach greater heights because they are standing on the shoulders of those who came before them. Only natural that they would be more technically proficient, especially when you consider the computer technology and astronomical budgets now being invested. Still, every now and then you come across really astonishing scenes in those "old" movies. In Zulu ('64), the battle scene in which the British troops repel a wave of attacks, step back, reform their lines, absorb another charge, step back, reform ... as thrilling as anything you'll see today.
__________________
Scarecrow: I haven't got a brain ... only straw. Dorothy: How can you talk if you haven't got a brain? Scarecrow: I don't know. But some people without brains do an awful lot of talking, don't they? Dorothy: Yes, I guess you're right.