Why is martial arts movies less popular today?

[skribs]

I know Jason Statham, Dwayne Johnson and Vin Diesel being in action movies.

But others I don’t know probably because they mostly in comic movies like you say.

Even like you say Jason Statham and Vin Diesel are really into fast and furious like movies.

I know Michelle Rodrigue, Angelina Jolie and Milla Jovovich.

But there still so many action movies where they pick less known actors.

If I don’t know more hollywood actors today than I'm into other genres or hollywood is doing some thing wrong.

There also were where they picked less known actors. Most of those actors were the less known actors at some point. Bruce Willis was seen as a horrible miscast in Die Hard, to the point that they took him off of the posters because people didn't want to see him in an action movie. Now he's a huge star.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Agreed. And if you look at Norris movies, a lot of them fall into that category of being action movies with MA in them, rather than being about MA. Heck, the posted image has Norris with guns, not Norris in a Karate stance.

The surprising thing to me about Chuck Norris is that even though he's always been an excellent martial artist in real life, his fight scene choreography isn't that good. Compare any fight scene from a Norris movie or TV show to the fight scenes in a Tony Jaa movie or a Donny Yen movie or the fights in Shang Chi, and they aren't even close in terms of quality.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I'm going to disagree on some of them.

Some of the men you mentioned are action stars because they are action men. Either they are known for training hard for movies (Keanu Reeves, Tom Holland), or they are just big, strong men (Dave Bautista, Vin Diesel, Dwayne Johnson). Ryan Gosling is more of an actor that got put into an action role, sort of how Bruce Willis was back in the first Die Hard. When Dwayne Johnson started acting, he was already known as The Rock.

I think that's kind of the point. Johnson made it in movies because they used his existing fame, which is what happened with the big A-list folks in the past (though some of them got their start in movies, too).

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I know Jason Statham, Dwayne Johnson and Vin Diesel being in action movies.

But others I don’t know probably because they mostly in comic movies like you say.

Even like you say Jason Statham and Vin Diesel are really into fast and furious like movies.

I know Michelle Rodrigue, Angelina Jolie and Milla Jovovich.

But there still so many action movies where they pick less known actors.

If I don’t know more hollywood actors today than I'm into other genres or hollywood is doing some thing wrong.

There were lesser-known actors in movies in the past, as well. They didn't typically perform well as in the box office as those using a big name, because those names sold. There's the same tendency today, which is why A-list actors can demand so much pay.

 

[Steve]

I'm going to disagree on some of them.

Some of the men you mentioned are action stars because they are action men. Either they are known for training hard for movies (Keanu Reeves, Tom Holland), or they are just big, strong men (Dave Bautista, Vin Diesel, Dwayne Johnson). Ryan Gosling is more of an actor that got put into an action role, sort of how Bruce Willis was back in the first Die Hard. When Dwayne Johnson started acting, he was already known as The Rock.

I don't understand what you're trying to say.

Another actor comes to mind: Emily Blunt.

 

[skribs]

So, the objection would be to someone being "aware of...important societal...issues"?

Seinfeld had an episode devoted to these types of sentences, the yada-yada-yada episode. Where Jerry's girlfriend would say something like "I went to the store and saw some shoes I really liked, but couldn't afford, and yada-yada-yada, I got free shoes!" Turns out, the yada-yada-yada was her shoplifting them.

In this case, what you've done is take out the "actively attentive to" and "facts" from the sentence. You did this 100% on purpose, because you put in the dots between them, you consciously omitted those words. Funny that you omitted "facts" when misquoting the brief snippet of the definition.

Many of the "facts" that are purported by woke folk are controversial. They're either opinions, or they're based off of controversial data. Yet, they are presented as fact, that if you do not agree with those facts, it is because you are evil. Many of those issues are also controversial, and also given the same treatment - agree with the woke that these are big issues, and agree with the woke on the position on the issue, or you are labeled evil. Having had disagreements with their data and with their opinions, and then being called names and a liar and all sorts of hateful rhetoric because I'm not 100% in line with their agenda, it makes me much less likely to agree with them.

This brings us back to "actively attentive to." This is the part that prompts the right to call this "divisive identity politics", is because that active attention to our differences tends to divide us more than push us together. When you pick at a scab, it bleeds and never heals. When you constantly tell someone they're different, they're going to start to feel so. I remember when I was a little kid and I thought people of darker skin just had a darker tan. (Which is actually kind of true). That was the only difference I saw between me and my darker-skinned neighbors and classmates. I think we'd be much better off if the vast majority of people treated race as only being skin-deep, instead of actively attentive to what skin color everyone is and how that supposedly affects their fate.

We've even seen calls for segregation coming back around, calls that I have seen you support on this forum. That was the point I lost all respect for you, and you were previously one I held in the highest esteem. Up to that point, you were my favorite mod, if not my favorite poster on this forum. But when I saw that post, there was no turning back.

Edit to add: This is the thread I'm referring to. Since I did make such a bold claim.

No women allowed In this guys BJJ class

So seen this on Facebook. Apparently this instructor is refusing to teach women students for some reason. I don’t know the guy and don’t know his reasons but thought I’d post it on here and see if anyone knew. Here’s the post I saw. Kat Hill

www.martialtalk.com

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Attention All Users: This is your reminder that political discussion does not belong on this forum and can lead to threads being locked and participants receiving warnings and/or penalties.

 

[moonhill99]

I'm going to disagree on some of them.

Some of the men you mentioned are action stars because they are action men. Either they are known for training hard for movies (Keanu Reeves, Tom Holland), or they are just big, strong men (Dave Bautista, Vin Diesel, Dwayne Johnson). Ryan Gosling is more of an actor that got put into an action role, sort of how Bruce Willis was back in the first Die Hard. When Dwayne Johnson started acting, he was already known as The Rock.

Looking at the wikipedia page on Ryan Goslin I don’t know how he got into movie blade runner looking at past movies there seem to be not many action movies and he comes across as week fighter and weak compared to Bruce Willis or Sylvester Stallone so on. It does matter if he knows martial arts or not he just looks weak.

There just some thing odd about lot of movie actors today. In past you seen them in one or two movies and they just stood out.

Next hollywood will be putting Ryan Goslin, Chris Pine, Tom Holland, Rupert Grint or Ansel Elgort in next Dredd movie, Cobra movie, Mad Max movie, Die Hard movie, Total recall, demolition man, Doom movie so on

And hollywood wonders why we don’t know them.

May be millennials and generation Z just look at action fighters different than us boomers.

 

[moonhill99]

Seinfeld had an episode devoted to these types of sentences, the yada-yada-yada episode. Where Jerry's girlfriend would say something like "I went to the store and saw some shoes I really liked, but couldn't afford, and yada-yada-yada, I got free shoes!" Turns out, the yada-yada-yada was her shoplifting them.

In this case, what you've done is take out the "actively attentive to" and "facts" from the sentence. You did this 100% on purpose, because you put in the dots between them, you consciously omitted those words. Funny that you omitted "facts" when misquoting the brief snippet of the definition.

Many of the "facts" that are purported by woke folk are controversial. They're either opinions, or they're based off of controversial data. Yet, they are presented as fact, that if you do not agree with those facts, it is because you are evil. Many of those issues are also controversial, and also given the same treatment - agree with the woke that these are big issues, and agree with the woke on the position on the issue, or you are labeled evil. Having had disagreements with their data and with their opinions, and then being called names and a liar and all sorts of hateful rhetoric because I'm not 100% in line with their agenda, it makes me much less likely to agree with them.

This brings us back to "actively attentive to." This is the part that prompts the right to call this "divisive identity politics", is because that active attention to our differences tends to divide us more than push us together. When you pick at a scab, it bleeds and never heals. When you constantly tell someone they're different, they're going to start to feel so. I remember when I was a little kid and I thought people of darker skin just had a darker tan. (Which is actually kind of true). That was the only difference I saw between me and my darker-skinned neighbors and classmates. I think we'd be much better off if the vast majority of people treated race as only being skin-deep, instead of actively attentive to what skin color everyone is and how that supposedly affects their fate.

We've even seen calls for segregation coming back around, calls that I have seen you support on this forum. That was the point I lost all respect for you, and you were previously one I held in the highest esteem. Up to that point, you were my favorite mod, if not my favorite poster on this forum. But when I saw that post, there was no turning back.

Edit to add: This is the thread I'm referring to. Since I did make such a bold claim.

No women allowed In this guys BJJ class

So seen this on Facebook. Apparently this instructor is refusing to teach women students for some reason. I don’t know the guy and don’t know his reasons but thought I’d post it on here and see if anyone knew. Here’s the post I saw. Kat Hill

www.martialtalk.com

The owners of website don’t want us talking about political stuff here or making reference to political parties or use word woke.

That just say culture difference among boomers than generation Z than dragging political stuff into forum.

But getting back on topic here there is less war movies and mad max like movies too.

Hollywood seem more tight money now days afraid to spend money like in the past. And going with a lot of reboots and remakes and just afraid to spend money.

There also seem to have been more movie genres in past than today so this is not just a martial arts movies, cop martial movies or action cop movies.

Other thing is actors like Bruce Willis or Sylvester Stallone so on get known they ask for more money and so cheaper for hollywood to go with less known actors

I think in lot ways hollywood really gone way out of way to make the actors of 80s and 90s known where today they more tight with money afraid to bring actors up and so get less known actors.

Movies like Dredd movie, Cobra movie, Mad Max movie, Die Hard movie, Total recall, demolition man, Doom in 80s and 90s would get well known actors than less known actors.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Seinfeld had an episode devoted to these types of sentences, the yada-yada-yada episode. Where Jerry's girlfriend would say something like "I went to the store and saw some shoes I really liked, but couldn't afford, and yada-yada-yada, I got free shoes!" Turns out, the yada-yada-yada was her shoplifting them.

In this case, what you've done is take out the "actively attentive to" and "facts" from the sentence. You did this 100% on purpose, because you put in the dots between them, you consciously omitted those words. Funny that you omitted "facts" when misquoting the brief snippet of the definition.

Many of the "facts" that are purported by woke folk are controversial. They're either opinions, or they're based off of controversial data. Yet, they are presented as fact, that if you do not agree with those facts, it is because you are evil. Many of those issues are also controversial, and also given the same treatment - agree with the woke that these are big issues, and agree with the woke on the position on the issue, or you are labeled evil. Having had disagreements with their data and with their opinions, and then being called names and a liar and all sorts of hateful rhetoric because I'm not 100% in line with their agenda, it makes me much less likely to agree with them.

This brings us back to "actively attentive to." This is the part that prompts the right to call this "divisive identity politics", is because that active attention to our differences tends to divide us more than push us together. When you pick at a scab, it bleeds and never heals. When you constantly tell someone they're different, they're going to start to feel so. I remember when I was a little kid and I thought people of darker skin just had a darker tan. (Which is actually kind of true). That was the only difference I saw between me and my darker-skinned neighbors and classmates. I think we'd be much better off if the vast majority of people treated race as only being skin-deep, instead of actively attentive to what skin color everyone is and how that supposedly affects their fate.

We've even seen calls for segregation coming back around, calls that I have seen you support on this forum. That was the point I lost all respect for you, and you were previously one I held in the highest esteem. Up to that point, you were my favorite mod, if not my favorite poster on this forum. But when I saw that post, there was no turning back.

Edit to add: This is the thread I'm referring to. Since I did make such a bold claim.

No women allowed In this guys BJJ class

So seen this on Facebook. Apparently this instructor is refusing to teach women students for some reason. I don’t know the guy and don’t know his reasons but thought I’d post it on here and see if anyone knew. Here’s the post I saw. Kat Hill

www.martialtalk.com

And to think you complain of others not getting your point....

 

[Xue Sheng]

Well...I tried..... xue sheng is out

 

[moonhill99]

The surprising thing to me about Chuck Norris is that even though he's always been an excellent martial artist in real life, his fight scene choreography isn't that good. Compare any fight scene from a Norris movie or TV show to the fight scenes in a Tony Jaa movie or a Donny Yen movie or the fights in Shang Chi, and they aren't even close in terms of quality.

Hollywood likes flashy fight movies than real fight movies.

If you look at some new kung fu movies you will see flying kicks and jumps way into air and just flashy hollywood fighting similar to matrix and comic fighting.

Some of this is okay but to much and it is turn off.

If you look at Steven Seagal in 90s he was good using wing chun and hard Aikido now he gone into not good Kung Fu but hollywood Kung Fu.

 

[mograph]

There’s a low signal-to-noise ratio in this thread.

So ... I'll try to improve it.

Sure, there are still good vs. bad movies, where the hero is a man who fights with his body. MCU. And the stories are simple.
And they use martial arts. I suppose that Chris Pine as Kirk was old-school Trek punchy-punch fighting. At least he didn't use Kirks' linked-fists-to-the-back move. I think that martial arts moves have been well-integrated into fighting styles in most movies, at least where the character is supposed to be trained.

That seems to be true: if the character uses martial arts, they have been trained. This does suggest that they got their training somehow, with a teacher or more likely, a clandestine institution, for good or evil. So I don't think there's an absence of martial arts moves in western action cinema today.

Maybe we're just missing movies where the story is set in a martial arts environment, with the culture of brother students, the dojo, the honour of the ancestral teachers, and so on. I think these movies are inextricably tied to Eastern culture, so why don't we see them in the West? Probably because they don't sell right now. Also, being Eastern isn't being a cool outsider so much now over here, because of the integration of second-and third-gen folk of Eastern ethnicity.

Back in the day, all that chop-socky stuff was popular in the west, because it was exotic and flashy. The stories were very old and simple, but the environment was new and exciting. Were western boxing movies very popular as a genre? They came up before the seventies, but I don't recall them having the same popularity as, say, gangster or cowboy movies.

So, IMO, martial-arts genre movies were popular in the west because they were exotic and flashy. Martial arts are no longer as exotic and fascinating to the public, so movies about them, in that environment, just don't sell as well right now. Crouching Tiger was an exception, because of the magical wuxia component. Ip Man was likely popular because of the combination of larger scope, but tighter focus on one man, who was something of an everyman (no Thor here).

... in my opinion.

 

[mograph]

Hollywood likes flashy fight movies than real fight movies.

Audiences like flashy fight movies.

Remember, Hollywood folk make movies that sell. (Or they try to.)

 

[moonhill99]

I don’t think action movies replaced them since both coincided together for decades, and personally I view MA movies as a sub genre of action. Same with most cowboy movies and military and spy movies are sub genres within the action genre.

I think there’s been plenty of MA movies and tv shows 2000 until now, they just weren’t as massive as back in the day.

I think it’s largely because martial arts are no longer considered exotic and people who want to see martial arts can mostly just watch KB, MMA, wrestling, judo etc so much easier now than they could in the 60s-90s so why worry about seeing a whole movie based on martial arts?

Yep that is want I said before the culture has changed where most people look at martial arts as just getting into shape than self defence or fighting.

Where people view superman, batman, spiderman or some other comic fighter as magic fighter with super fighting abilities.

So what could be happening is among lot of people is they see fighting like in movies and they don’t go and say look he is a good martial artist fighter they say look he has some kind of special fighting abilities.

And part this is US culture is really big into guns, boxing, kickboxing and MMA than martial arts.

When people look at self defence or fighting the primary weapon is guns and technology. And secondary is fighting by the last and no other option.

I think want may be happening is a lot of people view martial arts as not believable but mystic comic fighter as more believable.

And Chuck Norris or Steven Seagul going into old factory or old warehouse going after gangs seem less believable among lot of people.Where they view mystic conic fighter as more believable.

 

[moonhill99]

Back in the day, all that chop-socky stuff was popular in the west, because it was exotic and flashy. The stories were very old and simple, but the environment was new and exciting. Were western boxing movies very popular as a genre? They came up before the seventies, but I don't recall them having the same popularity as, say, gangster or cowboy movies.

So, IMO, martial-arts genre movies were popular in the west because they were exotic and flashy. Martial arts are no longer as exotic and fascinating to the public, so movies about them, in that environment, just don't sell as well right now. Crouching Tiger was an exception, because of the magical wuxia component. Ip Man was likely popular because of the combination of larger scope, but tighter focus on one man, who was something of an everyman (no Thor here).

... in my opinion.

Well they may be more exotic and flashy back than but comic movies where not big back than like today as the only fighting action movies back than where martial arts movies, ninja movies and martial arts cop movies and cop movies. Other than war movies or cowboy movies.

If martial arts schools in the US said big nope no under 18 olds and you going get get bloody training would that help? May be?

I think what could be happening is people see martial arts of getting in shape and sports not self defence or fighting.

They may view comic fighters as more believable.

 

[Dirty Dog]

Where people view superman, batman, spiderman or some other comic fighter as magic fighter with super fighting abilities.

Batman doesn't have any superpowers. None. He's just a martial artist who did a good job picking his parents, which allows him to buy cool gadgets.

 

[mograph]

Well they may be more exotic and flashy back than but comic movies where not big back than like today as the only fighting action movies back than where martial arts movies, ninja movies and martial arts cop movies and cop movies. Other than war movies or cowboy movies.

If martial arts schools in the US said big nope no under 18 olds and you going get get bloody training would that help? May be?

I think what could be happening is people see martial arts of getting in shape and sports not self defence or fighting.

They may view comic fighters as more believable.

The idea of some normal guy taking out a whole gang with only his fists and feet isn't that believable. The best fights these days involve, at least, a highly-trained operative who uses tools at hand, like Jason Bourne. And he only fights one guy at a time, or carefully isolates his targets.

Also, a fight needs to be a minimum length to be interesting: it needs to be a self-contained story, or at least a dramatic sequence. If we watch any fight between normal guys onscreen, if it lasts long enough to be interesting, at some point we have to think, "okay, that hit should have killed him," yet he continues on as if he were just working out. Or on angel dust, I guess. In order for it to work in a dramatic setting, it has to be unrealistic to some extent, like many things in a filmed story (e.g. how close people stand in a conversation).

As for realistic fight scenes, I'd have to cite the naked fight in Eastern Promises, remembering of course that Viggo plays a highly-trained operative. But that wasn't good because it had flashy martial arts moves; it was because there were knives, and Viggo was naked, lending a real sense of threat. If they were all dressed, it'd be just another fight, even if the choreography was just as good (if I recall).

Yes, people are taking MA for non-fighting reasons. I'd argue that back in the day, they (most of them) weren't taking classes because they were really at risk of getting in a fight: they wanted the sense of power that comes from doing the moves.

If martial arts schools in the US said big nope no under 18 olds and you going get get bloody training would that help? May be?

Sorry, could you please clarify this question? Thanks.

 

[moonhill99]

Batman doesn't have any superpowers. None. He's just a martial artist who did a good job picking his parents, which allows him to buy cool gadgets.

Yep but want I’m saying is when the public looks at comic fighters or even fighters in movies that are non comic fighters they are not going to look and say he is a good martial artist fighter they are just going to say he is a good fighter my magic or some thing.

So even if some one does some how look at Chuck Norris or Steven Seagul today and really like them they ate not going to look he is good martial arts fighter they are going to say he is good fighter my magic or some thing.

It is hard to know if public just viewed martial arts as new and exotic back than or believable back than or just lack of no other action movie genre to watch.

If there is less people going to martial arts schools in the US and mostly kids now and people getting into shape than martial arts are viewed as less real now.

And it is hard to say if schools said no under 18 olds and no sports and you get bloody like in MMA and boxing would help the public image that martial arts is real.

 

[mograph]

Batman doesn't have any superpowers. None. He's just a martial artist who did a good job picking his parents, which allows him to buy cool gadgets.

... and hire good teachers and focus on training overseas. Without having to make a living.

(Wealth as superpower. )