10 ways to improve action scenes in Hollywood films

[DiP]

http://m.movies.com/movie-news/actionfest-gina-carano-other-fight-experts-give-us-10-ways-hollywood-can-make-action-movies-better/7552?wssac=164&wssaffid=news

[blue_skies]

great article but is never going to happen. As far as action goes the stuntman is slowly becoming irrelevant and CGI is taking over. Even Hong Kong is turning into Hollywood and it's only a matter of time until this generation of Hong Kong action movie fans are moaning about the state of Hong Kong movies. It's all about big money and international sales with star names attached

[Reel Power Stunts]

As far as action goes the stuntman is slowly becoming irrelevant and CGI is taking over.

Not true. I'm not a fan of big CGI fests, but stuntpeople still have an important role in them. On a forthcoming scifi film there's a scene where CGI robots get hit by explosions. That required a stuntman in a motion capture studio getting jerked off his feet by a wire.

These big superhero films like "Thor" and "Captain America" employ loads of stuntmen, and they would never get made with the actors doing everything.

I DO agree with much of what you said, though, especially regarding the decline of action in HK films.

As for the article, I agree with what JJ, Cung Le and Gina Carano said, but not necessarily the spin the author put on it. The "Get it right in rehearsal first" might sound sensible, but it is dangerous to repeat action. So while you should block things through and try to eliminate nasty surprises, you reach a point where you have to try the whole action with all the elements in place. You may record a rehearsal of a body burn, with the FX, stuntguy and safety going through the motions with no fire. The camera footage can be reviewed and everyone examines their procedures. When it comes to setting the guy on fire though, you film it. With fights and stunts, for the first attempt at full speed/power etc, it makes sense to "shoot the rehearsal" . It may result in a perfect take - so no time wasted or increased exposure to risk by repeating the action. Of course you may also discover something which didn't show up in dry runs...

As for the shakycam syndrome, I agree there is too much of it. It can be effective dramatically, though. Also tight framing, shaky camera and choppy editing is often masking the fact that the performers aren't very competent screen fighters. Scott Adkins doesn't need shaky cam. The expert performers in Lau Ka-leung's Shaws film could perform in long, wide shots with power, precision and intent. Photograph many actors with wide shots and long takes, however, and they look weak and like they are going through a rehearsed routine.

[DiP]

As far as action goes the stuntman is slowly becoming irrelevant and CGI is taking over.

A major overstatement there. Regardless of the type of action film, stuntmen are still required for spectacles and marvels that actors and even other stuntmen can't accomplish. Action films can't survive without stunt professionals.

[Tosh]

Even Hong Kong is turning into Hollywood and it's only a matter of time until this generation of Hong Kong action movie fans are moaning about the state of Hong Kong movies.

That time has already came and passed for me my friend.

I think that article is giving Hong Kong to much credit with the crap movies they've churned out the last 10-15 years. Not to jump on The Raid's nut as the best action film ever made, because it isn't, but they(and the Thais) just went back to basics with fight choreography, I've been saying these new HK/Chinese movies are over thinking it.

[Tosh]

Originally Posted by blue_skies

As far as action goes the stuntman is slowly becoming irrelevant and CGI is taking over.

A major overstatement there. Regardless of the type of action film, stuntmen are still required for spectacles and marvels that actors and even other stuntmen can't accomplish. Action films can't survive without stunt professionals.

I can see where Blueskies is coming from, cgi is a great tool to enhance the action, but it's became a monster unto itself taking many jobs in the film business in the process, a lot of practical effects and stunt work have been thrown out the window, imo film suffers as it makes action look generic.

[OpiumKungFuCracker]

It's really simple folks.. Go back to what was working before people started to complain about the way action movies are made... Action movies are simple, all you need is that one guy to drive everything together, just that one guy that's all you need..

[Drunken Monk]

Shaky cam kills movies for me. It's the worst tool in cinema today and I have no idea why people still use it. It's intolerable.

As for fight scenes, I am a firm believer of "If it's not broke, don't fix it." Hong Kong action cinema in the 80's got it right. Even some examples of kung fu cinema today have it right. Look at "Flashpoint" or, more recently, "The Raid."

Why Hollywood can't latch onto the fact that they need a good stunt team and a good choreographer sans wires and gimmicks, I don't know.

I'm hoping Keanu Reeves' directorial debut might let Hollywood know what can be accomplished without the current "tricks." I was hoping Rza's "Man With the Iron Fists" would do the same but it seems Rza loves his wire work.

[blue_skies]

A major overstatement there. Regardless of the type of action film, stuntmen are still required for spectacles and marvels that actors and even other stuntmen can't accomplish. Action films can't survive without stunt professionals.

That may be a major overstatement. But as time has gone on we are seeing more and more CGI being used with no real stuntpeople involved, no real stunts, nothing but computer imagery. It's simple truth that it's cheaper for them to do that than expensive and dangerous stunts, plus of course they can have the actors doing whatever.

It's only a matter of time until even actors are replaced by CGI. CGI actors will never grow old, will never negotiate more expensive contracts switching studios and they can do whatever they like with them without putting the star in jeopardy,no worries about being influenced by outside parties, drink or drug problems , no costs in actors wage bills, the perfect performance every time.

That time has already came and passed for me my friend.

I think that article is giving Hong Kong to much credit with the crap movies they've churned out the last 10-15 years. Not to jump on The Raid's nut as the best action film ever made, because it isn't, but they(and the Thais) just went back to basics with fight choreography, I've been saying these new HK/Chinese movies are over thinking it.

I know there are already many on here that feel that time has passed. I was referring to the new audiences of today discovering Donnie Yen or some popstar doing martial arts. I honestly can't see a return to basics and honestly the wider audience isn't going to demand better choreography and better action. The younger generation hasn't seen better and they are the majority of the cinema going public, lapping it up. I mean the raid may have some small influence in the short term but ultimately Hong Kong and Hollywood will resume business as normal

Shaky cam kills movies for me. It's the worst tool in cinema today and I have no idea why people still use it. It's intolerable.

.

they use shaky cam because it obscures weak choreography and actionplain and simple.

As for fight scenes, I am a firm believer of "If it's not broke, don't fix it." Hong Kong action cinema in the 80's got it right. Even some examples of kung fu cinema today have it right. Look at "Flashpoint" or, more recently, "The Raid."

Why Hollywood can't latch onto the fact that they need a good stunt team and a good choreographer sans wires and gimmicks, I don't know.

I'm hoping Keanu Reeves' directorial debut might let Hollywood know what can be accomplished without the current "tricks." I was hoping Rza's "Man With the Iron Fists" would do the same but it seems Rza loves his wire work

Hollywood won't latch onto it because it's all about money. It sells to have an action film with a star name. You're not going to have a blockbuster however amazing the film is with an unknown Indonesian star.

I think there's too much optimism based on Keanu Reeve's and Rza's upcoming martial art movies. Even if the most unlikely thing happened and us martial arts fans love these movies, are they really going to seriously break into the mainstream? people are happy to watch fantastic flights of fantasy with unrealistic superhuman comic book fantasy. I can't see them changing their mind wanting to see real people do amazing things without trickery. They want to see Tom Cruise or whoever is the biggest star do whatever.

I think we can fantasise about martial arts and kung fu having its day in the sun once more. But ultimately I think it's just one great big fantasy, even Asian audiences desire the latest Hollywood blockbuster(I think), so the local industry aims to satiate that desire. The mainstream Western audience would rather watch somebody average and white like Jason Statham performing martial arts mediocrity in my honest opinion.

[DiP]

That may be a major overstatement. But as time has gone on we are seeing more and more CGI being used with no real stuntpeople involved, no real stunts, nothing but computer imagery. It's simple truth that it's cheaper for them to do that than expensive and dangerous stunts, plus of course they can have the actors doing whatever.

Doesn't prove anything. You worry too much.

It takes alot of experience and knowledge to understand the industry inside out because trends don't speak for everything. Instead of turning a blind eye and keep generalizing, maybe you should try watching different films to see what goes on within the circuits of action film-making as you're obviously missing out stuff that's contrary and unconventional to the CGI/3D trend today.

[Reel Power Stunts]

I agree with a lot of what you are saying, but (no disrespect intended here) I disagree with some sweeping generalisations.

I hate fake looking CG action which jars with "real" stunts, but that's just half the story. Yes, you will find more and more CGI in films, but that is because the technology wasn't available 30 years ago, and is getting better and more accessible these days. CG sometimes is used to "enhance" or substitute stuntwork - and when it's bad it's bad. However I don't think the move is to replace all live performances with cg. VFX can be used to enhance real stuntwork very well - the viewers just tend to notice the bad stuff. In good examples, where footage has wires removed, crash mats removed etc the audience may not be aware of the cg element. Having the ability to use thicker wires and ropes, blend two takes, augment fire etc have given stunt people the chance try stunts that previously they might not have attempted.

Bigger budgets and CG haven't made stuntwork or stunt people redundant - stuntpeople have been seriously injured on the final "Harry Potter", "Gulliver's Travels" "Hangover 2" and "Quantum of Solace" (just a few titles off the top of my head).

It's only a matter of time until even actors are replaced by CGI. CGI actors will never grow old, will never negotiate more expensive contracts switching studios and they can do whatever they like with them without putting the star in jeopardy,no worries about being influenced by outside parties, drink or drug problems , no costs in actors wage bills, the perfect performance every time.:

Do I think actors will be replaced by CG? That may be a studio mogul's dream, but it would only happen if the ticket-buying public made it so. Not everyone wants to watch "TinTin" or "Toy Story", and they crave nuanced, organic performances. So long as folks want to pay to see Streep, DeNiro or any other talented actor, the producers will tolerate the demands and egos. Also your comment is kind of redundant because, for the time being, CGI movies still require voice actors, VFX artists etc, and they have demands and egos too.

they use shaky cam because it obscures weak choreography and actionplain and simple.:

Shakycam can be used to hide poor performances or choreography, but isn't always used as such. Talk to enough stunt people or choreographers and they'll tell you how their hard-thought-out choreography/performance was wrecked by poor camerawork/editing. On most western films, the director and DOP control these things, so they may choose to stick the camera in close, shaking it about because it "involves the audience in the fight, and gives it energy", even if the great performances and choreography end up lost.

[Guest Markgway]

Improve action?

No CGI

No shakycam

No wires

Simples...

[blue_skies]

Do I think actors will be replaced by CG? That may be a studio mogul's dream, but it would only happen if the ticket-buying public made it so. Not everyone wants to watch "TinTin" or "Toy Story", and they crave nuanced, organic performances. So long as folks want to pay to see Streep, DeNiro or any other talented actor, the producers will tolerate the demands and egos. Also your comment is kind of redundant because, for the time being, CGI movies still require voice actors, VFX artists etc, and they have demands and egos too.

That is the point people will continue to pay to see Meryl Streep or Robert De Niro and it's entirely possible that they could be made CG. The technology and artistry is growing all the time so that more lifelike characters can be made. Only a couple of weeks ago a completely computer-generated and original performance was produced of the rap star Tupac. The technology is closer to fruition than you believe.

Even if voice actors are required movie studios can easily tie them down with long-term contracts, giving them no celebrity status, probably even gain full rights to a person's voice and then create it synthetically. I'm sure all those involved will be well paid but there won't be the same kind of demands and egos, they are all replaceable. Studios will own the technology and overtime audiences will get used to completely CG characters. Probably starting on the younger audiences that grow up with it.

[Reel Power Stunts]

I'm afraid I don't share your vision of a dystopian future.

I believe people will continue to watch real humans acting in films, TV and on stage.

People like to be told stories - interactivity (eg video games) didn't kill off narrative film.

People like to watch humans perform. Walt Disney's cartoons didn't kill off live action, nor will computer-generated animation. Animation (cg or not) takes a lot of time and effort, it is often a lot easier, quicker and cheaper to tweak a real human performance than it is a virtual one.

I

[blue_skies]

I'm afraid I don't share your vision of a dystopian future.

I believe people will continue to watch real humans acting in films, TV and on stage.

People like to be told stories - interactivity (eg video games) didn't kill off narrative film.

People like to watch humans perform. Walt Disney's cartoons didn't kill off live action, nor will computer-generated animation. Animation (cg or not) takes a lot of time and effort, it is often a lot easier, quicker and cheaper to tweak a real human performance than it is a virtual one.

I

Right now it takes a lot of time and effort… in the future? Who knows?Everything could be stored on a massive database with every subtle movement you could ever imagine, Ready to point-and-click, done in moments with CG actors that look as good as the real thing.