"...It was not until the 1996 action-thriller film The Rock ("Die Hard on Alcatraz Island"), that the tone of action films changed significantly, and the increasing use of CGI effects allowed films to move beyond the limitations of real locations and practical stunts. Writing for The Guardian in 2018, Scott Tobias observed that none of these later films readily captured the complete effectiveness of the Die Hard story."
Even the article for The Rock doesn't credit it for changing the tone of the genre. And the increasing use of CGI didn't prevent studios from making more Die Hard clones in the 21st century such as The Raid, Dredd, White House Down, Olympus Has Fallen, and Skyscraper. Scott Tobias was making claims that aren't grounded in film history. And his personal opinion isn't needed since other critics have found the likes of Speed to be one of the best in the genre. ShiranuiAensland (talk) 20:38, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- That doesn't say it changed the tone of the genre, it says that it was at that time that the tone of action films changed significantly because they relied on CGI more than practical stunts and practical effects, which is factual. Nowhere in that sentence does it say Die Hard clones did not exist, it says that action films started using CGI. It's not speaking of the Rock as an innovator, it's an example. Personal feelings regarding Speed are irrelevant. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:46, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- From the source itself: In the decade that followed, Die Hard served as the template of the modern action movie, to where “Die Hard on a …” would become its own subgenre: Die Hard on a bus (Speed), Die Hard on a ship (Speed 2: Cruise Control, Under Siege), Die Hard on an airplane (Passenger 57, Executive Decision), Die Hard on an ice cream truck that must stay under 50 degrees Fahrenheit at all times (Chill Factor). The dominant location, the everyman hero, the colorful terrorist – some of them got one or two elements of the formula right, others were chintzy facsimiles, but none felt as satisfyingly complete. Once Michael Bay made The Rock – Die Hard at Alcatraz – the entire language of action movies started to shift into a more visceral rush of images, sensation without context. And the rise of CGI in The Matrix and onward, with its infinite plasticity, made the physical action in Die Hard even more a thing of the past. (The evolution – or devolution – of the form can be tracked in the Die Hard sequels, which eventually turn McClane into superhero without the cape and spandex.)
- Scott Tobias' personal feelings regarding the DH clones, which includes Speed, were made relevant by its inclusion in this page. In regards to The Rock, the keyphrase is "visceral rush of images, sensation without context", not CGI. The Matrix is the one he credits for the rise of CGI, but the paragraph it's brought up in within this page is one that credits Die Hard for the scenario of "a lone, everyman hero who must overcome an overwhelming opposing force in a relatively small and confined location", not that Die Hard is the template for practical stunts & effects. Those were prevalent in many other franchises such as Lethal Weapon. ShiranuiAensland (talk) 21:05, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- So then the line in the article is accurate? Scott Tobias's opinion as a professional writing for a professional outlet is relevant, whether you agree with it or not. His commentary is that these other films didn't capture the complete effectiveness of Die Hard's story. That's his professional opinion. We use reliable sources and professional commentary. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:22, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- His statements about The Rock & CGI aren't opinions though. He's making claims about how those factors historically impacted the genre. And regardless of whether one believes him about the former or not, both are irrelevant to the topic of the DH scenario which are still found in the 21st century. The paragraph never credited DH for making the genre provide context or go practical. ShiranuiAensland (talk) 06:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- He's not claiming anything, he's stating a fact that there were a lot of immediate Die Hard clones up to the mid 90s, around which time he, in his professional opinion, believes action films became more about spectacle than plot, leading into the late 90s when CGI made the realistic, physical action of Die Hard more dated. The clones you mention in more recent years are all reliant on and heavily enhanced by CGI for the action scenes. It may need rewording, it didn't wholesale removing. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:21, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed on rewording. ShiranuiAensland (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ok, what would your suggestion be: The original text "It was not until the 1996 action-thriller film The Rock ("Die Hard on Alcatraz Island"), that the tone of action films changed significantly, and the increasing use of CGI effects allowed films to move beyond the limitations of real locations and practical stunts. Writing for The Guardian in 2018, Scott Tobias observed that none of these later films readily captured the complete effectiveness of the Die Hard story."
- Mine->"Writing for The Guardian in 2018, critic Scott Tobias said that by the release of the 1996 action-thriller film The Rock ("Die Hard on Alcatraz Island"), action films had become more focused on spectacle over plot, and the subsequent increase in the use of CGI effects allows the genre to move beyond the limitations of real locations and practical stunts in films such as Die Hard. Tobias wrote that none of these later films readily captured the complete effectiveness of the Die Hard story."Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Perhaps it needs more justification on why it's being brought up. I think the key is his statement about how the franchise evolved or devolved. If we're allowed to expand on this topic beyond what he said, we can point out how the series and its clones adapted into the 21st century. In other words, bring it back within the DH scenario instead of the broader action genre since the paragraph is about the former. ShiranuiAensland (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=small}
