Why Every Action Movie Looks Like This Now

Summary

This video script explores the evolution of action cinema, noting a shift towards greater visual clarity and legibility in modern action scenes. It discusses the prevalence of long takes and wide angles that celebrate stunt work, reflecting an industry-wide convergence on what constitutes 'good action.' However, it also raises concerns about the potential loss of narrative diversity and the separation of action from storytelling. The script argues that truly effective action should serve the story, using examples from various films to illustrate how different approaches to action can enhance narrative impact.

Takeaways

• 🎥 The evolution of action cinema has led to a new standard of quality with films like the John Wick saga, raising the bar for fight sequences and visual storytelling.
• 🔄 There's a convergence in the aesthetic of modern action scenes, with many films adopting a similar visual language characterized by wider angles, longer shots, and a focus on clarity and legibility.
• 🤔 The author expresses concern over the trend towards a singular aesthetic in action scenes, which may be divorcing the action from the broader narrative context of the films.
• 🎬 The prevalence of 'oner' or long take action sequences is highlighted, noting their impact on audience perception and the potential for these to be disconnected from the film's narrative.
• 👥 The role of second unit directors, often stuntmen turned directors, is emphasized in shaping the look and feel of action scenes across different productions.
• 🚀 The script discusses how action scenes in big studio productions are sometimes pre-visualized by external companies, which can impact the integration of action with the rest of the film's story.
• 🔍 The author suggests that the pursuit of 'good action' has become somewhat formulaic, with a focus on techniques that emphasize visual clarity over narrative coherence.
• 🎭 The importance of action serving the story is underscored, with examples given where action scenes are most effective when they are in harmony with the film's narrative.
• 👂 The role of sound in creating visceral action experiences is highlighted, suggesting that sensory impact is as important as visual clarity.
• 🎭 The author argues that 'good action' is not one-size-fits-all but should be tailored to the specific needs of the story and the emotional response it aims to elicit from the audience.
• 🔗 The script concludes by emphasizing the importance of anticipation and narrative build-up in making action scenes impactful, suggesting that the best action is deeply connected to the story's tension and stakes.

Q & A

What has changed in the quality standards of action movies over time?

The quality standards of action movies have improved significantly with advancements in filming techniques such as the use of wider angles, longer shots, and better lighting, which have replaced the previously common shaky cams and poor lighting.

What is the concern about the convergence of aesthetics in modern action cinema?

The concern is that the distinct look and set of principles shaping modern action scenes may be leading to a blending of styles, making different movies and scenes seem increasingly similar and potentially losing their unique identities.

What does the script suggest about the importance of 'legibility' in modern action scenes?

The script suggests that 'legibility', or greater visual clarity, is a key aspect of modern action scenes, with a preference for wider angles and longer shots that clearly show the stunt work and action, rather than hiding it through quick cuts and close-ups.

How does the script relate the evolution of action scenes to Chinese filmmakers?

The script points out that Hollywood has come to understand and adopt a principle that Chinese filmmakers had already embraced decades ago: the importance of showing the action clearly so audiences can appreciate the effort, danger, and artistry involved.

What is the potential downside of the singular aesthetic developing in action scenes, as discussed in the script?

The potential downside is that this singular aesthetic might lead to a loss of diversity in action scene presentation, creating an almost objective ideal of what 'good action' is, which could become disconnected from the broader narrative and storytelling of the movies.

Why have long take action scenes become popular in modern cinema?

Long take action scenes have become popular because they offer a seamless and immersive experience, showing that the action was not cheated and allowing audiences to feel as if they are part of the struggle, thus enhancing the sense of realism and engagement.

What is the role of second unit directors in the creation of action scenes?

Second unit directors are responsible for directing parts of a movie that the main director may not be interested in or capable of doing, often including action scenes. This allows the main director to focus on other aspects of the film while ensuring the action scenes are handled by specialists.

How does the script discuss the impact of digital previsualization on action scenes?

The script discusses that digital previsualization, which are low-quality computer-generated mock-ups of scenes, can sometimes be created before the script is finished or even before a director is attached to the project, potentially leading to a disconnect between the action scenes and the overall narrative.

What is the script's stance on the importance of narrative in relation to 'good action'?

The script argues that 'good action' is not just about visual clarity and impressive stunts, but also about how well the action serves the story. It suggests that action scenes should be integrated with the narrative to create a more impactful and meaningful experience for the audience.

What examples does the script provide to illustrate the point about the importance of narrative in action scenes?

The script provides examples such as the fight scene from David Fincher's 'The Killer' and Ridley Scott's 'Gladiator' to illustrate how narrative purpose and the intended audience response can shape the style and impact of action scenes.

How does the script suggest that the anticipation of action can enhance its effectiveness?

The script uses the example of 'Taken' to show how the story builds anticipation for the action scenes, making them more effective when they finally occur. This is achieved through the setup of the scenario, the establishment of stakes, and the tension created before the confrontation.

Outlines

00:00

🎥 The Evolution of Modern Action Cinema

This paragraph discusses the transformation in the quality of action movies over time, with a focus on the increased standard of visual clarity and legibility in action scenes. It reflects on the convergence towards a common aesthetic in action cinema, where wider angles and longer shots are favored to showcase stunt work and artistry. The paragraph also raises concerns about the potential homogenization of action scenes and the risk of divorcing them from the broader narrative of the films they are part of.

05:05

🔍 The Impact of Previsualization and Second Unit Directing

The second paragraph delves into the behind-the-scenes aspects of action filmmaking, particularly the use of digital previsualization and the role of second unit directors. It highlights how action scenes are sometimes developed separately from the main narrative and directed by specialized individuals, which can lead to a lack of narrative cohesion. The paragraph also mentions specific industry professionals known for their work in second unit directing and the potential influence they have on the genre.

10:09

🤝 The Influence of Stuntman-Turned-Directors

This section examines the trend of stunt performers transitioning into roles as directors or second unit directors, bringing their unique perspective on action to numerous films. It discusses the potential for a limited set of creative voices to shape the look and feel of action across the industry, while also acknowledging the skill and demand for these directors. The paragraph suggests that the uniformity in action scenes may be a result of industry and audience preferences rather than a single vision.

15:14

🎭 The Narrative Versus Aesthetic in Action Scenes

The fourth paragraph contrasts the narrative purpose of action scenes with their aesthetic presentation, using examples from films like 'The Killer', 'Gladiator', and 'The Raid'. It argues that while visual clarity is important, the visceral impact and sensory experience of action are equally, if not more, crucial. The paragraph emphasizes that 'good action' should serve the story and that different films may require different stylistic approaches to action to achieve their narrative goals.

20:16

📈 The Power of Storytelling in Elevating Action

In this paragraph, the importance of storytelling in enhancing action scenes is underscored. It discusses how the build-up, anticipation, and narrative context can amplify the impact of action sequences. Using 'Taken' as an example, the paragraph illustrates how a well-crafted story can make action scenes more engaging and satisfying. It concludes by advocating for a multifaceted approach to evaluating cinema and media, sponsored by Ground News, which aims to provide a balanced view of news stories by revealing their political bias and sources.

🌐 Ground News: Unveiling Media Bias in Cinema Discussions

The final paragraph introduces Ground News, a platform designed to reveal media bias in news reporting. It discusses the features of Ground News, such as the visual breakdown of political bias, factuality, and ownership of news sources, and how it can help users identify and navigate ideological bubbles. The paragraph promotes the use of Ground News to gain a more balanced and informed perspective on media content, including discussions on cinema and cultural topics.

Keywords

💡Action Movies

Action movies are a film genre that typically centers on fast-paced, thrilling, and physically intense scenes, often involving fights, chases, or battles. In the video, the evolution of action movies is discussed, highlighting the transition from 'shaky cams' and 'poor lighting' to a new standard of quality with films like the 'John Wick saga', which are known for their long take fight sequences.

💡Legibility

In the context of the video, legibility refers to the clarity and visibility of action scenes in modern cinema. It is contrasted with older techniques like quick cuts and close-ups, with the modern approach favoring wider angles and longer shots to provide a clearer view of the action. The script mentions that this trend towards greater visual clarity is shaping the perception of what constitutes 'good action'.

💡Long Take

A long take in filmmaking is an extended, continuous shot that lasts significantly longer than the conventional editing pace of a film. The video discusses the prevalence of long takes in modern action scenes, noting that they are often used to demonstrate the authenticity of stunts and create a sense of immersion. However, it also points out that these long takes can sometimes feel disconnected from the rest of the film's narrative.

💡Second Unit Directing

Second unit directing involves a separate director overseeing certain parts of a film that the main director is not involved in, often action scenes in big productions. The script points out that a small group of second unit directors, such as Chad Stahelski and David Leitch, have become influential in shaping the look and feel of action scenes across different movies, leading to a convergence in style.

💡Convergent Aesthetic

The term 'convergent aesthetic' in the video refers to the merging of visual styles and principles in action cinema, leading to a distinct look that many films now strive to achieve. It is tied to the idea that a new cinematic language is emerging, which dictates the way action scenes are shot and edited for maximum impact and clarity.

💡Visual Clarity

Visual clarity, as discussed in the script, is the emphasis on making action scenes easily understandable and visible to the audience. It is associated with the move away from techniques that obscure the action, such as quick cuts and close-ups, towards wider shots and longer takes that celebrate the stunt work and choreography.

💡Visceral Experience

Visceral experience in the video refers to the intense, physical, and emotional reactions that action scenes can elicit from the audience. It is suggested that the true essence of 'good action' is not just about visual clarity but also about the ability to make the audience feel the impact and tension of the scene, as exemplified by the fight scene in David Fincher’s 'The Killer'.

💡Narrative Considerations

Narrative considerations relate to how action scenes are integrated into the story of a film. The script argues that in some modern action movies, these scenes can feel like they were created separately from the rest of the narrative, with less focus on how they contribute to the overall story or character development.

💡Stunt Work

Stunt work involves the performance of dangerous or physically impressive acts, often by professionals in place of actors, for the purpose of a film scene. The video discusses how modern action movies have shifted from hiding stunt work to celebrating it, using wider shots and longer takes to showcase the skill and artistry involved.

💡Media Bias

Media bias refers to the tendency of media outlets to present news or information in a way that reflects a particular political or ideological perspective. In the context of the video, the mention of Ground News highlights the importance of being aware of media bias and seeking diverse sources of information to form a more balanced understanding.

Highlights

The evolution of action movie quality with the advent of modern cinematic techniques.

The blending of action sequences in modern cinema, indicating a convergent aesthetic.

The pursuit of legibility and visual clarity in modern action scenes.

The celebration of stunt work and its foregrounding in contemporary action cinema.

The influence of Chinese filmmakers on Hollywood's understanding of 'good action'.

The hesitancy towards a singular aesthetic in action scenes and its impact on storytelling.

The prevalence of unbroken takes in action scenes and their narrative implications.

The role of digital previsualization in shaping action scenes independent of directors' vision.

The phenomenon of second unit directing and its contribution to similar action styles across movies.

The dominance of a few creative voices in action movie directing and its potential drawbacks.

The importance of narrative purpose in shaping the style and impact of action scenes.

The argument that 'good action' is not solely about visual clarity but also viscerality.

The sensory approach to action in David Fincher's 'The Killer' as a counterexample to standard 'good action'.

The significance of sound design in creating a visceral response in action scenes.

The idea that 'good action' serves the story and enhances the overall narrative experience.

The importance of setting up anticipation and tension to make action scenes more impactful.

The role of Ground News in providing a media bias breakdown for a more transparent news landscape.

Transcripts

It is a great time to be a fan of action movies.  Where once we had to settle for shaky cams,  

poor lighting, and of course… Now we can pretty  much pick any action movie or TV show at random,  

and be treated to… But at the same time,  the standard for quality has been raised  

for quite a while now. We have 4 entries in the  John Wick saga, I don’t even know how many of  

those long take fight sequences, and I can’t help  but feel it’s all blending together a little bit,  

sometimes literally so as the later entries in  this new wave of action cinema already seem to be  

circling back to the early ones. There’s an easy  way to demonstrate this by just taking a bunch of  

action clips and editing them together as if they  are all from the same sequence. Besides being a  

fun exercise, it’s quite telling just how seamless  you can weave a lot of these together, with only  

marginal differences in the ways that they were  shot. It clearly reveals the sort of convergent  

aesthetic, the distinct look that seems to have  emerged from a new cinematic language, a new set  

of principles and goals that more and more action  scenes seem to strive towards, and that now, for  

better or worse, is shaping the way we perceive  and talk about the meaning of ‘good action’. 

So, what is it that modern action scenes have been  doing, what have they been striving towards? The  

key word here, I think, is legibility, and more  specifically, the movement towards greater visual  

clarity. If you’re a fan of action, you already  know what this means; instead of close-ups and  

quick cuts, we now tend to see wider angles and  longer shots. Instead of hiding the stunt work,  

it is now celebrated and put to the foreground as  the main reason why we go see these movies in the  

first place. In other words, it seems Hollywood  has finally come to understand what Chinese  

filmmakers had already figured out decades ago;  we want to see what’s going on, we want to see the  

effort, the danger, the artistry. That is ‘good  action’, right? That’s what we mean when we tell  

our friends they should watch The Raid movies,  or Extraction or John Wick. That’s why we keep  

raving about that hallway sequence from Oldboy.  That’s the one scene from Kingsman we still talk  

about. But the thing is, while I still enjoy  these movies as much as the next guy, and will  

probably continue to do so when new ones come out  – man, that Monkey Man trailer looks absolutely  

insane – I do have some hesitations about this  development towards a more singular aesthetic,  

mostly with the way we seem to have created this  almost objective ideal of what ‘good action’ is,  

and probably more importantly, with the  way this ideal has become somewhat divorced  

from the general language of storytelling. To explain what I mean, consider those many,  

many action scenes that are presented as one  unbroken take. You can often tell pretty quickly  

when you’re about to see one; as a movie that  up until that point may have been shot in one  

way will suddenly look like this, you know,  that camera-man look where you really feel  

the physical presence of the camera moving  around the characters. Often a wider angle,  

shot hand-held and over the shoulder, which allows  for quick pans but which also repositions slowly.  

The long take has become quite ubiquitous  in action movies and beyond because, well,  

it is really cool. It’s perhaps the ultimate way  of showing that none of the action was cheated,  

even though nowadays most of these long takes are  digitally stitched together and therefore aren’t  

truly continuous, which as a side note, has come  to distract me to no end as I can’t help but look  

for all the hidden cuts, you know, like that one.  Or, here. Nevertheless, a good oner never fails to  

get a positive reaction from audiences. But it’s  interesting to stop for a minute and think about  

the meaning and implications of its usage. For the long take is not just a mechanical  

feature, it’s also a narrative tool that can  serve to deepen the experience of a story. It  

can create a more gritty experience by putting  us in the middle of a conflict, making us part  

of the struggle that the characters are going  through as if we are right there with them. Or  

it can emphasize a more otherworldly feeling by  turning us into more of a detached spectator,  

creating that sensation of floating through some  sort of dream. Point is, the usage of long takes  

can be an integral part of a story. But in many of  these action scenes, it doesn’t really feel like  

this is the case. They feel more like momentary  deviations, like they were created separately  

from the rest of the movie. And to be clear, this  is not to say a movie has to be 100% consistent  

in its presentation or that it cannot have any  sequences that take a different approach from the  

rest of the story to emphasize certain impactful  or important moments, I’m just using the long take  

here as an example of this wider development in  which the form and content of action sequences  

seems less informed by narrative considerations,  and more so by these broader principles of what is  

deemed to be ‘good action,’ as if the two have  come to exist independently from each other. 

As for why, well, there’s a few things we  have to talk about, the first being that  

on some productions nowadays, action scenes  felt like they were created separately from  

the story because they literally were. Have you  ever seen one of these digital previsualizations  

for big budget action sequences? They are these  low-quality computer generated mock-ups of what a  

scene is going to look like. It’s basically the  evolved version of what directors like Robert  

Rodriguez and Gareth Evans have done in the past,  which is to film cheap versions of their action  

scenes during pre-production so they would have a  better idea of what it’s going to look like when  

they do it for real, which in turn I guess is the  evolved version of drawing storyboards. Anyways,  

the idea here is that you give yourself a  low stakes opportunity to play around with  

different angels, different edits, different  stunts, and so on, so that you can get a sense  

of what works and what doesn’t. And so, when the  actual day of shooting then comes around, you’re  

prepared as best as possible. Virtually every  action movie has some form of previsualization,  

and that’s not the issue here. The issue is that,  especially with the bigger studio productions,  

these previsualized action scenes aren’t made  by the directors themselves, but by companies  

specialized in digital previsualization, and  they can sometimes already be in place before the  

script is finished or before the movie even has a  director. When Lucrecia Martel for example was in  

talks to direct Marvel’s Black Widow, she was told  not to worry about the action scenes and that the  

studio has already taken care of them, after which  she promptly walked away from the entire project. 

But even if she had stayed on, it’s not just that  the pre-visualization was already locked in place,  

from what I found, this is actually a pretty  rare occurrence outside major studio productions,  

but more so that, and this brings us to the second  and as far as I can tell the more common issue,  

that even with a template to follow, she still  wouldn’t be the one directing the action. For you  

see, much of the action we see today isn’t  shot by the actual director of the movie,  

it’s shot by these guys; Chad Stahelski and David  Leitch. And that’s not true, it’s not just them,  

but they are good examples of a behind the scenes  phenomenon that I think has contributed to action  

scenes feeling increasingly similar and divorced  from the stories they take place in, and that’s  

second unit directing. So, Chad Stahelski and  David Leitch are generally known as the stuntmen  

turned directors who created the original John  Wick. Stahelski then went on to do the sequels  

while Leitch moved on to other projects such as  Atomic Blonde, Bullet Train and the upcoming The  

Fall Guy. But before that, aside from doing stunt  work, they also worked as second unit directors  

on, among other things, some Jason Statham movies,  The Wolverine, Hitman: Agent 47, The Hunger Games,  

Captain America: Civil War and Birds of Prey.  Now, a second unit director directs parts of a  

movie that the main director isn’t interested  in or capable of doing. On bigger productions,  

especially nowadays, that often means action  scenes. The benefit of this is that studios can  

hire directors who aren’t necessarily experienced  with grand-scale action, but who are very good  

at all the other stuff. And so combining those  with second unit directors who are specialized  

in action can definitely result in a win-win. But if you look more closely at who’s getting  

all these second unit directing jobs, you will  start to see some interesting connections. For  

Atomic Blonde for example, David Leitch worked  with Sam Hargrave, another veteran stunt guy who  

also did second unit directing on Suicide Squad,  The Accountant, Deadpool 2, Avengers Infinity War  

and Avengers Endgame. He’s also the guy who  went on to make the Extraction movies. And on  

Captain America: Civil War, Leitch and Stahelski  also worked with Spiro Razatos, also a veteran  

stunt guy, also a second unit director. He did  the action for movies such as Captain America:  

The Winter Soldier, The Fast and the Furious  movies, Venom and The Gray Man. Actually,  

Captain America: Civil War had a fourth second  unit director, Darrin Prescott. He worked with  

Stahelski on the John Wick movies, and directed  action scenes for Baby Driver, the Black Panther  

movies, Deadpool 2 and Black Widow. I could go  on as this list goes much further, but you can  

probably already see what I’m getting at here,  that’s a lot of action movies that are influenced  

by a relatively small amount of creative voices. However, I do want to add some nuance here.  

Because the issue is not as simple as ‘same guy  directs all the action and that’s why it all  

feels the same.’ Second unit directors generally  follow the main director, and therefore have to  

be like chameleons who are constantly adapting  to their desired vision, not unlike the way a  

cinematographer can come up with a completely  different presentation depending on what a  

director asks of them. For example, I still can’t  quite believe that Hoyte van Hoytema, the gritty,  

grand-scale IMAX cinematographer of Nolan’s  most recent movies, also created that warm,  

comfort-blanket look for Spike Jonze’s Her. But  sometimes a cinematographer’s style can carry over  

from one director to another, think of Emmanuel  Lubezki for example whose presence is clearly  

recognizable in the work of Terrence Malick  and Alejandro Iñárritu. And when this happens,  

it’s usually because a director specifically  desired that style and wanted to utilize it for  

themselves. And I think that’s what might  have been happening with stunt work too;  

it’s not that these handful of guys are just  imposing their own view of what ‘good action’ is,  

it’s simply that they are really good at doing  their kind of action and it just so happens to  

be that that is what a lot of the industry and  the audiences seem to desire right now. And so,  

the reason why the action in Casino Royale for  example feels so reminiscent of that in the Jason  

Bourne movies is not so much because they both  had the same second unit director for the action,  

that being Alexander Witt, but probably more so  because the creative team behind James Bond wanted  

to create a more gritty version of the character  and therefore sought out someone who was known for  

being really good at gritty action. By the way,  Alexander Witt also went on to work on Fast Five,  

Skyfall, Spectre, Avengers Infinity War; No  Time to Die and Fast X, these guys really  

have impressive resumes. But again, all that is  perfectly fine, I’m definitely not blaming these  

individuals for being really good at their  job and being in high demand because of it.  

As I’ve mentioned earlier, I enjoy these action  movies as much as everyone else does and deeply  

respect the skill and the effort that goes into  creating these sequences. But the whole thing does  

give us some insight in how we got to this more  singular perspective of what ‘good action’ is,  

and it does make me wonder what we are missing  out on by not having more diversity here. 

My favorite fight scene of last year wasn’t  actually from John Wick 4 or Extraction 2,  

it wasn’t from an action movie at all. It was this  one from David Fincher’s The Killer, which I found  

quite surprising because on the surface, it looks  like it’s breaking all the rules of ‘good action’,  

with the shaky cam, quick cutting and dim lighting  obscuring much of what we generally claim we want  

from a scene like this. And yet, clearly, it goes  hard, I mean, Jesus Christ. It made me realize,  

for one, that we might have been misinterpreting  the exact properties that define ‘good action,’  

that even though the wide angles and the  Steadicam and the long takes are all really nice,  

it’s not the visual clarity that necessarily  makes for ‘good action.’ No, for me at least,  

it’s just as much, if not more so, that sense  of ‘viscerality,’ for lack of a better term.  

It’s not that we can see what’s going on, it’s  that we can feel it, and this takes more than  

just getting all the action clearly into frame.  Just pay attention to how important sound is in  

this scene, both the sound effects... as well as  the music... It’s a beautifully vicious symphony  

that takes a more sensory approach to action. Are you not entertained? Are you not entertained? 

We can see something similar in Ridley Scott’s  Gladiator, who also isn’t particularly concerned  

with showing off the action, but rather with  eliciting a specific response in the audience.  

He does this, in part, by cutting to these close  up inserts of the wounds that are being inflicted.  

They are these blink and you miss it shots, but  combined with the sound design, they’re enough to  

make you flinch. And I think this is also the  real reason we speak so highly of movies like  

The Raid and John Wick; it’s because they used  visual clarity not so much as an end in itself,  

but rather as a means, as just their way of  delivering those sheer gut punch moments. And  

I guess that’s the real point here, that there  is more than one way to achieve these moments,  

that when it comes to creating ‘good  action,’ there is no one method or filmmaking  

philosophy that should be treated as sacred. The second realization I had watching that  

brutal fight scene in The Killer is simply that,  at the end of the day, ‘good action’ is whatever  

best serves the story. Because even though I’ve  just been arguing how ‘good action’ is actually  

about viscerality, it is also very much true  that that’s just what it needed to be in that  

particular movie. The Killer is about a guy who  thinks he is on the top of his game while in  

actuality he’s making one mistake after another,  and what better way to show this visually than by  

letting him engage in his first actual fight and  having him being absolutely mauled like DiCaprio  

in The Revenant? With Gladiator too, Ridley  Scott’s gritty, visceral action had a clear  

narrative purpose as it served to emphasize the  tension between the spectacle of violence and  

the reality of combat. But when it comes to  other movies, action may take on completely  

different stylistic forms, invoke completely  different sensations and feelings, in order to  

serve completely different narrative purposes. But what is perhaps the most important thing  

about this is that if action and story are more in  sync, if they operate in unity with one another,  

it creates this sort of positive feedback loop  that doesn’t just make the overall story better,  

but that also specifically elevates the action  itself. Or to put it like this, ‘good action’ is  

made greater by the storytelling that surrounds  it. I think one reason why the first Taken movie  

was such a surprise hit wasn’t just because it  had cool action scenes, but because of how the  

story created such anticipation towards them. Take  this scene for example, probably my favorite one.  

To recap the story in one sentence, Taken  is about a father, played by Liam Neeson,  

who has to find his kidnapped daughter. He  has one clue, two words spoken at the end of  

that now iconic phone call – good luck – which  eventually brings him here, to this criminal  

hideout of sorts. But instead of just barging in  and rushing to the action, the movie takes its  

time as Neeson pretends to be a crooked cop trying  to extort the criminals. He drinks their coffee,  

hurls a few insults, you know, the stuff you’d  expect an overly confident crooked cop to do. 

Your arrogance offens me, and for  that the rate just went up 10% 

At the same time, however, if you pay  close attention, you’ll also notice  

he’s trying to get each one of them to say  something, trying to find the same voice  

that spoke those two words to him earlier. How do you say 'sugar' in your language? 

One by one, he crosses them off,  until he reaches the last one- 

A friend gave this to me, it's  Albanian, would you mind translating it? 

At this point, you know he just has  to take the bait, and- Good luck. 

oh, yeah there we go… You don't remember  

me? I told you I would find you. Man, that’s… that’s how you earn an action scene.

Enlisting great stuntmen, coming up  with cool set pieces, choreographies,  

and with the best ways to film them, they  can all result in action that is impressive,  

damn impressive even. But without story, it’s just  mechanics. ‘Good action’ is legibility, clarity,  

viscerality, but it’s also setting up heroes  and villains, setting those high stakes that  

draw us in, that make us care. It’s establishing  rivalries, promises, that sense of impending  

doom. It’s everything that creates the tension  before the confrontation, that turns the entire  

experience into a rubber band that stretches and  stretches, that gets you on the edge of your seat  

and builds that nail-biting anticipation  to its absolute peak until it finally… 

If you’re a fan of my channel, you know  I always value approaching a subject from  

different perspectives, for I believe it’s the act  of casting different lenses that can best reveal  

new angles of consideration, unexpected insights,  and hidden biases that may have been limiting the  

scope of your perception. When judging for  example if 2023 was a good year for cinema,  

you might get different answers based on what  sources you review as news outlets across  

the political spectrum all highlight their own  cinematic and cultural signifiers to support their  

arguments. And it’s for that reason that I’ve been  using Ground News, the sponsor of today’s video. 

Ground News is a website and app designed to pull  back the curtain on media bias. Every story on  

Ground News comes with a quick visual breakdown of  the political bias, factuality, and ownership of  

the sources reporting, all backed by ratings from  three independent news monitoring organizations.  

For example, look at this story on the best  movies of 2023. Right away you can see that  

177 news outlets have reported on the story. And  of these 177 news outlets, 40 of them lean left  

and only 15 of them lean right. You can also see  who owns these reporting outlets. In this case,  

55% are owned by Media Conglomerates. Ground  News also allows you to easily compare headlines  

to see how this bias can affect framing. Another feature that I really like is the  

Blindspot feed, which highlights stories that  are disproportionately covered by one side of  

the political spectrum, and which in doing so,  helps you to recognize ideological bubbles,  

both those that exist outside of you, as well  as those that you might find yourself in. 

Ground News operates based on the principle  that our information is never completely free  

from bias, and that we ourselves never fully  interpret information free from bias. As such,  

I believe it genuinely addresses one of  the key challenges of our information age;  

that it’s no longer about getting access to data,  you know; the idea that if we just find the right  

news outlet, we will get the right news. No,  it’s about learning how to engage with it;  

learning how to navigate the overwhelming  abundance of information that’s hurled at  

us virtually every second of every day. If you want to try it out, you can go  

to ground.news/likestoriesofold, or  follow the link in the description,  

to get 30% off the Ground News Vantage Plan.  That’s ground.news/likestoriesofold to become  

part of this independent news platform working  to make the media landscape more transparent.