Pappajoe,
The movies you reference are from the late 70s, early 80s, and were written by talented writers (and directed by Spielberg). Action films with actual story. (Though I wouldn't call "Close Encounters" an action film.) Big generalization here: The "blockbuster" mentality which had its birth in the 70s, has really destroyed the studios' interest and ability to make good action movies that appeal to an age group beyond the teens & 20 somethings. That age group hasn't seen thousands of movies, so they don't "need" story and character to be entertained. They're entertained by "cool" visuals. And since this age group comprises one of the largest segments of the movie-going public, this is where the studios do their best in making money. They have no incentive to make action movies that have any intelligence going on. Plus, they don't want to lose these teens/20 somethings by being intelligent!
By the time many people hit their 30s, they have more of a need for story, but the studios don't care, since the older age groups don't go to the movies as much. When one looks at some of the better action films, usually (but not always), there is an auteur behind it...someone who is not always churning out plain popcorn for the masses but something with a bit more depth. "Usual Suspects" for instance, was not even done by one of the major studios, and the director came from the indie scene. But "Usual Suspects" also did not do more than about $23 million at the B. O.
If people in their 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, flocked to the movies the way teens/20 somethings did, and spent as much money, and caused some of the more intelligent movies to hit the magic $100 million box office mark, the studios *would* make more of these. As it is, it's just a numbers game for the studios.
As someone who works in the industry, all I have to do is look at who directed it and produced it, and I generally know whether it is just popcorn for the kids, or a meal for the adults, action picture or otherwise.
Jerome
www.GodSexApplePie.com