I agree. But I'd argue that they're both more and less realistic at the same time. More realistic in the sense that it's not likely that a CIA officer would look like Arnold in True Lies. But less realistic in the sense that their portrayals as hyper-invincible "dodge bullets and have a 6-on-1 fistfight demolishing all opponents while at the same time drinking a coffee frappucino and not spilling a drop" are... well... not very realistic.
Is a good story and a realistic portrayal without CGI for the sake of CGI, without wirework for the sake of wirework and without hyperbole for the sake of hyperbole so much to ask?
Well, do the majority of the people today want as much realism as possible in their movies these days?
Rocky, Rambo, almost all of Arnolds movies, Jean-Claudes movies, Chucks movies etc were unrealistic as hell but VERY popular back in the 80's
Did we care less about realism back then?
The society and way of thinking is changing of course.
Back then, Heroism and well-trained Actionheroes were enough to inspire the teenagers and enough entertainment for the adults, but does everyone crave 100 % realism these days?
Neither Tom, Matt or Sam Worthington would motivate anyone to start training for example.
The heroes of the 80's did more than just entertain, they were an inspiration as well. Maybe even rolemodels for some.
Some even started with Martial Arts thanks to Chuck, Bruce Lee, Jean-Claude etc or bodybuilding thanks to Arnold, Sly etc
Tom Cruise, Matt Damon, Sam Worthington, Vin Diesel etc doesn't motivate for shit.
I mean, even now, today, i find entertainment in Clint Eastwoods older movies, Chucks older movies like Lone Wolf McQuade, Octagon, Missing in Action etc
Hell, even Mel Gibson (in Mad Max 2) was a greater inspiration than todays "heroes"