SPR isn't really a VD film, if you know what I mean. He's the star of Pitch Black so that was kind of my criteria. SPR is a better film but I wouldn't say it stars VD.
The thing about Vin Diesel is everyone forgets is he came out of the 90s indie film scene. He basically self produced his first short doing everything from writing to score, except cinematography. Then he writes and directs his first low budget film for $5ok on 16mm. Film gets to Sundance and it is well received. Spielberg sees it and the rest is history. Vin started out doing more ambitious work, but once he got a big payday for coming back to the Fast and Furious movies his ambitions become simple. He was an anti-hero action star patterned after his 80s idols. He’s successfully positioned himself as the anti-Rock, who has cleaned his image a little too well to be accepted in roles like “Black Adam.” I also think Vin probably uses a lot of his star power to control the direction of the F&F, Riddick and XXX. As a filmmaker he’s probably living under his creative potential. But he’s also perfectly happy making big, dumb action star movies until the gravy train runs out.
Fast X Should rake in $$$$. Think 9 had better summer placement slot or not much competition, thought 8 was way better. Fast X has a bit of competition with Mario/ Guardians 3.
Long Range Box Office Forecast: THE FLASH, ELEMENTAL, and THE BLACKENING Hope to Combine for a Strong Father’s Day/Juneteenth Frame
Just saw that. Whenever people criticize me for slamming awful big action franchises like Fast & Furious or Transformers (or the recent Black Adam), I point out, "hey: the John Wick movies are not too stupid, and the Mission: Impossible movies are not too stupid. Whenever you can have huge action set pieces and make them 'feel' logical while you're in the theater, and the film isn't boring, and you care about the charactrers, then to me the movie is worthwhile. But I don't get that from the Fast or Transformers movies. At all. Those are just mindless films that they puke out to fill seats and sell popcorn. They're not entertaining at all -- to me." John Wick 4 is one of the few franchise films where each successive sequel made more money than the film that came before it, which is an amazing accomplishment. I was thoroughly entertained by John Wick 4, even though there are a few eye-rolling moments: a bullet-proof cape that you can hold around your face and upper body and avoid being shot? What? A handgun that can shoot 22 rounds of ammo? Huh?
After the first, I think the Wick movies are pretty stupid. They deliver enough phony gravitas to leave the impression they're "serious" but they're pretty moronic. The "plot" to the last couple: action action action - grave discussion of the assassin world rules - action action action, repeat.
I think the film made a bit of movement on the Stupid-O-Meter, but it didn't peg it like Transformers or Fast & Furious.
ChatGPT, what’s “Narcissism of small differences”? The term "Narcissism of small differences" refers to a concept introduced by Sigmund Freud, the renowned psychoanalyst. It describes a phenomenon in which people who are similar to each other tend to emphasize and exaggerate their minor differences while downplaying their larger similarities. Freud used this term to explain conflicts and animosity that arise between individuals or groups who share commonalities but focus on minor distinctions instead. According to Freud, these exaggerated differences serve as a way to assert one's identity and maintain a sense of uniqueness or superiority. The concept of the narcissism of small differences suggests that people often invest significant energy in emphasizing and magnifying the slightest distinctions in order to create a sense of individuality and separate themselves from others. It implies that the closer two individuals or groups are in terms of values, beliefs, or characteristics, the more likely they are to engage in conflicts or rivalries over trivial matters. Overall, the narcissism of small differences highlights the psychological tendency of individuals or groups to prioritize and amplify minor distinctions as a means of differentiating themselves and asserting their uniqueness, even when the larger similarities far outweigh those differences.
Well, I give "Transformers" a bit of a "Stupid-O-Meter" pass because the movies are total fantasy. "Wick" and "F&F" theoretically exist in the real world, though. The "Wick" movies aren't inherently stupid, but I think they're way too self-serious in terms of their little universe and obsession with the Assassin Code or whatever. And they're just monotonous. Their stupidity comes from the manner in which Wick gets the crap beaten out of him but keeps a-comin'. Yeah, I get the movies are essentially fantasy as well, but they still seem absurd since they ostensibly exist in the real world. Also, none of Wick's opponents can shoot worth a damn. They're less accurate than Imperial Stormtroopers! "F&F" abandoned the real world after like movie 3 or 4. They became Bond with Street Racers.
John Wick's killer aim makes up for that. It's practically Boom! Headshot: The Movie, and as a gamer, I appreciate that.
For me, the appeal of the John Wick movies, which I really like, is the choreography of the fight scenes, which are extraordinary. They're every bit as good as dance routines in the best movie musicals. I think it's telling that they've been directed by stunt coordinators, if I'm not mistaken. It's not about the realism (or lack), it's about the beauty of the fight scenes. The Mission Impossible movies don't do much for me - I don't like Tom Cruise particularly, and the stunts just seem like they exist to make Cruise alone look good, never mind anyone else in the movie. Pretty narcissistic. I've never bothered with the Transformers films, though I've heard positive things about Bumblebee.
Indeed, as I watched "JW4", I thought how much it felt like a 1st-person shooter game on the big screen. I don't hate the series, but I admit I don't really get the mass appeal since they've become so monotonous!
Yeah, I get that... but the scenes can feel over-choreographed to me. They feel like a stunt coordinator's wet dream and exist as entities unto themselves vs. being productive as part of the overall story arc. Though after the 1st movie, there really isn't much story arc! Anyway, I rarely find the action in Wick movies to be thrilling because it feels so distanced from reality and so overdone.
I have no idea how this is going to do, a box office smash (the good kind) or a complete crash and burn train wreck.
I see future cult classic there. Sounds like it's just going to be meta enough to grab an audience, but the mainstream might bounce off of it. Expect some male critics to hem and haw about "is this movie really necessary" just like many critics did for the Mario movie.
The Harry Potter films are fantasy -- and they're not stupid. The Lord of the Rings films are fantasy -- and they're not stupid. The Princess Bride was pure fantasy -- and it's not stupid. The Fast & Furious movies are stupid. And I don't buy them as fantasy. I'd say that Transformers is sci-fi (not the preferred "SF" used by fans), which basically means, "sleazy, mass-market, lowest-common-denominator, stupid Lost in Space-type stories that don't make a lot of sense and pin the Stupid-O-Meter." Let's just agree that we have different tastes.
Err, I wasn't looking to argue with you about that. I don't like the Transformers movies. They've been pretty terrible - even "Bumblebee" wasn't anything special. But my point is that they exist in a fantasy realm, whereas Wick and F&F ostensibly take place in the "real world". Just sayin' I give movies that don't pretend to be in the real world more of a "fantasy pass". I'll swallow silliness in them because they don't adhere to the same laws of reality.
Well, I think there's still rules of logic that apply to scripts and fiction that take place in fantasy (or science fiction) settings. They still have to follow the same general rules of drama as any good story for consistency and to make sense. Famously, J.K. Rowling has said she had the idea for several Harry Potter books while waiting for a train for about an hour in Scotland... but then it took her the next year to make notes on what the rules for Wizards and Witches would be. For example: they couldn't bring back people from the dead; they couldn't create food out of thin air; quite a few spells had to be temporary (or else they'd have drastic consequences); the people of this world lived somewhat longer than humans but still eventually aged and died. The Wizards also had to eat, plus they were physically almost identical to humans, procreated the same way, and were just as prone to all the flaws of regular mortals... except they could do magic. I think J.R.R. Tolkien and George R.R. Martin would say the same thing. David Gerrold's excellent book Worlds of Wonder: How to Write Science Fiction and Fantasy goes into great detail about why consistency and logic makes these stories work. Without it, they turn into a convoluted mess very quickly... like the Transformers and Fast & Furious movies. For a few years now, the Fast franchise is basically a 3-hour, $200 million-dollar live-action "Road Runner & Coyote" cartoon... but who wants to see that? It's just stupid and not entertaining -- to me. I think there are action-packed car chase movies that are not stupid at all: I've said for a long time that I thought Edgar Wright's Baby Driver was a refreshing change on this idea, because he managed to make it believable, the car stunts and crashes felt very real, and not only was it not stupid, it actually had some empathetic characters. I thought the first couple of Fast & Furious movies weren't too insane, but because they felt the need to up the "horsepower"* with every film, they went into crazyland pretty quickly. • see what I did there?
Was RRR stupid? Was Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon and every other Wu Xia movie including Tsui Hark’s Once Upon A Time In China “stupid”? Those have a historical background but have larger than life action that are no way realistic. Maybe it’s not to your taste, but international audiences especially like movies that stretch reality because they want bigger than life stories. It’s also funny and the audience knows that. I’ve seen the latest F&F twice. Both times the audience laughed more at the action than the comic relief. It’s not like people are unaware of what they are getting into. John Wick, which you also loved, was incredibly unrealistic. Bulletproof suits? And underground assassin society based on an economy of gold coins? Falling off buildings and down stairs forever to not break a bone. Fighting hand to hand combat for long stretches of time without needing to take a break and not getting winded? A blind man shooting a gun? I took someone with me to see Wick and they hated it because they thought it was silly. They ranted about it the whole way back from the theater. Is it stupid? I guess if you consider heightened reality “stupid” sure. But that’s clearly a very arbitrary line you’re drawing there that only suits your own taste and is a bit insulting to those who do enjoy these films well aware that they are an intentional escape from reality. And quite frankly John Wick has more in common with F&F than it doesn’t. Your suspension of disbelief is very conditional. But regardless, we’re wildly off topic for this thread. When it comes to the box office, it’s not about what you or I think, it’s about what audiences think. I’d rather understand why movies appeals to certain demographics, rather than just insinuate “stupid people like stupid movies” and leave it at that because I don’t want to understand the appeal of a multibillion dollar franchise.