4 ms·

The author makes good points - but honestly I don't care too much about the explanation behind _why_ the protagonist is seemingly invincible. John Wick movies a

The author makes good points - but honestly I don't care too much about the explanation behind _why_ the protagonist is seemingly invincible. John Wick movies are fun due to the camera work, fighting scene choreography and the "cool" characters. Most action movies don't require you to think too much about what's going on, and that's fine, imo.

ChuckNorris89 4y ago
>Most action movies don't require you to think too much about what's going on, and that's fine, imo. I beg to differ. If your hero is vulnerable, then the stakes are high and you're always on the edge of your seat throughout the fights as you don't know whether he'll make it out alive or not. But when your hero has some magic bullshit armor that makes him invulnerable, then the audience stop caring about his fights because you know for sure he's invincible anyway and the fights just seem pointless and forgettable no matter how flashy they are. Take the first Matrix movie of 1999 also with Keanu Reeves. When Neo was fighting Agent Smith in the subway, the whole theater was dead silent because Neo was just a man going up against an invulnerable foe, and that was exciting, but in the sequels when Neo became this invulnerable Superman, people were much less invested even though the fights were flashier, because the stakes were much lower since he's now basically invincible so nobody can hurt him anyway. It's like playing videogames with God mode on. Nobody cares if you win.
- hgsgm 4y ago
  Plot armor is as strong as a bulletproof suit.
  - ChuckNorris89 4y ago
    It is, but good film making is not making the plot armor obvious to the audience.
- Zababa 4y ago
  I think the issue with Matrix is that going from vulnerable to invulnerable is a downgrade. However, if the invulnerability is "part of the contract", then you don't have this downgrade. You can also have low stakes with a vulnerable hero if you don't care about him.
alberth 4y ago
There's a huge gap in having non-Comic/non-Superpower/non-SciFi action movies. For all the reasons why John Wick is successful, so was Top Gun 2. People want to see just good'ole realistic action movies (that aren't SciFi/Comic) Decades ago, we have Jason Bourne, Die Hard, Lethal Weapon, etc. Today we have so little of these types of movies.
- krapp 4y ago
  I only mention this because you put it in italics, but John Wick and Jason Bourne aren't remotely realistic, they might as well have superpowers. The last thing anyone wants to see in an action movie is realism.
  - alberth 4y ago
    realistic in the sense that, it's not superpowers/futuristic/comic-hero.
  - AmpsterMan 4y ago
    I think they likely meant closer to current technology and society. The Mission Impossible movies, for example.
  - generalizations 4y ago
    I’d argue the first Bourne movie was pretty realistic. It was the sequels that built things up too much.
- ericmcer 4y ago
  We need to bring back the 80s action movie dynamic where a giant bodybuilder physique meant being an expert at gunplay, vehicles and all physical activities.
  - empressplay 4y ago
    You might like Reacher https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9288030/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9288030/
javchz 4y ago
Totally agree. I think it's related to the "Suspension of disbelief" theory, where audiences are Ok with things that are not realistic as long as they make sense in that universe. But it's like an uncanny valley, where the more realistic you try to be, the more critical the audience will be, and less likely are to turn off that disbelief contract between audience and authors. A good example would be the Midichlorians thing. Trying to make magic more scientific and realistic ironically makes it less believable to the audience.
- krapp 4y ago
  This is why I sometimes like to argue that Star Wars is a harder science fiction universe than Star Trek (at least comparing onscreen canon.) Space-wizards notwithstanding (which ST has plenty of anyway), Star Trek tries to explain too much, and pays little to no attention to actual science and it comes off seeming silly as a result. Meanwhile, in the Millennium Falcon, you just pull the lever and spacetime goes brrr. No bullshit about subspace, inverse tachyon pulses, dilithium crystals, or negative space wedgies. It's seems realistic in ways Star Trek doesn't.
  - rasz 4y ago
    > lever and spacetime goes brrr but then you have WW2 bombing runs in space, spaceships with gravity fed bomb hatches! dogfights with guns that miss all the time and are unable to autoaim, hilarious chase scenes ...
    - Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
      Why doesn't the rebellion build missiles out of small hyperspace-capable ships. Just point them at capital ships and hit go. According to the last jedi, this would be crazy effective.
    - krapp 4y ago
      And Star Trek is basically naval combat in space, with ships flying ridiculously close to one another, dogfights with weapons that miss all the time and are unable to autoaim, etc. Star Trek ships bank in space just like planes, same as in Star Wars. One of the most beloved episodes of the original series had the crew of the Enterprise keeping quiet so they didn't trip Romulan space sonar, because they literally just filed the serial numbers off a submarine movie. Neither is more realistic than the other when it comes to portraying space combat, but at least in Star Wars it doesn't look like wargamers chipping away at each another's HP until a ship explodes.

ChuckNorris89 4y ago

>Most action movies don't require you to think too much about what's going on, and that's fine, imo. I beg to differ. If your hero is vulnerable, then the stakes are high and you're always on the edge of your seat throughout the fights as you don't know whether he'll make it out alive or not. But when your hero has some magic bullshit armor that makes him invulnerable, then the audience stop caring about his fights because you know for sure he's invincible anyway and the fights just seem pointless and forgettable no matter how flashy they are. Take the first Matrix movie of 1999 also with Keanu Reeves. When Neo was fighting Agent Smith in the subway, the whole theater was dead silent because Neo was just a man going up against an invulnerable foe, and that was exciting, but in the sequels when Neo became this invulnerable Superman, people were much less invested even though the fights were flashier, because the stakes were much lower since he's now basically invincible so nobody can hurt him anyway. It's like playing videogames with God mode on. Nobody cares if you win.

hgsgm 4y ago
Plot armor is as strong as a bulletproof suit.
- ChuckNorris89 4y ago
  It is, but good film making is not making the plot armor obvious to the audience.
Zababa 4y ago
I think the issue with Matrix is that going from vulnerable to invulnerable is a downgrade. However, if the invulnerability is "part of the contract", then you don't have this downgrade. You can also have low stakes with a vulnerable hero if you don't care about him.

alberth 4y ago

There's a huge gap in having non-Comic/non-Superpower/non-SciFi action movies. For all the reasons why John Wick is successful, so was Top Gun 2. People want to see just good'ole realistic action movies (that aren't SciFi/Comic) Decades ago, we have Jason Bourne, Die Hard, Lethal Weapon, etc. Today we have so little of these types of movies.

krapp 4y ago
I only mention this because you put it in italics, but John Wick and Jason Bourne aren't remotely realistic, they might as well have superpowers. The last thing anyone wants to see in an action movie is realism.
- alberth 4y ago
  realistic in the sense that, it's not superpowers/futuristic/comic-hero.
- AmpsterMan 4y ago
  I think they likely meant closer to current technology and society. The Mission Impossible movies, for example.
- generalizations 4y ago
  I’d argue the first Bourne movie was pretty realistic. It was the sequels that built things up too much.
ericmcer 4y ago
We need to bring back the 80s action movie dynamic where a giant bodybuilder physique meant being an expert at gunplay, vehicles and all physical activities.
- empressplay 4y ago
  You might like Reacher https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9288030/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9288030/

javchz 4y ago

Totally agree. I think it's related to the "Suspension of disbelief" theory, where audiences are Ok with things that are not realistic as long as they make sense in that universe. But it's like an uncanny valley, where the more realistic you try to be, the more critical the audience will be, and less likely are to turn off that disbelief contract between audience and authors. A good example would be the Midichlorians thing. Trying to make magic more scientific and realistic ironically makes it less believable to the audience.

krapp 4y ago
This is why I sometimes like to argue that Star Wars is a harder science fiction universe than Star Trek (at least comparing onscreen canon.) Space-wizards notwithstanding (which ST has plenty of anyway), Star Trek tries to explain too much, and pays little to no attention to actual science and it comes off seeming silly as a result. Meanwhile, in the Millennium Falcon, you just pull the lever and spacetime goes brrr. No bullshit about subspace, inverse tachyon pulses, dilithium crystals, or negative space wedgies. It's seems realistic in ways Star Trek doesn't.
- rasz 4y ago
  > lever and spacetime goes brrr but then you have WW2 bombing runs in space, spaceships with gravity fed bomb hatches! dogfights with guns that miss all the time and are unable to autoaim, hilarious chase scenes ...
  - Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
    Why doesn't the rebellion build missiles out of small hyperspace-capable ships. Just point them at capital ships and hit go. According to the last jedi, this would be crazy effective.
  - krapp 4y ago
    And Star Trek is basically naval combat in space, with ships flying ridiculously close to one another, dogfights with weapons that miss all the time and are unable to autoaim, etc. Star Trek ships bank in space just like planes, same as in Star Wars. One of the most beloved episodes of the original series had the crew of the Enterprise keeping quiet so they didn't trip Romulan space sonar, because they literally just filed the serial numbers off a submarine movie. Neither is more realistic than the other when it comes to portraying space combat, but at least in Star Wars it doesn't look like wargamers chipping away at each another's HP until a ship explodes.