site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   3971 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for April 21, 2023

Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I don't want to watch John Wick 4. The original John Wick was great: the conflict was personal, John Wick was plausibly squishy: like the best kind of Batman, he could defeat any foe with enough preparation, but was vulnerable to surprise attacks and being outnumbered, by the end of the movie he was barely alive. I disliked the sequel for piling on too much of their "world of hitmen" crap and giving Wick magical regeneration powers. I have no idea why I watched John Wick 3, masochism, I guess?

I think JW 1 was a masterpiece, it felt gritty and realistic in its presentation, and even the more outlandish aspects of the hidden assassin subculture didn't demand too much suspension of disbelief.

In contrast, the more the latter films delved into that, the more nonsensical it became, you're telling me that this society tolerates city-wide shootouts and massacres?

I thought that police officer in the first film was simply paid off or friends with John, not that pretty much the entirety of law enforcement aids and abetts the insanity!

I thought that police officer in the first film was simply paid off or friends with John

Yeah, I thought he was aware of John Wick's ties to organized crime and thought, "dying by trying to arrest an ex-mafia goon with fresh corpses in his home isn't why I busted my ass to get a low-stress job patrolling a wealthy suburb, fuck this, I ain't seen nothing".

Similarly, I thought Intercontinental was just one of these places that cater to the organized crime with a strict "no business on the premises" policy of neutrality. Um, like Arlecchino was in Moscow. Or Progizhin's Old Customs House was in St Pete.

Yeah, I like all the sequels as much as the original, but watching 4 in the theater this week, I couldn't stop thinking about the contrast with the original. It boggles the mind as to how the hell society functions when it seems like the world of the assassins and the High Table must have quite an appreciable crumb of the entire Earth's GDP flowing through it. Like, just how much crime does it take to fund all these opulent facilities, equip so many goons with weaponry, and give them cool cars, too?

It's a shame we never got that Buckaroo Banzai sequel in film form, because the High Table and all its organizations probably would be a good depiction of a World Crime League.

It is not about the story for me personally, I just like the action set pieces and experiencing them in a theatre. The movie still makes him vulnerable enough imo, you should watch the 4th one.

1 and 2 were the best in the series IMO. 3 & 4 jump the shark and are fantastical, fundamentally different movies. I agree with much of your critique and wish they continued emphasizing realistic gunplay more in 4.

I still think the series as a whole is the best action franchise of the past 2 decades, and that 4 was a very enjoyable experience.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats