The goal of /r/Movies is to provide an inclusive place for discussions and news about films with major releases. Submissions should be for the purpose of informing or initiating a discussion, not just to entertain readers. Read our extensive list of rules for more information on other types of posts like fan-art and self-promotion, or message the moderators if you have any questions.
Sort by:
Best
Open comment sort options
Best
Top
New
Controversial
Old
Q&A
I always wanted to see a movie about a bunch of regular dudes who live in the world of action movies. Their dull mundane lives while dodging alien invasions, global catastrophies, and angry guys from countries i cannot pronounce who seem to steal nuclear war heads every other week.
Better yet the main guy could be an insurance adjustor who has to go around judging claims brought on by the damage done in the world of action movies.
"Yeah while you did have alien invasion coverage you failed to buy the robot alien invasion coverage"
"Sorry but your policy only has russian terrorists not islamic terrorists"
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern meet Michael Bay
Red Shirt Johnny and Stormtrooper Brad are Dead
shit. there was a marvel comics , short series about .. Damage Control Inc? maybe... basically they rebuilt things after super heroes battles. OFten hiring superheroes or having super villians who had work details as part of their parole agreements. funny. can't remember the name.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damage_Control_%28comics%29
I stopped reading comics when this series came out but I remember it being a very novel idea at the time. It wasn't a popular series, however. I forget if they had to deal with any deaths though.
Have you seen Trigun? It's anime with two Insurance workers who follow around the main character in order to assess how much of a risk he is or some shit.
I work in risk management with several nerdy underwriters. We have had a few conversations about what kind of coverage would be necessary in Gotham and Metropolis and what the market would be like.
I mean how many times have action stars confiscated vehicles and then destroyed them? What kinda premiums would this run.
Most likely there would be some kind of governmental program similar to the way flood insurance is covered. Very high premiums. Very specific language and exclusions. Though I do feel that villains such as Joker would be covered under our current terrorism coverage.
Ever read Kurt Busiek and Alex Ross's Marvels?
Transformers is a hilarious franchise in this respect. Seriously millions of people die and nobody gives a shit about any of them.
And apparently after the ending of the first film the government finds a way to keep that entire city quiet about the events that took place. Human life is cheap in the Transformers universe.
That's the most realistic thing about those movies.
2010 in Haiti over 300,000 people died. Haven't heard anything about it since.
That's probably because the cause is an earthquake and people are usually not responsible for earthquakes.
Same thing basically happened with Transformers' bastard spawn: G.I. Joe and Battleship.
Can you imagine the insurance adjustor who has to verify all those claims?
Sounds like that would make a really good meta-comedy.
EDIT: "Sorry ma'am, your house was ruined by a roving team of Autobots and they are considered government property. The whole thing is sticky, but basically they are granted a level of immunity from being responsible for collateral damage and that damage isn't covered. Now, iiiiif you had sustained damage to your home or property from a Decepticon, then you could have a claim... no, I can't change the report ma'am.... I don't like this job either, ma'am."
Start a kickstarter, I'm in.
You took the words from my mouth.
If Indiana Jones had just stayed home in Raiders of the Lost Ark, the Nazis would have still all died in the desert, and far fewer people would have have been killed along the way.
but Marion would have died.
And the Nazis would have got the headpeice to the staff, so they wouldn't have dug in the wrong place.
Not really true. As others have mentioned- Indy was the one that stopped them from getting the headpiece, so they would have easily found the ark. Not only that, but the ending would be different as well. Yes the Nazis present at the end would have died, but other Nazis would have come along when they never returned/reported in, and they'd likely find out that they had a very powerful weapon in their possession that they could use in the war.
took me a minute to think through this. I had never thought of this. you are correct, urbanplowboy. And, a great name.
Also, in the event that the Nazis had taken the ark back to Berlin and opened it in front of Hitler, as I believe had been their original plan, World War II would have been over in an instant (or the German front at least). Thanks a lot, Indiana!
Or rather, it never would have occurred. This is 1936.
Ahh. Indeed.
Except they couldn't find it in the first place. Maybe they would have spent the entire time digging in the wrong place in the desert.
They couldn't find it because Indy got the real headpeice when he saved Marion. They were just going off that guy's burnt hand, which only had one side of the instructions (the other side said to take a foot off for god).
That assumes that no one on the Nazi side knew that you shouldn't open the ark. Since Indy and his colleagues knew it (and it was more or less common knowledge in the field) this is highly unlikely.
Batman is pretty awful at this. I suppose you could say he has sensors to tell him the cars are empty, but he blows up dozens of them in The Dark Knight casually. At the beginning he destroys random cars and a wall of a parking garage for "intimidation". And then later he clears a path by destroying a whole parking lot. Luckily, the two kids weren't in one of those cars.
Yeah, I too am annoyed by how reckless Batman is. It makes for better action, of course, but it just bugs me sometimes that he has no problem blowing a persuing cop care onto its roof (Hope they're okay!).
For a dude that refuses to kill even the most deadly and sick of criminals, he sure puts a lot of innocent people at risk.
What choice does he have though? The thing is, if you put yourself in that situation, the choices are between giving in or harming/hurting innocent people.
I think the big problem is not that Batman had to do any of that, but that its more of an afterthought in the movie. Nolan should have at least acknowledged it.
This was a pretty frequent criticism around the time the movie came out. I wish Nolan had given it a little more thought, because after reading those critiques it sort of takes me out of the movie now when I watch it.
Although I guess you could say that causing all that destruction made it easier for them to vilify Batman at the end of the second film.
Of course Batman has always presented a moral grey area if you stop and think about it, since he's a vigilante who thinks he's got the best idea about what is right and wrong and what should be done about it. That includes massive property damage, apparently. So in a way you could say that Nolan was being true to the roots of the character, and may very well have anticipated those questions.
That's part of what makes superheroes a fantasy. It's a moral fantasy, where what Batman decides is the right thing to do (not because it's what he decides, but because he decides to do the right thing - and he can figure out what that thing is).
Because in Batman's world, dressing up like a Bat and jumping off rooftops and using cool gadgets and planning and training is going to make the city a better place. That's part of the appeal.
Maybe the owners return to their vehicles with a cheque from Wayne Enterprises sticking out from between the cracked windshield and smoldering wiper blade.
I was literally just thinking about a movie premise related to this kind of thing: A retired action hero can't enjoy his solace because even though he's out of bad guys to catch, there's still the friends and relatives of the countless henchmen and innocent bystanders killed because of him that want revenge.
I think it could be fun.
That's kind of what The Incredibles is about.
Kind of. I'd want to focus more on the "lone action hero" type of tropes. I'm imagining a "Police Squad" type of humor.
I believe that the premise of Taken 2 has some similarities to that idea.
Mystery Men had a fun concept. It's not quite what you are saying but it's close enough so that (if you haven't seen it) it may be worth checking out.
"I can only be invisible if you're not looking at me!"
I made a short film about a super villain henchmen trying to get through his final day of retirement and collect his pension if you think you'd be interested. You can view it here: Link.
taken 2?
In The Odyssey, after Odysseus kills his wife's suitors, their families seek revenge.
The author clearly wasn't paying attention in Fast and Furious 6. All the action sequences and deaths were not about the heroes saving their own hides, they were putting their lives on the line to stop a massive terrorist attack.
"We need to turn their attention from the people!"- Good guy vin diesel
Obvious feeling guilty about all those Brazillians they massacred just to avenge the slight of being conned
that really bothered me about Fast Five. I mean, they basically slaughtered the entire Brazlian police force... surely not all of those cops were corrupt.
From what the Elite Squad movies have told me, almost all Brazilian movie cops are corrupt except the BOPE.
No one comes out clean. At least the antagonists played to the 'rules' as it were. Did they kill any innocent random bystanders? I can't think of any, but I'll throw in a hnadful because, you know, they're the bad guys, right?. The protagonists on the other hand, aided by a US cop and the supposed one Brazillian cop who is pure and out for justice and shit? I lost count the moment the vault ploughed through a populated shopfront.
It's way too easy to read some perverse shit in the subtext of that fim
Well they made a point of saying all the cops that were chasing them were the corrupt cops on the villain's payroll. I dunno how they could have confirmed that information but that's how the movie justified it. Plus there was a lot of destruction but we didn't see any civillians getting crushed by the safe. Just a lobby and a bunch of parked cars.
But what about when they had all the bad guys but let them go just because the wife was being held hostage?
Fast and Furious 5 or Fast and Furiouser or whatever its name was is a prime offender. There's two guys dragging a safe around the streets of Rio. How many pedestrians got crushed by that safe?
Comment deleted by user
It's the plot. The villain is putting together/selling some weapon that can knock out all the power/communications in a large area, or something. I don't remember why Federal Agent the Rock needs a bunch of drag racers to help him stop the guy, but he has some reason. By the time the 40 minutes of trailers ended, I had finished my flask of whiskey and was flying high. It was a great time.
The train crash in Wanted. That took the biscuit.
No kidding. For kill one, save a thousand, they must have saved a shit ton of lives after that.
Watch the movie all the way through...
To be fAir the comic had some pretty fucked up stuff in it, like as in the main character practice es sniping on civilians and rapes a woman (a movie star I think). I liked most of the comic but I felt the rape was in Terri le taste, wasn't a fan of that. :/
Well, it's fantasy. It's also pretty silly. I mean yeah if you look at the Fast and Furious in a serious light...there are a lot of problems. You could say that for almost everything though when it comes to movies. I mean think of all the emotional damage people do in romantic comedies. The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance is all about how the truth didn't matter. So, even serious film suffer from the same fate. Unfortunately, it really hard to make many actions that won't cause some unintended adverse affect.
Also, in Vin Disel's defense...the guy was stealing a computer chip to take over the world...I think. Not sure. That movie is fun when you don't think to hard about it and hilarious when you do.
could not disagree more about "the man who shot liberty valance." I am not sure about "the truth mattered" but I AM sure that "the lack of truth mattered". John Wayne always knew.
"That was my steak, Liberty."
great film . . .
No it's a good movie but it's morally flawed. John Wayne does know the truth and Jimmy Stewart tries to tell the truth to the reporters, who then burn it. It bothered me as a kid. It bothers me now. Given the obviously cozy relationship between the media and government now the movie seems to be a bit more revelatory to me.
It always bothered me too that the completely pathetic leech that was Jimmy Stewart's character gets everything handed to him. It's what Stewart was good at though. Adding that air of almost virtue to those deeply lacking in virtue (Rear Window and Vertigo to name a few). It's sort of what Ryan Gosling seems to be working to with his 1950s prep looks that he likes to attach to the unsavory, which Gangster Squad seemed to be a huge step backwards but that's another story entirely and probably not all his fault.
Btw, saddest thing is that Woody Strode's work in that movie is never recognized enough. Talk about a heartbreaking character. I loved that guy growing up just like Charles Bronson. Sucks that those kinds of characters don't really show up in film anymore.
Star Trek Into Darkness. Opening sequence. Kirk steals a scared text to get the villagers to chase him, supposedly saving an entire species from extinction. But he is pursued by the male villagers. What of the women and children and old people? They all die in the volcano blast. Good luck repopulating the species, you bunch of guys.
Couldn't it be possible they were unisexual or asexual?
What makes you think there are females in this species?
Also, I was assuming (since it's poorly spelled out) that the point of getting them to chase him was to distract them from the shuttle flying above the volcano. That's the only way I could make sense of it.
I thought they lured them away from the temple so that if the volcano started to explode slightly (like when it hit the temple) they would be fine
it was one of those Hollywood formula scenes, like the opening of Indiana Jones. not meant to make any rational sense at all but meant to hook you in and get you engaged quickly. /edit spelling
Indian Jones? Is this one of those Bollywood remakes?
Hmm, good idea. how about Native American Jones. he would have to have a white boy as a side kick, of course. go around digging up graveyards in wealthy neighborhoods and taking the artifacts back to the Reservation to put in his museum. He would teach kids about the crazy whitey world.
What? The hole point of doing that is so that they wouldn't see the shuttle craft that is actually stopping the volcanic explosion. If that volcano explodes they where not going to outrun the lava!
Yeah I noticed a lady in the italian job get taken out by a safe and the camera cut out right before it hit. Maybe a gust of wind blew her out of the way.
I thought one of the better recent movies in regards to this was Skyfall. The scene where M looks over all the coffins with British flags on them was pretty saddening.
While I agree with you, I can't understand why Bond let two people die in that film: the guy who was assassinated in HK and Severine. He could've saved them both but almost chose not to. I realize he's not a super hero and his mission comes first - but that's pretty damn cold, especially for a post-revenge-seeking Bond.
Bond as a character has always been a cold hard unlikeable asshole. It's just that Connery was directed to play up the cad factor and Moore to seem comically foppish both to suit the market demographic of their films at the time they were made...
By the time the Franchise got around to an actor who could occasionally unleash the inner prick it was all about the gadgets (Brosnan). The series reboot on the other hand allows Craig to play Bond for what he is... Damaged Goods
Word is Man of Steel is likely going to be the worst offender of this. Apparently makes Avengers and Transformers' city-wide destruction look like small house fires.
Not sure how I feel about it yet, especially with so much emphasis on the reality of decisions and consequences. If not explored in this film, hopefully it's dealt with in the sequel(s). One of my biggest misgivings in the Dark Knight trilogy is how his "killings" were completely brushed over while constantly beating us over the head over his no-kill mantra.
Yeah I'm wondering how they will handle this too. "For every one you save, we will kill a million." I mean I don't know the exact premise of the story, but if they are there looking for Superman and they have the capacity to cause incredible destruction, I'm wondering how turning himself in isn't simply the best option. I'm guessing they handle that somehow because if they didn't it wouldn't be much of a good story.
The movie Speed is a bit like that -- they do way more property damage by the end of the film than the guy was asking for, and risk many lives.
If they'd just have given him the money they could have nabbed him later without issue. :)
I've recently been rewatching the DC animated universe stuff, and wow -- they try to maintain the pretense that no innocent lives are taken, but there are scenes where skyscrapers come tumbling down in the middle of the day and Batman will save like, one kid from the top floor.
Sum of all Fears. An A-bomb goes off in the middle of a city, "is the protagonist, his gf and the president ok? ok, good"
How is it any different from real life? Do we not consider WWII a victory for the forces of good and celebrate the heroes of that victory even though millions were murdered before that victory could be achieved? It may seem excessive when the stakes are low, as in a Fast/Furious type of movie, but it's still the way humanity reacts.
The difference is we remember the fallen, and we even have memorials to reflect on them. We don't think "Yeah, WW2 was awesome", but we do consider it a victory, even thoguh it ended the lives of a couple of cities full of civilians.
We still give emotional weight to it. Most action movies dont.
Well said.
I don't know there are quite a few who do think WWII was awesome
GI JOE 2....
They nuke all of London, I mean epically destroyed. And at the end the heros are celebrating like they won something.
Bad boys 2. There is a scene when they are driving through a marketplace and destroying everything.
My girlfriend and I went to see Star Trek Into Darkness and Fast & Furious 6 within the same week and we had a similar discussion. We felt that Star Trek used the blanket statement "terrorism" as an excuse to include scenes of massive destruction, only to redeem itself at the end with a commencement speech.
But, we both agreed that Fast & Furious 6 approached it differently and didn't necessarily paint the main antagonist as a terrorist. She pointed out that the only scene where there are massive casualties is on the freeway/tank scene and EVEN THEN both the villains and the heroes obviously show remorse about civilian deaths and try their best to direct the attention away from innocent people, allowing me to enjoy it more without the whole, "Wow a bunch of people just died" guilt.
I love this article and it's a very timely one. I mean, with upcoming films like World War Z and Pacific Rim that include casualties that could include billions, it's nice to see that people are considering the implications of mass death in film.
I walked out of 2012 when the white house scene happened. By that point I just thought "wow, i'm just watching hundreds upon thousands of people die every second I watch this movie as this guy tries to save his own family. This is so disgusting"
That's not the point that's being made. No one is killing those background people by accident, they are just dying from the disaster. That said, walking out of 2012 was a good choice.
i see what you mean. but still, glad I got my money back but sadly not the time wasted.
Can you get your money back from walking out of a movie you didn't like? I thought that just applied for things within the theatres control.
That movie is about the end of the world, what did you expect?
I'm convinced that 2012 is actually the greatest disaster movie parody ever made. Seriously, go watch it again. It uses almost every cliche you can imagine to such an extent that it can't be taking itself seriously.
Batshit crazy conspiracy theorist who predicts the whole thing? Check.
Evil Russian guy with bad accent? Check.
Hero barely survives a fall, in which everyone thinks he dies, and it is revealed that he survived because you see his hands come up over the edge of the cliff? Check.
And that's just a few examples. Keep in mind that the premise is utterly ridiculous and they cast John Cusack as the lead in an action film. I think they knew exactly what they were doing with that movie, and it's one of my favorites.
While not directly related to the point of the article, let me say I agree with you. I cannot get into movies where doomsday is upon us and the story is about a family or a couple.
I don't really like Armageddon for this reason. I understand, relationships are good for emotion, but there comes a point where it is meaningless. Bruce Willis is like "Bye baby...good bye" and his daughter is like "No daddy please..." and the music swells, and I'm thinking "The world is about to end, jackass!! Who gives a shit about these tears, the planet is about to be ripped apart by an asteroid!"
It's all about the stakes at that point. I could give literally no fucks about the emotional connections of a couple of people when the entire human species is at stake.
recent example, The Impossible. GIANT tsunami that killed hundreds of thousands of people, and the movie is about a white family reconnecting. wtf indeed
Another example, War of the Worlds. I'm like "fuck your son, let him go, there's aliens!!"
Star Trek Into Darkness. Ship crashes into heavy populated area killing thousands probably.
Not applicable. The bad guy crashed the ship, and was still at large ready to do more damage.
And then they had a remembrance ceremony.
Wasn't he just trying to save his crew?
And then use them to stomp all over the rest of the galaxy.
Was it ever acknowledged whether spoiler would have been "bad" if Admiral Obviously Evil hadn't blackmailed and abused him?
At that point he thought they were all dead, thus the crashing, and the smashing, and the chasing and the fighting. He was pissed and had nothing left to live for but to cause damage to the people he thought of as his enemies.
But the point is that the movie doesn't seem to care about those thousands of people who just died. It's tonally weird because those thousands of people never get mentioned again.
They probably didn't die in the original script. They only died in post-production when they were doing the CGI shot and decided "Hey, wouldn't this look cooler if the ship knocked over a few more skyscrapers?"
In the previous movie the whole planet Vulcan is destroyed leading to billions of deaths.
But they blew up the bad guy, so everyone was happy!