These questions may not, or there is bound to be no accurate and universally recognized answer, but in fact, we do not need to have such an answer, because the value and significance of these questions is that this is a sustainable "topic". It will not be outdated, there is no end.
From the perspective of film psychology, the dream-making art of film is used to satisfy a collective unconscious cultural product. Therefore, in 2008, movie fans saw "The King of Kung Fu", Jackie Chan and Jet Li, two of the world’s most Kung fu star with international influence, appeared on the same screen for the first time-which one of them is better at fighting, and who is less afraid of death than the other. For this, many kung fu fans have already given credit to the box office in advance. Guarantee, as for narrative, performance, and other elements that are vital to other films, it is not so critical in comparison.
"The Expendables", which is currently leading the U.S. box office charts and hitting the mainland summer season, is no different from "Kung Fu King" from the perspective of production motives and target audiences, except that it has more "stars" and is more international: Stallone , Schwarzenegger, Bruce Willis, Jet Li, Jason Statham, Duff Lange... this pair of people who started their personal movie viewing history in the 1980s (even if the viewing medium is different, the old beauty looks at film, What does it mean for Chinese people to watch the video? The cake sellers, Rambo and Terminator, John McAllen and Huang Feihong travel through time and space to complete a Mission: Impossible! Ok, you want to know who is the king of Kung Fu, the killing machine, just find the answer in 90 minutes, although the American magazines that already have good things are not tired of cumbersome and laborious calculations of these actors in the previous movies. Statistics on the number of enemies: 1593.
But if you let a dozen actors you didn't know about to star in this film, would you still have such a big desire to watch it? The answer must be no, even if these people are younger, they can fly, beat, and have more muscles. This effect is related to another popular psychology-nostalgia. The desire to watch more comes from "history"-Stallone's history of filming and the audience's history of watching movies. Don't underestimate the power and box office appeals contained in these old past events. Almost everyone will cherish their own memories. The creators cleverly ambush these historical clues in the film. For example, in the scene where Stallone, Swarzenegger and Willis appear together in the church, the dialogue between the three people is quite a time machine. Swarzenegger teased that Stallone "only likes to drill into the jungle" (you guys who have seen "First Blood"), Willis asked Stallone "What does he want to do?" Stallone went too far: "He wants to be President!" (Well, everyone knows that Arnold is the governor).
In just a few rounds of lip-fighting, the width of the film was suddenly pulled out of the scope of a film. Nowadays, there is a film technique that is often seen in the films of Chinese and foreign directors such as Quentin and Liu Zhenwei, whether it is called "parody", "tribute", "spoof", or called a more professional "intertextual" Although the name is different, the meaning is to make a movie related to the previous movie, thereby deriving another kind of pleasure and pleasure to watch. The previous Hong Kong movie "Fighting the Ring" also played the same idea. And this passage in "The Expendables" not only pays tribute to the fictional "character" (Rambo), but also to the actual actor (Swarzenegger). It is undoubtedly a concentrated expression of this technique to evoke the memory of fans. In fact, the audience is more emotional than the "actors" such as Stallone, Swarzenegger, and Jet Li, rather than what "role" they played in this film. It is likely that they forgot these people in the film after they were out of the theater. What is the name in Chinese?
Most films seek to let the audience enter the play when they watch it. Once they are out, it seems that the appeal of the film is not good. But a film like "The Expendables" is not the case. It is intended to allow the audience to play in a large number of plays. They are watching "this" film, but also seem to "watch" in their memory (strictly speaking, memories, emergence...) The flashy film feathers in the previous works of these actors even produced contrasts and associations between different films in these periods. Is Jet Li’s kicking rate less than that of the "Zhongnanhai Bodyguard" period? Stallone's muscle development seems to be far inferior to that of "Rocky" period. At this time, most of you will feel sorrowful, and this sorrowful power is likely to become an introduction, or an opportunity, allowing you to search through the boxes and find out the DVDs of these past stars and put them back into the disc player. ......
"The Expendables" is such a film, in the vertical time dimension, let you retrograde to the "past", writing a historical article; in the horizontal space dimension, it obliterates the temporality, making these different countries different The "star hits" of the period gathered together.
So why didn't such a film appear when Stallone, Swarzenegger or Jet Li were at their best? There are two reasons: one is that the heroic spirit of that period was so strong that no one was convinced, and he was very concerned about the number one, the number two and the number three; the other is that this type of film originally sold "history", history Not long enough, how long are the memories?
View more about The Expendables reviews
