On the surface John wick is a power fantasy. An invincible bad ass who can do whatever they want, get their way, and take revenge against anyone who wrongs them. He has no checks or ballances beyond himself to stop him from getting his way at any cost he deems appropriate. Beneath that it is about very basic human reactions to loss and being wronged. It’s not about the dog or his wife. We are shown these are very bad men. The kind who are set up as bad by cartoonish villainy in drugs, murder- even killing an innocent puppy and laughing. They do evil for the sake of evil. The movie is designed so we can root for John. If the police impounded his car for parking tickets, and put his dog down for being dangerous, or someone accidentally hit and totaled his car and the puppy died in the accident, we’d look at the film very differently. It’s not made to be gritty realism or moral sermonizing. John is his worlds greatest hit man. He isn’t the poster child of mental or emotional health.
I don't see how either scenarios involving dogs that you described are relevant.
If they towed his car and the dog was inside and it was snarling and biting constantly the police would have reasonable cause to put the animal down. John's dog was not shown to have a bad temperment, or even be aggressive at all. If you want to apply your scenario to the move, you'd have to place John's dog in that car. If the police tow a car and there's a puppy in it that is a typical puppy, maybe a bit nervous but overall docile and unthreatening, and they put that animal to sleep unprovoked, you can bet your ass people would be outraged.
Similarly, the men who killed his dog didn't kill it by accident. They weren't at a gun range 50 miles away, shooting at a piece of paper and a bullet *accidentally* ricocheted off of 15 lamp posts and John F. Kennedy's skull before hitting the dog. If they'd shot the dog by accident, it would be a much different scenario. They shot the dog on purpose.
If someone got into their vehicle and hunted you down with the intent of t-boning you, AND, after doing so, deliberately ran over your dog, that would be a more realistic equivalent.
The reaction is based on the intent of the circumstances, not the circumstances themselves.
If someone had killed the dog by accident, the reasonable reaction would have been John maybe yelling at them or some shit, and then spending the next several weeks miserably thinking about his dead wife and dead dog. Which would have made for a very poor movie.
If the dog died by accident, or with reasonable cause, and he went on a killing spree, people would consider him a psychopath.
Revenge is a survival tactic as much as anything, since often the mere threat that someone might seek retribution is enough to make people reconsider their actions and diffuse situations before they start. The thing that makes it more palatable is whether you can find a justification.
You are correct in that they did make the villains fairly generic, however. Even if John's dog was killed, no one wants to see him go murder a man who is a single father trying to provide for two of his kids plus three from his sister who just died of cancer. It changes the weight of the morality in the situation.
Heavy Rain comes to mind, (spoilers?) where the character is sent to kill a man to save his own son. At first it seems like maybe it won't be so bad to do it because the guy is a generic scumbag drug dealer. Nobody will miss him, surely, and your son is more important. But then you learn his kids are in the apartment. You can still choose to kill him, or don't. Either way, it makes the decision harder.
moral dilemmas every five seconds make for very poor pacing in action movies. Easier to just leave them all bad guys and call it a day
That’s pretty much a (somehow longer) version of what I just said. That was my point. The scenarios are not the same. The movie was specifically designed to give the least “humanity” to the villains, the most “justification” to John Wick, and enough generality as to not get bogged down in details. There’s no question that in real life, killing even 1 person for the unjust death of a dog or theft of personal property would be hard to defend, near impossible if you spent a length of time tracking them down and killing them and anyone who got in your way. My point was that John Wick can’t be viewed simply as: “man goes on a murder spree over his dog.” It’s not a straight forward narrative about a guy and his dog, it’s all place holders for emotions and situations that are fairly universally human. It’s about grief, human emotion, coping, anger, revenge, power/powerlessness, the quest to heal after trauma. All the particulars are just dressing to set that up and aren’t meant to be literal.
Hang on a sec. Its not just about the dog. They wouldn't take no for an answer when they wanted his car so they broken into his house hurt him AND killed the dog which was the last gift from his deceased wife unnecessarily. I believe it a very appropriate response and he just so happens to be in a position to make it reality.
Also he just wanted the kid, not his fault so many people got in the way. On fop of that he was killing the mafia which in itself is probably a good thing
I've never talked to anyone who know not only the premise of John Wick, but the character's backstory, that doesn't see his reaction as justified. It's not just about the dog, it's about his grief over his dead wife, it's about the disrespect shown to him by these young punks who don't remeber Baba Yaga, and think he's an easy mark. You see this in the respect shown to him by the kid's father when he calls the chop shop. He was angry until he was told what had happened to Wick, then the anger shifted to his son for being so stupid. Is it a revenge fantasy, yes, but his reaction is one of the purest movie motivations ever filmed.
Jesus you need help. A man lived a life of murder to survive and meets a woman that shows him love and then dies. The dog was a present and a reminder that he is indeed human and not a monster and deserves to be loved. The dog was a symbol of hope which was taken from him for selfish reasons. There is not a man alive that would seek revenge to right that wrong!
Buuut he did become a monster, so the reminder that he is human is fake (can't think of a better word). I'm pretty sure most men alive would not do what he did.
We need to separate a few points. Firstly, as a movie, there is some eggagedation to events, and things happen that are literally not physically possible or at least almost statistically impossible. Second, adjusted for realism, most men literally cannot do what he did. Most men don’t posses the money, skills, training, ability, and connections let alone a private arsenal to do that. To rephrase @la ‘s statement a little- few men alive wouldn’t think or fantasize about doing what he did. Some might even try it to a less “Hollywood” degree, and many more would try if someone wasn’t stopping them or talking them down. The story speaks to a relatable emotional state for most people and is a common revenge/power fantasy. John Wick is a “monster” that lives within most humans, who for one reason or another don’t or can’t act on these things, but can root for a fictional character doing it where no real harm is done.
If they towed his car and the dog was inside and it was snarling and biting constantly the police would have reasonable cause to put the animal down. John's dog was not shown to have a bad temperment, or even be aggressive at all. If you want to apply your scenario to the move, you'd have to place John's dog in that car. If the police tow a car and there's a puppy in it that is a typical puppy, maybe a bit nervous but overall docile and unthreatening, and they put that animal to sleep unprovoked, you can bet your ass people would be outraged.
Similarly, the men who killed his dog didn't kill it by accident. They weren't at a gun range 50 miles away, shooting at a piece of paper and a bullet *accidentally* ricocheted off of 15 lamp posts and John F. Kennedy's skull before hitting the dog. If they'd shot the dog by accident, it would be a much different scenario. They shot the dog on purpose.
The reaction is based on the intent of the circumstances, not the circumstances themselves.
If someone had killed the dog by accident, the reasonable reaction would have been John maybe yelling at them or some shit, and then spending the next several weeks miserably thinking about his dead wife and dead dog. Which would have made for a very poor movie.
If the dog died by accident, or with reasonable cause, and he went on a killing spree, people would consider him a psychopath.
Revenge is a survival tactic as much as anything, since often the mere threat that someone might seek retribution is enough to make people reconsider their actions and diffuse situations before they start. The thing that makes it more palatable is whether you can find a justification.
Heavy Rain comes to mind, (spoilers?) where the character is sent to kill a man to save his own son. At first it seems like maybe it won't be so bad to do it because the guy is a generic scumbag drug dealer. Nobody will miss him, surely, and your son is more important. But then you learn his kids are in the apartment. You can still choose to kill him, or don't. Either way, it makes the decision harder.
moral dilemmas every five seconds make for very poor pacing in action movies. Easier to just leave them all bad guys and call it a day
My dog died
"Oh okay, you can go now. Good job."