The franchise was successful because Jason Statham was a lot of fun in them and the surrounding movies (especially the second one) were tolerable enough to justify the ride. The franchise wasn't (relatively) popular because audiences were thrilled by the world in which in inhabited, nor were they dazzled by the world of underground criminal transporting.
Just when old-school action heroes were being supplanted by boy wizards and superheroes, the first Transporter felt like a genuine throwback to 80's style action movies, and Statham looked like a genuine attempt to fashion a new action movie star. The reason people saw and/or liked the prior three Transporter movies is because of Jason Statham's genuine star power/screen charisma. Yet, the question remains, why exactly did the folks at Europacorp decide that this franchise needed to be kept alive without its marquee star? And The Transporter is the Live and Let Die of Transporter films. Thus in this new fourth installment, Ed Skrein plays noted "guy who drives other people around and gets into fights" dude who really should have been referred to as "Not Jason Statham" by the film's supporting cast.
The only reason it's not being discussed in straight sequel terms is because Jason Statham didn't want to come back and thus Europacorp just went and recast his character. Yes, it's intended to reignite interest in the franchise, but it doesn't retroactively negate everything that came before it.
Batman Forever is a sequel. Technically speaking, The Transporter: Refueled isn't a reboot either. I know we like to call almost anything a reboot, but there is a difference between a sequel, a remake, and a reboot. Rise of the Planet of the Apes was a reboot.
0 kommentar(er)
