John Wick

No presumption needed. In three they go to meet Bronn who runs the production of the coins and markers.

I mean, the hotels have already shown to have their own influence and problems.

I mean, the issue is high table it isnt the empire, there it isnt a moralistic issue of takig them down because, cheater santino was....John DID break the rules and santino did have a mark so Wick was force to help him.

the first movie was good but more in how stylish Wick was. ext movie really expand the worldbulding and this way assasin carry each other

It's a mistake a lot of works make, they start targeting the source that makes their setting unique instead of exploring it. Once fighting the High Table became the mission the enemy became ill defined. John Wick 4 ending the way it does serves as the best conclusion possible, but it's said in both 3 and 4 that random violence will not solve his particular problem.

The first two movies were about John fighting against specific individuals, and the rules surrounding the Continental and the High Table is the backdrop that gives it a particular flavor. The High Table is not supposed to be the enemy, they are neutral to any given conflict that goes on. Thus John's struggle is relative to the resources of the one he is in conflict with. In a broad sense they can represent elite of society such as the wealthy, politicians and industrial moguls but that alone doesn't mean it's in anyone's interest to carve a path of death and bullets to the top. By all accounts, the High Table maintains an exceptionally organized system that allows a lot of freedom for everyone involved and prevents unnecessary violence by forcing people to stay within the rules.

I mean, JW 2 and JW 3 is all about how the High Table breaks the rules and is a bunch of monsters only interested in their own power.

And they're horrific criminals anyway so we shouldn't feel bad for John destroying them.

Why are we acting like they're a Necessary Evil versus it being good to take them down just because they're a bunch of cartels and mob bosses?

They basically run an organization filled to the brim with assassins and hitmen. While many of them do have morals and standards yes, it's still this criminal underworld that is kept in check regardless of how problematic and questionable the people running it are. Not saying it's right, I'm saying that most accept that world as it is because so much of it is built around the High Table cabling the shots and using their authority to enforce the rules too.

Crazy to think that it’s been almost a year now since the weekend when I binged the first three movies for the first time before seeing the fourth on a Monday night by the way. Be by the end of this month/beginning of the next.

Crazy. How time flies, doesn't it?

Like I said, there's a fascinating story to tell about how the High Table works behind the scenes. I can understand how it might ruin the illusion for many people if they do that though.

John is an assassin whose only skin in the game is that somebody did something awful and killed something important to him, destroyed his property, and threatened his life. Most of the people he interacts with positively murder people for a living or condone it. John has hurt a lot of people who were only tangentially related to the crimes done against him and killed a ton of people (many of whom were security guards rather than full-on assassins) in pursuit of his goals. He's never been fighting because it's "the right thing" or even particularly cared about Viggo or the High Table's criminal activities until it personally affected him.

Why are we acting like the High Table is the Thanos in this setting and needs to be defeated, and by John of all people? I don't think this is a franchise where it's "good to take them down." Its a gritty action franchise portraying an unfair and seemingly inescapable system of violence. That's been the theme since the first movie.

It's not that they're a Necessary Evil. It's that they're literally the setting that the first movie hinted at and the second movie established properly. It'd be like taking a spaghetti western and making the plot about improving the court system and reasoning with the criminals. ^note Nobody watches westerns because they want to see living standards in the Old West improve, its never about fixing root, societal, or economic problems that lead to the exciting train robberies/shootouts happening, at least not in any significant capacity.

I'll grant that the third movie presented the idea that the Bowery King and John were going to "fight back," but I like that they didn't do that and decided right at the start of the fourth film that John was fighting a losing battle when he killed the guy he spent all of the third film trying to reach and that didn't solve his problems. The story was rerouted from "fight the system with your Friendly Neighborhood Boogeyman" to "help John a guy who probably really doesn't deserve it find peace in death."

Edited by FOFD on Apr 8th 2024 at 12:29:04 PM

I think a distinction needs to be made between the High Table as an organization and those who sit at the High Table.

Yes, we see that those who sit at the High Table are monsters who use their positions to grow their own wealth and power. They are mob bosses, after all.

However, a recurring theme is that the organization and its rules are bigger than the people who make it up. Despite their exalted positions, Santino and the Marquis still have to play within the rules, with their underhanded actions being Loophole Abuse rather than outright rulebreaking.

As an organization, the High Table is Lawful Neutral. We know of only a handful of rules it imposes, mostly ones that seem good or at least sensible (basically just honor your contracts and respect designated safe zones). Conflict arises because it imposes those rules impartially, and takes no note of anything that doesn't violate a rule.

Edited by RavenWilder on Apr 8th 2024 at 9:14:56 AM

If John Wick truly spawns a lengthy "From the world of John Wick" franchise, and mind I really don't think it should but not in my hands, but if it did then I can see the long-term goal being to eradicate the High Table.

But as a franchise that seemed to have 3-4 film lifespan once upon a time, I just don't see it. Again to be fair I don't feel like the first movie was written with Chapters 2 through 4 in mind.

It absolutely wasn't written with any other Chapters thought out. All the stuff with the High Table shifts after the first movie.

I think keeping The High Table standing is necessary if you want John Wick's universe to be a lasting franchise.

However, that's kind of the operative "if" there. If you were just looking for Wick's story, then it's kind of a letdown. In particular, I think the problem he doesn't actually achieve much in victory.

And some sort of revolution against the Table is built up to in the third movie, but not really followed up on.

I actually do thing a middle ground could have been found, however:

Wick doesn't destroy The Hight Table as an institution, but he does kill off a large chunk of its leadership in some manner of climax. This means that now there's a big, gaping hole to fill. This leaves both story opportunities and also might lead to reforms by whoever fills those holes.

The Table is eternal, but the people sitting at it...not so much.

I thought Chapter 3 set up a pretty good resolution. John spends the whole movie trying to get the bounty on their head removed so that they can survive, calling in every favor and making every deal they can. But when presented with the opportunity to live, at the cost of becoming the High Table's body & soul, and of turning against Winston, John instead decides to stand and fight with their friend in what they fully expect to be a suicidal last stand - dying as the person they want to be rather than living as the person they hate.

But then Chapter 3's cliffhanger happens, and Chapter 4 has to come up with something else for John to do.

I actually liked the Marquis more than I was expecting to, but I was still left a bit unsure of his actual purpose in John Wick 4.

Like, why is HE the High Table's ultimate weapon. What unique skills or attributes does he bring to the table (hehe) that make him suited to this in particular? Infinite resources? I assumed all the High Table members had that. Being a cruel asshole? Ditto.

I know the answer is probably that there isn't anything special about him and that he's more meant to act as a disposable moutpiece for the High Table, but it's still annoying. If we're going to have a random High Table Mouthpiece, I'd rather have kept the Adjudicator. They were at least so commited to the bit that they were hilarious.

Plus, I always wondered why they needed someone specific to handle this when they could just put an absurdly high bounty on John's head that applies WORLD wide.

Edited by GNinja on Apr 8th 2024 at 6:32:58 PM

I think the Adjudicator was brought in because her/their goal was to manage and organize on limited behalf of the High Table—meaning she/they was assigned rather than already in notable standing. The Marquis on the other hand holding a title pertaining to his opulent wealth would be someone with an immediate and well-know standing to the High Table to the point that he could act with complete and total impunity. The Adjudicator was capable of being hung up on by Winston, but he had no such power or control against the Marquis though—who instantly was able to have the New York Continental destroyed and kill Charon among other things too.

I will said the issue indeed is that making the high table a sort of Thanos transform Wick a sort of pseudo messiahs of superhero and it kinda deflect one thing that make Wick intersting as a whole.

"I don't think this is a franchise where it's "good to take them down." Its a gritty action franchise portraying an unfair and seemingly inescapable system of violence. That's been the theme since the first movie."

I think John status as good guy is in efect narrative trickery, we see him try to be normal, being sad for his wife and being unjustly target by iosef and we forget he is a cold blooded killer who probably did so henious that everyone fear him. Its a way to make him see as good men who is force to violence and rather than a son of a bitch who get sad because another scum kill his morality pet and he get the shaft for once.

The issue with chapter 3 and 4 is mostly were the franshise start to strech a little bit: 2 end with the idea the Table is going for him and uneasly EVERYONE against him by high ranking member of the high table and 4 is...mostly the same. So it feel repetitive, it dosent help 4 start by having wick kill the old man just with ease after all that happen in 3 meaning Wick is already start to strech the limit to uber assasin to a bordeline superhero a this point.

Eh, it falls under the moral calculus I use in my Gary books.

"If you kill a murderer, the number of murderers doesn't go down."

"So kill two."

John may not be better than most but if he wipes out the High Table, the world is better for the massive chunk of people making the world worse now gone.

See James Bond eliminating Spectre.

Edited by CharlesPhipps on Apr 9th 2024 at 10:22:26 AM

While John Wick is not a paragonic hero, they definitely have the moral high ground over the High Table.

Among other things, The High Table is the one provoking him much of the time. There are multiple times The High Table could have just let him go, but they're being impossibly stubborn in dealing with him.

Another thing is also that John Wick is a retired criminal, The High Table is actively continuing to commit crimes.

Thirdly, The High Table is exploitative and often cruel even towards other criminals. Their Honor Among Thieves is a pretension, whereas John Wick seems to practice it more sincerely.

In fact, I'd say that last bit is kind of the main moral calculus of the John Wick films. A mob boss who pays employees well, vs. one who rips off their employees. Sure, the former is technically a bad guy in the objective sense, but the latter is even worse.

Yes, John only kills a High Table member (two actually) because he's blackmailed into it and they keep trying to kill him afterward for doing the murder in the first place.

I think John mainly comes off as having the moral high ground because we see the movie from his perspective.

This is a guy who buried enough bodies that a mob boss refers to him as the reason said boss's organization exists.

He's played by the most cinnamon-flavored actor in Hollywood too.

Edited by FOFD on Apr 9th 2024 at 1:46:16 PM

I feel like that really understates how utterly irredeemable the High Table is in 2 and 3.

That's not quite what happened.

Santino took out an open contract on John - ostensibly for killing the dude's sister/a High Table member - but that was Santino conducting a private bit of business, no different from Viggo trying to have John killed in the first movie.

The High Table itself only got involved because John killed Santino on Continental grounds. If John had killed Santino without violating the rules surrounding markers or the Continental, it's implied the High Table would have remained uninvolved.

Given they're an assassin's guild, it always sort of boggled my mind that you can target an assassin in revenge for carrying out a contract. It feels like the very reason you have a guild in the first place.

John is ultimately a selfish character, it's about his revenge and him wanting to get out from under the Table's thumb.

It does feel like a direction for 5 if they want to make it. John survives, if free and clear of the table and all the contracts on him, and then a bunch of people who rebelled against the Table come find him and ask for him. So he's got to decide whether to be selfish or act for the greater good and actually dismantle the table... somehow.

Edited by dcutter2 on Apr 9th 2024 at 7:40:42 PM

So I guess since Santino was on the High Table by that point that that means anyone on the High Table is actually fair game? Haha. Then why would Santino have needed a marker to force John to kill Gianna when he could've easily paid someone else a lot to do it? Haha. He would've avoided incurring John's wrath that way and maybe had an easier time taking out whoever did kill Gianna for him too.

In two words: Stupid Evil.

Edited by futuremoviewriter on Apr 9th 2024 at 5:07:03 AM

I assume Santino used John because:

1. John can actually succeed in killing a High Table member.

2. He has a marker of John's.

I think he also put a bounty on John because John said he'd kill him afterward.

Edited by CharlesPhipps on Apr 9th 2024 at 5:07:48 AM

Yeah. People in this series do have a habit of severely underestimating him though, except those who don't of course. Haha.

You see my edits on my last post?

EDIT: That would also make sense. Can't say Santino didn't get what he asked for on all accounts. Haha.

Edited by futuremoviewriter on Apr 9th 2024 at 5:09:43 AM