Universal Studios Hollywood begins construction on Fast & Furious roller coaster

"...the studio’s most-profitable and longest-running franchise."

Someone please explain this to me. I'll admit, I haven't seen even one of these movies, because Vin Diesel is just the worst. And the trailer for the last one looked exponentially more ridiculous than the first.

#family

It's clear who doesn't live their life a quarter mile at a time.

Is there anything to explain other than this is what passes as entertainment these days? People like to see stuff blowed up reeeel gud.

IMHO the flicks are pretty dumb…but also occasionally fun. That said, they’re not particularly high on my viewing priority list either!

The first one is a good movie and I liked Tokyo Drift. Haven’t seen the rest. They just look ridiculous. How many more times can I see someone downshift? It’s like they have infinite gears.

I'm with you Jeff. But I don't think people going to Fast and Furious are there for good acting, character development, plot, or dialogue.

What are they there for then? That was my question.

#family

Jeff:

Someone please explain this to me.

The millions of people who watch cars drive around in circles 500 times need movies that appeal to their intelligence level.

There are times when a mindless collection of fast cars and explosions on the big screen are exactly what you need. Given \waves-at-all-of-this, maybe those times are coming more often.

Mostly this.

eightdotthree:

The first one is a good movie

The first one was a shot for shot remake of Point Break, except with cars instead of surfing/skydiving.

I know these movies are stupid, but:

I love cars.

I love stunts. (Practical stunts. There are some good practical ones mixed in with the bad CGI ones.)

I love the campy James Bond movies. (this franchise has basically picked up where Pierce Brosnan left off.)

I have a kid who was the right age to take to the theater and watch the later ones with.

I like a good bad movie.

I have an unhealthy man-crush on Jason Statham.

So yeah, I've seen them all, except the last one, which was missing Statham and Rock, the only 2 actors in the franchise that are really worth a darn. Some are better than others. Personally, I think 5 was the best because it's more of a "heist" movie than the others. 2nd goes to "Hobbes and Shaw" since, as I just said, they are the only 2 characters (and actors) that I enjoy.

In addition, this franchise has also managed to reel in a sizable female demographic by including so many good looking male actors and strong female characters. It's not just a "dude movie," but one that many couples will go see together, or even attract a "girls night" crowd.

Mulfinator:

Mostly this.

Jesus, that's worse that I expected. Do these movies take themselves as seriously as Vin Diesel appears to?

Jeff:

Vin Diesel is just the worst

Vin Diesel was good in Pitch Black, although in fairness it helped that he had almost no lines and a lot of the movie was spent in near total darkness. After The Chronicles of Riddick I have boycotted his career.

He's a better dancer than actor. Barely.

Tommytheduck pretty much spells out the appeal of F&F. I was in a similar spot with the Resident Evil films. I knew they weren’t great at all, but I loved the film franchise and showed up to see every single film. I remember when the last movie came out, I couldn’t believe I had been watching it since high school. F&F is similar in that a lot of folks continue to watch because they’ve been watching for so long and they keep coming back. Back then, it was the only big budget film appealing to the car market (and it was big back then). My buddies didn’t care about the quality of the films, they just loved seeing their stuff on the big screen.

F&F may partially be a Vin Diesel vanity project, but the franchise still makes bank with every film. Some of those films are even well reviewed.

I recreationally liked Resident Evil as well, mostly because Milla. But zombie movies are more of a silly fantasy than absurdity. Suspension of disbelief isn't an issue with zombies because zombies aren't real. Cars are real, and we can generally appreciate what they can or can't do. Meh, that's OK, there will always be things that are not for me.

Tommytheduck:

The first one was a shot for shot remake of Point Break, except with cars instead of surfing/skydiving.

On a show on a sports radio station in Dallas, they have recurring movie of the month segments where they review popcorn flicks (it's geared toward men, a testosterone clinic is the sponsor), do panel discussions, host watch parties, etc. It's definitely 80s and 90s focused with titles like Predator, The Rock, Con Air, and they'll occasionally feature cult classics like Fast Times. I would say their true north is Point Break - they reference it frequently, I even went to a watch party one time, but I believe they started it all with the original Fast and Furious movie.

I don't get the appeal of the franchise, but hey, there's obviously a loyal following. Someone I grew up with was damn near inconsolable on social media when Paul Walker died and didn't see how she could make it through the last sequel that he was in.

I'm not sure why the question needs to be asked, really. It's like this with any form of entertainment that's mostly terrible and/or cheesy, but hugely popular.

Fast & Furious
Taylor Swift
American Horror Story
Transformers
Nickelback
Jackson Pollock
Jimmy Buffett
Twilight
Mandalorian (ducks)

I don't get why certain things are loved by the masses, but everyone's tastes are different.