Over the last week, I've had a strange craving for Andrew Vajna-produced films - Arnold and Sly, you know.  In my mind, there can be no doubt that Terminator 2, while less violent than films like Predator, is the acme of '80's action filmmaking.  It's a robust entertainment with little waste, and while it gets quite silly, it does so soundly on it's own terms.  In a genre where bigger always seemed like better, T2 found the perfect balance.

You know the kind of film I'm talking about.  Big guys run around (and drive around, just as frequently) dispatching one another with pseudo-witty catch phrases and military weapons until they run out of ammunition (in both departments), at which point they start swinging found objects in a final showdown to the death.  For a time, these films were a pretty reliable investment.  Many of them, like T2 and Lethal Weapon, are highly regarded creatively.

So what happened?  I found myself wondering this today, and surprisingly, found an answer.

Pulp Fiction happened.  Suddenly, audiences were seeing killing on film that wasn't being used as a conversation piece.  Death-dealing in Pulp Fiction wasn't about something like proving a point, or...

No, that seems to be the only motivation for killing in '80's action cinema.

In the work of Tarantino, characters killed for human reasons - primarily for money, or by accident.  So many people have touted the editing and structural innovations of that film, but how many folks have noticed what it did to character motivations?  It made them honest.  It was like Tarantino single-handedly graduated action audiences into high-school.  Who wants to be the jerk who goes back to telling elementary-school stories?  What happens to that kid if he does?

Previous to Tarantino, that kind of honest character motivation had been removed from the eyes of genre cinema.  In the '70's, those questions were mostly unasked.  Who knows what drives Steve McQueen in Bullitt?  Badassness, I suppose.  In the '80's, it was righeousness.

In Pulp Fiction, we understand what drives Jules and Vince.  Until Jules has his brush with the divine, these are guys who want a wad of cash thick enough for a Friday night that meets their standards, and a nice house at some point in their lives.  For that, they shoot those stupid kids with the burgers.  How does an audience go back to a world of one-liners and wanton destruction?

Today, we're seeing films like Hellboy II, Iron Man, and The Dark Knight - along with Heat, Collateral, Gladiator, Lord of the Rings, The Matrix, and so many others...  Even The Rock has motivations that go way beyond "good guy-bad guy."

Then, there's Wanted.  What does that say about what audiences are hungry for?  Is Andrew Vajna back in business?