Is it really a "boundary" to do holocaust jokes, or just the comic equivalent of a bag of flaming dog shit
I don't even understand what the difference is supposed to be here.
It's the difference between having a message and just being an edgelord.
I'm not sure what "just being an edgelord" is supposed to be here and what the implication is.
It's shock/black comedy. Pushing boundaries of good taste is the message.
Ahh, so nice.
Really pushes the boundaries, too!
the
What's the context or relevance of this?
It's pushing the boundaries, that's all the context and relevance you need!
Ok. So why did you post it? Am I supposed to be offended? Is this supposed to be a refutation of what I said?
Like, I'm completely unclear on what you are trying to say with this image as a response to my post.
Do you consider Roseanne to also be funny when engaging in the same humor?
That's Roseanne? Is it supposed to be a joke or something? I'm not seeing where the funny is. And I don't mean that in the sense that it's offensive, I mean that in the sense that there does not appear to be a joke here. I'm neither offended or amused, just confused.
I literally have no idea what you are trying to argue here.
They're both having a laugh at the expense of murdered jewish people.
It's edgy!
I'm not sure what part involves her having a laugh. Where's the joke?
I'm still unclear what your point here is beyond "Roseanne sucks at comedy". I mean, ok, sure. That doesn't mean everyone else does too.
She's dressed as Hitler and is making gingerbread cookies in an oven, and burns them.
Kind of self explanatory.
Not in any way that's funny. She isn't even selling the "jews = cookies" connection in this photo. Again, I'm not sure what the point is supposed to be here beyond "Roseanne sucks at comedy". The photo isn't offensive, it's just not funny.
This does not constitute any sort of argument against edgy comedy being a thing.
Right. 👍
It's not funny to you so obviously nobody found it humorous. Solid.
Is it really a "boundary" to do holocaust jokes, or just the comic equivalent of a bag of flaming dog shit
I don't even understand what the difference is supposed to be here.
It's the difference between having a message and just being an edgelord.
I'm not sure what "just being an edgelord" is supposed to be here and what the implication is.
It's shock/black comedy. Pushing boundaries of good taste is the message.
Ahh, so nice.
Really pushes the boundaries, too!
the
What's the context or relevance of this?
It's pushing the boundaries, that's all the context and relevance you need!
Ok. So why did you post it? Am I supposed to be offended? Is this supposed to be a refutation of what I said?
Like, I'm completely unclear on what you are trying to say with this image as a response to my post.
Do you consider Roseanne to also be funny when engaging in the same humor?
That's Roseanne? Is it supposed to be a joke or something? I'm not seeing where the funny is. And I don't mean that in the sense that it's offensive, I mean that in the sense that there does not appear to be a joke here. I'm neither offended or amused, just confused.
I literally have no idea what you are trying to argue here.
They're both having a laugh at the expense of murdered jewish people.
It's edgy!
I'm not sure what part involves her having a laugh. Where's the joke?
I'm still unclear what your point here is beyond "Roseanne sucks at comedy". I mean, ok, sure. That doesn't mean everyone else does too.
She's dressed as Hitler and is making gingerbread cookies in an oven, and burns them.
Kind of self explanatory.
Not in any way that's funny. She isn't even selling the "jews = cookies" connection in this photo. Again, I'm not sure what the point is supposed to be here beyond "Roseanne sucks at comedy". The photo isn't offensive, it's just not funny.
This does not constitute any sort of argument against edgy comedy being a thing.
Right. 👍
It's not funny to you so obviously nobody found it humorous. Solid.
What argument are you even making anymore dude? What the fuck are you talking about? Why are you suddenly trying to act like "Is Roseanne funny?" was where this whole thread started?
Like, you started this off with some vague argument about "the difference between having a message and just being an edgelord". What does this Roseanne picture have to do with that?
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Is it really a "boundary" to do holocaust jokes, or just the comic equivalent of a bag of flaming dog shit
I don't even understand what the difference is supposed to be here.
It's the difference between having a message and just being an edgelord.
I'm not sure what "just being an edgelord" is supposed to be here and what the implication is.
It's shock/black comedy. Pushing boundaries of good taste is the message.
Ahh, so nice.
Really pushes the boundaries, too!
the
What's the context or relevance of this?
It's pushing the boundaries, that's all the context and relevance you need!
Ok. So why did you post it? Am I supposed to be offended? Is this supposed to be a refutation of what I said?
Like, I'm completely unclear on what you are trying to say with this image as a response to my post.
Do you consider Roseanne to also be funny when engaging in the same humor?
That's Roseanne? Is it supposed to be a joke or something? I'm not seeing where the funny is. And I don't mean that in the sense that it's offensive, I mean that in the sense that there does not appear to be a joke here. I'm neither offended or amused, just confused.
I literally have no idea what you are trying to argue here.
They're both having a laugh at the expense of murdered jewish people.
It's edgy!
I'm not sure what part involves her having a laugh. Where's the joke?
I'm still unclear what your point here is beyond "Roseanne sucks at comedy". I mean, ok, sure. That doesn't mean everyone else does too.
She's dressed as Hitler and is making gingerbread cookies in an oven, and burns them.
Kind of self explanatory.
Not in any way that's funny. She isn't even selling the "jews = cookies" connection in this photo. Again, I'm not sure what the point is supposed to be here beyond "Roseanne sucks at comedy". The photo isn't offensive, it's just not funny.
This does not constitute any sort of argument against edgy comedy being a thing.
Right. 👍
It's not funny to you so obviously nobody found it humorous. Solid.
What argument are you even making anymore dude? What the fuck are you talking about? Why are you suddenly trying to act like "Is Roseanne funny?" was where this whole thread started?
Like, you started this off with some vague argument about "the difference between having a message and just being an edgelord". What does this Roseanne picture have to do with that?
"It's shock/black comedy. Pushing boundaries of good taste is the message."
And plenty of people found her little pictures hilarious. I don't. But then, what I personally find funny is not what other people find funny.
I find little difference between her schtick and Gottfried. That's my point. Some ephemeral "but it's different because of x" doesn't help much, all it does is normalize making jokes about it.
Did Bill Murray's character in Groundhog Day ever leave Punxsutawney while the time loop was going on? I don't recall.
Kind of?
We see him try the first time but the road closes and they have to go back. He technically I guess might have gotten out of town limits or something but not that far. I'm pretty sure it's implied he tries again with the same result before just giving up on trying to leave.
+2
Options
Inquisitor772 x Penny Arcade Fight Club ChampionA fixed point in space and timeRegistered Userregular
You know what I just realized about Groundhog Day is that I've only ever seen it on TV. So I don't think I've ever actually seen it from end-to-end, and I definitely haven't seen it without commercials.
I feel like there are a few other movies that would fit that bill.
You know what I just realized about Groundhog Day is that I've only ever seen it on TV. So I don't think I've ever actually seen it from end-to-end, and I definitely haven't seen it without commercials.
I feel like there are a few other movies that would fit that bill.
I've been rewatching a lot of older movies for exactly this reason.
Did Bill Murray's character in Groundhog Day ever leave Punxsutawney while the time loop was going on? I don't recall.
Kind of?
We see him try the first time but the road closes and they have to go back. He technically I guess might have gotten out of town limits or something but not that far. I'm pretty sure it's implied he tries again with the same result before just giving up on trying to leave.
Did Bill Murray's character in Groundhog Day ever leave Punxsutawney while the time loop was going on? I don't recall.
Kind of?
We see him try the first time but the road closes and they have to go back. He technically I guess might have gotten out of town limits or something but not that far. I'm pretty sure it's implied he tries again with the same result before just giving up on trying to leave.
One of my favorite elements of Groundhog Day is they never address what exactly is causing the time loop. Is it aliens? God? A wizard? They totally leave it alone and that was the right call. I don't think that's something we would get if the movie were made today.
Oh God... Groundhog Day remake. You just know that's coming eventually.
+6
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Did Bill Murray's character in Groundhog Day ever leave Punxsutawney while the time loop was going on? I don't recall.
Kind of?
We see him try the first time but the road closes and they have to go back. He technically I guess might have gotten out of town limits or something but not that far. I'm pretty sure it's implied he tries again with the same result before just giving up on trying to leave.
Did Bill Murray's character in Groundhog Day ever leave Punxsutawney while the time loop was going on? I don't recall.
Kind of?
We see him try the first time but the road closes and they have to go back. He technically I guess might have gotten out of town limits or something but not that far. I'm pretty sure it's implied he tries again with the same result before just giving up on trying to leave.
One of my favorite elements of Groundhog Day is they never address what exactly is causing the time loop. Is it aliens? God? A wizard? They totally leave it alone and that was the right call. I don't think that's something we would get if the movie were made today.
Oh God... Groundhog Day remake. You just know that's coming eventually.
I will consider Edge of Tomorrow its gritty reboot and that will be that
Did Bill Murray's character in Groundhog Day ever leave Punxsutawney while the time loop was going on? I don't recall.
Kind of?
We see him try the first time but the road closes and they have to go back. He technically I guess might have gotten out of town limits or something but not that far. I'm pretty sure it's implied he tries again with the same result before just giving up on trying to leave.
Did Bill Murray's character in Groundhog Day ever leave Punxsutawney while the time loop was going on? I don't recall.
Kind of?
We see him try the first time but the road closes and they have to go back. He technically I guess might have gotten out of town limits or something but not that far. I'm pretty sure it's implied he tries again with the same result before just giving up on trying to leave.
One of my favorite elements of Groundhog Day is they never address what exactly is causing the time loop. Is it aliens? God? A wizard? They totally leave it alone and that was the right call. I don't think that's something we would get if the movie were made today.
Oh God... Groundhog Day remake. You just know that's coming eventually.
I will consider Edge of Tomorrow its gritty reboot and that will be that
You may know it by its original Manga name, All You Need is You Babe, doo doo, doo doo
Did Bill Murray's character in Groundhog Day ever leave Punxsutawney while the time loop was going on? I don't recall.
Kind of?
We see him try the first time but the road closes and they have to go back. He technically I guess might have gotten out of town limits or something but not that far. I'm pretty sure it's implied he tries again with the same result before just giving up on trying to leave.
Did Bill Murray's character in Groundhog Day ever leave Punxsutawney while the time loop was going on? I don't recall.
Kind of?
We see him try the first time but the road closes and they have to go back. He technically I guess might have gotten out of town limits or something but not that far. I'm pretty sure it's implied he tries again with the same result before just giving up on trying to leave.
One of my favorite elements of Groundhog Day is they never address what exactly is causing the time loop. Is it aliens? God? A wizard? They totally leave it alone and that was the right call. I don't think that's something we would get if the movie were made today.
Oh God... Groundhog Day remake. You just know that's coming eventually.
You know what I just realized about Groundhog Day is that I've only ever seen it on TV. So I don't think I've ever actually seen it from end-to-end, and I definitely haven't seen it without commercials.
I feel like there are a few other movies that would fit that bill.
I've been rewatching a lot of older movies for exactly this reason.
I have seen The Beastmaster perhaps a dozen times, and have yet to see the opening titles.
So because I finally had some actual free time and because the 3rd one came out, I rewatched John Wick and then finally got around to seeing John Wick 2.
John Wick remains a great ride and I still love the build-up to the action, even when you know what's coming. On rewatch though I do think the way the film loses some serious steam post-dance-club is more obvious. There's some fun stuff later but it really feels like it peaks in the middle.
John Wick 2 was a bit more of a mixed bag imo. It's got a few good sequences but it feels kinda muddled in terms of drive and pacing. It takes a long time to get going. The entire first section is actually baffling honestly. I have no idea wtf is up with it. He just totals his car and kills a bunch of people for no reason and it's just not clear why the guy who clearly doesn't want anything to do with him just doesn't give him the car back and send him on his way and why John doesn't just ask him for it. It gets better after that though, although it's still a bit slow at first and gets a little overly in-your-face with some of the rules of the world that the first film already covered a lot more deftly imo. I love that they lean even more into the idea that in this world, literally every second person is a hitman. It's silly in an amusing way. And they save the best action sequence for last imo, which is better pacing wise. Definitely an interesting set up for #3 though. I'm intrigued now. It feels like #3 should be balls to the wall nuts.
Came home from work to see my son watching the rest of TMNT 2, yep it was just as awful as I remember. Including super shredder literally taking himself out and the turtles just like ducking away? Like the end scene was like "Welp hiring Kevin Nash took all our money, so uhh movie over."
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Wick 2 spends a lot of time setting up how powerful this criminal underworld is and how fucked you are if you don't have that support and makes you wait for Wick 3 to see the payoff to that.
Did Bill Murray's character in Groundhog Day ever leave Punxsutawney while the time loop was going on? I don't recall.
Kind of?
We see him try the first time but the road closes and they have to go back. He technically I guess might have gotten out of town limits or something but not that far. I'm pretty sure it's implied he tries again with the same result before just giving up on trying to leave.
Did Bill Murray's character in Groundhog Day ever leave Punxsutawney while the time loop was going on? I don't recall.
Kind of?
We see him try the first time but the road closes and they have to go back. He technically I guess might have gotten out of town limits or something but not that far. I'm pretty sure it's implied he tries again with the same result before just giving up on trying to leave.
One of my favorite elements of Groundhog Day is they never address what exactly is causing the time loop. Is it aliens? God? A wizard? They totally leave it alone and that was the right call. I don't think that's something we would get if the movie were made today.
Oh God... Groundhog Day remake. You just know that's coming eventually.
I will consider Edge of Tomorrow its gritty reboot and that will be that
The Groundhog Day musical was amazing. It had a stage car chase.
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
The John Wick 2 opening’s purpose is really to just re-establish the character and premise. They repeat the pencil story, they show a Russian gangster who feels doomed, everybody accepts that Wick will exact horrible vengeance for the petty slight of stealing his car, and the phyrric nature of John’s victory foreshadows the entire second film’s structure of “one step forward, one step back”.
The John Wick 2 opening’s purpose is really to just re-establish the character and premise. They repeat the pencil story, they show a Russian gangster who feels doomed, everybody accepts that Wick will exact horrible vengeance for the petty slight of stealing his car, and the phyrric nature of John’s victory foreshadows the entire second film’s structure of “one step forward, one step back”.
It just doesn't feel like it makes sense though. I mean, the second in command guy even straight up asks "Why don't you just give him his car back?" and the head guy just kinda mumbles something at him because there's no real answer there.
0
Options
cj iwakuraThe Rhythm RegentBears The Name FreedomRegistered Userregular
The John Wick 2 opening’s purpose is really to just re-establish the character and premise. They repeat the pencil story, they show a Russian gangster who feels doomed, everybody accepts that Wick will exact horrible vengeance for the petty slight of stealing his car, and the phyrric nature of John’s victory foreshadows the entire second film’s structure of “one step forward, one step back”.
It just doesn't feel like it makes sense though. I mean, the second in command guy even straight up asks "Why don't you just give him his car back?" and the head guy just kinda mumbles something at him because there's no real answer there.
The John Wick 2 opening’s purpose is really to just re-establish the character and premise. They repeat the pencil story, they show a Russian gangster who feels doomed, everybody accepts that Wick will exact horrible vengeance for the petty slight of stealing his car, and the phyrric nature of John’s victory foreshadows the entire second film’s structure of “one step forward, one step back”.
It just doesn't feel like it makes sense though. I mean, the second in command guy even straight up asks "Why don't you just give him his car back?" and the head guy just kinda mumbles something at him because there's no real answer there.
He doesn't just give him the car because John killed his nephew and his brother. Yeah, the nephew had it coming because he killed John's dog and the brother asked for it by not just letting John kill his son but that's where they're at and if he just hands over the car then he looks weak, which you can't do when you're the head of a criminal enterprise, even if you know full well that all of your men are going to die and your shit is going to get wrecked because John Wick is mad at you. It's not a good reason for a bunch of people dying but organized crime is weird.
John doesn't just ask for his car back because he knows he killed the guy's nephew and brother and so he can't just hand the car over because it would undermine his authority.
The fact that John has no actual beef with the dude is why he calls a truce with him and the fact that he knows you can't kill the terminator is why he accepts.
The John Wick 2 opening’s purpose is really to just re-establish the character and premise. They repeat the pencil story, they show a Russian gangster who feels doomed, everybody accepts that Wick will exact horrible vengeance for the petty slight of stealing his car, and the phyrric nature of John’s victory foreshadows the entire second film’s structure of “one step forward, one step back”.
It just doesn't feel like it makes sense though. I mean, the second in command guy even straight up asks "Why don't you just give him his car back?" and the head guy just kinda mumbles something at him because there's no real answer there.
He doesn't just give him the car because John killed his nephew and his brother. Yeah, the nephew had it coming because he killed John's dog and the brother asked for it by not just letting John kill his son but that's where they're at and if he just hands over the car then he looks weak, which you can't do when you're the head of a criminal enterprise, even if you know full well that all of your men are going to die and your shit is going to get wrecked because John Wick is mad at you. It's not a good reason for a bunch of people dying but organized crime is weird.
John doesn't just ask for his car back because he knows he killed the guy's nephew and brother and so he can't just hand the car over because it would undermine his authority.
The fact that John has no actual beef with the dude is why he calls a truce with him and the fact that he knows you can't kill the terminator is why he accepts.
I interpreted his impetus (or lack thereof) differently...but I've seen it very recently - literally, I rewatched it on the way to see John Wick 3 (from my phone - I was watching the last few minutes while previews were running for JW3).
Peter Stormare's answer to "why not give the car back" was something like "he killed my nephew and brother over a fucking dog. Do you think giving his car back is going to stop it?"
The impression I took is that Mr. Stormare would have given back the car gladly if he felt it mattered - that it would have actually stopped Wick's pursuit. The whole speech is just to reassert for returning viewers (and establish for new viewers) that John Wick is an inevitability at that point. I mean, the guy literally sits back and smokes a cigar while his organization is crumbling somewhere overhead - complete defeat.
(Note: I call him Mr. Stormare rather than the character's name because I mentally assume that every character Peter Stormare plays is just another personality of Peter Stormare, all of whom are named Peter Stormare.)
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
Given that JW destroys his car in the process of getting it out, it sounds to me like Mr. Stormare is right when he implies that JW cares more about revenge for the car than he cares about the car.
Given that JW destroys his car in the process of getting it out, it sounds to me like Mr. Stormare is right when he implies that JW cares more about revenge for the car than he cares about the car.
It was about ownership of the car, less so its current status. But mostly a great example of what john himself does to his body/life to get revenge. Both 2 and 3 show this.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
You want everything in a Godzilla movie other than the monsters to be rubbish?
I think its more quality optional.
It's just a shame that there's one particular scene where there is a lot of exposition dialogue explaining a characters motivation thats just outright bad. Not even in a cheesy ham fisted sense but just awful.
The John Wick 2 opening’s purpose is really to just re-establish the character and premise. They repeat the pencil story, they show a Russian gangster who feels doomed, everybody accepts that Wick will exact horrible vengeance for the petty slight of stealing his car, and the phyrric nature of John’s victory foreshadows the entire second film’s structure of “one step forward, one step back”.
It just doesn't feel like it makes sense though. I mean, the second in command guy even straight up asks "Why don't you just give him his car back?" and the head guy just kinda mumbles something at him because there's no real answer there.
He doesn't just give him the car because John killed his nephew and his brother. Yeah, the nephew had it coming because he killed John's dog and the brother asked for it by not just letting John kill his son but that's where they're at and if he just hands over the car then he looks weak, which you can't do when you're the head of a criminal enterprise, even if you know full well that all of your men are going to die and your shit is going to get wrecked because John Wick is mad at you. It's not a good reason for a bunch of people dying but organized crime is weird.
John doesn't just ask for his car back because he knows he killed the guy's nephew and brother and so he can't just hand the car over because it would undermine his authority.
The fact that John has no actual beef with the dude is why he calls a truce with him and the fact that he knows you can't kill the terminator is why he accepts.
I interpreted his impetus (or lack thereof) differently...but I've seen it very recently - literally, I rewatched it on the way to see John Wick 3 (from my phone - I was watching the last few minutes while previews were running for JW3).
Peter Stormare's answer to "why not give the car back" was something like "he killed my nephew and brother over a fucking dog. Do you think giving his car back is going to stop it?"
The impression I took is that Mr. Stormare would have given back the car gladly if he felt it mattered - that it would have actually stopped Wick's pursuit. The whole speech is just to reassert for returning viewers (and establish for new viewers) that John Wick is an inevitability at that point. I mean, the guy literally sits back and smokes a cigar while his organization is crumbling somewhere overhead - complete defeat.
(Note: I call him Mr. Stormare rather than the character's name because I mentally assume that every character Peter Stormare plays is just another personality of Peter Stormare, all of whom are named Peter Stormare.)
The thing is, yeah, I think it would. Just give him the car and he'd go home. That would be consistent with the first movie. If Viggo doesn't have Marcus killed, John murders his son and then likely just goes back home and it's all over. He had a chance to kill Viggo at the church but instead he gets the location of his son and leaves him alive. Because that's what he's after.
This becomes really obvious watching them almost back to back imo. Coming into #2 there's basically no reason John shouldn't offer Viggo's brother the same choice. Gimme my car and we're good. Which he then fucking does anyway. Which is why the whole scene where he first murders a bunch of people and destroys the car feels so goddamn weird.
Posts
Right. 👍
It's not funny to you so obviously nobody found it humorous. Solid.
What argument are you even making anymore dude? What the fuck are you talking about? Why are you suddenly trying to act like "Is Roseanne funny?" was where this whole thread started?
Like, you started this off with some vague argument about "the difference between having a message and just being an edgelord". What does this Roseanne picture have to do with that?
"It's shock/black comedy. Pushing boundaries of good taste is the message."
And plenty of people found her little pictures hilarious. I don't. But then, what I personally find funny is not what other people find funny.
I find little difference between her schtick and Gottfried. That's my point. Some ephemeral "but it's different because of x" doesn't help much, all it does is normalize making jokes about it.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Kind of?
We see him try the first time but the road closes and they have to go back. He technically I guess might have gotten out of town limits or something but not that far. I'm pretty sure it's implied he tries again with the same result before just giving up on trying to leave.
I feel like there are a few other movies that would fit that bill.
I've been rewatching a lot of older movies for exactly this reason.
Dino Crisis
One of my favorite elements of Groundhog Day is they never address what exactly is causing the time loop. Is it aliens? God? A wizard? They totally leave it alone and that was the right call. I don't think that's something we would get if the movie were made today.
Oh God... Groundhog Day remake. You just know that's coming eventually.
I will consider Edge of Tomorrow its gritty reboot and that will be that
You may know it by its original Manga name, All You Need is You Babe, doo doo, doo doo
Official Sequel as a PSVR game
I have seen The Beastmaster perhaps a dozen times, and have yet to see the opening titles.
John Wick remains a great ride and I still love the build-up to the action, even when you know what's coming. On rewatch though I do think the way the film loses some serious steam post-dance-club is more obvious. There's some fun stuff later but it really feels like it peaks in the middle.
John Wick 2 was a bit more of a mixed bag imo. It's got a few good sequences but it feels kinda muddled in terms of drive and pacing. It takes a long time to get going. The entire first section is actually baffling honestly. I have no idea wtf is up with it. He just totals his car and kills a bunch of people for no reason and it's just not clear why the guy who clearly doesn't want anything to do with him just doesn't give him the car back and send him on his way and why John doesn't just ask him for it. It gets better after that though, although it's still a bit slow at first and gets a little overly in-your-face with some of the rules of the world that the first film already covered a lot more deftly imo. I love that they lean even more into the idea that in this world, literally every second person is a hitman. It's silly in an amusing way. And they save the best action sequence for last imo, which is better pacing wise. Definitely an interesting set up for #3 though. I'm intrigued now. It feels like #3 should be balls to the wall nuts.
pleasepaypreacher.net
pleasepaypreacher.net
The Groundhog Day musical was amazing. It had a stage car chase.
It's a movie about the ultimate Kaiju, of course the dialogue will be cringe-worthy, that's a feature not a bug.
~ Buckaroo Banzai
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
It just doesn't feel like it makes sense though. I mean, the second in command guy even straight up asks "Why don't you just give him his car back?" and the head guy just kinda mumbles something at him because there's no real answer there.
Should've been the alternate ending.
I think its more quality optional.
He doesn't just give him the car because John killed his nephew and his brother. Yeah, the nephew had it coming because he killed John's dog and the brother asked for it by not just letting John kill his son but that's where they're at and if he just hands over the car then he looks weak, which you can't do when you're the head of a criminal enterprise, even if you know full well that all of your men are going to die and your shit is going to get wrecked because John Wick is mad at you. It's not a good reason for a bunch of people dying but organized crime is weird.
John doesn't just ask for his car back because he knows he killed the guy's nephew and brother and so he can't just hand the car over because it would undermine his authority.
The fact that John has no actual beef with the dude is why he calls a truce with him and the fact that he knows you can't kill the terminator is why he accepts.
Every movie is set in the Silent Hill universe.
I interpreted his impetus (or lack thereof) differently...but I've seen it very recently - literally, I rewatched it on the way to see John Wick 3 (from my phone - I was watching the last few minutes while previews were running for JW3).
Peter Stormare's answer to "why not give the car back" was something like "he killed my nephew and brother over a fucking dog. Do you think giving his car back is going to stop it?"
The impression I took is that Mr. Stormare would have given back the car gladly if he felt it mattered - that it would have actually stopped Wick's pursuit. The whole speech is just to reassert for returning viewers (and establish for new viewers) that John Wick is an inevitability at that point. I mean, the guy literally sits back and smokes a cigar while his organization is crumbling somewhere overhead - complete defeat.
(Note: I call him Mr. Stormare rather than the character's name because I mentally assume that every character Peter Stormare plays is just another personality of Peter Stormare, all of whom are named Peter Stormare.)
edit: Here it is:
And then Drez was a pyramid.
It was about ownership of the car, less so its current status. But mostly a great example of what john himself does to his body/life to get revenge. Both 2 and 3 show this.
pleasepaypreacher.net
It's just a shame that there's one particular scene where there is a lot of exposition dialogue explaining a characters motivation thats just outright bad. Not even in a cheesy ham fisted sense but just awful.
The thing is, yeah, I think it would. Just give him the car and he'd go home. That would be consistent with the first movie. If Viggo doesn't have Marcus killed, John murders his son and then likely just goes back home and it's all over. He had a chance to kill Viggo at the church but instead he gets the location of his son and leaves him alive. Because that's what he's after.
This becomes really obvious watching them almost back to back imo. Coming into #2 there's basically no reason John shouldn't offer Viggo's brother the same choice. Gimme my car and we're good. Which he then fucking does anyway. Which is why the whole scene where he first murders a bunch of people and destroys the car feels so goddamn weird.