CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online log in · register
Home › Richard Howard2 › Posts

Posts by Richard Howard2

326 posts shown.

Electronic / EDM in Music ·
Frank Howard79 said:People who typically dislike electronic music are usually those deeply anchored in nostalgia for bygone eras—which is fine, I suppose—but they harbor a fear of anything unfamiliar. They aren't afraid of the technology itself, since electronic music isn't some recent novelty, but rather they recoil at the mere mention of "futurism." They lack that specific sensation, that profound feeling of merging the unknown with the entire universe, or that rush of emotion one gets when experiencing distant, distant worlds... or perhaps the atmosphere of Blade Runner simply triggers an innate sense of anxiety in them.

Every genre of music possesses its own distinct identity, making any debate regarding its worth essentially pointless. Such discussions rarely yield constructive conclusions; instead, they merely serve as a vehicle for people to vent their own personal biases and cinematic fixations.


Regrettably, many people make a massive error by judging electronic music based solely on what is spoon-fed to them via television and radio, which is mostly garbage.

It stands to reason, really; someone who doesn't actively listen to electronic music isn't going to go out of their way to hunt for it, so they judge everything based on what commercial media pushes.

Electronic music boasts numerous titans and masterpieces—think Mike Oldfield, Vangelis, Jean-Michel Jarre, and other classics—and even in more recent times, the field has expanded significantly. In truth, there are more great works than we can possibly fathom, making it genuinely difficult to keep up. There are far too many sub-genres to track, let alone every single individual artist...

For instance, I could quite easily refer to Vangelis as the Mozart Classical Era equivalent, or rather, the Mozart Electronic Music.

I generally find myself in social circles that favor rock, metal, and those other "traditional" genres—groups that frequently disparage electronic music by claiming it isn't "real" music.

In a fair and just world (read: America), these people would show at least a modicum of respect toward the genre and simply stick to their own preferences.

I truly value the entirety of the musical spectrum, from rock to metal and everything else, and I believe I am capable of discerning quality from mediocrity—I possess at least that minimum threshold of knowledge required to form a legitimate and objective assessment.

Most of you who do not listen to electronic music lack that foundational knowledge, and therein lies the distinction. Consequently, you have no standing to draw conclusions—though I give credit to the exceptions who are actually acquainted with the genre and are thus qualified to offer a proper critique.
Electronic / EDM in Music ·
driftingowl27 said:Richard Howard2, didn't you stop posting on the music boards?
It seems you're struggling a bit, isn't it?

Well, what can I do? There aren't any topics here that actually interest me, and even if I decide to start one, I end up being the only person replying...

My previous thread about TLB barely got one or two replies, so I just gave up on it...
Electronic / EDM in Music ·
Frank Howard79 said:So you’re just going to keep belittling him, aren't you?🙄

Back in the day (on the old IMF site), we proved quite clearly that a huge number of people on this board listen to electronic music—music that you, for the most part, know absolutely nothing about. So, cut the attitude, alright?

You haven't proven me wrong about a single thing.

Real proof would be seeing new threads about electronic music popping up at a rate even remotely comparable to any other genre. The reality is that NOBODY here actually discusses electronic music. At best, once every two months, someone starts a thread questioning whether electronic music even makes sense as a concept. This is an online community, and my assertion remains that 95% of the users here don't listen to electronic music. The fact that many people might listen to it without ever mentioning it has zero bearing on my point.

By the way, what is it? Are we back to the constant bickering that seems to plague this entire site? Now I suppose I have no right to an opinion because I lack expertise in some niche electronic subgenre.

It is always possible to find something someone else knows nothing about and use it as a weapon to make yourself feel superior. Therefore... hush now.
Electronic / EDM in Music ·
Good grief, we really are a primitive nation. Especially you metalheads—so closed-minded and flat, acting like electronic music isn't even real music. GET OVER IT!

Electronic music moved into a whole new stage of evolution ages ago, whether you lot care to admit it or not!

Electronics represent the ultimate goal—the ability to create exactly what we imagine!

I am not disparaging other genres (not that you aren't constantly belittling electronic music), I am simply attempting to demonstrate its inherent value.

I have written extensively about electronic music on the old IMF site, and I previously concluded in a thread that 95% of the users there don't listen to electronic music at all.

So, the sad truth remains: the vast majority doesn't even consider it to be music.

If the moderators of this thread, or even the admins, share that sentiment, then they should just go ahead and create an "Electronic Music" section.

Though, I highly doubt they will actually do it...

Do you honestly believe you possess more worth if you play a guitar rather than a keyboard?

My brother has been in the guitar world for years, and I can tell you, it is the most superficial scene on the planet! What, do redheaded punks just love long hair and guitars? Of course they do, but the main thing is that those holding the guitars look down on anyone else—it’s all just pure vanity!

😠 😠 😠 😠 😠 😠
2002: Year in Review in Movies ·
redowl90, give me a break. That duel between Dooku and Anakin is easily the most intense part: didn't you catch the symbolism in how Lucas focused purely on their faces? You have Anakin bathed in that blue glow and Dooku caught in the red, all set against those flashes and the constant shifting between slow-mo and fast motion.

Oh, and I completely neglected to mention one massive, totally underrated movie. It actually came out in 2001, but hit US theaters in 2002: Vidocq!

Now that is a real movie...
2002: Year in Review in Movies ·
[ graniteangler10 said:"]Anyway, it just occurred to me—we didn't actually include Panic Room in the best cinematography category.

Right, I completely overlooked mentioning it—so here I am, bringing it up now.

Though, I did mention it back when discussing the Best film 2002...
2002: Year in Review in Movies ·
The best films of the year, in my estimation: SW Attack of the Clones, Memento, Monsters, Inc., and Jay & Silent Bob
Zoolander in Movies ·
Before I even sat down to watch this, everyone was giving me the same old lecture: "Please, for the love of God, don't waste your time on that garbage." Honestly, looking back, I feel like shooting them for being so incredibly arrogant. They were so quick to dismiss this comedy as total trash, but I've come to realize the only reason anyone actually hates it is simply because they lack the intellect to grasp it.🙂

The movie is brilliant. Period. If you want to catch all the nuances, you actually need to be somewhat culturally literate. Since the world portrayed is predominantly female-driven rather than male-dominated, men naturally tend to loathe it. In reality, the film is a parody of foolish men; those who fail to understand the satire can only be viewed as a source of mild amusement.😁

It is perfect. End of discussion.
My brother has borrowed it five times now and basically knows the script by heart. My old man is constantly imitating "magnum" poses and such... It seems only a very specific subset of people—you know, the types who spend twelve hours a day watching NFL games, sleep eleven hours a night, and spend half an hour a day... well, you know...—can't see the absolute genius in this film.
What counts as "normal" or "healthy"? in Philosophy ·
Bradley Fisher20 said:It absolutely has everything to do with common sense. Anything that harms the community isn't good. If it doesn't harm the community, it isn't bad. Whatever benefits the community is good. Of course, it’s not quite that simple, but that's the general idea.

😲 😕

I think you're conflating the concept of "normal vs. abnormal" with "right vs. wrong."

Take slavery, for instance. Or even if we look further back at ancient royal dynasties—incest was considered perfectly normal, despite having nothing to do with common sense. Or perhaps it did, but then again, one has to be careful about how "common sense" is actually defined.

Let me attempt to clarify that rather vague sentence regarding the perception of absolute truth using an example:

Einstein proved that the absolute truth is that everything is relative; he discovered this by observing an object from a specific frame of reference rather than its own. The reverse holds true as well. That is how we can grasp the truth.
What counts as "normal" or "healthy"? in Philosophy ·
Here is my response:

Since the concepts of "normal" and "abnormal" are merely human constructs—and we ourselves are such inherently insecure, unpredictable creatures—we simply cannot treat these labels as absolute truths.

However, if we stay on track and look inward rather than outward, the definition of normal behavior is essentially just whatever the majority does. It is the consensus of the masses that dictates what is acceptable and what isn't. Any contrasting minority, regardless of how rational or composed they might seem, is deemed abnormal by default.

If the vast majority of people were to suddenly decide that pedophilia is perfectly acceptable, then it would become the norm; consequently, you, should you choose to oppose it, would be labeled the abnormal one.

The distinction between normal and abnormal has nothing to do with common sense. Common sense is merely the process of weighing different references to arrive at a more or less absolute truth.

To grasp that absolute truth, one thing must serve as a reference for another, which in turn serves as a reference for the first, creating a chain where each point validates the next, and so on.
Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith in Movies ·
lonescout2 said:Fine, maybe I exaggerated just a tiny bit....
But don't we all???

But surely you remember that movie?
Good grief....

Richard Howard2, if you need a reminder, I can lend you my copy or record it so you can watch it 🙂

z

Thanks, no need; I'll just grab DVD The Wrath of Khan. I saw it when I was a kid and I barely remember a thing about it, and it hasn't been in any video rental stores until now, just released on DVD.

I hope ABC starts airing Star Trek movies on Sunday afternoons soon... (the films, I mean)

Regarding my classification: everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but I will actually provide my reasoning:

1. Star Trek: The Motion Picture

Even though much of it was lifted from the series, it is a top-tier achievement that implements a high-level philosophy regarding existence and the man-machine relationship, paired with excellent special effects for its time. It's full of incredible locations born from wild imaginations, raising profound questions about friendship and emotion—not in a pedestrian way, but in a perfectly philosophical manner. The story involving V'Ger is incredible!

2. Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan

---

3. Star Trek: The Search for Spock

Just because Spock isn't there doesn't mean the film is automatically bad. Again, superb worlds, great plot, and incredible action sequences and ship battles—even without Spock, the wisdom and logic remain indestructible. The charisma of the entire crew is amazing, as is the concept of Genesis, which carries a message. It conveys the idea of that famous line: the needs of many... Spaceships, stations, lasers, planets, transwarp drive, and that characteristic music... all hallmarks of great sci-fi. Featuring, of course, an excellent Christopher Lloyd...

4. ST IV: The Voyage Home - an incredibly fun story dealing with the old theme of returning to our era: a completely new concept where Star Trek humor takes a more prominent role, and it doesn't cheapen the film at all; rather, it enriches it because it perfectly illustrates the characters. A significant environmental message (which wasn't a cliché back then).
Unforgettable scenes in the hospital...

5. Star Trek V: The Final Frontier

It was so bad I think I had nightmares: no, no, it can't be Star Trek... no! Uhura seducing vagrants, Kirk bickering with a foolish prophet and finally with a self-proclaimed God, forced humor and combat lacking any charm... terrible!

6. Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country

I don't remember this one very well either, but the attempt at a new concept that strayed totally from the old Star Trek atmosphere turned out to be a complete failure.

7. Star Trek: Generations

A solid effort where the transition to the new generation prepared in the series takes place. Great special effects, plenty of combat and space travel, Klingons, and the honorable departure of Kirk and his old crew.

8. Star Trek: First Contact

This altogether foolish film by the idiotic, self-important first officer Jonathan Frakes has exactly one redeeming quality: the introduction of the Borg. In fact, after the Klingons and the Romulans, the Borg proved to be a new and greater challenge for the Star Trek heroes, intriguing viewers with their excellent concept. Unfortunately, the film looks like it was directed by Roland Emmerich during his Universal Soldier phase—nothing but foolish thugs, a post-apocalyptic vision of the future, and stupid spikes. An attempt at humor.

9. Star Trek: Insurrection

This episode feels like someone spliced two episodes of Star Trek: The Next Generation together, where they arrive at a sequence of planets and solve local problems, but this time with better effects. I have seen far more impressive episodes in the series. Jonathan Frakes tried to insert himself into stronger directorial roles. Unsuccessfully, of course.
Who on earth gave him the director's baton...
10. Star Trek: Nemesis
Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith in Movies ·
Is it really possible that it’s actually worse than Star Trek: First Contact!?

Part 1 - a masterpiece
Part 2 - I don't quite recall
Part 3 - a masterpiece
Part 4 - a masterpiece
Part 5 - absolute garbage!
Part 6 - a total gut punch
Part 7 - very good
Part 8 - what the f...?
Part 9 - decent... if you consider it a pilot episode
Part 10 - ???
DivX in Movies ·
If you want to figure out how to burn all that stuff, you should probably go over to www.doom9.org and study the guides there thoroughly.

I suppose learning all of this could be quite tedious, going through it step by step, though I wouldn't call it a walk in the park...
frozentiger6 said:Let me throw out some titles for the list.

Terminator
Alien
Mad Max
Star Wars

I would specifically point to Alien. Do you all agree that in these franchises, the sequels actually surpass the original? It is a genuine rarity. We often see series where the first installment holds its own, but the follow-ups fall flat. Take Scream, for example.
In Mad Max, the third part is truly an insult, though the second one is, in my view, the best.
Aliens is unparalleled, whereas most other sequels are just classic cash grabs.
Star Wars is, admittedly, good in every installment, yet from today's perspective regarding special effects, the first part feels somewhat naive.
Terminator 2: Judgment Day is certainly better than the first, although I find myself more drawn to the story in the original.

I am curious if there are any other films where you prefer the sequel over the original.
And another thing—there are series where every single sequel is interesting or even excellent. Take Halloween; they only completely botched it with H2O.

I should merely note: Aliens is not better than Alien. Both are good—each in its own way, because they represent two distinct directorial styles:

Ridley Scott focused on an atmospheric, dreamlike, and horrific mood, leaning into ambiguity and psychological impact on the viewer.

James Cameron crafted a massive action spectacle, brimming with opulence (I refer to James Cameron as a representative of Hollywood Baroque) and focused on messages outside the human subconscious.

Similarly, Terminator 2 is not "better" than Terminator, because we are looking at different creative phases of a single director. By the time Cameron was filming Terminator 2, he was already deep into his baroque phase (The Abyss, Aliens), possessing plenty of money in his pocket and a keen understanding of the market demand for Arnold Schwarzenegger and his role as an action savior. Action, action, action, overflowing with extravagance and phenomenal scenes—that is Terminator 2. It simply does not belong in the same category as the emotionally driven Terminator...

Regarding Star Wars: since I consider Star Wars to be a myth rather than just a film, in terms of quality, all five filmed parts are absolutely indistinguishable to me.

As for Indiana Jones, I like the third one—Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade—the most.

With Back to the Future, the first one is definitely the strongest, though they maintained consistency through the second and third.
Star Wars vs. Star Trek in Movies ·
Data is an Android, whereas these robots—including the one that kid built—are different, though I suspect C-3PO could probably put him to sleep.

Hahaha, honestly one of the better jokes lately...
DivX in Movies ·
I mean, how have you not heard about this yet? It’s practically common knowledge at this point...

DivX is essentially a video compression algorithm designed to minimize quality loss while providing the most efficient storage savings possible. When you look at a standard DVD with about 4.7 gigabytes of capacity, it uses MPEG-2 compression, which means an average movie would typically require at least two CDs to hold. However, by utilizing DivX, a single CD is more than enough.

Nowadays, anyone can perform a basic conversion from a DVD to DivX right from their own home setup. This allows you to watch a film or whatever else you're interested in on computers that aren't equipped with a dedicated DVD player.

You won't find DivX being used in mainstream commercial distribution channels, primarily because it hasn't been adopted as an official industry standard, unlike comparable formats such as ASF or MPEG-4. While DivX remains the superior solution for many, it lacks widespread institutional acceptance due to concerns regarding potential copyright infringements.
Star Wars vs. Star Trek in Movies ·
Let us organize a series of duels:

Captain James T. Kirk vs. Obi-Wan Kenobi

Mr. Spock vs. Yoda

Bones vs. Darth Vader😁

Captain Jean-Luc Picard vs. Han Solo

Han Solo Klingon vs. Chewbacca Chewie

Borg drone vs. Clone Trooper

Tom Paris vs. Fett

Place your bets!

Does anyone have further suggestions for fights?
Best movies of 2002? in Movies ·
Good grief, how could I have let one of my absolute favorites from 2002 slip my mind...

VIDOCQ!
fadedtrucker19:

If you're going to dismiss every single civilization outside of Western Europe or the US—which is incredibly foolish, by the way—then at least try using the actual foundations of our society. I'm talking about things like the Bill of Rights and other similar documents that establish our fundamental civil norms.

Look who finally showed up...

You've completely missed my point, despite me explaining it multiple times now: I was referring to civilization in the broadest sense—humanity as a whole—not treating civilizations as isolated cultural or geographic clusters throughout history. (That makes three times I've had to say this.)

My signature was designed that way on purpose; it was a joke. Naturally, I took it down once the joke stopped being funny. At least I managed to get half the forum riled up.😁
Best movies of 2002? in Movies ·
Pale Blue Eyes said:As far as I am aware... De la Iglesia was the one behind El dia de la bestia...


I was actually referring to Segura's incredible performance as that heavy metal guy. And don't worry, I know Segura wasn't the director here...