Posts by Richard Howard2

It’s an MTV-style flick, completely mindless and naive in its execution, which is precisely why it works—it's a genuine breath of fresh air in a sea of overproduced, polished studio garbage. This thing actually has a soul, serving as a classic throwback to that raw 90s vibe.

Jerry Martin19 said:Since when does a movie need some arbitrary waiting period to "become" good? 😕 Titanic was always a solid film 🙂

I was merely attempting to point out the phenomenon where a significant number of films actually improve in reputation after enough time has passed. If my memory serves me correctly, Titanic was met with a massive wave of hatred, particularly from the supposed cinephile crowd (seriously, do you all not remember that?). That initial backlash has absolutely nothing to do with the actual quality of the film.

It has been ten years. A decade has slipped by. Perhaps it is finally time for Titanic to be recognized as a masterpiece.

It’s not merely a matter of my own personal taste! 😲

😁 😁 😁

I followed the exact same pattern: an obsession, watching them countless times, that deep sense of nostalgia for those films, an imagination running wild in every direction...

quietdriver3 said:No... that’s not what happened here. This has nothing to do with Yang or myself... though I am slightly concerned that Xavi might have misread my intentions (now that I'm reading this thread after eight hours of sleep). I don't actually *gasp* hate Cameron. In fact, I find his megalomania quite enjoyable. I grew up watching his work; asking me to hate him would be like being forced to despise my own left hand simply because it isn't as dexterous as my right. 😁 Oh, and yes, I am one of those 1% who doesn't hate Titanic. 😳 Truthfully, Cameron is one of the few filmmakers who, in my estimation, hasn't made a bad movie—if we aren't counting his debut, which was surely just growing pains. Therefore, there is no need for me to clash with Yang over this topic, since as far as I can recall, he likes it too...

It is the truth: Cameron is the greatest living director in my eyes, even if I am perhaps exaggerating. He is a true pioneer of cinematic baroque. Of course, when I speak of Cameron, I am not referring solely to him, but to the entire crew that works on his films. I suspect his success stems less from individual genius and more from the sheer quality of that collective teamwork. As a mere hint toward that theory, consider the Director's cut Abyss; it is an absolute disaster. It feels almost as if some other director stepped in to tinker with it.

nimblemarlin6 said:Regarding these modern blockbusters with actual soul—has anyone actually sat down and watched “Casino Royale”? They stripped away everything the franchise used to stand for and delivered something that feels like it was filmed right on the heels of "From Russia with Love". For my taste, "Casino Royale" is what a true blockbuster should be. Now, I can already hear Richard Howard2 arguing that personal preference is irrelevant here, that this is just another formulaic iteration, and that cinema as we know it is dead, and... (insert long-winded rant from Richard Howard2). But for me, this new Bond is a genuine shift. We finally have a protagonist in a massive hit who feels human; he matures, he falls in love, he takes hits, and he undergoes actual character development by the credits... it’s a real movie. It's almost as if the template established by “Goldfinger” never existed, returning him instead to the era of “Dr. No”.

Actually, I find myself agreeing with you; "Casino Royale" really does stand as an outlier to the current trend. However, even its success proves how much these formulas dictate the industry, because the studio essentially set out specifically to avoid the usual pattern, which implies the pattern still holds all the power.
You'll eventually see that, despite appearances, this is a very flawed way of doing things. Don't let the initial box office numbers fool you just because they have a fresh Bond lice...

Jerry Martin19 said:You aren't digging deep enough to find any films that would actually satisfy you.

To me, the most fascinating thing about modern society—across all levels of public discourse—is how we treat the phrase "there's no accounting for taste" like some kind of sacred commandment. It’s become this untouchable dogma. People seem to have lost the ability to discuss anything else, retreating almost entirely into the shallow waters of individual preference. If you can't debate it through the lens of personal taste, people don't even know how to carry on a conversation.

I have a fairly clear idea of the films that actually satisfy my tastes. My preferences range from the gritty vibes of Ghost Dog to the sci-fi elements found in I, Robot, stretching all the way through the Clone attacks, Pirates of the Caribbean, and even Shrek 2.

Is it even possible? Can I ever actually reach a point where I manage to convince people that I simply have no desire to discuss my tastes? I mean, I’d love to just stop starting threads or dragging myself into endless debates just to list what I like, what I hate, or how I personally feel about some random thing. It seems like an impossible goal.

In truth, you seem to be overlooking the fact that there is an entire mountain of work in the background—work that is just as satisfying as everything that came before it.

That's a weak argument on your part. I'm not talking about statistical data points here; I'm discussing conceptual reach. If I were to claim that the entire world is interconnected by a global computer network today, you would likely argue against me simply because most people—those in developing nations, remote tribes, or impoverished regions—still don't have access to computers. Technically, your statistics would be accurate, but you'd be missing the point entirely.

There is no such thing as a "right" or "wrong" direction. There is no version of history that *should* have happened compared to what actually did; there is only the history that unfolded.

If one examines my previous writings with even a modicum of care, it becomes evident that I am not discussing the future. I have no interest in futurology or utopian fantasies—I am merely describing the current state of affairs.

My intention with this topic is to redirect attention toward the evolution of models within the American film industry. Models have always existed, yet what is shifting is how they relate to our core value systems. Movies have been, and will always remain (much like all art), a mirror reflecting our own history.
Modern cinematic content, much like the lives we lead, has adopted models not just in form, but in substance. The very content of a film now plays out according to a pre-written program, where its form becomes its only true essence. It preoccupies itself with a stylization that is forbidden from drifting outside of current trends; it relies on the fractal reproduction of every cinematic element so that the elements can more perfectly mimic themselves. Instead of breaking down barriers of expression—precisely because we possess the ability to do so—expression is ironically being locked into increasingly rigid, formulaic grids.

Cinema has reached its limit, simply because every possibility for expression has already been exhausted. I am not referring to the physical realization of ideas, but rather to the sheer capacity to realize any idea whatsoever.
Consequently, the mere fact that we can produce virtually anything in film today causes us to want to produce nothing at all, except for that which has already been scripted.

Here is a speculative thought for you: film might soon symbolically materialize its own condition. Imagine computer programs that calculate and produce films autonomously. Through complex processing, they would determine optimal parameters by accounting for variations in action, actors, dialogue, scripts, and music based on set protocols—or better yet, they could include a special "shuffle" function to ensure everything looks like the product of a human brain.
The machine won't become intelligent, like AI; rather, the human will become a machine.

Such a process would be, most fascinatingly, nothing more than a parodic version of today’s cinema.

Even independent film is not immune to this; it struggles to be different, which only serves to highlight the status quo (acting as an alibi to mask the fact that everything is entirely predictable), thereby making it just another part of the programmed system.

I am honestly at a loss as to what kind of logic you are using to interpret my analysis on the evolution of societal thought and perception as being apocalyptic—or, at the very least, pessimistic...

It is gratifying to see ideas blossoming and this topic finally finding its purpose.

Personally, I find that this entire narrative has little to do with the motives outlined in Capital. To believe that everything unfolds solely for the sake of profit is rather naive (though money certainly acted as the catalyst): the true issue lies within a vortex from which there is no escape; an entire system of signs to which the whole of production (in this case, film) submits itself.

The production process itself—and the resulting films—are what establish the principles of valuation, rather than production being something that merely follows or violates some static, unchanging value system.

Since most of us here grew up under the previous value system, it isn't difficult for us to notice this shift, yet as Jerry Martin19 asks with concern, what will become of the new generation?

The new generation—those born after, say, the year 2000—will be entirely indifferent to the matters we discuss here. They will act as total sponges, forming and absorbing themselves precisely according to the current code. There truly won't be any systems or principles left to assign value or distinguish good from bad; everything will be equally "good" (or at least as good as it can possibly be), much like how advertisements never feature a bad product (!).

The ultimate fate lies in a true socialism (not the kind socialists attempted to force upon society), which arrives through its own evolution—there will no longer be a dialectic between creation and criticism, no more opposing poles or global preconceptions regarding references of good and evil. There will be no more genuine criticism or dissent, no more actual praise or cult followings (in fact, they are already vanishing), but merely things said simply to mask the fact that everyone is indifferent and nothing matters.
Every single thing will be produced following a template, without ever arising from necessity and without ever ending in actual use.

That is truly a world without division or conflict, even on micro-levels like the film industry. Everything will simply be manufactured according to a code, much like the code used by the new generation of blockbuster makers—a mathematical code of exponential model growth.

Charles Evans said:It is never too late to admit when things have gone south. Current cinema is garbage, much like most of the shows and series clogging up the networks. Music? Garbage. Any multimedia coming from any source nowadays is simply trash. For instance, I turn on MTV almost every day and the sheer volume of idiocy produced by these teen shows is immeasurable. They have this competition centered around how obscene you can be called "Yo Momma." Just two idiots in baggy pants surrounded by peers, trying to see who can shout "your momma is so fat..." the most times in a few minutes. And then they celebrate the winner as if he were some kind of genius, when in reality, he is just a vacuous moron with nothing else to offer life. Then there is the infamous Pimp My Ride, which requires little commentary, and the brilliant Room Raiders, where people choose partners based solely on their bedroom decor. Today's children are unbelievably stupid, but they are only that way because they are being spoon-fed nonsense. They swallow things like Spider-Man, Dark Films, and those cheap, mindless trifles.

Yes, all of that holds water, but it goes deeper than just losing a sense of what is good. It is more serious than that. We have lost our compass—the entire regulatory system that allows one to categorize anything as good or bad in the first place. Because of this, it is no longer even a question of values.

It is quite fascinating, really. We have reached a point where films that insult human intelligence are praised simply because they are "fun" or allow you to "unwind." Nowadays, letting your brain rot is treated like a prescribed recipe—something legitimate, recommended, even commendable. Consequently, we will never again be able to distinguish true entertainment from pure stupidity.

BTW, the absolute peak of absurdity on MTV is when they pay a few pathetic dollars to random people on the street to perform disgusting stunts (like eating a pile of raw fish eyes). Everyone looks happy, and it is presented as if it were perfectly logical. I suppose, in this era, it actually is... 😁

It doesn't even have anything to do with film criticism anymore. It’s no longer about whether something is good or bad—those concepts were lost a long time ago. Nowadays, we can only analyze these phenomena for what they actually are.

Blackbeard, please, don't force me into starting yet another lecture on art, history, and their homeland on this specific thread. 🙂

The Transformers franchise is going to be faster, bigger, and better—expect more explosions, more slow-motion sequences, and more photorealistic details to prove the physics actually make sense. The plot:

"Oh my God, I have never seen anything like this before, except in Armageddon, The Day After Tomorrow, Godzilla, Independence Day, War of the Worlds, etc."

"It’s strictly classified information, but don't worry about it; the entire world will find out soon enough"

"We could be looking at the literal end of the world as we know it. Once again"

"Noooooouuuu"

"Jesus. They're here"

Oh my God, Jesus, Mary and Joseph, holy shit and holy cow, my mother's grave—they are just soooooo BIG!

Charles Evans said:Terminator 2: Judgment Day remains the technical peak of filmmaking even by today's standards. No modern movie can touch those special effects.

I agree, though I would refine the wording slightly: no contemporary film possesses special effects with that level of believability—which is a radical distinction from mere "realism."

I experienced a similar cinematic treat with true lie. It’s essentially Terminator's sibling in terms of pure action and sheer spectacle.

It goes without saying that sequels are driven primarily by the bottom line. Profit is the engine. Naturally, there’s this unspoken expectation that they ought to outdo whatever came before them. But I’ve noticed a distinct shift between the older era of filmmaking and what I’d call this "new generation" of sequels. It’s subtle, yet profound. The masses—meaning us, the audience—don't seem to be looking for a film in the traditional sense anymore. We aren't evaluating a movie on its own merits—whether it's intellectually stimulating, genuinely entertaining, or just a good way to unwind. Instead, our entire metric for success has shifted toward a single, narrow benchmark: how well does it compete with the predecessor? It’s no longer about the quality of the work itself, but merely its ability to challenge the ghost of the previous installment.

It seems that the shift isn't actually happening within the creators themselves, but rather in the underlying motivations of the audience and their evolving demands. The authors aren't necessarily losing their way; they are simply pivoting to align with what drives the public today—though, I suppose, I can't entirely absolve them of blame for that shift.

Take Terminator 2: Judgment Day, for instance. It was clearly more commercial and technically superior to its predecessor, yet what the audience actually found in it was... Only that specific quality he possesses.And that was precisely why it worked. Back then, there was a logic to it. Today? I highly doubt it. Nowadays, a sequel isn't truly successful just because it takes the quality of the original and tries to polish it up. That's not how it works anymore.

Charles Evans said:Mission: Impossible 2 and Mission: Impossible 3 aren't standard sequels. Honestly, I’d go as far as to say all three are just three distinct, high-quality action movies that happen to share a title. There isn't really this "exponential escalation" happening because you had three different directors bringing three completely different philosophies to the table. Only the second installment felt heightened, but that wasn't because of what you described—it was strictly due to John Woo's influence.

But my other point remains valid. The Pirates franchise is the perfect example. I've watched them, yet I can't recall a single thing. It's just too much. They defeat one villain, then a stronger one. Then someone even stronger. Then something else. And more stuff. And it's all just CGI. Come on, people, get a grip.

Fine, the argument holds water; let's move past M:I.

I just remembered another one, though I'm not entirely certain since it's been a while: Harry Potter. ???

Quote : a Matrix

casualraven said:Look, I know you’ve always had a deep-seated disdain for sequels and anything that isn't the original groundbreaking entry, but let's be realistic here. X-Men 2 and Mission: Impossible 2 actually stand taller than their predecessors. It's just a fact. 🙂

Let’s be clear: we aren't discussing the technical quality of any single motion picture here. We are addressing a phenomenon. I am requesting that all comments and personal perspectives regarding the film be kept strictly within their designated threads. Please, stay on topic.

Quote : a Matrix

The Matrix is a whole different beast entirely... If you ask me, I’d have categorized the sequels as mere spin-offs rather than true continuations. There wasn't really a compelling necessity for them to exist in the first place. The Matrix Reloaded and The Matrix Revolutions aren't just "upgraded versions" of The Matrix; they are simply their own separate entities.

They’re all just sequels at this point—nothing more than iterations two and three. The first one always stands alone; it serves as the benchmark against which everything else is measured.

wiredranger30 said:Well, he actually asked "what's the point," which implies he doesn't see the point and is begging for an explanation (which you didn't bother giving), and you're only drawing that conclusion because he listed the "wrong" third installments 🙂. Let me guess, those "wrong" ones are Indiana Jones, Star Wars, and maybe even Rocky .

You have a point; my apologies to feralorca82, but I can't shake the feeling he was using that question rhetorically just to be contrarian rather than asking it sincerely.

So, what we are discussing here is a phenomenon—separate threads exist for specific movie discussions—that has exploded since the year 2000: the hyper-production of massive hits that weren't originally conceived as tight trilogies (unlike LOTR or Star Wars). Essentially, once a certain success occurs, there is a frantic race for sequels (averaging about a 2-3 year gap) characterized by the requirement that every single entry must outdo the previous one in every conceivable way. This means the film isn't its own benchmark for quality; no movie is made to stand alone as its own entity, but rather serves as a sort of technical upgrade to the predecessor (a "MKII" or "MKIII"). It keeps the same foundation but polishes, sharpens, and surpasses everything established by the first. In other words, it is a race against oneself—a repetitive loop of the exact same model.

Consequently, everything follows a linear progression, a kind of exponential curve.

The first film:
- characters
- plot
- set design

The second film:
- characters^2
- plot^2
- set design^2

The third film:
- characters^2^2
- plot^2^2
- set design^2^2

and so on.

There is nothing inherently new in them; they simply take the old elements and double them in every aspect compared to the last one.

To this list, I would add the second and third Matrix films, the second and third X-Men films, the second and third Mission: Impossible films, etc.

After watching Pirates of the Caribbean 2, I thought to myself, "How on earth are they going to top this content-wise in the third installment when this is already the ceiling—the absolute limit of what a viewer's brain can process as audiovisual information?"
That is precisely the attempt occurring in Pirates of the Caribbean 3, where they try to outdo themselves, outdoing what has already been surpassed, which results in an extreme nihilism toward everything the film attempts to express.
The film becomes a massive void, a form without substance, a nothingness that expands (inflates) and fills itself with that very emptiness.
The cash registers get full while the movies go empty.

Why does this matter? Let's not fall for the classic excuses that "it's all just for entertainment," because if anything reflects our society, it is the trends found in mass production, not in the niche or specialized realms of expression catering to marginal groups.

Mass production reflects the mass state, and the mass state then reflects mass production. One suggests the other in an infinite exchange (much like alternating current).

Because, the truth is, we can no longer blame the filmmakers for this; it is exactly what we want. We can no longer grasp a film as an independent work, seeing it only as a technical upgrade to the one before it.

This extends beyond trilogies as well. For instance, upcoming Transformers movies must be more technically impressive than, say, War of the Worlds, or any other surrounding films.

We have arrived at a fascinating phenomenon based on the linear advancement of cinematic technology, where only models and templates are swapped out. This isn't an isolated case; it is an instance of a global trend. In music, one song must be a technical modification of the previous artist's hit; in manufacturing, a Creative Zen must be a technical modification of the iPod (and a new iPod is just a technical modification of the old iPod); in art, a work must be more provocative than the one preceding it.

Everything has to accelerate—faster pacing, higher volumes, brighter lights, records being shattered left and right, and an endless stream of increasingly bizarre footage flooding YouTube. Why? Because the money has to keep piling up. That isn't the direct motive, mind you; it’s the indirect one. Once we finally broke through every technical barrier regarding how to "achieve" a cinematic look—once there was no longer a single technical hurdle standing between us and a finished film—we were left drifting in a world of pure nonsense. Now, all we can do is keep ramping up the speed within that void, simply so we don't accidentally stumble face-to-face with "The Reason."

feralorca82 said:So that's the point? 😕
Why specifically "new generation"? 👎
They aren't the first or the last...
What about, say, Star Wars Episode VI, Star Wars Episode III, Rocky III, Rambo III, Die Hard with a Vengeance, Alien 3, Friday the 13th Part III, Halloween III: Season of the Witch, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade...? Are we going to keep listing them forever? 👎

That is precisely why I use the phrase "new generation." The ones you listed are from previous eras, but I see you're missing the point entirely, given that you've cited "third installments" that don't even belong to that category.