Posts by Richard Howard2

Arthur Barnes said:Just finished watching it for the first time. 😢

My immediate thought after the credits rolled was, "What idiot actually decided a sequel to Odyssey was a good idea?" 😢

Look, the film is fine. The atmosphere works and all that, but man, that "profound message" at the end—this whole reconciliation between Russ and the Americans... I was practically waiting for Steven Seagal to show up, slice the monolith with a knife, and have the Russian astronaut fall into Dr. Floyd's arms in some hibernation chamber. 🙄
Odyssey 2010 is just... beyond human comprehension. It was far too much pressure to try and make something that carries the "Odyssey" name. If it tries to be similar, it fails; if it tries to be different, it still fails. However, viewed strictly as its own entity, the movie holds up. The mistake is attempting to provide answers. In the end, HAL wasn't the villain; the monoliths create another sun 🙂, not to mention everything else.

On another note, I agree with Yang regarding the audio-visuals. Regardless of how imaginative it gets, witnessing the travel sequence is an experience 😵 you simply cannot afford with a book due to the inherent limitations of the medium. 👋

I actually found myself rewatching the film a few days ago as well...

Of course, as you pointed out, that whole Italian-Americans vs. Russians subplot is irritating. Given it was the height of the Cold War back then, it seems no director, regardless of context, was spared from that trope...

But setting that aside... I found myself weeping once again over the grim reality that true SF doesn't exist anymore. Everything I see now is just blatant CGI, excessive pacing, and a mountain of explosions. Physical realism paired with a restrained approach, yet consistently maintaining its spectacle "by itself"—those are the hallmarks of this film. There is no buffoonery, no forced action, no overacting—just pure focus and serious thematic development. It is quite simply a pleasure to watch.

And as I have mentioned before, there is such a vast selection of SF literature that could serve as blueprints for excellent and spectacular adaptations, but no... for the last 15 years, we have merely witnessed the recycling of the same old themes through extreme stereotypes...

Oh, where has my SF gone? 😢

lepa.pametna@neudata said:You're talking nonsense. What kind of "drilling holes" is Titanic preaching, the most profitable film of all time?

(Oops! )

> isn't the most profitable film ever. It’s just the highest grossing one (in terms of box office, obviously). Profitability is measured by the ratio of investment versus return, and in that regard, >'s earnings are only three times better than its budget... (a factor of 3) which is excellent, sure, but > beats it out easily (factor of 4)...

No, the most profitable film is undoubtedly > (a factor greater than 2000!), making it actually the biggest > of all time. 😁

quietdriver3 said:my sarcasm detector is giving me mixed signals

I honestly don't know how to interpret them. 🙂

There isn't any sarcasm here. I am being serious.

quietdriver3 said:a match between Bob Sapp and a piece of lumber (they occupy the same intellectual tier)

I am not sure if you are aware, but Bob Sapp is actually an academically trained intellectual...

Ethan Perez97 said:Bill Paxton is literally the only guy who can claim he's been taken out by an Alien, a Predator, AND a Terminator... Fucker.👍

Though, honestly, his best performance was playing that pathetic, fake secret agent in True Lies... I had a good laugh at that one.

It’s the exact same dilemma we see with 2001: A Space Odyssey and its follow-ups—you simply cannot engineer a consistent sequel to a cult classic!

The first installment stands as a timeless masterpiece, whereas the long stretch that follows feels more like a tedious school project. It’s characterized by being decent enough to watch, but frankly, nothing more than that...

There have always been exceptions, of course—think Aliens or Terminator 2 (if you happen to notice they both share a specific article in their titles).

Henry Martin10 said:When he enters the spaceship, one of them looks like it came straight from an Alien movie, doesn't it?

Yes. That was definitely intentional.

Tuco-il said:In my view, the issue with the local multiplexes is a combination of stagnant management that’s been coasting for years and an overall lack of quality in their recent film lineup.
I remember a time when I actually frequented the theater quite often, but lately, there just hasn't been anything worth watching at the local cinemas.
Back when the Oscar season was in full swing, I found myself going three times in a single week, though I certainly can't sustain that kind of pace.
It felt like we were being flooded with nothing but mediocre sequels and generally subpar productions.
Personally, I don't find a $16 ticket to be overpriced, considering the ambiance and the viewing experience you get in a theater setting.

It is this exact type of inertia that causes cities like Indianapolis to decline...

Every time I find myself visiting there, I feel as though I am falling into some sort of black hole of desolation and lifelessness...

analogcobra31 said:Those old-school theaters are really only good for screening vintage cult classics. If you want to see modern releases, you go to AMC Theatres. Who in their right mind would sit through Lord of the Rings or The Matrix in a place like that? Besides, tickets aren't exactly cheap. You can just download just about any movie for free on a P2P network without wasting money on a ticket... They need to offer way more value if they want people to show up.

Well, they aren't even that old...

Both spots were renovated recently—especially the one in Europe, which actually has surround sound and a totally updated layout. I’d say they are maybe a step or two below something like a Broadway theater in New York City, but honestly, it's still a better experience than most of the theaters you find around America.

Sandra King86 said:It’s sad news. 😢
But why aren't people going to the movies in Indianapolis? I mean, is there an actual reason—bad equipment, maybe the building is falling apart or something? 😕

The truth is, going to the theater just isn't what it used to be, and frankly, Indianapolis is a dead end when it comes to nightlife or anything remotely entertaining.

That brings up the question of why things work differently in New York City. In NYC, hitting the cinema is actually part of the whole "going out" ritual. Take AMC Theatres, for example; it functions as a social hub where you go to see and be seen. It’s a magnet for everyone from local celebrities to just regular crowds, offering all these extra amenities. The movie itself becomes almost secondary to the experience. At the end of the day, it doesn't even matter what's playing on the screen; the main point is simply being at AMC Theatres...

Brian Foster2 said:I don't see why my question would be stupid or pointless. Your previous response was exactly like this. My question is objective; I am interested in the consensus, yet your answer is quite subjective—give me a break. I expected a conclusion roughly like this, where the original prevails, though there are remakes out there which have actually been getting better and better lately.

I didn't come here to lecture anyone on my opinion; I just want to know what others think. Okay, no fight!

Everything is fine.

Still, I maintain my stance that the question itself is meaningless. You are asking something general and undefined; you are inquiring about attributes without providing a subject.

Of course, practice suggests otherwise, and people here certainly provide their own views, but that doesn't prove the question has substance. Essentially, they take those vague concepts you've posed and attach them to their own specific examples.

Here is an illustration: someone asks me, "Do you like a lot or a little?" and I respond, "Well, I like a little because I once drank too much Budweiser and the hangover nearly killed me..." while someone else replies, "I like a lot because you can never have enough horsepower in a Mustang..."

Get it?

But I don't wish to descend too deeply into philosophy... just discuss things, but do not be surprised when both viewpoints end up being riddled with exceptions...

Whether a remake is superior to the original isn't determined by a cinematic attribute, but by the film itself! We have plenty of examples of terrible originals, better remakes, and vice versa. The fact that they are a remake or an original does not define them as good or bad.

That question is just plain stupid and completely pointless.

It’s like asking if someone prefers old or new, more or less, empty or full... but more importantly, what exactly are we talking about?

What kind of answer are you even expecting from anyone at this point?

kentaur said:It’s because they blast it so loud it pierces right through your headphones. So while you’re commuting to work, you’re stuck listening to absolute garbage for at least half an hour, and you can’t even escape because the bus is packed. That's why.

Even back home or in Istanbul, people do whatever they want—jumping around like maniacs just to the sound of some cheap accordion music if that’s what entertains them.

I second that. People should be free to listen to whatever they want, but there is absolutely no way we should have this stuff forced upon us. It’s the same principle with playing this kind of music in public spaces; honestly, it ought to be banned.

I haven't noticed fans of any other genre forcing their tastes on everyone else like this, but these pop-country types are always the loudest. You can hear them from miles away, echoing across every valley and hill in the country.

Hah, you all have such trivial problems...

Try riding one of those city buses in Chicago, where the drivers blast public radio at full volume—everyone from the front to the back has to endure it, as if the entire transit authority were some sort of organization dedicated solely to listening to that kind of music.

It is nothing short of unprofessional idiocy and blatant disrespect toward the public that really ought to be penalized. Honestly, that used to be the norm about five years ago; since then, I haven't seen anyone actually change a thing.

otO said:I haven't gotten around to any more Wes movies yet. Rushmore wasn't really my thing, though I have to say, Bottle Rocket is absolutely fantastic.🙏

If fate allows, I suppose I'll finally sit down and watch Life Aquatic this Monday.

Yeah, I saw Rushmore too. It falls into that specific category of films that I recognize as being good, yet I find them almost impossible to actually sit through.

I haven't spent much time exploring the filmography of Wes Anderson. To be honest, I sat through The Royal Tenenbaums once and found it utterly tedious—just a confusing, aimless little photographic excursion that failed to land for me. However, Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou was a completely different story; it actually resonated. It seems Anderson's specific aesthetic has finally clicked in my brain after all this time.
A must-watch, in my opinion.

William Castillo19 said:I'm actually browsing through some Picasso paintings online right now... I've looked at about ten of them and I feel like I'm getting a decent sense of his style... I mean, you have to respect the technical quality, but man, they are depressing. Just straight up depressing.

So, Picasso sucks?

Picasso didn't just produce depressive art.

William Castillo19 said:But... you’ve never actually listened to Radiohead... how can you even comment on something you haven't heard?🙄

I have! Just a few weeks back, VH1 ran a top 10 countdown of their tracks. It gave me a decent look at their performance style—and honestly, they are just pure, depressive wailing.

Credit where credit is due regarding the musical quality, but depressing is depressing.

The first time I sat down to watch Koyaanisqatsi, my immediate thought was: this might actually be the greatest film ever captured on celluloid.

My perspective hasn't shifted since that moment. Perhaps the error lies in our insistence that a film requires characters, a plot, or a traditional narrative arc to hold weight. Once you sit with it and analyze the structure, you realize the Qatsi trilogy possesses all those elements, just through an entirely different conceptual lens.

There is a strange psychological tendency to dismiss these works as mere documentaries while ignoring their cinematic artistry, though logic suggests otherwise.

If one accepts it as a legitimate piece of cinema, then it truly is—as Ethan Howard45 pointed out—an absolute masterpiece.

One could debate this work indefinitely. From its breathtaking cinematography to its deep philosophical undertones, this audiovisual symphony stands as perhaps the most significant achievement in the history of motion pictures.

Listen, if anyone is interested, I have the original DVDs of Koyaanisqatsi and Powaqatsi in my collection.

Ashley Brown81, send me a private message if you're interested in a trade.