The Trios": The ultimate movie killers of the new generation?

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.

Richard Howard2 said:Fair point—my bad, feralorca82—but I can't shake the feeling he was just using that question rhetorically to be contrarian, rather than actually asking anything?

So we're basically talking about this weird phenomenon—there are separate threads for specific movies, obviously—that really kicked off after the year 2000. It's this hyper-speed production of massive hits that weren't even planned to be trilogies from the jump (unlike *Star Wars* or *Lord of the Rings*). Once the first one hits big, everyone just rushes to make sequels every couple of years, right? But here's the kicker: every single one has to outdo the last one in every possible way. They aren't even standalone films anymore—they’re more like technical upgrades, kind of like an "MKII" or "MKIII" version where the core stays the same but they just polish, sharpen, and try to top the previous one. It's basically just a race against themselves—just the same model over and over again.

So everything’s just moving in a straight line—like some kind of exponential curve? Right.

The first one:
The characters—
The plot? Honestly, who cares?
The set design—honestly? Not great.

The second film - character ^ 2... really?
the second film - character ^ 2
The plot? Please. Who actually cares about that?
The set design—honestly? Not even worth mentioning.

The third one?
the second film - character ^ 2
The plot—if you can even call it that? —is basically non-existent.
The set design—honestly? Just... wow.

It’s the same old story—nothing really changes, does it?

So basically there’s nothing new here—just the same old stuff doubled up in every single way compared to the last one. Is anyone actually surprised?

I’d probably throw in the sequels to The Matrix, the X-Men movies, and the Mission: Impossible series too—just to round things out, right?

Just finished watching Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest, and honestly—how the hell are they supposed to top this in the third one? Like, isn't this basically the ceiling for how much audiovisual chaos a human brain can actually process at once?
It’s basically what happens in Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End—they try so hard to outdo themselves that they end up outdoing stuff that was already overdone... which just leaves you with this massive wave of nihilism regarding whatever the movie was even trying to say in the first place.
A movie just turns into this massive void—like, all form and zero substance—expanding until it’s basically just inflating itself with nothingness. Makes you wonder, right?
The cash registers are filling up, but the movie theater's looking pretty empty. What gives?

Why does this actually matter? Let’s not fall for that tired excuse that it’s all just "entertainment"—if anything reflects our society, it’s the trends in mass-marketed junk, not those niche, specialized pockets of art meant for marginalized groups.

Mass production reflects mass consumption, and mass consumption reflects mass production—it’s just a constant loop, like alternating current. Makes sense, right?

Look, the thing is—we can't even blame the directors anymore. It’s exactly what we’re asking for, isn't it? We just can't wrap our heads around a movie that stands on its own—it’s always just some technical upgrade from whatever came before.

That’s exactly why they start branching out beyond the trilogies—it's all about that scale. Like, the upcoming Transformers needs to be technically insane compared to something like World War or anything else in that orbit, right?

We’re looking at this weird phenomenon where everything just follows a linear technical upgrade—basically just swapping out models and templates. It's not even an isolated thing, either; it's more like a global pattern. In music, a new track by Rihanna has to be some technical remix of what Nelly Furtado did before; in tech, a Creative Zen is just a tweak of an iPod (and let's be real, every new iPod is just a minor patch of the last one). Even in art, you're expected to top whatever provocation came before. Makes sense, right?

Everything needs to move faster—higher volumes, brighter lights, records getting shattered, and more weirdly specific clips popping up on YouTube constantly. Why? Because the money has to keep piling up. It’s not the direct goal, just the byproduct. Once we broke through every technical barrier of "how to make it happen" and realized there are no limits left to hit, we just landed in this meaningless void. So now, we just keep revving the engine to stay ahead of the curve—anything to avoid accidentally running into the "Reason."

Richard Howard2 said:I

So, what we're really discussing here is a phenomenon—though there are separate threads dedicated to those specific franchises—that has exploded since the turn of the millennium: this hyper-accelerated production of mega-hits. We aren't talking about projects meticulously planned as trilogies from the jump (like Star Wars or Lord of the Rings); rather, once a standalone hit takes off, studios dive headlong into a race for sequels. They usually aim for a two-to-three-year gap, but the catch is that every single installment is under immense pressure to outdo its predecessor in every conceivable way. .......

wiredranger30 said:
No need to "quote-spam" the whole thing.

You're right, everything tends to aim for being better, faster, or bigger than what came before—it's happening in every part of life, just like you said. But hasn't it always been that way?😕 I think it’s nothing new. Maybe the only real difference today is the sheer speed of it all. We live at such a frantic pace now, so everything happens much faster. Take movies, for example: it took the film Terminator twenty years to get to its third installment, whereas Spider-Man managed it in maybe two or three. But both franchises were still trying to outdo their predecessors, weren't they? My point is, what you said is true, but it isn't a new phenomenon. It's always been this way and always will be. So, personally, I don't see the point in stressing over it.

wiredranger30 said:
I don't want to "quote-spam" the entire thread here.

So, yeah, you're right—everything tends to aim for being better, faster, bigger, and so on, compared to what came before. It hits every single segment of life, just like you mentioned. But honestly, hasn't it always been that way??😕 If you ask me, this isn't some groundbreaking revelation. It’s nothing new under the sun. The only real shift, in my eyes, is the sheer velocity of it all. We’re living in an accelerated era where everything moves at breakneck speed, and that might be the only actual difference. Take movies, for example: it took the film Terminator twenty years to reach its third installment, whereas Spider-Man manages to churn out sequels in maybe two or three years. Yet, both franchises were clearly striving to outdo their predecessors, weren't they? I'm just saying, while your point is absolutely valid, it's hardly a new phenomenon because it’s been the status quo forever and always will be. So, personally, I don't see much point in stressing over it.

feralorca82 said:So that's the point? 😕
Why specifically "next generation killers"? 👎
They aren't the first or the last...
What about Star Wars: Return of the Jedi, Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith, Rocky III, Rambo III, Die Hard with a Vengeance, Alien 3, Friday the 13th Part III, Halloween III: Season of the Witch, or Indiana Jones 3? Should we just keep listing them? 👎

Charles Evans said:Comparing Terminator to Spider-Man is just nonsensical. It’s flawed on two levels—firstly, because of the sheer difference in quality, and secondly, because they represent entirely different philosophies regarding filmmaking and the industry at large. Movies like Spider-Man are essentially more like video games now; pretty soon, people will be looking for version updates or seasonal patches alongside the title. They'll be treating Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest like software that needs a patch by next year. 🙄

Charles Evans said:The whole reason they’re making Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines is just to wrap up the story.

Charles Evans said:Even by today's standards, Terminator 2: Judgment Day is still technically the best movie ever made. No modern blockbuster can touch those special effects.

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.

Richard Howard2 said:I’m with you there, though I’d probably tweak the wording just a bit: no movie out there today possesses special effects with that level of convincingness (which is a pretty radical departure from just saying they look "realistic").

I felt that exact same cinematic rush watching true lie. It’s basically Terminator's sibling when it comes to pure action and sheer spectacle.

nimblemarlin6 said:Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines was made purely for the paycheck. But honestly? I kind of dig it... It feels like an aging Arnold Schwarzenegger looking for an exit, packed with all those dumb plot holes that James Cameron would never let slide... but somehow, it’s got heart... 🙂

casualraven said:Just hang tight until the fourth one drops 🙏 😁