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

Jerry Martin19 said:Really? 😢

And why didn't you say anything? 🧐

Because there’s nothing to say about this topic—just like any other thread Jango starts or jumps into—to make an actual point. They exist solely so Jango can curate an image for everyone else, and more importantly, for himself.

northerncrane4 said:Because there's really nothing to say about this thread, just like all the other ones Jango starts or jumps into. They're basically just there so Jango can try to look cool to everyone else, especially himself.

That’s between you two. I said what I said, end of story. Jango made an impression, and that's that. Me seeing one new thread doesn't change my mind about him. He made his mark early on, and I'm sticking to that. If you're seeing things differently now, that's your problem... I wasn't trying to "make an impression" or bait anyone into replying. I just said what was on my mind, whether people liked reading it or not.🙂

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.

feralorca82 said:So that's the whole point? 😕
Why specifically "next generation killers"? 👎
They aren't exactly the first or the last to ever do it...
What about things like 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...? I mean, do we really want to keep listing them all day? 👎

Don't you dare come for my Die Hard with a Vengeance or Indiana Jones 3 🙂

I guess the real secret to sequels is just having the same crew behind them, and I'm not even talking about the actors, but more like the directors, producers, and writers.

For instance, Die Hard with a Vengeance had McTiernan back at the helm, so the movie turned out totally cool. But then the fourth one was directed by some random nobody, so who knows how that would turn out...

Speaking of McTiernan, look at what happens when you try to swap an actor for someone "better" but downgrade the director instead: if you take the amazing Love in Red October and swap the lead for a mediocre Alec Baldwin, you end up with three pretty bland, forgettable movies starring Harrison Ford (shoot, I don't even remember their names, and I can't be bothered to check IMDb)

Or just look at The Terminator—as long as it's James Cameron, it works, but that third installment probably should have just stayed buried somewhere where nobody could find it. 😬

And Spider-Man has been a total mess from the jump, though maybe that could've been fixed if James Cameron had stepped in like he was originally supposed to.

Richard Howard2 said:Modern cinema, much like our own lives, has become obsessed with copying patterns rather than creating them. The plot follows a pre-written script, while the style itself becomes the only thing that matters. It’s all about staying within the current trend, a fractal loop where every element just tries to mimic the last one more perfectly. Instead of breaking down barriers of expression—even though we technically could—we're just locking ourselves deeper into these rigid, formulaic cages.

Movies have hit a wall because every possible way to express an idea has already been exhausted. I don't mean physically making every idea happen, but the actual capacity to realize any vision...
The irony is that because we *can* make anything today, we choose to make nothing except what's already been mapped out.

You aren't digging deep enough to find stuff you actually like. You're missing the massive pile of great works sitting in the background from the fifties, sixties, seventies, eighties, and nineties. You're too focused on whatever is currently "trending" (Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest, Spider-Man 3, Shrek Third…). You’re worried because those massive hits are what's front and center, but you don't realize they're the exception, not the rule—and even their glow is fading. You say you're observing this phenomenon without being able to stop it (and yeah, I know, I'm speaking 🙂 symbolically). You called them "Trios": the killers of new generation cinema, but you know damn well that this "new generation" will only destroy things if people keep feeding it. If these blockbusters bother you that much, go find some folks on the movie exchange forums; they’ve got plenty of fresh, solid stuff to watch. Nothing happens unless you participate in it. Honestly, the people feeding the machine are the ones feeling the impact; the rest of us who don't care (like me, I doubt I'll be watching any more Pirates of the Caribbean[/I[ anyway) aren't really affected. Good movies have always existed outside the mainstream, and they always will. You just have to look for them.

Regarding your "futuristic" take: maybe computers will make movies one day, though I think we're at least 150-200 years away from that being a reality. But there will always be people 🙂out there who have the guts and the drive to create something with their own hands and minds. !>Satir<! has a point, but don't be such a doom-and-gloom pessimist. 😉

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.

Richard Howard2 said:Personally, the most fascinating thing about society—in discussions at every level—is how the phrase "there's no accounting for taste" is treated like holy scripture, while people barely know how to talk about anything else besides their own individual preferences.

I know exactly which movies satisfy me, ranging from Ghost Dog to I, Robot, all the way to Attack of the Clones, Pirates of the Caribbean, and Shrek 2.

But can I ever actually convince someone that I don't want to talk about my tastes? Or stop starting topics and jumping into debates just to say what I love, what I hate, and how I feel about certain things?

It’s not even about taste. It’s about how some people (mostly you) complain about the "new wave" of films that are killing the industry, while simultaneously wanting to be part of that very movement. You get annoyed by Shrek Third but you're perfectly fine with Shrek 2 as if they're worlds apart, when they're basically the same caliber... or maybe just slightly different. You can't be against something if you're contributing to it. Basically, it's a "fight for peace" situation. Nobody is talking about taste here; if you think I am, please point out where I said that. 😉

That's a weak argument. I'm not talking about statistics; I'm talking about conceptual reach.

What you quoted isn't an argument, it's just the truth. A certain number of movies come out every year (don't want to throw out wrong numbers and look stupid 😛), and maybe only about 10 of them are in the same league as the films this thread started with—yet those are the ones you always land on. What else is there to say besides "that's your problem"? What's so incredible about sequel number two (Shrek 2, Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest, Spider-Man 3 etc.) that makes sequel number three such a massive disappointment? If you can explain that, it must be a masterpiece... 🙂

If I said the whole world is connected by a global computer network today, would you tell me it's not because most people (third-world countries, tribes, developing nations, the poor...) still don't use computers (which is statistically true!)?

Of course I'd tell you that, because it's the truth. Saying "the whole world is connected via the internet" sounds like a fairy tale. It's like saying "dip your finger in the ocean and you're connected to the whole world." 🙄

How do they say it? No hard feelings... 😛

While everyone here is busy debating whether Pirate 3 is the ultimate postmodern, ultra-media-saturated nail in the coffin of the seventh art, there's actually quite a buzz building up in the US about a totally different kind of film opening alongside it, Bug. It’s a new project from none other than William Friedkin. Some people are already calling it his best work in the last twenty years, while others feel the pacing is a bit too talky. I honestly wonder which generation of critics falls into that second camp... 😁 Apparently, the movie is incredibly unsettling, morbid, and intense—which is interesting considering it was adapted from a stage play.
The thing is, it's not just explosive blockbusters playing in theaters; it just feels that way because they're everywhere in the media. I still believe there's hope for cinema as an art form, and I don't think these massive, multi-million dollar spectacles are going to bury it for good (they've been around since movies started, and they aren't going anywhere).

Speaking of modern blockbusters that actually have some soul—has anyone caught Casino Royale yet? They stripped away everything the franchise used to stand for and basically delivered a movie that feels like it was filmed right on the heels of From Russia with Love. For my taste, Casino Royale is exactly what a blockbuster should be. Now, I can already hear Richard Howard2 arguing that personal taste is irrelevant here—that it’s just another formulaic product and just more proof that cinema is dead, and... (insert Jango's long-winded rant here). But honestly, this new Bond is such a breath of fresh air. He’s a character in a massive hit who actually feels human—he matures, he falls in love, he takes hits, and he's a different person by the end of the film... it's a real movie. It’s almost as if the template established by Goldfinger was never meant to be permanent, and we've finally landed back at the Bond we saw in the Dr. No era.

Sean Harris98 said:I honestly think you’re dealing with some serious issues here, because just because something is commercial doesn't mean it's bad. Why is it that people like you think anything that isn't low-budget is automatically trash? What you're saying makes zero sense. Fine, go ahead and Die Hard, but how on earth can you compare Pirates of the Caribbean to Spider-Man?! That's like asking why they even bothered making the second and third Lord of the Rings movies! (If you ask me, there wasn't even any point in making the second one—Die Hard style!) If you actually knew what you were talking about, you'd be chiming in at the right moments. Where were you when Titanic swept 11 Oscars? What were you doing when Ghost Rider hit theaters?

Those are the kinds of movies that deserve to be mocked.

Look, I'm not exactly a Disney fanatic or a blockbuster junkie myself, but I have to admit, I genuinely enjoyed all three Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest installments, much like I did with Spider-Man.

You haven't got a clue what you're talking about. You don't know me, and you clearly aren't even reading what I write. I don't sit around watching low-budget indies. My whole point on this thread is that when a movie has a massive budget, I expect massive quality to match. I don't know exactly how many millions they dumped into the CGI for Spider-Man or Pirates of the Caribbean, but it feels utterly pointless when everything looks so artificial—it ends up being total garbage. Since we're bringing up Die Hard, look at the first film: John McClane (played by Bruce Willis in a way that turned him into a legend, something you just don't see anymore) takes down the bad guys in nothing but a tank top and with bloody feet, no special effects or deep philosophy required. It was pure "run and gun" basketball logic. Now, look at this trailer for 4.0 (and check out that name...)... you've got CGI cars flying over heads. It's an insult to the human brain—or at least to those of us who actually use ours. I can swallow special effects if they actually serve a purpose (you know, if they fit the vision of the movie), but nowadays, every single scene is shot that way. These aren't films; they're just animated cartoons masquerading as movies, and they're incredibly stupid.

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...