 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
> >> Neo is invincible. Smith is
> >> invincible. And they're fighting... why?
> >
> > For the future of the human race; humanity's survival. Fairly typical
> > messiah story plotline in that regard.
> How would defeating Smith alter humanity's survival?
All humanity is connected to the Matrix, Smith takes over the Matrix,
Smith hates humans. What is there to not to understand? What do you think
would happen if Smith succeeds?
> Do we really need 20 minutes of babbling about this? FWIW, I found the
> Morpheus speech in the first movie to be similarly pointless.
First you say that the Architect's speech was pointless, and then you
complain that you don't understand what the movies were about.
Maybe there's a correlation between those to things?
> Seriously, it looks like "OMG, this film was so popular! We MUST make a
> sequal! Hey, why not make it a trilogy?"
It's a sequel, not a sequal.
And the Warchowski brothers had the entire trilogy plotted out from the
very beginning. The only thing that happened was that they modified the
first movie's script to be a bit more independent just in case it was not
a success and executives wouldn't finance the two other parts.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> I think the sequals sucked for the same reason as the Star Wars
>> prequals: All the same characters are there, they're all doing the same
>> sort of stuff, but there is seemingly NO REASON for their actions. I
>> mean, something happens, they react to that, which causes something
>> else, so then they have to do this other thing... what are we working up
>> to again? I have no idea.
>
> Maybe you are simply refusing to understand the movies because of some odd
> principle? ("I have bashed this movie, I'm not going to back down now.")
>
>> Anyway, it's a free country, so you can like the Matrix sequals if you
>> want. Personally, I don't. ;-)
>
> That seems to be a common problem with you: Once you decide you don't like
> something, you won't back off, ever. You will refuse to even give it another
> try, even if someone tries to explain it to you.
yeah, exactly like his bashing against polygons. Despite tirelessly
being proven wrong, he just goes on like a mindless drone...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 00:48:57 -0500, nemesis wrote:
> I enjoyed the fights for their pure visual beauty.
I enjoyed most of the fights too because they were really well done. But
the fight I mentioned specifically goes into the realm of total-CG, and
at that point, it lost my interest. At that point it's just someone
manipulating models, and not the actor doing the work.
> They also serve the purpose of depicting how far above normality in the
> Matrix both Neo and Smith have progressed, getting pretty god-like and
> literally provoking earthquakes and hurricanes with their punches and
> kicks.
Oh, sure, the final fight in particular does that - but it just went on
for too long and depended too much on CG. When the CG screams out "I am
CG!", then it loses my interest.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Maybe you are simply refusing to understand the movies because of some odd
> principle? ("I have bashed this movie, I'm not going to back down now.")
Or how about "I didn't enjoy watching it"?
I mean, it's not like I *have* to like it. It's a free country, right?
I'm told there are people who actually *liked* the X-Files, for example.
I cannot begin to imagine why, but apparently some people really liked
it. Good for them...
>> So it's possible to construct an explanation which appears to make sense
>> in the context of the film. That's not the same as the film making sense.
>
> What I wrote was not a constructed explanation. It's almost exactly what
> the Architect is saying in the second movie. Just watch that scene again
> and listen to what he is saying, keeping in mind what I wrote.
For me, what you wrote is more like those people who try to "analyse"
the lyrics of the Beatles. Like, they sing "it's raining outside" and
some beardy professor goes "ah, yes, that's actually a reference to the
Nazis". Um, WTF?
Now, what you wrote isn't quite that crazy. The Architect clearly does
talk about choice and about how the Matrix has been redesigned a few
times. But he says everything extremely cryptically (for no obvious
reason). You could interpret his actual words as implying several
possible things. (Maybe that's deliberate? Apparently some movie makers
think it's actually cool to make a film where the audience isn't
actually sure what's going on.)
> Maybe you should give it another try rather than deciding that you didn't
> understand it, period. Outright refusing to do so and instead keep complaining
> about it is not smart.
You realise I've watched it several times, right?
Besides, it's not like it's my *duty* to understand it or like it. It's
entertainment. If I don't find it entertaining, why would I watch it
again? That doesn't seem smart.
> That seems to be a common problem with you: Once you decide you don't like
> something, you won't back off, ever. You will refuse to even give it another
> try, even if someone tries to explain it to you.
I believe that to be an over-generalisation.
> I don't really understand how Episode I was *boring*. Perhaps it didn't
> make too much sense, perhaps the story was shaky, perhaps it did not follow
> the steps of the first trilogy equally well (thus being a disappointment in
> that regard), but boring?
On one level, it had some quite entertaining moments. Unlike the other
guy, I actually *enjoyed* the "perfectly choreographed light saber
fights". But it wasn't particularly emotionally enguaging. I guess it
was OK the first time through, but little replay value.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 13:26:29 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>>> Neo is invincible. Smith is
>>> invincible. And they're fighting... why?
>>
>> For the future of the human race; humanity's survival. Fairly typical
>> messiah story plotline in that regard.
>
> How would defeating Smith alter humanity's survival?
By the end of the third film that question is answered: Neo taking on
Smith was because Smith was out of control in the Matrix and the
Architect couldn't control him any more. Neo could solve that, but as in
any negotiation (and the Merovingian said it best), in order to negotiate
both sides have to have something the other wants.
Neo wanted the war to end. The Architect wanted Smith dealt with. They
both got something they wanted.
> How would defeating
> Neo alter humanity's survival? The implications are not clear to me.
If Smith had beaten Neo, then the machines would've continued to attack
Zion until it was wiped out. What's more, from the Architect's speech in
the 2nd film, Neo was supposed to be there to help restart the human
race. Without him, that doesn't happen, and humanity dies.
>>> So they can meet the
>>> Architect...? Who does what...? Babbles some meaningless babble that
>>> doens't really mean a lot...?
>>
>> The Architect's speech for me basically boiled down to "people wouldn't
>> believe in the Matrix if it was too perfect or if there wasn't an
>> appearance of choice".
>
> Do we really need 20 minutes of babbling about this? FWIW, I found the
> Morpheus speech in the first movie to be similarly pointless.
To be sure, there is plenty of anvil-dropping that takes place during all
three films. (ie, hitting the audience over the head with something that
should be obvious just so they don't get lost).
> I think
> XKCD summed it up nicely:
>
> http://www.xkcd.com/566/
:-)
> Of course, if they just *told* Neo (and therefore the audience) what's
> going on, it wouldn't be such a cool movie I guess. By unplugging him
> and *then* explaining what's going on, he now has no way to go back.
> Which is kind of part of the interesting tension of the film.
I didn't really find that that created tension after Cypher was killed
off.
> The 3rd one is at least moderately interesting. The 2nd one just sucks
> though.
I don't know, from a story standpoint the second is weaker than the first
(as is the third). I would've liked them to do more with the twins and
creatures of that sort. I think the second works better if you have
previously watched The Animatrix and at least had a look at the video
game. That was also one of the problems that 2&3 had - you could jump in
and watch them without TA and the VG, but they make less sense than if
you do.
> Seriously, it looks like "OMG, this film was so popular! We MUST make a
> sequal! Hey, why not make it a trilogy?"
Except that isn't how it happened; they planned to do 3 from the start,
AFAICR.
> I guess it's not that unusual for a sequal to be substantially worse
> than the original. It's disappointing though...
It is fairly common, unfortunately - there are few sequels that come out
better than the original.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> Oh, sure, the final fight in particular does that - but it just went on
> for too long and depended too much on CG. When the CG screams out "I am
> CG!", then it loses my interest.
The "swarm of Smiths" in Reloaded was just silly. He's surrounded by
2,000 Smiths, and yet at any second only 2 or maybe 3 of them are
actually attacking him. Um, why? But more to the point, about halfway
through it goes into surprisingly poor CGI. You'd think these guys could
do CGI so well you couldn't even tell, but this stuff looks worse than
some computer games that are rendered in realtime. WTF?
*yawn*
Yeah, we get it. Two imortal, unkillable entities fighting. Gee, I can't
*wait* to see what the outcome is... (As if there's any possibility
other than stalemate.)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 14:23:15 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> In the first movie, Neo destroys an agent - something which is seemingly
> unprecedented and has never happened before. But right at the start of
> the 2nd movie... oh, no, he's not destroyed, in fact it's basically like
> that battle never happened. Oh well, never mind.
Except that Smith is unplugged as a result of Neo not dying but instead
beating him - Neo "destroying" him at the end of the first film is the
catalyst for what happens in the next two films (and what's really
supposed to happen to humanity, according to the Architect).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> How would defeating Smith alter humanity's survival?
>
> All humanity is connected to the Matrix, Smith takes over the Matrix,
> Smith hates humans. What is there to not to understand? What do you think
> would happen if Smith succeeds?
From what I've seen, it's more like Smith hates having to stay in the
Matrix, and he really wants to leave it. So he's taking over it... why?
Sure, he certainly doesn't hold humans in high regard either. I'm sure
he wouldn't mind killing a few billion of them just for fun. But he
seemed far more motivated by wanting to escape the Matrix.
I actually have no idea what would happen if Smith took over the whole
Matrix. I mean, each duplicate Smith is... what? A random human
possessed by Smith's image? So...? Hmm.
(Now here, the first film spent quite some time explaining exactly what
the Agents are and how they work. But in the following films you just
have to sort of guess or make up what you think is happening.)
> First you say that the Architect's speech was pointless, and then you
> complain that you don't understand what the movies were about.
>
> Maybe there's a correlation between those to things?
Perhaps. But the first film managed to explain the world through, you
know, the *story*, the events that happen in it, without requiring a
half-hour exposition in the middle.
> And the Warchowski brothers had the entire trilogy plotted out from the
> very beginning.
OK, that's interesting.
Didn't Lucas claim he actually had the story for all 6 films planned out
from the beginning? (Which is why the very first film is Episode IV.)
And yet, the first three are celebrated classics, and the prequals are
all almost unanimously regarded is inferior?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> How would defeating Smith alter humanity's survival?
>
> By the end of the third film that question is answered: Neo taking on
> Smith was because Smith was out of control in the Matrix and the
> Architect couldn't control him any more.
The Matrix is just the prison where they put the humans. If Smith takes
over that prison... so what? Why would the Architect care?
> Neo wanted the war to end. The Architect wanted Smith dealt with. They
> both got something they wanted.
So if Neo defeats Smith they call off the attack on Zion. Now it makes
sense that Neo would want to beat Smith... Still not completely sure why
the Architect cares about Smith or the contents of the Matrix... Or how
Neo manages to beat him, actually. They're both invincible...
>> Seriously, it looks like "OMG, this film was so popular! We MUST make a
>> sequal! Hey, why not make it a trilogy?"
>
> Except that isn't how it happened; they planned to do 3 from the start,
> AFAICR.
Yeah, that's puzzling.
> It is fairly common, unfortunately - there are few sequels that come out
> better than the original.
But when it happens, it's very, very cool.
Shrek 1: Rather good.
Shrek 2: Really good.
Shrek 3: Uh... yeah, it's OK I guess, but... You couldn't do better?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >> How would defeating Smith alter humanity's survival?
> >
> > All humanity is connected to the Matrix, Smith takes over the Matrix,
> > Smith hates humans. What is there to not to understand? What do you think
> > would happen if Smith succeeds?
> From what I've seen, it's more like Smith hates having to stay in the
> Matrix, and he really wants to leave it. So he's taking over it... why?
Wouldn't it be slightly easier to escape if you control the prison
completely?
Besides, he really hates humans, so it's a bonus.
> Didn't Lucas claim he actually had the story for all 6 films planned out
> from the beginning?
I don't think so.
> (Which is why the very first film is Episode IV.)
It was renamed in retrospect. The original title was simply "Star Wars".
It might even be possible Lucas hadn't plotted even the two sequels to
that yet.
> And yet, the first three are celebrated classics, and the prequals are
> all almost unanimously regarded is inferior?
There's a thing called nostalgia filter.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
