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

Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> 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?

  You are doing a good job at making it sound like you have decided that
since you didn't like it the first time, you will never give it a second
chance and try to understand it better so that, maybe, you could perhaps
start liking it in retrospect. In other words, "I hate it, and I will
always hate it no matter what you say; I refuse to like it".

  If you decide that you will never like it, that's fine. It's your
prerogative. However, you shouldn't bash the film if you don't understand
it. Just because something doesn't make sense to you (maybe because you
outright refuse to understand it) doesn't mean that nobody else understands
it either or finds it enjoyable.

> 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...

  Do you really think they would have got money for 9 whole seasons if
people didn't like it?

> >> 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?

  That's because you haven't watched that scene again, listening what the
Architect character is saying. It's quite straightforward. You are talking
as if my explanation was far-fetched interpretation of a vague philosophical
monologue, but it isn't: It's quite straightforward and clear once you start
listening to it.

  (It also helps understanding it when you know the rest of the movies.
For example Smith's monologue when he speaks to Morpheus in the first
movie helps, as well as many things the Merovingian says.)

> 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).

  I don't find it cryptic at all. It's quite simple and straightforward.

> 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.

  It can be rewarding if you come up with a realization, and you start
understanding the idea. You start appreciating the subtleties of the movie
more. What could be more rewarding?

  I enjoy movies which need some thinking.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> 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?

You are obviously full of BS.  Models and renders are friggin' well done 
-- you can even see sweat in the skin.  The only reason you notice they 
are CG is because they are moving like no human being could ever move, 
even with the help of wires.

Kinda like the "Jurassic Park" syndrome:  "ah, that's obviously CG!" 
Really, smartass?  What gave you that impression?  The fact that there 
are no running dinossaurs around so we could film them to be that 
realistic moving on screen?

I'm pretty sure you didn't notice most of the CG doubles when they are 
not obvious.  In particular, Neo's "super-man" flight in the night sky 
right in the beginning is pure CG, no Keanu whatsoever.  He could be 
easily suspended in wires, but while movement is pretty smooth and 
natural once he bursts into the clouds the abrupt change of pace between 
actor and CG could go bad... so, pure CG all along.

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >> 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?

  They built the enormous life simulator, and it's about to get destroyed,
and the billions of humans with it. Why would the Architect care?

  The Matrix exists for a reason, and it's about to get destroyed.

> >> 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's puzzling that they wanted to make a trilogy?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>   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?

This is actually BS if you ask me.  No author is ever 100% sure of where 
the work will lead them.  This is valid to Lucas, Tolkien, Toriyama or 
whomever claims a huge friggin work is all in their heads already in 
pristine form.

Post a reply to this message