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

nemesis <nam### [at] nospam-gmailcom> wrote:
> 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?

  Actually, in Jurassic Park 3 they used both animatronic puppets and CGI
dinosaurs, and you *can't tell them apart* (at least not when they are
standing in place, as the puppets obviously cannot run). It's basically
impossible to tell from a given, standing velociraptor, whether it's a
puppet or CGI.

  Anyone claiming that all the velociraptors seen in JP3 were CGI is
being a smartass and can be easily proven wrong.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   Anyone claiming that all the velociraptors seen in JP3 were CGI is
> being a smartass and can be easily proven wrong.

No one will claim that as animatronics are firmly entrenched in 
Hollywood.  JP 1 also used them a lot, particularly visible in the lying 
triceratops, feeding the brachiosaurus and close-ups on velociraptor 
heads and feet...

That's really the bane of CG:  with it you can do exactly what 
animatronics can't, namely, realistic movements.  Unfortunately, that 
also means dinosaurs running, spider-man doing his super-powered jumps 
and stunts etc... all of which are pretty obviously CG because you know 
you can't have that for real, there are no super heroes nor dinosaurs 
around.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis <nam### [at] nospam-gmailcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> >   Anyone claiming that all the velociraptors seen in JP3 were CGI is
> > being a smartass and can be easily proven wrong.

> No one will claim that as animatronics are firmly entrenched in 
> Hollywood.  JP 1 also used them a lot, particularly visible in the lying 
> triceratops, feeding the brachiosaurus and close-ups on velociraptor 
> heads and feet...

  My point was that in JP3 you really *can't* tell them apart. In JP1 you
could tell them apart if you watched carefully, but in JP3 the animatronics
are so well done that they look outright hyperrealistic and indistinguishable
from the CGI models. There are many scenes in which you could *swear* that
CGI was used but, wasn't.

  Personally I appreciate movies which go the extra mile of using "real"
special effects rather than computer-generated ones. That's one of the major
reasons why I liked the Planet of Apes remake so much: There was practically
no CGI used there (the only CGI used was in some space scenes as well as to
create a few backgrounds). Whenever you see eg. a monkey outrunning a
galloping horse, there's zero CGI there. What you see is what the camera
saw.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 17:43:17 -0200, nemesis wrote:

> 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.

I also found the quality of the models to be lacking in the "mass of 
Smiths" fight, so no, he's not full of BS.  It's just not as impressive 
as the earlier part of the fights to him (and to me).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 14:27:45 -0500, Warp wrote:

>> Didn't Lucas claim he actually had the story for all 6 films planned
>> out from the beginning?
> 
>   I don't think so.

I have a vague recollection of this as well, but I don't think it was 
planned out in detail.  But originally, it was 9 films, and the first 
three released were the middle group.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 19:23:50 +0000, Orchid XP v8 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?

As someone else said, Smith wants out.  Controlling the prison is the 
best way to engineer an escape.

>> 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...

Because without the Matrix, the people who are the "batteries" for the 
machines die.  No batteries, no power for the machines.

>>> 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.

Yep.

> Shrek 1: Rather good.
> Shrek 2: Really good.
> Shrek 3: Uh... yeah, it's OK I guess, but... You couldn't do better?

Admittedly, the third Shrek film advanced the CG, so for me, it was worth 
watching for that alone.

Jim

Post a reply to this message