![](/i/fill.gif) |
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
>> 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.
Ah, well, if Smith is actually going to *destroy* the Matrix rather than
just take control of it... yes, that would be bad.
>>>> 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?
No, it's puzzling that there's such a big variation in quality.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
>> 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.
Oh say, I'm just saying what Lucas claimed to have, not what he
*actually* had. ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
>> 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?
Well, perhaps...
> Besides, he really hates humans, so it's a bonus.
This didn't come across all that strongly. Certainly he enjoys killing
them, but I didn't get the impression that he's that hell-bend on
eliminating them all.
>> (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.
No, I'm pretty sure when the very first Star Wars film appeared, it said
"Episode IV: A New Hope" in the opening title sequence. I remember
wondering why...
>> 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.
So you disagree with every point made in that review then?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
>> 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.
Look who's talking.
> 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.
Do I have to go find a still from the movie just to prove a point?
> Kinda like the "Jurassic Park" syndrome: "ah, that's obviously CG!"
I thought JP was actually pretty good, mostly. (Some of the big "oh
look, it's a dinosaur" shots were a bit over-detailed, but that's about
all.)
> I'm pretty sure you didn't notice most of the CG doubles when they are
> not obvious.
Probably not. But in the Swarm of Smiths, I did, and it looked tacky.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
> 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".
You realise I've watched it several times, right?
It contains all the right stuff. It's just... not entertaining. Until I
watched this review, I couldn't really put my finger on why. Now I have
a clearer idea.
I didn't expect to enjoy the original film, but I did. The trailer for
the sequal looked great... but the actual film wasn't very good. Having
been disappointed with that, I was reluctant to bother watching the
final film. It turns out that it's slightly better - although still
nowhere near as good as the first.
> 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.
Right. Because it's not a requirement for a good film to actually make
sense.
Oh, wait... yes it is.
>> 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?
I repeat: "apparently some people really liked it". It seems readily
apparent to me that this is true, even if I have no idea *why* it's true.
> I don't find it cryptic at all. It's quite simple and straightforward.
Fair enough. You're entitled to your opinion.
> I enjoy movies which need some thinking.
I don't mind films that require some thinking. (Certain film producers
seem to believe any film which isn't 100% blindingly obvious won't be
popular - presumably because the audience are idiots.) What I detest is
films which deliberately don't tell you what happened. Some people
apparently think it's cool to make a movie where at the end the audience
is like "So... was it all a dream after all? Or did he really save the
world?" I really hate that.
I also hate films where everybody dies at the end. Or almost everybody.
I really enjoyed the Final Fantasy film, but the ending was
disappointing. (My collegue remarked that this is apparently *the exact
plot* of the computer games - which I've never really played.)
Thinking about it, the subsequent Matrix films tick both boxes: At the
end of the final film, almost everybody I was actually interested in is
dead, and with the sun rising on a new day in an apparently unchanged
Matrix, we're left wondering what the hell has happened. Is this just
the start of another cycle? Or has the world actually changed?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> Do I have to go find a still from the movie just to prove a point?
Yes, show me even a single one from the bunch which looks less detailed than a
videogame character in real-time. Then, take your time to also show me how they
are so low detailed that you can do better just with povray superellipsoids
perfect curves.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
nemesis wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
>> Do I have to go find a still from the movie just to prove a point?
>
> Yes, show me even a single one from the bunch which looks less detailed than a
> videogame character in real-time.
Oh how tedious...
> Then, take your time to also show me how they
> are so low detailed that you can do better just with povray superellipsoids
> perfect curves.
You realise that I lack the skill to model a human figure using any
known technology, right? I mean, I can't render one with a computer, I
can't draw one with a pencil, I can't sculpt one out of clay... The
human form is *far* too complex. The people who do this stuff for a
living get paid hansomly _for a reason_.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> Right. Because it's not a requirement for a good film to actually make
> sense.
You don't make sense in your criticisms of things you don't know. But ok, this
is art -- or mere entertainment, your choice -- not knowledge, so it's really up
to your taste.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
> > Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> >> Do I have to go find a still from the movie just to prove a point?
> >
> > Yes, show me even a single one from the bunch which looks less detailed than a
> > videogame character in real-time.
>
> Oh how tedious...
BS that. You always back off from your statements when confronted with straight
reasoning.
> > Then, take your time to also show me how they
> > are so low detailed that you can do better just with povray superellipsoids
> > perfect curves.
>
> You realise that I lack the skill to model a human figure using any
> known technology, right?
That's ok, you can just show me that squarish SDL phone of yours.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> >> 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.
> So you disagree with every point made in that review then?
Every point in the review dealt with the original trilogy?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |