>> 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

>> 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

>>  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

>> 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

>   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

Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> 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

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

Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> 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

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

Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> 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