 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> Now we need him to analyse The Matrix Reloaded. Although, really, I
> guess there's not much to analyst.
Reloaded was greatly misunderstood and got a lot of negative hype soon
after release because it was *different* from the illusion people had for
a Matrix sequel. In other words, it suffered from "they changed it, now
it sucks" syndrome (even though they really didn't change anything).
With time, thought, most people ended up accepting it as an enjoyable
sequel (and moved onto bashing the third film, for similar reasons).
> Neo is invincible. Smith is
> invincible. And they're fighting... why?
Smith has gone rogue and he absolutely hates the guts of Neo. Thus he
wants to hurt him bad. It makes perfect sense for Smith to fight Neo.
Why does Neo fight back? Because Neo has grown cocky. He thinks he is
untouchable (after all, agents can do nothing against him) and invincible,
so he is ready to teach this rogue Smith another lesson in humility. He
ends up getting such a lesson himself.
Of course later Smith is becoming a real threat to all humanity, so he
has to be stopped, so why wouldn't Neo fight him?
> And they want the Keymaker because...?
Because the Oracle told them so. Because they need to get to the Architect.
> He makes keys...? That do what...?
To get to parts of the Matrix not normally accessible.
> So they can meet the
> Architect...? Who does what...? Babbles some meaningless babble that
> doens't really mean a lot...?
Maybe you should start listening to what he says in detail? It makes a
lot of sense when you try to understand it.
The machines need people to be conscious (the reason given in the first
movie, using humans as energy sources, is completely bogus and AFAIK a
result of executive meddling; the Wachowski brothers originally had a
more logical explanation, but it was scrapped because executives thought
viewers are morons and wouldn't understand it). In order for people to be
conscious and not go crazy (which happens if you keep people locked in
solitary confinement), they created this life simulator. The Architect
was the main developer.
Now, what the Architect created was a perfect world where nothing bad
happens ever, but much to his surprise people started dying, and he couldn't
understand why.
He concluded that the simulated world was too good, too perfect, and the
human mind needs problems, confrontations and crises in order to keep sane.
A perfect life seemed to bore people out of their minds, making them
perform unconscious suicide.
So he created a second version of the matrix, one which was like a
nightmare, with monsters and werewolves and vampires (it's implied that
this is where such stories are from)... And also this was a similar failure.
A different program, here named "Oracle" came up with the real reason:
What people need is not problems and confrontations. What they need is
choice. If you completely remove the human capacity for true choice, the
mind rebels against the situation in the only possible way it can (by
dying).
So the third version of the matrix was built with a genuine choice for
all people, even though this choice was to be made at a near subconscious
level: They could choose to escape from the matrix, or choose to believe
the world they were experiencing was real.
This capacity of making a subconscious choice seemed to be enough to
keep people happy and alive. Of course a few people actually chose to
escape, which is the whole point of the series. The Architect allows them
to escape because else they wouldn't have a real choice. (It's never clearly
explained why this has an effect, but I assume that some kind of supernatural
connection between all human consciousness could be implied.)
This setup had yet another unexpected side-effect: Neo. (Again, it's not
clearly explained why, but again it could be implied as some kind of
supernatural global consciousness of the entire humanity thing.)
Neo is the culmination of free choice of all humanity, and Neo must be
given the choice of continuing the cycle (his consciousness is fused with
the "Source" and eventually a new Neo pops up some time in the future) or
try to free the entire humanity and defeat the machines.
(Apparently Neo must be given the choice only if he reaches the Architect.
If he dies in the process, that's ok. A new Neo is born eventually again,
and the cycle continues. That's why the agents don't have any problem in
trying to kill Neo. Killing him is just beneficial because it gives them
more time until the next Neo tries to reach the Architect.)
If you think about the above explanation, and then listen to the
Architect's explanation in the movie carefully, you'll see how he is
explaining exactly what I wrote above. Try it. It's enlightening.
> And after that happens, the thing we've
> been trying to achieve since the film started... What happens?
Neo chooses to try to save humanity, unlike his predecessors. The reason
is that this Neo is different (he has a girlfriend).
> Not a
> lot, really...? So... uh... I've just watched several hours of film and
> I *still* don't know anything I didn't know before. In fact, the film
> has undone several of the things that were cool about the one before.
You simply didn't understand. Try it again.
> The first film made it look like Neo had transcended the Matrix and was
> now an actual threat to the Agents and that big things were going to
> change. But in Reloaded, it looks like the Matrix is now more or less
> deserted, other than millions of copies of Smith, so do we even give a
> **** what happens there any more?
Aren't you talking about the third movie now? That was not Reloaded.
> ...um, except that's not what happens in Reloaded. In fact, it seems to
> fall into the trap of constructing a universe which either lacks rules,
> or at least the rules aren't explained. Why would anybody give a fig
> about a pair of invincible fighters fighting each other until one or the
> other gets bored?
Maybe the point of the sequel was not to repeat the first movie, but
to explain things instead? If you want the first movie again, then watch
it again.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> Because the keys he makes open the system backdoors.
Am I the only one that laughed as soon as the keymaker opened the door, and
didn't have to wait for someone to say "back door"?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> The thing that surprised me during the rewatch that I hadn't noticed
> before was who was left after the big fight at the end of Revolutions.
> When it first came out, I thought it was Neo. It isn't, and that
> actually changed the ending for me rather significantly when I noticed
> who it was.
How could you not notice that?!
I enjoyed the whole trilogy, down to the storyline and details. But yeah, the
novelty of seeing a whole new world unveiling right in front of your eyes as in
the first was obviously gone in the sequels.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 16:45:55 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Because the keys he makes open the system backdoors.
>
> Am I the only one that laughed as soon as the keymaker opened the door,
> and didn't have to wait for someone to say "back door"?
Nope, I picked up on that before they said it. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 20:48:37 -0500, nemesis wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> The thing that surprised me during the rewatch that I hadn't noticed
>> before was who was left after the big fight at the end of Revolutions.
>> When it first came out, I thought it was Neo. It isn't, and that
>> actually changed the ending for me rather significantly when I noticed
>> who it was.
>
> How could you not notice that?!
I made an assumption on my first viewing and didn't look that closely
when the close-up shot happened.
> I enjoyed the whole trilogy, down to the storyline and details. But
> yeah, the novelty of seeing a whole new world unveiling right in front
> of your eyes as in the first was obviously gone in the sequels.
Yes, but I don't think that was the thing that made the second and third
films less interesting to me; I think the first story was a very well-
written story, but the second and third had too much exposition. That
and the fight scenes between Neo and Smith were too far over the top in
the last two films. For example, in the second film right after Neo
meets with the Oracle again, there's a point where here we all just say
"OK, we get it, stop dropping anvils on our heads". The same with the
final fight sequence in Revolutions.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 18:55:23 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Nowadays when you
> can control absolutely everything and have whatever you might want show
> up on screen, no matter how crazy, it easily derails the directing. The
> director might get so enthralled by his own omnipotence to get whatever
> he wants on screen that he forgets that he should actually be filming a
> story, not a computer graphics demonstration.
Well said; one of the things I really like is when the effects are
invisible. We just watched the first and second Bourne movies again, and
I was quite amazed watching the credits to see ILM credited with VFX
work. I couldn't name a scene with ILM VFX in it, that's how well done
the effects were - they didn't jump out and scream "I'm CGI! I'm a
special effect, look at me!" - they helped tell a very well-written story.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 20:48:37 -0500, nemesis wrote:
>
> > Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> >> The thing that surprised me during the rewatch that I hadn't noticed
> >> before was who was left after the big fight at the end of Revolutions.
> >> When it first came out, I thought it was Neo. It isn't, and that
> >> actually changed the ending for me rather significantly when I noticed
> >> who it was.
> >
> > How could you not notice that?!
>
> I made an assumption on my first viewing and didn't look that closely
> when the close-up shot happened.
>
> > I enjoyed the whole trilogy, down to the storyline and details. But
> > yeah, the novelty of seeing a whole new world unveiling right in front
> > of your eyes as in the first was obviously gone in the sequels.
>
> Yes, but I don't think that was the thing that made the second and third
> films less interesting to me; I think the first story was a very well-
> written story, but the second and third had too much exposition. That
> and the fight scenes between Neo and Smith were too far over the top in
> the last two films. For example, in the second film right after Neo
> meets with the Oracle again, there's a point where here we all just say
> "OK, we get it, stop dropping anvils on our heads". The same with the
> final fight sequence in Revolutions.
I enjoyed the fights for their pure visual beauty.
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.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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? How would defeating
Neo alter humanity's survival? The implications are not clear to me.
>> 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. 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.
>> So... uh... I've just watched several hours of film and
>> I *still* don't know anything I didn't know before. In fact, the film
>> has undone several of the things that were cool about the one before.
>
> That was my first impression of the 2nd and 3rd; I still don't feel they
> live up to the "promise" of the ending of #1 (and #1 is still the best in
> my book), but rewatching them, the story made a lot more sense to me now
> than it did when it came out.
The 3rd one is at least moderately interesting. The 2nd one just sucks
though.
Seriously, it looks like "OMG, this film was so popular! We MUST make a
sequal! Hey, why not make it a trilogy?"
I guess it's not that unusual for a sequal to be substantially worse
than the original. It's disappointing though...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Reloaded was greatly misunderstood and got a lot of negative hype soon
> after release because it was *different* from the illusion people had for
> a Matrix sequel. In other words, it suffered from "they changed it, now
> it sucks" syndrome (even though they really didn't change anything).
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.
> The machines need people to be conscious (the reason given in the first
> movie, using humans as energy sources, is completely bogus and AFAIK a
> result of executive meddling; the Wachowski brothers originally had a
> more logical explanation, but it was scrapped because executives thought
> viewers are morons and wouldn't understand it). In order for people to be
> conscious and not go crazy (which happens if you keep people locked in
> solitary confinement), they created this life simulator. The Architect
> was the main developer.
>
> Now, what the Architect created was a perfect world where nothing bad
> happens ever, but much to his surprise people started dying, and he couldn't
> understand why.
>
> He concluded that the simulated world was too good, too perfect, and the
> human mind needs problems, confrontations and crises in order to keep sane.
> A perfect life seemed to bore people out of their minds, making them
> perform unconscious suicide.
>
> So he created a second version of the matrix, one which was like a
> nightmare, with monsters and werewolves and vampires (it's implied that
> this is where such stories are from)... And also this was a similar failure.
>
> A different program, here named "Oracle" came up with the real reason:
> What people need is not problems and confrontations. What they need is
> choice. If you completely remove the human capacity for true choice, the
> mind rebels against the situation in the only possible way it can (by
> dying).
>
> So the third version of the matrix was built with a genuine choice for
> all people, even though this choice was to be made at a near subconscious
> level: They could choose to escape from the matrix, or choose to believe
> the world they were experiencing was real.
>
> This capacity of making a subconscious choice seemed to be enough to
> keep people happy and alive. Of course a few people actually chose to
> escape, which is the whole point of the series. The Architect allows them
> to escape because else they wouldn't have a real choice. (It's never clearly
> explained why this has an effect, but I assume that some kind of supernatural
> connection between all human consciousness could be implied.)
>
> This setup had yet another unexpected side-effect: Neo. (Again, it's not
> clearly explained why, but again it could be implied as some kind of
> supernatural global consciousness of the entire humanity thing.)
>
> Neo is the culmination of free choice of all humanity, and Neo must be
> given the choice of continuing the cycle (his consciousness is fused with
> the "Source" and eventually a new Neo pops up some time in the future) or
> try to free the entire humanity and defeat the machines.
>
> (Apparently Neo must be given the choice only if he reaches the Architect.
> If he dies in the process, that's ok. A new Neo is born eventually again,
> and the cycle continues. That's why the agents don't have any problem in
> trying to kill Neo. Killing him is just beneficial because it gives them
> more time until the next Neo tries to reach the Architect.)
>
> If you think about the above explanation, and then listen to the
> Architect's explanation in the movie carefully, you'll see how he is
> explaining exactly what I wrote above. Try it. It's enlightening.
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.
I was expecting the original film to be rubbish. Lots of guys posing
around in dark glasses and expensive suits, with gun-fu fighting and
slick special effects. Much to my surprise, the film was... really
gripping. And it ACTUALLY MADE SENSE. Contrary to what I was expecting,
by the end of the film you more or less understand why everything
happened. (Although it's deliberately mysterious initially.)
The sequals, however, consist mostly of mental fights, crazy special
effects, and cryptic dialog unrelated to the rest of the film. It just
isn't entertaining. Some of the fights are even more impressive than the
original, but since it's not clear what there is to gain or lose... I
find myself feeling "OK, this is an epic battle, but... I just don't
actually CARE any more. Even though I feel like I should care."
>> Not a
>> lot, really...? So... uh... I've just watched several hours of film and
>> I *still* don't know anything I didn't know before. In fact, the film
>> has undone several of the things that were cool about the one before.
>
> You simply didn't understand. Try it again.
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.
> Maybe the point of the sequel was not to repeat the first movie, but
> to explain things instead? If you want the first movie again, then watch
> it again.
I will admit that if Neo had just showed up, kicked arse and saved the
world - like we were all expecting - that would have taken, like, maybe
30 minutes, and would have been quite dull actually. But then, if you
don't have a compelling story to tell, don't bother making a movie?
I think both the Matrix and Star Wars can be understood on another
level: Cut density.
Look at the original Star Wars films, and there are lots of scenes which
could theoretically by cut shorter, but aren't. Now watch Episode I, and
it's CUT, CUT, CUT, CUT. Each scene is just barely long enough to impart
some small piece of information, and then we cut to the next.
Similarly with the Matrix films. We didn't *have* to spend 10 minutes
with Cipher deliberating over who to kill next. That whole scene could
have lasted 30 seconds instead. But it didn't. And the film is much more
intense as a result. In the sequals, we just seem to cut from fight to
fight to rambling dialog to fight to another fight to more dialog to
fight to... oh, wait, that's the end? OMG, what was the point?!
Anyway, it's a free country, so you can like the Matrix sequals if you
want. Personally, I don't. ;-)
Also... watching this review has taught me more about why some films
work better than others than I thought possible. Suddenly I can
comprehend *why* Episode I was boring, even though it seemed to contain
all the right stuff.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.")
And it's sequel, not "sequal".
> 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.
> The sequals, however, consist mostly of mental fights, crazy special
> effects, and cryptic dialog unrelated to the rest of the film. It just
> isn't entertaining. Some of the fights are even more impressive than the
> original, but since it's not clear what there is to gain or lose... I
> find myself feeling "OK, this is an epic battle, but... I just don't
> actually CARE any more. Even though I feel like I should care."
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.
> 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.
The reason is explained in the second and third movies. It's exactly
their point.
> 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.
> Also... watching this review has taught me more about why some films
> work better than others than I thought possible. Suddenly I can
> comprehend *why* Episode I was boring, even though it seemed to contain
> all the right stuff.
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?
If Episode I was *boring* to you, I wonder what exactly does it take to
keep you entertained. I assume that you watch films like Die Hard when you
have problems sleeping.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
