On 4/9/2009 3:05 AM, Invisible wrote:
> I basically agree with almost everything you just said. (But you said it
> way better than me.) The actual fight scenes are even more impressive
> than the original - it's just that there didn't seem to be any *point*
> to them.

"Are you telling me I can dodge bullets?"

"No, I'm saying you won't have to."

"Is that because I'll become so powerful that I'll transcend violence?"

"No, it's because you can stop bullets in mid-air.  You'll still have to 
dodge punches and kicks."

WHAT THE HE**?

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

On 4/9/2009 3:03 AM, Bill Pragnell wrote:
> "Slime"<fak### [at] emailaddress>  wrote:
>> Reloaded was also confusing (much more than the first, to the point where I
>> still can't figure some of it out)
>
> I lost a lot of respect for Reloaded when they very obviously offloaded a huge
> sub-plot to another production (the video game, I believe).

Actually, one of the things I respect them for is their effort to use 
multiple mediums to tell the story.  They have parts of the story in the 
movies, in video games, in comic books and in animations.

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> On 4/9/2009 3:03 AM, Bill Pragnell wrote:
> > "Slime"<fak### [at] emailaddress>  wrote:
> >> Reloaded was also confusing (much more than the first, to the point where I
> >> still can't figure some of it out)
> >
> > I lost a lot of respect for Reloaded when they very obviously offloaded a huge
> > sub-plot to another production (the video game, I believe).
>
> Actually, one of the things I respect them for is their effort to use
> multiple mediums to tell the story.  They have parts of the story in the
> movies, in video games, in comic books and in animations.

I don't mind that, I agree it's a good idea in principle. However, the way that
subplot was referenced in the movie was pretty awkward, and I think it
adversely affected the narrative flow.

Confused the hell out of me, at any rate. :)

Post a reply to this message

>> Actually, one of the things I respect them for is their effort to use
>> multiple mediums to tell the story.  They have parts of the story in the
>> movies, in video games, in comic books and in animations.
> 
> I don't mind that, I agree it's a good idea in principle. However, the way that
> subplot was referenced in the movie was pretty awkward, and I think it
> adversely affected the narrative flow.
> 
> Confused the hell out of me, at any rate. :)

Nice idea, poor implementation. A bit like many things, actually... ;-)

Post a reply to this message

Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> "Are you telling me I can dodge bullets?"

> "No, I'm saying you won't have to."

> "Is that because I'll become so powerful that I'll transcend violence?"

> "No, it's because you can stop bullets in mid-air.  You'll still have to 
> dodge punches and kicks."

> WHAT THE HE**?

  It's all simulated by computer physics routines. Different routines
govern non-sentient inert bullets than the punches of sentient humans
and machines. Just because you can hack into one part of the physics
routines doesn't mean you can hack into them all.

  That's how I understand why eg. agents can dodge bullets but not
punches: They can predict with complete perfection the trajectories
of bullets in a split second because the bullets are 100% governed by
the simulation, but they can't predict what a human will do (eg. when
he punches) and thus they have to rely solely on reflexes.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>   Most people seem to think that most other people think the sequels suck.
> However, when you think about how they affected popular culture, especially
> the first sequel, that doesn't really seem to be so. It's a bit like the
> thought of "most people think the sequels suck" is a legend which most
> people believe but isn't really true.

I do hate the first sequel. Can't tell anything about the third one - never
bothered to watch it.

The original movie was a very simple and straightforward parable: Evil agents,
good "hackers", and a messias-like hero, telling the audience that faith can
move mountains; with the story citing from the bible like a TV preacher on
steroids.

There. Not much more to be said about the movie, except for the artistic style.
All in all, the movie was brilliant, yet it's simple. It was brilliant in its
simplicity.

The second movie cluttered the matrix universe with a host of freaks, twists and
subplots. No real message in sight. No clear source it cited from - except the
very cliches generated in popular culture by first movie. In short: It sucked.

I don't think it sucked because it went against the fandom reception of the
first view. I think it sucked because it tried to *build* on that very fandom
reception - and failed utterly, because it was unable to make any significant
points of its own. It didn't help that it tried desperately to. It just made
things worse.

Post a reply to this message

Strong opinions about the Matrix, exchanged on a computer graphics forum?

Surely not!

:-D

Post a reply to this message

clipka <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> The second movie cluttered the matrix universe with a host of freaks, twists and
> subplots. No real message in sight. No clear source it cited from - except the
> very cliches generated in popular culture by first movie. In short: It sucked.

> I don't think it sucked because it went against the fandom reception of the
> first view. I think it sucked because it tried to *build* on that very fandom
> reception - and failed utterly, because it was unable to make any significant
> points of its own. It didn't help that it tried desperately to. It just made
> things worse.

  In other words: It "sucked" because it failed expectations.

  Precisely my point.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

"Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> > Eye-candy is about all there is to it, really. Badly-drawn eye-candy,
> > mostly.
>
> Ah, I don't think it's that bad. It doesn't always look completely real, but I
> still think it looks good. And there's always the retcon that it's not *meant*
> to be real, since it's in the Matrix... ;-)

Badly drawn my ass.  You just simply can't tell apart actors from CG doubles
from the rendering itself.  It's the animation, when they start moving, that
makes you clearly see that no human being would ever be able to move that way,
and thus, spell FAKE all over it.  Rendering itself is top-notch.  Super punch?
 Looks truly like Smith's face until it deforms beyond what the actor would take
for any money whatsoever...

It's an "issue" with CG that will never go away:  you will always know something
is CG because it's there precisely to depict something that would never been
seen otherwise, be it dinosaurs running around, spider-man swinging over
buildings or transformable cars fighting it over.

BTW, pointless or not and despite the overly hysterical finish, the sequels were
quite good.  Here's my quick summary:

Matrix > Reloaded > Revolutions

seems like it was vanishing... :)

Post a reply to this message

Bill Pragnell wrote:
> Also, people often seem to decide beforehand whether they're going to like a
> movie or not, which is a bewildering feat of doublethink to me.

I usually try to expect the movies to suck. That way, when they're merely 
average, it was fun to watch them. :-)

> (Re the Matrix sequels, they are, IMO, not at all bad. Not as well-written and
> paced, or indeed plotted, as the first film, but perfectly enjoyable.

Another problem is that they weren't really as surprising. The first movie 
explored a fascinating idea with lots of possibilities. The other two simply 
continued on. IMO.

Sort of like how Episodes 1-3 had to have a certain outcome, so it really 
wasn't possible to make it surprising that Anikan turned, or that the jedi 
got slaughtered, or whatever.

IME, when a first movie is good, the second movie sucks because they put in 
all the parts they thought made the first movie unique instead of all the 
parts that made it *good*, and by the third movie they've figured out why 
the second bombed.  With a few notable exceptions, of course.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message