 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Slime wrote:
> and that kid who drooled over Neo was just obnoxious)
He was actually from the animated clips. He basically committed suicide in
real life (i.e., the Matrix) so that he could get out of the matrix, because
he believed in Neo so much. So, yeah, he's supposed to drool over Neo.
Not that they explained it in the movie, mind.
I *did* like the animated clip about the haunted house in the matrix, tho.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguy com> wrote:
> 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**?
Never watched Dragon Ball Z? Punchs and kicks are more more powerful than
nukes, let alone bullets! :D
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> A somewhat interesting and theoretically innovative idea,
Tron did the same thing with the video game, and there it even made sense
since the protagonist was trapped in a video game. The "grid walkers" were
supposed to be in the movie, since there's a whole level of them in the
game, but the found the rendering time was too high, so you got just a
five-second shot of them.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> 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
That's what I was talking about with the three sequels. Look at Indiana
Jones. First movie is wonderful. Second movie takes creepy-crawlies and
juju magic and big explosions and immanent death to extremes, but without
anyone you really care about being involved and without mysteries or even
knowledge of how bad the bad people really are. Third movie is back to it
being about people, and mystery, and giant evil, with relatively little
chase scenes or graphic messiness.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> 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.
I like how they managed to make Shrek II *better* than Shrek I. As in,
geniunely better. Actually, there have been a few films like that. All
too often, a film comes out, it's a success, they make a sequel - even
if that doesn't make any sense. But sometimes, they manage to make a
really good sequel.
Another example would be Back To The Future. Every single episode was cool.
On the other hand, Shrek the third. Oh dear. I mean, it's OK, but it's
not that great.
Similarly, Pirates of the Caribean. First one was great. Second one was
great. Third one was... hmm. It all kinda went a bit wrong, eh?
Only vaguely similar: The Mummy. Shallow, pointless, but entertaining.
The Mummy Returns. Also shallow. Also pointless. And also very
enjoyable, managing to include a few nice twists (although some of them
were perhaps a little OTT). Tomb of the Dragon Emporer. Uh... no, I'm
sorry, it sucks. Sure, lots of big-name actors. But... wuh? No, this is
lame.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 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.
Um... have you *seen* the fight scene? Some of the stuff in HalfLife 2
is better rendered than that! :-P
> 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,
Actually, I thought the movement was pretty much spot on. It's the odd
lighting and the flat texturing that tears it.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 08 Apr 2009 21:16:50 -0700, Chambers wrote:
> http://xkcd.com/566/
>
> Ten years already... heck, I still can't believe that Jurassic Park was
> made 15 years ago! I know people who are younger than that!
I'm still laughing about the xkcd comic. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 09 Apr 2009 06:03:38 -0400, Bill Pragnell 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).
The thing that we felt the 2nd and 3rd movies didn't do was fulfill the
promise of the ending in the first. When Neo says "I'm going to hang up
the phone and show these people what you don't want them to see", it
never really seemed to materialize. In retrospect, I suppose it did to
an extent, but the story wasn't as focused after the first film.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 09 Apr 2009 11:05:38 +0100, Invisible wrote:
> 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.
Anything Wu does is impressive.
My wife and I were talking about the Matrix films after seeing the xkcd
comic, and the only fight scene that bothered us really was the one in
Reloaded with all the smiths in the courtyard. It started out good
enough, but there was a point at which it became ridiculous.
That point is marked by when Neo sets the metal pole down and starts
running around in a circle off the multiple Smiths. They probably
should've stopped the fight sequence right before that.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> I like how they managed to make Shrek II *better* than Shrek I.
Hmmm. I'd say different, but yes, clearly, not bad in the way I describe. Of
course it's not a universal attribute. Maybe I should say that *when* the
second movie sucks, and the third is good, this is why, IME.
Toy Story I think was the same sort of thing - bad second one. (Unless I'm
misremembering.)
> Another example would be Back To The Future. Every single episode was cool.
I didn't like the second one as much there, but I'll grant it didn't follow
the pattern I described.
> Similarly, Pirates of the Caribean. First one was great. Second one was
> great. Third one was... hmm. It all kinda went a bit wrong, eh?
Oh, I thought all three were excellent.
> sorry, it sucks. Sure, lots of big-name actors. But... wuh? No, this is
> lame.
Yeah. That was rather dumb. :-)
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 09 Apr 2009 09:56:07 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> I *did* like the animated clip about the haunted house in the matrix,
> tho.
That was good. They could've also done a lot more with the idea of
wraiths, vampyres, and other such creatures in the films than they did.
The wraith brothers were cool, made for really interesting fight
sequences.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 09 Apr 2009 10:51:43 -0400, clipka 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.
One thing that came out in the second film that I thought was good was
that Morpheus was really just another guy. In the first film, there was
an almost godlike quality in the character and his followers.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> > Badly drawn my ass. You just simply can't tell apart actors from CG doubles
> > from the rendering itself.
>
> Um... have you *seen* the fight scene? Some of the stuff in HalfLife 2
> is better rendered than that! :-P
That's exactly what I'm talking about, though you jest.
> > 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,
>
> Actually, I thought the movement was pretty much spot on. It's the odd
> lighting and the flat texturing that tears it.
I see no odd lighting other than the intended stylized green and blueish
photography. I see no flat texturing, I mean: you can spot the digital
double's bumpy details on skin or cloth!
But then again, you think the movement of walking above lots of Smiths or
rolling to your back while swinging a pole is spot on...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> 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. :-)
Yup, that'll work too... although if I expect a movie to suck too much, I won't
want to go see it ;-)
> 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.
Agreed.
> 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.
Empire Strikes Back being a very notable exception!
Oh yeah, and I'm with you on the Pirates films. The first (as always) remains
the best standalone movie, but I loved the others too. Oh, I know Will and Liz
were poorly-written simpering characters, but I really liked the way everyone
was genuinely out for themselves, and watching their goals and actions move
around whenever something changed was great. I could watch more Pirates sequels
with great enjoyment!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"nemesis" <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> 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.
Well, that fight was edited so snappily that you can't really spot shortcomings
in the animation. I recall that there are a couple of split seconds where Neo's
digital stuntman looks particularly flat and artificial. But yeah, I'd say most
of the time the CG was superb.
> Super punch?
> Looks truly like Smith's face until it deforms beyond what the actor would take
> for any money whatsoever...
Haha, although that bit does annoy me for another reason - the slo-mo raindrops
are all long stringy blobs, not the perfect spheres they should be (yeah I
know, it's the matrix, it's coded differently to reality, yadda yadda ;-) )
> BTW, pointless or not and despite the overly hysterical finish, the sequels were
> quite good. Here's my quick summary:
>
> Matrix > Reloaded > Revolutions
Hey, you just listed them in the order you saw them! Put some thought into it,
man! ;-) I do like the dock battle in the third film tho. And there's that
moment of poetic beauty when the ship breaks through the clouds on that
parabolic arc...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bill Pragnell wrote:
> Yup, that'll work too... although if I expect a movie to suck too much, I won't
> want to go see it ;-)
True. I expected both Hitchcock and Wanted to be lame, but I quite enjoyed
both. They were both much better than the general populace said they were,
methinks, probably because of the expectations like Warp talks about.
On the other hand, I was gravely disappointed in Beetlejuice. A fabulous
concept completely ignored in favor of making it slapstick. "I'm glad
someone else took the idea and did it right," he said, avoiding spoilers.
> Oh yeah, and I'm with you on the Pirates films.
I wonder if you could count "Haunted House" (Eddie Murphy) as a sequel to
the first Pirates film. Sort of "take the idea of turning a ride into a
comedy movie" sequel that failed because it wasn't the ride that made people
like Pirates.
Does anyone remember the *old* Pirates ride in disneyworld, with the talking
skeletons and such? They really toned it down, I fear.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bill Pragnell wrote:
> Haha, although that bit does annoy me for another reason - the slo-mo raindrops
> are all long stringy blobs, not the perfect spheres they should be
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiversity/en/e/eb/RaindropShape.jpg
Actually, raindrops falling look a lot like bubbles rising. They're not
round, their little upside-down cups.
> I do like the dock battle in the third film tho.
I was the only person in the theatre that laughed when the Oracle's sidekick
opened the door with the special key the first time. Then about another 10%
of the audience laughed when Neo said "These are back doors, aren't they?"
We must have had an unusually low concentration of geeks that day.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> The wraith brothers were cool, made for really interesting fight
> sequences.
Yes. And they were also excellent because of their personalities. You could
just see these invincible immortal loners with no connection to the rest of
the world, just drifting along, killing people because it didn't really
matter to them...
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> round, their little upside-down cups.
round, they're little upside-down cups. :-)
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Bill Pragnell wrote:
> > Yup, that'll work too... although if I expect a movie to suck too much, I won't
> > want to go see it ;-)
>
> True. I expected both Hitchcock and Wanted to be lame, but I quite enjoyed
> both.
Um, do you mean Hancock or Hitch? Or have I just missed a film called Hitchcock
;-)
I enjoyed Wanted very much - best-ever use of slow-mo keyboards... :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bill Pragnell wrote:
> Um, do you mean Hancock or Hitch?
Heh. Hancock. Altho Hitch was good too.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> "nemesis" <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> > Matrix > Reloaded > Revolutions
>
> Hey, you just listed them in the order you saw them! Put some thought into it,
> man! ;-)
Still true, anyway. :P
Really, what was the big impact of the first movie: suggesting this reality is
all but a simulation. You can't beat that in sequels.
> I do like the dock battle in the third film tho. And there's that
> moment of poetic beauty when the ship breaks through the clouds on that
> parabolic arc...
Yes, first time they see the sun for real.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> True. I expected both Hitchcock
Hancock, right?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> I like how they managed to make Shrek II *better* than Shrek I. As in,
> geniunely better. Actually, there have been a few films like that. All
> too often, a film comes out, it's a success, they make a sequel - even
> if that doesn't make any sense. But sometimes, they manage to make a
> really good sequel.
Terminator, Terminator 2.
Max Max, Mad Max 2.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> > I like how they managed to make Shrek II *better* than Shrek I. As in,
> > geniunely better. Actually, there have been a few films like that. All
> > too often, a film comes out, it's a success, they make a sequel - even
> > if that doesn't make any sense. But sometimes, they manage to make a
> > really good sequel.
>
> Terminator, Terminator 2.
> Max Max, Mad Max 2.
Alien, Aliens.
"Hey, you've just got a hard-on for Cameron!"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bill Pragnell wrote:
>
> More generally, I think people tend to start watching movies with far too much
> 'expectation' baggage, whether that be 'fanon' (good word!), hype, familiarity
> with the adapted source material, or whatever.
I don't believe that's more true for sequels. I think sequels just suck.
More money, more people involved ==> More fights, more sex, more humor,
a wider demographic range for the characters, and more car chases are
added not to make the movie better for the original fans, but to make it
"good enough" for the widest possible range of people.
Even when these additional elements are good, the result can be
disappointing. No matter how well done, it's rare that the blockbuster
formula results in anything better than a "popcorn movie."
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Shay <sha### [at] nonenone> wrote:
> Bill Pragnell wrote:
> >
> > More generally, I think people tend to start watching movies with far too much
> > 'expectation' baggage, whether that be 'fanon' (good word!), hype, familiarity
> > with the adapted source material, or whatever.
>
> I don't believe that's more true for sequels. I think sequels just suck.
>
> More money, more people involved ==> More fights, more sex, more humor,
> a wider demographic range for the characters, and more car chases are
> added not to make the movie better for the original fans, but to make it
> "good enough" for the widest possible range of people.
Or more jokes per frame in the case of Shrek 2.
Anyway, I think Terminator 2, Shrek 2 and Aliens are good examples of exceptions
to the general sequel-suckage rule.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> I like how they managed to make Shrek II *better* than Shrek I. As in,
> geniunely better. Actually, there have been a few films like that. All
Not for me. Shrek I was great. Shrek II only had its moments of
greatness. Didn't bother with III.
> Another example would be Back To The Future. Every single episode was cool.
True.
> Similarly, Pirates of the Caribean. First one was great. Second one was
> great. Third one was... hmm. It all kinda went a bit wrong, eh?
Didn't like the third. Liked the second when I saw it, but when I saw
it again, it seemed silly. Not so for the first - worth watching more
than once.
--
186,000 miles/sec: Not just a good idea, it's the LAW.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Terminator, Terminator 2.
I'm one of the few people I've met who liked the first a lot more.
> Max Max, Mad Max 2.
So 2 is worth watching? I saw the first and didn't care much for it...
--
186,000 miles/sec: Not just a good idea, it's the LAW.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> > Another example would be Back To The Future. Every single episode was cool.
>
> True.
I have to say Back to the Future is just one movie. Really. I mean, it was as
economic to shoot the sequels as it was economic to shoot the whole Groundhog
Day movie, as most of the scenes are straight repetitions from previous scenes.
Must be a consequence of time loops... :P
> > Similarly, Pirates of the Caribean. First one was great. Second one was
> > great. Third one was... hmm. It all kinda went a bit wrong, eh?
>
> Didn't like the third. Liked the second when I saw it, but when I saw
> it again, it seemed silly. Not so for the first - worth watching more
> than once.
At first I hated the whole franchise. Then, suddenly, it grew on me. It's
good, solid entertainment, I guess.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> I'm one of the few people I've met who liked the first a lot more.
I liked Alien better than Aliens, but they were all good.
>> Max Max, Mad Max 2.
> So 2 is worth watching? I saw the first and didn't care much for it...
MM2 is far better than MM1. MM3 is ehn. I don't remember much, but I
remember I never had the urge to watch it a second time.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Star Trek, Star Trek II
*drumbeat, cymbal hit*
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4/10/2009 9:19 AM, Darren New wrote:
> Mueen Nawaz wrote:
>> I'm one of the few people I've met who liked the first a lot more.
>
> I liked Alien better than Aliens, but they were all good.
I disagree. Alien and Aliens were both excellent (and which is better
depends on what mood I'm in), but the other two were definitely NOT good.
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4/9/2009 7:41 PM, nemesis wrote:
> Really, what was the big impact of the first movie: suggesting this reality is
> all but a simulation. You can't beat that in sequels.
The funny thing is, it wasn't anywhere near being a new idea. Sci fi
writers have been working this concept for decades, and philosophers a
similar one (Life is just a dream) for millenia.
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4/9/2009 11:28 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Apr 2009 21:16:50 -0700, Chambers wrote:
>
>> http://xkcd.com/566/
>>
>> Ten years already... heck, I still can't believe that Jurassic Park was
>> made 15 years ago! I know people who are younger than that!
>
> I'm still laughing about the xkcd comic. :-)
>
> Jim
I think it's one of the best I've seen for a while :)
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> but the other two were definitely NOT good.
The third one brought closure (or should have), but was a kind of dumb
premise overall. It was definitely the weakest of the series.
A comedy about a bunch of rampaging Aliens is going to be weird no matter
how you work it, but I liked the fourth one. It was quite different, tho.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> Sci fi writers have been working this concept for decades,
If you want a *thoughtful* treatment of the subject, incidentally, try Greg
Egan's "Permutation City".
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 19:50:07 -0700, Chambers wrote:
> On 4/9/2009 11:28 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Wed, 08 Apr 2009 21:16:50 -0700, Chambers wrote:
>>
>>> http://xkcd.com/566/
>>>
>>> Ten years already... heck, I still can't believe that Jurassic Park
>>> was made 15 years ago! I know people who are younger than that!
>>
>> I'm still laughing about the xkcd comic. :-)
>>
>> Jim
>
> I think it's one of the best I've seen for a while :)
I would agree with that.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> On 4/9/2009 7:41 PM, nemesis wrote:
> > Really, what was the big impact of the first movie: suggesting this reality is
> > all but a simulation. You can't beat that in sequels.
>
> The funny thing is, it wasn't anywhere near being a new idea. Sci fi
> writers have been working this concept for decades, and philosophers a
> similar one (Life is just a dream) for millenia.
Yes, but they brought it mainstream and got kung-fu, Buddhism and Christianism,
cool looks and a foreboding 90's workplace and conspiracy theories into the
mix. It was just the right movie at the right time. :)
Anyone out there read Neuromancer?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4/10/2009 8:35 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
>> but the other two were definitely NOT good.
>
> The third one brought closure (or should have), but was a kind of dumb
> premise overall. It was definitely the weakest of the series.
>
> A comedy about a bunch of rampaging Aliens is going to be weird no
> matter how you work it, but I liked the fourth one. It was quite
> different, tho.
>
It was a comedy? I'll have to watch it again - that would definitely
change my perspective of it.
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> On 4/10/2009 9:19 AM, Darren New wrote:
> > Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> >> I'm one of the few people I've met who liked the first a lot more.
> >
> > I liked Alien better than Aliens, but they were all good.
> I disagree. Alien and Aliens were both excellent (and which is better
> depends on what mood I'm in), but the other two were definitely NOT good.
I admire Alien because it was made in 1979, yet looks better than many
SFX movies made 20 years later. Its design and special effects put many
other "big" scifi movies of the era to shame (very especially the first
Star Wars movie).
The 1980's was the era where movie-making technology (very especially
puppeteering) was advancing in really giant leaps, so Aliens, made in 1986,
had a huge advantage over the first movie from the technology point of view.
Regardless, it's also a very good achievement of the era where CGI had yet
not spoiled movie-making.
If you look Alien 3 (the original, not the director's cut) today, you would
think they used CGI for the alien. Surprisingly, it's 100% puppeteering.
I find it marvelous how they succeeded in making it so mobile, agile and
versatile with just puppeteering. It really doesn't need to be ashamed
against later CGI-ridden movies. I admire it for that.
(Of course the director's cut, made years later, was ruined by them adding
CGI scenes.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> > Similarly, Pirates of the Caribean. First one was great. Second one was
> > great. Third one was... hmm. It all kinda went a bit wrong, eh?
> Didn't like the third. Liked the second when I saw it, but when I saw
> it again, it seemed silly. Not so for the first - worth watching more
> than once.
Personally I found the second and third movies rather chaotic, confusing
and hard to follow.
It's so long since I saw the first movie that I don't even remember what
happened there, but I think it was much easier to follow.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> It was a comedy? I'll have to watch it again - that would definitely
> change my perspective of it.
Yes. Weaver said she always wanted to be a comedian.
"Hey, you fought these things before, didn't you?"
"Yeah."
"What did you do?"
"I died."
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> cool looks
The semi-humorous expression "<some color> is the new black" comes, as far
as I know, from the fact that black was the "cool" color (especially in
clothing) in the 90's, and the Matrix was the pinnacle of this phenomenon.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4/10/2009 10:20 PM, nemesis wrote:
> Anyone out there read Neuromancer?
Oh, yes, good book :) I didn't really get the ending, though, but I've
only read it once and that was years ago. I'll have to take another
look, sometime.
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> I like how they managed to make Shrek II *better* than Shrek I. As in,
> geniunely better. Actually, there have been a few films like that. All
> too often, a film comes out, it's a success, they make a sequel - even
> if that doesn't make any sense. But sometimes, they manage to make a
> really good sequel.
Especially considering they hadn't planned the story for a sequel. They were
surprised by the success of the first one, and didn't expect they'd have to
make a sequel.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Best alternative Matrix interpretation ever:
Neo is a junkie (see his junkie friends at the beginning of the movie)
who gets post-effects of acid trips (hallucinations like suddenly losing
your mouth or having a bug inserted in your body). Morpheus is a drug
dealer who offers him some new wonder drug (just listen to what he says
and tell me it doesn't sound like something a drug dealer would talk) and
the rest of the movie is just an acid trip (starting with the melting
mirror and going from there to worse).
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Best alternative Matrix interpretation ever:
>
> Neo is a junkie (see his junkie friends at the beginning of the movie)
> who gets post-effects of acid trips (hallucinations like suddenly losing
> your mouth or having a bug inserted in your body). Morpheus is a drug
> dealer who offers him some new wonder drug (just listen to what he says
> and tell me it doesn't sound like something a drug dealer would talk) and
> the rest of the movie is just an acid trip (starting with the melting
> mirror and going from there to worse).
And in the end of the trilogy he dies of overdose. :P
It does make sense, true. I like works open to interpretation. :)
http://tinyurl.com/c2tplc
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I like how they managed to make Shrek II *better* than Shrek I. As in,
>> geniunely better. Actually, there have been a few films like that. All
>> too often, a film comes out, it's a success, they make a sequel - even
>> if that doesn't make any sense. But sometimes, they manage to make a
>> really good sequel.
>
> Especially considering they hadn't planned the story for a sequel. They were
> surprised by the success of the first one, and didn't expect they'd have to
> make a sequel.
Same goes for Pirates of the Caribean. Which is why the first movie has
a bit of everything in it, and was designed as basically a
self-contained story, while the second movie ends obviously setting up
for the third.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> I like how they managed to make Shrek II *better* than Shrek I. As in,
>> geniunely better. Actually, there have been a few films like that. All
>> too often, a film comes out, it's a success, they make a sequel - even
>> if that doesn't make any sense. But sometimes, they manage to make a
>> really good sequel.
>
> Terminator, Terminator 2.
> Max Max, Mad Max 2.
I'm not sure Terminator 2 is *better* than the first one - but certainly
its equal.
I haven't seen Mad Max, or Max Max. :-P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
