 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
