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!

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> 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!

Yeah, that's the sort of thing that makes you feel old.  It works with major
events too.  How about the OJ Simpson trial (14 years ago) or Princes Diana (12
years ago).  Even Sept. 11 (eight years ago).

 - Ricky

Post a reply to this message

Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> http://xkcd.com/566/

  Btw, I find the attitude people have towards the sequels rather interesting.

  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.

  While the sequels definitely didn't affect popular culture so extensively
as the first movie, especially the first sequel did have some impact. While
making allusions to certain scenes of the first movie became an overused
cliche in less than a year from its release, allusions to scenes from the
second movie (especially the brawl scene) are not uncommon either.

  I think that what happened is that when the first movie came out, people
started a lot of fanon about the universe of the movie. When the second
movie came out, fans got disappointed because it was *different* from fanon.
Basically "they changed it (ie. the movie's universe), now it sucks" (even
though they didn't change anything; AFAIK the movie trilogy universe was
pretty much laid out from the very beginning).

  Over time people got over this disappointment and actually started to
accept the second movie as acceptable canon, and a rather good movie.
However, for some reason people want to ignore this fact. They still want
to think that most people hate the second movie, while that's not really
true. What was true at first is not true anymore, but people don't want to
believe it.

  Of course the same phenomenon happened with the third movie as well:
Again people started tons of fanon over the second movie, and when the
third movie drastically differed from this fanon, people got disappointed.
"They changed it, now it sucks" once again (even though nothing was really
changed).

  Rather ironically, I think it was the third movie which helped many people
overcome the disappointment of the second movie being "different from fanon".
When people got over silly ideas like "the matrix inside the matrix", they
started to see the second movie in a different light, and it was not all
that bad after all.

  Yet the myth of "most people hate the sequels" persists in popular culture.
Some people believe this myth so firmly, that I think they hate the movies
simply because they believe most other people hate the movies.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>   Btw, I find the attitude people have towards the sequels rather interesting.
[snip analysis]

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 find that, having trained
myself to have little or no particular expectation of a movie, I can enjoy a
wider range of movies far more than almost anyone I know.

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. Moreover, they
often base this pre-decision on whether they 'like' a particular actor/actress.
And I don't mean 'dislike their past roles/thespian skills' - it's often far
more personal. Bizarre.

(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. But then
I'd sit through any amount of drivel just for that freeway chase...:))

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

>   While the sequels definitely didn't affect popular culture so extensively
> as the first movie, especially the first sequel did have some impact. While
> making allusions to certain scenes of the first movie became an overused
> cliche in less than a year from its release, allusions to scenes from the
> second movie (especially the brawl scene) are not uncommon either.

Now I'm curios. I've never seen anybody ever allude to anything in the 
sequels - only the first movie.

>   I think that what happened is that when the first movie came out, people
> started a lot of fanon about the universe of the movie. When the second
> movie came out, fans got disappointed because it was *different* from fanon.
> Basically "they changed it (ie. the movie's universe), now it sucks" (even
> though they didn't change anything; AFAIK the movie trilogy universe was
> pretty much laid out from the very beginning).

Hey, but that can happen with anything.

For me, the problem with the second film is that it seems to consist 
almost entirely of fight scenes. OK, and here we have another epic 
battle... why? Who are these guys? Why are we fighting them? Does it 
matter what the result is? Basically Neo ended up so indestructible that 
you don't *care* if he wins or loses any more.

The third movie was better. But still, I really don't like movies where 
almost everybody dies.

>   Over time people got over this disappointment and actually started to
> accept the second movie as acceptable canon, and a rather good movie.
> However, for some reason people want to ignore this fact. They still want
> to think that most people hate the second movie, while that's not really
> true. What was true at first is not true anymore, but people don't want to
> believe it.

I've never met anybody who liked the sequals.

Oh, mind you... I've never met anybody who liked the first movie, so...

Personally, I liked the first one, didn't like the others. It's my 
opinion, and I'm not too worried what anybody else thinks about it. ;-)

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:

> 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!

This makes me sad... Jesus I'm old! >_<

Post a reply to this message

Reloaded had some awesome action scenes that I like a lot. I only saw 
Revolutions once, but I don't remember much that I like from it (I'm sure 
some of the action scenes were good).

However, the first movie had some things that were really lacking from the 
other two: a cast of really likable characters (the new pilot guy sucked 
compared to the original, the real-world bad guy was straight out of a 
saturday morning cartoon, and that kid who drooled over Neo was just 
obnoxious), stunning revelations about the story and the universe, and 
*reasons* for the fights. (The entire "burly brawl" scene, for example, has 
no point - Neo just leaves in the end. Also the fight with the guy who 
brings him to the Oracle is poorly justified.) Oh, and the possibility that 
Neo could lose a fight or not be the one, driven home by the death of other 
characters (that you actually cared about).

Is it fair to mention that the first had revolutionary special effects, and 
the other two didn't bring that much to the table? The "burly brawl" scene 
in particular had very fake looking CG people.

Reloaded was also confusing (much more than the first, to the point where I 
still can't figure some of it out), lacking in the simplicity of the first 
one. Plus it had some really cheesy moments like the sex/dance scene, 
anything involving that annoying kid, and the predictable cliffhanger 
ending.

Revelations was again lacking in simplicity, trying to add too many elements 
to the world; for instance, the train station at the beginning was just 
weird and didn't seem to link to the rest of the movie. Again, I remember 
the ending being *painfully* cheesy.

I liked some parts of each, but as a whole neither of them were thoroughly 
enjoyable like the original.

 - Slime
 [ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]

Post a reply to this message

"Slime" <fak### [at] emailaddress> wrote:
> Is it fair to mention that the first had revolutionary special effects, and
> the other two didn't bring that much to the table? The "burly brawl" scene
> in particular had very fake looking CG people.

What impressed me most about that scene was the choreography. Sure, the CGI
looked a little fake in a couple of shots, but the overall effect was
incredible. You can watch Neo wallop a Smith into the distance, watch that
Smith get up, dust himself down, and make his way back into the fray for
another wallop. And they're *all* doing that, over and over! Probably works
better as a music video than a movie scene tho.

> 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).

> I liked some parts of each, but as a whole neither of them were thoroughly
> enjoyable like the original.

Agreed...

Post a reply to this message

Slime wrote:
> Reloaded had some awesome action scenes that I like a lot. I only saw 
> Revolutions once, but I don't remember much that I like from it (I'm sure 
> some of the action scenes were good).
> 
> However, the first movie had some things that were really lacking from the 
> other two: a cast of really likable characters (the new pilot guy sucked 
> compared to the original, the real-world bad guy was straight out of a 
> saturday morning cartoon, and that kid who drooled over Neo was just 
> obnoxious), stunning revelations about the story and the universe, and 
> *reasons* for the fights. (The entire "burly brawl" scene, for example, has 
> no point - Neo just leaves in the end. Also the fight with the guy who 
> brings him to the Oracle is poorly justified.) Oh, and the possibility that 
> Neo could lose a fight or not be the one, driven home by the death of other 
> characters (that you actually cared about).
> 
> Is it fair to mention that the first had revolutionary special effects, and 
> the other two didn't bring that much to the table? The "burly brawl" scene 
> in particular had very fake looking CG people.
> 
> Reloaded was also confusing (much more than the first, to the point where I 
> still can't figure some of it out), lacking in the simplicity of the first 
> one. Plus it had some really cheesy moments like the sex/dance scene, 
> anything involving that annoying kid, and the predictable cliffhanger 
> ending.
> 
> Revelations was again lacking in simplicity, trying to add too many elements 
> to the world; for instance, the train station at the beginning was just 
> weird and didn't seem to link to the rest of the movie. Again, I remember 
> the ending being *painfully* cheesy.
> 
> I liked some parts of each, but as a whole neither of them were thoroughly 
> enjoyable like the original.

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. I watched the whole of the second movie, and at the end I'm 
like, "so what do I know now that I didn't know before?" Nothing, 
really. And yeah, the pilot and the various other characters were boring.

It's ironic really. I thought I'd find the first movie really boring - 
but I didn't. I thought I'd really enjoy the sequals - but I didn't. 
Funny old world, eh?

Post a reply to this message

>> Is it fair to mention that the first had revolutionary special effects, and
>> the other two didn't bring that much to the table? The "burly brawl" scene
>> in particular had very fake looking CG people.
> 
> What impressed me most about that scene was the choreography. Sure, the CGI
> looked a little fake in a couple of shots, but the overall effect was
> incredible. You can watch Neo wallop a Smith into the distance, watch that
> Smith get up, dust himself down, and make his way back into the fray for
> another wallop. And they're *all* doing that, over and over! Probably works
> better as a music video than a movie scene tho.

Heh. Every time I watch it, I can't help noticing that there's, like, 
200 Smiths, but only 3 of them are actually trying to attack him at any 
one moment. The rest of them are all standing there "winding up" to do 
something. They got it so that it doesn't look like anybody is standing 
around waiting, but in reality they all are. Only a tiny number of them 
are actually attacking at any moment.

I guess it's like the battle scenes in the new Star Wars films. They're 
so absurdly over the top that you just loose interest. I think for SciFi 
to work well, there has to be an implicit set of "rules". If you have a 
universe where absolutely *anything* is possible, there's not much 
causality. The best films you always know what the characters can and 
can't do - and hence you know when they do or don't have a problem, and 
when they've overcome it. But give a character unlimited power and you 
now have a rather uninteresting situation. He has unlimited power. Of 
*course* he's going to win.

Post a reply to this message