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

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> 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.
>
> 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.

True, but it's actually quite tricky for more than about 6 people to attack one
individual - they just run out of space. Made all the more difficult by how
slippery an opponent Neo is at this point. They should have all jumped on him
at once right away - it was pretty obvious they were no match for him.

But I like the way the fight is ramped up, it starts out fairly small groups, as
you say, but the last 20-30 seconds are *really* hectic. And that final
Smith-bomb slo-mo is pure eye-candy.

Pointless fight though, has to be said :)

Post a reply to this message

>> 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.
> 
> True, but it's actually quite tricky for more than about 6 people to attack one
> individual - they just run out of space.

You get the impression there could be more than 3 though. (Think about 
the scene from the first film where the cops rush in and club Morpheous.)

> They should have all jumped on him
> at once right away - it was pretty obvious they were no match for him.

Yes, that would make far mor sense...

> But I like the way the fight is ramped up, it starts out fairly small groups, as
> you say, but the last 20-30 seconds are *really* hectic. And that final
> Smith-bomb slo-mo is pure eye-candy.

Eye-candy is about all there is to it, really. Badly-drawn eye-candy, 
mostly.

> Pointless fight though, has to be said :)

Hey, I'm bored now. I'm just going to fly away. Never mind that I could 
have done that 10 minutes ago...

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> > True, but it's actually quite tricky for more than about 6 people to attack
> > one individual - they just run out of space.
> You get the impression there could be more than 3 though. (Think about
> the scene from the first film where the cops rush in and club Morpheous.)

I'm sure I remember seeing up to 6 or 7 at a time near the start of the fight...
ohwell, not seen it for a while.

> 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... ;-)

> > Pointless fight though, has to be said :)
> Hey, I'm bored now. I'm just going to fly away. Never mind that I could
> have done that 10 minutes ago...

Just what I thought when I first saw it... that's probably why they felt it
necessary to separate him from the action during the freeway chase. Would have
been all over pretty quickly otherwise!

Reminds me of something I read about T2 - apparently they got quite a long way
through writing the script before they realised that nobody could think of a
credible way of actually killing off the T-1000...!

Post a reply to this message

Bill Pragnell <bil### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> 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).

  They had the idea that the story would be divided into three movies,
a series of anime shorts and a videogame, and that all of these would
be part of the whole. Also the universe didn't die with the end of the
third movie, but continued in the online game.

  A somewhat interesting and theoretically innovative idea, but even
I have to admit that in the end it mostly failed (not the least because
the videogame was rushed because of time constraints and consequently
was not of the highest quality and was widely panned by critics). Rather
than the different parts in different media forming a whole, it feels
more like the story being shattered into pieces.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> > Pointless fight though, has to be said :)

> Hey, I'm bored now. I'm just going to fly away. Never mind that I could 
> have done that 10 minutes ago...

  Maybe it was a question of pride? Maybe Neo didn't want to lose to Smith
and run like a coward? When Smith (well, Smiths) overpowered him he had to
swallow is pride and flee. So in the end he lost the fight, and he was not
all that happy about the fact.

  After all, you have to remember that Neo had clearly grown up to be rather
cocky. He was "invincible" and even the agents couldn't do anything to him.
The cockiness shows in the beginning of the movie, when the agents attack
him. Suddenly losing to someone like Smith (who he had defeated years ago
so easily) was probably something he was not expecting.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

I don't hate the sequels, though I liked them better at first then I do now.

Some movies are the opposite, where I like them more as time goes on. 
Unfortunately, that's not the case for the Matrix sequels.

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

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

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] pacificwebguycom> 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