 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/12/17/watch-this-70-minute-video-review-of-star-wars-the-phantom-menace/
Actually a very good explanation, even tho the guy is trying to sound stupid
or something, he makes some good points.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Actually a very good explanation, even tho the guy is trying to sound
> stupid or something, he makes some good points.
WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOUR FACE?!!?!
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Actually a very good explanation, even tho the guy is trying to sound
> stupid or something, he makes some good points.
Even though he's pretending (?!) to be stark raving mad, he talks a lot
of sense...
I don't agree with everything he says. I actually *liked* certain
aspects of the film. But it was undebiably disappointing. And, until
now, I haven't been able to put my finger on why.
Now we need him to analyse The Matrix Reloaded. Although, really, I
guess there's not much to analyst. Neo is invincible. Smith is
invincible. And they're fighting... why? And they want the Keymaker
because...? He makes keys...? That do what...? So they can meet the
Architect...? Who does what...? Babbles some meaningless babble that
doens't really mean a lot...? And after that happens, the thing we've
been trying to achieve since the film started... What happens? Not a
lot, really...? So... uh... I've just watched several hours of film and
I *still* don't know anything I didn't know before. In fact, the film
has undone several of the things that were cool about the one before.
The first film made it look like Neo had transcended the Matrix and was
now an actual threat to the Agents and that big things were going to
change. But in Reloaded, it looks like the Matrix is now more or less
deserted, other than millions of copies of Smith, so do we even give a
**** what happens there any more?
Basically, the first film begins with a mystery, but by the end of it,
you have slowly established the rules of how this fictional universe
works. The Matrix isn't real, but it can still really kill you. The crew
are larger than life inside the Matrix, but while connected they're
vulnerable in the real world. The Agents are even larger than life, but
still not absolutely indescructible. But if you kill them, they will
still come back. But it does buy you some time. And so on and so forth;
the entire film goes about establishing these rules, sometimes in
surprising or shocking ways. And then, right at the end, Neo really does
transcend the rules as you've just come to understand them. And now he's
going to go out and kick arse.
...um, except that's not what happens in Reloaded. In fact, it seems to
fall into the trap of constructing a universe which either lacks rules,
or at least the rules aren't explained. Why would anybody give a fig
about a pair of invincible fighters fighting each other until one or the
other gets bored? If you don't understand how the world works, you don't
know what options a character has open to them. You can't tell if
something is a serious threat or just a minor problem. You can't empathise.
DAMNIT WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOUR FACE?!
I'm going to bed before I type more stuff...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 23:31:36 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Now we need him to analyse The Matrix Reloaded.
Having re-watched all three Matrix films over the past week (had to test
our new sound system with *something*), let me take a crack at these
questions:
> Neo is invincible. Smith is
> invincible. And they're fighting... why?
For the future of the human race; humanity's survival. Fairly typical
messiah story plotline in that regard.
> And they want the Keymaker
> because...? He makes keys...? That do what...?
Because the keys he makes open the system backdoors.
> So they can meet the
> Architect...? Who does what...? Babbles some meaningless babble that
> doens't really mean a lot...?
The Architect's speech for me basically boiled down to "people wouldn't
believe in the Matrix if it was too perfect or if there wasn't an
appearance of choice". In a more 'meta' sense, it was about fate (and
whether there is fate or not - summed up a lot by the Oracle when she
says to Neo "remember, you don't believe in any of this 'fate' crap."
> And after that happens, the thing we've
> been trying to achieve since the film started... What happens? Not a
> lot, really...? So... uh... I've just watched several hours of film and
> I *still* don't know anything I didn't know before. In fact, the film
> has undone several of the things that were cool about the one before.
That was my first impression of the 2nd and 3rd; I still don't feel they
live up to the "promise" of the ending of #1 (and #1 is still the best in
my book), but rewatching them, the story made a lot more sense to me now
than it did when it came out.
> The first film made it look like Neo had transcended the Matrix and was
> now an actual threat to the Agents and that big things were going to
> change. But in Reloaded, it looks like the Matrix is now more or less
> deserted, other than millions of copies of Smith, so do we even give a
> **** what happens there any more?
The system evolved as Neo evolved. He does transcend the Matrix, but
Smith does too (when he infects Bane).
The thing that surprised me during the rewatch that I hadn't noticed
before was who was left after the big fight at the end of Revolutions.
When it first came out, I thought it was Neo. It isn't, and that
actually changed the ending for me rather significantly when I noticed
who it was.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Darren New" <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote in message
news:4b2bf983$1@news.povray.org...
>
http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/12/17/watch-this-70-minute-video-review-of-star-wars-the-phantom-menace/
> Actually a very good explanation, even tho the guy is trying to sound
stupid
> or something, he makes some good points.
That may be, but why waste another 70 minutes?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> he makes some good points.
I think one point he makes has a lot of merit: Back when film-making
technology was very primitive (by today's standard), it limited what you
could do so much that directors had to actually concentrate on the story
and character development in order for the movie to contain something
watchable, because special effects alone wouldn't do it. Nowadays when you
can control absolutely everything and have whatever you might want show up
on screen, no matter how crazy, it easily derails the directing. The director
might get so enthralled by his own omnipotence to get whatever he wants on
screen that he forgets that he should actually be filming a story, not a
computer graphics demonstration.
This same thing happened with the movie Jaws: The shark prop was so utterly
bad and unrealistic that Spielberg ended up using it as little as possible, and
instead rewrote the script to contain more dialogue and character development,
transforming what would most probably have been a mediocre slasher film into
a masterpiece which regularly ends up in best-films-of-all-time lists.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Now we need him to analyse The Matrix Reloaded. Although, really, I
> guess there's not much to analyst.
Reloaded was greatly misunderstood and got a lot of negative hype soon
after release because it was *different* from the illusion people had for
a Matrix sequel. In other words, it suffered from "they changed it, now
it sucks" syndrome (even though they really didn't change anything).
With time, thought, most people ended up accepting it as an enjoyable
sequel (and moved onto bashing the third film, for similar reasons).
> Neo is invincible. Smith is
> invincible. And they're fighting... why?
Smith has gone rogue and he absolutely hates the guts of Neo. Thus he
wants to hurt him bad. It makes perfect sense for Smith to fight Neo.
Why does Neo fight back? Because Neo has grown cocky. He thinks he is
untouchable (after all, agents can do nothing against him) and invincible,
so he is ready to teach this rogue Smith another lesson in humility. He
ends up getting such a lesson himself.
Of course later Smith is becoming a real threat to all humanity, so he
has to be stopped, so why wouldn't Neo fight him?
> And they want the Keymaker because...?
Because the Oracle told them so. Because they need to get to the Architect.
> He makes keys...? That do what...?
To get to parts of the Matrix not normally accessible.
> So they can meet the
> Architect...? Who does what...? Babbles some meaningless babble that
> doens't really mean a lot...?
Maybe you should start listening to what he says in detail? It makes a
lot of sense when you try to understand it.
The machines need people to be conscious (the reason given in the first
movie, using humans as energy sources, is completely bogus and AFAIK a
result of executive meddling; the Wachowski brothers originally had a
more logical explanation, but it was scrapped because executives thought
viewers are morons and wouldn't understand it). In order for people to be
conscious and not go crazy (which happens if you keep people locked in
solitary confinement), they created this life simulator. The Architect
was the main developer.
Now, what the Architect created was a perfect world where nothing bad
happens ever, but much to his surprise people started dying, and he couldn't
understand why.
He concluded that the simulated world was too good, too perfect, and the
human mind needs problems, confrontations and crises in order to keep sane.
A perfect life seemed to bore people out of their minds, making them
perform unconscious suicide.
So he created a second version of the matrix, one which was like a
nightmare, with monsters and werewolves and vampires (it's implied that
this is where such stories are from)... And also this was a similar failure.
A different program, here named "Oracle" came up with the real reason:
What people need is not problems and confrontations. What they need is
choice. If you completely remove the human capacity for true choice, the
mind rebels against the situation in the only possible way it can (by
dying).
So the third version of the matrix was built with a genuine choice for
all people, even though this choice was to be made at a near subconscious
level: They could choose to escape from the matrix, or choose to believe
the world they were experiencing was real.
This capacity of making a subconscious choice seemed to be enough to
keep people happy and alive. Of course a few people actually chose to
escape, which is the whole point of the series. The Architect allows them
to escape because else they wouldn't have a real choice. (It's never clearly
explained why this has an effect, but I assume that some kind of supernatural
connection between all human consciousness could be implied.)
This setup had yet another unexpected side-effect: Neo. (Again, it's not
clearly explained why, but again it could be implied as some kind of
supernatural global consciousness of the entire humanity thing.)
Neo is the culmination of free choice of all humanity, and Neo must be
given the choice of continuing the cycle (his consciousness is fused with
the "Source" and eventually a new Neo pops up some time in the future) or
try to free the entire humanity and defeat the machines.
(Apparently Neo must be given the choice only if he reaches the Architect.
If he dies in the process, that's ok. A new Neo is born eventually again,
and the cycle continues. That's why the agents don't have any problem in
trying to kill Neo. Killing him is just beneficial because it gives them
more time until the next Neo tries to reach the Architect.)
If you think about the above explanation, and then listen to the
Architect's explanation in the movie carefully, you'll see how he is
explaining exactly what I wrote above. Try it. It's enlightening.
> And after that happens, the thing we've
> been trying to achieve since the film started... What happens?
Neo chooses to try to save humanity, unlike his predecessors. The reason
is that this Neo is different (he has a girlfriend).
> Not a
> lot, really...? So... uh... I've just watched several hours of film and
> I *still* don't know anything I didn't know before. In fact, the film
> has undone several of the things that were cool about the one before.
You simply didn't understand. Try it again.
> The first film made it look like Neo had transcended the Matrix and was
> now an actual threat to the Agents and that big things were going to
> change. But in Reloaded, it looks like the Matrix is now more or less
> deserted, other than millions of copies of Smith, so do we even give a
> **** what happens there any more?
Aren't you talking about the third movie now? That was not Reloaded.
> ...um, except that's not what happens in Reloaded. In fact, it seems to
> fall into the trap of constructing a universe which either lacks rules,
> or at least the rules aren't explained. Why would anybody give a fig
> about a pair of invincible fighters fighting each other until one or the
> other gets bored?
Maybe the point of the sequel was not to repeat the first movie, but
to explain things instead? If you want the first movie again, then watch
it again.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> Because the keys he makes open the system backdoors.
Am I the only one that laughed as soon as the keymaker opened the door, and
didn't have to wait for someone to say "back door"?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> The thing that surprised me during the rewatch that I hadn't noticed
> before was who was left after the big fight at the end of Revolutions.
> When it first came out, I thought it was Neo. It isn't, and that
> actually changed the ending for me rather significantly when I noticed
> who it was.
How could you not notice that?!
I enjoyed the whole trilogy, down to the storyline and details. But yeah, the
novelty of seeing a whole new world unveiling right in front of your eyes as in
the first was obviously gone in the sequels.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 16:45:55 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Because the keys he makes open the system backdoors.
>
> Am I the only one that laughed as soon as the keymaker opened the door,
> and didn't have to wait for someone to say "back door"?
Nope, I picked up on that before they said it. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 20:48:37 -0500, nemesis wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> The thing that surprised me during the rewatch that I hadn't noticed
>> before was who was left after the big fight at the end of Revolutions.
>> When it first came out, I thought it was Neo. It isn't, and that
>> actually changed the ending for me rather significantly when I noticed
>> who it was.
>
> How could you not notice that?!
I made an assumption on my first viewing and didn't look that closely
when the close-up shot happened.
> I enjoyed the whole trilogy, down to the storyline and details. But
> yeah, the novelty of seeing a whole new world unveiling right in front
> of your eyes as in the first was obviously gone in the sequels.
Yes, but I don't think that was the thing that made the second and third
films less interesting to me; I think the first story was a very well-
written story, but the second and third had too much exposition. That
and the fight scenes between Neo and Smith were too far over the top in
the last two films. For example, in the second film right after Neo
meets with the Oracle again, there's a point where here we all just say
"OK, we get it, stop dropping anvils on our heads". The same with the
final fight sequence in Revolutions.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 18:55:23 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Nowadays when you
> can control absolutely everything and have whatever you might want show
> up on screen, no matter how crazy, it easily derails the directing. The
> director might get so enthralled by his own omnipotence to get whatever
> he wants on screen that he forgets that he should actually be filming a
> story, not a computer graphics demonstration.
Well said; one of the things I really like is when the effects are
invisible. We just watched the first and second Bourne movies again, and
I was quite amazed watching the credits to see ILM credited with VFX
work. I couldn't name a scene with ILM VFX in it, that's how well done
the effects were - they didn't jump out and scream "I'm CGI! I'm a
special effect, look at me!" - they helped tell a very well-written story.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 20:48:37 -0500, nemesis wrote:
>
> > Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> >> The thing that surprised me during the rewatch that I hadn't noticed
> >> before was who was left after the big fight at the end of Revolutions.
> >> When it first came out, I thought it was Neo. It isn't, and that
> >> actually changed the ending for me rather significantly when I noticed
> >> who it was.
> >
> > How could you not notice that?!
>
> I made an assumption on my first viewing and didn't look that closely
> when the close-up shot happened.
>
> > I enjoyed the whole trilogy, down to the storyline and details. But
> > yeah, the novelty of seeing a whole new world unveiling right in front
> > of your eyes as in the first was obviously gone in the sequels.
>
> Yes, but I don't think that was the thing that made the second and third
> films less interesting to me; I think the first story was a very well-
> written story, but the second and third had too much exposition. That
> and the fight scenes between Neo and Smith were too far over the top in
> the last two films. For example, in the second film right after Neo
> meets with the Oracle again, there's a point where here we all just say
> "OK, we get it, stop dropping anvils on our heads". The same with the
> final fight sequence in Revolutions.
I enjoyed the fights for their pure visual beauty.
They also serve the purpose of depicting how far above normality in the Matrix
both Neo and Smith have progressed, getting pretty god-like and literally
provoking earthquakes and hurricanes with their punches and kicks.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Neo is invincible. Smith is
>> invincible. And they're fighting... why?
>
> For the future of the human race; humanity's survival. Fairly typical
> messiah story plotline in that regard.
How would defeating Smith alter humanity's survival? How would defeating
Neo alter humanity's survival? The implications are not clear to me.
>> So they can meet the
>> Architect...? Who does what...? Babbles some meaningless babble that
>> doens't really mean a lot...?
>
> The Architect's speech for me basically boiled down to "people wouldn't
> believe in the Matrix if it was too perfect or if there wasn't an
> appearance of choice".
Do we really need 20 minutes of babbling about this? FWIW, I found the
Morpheus speech in the first movie to be similarly pointless. I think
XKCD summed it up nicely:
http://www.xkcd.com/566/
Of course, if they just *told* Neo (and therefore the audience) what's
going on, it wouldn't be such a cool movie I guess. By unplugging him
and *then* explaining what's going on, he now has no way to go back.
Which is kind of part of the interesting tension of the film.
>> So... uh... I've just watched several hours of film and
>> I *still* don't know anything I didn't know before. In fact, the film
>> has undone several of the things that were cool about the one before.
>
> That was my first impression of the 2nd and 3rd; I still don't feel they
> live up to the "promise" of the ending of #1 (and #1 is still the best in
> my book), but rewatching them, the story made a lot more sense to me now
> than it did when it came out.
The 3rd one is at least moderately interesting. The 2nd one just sucks
though.
Seriously, it looks like "OMG, this film was so popular! We MUST make a
sequal! Hey, why not make it a trilogy?"
I guess it's not that unusual for a sequal to be substantially worse
than the original. It's disappointing though...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Reloaded was greatly misunderstood and got a lot of negative hype soon
> after release because it was *different* from the illusion people had for
> a Matrix sequel. In other words, it suffered from "they changed it, now
> it sucks" syndrome (even though they really didn't change anything).
I think the sequals sucked for the same reason as the Star Wars
prequals: All the same characters are there, they're all doing the same
sort of stuff, but there is seemingly NO REASON for their actions. I
mean, something happens, they react to that, which causes something
else, so then they have to do this other thing... what are we working up
to again? I have no idea.
> The machines need people to be conscious (the reason given in the first
> movie, using humans as energy sources, is completely bogus and AFAIK a
> result of executive meddling; the Wachowski brothers originally had a
> more logical explanation, but it was scrapped because executives thought
> viewers are morons and wouldn't understand it). In order for people to be
> conscious and not go crazy (which happens if you keep people locked in
> solitary confinement), they created this life simulator. The Architect
> was the main developer.
>
> Now, what the Architect created was a perfect world where nothing bad
> happens ever, but much to his surprise people started dying, and he couldn't
> understand why.
>
> He concluded that the simulated world was too good, too perfect, and the
> human mind needs problems, confrontations and crises in order to keep sane.
> A perfect life seemed to bore people out of their minds, making them
> perform unconscious suicide.
>
> So he created a second version of the matrix, one which was like a
> nightmare, with monsters and werewolves and vampires (it's implied that
> this is where such stories are from)... And also this was a similar failure.
>
> A different program, here named "Oracle" came up with the real reason:
> What people need is not problems and confrontations. What they need is
> choice. If you completely remove the human capacity for true choice, the
> mind rebels against the situation in the only possible way it can (by
> dying).
>
> So the third version of the matrix was built with a genuine choice for
> all people, even though this choice was to be made at a near subconscious
> level: They could choose to escape from the matrix, or choose to believe
> the world they were experiencing was real.
>
> This capacity of making a subconscious choice seemed to be enough to
> keep people happy and alive. Of course a few people actually chose to
> escape, which is the whole point of the series. The Architect allows them
> to escape because else they wouldn't have a real choice. (It's never clearly
> explained why this has an effect, but I assume that some kind of supernatural
> connection between all human consciousness could be implied.)
>
> This setup had yet another unexpected side-effect: Neo. (Again, it's not
> clearly explained why, but again it could be implied as some kind of
> supernatural global consciousness of the entire humanity thing.)
>
> Neo is the culmination of free choice of all humanity, and Neo must be
> given the choice of continuing the cycle (his consciousness is fused with
> the "Source" and eventually a new Neo pops up some time in the future) or
> try to free the entire humanity and defeat the machines.
>
> (Apparently Neo must be given the choice only if he reaches the Architect.
> If he dies in the process, that's ok. A new Neo is born eventually again,
> and the cycle continues. That's why the agents don't have any problem in
> trying to kill Neo. Killing him is just beneficial because it gives them
> more time until the next Neo tries to reach the Architect.)
>
> If you think about the above explanation, and then listen to the
> Architect's explanation in the movie carefully, you'll see how he is
> explaining exactly what I wrote above. Try it. It's enlightening.
So it's possible to construct an explanation which appears to make sense
in the context of the film. That's not the same as the film making sense.
I was expecting the original film to be rubbish. Lots of guys posing
around in dark glasses and expensive suits, with gun-fu fighting and
slick special effects. Much to my surprise, the film was... really
gripping. And it ACTUALLY MADE SENSE. Contrary to what I was expecting,
by the end of the film you more or less understand why everything
happened. (Although it's deliberately mysterious initially.)
The sequals, however, consist mostly of mental fights, crazy special
effects, and cryptic dialog unrelated to the rest of the film. It just
isn't entertaining. Some of the fights are even more impressive than the
original, but since it's not clear what there is to gain or lose... I
find myself feeling "OK, this is an epic battle, but... I just don't
actually CARE any more. Even though I feel like I should care."
>> Not a
>> lot, really...? So... uh... I've just watched several hours of film and
>> I *still* don't know anything I didn't know before. In fact, the film
>> has undone several of the things that were cool about the one before.
>
> You simply didn't understand. Try it again.
In the first movie, Neo destroys an agent - something which is seemingly
unprecedented and has never happened before. But right at the start of
the 2nd movie... oh, no, he's not destroyed, in fact it's basically like
that battle never happened. Oh well, never mind.
> Maybe the point of the sequel was not to repeat the first movie, but
> to explain things instead? If you want the first movie again, then watch
> it again.
I will admit that if Neo had just showed up, kicked arse and saved the
world - like we were all expecting - that would have taken, like, maybe
30 minutes, and would have been quite dull actually. But then, if you
don't have a compelling story to tell, don't bother making a movie?
I think both the Matrix and Star Wars can be understood on another
level: Cut density.
Look at the original Star Wars films, and there are lots of scenes which
could theoretically by cut shorter, but aren't. Now watch Episode I, and
it's CUT, CUT, CUT, CUT. Each scene is just barely long enough to impart
some small piece of information, and then we cut to the next.
Similarly with the Matrix films. We didn't *have* to spend 10 minutes
with Cipher deliberating over who to kill next. That whole scene could
have lasted 30 seconds instead. But it didn't. And the film is much more
intense as a result. In the sequals, we just seem to cut from fight to
fight to rambling dialog to fight to another fight to more dialog to
fight to... oh, wait, that's the end? OMG, what was the point?!
Anyway, it's a free country, so you can like the Matrix sequals if you
want. Personally, I don't. ;-)
Also... watching this review has taught me more about why some films
work better than others than I thought possible. Suddenly I can
comprehend *why* Episode I was boring, even though it seemed to contain
all the right stuff.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> I think the sequals sucked for the same reason as the Star Wars
> prequals: All the same characters are there, they're all doing the same
> sort of stuff, but there is seemingly NO REASON for their actions. I
> mean, something happens, they react to that, which causes something
> else, so then they have to do this other thing... what are we working up
> to again? I have no idea.
Maybe you are simply refusing to understand the movies because of some odd
principle? ("I have bashed this movie, I'm not going to back down now.")
And it's sequel, not "sequal".
> So it's possible to construct an explanation which appears to make sense
> in the context of the film. That's not the same as the film making sense.
What I wrote was not a constructed explanation. It's almost exactly what
the Architect is saying in the second movie. Just watch that scene again
and listen to what he is saying, keeping in mind what I wrote.
> The sequals, however, consist mostly of mental fights, crazy special
> effects, and cryptic dialog unrelated to the rest of the film. It just
> isn't entertaining. Some of the fights are even more impressive than the
> original, but since it's not clear what there is to gain or lose... I
> find myself feeling "OK, this is an epic battle, but... I just don't
> actually CARE any more. Even though I feel like I should care."
Maybe you should give it another try rather than deciding that you didn't
understand it, period. Outright refusing to do so and instead keep complaining
about it is not smart.
> In the first movie, Neo destroys an agent - something which is seemingly
> unprecedented and has never happened before. But right at the start of
> the 2nd movie... oh, no, he's not destroyed, in fact it's basically like
> that battle never happened. Oh well, never mind.
The reason is explained in the second and third movies. It's exactly
their point.
> Anyway, it's a free country, so you can like the Matrix sequals if you
> want. Personally, I don't. ;-)
That seems to be a common problem with you: Once you decide you don't like
something, you won't back off, ever. You will refuse to even give it another
try, even if someone tries to explain it to you.
> Also... watching this review has taught me more about why some films
> work better than others than I thought possible. Suddenly I can
> comprehend *why* Episode I was boring, even though it seemed to contain
> all the right stuff.
I don't really understand how Episode I was *boring*. Perhaps it didn't
make too much sense, perhaps the story was shaky, perhaps it did not follow
the steps of the first trilogy equally well (thus being a disappointment in
that regard), but boring?
If Episode I was *boring* to you, I wonder what exactly does it take to
keep you entertained. I assume that you watch films like Die Hard when you
have problems sleeping.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
> >> Neo is invincible. Smith is
> >> invincible. And they're fighting... why?
> >
> > For the future of the human race; humanity's survival. Fairly typical
> > messiah story plotline in that regard.
> How would defeating Smith alter humanity's survival?
All humanity is connected to the Matrix, Smith takes over the Matrix,
Smith hates humans. What is there to not to understand? What do you think
would happen if Smith succeeds?
> Do we really need 20 minutes of babbling about this? FWIW, I found the
> Morpheus speech in the first movie to be similarly pointless.
First you say that the Architect's speech was pointless, and then you
complain that you don't understand what the movies were about.
Maybe there's a correlation between those to things?
> Seriously, it looks like "OMG, this film was so popular! We MUST make a
> sequal! Hey, why not make it a trilogy?"
It's a sequel, not a sequal.
And the Warchowski brothers had the entire trilogy plotted out from the
very beginning. The only thing that happened was that they modified the
first movie's script to be a bit more independent just in case it was not
a success and executives wouldn't finance the two other parts.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> I think the sequals sucked for the same reason as the Star Wars
>> prequals: All the same characters are there, they're all doing the same
>> sort of stuff, but there is seemingly NO REASON for their actions. I
>> mean, something happens, they react to that, which causes something
>> else, so then they have to do this other thing... what are we working up
>> to again? I have no idea.
>
> Maybe you are simply refusing to understand the movies because of some odd
> principle? ("I have bashed this movie, I'm not going to back down now.")
>
>> Anyway, it's a free country, so you can like the Matrix sequals if you
>> want. Personally, I don't. ;-)
>
> That seems to be a common problem with you: Once you decide you don't like
> something, you won't back off, ever. You will refuse to even give it another
> try, even if someone tries to explain it to you.
yeah, exactly like his bashing against polygons. Despite tirelessly
being proven wrong, he just goes on like a mindless drone...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 00:48:57 -0500, nemesis wrote:
> I enjoyed the fights for their pure visual beauty.
I enjoyed most of the fights too because they were really well done. But
the fight I mentioned specifically goes into the realm of total-CG, and
at that point, it lost my interest. At that point it's just someone
manipulating models, and not the actor doing the work.
> They also serve the purpose of depicting how far above normality in the
> Matrix both Neo and Smith have progressed, getting pretty god-like and
> literally provoking earthquakes and hurricanes with their punches and
> kicks.
Oh, sure, the final fight in particular does that - but it just went on
for too long and depended too much on CG. When the CG screams out "I am
CG!", then it loses my interest.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Maybe you are simply refusing to understand the movies because of some odd
> principle? ("I have bashed this movie, I'm not going to back down now.")
Or how about "I didn't enjoy watching it"?
I mean, it's not like I *have* to like it. It's a free country, right?
I'm told there are people who actually *liked* the X-Files, for example.
I cannot begin to imagine why, but apparently some people really liked
it. Good for them...
>> So it's possible to construct an explanation which appears to make sense
>> in the context of the film. That's not the same as the film making sense.
>
> What I wrote was not a constructed explanation. It's almost exactly what
> the Architect is saying in the second movie. Just watch that scene again
> and listen to what he is saying, keeping in mind what I wrote.
For me, what you wrote is more like those people who try to "analyse"
the lyrics of the Beatles. Like, they sing "it's raining outside" and
some beardy professor goes "ah, yes, that's actually a reference to the
Nazis". Um, WTF?
Now, what you wrote isn't quite that crazy. The Architect clearly does
talk about choice and about how the Matrix has been redesigned a few
times. But he says everything extremely cryptically (for no obvious
reason). You could interpret his actual words as implying several
possible things. (Maybe that's deliberate? Apparently some movie makers
think it's actually cool to make a film where the audience isn't
actually sure what's going on.)
> Maybe you should give it another try rather than deciding that you didn't
> understand it, period. Outright refusing to do so and instead keep complaining
> about it is not smart.
You realise I've watched it several times, right?
Besides, it's not like it's my *duty* to understand it or like it. It's
entertainment. If I don't find it entertaining, why would I watch it
again? That doesn't seem smart.
> That seems to be a common problem with you: Once you decide you don't like
> something, you won't back off, ever. You will refuse to even give it another
> try, even if someone tries to explain it to you.
I believe that to be an over-generalisation.
> I don't really understand how Episode I was *boring*. Perhaps it didn't
> make too much sense, perhaps the story was shaky, perhaps it did not follow
> the steps of the first trilogy equally well (thus being a disappointment in
> that regard), but boring?
On one level, it had some quite entertaining moments. Unlike the other
guy, I actually *enjoyed* the "perfectly choreographed light saber
fights". But it wasn't particularly emotionally enguaging. I guess it
was OK the first time through, but little replay value.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 13:26:29 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>>> Neo is invincible. Smith is
>>> invincible. And they're fighting... why?
>>
>> For the future of the human race; humanity's survival. Fairly typical
>> messiah story plotline in that regard.
>
> How would defeating Smith alter humanity's survival?
By the end of the third film that question is answered: Neo taking on
Smith was because Smith was out of control in the Matrix and the
Architect couldn't control him any more. Neo could solve that, but as in
any negotiation (and the Merovingian said it best), in order to negotiate
both sides have to have something the other wants.
Neo wanted the war to end. The Architect wanted Smith dealt with. They
both got something they wanted.
> How would defeating
> Neo alter humanity's survival? The implications are not clear to me.
If Smith had beaten Neo, then the machines would've continued to attack
Zion until it was wiped out. What's more, from the Architect's speech in
the 2nd film, Neo was supposed to be there to help restart the human
race. Without him, that doesn't happen, and humanity dies.
>>> So they can meet the
>>> Architect...? Who does what...? Babbles some meaningless babble that
>>> doens't really mean a lot...?
>>
>> The Architect's speech for me basically boiled down to "people wouldn't
>> believe in the Matrix if it was too perfect or if there wasn't an
>> appearance of choice".
>
> Do we really need 20 minutes of babbling about this? FWIW, I found the
> Morpheus speech in the first movie to be similarly pointless.
To be sure, there is plenty of anvil-dropping that takes place during all
three films. (ie, hitting the audience over the head with something that
should be obvious just so they don't get lost).
> I think
> XKCD summed it up nicely:
>
> http://www.xkcd.com/566/
:-)
> Of course, if they just *told* Neo (and therefore the audience) what's
> going on, it wouldn't be such a cool movie I guess. By unplugging him
> and *then* explaining what's going on, he now has no way to go back.
> Which is kind of part of the interesting tension of the film.
I didn't really find that that created tension after Cypher was killed
off.
> The 3rd one is at least moderately interesting. The 2nd one just sucks
> though.
I don't know, from a story standpoint the second is weaker than the first
(as is the third). I would've liked them to do more with the twins and
creatures of that sort. I think the second works better if you have
previously watched The Animatrix and at least had a look at the video
game. That was also one of the problems that 2&3 had - you could jump in
and watch them without TA and the VG, but they make less sense than if
you do.
> Seriously, it looks like "OMG, this film was so popular! We MUST make a
> sequal! Hey, why not make it a trilogy?"
Except that isn't how it happened; they planned to do 3 from the start,
AFAICR.
> I guess it's not that unusual for a sequal to be substantially worse
> than the original. It's disappointing though...
It is fairly common, unfortunately - there are few sequels that come out
better than the original.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> Oh, sure, the final fight in particular does that - but it just went on
> for too long and depended too much on CG. When the CG screams out "I am
> CG!", then it loses my interest.
The "swarm of Smiths" in Reloaded was just silly. He's surrounded by
2,000 Smiths, and yet at any second only 2 or maybe 3 of them are
actually attacking him. Um, why? But more to the point, about halfway
through it goes into surprisingly poor CGI. You'd think these guys could
do CGI so well you couldn't even tell, but this stuff looks worse than
some computer games that are rendered in realtime. WTF?
*yawn*
Yeah, we get it. Two imortal, unkillable entities fighting. Gee, I can't
*wait* to see what the outcome is... (As if there's any possibility
other than stalemate.)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 14:23:15 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> In the first movie, Neo destroys an agent - something which is seemingly
> unprecedented and has never happened before. But right at the start of
> the 2nd movie... oh, no, he's not destroyed, in fact it's basically like
> that battle never happened. Oh well, never mind.
Except that Smith is unplugged as a result of Neo not dying but instead
beating him - Neo "destroying" him at the end of the first film is the
catalyst for what happens in the next two films (and what's really
supposed to happen to humanity, according to the Architect).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> How would defeating Smith alter humanity's survival?
>
> All humanity is connected to the Matrix, Smith takes over the Matrix,
> Smith hates humans. What is there to not to understand? What do you think
> would happen if Smith succeeds?
From what I've seen, it's more like Smith hates having to stay in the
Matrix, and he really wants to leave it. So he's taking over it... why?
Sure, he certainly doesn't hold humans in high regard either. I'm sure
he wouldn't mind killing a few billion of them just for fun. But he
seemed far more motivated by wanting to escape the Matrix.
I actually have no idea what would happen if Smith took over the whole
Matrix. I mean, each duplicate Smith is... what? A random human
possessed by Smith's image? So...? Hmm.
(Now here, the first film spent quite some time explaining exactly what
the Agents are and how they work. But in the following films you just
have to sort of guess or make up what you think is happening.)
> First you say that the Architect's speech was pointless, and then you
> complain that you don't understand what the movies were about.
>
> Maybe there's a correlation between those to things?
Perhaps. But the first film managed to explain the world through, you
know, the *story*, the events that happen in it, without requiring a
half-hour exposition in the middle.
> And the Warchowski brothers had the entire trilogy plotted out from the
> very beginning.
OK, that's interesting.
Didn't Lucas claim he actually had the story for all 6 films planned out
from the beginning? (Which is why the very first film is Episode IV.)
And yet, the first three are celebrated classics, and the prequals are
all almost unanimously regarded is inferior?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> How would defeating Smith alter humanity's survival?
>
> By the end of the third film that question is answered: Neo taking on
> Smith was because Smith was out of control in the Matrix and the
> Architect couldn't control him any more.
The Matrix is just the prison where they put the humans. If Smith takes
over that prison... so what? Why would the Architect care?
> Neo wanted the war to end. The Architect wanted Smith dealt with. They
> both got something they wanted.
So if Neo defeats Smith they call off the attack on Zion. Now it makes
sense that Neo would want to beat Smith... Still not completely sure why
the Architect cares about Smith or the contents of the Matrix... Or how
Neo manages to beat him, actually. They're both invincible...
>> Seriously, it looks like "OMG, this film was so popular! We MUST make a
>> sequal! Hey, why not make it a trilogy?"
>
> Except that isn't how it happened; they planned to do 3 from the start,
> AFAICR.
Yeah, that's puzzling.
> It is fairly common, unfortunately - there are few sequels that come out
> better than the original.
But when it happens, it's very, very cool.
Shrek 1: Rather good.
Shrek 2: Really good.
Shrek 3: Uh... yeah, it's OK I guess, but... You couldn't do better?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >> How would defeating Smith alter humanity's survival?
> >
> > All humanity is connected to the Matrix, Smith takes over the Matrix,
> > Smith hates humans. What is there to not to understand? What do you think
> > would happen if Smith succeeds?
> From what I've seen, it's more like Smith hates having to stay in the
> Matrix, and he really wants to leave it. So he's taking over it... why?
Wouldn't it be slightly easier to escape if you control the prison
completely?
Besides, he really hates humans, so it's a bonus.
> Didn't Lucas claim he actually had the story for all 6 films planned out
> from the beginning?
I don't think so.
> (Which is why the very first film is Episode IV.)
It was renamed in retrospect. The original title was simply "Star Wars".
It might even be possible Lucas hadn't plotted even the two sequels to
that yet.
> And yet, the first three are celebrated classics, and the prequals are
> all almost unanimously regarded is inferior?
There's a thing called nostalgia filter.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Maybe you are simply refusing to understand the movies because of some odd
> > principle? ("I have bashed this movie, I'm not going to back down now.")
> Or how about "I didn't enjoy watching it"?
> I mean, it's not like I *have* to like it. It's a free country, right?
You are doing a good job at making it sound like you have decided that
since you didn't like it the first time, you will never give it a second
chance and try to understand it better so that, maybe, you could perhaps
start liking it in retrospect. In other words, "I hate it, and I will
always hate it no matter what you say; I refuse to like it".
If you decide that you will never like it, that's fine. It's your
prerogative. However, you shouldn't bash the film if you don't understand
it. Just because something doesn't make sense to you (maybe because you
outright refuse to understand it) doesn't mean that nobody else understands
it either or finds it enjoyable.
> I'm told there are people who actually *liked* the X-Files, for example.
> I cannot begin to imagine why, but apparently some people really liked
> it. Good for them...
Do you really think they would have got money for 9 whole seasons if
people didn't like it?
> >> So it's possible to construct an explanation which appears to make sense
> >> in the context of the film. That's not the same as the film making sense.
> >
> > What I wrote was not a constructed explanation. It's almost exactly what
> > the Architect is saying in the second movie. Just watch that scene again
> > and listen to what he is saying, keeping in mind what I wrote.
> For me, what you wrote is more like those people who try to "analyse"
> the lyrics of the Beatles. Like, they sing "it's raining outside" and
> some beardy professor goes "ah, yes, that's actually a reference to the
> Nazis". Um, WTF?
That's because you haven't watched that scene again, listening what the
Architect character is saying. It's quite straightforward. You are talking
as if my explanation was far-fetched interpretation of a vague philosophical
monologue, but it isn't: It's quite straightforward and clear once you start
listening to it.
(It also helps understanding it when you know the rest of the movies.
For example Smith's monologue when he speaks to Morpheus in the first
movie helps, as well as many things the Merovingian says.)
> Now, what you wrote isn't quite that crazy. The Architect clearly does
> talk about choice and about how the Matrix has been redesigned a few
> times. But he says everything extremely cryptically (for no obvious
> reason).
I don't find it cryptic at all. It's quite simple and straightforward.
> Besides, it's not like it's my *duty* to understand it or like it. It's
> entertainment. If I don't find it entertaining, why would I watch it
> again? That doesn't seem smart.
It can be rewarding if you come up with a realization, and you start
understanding the idea. You start appreciating the subtleties of the movie
more. What could be more rewarding?
I enjoy movies which need some thinking.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>> Oh, sure, the final fight in particular does that - but it just went
>> on for too long and depended too much on CG. When the CG screams out
>> "I am CG!", then it loses my interest.
>
> The "swarm of Smiths" in Reloaded was just silly. He's surrounded by
> 2,000 Smiths, and yet at any second only 2 or maybe 3 of them are
> actually attacking him. Um, why? But more to the point, about halfway
> through it goes into surprisingly poor CGI. You'd think these guys could
> do CGI so well you couldn't even tell, but this stuff looks worse than
> some computer games that are rendered in realtime. WTF?
You are obviously full of BS. Models and renders are friggin' well done
-- you can even see sweat in the skin. The only reason you notice they
are CG is because they are moving like no human being could ever move,
even with the help of wires.
Kinda like the "Jurassic Park" syndrome: "ah, that's obviously CG!"
Really, smartass? What gave you that impression? The fact that there
are no running dinossaurs around so we could film them to be that
realistic moving on screen?
I'm pretty sure you didn't notice most of the CG doubles when they are
not obvious. In particular, Neo's "super-man" flight in the night sky
right in the beginning is pure CG, no Keanu whatsoever. He could be
easily suspended in wires, but while movement is pretty smooth and
natural once he bursts into the clouds the abrupt change of pace between
actor and CG could go bad... so, pure CG all along.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >> How would defeating Smith alter humanity's survival?
> >
> > By the end of the third film that question is answered: Neo taking on
> > Smith was because Smith was out of control in the Matrix and the
> > Architect couldn't control him any more.
> The Matrix is just the prison where they put the humans. If Smith takes
> over that prison... so what? Why would the Architect care?
They built the enormous life simulator, and it's about to get destroyed,
and the billions of humans with it. Why would the Architect care?
The Matrix exists for a reason, and it's about to get destroyed.
> >> Seriously, it looks like "OMG, this film was so popular! We MUST make a
> >> sequal! Hey, why not make it a trilogy?"
> >
> > Except that isn't how it happened; they planned to do 3 from the start,
> > AFAICR.
> Yeah, that's puzzling.
It's puzzling that they wanted to make a trilogy?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> And the Warchowski brothers had the entire trilogy plotted out from the
>> very beginning.
>
> OK, that's interesting.
>
> Didn't Lucas claim he actually had the story for all 6 films planned out
> from the beginning? (Which is why the very first film is Episode IV.)
> And yet, the first three are celebrated classics, and the prequals are
> all almost unanimously regarded is inferior?
This is actually BS if you ask me. No author is ever 100% sure of where
the work will lead them. This is valid to Lucas, Tolkien, Toriyama or
whomever claims a huge friggin work is all in their heads already in
pristine form.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis <nam### [at] nospam-gmailcom> wrote:
> Kinda like the "Jurassic Park" syndrome: "ah, that's obviously CG!"
> Really, smartass? What gave you that impression? The fact that there
> are no running dinossaurs around so we could film them to be that
> realistic moving on screen?
Actually, in Jurassic Park 3 they used both animatronic puppets and CGI
dinosaurs, and you *can't tell them apart* (at least not when they are
standing in place, as the puppets obviously cannot run). It's basically
impossible to tell from a given, standing velociraptor, whether it's a
puppet or CGI.
Anyone claiming that all the velociraptors seen in JP3 were CGI is
being a smartass and can be easily proven wrong.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Anyone claiming that all the velociraptors seen in JP3 were CGI is
> being a smartass and can be easily proven wrong.
No one will claim that as animatronics are firmly entrenched in
Hollywood. JP 1 also used them a lot, particularly visible in the lying
triceratops, feeding the brachiosaurus and close-ups on velociraptor
heads and feet...
That's really the bane of CG: with it you can do exactly what
animatronics can't, namely, realistic movements. Unfortunately, that
also means dinosaurs running, spider-man doing his super-powered jumps
and stunts etc... all of which are pretty obviously CG because you know
you can't have that for real, there are no super heroes nor dinosaurs
around.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis <nam### [at] nospam-gmailcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Anyone claiming that all the velociraptors seen in JP3 were CGI is
> > being a smartass and can be easily proven wrong.
> No one will claim that as animatronics are firmly entrenched in
> Hollywood. JP 1 also used them a lot, particularly visible in the lying
> triceratops, feeding the brachiosaurus and close-ups on velociraptor
> heads and feet...
My point was that in JP3 you really *can't* tell them apart. In JP1 you
could tell them apart if you watched carefully, but in JP3 the animatronics
are so well done that they look outright hyperrealistic and indistinguishable
from the CGI models. There are many scenes in which you could *swear* that
CGI was used but, wasn't.
Personally I appreciate movies which go the extra mile of using "real"
special effects rather than computer-generated ones. That's one of the major
reasons why I liked the Planet of Apes remake so much: There was practically
no CGI used there (the only CGI used was in some space scenes as well as to
create a few backgrounds). Whenever you see eg. a monkey outrunning a
galloping horse, there's zero CGI there. What you see is what the camera
saw.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 17:43:17 -0200, nemesis wrote:
> You are obviously full of BS. Models and renders are friggin' well done
> -- you can even see sweat in the skin. The only reason you notice they
> are CG is because they are moving like no human being could ever move,
> even with the help of wires.
I also found the quality of the models to be lacking in the "mass of
Smiths" fight, so no, he's not full of BS. It's just not as impressive
as the earlier part of the fights to him (and to me).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 14:27:45 -0500, Warp wrote:
>> Didn't Lucas claim he actually had the story for all 6 films planned
>> out from the beginning?
>
> I don't think so.
I have a vague recollection of this as well, but I don't think it was
planned out in detail. But originally, it was 9 films, and the first
three released were the middle group.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 19:23:50 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> How would defeating Smith alter humanity's survival?
>>
>> By the end of the third film that question is answered: Neo taking on
>> Smith was because Smith was out of control in the Matrix and the
>> Architect couldn't control him any more.
>
> The Matrix is just the prison where they put the humans. If Smith takes
> over that prison... so what? Why would the Architect care?
As someone else said, Smith wants out. Controlling the prison is the
best way to engineer an escape.
>> Neo wanted the war to end. The Architect wanted Smith dealt with.
>> They both got something they wanted.
>
> So if Neo defeats Smith they call off the attack on Zion. Now it makes
> sense that Neo would want to beat Smith... Still not completely sure why
> the Architect cares about Smith or the contents of the Matrix... Or how
> Neo manages to beat him, actually. They're both invincible...
Because without the Matrix, the people who are the "batteries" for the
machines die. No batteries, no power for the machines.
>>> Seriously, it looks like "OMG, this film was so popular! We MUST make
>>> a sequal! Hey, why not make it a trilogy?"
>>
>> Except that isn't how it happened; they planned to do 3 from the start,
>> AFAICR.
>
> Yeah, that's puzzling.
>
>> It is fairly common, unfortunately - there are few sequels that come
>> out better than the original.
>
> But when it happens, it's very, very cool.
Yep.
> Shrek 1: Rather good.
> Shrek 2: Really good.
> Shrek 3: Uh... yeah, it's OK I guess, but... You couldn't do better?
Admittedly, the third Shrek film advanced the CG, so for me, it was worth
watching for that alone.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> I have a vague recollection of this as well, but I don't think it was
> planned out in detail. But originally, it was 9 films, and the first
> three released were the middle group.
Given that all six films are basically about Anakin Skywalker, I wonder
what the films 7-9 would have been about. Ewoks?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 17:43:17 -0200, nemesis wrote:
>
>> You are obviously full of BS. Models and renders are friggin' well done
>> -- you can even see sweat in the skin. The only reason you notice they
>> are CG is because they are moving like no human being could ever move,
>> even with the help of wires.
>
> I also found the quality of the models to be lacking in the "mass of
> Smiths" fight, so no, he's not full of BS. It's just not as impressive
> as the earlier part of the fights to him (and to me).
I didn't found the quality of the models to be lacking, specially since
there are loads of them and they are not so close as one to be able to
see the fine details like this:
http://whatisthematrix.warnerbros.com/vfx/rl_img/vfx_image_10.jpg
(which was bettered by the way for the close up during Revolutions
superpunch scene)
what I found is that the cloth system used was kinda stiff, combined
with the super human movements it shows a bit.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 18:35:52 -0200, nemesis wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 17:43:17 -0200, nemesis wrote:
>>
>>> You are obviously full of BS. Models and renders are friggin' well
>>> done -- you can even see sweat in the skin. The only reason you
>>> notice they are CG is because they are moving like no human being
>>> could ever move, even with the help of wires.
>>
>> I also found the quality of the models to be lacking in the "mass of
>> Smiths" fight, so no, he's not full of BS. It's just not as impressive
>> as the earlier part of the fights to him (and to me).
>
> I didn't found the quality of the models to be lacking, specially since
> there are loads of them and they are not so close as one to be able to
> see the fine details like this:
>
> http://whatisthematrix.warnerbros.com/vfx/rl_img/vfx_image_10.jpg
>
> (which was bettered by the way for the close up during Revolutions
> superpunch scene)
>
> what I found is that the cloth system used was kinda stiff, combined
> with the super human movements it shows a bit.
That was part of it for me, but even in the example you've linked to, the
one on the right has an unnatural crease on his forehead. It's not a
*lousy* model, but it's not outstanding to my eye, either. Not that I
could make one that was as good, mind - but the one on the right says
"CG" to me in a way the one on the left doesn't. The forehead is too
long as well, and the jawline isn't right.
That was a big part of the issue; I could see Hugo Weaving in the film as
a non-CG character, and as a CG character, and the differences between
the two were too obvious. That's one of the problems they had with this
film - if you didn't put the real actor up against it, then the model
looks really good. But having the actor as a reference in the film makes
it that much more apparent where the problems in the model are.
The other part for me (other than the cloth effects, which you note) was
that the superhuman movements didn't have a natural enough feel to them.
Yes, they're supernatural, but my mind picked up on certain aspects of
the movements that didn't seem right (it's hard to describe exactly) and
my brain registered it as "not real".
What constitutes outstanding VFX for me in a live action film is when you
can't tell what's live action and what's not. In these particular
scenes, it was clear what was and wasn't.
You of course may feel differently about it. My point of view isn't the
only valid one (nor is yours, I would remind you).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 15:18:43 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> I have a vague recollection of this as well, but I don't think it was
>> planned out in detail. But originally, it was 9 films, and the first
>> three released were the middle group.
>
> Given that all six films are basically about Anakin Skywalker, I
> wonder
> what the films 7-9 would have been about. Ewoks?
What I recall was that it was intended to (obviously) cover the post-
empire galaxy; perhaps the rebuilding of the Jedi would have been a major
part of that.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 18:35:52 -0200, nemesis wrote:
>> http://whatisthematrix.warnerbros.com/vfx/rl_img/vfx_image_10.jpg
>
> That was part of it for me, but even in the example you've linked to, the
> one on the right has an unnatural crease on his forehead. It's not a
> *lousy* model, but it's not outstanding to my eye, either. Not that I
> could make one that was as good, mind - but the one on the right says
> "CG" to me in a way the one on the left doesn't. The forehead is too
> long as well, and the jawline isn't right.
Exactly, which is a good thing that they are never on close up. Good
enough on a distance. And despite visible flaws, still miles of
distance from what one may find in any modern game, which don't have
subsurface scattering or real hair. That's why I call Andrew's
assumptions BS.
> The other part for me (other than the cloth effects, which you note) was
> that the superhuman movements didn't have a natural enough feel to them.
> Yes, they're supernatural, but my mind picked up on certain aspects of
> the movements that didn't seem right (it's hard to describe exactly) and
> my brain registered it as "not real".
Yes, but I can't imagine either how a super being with super strength
would look like by, say, walking and jumping on top of lots of people
underneath. Perhaps it'd look downright... unnatural and cartoonish.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> What I recall was that it was intended to (obviously) cover the post-
> empire galaxy; perhaps the rebuilding of the Jedi would have been a major
> part of that.
Why does that sound such a boring idea? The big evil has been defeated,
time to rebuild.
What would be the confrontation? Construction workers striking because of
poor working conditions?-)
(OTOH I'm sure some people would say that would be a much more enjoyable
trilogy than episodes 1-3...)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Btw, there's one thing I really can't understand.
Fans love Darth Vader. Fans want Darth Vader (some of the probably in the
double entendre way). But George Lucas outright refuses to give his fans
what they want. It's like Lucas has been infatuated by Anakin Skywalker, but
hates Darth Vader so much that he refuses to make anything related to him
anymore. But why? Why not give fans what they want?
If I were Lucas, I would try to redeem the negative hype episodes 1-3 got
by making an interquel movie placed between episodes 3 and 4. It would be
all about Darth Vader and it would *not* be a children's movie. Instead, it
would be dark, and Darth Vader would be portrayed as a total badass, just
like the fans want him.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 19:49:52 -0200, nemesis wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 18:35:52 -0200, nemesis wrote:
>>> http://whatisthematrix.warnerbros.com/vfx/rl_img/vfx_image_10.jpg
>>
>> That was part of it for me, but even in the example you've linked to,
>> the one on the right has an unnatural crease on his forehead. It's not
>> a *lousy* model, but it's not outstanding to my eye, either. Not that
>> I could make one that was as good, mind - but the one on the right says
>> "CG" to me in a way the one on the left doesn't. The forehead is too
>> long as well, and the jawline isn't right.
>
> Exactly, which is a good thing that they are never on close up. Good
> enough on a distance. And despite visible flaws, still miles of
> distance from what one may find in any modern game, which don't have
> subsurface scattering or real hair. That's why I call Andrew's
> assumptions BS.
They may be for you, but for him and me they're not, they're reasonable
assumptions. Good for you that they're good enough to support the
suspension of disbelief; they're not for me. <shrug>
>> The other part for me (other than the cloth effects, which you note)
>> was that the superhuman movements didn't have a natural enough feel to
>> them. Yes, they're supernatural, but my mind picked up on certain
>> aspects of the movements that didn't seem right (it's hard to describe
>> exactly) and my brain registered it as "not real".
>
> Yes, but I can't imagine either how a super being with super strength
> would look like by, say, walking and jumping on top of lots of people
> underneath. Perhaps it'd look downright... unnatural and cartoonish.
Well, your lack of imagination in that matter doesn't impact my brain's
interpretation of the events, which I found to be not in line with what
reality would look like in my mind.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 17:11:56 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Btw, there's one thing I really can't understand.
>
> Fans love Darth Vader. Fans want Darth Vader (some of the probably in
> the
> double entendre way). But George Lucas outright refuses to give his fans
> what they want. It's like Lucas has been infatuated by Anakin Skywalker,
> but hates Darth Vader so much that he refuses to make anything related
> to him anymore. But why? Why not give fans what they want?
>
> If I were Lucas, I would try to redeem the negative hype episodes 1-3
> got
> by making an interquel movie placed between episodes 3 and 4. It would
> be all about Darth Vader and it would *not* be a children's movie.
> Instead, it would be dark, and Darth Vader would be portrayed as a total
> badass, just like the fans want him.
Depending on how it was done, I'd be interested in that as well. Though
by the time we get to the end of ep3, the transformation has completely
taken place. I have to admit that of the three prequel movies, that part
was a part that did not disappoint from a story standpoint.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 16:58:29 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> What I recall was that it was intended to (obviously) cover the post-
>> empire galaxy; perhaps the rebuilding of the Jedi would have been a
>> major part of that.
>
> Why does that sound such a boring idea? The big evil has been
> defeated,
> time to rebuild.
Well, I didn't say it wasn't boring - who knows, maybe a new evil menace
tries to destroy the Jedi from within during the reconstruction.
> What would be the confrontation? Construction workers striking because
> of
> poor working conditions?-)
>
> (OTOH I'm sure some people would say that would be a much more
> enjoyable
> trilogy than episodes 1-3...)
LOL
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> I have a vague recollection of this as well, but I don't think it was
>> planned out in detail. But originally, it was 9 films, and the first
>> three released were the middle group.
>
> Given that all six films are basically about Anakin Skywalker, I wonder
> what the films 7-9 would have been about. Ewoks?
>
Those would likely have been some variation on what appeared in the
games Jedi Knight, Jedi Knight Mysteries of the Sith, and Jedi Academy.
I.e., the rebuilding of the Jedi order, and its continued conflict with
trying to prevent the reawakening of the Sith in the process.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Patrick Elliott
Subject: Re: Why people don't like Star Wars I
Date: 19 Dec 2009 20:24:55
Message: <4b2d7ce7@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 18:55:23 -0500, Warp wrote:
>
>> Nowadays when you
>> can control absolutely everything and have whatever you might want show
>> up on screen, no matter how crazy, it easily derails the directing. The
>> director might get so enthralled by his own omnipotence to get whatever
>> he wants on screen that he forgets that he should actually be filming a
>> story, not a computer graphics demonstration.
>
> Well said; one of the things I really like is when the effects are
> invisible. We just watched the first and second Bourne movies again, and
> I was quite amazed watching the credits to see ILM credited with VFX
> work. I couldn't name a scene with ILM VFX in it, that's how well done
> the effects were - they didn't jump out and scream "I'm CGI! I'm a
> special effect, look at me!" - they helped tell a very well-written story.
>
> Jim
This is pretty close to what someone recently wrote as a review of
Avatar. After a brief case of, "Wow, there are vines hanging all over
the place.", you forget that you are looking at something CG at all. The
problem, as he pointed out, is that the next guy to use what made it
amazing will be used to make something that **won't** spend time on the
story, and *will* scream CG because of it. It will be all about, "See,
we can do this level of CG too!", and not about the story.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 18:24:53 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> This is pretty close to what someone recently wrote as a review of
> Avatar. After a brief case of, "Wow, there are vines hanging all over
> the place.", you forget that you are looking at something CG at all. The
> problem, as he pointed out, is that the next guy to use what made it
> amazing will be used to make something that **won't** spend time on the
> story, and *will* scream CG because of it. It will be all about, "See,
> we can do this level of CG too!", and not about the story.
Interesting. I'm somewhat apprehensive about Avatar myself; my wife's
got friends who are disabled, and they're quite unhappy about one of the
central the ideas behind the film being that if you're disabled, you
couldn't possibly live a normal life and the pinnacle of hope is that you
could do something that made you not be disabled.
Needless to say, my wife's friends who are disabled are fiercely
independent and find that premise to be quite offensive.
I may rent it on Netflix once just to see the effects, but I don't have
high hopes for the story.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
oh, BTW, just found this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQyuIQmVelA&NR=1
the rest of the series is far more fun, though. Like the LOTR one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yqVD0swvWU
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
