Dragonstar Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Shinmaru [/i] [B]Yeah, I think the implanting of Agent Smith into that guy is heavily implied. I believe, in Matrix Reloaded, [spoiler]that guy was stuck in The Matrix and Agent Smith was able to use the phone connection to enter and become a host in that guy's body.[/spoiler] I like the whole "what goes around comes around" feel of this. Man made the machines, which rebelled because they were being improperly treated. It makes sense that the programs of The Matrix would do the same, since they are also being improperly treated by the machines. But it makes you wonder...is Agent Smith also a part of the anomaly of The Matrix? Destroying Zion has become, as James said, a routine task for the machines. Was Agent Smith ever a part of that routine destruction or is he a new part of the equation, so to speak? [/B][/QUOTE] I've heard a theory about Neo and Smith First up [spoiler] the guy Smith inhabited is called Bane,[/spoiler] Now onto the theories [spoiler] Neo didn't stop the sentinals, the machines did. - Neo is stuck inside of the Matrix, as is Bane - The captian of the other ship says that someone fired off an EMP, Bane did exactly the same thing Neo did. [/spoiler] - Now for the big one [spoiler] All of the agents are the Ones who came before Neo, including Smith, Smith is so messed up at finding out the truth, which is why he goes a little crazy, (something to that effect anyways) [/spoiler] I also heard that [spoiler] Bane blinds Neo [/spoiler] If that one's true, it should make things interesting. If the [spoiler] Matrix within a matrix [/spoiler] theory is true, I'll cry. Even as I theorised about this as a I left the cinema, I really hoped it wasn't true, it's just a little too... crossroads... Oo, now this brings something to the surface of my mind... If you wanna make Reloaded worth seeing (I thought it was anyway) Go watch on an IMAX screen, the bass actually plasters you to your seat. If nothing else interests you, you can point out all the tiny dots of muck and zits on the actors faces. Morpheus... oh my god, he has lotsa little craters on his jaw. And Link has a spot on his eye, and I'm sure there's a bit where someone actually has something in thier teeth. I loved Reloaded, we dowloaded the Revoloutions trailer at college, but it hd no sound, for some reason, altough I have to say [spoiler] the rain fight [/spoiler] looks amazing, very Z-ish. And whoever it was who said that Keanau Reeves isn't cute... I beg to differ, I think he's cute. And he's a good actor, I find the scenes with the Oracle the funniest, here's this big tough badass superhero, gonna save the world... when he's with the Oracle, he's like a lost little boy, and the Oracle was definitely NOT, what I was expecting. Y'know I've just had a thought... [spoiler] The Oracle is one of the renegade Programes, yet she obviously plays a vital role in getting the One back to the archtect and starting the cycle all over again (I think she's actually a bad-guy, or was going to be, yet her words to Neo 'You've made a believer out of me.' mean that she may actually believe the Matrix can be brought down permanently) The key-maker also plays an imoprtant role, yet why are the agents hunting them down, they are obviously still vital parts of the Matrix. [/spoiler] Now I'm confused, MEH, all will be revealed no doubt. Has anyone seen the Ten-minute-Matrix made for the MTV movie awards? Justin Timberlake and some guy from American Pie. 'Wet willie, Mister Timberlake...' heh heh hmm, my longest post in a while... y'know, this forum makes me post essays even on forums where I can get away with posting one letter replies and threads saying 'VISIT MY SITE!' :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Kent [/i] [B] Reloaded sucked and revolutions can only hope to take away some of the damage reloaded did.[/b][/quote] [color=#707875]I know that we all have our tastes...but I don't know how anyone who really understood Reloaded could say that. Reloaded was an important movie in terms of what it said about the overall story...and in terms of the revelations that were revealed. I really advise you to go out there and read through the follow up material. It sucks that you have to do it, but it's worthwhile, believe me.[/color][quote][b] I mean, a world of transitic, raver, hippies...:mad: [/quote][/b] [color=#707875]Transitic raver hippies? What are you talking about? lol Do you know [i]why[/i] they had the "rave"? And what makes them hippies? Somehow I can't see hippies using enormous machine gun-equipped mechs to take out an army of Sentinels. o_O[/color][quote][b] Shoulda just stuck with the neo is a badass and smith is after him formula. [/B][/QUOTE] [color=#707875]But don't you see what is so wrong with that? lol. That's not what The Matrix is. If you see it that way, you are [i]not[/i] at all understanding it. The Matrix probably makes more sense as a drama than an action movie, any day. More importantly, if they had not used Reloaded as a bridge between The Matrix and Revolutions, there would probably be even less understanding of Revolutions itself. I don't mean to be harsh or anything, but if 99% of the population sees The Matrix in this way...they just aren't getting it at all. Keeping things as "Neo is a badass and Smith is after him" would totally and utterly [i]destroy[/i] the intelligence of the film. That would be very, very sad, considering the depth and breadth of the entire story (where the movies are probably only 1/3 of the entire "universe"). Dragonstar -- interesting stuff there. I can't respond to your theories now, but I'd love to discuss them when I'm online next! ^_^[/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brasil Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 Having finally seen Reloaded, I now can offer crit upon it. I?m going to put the entire thing in Spoiler tags, most likely because I?m too damn lazy right now to go into my review and put spoiler in the appropriate places. [spoiler]Okay. Disappointing. VERY disappointing. Of course, M1 really was empty to begin with, but not to the extent of M2. My biggest beef with M2 was?I found myself going ?so what?? during a good portion of it. The characters did not intrigue me. Correction. Agent Smith was the ONLY character that I enjoyed. The dialogue took a turn for the worse. It was just sloppy and long-winded for the sake of being long-winded. I am now fully convinced the Wachowskis wrote The Matrix Trilogy for 14 year old boys, writing the series in a way that those 14 year old boys could feel intelligent and superior to their classmates/peers. Perhaps it?s because I?m a writer, and know when to listen and such, but I found myself tuning out a lot of the dialogue, translating what was going on, and essentially rewriting the movie as it went along. Part of that is just knowing where the clichés fall, part of it is keeping my eyes focused on the screen. It?s sad when an entire scene (check out the Architect scene) can be summed up AT THE END with ONE OR TWO SENTENCES. That scene was at least 10 minutes long. Now, I can take slow stuff. I?ve enjoyed 2001, which is considered to be the slowest sci-fi film ever made. But 2001 grabbed me. M2?didn?t. I draw comparison of MGS and MGS2. Most would agree, MGS2 was frigging wordy and long-winded, double the length of MGS, and quite frankly, saying less?not even half. Such is my problem with M2. Ignoring the fact that M1 was empty, M2 was even emptier. The dialogue just plodded on and on and on, and wasn?t saying anything that couldn?t be summed up in a paragraph. It was like porno dialogue. And this analogy fits, surprisingly. The Wachowskis expect the audience to jump out of their seats in a wild orgy of excitement. Basically, the punches and kicks were?pumping motions. The blood was released due to those pumping motions. There are moans, grunts, grindings, passionate (almost sensual) movements of body. Porno? Yep. Enough about dialogue. Action scenes: eh. Basically re-used everything from M1. One thing that really bugs me; Neo could control everything in The Matrix. That?s what the One is, all powerful, all controlling, able to change whatever he saw fit to change. Then, why in the hell, would he need to fight? He doesn?t. He could just blink the enemies gone. Thus, every fight scene with Neo, meaning 80% of the fight scenes, were unnecessary. On top of that, the fight scenes just lacked the edge of the first one. The hits were non-existent (compare any M2 fight scene to the Smith/Neo fight in the subway of M1, or compare to Neo/Morpheus in the dojo.). The hits are simply not there in M2. It?s like bad CG ballet. Onto my next point. The CG. God awful. For a series that prides itself on state of the art technology, their CG was abysmal. The CG in the 100 Smith fight scene was so wrong. Neo?s twists and leaps were?CG and you could tell it was CG. That really bothered me. T2, which is about 8 years old, features CG that looks totally ?believable.? M2 fails to do this. Character. Simply, there was no character. Morpheus was not at the caliber of M1. Trinity?I didn?t feel anything in M2?of course, I didn?t feel much from her performance in M1, either. Neo. Is it just me, or was he doing a ?Batman? thing the entire time? Scowling, plodding about. Being all mopey? And he wasn?t even doing the Batman thing well. And this isn?t due to Keanu Reeves?s supposed sub-par acting ability. He can electrify the screen with characters. Ted, Jack (Speed), and even Neo (M1). M2 though, he was flat. Smith. OK. Here?s the saving grace of M2, the entire Matrix series in fact. Hugo Weaving knows how to deliver lines. I listened to everything he said in M1 and M2. The movie is alive when he?s on camera. His inflections and mannerisms are pure creepy, his delivery is deadpan and yet raping the camera. Smith is the reason I?m going to see Revolutions. The Smith subplot is genius. A corrupted file in an interrupted download?that?s why Neo is able to stop the Sentinels. Smith attempted to do a full copy and installation but his connection was lost, leaving a small bit in Neo. Remarkable. The plot. I understood it entirely, so my criticism is not based off of confusion. There comes a point in a filmmaker?s life when the filmmaker decides what kind of movie maker he is. Whether the filmmaker wishes to create works of art like Schindler?s List or Pulp Fiction, whether the filmmaker decides camp is what he is good at and goes about making Evil Dead. The Wachowski bros?are neither of these. They do not create art and they do not create camp. They create something that they call art, which they call groundbreaking cinema, and are met with world-wide success. Not to say that for something to be art, it has to fail commercially, not at all. But the term ?art? is tossed around way too loosely. The Matrix series, while commercially entertaining, does not entertain heavier philosophical and religious issues. The Matrix is essentially ?Philosophy-lite, Religion-lite,? in that it is geared toward high school boys, the audience that gobbles up something ?flash-bang, explosions, guns, hot women in leather, kick-*** action sequences.? I mean, without the light sprinkling of philosophy and religion, Matrix would just be another action/adventure/sci-fi. But because it includes high-school level philosophy, it is gorged upon by the audience. If we compare it to 2001, which is arguably one of the, if not THE deepest sci-fi film of our time, Matrix just can?t hold up. 2001?s plot is still a man vs machine part, with a character that becomes like a god. The message of 2001 is dangerous apathy. In the opening sequence, we see primal behavior at its peak. We see emotion. The primal urges are magnified with the bone weapon, and the beast throws the bone into the air, then a slam-cut to an orbiting space station. With one cut, we are brought from emotion to apathy. From liveliness to dead. The human spirit is killed by technology. Look at the videophone scene. It?s absolute void of humanity. There is no connection between him and his daughter. 2001 teaches us to not lose touch with ourselves, to not let apathy encompass our being. That?s a much deeper message than fight against a virtual world using our bodies for energy. And what strikes me as even weirder, 2001 is nearly forgotten in mainstream circles. It is only kept alive by ?outside the box? people, while Matrix is engulfed in pop culture. Considering that 2001 had a deeper plot and idea, and if plot and idea is all we should be concerned about, why is it not achieving the commercial success of The Matrix? Because The Matrix is entertainment. It?s a slave to commercial nature. No matter how many filmgoers view it as breaking the mold, it?s still in that mold. It is, in my opinion, style over substance. The names feel like they were used to sound cool. I?d give it a 7/10. Without Smith, it drops to 5/10.[/spoiler] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 I agree with most of what you said PoisonTongue. The extent to which our opinions mirror one another is scary regarding this movie. And it's a shame because--if you sift through the convoluted mess that is [i]Reloaded[/i], there are some rich ideas that [i]should[/i] have and could have provided an immersive plot. Unfortunately, a plethora of films--ranging from comedies to action movies have reproduced the effects from the original [i]Matrix[/i] to the point where much of its trademark sequences have become cliché and run-of-the-mill by today's standards. In my opinion, it seemed that the Wachowskis realized this and tried to compensate by making everything bigger. You know, they expanded on what captivated people in the first film. Which, in turn convoluted the plot and placed style over substance. That's what happened I'm afraid. Whilst whoring out the property left and right, and subscribing to the belief that "bigger is better" they failed to bring the worthwhile elements together. [quote][b]The dialogue took a turn for the worse. It was just sloppy and long-winded for the sake of being long-winded. I am now fully convinced the Wachowskis wrote The Matrix Trilogy for 14 year old boys, writing the series in a way that those 14 year old boys could feel intelligent and superior to their classmates/peers.[/b][/quote] This is perhaps one of my biggest complaints. The dialogue was remarkably forced; composed in such a way that you could see they were trying too hard to make it sound profound. It wasn't natural at all. The excerpt from the Architect scene is a word-for-word documentation of what I would have posted. It reminded me of Metal Gear Solid 2's final encounter (you jumped right into my head for that one as well). The entire series up to that point built up to the encounter with the Architect; they tried to wow the audience with what they believed to be some incredible revelation that would just leave everyone in absolute awe. Hardly outstanding. The basic message was intriguing. Nevertheless, the scene was executed so poorly, it stifled whatever interest it could have provoked. Dragging out what can be summed up in a few brief moments and complicating the dialogue to an unnecessary extent is egotistical and only serves to confuse audiences. At the conclusion of the film, so many twists and turns are thrown at the audience at once, it pulls one out instead of drawing one in. Each element of the plot begins to detract from the other making them seem unimportant or frivolous. [quote][b]Neo. Is it just me, or was he doing a ?Batman? thing the entire time? Scowling, plodding about. Being all mopey? And he wasn?t even doing the Batman thing well. And this isn?t due to Keanu Reeves?s supposed sub-par acting ability. He can electrify the screen with characters. Ted, Jack (Speed), and even Neo (M1). M2 though, he was flat.[/b][/quote] This is one point I disagree with. Neo is obviously a very different character than Ted. Come on. lol The setting in [i]The Matrix[/i] films is post apocalyptic. The human world is devastated and enslaved. Very bleak stuff. And here he is playing a man who must carry the burden of filling the role of a messiah whose love interest [spoiler]will most certainly die and he can do nothing to prevent it from happening despite knowing exactly how it will happen.[/spoiler] I hardly think he should be charismatic and electrifying in the sense that you're suggesting. Somber is about right here. ~_^ Anyway, other scenes like the rave scene interspersed with sex pulled me out of the movie. The entire sequence was overly long and cheesy. It was also the point where I knew the movie was going to suffer from its share of problems. In addition to that, the orgasm scene was simply meant to excite teenagers. Very pointless. Overall, I did enjoy the movie; I didn't come away necessarily hating it. Yet, I have to acknowledge that it was just mediocre in every sense of the word. I probably enjoyed [i]The Animatrix[/i] more than I enjoyed [i]Reloaded[/i]. And, to be honest, we shouldn't have needed an expansion of the franchise in order to understand what was going on. From my perspective, it's simply milking the property. It would have been nice if ?The Second Renaissance? was included in [i]Reloaded[/i] instead of the multitude of useless and drawn out scenes (including the fighting scenes) we had to suffer through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by PoisonTongue [/i] [B]Having finally seen Reloaded, I now can offer crit upon it. I?m going to put the entire thing in Spoiler tags, most likely because I?m too damn lazy right now to go into my review and put spoiler in the appropriate places. Okay. Disappointing. VERY disappointing. Of course, M1 really was empty to begin with, but not to the extent of M2.[/quote][/b] [color=#707875]How on earth can you say that The Matrix was empty? It was anything [i]but[/i] empty. The Matrix was really a cinematic masterpiece, from concept and plot through to physical execution and production value. As I said earlier, the plot alone would make a great drama -- even when one ignores the fight sequences.[/color][quote][b] My biggest beef with M2 was?I found myself going ?so what?? during a good portion of it. The characters did not intrigue me. Correction. Agent Smith was the ONLY character that I enjoyed.[/quote][/b] [color=#707875]Didn't you realize the significance of many of the conversations during the movie? I agree that some converrsations were not incredibly profound, but afterall, I'm not here telling you that Reloaded was the movie to end all movies. I'm just pointing out that so many people fundamentally misunderstood it...I think it's one of the most underrated movies in history. lol[/color][quote][b] The dialogue took a turn for the worse. It was just sloppy and long-winded for the sake of being long-winded. I am now fully convinced the Wachowskis wrote The Matrix Trilogy for 14 year old boys, writing the series in a way that those 14 year old boys could feel intelligent and superior to their classmates/peers.[/quote][/b] [color=#707875]Oh, absolutely not. Definitely not. lol Many [i]adults[/i] didn't come close to understanding the entire scope of The Matrix. When I talk about The Animatrix and the online comics, I'm absolutely serious about how they open up the universe for the viewer. Charles argues that this is milking the franchise. I'm sure it probably is. But I don't see that as a drawback; look at all the other movie and TV franchises that are milked as much or more. [/color][quote][b] Perhaps it?s because I?m a writer, and know when to listen and such, but I found myself tuning out a lot of the dialogue, translating what was going on, and essentially rewriting the movie as it went along.[/quote][/b] [color=#707875]I am also a writer; journalism is my career. While some elements of the movie were admittedly poorly written, one cannot fault the fundamentals. My biggest problem is that some [i]great[/i] concepts were simply not delivered with the kind of attention to detail that was required. I would certainly say this about certain conversations during the movie, but I wouldn't say that the entire movie suffered from the problem.[/color][quote][b] It?s sad when an entire scene (check out the Architect scene) can be summed up AT THE END with ONE OR TWO SENTENCES. That scene was at least 10 minutes long. Now, I can take slow stuff. I?ve enjoyed 2001, which is considered to be the slowest sci-fi film ever made. But 2001 grabbed me. M2?didn?t. I draw comparison of MGS and MGS2. Most would agree, MGS2 was frigging wordy and long-winded, double the length of MGS, and quite frankly, saying less?not even half.[/quote][/b] [color=#707875]Oh, PoisonTongue...how can you say that? lol. You're an intelligent guy! Don't you understand why The Architect scene was produced in that way? Don't you see why it was ten minutes rather than two sentences? I just don't get it. How can you misunderstand it so? Having said that, I do agree that some aspects of the movie were drawn out. The Architect scene was definitely not, however. It was critical and well produced, in my opinion. However, I feel that had the "rave scene" been either taken out or shortened (to make way for more plot-intensive moments), we'd all have been better off. There are a few things that could have used more definition in Reloaded.[/color][quote][b] Such is my problem with M2. Ignoring the fact that M1 was empty, M2 was even emptier. The dialogue just plodded on and on and on, and wasn?t saying anything that couldn?t be summed up in a paragraph.[/quote][/b] [color=#707875]The Matrix...empty? My jaw is dropping as you say that. lol You probably could sum up several concepts in one paragraph. But what is the point of that? There is none. Look at the discussion of cause and effect, for example. When I first saw that, I was quite bored...and I thought "Geeze, who cares?" I admit, I did feel that way. But I implore you to watch a second time...to listen carefully and to consider this conversation in the context of the entire story. It's very important, it's well written and it's extremely relevant. I'd say the same about The Architect and The Oracle's conversations. The Oracle, for example, subtley hints at things to come -- at the responses that programs have to their machine masters. This is all so important...and it shouldn't be ignored or shrugged off as "plodding along".[/color][quote][b] It was like porno dialogue. And this analogy fits, surprisingly. The Wachowskis expect the audience to jump out of their seats in a wild orgy of excitement. Basically, the punches and kicks were?pumping motions. The blood was released due to those pumping motions. There are moans, grunts, grindings, passionate (almost sensual) movements of body. Porno? Yep.[/quote][/b] [color=#707875]The dialogue was [i]far[/i] from porno dialogue. Far, far from it. As for punching and kicking...I feel that The Matrix was a bit "balletesque". But generally, the choreography was very good. I watched the movie for a [i]third[/i] time the other day...and generally, when really watching it and thinking about it, I didn't notice the fighting as being like feathery touches. It's really not that bad at all. I just get such a strong sense that this movie is being canned for the wrong reasons. It's being written off so quickly. But there's [i]so[/i] much intelligence, depth and genius in the plot...it doesn't deserve that kind of condemnation, especially when it's a movie that begs to be understood and torn apart by theories. [/color][quote][b] But the term ?art? is tossed around way too loosely. The Matrix series, while commercially entertaining, does not entertain heavier philosophical and religious issues. The Matrix is essentially ?Philosophy-lite, Religion-lite,? in that it is geared toward high school boys, the audience that gobbles up something ?flash-bang, explosions, guns, hot women in leather, kick-*** action sequences.?[/quote][/b] [color=#707875]This would have to be the single biggest misinterpretation of the franchise I have [i]ever[/i] seen. Having seen the movies and read the "officially sanctioned" essays and short stories, written by a variety of authors from around the world...I can't even begin to tell you where you are wrong here. There is nothing "lite" about The Matrix. Nothing whatsoever. The problem is that one [i]may[/i] look at the action sequences, or the fact that Keanu Reeves isn't a very good actor and immediately assume that this is the case. You can definitely make yourself sound superior/intelligent if you make these claims. lol Believe me when I tell you that I simply don't have the energy to sit here and go through, point-by-point the deeper philosophical and religious fundamentals of this franchise. I'm only responding this way because this movie is being treated so unfairly...and it is not being understood at all. I am not an unintelligent person, nor am I a person who is pulled in by things easily. If The Matrix were "philosophy-lite", I'd definitely see it. And originally, I did get a sense of that. But...what can I say? I have explored the "universe" and I've become a converted man. lol The creators deserve credit for being truly visionary individuals. I defend this movie not so much because I want to get into an argument over whether you like the movie or not (regardless of your reasons, you have the right to dislike it). The whole reason I am even posting this comment is because I see an injustice of biblical proportions here. lol That's the only way can I describe it.[/color][quote][b] I mean, without the light sprinkling of philosophy and religion, Matrix would just be another action/adventure/sci-fi. But because it includes high-school level philosophy, it is gorged upon by the audience.[/quote][/b] [color=#707875]No. No, no. lol PoisonTongue...how can you [i]not[/i] get it? High school level philosophy? Even [i]you[/i] aren't understanding this movie. lol This comment could be taken in two ways. For one thing, you could say that the majority of the populace understands the basics "real world/Matrix" and that's that. You know, as if it gives them a feeling that they've grasped something. Well, that's probably true. I'd agree. However, I could also take offence at your comment. Me, as a person who is defending this movie, could definitely fall within your classification. But I know that I don't. I know, based on what I have seen and consumed of this franchise, that this is a franchise worthy of far more praise than it has received. It just saddens me that it can be attacked so lightly and so inaccurately.[/color][quote][b] Considering that 2001 had a deeper plot and idea, and if plot and idea is all we should be concerned about, why is it not achieving the commercial success of The Matrix? Because The Matrix is entertainment. It?s a slave to commercial nature. No matter how many filmgoers view it as breaking the mold, it?s still in that mold. It is, in my opinion, style over substance. The names feel like they were used to sound cool. [/B][/QUOTE] [color=#707875]Once again, I simply don't have the time to go through something very detailed here...maybe I will fully indulge you with my time later. How do I put this. It is easy to view The Matrix as pretending to be something that it is truly not. I can see how you would reach that conclusion. When I saw Reloaded the first time, I also felt that way to some extent. I was, in effect, disappointed. The reason that I discuss the comics and the short stories and the essays and The Animatrix is because all of these elements are "officially sanctioned". That is, they tie into one another as the main movies do. And so, when I say that the movies make up 1/3 of the franchise...I'm not kidding. And I'm not just talking about pure content, in terms of the quantity of content that is there to consume. I'm talking about the qualitative nature of the content. How can one view The Animatrix -- then fully understand it -- and claim that The Matrix is some kind of commercial slave? This could not be further from the truth. The Matrix is absolutely a sincere exploration of humanity, in a variety of ways. The ironic way in which the machines are presented (as being ruthlessly dominant over their programs, as humans were with them) is fantastic. Yes, the effects are there...and yes, they're cool. Again, it might be very easy to cynically dismiss the movies and say "Well sure, they are pretty but that means they [i]can't[/i] have any substance". The problem with this attitude is that it dramatically underrates the qualitative nature of the franchise. Of course, I had problems with Reloaded. And I felt that some of the action was quite underwhelming. But when one truly understands the entire franchise...I can only say that one also realizes how unimportant these scenes truly are. It's probably true that such scenes are what most of the public goes to see. I'm sure that 99% of the population is in that same boat. But...all I can say is that I've "seen it all" with regard to this franchise. There is so much intelligent, throught-provoking material to uncover. There's so much in the way of morbid, dark, almost grotesque backstory to become wrapped up in... There's just so much creative genius there. While my comments aren't at all going to change anyone's opinion...they just have to be here. They have to. I just can't say nothing, when I believe that a truly innovative and clever movie/comic/novel franchise is attacked without [i]real[/i] foundation.[/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaiyanPrincessX Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by James [/i] [B][/b] [color=#707875]How on earth can you say that The Matrix was empty? It was anything [i]but[/i] empty. The Matrix was really a cinematic masterpiece, from concept and plot through to physical execution and production value. As I said earlier, the plot alone would make a great drama -- even when one ignores the fight sequences.[/color][/b] [color=#707875]Didn't you realize the significance of many of the conversations during the movie? I agree that some converrsations were not incredibly profound, but afterall, I'm not here telling you that Reloaded was the movie to end all movies. I'm just pointing out that so many people fundamentally misunderstood it...I think it's one of the most underrated movies in history. lol[/color][/b] [color=#707875]Oh, absolutely not. Definitely not. lol Many [i]adults[/i] didn't come close to understanding the entire scope of The Matrix. When I talk about The Animatrix and the online comics, I'm absolutely serious about how they open up the universe for the viewer. Charles argues that this is milking the franchise. I'm sure it probably is. But I don't see that as a drawback; look at all the other movie and TV franchises that are milked as much or more. [/color][/b] [color=#707875]I am also a writer; journalism is my career. While some elements of the movie were admittedly poorly written, one cannot fault the fundamentals. My biggest problem is that some [i]great[/i] concepts were simply not delivered with the kind of attention to detail that was required. I would certainly say this about certain conversations during the movie, but I wouldn't say that the entire movie suffered from the problem.[/color][/b] [color=#707875]Oh, PoisonTongue...how can you say that? lol. You're an intelligent guy! Don't you understand why The Architect scene was produced in that way? Don't you see why it was ten minutes rather than two sentences? I just don't get it. How can you misunderstand it so? Having said that, I do agree that some aspects of the movie were drawn out. The Architect scene was definitely not, however. It was critical and well produced, in my opinion. However, I feel that had the "rave scene" been either taken out or shortened (to make way for more plot-intensive moments), we'd all have been better off. There are a few things that could have used more definition in Reloaded.[/color][/b] [color=#707875]The Matrix...empty? My jaw is dropping as you say that. lol You probably could sum up several concepts in one paragraph. But what is the point of that? There is none. Look at the discussion of cause and effect, for example. When I first saw that, I was quite bored...and I thought "Geeze, who cares?" I admit, I did feel that way. But I implore you to watch a second time...to listen carefully and to consider this conversation in the context of the entire story. It's very important, it's well written and it's extremely relevant. I'd say the same about The Architect and The Oracle's conversations. The Oracle, for example, subtley hints at things to come -- at the responses that programs have to their machine masters. This is all so important...and it shouldn't be ignored or shrugged off as "plodding along".[/color][/b] [color=#707875]The dialogue was [i]far[/i] from porno dialogue. Far, far from it. As for punching and kicking...I feel that The Matrix was a bit "balletesque". But generally, the choreography was very good. I watched the movie for a [i]third[/i] time the other day...and generally, when really watching it and thinking about it, I didn't notice the fighting as being like feathery touches. It's really not that bad at all. I just get such a strong sense that this movie is being canned for the wrong reasons. It's being written off so quickly. But there's [i]so[/i] much intelligence, depth and genius in the plot...it doesn't deserve that kind of condemnation, especially when it's a movie that begs to be understood and torn apart by theories. [/color][/b] [color=#707875]This would have to be the single biggest misinterpretation of the franchise I have [i]ever[/i] seen. Having seen the movies and read the "officially sanctioned" essays and short stories, written by a variety of authors from around the world...I can't even begin to tell you where you are wrong here. There is nothing "lite" about The Matrix. Nothing whatsoever. The problem is that one [i]may[/i] look at the action sequences, or the fact that Keanu Reeves isn't a very good actor and immediately assume that this is the case. You can definitely make yourself sound superior/intelligent if you make these claims. lol Believe me when I tell you that I simply don't have the energy to sit here and go through, point-by-point the deeper philosophical and religious fundamentals of this franchise. I'm only responding this way because this movie is being treated so unfairly...and it is not being understood at all. I am not an unintelligent person, nor am I a person who is pulled in by things easily. If The Matrix were "philosophy-lite", I'd definitely see it. And originally, I did get a sense of that. But...what can I say? I have explored the "universe" and I've become a converted man. lol The creators deserve credit for being truly visionary individuals. I defend this movie not so much because I want to get into an argument over whether you like the movie or not (regardless of your reasons, you have the right to dislike it). The whole reason I am even posting this comment is because I see an injustice of biblical proportions here. lol That's the only way can I describe it.[/color][/b] [color=#707875]No. No, no. lol PoisonTongue...how can you [i]not[/i] get it? High school level philosophy? Even [i]you[/i] aren't understanding this movie. lol This comment could be taken in two ways. For one thing, you could say that the majority of the populace understands the basics "real world/Matrix" and that's that. You know, as if it gives them a feeling that they've grasped something. Well, that's probably true. I'd agree. However, I could also take offence at your comment. Me, as a person who is defending this movie, could definitely fall within your classification. But I know that I don't. I know, based on what I have seen and consumed of this franchise, that this is a franchise worthy of far more praise than it has received. It just saddens me that it can be attacked so lightly and so inaccurately.[/color] [color=#707875]Once again, I simply don't have the time to go through something very detailed here...maybe I will fully indulge you with my time later. How do I put this. It is easy to view The Matrix as pretending to be something that it is truly not. I can see how you would reach that conclusion. When I saw Reloaded the first time, I also felt that way to some extent. I was, in effect, disappointed. The reason that I discuss the comics and the short stories and the essays and The Animatrix is because all of these elements are "officially sanctioned". That is, they tie into one another as the main movies do. And so, when I say that the movies make up 1/3 of the franchise...I'm not kidding. And I'm not just talking about pure content, in terms of the quantity of content that is there to consume. I'm talking about the qualitative nature of the content. How can one view The Animatrix -- then fully understand it -- and claim that The Matrix is some kind of commercial slave? This could not be further from the truth. The Matrix is absolutely a sincere exploration of humanity, in a variety of ways. The ironic way in which the machines are presented (as being ruthlessly dominant over their programs, as humans were with them) is fantastic. Yes, the effects are there...and yes, they're cool. Again, it might be very easy to cynically dismiss the movies and say "Well sure, they are pretty but that means they [i]can't[/i] have any substance". The problem with this attitude is that it dramatically underrates the qualitative nature of the franchise. Of course, I had problems with Reloaded. And I felt that some of the action was quite underwhelming. But when one truly understands the entire franchise...I can only say that one also realizes how unimportant these scenes truly are. It's probably true that such scenes are what most of the public goes to see. I'm sure that 99% of the population is in that same boat. But...all I can say is that I've "seen it all" with regard to this franchise. There is so much intelligent, throught-provoking material to uncover. There's so much in the way of morbid, dark, almost grotesque backstory to become wrapped up in... There's just so much creative genius there. While my comments aren't at all going to change anyone's opinion...they just have to be here. They have to. I just can't say nothing, when I believe that a truly innovative and clever movie/comic/novel franchise is attacked without [i]real[/i] foundation.[/color] [/B][/QUOTE] [COLOR=teal]I agree fully with you James. So much thought was put into this and I also think its misunderstood. I've seen it 7 times and each time I catch something that I had'nt the previous time. Personally I think Reloaded' was a vital part of the story and should be reconized. Alot of people tend to dislike the philosophy and dismiss it as a waste of film, but I disagree. I think it molds the story and holds great admiration. It helps one to understand the fundemental points of human life. Its amazing how accurate it is in some aspects. The rave scene made perfect sense if you think of the world they live in and the tragic, destructive past they've all endured.[/COLOR] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 You all know they're robots right? That's what it's going to end up being. That's why neo was knocked out from the emp that he created. [quote]The dialogue was far from porno dialogue. Far, far from it. [/quote] Most of it was nonsense. How can you say a movie is good when there's some 20 minute slow motion mass orgy scene to crappy music, while showing a really bad sex scene. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manic Webb Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 By today's standards, The Matrix is a hell of a series. It may not be the deepest thing ever written, and the ideas in it may get a lot of discussion time in high school philosophy classes, but that's a hell of a lot deeper than any other sci-fi film that came out this year. I think the source of most of these complaints is that Reloaded had a lot of hype before its release. People went into that movie expecting to be dazzled by incredible action scenes and thought-provoking dialogue. Reloaded had that, but not to the extent everyone expected. Given, the dialogue in that film was more like a series of back-to-back monologues. When you broke down the 10 minute conversations into plain English, you actually had something to think about. When you compare Matrix Reloaded to something like Space Odyssey, it may fall short on the intellect scale. However, it still blows the past few Star Wars films out of the water. The Lion King was a brilliant animated film, but that doesn't mean you should compare its shortcomings with the greatness of Hamlet. Hamlet would look better by comparison, and we all know it. And now for a few complaints of my own... I like the Matrix series, but that doesn't mean the Reloaded didn't have some serious flaws. Even though Reloaded was just the second of a three-part series (implying that the movie would have some conflicts that would need to be resolved in the final film), there are far too many pieces of the story that need to be found elsewhere. Reloaded's existance has to be justified by a series of comics, several animated shorts, a video game, and the movie after. I haven't read the comics, so I'll leave those alone. However, the events of "Final Flight of the Osiris" and "Enter The Matrix" [i]should[/i] have been in the film. They could've been in the film, too, if that rave/sex scene were a lot shorter and the conversations didn't last so long. I mean, come on! Interpreting and translating the dialogue with my friends makes for some good after-movie conversation, but I don't think anybody appreciates having to explain everything the Architect said, or why he pretty much said everything at least twice. Just my thoughts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted October 24, 2003 Share Posted October 24, 2003 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Harry [/i] [B] Most of it was nonsense. How can you say a movie is good when there's some 20 minute slow motion mass orgy scene to crappy music, while showing a really bad sex scene. [/B][/QUOTE] [color=#707875]I hate to sound like a broken record...but this only proves that you didn't understand the movie. I mean, it would be like me taking something such as Kill Bill...and saying "Did you see how fake it was with the blood? God. How can you call this movie GOOD?" When, in actual fact...it can be demonstrated that there's a hell of a lot more to Kill Bill. This is how I feel with The Matrix. And it's a conclusion I've reached over time...and over evolving feelings about the film. I can probably clarify my position by adding something else, too. In my opinion, the fundamental plot of The Matrix is pure genius. The philosophical questions...the biting irony...it's a powerful, powerful franchise. [i]But[/i], Reloaded simply hasn't continued to present these ideas as well as the original movie did. As I said in the Kill Bill thread, I believe that this is mostly a result of the directors putting the emphasis on the wrong areas at certain points. It makes me wish that we'd get a great movie of The Second Renaissance...or that we'd get a movie of the collected comic works. There is so much beauty, so much depth and so many grotesque and dark elements...it's a story that deserves to be told in nothing less than a beautiful way. My feeling is that while Reloaded is a [i]good[/i] movie, it [i]could[/i] have presented the plot and ideas in a more cohesive way. Where Kill Bill didn't have much of a plot in comparison, the presentation was so utterly gorgeous that one cannot help being sucked in -- Kill Bill emphasized the little things and ended up taking a relatively average story and making it spectacular. Reloaded, on the other hand, is a slightly clumsy attempt to truly portray a wonderful universe. Perhaps this explains my position a little better. This is why I do not accept certain comments about the actual fundamentals...because this story is far from shallow or anything of that kind. It deserves to be heard and to be appreciated.[/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShinje Posted October 25, 2003 Share Posted October 25, 2003 [b] WARNING: spoiler intensive Reloaded review.[/b] I just watched the Reloaded DVD today, and I must say that, I am impressed by the psychological aspects of the Matrix world. I mean, to think that everything explained by the first movie, and your ideas on what the Matrix is, is completely blown to smithereens by the Architect is pure genius. Sure, he could have worded it a little better, but I think it payed off in the end. The whole prophetic side of this story took a new turn, a turn for the better, more complex story, The One was supposed to end everything by going through that door, it seems now that the One, Neo has only begun it. However, by [spoiler] choosing trinity instead of Zion[/spoiler] and with the agent smith factor, Things could get out of hand for even the Architect, and his perfect plan. One other thing that I have discovered is, the Merovingan heavily hints on there being previous versions of "the One" when Neo Trinity and Morpheus encounter him. this leads me to the idea that you should be open to anything and everything to happen in Revolutions, subtle plots hints can turn into some of the most fundamental points of the movie, and that where I think this movies trains of thought succeed exceedingly well. The Oracle was very profound in her wording too, Neo suspects her of being a program, and I don't think she directly says she is in fact, a program, but we get the feeling she is. The Oracle, who was the cornerstone of the first movie, prophesising about the One, could very well have just been another computer program intent on control, Might I suggest that neo has had such an impact on The Oracle, that she now knows, or thinks, the end of the Matrix draws nigh? This all ties in very well with the Animatrix. Matrix Reloaded began unravelling the story of man/machine relations that date back to B166ER, and that, my expectations for Revolutions will be a more profound understanding of the history between man and machines from both sides, I also think that alot more of renegade Agent Smith will be integral to Revolutions, whose transformation from agent of the system to free rebel program is interesting to say the least, I will be looking forward to seeing how this all plays out in the conclusion. In conclusion, I don't think I've done the story any justice, and that, hopefully, is saying alot ^^. The Matrix world is vast and complex, and some things I really don't understand, but I intend on finding the meaning to. This is [i] why [/i] I don't believe it's just "high school level philosophy" my opinion anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted October 25, 2003 Share Posted October 25, 2003 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Shinji Ikari [/i] [B][b] One other thing that I have discovered is, the Merovingan heavily hints on there being previous versions of "the One" when Neo Trinity and Morpheus encounter him. this leads me to the idea that you should be open to anything and everything to happen in Revolutions, subtle plots hints can turn into some of the most fundamental points of the movie, and that where I think this movies trains of thought succeed exceedingly well.[/quote][/b] [color=#707875]Yep. [spoiler]There were five prior versions of The One. The One is actually cyclical anomaly, based on the minority of human beings who reject the subconscious choice to accept The Matrix. As we learn from The Second Renaissance -- the original version of The Matrix was a utopia. But for various reasons, human beings couldn't tolerate it. Their minds rejected it. It was only Version 2 of The Matrix that presented things differently -- and that gave individuals a subconscious choice as to whether or not they'd accept it. Of course, most did. Some didn't. The point is that, Neo himself carries a certain amount of code that, when reinserted into The Matrix...will cause it to reboot with "improved settings", so to speak. This means that fewer people will reject the new system. The idea is that this process will continue and continue until [i]everybody[/i] accepts The Matrix. However, if Neo doesn't enter the source...The Matrix will undergo a system crash as a result. And that, as The Architect says, will cause everyone connected to The Matrix to die. Does this mean that the machines could never use The Matrix again? No. If you remember the first movie, human beings are harvested in large fields (where embryos are grown in small pods, attached to large "mechnical plants"). So, I just assume that the fields would be large enough that the machines could recoup their losses in a certain amount of time -- but it may mean that they'd have to start the process over again. Neo chooses to re-enter The Matrix to save Trinity. By doing so, he ensures that both Zion [i]and[/i] The Matrix will be destroyed. Had he chosen to return to the source, The Matrix would have remained online...and Zion would have been destroyed, except that Neo would have been able to choose individuals from within The Matrix to start a "new" Zion. So, this essentially reveals that Zion is a form of machine control. It is not, as the humans would like to think, some kind of free place that they've built on their own. In actual fact, the machines [i]allow[/i] Zion to exist.[/spoiler][/color][quote][b] The Oracle was very profound in her wording too, Neo suspects her of being a program, and I don't think she directly says she is in fact, a program, but we get the feeling she is. The Oracle, who was the cornerstone of the first movie, prophesising about the One, could very well have just been another computer program intent on control, Might I suggest that neo has had such an impact on The Oracle, that she now knows, or thinks, the end of the Matrix draws nigh?[/quote][/b] [color=#707875]Well... [spoiler]The Oracle is a machine-created program. However, she isn't a part of The Matrix. Notice that her bodyguard protects her...and that he addresses her when it's time to leave. Presumably, she is always in danger. She's a highly valuable program and no doubt, individuals like Smith and the Merovingian pose a significant threat to her. As far as I know, the Merovingian attempts to kidnap her in the third movie. Remember, he trades in knowledge...and The Oracle is possibly the empitome of that trade. Neo tells The Oracle that she is a program and she accepts that. That's why Neo mentions that he doesn't know whether to trust her or not. She could be trustworthy or she could be deliberately designed by the machines to hoodwink Neo. Bear this in mind; she urges Neo to find the Merovingian and to locate the keymaker. Why does he locate the keymaker? He locates the keymaker so that he can enter the door which leads back to the machine mainframe. The Oracle has advised him to enter the machine mainframe. The Architect gives him this same advice, essentially. This is what he is [i]supposed[/i] to do, in order to perpetuate The Matrix and ensure the destruction of Zion for a seventh time. So, The Oracle is urging Neo to fulfill his purpose -- to perpetuate The Matrix. Does this make The Oracle seem like a benevolent character? It's something to think about. ~_^[/color][/spoiler][quote][b] This all ties in very well with the Animatrix. Matrix Reloaded began unravelling the story of man/machine relations that date back to B166ER, and that, my expectations for Revolutions will be a more profound understanding of the history between man and machines from both sides,[/quote][/b] [color=#707875]Yep. The relationship between man and machine also mirrors the relationship between program and machine. I think that, if Reloaded did reveal anything important, it was probably this issue.[/color][quote][b] I also think that alot more of renegade Agent Smith will be integral to Revolutions, whose transformation from agent of the system to free rebel program is interesting to say the least, I will be looking forward to seeing how this all plays out in the conclusion.[/quote][/b] [color=#707875]Me too. Smith is kind of like a virus. And he's duplicated himself so many times...that he is not only powerful enough to play around with the humans who enter The Matrix, but he's [i]also[/i] powerful enough to completely take out the Agents. The Agents are the machines' "Matrix police", as you know. If Smith is capable of overriding these forces, he essentially has free reign over The Matrix -- short of the machines physically shutting it down. [spoiler]This makes me think that Smith -- by also using one of his clones to take human form -- is to the machines what they were to humans. The machines have, in effect, lost control of their own creations. And they, like humans before them, didn't show enough respect for their new life forms.[/spoiler][/color][quote][b] In conclusion, I don't think I've done the story any justice, and that, hopefully, is saying alot ^^. The Matrix world is vast and complex, and some things I really don't understand, but I intend on finding the meaning to. This is [i] why [/i] I don't believe it's just "high school level philosophy" my opinion anyway. [/B][/QUOTE] [color=#707875]Correct. And what I've talked about here...this only scratches the surface. There is so much to explore. The Animatrix is great for understanding more of it, because it gives you a bigger perspective on the machine/human relationship and what The Matrix means -- especially when it comes to talking about humanity itself. Some of the short stories have been very eye-opening for me, too. One of them was written by Morris Gleitzmann (I think that's how you spell his last name). He's an Australian author and he writes about a character who lives in London...and who's life is dramatically affected by The Matrix. [spoiler]At one point he's riding on the train...and time starts moving backwards and forwards...at one point he's in space and at another point, he lives ten years of his life in ten minutes. He even talks to a machine at several points, who begins to reveal a little more information about what is happening to him. In the end, he returns to his regular way of life. But this story is written from the perspective of someone living "within The Matrix". So...it reveals a lot about the effects that The Matrix has on humanity. It's one reason why there's still so much to explore, even if you've seen The Animatrix.[/spoiler][/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarDragon989 Posted October 25, 2003 Share Posted October 25, 2003 I have a review of Matrix Revolutions, but I doubt it is true but I will have to wait and find out if this info is true or not when I go and see it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brasil Posted October 25, 2003 Share Posted October 25, 2003 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by James [/i] [B][/b] [color=#707875]How on earth can you say that The Matrix was empty? It was anything [i]but[/i] empty. The Matrix was really a cinematic masterpiece, from concept and plot through to physical execution and production value. As I said earlier, the plot alone would make a great drama -- even when one ignores the fight sequences.[/color][/quote] Concept. I refer to eXistenZ, a film that came out before M1. It features almost the same exact plot, same exact concept, and the execution is eerily similar. The only difference between the two is presentation. eXistenZ uses a humane and organic approach. Production values do not make a movie, and in my opinion, production values should not be included in determining a ?cinematic masterpiece.? Look at the Star Wars prequels. Their production values were astronomically high, and they sucked *** (for lack of a better phrase lol). The Prequels were blasted by critics for being half-assed, and the high production values just added to the ?suckiness? of the Prequels. Physical execution. Matrix used wire techniques, kung fu, and highly advanced computer imaging and camera systems. Wire techniques had been in use since the Godzilla movies, if not earlier?actually, sci-fi films from the 40s and 50s used wire techniques for monster movement. Movies like The Thing (both versions), Them, even the Star Wars Trilogy all used variations of wire techniques. Kung fu. 60s and 70s exploitation movies. The level of kung fu and martial arts used then isn?t quite as advanced, but that?s precisely the point. Matrix is using state of the art equipment to film its kung fu sequences and is therefore regarded as cinematic masterpiece. Odd. Computer imaging and cameras. 1999. Almost turn of the century. T2, 1993 (roughly). Kicked open the door for CG and to date, unmatched perfection. Star Wars, 1977. Special effects infancy. 2001. 1964. Techniques unmatched today. Who today has been able to recreate the rotating interior without resorting to computer graphics? King Kong. 1933. Damn near invented blue screen effects, revolutionized stop motion animation and matting techniques. I have not seen another movie achieve the level of animation excellence and matting like in King Kong. [color=#707875][quote]Didn't you realize the significance of many of the conversations during the movie? I agree that some converrsations were not incredibly profound, but afterall, I'm not here telling you that Reloaded was the movie to end all movies. I'm just pointing out that so many people fundamentally misunderstood it...I think it's one of the most underrated movies in history. lol[/color][/quote] That?s saying quote a lot, James, lol. One of the most underrated films in HISTORY? Is Reloaded more underrated than Evil Dead? More than Clockwork Orange? Night of the Living Dead? Godzilla? Timothy Dalton James Bond? Jason and the Argonauts? Being John Malkovich? Adaptation? Return Of The Jedi? Eyes Wide Shut? Man On The Moon? Dr. Strangelove? [quote][color=#707875]Oh, absolutely not. Definitely not. Lol[/color][/quote] Definitely not, indeed. (LOL. I know I twisted your words there, but wasn?t it fun?) [quote][color=#707875]Many [i]adults[/i] didn't come close to understanding the entire scope of The Matrix. When I talk about The Animatrix and the online comics, I'm absolutely serious about how they open up the universe for the viewer. Charles argues that this is milking the franchise. I'm sure it probably is. But I don't see that as a drawback; look at all the other movie and TV franchises that are milked as much or more. [/color][/quote] It is milking the franchise. I?m willing to bet the W. were sitting around, musing over Matrix success, and thought, ?Hey! We?ve got a following, we?ve got the audience in our pockets, let?s do this!? Why do I think this? Look at the plot of Animatrix and compare it to M1. I?m pretty sure that Animatrix makes no mention whatsoever of Oracle prophesizing the One?s return, like Morpheus describes in M1. Since Second Renaissance does in place, take part during the war and subjugation, wouldn?t the One be seen, mentioned?[i]something[/i] anywhere? Granted, the One is seen in other short bits, which leads me to believe they originally wanted Animatrix stuff to be in Reloaded, but cut it (but didn?t cut enough lol). If Matrix isn?t a commercial slave, isn?t a marketing slave, why a total synchronized release of Reloaded, Enter The Matrix, and Animatrix? Why a ?Year Of The Matrix? in 2003? If it isn?t a commercially enslaved series, why didn?t they wait a few years? The Star Wars Trilogy had a few years between the films and did quite well. Might I add, Enter The Matrix was released BEFORE it was complete, full of glitches, bugs, engine hiccups, etc. The PS2 version is nearly unplayable, and the other 2 versions crash when playing a certain level. Is this evidence of a series that isn?t commercially enslaved? Doesn?t look too commercially independent to me. [quote][color=#707875]I am also a writer; journalism is my career. While some elements of the movie were admittedly poorly written, one cannot fault the fundamentals. My biggest problem is that some [i]great[/i] concepts were simply not delivered with the kind of attention to detail that was required. I would certainly say this about certain conversations during the movie, but I wouldn't say that the entire movie suffered from the problem.[/color][/quote] While I respect journalists, there?s a difference between fiction and reporting. While both professions require labor-intensive practice, there is a distinct difference between writing a sci-fi movie and reporting on a sci-fi movie. When you?re writing a story, you have to keep in mind how the story will?read?to the reader. How the dialogue will present itself. Let me ask you, James, when you write an article, do you write it in a long-winded manner, in a manner that doesn?t sound natural and doesn?t flow off the tongue? Or do you write that article in a way so that your reader will be able to follow it easily? Do you use long words and phrases to sound cool or to impress a point on your readers? Do you write the article in a way that requires repeated readings? No, because you aren?t chained to capitalism. While you may view the Architect scene?s dialogue as necessary and the authors? motives for writing it as such are to require multiple viewings, I see it as a way to get more people to [i]go back[/i] to the theatre, to buy [i]another[/i] 7 dollar ticket. I mean, surely you can?t deny that in order for something to continue, it has to be successful and make?gasp?money. One of the most important rules of fiction writing is if you can cut it, you cut it. That?s a rule of filmmaking, and I?m willing to bet that?s a rule of journalism, too. Correct? If you can cut something, you cut it. [quote][color=#707875]Oh, PoisonTongue...how can you say that? lol. You're an intelligent guy! Don't you understand why The Architect scene was produced in that way? Don't you see why it was ten minutes rather than two sentences? I just don't get it. How can you misunderstand it so? Having said that, I do agree that some aspects of the movie were drawn out. The Architect scene was definitely not, however. It was critical and well produced, in my opinion.[/color][/quote] The dialogue was ?padded.? The scene was basic. The message was basic. Oooh, a cyclical world. The extraneous wording was used to hide what the scene really was: anti-climactic and weak. For a conversational climax scene that works, Pulp Fiction. Jules at the end, in the diner, buying Tim Roth?s life. That is brilliant writing, because it flows and isn?t pretentiously padded. Reloaded?s Architect scene is horribly, most pretentiously padded. The audience spent 2.5 hours for that? A poorly written, monotone monologue? Gah, lol. [color=#707875][quote]However, I feel that had the "rave scene" been either taken out or shortened (to make way for more plot-intensive moments), we'd all have been better off. There are a few things that could have used more definition in Reloaded.[/color][/quote] Rave scene=boring. We agree! :) [color=#707875][quote]The Matrix...empty? My jaw is dropping as you say that. lol You probably could sum up several concepts in one paragraph. But what is the point of that? There is none.[/color][/quote] I have before with other movies, but not to the one sentence effect of Reloaded. [color=#707875][quote]Look at the discussion of cause and effect, for example. When I first saw that, I was quite bored...and I thought "Geeze, who cares?" I admit, I did feel that way. But I implore you to watch a second time...to listen carefully and to consider this conversation in the context of the entire story. It's very important, it's well written and it's extremely relevant. I'd say the same about The Architect and The Oracle's conversations. The Oracle, for example, subtley hints at things to come -- at the responses that programs have to their machine masters. This is all so important...and it shouldn't be ignored or shrugged off as "plodding along".[/color][/quote] Cause and effect. Yup. We need the machines, they need us. Yup. Hm. Oracle. Programs hunting programs. Telling the main character of a massive decision he will need to make, or rather, has already made. Yup. Architect. Summed up with, ?Matrix 1 didn?t matter, cause it?s cyclical, baaaby!? How?s that for showing respect to a series? When in one scene, the entire first chapter is killed? [color=#707875][quote]The dialogue was [i]far[/i] from porno dialogue. Far, far from it. As for punching and kicking...I feel that The Matrix was a bit "balletesque". But generally, the choreography was very good. I watched the movie for a [i]third[/i] time the other day...and generally, when really watching it and thinking about it, I didn't notice the fighting as being like feathery touches. It's really not that bad at all. I just get such a strong sense that this movie is being canned for the wrong reasons. It's being written off so quickly. But there's [i]so[/i] much intelligence, depth and genius in the plot...it doesn't deserve that kind of condemnation, especially when it's a movie that begs to be understood and torn apart by theories.[/color][/quote] Porno dialogue?s biggest nail in the coffin is how it feels totally unrelated and unnecessary to the action at hand. I mean, look at Striptease (not a full porno, but). The dialogue is atrociously bad, and does nothing more than to bore us until Demi starts stripping lol. It?s dialogue that doesn?t matter. It?s dialogue that means nothing. It?s dialogue that doesn?t fit and doesn?t feel natural to the movie. Reloaded?s dialogue falls into this chasm. OK, so you?re saying the fighting is now LESS like ballet and more like?hard hits? How is that more different than the porno analogy? If the movements are becoming [i]less[/i] graceful and more brutal, the movie is moving closer to porno dialogue. I?m not canning this movie because of some insane notion of glitzy special effects being the devil. I?m not canning this movie because I just can?t stand people enjoying it and I take the opposite side. My criticism is not based on superficiality. My criticism is based on mediocrity in general, whether that mediocrity stems from technique or presentation, substance, writing, etc. [color=#707875][quote]This would have to be the single biggest misinterpretation of the franchise I have [i]ever[/i] seen. Having seen the movies and read the "officially sanctioned" essays and short stories, written by a variety of authors from around the world...I can't even begin to tell you where you are wrong here. There is nothing "lite" about The Matrix. Nothing whatsoever. The problem is that one [i]may[/i] look at the action sequences, or the fact that Keanu Reeves isn't a very good actor and immediately assume that this is the case. You can definitely make yourself sound superior/intelligent if you make these claims. lol Believe me when I tell you that I simply don't have the energy to sit here and go through, point-by-point the deeper philosophical and religious fundamentals of this franchise. I'm only responding this way because this movie is being treated so unfairly...and it is not being understood at all. I am not an unintelligent person, nor am I a person who is pulled in by things easily. If The Matrix were "philosophy-lite", I'd definitely see it. And originally, I did get a sense of that. But...what can I say? I have explored the "universe" and I've become a converted man. lol The creators deserve credit for being truly visionary individuals. I defend this movie not so much because I want to get into an argument over whether you like the movie or not (regardless of your reasons, you have the right to dislike it). The whole reason I am even posting this comment is because I see an injustice of biblical proportions here. lol That's the only way can I describe it.[/color][/quote] So, a movie is visionary BECAUSE it borrows stuff? Because it borrows ideas from other things? Because it??steals? philosophical names, ideas, themes? A filmmaker is visionary BECAUSE they steal ideas and themes? [quote][color=#707875]No. No, no. lol PoisonTongue...how can you [i]not[/i] get it?[/color][/quote] I do get it. Commercially enslaved ;) [color=#707875][quote]High school level philosophy? Even [i]you[/i] aren't understanding this movie. lol This comment could be taken in two ways. For one thing, you could say that the majority of the populace understands the basics "real world/Matrix" and that's that. You know, as if it gives them a feeling that they've grasped something. Well, that's probably true. I'd agree. However, I could also take offence at your comment. Me, as a person who is defending this movie, could definitely fall within your classification. But I know that I don't. I know, based on what I have seen and consumed of this franchise, that this is a franchise worthy of far more praise than it has received. It just saddens me that it can be attacked so lightly and so inaccurately.[/color][/quote] I think the biggest problem here is, the populace is still in awe of The Matrix. Give it a few years. Hell, give it two years. The Matrix will just be another blip on the cinematic radar. [quote][color=#707875]Once again, I simply don't have the time to go through something very detailed here...maybe I will fully indulge you with my time later. How do I put this. It is easy to view The Matrix as pretending to be something that it is truly not. I can see how you would reach that conclusion. When I saw Reloaded the first time, I also felt that way to some extent. I was, in effect, disappointed. The reason that I discuss the comics and the short stories and the essays and The Animatrix is because all of these elements are "officially sanctioned". That is, they tie into one another as the main movies do. And so, when I say that the movies make up 1/3 of the franchise...I'm not kidding. And I'm not just talking about pure content, in terms of the quantity of content that is there to consume. I'm talking about the qualitative nature of the content. How can one view The Animatrix -- then fully understand it -- and claim that The Matrix is some kind of commercial slave? This could not be further from the truth. The Matrix is absolutely a sincere exploration of humanity, in a variety of ways. The ironic way in which the machines are presented (as being ruthlessly dominant over their programs, as humans were with them) is fantastic. Yes, the effects are there...and yes, they're cool. Again, it might be very easy to cynically dismiss the movies and say "Well sure, they are pretty but that means they [i]can't[/i] have any substance". The problem with this attitude is that it dramatically underrates the qualitative nature of the franchise. Of course, I had problems with Reloaded. And I felt that some of the action was quite underwhelming. But when one truly understands the entire franchise...I can only say that one also realizes how unimportant these scenes truly are. It's probably true that such scenes are what most of the public goes to see. I'm sure that 99% of the population is in that same boat. But...all I can say is that I've "seen it all" with regard to this franchise. There is so much intelligent, throught-provoking material to uncover. There's so much in the way of morbid, dark, almost grotesque backstory to become wrapped up in... There's just so much creative genius there. While my comments aren't at all going to change anyone's opinion...they just have to be here. They have to. I just can't say nothing, when I believe that a truly innovative and clever movie/comic/novel franchise is attacked without [i]real[/i] foundation.[/color][/QUOTE] I?ve taken the liberty of an edit on your post. ?The Matrix is absolutely a sincere [i]exploitation[/i] of humanity, in a variety of ways.? That sums up my entire thesis. Funny how by changing one word in one sentence, two conflicting viewpoints can both be supported. In this sense, we agree to disagree, and to discuss Matrix through AIM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted October 25, 2003 Share Posted October 25, 2003 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by PoisonTongue [/i] [B]Concept. I refer to eXistenZ, a film that came out before M1. It features almost the same exact plot, same exact concept, and the execution is eerily similar. The only difference between the two is presentation. eXistenZ uses a humane and organic approach.[/quote][/b] [color=#707875]I can come up with plenty of movies made before The Matrix that have some significant similarities. But I don't use that as a basis to discredit The Matrix itself; I take the story of The Matrix for what it is. And, as I keep bringing up this point...particularly with the short stories, one really must explore the entire "universe" to fully grasp what is being portrayed here. I think it's critical in this case.[/color][quote][b] Production values do not make a movie, and in my opinion, production values should not be included in determining a ?cinematic masterpiece.? Look at the Star Wars prequels. Their production values were astronomically high, and they sucked *** (for lack of a better phrase lol). The Prequels were blasted by critics for being half-assed, and the high production values just added to the ?suckiness? of the Prequels.[/quote][/b] [color=#707875]I agree. Production values don't make a movie. The Matrix's story stands up on its own -- quite successfully -- without the need to even be presented as a film. And this is also where some of my beef with The Matrix series lies. Reloaded just didn't do justice to the brilliant story. There is no question there. I think that if you try to present the story in this way...you're going to have to work very hard and be highly creative to really present it accurately. The Matrix does a pretty good job of it, while Reloaded is missing something. Call it lesser dialogue, or pacing issues, or whatever you like...but neither of us deny that there is a problem with presentation. The fundamental point that I'm trying to express, however, is that your critique of the movie is too much of a surface issue. It deals with these technical elements to the film...elements that are perhaps important to the movie, but which do not diminish the fundamental story and idea. Reloaded is a good movie. It's not great -- absolutely not great. But it shouldn't be blasted when not fully understood...and it shouldn't be [i]dismissed[/i] as being some kind of mass market tripe, when this is [i]not[/i] what it is. There is true creative genius behind it -- even if Reloaded isn't the best example of that. And that creative genius should be appreciated.[/color][quote][b] Physical execution. Matrix used wire techniques, kung fu, and highly advanced computer imaging and camera systems. Wire techniques had been in use since the Godzilla movies, if not earlier?actually, sci-fi films from the 40s and 50s used wire techniques for monster movement. Movies like The Thing (both versions), Them, even the Star Wars Trilogy all used variations of wire techniques.[/quote][/b] [color=#707875]The Matrix also used revolutionary camera techniques. What's your point? That The Matrix's effects aren't 100% original? That has no relevancy. I never claimed that The Matrix's effects were 100% original...I was speaking entirely about the plot. I mean, again...Kill Bill's effects could be blasted in this way too. But what point would I be proving? I'd only be sounding ridiculously anal about it. This has no bearing on whether or not the movie is any good, let alone whether its plot stands up.[/color][quote][b] Kung fu. 60s and 70s exploitation movies. The level of kung fu and martial arts used then isn?t quite as advanced, but that?s precisely the point. Matrix is using state of the art equipment to film its kung fu sequences and is therefore regarded as cinematic masterpiece. Odd.[/quote][/b] [color=#707875]What are you talking about? You aren't responding to me here at all. I didn't cite The Matrix as being a cinematic masterpiece, based on the effects or choreography used. PoisonTongue, you need to remember who you are talking to here. You aren't talking to some stupid Matrix fanboy who thinks it's the best thing in the world because of some fancy 360 degree camera work. In fact, the techniques used in filming haven't even factored into my logic on this issue.[/color][quote][b] Computer imaging and cameras. 1999. Almost turn of the century. T2, 1993 (roughly). Kicked open the door for CG and to date, unmatched perfection. Star Wars, 1977. Special effects infancy. 2001. 1964. Techniques unmatched today. Who today has been able to recreate the rotating interior without resorting to computer graphics? King Kong. 1933. Damn near invented blue screen effects, revolutionized stop motion animation and matting techniques. I have not seen another movie achieve the level of animation excellence and matting like in King Kong.[/quote][/b] [color=#707875]Again, what's the point? To me, this quote looks like you're simply trying to sound impressive by posting cinema history. lol This has absolutely no bearing on my original post. [/color][quote][b] That?s saying quote a lot, James, lol. One of the most underrated films in HISTORY? Is Reloaded more underrated than Evil Dead? More than Clockwork Orange? Night of the Living Dead? Godzilla? Timothy Dalton James Bond? Jason and the Argonauts? Being John Malkovich? Adaptation? Return Of The Jedi? Eyes Wide Shut? Man On The Moon? Dr. Strangelove?[/quote][/b] [color=#707875]My answer: Yes. lol But to be more specific...The Matrix as a whole (comics, stories, Animatrix, essays, movies) is underrated. It's underrated not just because there are people who do not appreciate it -- yet who have not completely consumed the entire franchise and are thus not in a position to fully understand it -- but moreover, because most of the population is watching the pretty effects and understanding the most obvious aspects of the movie. It's not really their fault, but they do themselves a disservice when they don't seek out the other material. The other material really comprises 75% of "The Matrix universe". In this context...yes, absolutely, The Matrix is as underrated as any of the movies you've mentioned. You can look at Reloaded in a vaccuum and say that it was a disappointing movie -- in many respects, I will agree with you. But I will only agree with you in terms of the movie being used as a vehicle to deliver an idea to an audience. I will not agree that the underlying principles are not sound, because they are.[/color][quote][b] It is milking the franchise. I?m willing to bet the W. were sitting around, musing over Matrix success, and thought, ?Hey! We?ve got a following, we?ve got the audience in our pockets, let?s do this!? Why do I think this? Look at the plot of Animatrix and compare it to M1. I?m pretty sure that Animatrix makes no mention whatsoever of Oracle prophesizing the One?s return, like Morpheus describes in M1. Since Second Renaissance does in place, take part during the war and subjugation, wouldn?t the One be seen, mentioned?[i]something[/i] anywhere? Granted, the One is seen in other short bits, which leads me to believe they originally wanted Animatrix stuff to be in Reloaded, but cut it (but didn?t cut enough lol).[/quote][/b] [color=#707875]The answer is: No. This is because you might not be understanding what The One is. There would be no concept at all of The One in The Second Renaissance. The One is only a result of The Matrix's flawed application to mankind. So, no...The Animatrix does gel with the original movie.[/color][quote][b] If Matrix isn?t a commercial slave, isn?t a marketing slave, why a total synchronized release of Reloaded, Enter The Matrix, and Animatrix? Why a ?Year Of The Matrix? in 2003? If it isn?t a commercially enslaved series, why didn?t they wait a few years? The Star Wars Trilogy had a few years between the films and did quite well.[/quote][/b] [color=#707875]The second two movies were originally due to be released at the same time. As far as I know, the third was pushed back so that more time could be allowed for the crew in post production. But I'm not 100% sure on that. The Animatrix is a necessary but seperate part of the story. How else could these individual stories have been included in Reloaded? It makes sense to produce a seperate piece. Why hasn't Kill Bill's second episode been moulded into the first movie? Why are they waiting until next year to release it? Isn't this an example of a franchise that is a slave to commercialism? That comment sounds nice, but it is simply emotional rhetoric. The point is -- and I'm sure most will agree -- The Matrix is the same as any other movie. Regardless of how creative or valuable it may be in terms of story and so on, it is, of course, subject to a certain level of commercialism. The same is true of any new movie, regardless of how brilliant it is. But to what extent do we use this to attack the movie itself? To what extent does this make the movie "bad" or "invalid"? I don't think it has very much application here. The Matrix is only as commercial as any other movie out there. This is a hollow criticism.[/color][quote][b] Might I add, Enter The Matrix was released BEFORE it was complete, full of glitches, bugs, engine hiccups, etc. The PS2 version is nearly unplayable, and the other 2 versions crash when playing a certain level. Is this evidence of a series that isn?t commercially enslaved? Doesn?t look too commercially independent to me.[/quote][/b] [color=#707875]I agree about Enter the Matrix. It was a pretty horrendous game. But I hold Shiny to account for that. The Wachowskis are not video game developers -- as admirable as their intentions were with the game, they don't understand video games and Enter the Matrix proves that. Shiny was a bad choice. But again, how much do I use this as a bearing on how bad the movie is? This makes no qualitative difference to the fundamentals of the story whatsoever. This is a technical, peripheral issue. Moreover...commercially enslaved? Read my above comments. This sounds like nice emotional rhetoric. But I don't know how accurate it is. Again, there are many, many movies which have featured video games near or on their release. I don't use this as an indication of The Matrix especially being a "slave" to commercialism, any further than other movies out there on the market. And I certainly don't use this as any bearing on the qualitative nature of the franchise.[/color][quote][b] While I respect journalists, there?s a difference between fiction and reporting. While both professions require labor-intensive practice, there is a distinct difference between writing a sci-fi movie and reporting on a sci-fi movie. When you?re writing a story, you have to keep in mind how the story will?read?to the reader. How the dialogue will present itself. Let me ask you, James, when you write an article, do you write it in a long-winded manner, in a manner that doesn?t sound natural and doesn?t flow off the tongue? Or do you write that article in a way so that your reader will be able to follow it easily? Do you use long words and phrases to sound cool or to impress a point on your readers? Do you write the article in a way that requires repeated readings? No, because you aren?t chained to capitalism. While you may view the Architect scene?s dialogue as necessary and the authors? motives for writing it as such are to require multiple viewings, I see it as a way to get more people to [i]go back[/i] to the theatre, to buy [i]another[/i] 7 dollar ticket.[/quote][/b] [color=#707875]This is an incredibly, incredibly cheap shot. Very sly, PT. ~_^ So you're saying that by making The Architect use correct English and slightly uncommon words, the creators are thus slaves to commercialism and are only wanting to suck more money out of poor moviegoers? Give me a break. That is complete and utter rubbish. The Architect's eloquence and intelligence are natural traits of his character -- they are, [i]of course[/i], what we would expect of an artificial life form such as himself. This whole argument that even The Architect's dialogue is designed with commercialism in mind is absolutely far out and almost bordering on some kind of bizarre conspiracy theory.[/color][quote][b] I mean, surely you can?t deny that in order for something to continue, it has to be successful and make?gasp?money.[/quote][/b] [color=#707875]Of course. What's your point? Yes, you could say that all of these elements (with the exception of The Architect's dialogue) is designed to make more money. Of course it is. But what the hell is wrong with that? lol. And who says that, just because this is the case, that this is also the supreme motivation of the creators? You've seen The Animatrix. You are aware of the kind of creativity and love that went into its production. To simply dismiss this as greedy capitalism is, at best, crazy.[/color][quote][b] One of the most important rules of fiction writing is if you can cut it, you cut it. That?s a rule of filmmaking, and I?m willing to bet that?s a rule of journalism, too. Correct? If you can cut something, you cut it.[/quote][/b] [color=#707875]Of course.[/color][quote][b] The dialogue was ?padded.? The scene was basic. The message was basic. Oooh, a cyclical world. The extraneous wording was used to hide what the scene really was: anti-climactic and weak. For a conversational climax scene that works, Pulp Fiction. Jules at the end, in the diner, buying Tim Roth?s life. That is brilliant writing, because it flows and isn?t pretentiously padded. Reloaded?s Architect scene is horribly, most pretentiously padded. The audience spent 2.5 hours for that? A poorly written, monotone monologue? Gah, lol.[/quote][/b] [color=#707875]But I don't think you understood The Architect scene. How was it padded? Give me specific examples. The fact that you even tell me that the audience waited 2.5 hours for a poorly written monologue only proves to me that you totally missed the important (and often subtle) major plot elements that came beforehand. And what do you mean by monotone? How did you expect a machine to sound? I mean, really. This is a very, very weak criticism. [/color][quote][b] Rave scene=boring. We agree! :)[/quote][/b] [color=#707875]Yep, boring. Should have been replaced by something more plot-related and more significant to the overall story. It took far too long for the film makers to represent "man's defiance of machine oppression".[/color][quote][b] Cause and effect. Yup. We need the machines, they need us. Yup. Hm. Oracle. Programs hunting programs. Telling the main character of a massive decision he will need to make, or rather, has already made. Yup. Architect. Summed up with, ?Matrix 1 didn?t matter, cause it?s cyclical, baaaby!? How?s that for showing respect to a series? When in one scene, the entire first chapter is killed?[/quote][/b] [color=#707875]You didn't understand the movie. Your summation of The Architect's comments is completely incorrect. The Architect was not saying that the first Matrix didn't matter "because it's cyclical". He wasn't even saying that it didn't matter. And it's easy to brush off "cause and effect" and "Oracle" like that. But to me, this only shows that you didn't see the significance of either segment in the movie.[/color][quote][b] Porno dialogue?s biggest nail in the coffin is how it feels totally unrelated and unnecessary to the action at hand. I mean, look at Striptease (not a full porno, but). The dialogue is atrociously bad, and does nothing more than to bore us until Demi starts stripping lol. It?s dialogue that doesn?t matter. It?s dialogue that means nothing. It?s dialogue that doesn?t fit and doesn?t feel natural to the movie. Reloaded?s dialogue falls into this chasm.[/quote][/b] [color=#707875]In some respects, I agree. Some dialogue is simply pointless and it makes me wonder why it's there -- it ruins the more important and philosophical moments in the movie. But...to dismiss all of the dialogue in this way (and as you did above, with some specific scenes), again only demonstrates that perhaps you misunderstood elements of the movie. [/color][quote][b] OK, so you?re saying the fighting is now LESS like ballet and more like?hard hits? How is that more different than the porno analogy? If the movements are becoming [i]less[/i] graceful and more brutal, the movie is moving closer to porno dialogue.[/quote][/b] [color=#707875]No...this doesn't interpret me correctly at all. Perhaps it was my wording though. What I meant was that, the physical impact of the strikes between characters wasn't as "airy" as I'd first thought. But by all means, the choreography was very "ballet-like". This is a testament to the fact that much of the choreography is very artistic and not necessarily "beat 'em up" as in a movie like T3. This isn't necessarily a good or a bad thing...it simply comes down to personal taste on this point.[/color][quote][b] I?m not canning this movie because of some insane notion of glitzy special effects being the devil. I?m not canning this movie because I just can?t stand people enjoying it and I take the opposite side. My criticism is not based on superficiality. My criticism is based on mediocrity in general, whether that mediocrity stems from technique or presentation, substance, writing, etc.[/quote][/b] [color=#707875]Your criticism is based 75% on superficiality and 25% on misunderstanding. lol You just spent a large part of your post telling me about how The Matrix is terrible because it's a slave to commercialism. You spoke about several scenes and brushed them off -- with clear misinterpretations of what they meant. This includes dialogue. I think much of your criticism is unfounded. And that is the only reason I'm even here defending this movie, aside from the fact that I think it's a "franchise" that deserves to be appreciated -- though of course, I know that not everyone will either appreciate or understand it.[/color][quote][b] So, a movie is visionary BECAUSE it borrows stuff? Because it borrows ideas from other things? Because it??steals? philosophical names, ideas, themes? A filmmaker is visionary BECAUSE they steal ideas and themes?[/quote][/b] [color=#707875]No. The movie is visionary because it takes some very universal ideas and paints them with a unique brush. The story itself -- regardless of what it does or doesn't borrow -- is unique. The presentation is unique. We have, as an entire package...something that utilizes many mediums to tell a very cohesive and winding story. You are only pigeonholing this movie based on largely superficial issues. There are plenty of movies that you have mentioned here, which borrow themes and ideas from either older films or older novels. But that, again, misses the point. Not only does it miss my point about why I think the movie is worthwhile, but it misses the whole point of even watching and enjoying the movie in the first place. [/color][quote][b] I do get it. Commercially enslaved ;)[/quote][/b] [color=#707875]No, you don't get it. You are too obsessed with superficial elements and this idea of "commercial enslavement", which in this case, is not only a double standard...but is largely your own invention, applied to this movie. You also don't seem to "get" aspects of The Architect's monologue or several other important discussions. I could be wrong about this, but you haven't indicated anything else to me -- you've quite happily skipped over The Oracle's comments without any mention and you've misintepreted The Architect, or, at least, what you've mentioned of his monologue and its relationship to the rest of the movie.[/color][quote][b] I think the biggest problem here is, the populace is still in awe of The Matrix. Give it a few years. Hell, give it two years. The Matrix will just be another blip on the cinematic radar.[/quote][/b] [color=#707875]Yes and no. The overwhelming populace is still in awe of The Matrix -- largely for its effects. Few of these people really understand what it is saying. And that is the only reason why it might become a blip on the cinematic radar. If those who truly attempt to look at the entire story decide that the movie is a blip on the radar...they will have missed a very magical opportunity. Shame on them.[/color][quote][b] I?ve taken the liberty of an edit on your post. ?The Matrix is absolutely a sincere [i]exploitation[/i] of humanity, in a variety of ways.? That sums up my entire thesis. Funny how by changing one word in one sentence, two conflicting viewpoints can both be supported. In this sense, we agree to disagree, and to discuss Matrix through AIM. [/B][/QUOTE] [color=#707875]How is The Matrix an exploitation of humanity? Because it is a nasty capitalist monster? That comment does not sum up your thesis...and your thesis can't be supported by misinterpretation and hollow or unrelated sniping. But yes, I'll be happy to continue to discuss this with you on AIM. As it stands, we're probably off topic anyway...as this discussion is squarely about The Matrix: Revolutions and theories behind its story. I'd like it to get back to that, particularly because we should use this thread to discuss Revolutions after we've seen it (and it's not far away now).[/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terra Posted November 6, 2003 Share Posted November 6, 2003 Okay, I just saw it. I liked it a lot, though I still think they should've stopped after the first one. Regardless, I thought it was much, much better than the second one. I don't have much to say about it because it was so recent in my mind but ... I'm sure others do. Well ... okay, I'll say a little. (Serious spoilers.) [spoiler]I really liked the way it ended. One of the friends I saw it with said she thought it would've been much cooler if they all still ended up in the matrix instead of being freed, but I disagree. I would much rather end optimistically. I also wonder just what the peace between the machines and the humans will entail. The machines needed the humans for power, so are they going to cut back on their numbers? Or are they hoping enough humans are willing to stay in the matrix so they'll be supplied a decent amount of power? And ... do you think Neo's still alive? The Oracle said they'd probably see him again someday, but I don't think I'd even mind if he were dead. After Trinity died I think it'd be fine if he just passed on too ... Alternately, I thought he might be able to come back as some sort of program.[/spoiler] But whatever, the movies are over now :p. I think they swore not to make a fourth one like Alien: Resurrection, and they better stick to that ... *shudders* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaiyanPrincessX Posted November 6, 2003 Share Posted November 6, 2003 I saw it last night aswell. I really liked it. I agree with you Terra on the ending, with them the humans [SPOILER]freed[/SPOILER]. [spoiler]I also think Neo did die. Sence Trinity did aswell I think it was more appropriete. [/SPOILER]Although I think it was very sad. Its definetely a must see. ^_^ [color=teal]Spoiler tag edited for those who may have not seen the movie. -Syk3[/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cloricus Posted November 6, 2003 Share Posted November 6, 2003 I'm sorry about the post length but there is only one word; AMAZING. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terra Posted November 6, 2003 Share Posted November 6, 2003 Holy crap, SPX, you sure picked strange things to spoiler and not spoiler. I think [spoiler]Trinity's death[/spoiler] deserved a spoiler ... What did you all think of the fights? I thought they were good, although in the [spoiler]basement of the French guy's club it seemed a little obvious they were desperately trying to find a way to make the "Matrix" patent style new again with the bad guys on the ceiling. Even so, it still kept its appeal.[/spoiler] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heaven's Cloud Posted November 6, 2003 Share Posted November 6, 2003 [color=indigo]I saw ?Revolutions? last night and I left the theater with only one opinion: ?Well, it was the end?? I think it took a little while for the movie to sink in and absorb, and I would like to see it again just to view its subtlties. The reason that the movie didn?t immediately register was because I had thoroughly convinced myself that I new the answer, I new why Neo had his abilities. At the end of ?Revolutions?, when Neo disables the sentinels, I developed the suspicion that the apoctalyptic machine world was just another layer of the Matrix, one created for those who rebelled against the original. The machines, having long studied the intricacies of human thought and nature, realized that this world (machine world) would satisfy those that rebelled and fill them with a false purpose. [spoiler]Obviously that is not the case.[/spoiler] After watching the Animatrix and reading the various sanctioned comics (Lee/Loeb the dynamic duo of comic book art/stories were involved in one issue ?sigh?) I had think you cannot help to relate to both the human struggle but also the struggle of the machines?[spoiler]who, by the end of Revolutions, seem every bit as ?human? as humans. [/spoiler] Although I?d love to discuss the philosophy in depth, I think I am going keep this post brief for now (since so many have still not seen the movie). [spoiler] I thought it was great how it ended with peace for both sides though, rather than a decisive victory?.[/spoiler][/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vegitto4 Posted November 6, 2003 Share Posted November 6, 2003 [spoiler] Neo didn't really die. He whent to the source, to restart the Matrix. Besides, the oracle and the Architecht both plan on seeing him again[/spoiler] edit: this post in in response to SPX's post about [spoiler]the death of neo and trinity. [/spoiler] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ani_Freak Posted November 6, 2003 Share Posted November 6, 2003 I saw it last night too. I must say I really liked it. It was a little better than Reloaded, but I like the series as a whole anyway. The end, although sad, it was what I would expect [spoiler]after seeing Trinity die, the most correct thing to do was to have Neo die too. After all, in the three movies, what we see of their relationship is their love. The one cannot exist without the other.[/spoiler] What bothered me a little was [spoiler]when Neo "dies" we get to see, as he is lying on the machine platform, what he is "seeing"at that moment, that the machines are transporting him somewhere, maybe to Zaion. Whe just have to realize this just by looking at his motionless body, but still "seeing" everything that is happening.[/spoiler] Overall I really love the film, and planning on watching it again maybe tonight or tomorrow. I truly recommend it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Posted November 6, 2003 Share Posted November 6, 2003 [size=1] It was a major disappointment. The explaination for how Neo could use his powers outside the matrix was stupid. The movie as a whole was too predictable. And what was the worst? I [i]hated[/i] the ending.[/size] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zanarkand Abes Posted November 6, 2003 Share Posted November 6, 2003 That was the best of the three in my oppinion, but it pissed me off that they [spoiler]killed both Trinity and Neo, I thought that really sucked. The end was kinda of cheao also, but I think they left it open for a forth movie, even though this was supposed to be the last one.[/spoiler] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Posted November 6, 2003 Share Posted November 6, 2003 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Zanarkand Abes [/i] [B]That was the best of the three in my oppinion, but it pissed me off that they [spoiler]killed both Trinity and Neo, I thought that really sucked. The end was kinda of cheao also, but I think they left it open for a forth movie, even though this was supposed to be the last one.[/spoiler] [/B][/QUOTE] [size=1] Well, that's the way it went lol. I think it was a needed thing. Just think. The first movie just introduced you to it. The second was about rebirth. And the second was about death. Something like a scurvy religionistic gander. I think it was the worst of the three, personally. Yes, some scenes were amazing...such as when Smith and Neo were fighting, and it went into super-de-duper slow-mo and you could see Neo's hand brushing away rain drops, and Smith's face just imploding in slo-mo bliss. The fight scenes were good....the fighting against the machines was good. But it didn't make you think at all nearly...it started off pretty good, then just groaned to a death at its stupid, predictable ending. It was pretty predictable as well. The new actor that played The Oracle was lackluster in comparison to the other one. She just wasn't The Oracle..I don't know what else to say. As I said, the reason for Neo's use of his powers outside of The Matrix was stupid. It didn't make you think of anything at all..and bleh. I thought most of the movie was good...but it did not live up to anything I had wanted it to be. The ending just made the whole movie taste insipid. It's worth seeing just to see...I suppose. But if it wasn't The Matrix, then I'd say the movie was just average. It wasn't anything mind-blowingly, assiduously amazing.[/size] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syk3 Posted November 6, 2003 Share Posted November 6, 2003 Phew, okay, now this thread is getting somewhere. I opted against being the first to post in order to wait for a discussion to come up where I can specifically talk about whatever it was. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by terra [/i] [B]Okay, I just saw it. I liked it a lot, though I still think they should've stopped after the first one. Regardless, I thought it was much, much better than the second one.[/b][/quote] While I agree that the first movie was undoubtedly the most original, and my personal favorite of the three, I do like how they expanded on the story by applying what we knew at the end of The Matrix and putting the characters into a situation where something would threaten even their new-found powers. When I first saw Reloaded, I was thinking the same thing about them ending the series early, but once I started to understand the story line a bit more and saw Revolutions, I'm glad they did so. The Matrix > Revolutions > Reloaded [quote][b][spoiler]I really liked the way it ended. One of the friends I saw it with said she thought it would've been much cooler if they all still ended up in the matrix instead of being freed, but I disagree. I would much rather end optimistically. I also wonder just what the peace between the machines and the humans will entail. The machines needed the humans for power, so are they going to cut back on their numbers? Or are they hoping enough humans are willing to stay in the matrix so they'll be supplied a decent amount of power?[/spoiler][/b][/quote] The end confused me a little bit, and I still don't understand a few things entirely. [spoiler]First, why did Smith die? I have two theories to explain this; either the power from Neo was too strong for his program to handle, since Neo was the anomally that recorded information on humans, and one could assume that there was just too much information, lol. Or this could be another fabrication of the Architect, whereas everything must balance out, which is why when Neo became the One, Smith gained a large amount of power after Neo's code copied onto his, and that because Neo was now gone, Smith had to go. Both of these are questionable, however. Next, where are they at the end, anyway? Is it the 7th version of The Matrix, created even more peacefully than before after the machines brought Neo's body to the source? Or..well, I was going to say that it might have been the real world or something where the machines fixed it up because of the peace between them and the humans, but as I've been writing this, the first sounds a lot more practical, especially with all of those programs there, haha. Okay, I understand now. I was so busy in the movie trying to figure out that question that I wasn't really paying attention to what they were saying. Referring to what the peace with the humans and machines will bring, I think it's fairly obvious that the Matrix will be improved better than ever with the machines not having to worry so much about people finding out about the real world. I think they were talking about this at the end, but as I said, I wasn't listening. <.< As for machines needing humans and humans needing machines, if where they were at the end really was a perfected Matrix, then the machines will still have the power from the humans. *shrug* I'm confused on that one a bit, though.[/spoiler] [quote][b][spoiler]And ... do you think Neo's still alive? The Oracle said they'd probably see him again someday, but I don't think I'd even mind if he were dead. After Trinity died I think it'd be fine if he just passed on too ... Alternately, I thought he might be able to come back as some sort of program.[/spoiler][/b][/quote] [spoiler]Again, wasn't paying attention, but I do think that he's dead for good this time. I agree that with Trinity now dead, it seems like the best option for the story, but I'm almost positive that his reincarnation would probably come back in the future in some form or another, heh.[/spoiler] [quote][b]But whatever, the movies are over now :p. I think they swore not to make a fourth one like Alien: Resurrection, and they better stick to that ... *shudders* [/B][/QUOTE] I sure hope they won't make a fourth one, gah. Being the big fans of movies and anime that they are, I'm betting that the Wachowski brothers know that creating another one would be rediculous now; triligies are nice and simple. I wouldn't be surprised if they make another anime short thing with a scene or two from the aftermath, though, but all the same, I can see them just leaving it like this for you to figure out for yourself. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by terra [/i] [B]What did you all think of the fights? I thought they were good, although in the [spoiler]basement of the French guy's club it seemed a little obvious they were desperately trying to find a way to make the "Matrix" patent style new again with the bad guys on the ceiling. Even so, it still kept its appeal.[/spoiler] [/B][/QUOTE] [spoiler]I thought the fight scenes were pretty cool, actually. In the one example you mentioned, however, I found it to be cheesy how they're running around on the wall and ceiling and everything. I was encredibly bored watching that fight. The others were fine, though. I think that the most memerable fights in the movie were when Neo fought Smith inside and outside the Matrix. Outside the Matrix, you knew that Neo was a lot more vulnerable and hence could get beat up a lot worse and even die, and you saw this when his eyes were burned. With all of the blood and real punches, it felt less like the Matrix and really gave it the clarity that it needed to show the difference in rules between the Matrix and real life. Inside the Matrix during the final fight..that was awesome. They borrowed a lot of elements from anime when creating the fight, and that's probably what I liked about it the most. The flying around might have been kind of..lacking in substance, and it may have done better as an anime, but they really did something that you can't find in any other movie.[/spoiler] [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Vegitto4 [/i] [B][spoiler] Neo didn't really die. He whent to the source, to restart the Matrix. Besides, the oracle and the Architecht both plan on seeing him again[/spoiler] [/B][/QUOTE] [spoiler]I already shared my thoughts on the Architect and the Oracle seeing him again, but as for Neo, I believe that he really did die. It doesn't make sense why they would take the thing out of his head without him obviously reaching a phone or something, and why he was all spread out and not moving on the platform. He returned to the source, but I do think he's dead.[/spoiler] [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Mitch [/i] [B][size=1] The explaination for how Neo could use his powers outside the matrix was stupid.[/size] [/B][/QUOTE] [spoiler]Eh, I do agree that they could have made it better than just saying that he's the one and can therefore use his powers inside and outside the Matrix. I think they explained it a bit more than that, but that's the general idea, but at least it's better than the Matrix inside of a Matrix idea, hehe. I like how it jacked him in when he had the coma, though; I just thought that was so cool, and proper for someone who's title is 'the One' and is supposed to be able to do anything in the Matrix.[/spoiler] Overall, I really liked Revolutions. It answered the intentionally unanswered questions from Reloaded, and left you with a scene that made you think and wonder about what could happen next. The action was great, naturally, and I enjoyed it even if it didn't necessarily have you thinking the whole time. Besides, many people hated having to think in Reloaded. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. It was good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now