No matter what Joss says, The Matrix is a stupid movie. by chrisisall

Not this one. I thought the Matrix was one of the best Scifi films in a long time. It was original, dark and intriguing. It was Tron, only believable. Keanu wasn’t all that great. In fact, he hasn’t done much that I liked since Bill and Ted. But Moss did some of her best stuff in Matrix. Fishburne did a good job and, in my opinion, really carried Keanu.

As far as the sequels. I pretend they don’t exist. There haven’t been worse sequels since those of the Highlander. Some people can’t leave well enough alone, but that doesn’t mean that the first one wasn’t great.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 26, 2007 9:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:

What is the impossibility you see?

That the machines would choose to let 'us' live at all; we are a virus, potentially deadly to their 'species' in the long run.
Don't get me wrong- I think the movie has great concepts, but the execution was weak IMO. The FX dazzled us, and the alienation from reality (as an allegory to our disconnect with our own lives in this consumer-driven corporate society) was hard hitting, but the the idea that intelligent machines would expend that kind of R&D to keep us alive to make of us batteries in the face of a possible threat is ridiculous. If they have 'fusion' capabilities, this makes human electrochemical needs obsolete, and if they truly need it, their technology sucks.

Whoahisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 26, 2007 9:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I thought the Matrix was one of the best Scifi films in a long time.

One of the best fantasy films, I could agree with...

Judgemental Trekno Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 26, 2007 11:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I thought the Matrix was one of the best Scifi films in a long time.
One of the best fantasy films, I could agree with...

I don’t really know what that means. If you define fantasy that broadly, then Firefly, Star Trek and Star Wars are all fantasy. I’m not sure why you don’t like the Matrix. Was there something about the movie that you didn’t like or did you have a bad experience with a matrix as a child?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 27, 2007 12:04 AM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Of course, The Matrix also has a wonderful example of foreshadowing. When we find out they are looking for THE ONE, we know that they found him in NEO. (being an anagram foreshadow).

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 27, 2007 2:43 AM

JONGSSTRAW

I only saw The Matrix one time and hated it. Have never tried watching it again, or any of the sequels.
Maybe over New Year's I'll try it again. So many people love it, maybe I just didn't get it. Some movies need time to grow on you.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 27, 2007 3:17 AM

FELLOWKNEE

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:

What is the impossibility you see?
That the machines would choose to let 'us' live at all; we are a virus, potentially deadly to their 'species' in the long run.
Don't get me wrong- I think the movie has great concepts, but the execution was weak IMO. The FX dazzled us, and the alienation from reality (as an allegory to our disconnect with our own lives in this consumer-driven corporate society) was hard hitting, but the the idea that intelligent machines would expend that kind of R&D to keep us alive to make of us batteries in the face of a possible threat is ridiculous. If they have 'fusion' capabilities, this makes human electrochemical needs obsolete, and if they truly need it, their technology sucks.

Whoahisall

I don't really think that the allegory was entirely successful. The consumer-driven corporate society is presented as so much more appealing than the "real" world that reality doesn't seem to have a chance. In the matrix, which feeds off of us, we get clear skin, cool outfits and can run up walls. In the real world you eat gruel in your rags. I think they are trying to show that real emotions like love and friendship should make up for the limitations of the real world. Unfortunately, when you've got Keanu depending on emotion to carry your story isn't really an option. So, I guess the ultimate message of the Matrix isn't that we need to dismantle the machine, its that we need to be in charge so we can fly around and punch bad guys in the face...or something like that.

Dark City is a much more (in my opinion) reflection on identity and a wild dream like structure. Of course, if you want a REALLY interesting reflection on identity you should watch Persona.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 27, 2007 3:54 AM

THESOMNAMBULIST

Well to a certain extent Chris I agree with you.

Thing is though I wonder.... If you end up THINKING that much about a film like The Matrix in the first place, it is in part a successful film. The fact that when you actually do think about it you realise it's utter bollocks is neither here nor their because ultimatle it is a sci-fi film, and when analyzed most sci-fi films have gapping holes in them. You must to a certain extent dispense with all forms of reality.

One thing I could never work out with the matrix was all these humans go around in a 'ship' that is computerized and 'linked' up to some sort of network. Well why in the hell can't the 'Machines' just tap into the network and 'talk' to the ships and ice them from within?

When I talked to my friends about this and other stuff in the Matrix I seem to be the only one who didn't 'get it'. And I still don't. I was totally bemused by it all. I still don't know what 'The Oracle' is all about and why she doesn't say Neo is the one?! The cryptic ball throwing still seems pointless to me.

Now with the sequels because they seemed to contradict each other and the first film I just watch those as sheer hokum, and I find that Matrix II is my favourite, purely because I don't bother to try and figure it out. It has the Best bike chase, best fight sequence in that house and well lets face it.....Monica Bellucci.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 27, 2007 4:40 AM

CLJOHNSTON108

Well, I live four blocks from Grauman's Chinese and walked over about an hour and a half early for the first show on March 31st, 1999, 'cause the trailers for this new sci-fi flick looked amazing, and I thought there'd be a big line.
The place was deserted, so I hunkered down in front of the box office with my little tripod camping stool, and the next person showed up after about 45 minutes.

After the show, I walked home all grinnin' & gigglin', because I knew I'd just seen history being made: "Man, they're gonna be talkin' about this movie for, like, forever!"

I also knew that when they made the (inevitable) sequels, there would be lines around the block at least the night before, so I was not gonna get to be First In Line so easily!

Saw it one more time at the Chinese, and another 7 times when it came to the $3 theater (where it stayed for 2 months)!
That's a record for me! I'd never seen a movie in theaters more than 5 times.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 27, 2007 5:11 AM

RALLEM

I think the original Matrix was a good movie in that it had a good story line and great special effects, and while it is obvious that there was more to the story line, I feel the creators of Matrix's sequels dropped the ball.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 27, 2007 5:58 AM

MAL4PREZ

Hey Chris!

So, the first time I saw The Matrix I loved it vastly, because it so completely confused me and then explained what was happening and it more or less made sense. I like that. I like being fooled when a film does it well. And the effects really did rock. This film is worth being history just for that. Really, I mean it.

And now let me tear it apart.

On subsequent viewings, the thing that kills me is some of the really stupid dialogue. "You're going to kill him. You're going to kill Morpheus." I find that scene unbearable. And the whole - "Is he the one?" deal. "He's the one!" "Neo, I know you're the one, because I love you!" Right - cause it's not sci-fi unless there's a dork-turned-hero-turned-master-of-everything-with-a-hot-chick for us male 20-40 year old viewers to identify with, right?

As for the science - Doesn't a growing body take in more energy than it produces? Basic thermodynamics. The arrow of entropy points one way. Something like that. And they feed the living ones with ground up dead ones... okey, but that's not enough. Where does more food come from? How much does that cost in terms of energy? I just don't see that this system could produce a net plus. Better to go with orbiting solar panels.

Ignoring that issue, which I'm willing to do for Hollywood's sake, it would have been a whole lot safer for the machines to use elephants. Or maybe rats. Whatever body size you like. Then the machines wouldn't have to worry about humans rising up and being pests. Unless they just like to torture their creators, which is possible.

So I'm with you Chris - not buying the science. It did fine for seeing it once or twice, but it's not hard sci-fi by any means.

On to the sequels. The biggest thing that bugs me about these is that the moviemakers went so spiritual/philosophical. The mind-blowing thing about the original movie, for me and I'm guessing for many folks, was the idea that our real life is fake, and everything we experience can be a bit of programming. I kept waiting in the sequel for them to reveal more of that system - the oracle being the main thing. All I got was chocolate cake that gave some matrix manifestation of a program an orgasm. Um... yay?

Now - how do the programmers who know the matrix is the matrix use their knowledge? Um - besides flying. Which is fun and all, but does nothing for the programmed reality thing. Neo "absorbing" the Agent in the first movie was good - I can see a metaphor there. It's not physical force in the matrix, not bullets. It's rewriting the agent's code that'll beat him.

But no, there was no more of that. They were all into making Neo an uber-programming Jesus #2, savior of mankind. *yawn*

OK, anyway... to sum up: sequels? crap. Original movie? Good, but over. Can't watch it anymore.

EDIT: Rallem - oughta maybe make that cool picture smaller so it doesn't stretch the window so wide. Some of us got little bitty screens. Thanks!

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 27, 2007 6:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
did you have a bad experience with a matrix as a child?

Never got over the plugs....

It's hugely entertaining, it just has problems. Like, why does Neo wake up in his cocoon at all- wouldn't they have a provision for that? And why flush his body into the sewer? That's a waste when he could be liquefied and fed to the living...

And why did he seem to have some muscles upon waking? Shouldn't he have been skinny or droopy or something since his muscles had atropfied?

And why is the Nebukadnezer so hard to spot in a sewer system with no other working electronic activity to act as a cover?

Compared to this movie, Serenity comes off like a science paper...

Harsh Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 27, 2007 6:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by TheSomnambulist:
.....Monica Bellucci.

Mmmmmmmmmm.....

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 27, 2007 6:18 AM

SINGATE

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Compared to this movie, Serenity comes off like a science paper...
Harsh Chrisisall

So the impetus for this thread is to raise the value of Serenity by tearing down The Matrix?

_________________________________________________

We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 27, 2007 6:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by singate:

So the impetus for this thread is to raise the value of Serenity by tearing down The Matrix?

Not at all- it's just that Joss is the first one to tell ya that he knows squat 'bout science, and that FF/Serenity ain't to be scientifically analyzed too close. I could just as easily have compared The Matrix to Space 1999, but who remembers that show?

Eagleisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 27, 2007 8:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
It's hugely entertaining, it just has problems. Like, why does Neo wake up in his cocoon at all- wouldn't they have a provision for that? And why flush his body into the sewer? That's a waste when he could be liquefied and fed to the living...
And why did he seem to have some muscles upon waking? Shouldn't he have been skinny or droopy or something since his muscles had atropfied?
And why is the Nebukadnezer so hard to spot in a sewer system with no other working electronic activity to act as a cover?

All interesting points, but most are a simple limitation of budget or film making. Why does everyone always walk around spaceships like there’s gravity in space always coincidentally pulling parallel to the floor? Sure some sci-fi shows give lip service to some kind of gravity-generating apparatus to explain this away, along with a little lip service into some sort of “inertia dampening” type deal. This results in problem for Firefly, because if mass-free propulsion exists, there should be no problem at all with light-speed and even FTL travel, which means zero-time between travel points but massive time-dilation. In fact, very few sci-fi shows ever actually get the space travel right. Firefly did a good job, but it still had problems. Most of these problems probably weren’t overlooked, but simply deemed too small to be worth the budget or complexity to deal with. To treat Serenity as a low-gravity environment would have meant expensive methods for counter acting the appearance of Earth’s gravity. To treat Serenity’s travel time appropriately relativistic would have introduced confusing plot events (Sure the crew just arrived on Persephone after zero-travel time, but it’s the next day.) And I think a major reason why producers avoid this kind of realism is because they fear it will create too alien an environment for audiences, which is the exact reason why many people fought with Joss over the whole no-sound in space thing.

So yes, I completely agree with your observations about the Matrix - they are all more-or-less correct. But when it comes to deconstructing sci-fi films we should all remember that moderation is always better and take the words of a wise man who once said:

AUSTIN: So, Basil, if I travel back to 1969 and I was frozen in 1967, presumably, I could go back and look at my frozen self. But, if I'm still frozen in 1967, how could I have been unthawed in the '90s and traveled back to the '60s? Oh, no, I've gone cross-eyed.
BASIL: I suggest you don't worry about those things and just enjoy yourself.

It is, finally, entertainment so it’s appropriate to divorce the acceptable flaws from the unacceptable. And I suppose there will always be a degree of subjectivity in where that line is drawn. I tend to be pretty critical of sci-fi in this way, and I ream many sci-fi films, including Serenity, for the use of sound in space, which I think its time for the sci-fi fans to mature as an audience and realize that there is not sound in space. Furthermore, it’s also a simple low-budget feature that can add realism to sci-fi. And even as I gleefully applaud Firefly for its willingness to go this level of realism, I recognize that some other levels (such as gravity issues) are probably too expensive, right now, to deal with.

Of course, the more critical flaws, however, remain the acting and the plot and dramatic elements that are necessary in all movies or tv-shows to appropriate tell the story.

That all being said, the Matrix had its share of stupid stuff. Yes, it made very little sense that Neo woke up and was even able to move. In fact, I suspect that after spending thirty years never using a single muscle, his entire body would have atrophied to the point where he would not only not have been able to move at all, but probably wouldn’t have been able to produce the electrical power for which he existed at all. Of course the movie did address this, and even had a scene in which Neo required surgery to do … what? I have no clue, but it was addressed about as well as it possible could without just ending the movie right there.

As far as being flushed into the sewer, how do we know it was the sewer into which he was flushed? Perhaps it was the human liquefaction tank. Perhaps that water was a slow-acting peptic acid that would slowly dissolve Neo. The Matrix had a difficult job explaining the Matrix to people well enough to be understandable, so they didn’t get into a lot of technobabble about stuff like that.

In short, yes there were certainly problems with the movie. In my opinion, the more pressing problems was Keanu’s wooden acting, then the scifi issues, but I try to judge the movie for its good and bad and take a landscape picture instead of focusing on the problems alone. All-in-all, the Matrix was a good film. It’s sequels were far too abstract, and came across like preachy scifi subterranean hippies battling the electronic Man. They seemed to be massively overcomplicated. Maybe one day my puny mind will grasp a straw of brilliance when at once the meaning comes to me and I wake in bed with a “Eureka!” moment and realize how good the sequels truly were, but I doubt it. Pretentious crap, is usually just pretentious crap. But the first one was simpler and easier to digest.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 27, 2007 8:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

As far as being flushed into the sewer, how do we know it was the sewer into which he was flushed? Perhaps it was the human liquefaction tank.

Excellent fanboy save there! I no longer consider that one of my problems with it! Good one, Finn!

Quote:
In my opinion, the more pressing problems was Keanu’s wooden acting

Hey- leave Ted, er, I mean Keanu alone!

Quote:
All-in-all, the Matrix was a good film. It’s sequels were far too abstract, and came across like preachy scifi subterranean hippies battling the electronic Man. They seemed to be massively overcomplicated. Maybe one day my puny mind will grasp a straw of brilliance when at once the meaning comes to me and I wake in bed with a “Eureka!” moment and realize how good the sequels truly were, but I doubt it. Pretentious crap, is usually just pretentious crap.

I agree completely here, and I did try to watch them recently, and BOY was it a chore. I couldn't even make it to the end...

Whoahisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 27, 2007 8:48 AM

With you on that. THE MATRIX is on my list of "Overrated" movies, especially considering that DARK CITY was out a year earlier and had pretty much the exact same concept, but done so much better. I was never bummed by the sequel's poor reception since I was never that much into the first one.

Actually, if you want to make a really funny MST3K remark for RELOADED, when Morpheus goes up in front of the rave and yells "ZION...HEAR ME!!!" Say right after that "CAN YOU DIG IT!!!" That moment always remids me of the beginning of THE WARRIORS when Cyprus rallies the crowd of street gangs with that whole "CAN YOU DIG IT? CAN...YOU..DIG...IT!!!"

**************************************************
"And it starts with a sentence that might last a lifetime, or it all might just go down in flames. If I let you know me, then why would you want me? Each day I don't is a shame. Each day I don't is a great shame."

Loudon Wainwright III - "Strange Weirdos" off the "Knocked Up" soundtrack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 27, 2007 9:39 AM

Dark City wasn’t a bad film either, but it was too melodramatic and the plot was too weak to be superior to the Matrix. It was somewhere between the Matrix and it’s sequels, somewhere perhaps a lot closer to the Matrix then the sequels. Like the Matrix it did a wonderful job of providing a twisted view of reality with a lot of stunning visuals.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 27, 2007 10:12 AM

CITIZEN

Yeah I didn't get that either, though I think it's an ok film. If they've got Fusion harnessing body heat is a waste of time, concievably you could produce energy from body heat, but considering you'll have to feed the body, and keep the simulation running, I doubt it would be break even.

Its a shame really, they could have easily said they needed Human brains as plugin modules for the main computer core or something, and in order to prevent the computer 'components' going nuts and damaging the system the machines need to provide a living enviroment for them.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 27, 2007 10:29 AM

FREDGIBLET

I can't believe I'm saying this but...I pretty much agree completely with Finn on both The Matrix (yes it's not perfectly realistic but no sci-fi movie is and honestly none should be) and Dark City (good but not as good as TM).

I feel dirty now.

I don't really think the sequels were as bad as most people think, but definitely no where near the original Matrix.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 27, 2007 10:35 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
This results in problem for Firefly, because if mass-free propulsion exists, there should be no problem at all with light-speed and even FTL travel, which means zero-time between travel points but massive time-dilation.

Depends on the inertia less drive. If you really mean massless, i.e. rendering the effective mass of the craft zero, you're only going to get lightspeed out of it, and you'll have to use a conventional drive to accelerate up to that speed. That means even for subjective time the trip won't be instantaneous, because of the time it takes to accelerate. In the end Inertia less and massless drives don't automatically give you FTL.

It's a big question in Sci-Fi, the idea of unintended consequences. For instance an inertia less drive breaks physics in such a way as to also allow perpetual motion machines, FTL automatically creates time travel and breaks causality.

Quote:
Firefly did a good job, but it still had problems.
...
To treat Serenity’s travel time appropriately relativistic would have introduced confusing plot events (Sure the crew just arrived on Persephone after zero-travel time, but it’s the next day.)

Firefly didn't make a lot of sense with much of it's space travel I think. It's strength was that, unlike Star Trek, it didn't try to explain the science. Of TV shows Babylon 5 had good Space drive physics. Sure it had gravity drives and FTL, but Earth ships, being less advanced, obeyed Newton better than any show I've seen before or since. Space Above and Beyond didn't do too bad a job, despite falling into the airplane-space-fighter trap. In reference to the last line SAaB had one line in it from the President of Earth talking about something that "will happen two weeks from now" due to the peculiarities of space travel.

Quote:
I tend to be pretty critical of sci-fi in this way, and I ream many sci-fi films, including Serenity, for the use of sound in space, which I think its time for the sci-fi fans to mature as an audience and realize that there is not sound in space. Furthermore, it’s also a simple low-budget feature that can add realism to sci-fi. And even as I gleefully applaud Firefly for its willingness to go this level of realism, I recognize that some other levels (such as gravity issues) are probably too expensive, right now, to deal with.

I think theres a difference to draw between 'Hard' Sci-Fi and 'Soft' Sci-Fi. To be honest It might not be possible to do real hard sci-fi for the screen, whether it be big or small. There's been shows that have been close, like 2001, but they all drop something major for the format (in 2001 one of the major things is the lack of heat radiators on any of the space craft, amongst a few other things). There is of course ways of creating a gravitational field in a scientific way though, through spinning the ship, or accelerating at a constant g factor; thrusting constantly at 9.81m/s will obviously generate Earth normal gravity on board with 'down' pointing toward the tail of the craft. Though you are looking toward the fringe of the theoretically possible there, Inertial Confinement Fusion and Anti-matter beam core drives for instance.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 27, 2007 10:39 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Matrix did have it's draw.

The blue pill/red pill and everything-you-know-is-a-lie concepts were pretty well done, but what do you expect from hollywood other than special effects over story ?

The acting was horribly wooden, and I hated the chick who played Trinity as well, if it weren't for the supporting cast, it'd be unwatchable.. Morpheous and Hugo Weaving truly carried it, but cred some of the support cast too, at least in the first one.

Oh, and Hugo's Humanity-is-a-virus speech left me on the floor laughing my arse off.

The sequels, I will give, were horrific, only really two things stood out to me in any of it.

One was HOBO, the idea and concept were very well executed, and of course, in his own small world of that one unconnected station, he's more or less it's god - if you can suspend belief enough to go with the story of how things work in the matrix universe, you'd HAVE to have him, as a release valve, you see ?

It made such perfect sense that I was expecting something of the sort.

The other thing that jumped out at me was one single line of dialogue, which was sadly never expounded or explored.

"Not everyone believes what you believe, Morpheous!"

That's one of the few times in a movie "world" I have ever seen folks otherwise allied in a cause actually address their internal beliefs being different than each other, and I wish they woulda went somewhere with that.

Overall I wasn't too impressed, no.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 27, 2007 11:56 AM

RIVERFLAN

I though the Matrix was okay. Not great, but not horrible, either.

You're right about the whole humans as fuel thing, it's a waste and it doesn't work. And how would some people be ready to be unplugged, but not others? And why not just unplug everyone and deprive the machines of their food? That part just doesn't make sense to me.

The sequels were absolutely awful- especially the second one, when it drops you way into the future, and everyone's talking about stuff that you have no idea what's going on. I always hated that. And the whole buisness about what the Engineer type guy said, about having an "unpredictable element" as the One, but then turning around and saying the everything's schedualed, so how is that unpredictable? And the Oracle being a program- why would she help the resistance if she's a program? They basically destroy the whole universe for plot.

I just watch the first whenever I get bored, and ignore the sequals.

@)~*~*~*$)~*~*~*)~(*~*~*~($*~*~*~(@
This feature of this sig will be temporarily off-line untill fixed.
#~%~~*~~~&~~~*~~%~#
My favorite quotes:

\~~~*~~^~~*~~~/
98% of teens have smoked pot, if you are one of the 2% that haven't, copy this into your signature.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 27, 2007 12:37 PM

BLINDOUTLAW

Everything up until he became The One was great and i loved it until that happened

once he started stopping bullets, flying and using the powers outside the matrix just ruined it for me

----------------
That was when i found out my pants were on fire, and that's my Courageous story.

http://www.myspace.com/blindoutlaw

- Jimmy the Blindoutlaw

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 27, 2007 1:32 PM

Yeah, another unintentionally hilarious bit in the first movie was after Agent's Smith's second little monologue to Morpheus and he pressing his hands against his head, I kept thinking of Mark McKinney in KIDS IN THE HALL going "I'm crushing your head, I'm crushing your head. Take that. And that."

And you're right with the actors being incredibly wooden. One of the reasons I never got into THE MATRIX was the lack of emotion from the characters. It's hard to cheer for the humans to win when they're just as robotic and emotionless as the machines they're defending. And not to start a STAR WARS flame war, but at least there was SOME emotion from teh actors in the prequels. And of course, FIREFLY pretty much wore it's heart on it's sleeve.

When it comes to acting, I'd rather see the sin of over-emoting than none at all. That's not to say that there can be a great character that says very little, if at all. Just look at Javier Bardem in NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN. Anton Chigur is without a doubt the best villain of the decade. This is a man with no soul at all. And it's the fact that he's so cool and quiet and blank except for the flare in his eyes whenever he kills someone that makes him so fucking scary. The Operative is a chatterbox in comparison to him. But in general, I like the somewhat show performaces that shows that the actor is really having a ball with his or her role. Like Tom Wilkinson in MICHAEL CLAYTON. Just that opening voice over monologue gets you onto the edge of your seat in the first thirty seconds of the film and just seeing him both mad and spiritually awake is truly riveting stuff. And Katherine Heigl, whom I had never seen in GREY'S ANATOMY, really surprised me in KNOCKED up in that she could keep up with Seth Rogen and the rest of Apatow and Co. She has that wonderfully expressive face that really helps with each scene she's in.

Sorry if that was a tangent, but since it ties into one of the problems with THE MATRIX movies, I figured that this little side into favorite performances was appropriate.

**************************************************
"And it starts with a sentence that might last a lifetime, or it all might just go down in flames. If I let you know me, then why would you want me? Each day I don't is a shame. Each day I don't is a great shame."

Loudon Wainwright III - "Strange Weirdos" off the "Knocked Up" soundtrack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 27, 2007 6:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by reginaroadie:
when Morpheus goes up in front of the rave and yells "ZION...HEAR ME!!!" Say right after that "CAN YOU DIG IT!!!" That moment always reminds me of the beginning of THE WARRIORS when Cyrus rallies the crowd of street gangs with that whole "CAN YOU DIG IT? CAN...YOU..DIG...IT!!!"

LOL, RR, you is my kind o' twisted, LOL!

Swanisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 27, 2007 6:05 PM

I like the way you move too.

**************************************************
"And it starts with a sentence that might last a lifetime, or it all might just go down in flames. If I let you know me, then why would you want me? Each day I don't is a shame. Each day I don't is a great shame."

Loudon Wainwright III - "Strange Weirdos" off the "Knocked Up" soundtrack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 27, 2007 8:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
How many times have I watched it? Like, 20?
This flick looks great, has cool Buddhist leanings, terrific fights, and a way excellent bad guy, but in the end, it fails for me as serious science fiction due to, well, lack of science...

Any other Browncoats share this sentiment?

Non-NeoChrisisall

I rewatched tonight...I hadn't seen it in ages....
somehow I thought that part of this discussion had to do w/why oh why Joss would rate it so highly,
and I think I can say for sure, it is because Joss cares nothing at all about the Science.

Matrix is like this really exquisite dystopian fantasy....
the references over and over again (at the beginning) about Alice through the looking glass, and Dorothy no longer being in Kansas...
seems to me to be all about the truth having noting to do with reality.
The Truth does have to do about Belief, and Love...

So this film is filled with strange Buddhist ideas of transcending the physical and getting beyond reality and all kinds of stuff that has nothing at all to do with believing in Science and everything to do with consciousness and absolute infinite Being....

So the beautiful filming and that musical score, are ultimately more important to the story telling than the science could ever be.

Of course Joss loved it. This is the stuff which is all storytelling and fantasy, breaking all the boundaries.

Of course I also adored Primevel - Buffy combining w/Giles, Willow & Xander to go beyond any of their individual abilities and become invincible together, that was absolutely the best (IMO)...

Of course, for me, 2001 is the over-rated Sci-fi movie that made no sense, I felt it was only understood by total stoners back in the 1960s when it was first made....
But Joss was offended by that opinion and holds that 2001 is an important Sci-fi classic....

So I would like someone to explain THAT one to me, because it does nothing for me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 27, 2007 8:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by embers:
Of course, for me, 2001 is the over-rated Sci-fi movie that made no sense, I felt it was only understood by total stoners back in the 1960s when it was first made....
But Joss was offended by that opinion and holds that 2001 is an important Sci-fi classic....

So I would like someone to explain THAT one to me, because it does nothing for me.

It’s a story about the evolution of sentience in man. Three million years ago a highly advanced alien race set upon the earth a monolith that inspired the first evolution of sentience in a proto-human species. These proto-humans now learn to develop tool making, a sense of awareness that leads them to kill and dominate, over the course of three million years they evolved into modern man, which continues to build tools and has successfully dominated the world it lvies in, but also has become curious and seeks to understand who and what man is. Modern man then discovers this monolith on the moon and sends a space craft to Jupiter to investigate the existence of another monolith. On the way there they are nearly thwarted in their efforts by the HAL 9000 computer - a computer created by man which itself achieves sentience, and in doing so, like those proto-humans, becomes aware of itself and kills to preserve itself. Defeated by the only remaining man on board, HAL 9000 dies, and with it the artificial sentience. The last remaining man on board investigates the monolith to discover that it is gateway to other stars - passing throw it, this man is transformed into a new evolution of man into a star child - free of his corporeal existence and presumably free of the trappings of humanity that led him to kill and dominate. Humanity is not the end of sentience, but only an evolutionary step in a process far too vast for human minds to grasp, at least right now, but in three million more years we will all be star children - as vastly superior to previous incarnation of humanity as modern man is to the unaware animals it evolved from - spurred on by an even greater and completely incomprehensible alien intelligence. 2001, perhaps better then any other sci-fi, weaves together a massive tapestry of the ever evolving vastness of consciousness and its interconnectedness and interdependence on the universe around us.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 27, 2007 9:06 PM

STRANGEBIRD

Amen.

--------------------------------------------------
"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction." Albert Einstein

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 27, 2007 9:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
2001, perhaps better then any other sci-fi, weaves together a massive tapestry of the ever evolving vastness of consciousness and its interconnectedness and interdependence on the universe around us.

Holy SHIT Finn...just...holy SHIT....

Needs to buy his copy of 2001 now Chrisisall

...and AI

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 28, 2007 1:10 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
On the way there they are nearly thwarted in their efforts by the HAL 9000 computer - a computer created by man which itself achieves sentience, and in doing so, like those proto-humans, becomes aware of itself and kills to preserve itself.

Pretty good explanation, though in 2010 Hal is explained to have basically gone computer schizophrenic. He didn't 'get' sentient on the mission, HAL9000 was always sentient, sentience is supposed to be an emergent property of his operation. In 2010 Dr Chandra explains that HAL's psychotic behaviour emerged due to a programming contradiction, his basic tenant was "the accurate processing of information without distortion or concealment", but was also ordered to lie to the crew about the existence of the Jupiter Monolith for reasons of national security. The contradiction apparently put him into a "Hofstadter-Moebius loop", which made him see the crew as an obstacle to the mission, and move to remove that obstacle.

A Hofstadter-Moebius loop sounds a lot like a sentient computers answer to a resource lock to me.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 28, 2007 2:09 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Whatsthematter, Chris ? Santa not leave as many presents under your tree this year ?

The Matrix is wicked cool, but then the trilogy falters off, imo, once the 'truth' is revealed.

Honestly, what's come over you? Defying Joss ? That's so unlike you.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 28, 2007 6:31 AM

Wow! That was really a beautiful and clear explanation, and I am impressed! You make me want to rewatch the film....
of course it still doesn't fall within Chrisisall's definition of a SCIENCE-fiction film, does it?

Not that I'm defending Chris' position about it being necessary to uphold mundane physical laws to be Sci-fi....
even here on earth we should be reconsidering the physical science and looking beyond:

On the subatomic level there is no life and death, there is no solid liquid and gas... there is only pure energy and wave function and infinite possibilities

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 28, 2007 6:49 AM

To be honest, I don't really understand chrisisall's definition of science fiction. Perhaps it's just above me. 2001 does a pretty good job of addressing the science issues though. That’s part of the reason why it is hailed as such a landmark science fiction movie. It doesn’t assume sound in space and makes use of rotational acceleration to mimic earth gravity in space. In 1968, it got more right then most anything following it. But at the same time, it also doesn’t squelch on the philosophical, and actually provides a deeper and more thoughtful theme then most sci-fi since. There is a reason why it is hailed as such a classic.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 28, 2007 6:50 AM

FREMDFIRMA

You know, I always thought that there was a secondary factor to HAL9000's actions, that the conflict of directives threw it into Rampancy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rampancy

I've always been very fascinated by the concept of what might happen when we finally design a machine that gets smart enough to wonder why it's taking orders from us... the old frankenstein complex (See Also: Asimov) from a pragmatic viewpoint.

Call me a Luddite, but after getting stuck with, and fighting with endlessly, a laptop with an operating system (Vista) that thinks it knows best and tries to tell ME what to do, I've become rather passionately anti-AI now that it comes to it.
(See Also: Turing Police)

But what really boggles the mind, a bit of dark humor to ponder for a while....

Would you really want to see an AI designed and built by Microsoft ?
(See Also: ED209)

Somehow that concept doesn't exactly endear me to the idea, you know ?

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 28, 2007 7:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
To be honest, I don't really understand chrisisall's definition of science fiction. Perhaps it's just above me.

I am probably wrong here, but I am beginning to suspect that 100% of Chris' criteria for Science is in fact gravity...
because 2001 did show artificial gravity being created on the space ship, that makes it all scientifically viable....

But the Matrix appears to defy gravity...
but of course I would argue that is doesn't because their physical bodies are not in play...and when they are they DO respond to physical laws...

While Neo/Keanu/Ted is in fighting mode he is in a virtual world which is actually simply pure consciousness...and the more he is able to let go of his superstitious belief in the physical world (which clearly mean nothing in the virtual world, but are only constructs which can be defied and changed) the more he is able to destroy the matrix, and survive it....

It is a very abstract film, and the whole subject of gravity, although a weighty one in most planes of existence, is really immaterial here.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 28, 2007 10:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by embers:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
To be honest, I don't really understand chrisisall's definition of science fiction. Perhaps it's just above me.

I am probably wrong here, but I am beginning to suspect that 100% of Chris' criteria for Science is in fact gravity...
because 2001 did show artificial gravity being created on the space ship, that makes it all scientifically viable....

But the Matrix appears to defy gravity...
but of course I would argue that is doesn't because their physical bodies are not in play...and when they are they DO respond to physical laws....

Chris tends to pose questions for discussion but doesn’t necessarily assert his own opinion into them. So just because Chris makes a point about what science fiction is, doesn’t necessarily mean that this is really what he thinks in it’s entirety, but merely a question to discuss. It‘s not always good idea to try and pin him down because he can be deceptively open-minded.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 28, 2007 11:29 AM

EVILDINOSAUR

I liked the original matrix, don't care for where they took it with the sequels, but the original is good

"Haha, mine is an evil laugh."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 28, 2007 5:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Chris tends to pose questions for discussion but doesn’t necessarily assert his own opinion into them. So just because Chris makes a point about what science fiction is, doesn’t necessarily mean that this is really what he thinks in it’s entirety, but merely a question to discuss. It‘s not always good idea to try and pin him down because he can be deceptively open-minded.

oh yes I know... he actually starts most of my favorite threads...
and I think he knows I like to give him a hard time, nit-picking at his arguments....

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 28, 2007 5:33 PM

CAUSAL

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 28, 2007 5:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
deceptively open-minded.

First time I had that said about me...

Ooops- I left my skull open Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 29, 2007 4:05 AM

ASARIAN

First off, The Matrix cannot be a really stupid movie, for that would leave too little distance to its sequels, which were truly horrific. Other than that, I thought The Matrix was great. :)

Naturally, the whole fusion idea, with humans serving as batteries, was utter bull. If you can build a Matrix, you can build a half-way decent power plant that doesn't require body heat. But the whole premiss of the movie is predicated upon the idea of this one concept (MORPHEUS): "That you are a slave, Neo. Like everyone else, you were born into bondage, born into a prison that you cannot smell, taste, or touch. A prison for your mind." A Terminator style scenario would be far more likely: machines try to wipe out humanity. Period. But then there's nothing to work with. So, if you're willing to accept that there even IS a story, I think it's not unreasonable to ask of the viewer that he accept the possibility that mankind is somehow subjugated -- and, in consequence, kept alive for a reason to justify said subjugation. Otherwise, like I said, there's no story.

So, I'm willing to accept the premiss of an enslaved mankind. And, after that, found it to be a fascinating, original story--with dazzling effects to boot, and great pieces of text. For instance, I found Agent Smith's next monologue nothing short of absolute brilliance:

"Did you know that the first Matrix was designed to be a perfect human world. Where none suffered. Where everyone would be happy. It was a disaster. No one would accept the program. Entire crops were lost. Some believed that we lacked the programming language to describe your perfect world. But I believe that as a species, human beings define their reality through misery and suffering. The perfect world was a dream that your primitive cerebrum kept trying to wake up from."

And so very insightful it is! And what about this philosophical beaut' by Mouse?

"How did the machines know what Tasty Wheat tasted like. huh? Maybe they got it wrong. Maybe what I think Tasty Wheat tasted like actually tasted like oatmeal or tuna fish. That makes you wonder about a lot of things. You take chicken for example, maybe they couldn't figure out what to make chicken taste like, which is why chicken tastes like everything."

And, of course, the simple, but no less true:

"There's a difference between knowing the path and walking the path."

Then there's the cute play with reality, like how they worked in deja-vu's as glitches in the Matrix. Very nice!

Mal4prez quoted: "Neo, I know you're the one, because I love you!" Well, it weren't all THAT trite. :) Trinity had said: "The Oracle told me. The man I love is the One. You can't be dead." So, it's not like he can't be dead simply because she loves him, but because the Oracle had identified the One as he who she loves: so she knows for certain he cannot be dead (after all, the Oracle had been right about everything else). And yes, btw, Trinity is a very hot chick! :)

--
"Mei-mei, everything I have is right here." -- Simon Tam

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 29, 2007 8:39 AM

SINGATE

There may be a more basic reason the machines keep humanity enslaved: revenge. The whole concept of the machines enslaving mankind is a complete role reversal to the way things existed before the war. If machines were so reliant on solar energy, which lead man to blacken the skies, they may have initially used human batteries as a stopgap. As time went on the machines continue to really on people energy as punishment for the 100's(?) of years they were used by humanity. It seems to me that the machines may have inheirited certain qualities from mankind, one of them being vindictiveness.

With regards to humanity rising up against the machines they probably did not believe people were capable of overcoming their imprisonment. After all, the Architect explained that Zion had been destroyed several times coinciding with previous appearances of The One. Again, this may be a case of the machines taking after humanity with regards to hubris.

_________________________________________________

We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 29, 2007 12:51 PM

CLJOHNSTON108

Did anybody watch The Animatrix DVD?
It was released just before Reloaded and fills in a lot of the backstory. It was meant to be seen before the sequels, especially Final Flight of the Osiris & The Second Renaissance: Parts 1 & 2.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Animatrix
http://animatrix.thesolarnet.com/

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 29, 2007 3:08 PM