Announcement

Join us on Discord: https://discord.gg/nf43FxS
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+489|2767
Good luck when your job interview. Not sure how that slipped by us the first time.
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,920|5679|949

Thanks. Had one about 4 hours ago too. First stage, via Google Meet.. The one on Thursday is 3rd stage. Gotta wear a monkey suit.
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+489|2767
I saw the new Matrix trailer was released. Has anyone watched it? I haven't. I have zero desire to see what they thought up.
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,915|5819|USA

What's more interesting to me is how WB begged and pleaded and cajoled for so long to get a fourth movie. Been reading about some of it on Cinemablend. If anyone I guess has the creative authority to finally authorize it, it would be the Wachowskis.

Now there's new controversy I guess. Reviving characters people were convinced died. Behind the scenes drama of picking and choosing former cast, excluding ones who would like to still be in it.
tazz.
oz.
+1,320|5222|Sydney | ♥

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

I also have an in-person interview at an aerospace company on Thursday. The girl above said she'd help me apply concealer on Thursday morning but I think im just going to deal with it. I don't want to pull a Rudy Guliani and have makeup dripping down my face in the middle of a job interview.
tell them your injury is from a crash landing from your home made space rocket that made it 20 ft before the safety cable attached to the eastern corner of your test launch site in your residential backyard unexpectedly gave way due to moist soil from higher-than-anticipated rainfall this season.  while you have the trophy of a battle scar, the knock actually caused an epiphany for the calculations you've been working on, being the next generation of space flight itself jennings-jet(tm). let them know that within 12 months you will be the boss, and will share 5% stake. can't lose.
everything i write is a ramble and should not be taken seriously.... seriously.
Adams_BJ
Turns out you were cucked
+2,043|5670|Little Bentcock
i also have sex
uziq
Member
+405|2500
it's a great idea!
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,920|5679|949

Date went better than I expected. Did not have sex.
uziq
Member
+405|2500
let us know when you're cool enough to join the sex-haver club, ken.
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+489|2767

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

What's more interesting to me is how WB begged and pleaded and cajoled for so long to get a fourth movie. Been reading about some of it on Cinemablend. If anyone I guess has the creative authority to finally authorize it, it would be the Wachowskis.

Now there's new controversy I guess. Reviving characters people were convinced died. Behind the scenes drama of picking and choosing former cast, excluding ones who would like to still be in it.
I have neither the time or interest in looking up what happened in the production of the Matrix sequels to produce those disasters. If this one fails, the whole thing should probably get a reboot.

Matrix 1 was so good. Haven't seen it in ages but I have very found memories.
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,915|5819|USA

Every time The Matrix comes up in my conversations (not very often), people are like "oh yeah, those movies were pretty cool, but I haven't seen them in ages." Me neither.

I half wish they'd have gotten Uwe Boll to direct just for the fandom tears, though needlessly petty of me.
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+489|2767
Reloaded and Revolutions were awful. They put the IP into a coma. One of the earlier "failed planned trilogies". Wait, did they even plan a trilogy or did they make it up as they went?

Do you remember the pretentious 20 minute conversation in the all white room with the most interesting man in the world?https://cdn.theatlantic.com/thumbor/CmY7C1ohKGVyqGEYiLfLxXSo-to=/0x88:700x788/540x540/media/old_wire/img/upload/2013/08/01/The-Most-Interesting-Man-in-the-World/original.jpg

When was the last time you saw Neo fight a 100 Agent Smiths? Rewatch that and see how poorly the CGI held up.
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,920|5679|949

What exactly is the matrix franchise IP? Is it the idea of pushing boundaries of cinematography and special effects? Is it the dystopian cyberpunk aesthetic? Is it the hodge podge half-backed philosophical crumbs for the viewer to snack on?

I think the first film's greatest qualities were the special effects and the good portrayal of a simulated reality. It was novel back then. We don't need continuous iterations to provide the same type of feeling. It's stale at this point, and the 4th installment reeks of a shallow money grab.
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+489|2767
When I said IP I meant the Matrix copyright.

I agree with you regarding all of the things that made Matrix 1 great. They instead doubled down on everything that was meh when making the sequels.

A lot of series really screw up when they destroy their own mystery and mystique. Zion, where the humans hid from the machines, should have never been shown. Never should have been shown in detail or a featured in a set piece. People's imagination is oftentimes better than anything any writer can put to page. It was a disappointment when people finally saw it. Same with the Terminator series' rising up of the machines or the human vs machine war in the future. Neither should have been shown beyond what was in the original movie.
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,915|5819|USA

T2's future war scene was a really good opportunity to show off FX leaps and bounds ahead of the original that wouldn't have come anywhere else in the story. It also didn't drag on. One of the few sequels often regarded as better than the superior movie. Part of the charm of Terminator is that spectacle.

T3 had an OK future war sequence, but the terminators all looked kind bunched up for no reason. And the robot revolution at the end of the movie was barely brushed upon, hugely lost opportunity to see some of Skynet's earliest at work in what could have even been a follow-up. One of the coolest future scenes in the series was that old model Terminator in ratty condition was bumbling around town. You'd figure Skynet would have sent a repair drone to fix him up, but I guess even robot soldiers get the shaft. Scene was kind of ruined by the whole "rescued by a little girl who's smarter than the big dumb protag, 'expectations subverted!'" trope.

How many times was the word "ergo" used in that one Matrix movie? The scene you're talking about I think.
uziq
Member
+405|2500

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

What exactly is the matrix franchise IP? Is it the idea of pushing boundaries of cinematography and special effects? Is it the dystopian cyberpunk aesthetic? Is it the hodge podge half-backed philosophical crumbs for the viewer to snack on?

I think the first film's greatest qualities were the special effects and the good portrayal of a simulated reality. It was novel back then. We don't need continuous iterations to provide the same type of feeling. It's stale at this point, and the 4th installment reeks of a shallow money grab.
agreed. it was never meant to be a franchise. you can tell the script/screenplay for the first had been in development for many years, adapted from decent sources (PKD, ghost in the shell, neuromancer; the usual roll-call). the sequels had nothing like so much going on.

didn’t the 2nd movie have a huge sub-plot about an outdated program that styled itself as a french sybarite? lol. and a bunch of his entourage were ‘bugs’ that, for some reason, resembled villains or monsters from the universal movies catalogue? vampires and werewolves and ghoul twins and goths? WTF?

for the world building of the matrix (1), it’s a clear illustration of how sometimes ‘less is more’. it was better never seeing Zion (especially their cringe Goa psytrance raves); it was better never meeting all the other ship captains/crews (with their cringe leather uniforms); it was better never having the Neo/Smith thing get turned up to silly levels of baroque; and it sure as fuck didn’t need its philosophical/theological themes, hinted at before, expounded upon in mindnumbing and eye-crossing detail with a bunch of confused, syncretic warbling from ‘the architect’, ‘the Oracle’, ‘the Keymaker’. again, WTF?

the matrix qua franchise is so dated and if it’s time that, actually, important parts of its storyline canon took place in an animated spin-off and an online MMO that hardly anyone saw or played. that’s why Morpheus (supposedly) can’t come back: he was killed off in some early-2000s world of warcraft cash-in. everything about it seems so cringe now.

the new movie trailer seems to have totally given up the matrix’s aesthetic, one of its biggest nostalgic draws imo, and have gone for totally different colour grading and cinematography. it just looks so generic now, like any other CGI-burdened, glossy michael bay movie. the storyline inferred from the trailer seems to hit all the same beats as the original movies. i really don’t need to see it.

Last edited by uziq (2021-09-16 19:14:12)

unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,915|5819|USA

People here could restyle themselves as their job and sound pretty Matrix-spooky, or maybe even Clive Barker.

"The Engineer." "The Editor." "The Teacher."

lol
uziq
Member
+405|2500

SuperJail Warden wrote:

When I said IP I meant the Matrix copyright.

I agree with you regarding all of the things that made Matrix 1 great. They instead doubled down on everything that was meh when making the sequels.

A lot of series really screw up when they destroy their own mystery and mystique. Zion, where the humans hid from the machines, should have never been shown. Never should have been shown in detail or a featured in a set piece. People's imagination is oftentimes better than anything any writer can put to page. It was a disappointment when people finally saw it. Same with the Terminator series' rising up of the machines or the human vs machine war in the future. Neither should have been shown beyond what was in the original movie.
and yeah, i should have read this post before i hit reply on ken’s. this is storytelling 101. heaping up detail, set pieces or plot twists doesn’t always make a world more vivid or believable. the silence, gaps and blackspots often let the audience’s imagination flood the void.

it’s why i’m hesitant even about reboots like Bladerunner. the world seemed deep and real because the director/writer sprinkled a few symbols, references and allusions along the way, like suggestive sign posts. they didn’t necessarily have to go anywhere: it just implied or insinuated things beyond the frame. bringing those things into camera or into a dramatic scene can make them seem boring, derivative, unoriginal, undeveloped, etc.

so many decent franchises with their own sense of mood, world, ‘vibe’, have been ruined by this. aliens, predator, terminator, just to name a few. does anyone truly feel the aliens ‘universe’ has been improved by those stodgy, pretentious movies ridley scott put out recently? prometheus and whatever that other one was called? shit sucked.

Last edited by uziq (2021-09-16 19:22:07)

SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+489|2767

uziq wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

When I said IP I meant the Matrix copyright.

I agree with you regarding all of the things that made Matrix 1 great. They instead doubled down on everything that was meh when making the sequels.

A lot of series really screw up when they destroy their own mystery and mystique. Zion, where the humans hid from the machines, should have never been shown. Never should have been shown in detail or a featured in a set piece. People's imagination is oftentimes better than anything any writer can put to page. It was a disappointment when people finally saw it. Same with the Terminator series' rising up of the machines or the human vs machine war in the future. Neither should have been shown beyond what was in the original movie.
and yeah, i should have read this post before i hit reply on ken’s. this is storytelling 101. heaping up detail, set pieces or plot twists doesn’t always make a world more vivid or believable. the silence, gaps and back spots often let the audience’s imagination flood the void.

it’s why i’m hesitant even about reboots like Bladerunner. the world seemed deep and real because the director/writer sprinkled a few symbols, references and allusions along the way, like suggestive sign posts. they didn’t necessarily have to go anywhere: it just implied or insinuated things beyond the frame. bringing those things into camera or into a dramatic scene can make them seem boring, derivative, unoriginal, undeveloped, etc.

so many decent franchises with their own sense of mood, world, ‘vibe’, have been ruined by this. aliens, predator, terminator, just to name a few. does anyone truly feel the aliens ‘universe’ has been improved by those stodgy, pretentious movies ridley scott put out recently? prometheus and whatever that other one was called? shit sucked.
The new Blade runner is a fucking masterpiece. They expanded on the world, added new mystery, and left many questions unanswered. Really need to see it.

I wish I could watch it for the first time again.
uziq
Member
+405|2500

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

People here could restyle themselves as their job and sound pretty Matrix-spooky, or maybe even Clive Barker.

"The Engineer." "The Editor." "The Teacher."

lol
the wachowskis literally do need ‘the Editor’.

i know only one is responsible for the new matrix, but their ‘jupiter rising’ thing was just a hot mess. there was probably a pretty serviceable space romp in there somewhere but the whole script screamed for a judicious editor or rewrite.

i’m convinced they are just like m. night: they fluked
upon one early career masterpiece, sort of out of luck, sort of out of talent, mostly out of being in the right place at the right time to really chime with audiences. even though i’m sure they didn’t grasp or read any of the deep-postmodern stuff that they hinted at in matrix 1 (baudrillard, simulation theory, etc), they pitched it just at a time when all that abstruse theory was finally starting to pinch through into the lived-fabric of the pop culture.

Last edited by uziq (2021-09-16 19:23:07)

Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,745|5153|eXtreme to the maX

uziq wrote:

i’m convinced they are just like m. night: they flukef
upon one early career masterpiece, sort of out of luck, sort of out of talent, mostly out of being in the right place at the right time to really chime with audiences. even though i’m sure they didn’t grasp or read any of the deep-postmodern stuff that they hinted at in matrix 1 (baudrillard, simulation theory, etc), they pitched it just at a time when all that abstruse theory was finally starting to pinch through into the lived-fabric of the pop culture.
Yes of course, no-one can be as clever as you.
#FreeBritney
uziq
Member
+405|2500
i did see the new bladerunner fyi. i just meant i had misgivings when i heard about the reboot. in that case the studio had the good sense to hire the very best sci-fi director working today, and one who clearly understood the tenor and spirit of the original (i.e. leave the fucking untold mystery bits in).

i’m not crazy about that ryan gosling character. walking around looking portentous is kind of his schtick. i already saw ‘Driver’ or whatever. some sequences in the blade runner reboot just looked like retro-Driver made into future-cyberpunk.
uziq
Member
+405|2500

Dilbert_X wrote:

uziq wrote:

i’m convinced they are just like m. night: they flukef
upon one early career masterpiece, sort of out of luck, sort of out of talent, mostly out of being in the right place at the right time to really chime with audiences. even though i’m sure they didn’t grasp or read any of the deep-postmodern stuff that they hinted at in matrix 1 (baudrillard, simulation theory, etc), they pitched it just at a time when all that abstruse theory was finally starting to pinch through into the lived-fabric of the pop culture.
Yes of course, no-one can be as clever as you.
lots and lots of people read baudrillard. it’s not particularly difficult, just it requires a very good directorial hand to pack into a high-paced dramatic hollywood movie. duh.

clearly they didn’t have a great understanding of the themes they were touching upon. if they did, they would have handled it better than a 20-minute exposition dump in that ‘Architect’ scene. which seemed to confuse just about everyone, whether it was 14 year olds there to see bullet-time or 30-something philosophy PhDs. it was muddled and incoherent.

again: if someone grasps something on a deep level, they can normally present it concisely or at least in a cogent manner. many film directors do manage to pull off this slick translation of deep, complex, philosophical or religious ideas into a film without it becoming obtrusive. a very famous example is terrence malick. pretty sure he has a PhD in heidegger, very much a more complex and wordy guy than baudrillard, and yet all of his movies are thoroughly rinsed in heideggerean philosophy. ‘the thin red line’ is a philosophical masterpiece in the form of a war movie. the matrix sequels seem like confused piles of twaddle by comparison.

Last edited by uziq (2021-09-16 19:13:18)

unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,915|5819|USA

uziq wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

People here could restyle themselves as their job and sound pretty Matrix-spooky, or maybe even Clive Barker.

"The Engineer." "The Editor." "The Teacher."

lol
the wachowskis literally do need ‘the Editor’.

i know only one is responsible for the new matrix, but their ‘jupiter rising’ thing was just a hot mess. there was probably a pretty serviceable space romp in there somewhere but the whole script screamed for a judicious editor or rewrite.

i’m convinced they are just like m. night: they flukef
upon one early career masterpiece, sort of out of luck, sort of out of talent, mostly out of being in the right place at the right time to really chime with audiences. even though i’m sure they didn’t grasp or read any of the deep-postmodern stuff that they hinted at in matrix 1 (baudrillard, simulation theory, etc), they pitched it just at a time when all that abstruse theory was finally starting to pinch through into the lived-fabric of the pop culture.
I could currently call myself The Contractor but that's too hitman. Formerly, The Technician. The Intern. The Volunteer. What happens when a Matrix character with a name like that changes careers? The Etsy Knitter.

I don't even remember what Jupiter Rising was about. If I had to guess, some people went to space and Jupiter was involved? But I do remember 2001/2010 quite well, so it's not because of that.

I do agree with you both that the first Matrix movie was overall the superior of the three. Second two, I just wanted to see what Agent Smith was getting up to.
uziq
Member
+405|2500

Dilbert_X wrote:

uziq wrote:

i’m convinced they are just like m. night: they flukef
upon one early career masterpiece, sort of out of luck, sort of out of talent, mostly out of being in the right place at the right time to really chime with audiences. even though i’m sure they didn’t grasp or read any of the deep-postmodern stuff that they hinted at in matrix 1 (baudrillard, simulation theory, etc), they pitched it just at a time when all that abstruse theory was finally starting to pinch through into the lived-fabric of the pop culture.
Yes of course, no-one can be as clever as you.
anyway, if you’re such a clever engineer, surely you know how preposterous the matrix’s whole conceit is? using human beings as BATTERIES? do you know how poor a source of chemical energy the human body is? we don’t convert the energy put-in very well into energy output. a super smart AI machine race would have done better to find any one of about umpteen energy sources. you’re telling me a civilisation that created a nuclear apocalypse didn’t understand the basics of energy storage and consumption?

in the original script i think they needed us to be some sort of processor/computer chip analogue. computation rather than energy. but apparently the studio canned it in the writing stage because regular movie-goers weren’t super tech-savvy. but the battery idea makes no fucking scientific sense at all. humans are terrible batteries.

it actually reminds me of this hilarious crowdfunding product, which looked like a giant hamster wheel or exercise bike or something, and which promised to deliver ‘energy at home’ through human exercise. sit in your living room and charge your house’s lighting sort of thing. the whole physics behind such an idea are ludicrous, as the amount of energy the human body requires relative to its output is hugely inefficient. i think the human body has lower efficiencies than a combustion engine.

Last edited by uziq (2021-09-16 19:21:28)

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2021 Jeff Minard