# New Matrix trailer



## EricNoah (Apr 6, 2003)

http://hem.passagen.se/pizdol/et-reloaded2.mpg

Shown on Entertainment Tonight.  I get the impression it is just part of a longer trailer...

http://www.comingsoon.net/cgi-bin/archive/fullnews.cgi?newsid1049556526,88355,


----------



## RangerWickett (Apr 7, 2003)

Also the April episode of the animatrix is up now.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Apr 11, 2003)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> *http://hem.passagen.se/pizdol/et-reloaded2.mpg
> 
> Shown on Entertainment Tonight.  I get the impression it is just part of a longer trailer...
> 
> http://www.comingsoon.net/cgi-bin/archive/fullnews.cgi?newsid1049556526,88355, *




An even newer trailer is up at: 

http://whatisthematrix.warnerbros.com/


This trailer RAWKS.


----------



## CrazyMage (Apr 11, 2003)

I caught part of it on ET (and the inane "Isn't that neat-o?" type comment from the show host).

It looks INSANELY AWESOME.
Skull blasting-ly cool.
Words-fail-me amazing.
Wow, just wow.


----------



## EricNoah (Apr 11, 2003)

Sooooo coooooool.....


----------



## Chauzu (Apr 11, 2003)

Lookin' shweet.


----------



## Paul_Klein (Apr 11, 2003)

;'lasdfhg';poiadfgh;osidfng;'!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111!!!!!


----------



## Ashrem Bayle (Apr 11, 2003)

Woah..........   


Yea, I'll be there opening night.


----------



## John Crichton (Apr 11, 2003)

May is going to be really cool.


----------



## CrazyMage (Apr 11, 2003)

Ashrem Bayle said:
			
		

> *Woah..........
> Yea, I'll be there opening night. *




Having now downloaded the trailer and watched it a dozen times; yeah, I'll be there opening night.  And the day after.  And the day after that.  Definitely will be worth the trip to one of those Ultra-screens.  Un-fargin'-believable.


----------



## Viking Bastard (Apr 11, 2003)

Damn! 

Now I'll have to burn my seat.

I lost all bladder control.


----------



## Ashrem Bayle (Apr 11, 2003)

I honestly think that The Matrix Trilogy will completly eclipse Starwars. Its closest contender is LOTR.

I think LOTR is better, but it is hard to compare the two since they are so different. They both excell at what they do.

Apples and Oranges and they both taste great.


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (Apr 12, 2003)

Why does it download so slow?...waiting...waiting...

"Prophecy TV spot" - oooooo...pretty...

"I'm In TV spot" - OOOOOO...good quote too "He's doing his Superman thing..." plus the Twins look even cooler than I'd heard...

And now the Trailer. Response when it downloads.


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (Apr 12, 2003)

it downloaded. I'm speaking quietly because I'm trying to get my head round how good this film will be. I need to book tickets now.


----------



## reddist (Apr 12, 2003)

Anyone know if there is going to be a midnight release?

Whoah nellie.

-Reddist


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Apr 12, 2003)

reddist said:
			
		

> *Anyone know if there is going to be a midnight release?
> 
> Whoah nellie.
> 
> -Reddist *




Probably. 

You can find out on May 1st when tickets go on sale on Fandango and AOL Moviefone. They'd be crazy not to have a midnight showing. I've already taken the 15th and 16th off from work (for doctors appointements and errands) So I plan on being in the theater for a Midnight showing here in NY.


----------



## John Crichton (Apr 12, 2003)

Ashrem Bayle said:
			
		

> *I honestly think that The Matrix Trilogy will completly eclipse Starwars. Its closest contender is LOTR.*



Maybe in ticket sales only.  But I don't even think that will happen.  I love how people look for something to de-throne the classic trilogy that made all these summer blockbusters possible.

These next 2 movies are going to be really fun, no doubt.  But awesome special effects do not a complete movie make.  If you want to compare it movie for movie, Reloaded is going up against Empire Strikes Back.  That is an incredibly tall order.  I just don't see it.

But it will be fun to watch.  I'm very much looking forward to the rest of the year for all the Matrix media coming out.


----------



## RangerWickett (Apr 12, 2003)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> *Maybe in ticket sales only.  But I don't even think that will happen.  I love how people look for something to de-throne the classic trilogy that made all these summer blockbusters possible.
> 
> These next 2 movies are going to be really fun, no doubt.  But awesome special effects do not a complete movie make.  If you want to compare it movie for movie, Reloaded is going up against Empire Strikes Back.  That is an incredibly tall order.  I just don't see it.
> 
> But it will be fun to watch.  I'm very much looking forward to the rest of the year for all the Matrix media coming out.   *




I think he meant the new Star Wars trilogy.  The new episodes are crap, so it's unsurprising that Matrix and LotR will surpass them.  But the original Star Wars trilogy is so much more watchable, I think it will still reign supreme.  I mean, we're all going to show Star Wars to our kids, and hopefully they'll love it; you can't really show them the Matrix (too violent), and possibly not even LotR (too serious).


----------



## John Crichton (Apr 12, 2003)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> *I think he meant the new Star Wars trilogy.  The new episodes are crap, so it's unsurprising that Matrix and LotR will surpass them.  But the original Star Wars trilogy is so much more watchable, I think it will still reign supreme.  I mean, we're all going to show Star Wars to our kids, and hopefully they'll love it; you can't really show them the Matrix (too violent), and possibly not even LotR (too serious). *



"Completely eclipse Star Wars" is what the comment was, so I was going on that.  I won't comment on the newer films because they aren't finished yet and we differ in opinion on them.    As for the original trilogy, you hit it right on the head.  It has become part of our culture and will continue to be.  It's timeless.

If we are going to compare trilogies, it is unfair to compare this second trilogy to any of the Matrix films.  If they had a second trilogy coming out then I'd be up for a comparison.

Actually, now that I think of it I don't want to hijack Eric's thread with this.  I think we'll all agree that the Matrix films will be entertaining and we'll enjoy them.  I'll start a new thread for it if we want to talk about this further.


----------



## Dr Midnight (Apr 12, 2003)

GUH! FRAUGH!! BLUCK!!!

Damned if that's not perhaps the coolest trailer I've ever seen. In the words of Moe, "Makes Little Debbie look like a pile of puke". That thing with hurling the Smiths away, maybe thirty of them, that's just incredible. I can't believe what I just watched. I'm now more excited to watch the Neo vs. Agent Smiths fight than I was to watch the Yoda battle at this time last year. I believe there'll be more payoff, too. 

That freeway scene just kills me. Holy crap. Looks like this'll have to be another twice-in-a-day viewer for me...


----------



## KChagga (Apr 12, 2003)

Holy Crap that was awesome!  I had to watch it three times in a row.   I originally thought the twins were stupid looking characters, but now that I know they have that cool looking intangibility power.  Sweetness.  
My only worry is that there aren't going to be any really cool mindblowing plot elements like the first one had.  They have already spilled the beans on all the stuff about the machines.  Even if it doesn't have any of those moments it is still going to be an awesome action flick.


----------



## Eridanis (Apr 13, 2003)

Hmm. The new trailer looks good, but I've just downgraded the movie from "sneak out of the house for the midnight show" to "go see it in the theatre, sometime." If the 1000-Agent-Smith fight looks completely fake only three inches wide on my PC monitor, what's it going to look like thirty feet high in a theatre?

Still didn't stop me from watching it twice in a row, though.  As was mentioned above, good effects do not a movie make, and this still looks like a good movie. We're lucky to have so many good genre films coming out this year!


----------



## Numion (Apr 13, 2003)

Eridanis said:
			
		

> *Hmm. The new trailer looks good, but I've just downgraded the movie from "sneak out of the house for the midnight show" to "go see it in the theatre, sometime." If the 1000-Agent-Smith fight looks completely fake only three inches wide on my PC monitor, what's it going to look like thirty feet high in a theatre?
> *




No offense, but there's something wrong with your monitor...  It looked great on my screen, even at full-screen format. You did take the best quality version?


----------



## Eridanis (Apr 14, 2003)

Numion said:
			
		

> *You did take the best quality version? *



Sure did. Glories of cable modem into the home.  Looking at it again, I think it's the textures that are just too smooth in that section. (I was reading an article recently about how they were working so hard to get the textures right, that they sent swaths of cloth from the costumes to be scanned and used as source data for the number-crunching of the scene.) 

No disrespect at all to the filmmakers - this film will be a huge leap forward technology-wise - but it's not perfect yet.  Just wait a few years, though, when they have powerful enough computers that can integrate some aspects of chaotic dynamical systems theory into the CGI generation. Then we won't know who's real or who's not. And probably won't much care, if the film has artistic merit.

And when I say I'm still going to see it in the theatre, take it as excitement from someone who only gets to see about one film a year in the theatre - and the last two years, that's been LotR.


----------



## barsoomcore (Apr 14, 2003)

"?"

No, seriously, "?"

I mean, I knew the first film was popular and all, but...

There must be a Matrix gene that my parents never passed on to me. I have seen few films that I thought were worse than the original Matrix. I thought it assumed I was stupid and would willing sit and watch slow-motion bullet hits for minutes at a time.

You know, when Sam Peckinpah did the _The Wild Bunch_ he knew that slow-motion bullet hits only look cool if you have some sort of emotional investment in what they're hitting or missing. That was thirty years ago, and slow-motion bullet hits haven't gotten any cooler, nor has that requirement changed.

I know, I know. Ooh, pretty colours. Shiny. People making important-sounding delarations while special effects distract you from how banal it all is.

I have a theory (it's not a demon) that explains the popularity of The Matrix: I call it the Power Without Effort theory. 

The Matrix is a power fantasy, an extreme power fantasy in which a faceless, personality-free figure (I don't think it's fair to use the word character for this film) is gifted with absolute power -- at no cost to himself and without the slightest effort on his part. The fact that this character has no personality is kind of the point since he's not meant to engage our sympathy -- he's meant to provide a trouble-free point of identification. Keanu's role is more akin to the faceless killer of the Quake games than a story character -- he is meant to be _us_, and so is devoid of personality in order to keep him from possessing qualities that might distance him from us. Identification, not sympathy, is the goal. By watching these movies, we get to feel ourselves as powerful, absolutely powerful, and we get to dominate others at will.

The Without Effort portion is likewise crucial. Neo never does anything to acquire his power, it's just gifted to him. Suddenly he can control the laws of physics. Again, this is simplistic wish-fulfillment and nothing more. Why work hard to acquire skill when you can just plug in and learn kung-fu? After all, you might fail. Better not to try, just wait and hope it happens to you, too.

Both these qualities explain the massive popularity of these films -- the world is full of people who desire to feel powerful but are afraid to work for it. I don't mind it, and wish-fulfillment is a part of all sorts of stories, but I do wish people would stop pretending these movies possess some sort of intellectual content or artistic significance.

I get especially tired of people touting the special effects. I don't see anything in these films I haven't seen in dozens of television commercials. "Bullet-Time" was used in Gap ads before it was used in The Matrix. And better, frankly, or at least with a sense of fun. Ooh, they scanned textures from clothing. Well, of course they did. That's how it's done. I work for a 3D rendering company and that's how it's done. When you're making your models, you scan the source materials to produce your textures. SOP. There's nothing special about any of this.

I like plenty of bad movies myself, and I don't begrudge anyone a little popcorn fun however they get it. I just get tired of these films getting pimped for what they patently aren't -- smart, innovative and significant.


----------



## Zappo (Apr 14, 2003)

Cool trailer!

If they want to really impress me, though, they'll have to find a way to get the whole "humans as batteries" basic concept make some vague sort of sense. As it stands now, I can't help thinking about why they didn't use cattle instead.

"Moo-trix". Heh. I hope we'll find out that Morpheus was wrong and the reason is something rational instead.


----------



## barsoomcore (Apr 14, 2003)

Raistlin Majere said:
			
		

> *BLASPHEMY! *



What? You don't think the colours are pretty?

 

Now, the _Kill Bill_ trailer -- THERE'S what I call cool.

Uma Thurman and Lucy Liu squaring off with katana trumps anything Keanu Reeves can throw at me. And the dialogue's actually funny.

And holy cow, that last cut, where she runs up the railing? That is quite possibly the best one-handed katana stroke under the most difficult conditions I've ever seen in a movie. Beautiful, is what that is. I mean, yeah, Mifune's final blow in _Sanjuro_ was awesome, but that was two-handed, strictly speaking. But that run, that spinning jump, and that cut? Holy cow.

Just gotta say.


----------



## Eridanis (Apr 14, 2003)

barsoomcore - I can't really disagree with you. Matrix certainly is not a profound movie - but it's one with a definite _style_ in an era where most movies seem to go out of their way to get as far away from style as possible. (Thankfully, I think we're starting to see a rebound from that, and maybe the first Matrix was a hint of that.) That's what I like about it - even though there are many, many ways the world it portrays is not logical, I still find it to be a fun ride. Nothing more, nothing less.

And thanks for your insight on 3D rendering. Not a topic I know a lot about, and the article I read seemed to think that that technique was a new one. Learn something new every day.


----------



## Jarval (Apr 14, 2003)

http://www.pvponline.com/archive.php3?archive=20030410

I think that sums up the general mood quite well


----------



## John Crichton (Apr 14, 2003)

To throw in some more comments:  I had a similar experience to *barsoomcore* after seeing The Matrix for the first time.  I was greatly entertained by the visuals and the plot twist in the first half of the movie was cool, but by no means new.  I won't say that it was a bad movie or one of the worst I've ever seen because the effects were well-done and entertaining.  Someone else mentioned style, I did like the style of the movie as well.

However the finale left me really cold compared to the rest of the film.  I was really digging it until they used combat to solve all their problems.  I didn't like the love angle (I thought it was a cheep loophole) and I had similar feelings to the points you mentioned.  But all that said, I am looking forward to seeing the sequels simply for the action, fighting scenes and effects.  I'll be there opening night because I really like that stuff.  It is a popcorn movie that does not transcend its visual accomplishments but hides behind them.  But it should be a fun ride.


----------



## barsoomcore (Apr 14, 2003)

Eridanis said:
			
		

> *And thanks for your insight on 3D rendering. Not a topic I know a lot about, and the article I read seemed to think that that technique was a new one. Learn something new every day. *



Hey, no problem. The 3D artists in our company are pretty spectacular artists, and watching them work has been fascinating.

I think the greatest achievement in 3D special effects of recent vintage was the Balrog in _The Fellowship of the Ring_. The combination of techniques used to create that monster was truly innovative. Unfortunate that a number of the effects around it are flawed, (the character animation as they run across the bridge is badly cycled, and there's a noticable match-move error as the Fellowship emerge from Moria outside (watch Legolas' feet in relation to the boulders and you can see them shift incorrectly)) but the creature itself is beautiful.

I'm nervous about _Return of the King_ but the news that Peter Jackson is doing a new version of King Kong is the best since I heard a rumour that Tarantino was splitting _Kill Bill_ into two movies. And planning to release them six weeks apart. Hee.


----------



## John Crichton (Apr 14, 2003)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> *I'm nervous about Return of the King but the news that Peter Jackson is doing a new version of King Kong is the best since I heard a rumour that Tarantino was splitting Kill Bill into two movies. And planning to release them six weeks apart. Hee. *



Holy hell!  

Where did you hear that about *Kill Bill*?!  That would be great!  That is assuming each is at least 100 minutes...


----------



## Viking Bastard (Apr 14, 2003)

If I remember correctly, that Kill Bill rumour got shot down by Tarantino himself.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Apr 14, 2003)

Am I the only one that caught this trailer in the theater?!? I didn't even know about it, then when I went to see Anger Management on Friday, I see something that looks far too similar to...the theater went silent. Only noise was lots of "Wooooaaahhh..." and stuff like that. You have NOT seen the trailer until you've seen it on that huge screen!  

"Remember me...Mr. Anderson?"


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Apr 15, 2003)

Zappo said:
			
		

> *Cool trailer!
> 
> If they want to really impress me, though, they'll have to find a way to get the whole "humans as batteries" basic concept make some vague sort of sense. As it stands now, I can't help thinking about why they didn't use cattle instead.
> 
> "Moo-trix". Heh. I hope we'll find out that Morpheus was wrong and the reason is something rational instead. *




You havent been watching the animatrix shorts have you? 

The Second Renaissance Part I begins to explain how the war vs. the machines got started, perhaps the Part II (in May) will explain a little more about the whole human as batteries thing. 

I possibly have a very simple explanation though.

Maybe there are more humans on the planet than Cows.

or 

Maybe the machines just REALLY didnt like us. After watching Part I of Second Renaissance I really couldnt blame them.


----------



## WayneLigon (Apr 15, 2003)

Grkkle. Bttft.


----------



## WayneLigon (Apr 15, 2003)

ShinHakkaider said:
			
		

> *
> Maybe there are more humans on the planet than Cows.
> *




I get the idea there's nothing left of organic life except what's in those pods and in Zion. We'll see soon, though


----------



## Ashrem Bayle (Apr 15, 2003)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> *......is gifted with absolute power -- at no cost to himself and without the slightest effort on his part....  *




Ok.... did you watch the same movie I did? I mean, he lost everything. His friends, his family, everything that would be used to define his life was suddenly taken from him and replaced by a cold, dead, post apacolyptic battleground.

There was a reason Cipher wanted back in.

It might not have taken any physical effort on his part, but I think it is safe to say thet he payed the emotional and psychological cost in full.



> ....Identification....




Exactly why I loved the movie so much. I don't understand why you see this as a bad thing.



> I don't see anything in these films I haven't seen in dozens of television commercials. "Bullet-Time" was used in Gap ads before it was used in The Matrix.




Um no. Watch the special effects additional material on the DVD. True, even comercials started ripping off the technology, but it was after it was invented for the Matrix. I can garuntee they want be ripping off the effects from Reloaded.



> I just get tired of these films getting pimped for what they patently aren't -- smart, innovative and significant.




 Again, are you sure we saw the same movie? 


I think the fact is, you didn't "get" the Matrix. You may think it was a bad movie, but millions of people would disagree. 
Now, in most cases, that doesn't mean anything. After all, millions of people love boybands and pop singers too. However, I think the Matrix appeales to a higher calibur of person who's opinion I might take notice of. Chances are, if you like Nsync, your not a die hard Matrix fan.

If I'm getting your post correctly, you think the Matrix was only appealing to simple people who where amazed by it's pretty colors and power tripping fantasy. Well, in my experience, those types of peaple don't actually care for the movie. Those are the people walking out of the theater shaking their heads and saying "It was ok, but I don't really get it."

The Matrix is for the deeper minded people who happen to love sci-fi and well done special effects. Throw in a little kung-fu and violance, and there is a certain type of person that really sits up and takes notice. I am one of these.

It appeals to a very specific kind of person and it doesn't sound like you are that kind of person. Heck, I didn't really get into the Godfather. I hear it's pretty good though....


----------



## Ashrem Bayle (Apr 15, 2003)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I get the idea there's nothing left of organic life except what's in those pods and in Zion. We'll see soon, though  *




Yea, I'm guessing the cows didn't put up much of a fight.


----------



## Welverin (Apr 15, 2003)

Ashrem Bayle said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Yea, I'm guessing the cows didn't put up much of a fight. *




Stinking cows, Always letting down!


----------



## reddist (Apr 15, 2003)

*Wimpy cows*

Guess they weren't HELL BOVINES.  Let Agent Smith face a herd of THESE:

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/Moomoo.pdf

Muah!

Sorry.... back to the original thread....

-Reddist


----------



## barsoomcore (Apr 15, 2003)

Ashrem Bayle said:
			
		

> *Ok.... did you watch the same movie I did?*



Oh, yes. I'm quite sure.


> *It might not have taken any physical effort on his part, but I think it is safe to say thet he payed the emotional and psychological cost in full.*



Huh. Sure, it's safe to say that. Since we weren't given any evidence one way or another, why not? I think it's safe to say it's pointless to even talk about Neo as though he were meant to represent a particular human being. 


> *Exactly why I loved the movie so much. I don't understand why you see this as a bad thing.*



I don't see it as a bad thing. It's just that this film's appeal is based on criteria that have little value to me. I value sympathy over identification because sympathy demands greater emotional imagination. Identification lets us just run power-tripping scenarios in our heads. It discourages us from real investigation into our own behaviour -- instead encouraging self-congratulatory close-mindedness. Sympathy, on the other hand, because it asks us to imagine the emotional life of another person, demands of us that we step outside our own selfish concerns and see the world from somebody else's point of view. Which I happen to think is a good thing we should all be spending some time at.

That's a lot to lay on a goofy fantasy movie, I know. And I'm overstating the "what's wrong with identification" case simply because you asked why I see it as a bad thing. Fundamentally I don't, but I do prefer the one over the other, for the above reasons. A film that asks me to feel sympathy is, all other things being equal, a better film than one that asks me to identify with a character.


> *Um no. Watch the special effects additional material on the DVD. True, even comercials started ripping off the technology, but it was after it was invented for the Matrix.*



I have watched it. Have you heard of a French effects company called BUF? According to John Gaeta, visual effects supervisor of _The Matrix_, they are in fact the inventors of the technique most usually referred to as "Bullet Time". You can read his comments here. Nobody's ripping off anybody, but get your facts straight before you start calling somebody innovative. Mr. Gaeta is a great effects technician and I've never said the effects in the movie weren't great -- I just said they weren't innovative. I'd seen them before.

Now, that said, virtually every major effects movie of the past twenty years HAS been innovating, and in that respect the Matrix is no different. Effects technicians are brilliant, hardworking people and John Gaeta is no different. I haven't liked much of the work he's done (I didn't think much of any of the effects in Eraser or Judge Dredd, which were his two films before the Matrix, but he wasn't the guy in charge on either of those shows), but that he's a smart, creative, passionate guy I have no doubt.


> *I think the fact is, you didn't "get" the Matrix.*



No, I just didn't "like" the Matrix. 


> *However, I think the Matrix appeales to a higher calibur of person who's opinion I might take notice of.*



I think the idea you're reaching for is that the Matrix appeals to people like you. I'm unsurprised that you think people who share your tastes are a higher calibre of person.


> *The Matrix is for the deeper minded people who happen to love sci-fi and well done special effects.*



You know, I would certainly characterize myself as someone who loves sci-fi and well done special effects. So maybe I'm not a "deeper minded person" -- though I have to ask, deeper than what? I don't claim to be Mr. Deep, but if I can recognize the goofball sophomoric spouting that the Matrix pretends is philosophy for what it is, who's the Deep One? I don't think you can convincingly claim that I've demonstrated a lack of sophisticated understanding -- except for the fact that I happen to disagree with you. Was my initial post especially banal? What are the impressive intellectual subtleties that I'm missing in this film? 


> *It appeals to a very specific kind of person and it doesn't sound like you are that kind of person.*



Well, on that we agree.

I made my post because I feel very strongly that _The Matrix_ was a bad film. On the other hand it was clearly very popular. There are many reasons why certain products become popular -- I put forward my ideas as to why this one did. I didn't say people who liked this film were bad people, or stupid people. I said that its appeal was based not a compelling story, nor intellectual content, nor visual innovation, but on generating in the audience the vicarious experience of acquiring unlimited power. Now, I don't happen to find that very much fun. Many people do -- hence the popularity of first-person shooter games. That's fine, I'm not one begrudge somebody their chosen form of entertainment. It's just not for me.

Look, you liked the film, it entertained you, it made you think, that's great. Really, I think that's fine. I'm glad you got your money's worth. I hated it, thought it insulted my intelligence, demonstrated some fundamental misunderstandings about what makes a good fight scene (or indeed tension) and failed to maintain much internal consistency. My point, however, is that there ARE reasons to like this film -- it's just that they aren't reasons that I care about very much.

I probably love films you hate, as well. And there's probably lots of films we both love. Nothing wrong with that. It's a big old world.


----------



## RangerWickett (Apr 15, 2003)

Just one thing that was brought up, regarding the group running across the bridge in Moria, I could've sworn that in the 4-disc DVD set they showed a scene where they had a huge blue floor, and they filmed the characters from above as they ran across the floor, so they could matte it into the movie.  I didn't think the figures were CG themselves.

Anyway, we all know who the real master of good sci-fi storytelling is: Post-1990 George Lucas.


----------



## Viking Bastard (Apr 15, 2003)

The bullet time effect was indeed first introduced by BUF. It was 
originally created for the BBC documentary series '_The Human 
Body'_ by said company, but they used in numerous other 
properties they were involved with.

_The Matrix_ marks the first time it was used for it's full effect in a 
Hollywood feature film.


----------



## John Crichton (Apr 15, 2003)

Hey *barsoomcore* - I am curious.  Since you seem like the type of person less wowed by special effects than most, what did you think of *Dark City*?  I have always thought that it was what the Matrix could have been, in concept, if it didn't didn't just break down into a huge gunfight at the end.  It also happens to be one of my favorite movies of all time and a genuine mind-screw...


----------



## Dr Midnight (Apr 15, 2003)

I'm with Barsoomcore on many counts... I don't think the Matrix was some deeply intellectual movie. In fact, I've got a lot of questions I'd like answered: as mentioned, why humans as batteries? How does "the mind make it real"? Etc...

I happen to think it's a bridge for action film fans to think they've made the step over to intelligent filmmaking- and I'm not saying action doesn't have any of that. It does, but it's not greatly valued in the genre.

See Laurence Fishburne in the MATRIX REVISITED dvd. "I don't understand why some people don't get the script. I really don't" (paraphrased). I'd like to slap his bald little head for that one, from the way he says it with such a cocky, pretentious manner. Still, he's right in his words... there's nothing not to get. Sci-Fi's been as smart and smarter for decades. It just doesn't generally get made into an action movie. If you "get" it, and someone else doesn't like it, don't say he/she didn't get it. That's just damned rude, and doesn't make you sound nearly as smart as you probably think. 

Where was I? Oh. Yeah. The Wachowski brothers may have the same illusions... talking about books based on the nature of reality, making the actors read certain authors... C'mon. It's a well-done action movie with passable sci-fi that allows for some terrific excuses for action and stunts. There's really not much wattage required to understand the movie... otherwise, it might not have been made.


----------



## Piratecat (Apr 15, 2003)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> *I don't claim to be Mr. Deep, but if I can recognize the goofball sophomoric spouting that the Matrix pretends is philosophy for what it is, who's the Deep One?  *




He is.


----------



## John Crichton (Apr 15, 2003)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> *He is.*



Well, if anyone is deep that dude/fish/thing is DEEP.


----------



## barsoomcore (Apr 16, 2003)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> *Hey barsoomcore - I am curious.  Since you seem like the type of person less wowed by special effects than most, what did you think of Dark City?*



I liked everything about _Dark City_ except the ending. I really really really wish somebody would come up with a way to have two characters engage in a battle of wills that doesn't involve them just staring at each other and pretending to struggle. It always looks goofy.

Otherwise, yeah, _Dark City_ gets thumbs-up from me.

Piratecat: I'll get you for that.

RangerWickett: You know, you're probably right. It still bugs me every time I see it. The way Pippin's arms cycle just LOOKS phony. Drives me crazy.

Doc Midnight: Since I know you're hip to the whole big honkin' fight scene thing, I just have to share what first triggered my Matrix hate. First time I saw the film (and I was pretty excited before I saw it), first scene, CA Moss jumps up and FREEZE WOW SUPER COOL CRANK IT AROUND YEAH BABY YEAH I'M SO INTO THIS AND NOW! START THE KICK NOW

and they cut.

I couldn't believe it. They cut out of the wrap-around freeze-frame to a close-up of a foot hitting a chest. My jaw dropped. It seemed so obvious to me that what you do is hold the shot, start the action running IN THE SAME SHOT, and let her send the bad guy flying. That cut, for me, killed the moment.

They did it a couple more times in the film and I just couldn't believe what I was seeing. Why would you cut out of that?

Hollywood fight scenes = overcutting. It's a fact.

Sorry, just a bee in me bonnet.


----------



## John Crichton (Apr 16, 2003)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> *I liked everything about Dark City except the ending. I really really really wish somebody would come up with a way to have two characters engage in a battle of wills that doesn't involve them just staring at each other and pretending to struggle. It always looks goofy.
> 
> Otherwise, yeah, Dark City gets thumbs-up from me.*



That's is creepy, man.  That was my lone problem with Dark City as well, but it has been tempered with mulitple viewings as I couldn't really come up with anything better.


----------



## barsoomcore (Apr 16, 2003)

I hear you. There are just some story elements that don't belong in movies. Mind battles are one of them.

People experiencing virtual reality is another. They always look so dumb with some thing strapped to their head while they act like they're seeing stuff.

Computers. Just don't put computers in your movies. Nobody wants to watch people type, and Hollywood's efforts to make computers more interesting only make Hollywood look incredibly stupid.

I just don't think there are good solutions to these problems. Just don't do it. Please.


----------



## Ashrem Bayle (Apr 17, 2003)

My apologies Barsoomcore, my post probably did seem hostile or pretentious. Didn't mean it that way. Sorry.

I would like to clarify a bit.



> Huh. Sure, it's safe to say that. Since we weren't given any evidence one way or another, why not? I think it's safe to say it's pointless to even talk about Neo as though he were meant to represent a particular human being.




I disagree. I thought the initial shock was pretty clear and was only made more so by the fact that he dropped to his knees and puked.

I loved the fact that I could identify so well with the character. Maybe it was my particular mindset at the time, but throughout the most of the movie, I was saying in my head "Wow. That would suck if it happened to me." Oddly enough, it was when Neo gained his "super powers" that I my identification began to fade away. By the end of the movie, I had switched more over to sympathy, though maybe not entirelly.



> Have you heard of a French effects company called BUF?




Well, it doesn't sound familiar. That is kinda the point though. The Matrix was the first to bring it into the public's eye. I know it was definatly the first place I ever saw bullet time.



> I think the idea you're reaching for is that the Matrix appeals to people like you. I'm unsurprised that you think people who share your tastes are a higher calibre of person.




You thought wrong. Perhaps I was generalizing too much. I was just saying that if two people approached me, one wearing a Matrix tee shirt, the other wearing a Britney Spears tee shirt, I'd be more inclined to listen to the Matrix fan. Of course, that Britney Spears fan could be a rocket scientist for all I know, but it in my experience, this is very rarely the case.



> but if I can recognize the goofball sophomoric spouting that the Matrix pretends is philosophy for what it is




Yes. There is some "goofball sophomoric spouting" in the movie. I also happen to think that their are some lines in there that can carry some legitamate philosophical weight. I mean, they aren't spouting Shakespear, but I didn't go to see that.




> Well, on that we agree.




The reason I said you didn't "get" the Matrix comes from the fact that you sound like you where looking for something else in the movie. The Matrix was a special effects powered action movie wrapped in a nice little pseudophilisophical package to hold it all together.

I don't watch _Dumb and Dumber_ in hopes of finding the meaning of life.


----------



## John Crichton (Apr 17, 2003)

Ashrem Bayle said:
			
		

> *The Matrix was a special effects powered action movie wrapped in a nice little pseudophilisophical package to hold it all together.
> 
> I don't watch Dumb and Dumber in hopes of finding the meaning of life. *



I don't mean to poach.  

That description is exactly what the movie was.  But by looking at the first half of the movie, it could have been more.  Much more.  Now I'm all for a good shoot-out, don't get me wrong.  It just seemed to me that the movie was aiming higher than just "action movie."  With the exception of a few easily ignored plot points they had some pretty heady topics going on there.  Now, I couldn't really relate in general but they definately got my brain going.  It reminded me of (as mentioned) *Dark City* which I adored.  Maybe I just wanted more from it and maybe I like it when movies go all the way with a concept rather than just cutting out at the end.

I still don't excuse it for falling short at the end but I do acknowledge that I enjoyed what they showed me.  And because I was entertained, I am looking forward to these next 2.


----------



## Viking Bastard (Apr 17, 2003)

Wait, you didn't like the mind battle in Dark City?

It's one of my favourite fight scenes in all of moviedom. I love
psionic stuff like that. Makes my skin crawl in Holy GEEKiness!

Perfect ending of a perfect movie. Well, nearly perfect...

.

As for the Matrix, love the movie and I can understand Chrichton's
'more potential' statement, but I didn't feel cheated, I saw 'to be
continued' written all over it since the first major battle scene. 
That's fine by me. I like serials, prefer them if anything, the problem
is of course of how adept Hollywood studios are to screw them up.

I've never seen The Matrix as outstanding in anything plot wise, 
but that doesn't make it a worse movie. I like the before mentioned
_Magnolia_ a lot, it really moved me, but I still think The Matrix's the 
better movie, because when I weight the things I liked about the
Matrix (powertrip, kewlness, fun) against the things I liked about
Magnolia (script, character deapth, drama) I got more out of the
Matrix.

And I can't stand most Kung Fu crap. I'm soooo annoyed by all 
the Kung Fu mania that's followed The Matrix... and that bullet
time stunt just makes me gringe. I love the movie, but I can't 
stand the flood of Hollywood copycats since. I've never been a 
fan of martial arts movies (there's a bunch of 'em I like, but it's 
usually _despite_ the kung fu, not because of it).

The Matrix however, made me like it.


----------



## John Crichton (Apr 17, 2003)

Viking Bastard said:
			
		

> *Wait, you didn't like the mind battle in Dark City?
> 
> It's one of my favourite fight scenes in all of moviedom. I love
> psionic stuff like that. Makes my skin crawl in Holy GEEKiness!
> ...



It just didn't feel right the first time I saw it (in the theater).  I didn't hate it but it just rubbed me a tad wrong.  But upon later viewings, that feeling has lessened mostly because I couldn't think of any other way Proyas could have shown it and made it better.


----------



## RangerWickett (Apr 17, 2003)

I saw Dark City a few years ago, so I can't recall it perfectly, but since the whole point was that he gained psychic powers to reshape reality a bit, couldn't they have been making changes in the world around them?  Bad guy starts to make the room dark and creepy and deathly, but then the hero counters by reshaping those dark things into something beautiful or less frightening.  It could be kinda like psychic judo.  He pushes, and instead of you pushing back, you just take what he does and move it a little in a different direction to get the result you want.

Anywho, good point about that kick.  It would've been cool if they could've had the kick continue through the scene.


----------



## Viking Bastard (Apr 17, 2003)

That would've been rather hard to do for good effect methinks.


----------



## Ashrem Bayle (Apr 17, 2003)

Viking Bastard said:
			
		

> *And I can't stand most Kung Fu crap. I'm soooo annoyed by all
> the Kung Fu mania that's followed The Matrix... and that bullet
> time stunt just makes me gringe. I love the movie, but I can't
> stand the flood of Hollywood copycats since. I've never been a
> ...




Oddly enough, I am a martial artist and I agree with you. The way martial arts is usually portrayed in movies makes me sick. For instance I freaking HATED Crouching Tiger, Squating Dog. If you are going to fly around like idiots, at least give me a REASON why I should accept it as possible. 

The Matrix had a semi-believable explaination for why the people in it could do the things they did. At least, it was enough for me to suspend disbelief. CT,HD and many others since havn't been able to do that.

Bullet time has been overused since The Matrix and so has wirework.


----------



## Viking Bastard (Apr 17, 2003)

I loved CTHD actually.  

My problem with Kung Fu/Ninja/thingy movies is not that it's 
unbelievable (not something I tend to complain about, unless 
it's something stupid like how cars keep on blowing up for no 
real reason) but rather that it's dull. For me, what drives any 
fight scene is _drama_, which is why I prefer (for example) the 
Vader/Luke fight in RotJ over the Maul/Obi/Jinn fight in TPM. 

Most martial arts films are completely drama-less. That is, 
they have a lot of drama _until_ the fight scene. The movies 
have drama leaking out their ears until it's time to fight and 
then it's all about technique. It kills the moment completely!


----------



## John Crichton (Apr 17, 2003)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> *I saw Dark City a few years ago, so I can't recall it perfectly, but since the whole point was that he gained psychic powers to reshape reality a bit, couldn't they have been making changes in the world around them?  Bad guy starts to make the room dark and creepy and deathly, but then the hero counters by reshaping those dark things into something beautiful or less frightening.  It could be kinda like psychic judo.  He pushes, and instead of you pushing back, you just take what he does and move it a little in a different direction to get the result you want.*



Hmm, not bad.  But what about the life and death situation the two were locked in?  I guess it could have been done on the ground with objects flying all over the place like Luke/Vader in ESB and have them manipulating things down there.  Yeah, that may have worked better for me...  

And as for that kick, I never really had an issue with it or really noticed.  * shrugs *


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Apr 18, 2003)

Ashrem Bayle said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Oddly enough, I am a martial artist and I agree with you. The way martial arts is usually portrayed in movies makes me sick. For instance I freaking HATED Crouching Tiger, Squating Dog. If you are going to fly around like idiots, at least give me a REASON why I should accept it as possible.
> 
> *




Then you know as a martial artist (I don't know what style you study) that a fight in real life is a lot less entertaining than a well cheorographed fight in a movie. Things that you might do in real fight arent flashy enough for ENTERTAINMENT purposes. 

As for the wirework it's almost a genre convention for a certain type of Martial arts movie. When it shows up you know "oh it's that type of movie". Now this is coming from someone who really doesnt like wirework either but understands why it's there and if used properly can be very effective. 

Blasting a genre convention is like complaining about the fact that in the STAR WARS movies things shouldnt burn is space because there is no air or that there should be no sound in space because there is a vaccum or that using lightsabers to fight is unrealistic because someone should have cut their own head off with one long ago. It's genre convention if you dont like it that's understandable, I don't either but not because it's unrealistic but because it just doenst look right to me most of the time. 

Hell, unrealistic is one guy fighting like twelve guys at a time and coming out on top. I dont care what kind of martial art you know, it's pretty damn difficult to keep a large number of people from overrruning you, pinning you to the ground and pounding you into paste.


----------



## kkoie (Apr 18, 2003)

Ashrem Bayle said:
			
		

> *
> Oddly enough, I am a martial artist and I agree with you. The way martial arts is usually portrayed in movies makes me sick. For instance I freaking HATED Crouching Tiger, Squating Dog. If you are going to fly around like idiots, at least give me a REASON why I should accept it as possible.
> *




It is called suspension of disbelief.  That type of martial art in film, has been around for ages.


----------



## Ashrem Bayle (Apr 18, 2003)

kkoie said:
			
		

> *
> 
> It is called suspension of disbelief.  That type of martial art in film, has been around for ages. *




I'm not saying there was really anything wrong with the movie. I just didn't care for it myself and this probably stems from my real life knowledge of the martial arts. I had a real hard time suspending disbelief with CTHD. They didn't give me any reason to do so.

The Matrix, for example, gave me a reason to suspend disbelief. 

CTHD didn't do so.

Don't get me wrong, I love wire work and cool martial arts based special effects. This is one of the reasons I loved The Matrix. 

However, it has to have a place and fit within a good context. This is one of the reasons I hated CTHD. 



> _Originally posted by ShinHakkaider_
> *Then you know as a martial artist (I don't know what style you study) that a fight in real life is a lot less entertaining than a well cheorographed fight in a movie. Things that you might do in real fight arent flashy enough for ENTERTAINMENT purposes. *




I agree 100%. If martial arts is going to be glamorized and be the reason a person has "kewl powerz" there had better be a good reason. The Matrix did this. CTHD did not. This is just a personal thing I'm sure, but without a reason, it is very hard for me to suspend disbelief.


----------



## RangerWickett (Apr 18, 2003)

In Wuxia films like Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, learning martial arts can indeed give you remarkable powers such as balancing on tree branches, or flying around a room.  Heck, in real life, a well-trained martial artist can do pretty amazing stuff like break bricks or run up a wall, or cross a very squeaky floor without making a noise.  It's part of the mythos of martial arts cultures that with enough training and inner control, the human body can do almost anything.

In CTHD, the main hero was a well-trained martial artist, and had reached enough inner enlightenment that he could move with remarkable grace and lightness.  The woman with the Green Destiny was precocious and skilled, but not truly enlightened.  She had been trained, but lacked harmony, which explains why she wasn't quite as good as the main hero.  And at the end of the movie, she attains such a balance, and thus can fly.  It's just the way those things work.

In a hacker movie, would you have to suspend your disbelief much if a computer whiz developed a program that could track all the phone conversations that go through cellular phone networks looking for instances of one particular word?  That'd be pretty amazing, but it's within the realm of possibility for a highly-skilled and resourceful programmer.  In martial arts movies, the same possible levels of ability are available to those with good enough training and focus.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Apr 18, 2003)

Ashrem Bayle said:
			
		

> *
> This is just a personal thing I'm sure, but without a reason, it is very hard for me to suspend disbelief. *




Of course. Not meaning to argue the point, I just wanted to clarify where you are coming from. 

I'd been watching martial arts movies since I was 6 starting with Bruce Lee and Jackie chan, I'm 31 now so I've seen a hell of a lot of martial arts movies. I just got used to the fact that when a moive like THE SWORDSMAN comes on it's like "OK thier flying in this one" as opposed to say PRODIGAL SON where it's just straight fisticuffs. Personally I prefer straight fighting anyday over wire work, but there have been a few movies where theyve blended pretty well. For example DRUNKEN MASTER 2 and ONCE UPON A TIME IN CHINA I & II. For the ladder fight in OUATIC I it's pretty obvious but it meshes in with the sequence, in DM II you almost dont notice it in the final fight scenes between Jackie and his bodyguard Ken Lo, but it's there as well as in a few other sequences in the climax.


----------



## Elemental (Apr 20, 2003)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> *That's is creepy, man.  That was my lone problem with Dark City as well, but it has been tempered with mulitple viewings as I couldn't really come up with anything better. *




_The Invisibles_ comic series--the second collection-- has a great example of psychic combat. It's represented through a rapidly changing series of memories being used as defences against the interrogator, as well as his being forced to relive painful memories of his own when he lets his guard down.


----------



## Shadowdancer (Apr 21, 2003)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> *And at the end of the movie, she attains such a balance, and thus can fly.  It's just the way those things work. *




I think you need to go watch the movie again. Attained balance and now can fly? No. She just committed suicide. She rejected the world she would be forced to live in, a world in which she would have to do what others wanted of her, instead of a world where she would be free to pursue the achievement of balance. A world dominated by men. Same ending as "Thelma and Louise."


----------



## WizarDru (Apr 21, 2003)

Well, I enjoyed the heck out of The Matrix, and I expect to be equally entertained by its sequels.  I like WuXia fight sequences, I enjoyed the f/x of the original movie, and found no problems with its editing.  Clearly others didn't enjoy the films as much as I did...although I suspect Barsoomcore came to the movie with a set of eyes that couldn't stop being critical because he's so close to that kind of work (i.e. as an animator, he sees things he would have done differently from a professional standpoint, and they tend to distract and irritate him in a manner that would not for me).

I wouldn't pretend that it's a profound movie, though it has more intelligence to it than many staples of the genre.  Compare it with, say, the afore-mentioned Eraser, for example.  I would say it had style OVER substance, but NOT style WITHOUT substance.  YMMV.


----------



## RangerWickett (Apr 21, 2003)

Shadowdancer said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I think you need to go watch the movie again. Attained balance and now can fly? No. She just committed suicide. She rejected the world she would be forced to live in, a world in which she would have to do what others wanted of her, instead of a world where she would be free to pursue the achievement of balance. A world dominated by men. Same ending as "Thelma and Louise." *




See, this is what happens when you miss out on the theatrical release, and so you're forced to end up watching the movie with a bunch of rowdy friends who think the movie's over as soon as the last fight scene ends.  You tend to miss a few things over the din.


----------



## Welverin (Apr 21, 2003)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> *That description is exactly what the movie was.  But by looking at the first half of the movie, it could have been more.  Much more.*




No, it could have been something different. To do as you suggest would have made it a different style of movie which is clearly not what they were trying to do.


----------



## barsoomcore (Apr 21, 2003)

Ashrem Bayle said:
			
		

> *I thought the initial shock was pretty clear and was only made more so by the fact that he dropped to his knees and puked.*



We have different opinions on what constitutes a convincing performance. Fair enough.


> *Yes. There is some "goofball sophomoric spouting" in the movie. I also happen to think that their are some lines in there that can carry some legitamate philosophical weight. I mean, they aren't spouting Shakespear, but I didn't go to see that.*



Well, you said "The Matrix is for the deeper minded people". I said that may be true, but you hadn't shown any evidence to support that suggestion. I offered the fact that I can recognize "GSS" for what it is as evidence that maybe I'm just as deep-minded as the next guy, and thus if the film doesn't appeal to me, then maybe it DOESN'T appeal to the deeper minded people.

What I'm getting at is we have opposing views -- not only on the quality of the movie (which is purely subjective) but on the reasons for the movie's popularity. My assertion is that the movie appeals primarily because it offers a fantasy of power. It appeals to people who find power fantasies attractive. The movie became extremely popular because its fantasy is well-calculated for appeal (keeping the main figure as personality-less possible, minimizing any potential need for responsibility, etc). Your assertion was that the movie appeals primarily because of its special effects and intellectual content (I'm extrapolating from comments of yours about higher calibre of person or the deeper minded people).

I think you're wrong. Not about whether or not you like the Matrix -- I'm sure that you do. Not even about why YOU like it -- if it made you think or whatever, then great. I certainly have no reason to doubt you. But I think you're wrong about the primary appeal of the movie.


> *The reason I said you didn't "get" the Matrix comes from the fact that you sound like you where looking for something else in the movie. The Matrix was a special effects powered action movie wrapped in a nice little pseudophilisophical package to hold it all together.*



Well, I don't know exactly what I was looking for but what I got were dull fight scenes, overused special effects that only served as distraction, bad acting, bad dialogue and an irritating pretension that seemed to assume I was too stupid to notice the lameness of it all.

And so, as I have said, I wondered why such a bad movie became so popular. Now we each have our theories. I don't think yours is a very good theory for reasons I've already gone into, but primarily concern the idea that the effects were not as innovative as the hype machine would have us think, and that the intellectual content was pretty much non-existent, despite the high-falutin' phraseology of the figures in the movie.


----------



## John Crichton (Apr 21, 2003)

Welverin said:
			
		

> *No, it could have been something different. To do as you suggest would have made it a different style of movie which is clearly not what they were trying to do. *



Being different is implied when I said that it could have been more.  By the writers having the movie end like it did (not knowing for certain that they would have a chance to make more films) and throwing all substance and thought out the window is no excuse for not following up what they did in the first half of the film.

The style would have still been the same as their still would have been plenty of action in the movie.  The first half introduced interesting concepts while the second half ignored most of them.  If they didn't try and be cerebral at all or just hinted at it then the ending would have fit just fine as it was brainless.

What *The Matrix* showed me in the first movie was entertaining and introduced some very interesting concepts.  I was impressed but at the same time I saw incredible potential for more.  You don't have to agree with me, but it is simply my opinion.  If being more would have changed the way the movie was made or the intensions of the producers and writers, so be it.  But it is what is and I know why it ended up that way.  Doesn't change the fact that it could have been more, in my eyes.


----------



## barsoomcore (Apr 21, 2003)

Ashrem Bayle said:
			
		

> *This is just a personal thing I'm sure, but without a reason, it is very hard for me to suspend disbelief. *



Honestly, I'm not just picking on you. I swear. But what you said here points to a massive difference in how you and I come to movies.

I don't need explanations for _physical_ things. In this movie, people can fly, okay, they can fly. Superman can fly cause the sun is yellow. Sure, whatever. Fine. I'm perfectly happy to watch stories that take place in worlds where the physical laws are not identical to our own, and I don't need the rules explained to me beforehand.

What I need to be convinced about are the _emotional_ things. If a character loves another, I need to be convinced. I need to believe. My fundamental problems with both CTHD and The Matrix are based on these sorts of issues. Why does Trinity kiss Neo at the end of the Matrix? It's the stupidest thing ever. Why does anyone not just slap Zhang Zi-yi's character into the middle of next week the first time she opens her mouth? Why would anyone like her or trust her or even want to be anywhere near her?

If the emotional engine is running good, I don't care about the physical. This is why I love so many wuxia movies, because they invest so much into the emotional lives of the characters, who are always getting their parents killed, or their sons tortured or whatever.

Very different, you and I.

Again, it kind of points to identification versus sympathy. In order to think of yourself as LIKE Neo you need to know the rules of the world Neo plays in. Whereas in order to care about Briggite Lin's character in _Dragon Inn_ all you need to do is watch her for ten minutes.

Interesting.


----------



## RangerWickett (Apr 21, 2003)

The best movie I've seen that featured kung-fu-esque wirework was _Death to Smoochie_.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Apr 22, 2003)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> *
> My fundamental problems with both CTHD and The Matrix are based on these sorts of issues. Why does Trinity kiss Neo at the end of the Matrix? It's the stupidest thing ever. Why does anyone not just slap Zhang Zi-yi's character into the middle of next week the first time she opens her mouth? Why would anyone like her or trust her or even want to be anywhere near her?
> 
> *




Trinity kisses Neo at the end of the movie because her love makes her believe that he is the ONE. The Matrix establishes very early that that world is based on the power of belief. It’s one of the concepts of Buddism, I forget exactly which type, but (to paraphrase) it says that reality doesn’t exist out side of perception and because of that, reality is what you percieve it to be. The Oracle told her that she would fall in love with that ONE. She was drawn to/ in love with him from the beginning of the movie. In the sequence immediately after the opening credit when Cypher and Trinity have their little talk.

Cypher: Yeah.
Trinity: Is everything in place?
Cypher: You weren't supposed to relieve me.
Trinity: I know, but I felt like taking your shift.
Cypher: You like him, don't you? You like watching him.
Trinity: Don't be ridiculous.
Cypher: We're going to kill him, do you understand that?
Trinity: Morpheus believes he is The One.
Cypher: Do you?
Trinity: It doesn't matter what I believe.
Cypher: You don't, do you?
Trinity: Did you hear that?
Cypher: Hear what?
Trinity: Are you sure this line is clean?

Even still she still had her doubts that he was the ONE, but regardless of that she still loved him and when it looked like he was lost her that’s when she was finally able to admit that and it’s that admission, that admission of love is what revives Neo. It makes him believe that he is the ONE, otherwise he’d be dead. When he comes back he’s finally able to see the Matrix for what it is. He believes BECAUSE of her love for him. It’s a little corny but it doesn’t come out of nowhere. Everything is established in the structure of the story from jump. 

You see for all the people out there who claim the depth of the story rings hollow, for you it does. However if you recognize the concepts and the bits and pieces of philosophy that are in place in the story it becomes a little more than an empty exercise in wire-fu, martial arts and special effects. Because I was able to see ideas that I’d read about while in school I was able to appreciate it a little more. While the average person who doesn’t, well, doesn’t. A film student can tell you why the GREAT TRAIN ROBBERY is a ground breaking film, but to the average person it’s just some silent movie. A flim student can tell you why CITIZEN KANE left the mark that it did on cinema or why the french new wave was so important and why it was so fresh. The average person cant. Not holding THE MATRIX up to any of those films but if it’s there and you recognize it it’s something more, if you don’t then it’s not. 


>>Why does anyone not just slap Zhang Zi-yi's character into the middle of next week the first time she opens her mouth? Why would anyone like her or trust her or even want to be anywhere near her?<<


Well the first time that she opens her mouth she’s in the guise of the young aristocrats daughter, submissive, yet curious and uses that to win the freindship of Yu Shu Lien, Michelle Yeoh’s character. Which is why, despite the obvious havoc that she causes, Shu Lien tries to resolve the issue of the stolen sword as discreetly as possible right up until their fight near the end of the movie. She’s the classic petulant child, she’s not corrupt even Li Mu Bai recognizes this when he duels with her for the second time after she returns the Green Destiny. The character has redeeming qualities, her respect and affection for both Jade Fox and Shu Lien. She cared enough about Jade Fox to try and spare her feelings about surpassing her in skill and not understanding the training manual. She obviously loves the desert bandit, Dark Cloud. As I said before there’s a subtext to her characters actions that needs to be watched in respect to what’s going on around her. 

Wow. Didn’t know that I’d gone on that long.


----------



## barsoomcore (Apr 22, 2003)

ShinHakkaider: What I'm saying is that I was never convinced that Trinity loved Neo. I know the script tried to lay it out, but I never once bought it. The performances did not convince me.

Look, I've tried to make clear that I GOT the ideas the Matrix was holding up as profound. I just disagree with the notion that they are profound. Or even interesting. If we want to get into discussions of Buddhism we can do that, but maybe this thread isn't the right place. Suffice to say that the concept of belief and reality you've articulated is better expressed in _Jonathan Livingstone Seagull_ than any Buddhist text.

I appreciate you spending so much time explaining this stuff to me, but none of this is new to me. These stories worked for you, and did not work for me. Clearly we disagree on some points, and that's fine.


----------



## Staffan (Apr 23, 2003)

Ashrem Bayle said:
			
		

> *Of course, that Britney Spears fan could be a rocket scientist for all I know, but it in my experience, this is very rarely the case. *



You'd be surprised. Just look at http://britneyspears.ac/lasers.htm


----------



## John Crichton (Apr 23, 2003)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> *ShinHakkaider: What I'm saying is that I was never convinced that Trinity loved Neo. I know the script tried to lay it out, but I never once bought it. The performances did not convince me.*



I had this same issue.  If it was a "Love Conquers All" or "Love Inspires Greatness" theme they were going for they should have given more than a few lines to it.  They way it was played out seemed like a distant afterthough or a loophole, if you will.  I can understand two people being in love and making a connection but since that was never really hammered home in the film, it had little to no impact for me and soured the ending.  Perhaps the script required more subtle acting and the pair just didn't pull it off.  But for whatever reason, it just didn't work for me.  Not compared to the rest of the film...


----------



## Welverin (Apr 23, 2003)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> *Being different is implied when I said that it could have been more.*




Sorry, I should have said that it could have been a different *type* of movie, which is what it would have been had they gone in the direction you wanted. I'd say it's pretty clear The Matrix is and was meant to be an action movie, and to say it failed to live up to it's potential (or criticize it) for the very things that define what type of movie it is (the action scenes) is ridiculous. While it?s a valid reason to dislike a movie, to whatever degree, I don?t think it?s a valid reason to judge it on. It be like me saying Chicago failed because it ends with a big musical number (ok, I?m just assuming that it does since I didn?t see, but it?s a musical so it?s a fair bet that it does).

I think that?s all maybe I?ll add more later.



			
				ShinHakkaider said:
			
		

> *
> Trinity kisses Neo at the end of the movie because her love makes her believe that he is the ONE.*




Yes, but what happens in the movie to make you, or anyone else, believe that she actually loves Neo?

Beyond the fact that Trinity is the female lead, Neo is the male lead, and the script requires that Trinity loves Neo I don't see anything in the movie to establish the fact.


----------



## John Crichton (Apr 23, 2003)

Welverin said:
			
		

> *Sorry, I should have said that it could have been a different type of movie, which is what it would have been had they gone in the direction you wanted. I'd say it's pretty clear The Matrix is and was meant to be an action movie, and to say it failed to live up to it's potential (or criticize it) for the very things that define what type of movie it is (the action scenes) is ridiculous. While it?s a valid reason to dislike a movie, to whatever degree, I don?t think it?s a valid reason to judge it on. It be like me saying Chicago failed because it ends with a big musical number (ok, I?m just assuming that it does since I didn?t see, but it?s a musical so it?s a fair bet that it does)*



I'm pretty sure the Wachowski Bros. didn't set out to make _just_ an action movie.  I'm sure they were striving for more and have said as much in interviews.  I'm not willing to shoehorn The Matrix into the "Just An Action Movie" category and forget about it.  What is showed in the first half was beyond your typical action film.  If the definition of action film is that all the non-action scenes set up the action scenes and mean nothing more (which seems to be the case in most action films) then the second half of The Matrix certainly fits the bill.

If you are willing to let the unfulfilled setup of the beginning of the film.  The pure wonder and imagination of it was all reduced to a simple fight at the end.  That, to me is a waste.  To have the concept of twisted reality, modelled after our current world where the producers were able to show us things that were conceptually and visually different from things we have seen before was an accomplishment.  If you are willing to let it go, I am totally cool with that.  But you cannot convince me that it was just an action film and leave it at that.  The setup was too good.


----------



## Elemental (Apr 24, 2003)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> *I'm pretty sure the Wachowski Bros. didn't set out to make just an action movie.  I'm sure they were striving for more and have said as much in interviews.  I'm not willing to shoehorn The Matrix into the "Just An Action Movie" category and forget about it.  What is showed in the first half was beyond your typical action film.  If the definition of action film is that all the non-action scenes set up the action scenes and mean nothing more (which seems to be the case in most action films) then the second half of The Matrix certainly fits the bill.
> 
> If you are willing to let the unfulfilled setup of the beginning of the film.  The pure wonder and imagination of it was all reduced to a simple fight at the end.  That, to me is a waste.  To have the concept of twisted reality, modelled after our current world where the producers were able to show us things that were conceptually and visually different from things we have seen before was an accomplishment.  If you are willing to let it go, I am totally cool with that.  But you cannot convince me that it was just an action film and leave it at that.  The setup was too good. *




In fairness, I'd say that's the job of the sequels. I can't be certain of this, but I think that the first film was always meant to be part of a trilogy, so you might as well not rush to wrap up the grand plot in the first film, and instead please the crowd.


----------



## John Crichton (Apr 24, 2003)

Elemental said:
			
		

> *In fairness, I'd say that's the job of the sequels. I can't be certain of this, but I think that the first film was always meant to be part of a trilogy, so you might as well not rush to wrap up the grand plot in the first film, and instead please the crowd. *



I do hope the sequals take care of a few of my issues from the first film.  However, any movie should solve its own internal conflicts and logic without other films tacked on to it.  The first Star Wars did it.  The original Back to the Future did as well, even though they were parts of a larger story.  Heck even Wrath of Khan (which was part of a trilogy of the original flims) did it.  There are very few film franchises that really need other movies to resolve their own stories (Lord of the Rings is really the only I can think of).  So even if it is part of a larger picture, it should still live up to its own setup as many films in trilogies have different feels then their brother and sister films.


----------



## Assenpfeffer (Apr 24, 2003)

I like _The Matrix._  I think it's very, very far from being a "bad film."  It's pretty ironic that someone could call it that and with the same face praise _Charlie's Angels_, which was clearly and trasnparently influenced by it.

That said, many of the criticisms of the film are well-founded.  It's not all that innovative a film, for example - pretty much everything it does from a story standpoint has been done before.  And the film's innovations in special effects are generally overstated.  _The Matrix_ has been unquestionably _influential_, however - just look at action movies since.  _The Transporter_ and _Charlie's Angels_ are two obvious examples.  It's an important film for that reason.

The movie is not a 'smart' film as some people think - it is, instead, 'clever.'  A smart movie would have had an ending that repaid the promise of the film's premise and major plot twist - _The Matrix_ had a shootout and kung-fu fistfight.  A very well-done and entertaining shootout and fistfight, to be sure, but only that.

The film's key acheivement is not its intelligence, or its story, or the rather thin veneer of philosophy that overlays the action, or even its very well-done major twist.  It's key achievement is its _style_ which is distinct and unique and which has hugely influenced similar films made since.


----------



## WizarDru (Apr 24, 2003)

Assenpfeffer said:
			
		

> *The movie is not a 'smart' film as some people think - it is, instead, 'clever.'  A smart movie would have had an ending that repaid the promise of the film's premise and major plot twist - The Matrix had a shootout and kung-fu fistfight.  A very well-done and entertaining shootout and fistfight, to be sure, but only that.
> 
> The film's key acheivement is not its intelligence, or its story, or the rather thin veneer of philosophy that overlays the action, or even its very well-done major twist.  It's key achievement is its style which is distinct and unique and which has hugely influenced similar films made since. *




I agree, for the most part.  It's not not deep, and it's not that original.  I'd even go further and say that it's varied elements are all borrowed from other films that are, for their respective disciplines, as good as or better than _The Matrix_.

I certainly agree that the movie's style was a major factor.  It succesfully married Hong Kong's WuXia and Gun-Fu style action films (Iron Monkey meets The Killer) with reasonable science-fiction concepts, euro-style, anime, rave culture and a bunch of other elements.  The synthesis of those elements is what made The Matrix work, and brought it to a mass audience who hadn't experienced it before.

A thing to keep in mind is that many of the elements seen in _The Matrix_ weren't in the popular zeitgeist, as popular as they may have been amongst groups like SF Fans, Honk Kong cinemas fans and so forth.  How much of the American movie-going public had even seen a fight choereogaphed by Yuen-Wo Ping, let alone known who he was?  I don't think you can underestimate that, for some people, _The Matrix_ was the first place they saw this kind of thing, and that carries a lot of weight.


----------



## Mallus (Apr 24, 2003)

Assenpfeffer said:
			
		

> *I like The Matrix.  I think it's very, very far from being a "bad film."  It's pretty ironic that someone could call it that and with the same face praise Charlie's Angels, which was clearly and trasnparently influenced by it.*



I liked the Matrix too, but I don't think its ironic at all that someone could enjoy Charlie's Angels more. Different people have different responses. I think Barsoom was well aware of what kind of film Charlies Angels was --thrilling stupid, IMHO-- and simple took more pleasure from it than The Matrix. Besides, I found Charlie's Angels to be a pretty stylish film in its own way, and I got a far bigger kick from the Matrix-inspired/stolen fight scene in CA between Cripsin Glover{!!!} and the Angles, set to The Prodigy, than I did in any single action sequence in The Matrix... not that I thought CA was a better film, mind you.


> *
> The film's key acheivement is not its intelligence, or its story, or the rather thin veneer of philosophy that overlays the action, or even its very well-done major twist.  It's key achievement is its style which is distinct and unique and which has hugely influenced similar films made since. *




Exactly. I think that really nails The Matrix's appeal.


----------



## Assenpfeffer (Apr 24, 2003)

Mallus said:
			
		

> *I liked the Matrix too, but I don't think its ironic at all that someone could enjoy Charlie's Angels more.*




BC didn't say he liked _Charlie's Angels_ but disliked _The Matrix_ (a perfectly valid opinion.)  He said he liked the former but that the latter was a bad film.


----------



## Mallus (Apr 24, 2003)

Assenpfeffer said:
			
		

> *BC didn't say he liked Charlie's Angels but disliked The Matrix (a perfectly valid opinion.)  He said he liked the former but that the latter was a bad film. *




Hmmm, you're right. But to be fair, thinking The Matrix is a bad film is also a perfectly valid opinion. At least BC was willing to explain his response --in considerable depth-- . 

You know, I disagreed with most of BC's critiques/analyses of films in this thread, but I really enjoyed reading them. They were thoughtful and detailed, and I get a big kick out of seeing someone direct their critical energies at summer genre action flicks. It fits in with my personal belief that no narrative is beneath consideration. 

Besides, we all know The Matrix isn't a bad film...


----------



## John Crichton (Apr 24, 2003)

Assenpfeffer said:
			
		

> *I like The Matrix.  I think it's very, very far from being a "bad film."  It's pretty ironic that someone could call it that and with the same face praise Charlie's Angels, which was clearly and trasnparently influenced by it.
> 
> That said, many of the criticisms of the film are well-founded.  It's not all that innovative a film, for example - pretty much everything it does from a story standpoint has been done before.  And the film's innovations in special effects are generally overstated.  The Matrix has been unquestionably influential, however - just look at action movies since.  The Transporter and Charlie's Angels are two obvious examples.  It's an important film for that reason.
> 
> ...



Well put.  I would go as far to say that I was more frustrated by The Matrix than dissappointed.  On one end, I was highly entertained for all the reasons mentioned but on the other hand I saw a wasted chance to make the film even better.  Now, I had no expectations at all going into the movie, nor did I have any idea what I was about to be shown.  And what I saw I did like but just had few issues with the ending.  So at the time I thought it was a very good movie, not great but very entertaining.

However, I do get a little chafed when folks start calling it things like "better than Star Wars" or "the best science fiction movie of our time" or things of that nature (not that anyone here is doing that).  It was entertaining and has had some influence on other modern films.  And that's where its accomplishments end.


----------



## Assenpfeffer (Apr 24, 2003)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> *Now, I had no expectations at all going into the movie, nor did I have any idea what I was about to be shown.*




Same here.  I hadn't even seen the trailer or any ads for it - only heard through the grapevine that it was good.  It's the kind of movie, I think, that's helped immeasurably by complete ignorance going in.



> *However, I do get a little chafed when folks start calling it things like "better than Star Wars" or "the best science fiction movie of our time" or things of that nature (not that anyone here is doing that).*




I think a case can be made that it was, when it came out, the best sci-fi film since _Blade Runner_.  I don't agree, necessarily, but the case can be made.  Since then, I think _Minority Report_ may have been better, though I thought the ending of that film was also a little too pat.

I do think it's clearly a better film than either of the two _recent_ Star Wars efforts.



> *It was entertaining and has had some influence on other modern films.  And that's where its accomplishments end. *




The film is, I think, much too recent to fairly evaluate its influence.  The recent spate of films which borrow from it may be nothing more than a short-term trend.  To really see what kind of lasting impact the movie will have on film in general and sci-fi or action movies in particular we're going to need another ten years or so, probably more.


----------



## John Crichton (Apr 24, 2003)

Assenpfeffer said:
			
		

> *Same here.  I hadn't even seen the trailer or any ads for it - only heard through the grapevine that it was good.  It's the kind of movie, I think, that's helped immeasurably by complete ignorance going in.*



I think I actually saw it opening night.  And it did help that I knew nothing about it - a trend I have tried to continue to this day.


			
				Assenpfeffer said:
			
		

> *I think a case can be made that it was, when it came out, the best sci-fi film since Blade Runner.  I don't agree, necessarily, but the case can be made.  Since then, I think Minority Report may have been better, though I thought the ending of that film was also a little too pat.
> 
> I do think it's clearly a better film than either of the two recent Star Wars efforts.*



A case could be made if the ending had lived up the promise of the start of the film; without that it is incomplete, to me.  As for best since Blade Runner - I thought T2, Dark City, 12 Monkeys, Star Trek 6, Back to the Future, Aliens and a bunch of others were better science fiction films.  I can say that if you look to the core of all of the films and remove elements like fight scenes you have complete movies in most cases.  The Matrix simply doesn't hold up under those conditions (which I admit are biased for each individual).

And I won't even get into the prequel Star Wars films here because *a)* I am a huge fan of Star Wars, *b)* The prequel films are unique to movie history and are in a category all their own & *c)* I am _way_ too biased towards them.  


			
				Assenpfeffer said:
			
		

> *The film is, I think, much too recent to fairly evaluate its influence.  The recent spate of films which borrow from it may be nothing more than a short-term trend.  To really see what kind of lasting impact the movie will have on film in general and sci-fi or action movies in particular we're going to need another ten years or so, probably more. *



I agree.  It's too early to tell plus the coming films will have an impact, possibly negative & positive, on how the original film will be viewed.


----------



## Mallus (Apr 24, 2003)

Assenpfeffer said:
			
		

> *I think a case can be made that it was, when it came out, the best sci-fi film since Blade Runner.  I don't agree, necessarily, but the case can be made.*




I'd add Gattaca to that list. One of best traditional SF films made {emphasis on the "traditional SF" part}.

What surprised me about The Matrix was that is was a SF movie, not just an exersise in black-leather clad psuedo-cyberpunk wuxia {well, its that too}. The was a lot more backstory and well, umm, plot than I expected. Not that it wasn't silly {the whole "humans as batteries" still chafes}, but there was just more to the thing than I expected and that added immensely to my enjoyment of it.


----------



## Assenpfeffer (Apr 24, 2003)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> *A case could be made if the ending had lived up the promise of the start of the film; without that it is incomplete, to me.  As for best since Blade Runner - I thought T2, Dark City, 12 Monkeys, Star Trek 6, Back to the Future, Aliens and a bunch of others were better science fiction films.*




I agree on T2 and _Aliens._  Possibly _Total Recall_ as well - I thought that film did a great job at the kind of Sci-Fi/Action blend we're so used to seeing today.  Also, I though _Contact_ was a great film.  (In fact, it's one of the five best Sci-fi films ever, in my book.)  _The Fifth Element_ is another personal favorite of mine that I'd put up there.

_Back to the Future,_ while a good film, isn't the kind of movie I think of when I'm mentally comparing Sci-Fi films.  I guess I consider it more of a teen comedy (even though it's indisputably sci-fi.)  For similar reasons, while I love (and own) Trek 6, I have trouble directly comparing it to other Sci-Fi films - Trek is kind of its own thing, to me.

For obvious reasons, though, _Dark City_ is the most interesting film to compare to _The Matrix_.  In many ways, it's a movie which is thematically similar but opposite in approach to its theme.  Where _The Matrix_ has a really strong hook but cops out in the end, _Dark City_ has less of a hook but builds much more strongly, to a remarkable and satisfying conclusion.  _Dark City_ has some failures in imagination in the first half that prevented me from admiring it as much as I might have.  (The Strangers' presence, for example, seems too _physical_ - they can reshape reailty at will, but they need to personally, manually rearrange people's clothes, poses and effects when doing the night's change?  This didn't seem to fit with their stated abilities or with the visual representation of the city itself reshaping by their will.  I also thought they looked too much like Pinhead - a serious distraction at first.)

Overall, I think the two films are about equal.  I can argue in favor of either one.


----------



## John Crichton (Apr 24, 2003)

*DARK CITY SPOILER WARNING!!!!*



			
				Assenpfeffer said:
			
		

> *I agree on T2 and Aliens.  Possibly Total Recall as well - I thought that film did a great job at the kind of Sci-Fi/Action blend we're so used to seeing today.  Also, I though Contact was a great film.  (In fact, it's one of the five best Sci-fi films ever, in my book.)  The Fifth Element is another personal favorite of mine that I'd put up there.*



I *knew* I forgot a few!  Contact and Total Recall were really good.  And I agree about Contact, that movie was excellent.


			
				Assenpfeffer said:
			
		

> *Back to the Future, while a good film, isn't the kind of movie I think of when I'm mentally comparing Sci-Fi films.  I guess I consider it more of a teen comedy (even though it's indisputably sci-fi.)  For similar reasons, while I love (and own) Trek 6, I have trouble directly comparing it to other Sci-Fi films - Trek is kind of its own thing, to me.*



Understandable on all points.  It is tough to throw Trek into any sci-fi movie discussion because of what it is (TV + film).


			
				Assenpfeffer said:
			
		

> *For obvious reasons, though, Dark City is the most interesting film to compare to The Matrix.  In many ways, it's a movie which is thematically similar but opposite in approach to its theme.  Where The Matrix has a really strong hook but cops out in the end, Dark City has less of a hook but builds much more strongly, to a remarkable and satisfying conclusion.  Dark City has some failures in imagination in the first half that prevented me from admiring it as much as I might have.  (The Strangers' presence, for example, seems too physical - they can reshape reailty at will, but they need to personally, manually rearrange people's clothes, poses and effects when doing the night's change?  This didn't seem to fit with their stated abilities or with the visual representation of the city itself reshaping by their will.  I also thought they looked too much like Pinhead - a serious distraction at first.)
> 
> Overall, I think the two films are about equal.  I can argue in favor of either one. *



I can see  your points about Dark City.  I was actually hooked from the second I saw it.  It kept building and building until the big twist, which felt completely natural to the film and not all at forced.  And after that it ended with a finality that left me wanting more.

I guess the big difference for me was that The Matrix piled all their high concepts and big style elements into the first half of the film.  We get the twist very early instead of later in the film, as compared to Dark City.  I guess it's just hard for the rest of the movie (Matrix) to live up to that build-up.  I will say that the love aspect, most likely due to superior acting, of Dark City was much more believable as a plot element.  That was huge for me as it impacted the ending of The Matrix so much.  Had that element been better portrayed, the finale would have had much more punch.  Instead, it was cliche.  *shrugs*


----------



## Mythtify (Apr 24, 2003)

I enjoyed the matrix a lot, simply because it entertained me.   I did not go into it expecting an great feat of motion picture art.   The lead actor being Keanu reeves, I was happy it did not suck.   The best move the directors did was have Keanu speak as little as possible.

I think there are a lot of deep ideas in the matrix, but those ideas weren't explored very much.  I have talked with a lot of people that I go to church with that try and lay on me that the Matrix has a lot christian themes, so its a good movie.  I think thats just silly.   What makes the matrix good is it is good entertainment.  I think that getting deeper meanings from the Matrix is as silly as the people that claim to be Jedi, and make the force into a religion.  

As for the new trailer:

I liked it.   There are a few points that bugged me.  I thought the fight scene with the Smiths looked realy fake.  Same thing with the agent crushing the car on the freeway.  It looked very CG.  
Maybe its okay for it to look fake though....after all, the entire thing is supposed to be a computer simulation in the first place.


----------

