Slashdot Mirror
The Art Of The Matrix
When we think of sci-fi films and the people who make them, we usually think of actors, directors, screenwriters and visual effects TDs. We rarely think of production artists, concept artists and storyboarders. But modern sci-fi films owe a lot to these people: Tight visual effects budgets (no matter how high, they're always tight) and armies of people who need to be organised mean that the planning must be meticulous, right down to the last detail.
Maurice Zuberano, production illustrator and art director for such films as Dick Tracy, has called the storyboard the "diary of the film." It's the private record of the visualisation process, and one of the reasons why you generally won't find them intact after the film is completed. Steven D. Katz, in his classic textbook on film direction, even suggested the storyboard is often "the evidence that the look of the film was the work of someone other than the director."
The storyboards and concept art for The Matrix needed to see the light of day, and only by flicking through this book can you fully appreciate why. The first and largest section of this book contains the boards and concept art for most of the key scenes in the film. The black and white boards by Steve Skroce read like a comic book without the words (Skroce used to be a comic illustrator for Marvel and the brothers Wachowski used to be writers) and truly stand out on their own. The colour boards by Tani Kunitake and Collin Grant cover several of the key sequences (the initial Layafette scenes, the Power Plant, the History Program and the final Sentinel Attack). The artwork is interspersed with comments by the artists on specific characters' shots, how they were developed (usually with the Wachowskis getting them to tweak and re-tweak until it was exactly what they had in mind) and differences between what was boarded and what was finally shot, which serious fans will certainly appreciate.
As an example, from the Government Lobby scene, Skroce notes:
Trinity was always a PVC chick. In the storyboards, Neo was a bit more army fatigues; he's definitely got more fashion sense in the film, looks cooler. The trench coats and sunglasses were always Larry and Andy's idea. Especially in this scene, the glasses were there to look cool, but also as a safety consideration for the actors in the midst of all this debris. (p 142)
After the boards are some of the conceptual designs by Geof Darrow. Most of the pages are fold-out, in order to give you a better idea of the detail of these images. Darrow also supplied comments on how the sets developed since these initial drawings. A special bonus is a mech-like battle suit which didn't make it into the first film, but may turn up in one of the sequels.
Following the concept art is the shooting script, as written by Larry & Andy Wachowski. It's not exactly what was in the theatrical release (some parts were changed during the ADR and editing phases). If you're used to reading screenplays, you know how dry they often are. Not this one. The Wachowskis know how to paint a picture with just a few well-chosen words, the sort of prose that you would normally find in a well-crafted novel. To give you a taste, here's an excerpt from scene 30, when Neo is released from the power plant:
He is standing in an oval capsule of clear alloy filled with red gelatin, the surface of which has solidified like curdled milk. The IVs in his arms are plugged into outlets that appear to be grafted to his flesh.
He feels the weight of another cable and reaches to the back of his head where he finds an enormous coaxial plugged and locked into the base of his skull. He tries to pull it out but it would be easier to pull off a finger.
To either side he sees the other tube-shaped pods filled with red gelatin; beneath the wax-like surface, pale and motionless, he sees other human beings.
Fanning out in a circle, there are more. All connected to a center core, each capsule like a red, dimly glowing petal attached to a black metal stem.
Above him, level after level, the stem rises seemingly forever. He moves to the foot of the capsule and looks out. The image assaults his mind.
Towers of glowing petals spiral up to incomprehensible heights, disappearing down into a dim murk like an underwater abyss.
(pp 304-5)
Included after the screenplay are notes on production by Phil Oosterhouse (assistant to the directors) and some parts cut from the script during pre-production, in both screenplay and storyboard form. The notes provide some great anecdotes from filming. As for the cut scenes, there are some extremely interesting ideas in there, which I won't spoil for you. You'll just have to look for yourself.
Finally, there are some miscellaneous bits and pieces to fill up the end of the book. The full credits, the acceptance speeches from the 2000 Academy Awards(R), key art (including theatrical posters) and stills from the film interspersed with the corresponding boards to show how faithfully the film emulated their comic book style.
This book is a must for any serious Matrix fan, and extremely valuable for those interested in how movies get their look. You won't find anything else quite like it, and it will remain a treasured addition to your coffee table for decades to come.
My one quibble is that I would have preferred to have the complete storyboards so I could enjoy The Matrix as a comic book, rather than just having the key scenes. However, I understand why they did it this way. Storyboards of long conversations without the dialogue written in probably aren't very interesting to look at.
I'll leave the final word to William Gibson, who writes in the the afterward:
Keanu's Neo is my favorite-ever science fiction hero, absolutely.
You can purchase this book at ThinkGeek.
..you must understand that there is, in fact, no book there at all.
well, quite simply, this:
The thing about this is that ignorance is bliss. Do we really want the unwashed masses, the moronic corporate drones and idiotic menial workers, to be introduced to these issues? Our entire society depends upon everyone being dead and asleep, unaware of wider issues while those of us who are curious and alive to the world can run things and dictate reality for everyone else.
So, it is irresponsible to wake these people up in this way. We should be confirming their prejudices, and making them believe that their narrow viewpoints and limited shortsighted worldviews are correct.
We should give them bread and circusses, not wake them up to the truth like this. Where ignoarance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise, and it is better for the masses if they exist in joyful prejudiced ignoarance. I think that the matrix should never have been released for this reason.
- A.P.
--
Forget Napster. Why not really break the law?
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
--
Care about electronic freedom? Consider donating to the EFF!
You claim to have some philosophy education. Well, I do to. That is my primary field of study. What exactly is it that reeks of beginner philosophy? Obviously, the whole movie is a variation on the "Brain in a Vat" hypothesis, which is really just a rehash of Descartes "Deceptive Demon". That is an example used to explain why skeptics are skeptics. If you can give a good explanation as to why that hypothesis is not a good one, please let me know, because I know a lot of philosophical skeptics who would really like to hear it.
We aren't (or at least I in this comment the other day wasn't) saying that these philosophical questions (Descartes's deceptive demon, the brain in a vat, solipsism, or the mind/body problem in general) aren't interesting, only that The Matrix did a poor job of exploring them and that it doesn't deserve the level of praise that it has received from people like Jon Katz who don't know better than to think that these are original concepts. To quote my favorite sentence from my own comment, they "...find the movie's philosophical questions provocative because [they are] encountering them for the first time, whereas those who have already spent any time pondering those ideas know that they are fascinating and all, but don't give this movie so much of the credit for them, especially given how badly it fumbled them. I think we're mainly annoyed by this because we're disappointed that the movie took a concept that could have been developed into something much more interesting and then failed to take it anywhere new.
Kope called the storyline "...fresh out of a bad philosophy 101 class". I'd agree, except that "101" implies an upper-division course, whereas we went deeper into the mind/body problem in the "Introduction to Philosophy" that I took in a summer program while still in high school, and even more so in a "Philosophy 39" Freshman seminar (though I guess not all such seminars are with John Searle...) I guess you answered your own question when you said "What exactly is it that reeks of beginner philosophy? Obviously, the whole movie is a variation on the "Brain in a Vat" hypothesis...". I don't claim that those undergrad courses cover the questions exhaustively -- they are low-level, introductory things and of course the field gets much more interesting at the higher levels. However, the movie doesn't contain anything that wasn't in those beginner courses, which is exactly what he said.
David Gould
David Gould
main(i){putchar(340056100>>(i-1)*5&31|!!(i<6)<< 6)&&main(++i);}
now that was an interesting mental image...
:)
... and missing.
Keanu: "You need muscles? hang on"
::grunt, groan, ERRRRRrRRRArrrrrRr POP!::
Keanu: "big enough?"
movie director guy: "whoa, dude"
Keanu: "nice line, can I use that?"
heh
---------------------------------------
The art of flying is throwing yourself at the ground...
Please, someone explain this movie to me. I don't get why it is so popular.
The actors are not all that good, with the exception of Fishburne and Pantoliano who where passible. The direction isn't really all that fascinating. And the storyline is fresh out of a bad philosophy 101 class.
Maybe it's becuase I've got some education in philosophy and didn't find the story all that deep. Maybe it's becuase I'm a Hong Kong action film buff and have seen all the special effects before. But I just don't get what the fuss was about. Sure, Carrie-Anne Moss was hot and fun to look at, and the sound-track and sound editing where pretty damn good (particularly during the famous scene of Neo and Trinity battling it out, but sound tracks and hot babes don't make a movie in my book.
So what is it about this movie that makes everyone all excited?
On the flip side, I do think that a book showing how a very visual movie is storyboarded and moves from concept to production is a cool thing. I went and saw the travelling Star Wars museum display that included a lot of the concept art for the first 3 films. That was a very cool experience and I can certainly see why a fan would want that in a quality coffee table book. It is very interesting to see the changes that occure from concept to production, and to learn some of the reasons behind those changes.
Sure you do. Don't watch the 'making of' on TV, don't watch the documentary, don't read the novelization, don't buy the action figure, don't buy the limited edition storyboard.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but nobody is putting a gun to your head and forcing you to do anything you don't want. Stop blaming other people for your inability to control yourself.
Je ne parle pas francais.
Cute troll, but sheesh! What makes you think a big-budget Hollywood production can help but be "bread and circuses"?
While I'm all for a general raising of consciousness and aliveness to the world, I don't think anyone needs to worry about the revolutionary potential of The Matrix. Those who are tuned in to philosophical issues will find them, those who are not will be happy with the big explosions and with drooling at Trinity.
(And just for fun, I'll point out that there's nothing solipsist about The Matrix. Neo is living in an illusion, but he's hardly the only one there. I can make a stronger case for The Matrix being a Christian allegory, with Neo of course the Christ-figure. This is Holy Week, if you don't get it, try making it to an Easter service this Sunday and do some research.)
"You enjoy myself!" - Trey Anastasio
We rarely think of production artists, concept artists and storyboarders.
Sure we do. We don't have a choice any more. Once upon a time you could watch a movie, and then watch it again six months later on video if it was any good. These days, you have to watch the 'making of' on television, an ad masquerading as a documentary before the film's released. Then you read the shitty novelisation[0]. Then you watch the movie. Then you buy the action figures. Then you get the limited edition storyboards, featuring unused concepts!
I flicked through this book; I'm a fan both of the film and of Geoff Darrow (anyone not read Hard Boiled, written by Frank Miller? Sheer excellence), but I have no desire to spend money on a book I'd flick through once.
Sorry to go off like that. Backroom boys do deserve some credit, and books like this are a way of giving them that credit. But that's only a secondary objective. Ever since the Star Trek Blueprints to a Ship that Appeared in an Episode Once Volume VII, these sorts of items have been used as another item of merchandise, instead of supplementary material on the DVD.
[0]Unless the film is the Abyss, and the novelistion is by Orson Scott Card, of course.
Last I heard, he was dead.
Best Slashdot Co
Also, read "By his bootstraps" the Heinlein short about the time travelling hermaphrodite who's his/her own parents. Takes solipsism to the extreme.
Best Slashdot Co
One of the things that attracted me to programming was that programs have much fewer limitations that the real world does (no pesky gravity, no restrictions about two objects occupying the same space...). While it's obvious that reality and programming are separate universes, I've always wondered in the back of my mind about what the possibilities would be if the two were combined. I didn't even realize I'd been subconsciously thinking about this until I saw The Matrix articulate it so well, and did it in a way that expressed that same feeling to non-techies who have no idea what hex editing or binary patching are.
--
Needless to say, popularizing SF and exposing it to the masses would never do
This has already happened, to an extent. Most of the prime time shows on the Sci-fi channel are nothing more than soap operas with aliens. I can divide my friends and co-workers into 2 camps: those who watch 'Sex and the City' and those who watch 'Farscape'. True mind-expanding sci-fi, though, which I guess Matrix would have to fall under, is scarce - but how many people who saw it enjoyed it on that philosophical level? "Carrie is hot!!!" Duh. You can popularize sci-fi all you want, but you can't ever make people get it. Simply exposing people to brilliance doesn't make them enlightened. You have nothing to worry about, geeky sweetie: I think most folks would take the blue pill.
"Smear'd with gumms of glutenous heat, I touch..." - Comus, John Milton
The House Between - Original Sci-Fi Series
Not yet. :-)
My employers supplied some of the rendering software used by one of the effects houses on Matrix, and we'll be doing the same for Matrix 2 and 3. (I'm supplying a shader compiler which will most likely be used too.)
In the highly unlikely event that I find out anything you'd be interested in (I may find out what local illumination model on the buildings in Zion, but who cares, right?) and I'm actually allowed to say it, I'll attempt to fill you in. No promises, though. The NDAs are pretty tight in this business.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
As Mick Molloy once pointed out, it was just like the mechanical Sam Neill in Jurassic Park. You could almost think it was lifelike...
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Also, most of the reviewers are just plain old readers, like yours truly. Plus I'm in a country that didn't get it delivered until a few months ago. Oh, and the review sat in the /. queue for over a month. (I'm pretty sure that timothy spaces them out so we get about one book review a week instead of "as they come".)
So the moral of the story is: don't expect /. book reviews to be "timely".
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
And think to yourself: If Pseudonym did not like the film, would he have bought the book?
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
For the record, I have no financial interest in the book, and my employers got paid a flat fee for the rendering software they provided for the film.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Yes they did. I submitted the link along with the review.
However, ThinkGeek now has a link back to the review. Work that one out, conspiracy theorists...
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Actually, it's much harder. It'd be easy (or at least "straightforward") if the cameras fired at exactly the right time, but in practice, because the shutter is mechanical, there is an element of randomness. All this needs to be corrected... manually. When it's a still (or when you're faking a little motion like in Lost in Space) you don't notice the jitter as much, but when it's smooth slow motion, you really notice it.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
As far as what goes a movie that'll move people, even today, it's a combination of both the technical trickery and the script/actors/director.
Citizen Kane, for example, used some pretty funky camera work to set the mood in certain scenes, yet those same scenes would've not had any impact if the dialogue wasn't damn near perfect.
Saving Private Ryan: the opening invasion scene is extremely powerful - it does move you. But for all it's technical brilliance, I found it to be less moving than the simple scene of the old man falling to pieces in the cemetary.
The Matrix, unfortunately, relied on the FX-heavy scenes to move the audience (IMO). The only scenes that really made an impression on me (and gave me a craving for steak :)) that didn't involve FX was when Cypher was talking to the agent about getting reinserted, and when the agent made his "I hate humanity" speech to the drugged up Morpheus.
I suppose that's why, in the end, I liked the movie, a lot, but walked away from it feeling kind of empty - and the main reason I've watched it again later is the same as why I watched Independence Day a bunch of times: funky special effects.
---
---
Agreed - you would wind up with a net loss in energy if you tried that sort of system. Now, if the explanation had been that they use humans as processors (since the brain is still the most advanced computer in existence, even in the age of AI), I think it would've been a lot easier to swallow for a lot of people who actually took a second or two to think about it.
---
This item and the 'best hacker flick' poll made me wonder, why is The Matrix such a big deal to some people? It was a good movie--the acting STANK, the special effects were excellent, the plot was well-worn ground, the point was...well, I'll give the film the benefit of the doubt and just say it was nice eye candy with no point.
So how does a film with no hacking get voted best hacker flick? (Sitting in front of a bunch of screens and tapping on keyboards is not hacking, any more than a paper MCSE is a sys admin. Yes, I'm comparing everyone who voted for The Matrix as a hacker flick to a paper MCSE. The answer is: War Games. (credit given for Tron and Real Genius))
My conclusion: The Matrix is the best SLACKER flick. The whole Neo story line is basically, why do you stay up all night downloading pr0n and mp3z? Why can't you come to work on time and do your job? (Geeks know if you know your shit and get the job done, no one hassles you about what time you come in.) No, it's not because you're a loser; it's because you're the savior of mankind!
Neo is a geek in the pejorative sense. He's a loser. And on day he finds someone to tell him he is 'The One.' In War Games, Tron, heck, even The Net, you see people actually considering an issue, going through a thought process to find a solution, aka hacking. Neo is handed a magic pill. That's not hacking, it's slacking.
It really is a cool book. Everyone I know has seen and liked the film, so its truly the coolest thing to stick in the living room on the table. It's very fun to read.
Also, check out a lot of cool related comic art, at the official Matrix site. And check out their page for the book, because its funny to read William Gibson's complimentary quote, then think to yourself: "Man, Johnny Mnemonic, Matrix, both sci-fi, both Keanu, and you know Gibson is feeling like he seriously got the shaft." (Even know, the thoughts return..."I've got...to get on...the Net!"... So cold...)
IIRC, Buffalo 66, in independent film that which used the same effect in one key scene towards the end, came out before any of those ads.
--
begin 644
[joke begins]A professor is teaching a philosophy course, and he explains to his class solopism, the theroy that reality is a creation in ones mind. After the lecture, several students rush up and introduce themselves to the professor and explain that the theroy was really intune with how they felt and its really opened their minds and they just wanted to tell him in person how the felt about his lecture ... to this the professor replies "Thats wonderfull, so rarely does one solipsist meet another."
Free Techno/Jazz/DNB/MI Music by guys obsessed with monkeys!
I was upset that they didn't upload the software that would allow Keanu to act. "I know acting." "Show me."
Education is the silver bullet.
Rich
I can only think of two excuses for this totally stupid scenario:
- It's a clue to the subsequent sequels that even that explanation is just made up, like everything in the Matrix is.
- Product placement for Duracell.
My money is on 2.There's a really great Matrix 2 rumor site here. The leaked script pages are off-the-hook.
By the way, if you have time you should check out the rest of PointlessWasteOfTime.com
-Grant
(Yeah, this is similar to another post on this story. The other one is a reply in a thread, so probably no one will see it, so I posted it again as this new thread. Sue me.)
---
My stupid web site
Where you said that you have seen all the special effects before, you really showed your ignorance. If you cannot differentiate between the special effects in HK action flicks that preceded the Matrix, and the Matrix, you don't know what to look for.
You claim to have some philosophy education. Well, I do to. That is my primary field of study. What exactly is it that reeks of beginner philosophy? Obviously, the whole movie is a variation on the "Brain in a Vat" hypothesis, which is really just a rehash of Descartes "Deceptive Demon". That is an example used to explain why skeptics are skeptics. If you can give a good explanation as to why that hypothesis is not a good one, please let me know, because I know a lot of philosophical skeptics who would really like to hear it.
The movie is an action flick with Science Fiction as its plot generator. That is it. It is a relatively simple idea (hence the broad appeal) that was implemented well, and made to be entertaining.
To answer your primary question, I think most people were excited about the idea of an interesting story, acted out by quite a few fresh faces, with never-before-seen special effects.
Finally, I must say that a story doesn't have to be philosophically deep to be meaningful. The American Revolution was about not wanting to pay taxes on paper and tea, among other things of that sort, and the Cuban Missile Crisis was about not wanting big freaking missiles pointed at us. These are not particulary deep (read "convoluted") stories, but they are important issues. They were to the people at the time, and they are today. Take that into consideration the next time you criticize something because you aren't the only one who can understand it.
Jaeger
www.JohnQHacker.com
GodHatesCalvinists.com
...I don't want to arbitrarily offend true fans of the movie, but to me The Matrix was a good example of how Hollywood just has No Subtlety when it comes to handling Sci Fi. They seemed to just use it as a vehicle for their wacky CGI constructs of super aliens, more explosions, and darker-than-dark and mysterious 'Link Hayes' revival. I truly lost interest as soon as that chick ran down that hall, saw a window in the building across the street and jumped through the window in her building, across the street, and through that other one. As soon as I saw that, it immediately got tossed into the GMAFB ("give me a break") bin in my mind. The explanation - it's all a dream! - just reminded me of the Nightmare on Elm Street series: writers get all sorts of license when it's not real. People can die and be resurrected, can fly, dodge bullets, all sorts of crap. And the audience can get yoinked around until the concept of suspended disbelief becomes laughable.
I don't know, Hollywood just makes me feel used in general.
SDMI: Finally! Music that won't rip or burn! Brought to you by the fine folks at RIAA.
eh, are you a 12-year old Geek Policeman of some sort, checking to make sure that everyone shares the same tastes and dogma?
The Matrix was a movie, not a religious text. I thought it was OK, but not the deeply moving experience some people make it out to be, and surely there are a lot of people who feel the same way.
Keanu Reeves is a bad actor. He may be a nice guy, a good friend, or an excellent lover (if you're of whatever sex he actually prefers, a point on which I have no information nor want any). He was thankfully saved from much acting by the quite-good special effects in The Matrix though, unlike in Much Ado About Nothing. I was afraid he might catch on fire whenever he was near torches in that one, but perhaps the wood he's carved from is still too green to really catch.
Bladerunner -- that's a good movie. Stack that against the Matrix any time. (On the other hand, The Matrix, like I said, is by no means the worst KR film -- that distinction would have to go to The Replacements (http://us.imdb.com/Title?0191397), which is also by the way the worst movie that Gene Hackman ever made.)
There probably is a whole subset of viewers who would have liked the Matrix a lot more (maybe even been "fans" to satisfy your need for Full Official Geek Conformance) if the acting had been as good as the effects, and if the whole "brain in a jar" idea was somewhat more novel. The Matrix does a good job of extending and stylizing that old thought experiment, but dammit it's just a classic bull-session topic, ok?!
On the other hand, perhaps you were joking, ironically pointing out preemptively that there really *are* people who seem to take it upon themselves to make sure that everyone thinks "correctly" about art / music / software / books / clothing / politics. In which case, I apologize for misinterpreting. But the thought police are out in force, and annoying, so now I've gone off.
"What? You mean you don't make a point of showing off how you worship caffiene? What kind of a Geek *are* you?!" "Here, wear this shirt, it has a cool formula on the back, and we all have one. This way you won't be a conformist like the jocks over there. Oh, and where's your trenchcoat?"
simon
"Hey Carlito, r'membah me? Benny Blanco from the Bronx!"
The thing is, the creators of The Matrix did not really set out to do sci-fi. They wanted to do a comic-book style superhero series, with lots of wire-fu for the fighting. The first of three films to be an "origin" story, and setting everything in a computer-game world makes the wire-fu credible.
I think the effect of the helicopter sending ripples through the glass of a skyscraper as Trinity crashes into the opposite window is 3 seconds of film that earned the price of admission right there... certainly a better-looking effect than anything Lucas's CGI team was able to come up with.
All that said, the story for The Matrix is pretty silly, filled with holes and bad ideas, and stupid moments like when the "oracle" turns out to be an elderly, matronly, black lady living in a slum who says "not what you expected, is it" when she was excactly what we expected.
The one point where I disagree is where you say that KR is not a bad actor, but a limited one. He is a horrible actor! he can say "woah" with a dumbfounded look fairly well, but in every scene he has ever had where he actually needs to say more than one line, he stinks up the whole picture.
His stardom began with "Bill and Ted's Excelent Adventure", when he was an idiot 20-something who utterly failed to portray an idiot teenager with any degree of believabilty. Things went downhill from there. Films like "Much Ado" and "Dracula" would grind to a halt every time Keanu opened his mouth.
The one thing that saved him is action films. We are so used to seeing action films that star people who speak little or no English that a bad actor who overannounciates everything seems pretty good by comparison. Keanu can chug right along making action flick like Speed and The Matrix, and it will never really matter that he can't act.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
The thing is, the creators of The Matrix did not really set out to do sci-fi. They wanted to do a comic-book style superhero series, with lots of wire-fu for the fighting. The first of three films to be an "origin" story, and setting everything in a computer-game world makes the wire-fu credible.
I think the effect of the helicopter sending ripples through the glass of a skyscraper as Trinity crashes into the opposite window is 3 seconds of film that earned the price of admission right there... certainly a better-looking effect than anything Lucas's CGI team was able to come up with.
All that said, the story for The Matrix is pretty silly, filled with holes and bad ideas, and stupid moments like when the "oracle" turns out to be an elderly, matronly, black lady living in a slum who says "not what you expected, is it" when she was excactly what we expected.
The one point where I disagree is where you say that KR is not a bad actor, but a limited one. He is a horrible actor! he can say "woah" with a dumbfounded look fairly well, but in every scene he has ever had where he actually needs to say more than one line, he stinks up the whole picture.
His stardom began with "Bill and Ted's Excelent Adventure", when he was an idiot 20-something who utterly failed to portray an idiot teenager with any degree of believabilty. Things went downhill from there. Films like "Much Ado" and "Dracula" would grind to a halt every time Keanu opened his mouth.
The one thing that saved him is action films. We are so used to seeing action films that star people who speak little or no English that a bad actor who overannounciates everything seems pretty good by comparison. Keanu can chug right along making action flicks like Speed and The Matrix, and it will never really matter that he can't act.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
2. The Gap ad (and the beer ad) both came out before "Lost in Space".
IIRC, the beer ad was the first time it was ever used (commercialy anyway... the concept was worked out first, then shopped around to ad producers and film-makers), and it was followed shortly afterwards by a the Gap swing-dancing ad, which integrated the wrap-around with regular motion cameras.
Later Lost in Space used it, but found that when they used it on motionless people, it looked like the camera was panning around a bunch of maniquens, so they added a tiny ammount of motion so you would know it was still the actors.
By the way, if you are thinking of renting Lost in Space to see this early version of the effect in action, don't bother... it's a shitty movie.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
The very link you point to shows that Buffalo 66 came out just 3 years ago. The Miller ad was older.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
You will notice when reading the book how closely the storyboards match the movie. It's downright scary. There are so many details in the storyboards that some frames took hours. It's also fairly amazing how Hollywood makes some expensive-looking things cheaply and cheap-looking things expensive. Good insight, a good read, and fairly expensive.
----------------------
For those of you who haven't seen it ... you can check out very cool storyboards and conceptual art hosted here at the Matrix Website.
And if thats not enough you can get your arses over to the Hack The Matrix website and enter "Darrow" or "Skroce" as the codes to see some more amazing art.
Some of the strips even show Neo in army fatigues that some of you are talking about. The comic Neo character is WAY cooler than Keanu. I am just waiting eagerly for Matrix-II.
SPOILER: can you spell v-i-r-u-s!
If you thought the Matrix was cool, you'll like this book. Now fork over the money.
the brain is still the most advanced computer in existence, even in the age of AI
... I believe as long as that statement is true, we are not truly in "the age of AI."
Excuse me
"And like that
...used to make Keanu seem like an emotionless "dude-bot," rather than his typical Shakespearean self. Very believable.
+5:offtopic,but anti-American
If you liked the Matrix then check out Geoff Darrow's "Hard Boiled", and "Big Guy and Rusty the boy robot" graphic novels. They show why the Wachowski's wanted this guy for set design and concept art.
Praise Causey!
In other words, you have to take the red pill.
But before that, you have to be given a red pill. Not everybody is offered one.
The red pill is the "gnosis," whence the name of the religion. Other details, such as the evil nature of the current reigning god and the possibility of redemption through the Gnosis, are also exact parallels. You really shouldn't offer criticism about something you know nothing about.
Brackets contain world's first nanosig, highly magnified:[.]
into a literary ghetto populated by geeks, loners and weirdos. So that all these strange, revolutionary ideas will be disregarded by the masses.
Science fiction is by its very nature, a revolutionary, subservice literature, so it must be shunted aside by the man into a secluded ghetto. Sometime this works to well, as science fiction is one genre of literature that proliferated in the Soviet Union, and was even given it's blessing by the Politburo. True, most of it was rah-rah first Soviet on the moon,but quite a lot of subversive anti-Soviet literature became published, if you doubt me, check out Lem's Memoirs Found in a Bathtub.
The last time SF attempted to get itself out of the ghetto was during the New Wave movement of the '70's, led by Ellison, Dick and Pynchon. Needless to say, popularizing SF and exposing it to the masses would never do, also, raising the consciousness of the geeky SF readers by exposing them to drugs, sex and politics would also upset the status quo of the miliary-industrial complex. SO the military-industrail complex reacted, making REndevsous with Rama beat Gravity's Rainbow for the NEbula in 1973, funding Niven and Pournelle to write right-wing spacve opera, and generally silencing the left wing New WAve movement. Have we heard anything much from Delany, Dick, Pynchon or Ellison since?
Anyone with info on the Matrix 2? ... What I would like to see is a definitive guide on special effects starting from Battlestar Galactica, all the way up to Tron, the Matrix, Jur. Park, etc., something of an encyclopedia, with 10 cd's full of trailers, clips, reviews, etc.
Now that would be a book worth dishing out 150.00 for!!!
authentic Original draft of Bush's apology to China
360 degrees of Karma
This is a pretty good book on the subject. No CD's, but a good book in it's own right.
Damn dude, wouldn't "I thought the movie sucked and the book probably does too!" have been sufficient? It's a book man... About a movie no less... Maybe a little less caffine...
The philosophy in The Matrix runs a lot deeper than people give it credit for. Philip K. Dick used the same basic thought experiement from Descartes and used it as a jumping off point in lots of books and stories to look at how technology highlights those old metaphysical and ontological issues, and The Matrix is very much in that tradition (see Ubik and The Man in the High Castle, and then read Stanislaw Lem's book of essays Microworlds. Or don't). But it also adds elements from current "cutting-edge" philosophers like Jean Baudrillard (whose book, Simulacra and Simulation, appears, appropriately hollowed out, in Thomas Anderson's apartment) who are more interested in ontology not as some mental puzzle but as it relates to the politics of our consumer culture. There are lots of essays around by people who know a lot more than me--try searching for (Baudrillard or Semiotics or Simulacra or Deconstructionism) and The Matrix on the search engine of your choice.
"Voongragrargh I' Banacz Sheirtsh Clagphran." --Brundrag Sklerizmitshkyu