Slashdot Mirror


A Quick Peek From the Matrix Set In Sydney

We posted recently about the planned shutdown of part of Sydney for filming of the upcoming Matrix sequel. Now reader zobier points to a followup describing the shooting, and since he was on hand to see it first-hand, writes: "I went along to watch the filming, it was very cool (I love helicopters tho' ;) They didn't block off much city space, maybe (100 - 200m), and the chopper flew down the square (Martin Place) between the buildings about 5 - 10m above our heads. Many onlookers were videoing and photographing the scene. At about 5pm when it got dark the camera flashes started going off, this pissed off the director as it was interfering with his film." GoogolPlexPlex adds a link to coverage in the Sydney Morning Herald.

164 comments

  1. Realism? by URoRRuRRR · · Score: 4, Funny

    At about 5pm when it got dark the camera flashes started going off, this pissed off the director as it was interfering with his film.

    Y'know, if I'm on the street and a helicopter goes flying by with people fighting on it, I'm going to take a picture.

    --
    "Oh no, 3 horny women and only 2 condoms...Thank god I read slashdot"
    1. Re:Realism? by szo · · Score: 1

      You sure have a hell of a flash on your camera, if it's useful from that distance. If not, you're just stupid not turning it off. If you can't turn it off, you're stupid for buying such crappy camera. You do the math :)

      Szo

      --
      Red Leader Standing By!
    2. Re:Realism? by chamenos · · Score: 1

      if i'm not wrong the helicopter was carrying the people filming the show, and it was just for a scene for the movie showing a bunch of empty and deserted streets.

      neo wasn't fighting with agent smith in the helicopter since none of the actors were on site as many fans hoped they would be, as stated in the article.

      read the article first man.

    3. Re:Realism? by Ami+Ganguli · · Score: 2

      I have no idea what the actual scene is supposed to be, but the article does say that stuntmen where there. Close-ups can be shot in a studio and cut in later.

      --
      It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow
    4. Re:Realism? by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 4, Funny

      Apparently you didn't quite get the first movie though.

      There is no spoon. Or in this case, no helicopter....

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    5. Re:Realism? by orthogonal · · Score: 1, Funny

      I'm afraid you don't understand: you are a criminal.

      You wish to take photos of a movie set; that set is the intellectual property of the movie studio. That the movie set is on public properrty, and that the public has been restricted from it in favor of the movie maker is immaterial. The MPAA will protect its intellectual property regardless.

      In any case, allowing anyone to take photographs is dangerous. It is posible to violate copyright by photographing copyrighted works. Your camera, to be legal, should contain hardware than makes it impossible to take photos unless the subject of the photo is cleared with the MPAA or other competent quasi-governmental agency. If your camera is not so equipped, it's clear that you intend to use your camera for illegal violations of copyright.

      Of course, since it costs money to combat piracy and to review applications for taking photographs, we must insist that you buy film or other recording media specially taxed to pay these costs. (Excpetion: professional producers, as of movies or commercials, are exempted under law, to promote American cultural hegemony.)

      We know that you don't have a license for a camera, and that you haven't paid the recording media tax, because, in accordance with the Intellectual Property Protection Accountability Act, your computer recorded its Globally Unique Identifying Number when you posted your message. As all your commerical activity is recorded under your name to prevent fraud, it was a simple matter to cross-reference purchase records and computer records.

      By the time you read this, you should be hearing the knock on your door.

    6. Re:Realism? by Disevidence · · Score: 4, Funny

      "By the time you read this, you should be hearing the knock on your door."

      It was only the pizza guy. Crisis Averted.

      --
      Think nothing is impossible? Try slamming a revolving door.
    7. Re:Realism? by SpelledBackwards · · Score: 1

      Well said. While taking a vacation in Canada, we came upon a movie set for that Audrey Hepburn TV movie starring Jennifer Love Hewitt. I believe it was Montreal, and they blocked off a street to do a shoot where a convoy of military trucks were coming back to a welcome home parade after winning WWII (though shot in Canada, it was supposed to be taking place in Britain... there were British flags everywhere hanging from the buildings) My mom kept trying to take pictures of the set, but the guard got onto her for doing so, for the intel. prop. reasons you stated above. She eventually snuck in a few but LEFT THE FLASH ON! The guard turned around and saw her, and almost confiscated her film.

    8. Re:Realism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Niccceeeeee...dude he should read the article

    9. Re:Realism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.

      When will you change it next?

  2. Complete Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, the Karma Whoring AC!
    --cl

    LIKE an old western movie, the streets of Sydney's CBD were eerily still yesterday as a chilly breeze swept through just before dusk.
    Then, (cue the techno soundtrack), a giant, silver helicopter came from above a high-rise office building and descended into the city streets, landing loudly in the middle of Martin Place like a scene out of a sci-fi movie.

    It was indeed that, as cameras on board the chopper were filming part of a 14-minute action sequence for the multi-million dollar sequels to the Hollywood sci-fi film The Matrix.

    The sequence included the scenes filmed from the helicopter's "space-cam'' of an empty Castlereagh St.

    The chopper was on loan from the ABC, as was its pilot Gary Ticehurst, who manoeuvred the double-engine aircraft vertically up and down Martin Place and hovered below building height down other streets.

    According to the film's location manager, Peter Lawless, Castlereagh St was chosen for filming because of its nondescript look.

    About 1000 people had gathered to watch the highly publicised scene take place, many hoping to catch a glimpse of The Matrix stars Keanu Reeves, Carrie-Anne Moss, Laurence Fishburne, Hugo Weaving and Jada Pinkett-Smith.

    However, none of the stars were on location yesterday, despite many onlookers thinking they had already seen a piece of Hollywood.

    "I think we just saw Keanu,'' said Jessica Hine, 18, who, had braved the cold for more than two hours to watch the filming.

    The film's producers were given special permission to close parts of the central city for the shoot (which will continue over the next three Sundays) following a series of meetings with the NSW Premier's Department Filming Roundtable. The roundtable was set up last year to help Sydney's film-making industry to grow.

    The Matrix sequels, The Matrix Reloaded and The Matrix Revolutions, will be released worldwide in 2003.

    1. Re:Complete Article by Ma$$acre · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I was onsite (on business in the city) and I can assure you that Keanu was not there. All in all it was a pretty boring few hours. I was in the best viewing spot just off the square near Elizabeth street and although the buildings were non-descript, the head security guy nearest me said the Brothers picked the building because it looked dark and sinister. I was further told that the sequence would later be filled in with a fight seen with Neo on a windy and rainy night, although they were filming in the late afternoon before losing light.

      Since the chopper came in from a few streets away and flew to the square then then traveled up along the building, my guess is that Neo might be "flying" as he did at the end of Movie 1 and then fighting someone on the externals of the building. All Greenscreen of course.

      They are filming 2 more sequences during the next 2 Sundays and the second one will be the largest street closure ever (surpassing Vanilla Sky's empty street scene). I won't be here for the big one where they will close down all of George Street, but I'm hoping to see some of the cast (Trinity anyone?) next Sunday.

      Either way, it will be cool having pre-CGI footage of the scene as it will likely be a pivotal sequence.

      --
      Knowledge is of two kinds. We know a subject ourselves, or we know where we can find information upon it. -Samuel Johns
    2. Re:Complete Article by yatest5 · · Score: 2

      Either way, it will be cool having pre-CGI footage of the scene as it will likely be a pivotal sequence.

      Ya, just as cool as having pre-CGI Jurassic Park (empty woods).

      --
      • Mod parent up! [a] by Anonymous Coward (Score:5) Thurs, June 31, @13:37
    3. Re:Complete Article by Ma$$acre · · Score: 1

      Eh.. it's mostly nostalgia and to say "I was there", I guess. Didn't have to take the wind out of my sails though! I'm hopeful that you can still make out the building through all the graphics, but it was pretty ugly.

      --
      Knowledge is of two kinds. We know a subject ourselves, or we know where we can find information upon it. -Samuel Johns
  3. Cameras by URoRRuRRR · · Score: 0, Interesting

    At about 5pm when it got dark the camera flashes started going off, this pissed off the director as it was interfering with his film.

    Too bad the Matrix isn't set in Japan, where tons of people carry cameras all the time. Then the people could take all the pictures they wanted to, and it'd be ok.

    --
    "Oh no, 3 horny women and only 2 condoms...Thank god I read slashdot"
    1. Re:Cameras by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1 Interesting...

      Gotta love how wild exaggerations and massive stereotyping gets modded up around here.

    2. Re:Cameras by tunah · · Score: 1

      It would still destroy the effect.

      --
      Free Java games for your phone: Tontie, Sokoban
  4. Camera flashes by Ethelthefrog · · Score: 3, Funny

    Oooooooh, it makes me giggle when those silly little automatic cameras go all flashy at night. A tiny little camera with a tiny flash isn't going to illuminate a large helicopter at a range of 20m.

    The camera moments that really make me laugh are flash photographs of cityscapes at night taken through windows. Well, everyone needs pictures of bright reflected flashes. My album is full of them.

    EtF

    1. Re:Camera flashes by URoRRuRRR · · Score: 1

      Oooooooh, it makes me giggle when those silly little automatic cameras go all flashy at night. A tiny little camera with a tiny flash isn't going to illuminate a large helicopter at a range of 20m.

      No, but when the camera shows the helicopter in relation to the ground, they want to see a regular city street, not a city street with dozens of camera flashes.

      --
      "Oh no, 3 horny women and only 2 condoms...Thank god I read slashdot"
    2. Re:Camera flashes by Ethelthefrog · · Score: 1

      That wasn't the point I was making. I agree that the film cameras will pick up all the flashes but, from the stills camera's point of view, the flash will be insufficient to affect the outcome of the exposure and is, therefore, pointless.

      EtF.

    3. Re:Camera flashes by chamenos · · Score: 3, Informative

      well, since the director was upset because the flashes would show up on the scenes taken and not because they would ruin the exposure, therefore you don't really have a point. you're addressing a concern that the director probably didn't have, no?

    4. Re:Camera flashes by limegreen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ah, but the advantage of using flash at night (without a window in the way) is that it keeps the exposure short enough to reduce camera shake, objects moving, bluring etc. It's a choice between mostly black pictures, or mostly light blury pictures. Or use film suitable for low light (ISO 6400 or greater would be a good start).

    5. Re:Camera flashes by finkployd · · Score: 2

      Allow me to step in and clear this up, since you seem to be completly missing what the other poster is saying.

      His point (and only point) is that flashes will do nothing to help the people taking the pictures (the ones who are using the flashes, not the director)

      In fact, re-read his postings and pretend there is no director, no film crew, and no matrix. Forget about them. He is not addressing a concern that has anything to do with them.

      He was mearly poking fun at people who think that a tiny flash will somehow illuminate a giant outdoor area for the benefit of their camera exposure.

      Finkployd

    6. Re:Camera flashes by Ethelthefrog · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Finkployd, I bow to you in reverence and awe. You have my eternal gratitude.

      EtF.

    7. Re:Camera flashes by CliveJones · · Score: 4, Funny

      I was driving through Parliament Square (London, UK) on Saturday night. A tourist attempted to photograph the Houses of Parliament.

      From a moving car.

      With flash.

      With the window closed.

      Sigh.

    8. Re:Camera flashes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention that pictures have a strange washed-out, fake look when you use a flash at night.

      People need to learn to turn their flashes off and use their elbow & knee as a makeshift tri-pod. Pictures come out much more realistic when you don't use a flash.

      Of course, if you're just taking dumb portraits and shit, who cares, I guess.

    9. Re:Camera flashes by muffel · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      Which is absolute bullshit in this context. The range of a usual camera flash goes up to approx. 3m and then degrades quickly. Beyond that there is little point in using a flash. (Google found this)
      Using a flash for anything not close-range has only two effects:
      • Annoy people.
      • Prove that you're an idiot.
      --

      bla
    10. Re:Camera flashes by chamenos · · Score: 1

      Alright, I just re-read the post I replied to and I don't believe I'm mistaken. I'll quote him for your sake:

      "That wasn't the point I was making. I agree that the film cameras will pick up all the flashes but, from the stills camera's point of view, the flash will be insufficient to affect the outcome of the exposure and is, therefore, pointless."

      What the poster stated obviously doesn't say that he was "poking fun at people who think that a tiny flash will somehow illuminate a giant outdoor area."

      The poster's original post does imply what you mentioned, but not the post that I replied to specifically.

      You should re-read my post and the post I replied to, since I think you are the who seems to be completely missing my point.

      All I've said above though, was after giving you the benefit of the doubt that all you did was overlook the specific post I replied to, and not that you just completely missed the point. I hope I'm not mistaken in this aspect.

    11. Re:Camera flashes by plastik55 · · Score: 1

      "Stills camera" refers to a camera that takes still pictures, which are the cameras on the ground being used by onlookers -- not the camera being used by the the movie crew. That would be a "motion picture camera."

      --

      I have a positive modifier on Troll. When I mod someone Troll their karma should go UP!

    12. Re:Camera flashes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, if they held the camera close enough to the window, it would work. (well, except for being too dark because the flash would do nothing)

    13. Re:Camera flashes by turpie · · Score: 1

      Reread it all yourself, without making the same wrong assumptions you've previously made.

      Both of the comments you replied to were certainly talking about the uselessness of the average camera flash beyond 20 feet.

      I hope that it was just an honest mistake on your part, otherwise as a previous poster said you are one dumb motherfucker.

  5. flashers by mike300zx · · Score: 1

    At about 5pm when it got dark the camera flashes started going off, this pissed off the director as it was interfering with his film...

    yea, those darn flashers

    1. Re:flashers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAha wait its not funny..

  6. What's interesting about Matrix 2 by ObviousGuy · · Score: 1

    Where can the plot go from here? The end of the Matrix 1 was pretty much the end, wasn't it? Are we going to find out that the Matrix is Neo's father and will Neo get trained by a puppet?

    --
    I have been pwned because my /. password was too easy to guess.
    1. Re:What's interesting about Matrix 2 by SamBeckett · · Score: 1

      there are still six billion ppl inside the matrix yo

    2. Re:What's interesting about Matrix 2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now THAT sounds like a job for ObviousGuy!

    3. Re:What's interesting about Matrix 2 by will_die · · Score: 0

      Actually there is a really good film about this already. I beleive it was called the thirteenth floor

    4. Re:What's interesting about Matrix 2 by byran+lei · · Score: 0

      >there are still six billion ppl inside the matrix yo
      >
      >
      Who cares?

    5. Re:What's interesting about Matrix 2 by number+one+duck · · Score: 5, Funny

      I don't get it either. Hotrod opened the matrix and stopped Unicron (Becoming Rodimus Prime in the process). I know they still have to bring O.P. back, but thats more of an episode thing,not a full film.

    6. Re:What's interesting about Matrix 2 by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      Yes, Thirteenth Floor was a pretty good movie. Didn't have the action appeal of the Matrix to make it a real killer though. It dealt with one particular aspect of simulations that the Matrix (the first one at least) skipped over. Can't say more without spoiling though. Have to watch it yourself.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    7. Re:What's interesting about Matrix 2 by rizzo · · Score: 2

      It seems like there is "more than meets the eye" to your reply.

      --

      "More organs means more human." - Zim

    8. Re:What's interesting about Matrix 2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well since these machines are so smart why didn't they think of a matrix within a matrix... now that would be the ultimate redundancy.

      People escape from one Matrix and then they are still stuck in another Matrix. The code for a Matrix in a Matrix wouldn't technically be any more complicated than a single Matrix... obviously the machines aren't so "intelligent" after all.

    9. Re:What's interesting about Matrix 2 by Viper118 · · Score: 1

      I don't think it is the end by any means. It was more of the beginning of the war against the machines. The majority of humans were still plugged into the Matrix when it ended. I think #2 will be the war to right that evil. It should be an awesome move. :-D

  7. Matrix pictures by JPriest · · Score: 5, Funny

    I took some pictures of the set but they turned out like crap, all you can see is a bunch of 111000110011001001101

    --
    Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
  8. Re:FP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Dear Sir/Madam,

    Due to the insulting and demeaning nature
    of your post - to wit, the usage of the word
    "assholes!" in a derogatory fashion - we have
    come to the decision that your claim to this
    First Post be stripped away and handed to the
    nearest Anonymous Coward.

    Please refrain from such activities in the
    future to avoid damaging the reputation of
    CLiT, and providing such easy FP fodder for
    the hordes of starving ACs around our
    compound.

    Yours faithfully,

    Derek Goober
    Assistant Manager
    CLiT

  9. The Flashes... by URoRRuRRR · · Score: 3, Funny

    I don't think a lot of you are understanding why the flashes pissed of the director.

    Yes, a camera flash at that distance won't illuminate a hellicopter. That's good for side views or shots shot angling up at the hellicopter shot from below (probably a 45 degree angle)

    However, if the director wanted an overhead shot, or one angling down at the hellicopter, the street would be visible and that's where the flashes would be seen. The director probably wanted to see an average street so the distracting flashes were causing him lost time, film and money.

    --
    "Oh no, 3 horny women and only 2 condoms...Thank god I read slashdot"
    1. Re:The Flashes... by byran+lei · · Score: 0

      >However, if the director wanted an overhead shot, or one angling down
      >at the hellicopter, the street would be visible and that's where the
      >flashes would be seen. The director probably wanted to see an average
      >street so the distracting flashes were causing him lost time, film and
      >money.
      >
      >
      So he should've used a FX lab for the scene. The "costs" to the director and his lame movie was most likely nothing compared to the disruption of the lives of the people who couldn't have cared less about the director or his movie.

    2. Re:The Flashes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "costs" to the director and his lame movie was most likely nothing compared to the disruption of the lives of the people who couldn't have cared less about the director or his movie.

      Tell that to Dick "Dick" Cheney and his cronies.

      Every time those fuckers come to town (last time to raise money for the GOP! Not even official business!) they block off the fucking Interstates.

    3. Re:The Flashes... by RebelTycoon · · Score: 1
      Money... Yes... They should be really concerned about that... How much are these going to gross?

      Even if they were to go over budget, be not as good as the original, etc. These films are pretty close to a sure thing...

      Poor director... Next time ask people..

    4. Re:The Flashes... by p3d0 · · Score: 2

      I don't think anyone is missing the point. I think the flash issue is all the more frustrating to the Slashdot readership because, on top of the annoyance, the flash doesn't even do anything useful. That adds insult to injury.

      --
      Patrick Doyle
      I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
    5. Re:The Flashes... by PhxBlue · · Score: 2

      Yeah, really. . . those thieves didn't even pay for the privilege of seeing the helicopter. Damned Australian movie pirates, anyway.

      --
      !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
  10. 100-200 m2? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    So that means they blocked off an area of a whole 10x10 to 14x14 meters/yards then?

    Roughly the size of a large apartment.

    Amazing.

    1. Re:100-200 m2? by hey · · Score: 1

      100m x 100m is a hectare so they blocked of 1-4 hectares which is a very big apartment.

    2. Re:100-200 m2? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dude...100-200m2 is not a hectar. 100m x 100m is a hectar or 10000m2!
      100-200m2 is something like 10m x 10-20m

    3. Re:100-200 m2? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      100m x 100m = 10000m2, which is roughly the size of 100 small apartments.

    4. Re:100-200 m2? by Ma$$acre · · Score: 1

      Close... The actual amount Martin Place that they blocked off was pretty small. I would say a bit bigger than an apartment. :) On the map they had the area "sanitized" between Pitt and Elizabeth.

      More to the point, the actual amount of area used was only a portion of a 2 lane street. The copter they used is a French made Squirrel with a nose mounted cam sphere. It has two engines... used because of close city quarters in case one fails. But the thing is about the length of 2 cars and only has 3 short blades. Pretty small but very slick looking.

      --
      Knowledge is of two kinds. We know a subject ourselves, or we know where we can find information upon it. -Samuel Johns
  11. plot speculations about the matrix reloaded by target · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So I wonder what the next movies are going to be about. At the end of the matrix, neo is like unto a god, and the agents can't stop him.

    Outside the matrix, neo is a wimpy bald guy who eats gruel and has no ability to fight the enemy.

    A movie needs conflict to be interesting. There's lots of obvious conflict available in the real world, where neo and company are underdogs in the fight against the machines, but the parts of the matrix that were really cool were *in the matrix*. So the major conflict being outside the matrix is out.[1]

    But neo is all powerful inside, right? Well, that pretty much has to change for there to be anything interesting happening. So my prediction is, right at the beginning of the movie, we're going to find out that the machines have changed something about the matrix that takes away some (but not all) of neo and company's power. That way they still get to do their cool slow motion three-d rotating martial arts, but they can't just win outright.[2]

    It's an open question, of course, whether this will be done well enough to allow you to sit back and enjoy the movie, rather than internally kvetch about how contrived things are.

    Note that the above is not based on any actual knowledge or information.

    - target

    [1] Of course, as in the first movie, there will certainly be some conflict outside the matrix. Expect that there will be twin threats, inside and outside, just as in the first. Expect also that those threats will be interrelated, so that solving one is necessary to or will solve the other.

    [2] This is perhaps supported by the title. If the matrix gets reloaded, will somee of the rules change?

    1. Re:plot speculations about the matrix reloaded by kawaichan · · Score: 1

      The plot is suppose to be about how agent became a virus and keep getting mutlipied.

      Although I probably like yours better though.

      --

      kawai
    2. Re:plot speculations about the matrix reloaded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you check out www.imdb.com for the Matrix sequal you'll see that Agent Smith is now Agent Smith 2.0

      As an extra in the sequals I can confirm there is a new Oracle, and that the fight scenes are awesome.

    3. Re:plot speculations about the matrix reloaded by 2g3-598hX · · Score: 1

      plot speculation?
      The matrix _has_ a plot?

      How about this...the superintelligent robots who managed to build a vast and realistic simulation of 21st century Earth finally get around to adding a login?

      Neo: It's asking for my password now...what do I do now morpheus???
      Morpheus:

      Don't get me wrong...I loved the Matrix, just why with these $100m movies dont they bother to pass the script to some experts (or anyone with a BSc) who can say if it is believable or not....i mean humans as efficient batteries, who would believe that?...

      And its not like you there is some physical law that a plot cant be both believable and fun...I can suspend my disbelief as good as anyone but sometimes its nice not to have to.

    4. Re:plot speculations about the matrix reloaded by BoBaBrain · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But neo is all powerful inside, right? Well, that pretty much has to change for there to be anything interesting happening.


      Having an immortal hero may seem too much, but it really isn't any different to other films. Name one action movie you have seen where you genuinely believed that the hero would die?

      Normally, common sense and experience dictates our hero will survive. In The Matrix, the story dictates this too.

      --
      I am a Karma Library.
    5. Re:plot speculations about the matrix reloaded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dont' have the points to mod this up or I would ;) <br>
      i know who will win the fighting but I want to watch them anyway cause' neo kicks ass

    6. Re:plot speculations about the matrix reloaded by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Neo is established to be more powerful than the agents at the end of the first movie since they have never had to deal with anything like him before. No doubt the agents can change and adapt.

      This is not like what I consider to be the worst movie I ever paid to see, "Spawn" wherein it is established early on that our hero cannot die (because he is already dead or some crap like that) and the in rest of the movie he is threatened with being killed by various forces. I would have walked out, but I thought my buddy wanted to see the rest... he was only staying because he thought _I_ wanted to...

      That movie was only worthy of MST3K, and I think even those guys would have a hard time of it.

      I'm sure the agents will return in new and deadly ways (not to mention those albino "virus" dudes)... also even if Neo _is_ unbeatable, all his friends, not to mention the rest of humanity, are not. Even if he cannot be defeated, can he save them? Believe me, despite all the hokiness and plot holes (and I'm saying this despite the fact that "The Matrix" is one of my favorite movies ever), there is plenty of room for real drama and suspense. Not to mention lotsa butt kickin' and eye candy.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    7. Re:plot speculations about the matrix reloaded by Target+Drone · · Score: 2
      But neo is all powerful inside, right? Well, that pretty much has to change for there to be anything interesting happening.

      I think your right about this.

      In the movie, scenes which take place inside the matrix are filmed in downtown Sydney. Scenes which take place in the "real world" are filmed on a sound stage. The scene being filmed in downtown Sydney is supposedly the final scene of the movie so it must take place inside the matrix.

      There's no need for a helicopter in the final scene if Neo has God like powers. He doesn't need to ride in one because he can fly and if he goes up against someone else in a helicopter he should be able to easily defeat them.

      I suppose one other possibility would be if Neo is not in the final scene but Trinity or someone else is. She doesn't have God like powers and this might make for a more interesting fight. Although I doubt they would do this.

    8. Re:plot speculations about the matrix reloaded by schon · · Score: 2

      But neo is all powerful inside, right? Well, that pretty much has to change for there to be anything interesting happening.

      No, he isn't.

      He may be invulnerable to anything within the Matrix, but that's a far cry from being all powerful. He can't create (or restore) life, and is probably not omniscient. So anyone inside with him (including people who can't leave - like the Oracle) would be vulnerable.

      There are other ways that he's vulnerable as well (see below)

      my prediction is, right at the beginning of the movie, we're going to find out that the machines have changed something about the matrix that takes away some (but not all) of neo and company's power

      Not necessarily - think of the Matrix as an OS, with the people and agents as apps, which interface with the OS via an API. Neo is special because he's not bound by the API - he can bang on the hardware directly... so all that's needed to create tension is an agent that has the same bit-banging privelidges too... (from what I've read, this is going to be part of the storyline..)..

      think about it: if a cracker and sysadmin both have root on a system, would the sysadmin change the definition of 'root', or would he try to subvert the cracker using existing privelidges? (Assuming he couldn't just disconnect the box from the network and reinstall.. which might be what happens in "reloaded" :o)

      While it may be possible they will "limit" Neo's power, it's not a requirement - and it would certainly piss off a lot of the people who are going to see it because they want to see Neo kick ass.

    9. Re:plot speculations about the matrix reloaded by zero2k · · Score: 1

      The machines stopped licensing ROT3 encryption library from Adobe and will now use Quantum-AES to communicate. But I have a feeling Neo manages to hack this encryption pretty easily at the end of the movie...

    10. Re:plot speculations about the matrix reloaded by alexpage · · Score: 1

      Jesus, if you weren't watching the film, don't try complaining about plot holes that don't exist! Yes, Spawn was dead, sent to Hell where he was recruited as one of Hell's warriors, put back on earth to serve Satan. Then he changed his mind and wanted to bat for the good guys. He might be dead, but he has a limited amount of power, which he needs to heal himself every time he gets an arm blown off or whatever. When that power's gone, he will return to Hell. Where they're a bit pissed with him.

    11. Re:plot speculations about the matrix reloaded by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 2

      Regardless, the movie still sucked.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
  12. Wow.. by Shalome · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ..your life must be incredibly small and boring if you refuse to see any Hollywood movie because of decss. Hate to tell you, but just about ALL indy films are in some way connected to, produced by, and funded by Hollywood money. You better quit watching TV too, my friend.. Man, there are SO many more important things in this world to worry about...

    --
    Moderation totals that amuse me for one of my posts: Flamebait=1, Insightful=2, Funny=2, Overrated=1, Underrated=1
  13. I agree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The EFF needs a lot money to produce crap.

  14. Camera Flash by evilviper · · Score: 4, Informative

    Why are there so many idiots with cameras? It's a major issue during the olympics as well...

    A camera's flash works for a very short distance, perhaps 100 feet... If you're any further away from the source than that, the camera flash distracts your subject, while NOT lighting up anything (except possibly the dust between you and your subject).

    If you don't know how to use it properly, shut it off... People have become accustomed to the flash on cameras, but few ever actually need it. Not to mention how much harm that flash does in the hands of idiots.

    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    1. Re:Camera Flash by tim_uk · · Score: 2, Informative
      A camera's flash works for a very short distance, perhaps 100 feet...

      100 feet? Absolute and complete rubbish. You'll be very lucky to get ten feet with your average flashgun.

      Ever heard of the Inverse Square Law? Double the flash-subject distance and the amount of light falling on the subject is reduced to a quarter of that emitted.

      Tim

    2. Re:Camera Flash by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Funny

      you forget 2 important things....

      1 - very very few people understand good photography.

      2 - Over 70% of the world's population is made up of morons and idiots.

      dont agree with #2? Go drive at 5:00 pm in any major metropolitan area.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    3. Re:Camera Flash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aww. I am a shitty driver, but I am no moron.

      I guess, to my benefit, I am smart enough not to drive unless I absolutely have to (i.e. when I want to be out later than the busses will run and I can't get a ride home, or am running late... about once a week, usually).

      But still. My bad driving is a result of really, really poor concentration. Have pity.

    4. Re:Camera Flash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sorry, but drin\ving 20 over the speed limit, 6-8 inches away from my bumper, change lanes without looking or signalling, jamming on the brakes because you happen to be passing a semi-truck and it scares you.. (I'm serious! there are morons that are that bad!) and in bumper to bumper traffic cramming your way in the other lane so you can just cram back to the origional lane because that get's you 1 more car ahead instead of waiting another 3 seconds for your exit.

      the majority of driver are so stupid they dont understand they are driving deadly weapons and that they are protected in their magical armor.

      I understand why people take out a handgun and start shooting at the other idiots... they need to increase the requirements for a drivers license and start handing out hard time to those that driver without one. (6 months of 3 hours daily of community service would definately get the weenies.. along with a $10,000 fine. garnished weekly out of your paycheck at $500.00 a time or the entire amount... whatever is less.... too harsh you say? well you made the decision to break the law)

      but that's another issue.

      if you dont have enough brainpower and/or self-control to drive a vehicle safely... get the hell off the road. poor concentration= poor self control.

    5. Re:Camera Flash by gaspyy · · Score: 1

      If a scene is reasonably illuminated, you don't need the flash. The "fixed speed" as you call it won't help either to get something better than without flash.

      In photography, correct exposure is a factor of three elements: film speed (the ISO number), shutter speed (1/sec) and aperture (in f-numbers or mm).

      The camera, using the light meter, will try to get the scene to gray. Dumb point-n-shoots can only change the shutter speed, and I think for a limited range of values (most likely 1/60, 1/125, 1/250). The camera won't allow longer exposures because it is assumed that it is hand-held and longer exposures will result in bluriness.

      So anyway you look at it, shooting distant objects in the dark with a simple automatic camera is dumb, flash or no flash.

    6. Re:Camera Flash by ajs · · Score: 2

      I agree in premise, but most people don't know anything about their cameras. They point, they click.

      Cameras should be smart enough to detect long-range photography (most AF cameras have range-finders now anyway) and shut off the flash by default.

      Even I find myself using the flash on my camera by accident (did it on the highway once... that was BAD) because the camera resets itself every time you turn it off.

      I want smart cameras. I was digital cameras that can take a picture when I press the button, not 2 seconds after. Sigh.

    7. Re:Camera Flash by lblack · · Score: 2

      Actually, you wouldn't be very lucky to get ten feet with your average flashgun.

      Consider that most professional photographers will "bounce" their flash to avoid glare when shooting indoors, and that typically the light is bounced off of a surface 5-10 feet away and falls onto a subject an additional 5-10 feet away, just for a typical indoors bounce-off-the-ceiling flash.

      I have three flashes for my camera, a head-on one that can do about 25-30 feet without difficulty, an adjustable angled one that can do about 40 feet tops, and a shoddy little one that I have a bunch of filters for that manages about 20 feet easily.

      Though I appreciate the Inverse Square Law, you do not necessarily need a tremendous amount of light falling on your subject -- just enough to catch them on the film. Shooting a subject 40 feet away with a powerful flash, and 1600 ISO film, and you should be fine.

      leem

    8. Re:Camera Flash by evilviper · · Score: 2

      My point was, cameras should NOT flash UNLESS specifically told to do so by the user. That would make sure the people that don't know how to use a camera would not cause such a big problem on accident.

      Hell, why doesn't Windows install with Telnet turned on and with a default Administrative password? It doesn't because it is just a good policy to have conservative default settings.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    9. Re:Camera Flash by ajs · · Score: 2

      No.

      If cameras did not flash by default 80% of the people who bought them would not be able to take indoor pictures. That may sound fine to you, but it would mean that any camera put out that way would move off the shelves about as fast as a frozen slug.

    10. Re:Camera Flash by evilviper · · Score: 2

      You can say that all you want, but you have no proof to back it up...

      I believe that if cameras didn't flash by default, people that are taking indoor pictures would just damn well have to remember to turn the flash on.

      Besides that, with improvements in cameras and film developing, even low light pictures don't turn out very bad.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    11. Re:Camera Flash by jafuser · · Score: 2
      Yeah, this reminds me of that commercial about some long-life battery, where it shows a whole football-sized stadium of people using flash cameras, and all but one stop working (becuase that one has such-and-such long-life battery). I kept thinking about how moronic that commercial was.

      I've also often seen people try to take flash pictures of things through glass, while taking the picture perpendicular to the plane of the glass.

      Somebody in this thread estimated 70%, but I think that person forgot about Sturgeon's Law.

      --
      Please consider making an automatic monthly recurring donation to the EFF
    12. Re:Camera Flash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't agree with #2, look at the majority of the posts by users on Slashdot...

      bloody idiots...

    13. Re:Camera Flash by joshsisk · · Score: 2, Interesting

      When I worked at a photomat, it was very common to see disposables (the kind you have to activate the flash on) to have one severely under-exposed shot before each good one (or few good ones).

      People would usually forget to turn the flash on the first time.

    14. Re:Camera Flash by ajs · · Score: 2

      I believe that if cameras didn't flash by default, people that are taking indoor pictures would just damn well have to remember to turn the flash on.

      You're missing the point. You act as if the entire camera industry has one guy that goes "hey, I know! We'll turn the flash off by default!"

      Try sitting in on a Cannon product development meeting and saying, "on this model, let's really juice up sales by making customers have to figure out the user interface in order to turn on the flash."

      The fact of the matter is that no matter how much you think people will be able to cope, camera manufacturers all make their cameras do the most generically useful thing by default. It may not be a nice outcome in terms of annoying flashes, but face it: that flash doesn't hurt the resulting picture in the average case, and it helps in the case of indoor photography. No one is going to step up to the plate to be the first to shut that off.

      Now, I'd be happy if the camera just remembered when you shut the flash off from power-off to power-on. That you might be able to squeak past as a design improvement....

    15. Re:Camera Flash by (void*) · · Score: 2

      With that many agents running around, don't you think neuralyzation happens often? OH wait - wrong movie ...

    16. Re:Camera Flash by jafac · · Score: 4, Insightful

      well, add to that the fact that on automatic, many cameras simply will not allow you to trip the shutter in low-light situations unless the flash is turned on. Most people use automatic cameras, and even if the camera has a way to let you override it, and even if the operator knows how to override it, it's usually not a simple task, UI wise, and likely takes more than a few seconds to set up, and most people aren't thinking that far ahead when they point their camera and press the button.

      Face it, Photography is, when you get down to it, a highly technical practice, and you can automate it somewhat with smart cameras that can handle say 80% of the situations that 90% of people are likely to want to take pictures of. Fall outside those boundries, and you get situations like these.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    17. Re:Camera Flash by evilviper · · Score: 2

      "The new Cannon RZQX-50. The first of the cameras that can take pictures, through glass windows, out of the box."

      Or perhaps: "the first that won't get you kicked out of the (foot/base/basket)-ball game."

      I know everyone goes the way of making products for idiots (just look at cars that lock your doors, and turn on your headlights) but a product that does what the owner wants it to do would probably sell even more units. It seems like old, good features are completely removed by every manufacturer at the same time (or new, crappy features are added).

      I think everyone underestimates that as a selling point. Not having every feature, but rather, having features that do what you want, when you want. In other words, not screwing up.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    18. Re:Camera Flash by ChadN · · Score: 2

      At the Great Pyramids, in Egypt, during the night show, countless numbers of people were taking photos with their flashes on (I mean HUNDREDS of flashes in the course of a few minutes). This was in a viewing area that was probably a mile away, and every time a flash went off, all you could see was the dust right in front of your face. It was glaringly obvious that the pictures wouldn't come out, but everyone still did it.

      And in St. Peter's Cathedral, people would stand at the entrance and try to get a flash picture of the whole interior. I turned off my flash and got a gorgeous photo (holding my camera rock still). Then I turned the flash on the see what everyone else was gonna get (out of curiosity). Pure gray washed out haze.

      What amazes me is that most of these people will probably never learn on their own, even when they get their ruined pictures back.

      --
      "It's overkill, of course. But you can never have too much overkill." - Anonymous Slashdot Coward
    19. Re:Camera Flash by Slashamatic · · Score: 2
      I think you have misunderstood me. Typically a metering system in a low end automatic camera like my Olympus has no spot facility. It will quite happily expose up to a second if it feels there is not enough light.

      When photographing a bright object against a dark background, the meter's tendancy to average the scene will tend to give unacceptably long exposures.

      Enabling flash is way of forcing the shutter speed to the lower end of hand-held performancethen it is up to the lens and film speed. Remember also that there is a lot of lattitude in print films as well, so effective a 400ASA film can be doubled to 800 ASA. This is enough for most purposes.

      Of course a good SLR with a bright lens and spot metering would be better, but this isn't necessarily what you can keep handy for opportunity shots.

  15. New Oracle? by Shanep · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Anyone heard news that there will be a new actress to play the Oracle?

    I was in the National Geographic shop in Darling Harbour Sydney, browsing, when a lady with a Yankee accent came in. The guy behind the desk asked her where she was from, if she was a tourist, etc, etc.

    She claimed that she was working on a new movie, the guy behind the counter asked which, she replied The Matrix. The guy and the girl behind the counter were impressed, they asked what she had to do with it and she said she plays the role of the Oracle, since the actress who played the Oracle in the first movie has passed away.

    Can anyone confirm that the origial Oracle actress has passed on?

    Damn, she was uber cool.

    --
    War crimes, torture, lies, illegal spying... Would someone give Bush a blowjob, already, so he can be impeached?
    1. Re:New Oracle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to the Matrix rumor sites, the Matrix 2 won't have an Oracle at all. ;-)

    2. Re:New Oracle? by whiteranger99x · · Score: 4, Informative
      According to this, i'd have to say, sadly yes :(

      Here too

      Her name was Gloria Foster, she passed last year at 64

      --
      Join the TWIT army now!
    3. Re:New Oracle? by biglig2 · · Score: 2

      The IMDB is your friend...

      --
      ~~~~~ BigLig2? You mean there's another one of me?
    4. Re:New Oracle? by GothChip · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sadly Gloria Foster died in September last year from Diabetes.

      http://uk.imdb.com/Name?Foster,+Gloria

    5. Re:New Oracle? by Stephenmg · · Score: 1

      Here is an artical from Sci-Fi Storm that tells about her death. Movies.com has some information about Aaliyah's death. There is a biography on Aaliyah Dana Haughton here.

  16. Matrix is a movie? by frodo-nl · · Score: 2, Funny

    I always thought it was a test for software DVD players... ;)

  17. Realistic? by roalt · · Score: 3, Funny

    Mr Director, I think it would be quite unrealistic in a film if a helicopter flew 10 meters over your head in a city like Sydney and nobody would take pictures...

  18. Heh by ShooterNeo · · Score: 5, Funny

    A line from the upcoming movie : Neo : "Whoa....check out all those flashes" Morpheus : "Concentrate on the task at hand; they are merely glitches in the Matrix caused by our presense in this place"

  19. Gloria Foster, RIP by devphil · · Score: 2, Informative


    Passed away last year, at the age of 64.

    She had already filmed her scenes for Matrix II, I believe. Dunno what they're doing for Matrix III.

    --
    You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
  20. size of area and flying altitude by heimotikka · · Score: 0, Redundant

    They didn't block off much city space, maybe (100 - 200m), and the chopper flew down the square (Martin Place) between the buildings about 5 - 10m above our heads.

    Really? Hard to believe these numbers. Are you saying that closed area was about 100x200 meters or 100-200 square meters? First I can believe, latter is just like 10x20 meters... Wouldn't make sense. And since I've been near helicopters I know that being 5-10 meter under hovering or passing copter isn't fun. Dust... wind... noise... I don't say you're mistaken, but these numbers are just hard to believe. Flying 5 meters from ground in middle of city... Should have seen that.

    Does anyone have urls to information about using rc-copters in movies - as models and / or filming? I've seen one in action and was really impressed.

    1. Re:size of area and flying altitude by Animaether · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sure, look up sites about Airwolf (that 1980s series); it made use of R/C models quite heavily - I doubt ever as much since (due to the advanced of computer-generated images, no doubt).

      Here's a company that flies R/Cs for camera work
      Just to illustrate :
      Their 'Airwolf' cam

      Oh, some more Airwolf :>
      UKcultTV.tripod.com

  21. Yay ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Wow .. this is all very exciting.

    The building I work in is on the corner of Martin Place and Castlereagh streets.

    I walk along there everyday !

    Where they found space to land a goddamn helicopter is beyond me ... they must have swept all the homeless guys out of the way beforehand.

  22. Stop blaming the user - blame the product by dduck · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Err... You are aware that most non-professional cameras today decide weather to use the flash by themselves, and that you should therefor blame the technology rather than the user in this case?

    1. Re:Stop blaming the user - blame the product by limegreen · · Score: 1

      Even some of the cheapest cameras let you turn the flash off again. I blaim the user for not choosing the right camera and film for the conditions.

    2. Re:Stop blaming the user - blame the product by finkployd · · Score: 3, Insightful

      With the exception of the cheapest disposable cameras, I have never seen a camera that did not let you control the flash. Sure they have an "auto-flash" setting, they also have an "off" setting.

      Finkployd

    3. Re:Stop blaming the user - blame the product by HiQ · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's quite a nerd way of seeing things. Most users have a camera to 'shoot a picture'. They are not interested in photography, they just want a picture to show that they were there. For a large part of the population technological equipment is something to use, and something to be afraid of. They don't know how it works, why it works; they don't care, don't want to care and don't bother. And I think that this goes for the majority of the population.

    4. Re:Stop blaming the user - blame the product by popular · · Score: 1

      ... and so it must be true that every camera lets you disable the flash.

      As though the flash would have a detrimental effect on the picture.

      As though some people care.

      As though the people who DO care remembered to turn it off.

      As though the flashes can't be cleaned out of the film using a tiny fraction of the movie's gi-normous SFX budget.

  23. Re:Camera Flash (It sometimes works, here is why) by Slashamatic · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Actually, switching the flash is often a reasonable strategy when photgraphing something that is well illuminated.

    Here is why, most meters will average across the whole frame and the thing you are photographing is usually occupying maybe 10 to 20% of the frame.

    Switching flash will normally set a fixed speed on 1/30th sec. This is usually enough for the illuminated bit of the photograph. Forget the flash itself, it is the fixed speed that helps. With negative film there is usually enough lattitude to get something off the negative. This is why flash photos of concerts often work.

    If they are filming on to negative film, they will need a fair amount of illumination (even with black helicopters). I wouldn't be suprised if the photographers don't actually get something (although a 30th is a bit slow for action and it is sure to blur).

  24. Teaser poster by wideangle · · Score: 2

    First look at the teaser poster and more plot speculations were reported first at corona.

  25. No one knows how to read by Morgahastu · · Score: 0, Redundant

    apparently. They are shutting down a PART of the city. They are not shutting down an entire city. Just a few blocks.

  26. Uh.. where'd the parent post go?? by Shalome · · Score: 1

    Okay, my above post makes absolutely no sense.. where the hell did the post go saying we should all boycott all big movies because of Hollywood's DECSS thing??

    --
    Moderation totals that amuse me for one of my posts: Flamebait=1, Insightful=2, Funny=2, Overrated=1, Underrated=1
    1. Re:Uh.. where'd the parent post go?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It probably got modded into oblivion ... like yours now will be.

  27. Humans as batteries. by tjensor · · Score: 2, Funny

    Lets face it, the whole idea is silly. Theres the whole laws of thermodynamics thing for a start but then theres this problem that they need some sort of artifical reality to make it work, and its really tricky, because they keep escaping and fighting and stuff. OK, so why not use Llamas instead. Or Cod. Problem solved - Next! Maybe its good that I'm nto a hyperintelligent machine ruling the world with an iron fist, er, manipulator.

    --
    <fnord>OBEY</fnord>
    1. Re:Humans as batteries. by motardo · · Score: 1

      I'd prefer they use Iron Chefs.

    2. Re:Humans as batteries. by dytin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      OK, here are my theories about the matrix: First of all, remember that the only explanation that we have of the matrix is from Morpheus. Now, Morpheus said himself that humans did not know that much about the matrix. Perhaps Morpheus is wrong about the machines using humans as a power supply. Perhaps the machines need to keep humans around in order to do their thinking for them. Maybe the machines put humans into the year 1999 because they wanted to see how they were created. Also, about using Llamas, maybe when the skies were torched all species except humans were destroyed. I don't really know, but hopefully Matrix 2 will do some more explaining.

    3. Re:Humans as batteries. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's simple really. The matrix has to keep the humans around for their sheer processing power. It's like...(wait for it)...a beowulf cluster of humans! The real question is: Is the matrix open source?

    4. Re:Humans as batteries. by tjensor · · Score: 1

      OK - who didnt see THAT coming?

      --
      <fnord>OBEY</fnord>
  28. Photo of the 'copter by rob.sharp · · Score: 2, Informative

    My friend was out and about with his shiny new camera, and took a piccy of the 'copter as it was being filmed... Not bad quality, but would have liked to get more! Don't wanna slashdot my own server, so check out the pictures to have a peek... Rob.

    1. Re:Photo of the 'copter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for posting that m8. I wish I was there I bet it was quite exciting.

  29. I'm Sorry by atlantageek · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I'm sorry but other than the fight scenes (which have been cloned to death) Matrix sucked. Maybe it was because I waited till it was on Video and during that time everyone built it up. I just don't understand why it is such a big deal for the hacker set.

    1. Re:I'm Sorry by ericski · · Score: 1

      Hot girl (in leather pants no less), super cool computers (doesn't matter if they're feasible or not), and a geek that can fight his way out of something other than a Fritos bag. Just a simple play on what many hacker geeks want.

  30. Beautiful City by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Sydney is a beautiful city if you ever get the chance to visit. An area of about 200m x 150m was blocked off for most of Sunday. The Helicopter landed in a cleared area of Martin Place. Footage was shot without actors, the footage will be used for the next two sequel films, The Matrix Reloaded and The Matrix Revolution. The footage shot on Sunday will be used for The Matrix Revolution.

    1. Re:Beautiful City by Ma$$acre · · Score: 1

      While it's true the footage may be used in the 3rd film (which I'm told is simply a continuation or the second "half" of the second film), I was told point blank that they were filming the sequence for Reload. That coming from the head site coordinator as well as the security guard. And then the Director came over, asked us not to use flash photography and explained they were filming a 14 min. sequence of a fight with Neo up the side of the southeast building for the second film due out in about a year.

      --
      Knowledge is of two kinds. We know a subject ourselves, or we know where we can find information upon it. -Samuel Johns
    2. Re:Beautiful City by AussiePenguin · · Score: 1
      Sydney is a beautiful city if you ever get the chance to visit.

      Not as beautiful as Melbourne though. Melbourne is just too elegant to have been chosen for the Matrix as they were really after a US-like city. However it was chosen for Jackie Chan's Mr Nice Guy. However I'd still suggest visting both cities, they both have distinctive features.

      --

      Jeremy
      Melbourne, Australia
      Jabber Australia

    3. Re:Beautiful City by jquirke · · Score: 2

      I'll agree with that - I don't understand why more movies aren't filmed in Melbourne. In the US both LA and NYC are used to film movies - usually with a distinct genre, so I don't see why Melbourne and Sydney could be used. The problem is Melbourne is too un-American I guess as you said.

  31. Re:There is no John Howard by Disevidence · · Score: 1

    Queensland rocks. Home of the Rednecks. Spawn of Pauline Hanson. Chestershire Cat Beattie.

    But then again, theyre all better than an arselicker like Howard.

    (If you do not understand, don't mod)

    --
    Think nothing is impossible? Try slamming a revolving door.
  32. Photo (With Flash) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    For those that couldn't make it to the set ... here's a photo of the action.

    Action Shot

  33. just imagine by Astrorunner · · Score: 1

    a beowulf cluster of those?

  34. Apparently useful information is "Offtopic" by devphil · · Score: 2

    I posted an answer, titled "Gloria Foster, RIP," almost immediately after you posted your question. It got modded down. Twice. WTF?

    --
    You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
    1. Re:Apparently useful information is "Offtopic" by FFFish · · Score: 1

      Slashdot moderators are pretty much like the Agents in the Matrix world...

      --

      --
      Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
    2. Re:Apparently useful information is "Offtopic" by Shanep · · Score: 2

      I posted an answer, titled "Gloria Foster, RIP," almost immediately after you posted your question. It got modded down. Twice. WTF?

      Exactly devphil. I was wondering myself WTF at the logic of the moderators on that one.

      I think the moderation system is pretty stuffed up. I think anyone who hasn't posted on a news item should be able to moderate within that item with only a limit on being able to moderate a single post once with one point.

      Perhaps this would allow the results of each posts moderation to be more indicative of a broader opinion base, rather than being judged by TWO moderators who don't know what offtopic means.

      Moderators, can someone please mod devphil's informative post back up out of the offtopic hole it's been put in?

      --
      War crimes, torture, lies, illegal spying... Would someone give Bush a blowjob, already, so he can be impeached?
  35. F'n idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you sir, are one dumb mother fucker. Apparently you have the reading comprehension skills of a 4th grader

  36. Agent Smith 2.0 by GuyMannDude · · Score: 2

    If you check out www.imdb.com for the Matrix sequal you'll see that Agent Smith is now Agent Smith 2.0

    An upgrade, hmmm? Let's hope it's not as diabolical as Microsoft's recent Media Player 7.1 security fix. Maybe the 2.x series of agents will realize the only way to defeat a vastly superior Neo is for all of them to attack him simultaneously rather than following the time-honored martial arts movie tradition of politely waiting their turn. Now that would make for a cool (and novel) fight scene!

    GMD

  37. a multi-million dollar movie?? by grasshoppah · · Score: 1

    here's a good line: "...for the multi-million dollar sequels to the Hollywood sci-fi film The Matrix."
    Is anyone besides me unimpressed? A million dollar budject is completely bare bones as far as movie making goes.

  38. Director? by lucasval · · Score: 1

    At about 5pm when it got dark the camera flashes started going off, this pissed off the director as it was interfering with his film

    I always thought Matrix and the sequels were directed by BOTH Kowalsky Bros....

    --
    This is not my opinion but my brain's
    1. Re:Director? by spectecjr · · Score: 1
      At about 5pm when it got dark the camera flashes started going off, this pissed off the director as it was interfering with his film
      I always thought Matrix and the sequels were directed by BOTH Kowalsky Bros....


      2nd unit. 'nuff said.
      --
      Coming soon - pyrogyra
  39. Maybe... by Steveftoth · · Score: 1

    they are not hurting humas at all but rather the matrix was designed as the ultimate living habitat for humans, where robots handled all the 'living' for us and we simply live in an artifical reality. MAybe we had control over this matrix at one time and decided to live there because it was nice. And then maybe the matrix was and then we lost control and the matrix turned on its creators.

    Maybe I'm just making this up. (damn straight)

  40. Re:There is no John Howard by Charm · · Score: 1

    It was worth being modded down 2 points just to hear a reply like yours.

    --
    -- RTFM:Slackware::Beer:Saturday
  41. Matrix version 2.0 - patches the Neo exploit by Mandelbrute · · Score: 2
    Where can the plot go from here?
    With Matrix v1.0, ordinary users could get superuser status using the "Neo" exploit. The new version is a complete rewrite which prevents this.

    It also stops all of those annoying exploits of the spoon protocol by script kiddies.

  42. Re:Camera flashes at the big night sky ... by vortexau · · Score: 1

    One thing that always amuses me is the sight of ppl trying to photograph fireworks displays with hand-held common flash cameras.

    When I was eleven, I learned to use a tripod-mounted time-exposure with a cable-release. 2 or 3 seconds exposure with fast colour film.
    .

    --
    (David Bowman, EVA near HUGE Monolithic Win-PC in orbit around Jupiter) "My God - its full of Malware!"
  43. Don't buy into movie hype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    -Most technology appreciating people should realize Hollywood is an evil empire after the whole Decss incident. Hyping a Hollywood money milking series such as 'the matrix' is pretty hypocritical on a site such as slashdot that claims to be a part of the fight for free speech.

    -I myself vow not to watch any Hollywood movie, including any Matrix ones, until the movie industry becomes less corrupt and hell bent on crushing peoples rights.

    -Don't buy into the hype, instead donate the ticket money to the EFF.