"If hard drives are so fragile, how come there are a plethora of hard-disk based portable MP3 players available?"
There aren't a plethora of hd based MP3 players out there. There are a handfull.
Let's see, hd's in Mp3 players don't need to spin as fast. They don't need to be accessed as much. (I would imagine the music's cached into RAM and then played...) etc.
Laptop drives are very fragile. I ruined one by drumming my fingers on the case of my laptop once. I didn't know the drive was right under the case. Doh.
"What about using one of the external PCMCIA hard drives? Sure it wouldn't be as elegant, but put in one card that hooks up to a 50Gig 2.5" hard drive and you would be all set. "
You're kind of defeating the "it'll take all kinds of abuse" point.
"What exactly would be wrong with a gigantiforous hard drive? This thing has 5 cards x 4 gigs each (max) for a max of 72 minutes."
Hard drives are fragile. This could be made to be extremely rugged, and memory's only getting cheaper.
I think there's plenty of room in the market to have both a hard-disk equipped camera, a tape based camera, and a solid state camera. Each has their own advantages.
As a Frenchman, I cannot support this unilateral decision to liberate water from the moon. We must give the inspectors more time so we can better cover up our involvement with the moon. In the mean time, we (in France) are boycotting lawn darts in protest because we will not glamourize lobbing missiles at the moon.
However, should the Americans find water on the moon, we'll completely reverse our position.
" Make elections publicly funded, and ban private funding. Implement proportional representation to break the "two-party" system."
I personally would like it if commercial time could not be used in an election. It's hard to want to vote when the TV blasts ads sensationalizing half-truths about a candidate to prove they're evil. Commercials are not a medium to deliver factual material and as such should be banned from the airwaves when trying to promote (or demote) a candidate or bill.
Raising awareness is one thing, spreading shit is something else entirely.
"Why? Surely the limitation is part of IIS. What if you run Apache?"
I agree, that's shitty. No argument here. However, I've thought about this a little more, and I can sort of see the legal implications here. We all know XP Home is not secure. MS definitely has made no effort to secure the machine in a situation like that. On top of that, it's got some firewall stuff running that could potentially step on the toes of somebody trying to run stuff like that. I vaguely remember having an issue getting Apache to run on my XP-Home box, but I can't remember specifically what it was. (It was much easier on 2000 pro.)
Being that XP might interfere with the operation of such software, Microsoft was probably trying to cover their butts in case people were trying to use Apache and got irritated when XP seemed to be trying to make sure it didn't work. "Well, it says in the license not to do that with XP."
Shitty, but somewhat understandable.
"So? Why does the license give a shit about it? If it does, that's a pain in the arse. Upgrade Video card/Memory. Stops working? Why????"
I already explained that in my previous post.
"Reverse engineering IS ALLOWED!!! That's how you got cheap PC's."
??
"When you buy a toaster, you get 1 year warranties. Why not software? It's easier to update to fix problems than a toaster."
While I would guess it's because software is not run on a guaranteed bit of hardware (face it, PCs are like Frankenstein monsters), it's hardly relevant to this particular discussion. If my computer crashes, is it Microsoft's fault, Dell's fault, Nvidia's fault, or ID's fault?
"I rate your comment -5 Bloody Stupid. "
I find that amusing. You picked on only 3 of my points, and two of the nitpicks were dragged out into irrelevance terriotory.
" Have you read the judgement. It's very good and lists many of the evil thing Microsoft has done."
I've noticed that Judge Jackson's ruling is commonly brought up here on Slashdot, but rarely does the topic of the appeal (and final judgement I might add) come up. I imagine because that's because it comes with comments like this:
"The monopoly in this case was not found to have been illegally acquired, but only to have been illegally maintained. Therefore, rather than termination of the monopoly, the proper objective of the remedy in this case is termination of the exclusionary acts and practices related thereto which served to illegally maintain the monopoly.
In other words, MS is a monopoly because the people wanted it to be one, not because they pulled some magic trick to rise to the top. Once there, they did the same thing anybody alive would have done, tried to remain on top.
Yeah MS has done illegal stuff. BFD. That doesn't completely explain their success. But it sure does get the blood pumpin, eh? "Woo I hate Microsoft! Everybody like me because I appear smarter for it!"
"As someone who hates being bombarded with multimedia bullshit from "artists" when I'm seeking information, I found your comment a bit short-sighted as well."
You're not seeking information, you're seeking entertainment. And when it comes to entertainment, the content provider creates the rules. Sorry, but them's the breaks.
I completely agree that they could have made it more accessible in this particular case, but the fact that they didn't is their own choice. If it's preventing you from viewing the content, the problem is entirely yours to solve. It's like complaining that you can't fit VHS tapes in your DVD player.
"-copying was prohibited" -- Duh. It's a retail product that is required to run other retail products such as games.
"-could be used only on one computer with a maximum of 2 processors" -- They have a premium product that works with more than 2 processors, fair game.
"-cannot be used as a webserver or fileserver" -- Gray area. I want to read the exact wording of this point here before I issue a judgement. However, my initial reaction is that they're protecting themselves from people who figure out how to unlock these features. For example, IIS on XP Home has a limitation of 10 simultaneous connections. Somebody could probably hack that. On the surface, it appears as though they want to protect their product so you can buy the more expensive one to get those features. Put your pitchforks down, it's a common business practice to sell premium products with better features.
"-required registration after 30 days" -- It sucks, but it's legit. This is their protection system in place to prevent copying.
"-could stop working if hardware changes were made" -- Again, part of the protection system to guarantee they didn't just swap machines.
"-updates could change the EULA if the company so wished" -- Yeah because things have a way of being twisted, which I suspect happened in this 'analysis'.
"-could be transferred to another user only once" -- This probably has more to do with how their registration system works. If you think about how Windows was pirated before with the registration codes flying aruond, their registration system probably keeps track of those numbers. If the same number is flown around it raises a red flag and the system won't work. This is a problem if somebody thought they were buying something legitimately off of Ebay or something. The idea of that arrangement is probably to convince people to keep that to a minimum as it'd be very difficult to manage.
"-the new user must agree to the license terms (no specification how this could be achieved)" -- No specification on how this could be achieved? Oh I dunno, by USING it? The point here is that XP could be resold without the EULA. It's the seller's responsbility to make sure the buyer is aware there is one. MS is trying to cover their own butt here becuase of the obvious loophole around the EULA.
"-imposes limitations on reverse engineering" -- So people don't crack their protection scheme, commno practice...
"-gives Microsoft rights to collect information about the system and the its use" -- They have to for the registration process to work. It looks at your hardware config to make sure Windows didn't magically appear on somebody else's machine.
"-gives Microsoft the right to supply this information to other organisations" -- That sucks. It's probably part of the Passport thing. Common business practice, but that's pretty annoying. I'm sick of junk mail. (Although one could say "This is in case MS gets split up..." heh.)
"-gives Microsoft the right to make changes to the computer without having to ask." -- Windows XP comes with the Automatic Update tool to keep IE and related products up to date with the latest patches to thwart exploits. This is on by default. You guys complain about MS's vulnerabilities etc, so when they take a step to fix it they're the bad guy? Whatever.
"-warranty for the first 90 days" -- Duh.
"-fixes, updates or patches carry no warranty" -- Duh. Shit happens in the software world. Too many people using one product, whaddya expect?
What's really stupid about this whole story is that they're comparing a retail product to one intended to be given away freely. It doesn't have copy protection schemes or premium upgrades available. Of course it's not going to have any of that junk!
I give this story a +5, Troll. Not only was comparing it to a completely different l
"Nice set of arguments there. 1) Ms puts things in their EULA so that they won't have to provide support. 2) No one ever reads EULA. 3) People misunderstant the EULA 4) MS will never enfor the EULA. 5) You can ignore the parts the of EULA you don't like. 6) The EULA is unenforcable. and finally. 7) Use another product. Hey! Number 7 is what this topic was all about in the first place. "
He's got a point, though. The only reason the Slashdot Community's worried about MS's EULA is because you are all desperately looking for scraps of evidence that MS is evil.
"Well, MS could sell you a product and then sue you!" -- Yeah because that'd be a great image to have when selling to consumers!
"Because it's a "sin" in the sense of the whole point of the web to deny people content by requiring a plug in just to READ and SEE PICTURES.... It would take a very small amount of time to put the contents (which on sites like this are generally relatively sparse) in a plain HTML page."
As an artist, I find that comment a bit short-sighted. They're trying to deliver an experience and you're saying "Na, just give me the pamphlet."
Though I agree they could easily generate that page in HTML, I also think that negative attitude towards Flash is ridiculous. How are standards supposed to grow on the web if everybody complains that they want it in HTML?
"What I've seen is that while the DSL is slower, it never goes down. In almost a year, I've not had a single time when I couldn't get to the internet."
I pity you when it does go down. Let me share with you my little story:
I was on AT&T Broadband. I had an outage once. I called them up, and they routed me to a more distant connection, and I was up and running again. It was a little slower, but it worked.
At work, we had a 7 megabit DSL line. It worked great! We had both our webserver and mail server on it. Life was good, until it went down. It took 5 days to get it back up. I'm not shittin you. If we didn't have a redundant DSL line through another company, we would have been entirely without email or web for an entire business week.
Wanna know what happened? We had three companies involved. We had the ISP, the phone carrier, and the company who set it all up. We called the ISP, they blamed the phone carrier. We called the phone carrier, they blamed the company who set it up. We called the company who set it up, they blamed the ISP. And the circle of life began. Most of the 5 days were spent getting them to figure out exactly where the problem was.
You know, if the problem had been that a piece of hardware or something was damaged, I could accept that. But none of the companies were willing to accept responsiblity on who's causing the outage to get it fixed.
At least with my cable modem at home, I've got one provider, carrier, and installer. They can't play phone tag with me to get the problem fixed.
Somebody please tell me why Terminator 2 looks better than what we've seen on T3? I don't mean from a plot point of view, I'm talking about the effects and lighting. Felt like a straight-to-DVD movie.
The nuclear blasts, for example, just aren't very convincing. Anybody remember the nuke from T2? Now THAT was cool.
I dunno, so far (from a visual point of view) it feels very rushed.
"The thing I loved about the Matrix is they kill heroes."
They killed the expendible characters. Might has well have been red-shirts.
" I hope in Reloaded Trinity gets killed. That would make me wet my fucking pants. "
Won't happen. If the first movie is any indication, we will have little to no character development. And no, Neo and Trinity kissing is not character development. That's called cliche.
"I don't remember much hype about Last Action Hero."
Let me put it to you this way: It was hyped enough that a reference to it made it into an episode of Married With Children. It's not very often sitcoms admit to the existence of movies.
"Did you even see the trailer for it? Reloaded has the best trailer for any movie to date. It puts the Ep1&2 trailers to shame. "
The trailer wasn't that cool. It showed a few neat-o effects, no argument there. So did Episode 1. Only, Episode 1's trailer led you to believe that there was going to be some massive epic battle in the end, not some pathetic skirmish. What if Reloaded is that way? What if there's a couple of cool battle scenes, but it's tied together by a flimsy plot designed to place those characters into that situation?
"The Wachowski (sp?) brothers know what they're doing with the creative license, and they have a team to make it golden."
There was a time where the same would have been said about George Lucas. Who's saying that today?
Look, the movie could be good. I hope it's good, I'd like it to be good. What I'm reacting to is how hard they're trying to sell this movie on me. that should always send up a red flag. If this movie's so good, then how come they need Superbowl ads for it? How come they are trying to lure people into more expensive IMAX theaters for it?
The only thing giving me hope for Reloaded right now is the Animatrix. That's where the true creativity seems to be coming from. So far, from the first movie and what's been seen from the second one, it's an attempt to make anime-style editing into live-action. Fine. Just make the story interesting.
Frankly, I'm saddened that the first Matrix wasn't more like X-Men. I mean, who'd shed a tear of any of the characters from the Matrix was killed? Pretty flat.
"The trailers aren't too spoilerish, the movie posters are very very cool. Hell, even the news stories let out about the movie have been pretty tantalizing rather than repetative or revealing."
How is this different from Episode 1 or 2? Both had interesting trailers, both had news stories that pointed towards being an interesting movie, the movie posters were cool etc. The fact of the matter is that you can hide quite a bit about the true quality of a movie with trailers. "Wow, if 2 minutes of it is cool, imagine what all 90 will be like!"
You know the old saying, "Don't judge a book by its cover..." Well, don't judge a movie by it's marketing hype. These guys are trying a little too hard to get me to see it opening night. That's never a good sign. It means they're worried that the early goers won't convince their friends to see it.
"Overmarketing is when you sell a sucky product by hyping it. Matrix Reloaded is going to be a superb product. Don't be so cynical. Pretend you're 11 and this is Empire Strikes Back."
How do you know that? Name 3 movies in the last 20 years that recieved lots of hype before launch, and ended up deserving it. I can name a few *cough*Godzilla*cough*LastActionHero*Coughh*Episod es1&2*cough* that were hyped in much the same way, only to be extremely dumb movies.
I'd love to sit back and say "Ah well I'm going to enjoy whatever I get" except all the signs are pointing towards me being out $20.
"As if the two sequels to "The Matrix" weren't a big enough event already, it has been announced that both films will also be showing in IMAX theaters."
The more these guys try to hype the Matrix, the more I want to distance myself from it. Anybody else worried they're over-marketing it?
Slashdot Mirror
"And how does it get into ram? BY READING IT OFF THE FUCKING DISK!!!!"
Nice troll. So how long does it take to transfer a 5 meg file into RAM on a decent laptop hard drive?
"If hard drives are so fragile, how come there are a plethora of hard-disk based portable MP3 players available?"
There aren't a plethora of hd based MP3 players out there. There are a handfull.
Let's see, hd's in Mp3 players don't need to spin as fast. They don't need to be accessed as much. (I would imagine the music's cached into RAM and then played...) etc.
Laptop drives are very fragile. I ruined one by drumming my fingers on the case of my laptop once. I didn't know the drive was right under the case. Doh.
"What about using one of the external PCMCIA hard drives? Sure it wouldn't be as elegant, but put in one card that hooks up to a 50Gig 2.5" hard drive and you would be all set. "
You're kind of defeating the "it'll take all kinds of abuse" point.
"What exactly would be wrong with a gigantiforous hard drive? This thing has 5 cards x 4 gigs each (max) for a max of 72 minutes."
Hard drives are fragile. This could be made to be extremely rugged, and memory's only getting cheaper.
I think there's plenty of room in the market to have both a hard-disk equipped camera, a tape based camera, and a solid state camera. Each has their own advantages.
As a Frenchman, I cannot support this unilateral decision to liberate water from the moon. We must give the inspectors more time so we can better cover up our involvement with the moon. In the mean time, we (in France) are boycotting lawn darts in protest because we will not glamourize lobbing missiles at the moon.
However, should the Americans find water on the moon, we'll completely reverse our position.
"We must free the water from its evil ruler Saddam Moonsein."
Shut your black hole, you.
"We are seeking information about entertainment. Big difference! "
Bzzt sorry. Teasers provide no information about a movie.
" Make elections publicly funded, and ban private funding. Implement proportional representation to break the "two-party" system."
I personally would like it if commercial time could not be used in an election. It's hard to want to vote when the TV blasts ads sensationalizing half-truths about a candidate to prove they're evil. Commercials are not a medium to deliver factual material and as such should be banned from the airwaves when trying to promote (or demote) a candidate or bill.
Raising awareness is one thing, spreading shit is something else entirely.
"Why? Surely the limitation is part of IIS. What if you run Apache?"
I agree, that's shitty. No argument here. However, I've thought about this a little more, and I can sort of see the legal implications here. We all know XP Home is not secure. MS definitely has made no effort to secure the machine in a situation like that. On top of that, it's got some firewall stuff running that could potentially step on the toes of somebody trying to run stuff like that. I vaguely remember having an issue getting Apache to run on my XP-Home box, but I can't remember specifically what it was. (It was much easier on 2000 pro.)
Being that XP might interfere with the operation of such software, Microsoft was probably trying to cover their butts in case people were trying to use Apache and got irritated when XP seemed to be trying to make sure it didn't work. "Well, it says in the license not to do that with XP."
Shitty, but somewhat understandable.
"So? Why does the license give a shit about it? If it does, that's a pain in the arse. Upgrade Video card/Memory. Stops working? Why????"
I already explained that in my previous post.
"Reverse engineering IS ALLOWED!!! That's how you got cheap PC's."
??
"When you buy a toaster, you get 1 year warranties. Why not software? It's easier to update to fix problems than a toaster."
While I would guess it's because software is not run on a guaranteed bit of hardware (face it, PCs are like Frankenstein monsters), it's hardly relevant to this particular discussion. If my computer crashes, is it Microsoft's fault, Dell's fault, Nvidia's fault, or ID's fault?
"I rate your comment -5 Bloody Stupid. "
I find that amusing. You picked on only 3 of my points, and two of the nitpicks were dragged out into irrelevance terriotory.
I've noticed that Judge Jackson's ruling is commonly brought up here on Slashdot, but rarely does the topic of the appeal (and final judgement I might add) come up. I imagine because that's because it comes with comments like this:
In other words, MS is a monopoly because the people wanted it to be one, not because they pulled some magic trick to rise to the top. Once there, they did the same thing anybody alive would have done, tried to remain on top.
Yeah MS has done illegal stuff. BFD. That doesn't completely explain their success. But it sure does get the blood pumpin, eh? "Woo I hate Microsoft! Everybody like me because I appear smarter for it!"
"As someone who hates being bombarded with multimedia bullshit from "artists" when I'm seeking information, I found your comment a bit short-sighted as well."
You're not seeking information, you're seeking entertainment. And when it comes to entertainment, the content provider creates the rules. Sorry, but them's the breaks.
I completely agree that they could have made it more accessible in this particular case, but the fact that they didn't is their own choice. If it's preventing you from viewing the content, the problem is entirely yours to solve. It's like complaining that you can't fit VHS tapes in your DVD player.
"-copying was prohibited" -- Duh. It's a retail product that is required to run other retail products such as games.
"-could be used only on one computer with a maximum of 2 processors" -- They have a premium product that works with more than 2 processors, fair game.
"-cannot be used as a webserver or fileserver" -- Gray area. I want to read the exact wording of this point here before I issue a judgement. However, my initial reaction is that they're protecting themselves from people who figure out how to unlock these features. For example, IIS on XP Home has a limitation of 10 simultaneous connections. Somebody could probably hack that. On the surface, it appears as though they want to protect their product so you can buy the more expensive one to get those features. Put your pitchforks down, it's a common business practice to sell premium products with better features.
"-required registration after 30 days" -- It sucks, but it's legit. This is their protection system in place to prevent copying.
"-could stop working if hardware changes were made" -- Again, part of the protection system to guarantee they didn't just swap machines.
"-updates could change the EULA if the company so wished" -- Yeah because things have a way of being twisted, which I suspect happened in this 'analysis'.
"-could be transferred to another user only once" -- This probably has more to do with how their registration system works. If you think about how Windows was pirated before with the registration codes flying aruond, their registration system probably keeps track of those numbers. If the same number is flown around it raises a red flag and the system won't work. This is a problem if somebody thought they were buying something legitimately off of Ebay or something. The idea of that arrangement is probably to convince people to keep that to a minimum as it'd be very difficult to manage.
"-the new user must agree to the license terms (no specification how this could be achieved)" -- No specification on how this could be achieved? Oh I dunno, by USING it? The point here is that XP could be resold without the EULA. It's the seller's responsbility to make sure the buyer is aware there is one. MS is trying to cover their own butt here becuase of the obvious loophole around the EULA.
"-imposes limitations on reverse engineering" -- So people don't crack their protection scheme, commno practice...
"-gives Microsoft rights to collect information about the system and the its use" -- They have to for the registration process to work. It looks at your hardware config to make sure Windows didn't magically appear on somebody else's machine.
"-gives Microsoft the right to supply this information to other organisations" -- That sucks. It's probably part of the Passport thing. Common business practice, but that's pretty annoying. I'm sick of junk mail. (Although one could say "This is in case MS gets split up..." heh.)
"-gives Microsoft the right to make changes to the computer without having to ask." -- Windows XP comes with the Automatic Update tool to keep IE and related products up to date with the latest patches to thwart exploits. This is on by default. You guys complain about MS's vulnerabilities etc, so when they take a step to fix it they're the bad guy? Whatever.
"-warranty for the first 90 days" -- Duh.
"-fixes, updates or patches carry no warranty" -- Duh. Shit happens in the software world. Too many people using one product, whaddya expect?
What's really stupid about this whole story is that they're comparing a retail product to one intended to be given away freely. It doesn't have copy protection schemes or premium upgrades available. Of course it's not going to have any of that junk!
I give this story a +5, Troll. Not only was comparing it to a completely different l
He's got a point, though. The only reason the Slashdot Community's worried about MS's EULA is because you are all desperately looking for scraps of evidence that MS is evil.
"Well, MS could sell you a product and then sue you!" -- Yeah because that'd be a great image to have when selling to consumers!
"Home edition doesn't have IIS built into it."
Yes it does. It's crippled (ony 10 simultaneous connections) but it's there.
"Because it's a "sin" in the sense of the whole point of the web to deny people content by requiring a plug in just to READ and SEE PICTURES.... It would take a very small amount of time to put the contents (which on sites like this are generally relatively sparse) in a plain HTML page."
As an artist, I find that comment a bit short-sighted. They're trying to deliver an experience and you're saying "Na, just give me the pamphlet."
Though I agree they could easily generate that page in HTML, I also think that negative attitude towards Flash is ridiculous. How are standards supposed to grow on the web if everybody complains that they want it in HTML?
".. but if a movie has gatling guns it automatically makes it about twice as good. Look at Predator for example.
Or maybe it's just me... "
It's just you. The rest of us saw the naked chick.
"What I've seen is that while the DSL is slower, it never goes down. In almost a year, I've not had a single time when I couldn't get to the internet."
I pity you when it does go down. Let me share with you my little story:
I was on AT&T Broadband. I had an outage once. I called them up, and they routed me to a more distant connection, and I was up and running again. It was a little slower, but it worked.
At work, we had a 7 megabit DSL line. It worked great! We had both our webserver and mail server on it. Life was good, until it went down. It took 5 days to get it back up. I'm not shittin you. If we didn't have a redundant DSL line through another company, we would have been entirely without email or web for an entire business week.
Wanna know what happened? We had three companies involved. We had the ISP, the phone carrier, and the company who set it all up. We called the ISP, they blamed the phone carrier. We called the phone carrier, they blamed the company who set it up. We called the company who set it up, they blamed the ISP. And the circle of life began. Most of the 5 days were spent getting them to figure out exactly where the problem was.
You know, if the problem had been that a piece of hardware or something was damaged, I could accept that. But none of the companies were willing to accept responsiblity on who's causing the outage to get it fixed.
At least with my cable modem at home, I've got one provider, carrier, and installer. They can't play phone tag with me to get the problem fixed.
Somebody please tell me why Terminator 2 looks better than what we've seen on T3? I don't mean from a plot point of view, I'm talking about the effects and lighting. Felt like a straight-to-DVD movie.
The nuclear blasts, for example, just aren't very convincing. Anybody remember the nuke from T2? Now THAT was cool.
I dunno, so far (from a visual point of view) it feels very rushed.
"The thing I loved about the Matrix is they kill heroes."
They killed the expendible characters. Might has well have been red-shirts.
" I hope in Reloaded Trinity gets killed. That would make me wet my fucking pants. "
Won't happen. If the first movie is any indication, we will have little to no character development. And no, Neo and Trinity kissing is not character development. That's called cliche.
"If it's anonymous, there's nothing to stop someone from posting absolute fiction."
You haven't been reading the articles posted by non-anonymous people here, have ya?
"I don't remember much hype about Last Action Hero."
Let me put it to you this way: It was hyped enough that a reference to it made it into an episode of Married With Children. It's not very often sitcoms admit to the existence of movies.
"Did you even see the trailer for it? Reloaded has the best trailer for any movie to date. It puts the Ep1&2 trailers to shame. "
The trailer wasn't that cool. It showed a few neat-o effects, no argument there. So did Episode 1. Only, Episode 1's trailer led you to believe that there was going to be some massive epic battle in the end, not some pathetic skirmish. What if Reloaded is that way? What if there's a couple of cool battle scenes, but it's tied together by a flimsy plot designed to place those characters into that situation?
"The Wachowski (sp?) brothers know what they're doing with the creative license, and they have a team to make it golden."
There was a time where the same would have been said about George Lucas. Who's saying that today?
Look, the movie could be good. I hope it's good, I'd like it to be good. What I'm reacting to is how hard they're trying to sell this movie on me. that should always send up a red flag. If this movie's so good, then how come they need Superbowl ads for it? How come they are trying to lure people into more expensive IMAX theaters for it?
The only thing giving me hope for Reloaded right now is the Animatrix. That's where the true creativity seems to be coming from. So far, from the first movie and what's been seen from the second one, it's an attempt to make anime-style editing into live-action. Fine. Just make the story interesting.
Frankly, I'm saddened that the first Matrix wasn't more like X-Men. I mean, who'd shed a tear of any of the characters from the Matrix was killed? Pretty flat.
"The trailers aren't too spoilerish, the movie posters are very very cool. Hell, even the news stories let out about the movie have been pretty tantalizing rather than repetative or revealing."
How is this different from Episode 1 or 2? Both had interesting trailers, both had news stories that pointed towards being an interesting movie, the movie posters were cool etc. The fact of the matter is that you can hide quite a bit about the true quality of a movie with trailers. "Wow, if 2 minutes of it is cool, imagine what all 90 will be like!"
You know the old saying, "Don't judge a book by its cover..." Well, don't judge a movie by it's marketing hype. These guys are trying a little too hard to get me to see it opening night. That's never a good sign. It means they're worried that the early goers won't convince their friends to see it.
"Overmarketing is when you sell a sucky product by hyping it. Matrix Reloaded is going to be a superb product. Don't be so cynical. Pretend you're 11 and this is Empire Strikes Back."
d es1&2*cough* that were hyped in much the same way, only to be extremely dumb movies.
How do you know that? Name 3 movies in the last 20 years that recieved lots of hype before launch, and ended up deserving it. I can name a few *cough*Godzilla*cough*LastActionHero*Coughh*Episo
I'd love to sit back and say "Ah well I'm going to enjoy whatever I get" except all the signs are pointing towards me being out $20.
Great. He just made a prequal.
"As if the two sequels to "The Matrix" weren't a big enough event already, it has been announced that both films will also be showing in IMAX theaters."
The more these guys try to hype the Matrix, the more I want to distance myself from it. Anybody else worried they're over-marketing it?