"What's right about expecting a movie to have a conclusion?"
Because I paid to see a movie. That's why it owes me one. Otherwise, I'd save my money and just think up my own movies. Which is, if you'd read the article, the main point in the intro.
This movie was worse than any movie thought up by any of the people who had seen the others.
"Why should we be fed the same BS over and over again providing things in neat little finished bundles that provide little or no room for imagination and thought on the viewers side?"
Why do you confuse a decent story with the death of imagination? It is possible to have a good story and still keep your imagination.
"You already have an seemingly infinite supply of movies providing you with whatever messages you want, why do you NEED every movie to be like that?"
Incorrect on both counts. There are a limited number of movies out there. I'm not talking about messages. I'm talking about story. Their story has plot holes.
They are bad story tellers. They do not tell their story very well.
The first movie seems to have been a fluke.
"As for the first film, my view was that it didn't draw many conclusions."
#1. Reality is not what you think it is. You are trapped in a dream.
#2. You can wake up from that dream and find the true reality.
#3. The true reality is very different from the dream.
#4. Because the dream reality is a dream, you can do things there that you cannot do while awake.
Not many conclusions, but enough for a good movie.
"I really, really, don't understand why you'd consider a film leaving room for thought to be a bad thing."
You've phrased that incorrectly. What you actually meant was "I really, really, don't understand why you'd consider a film with an excessive number of plot holes to be a bad film".
If you liked the film then those plot holes are just opportunities for you to write the story that the real writers didn't.
So why pay to see the movie when you'll be writing it inside your head anyway?
I don't see it that way. I paid to see their movie. Their movie was badly written. The only way their movie would make sense is if I did the extra work and fixed it in my head.
Why stop there? With that viewpoint, everything, no matter how badly done, is just another opportunity for you to fill in the holes with your imagination.
Attack of the Clones. A great movie. There is just so much room for your imagination to work.
In fact, the less of a movie there is, the more you can make it a great movie by filling it in with your imagination.
Until you get to the point of just not going to the movies and just letting your imagination work.
If I'm going to do that, I'm going to keep the money I'd have paid for the ticket.
No one's been within 100KM of the machine city. That's what they said in the movie.
Unless they build the Matrix and all those people towers far away from the city. But why have the baby fields just outside the city then?
Besides, Zion is deep enough in the rock to shield any machines from EMP.
A better answer would be "the same reason the machines use humans instead of nuclear power".
The machines don't have nuclear technology and lack the imagination to discover it on their own. The machines can only run programs within defined boundaries.
That would have made a better movie. Humans not bound by "fate" and machines whose actions follow pre-defined structures.
And the machines could not use the humans in the Matrix to work on nuclear technology because the humans can only work with things the machines can create in the Matrix.
The answer is that writers-directors did not know enough philosophy to answer those questions. So they didn't.
Instead, they fell back on CGI effects and hoped that those lesser educated individuals would be sufficiently satisified with those to pay the ticket prices.
There are no deeper questions unanswered. It is a badly done movie where the writers-directors focused more on visual effects than on content.
As was noted in the into to that article, any movie you thought you'd be seeing would have been better than the one they produced.
Her death scene went on too long. "Just DIE already" was heard in the theatre. People didn't want Neo and Trinity to live happily ever after. They wanted decent answers to the questions.
What is wrong with expecting a movie to have an conclusion? The first movie didn't have that same problem. No one was asking whether the Matrix was real or illusion.
As I've noted before, lots of people think this was a good movie. And lots of three year olds think Barney is a good show.
Movie #1 What if what you think is reality is not real? How would you be able to tell?
Movie #2 What if the person you think you are is not who you are? Why do you choose what you choose? Is there a choice? Can I choose to have really long fight and rave scenes instead of looking at those questions? How many useless characters can I fit in one movie?
Movie #3 How about if everyone talks about love and we blow shit up? What if I focus on visual effects rather than story? Will anyone who matters notice? If I'm out of ideas, can I rip off other movies? Can I end a series while still making sure that I have an opening in case I need to make another movie to bring in more cash?
I'm paying to see something that someone else imagined. If I have to fill in the holes with my imagination then they did not do a very good job.
Which is the major complaint I've see about M2 and M3. They did not do a very good job. Which is exactly what that quote on the intro of the article said.
"...whatever third (Matrix) movie you envisioned in your head, no matter how lame, has got to be better than this."
-critic at Rotten Tomatoes.com on The Matrix: Revolutions
And you're saying that this is how it should be done?
Anyone who does not like a movie that someone else liked did not "get" it.
This can be taken a number of ways. From the "you aren't smart enough to understand it" to "you aren't cool enough to understand the references" down to "you aren't uneducated enough to think that this material hasn't been done to death already".
How many people want to watch 12 hours of "Barney"? Dude, you just don't "get" Barney.
But there are lots of 3 year olds that would love that.
And they'll watch it over and over and over.
The Matrix was a decent movie. A little bit off on the science bit (human batteries) with some light philosophy thrown in and lots of guns and explosions and a hot chick in leather.
The sequels aren't as good. There's the "Matrix" world which is a computer simulation but the computers have real locations in the real world.
Now there is a "world between"?
They aren't keep up with their philosophy. There is the real world, there is the fantasy world that you have to wake up from, but now there is a third reality?
The way the fantasy world affects the real world is with the squids. They don't need the Smith character in the real world. He doesn't provide any clarification of the plot.
Neo should not be affecting the squids in the real world. Fantasy powers should stay in the fantasy world. I can accept that you die in the real world if you're killed in the fantasy world because that injects an element of danger. Otherwise, there wouldn't be any real threat to people operating in the Matrix.
The biggest problem I see with this trilogy is that it wasn't planned to be a trilogy. The second movie invalidated parts of the first movie and the third movie invalidated parts of the first and second movies.
Novell doesn't have any experience at running a Linux distribution.
They'd be trying to support their Novell brand by associating it with SuSe.
But that doesn't work now. A company in decline cannot turn itself around by buying a company on the rise. All it will do is waste money and bring both companies down.
Rather than doing that, Novell needs to understand what the GPL means and start getting Novell licensed code out there. Novell should form a partnership with SuSe and Red Hat and pay for the development of the technology Novell needs to link with Linux.
Just 1/100th of the price they offered should be enough to make eDirectory the prefered directory on Linux workstations and servers.
You are not allowed to use facts against the government's propaganda campaign.
Iraq has been proven to have been almost capable of starting a research program on determining the feasiblily of embarking upon a concentrated effort to begin the acquisition of materials that could be dual-purposed and used in the production of WMD's!
And once they had those WMD's, well, then it would be too late for us to actually support UN inspectors who would have been looking for just such research programs and stuff.
And we damn sure wouldn't want Saddam to have them knowing that if he ever used any of them against us or gave them to anyone to use against us, we'd invade his country and bomb the shit out of his cities and kill his sons.
Wait. We did that last part already.
So. Just shut up. WMD's are scary. Real scary! You should be scared of them and trust your government because they know more about them.
Slashdot Mirror
If she did the research that was claimed, wouldn't she know the difference between crackers and hackers?
Except for the few that were outside.
Although I wonder what "a form of fusion" is. Too many plot holes.
"What's right about expecting a movie to have a conclusion?"
Because I paid to see a movie. That's why it owes me one. Otherwise, I'd save my money and just think up my own movies. Which is, if you'd read the article, the main point in the intro.
This movie was worse than any movie thought up by any of the people who had seen the others.
"Why should we be fed the same BS over and over again providing things in neat little finished bundles that provide little or no room for imagination and thought on the viewers side?"
Why do you confuse a decent story with the death of imagination? It is possible to have a good story and still keep your imagination.
"You already have an seemingly infinite supply of movies providing you with whatever messages you want, why do you NEED every movie to be like that?"
Incorrect on both counts. There are a limited number of movies out there. I'm not talking about messages. I'm talking about story. Their story has plot holes.
They are bad story tellers. They do not tell their story very well.
The first movie seems to have been a fluke.
"As for the first film, my view was that it didn't draw many conclusions."
#1. Reality is not what you think it is. You are trapped in a dream.
#2. You can wake up from that dream and find the true reality.
#3. The true reality is very different from the dream.
#4. Because the dream reality is a dream, you can do things there that you cannot do while awake.
Not many conclusions, but enough for a good movie.
"I really, really, don't understand why you'd consider a film leaving room for thought to be a bad thing."
You've phrased that incorrectly. What you actually meant was "I really, really, don't understand why you'd consider a film with an excessive number of plot holes to be a bad film".
If you liked the film then those plot holes are just opportunities for you to write the story that the real writers didn't.
So why pay to see the movie when you'll be writing it inside your head anyway?
I don't see it that way. I paid to see their movie. Their movie was badly written. The only way their movie would make sense is if I did the extra work and fixed it in my head.
Why stop there? With that viewpoint, everything, no matter how badly done, is just another opportunity for you to fill in the holes with your imagination.
Attack of the Clones. A great movie. There is just so much room for your imagination to work.
In fact, the less of a movie there is, the more you can make it a great movie by filling it in with your imagination.
Until you get to the point of just not going to the movies and just letting your imagination work.
If I'm going to do that, I'm going to keep the money I'd have paid for the ticket.
You should NOT see them in the theatre.
You should have enough alcohol nearby to erase your short term memory after watching them. Should you feel the need to.
No one's been within 100KM of the machine city. That's what they said in the movie.
Unless they build the Matrix and all those people towers far away from the city. But why have the baby fields just outside the city then?
Besides, Zion is deep enough in the rock to shield any machines from EMP.
A better answer would be "the same reason the machines use humans instead of nuclear power".
The machines don't have nuclear technology and lack the imagination to discover it on their own. The machines can only run programs within defined boundaries.
That would have made a better movie. Humans not bound by "fate" and machines whose actions follow pre-defined structures.
And the machines could not use the humans in the Matrix to work on nuclear technology because the humans can only work with things the machines can create in the Matrix.
The answer is that writers-directors did not know enough philosophy to answer those questions. So they didn't.
Instead, they fell back on CGI effects and hoped that those lesser educated individuals would be sufficiently satisified with those to pay the ticket prices.
There are no deeper questions unanswered. It is a badly done movie where the writers-directors focused more on visual effects than on content.
As was noted in the into to that article, any movie you thought you'd be seeing would have been better than the one they produced.
Her death scene went on too long. "Just DIE already" was heard in the theatre. People didn't want Neo and Trinity to live happily ever after. They wanted decent answers to the questions.
What is wrong with expecting a movie to have an conclusion? The first movie didn't have that same problem. No one was asking whether the Matrix was real or illusion.
As I've noted before, lots of people think this was a good movie. And lots of three year olds think Barney is a good show.
They ask questions, that is okay.
But when they have Neo actually affecting reality, those questions HAVE to be answered.
In the first movie, Neo did not affect reality, only the illusion. So the questions were okay as they were left.
Once Neo kills machines in the real world by thinking at them, HOW he does that needs to be answered.
I'm glad you're pleased with movie #3. Many three year olds are pleased watching hour after hour of Barney.
Draw your own conclusions from that.
Movie #1
What if what you think is reality is not real?
How would you be able to tell?
Movie #2
What if the person you think you are is not who you are?
Why do you choose what you choose?
Is there a choice?
Can I choose to have really long fight and rave scenes instead of looking at those questions?
How many useless characters can I fit in one movie?
Movie #3
How about if everyone talks about love and we blow shit up?
What if I focus on visual effects rather than story? Will anyone who matters notice?
If I'm out of ideas, can I rip off other movies?
Can I end a series while still making sure that I have an opening in case I need to make another movie to bring in more cash?
I could have just used my imagination?
Did you miss the concept of "movie" somewhere?
I'm paying to see something that someone else imagined. If I have to fill in the holes with my imagination then they did not do a very good job.
Which is the major complaint I've see about M2 and M3. They did not do a very good job. Which is exactly what that quote on the intro of the article said.
"...whatever third (Matrix) movie you envisioned in your head, no matter how lame, has got to be better than this."
-critic at Rotten Tomatoes.com on The Matrix: Revolutions
And you're saying that this is how it should be done?
When the Matrix is cleaned up, you don't see any humans. Only programs.
Neo died when Agent Smith was killed. So the other humans that Smith had taken over would have died also when Smith was killed.
There aren't any humans left in the Matrix. Smith had taken them all over. That was why you only saw Smith looking out of those windows.
What's left of Zion is what is left of the human race.
If the movie doesn't have him waking up as Alice did, what does that make the series?
Don't forget terrible editing. Watch "Assassination Tango" for an example of that.
Don't forget bad acting. It can have a great story with awesome cinematography and plain bad acting.
The original movie was good. But after that, I think they suffer from bad writing (content), poor acting and terrible editing (shorten the scenes).
On the plus side, they have great effects and very nice cinematography.
Anyone who does not like a movie that someone else liked did not "get" it.
This can be taken a number of ways. From the "you aren't smart enough to understand it" to "you aren't cool enough to understand the references" down to "you aren't uneducated enough to think that this material hasn't been done to death already".
How many people want to watch 12 hours of "Barney"? Dude, you just don't "get" Barney.
But there are lots of 3 year olds that would love that.
And they'll watch it over and over and over.
The Matrix was a decent movie. A little bit off on the science bit (human batteries) with some light philosophy thrown in and lots of guns and explosions and a hot chick in leather.
The sequels aren't as good. There's the "Matrix" world which is a computer simulation but the computers have real locations in the real world.
Now there is a "world between"?
They aren't keep up with their philosophy. There is the real world, there is the fantasy world that you have to wake up from, but now there is a third reality?
The way the fantasy world affects the real world is with the squids. They don't need the Smith character in the real world. He doesn't provide any clarification of the plot.
Neo should not be affecting the squids in the real world. Fantasy powers should stay in the fantasy world. I can accept that you die in the real world if you're killed in the fantasy world because that injects an element of danger. Otherwise, there wouldn't be any real threat to people operating in the Matrix.
The biggest problem I see with this trilogy is that it wasn't planned to be a trilogy. The second movie invalidated parts of the first movie and the third movie invalidated parts of the first and second movies.
It keeps the space junk from hitting the Enterprise.
I'd prefer to use a reverse positron beam directed through the sub-space transmitter.
Novell doesn't have any experience at running a Linux distribution.
They'd be trying to support their Novell brand by associating it with SuSe.
But that doesn't work now. A company in decline cannot turn itself around by buying a company on the rise. All it will do is waste money and bring both companies down.
Rather than doing that, Novell needs to understand what the GPL means and start getting Novell licensed code out there. Novell should form a partnership with SuSe and Red Hat and pay for the development of the technology Novell needs to link with Linux.
Just 1/100th of the price they offered should be enough to make eDirectory the prefered directory on Linux workstations and servers.
Why buy SuSE?
Why not just put a couple developers on your payroll and have them work on stuff that's important to you and release it for all the distributions?
I think they're still stuck in the old game of trying to control (and reap profits from) the various components.
How many programmers could you hire for how long with the money you'd spend on buying a whole company? Why not do that instead?
It only took a few hundred dollars to pay her off.
Even extortion is cheaper when done overseas.
Open Office had no problem with the spreadsheet and PDF's are easily read under Linux.
It has to be a view you do not agree with.
If someone had an extreme view that Rob Enderle was just the greatest writer ever, he wouldn't view that person as a "terrorist".
They're only "terrorists" when they have major disagreements with him and call him an idiot.
Here's a direct quote from it:
"I have a hard time seeing the Zealots as any different from terrorists because of the nature of their threats."
Whatsamatta? You no speeka de English?
Terrorists kill people. They kill PEOPLE.
And he has a hard time seeing a difference between someone killing someone and someone arguing with him?
I think that qualifies as an "idiot".
Why? I'll just vote for people who will reverse those laws.
He uses the term "terrorists" to describe people who argue with him and say he's an idiot.
The proof that he is an idiot is in that he calls people who argue with him "terrorists".
Terrorists kill people. Terrorists maim people.
Rob Enderle is in no physical danger.
Anyone who cannot tell the difference between someone arguing a point and a terrorist is an idiot.
Please feel free to include yourself in that category.
You are not allowed to use facts against the government's propaganda campaign.
Iraq has been proven to have been almost capable of starting a research program on determining the feasiblily of embarking upon a concentrated effort to begin the acquisition of materials that could be dual-purposed and used in the production of WMD's!
And once they had those WMD's, well, then it would be too late for us to actually support UN inspectors who would have been looking for just such research programs and stuff.
And we damn sure wouldn't want Saddam to have them knowing that if he ever used any of them against us or gave them to anyone to use against us, we'd invade his country and bomb the shit out of his cities and kill his sons.
Wait. We did that last part already.
So. Just shut up. WMD's are scary. Real scary! You should be scared of them and trust your government because they know more about them.