posted
Beatnix made the point that the movies are art, and as such we can only react to them and say whether we "like" or "dislike" them. I think there's another step, really, and that's to stop patronizing the artists you don't like.
I liked the Matrix quite a bit. So much so that I supported the artists with my money by paying to see the movie a second and third time in the theater, buying the video and subsequently the DVD once I got a DVD player. I even gave them more money for Reloaded on the trust that they would continue producing art I enjoyed.
They didn't, and so I stop supporting them. I did not see Reloaded again, nor will I buy it on DVD. Further, I will not see Revolutions in the theater or buy it on DVD, and I hestitate to even rent it. Why? Because I refuse to be a party to the financial machine that causes pathetic sequels to be made, that causes art I do not like to be supported.
I just wish more people would simply not pay to see them movie, rather than paying to see it to see just how bad it is. Doing that does nothing positive - it only contributes to the movie's success.
I agree with Chris entirely. Neo's character stopped progressing when there was no reason to. He altered reality with his mind, transcending the need to fight hand-to-hand, instead bypassing fighting entirely to destroy an agent from the inside. He used a backdoor. He flew, totally throwing out the laws of gravity. He saw the world in code, fully accepting it as a stream of information that can be manipulated and controlled and throwing out more laws of physics, such as those dealing with sight, sound, hearing, etc.
He was a hacker, and while I understand hackers are not the gods of technology they are often made to be in movies, they are good at one thing. Breaking the rules, or at least bending them. They bypass security measures, subvert passwords, use backdoors, and create viruses that wreak havoc in otherwise normal systems. Hackers are the type of people who find cheat codes, game cracks, and play in God mode.
That's really what Neo was given. He was playing in God Mode, yet he didn't use any of that power. Leto, you make a valid point that you can't totally reconstruct a system without access to the source code. But we aren't talking about total revamping of the Matrix itself - merely using the rules of the system in ways they weren't intended.
It's like having a Game Genie, a front-end box that allows you manipulate the game code. Neo could have made his skin impenentrable, caused people to burst into flames, exorcize agents from human hosts, or phase shift like the ghosts. But he didn't. The movie was not about self-discovery, or even human potential. It became a movie about "beating up the bad guys" and exploiting the kewl CGI.
And for that, they no longer deserve my money. It's not like that'll stop them, but enough drops in a bucket like mine and maybe they'll drown... at least that would save us from their making any more movies.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't think I'm going to tackle that topic. Sorry if I led you on.
Fair enough. For the record, though, you're not fun at all.
saxon75:
quote:Um, ae, I don't get what you're saying. At first it sounds like you are saying we can and should disagree with each other and debate each other's opinions on movies because otherwise it'd be boring and not much of a discussion. But then you say that you shouldn't act like the other person is actually wrong because the experience is so personal.
What I'm saying is pretty simple. When discussing things, one ought to argue about ideas. All ideas are limited to some extent by subjectivity, but this does not preclude the possibility of meaningful discussion. What I am arguing against are basically ad hominems. Things like "you only say that because you have no taste" or "you're only reacting like this because you take art way too seriously". These are value judgements that have no bearing on the discussion; someone's lack of taste or propensity to take art too seriously is relevant only insofar as it manifests itself in his or her arguments, in which case one should go straight to dealing with those rather than slinging shit about how one's opponent is approaching things with the wrong mentality. I'm assuming, of course, that the person in question is interested in conducting a meaningful discussion in the first place.
FlyingCow:
quote:I just wish more people would simply not pay to see them movie, rather than paying to see it to see just how bad it is. Doing that does nothing positive - it only contributes to the movie's success.
But how am I to know if I want to support the movie if I don't see the movie in the first place? I mean, I can't know if it's bad if I don't watch it. I can decide based on reviews and past experiences that a particular movie's probably not worth my taking a risk on, but that's based on pragmatism rather than principle.
Posts: 2443 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Beatnix made the point that the movies are art, and as such we can only react to them and say whether we "like" or "dislike" them. I think there's another step, really, and that's to stop patronizing the artists you don't like.
I agree, in fact I believe that a good friend of ours has a similar notion.
quote: Criticisms. OSC has no illusion that everybody likes all his books equally. But he likes all his books. So perhaps a signing is not the occasion to tell him which of his books you did not care for. After all, you would hardly say to a parent you just met, "I really love all your children except Bucky. He's ugly and he smells." It might be true, but the parent does not want to hear it. (Besides, what exactly can OSC do about it? The book you didn't like has already been published.) If, on the other hand, you found a specific typographical error, internal contradiction, or historical or scientific error in a book, it would be kind of you to write a note about it and give it to him so that he has it in writing and can pass it along to the editor of the next edition.
-from What to Expect at a OSC Signing, Hatrack.com
posted
ae, you base your decision on past experiences.
If you put your hand on one hot iron and it burns you, you don't say "gee, I wonder if this other hot iron will do the same thing". You avoid putting your hands on hot irons.
If you disliked Matrix Reloaded, why go see Revolutions - you're only supporting art you don't like. Now, if you enjoyed Matrix Reloaded, it makes sense that you'd see Revolutions - you're patronizing artists you like.
There's no need to see Revolutions to say you don't want to see it. Would you go see Gigli 2 if it were made, just to see how bad it is? Is that worth a $9 investment? How about Glitter 2?
I'm talking about being proactive rather than reactive. Paying for the movie *at all* contributes to its success, and guarantees that more movies like it will be made. I'd rather put my money toward a movie I like, so that more like *it* can be made.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you disliked Matrix Reloaded, why go see Revolutions - you're only supporting art you don't like.
Maybe because I thought Reloaded made a decent middle for a trilogy, at least until I saw what the end of the trilogy was.
quote:Now, if you enjoyed Matrix Reloaded, it makes sense that you'd see Revolutions - you're patronizing artists you like.
Well yeah, and that's exactly what I did. Guess what? As you'll have gathered, I didn't end up liking it. So what do I do now? I can't take my money back. All I can do is bitch and moan about why I didn't like it. What's wrong with that?
Posts: 2443 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:What I'm saying is pretty simple. When discussing things, one ought to argue about ideas. All ideas are limited to some extent by subjectivity, but this does not preclude the possibility of meaningful discussion. What I am arguing against are basically ad hominems. Things like "you only say that because you have no taste" or "you're only reacting like this because you take art way too seriously". These are value judgements that have no bearing on the discussion; someone's lack of taste or propensity to take art too seriously is relevant only insofar as it manifests itself in his or her arguments, in which case one should go straight to dealing with those rather than slinging shit about how one's opponent is approaching things with the wrong mentality. I'm assuming, of course, that the person in question is interested in conducting a meaningful discussion in the first place.
When discussing art, what is a meaningful discussion? In a situation like this, it really all just boils down to taste and mindset. So if we are disagreeing on why the movie was good or bad, it stands to reason that your taste and my taste are different and incompatible. I posit that no one actually thinks his own taste is poor. Therefore, if my own taste is good and yours is different, you must have bad taste. So if it all just boils down to taste, and each of us is thinking that the other one has bad taste, is is just better to leave that as an unspoken assumption? And if it alright to attack my opinions about the movie, which are ultimately based on nothing more than my personal preferences, then why is it not alright to attack my personal preferences? And if it's not alright to attack my personal preferences, why is it alright to attack the opinions based on them?
You and others have certainly been vocal advocates of the "this movie sucks" camp. If I think it was a good movie, how should I go about disagreeing with you in such a manner as to conduct a "meaningful discussion" but is not just "you think it's bad and I think it's good 'nuff said"?
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey thank you for posting that bit about the OSC signing. I know that this is irrelevant to the Matrix thread but it is very personally relevant to me.
The fact is, I know of an extremely minor error in Crystal City (my real life last name is spelled wrong in the credits) and I was going to let it go, because I didn't want to bug OSC and Kristine about it. I was honored to be there at all. But after reading that, my guess is that he would WANT it to be correct so I think I will tell him at the signing in Cincinatti. At the very least, I'll have him cross it out and correct it in his own handwriting and 200 years from now it will be a collectors edition!
quote:If you disliked Matrix Reloaded, why go see Revolutions - you're only supporting art you don't like.
Actually I saw Revolutions because I was hoping it would complete Reloaded. I thought Reloaded, while fun to watch, was flawed and incomplete, but I purposely refused to form any lasting opinions about it since it was plainly half a movie.
quote:When discussing art, what is a meaningful discussion? In a situation like this, it really all just boils down to taste and mindset. So if we are disagreeing on why the movie was good or bad, it stands to reason that your taste and my taste are different and incompatible.
Different, undoubtedly. Incompatible? Not at all. If I know why you did or didn't like something, it helps me understand why you might or might not like something else. The more information I can get about your tastes, the more accurately I can trust your opinions on movies (or whatever) that I haven't seen yet. Movie critics are useless until you read enough of their work to be able to adjust your mental sights accordingly. One favorite reviewer has great taste in movies but in his eyes Disney can do no wrong, so from experience I know how far I can trust him to reliably help me. Another reviewer can't separate the actors' private lives from their work, so I can't trust him at all. See what I mean? Even value judgments can be useful if they're consistent. I've got an old evangelical Christian movie guide that was extremely helpful in choosing movies to rent, as long as I was careful to pick the ones they hated.
And there's always the chance that you'll help me see something that I missed the first time, or a different way to interpret the movie I thought I saw. Something that was incomprehensible to me that I would have dismissed as the director's fault might just be because I missed something I shouldn't have, and contrary opinions can help me examine my own opinions to see if I still agree with myself or not.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chris, you've been quite even in tone in this thread, so I wasn't really talking to you. You do have a good point about using the dialogue as a way to help you know who to trust help you find a movie, game, book, or other product that you like. However, since most of the intense movie discussions on boards like this happen between people who have already seen the film in question, it becomes less clear that that is the goal of this discussion. I suppose that there are some people who prefer to know what's going to happen before it does, but I don't think most people do, and reading this thread would certainly ruin any possible surprises that movie has in store.
I liked your most recent post, although one thing did bug me a little:
quote:One favorite reviewer has great taste in movies
See, what you really mean by "great taste in movies" is "the same taste in movies as me." And I think that's the kind of thing that leads to these bitter arguments. Not that it's wrong to mean that--there's obviously no objective standard against which we can measure taste--but I think a lot of people aren't going to make that distinction. And there's also the inherent value judgment in such a statement: if great taste is defined as my taste, than what isn't to my taste must be bad taste. Therefore, if you don't agree with my taste, you must have bad taste.
And while I do agree that it is possible for a person to change his mind based on one of these discussions, I really don't think it happens often enough to make it a reasonable goal in general.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
ae, there's nothing wrong about kvetching about the movie. It's healthy. Hey, I did plenty of it after Reloaded... so much so, that I wasn't about to give another Matrix movie the benefit of the doubt.
Now, if, after seeing Revolutions and disliking it, and feeling let down or even betrayed by the creatures, you *still* go see another film in this universe, then that's just silly.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. If you see a bad movie, gripe all you want... but don't spend money to see it again, or buy the DVD, or see its sequel. That just promotes more of what you don't like.
Not saying you would do any of that, but it bugs me when people (not you) say things like "I had to see for myself how bad it was" or "I hated Reloaded *and* Revolutions". I've been hearing stuff like that at work, and my opinion of the speakers drops a little each time.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:When discussing art, what is a meaningful discussion? In a situation like this, it really all just boils down to taste and mindset. So if we are disagreeing on why the movie was good or bad, it stands to reason that your taste and my taste are different and incompatible. I posit that no one actually thinks his own taste is poor. Therefore, if my own taste is good and yours is different, you must have bad taste. So if it all just boils down to taste, and each of us is thinking that the other one has bad taste, is is just better to leave that as an unspoken assumption?
In a word, yes. In three words, yes, of course. It's called "courtesy", and is a necessary lubricant for civil discussion to continue.
quote:You and others have certainly been vocal advocates of the "this movie sucks" camp. If I think it was a good movie, how should I go about disagreeing with you in such a manner as to conduct a "meaningful discussion" but is not just "you think it's bad and I think it's good 'nuff said"?
Well, just as an example, when I say "the characters are cardboard", you can point out bits of the movie that you found fleshed out the characters and made them real to you. Or you can argue that the characters aren't the point, and it's really a movie of ideas. And I respond that the ideas in the movie aren't really new at all, so it can scarcely be called a movie of ideas. And then you say that their not being new does not prevent them from being worth addressing, or that the movie explores these old ideas in a new way. And so on.
You know, the sort of things that go on in Hatrack threads that aren't about art.
Posts: 2443 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
>> It became a movie about "beating up the bad guys" and exploiting the kewl CGI. << (FlyingCow)
...which, as I've said, is exactly what the first movie was.
People put The Matrix up on a pedestal as though it was some sort of untouchable cinematic masterpiece. It wasn't. It was great, but not because of the dialogue or story – it was great because of the cinematography, CGI, and kung fu.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, I just saw this movie and really liked it. When Smith said Everything that has a beginning has an end at the very last point, everything clicked for me and I knew what was going to happen.
If you really understand the ending then you can go back through all three movies and see that all of it really did have a purpose and fits together quite nicely. There are no unanswered questions really. It all fell into place.
I was, however, the only person who got it at the time. After the movie I explained it all to my friends who went who were grumbling about the ending being unclear, and now they all loved it because they understand.
Silly people, if you get the movie, its good. I guess if you sit through three movies and then can't figure out what happened, you probably wont like them.
I was gonna just post what all the answers to the "unanswered" questions were, but I really just don't care. You can figure it out for yourselves or ask me on some other day when I feel like typing that much.
posted
Please do not assume that everyone who dislikes Revolutions dislikes it because they do not understand it.
Posts: 2443 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I never said everyone who disliked it disliked it because they misunderstood it. I said that of course people who don't understand a movie don't like it as much as people who do.
Remember those little graphs that show how groups overlap or are included in each other, think of it like that. There's a big red box of people who dislike the movie, and somewhere inside that red box is a purple space for people who misunderstood it.
::shakes head and laughs::
I shouldn't post when I've been up all night and am in a foul mood.
posted
They may be called that, I didn't want to say Venn Diagrams because thats the circles you always used in english class. I'm talking about a color coded system we used in math class, but it may just be the same thing. Middle school was so long ago that the memory is a bit foggy.
posted
Someone help me out here please. What purpose did Neo serve? If he was there simply to stop Smith is this whole trilogy about the vase incident in the first film? His purpose being to stop Smith though he’s the reason Smith is there? So the one’s purpose is to stop the OTHER one? As far as I can see Neo failed. He gave in. he didn’t fight against Smith taking him over and died at the hand of the machine (which is understandable having just lost his girl and all). Leaving them right back at the beginning except …without the one. I kept waiting for the coup de Gras, the hidden weapon, the sucker punch… something! I think they lost track of the real problem here. The machines and/or programs wasn’t the real problem. Their NEED for humans as their energy source was the problem. That should have been their focus or at least the council’s topic of debate. Why weren’t they at odds with each other? Unified government is where I draw the line. Reality was lost right there to me.
The whole train scene was not necessary. There was no real point to it. They should of left that character in “Ghost” where he made sense and belonged. Unless of course they were trying to say that the merry vagina man created the comatose state. But then, who cares. We didn’t need to see Neo’s fist up against smith’s face like every boxing movie ever made to show his strength. To show Neo‘s strength, I would have preferred to see Neo punch the “ Smith “ out of people... having the ground be littered with bodies at the end of the fight…esp. since in the first film Morphius makes a point about strength having nothing to do with muscles etc. And for that matter, right before Smith consumes Neo I would have liked to have seen Neo tell smith about a revelation that HE had had about programs and machines, or perhaps reminding Smith of His revelation about humans and then Smith follow through yada yada and then in the real world have the face made of millions of squigglies (was this really necessary) get distorted, reform into Neo’s face just long enough for Keanu to do his traditional …WOA… which we could all philosophize was the last step to his transformation into a virus that shuts down machine city …dropping all squigs to the ground etc… That ending would have been a lot more fun .. if for no reason then simply because part one was a fluke. There’s no way in hell they could top that or even come close which, I think is what everyone was expecting.
I for one was rooting for Smith. Is that wrong. He’s the only character I could relate to. Not knowing why you’re here, rebelling against the rules of conduct, defying the powers that be, failing over and over again at one particular goal and being overwhelmed by that frustration, manipulating everyone around you into accomplishing your goals, trying to mark territory and make a name for yourself, sounds like your average 30 year old dude to me.
Ok, I sleep now. No wait. Huh No..that’s it.
Posts: 26 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Neo didn't give in, he realized the only way to defeat Smith was to stop existing. Sorta. The one was created to unbalance the system, which is the Oracle's job. Smith was created as a result of the Architect's program balancing the system. So if Neo ceases to exist, the system will once again balance itself, in this case by destroying Smith.
Yes, i suppose you could say the whole trilogy was about the vase scene. It was very important. The scene between Smith and the Oracle in revolutions was just as important.
The way I understood it, the machines will still get power from the humans who choose to stay inside the matrix. Obviously some will choose to stay, the choice between a world with no sun and no niceities and a world where humans are at the peak of their existence is a tough one for some people. After all, the matrix seems just like real life. Think back to the first one when that guy wanted back in. The matrix has a certain appeal over real life. Those that want out will get out. That was the conversation between the Architect and the Oracle in the final scene.
You are sort of back at the beginning, but the machines and humans are at peace for now. They aren't trying to destroy each other. Eventually the war will probably start up again. Very few peace agreements last for long, particularly when one side is holding all the resources, so to speak.
Eventually the whole thing will start over again, which was explained again and again during the second movie. It all fits together. You really should have seen this type of ending coming.
Neo had to die -- that was pretty clear in the last film. The only way to kill Smith was to also kill Neo. Oracle made that clear when she said "he is you -- he is the opposite of you". At that point I knew that Neo would have to die in order to destroy Smith. Kind of a ying/yang thing (did I spell that right?)
But as others say -- we all agree the peace will last for awhile -- but eventually, those humans who have chosen to come out -- they will want again to get their world back from the machines, and it will start over.
And we are never given all the details of the deal Neo made with the Architect at the end. He said he wanted peace -- then they cut to another scene, and then when they cut back to Neo, the two (Neo and the Architect) were in agreement -- who knows what terms they agreed to in exchange for Neo giving his life in order to destroy Smith.
Posts: 9538 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
i disagree with you prolix, i dont believe Neo was a creation to unbalance the system. He was the result of an unbalanced system. what you're saying implies then that with every version there was a counter part to the one. An ANTI ONE. which no one mentions at all. if that were the case and these two were together the one then for sure the Architect would have referred to Neo as being a part of the one. What do you mean when you say the Oracle's Job. She was searching for not creating ones. how would the system have destroyed Smith if Neo ceased to exist? what if Smith succeded in killing him in the real world. doesnt fit.
so what choice did he have then. choose this door and fight smith to the death or, take a shortcut to your death through the other door. Zion will still be destroyed but the matrix wont undergo a severe make over job by Smith's design.. i'm not feelin that. i think if what was different this time around as opposed to the last six was the creation of this anti one then it all makes sense, but thing the Love thing becomes irrelevant.
what's really sad to me is that i've seen the first film a million and two times, the second i saw several times ( hey, I LIKE the stop action effects) but i have no motivation and/or desire to see the third more then once. Not to say it was entirely bad, just not great. but its ok. yes, i'm a little scatter brained.
Posts: 26 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
