Guest TheZsaszHorsemen Posted June 1, 2003 Report Posted June 1, 2003 Agent Smith himself said the goal was for everyone to be happy, and that is why it failed, because the humans wouldn't accept it. There are so many James Bond movies, it's hard for anyone to dislike them all. My personal favorite of the ones I have seen is From Russia With Love. That one struck me as having the most spy like intrigue with a concept I could sink my teeth into. Good answer. I like the Dalton films the best personally, but lately I've been on a Moore kick.
Guest TheMadmanGreg Posted June 1, 2003 Report Posted June 1, 2003 I know it was really really cheesy... but I've always like Moonraker. Goldfinger was good too.
Guest Spicy McHaggis Posted June 1, 2003 Report Posted June 1, 2003 The matrix is not punishment. If it were, there would not have been any attempt to make the first itteration perfect, where all humans could be happy. You lose all credibility if you don't understand this most basic element of the story. The machines use humans as an energy source. Humans die quickly with no mental stimulus. The Matrix is a way to enslave the human mind. However, the mind must still accept the Matrix as "real". A utopia, the 1st matrix, is not believable and, moreso, unmotivating to the point of mental shutdown. Utopian matrix = No matrix Both cause a lack of stimulus, resulting in a shorter lifespan, producing less energy. The perfect matrix is a mix of "happiness" and believability allowing the mind to make the choice of accepting it as real. The Matrix is a punishment that enslaves the mind, while stimulating every human to a healthy lifespan which produces a good output of energy. The need to refine it to the point of "perfection" should be clear.
Guest Nanks Posted June 1, 2003 Report Posted June 1, 2003 I find it quite amusing that that reviewer would make the point about Neo blocking the sword and bleeding as a plot hole. Do you really think they go to bullet time and zoom in on a plot hole?? Idiot. That one scene is supposed to be the big indicator to the audience that Neo still hasn't accepted the "there is no spoon" idea. He turned and looked when he blocked and when he saw the sword his mind momentarily panicked thinking, "Oh shit, a sword, there goes my hand," before remembering that it's not real and stopping the sword. If he's going to try and pick the movie apart at least he could try to understand it first. Don't knock the Oracle's bodyguard, he will be in Revolutions (saw him in the trailer after the credits) and methinks he's 'turning heel' to borrow a phrase. That small scene was setting up the idea that this guy can hang with Neo in a fight, and it was a short scene. As for the 'resuscitating Trinity' scene, I think it was made quite clear that Neo putting his hand into Trinity hurt a great deal by the fact that she screamed and passed out. It seems to me that Neo's love is what allows him to bend the Matrix most effectively as it focusses him somewhat. ie. "I've never seen anything move that fast" when he was ripping through the air to catch Trinity. But back to why he had to manually pump Trinity's heart, your own argument about Trinity being plugged into the matrix works against you, her mind couldn't possibly accept the bullet just dissolving, it would require her heart to be pumped to accept being resuscitated.
Guest TheMadmanGreg Posted June 1, 2003 Report Posted June 1, 2003 *sigh* So many retorts... so few intelligent retorts.
Guest Nanks Posted June 1, 2003 Report Posted June 1, 2003 Perhaps you could rebutt my retort with evidence as opposed to presuming to be above it... *Sigh* So many posers.....so many unintelligent posers...
Guest Nanks Posted June 2, 2003 Report Posted June 2, 2003 I wouldn't if I were you either, (yes I get what you are trying to say, very clever), perhaps you could put your shining wit to use with something constructive EDIT: Spot the spoonerism, no Kotz, not you.
Guest SP-1 Posted June 2, 2003 Report Posted June 2, 2003 Greg, your gimmick notwithstanding, your sig is way too wide. It's disrupting windows sometimes.
Guest TheMadmanGreg Posted June 2, 2003 Report Posted June 2, 2003 I wouldn't if I were you either, (yes I get what you are trying to say, very clever), perhaps you could put your shining wit to use with something constructive Unfortunately, putting my wit to use with something constructive would be a major break in character.
Guest Nanks Posted June 2, 2003 Report Posted June 2, 2003 That you've so firmly and importantly established with your 12 posts??? I've never understood this "gimmick" shit. It's a discussion forum not a pantomime. If you can't constructively discuss something for fear of "breaking character" what's the fuckin' point??
Guest Riots bloodlust Posted June 2, 2003 Report Posted June 2, 2003 As for the guardian, why does he need to check if Neo is who he says he is when the Oracle would already know that? If, on the other hand, he takes this step to guard the Oracle, why was this step absent in the first movie? For brain dead people dying, I think the people in vegetative states who can survive without life support till they die of old age speak against that idea. As for Neo's fluctuating abilities, He appears to be able to stop bullets with no problem, and fly more or less at will. From that I am hearing that he cannot accept being able to pull a sai from the wall unless it is a life threatening situation, and the blood coming from his hand when blocking a sword is to illustrate that he cannot accept this whole idea yet. Those thoughts don't seem to mesh cleanly for me. For saving trinity, it was said that she could accept Neo's hand diving into her, but she couldn't accept the bullet dissolving. The matrix would have stopped feeding her brain the stimuli telling her that she had a mortal wound, and a bit of lead in her body. The question isn't only about what she perceives to be the case, but also what the matrix is telling her is the case. I would make the point that the idea of "the one" is being able to make the leap on every level, cognitively to instinctually that what the matrix is telling you isn't reality, and "the one" is therefore able to ignore this stimulus and alter the surroundings.
The Dames Posted June 2, 2003 Report Posted June 2, 2003 As for the guardian, why does he need to check if Neo is who he says he is when the Oracle would already know that? If, on the other hand, he takes this step to guard the Oracle, why was this step absent in the first movie? Nick, in the first movie, the location of the Oracle was known to everyone who's mind had been freed. Many people had already gone to see the Oracle and everyone was welcome. In Reloaded, one of the first things said was that the Oracle was in hiding and they were waiting for her to make contact with them. Because of the fact that she was in hiding, she needed some security in the form of the Guardian. Dames
Guest TheMadmanGreg Posted June 2, 2003 Report Posted June 2, 2003 That you've so firmly and importantly established with your 12 posts??? I've never understood this "gimmick" shit. It's a discussion forum not a pantomime. If you can't constructively discuss something for fear of "breaking character" what's the fuckin' point?? The beautiful thing about America is that it's a free country. I can post whatever I want. I can decide that I like the idea that I feel like being in character whenever. I can decide to break character whenever. I am fully within my rights to contribute to a thread, then, on the same day, decide it's not worth my effort or time. I can decide that the reasons I give for doing so. I could say "because I'm bored" or I could say "because you suck" or I could say "because I don't want to break character." And, having done no harm to anybody else, this is all acceptable. And (God bless this land) I can do all these things regardless of whether or not you approve or understand. So, while I take this moment to stand up and salute Old Glory, you can try to think of something witty to say now. Or not. It doesn't matter. It's a free country.
Guest TheMadmanGreg Posted June 2, 2003 Report Posted June 2, 2003 In Reloaded, one of the first things said was that the Oracle was in hiding and they were waiting for her to make contact with them. Because of the fact that she was in hiding, she needed some security in the form of the Guardian. What was Oracle hiding from? All of the things that were trying to get her (the outcasts) were around at the time of the first movie. Did they, in the 6 months between #1 and #2, just decide that they wanted to kill the oracle? The only way I can see around this is that Smith is the new threat, and all the outcasts, although claiming to be a threat, really are just pretending to be a threat in order to get Neo to finally reach his destiny. All in all, I've put WAY too much thought into this movie. I find it's best, when it gets to this point, to simply lay back and say: "Hey! This movie has big gaping plotholes that detract from the story, so I think it sucks... and that's ok, because lots of movies suck." Ah... I feel better already.
The Dames Posted June 2, 2003 Report Posted June 2, 2003 In Reloaded, one of the first things said was that the Oracle was in hiding and they were waiting for her to make contact with them. Because of the fact that she was in hiding, she needed some security in the form of the Guardian. What was Oracle hiding from? All of the things that were trying to get her (the outcasts) were around at the time of the first movie. Did they, in the 6 months between #1 and #2, just decide that they wanted to kill the oracle? With the machines getting closer to Zion and the humans in more trouble than ever before, one can assume that the Oracle didn't want to expose herself too openly and allow humans to be susceptable to attack. However, now knowing that the Oracle is a program, it's possible that her disappearance was a ruse on the part of the Matrix itself. Dames
Guest TheMadmanGreg Posted June 2, 2003 Report Posted June 2, 2003 In Reloaded, one of the first things said was that the Oracle was in hiding and they were waiting for her to make contact with them. Because of the fact that she was in hiding, she needed some security in the form of the Guardian. What was Oracle hiding from? All of the things that were trying to get her (the outcasts) were around at the time of the first movie. Did they, in the 6 months between #1 and #2, just decide that they wanted to kill the oracle? With the machines getting closer to Zion and the humans in more trouble than ever before, one can assume that the Oracle didn't want to expose herself too openly and allow humans to be susceptable to attack. However, now knowing that the Oracle is a program, it's possible that her disappearance was a ruse on the part of the Matrix itself. Dames Dames, you know I hate going around in circles more than most people.... but: if the disappearance was a ruse, why does she need a bodyguard? And I won't buy in that it's part of the ruse. It's unnecessary.
The Dames Posted June 2, 2003 Report Posted June 2, 2003 Well, I strongly believe that it's the former and not the latter, but if it IS the latter, then yes, the Guardian would simply be a ruse to make The One or whoever believe that the Oracle is on their side and needs protection from the machines. Dames
Guest TheMadmanGreg Posted June 2, 2003 Report Posted June 2, 2003 In relation to the former, if the Oracle is simply in place to get Neo to the Architect, and she knows that the humans will be destroyed, why does she care if they are open to attack? Wow... here I go again, thinking too much.
Guest Riots bloodlust Posted June 2, 2003 Report Posted June 2, 2003 Don't forget that the Oracle is all but omnicient. Hiding would then be redundant, because she would know where anyone looking for her would be, and where they would be going.
Guest Nanks Posted June 2, 2003 Report Posted June 2, 2003 I love it how Americans always resort back to the tired old "free country" babble when questioned. No one questioned your rights or any of that bullshit, fool, I asked the point. God some Yanks are tiresome. Anyway back on topic. I would suggest that Smith could well be the factor the oracle might require protection from, although he made no concerted effort to get to her.... I could see the Oracle's need for protection coming to light in Revolutions though, both she and the bodyguard were featured in the trailer.
Guest TheMadmanGreg Posted June 2, 2003 Report Posted June 2, 2003 I love it how Americans always resort back to the tired old "free country" babble when questioned. No one questioned your rights or any of that bullshit, fool, I asked the point. God some Yanks are tiresome. Anyway back on topic. I would suggest that Smith could well be the factor the oracle might require protection from, although he made no concerted effort to get to her.... I could see the Oracle's need for protection coming to light in Revolutions though, both she and the bodyguard were featured in the trailer. You're absolutely right. You asked the point. The point is: I can. I need no other point. That's who I am... not as a character, but as a person. I understand fully that the movie is silly and posting about on a message board is silly and arguing about it on a message board is silly, and that I am acting in a silly manner doing so. As a result, I do just about whatever I please, and since I function within the rules of the board, it's all okay. So that's why: because it's far too silly to take too seriously. And, keeping on topic, the Oracle and her bodyguard may very well have a full role in Revolution, that does not really change the fact that it was really unimportant in this movie as a stand-alone. And, it truly is a stand-alone, since I have no intention of seeing Revolution. And in other news, you really really need to give the Revolution trailer less credit. It was 30 seconds.
Guest Nanks Posted June 2, 2003 Report Posted June 2, 2003 Calling the movie a stand-alone is just stupid. It wasn't even filmed as a stand-alone, if you can't enjoy it because you don't deem the next part to be worthy of your viewing then that's your ridiculousness, not a fault of the film. Yes, the trailer was just 30 secs, but it shows who will be involved in Revolutions and from that it can be assumed that questions about them might be addressed.
Guest edge007 Posted June 2, 2003 Report Posted June 2, 2003 JUST LIKE THE MOVIE FOR WHAT IT IS! I'd hate to think that you guys analyse like this all of the time. Right now, you are pointing out all of the negatives and flaws, and therefore totally wrecking the movie in it's entirety. Look at the positives. Movies and Storys are there to be listened to ans watched...not to be analysed to a point of ludicrousy. However, you did have some very good points. But... How many Sci-Fi movies make sense anyway?! When I came out of the cinemas (3 times), I accepted it for what it was. I give it ****1/2. A bit below the first one, but still a fascinating movie.
Guest edge007 Posted June 2, 2003 Report Posted June 2, 2003 You go "Nanks"! You an Aussie? (maybe a stupid question)
Guest The Hamburglar Posted June 2, 2003 Report Posted June 2, 2003 There's one very good reason why Neo's powers are variable and not as strong as it appeared at the end of the first film. Now, its really simple, so bear with me here. Its because otherwise, the fucking movie would be totally shit. Do you realise how boring it would be to just have Neo hover out of people's reach and bat things away with his mind? He's already over-powered as it is, but what some people suggest is flat-out stupid. You'd fall victim to Superman syndrome and have to invent some crappy, gimmicky weakness like kryptonite. It would suck sweaty balls. And the Merovingian kicks arse. He just rules, period. I'm all for opinion, but unfortunately in this case, all dissenting opinions are wrong. The Merovingian talks loads of pseudy bullshit pretentious bollocks, and its fucking great. "Muaha, you 'av some skill." Love it.
Guest TheMadmanGreg Posted June 2, 2003 Report Posted June 2, 2003 Calling the movie a stand-alone is just stupid. It wasn't even filmed as a stand-alone, if you can't enjoy it because you don't deem the next part to be worthy of your viewing then that's your ridiculousness, not a fault of the film. No, excusing a horrible movie simply because it's part 2 of 3 is stupid. By being so easily manipulated, your $9 is as good as spent on the next movie ticket. That makes you exactly the kind of sheep that movie studios love. They can put out a piece of crap movie, slap a "to be continued" on the end, and BANG... you're now guarenteed to see the next piece of crap movie. I, on the other hand, have decided that I have independent thought, and I intend to use it. If Matrix:Reloaded is crap, I shouldn't see the third movie, because it will probably also be crap. Yes, the trailer was just 30 secs, but it shows who will be involved in Revolutions and from that it can be assumed that questions about them might be addressed. And when you assume, you make an ass out of you and you.
Guest Nanks Posted June 2, 2003 Report Posted June 2, 2003 If you thought Matrix:Reloaded was horrible, then chances are you didn't like The Matrix and you wouldn't be expected to enjoy a continuation and I pity you. I cleary did enjoy both movies very much, so assuming (as you point out is how to make an ass out of yourself) that I am excusing a movie for being part 2 of 3 is totally inaccurate. I'm not a sheep, I've spent considerable time thinking over both movies and I enjoy it more and more as I do so and can't wait for the conclusion. And as for my assumption from the trailer, when the Oracle's bodyguard is shown fighting Neo and saying "I protect that which matters most" I think it's fairly safe to say he is quite involved with the next movie.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now