ATTN: JMS - OT (The Matrix)
Jim Mac Millan
Just saw"The Matrix" for the second time. Not to often that I find a
story that tries and keep all the loose ends tight.
What did you think of it?
Jim
Jms at B5
>story that tries and keep all the loose ends tight.
>What did you think of it?
I was blown away by it. I think it's a terrific film and possibly a watershed
for SF movies.
jms
(jms...@aol.com)
B5 Official Fan Club at:
http://www.thestation.com
Jay Denebeim
Jms at B5 <jms...@aol.com> wrote:
>I was blown away by it. I think it's a terrific film and possibly a
>watershed for SF movies.
That's interesting, I was not all that impressed with it. It was
'OK', but not anything spectacular IMO.
The reason humans were kept alive busted my suspension of disbelief
meter, so maybe that's why I didn't like it all that much.
(It's also a little dark and depressing for my tastes, all cyberpunk
is, which is probably why I don't much like the genre.)
Jay
--
* Jay Denebeim Moderator rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated *
* newsgroup submission address: b5...@deepthot.aurora.co.us *
* moderator contact address: b5mod-...@deepthot.aurora.co.us *
* personal contact address: dene...@deepthot.aurora.co.us *
Lee Hutchinson
dene...@deepthot.aurora.co.us says...
> (It's also a little dark and depressing for my tastes, all cyberpunk
> is, which is probably why I don't much like the genre.)
>
> Jay
I dunno, Moderator-Man...I think "The Matrix" does for geeks what "The
Crow" did for freak-o gothic people--it's an important movie.
--
Lee Hutchinson
pokr...@texas.net
http://pokrface.home.texas.net
"It's a hundred and six miles to Chicago; we got a full tank of gas,
half-a-pack of cigarettes, it's dark, and we're wearing sunglasses."
"Hit it."
Brad Templeton
Jay Denebeim <dene...@deepthot.aurora.co.us> wrote:
>In article <19990425192559...@ng-cd1.aol.com>,
>Jms at B5 <jms...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>I was blown away by it. I think it's a terrific film and possibly a
>>watershed for SF movies.
>
>That's interesting, I was not all that impressed with it. It was
>'OK', but not anything spectacular IMO.
>
>The reason humans were kept alive busted my suspension of disbelief
>meter, so maybe that's why I didn't like it all that much.
I gotta agree, that part was stupid, stupid, stupid. And almost wrecked
the movie for me too. Almost. The movie was good enough to overcome it.
And after, I came to a realization (or hope) that we're not looking deep
enough. After all, how could people clever enough to do this movie
come up with something as stupid as the battery story?
So perhaps it is a story. All we know is that this is what Morpheus
says. He may not believe it himself, or he may be deluded. The real
truth may lie underneath, something better. I hope so. Even if not, I
hope the directors of the film are reading this and correct things in
their 2 sequels.
Though it's a hard one to come up with a good answer for. The Matrix reminded
me a lot of the Hyperion series, which faced the same question of why
AIs were parasitic on humans. And while Hyperion did it much better than
The Matrix, it was still not quite satisfying. But perhaps with a bit of
work.
In a movie where the central theme is things are not what they seem, this
glaring error may not be what it seems.
--
Brad Templeton http://www.templetons.com/brad/
The Reverend Jacob Corbin
Jay Denebeim wrote:
> The reason humans were kept alive busted my suspension of disbelief
> meter, so maybe that's why I didn't like it all that much.
That was my first thought, too, though one can rationalize it by positing
an organic, brain-style AI that requires large quantities of ATP to
function and uses humans to provide it. If it fed its human cattle
mushrooms and other fungi, which can proliferate in the absence of light
(and presumably would have a ready food source in the decaying plant and
animul detritus littering the surface) then the rationale is acceptable.
Barely.
jacob
Tim Skirvin
>>I was blown away by it. I think it's a terrific film and possibly a
>>watershed for SF movies.
>That's interesting, I was not all that impressed with it. It was
>'OK', but not anything spectacular IMO.
One of my friends, a severe B5-freak, gets annoyed at action
movies and their ilk, so she wasn't all that amused at the concept of
seeing the Matrix. This was made worse by her general stubbornness -
after hearing everybody around her say that this movie was probably the
best they'd seen in years, she had her mind set on "I'm not going to like
it". We eventually got around to describing it to her as "it's like B5 -
it'll mess with your mind severely."
While this still didn't convince her, the combination of other
tactics, including talking her roommate into coming along, finally made
her join us (most of us were going for the third time by this point). The
fact that she refused to talk to us after the movie was over was a strong
testament to the fact that we won.
My first words after seeing the movie were "Damn!" and "I want to
see it again!" The fore-mentioned roommate's first words were also "I
want to see it again!" This movie was that spectacular, yes.
>The reason humans were kept alive busted my suspension of disbelief
>meter, so maybe that's why I didn't like it all that much.
Remaining intentionally vague, there were plenty of other reasons to
suspend disbelief than a bit of silliness surrounding humanity's role in the
world. But to accept a few minor scientific misconceptions in order to enjoy
a movie so fully - hey, it was worth it to me. Just remember Star Wars a
bit more...a cyberpunk Star Wars to be sure, but...
- Tim Skirvin (tski...@uiuc.edu)
--
<URL:http://www.uiuc.edu/~tskirvin/> Skirv's Homepage <FISH><
<URL:http://www.killfile.org/dungeon/> The Killfile Dungeon <*>
Michael Hunt (FlyingFlame)
>
> >Just saw"The Matrix" for the second time. Not to often that I find a
> >story that tries and keep all the loose ends tight.
> >What did you think of it?
>
> for SF movies.
>
If you like that "sort" of SF movies you should watch Dark City (if not
already). Personally I preferred Dark City but I thought that The Matrix
managed to pull it off quite well.
Michael Hunt
jco...@ix.netcom.com
> Jms at B5 <jms...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >I was blown away by it. I think it's a terrific film and possibly a
> >watershed for SF movies.
While I enjoyed The Matrix, I would certainly recommend a rental of the
somewhat similarly-themed Dark City over it.
--
"I've got a head full of useless minutiae and I'm not afraid to use it."
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
in_vale...@hotmail.com
b...@templetons.com (Brad Templeton) wrote:
> In article <7g0r4b$6fm$1...@dent.deepthot.aurora.co.us>,
> Jay Denebeim <dene...@deepthot.aurora.co.us> wrote:
> >In article <19990425192559...@ng-cd1.aol.com>,
> >
> >>I was blown away by it. I think it's a terrific film and possibly a
> >>watershed for SF movies.
I enjoyed it greatly, though I thought the story a bit simple. But it work
well with the effects, and they stole the show. THE MATRIX shows that
there's nothing that superheroes can do in comics that can't now be made to
work, and do so spectacularly, in movies or a tv series. Should Top Cow ever
get to adapt RISING STARS into a tv series, it'll look great.
Well, other than make skin-tight spandex *not* look silly on real people. :)
> And after, I came to a realization (or hope) that we're not looking deep
> enough. After all, how could people clever enough to do this movie
> come up with something as stupid as the battery story?
>
> So perhaps it is a story. All we know is that this is what Morpheus
> says. He may not believe it himself, or he may be deluded. The real
> truth may lie underneath, something better. I hope so. Even if not, I
> hope the directors of the film are reading this and correct things in
> their 2 sequels.
I suspect the matrix is better at faking reality that anyone in it knows.
The oracle seeing people's destinies just didn't work, unless those destinies
are *already* written... in the program of the matrix. The bombed-out
cloud-wrapped-Earth humans-as-batteries future with "the One" rising up to
fight for humanity's freedom... is just another illusion, to capture the
minds of the more "imaginative". Morpheus, Neo, et al, are living a dream
within a dream.
But if so, what is the *real* reality? :)
scott tilson (is too damn analytical... or is that imaginative?).
Tim Skirvin
*SPOILERS for _The Matrix_*
>The oracle seeing people's destinies just didn't work, unless those destinies
>are *already* written... in the program of the matrix.
Or if there's some strange time-travel stuff, or if there *is*
some kind of fate. There's plenty of possibilities. My favorite theory
is that the AI is travelling backwards in time to ensure its own
existance, but that's just my own twisted mind...
As for the other difficult part - I see no reason to not believe
that Neo *is* an AI now. He didn't wake up because of true love or
anything else like that, but because he is actually One with some form of
artificial intelligence - the same one that originally allowed there to be
portals out of the Matrix in the first place, went away because his host
died, and now is coming back in another incarnation to finish the job.
This doesn't have that much evidence, of course, but it works well with
what's in the movie...
Dennis Francis Heffernan
|>Just saw"The Matrix" for the second time. Not to often that I find a
|>story that tries and keep all the loose ends tight.
|>What did you think of it?
|
|I was blown away by it. I think it's a terrific film and possibly a watershed
|for SF movies.
Wow. I Shermaned it. ("It STINKS! -- Jay Sherman, _The Critic_)
a) idiotic premise,
b) storyline is straight up-and-down Joe Campbell.
Dennis F. Heffernan EQ: Venture (E'ci) dfra...@email.com
Montclair State U #include <disclaim.h> ICQ:9154048 CompSci/Philosophy
"There's no easy way to be free."
-- Pete Townshend, "Slip Kid"
Mark Alexander
Mark
Jms at B5 wrote:
> >Just saw"The Matrix" for the second time. Not to often that I find a
> >story that tries and keep all the loose ends tight.
> >What did you think of it?
>
> I was blown away by it. I think it's a terrific film and possibly a watershed
> for SF movies.
>
> jms
Gharlane of Eddore
AL> I was blown away by it. I think it's a terrific film and possibly a
AL> watershed for SF movies.
Nope. It's just a clear demonstration of how many times you can recycle
the same base concept inside a year without the movie-going public figuring
it out.
We have an apparently normal environment, with a few anomalous things in
it; and a guy who eventually penetrates to the True Reality. "DARK CITY"
is nothing new, nothing ground-breaking, and not terribly well written.
What it is, is LOUD, stylish, vaguely interesting part of the time, LOUD,
violent, fast-moving, LOUD, and a rather impressive demonstration of just
how much FX work and location shooting you can get done on $65M when
you're willing to relocate to Sydney because your high-budget scenario
can't be shot in Lost Agnolias.
You can find the same base concept in "DARK CITY," "THE TRUMAN SHOW,"
"PLEASANTVILLE," probably "ALPHAVILLE," and hints that go back as
far as Nathaniel Hawthorne's "YOUNG GOODMAN BROWN."
The point is paranoiac alienation from a superficially "normal" society,
and discovery of the underlying Plot That's Going on. Think of
Heinlein's classic short version, "THEY."
Then go look up a forty-year-old piece by Keith Laumer called "A TRIP
TO THE CITY." The point is, it's been done, it's been done a LOT,
and it's been rung numerous variations on ( "INVASION OF THE BODY
SNATCHERS," anyone? )
Of course, "THE MATRIX" *is* one thing.... LOUD.
Our sound-level meters reported entires scenes of "THE MATRIX" at over
105 dB, and extended peaks to 110 dB, with major energy shifts into the
subsonic. This is above the 90 dB pain threshold, and probably
sufficient exposure to constitute legally actionable hearing damage.
dene...@deepthot.aurora.co.us (Jay Denebeim) writes:
>
> That's interesting, I was not all that impressed with it. It was
> 'OK', but not anything spectacular IMO.
>
I agree. Cute, a mildly acceptable effort, but nothing at all
fundamentally original or new.
In <tskirvin-19995...@arh0650.urh.uiuc.edu>
tski...@uiuc.edu writes:
>
> One of my friends, a severe B5-freak, gets annoyed at action
> movies and their ilk, so she wasn't all that amused at the concept
> of seeing the Matrix. This was made worse by her general stubbornness -
> after hearing everybody around her say that this movie was probably the
> best they'd seen in years, she had her mind set on "I'm not going to like
> it". We eventually got around to describing it to her as "it's like B5 -
> it'll mess with your mind severely."
> While this still didn't convince her, the combination of other
> tactics, including talking her roommate into coming along, finally made
> her join us (most of us were going for the third time by this point).
> The fact that she refused to talk to us after the movie was over was a
> strong testament to the fact that we won.
> My first words after seeing the movie were "Damn!" and "I want to
> see it again!" The fore-mentioned roommate's first words were also
> "I want to see it again!" This movie was that spectacular, yes.
>
You know the funniest part of this is that one of the classic genre
novels, Daniel F. Galouye's "SIMULACRON-3," did it all, and did it
better, in 1964, before anyone had even thought of the phrase
"virtual reality." John D. MacDonald was playing with the idea
in the early fifties, James Blish was using shared virtual reality
in stories around 1960, and Roger Zelazny won a Nebula in '66 with
his "THE DREAM MASTER," one of the first competent uses of shared
virtual reality for recreation/psychotherapy.
dene...@deepthot.aurora.co.us (Jay Denebeim) writes:
>
> The reason humans were kept alive busted my suspension of disbelief
> meter, so maybe that's why I didn't like it all that much.
>
It was "VOYAGER"-grade Treknobabble. Inadmissible, not at all
respectable, and the people who wrote it shouldn't have been paid.
In <tskirvin-19995...@arh0650.urh.uiuc.edu>
tski...@uiuc.edu writes:
>
> Remaining intentionally vague, there were plenty of other reasons to
> suspend disbelief than a bit of silliness surrounding humanity's role
> in the world. But to accept a few minor scientific misconceptions in
> order to enjoy a movie so fully - hey, it was worth it to me.
> Just remember Star Wars a bit more...a cyberpunk Star Wars to be sure,
> but...
>
So what you're saying is you *LIKE* seeing people in long black leather
trenchcoats, with full-auto weaponry that's completely illegal in
Australia unless you're involved in the production of a violence-
glorifying exercise in hearing damage with a sound-track by the likes
of Marilyn Manson, right?
"THE MATRIX" is *NOT* a good movie. It is an *interesting* movie,
worth seeing once, if you bring earplugs. It has no more to offer
than "DARK CITY," or even the B&W French movie, "ALPHAVILLE," or
perhaps the student version of "THX 1138."
It is devoid of concept originality, genre competence, and good
writing. What it *has* got is very fine FX work, occasional decent
editing, an out-of-the-hat Judas because the plot tension isn't
tight enough, and far too many puling idiots so desperate for
anything resembling SkiFfy that they'll pay money to see anything
with a bit of decent FX work in it, particularly if it's got a loud
thumping soundtrack that batters the minds of the audience to keep
them from thinking about what's going on.
It's an exercise in subsonic-triggered glandular abuse, not a
movie worthy of any real respect.
Note that "SIMULACRON-3," forthcoming in about 3 weeks, was done on
German TV around 1974 ( "DIE WELT AM DRAHT," budget 950,000 DM
in '74 money, and not at all a bad two-night "miniseries. ) -- so
what we'll be getting is a remake of a relatively straightforward
novel that's already been done once. Even though Emmerich is
involved, I still have hopes for *IT*.
Particularly since Galouye wrote his novel before the Wachowski
brothers were *BORN*, and the German TV adaption was done when
they were 7 and 9, respectively.
( And don't jump to the conclusion that I'm charging any sort of
"plagiarism" here; I'm *NOT*. My sole point is that when you
do material that's been done over and over in the genre, you
need to do it at *least* as well as your predecessors have, if
you want any respect at all. The Wachowskis got their movie
made. It's not entirely bad, but it's not award-level, it's
just loud, FX-ish, and Peckinpah-ish. Big deal. It's going
to date *fast*, and it will not be a major milestone. )
Hernan Espinoza
ghar...@ccshp1.ccs.csus.edu (Gharlane of Eddore) writes:
>The point is paranoiac alienation from a superficially "normal" society,
>and discovery of the underlying Plot That's Going on. Think of
>Heinlein's classic short version, "THEY."
Think gnostics.
>dene...@deepthot.aurora.co.us (Jay Denebeim) writes:
>>
>> The reason humans were kept alive busted my suspension of disbelief
>> meter, so maybe that's why I didn't like it all that much.
>It was "VOYAGER"-grade Treknobabble. Inadmissible, not at all
>respectable, and the people who wrote it shouldn't have been paid.
Agreed. That was laughable on a number of levels. Anyway, I
got the feeling the entire senario was set up so the film makers could use
the nice visual bit where one character holds up a battery to
"dramatically" illustrate humanity's fate. It's a accesible image
(everyone knows what batteries are for) to play on our fear of
just being a minor part in a machine. Just a little more thinking might
have led to similar imagery that was a tad more creative.
>"THE MATRIX" is *NOT* a good movie. It is an *interesting* movie,
>worth seeing once, if you bring earplugs. It has no more to offer
>than "DARK CITY," or even the B&W French movie, "ALPHAVILLE," or
>perhaps the student version of "THX 1138."
>It is devoid of concept originality, genre competence, and good
>writing. What it *has* got is very fine FX work, occasional decent
>editing, an out-of-the-hat Judas because the plot tension isn't
>tight enough, and far too many puling idiots so desperate for
>anything resembling SkiFfy that they'll pay money to see anything
>with a bit of decent FX work in it, particularly if it's got a loud
>thumping soundtrack that batters the minds of the audience to keep
>them from thinking about what's going on.
It also has some fun fight choreography and the lead actor
didn't have that many lines (small mercy).
-Hernan, beware: this can only lead to more Keanu Reeves movies