Matrix Revolutions Boycott - Join Me or Die

[Sayonara]

I don't have the time today to respond to all of your questions.

 

Suffice it to say that I will not enjoy Revolutions, and I don't think it's a particularly well-made film, so I am not paying almost £20 to go and see it.

[atinymonkey]

iglak said in post #23 :

 

c) when was bullet time used before "The Matrix"? and was it used as extensively as "The Matrix"?

It first popped up around 1985, as a development of film technology. The extensive use was in wildlife films, it showed in exacting detail birds flying/fish swimming etc. It was a fashion in the UK for a couple of years to film in that style, the Wachowskis just thought nobody would remember. Just like they thought stealing 'Dark City' and renaming it 'The Matrix' with a couple of minor changes would be ok, as no-one remembers that either.

[iglak]

atinymonkey said in post #27 :

It first popped up around 1985, as a development of film technology. The extensive use was in wildlife films, it showed in exacting detail birds flying/fish swimming etc. It was a fashion in the UK for a couple of years to film in that style, the Wachowskis just thought nobody would remember. Just like they thought stealing 'Dark City' and renaming it 'The Matrix' with a couple of minor changes would be ok, as no-one remembers that either.

well... that's just slow motion. in bullet time (which is basically slow motion), some people might move normal speed while everything else is in slow motion. there are those cheesy rings that trail the bullets, and the shadows of fast hand movements. and the biggest difference is theat they had fifty+ cameras taking pictures in a series around the people so that the camera could spin normally during the slow motin.

 

although, yeah, it's basically slow motion, and they were probably hoping no one would realize it.

 

Suffice it to say that I will not enjoy Revolutions, and I don't think it's a particularly well-made film, so I am not paying almost £20 to go and see it.

alright, whatever. i liked it though... so, your choice.

[alt_f13]

Don't hate the playa. Hate the game. (ie society, if you believe the matrix is a load of crap and yet still burns it up in the box office.)

 

You do, Sayo, make some good points, but there were still certain scenes in Reloaded I quite enjoyed, phylosophically speaking. Such as the architect's room, where it was suggested that the cycle could not be broken. That was again suggested at the end of the third movie. And the way the camera went through the screens in that scene suggested the same thing, as it didn't matter where you revisited the situation.

 

There is also more than one way one could read the religious references in the trilogy, either applying the references to the movie, or the movie to the references. In the case of things like the licence plates on the highway scene, I think these were merely supposed to be "nifty," and not supposed to mean much of anything.

 

The fact that they were willing to pay that much of detail to this movie impressed me, and showed they cared about the movie at every level: visuals, sound, action, plot and all the underlying facets of movie making. It's just too bad not every movie strived to do this, because if they did, the movie industry would offer much more than a source of revenue for its participants (Yeah, I know how you're going to reply to that statement so b011ux, they still put effort and expense into those last two).

[rune420]

I would really like to know where you found the plot, Sayonara?

[atinymonkey]

iglak said in post #28 :

well... that's just slow motion. in bullet time (which is basically slow motion), some people might move normal speed while everything else is in slow motion. there are those cheesy rings that trail the bullets, and the shadows of fast hand movements. and the biggest difference is theat they had fifty+ cameras taking pictures in a series around the people so that the camera could spin normally during the slow motin.

 

although, yeah, it's basically slow motion, and they were probably hoping no one would realize it.

 

Arrggggggggggg, no! I not referring to 'slow motion', that has been around since the 1850's! The rapid progression to using a succession of images to capture a fast moving object was done to follow a horses stride, to see if a horses hooves ever left the ground at a gallop (Eadweard James Muybridge). The method of using a series of cameras taking simultaneous pictures and then manipulating the images so that you can travel the camera around a stationary or slow moving object, that is the technology that was in use in the wildlife films in the 1980’s.

 

They made quite a big deal of it on the BBC, it appeared on many shows but never got picked up in the US.

 

The work is quite extensively covered in modern photographic methods, and is taught to most art students as part of the photography and film aspect of the courses.

 

I’m sorry if the Wachowskis have lied to you, but that’s what Hollywood tends to do! I just hate it when Hollywood surplants decades of pionering work just to sell tickets.

[Sayonara]

To Alt:

 

The scene in Reloaded in the architect's room wasn't "philosophically enjoyable", it's called a plot device. The only reason it happened was to justify having a third film. And I'd just like to point out that you cannot create a stable succession to the human race using a population that is only a handful of people, no matter what distractions you've concocted.

 

I do like your idea that the film can be applied to the religion and vice-versa but there is an element of affrontery involved here, since either way around the Wachowski's story is heresy on every continent (not that I particularly care about that).

 

The license plates et al I agree are probably just there to be coy little in-jokes, but that's exactly why I dislike them. It's really, really tacky and pretentious.

 

That said I have to agree that the attention to detail in "Matrix" was excellent. I can't really say the same about Reloaded, since it had no content.

 

 

To Rune:

 

I emailed the link to a few people so I'll see if I still have it.

 

 

 

To Iglak:

 

The techniques you are talking about as "bullet time" have been around for ages. All the Wachowskis did was use them all at the same time and stick a label on the side ("Bullet Time", whatever).

 

How can you say "well... that's just slow motion" when you do not know what atinymonkey is referencing?

 

The techniques that were to become known as bullet time are centered around the use of multiple cameras shooting the same scene simultaneously, the combined footage from which can be manipulated using software.

 

The software allows the path of the camera, plus its aspect and the progress rate of the scene, to be controlled with unparalleled freedom. Computer generated effects such as onion skinning (for example the shadows of arm movement you mentioned) and bullet trails can also be added. Onion skinning by the way has been used in cell animation for the best part of a century, if not longer.

 

This combined technique has indeed been in use for a long, long time. Wildlife documentaries, television commercials, Star Trek episodes from TNG, DS9 and Voyager ("Timescape", "A Matter of Time", and of course "Relativity", which was filmed some mere months before Matrix itself went into post-production, spring immediately to mind), and a couple of movies too before the Matrix came along. If you've never seen anything that pre-dates The Matrix and involves blended timeline footage, then you either aren't watching enough or you aren't paying enough attention.

 

Although the repackaging of that technique as the Wachoskis' love child is nothing compared to the whole "ripping off Dark City" thing. Do not get me started on that

[matter]

I'd rather watch The Matrix than watch Dark City. Everyone has similar ideas when it comes to screen writing. You can't say people ripped off someone else because who's to say who had the idea first? They're both the same concept and that means nothing.

[iglak]

okay, i am very sorry, i did not know that. i assumed what i said, which i should not have, because i read "wildlife films" and thought, "how could bullet time be used in the wild?" that was a huge misconception on my part, it could easily be done with birds and fish indoors. i am very sorry for misunderstanding and playing to Wachoski's wishes.

 

i watched all of Voyager, and half of DS9 and TNG, but i do not recall those techniques being used. perhaps i am not paying enough attention. and now that i think about it, i remember seeing some wildlife shows rotate still images and slow motion around. i guess i just assumed that was all computer generated or something, sorry again.

but, i did know that onion skinning had been done a lot before "The Matrix" (although i did not know it was called onion skinning).

[atinymonkey]

Don't apologise, it's not your fault, boycott the matrix! They lied to you, and that makes them evil!

 

The devil take their eyes.

[Sayonara]

The Matrix hype is a bit like brainwashing - get enough people believing something, and they'll do the rest for you.

 

The antidote is to look at the Wachowski Bros. filmography to date.

 

The titles they have produced and/or directed include:

 

Matrix Trilogy.

Assassins (Stallone, pfft)

Bound (lesbian chick-flik pandering to the insecure male market)

 

And that's it.

[Dudde]

bah

*bans Sayonara and everybody who saw The Matrix: Revolutions*

 

inappropriate me willya...

 

*boycotts the matrix*

to beat the dead horse, probably the same one used to see if it's hooves left the ground, the Matrix is using nothing new. At all. Just showing it with flashy effects to a new breed of people

[matter]

No one is making anyone believe anything. It's just a movie with action and techno that people like.

 

I have a theory you UK people don't like it just cause the Wachowski brothers are American.

 

Yeah there is a ton of hype but that's because people are anxious to see what happens.

[Sayonara]

[Dudde]

I'm american you Nazi

[Guest GemiNI]

YEs i agree its not so bad

Sorry to but in

but I like the matrix. THe last was not as good as the first .. but then nothing after it would eva be that good in my eyes .

They did try to go too sappy and failed a bit. (then again it really got to my Boy frined * how cute* ).

i think the ending was what really let this movie down . But try not to be so harsh . THEY TRYED and where still quite creative (gotta love the effects*)

[Sayonara]

I'm being harsh because R&R are utter abominations of films and deserve nothing else.

 

Special effects do not a good film make. "More" is not necessarily "better". Integrity is a virtue.

 

You may think that R&R were creative, but as has already been mentioned they actually weren't. There's nothing I can think of in any of the Matrix trilogy that isn't highly derivative or lifted directly from something else.

 

I like the first film too -- it was enjoyable and stylish -- but I feel let down by the so-called sequels. I don't know what it is that makes people think they have to convince themselves they're good films when they clearly aren't. Maybe they just don't appreciate looking like fools after getting so excited about the run-up to their respective releases.

[matter]

Well I saw Revolutions last night and I gotta say I liked it and I didn't. The acting kinda sucked and it hardly had any content in the story. That dude who acts like mouse was pretty annoying.

 

On the other hand I really enjoyed the action sequences. Those dudes in the begining that flipped themselves on stood on the ceiling during the shootout. awesome. And the sentinels swarming to create that face. I cant understand how no one thinks thats cool.

 

Anyways maybe it was a bad idea and maybe it wasn't.

[Guest ikabuianman]

i now! trinity got stabbed and neo blew up!

[Emmon]

I think the wachowski brothers made a great trilogy. Just 3 films ffs.. they are films, you watch them.. they end. Whats all the bashing for?

 

Its a story, I havent seen another story the same. It had great special effects that showed ( to me ) how far weve come in terms of effects. The Neo Vs Many Smiths fight in Reloaded was genius in terms of computer abilities to date. People can argue " yeah you could tell in bits it wasnt him and just computer graphics ffs" but thats just ignorance. Its a special effect, some people created those effects, all that time and thought into creating an amazing display of graphic animation.

[Sayonara]

Had you read the thread properly you would have realised that the disdain for the Wachowski brothers arises from them claiming to be producing revolutionary effects and thematics, when they aren't doing any such thing.

 

Matrix was fine the way it was. M:R&R are a pile of cheap mince on a plate, presented as best venison. They have nothing going for them; they are not good films. Special effects do certainly not save a bad film - ever. There's no imagination enema satisfying enough to make plot and originality redundant.

 

As for the Reloaded fight - I say "bollocks". Peter Jackson had a smaller budget, yet his opening "Final Alliance" scene in Fellowship - filmed almost 2 years before Reloaded - involved tens of thousands of animated characters and every damned one of them looked photorealistic, whereas the Smiths did not. Someone needs to help the W Bros understand that grey palettes do not provide the ideal blocking colour for CGI. You'd think they'd know that, what with being "directors".

 

You say "thats just ignorance", but I'd ask "how?". I'd also put it to you that the sort of person who thinks M:R&R are original and all new and daring are the sort of people who have seen barely any films in relative terms, and don't read very much - and therefore have no way of gauging just how derivative and unoriginal the latter half of the risably promoted "trilogy" really is.

[neo_maya]

Hi everyone,

 

I kinda agree with sayo - there was no need for the other two sequels. The matrix alone was self-sufficient. It's true though that like everyone (........almost) else I was eager to watch the sequels. But they were indeed disappointing. Too much sfx and too much philosophy (especially in .......reloaded) made it somewhat almhskcfhliecr9qciwo4c. But the thing is that...... if .......... if there is a fourth one I would still go, despite knowing that it would be as dissappointing as the previous two.

 

I think it's all my fault - I should have taken the blue pill (what can I say - then I would have missed trinity) .

 

But on a second thought - IF I HAD TAKEN THE BLUE PILL THEN I THINK U ALL WOULD HAVE MISSED THE FIRST ONE - WHICH I THINK WAS LIKED BY ALL.

 

I think there should be a poll about which pill should have been taken.