»Free Your Biased Opinion… M3 Was Bad.«

BK wrote:

Things didn't start getting truly mystical until Neo's powers spilled into the physical world. The "Free your Mind" stuff was not mystical,that's why I liked it. That was about using mental discipline to recognize and master the digital enviroment while IN THE MATRIX. To me, it suggested the battle to defeat the machines would have been fought IN THE MATRIX. Had they done that, they wouldn't have needed to have any gratuitous"Terminator-type post-apocalyptic action". In my view, Zion could have remained mysterious. It could have been unvieled as a reward after the battle was won- IN THE MATRIX. So much could have been done, regarding the "coppertops"while IN THE MATRIX. The mind boggles at all the possibilities. What was the name of the trilogy?

That's true, but I don't know if there would be any way to bring down, say, Deus Ex from within the Matrix. I'm writing a fanfic right now about a guy who is trying to bring down the Matrix AND the Machine World, and he's doing it from within and without. As above: so below. This is where the idea of balance so integral to the third movie comes in. For whatever reason, both worlds are interdependent. Which brings us to the next point:

Quote:

Regarding the "Jawing". I just think talking about ideas just for the sake of talking about ideas is not good storytelling. That time could be used to for little things like character development.

But all of those concepts were necessary to understand what was transpiring on some level or another. I have heard so many people complain about all of the philosophy in Reloaded, but the truth is that every line that is uttered in that movie was there for a reason. Even the Merovingian's rantlet about causality wasn't just banter. Of course it's entirely your perogative to dislike this aspect of the Matrix films, but personally I like getting my head around all of it.

My best friend's girlfriend often remarks that Reloaded and Revolutions did not do as well as the original Matrix because (in her words) "all the fans wanted to see was more fight scenes, more kung fu in bullet-time." (This from a girl who thinks that the most profound moment in the entire trilogy was the rave/sex scene in Reloaded.) The Matrix trilogy is the philosphical equivalent of the Ultimate Workout, and apparently a large number of people weren't keen on that sort of thing. My brother had something of the same reaction after seeing Blade Runner. It seemed that someone had managed to sneak a bunch of existential and moral questions regarding the nature of man into an otherwise perfectly good sci-fi film.

they were good....whats the problem.

I don't understand people who don't like the plot! God only knows how many times I've said this and been ignored. The problem was NOT the plot. The plot was fantastic and original. The problem was some of the acting and some horrendous lines.

"I never completed the training program"
being one of the lines on my personal hit list.

It was basically like the George Lucas problem. "George you can write these lines, but you sure as hell can't say them!"

When people are looking into the mythology of the matrix they are finding many hidden elements. This is because there is actually a great deal of depth to the movies. There are comparisons to be found with:

Berkelian philosophy
Cartesian philosophy
Buddhist theology
Christian theology (both gnostic and orthodox)
Determinism (both religious and scientific)
Nietzschean philosophy

These things fit in so well that there is very little chance that they are all coincidence. Not only that, but they all fit in with the first movie, so they are not just added into the sequels for the sake of pleasing the fans.

hey thats right....some of the acting was pretty bad.

Quote:

I don't understand people who don't like the plot! God only knows how many times I've said this and been ignored. The problem was NOT the plot. The plot was fantastic and original. The problem was some of the acting and some horrendous lines. "I never completed the training program" being one of the lines on my personal hit list. It was basically like the George Lucas problem. "George you can write these lines, but you sure as hell can't say them!" When people are looking into the mythology of the matrix they are finding many hidden elements. This is because there is actually a great deal of depth to the movies. There are comparisons to be found with: Berkelian philosophy Cartesian philosophy Buddhist theology Christian theology (both gnostic and orthodox) Determinism (both religious and scientific) Nietzschean philosophy These things fit in so well that there is very little chance that they are all coincidence. Not only that, but they all fit in with the first movie, so they are not just added into the sequels for the sake of pleasing the fans.

Good Post!
Best pro sequel argument I've seen since joining the fray.
I've never said or even thought anyone was wrong for liking the sequels.
I just tried to make clear why I did not, hoping for strong responses such as this one.
Disagreement isn't always an indictment of the other opinion. These are only opinions. I understand why you like the sequels. I hope you can understand why I do not.

I haven't ignored what you said about the plot, but a plot alone does not a good movie make.
The themes of a plot have to be skillfully presented with all the other story elements to create a good movie. The density of this plot makes good moviemaking a very difficult task. In my view, it's a task the Brothers W failed to achieve.

You describe all these philosophical/ religious elements that are presented as subtext in the first film and drawn more into focus in "Reloaded". Even if these elements fit together as you say, I still think much of it could have remained subtext. To have characters vocally paraphrase all these themes, and to employ these themes to create good storytelling (on film), are two different things.

If all these themes indeed do help the story, let their ramifications naturally expose themselves. Let the Protagonist's and Antagonist's actions reveal their own nature (philosophical is, as philosophical does). Of course the characters aren't mute, but more efficient, natural dialogue better serves a well told film storyline.

You can argue all these philosophical/ religious elements gave the story depth. I still believe a story can only be as deep as its participants. All the abstracts should serve the move the characters forward, not the other way around. This is role reversal what happened in the sequels. The story got fatter. The characters got weaker.
This is why some of the human's lines are so lame.
This is why I stopped caring about the participants in the story.
This is a reason why I did not like the sequels.

Agent Zero wrote:

hey thats right....some of the acting was pretty bad.

Pfff, name one movie without a bit of bad acting? Besides, it has the greatest actor ever, Hugo Weaving. Helmut Bakaitis was great, Carrie-Anne Moss was good, infact alot of the acting was great (except from a few of the Zion extras.) Sure Jada Pinkett-Smith wasn't great, but the movie featured fantastic actors like Hugo Weaving(obviously), Ian Bliss, Lachy Hulme, Bruce Spence, Clayton Watson, David Roberts and Robyn Nevin. Infact they're all Australian actors aswell and all some of my favourite actors (Hugo being the highest favourite.) Even Helmut Bakaitis is Australian too.

Have no idea who any of these people play?

Hugo Weaving - Don't make me hurt you!
Helmut Bakaitis - The Architect
Ian Bliss - Bane
Lachy Hulme - Sparks
Bruce Spence - Trainman
Clayton Watson - Kid
David Roberts - Roland
Robyn Nevin - Councillor Dillard

The problem is not the sequels story or acting, the problem is there was no way in hell they were going to have the same effect as the Origonal. It was almost guarenteed people would be let down by them as they would be using the same Bullet time effects....the wow factor had been lost no matter how good they were.
Look at what Lucas has done with the Starwars prequels. The effects are mind blowing but people are disapointed with them, 1: because Lucas cant direct out of a paper bag. 2: The origonals are legends of film making because they pushed the boundaries so much, they had an affect on a generation and now we are all grown up we cant feel the magic we felt when we first seen them....the prequels were almost destined to fail.

hungarian kid wrote:

Agent Zero wrote: hey thats right....some of the acting was pretty bad. Pfff, name one movie without a bit of bad acting?

Every single Tarantino movie. I don't see a single bad performance in any of his movies. Considering that, perhaps keeping out crap actors is not TOO much too ask. Then again Tarantino is possibly the best director of the past ten years. The problem was that there were no major characters left in Zion other than Locke and Zee and Kid. Locke wasn't bad, but both Zee and Kid were horrendous actors. Niobe's rather twee acting as she comes to save them wasn't too good for encouraging us during the Zion scene either.

uh tarentino himself isnt the best actor....he kinda sucks.

Yes, but Tarantinos movies are in a league of their own. Tarantino's not bad actor, but he's not great.

i dont like his acting thats just my oppion.

He was great in Pulp Fiction and he was fantastic in From Dusk Til Dawn so what don't you like about his acting?

he didnt direct From Dusk Til Dawn

he only produced it. he sucked alot in desperado. he does get kileld though. his joke is funny, but he cant act.

I never said he directed From Dusk Til Dawn. I said he acted in it, and acted WELL too. I thought his cameo in Desperado was pretty cool too. He's really cool in the movie Four Rooms as well.

I'm afraid Tarantino is just too cool to be called a 'bad' actor. I'll accept that he's not a great actor. He doesn't have the ability to show wide ranges of emotion, but he has the ability to carry his lines well and that's more than The Kid or Zee manage to do in the matrix trilogy.

i dont want to get ito an argument but id take zee or the kid over tarintino anyday....dont take it as a personal atack but i just dont like him that much he bothers me. and he should not of been on american idol.

Well he's one of my idols. I think he's amazing, I'm a big fan. I think Tarantino IS an American idol whether you like it or not.

what? no he was on the show american idol about singing and uh....are you from the states?

I guessed it was a show, but it's beginning to sound like the American equivalent of Pop Idol now. :s

Look I can't say anything for Quentin's singing, but I thought he was good at delivering lines. *runs from Tarantino who is singing "ain't that a kick in the head"*

he didnt sing thank God but he was a judge, he was horrible at it, he sounded like a gitty schoolgirl the whole time, he was so over the top annoying i turned off the tv that night....sorry, you didnt see it, it was horrible!

Raksasha69 wrote:
And there is NOTHING that can be argued against writers INTENT.
What did the writers of the Matrix trilogy INTEND.
Not what people can read into it.
Not what REALLY can happen, or what SHOULD be.
But what message they intended to portray from the movies.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

actually, there are entire schools of thought and literary / film criticism based on the irrelevance of authorial intent, and entertaining the notion that authorial intent is in any way a relevant factor in the analysis of a text is not only limiting, but counterproductive to the entire process of the production of meaning. in fact, suggesting that "there is nothing that can be argued against writers' intent" is like walking into the nasa offices and claiming that earth is not only flat, but the center of the universe. read michel foucault's and roland barthes' essays "what is an author?" and "the death of the author" and you might come back to these films (and all other works of art) with a new perspective.

what is important is not what the author (or director, or painter, etc.) intends to accomplish, but what the piece of art that they constructed actually accomplishes. and art accomplishes nothing until it is engaged by the consumer. the consumer is therefore just as important in the production of meaning as the author. the w. bros. know this, and they produced films that embrace ambiguity and encourage viewer participation in the construction of meaning, instead of rejecting the reality of artistic consumption in favor of some outdated auteur theory that makes them look like gods.

d

I wouldn't worry about quoting Raksasha69. No one agrees with him anyway.

What you are saying sounds like the basic idea behind Wittgenstein's philosophy. The idea that there can be no meaning to something other than in its use. If it is solely understandable by only the author then it has no meaning (it is like a private language).

(It must be pointed out here that I hate Wittgenstein's philosophy - though I recognise that he is at least 'trying' to say something which is worth considering)

I know I know, I am going to be flamed to hell for this, but I really disagree. After seeing the Matrix Revolutions again, I cannot say that I found a single flaw in the entire movie. Although if you want to look at every detail you will surely find flaws, but the meaning of the movie is to end the trilogy and put people in a good mood, and remember that this is only a movie. Who noticed at the very beginning scene the Quake-shaped symbol that appeared for about 2 seconds? That could have a very big meaning and you skipped right over it. Perhaps you did notice that. What about in M1 when the tracing program in the phone booth in the end scene froze because of 'system error, anomoly'. Did you notice that? Did you really give that any thought, that possibly the system could not stop neither Neo nor Agent Smith. Smith survived because he was "the strongest must survive" as he said himself, and he killed all of the other one's when they came to him, because Smith went to the Architect and went ot the source, and never really had anyone to love but himself. Thus he came back to Zion but was put in charge to be an agent of the system, then was fired at the end of M1 when he failed to stop Neo, who nearly destroyed smith.

My mistakes were on purpouse. So was the misspelling.

[Aazn]

Quote:

Smith survived because he was "the strongest must survive" as he said himself, and he killed all of the other one's when they came to him, because Smith went to the Architect and went ot the source, and never really had anyone to love but himself. Thus he came back to Zion but was put in charge to be an agent of the system, then was fired at the end of M1 when he failed to stop Neo, who nearly destroyed smith.

Uh....this is where you go wrong.

Fatpie42 wrote:

I wouldn't worry about quoting Raksasha69. No one agrees with him anyway. What you are saying sounds like the basic idea behind Wittgenstein's philosophy. The idea that there can be no meaning to something other than in its use. If it is solely understandable by only the author then it has no meaning (it is like a private language). (It must be pointed out here that I hate Wittgenstein's philosophy - though I recognise that he is at least 'trying' to say something which is worth considering)

there certainly seem to be connections between the philosophies of wittgenstein and those of foucault and barthes. that might make a good doctoral dissertation! i guess the argument would be that a work of art's use (or purpose, in smithspeech) is to be consumed, and only then can its meaning be produced. which makes sense; the greatest work of art ever produced isn't going to do much good if no one ever gets to see it. i'm not sure how the question of intent would fit in, but it's certainly an avenue worth exploring.

d

Well i personly thought that the matrix 3 was great
altho it could have had a better name?
i think that people got oo "hyped up" and wanted too much from it and when a generaly good film was produced it didnt meet peoples spec of what they wanted to see