Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Walter confetti

Matrix Resurrections

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, magicsofa said:

You want radical left, go watch the remake of She-Ra.

I like She-Ra 2018, but I did not get what was particularly radical about it, aside from maybe the gender representation and the new character designs. I mean, the show is weirdly pro-monarchy, and not just because the main characters are called "princesses".

Share this post


Link to post

But, of course! Where would Hollywood be without milking to death every idea that already had its run 2-5 decades ago. And where would the good little data points for our a.i. algorithm overlords--I mean, human beings, who definitely have a free will--be if they didn't run to the hills chasing this unliving corpse, dug up from the archives, and waved on a stick.

 

Yeah, jaded is definitely euphemistic at this point.

Share this post


Link to post

I obviously speak for the extreme minority when I say this, but what makes movies fun in the first place is not knowing exactly what you're getting when you go in. To *gasp* actually be surprised by a novel yet compelling idea, executed meticulously by all involved, often elevating a group of unknown but exceedingly talented actors to overnight star status. Those stars are then a tried and true method of finding the good scripts worth watching. A-list stars don't have to settle for whatever they can get and have the luxury of choosing only the best scripts to attach their name to and maintain their reputation with. Thus, when you hear it's a new _____ movie (e.g. a new Spielberg film; a James Cameron film; a Schwarzeneggar film; Tom Hanks, etc.) not only do you have some assurance it'll be good because it's got a great actor or director behind it, but you know those talented people wouldn't have flocked to it in the first place if there wasn't something there they really liked. These stars thereby draw public attention to ideas and projects that otherwise would be deemed too commercially risky, giving genuine art a chance to shine.

 

But that's just me, I'm sure you'd be far more interested in Star Wars Episode MCMXVIII and Marvel's the Great Consumerist Dildo, a stunning addition to the MCU.

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, QuaketallicA said:

But that's just me, I'm sure you'd be far more interested in Star Wars Episode MCMXVIII and Marvel's the Great Consumerist Dildo, a stunning addition to the MCU.

Well, Sense8 was a pleasant surprise after the letdown that was Jupiter Ascending, but since Netflix ended the former after only two seasons and a movie, I do not mind getting a fourth Matrix movie instead. As far as franchises go, The Matrix is a more interesting intellectual property to me than Star Wars and the formulaic superhero genre.

 

I also did not care for John Wick at all, so I am happy to see Keanu Reeves in another Matrix movie.

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, QuaketallicA said:

A-list stars don't have to settle for whatever they can get and have the luxury of choosing only the best scripts to attach their name to and maintain their reputation with. Thus, when you hear it's a new _____ movie (e.g. a new Spielberg film; a James Cameron film; a Schwarzeneggar film; Tom Hanks, etc.) not only do you have some assurance it'll be good because it's got a great actor or director behind it, but you know those talented people wouldn't have flocked to it in the first place if there wasn't something there they really liked. These stars thereby draw public attention to ideas and projects that otherwise would be deemed too commercially risky, giving genuine art a chance to shine.

 

But that's just me, I'm sure you'd be far more interested in Star Wars Episode MCMXVIII and Marvel's the Great Consumerist Dildo, a stunning addition to the MCU.

Are you really trying to say that Tom Hanks of all people is a risk taker?

 

James Cameron and Spielberg are certainly talented in their own ways, but they are commercial filmmakers first and foremost, barely above "The Great Consumerist Dildo of the MCU". For somebody who seems to be implying that they know a great deal about film, you picked some stunningly bad examples to make your point.

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, TheMagicMushroomMan said:

Are you really trying to say that Tom Hanks of all people is a risk taker?

Well, incidentally, he did star in The Wachowskis' Cloud Atlas, where he got to play some... unexpected characters. :P

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, TheMagicMushroomMan said:

Are you really trying to say that Tom Hanks of all people is a risk taker?

 

James Cameron and Spielberg are certainly talented in their own ways, but they are commercial filmmakers first and foremost, barely above "The Great Consumerist Dildo of the MCU". For somebody who seems to be implying that they know a great deal about film, you picked some stunningly bad examples to make your point.

 

Don't get hung up on the specific choices. If he's too "safe" for you, pick somebody else that you would find more acceptable. My point still stands.

 

Take the Medal of Honor game series, for example. These days military shooters are an oversaturated joke (and have been for years) but there was a time in the late 90s when publishers steered clear of historical content and were unwilling to deviate from the popular trend of sci-fi shooters. DreamWorks Interactive were only willing to give the WW2 FPS a chance because they figured the weight of Spielberg's name would be enough to carry the game, so they were willing to fund it. Sure enough, it did attract enough consumers that it developed a name for itself, and before you knew it not only Medal of Honor but WW2 games were everywhere.

 

And no, it doesn't always need an established industry giant to create something new that rocks. After all, everyone was undiscovered in the beginning, and no, not everything someone famous does will necessarily be great. But it's a relatively good screening process for consumers to find quality in an otherwise flood of new (and possibly risky material), and similarly it gives publishers enough assurance that they're willing to fund movies that aren't the same old IP's or predictable tropes.

 

Just look at the landscape in the 90s that led to avant-garde movies like the original Matrix films versus the landscape now where a long-since irrelevant series is brought back just because it has an established name that can be exploited. You know the new movie's gonna be shit. It almost always is, or at the very least it's not going to do the legacy of the series any favors. It only exists to cash in on the perpetual monopoly known as copyright law. I honestly wish IPs would disappear/go public domain once they've been around 10-20 years. It's time to let them go, let the fans maintain the love, and let big names move on to newer things. But corporate lobbyists will make sure they never lose their monopolies, not until 3-4 generations are born and die and absolutely no one cares anymore.

 

P.S. Doom '16 and Eternal 100% are guilty of this, as are the modern Wolfenstein games. But they're also the rare exception where the reboot simultaneously establishes itself as rather distinct from its predecessors, while retaining the core identity of the series. In other words, they don't suck. But they're still just exploiting old names because of consumer nostalgia rather than trying to put something genuinely new out there.

Edited by QuaketallicA

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, QuaketallicA said:

Take the Medal of Honor game series, for example. These days military shooters are an oversaturated joke (and have been for years) but there was a time in the late 90s when publishers steered clear of historical content and were unwilling to deviate from the popular trend of sci-fi shooters. DreamWorks Interactive were only willing to give the WW2 FPS a chance because they figured the weight of Spielberg's name would be enough to carry the game, so they were willing to fund it. Sure enough, it did attract enough consumers that it developed a name for itself, and before you knew it not only Medal of Honor but WW2 games were everywhere.

Really? I would have thought that the success of Wolfenstein 3D would have inspired the creation of more WWII first-person shooters.

Share this post


Link to post

I get a much more postmodern feeling from the trailers than from the whole actual trilogy.
So i'm gonna wait for it without much expectation as postmodernism tends to screw almost everything it touched.

Proof: look at the world :P

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, P41R47 said:

I get a much more postmodern feeling from the trailers than from the whole actual trilogy.
So i'm gonna wait for it without much expectation as postmodernism tends to screw almost everything it touched.

What is that even supposed to mean?

Share this post


Link to post

This thread reminds me that I haven't seen the Matrix trilogy for years. Time to fix that, I think. I remember liking the first and second movies, and looking at clips on YouTube the action scenes still hold up.

Third movie not so much, I remember the lack of armour on those open gun-mech things being a bit of a facepalm moment. Even some mild steel plates around the pilot would have at least given some protection from shrapnel. Surely for a defensive operation, it would have made more sense to put the machineguns inside static armoured turrets fed by magazines? At least then defenders of Zion wouldn't have run out of firepower because their squishy organic ammo-carriers got splattered by one of those highly lethal squid-bots. I can suspend my disbelief when it comes to wonky shit within the Matrix itself, but that battle was supposedly taking place outside of it.

 

Despite my niggles with the latter parts of the original Matrix trilogy, I'm tempted to go see this latest one, although largely because I miss the experience of going into the cinema.

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, Rudolph said:

What is that even supposed to mean?

Well, postmodernism is somethng that is right in front of you, around you, pretty much almost with you all the time, but you probably don't know it.
Kinda like God or Jesus, but unlike the lord or his son, Postmodernism doesn't believes in you.

As a rational person, you surely know the difference between right and wrong, or good and bad, right?

So how many times in your life you found yourself looking a situation that everybody around know is wrong or bad, but the ones commiting the action said that they are the good and that they are in their own right to do it?
How many times you asked yourself that if this really is the reality we are living?

How many times you thought if this is really how the world truly is?

How many times you saw news on the tv and you totally believe it, and then, after some time you realise that you were cheated?

Now, do you found answers to those questions?
Probably partial answers, some that may be related to an especific situation, but as this things keep happening...interesting enough, the same answer doesn't apply for the same question, so how do you answer it now?

Its not anymore about if the reality you are experiencing is the truth or not.
Its about if you can believe and play along the rules imposed arbitrary and without aknowledge to you.
If you can, you are the good and you are with the good ones.

If you don't, you are bad, and you deserve the worst, even if you really not deserve it or if you are not bad at all.

You don't find all that i explained strangely familiar?

Share this post


Link to post
37 minutes ago, P41R47 said:

Its not anymore about if the reality you are experiencing is the truth or not.
Its about if you can believe and play along the rules imposed arbitrary and without aknowledge to you.


So... being skeptical of the rules means you actually uphold them? I don't think so.

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, magicsofa said:


So... being skeptical of the rules means you actually uphold them? I don't think so.

how would you be skeptical of the rules if you don't even know them?
Thats the main thing here.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, P41R47 said:

Well, postmodernism is somethng that is right in front of you, around you, pretty much almost with you all the time, but you probably don't know it.

The Matrix has always been like that. I mean, have you already forgotten this scene?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
45 minutes ago, Rudolph said:

The Matrix has always been like that. I mean, have you already forgotten this scene?

What's the Matrix?

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, P41R47 said:

What's the Matrix?


Unfortunately, no one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/12/2021 at 5:13 PM, Rudolph said:

Really? I would have thought that the success of Wolfenstein 3D would have inspired the creation of more WWII first-person shooters.

No, it was something like seven years between Wolfenstein 3D and Medal of Honor for the PSX. There were really no FPS WWII games during that time, at least that I can recall. There were strategy games, like Commandos. But even Hidden and Dangerous and Mortyr didn't come out until the same year as MOH. There was quite a dearth in WWII games between 1992 and 1999.

 

Then Allied Assault came out on PC, and that was popular. And then a bunch of people who worked on Medal of Honor left and formed Infinity Ward and released the first Call of Duty (which is still a damn fine game). After that, the floodgates opened.

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, Rudolph said:

The Matrix has always been like that. I mean, have you already forgotten this scene?

On a less kiddier tone, nope i didn't forget, but even when Matrix did share some questions similar and related to postmodernism, it didn't was the focus.

 

The following is a little sinopsis to exemplify what and why i perceive a major enphasis on postmodernism on that trailer, so its not an in-depth analisys as pretty much all the films mentioned could be read from multiple perspectives.


Matrix was always about humanity vs mechanization, about human labor vs. production line, about a self sustainable group of people that aims for freedom vs. a huge and complex multylayered industrialized institution tha tried to survive on the lives of others.
On a political basis, it exemplified the struggle between being awake and conscious vs. go along with the flow of ignorance under the capitalist machine.

All of this is read through the lens of the science fiction, with the major theme being the human on the first movie, the system on the second, and the struggle on the third.
While science fiction may have some interesting themes that may seem postmodernist, it is not, by the sole reason of one of the core elements of the science fiction: purpose.
The films have a purpose, they depict an epic and show at first humanity defying the limits of it own vessel and finally conquering it own space on the system, the system experimenting problems, and at last, the fall of the system to a virus like dominating idea and humanity as the last and only source of a future.

You may say that the first paragraph of my previous post sounds totally like The Matrix, but no.

On The Matrix film, after a few minutes, we learn that The Matrix is actually a virtual reality, a recreation of the peak of humanity civilization, thus, reality is not put in doubt, it is explicity shown that there is a proper reality aside from The Matrix.
In postmodernism, reality is always something at doubt. Is always something you can't fully grasp.

To make things a little easier to understand, here are two movies that are postmodernist in nature:
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
 Synecdoche, New York

 

In the first film, something like Matrix happend on it, as after a few minutes into the movie, we learn and understand what is going on as the memories are being erased. BUT at the end, you still have doubts if all that was shown actually happened or not.

 

On The second film, reality is subjetive and is always shown through the point of view of the protagonist, and since everything on the film defies all logic, we can't certainly said what is really happening or not; we can just try to understand reality as we experience it through the life of the protagonist. And thats even kinda difficult as the point of view changes indifinitely through the film a lot of times but still keeps the focus on the protagonist.
So its a multilayered film with distincts voices all speaking about the protagonist and the confusion perseived by them as a whole. Thats why all seems kinda fragmented and sometimes out of nowhere.

 

In Matrix that doesn't happend, we know that Neo and the others are inside of a virtual reality.
Later, when Neo developed powers outside of the Matrix, we fall in doubt, is this reality or is also another kind of virtual reality?
But in the third film, ALL IS EXPLAINED... well, pretty much.

Postmodernism doesn't explain a damn thing.

And thats not because there is a hidden reason that the movie watcher or the book reader needs to find itself.

No, nothing more different than what it actually is.
Postmodernism is not about sense or purpose, Postmodernism, in fact, has no sense or purpose.
It is all just because it can be done.

 

On the very first trailer of the original The Matrix we are shown similars things to the ones on the trailer for the fourth film.
BUT, the trailer itself shows that the focus is not in fact the perceived reality, but that there is another reality. And so, the doubt disipates and all the trailer becomes kinda a power fantasy after that.

 

On the new trailer, there is an emphasis on shown if Neo is Neo, if Trinity is Trinity. The focus is not on the events, its not the Matrix, is on the characters, especially on Neo perception of his own reality. It shows how he thinks he is going crazy, how he take drugs to stabilize himself, how he feel alienated from his surroundings. And this is just the trailer, and its far more reaching than what we actually saw on the first movie.
On the trailer, the protagonist doubt and suffering is something perceptible to great extents.

The sense of ''odd'' is shared to us the watchers. And even when we know what the Matrix is about, we can't say for certain what the film central theme would be.

That sense of doubt is what i most found interesting and ballsbusting at the same time.
It generate a lot of expectations for sure, not only on me, but whoever read the whole post to this point, too.

But as pretty much almost all other postmodernist experiences, where the facts are not important, but how we can told them better, it may become something good or something pretty bad.

Hope the little essay out of nowhere was at least an interesting read.
 

Share this post


Link to post

@P41R47 I think you are making the Matrix sequels to be more complicated than they really are.

 

Spoiler

Neo finds out that the whole "prophecy" is a trick played by the Matrix to ensure its continuation; unlike his predecessors, and with the encouragement of the Oracle (who has come to see the current statu quo in the Matrix as unsustainable), he decides to not play along. He then strikes a truce with the Machines on behalf of mankind in exchange for the elimination of Smith, who has become a virus and is threatening the Machines' interest.

 

And again, this "postmodernism" you seem to decry is very much at the core of the original movie.

 

33 minutes ago, P41R47 said:

Postmodernism doesn't explain a damn thing.

Maybe that was never the point to begin with? There are so many things in life that simply cannot be explained with certainty; quacks and cult leaders might claim otherwise, but they tend to be just in for the clout and the money.

 

Sometimes, it is okay to just say "I do not know": 

 

 

Edited by Rudolph

Share this post


Link to post

I'm planning to wait until I've cooked dinner to watch the trilogy again, so in the meantime I decided to watch back to back the trailers for the first Matrix movie and this new one.

 

My impressions; looks good, but why not-Morpheus? I read an article a couple of days back that asked Laurence Fishburne about it, and he said he'd be willing to reprise the role, but apparently he has not been contacted about it; or's he under a really strict NDA such that he can't even mention a thing about it, but I'm not sure if that's legally possible. Maybe Lozza is just biting his tongue so as not to spoil the film, that's not implausible given Fishburne's apparent good relations with the Wachowskis. The same article also talked about how Morpheus died in the storyline of the Matrix MMO, which quickly died on its arse, explaining why I had never previously heard of the game, nor of Morpheus' death.

I feel like making predictions about this movie. I'm betting that the title of the movie is a reference to the resurrection of the original Morpheus. We see Keanu Reeves and Carrie-Anne Moss alive, and they seem to be reprising their old roles. It looks to me like Neo starts the movie once again as a prisoner of the Matrix, which has obviously been updated to the latest version, because all the inhabitants are glued to their smartphones. Definitely-Not-Morpheus will turn out to be a construct by the machines, sent to fool and lead Neo astray in his blue-pilled state (perhaps providing a "false awakening" to try and seal the deal), with Trinity rescuing Neo from his false mentor's clutches at some point. Or maybe I-Can't-Believe-It's-Not-Morpheus turns out to be completely on the level, and he's one of Morpheus' more devout followers, who believes that he can bring his spiritual leader back to life, and seeks the help of Neo and Trinity to do so.

Yeah, I know I've been harping on a lot about the lack of Morpheus. But in my defence, I think he's the most interesting main character in the entire original trilogy.

Share this post


Link to post

@Rudolph one thing is the plot, and other thing is the purpose.
And no, it is not.

The core of the films is the struggle of humanity, it even fall, as a lot of science fiction movies, into an humanist point of view.
The Wachowski's were always clear on their message to the point of repetition.

The Matrix trilogy

V for Vendetta
Speed Racer

It was always the same message, but when doing V, they explained that the work of Alan Moore opened their point of view to new heights.
V For Vendetta has a lot of postmodernism related topics, like totalitarianism, criticism of religion, homosexuality, Islamophobia and terrorism, but it has a positive ending, and a hero.
Postmodernism is not positive, there is no end or conclusion, It offer no answers. it just reach a point where is not important to continue showing to the expectator or the reader.

And don't take me wrong, i don't decry postmodernism.
I objetively explained what it is and how it kinda works.
For some postmodernism is one of the best things that happened ever, for other its a corruption of all instances of philosophy.


For me, its simple the natural step on the world we live on, where power struggle was alsways the core of everything humanity made.
Postmodernism just take it to the max or even break the boundaries of the principal philosophies.
Cause and effect didn't matter anymore and they may even not be relatable at all.
All that matter is if someone can do it. And later, the story created to justify it if needed.

Before was a power struggle, now is the opposite, humanity is power hungry and thats the only thing that drives it.

Before the facts were use to explain everything, now it doesn't matter anymore as we can change the facts as much as we like and told them in favor of our own purpose. It only matter how good are we at making the new set up and how charismatic we are while doing it and convincing all of what we say.

 

tl;dr back to topic, it doesn't matter what i think of a trailer, even when i had fun putting on words things that i didn't knew i even knew.

Time to put an use to all that knowledgement.

Share this post


Link to post

@P41R47 English does not seem to be your first language, so it is incredibly difficult to get what you are trying to say here.

 

But even then, it does not seem like you understand "postmodernism" at all. I can assure you, none of the things you named (totalitarianism, criticism of religion, homosexuality, islamophobia and terrorism) are "postmodernist" concepts.

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, P41R47 said:

On the new trailer, there is an emphasis on shown if Neo is Neo, if Trinity is Trinity.


I disagree. They are obviously either the same people, or some recreation of them. Neo remembers the Matrix and he and Trinity both remember each other. I don't think they dropped that in the trailer to be misleading. To me it's a clear use of dramatic irony. The viewer is supposed to know who they are.

Share this post


Link to post
50 minutes ago, Rudolph said:

But even then, it does not seem like you understand "postmodernism" at all. I can assure you, none of the things you named (totalitarianism, criticism of religion, homosexuality, islamophobia and terrorism) are "postmodernist" concepts.

Related topics.
Lots of postmodernist works delve into this concepts (Gravity's Rainbow, The Crying of Lot 49, The Name of the Rose, Focault's Pendulum, The Island of the Day Before, The Collector, The Magus, A Maggot, etc.), but are not their main subject, thats why i use related topics.
Postmodernism usualy takes the form of menippean satires or at least it tropes to work.

Before assuming that someone doesn't understand something, first, try to know for yourself if what you think is actually right.

And for certain, its a good usage of postmodernit's tactics by you just saying that i don't understand something and just left it there, so anyone reading think that you holds the proper aknowledge of it without even explaining why, supposely, my assumptions are wrong.

Cheers for you!

 

52 minutes ago, Rudolph said:

@P41R47 English does not seem to be your first language, so it is incredibly difficult to get what you are trying to say here.

So be it, since my language its not the appropiate to communicate the concepts and ideas i wrote off, then better just stop quoting me.

 

2 minutes ago, magicsofa said:


I disagree. They are obviously either the same people, or some recreation of them. Neo remembers the Matrix and he and Trinity both remember each other. I don't think they dropped that in the trailer to be misleading. To me it's a clear use of dramatic irony. The viewer is supposed to know who they are.

i agree with all that you said.
i didn't said that the trailer tries to make us doubt if Neo is Neo or Trinity is Trinity, i said that there is an enphasis on showing the characters having doubts of their own reality. On a far more interesting way than what was shown on the first movie.
In the first film, the normal life of Thomas Anderson wasn't developed almost. Just a few scenes showing him falling sleep after searching information of Morpheus, and then the scene when the Agents went to take him from his job.


At least, on this trailer, it appears they try to show how ''empty'' or ''alienated'' he felts, and how meeting with Trinity may change both of them.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, P41R47 said:

Related topics.

Homosexuality has been around as long as humans have been existed and it was considered to be perfectly normal until some people decided it was not for whatever reason and started persecuting others over it. People have been criticizing religion for as long as there have been religions to criticize, oftentimes leading to the creation of new religions in the process. As for terrorism, using violence as a political tool is as ancient as politics themselves. None of them are "postmodernist" notions.

 

And it does not help your case that you would start accusing me of "postmodernism" for merely pointing out that your claims appear to be incorrect. It really is starting to feel like you are using the word like some kind of buzzword.

 

1 hour ago, P41R47 said:

In the first film, the normal life of Thomas Anderson wasn't developed almost. Just a few scenes showing him falling sleep after searching information of Morpheus, and then the scene when the Agents went to take him from his job.

The whole movie is full of scenes of characters musing about what is and is not reality, e.g. the red pill-blue pill scene, the spoon-bending scene, the meeting with the Oracle, the dinner scene aboard the Nebuchadnezzar, Cypher soliloquying about a virtual steak and trying to justify himself to Trinity, Agent Smith lecturing a captive Morpheus about mankind, etc.

Edited by Rudolph

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, Rudolph said:

The whole movie is full of scenes of characters musing about what is and is not reality, e.g. the red pill-blue pill scene, the spoon-bending scene, the meeting with the Oracle, the dinner scene aboard the Nebuchadnezzar, Cypher soliloquying about a virtual steak and trying to justify himself to Trinity, Agent Smith lecturing a captive Morpheus about mankind, etc.

And?
Total Recall has the same musing.
Demolition Man has the same, also.
Even Last Action Hero has the same talking about the reality.

As i said before, and this starts to be tiring, science fiction (kinda magical realism on the last example) has shared tropes with the usual postmodernist fiction.
But that doesn't relate them at all.
Their purpose is different.

 

25 minutes ago, Rudolph said:

Homosexuality has been around as long as humans have been existed and it was considered to be perfectly normal until some people decided it was not for whatever reason and started persecuting others over it. People have been criticizing religion for as long as there have been religions to criticize, oftentimes leading to the creation of new religions in the process. As for terrorism, using violence as a political tool is as ancient as politics themselves. None of them are "postmodernist" notions.


I stated, on reiterate occasion by now, that those are not postmodernist concepts, just that postmodernist works delve into them.


You seem to fail to understand what i'm trying to explain for some reason.
As far as i know, not being a native English speaker was never an impediment to making me understand.
So probably you are reading a bit too fast or just skipping it.
Or, for some reason unknown to me, you seem to disagree with what i exposed and that generates in you an unintended reaction.
And i can't do much for you in that regards.

If it is a language barrier, i asked you to stop quoting me, already, as it would be impossible to make us understand, but you keep at it.

 

43 minutes ago, Rudolph said:

And it does not help your case that you would start accusing me of "postmodernism" for merely pointing out that your claims appear to be incorrect. It really is starting to feel like you are using the word like some kind of buzzword.

whatever man, you have your point of view, i had mine.
I just explained things objetively, and you think they are subjectively incorrect.
I'm not lecturing anyone, but in the moment that you said that my interpretations are incorrect without even explaining why, you invalidate whatever you said.
Opinions are just opinions, and you are mixing a lot of thing, insolate and decotextualizing them to prove that what i said should be seen or appear as incorrect.
Do as you like, man.

I come here expressing that i found some interesting new thought about the new trailer, and just objetively explained them.
I not tried to convince anyone of my point of view nor said that the film will be bad or anything.
I just expressed my thought about being reluctant on how things were depicted on the trailer, giving me the feeling that it may had a different focus than the previous films.

And i said that it gave me a more postmodernist feel than thre previous films. And i hoped that it didn't screwed the film as many postmodernist films and literary works.
That was my only subjective opinion on this matter, and for some reason, you quoted it asking for explanations.
I give them, and then you started calling them incorrect wihtout even exposing why, from your point of view, they are incorrect.
Even ''suggesting'' that if i do not know something, i should simple said ''i don't know''.

This is already tiring and its completely derailing the thread.

I asked you to stop quoting me, already.
Twice on this post.

Do you understand that?

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Rudolph said:

The whole movie is full of scenes of characters musing about what is and is not reality, e.g. the red pill-blue pill scene, the spoon-bending scene, the meeting with the Oracle, the dinner scene aboard the Nebuchadnezzar, Cypher soliloquying about a virtual steak and trying to justify himself to Trinity, Agent Smith lecturing a captive Morpheus about mankind, etc.

 

Yeah, but all of these scenes take place *after* Neo has been awakened from the Matrix. The point @P41R47 is making is that Neo's life and motives prior to waking are not really explained or explored much. I agree with him here. The first time I watched the movie, I didn't really understand why Neo gave a shit about Morpheus or why he was trying to find him. I understood Neo was a hacker, and that he was looking for something, but I never felt it was sufficiently explained who or why. Right about the point when Neo gets arrested, you understand he's obviously deeply invested in finding Morpheus---after all, why else would he know who Morpheus is immediately when he hears his voice on the phone?

 

Eventually, all of these points fall to the wayside after Neo wakes up, but I still think they could have spent a few more minutes explaining his motivations early on. It would have made the scene of meeting Morpheus more impactful.

 

To be clear, I don't think the methods of conveying information in the movie were inefficient by any means---they actually conveyed a great deal about the characters in the first several scenes without a lot of expositional dialogue. I just wish they had gone a bit further with it in some aspects.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×