| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
   |
Posted - 2008.12.17 12:34:00 -
[1]
wait, so... an emp blast KILLS all of those robot things?
and... it's only installed on like 2 ships... why? I mean when they are defending the dock. They have to wait for this ship to come back... to use it's EMP which will kill everything...
uuuhhhhh what?
and then they say something about now that they knocked them all out it basiclly means they haded it them on a sliver platter... what the hell?!?!?!
why wouldn't they just keep an EMP at the base? aHHHH
ok now I see why I never heard my friends ranting about this movie :P
BUT ARGH! NEED SOMEONE TO TELL! AHHHH.
|
knifee
Caldari
Euphoria Released
|
Posted - 2008.12.17 12:50:00 -
[2]
While I can see where your coming from with this.. I think the problem is that you engaged your brain while watching a Matrix film.
|
Crewman Jenkins
|
Posted - 2008.12.17 12:55:00 -
[3]
I don't know what they were thinking with the 3rd movie it was such a disappointment compared to the first two, and the second one was worse than the first.
In my opinion, and how I thought it would be, the third movie should have been about how there was a matrix inside The Matrix..thus explaining how neo could zap the bots in the "real world" at the end of the second film, neo could then be different than all the other "anomaly" people before him by being able to reach into the second layer of the matrix, and a bunch of other stuff could have been explained away with that.
|
Stitcher
Caldari
Duty.
|
Posted - 2008.12.17 12:58:00 -
[4]
Okay, okay:
1 - yes. They're robots. an EMP fries electrical circuits. The equivalent to a human would be a massive, fatal epileptic seizure.
2 - EMPs were fitted on every ship in the fleet. However, almost all of the fleet was wiped out by Smith, who detonated an EMP device during the battle (see the second movie). Because the ships are vulnerable to their own EMPs, that meant that firing off the EMP during the battle killed all of the human ships too. There were only two ships left after that.
3 - using the EMP killed all the electrical systems in Zion's docks too, shutting down all of the defences, meaning the rest of the machine army could just swarm in there unopposed.
4: see above. the reason there's an EMP fitted on the ships is that the ships can shut themselves down quickly in order to deploy it without frying themselves. The docks can't, so firing an EMP in there is guaranteed to shut down all of Zion's defences.
hope that clears it up
-
Captain Verin "Stitcher" Tarn-Hakatain. |
Dihania
Gallente
SniggWaffe
|
Posted - 2008.12.17 13:14:00 -
[5]
that's one movie that you watch 1 time because well "it's famous" and then thing about how stupid it was and how time you just wasted.
the only thing good about it when it came out, matrix 1, were the special effects.
Join "join sniggwaffe" in game. Good Service! |
Slade Trillgon
Masuat'aa Matari
Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2008.12.17 13:18:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Slade Trillgon on 17/12/2008 13:22:19
The more times I watched the first one the more holes I found that I had problems with. I dis****ed the second and refuse to watch the third.
Take that as you will.
Slade
 Originally by: Niccolado Starwalker
Please go sit in the corner, and dont forget to don the shame-on-you-hat!
≡v≡ |
Stitcher
Caldari
Duty.
|
Posted - 2008.12.17 13:25:00 -
[7]
...am I the only person here who actually liked the third film?
-
Captain Verin "Stitcher" Tarn-Hakatain. |
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2008.12.17 13:27:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Stitcher
Okay, okay:
1 - yes. They're robots. an EMP fries electrical circuits. The equivalent to a human would be a massive, fatal epileptic seizure.
2 - EMPs were fitted on every ship in the fleet. However, almost all of the fleet was wiped out by Smith, who detonated an EMP device during the battle (see the second movie). Because the ships are vulnerable to their own EMPs, that meant that firing off the EMP during the battle killed all of the human ships too. There were only two ships left after that.
3 - using the EMP killed all the electrical systems in Zion's docks too, shutting down all of the defences, meaning the rest of the machine army could just swarm in there unopposed.
4: see above. the reason there's an EMP fitted on the ships is that the ships can shut themselves down quickly in order to deploy it without frying themselves. The docks can't, so firing an EMP in there is guaranteed to shut down all of Zion's defences.
hope that clears it up
but they should still have it as a back up no? why depend on a ship that might make it back?
Your right about the ships, I guess it's been a LONG time. I haven't seen that movie recently.
|
Ivana Drake
|
Posted - 2008.12.17 13:30:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Stitcher
...am I the only person here who actually liked the third film?
I liked it, but everyone else I know hated it to death... 
It's more sci-fi than action, which is prob why it wasn't so popular.
|
AlleyKat
Gallente
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams
|
Posted - 2008.12.17 13:32:00 -
[10]
This isn't Flamebait, but The Matrix Trilogy is an utterly amazing piece of work.
To build bridges to others, I have always said that from a pure film perspective, the 2nd two films did not work from a traditional story point of view, but (and in essence after I watched the philosophical commentary) from the perspective of combining eastern and western philosophy and merging this into a cohesive storyline - it really is genius at work.
I won't go into detail too much here, as there are more than enough online resources which go into the philosophical interpretations and originations of the Films than you can shake a stick at - even the little things like the characters names all have some (un)hidden meaning.
If you want to go beyond the surface of the films, there is a lot there to read up on, but if all you want is action, then stick with the first film - but even that had a lot of meaning to it.
And no, this isn't a case of over-intellectualising a topic to justify a lack of opinion which I share, my opinion was changed by understanding the films more.
AK. |
Crumplecorn
Gallente
Eve Cluster Explorations
|
Posted - 2008.12.17 13:45:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Crumplecorn on 17/12/2008 13:50:55
I love the third film, and consider the first to be the weakest of the three.
The poster two above me got it right, they basically mixed awesome action with an actual intelligent story. The action attracted the masses, who were unequipped to deal with anything more intellectual than Die Hard.
The first Matrix didn't have much story (world isn't real OMGLOL!!!one), and so people liked it. With the follow ups they added some actual complexity to the story (not that I would say it went as far as actually being complex), and when people came back for more action their fragile minds were completely overloaded. Cue hatred.
While I was disappointed that the masses gave the trilogy such a bad reputation, since the latter two were both finished production when the first of them was released, this downturn in popularity didn't adversely affect the films themselves. Due to this the lack of popularity is more than made up for by the lulz garnered from people (and let's not sugar-coat here) too stupid for the films who were suckered in by the action. This is in principle the same phenomenon as the threads in GD complaining about nonconsensual PvP.
What I don't understand is why people can't sit back and just enjoy the action in the latter movies if they don't like/get the story. They were obviously able to do it with the first film, and the action in the latter ones is so much more epic that it must surely be worth sitting through scenes that go over your head to get to them? Meh.
As for accusations of plot holes, most of these accusations are never backed up, and the few I have seen elaborated on have been, like the OP, people not knowing what is going on.
-
DesuSigs |
Super Whopper
I can Has Cheeseburger
|
Posted - 2008.12.17 14:13:00 -
[12]
The Matrix is an amazing film. The second film was a disappointment but the third did not let down.
When you've understood who Smith, Neo and the Creator are you will realise the genius of the Wachowski brothers.
|
Slade Trillgon
Masuat'aa Matari
Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2008.12.17 14:14:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Slade Trillgon on 17/12/2008 14:15:03
Originally by: Crumplecorn
As for accusations of plot holes, most of these accusations are never backed up, and the few I have seen elaborated on have been, like the OP, people not knowing what is going on.
I might have to watch it a sixth time to remeber the problems I had with it. I doubt I will give it the time though. Bad Keanue Reeves movies are like a thorn stuck under my right thumb 
Slade
Originally by: Niccolado Starwalker
Please go sit in the corner, and dont forget to don the shame-on-you-hat!
≡v≡ |
Super Whopper
I can Has Cheeseburger
|
Posted - 2008.12.17 14:19:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Slade Trillgon
I might have to watch it a sixth time to remeber the problems I had with it. I doubt I will give it the time though. Bad Keanue Reeves movies are like a thorn stuck under my right thumb
Slade
Personal problem with Keanu Reeves.
|
Crumplecorn
Gallente
Eve Cluster Explorations
|
Posted - 2008.12.17 14:35:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Slade Trillgon
Bad Keanue Reeves movies are like a thorn stuck under my right thumb
Bad Keanu Reeves movies are, in my experience, an oxymoron.
-
DesuSigs |
Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
|
Posted - 2008.12.17 14:38:00 -
[16]
I liked the two latter films just for their action scenes, but as a whole the first one is the best. It had a coherent storyline from start to finish, the action looked good and the action was easy to follow. In the later films the action was epic in a way it was in the opening scene of revenge of the sith. That is it looked amazing, but you didn't have a good sense of the overall fight. It was just some pretty pics to look at while you waited for the story to get going again. The dancing(fighting) scenes in matrix were worthy of any musical.
In the last two the storytelling just sucks. I think this is partly because they tried to tie the games made at the same time to the movies. This meant that some of the story was only told in the games. As a result you have parts of the story not shown in the movie and characters that don't seem to serve any purpose. I don't know actually what parts were atually affected, but if the films rely on things not actually shown in the films, they fail.
As for the intelligence of the films. I don't see them having any tbh. I see a lot of useles postmodern philosophy, that tries to seem intelligent rather than being intelligent. I know it's just a movie and I maybe over interpretating it, but I have seen this all too often in recent years. People who spew out jargon and seems intelligent at first glance, but don't conway any useful information and the jargon acts only as a smokescreen for the lack of real insight and serious thinking.
Matrix trilogy as a whole was a nice scifi action story. Watch it for the action and you won't be disappointed. If you want something more, watch it anyway since there haven't been any really good scifi movies in recent years.
|
Super Whopper
I can Has Cheeseburger
|
Posted - 2008.12.17 14:41:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Destination SkillQueue
Matrix trilogy as a whole was a nice scifi action story. Watch it for the action and you won't be disappointed. If you want something more, watch it anyway since there haven't been any really good scifi movies in recent years.
The failure is done by you because the Matrix is not a sci-fi story.
|
Stitcher
Caldari
Duty.
|
Posted - 2008.12.17 14:56:00 -
[18]
Edited by: Stitcher on 17/12/2008 15:00:38
Originally by: Crumplecorn
Originally by: Slade Trillgon
Bad Keanue Reeves movies are like a thorn stuck under my right thumb
Bad Keanu Reeves movies are, in my experience, an oxymoron.
They guy's talent for showing up in very good films does seem to mitigate his lack of talent for acting, it's true...
Originally by: Super Whopper
Originally by: Destination SkillQueue
Matrix trilogy as a whole was a nice scifi action story. Watch it for the action and you won't be disappointed. If you want something more, watch it anyway since there haven't been any really good scifi movies in recent years.
The failure is done by you because the Matrix is not a sci-fi story.
let's see....
Robots - check
set in the future - check
anti-gravity vehicles - check
energy weapons - check
sentient AI - check
mind-machine control interfaces - check
...nope, pretty certain it's sci-fi. Or rather, it's Cyberpunk, and cyberpunk is a sub-genre of sci-fi.
-
Captain Verin "Stitcher" Tarn-Hakatain. |
Crumplecorn
Gallente
Eve Cluster Explorations
|
Posted - 2008.12.17 14:59:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Destination SkillQueue
I liked the two latter films just for their action scenes, but as a whole the first one is the best. It had a coherent storyline from start to finish, the action looked good and the action was easy to follow. In the later films the action was epic in a way it was in the opening scene of revenge of the sith. That is it looked amazing, but you didn't have a good sense of the overall fight. It was just some pretty pics to look at while you waited for the story to get going again. The dancing(fighting) scenes in matrix were worthy of any musical.
This paragraph says you couldn't follow the action, let alone the story.
Originally by: Destination SkillQueue
In the last two the storytelling just sucks. I think this is partly because they tried to tie the games made at the same time to the movies. This meant that some of the story was only told in the games. As a result you have parts of the story not shown in the movie and characters that don't seem to serve any purpose. I don't know actually what parts were atually affected, but if the films rely on things not actually shown in the films, they fail.
" don't know actually what parts were atually affected"
'nuff said.
Originally by: Destination SkillQueue
As for the intelligence of the films. I don't see them having any tbh. I see a lot of useles postmodern philosophy, that tries to seem intelligent rather than being intelligent. I know it's just a movie and I maybe over interpretating it, but I have seen this all too often in recent years. People who spew out jargon and seems intelligent at first glance, but don't conway any useful information and the jargon acts only as a smokescreen for the lack of real insight and serious thinking.
What were you expecting, the meaning of life? Why is it that people are divided into those who cannot understand anything beyond 'hero shoot bad guy, bad guy die' and those who demand profound philosophical insights from Hollywood?
-
DesuSigs |
Crumplecorn
Gallente
Eve Cluster Explorations
|
Posted - 2008.12.17 15:01:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Stitcher
They guy's talent for showing up in very good films does seem to mitigate his lack of talent for acting, it's true...
He's not bad at acting, he just always plays himself. What film has he been in where his role has been anything other than an ordinary guy, possibly in extraordinary circumstances? Sometimes the role calls for someone who doesn't appear to be acting.
-
DesuSigs |
Slade Trillgon
Masuat'aa Matari
Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2008.12.17 15:01:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Stitcher
They guy's talent for showing up in very good films does seem to mitigate his lack of talent for acting, it's true...
That is about the simplest way to put it.
Note that in my initial quote that I said bad Keanue Reeves movies and not all Keanue Reeves movies.
Slade
Originally by: Niccolado Starwalker
Please go sit in the corner, and dont forget to don the shame-on-you-hat!
≡v≡ |
Slade Trillgon
Masuat'aa Matari
Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2008.12.17 15:04:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Crumplecorn
Originally by: Stitcher
They guy's talent for showing up in very good films does seem to mitigate his lack of talent for acting, it's true...
He's not bad at acting, he just always plays himself. What film has he been in where his role has been anything other than an ordinary guy, possibly in extraordinary circumstances? Sometimes the role calls for someone who doesn't appear to be acting.
The problem is that he doesnot come across as natural. He forces all his motions, facial expression and so on. I do not get into him, but if you dig him then so be it.
I think he is better suited for stage acting.
Slade
Originally by: Niccolado Starwalker
Please go sit in the corner, and dont forget to don the shame-on-you-hat!
≡v≡ |
Super Whopper
I can Has Cheeseburger
|
Posted - 2008.12.17 15:05:00 -
[23]
Edited by: Super Whopper on 17/12/2008 15:06:09
Originally by: Stitcher
let's see....
Robots - check
set in the future - check
anti-gravity vehicles - check
energy weapons - check
sentient AI - check
mind-machine control interfaces - check
...nope, pretty certain it's sci-fi. Or rather, it's Cyberpunk, and cyberpunk is a sub-genre of sci-fi.
Robots - mean what?
set in the future - would the story have been clearer had it been set 2000 years ago?
energy weapons - replace with swords and?
sentient AI - keep thinking
mind-machine control interfaces - oops did I mention something about 2000 years ago?
...nope, pretty certain it's NOT sci-fi. Or rather, it's something I can't think off.
Instead of trolling answer who Neo, Morpheus, Persephone, the Merovingian, the Key Maker and, especially, Smith are.
|
Crumplecorn
Gallente
Eve Cluster Explorations
|
Posted - 2008.12.17 15:07:00 -
[24]
In before the Matrix is deconstructed into derivative drivel.
-
DesuSigs |
Arianhod
|
Posted - 2008.12.17 15:16:00 -
[25]
I personally hold the Matrix and the Lord of the Rings to be the crowning jewels of western film making.
Thought the final film was the best because it had a do or die feel that you could actualy connect with, as opposed to the general beat em up blow it up of Hollywood.
After watching the Animatrix (yes, the Wachowski brothers made anime of the Matrix  ) that covers a large chunk of backstory, my only gripe with the plot was this. Why humans as batteries? Surely feeding the dead to the living with no other input of energy must be very inefficient... energy cannot be created or destroyed, so the system is unsustainable. Couple this with running the Matrix on the electricity and you could probably make a case for it being a better system just to throw bodies in an incinerator....
Haven't seen the films in years mind, I recall suspecting that both "the real world" and the Matrix were part of an overreaching simulation.
Haruhiists - Overloading Out of Pod discussions since 2007.
Haruhiists - Supporting Linkification since 2008
|
Crumplecorn
Gallente
Eve Cluster Explorations
|
Posted - 2008.12.17 15:19:00 -
[26]
Edited by: Crumplecorn on 17/12/2008 15:19:30
Originally by: Arianhod
Lord of the Rings
Pfft. Good vs. Evil. The average EVE chronicle is better.
As for the humans-as-batteries thing, it doesn't make much sense, but its closer to sense than the stuff in most sci-fi.
-
DesuSigs |
Super Whopper
I can Has Cheeseburger
|
Posted - 2008.12.17 15:24:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Arianhod
I personally hold the Matrix and the Lord of the Rings to be the crowning jewels of western film making.
Thought the final film was the best because it had a do or die feel that you could actualy connect with, as opposed to the general beat em up blow it up of Hollywood.
After watching the Animatrix (yes, the Wachowski brothers made anime of the Matrix ) that covers a large chunk of backstory, my only gripe with the plot was this. Why humans as batteries? Surely feeding the dead to the living with no other input of energy must be very inefficient... energy cannot be created or destroyed, so the system is unsustainable. Couple this with running the Matrix on the electricity and you could probably make a case for it being a better system just to throw bodies in an incinerator....
Haven't seen the films in years mind, I recall suspecting that both "the real world" and the Matrix were part of an overreaching simulation.
LotR books are far better than the films. I read the books three times (once a summer for three years in a row) but couldn't watch the films more than once. Interesting that you mentioned LotR because that isn't just about good vs. evil either. But I see that it's too intelligent a subject for the denizens of EVE to comprehend. It is a shame.
|
Micheal Dietrich
Caldari
Terradyne Networks
|
Posted - 2008.12.17 15:26:00 -
[28]
I still say that they could have stopped at the first and let it be as the ending to me was actaully great in this case.
I don't really care for the other 2 but occassionaly I will watch them although the 'to be continued' made me feel like I was watching a ABC special or something.
|
Stitcher
Caldari
Duty.
|
Posted - 2008.12.17 15:26:00 -
[29]
Edited by: Stitcher on 17/12/2008 15:27:40
Originally by: Super Whopper
Robots - mean what?
set in the future - would the story have been clearer had it been set 2000 years ago?
energy weapons - replace with swords and?
sentient AI - keep thinking
mind-machine control interfaces - oops did I mention something about 2000 years ago?
...nope, pretty certain it's NOT sci-fi. Or rather, it's something I can't think off.
Instead of trolling answer who Neo, Morpheus, Persephone, the Merovingian, the Key Maker and, especially, Smith are.
*laughs*
you're missing my point, I'm afraid. My point was that sci-fi, fantasy, fables, biblical stories, myths, legends... every story told in human history is the same. Only the props change.
The MAtrix is sci-fi, because it uses sci-fi props. It's a bit nonsensical to say "energy weapons - replace with swords and?" because it DID have energy weapons. Replace the props, and you change the genre.
From a narratological perspective, however, it is no more a sci-fi story than LoTR is a fantasy one.
-
Captain Verin "Stitcher" Tarn-Hakatain. |
Slade Trillgon
Masuat'aa Matari
Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2008.12.17 15:34:00 -
[30]
Enemy Mine is a much more powerfull "sci-fi" movie with much better acting to boot.
Slade
Originally by: Niccolado Starwalker
Please go sit in the corner, and dont forget to don the shame-on-you-hat!
≡v≡ |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |