The Matrix

[WarBlade]

The fact that there was enough there to generate the discussions is part of what I liked about the movie. 

That about expresses my sentiment too. There was enough happening and enough to keep us guessing that left us with a lot to discuss. Overall, I enjoyed the result, although do concede a few points on odd inclusions in the film.

The early scenes, both the frat party and the "sex" scene (anyone that thinks that was a *sex* scene obviously didn't see Bolero) I found boring because they didn't really contribute to the development.

The most vilified scene in the film by all acounts. I dunno. I think they were trying to express something about the idea of the human animal presented as a counter to the clinical precision of the machine world . . . animal versus machine, tribal versus advanced civilization etc.

I think they had the right idea, but the wrong delivery.

And the obligatory extended fight scenes were overdone, but still entertaining in a Tom & Jerry way.

:D Which is an unsurprising comment in light of the deliberate Wily E Coyote fall that Neo does in the first film. :D (I've just been on a Blade 2 binge and really start taking notice of all the 'cartoon shots' some directors keep slipping in :D )

A pity the music selection wasn't better though. Diving into Lunatic Calm etc for the fights in the first film was a much better choice than the car chase music accompanying the fights in Reloaded. :blink:

[Jester]

"Whether all the loose ends and all the inconsistencies are worked out or not will show whether this is a real piece of science fiction or just a first rate of SciFi"

Asimov's definition?

Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

"Whether all the loose ends and all the inconsistencies are worked out or not will show whether this is a real piece of science fiction or just a first rate of SciFi"

Asimov's definition?

No, Harlen Ellison's. He distinguishes between SciFi (most space opera, etc.), science fiction (Clark, Heinlein, some of Asimov), sf (speculative fiction), and fantasy. Sometimes the line is unclear to mere mortals, but totally obvious to a god like Harlen :)

--Pete

[TaMeOlta]

Well, I'm thinking that maybe I'll go and see it again - with a lighter heart.  Excepting the opening scenes, I agree, there was some thought-provoking material.  Maybe I expect too much, I just REALLY enjoyed the first one and was hoping for something with the same measure of "completeness".  Despite the fact that they are all parts of one whole, I really felt that the first movie was far "tighter".  Tough to explain...  I suppose we'll see tomorrow night (cheap night!). 

Ah - eerily this "change of mind" mirrors Neo's decision to sit on that park bench ;) ! I think we ruin movies with our expectations (fueled by too many trailers and teasers) , I know I've been slightly dissappointed at a few of the big block busters by this . Now , I try to avoid "making of" , interviews , and behind-the-scenes spots before seeing the movie itself - and , if I have any info that sneaks into my brain before I get to the theater , I dump my memory totally after purchasing the ticket :D

[--Pete]

Hi,

I try to avoid "making of" , interviews , and behind-the-scenes spots before seeing the movie itself

Yep. I've been pretty much doing the same. I've also tried to do the same with games. Since most company's marketing department writes checks that the production department can't come close to cashing, I find that avoiding the disappointment pays off in the long run.

Of course, that meant I missed the trailer for part 3 since I walked out during the final credits. Probably for the best ;)

--Pete

[keenduck]

Just in case you want to see it Pete, you can check it out right here.

Hmm, I'm such an enabler. :lol:

[--Pete]

Hi,

Thanks, but no thanks. I can wait for the real thing without teasing myself ;)

--Pete

[WarBlade]

Of course, that meant I missed the trailer for part 3 since I walked out during the final credits.  Probably for the best ;)

You didn't miss much. It was mostly just a montage of effects or acrobatics shots and one little Neo/Smith face off like some kind of re-enactment of western gunfight scenes.

[Kasreyn]

Pete: I thought it was spelled Harlan? Anyway, I agree he's a god of SF, but he's a worse ass to his fans than Shatner. I wouldn't want to be within 50 feet of the jerk if even 1/10th of what I've heard about him is true.

As to "making of" thingies, I avoid them until after I've seen the movies enough times to be sure I've absorbed all of it, and the magic has faded. This is not for any reason of finding new interest, but to prevent myself from ruining it for myself. IMO, editors have jobs for a REASON: they leave the bits that don't help the story on the cutting room floor. If you trust the artistic vision of the editor, and not just the director, writers, and actors, then you won't WANT to see the outtakes, because in the editor's opinon they were not necessary. As -Antoine de Saint-Exupéry said,

"A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."

That said, I have enjoyed "director's cuts" of exactly two movies: LotR:FotR and ST:TMP. The first because in a book like LotR there is too much material for 12 movies, much less three, and of necessity much useful and interesting footage had to be cut; the addition of it added to the experience. Personally, I'm not impatient. When I can, I intend to get all three Extended Versions of the LotR (hopefully at least 4 hours each), and watch the whole thing back-to-back. To me, there is no such thing as boredom sitting on my butt if I'm absorbing a fascinating tale at the time.

As to ST:TMP, IMO the original editing sucked. Too many useful character development scenes were cut, and too many unneccessary sfx scenes were left in. The director's cut largely solves this and the movie feels like more of a whole, plus the remastered sound and modernized special effects are truly a joy.

The one other thing I never indulge in is the feature on many DvD's with "commentary" by the director or something. These annoy the hell out of me! They play the movie at a soft volume and they have some interviewer, or the director, or cinematographer, or some other jerk talking over it, and saying totally boring, uninteresting factoids about the movie. If I wanted to know this garbage, I'd buy a book about it so I could skim past the brain-numbingly boring factoids about which director hobnobbed with which cinematographer and helped him bring which lighting director on board for the film, plus the book would have fewer "uhh"s, "ummm"s, and horselike laughs.

I agree with Warblade, the trailers for 2 and 3 were garbage. Bunch of scenes of their horrible-rehearsed-looking fights, and Laurence Fishburne reciting some stilted metaphysical dialogue that was so sophomoric he looked downright ashamed.

-Kasreyn

[--Pete]

Hi,

I wouldn't want to be within 50 feet of the jerk if even 1/10th of what I've heard about him is true.

Depends. He doesn't suffer fools, lightly or otherwise. But show him you are no fool and he's easy enough to get along with. Looking forward to one day spending some time with him at a con :)

they leave the bits that don't help the story on the cutting room floor.

Normally, yes. But there is also that magic number: 180. That's the maximum number of minutes that an audience will put up with (according to some). So, every now and again some of what goes onto the floor is of value. I completely agree with you about the directors (third) cut of LotR. And I too am looking forward to a twelve hour Saturday of non-stop Middle Earth.

"A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."

I had that posted over my various desks at Boeing for about ten years. Just an elegant way of saying KISS, which always a good idea. The less there is, the less that can go wrong :D

--Pete

[Drasca]

Fantastic. now I know about the apple, which will tease me to no end for the next few days now. I entered and left mostly blind about the surrounding hype-- didn't even know there'd even be a trailer. Gah temptation!

[WarBlade]

That said, I have enjoyed "director's cuts" of exactly two movies:  LotR:FotR and ST:TMP.

ST: TMP? At a guess, Star Trek: The Motion Picture?

Anyway the extended DVDs for LotR aren't exactly what I'd refer to as being the director's cut version. Technically the theatrical and extended releases are both director's cuts although as you accurately pointed out, one of them is somewhat truncated in the interests of sticking to a three hour time frame for cinema audiences.

Oh come on November. Hurry up and arrive already! :P

The one other thing I never indulge in is the feature on many DvD's with "commentary" by the director or something.

They're a mixed bag, to be sure. I recommend the actor commentry for Fellowship of the Ring for one. Another is both commentries on Blade 2.

Condensed version: "Hi, and welcome to the commentry on Blade 2. I'm Guillermo Del Toro and with me is Peter Frankfurt. We're here to entertain you while you find out why the f*** this channel has two assholes talking and not the movie."

From there on the audience is taken through a nutty series of diatribes from Power Puff Girls, to vaginal symbolism with regards to concrete sewers, foetuses in jars and many other wonderous facts about life, the universe and everything your mother would have never told you about.

Quite entertaining in an infantile sort of way. B)

PS. The Matrix commentry is one of the worst I've ever heard. :P

[TaMeOlta]

Normally, yes.  But there is also that magic number: 180.  That's the maximum number of minutes that an audience will put up with (according to some).  So, every now and again some of what goes onto the floor is of value.

You think that's because thats the maximum time limit someone can keep their bladder from bursting after buy the Mega-Monster sized diet coke ? You would think they would bring back "intermissions" (no , boys n girls , thats not a video game term :P ) thus increasing their snack sales - I guess its better to get their 8 to 10 bucks from ticket sales and stagger the start times for the longer , blockbusting movies <_< .

Well , if the average lifespan for us is actually increasing , I know I have extra time to look forward to movie watchin' n book readin' :D !

[Jeunemaitre]

personal anecdote
My wife and I were driving home from seeing the film and she said to me "how did that guy make copies of himself?" I responded that he did it the same way you copy text out of one Word document and into another (mimicking the ctrl-c—ctrl-v motion). And she said "but it was a person, not a Word document. We ended up in a discussion about the fundamental principle of the divided world presented in the matrix and how the persona representing Smith really was a computer program that presented itself in the shape of a person. Like a virus, he copied himself onto other systems (when he "infected" the individual on the other ship [insert tangent]) when taking peoples bodies, and could just as easily zip out to some other system in the instant before the system is destroyed (person is killed). There was a good long silence while we each worked out what to say next. She won by stating "who was that guy at the end, the one in the white suit?" Not wanting to full repeat everything, I answered shortly "he wasn't a guy, he was a computer program too." She said "oh well, I still liked his suit..."

tangent: we had an intermediary discussion about the ability of active viruses to write themselves onto remote computers over active connections, and I still think it's perfectly plausible that Smith overwrote the hard drive (brain) of the infected system, and now operates that system despite the fact that it's offline at the moment. Controlling the frame of the body is roughly analogous to inhabiting systems still online (people in the matrix).

previous discussions/
As to the existence of the Matrix, let’s assume that the energy produced by humans is used as a source of energy. If this is true, the machines would want to maximize the individual output. An active body generates more heat than an inactive body, so if Morpheus was right when he said that "you mind makes [the Matrix] real" then neuro-simulated stimulation will result in more heat produced. The question is, is the per person amount of energy it takes to run the matrix less than the per person amount of energy produced? (when figuring this ratio, keep in mind all the "energy costs" that go into matrix maintenance and maintaining all of the machine world, also bear in mind that the matrix actually has no graphic representation unto itself, all the graphics are generated on the client side (within the plugged in human's mind))

McLaughlin voice/"Next issue: the rusty latch. Coincidence or contrivance? I ask you Jeunemaitre..."/close McLaughlin voice
Maybe the rusty support was just a coincidence, that ships connection would have been severed either way (by the sentinels bomb, or by an emp used to defend the ship (it would shut down the ship as well, right?))

new question/
Lastly, and the question of most interest to me [lets put our math caps on folks]...
If in a prior iteration of the Matrix, the "architect" arrived at an equation with irreconcilable infinities, is the institution of a larger framing equation [the machine seeded and planned One (Neo, in this iteration)] really a mathematically adequate (or possible) programming solution? I'm guessing that the infinities result from stack dumps of choices faced by the wired humans in which the selected outcome is an option with a probability approaching 1 in [lazy 8]. If this is so, then would a sufficient solution be to sum those error terms, assign them all to one variable, then take your chances with whether that variable will generate a fault in the code (the One reaches the source code)? If the fault occurs, then the variable reassigns the target error terms, the system is reset, and the program runs from the beginning again?

I guess I just don't know enough higher abstract math (or maybe not enough programming) to approach this question. Anybody have any thoughts?

[WarBlade]

tangent:&nbsp; we had an intermediary discussion about the ability of active viruses to write themselves onto remote computers over active connections, and I still think it's perfectly plausible that Smith overwrote the hard drive (brain) of the infected system, and now operates that system despite the fact that it's offline at the moment.&nbsp; Controlling the frame of the body is roughly analogous to inhabiting systems still online (people in the matrix).

I came to the conclusion that there were a few ways Smith's control over Cain could be rationalized. In the end I suspect this one will be revealed in Revolutions, but that didn't prevent me from speculation already.

The idea that I had was that the neural connection requires a very complex interface. One that includes a rewritable storage area for data so the machine can keep calibration information and much more, specific to each individual, actually housed in each human head. Smith was able to write a copy of himself into this data storage area and exploit it's ability to control information being input to the brain to keep Cain under control, not unlike a form of hypnotic suggestion.

*Shrugs* Well it fits with the control theme. I suppose we'll find out in November. :D

Aside: Gotta love how they named the guy Cain eh? ;)

[Jeunemaitre]

from WarBlade, May 28 2003, 11:31 AM

Aside: Gotta love how they named the guy Cain eh?&nbsp;

Actually, I have to admit that I fell victim to for the pull of the website. When I saw the photos of Neo and Counselor Haaman I forgot my fundamentals of pronunciation and wondered whether this guy would be trustworthy or if the people of Zion would be eating Hamantashen (a little spelling help from those with better knowledge of the Hebrew tradition?) at future rememberences of Purim.*

*Note: please forgive me if I'm confusing Jewish history here; I wasn't born in, I married in last year...

[Kasreyn]

First off, it doesn't matter whether the brain waves generate energy or not. There's still no way to get more energy out of a human being than you put in. Entropy wins, and the Matrix dies.

As to the Smith-duplicating-himself: this is why it's not a good idea to discuss the Matrix with the computer-illiterate, no offense to your wife intended.

-Kasreyn

[Jeunemaitre]

First off, it doesn't matter whether the brain waves generate energy or not.

Kasreyn- no offense taken. She fully admits that she's not the most computer savvy person in the world. I think this time though it was less a matter of computer literacy, and more a matter of non-interest, or inattention. A friend and I dragged her out to see the movie, so I can't blame her for being less than up to date. However, it does make having those deep discussions she wants a little difficult when I'm trying to start one and she's trying to figure out who the guy in the white suit is ("it doesn't matter who he is, er it is. What matters is what he does, er did, er, well... never mind") I'm much more coherent in type, than in person...

Regarding the quote I snipped, I've been operating on the impression that the source of energy is heat. I know that the body doesn't put out enough heat to make steam from water to turn a turbine, but I thought I remembered something in Morpheus' "desert of the real" speech in the first movie that the primary output is x btu's of thermal energy. I agree that trapping brainwaves for energy is near useless, but siphoning heat may be more beneficial than playing rock-paper-scissors with energy, entropy and work. Also, heat may be more useful to the machines than aqueous proteins, which do nicely for people who don't know the difference. Maybe it's a metter of specialized production: the marginal cost of heat to the humans is lower than the marginal cost of heat to the machines, so if the machines can get the humans to do the heat production, the machines can spend their resources elsewhere. Of course I could be completely wrong...

edit: wanted to add the economics (marginal cost) reference the first time, but I had to think it through.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Heat is a form of energy. For the human body to generate heat, it has to burn fuel. The human body does not turn that fuel into heat with any real efficiency. Thus it is more efficient to just burn the fuel than to feed it to someone is what you want is heat.

Also there is the fact that the heat is only one aspect of the situation. The maximum thermodynamic efficiency of any heat engine is related to the ratio of the temperatures of its hot and cold reservoirs. So, a hotter running engine has a higher potential efficiency than a cool one. BY comparison to the temperature available if the fuel is burned directly, the human body is pretty cold. Heat flows from high temperature to low. To pump heat from low temperature to high takes energy. So this adds to the inefficiency of the process.

Nope. That bit of the movie is pure hokum. Humans are of no use as a heat source, they are of no use as an electrical source and are hardly of any value as a computing source. However, the movie needed some reason for the machines not to have wiped out the humans. They chose a poor one. Much better, IMO, would be to go philosophical:

The machines are, by their design, servants. A servant needs a master. The machines created the matrix because they thought they knew better than the humans what the humans need. That's why they created an ideal world the first time, which of course drove everyone crazy . . . They aren't doing this because they hate humans but because they *know better* -- the ultimate tyranny of the eternal parent.

Much better background than "copper top". Had this been a written work, I'd be much more disappointed. But since I don't expect much from movie makers, I cut them some slack on this point :)

--Pete

[keenduck]

About director's cuts: You might also want to try comparing Blader Runner and Ridley Scott's director's cut. The endings are much different, and the new ending (which is actually the original ending, but the studio wanted a a happy ending) vastly improve the story IMHO.