|
King Vidiot posted:Some of you guys just can't appreciate a good gently caress-around vanity project and it shows. Lana made this movie for herself and doesn't give a drat if you like it. This could be 100% true and to me, the idea that Lana Wachowski took a bunch of Warner Bros' money to A) Tell Warner Bros to go gently caress themselves and B) Work through some personal stuff, makes the film immensely more compelling to me. But even then, even if Lana doesn't care if people dislike it, people are still allowed to dislike it and voice disliking it. Having said that, the whole "I challenge you to summarize the movie" thing was pretty weird and unnecessary.
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 01:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 08:21 |
|
|
MJeff posted:But even then, even if Lana doesn't care if people dislike it, people are still allowed to dislike it and voice disliking it. True, it's just that some people seem really angry about it which I just find baffling.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 01:22
|
|
|
King Vidiot posted:True, it's just that some people seem really angry about it which I just find baffling. Well. Yeah. Like, purely for example, this thread, the absolute worst way to watch a movie I've ever seen: https://twitter.com/ReviewsPossum/status/1474194710524796930 I genuinely feel nothing but pity for people who choose to engage media in this way.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 01:29
|
|
|
This wasn't good at all but I had real fun watching it and making light of how up its own rear end it went. I'd loving love to get one of these every year, like the Saw movies used to be. Just shake all the Matrix parts in a jar and pour it into a differently shaped crazy mold.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 01:31
|
|
|
Resurrections is flawed but it is flawed in a way I find interesting and, more to the point, it's a film that feels like it has its own feeling which is preciously rare these days and makes me willing to forgive some parts I didn't much like.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 01:35
|
|
|
Someone describing a film as being up its own rear end sounds like someone really underestimating the size of their rear end eating audience.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 01:39
|
|
|
MJeff posted:Well. Quick perusal of this person's YT and it appears they unironically imitate Mr. Plinkett style reviews so hard it hurts. Definitely blaming Red Letter Media for spawning this horrible approach to engage with art/media.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 01:47
|
|
|
possum review can’t be real it has to be a bit because like 2/3 of that review is explicitly missing the point of the poo poo it’s saying Edit: like what is this???? https://twitter.com/reviewspossum/status/1474260371552755719?s=21 Happy Noodle Boy fucked around with this message at 02:04 on Dec 29, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 01:59
|
|
|
I did think that bit was a little hosed. Like, she'd have memories of giving birth to those kids and marrying that guy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 02:31
|
|
|
What don't people like about Reloaded and Revolutions? I like all the movies but I'm genuinely curious. No wrong answers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 02:33
|
|
|
the second she awakened she knew they’re fake though. They’re explicitly shown to be just swarm npcs. They’re not real. They never were. She fucks the analyst up at the end specifically for using children to imprison her. It’s laid out very loving clearly in the film!!!
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 02:34
|
|
|
I re-watched the first three movies (Which in my opinion, are all great in their own way). So I remember the plot and this movie was still a steaming pile of poo poo. It's the Picard to the originals TNG.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 02:43
|
|
|
Noam Chomsky posted:What don't people like about Reloaded and Revolutions? I love both but my nitpick on Reloaded is why did Neo fight Smith? Bro you can just leave whenever you want.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 02:51
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:The baddies aren’t studying Neo; they literally created him - a fact that’s not stated in this movie, outside a single vague line about ‘rumours that Neo was working with the machines all along.’ There was also a flashback to Trinity's death that reminded me that Neo used to be blind, implying the machines must have reconstructed his eyes, in particular. They drive the point in by having Bugs say "let me show you" (that your sacrifice wasn't meaningless) afterward. And just prior to the flashback, Bugs is talking about how "if you don't know what's real, you can't resist", which also seems relevant if machines mediate Neo's vision in the real world now too. And insofar as Bugs is the Warner rep (and fanfic author?) dragging Neo out of stasis, those quotes almost scan as a statement of her personal control over Neo, like his eyes belong to her (or else like she embodies his eyes, as a sort of extension of her being the white rabbit of the vision quest). The use of Bugs' blue for the Analyst's glasses and the framed butterfly in his office (symbolizing illusion) also kind of push me in that direction
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 03:03
|
|
|
Happy Noodle Boy posted:the second she awakened she knew they’re fake though. They’re explicitly shown to be just swarm npcs. They’re not real. They never were. She fucks the analyst up at the end specifically for using children to imprison her. But that also opens up another can of worms because the film clearly says that AIs are "real" and deserve to be treated as equals to humanity, not doing that was the whole reason why the Matrix exists in the first place. Is the argument now that there is a new "AI slave class"? So are these just dumb NPCs but still manage to be so perfect in their behaviour to fool real humans? There are a lot of serious (bad) implications like you'd never know whether or not another AI is "real" if they can fake being "real" to that extent. That's why the whole "swarm npc"-angle is an obvious cop out because it doesn't resolve anything. You could have easily argued that agents like Smith in the first one are "just" programms who hunt humans but aren't deserving of being called sentient but then the sequels also blurred the line with "good programms" which we are told should be treated as equals and obviously are sentient. But even if you accept that those NPCs weren't real then you have to ask if her feelings for them and her husband were real and the answers to that aren't really any better or create at least other issues/questions which could be interesting but the movie doesn't even want to explore so it is kind of wasted and more a distraction that can be read in a very negative way ("children are only there to enslave women"). So that subplot certainly lacked nuance and depth and felt like they wanted to give Trinity a hurdle she hat to overcome but they also didn't want to invest the time into her story to give it any depth and not make it this awkward (and why are we still doing the "stalking is love" trope in 2021?). PS: The ending and the violence in that scene were also weird. I hate to use a "chud" argument but that scene would have been a huge yikes if a male protagonist would have acted this way or it is at least reserved for anti-heroes. They certainly wouldn't have used Neo to beat up a villain who isn't a threat at this point just out of revenge (even in this movie Neo is still very passive towards Smith despite everything he did to him). LinkesAuge fucked around with this message at 03:13 on Dec 29, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 03:06
|
|
|
The machines “rebuilt” Neo and Trinity by recreating their fleshy bits. That’s why it was expensive, as it probably hadn’t been done before? That’s my read anyway, I didn’t come away thinking they’re now made of nano bots or something…
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 03:29
|
|
|
Nuts and Gum posted:The machines “rebuilt” Neo and Trinity by recreating their fleshy bits. That’s why it was expensive, as it probably hadn’t been done before? That’s my read anyway, I didn’t come away thinking they’re now made of nano bots or something… I mean… machine’s entire energy source is manufacturing humans (from birth). Sure there’s probably extra steps to rebuilding an already existing human but we (as batteries) are their bread and butter.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 03:33
|
|
|
Happy Noodle Boy posted:I mean… machine’s entire energy source is manufacturing humans (from birth). Sure there’s probably extra steps to rebuilding an already existing human but we (as batteries) are their bread and butter. good point! Although iirc the only mention of that was in the og film when Morpheus says humans are grown, not born. So maybe fixing broken humans physically is something they never bothered trying before.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 03:54
|
|
|
Maybe I'm misrembering, but didn't Nu-Morpheus call Bugs a synthient when they first met? "I hunt synthients like you," or something. If he's not wrong, it would make Bugs a machine with a really humanoid body and leave the same as a possibility for Neo Edit: Or else it would signal we didn't actually leave the Matrix mmmmalo fucked around with this message at 04:05 on Dec 29, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 04:02
|
|
|
BOAT SHOWBOAT posted:People shouldn't be surprised by the Matrix having baffling tacky poo poo in it, especially when it comes to the Merovingian so what you're saying is, merovingian is upset because they purged his ability to make women cum there it is, the villain's motive for matrix 5
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 04:15
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:I think it's more than that she didn't give a gently caress if people liked it. She put people who enthusastically liked the first three for shallow reasons in as antagonists. Trans rights and anticapitalism are presented as ‘shallow’ and ‘wrong’ because the film’s thesis is that the matrix is an actually-existing alternate universe. As one character asserts, memories of fiction are equally real as memories of actual experiences. Tom Anderson’s game isn’t about trans rights because it’s literally a direct copy of his lived experience of being trapped in a computer game by fear-eating vampires. Neo very, very sincerely wanted to kill nonsensical baddies and gently caress a gal on a motorcycle. It wasn’t for fun; he had to do it because the universe would otherwise blow up for no raisin. This is why the “neoologist” is ‘good’ despite being a glorified Wikipedia editor. He believes Neo is a literally-real war hero and even wants to gently caress Neo. In other words, unfortunately, everything I wrote earlier in the thread has been confirmed right by Lana Wachowski herself. Noam Chomsky posted:What don't people like about Reloaded and Revolutions? They’re a single extremely bloated film with absurd amounts of expository dialogue that has little to do with the actual narrative, which is simply about beating up Smith to prevent a revolutionary upheaval of the matrix.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 04:59
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 05:28
|
|
|
Really wish you wouldn't talk about trans stuff SMG because you don't actually care about it, don't understand it and every time you try to quantify it ends up weird as gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 05:38
|
|
|
Shiroc posted:Really wish you wouldn't talk about trans stuff SMG because you don't actually care about it, don't understand it and every time you try to quantify it ends up weird as gently caress. What stuff is being quantified uncaringly?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 05:48
|
|
|
Shiroc posted:Really wish you wouldn't talk about trans stuff SMG because you don't actually care about it, don't understand it and every time you try to quantify it ends up weird as gently caress. really seconding this. it makes me uncomfortable when some of the folks in here try to analyze the trans narrative or even bring up trans stuff, SMG being at the top of that list
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 05:55
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:What stuff is being quantified uncaringly? Everything. I know you don't care from reading every time trans stuff comes up and you are wildly tone deaf, get it wrong, make awful leaps and on and on. You just have a pathological or gimmick need to be the all knowing prophet of truth for random blockbuster movies and here are stuck knowing that trans stuff is *supposed* to be important to the Matrix but you don't understand it whatsoever, so you just slam it into whatever the hell you really want to be on about.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 06:07
|
|
|
I mean...... it was the other poster that argued that the "trans rights" reading of the first films is presented as a "shallow" interpretation by the antagonists in Resurrection. Right? because this HorseLord posted:I think it's more than that she didn't give a gently caress if people liked it. She put people who enthusastically liked the first three for shallow reasons in as antagonists.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 06:07
|
|
|
Martman posted:I mean...... it was the other poster that argued that the "trans rights" reading of the first films is presented as a "shallow" interpretation by the antagonists in Resurrection. Right? I personally don't care as much about people who are in my opinion reading that scene wrong. I have particular issue with SMG that has spanned months of this thread and other ones for being super loving weird about trans viewpoints.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 06:12
|
|
|
Martman posted:I mean...... it was the other poster that argued that the "trans rights" reading of the first films is presented as a "shallow" interpretation by the antagonists in Resurrection. Right? The problem with that reading is that the point isn't that they are wrong. It is that it is a shallow heartless reading of the film. Like "The Matrix is about trans rights" doesn't have to be incorrect for the shallow marketing person going "It's gotta be about, uh, trans stuff, right?" to not actually be saying anything of note or meaning because he doesn't care about Trans Rights, just "what are the marketing buzzwords for The Matrix." Like that is the entire point. They literally are looking at buzzwords to try to puzzle something together that "feels" the Matrix without actually being it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 06:16
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:The problem with that reading is that the point isn't that they are wrong. It is that it is a shallow heartless reading of the film. Like "The Matrix is about trans rights" doesn't have to be incorrect for the shallow marketing person going "It's gotta be about, uh, trans stuff, right?" to not actually be saying anything of note or meaning because he doesn't care about Trans Rights, just "what are the marketing buzzwords for The Matrix." Personally I got the vibe that the movie is kind of lashing out about it being impossible to make any genuine statement at all once the property has been absorbed into the corporation, no matter its depth or honesty. And there's almost a retroactive feeling that even if it meant something in the first place it's been ruined by the suits (or at least there is a fear of that). I think a lot of the debate and confusion over the message is coming from that source of frustration.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 06:20
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure the characters that mention trans politics and anticapitalism are also the ones that are balking at the ones saying stuff like "Matrix needs to be dumb and loud". It didn't strike me as a one-size fits all "all of these morons are wrong" thing. It is possible for those characters to have been well-meaning and have a salient point while still also contributing to the overall wall of noise that was barraging Neo. I think reading the film as dismissive of trans interpretations of the Matrix based on that one scene is really loving glib at best.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 06:23
|
|
|
Martman posted:I didn't think it seemed clear at all that the two who mentioned those issues were dishonest or just reaching for SJW cred or something. They seemed like some of the most enthusiastic participants in that discussion to me. The entire point of the scene is that they are throwing out marketing buzzwords in an attempt to replicate a movie. Even if they are enthusiastic they are not attempting to make a movie. They are attempting to make The Matrix out of a variety of buzzwords that "make" it. It's a criticism of modern blockbuster culture because the first thing they try to think of is what easily digestible marketing buzzwords The Matrix is about instead of like... what would you actually want to do? Like they aren't wrong. There are things there you associate with The Matrix. Bullet Time is, in fact, synonymous with The Matrix. The reason it is presented badly is because they're not actually trying to make a 'game' about those things. They are just trying to figure out what buzzwords are most marketable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 06:25
|
|
|
I really disagree. Even if a corporation brings in minorities as a token gesture, that doesn't mean the intention or honesty of those minorities is in question. They're not all throwing out marketing buzzwords, because "trans rights" and "cryptofascism".... aren't really marketing buzzwords.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 06:26
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:The problem with that reading is that the point isn't that they are wrong. It is that it is a shallow heartless reading of the film. Like "The Matrix is about trans rights" doesn't have to be incorrect for the shallow marketing person going "It's gotta be about, uh, trans stuff, right?" to not actually be saying anything of note or meaning because he doesn't care about Trans Rights, just "what are the marketing buzzwords for The Matrix." Like that is the entire point. They literally are looking at buzzwords to try to puzzle something together that "feels" the Matrix without actually being it. But also, the idea that hat trans-readings of The Matrix are being undermined by a movie in which the climax is the hero reclaiming her name and telling The Matrix to stop dead-naming her--just like Neo does in the original--seems off.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 06:29
|
|
|
Martman posted:I really disagree. Even if a corporation brings in minorities as a token gesture, that doesn't mean the intention or honesty of those minorities is in question. They're not all throwing out marketing buzzwords, because "trans rights" and "cryptofascism".... aren't really marketing buzzwords. Yes they are. Like maybe you are not aware of it but LGBTQ+ matters are absolutely used as a cheap marketing ploy all the loving time, as is limpwristed criticism of fascism that doesn't actually address anything more complex then "Hitler? Bad."
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 06:30
|
|
|
Martman posted:I didn't think it seemed clear at all that the two who mentioned those issues were dishonest or just reaching for SJW cred or something. They seemed like some of the most enthusiastic participants in that discussion to me. I mean, the most enthusiastic was the not-Jeff Gerstmann ranting about guns and bullet time, so I don't know that it's gonna be the best barometer. Neo sees the trilogy as something that defines his life (or his life defines), and a life can't be captured by the correct series of buzzwords.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 06:30
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Yes they are. Like maybe you are not aware of it but LGBTQ+ matters are absolutely used as a cheap marketing ploy all the loving time, as is limpwristed criticism of fascism that doesn't actually address anything more complex then "Hitler? Bad."
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 06:31
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:Yeah, it's this. The point isn't that trans readings of The Matrix are bad. The point is that commodifying the trans politics into a brand is bad. But the video game developers aren't all being shown as equally bad. They're all working in a flawed system of commodification, but the guy who mentions trans politics seems earnest. Just outta curiosity, was it confirmed anywhere that Tiffany was her pre-awakening name or is that just the logical thing to assume from her going "Tiffany? Really?"
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 06:34
|
|
|
Martman posted:I guess I'm wondering what it would look like for the characters to be presenting those readings in a more honest and deep way. It is one thing to say the entire process is flawed, it's a whole different thing to say the antagonists are being associated with specifically "shallow reasons" to like the original. That is specifically how the scene is framed. They are literally supposed to be tossing out buzzwords. Hell I think they literally use that phrase. It isn't that it is a shallow reading. It is that they are taking something that is extremely personal and trying to boil those personal elements down to figure out what the magic combination of 'traits' to make it successful is. Note that none of them are actually discussing a plot, characters, anything of the story. They are building backwards from what they think people want to see or what they associate with The Matrix. Neo on the other hand knows what he associates with it but it isn't anything they care about. Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure "a love story" isn't actually mentioned once, while the film clearly presents Neo (and thus the author) as finding that the main thing worth revisiting The Matrix for. But even if that wasn't the case the scene is pretty clear. It's like someone discussing how to make Star Wars and they toss out "Good vs Evil!" "Lightsabers!" "Spaceships!" "Darth Vader" and basically focusing on how to recreate something that already exists and rather than trying to make something distinctive and personal they just want to create The Matrix But We Can Sell It Again. And Neo's entire arc is that he says "No, gently caress that." He doesn't want the Matrix again. He doesn't want to fight Smith again or be The One again. He wants to create the happy ending he couldn't before. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 06:42 on Dec 29, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 06:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 08:21 |
|
|
ImpAtom posted:It isn't that it is a shallow reading. It is that they are taking something that is extremely personal and trying to boil those personal elements down to figure out what the magic combination of 'traits' to make it successful is. quote:Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure "a love story" isn't actually mentioned once, while the film clearly presents Neo (and thus the author) as finding that the main thing worth revisiting The Matrix for.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 06:44
|
|