-
The new B5TV.COM is here. We've replaced our 16 year old software with flashy new XenForo install. Registration is open again. Password resets will work again. More info here.
matrix reloaded spoilers
- Thread starter sassy
- Start date
Mindwalker
Regular
what DOES it take to please the great sassy when it comes to movies anyway? Chick Flicks?
Mindwalker
Regular
Well I know this has been tried before but I just have to try at least once...Thats becuase the ending is in the next movie this movie was only ONE PART OF TWO!
there now that I've smashed my head aginst "fortress sassy" I'm going back to feeding my evil troll monkeys.
there now that I've smashed my head aginst "fortress sassy" I'm going back to feeding my evil troll monkeys.
So just because Matrix did it different, its wrong? I´ll admit it was annoying to end it that way, and that what you are saying was my first thought, though. But anyways its not like its going to take another two years for the next movie 
.
I mean, check out the ending of Back To The Future 1 and 2. Not as ubrupt, i know, but it doesn´t really "end" there.
.I mean, check out the ending of Back To The Future 1 and 2. Not as ubrupt, i know, but it doesn´t really "end" there.
GKarsEye
Regular
This is the same argument as Lord of the Rings, but it's even more true this time, because there was a lot of press all over the place that the third movie is coming out in the fall. They only put 6 months between two installments of a film series, which I believe is unprecedented.
The public wasn't "dupped."
The public wasn't "dupped."
PillowRock
Regular
I agree with GKE. To have gone into Matrix Reloaded(or either of the first 2 LotR movies) expecting there to anything approaching closure when the credits rolled requires willfully ignoring the avelanche of publicity etc. surrounding the movie.
And am I to understand that sassy thought that The Empire Strikes Back had an actual ending? It's basically the same ending that she so bemoaned in Fellowship of the Ring. In both cases nothing is resolved in the "Big Picture" and we leave off with the idea of "We're going to have to rescue Han / the Hobits ..... Somehow .... sometime ..... somewhere."
And am I to understand that sassy thought that The Empire Strikes Back had an actual ending? It's basically the same ending that she so bemoaned in Fellowship of the Ring. In both cases nothing is resolved in the "Big Picture" and we leave off with the idea of "We're going to have to rescue Han / the Hobits ..... Somehow .... sometime ..... somewhere."
well, take B5 for example...each episode could stand on its own. there was a plot and a subplot. as well as a continuing 5 year story line.
also i expect a movie to have the basic points: a beginning, a middle and an end. didn't ya'll go to school? didn't you learn anything in Composition class? these are the BASIC teachings they teach us.
in order for something to be good it is considered to have a protagonist, antagonist, and a plot. you know..a POINT.
so there wasn't a plot in matrix, except for a basic one such as a sex scene and some hi special effects fight scenes. are you men really this shallow? that u think 'show me some sex and some fighting?' that u completely gloss over the fact that u sat watching the screen EXPECTING an ending that never happened? oh so the dude just wanders around his city, then the matrix, then seeks the oricle for NO FUCKING REASON. he goes into the room and the all powerful dude says, oh well, your city is going to die..and then nothing....
what point of NOTHING happend don't ya'll get?
as for the arguement "oh, there is part 2.' bullshit. each movie should stand on its own.
i can't believe you buy into hollywoods MONEY making scam of 'oh theres two movies!' hook line and sinker! its a frelling SCAM~ to get more money out of you! thats IT!
for your $7 you are paying for an ENDING! you are paying for a POINT! but oooooooooh no..u want to pay $14 for the ending..
WHO is the one being dupped now?
also i expect a movie to have the basic points: a beginning, a middle and an end. didn't ya'll go to school? didn't you learn anything in Composition class? these are the BASIC teachings they teach us.
in order for something to be good it is considered to have a protagonist, antagonist, and a plot. you know..a POINT.
so there wasn't a plot in matrix, except for a basic one such as a sex scene and some hi special effects fight scenes. are you men really this shallow? that u think 'show me some sex and some fighting?' that u completely gloss over the fact that u sat watching the screen EXPECTING an ending that never happened? oh so the dude just wanders around his city, then the matrix, then seeks the oricle for NO FUCKING REASON. he goes into the room and the all powerful dude says, oh well, your city is going to die..and then nothing....
what point of NOTHING happend don't ya'll get?
as for the arguement "oh, there is part 2.' bullshit. each movie should stand on its own.
i can't believe you buy into hollywoods MONEY making scam of 'oh theres two movies!' hook line and sinker! its a frelling SCAM~ to get more money out of you! thats IT!
for your $7 you are paying for an ENDING! you are paying for a POINT! but oooooooooh no..u want to pay $14 for the ending..
WHO is the one being dupped now?
GKarsEye
Regular
How did we get ripped off and you didn't? Didn't you pay to see the movie, too?
There are a bunch of B5 episodes that remain unresolved, especially during season 4.
And what about 2-part episodes, as done throughout Star Trek?
Matrix: Reloaded only had one brief sex scene, much less than most movies. And I don't even know where those "shallow" comments are coming from.
I didn't like the movie, either, but not because "nothing happened," but because I didn't care about what happened.
There are a bunch of B5 episodes that remain unresolved, especially during season 4.
And what about 2-part episodes, as done throughout Star Trek?
Matrix: Reloaded only had one brief sex scene, much less than most movies. And I don't even know where those "shallow" comments are coming from.
I didn't like the movie, either, but not because "nothing happened," but because I didn't care about what happened.
exactly.
which reminds me- yea the last two SW movies DIDN'T end. thats right.
neither did X2.
so that's X2, 2 starwars movies, TLOTR, Matrix that I paid
$7 PLUS popcorn and drinks... 7 x 5 movies = $35 EXcluding popcorn and drinks...
so thats 4 movies i have to see the sequel to...
so can someone do the math? Excluding the popcorn and drinks of course....
thats how we are getting ripped off on a nationwide scale.
instead of 35 the movie industry is getting $58 out of me.
G Kar of the Kha Ri
Regular
Well, if spending money on sequels and whatnot is annoying, would you rather all the Lord of the Rings movies, SW movies, etc. be combined into one massive feature? And anyways, it's not THAT bad. At least we haven't had a movie end in mid-sentence. "Say! Let's go fight the bad guy now and end th-" TO BE CONTINUED
Now THAT would be retarded.
Now THAT would be retarded.
PillowRock
Regular
The underlieing difference of opinion seems to be in our approach to what is the unit that should embody a complete narative. You say that it must be 1.5 to 3 hour movie that you see in one sitting. I say that it is the complete story that the writer is telling. The vast majority of movies that have been made do complete their story within a single movie. However, that does not mean that that is the only form that is possible. If someone has a story that would take 5 hours to tell (or 9 -> 11 in the case of Lord of the Rings), your rules would dictate that those stories never be told on film (since theaters wouldn't want to show movies that would have that few screenings per day, and studios would have no hope of recouping the extra budget from required single release).
I think that it is a perfectly acceptable option to break such stories up into 2 or 3 pieces. It can be reasonably argued that a particular story does not really require that much time. Maybe the Matrix is a story that didn't need to be stretched out that long. I won't realy know until after I have seen the last one. I *would* contend that LotR has plenty of story and character development to warrant the 10.5 to 11 hours that the 3 extended edition DVD's will total.
You, sassy, have a strong preference for movies where the story is short enough to be told in one movie sitting. That's fine. I have a strong dislike for slasher flicks. Therefore, I just don't go to see them. Why don't you save yourself the aggravation and just not go to see the movies that aren't going to fit into your preferences? Virtually all of the movies that you have named as violating your "ending rule" (to coin a shorthand term for it) there was a *huge* marketing compaign saturating American society before and just after the movie's release. All of those campaigns basically screamed at the public "This is Part 1 of 2" or "This is Part 2 of 3" or whatever. The marketing people did this specifically to avoid having many people be surprised by the lack of closure by the time the credits rolled and being alienated to the point of avoiding the finale (or next installment). Therefore, it should be easy for you to spot these movies before you actually see them, and then not bother to go see them.
This is why I don't agree that they are "ripping off" anyone. They are not pulling a bait-and-switch. They are telling everyone up front that what you will be seeing is the first half, or first third, or middle third, of the story. In order for someone to go into the theater expecting closure they would need to disregard everything about all of the marketing blitz etc. based on the assumption that "It couldn't be what they described. It must fit into my preconceptions instead."
BTW: There were definitely B5 episodes that did not have "endings" at the end of that week's broadcast. A Voice in the Wilderness, Part 1 and War Without End, Part 1 did not have endings. You are just more tolerant of seeing "To Be Continued" at the end of a TV episode than at the end of a movie. Again, that's fine. Your preferences are your preferences and noone is trying to tell you that you can't / shouldn't have them (at least I'm not). However, your preferences do not define the way *everything* *must* be in all cases for everyone.
I think that it is a perfectly acceptable option to break such stories up into 2 or 3 pieces. It can be reasonably argued that a particular story does not really require that much time. Maybe the Matrix is a story that didn't need to be stretched out that long. I won't realy know until after I have seen the last one. I *would* contend that LotR has plenty of story and character development to warrant the 10.5 to 11 hours that the 3 extended edition DVD's will total.
You, sassy, have a strong preference for movies where the story is short enough to be told in one movie sitting. That's fine. I have a strong dislike for slasher flicks. Therefore, I just don't go to see them. Why don't you save yourself the aggravation and just not go to see the movies that aren't going to fit into your preferences? Virtually all of the movies that you have named as violating your "ending rule" (to coin a shorthand term for it) there was a *huge* marketing compaign saturating American society before and just after the movie's release. All of those campaigns basically screamed at the public "This is Part 1 of 2" or "This is Part 2 of 3" or whatever. The marketing people did this specifically to avoid having many people be surprised by the lack of closure by the time the credits rolled and being alienated to the point of avoiding the finale (or next installment). Therefore, it should be easy for you to spot these movies before you actually see them, and then not bother to go see them.
This is why I don't agree that they are "ripping off" anyone. They are not pulling a bait-and-switch. They are telling everyone up front that what you will be seeing is the first half, or first third, or middle third, of the story. In order for someone to go into the theater expecting closure they would need to disregard everything about all of the marketing blitz etc. based on the assumption that "It couldn't be what they described. It must fit into my preconceptions instead."
BTW: There were definitely B5 episodes that did not have "endings" at the end of that week's broadcast. A Voice in the Wilderness, Part 1 and War Without End, Part 1 did not have endings. You are just more tolerant of seeing "To Be Continued" at the end of a TV episode than at the end of a movie. Again, that's fine. Your preferences are your preferences and noone is trying to tell you that you can't / shouldn't have them (at least I'm not). However, your preferences do not define the way *everything* *must* be in all cases for everyone.
Galahad
Regular
Funnily enough, me and some of my mates are planning to do this with all the extended versions of LotR when they are evetually all out. To do this, we will need to dehydrate ourselves to the point of hallucination as you are probably looking at approximately 10.5 hours of continous screen-time. I think we will have to do sentry duty! Watch Fellowship, one of us goes to the bog, one of us gets the drinks in and the other sets the next video up (and then we rotate).
The nearest you could have got to do it recently was in Stratford-upon-Avon, where they were showing Fellowship, then you had an hours break and then they showed The Two Towers.
Oatley1
Beyond the rim
Was I the only person who actually liked Matrix Reloaded? The action scenes were astonishing and stylish, and it had a reasonably good plot underpinning it.
I think most people got put off by the verbose philosophising that the movie indulged in. I agree that the wording of these scenes was way over the top, but it actually gave the film a good deal of substance if you deconstructed the terminology and focused on what was being said (instead of how).
In this, a second viewing helped.
And if I hear someone else craping on about how the film was about fate and destiny, I'll scream!
The whole movie is about CONTROL.
POSSIBLE SPOILERS FOR MARTRIX REVOLUTIONS COMING - BE WARNED!
There are a number of hints scattered throughout the movie that Zion and 'reality' are just another version of the Matrix. Any takers on this?
I think most people got put off by the verbose philosophising that the movie indulged in. I agree that the wording of these scenes was way over the top, but it actually gave the film a good deal of substance if you deconstructed the terminology and focused on what was being said (instead of how).
In this, a second viewing helped.
And if I hear someone else craping on about how the film was about fate and destiny, I'll scream!
The whole movie is about CONTROL.
POSSIBLE SPOILERS FOR MARTRIX REVOLUTIONS COMING - BE WARNED!
There are a number of hints scattered throughout the movie that Zion and 'reality' are just another version of the Matrix. Any takers on this?
PillowRock
Regular
I liked it well enough. I definitely plan on seeing the last part. The action sequences were good eye candy and the dialog etc. required the brain to be engaged more than most summer action flicks (which is a good thing).
I am reserving final judgement until I see the entire story, though. To do otherwise would seem to me to be like declaring your opinion of a typical movie (without a "To Be Continued") half way through.
With LotR I don't have to worry about that. I have read the book and know where the story is going and how things will play out. In that case it is more a matter of judging how that story is being realized. I could tell you well before the end of the first part of that one that I loved that production. Having now seen the extended DVD version, I prefer that to the theatric release version.
I'm glad that you asked that question, because I just saw the movie a second time and my opinion of it has definitely risen. I really don't see how so many people could "love" the first one and not like the second one, because its really just more of the same... more action, more coolness, more dime-store philosophising, more everything. I'm not sure where these Matrix movies will fall in the great pantheon of sci-fi when it's all said and done, but they're definitely some of the best sci-fi that's been put out in the last several years (though that's not really saying all that much).
