So now the Matrix fans have their Phantom Menace?

Okay, well I'm glad I provoked a reaction!

JenX Of course it's wrong of me to impune anyone's intellect or education by claiming that an adult should scoff at TMR's 'philosophical' aspects. What I should have said is that I'm baffled as to how a person as undoubtedly intelligent and well educated as you could find anything remotely challenging in TMR's 'exploration' of such time-honoured themes.

I don't believe or feel any particular need to prove that my education and reading is superior to yours - I'm sure it's not.

But I am the owner of an M.A. Honours Degree in Philosophy from the University of Glasgow. This is the first and last time I will ever suffix a post with credentials. It's a mugs game.

I admit that my posts on TMR are somewhat hyperbolic, and my apologies to the more sensitive members of the Jedi Council. No, I mean it.

I'd also be interested in seeing what your definition of "redundant" is, and what "set pieces" you felt were redundant in TMR.

I always assumed that my definition of redundant- something that's excessive and could be removed without significant loss to, in this case, the story- was the same as everyone elses.

Virtually every action sequence in the film went on for so long that they became repetetive and boring. IMO. Particularly the scene with the hundreds of Agent Smiths-the result of which was... nothing much. Not one of them damaged, nothing esablished beyond the fact that there were lots of them, and they couldn't hurt Neo anyway. Eventually even Neo seemed to get bored and just flew off.

It purports to have philosophical elements, yet it's observations are mind-numbingly banal even by the standards of a Hollywood blockbuster.

I stand by this statement. The 'philosophical' elements are so in your face and obvious it almost becomes offensive. If I want a lecture, I'll call a Professor. I've always loathed soap-box hectoring in films. If the Waschoswki brothers wish to engage people like me intellectually through the medium of film, they'll have to learn the value of subtlety. It would have served them better to keep their observations on the 'human condition' and man's relationship with technology as subtext- or made a documentary.

Hopefully you'll be able to explain what you consider to be the difference between intellectual and pseudo-intellectual

I would've thought this was obvious, especially in relation to the Architect scene. The Oxford dictionary mentions something about a pseudo intellectual being 'artificially archaic in style.' The architect's whole laborious drivel-drenched diatribe was punctuated with these 'archaisms', obviously flung in to try and convince the audience that he was a reelly, reelly, clevah guy.

And of course - 'so, like we need machines, but like... they need us! No way, man!'

And of course you made that line up. The nearest match I can find is when Neo says "So we need machines and they need us. Is that your point, Councillor?", which is concise and lacking in...like..."Bill and Ted"-isms.

It is concise, but it most certainly is lacking. As always, this movie believes it's audience to be a bunch of morons, unable to construe the most obvious meaning from the conversation- and so throws in this absolute pearler of a line so dat all da stupid people can unnerstan what they're talking 'bout.

I'm sorry I hadn't memorised the exact quote- wasn't that far off though was I?

You're more than entitled to your well-thought-out opinion though - and thanks for an interesting and well modulated reply. You may have had the better of the argument.

Green_Destiny_Sword TOPGOALSCORER-- After reading your posts, I can say, TPM is definitely for you.

Why? How does this follow? But then I thought TPM and AotC were harmless fun, although not as good as the CT.

I thought the faults they suffered from however were amplified tenfold in TMR and its relentless attempted to be 'cool' and 'filisofikal' at the same time.

Tadji_Station Further, comments re

 

While I've not seen TMR, I would agree with that assessment. Then again, I feel the OT does this as well, whereas the PT does not (or, in an effort to "maintain mystery", doesn't explain anything of significance until Ep.III, if at all.)

double extra super bingo.

 

"While I've not seen TMR, I would agree with that assessment."

Super mega-cool king kong bingo!

...Sorry, I'm just really bored. Which is why I shall grace you with a long post:

I think GL has done quite well establishing themes verbally, and then effectively showing them. TPM establishes a lot of themes, as it is the first of the saga. Many themes are mentioned once or twice, and then are continually shown throughout the entire saga. TMR does this, but it makes sure that you understand what theme the scene is addressing.

But I must applaud the Wachowskis for the "Smith is a virus" plot. It's hard to tell if they intended it, as they didn't remind people of the virus talk in the original Matrix. So, we have two ways of looking at it. They did it on purpose, which means the Wachowskis have the ability to learn of the largest necessity of great filmmaking, subtelty. If they didn't do it on purpose, then the plot is another stoner moment. "Woah, what if we had hundreds of Hugo Weavings all crammed into a white hallway? That would be wicked cool!"

But of course, this brilliant move by the Wachowskis is wasted on the Smith vs Neo fight. I guess I finally understand when people connect a movie sequence with a video game. I mean, in the droid factory sequence, the characters develop a little, and still moves the story forward. But the Neo fight tells us what we all ready know: Smith can clone himself, and Neo is unbeatable. Neither character grows or learns something from this five minute fight. It literally stops the movie to keep you awake.

And, like most of the fight scenes, it's redundant. Neo hits clone, Neo hits clone, Neo gets pole, Neo hits clone, Neo hits clone, bullet time, Neo hits clone, bullet time, bullet time, Neo spins around. And all though I loved the freeway sequence, the Morpheus/Agent fight is pathetic. Morpheus loses his balance, regains his balance. Morpheus loses his balance, regains his balance. Morpheus loses his balance, regains his balance. It's no longer suspenseful after happening two times in the last minute.

Oh well, I had more to say, but I'm starting to get tired. Go ahead, tear it to shreds, make me look as stupid as humanly possible. I think I deserve it.

Cometgreen, wondering if he'll even remember posting this in the morning

 

>>>I love the way people use the word "pseudo" as some kind of quality rating. Hopefully you'll be able to explain what you consider to be the difference between intellectual and pseudo-intellectual, and how this applies to the architect scene.

Didn?t we have this discussion about a month ago in this very thread (when the whole "pseudo" thing started off...)

Ah well, if you want to keep repeating the question, I guess we can keep repeating the answer...

The word ?intellectual? and the prefix ?pseudo? both appear in the dictionary as a standard part of the English language, but as you would prefer to have it qualified here (again), my use of the word "pseudo-intellectual" was an attempt to describe and summarise the causal root behind the sensation I (involuntarily) experienced in reaction to the scene/scenes in question which arose from the conviction that the style of language, apparently deliberately chosen judging from the self-reference within the scene itself, used for the dialogue characterising the Architect was making every conceivable effort to convey the possession of qualities of intellectuality but without actually delivering the goods; vis a vis communicating concepts or views which appeal to or challenge the intellect, resulting in the anticlimactic impression when the inevitable and rather disappointing realisation hits that beneath the pretentious veneer of the terminology used, the actual message at the core of the speech really wasn't worth the effort of paying attention to, and would probably have been more effective and impressive had it been presented to the audience in a simple and straightforward manner.

So in trying to sound cleverer than it is, IMHO it sounds dumber as a result. Like the above sentence...

 

^^^
Super mega-cool king kong bingo with extra cheese and a cherry on top.

 

topgoalscorer_no11

Of course it's wrong of me to impune anyone's intellect or education by claiming that an adult should scoff at TMR's 'philosophical' aspects.

Agreed.

What I should have said is that I'm baffled as to how a person as undoubtedly intelligent and well educated as you...



...could find anything remotely challenging in TMR's 'exploration' of such time-honoured themes.

I find the "exploration" interesting. I find the questions it raises interesting. Trying to come up with the answers is something I find challenging.

Tell me, in Neo's position, which door would you have taken, heck, which pill would you have taken? Is Neo a freedom fighter, a terrorist, or just another means of control? Do you believe that the characters in TMR have free will? Does your position depend on whether they are human or a computer programme? Maybe it depends on whether a character is operating in the real world or the Matrix?

And how is it all going to end? Can Zion be saved? Can the humans that are still plugged into the Matrix be freed?

I always assumed that my definition of redundant- something that's excessive and could be removed without significant loss to, in this case, the story- was the same as everyone elses.

I try not to take anything for granted on a message board...

The 'philosophical' elements are so in your face and obvious it almost becomes offensive. If I want a lecture, I'll call a Professor. I've always loathed soap-box hectoring in films. If the Waschoswki brothers wish to engage people like me intellectually through the medium of film, they'll have to learn the value of subtlety. It would have served them better to keep their observations on the 'human condition' and man's relationship with technology as subtext- or made a documentary.

But pretty much the whole film is about a war between man and machines...why the heck should (or could) man's relationship with technology be a "subtext"????? Why confine this type of things to a documentary? I like the fact that Wachowski's put philosophy in the forefront. Good for them!

The architect's whole laborious drivel-drenched diatribe was punctuated with these 'archaisms', obviously flung in to try and convince the audience that he was a reelly, reelly, clevah guy

The Architect was trying to convince NEO that he was a really, really clever programme. He was deliberately speaking in a convoluted manner and if that happened to trip up members of the movie audience too then, gee, tough luck!

The Architect thinks that he is superior to Neo (a trait he shares with almost all the computer characters we have seen so far) because Neo is human..."only human" "irrevocably human" etc. Even a "friendly" programme like the Oracle can't help but talk down to Neo, so it seems only natural that the Architect, the one that designed the programme that enslaves humanity, would have a gigantic superiority complex and would enjoy giving Neo the run around.

>>>"So we need machines and they need us. Is that your point, Councillor?"<<<

As always, this movie believes it's audience to be a bunch of morons, unable to construe the most obvious meaning from the conversation- and so throws in this absolute pearler of a line so dat all da stupid people can unnerstan what they're talking 'bout.

Well that's some shaky reasoning you got there. Seemed obvious to me that Neo was finding the turn the conversation had taken somewhat troubling and was trying to bring it to a speedy conclusion by cutting to the point. I appreciate that you might have a different opinion, but trying to give your opinion more weight by saying that that is what the "movie" thought is a bit rich

[heavy sarcasm] And if you really had a M.A. Honours Degree in Philosophy from the University of Glasgow you would have laughed at my behaviourist joke [/heavy sarcasm]

...but seriously, I don't even get a "hyuck-hyuck"???



Scott3eyez

>>>I love the way people

 

"Tell me, in Neo's position, which door would you have taken, heck, which pill would you have taken? Is Neo a freedom fighter, a terrorist, or just another means of control? Do you believe that the characters in TMR have free will? Does your position depend on whether they are human or a computer programme? Maybe it depends on whether a character is operating in the real world or the Matrix?

And how is it all going to end? Can Zion be saved? Can the humans that are still plugged into the Matrix be freed?"

Tell me, in Anakin's position, would you have slaughtered the Tuskens? Would you have blamed Obiwan, who is the only father you'll ever have, for all of your problems? Does Anakin have free will, or is he a slave to the will of the force? Is Anakin the Chosen One, or was Qui-gon mistaken?

And how is it all going to end? Can the Republic rise above its corruption? Can the Jedi rise above their arrogance? Can Anakin save himself from his emotions?

Wow...that was easy.

Cometgreen

 

And how is it all going to end? Can Zion be saved? Can the humans that are still plugged into the Matrix be freed?

Do I really care? No, not really. And that's the problem: with all their (pseudo)intellectualizing and (basic) philosophical lectures, the Wachowski Bros. forgot to invest their audience in the narrative. At least Lucas still understands the power of a good story. Heck, the very first TPM web documentary was titled "All I Need Is a Story" and discussed the creative process through which Lucas conceived of the story he was about to tell. Despite all the hyperbole to the contrary, Lucas puts the story first.

 

And now, AN OFF-TOPIC POST.

I see this term popping up here and there in basher-gusher debates...

Will someone please explain to me what a "straw man" is?



Rick McCallum loves you!

 

It's when you assume someone on the other side is making a point or argument they clearly haven't made, and then debate that point. Usually it's done to distract the other side and shift the attention from the discussion at hand.

 

Thanks.

Hey, I do that all the time, but I use humor instead of new arguments.

It's useful when I can't stand to sit through one more "You didn't understand it" speech.


Rick McCallum loves you! (HE'S not a straw man. d00d, that'd be a lot of straw.)

 

Cometgreen

Tell me, in Anakin's position, would you have slaughtered the Tuskens?

No

Would you have blamed Obiwan, who is the only father you'll ever have, for all of your problems?

No

Does Anakin have free will, or is he a slave to the will of the force?

Out of those options? Free will.

Is Anakin the Chosen One, or was Qui-gon mistaken?

Depends on what Qui Gon thought the Chosen One was chosen to do. If he expected him to whine, slaughter children, fall to the dark side, attempt to enslave the galaxy, and then at the last minute chuck an old guy down a shaft, I'd say "Bingo!"


And how is it all going to end? Can the Republic rise above its corruption? Can the Jedi rise above their arrogance? Can Anakin save himself from his emotions?

Oooo...tricky.

Okay, this is a complete shot in the dark, but I think Anakin is going to fall to the dark side...he'll probably call himself "Darth" something or other. He did marry Amidala, so I'm guessing they might have a baby...I'm thinking "Luke" if it's a boy and "Leia" if it's a girl...


Wow...that was easy.

All too easy.


Durwood

>>>And how is it all going to end? Can Zion be saved? Can the humans that are still plugged into the Matrix be freed?<<<

Do I really care? No, not really. And that's the problem: with all their (pseudo)intellectualizing and (basic) philosophical lectures, the Wachowski Bros. forgot to invest their audience in the narrative.

I agree that if you don't care about the story and the characters then you aren't going to care much for the outcome.


At least Lucas still understands the power of a good story. Heck, the very first TPM web documentary was titled "All I Need Is a Story" and discussed the creative process through which Lucas conceived of the story he was about to tell. Despite all the hyperbole to the contrary, Lucas puts the story first.

Good for him. I (and note the "I" rather then "the audience") just think it's a shame that the story, characters and dialogue in TPM are so awful.

 

Oh, I thought those were rhetorical questions, but since they aren't...

"Tell me, in Neo's position, which door would you have taken, heck, which pill would you have taken?"

Blue pill.

"Is Neo a freedom fighter, a terrorist, or just another means of control?"

Terrorist.

"Do you believe that the characters in TMR
have free will?"

Yes.

"Does your position depend on whether they are human or a computer programme?"

No.

"Maybe it depends on whether a character is operating in the real world or the Matrix?"

That's not a question.

"And how is it all going to end? Can Zion be saved? Can the humans that are still plugged into the Matrix be freed?"

See, the Matrix left us to ponder this. But these sequels won't, unless by some chance Revolutions doesn't resolve anything, which, judging by the Wachowskis' writing, is possible.

Cometgreen, who hopes people can understand that his questions were for those watching in numerical order

 

Cometgreen

Oh, I thought those were rhetorical questions, but since they aren't...

Who are you talking to? Who told you they weren't?



Interesting answers anyway. Why do you think a computer programme has free will? The Merovingian (a computer programme) argues that he doesn't have free will at all. Do you think you know more about his nature then he does?

>>>And how is it all going to end? Can Zion be saved? Can the humans that are still plugged into the Matrix be freed?<<<

See, the Matrix left us to ponder this. But these sequels won't, unless by some chance Revolutions doesn't resolve anything, which, judging by the Wachowskis' writing, is possible.

I was talking about questions raised by The Matrix:Reloaded.

Feel free to leap in any time, Cometgreen, but do try to read the post fully before you reply


Cometgreen, who hopes people can understand that his questions were for those watching in numerical order

You quote my post, ask questions in the same style as the part of my post you quoted, but your questions were actually meant for people who had only seen episodes I and II?

 

Despite all the hyperbole to the contrary, Lucas puts the story first.

so you think. others differ. what in THE FILM, other than a title of a DVD chapter, do you see as evidence of Lucas putting story first? and what does any of that have to do with the quality of execution of said story? if Lucas is putting story first, he is putting it ahead of entertaining or engaging the audience IMO. it doesnt really matter what he thinks about the story if he cant tell it well.

 

"Who are you talking to? Who told you they weren't?"

Sorry, they just seemed like rhetorical questions.

"Interesting answers anyway. Why do you think a computer programme has free will? The Merovingian (a computer programme) argues that he doesn't have free will at all. Do you think you know more about his nature then he does?"

Well, Smith had free will, it seemed, as did the Oracle (all though it's very possible she didn't).

"I was talking about questions raised by The Matrix:Reloaded."

And I was saying that these questions were open to your own imagination at the end of the Matrix. Nothing wrong with finding out what happens, I just prefer the "make up your own ending" movies.

"You quote my post, ask questions in the same style as the part of my post you quoted, but your questions were actually meant for people who had only seen episodes I and II?"

Of course. It's unfair to look at what happens later. I just listed down questions that a "virgin viewer" would ask themself after viewing AOTC. Your last line of questioning will be void when Revolutions comes out, but that doesn't mean they're still questions raised after Reloaded.

And, just for kicks, ESB only raises the question of "Would you have accepted Vader as your father and join him, or let go and let fate decide?"

Now then, on to the "We need machines" scene. From my pov, there are two ways to do this scene:

1) Have Neo stroll through Zion in the middle of the night and come upon the Chancellor, which then starts a rather long philosophical dialogue, completely stopping the story (to be fair, lots of movies have a break when the heroes are safe, though not this early in the movie ).

2) Have Neo stroll through Zion in the middle of the night and walk by a wall of machinery running Zion. He watches it as he walks by, and then wanders off.

I would choose the second choice, as it utilizes that sweet, sweet tool of subtelty. Instead of a dialogue telling people the irony of these people fighting machines, yet using machines to stay alive, it shows machines keeping the humans alive, therefore allowing the viewer to see the irony for themselves. THIS is what an INTELLIGENT film does. The viewer sees the irony instead of being told what the irony is and how it is ironic. Film is a visual medium, remember?

Cometgreen

 

Cometgreen - Film is a visual medium, that much is true but when the visuals are extreme the essence of the story can be missed if not balanced out with dialogue. In the case of a film like the MATRIX the average Joe couldn't care less for sci fi techno talk or philisophical ironies etc as long as the scene fast forwards to a good fight and explosion so if the scene with the stroll through the underside of Zion had gone the way you suggested, the point would be utterly lost by most of the audience. The MATRIX films are intelligent, very much so - but most importantly the point you miss is that the main chracter isn't very intelligent. It would be beyond the chraracter of Neo to do such a thing as explore beyond what he's been told or suggested, he is not that much an intellectual, he hasn't mastered thinking for himself as much as he has flexing his muscles in the Matrix. From the very start he has to be told everything and doubt it before learning from experience and progressing from that as a result. The tale hasn't gotten to the point when he can expand his mind as he does his physical abilities, that's for MATRIX Revolutions to cover. Agent Smith realizes that and states as much in their last comfrontation in Reloaded "Still using all the muscles except the one that matters most" That's the character of the chosen one, he's an everyday hands on kid who has to be guided aand taught before he can fully realise what he's capable of and start thinking for himself just like a lot of people watching the film.

That scene in the underbelly of Zion was perfect the way it is, you fail to grasp the full importance of it beyond the mere irony of needs of man and machine to co-exist. It also serves as the humbling of Neos position in the real world as opposedt to how many expected him to be after the first film. Many thought because he can manipulate code in the Matrix at the end of the last film, that he would be some sort of GOD in this one. That scene not only shows his humility but also his place in society amongst the real world hierachy, he's only as special as people want to percieive him, he is merely another soldier under the command of higher officials in reality despite his immense abilities beyond that or normal men within the un-reality of the MATRIX. Without the higher ranking offical in that scene, the whole irony of it would not exist and it the segment as you suggested would play off as a mere visual metaphor for the entire trilogy.

 

COMETGREEN said: think GL has done quite well establishing themes verbally, and then effectively showing them.

What are these themes? Where are they shown?

TPM establishes a lot of themes, as it is the first of the saga. Many themes are mentioned once or twice, and then are continually shown throughout the entire saga.

What theme has been developed in the saga of the PT? When you have people making threads, ?Should TPM have been a prologue?? or ?Was TPM Necessary?? , I question any significant themes being established.

TMR does this, but it makes sure that you understand what theme the scene is addressing.

But I must applaud the Wachowskis for the "Smith is a virus" plot. It's hard to tell if they intended it, as they didn't remind people of the virus talk in the original Matrix.

Right. So the whole scene where Agent Smith tells a handcuffed, drugged Morpheus, that the only species that consumes and destroys the ecosystem in the same fashion as humans, is the virus, he was not making the same point. He actually says the line ?HUMAN BEINGS ARE A VIRUS?! And now as has been pointed out by myself and others in this forum, as Smith becomes more human, due to his established connection with Neo, he too has become a virus, in the symbolic and electronic sense.

He is downloading his avatar into beings in the matrix and even into Bane in the real world. He is becoming the very thing he once despised. This is character development. This is theme development.

How could you possibly state that there was no ?virus talk? in the original?? The interrogation scene is one of the pivotal scenes of the film! You are just proving your arguments have zero credibility because you don?t even know what you?re talking about.

So, we have two ways of looking at it. They did it on purpose, which means the Wachowskis have the ability to learn of the largest necessity of great filmmaking, subtelty. If they didn't do it on purpose, then the plot is another stoner moment. "Woah, what if we had hundreds of Hugo Weavings all crammed into a white hallway? That would be wicked cool!"

Once again, completely incorrect premise. No point. Zero credibility.

But of course, this brilliant move by the Wachowskis is wasted on the Smith vs Neo fight. I guess I finally understand when people connect a movie sequence with a video game. I mean, in the droid factory sequence, the characters develop a little, and still moves the story forward.

Wow. Please tell me the character development of the droid factory scene? Or how it advances the story? Even AOTC fans point to that scene as the one that was the most unnecessary in the film!

But the Neo fight tells us what we all ready know: Smith can clone himself, and Neo is unbeatable.

Neo is unbeatable. Which is why he destroyed all the Smiths right? He was almost done before he threw all the clones off of him and flew away. The point of the scene from a fight standpoint is that he could NOT beat Smith, even though entering the fight, he clearly thought he could. Neo enters the film not just confident in his skills, but cocky as we see with the first set of Agents.

Fighting Smith clearly humbled him. We he unplugs on the Neb, is he smiling and saying ?ahh?that was easy. I took that fool down.??? No. He is wheezing and grimacing in obvious pain. He learned that Smith with his ability is more powerful than he ever imagined.

Neither character grows or learns something from this five minute fight. It literally stops the movie to keep you awake.

"Stopping a film to keep you awake? I don?t know what that means. But certainly, there is growth and much learned in the scene. Smith explains to Neo that their explosion in the original somehow led to an exchange of code between the two and as a result neo is gaining new abilities and becoming more machine like while Smith has gained new abilities and is becoming more human-like. They are on an inverse path that will collide again. We also l

 

what in THE FILM, other than a title of a DVD chapter, do you see as evidence of Lucas putting story first?

The fact that he tells an interesting and compelling narrative, using special effects techniques to enhance the story without becoming a distraction. Remember, Lucas is the one who said that special effects should not become the story but should be used to the story in a more interesting way.

and what does any of that have to do with the quality of execution of said story?

Because you have to have a good story before you can worry about the execution. The Wachowski Bros. clearly fell into the trap of style over story, thinking that if they used a "clever" filmmaking style then it would make up for the fact that they actually had a weak story. By putting the story first, Lucas is able to use his masterful filmmaking techniques in service to the story, and the fact that people are now starting to refer to TPM as a classic film tells me that this has paid off in spades.

 

>>> In the case of a film like the MATRIX the average Joe couldn't care less for sci fi techno talk or philisophical ironies etc as long as the scene fast forwards to a good fight and explosion

Ironically, I found myself waiting for a break in what I saw as pointless action for a bit of plot for most of the film, then by the time it got to the climax of the film, waiting for a break in the long-winded exposition for a bit more slow motion martial arts?

>>> what in THE FILM, other than a title of a DVD chapter, do you see as evidence of Lucas putting story first?

What do I see as evidence?
Primarily, the fact that the film was clearly structured as Act One of a twelve hour, three act saga rather than a standalone film/FX showcase. And also the fact that the majority of the special effects are designed to NOT stand out as ?Ooh! Look at that!? special effects (as opposed to the Matrix?s slow motion, bullet time, spinning cameras etc) but with the goal of being as unobtrusive as possible.

>>>and what does any of that have to do with the quality of execution of said story?

Not much, but that?s a different subject?

>>> What theme has been developed in the saga of the PT? When you have people making threads, ?Should TPM have been a prologue?? or ?Was TPM Necessary?? , I question any significant themes being established.

Interesting that in those threads, the answer seemed to be ?no? and ?yes? respectively?

>>> How could you possibly state that there was no ?virus talk? in the original??

And now I?m questioning whether you read the very sentence (don?t know who posted it) that you copied and pasted into your own post: ?as they didn't remind people of the virus talk in the original Matrix.?

>>> The guys in TMR are doing much longer, and far more impressive sequences. Please feel free to offer scenes that match or exceed it. I love discussing fights/martial arts scenes.

Off the top of my head (cos I saw it on Saturday): most of Once Upon a Time in China?

>>> Not to mention it was ridiculous that Anakin would suddenly and inexplicably open up his defense and basically hold his arm out for Dooku to chop off.

I thought it was pretty clear from the preceeding sequence that Dooku was completely in control of Anakin?s moves in that fight- hence their looking more like they were dancing than fighting, lightsabers weren?t actually touching, Anakin?s style being completely different to how he?d previously fought and much more like Dooku?s?

(And at least it?s consistent with his style in ROTJ! )

>>> Instead, GL decided to make it 'Sonic the Hedgehog on LSD', I guess to avoid any copyright infringement issues.

Not really relevant, but I love it when people talk about ?such and such on LSD? when talking about something that bears no relationship to either someone on, or something someone might see when on LSD?


JenX.

>>> Agent Scott3eyez: It's her.


Nice!

No- I can assure you that there's no "group mind" going on- it's just that I think I raised the "pseudo intellectual" point ages back, and I thought it had been put to bed. Didn't realise someone else had brought it up again.


Anyway, I have a Matrix question. How come in every ?matrix explained? essay I read, there?s a big deal about ?machines can?t understand love- this is why they will fail?, but the way Persephone (a program, right?) can understand so much about an individual?s love from a single kiss in never addressed?

 

"Despite all the hyperbole to the contrary, Lucas puts the story first."

From the Annotated Screenplays...

Irvin Kershner: "If you look closely at the the picture, you'll see giant sets, but you see them only briefly. Usually, in Hollywood pictures, when yuou have gian sets, you pull back and show them. But here the sets were not important; it was the people in the sets that were important. If you look at the scene in the big hangar where Leia is briefing the Rebel soldiers, it's huge, yet you see it for just a few seconds. I never wanted to say, "I'm going to show th sets' I wanted to show a piece here, a piece there, and eventually the audience would put it all together in their heads. You see more of a set if you show it in pieces around the shots than if you show it in a long shot. If I ever used a long shot, it was for an emotional effect, not to show the sets."

(I'm sure even Durwood would agree that Kershner knows what a long shot entails.)

George Lucas: "Those movies were so big and they were so hard to do that I just felt that I couldn't deal with all the issues and be on the set every day at the same time. I decided not to direct so that i could get an overview of the whole thing, which meant i could oversee the shooting but didn't have to be on the set all the time. There was a lot of work with these movies, and you really had to take a step back in order to make it work."

Step back, George!

Irvin Kershner: "Instead of showing Luke's ship overhead, I just showed the light on Yoda's face. I felt it was more powerful than having another special effects shot of the spaceship."

Agreed.

 

Just for the hell of it, if anyone cares what I do with my life, I'm going to answer questions that weren't posed to me.

Tell me, in Neo's position, which door would you have taken, heck, which pill would you have taken?

Blue pill. That's the one that lets you just live in the Matrix normally and forget Morpheus found ya, right?

Is Neo a freedom fighter, a terrorist, or just another means of control?

Means of control. (note: have not seen Reloaded. Am ignoring the next few Matrix questions as they seem to rely on TMR knowledge.)

And how is it all going to end? Can Zion be saved? Can the humans that are still plugged into the Matrix be freed?

My personal prediction for the series' end is that the entire Matrix is going to cave in on itself. Crash. Think the 'blue screen of death' on perma-display. This will take the humans with it. All will have been for naught for both sides.

Tell me, in Anakin's position, would you have slaughtered the Tuskens?

Well... not ALL of them.

Would you have blamed Obiwan, who is the only father you'll ever have, for all of your problems?

No.

Does Anakin have free will, or is he a slave to the will of the force?

Free will. Though destiny does step in at crucial moments.

Is Anakin the Chosen One, or was Qui-gon mistaken?

He is.



Rick McCallum loves you!

 

what in THE FILM, other than a title of a DVD chapter, do you see as evidence of Lucas putting story first

Besides the above examples, consider that in the DVD commentaries, Lucas doesn't talk AT ALL about special effects, CGI, green screen, miniatures, etc. All he talks about is story, plot, charater's motivations and dvelopment. All the technical stuff is handled by the other commentators.

 

Not to mention it was ridiculous that Anakin would suddenly and inexplicably open up his defense and basically hold his arm out for Dooku to chop off.

My impression has always been that the force with which Dooku struck Anakin's saber caused his arm to swing away from his body.

 

I'd agree with that assessment. It's a Sith method to put an opponent off-guard for the coup de grace, kind of like Maul hitting Qui-gon's face.